LEVEL CROSSING PROBLEM.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1926, Page 4

LEVEL CROSSING PROBLEM.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT'S POLICY.

WELLINGTON. Alareli 15. A statement on the financial side of tbe level crossing problem was made by the '.Minister for Railways this evening. “Afy policy.” said the Minister, “in regard to the level crossing problem was clearly set out in the Railways Statement presented to Parliament last session as being one for elimination of the more dangerous level crossings and provision of warning appliances at others. That policy had been and is being carried out. When, however, on account of the recent most regrettable level crossing fatalities it is seriously advanced that the Railway Department should eliminate all level crossings something is asked for beyond what was ever included in the immediate intentions of either the railway administration or Parliament. •‘lnformation from other countries where level crossings constitute an even more formidable problem than in New Zealand, goes to show that the tendency is to do away with gales and gale keepers and to depend on warning notices, visible or audible signals, and the good sense of vehicle drivers for securing safety at level crossings. On the Italian State Railways there are 13,(0 public level crossings, in Holland nearly ."MOO, on French lines 30.000, and in the United States 250.000 on first-class lines. In none of the countries referred to, whether the railways are privately or publicly owned, is there any programme for elimination of all crossings. “'flic expenditure of several millions on unremiinerative works which a programme for complete elimination ol level crossings in New Zealand would call for could not ho justified to the taxpayers. J.f rail users were called upon to pay interest on this expenditure all railway charges would have to tie raised, making it- still more dillicult for the railways to compete tor traffic with the road' users, and throwing an additional burden on the taxpayer through losses on account, of railway operations. The Railway Department is now working as a business concern and must be given an opportunity to carry on its operations under fair competitive conditions. It would not have this opportunity were its present- disadvantages oi track cost and upkeep increased by heavy unrenmnoratiyo expenditure entirely for the benefit ol road users. “It must be borne in mind that the roads and railways of New Zealand were built by the State to meet its transport, needs. Each, should shaio the burden, therefore, 'of expenses incurred for the public well-being at crossing places of road and rail. .In this regard Hu- Railway Department lias always willingly borne its share in the cost, of eliminating level crossings at those points where local bodies have agreed to pay their fair proportion of llio cost. Since the institution of the Alain Highways Board the Itnilxvay Department has also been working in conjunction with that body in carrying out proposals for improvements at road and railway intersections. The principle of making each level crossing as sale as possible tor careful road users is incorporated in the, existing policy of Hie railway administration and of all other interested public bodies. This policy is being put into ell'ect- in all countries (including England and America) where level crossing problems exist. It is recognised that no mat tier whether lines are privately or State owned the cost, of eliminating any crossings should lie apportioned between the railways and public authorities representative el road users.”