The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, August 13, 1937. ROAD V. RAIL.

Grey River Argus, 13 August 1937, Page 8

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, August 13, 1937. ROAD V. RAIL.

A campaign now being carried on by the road transporting interests against the Government’s policy in regard to railway conservation is very rabid indeed. The public are well aware of the manner in which motor traffic has spread, but nobody could say to what lengths it would go if given absolute freedom. It is safe to say that, however uneconomical a great deal of this traffic to-day may be, the roads would become clogged in many localities had no steps been taken in the way of regulation. There is a great deal of public money invested in the railways, but the road transport propagandists ask people to regard the railways as being a mere monopoly, and not an economical one at that. There are classes of commodities which the road vehicles cannot carry, but which are far more important to the country than those which the motors will carry. Coal and timber are local instances, but there are others. Timber transport by lorry is too. costly for the country, as the maintenance of roads must come out of public funds, and. the same applies to a deal of heavy traffic. Passenger _ traffic is more dependent upon rail than upon motor, but in order that the cost of railway travel may be kept at a reasonable level, it is essential that railway goods traffic shall be maintained at a certain ratio. The use of petrol has admittedly worked wonders in transportation, and the Government has given the assurance that it does not intend to curtail the freedom of the individual in this regard, except insofar as it is essential’to protect the interests of the community as a whole. But it cannot be. forgotten that road traffic is conducted with fuel and apparatus which are mostly imported, and which represent the sending away of a very large proportion of the product of industry. The railways, on the other hand, mean a far larger amount of employment for our own people, and assure those who are employed of a fair standard of remuneration for their work. We may have petrol railway vehicles ’in greater numbers as time goes on, but the vehicles are largely of New Zealand manufacture, and in any case coal will remain by far the main form of fuel with the railways. It has been pointed out that, if, as niay |-)g very distant eventuality, the supply of petrol from over- • sea, were to be largely reduced (or even cut off), road transpoit would pull up with a round turn, and the country would be entirely dependent on the railways. One thing is obvious. _ If it were to- be a choice of doing without the one or the other, the road transport system ■ could not be preferred. Therefore, it is only ordinary prudence to see that the more essential service shall be protected. To say that it is not so up-to-date is not to say that the other system is better. Everything- has to be taken into account when making a decision as to whether the national transport system shall be virtually abandoned, and if the road transporters were allowed all the scope which they ask, the railways cer- . tainly could be continued only at an increasing loss to the country, a loss for which there would be no adequate recompense from road traffic. Reading costs are already very great, and their tendency is to become still greater; Tn fact the motor problem is one of the worst now facing the dominion. It is one illustration of the fact that machinery may become a very bad master instead of being a good servant. The public can rest assured that as far as their needs are concerned there "will be no lack of essential means of transport, and that is the consideration of primary importance. Transport is a service better fitted than many another

for public enterprise, and this applies to motor transport just as 1 well as to rail transport. From the national standpoint, it ap- : pears decidedly a better proposition to plan a publicly owned transport system, embracing roads as well as railways, than to contemplate the gradual diversion of the whole enterprise from the public to private ownership and control. There is no guarantee that in this latter alternative monopoly might not develop, because it was already making its appearance when the Government decided to protect the public utility. In any case, it will doubtless be found in the ultimate result that the State can protect its interest and still allow individuals to do such transporting as they may find more economical for their own particular business. Apart from this, there is left an enormous scope for road traffic on which the Government has not the slightest, intention, to retrench. In fact, the position ■ is that opponents of the Govern--1 inent’s policy are -calculating less . on what business they can to-day [ obtain than upon the possibility in future of monopolising all of , the more payable transport business in the country.