Concrete vs. Hotmix (asphalt)

[golden eagle]

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

[codyg1985]

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.

[Bryant5493]

Here's a video of some rough conrete.

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


Be well,

Bryant

[Riverside Frwy]

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.

[Marc]

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.

[Marc]

Here's a video of some rough concrete.

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

[SSOWorld]

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

[Riverside Frwy]

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:


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)


My eyes!!!!!

[roadfro]

Instead we are stuck with this:(A pic of California 91 at CA 241 Toll Road)
<pic>
My eyes!!!!!

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.

[UptownRoadGeek]

IMO the scenery decides whether Concrete or Asphalt looks better.

[Pink Jazz]

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.

[NE2]

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

[vdeane]

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).

[cl94]

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.

[adventurernumber1]

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.

[seicer]

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

[bing101]

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

[vdeane]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[thenetwork]

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?

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[seicer]

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