MAIN SOUTH ROAD

Otago Witness, Issue 3304, 11 July 1917, Page 45

MAIN SOUTH ROAD

THE COST OF MAINTENANCE. REPORT OF COMMISSION. Mr W. S. Short sat "as a commission at Dunedin in May to inquire into and report as to the apportionment of the cost, of maintaining the portion of the Main South road where it runs through or abuts upon the Borough of Green Island. The Green Island Borough Council claimed that the parties should contribute £6OO a year towards the cost of maintenance, to be divided as follows: —Green Island Borough Council, £2OO, or one-third of the cost; Dunedin City Council, £200; Taieri County Council, £l5O, or one-fourth of the cost; Bruce County Council, £2O; Mosgiel Borough Council and Clutha County Council. £ls each. The claims against the Bruce and Clutha Counties and the Mosgiel Borough were, on the second day, struck out, and their proposed burden was accepted as an addition by the Green Island Borough. Mr Short points out, in summing up tho facts, that, while the road is essential to the existence of the Borough of Green Island, it is also the main and only practicable highway for road traffic to and from the City of Dunedin and southern districts, and is essential to tho welfare of the city. It was quite clear from the facts thus disclosed that the Green Island Borough is put to considerable expense in the upkeep of its main road by traffic that passes through its district and which does not concern itself. It is claimed that Green Island exists as a borough, and not as part of the county, almost entirely because of the stock traffic, and that most of its present industries centre in that traffic. This being 60, it _ was urged that the stock traffic is vital to its welfare, and in consequence that the borough _ is ©very bit as much interested in attracting that'traffic to itself as is Taieri County in sending it, consequently that this raises no equity that Taieri should contribute. This, so far as it go«s, was, he thought, sound argument, and was supported by undoubted facte. On these grounds, he failed to see that there was- any equitable reason why the Taieri County should contribute to the upkeep of tho Green Island road. Taking a mean of the tallies that had been taken, he came to the conclusion that 15 per cent, of the total vehicular traffic of the road was justly chargeable against the Taieri County Council. After alluding to the arguments on behalf of the Dunedin City Council (which did not submit evidence), he remarked that tho traffic returns showed, according to the way in which they were viewed, that the Dunedin traffic on the road which is of no benefit to Green Island is anything from 62 to 72 per cent, of the whole, and, allowing for all other equities, Including the rates paid bv tho City Council to Green Island Borough, tho use or the city streets, and the foct that the borough levies so small a rate, he was of opinion that "Ihe borough had substantiated its case against the city for a contribution, and, making liberal allowance for all things that can justly bo urged as a set-off. he was of opinion that the city ought to contribute 30 per cent, of tho cost of maintenance.

The proper maintenance of the road was vital to the inhabitant? of the borough of Grren Island and the borough industries, and it v/as only in respect of the extra, cost entailed by traffic, which was not of mutual benefit as between the inhab ; tanto or ratepayers of the borough and the surrounding districts, that the borough had any equitable claim whatever for a contribution. He therefore recommended that the cost of maintaining that portion of the Main South road that actually lies within the borough of Green Island should be apportioned as follows: —Taieri County Council to contribute 15 per cent, of the cost; Dunedin City Council 30 per cent.; Greon Island Borough Council 55 per cent.

As regards boundary roads, ho apportioned contributions as follow: Portion of road between Thompson street to the intersection of sections 96 and 97, near Gunn's corner: Green Island Borough, 42.5 per cent.; Taien County Council, 42.5 per cent; Dunedin City, lo per cent. Portion of rood between the north-east boundary of section 13, near to Emerson street. Concord, to the prolongation of the north-east boundary of section 44, near to the intersection of Khort street, Koremata; Dunedin City, 25 per Greon Island Borough, 45 per cent; Taieri County, 30 per cent. As regards the costs, Clutha and Bruce County Councils were awarded £5 5s each, and Mosgiel Borough Council £3 3s, to be paid by Green Island Borough Council; Dunedin City to pay Green Island £22 Is, with half the amount of its witnesses' f^es

and expense: Taieri County Council to pay Green Island £IC 10? and one-quarter witnesses' fceg and expenses,