GOODS TRANSPORT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 256, 10 August 1934, Page 8

GOODS TRANSPORT

MARCH. OF PROGRESS.

PUBLIC ENTITLED' TO BENEFITS

(Per Pfress Association). WELLINGTON, August 8

Important considerations bearing on the question of the competition between road and rail in the transportation of goods were dealt with in separate judgments given to-day by three members of the Transport Co-ordina-tion Board on, the appeal of P. A.' Griffiths, carrier, of Toko, Taranaki, against the decision of No. 5 Licensing Authority refusing him a continuous goods license to operate on defined routes between dairy factories at Huinga and Douglas and the freezing works at New Plymouth. The appeal was allowed on a majority decision of the board, the chairman'(Sir Stephen Allen) dissenting. The appellants charge for carrying produce from the factories was at a flat rate which worked out at 3.5 d a ton a mile in the case of the Douglas factory, and 3.8 d a ton a mile in the case of the Huinga factory. The comparative figures for rail transport were 4.3 d and 4.6 d respectively. Mr L. Alderton, a member of the board, in his judgment, said that he was of the opinion that the appeal should bo-allowed, adding: "I am not convinced at this stage that hauls up to 50 miles are handled most economically by rail. I am, however, satisfied that competitive developments in transport are inexorable. The public is entitled to all the .benefits of the 'march of progress in transportation, and nothing will prevent that consummation. I have said before, and 1 still hold the view, that the railways should in many instances, adopt the competiting methods of transport of which they complain." Mr H. B. B. Johnstone, another member of the board said: "In, view of the position disclosed by the appellant's balance-sheet, indicating that under the lawt as it now stands he can profitably carry on at a lower rate than the railways, I agree with Mr Alderton to the extent that I ami of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed."

Sir Stephen Allen said he regretted that he could not agree with the views of the majority of the board in the bulk goods to be transported from one case in question. He thought that point on or near a railway to another point similarly placed should be carried by rail where circumstances permitted, and where extra handling or time did not become a factor to consider.