Which material do you prefer for highways??

Asphalt

http://www.doelbeelden.nl/norm_images/doelbeelden2915.jpg

http://www.sxsjtt.gov.cn/newspic/2004121142859yj.jpg


Concrete

http://www.mckeehen.net/Texas-Week%20Twenty-four/Highway%20System%20Houston%2002.JPG

http://www.okroads.com/051903/i80neexit452.JPG

Asphalt. Concrete looks bland. Asphalt at least give it some difference.\ in texture.

Asphalt.

No brainer.... Asphalt. Although concrete lasts a hell of a lot longer, I hate driving on it. There's an enormous difference in driving quality.

Yes, it's a pleasure to drive on an asphalt highway!!!
I don't know why in the US they like to build concrete highways everywhere!!
In Europe almost all the highways are asphalted.

Concrete all the way. So long as the concrete is well maintaned (and in my home juristiction it always is).

To me, there is simply nothing nicer then the hum and sound of regular expansion joints under the vehicles tires when driving down the freeway. Though, by no means do I mind driving on a good asphalt surface.

Cheers.

Yes, it's a pleasure to drive on an asphalt highway!!!
I don't know why in the US they like to build concrete highways everywhere!!
In Europe almost all the highways are asphalted.
Yes, Canada as well. Crossing the border is brutal. It's always nice to drive on something that doesn't make you think it's cutting the life of your tires in half.

I love asphalt highways. I can sneak in some sprints while the car still feels stable. On concrete, especially old concrete, cars can jar themselves into pieces.

I would go for apsalt for flexibity(doesn't crack when changes of temp suddenly happens) and smoothness...concentre for very long lasting but hard on your car, going *thump thump*. The concentre freeway which is interstate 5 in Seattle area is pretty rough and bumpy but it's 40 years old and has a many cracks and showing wear and tear from hundred of thousand of vehicles beating the freeway everyday.

Here in Tampa Bay alot of our highways are asphalt some parts are concrete though. Anyway asphalt is better.

Asphalt!

Asphalt, just sounds so smooth. As well it can come in different colours:D:D

asphalt - concrete is too noisy for nearby residents. the abrasive nature of concrete amplifies traffic sound. also, concrete is noisy inside the car as well. asphalt is quiet when in good condition

^What colours?

Yes, I hate the sound the car mades on concrete. And also the surface is so irregular that people inside the car jump every 3 seconds.

I love concrete. It makes that cool noise when you drive on it. Dallas and Houston freeways use it all over the place. Also I feel much better driving on concrete when it's raining as well.

^What colours?

Well I have seen reddish asphalt. This is due to the rocks they use in asphalt. I remember there was a thread on it, I will try and get it.

^What colours?

Ontario has reconstructed a fair amount of highways with pink pavement of late. The stuff stays extremely smooth, but to me, it seems odd to travel on a pink driving surface :)

http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_401_images/401_cl_262_east.jpg

Asphalt...so much smoother. And it makes highways look better.

Black asphalt.

Concrete all the way!

If well maintained, it provides more traction than asphalt. This is especially true if it is raining or snowing. Oils seep out of the asphalt and add to the problem. Ironically because of its incredible smoothness, the traction is worse. Many asphalt race tracks have added concrete strips to the most abused spots (near the apexes) to add traction and improve longevity.

Mondern concrete roads are no longer made with all those expanion joints, so the roughness that every one is complaining about is more related to older roads that could use some work. They are louder however making them less desireble in residential areas.

We don't have that problem here in Los Angeles.

Most of the freeways around here are concrete. It is noisy and annoying to hear.

A few stretches are asphalt, and everytime I hear something on the order of a mute button, then I don't even have to look to see that it's asphalt.

Asphalt.

funny.... all of the americans that are ALWAYS at odds with the europeans vote for concrete, bc the saddening US freeways are all concrete.

these guys will do ANYTHING not to agree with these european/canadian "fereigners."

you love the sound it makes.... *blump blump blump blump blump blump for an hour* yah what a conclusive arguement.

"I PICK CONCRETE BC IT SOUNDS COOLER!" sheesh...

i appreciate guys like czm3, who point out ACTUAL deficiencies in asphalt, thank you for being objective czm3

anyways i pick asphalt...

Pretty much every road in the Uk is asphalt (we call in tarmac for some reason, think its a brand name) its so much nicer to drive on especially when it's a new road surface. There's only one concrete dual carriageway near me but I hate driving on it, it sounds like your on an old train!

Asphalt - but it's not that simple - asphalt comes in differing qualities.

Here we have these ANCIENT asphalt highways that have little to no damage at all, we have those brand new, 'ever dry' asphalt highways, and we have those crappy late 80s highways that are goddamn terrible, with cracks everywhere.

The latest modifications, polymer, and glass recycled ones are the coolest imo.

Just imagine how it feels to drive on a highway like this ones????

http://www.doelbeelden.nl/norm_images/doelbeelden2915.jpg

http://www.sxsjtt.gov.cn/newspic/2004121142859yj.jpg

Could you explain me why a state like California, the richest in the country and with one of the higher motorization levels of the world has highways in such a crappy condition, and with such a big urban impact, dividing the cities, and making them feel like pedestrian nightmares.
I would love to see highways like the ones in the Netherlands, France or Spain in California.

^^That looks incredible

man, this looks good enough to eat from.

funny.... all of the americans that are ALWAYS at odds with the europeans vote for concrete, bc the saddening US freeways are all concrete.

these guys will do ANYTHING not to agree with these european/canadian "fereigners."

you love the sound it makes.... *blump blump blump blump blump blump for an hour* yah what a conclusive arguement.

"I PICK CONCRETE BC IT SOUNDS COOLER!" sheesh...

i appreciate guys like czm3, who point out ACTUAL deficiencies in asphalt, thank you for being objective czm3

anyways i pick asphalt...

You might want to re-read some of the posts. I am the only one who wrote about liking the sound of concrete, and I am a CANADIAN, not an American.

Sure, it might seem trivial to like the sound of driving on concrete, but its just as trivial as not liking it. If concrete highways are well constructed, they can be impecably smooth and a real pleasure to drive. Sure, asphalt is very nice too, but people must consider that not all concrete highways are bone rattlers.

Cheers.

What does Japan make its roads out of. They are really good. Even if it is asphalt, it looks different than in other countries. All the roads seem new. I heard they use some plastic technology too.

What does Japan make its roads out of. They are really good. Even if it is asphalt, it looks different than in other countries. All the roads seem new. I heard they use some plastic technology too.

Nowadays, the highways in Japan adopt 'new multi-functional pavement' (special leachy drainage asphaltic compunder). It has the effect of reducing the road noise and saving the impact on the environment.
http://www.ogiken.co.jp/haisui7.jpg
http://www.cbr.mlit.go.jp/road/g/g-09/img/0301.jpg

left:old fashioned asphalt,
right: new multi-functional asphalt, (easy to get dry!)
http://www.jhri.jhnet.go.jp/miyagi/information/newtech_files/newtech.jpg

I prefer driving on asphalt because it's smoother, but I hate how it gets replaced more often. I voted concrete though b/c even though it isn't the smoothest of rides, at least replacing doesn't happen every 5 years which results in horibblt slow traffic.

wow, does the military use these highways you speak of? are 60-ton tanks zoomin down the motorway at 80 km/h? how could an asphalt road turn into such deplorable condition in only 5 years that it has to be repaved?

I prefer driving on asphalt because it's smoother, but I hate how it gets replaced more often. I voted concrete though b/c even though it isn't the smoothest of rides, at least replacing doesn't happen every 5 years which results in horibblt slow traffic.

concrete lasts for (at least) twice as long as asphalt. But the repair work of concrete takes by far longer time than asphalt, and costs a great deal. (good and bad points)

Nowadays, the highways in Japan adopt 'new multi-functional pavement' (special leachy drainage asphaltic compunder). It has the effect of reducing the road noise and saving the impact on the environment.
http://www.ogiken.co.jp/haisui7.jpg
http://www.cbr.mlit.go.jp/road/g/g-09/img/0301.jpg

left:old fashioned asphalt,
right: new multi-functional asphalt, (easy to get dry!)
http://www.jhri.jhnet.go.jp/miyagi/information/newtech_files/newtech.jpg


Old stuff, here in Holland for over a decade or so, it is called ZOAB Zeer Open Asfalt Beton or very open asphalt concrete.

We also have very silent open asphalt concrete which absorps the noise made by cartyres.

funny.... all of the americans that are ALWAYS at odds with the europeans vote for concrete, bc the saddening US freeways are all concrete.

these guys will do ANYTHING not to agree with these european/canadian "fereigners."

you love the sound it makes.... *blump blump blump blump blump blump for an hour* yah what a conclusive arguement.

"I PICK CONCRETE BC IT SOUNDS COOLER!" sheesh...

i appreciate guys like czm3, who point out ACTUAL deficiencies in asphalt, thank you for being objective czm3

anyways i pick asphalt...



Heh, it's not an American thing, I just love freeways and roads with concrete better. Actually I've noticed in Houston and Dallas they are using concrete on not just freeways but streets and I love the feel and sound of concrete.

Also I think it's better for the rain since it has those groves that make the lovely noise concrete freeways make.

Even as a kid I've loved concrete freeways but at the time I wasn't sure why some highways made the noise and feel and others didn't and now as a driver I love it even more.

What I hate about asphalt is those roads that seem to have an ultra smooth worn down surface and when it rains I feel like the car's going to slip right off the road.

