HOT MIX ROADS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 144, 20 June 1928, Page 15

HOT MIX ROADS

. ESTIMATES: COSTS LIVELY DISCUSSION COMMENT AMD CRITICISM ,On. three members of the City and Suburban Highways Board took part in tho debate at this morning?s'meeting, Mr. D.R. Hoggard, Councillor. 11. D. Bennett, .' and tho Mayor, Mr. G. A. Troup, - but that is not to say that the dis r . . / , cussion lacked liveliness—on tho contrary. Mr.. Hoggard contended '. that there were very marked dif- „ ference's; between the estimates for ' . the-cost of work done by the board and that surprising discrepancies . 'were revealed by various sets of - , figures and that a- hot-mix work . had proved to be unduly costly. . , '..Councillor Bennett declared that there were no such differences, and that the paving costs compared ■!' -very well with any'paving elsewhere in New Zealand.. When at a .'recent meeting a. state-' , ment was brought down as to tho ops erations of the board from inception .up to that date, Mr.-Hoggard expressed dissatisfaction with- .tho figures aiid stated that he.would himself ask for .-' certain further information. The reply to his questions was before tlie board.in the following report from the City Engineer:—' Question (1): A statement of the assets-held by the City Corporation upon the trusts created by tho board's ' legislation. ■ . ' Tho assets of the board can. only be the result 'of tlio, cxporidituro of its funds. The assets of the board in ad- , dition to its pavements aro plant,, material, etc' The, value, of these -vary '• according to tho:time of year - when stocks might be assessed but gcucrally consists of two paving plants, road-making plant, and transport, bitumen and material estimated to bo worth'from £15,000 to £20,000. : . Question (2): A'statement of tho I liabilities of the : City- Corporation in connection with tho said trusts. y Thero lire no liabilties other than itoms occurring in the mid-season as between departments. These arc cleared up at .tho, .end of', each year. The statoment 'supplied at tho end' of each paving year fully covers tho 'as-. : sets arid liabilities. ,' / Question (3): Details as to cost of maintaining ' each section of paved road. '' / -The., annual maintonarico statement has been forwarded to tho board giving the maintenance -data asked for.;. Question 4/ and answer deal with the'question'of costing procedure. Question 5:, Where three, course work ends arid',two.. : course work' begins on the Taita and • Silverstream sections. No record-is kept in this office as ' ,to .what part of .'these sections of- road is treated; with three-course work. On / the Silverstream section, .51.88 per^ cent. ,of tho area of 6310 :squarelyards is. paved with three-course. On the Taita section. 70.8 per cent, of the area' of '18,700' square yards "is paved, with three-course. ' ' •'.-'•. . Question 6:,. Separate .costs, for the,, • three-cpurso,jnd,-twp-c,qursQ-,pQrtipiis-..0f the Taita .and Silyorstream sections. " Separate cost for the three-course and two-course work on Taita and .Silver; '■ stream sections is not available.' Question 7: The prices charged by ' the Wellington City Council for metal. The prieo charged- by the Wellington i City Council for metal is. lis per cubic yard for first-class metal «at quarry. Question ,8: The- prices .charged by the Wellington City. Council for, !the\ use of its .inotdr-lorrics and ..any. other plant.'. „ ;. , , The -Suburban Highways Board is not hiring any plant owned by the .Wei-' ' lington City Council, other than' 'on occasidns one tractor, the hire charge being Bs,per hour/including wages, fuel, etc. i- . - y . „ Question.9: A dissection of the aggregate expenditure of £243,659 9s 4d showing tho cost of each section of road, and the length, width, and area in squaro 'yards of each section. ". The statement.'referred to amounting ;to: £243,0.59 Ss 4d is that. presented by. the City Treasurer from the inception of-tho1 board's work to tho 31st March, 1928. The City Treasurer's statement covers cost'of .raising loans , and otijr expenses. that are not kept in department, but as requested by'Mr. Hoggard, I append hereto statement showing the cost of paving each section of .road as constructed from the inception of the work originally commenced under the Hutt Road Board and latterly extended under the Wellington City and Suburban Highways Board of . Control.