Toll Gate Question.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 313, 12 June 1915, Page 3

Toll Gate Question.

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY. . STMTFOfiD COUNTY'S PEOPOSIAiL. ! W, S. Short, Assist!!inMJhder.>S«ore. tary, Public Works Department, opened a Commissioa at the Courthouse, Strat-i ford on Thursday, on the application of the Stratford County Council to erect a toll-gate at the Waipuku bridge. Pre-sent-Messrs. M. W. Hathaway, repre•eritJng StTatford County Council; J. W. Boon, Mayor of Stratford; J. H. Qullliam, New Plymouth Borough, Taranaki County; J. L. Weir, of Syme and Weir, Eltham County; J. B. Murdoch, chairman HaweTa County; C. P. Dowsett, Clifton County Council. The commissioner, in opening the proceedings, said the Stratford County Council had applied to the Government for permision to erect a toll-gate near Waipuku 'bridge. The Minister of Public Works, before granting the proposal, considered that other local bodies interested should have the opportunity of stating their objections. This was the first application made to the Government to place a toll-gate on a main road. With a view of ascertaining the amount of traffic,"the Government had a tallytaken for ft week, and the result of that tally showed that the bodies in-] terested should contribute in proportion as follows:—Stratford County, 21 per cent.; Taranaki County, 31; Stratford Borough, 17; New Plymouth Borough, 15; Hawera County, 9; Eltham County, 4; Clifton County, 3. The commissioner asked if the local bodies would state before they started whether they favor, ed a toll-gate contribution. The Mayor of Stratford replied that, they objected to the toll, and preferred to pay a proportion for the upkeep of i the road. The New Plymouth Borough, the Hawera County, the Clifton County and the Eltham County Councils preferred a toll. Mr. W. P. Kirkwood said he represented the Stratford Automobile Association, and asked permission to appear on its behalf. 'He said his association would prefer a tax on motorists rather than a toll-gate. Mr, Quilliam stated he did not think the matter came within the scope of a commission. The commissioner replied that after the evidence of local bodies had been taken Mr. Kirkwood would have an op- < portunity of stating his case. ! Mr. G. T. Murray, engineer to the | Public Works Department for the district, said he had instructions to take a tally Of the traffic over this road.' The tally started at <J a.m. on May 10 and continued for seven days, and it was also taken from early morning to midnight for three days, and was suspended for the next four days at nine o'clock at night, because it was found no traffic after that hour passed. Three men were employed, and they took it in shifts. The tally was as follows.— Cars 274, motor-cycles 131, push-bicycles 61, gigs 109, carts 5&, waggons and engines 3, horsemen 90, pedestrians 11, sheep 494 and cattle 463; a total of |1«90.

I Mr. Hathaway asked if the tally had been made in the summer months. Did | they not think it would be more? I Witness replied that he thought that j it would not amount to much more, as the tally had been taken when two days' races at Hawera were held. tn reply to Mr. Quilliam. witness said 22>/ 2 miles of Taranaki County roads would have to be traversed from Waipuku bridge to New Plymouth borough boundaries. ' Mr. Murdoch (Hawera) asked if the traffic would be as great from Waipuku to Stratford as from Stratford to Eltham County boundary. Witness could not express an opinion. Mr. Weir asked if in taking out the tallies what was the difference on the two race day 3 and the other days. Witness said motor traffic on Wednesday was 67, on Tuesday 33, and on Thursday 56. He stated that no instructions were given to distinguish the difference between the Eltham County and. Eltham Borough carting traffic. There was 9| miles of main road to bo maintained by the Stratford County Council, between the Taranaki and iltham County Council. J. W. B. Jones stated he took tally at Waipuku bridge from May 10 and started at 7-30 on that morning, and took his turn with two others appointed, and took a summary of the three books provided. If a car went through to New Plymouth and returned the same day it was tallied as having gone through twice. i Mr. Quilliam asked if the place of residence of occupants of cars was taken. Witness said that had not been done. J He missed very few cars during the time he was on, the drivers, with about three | exceptions, all pulling up and giving, hira the information. Mr. Quilliam suggested taking the | tally by the Public Works Department's j staff as correct. The other bodies ap-1 proved, and the Commissioner agreed to accept this. Mr. Hathaway stated the ease for the Stratford County Council, and said he intended to call evidence to prove, the Council's case. The Commissioner suggested that the Stratford County Council should be represented by its solicitor, not that he meant to reflect on Mr. Hathaway, but there were points that the solicitor would have a better knowledge of. !Mr. Sidney Pitt, farmer, residing in Stratford, said he owned farms within eight miles ef the town. He had been about twelve years in the district. He said that a suggestion had been made that the county should be re-valued and that would get over the case. He stated that he had a farm within four miles of Stratford. It was valued at £l3 per acre. It was on lease. The present rental was 8s per acre, and the rates were 4a l%d per acre. He pointed out that the land was rated up to its ful value. I" addition, some of the land he owned was paying four special rates. He had a section the unimproved value of which was £rl per acre and the rate 2s Id per acre, -and he contended that the rate was as much as could be levied on this class of land. For the 593 acres he paid £6l 16s per year in rates on this road, with three miles of this section. He maintained that the unmetailed roads in the back portion of the countv wore being bled to keep up the improvements on the main road. tie personally paid £247 19s in rates annually to'the Stratford county on, rough-

