PLAINS ROADING SCHEME

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5020, 30 August 1926, Page 3

PLAINS ROADING SCHEME

COUNCIL’S PROPOSAL.

DEFERRED FOR AMENDMENT.

The scheme of making the main roads of the ‘Hauraki Plains County a charge o>n the whole county came before th© council on Thursday last, and although the principle was, approved, parochialism prevailed and no progress was made. The scheme, as outlined by the chairman, Or. E. L. Walton, was as follows:—

“The roads, included in the proposal are : The section of the Pokeno-Waihi majn highway from the western boundary of the county to the Puke bridge; the section of the main highway from the Orongo ferry to Dalgety’s corner; the Orongo-Nethqrton road from Orongo to PekafJfeka Road ; Orchard Eas,t Road, Parry’s corner to Turua Road; the Ngatea-Kaihere-Patetonga Road.

“The bridges included a,re: Hauraki, Pipiroa, Ngarua Landing, IWaitakaruru Stream, Waitakaruru Canal, Ngatea, Puke, and Maukoro. “The estimated share of costs to tlie council for roads is as followed . “Waitakaruru Riding : Boundary to Hailey’s, main highway, 3 miles, liability £'soo (new road) ; Stream Road, rrepayment Waitakaruru roads loan £2OOO (loan conversion). “Pipiroa. Riding: East Coa,st man highways 5 1-3 miles, £6660, and Thames route, main highways., 1% miles, £2lOO (both future expenditure). .

“Ngatea Riding: East Coast main highways, 2% miles, £3lOO (future expenditure) ; Ngatea-Kaihere, 3% miles, £3500, and 1% miles £2OOO, immediate expenditure. “Patetonga Riding: Kaihere-Pa.te-

tonga-Morrinsville, 6 miles, £6OOO (im-

mediate expenditure). lu, • "Horahia Riding : East Coast main highway, 2% miles, £3250 (future experiditure) ; Orchard East, refund old loan, £lOOO (immediate expenditure). “Kete.peehi Riding: East Coast main highway, 1% miles, £l7OO (future expenditure) ; East Coast main highway, 2% miles., £3700 (immediate ; East Coast main highways, % mile, £l9OO (future expenditure) ; Nctherton Roads Loan repayment (see Netherttfn Rbads), “Nctherton Riding: E'ast Coast main highway, 2% miles, £3OOO (future expenditure) ; Wilson’s Road, refund Netherton 1925 Loan, £2250 ; Nethertoii Roads Loan refund, £B5OO. “Kopuarahi Riding: Thames rpuvc main highway, 4% miles-, £5300; Orongoi-Turua, £3OOO (future expenditures,). “Turua Riding: Henry’s to Pekapekp, 11-5 miles, £4OOO (immediate • expenditure) ; Turua-Orongo Loan repayment, £3OOO ; Turua Town District Loan repayment, £3OOO ; Turua-Neth- ‘ er ton Roads Loan repayment, £B5OO ; ’Netherton Roads Loa,n repayment (see Netherton Reads). “'The estimated share of costs for bridges : Kirikiri, . £12,000, already over whole, county; Maukoro, £l4OO, already over whole county; Pipiroa, ’£Booo ; Ngarua Landing, £2OOO ; Wai- ' takaruru Canal, £5OO ; Waitakaruru < Stream," £1000; Puke and Orchard conversion, £3lOO, totalling £14,60'0, and making a grand total oil £92,560. “A scheme for the whole county lends itself to dispensing with an item for first year’s- interest etc., which in this proposal would e.ntail ■a. further liability of £6500, which, by the time the loan was. repaid, would become about £17,100.' . “A rate of 1.073 d Would have to be collected to cover-the roads, and a rate of .36d for bridges, including Kirikiri'and Maukoro, in the aggregate 1.433 d. “If the same proposals were carried out by ridings, with special areas bridges the figures would be : Waitakaruru, ■ 1.506 d ; Pipiroa, part of • 1.724’d and 1.60 l 8d; Ngatea, part of 1.454 d and 1.552 d ; Patetonga, 1.468(1 ; Horahia, part df 1.209 d and 1.093 d ; u Kerepeehi, part of 2.0063 and 1.4563;. Netherton, 1.562 d Kopuarahi, 1.7373; Turua, part of 1.574 d, 5.024 d, 2.7543, and 2.9343. “Some of the reasons which are in . favour of the proposals are as follows,: — . , “The county scheme 'could be earned out cheaper than in sections. r "The; ■ maintenance could be made a county charge, and this would assist the outlet ridings of Netherton, Kopuarahi, and Waitakaruru? where the traffic concentrates. “The maintenance of bridges and .flfries is at present a charge over the whole county. "The roa,ds mentioned carry the bulk of the traffic, and if put in permanent form the general rate could be reduced. “That by doing the whole of these roads, anyone could get through or about the county from any point to a nother along any of the main .routes. "That by making these roa,ds and •bridges and the ferries both for construction and maintenance county matters it tends to cancel out exist- ■ ing differences-.’’ Cr. Hicks said that every riding appeared to be gaining except Horahia. He asked how this was posible. The chairman said that the difference in the valuations of the various ... ridings, together with the. mileage of loads in the riding to be treated, accounted for the annarent nar,adox. . Cr. Harris supported the scheme. Cr. Madgwick agreed, remarking that the scheme should have been brought in years ago. The county had been cut up into pocket handkerchief ridings, and it was, illogical that ridings had to pay for roads which were - used by the ratepayers other ridings only a few steps away. To-day was the age. of motors, and distances were eliminated. Cr. Hicks agreed, a,nd remarked that it was a pity the scheme was not 'introduced when the county was. formed. The chairman concurred, and said that unless such schemes were generally adopted the tendency would be ■ for the control of roads to be taken out of the hands, of county councils B*-rr+id vested in perhaps a; few district councils. Cr. Parfitt pointed out that it wa f s ' ..undoubtedly the intention of the Main

