The Road Conference.
Page 5
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Precis of Proceedings—continued from page 171.
There remain only a few points to complete our references to the papers which were grouped together as concerning the construction and maintenance of roads. This branch in the proceedings of the conference, which monopolised the whole of the first day at the Institution of Civil Engineers, included such diverse aspects of the subject as wear and tear, camber, gradients, width of roads, provision of footpaths, and bridges. The first portion of our precis of the proceedings (pages 169 to 171 ante) dealt with the matters of cross-fall, tonnage life, tarring, large-diameter wheels, the " patching of macadamised roads, " cubette " paving, the cost of main roads, the dispersive action of high-speed pneumatic-tired wheels, and several other matters which may have a bearing upon heavy traffic.
"Highway Vandalism."
The Rev. Canon Rawnsley (paper No. 21) evidently is one of the old school who desire to see the maintenance of what they consider to be the amenities and beauties of country life. For example, he objected to the replacement of the " old picturesque humpback type of bridge " by the " building of a bridge with no line of beauty in it at all, as straight-backed as a railway viaduct." Later in his paper, he remarked : " As regards the bridges, we are, 1 think, without excuse for this rebuilding of them to motor pattern." His views, however, did not receive any support at the meeting, and we think it. is clear that modern necessity, to say nothing of the calls for economy and efficiency, will inevitably lead to the straightening, widening and general improvement of those points of the highway which are at present so often the weakest links in the chain of communication—the bridges. Baron Leigh, of the Warwickshire County Council, in his paper (No '20), drew attention to another form of roadside vandalism which interests us much more, the view thereupon coming—as it does—from a member of a powerful authority. He entered a protest against the manner in which earth is abstracted from the grass sides of roads, for the mistaken object of scattering it over newly-made surfaces as a so-called binding, preparatory to watering and rolling. All supporters of this journal will heartily agree in the condemnatory view taken by Baron Leigh, who stated in the course of an all-too-brief paper : " Earth has really no binding property whatever ; it does no good ; it does harm only. The usual course pursued by road surveyors is to lay down earth, then water it, and then roll it."
We must point out, in fairness to them, that this accusation cannot generally be laid against an road surveyors, but it certainly applies to many.
Light Motors—Speed and Weight.
Three papers (Nos. 36 to 38) were contributed under this beading, and we are prompted, in view of the statements before other sections to the effect that heavy motors are habitually driven without regard to the speed limit and are more damaging to roads than either traction engines or private cars, to quote the opinion of Mr. J. H. Garrett, the County Surveyor for Worcestershire, that : " Heavy motors are becoming very numerous, and are carrying heavy goods for long distances over the roads which were formerly conveyed by rail; but they travel at a reasonable speed, and do not much exceed the dimensions of horse-drawn vehicles. They therefore, are less objectionable than the ponderous traction engines and trucks, which are a nuisance to general traffic owing to their size and weight, and causing, as they do, abnormal damage to rural road and bridges."
Into the other details of these papers we do not enter further, except to quote from the one by Mr. W. Roes Jeffreys the very correct conclusion that: " High speeds carry their own corrective, as the average motorist, for pocket reasons, finds himself unable to indulge in them." A great deal of the talk about damage to roads from excessive speeds, with rigid-tired vehicles and tractors, is exaggeration, because, were owners to allow their machines to be driven as is alleged by some road surveyors to be the general rule, bankruptcy would ensue. We are quite satisfied that 90 per cent. of steam wagons and tractors in this country are driven, and consistently so, strictly within the legal maximum of five miles per hour.
Exchequer Grants.
Two papers (Nos. 1 and 2) dealt with the matter of Exchequer grants and inspection by a Central (;overning Department. Mr. J. Shuttleworth, Chairman of the Main Roads and Bridges Committee of the Lancashire County Council, contributed some new and highly-instructive data in regard to the use of county main roads by different classes of traffic. It appears that records have been taken at points between Manchester and certain county boroughs within a radius of 12 miles, and Mr. Shuttleworth gave the statistics in respect of the traffic to and from Bolton, Bury, Stockport, Oldham and Rochdale. Traffic was also taken on the Bolton-Bury road. A summary of the statistics shows, for the six roads mentioned : that from 34.5 to 77.9 per cent. of the vehicles were engaged in traffic between county borough and county borough ; that from 9,98 to 45.13 per cent. were in traffic common to both county borough and administrative county ; and that from 9.30 to 43.49 per cent, of the vehicles were in traffic which entirely concerned the administrative county. it was next pointed out that, had the weight of the traffic been recorded, the percentage of weight which was merely passing from one county borough to another would have made the relationship look much more unjust to the administrative county which has to maintain the roads, and which roads are so largely used by the county-borough and other through traffic. Mr. Shuttleworth then gave a table showing that the increase of the rateable value of the county had only risen from £8,468,569 in 1890 to £8,979,900 in 1909, or an improvement of £511,331, whereas the rateable value of the geographical county had risen, during the same period from £18,561,534 in 1890 to £24,987,028 in 1909. Of the total increase of £6,425,494, the administrative county, therefore, only benefited by its ability to levy rates upon an increase of about onethirteenth.
For the foregoing reasons, and others which he explained, Mr. Shuttleworth claimed that the county authorities had a substantial grievance, and that the Government should provide a grant which would cover at least one-half the annual expenditure on main roads.