ly, 2000 acres of land. He owned land in the Taranaki county as well, and his stock traffic between the two counties would be considerable. As a ratepayer, he preferred to pay toll than that a levy should be put on the other local bodies. Witness contended that if a levy were put on by this Council, then the other counties interested would, no doubt, do likewise, and where would the matter end? He said the Stratford county was hopelessly in debt, and some other form of taxation niust be made to maintain the roads.

To Mr. Quilliam: He did not see why ratepayers residing in the Taranaki county should maintain the road. The Stratford county should do so. He was surprised to learn that Is HV»d was the rate per acre on the whole of the Stratford county, and he was also surprised to hear (that the 2s 7y 2 d per acre was the rate on the whole of the Taranaki county. He would rater pay a toll than a >/ 2 d rate extra, because he considered that the public who are not paying any rate now would have to contribute through the toll. Mr. Weir said he wished to point out the fact that the Stratford county was rated on unimproved value. Frank Mackay, a farmer, stated that he was a ratepayer and had resided for 23 years on the Stanley road. Land in this district was valued at £3 to £5 unimproved value, and on that valuation is rated from 2s fid to 4s 6d per acre. At the present time a bridge is being built on this road, and another one will have to be renewed very shortly. This will, of course, mean an increase of rate*. The present road was pretty well worn out, and it cost £6OO per mile to metal same. He favored a toll-gate, as he objected to paying for the main road maintenance when not using it. He said the settlers in that district had asked him to represent them at the Commission and to favor the toll-gate. Motorists he had spoken to had no objection to paying toll providing the amount collected was spent in improving the main road. He considered the County Council were spending too much on the main road, and suggested that the Council should just keep the road open and spend the money on the toyroads.

In the afternoon Mr. Fookes appeared on .behalf of the Stratford Borough Council and (Mr. Spence appeared for the Stratford County Council. . Mr, Quilliam said that later on he would ask that the bodies lie represented should be given leave to withdraw, as he considered the contest was really between the Stratford county and the Stratford borough.

. The Commissioner agreed that flie matter was really one between the Stratford county and T>orough.

Mr. Quilliain said the Taranaki County Council and the New Plymouth Borough Council had no objection to the Stratford county erecting the tollgate. He objected to the tally taken by the Department, on the grounds that on two days there were races at Hawera, n> the tally did not give the average day's traffic, because although 67 cars had passed over the road on these two days only 33 had passed over it the day after. The Taranaki county should not be called upon to contribute to this road, because the Devon road, leading into New Plymouth, carried all the traffic into New Plymouth, and the county had not asked the adjoining counties to contribute to its upkeep. The Tarai naki county rated on the capital value, while the (Stratford county rated on the . unimproved value, which is strictly in favor of the Stratford Council. Further, no re-valuation of the Stratford county had taken place for six years, ' and land must have gone up in value ! since that time. Mr. Quilliam said taking the case of motor-car owners who resided* In Now Plymouth, surely it was never contended that the taxpayers in the Taranaki county and New Plymouth borough should be compelled to pay for the upkeep of a road 20 miles away from New Plymouth. Joseph Brown, chairman of the Taranaki County Council, said he had been nino years chairman of the Taranaki Council, and twenty years a member of, local bodies in thiß district. He knew the road well and said that apart from motor traffic and stock to freezing w*orks, the traffic had not increased in the last ten years. The traffic on the. Devon road carried practically all the traffic from this end of the district, and neither the Olifton County Council nor the Waitara (Borough Council contributed to this road, He did not think the Mountain road between Stratford and Waipuk* hard to maintain, because the railway took most of the heavy traffic. . The average rate in the Taranaki county was 2s T'/ad, while in Stratford it was Is llVid. He was in

favor of a toll-gate on the main road, as he considered that the man who used

the road should be made to pay for it. At the conclusion of this evidence Mr.

