Chapter II: The theoretical basis

Road versus rail for town traffic

89

At this point reference may be made to a notion that seems to lurk in the back of many people’s minds, namely that most of these problems of motor traffic in towns are unnecessary and could be disposed of by getting much of the traffic back to the railways. It is quite possible that some traffic could be transferred to the railways—other things being equal, many more goods sent from Birmingham for the London market, for example, could be despatched by rail, and thus the long haul of lorries across much of London would be saved. But the problem of the final distribution from one railhead in London to the building destinations would still remain, and the odds are strongly in favour of road transport being chosen for this purpose. Thus the net reduction of motor vehicle haulage within the London area would not be as much as at first sight seemed possible. The reason of course is that it is quite impossible to contrive separate rail connections to all buildings, but such is the versatility of the road vehicle coat it can penetrate to individual buildings. It is worth recalling that even in the heyday of the railways the local distribution from railheads, goods yards, and docks was effected by road. Then lorries were substituted for the local horse-drawn vehicles, and then it was discovered that they could perform the longer hauls as well, and so deliver goods to destinations in one tourney without an intermediate re-loading. In much the same way the motor car offers outstanding advantages over railways, or even over buses, for certain movements of people. It seems futile to deny these things. The motor vehicle is a remarkable invention, so desirable that it has wound itself inextricably into a large part of our affairs. There cannot be any going back on it.