road verges on rural roads - NERC Open Research Archive ...

(c) Public pressure on amenity/conservation/environmental grounds against
spraying (28), as the result of a CPRE report (11, because of effects
on cover for game (birds) (I), complaints about dying plants (2).
Policy not to use sprays in rural areas (1).
(d) Difficulties of application including timing and weather (6), not
satisfied with control of growth (lo), discolouration effects (3),
opposed to the use of selectives 3 and use of MH by itself encouraging
weeds (1). Shortage of skilled operations (1). Sprayed vegetation more
difficult to cut later (1).
(e) Agricultural considerations and specifically danger of damage to
neighbouring crops from spray drift (23).
(f) Opposition by the County Council Highway Committee (7). opposition
within the Highway Department (10).
Two counties thought that spray applications were more trouble than they were
worth and did not see the point in unnecessarily becoming involved in controversial
activities, a third (small) county thought that they were not worth the trouble for
their small mileage. One county did not like the implications of the long term
involvement that was necessary for the successful use of sprays in the face of
possible changes of standards and policies in the future. Two other counties had
found sprays useful in the early 1960s when lengthsmen were being phased out, or
the cost of picking up cuttings from cutter bar mowings were producing problems;
the introduction of the purpose designed flail machines, which were generally more
acceptable, had done away with the need for sprays.
COSTS
Appendix 7 of the Marshall Committee report, Tables 2 and 3, gives information
on costs of grass cutting. This has been used here to calculate (Tabla 10) the
costs per mile for the five classes of <strong>road</strong> for the nine counties concerned
(designated A - J). Three were unable to provide information and in so far as
the authorities chosen were intended to represent the remainder, it appears that a
third of the County Highway Departments did not know at the time of compilation of
the Marshall Committee Report what grass cutting was costing. The figures in
Table 10 are calculated by taking the total expenditure per mile on all maintenance
functions for the individual classes of <strong>road</strong> from Table 2 (of Appendix 7) of the
report, and the relative expenditure for grass cutting in column (e) of Tables 3.1 -
3.5, to give the cost per mile of grass cutting.