SEALING OF HIGHWAYS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25182, 13 May 1947, Page 6

SEALING OF HIGHWAYS

DELAY IN LOCAL BODIES’ PLANS HIGHWAYS BOARD’S SYSTEM BLAMED Commenting on a leading article in “The Press” yesterday about Rehabilitating the Highways,” the managing director of British Pavements (Canterbury), Ltd., Mr A. D. Paterson, said that those who depended on highway construction and maintenance as a business had read the article with somewhat mixed feelings. Questioning the statement that the estimates of Canterbury local bodies for their highway sealing programmes had been heavily pruned because continuing shortages of labour and materials made it doubtful whether more money could be spent, even if it were voted by the Main Highways Board, Mr Paterson contended that although for years surfaces had deteriorated, it was not correct to say that labour and materials were in short supply. As a matter of fact large stocks were available in 1945-46 but the work was not called for and much of the material was used in 1946-47, although a great deal of the labour formerly available was lost to other industries because it could not be used when it was available. Mr Paterson suggested that the real reason for failure to pursue a vigorous programme of highway sealing and maintenance was lack of co-ordina-tion between the financial and the engineering sides of the Main Highways Board. Though the engineers were no doubt willing to get on with the job, they were hindered because of delay on the financial side in making available votes for projected works. . The result was that firms working on road construction, having no continuity or certainty of programme. could not make long-term plans for the provision of materials which, in the circumstances, might or might not be required. A further difficulty, from the local bodies’ point of view, said Mr Paterson, was the Main Highways Board’s arbitrary limitation of the road-build-ing season to between October 1 and March 31. While he agreed that roadbuilding could not be carried on in unfavourable weather, any more than ploughing could be carried on on the farms, it was ludicrous to see work stopped in a fine April and May, such as we were now experiencing. The limitation of the season, combined with delay in making votes available, made it impossible for the local bodies to expend the money in the time; and the unexpended portion had to be handed back to the Main Highways Board and reapplied for the following season. The weather in October and November was more uncertain in Canterbury than in April and May; in fact, over the last 20 years more work had been done in April and May than in October and November. The season should be more elastic and the decision to proceed with road-building should be left to the discretion of the local bodies’ engineers. Estimates and grants were frequently too late to prepare the necessary materials for the work, let alone do the job in a specified time. The Public Works Department, added Mr Paterson, was well aware of this and that the money would not be spent.