PUNIHO TOLL GATE.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 October 1915, Page 2

PUNIHO TOLL GATE.

EGMONT SETTLERS WANT CONCESSION. THE REQUEST REFUSED. The Puhiho toll-gate was fclie subject of some discussion at the meeting of the Taranaki County Council yesterday, when, a deputation' from the Egmont County Council, consisting of Messrs M. Fleming, W. R. Wright, and J. Young, waited on the Council and asked for some concession for ratepayers of the Egmont County who used the toll-gate. Mr. Fleming said that while ratepayers of the Egmont County had to pay toll at Pufiiho there was a largo amount of traffic from the Taranaki County which used the Egmont County roads and the Egmont County did not beneßt by the traffic. The Egmonlt County asked that there should be an alteration in the scale of tolls. He had noticed that a sum of £I2OO had been collected by the toll-gate during the last twelve months, and he contended that Egmont County ratepayers paid 00 per cent, of this amount, and the remainder had been contributed by the general travelling public. Mr. Fleming asked that half the amount provided by the genera! public—that is 20 per cent, of the takings—should be refunded to the Egmont County. Mr. Fleming went on to compliment the Taranaki County on the good condition of its main roads, and ho said the Egmont County was also endeavoring to keep their roads up to this standard, but he felt they were getting behind. The traffic on the roads was now enormous. If no concession was given the Egmont County would have ] to protect itself by putting up another toll-gate. Messrs Wright and Young supported these arguments, emphasising that unless some coucesskm waa given to them the Egmont County Council would have to put up another toll. After the deputation withdrew, Cr. McAllum said he felt quite safe in saying the people of the Egmont County did not pay 33 per cent, of the toll fees. If 20 per cent, of the fees were given to them it would mean the Egmont people woi|ild be getting off very lightly. The Council had had to erect a toll-gate to protect itself, and he would not bo in favi'r of any concessions being made. The toll-keeper submitted a return of the people using the toll-gate for a fortnight, which showed that ratepayers of the Egmont County contributed £l3 la fld, ratepayers of the Taranaki County contributed £lO 18s, and outsiders paid £9 lis.

The chairman remarked the Council was there to look after its own business, and the Egmont County would have to protect itself. Egmont would have to |)ut up a iloll-gate, as Stratford had.done. Cr. McAlhun asked what had happened to the railway scheme along the coast. Had it died a natural death?

Cr. C. Andrews explained that the proposed route of the railway was still being surveyed and until this work was completed no progress could be made with the scheme. The chairman remarked that the railway was a project in the distant future. .During some further discussion the chairman said the only course would be for the Egmont County ratepayers to pay a big subsidy, and then the tollgate could be done away with. Tt was decided to inform the Egmont County Council that the Tarannki Council regretted it could not see. its way to make any concession as requested by the deputation.