Toll-Gate Granted.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 92, 19 August 1915, Page 2

Toll-Gate Granted.

A WIN FOR THE COUNTY.

THE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT.

j The following is the full text of the report submitted to His Excellency the Governor by Commissioner Short on the Stratford County Council’s proposal to erect a toll-gate at Waipuku:

1 have the honor to submit lor lour Excellency's information the following report pursuant to the terms of a Commission dated 7th April, 1915, directing mo to inquire and report as to the apportionment of the cost of maintaining the portion of the Mountain Hoad that lies in Stratford t ounty. The inquiry was held at the Court House at Stratford on 10th and 11th June, and the parties to the inquiry were represented as follows:—Mr Hathaway (County CTnrirmau) and afterwards Mr Spence (solicitor) represented Stratford County ; Mr Boon (Mayor) and afterwards Mr Cookes (solicitor) represented Stratlord Borough; Mr Quilliara (solicitor) represented Aew I’lymouth Borough and Taranaki County; Mr Weir (solicitor) represented Eltham County; Mr Murdoch (Chairman,) represented Hawera County; Mr How sett (engineer) represented Clifton County. CLAIM. Hie present proceedings arose out of an application hy the Stratford County lor the consent ol Your Excellency in Council, under Section loti of the Public Works Act, 1908, as amended by Sub-section (IF) of Section 13 of the Public Works Amendment Act, 1911, to the erection of a toll-gate on the Mountain Load near th County boundary at Waipuku, with a view of providing funds to improve and maintain the road. With a view of testing the feeling of the districit, and also because the Stratford Borough Council had proven against- the establishment of this toll, a commission was issued to me for the purpose of ascertaining whether the case could not be met by an apportionment of the cost of maintaining the road under Section ICfe of the Public Works Act, 1908, rather than that the proposed toll should be consented to. The main contentious at the inquiry were therefore “Should the cost of maintaining the road be borne by the local bodies whoso traffic uses the road, or in the alternative, should the ! necessary funds be obtained by means of a toll ? “If the former, then which local bodies should contribute and in what proportions?’’ FACTS OF THE CASE. In order to find out who uses the road, I had a tally of traffic taken, at or near the site of the proposed tollgate, for one week from 10th to 16th April, 1915. The results of this tally show that there is very considerable traffic on the road, and that such traffic, both including and excluding stock, concerns the following districts in the proportions as under:— lac.; stock. Ex. stock

Those figures were strongly supported by a tally of traffic taken by the Borough of New Plymouth and Taranaki County near the site of the ether tally, but at a different period (see Exhibit 111). The average results of this tally, excluding stock, show roughly as follows :—Stratford County* 12.-18 per cent of the traffic, Stratford Borough 22.02, New Plymouth Borough 11.-12, Taranaki County 28.98, Eithani County 5-82. Hawera County -1.10, Clifton County 3.22, Opunabe County .57, Inglewood Borough 9.-17, Outside Districts J. 92.—100. These two sets of tallies prove clearly that the great bulk of the traffic on the road (at any rate near • tiie site of the proposed toll-gate) Joes I not concern Stratford County, and therefore that the Stratford County is entitled to some assistance from outside districts towards the upkeep of its road. All the local districts with the exception of Stratford Borough appear to acquiesce in this view, for at the inception of the inquiry I obtained a distinct expression of opinion from all the representatives of the parties, and all of them save and except Stratford Borough stated that if they hud to assist they would prefer the toll rather than contributions assessed under Section 109 of the Act. Stratford Borough, on the other hand, contended that it ought not to be asked to assist at all, but that if it must do so, then it would prefer to make a contribution rather jthan have the toll. The contest, therefore, resolved itself into one as between the Stratford Borough, on the one hand, and the Stratford County, supported by all the other parties '(except the Borough) on the other hand. The necessity that some assistance should be given to the County arises as follows. The mid in the County is about 9>) miles long. viz. 5} miles from Waipuku (Taranaki County boundary), to Stratford Borough, and -I miles from Stratford Borough to Cornwall Boad, which is the Eltham County boundary, and there are nearly 2 miles of the road in Stratford Borough. The greater portion of the road in the County lies in the North Riding of the County, and the upkeep of that portion of the road is charged by the County to the Riding account. The rates derivable from that Riding amount to about £3182 per annum on a general rate of 2ld in the £ on the unimproved rateable value, and it is contended that the road costs on the average about £ISOO a year to maintain it is alleged that the back Mock roads in this riding are thereby starjved, and it is asserted that they are ,in a deplorable condition, and moreover, that the Riding Account is deeply in debt. For these reasons, it is contended that it is absolutely essential that relief should he obtained, and that this must bo so to maintain the road even in it* present condition. The Stratford County proposes to spend £9OOO in improving the road which it | claims is now dangerous. The road ■ generally is formed to its full width. • though in some places it is much nar- | rower. I went over the road, and' | found it to he in fair order except for 1 ( <> few chains' in one place, but it is ' only metalled 12 feet wide with the usual earth formation at the side.. This latter gets very soft in wet wea- ,

