TOLL GATE SYSTEM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 178, 30 July 1932, Page 8

TOLL GATE SYSTEM

PRINCIPLE OPPOSED THE PAREMATA SCHEME MINISTER DISAGREES WELLINGTON, July 29. The principle of reintroducing the toll gate system was opposed by a deputation from the North Island Motor Union and the New Zealand Master Carriers’ Federation, which waited on the Acting-Minister of Public Works to-day. While not objecting to the construction of the Paremata Bridge as a means of readier access to Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay, the deputation took exception to toll charges at the bridge on the ground that it would afford a precedent for simalar charges elsewhere in New Zealand. Introducing the deputation. Mr H. G. Dickie, M.P., said they had thought the toll gate question was buried for ever, and they were surprised to see it advocated in connection with the Paremata Bridge proposal. It was made clear by Mr W. O ’Callaghan, president of the North Island Motor Union, that they did not object to the bridge; they thought it was quite a good idea, but they wished to combat the toll gate principle from the national viewpoint. Years ago the motorists agreed to be taxed for the purpose of the main highways. Hast year it was agreed that the Government should have the benefit of the bulk of the taxation revenue, and the Consolidated Fund was left with a beggarly few hundred pounds to keep the roads in repair. In effect, what was suggested now was the imposition of a second form of taxation on the motorists, and they must strenuously object to that “Political Favour” Mr E. A. Batt said they saw many advantages in the erection of the bridge, and they were fully aware that its use would be purely optional, but they were seriously concerned about the precedent that would be created. "The promoters of the bridge scheme.’’ he said, ‘‘have nnt gone about their bridge proposal in the right way. In the first place, they are largely property owners who will reap the advantage of betterment when the scheme goes through.” The ratepayers were not prepared to meet any special rating to pay for the bridge, and that was hardly the right attitude to adopt. Practically ary local body in New Zealand to-day could use the same argument, for they were all affected financially. The promoters had made the mistake of approaching the Govern-ment.-in a political way in order to curry favour and have the bridge built from the political aspect, instead of going to the Highways Board and endeavouring to obtain a road and bridge as a secondary highway, to be financed in the customary way. Mr Batt said they were particularly concerned about the Minister’s suggestion to th* local people that the scheme should be enlarged to embrace a scheme for a road right through to Paekakariki, financed by means of toll charges. That was the biggest bombshell they had had ror years. It was said that the toll gates would be only temporary, but Mr Batt was of opinion that they would remain for a generation. He contended that the County Council estimates of revenue were inaccurate. Once the toll gate principle was conceded, there would be toll gates from North Cape to the Bluff. In conclusion, he said they thought they knew Mr Coates’ mind in the matter, and urged that the matter be not hurried, and that a general survey of the proposal be made by the Public Works Department and the Highways Board.

“Retrograde and Vicious.” Mr. A. Grayson described the toll gate principle as retrograde and vicious, and added that it was apt to grow to unknown dimensions. The president of the Master Carriers’ Federation, Mr. A. J. Curtis, said that from the economic point of view the railways might have a say concerning the construction of a road and bridge giving parallel means of access to Plimmerton. A lengthy statement was handed to the Minister on various aspects of the toll gate question, citing experience in other countries. Theaheavy cost of collection fees was stressed, and it was urged that the toll bridge, rather than being sound in principle, was an imposition on motorists. “Motor taxation to-day is paying for toll bridges which were abolished seven years ago,” the statement concluded, “and any proposal to take such a retrograde step is viewed seriously by automobile assveiaPurely Optional. fhe Acting-Minister (the Hon. C. E. Macmillan) said he could hardly agree with their arguments. If the proposed road was a main highway it would be entirely different. But it was not a main highway; it was a proposal to providq better access to a particular district. There was a road already, and therefore it would be quite optional whether the new road should be used. There was no proposal at present that any Government money should be put into the scheme, apart from a suggestion that relief labour should be subsidised from the Unemployment Fund. The Public Works Fund was in such a condition that it could not find any contribution towards the scheme, and he was advised by his officers that even the small amount that might be paid in subsidy should in tlfeir opinion be returned to the fund. “For the first time in the history of New’ Zealand,” he added, “we may this year have no estimates at all, or at any rate they may be of such a nature that there will be no estimates for expenditure on the backbloeks.” He appealed to the deputation to recognise that if it was desired to provide better access to a district it was right that the users of the road and bridge should contribute to the cost. It was not a matter of compulsory use of the route. Mr. .Macmillan went on to refer to his previous remarks concerning the possibility of road access being extended along the coast to Paekakariki. and he ventured the opinion that there was no motorist who would not be glad to pay a toll charge of 2g to traverse such a route. He repeated that if the bridge scheme was adopted as a means of convenience and saving time the only means of financing it was by requiring the user to pay. The deputation. he said, had not convinced bint

that where a district' was prepared to pledge itself to the construction of a road and bridge purely as a means of access, the district affected should not be entitled to make a charge when there were optional routes.