AARoads Forum

I'm curious about your opinions about concrete roads versus hot mix paved roads.  I prefer concrete.  I was trained and certified to run different tests on concrete in 1997.  To me, they are more durable. 

Also, what about the states you have driven in?  Who seems to use more hot mix?  more concrete?  Missouri always baffled me...they seem to use alot of concrete on state and US routes, but not much on the interstates. :confused:

I prefer asphalt because it is easier to repair bit it can also be a pain to drive on

Asphalt is better because it gives a quieter and smoother ride when it's in good condition. However, it isn't as a long lasting as concrete. Here in the UK all remaining concrete freeways and major trunk roads are gradually being replaced with asphalt because of the noise issue. Longevity of asphalt isn't so much of a problem over here as the major roads are resurfaced fairly frequently so huge potholes on freeways are rare.

Ontario never uses concrete because it can't last many winters, so then you have to repave it often.
Also, Ontario did a test in Collingwood to see what the effect of Concrete over many years. It has only been 10 years, and they already needed to repave it.

I prefer concrete, since it seems to hold up much better and longer than asphalt.  Parts of I-55 in Missouri are still the original concrete, and are in decent shape.  I believe the northern half of I-229 in Missouri is also still using its original concrete, and all it really needs is a few slabs replaced.  I'll take a little noise over having the road worked on every five years.

I prefer asphalt, although, concrete is more durable for heavy trucks and whatnot. One reason why I dislike concrete is, when it rains, it's hard to see the lane markings.


Be well,

Bryant

You can't see anything when it's raining on concrete, never mind the lane markings. At least with asphalt, especially the new porous stuff, it tends to absorb the water.

The other annoyance with concrete is you get a constant whirring tone from the tires.

I can't stand concrete for 1) the noise, and 2) all the concrete pavement here (particularly that on I-64 after it goes back down to 4 lanes past VA-143) excluding that laid in the last few years is crumbly and rough and not easy to grip at high speeds. Whereas asphalt is smooth, quiet, and my car grips it better.

Plus as Truvelo and Bryant mentioned lane markings are more visible on asphalt, partially due to the fact that asphalt is black (fades to dark grey) and concrete is very light grey (fades to tan).

QuoteAt least with asphalt, especially the new porous stuff, it tends to absorb the water.

Nearly all freeways in NL have Porous Asphalt Concrete, it guarantees no splash at all, even if it rains quite a lot. The downside are the added expense, and additional maintenance, it has to be replaced like every 7 years, but often sooner. Concrete can last much longer, but the noise is really a problem there, especially in NL where there are very strict noise limits (48 dB).

Truvelo said:
The other annoyance with concrete is you get a constant whirring tone from the tires.

Yeah, one particular concrete freeway like that is I-85, just north of Downtown Atlanta. I-85 crosses over some railroad tracks (Amtrak and regular rail lines, I think). You get a slight "bump" at the joints. A friend asked me, "Is the road going to keep going like that?" I said, "It's normal. It's a bridge." :-D She doesn't travel on that section of I-85 much.


Be well,

Bryant

froggie said:
This is easily remedied, though...and I've noticed several jurisdictions who, at least on bridges, stripe a black outline to the lane striping.

I've seen that. On I-285, the lanes were re-striped with the black outline, but it's still hard to see the lane markings when it rains extremely hard. It's hard to see in the rain anyway.


Be well,

Bryant

I agree... on the sections of concrete pavement I mentioned in my above post the lines have a black outline but it doesn't seem to help any.

I'm netural...I love and hate both...

Both have their pros and cons.

Concrete is more durable and lasts longer
Asphalt handles frost better
Asphalt is quieter
Asphalt doesn't suffer from slab curl

Concrete is cheaper in the long run since it lasts longer, particularly in areas where it doesn't freeze in winter. In places where it freezes in winter a lot, concrete ain't gonna last. In between, either can work.

I'm usually partial to asphalt, personally, though.

QuoteAgain, MnDOT proves this one wrong.

They do(?), because most of their roads are asphalt, except for on there bridges (which are in horrible condition).

A few of my experiences . . .

The new striping is referred to as contrast striping.  During rain, though, these markings are not all that visible, either.

The problem with concrete pavement is that potholes do not patch well, and significant repairs can be costly and disruptive to traffic.  It had not been easy to restore a smooth surface, but has gotten better with diamond grinding.

The problem with asphalt is that in heavy traffic areas it ruts, especially around signalized intersections and in heavy truck areas.  Milling and resurfacing can provide a fairly reliable ride.

Most of the concrete I have seen is in northeastern states, especially Pennsylvania.  Many places have asphalt overlays over original concrete, where the joints have come up through the overlay.  More and more, I am seeing the full pavement box being removed in reconstruction projects in favor of asphalt.

I don't have a specific preference.

Nevada (NDOT) tends to use concrete only for urban freeways, and asphalt everywhere else (although the recent reconstruction of US 95 in northwest Las Vegas was all asphalt).  You'll occasionally find some concrete intersections and some concrete streets (there's a few in Reno), but most urban roads are asphalt.

