Duff Tarmac

[clum]

Has anyone else had enough of the CHEAP asphalt going down on our roads?

<commence RANT>
Yes it's smooth and quiet and cheap, but as soon as it rains, the road is VERY slippery!
Putting good quality stuff on the bends is an admission of the lack of grip on the bulk of the new surface. Shouldn't the powers that be admit to their contribution to the accident rate with this budget/eco surface?

Why are we looking at reduced speed limits on our roads when the cause of the problem is in many cases not the vehicles or drivers, but the dodgy surface....?
<RANT over>

[anonymous-user]

clum said:

Has anyone else had enough of the CHEAP asphalt going down on our roads?

<<snip>>

Road designer here. (be nice!!)
The asphalt used must conform to a British Standard, which conforms to a mixture of grip, noise, drainage, lifespan, and other more boring and technical criteria. The cost of it, really, is a secondary, and is far more subject to outside influences like laying costs, opening of plants overnight to supply materials, etc. (Kerching!)

The biggest thing that destroys roads, apart from standing water, is the sheer amount of traffic. If you look at the road driving away from roundabouts which are heavily used by 40 tonners, you'll see, where they all change gear and lay down torque in roughly the same area, the tarmac ripples up - like a cartoon kid skidding on a rug! This thickens the wearing course in some areas, and obviously thins it in others. The thin areas are the ones that start to fail, and it spreads on to the thicker areas - wearing courses are generally laid at 35-50mm, so are fairly thin anyway. But one lorry does as much damage as thousands of cars. Basically, the design is based on the principle that the more lorries drive on a road, the quicker it will wear out.

The high-friction surfacing laid on corners is very thin, very expensive, and requires the top layer of road to be planed off, generally. It also tears the st out of your tyres. And markings are not easily laid on it - and if they ARE laid on it, will soon wear off. Not to mention, paint has no high-friction properties.

We could have concrete roads everywhere, which will last 40+ years with minimal maintenance, but the spray, noise, grip levels etc will suffer.

I could carry on and bore the world even more, but suffice to say, cost is not the main driving force in which material gets laid.

Hope this explains a bit?

[clum]

Well... yes that all makes some sense, but it doesn't answer the question as to why the surface is glossy and less grippy than it has been in the past. It's fine in the dry, but when the weather comes along...! It seems closer to that used on a race circuit than what i remember being on roads. Surely safety comes above wear in the priority list.

You mentioned that...

Opulent said:

high-friction surfacing laid on corners is very thin, very expensive.... It also tears the s**t out of your tyres.

So there IS a cost issue.... - there must be a halfway house, as far as i see it, (and i know nothing of the techy aspects of the subject really), tarmac is like any other recipe, you can alter to taste surely.
Can tarmac not be formulated high on grip and tough as relatively old boots!?
What would i be remembering/seeing that has this higher grip/friction surface? No doubt something too soft for todays loads you will reply(?). Otherwise Why not continue to use that?

Thanks for the info, but i must say i'm not convinced!

Oh ...and i won't start on the amount of extraneous road markings about these days.....!

[anonymous-user]

clum said:

Well... yes that all makes some sense, but it doesn't answer the question as to why the surface is glossy and less grippy than it has been in the past. It's fine in the dry, but when the weather comes along...! It seems closer to that used on a race circuit than what i remember being on roads. Surely safety comes above wear in the priority list.

You mentioned that...

Opulent said:

high-friction surfacing laid on corners is very thin, very expensive.... It also tears the s**t out of your tyres.

So there IS a cost issue.... - there must be a halfway house, as far as i see it, (and i know nothing of the techy aspects of the subject really), tarmac is like any other recipe, you can alter to taste surely.
Can tarmac not be formulated high on grip and tough as relatively old boots!?
What would i be remembering/seeing that has this higher grip/friction surface? No doubt something too soft for todays loads you will reply(?). Otherwise Why not continue to use that?

Thanks for the info, but i must say i'm not convinced!

Oh ...and i won't start on the amount of extraneous road markings about these days.....!

