Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DRIFT IN RAILWAY REVENUE.

Although the net revenue of the railways for the 'lO weeks of the financial year is £67,000 better than it was for the corresponding period last year, the improvement falls far short of the Budget estimate. It was not anticipated that the railways would meet the whole of then interest charges, but a contribution toward them of £930,000 was expected, 111 is figure being higher by £215,000 than in 1030-31. The 40 weeks of working in the current year have produced a net return of only £421,000. Tn other words, there is only £(57.000 in hand toward a total of £245,000. In the remaining 12 weeks of the year the objective cannot bo reached, and the Budget under this head will have to face a deficit of at least £150,000. The economies effected in the Hallways Department have not been able to stop an alarming drist, the root cause of which is the existence of a great deal of uneconomic competition. Whatever happens, railway interest must be paid, even if taxpayers in their private capacity choose to support an alternative system of transport. The drift is much too serious to be allowed to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later power must be taken to protect the railways from competition that represents an extravagance, and the sooner the question is faced the better. Motor transport has its function, but not in long-distance services which take the cream of the railway revenue. There must be control, and the economic stress of the time permits of no delay in imposing it.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19320205.2.38

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21099, 5 February 1932, Page 8

Word Count
261

DRIFT IN RAILWAY REVENUE. New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21099, 5 February 1932, Page 8

DRIFT IN RAILWAY REVENUE. New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21099, 5 February 1932, Page 8