The biggest advantage of concrete was not even mentioned: its lighter color makes driving at night much safer. At night, asphalt roads can disappear unless they are well illuminated, which is unlikely in rural areas and on turnpikes.
Paint is a temporary solution, not integral with the paving surface. In addition, paint only marks the lanes, not the entire paved surface, which concrete provides.
What about edge lines at the edges of the road surface, painted on with highly reflective paint? My main concern is the noise of concrete surfaces, especially if improperly maintained.
(Well maintained) asphalt may be quieter on a per-vehicle basis but we are living in an era where 6, 8, 10-lane expressways are the norm and there is little benefit of material composition on the gross noise level. The best solution is reducing traffic noise at its source, by encouraging public transit and work-at-home modes of work.
I think the most important reason to use concrete road is weather. In India the temperature in summers regularly goes over 45° Celsius. I have seen Asphalt roads literally melting in summers. Also concrete roads are imune to water logging damage which helps in torrential monsoon weather.
South Europe, Africa and Arabia can prove the opposite. If some Asphalt roads melt in India it is because the road company cut corners for some extra profit and the local government let them for a cut of that profit for that particular section. Asphalt roads can be correctly made to be very resistant to any earthly heats.
@@shukriwafiq5220 But they don't have to stay that way 😁 Many European roads used to have a bad reputation at one point, but most are pretty good now. North Italy has some of the best surface I drove on, though the signs are still a bit confusing (still much better now that they are closer to EU norm)
@@okiedokie2557Oh and the channel has some indisputable authority? How do you know the person you're replying to is just some random and the channel isn't?
It's opposite from tropical countries like mine asphalt are enemy of water so if rain fall season roads will be terrible except concrete they're really durable
As a truck driver, I do not like concrete to drive on. Some of the roughest road I drive on are concrete. Additionally, I drive in some cities with concrete roads that aren't close to 20 years old and they are terrible.
In europe you'll almost never find yourself on a concrete roadway. Now that I think about it the only places where concrete is used are toll booths on the highway and border checkpoints. Asphalt is the clear choice, both for safety and comfort. I've heard stories from my dad about a part of the autobahn where there used to be concrete pavement. Absolutely horrendous and unacceptable.
@@roadgent7921 For two obvious reasons that were in the video. Asphalt has a lower front-line cost (you know, the ONLY cost that matters for governments with how laws for public works prioritize cheapest offers, not the best or even optimal) AND it is much faster to build. The speed of constructing a concrete road is just not good enough to cope with the large traffic and the huge need for roads. Even asphalt takes too long for what is needed...and it's significantly faster.
Opinion from Mexico, concrete is more durable and I believe is the best choice for trucks and heavy vehicles however once its life span is finished is supernoisy, new asphalt is like silk but is prone to potholes. Although U.S. concrete is really good even compared to countries like Canada or Australia
My city used to be mostly concrete roads back in the 1950's-1970's. Now its almost all asphalt. Then again I live in the north east of the U.S. we have a bad freeze thaw cycle as we go above and below freezing many times every winter. That and I think the cost of road repair is what ultimately killed it. We run all our underground infrastructure directly under the roads so everytime that needs to be worked on you have to cut up the road. Asphalts just cheaper and easier to fix after cutting it up.
I remember living next to a concrete interstate freeway and I was curious why they had massive stones wall that separate the residential areas from the freeway. I had assume it was for safely but it was more for sound proofing due how loud traffic is when driven over concrete.
this is most stupid coment i ever hear its doesnt matter if its road from concrete or asphalt vehicle most highest volume making from a exhaust and engin not from wheels or breaks
One thing not mentioned about concrete roads is the difference between adhesive and abrasive friction. Concrete roads have less adhesive friction than asphalt, but higher abrasive friction. While both can be engineered to provide similar levels of traction, the difference is in what happens when you lose traction on each surface. On concrete, losing traction is more abrupt and less controllable. This makes for more dangerous situations in the case of brake lockups or oversteering/understeering in a turn.
