Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Our Infrastructure Ready For Rising Temperatures?

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-the-more-reason-to-aircondition-the-outdoors dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Megan Garber writes that last weekend, a US Airways flight taxiing for takeoff from Washington's Reagan National Airport got stuck on the tarmac for three hours because the tarmac had softened from the heat, and the plane had created — and then sunk into — a groove from which it couldn't, at first, be removed. So what makes an asphalt tarmac, the foundation of our mighty air network, turn to sponge? The answer is that our most common airport surface might not be fully suited to its new, excessively heated environment. One of asphalt's main selling points is precisely the fact that, because of its pitchy components, it's not quite solid: It's 'viscoelastic,' which makes it an ideal surface for the airport environment. As a solid, asphalt is sturdy; as a substance that can be made from — and transitioned back to — liquid, it's relatively easy to work with. And, crucially, it makes for runway repair work that is relatively efficient. But those selling points can also be asphalt's Achilles heel. Viscoelasticity means that the asphalt is always capable of liquefying. The problem, for National Airport's tarmac and the passengers who were stuck on it, was that this weekend's 100+-degree temperatures were a little less room temperature-like than they'd normally be, making the asphalt a little less solid that it would normally be. 'As ironic and as funny as the imgur seen round the world is, it may also be a hint at what's in store for us in a future of weirding weather. An aircraft sinking augurs the new challenges we'll face as temperatures keep rising.'"

13 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Narmi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of bus stops where buses are expected to sit for a while are paved with concrete because of this problem. When it's really hot out, buses sink into asphalt.

  2. Nope. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our infrastructure was built 40 years ago and had a 25 year life expectancy. Every day that things dont simply fall apart is a blessing. Since apparently putting people to work rebuilding and improving things would be socialsim, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Nope. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, a tarmac can simply be maintained for a longer life. I am not sure if ripping it off and rebuilding it would be socialism, but it would definitely be stupid.

    2. Re:Nope. by mug+funky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      roads can't be traded like "generic trade goods" can. they don't work like TVs in boxes on trucks.

      infrastructure is not a traditional product, and market models can get somewhat confused when dealing with immovable things that are used all the time and need maintenance.

      if you look at private rail systems, they're a very mixed bunch. some do it better than others.

      what prevents the selection and evolution you speak of are the little details like you can't just choose another city's infrastructure because they're better or more efficient. you're stuck with what you've got where you live, and there's very little incentive for the local monopoly to improve things if their bottom line is not going to be improved.

      melbourne's rail system was privatized in the '90s, originally split to 3 companies who handled a third of the network each. they eventually all merged into the one, which was a multinational. they made more money in london than they did here, so they effectively trained up drivers here and offered them packages in london. they only bought new trains when their hands were forced. they hired goons to shake people down for ticket infractions. the fines for no ticket are higher than the fines for exceeding the speed limit by 20km/h +.

      this company then got the arse when their contract was up for renewal. people were sick of them. the network had not had significant works in over a decade. another company moved in their place, and were left with the canonical "stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure" of a system. the previous tenant had left enough leeway in their contract that major works were not assigned explicitly to either state government or them, so they just didn't get done.

      works are finally happening now, slowly. the public are absorbing the cost in a big way, road traffic is worse than it has ever been because people stopped taking the train.

    3. Re:Nope. by vivian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roads, like all networks are a natural monopoly, and thus should be run by the state.
      Unless you want to allow for competition that is by having a second road network constructed and maintained alongside the first. Then you could have a dupoly.
      Services on networks should be privatized (bus services, mail services, electricity generation, internet service provision, telephone, etc) but the physical network structure itself should be in the hands of the public, via that trustworthy custodian, the government. If you don't like how they run things, vote in a new bunch.

    4. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99. That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years. I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid. Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P

    5. Re:Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you think that money to put people back to work building infrastructure comes from?

