Slashdot Mirror
Broke Counties Turn Failing Roads To Gravel
To save money, more than 20 Michigan counties have decided to turn deteriorating paved roads back to gravel. Montcalm County estimates that repaving a road costs more than $100,000 a mile. Grinding the same mile of road up and turning it into gravel costs $10,000. At least 50 miles of road have been reverted to gravel in Michigan the past three years. I can't wait until we revert back to whale oil lighting and can finally be rid of this electricity fad.
I grew up in a rural area with a lot of gravel and dirt roads. Gravel roads aren't so bad. They're cheap to build, but they require a lot more maintenance that people think. They get rutting and nasty potholes pretty quickly if they're not consistently maintained (and they deteriorate a LOT faster than asphalt). So I think some of these areas may be jumping the gun on thinking this is a catch-all solution for their cash-strapped transportation departments, counties, and cities. They'll save a lot of money in the short term, but you've got to have a real solid maintenance plan in place or you'll pretty quickly end up with impassable roads. It's not expensive to maintain them (gravel isn't expensive)--but it is labor-intensive.
A well-maintained gravel road isn't so bad physically. Rain doesn't wash them out as bad as dirt roads and they stay passable in about any kind of weather. The main downside is that you just can't drive as fast on them as asphalt. But, then again, you can't drive very fast on poorly maintained asphalt either (because of the potholes). So it's probably a wash on most of these roads (particularly since a colder state like Michigan probably goes trough asphalt roads a lot faster than warmer areas). But, if they don't have a plan to maintain them any better than they maintained them when they were asphalt, this solution is going to be a wash-out (literally) pretty quickly.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
A well-maintained gravel road isn't so bad physically. Rain doesn't wash them out as bad as dirt roads and they stay passable in about any kind of weather. The main downside is that you just can't drive as fast on them as asphalt. But, then again, you can't drive very fast on poorly maintained asphalt either (because of the potholes). So it's probably a wash on most of these roads (particularly since a colder state like Michigan probably goes trough asphalt roads a lot faster than warmer areas).
The worst thing the county did with the roads around my grandmother's place (in Texas) was to pave them. Before the roads were paved, it was a bit dusty in the summer, but the road was always good. After paving, the road got potholes almost immediately, and required constant patching.
Winter was particularly tough on the road -- since we have a lot more 100+ days than 32- days, I don't think they're built like the ones up north. We only have a few days when the water in the cracks can freeze, but when it does, the potholes start all over again.
Paving rural roads without a plan to keep them fully maintained is like giving a school a bunch of unpatched Windows boxes. It's not long until you're spending more time working around the new problems than you would if you'd just stuck to the old way of doing things.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Turning your roads from paved to gravel is like giving up on economic recovery or development. Gravel roads don't support commerce or industry very well. They are a good reason not to locate somewhere. I lived in West Virginia for 2 years before returning to urban life 2 1/2 years ago. Bad roads and gravel roads abound because the state is poor. But the state will remain poor in part because of bad roads and gravel roads. If a state cannot provide a modern infrastructure, it will not be able to compete. Now its not always a bad thing to de-settle an area and let it revert to a more primitive state, but don't count on being able to undo the damage if you later change your mind.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
You mean like in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nevada, etc where the majority of roads in rural areas and some of the state highways have been gravel?
I'm old, I remember when big stretches of Highway 63 in South Dakota were still gravel, as was Highway 73 south of Faith
I was reading the thread under the article and wanted to quote a couple opinions.
obamautopia wrote:
"Fact: Gravel roads are more dangerous because they are more slippery due to loose gravel and potholes. If gravel roads were superior for transportation safety - then why isn't the interstate and the autobahn merely gravel roads? Why not city streets?
Fact: Gravel roads put more dust into atmosphere as anyone who has followed the choking dust of a vehicle moving ahead of you on a gravel / dirt road can tell you.
Fact: Gravel roads require more frequent oil changes - thus using more oil and dirty oil filters to dispose of. Also more air filter changes. Also more fuel filter changes. Also more car washing. Also more tires. Also more windshield replacement and fabricating glass requires a tremendous amount of energy.
Fact: Gravel roads are less fuel efficient. In one study in Bogota, Columbia, fuel consumption was reported to be 25% higher for a vehicle moving on a gravel or earth surface than on an asphalt pavement.
