AORANGI BRIDGE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 5, 4 December 1928, Page 2

AORANGI BRIDGE

BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS. DEPUTATION TO BOROUGH COUNCIL. Efforts to reach an agreement concerning the basis of contributions by the local bodies concerned towards the cost of the new bridge, to be erected over the Oroua River at Aorangi, have extended over many months, and on each occasion that a conference has been held it has proved abortive, some stumbling block being encountered, until now there is a strong agitation for a commission to apportion the cost. As the result of the Main Highways Board’s rate of subsidy failing to reach expectations, the Palmerston North Borough Council has been called upon to step into the breach created, and a deputation representing, the Oroua, Kairanga and Manawatu County Councils waited on tho Borough Council last night to place the position before it, with the consequence that tho latter body finally resolved to once more urge the claims of the bridge to a more liberal portion of the funds of the Main Highways Board, pending further action. The estimated cost of a two-way bridge, with a footway, is £15,000. REPORT ON CONFERENCE. Reporting on the conference of local bodies held at Feilding, recently, in connection with the matter, Cr. Eliott, who represented the Palmerston North Borough Council, stated that apparently the attitude taken up was that the Palmerston North Borough Council should join as a contributing body, or a commission would bo asked for. The Main Highways Board would only contribute £2 for £1 up to £IO,OOO, although for any sum over that amount it would pay £3 for £l. Evidently, when tho estimates were first drawn up, it was expected that a subsidy on the latter basis would be available to cover tho whole cost. The difference amounted to £BOO, which tho Palmerston North Borough Council was asked to contribute. The Pohangina and Kiwitea County Councils were not included in the "apportionment, and the opinion had been expressed that, if Palmerston North paid a share, the latter of the two counties mentioned would act similarly. Strong evidence was adduced at the, conference in support of the contention that the Palmerston North Borough Council should contribute on account of its traffic using the bridge, being third on the list. Tho Aorangi bridge was on one of the main roads from Feilding and a good deal of trade came over that route to Palmerston North. There were two chief reasons, however, why the Palmerston North Borough should not contribute. The first was that the Highways Board had given local bodies adjacent to towns subsidies of £3 for £1 for the maintenance of highways because of the proximity of the rural areas, and for the very reason of meeting expenditure of the nature proposed. Another argument was that Palmerston North contributed to the cost of the Awahuri bridge, which was the main outlet to the west, including Feilding. In the near future, the bridge would have to be replaced, and Palmerston North would have to pay its share. Feilding did not contribute anything towards that bridge. DEPUTATION STATES CASE. The chairman of the Oroua Couirty Council. Mr A. Campbell, briefly stated the objects of the deputation, which then met the council. He commented that his county had carried the burden of the bridge for about 40 years. The Aorangi bridge had been a vital factor so far as the progress of Palmerston North and district was concerned. The local bodies affected were most anxious t-o avoid a costly . commission on the matter, and wished the Palmerston North Borough Council to contribute. AfteT considerable efforts, they had reached a basis of agreement, and ir tho Highways Board had granted a subsidy of £3 for £l. the assistance of Palmerston North would not have been sought at all. However, that basis of support had not been forthcoming, the rate of subsidy being £2 for £1 up to £IO.OOO, and £3 for £1 thereafter Grave difficulties had been encountered in restraining some of those vitally interested from setting up a commission, because the question had been consistently asked why was Palmerston North no* a contributor. Mr Eliott had informed the conference distinctly at Feilding" that Palmerston North would not contribute, but the speaker thought he would endeavour to dissuade the Borough Counci} from that attitude before an expensive commission had to he set up and a traffic .tally taken. He had thought it advisable to wait until some measure of relief had been sought from the Palmerston North body. . Mr Jos. Batchelar (chairman of the Kairarga County Council) said that the Aorangi bridge was undoubtedly a great benefit to Palmerston North, especially with through buses every half-hour. They wanted to avoid a commission and it was only right that Palmerston Noith should be called upon to assist. The chairman of the Manawatu County Council, Mr W. Barber, stated that "his body had contributed all through, and ho thought it was in the interests of all concerned *o avoid the setting up of a commission. The most direct route to Palmerston North from Feilding lay over the Aorangi bridge. If a commission sat not only was it possible that Palmerston North might have *o contribute more than had been asked, but the Highways Board might reduce its subsidy. . . , Mr Campbell stated that the last traffic tally was taken three years ago, and a new one would be considerably to the detriment of Palmerston North. If it contributed a suitable amount, he might be able to return to his council and avoid a commission.

HIGHWAYS BOARD’S ATTITUDE. Cr. Hodgens: Is the Main Highways Board not contributing to the extent that you expected? If that is so, we would be assisting it to dodge the counties. Rather should we assist them to force the hands of the Highways Board. , ~ Cr. Clausen: If we contribute to the Aorangi bridge we should not have to do the same for the Awahuri bridge. Tho Mayor advised the deputation that the Palmerston North Borough Council would consider the matter and advise them of its decision in due The deputation then withdrew. ('Wo can’t shut our eyes to the fact that Palmerston North derives a great deal of benefit from the bridge,’ commented His Worship, “but whether wo are justified or not in contributing is another matter. My own impression is that all routes lead to Palmerston North and wo must tap all of the surrounding districts. It is equitable that we should seriously consider-the matter, of contributing, though not necessarily, to the extent of £BOO. Tho whole point hinges on the question of what great direct benefits are derived.” , , , . Cr. Fitzherbert contended that, continuing the Mayor’s argument, one mi girt include bridges at Rangiotu and Levin. The Highways Board ought to provide the money. It was an absolute fallacy to say that it was not a main arterial road. If a commission could make the Highways Board a contribute

ing party, he favoured a commission. Cr. Hodgens suggested that the Highways Board was endeavouring to push the counties into .a corner to got Palmerston North to contribute, and pressure should be brought to bear on the board. Cr. Tremaine said he was satisfied that, if a commission sat, Palmerston North would be brought in as a contributing body. BOROUGH COUNCIL’S DECISION. Cr. Hodgens moved that the Highways Board again be approached to reconsider the basis of its subsidy, and that tho Palmerston North Borough Council assist in the representations to that effect. Cr. Eliott moved an amendment that a voluntary contribution of £4OO bo placed on next year’s estimates. The Mayor considered that more pressure should be brought to bear on the Main Highways Board, and that in the event of efforts in that direction proving abortive, tne council further consider making a contribution towards tho cost of the bridge. The amendment was lost, and Cr. Hodgens’ resolution carried.