5 ms·

It's incredibly sad that we've basically given up on paved roads. Regression to gravel represents the loss of important social technology for building and maint

It's incredibly sad that we've basically given up on paved roads. Regression to gravel represents the loss of important social technology for building and maintaining infrastructure.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
More like it's incredibly sad that we've basically given up on rural America. We have no issue with paved roads in the biggest cities in the nation, but if an area isn't economically profitable in a global marketplace, it's being left to wither and die.
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Counterpoint: Why spend (a lot) more on roads for a few instead of for the many?
  - EGreg 9y ago
    That's exactly what unchecked capitalism says. If there is no redistribution of wealth by any other mechanism, those who have no money will by and large not get any resources. While that may work well for LLCs, when it comes to people we don't want that.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Why should the poor urban people pay to subsidize the lavish rural lifestyle? No one is forcing people to live out in the boonies.
      - uoaei 9y ago
        No one except all those folks running rent up in cities. Landowners and renters are both to blame here.
    - flukus 9y ago
      I'm no enemy of wealth redistribution, but you have got redistribute it where it's the most effective too, money spent paving roads for a few people could hire doctors and teachers for many people. People in rural areas are also against this sort of communalism generally, if they wanted to live much closer together in town houses or apartment blocks then paved roads would be much more cost effective, but just because the want to live on large acreages where the can't see their neighbors doesn't mean the rest of society should subsidize them.
- Pxtl 9y ago
  It's the basic calculus of lane-km per capita. Cites have far more people using far fewer roads, so it's more justifiable to keep those roads paved. Shrinking rural communities do not, and they're also the loudest opponents of revenue tools like higher sales, income, or gas taxes that could help fund maintenance.
- eru 9y ago
  And that's how it should be. Why subsidize the hillbillies?
- megaman22 9y ago
  There are lots of issues with paved roads in well-populated and urban areas, too. Go drive on the Mass Pike if you don't believe me. It's so bad that Massachusetts car insurance policies will cover a windshield replacement every year.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Is it sad? Perhaps there's a middle ground between Manifest Destiny and no infrastructure at all. Iowa has recognized that its infrastructure costs far exceeded it's tax revenue, and with a dwindling population, it no longer made sense to continue to maintain roads that were acceptable as gravel [1]. A sibling post mentions "giving up on rural America". I think we need to continue to find ways to keep quality of life high as progress marches forward; run fiber to rural America, but gravel roads aren't too much of a sacrifice (as long as we keep the interstates maintained through rural areas). It appears in a lot of cases, a gravel road is just as good as a paved road [2]. "The decision to pave is a matter of trade-offs. Paving helps to seal the surface from rainfall, and thus protects the base and subgrade material. It eliminates dust problems, has high user acceptance because of increased smoothness, and can accommodate many types of vehicles such as tractor-trailers that do not operate as effectively on unsurfaced roads. In spite of the benefits of paved roads, well-maintained gravel roads are an effective alternative. In fact, some local agencies are reverting to gravel roads. Gravel roads have the advantage of lower construction and sometimes lower maintenance costs. They may be easier to maintain, requiring less equipment and possibly lower operator skill levels. Potholes can be patched more effectively. Gravel roads generate lower speeds than paved surfaces. Another advantage of the unpaved road is its forgiveness of external forces. For example, today vehicles with gross weights of 100,000 pounds or more operate on Kentucky’s local roads. Such vehicles would damage a lightly paved road so as to require resealing, or even reconstruction. The damage on a gravel road would be much easier and less expensive to correct. There is nothing wrong with a good gravel road. Properly maintained, a gravel road can serve general traffic adequately for many years." [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/7/6/iowa-dot-chief-the-system-is-going-to-shrink https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/7/6/iowa-dot-chief-... [2] (warning: pdf) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/2003_07_24_nps_gravelroads_appd_0.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents...
- quotemstr 9y ago
  From the article's third page: "Eventually, however, if you drive on gravel roads on a daily basis, your windshield breaks, your tires wear out, your front end goes out of whack". Gravel roads are worse than paved roads. Yes, gravel roads are cheaper. A mud hut is cheaper than a marble building. Inferior things are often cheaper. Yes, they generate lower speeds. The point of a road is not to generate lower speeds. It is to facilitate transportation. Gravel roads do that less effectively than paved roads. You're just rationalizing our society's backsliding. It's depressing enough that we're regressing a less-developed form of transportation because we can't afford to maintain our forebearer's technology. We don't have to celebrate it!
stevenwoo 9y ago
Based on the article this entire phenomena is justified in my opinion. It was paving every road when petroleum was dirt cheap that was unwarranted. The lower costs of building/maintaining are the tradeoff for a lower traffic road. In terms of all the issues facing America today, paving every road doesn't seem like a very important one compared to the cost explosion in healthcare. Most of the problems the locals encountered in the article would be fixed if they replaced the no maintenance paved road with a low maintenance gravel road. When I grew up, my home was on a gravel road in Texas and we just drove slower once we got off the paved road. It was the cost of living in a rural area and we just accepted it. Eventually the road was paved but there were still unpaved roads all around me by the time I graduated high school.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  Who said that we have to use petroleum? You can pave roads with cement or even old tires (as a base layer and part of the aggregate).
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Building roads using concrete made with Portland cement is more expensive than asphalt.
    - quotemstr 9y ago
      But cement roads last longer and can handle heavier loads.
      - etcet 9y ago
        But asphalt is more easily repaired and can be recycled...
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Both are recycled. This is an early search result for concrete recycling: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/rcc2.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructur...

