COUNTIES EXPRESS VIEWS ON ROADS MAINTENANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17905, 22 July 1926, Page 10

COUNTIES EXPRESS VIEWS ON ROADS MAINTENANCE.

REMIT CARRIED FOR INCREASE OF SUBSIDY. (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, July 21. A discussion in regard to the allocation of maintenance charges for Main Highways at the Counties Conference ended in a decision to ask for a greater general, subsidy instead of try'ing to provide special grants to counties for main highways that little serve the county itself. Mr Dalrymple (Rangitikei) moved a remit that the rate of the subsidy from the Main Highways Board for the maintenance of main highways should be based on the principle that the highway that carries a greater percentage of foreign traffic shall receive a greater percentage of subsidy with a minimum subsidy’ of 50 per cent, of the cost in respect of any main highInstances were given by T delegates of the remarkable increase in the cost of maintenance due to motor traffic, especially’ holiday, traffic. The costs were shown as having increased over varying short periods from £25 a mile to £l5O, and from £4O to £144. An Ashburton delegate said that of 139 miles, eighty’ were north and south, carrying chiefly through traffic. The other fifty-nine were of use to the county. Mr Jull: It has been said that the tendency of the board is to be tender to motorists and disregard the ratepayers. I want to assure >’Ou that it is not so. With the exception'of £25,000 contributed by the State, and intended to be devoted to maintenance to make for good roads, the whole revenue of the board came from the motor tax. Therefore, it was essential that the views of motorists, as well as of counties, should be given consideration, lie asked them to consider the enoimous amount of continuous reclassification of 6000 miles of roads, it tfie lemit weie given effect to. Would it not give more benefit to counties generally to have a uniform increase in the contribution on all roads than that the board should select a few miles of roads on the outside edges of counties for consideration? Was there not a county responsibility and Government responsibility ? Mr V. Bowman (Southland) said that the Act, when framed, made it mandatory to classify highways, but it was soon seen to be impossible. The true principle was that the users should pay. What would be plain, fair and reasonable would be to ask the board for a greater subsidy than £ for £ | for all main highways, lie moved accordingly’. I The motion was carried practically unanimously’.