PAGE’S ROAD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16486, 27 February 1914, Page 4

PAGE’S ROAD.

COST OF MAINTENANCE. LOCAL BODIES IN DISPUTE. The Commission set up to apportion the cost of maintenance of Page’s Road from Buckley’s Road to New Brighton bridge, mot yesterday in tho Provincial Council Chambers. The Commissioner, Mr W. S. Short, assistant Undei’-Secretary to the Public Works Department, presided, and tho following representatives of the local bodies concerned were present:—Mr G. Scott (chairman) and Mr W. Y. Siddall (county clerk), representing the Heathcote County Council; Mr A. Dudley Dobson, city surveyor, representing the Christchurch City Council; Mr O. H. Winny (Mayor of New Brighton) and Mr Wright, representing the. Hew Brighton Borough Council. Idle Commission was set up at the instance of tho Heathcote Council.

The Commissioner, before the proceedings commenced, said that, as the Heathcote Comity was the “ plaintiff ” as it were in the Commission, it would have to provo three things against the local bodies concerned. The first of these was that the road was largely used to and from the district to be charged with the maintenance of the road; the second was that the road gave access to the other local bodies; and the third was that the proposed charge would be equitable. The Heathcote Council had proposed a different allocation to that which was set up by the former commission on the cost of the road before its construction. That allocation was as follows:—Heatlicote County Council 75 per cent, Hew Brighton Borough Council 20 per cent, and Christchurch City Council 5 per cent. Mr Wright said that the terms of the Commission referred only to the maintenance of the road, but ho wished the Commission to consider its improvement and re-construction also. The Commissioner said thathewou'd consider that proposal, but he thought that they were going beyond the powers of the Commission. Mr Loughnan agreed with Mr Wright that the re-construotion of the. road should he considered, but he suggested that the evidence should be restricted to the maintenance of the road. EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF. HISTORY OF THE ROAD. Mr Scott, in giving the details of the road, said that he realised that the effect of its construction was of very groat benefit to the district. He would go back some years. , In the early days there were 6ome rights of this road vested in the old tramway company. There were also certain other rights given to the people living on the road, and there was always a lot of trouble about this. When the Christchurch Tramway Board was formed there were several meetings held by the New Brighton Burgesses' Association, asking that the control of the road should be vested in the Tramway Board. The Heathcote County Council realised that the road would be a very great benefit, and it felt that it was the duty of the Council to put the road in some order for ordinary traffic. A tally of the traffic on the road had been taken for a period of four days, and ft was found that the major part of the traffic was done by residents of New Brighton and citizens of Christchurch. The Heathcote County Council had applied to the other local bodies for a reasonable allocation of the cost. The Council’s proposals were as follows: —Heathcote [ Council, 60 per cent; New Brighton Council, 30 per cent; and Christchurch I City Council, 10 per cent. While his Council was satisfied that this was a i fair allocation, it would have wished j the Heathcote Council to pay 50 per cent, New Brighton 35 per cent and the City Council 15 per cent. The traffic on the road did not contain much Heathcote traffic. About onetenth would be all there would be. SAND AND SWAMP. Edward John Barnes, certificated civil engineer to the Heathcote County Council, said that the condition previous to the formation was forty chains of sand and forty chains of swamp. The road was not safe for traffic, m fact, it .was a private road. The road could not be metalled, on account ot its swampy nature, and the metalling for about twenty chains would cost about £350. Most of the traffic on the road was motor-cars and motor-cycles. He had noticed that when a car went from anything more than froin ten to twelve miles per hour, the tyres loosened the binding of the road and the result was that in fine weather the road crumbled away. Seeing the amount of traffic which was on the road at present, he would estimate the cost of maintaining the road at about £6O to £IOO per mile. To Mr Wright: The total cost of the road was £2109. It would be a fair estimate to say that 90 per cent of the passengers, on the trams woro New Brighton residents. The width ot the rovd was 45 feet excluding the footpaths, out of which the Tramway Board kept in repair 7 feet 6 inches. He would be astonished to learn that twenty-six drays went over the .Bower Bridge as against nineteen drays over the Page’s Road bridge. That must have been a very busy dav for the Bower Bridge. It would be impossible that the swampy land adjoining Page’s Road could have increased m value ; there had been no fresh valuation of that district. The metalling of the road would be reckoned m the cost of the formation, and that was already included in the estimate for construction.