@@dheeraj3945 I mean I wouldn't call it "propaganda". Concrete roads do make sense in some areas, such as areas that see really heavy industrial traffic, or areas that have issues with asphalt roads falling apart. They just also have their limitations, for example I'd imagine they're not super fun when they're icy. Also they're not as fun to drive on when you're at/near the limit as asphalt is a bit more predictable to lose traction on. I used to live in Saskatchewan, Canada and they have asphalt roads, but all of the roads are bumpy and falling apart. There's always construction going on somewhere and roads get repaved, but they just fall apart very quickly with all of the semi trucks, ect. that drive through, as well as the shifting soil. Manitoba, the province next door has a lot of concrete roads. They're noisier, worse to drive on in the winter, but they're also not as bumpy or falling apart. I guess you take your pick.
I live just north of Dallas in Richardson, and work just east in Garland. When I use Dallas, I'm actually meaning the greater Dallas metro. So, Dallas uses concrete almost exclusively for road construction....and overall, it's horrible. We're known for our bad potholes. I'm sure we're not the only ones, but we have a bad combination of factors that make either material have disadvantages. It's a known issue here that the ground soil contains a high degree of clay, which itself, expands and contracts with the temperature. Home foundations often crack and shift, causing repairs a common issue. The roads must also be built on this, with concrete being more inflexible than asphalt. The weather is another factor. Dallas can get hot as hell for long stretches during the summer, making concrete the better choice. But we also have wet, cold, freezing winters with ice storms that wreak havoc with the same concrete. Any cracks get moisture in them, then the freezes just tears them apart and we end up with countless unforgiving potholes everywhere. To make it worse, there's so many repairs that need to be made, it seems like to fix a concrete pothole, the repair crews just shovel some asphalt into the hole and leave. Now, instead of a hole, we're left with an uneven mound of material the can both stick up from road surface, and still have a depression in the same spot. Many of the concrete sections also become uneven, causing a slight rise or drop at the expansion seams. So, basically, the Dallas area has a problem with either choice. Personally, I'd wish they had more asphalt in the non-highway areas. The concrete everywhere tears up people's vehicles like you wouldn't believe.
Because they don't make the concrete thick enough, and don't bother properly preparing the base. D/FW is a giant urban sprawl. Today's quick-and-dirty construction is tomorrow's slum. BTW if you want better car performance over concrete, buy tires properly rated for noise, grip, softness, temperature, and so on.
I read a story a few years back where a company had developed a road paving material from old tires. It was great idea. I was more durable than asphalt, much quieter, and helped the economy. The draw back was cost but that was more than offset by the longer lasting material compared to asphalt. The story went that both the construction unions and the asphalt companies used their influence with legislators, eg, political donations (aka, bribes), to put barriers in place to stop the use of this material on government contracted roads (which accounts for almost all of the revenues for paving companies). I don’t know where this is today but it’s typical with the whole unions, corporations and government stepping in to quash innovation history.
Because the tire industry would like to get rid of the mountains of old tires. They make scheme after scheme for selling old tires. They even threw old tires into the ocean to "make coral reefs."
Here in the Philippines, concrete pavement which started to deteriorate on its surface were overlaid with asphalt to prolong its life. As to night time driving, even in the rural areas, asphalt pavement were illuminated with thermoplastic pavement markings with glass beads to be reflective at night.
I miss one important point. The type of underground the road is created on. In the Netherlands concrete roads are rare, due to our soil. If you cross the border into Germany, there is more concrete. On a soft soil, the concrete construction can break and crack due to sagging, while an asphalt road gets unpleasant but does not break. And in the Netherland we have ZOAB, which is "very open asphalt concrete", due to the open structure the water does not stay and there is hardly any spray from the cars and no aquaplaning. Great! Unless there is icerain, then you can't drive on it at all (the salt goes in the holes, the black ice sticks on top, nothing can be done)
The Dutch are using "self" healing asphalt. It is not true self healing, there is metal in the asphalt and dive a machine over it that heat up the asphalt by induction to make it liquid again, and all the cracks close.
The Dutch are using "self" healing asphalt. It is not true self healing, there is metal in the asphalt and dive a machine over it that heat up the asphalt by induction to make it liquid again, and all the cracks close
@@kay1229asphalt dont stand 5 years also in indian weather...the heavy rains, extreme heat and overly loaded trucks just destroys the asphalt road in few years with super big potholes unlike concrete roads which lasts forever with minor touchups every 10 years...
