Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

boards.straightdope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#61

Post by Gordonjcp »

bombcar wrote: post #8
Gordonjcp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one bit of jointed concrete road that I know of in the UK, a few miles where I live on the A90 near Laurencekirk. It's bloody awful, like driving over smashed paving slabs. In my big old Range Rover with its off-road air suspension and massive reinforced tyres it's a noisy and uncomfortable couple of miles. In a modern vehicle with ultra-low profile tyres and incredibly stiff "sporty" suspension it must be li…

The US interstate moves insane numbers of huge ass-trucks that weight one billion metric pounds each or something. Anything less than airport-grade concrete dies instantly, and then dies again when it invariably freezes to -40° Kelvin, because fuck physics when shit gets cold.

You might be surprised to know that we have trucks in the UK, too.

That road is nose-to-tail 40-tonne trucks every night, because everything that goes to the north of Scotland from anywhere else in the UK goes up it.

To give you an idea of scale, Scotland has an area about the same as Alabama, but in terms of getting around you'd have to think along the lines of several times bigger than Texas.

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#62

Post by rootusrootus »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #24
haunter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a Wikipedia page about a technological topic (so not a person, place etc) has a very few languages available (in this case 2) then it always makes me wonder how other countries in the World solve the same issue. This seems like a very US thing for example but maybe I’m wrong

I was wondering the same thing recently. In Austria and some countries around a pretty popular road replacement system is called "fly over"[1] which has nothing to do with an overpass in the US, but is basically a small bridge put on top of a highway to repair the road surface underneath without interrupting traffic. It was mislinked on Wikipedia to overpass and while trying to figure out what it should link to I lea…

That's just a way to get traffic off the surface while work is done, though. The dowel bar retrofit is the work itself being done.

I imagine a flyover ramp is more appealing in areas where there isn't a lot of alternate routes available. The US is considerably less dense than Europe so rerouting traffic while a section is closed for major work isn't a big deal. If it's going to last a while, we just pave over a section around the part being worked on.

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#63

Post by rootusrootus »

coryrc wrote: post #59
rootusrootus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is true. But honestly, we don't have that many roads in the PNW that are concrete. It was when I lived in the midwest that I noticed them everywhere . I really don't care for them. In the PNW we have relatively few, but the weather here is milder than the midwest. Not sure what that says about the freeze-thaw hypothesis.

I live in Seattle and almost every single road I drive on is at least concrete base. Even if I couldn't tell for other reasons, I've seen enough sections replaced for water or gas line maintenance; I've never seen one without concrete, from my side street all the way to the freeway.

Maybe that's a Washington thing, then. In the Portland area it's nearly all asphalt, or asphalt-over-concrete. Concrete is terrible in places where it rains a lot, which is one reason I'm surprised you'd find so much of it in Seattle. We have porous asphalt that never has any standing water even in a downpour. At least when it's maintained, which isn't always a guarantee on some lesser used roads.

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#64

Post by paleotrope »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #54
goodcanadian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that concrete is generally not used for highways in Canada because it doesn't hold up well in the yearly freeze-thaw cycle that the majority of the country experiences. Asphalt is used as it is more flexible, and also easier to repair (generally just filling cracks with tar) when the inevitable frost heave damage occurs. Concrete is more durable (but it still needs to be maintained) and that is pr…

That's funny, my understanding was the exact opposite,that concrete was used more frequently in the northern US states because it can be plowed, where asphalt is cheaper but easily damaged.

That's interesting because in the part of the northeast where I live, northern new england, all the roads are asphalt with only a few exceptions. And I would guess that it's easy on the plows, because the asphalt will give where as concrete will not which would damage the plows.

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#65

Post by WalterBright »

engineer_22 wrote: post #60
WalterBright wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for the interstate trucks is the taxation system that punishes railroads for owning their right-of-way. The trucks cause by far the most damage to the highways, but taxpayers subsidize that with the gas tax. Trucks also do not pay property tax on the highways. Long haul freight should be done by loading the semi's trailer onto a flat car, and picking it up near the destination. Another myopic government de…

Can the efficiency of trains and trucks be quantified? It might make your argument stronger

"On average, rail is four times more fuel efficient than trucks, and emit 75% fewer GHG emissions. This fuel-efficiency can also help to reduce transportation costs significantly, while giving the business a promotional platform for sustainability initiatives."

   --- google "efficiency of trains vs trucks

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#66

Post by WalterBright »

nemo44x wrote: post #43
josephcsible wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not nearly higher enough. Driving on roads damages them in proportion to the fourth power of per-axle weight, which is about 17,000lbs for a fully loaded semi and 2,000lbs for a car. To put that in perspective, if the toll for the car were $0.25, it'd have to be over $1,300 for the truck for it to be fair in that sense.

It will just raise shipping costs and therefore raise the cost of goods. By charging trucks more it creates a regressive tax effectively. By subsidizing them this is a way we utilize socialism to ensure lower wage people have access.

That's why move the freight by rail.

Re: What are those dents in I-90 outside Seattle?

#67

Post by WalterBright »

nemo44x wrote: post #42
WalterBright wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for the interstate trucks is the taxation system that punishes railroads for owning their right-of-way. The trucks cause by far the most damage to the highways, but taxpayers subsidize that with the gas tax. Trucks also do not pay property tax on the highways. Long haul freight should be done by loading the semi's trailer onto a flat car, and picking it up near the destination. Another myopic government de…

The USA has possibly the best freight rail system in the world and it’s used extensively. Trucks pay a ton of tolls, licenses, and fuel tax.

The interstates are a constant stream of freight trucks. Trucks cause 4x the pollution of trains. Trucks spew tire and brake dust all over the countryside. Most of the maintenance on highways are the result of trucks, and this is paid for by taxpayers.
Post reply on HN