The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(2065)
QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 16th MARCH 2004, BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN
Question
Will the President explain to members why paving in Hill Street/Mulcaster Street is being lifted just several months after the road was resurfaced and would he explain the rationale in doing so given that some of the new asphalt is being cut away?
Answer
Hill Street/Mulcaster Street was in very poor condition and required attention. When a road is resurfaced it is desirable that the footpath level remains untouched to avoid the cost of relaying kerbs. In Mulcaster Street and Hill Street it was hoped that the old surfacing would be planed off to a sufficient depth and replaced with new surfacing. When the resurfacing work was underway it became apparent that to lay the new road surface to a good alignment, leaving an acceptable height on the kerb face would have involved substantial removal and reconstruction of the road base structure. This would have been costly and significantly more disruptive in terms of extending the time the road needed to be closed. It was therefore more economical to reinstate to, or in places slightly above, the existing kerb surface and to then lift and relay parts of the footpath where necessary.