Concrete vs. Hotmix (asphalt)

[cjk374]

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.

[Voyager]

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

[Truvelo]

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.

[un1]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[Bryant5493]

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

[Truvelo]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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).

[Chris]

At 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).

[Bryant5493]

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." She doesn't travel on that section of I-85 much.


Be well,

Bryant

[Bryant5493]

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

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[ComputerGuy]

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

[Duke87]

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.

[un1]

Again, MnDOT proves this one wrong.

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

[akotchi]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[SSOWorld]

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

[Truvelo]

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.

[cjk374]

Several years ago, the La DOTD, in all their infinite wisdom , 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.

[Truvelo]

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

[ctsignguy]

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...

[Michael]

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! 

[mightyace]

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.