Quilliam withdrew. Mr. C. F. Dowsett {Clifton county) asked leave for the Clifton county to withdraw from the case. He considered that it was most unfair that his county should be asked to pay its proportion of the upkeep. He drew the Commissioner's attention to the fact that al-

ready a toll-gate was on the main road from Waitara to Auckland, and that the Commissioner was mistaken in saying this was the first application for a toll-gate on the main road. He proceeded to point out that his Council was already heavily indebted, and had a lot of mud roads still unmctalled, and the cost of upkeep was considerable. . In answer to Mr. Spence, Mr. Dowsett stated that at the toll-gate erected at Waihi £957 was collected during the past year. Mr. Murdoch, of the Hawera County Council, objected to being asked to pay a contribution for the upkeep of this road. 'He said that iu 1008 the Hawera county borrowed £65,000 for roads and with tar-sealing had made a success of them. Stone brought from Sentry Hill cost them 10s per yard, and seeing the short distance the Stratford county had to bring theirs he considered it most unfair that his county should bo called upon to pay For its upkeep. Comparing the rates with other counties, Hawera pai.l fls Od rate per acre, which was considerably more than the ratepayers in Stratford county were paying. Mr Weir for the Eltham County Council, said, that the Eltham Borough Council had not been cited. He contended that the motor-car traffic shown in the tally was not correct as applied to his comity, as they were the registering body, and" many of the cars shown as belonging to the Eltham county actually belonged to the Eltham borough. He contended that the Eltham county was rated higher than Stratford county. The Eltham county had 125 miles of metal-

led and 35 miles of unmetalled road to maintain. During the last five years £60,000 had been raised, and that with merged roade they had raised £85,000 dur. Sngthat time. Further, during that time they had tar-sealed the main road to their boundarries, and had done it out af loan or revenue. He proceeded to show iby sections of the Public Works Act that the' Stratford county could not ask his county to contribute, and, further, if they were liable, then the Stratford county was equally liable for maintenance of the main roads in his county, and taken on a population basis, the Stratford county would have to pay more in proportion than the Eltham county would have to pay iif the Government took over the control of the roads.

William J. Tristram, clerk of the Eltham County Council, also gave evidence.

Mr. Fookes", on behalf of the Strafc ford Borough Council, stated that a valuation made six years ago by the county was surely not a -valuation at the present time. He contended that tlho Stratford 'borough had to maintain two miles of the main road and did not get any contribution from the Stratford couaSy towards the upkeep. It had iJho tout miles of main roads to maintain. He stated that the Borough Council had got up to its fullest rating powers, and had decided that for the coming year the full rate of 3d in the £ would have to be struck to enable the borough to provide finance. The tollgate affected very much the business people of Stratford. The streets of the borough wem largely used by the county ratepayers for bringing their milk to the Stratford dairy factory. There was no reason why the borough ratepayers should be charged for using county roads any more than a county ratepayer should Tie charged for using the borough roads. Ho said thai if the Commissioner allowed this gate to be erected other local bodies would apply for a permit to do likewise. Mr. J. W. Boon, Mayor of Stratford, put in a written statement, and in reply to Mr. Spcncc Mr. Boon suggested that rather than a toll-gate a motor-tax should be put on toy the County Council and the revenue produced should be used for the main arterial roads. On commercial grounds he objected to the toll-gate, and that from a motorist's point of view the toll-gate was not in the interest of the borough. Further, it would divert trade that at present comes to Stratford elsewhere. He contended that a very large number of people from the Taranaki county used this road, &Md said that he did not think it strange that the representatives from Taranaki and New (Plymouth advocated toll-gates, and stated that the reason New Plymouth wanted the toll-gate was to divert to New Plymouth the trade that now came to Stratford. The reacou Eltham and Hawera wanted tollgates was because they wanted to get out of paying a levy, and considered a toll-gate was an easy way out of it. John B. Richards, president of the Cham'ber of Commerce, also gave evidence against the proposed toll. The enquiry was then adjourned till the following day.