ROAD TO ROTORUA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22211, 11 September 1935, Page 16

ROAD TO ROTORUA

r' - ; MAMAKU , HILL IiOL'TE GOODS SERVICE LICENCES SUBMISSIONS IN OPPOSITION ■ [BE! TELEGRAPH—OWN CORRESPONDENT] ROTORUA, Tuesday Several submissions in opposition to tin? granting of goods service licenres over the Mamaku Hill route into the Matamata and Waikato Counties were, placed before the No. 4 Transport Licensing Authority during its sitting in Kotorua to-day by interested parties from the Matamata and Waikato districts. The members of the authority are Messrs. R F. Gambrill, chairman, J. Cliff McCullock and C. Matthews. In a written submission placed before the authority, Mr. M. E. Fitzgerald, engineer of the Matamata County Council, stated that at the time of the railway strike about 1920, and before the goods service by boat via Tauranga had been established, wet weather rendered the Mamaku route impassable, and as a result Rotorua was isolated and virtually cut off from food and other essential supplies. Business men at Rotorua offered the Main Highways Board as a cash contribution £llsO toward the cost of constructing an allweather road over the hill. High Maintenance Oost Various alternative schemes wera considered by the -Main Highways Board and the Matamata County Council, and eventually a surface of weak rock gravel and sand suitable for car. traffic and emergency goods trafic was constructed at a cost of £40.000. When the road was under construction . the Matamata County Council caused. this length to be classified as class V.. and it was subsequently altered against the advice of the county council on December 19, 1929, and all goods services had been established since that date. Mr. Fitzgerald then referred to the evidence which he had given before the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority in September, . 1934, when he stated that hard blue metal, obtainable only by rail, cost as much as 25s a cubic yard delivered at parts Qf the route, and, although the motor traffic' , barely exceeded 100 vehicles a day, including about 80 per cent of cars", it was costing in places as much as £4OO to £SOO a mile per annum for maintenance and ascertained loss of thick- : • ness since its surface was constructed five years ago. Blue metal incorporated in the surface had not proved entirely satisfactory, and a system of "bitu-* minous treatment was being tried ouc in an effort to improve the surface and also reduce maintenance costs. The/ same difficulties applied in a varying or lesser degree to the whole of the 54 miles between Cambridge and Rotorua. 00-ordinatlon Board's Viiew Referring to the decisions; of the Transport Co-ordination iJoard in refusing the appeals of Fleming and Andrews, Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that, apart from stressing that Rotorua was adequately served by rail and by road from Tauranga. the board had also considered that the Mamaku Hill route was not suited to continuous heavy goods traffic, and he submitted, that this opinion .could. Jiot be.disre- y garded. v r • The case was very similar withregard to the Auckland-Futaruru-" Taupo route, continued Mr. Fitzgerald, and what had been said aboufc t the Mamaku Hill applied in general to the 20 miles between Lichfield and the Matamata-Taupo County boundary. He also claimed that it was generally recognised thjit' some operators were holding licences to-day which were' wrongly obtained, owing to lack ot proper opposition to their claims. The authority should also give considers tion to the interests cf local carriers; who were essential to the farming community in the Matamata County. Many of these men had given up'their right to roving commissions in the hope that in return they would secure the carting to and from their local railway station. Similar submissions were made. by Mr. O. Nicholson, representing the Waikato and Waipa County Councils, and on behalf of the Matamata Licensed Carriers' Association, Mr. Mason, of Matamata, expressed the opinion that the authority should fully consider the rights of these local carriers, and, if other area and route licences were granted in the county, should so restrict them that they would not interfere with carrier? already in the county districts.