Highway Maintenance

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 183, 22 July 1926, Page 6

Highway Maintenance

LARGER SUBSIDY WANTED.

HIGHWAY HOARD CONTRIBUTIONS. Wellington, July 21. A discussion which was commenced in regard to the allocation of maintenance charges for main highways at trie New Zealand Counties Conference to-day ended in a decision to ask a greater general subsidy instead of trying to provide special grants to counties in respect to parts of main highways winch little served the country itself.

Mr W. K. Dalrymple (Rangitikei) moved the following remit:—That the rate ot subsidy from the Main Highways Board for the maintenance of main highways be based on the principle that a highway that carries a greater percentage of foreign traffic shall receive a greater percentage of subsidy, witli a minimum subsidy of 50 per cent, of the cost in respect of any main highway. Instances were given by delegates of the remarkable increase in the cost, of maintenance due to motor traffic. Costs were shown as having increased over varying short periods from £25 a mile to £l5O a mile, and from £4O to £144. An Ashburton delegate said that of 139 miles of highways, 80 miles were north and south and carried chiefly through traffic. The other 59 were of use to the county and they were glad of, the Highways Board’s contribution to the cost.

The chairman (Mr A. E. Jull): Tt has heen said that the tendency of the Highways Board is to be tender to motorists and to disregard the ratepayer. (Cries of “No.”) It has been said. I want to assure you that it is not so. To begin with, so far as the revenue account of the Highways Board is concerned, with the exception of £35,000 contributed by the State and intended to be devoted to maintenance to make for good roads, the whole of the revenue comes iron, the motor tax. Therefore it is essential that motorists, as well as counties be taken into ideration. 1 ask you to considr enormous amount of continuous ‘ssification of 6000 miles of roads, if the remit i s given effect to. Every district has a story that it has a piece of road hat serves everything but the county iself. Traffic that hogan and ended in the county has gone for ever. Al! traffic is now through traffic, more or less. Some additional contribution may be looked for. but 1 want an expression of your opinion. Will it not give more benefit to counties generally to have a uniform increase in the contribution on ail roads that that wo should select a few miles of reads on the outside edges of counties for consideration ? Every county put up the story to the Highways Board that its road from N to G is of no use to the ratepayers. Every county has these unpayable odds and ends of roads. Is it desirable that we should make classifications? Is there not a county responsibility and a Government responsibility? if you subdivide the Southland County into twenty counties (and then some of them would be bigger than some existing counties), you would have 40 ends of roads that would be said not to pay. Special consideration is being given already in a very large number ot cases where counties say roads do not serve them. Tile Highways Board ma v be making mistakes, but it is doing something. Heavy traffic fees for the whole of New Zealand total £210,0(X), and the distribution is made so that cities and boroughs get a certain portion of that amount in addition to the tax on tyres and the motorists’ contribution to the maintenance of highways.

Mr E. Bowmar (Southrand) said that everybody could give instancea of enormous increases in the cost of roads. When the Highways Board was set up it tried to classify roads, lhe Act. when first passed, made it mandatory to classify highways, but it was soon s?en to’ be impossible. The road from Wellington to Auckland was a first-class road, hut it varied in construction and ran through districts of greatly varying value. It was not now mandatory to classify. The true principle was that the user should pay, but would it not be better to increase the percentage all round than to give special grants to bits of special ends of roads? What would be plain, fair and reasonable would be to ask'the Highways Board to press Parliament to give a greater subsidy than £T for £1 for all mam highway moved in that direction.

Mr Connor (Taranaki), seconding the motion, said that many of the speakers were talking of gravel roads, which were not economic in the circumstances, , l.n Taranaki this had been realised 20 years ago. Maintenance of £4OO a mile was common, even £5OO was reached. So tarred surfaces were put in by Taranaki, and if, was now generally recognised that bitumen was required. Those who persisted in l the use of macadam and gravel roads could not complain of increased costs of maintenance with reason. Alter further discussion the amendment was earned praunvaflv nnaniinously.