- . ,v ■ » Question 10: In_addition to the above ' information, I should like to have some information pertaining to the current year, which was promised hie, by Councillor H. D. Bonnctt after the meeting on the 18th April. The information; so promised was a detached statement! of tho costs of the recent sealing work l north of the Silverstream railway over-' • bridge. . ..■.,'■•■,- Tho sealing work north of/ Silyorstream railway overbridgc is not yet completed. Cost of this -work will be given immediately tho iiguro is available. . The statement of '.cost_referred to by the Engineer in answer to.question '9 gives tho following figures:—.' Cable street,. £2970'8s 3d; Chaffer's street, £305 Is lOd; Cuba street, Petone, £1390 ls*Bd; Day's Bay road, £27,834 14s 3d; Eastbourne main, road, £10,510 7s TOd; Esplanade, Petone, £8421 6s; Evans Bay road, £13,346 13s 8d; Gracofield road, £1289 10s. 6d; Herd street, £994 Is sd; Jackson street, £5471 lis 9d; Kilbirnie crescent, £2444 4s; Lyall parade, £1419 2s 2d; Main Hutt road, section 1., ThorndonPetone, £38,254 14s; Main Hutf road, section 2, Petone,' £8594 5s sd; Main Hutt road, section 3, Lower Hutt, £22,----119 18s; Main Hutt road, soction 4P, Taita, £6755 os'ld; Main Hutt'road, section 4T,. Silverstream,'£3l7o 6s 10, d; Main Hutt road, section 0, Upper Hutt, ■ £13,587 4s Id; Ngahauranga Gorge road, £2540 2s 8d; .Onepu road, £3382 •15s; Oriental parade, £4617 17s Id; t»ark road, £3164 19s 6d; Queen's Drive, £7049 14s 8d; Railway avenue, ,#2116 16s Id; Thorndon quay, £4331 its; Day's Bay road widening, £2075; Jtailway avenue cyclo track,. £19 19s 6d.' , The total is set out as £198,183 Is 3d. •"REPLIES NOT SATISFACTORY." Mr. Hoggard said that ho did not '• consider tho replies at all satisfactory. Detailß. of' three-course work should surely be available, and tho price which tho council charged for metal was,' in his opinion, much too high; tho' Hutt County Council bought good metal, at 8s and sold it at 7s from tho Paekakariki quarry. Therq was a remarkable difference between'tho figures given by the City Engineer and the City Treasurer, the first stating tho'cost of the • work done as £1-98,183, and tho Treasurer as £243,659, so that there was a discrepancy- of £45,000, amounting to £1400 per mild of roads constructed. The explantion givou by tho Engineer that tho Treasurer's figures included the cost'of .raising the loan was incorrect. Thero certainly should bo reconciliation of tho two sets of figures, for

on tho face of them it appeared that ."£45,000 had vanished into thin air." Councillor Bennett: "Oh, ri'onseiiso, tho figures ate not tho same at all." Mr.'Hoggard: "Tho City Engineer says that tho difference- is accounted' for by tho cost of raising tho loans; the.City Troasurcr says that it is not." Taking tho- Treasurer's figures, continued Mr. Hoggard, ono found that tho average cost per uiilo over the 32* miles worked out at, in round figures, £7500, and. that included a certain amount of work that was only tar seal--ing, so that ho ccjt of permanent paving was really higher, and over and above, that wero moneys expended by local bodies in preparation and widening work, with tho result that tho total oxpendituro upon roads under the . board's control considerably exceeded a quarter of a million pounds, riot taking into account cost, of raising loans. NEARLY AS DEAR AS CONCRETE.' Auckland had, according to a recent statement, constructed 27 miles of concrete roatj for a quarter of a million pounds, and