RAIL OR ROAD?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 608, 9 March 1929, Page 16

RAIL OR ROAD?

PAEROA TO POKENO CONCRETE AND ECONOMY (From Our Own Correspondent) MORRINSVILLE, To-day. Arising out of a letter from the Auckland Railways and Development League, the question of the proposed Paeroa Pokeno railway was discussed by the Morrinsville Chamber of Commerce on Thursday night. The league urged the chamber to co-operate with them in the efforts being made to have the railway constructed.

Mr. E, McGregor said the question was one which should be approached from a national standpoint. The cost, of the 39 miles of line between Paeroa and Pokeno, on the figures supplied by the league as the mile cost of the East Coast railway would be over £1,000,000. Taking the average mile cost of the Dominion lines, the total would be £600,600. The cost of a 14-foot double width concrete road would be £IO,OOO a mile, or £390,000 for the section. The latter was only half the cost of the railway and a concrete road would serve the purpose better than a railway. This was a motor age and the increased convenience and economy of moter transport would make a concrete road more suitable. The maintenance of a mile of railway track was £371 a year, so that the annual cost of this “cut-off,” apart from capital expenditure, would be £14,469 a year. As it would be at least five years before any maintenance was required on a concrete road the £70,000 that would have been spent on maintenance of a railway in this period would be saved. The maintenance of a concrete road’ after five years would not approach anything like £3Tfl a mile a. year. A road could be piit through in 20 months, but it might take 20 years to get a railway. Another member remarked that it would be cheaper to give a reduction in haulage charges rather than pay the cost of the line.

Mr. McGregor further suggested that the Government should control the road and run it in conjunction with the railways^ It was decided to write stating that in view of the economic situation created by motor traffic competing with railway traffic the chamber was of the opinion that no railway construction should be commenced until expert evidence was obtained to the effect that the construction of such a line will be of greater economic benefit than the construction of a concrete road.