MAIN HIGHWAYS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 29 April 1927, Page 11

MAIN HIGHWAYS.

EFFECT ON GERALDINE COUNTY. LECTURE BY MR K. MACKENZIE.

i After the ordinary meeting of tlie ! Geraldine Town and District Association on Tuesday evening, Mr Kenneth Mackenzie, chairman of tiio Geraldine County Council, gave an interesting address on the policy of the Main Highways Board. The speaker said that one of the ■ greatest national problems which faced New Zealand to-day was the better maintenance of its rural highways. Prior to the advent of the motor j vehicle, the method of road maintenl ance in vogue was tolerably satisfac- ! tory. and was served in a fair and reasonable manner at a comparatively Low cost. Highway transportation, , however, had been revolutionised by i the development of' the internal com- , bustion engino and the pneumatic ; tyre. The motor vehicle had proved most destructive to surfaced roads, and the cost of road-making and road maintenance was an ever-increasing burden. The revolutionary changes ! which had oomo about demanded , revolutionary changes in the nature of the roads. Development in road construction and maintenance, however, had in every part of the world lagged behind the development of motor transportation. Systems of taxation of the new_ form of vehicle had had to be devised, so that the motor vehicle owner should pay for his use and abuse of roads, and also help to. pay for the higher classes of surfacing required for his vehicle. New Zealand motorists now paid a substantial sum annually towards the cost of the roading system, and ryerc looking for some return for their money immediately in the shape of better roads wherever they travel. Highway transportation was such an enormous industry and such a staggering sum was involved in the operating expenses on the 160,000 motor vehicles | in use, that bettor roads were a x ital economic necessity. What was the solution? ' There was but one answer—improved maintenance. Maintenance was the most disagreeable feature of roadwork, and the only permanent feature. No matter how costly, the permanent maintenance was always necessary, and it was even more important that costly roads should he properly maintained than cheap roads, as the heavy original investments had to he carefully protected in the costly roads. '

There were two common ways of maintaining a road. One vas to niafee periodic repairs or renewals after sections of the road had been practically destroyed. The ether—and the only proper method —was to employ a system of continuance in maintenance, under which all injuries to the reads were repaired as fast as they occurred. “A stitch in time saves nine.” This was the system adopted by the Geraldine County Council; the use of fine gravel, and tho continuous use of the grader.. " ■ Previous to the Highways Act coming into force in 1922, the Geraldine County Council spent on an average on the lines which were declared Main Highways, £960 per annum—£2o per mile. The expenditure since then had been: —1924-25, on 1-3 basis: Total expenditure £2083, county ratepayers £1389, Main Highways subsidy £694; 1925-26. on £1 for £1 basis: £1786, £921. £865: 1926-27, on 30s for £1 basis: £3893, £1885,. £2OOO. The county was not sitting down and doing nothing, but was spending twice as much of the ratepayers’ money on those highway lines as formerly, as well as the amount received from the Main Highways Board. The sudden increase in motor-driven vehicles had been enormous. Competition of road with railway had resulted in heavy descriptions of loading going by roads, and few seemed to realise the farreaching effects of the introduction of motor transport and its effects upon roads. These roads were not originally constructed to carry this traffic. From a local point of view, this county compares favourably with others in Group 15, both in the character of its roads and the quality of the material available for maintaining them. Apartfrom the Main Highways expenditure, there had been an unusual demand for motor bridges at almost every stream. All this meant additional strain on the local means of finance. Much had been said at motor association meetings that county councils should go in for bitumen surfacing of roads. While this would he very nice for motorists, it was not possible for conntv councils to entertain the scheme, without borrowing huge sums of money and raising the rates. The cost of putting dawn bitumen per mile was:—Bitumen 18ft wide, with shoulder, two coats. £BOO per mile. British Pavements’ price for putting down bitumen and maintaining for 5 years was £ISOO per mile ; payments to be made as follows : £6OO per mile on completion of first surface-dressing, and five, further payments of £IBO per mile commencing twelve months after completion of fi-sT dressing. Taking the above quotation, it would appear the British Pavemen-v Ltd. were allowing £154 per mile for five years of maintenance, as against £69 per mile per annum that the Geraldine County is paying for main ten a nee of Main Highways at present. There was. no . denying the fact that the Main Highways Board under the Act, had contributed greatly to the genera] improvement of the road surfaces as well as towards the better bridging provisions on - streams and river crossings, and that the general traffic conditions had greatlv benefited by the operations of the Main HiVhwavs Board. -Reckless speeding "of motoi ists was the direct cause of the failure of gravel surfaces, and if these were rendered uncomfortable to travel on, the motorist alone was to blame tor it.

Everyone must, realise tliat the pub rands must be built up to be cnpab.e of standing up under modern traffic, and that it was futile to attempt to make traffic conform to the state of the reads, hut it must also be remembered that this transformation could only be accomplished by degrees. Jo those who sav county councils are not doing their duty, and are allowing: fiysjs to .accumulate in "Wo! niKton, said Mr Mackenzie. “T would like to point out this fact—tlmt hcf o re we ran claim 30s from the Highways Hoard, we have to spend 20s of tlm ratepayers monev, and Sc,nth Tsland counties see no reason win- the county ratopajeis should he penalised for the benefit of the motorist. Tf funds are /hn'! m 'l Ip TT-°, to ° nn extent, then the Highways Hoard should collect less from the motorist, or give a bigger subsidy to counties to enable QUESTIONS. Mr .Trritt asked if the Highways Board contributed anything towards the £69 which it was costing the Council to maintain its roads per mile.—The answer was in the affirmative. Mr G. A. Macdonald asked if there was an increase of expenditure on roads not under the Highways Board. Mr Mackenzie replied that they were spending about as much cp these roads, which were wearing, and on which work was overdue. Mr Macdonald further a=ked if the Council could get redress for expenditure on roads carrying alternative traffic, and thus relievo the traffic on the main roads.—Mr Mackenzie said tl<vy could n't. The attitude the Highways Board took up was that, by using these roads, they were spreading the

traffic, and so relieving the main roads. Mr B. H- Macdonald asked what the cost of the bitumenised road south of Saltwater Creek had been, and how it. was formed. —Mr Mackenzie said the cost had been £1215 a mile. They had, he believed, used blue rock, eight inches thick, and had tar-sealed it. There was not more than three inches of metal on their roads here, and riverbed shingle had been used, not broken metal. The president (Mr J. C. McLeod) said they were much indebted to Mr Mackenzie for giving such an interesting and instructive address. Mi Mackenzie replied that it had been quite a pleasure for him addressing the association. A vote of thanks was carried by acclamation.