On the matter of State aid coupled with State supervision, there was a considerable diversity of opinion. Mr. R. H. Dorman, County Surveyor of Armagh, traversed the objections to reasonable inspection and supervision, but, as will appear later, this theme was the only one before the conference upon which there was anything in the nature of close voting. It is evident that the lessintelligent road surveyors, or, may be, those who are afraid to have their methods examined, still cherish the belief that they can be voted money from Imperial funds for expenditure upon obsolete methods of road construction. That is quite wrong, as any money so voted must he spent to the best advantage, and not merely to " lump on " extra inches of water-bound macadam, when a careful system of " patching," such as that explained by Mr. Pickering (paper No. 14), to which we referred at, some length last week, or the proper and scientific waterproofing of the surfaces, can result in the economical maintenance of clean-crusted and strong roads, and that a very much less cost than is now put forward as the irreducible minimum for roads which do not deserve the name.
Extraordinary Traffic.
Three papers (Nos. 30 to 32) were contributed upon this vexed question, and the first of these, front the pen of Mr. W. Joynson-Hicks,_ M.P., contained the following brief summary of the law upon matters to which road authorities must have regard before making any claim:— " 1. They must so far as they are concerned be satisfied that the traffic complained of is extraordinary. • ' 2. They must determine who are the persons or person by or in consequence of whose order the traffic complained of was conducted.
" 3. They must have regard only to the traffic using the particular road in respect of which the claim is made (Etherley Grange Coal Company v. Auckland District Highway Board, 1894, 1 Q.B., page 37).
" 4. They must prove the nature of the ordinary traffic. " 5. They must take into account in arriving at the cost of ordinary repairs any additional cost occasioned by an increase in the ordinary traffic (Hemsworth Rural District Council v. Micklethwaite, 68 J.P., 345).
" 6. They must charge against the defendants nothing beyond the amount neces_sery to put the road into such a state of repair as would bear the ordinary traffic.
"7. They must take into account any increase in the cost of labour or material, any increase of expenditure due to abnormal weather or other abnormal conditions. " S. They must take care that all persons conducting extraordinary traffic bear their proportionate burden of the cost.
" 9. They must determine whether the damage arose from the carrying out of a particular contract or work extending over a long period, and commence the action within the proper period. " 10. They must see that the money has been expended before the surveyor gives his certificate.
Mr. W. H. Schofield, the County Surveyor for Lancashire. in whose county some 450 motor wagons --which is estimated to be not less than one-seventh of the total of the country—are in regular service, stated that he was more troubled by damage from steam wagons than from traction engines, as he was generally able to trace the conveyance of exceptional loads by the latter class of haulage. Mr. Schofield is, none the less, as we have every occasion to note, and with the undivided backing of his committee, busily engaged upon the strengthening of his roads and bridges, a course which one would expect to find in a commercial and industrial county like Lancashire. In paper No. 31, Mr. R. J. Thomas, M.Inst.C.E., the County Surveyor of Buckingham, referred to the use of a 32-ton boiler, on a trolley weighing eight tons, and haring wheels less than 2i. feet in diameter, which was drawn by two 12i-ton traction engines, and which train did an enormous amount of damage to the roads when travelling between the Midlands and London. He did not
give any examples of damage by heavy motor wagons, arid his paper concluded with a suggestion that no exceptional hauiage should be undertaken without prior inspection of the roads.
There was a consensus of opinion that the state of the law upon extraordinary traffic was unsatisfactory, and a proposal was discussed for the establishment of a special tribunal of two experts with one legal adviser.
Control and Management.
Three papers (Nos. 3 to 5) were devoted to the control and management of main roads by local bodies. Mr. F. A. Berryman, Chairman of the Highways Committee of the Somerset County Council, and Mr. J. Frederick Hawkins, County Surveyor of Berkshire, were strongly in favour of the vesting of the trunk roads of the country in the county councils, and that these bodies should be treated as units, whereby the roads of the country would he brought under 62 authorities instead of 717. These gentlemen evidently are of opinion that rural and district councils too often take the view that the roads in their districts belong to them, communicate solely between the church, the post office, and the village public-house, and are no part of a national system.
Mr. Arthur Gladwell, engineer and surveyor to theEton Rural District Council, who is an exceptionally-able road engineer, supported the case for the retention of local control, but his views were decidedly on the minority' side.
Traction Engine or Heavy Motorcar?
Three papers (Nos. 32 to 34) were submitted to the conference on the subject of traction-engine and heavy-motor traffic, as to the difference between which there appears to be ii not inconsiderable amount of confusion in the minds of some surveyors. In one of these (No. 32), by Mr. J. Hampton Copnall, Clerk to the Notts County Council, the question was asked : " Why should there be a distinction between traction engines and heavy motorcars?" The answer, in our opinion, was provided in paper No. 33, by Mr. T_ H. B. Heslop. M.Inst.C.E., County tiurveyor for Norfolk, who pointed out that. it was permissible under the Locomotives Act for a single article weighing 16 tons to be carried in a wagon having tires only eight inches wide, and of no specified diameter. Mr. Heslop went. on to say that " The diagonal bars upon driving wheels (of traction engines) are the means of causing additional damage to the road surface." Having regard to the very stringent regulations of -the Heavy Motor Car Order, equally as regards diameters, weights and tires of motor wagons and their trailers, we should say there are many good reasons for discrimination between the two classes of machine.