Heh you got me on the HFS - although, it really would have minimal benefit on a straight road. The shininess (sp?) IS something to do with the laying. Any new road, or newly surfaced road, should (MUST) have slippery road signs up. The stone in the asphalt it 100% covered in bitumen (or whatever binder they use), and needs to "polish off" to get to the aggregate underneath (the aggregate is the grippy bit). Also, the more closed texture (less gaps/cracks), the less space there is for water to run in to. This is a double edged sword. Getting the water in to the cracks gets it off the very surface of the road, but a smoother road sheds water in to the verge a lot quicker.

Tarmac and High Friction Surfacing (Shell-grip, whatever you want to call it) are 2 separate things. Tarmac/asphalt is only as strong as the binder, and if you strengthen the bitumen too much, it becomes brittle. Too weak, and stones pluck out of the road. You can alter to taste, but only to a mix that is BS compliant. (as an aside, I wouldn't be able to tell you the material you remember, it may be some sort of proprietary system). Most of it has to have some sort of recycled/environmentally friendly element to it also. And be less susceptible to oil/diesel/petrol spills.

HFS is made from Bauxite (and for some reason, the Chinese have sapped pretty much the entire world's supply of Buff Bauxite, the colour material you see on any motorway roundabout approach), and needs to be very hot-laid, in dry conditions only, and not be trafficked for several hours.

I understand your frustration. There are plenty of materials out there that would work amazingly, such as certain runway-grade materials (don't want a 3-400T plane skidding off the runway now!), but they take so long to lay, compact, etc, and roads can't be shut for that long. (The HA fine companies MASSIVELY for running over on works, I've worked on jobs with a £20k/day fine...)

Then, to patch it in event of spillage/fire etc would require more of the same material, lesser graded material would lift out. This then means that plants have to mix-match each mix, which IS an economic (dis)benefit.

To be fair, most of the rulings come from the legal people, because the HA/TRL don't want to be sued. But yeah, I understand your point, totally.

And as for roadmarkings, I agree. However, we have to follow DfT guidelines - see Chapter 5, found here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/

Sorry for the second lengthy (and geeky!) response...

[clum]

No no - I love the geeky stuff

So there is finger pointing to be aimed at the old cost issue, whether the source be gov. legislation and penalties... (how very surprising!!!) or H.A. Who have their proverbial head where the sun don't shine from experience of their illogical immovability.
Those are all part of the road laying process in my book. It seems the problem is as ever over exuberant legislation and targets as much as the practicality of materials time and costs......

Best just buy some really sticky tyres

[Sheriff JWPepper]

Opulent said:

interesting stuff

Thanks

[anonymous-user]

Yes, the bottom line DOES come down to cost, but more in the logistics of getting the surface down, rather than the cost of the materials itself. (Highway engineering today is 90% forms and economic assessment and 10% design)

It's the HA. They are all number crunchers, not Engineers. All they care about is final cost, and public opinion (politics). I know a bit about it, but I still pay my road tax, and get held up in the road works, and hit potholes as much as any man...

(I had better disclaim myself in that the majority of my experience is on motorways/trunk roads. The Local Authorities are in charge of county roads, but they generally have similar guidelines. )

Out of interest, have you much experience of European roads? What do you think of say French or German surfacing (It's not a leading question, just curious, our roads conditions are moaned about world-wide!!)

[sider]

Civil Engineering Quantity Surveyor here!

The smooth stuff isn't really any cheaper than the rougher stuff!

[clum]

Not a great deal of experience, mainly around and about the alpine areas, which are not a fair comparison i would guess as the freez/thaw thing will add a lot of wear to surfaces. that said the alpine roads are as bad if not worse than ours. From memory the French road system in general isn't that great at all... unless your on the peage of course, which is SMOOTH
No cats eyes either, that has to be worth a mention.
Portugal - terrible, as is spain, again apart from motorway type routes. Germany is a bit better if i remember correctly.
Wales is as good as it gets i think! The border has stark illustrations of this as you cross it in many places. Once saw a biker come unstuck on crossing into England, who was quoted as saying, 'the surface just went to Sh*t'!

[clum]

Ahhhhh... So it IS burocracy making our roads slippy!!!!

[anonymous-user]

clum said:

Ahhhhh... So it IS burocracy making our roads slippy!!!!

I guess, overall, it is... but don't tell anyone!!

