TRAFFIC ECONOMY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1931, Page 12

TRAFFIC ECONOMY

The difference between the cost of economic efficiency and waste in transport is sufficient, if it could be recovered, lo convert the present depression into actual prosperity. In part this is being realised now by the public when it is seen that loss of interest on railway capital is a major factor in the Budget deficit. But realisation is not yet sufficiently acute to lead to a public demand for prompt corrective action. We are grateful, therefore, for such disinterested and expert testimony as that given by Mr. Rees Jeffreys. As a visitor, Mr. Jeffreys was careful to state his views in moderate terms. The studied moderation should cause us to pay greater attention to the opinions. One statement he made should be noted with particular attention. Alluding to railway expenditure, he said that any authority which authorised further expenditure out of borrowed money undertook a great responsibility. This is the view of an international authority on transport, and its implication cannot be disregarded. If we borrow to spend on doubtful projects we run the risk of damaging our credit. There were other points in Mr. Jeffreys's address which call for attention from local authorities. Wellington, especially, should heed his reference to the parking problem. Ground in the city is very valuable (he said). The roadway has probably cost as much as 15s per square yard^ to surface. It is impossible to justify such expensive land being used by unoccupied cars. The surfacing cost of some of our main streets is, however, but a small part of the total cost. Street widening has been an expensive process, and it is quite wrong to permit this costly extra width to be occupied by empty cars. Wellington cannot afford to acquire valuable land and pay for alterations to buildings to give parking space for private cars.