BUS v. RAILWAY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3754, 23 February 1926, Page 10

BUS v. RAILWAY.

COMBINED USE PRACTICABLE. The effect of motor bus competition with the New Zealand Railways in the carriage of passengers formed an interesting subject in the presidential address given by Mr F. J. Jones (chairman of the Railways Board) to the New Zealand Society oi Civil Engineers on Tuesday. Efficient transportation was so closely allied to the general welfare of the public that it might be taken as an axiom that it must be organised and carried out oa scientificially co-ordinated lines, said Mr Jones. For close on 100 years the leading means of transportation had been the railway; its growth had been tremendous and for land travel it had gradually supplanted all other means. The advent of the internal combustion engine and its use in motor vehicles had brought, of late years, a very strong competitor into the field, and to-day all railways throughout the world were feeling the pressure from the competition of the motor bus and. in a lesser degree, from the motor lorry. As in all new departures in methods it would take some little time to decide where the line of demarcation lay between motor bus and the railway carriage. Where a motor bus enjoyed the use of a wellsurfaced road “Built and maintained at the expense of the general public without paying an adequate share of the necessary costs, it, naturally, was able to offer attractions in the way of service and fares not open to its competitor. This, however, was a passing phase, and the countries throughout the world were investigating the subject with the object of fixing the taxation on a satisfactory basis. With this fixed, and proper costing system in use to enable the cost of the services to be correctly allocated, it would be found, no doubt, that the motor bus had a limited field in which it could outclass its competitor. In the United States of America the passengers carried on the railways dropped from 1.250.000,000 in 1920 to under 940,000,000 in 1924, with a shrinkage of passenger revenue of some £44,000,000. In 1924 the passenger revenues of the Canadian National Railway decreased by some £400,000. It must be recognised that both forms of transportation were indispensable and it would be a gait) to all when it was recognised where the efild of the motor bus began and ended. The right to carry -Passengers entailed coresponding obligations to the public and in undertaking tbe transport of passengers one of the most important obligations was that of providing and maintaining a regular and reliable service. At present many motor bus services, while doing harm to the railways, were being run at a loss. On the other hand hen it was clear that a certain zone could oe more cheaply operated by motor buses than railways, then the opportunity of taking off the train services should be seized bv the railway administration with the on33queut saving in operating costs. Where the traffic was insufficient for both services people could not expect full operation a loss. It must also be clearly recognised that motor bus services had their limit*tions. For bulk transportation such as was obtained on suburban services in the mornings and evenings the railway wss likely easily to hold its own. For the inbetween services it might pay the railways better to roplace the steam railroad services with buses on the road, both on account of the cheaper operating costs and of the greater mobilty of the ’niaaa. Experiments in this direction were already being made. , , So far as New Zeeland was concerned the principal loss came from the private vowned motor car which competed largely with the railway.