NEW TAMAKI BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 34, 9 February 1914, Page 6

NEW TAMAKI BRIDGE.

APPORTIONING THE COST. AUCKLAND CITY OBJECTIONS. The Commissioner Mr W. 5. Short (Under Secretary for Public Works) continued taking evidence this morning in connection with the matter of apportioning the cost of the new bridge at Tamaki. Mr. G. W. Basley, for Manukau County Council, called" the caretaker of Panmure Bridge, who stated than on tlie 26th of January, 40 motor car 3 went across the bridge from Panmure towards Howick and returned at night. On the 29th of January, 2.) motor care crossed the bridge. Mr. Basley said he understool that the 40 cars contained people going to a picnic at Bnckland beach. In answer to "Mr. Stanton (City Council) witness said that ac the motor ears returned by the same road he believed they visited, some resort in the district on the other side of the bridge. '<■■■' '« THE MAYOR'S STATEMENT. C. J. Parr (Mayor of Auckland) deposed that as far as the bridge was concerned it was not of more value to the city proper than the surrounding districts. It wa3 really one city population, the boundaries being merely paper ones. The city was the sole registering authority for motor cars from the North ; Cape to Hamilton. The £2 annual i license fee for cars for hire was dis- I tributed pro rata with all local authori-! ties within five miles of the city of ; Auckland. He believed two men's time \ was accupied in registering and regulating the motor traffic. The taxi-cab 3 get their livings to a great extent outside the city bou»daries. The question to be considered was, where the scheme of contributions for bridges was to cease. Motor cars were hired to go to Taupo and private cars ran all over the province. It was an extremely serious matter if the city Ttrae to be asked to contribute to every bridge throughout the province, because motor care, that started from the city, ran over them. The Tamaki bridge was vital to the residents on the other side, but it would not in any way enhance tho value of city property. The Graftou Bridge, which cost £33,000 to £34 ; 000, was used by the farmers from the east side and yet they were not asked to contribute in any way. The city was spending about a quarter of a million on its main roads, but settlers had not been asked to contribute towards the cost. Mr. Parr pointed out that if there were a Greater Auckland there would be no question of the liability of the outeide boroughs, which were uot now cited in the case. If the bridge ceased to exist it would not seriously affect the city. Witness also gave details of the expenditure upon the main streets in the city, which were used by settlers when in town. The City Council had contributed to the Whau bridge, but the city cemetery was on the other side, also the waterworks.

By Mr Basley: Manukau County did not get a portion of the motor fees collected by the city. That was outside the five mile radius. W. X Bush ( En-gin eer to the City of Auckland) stated the Tamaki Bridge would not have any appreciable effect on the value of property in the city. The Mangere bridge, to which the City also contributed, had close 6ettlemeut right up close to it, and was almost the principal pleasure route by motor cars from the City. H. W. Wilson. (Town Clerk, Auckland, stated that during last financial year the total revenue derived from motor care, cycles, and license fees, was £358 15/. The total fees collected on all vehicles was £1863. From that, 10 per cent was deducted for administrative costs, and .-CS6B 10/7 was distributed on a population 'basis between all local bodies within a five miles' radius of the city. (Evidence ■was also given by John Dempeey (chairman Remuera Board). George Wilkinson (Ellerelie), and George Frederick Campbell (Tamaki West).