Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-09-25
Administrative Board Mathematics

w ITIlOuT any desire to dctract from what
w ever credit properly is due the Admin
istratvC Board for the savings it has effected
and with full appreciation OF the fact that
in several departments of the city govern
ment ii has promoted real economies. The
Times Dispatch finds it impossible to take at
face value tho remarkable statement pre-
scented to the Charter Change Commission on
Thursday evening.
In that statement the board claims that in
the two and Il half years Of its existence it
has saved the city S734. 900 i'll expenditures
fer street and sewer work alone. This
mathematical result is attained by method
OF cost accounting and comparison that can
only be described as remarkable.
Tale, by way of example, the saving OF
$4,000 alleged to have been made in the
cost of smooth paving. This is arrived at b?
adding up the cost of all smooth paving done
under the direction of the old Street Conf
mittcc and dividing that total by the number
OF square yards paved. whereby an average
cost OF S2."9 per square yard is obtained. and
following the same rule as to the paving done
under the direction Of the board which gives
an average cost OF Sl.57. The difference be-
tween these two figures multiplied by the
amount Of paving the board has authorized.
is held TO represent the $50. 900 saving.
OF course. this is ridiculous. II omts all
consideration Of the fact that the committee.
for the most part laid asphalt block paving
which costs $3.50 Il square yard. while the
board has paved large areas with asphaltic
concrete at Il cost OF $40. The two things
no moro comparable than the cost of Il
fur overcoat and sweater. 1t is true. per-
haps, that the more expensive paving, under
the old regime. was placed OH streets where
that OF moderate cost would have been more
economical, but ii is also to be remembered
that asphalt block is likely to outlast
asphaltic concrete by at least two to one. At
stand il is necessary to assume that the
Street Committee, had it continued in power.
would have continued to pin its faith to the
$3.50 material. rejecting absolutely the
cheaper substitute.
Moreover. no consideration is paid TO diff
ferences in market prices Of any of the com
modities purchased. which in some cases have
been considerable
These omissions make the statement
meaningless in many of its aspects 1t is
especa lily to be regretted that this is so. be-
cause even from the figures presented il is
evident that the board has made substantial
savings. for which it should receive full credit.
There are savings, for example. in the cost
of earth and rock excavation for sewers in
granite spall PAWN. and in repairs prop
erty damages that appear TO be unexception-
able 1t is doubtless true that there are real
savings hidden i'll the boards other figures.
but the method of comparison leaves them
undisclosed to any fair and impartial eye.
We hold no brief for the Street Committee.
and ii il wasted the peoples money by plac-
ing expensive asphalt block on some little
travelled residence thoroughfareS. where
cheaper paving would have answered every
purpose, the Administrative Board should
bring these facts TO public attention. That
might clarity some matters considerably. In
the meantime. though. none of is much
enlightened by solemn pronounccment that
silk costs more than cotton, gold several
times much as brass