The record-union., 1897-09-29
The Folsom Model Road.

Ihe Folsom Model Road.
Eds. Record Union: Permit me to
correct certain errors in your editorial
in this mornings Record Union rel
ative to the "extravagant estimates of
cost of the construction of the Folsom
model road
While urgently solicitous for the sue
cess of this movement, yet it would be
almost criminal to permit that solicit
tude to be exercised in emanating false
! reports, and manufacturing palpably
inaccurate estimates for the purpose Of
misleading the Board OF Supervisors, so
that this movement of Improvement
might be thus temporarily facilitated.
In your editorial this morning you
say "The cost of the stone bridge over
Alder Creek was put down at $4,000
for construction, though the State is
TO furnish all the stone, ready cut. Yet
here are the official records of Napa
County showing that two massive stone
bridges of three instead of two fifty
foot spans We're built for $12, 900 and
4,000," etc.
In no portion of the report to the
Board of Supervisors submitted by my
self and concurred in by the State De-
partment Of Highways, does it appear
that the estimate Of the cost of con-
struction" Of the Alder Creek bridge
was put down at $4,000, as stated in
your editorial.
The portion of the report covering the
bridges clearly states as follows: we
have calculated that bridge-Alder
Creek-to be of ffty-foot span. Sim
ilarly the wooden bridge at Willow
Greek should be removed and replaced
by a stone bridge of fifty-foot span.
All wooden culverts and bridges are
calculated to be superseded by either
masonry or terra Gotta pipe. 1t viii
also require one fifteen-foot stone
bridge at Buffalo Greek; one eighteen
foot bridge at Manlove; two eight-foot
stone culverts and eight two-feet stone
culverts, besides seventeen lines of ter
ra Gotta pipe, and extra piping for road
crossings, private road entrances, etc,
over the main gutterways."
In the tabulated estimate of cost ap-
pears the following: Masonry, bridge
and culvert construction, $11 900.
Two massive stone bridges referred to
as having been built in Napa County
for $4,000 and $4,000 were contract
ed for by that county for $14500 and
$19,9S0 respectively, and neither of
which bridges are of tWenty-fOOt clear
roadway. The stone bridge at Carne-
ros Napa County. built in 1896 is of
thirty-foot span and cost So, ,327 %.
Even a cursory examination of the
report and estimates of cost submitted
to the Board of Supervisors, would
clearly show that all of the masonry
work required, and cement, etc, nee
essary to be used for bridges and cul-
verts is estimated at $11 900, and not
as indicated in the editorial $4,000 for
one fifty-foot span.
In justice to the members of the State
Department of Highways who con
CURED in my report, and in the esti-
mates of cost furnished, and who gave
this matter their thorough and earn
est consideration, and in justice to the
Board of Supervisors. who accepted my
report as verify, I submit this matter
to you for correction.
While an examination of any two re-
ports, might show a great similarity
in general features, yet leading to OPP
pOsite conclusions, these conclusions
may in each case be strictly correct, the
dissimilarity not at all appearing on
the surface. The details in the one
may be ever so different in every par
ticular from the details presented by
the other.
A comparison Of the bridges computed
in these estimates, with the stone
bridges constructed by Napa County,
does not on it's face show
the main difference in details,
which in the aggregate go to
make up the difference in cost. For in
stance, the stone bridge at Monticello.
Napa County, costing $199S is of
three seventy-foot spans and the road
way is but sixteen feet wide The
roadway calculated in these estimates
for all the bridges is twenty feet in
the clear width. Differences in detail
Of this character, nature of requisite
abutments or wings, etc, go toward
making up a very material difference
noticeable in a general comparison Of
costs, and undoubtedly led to the error
of your editorial.
COMPARISON.
Again, let US compare the estimated
cost per mile of this road, with the
cost of modern macadamized roads:
Here, 1862 miles is estimated to cost
S73 ,08S O6 or So, 725 per mile. If the
macadam We're purchased at Folsom,
at market price of thirty cents per
ton, then the estimated cost per mile
would have been $5.044, for a road six
ty feet wide, with macadam twenty feet
wide and nine inches deep. Sixteen
feet width of macadam on the same
basis would be S3,033 per mile. In
Connecticut, macadam roads only four
inches deep, cost from So, 900 to $1,000
per mile. In New Jersey, four inches
deep. fifteen feet wide cost S4,700 per
mile. In Rhode Island, macadam eight
inches deep, sixteen to twenty feet wide
cost $500 per mile.
The price per square yard of the Fol-
som road macadam, laid, as estimated
is 81 7-10 cents per square yard St
Louis has 271.76 miles of broken stone
pavement which cost 81 cents per
square yard; Chicago has 226 miles of
broken stone pavement which cost 90
cents to 81 10 per square yard: Bos-
ton has H. miles of broken stone pave
ment which cost 70 cents to 81 % per
square yard; Syracuse has so miles of
broken stone pavement which cost 90
cents to 81 0S per square yard: Roch-
ester has 46 miles Of broken stone pave
ment which cost 81 25 per square yard.
The model highway between Langen-
field and Burgwald, Germany. 6.SSS
feet in length, 2612 feet wide the ma
cadamized track being only 131b feet