HEAVY TRAFFIC LICENSES.

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 145, 12 August 1926, Page 5

HEAVY TRAFFIC LICENSES.

APPORTIONMENT OF FEES. A Magisterial Enquiry. The Hamilton and Te Awamutu Borough Councils’ objections to the decision arrived at by the conference of local bodies of the No. 2 Highways District in connection with the apportionment of heavy traffic license fees has culminated in the hearing of the dispute by a magistrate. Under the new motor lorry regulations, it is laid down that where the local bodies in any highway district fail to agree amongst themselves on the allocation of the fees collected from heavy motor traffic, the matter shall be referred to a magistrate to settle. The conference of the local bodies concerned, Hamilton and Te Awamutu dissenting, decided to adopt a basis of apportionment, 50 per cent on the capital values and 50 per cent on the metalled road mileage. Having failed to come to an agreement local bodies in the No. 2 Highways District, comprising 29 in all, brought their dispute before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at Hamilton on Wednesday,- when Mr. F. A. Swarbrick represented the Hamilton and Te Awamntu Borough Councils (these two bodies dissenting from an agreement), Mr. G. P. Finlay, Auckland, appearing for the remaining 27 bodies.

There was a big attendance in court of local body members and officials.

Mr. Swarbriek pointed out to His ' Worship that the regulations laid it down that where a unanimous agreement could not be come to between ' the parties, a majority verdict should not stand and should not weigh with the magistrate in his consideration of the case; further, the Act provided that the preponderance of traffic on ’ any set of roads should be a determining factor in the apportioning of ' fees. Counsel contended that in making his order the magistrate would ' also require to take into consideration the cost of formation and upkeep ' of roads, as well as the interest and sinking funds on road loans. FEES IN HAMILTON. Mr. Swarbriek added that the total amount collected in heavy traffic fees . in Hamilton after deducting the cost of collection of 5 per cent was £3331 Is Gd. Of this £994 8s 8d was for | bus fares. Unfortunately the returns for the Hamilton Borough Council only covered a period of from September to March. This was due to certain litigation between the motor bus proprietors and the council. The traffic tallies taken by the Hamilton | council from the returns supplied by I the lorry owners showed that a total of 407,313 miles was covered, of Which distance 243,654 miles were run in the Hamilton borough. In the two counties contiguous to Hamilton —Waipa and Waikato—the percentage of traffic was for Waipa 9.9 and for Waikato 11.4, while Raglan, Piako, and Matamata each carried 3 per cent of the * traffic. The proportion of traffic there- I after diminished until it worked out at nothing in Waihi. Counsel held therefore that the least proportion of the fees which the Hamilton Borough Council should receive was 59.8 per cent. There was, added Mr. Swarbrick, a considerable motor bus traffic in the Hamilton borough. In the summer months these buses ran out a ■ good deal into the country. A tally ’ taken of the summer months only, ' therefore, showed that 73 per cent, of the bus distance was run in Hamilton, i A return over the whole year would > have given an even more favourable } return to Hamilton.

Counsel referred to the very large mileage of permanent roads that had . been laid in Hamilton, which had been I rendered necessary by the growing I volume of motor traffic. In Hamilton | the motor traffic continued all the year round, wet or fine, which was not the case in the country. There were three railway stations and a wharf in the town, which meant a considerable amount of heavy carting to and from them. Hamilton did not receive a contribution to any other road at all, but she had to pay a considerable amount out. She had to pay, 30 per cent towards the Hamilton-Wha-tawhata road and 19 per cent towards i the upkeep of the road between Whatawhata and Raglan. This year the I sum which Hamilton would have to pay out for the Hamilton-Whata-whata-Raglan road would be £750. The Hamilton borough, continued counsel, had 571 miles of hard surfaced roads, including 11 miles concrete, 19 miles bitumen and 17 1-3 [ miles waterbound macadam, 20 miles or river shingle secondary streets and 42 miles of local shingle streets. HEAVY TRAFFIC STATISTICS. 1 William Waddell, assistant town • clerk to the Hamilton borough, said • he had been at some pains to make out statistics relative to the heavy

I traffic. The total fees collected in J [ Hamilton, less five per cent cost of collection, was £3331, while the dis- I tance travelled by the heavy vehicles as taken from the returns supplied by I the drivers was 407,313 miles. Tak- ' mg the bus returns alone, the percent- j age worked out at 73 per cent of Hamilton district and the balance of ; die outside districts. On maintenance !' street work in the borough for 1923- j 24 £8074 was spent out of revenue; I for 1925-26 the sum had risen to I £16,350 and for 1926-27 is was estimated to reach £17,385. During 192324, £29,195 was spent out of loans, in 1924-25 £70,282, in 1925-26 £31,021, and this year it was expected that the balance, £BOOO, would be spent out of loan money. In interest and sinking fund the borough paid out in 1923-24 £5685, in 1925-26 £10,404, ‘ in 1926-27 £14,334, and in 1927-28 the amount would be £15,084. Hamilton received no contribution whatever from the Main Highways Board. Rupert Worley, Hamilton borough engineer, said that three years ago there was not a single good surfaced road in the whole borough. Had the borough then undertaken to keep the roads in repair by a system of patching, it would have cost £20,000, while to-day with the increased traffic the cost would be £30,000. The borough therefore was forced from economy to launch on a scheme of permanent roads. On a ton mileage basis it had been calculated from repeated traffic, approximately which every street was carrying. From an accepted basis one five-ton vehicle travelling over a mile of road, did as much damage as 25 , one-ton vehicles travelling the same length of road. On all road loans there was a sinking fund of one per cent, which meant that 36i years would be required to pay off the loans, while the life of some of the roads, under the present heavy traffic would 1 be expended in 12* years, so that considerably more interest and sinking fund should be paid annually to enable the loans and the roads to expire together. They were finding at present that on their main roads they would require a carpet of more durable nature than had been placed there, enabling present formation to • be used as the foundation only. He estimated that during the next few years it would be necessary for the borough to borrow £70,000 for her streets. Answering His Worship, witness said that for six summer months heavy lorries did little damage to clay roads. DAMAGE TO ROADS. To Mr. Finlay, witness said the damage done to waterbound macadam roads would be greater by heavy traffic than it would be to a hard surfaced road. Witness said that he had no hesitation in saying that the statutory recognition, under the Highways Act, that boroughs required no assistance, whilst counties did, was wrong. Mr. Finlay: The present system of road construction in Hamilton has not been a success ? Witness: It has. Counsel: Then why all this addi--1 tional £70,000 expenditure ? ( Witness said that the present work would have been necessary in any case towards the completion of the final scheme.

Mr. Finlay: How much of the road loan debt of Hamilton represents the loss of money that will disappear when the present roads expire? Witness said that the loans raised by the Hamilton borough prior to 1923 of roads totalled £90,000. Mr. Finlay said the opinion was nrevalent amongst local bodies in the No. 2 district that the generally accepted principle was that the basis of allocation should be 50 per cent on the relative capital calue plus 50 on the metal road mileage. Counsel said he was under the impression that this I was the only issue that was to be | placed before His Worship, and he ■ (Mr. Finlay) had therefore not come prepared with evidence. His Worship said the principle that would guide him in his decision was the one specified in the Act the amount of use made of the roads by the licensed vehicles, as well as other equitable considerations. His Worship said he thought it probable that many of the local bodies had not demanded returns from their motor lorry drivers, or furnished full i details as to use, expenditure and reI venue regarding their roads. The : 1 case was therefore adjourned for two > weeks. —Waikato Times.