HEAVY TRAFFIC.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3511, 15 July 1926, Page 2

HEAVY TRAFFIC.

ALLOCATION OF LICENSE FEES. The apportionment of heavy traffic license fees in No. 10 traffic license district was considered by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at Palmerston N. yesterday, when figures were submitted and legal argument heard to enable the Magistrate to decide on a basis of allocation, found impossible by unanimous resolution on the part of the local bodies concerned.

Mr J. P. Lines appeared on behalf of the counties and Mr F. 11. Cooke on behalf of the boroughs. At the outset the Magistrate remarked that the matter seemed to be one for settlement by the local bodies inerested.

Mr Cooke said a meeting had been held, but no unanimity could be reached. Mr Stout staled that lie did not think that it was a case for the calling of evidence. It was explained by Mr Innes upon what basis of apportionment the local bodies worked last year, there being on that occasion a unanimous vote on the basis of road mileage and capital value, which were considered by the counties to be the fairest basis possible. Mr Stout remarked that there might be hundreds of miles of road where there was no traffic. TRAFFIC INTO PALMERSTON. Mr Innes said that another point to be taken into consideration —it. was not considered last year —was the benefit received by the councils, Last year the Palmerston N. Borough Council received enormous benefit; counting both ways, 58 char-a-bancs were bringing"goods and passengers into the borough of Palmerston N. and he believed it would lie accepted that 3,000 strangers were brought to the town a week, spending £2 a head. Mr- Sfout pointed out that if such was the i-asc, then there must also be considered the benefits derived by the population in the counties. lie. asked what was meant by “benefit.”

Mr Innes produced a copy of the agreement reached in Wanganui, on which existing basis the local bodies there had agreed to continue for another two years.

After perusing the'document, the Bench remarked that it seemed absurd there should be a different method of assessing in each centre. Mr Innes asked if the factor of population was to be considered at all, as the speaker did not think that such was intended. If it were followed it would give Palmerston N a great advantage. Mr Stout said he. did not think that population had much to do with the matter, although rateable value might have.

Proceeding, Mr Innes said the first thing to lie considered was the amount of use of roads by actual motor-ldri ies, which was almost impossible to determine; secondly, the wear and tear by these lorries, which could’ only be estimated; thirdly, the benefit from the use of motors in regard to which the boroughs received a great deal of benefit. The boroughs concerned had a total of 105 miles of roads, as a-o-ainst 1-105 of the counties. The total capital value was 30 million sterling, made up of £21,479,635 by tlie counties and £8,520,305 by the boroughs. CASE FOR THE BOROUGHS. For the boroughs, Mr Cooke said the agreement reached last year between l lie local bodies was in the nature of a trial. The boroughs felt that they were not receiving sufficient of the moneys collected, and this year desired one-third. The conditions governing this and the Napier district were very similar, and a settlement on the basis in force in Napier was desired. The primary ground was the use of the streets, and the mileage basis did not settle the question, as mere mileage was no test. Capital value had generally been taken into account in arriving at a basis of proportionment of fees. In comparing, said Mr. Cooke, the Bench would no doubt take into consideration the cost of maintenance, while another matter to he considered was the grants by the Highways’ Council. Such grants were made to the counties to the extent of half maintenance cost, while the boroughs, unless under a 6000 population, received no grant for either maintenance or construction. The cost of roads was greater in boroughs than in the counties,. while there were also footpath construction and maintenance to he considered. ALLOCATION BASIS SUGGESTED.

In going on to explain in detail llie basis of apportionment desired by the boroughs, Mr Cooke said it was suggested that the boroughs should receive one-third of the fees collected and the counties the remaining two-thirds; the counties’ share to be divided up in the proportion of one-half in respect t« metalled roads and one-half in respect to capital value; the boroughs’ share to be divided on the basis of one-third for population, one-third for mileage on metalled roads, and one-third on capital value; The. Magistrate intimated that he would reserve his decision . Mr. Trueman was the local representative.