ROAD VERSUS RAILWAY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 4

ROAD VERSUS RAILWAY

QUESTION OF FREIGHT RATES DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW. The question of competition between rail and road traffic and the adjustment of railway rates so as to compete with rival means of transport is discussed by the General Manager of Railways (Mr. R. W. M'Villy) in his annual report. "While it is found that in some localities the opposition to the railway has increased," the report states, "it seems more than doubtful whether even those immediately concerned have obtained any substantial advantage therefrom The information gained by the Department from time to time indicates that the road motors are not in reality cheapening the cost of transport. The method by, which they are enabled to obtain the traffic which would otherwise- be sent by rail lies along the line of increasing the charges for carriage to and from the railway stations to such a degree as to make the total charge for the transport of the goods forwarded by rail higher than that at which the motorist is willing' to convey the goods for the whole journey. This amounts to nothing less than compulsion exercised by the motorist on the owners of the goods, but the latter seem quite unable to grasp tin's aspect of the matter. They are merely content to see that the charge by the motor for the whole journey is cheaper than the total charge that would require to be paid when the railway is used, but the quite fail to analyse'this latter charge, _ and quite wrogly come to the conclusion that the railway charge is too high, and 'causes the use of the railways to be, as they conclude, more expensive than the motor. In the great majority of cases an analysis of the charges would show this to be entirely wrong, and' would disclose that the motorist is not content to receive a reasonable remuneration as a feeder to the railway, but by taking advantage of his position in respect of that portion of the transport of the goods to and from the railway is enabled to extract from his customers a much higher charge , than i the latter should be really required to pay. A SUPERFICIAL'VIEW. "The Railway Department cannot, and does not, object to competition, but it does take exception to the superficial view which Impels unthinking persons to hastily conclude that they can obtain transport more cheaply by motor, and that the railway is to blame for this position.through charging rates that are too high. I do 'not hesitate to suggest that if the position -were gone carefully into, it would be found in the great majority of cases that the owners of goods transported by motor are paying a higher rate than they are faily entitled to pay, under compulsion from the motorists who will not transport the goods to and from the railway at a reasonable charge. A PRACTICE THAT IS BECOMING COMMON. "It may be possible—and the Department is now taking steps in that direction—to make suitable arrangements for transport of goods to and from the railway at a reasonable charge So far as the position may be met by the lowering of the railway charges, definite pro? posals in this direction will be made in connection with the revision of the tariff, and this prompts some comment on a state of affairs that, is becoming increasingly common. I refer to the practice' of certain sections of the community who take advantage of free services afforded by the railway, such as the carriage of lime for agricultural purposes, but who do not heistate to send their more remunerative traffic by other forms of transport. The purpose for which free carnage of lime was granted was to increase the productivity of the land, and it was assumed in justification of tho concession that the resulting increased product would bo carried by rail.- The rail ways are required to pay a certain rate of interest on the capital invested in them, and in view of this circumstanco frea services, such as the carriage of lime, have to be paid for by the higherrated classes of traffic. If, therefore the Department does not get this higherrated traffic, it is deprived of the means of affording the free services, and the ultimate result of the diversion of tho paying traffic to the road must inevitably bo the withdrawal of tho unremuiicrative services People are too inone to decide not to send their traffic by rail until the railway charges are reduced, quite failing tv grasp the fact that the only way in which the Department can he placed in a position to reduce its charges is by receiving an adequate proportion of remunerative traffic."