MAIN ROADS BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 August 1921, Page 4

MAIN ROADS BILL.

THE TOLL-GATES CONTROVERSY. EGMONT COUNTY DISCUSSION. There was a brief discussion on the proposed Main Roads Bill at the meeting of the Egmont County Council at Opunake yesterday. Reporting on his visit to the Tolldates Commission at Hawera, the chairman said that all present seemed to favor the payment of a higher Government subsidy in preference to tollgates. It was, he understood, proposed to introduce a new Act, but, as far as he could see from the proposed Main Roads Bill, Egmont, and Taranaki generally, could get very little benefit. He felt that those present at Hawera were against toll-gates, but he thought if the Government did not pass some legislation to help them they would be obliged to go in for toll-gates. He did not consider it just for the Government to allow Taranaki, Hawera, Eltham and Stratford Counties to have toll-gates if it did not permit Egmont to do so. The Government proposal was to deal with main arterial roads, but as Egmont had no main roads in their county he did not see where this would benefit them. It was proponed to set up a commission to meet in Wellington and find out which were main roads and which were not. Or. Chapman said that the tyre tax would go to maintain the road on the other side of the mountain. The chairman said they would have to make strong representations to the proposed commission. Cr. Tosland said that one thing the recent commission had done was to let light on how certain counties had been robbed and bled by others for years. Cr. Connett admitted that the revenue from the Puniho gate was £l7OO per annum, the greater portion coming from the Egmont County. This did not lower the rate of the Okato riding. Later on, when speaking to a deputation from the Egmont County, he said that he would be willing to concede them £5OO per annum of that revenue. If he were willing to concede it now then he never had a right to take it. It was true some drastic steps were taken so as to see that no portion of a district away from a railway was bled to help maintain the roads of a district closer to the railway.

The chairman instanced the case of Hawera, which only controlled 6Vi miles of main road, and collected £2OOO from toll gates to do go. He did not consider the road cost anyth'ng like that to maintain. In fact, Mr. McPhillips, of the Waimate County Council, had said that he would be willing to take the toll revenue and maintain the road without rating the settlers. That showed how toll-gates paid. Cr. O’tsrien pointed out that the Taranaki County had to carry their traffic over about twenty miles of road that was difficult to maintain, and over ten miles of which very little rates were collected. It was not fair to ask Taranaki to carry this traffic at their owi expense.

The chairman conceded that Taranaki was in a different position to the Hawera County, which had only 6% miles of main road to maintain, but he still thought that Tarjintki drew too much revenue from toll-gat