TOO MUCH FOR TRANSPORT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 393, 30 November 1932, Page 4

TOO MUCH FOR TRANSPORT

The strong-est argument for regulation of transport is that this service is taking too heavy a toll of national production. The annual report of the Transport Department states that the estimated costs of land transport on each £100 Of nationa. production have increased from £20.59 in 1913-14 to £36, .22 in 1928-29 and £45.23 in 1930-31. These figures should prove, even to the least discermng, that it is folly to oppose regulations on the plea that it is "bolstering up the railways" or "hindering the public from using the most progressive means of transport." The benefits Of progress must be measured to assure that they are equal to the cost. This measurement shows that at least part of the benefits are illusory, and part of the "progress" is a national handicap. In private business a man will usually eonsider carefully the cost and ihe return from new maehines. If he finds that the higher capital chafges of a new maehine, plus

carded machinery, will exceed his savings by the installation of-the new plant, he will sensibly decide to continue with the old. We have not done that in eontrolling the growth of onr national land transport system. The high proportionate cost of the system proves that. The 1930-31 figure of £45.23 is partly due to the shrinkage in value of national production, but not whoily so. Even ih the comparatively prosperous year of 192829 the proportion , was £36.22. This means thai, while improved transport up tb a poiht has given a good return, ihe exeessive "improvehieht" (includihg all ihe waste of duplieation) has not