Talk:Permeable paving

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nestorfi. Peer reviewers: Chowaustin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ben banet, Vincenfk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs more data, less product references. The Xenex references are not really appropriate, and the picture is probably copyrighted with no full use.

The trend has been for more coverage and less pavement over time. Among the most competitive systems currently are plastic meshes made from reclaimed plastic bottles. These allow full vegetation cover above. These replace systems which came before which have half pavement and half open ground. All of these systems are typically used for pedestrian or bike ways or public spaces more often than roads because under heavy use the life span is far less than that of typical non-permeable paving. -- M0llusk 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me that permeable paving only works where temperatures never drop below freezing. Freeze-thaw cycles are a common cause of potholes and other pavement destruction in cold climates, and anything that allows more water in/under the surface will make it worse. Can anybody confirm (or refute) that? If true it should be mentioned. 66.167.213.169 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My search for attribution revealed an article that indicates that freeze/thaw cycles, if properly anticipated, need not be an insurmountable problem. MrRedwood (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire Disadvantages section feels like advertising. At the very least, it needs an in-depth copy edit. 204.212.49.155 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some light editing here, mainly under "Efflorescence", but more editing is needed. (Preferably by someone with more direct expertise than me.) Moreau1 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any insight on a good way to go about a history section for this page? Given the various types of Permeable Paving systems, it could be difficult to make a concise section that details when each type was first developed and when the type of permeable paving was implemented into projects. I believe this could be useful for article completeness, but could be difficult to organize in a simple yet effective manner. Kayathedog (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A search for the quote "This is potentially the most important development in urban watersheds since the invention of the automobile" reveals two sites, and , both of which attribute it to Bruce Ferguson, who is listed first among the References at the end of the article. Searching Google Books for this indicates it is from the book's Preface -- but no page number is visible. Amazon doesn't find my search key (probably poor OCR), but navigation to the same page is possible, and indicates the Preface is part of unnumbered 'Front Matter'. The book runs $150 on Amazon, and isn't available in the San Francisco Public Library, so my research ends here.

There were no Google hits on the "holy grail" quote. MrRedwood (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== Reword ==] "So what exactly is Efflorescence?" Sentence could do with rewording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysjgdf (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section. Moreau1 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The intro section to the article defines Permeable paving as:

...different than pervious paving or porous pavement, by virtue of the fact that rainwater passes around the paver as opposed to passing through the paver helping to reduce or eliminate clogging found in pervious or porous systems.

Further down, under "Types of permeable paving surfaces," we have descriptions of porous asphalt and porous concrete. It appears that the porous materials should be described on another page. There is a brief mention of Pervious concrete at Concrete (with a confusing link back to Permeable paving..!), but it looks like a new page is needed. Comments? Moreau1 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems as there is some confusion between Permeable paving and Pervious concrete. The distinction between the two is that Permeable paving is generally a system of pavers, concrete surfaces with large voids, polymer-based grass pavers, grids and geocells which allow for stormwater to infiltrate through the gaps or spaces between each paving technique. Pervious concrete allows for infiltration through the porous surface coating, as the surface is generally one cohesive area without gaps or spaces, which is listed in the Pervious concrete article as only concrete, but permeable asphalt should also be included in this page as it performs a similar task to pervious concrete^[1]. I think it may be beneficial to make this distinction in the lead of the article and provide appropriate links for Pervious concrete article. Under the 'types of permeable pavement' header, which could also be updated to be more specific, Pervious concrete and asphalt can be mentioned, but linked to the main article of Pervious concrete.Kayathedog (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In the Disadvantages section under Costs, the article says: "Some estimates put the cost of permeable paving at two to three times that of conventional asphalt paving. Using permeable paving, however, can reduce the cost of providing larger or more storm water BMP’s on site and these savings should..." Emphasis mine

What is a BMP? Please define or link to the appropriate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbear (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BMP = Best management practice. In this case, Best management practice for water pollution. I made appropriate edits. Moreau1 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial comment re. the tone of this article still stands. Reading through it is like browsing through glossy brochures at a quality builders’ yard. Fascinating, but... Although the construction industry is a major business lobby, this is an encyclopedia and, at the very least, requires references. --Technopat (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a few non-commercial references where I could find on-line access. And I pared down the commercial "link farm." Some of the info pages from the business associations (external links) are useful, at least until we can find some other neutral sources, such as government web pages. The article no longer mentions any commercial product names, although there is one remaining in the references. The research in this field is recent and ongoing, and it appears that there have been only a few published articles in small journals--generally not available for free on-line. The two academic studies cited involved well-regarded researchers in the field (Derek Booth, U. of Washington and Bill Hunt, NCSU). We need more articles like those. As for government research, US EPA and FHWA are currently working in this area, so we may see some additional documents in the next few years. Moreau1 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)