|
|
Paths
Sept 2, 2008 21:41:17 GMT 1
Post by pablopeth on Sept 2, 2008 21:41:17 GMT 1
Is there any logical reason why some paths are tarmaced and then gravelled and rolled, while others are just tarmaced gravelled and the gravel left to its own devices. This costs money, blocks drains and is unsightly. It smacks of bad planning/execution. A good idea spoiled.  |
|
|
|
Paths
Sept 5, 2008 21:16:40 GMT 1
Post by Poundbury on Sept 5, 2008 21:16:40 GMT 1
Yeah, to start with in Phase one they use some sort of glue to keep the stone on the paths and roads  but it was pretty obvious it was never gonna work  Later on in the development they seem to have rolled the gravel into the wet tarmac, but it still looked a bit experimental very patchy. Over the years the gravel on the roads in Phase one at least has been swept up by road sweepers, so I get the idea that they have pretty much given up on the idea |
|
|
|
Paths
Sept 18, 2008 1:08:35 GMT 1
Post by pablopeth on Sept 18, 2008 1:08:35 GMT 1
What they have done outside the pharmacy is an interesting case study. You can clearly see areas where the tarmac was laid and gravel set and rolled in warm weather and it has worked to great effect. But in the same area you can see paths where the tarmac was laid, allowed to dry and gravel laid subsequently. To no surprise it has dissappeared and no doubt blocked drains. Great idea. Poor execution. PPPPPP.
|
|
but it was pretty obvious it was never gonna work 
