AMPLE SCOPE FOR TRANSPORT BOARD

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 181, 21 October 1927, Page 14

AMPLE SCOPE FOR TRANSPORT BOARD

MUST BE IMPARTIAL URGENT ACTION WANTED The considered opinion of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce is that there is ample scope in New Zealand for the appointment of an impartial board or committee to pronounce on transport problems. The council of the chamber is, however, decidedly of the opinion that the board should be impartial—in other words that no board or Ministry could be considered as a property authority to deal with the problem, while it was materially interested in transport. “In some quarters the proposed transport board has been opposed on the grounds that it means another Government department and more civil servants. If, however, such a board can save the public more than it costs to run, the argument of such opponents is really irrelevant. But it is imperative! that the most careful economy be exercised and only an urgently needed committee of investigation be permitted.” This was the opinion as presented to the Chamber of Commerce Council yesterday afternoon by Mr. A. G. Lunn on behalf of the executive. The committee presented a lengthy report in which it pointed out that the condition of the railways gave cause for earnest thought. The subsidy paid out of consolidated fund last financial year, for unprofitable branches and isolated sections, was £445,221, a 25 per cent, increase over the previous year. CLEARER DEMARKATION Under present-day conditions and motor competition it was clear that these sections could not pay. Pending a clearer demarkation of the proper spheres of motor and railway, all railway construction, except main lines and links between main lines and existing isolated sections, should be checked. Railway tariff had been framed largely with political and other noncommercial ends in view, and high rates on some classes of goods had formerly made up for other losses. Motor competition was taking much of this profit-earning cargo, buses were relieving the suburban lines of their profitable passengers. In some classes of cargo the railways naturally held their own. The levelling up of the tariff was long overdue, and it was imperative that it should come under review before outside vested interests grew up as they did in the case of buses versus trams. CARRYING COMPETITION TOO FAR The advantages of free competition were well known, but it was less generally recognised that these advantages could be bought too dearly. Serious competition to any venture meant practically the doubling of overhead expenditure, so that services could no longer be so cheaply provided per unit. Experience had shown that restricted competition in some fields provided advantages that far outweighed the disadvantages. There could be no doubt that in certain fields the advantages of motor services, compared with rail, were conclusively in favour of the motor. In other cases competition was unduly wasteful. “The report obtained should reveal to what extent the drop in railway returns is due to private motor transport and should indicate such a co-ordinated adjustment of the competitive traffic as

would sufficiently protect private as well as public interests,” concluded the report.