Council lobbying for money to repair 42 miles of weather-worn roads

Watford Observer: Picture from stock Picture from stock

Hertfordshire politicians are lobbying the Government for extra cash to help repair the county’s weather-worn roads.

The county council has applied for a share of a national flooding relief fund to help with its estimated £7 million bill followings one of wettest winters on record, which saw parts of the county submerged under flooding.

Highways bosses have identified 42 miles of roads and 16 bridges badly affected by the severe winter weather.

Hertfordshire County Council is expecting to hear within the next few weeks whether it has been successful.

Terry Douris, the cabinet member for highways, said: "Unfortunately we’ve had another winter of extreme weather. Hertfordshire residents were affected and, although perhaps not as badly as some other parts of the UK, the sustained heavy rain has caused damage throughout the county and had a major impact on roads.

"Despite maintenance of drains, the sheer volume of water together with lower temperatures has meant that we have many miles of flood-damaged roads and bridges.

"I’m pleased that the government has responded to the calls from councils for more money to repair these flood-hit roads, and I sincerely hope that Hertfordshire receives its fair share."

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:38am Mon 17 Mar 14

TRT says...

And yet this weekend we had traffic chaos at Waterfields roundabout as they installed hideously large poles carrying chevrons on a roundabout that had worked perfectly well for, what? 25, 26 years? Are they using their budget up before the end of the tax year or something? Why not use it on resurfacing e.g. King Harry Lane or Redbourn Road or Deacon's Hill?
And yet this weekend we had traffic chaos at Waterfields roundabout as they installed hideously large poles carrying chevrons on a roundabout that had worked perfectly well for, what? 25, 26 years? Are they using their budget up before the end of the tax year or something? Why not use it on resurfacing e.g. King Harry Lane or Redbourn Road or Deacon's Hill? TRT
  • Score: 8

11:57am Mon 17 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

It would be nice some of our taxes spent on the home front as many have had to face greater wear and tear motoring blls and trips to A & E on reduced real incomes.
I suppose one can dream of the day when are roads are as good for a supposedly rich country.
It would be nice some of our taxes spent on the home front as many have had to face greater wear and tear motoring blls and trips to A & E on reduced real incomes. I suppose one can dream of the day when are roads are as good for a supposedly rich country. Cuetip
  • Score: 7

12:27pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

With 3,700 route miles of roads (excluding the motorways) that is about 1% of the route miles. But if the 42 miles of carriageway (each ordinary road has a carriageway in each direction) then it is a piddly amount.
With 3,700 route miles of roads (excluding the motorways) that is about 1% of the route miles. But if the 42 miles of carriageway (each ordinary road has a carriageway in each direction) then it is a piddly amount. Andrew1963
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Mon 17 Mar 14

LSC says...

Top Tip: Repair the roads properly in the first place. EVERY SINGLE pothole in my road has been 'repaired' before at sometime or another. It's bad enough the road and pavement look like a patchwork quilt as it is, why not take a gamble and try repairing them properly so they might last a few months, or even, *gasp*, years?
Top Tip: Repair the roads properly in the first place. EVERY SINGLE pothole in my road has been 'repaired' before at sometime or another. It's bad enough the road and pavement look like a patchwork quilt as it is, why not take a gamble and try repairing them properly so they might last a few months, or even, *gasp*, years? LSC
  • Score: 10

1:25pm Mon 17 Mar 14

not a regular says...

So basically Herts Highways either didn't provide the best possible list of roads to be resurfaced or they spunked whatever money they did have up the wall. Roads fail over time, not one winter.
So basically Herts Highways either didn't provide the best possible list of roads to be resurfaced or they spunked whatever money they did have up the wall. Roads fail over time, not one winter. not a regular
  • Score: 4

1:31pm Mon 17 Mar 14

not a regular says...

LSC wrote:
Top Tip: Repair the roads properly in the first place. EVERY SINGLE pothole in my road has been 'repaired' before at sometime or another. It's bad enough the road and pavement look like a patchwork quilt as it is, why not take a gamble and try repairing them properly so they might last a few months, or even, *gasp*, years?
The "looking like a patchwork quilt" thing is so perverse. "Technically", every time an area of highway is patched it is regarded as a new road in the preliminary surveys for resurfacing. And in fairness if they are patched correctly then that is a very cost effective way of sharing an appropriate budget. Of course you've hit the nail on the head because they are rarely done properly.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Top Tip: Repair the roads properly in the first place. EVERY SINGLE pothole in my road has been 'repaired' before at sometime or another. It's bad enough the road and pavement look like a patchwork quilt as it is, why not take a gamble and try repairing them properly so they might last a few months, or even, *gasp*, years?[/p][/quote]The "looking like a patchwork quilt" thing is so perverse. "Technically", every time an area of highway is patched it is regarded as a new road in the preliminary surveys for resurfacing. And in fairness if they are patched correctly then that is a very cost effective way of sharing an appropriate budget. Of course you've hit the nail on the head because they are rarely done properly. not a regular
  • Score: 3

1:43pm Mon 17 Mar 14

TRT says...

It's the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything... "How many miles must a man walk (counting the very worst potholes)?"
It's the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything... "How many miles must a man walk (counting the very worst potholes)?" TRT
  • Score: 1

2:03pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads?

As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing.

There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.
Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Mon 17 Mar 14

RadioactiveRant says...

