The Times. Published on Tuesday and Friday Afternoons. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1922. MOTOR V. RAILWAYS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 705, 7 February 1922, Page 4

The Times. Published on Tuesday and Friday Afternoons.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1922. MOTOR V. RAILWAYS.

“We nothing extenuate, nor aught set down in malice.”

A Manawatu newspaper reports that benzine is being carried by mojtor Icrry from Wellington to Palmerston North at 2s 6d per case. The cost by Railway is 3s per case, jrdus the cost of handling at each end. Such facts as these serve to impress two points : (1) The possibilities of motors supplanting train haulage in certain districts for specific goods ; and (2) the need for the Railway Depaiftment to reduce freights if it wishes to retain trade ,in these particular goods. Where there are good roads, and at times when the cost of benzine is reasonable, motor lorries can undoubtedly successfully compete with railways in the transit of goods —more particularly those goods which come under the higher traffic rates. Another big advantage which the. motor possesses is its mobility. Thus goods can be picked up and deposited at different positions without any further handling, whereas in regard to train transit, the goods frequently have to be handled before reaching the train, and shifted again from the train to their final destination, and this double handling always proves expensive. In many parts of America where good roads have been constructed motors have secured a very large proportion of the goods traffic, for these Keasons. In scattered districts, and where the cost of railway construqtion is very costly, or is delayed on account of more pressing needs elsewhere, it would be a wise policy for the local bodies, assisted by the Government, to. push on with the construction of good loads, thus affording settlers a means of communication with otheii districts, and helping in the development of the country’s industries. As regards the competition between motors and the railways, it is jto feared that the State ownership of our railways does not tend for that due regard to the economical aspect that would be given by private proprietors. At a time like the present, when the railways are causing a loss of £4OOO daily to the country, jthe adoption of a more liberal tariff for goods and passenger rates would, in all probability, do moi'e to meet the position than ,the severe curtailment of services already imposed and in contemplation. The cost of maintaining many sections of railway service is practically the same whether trade is slacak or brisk,

and if the volume of business could be increased by the adoption of slightly lower rates —which is only a reasonable assumption—the Department should not hesitate to make this movement.