I guess the heavy-handed red tape is intended to cut down on future approvals etc (do it once, then use the original approval everywhere), but it hasn't worked like that. It's a seriously complicated system. Before building, you have to design. Before designing, you have to bid for the money against all other roads jobs in the country, in that year. So you have to show real value for money, or prove a real accident saving (2 or 3 lives a year!), otherwise the more standard long-distance basic resurfacing schemes get there first. But don't get me started on the Highways Agency bidding/procurement process!!

[BlademanX]

kudos for the knowledge being laid down here...it means your good at what you do so respect due.

But erm im not going to lie to you. Me and my mates do spend a lot of time swerving round ditches and bumps in the road to a point the police think were drunk drivers and other motorist look at you funny. Its like if theres a crater in the road and theres no traffic or uncoming cars or parked cars i happily go around the ditch. I managed to kill the suspension on my last car which was a golf i bought with mercedes style shocks to a point everytime i went over a little bump the car was making serious banging noises...like the ones school kids make when playing army or good cop bad cop...i thought i was getting shot at...with the new ford i totally avoid them. but not all can be avoided.

I saw one guy driving at 50 in a 30 brake harshly and swerve round a serious pothole. I changed lane to go round it.

The bus lane is completely messedup as well. Whenever im in that left lane i have to move closer to the curb to avoid the pothole or just change lane. It makes you look like a boy racer swinging about or a drunk driver. Sometimes you get people tailing you wondering what the fuss is about. roads normally suffer in areas like harlseden, southall, north london, south london deprived areas run by big councils with as much funding as westminster!

HGV, buses cause them. I used to live in US, California..and i think there they use a totally different material..hence why it look like concrete. There roads are very good in 95% of areas..not the ghettos though. Thats why boyracers can drive lowriders and not worry about scraping the under of the car or damaging shocks. I get boiled up after hitting a crater and its worse when your passengers go "oooooooooooh" "dayummmm" you feel like a plonker.

zig zag driving its the new trend. or simply do 25 or 20 in town. even on the A roads theres some serious man holes to look out for.

[BlademanX]

german roads it must be good if they get to go the speeds they go. on the M1 for example its uneven and the car bounces about after a certain 80mph!

noise depends on the tyre as well..seeing as most people use low profiles now they going to get noise anyway. thats what you get for being flashy...rims or low pros were originally an american thing where the roads justified using them. id take better roads over noise anyday. the newer cars are much quieter anyway.

its hard and frustrating industry..but then why not reduce road tax then?? its not cheap

[anonymous-user]

I'm no expert on US/Euro surfacing, so I can only offer my opinion on why we use different materials.
I believe it would be a mixture of regional availability (aggregates), noise/skid resistance laws - US speed limits are generally lower, and roads are generally straighter, and I would imagine in California, it doesn't rain anywhere as near as often as Europe. A nice, smooth, concrete (or concrete-type) surfacing is ideal, as it is long lasting, smooth, and (provided the foundation is sound) it's pretty much truck-proof too. But chuck some rain on it and it becomes a skidpan. It's also noisy and has very poor spray properties.
You won't get any argument from me on the state of London's roads. Too much traffic down roads built a hundred or so years ago, expecting the milk cart and rag'bone men, are now taking 25T trucks. It's most likely a political thing, there's 18 million people all wanting the money spent on different areas, then we take on Olympic-style projects...
(Not to mention the utility companies taking approx 2 years to get in first and move/protect their plant before we're even allowed to stick a spade in the ground)
It's a st situation, but I honestly believe the highways guys do a good job, under fairly thankless conditions. Yeah, you get some cowboys, and yeah, Joe Public pays his taxes so has a right to expect decent (or, not unsafe) roads. But, driving a road and understanding how the road "lives" are two totally separate things. We do OK for the money we have, the timescales we have to do it in, and the Contractors who are in it for a quick buck.
I digress. If we knew today what the traffic is going to be like in 20 years, we can lay a tarmac today that will cope.

