ROAD CONSTRUCTION METHODS.

Shannon News, 15 September 1925, Page 3

ROAD CONSTRUCTION METHODS.

COUNTY COUNCIL CRITICISM. WHO IS “SPOTLIGHT?” Wastage in road construction received some attention at Saturdays meeting of the Horowlienua County Council. Cr. Catley, in discussing the Council’s main highways scheme, referred to the fact that the cost of the permanent roads in Wellington had exceeded the engineer’s estimate by 50 per cent. When this was criticised hy “Spotlight,” a writer in a Wellington paper, the Mayor of Wellington said the extra cost was due to having to make extra formation. He did not regard the Mayor’s reply as an answer and it showed that the original estimate was at fault. In any case he did not think the Mayor could make a reply to experts. The chairman: Experts 1 Is “Spotlight” an expert? Possibly the Mayor regarded “Spotlight” as a great many other people do—not very seriously. Cr. Catley said he did not know who “Spotlight” was, hut what lie was leading up to was that there was very serious wastage in labour in the Wellington scheme. He had seen eight men spreading stuff there with two rollers to roll -it. Twenty minutes elapsed between loads and that meant that the men had a quarter of an hour’s wait every time for ai load. It was not the fault of the men but of the system which resulted in serious wastage. They did not want soph methods in the Horowlienua scheme, ibut that morning he had seen two men engaged in the highways work leaning on their shovels waiting for metal, and he had not met any metal on the way in for them. He was not 'blaming the men at all but thought the cartage of metal should be arranged so that there would be no lost time, lie trusted that for the credit of the Engineer, the work would be 'done well within the estimate. They did not want to* wait until there was too much leeway before speaking out about such matters. The Engineer said these two men had spread 80 cubic yards ,oi metal per day, trimming and forming the road as well. In ten days they had handled 800 yards, which he considered was a very creditable performance. He spoke very highly of the service given the County by the workers in question. Cr. Harkness commented on the good spirit prevailing amongst the County workers, who were workingwell with the Engineer. This was due to the good treatment given to them. They were just at the beginning of the work and no doubt as it went on the organisation would be developed. Cr. Broadbelt said he had seen men sitting about in other parts of the County, and iiq metal in sight.for them.

The chairman said that in his heyday lie could say not boastfully that he” could use a shovel with the next man and lie would regard spreading eighty yards of metal as a very good achievement for two men in one day. If the Engineer had based his work on the fact that two men could spread 80 yards a day he was getting a pretty cheap job done. It was no doubt very annoying for a councillor to come along and find men idle, but the whole day’s work had to be taken into account. He was recently been in Wellington and had seen the alterations being done in Kent Terrace. He did not want to be unkind but to compare the County’s men with those men was impossible because there was no comparison at all. And they had a foreman walking about with his coat on watching them do it. Cr. Catley said he had seen three of them walking about there recently. He wished to make it clear that he was not blaming- the men, but the system.

‘ The discussion closed with the adoption of the Engineer’s report.