Sometimes money is wasted on resurfacing perfectly fine roads/highways

[tolbs17]

Looking at specifically concrete highways,

This opened to traffic in 2008. It got resurfaced in 2019/2020. With all that concrete they used on it, it just seemed like a waste of money to me, there were PLENTY of more bad highways (such as I-440 in northern Raleigh) that needed to be resurfaced rather than a fairly new highway like this. I-485 in western Charlotte did not get the same treatment.

https://goo.gl/maps/72U9r2MLagYPtHndA

This opened in late 2007. Same reason that doesn't really make sense resurfacing

https://goo.gl/maps/79Q8jyg53v3LHiwC7

This looks fine

https://goo.gl/maps/Ctc35MCNX8mqMRmJ9

Same with I-540 in Northeastern Raleigh, Knightdale area and I-87.

[Max Rockatansky]

Been watching Falling Down?

[Scott5114]

Do you have the DOT sufficiency data they use for programming these projects? No? Just GSV imagery? Then you know jack shit about whether these projects were a good use of money or not.

[andrepoiy]

Honestly though, sometimes I do feel that way about some resurfacing projects. For example, a section of Highway 400 in Toronto was resurfaced once when I was in like 5th grade (can't remember exactly), and the same section was resurfaced again when I was in my 10th grade. The thing is, I honestly did not think there was a problem with the condition of the road, so that's why I thought it was a bit strange. There didn't seem to be a massive deterioration in road quality in the 5 years.

[jeffandnicole]

It's always a Catch 22:  If the road is rutted, potholed and cracked, why wasn't the work done sooner?  If the road looks perfectly fine, why bother working on it? 

Think of fueling up a vehicle:  Do you wait until you run out of gas?  Or do you fill it while there's gas to prevent running out of gas? 

Getting fuel in a vehicle is certainly the better option, but that line of thinking doesn't translate to other things:  Minor preventive maintenance before something is broken prevents costlier repairs if it were to break first.

[ilpt4u]

It's not wasted money. It is investing money and jobs in a community via a local paving company! And the associated Asphalt and/or Concrete plant!

[SkyPesos]

What are "hgihways"?

[tolbs17]

Do you have the DOT sufficiency data they use for programming these projects? No? Just GSV imagery? Then you know jack shit about whether these projects were a good use of money or not.

I look on this site: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=fd72c3ba0be144e5928a5b36931c1d61

And I look on GSV. It seemed fine the way it was even before the rehabilitation tbh.

What are "hgihways"?

Typo fixed.

[hbelkins]

I don't understand some resurfacing schedules myself. Part of my route to work is scheduled to be resurfaced this year. I honestly don't think the whole road needs it. Some strip patching in a few spots should be sufficient, in my opinion.

[Rothman]

I don't understand some resurfacing schedules myself. Part of my route to work is scheduled to be resurfaced this year. I honestly don't think the whole road needs it. Some strip patching in a few spots should be sufficient, in my opinion.

Funding eligibility and availability kills routine paving cycles.  It's ridiculously frustrating.

[hbelkins]

I don't understand some resurfacing schedules myself. Part of my route to work is scheduled to be resurfaced this year. I honestly don't think the whole road needs it. Some strip patching in a few spots should be sufficient, in my opinion.

Funding eligibility and availability kills routine paving cycles.  It's ridiculously frustrating.

Kentucky generally adheres to a 10-year resurfacing cycle, and it has been about that long since this stretch was last fully paved.

I remember Gov. Wallace Wilkinson making a big deal during his term (1987-1991) of cutting Kentucky's cycle from 35 years to 10  years.

[Rothman]

I don't understand some resurfacing schedules myself. Part of my route to work is scheduled to be resurfaced this year. I honestly don't think the whole road needs it. Some strip patching in a few spots should be sufficient, in my opinion.

Funding eligibility and availability kills routine paving cycles.  It's ridiculously frustrating.

Kentucky generally adheres to a 10-year resurfacing cycle, and it has been about that long since this stretch was last fully paved.

I remember Gov. Wallace Wilkinson making a big deal during his term (1987-1991) of cutting Kentucky's cycle from 35 years to 10  years.

Well, then you already knew why the resurfacing was scheduled.

[tolbs17]

Another reason that could be funny is that this highway (I-73) opened in 2017 and it got repaved or a layer was added sometime in 2020 I think. Pavement was perfectly fine! But I think the reason for that is so that it can absorb rain, and if they are doing that, then they should do it for the NC 11 bypass for Greenville. The southwest bypass opened in 2019, and the northwest part was repaved last summer.

2018 https://goo.gl/maps/Szo4V8Vtz8nGheSR7

2021 https://goo.gl/maps/6Sgca9ca9uN568WVA

[Rick Powell]

The FHWA is bearing down on states to do a better job at "asset management". In Illinois' case, there is a policy called "TAMP" that dictates what roadways eligible for resurfacing, and type/thickness of the treatment, based on roadway surveyed conditions and distresses. It is possible to get exceptions where warranted, but it is a fairly strict program with hard guidelines. Sometimes a roadway is eligible for a resurfacing under one criteria, but ineligible under another, and the policy basically says, "wait till it gets worse to do your resurfacing" or else do something more preventative like crack sealing.