RAIL OR ROAD ?

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 6 August 1926, Page 8

RAIL OR ROAD ?

PREMIER OX TRANSPORT

PROBLEMS

DEPARTMENT MAY COMPETE

WITH MOTORS.

In his annual departmental statement, laid on the table of the House yesterday, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates '(Minister of Railways) said there was nothing necessarily antagonistic between the railways and the motor traffic by roads (though the country’s investments must not be unwisely neglected), and he foreshadowed the possibility of the Government substituting motor road services for some of its branch lines".

The following is an extract from the statement:

“A problem which lias engaged my attention during the year, and which is. of course, likely to be the prime problem of our railway system for some years to come, is that of road comnetition with the railways. “The efforts of the commercial branch have undoubtedly tended to keep this competition within limits, hut wo still fin’d that at various points road' carriers' are maintaining their business. The whole question, of course, resolves itself into one of economics, and. if transport can be carried on more economically by road, then undoubtedly the business will go by road; but it is necessary, in considering this matter from the point of view of a Government policy affecting the railways, to regard it, not as the road carriers andi their customers almost invariably do —namely, from the point of view of individual interest —but rather from the point of view of what is best for the community as a whole. The difference between these two points of view is very material in deciding the policy, because the community owns the railways, and regard must therefore he had by the community to the capital that has been sunk in the railways. It must not be forgotten that, generally speaking, the railway l-olling stock is available to do the work that is being performed by road, and is lying idle when that work is diverted to road transport. A community must, therefore, make due allowance for this capital, and for the plant that has been provided, in making comparisons of relative costs as between road: and railway transport. But if, after making these allowances, it is still found 1 that transport by road is the more economical . then there can be no justificatinn for doing other than utilising the road transport for such traffic. In other words, even if the traffic is available for the Railway Department it seems to me that, if it can he dealt with more cheaply by road transport, the proper course is to deal with it by that method.

“The question then arises as to whether the Railway Department should hand over the* traffic to a* competitor by road, or should itself undertake the transport of the goods ,by means of road vehicles Cases have already come under my notice, and particularly in connection with the casual traffic between the peak loads in the morning and evening on short runs, when undoubtedly the work now" being performed' by the Railway Department could be more cheaply performed' by road vehicles, and I therefore; desire to state, as a declaration of my personal policy, that whenever this can 1 be done I propose that the Railway Department shall undertake the work, either itself, or by arrangement with private enterprise. Tn doing so I recognise that- it may he said that the Railway Department is trenching on the field of private enterprise, hut a. careful analysis of the situation seems to me to show clearly the fallacy of this argument. The traffic, in the first place, was railway traffic, and in keeping the traffic to itself the Railway Department is hut holding what has always been its own, and l is not taking the traffic that originally belonged to private carriers. The advantages of large-*cal© work have- up to the present lain with the railways, because of the extent of their field of operation, and I think the same considerations, though possibly in a less degree, might he held to justify the Railway Department in endeavouring to undertake at least such road transport work as will enable it to reduce its working costs. “I do not regard road and rail transport as necessarily antagonistic. Undoubtedly road transport- has come in as a new factor, and has its rightful place in our economic life. That place must l>e conceded it in any policy that has regard to the true economic interests of the community, but equally in such poliev must road transport he kept within, its proper sphere. If this is done the position is not one of antagonism. but one of co-operation and co-ordination. I can conceive no better medium for co-ordinating the transport work of the community than that organisation which has already been charged with that work .or the greater part of it—namely, the railways. There will still under this policy be a- large field for private enterprise* in those portions of the country where* it. would be no great saving to the railways* to undertake transport work by road. Such occasions occur to me as transport on roads that arc feeders to the railway. There is, I believe, sufficient outlet for the energies of those who desire to adopt that class of business for many years* to come. The railways* are ever willing to co-operate in the fullest measure with any such persons to facilitate their business as far as the department may do so, and generally to co-ordinate) their efforts so as to reduce working costs and give* better seivice.

“Summing the position, up in this connection, T desire to say that my policy will he for the department to utilise road transport, either itself, or by arrangement with others, whereveT it can effect economies in. its* work by so doing, or can increase the potentialities for service of its present operations. “In this connection. I may *snv that the financial aspect of many of our branch lines has for some time* been the cause of much* concern, and con-

sideration is mow being given by the operating officers to the* oues+ion* of establishing definitely whether it would not be more economc-al, and' make for greater ©fftci©mcy. to* run services by road, either in addition to. or in' substitution for, 'services by rail.”