4 ms·

Many Roman roads have lasted a long while. Maybe we should move back to cobble stone? Certainly easier to patch and replace and open up for underground utilitie

Many Roman roads have lasted a long while. Maybe we should move back to cobble stone? Certainly easier to patch and replace and open up for underground utilities.

m0llusk 5y ago
Roman roads were built with extremely robust foundations below which required very large amounts of labor to put in place.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  We have excavators, bulldozers, graders, etc, we don't need to use slaves to hand-dig road foundations.
op00to 5y ago
The Roman roads that last a long time are outliers. Most Roman roads are long gone.
mitigating 5y ago
Can you really drive on those at high speeds, is it dangerous? There's a few short blocks in NYC that are still cobblestone and even at 30mph it sucks.
- warning26 5y ago
  Honestly on some roads, I'd argue that's a feature. It's ridiculous when there is a wide, flat, straight asphalt road surface with a speed limit of 25mph. Build it out of cobblestones, and 25mph suddenly feels a lot faster!
  - rexreed 5y ago
    Indeed, that's the core of the argument made in this article here (from 2009) which is arguing for a return to cobbles / bricks for Georgetown: https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2009/01/16/why-not-allow-some-streets-to-revert-to-cobblestones/ https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2009/01/16/why-not-allow-...
    - mark-r 5y ago
      The problem is that today's cobblestones are pale imitations of the old ones, and won't last nearly as long. There's a parking lot near me built about 5 years ago, and they tried to be decorative with part of it and made it from concrete shaped to look like cobblestones. Because of the grooves and surface treatment it is much weaker than standard concrete, and it's crumbling.
  - prawn 5y ago
    I'm with you on the speed reduction. An urban planner friend talks about how you're best motivating a speed limit by the environment (tighter road, bends, etc) rather than a literal limit and threat of fine. But how would cyclists fare on cobblestones, especially if you were talking about suburban streets with kids playing, bikes going around, etc?
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      It's not great, but if it gets cars to go slower I think it's still worth it. Really painful and annoying to ride on with a kick scooter though.
Naga 5y ago
I'm assuming you're speaking tongue in cheek, but I thought about why we have problems that the Romans didn't. I don't know about ease of maintenance and access to utilities, but Romans did not have trucks that destroyed the roads (the ratio of weight of vehicles to the wear on the road is exponential, not linear), but I have no concept of how cobblestone is affected by trucks. Roman roads are also affected by survivorship bias (we see the roads that survived, not 90% of the roads that haven't) and they were not affected as much by freeze/thaw cycles as North American roads are. My intutition says that they also probably were not generally as wide as North American roads. Drivers here have an expectation of being able to drive at high speeds without worrying about passing on coming traffic - Pictures I've seen of Roman highways were not two wagons wide. Less road width means less maintenance since there's physically less roads.
- rexreed 5y ago
  Yes, somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's an interesting thought exercise. For the high traffic streets where there is high speed and also lots of heavy traffic, for sure, asphalt dominates for many good reasons. But for the problems this article discusses for smaller cities where their population has moved to suburbs and exurbs and where the commercial centers have similarly moved out of city core, perhaps the more durable approach to cobbles (or brick) might be an interesting way to address ongoing maintenance challenges. It's mostly a thought exercise, but an interesting one.
occz 5y ago
The roman roads didn't have to bear the load that modern roads do. Road wear is approximately (weight^4 ), meaning that the only vehicles that even matter in the calculation are trucks.

Many Roman roads have lasted a long while. Maybe we should move back to cobble stone? Certainly easier to patch and replace and open up for underground utilities.

m0llusk 5y ago

Roman roads were built with extremely robust foundations below which required very large amounts of labor to put in place.

throwawayboise 5y ago
We have excavators, bulldozers, graders, etc, we don't need to use slaves to hand-dig road foundations.

op00to 5y ago

The Roman roads that last a long time are outliers. Most Roman roads are long gone.

mitigating 5y ago

Can you really drive on those at high speeds, is it dangerous? There's a few short blocks in NYC that are still cobblestone and even at 30mph it sucks.

warning26 5y ago
Honestly on some roads, I'd argue that's a feature. It's ridiculous when there is a wide, flat, straight asphalt road surface with a speed limit of 25mph. Build it out of cobblestones, and 25mph suddenly feels a lot faster!
- rexreed 5y ago
  Indeed, that's the core of the argument made in this article here (from 2009) which is arguing for a return to cobbles / bricks for Georgetown: https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2009/01/16/why-not-allow-some-streets-to-revert-to-cobblestones/ https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2009/01/16/why-not-allow-...
  - mark-r 5y ago
    The problem is that today's cobblestones are pale imitations of the old ones, and won't last nearly as long. There's a parking lot near me built about 5 years ago, and they tried to be decorative with part of it and made it from concrete shaped to look like cobblestones. Because of the grooves and surface treatment it is much weaker than standard concrete, and it's crumbling.
- prawn 5y ago
  I'm with you on the speed reduction. An urban planner friend talks about how you're best motivating a speed limit by the environment (tighter road, bends, etc) rather than a literal limit and threat of fine. But how would cyclists fare on cobblestones, especially if you were talking about suburban streets with kids playing, bikes going around, etc?
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It's not great, but if it gets cars to go slower I think it's still worth it. Really painful and annoying to ride on with a kick scooter though.

Naga 5y ago

I'm assuming you're speaking tongue in cheek, but I thought about why we have problems that the Romans didn't. I don't know about ease of maintenance and access to utilities, but Romans did not have trucks that destroyed the roads (the ratio of weight of vehicles to the wear on the road is exponential, not linear), but I have no concept of how cobblestone is affected by trucks. Roman roads are also affected by survivorship bias (we see the roads that survived, not 90% of the roads that haven't) and they were not affected as much by freeze/thaw cycles as North American roads are. My intutition says that they also probably were not generally as wide as North American roads. Drivers here have an expectation of being able to drive at high speeds without worrying about passing on coming traffic - Pictures I've seen of Roman highways were not two wagons wide. Less road width means less maintenance since there's physically less roads.

rexreed 5y ago
Yes, somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's an interesting thought exercise. For the high traffic streets where there is high speed and also lots of heavy traffic, for sure, asphalt dominates for many good reasons. But for the problems this article discusses for smaller cities where their population has moved to suburbs and exurbs and where the commercial centers have similarly moved out of city core, perhaps the more durable approach to cobbles (or brick) might be an interesting way to address ongoing maintenance challenges. It's mostly a thought exercise, but an interesting one.

occz 5y ago

The roman roads didn't have to bear the load that modern roads do. Road wear is approximately (weight^4 ), meaning that the only vehicles that even matter in the calculation are trucks.