I agree with Froggie on his final points. In the long-run, concrete is going to work better for high-volume roads.  If designed well, it shouldn't get many potholes and grooves can be cut longitudinally to decrease the noise/whine.  Asphalt is going to work better in lower-volume situations and is typically easier for local municipalities to maintain on smaller budgets.

Asphalt is more aesthetic in my opinion, especially in urban areas. With retaining walls, bridges and barriers already being concrete, it becomes one massive concrete river when the freeway is also concrete.

What I don't understand is how does laying asphalt over repaired concrete improve things?  Seems like a band-aid to me :-/

Over here where concrete is gradually being replaced by asphalt they're using two different methods. One is to completely remove the concrete before laying the asphalt and the other is to lay the asphalt on top of the concrete. The former is better but costs time and money. The latter suffers from longevity problems and it requires joins between each section just like the concrete so there's a slight bump every second or so when driving on it.

Several years ago, the La DOTD, in all their infinite wisdom :-D, came up with a new sealing procedure for black top surfaces that were used, but not yet worn out.  It's called tar and chip.  They spray hot tar on the road, then pour some gray rock on top of that.  It makes a LOUD roar that can never be matched by any concrete.  What they basically do to the state or US route is turn it into an over-glorified parish road! (called a county road in all other states).  This is a waste of taxpayer money.  It doesn't even smooth out any rough spots.

The road outside my house has that. Over here it's called surface dressing. It's a cheap'n'cheerful way of fixing roads for minimal cost. About every 5 years as it starts to smooth out and the noise drops they go and sprinkle another load of tar and gray rocks :-/

oh, when i was a kid, we would call that cheap pavement 'tar and feathers'...

the other downside to that approach was the tar would make a muck of any painted car surface it got on, in addition to anything kids would track it over....

as for asphalt vs concrete, i do know there is a stretch of US 1 in Old Lyme CT that was still concrete over the decades..only in the last few years was it paved over with asphalt...many of Connecticut's older roads and highways were concrete at one time or another...

Heck, tar-and-chip was great when they did it to the rural road my grandmother lives on.  Half the length of the road was DIRT!  :ded:

I don't know what they're doing wrong in TN but I can't see the lane markings on asphalt when it rains at night!

My preference is concrete, probably because I was used to it growing up in Pennsylvania.

Tar and chip works great on smaller rural roads without much heavy traffic. The road I grew up on had a new layer of tar-and-chip every 3-5 years, it seemed. I loved the sound driving a few days after it was surfaced (after the excess chips were driven into the road).

Then one year they laid asphalt over the tar-and-chip surface.... that didn't last long at all.

Sykotyk

QuoteTar and chip works great on smaller rural roads without much heavy traffic.

Yes, the road I use to get to the road I live on was tar and chipped.  It is a minor through route.

However, the road I live on which is strictly residential was blacktopped when it was last resurfaced.

Go figure!   :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The section of I-35 between my house and my work is asphalt and you still can't see the lane markings in the rain. So ha.

Concrete all the way. I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City is almost all concrete and it is an absolute pleasure to drive on. I actually like the whistling noise it makes...

"Surface dressing" is the British term--in the US it is properly called "chip seal."  Yes, it is noisy, but it is a popular pavement preservation method and can be used as long as there aren't any structural failures in the pavement (as evidenced by raveling or rutting above a certain depth).

Asphalt has its uses but for high-volume roads I vastly prefer Portland cement concrete because it holds its surface profile much, much better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be noisy.  In Kansas a length of K-96 between Wichita and Hutchinson was paved with a special concrete mix design, joint dowelling for load transfer, and a far more rigorous surface profile requirement than was then used on other concrete roads elsewhere in the state.  It approaches good-quality asphalt pavement in both silence and smoothness.

I don't agree that asphalt has an aesthetic advantage.  To my mind the different surface textures of pavement, bridge piers, retaining walls, etc. are sufficient to counteract the "concrete river" effect when concrete is used for everything, although many states use color washes on vertical elements to add visual interest.  Meanwhile, asphalt has a lower albedo, which makes it more difficult to drive at night, and rutting is a serious problem even on roads where tolls are theoretically enough to fund regular and systematic pavement renewal.

Asphalt is certainly much easier to repair.  With asphalt you only need to close the lane that's being resurfaced, but with concrete you need to take out an entire direction of freeway traffic or move it to the other side (reducing both to 50% capacity or less) and close the entire road for non-freeway repairs.

Asphalt on concrete is certainly a band-aid, but here in the northeast it's all the states can afford.

^^ That's what was done to US 278/SR 6 (Thornton Road/C.H. James Parkway), just northwest of I-20 (in Douglas County, GA). The roadwork went on, I think, for six months. Now, it's very smooth. A lot of tractor-trailers travel that route.


Be well,

Bryant

Quotebut with concrete you need to take out an entire direction of freeway traffic or move it to the other side (reducing both to 50% capacity or less) and close the entire road for non-freeway repairs.

