In countries where heavy motor vehicles are not--unless some abnormal encouragement is given--sufficiently extensively used for trade purposes, the subsidy must of course be considerably higher. If the conditions of service are so unfavourable to the use of mechanical transport as to convince the trader that in changing, let us say, from twenty horses and five waggons to a couple of 3-ton motor lorries, his expenses will be increased by £100 or £200 a year, the scheme must take this prospective loss into account. In that case, the scheme becomes something more than mere subsidy, and partakes more of the nature of a scheme designed artificially to encourage the use of a particular form of transport solely on account of its utility to the Government in case of war.
The Fortunate Position of Great Britain--Causes of Rapid Development of Motor Transport--The Big Influence of London--Position of the Movement in European Countries.
In considering how far any form of subsidy scheme has been, or could be, truly successful, we have to take into account first of all the national and local conditions governing the use of motor vehicles in ordinary commercial service, and it is satisfactory to be able to record that a consideration of this subject leads to the conclusion that the position of Great Britain is peculiarly advantageous, inasmuch as the number of industrial motor vehicles in service is vastly in excess of the total requirement of the British Army, a state of affairs a parallel to which does not exist in any other European country.
The economical use of motors in trade and industry depends in the first case very largely upon the quality and quantity of the national roads. Great Britain is fortunate in the possession of the finest road system in the world. We are not limited as regards motor haulage by the absence of thoroughfares between our industrial or residential districts, and it is possible to deliver goods to practically every house or even cottage in the kingdom, without having to traverse anything worse than a short distance of rather rough country lane or private track.
There is no doubt that London has been very largely responsible for the enormous development of motor transport within the British Isles. It is generally considered that Paris represents the nearest approach to London for purposes of comparison. Nevertheless, the population of Paris is only about half that of London, and the area within which that population is included is only about one quarter. In other words, the density of population of Paris is double that of London, which means that the average distance to be traversed in delivering goods to a given number of people is much smaller in Paris than it is here. Now the motor vehicle is able to show superior economy over horse-drawn traffic mainly where it is able to make use of its capacity for speed and its ability to cover, without tiring, long distances in the course of a day. For house-to-house deliveries the motor is at a disadvantage, since while it is standing waiting before a door it represents a larger idle capital than the horsed cart, and the investment of this larger capital can only be justified if it results in the vehicle performing in a given time a far larger amount of work than would be possible if horses were used.