Highways Act to have the main highways through a county borne by the whole of that county. If this was enforced the county scheme as outlined would be much sought after, as it would he fair and equitable to all ridings.

Cr. Mayn said that when the scheme was- explained at Patetonga the question of utilising a suggested deviation was promised to be referred to the ratepayers by means of a postal ballot. He was of the opinion that this ballot should be taken. Cr. Walton suggested explaining the. scheme to the rest of the county and then making any amendments necessary before proceeding to take a poll of ratepayers).'

Cr. Mayn said that he. could not express an opinion until the question of the deviation had been settled. Cr. Parfitt said that the route which would suit the county as a whole should be adopted without reference to small groups, df ratepayers. Cr. -Fisher said that the most important aspect was the future maintenance costs. He aske.d the mileages Of the roads in the various Cr. Walton said that this would be Waitakaruru 5% miles, Pipiroa 7 miles, Ngatea H% miles, Patetonga 6 miles, Horahia 4% miles, Netherton 4 miles, Kopuarahi 534 miles, a,nd Turua 9 miles.

Cr. Fisher said that the greatest benefits, would be from the'maintenance aspects. ■ ( The chairman pointed out that the £ for £ subsidy on main highways affected the position.

After some minor discussion the chairman asked for an expression of .opinion on the principal of the scheme. Cr. Mayn supported it

Cr. Hicks said that he could not support it unless,, the Horahia riding was given more-benefit. Cr. Reid said that the saving to the Netherton riding was not sufficient to induce the ratepayers to support the loan. He suggested that the, Awaiti road be included.

Cr. Miller supported the adoption of the scheme. He was sorry to s,ee that spine councillors were opposed to it. The differences, according to the old riding viewpoints, jvere sma,l|l, but the proposal warranted a wider outlook.. Present-day tendencies were certainly to iv ar ds c eht ral i sat ion. Cr. Fisher asserted that a very important road had not been included. When the Ngarua bridge was constructed the rtoad through the township would take practica.lly the whole of the traffic proceeding from -the. southern end of the county to the northern end.

Cr. Madgwick voiced strong support of the scheme. It would put the affairs of the county on kpund, businesslike lines, cut out parochialism, and be a long s-tep in the right direction. Cr. Harris heartily favoured the scheme provided no drastic alterations were made. He reserved the right, if new roads were included, to have the Miranda. roa,d included, as ita claims were very strong. Cr. Parfitt agreed. « Cr. Mayn also supported the scheme subject to'the question of the deviation being settled.

*The chairman said that, the s.cheme was an attempt to take the larger views. He well knew that parochialism prevailed in some localities, and'that councillors! were bound to take notice of the view's of their ratepayers. Though there was a majority of the council in favour of it he did not propose, to go on with the matter. Councillors had approved the principle, but were not prepared to make a small sacrifice for it. To amend the s.cheme to meet the objections woud destroy it asra.county main road scheme and resolve it into a bargaining scheme. He would therefore move, and do so with very much regret, that for the time being the be abandoned. Cr. Reid seconded.

As an amendment Cr. Miller moved that the chairman, clerk, and engineer go into the matter with a view to making amendments that would mate the proposal acceptable. Cr. .Walton a.sked that he be left off the committee. He was of opinion that the scheme was sound, and therefore could not be greatly altered and still remain 'fair and equitable.

An amendment appointing Ci's. Miller, Madgwick, Hicks, Reid, the engineer, and the clerk to go into the matter wa.s ‘ carried, Or. Walton’s motion not finding a seconder.