I remember this was not always the case.  But, I think the partial closures during concrete repairs disappeared due to safety concerns.  (Both worker and vehicles falling in 6-12" holes where the old concrete was removed.

I have been doing a few projects involving concrete replacement lately.   Full slab replacement requires a lane closure, but can be done with quick curing concrete over a weekend.  Some smaller repairs can be done through overnight lane closures or traffic shifts using shoulders.

^^^ Nice to hear from someone who is actually doing the work.

Thanks.

QuoteI have been doing a few projects involving concrete replacement lately.   Full slab replacement requires a lane closure, but can be done with quick curing concrete over a weekend.  Some smaller repairs can be done through overnight lane closures or traffic shifts using shoulders.

True.  But I've only seen that done in NY once.  Normally here the road gets to the point where it's barely drivable, remains that way for a while, and then has to be torn up and completely rebuilt.

NY is also doing intersection replacements in concrete these days.  If it's four lanes it's fine, but there was an intersection in Mount Morris that was closed for at least a whole construction season because it was being replaced with concrete.

When the concrete pavement on I-80 was reconstructed across Pennsylvania (seemingly over the last 15 years . . .), long lengths of long-term single-lane closure were in effect to do the work because the traffic is not heavy in those areas.

Similar work in other areas might use two-way traffic on one direction of the freeway.

The type of work is only one factor determining how the work is done while maintaining traffic.  Traffic volume, geometry and surrounding topography are other major factors.

QuoteSimilar work in other areas might use two-way traffic on one direction of the freeway.

We call that a 4-0 setup in the Nethelrnads  :nod: all 4 lanes one one carriagway, and 0 on the other one, where there would normally be 2x2 lanes. It can be done if the shoulders can take the traffic, not all countries construct shoulders good enough that they can carry constant (truck) traffic.

I prefer concrete: it lasts longer, wisks away water more efficiently, thus causing less road spray during rainfall, it looks better, and I love the clunky clunk sound that it makes when I drive on it.

Traffic volumes may be light enough to run a "2-0" setup, to borrow your terminology, Chris.  One lane would be closed in each direction before one direction is shifted to the other barrel.

The NY Thruway is being reconstructed between exits 39 and 40.  They are building up the shoulders and are having all four lanes on one side, with emergency pull-offs.  The lanes are very narrow, AND have a Jersey barrier with distracting yellow reflectors on them between the lanes.  The lanes have to be 8 feet wide.  It's signed for 55 MPH, but people still do 70 anyway.

Anyway, when NY 17 was being resurfaced between Corning and Horseheads, they just paved over the concrete highway.  In Elmira, it was an at-grade boulevard, and was elevated and surfaced with concrete.  This section of highway won the Excellence in Highway Design award in 2008 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/eihd/2008/cat01.cfm).  Here's (https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region6/project-repository/horseheads/home.html) the website for the Horseheads project.

Quote from: AARoads on April 16, 2009, 02:50:03 PMI prefer concrete: it lasts longer, wisks away water more efficiently, thus causing less road spray during rainfall, it looks better, and I love the clunky clunk sound that it makes when I drive on it.

This.

You forgot the whirring noise it makes in some places depending on how it's grooved/broomed.

Concrete is great.  It lasts forever - I just this last weekend drove some sections of the Ridge Route (old US-99 between Castaic and Gorman, CA) and noted that, while four-year-old asphalt was disintegrating and causing hazard to the tires, 94 (really! ninety four!) year old concrete was just fine and surviving ...

Who, realistically, complains about the volume when they drive over it?  You're in a motor vehicle - want quiet?  Go home, seal your house with foam, and listen to John Cage's 4.33 on repeat. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2009, 03:32:14 AM
Concrete is great.  It lasts forever - I just this last weekend drove some sections of the Ridge Route (old US-99 between Castaic and Gorman, CA) and noted that, while four-year-old asphalt was disintegrating and causing hazard to the tires, 94 (really! ninety four!) year old concrete was just fine and surviving ...

Who, realistically, complains about the volume when they drive over it?  You're in a motor vehicle - want quiet?  Go home, seal your house with foam, and listen to John Cage's 4.33 on repeat. 

Or buy a 1990-1996 Infiniti Q45, which was rated, for many years, as having the quietest cabin of any car in production.  To this day it's one of the best.

quiet is entirely overrated.  why are you attempting to hold a business meeting in your car?  Want a quiet conference room as your destination?  First get there, and enjoy the ride!

Love concrete (or what's left of it in this state), but I did get into an accident on I-4's concrete in downtown Orlando during the rain from Wilma in 2005. There is still love for it; the sound is always fun to hear. I have seen asphalt layered over concrete.

FDOT replaces concrete if a road is widened, so say goodbye to what's left of it on FL 408.

