Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-06-29

An interesting bit of comment on the relative
values of paving materials is found in the fol-
lowing editorial which was published in the
Minneapolis Tribune:
1T is misconstruing comments by The Trib-
une on rival varieties of paving material TO say,
as did a New York correspondent whose ietter
setting forth merits of bithulithic or asphaltlc
pavement was published yesterday, that TINS
newspaper named Portland cement road-con
crete-as the only road of permanent Durability
and capable of standing up under the heaviest
traffic conditions In the controversy between
proponents of concrete and advocates OF bithu-
lithic, The Tribune accepted the assertions OF
state and federal highway engineers that botn
were types of good pavement, capable OF meet
ing the heavy traffic requirements; but under
the circumstances, interests of economy argued
in favor of selection of concrete as costing FAR
less than bitulithic or any other material in the
competition
This recalls the suggestion made by the EVE
MING NEWS in regard to the paving OF west
avenue, Sewaren. In spite of the fact that the
property owners there expressed a preference
for an all-concrete road, the freeholders. 1t ap-
pears, have decided, in their wisdom, to have a
bituminous surface on a concrete foundation. In
view of the fact that 1t is generally conceded
that an all-concrete road is much cheaper than
one with any kind of a bituminous surface, which
usually means a surface put out by the patent
pavements interests, and in view of the fact that
it is generally conceded that a concrete pavement
is at least as good as one with a bituminous sur
face-and many believe it is a great deal better
the EVENING NEWS suggested that the free
holders ask for bids for both kinds of pavements
and select whichever one is the cheaper.
OF course, no one wants a cheap pavement
lust for the sake of it's cheapness. In the long
run such a pavement may turn out to be the
most costly. But when the value of concrete
has been so clearly demonstrated; when the
county is short of funds and 1t is desired to
make the money that the freeholders have for
road work go as far as possible, and when the
people directly interested ask for concrete. it
would seem the only reasonable thing to 90
would be to use concrete if it can be laid for
less money, as is claimed.
If the concrete road were so inferior to the
Djtuminous surface there might be some rea-
son for preferring the latter even If 1t did cost
more. But with such samples of concrete ROADS
as we have all over the state, especially that
stretch of highway in Railway from the Penn
sylvania railroad bridge to Bolan's corner going
toward Elizabeth, the argument in favor OF o-
luminous has not a leg to stand on. Ana wheh
the cost is considered, it having been demon
strated time and again that the concrete Is much
cheaper, truly the Board of Freeholders lay
themselves open to severe criticism for limiting
the specifications to a bituminous surface Tor
West avenue, or for any other road, for that
matter as long as funds are so scarce. The prop
erty owners have requested concrete, FIRST pc
cause they prefer that road surface to any other
believing. and with good reason, that it Is a oet-
fer wearing surface; secondly, they ask for con-
crete because they believe it can be laid more
cheaply thereby saving money that may be useo
for road improvement elsewhere. The least the
freeholders can do is to advertise for both xmas
of pavements.