TRANSPORT PROBLEMS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 283, 25 July 1932, Page 4

TRANSPORT PROBLEMS

Complete understanding of the transport problem of New Zealand has not yet been brought about. In some quarters it is still viewed as a tussle for business. This is wrong. Competition there may be and should be to promote efhciency; but nationally the task is co-operation rather than competition. As an example of the misunderstanding we may cite a statement by Mr. A. E. Jull, M.P., speaking as a member of the Napier Harbour Board. Mr. Jull said: "We do feel that there is a feeling among certain people in this country, and only last week it wTas mentioned by no less a person than .the chairman of the Railways Board that too much was being spent in harbours, and that the question of harbours is one that has to be faced, apparently for the benefit of the railways system. We in this district do not applaud that attitude, and the possibility of centralisation. While it may reflect to the advantage of the railways, it will not act to the advantage of the country as a whole." The statement is eorrect in so far as it relates to the feeling that too much is being spent in harbours ; j but it is incorrect to suggest that J this must be faced "apparently 1 for the benefit of the railways | system." The benefit to the rail- | ways system is a secondary eon- ! sideration. The primary concern is the national benefit. If the national good will he promoted by developing harbours and neglecting railways, by all means let | that course he followed. But we are firmly of the opinion that f ar too much harbour expenditure in I the past has merely served to divert traffic from the rail with- . out cheapening the transport i cost when all accounts are taken. Having had one system which , served well, we have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in providing an alternative — and without any net gain from the additional expenditure. The Chairman of the Railways Board did not lay undue stress upon the railway business aspect. His emphasis was rather upon the expense incurred in constructing many harbours and "the'result (he said) has been in many cases to provide a competitive means of transport for the railways." It is the economic rehabilitation of the Domimon that must be sought, and neither the sectional interest of a small harbour nor the particulajr interest of the railways. If the railway profit can be increased, that is a national gain, but the idea of improving the financial position of the railways must not lead us to overlook losses in other directions. Nor must the prosperity of any harbour, big or small, take precedence of national prosperity. It is not centralisation that we advocate — though we believe the efficient and wellequipped harbours should be used to the full — but the use of the most economic means of transport. If such means are to be discarded because of the bogey of centralisation, then decentralisation will prove a costly luxury.