Road damage reporting

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Roger Merriman

(') said:

Adam Lea said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C
> ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:
>
> If there's a pothole in the road, don't ride into it!

That is like telling an insomniac to get some sleep, or telling someone
with clinical depression to pull themselves together. Nobody deliberatly
rides into potholes, but there are times when you will accidentally hit
one, usually night time commuting when you have the lights from oncoming
traffic reducing the contrast of the surroundings.

I commute about 12 miles mainly on unclassified country roads. On the
wider roads (i.e. not single track) the roads are virtually pothole
free. I agree that expecting them to be super smooth is unrealistic and
I don't expect them to be, but I do expect to be able to navigate them
without being thrown off my bike.

The last mile of my commute is up a single track road which is full of
potholes. Of course, I know they are there and take extra care as a
result, but people at work have had their cars damaged as a result of
these potholes which again, I don't think is acceptable.

true but more than likely in simons case and in where my folks live, the
coucil will cover a massive area, so the cost of keeping the road
network is high, though unless simon lives in tourist area traffic is
likely to be low.

the roads of sw london and surrey are in lot better state. but then they
have much higher traffic, and smaller area to cover. they are also a
darn site richer.

Just so. We have 23 people per square kilometer. Surrey has 644. I'm
prepared to bet we have more kilometers of road. The average gross wage
here is £12,192; in Surrey it's £30,600. So each council tax payer here is
paying for a lot more road than in Surrey, out of a lot less income.

Quoted message said:

There are advantages. I can go for a fifty mile ride without seeing a
moving motor vehicle; it's quite normal, provided you stay out of the
towns, to see more bikes than cars. And the scenery is world class. And
the roads, too, are currently world class - but I don't think that's good
value for money, given the needs of our community.

to be honest don't see many bikes on the roads in south wales, but then
it's not with in easy reach of big towns or cities.

the counties due west ie the welsh valleys which also ahve some fairly
worn roads have so many problems that roads is the least of their
worries.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Paul Boyd said:

On 04/08/2007 00:34, chris French said,

Quoted message said:

As for reporting damage, well there is the Fill That Hole site, setup by
the CTC, where you can report damage, and the information is forwarded
on to the relevant authority.

....who promptly ignore it! Time to re-submit my favourite dodgy bit of
road, I think :-)

I've been amazed that North Somerset Council seem to finally be closing
roads and using hot tar to repair badly-holed roads properly. Is this a
result of the new Conservative control?

Sadly, they still missed about 5% of holes on the section of Kewstoke Road
they did last month. Oh well.

Another problem is that the A/B/C/U classifications seem to decide what
gets repair money C/U gets 400k out of 2.5m. It doesn't seem to matter
if a road is a strategic sustainable transport route (cycle or bus route).
Interesting points from a presentation to the cycling forum recently.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Jonathan Schneider
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I've been thinking about damage caused to the road surface by
contractors working for utility companies and building projects. It
would be nice if councils could easily find out where damage (wear and
tear excepted) came from and use the information to extract
compensation. They obviously don't have enough people to collect the
information but the public do. So we'd end up with better roads, less
council tax, fewer punctures or all of the above.

Quoted message said:

What if there were an online database run with the express purpose of
helping this happen where people could record such damage when they
happen to notice it

<snip>

Well, they already have information on the works being carried out. since
under the 1991 New roads and Street works Act, utilities etc. have to
notify the Local Authority and the LA has to keep a register of the said
works.

If they are notified of damage, they certainly have the information
available to chase up the relevant utility, whether or not they do I've no
idea.

So I don't see any need for individuals to go about recording this.

As for reporting damage, well there is the Fill That Hole site, setup by
the CTC, where you can report damage, and the information is forwarded on
to the relevant authority.

<http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/>
--
Chris French

I worked as an engineer with a local authority for 23 years. They were very
hot on making utilities carry out repairs but on their own stuff they were
always juggling budgets and priorities.

For nearly 10 years I've worked for a major utility and we get fined if we
don't serve the correct notice (different notice periods for different road
categories), didn't start on the right day, put the wrong date, wrong
address ie outside so and so house no., didn't finish on the correct day,
didn't come back for the permanent reinstatement on the correct day, didn't
clear up cones etc within the time limit etc. etc. etc.

It's all computerised and automatic so you can get many fines on one job
often just for minor 'paperwork' errors. The local authority can make a
fortune for doing nothing and it can cost the utilities thousands. Utility
management are getting paranoid as the costs can run away.

However, the Highway Authorities still don't have the budget to maintain
roads to an adequate standard so the backlog of maintenance is increasing
year on year. What budget there is is often spent on surface dressing to
cover up the faults (so it looks like something is being done) but that
doesn't mend a broken road and the dressing won't stop the deteriation.
Spending the funds in this way helps to stop complaints in the short term
but wastes the cash.

Paul.

"Paulmouk" <paulmo Rusty Car [email hidden]> wrote: [...]

Quoted message said:

However, the Highway Authorities still don't have the budget to maintain
roads to an adequate standard so the backlog of maintenance is increasing
year on year. What budget there is is often spent on surface dressing to
cover up the faults (so it looks like something is being done) but that
doesn't mend a broken road and the dressing won't stop the deteriation.
Spending the funds in this way helps to stop complaints in the short term
but wastes the cash.

At the last North Somerset Cycle Forum, the invited highway engineer told
us that surface dressing a 10 year old road costs only 2 pounds per square
metre and significantly extends the road's life. NS currently spends only
about 100k of the (inadequate) 2500k road maintenance budget on this.

Can you give me a reference to support the claim that surface dressing is
wastes the cash, please? I've no expertise with this sort of thing.

Of course it won't stop the deteriation, but even an entirely new road
surface will get worse if people still use it - or I suspect even if they
don't, thanks to the weather.

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

On 11 Aug, 11:56, MJ Ray <[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

At the last North Somerset Cycle Forum, the invited highway engineer told
us that surface dressing a 10 year old road costs only 2 pounds per square
metre and significantly extends the road's life. NS currently spends only
about 100k of the (inadequate) 2500k road maintenance budget on this.

Can you give me a reference to support the claim that surface dressing is
wastes the cash, please? I've no expertise with this sort of thing.

Of course it won't stop the deteriation, but even an entirely new road
surface will get worse if people still use it - or I suspect even if they
don't, thanks to the weather.

No reference, but I've heard that surface dressing needs to be applied
_before_ significant deterioration of the original surface. It's there
to stop water getting into the road surface, because it's water
ingress that causes most problems, particularly if it freezes...
Surface dressing a road that is already falling apart is a complete
waste of time, because it won't seal the cracks. It's also no good for
roads that see lots of heavy wear, or have ruts.

TL