Some district communities would like more "whispered asphalt" on district roads - as noise protection at through-town traffic.
Now the district office has reacted.
Freising
- Municipalities repeatedly ask whether the Freising district could not use so-called "whispered asphalt" for the renewal of the road surface or for the expansion of district roads in order to reduce the noise pollution for residents in the through-streets.
Civil engineering department manager Andreas Kemper has now responded to these inquiries and put the topic on the agenda in the district committee.
Result of the consultations: As part of maintenance measures, i.e. when renewing the road surface, whispered asphalt will not be used in the future either, but "noise-reducing alternatives" will be examined when building or expanding district roads.
Civil engineering office manager gives reasons against whispered asphalt
As Kemper explained, whispered asphalt is not recommended for ceiling construction for various reasons: On the one hand, the material composition is not designed for loads when starting, braking or cornering, and on the other hand, noise is only reduced at higher speeds.
Thirdly, the effect achieved by the open-pore structure of the pavement did not last long due to dirt from agricultural journeys on country roads.
Fourth, whispered asphalt is 25 percent more expensive than normal ceiling construction.
(By the way: Everything from the region is now also available in our regular Freising newsletter.)
It is different with the "investment expansion" of district roads, that is, with extensive renovation measures.
The paving of whispered asphalt would have little or no noticeable effect on the life of the road, because the entire substructure would also be renewed.
As a result, the proposed resolution was not to use whispered asphalt for maintenance measures, and to examine this alternative at least in principle when building or expanding district roads.
District council requests documents
Manuel Mück (CSU), Rainer Schneider (FW) and Michael Stanglmaier (Greens) were able to follow this proposed resolution.
Sebastian Thaler (SPD), on the other hand, said that although he believed Kemper's statements, he still needed the relevant documents and investigations that would have brought Kemper to his statements before a decision could be made.
He emphasized that this was not a mistrust of the administration, but it was necessary as a basis for his decision.
His motion for an adjournment, which aimed to submit the required documents, was rejected with two votes against.
The resolution proposal of the administration was accepted by the district committee - with Thaler 's only vote against.
