MR WHYTE ON MR VAILE'S SCHEME.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2300, 7 April 1887, Page 2

MR WHYTE ON MR VAILE'S SCHEME.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln dealing with Mi , Vaile's scheme, I wish my readers to remember (Ist), That I sun one of themselves, and would share in the benefit of such a scheme were it a success ; ■ ■ (2nd). That it would be much pleasanter for me to agree with so many of my uld friqnds upon this matter than to. disagree with thorn—that, in fact, it gives me fjreat [jaih to be compelled to differ from themj; (3rd). That I did not approach this subject with an unfavourable bias. On the contrary, I should have been only too happy to accept it as sound, if possible. "In'fact, I daresay that if I had not occupied the responsible position of their representative, I might, perhaps, have not devoted .sufficient study to it (as I fear is the case with many) and accepted it as soand. [t was, however, my duty to examine this scheme critically, and I now intend to lay the result before my constituents..

In this letter, I propose to deal only with the financial aspect of the question. ■ Its political aspect I may touch upon after wards. It is, however, very difficult to do so within the limits of one letter- of moderate length. I therefore think that the shortest and most effectual way to make myself understood will be to state shortly what Mr, Vaile's proposals mean, as applied to the railway now working between Helensville, at the one end, and Oxford and Otomhanga on the other. For convenience I shall.only refer to the second-class.

Take first the part south of Pukekohe, and I will afterwards deal with that north of that place.

. Here it is proposed to carry passengers anywhere from Frankton 50 miles foi'4d. It is also proposed to carry passengers 50 miles, or any part of it in any direction, provided they do not cross the Friink'ton .Junction, for 4d. If on the other hand they cross the Frankton Junction they will have to pay Sd, even if they only travel ten miles or less.

But generally it is proposed that all should be able to travel any distance up to 100-miles on that part of the line for not more than Bd, and'in many cases up to 50 miles tor 4d. These no. doubt are very pleasant proposals,but I put it to any reasonable man in.the district—can.it be-done ? I say no—can any one of my readers say yes ? Mr Vaile would say "Yes, by means ofmy ' average fare.;'" . Now let us see what this "average" means. , , You cannot strengthen an unsound part of your argument by adding another, which is also unsound; , you ■ cannot strengthen- a' rotten stick : by. tying alongside of it iin'e equally rotten— no, nor even by tying one which can only bear its-own weight.' . ' : Now, I hold.that the very utmost that can be expected from the other elements of this'" average'" is that they, wilbboar their own weight.- ■■ : Mr Vaile s argument with regard to this "average" is t.bat.at present the average fare paid in New. Zealand is 2s, and that ■ his average fare wilt not sink below one shilling, and that therefore an.increase of a little over two fur one will produce the same revenue as at present. I, on the other hand, contend that the average fare "under his system will probably sink much below one shilling. It therefore becomes necessary that we should examine the other elements of this "average." This naturally brings me to thaFparJ; ■of this section of , railway-norf.h of Pnkekohe. This is to be divided into seven, mile stages as nearly as may be convenient, for which 4d each will'be cliarge'd. Therefore, the fare, say, from Pukekohe to Auckland' (30 miles) will bo lfi'd." ' I again ask; "Can that stage do more than bear its mvn weight? . Can it come to the rescue of the longer distances ? I again say. No.! Here an increase of three to one is required, on (lit; present traffic, and I admit that possibly that increase might be realised, because at this distance people c:in conveniently go to Auckland, do their business, and return comfortably the same day, and the fare is their only expense; whereas, in the loncror distances the element of the tini3 occupied comes in, and the other expenses incurred. Still I think the utmost this stage will ever do in this l'.Jth century will be to pay its own Wd.y. The. same can be said with truth of each seven mile fourpenny stage.

As regards distances under ten miles, according to Mr Vaile's own argument that a small reduction only brings about a loss of revenue, a loss must here inevitably ensue. For instance, will a man travel very much oftener from Otahuhu to Auckland because he goes for Sd. instead of a shilling, especially considering that at present by means of aseason ticket he can travel for infinitely less, and half of a return ticket is only Id over Mr Vaile's fare.

