TRANSPORT COSTS.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20828, 11 April 1933, Page 15

TRANSPORT COSTS.

TO THE EDITOR Or THE rRESK. Sir, —Mr Fori .s states that ihere must be further economies, which must be obvious to everyone, but will he have the courage effectively to deal with the greatest waste in the country to-day, namely, transport? We read that the estimated cost of land transport in this country is £44,000,000 annually, and that the whole national income is only about £90,000,000. Can any sane man claim that a small country like ours, no part of which is far distant from a seaport, can afford to spend nearly half its income on internal transport. The annual interest bill on all public and private debt is estimated at £24,000,000. The Government has passed legislation reducing this amount by 20 per cent., but what is it going to do about the far greater cost? How long are empty trains to be kept running at an annual cost to the taxpayer of nearly £2,000,000, while the passengers and the best paying freight are carried by motor vehicles on the road running alongside? Must this enormous waste continue as long as there are any people left with savings that can be taxed or until the Government repudiates all its indebtedness to bondholders? If the railway got all the business, freights and fares could be much reduced and the railways might become again a source of revenue instead of a burden to the taxpayer. In any case, it is evident that the country cannot afford a double transport service, and if one must be done without, I should say it should be the road service, as the railways are run on New Zealand coal but the motor service is run on American petrol. We read columns of arguments in your paper written by financiers about the failure of the gold standard, etc., but I would suggest (without claiming to be a financial expert) that the principal cause of the world depression is American motor vehicles and tractors, and the petrol or oil to run them. Europe became heavily in debt to America for material to carry on the war and when it was ended the Americans flooded the whole world with their motor vehicles and tractors, and so secured a strangle-hold on the world's land transport, as these vehicles cannot be run without petrol, of which America has almost a monopoly. The Americans then raised their tariffs against the rest of the world so that payment could not be made by goods or produce, and they will accept payment only in gold. We have now reached the stage where the Americans have cornered half the world's gold, and if payment continues to be made to them in gold they will soon have the other half. Is it, I would ask, a wonder that the world's financial system has become disorganised when a country with the export trade that America has sells on a huge scale to other countries but refuses to buy from them? Not content with securing a strangle-hold on the world's land transport, the American Government heavily subsidises American shipping so that it can undercut all other shipping and so get control of the sea also. Every country, ourselves included, has been selling its produce in Britain and using a large percentage of the proceeds to buy in America. Is it a wonder that the people in the Old Country are beginning to tell us that if we want to buy in America we should send our butter and meat there. We read that the British Dominions buy more from America than they do from Britain. How can we expect this state of affairs to carry on? If the people of this country really want to get back to a sound footing, I would suggest that the most effectual way to do it is by getting back to using our own power. There is plenty of coal in the country and if there are not now enough horses to do the work the tractors are doing it will not take many years to breed more.—Yours, etc., P.Y.W. April 10. 1933.