On 10/01/2024 11:23, alan_m wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 13:21, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> I was able to see the structure of my road, built in 1931, when they
>> laid new gas mains. It has four inches of unreinforced concrete as the
>> main road layer.
>
> I wonder if that was the original road surface?

It still is. There is no wearing layer over the concrete and, apart from
a little spalling, it is still in good condition.

> In many areas where
> concrete road slabs cracked up with heavy loads they bit the bullet and
> covered concrete roads with tarmac.

I have seen a road where holes in the wearing layer revealed granite setts.

--
Colin Bignell

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
> charles wrote

>> but not for the sort of vehicles that turn up at building sites ;-(

> At one time the road was the last thing to be be built on a housing
> estate. These days, by legislation, it is the first thing to be built.

Its not the first thing to be built here. Now the first thing is the
storm water pipes, followed by the sewer, because those are
much bigger than anything else underground, then the water
gas, electricity and fiber. Then the concrete curbing and
then the road itself. Quite a bit of the time houses have
started to be built before the road itself has been finished
and a few have been completed before the final tarmac
layer has been applied.

It makes no sense to do the roads before the underground services.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:51:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

On 1/10/2024 6:31 AM, alan_m wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>> it ever does?
>
> When "just stop oil" win there there will only be wooden wheels* on cars so we can go back to having road surfaces of 200+ years ago.
>
> *Or maybe not if the "stop cutting down trees" green brigade win :)
>

When they mill a road surface, 80% of the surface is recycled.

It is stored as aggregate-with-asphalt-coating, and is stored in
piles out back of the asphalt plant.

We've been reducing the new petrol input to roads for a while.

When the material comes out of the crusher, it has to be
checked for adequacy. Some loads won't be good enough for
application to a road again.

This tells you that asphalt liquor can't be all that cheap,
if they're going to that much trouble.

Paul

On 11/01/2024 10:12, Paul wrote:

>
> This tells you that asphalt liquor can't be all that cheap,
> if they're going to that much trouble.
>

Or landfill charges and trucking charges for dumping commercial waste is
not that cheap.

In some cases the cost of recycling is more expensive than creating from
fresh raw materials and if there were not various legislation requiring
recycling and additional taxes on dumping then perhaps certain recycling
activities wouldn't happen.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 11/01/2024 11:15, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/01/2024 10:12, Paul wrote:
>
>>
>> This tells you that asphalt liquor can't be all that cheap,
>> if they're going to that much trouble.
>>
>
> Or landfill charges and trucking charges for dumping commercial waste is
> not that cheap.
>
> In some cases the cost of recycling is more expensive than creating from
> fresh raw materials and if there were not various legislation requiring
> recycling and additional taxes on dumping then perhaps certain recycling
> activities wouldn't happen.
>

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-landfill-tax/landfill-tax-rates-from-1-april-2013

Asphalt containing coal tar could be considered to be hazardous waste
for the purpose of landfill.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:15:32 +0000
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>
> In some cases the cost of recycling is more expensive than creating
> from fresh raw materials and if there were not various legislation
> requiring recycling and additional taxes on dumping then perhaps
> certain recycling activities wouldn't happen.
>

I would think in nearly all cases, otherwise we'd have been doing it
already.

There was always recycling of metals, particularly non-ferrous. When
milk and soft drinks came in glass, the bottles were recycled. It's
fairly safe to assume that anything that wasn't recycled wasn't
economic to recycle.

The same with 'renewable' energy: if it really was cheaper, and fit for
purpose, we'd have already been doing it. As indeed we were, on a small
scale, here and there, when it made sense.

By the way, what happens when large-scale reductions of wind energy in
some areas causes climate change? Who wins?

--
Joe

In message <l0a0ukFlrlrU1@mid.individual.net>, alan_m
<junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On 11/01/2024 10:12, Paul wrote:
>
>> This tells you that asphalt liquor can't be all that cheap,
>> if they're going to that much trouble.
>>
>
>Or landfill charges and trucking charges for dumping commercial waste
>is not that cheap.
>
>In some cases the cost of recycling is more expensive than creating
>from fresh raw materials and if there were not various legislation
>requiring recycling and additional taxes on dumping then perhaps
>certain recycling activities wouldn't happen.

Road planings are available for purchase. Track/yard/driveway surfacing.

Lorry load or big bag.

--
Tim Lamb

In message <unh9v1$1jsm2$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 08/01/2024 16:40, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:12:01 +1100, Clive Arthur
>><clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.
>>>>>However, when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a
>>>>>inch or two of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical
>>>>>newsgroup it's best to be accurate.
>>>>>
>>>> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'
>>>
>>> You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
>>>context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
>>>grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know
>>>that, interesting."
>> I didnt say that. I actually said that the turnip was
>> not making a distinction between tar and bitumen
>> and he has now said that very explicity.
>>
>>> But a TurNiP can never admit error.
>> He was not making an error, just not making a distinction
>> between tar and bitumen. Even our road engineers do that
>> too, calling it a tar seal when in fact bitumen is used.
>
>OK. So what is "pitch"?
>
It's what you pay the devil with.

Brian

--
Brian Howie