I also have to add that I LOVE when they pave a road with the very coarse, almost gravel like asphalt because that's such a great sound too.


So it's all about the concrete whistle "whooooooo, clunk, clunk, whooooooo, clunk, clunk, whooooooo"

and the coarse asphalt "grrrrrrrrrrrgrumblegrumblegrrrrrrrrrrrrgrumblegrumblegrrrrrrrrr"


.........ok I'm weird.

I have to add that I was on Interstate 10 in Lousiana once and they paveed it with concrete that had lots of cracks so I was in heaven listening to a very faint "whoooooooooo" mixed in with a constant "clack, clack, clack, clack, clack...."

Old stuff, here in Holland for over a decade or so, it is called ZOAB Zeer Open Asfalt Beton or very open asphalt concrete.

We also have very silent open asphalt concrete which absorps the noise made by cartyres.


Japan also has used 'open asphalt' for more than a decade in the whole country.
There're many kinds of 'open asphalts' as you know,
In Japan, drainagae open asphalt has been used mainlly for highways, and permeable open asphalt for pedestrian ways.
http://www.maedaroad.co.jp/products/drain_c/images/dc_img02.jpg

^^In any form, it is superb! Much safer during rain.

in france
a site with french autoroute picture (in french)

http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/accueil.php

im sorry guys but i have to go with concrete,just dont know why ?

well maybe because concrete is more durable,

asphalt. looks way better and very smooth, especially on new freeways! All roads here in Melbourne and Victoria are asphalt. Although in Queensland and NSW, concrete highways are more common.

few asphalt highways from around Melbourne
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/8767/img05970gj.jpg

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2377/ad12020059yi.jpg

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/3807/m80fitzgerald1ud.jpg

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2683/craigieburn41dk.jpg

Asphalt
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_402-403_images/403_cl_wchurchill_west.jpg

The 401 through Toronto, Canada was concrete in the 60-70s but it seems to have been replaced with some sort of asphalt compound.

1. Anyone knows the precise reason for their decisions?

2. Does open asphalt concrete of the types shown in Japan and Holland work in the harsher Canadian winters?

Personally, the concrete highways I've driven on definitely suck -- noisy, bumpy, ugly -- and on well-worn concrete surfaces where it has been polished to a shiny surface, I think it is just as slippery if not more so than good asphalt.

On the other hand, I know that asphalt gets compressed into ruts after a few years - particularly on heavy truck routes.

But new asphalt is great.

asphalt road in kuwait ,
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5927/dcp16024nq.jpg


http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8499/dcp16037dw.jpg

The 401 through Toronto, Canada was concrete in the 60-70s but it seems to have been replaced with some sort of asphalt compound.

1. Anyone knows the precise reason for their decisions?

2. Does open asphalt concrete of the types shown in Japan and Holland work in the harsher Canadian winters?

Personally, the concrete highways I've driven on definitely suck -- noisy, bumpy, ugly -- and on well-worn concrete surfaces where it has been polished to a shiny surface, I think it is just as slippery if not more so than good asphalt.

On the other hand, I know that asphalt gets compressed into ruts after a few years - particularly on heavy truck routes.

But new asphalt is great.

Ontario used concrete as the base for its GTA area highways simply because concrete is so much more durable then asphalt. Even under most asphalt paved highways, there is a thick concrete base. Utilizing the concrete base as a driving surface for 20 years (roughly half of the concretes life) lowers initial construction costs since the paving project is simply deferred. This is also the plan for the 407. The 407 is to be paved over with asphalt after about 20years of being in operation.

Cheers.

2. Does open asphalt concrete of the types shown in Japan and Holland work in the harsher Canadian winters?



In Japan, open asphalt is said to have a little weak side in the place where snow tyres are used in winter (especially in heavily snowy and cold northern Japan).
Snow tyres chip off the front face of asphalt, and snow tends to remain on roads, and meltwater freeze in open asphalt. Thus, roadways have to be equiped with 'road heating system'.

http://www.hols.co.jp/yuusetsu/douro_img/yuusetsu_douro_003.jpg
http://joyfulclub.hp.infoseek.co.jp/jan/a050115nGate.jpg
http://www.city.muroran.hokkaido.jp/main/org7200/img/heat.jpg

amazing stuff with the road heating

road heating must be incredibly expensive to build and operate

Wow that is pretty cool and as said must be awfully expensive to build and maintain. I wonder if it is just used in certain sections or along the whole road??? I know here some bridges have de-icer systems which sprays some type of film over the road surface so it wont freeze but thats just on bridges.



Ontario used concrete as the base for its GTA area highways simply because concrete is so much more durable then asphalt. Even under most asphalt paved highways, there is a thick concrete base. Utilizing the concrete base as a driving surface for 20 years (roughly half of the concretes life) lowers initial construction costs since the paving project is simply deferred. This is also the plan for the 407. The 407 is to be paved over with asphalt after about 20years of being in operation.

Cheers.

I never knew that, thats a pretty smart technique actually.

Dunno about other countries, but India should use concrete for rural and semi-urban/semi-rural areas. Coz in those areas, its the ruggedity that matters. For the main highways, they should use asphalt.

India

Asphalt

http://www.prasadandcompany.com/images/nhai.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7425/gandhinagarhighwayvib0rk.jpg

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/429/mahatmagandhiexpressway4os.jpg

Concrete

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/3709/255647850cyonyofs0ms.jpg

http://img75.exs.cx/img75/2384/punexway0od.jpg

Imagine if one section of a heated road got severed because of a nearby earthquake or cracked from age. They'd have to tear the section up, assuming there is equipment to determine where it was damaged!

hey, imagine if they planned for earthquakes! none of what you said would happen!

:cheers:

Pretty much every road in the Uk is asphalt (we call in tarmac for some reason, think its a brand name)

Tarmac is an abbreviation of tarmacadam, which was a road surface invented by a Scot named MacAdam in the 19th Century, made by mixing tar with gravel. Tarmac became obsolete once asphalt was invented, but the name (wrongly) persists in the UK...

For a tropical climate where there is a rainning season, which one would best best to have, ashphalt or concrete? Many African countries have rainning season and it damages the roads, one of the reason they are in poor qualities.

Asphalt by a mile! I was actually taken aback when I first went to the US, being driven along ugly (and very uncomfortable) concrete monstrosities!

For a tropical climate where there is a rainning season, which one would best best to have, ashphalt or concrete? Many African countries have rainning season and it damages the roads, one of the reason they are in poor qualities.

Roads and highways are mainly made of asphalt in Malaysia, though some sections of the tolled highways were made of concrete. If I am not mistaken, cost was a major factor. However, I believe the highways built in the late 80s and early 90s were mainly built using concrete in order to use up the surplus cement production capacity in the country at the time. So in this case, it was macro-economics that choose the material.

Which one is most suitable? I think it really depends on the run off of surplus rain water. Eitherway, if one speed in the rain, one might come to grief in due time, whether it is concrete or asphalt. I personally prefer asphalt. Less noisy.

Asphalt

Anyone have heard or seen this type of concrete used on roads before?The Public Works Ministry suggests the whisper concrete to be used on some sections of Malaysia highway.Pictures are also welcome.

whisper concrete, or whisper asphalt, is a pavement with extreme noise reducing. It is even so quiet, that it may give dangerous situations, i have seen it in the netherlands, and driving with 50km/h you don't hear a car coming, unless it is almost next to you.

However, it is a lot more expensive, but great on motorways, it really reduces noise pollution. Most noise comes from the tires, not necessarily from the engine.

No, whisper concrete is a type of concrete that must be manufactured and synthesized in a quiet environment, because soundwaves (around the frequency of human speech) greater than 50 dB or so vibrates throughout the molecules.

If this occurs before the cement molecules form, it will result in a dangerously reduced tensile strength compared to properly manufactured concrete.

:colgate:

Why do those ugly concrete crashbarriers ge quite common, i find some shiny metal crashbarriers why more interesting as such concrete crashbarriers which get quite common. but many new motorways have concrete crashbarriers instead of metal crashbarriers, why is that? In bulgaria they still use metal though.

I like the metal ones too. They're safer in a crash, because they will bend. Concrete doesn't bend. Concrete might be cheaper, it don't know that for sure. However, it looks very ugly and American. (no offense to Americans, but they have a LOT of these Jersey barriers)

I like the metal ones too. They're safer in a crash, because they will bend. Concrete doesn't bend. Concrete might be cheaper, it don't know that for sure. However, it looks very ugly and American. (no offense to Americans, but they have a LOT of these Jersey barriers)

it indeet looks way to American

Hm i thought they are safer, but well i dont know, in the older part of egnatia odos in greece they used metal barriers, and they did generally in the 80s-90s roads, but after 90s they use those jersey barriers, i have no clues why atm but gimme a min and i ll be back with info :)

Yes its actually safer as it seems, here is some info from wiki:

A Jersey barrier or Jersey wall separates lanes of traffic (often opposing lanes of traffic) with a goal of minimizing vehicle crossover in the case of accidents. It is also used as defense against car bombs.

It was originally developed at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. (under the direction of the New Jersey State Highway Department[1]) to divide multiple lanes on a highway by the state of New Jersey in the United States. A Jersey barrier stands 3 feet tall and is made of poured concrete. Their widespread use on the highway has led to many other uses as a general barrier (for instance, during general construction projects or constructing temporary walkways). They are also known as K-rails (especially in Western states or when used temporarily during roadway construction - K-rail is the California Department of Transportation specification for temporary concrete traffic barriers) or traffic dividers.
A Jersey barrier is a concrete barrier originally developed as a highway median.
A Jersey barrier is a concrete barrier originally developed as a highway median.

