CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

Taranaki Daily News, 14 January 1935, Page 7

CONTROL OF TRANSPORT

REFUSAL OF LICENSES AUCKLAND-NEW PLYMOUTH RUN. PROTESTS BY BUSINESS MEN. RAILWAYS’ SIDE OF QUESTION. Varying opinions upon the justice and advisability front the point of view Of service, of the impending cancellation of the Auckland-New Plymouth road transport service license were expressed by New Plymouth business men to a Daily News reporter on Saturday. It was held that a road service of such proved convenience and value should not be eliminated to create a virtual monopoly for a less suitable railway service. The other side of the question was expressed by another man, who -thought it was time the whole transport system was placed on a better footing. “Even as the railways displaced Cobb's coaches so Will road transport displace the railways once benzine is cheap enough,” was the opinion expressed by one New Plymouth man. "The railways cannot hold up progress.” There were times when a road transport service was very necessary and very useful, he said. He was not saying that at present the service was economic, but when goods were required urgently it was road transport that met the requirements. On the other hand the steamer service from Onehunga had its disadvantages. In such cases consignment by rail was necessary as road transport did not cater for the heavier lines. The through goods lorry was invaluable for the delivery of smaller parcels en route and between the two centres, Auckland and New Plymouth, providing a service that could not obtained in any Other way. Besides being so expeditious, the charges made were very reasonable. QUESTION OF DAMAGE. There was also the question of damage. The business man said he had heard of an inland traffic in field pipes, that could not be handled by Steamer, which always carried with it a percentage of breakages. Since the traffic had been transferred to the road damage by railway shunting had been entirely eliminated. Road transport in competition with the railways must result in a certain amount of economic loss, but the great advantages in certain cases made it one of great value to the community. There was, of course, the argument that the railways had low rates on the heavier goods, balancing that by higher charges on A and B class goods. The opportunity therefore existed for the motor transport firms to take the cream of the traffic and that was what the railways were fighting against. It seemed a question, nevertheless, not of eliminating road transport but of finding the right balance. The railways existed to provide the best service, not to block progress. “This latest move is simply playing right into the hands of the railways and it is surprising from a board that is supposed to be impartial,” stated a prominent man engaged in the transport business. It was evident, he said, that the board was listening only to the. arguments of the railways and not giving the transport firms a fair deal. He claimed that once the railways were relieved of competition they raised charges, and he gave as an example the rates charged between the New Plymouth station and the wharf at Moturoa. Over short distances motor transport could handle freight more quickly and economically than the railways, but he concluded that over long journeys the railway was the more economical. CONTROL LEFT TOO LATE. “The real cause of the trouble,” said another business man, “is that we allowed the transport position to go too far before any attempt was made to control it. No country such as ours can really afford to stand the present position, which is economically unsound.” He pointed out that New Zealand’s roads had cost a great deal of money, and even the present tar-sealed roads could not last for ever. It was foolishness to allow big high-speed lorries to run along roads where the railways could supply just as good a service. It was not right for roads to be worn Out before their time, thus putting the country to unnecessary expense when needs could be supplied by a national service such (as the railways. It was not intended when motor taxation legislation was enacted that it should provide private individuals with a means of entering into strong competition with the railways, in which a big sum of public money had been invested. The transport firms had a grievance at present. They had invested money in their enterprises and many were providing a splendid service, but the question was a national one and certain individual interests would have to be sacrificed. The business of the country had to be placed on a business footing if the country was to prosper, and the present transport restriction was really a move in that direction. However, the community was entitled to be given some tangible guarantee that there would be no move by the Railways Board to raise freights once the competition was removed.