The Valuation of Public Service Corporation Property: Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers,; vol. LXXII, June, 1911, ASCE 1190Riggs, Henry Earle
General
The Valuation of Public Service Corporation Property: Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers,; vol. LXXII, June, 1911, ASCE 1190
"(5) No allowance has been made for impact and adaptation. After the
line is placed in operation, each fill will sink 1 ft. for every 10 ft.
of height. The slope of cuts must be increased to prevent landslides and
washouts. The ballast will pound into the roadbed, necessitating
additional ballast to secure a standard cross-section."
Part of this objection is covered by the item, "Appreciation of
Roadbed," discussed elsewhere. This, perhaps, is a proper item, but a
comparatively small one. One of the examples cited is clearly
maintenance. This objection is largely covered in the Michigan work by
the contingency item.
"(6) A uniform price for earthwork was used, thus ignoring the varying
character of soil and length of haul."
This is erroneous. On the Michigan appraisal prices were used for earth,
loose rock, and solid rock. There is practically no classification in
the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, or, in fact, on 90% of the mileage
of the State. The price used was not much out of the way when considered
as a fair average for the territory. The same was apparently true of
other appraisals. It would not be a proper figure to use in an estimate
based on 1909 prices, which are materially greater than those obtaining
in 1890-1900.
"(7) A uniform price list for all materials was used, thus ignoring the
source of supply and cost of delivery to point of use."
This, again, is not true. Differences were made between the Upper and
Lower Peninsulas; and an exhaustive study was made of rates to different
sections. It is believed that the prices adopted took all these points
fully into consideration. It is true that no effort was made to use
different unit prices as between counties, but, in a number of cases,
differences in prices were made for different sections of the State,
where either local conditions as to production of materials, or traffic
rates, seemed to warrant.
"(8) No allowance was made for interference with work on account of
labor troubles, condition of the weather, etc., which would vary
materially in the different counties of the same state."
True. Nor is such allowance ever made in actual construction, beyond the
contingency item. Such items are a frequent source of annoyance, delay,
and sometimes of expense, but an expense difficult to separate and set
up, and clearly belonging to contingencies.
"(9) No allowance is made for carrying charges until such time as the
road was placed on a revenue basis."
True; and such item is not a part of a physical appraisal.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account