The design of the Jersey barrier was specifically intended to minimize damage and reduce the likelihood of a car crossing into oncoming lanes in the event of a collision. For the more common shallow angle hits, the Jersey barrier is intended to minimize sheet metal damage by allowing the vehicle tires to ride up on the lower sloped face.

For higher impact angles, the Jersey barrier is actually a multistage barrier. The front bumper impacts the upper sloped face and slides upwards. This interaction initiates lifting of the vehicle. If the bumper is relatively weak, the front end starts to crush before any uplift occurs. Then, as the vehicle becomes more nearly parallel with the barrier, the wheel contacts the lower sloped face. Most of the additional lift of the vehicle is caused by the lower sloped face compressing the front suspension. However, wheel side-scrubbing forces provide some additional lift, particularly if the barrier face is rough. Therefore, exposed aggregate and other rough surface finishes should be avoided. Modern vehicles have relatively short distances between the bumper and the wheel; as a result, bumper contact is followed almost immediately by wheel contact.

It is only necessary to lift the vehicle enough to reduce the friction between the tires and the paved surface. This aids in banking and redirecting the vehicle. If the vehicle is lifted too high into the air, it may yaw, pitch, or roll, which can cause the vehicle to roll over when the wheels come in contact with the ground again. Concrete safety shape barriers should be adjacent to a paved surface so that the wheels cannot dig into the soil and cause the vehicle to overturn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier

Here on the N50 2+1 project, they have used a moving Jersey Barrier constructor. Like you put some concrete in the machine at the front, and at the back you'll get a barrier instantly. This whole machine drives slowly. Works great, but i haven't seen that before.

http://www.destentor.nl/multimedia/archive/00363/Obsolete_363065b.jpg

I guess the "New Jersey" is installed by greater traffic, and as there's more and more traffic in our world, we get more and more of the rather ugly concrete barriers. :)

I've seen three different types of barriers: Cable, metal guard rail, and concrete Jersey barriers. They are all used depending on the traffic situation. The most common criteria used in decisions is the road configuration and vehicle speed. Each also provides varying degrees of safety and stopping power. Cable barriers are at the bottom, metal guard rails in the middle, and concrete barriers at the top.

To answer the question of why are they used so frequently, I would venture to guess that more and more situations are requiring the particular benefits of concrete barriers.

I guess the "New Jersey" is installed by greater traffic, and as there's more and more traffic in our world, we get more and more of the rather ugly concrete barriers. :)

If they could manage to design it to look like plastic it would look better, there are some concrete and metal crashbarriers together at some sides of the struma motorway in bulgaria where it is dangerous, concrete and metal at the side doesn´t look very bad.

Metal guard rails indeed look aesthetically better than concrete barriers, but the latter are simply safer. Besides, I noticed that in America they are installed only if there is not enough space separating opposing traffic. If there are five metres between the opposing traffic that moves at the combined speed of 230+ km/h, then I will personally feel safer if there is a concrete divider.

Concrete MEDIANs, in particular, are safer than metal rails. Concrete medians are designed so that a car that hits it from the side (instead of head on, which is the most likely way a crash will take place), instead of flying over to the other side, will deflect the car
Metal rails, on the other hand, might not have sufficient strength to deflect a car's weight.

just a few reasons on top of my head:

- better security in case of crash
- lesser risk of seeing an accidented car crossing the barrier from opposite direction
- metal barriers slice motorcyclists in 2 in case of fall (they are called "head-cutters" by the laters)
- when reasonably high (which is usually the case in urban areas, here at least) they conceal the lights of the cars from opposite direction, which is really enjoyable when you drive at night!

^^ Voila! Nicely summed up.

How about this kind of barrier? Metal barrier filled with gravel.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3644/pic1270zr5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I prefer steel. Its more flexible.

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1402430

I prefer steel. Its more flexible.
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1402430

That lory on your video could easily break the steel rail and end up in the opposite lanes. With concrete barrier it is simply impossible even though the damage to the vehicle will be greater.

Here is what steel rail can do to a car:

http://gibddspb.ru/_img/foto/1155042246-4.jpg

http://gibddspb.ru/_img/foto/1155042246-2.jpg

http://gibddspb.ru/_img/foto/1155042246-5.jpg

Once in Bay Area I saw how a small lory hit the concrete divider. It didn't look good for the lory itself, but the driver was OK and what is the most important - the lory did not get to the other side.

Ofcourse they have to use dual metal barriers, otherwise forget it, in bulgaria the motorways ahve dual metal barriers like the pics of the struma motorway so i don´t know, it´s safer but yeah, it is not as safe as concrete.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/marapr00/concrete.htm

From the US Federal Highway Administration website. A very detailed page about how concrete barriers work.

In Ontario, (my home jurisdiction), the highway department has been pretty feverishly replacing the old steel barrier (w-style) with new concrete tall wall barrier (which is a and thicker version of a jersey barrier). They always cite the improved safety of the concrete barriers in all of their press releases.

In this photo, the old w-style barrier has just been pulled out, to be replaced with permanent concrete:
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_410-427_images/427_cl_Bloor_South.jpg

A lot of freeways here have enough room for cable barriers and a large amount of grass - the cable barriers have only been introduced in the past few years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Eastern_Freeway_Belford_St.jpg/800px-Eastern_Freeway_Belford_St.jpg

Hmm that just looks like fake safety...

With space, they're apparently meant to be safer because they can absorb a large amount of force - you can just see that the cables are anchored into the concrete at the ends of each section.

Before these were installed, there was usually nothing (except for the odd light post, but a lot of freeways even in urban areas aren't lit) stopping a car from straying into the other side.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/marapr00/concrete.htm

From the US Federal Highway Administration website. A very detailed page about how concrete barriers work.

In Ontario, (my home jurisdiction), the highway department has been pretty feverishly replacing the old steel barrier (w-style) with new concrete tall wall barrier (which is a and thicker version of a jersey barrier). They always cite the improved safety of the concrete barriers in all of their press releases.

In this photo, the old w-style barrier has just been pulled out, to be replaced with permanent concrete:
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_410-427_images/427_cl_Bloor_South.jpg
It is now 'SOP' here in the USofA ('Standard Operating Procedure', for those not aware of that bit of USA vernacular) for energy-absorbing 'catchers' to be mounted on the 'facing' ends of steel 'W' guardrails. They look like flat targets, about the size of computer monitor screens, and are designed to 'catch' and hold on to errant cars while using various breakaways and so forth to safely bring them to a stop.

Mike

With space, they're apparently meant to be safer because they can absorb a large amount of force - you can just see that the cables are anchored into the concrete at the ends of each section.

Before these were installed, there was usually nothing (except for the odd light post, but a lot of freeways even in urban areas aren't lit) stopping a car from straying into the other side.
The problem with those cable guidewires is that they are useless against trucks/lorries. They'll catch and hold cars, but not anything bigger.

They are much cheaper than concrete 'Jersey' barriers and steel guardrails, though.

Mike

Those cables are called here; motorcyclist decapitators.

That lory on your video could easily break the steel rail and end up in the opposite lanes. With concrete barrier it is simply impossible even though the damage to the vehicle will be greater.

Here is what steel rail can do to a car:

http://gibddspb.ru/_img/foto/1155042246-2.jpg

Once in Bay Area I saw how a small lory hit the concrete divider. It didn't look good for the lory itself, but the driver was OK and what is the most important - the lory did not get to the other side.
How is it possible for such thing to happen? I mean, obviusly this is the issue of a badly installed barrier.

^ Are you sure it has nothing to do with Russia? :D

At first, I actually wrote that because it's Russia, the quality of the barriers is probably as crap as it can be but I didn't want to sound violent against Russia.(Didn't want an arguement about that Russian thing again)

You both are right - Russia sucks in road maintainance :lol: Russian drivers are also one of the worst in the world. Whenever I see pictures of Baltic countries, I always think that Russia would be just like that if it was more civilised. Unfortunately, it is not and never will be. I drove through Belarus and Ukraine, and I should say that they left much better impression on me than the country of my birth. That was a little offtopic.

Now let's get back to the concrete vs. steel. Russia or not, it would not have happened had they installed the concrete divider instead.

You both are right - Russia sucks in road maintainance :lol: Russian drivers are also one of the worst in the world. Whenever I see pictures of Baltic countries, I always think that Russia would be just like that if it was more civilised. Unfortunately, it is not and never will be. I drove through Belarus and Ukraine, and I should say that they left much better impression on me than the country of my birth. That was a little offtopic.

Now let's get back to the concrete vs. steel. Russia or not, it would not have happened had they installed the concrete divider instead.
Yes, but this wouldn't have happened if the barrier had had a better quality also.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Austria_A2_moedling.jpg/800px-Austria_A2_moedling.jpg

Concrete roads have a large number of advantages over bituminious ones. These advantages include:

- Fuel Saving:Concrete roads are rigid pavements, which do not deflect under loaded trucks, unlike bitumen pavements. Hence load carriers require less energy when travelling on concrete roads (since no effort is expended in getting out of deflection 'ruts'). Trials carried out in the USA by the Federal Highway Administration and in India by the Central Road Research Institute, have shown that laden goods carriers consume 15-20% less fuel on concrete roads as compared to bituminious ones. Considering the fact that about 60% of our country's goods traffic moves by road, construction of a nation-wide network of concrete roads could thus save us hundreds of crores of rupees worth of foreign exchange now being spent on importing petroleum products.

