CONCRETE V. ASPHALT.

Taihape Daily Times, 26 August 1919, Page 5

CONCRETE V. ASPHALT.

Sir,¥l have read Mr Davey ’s letter? with interest. Fair and honest critic-: ism, such as this, the Council is pleased to have. We are not wedded to thcl one method as against the other, bu-til we are anxious to do the right thing.‘ Part of Mr Davey ’s ‘letter gonveys the idea to me that he is under the im-; pression that the concrete is put down‘ in solid blocks, like we would deal‘ with a back yard. This is not so. The concrete slabs are about 3ft by 3ft 6in, ‘ judging by those in We’lln-gton, and the trouble is to get them to lie even and level under constant use. Mr Davey says: “Asphalt would do as Well as concr‘e'fe where the streets are level. Asphalt would not stand the water running over them in large quantities.” May I point out that all the streets that it is proposed to put down in concrete under the original plan are level. From Weka Street junction, along the Main Street, to a point op. posite Mr McCormick’s, and that part of Tui Street from Bennett’s and Bherwin’s corner to the Railway Station, is.,~all that is scheduled for concrete. As regards the rain, these parts will soon all be verandahed over. ‘ Your correspondent say, further. “I would be inclined to vote for concrete even if it cost twice as much.” Whatwill he say when I point out that the cost of concrete is not twice as much, .but' four times -as much. Take the piece of Tui Street above referred to, the figures are: Area, 807 square yards. Priceqin concrete £3lO (or just over _7/3 per square yard); cost in asphalt, £BO (or just under 2/).V . The length of ‘the total asphal-ting roposed "under the original plan is 157 chains, costing approximately £1411; ‘in concrete, 55 chains, costing £1727. These are the figures supplied by Mr Williams, our consulting engineer. . - ' r V ‘Replying to an inquiry as -to Whether we can legally apply the money saved if asphalt is decided on in extending

the work further into the suburbs, Mr R. J. Loughnan, Borough Solicitor, also Mr Martin, solicitor to -the Municipal Association, both ésay empvhatically, Yes-. They point out that a. clause in the “Washing-up Bill” has the same strength and force——’and as a matter of fact is—an Act of Parliament, which overrides any previous decision or enactment. Allow me to remind the people of the public ‘meeting to be held to—mol'roW night, wand -to express the hope that they will come along in goodly numbe.rs.—l am, etc., A. J. JOB-LIN.