ther, and as the road is now Used to . a very great extent for motors (which (will not leave the metal in wet : weather if they can help it) the road is now dangerous to passing vehicles or motor,, especially at night. there ' is verv little heavy traffic on the road, and, but for the motor cars, 1 am ol opinion tli.it toe ro.,d is' sufficiently ; good lor County traffic apart from motors, and it i.s manilestly a lact that the motor traffic lies at the bottom of the Council’s proposals lor the | improvement of the road. They proI pose to expend about CtIUUU in widening the metal and putting down tarred macadam and tar sealing the surface. This, they contend, will give a good safe permanent road in all seasons, and will cost very much less to maintain than the present road, and as this improvement i.s required heI cause of motor traffic, the Council 1 claims that this is all the more reason why the motorists who use the road should pay for it. The proposed scale of tolls (which is no higher than other tolls in the district, and is less than some) is estimated to bring m about C2UUU a-year, and this sum, together with a fair proportion of rates from the Hiding, which the Council proposes to devote to maintenance of the road, wilh tho Council contends, eu- • ablo it to make a first-class road in the course of a few years, without unduly burdening their ratepayers and without burdening tho district with any special loan, and which loan tho County states its ratepayers would not sanction. Tho Borough of Stratford, on the other hand, contends that the County ought to do the work out of special loan if it cannot do it out of revenue, because the Borough maintains 2 miles of the road as a main street in tho Borough, and because the Borough took over a large loan for that portion of the road, including the Bridge over the Patea Kiver, in tho Borough, when the Borough was constituted. The Borough claims that this is a fair and just set off for the Borough’s use of the rest of tho road, without contribution or toll. The last contention is not, in my opinion, quite sound, for first of all it is possible that the Borough might be able to get a contribution from the outside bodies towards the upkeep of the bridge under Section 120 of the Public Works Act, if it took the proper steps; and secondly, because the Borough lives on the trade that conies to it from the surrounding districts; I and to enable that trade to be done the Borough must offer inducement in the shape of good and proper streets: the Borough, moreover, is placed at the junction of this and other important roads, and this accounts for its existence. It therefore has no claim . outside districts for the maintenance of its streets. It may, however, be that tho use by the Stratford County ratepayers of the Borough streets is a fair set off for the use of the County roads by the Borough traffic, but this is no answer to the claim of the Stratford County that the great use of the Mountain Hoad iu the County by or for the purpose of traffic outside Stratford County raises an equitable claim for assistance. The tallies of traffic show that about 6o per coat, of the traffic on the road concerns districts outside the County and the Borough. This, therefore, is the groundwork upon which a claim for assistance can bo supported: more especially as no- evidence was given to show that the County is benelitted by this outside traffic! It is clear, therefore, from these facts that the County is entitled to some relief and the question of the nature of the relief must now be considered. Three systems of relief were proposed at the inquiry, viz. : (1) By toll-gate. (2) By contribution under Section 109 of tho Statute, (J 3). By contribution from the users of motor cars. Neither party supported the last proposition, which was brought forward by the chairman of tlie focal Automobile Association, and as tho proposal was neither a very definite one, nor is there power at law whereby the Stratford County can compel motor owners to make such, a contribution (other than by means of a toll) it must be dismissed as impossible at tho present time. The real objection of the Stratford Borough to tlie imposition of a toll is clearly because its business people fear that a toll would tend to divert trade and so harm the town. It may have a slight effect that way, but I think that the fears of the Stratford people are exaggerated. The toll gate would be 03 miles from tlie town boundary, and, leaving out Midhirst (which is in Stratford County) the nearest township to Stratford, 011 this line of road, is Inglewood, which is seven miles from the County boundary. It will be seen, therefore, that the toll would only be three-quarters of u mikpfroflT the ruddle point between these two towns, and if one is injured, so will probably be the case with the other one. People usually go to the nearest centre to do their business, and while it would appear that Stratford might lose tlie trade of the people coining 011 to the road in this three-eighths of a mile, tho toll might tend to prevent County people going to Inglewood. The tally shows that the Taranaki County people are by far the largest users of the road, and as the tolls for ordinary vehicular and motor traffic are moderate, 1 do not think that the toll-gate would seriously affect the trade ol Stratford. There arc several toll-gates in Taranaki County, and 110 evidence was called to show that these gates have prejudicially affected trade in any centre iu the district. In fact the practice of raising revenue by tollgates rather than by taxes appears to I be popular in the district generally, and this is the only district in New Zealand that 1 know of where this is the ease. The County claimed that Section 100 of tlie Public Works Act, 1908, cannot be applied to them without their consent, and that as they have not applied for an apportionment thereunder none can ho made. in so for as the new works are concerned, I think this contention i.s correct, but its correctness is doubtful in respect to mere maintenance. In practice, however, I assume that Your Excellency would not consider yourself to bo justified in making any apportionment without the consent of the County having control of the road, especially in the face of the decided op- , position of all tho parties who would I have to contribute save and except the ' Stratford Borough. Nlpne of the par--1 ties came before me prepared with ovi- ■ ( dence on which it would lie just that such an apportionment should be made, because all of them (but one) opposed j ■ it. It may be that the results of the , tallies of traffic already referred to j | would form a basis for such an apporj tionment. but as there are probably

