ROADS AND BRIDGES

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 56, 8 March 1922, Page 8

ROADS AND BRIDGES

COST OF MAINTENANCE

ALLOCATING PROPORTIONS,

In the course of its letter to the Minister of Public Works on the question of contributions from the city towards the cost of upkeep of country roads, the City.Council points out that if existing awards aro any guide, the city can look forward to a minimum charge of 40 per cent, of tho cost of construction and maintenance of the main north roads, and the bridges existing or to be made thereon, as far as Paekakariki on the one side and the top of the Bimutaka Hill on the other.

Contending that the existing method of apportioning the cost. of construction and maintenance of roads and bridges is unfair, the letter refers to the awards of Mr. Haselden in 1902 and of Mr. Short in 1913, respecting the Hutt-road. The award of Mr. Haselden was as follows:— Wellington city. 7-21ths; Onslow, 5-24ths; Pctone, 7-24ths; Lower Hutt, 5-24ths. The Hutt County, which then included the Makara County, paid nothing whatsoever towards the Huttroad. In his report in June, 1913, Mr. Short, an official of the Public Works Department, based hisi award wholly on traffic, and his report, which was given offoct to by the Government, was as fol-lows:-Wellington City, 38 percent.; Potono Borough, 18 per cent. ; Lower Hutt Borough, 14 per cent.; Makara County, 12 per cent. ; Hutt County, 8 per cent.; Onslow- Borough, 6 per cent. ; Johnsonville Town Board. 2 per cent. ; Upper Hutt Town Board, 1| per cent.; Eastbourne Borough. | per cent.; Miramar Borough, j per cent. "On traffic tallies alone," says the letter, "the Commissioner fixed Wellington's quota at 43 por cent:, but subsequently allowed a set off to Wellington of 5 per cent, because of the large amount of traffic that went to the wharves. This award totally ignored the fact that the duty of maintaining this road was primarily upon the local bodies in whose districts the various portions of tha roads were situate. If we compare this award as regards Wellington, exclusive of Onslow and Miramar, with that of Mr! Haselden's in 1902, we fiud that, while Wellington had in 1902 to pay 29 1-6 per cent, of the cost for a road extending one and threequarter miles from the city, it had in 1913 to pay 38 per cent, for a road extending 5i miles from the city. The Commissioner further ignored the fact that for certain parts of Hutt and Makara counties, and for the boroughs of the Hutt Valley and for the Upper Hutt Town Board this road was the only means of road access, and was one of the largest ■ factors in creating the unimproved value of the settlers' property." The letter goes on to suggest that the. Government should, before committing itself to legislation next year dealing with the main roads, obtain and consider carefully the views of experienced members of local bodies and of the leading municipal engineers throughout the Dominion. It must also be remembered that wan-ants once made for construction .are permanent charges on the local authorities affected. "Experience," the communication continues, "shows in Wellington that suburban,areas such as the Lower Hutt, Trentham, Heretaunga, Silverstream, and Upper Hutt will expand more quickly and increase in value more quickly than settled areas. There is no-means of adjusting these liabilities, and it is quite certain that no means can be obtained to make these adjustments fairly. Improved methods of transport and improved roads ,will accentuate this tendency. The Borough of Dannevirke has already addressed the Government on the question. The same difficulty exists to our certain knowledge in Duneclin."