Rail and Road Transport

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 32, 1 November 1930, Page 15

Rail and Road Transport

Sir, —In your leading article of October 15 under the heading "Service With Economy in Transport” you deal with the annual report of the Transport Department presented to Parliament. You state that it contains a "mass of valuable and very suggestive information which should leave the Government in no doubt as to the course to pursue,’ etc. But the course it has pursued and is pursuing in the matter of transport, is to go on merrily with uneconomic railway construction and an annual loss of approximately one million pounds sterling on existing railways, while piously mouthing co-ordination of transport.. If their attitude on transport co-ordination is to be judged by their general policy in respect to railways, then pity help the muddle when co-ordination starts. Why cannot they see that the doom of the stereotyped railroad method of transport has been sounded by a more mobile and expeditious . general road transport which is easily convertible. Roads have stood the test of centuries, outstripped for a short period by steam and steel rails, but made supreme again by the internal combustion engine and rubber. I for one say thank goodness for road transport, which I hope, will develop individuality and initiative instead of the stereotyped mentality of the railway age. . „ In quoting the report you state. J.ne annual cost of road transport of various kinds is approximately £32,000,000 and of rail services £9,000,000.” I cannot, see how the cost of motor transport is arrived at—it cannot be based on the whole of the ramifications of the motor, for it must be a fact that for every person carried by the railways the motor carries thousands. And for every ton of material transported by railways, the motor vehicle carries thousands of tons, and. 90 per .cent, ot these passengers and this material could never be subject to railway transport. Now, Sir, the first business of the Government toward co-ordination of transport should be to cease building new railway lines, close down non-paying branch lines (this would cause no inconvenience to settlers anywhere as a more frequent and convenient service by road is available), bring the existing main lines up to date by smaller units and a more frequent service,, instead of the large costly engines recently purchased which after a few experimental runs had to be stood off. I am informed that these-cost £32,000 each, and who knows how much.it cost to repair the damage they did to the permanent way? 1 Vague promises of co-ordination of transport and a maze of figures which may mean anything, should not be allowed to cover up neglect by the Government to clean up their section of the transport system, which is the known uneconomic, inefficient, and obsolete section. Road transport can look after its own business; if it is not economic it cannot, at any rate, compulsorily tax the people to make up its deficiencies. —I am, etc., A.M.11. •Pc tone, October 21.