TARANAKI TOLL-GATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 May 1924, Page 4

TARANAKI TOLL-GATES.

QUESTION OF ABOLITION. WAIHI GATE TO GO. OTHERS PROBABLY REMAIN. The question of the contijiuance frt abolition of some or all of the seven tollgates in Taranaki came up for decision at the meeting of the No. 7 (Taranaki) District Highways Council at Stratford yesterday. It was decided, subject to ratification by the county councils concerned to abolish one (the Waihi gate in North Taranaki), and continue with four, the fate of the remaining two being left undecided until the council’s executive confers with the councils concerned. A letter was received from the Main 1 Highways Board giving the legal opinion on the position when toll-gates were situated on main highways. The board thought that it was a matter for the local authorities to decide whether they preferred the roads concerned to be declared main highways, the toll-gates abolished, and the local authorities assisted in terms of the Main Highways Act, or whether they preferred to retain the toll-gates, which would mean the omission ifrom the declaration of main highways of all those lengths of roads influenced by the tollgates. Pending a decision by the council the sections of roads influenced by tollgates had been excluded from the declarations of main highways. The chairman (Mr. T. M. Ball) said that he had estimated the length of road affected by the Clifton toll-gate at Waihi to be 25 miles with an average revenue of £52 a mile, the Stratford and Inglewood gate at Waipuku 17 miles producing £ll6 a mile, the Taranaki gate at Puniho 17 miles producing £lO4 a mile, the Hawera gates at Riversdale and Okaiawa IQA miles producing £166 a mile, and the Eltham gate at Mangatoki and Riverlea 13 miles producing £197 a mile. From these figures it could be seen that the Waihi toll-gate yielded the least return per milq of road controUed.

By calculation it could be seen that the revenue available from the Highways Board for main road upkeep in the Clifton County would probably exceed the tollgate revenue, so in this case at any rate the £ for £ subsidy would be better thaq maintaining a toll-gate. It was finally resolved on the motion of Mr. R. H. Pigott (chairman of the Clifton County Council) that, subject to the approval of the Clifton County Council, it be a recommendation that the Waihi tollgate be abolished, and all the main roads in the county be brought under the Main Highways Act so that the council might participate in the subsidies thereupon payable. With regard to the Hawera gate it was decided to recommend that th e sections of road between Hawera and Riversdale, and between Normanby and Okaiawa, be excluded from the Main Act, as also the section between Eltham Borough and the Egmont County boundary, so that the toll-gates concerned will remain. Decision with regard to the Puniho and Waipuku toll-gates was held over pending conferences between the Highways Council’s executive and the county councils conoeitned. It is probable, however, that both gates wifi maintained.