HAMILTON’S POSITION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20993, 21 December 1939, Page 8

HAMILTON’S POSITION

REVIEW BY ENGINEERS APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS DIFFERENT BASIS SUGGESTED “In the first place there can be no doubt that the carrying into effect of the whole scheme would place the future developmental problems of Hamilton, as they are affected by the railways, upon a wonderful basis,” stated Mr R. Worley, borough engineer, in reply to Mr Mackley’s statement, “and in no lesser degree would it effect a great solution of the problems governing the development of the railway facilities, as applied to Hamilton and the district generally.

“The planning of the re-organisa-tion of the facilities at Frankton Junction presented a most difficult problem, and the manner in which it has been accomplished by the departmental engineers is deserving of the highest praise. “The department has prepared a basis upon which it thinks the distribution of costs between the department and the borough council would be equitable,” added Mr Worley. “The total cost of the work is estimated at £648,300, and the detailed statement submitted shows that when the responsibility for the various items is allocated out, the department is shown to be responsible for £452,150 and the council for £196,150. The department, however, would be prepared to accept £174,000 as the council’s share, leaving it to bear £474,300. It has produced figures to show that if the department was to carry out the necessary developmental work of the railways, regardless of how the borough problems are affected, its costs would only be £389,700. In addition there would still be two crossings to be manned, the capitalised cost of which is £20,000. On the face of it, therefore, the department is making a concession of £64,600 in order that the comprehensive scheme may be undertaken. Distribution of Costs “The distribution of costs on a big job such as this depends very largely upon the angle from which the various problems are viewed, and while on the face of it the department appears to have presented a very good case and made a very good offer, there appears to be a number of relevant factors which should be well considered. There is also scope for viewing some of the cardinal decisions arrived at by the ‘department from quite a different angle, with the result that an entirely different allocation of the costs might appear just as reasonable.

“For instance, it will be noted that the department expects the council to bear the whole cost of lowering the line for single track (£40,000). On reading the report it will be noticed that some little emphasis is laid on this part of the work as being ‘the council’s scheme.’ While the council pointed cut to the department the details of a workable scheme, and its staff carried out much of the preliminary survey work and estimates, 1 feel sure that the council would be well prepared to waive its claim to any credit in this direction in exchange for a more equitable distribution of the costs, as I cannot see any other reason why the whole cost should be ours,” said Mr Worley. “In view of the fact that there is no practical scheme available for dealing with the town level crossings by either subway or overhead bridge, it has always been considered that, as the lowering of the line is the only other alternative, this work should come into the same category. When this proposal was first mooted the policy of the department was that the cost of eliminating level crossings should be borne equally by the local authority and the department. This appeared reasonable and was the policy at the time the River Road subway was constructed.