Now put the parts of the railway, north and south of Pukekohe together. The fare from Oxford to Auckland, about 130 miles, would then be 2s. Qan that be done?

The fare from Oxford to Pukekohe would be 8d ; can that be done? Even put an extreme case—one not likely to occur often which would give Mr Vaile the utmost advantage of his " average"—the journey from Oxford to Helcnsville, about 170 miles—the fare would b3 3s Bd. Can even that be done ?

Of course it may be said that the short distances for all of which 4d will bo charged will pull this up. But I think it must be evident, as I have said, that all these can do will be. to bear their own weight. No, Mr Vaile'a scheme, if it were sound in other respeots depends for its financial success upon this "average," and I contend that it is completely fallacious. The main reason for this is that between three and four pounds out of every five of our revenue derived from passengers is earned beyond ten miles, where Mr Vaile's most sweeping , reductions occur. _ It may be quite true as Mr Vaile'says in one sense, and the returns furnished.to the Parliamentary Committee showed it, that a total of 2.\ passengers under -Mr Vatle's system forgone under the present: system up to 100 miles might bring in the same revenue, but this fact is nevertheless most misleading and requires to be carefully explained. It is true it might bring in the same revenue but if the increase in traffic be not distributed over the various distances, in certain proportions, it will not do so. These proportions, as shown by the re-

turns, were voughly, for the first ten miles nearly H to 1, for the lirst 30 miles 3 to 1, and afterwards from thi.t to 0 to 1.

When however you go beyond 100 miles tlio relative increases of traffic must be.very much greater, and fur other distances under 50'miltjs, up country, the incrci).se would require, to runge up to 20 to one, or the'loss would.be very heavy. ■ : To ■. illustrate further, I maintain it is oven possible, to have, a totil. increase to the traffic of five In one, and yet not get the, present revenue under Mr Vaile's scale of charges. 'The increase mast be in thu right; place or the loss will he serious. To put. it another way the loss upon one through passenirer is so very great under tho proposed scale that a vei-y large increase of traffic in thu short distances is required t<• make it up, or a still largo in- ■ crense on the longer ones.

Now the question which we have to decide is whether we are likely during the next ten years to get the.se increases of traffic, I think not. Ido not think there is the slightest chance of it. It must also be borne in mind that in this calculation we have made no allowance for the increased cost of working, which would be caused by any large increase of traffic. There .are very many other features in this scheme which, in niy opinion, are objectionable, which T intend to touch upon in my next letter. In this, .however, I have striven to point out simply that this scheme is founded mainly, Ist. On an estimated increase of traffic in certain proportions, over the different distances, which is notjjlikely to be realjsed ; 2nd. On a theory regarding the ." average fare" likely to be secured, which is quite dehisive. The universal fare ultimately aimed at by Mr Vaile, aa iii the post and telegraph serviceSi is an impossibility in railway traffi,c for the simple reason that we have no means (as we have practically in the former services) of compelling all to pay'ifc for the shorter distances. : Mr Vaile has shown us that 2s is the average fare now paid in New Zealand, but what power have we to cnnipel'the short distance travellers to pay that—aye—or a third of it. Of course the uniform fare would work well if you could compel all to use it, but it is impossible because you cannot fix it low enough. People will walk or employ other means of transit rather than pay even 4d each way daily. It may seem strange to say so,, but the uniform postage rate is a success because it is. an enormously high rate for the, service rendered. In.England it is nearly £300 per ton, and in New Zealand nearly £000 per ton.

The other important feature which almost entirely destroys the analogy between the postal service and railway traffic i.s that in the lalter about ninety per cent, of the charge is swallowed up in the cost of transit alone, whereas in the postal service 90 per cent, of the charge is spent upon other services altogether. These ■ put shortly are the principle reasons why the " universal fare aimed at by Mr Vaile is an impossibility. As [ have already said, I propose in my next letter to deal with those other features in Mr Vaile's proposals which I deem objectionable.—l ain, yours faithfully,