the board ,had put down 32 miles of hot mix roads for a quarter of a million; they had cost pretty well as much as Auckland's concrete roads, which would stand up to heavy traffic ■ in the future as bituminous roads would not. Concrete roads, moreover, could be constructed about Wellington much more cheaply than in Auckland, as materials' for the aggregate were inexhaustible and on hand. ' Christehurch had laid her roads at £5600 per.mile. In . New South .Wales and in the Sydriey metropolitan area bitumen was only being used as a carpot on certain roads. Where bitumen was used.other than upon,-con-crete a very thorough foundation courso of sandstone blocks was put down, and sub-soil drainage was also attended to.- ' Tho'Mayor: "Aro you arguing that trip roads wo have ,put .down will' not stand up to traffic?" . - „ Mr. Hoggard: "My 'impression is this: that we have spent a.quarter of a million on roads that will not stand up to traffic in the future." Councillor Bennett: "How do you know?" . ..['/■ '"' . ' Mr. Hoggard: "I have told you that that is my impression, and it is as good as any other impression." Tho Mayor remarked that ho wouldhesitated to say that in his opinion the roads would fail. Such a statement carried, its own" conviction. FAR ABOVE ESTIMATES. Mr. Hoggard: "I have reforred to the question of concrete roads not to start a controversy, but because, the work of the board is not completed it is' a very important matter that we' should go into the question of comparative costs. . . It is our duty to inquire into these questions and. into the disparity between .the original estimates of the cost of the work, which wero from £4000, to, £5647« per mile, and • tho cost of-the woi'k done, which averages about i£7500. It is our duty to know why the estimates wero so grossly exceeded. . • Councillor " ; Benriet.t said that it was regrettable that certain members of the board appeared to take up'the attitude, that they should not sit with others as members of the board, but rather-they.'had been, deputed 'to attend to criticise and take no, part in constructive, .work; Mr. Hoggard had '. shown that attitude. ;It ..was regret: table that .twelve 'men; could not come together to work in the best interests ■ of the community without certain members standing .hack arid offering carp- ■ ing criticism. -' However, ho supposed it was human nature..',, ' y.y •.' ' , "' Councillor Bennett', said that thero had been difficulties'in .tho' past through . obtaining figures .from two departments, but he hoped that'that would be overcome, in future,.as by.the-figures ;,coriiiiig.through" 'tlio' council's new. costing officer. As a result/of the. eagerness of the board for figures which were right up to date, return's had been from time . to' time brought down*, as to-work in progress, but such figures could' not take into account various balances, debit and credit, and overhead expenses, , which could only be worked: out at the".end of tho period. ' The City Treasurer's figures took such itoms into account, and wore final. ANOTHER SET OF FIGURES. Ho was certainly surprised that a man of Mr. Hoggard's experience should havo fallen into' the obvious blunder of saying that £45,000 had vanished into thin air; that was childMr. Hoggard: "It certainly should be accounted for, and as that is not done then the assumption is that it has gone into thin air? Why was it riot accounted Jot?" ; " . ■'-' Councillor Bennett said that he haddrawn up a return which set out the position correctly; those .figures wore from returns which had been made to members at one time or another, and. had been approved by the treasurer. If Mr. Hoggard.wished to be fair —" Mr. Hoggard: '.'Mr. Bennett has no right to suggest that, I am riot fair. Mr. Bennett makes very irequent use of that.term 'carping criticism,'-when-over, in fact, any comment is made. He should.get some other term."