COUNTY BRIDGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10976, 11 August 1921, Page 6

COUNTY BRIDGES

APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION. STRUCTURES CONDEMNED. Same time ago a report on the condition of the Pakuratahi and Stokes’ Valley bridges ™ made by an inspecting engineer of the Public Works Department to the Minister for Publio Works, and, as an outcome of that report, the bridges in question were condemned as being unsafe for traffic. Both bridges are in tile Hutt County Council; the former spans the Pakuratahi stream at the foot of tlie Bimutaka ranges, and the latter is situated in the gorge between Taita and Silverstream railway bridge. The Hutt County Council considered a, proposal for ‘the reconstruction of the bridges, and it was decided to have plans and specifications prepared, together with the estimated cost of carrying out the work. The bridges span waterways on the main road to Wai-

rarapv, and the Hutt County Council considered that Wellington city and Local bodies in juxtaposition to the road received a considerable portion of the benefit, and Should, therefore, contribute towards the cost of the new works. An application was made to the local bodies concerned for contributions ; a conference was held, but as no agreement could be reached the Government was applied to, and a commission was appointed to adjudicate on the merits and the preportion of cost that each local body concerned should contribute. Mr R. W. Holmes,, 1.5.0., late Government engineer-in-dhief, was appointed a Commission in respect to the matter, and 1 the first sitting was held yesterday at the-Hutt County Council Office. COST OF BRIDGES. It was explained that estimate cost of constructing a new bridge at 'Pakuratahi was £3SOI, and at Stoke’s Valley £2IOO, in addition to which it was proposed to put in a culvert at Miller’s oreek, which is also -on the main road, at an outlay of £4OO. Tlie Government had undertaken to pay £ for £ subsidy on the actual cost of the works, and the Hutt County Council suggested that the balance of the capital expenditure should be found by the imposing of the following levies: Wellington City Council, 40 per cent.; Hutt County Council, 30 per cent.; Petone Borough Council, 10 per cent.; Lower Hutt Borough Council, 10 per cent; Eastbourne Borough Council, 5 per cent.; and Upper Hutt Town Board, 5 per cent, LOCAL BODIES REPRESENTATIVES. The following represented the several local bodies concerned :—Hutt County Council, Messrs .1. Barclay (chairman), A. de Bath Brandon (solicitor to the county), and J. Oudby (overseer of works); City Council, Messrs W. H. Morton (city engineer), and J. O’Shea : (city solicitor); Petone Borough Council, Messrs R. C. Kirk (solicitor to the borough). and A. Cowie (engineer); Lower Hutt Council, Councillor J. Mitchell and Mr J. K. Fames (town clerk); Eastbourne Borough Council, Mr H. Buddie (solicitor to the borough), Councillor H. Short and Mr S. B. Dodge (general manager); Upper Hutt Town Board, Mr O. Mazengarb (solicitor to the board) and Commissioners T. Quinn and L. Daroux.

ADDRESS BY COUNSEL. AN IMPORTANT ROAD. Mr A. de Bathe Brandon, on behalf of the Hutt County' Council, explained why the other. local todies had been asked to contribute towards the construction of the bridges in question. He said the road was the great eastern thoroughfare, and with the great western, carried tlie whole of the road traffic ■from the . North Island that came to Wellington. The main basis for claiming contribution from the other bodies was that the great eastern road was of particular importance to Wellington city, and other adjacent local bodies. It was difficult to establish a basis on which to .determine the respective cont.iihu Lions., There was, however, justification for the application under the system that obtained under the Provincial Government. In those early days, before Wellington was made a town board the Provincial Government maintained the main roads. No rate was struck, the revenue being derived from toll-gates and territorial revenue from the sale of lands. Mr Brandon added that a. rate was not necessary then, as sufficient revenue was secured from the sale of land, the whole return from which was expended in tho maintenance of roads and their construction. He reviewed the history of the cutting-up of the Hutt county into boroughs and town boards, and suggested that the Upper Hutt Town Board and Eastbourne borough should be placed, on tho same basis as the Mangaroa, Epum, and Wain.ua ridings of the Huitt County Council, as they were dependent upon the road. Petone, Lower Hutt, and Wellington city were outside or adjacent to the Hutt county, and they, it was suggested, should be called upon to contribute such amounts as were considered equitable by ene Commission. The Makara county had a considerable portion of tho great western arterial road to look after, and its interest in the great eastern road was so small that it was not cited. The War ararapa local bodies had not been cited before the Commission as they had their own portion of the main road to look after on the other side of the RimUtaka mountains. To cite those bodies would be playing battledore and shuttlecock. In respect to the Pakuratahi, the main traffic over it was motor-cars going to Wairar-apa, more especially to race meetings, and it was contended that most of that traffic came from Wellington. As far as the Pakuratahi bridge was concerned it was of little or no domestic value ae there were only a few settlors living beyond it. Miller’s Cheek bridge was more of a domestic nature. Stoke’s Valley bridge was called upon to carry a large amount of traffic, and was of greater value, it was submitted, to the city, than to the Hutt County Council. It was suggested that the Stoke’s Valley bridge be removed to a different position and to do so the cost would be approximately £IOOO, but the estimated amount did not cover compensation for land taken, the closing of the old road, and the alteration of the present road frontages. - In answer to tho commissioner, Mr Brandon said there was little prospect of tho rand through Akataravva ever becoming a main thoroughfare to tho west coast, as it was as full of turns as the Paekakariki road, and the cost of making it suitable for the purpose would be too great. NO VALUE TO COUNTY. Mr J. Barclay (chairman of tho Hutt County Council) said that tlie county contributed £IOOO per annum towards the upkeep of the main Hutt road between Wellington and Petone and 12 per cent, towards that of tho Hutt bridge. The county had 44 miles of

roads to maintaiA, which ran through land of poor qnaiiity and of low rateable value. The local bodies had left the Hutt County to maintain the arterial roads, and if the Pakuratahi bridge fell down it would not be the ratepayers of tho Hutt county who would complain, but Wellington, particularly as, he contended, it was of vital importance to the city, and was practically of no value to the Hutt oounty as any sort of a track over the Rimutakas would suit its ratepayers.

