Asphalt vs Concrete Freeways

[tolbs17]

Living in a province where concrete roadways are rare, I'm always rather annoyed by the noise that concrete makes, in addition to just not being used to seeing a white road instead of a black one. Thus, I choose asphalt.

I mostly agree with this, concrete is rare in my area also. The one place that I support the use of concrete is actually on urban roads that have established bus routes and stops - use concrete either for the stops only, or for the whole street that the route runs on. Because I have experience with how frequent bus routes can degrade asphalt streets.

Another annoying thing about concrete freeways, that no one has mentioned yet, is how restriping them (such as after a widening) can cause confusion when the lane lines don't coincide with the seams. For an example of this, see I-20 inside I-285 east of I-75/85: https://goo.gl/maps/EJ6fTgsXaL8rBeeX6

Well, I-95 in NC will be widened and I'm sure they will use concrete slabs.

[bing101]

I driven on both asphalt and concrete paved freeways. In my area the concrete is used in the road bed and the surface is paved in asphalt.

[Road Hog]

I prefer concrete. A lot of states will chip-seal asphalt after about 5-6 years (even on freeways – looking at you, Texas) and I hate the sound that makes.

Nearly all new construction in Texas is concrete these days, fortunately. TxDOT is going back to a lot of older concrete sections and milling them smooth.

[StogieGuy7]

Obviously, what is better depends highly on a myriad of environmental factors: climate, soil, drainage patterns.  And traffic load too. Obvious to most of us that it's not so simple as "what do I like better".  And that's not easy to answer anyway. Brand new asphalt seems great, but in certain areas it can start pitting within a year and certainly within two or three.  Concrete has always been more durable, but was more subject to cracking and pitting (that was 'fixed' with asphalt sealant) than it is now.  Newer technology has concrete holding up better than before.  And it's still a nice ride.  Asphalt is much less durable, yet it's more flexible and it's a lot cheaper. So, it has advantages too.  Especially where the soil/climate may not be conducive to concrete roadways.

Personally, I think concrete is preferable - but it's not better if it's in a location where it won't hold up.  If that makes sense. 

[tolbs17]

Concrete would be appropriate for major interstate highways and highways that tend to have a high AADT. For everything else, asphalt is the winner. With the exception of I-85 from NC 73 to the Rowan County line.

When they widen US 64/264 to 6 lanes, I hope they use concrete.

[HighwayStar]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

[tolbs17]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

Look at I-85 in Salisbury.

And that being said, when the I-440 express lanes come, I hope that can be rebuilt back to concrete like they did on I-85 in Henderson to the VA state line.

[HighwayStar]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

Look at I-85 in Salisbury.

And that being said, when the I-440 express lanes come, I hope that can be rebuilt back to concrete like they did on I-85 in Henderson to the VA state line.

What about it?

[tolbs17]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

Look at I-85 in Salisbury.

And that being said, when the I-440 express lanes come, I hope that can be rebuilt back to concrete like they did on I-85 in Henderson to the VA state line.

What about it?

It was asphalt and it got widened to 8 lanes and to a concrete freeway in the mid 2000s.

[HighwayStar]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

Look at I-85 in Salisbury.

And that being said, when the I-440 express lanes come, I hope that can be rebuilt back to concrete like they did on I-85 in Henderson to the VA state line.

What about it?

It was asphalt and it got widened to 8 lanes and to a concrete freeway in the mid 2000s.

Which is fine. A few miles of concrete in an urban area where traffic count is high and speeds lower is not irritating, but driving on it for hundreds of miles is.

[tolbs17]

I think we can all agree it is very much dependent on traffic counts.
Concrete should be the ONLY road surface on major highway's in urban areas, at least have a 50 year pavement life designed due to the difficulty of reconstruction.
For long stretches of rural interstate blacktop is better, quiet, easier on the eyes, cheap, etc. Even with moderate truck traffic you can just do a heavy duty base and mill the surface periodically.

Look at I-85 in Salisbury.

And that being said, when the I-440 express lanes come, I hope that can be rebuilt back to concrete like they did on I-85 in Henderson to the VA state line.

What about it?

It was asphalt and it got widened to 8 lanes and to a concrete freeway in the mid 2000s.

Which is fine. A few miles of concrete in an urban area where traffic count is high and speeds lower is not irritating, but driving on it for hundreds of miles is.

Also, I meant to say just I-40 - not I-440. But I-440 did have a concurrency before.

[tolbs17]

This looks like fake darker asphalt!

I wonder why they do that.

[kphoger]

It's just a newer layer than what's on the shoulder.

[tolbs17]

It's just a newer layer than what's on the shoulder.

Which was paved in 2009. Well take a look at this then!

[ET21]

Concrete if done right is very nice (see the IL tollway system for I-90 and I-88), but I also don't mind the hybrid approach

[tradephoric]

I-69 through Lansing is concrete and is some of the roughest freeway i have ever driven on (the section just east of I-96 was the worst to me).  The freeze/thaw has does a number on the expansion joints and you drive over speed bumps every 40 feet.  The truck lane is especially bad to drive on.

[GaryV]

(the section just east of I-96 was the worst to me).

The part that's near the airport?  Is that possibly the concrete that was installed when that section was built about 1981?

[tradephoric]

I'm not sure when the concrete on I-69 was originally laid out.  The surface itself doesn't seem horrible (it's not good by any means) but the expansion joints are what really stands out to me.

[tolbs17]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

[US 89]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

Bridge approach.

[kphoger]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

Bridge approach.

Yep.  I've seen that elsewhere at bridge approaches.

[tolbs17]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

Bridge approach.

US-421
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Tmg8vPNY1d481Tt7

But look over here and it doesn't do that.

[kphoger]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

Bridge approach.

US-421
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Tmg8vPNY1d481Tt7

But look over here and it doesn't do that.

Alert the local media.

[Big John]

Why was this part changed from concrete to asphalt. I wonder why...

Bridge approach.

Yep.  I've seen that elsewhere at bridge approaches.

IT is a sacrificial piece of asphalt It takes the pressure of expanding concrete instead of the bridge which could be damaged.

[JoePCool14]

Does anyone know why ISTHA repaved I-94 from Lake-Cook Rd to Half Day Rd in asphalt a couple years back when the rest of the Tri-State from O'Hare north is concrete?

Was it supposed to act as a test control sample to see if they want to use asphalt going forward?