- ' , Councillor'Bennett:'"l. must look it up, but it would mean the same in any case." The.figures had been approved by tho treasurer. ' They were as follows:-^ ' Debit. . „ . .'• £ s. d.' To Maintenance ....;...'.';-• " 2}-^I Jli ,? „ Not cost of removing slips . 4,802 10 11 „ Hutt road patrol 1,050,. 0 0. „ Interest on loans '■ 27,059 16 10 „ Interest on overdraft 1,260 7 6 /..Sinking fund ........... .12,375 0 0 . „ Net cost of paving (en- ■» ' glneers) ;.. 198,183 13 „ Work subsidised by M.H. , I Board v 22,029 O O „ Plant and Stock .' . S.B9T 0 0 ,', Supervision and office, , charges 9,256 0 0 „ Printing and advertising 956 0 0 „ Accident pay 436 0 0 „ Compensation ';. 350 0 0 „ legal, insurance, and , , sundries .1.160 0 0 ! £311,582 1 -9 Dr. 1,453 8. 1. ' . £313,035 9 10 - . Credit. By Hutt road fees 48,201 16 6 „ 1.8. contrlbs. 18,439 2 11 „ M.H. subsidy 860 16 2 „ Court fines, etc. ' 1,886 10 3 : 69,388 5 10 „ loans 49,090 0 0 „ „ ...... 123,705 38 „ „ ...... 19,875 00 - ' 193,620 3 8 „ Main H., subsidy 21,909 6 9 „ Bank hypothecation ...... 22,854 10 3 „ Revenue account 5,263 i ! £313,035' 9 10 There was, therefore, continued Councillor Bennett, a difference of £1453, not £45,000, and the treasurer had stated that that would be accounted for when a further scrutiny was made. So was the etatement of the vanishing of £45,000 into thin air itself dispersed. . - • ' BITUMEN OR SOMETHING. Eeferring to Mr. Hoggard's remarks toytho Tasting qualities of bituminous roads, Councillor Bennett said that he was quite prepared to. consider yery carefully other materials which might offer better results, but hot mix roads had given full satisfaction/and the cost, compared well with costs in any other, part of New Zealand and probably Australia. Special costs' had riiuch to do with-the question, and it was to be remembered that the board had by ono resolution involved itself in £11,000 for preparation work. Tar from that being acknowledged, it was now thrown back at them/ It was. positively ridiculous. Including that £11,000 the work done had worked out at 10s 2d per square yard, and exclusive of that item at 9s Bd. Tho Hutt road pavement was now in its fifth or sixth year, and bituminous work in the city in the

seventh or eighth year, but not. one penny of maintenance had been spent upon tho pavfcd portions, except where foundations or construction work were faulty. MORE WORK AHEAD. ' Councillor Bennett said that thero was plenty of work ahead of the board, for he believed that the interests of the community would bo well served if tho board were to receive an allotment of tho petrol tax funds, from £150,000 to £200,000 per annum, to carry on voiding'work over the hills. Mr. Hoggard: "Would you agree to give the board a legal entity, and that wo should appoint our own officers ?:' Councillor Bennett: "I think so." Mr. Hoggard: "And the City ! Council?" , Councillor Bennett: "Ask his .Worship." The Mayor said that he. agreed with what Councillor Bennett had said in regard to the attitude taken up by certain members; they were there as. members of the' same board working iv the common interest. He could not imagine that the board was going to -'farther itself in its relations with the Main Highways Board, as suggested by Coun- ■ cillor Bennett, by such discussions. STILL ANOTHER SET OF FIGURES. At tho conclusion of tho meeting. a further return was made available, as follows:— '• ' ■ | J^Y I^ o - ''. -s' . ''■, S v s§l'^Sl i H ■ Item. ■ > • '. £ . £ -■ £.. 'Wellington C. ■4% 4 0555 6641. 26,565 Tetonc B ...- 1% Hi 5600 6576 5,59-l Lower Hutt B. 2% 1% 06-17 90,20 16,110 Wellington .o.' 3 2% 4000 5200 1,4,296 Lower Hutt B.- 1 1 5500 ' 5127 8,127 (lower Hutt B. 1 1- '4000 4431 4,45-1 Petone B. .. 2% 2% 5600 6140 15,280 Hutt-C 3 2„ . 4000 3970 0,025 (Hutt C 4 4 4000 0059 27,835 Eastbourne .. l»/j W 4000 7000 10,510 Hutt C. (Inc. , Upper Hutt) .4 ''4 4000 '3397, 13,587 Jlaltara (Nga. - - ' Gorge) : .%, „ 4000 50S0 2,540 Jlnkara (inc.J'vlllc) .... 5% -. — ■ 4454 —. ,—.