RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21241, 23 January 1931, Page 8

RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —The financial position of our railways has attracted and continues to attract a good deal of attention, and, indeed, grave concern. As a prelude to some notice of that position the following synoptical statement seems appropriate;(1) The railways are the property of the people. (2) The highways are the property of the people. (3) The people, by their representatives . in Parliament, are the supreme controlling authority in respect of both railways and highways. (4) Parliament has voted vast sums of money for betterment of highways' in order to cheapen and accelerate motor traffic that is competing with the railways, (5) Betterment mentioned is enabling motor vehicles to attract traffic in such volume that it has been and still is seriously reducing railway revenue. (6) Management even by a “non-political board ” (of which more hereafter) could not prevent people, encouraged by highly improved roads, from purchasing motor cars and travelling in them, nor could it regain other irretrievably lost descriptions of traffic, transferred to highways per medium of motor Irrries and motor “ floats.” This railways-motors rivalry recalls to mind a case where some years ago a man—said to be of proved capacity—was sent from England to New Zealand to oversee an important business in the interests of far-away creditors, but, unfortunately, his mentality failed, and he first made that manifest by solemnly assuring clients that he felt it to be his duty, as a Christian, to advise them that they could probably do their business more advantageously through any one of several rival concerns—which the clients knew was not the case. That is something like a railways-motors parallel. The railway shareholders provide inducements for transfer of business from their own property to that ,of rivals, and then, ■when the pecuniary disadvantage of their action comes home to them, they are prone to inveigh against the railways administration, which is plainly as unreasonable as it is futile. It is true there are descriptions of traffic which may be permanently lost to the railways; cases in point being that represented by (1) privately-owned motor cars, (2) merchandise for moderate distances, and, in a minor degree, (3) racehorses for distances up to, say, 100 miles; and mixed small lots of animals of other descriptions for similar distances, in the case of horses, the trainer_ arranges for a motor float to' be at his stables at times he had the privilege of fixing,, always allowing for. rate of speed and' distance to be run, both of which he knows. The float delivers the horses on the racecourse, and thence home again immediately on the day's work being finished, thus saving time at railway stations, and distances to be traversed between home and railway', and racecourse and railway. The farmer who has for the saleyards small lots of stbek, say, of several descriptions, finds the motor float, which takes delivery on his premises, a very convenient method of transport, and more directly economical. Then there is merchandise of various kinds that has to be conveyed moderate distances between sources of production and places of disposal which is conveniently hafidled m one operation by motor vehicles, whereas railway transport, in most cases, necessitates cartage at each end. The railways administration seems keenly alive to the potency of the forces it has to combat, and to be strenuously endeavouring to arrest the drift. . That, however, could only be effectively done by' treating motor opponents as pirates and putting on lorries at non-paying rates to run them off the roads. Such a proceeding would be likely to be condemned as immoral, on the ground that’motorists, having been encouraged to go into business. should not be ruined because ot their enterjirise. In this connection it should be taken into account that the day’s work of operatives of State-owned lorries would have to be limited, whereas the motor driver competing with the railways is usually his own master, and not at all averse to working arduously from 12 to 14 hours, sometimes more, instead, of eight hours. But any retaliatory practice by the railways, if adopted, would not reach the private motor car owner. He would still go free except for his share of taxation to cover loss of railway earnings due to motor competition. As before indicated, motor vehicles by their mobility are enabled not only to collect and deliver traffic along highways, but also to penetrate and provide for it on byways to the great advantage ot settlers in need of transport facilities. So much is plainly incontestable; but no doubt a good deal of traffic, perhaps recoverable, has been diverted from railways as a result of thoughtlessness and not of necessity. Little reflection is needed to enable one to perceive that substantial losses of railway earnings, due to motors competition, must call for taxation to cover the deficit between railway revenue and outgoings in the form of working expenses and interest on capital cost. Thus, patrons of motor services are paying in two ways for traffic diverted from the railways, but perhaps they derive some gratification from the knowledge that the community as a whole is helping them with few exceptions unconsciously—by also contributing taxation necessitated by losses of railway earnings. It might be helpful, as a corrective, if special prominence were given year by year to the extra taxation imposed to cover the deficit above mentioned. Improved prices—to something like those of former levels—for our products will restore our prosperity, and that with continued roads improvements and welladvertised cheapening of motor cars, may bo expected to put many more motor vehicles on the roads, with the inevitable result that railway passenger traffic will further decline. As a result working expenses will fall, but not proportionately to the fall in revenue, because there are irreducible fixed charges, including interest on capital. Thus, continuance of a wide, adverse difference may be expected between income and outgoings, and, therefore. taxation to bridge it will assuredly have to be collected. Under present conditions the most the railways administration can do is to make every effort to keep taxation requirements as low as possible, and that, seemingly, is receiving close attention. With reference to a recommendation by the Railways Commission, it is well known that increased charges for services of any description are usually regarded with antagonism, rather than with

satisfaction, by those who cannot escape payment of them. That notwithstanding, it may now be justifiable to increase certain railway rates made to help industries in their infancy and adolescence, which in their maturity do no longer need that form of assistance. But extreme caution must be exercised in this matter, lest it provoke transfer of further traffic from rails to roads. The general manager seems to have been a good deal occupied in this direction, even prior to the appointment of the commission. Judging by changes that have been made. Anyone who takes the trouble to read attentively the two annual reports he has been able to make since his appointment cannot fail to be impressed by his comprehensive grasp of the problems with which he is confronted, as well as by his ability to deal with them. There has been frequent mention of “ co-ordination ” between railways and motors, but just how far the advocates of that arc prepared to go_ ha-s not been made known. One may inquire if they are disposed to agree that'motor vehicles shall not be disturbed in the handling of all descriptions of traffic they can undertake, and that the railways shall not “cut” rates for the purpose of holding, and also regaining, any of that traffic, afid if they would be satisfied with passenger business that can be attracted without special inducements and goods traffic that cannot he satisfactorily dealt with by motor lorries. Announcement of such_ a policy would be calculated to awaken interest long dormant, and would be acclaimed by motor interests as very good, but others, mindful of their pockets, would be likely to condemn it as very bad. A vote on the question would certainly be interesting. There may be some people of opinion that the transport business of the countin' should be allowed to develop and adjust itself without attempts to force it into particular channels. A transport board might help in that direction by fixing charges based on cost of services, and making it penal to rebate any of such charges. As regards replacement of political control by a board of directors, the experience of Canada certainly favours that proposal, and the adoption of it would relieve the Government of a burden and at the same time accord with public sentiment. Whether or not a board could achieve much, only a trial would show, but it could be depended on not to get off the rails or go astray, if conforming to the Canadian example, with the general manager, as in Canada, acting as president of the board. —I am, etc., ’ B. Dawson, Ex-Railway Manager, N.Z.R. Wellington, January 20.