Different paving

Press, 18 March 1988, Page 20

Different paving

Sir.; —Like other residents in Aorangi Road, we were delighted recently when the City Council decided to resurface the pavement. Some small areas of work were finished with smooth black tarseal. Our pleasure rapidly changed to consternation when

black tar then sharp metal chips were laid over the whole surface. Two days later I was driving along Rossall Street, which was also being repaved. The difference? There thel finished surface was thick, smooth, black tarseal. We all pay rates, based on and, calculated by the same method. Surely, then, we all rate the same type of paving along our streets. The obvious answer, if our eyes are to be believed, is: “It’s not the rates you pay, but where you live that rates.” — Yours, etc., S. M. GLENNIE. February 26, 1988.

[The Deputy General Manager (Works), Mr Harold Surtees, replies: “Two main methods of footpath resurfacing are undertaken in the city. The first is chip resealing, as has been carried out in Aorangi Road, and the second is asphaltic concrete; (hotmix) resurfacing, as in Rossall Street. The method adopted for any particular street is largely determined by the condition of the footpath. Hotmix is generally used where the footpath, particularly it hape, is poor, and the area needs building up to reinstate an even! walking surface. In other cases chip sealing is used to preserve the surface and to protect against further deterioration. While the appearance of a chip sealed path does not match that of fresh hotmix, the difference is not as great after a period of normal wear and tear. The council hopes to continue an extensive programme of footpath improvements and, as the cost of hotmix is almost three times that of chip sealing, there is likely to be continuing use of both surfaces, as appropriate.”]