MAIN ROAD AT TAITA

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 157, 30 March 1926, Page 8

MAIN ROAD AT TAITA

BITUMINISED SURFACE WANTED I HOLD-UP OF WORK PRIME MINISTER APPROACHED The burning question in the Epuni Riding at present is the non-appearance of a bituminous surface on the main road at Taita. Ratepayers are indignant at the delay in pushing ahead with the work, one of them stating yesterday that “they resembled a ping-pong ball bouncing between the Hutt County Council and the City and Suburban Highways Board.”

In accordance with a resolution passed at a recent indignation meeting sof ratepayers of the Epuni Riding, Hutt County, a large deputation representing the Hutt County Council and the Taita Ratepayers’ Association yesterday waited upon the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Works (Right Hon. J. G. Coates), relative to the state of the portion of the main east arterial road between the northern boundary of the Lower Hutt Borough and the Taita Gorge. The deputation subsequently interviewed Councillor R. A. Wright and the city engineer (Mr. A. J. Paterson) and were assured that the road would be properly maintained throughout the winter months

Mr. W H. Field, M.P. for Otaki, in Introducing the deputation said that the road was in an unsatisfactory state and expressed the hope thqt something would be done before the winter set in.

Mr. T H. Cooper (secretary of the Taita Ratepayers’ Association), said that the state of the road was a burning question in the vicinity of Taita, and the ratepayers thought that they should look to the Prime Minister, as Minister of Public Works, for some little assistance in getting the City and Suburban Highways Board to move in the matter.

Like a Ping-pong Ball. Mr. H. Foley, one of the Taita ratepayers, remarked that they were in the unfortunate position of being like a ping-pong ball bouncing between the Hutt County Council and the City and Suburban Highways Board. He explained that when the road was handed over to the board it was understood that a bitumen surface would be laid almost immediately. Later, however, the board intimated that it would not proceed with the work of bituminising the surface until the one mile and three-quar-ters of road between the northern boundary of the Hutt Borough Council and the Taita Gorge was completely put in alignment. Mr. Foley explained that the road was prepared for the bitumen, and it was then handed over to the City and Suburban Highways Board. The board, however, informed the Hutt Conntv Council that the Pub-

c Works Department was holding up the work. The Minister: How is that? Mr. F. W. Furkert, engineer-in-chief and Under-Secretary of the Public Works Department, replied that the road was about 16 feet out from the centre of alignment. The Main Highways Board had not laid it down that the road should be 66 feet wide. It had been found that owing to a previous mistake the metal had not been placed in the proper centre of the road, and it was desired that this mistake should be rectified. So far as he could see, the hold-up was the fault of the City Council, who carried out the paving work on behalf of the City and Suburban Highways Board. Mr. Furkert thought the alignment should be put right, but it was not necessary to delay the laying of portion of the bitumen on that part of the road which was in order.

Mr. Foley said that the ratepayers felt that the road was carrying more that its share of the motor traffic, and yet they could get nothing done. There were portions; of the road on wliich the clay was coming through. They felt justified in asking the Prime Minister to see that the right thing was done.

County Engineer’s Proposals.

Mr. A. 11. Benham, engineer to the Hutt County Council, explained the position in bo tar as the council was concerned. The road, he said, had been handed over to the City and Suburban Highways Board to tie bituminised. Just prior to the work being started it was found that ttie present formation ot portion ot tlie road was not in alignment. The first 35 chains of the road had been responsible for a cessation in negotiations for the work. The only portion that should be held up by the Highways Board was that 35 chains, for from that point northwards the road was practically in order for paving. Of llie-35 chains there were approximately seven chains formed to the correct width. Thus, there were only some 28 chains on which it would not be possible to put an 18ft. bitumen

strip in the centre or the road. His first suggestion was that the work proceed, and that over the 28 chains mentioi.ed onlv a 12ft track or thereabouts be laid, the remaining width io be done later, when the reformation had consolidated. An alternative suggestion was that 14ft. of bitumen surface be placed on one side of the centre line, and 4ft. on the other Whilst not wishing to go against the Public Works Department, the council considered that either of these alternatives would permit of the work being done forthwith.

