ROADS, RAILWAYS AND PANTECHNICONS
By Mike Downing
The announcement of the proposal to create a new fast railway system up the west side of the country obviously raises concern among those on the east side who will see this as inevitably resulting in less good services and disadvantages outside the aided area. The history of the development of travel provision in UK in this century leaves a lot to be desired. This is a view echoed by most of its citizens.
It can be argued that the only way to get a satisfactory system for the movement of people and goods would be the creation of a new high-powered national authority, with backing at the highest government level. In contrast with previous occasions, when the pressures of the establishment overrode the best decisions, its task would be to develop a comprehensive policy throughout the country for both public and private transport on a national basis. A particularly important element of this would be supervision and rigid controls of large goods vehicles. A new supreme organisation must be at the highest level of government. Its powers should override the established preconceptions of particular interests. The management of all commercial transport needs special attention.
One of the most serious errors of omission in the development of traffic in the last century was that of the Beeching Report. This seems to have missed any opportunity to study the road system, its relation to other means of transport, and its potential for future uses. Concentrating as it did exclusively on the reduction of the rail network, it failed to anticipate the potential for any possible increases in all means of travel. As a result of reductions in the railway systems and other services, an excessive proportion of goods transported into and onward within the country now come by road. This seriously overloads the system. Where there are “improvements” of roads like the A1, one realises very quickly that increasing amounts of additional land are used up, providing nothing more than an ornamental border, where previously there had been areas of productive land. Given the increasing overloading of the road system, we need to consider very carefully the alternatives that might be brought into play.
In a great number of cases this might be done by taking the largest commercial transport off the roads. This would mean using existing railways as well as restoring some of the former branch lines. There is already a potential capacity for increasing the volume of goods travelling by rail on existing lines, many of which could be, and once were, more intensely used. There is surely every reason to review the lines which have been dismantled and assess the possibility of relaying the tracks to certain centres which would act as focus for local road deliveries. Many lines remain unused and could be restored with little interference to local activities. Surely the future of transport, particularly, must depend on relieving road systems of their heavy loads, using an existing, largely unused facility. We need to reduce further what goods traffic goes by minor roads. When you meet the very large heavy lorries in a place, like the centre of Berwick you realise just how inappropriate and damaging to the fabric of towns has been the introduction of heavy-duty road transport, and the disparity between the commercial and the domestic scales of transport. We could develop once more an efficient rail system carrying goods to a number of appropriate centres, possibly using former rail goods-yards, and ensure that the final delivery emanates from them.
We could thus improve conditions on our main trunk roads as well as those serving local communities. Such a change would reduce the impact of the scale of traffic in our towns as well as on our roads. This would make life better for many communities.
City and County
February 2010