There are probably more than 42 miles of road in Watford alone that need resurfacing. Herts Highways have blown their budget for years on speed bumps, colourful paints, chicanes, moving bus stops, etc.. and completely forgotten that the roads themselves are falling to bits.

They need to get back to basics before the quality of the road surface ends up killing people.
There are probably more than 42 miles of road in Watford alone that need resurfacing. Herts Highways have blown their budget for years on speed bumps, colourful paints, chicanes, moving bus stops, etc.. and completely forgotten that the roads themselves are falling to bits. They need to get back to basics before the quality of the road surface ends up killing people. RadioactiveRant
  • Score: 4

2:19pm Mon 17 Mar 14

pepsiman says...

I've had an idea - lets put a road tax on vehicles for repairs to the roads
I've had an idea - lets put a road tax on vehicles for repairs to the roads pepsiman
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Mon 17 Mar 14

not a regular says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.
Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.[/p][/quote]Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services.. not a regular
  • Score: 2

4:19pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

not a regular wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.
Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..
Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me.

Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not.

People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures.
[quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.[/p][/quote]Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..[/p][/quote]Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me. Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not. People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

10:45am Tue 18 Mar 14

not a regular says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
not a regular wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.
Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..
Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me. Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not. People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures.
But there will be a set budget from Herts CC that dictates how much money is to be spent on capital works (e.g. traffic calming schemes) and how much on planned maintenance (e.g. resurfacing).

Your differentiating between new traffic calming features and making existing roads safe doesn't add up. Adding traffic calming features to existing roads is one way of making them safer - obviously at a cost and sometimes as a nuisance.

It's not a black and white issue, every road is different and should be treated as such by highways engineers. What is appropriate in one road may not be the best solution elsewhere. We must maintain our roads as well as bringing in the correct traffic calming measures where they are appropriate, but that is for the highway authority to determine the spread of budgets before it is approved at the highest Council level.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.[/p][/quote]Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..[/p][/quote]Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me. Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not. People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures.[/p][/quote]But there will be a set budget from Herts CC that dictates how much money is to be spent on capital works (e.g. traffic calming schemes) and how much on planned maintenance (e.g. resurfacing). Your differentiating between new traffic calming features and making existing roads safe doesn't add up. Adding traffic calming features to existing roads is one way of making them safer - obviously at a cost and sometimes as a nuisance. It's not a black and white issue, every road is different and should be treated as such by highways engineers. What is appropriate in one road may not be the best solution elsewhere. We must maintain our roads as well as bringing in the correct traffic calming measures where they are appropriate, but that is for the highway authority to determine the spread of budgets before it is approved at the highest Council level. not a regular
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

not a regular wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
not a regular wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.
Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..
Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me. Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not. People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures.
But there will be a set budget from Herts CC that dictates how much money is to be spent on capital works (e.g. traffic calming schemes) and how much on planned maintenance (e.g. resurfacing).

Your differentiating between new traffic calming features and making existing roads safe doesn't add up. Adding traffic calming features to existing roads is one way of making them safer - obviously at a cost and sometimes as a nuisance.

It's not a black and white issue, every road is different and should be treated as such by highways engineers. What is appropriate in one road may not be the best solution elsewhere. We must maintain our roads as well as bringing in the correct traffic calming measures where they are appropriate, but that is for the highway authority to determine the spread of budgets before it is approved at the highest Council level.
So if there is not enough money for essential repairs, adjust the budgets to move money into the essential repairs from other less essential areas.

It's a matter of getting your priorities right. Most governments and councils are not very good at that.
[quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]not a regular[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Why not divert the money spent on traffic calming to repair the roads? As mentioned above, why not inspect the repairs to make sure they are repaired properly? With re-inspections every three months to check they are holding up. If the repairs do not hold up, they should be repaired again free of charge until they last 12 months (or other reasonable time) without failing. There's nothing like penalties to get a business to do their job properly.[/p][/quote]Because new roads don't slow traffic speeds. The problem is that not every road suffers from traffic speeds that are too high. Traffic calming where it is needed is the "right thing to do", and low cost traffic calming such as removal of centre lines or deliberately narrower lanes can be just as effective and nowhere near as intrusive to residents and emergency services..[/p][/quote]Doesn't that make the roads more dangerous than they were designed for? That doesn't smack of common sense to me. Given the choice between making existing roads safe and introducing new traffic calming measures, I would choose the former unless there was overwhelming evidence traffic calming in a certain location was vital, which often it is not. People, particularly cyclists are vulnerable on poorly maintained roads. We must maintain our roads before bringing in new traffic calming measures.[/p][/quote]But there will be a set budget from Herts CC that dictates how much money is to be spent on capital works (e.g. traffic calming schemes) and how much on planned maintenance (e.g. resurfacing). Your differentiating between new traffic calming features and making existing roads safe doesn't add up. Adding traffic calming features to existing roads is one way of making them safer - obviously at a cost and sometimes as a nuisance. It's not a black and white issue, every road is different and should be treated as such by highways engineers. What is appropriate in one road may not be the best solution elsewhere. We must maintain our roads as well as bringing in the correct traffic calming measures where they are appropriate, but that is for the highway authority to determine the spread of budgets before it is approved at the highest Council level.[/p][/quote]So if there is not enough money for essential repairs, adjust the budgets to move money into the essential repairs from other less essential areas. It's a matter of getting your priorities right. Most governments and councils are not very good at that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree