Why are American roads so crappy?

Americans simply aren't willing to pay the taxes - particularly on gas - needed to build and maintain decent roads, particularly freeways. Thus the standard of construction is miserable, roads are poorly lit and they quickly fall apart. I always think European tourists arriving in many places in the US must believe they've arrived in a third world country if they judge from the state of the roads.

And what's up with bridges on US freeways? They typically have a concrete surface, meaning that if the road itself is tarred, there's a discontinuity in surface between the bridge and the road at either side, inevitably leading to potholes and other bumps. Far better to have a continuous tar surface over the bridge.

 

Um, it's pretty basic, really.

Tarred roads are cheaper, smoother, and easier to maintain when they start to go bad. Plus, tar gives a great deal by warping or stretching as the ice comes and goes. Concrete cracks on pretty much the first harsh winter. Ergo, most cities that have varying temperatures that lead to quicker deterioration use tar instead of concrete.

And since obviously concrete holds the heat much longer and is less apt to corrosion, and tar is not strong enough to make bridges out of, we use concrete for bridge work.

Different materials for different reasons.

Bridges already freeze much quicker than the rest of the road due to double exposure. Can you imagine how quickly those bridges would freeze up if they were made of tar?

And can you imagine how often we'd be repairing our highways in the north if they were made of concrete?



Ever drive the PA turnpike? Right there is a textbook example of why tar is the obvious choice for long stretches of road.

 

I don't buy your explanation. Central and northern Europe have pretty harsh winters and typically still manage to have continuous tarred surface even over bridges. Conversely, the US has concrete surfaces for its bridges even where the climate is mild (eg Southern California etc). And a relatively thin layer of tar on top of concrete to allow for a continuous surface with the surrounding road is hardly going to impact a bridge's strength anyway.

I'm not suggesting concrete roads, btw. I find it odd the US still builds new roads out of concrete when most countries have concluded that it's a poor alternative to tar. As you point out, they crack easily and are horrendously difficult to repair properly. A lot of the freeway I drive home on is concrete, and they have been replacing concrete sections and grinding the surface for months. And at the end of it all they'll still have a surface that's full of patched cracks and potholes just waitning to fall apart again in a few years.

 

You don't have to.

But it's true.

That's all fine and dandy and all, but how many miles of roads are in each of these countries? And how much is gas there? How much of that gas price is sent back to resurfacing roads regularly?

Because I got news for you if you think that Europe has some magic road surface that we haven't figured out yet.

The tar they use over there is the same as over here. The difference is they have less miles to cover with more money, so they are afforded the luxury of resurfacing the roads as soon as they need just a touch of repair. Here we have larger cars that can handle the conditions much easier because we have more room to park, drive, and just generally travel by car. And that more than makes up for the fact that we can't resurface every pot hole as soon as it's exposed.

A concrete bridge lasts longer than that tar on top. Why put a layer of disposable surface on a longer lasting bridge if you don't have to? There are much greater needs on the overall landscape of the highway system than a perfectly smooth interchange between a bridge and it's abutting roadway here. We manage to live with it.

 

Good to see you've corrected your argument. I agree the issue is largely economic - Americans just aren't willing to pay what would be needed for better constructed and maintained roads. The issue has nothing to do with surface freezing and bridge strength as you originally argued.

You'd think that would be the case. However, the continued use of concrete to construct new freeways suggests a rather short-sighted outlook to the long-term cost of road construction and maintenance: save money up front and worry later about costs of maintenance.

A non argument. Better construction techniques such as a continuous tarred surface would almost certainly reduce long-term maintenance. Another example I see this all the time with car pool lanes that are retrofitted to freeways. They're constructed so poorly in their abuttal to the existing roadway that almost inevitably they start to fall apart at the discontinuity.

To reduce the inevitable cost of repairs at the point of discontinuity and provide a better quality of road for its users.

Why the defensiveness?

 

Okay, yes, you're right.

We are not willing to pay to have our roads repaired as often as they do in Europe.

But the reason is very in depth as I mentioned above. There are many factors. The fact we have massive amounts of roads compared to over there, the fact that our gas is practiaclly free, the fact that we drive a whole lot more than over there, the fact that we have larger, more suitable cars for less than perfect conditions, and the fact that we have a great diversity of weather conditions are just some of the reasons.


But that still doesn't make my answer as to why we use two different surfaces for bridges and road not valid. The reason I gave you is why. It would be impractical to use what they use in Europe. It's a waste of money for us to use that system they have there.

I will not defend the tools that decide to use concrete highways in cold weather climates. They're on their own.

You're wrong.

Really. You are.

Using a short life-span surface to cover a long lifetime surface is never cost efficient.