@@Hussainpiplodwala The Problem in India is not the heat or rain, it is how roads are constructed. I have lived in India and have seen how the roads deteriorate in a single year (your 5 year is very optimistic). I have also seen how they construct roads, that is totally different how roads in the Netherlands are constructed. In the Netherlands 90% is focused on the roadbed and water management, only 10% on the top layer. In India the just put a layer of asphalt on the ground and that is it.
I think that in the part of Spain with a Mediterranean climate, concrete would be great for us. The asphalt gets super hot, and in cities like Madrid and Barcelona there are always streets/roads closed to repair the asphalt.
Here in New Jersey, it is easy to compare since the two major highways are the Garden State Parkway (asphalt no trucks) and the New Jersey Turnpike (concrete cars and trucks). Asphalt is great for cars and concrete is great for Trucks. The biggest problem I see with asphalt has to do with heavy trucks. It isn't so much them driving along on it but if there are roads with intersections or driveways the Heavy Trucks have to make turns on. The heavy loads on the tires tend to tear up asphalt quickly. You can see this near places like Home Depot where large Trucks making deliveries have to make 90 degree turns out of the driveway and again where the access road meats the main road. The surfaces of these intersections are always being torn up. They can lay new asphalt there and in a few weeks it is nothing but potholes. The Parkway here has the asphalt roadway completely resurfaced every year. The snow plows wreak havoc on the road surface. In Spring, the process of resurfacing commences. The best part is that they can close one lane at a time for quite a distance for the repair. They strip the top layer off and a then reuse the old asphalt mixed with new and put down a beautiful new road surface. On the concrete Turnpike, the roadway doesn't need to be resurface nearly as often but the concrete tends to absorb carbon from tires and oils leaking from vehicles then when it first rains, it can be pretty treacherous. When the road surface does need to be replaced it takes a hell of a long time before the lanes are usable again.
Years ago the stretch from Union to Clark was concrete but later capped with ashphalt. Rt 9 in the Woodbridge to Sayreville area was bad after a brief rain. It was still concrete back in the late 70s or early 80s. Blacktop now.
I've seen plenty of concrete highways get an asphalt top cover when the surface starts getting too much wear. Also, the higher emmission cost of asphalt is somewhat of a misnomer because the bitumen is a byproduct of separating fuels out of crude oil. You need to divide the emission cost between all crude oil products.
Here in Sydney Australia the local roads are rubbish, concrete roads would be a better option as our roads are constantly being damaged by rain and heavy trucks.
I live in Pennsylvania and there are plenty of concrete highways around. The main drawback is that they are VERY noisy as the tires produce this loud humming. The road near my house (Route 22) was totally rebuilt about 20 years ago and in all those years only once they had to resurface a few sections. The road still looks almost like new. So the big benefit is longevity especially for roads that are very busy full of heavy semis like RT 22 from Pittsburgh all the way to NYC.
There is a stretch of I-80 between Fernley and Reno where over 30 years ago Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) patched cracks in the concrete and then put a top layer of asphalt over the concrete. It has been over 30 years and the asphalt is still smooth with nno cracking. I believe the concrete has better load bearing, but absorb water snd breaks down by freeze thaw cycles, where asphalt is a waterproof barrier. I believe by using both as they did between Fernley and Reno has cause both to cause a much longer service life. In the mountains over Donner Summit I believe it would be very beneficial to use asphalt coated concrete road. This way with a one inch top layer of asphalt over concrete base would be a sacrificial layer to be worn down by the tire chains. Once the groves from the tire chains expose the concrete, the asphalt could be ground down and a new layer of asphalt applied. This would cost much less than having to replace the whole layer of concrete which was recently done.
There are many additives for both concrete and asphalt to improve, for example, salt permeating into rebar for concrete...for asphalt, there are many thermoplastic and or rubber additives to increase flexibility and\or reduce petroleum damage. Cost is usually the biggest barrier to the use of them.
honestly! I've driven through some really well made concrete and it road really smooth! and it was DURABLE and didn't need as much maintenance and much better to see and during rain asphalt roads are harder to see even with modern headlights
Concrete roads are horrible to drive on. Thankfully, over here in England, concrete roads are far and few. I mean, the only one I've ever driven on was the M25, a motorway skirting around London. Traversing that sucker at 70 mph is a bloody unpleasant experience to say the least. It's bumpy and the noise makes you think you've got a flat tyre.
