DUNEDIN-PORT CHALMERS ROAD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20948, 11 February 1930, Page 15

DUNEDIN-PORT CHALMERS ROAD.

REPORT OF. DELEGATES. The much-discussed problem of the Dunedin-Port Chalmers road was before* a meeting of the Port-Chalmers Council last night, the matter being brought under review by a report submitted by the council’s representatives who recently waited on the Main Highways Board with a view to the hoard taking' over the road. The report was as follows:—Your delegates appeared before the Main, Highways Board in Dunedin and asked the board to take over the Dunedin-Port Chalmers road. In case the representatives of West Harbour should object to the lower road being made up to date, then the board was asked to take over the alternative road from Sawyers Bay to Upper Junction, Nothing resulted. The board received the proposition coldly and acting. on Jie advice of -the Motor Club officials, turned down the proposal. The West Harbour Council lodged an allround objection. It - s significant that nobody was allowed to speak on behalf of the motorists, except the Motor Club officials, who seemed very anxious tr- impress on the Highways Board that the Dunedin-Port Chalmers road was a domestic road rather than a public road. Yet strange to say those club .officials had the road on the other side of the harbour, as the first on their list of important roads in Otago requiring ‘the board’s most favourable consideration. Mr J. Y. Love was not permitted to speak on behalf of the motorists. But for the continued opposition of the West Harbour Council, the Dunedin-Port Chalmers, road -would in all probability be as far ahead now as the road on the other side of the harbour. The West Harbour douncil has so far strongly opposed aU proposals from Port Chalmers for improving the road. Had that council, on the other hand, endeavoured to arrive at a common understanding with the other bodies and i made a united effort, the result of such combined effort could not have failed to produce a good road. Such a united effort would have impressed the Highways Board, favourably, instead of the unfavourable effect produced by the unsupported request form the Port Chalmers Council for the Highways Board to take over the road. The West Harbour Council should have supported instead of opposing that request. The West Harbour Council’s objection was strongly supported by its engineer, but the personal equation was never remarkable for vision, other than) its own immediate interest. Your representatives were told that Port Chalmers should apply for another commission in respect to the road. That sounds -.plausible, but it is not practicable. The present controlling body is not favourable to the making of a good Toad, and it is doubtful whether that body would he agreeable to handing over the control of the road to either of the other two 1 contributing bodies. Then in regard to the contributing rate, the only means of assessing that is on a traffic basis. A traffic tally taken now would probably be more favourable to Port Chalmers than the last traffic tally on which the present contributing rate was fixed. The only change a fresh tally could effect would probably be to cause Waikouaiti County to pay its quota. That quota could be used to reduce the amount at present being paid by West Harbour, but it would be a concession to which the majority of the conutrihuting bodies would require to be agreeable before, it could be adopted. Therefore, What purpose could be served by another commission and another traffic tally? Those who are advocating a new commission are probably doing so on the assumption that Port Chalmers should pay the difference between the £2 for £1 paid by the Highways Board for. construction and the £1 for £1 which the board will presumably pay for re construction. That is absurd, for it would mean that Port Chalmers would have to pay one-third of the total cost of reconstruction in addition to its present payments. It is also absurd because municipal liability can be computed only on a traffic basis. The extra liability is a motorists’ liability, and should therefore he paid by theft Highways Board out of motor taxation. That seems to be the point at issue. The - Highways Board wants to put it on to the Port Chalmers Borough despite the fact that the board is paying double the amount for the road across the harbour, The Motor Club also, proposes that Port Chalmers Borough should assume the extra liability. When one of the Port Chalmers representatives' speaking before the board as a motorist and on behalf of motorists appealed to the Highways Board to come to the motorists assistance, only a lukewarm support was accorded by the Motor Club. That was disappointing especially in' view of the very active part the club took in getting motor taxation increased. _ The_ attitude of the club’s officials, in this case, indicated a decided change from the club’s previously expressed policy of not permitting local bodies to fritter away motorists money. In this case of the Dunedin-Port Clxalmesr road the Highways Board is at present paying 06J- per cent, of the total cost; therefore the board, according to the Motor Club’s policy, should control the expenditure. Nevertheless the Motor Club officials actually opposed the board taking over the road. The peculiar feature was that everyone seemed to think that,. Port Chalmers Borough should take over the Highways Board’s responsibility, and pay the extra cost for reconstruction which the board is paying for Dunedin-Portobello road. But the Port Chalmers ratepayers are responsible only to the extent disclosed by a traffic tally. Over and above that assessment it is a motorists’ responsibility, and the Highways Board should meet it out of motor taxation. It was, therefore, reasonable to expect that all the contributing bodies, and also the Motor Club, would have supported the Port Chalmers proposal for the Highways Board to take over the road. But on the contrary they all opposed it. The West Harbour representatives, instead of supporting the proposition, seemed to legald it as an unfriendly gesture by tile Port Chalmers representatives. As a matter of fact progressiveness seems to | be Even the Motor Club appears to shrink from the prospects of a ; decent road _ down the • harbourside. I Nevertheless, it is the motorists’ concern. 1 Perhaps the Port Chalmers Council could apply to have allotted to it a part of the road proportionate to its maintenance liability. The council could put that section of the road into good order, but what about the state of the balance of the road? The report was approved. Human beings arc not alone in making provision for a, “ rainy day.” Woodpeckers in California gather acorns and place them to decay during the summer in holes pecked in telephone poles. In winter, when they cannot dig for worms, the birds go to these acorns, which have then developed worms inside them.