BAD STRETCH OF ROAD

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 690, 15 June 1929, Page 13

BAD STRETCH OF ROAD

WAIPA COUNTY COUNCIL EXPLAINS ' HAMILTON TO NGARUAWAHSA (From Our Oxen Correspondent) TE AWAMUTU, Today. The bad stretch of road between Ngaruawahia and Hamilton is the subject of a letter from the Waipa County Council to the Highways Board, the council setting forth its claim to a £4 to £1 subsidy. The reasons for the attitude of the council in declining the offer of the Main Highways Board of a subsidy of £3 for £1 toward the cost of permanently surfacing with bitumen that portion of the Great South Hoad is set out .in the letter, which was read and approved at this week’s meeting. I am instructed to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16tli instant,” says the letter, “calling upon the council, owing to complaints of automooile interests, to use gravel in future instead of local sand for the purpose of maintenance of the Hamilton's garuawahia section of the Great South Road.

“.Prior to the receipt of your letter some GO chains of the metalled portion of the road, commencing at the Hamilton Borough boundary, had been treated with a coating of Te ICawa metal chips, but the result of this, as well as previous application of this high-grade material, has proved conclusively that the substitution of the more expensive material will not, owing to the density of the- motor traffic, ket-p a satisfactory surface on the road continuously. “The dust nuisance is to some extent eliminated during dry weather, but this does not justify the increased cost in maintenance. If the use of the more expensive material for maintenance is insisted upon the responsibility for the waste must rest upon the shoulders of the Main Highways Board.

“A further point the council desires to have elucidated is the board’s interpretation of the terms ‘maintenance’ and ‘construction’ in their application, respectively, to this road, some three miles of which consist of water-bound macadam, the remainder being of local gravel and sand.

“The council recognises that a more permanent road surface is desirable, but to commence to build up this latter stretch with metal or Otorohanga gravel previous to improving the grade and the alignment not only involves capital rather than revenue expenditure, but is also a waste of public money.

“The council has given the matter of the future of this road serious consideration, and its opinion, which is endorsed by county ratepayers, is that the board is asking the council to find more than a fair proportion of the cost of providing a permanent pavement.

“It is believed that the board, in coming to its decision, did not take into consideration the special circumstances, such as the geographical situation and the almost exclusive use of the road by outside motorists, otherwise it could have reasonably exercised the powers given by a section of the Main Highways Amendment Act, 1928, and granted a larger subsidy than £3 for £l.

“If your board cannot see its way to reconsider its decision and thus enable the council to approach its ratepayers with a proposal that will appeal to them as being reasonable, then the council cannot be blamed for any inactivity in respect to the construction of a more permanent roadway than the existing one.”