One problem not mentioned with concrete roads is the settling at the seams. The old Baltimore and Washington Parkway had that problem. Very rhythmical to ear and suspension as you drove along: ca -chunk, ca- chunk, ca-chunk....
Entirely depends on country. In the UK there's no reason to use concrete roads, they're just noisier, more expensive and less confertable. We don't see any benefit with weather etc.
not much of a debate america is the biggest user of concrete roads,outside usa its sporadic and usually hybrid roads at that,concrete bas and barriers and asphalt roadtop
You are correct in some states when the asphalt road is already badly deteriorated it would be rebuilt by a new concrete pavement the New York State Thruway Authority does this they have actually done projects like this 2013 Albany Exits 23-24 2009-2010 Syracuse to Auburn Exits 39-40 and in 2021 Bronx to the Connecticut border
@@EpicThe112definitely not true in Florida the concrete roads are being transitioned into smooth asphalt. The concrete is rough, and the asphalt looks great same in Arizona
There were older concrete 2 lane highways built in 1920s and 30s in NJ. When it rained briefly and stopped the oil on the roadway would mix with the rain and make the road as slippery as ice. I saw a garbage truck flip on an exit curve and the same happened to me in a car another time.. Turned the wheel and the car kept going straight into a curb. Most of those roads are now paved over with asphalt.
The best asphalt is ZOAB, we have it in The Netherlands, it stands for Very Open Alphalt Concrete. It has a lot of space between the asphalt gravel which ensures that water drains well. This means that in the Netherlands we do not suffer from splashing water when you drive behind someone. In addition, the water does not freeze on the highway, which prevents ice formation.
In Florida concrete used to be more common, but we mostly use asphalt now, the asphalt is nice af you can drive fast but it feels smooth. With concrete uou know what speed you're doing.
i think concrete + thin asfalt is good idea. or rigid concrete it should hold well much longer. but in cityes or villages i would make concrete + very small stones by glueing them to concrete course its more eco
Hi, I work with asphalt every day. The minimum thickness for asphalt is 2 inches. Any lower and it'll wear out quicker than if you just used asphalt alone or concrete. Not a bad idea though. Maybe someone could take the concrete, make groves and ridges In it for the asphalt to grip into, put a bonding agent known as tack between the two and maybe that would increase its longevity. In my opinion, city traffic would be more suited for asphalt while concrete for highways since asphalt has more adhesive friction. We need more people like you in this world! Keep those ideas coming and keep up the good work. :)
in india we make newer highways with this strategy, concrete base + asphalt cover, the road lasts a lot longer then asphalt roads, and are also cheaper to repair and maintain. @@sparkythewolf
@@oksowhat that's cool. How long does it last compared to those two by themselves? Does it withstand being cold then extremely hot well? Would love to know. :)
comparing them is a little tricky because firstly there are very less concrete roads and the one we have are very very new, these highways are lifeline for people hence politicized, politicians made sure the road did not lasted more then 2-3yrs bcz then they can make a election promise to rebuild it, in 2017 a 3rd party came into power BJP, they made these roads, the road/highway that goes through my village was made in 2019 and still as good as new not a single pothole, this is a big achivement since most of the traffic is industrial trucks and heavy agricultural machinery and both of them run atlesast 1.5 times the legal limit so yeh till now they have been great.@@sparkythewolf
Heya, I work directly with asphalt every day. Asphalt takes at least 30 days before you can drive on it. You can walk on asphalt within a day but vehicles cannot drive on it. It's too soft and will compress the asphalt even more causing marks and sinking in some parts.
A little history.... When president Eisenhower started our nation's federal highway system, all federal interstates were to be constructed of concrete. The asphalt companies and unions went ballistic.....it was a potential huge loss of business for them. So the compromise was all new federal highways were to be constructed of concrete BUT when resurfacing/repairs were required asphalt was to be used. I95 is a perfect example. It was originally constructed of concrete but resurfacing is asphalt. Not sure if this is still required by Federal law.
