WHICH METHOD?

Southland Times, Issue 25309, 12 June 1935, Page 8

WHICH METHOD?

FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

Opposition to the practice of pulling up asphalt footpaths and placing gravel on them for months before they receive further treatment was voiced by Councillor G. J. Reed at the City Council meeting last evening. Councillor W. M. C. Denham said that there were two ways of dealing with the footpaths, either the expensive way of using tar macadam or the less expensive way of putting down gravel and using the corporation tar for surfacing when the gravel had consolidatCouncillor E. J. McLauchlan asked for the costs of putting down asphalt footpaths as in the past and the tarsealing job. The City Engineer (Mr F. M. Corkill) said that there was not a big difference, though a lot depended on the nature of the ground to be formed. Tar macadam cost from £6 to £7 a chain, and the sealing job last year cost £5 15/7 a chain. Subsidized labour had been used in the latter case. Councillor McLauchlan said that seeing the difference was comparatively small it would seem wiser to put down proper tar macadam paths. Councillor J. H. Tattersfield said the cost of sealing was Bj}d a yard. He believed there was a case of tar macadam asphalting costing 6/4 a yard. In reply to Councillor Tattersfield the engineer said that tar macadam of an inch and a half thickness cost 1/3 a square yard for material alone. Councillor Tattersfield expressed surprise at this figure. In fact he would challenge it. The engineer said that this was the cost at the yard. Councillor G. E. T. Dorman suggested two experimental areas to test the two methods. Councillor W. M. C. Denham said that the experiment had already been made. He declared that it was the first time he had learnt from the engineer that the costs of the two metnbds were so close. The policy decided on by the council had been to use corporation material rather than the tar macadam method.

The Mayor said that from his investigations in the north he thought the surface sealing job was much cheaper than the tar macadam. If the penetration method were adopted some inconvenience must be suffered by residents. The time required for consolidation might be much shorter than in Tweed street. He was surprised at the proximity of the costs mentioned by the engineer. “I have been thinking about this matter,” continued the Mayor, “and I consider you’re only muddling if you propose to carry out this great work out of revenue. I think the engineer should draw up a schedule showing the cost of repairing the footpaths under the following headings: (a) footpaths requiring complete reconstruction; (b) footpaths which could be put in order by patching and top-dressing. The Loans Board might permit a loan for the former class of work, though it is doubtful about the latter. I take it that the policy of the council is to use gasworks tar sprayed into the path. “In regard to the proposed surfacing of certain streets, the engineer could supply the council with (a) the total sum required to seal with gasworks tar the metal streets where tram lines are situated, and (b) the estimated cost of sealing such other streets which in my opinion should be dealt with at the same time. Afterwards, with the council’s permission, steps could be taken to apply to the Loans Board when the board would fix, if it is agreeable to the loan proposal, the term of the loan which I may say will probably be very short, due to the proposed nature of the work. The shorter the loan, the higher your annual charge on account of the sinking fund.” Councillor Denham remarked that what the Mayor proposed was being done.

At this stage Councillor W. G. Tait suggested a return to the clause in hand, which concerned the construction of certain specific footpaths. This was done without further discussion.