- Long Maintenance-Free Life:Concrete roads have a life of 40 years or more, compared to 10 years for bituminious ones. In addition, concrete roads require almost no maintenance, whereas bituminious ones need frequent repairs due to damage by traffic, weather, etc.

- Gain in Traffic Speed:Concretising of existing roads in Mumbai, Nagpur, Calcutta and other cities has shown that this leads to significant gains in traffic speeds, making in turn for a notable reduction in congestion and jams on high traffic density roads. This increase in speed of vehicular movement , is due to the smooth concrete road surface which neither needs repairs, nor allows digging can be dug up for laying utilities (for which ducts provided in advance below the road surface). Increased traffic flow means saving of both time and fuel, as well as reduction of pollution caused by idling engines.

- Resistance to Weather, Oil Spils, etc.: Concrete roads are neither damaged by rain (being waterproof), nor softened and distorted by heat. They also do not lose their binder due to leakage of oil from vehicles. Hence they remain damagefree under most adverse conditions.

- Economy in use of materials:For the same traffic load conditions, concrete pavements are thinner than bituminious ones. Where the load bearing capacity of the soil is poor, a bituminious pavements may have to be made more than one-and-a-half times thicker than a concrete one. Concrete roads thus use less aggregates, which are in short supply or difficult to procure in many places.

- Enviormental Friendliness:Concrete roads score over bitumen ones, as far as enviornmental friendliness is concerned, in several ways. Firstly, production of concrete does not foul the atmosphere like the hot-mix bitumen-based plants (the latter have been banned from operating in some cities, due to their polluting nature). Secondly, concrete pavements can utilise fly ash, a polluting byproduct of thermal power plants. Addition of fly ash to concrete increases its density as well as its resistance to chemical attack. Finally, as already mentioned, faster movement of vehicles on concrete roads leads to lower pollution from vehicular emissions.

- Use of Indigenous Materials:Concrete roads use cement, which is manufactured from indegenously available materials like limestone, of which a plentiful supply is available. Bituminious roads need bitumen, which is obtained from imported crude oil (since Indian crude contains almost no bitumen). Besides which, availability of crude oil both in India and abroad is likely to reduce in the near future , thus jeopardising bitumen supplies required to repair existing bituminious roads.

Other Advantages:These include better reflectivity due to lighter colour(hence greater safety and lower lighting requirements), greater skid resistance and so on.

Concrete roads, however, have one disadvantage vis-a-vas bituminious ones, in that they are initially costlier to construct. However, with the price of bitumen going up steadily, and the use of fly ash (available free from power plants) in making concrete mixes for pavements now being accepted, the relative cost of these two types of pavements could become quite comparable.

When life-cycle costs are considered (as recomended by the BIS, for all competing technologies), concrete pavements with their long life and negligible maintenance, come out invariably superior to bituminious ones.

As regards the economic costs to the country, fuel saving and enviornmental friendliness make concrete roads a far superior choice over bituminous ones.
Makes a lot of sense. So why dont they build them anymore here in Europe?

How much faster is it to build a new expressway in concrete instead of asphalt?

^^ Umm, in Indonesia most highway were built using concrete, and then layering it with asphalt for future development ;).

^^ THis is the example of HIGHWAY in Indonesia which using asphalt :okay:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/New%20Folder/IMG_1699.jpg

1

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/New%20Folder/IMG_1753.jpg

2

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/New%20Folder/IMG_1754.jpg

3

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/New%20Folder/IMG_1762.jpg

4

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/New%20Folder/IMG_1765.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8285/hiway011editedoy1.jpg

THis is the example Highway in Indonesia which using concrete (without asphalt layer :D)

1
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/rilham2/JKT_luv_nu_trnsfr035edited.jpg

2

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9719/jalantol039edited2mv6.jpg

3
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7752/jalantol013editedem0.jpg

90% of the Dutch motorways are constructed with PAC (Porous Asphalt Concrete).

In our densely populated country, noise pollution is considered as a problem. Concrete produces a lot of noise, while PAC absorbes it. There is even DLPAC = Double Layer Porous Asphalt Concrete.
Another advantage is that the drainage of rain is extremely well with PAC, driving in a thunderstorm is practically the same as driving on dry asphalt.This gives a huge advantage in traffic safety, especially on the very busy Dutch motorways.

However, PAC comes with a price; the constructing of it is 2,5 times more expensive as DAC (Dense Asphalt Concrete) and it requires a lot of maintenance. I guess you can easily pick the more prosperous country's by the type of pavement. A lot of countries can't afford PAC on their motorways, but some others don't see it as a priority.

Japan, the Netherlands and France uses it extensive.

Asphalt is better.

90%chinese expressway made by asphalt, it's more comfortable for driving, and can reduce sunshine reflection on the road.

PAC all the way...

I love straight up grooved concrete that whistles. I think it's the best road surface for any weather condition and that light whistling sound with clacking sounds every few hundred feet lets you know you're on a real highway.

Asphalt is just awful. It cracks all the time and feels super slick in the rain. Why not just use all concrete? It lasts for years and feels best on the tires.

Asphalt is just awful. It cracks all the time

You wouldn't find any cracks if you just maintain your freeway. But if you don't care about noise pollution and traffic safety, and don't want to spend money on freeways, concrete is the option for you.

I love straight up grooved concrete that whistles. I think it's the best road surface for any weather condition and that light whistling sound with clacking sounds every few hundred feet lets you know you're on a real highway.

Asphalt is just awful. It cracks all the time and feels super slick in the rain. Why not just use all concrete? It lasts for years and feels best on the tires.

I know the sound your talking about, it's great.

Our old M7 was built using concrete blocks,similar in old commieblocks. the whole route was like tak-tak-tak-tak-tak-tak. Now it is asphalt,and much better. I think concrete,if not built properly, can damage the suspension,because the bumping,while it is hard to go wrong with asphalt.

Some older German and Polish Motorways used to have very bad concrete surface, with the concrete plates some 5cm or 2 inches apart. You could have really messed up your suspension. Nowadays, in Poland all of these roads have been replaced, but i thought Germany still has one (A11).

Asphalt is the best :okay:
It is a lot more comfortable :D

Makes a lot of sense. So why dont they build them anymore here in Europe?

How much faster is it to build a new expressway in concrete instead of asphalt?

Construction of concrete pavement takes a lot more time and it also costs a lot more (around 20-30% more for flat expressway). So it is up to highway authorities what do they want and how much will they spend.

There is also a problem, if concrete pavemenet cracks somewhere. Repairing is much more complicated and expensive and takes much more time. Repairing asphalt pavement is a matter of days, for concrete a matter of months.

The Norwegian experience with concrete roads is almost exclusively bad: In a country with winters, the concrete cracks, and it is really slippery in wet conditions. Bad on multilane motorways, outright dangerous on 2-/3-lane expressways.

Asphalt looks so much better. When I was younger it always made me curious how such a rich country like the USA has so poor looking expressways

Maybe asphalt looks better. But quality of new German concrete autobahns is in my opinion far superior to asphalt autobahns, even new ones (try driving renovated autobahn from Berlin to Nüremberg) No tak-tak-tak-tak sound, no bumps or humps, smooth as you were hovering over autobahn and not driving. But it is expensive and good only in moderate climate and appropriate local geology.

What kind of pavement do they use? SMA?

As I said, concrete (or you didn't mean me?). Berlin - Leipzig stretch is probably the smoothest road surface I've seen so far. However I've driven by construction site of that motorway (A9, converting from 2+2 to 3+3). Construction lasts few years (when looking at info signs), as I know, concrete stays without load one year, and equipement for laying concrete looked very very sophisticated. And it is expensive, you bet.

Of course concrete is more expensive. But it last for longer (up to 30 years) with much less maintenance than asphalt.
So average cost per year (important for highway agencies) is the same or lower.
Asphalt would have to be redone twice probably during concrete motorway lifespan.

What's it called when a road is built with concrete, but has a few inches of asphalt dumped on top of it, scraped away, and re-applied every few years? That seems to be the norm in Florida. I think FDOT even has machines that automatically chew up the old pavement, inject new tar into it, and spit it back out behind the machine. After 11pm on weekends, it seems like there's almost always a freeway somewhere in Miami or Fort Lauderdale that's having one or two of its lanes resurfaced (it REALLY sucks when they're resurfacing the middle lane, because then the road gets crunched down to just two or three lanes on one side of the lane being resurfaced, and traffic backs up for literally 5-7 miles at 2am).

I believe that FDOT's preference for asphalt-on-concrete is due to asphalt being less slippery when it rains heavily for the first time after a few weeks of dry weather. I think the dripped oil from hundreds of thousands of cars per day gets absorbed into the asphalt, but would just form oil slicks on raw concrete.

because of earth tremors (about 3000 per day) and earthquakes (1 every 10 years aprox.), in Chile we prefer asphalt, it's more flexible. the concrete of our streets must be 'cutted' in squares, so it can break along these lines and not everywhere.

Asphalt for the car
And concrete for the truck
Four-lane highway, three for cars and one for truck..

In my hometown, Zwolle, a new 2x2 road is being constructed. They use SMA (StoneMasticAsphalt) as pavement, it has much more durability as PAC, SMA lasts 15 - 20 years under heavy truck use.