It's incredibly sad that we've basically given up on paved roads. Regression to gravel represents the loss of important social technology for building and maintaining infrastructure.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

More like it's incredibly sad that we've basically given up on rural America. We have no issue with paved roads in the biggest cities in the nation, but if an area isn't economically profitable in a global marketplace, it's being left to wither and die.

tomjen3 9y ago
Counterpoint: Why spend (a lot) more on roads for a few instead of for the many?
- EGreg 9y ago
  That's exactly what unchecked capitalism says. If there is no redistribution of wealth by any other mechanism, those who have no money will by and large not get any resources. While that may work well for LLCs, when it comes to people we don't want that.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Why should the poor urban people pay to subsidize the lavish rural lifestyle? No one is forcing people to live out in the boonies.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      No one except all those folks running rent up in cities. Landowners and renters are both to blame here.
  - flukus 9y ago
    I'm no enemy of wealth redistribution, but you have got redistribute it where it's the most effective too, money spent paving roads for a few people could hire doctors and teachers for many people. People in rural areas are also against this sort of communalism generally, if they wanted to live much closer together in town houses or apartment blocks then paved roads would be much more cost effective, but just because the want to live on large acreages where the can't see their neighbors doesn't mean the rest of society should subsidize them.
Pxtl 9y ago
It's the basic calculus of lane-km per capita. Cites have far more people using far fewer roads, so it's more justifiable to keep those roads paved. Shrinking rural communities do not, and they're also the loudest opponents of revenue tools like higher sales, income, or gas taxes that could help fund maintenance.
eru 9y ago
And that's how it should be. Why subsidize the hillbillies?
megaman22 9y ago
There are lots of issues with paved roads in well-populated and urban areas, too. Go drive on the Mass Pike if you don't believe me. It's so bad that Massachusetts car insurance policies will cover a windshield replacement every year.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Is it sad? Perhaps there's a middle ground between Manifest Destiny and no infrastructure at all. Iowa has recognized that its infrastructure costs far exceeded it's tax revenue, and with a dwindling population, it no longer made sense to continue to maintain roads that were acceptable as gravel [1]. A sibling post mentions "giving up on rural America". I think we need to continue to find ways to keep quality of life high as progress marches forward; run fiber to rural America, but gravel roads aren't too much of a sacrifice (as long as we keep the interstates maintained through rural areas). It appears in a lot of cases, a gravel road is just as good as a paved road [2]. "The decision to pave is a matter of trade-offs. Paving helps to seal the surface from rainfall, and thus protects the base and subgrade material. It eliminates dust problems, has high user acceptance because of increased smoothness, and can accommodate many types of vehicles such as tractor-trailers that do not operate as effectively on unsurfaced roads. In spite of the benefits of paved roads, well-maintained gravel roads are an effective alternative. In fact, some local agencies are reverting to gravel roads. Gravel roads have the advantage of lower construction and sometimes lower maintenance costs. They may be easier to maintain, requiring less equipment and possibly lower operator skill levels. Potholes can be patched more effectively. Gravel roads generate lower speeds than paved surfaces. Another advantage of the unpaved road is its forgiveness of external forces. For example, today vehicles with gross weights of 100,000 pounds or more operate on Kentucky’s local roads. Such vehicles would damage a lightly paved road so as to require resealing, or even reconstruction. The damage on a gravel road would be much easier and less expensive to correct. There is nothing wrong with a good gravel road. Properly maintained, a gravel road can serve general traffic adequately for many years." [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/7/6/iowa-dot-chief-the-system-is-going-to-shrink https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/7/6/iowa-dot-chief-... [2] (warning: pdf) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/2003_07_24_nps_gravelroads_appd_0.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents...

quotemstr 9y ago
From the article's third page: "Eventually, however, if you drive on gravel roads on a daily basis, your windshield breaks, your tires wear out, your front end goes out of whack". Gravel roads are worse than paved roads. Yes, gravel roads are cheaper. A mud hut is cheaper than a marble building. Inferior things are often cheaper. Yes, they generate lower speeds. The point of a road is not to generate lower speeds. It is to facilitate transportation. Gravel roads do that less effectively than paved roads. You're just rationalizing our society's backsliding. It's depressing enough that we're regressing a less-developed form of transportation because we can't afford to maintain our forebearer's technology. We don't have to celebrate it!

stevenwoo 9y ago

Based on the article this entire phenomena is justified in my opinion. It was paving every road when petroleum was dirt cheap that was unwarranted. The lower costs of building/maintaining are the tradeoff for a lower traffic road. In terms of all the issues facing America today, paving every road doesn't seem like a very important one compared to the cost explosion in healthcare. Most of the problems the locals encountered in the article would be fixed if they replaced the no maintenance paved road with a low maintenance gravel road. When I grew up, my home was on a gravel road in Texas and we just drove slower once we got off the paved road. It was the cost of living in a rural area and we just accepted it. Eventually the road was paved but there were still unpaved roads all around me by the time I graduated high school.

quotemstr 9y ago
Who said that we have to use petroleum? You can pave roads with cement or even old tires (as a base layer and part of the aggregate).
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Building roads using concrete made with Portland cement is more expensive than asphalt.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    But cement roads last longer and can handle heavier loads.
    - etcet 9y ago
      But asphalt is more easily repaired and can be recycled...
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Both are recycled. This is an early search result for concrete recycling: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/rcc2.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructur...