ROADS AND RAILWAYS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17410, 7 November 1930, Page 11

ROADS AND RAILWAYS

(To the Editor of the Herald,) Sfr,—Mr. Bayliss reproves rno for t-lio Style ill winch 1 dealt with his letter . . . However, as J.E. is such a Chadbaud for facts I will, with yoilr kind permission, deal him a few, and in doing will recapitulate some of My original letter. •‘Facts are chiels that tvitiua cting. ” From report of general manager of the railways: (1) In one year the railways transported 7,366,762 tons of goods at ,a cost of under £5,000,000. To do this by motor haulage would have cost £23,000,000. (2) The all-in unit cost of haulage by,, rail was 2.91 d per ton per mile. (3).The estimated cost by motor ■was certainly Is per ton mile, but might be Is 6d (definite figures tint ascertainable). Frorfi proceedings of N.Z. Society of Civil Engineers: (1) The Engineer-ill-Chief of the Public Works Department (and head of highways) gave all-in unit eOst of motor haulage as Is 6d per ton mile. (2) L. I>. Campbell stated the total cost of running the isolated Gisborne section of railway 60 miles in length wak £81,3.72. To do the work by motor Itiiulagb b 6 estimated to cost £134,750. , . ~ From N.Z. Railways timetable aild local papers: (1) Passenger train fare for 132 miles,. (the distance by rail from Gisborne to Napier) would he 13s lid second class. The cheapest motor fare frdhi Gislioiiie to Napier is 255. f2) I’ii.ssetigcr rail fare fi’dfii Gisborne to Uakafifoa for 38 niilt'S fs 45. 2 d; Service car fare from Gisijorne to llangaroa for 30 miles is 15s. Sir Francis Bell lias stated (and Mr. Bavliss apparently supports him) that the railways are a non-paying proposition, and {hat no more should be built. The report by the general miluagef said (he railways did work for £5.000,000 that- would cost £23.000,000 by their rival (?) motor transport. My reasoning tells me that Sir Frrtncis is wrong and tiiat t lie railways saved I lie Dominion £18.000,000 in one year-more titan 25 per cfdiL oil their capital. I believe they “pay.” . That the limit beyond which railway transport does not “pay” may he known, there must be a proper comparison o costs and returns. This is a technical problem, and involves a study of how costs are derived, what realities they include, and what they leave out. It is doubtful whether ap enlightened cominunitv would use the commercial standard of economy to gauge whether a public enterprise “pays” or not. With a business like the railways there are So many variable expenses and so many benefits derived that are not taken into account, that, the gauge will often read false. , , My daily work involving my keeping closely at work with my eyes (accordingly I must rest them at night), I must ask leave to close my part of Ibis controversy. As there is another in the field whoso notn de plume would indicate that he opposes Sir Francis Bell’s principles and methods of purveying information, I will step out of the ring and let him and J.B. box on if thev choose to do so.—Yours, etc. FANGSCREW.