UPKEEP OF BOUNDARY BRIDGES.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 153, 7 March 1916, Page 1

UPKEEP OF BOUNDARY BRIDGES.

County Council's Liabilities

By reason of the Franklin County Council being cited by tho Waikato County Council to pay half the cost of the mainteaance of the Whingamarino and Mangatangi bridges a Commission, presided over by Mr W. S. Shoitt, Under-Secretary of the Public Works Department, sat at Mercer on Thursday la->t to take evidence in the matter. The Counsel appearing were Mr A. S warbrick for Waikato County and Mr J. Stanton for Franklin C'ouuty.

Both bridges are on the boundaries of either County, the Whangamarino bridge being situated on the Great South Road, about a mile from Mercer, whilst the Mangatangi bridge is over the Mangatangi btreanj, on the Mararuarua road, fifteen miles from Pokeno. Mr Alexander Boss, farmer, of To Kauwhata, was the first witness called bj Mr ifwabrick. tie stated that ha was a member of the VVaikati County Cour.ul and that the traffic ov-.r the Whangamarioo bridge, so far as the County was co. cerned, wub limited to several settlers who traversed it on their way tj Meri Meri end others who used it when going to and from Mercer with stores, although there was a heavy motor car traffic over it. The main traffic that crossed the bridge wai from outside toth the Franklin and Waikato Counties. The Mangatangi bridge, he said, was mostly*, used by people from the Olnnemuri und Thames Counties, who drove cattle acrcsi it on thtir way to Franklin County. torr.e twenty years ago Colonel Jackson allocated the apportionment of upkeep as follows, viz:-'lo t'okeno, Maungatawhiri, Mercer and Waikato County, 25 per cent each. It was a fair al'ocation at the time, but it wes not now, as Mammarua had an outlet by way ot water access. —By Mr fcitsntou: there was considerable traffic to and Iron: Auckland that passed over the bridge. It was (he only outlet that the Waikato County had iu the north. '1 he only benefit that the bridge was to tiie Franklin County was that it provided access for a farmer in the branklio-County that orove his milking herd between the Franklin and Waikato Countus. The Mangatangi bridge vas erected twenty years ago by a Government grant given to the Whangamarino Road Board v»ho were instrumental io obtaining the budge. Although it was cf little use to the Franklin County when first erected, a lair cattle traffic tad been worked up between the Franklin and Thames and Ohinemuri Counties that passed across the bridge. If the water outlet to Maramarua was impaired as a result ot the Waikato Kim Board's operations on the Waikato river, tte Maramarua people would h»vc a connecting rr.ad mails between their district and the Whangamarino railway station. The Waikato County Council could rot bring in all the authorities that used the bridge.

Mr Stanton : That's 110 reason why the FraDklin County Council should be burdened with the Ohinemuri and Thames Coanties' lots.

William Day, Hamilton, and Thomas Dimock, Maramarua, gave evidence to the effect that they had been employed by the Waikato County Council to take a tally of the traffic on both bridges. Mr Swarbrick submitted a summary of the census referred to by the witnessed and Mr Stanton similarly handed in a tally taken on behalf of the Franklin County Mr George Mclnnes stated that he was conversant with the traffic that passed over the Mangatangi bridge ; it consisted chieily of cattle that were driven from Thames and Ohinemuri Counties to the sales in Irmiklin Couuty. Together with tho traffic from the Waikato County it considerably out-distanced the traffic that went over the bridge from Franklin County By Mr iStanton : Three-fourths of the fat cattle that passed over the bridge from tho Hauraki plains were to Pukekohe. He was of the opinion that it would be just and correct to call on the Thames County in the near future to bear the lion's share of the upkeep of the bridge Mr Hairy Simpson Hall said he resided at Te Kauwhata, nine miles away ftoin tho Whangamariuo bridge. The portion of the Waikato County leading to the bridge was thinly populated, but several of the settlers availed themselves of it in going to and from Mercer. lie considered it was i[uito fair that Franklin should be liable lor it> per cent of the cost of maintenance add tho Waikato County the balance The chief traffic consisted of motor cars

By Mr Stanton : Jlo was a member of the Wliaugamarino Koad Board. There was an interchange of cattle between the two districts

Mr John Bailey, lluutly, deposed that ho was chairman of fehe VVaikato County Council. The allocation in respect to the bridges, in his opinion, was totally unfair and ho considered that both counties should take an equal share of the responsibility. The .Waikato County had always been beaten in respect to the matter by tlio cry of poverty. They had waited until Counties wore formed and he considered the time was opportune for a chungo.