I always thought asphalt is the clearly better as their use is more common, while shopping center use concrete. Now it seems concrete is the better overall
Im my country they use aspahlt everywhere except in tunels as far as im aware and some parts of the highway have like 10 year old aspahlt but it is in prety good condition still smooth
Asphalt is amazing in Washington I’m glad they’re replacing cement with asphalt, when they replace a patch of road it’s so quick and the roads can open soon, I’ve noticed they use a brighter kind of road marker so lines remain highly visible at night in the rain, completely makes sense why we use it up here 👌🏽
In the Neterlands we use many types of asphalt. All have their own problems. Concrete does get used for some line-bus roads and as bedding for asphalt top layers on wramps viaducts and tunnels.
I live in the philippines and concrete roads are the most roughest to drive on, as i regularly ride the Bus it feels like the bus is gonna break into pieces when its on concrete and halfway through the journey theres a super smooth asphalt and the difference is night and day.
Honestly I think Asphalt is getting less useful as cars get heavier. That or the mixture is getting cheaper on the materials because I swear potholes in my city are a constant thing. The city fills a few and there are more in no time after they resurface an area.
I'm dubious about the claim that asphalt roads have higher green house gas emissions than concrete roads. Asphalt is a byproduct of petroleum refining. How do you allocate the green house gas emmissions from oil refining to asphalt versus other fractions? In any case, it is feasible that asphalt could be produced by recycling plastics with modest green house gas emissions, whereas current portland cement production inherently creates CO2. Also, both concrete and asphalt roads are extensively recycled, while this snippet implies that only asphalt is recycled.
Here in India, some of the highways are being replaced with concrete. The speed is being set at 40 Kmph(25 mph) which used to be 80 Kmph(50 mph). Because Asphalt is safer at high speed drives and provides better breaking and softer ride. Also the probability of survival of your head in a helmet should be greater on Bitumin because it isn't as rigid as concrete
From the US, and I am genuinely curious (I do not mean to offend). I have to wonder are the speeds being lowered to 25mph because the concrete surface is twice as dangerous as asphalt (at 50mph) or because of a government public health effort to help reduce road accidents as a whole. In the US, we have no difference in speed limits between concrete and asphalt highways, and have speed limits up to 80mph on concrete roads. Asphalt is definitely smoother, but half the speed limit for the material alone doesn't make too much sense to me. Cheers!
i don't know what the guy above is smoking, he might be referring to community roads where limit is 40, otherwise in most city roads limit is 60-70, near a school or intersection its lowered, and on highways its 80kmph and on expressways its 100-120kmph, highways are interstate roads with 4-6 lanes access to a highway is not controlled, expressways are acess controlled means there are certain areas typically at every 30-40km where you can take entry or exit the road, they are 6-14lanes. and all highways are concrete covered with asphalt whereas some new expressways were concrete which is now being covered with asphalt since the sound they make in cabin is horrendous @@yellowood252
A hybrid mix is the best, pouring concrete ontop of a asphalt base giving a road that can shift in extreme temperature changes! The asphalt base remains flexible and water resistant as well as better weight distribution over time compared to a crushed rock/gravel base...
At my country they got best of both worlds. They have the lower construction cost of asphalt, but it is being maintained as if it was concrete. Like every 20 years or so.
Traffic noise is extremely annoying , as bad as toxic air pollution . Concrete is extremely noisy when tires run over it. Here in fort bend county they overlay the concrete with asphalt to dampen the noise it works very well
In indian you will mostly find asphalt road's because it is easy to do curruption in asphalt roads material plus they get damaged easily so the goverment and contractor keep stealing money out of single project again and again. But our new road and transportation minster is doing good works he prefers cement roads
As a highwsy side business,observed heavy vehicles destroying road whether it's engine vibration,the goods they carry & carbon emissions. Other vehicles also contributes little.
Concrete imho, just the saving on maintenance justify it high upfront cost, in NJ we have some concrete roads nearing 70 years that are rock solid while ashfalt road are crumbling in 2 years
Here in Sweden, I have not seen a concrete road, I guess that is climate-based. Always thought concrete was the poor man's option so this was educational.
"Concrete roads are known for their durability and longevity" I beg to differ. I'm not going on stats here but real life experience. Concrete roads do not hold up under frequent stress ie truck loads of sand and other heavy equipment as well as asphalt and require way more maintenance over time. Concrete roads should mainly be used for back roads and other road ways where there's less traffic, not the main roads or highways.
