Posted on Monday October 5th by Jebediah Reed | 70
The Missouri DOT has put together this snappy little moving picture show, explaining how and why highways fall apart. As the years go by at super-duper fast forward speed, watch the surface cracks develop and water speeds into the underlaying rock and soil layers, turning them to “mush.” You can repave, of course, but the film explains why that only kinda works. Thirty or so years on, the $1 billion highway is a bumpy mess, and you’re left clutching a $300 million repair bill.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
So, $400M spread over the course of 50 years? What would the tolls cost? Lets see:
(((($1B initial investment+ $400M for rebuilding) / 50 years) / 365 days) / 24 hours) / 1 000 cars/hour= $3.19 / car.
Yeah, I’ld say that’s probably about right.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
How does that correspond to a mileage tax? My computer doesn’t have a speaker - yet - so any discription of the road is lost to me, but how long of a stretch of roadway are we talking about? All of I-70 across Missouri? Is the $1 Billion a cost for 100% new construction or just a major project reconstruction? We have a local project that is closing in on a total $1 billion cost (I-70/71 thru downtown Columbus)
If we move towards mileage fees and possibly differential pricing for differant routes (Federal Routes vs State Routes vs Interstates vs collector distributor vs local streets) and times of day is the amount any differant?
Matt
October 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
What about taxing large transport vehicles? They are using the public resource to make money, after all. Last time I checked, road deterioration is proportional to axle weight to the fifth power, yes, the fifth power.
Please see: http://books.google.ca/books?id=kdh_DGmrlhIC&lpg=PA45&ots=YxPEcvCcG-&dq=fifth%20power%20road%20deterioration&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=fifth%20power%20road%20deterioration&f=false
October 6th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Very informative video, but I’m not sure that there is actually much action that can be taken to prevent such erosion happening in such a short space of time. Reducing that amount of traffic on the roads would be an option, but not really viable, unless a highways tax was imposed, but that probably wouldn’t deter many people. Think we just have to accept the fact that road erosion is an ongoing issue that will always have to be budgeted for by the government.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
The New 64 is a case in point: Rebuilding 8 miles of the existing highway farty is costing $550 million (includes bridge replacements) or approx $70 million/mile. MoDOT is actively pursuing much larger amounts to build new lanes exclusively for trucks across the state along I70 with estimates in the $billions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUf3qZQvf4
MoDOT actively uses employees and lobbyists to rally against Complete Streets but is always first in begging for MO money but can’t afford to take care of what they already built. MoDOT does not promote tolls and works hard to favor trucks.
http://mobikefed.org/2009/05/complete-streets-roundup-modot.php
October 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
[...] Missouri DOT offers time-lapse video showing why roads deteriorate - and what they cost to maintain. (Infrastructurist) [...]
October 9th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Doesn’t it make sense to build lanes for trucks? Segregating truck traffic allows general-purpose lanes to deteriorate more slowly, so the road that you and I drive on will last for many years while the truckers must deal with constant repair and replacement of their pavement, the effects that THEY caused. If these lanes are tolled to pay for their own construction and ongoing maintenance, then I don’t see the problem.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
It doesn’t make sense to build separate lanes for trucks because it reduces flexibility in lane usage. Widening a highway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes doubles its capacity because, in addition to offering 50% more roadway, it increases the ability of faster drivers to maneuver around slower drivers. Creating lanes dedicated to trucks will reduce lane use flexibility for both cars and trucks. That, in turn, will increase drive times for both cars and trucks. Drive times are an another cost that highways impose on the public.
Besides, what qualifies as a truck? On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, there is a “no trucks” rule. That used to include pickup trucks, even small pickup trucks (although not, weirdly, if they had a cap mounted in the bed). Presumably, it also included Chevrolet Suburbans and their ilk (which are technically, according to whoever sets mileage rules, trucks). Of course, now that truck-based SUVs have become so popular, the rule has been relaxed. I don’t know how trucks are defined on the Drive now, but I regularly see delivery trucks these days. The point is that defining what qualifies as a truck will end up being a political decision, not a fact-based decision and will, most probably, contain loopholes that will render moot the original goal of reducing road deterioration and maintenance.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[...] found this on the Infrastructurist’s Blog. Missouri DOT has created this great video about the ever-expanding costs of building and [...]
October 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
[...] Infrastucturist a nice Monday video about the destruction caused to roads by cars and trucks being driven over [...]