Here in San Angelo, Tx they use asphalt for just about everything all the new housing developments streets are asphalt Houston Harte is asphalt but they use grooved concrete for bridges and whatnot
BigMatt

In CT, what few parts of the expressways that are still concrete, the DOT has grooved and smoothed over the concrete, making it nice to drive on.  (I-691 by Exit 3 & Route 9 by Route 72) This is the original concrete from the 60s or 70s, meanwhile the asphalt cracks every 7 years it seems.

Quote from: AARoads on April 16, 2009, 02:50:03 PM
I prefer concrete: it lasts longer, wisks away water more efficiently, thus causing less road spray during rainfall, it looks better, and I love the clunky clunk sound that it makes when I drive on it.

Slight digression to show off stuff I learned in civil engineering classes years ago...

Asphalt concrete (AC) surfaces can also be designed to drain efficiently as well. Nevada DOT and agencies in Las Vegas tend to design asphalt streets with a top layer (maybe 1-2" thick) of AC called "open grade".

"Open" refers to the material gradation of the aggregates for the AC surface.  Open graded surfaces have mostly larger rock material and very little fines (sands and smaller pebbles).

When combined with asphalt mixture, an open graded AC layer is quite porous.  This allows the rainwater to drain down off the surface.  A good open grade AC surface will typically have less road spray and more-visible (painted) pavement markings during rainfall.

None can survive a Michigan Winter!  :-/

About 3 or 4 years ago, ODOT in Ohio did a "state of the art" construction of the new 4-laned US 30 between Wooster (US-250 East) and SR-57. One direction is all concrete, the other direction is all asphalt. This was their way of doing some long term research on the latest technology using a moderate-volumed route as a guinea pig.  Meanwhile on the SR-3 portion of the Wooster bypass, there is still 40+ year concrete still holding up well, even with a modest grinding/grooving of the pavement a while back.  http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wooster,+ohio&sll=37.649034,-95.712891&sspn=34.156516,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=40.798444,-81.899557&spn=0.016049,0.026264&t=k&z=15 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wooster,+ohio&sll=37.649034,-95.712891&sspn=34.156516,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=40.798444,-81.899557&spn=0.016049,0.026264&t=k&z=15)

Ohio is kind of an either-or state.  Newer freeways in the Northeast Ohio area (SR-176/Jennings Freeway in Cleveland and SR-711 in Youngstown) were done in concrete as was a rebuilt stretch of I-90 near Ashtabula, while much of the rebuilding & widening of I-77 between Akron & Canton is all asphalt.

I love concrete surfaces. Besides the fact that some stretches last seemingly forever (admittedly under light traffic), the whirring noise is great for gauging speed without having to check the speedometer, and the sound of the car running over the expansion joints actually helps keep me paying attention to the road.

A lot of people don't like some of the older concrete surfaces in Louisiana, but some of them (especially I-55) make for adventurous drives.

I like concrete surfaces because of both the noise (it sounds so cool) and the fact that if a road has concrete, it most likely was reconstructed.

For me it depends. I really like the new porous asphalt that a good portion of the SE U.S. is using these days. Other advantages the porous stuff gives you is that the costs the same as regular asphalt and lasts longer than regular asphalt. Even still though, it doesn't last as long as concrete.

Houston is a city of no asphalt. Even neighborhood streets are all concrete. I don't remember when I drove on asphalt last. It's been a good while. I'd be okay with concrete, but Texas uses grooved/scored concrete which makes a god-awful high pitched whistle. On top of that, they use a continuous pour without slabs/joints, so there's no other sound to help take away from the whining noise. If they used slabs, I'd like it better.

In my opinion though, whatever they type of surface the road is made of, bridges should ALWAYS be concrete. Bridges are expensive to replace and asphalting a bridge only means you have to resurface it more often, putting more strain and weight on the structure. Texas does this on all asphalt freeways and I've never understood why. If a bridge is originally concrete, why would you add a layer of asphalt on top? That's just more weight the structure has to carry.

I thought I was the only one who liked the whistling noise, but I guess not!  I must not be as weird as I thought!

I love the noise on concrete.  It's probably why most of my favorite road segments are concrete.

One reason why the bridge may have asphalt over it may be that the DOT is too lazy to repair it properly and so just puts asphalt on it to cover the problems.  Happens with roads too; very common in NY (though NYSDOT has been reconstructing some interchanges with concrete).

I also love the noise on concrete.

Here in Alabama, we have not had any concrete construction in 30 years (I-459 was the last concrete-built freeway in Alabama).  Ironically, the concrete section is in better shape than the asphalt sections that were resurfaced not to long ago.

Down in Florida, the asphalt highways tend to stain white, making it very hard to see.

I'm mixed, but I guess I like asphalt more.  I hate the tha-thunk tha-thunk tha-thunk of Louisiana concrete, but I love the whistle of the concrete in Houston.  As far in seeing pavement markings in my area when it rains you can't see anymore on asphalt than you can on concrete because the water sits up instead of draining, even on bridges.  Louisiana has recently restriped all of the highways in my area so now between every white stripe there are 5 or 6 reflectors, so at night and in the rain you see the reflectors and you fell it when you cross.  Sort of like Botts dots.

Count me in as one who likes the concrete whistle. I mainly get my concrete fix from Kansas, as Oklahoma's concrete freeways were mostly done before scored concrete was invented.

OKC's concrete freeways have some interesting properties. On each expansion joint there are three small patches of concrete approximately where the tires cross (making six per lane on each joint). I think I read on WSDOT's site that those patches conceal "dowel bars", which I guess make the concrete stronger by holding it together. Also, each white stripe has recently had a black stripe painted after it. I'm guessing that's to make it easier to see when the sun angle/weather conditions would otherwise make it impossible to see.

Is the Porous Asphalt the kind that soaks in Rain in order to help miminize the ponding effect on the road the runoff rain comes from the backside of tire erosion during downpours?

^^ I think you're correct.


Be well,

Bryant

I am a concrete fan myself. The noise, the look, everything. Can't get enough of it. Here in NY, almost all of I-88 is concrete(although near Binghamton, it has been resurfaced with asphalt. I am very glad the Thruway between exits 39 and 40 is being reconstructed with concrete. I wish the whole thing was like that.

^^ I wondered if they were going to do that!  I live in Weedsport, so I see the construction all the time.  I guess I don't have to post a new thread now!

Yeah, last time I drove through there, I glanced over to the other lanes and it definitely looked like concrete to me. Sure enough, I went on the Thruway website, looked up the project info, and confirmed it. :)

Well we have very few concrete stretches left here in CT (closest to me is a small portion of I-84 around manchester that's probably been there since the old alignment of CT-15/wilbur cross highway. Overall it's held up ok, but does have some asphalt patches in it here and there).  I find concrete has a nostalgic factor to it, and for that reason I like it.  But for driving, you can't beat fresh asphalt.  Of course after a year or two, it's not fresh asphalt anymore, and it's all cracked and full of potholes anyway.

QuoteYeah, last time I drove through there, I glanced over to the other lanes and it definitely looked like concrete to me. Sure enough, I went on the Thruway website, looked up the project info, and confirmed it.

And I drove on it yesterday, so I can confirm that it's definitely concrete.  Now they're reconstructing another portion just east of there, I wonder if that will be concrete as well.

The whistley noise on concrete bridges makes them so epic.  :)

*thunk-thunk*
*whistle*
*thunk-thunk*

(possibly repeat)

:D

^^  :-D True.


Be well,

Bryant

On I-65 south of Nashville, the interstate/freeway is asphalt but most if not all of the exit ramps are concrete.  :confused:

I'm not sure why this is other than, TDOT doesn't want to work on the ramps that often.

I did a trip to Ottawa in 2006 on TCH-417, there was some gaps who replaced asphalt with concrete. A-13 in Laval is done with concrete.

At Asbestos, a town named from the mining extraction of Asbestos in the north of Sherbrooke, they repaved a street with a blend of "asphalt-asbestos" (approximate translation of the French word "asphalte-amiante" chrisotyle to be more precise, a French article mentionned "asphalt-chrysotile http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/estrie/2009/07/13/003-asphalte_chrysotile_asbestos.shtml (http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/estrie/2009/07/13/003-asphalte_chrysotile_asbestos.shtml) http://www.cyberpresse.ca/la-tribune/estrie/200907/14/01-883955-asbestos-pave-sa-rue-principale-avec-de-lasphalte-amiante.php (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/la-tribune/estrie/200907/14/01-883955-asbestos-pave-sa-rue-principale-avec-de-lasphalte-amiante.php) )

also I spotted on Wikipedia, some stuff about "bioasphalt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioasphalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioasphalt)

Interesting question...I would have to say I tend to prefer concrete, but only when it's done right.  Here in Cincinnati there's very little concrete anywhere, though there's a plethora of 1960's era roads that have been overlaid with asphalt.  Interestingly, even some new/rebuilt roads here in the city itself are built as concrete roads but with a 2-3" asphalt wear surface.  I guess the idea is that the concrete will last for a very very long time, providing a stable base for the asphalt which is easier to replace and maintain.  One thing though that they have been doing is making a pad of concrete intended to remain exposed at bus stops, to prevent rutting.  Here's a good example: http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=39.148866,-84.43672&panoid=eLXRIn75VcPH0O7doHXW8g&cbp=12,79.72,,0,19.93&ll=39.148792,-84.436841&spn=0,359.990247&z=17 (http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=39.148866,-84.43672&panoid=eLXRIn75VcPH0O7doHXW8g&cbp=12,79.72,,0,19.93&ll=39.148792,-84.436841&spn=0,359.990247&z=17)

Unfortunately, most of the newer roads around here that are all concrete just plain suck. Part of the problem (at least in my opinion) is that the low bidders cheap out on the surface finishing.  The grooving is done by hand when the concrete is so wet that it gets very bumpy and jarring.  Proper surface finishing is one of the things that makes concrete more expensive, but when done right it makes the road that much more worth the investment. 

