Road Resurfacing

rake

doesnt a propper road surface last much longer so in the long run we save labour on keep slinging this muck down every 2 years. Im still puzzled though, how do they decide which roads to do and when? there is a long stretch on my route where they did actually lay beautifull fresh black smooth tarmack and made a great job, but stopped a couple of miles from the end where there surface was badly broken a few winters ago. Then i was left scratching my head when probably a year or so later they covered the new perfect bit with chippings while the potholed stretch still remains.

*AL*

rake wrote:

doesnt a propper road surface last much longer so in the long run we save labour on keep slinging this muck down every 2 years.

It is a 'proper' road surface.

The carriageway is made up of layers, a base course (typically 90mm to 150mm thick, 40mm macadam) a binder course (typically 60mm thick, 20mm macadam) and a wearing course (typically 40mm thick, 14mm macadam)
The wearing course is sacrificial, when it's integrity is lost, it's planed off and replaced.

The aggregate in each type of wearing course has a PSV (Polished Stone Value) which signifies the skid resistance, usually the faster the road, the higher requirement of PSV.
Often the required level of skid resistance is lost over time (the surface becomes shiny and slippery) before the wearing course fails, so rather than replace the wearing course at great expense to obtain a gripper surface, they surface dress the road to raise the skid resistance to the required level.

This can delay the need to replace the wearing course by many years, and at around 90% of the cost, surface dressing has obvious financial benefits.

rake wrote:

Im still puzzled though, how do they decide which roads to do and when?

That's all down to the local Highways inspector.
He can draw on information such as traffic volume, traffic type etc for each particular road and then prioritise his resources/budget to where he thinks it's best utilised.

I know we all p!ss and moan about the cost of the road fund licence, but only a small percentage of that money actually goes to road repair.
That's why as the cost of materials keep creeping up and the yearly budget gets smaller and smaller, more and more roads are being surfaced dressed to squeeze every bit of life out of the roads we have.

nferrar

Pross wrote:

nferrar wrote:

Yeah it should be banned but unfortunately it's getting more and more common

Why should it be banned? It is an economical way to maximise the life of a road saving tax payers a lot of money. Providing proper procedures are used for the process and proper signage is put in place it should not be a safety issue (assuming all road users observe and obey the signage which obviously we all do don't we?). What would you rather:

1. Pay a lot more in council tax to have all roads regularly re-surfaced.
2. Put up with minor inconvenience of some loose chippings for a week or so and maximise the life span of the road.
3. Leave the lovely smooth surface of the old road complete with lack of skidding resistance so that either you slide off or a car loses control and hits you.

1). Willing to pay some more yes but I'm sure more could be done within the current budget, I have my doubts it's all being done efficiently...
2). A week or so? Maybe on a main road but it lasts for months on country roads
3). Eh? I'm not asking they coat it in glass, a normal tarmac layer would be fine, you know the kind of stuff they previously used for years?

My main issues are that cars generally don't slow down that much so you get gravel fired at you as they go past and secondly that the loose gravel is nearly impossible to see and it tends to build up on bends. Yeah I could slow down to walking pace but they could also stop doing a half-assed job that leaves the road in a dangerous condition.

cougie

Yeah worst bit is the gravel getting kicked up. Make sure you've got eye protection on.

verloren

In the last month I've had two parts of my commute resurfaced. One was on probably the best bit of road on the entire route (not perfect, but fine). Then today I found they've put chippings down across the entrance to the business park I work at. So now the downhill, heavily off-camber turn has gravel spread over it as well.

I guess I shouldn't complain though, the council does say that "Hampshire provides excellent opportunities for cycling in the countryside and around town" so I'm actually really lucky. Apparently.

tarquin_foxglove

plowmar wrote:

The main problem is that this method doesn't fill the potholes just takes some of the definition from them so that you cannot see them.

So true!

Also when the surface is first laid people don't adhere to the 20 mph speed limit, they dry steer, brake heavily, accelerate hard etc and patches of gravel gets ripped from the surface.

So after the bedding in period you have the old lumps & bumps disguised which makes avoidance impossible and new lumps and bump on junctions, bends, hills etc meaning that it is far bumpier & more dangerous than before.

Pross

nferrar wrote:

Pross wrote:

nferrar wrote:

Yeah it should be banned but unfortunately it's getting more and more common

Why should it be banned? It is an economical way to maximise the life of a road saving tax payers a lot of money. Providing proper procedures are used for the process and proper signage is put in place it should not be a safety issue (assuming all road users observe and obey the signage which obviously we all do don't we?). What would you rather:

1. Pay a lot more in council tax to have all roads regularly re-surfaced.
2. Put up with minor inconvenience of some loose chippings for a week or so and maximise the life span of the road.
3. Leave the lovely smooth surface of the old road complete with lack of skidding resistance so that either you slide off or a car loses control and hits you.

1). Willing to pay some more yes but I'm sure more could be done within the current budget, I have my doubts it's all being done efficiently...
2). A week or so? Maybe on a main road but it lasts for months on country roads
3). Eh? I'm not asking they coat it in glass, a normal tarmac layer would be fine, you know the kind of stuff they previously used for years?
My main issues are that cars generally don't slow down that much so you get gravel fired at you as they go past and secondly that the loose gravel is nearly impossible to see and it tends to build up on bends. Yeah I could slow down to walking pace but they could also stop doing a half-assed job that leaves the road in a dangerous condition.

Refer to Al's post above for the bit in bold. Surface dressing has been used for as long as I can remember, it's nothing new and isn't a replacement for re-surfacing a knackered surface but for prolonging the life. Many countries only use tar and chip surfaces on rural roads. When a new hot rolled asphalt surface is laid it is pretty much a similar thing, the difference being the stone is rolled into a fresh mat of soft asphalt rather than being 'stuck' on with a bitumen binder.

ollyridesfirst

I'm counting myself very lucky i think reading this thread...

In Blackpool, they have laid 2 roads (among others) that i use regularly and both are fresh tarmac with no gravel at all on them. Took them about 2 days for each stretch of road, where they dug the whole lot up and put down the tarmac.....needless to say i was impressed and the one i use to commute is now 200% faster than previously!

Ands

About 6-8 weeks ago, a local road was surface dressed. The surface underneath was really bad in places, but at least you could see the white spray paint around the pot holes and avoid them. Two days ago, I went through and a big section of it had been dug out about to a depth of about 2 inches, and has now been properly re-surfaced. What a waste of resource surface dressing it in the first place