StoneMasticAsphalt is more expensive that asphalt or concrete?.

I'm not sure. I think it's cheaper as PAC. But it has the advantages of PAC and the durability of concrete.

Asphalt has gone through a lot of research the last few decades so i think it will get the advantages concrete has and maybe even get better than concrete in the long run.

I prefer asphalt because of the crappy weather we have in The Netherlands.

Maybe asphalt looks better. But quality of new German concrete autobahns is in my opinion far superior to asphalt autobahns, even new ones (try driving renovated autobahn from Berlin to Nüremberg) No tak-tak-tak-tak sound, no bumps or humps, smooth as you were hovering over autobahn and not driving. But it is expensive and good only in moderate climate and appropriate local geology.

Concrete looks fucking ugly and is a exremly hard and exremly noisy ride, why is i a problem for you that aspahtl doesn´t last as long, don´t you think counries like Germany have enough money for adding new asphalt on their motoreways every 10 years. I drove on a asphalt motorway in Austria and it was exremly smoothly and noiseless,k than we entered the concrete motroway to vienna and it was very noisy and extremly rough, i felt like i would travel with metal tires, no joke.

It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters how it functions!

And new concrete autobahns both in Germany and Austria look and function splendid. What could be better than this? :cheers:
http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

(taken from http://www.autobahn-bilder.de)

I didn't know that Indonesians drive on the left side of the road too! I thought it was just the UK.

Asphalt no doubt.

Asphalt no doubt.

OFCOURSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

It looks fucking ugly, it looks ulgier than extremly old Expressway sretches in Dupnica

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3541/dsc00057bb9.jpg

This military runway stretch in dupnica which probably will be upgraded to the Struma motorwaqy looks better altough very old and with bad asphalt than the fucking ugly concrete Autobahn.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3244/dsc00019rd3.jpg
^^
This is asphalted new german motorway and looks very good, the asphalt is very new and good but altough it is 1 year old it isn´t as smooth as the 7 years old asphalt of the E79 here in Blagoevgrad and arroun blagoevgrad which is still very dark altough it has heavy Tracktraffic, i don´t know how they made it so good.

You say that this crappy Bulgarian expressway looks better than state-of-the-art German autobahn pictured above? :lol::lol::lol:

Drive them and THEN compare.:cheers: Oh sorry, forgot you don't have driving license.


But really, are there no mods around? :shifty:

It's all a matter of the actual road and how it was constructed. It is possible to make crappy concrete and asphalt roads, but it is also possible to make good ones. The one on the picture that keber has posted definitely looks fine, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a road after all :)

And I don't know how radi can say that that old motorway looks "better" than the one on keber's picture. :S

At the end it always comes down to costs and needs, not whose road surface looks more black...

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4748/asfaltdv3.jpg

but concrete moves, it gets wier when it´s hot and so on, and does noone care about confort, i really don´t get keber, on cnncrete it is a fucking noisy and hard ride, on austrian concrete motorways it was a fucking hard and noisy road, it felt like metallreals instead of tires, on new asphalt it is a very smooth and soft ride and also very quite and it looks very good.

but concrete moves, it gets wier when it´s hot and so on, and does noone care about confort, i really don´t get keber, on cnncrete it is a fucking noisy and hard ride, on austrian concrete motorways it was a fucking hard and noisy road, it felt like metallreals instead of tires, on new asphalt it is a very smooth and soft ride and also very quite and it looks very good.
Again - it does not have to be this way, it depends on the construction. If the construction consists of many concrete panels with significant spaces between each, then you will get the characteristic thump-thump noise, but there are ways around it (I am not a civil engineer, hence I cannot comment about any specifics). As for getting wider and narrower due to temperature, I think all roads do that - they are designed to do that, otherwise you get cracking and other undesired effects.

but concrete moves, it gets wier when it´s hot and so on, and does noone care about confort, i really don´t get keber, on cnncrete it is a fucking noisy and hard ride, on austrian concrete motorways it was a fucking hard and noisy road, it felt like metallreals instead of tires, on new asphalt it is a very smooth and soft ride and also very quite and it looks very good.

That about noisy ride is true for very old concrete motorways (from 50ies and 60ies), but new ones are certainly better than any asphalt road. There are many concrete motorways in Austria, that are over 20 years old (and under moderate to heavy traffic) and driving on them is still better than most of new asphalt motorways in Europe (even Austria). They don't look very shiny (some are even brown because of rust), but driving (or I'd rather say gliding) is a joy.:cheers:

And check your car's suspension, it seems not to be in order.:lol:

That about noisy ride is true for very old concrete motorways (from 50ies and 60ies), but new ones are certainly better than any asphalt road. There are many concrete motorways in Austria, that are over 20 years old (and under moderate to heavy traffic) and driving on them is still better than most of new asphalt motorways in Europe (even Austria). They don't look very shiny (some are even brown because of rust), but driving (or I'd rather say gliding) is a joy.:cheers:

And check your car's suspension, it seems not to be in order.:lol:

Listen carefully man, the A7 motorway in Austria has extremly smooth asphalt and you don´t feel any riding, it looks very awesome and you imediatelly feel asleep when driving on that awesome motorway. Than we entered the awful A1 motorway and it was very hard and very noisy. it was terrible to drive on that motorway, i felt shitty and wanted the motorway finally to finish, that´s my impression asphalt vs concrete. Asphalt is very very smooth and feels very hard. if you tramp on it you feel how hard it is, concrete somehow feels like it is thin. I definetly prefer asphalt and hope that Austria will go for asphalt instead of shitty concrete.

First you say, that concrete feels very hard, then later that asphalt feels very hard. Now, could you explain?

First you say, that concrete feels very hard, then later that asphalt feels very hard. Now, could you explain?

I don´tknow how to explain, asphalt is smooth and indeet doesn´t feel very hard but asphalt when it is good feels VERY thick, i like that feeling very much, in Ausria there are some roads which go from some border near Passau to the a7 and they feel very smooth and thick, concrete feels hard and noisy but not thick. Do you understand?

Concrete is stronger and doesn't need to be so thick. How does it feels, is different matter. And completely irrelevant.

Keber, why do you give a shit how much the coutry does pay and how long the stuff stays good, the only thing that matters to me is confortable driving and that´s only really possible on thick smooth asphalt roads.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5051/dsc00024gu5.jpg

Here is the Austrian asphalt motorway which looks and feels extremly good.

Because quality modern concrete motorway is better than quality modern asphalt motorway. That's why. Ofcourse, asphalt has pluses and minuses so has concrete.But you won't persuade me with pictures of some Bulgarian roads, I've been in south, north, east and west Europe and driven their motorways, so i know, what I speak. Photos don't tell everything.

Rubberized asphalt that is made with recycled tires is the way to go. They have been testing it in the Phoenix, AZ area for quite a while and it is smooth, quiet, and an absolute pleasure to drive on(if you can avoid the traffic jams). I'm not sure how viable it is in cold weather climates, but there seemed to be no maintenance to the existing surface during the two years I was out there. I thought I read that they were testing it in Northern Virginia(much cooler climate) as well. Can someone from that area verify and let us know how it holds up in that climate?

^^ sounds good, but is it hard enough? I like it when the asphalt feels very thick like on the Austrian national roads and asphalt motorways, i can go crazy.

OFCOURSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

It looks fucking ugly, it looks ulgier than extremly old Expressway sretches in Dupnica

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3541/dsc00057bb9.jpg

This military runway stretch in dupnica which probably will be upgraded to the Struma motorwaqy looks better altough very old and with bad asphalt than the fucking ugly concrete Autobahn.

Do we see the same pictures??
Are you mad or drunk that you write such bullshit??:bash:

I know that you love to put this damn balkan roads to every post you write but your statement above is just ridiculous.
On don't write about Struma motorway:gaah:
Everyone already know it's your favorite project on whole world.

Hmmm... no comments on my question yet... I'd still like to know what the official term is for roads that were built as concrete (both bridges and at-grade pavement), but eventually ended up getting topped by a relatively thin layer of asphalt that gets scraped away and recycled on a regular basis. Is Florida really the only place in the world where this is commonly done?

Hmmm... no comments on my question yet... I'd still like to know what the official term is for roads that were built as concrete (both bridges and at-grade pavement), but eventually ended up getting topped by a relatively thin layer of asphalt that gets scraped away and recycled on a regular basis. Is Florida really the only place in the world where this is commonly done?

When I lived in England about 10 years ago, there was a stretch of the M40 that was made of 1950s style concrete blocks. Not only was there a huge gap between each block that the car practically fell into every second or so, but the concrete itself was extremely old and very rough.

While we were there they surfaced it with asphalt, which, of course, was a huge improvement. For some reason though it took them ages to finish the work, which caused disruption on the road for months.

i love driving on white asphalt or concrete freeways, they look hot...compared to tacky black asphalt ones which unnnfortunately are used most in australia...

As mentioned, a lot of highways in the Toronto area have concrete underneath as they were first built with concrete, but are surfaced with asphalt.

i love driving on white asphalt or concrete freeways, they look hot...compared to tacky black asphalt ones which unnnfortunately are used most in australia...


I think in New South Wales and Queensland there are more concrete highways.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9662/cimg5632wa4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9662/cimg5632wa4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Where it is???

