MOTORS v. RAILWAYS.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 August 1922, Page 3

MOTORS v. RAILWAYS.

•PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS. MOTORS INDISPENSABLE TO INDUSTRY & PROGRESS. Writes Mr. C. L. Wilson, of Eltham:— I noticed in the Daily News of July 2“ in the report of a speech by the Hon. D. H. Guthrie, respecting railway matters, the following remark-able passage:— “So far as motor competition was concerned the Leader of the Opposition would soon find that most drastic measures were being taken to cope with this trouble.” This statement discloses a most amazing mental condition, and, coming from a Minister of the Crown, is deplorable as showing an utter lack of appreciation of the trend of the times. This and other statements made recently can be taken to moan that the Minister proposes to legislate the motor carrier who competes with the railway out of existence, and in my opinion this represents a distinct and glaring example of class taxation of the worst' kind. The motor lorry owner, as well as the car owner, already contributes a large sum to the revenue of the country, first in a big Customs duty, then by a heavy duty on all the tyres' he uses, and also in license fees, drivers’ licenses, registration, and toll gates. Under the new Highways Bill, due to come down in the present session, it is proposed to impose a further large measure of taxation for the national highways scheme. Instead of being so antagonistic to the natural growth of motor traffic, the Government should recognise that it will be more to the benefit of the country generally to develop the roads and build better roads, and more of them, rather than spend so much money as is done on opening up useless railways. If the railways cannot be made to pay their way because legitimate but heavily taxed motor traffic can successfully compete with them, the obvious business-like way of looking at the question is to -close the part of the business that doesn’t pay, and not bolster up a failure by legislating against the growth of the competition that will in so many ways carry goods cheaper and more effectively than the railways can. The growth of motor traffic in goods and passengers all over the world has been so tremendous that sensible people must recognise that the Hon. D. H. Guthrie is vainly acting in the manner of the famous old gentleman in history who tried to command the tides, and so dismally failed. For haulage of passengers and goods up to 100 miles, the motor vehicle has come to stay, and it is too big a modern development for any antediluvian ideas to attempt to stop' its further growth. Imagine the immediate chaos in the country if the whole of the motor carrying business was suddenly stopped or in the ease of a big. strike or any breakdown stopping the railways if no motor traffic were available to fill the breach! President Harding, in his first address to Congress after his inauguration, said: “The motor car has become an indispensable instrument in our political, social and individual life.” I venture the opinion that this statement applies to New Zealand equally as well, and that before long the public will recognise that the motor lorrv and passenger bus contribute in this country just as much importance to the community as President Harding considers they do in U.S.A. The Hon. Mr. Guthrie’s ideas are in line with the idea that is dying very hard that the motor car is a pleasure vehicle. It has long since passed that stao-e, as could easily be proved. While a trunk line of railway is a prime necessity in the opening up of any country, it is impossible to build more than one or two spurs to feed it. Thus the utility of the railway as a pain artery dtpends almost entirely upon the facilities for hauling products to the rail heads or shipping terminals. Roads from macadam to concrete can he built for from £4OOO to £15.000 per mile, and at a much quicker rate than railways, costing as they do in New Zealand about £33.000 per mile to make. On top of that is the enormous capital expenditure for rolling stock, etc. At the same time it has been truly said that a tremendous amount of money is wasted yearly in New Zealand by out-of-date and unscientific methods of load construction and maintenance, although it does not apply so much to Taranaki. Motor vehicles do not grind away the roadway, but, on the contrary, they are ground away by the road. All modern authorities agree that motors improve a road, provided the road is formed and maintained by up-to-date scientific methods. It is popular for barbaric road authorities to blame motors for damaging their roads, but motorists can with greater justice blame out-of-date- road constructors. Motor vehicles, by the peculiar bounding action of their wheels, will deform a road, producing waves, but only if the road is unscientifically constructed.

The greatlv enhanced value of property in the vicinity of first-class roads, the reduction of wear and tear of everything that uses the roads, even to the extent of pedestrians’ boots and clothes, thanks to the absence of mud and rough stones and other destroying agents, all assist in lessening the financial strain on the community. Settlement is attracted to the district where good roads are. and the railways, instead of suffering from motor truck competition, are eventually really benefited by it. It almost seems that'the Government is using the motor competition as a herring’ across the scent, and that it is being made the scapegoat, for mismanagement and results that the motor competition has nothing to do with. The use of motor transportation is world-wide. The United States is the ffreatest producer of auto-motive products. and it exports to the whole world. The United States is also better equipped than any other countrv to handle freight and passengers on railways* It has one mile of railways to every 380 persons, while Europe has one mile to every 1887 persons. But with all their equipment and mileage, the steam. Railways have failed to meet the demands made upon them. and. as a result, it has been necessary to develop and utilise motor transportation as a freight carrier, as well as for the transportation of passengers. As an example of the use of motor transport’ for .passengers in America, there is a service having a terminal in Los Angeles which handled six million passengers in one year. Can anyone say that New Zealand, with its comparative pftucity and slow and expensive building of lines, will find less necessity than the U.S.A. —with all its railways—for developing—rather than retarding motor transport? No; the Minister is on the wrong track, and he should read the danger signals ahead before he comes into disastrous collision with more advanced thoughts, the effect of which will leave him on the scrap heap of worn-out ideas. ’ The point of my letter is that the utterance of the Minister of Railways should bring home to carriers, and all interested in transport, the pressing need of a live oraanuMition to b* tinned for

the protection of their interests and livelihood, and to instruct their members of . Parliament and the public generally inj the economic importance of the countrj™ of motor goods and passenger traffic, auifl the development and maintenance