PENALTY OF CONCRETE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 559, 11 January 1929, Page 16

PENALTY OF CONCRETE

SUBSIDY ON GREAT SOUTH ROAD BITUMEN AS STANDARD Laying the Great South Road down in concrete, the local bodies concerned received a subsidy upon the cost of bitumen, which meant that they got £1 for each £1 6s they spent themselves. With other local bodies being offered £3 for £l, and even more, the South Road bodies believe that they have suffered an injustice. One member suggested that local bodies which, even to-day, had not reconstructed their roads, were being offered a bonus for having delayed. The SLiburban Local Bodies’ Association last evening decided to approach the Minister of Public Works anil the Highways Board, asking for the consideration of some step to place the local bodies on a more equitable footing Mr. W. J. Nicholson pointed out that the Papatoetoe concrete cost £ 5,259, of which the Town Board paid £4,958. Mr. G. Gallagher, Manurewa, told the meeting that his board’s work cost £15,864 —£5,764 paid by the town and £7,100 by the Highways Board. Several members asserted that concrete had proved an economical proposition. Bitumen had been suggested on a traffic t.ally which showed that 364 vehicles used the road in the township in one day some four years ago. Just before last Christmas, in one day 1,154 vehicles used the concrete road, and on another 1,252. The percentage of local traffic at Manurewa ranged from 2.68 to 5.03. while only 1 per cent, of the heavy-lorry traffic was owned in Manurewa. The chairman, Mr. F. J. O’Meara, said the local, bodies, by their enterprise, had provided good roads, but were suffering an injustice in having to bear the full upkeep while those local bodies which had been di.’atory in putting their roads in order were now reaping the harvest of the Highways Board’s generosity. Mr. Nicholson, moving that .application should be made for redress, considered it was reasonable to “ask for a slice of the large accretions to the Highways Board’s funds now being obtained from the petrol tax.” The motion was carried.