ROAD OR RAILWAY?

Southland Times, Issue 19173, 18 February 1924, Page 8

ROAD OR RAILWAY?

A HEDGEHOPE PROPOSAL. MOTOR LORRY COMPETITION. MINISTER FAVOURS A GOOD HIGHWAY. (Our Special Reporter. LUMSDEN, February 16. When the Minister of Railways and Public Works (Hon. J. G. Coates) reached Hedgehope to-day, the question of the prosecution of the Hedgehope to Gore railway line was revived by a deputation of residents, fur whom Messrs M. Mclntosh and A. W. Halliday acted as spokesmen. Mr Macintosh said the proposal had so often been discussed that no doubt the Minister was well aware of the position, but they were desirous now of knowing definitely what the Government’s policy was in respect to branch.lines and failing that, what prospects there were of the main highways working in with the Railway Department. CLASSIFICATION OF A ROAD. Mr Halliday said that if there was no j hope of the line, then they would like the , road between Hedgehope and Mat aura to be placed in the first schedule instead of as at present in the secondary list. He pointed out what was being done by his own firm, who used the road extensively for the carriage of timber from their mills, and who also used it in carrying gravel on the return journey, for the maintenance of the road as well as providing facilities for the settlers to have their goods carried. That the settlers were taking advantage of the service provided was shown by the fact that his lorries had conveyed 540 tons of materials for the residents. MOTOR LORRY CHARGES. In reply to a question by the Minister as to what charges were made for the cartage of goods, Mr Halliday stated that it was 2/- per ton for the first mile and 1/per ton afterwords, up to a distance of ten miles. Beyond that special rates were charged. Continuing, Mr Halliday touched upon the question of the taxation imposed and stated that the County Council was particularly hard in this respect, especially considering the firm had carried out extensive maintenance and had as a result improved a portion of the road to a great extent. Mr Macintosh stated further that the settlers concerned had in their petition offered to guarantee that the line would pay all interest charges, but with the diversion of the coal and other traffic along the line it would more than pay all charges. PROSPECT OF LINE PAYING. Mr Coates replied that he was not so sure of that. The cost of constructicn would be approximately between £400,000 and £500,000 and the average cost of running somewhere about £2 16/- per running mile per day for a two train service. Thus it would take between £65 and £7O per day to defray all expenses, or, in round figures £40,000 per annum. That being so, was the expenditure justifiable and furthermore, could the locality provide that amount? He thought not. Motor transport was far more economical and feasible to meet the requirements of the district. Mr Halliday: The only hope of the railway paying would be as previously stated, a diversion of the traffic. The Minister: Probably that is so. but is it sound economics? Mr Halliday: Anyone with half an eye can see that it would prove a business failure. MOTORS FAVOURED. Mr Coates: Yes, after all the settlers pay for it. On the other hand, motors would, I think, meet requirements with the provision of a good road. As I have stated on previous occasions the Department is considering that aspect. As regards your case I believe it is for us to give you an estimate of the cost of a good surfaced road for traffic requirements so that you can consider the matter fully and make representations later. As for your belief that the road being placed in the secondary schedule is a disadvantage, I should just like to say that the Highways Board intend as a matter of policy to lay it. down that “feeders” to the railway shall have the assistance intended by Parliament, therefore because it is in the secondary section does not mean that you will not get as much as a main road.