THE ROAD FUNDS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 23, 28 January 1928, Page 19

THE ROAD FUNDS

BOARD ON TOUR SOUTH ISLAND HIGHWAYS The Main Highways Board is at present making its second official visit and tour- of inspection of the main highways of the. South Island. Monday night was spent at Waimate. The chairman of the County Council (Mr.: H. B. S: Johnstone) voiced appreciation of.; the Main Highways Act, and the manner in which it was being ad-' ministered by the board. He did not wish the members of the board to think that what he was going to ask was in the nature of a grouse, but he desired information on the following three questions:— (1) Why is'it that in some instances construction works are subsidised on a greater ratio than pound for pound? In certain instances a considerably greater subsidy than pound for pound had been given. other counties. He did not want to hear the old answer: "Because you are such a rich county," as this did not affect the principle at all. (2) By resolution' of the board, he understood that1 in boroughs of 6000 population and'over, county main highways contiguous to sucli boroughs were to be subsidised at a rate of two-thirds of a mile'for every 1000 of population above 6000, on. a. proportion of £3 for £I.' He would like to *now the reason for this favourable treatment, as he . considered it was merely taking money which should be put on to roads carrying "through highway traffic," and giving it to roads carrying "internal '^traffic around such cities and boroughs. He understood that the Highways Act was laid down to assist counties in dealing with the problem of "through" traffic, and not for the purpose of providing'high-grade pavements adjacent to cities. ; (3), WEat subsidy they were likely to receive in, the future on construction and maintenance, as on this important point rested the whole policy of the council in respect. of the standard' of maintenance that could.be undertakenf THE CHAIRMAN'S REPLIES. In reply, Mr. Furkert Baid:— (1) Poundfor pound is the statutory subsidy on all construction works; but the board had power, where conditions warranted, to increase - the amount of this subsidy/ Some counties had lowvalued land, big rivers, bush, and excessive ...rainfall) and these were factors which determined the board's policy in respect, of such- increased subsidies on construction. (2) It was not a question altogether of '.'throughV'traffic. He pointed out that a huge number of motorists resided in. the cities, and they-desired a return from the tax - collected. He instanced one county adjacent to Wellington, where city traffic was using the county roads at least one "day a week, if not seven, and, therefore, it was necessary to assist these counties in the method proposed. Where the traffic existed there was wear and tear. Mr. Johnstone said that this did not dispose of his contention that this was internal''traffic'!./'' ■_-,"', Mr. Furkert replied that they were paying the petrol tax. (3) The board was unable to state definitely wha.t the amount of the subsidy would be "on the proposed additional main highways until the counties had fully submitted their requirements. . Mr. Wynyard (motorists' representative,.on. the board)- briefly outlined the board's attitude'on the question of the £,3 for £.1. subsidy on roads around larger boroughs. Very few motorists in New Zealand were' "long-distance" men, but used, the roads to a very large degree around the cities. The roads in the small boroughs would bo included under the Highways Act.