Emmm, does it really matter where it is? You can make miracles with reinforced concrete and you can make concrete in different colours also, but that's not the point of the thread, is it? (I know you were just being curious, but I thought that when I don't say anything, the next one is also going to be a picture of a bridge)

Emmm, does it really matter where it is? You can make miracles with reinforced concrete and you can make concrete in different colours also, but that's not the point of the thread, is it?

I'm just curious ;)

As mentioned, a lot of highways in the Toronto area have concrete underneath as they were first built with concrete, but are surfaced with asphalt.


They must be very strong?

They must be very strong?

Well, I don't know how to qualitatively assess their strength, but most of them do take a lot of pounding from massive truck traffic. When it comes to pavement quality, surprisingly it is pretty good (unlike our streets, many of which are in horrible condition), but that's because the highways are quite frequently resurfaced.

I have to respectively disagree you CAT with the quality of the 400 Series Highways. As someone who travels from Scarborough to Mississauga everyday, I experience all the road work that occurs throughout the year. I have noticed that there are many sections are the 401 that develop cracks and potholes about 6 months after they were resurfaced. The worst thing is those little "speed bumps" that appear to get larger and larger by the week until they are ground down without even properly being resurfaced. I also noticed that major cracking tends to develop on the joints between the parallel paving sections. This is especially noticeable when changing lanes. The Absolute worst stretch is 401 West collectors between 400/401 interchange and 401/409 interchange. Just full of cracks and patch jobs on a stretch that was resurfaced only a few years ago. On a recent trip to Pittsburgh, I noticed that the quality of the pavement on the Interstates is far superior to what is used in our area...which is something that couldn't have been said 10 years ago. But...there are areas that were still smooth even after 10 years and let's not even talk about recent constructions where the roads are "glass" smooth and quiet. Even the older portions which are still smooth were being resurfaced. I also noticed that they place a bead of tar in between the joints of the paving sections. This is something that I have not seen here...but I presume that it is to help prevent moisture from entering the crack and destroying it through the constant temperature changes within the winter months. Coming back on the QEW was a little disappointing. I can say that the 400 has kept up pretty well...even after 10 years. Although the joints are cracking, the surface is still pretty smooth. If you travel along the 401, there are so many types of asphalt. Although I don't know the names, there are some that are almost purplish in colour, some that are black and coarse with a high concentration of stone and some that are "glass" smooth like the 401 Eastbound between Weston Rd and Keele. I have a feeling that these paving companies are taking the governments for a ride by paving the roads as cheaply as possible and maximizing their profits. There should be someone in the Gov't looking at this and inquiring on why this is happening. But then again...it's the Government.

It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters how it functions!

And new concrete autobahns both in Germany and Austria look and function splendid. What could be better than this? :cheers:
http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

(taken from http://www.autobahn-bilder.de)This is exactly how a motorway should look like IMO. But why are the road stribes not placed on the crack between the concrete elements - that would look a lot better I think.

IMO this is exactly how a motorway should NOT look, do you know how this feels while driving? Nothing can be compared with thick smooth even asphalt, if asphalt laid well you forget that you are driving (at least on the Struma motorway and some Slovenian motorways.)

Brand new part of M7 motorway...
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/655/resizeofimg2138wx0.jpg
and "new"(a few years old)part of M0,designed for heavy usage
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4691/resizeofimg2261ll7.jpg

I prefer concrete. The bright surface of concrete looks much better than black asphalt.

I prefer concrete. The bright surface of concrete looks much better than black asphalt.
I disagree. Road markings are a lot better to see on dark asphalt.

IMO this is exactly how a motorway should NOT look, do you know how this feels while driving?

Apparently YOU don't know that. :nuts:

Apparently YOU don't know that. :nuts:

I know how concrete feels, I drove on concrete motorways, ok, the very new concrete vienna ringroad feels pretty good, pretty smooth but the struma motorway for example is smoother and more even. :P

I know how concrete feels, I drove on concrete motorways, ok, the very new concrete vienna ringroad feels pretty good, pretty smooth but the struma motorway for example is smoother and more even. :P

Sure. :naughty:
Drive that autobahn and then compare it to Struma.

Keber, I seriously don´t think there´s anything smoother than Struma motorway, Slovenian motorways are partly as smooth as ti though. Man, there is 50 cm thick asphalt on that motorway, what do you want.

Hm, Slovenian motorways (even new ones) are not smooth at all, if comparing to let's say 25 years old A10 (Spittal-Villach).

And I was on pictured autobahn last year, which smoothness is much better to A10, so I know, what I speak/write.

Hm, Slovenian motorways (even new ones) are not smooth at all, if comparing to let's say 25 years old A10 (Spittal-Villach).

And I was on pictured autobahn last year, which smoothness is much better to A10, so I know, what I speak/write.

why aren´t they smooth, the motorway from Croatian border to Lubljana has some parts which were very smooth or maybe just the Bus was good, don´t know, anyway you wont feel a thing on the struma, no matter what car you drive. I also drive the A10, it´s really good, for it´s age, is it concrete, you almost don´t feel a thing

Can anyone please explain to me how a motorway like the below one have been built?

Is it pre-fabricated concrete elements that have been transported to the construction site, and then placed on the ground with high precision? Or is liquid concrete that have been filled in metal frames right on the construction site?

I would also like to know how much faster is is to built concrete motorway like this instead of an asphalt one - lets say a 100 km stretch?

http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

Can anyone please explain to me how a motorway like the below one have been built?

Is it pre-fabricated concrete elements that have been transported to the construction site, and then placed on the ground with high precision? Or is liquid concrete that have been filled in metal frames right on the construction site?

I would also like to know how much faster is is to built concrete motorway like this instead of an asphalt one - lets say a 100 km stretch?

In the old time,it was built just as you said,with concrete blocks. Nowadays,I think they pour it right on the spot.

In the old time,it was built just as you said,with concrete blocks. Nowadays,I think they pour it right on the spot.

Actually you may be wrong. Maybe it was done so in some places, but this would be very difficult because of heavy machinery needed for transporting big concrete blocks, which was expensive at that time.
As I know, in most countries it was poured with special train machine, means machine runs on rails and pours fresh concrete on fortified tampon. Of course steel reinforcement is placed before. Then it is smoothed and dilatation slots are made to prevent damage to hardened concrete later, when it is used. This principle is used already for decades, only machines and materials got better.

Still on A3 I saw some special machine, that doesn't look like "concrete train". How does it work is mystery to me. But it does work good, that's sure.:cheers:

That how German concrete pavement looks:
http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl07027/images/figure_21.jpg

Actually you may be wrong. Maybe it was done so in some places, but this would be very difficult because of heavy machinery needed for transporting big concrete blocks, which was expensive at that time.
As I know, in most countries it was poured with special train machine, means machine runs on rails and pours fresh concrete on fortified tampon. Of course steel reinforcement is placed before. Then it is smoothed and dilatation slots are made to prevent damage to hardened concrete later, when it is used. This principle is used already for decades, only machines and materials got better.

Still on A3 I saw some special machine, that doesn't look like "concrete train". How does it work is mystery to me. But it does work good, that's sure.:cheers:

That how German concrete pavement looks:
http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl07027/images/figure_21.jpgSo the question is how much faster and cheaper it is to built an expressway like this compared to building it with conventional asphalt?

(...)

Thats why I said "I think",because I've never seen any motorway construction by myself. And we only have a short concrete segment now,and a longer u/c,so is a rare sight.
There was a concrete motorway in Hungary,but we repaved that because it was made out of blocks similar to the ones in commieblocks,an the cars were going tak-tak-tak all the way,just like trains.

So the question is how much faster and cheaper it is to built an expressway like this compared to building it with conventional asphalt?

It's much less expensive to build it using asphalt, and probably faster too (although it may be otherwise).

It's much less expensive to build it using asphalt, and probably faster too (although it may be otherwise).

It is not (otherwise). Concrete surfaces are much more expensive and take much more time to build. And talking about time: you can drive over new asphalt virtually right away (but after few days it is usual), but over concrete it needed to wait for about one month, even better it is to wait for one year.

^^You agree with me then. My "otherwise" was refered to the time it took to build, which I wasn't sure(although quite certain) that asphalt was faster.

I've never driven on concrete, but in these pictures it looks much more slippery than asphalt.

If it were so, they certainly wouldn't build them in Austria.
Concrete can be modified between construction so it's not slippery. Asphalt can't be modified much.

I know it's not, but it seems like it.

SMA can actually be very slippery, especially the first 2 years.

How is it possible to make asphalt apsolutely smooth, there are sections on the E-79 / Struma where there´s no bump for 5 km, how is this possible?

That's pretty normal for any new road...

They do that with road rollers.

That's pretty normal for any new road...

They do that with road rollers.

but what´s between the space where the roadrollers don´t go over?

And what spaces should that be?:?

And what spaces should that be?:?

I suppose dilatation bridge parts...

Sure, but asphalt is not present in dilatation.

OFCOURSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.autobahn-bilder.de/images/A9%20Ri%20Berlin/N-B/PA280079.JPG

It looks fucking ugly, it looks ulgier than extremly old Expressway sretches in Dupnica

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3541/dsc00057bb9.jpg

This military runway stretch in dupnica which probably will be upgraded to the Struma motorwaqy looks better altough very old and with bad asphalt than the fucking ugly concrete Autobahn.

How dare you insult the Autobahn! To a German that's like insulting someone's mother! Watch your mouth, young man.