      It comes from the same place that the >$1Trillion bailout of bankers (who then took the money and set it on fire, and no it has not been "paid back"). At the moment it comes from being borrowed at an effective negative interest rate. It should come from printing money. Better yet, by minting several $1Trillion coins.

      But who would invest in such infrastructure? I don't know; that's the point of allowing a Free Marketâ"an environment where there are robust processes of variation and selection that give rise to the evolution of society, allowing society to adapt to the needs of the moment.

      That is an insane fantasy. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for building infrastructure. We actually sort of had a "Free Market" infrastructure here in Chicago in the 19th century - until the city burned down because the infrastructure sucked. Do you know what the "Free Market" approach to toxic waste management is? Dumping it in the lake.

      The vast majority of problems on a national scale do not have anything remotely like a "Free Market" solution, and that's assuming that there actually was something like a "Free Market" that could possibly exist. There is as much evidence that a "Free Market" could exist as there is for the existence of the pantheon of Greek gods or UFOs. OK, there's quite a bit more evidence for UFOs than there is for a "Free Market". And if you could have a "Free Market", it would suck so bad it would make your head spin. And you especially can't have a "Free Market" when the major players in the economy are legal constructs designed to deflect any kind of liability away from the people that own them. There has never been a "Free Market" in human history, especially not on a national scale. One of the first acts, of the first congress of the US (the one that had a bunch of Founding Fathers in it) was to put tariffs in place. The ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when the Founders figured out that a "Free Market" was an impossible fantasy.

      Free Markets do not exist in nature. Just plain "markets" don't even exist in nature - they require a government, some form of central control. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for enforcing contracts, for example.

      It's unfortunate that they don't tell this to students until the 200-level econ courses, because by then the damage is done. That's how Ron Paul gets his fans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Nope. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our infrastructure was built 40 years ago and had a 25 year life expectancy. Every day that things dont simply fall apart is a blessing. Since apparently putting people to work rebuilding and improving things would be socialsim, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

      FWIW, worries about our infrastructure started at least 30 years ago. The eternal problem is that politicians want their names associated with new stuff, but there's no glamour to be had for legislating money to paint rusty bridges or repave ragged-out highways.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Nope. by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know things are heating up but really I remember 100+ temperatures when I was in my teens some 4 decades ago. A rise of 2 or 3 degrees since the 70's is hardly going to make asphalt flow like melted butter. Yes, I know it has serious implications for human existence on the planet but this kind of kooky sensationalism is what give climate change prophets such a bad name.

    8. Re:Nope. by Maow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99.

      Parent didn't claim "average". They claimed higher summer peak temps. These can be offset by colder winter temperatures leaving averages little changed.

      That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years.

      Agreed.

      I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid.

      I really wish everyone pointing out changing weather patterns over the course of our lifetimes would stop saying it cannot be due to climate change. It makes us^W them look stupid.

      Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P

      You keep that in mind when re-reading the GP post: he said more hot summer days, you said he claimed averages.

      Of course, I'm not saying the GP is correct about the amount of temperature swing, but it does jive with my personal experience and with scientific predictions.

  3. News to us in Texas by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is news to us in Dallas. Our international airport has been fine for many, many days of 105+ temperatures.

    Clearly this is a case of poor engineering and substandard materials, not 'hot environment destroying asphalt'.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:News to us in Texas by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High temperatures thin air.  Thin air makes for less lift.  Less lift makes for dangerous takeoffs.

  4. Another scaremongering story by dinther · · Score: 4, Insightful

    World temperatures increased by a fraction of a degree but here we go, now airports are melting because of it. What an idiot conclusion telling me a lot of the mental state of the author.

    In reality, the aircraft has been in the same spot for far too long. Additionally the consistency of the tarmac material might be sub-standard causing the melting point to be lower. I have seen roads here in New Zealand that had substandard tarmac on them turning to liquid in the hot sun. And New Zealand average temperate is actually dropping over the last decade.