The Washington herald., 1912-06-24

/
gave US more money to do more work,
so that we got the streets in better shape.
| Want to EconOmiEe.
But, now, instead Of asking Congress
for more money for the streets. we want
to arrange It 50 that we will have to ask
for less. It is for this reasonsthat we
were asking for $4,000 for q government
owned asphalt plant. which the District
can operate, and with which we can save
thousands Of dollars annually. Congress
would not vote that into the appropria-
tion bill, but they have voted In an appro-
priation OF 5000 for an investigation OF
the desirability OF having the plant and
investigation OF its cost. and we hope
that the report to be made TO the next
| Congerss will show that we are right in
/ asking for the plant, just as We were
right in asking for more money to main
tain the streets in the past three years so
that they should not so constantly be
retrograding, as they were doing before
We made Congress see the necessity that
stared US in the face
The Engineer Commissioner will have
this coming fiscal year an appropriation
of S360, 900. for asphalt streets, out Of
| which is to come an item Of 1850 for a
portable asphalt plant. Unfortunately,
| language OF the appropriation bill, is
limited TO making repairs" A portable
plant is naturally best adapted to re-
surfacing asphalt streets, and II is
strange that Congress should have been
prevailed upon by the opponents Of q
government owned plant to limit the
usefulness Of the portable plant TO that
of making repairS
Contractors Oppose Plant.
Among the opponents OF the govern
ment owned plant idea, upon practical
grounds, are. naturally, the contractors
who enjoy the privilege OF doing the
work. These Contractors at present have
what is practically q monopoly, mas
much as they are the only concern in
the District who have a plant to do the
work. and when bids are opened for
| asphalt by the District II is Of course
found that the out-of-town firms that bid
upon the work have 10 make their prices
high because they have no plant here
and their bids are necessarily prohibit
| tive.
Until comparatively recently there
were two asphalt plants in the District,
one owned by the Brennan Construction
Company, and the other by the Crawford
Paving Company. Upon Mr.. Brennan's
death. Mr. Crawford bought out the Bren-
Of which Mr.. Joseph Crawford is the
dominating factor. In the current dis
friction appropriation act, as II was pro-
posed to be passed, opponents Of the
government owned asphalt plant for the
District caused to be inserted a para
graph providing for the investigation Mr..
McComb is to make which required that
the report to be made 10 Congress should
give in detail the original cost OF each
municipality owned plant investigated. the
annual expenditure for repairs and bet
terments, its output, the character Of its
output, the quality Of the pavement laid
down. the cost per yard, and the length
Of time the pavement laid down was
guaranteed.
Some Of these items were in the nature
of what politicians call jokers. II is evil
dent to the average observer that there
could be no such report to Congress on
municipality owned plants in other cities
as that required IN the item length Of
time guaranteed" for the pure and sim
pie reason that a municipality can not
guarantee to itself what length of time
the pavement it lays down will last.
JoI<ers in Bill.
It was evident to some Of the law
makers at the Capitol that the opponents
who caused this paragraph % be inserted
in the bill were actually trying TO bring
about an investigation Of municipality
owned plants in other cities, for the rea-
son that they know that most munich
pslly owned plains in other cities are sf-
fected more or less by political condi-
tions and therefore make a poor show
ing.
So that paragraph was taken out by
the lawmakers at the Capitol. and an
ether one inserted giving the District
-N--N II.
gate the desirsbIlity of and cost OF es-
tablIshing a municipal asphalt plant in
the District, and providing that the facts
upon which the conclusions are based
shall be fully stated.
Washington has no less than i46 miles
Of asphalted pavements. II has this year
about 3,5OO,0O0 square yards OF asphalted
pavements. This year there will be laid
about 10000 square yards Of resurfacing
alone, to say nothing of new streets to
be made, and the repairing Of holes.
Engineers estimate that in other cities
than Washington the contractors for this
work of resurfscing make a profit OF
ebout so cents per square yard II 15O,-
COO square yards Of resurfacing are done
this year at q profit Of g cents per
square yard, it can easily be seen that
the profit on this one item alone will be
81. 800 for the coming year. The District
Commissioners asked for $4,000 for a mu-
nicipal asphalt plant to do Washington's
work. The Contractors profit on a little
more than two years work of resurfac-
ing alone would pay for that $4,000 plant.
No Composition Here.
The contractors In the District get $40
per square yard for standard asphalt
paving, new work. they get SL6s per
square yard for resurfacing; they get 81
cents q cubic foot for the surface mix
ture in repairing holes, including the
work. and they get 43 cents a cubic foot
for the binder in repairing holes includ-
ing the work. Almost all other cities
pay more. That h the very best argu-I
ment OF the opponents OF the municI-
pally owned asphalt plant idea, which.
by the way, IS what the Cranfords are
competing against-the idea, inasmuch
as they have no competition, because no
other concern has plan here to COM
pete against them with But there isI
a very large profit: not an average prof
It. but a great one, in this work, and
those in favor Of Warrington having
such q plant point with considerable i'm
pressiveness to the figures submitted to-
Congress by Western contractor, as to-
41r1k a. e. -