THE METALLING OF THE HOAD. The Commissioner said that it would be possible for the County to call upon the City Council and tho New Brighton Borough Council to pay for this metalling in accordance with the previous allocation. Mr Wright : But if that were so, tho county might spend £SOOO on tlio road and" still charge the other bodies. ■ , The Commissioner: I quite see your P °Mr’ Barnes to Mr Loughnan: He had based the cost of metalling on the amount of traffic at present on the road. In a<, year or two, the road would have to be sheeted again with metal, which would cost about £SOO a mile tor such a wide road. He had brought his estimate down as low as he could. l>icycles going less than ten miles an hour had hardly any effect on the road, but’ motor-cycles had a _ damaging effect. Tlio merchants m New Brighton depended upon the city foi their supplies. Tlio majority of motor cars were driven by pe.ople who med in. the restricted areas in the city and who went down to New Brighton for

an “airing.’ _ , The Commissioner to Mr Loughnan: But your cross-examination does not help your case at all. The fact that motor traffic from the city goes through to New Brighton shows that the Heathcote County Councils road was being used. „ __ ... Mr Barnes to Mr Scott: The condition of the, road at present was good enough for the country traffic. He had said that sheeting would make a better surface for fast-moving vehicles, and would be also more economical. In reply to Mr Wright, Mr Barnes said that the Heathcote County Council had not received any complaint from the New Brighton Borough Council. TRAFFIC TALLIES. Edward Johnston, sanitary inspector to the Heathcote County Council, said that ho had taken a tally of the traffic on Page’s Road in 1911, and also on

January 17 and 25, and on February 4 and 5, 1914. He submitted a condensed statement of the tally comparing the amount of traffic at the two periods. Since'the 1911 tally, the daily increase in bicycles was *445, in motor-cycles 256, and in motor-cars 108. Pedestrians had decreased by 124, and horses by 17. Two-whceled traps had increased by 113;, and in fourwheeled traps there had been no increase, and in heavy traffic there was a decrease of 13 vehicles. ■ ' The number of buildings erected in New Brighton in the last eighteen months was 138, valued at £26,273. and the number erected in Heathcote County in the 6ame period was 15, valued at £3975. The principal traffic- was motor-cars, motor-cycles, traps and a large amount of heavy traffic. In his opinion from what ho had seen from the bridge as motor-cars came up the road, they had a great effect on it. As far as he knew there were only four farmers in Bexley who owned vehicles.

To Mr Wright: The tally taken in 1911 was in October on an ordinary day. January 17 of this year was Gala Day, one of the busiest days in the year.