You can argue the contrary till the cows come home, but the fact is, it's not.

But this is not practical here in America because of all the reasons I laid out above.

Take an urban planning class. You'll be glad you did. The rules of practicallity do not hold in all places. What works wonderfully in one place does not stand the same in others.

What at all about that post was defensive?

I even just reread it again to try to figure that one out. It's an answer and explaination to your question. That's it.

 

For a state like CA, I very much doubt that's the case. It's certainly true, however, that less populated large states have large distances of roads in relation to the population base as compared to Europe.

Indeed.

Surely the US should be encouraging smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles rather than its raods doing the reverse as you claim? "We have to drive big vehicles because our roads are so crap" doesn't sound like a very sensible proposition.

Again, I doubt that. Germany, for example, almost certainly has far greater weather diversity than CA.

And it's not just cold weather climates. Most new freeway construction around me (and even freeway widenings) have been concrete. And they're all cracking apart!

That was convincing. Not. And it didn't even address the issue of the effects of having a discontinuity where none need exist.

 

The bolded word above seems to be where you are not understanding things.

We can go on all day long about what the people should or should not do. That's a whole new thread. But you asked why bridges and roads are made of two different surfaces. I told you why they were in the colder climates.

You didn't believe me.

That's not my fault.




Now, as for all the rest of your argument, let me ask you one simple question: Do you think that you're the first person who has ever thought of this?

 

And as it turned out you were completely incorrect given that the reason is almost certainly economic. Good thing I didn't believe you!

 

Okay.

 

...

 

Maybe I'm missing something in your argument, but everything I've ever heard on the subject says that concrete roads cost a lot more to install initially, and a lot less to maintain.

 

You've got it backwards. Concrete highways are the ones that are expensive to build but last forever.

 

I don't know about you guys but our roads here in Sweden are always in great condition, even after our harsh winters and the whole "rain during the day, freeze overnight, melt during the day" phases.

I used to live in Texas and I must say the roads there sucked ass compared to here.

 

Outside of Pennsylvania, USA roads aren't so bad.

 

Some of my personal observations:

1) Some of the smallest states have the worst interstates. You'd think they'd do better with more income coming in and fewer miles to deal with. Even considering lane-miles, the ratio of population to lane-miles must be much greater in New York than Wyoming. I think this is because of higher labor costs in the smaller states, for which cause you can blame many things. Federal funding is majority of interstate funding and they don't quite cover regional differences in labor costs.

2) I think many aspects of the highway system are optimal, even as they don't look that way to the driver. If rush hour traffic was as smooth as a baby's bottom, wouldn't that mean the road is underutilized for 90% of the time? Is it worth it to spend three times as much to build a road that lasts twenty years instead of ten? Probably not, not even from pure economics, but from the standpoint that demands might change in twenty years in terms of road widening or additional intersections that part of that extra upgrade are wasted.

3) My ideas are based entirely upon driving across Kansas, where it seems there is always some construction on some section of I-70. It occured to me that this was optimal. If the most cost effective way of building a highway was for a ten-year life span, then the best way of doing this is to rebuild 10% of the highway each year, rather than the complete length once every 10 years. While it almost guarantees some inconvenience for the driver, it also has the benefit that the highway item in the budget bill remains about the same from year-to-year and there is always a ready construction infrastructure in the state ready to deal with next year's managably-small construction demands rather than having to import large construction crews from out-of-state.

 

The worst roads I usually hear of are one's that either are dictated by the lay of the land or if the roads are going into areas with rapid economic growth.

 

I think its because America is a HUGE country. Population density is very low compared to Europe and Japan. Huge Country = Lotsa Roads. Lotsa roads = requires lotsa money.

Other factors would probably also be the amount of cars in the US... you can't catch a train most places because there isn't one. More cars on roads means faster wear and tear.

 

I've been on some amazingly awful roads in Europe and elsewhere, and the roads in NC are pretty decent.

 

I did a three week long road trip through the south of the US and I really didn't notice a lot of bad roads, not more than here in Germany.

 

I did a road tour of cali right from san francisco down to san diego.
The only area which had decent highways was orange county and they had a friggin 4 dollar toll booth .
The 101 in the mid section of cali is falling apart .

 

Except they don't. Almost all the concrete roads around me are crumbling and cracked wrecks, even those built 10 to 15 years ago. If they are indeed expensive to build, then they are very poor value for money.

 

Not sure I buy this argument, at least not for a state like CA.

The motorways in England are as clogged as the freeways in CA, especially around London.

 

Yep, There tend to be less European roads around than Americans due to size and population density and those usually have less lanes well, meaning that they just get worn down as their American counterparts.