equitable considerations which might require a modification of the basis dis* closed by the tallies and which considerations were not urged before us, 1 do not think that it would be ]ust that Your Excellency should make such an apportionment at present, and as it is clear that as regards the new works, Your Excellency cannot make anv apportionment under present circumstances, the only alternative is for Your Excellency to decide whether you will allow the toll-gate to be erected. If not, then an opportionment cannot be made until the Stratford County asks for one and takes the necessary steps required by law. TOLL-GATE. The arguments in favor oi the constitution of the toll-gate may therefore be summarised as follows; (1) Six out of seven of tho local bodies, whose inhabitants chiefly use the road, favour tho toll-gate. (2) Tho County proposes to abolish the toll gate in about live years, when it has provided enough revenue to put the road in good and safe order and repair. Cl). The County contends that it has not the means to improve the road and make it safe,’unless the money is raised by special loan or by toll, and tho ratepayers nil! not sanction a loan, but are willing to pay a toll. (1). That tno upkeep of the road, oven in its present condition, is beyond the means of tho County, which nas to starve other roads in the .Hiding m order to find enough money to keep tho road open. (,5). That the improvement of the road is mainly required to make the road safe because of motor traffic, much of which comes far beyond the districts of any ol the local bodies cited to the inquiry; and it is urged that it is fair that this class oi vehicle should be made to contribute directly to the upkeep aud improvement of tho road.

((3). That there will bo no exemptions from toll, aud the County ratepayers will have to pay proportionately to their use of the roaU, just the same as any outside people. (<■). That tho County intends to devote part of its rates towards the upkeep of the road, thus leaving tne proceeds of the toll-gate to be expended for the most part in improving the road. (8). That it is just aud fair that those who use the road should contribute towards its improvmeut.

( ( J), That when tho road is so improved, it will be very much cheaper to maintain aud will be much more comfortable and safer to use.

(ID). That the law allows a toll to be constituted, and as the County is the best judge of what will suit its ratepayers and its circumstances and has chosen a toll, there is no just reason why its application should not be granted. AS AGAINST THIS

Stratford Borough objects to the toll, because; — (1) It fears that the tol| lyjlj be prejudicial to its trade. (2) It claims that the use by the County ratepayers of its streets is a fair set-off for the use of the road.

(3). That the County should maintain the road out of its own revenue or improve it out of special loan, the same as is done in other similar cases of improvement. (4,). That if any assistance is given to the County, it should be in the nature of contributions by the local bodies whose people use the road for the purpose ot traffic, but the Borough made no offer of any definite assistance. CONCLUSION. For reasons given above and from the facts proved before me, X am of opinion ■.— (a) That until the County takes the steps prescribed by Sections 109 and 119 of the Public Works Act, 1906 ; Your Excellency cannot make an apportionment that will cover the necessities of this case and the County is opposed to this being done. (b) That the imposition of a toll may have some slight prejudicial effect on the trade of the Borough, but in view of the fact that tiio traffic on this road to and from the Borough, is only between 17 per cent, and 22 per cent, of tiio wnole (not counting stock) and that all the other districts (who contribute about 78 per cent, of the traffic) are in favor of the toll and are willing to pay the same, it would appear that as the majority in number and importance of the districts whose people would have to pay the toll charges are in favor of the same, Your Excellency can hardly refuse to sanction the toll. (c) If Your Excellency sees Jit to consent to the toll 1 consider that it should only bo authorised on the execution of a binding agreement with the County Council, that the net proceeds of the toll shall be devoted solely to the permanent improvement of the road and that so soon us the road has been metalled with tar macadam and tar sealed 19 feet wide from end to end and is in good order and condition, the Governor may thereupon abolish the toll or reduce the charges levied thereat, if he is satisfied that it is just and equitable so to do. If thus wore done, tho toll-gate would nily lie a temporary thing, and I cannot see that the Borough would then have any just cause to complain.

Per cent. PerCent. Stratford County 30.54 20.53 Stratford Borough 7.34 10.92 -New Plymouth Borough 0.12 J 4.12 Taranaki County 41.08 30.83 Eltham County 2.43 4.03 Hawera County 3.81 8.79 Clifton County 1.04 2.39 Other Districts 1.04 2.39