CONTROL OF TRANSPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19509, 13 December 1926, Page 8

CONTROL OF TRANSPORT.

Sir, —In reply to my letter Mr. Bloodworth frankly and earnestly avows that he is a socialist. And, I take it, he is, at the same time, a member of the New Zealand Labour Party, the Socialist party which has officially attached itself to Labour in our Dominion. He also states that there is no sinister motive behind his advocacy of Greater Auckland and transport control. Now, here is real danger to our city. It is to be regretted that, by his apparent ignorance of current facts, he is unconsciously playing right |nto the hands of the militant section of/ his party. At the present time the Alliance of Labour, which is affiliated to the New Zealand Labour Party, is out on a campaign to link up all trade unions throughout the Dominion into one big union for purely militant purposes. Mr. Roberts, the secretary of this organisation, recently stated,: " Wo must nave unity of action in one big national organisation, and international affiliation with the workers of other countries. When that is achieved we will have to overthrow' the present system of production." He further declares "that the line workers must'and will take its direct control" and administration of industries by the workers therein," and adds: "This is the declared policy of the Alliance of Labour, which comprises transport workers, miners, engineering and metal workers, meat workers, public works employees, and the New Zealand Workers' Union, in short, 75 per cent, of the workers of New Zealand." Surely these statements are quite sufficient to convince Mr. Bloodworth of the error of his proposal and the apparent danger. He would, by accomplishing his purpose, throw the door wide open to the machinations of this militant body, and at the same time I gravely endanger the interests .of our city. He does not wish to do this, I am sure. It would be wise and in the interests of sound local government for our city fathers to consider the proposals from the above point of view, allow transport to remain as it is at present, and thereby guard our citizens , against apparent danger. Aucklastder.

Sir,—The letter appearing in Wednesday's Herald above the signature of Mr. M. Blampied and in defence of the motor-bus regulations, explains; the position very clearly and should go far to allay any fears that the licensing authority will allow even a so-called " monopoly" to exploit the travelling public. The letters of "Anti-stagnation" and " Fair Play " unconsciously open up a wide field for discussion. The proportion of failures in the bus business is greater than in any other calling, and the eagerness of so many bus proprietors to hand_ their plants over to the City Council is proof that the bus business is not the goldmine that bus patrons generally credit it to be. What, then, is the remedy? "Anti-stagnation" and "Fair Play." evidently see salvation in cutthroat competition and when all competitors are worn out, start a community bus. This would be a step in the right ! direction, and _ would be of benefit to ; the extent of giving bus patrons a closer acquaintance with cost of service, but there are many difficulties in the way, and I do not think this method of transport will come to stay. I have always held the opinion that passenger transport services should be run by the local authority, but the argument is put i up that a local body cannot run a business successfully. I admit there is a lot in that argument, but it tihould not be So, and if there is one business that a local body is justified in undertaking, it is passenger transport. Opposition services are wasteful and dangerous. Wasteful because the cost of road upkeep is doubled, and dangerous because the temptation to race is almost irresistible and frequently leads to accidents. The standing costs of a first-class 28-seat-er bus are now nearly £6 per week before a wheel is turned. A municipally owned service would escape a big proportion of these charges and could give a better service than private enterprise. If there is any money in it the ratepayers benefit, if there is a loss {and this should not occur except on runs put on to bring population to the scattered parts) that .loss would be offset by the increased population obtained. Taos. Smith* Stirkenhead, December 8* 19i!6„