Frederick Gwatkin, general foreman in the. employ of the Heathcote County Council, said that Page’s Road was in a very bad state at present. He was foreman when the road was formed, and the metal that was put on was all good sooria. He had seen a good deal of building material carted to New Brighton from the city. There was not much traffic for the Heathcot© County, and as far as he could see, a few milk-carts were the principal items. The majority of the motor traffic came from Christchurch. The l speed at which the motors came along the road loosened the binding and in the end scattered the metal on both sides. This finished the case for the Heathcote County Council. FOR THE DEFENCE. NEW BRIGHTON IN A PENURIOUS STATE. Mr Wright called the following evidence : Charles H. Winny, Mayor of • New Brighton, stated that the population roughly was about 2000. The general rate produced about £I9OO. ! This amount was not nearly sufficient to meet requirements. The borough, owing to its formation, was. confronted, with many difficulties and owing to the lack of funds many necessary works, such as drainage, had not been done. An agitation had been made for several years for' better bathing facilities but ‘aving no funds .. nothing, had been, donq, It would be correct to describe the borough as being . in a penurious state. North New Brighton nad gone ahead more than New Brighton i'tself and of the new buildings mentioned by a previous witness he estimated that 80 per cent had been built in North New Brighton. About 90 per cent of the traffic to and from New ‘Brighton waS conveyed by the trams. He did not think there were more than five privately-owned motor-cars in the borough: one belonged to a gentleman in North Brighton, another belonged to a gentleman whp never went over the tram bridge: the other three probably used Page’s Road about three times a week. There were seven carriers’ carts in New Brighton. No street formation had been done recently in central New Brighton; all that class of work had been don© ip, North Brighton. The County Council Informed the Boroifgh Council that an estimate for th» first veer’s mn.intenoe of the road would be £342, and for subsequent years £126 15s. Under the previous award the New Brighton Borough Council paid as its shore of the formation £421 18s 9d, and if the first year’s maintenance came under the. description of formation the total paid by the New Brighten Borough Council would be £565 18s 9d. Twenty per cent of the amount collected by the Borough in general rates in eighteen months had been spent on the road. The Borough recognised that it should pay something and he thought that 15 per cent would be a fair and reasonable proportion. The amount that the Borough had spent in connection with the road had tied up the Borough’s finances and it would be difficult for it to raise the proportion payable by the Borough. The Commissioner: The Act gives

you power to raise it by special rate. THE WEALTHY COUNTY AND ’THE POOR BOROUGH. Mr Wright said that the position was that one of the wealthiest counties in the dominion and one of the wealthiest cities in the dominion was attempting to burden a poor and penurious place like New Brighton and to make it pay -a larger proportion for the upkeep of a road that was chiefly used by city people. The Commissioner remarked that he thought the, time was coming when as in Australia, motor-cars would be taxed and the proceeds devoted to the upkeep of the roads. Mr Winny to Mr Scott: The tram* way was constructed largely for the benefit of the people of Christchurch. At some time or other, the value of properties adjacent to Page’s Road would be enhanced considerably by the construction of- the road. The New a" ' hton Borough Council derived > benefit from the road. The other road served the borough just as well as Page’s Road, . and was only about seventeen chains longer from the city. George Scott, chairman of the Heathcote County Council, said that some parts of the road had had to be built up five or six feet. Charles James Marshall," estate agent, gave evidence as to the value of properties on Page’s Road. The valuations at New Brighton were no more than they were six years ago.. Arthur Dudley Dobson, city surveyor, said that the traffic was exceedingly light, and was not one-tenth of the traffic on the Riccarton Road. Mr Loughnan said it was not fair to take into consideration the tally of the traffic on Gala Day, when the previous tally had been taken on an ordinary day. If those results were eliminated, it .would be found that the increase in traffic was very small. Tho figures could not be relied on. Mr Wright, in reply, said that the larger amount which the Heathcote County Council charged, the other bodies' was for construction, and not for maintenance. He submitted that the evidence given showed that the traffic was very small on Page’s Road. Each Council had of necessity to keep its roads in good order, and the Heathcote County Council should not claim one penny from outside bodies towards the cost of a road in its district. The only traffic which he could consider excessive was tne motor traffi'o, arid that was, mainly from Christchurch. He considorea that at least 20 per cent should be paid by the city. Mr Scott, in his final reply, said that in the first place the Heathcote County Council was not anxious to take over the road. • It had been stated that no broken metal had been put on the road; but he wished to say that there had been 212 loads of blue metal put on. The Heathcote Council considered that the road was in a state of completion, and it was desired that the other bodies interested should contribute towards its maintenance. The Commissioner said that he would make a report to the Governor.