The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1927. TRAIN AND MOTOR.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17220, 1 October 1927, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1927. TRAIN AND MOTOR.

The controversy over motor competition with the railways is acute in Britain, as elsewhere. In two important respects the problem differs from that of New Zealand: The motors pay far more toward road upkeep in Britain; and the railways are privately owned. The fact that a great network of solid-surfaced roads has already been constructed in England must also be taken into account. With these differences in mind, it is interesting to find the London Times appealing for “transport co-ordinatio r ” and at the same time expressing gratification that there is no fear of a monopoly of motor transport falling into the hands of the railways. Needless to say, any suggestion of “control," such as that put forward by the New Zealand Government, would arouse most vigorous hostility in Britain. The London paper says: “There is still wasteful competition between the two forms of land transport, instead of co-ordination for the more economical and efficient conduct of a common service. The failure of the parties concerned to compose their differences and work in harmony is detrimental not only to their own interests hut to those of the public for whose support they hid.” A suggestion from Mr William Graham in favour of a Government inquiry is approved by the Times. The object would bo “to ascertain impartially and exactly the burdens which railways and the motor industry are carrying, and indicate whether any form of co-opera-tion or complementary effort in public service is possible.” Mr Graham is further quoted as saying that at any rate a determined attack must be made on the theory of “inevitable warfare,” which would cost Britain millions in avoidable waste and burden domestic transport for many years to come. The Times goes fully into the question whether the motors, and particularly the heavy motors, are paying their fair share towards the upkeep of roads. The British railway companies claim that they, as large ratepayers, are subsidising the roads on which their competitors run. In New Zealand there is no question on this point. The Dominion’s people, as owners of the. railways pay almost the whole of the cost of the roads for the railways’ petrol-driven . competitors. Some allowance has to be made for the amount contributed by imported motors and equipment to the State revenues through Customs duties, but if the whole of this revenue were handed over for the roads, along with the license fees, the total would still be very far short of what would be provided by a tax on the English scale—£ls per car. if there is an undue burden on the ratepayers in Britain, the injustice in New Zealand is enormously greater. The railway companies at Home complain of the alleged unfairness, but they ask nothing more than the right to enter inlo the motortransport business. For some reason, not apparent at this distance, many of them are debarred by law from such enterprise. A Parliamentary Committee has recognised that the railways have a right to engage in road transport, but still the restriction remains in force. The Times summarises the position thus: “At present they (the railways) are undoubtedly handicapped by their being able to run road services only when they form a complementary part of a railway journey either of passengers or of goods. Should they seek and be granted these extra powers it is obvious that the rival industry on the roads is far too firmly established for there to be. any fear of the creation of a railway monopoly. The railway companies themselves are definitely of the opinion that closer co-operation between rail and road transport is essential to development of the transport requirements of the country on a sound economic basis. The contention of the railway companies is that they ought to be given tiie same facilities on.the roads as have been found to he necessary in other countries, and that if these powers were granted, it would be possible for them, in conjunction witli the road motor concerns, to provide the public with a better, cheaper, and more remunerative system of transport services.” s The announcement of Mr Coates that

an effort is to be made to co-ordinate rail and motor services and to run buses and lorries to serve the trains shows that he realises the need as do the English railway companies. But in England not the least hint of “control” is heard. Control appears to indicate a hampering of the private motor services. It is not any such shackling that is required, but the simple, obvious measure of requiring those who use the highways to pay for them. England has already made a genuine effort to place a due share of the cost on the motor traffic. Whether it has chosen the best basis is open to question. But it, is surely beyond dispute that some action in tills direction is the first and urgent need in New Zealand.