To Mr O’Shea: The Hutt oounty considers that the city should pay towards the upkeep of the hutt road from the city tc the Rimutakas, but he did not think that the oounty should contribute towards the upkeep of Thorndon and Lambton quays. The land beyond the Pakuratahi bridge was of practically no value to the Hutt county from a rateable point of new, and it is questionable if the value of tho land on tlie Rimutakas was sufficient to construct the bridge. The county rate was 1 5-8 d °n the capital value of land, and was higher than the average rate imposed by the majority of counties. The aggregate loans of tlie county would not exceed £12,000. ■ To Mr Mitchell: The county did not contribute to the culverts in the Hutt borough which were constructed across the Hutt road. To say that 25 pei cent, of the wheeled traffic over the Hutt bridge was in the interests of the Hutt county was guesswork. Mr Kirk pointed out that the Hutt Bounty Council did not contribute towards the upkeep of the Hutt road through Petone, which was used to a large extent by residents of the Hutt county- Further questioned, Mr Barclay admitted that the Hutt oounty did not contribute towards tlie cost of reconstructing the Korokoro. bridge ; a work which was carried out by Petone. To Mr H. Buddie: The reason .for bringing in Eastbourne was that it was in the same position as the Wainul-o-omata and Epum ridings of the Hutt County Council, and it was believed that Eastbourne would benefit by farmers being drawn theTe to live for certain periods of tlie year. The question of contribution was, -however, being loft to tlie commissioner to determine. ’ To Mr Mazengarb: He was prepared to admit that the Wairarapa would derive a great benefit from a new bridge over tho Pakuratahi, and he contended that the city would .also benefit. Upper Hutt also derived, in his amnion, some benefit from the bridge', as it was the means of bringing business from the Wairarapa. ADDITIONAL £l5O REQUIRED. Mr E. F. Toogood, civil engineer, stated that he was acting for the Hutt County Council, and had prepared plans and specifications of the bridges. The reconstruction of the bridges mentioned was necessary, as the Minister for Public Works had totally condemned the Pakuratahi and Stokes Valley bridges, the condemnation being dated June 23rd, 1920. In addition to the estimated cost of the proposed bridge at Pakuratahi, it had been found that an additional amount would have to be allowed for training the river as it was, or would in the future, make inroads into tlie flank of the bridge if not protected. Tliat extra amount was set down at £l5O. To Mr O’S'hea: The culvert at Miller’s creek would cost approximately £4OO. Continuing his evidence, Mr Toogood said that the Hutt County Council had decided to pay 30 per cent, towards the reconstruction of these works. That proportion, it was felt, was the extreme extent that the county was called upon to contribute. It was a national work, and on a population basis Wellington city should provide 80 per cent., and the Hutt County’s proportion would be 3.6 per cent., and on a capital valuation 5.7 per cent. The Hutt County did not care where the remainder of the

money came from, but it riould be freely admitted that it was doing a laudable thing in contributing 30 pel cent, of the total cost. Mr O’Shea: Is not the Government contributing towards the i oost? Yes, 50 per cent. Mr Toogood said that the basis of contributions by t-he various bodies had not been drawn up on .scientific lines. Mr Morton: By rule of thumb? Mr Toogood: Yes. It was drawn out for the purpose of giving the Commissioner something to go upon. Mr Mitchell submitted the cost of culyerte constructed at Lower Hutt, which, be pointed out, were larger in dimensions and cost less than Hie estimated cost of culvert at Miller’a creek. Mr Toogood replied that the coat of the cement work had been estimated at £5 IQs per cubio yard, and if it was done for less than that amount, so much the better. The Commissioner: What benefit will Wainui-o-mata riding derive from the bridges? Sir Brandon: Very little. The Commissioner: Is not Eastbourne in a similar position. Mr Brandon: It is submitted that Eastbourne will derive a benefit, certainly indirectly if not directly. EASTBOURNE ROAD ACCESS. In answer to the Commissioner, Councillor Short stated that the road round the shores of the harbour to Eastbourne was mainly used by motorists for pleasure, and he did not think that there were more than half a dozen residents of Eastbourne who owned motor-cars. Most of the residents earned their livelihood in tlie city, and he considered that he was not far out if he said that 99J per cent, of those residents never used the road to the city, but were conveyed by sea. Mr Brandon : What position would Eastbourne be in if a wall* was built across the road shutting it bff? Councillor Short: It would be tho means of saving the borough revenue on the upkeep of its roads and a wall would be a benefit rather than a detriment. The bridges referred to are of no benefit whatever to Eastbourne. Mr Brandon: There are business men living at Eastbourne who work in the city, and they must derive indirect benefit. Mr Buddie (to Mr Toogood): Do you consider that 5 per cent, is a fair proportion of the cost to be allotted to Eastbourne ?—No; I do not. At this stage the Commission wm adjourned, at the suggestion of Mr J. ■O’Shea, in frrder than the local bodies concerned may be enabled to consider the arguments brought forward by tbe Hutt County Council, and frame replies thereto: so that the proceedings may be shortened.