Evening star., 1925-09-16
BY WILL p. KENNEDY.


fThts Is the third Of series of
articles on the condition Of Wash
in0ton's streets. The fourth aOiH dp
pear tonlorrotc).
With many of our most-used streets
"outlawed" by old age, as shown in
thhe first article in this series, and
with even worse deterioration In
evitable, as shown in the second
article In this series, printed yester-
day, 1t is very pertinent to inquire:
Are our street funds wisely spent?"
In all fairness it should be said
that those in direct charge of our
street work are recognized by their
profession as among the best road
builders in the country. Lieut.. Col.
j. Franklin Bell, Engineer Commits
sloner, In executive charge, says this.
G. b. Hunt, the engineer of high
ways, has been on the job 35 years
here and his assistant, J. w. Dare,
for 43 years. The roads built and
maintained under their administra-
ton have outlived the normal life of
svsh streets as determined by the
engineering and especially the high
way engineering profession. This is
attested by Col. F. s. Besson, for
merly Assistant Engineer Commission
er, who is author of a new manual on
City Pavements" and so may be
considered qualified by his experience
here and by his general knowledge
of the subject to speak with some
authority.
Critics Complain.
But we have the administrative
judgment of these men questioned by
critics, who complain that % con-
tractors are now compelled to
guarantee the street work they do
for only one year instead of for five
years as they used to: (2) that natural
lake asphalt which formerly was
used exclusively, is now being re-
placed by an inferior and cheaper oil
asphalt; (3) that only one or two con-
tractors can get jobs here and our
entire street program is held up by
the size of the organization they set
to work, and % that contractors are
allowed to dump into the repair work
here almost any kind of inferior
material.
Regarding the guarantee provision
complaint. the District authorities
explain, and others with experience
in contract work indorse their argu-
ment. that guarantee provision
means greatly increased cost. They
say that the experience of many
years has shown that the cost of re-
pairs to asphalt pavement during the
first five years of it's life is negli-
gible. This is confirmed by long
time survey, graphically illustrated
in the July % number of the Engi-
neering Record.
Anyhow, that IS not a question of
administrative judgment, for it was
Congress, by law. that directed the
change from five-year to a one
year guarantee period. This change
in law was made in the District ap-
preparation bill for the fiscal year
1917 and was carefully considered by
leaders in Congress who had exten-
sive experience in such matters
men like Representative Martin B.
Madden Of Illinois. now chairman of
the House appropriations committee.
who, as a contractor, laid a very
large part of the streets in Chicago.
Guarantee Dropped.
Congress had previously required
the retention of 10 per cent of the
cost of the work for the guarantee
period. This. of course meant a
heavy financial burden to the con-
tractors. If the street work came
to $500 a year, it meant that $75,-
600 would be held idle for five years,
job must hire his finances somewhere
else to keep on doing business. So the
contractors made the District pay, and
this increased cost, although hidden,
was reflected in the total cost of our
streets. Then. finally the individual
property owners paid, because under
the Borland amendment one-half the
cost was assessed against them
The question came UP to Congress
yxh q IN
this duty when the best judgment of
the profession was that the streets
would show little deterioration during
the first five years, and long years
of experience had demonstrated the
fact. III was decided that the long
term guarantee is a poor bargain.
So the custom was changed by act of
Congress and met with absolute con-
currence from the District officials.
1t should be noted that this applied
not only to street work but to school
buildings and all such construction
work, and meant annually a holding
UP of very large sums from the c>S
tractors with a corresponding increase
in cost of the structure to the Dis
trict taxpayers.
Bond Now Required.
The new law reduces the guarantee
period to one year, and does away
with the retention of any cash. It
merely requires the contractor to give
a bond, which costs him only trivial
amount in comparison, because there
really is no risk.
Here is another thought on this
subject: Thers is a fundamental diff
ference in financing construction and
maintenance The District government
pays for the maintenance of the
streets, but construction of new
streets and resurfacing, which is the
subject of these contracts, is assessed
against abutting property owners.
There is conflict in putting the main
tSnance cost (which is payable by the
District) into the construction cost
(which is payable by abutting property
owners).
Another strong argument against
the five-year guarantee requirement
is this: 1t practically, eliminates out
Of town competition for contracts. We
want to invite out-of-town contracts
and encourage contractors in other
cities to put. in bids. They would be
potential in holding down the figures
of local bidders But If the out-of-
town man, after doing a good job,
under proper inspection, is forced to
wait for a large percentage of his
money and be liable to be called back
repeatedly during a fiye-year period
to make minor patchwork repairs, he
just will not enter into competition
against the local contractors.
Varieties of Asphalt.
Now we come to the second criticism
that a cheaper oil asphalt is. being
used instead of natural lake asphalt
Our street builders in the National
Capital have been laying lake asphalt
since 1878; they have been laying oil
asphalt since 1914. All our pavements
are good UP to 20 years and as a
-. ,,,.fo cod fhanr O a1.a