The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-10-07
1T IS EXPENSIVE.
Asphalt Repairs Cost More
Than Ever.

1t will cost the city of Topeka $1,000
more this year to repair the asphalt
pavements than it did year ago.
At the present rate of increase. the
city will be paying $4,000 a year for
asphalt repairs by the time the present
five year contract with the Barber COM
pany expires. This drain on the citys
general finances cannot much longer be
endured, and it is imperative that the
city council take some action to afford
relief from the unjust system which
taxes the whole city to keep the asphalt
streets in repair while repairs on other
streets, West Sixth for example, are
utterly neglected.
This years bill for patching the as
phalt is likely to be nearly $500. Last
year it was 5000. Even at this ex-
pense the city is only able to patch the
very worst places in the asphalt and let
the rest go.
'-Topeka's asphalt pavements are worn
out" said City Engineer McCabe today
THE old asphalt is so rotten that it will
hardly hold a patch. Many of the
streets have been patched so often that
they are irregular and need resurfaciflg.
Resurfacing is the only thing which will
do any good. I have repeatedly tried
to get the council to adopt some other
plan than merely patching the pave
ment. This is of no permanent value.
We should be doing something which
will amount to something when it is
done. This constant expense for repair
Every year we will have to pay out
more for the asphalt repairs. 1t Is GER
tain to come The Davements are con-
Stantly getting older, and more in need
of extensive patching. The only sensible
thing for Topeka to do is to resurface
the asphalt streets
Some very important legal question
will be raised by the question of repay
ing. The first thing for the city council
to do is to instruct the city attorney to
make a thorough investigation for the
purpose of finding out just what rights
the city has and whether or not the ex-
pense of repaving shall be paid by the
city at large or by the property holders
on the street to be repaved.
Some have suggested that the money
which is annually expended for repairing
these streets one block a year. This would
establish a very bad precedent for the
city. however for it would follow that all
resurfacing and repaving sswould have to
be paid for by the city wherever it might
Property owners on West Sixth and
other streets which are likely to need a
new surface the pavement are, OF
course anxious to have it settled that the
city at large shall foot the bill. The city
charter act, however. does not seem TO
cont enplate such a method of procedure
1922 ovvners must netit1on for re-
paving the same as for a new pavement
The expense of repaving is defrayed by a
bond issue, payable in ten yearly Install
rnents the same a bond issue for new
paving.
face the asphalt streets the question will
be whether brick will be used or whethe.
new asphalt will be laid. 1t would be UNI
fortunate indeed to lose the beautiful
asphalt streets. but the fact that the re
pairs of asphalt are in the exclusive con
troll of the asphalt trust. and no chance Is
given for any competition, makes the CITY
officials prejudiced against, asphalt When
the last contract for repairs was let the
city sent letters to all the asphalt CON-
panies in the country soliciting bids pr
the work. The Barber company was the
only one that responded, and it got tbs
contract at $1.65 a yard for resurfacing
and 81 80 for putting in both concrete and
asphalt The original cost was about
81 80 or $500.