PORIRUA CROSSING

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 143, 13 December 1935, Page 13

PORIRUA CROSSING

ELIMINATION COST

MAKARA COUNCIL'S ATTITUDE

That the Makara County Council would give no subsidy towards the elimination of the level crossing at Porirua was unanimously decided on at a meeting of the council today.

In a communication received by the council, the Main Highways Board pointed out that it was intended to carry out a system of the elimination of level crossings throughout the Dominion. The elimination of the Porirua crossing was the first to be carried out in the Wellington area. Some years ago, the Makara County Council had offered £1000 towards the rendering safe of the crossing, the money to be paid in yearly instalments'over a five-year period, and the board wished to ascertain whether the offer was still open. . ' ■

Mr. R. G. Mexted, who presided, stated that the offer was made " ten. years ago. Since then, things had altered considerably. There had been the imposition of the petrol tax, and its increase to lOd a gallon. The cost of upkeep of roads had increased, and general prosperity had diminished. A NATIONAL ISSUE. He moved that a letter should be sent to the Main Highways Board including the following terms:—(a) That the elimination of level crossings was a national issue; (b) that, irrespective of locality, if contribution from local bodies was necessary it should be fixed at a uniform sum; (c) that the incidence of taxation had altered greatly over the- last ten years; and (d) that other'commitments, increased road upkeep, etc.,. would render the extending of the original offer impossible. - . . Councillor E. Windley, in seconding the motion, said that he had been one of those who had supported the council's offer. The council had then been greatly concerned about the number of fatal accidents accurring on the crossing. Things had been very different then, however. It was before the days of the petrol tax, and also before the tremendous motor traffic of today.

"I have changed my view entirely," he said. "The elimination of the crossing is definitely aimed at protecting the lives of the road users, and I think that they should pay for that protection. I suppose lam as much concerned about the safety of the people as anyone else, but as roaa users we should expect to pay for our own safety. Why should the taxpayers in the county who do not use the roads have to pay for the protection -of all those people who do?"

Mr. Mexted's motion was carried unanimously without further discussion.