LEVEL CROSSING POLICY

Evening Star, Issue 19199, 16 March 1926, Page 10

LEVEL CROSSING POLICY

ELIMINATION IMPOSSIBLE . STATEHEMT 8V PiHIER [Pen United Pkess Association.] WEU-INGTON, March /IS.. A statement on tho (inancial side of the level crossing problem was made j by the Min is Lor of Railways (the .Hon. i J. (i. Coates) this evening. | , “ My policy/” ho said, ” in regard to ■ the level crossing problem was dearly | set out in tiic\Railways Statement pro-j seated to Parliament/ last session as | being one for the ‘elimination of tho | more dangerous level ■ crossings and provision of warning appliances at others.’ That policy/has been and is being carried out. When, however, on account of the recent most regrettable level crossing la tali ties jt is seriously advanced that tho Railway Department should eliminate all level crossings, something is asked iar beyond what was ever included in the immediate intentions of either tho Iluilway j Administration or Parliament, Information from other countries whore level crossings constitute an even more formidable problem than in New Zealand goes to show that the tendency is to do away with gates and gatekeepers, and to depend on warning notices, visible or audible signals, and the good sense ol vehicle drivers lor securing safety nt level crossings. “ On the Italian State railways there are 13,000 public level crossings, in Holland nearly 3,000, on the French lines 30,000,.and in the United States] 256,000 on first class lines. Jn none of the countries referred to, whether ■ the railways arc privately or publicly \ owned, is there any programme tor tho | elimination of all crossings. The ex-. penditure of several millions on nnre- I muncrative works, which a programme , for the complete elimination of the : level crossings in Now Zealand would I call for, could not be justified to the j taxpayers. If tho rail users were called ; upon to pay interest on this expenditure all railway charges would have to bo raised, making it still more difficult for the railways to compete for traffic with the road users, and throwing an j additional burden on tho taxpayer j through losses on account ol railway | operations. The .Railway Department , is now working as a business concern, ! and must be given an opportunity to | carry on its operations under lair com- | petitivc conditions. H would nut have j this opportunity were its present dis- 1 advantages of track cost and upkeep increased by heavy nnremuiterative expenditure' entirely for the benefit _ol road users, lb must be borne in mind that the roads and the railways ol New Zealand wore built by the State to meet its transport need. Each should share the burden, therefore, of , the expense incurred tor the public well-being at, tbo crossing places of road ; and rail. In this regard tho Railway 1 Department has always willingly borne its share in the cost ol eliminating level , crossings at those points where local [ bodies have agreed to pay their lair j proportion of the cost. . i “ Since the institution of the Mam ; Highways Hoard the Railway Depart- i menfc has also been working in con- , junction with that body in carrying out j proposals for improvements at road and 1 railway intersections. Tho principle ] of making each level crossing as sale | as possible tor careful road users is incorporated in the existing policy of the railway administration and of all other interested public bodies. _ This poliev is being put into effect in all countries (including England and America) whore level crossing problems 1 exist, ft is recognised that no matter whether the lines are privately or State owned tho cost of eliminating any , crossings should be apportioned be- j tween llm railways and the public ' authorities representative of the road users.”