Fact: Gravel roads wear out vehicles faster meaning more consumption to replace the parts, many of them steel parts which take an enormous amount of energy to fabricate and "carbon footprint" for the idiots who think anthropogenic "Global Warming" is anything other than a Leftist Agenda."
And another guy wrote, goomygoomy writes,
"I don't understand the problem. Why would you complain about PAVED ROADS, being turned in to GRAVEL ROADS? It's just CHANGE. I thought you all VOTED for CHANGE? Well...You've got it. Michigan, the Great Liberal Basket Case, is leading the way. As goes DETROIT, so goes Obama Nation. Aren't you IDIOTS bulldozing your towns down? This is UNCHECKED LIBERALISM. This is Obama SOCIALISM."
stoptherhetoric wrote:
"Nothing like a page full of ignorance from gommygoomy to start the day! People don't even take the time to read, they just spew their garbage! The Story CLEARLY states that Michigan Counties have had to revert to gravel THE PAST 3 YEARS!!!!
Do I need to remind you the last 3 years, W was President!!"
If you keep reading, you'll notice it all boils down to a huge administration blame game. Reminds me of other discussion boards I've seen...
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
This is precisely why it's such a genius plan. Save money up front and provide jobs for increased maintenance and auto repair. It continues a trend that in going from a production economy to a service economy the US has gone from an economy that grows by increasing efficiency and producing more goods to an economy that grows by decreasing efficiency to keep people employed. Good thing other countries depend on this fake economic growth for their own fake economic growth! If somebody ever figured out how to get people doing real jobs again we'd all be fucked.
mmmm...forbidden donut
Gravel roads have an increased stopping distance over asphalt or concrete ones. They also contribute much more to vehicle wear and tear - not only as far as nicks and dings, but also tires and shocks. (though the later part is just as true of badly potholed roads) They are significantly dirtier than asphalt or concrete roads, both for the vehicle (small concern) but also for the surrounding homes and businesses. When I lived on Middle Bass Island, it was quite common for neighbors to band together to pave their section of road just to cut down on the fine dust which accumulated inside their homes.
In the UK we had a series of ads on keeping your distance and the tag line was "Only a fool breaks the three second rule".
3 seconds.
If a stone is thrown hard enough, how high would it have to go to be at windscreen height 3 seconds later? About 12m.
Unlikely.
So if you're 3 seconds or more behind the car in front, you won't be hit by gravel.
By that logic, why bother maintaining roads at all? They are talking about primary roads here, which are generally roads which connect one populated area to another populated area, and are thus vital to the commerce of the entire area. Even if you never take that road, if you live anywhere in the general area, or anywhere that trades with that area, you benefit from that road.
They'll save a lot of money in the short term
You got me at "Save a lot of money," sailor!
I don't think they care about much more than that. Long term = somebody else's problem.
A part of the reason things are getting so f**ked so fast.
This is why we need to go back to Eisenhower-era concrete road beds meant for B-52's to land on. I'm talking foot deep steel reinforced concrete baby. Grew up with those bad boys in my little rural town in Texas. Of course we didn't have the freeze/thaw cycles people do farther north so I could be talking out of my backside, but these things appeared well-nigh indestructible.
As a Michigan resident, I can blame her for either her inability or desire to actually turn our economy around. Not a single policy that she has put in-place has helped.
Concrete would never survive the frost. Where I live, one routinely gets frost heaves up to 1'. For concrete to survive, one would have to prevent water from building up under the road. This is an almost impossible feat of engineering. The only reason bridges can use concrete is that they don't have to worry about frost heaves.
Preach on brother deKernel she can't be gone soon enough. I can blame everything on her and be happy about it.
A fine example was Benton Harbor, when there was cameras for her to look into she was all about helping poor Benton Harbor but as soon as the cameras were gone so was she.
She needs to GO AWAY and the rest of them as well. The state banked put all their eggs in the auto industry basked and can't figure out where they went wrong.
I certainly wouldn't want to try this tactic anywhere out west though, where vast distances make driving on gravel roads much more of a chore.
In many cases, there are multiple roads to a destination. Some will remain paved, other will be gravel. The paved roads are used for longer distances, the dirt roads are more for local access.
This was the case in rural coastal California in the 80s. And I've seen plenty of dirt roads in Nevada, Arizona & Utah. But the highways and major roads were still paved.