There's a few small sections of roads and overpasses around here that use exposed aggregate concrete.  It's not like what you see on residential sidewalks and driveways (which is much more extreme), but it's similar.  Basically, the top layer of cream is removed during the curing process, exposing the medium sized aggregate.  It looks just like an asphalt road that's weathered for several years, except that it's tan instead of gray, and there may be expansion joints.  That seems to be the preferred finishing method by AASHTO because it's just as quiet, if not more so, than asphalt, as well as providing good traction and wear.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that older concrete roads can have their life extended quite a bit by diamond grinding.  It's especially useful after extensive repairs, because it evens out all the patches with the rest of the road surface.  I think they even do it on some new roads too (the new I-40 bypass in Greensboro, NC comes to mind).  You can always tell when it's been done because the grooves run parallel to traffic instead of perpendicular.  It's also a lot less noisy.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 20, 2009, 07:33:46 PM
At Asbestos, a town named from the mining extraction of Asbestos in the north of Sherbrooke, they repaved a street with a blend of "asphalt-asbestos" (approximate translation of the French word "asphalte-amiante" chrisotyle to be more precise, a French article mentionned "asphalt-chrysotile http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/estrie/2009/07/13/003-asphalte_chrysotile_asbestos.shtml (http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/estrie/2009/07/13/003-asphalte_chrysotile_asbestos.shtml) http://www.cyberpresse.ca/la-tribune/estrie/200907/14/01-883955-asbestos-pave-sa-rue-principale-avec-de-lasphalte-amiante.php (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/la-tribune/estrie/200907/14/01-883955-asbestos-pave-sa-rue-principale-avec-de-lasphalte-amiante.php) )

Paving a road with a mixture of asbestos and asphalt? Are Québécois immune to mesothelioma?  ;-)

P.S. A few nights ago, I just noticed the city with that name in the road atlas, but I didn't think they'd pave their roads the same way.

I am personally varied on Concrete VS Asphalt. It really depends. In cities, I probably would go with paving main arteries with concrete. But when you are in a rural area with low traffic, I say pave freeways and roads with asphalt. AADT can define "Pavement or Concrete?" really nicely. If you use NYC for an example, I say pave all the roads with concrete there. It should be a big no-no for very big cities to have asphalt streets.

But when I am on a rural two laned road with not very many other drivers, pave it with asphalt. It is cheaper and accommodates the needs of the road, you should do it. Unless you are talking about those very remote highways. Pave 'im with concrete, and wait for them to crack up. Many, many years will pass by before it degrades. Alaska? Stick it with asphalt. Or porous asphalt.

Some day, concrete can not even handle the traffic we will have. An AADT of 1,000,000 a day would be disturbing. We'll have to make something new.

But for now, I say use either varying by the various situation that he/she has.

QuoteOn I-65 south of Nashville, the interstate/freeway is asphalt but most if not all of the exit ramps are concrete. 

I'm not sure why this is other than, TDOT doesn't want to work on the ramps that often.

This is a Tennessee thing. I've seen it all over Memphis. Especially on the newer freeways.

Here is NY the opposite is done - the only surface streets paved with concrete are a couple intersections that have recently been reconstructed, and all the concrete freeways are at the edges of the suburbs or rural.  Then again, it only lasts 20 years here, so when it starts to decay, the road needs to be closed and ripped up, repaved all the way from the base.

I don't mind concrete, but it's much too noisy when trying to listen to the radio.

These are wonderful pics! I will probably never get to see any of these highways in person, so I'm glad someone is posting pics of their best features.

Sorry to bring this up again, but as for the asphalt vs. concrete debate, it would seem to be a toss-up in Ontario. As someone mentioned, the deicing solution or salt would wear down the concrete pretty quick unless it was made with a Type II or V cement (resistance to sulfate). The freezing/thawing action that would be taking place in Ontario would require air to be entrained in the concrete so that the water could be free to expand when freezing, which would somewhat reduce wear on the concrete. On the other hand, concrete and/or cement-treated base would be preferable on poor soils, such as clay.

Asphalt would be easier to replace, but it would have to be replaced more often while concrete would need to be rehabilitated (not replaced) around the same time. More material would be consumed over the lifetime of asphalt pavement than concrete pavement despite the higher initial cost of concrete pavement. If built correctly, concrete has a lifetime of around 40 years or so. Some concrete pavement is only reinforced where joints are sawed into the pavement while other pavement is continuously reinforced with no joints sawed into the pavement. The latter type of construction tends to last longer since the cracks that do form would form where joints would be sawed in anyway, and the continuous reinforcement would prevent or at least delay the settling of the pavement. The sawed-in joints are one of the things that cause the "thump-thump" as you drive down the highway.

In the case of Ontario, it seems like various factors, including the design of the concrete pavement, the soil, and the weather, have an impact on how long concrete can hold up.

Sorry for the long essay; just thought I would provide some insight.