Main Highways Board’s Approval. Mr Furkert said that if the (tligument' had been fixed up when the mistake was pointed out the- work oi paving cotiid have been done then. Ihe Main Highways Board had been agreeable to the City and Suburban Highwavs Board carrying out Dlr Benham s suggestion for the laying of 12ft. pt bitumen surface over 128 chains when it was made. Another winter should not be allowed to pass without having the bitumen laid. So far as lie could see the City and Suburban Highways Board could commence the construction of the road immediately in the manner suggested bv Mr. Benham. Surely the whole of the work should not be .shelved because 28 chains were out of alignment. The Minister: Well, what has all this to do with me? Where do I come in? Mr. A. I. Mackay (chairman of the Hutt County Council) : I was. invited to come and see vou. The Taita ratepayers would like von to rectify the matter. The Minister: Well, what do you want me to do? The Mam Highways Board, the Hutt County Council, and the Ratepayers’ Association all agree with Mr. Benham’s proposal, sol why not go ahead? On being advised that the engineer to the Highways Board was the stumbling block, Mr. Coates expressed the opinion that he was an employee and should carry out instructions. In replv to the Under-Secretarv for Public Works, Mr, Benham said that it was the first intimation he had received of Ills second suggestion being acceptable to the Main Highways Board. , , ~ Mr. Benham explained that when the City and Suburban Highways Board took ove’r control of the road it was arranged that in order to expedite matters correspondence between the Main Highways Board and the Suburban Board relative to the road should pass direct between these authorities, and consequently he, as engineer to the council, knew nothing of what had taken place. The Minister suggested that the deputation approach the City and Suburban Highways Board, as it appeared that the quarrel was with that body, and not the. Minister of Public Works. “What vou ask me to do,” continued Mr, Coates, “is.to act as an intermediary and approach the board. . Well, I suppose the Minister of Public Works has some duties,” added Mr. Coates, amidst laughter. . Mr. Foley: We raised a loan of £45,000 to cover the cost of this and other works. Mr. Field: I would like to see the 18ft. done. The Minister: Supposing this Surfacing is not gone on with, who is responsible for the upkeep? Mr. Mackay replied that the responsibility Inv with the City and Suburban Highways Board. Addressing Mr. Furkert, the speaker added: “I should like' to have a clear understanding with Mr; Furkert before going. What are you prepared'to do on that ISft?”

Talk Of No Use. Mr. Coates interposed that talk did not do any good. He asked hew much of the road was being constructed while they were talking about \ it. The matter was one for the City amd Suburban Highways Board. Mr. Field: Can we put down the 18ft. at once or must we put only 12ft. down ?

The Minister said he would like to inspect the road if he had an opportunity of doing so. Amidst furthei laughter, Mr. Coates added that he could not go out with a wheelbarrow and shovel himself to put the road right, but he suggested that the deputation go along to the City and Suburban Highways Board. Mr. Field: They would not recognise us, with the exception of Mr. Mackay, who is a member. . Mr. Coates informed the deputation that if representations from them to the Highways Board were unsuccessful he could ask some of the members to come along and see him.' The deputation later waited on Councillor R. A. Wright and Mr. A. J_. Paterson (the city engineer and engineer to the Suburban Highways Board). Mr. Wright, replying in the absence of the chairman of the City and Suburban Highways Board (Mr. C. J. B. Norwood) said it was impossible to have the road bituminised this season without taking the plant off the Day’s Bay road. This, of course, was' impracticable, and all the council could promise was to put the road in proper order. Mr. Wright said that a start would be made with the repair work to-mor-row (Wednesday), and he assured the deputation that the road would be properly maintained with a metal formation throughout the winter months.