Some drivers might need to adjust their habits. I'm reading plenty of comments here about "increased breaking time", 'I can't go 50 mph on a dirt road', etc. In these cases, drivers just need to slow down-- it's what people used to do.
We don't have to pave every single remote rural road, especially at a time when we're closing schools.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
You should vote repub... , no wait demo...
Say, which was the small government party again ?
You know, I like to help you here guy. I'm sympathetic, I really am. But you've got to understand my position. It's just not possible to recognize motorcycles as legitimate road vehicles.
I mean sure, no ones got a problem with big Harley's. But lets think for a moment about where this is leading us. Plastic exteriors motorbikes, dirt bikes, scooters ?! Jesus! Sooner or later, someone is going to stand up and argue that electric bikes be allowed on public roads and form there it's one small step to honest to Gods pedal powered bicycles! This is how slippery the slope is right here.
I mean, the dangers of the road are bad enough. People cutting you off, lane changing, bodywork scratches, stop signs, pedestrians just throwing themselves under the wheels, spilled coffee, etc. Now you're asking be to accept those heathens on their clacking, greasy, hell spawned bare metal contraptions as legitimate road users?! You expect me to slam on the brakes so I can have the privilege of crawling along behind these slugs for five miles until they get another puncture? Because I sure as hell can't pass their wobbling asses without another "incident" occurring where their either wobble off the embankment and I get a ticket or else their spoked hate mobiles eviscerate my paintjob and get irreparably tanged up in the undercarriage. I swear the assholes just do it on purpose.
No. No, I'm sorry. I'm not going back to that. Never again. My hands are tied. I'm sympathetic, I really am, but my hands are tied.
May the Maths Be with you!
I am a licensed civil engineer, and I think your statement (and the one prior) bears qualifying. The choice between an asphalt road and a concrete one should always be analyzed by a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), which takes into account the up-front cost of the road plus the maintenance costs. In Southern California, concrete will most often come out ahead in said analysis, especially given our traffic volumes and the traffic delay costs associated with the more frequent maintenance activities required by asphalt. We have concrete pavements here that are 50+ years old. In areas of high freeze-thaw cycles, an LCCA may produce different results. However, it should also be noted that the thump-thump of many concrete pavements today is due to a load-transfer failure between the slabs, something that in new pavements has been addressed with the inclusion of steel dowel bars between slabs.
"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." - Henrik Ibsen
>Yes, we are. If everybody would just go out and buy a goddam new car (from one of the Big 3, of course).
By "Big 3", do you mean Toyota, Honda and Fiat?
Are we supposed to be shocked and horrified by that or something? If so, it's not working.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. They're not taking inhabited property by eminent domain, instead they're targeting abandoned houses and demolishing them to create open space. Net result is fewer abandoned buildings -- which are a safety hazard, and create lots of extra work for fire and police departments -- more open space, and healthier communities in the nicer sections of town instead of a few people spread out and squatting amongst the ruins.
The only people who should be appalled by this are American exceptionalist, growth uber alles neo-"conservatives." In other words, morons.
"Negative growth" is something we're going to have to start dealing with in a lot of places in the near future, and as a society in general within a generation. The United States managed to get very high on the hog by growing continuously throughout the 20th century, which is getting increasingly unsustainable and simply cannot continue. The 20th century (arguably the 19th as well) as experienced in the US was very probably a singular event, built on cheap energy, rapid population growth, industrialization, and coming out on the winning side of two World Wars. The party is over.
We need to look forward, and unflinchingly and without nostalgia analyze what's likely to work in the future and what isn't. Trying to force some sort of return to the "good old days" is doomed. The things that aren't going to work need to die. That means industries that aren't profitable need to be wound down, rotting, unwanted houses need to be bulldozed, and government programs that depend on or assume never-ending growth to function need to stop.
I am glad to see that Flint is at least making some attempt to move forward, rather than sit and wait for some sort of salvation that's plainly not going to come, as other cities seem hell-bent on doing. I have some minor issues with the way it sounds like they're doing things -- my geo-libertarian sensibilities would be less offended by an "abandoned buildings tax" that attempted to stick owners of vacant structures with the costs they're externalizing on the community, than any use of eminent domain -- but these are issues of implementation rather than overall intent.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."