Here's a video of some rough conrete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW3fr3MKxpo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW3fr3MKxpo)


Be well,

Bryant

Concrete looks hideous.I much prefer asphalt, as it looks clean, gives nice smooth ride, and the overall representation of the highway looks better.The problem is here in the states, the Transportation Agencies are too cheap to constantly repave and refurbish pavement.Look at European Motorways, they are beautiful....while our freeways are crap.

Don't get me started on California 91.You have half of the HOV lane pavement, the other half and 2 left lanes old concrete, and the right lanes newer concrete....it's a mess.I'm almost embarrassed to have my European friends come out here and drive on our freeways.

Concrete makes me want to pull the eyes from my sockets and throw them in the street so I won't have to look at it.

Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 08, 2009, 09:07:42 PM
Concrete looks hideous.I much prefer asphalt, as it looks clean, gives nice smooth ride, and the overall representation of the highway looks better.The problem is here in the states, the Transportation Agencies are too cheap to constantly repave and refurbish pavement. Look at European Motorways, they are beautiful....while our freeways are crap.

I think concrete looks better than asphalt. With a concrete roadway, the lanes are divided by a seam in the concrete and often times the roads are curbed. Looks much more clean in my opinion and makes it much easier to see your lane's edge during wet road conditions. However, here in Houston, there are no asphalt freeways (or even city streets for that matter), so seeing some asphalt would be a refreshing change, not only to the ears, but to the eyes as well. I'm a big fan of porous asphalt and would use mass amounts of that if I had any authority in a city's road construction. Though, I still prefer the look and longevity of concrete.

Quote from: Bryant5493 on November 08, 2009, 10:56:09 AM
Here's a video of some rough concrete.

I love concrete like this, haha. But only in small doses.

How about concrete which has become so rocky that it's extremely loud when driven on.  California's I-80 is a classic example.

I admit, some concrete doesn't look too bad when it's new and done right.However, most concrete looks like crap.

Now, this is what I'm talking about:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.painetworks.com%2Fphotos%2Fhy%2Fhy2550.JPG&hash=d0374a49af1a9900ec66d3ea8cba91c0fab970ed)

If every freeway in the US looked as good as that, the world would be a much better place.

Instead we are stuck with this:(A pic of California 91 at CA 241 Toll Road)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westcoastroads.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fimages090%2Fca-091_wb_exit_041b_08.jpg&hash=8f4363492c8f9bfa2c1ff8efbc4196a862b0edc5)

My eyes!!!!! X-( X-( X-(

Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 09, 2009, 07:42:07 PM
Instead we are stuck with this:(A pic of California 91 at CA 241 Toll Road)
<pic>
My eyes!!!!! X-( X-( X-(

That's not even really that bad. That concrete looks to be in decent condition for a CA freeway.  If you want to see some bad concrete, check out I-80 through the Sierras (especially around Donner Pass) before it's all reconstructed.

IMO the scenery decides whether Concrete or Asphalt looks better.

I was wondering, what do you prefer, asphalt or concrete roads?

I prefer asphalt, particularly rubberized asphalt.  While asphalt is less durable, it typically is quieter and rides more smoothly.  Rubberized asphalt is even quieter and somewhat more durable than standard asphalt.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=741

Concrete, especially worn concrete (where most people would clamor to replace it), can give a road character.  On the other hand, it can be disconcerting to drive on if no measures were taken to minimize tire wobble (as tends to be an issue on the Thruway as NYSTA appears to take no measures to cleanup from work zone traffic control, resulting in grooves where barriers or temporary lane markings were).

Concrete. Lasts longer. Over here in Buffalo, Erie County has switched over to concrete for intersection rebuilds. Certainly not complaining, as they don't overlay asphalt until 10 years after it's needed. Freeze-thaw cycle in New York makes potholes appear overnight, even on recently-paved asphalt highways. NY 952T (formerly concrete) got an overlay a year or two ago and it had disintegrated by January. Was worse than the crappy concrete that used to be there.

Generally speaking, New York (currently) uses concrete for new construction, reconstruction, and bridge decks, with a few exceptions (NY 17 at Exit 98, I-781, and the Thruway between exits 57 and 58). Downstate, asphalt is almost always used outside of bridge decks because it has a much shorter curing time (relatively instantaneous) and they try and keep closures as short as possible. Concrete is (occasionally) used in other built-up areas (i.e. I-190 and 1 mile of the Thruway in Buffalo), but not quite as often as asphalt. Original concrete has been overlain on just about everything newer than the mid-80s, but there's some old concrete on Long Island dating back half a century or more.

I personally really like both asphalt and concrete. I like how some roads are asphalt, and some are concrete. But when it comes to efficiency, concrete does last longer. On the other hand, though, as some have mentioned, striping on concrete can be hard to see in situations like when it's raining, even with the black outlining. I really can't say I like one more than the other though.

I like concrete when it's gone to shit, and my car needs a new suspension afterwards. Like in Michigan.

I like both asphalt and concrete they are OK with me.

Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2014, 06:14:46 PM
Concrete. Lasts longer. Over here in Buffalo, Erie County has switched over to concrete for intersection rebuilds. Certainly not complaining, as they don't overlay asphalt until 10 years after it's needed. Freeze-thaw cycle in New York makes potholes appear overnight, even on recently-paved asphalt highways. NY 952T (formerly concrete) got an overlay a year or two ago and it had disintegrated by January. Was worse than the crappy concrete that used to be there.

Generally speaking, New York (currently) uses concrete for new construction, reconstruction, and bridge decks, with a few exceptions (NY 17 at Exit 98, I-781, and the Thruway between exits 57 and 58). Downstate, asphalt is almost always used outside of bridge decks because it has a much shorter curing time (relatively instantaneous) and they try and keep closures as short as possible. Concrete is (occasionally) used in other built-up areas (i.e. I-190 and 1 mile of the Thruway in Buffalo), but not quite as often as asphalt. Original concrete has been overlain on just about everything newer than the mid-80s, but there's some old concrete on Long Island dating back half a century or more.

I think it's decided on a case to case basis by how economical it would be.  I know when I was at the NY 85 reconstruction public meeting that the PM mentioned that the type of pavement to be used would be decided when contractor bids came in so that the cost to built it could be factored in.

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2014, 12:56:13 PM

Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2014, 06:14:46 PM
Concrete. Lasts longer. Over here in Buffalo, Erie County has switched over to concrete for intersection rebuilds. Certainly not complaining, as they don't overlay asphalt until 10 years after it's needed. Freeze-thaw cycle in New York makes potholes appear overnight, even on recently-paved asphalt highways. NY 952T (formerly concrete) got an overlay a year or two ago and it had disintegrated by January. Was worse than the crappy concrete that used to be there.

Generally speaking, New York (currently) uses concrete for new construction, reconstruction, and bridge decks, with a few exceptions (NY 17 at Exit 98, I-781, and the Thruway between exits 57 and 58). Downstate, asphalt is almost always used outside of bridge decks because it has a much shorter curing time (relatively instantaneous) and they try and keep closures as short as possible. Concrete is (occasionally) used in other built-up areas (i.e. I-190 and 1 mile of the Thruway in Buffalo), but not quite as often as asphalt. Original concrete has been overlain on just about everything newer than the mid-80s, but there's some old concrete on Long Island dating back half a century or more.

I think it's decided on a case to case basis by how economical it would be.  I know when I was at the NY 85 reconstruction public meeting that the PM mentioned that the type of pavement to be used would be decided when contractor bids came in so that the cost to built it could be factored in.

Figured as such. Certainly is a trend, but not necessarily the rule. But then again, there really hasn't been much top-down reconstruction or new construction in the past couple decades. I-86/NY 17, I-990, I-781, NY 7, US 219, and that's just about it for new stuff, some of which isn't all that new. Reconstructions have been pretty much limited to a few small sections of the Thruway.

Maryland used mostly concrete from the 1960's through the early 1970's.  Also true on many (but not all) freeways in Northern Virginia from the same years.

Many of those roads required a lot of repair at the joints, and after the repair work was complete, a wearing course of asphalt was generally poured over top.

Now Maryland (both SHA and MdTA) seems to prefer asphalt except for bridge and tunnel decks, where concrete is always used.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 09:12:01 PM
Maryland used mostly concrete from the 1960's through the early 1970's.  Also true on many (but not all) freeways in Northern Virginia from the same years.

Many of those roads required a lot of repair at the joints, and after the repair work was complete, a wearing course of asphalt was generally poured over top.

Now Maryland (both SHA and MdTA) seems to prefer asphalt except for bridge and tunnel decks, where concrete is always used.

Judging by nearly all the earlier photos I have seen of highways (pre-70's), most highways were concrete to begin with.  I guess the question is when did asphalt start to become more popular than concrete when it came to major highways & interstates?

Quote from: thenetwork on December 05, 2014, 09:48:50 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2014, 09:12:01 PM
Maryland used mostly concrete from the 1960's through the early 1970's.  Also true on many (but not all) freeways in Northern Virginia from the same years.

Many of those roads required a lot of repair at the joints, and after the repair work was complete, a wearing course of asphalt was generally poured over top.

Now Maryland (both SHA and MdTA) seems to prefer asphalt except for bridge and tunnel decks, where concrete is always used.

Judging by nearly all the earlier photos I have seen of highways (pre-70's), most highways were concrete to begin with.  I guess the question is when did asphalt start to become more popular than concrete when it came to major highways & interstates?

Some Maryland freeways were asphalt from the start, including (for reasons never clear to me) I-495 between Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue), Exit 31 and the American Legion Bridge over the Potomac River (between Exits 41 and 43).

But the "Between the Beltways" part of I-95 between Exit 27 and Exit 49 was concrete from the start (now has a asphalt wearing course), built many years after I-495 was completed.

Is the Thruway I-95 project being redone in concrete, or is it an asphalt overlay?