Here is something very interesting I stumbled upon in Wikipedia, comparing the pavement of Ontario's 400-series highways and US Interstates, regarding asphalt vs. concrete. Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia:
400 series freeways show many similar design aspects to the USA Interstate Highway system. One major difference between USA and Canadian highways are the pavement surfaces. While the USA defaults to using concrete as a wearing surface, Ontario defaults to asphalt as a wearing surface.

The majority of all 400 series highways are coated with asphalt pavement, though some sections are receiving concrete pavement, such as Highway 401 from Windsor to Tilbury. Exceptions among 400-series highways include Highways 406, 407 ETR and 427, which all have significant portions built in exposed concrete. All 400-series highway bridge decks are also covered with asphalt, with concrete only exposed around the expansion joints, unlike US Interstates where most bridge decks are exposed concrete with tining (grooves) to add traction in wet weather.

The reasoning behind Ontario's large use of asphalt is based on this explanation from Alfred Ho, at the Ontario MTO (Ministry of Transportation) website:

Asset durability has always been one of our prime concerns in management of bridges and other long term assets. For our Canadian harsh winters with ice and snow on our highway, we use de-icing salt, and a lot of it. Although it is good for the travelling motorists who can have a better grip for the road, it does terrible damage to the concrete components of our highways system; In particular bridges where the embedded reinforcing steel would corrode and rust. To protect the steel from the ingress of chloride ions from the salt solution, we placed a layer of rubberized asphalt waterproofing on all of our bridge decks. And to protect this waterproofing, 2 lifts of asphalt are placed on the bridges. We have good corrosion protection results over the years; and we have confirm the results with studies. Again thanks for you interest, and you are most welcomed to visit and use our highway system first hand. Alfred Ho Alfred Ho, P.Eng., MBA MTO Central Region

Conversely, Alfred's email can be argued from a recent e mail shown below from an Illinois Department of Transportation engineer who disputed the Canadian way of paving bridge decks:

Asphalt bridge surfaces observed in Ontario incorporate the philosophy of a wearing surface. The intention is to periodically replace this relatively inexpensive thickness of asphalt before deterioration to prevent exposure of the more cost-intensive concrete deck, superstructure, and substructure portions of the bridge to the damaging effects of the environment and vehicular traffic.

As logical as this philosophy may appear, a few drawbacks do exist.

1. Wearing surfaces can range between two and four inches in thickness, creating additional weight the structure is required to support. This in turn increases the overall design of a structure, translating into additional expense.

2. The wearing surface will be less durable than the concrete bridge deck, requiring more frequent repairs and maintenance. Routine schedules for replacement of the sacrificial layer require strict adherence as delays can invalidate decades of careful planning. Interruptions to free-flow traffic with more frequent work-zones also has a negative overall impact on level of service, translating into lost productivity time as the public are subjected to increased periods of congestion.

3. No guarantees are available even if maintenance schedules are followed with rigid discipline. IDOT is committed to ensuring the roads are clear and safe regardless of weather conditions, translating into a large quantity of salt use for ice prevention. This practice has a negative effect on the life-expectancy of the infrastructure as corrosion becomes more prevalent.

As shown above, Ontario MTO and Illinois DOT engineers have many factors to consider when it comes to pavement in dealing with snow, ice and salt in the very similar climates of Toronto and Chicago. This explanation can be proved first hand from any drive within the Greater Toronto Area or Chicago area. The majority of bridge decks and pavement in Toronto (Canada) are asphalt while in the Chicago (USA) area, most highways are continuous concrete highway/bridge deck or combo asphalt pavement/concrete bridge deck arrangement.

Original article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/400_series#Paving_Surface

I've never driven on concrete, but in these pictures it looks much more slippery than asphalt.

Certainly not. Some of the urban freeways in Montreal are being replaced with concrete. I can tell you I fell much safer driving on concrete in the middle of winter than I do on asphalt.

Before the concrete sets, shallow groves are cut into the surface of the concrete, this make it very adhesive, although the downside is it is also very noisy. Probably wears out your tires quicker as well.

^^It does indeed wear tires quicker.

Certainly not. Some of the urban freeways in Montreal are being replaced with concrete. I can tell you I fell much safer driving on concrete in the middle of winter than I do on asphalt.

Before the concrete sets, shallow groves are cut into the surface of the concrete, this make it very adhesive, although the downside is it is also very noisy. Probably wears out your tires quicker as well.

It aktually is extremly noisy, I´ve driven on an Austrian concrete Autobahn and it was very noisy and rough, I tried to sleep but I couldn´t because it was too bumpy inside the car.

You're not supposed to sleep while driving.

Concrete has advantages and disadvantages. It's safer in wet weather, and it lasts much longer than asphalt, but you have to be prepared to replace it when it goes bad. Worn out concrete roads are worse than worn-out asphalt roads. Rebuilding them takes longer as well, and that means 2-3 years of traffic jams just to rebuild one expressway... as is the current case with the Dan Ryan. But once it's complete, it'll be good for 60 years (the standard for new concrete construction techniques).

The gas mileage advantage is also true for passenger cars. Chicago has an abundance of concrete expressways AND arterials, and I've noticed I get about 10% more fuel efficiency driving here than I did in Alabama, where just about every road is asphalt.

That being said, I don't prefer one or the other. Asphalt can be really good if properly maintained. The state of Georgia does its job better than any other state DOT in that respect.

I've never driven on concrete, but in these pictures it looks much more slippery than asphalt.

They rake grooves into the concrete while it's wet. When the grooves are perpendicular sound it usually makes a whistling sound during the tires which I love.

They rake grooves into the concrete while it's wet. When the grooves are perpendicular sound it usually makes a whistling sound during the tires which I love.

You mean like in mult-istorey car parks? I hate that.

i like conrete roads so much better.

black asphalt roads look shite......and tacky. australia is like 90% black, 10% white/grey concrete.

well can u have differnt kinds of coulors for asphalt? uz maybe i have seen white asphalt, and it looks way better. i wish all our roads were like that.

Is asphalt always black when its new? I have seen many bright grey asphalt roads in Denmark, so maybe its possible to color it for better traffic safety?

Asphalt can be layed in any possible color.

Of course. The colour of the asphalt depends allot on the type of local materials. In northern Germany, for example, asphalt is generally brighter than in south Germany.

You're not supposed to sleep while driving.

maybe in your country.

i like concrete* roads so much better.

black asphalt roads look shite(please don't swear and it's shit)......and tacky. Australia is like 90% black, 10% white/grey concrete.

well can u you have differnt kinds of coulors for asphalt? uz I thinkyou mean beacause[/B ]maybe [B]I have seen white asphalt, and it looks way better. I wish all our roads were like that.

Learn english and please don't swear.

*That I understand I type fast and then it comes out wrong, but i don't say "uz"

In the USA, they generally make new asphalt black. I guess it is done for increased road marking visibility. I personally like it more than gray asphalt.

Right now, the road between Pullman, WA and Moscow, ID (11 km) is being widened from 2X1 to 2x2, and soon they will put marking on it. I will try to snap a couple of pictures.

Drogowa Trasa Średnicowa in Upper Silesia Metropolitan Area:
http://www.um.katowice.pl/pl/images/stories/DTS/dts_duze00.jpg
http://miejsca.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/budowa-roku2006/drogowa-trasa-srednicowa1.jpg
http://www.gminy.pl/pages/dphotos/F01589.jpg
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9343/tysiacleciedts1ta9.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/DTS-DK79.jpg/800px-DTS-DK79.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/DTS-Zaleze.jpg/800px-DTS-Zaleze.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/RondoGenMaczka2005.jpg/800px-RondoGenMaczka2005.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Katowice_-_DT%C5%9A_-_Tunel_02.JPG/800px-Katowice_-_DT%C5%9A_-_Tunel_02.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Katowice_-_ul._W._Ro%C5%BAdzie%C5%84skiego_%28Novotel_i_Gwiazdy%29.JPG/799px-Katowice_-_ul._W._Ro%C5%BAdzie%C5%84skiego_%28Novotel_i_Gwiazdy%29.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Sw-ce.jpg/800px-Sw-ce.jpg

This could be fun. :D


But no nationalism! :nono:



I'll start with a few historical images of "motorways" in East Germany from the Soviet era, but built already under Hitler (of course they were still crappy for some time after uniting with the West Germany).

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/1-10.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/2-10.jpg

Halls built on motorway!
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/3-8.jpg

Halls again.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/4-8.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/5-7.jpg

After repaving one half.
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/6-7.jpg

All pictures taken here (http://www.autobahn-online.de/images/gallerie.html).

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/1-10.jpg

This was the state of the Polish A4 in 2002...

cool, keep 'em coming
:)

This was the state of the Polish A4 in 2002...

From Wrocław westwards, right? I've heard that.

From Wrocław westwards, right? I've heard that.

Yeah, 110km of seasickness... Some people needed new suspension after driving here.

A Romanian motorway back in the days, but it's ok now:

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/romunijako1.jpg
http://forum.autosnelwegen.nl/viewtopic.php?t=5750

Bulgaria :nuts: :
http://i23.tinypic.com/29mokde.jpg

^^ Struma? :D

Fortunately no. :D

Some older peace of crap. I hope they'll fix it... :nuts:

Drove all the way through Germany this year, a lot of the autobahn is just concrete, not brilliant. But them I'm English, so I can't talk about roads!

Bulgaria :nuts: :
http://i23.tinypic.com/29mokde.jpg

:nuts:

Drove all the way through Germany this year, a lot of the autobahn is just concrete, not brilliant. But them I'm English, so I can't talk about roads!

