WHAT BASIS?

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11011, 25 January 1926, Page 5

WHAT BASIS?

ar T 00-VTION OF HEAVY AW TRAFFIC FEES. , TrI7I? FNCE SUGGESTS APPOR- ► 5pM’ EKE * tioxment m]. e equitable method of allocating ~e avv traffic license fees collected by ‘ Af bodies in tins Highways district, A the problem discussed by repre- " natives of the AVaiapu, Uawa, 5? n ,I and AVaikohu County Councils fl V the Gisborne Borough Council + the Municipal Chambers on Satur- „ SL morning. Tho meeting was pre•Ll over by the chairman of the Highways cLncil, Mr. G. W. Albertson. SYSTEMS OUTLINED. Outlining the object of the contVrence, the chairman stated that, + present, fees amounting to about V ; ioOO were being collected by the Cook County Council, and the qxiestiou to deckle was the basis of a fair allocation of tho fees to the local bodies whoso roads the % traffic used. The first system that had. been considered was distribution of fees in proportion to capital value, but it was seen that this would operate m‘uitnbly on account of one or two counties having an exceptionally big valuation. Another method ot distribution was on 'the mileage basis, according to the number of miles travelled” by traffic through each conntv and borough Yh-' G. M. Reynolds: Has a mile- „, y ' o basis of distribution proved a failure? ft, was understood that this method should be tried for a year and if then found inaccurate and inadequate, some other system should be introduced. j The chairman: It is questionable if the mileage system is equitable. Take for instance two lorries, one six tons, tho other two tons. The heavier ’vehicle would d 0.., infinitely more damage to the roads, although tho lighter machine might travel a co-eater mileage compared with the six ton lorry in the same number of hoAgA/ “W/int is the-mileage basis?” inquired Mr. L. T. Bernard. The chairman replied that, under this system, each lorry driver would bo required to keep a record of every mile he travelled through a. county or borough. This he was compelled to do by the Act, and the fees collected would be allocated in proportion to tho number of miles traversed in each district. In his opinion, however, it would he a hopeless tangle to unravel as somt drivers might 1 fail to keep a record; while others probably could not do so. ON .MAINTENANCE BASIS. Mr. Turr.ard suggested that the amount of maintenance spent annually by each local body on its roads' would furnish a basis for distribution of the fees and the records as to maintenance would be easily ascertainable. Distribution of fees on the maintenance basis was approved by Mr. G. 'Wildish, who deprecated the mileage basis on the grounds that to the ordinary lorry driver the mileage travelled in different counties would be largely guesswork, whereas, on the maintenance system, the amounts spent yearly by local bodies on the upkeep' of their roads were readily available. The chairman also favored this system. and stated that the local body which kept its roads np to the highest standard would materially receive the biggest “cut” out of the fees. And. after all, it was the motor traffic that was paying for the upkeep of the roads. Mr. E. B. Boland submitted that the maintenance basis would be satisfactory when all the roads in the district were metalled, but it would operate inequitably on counties whose roads were not metalld, as instanced by part of the Cook and Uawa Counties. It would not be fair to these counties until the roads were metalled. _ a&g Burnard contended that the proportion could be varied so as to provide for counties-where the metalling of the roads bad not yet been completed. Air. Boland pointed out that Uawa roacls, being in a central county, won id have to carry a great deal of foreign traffic from other districts, and tliev had to provide good roads for this traffic without receiving

commensurate icturn. Mr. Spence: The through traffic affects all counties. The chairman: Where a county is subjected to through traffic the roads have to be maintained and,therefore, counties have to spend more m maintenance and thus get a bigger •■cut” from traffic license fees. Mr. Boland suggested that an amicable agreement should he arrived at meantime until the roacls were all metalled. The chairman said that the maintenance charges of each county and borough could he taken up to December 31 in each year, and the fees collectable up to this date, and the percentage each district would ieceive worked out on that bisis. On this basis, the division would be—Cook County 39 per cent; Gisborne Borough 22 per cent; Waikohu County 14.5 per cent.; Waiapu 14.5 ocr cent; Uawa 0.7 per cent, Mata knoa 3.1 per cent. The total amount of fees was only £1000: sd that the division would not result m any county or borough receiving a very large amount. COMBINED SYSTEM SUGGESTED. Mr. Burnard suggested that the distribution should be ® of the combination of capital valuation find the maintenance spent by • ncflfjEcal body, thus taking a mean between the two systems On this basis the proportion would be as follows: Gisborne Borough 21.0 pe cent; Cook County 34 per cent . Waikohu 18 per cent.; Waiapu 16 per sent; Uawa 6.5 per cent; Matakaoa 4 per cent. . Alter further discussion. Mr. vuilard proposed, and Mr. L. H. Maclean seconded, ‘‘that local bodies be recommended that distribution of the fees he made annually on the mean basis of the cost of maintenance and the capital valuation of the dis IH Mr Bcvnolds moved, and the chairman seconded, pro forma, an amendment, to the effect that basis of distribution he on the maintenance figures only. . ... ' Further informal discussion unclosed that either system was acceptalde to the conference, and finally the amendment suggesting allocation of foes in proportion to mamtenanc expenditure was carried by three votes to two. Local bodies will no require to confirm this recommendation