[jaf01uk]

We have a certain "trunk road maintenance" company up here and to be brutally honest and polite they are hopeless! Every bit of resurfacing they do has to be re done a month or so later because the surface is breaking up despite the extraordinary time it actually takes them to complete the job in the first place, I find it mind boggling how they get away with it and wonder if the rectification work they invariably have to do is being paid for by us or them under penalty? Obviously there is a name and shame policy on here so I wont name them, thanks for bear ing with me,
Gary

[anonymous-user]

jaf01uk said:

We have a certain "trunk road maintenance" company up here and to be brutally honest and polite they are hopeless! Every bit of resurfacing they do has to be re done a month or so later because the surface is breaking up despite the extraordinary time it actually takes them to complete the job in the first place, I find it mind boggling how they get away with it and wonder if the rectification work they invariably have to do is being paid for by us or them under penalty? Obviously there is a name and shame policy on here so I wont name them, thanks for bear ing with me,
Gary

Where's "up here"? Should be all we need to be able to find out who you're talking about!

(Red tape and gov't bullst alert...)If the poor works are done by the main contractor, then they will be monitored on the number of defective repairs, number of visits, etc - it's getting in to the business side of things now, but they have Key Performance Indicators to acheive, which are a combination of elements such as CAT1 defects (big potholes, safety fence repairs), down to lesser elements, to callout time, the KPI's are set against a wide spread. The KPI's are then used in future bidding for HA works, so it doesn't pay, in the long run, to do a stty job.

However, if the works are done by sub-contractors, then things get a bit hazy in terms of lines of responsibility, and the enforcement of that responsibility. As in most construction works. And I suspect it's this that causes the problem.

Thing is, nobody is "taught" how to lay/repair a road these days. It's all done on experience. The older guys teach the newer guys. And corners do get cut. 4 passes with a roller instead of 8. 110mm layers instead of 125mm. Cheaper, or colder, material. Supervisors (Clerks of works) can't be there at every single step, and time being money, Contractors DO take short cuts.

But if a repair is genuinely only lasting a few weeks on a trunk road, then ring/email the HA Information Line, tell them you want a phone call telling you why the repairs are only lasting a short period, and you'll get one, I believe within 2 days. Then you'll be speaking to the guys that actually design/maintain the road (doing my job in another area) and you can ask them about specifics. (There may be a good reason for it, after all!)

[misstetz]

Hi
I have noticing the same thing, pavements are more and more glossy and that's cool when the whether is fine but it makes me afraid and slow down when it's rainy cuz it "slips"... besides, holes in the road open up so easily!

[jaf01uk]

The A96 should narrow it down a bit, the Alves crawler lane - sign said work for 7 days total time taken 6 wks! then within another 6 or 8 wks wagon tracks appearing and has to be re done, Newton Garry crawler lane opened 2 months and wagon tracks and loose stones flying all over the place and damaging vehicles, has to get re done, all over the papers (wrong type of tar used apparently) These are just a copule of examples, can't get the staff these days
Gary
PS. I noticed your a new user so welcome and if you click on someones user name it usually tells you where people are from, cheers

[anonymous-user]

jaf01uk said:

The A96 should narrow it down a bit, the Alves crawler lane - sign said work for 7 days total time taken 6 wks! then within another 6 or 8 wks wagon tracks appearing and has to be re done, Newton Garry crawler lane opened 2 months and wagon tracks and loose stones flying all over the place and damaging vehicles, has to get re done, all over the papers (wrong type of tar used apparently) These are just a copule of examples, can't get the staff these days
Gary
PS. I noticed your a new user so welcome and if you click on someones user name it usually tells you where people are from, cheers

Aha... THAT far up there!

Is it Enns or Ringpiece? I have had some experience with Enns lately (down in Norfolk) where they had a duff mix - wonder if it's just a company line?!

To mitigate slightly, you mention 2 specific examples of crawler lanes, I'm assuming you mean on relatively steep inclines? A very heavy load, driving in a very high-torque gear, puts so much pressure and force on to the road, that the road deforms and ruts, then water pools, which kills the surfacing, then leads to plucking of the surface course, as you described.

You could use concrete, but then, as it's on a hill, you'd get huge traction problems in the ice/wet.

But rutting will always happen, on a blacktop road that is used by heavies. It's unavoidable. It's just the extent of the rutting that alters.

Is the road particularly exposed? If it's rained on/frosted/in the sun/rained on/frosted/in the sun etc then it won't last as long either.

[jaf01uk]

It's bear but I believe they sub contract to enns, the crawlers are not any steeper than some other bits of the same road but they have done flat bits that have been just as bad as well though, they were just a couple of really bad ones that stood out,
Gary