In Indonesia, concrete roads are starting to be used. Not even 10 years old, it's already starting to crack. But it's still safe to pass. Because only the road was built, the side foundations and irrigation were not built. Never had any maintenance done at all. The previous asphalt road was actually worse. Not even 5 years later, there was already a potholes the size of a fish pond. It can be as big as half a street, even as big as a street. To the point where cars can't pass. This all happens apart from national roads.
Here in the State of Georgia, apparently the DOT can't decide which surface is better, so they just don't do ANYTHING. Some of the worst highways in the country are here in Georgia, but the State is collecting an additional $5.00 per night from every overnight lodging facility (hotel, motel, BNB, etc.) and have been since 2015. ($200 Million per year) There are approximately 87,000.00 lodging accommodation is the State; you do the math. So, where does all that money go? Is sure isn't being spent on roads!!!!
Id bet money concrete destroys tires significantly faster and that off sets any environmental benefits. Iv done enough snow work in Connecticut to see what ice melt products do to the side walks which is likely the main reason we only see concrete surfaces on a few highway bridges.
I work in asphalt so I am a bit biased, But asphalt has no structural strength at all. It collapses under its own wight. the strength of asphalt comes from what is under it and asphalt itself is just a good surface to drive on. the leading cause of early asphalt failure is that planers install asphalt on the same subbase has they do concrete. next cause of failure if the same has concrete water. if I was designing a road system I would use concrete for the intersections and asphalt for travel spans. because asphalt takes less where the faster traffic is moving. Concrete takes more damage the faster traffic is moving since every time a tire drives onto a slab the slab moves and hits the next slap in line causing the joins to break up and ten let water in that starts to undermine the roadway.
A factor over looked in this video is that when concrete roads do need to be redone, the road will need to be closed or an alternate road will be need to be constructed to maintain traffic. The cost effective and periodic maintenance done on asphalt road assures smooth surfaces for the traveling public with reduces fuel usage and wear and tear, additional friction value on the surface course, and cost saving due to the fact that as much as 50% of the new road can be recycled materials. Even brand new roads can use recycled pavement from other roads and highways to keep cost down and reduce waste going to landfills. The spreadsheet that they are using in their f\life cycle costs is missing data unfortunately. Dont forget that asphalt pavements can be constructed while you are sleeping and driven on the very next day. hard to put a price tag on your convenience.
When my city redo a road with asphalt it doesn’t even last a good 5 years, the bumps that were there before you can still hear and feel them thru the asphalt after a good 2 to 3 years.
However concrate is rigid and not flexible , also u need a metal net when you build it , as the net keeps it together and gives it more resitance and longevity But since congrate is not flexible , this means that the builders have to make it in pieces , at every 10 m length they have to separate it with wood planks and start making another piece of concrate , because the biger it is the eazier it cracks and brales However this can also help improving building cost and time as you can have a factory that buils 4/4 m concrate packs and then just transport and install them with a crane
Edmonton Alberta tried an experiment with concrete freeways. They have a ring road around the city that's around 100 km long all round and on the SW leg they used concrete instead of asphalt as an experiment. It failed horribly and nobody in alberta is ever going to use concrete on roads again because of it. The road has been under continual maintenance construction since it was built, it's harder to keep clean in the winter, and for some reason it has humped up in strange ways causing drivers to get this rhythmic nauseating bounce while driving it. An expensive failure that is going to drag on forever.
in Europe, pretty much everything is asphalt, so I have limited experience with concrete. I remember the highway from bay area to Sacramento being individual concrete blocks (so you get a badonkbadonkbadonk for hours). is that the case for all concrete roads?
I feel like there’s much more asphalt roads than concrete roads out there. I love driving on concrete roads and wish there were more of them. Ik the U.S. is the only country in the world with concrete roads
the main difference is BUDGET. If you're in a first world country, roads should be on concrete. But on third world country its expected that they would use lower cost option.
I lived in Omaha. They used the cheapest concrete and by the time winter was over there were pothole everywhere. Even the joints were ruined. Ultimately they milled the road and then put asphalt on top if it.
All highways and roads I think it would be better a single lane due to safety and cost less and compare it to a choice in life that we all move forward
