ROAD V. RAIL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 27, 1 August 1933, Page 8

ROAD V. RAIL

PREFERENCE TO LATTER

MOTOR COMPANIES' VIEWS

The recent interpretation of tho Transport Licensing Act indicating that motor services in opposition to rail services will not be permitted where tho Railway Department objects is tho subject of a statement prepared for publication by the secretary of tho New Zealand Eoad Transport Alliance nnd tho White Star Tourist' Services, Ltd., Mr. H. J. Knight. "Despite tho fact that tho operations of the New Zealand Railways do not come within the jurisdiction of tho Transport Appeal Board or the Transport Licensing •- Act," states Mr. Knight, '' tho Railway Department 'a right of appeal against motor service operators has been generally successful to the extent of elimination of motor services in opposition. There can be no doubt that this policy will continuo until tho sphere of commercial road transport services is limited to feeders to railways, or filling in gaps in rail time-tables, at times not yet regarded as profitable by the Railways. "For some years past motor transport has provided service of a standard previously unknown, meriting a considerable measure of public support, and in many cases creating new busi-_ noss not otherwiso possible. In addition motor transport has stimulated the Railway Department into providing the public with a greatly improved standard of service. . FAR-REACHING CHANGES. "The Transport Licensing Act will effect far-reaching changes, for there can bo no doubt the interpretation of the Act by the Transport Appeal Board is correct, and not questioned. Under existing1 circumstances the future holds no prospect for through motor services, whether for business, sight-seeing, or tourist traffic, except on routes where there is no railway or at inconvenient times for ordinary purposes. Such a fate for a progressive and convenient form of transport will surely cause much food for thought. , Privato enterprise is sacrificed to reduce railway losses, commercial undertakings rendered valueless, taxation and revenue lost to the State, and unemployment increased. "Motor vehicles of every description arc carrying passengers and goods which may otherwise have to utilise rail services or do without transport, and it is certain that elimination of any commercial road transport services will result in considerably increased use of privately-owned vehicles* This involves probably much greater use of highways, further economic waste, and incidentally increased losses to the railways. '^ThereJs no evidence," tho circular proceeds, "to prove that the removal of competition by commercial road transport services from tho Railways will transform the huge railway deficit into a profit, and no guaranteo that the Railway Board will not increase charges once competition is removed; consequently, whether by increased charges or increased losses, the public will continue to payy.but unfortunately in many respects for inforior service REASONABLE CONTROL. "Tho need for reasonablo control has' been recognised possibly first of all by the motor transport industry itself, and the present legislation has been submitted to by the industry, with, however; ample assurance from those in authority, that control and regulation would bo reasonably exercised, not to eliminate services to benefit a free competitor. There is every likelihood of the complete elimination of motor transport competition1 •with /the Railways on-objection by. tho.Railway Department, which itself is not affected by this Act nor required to give any accounting' of its own operations. "Tho principal factor which appears to have been lost sight of in the Trans-, port Licensing Act is the public convenience, which is definitely affected. In^ other countries motor tiausport opposition to State-ownod railways has been legislated practically out"of existence, this is now .occurring'in New Zealand, and we have yet to loanvthat such action has proved a satisfactory solution of tho problem. It remains to be seen whether tho public will tolerate the extent of elimination or curtailment of motor services, bearing in mind that the effect is yet to be felt and appreciated. There can bo no question as to the value of motor transport any more than there can be of tho value of rail transport, but the elimination of transport facilities affecting the public convenience is a serious bar to tho progress and welfare of any country. "It may safely be said that the public are fully awaro of their liability for j maintenance of the railways, or losses i incurred in their running, and further.! that the extent; of support accorded motor transport has been ■ with full knowledge of that liability, tho support therefore must bo due to tho convenience afforded by motor transport. Pub-; lie attention is drawn to the important matter of transport facilities afforded by motor services, and tho! 'control' as exemplified by the Transport Licensing Act, which is apparently a very effective legislative bludgeon for use of the Railway Department on a competitor bound and helpless."