RAILWAYS AND BUSES.

Hutt News, Volume 1, Issue 21, 18 October 1928, Page 2

RAILWAYS AND BUSES.

Co-operative—Not Antagonistic.

A New Viewpoint.

The problem of transport is one of the most important of modern times, and is particularly pressing in such a district as ours where large numbers of people require cheap and rapid communication with the capital. With the growth of the district, the difficulty of communication has increased correspondingly, for the original station on the Western side of the Valley has been found too inconvenient for the majority of those who travel frequently. As a result of this, the bus service that was inaugurated by private enterprise, was patronised by practically all travellers with the exception of those who caught the early morning train in order to take advantage of various concessions. No proprietor' could offer the inducement of al ' worker's weekly," ac c twelve trip or '' apprentice's monthly and continue to run his bus at a profit, while even the regular monthly ticket was for him out of the question. Thus, in spite of the greater convenience offered by the buses, the railways continued to carry large numbers at the rush hours (early morning and around five o'clock) but during the greater portion of the day the trains ran empty, and do so still. So seriously did the Department regard the competition offered by the combined bus services, that it bought out the private interests and now runs the buses itself. ' A considerable amount of criticism has been levelled at the Departments since the inception of Bailway buses, but it may be assumed for the purpose of this article that the original standard set by'the proprietors has been maintained by the Department, though it may -be doubted whether any improvements of a considerable nature have taken place.. .

From the point of view of the taxpayer, however, there is a viewpoint that does not appear to have struck the Department. It may fairly be asked whether the bus services are~ not regarded too much as an end in themselves, rather than a subsidiary to the train service. There appears also to: be no reason? whyduplicate services should be run. An expensive double track, capable, we believe, of handling a train every five minutes, exists from two widely-sepa-rated points in the Valley to the City, ample rolling stock, engines etc., are provided, but so far as the average person can see, these are not put to the greatest possible use because people find the buses more convenient.. The Department is rather in the position of a iLrm that has two factories, one of which has to shoulder the losses on the other. With certain modifications, one factory would be able to cope with the whole of its business. Any sensible firm would make these modifications.

Naturally enough, it is expected of the Department that it should maintain convenient communication with Wellington, that its fares should be cheap, its travel safe and yet rapid. Can these things be obtained in • any better way than at present? There is a way, in the first place, once a bus passes the railway crossing at Petone, it makes practically no stops until it arrives at Wellington, yet its average speed niust be less than 30 miles per hour —and on many occasions it is considerably less. "We admit at once that the Department is not to blame for the speed limit, but we can contrast with the speed of the buses the rapid transit obtained on a train whose first stop is Petone. There is a very considerable difference in the time taken by a non-stop bus and a nonstop train, and it will be admitted that it is far safer for a train to do 40 miles per hour than for a bus to travel at this speed. If such is the case, it is obviously quicker and safer to travel by train, than by bus from Petone crossing to Wellington. That point will probably cause little controversy, but it is the question of transport to the crossing that will provoke discussion. Clearly, the convenience of passengers must continue to be the first consideration. Only buses can wander round the streets gathering up the passengers, so lor that purpose they must be retained. But it is argued that when they have collected the travellers, they should then take them to Wellington. The contrary is true. When the buses have collected the passengers they should then take them to a convenient railway station. It is a useless waste of time und energy for a bus to do what the train, can accomplish more quickly and more cheaply, Each railway station should be the centre of a net-work of

buses that would ply all day along a given route, taking passengers to and from the trains. Just as at present you buy a ticket Lhat takes you all the way to the city, so with the "feeder bus* you buy your ticket on the bus and that ticket pays your train fare.

To make the scheme a success, several changes are required. In the first place more trains will have to be run. per hour. No sensible person will anticipate coping with the traffic by means of an hourly service during the day. Trains will have to run at least every fifteen minutes. We believe that an electric railway would make this possible at a moderate cost per train mile. During the day, these trains need not be large, but they must be frequent, while in the rush hours they could be large enough to cope with the increased load, and naturally could be run more frequently.

Secondly, the principle of a through fare will have to be adopted, i.e., one will pay the same fare as at present to go to the city by bus and train as one pays to go there by bus alone. Again, the "feeder buses" will have to be adequate and regular. If tliis service were carried out properly passengers should be able to go to a station from practically any part of the lower valley, and return from the station —an important matter —with equal convenience.

The scheme should commend itself to the Department and also to the travelling public. , The former must realise that the trains in the day time will never pay under present conditions. People will not walk to railway stations while they can catch a bus at their own front door. It is not that they object to railway travel. On the contrary, travelling by rail is much more comfortable in many ways, but it is the walking to the stations that deters people, especially women and children, from utilising the trains. There is also this to be said, that if one misses a bus there is usually another in twelve minutes, while if one misses a train there is usually another in an hour or so —and an hour or so is a long time to wait. From the point of view of the travelling public the scheme would make an immediate appeal, for people would have the same facilities as they enjoy to-day, with more comfort, more room, andl greater speed. The cost is a matter upon which one cannot speak without greater knowledge, but it seems clear that an electric train is a cheaper proposition to run than a bus, and, although the capital cost is greater, will outlast several buses and cost less in running repairs. Any motorist who uses his car regularly will know that his greatest worry is the repair bill, not the benzine account. The whole question can again be considered from the aspect of capital value represented in the existing lines and plant. This capital has been spent on the line, but is not bringing in the return it might. The further expenditure suggested would undoubtedly bring in a return that would represent an adequate rate of interest on the whole cost. The additional expenditure would then be justified. A last point at this stage is that to keep the present service of buses running will in time cost an enormous sum, for the depreciation of vehicles in constant use is very great, even when they are attended to by experts. It is questionable whether in the long run the service itself will be a paying proposition as it stands to-day. Finally one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Valley will contain many more people in ten years' time than it does at present. To provide adequate facilities for them will necessitate many more buses than at present, a consideration that will no doubt lend attractiveness to the suggestion here put forward.