Mr Swarbrick mentioned that he had cited the Ohinemuri County Council at the request of the Wai-

kato Cjunty Council as a contributing authority but the claim was withdrawn. Mr Bailey, cross-examined by Mr Stanton, said that the motor traliic on the Whangamarino bridge could not be allocated to either county. His county was, however, a registering authority in regard to motor cars. lie Mas not aware that Franklin County Council was poorer thin the Road Boards that preceded it. The valuation of the Waikato County ran into two million odd pounds. Evidence for the Franklin County Council followed. Mr Joseph Flanagan, farmer, of Drury, and chairman of the Franklin County Council, deposed that the Franklin County had to maintain ab'/ut tweniy-two miles of road leading to Pokeno and Meicer railway stations, on which there were several bridges—one over the Maungatawhiri about as large as that qyer the Mangatangi—without any assistance from the Waikato, Thames and Ohinemuri Counties, although the

larger proportion of the traffic was occasioned by ratepayers of the Couuties of Waikato and Thames. He contended that it was unreasonable to expect Franklin County to contribute towards the upkeep of the Mangatangi bridge. Only one of the Franklin County ratepayers, Messrs Friedlander, derived any direct benefit from the bridge, and Messrs Friedlander contended that as their property was divided between the two counties the rates paid into Waikato County should be set off against the bridge expenditure, feeing that they derived no benelit from their roads. Referring to the traffic oyer the bridges and dealing first with the Whangamarino bridge, Mr Flanagan was of the opinion that the bulk of the traffic came from the counties in the Waikato, Waipa, the upper part of tho Raglan and to a lesser degree from the Piako and Ohineinuti Counties. Auckland city was also responsible for a large proportion of the southern traffic. Franklin County had, principally fcr through traffic, an expensive portion of tho Great South road of about 20 fuiles to maintain, on which there were three biidges ( viz, Drury, Slippery Creek and Maungatawhiri, each being about as large as the WhangamSarjno. No coutiibution from outside bodies was received, although tho Maungatawhiri bridge was situated within two miles of Whangamarino and, obviously, carried practically the same traffic as that passing over the Whaugauiarino, towards which a .'JO per cent share was contributed by Franklin under the award of lb ( J0. Mr Robert Lyons, farmer, member of the Franklin County Council, said that he live;! within sight of the Mangatangi to Mercer and Pokeno road and could testify to tho fact that a large proportion of the traffic on tho road came from outside Franklin County. Thousands of head of cattle every year passed through to Pukekohe, Westiield and Southdown from outside the County, as also a largo proportion of those going outward as stores - To reach Pukekohe 25 miles of the County roads were traversed, eutailiug heavy outlay in repairs and upkeep. A further reason against contributing towards the Mangatangi brigde was that about two miles higher up the Mangatangi stream was crossed by the Miranda to Pokeno road, and although a passable ford met present requirements, a bridge would be needed in course of time. He considered that tho present contribution to the bridge was more than ample, considering the little benefits the ratepayers, and he could not see why any alteration should bo made. Mr Swarbrick remarked that the shorter road from Miranda had a dangerous ford on it. Mr James Frederick" McArthur, engineer to tho Franklin County Council, said that the Whangamarino bridge was iu good repair, and with the exception of occasional repairs to the decking shoul 1 last a number ol' years. The traffic that passed over tho bridge was mainly through-tratlic to and from Waikato. Wellington, Napier and southern parts generally. The traffic from Franklin County formed a very small proportion of the traffic that passed over tho bridge. In the event ol reconstruction of the biidge, he considered tho Government should pay at least £2 to i 1 spent by tho local authorities, and that 2-3 per cent ot the balance and 2 3 per cent for maintenance would be a fair assessment on Franklin County for the bridge It was not used by the ratepayers ot Franklin County for access purposes but it was by ratepayers in tho Waikato County for access aud to reach tho railway station at Miner, The Mangatangi bridge was iu good repair, with the exception of the decking, of which so.no of the planks would require renewing at an early date. lie was of the opinion that practically tho whole ui the traffic across tho bridge was from Waikato County Messrs Fiiedlander Bros , parts of whose farm were iu both the Waikato and Ft a, lkliu C unities were the only Frank l .u Cjuuty rateavers who derived direct botieli', from the bridge. Heconsidere I the Waikato County Cjuncil should maintain the biidge at their sole expense. Mr Michael Gallery, firing ol Mercer, stated that he had lived at Mercer for upwards of ■>'• years, within sight of the Great tioutii Road. Ho was familiar with tho Whangamarino bridge, having a farm just across tho brvlgo in the Waikato County. He erotsed the bridge usually twice daily and to the best of his knowledge no other

[ ratepayer of Franklin County used I the bridge as much as he did. lie j considered that the bulk of the ; traifi'; over the bridge came from the Waikato district and from Auckland. Since motoring became general an enormous amount of motor traillc passed through which, apart from the wear to the bridge, did an immense amount of damage to the road. He considered that the present levy on the Franklin County more than ample as the bulk of the traffic came from outtide districts. Two miles from the Whangamarino bridge, within Franklin County, there was about as large a bridge over the Maungatawhiri aud the whole cost of greeting, maintaining and repairing it was placed on the then adjoining road districts now contained in Franklin County, although all the' through traffic from one end of the North Island to the other must pass over it. If the contribution towards the Whangamarino bridge was increased then outside Couuties should be made to contribute towards the Mangatangi bridge. Max Friedlander, farmer, Mangatawhiri, stated that he only used 15 chains of Waikato County road, and it was in a very bad state of repair. With the lowering of the Waikato river the Kopuku outlot fo.i the Maramarua settlers would be deleted.

Mr Hugh Sutherland Valentino, storekeeper, Mercar, said that he had four customers that came across the Whangamarino bridge from the Franklin County.

The Commissioner announced that he would deal with the matter in the usual way and would let both parties have a report of his findings in duo course. If the Mangatangi bridge had been larger he might have felt

justified iu adjourning to allow the Ohiuowuri aud Thames Counties to be cited, but as it was under 71 feet it would be ridiaulous to do so. He would try to arrive at a just and fair decision.