Yeah German roads aren't all that good as you might hear. It is also a fairytale all Germans drive 120MPH+

Autostrada A3 close to Vibo Valentia in Calabria, Italy:
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z202/keber1/autostrada.jpg

But in general it doesn't look so bad, just some old sections are in bad condition.

khm, there is some 200 m (not km fortunately!) of croatian A3 at bridge over river Sava at zagreb bypass in direction east that is really horrible!

Got pix? :naughty:

A lot of Belgian motorways used to be in a very bad condition. Full with potholes and cracks, sometimes, not recieving any maintenance in decades.

However, the worst motorways are being rehabilitated in the past years. Some bad section still exist.

Bad sections;

E17 near Gentbrugge (bad bridge)
E25 near Visé (pavement dates back a few decades)
E34 Antwerpen - Dutch border (pavement dates back 36 years)
E34 Antwerpen - Beveren (concrete plates)
E40 near Liège (Meuse bridge)
E42 Battice - German border (pavement 20 years old)
E42 sections between Liège and Charleroi

I heard Belgian motorways build in the late 70's and early 80's didn't get a foundation, asphalt was just layed on sand. No wonder the road was filled with holes 15 years later...

Got pix? :naughty:

no. i'll take it next time when i'll be passing there.

Autostrada A3 close to Vibo Valentia in Calabria, Italy:
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z202/keber1/autostrada.jpg

But in general it doesn't look so bad, just some old sections are in bad condition.

Well the asphalt seems ok, but the road does definitely needs lines, and of course to get cleaned from the vegetation.

As for a really crappy motorway, mainly cause of old crappy pavement, a part of A1 motorway near chalkida in Greece, does really fits the title, its quite ridiculous that the just repaved the road only where it was hardly needed, unfortunately i got no pictures :(

We have no crappy motorways:banana:

Autostrada A3 close to Vibo Valentia in Calabria, Italy:
Remember that one. Pretty funny.

We have no crappy motorways:banana:

Old M7 toward Balaton was so crappy few years ago, that it was the best to drive on emergency lane, because it was the only lane with asphalt.

:nuts:

It looks way worse than it feels, it feels like driving on some old concrete motorway, on that part you can drive up to 160 without damaging your car however I can´t understand how they let this without rehabilitation.

Some pictures from Poland.
Motorway A6 near Szczecin:

year 2005:
http://images31.fotosik.pl/5/50c1f86db2e69347.jpg
http://images33.fotosik.pl/5/6b40280541bf1911.jpg
http://images34.fotosik.pl/5/4c6015135e0118e1.jpg

and the same places two years and 114.000.000 euro later:

http://images22.fotosik.pl/190/c96d1081417c4b45.jpg
http://images11.fotosik.pl/101/50f26ac9aad8029c.jpg
http://images11.fotosik.pl/101/c95fe4a0656bb5b1.jpg

A Russian motorway in 1992 (I don't know its present condition, but probably better):

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/RUS1.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/RUS2.jpg

Interstate 278, NYC

This is why it's not fun to drive in New York City! :ohno:

I've driven down this highway, through Brooklyn and Queens. With the narrow lanes, no shoulders, and low clearances, during rush hour, it may make you feel pretty scared if you're not a resident...

From AAroads:

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_018_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_019a_08.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_019c_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_027b_01.jpg


The views from the west looking at Manhattan are excellent though. :cheers:

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_019a_01.jpg

^^

I agree, the freeways in New York City are pretty awful. I feel very sorry for anyone that has a breakdown on any of their highways. When you have 45mph speed limits on a freeway you know it probably isn't that great. :ohno:

Old M7 toward Balaton was so crappy few years ago, that it was the best to drive on emergency lane, because it was the only lane with asphalt.

The keyword is was...its proper asphalt now(for like 8 years),2+3lanes,and it will reach croatian border next year.

^^

I agree, the freeways in New York City are pretty awful. I feel very sorry for anyone that has a breakdown on any of their highways. When you have 45mph speed limits on a freeway you know it probably isn't that great. :ohno:
A lot of those 'interstates' in NYC, especially the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, predate the interstate system and are grandfathered in under their substandard designs. Any work beyond simple repaving (ie, bringing them up to full modern interstate standards) would be prohibitively expensive.

Yes, I have driven many of them, including I-278.

And up to 6 years ago, the WTC towers would have been in the center background of that Manhattan skyline image.

:ohno:

I-70 in western Pennsylvania is also similarly substandard, predating the I-system, too.

Mike

I can't find a picture now, but the Polish A6 (or maybe S6) wins by far; it is/was paved by paving stones!

Reichsautobahn: the DK22 in Poland, near Kaliningrad.

http://www.dk22.net/43%20-%20WD43/43wd43%20-%2021.JPG

http://www.dk22.net/45%20-%20WD45/45wd45%20-%2010.JPG

http://www.dk22.net/29%20-%20WA29/29wa29%20-%2017.JPG

However, i don't think it's in use as a motorway now! :lol:

Some maps do sign it as an expressway though.

It is road, no motorway.

It is road, no motorway.

Yeah, but i thought it was used as a one lane motorway decades ago. It is part of the Berlinka, Berlin - Kaliningrad. The A6 near Szczecin was also part of this road, aswell as the German A11.

Yeah, but i thought it was used as a one lane motorway decades ago. It is part of the Berlinka, Berlin - Kaliningrad. The A6 near Szczecin was also part of this road, aswell as the German A11.

No, A6 near Sttetin is a motorway, but this road was only road. It was never used as motorway. But it was planned as motorway before war.

Hehe, Berlinka is a phenomenon. :)

Reichsautobahn: the DK22 in Poland, near Kaliningrad.

However, i don't think it's in use as a motorway now! :lol:

Some maps do sign it as an expressway though.

Now it's rebuilding. It will be a express-way road (S-22) 1x2 in progess into 2x2. All injuctions will be like on motorways.

Some of these "highways" are really ugly and crapy... I hope things will change in the nearby future.

Why were all those halls built on the roadway, did they just not need the motorway any more so it got turned into a normal street?

I know it's not a motorway, but I just have to post this sign from Moldova. :lol:

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/MD.jpg

Motorway in Mongolia :lol:

http://i14.tinypic.com/4h35s1i.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/2ugnucw.jpg

http://i14.tinypic.com/2mg82ef.jpg

I can't find a picture now, but the Polish A6 (or maybe S6) wins by far; it is/was paved by paving stones!I've found it. Can you believe this?

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/Polish_A6.jpg

Motorway in Mongolia :lol:

Where? :lol:

I've found it. Can you believe this?

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/Polish_A6.jpg


It's my pleasure and honour to tell you, that there are no more paving stones on this road. This is a picture taken at least 2 years ago. If you look at my earlier post (#24) you'll see a difference between now and then. I live in Szczecin, i know this road very well and i can shoot some more pictures of this road (specially this bridge) and post them.

So we're waiting for a new champion :)

^^ That's great, although I'm a bit sad too. :D So how fast could you drive on this? I imagine your car breaking appart, if you were trying to drive 130 km/h here. :lol:

Now it's rebuilding. It will be a express-way road (S-22) 1x2 in progess into 2x2. All injuctions will be like on motorways.

You can admire piscs here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=134138&page=19
and here - only in polish :( http://www.elblag-grzechotki.pl/

It won't be crappy any more! ;)

So how fast could you drive on this?

I think 50 - 60km/h max. Faster would be very uncomfortable.

^^ That's great, although I'm a bit sad too. :D So how fast could you drive on this? I imagine your car breaking appart, if you were trying to drive 130 km/h here. :lol:

THERE ARE NO PAVING STONES ANYMORE!!!

http://images30.fotosik.pl/103/1723d8f3939a5db9.jpg

More pics: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=191165&page=43

^^ That's great, although I'm a bit sad too. :D So how fast could you drive on this? I imagine your car breaking appart, if you were trying to drive 130 km/h here. :lol:

This part of the road was not signed as a motorway that time, so the maximum allowed speed was 100km/h. But i tried to drive more than 100, even 130. A horrible experiment. I don't wish my enemy to drive on roads like that.

BTW: I know - driving faster than it's allowed, is stoopid.

Two words about halls on motorway and this exit
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/1-10.jpg
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/3-8.jpg

Both pictures are taken from http://www.autobahn-online.de/ website.

Chriszwolle is wrong. This was not in Poland, but a A4 motorway near Dresden (AS - exit 86 - Ohorn) and near Bautzen (halls). There was no connection between Bautzen and polish border and the last part of A4 was closed. That's why they stood halls on motorway.

Now this road is renovated, made of smooth concrete, with 2x2 lanes, of course without halls and reaches the polish border near Zgorzelec/Gorlitz.

Chriszwolle is wrong.

Where was i wrong? I only said the first pic reminded me very much about the state of the Polish A4 in 2003.

Where was i wrong? I only said the first pic reminded me very much about the state of the Polish A4 in 2003.

Ok, small misunderstanding.
I agree, A4 near Wrocław looked similarly to this one.

ok Poles, we believe that there are no more those things in Poland, you don't have to tell it 3 times with large bolded font. you sound like Radi. :D

i'll try to find some pix from croatian A3 from war time. you can imagine what did tanks do to it + few years of not maintaning...

you don't have to tell it 3 times with large bolded font. you sound like Radi. :D

OK, but many people have problems with understanding wtitten text :), so I wanted to make it clear :)