1st September 2008, 12:29 AM
Posted by Sparky:
Firstly, any road that collapsed in that sort of way would result in huge PI claims against the engineers that built or designed the road. I work with these guys all the time - they aren't going to put something in place that would cause that to happen, because it would be professional suicide. I haven't come across such a thing in 15 years work on road schemes.
Secondly, 'some sort of reinforcement' means building a structure to protect the site, and that would certainly cost much more than excavating it in the first place - so no chance of saving the road-builders a bit of cash.
In any case, it wouldn't be the road-builders that either saved or paid extra, it would the the tax-payer.
The most significant case I have been involved in where the archaeology was felt to warrant 'preservation in situ' rather than excavation was a newly-discovered (but ploughed-out) Roman fort and vicus. The preservation method involved re-aligning the proposed motorway quite substantially, and that required compulsory purchase of a whole row of houses for demolition. The decision to preserve was made by the Highways Agency - in the circumstances, I argued for excavation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Er...no brainer regarding preservation in situ. Can you imagine. Build over top of it with some sort of reinforcement. A few yeasr later, the road collapses or becomes pot-holed due to increased traffic and heavier vehicles. Roads Authority do what they usually do, i.e. fill in holes and re-surface. Souterain becomes unwittingly filled with hardcore and concrete.Entertaining scenario, but not very realistic.
Sorry. Just a hunger fuelled example of what might happen with preservation in situ and saving road builders a bit of cash.
Firstly, any road that collapsed in that sort of way would result in huge PI claims against the engineers that built or designed the road. I work with these guys all the time - they aren't going to put something in place that would cause that to happen, because it would be professional suicide. I haven't come across such a thing in 15 years work on road schemes.
Secondly, 'some sort of reinforcement' means building a structure to protect the site, and that would certainly cost much more than excavating it in the first place - so no chance of saving the road-builders a bit of cash.
In any case, it wouldn't be the road-builders that either saved or paid extra, it would the the tax-payer.
The most significant case I have been involved in where the archaeology was felt to warrant 'preservation in situ' rather than excavation was a newly-discovered (but ploughed-out) Roman fort and vicus. The preservation method involved re-aligning the proposed motorway quite substantially, and that required compulsory purchase of a whole row of houses for demolition. The decision to preserve was made by the Highways Agency - in the circumstances, I argued for excavation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished