TRANSPORT OF GOODS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21874, 9 August 1934, Page 15

TRANSPORT OF GOODS

COMPETITIVE METHODS ROAD AND RAILWAYS CARRIER'S APPEAL UPHELD [BY TELEGTIArH —PRESS ASSOCIATION*! WELLINGTON, Wednesday Important considerations bearing on the question of competition between road and rail in the transportation of goods were dealt with in separate judgments given to-day by three members of the Transport Co-ordination Board on an appeal of P. A. Griffiths, carrier, of Toko, Taraiiflki, against the decision of the No. 5 Licensing Authority refusing him a continuous goods licence to operate on defined routes between dairy factories at Huinga and Douglas and freezing works at New Plymouth. The appeal was allowed on a majority decision of the board, the chairman, Sir Stephen Allen, dissenting.

Appellant's charge for carrying produce from the factories was at a flat rate which worked out at 3.5 d per ton mile in the case of the Douglas factory and 3.85 d per ton mile in the case of the Huinga factory. The comparative figures for rail transport were 4.3d and 4.6 d respectively. Mr. L. Alderton, a member of the board, in his judgment said he was of the opinion the appeal should bo allowed. He added: "I am not convinced at this stage that hauls up to 50 miles are handled most economically by rail. I am, however, satisfied that competitive developments in transport are inexorable. The public is entitled to all the benefits of the march of progress in transportation and nothing will prevent that consummation. I have said before, and I still hold the view, that the railways should in many instances adopt the competing methods of transport of which they complain." Mr. H. B. S. Johnstone, another member of the board, said: "In view of the position disclosed by appellant's balance-sheet, indicating that under the law as it now stands he can profitably carry goods at a lower rate than the railways I agree with Mr. Aiderton to the extent-that I am of opinion that the appeal should be allowed.!' Sir Stephen Allen, said ho regretted he could not • agree with the views of the majority of the board in the case in question. He thought that bulk goods to be transported from one point on or near a railway to another point similarly placed should be carried by rail where the circumstances permitted and where extra handling or time did not become a factor to consider.