Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GRDadof3

South Beltline crumbling after just 7 years

23 posts in this topic


Uhm Dad that was a 500k dollar flop. Thats the diffrence between the prefered construction material cost, concrete, the material that was used, asphalt. In fact I think the biggest reason why it is in bad shape is that it is carrying the complete truck traffic of 196, 96, or 131 but half if not a third of the cars. Its just that most highways now are being constructed with concrete because it does not get worn out as fast.

BTW the state feels the surface is the problem and not the entire 11" of asphault. As a result they will just grind off the wear layer and put on a new 1.5" layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's at least a 1.3 Million dollar flop if you take the cost fix it minus the original cost savings. But that doesn't include the annoyance of yet another construction bottleneck and the perception of visitors that Michigan is one big construction zone every summer... never mind that we're likely to be paying to fix it again in 5 to 7 years!

Let em rot! That's what I say, pour the entire DOT budget into mass transit and it'll be painful for a few years, but eventually we won't need the stupid highways so much. Hey, and as a bonus we might keep a few of our young professionals that long for an alternative to the automobile culture of Michigan :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you saw that commin when they came up with the brilliant idea to build a brand new expressway with asphalt. I always thought that was for replacement work anyways after the road was already settled in.

I never understood why they didnt try to get it interstate status (I-896 or replace I-296) and get federal funding, I am sure this cheapness would not have happened although it may have taken longer to build. 131 should be upgraded to interstate as well (I-67), heck, PA somehow got as incomplete lower traffic / less connection I-99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you saw that commin when they came up with the brilliant idea to build a brand new expressway with asphalt. I always thought that was for replacement work anyways after the road was already settled in.

I never understood why they didnt try to get it interstate status (I-896 or replace I-296) and get federal funding, I am sure this cheapness would not have happened although it may have taken longer to build. 131 should be upgraded to interstate as well (I-67), heck, PA somehow got as incomplete lower traffic / less connection I-99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the scale from 1 to 10 is the PASER Rating system, its the only 10 scale asphalt rating system I know of. I have even heard of a 100 scale that MDOT has dabbled with. PASER of 4 means that it is in fair condition (Severe surface raveling, Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking with slight raveling, Block cracking (over 25 - 50% of surface, Slight rutting or distortions (1" deep or less)), Patching in fair condition as issues). At this point on a deterioration curve it simple means it needs preventive maintenance.

Makes sense.

Being that they said it is mainly segments that are bad, I would suspect a problem with QA during construction as the reason. If the QA was right then the material or workmanship should not necessary be the fault. There is an extreme amount of variability that goes int roads, could be a lot of natural things out of our control or foresight. However, it is only segments, so it seems that it might be a case of QA not catching issues. That price tag seems like a lot, but asphalt costs have gone up a lot since 2001- binder is the most expensive component as it is oil based.

I wouldn't really call it crumbling, its just a surface coat that is failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if the scale from 1 to 10 is the PASER Rating system, its the only 10 scale asphalt rating system I know of. I have even heard of a 100 scale that MDOT has dabbled with. PASER of 4 means that it is in fair condition (Severe surface raveling, Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking with slight raveling, Block cracking (over 25 - 50% of surface, Slight rutting or distortions (1" deep or less)), Patching in fair condition as issues). At this point on a deterioration curve it simple means it needs preventive maintenance.

Makes sense.

Being that they said it is mainly segments that are bad, I would suspect a problem with QA during construction as the reason. If the QA was right then the material or workmanship should not necessarly be the fault. There is an extreme amount of variability that goes int roads, could be a lot of natural things out of our control or foresight. That price tag seems like a lot, but asphalt costs have gone up a lot since 2001- binder is the most expensive component.

I wouldn't really call it crumbling, its just a surface coat that is failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think they are using PASER but don't know. I drove it today and I think 4 is way too low. The rating system is highly subjective and only rates surface condition. It has some surface issues, mostly at the longitudinal joints but most agencies wish their pavement surfaces were so good. The idea that any pavement will last 15 years w/o maintenance repair is nonsense. If you get 10 years out of asphalt w/o any work, consider yourself doing good. Concrete will have some issues around 10 as well. As for the repairs, I'm guessing it will be milled & filled at night just like the East Beltline north of I-96, Joe Q didn't know it happened unless he noticed the fresh new black color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why can't lawmakers here as they do in Europe require these contractors to gurantee their work? Seven years is a little soon for this road to already be falling apart. Our infaustructure as far as roads is falling apart we can't shabby road work like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worst expenditure by the State in the last 30 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't lawmakers here as they do in Europe require these contractors to gurantee their work? Seven years is a little soon for this road to already be falling apart. Our infaustructure as far as roads is falling apart we can't shabby road work like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going most of the way in concrete then switching to asphalt for the last few miles sounds like the state half assed thing a bit to me. Granted it was done to save a couple of bucks. But taking the concrete all the way should not have been very much more expensive than asphalt. Besides the repairs now needed will nullify any savings. Oh well. A nine dollar helmet for a nine dollar head I guess. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going most of the way in concrete then switching to asphalt for the last few miles sounds like the state half assed thing a bit to me. Granted it was done to save a couple of bucks. But taking the concrete all the way should not have been very much more expensive than asphalt. Besides the repairs now needed will nullify any savings. Oh well. A nine dollar helmet for a nine dollar head I guess. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going most of the way in concrete then switching to asphalt for the last few miles sounds like the state half assed thing a bit to me. Granted it was done to save a couple of bucks. But taking the concrete all the way should not have been very much more expensive than asphalt. Besides the repairs now needed will nullify any savings. Oh well. A nine dollar helmet for a nine dollar head I guess. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were going to do that section in concrete but the asphalt pavers complained that they couldn't bid. So they came up with some silly formula that let asphalt compete with concrete in the biding process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You people want to know why we're using asphalt?

They know it breaks down sooner than concrete because...

-gasp-

...it creates/maintains JOBS to fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said that unions don't have a place? The asphalt paving unions tried to show that even if you needed to repave in 5 years, it would still be less expensive than the concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You people want to know why we're using asphalt?

They know it breaks down sooner than concrete because...

-gasp-

...it creates/maintains JOBS to fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Association not unions - the Michigan Asphalt Paving Association pushed the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raildudes Dad: I heard somewhere that Michigan concrete is less durable than concrete in other states due to the softness of the limestone, or some such. In California, concrete paving laid down in the early 1950s is still in reasonably good condition (albeit getting worse all the time due to traffic). I know that freeze/thaw has something to do with durability, but is there any truth to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You people want to know why we're using asphalt?

They know it breaks down sooner than concrete because...

-gasp-

...it creates/maintains JOBS to fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that's a particularly sound argument. There is no shortage of roads in this state that require maintenance. I would bet that at the current rate of construction/reconstruction, you could pave every road with the most durable material and still have plenty of work that needs to be done to supply the jobs your talking about for decades and decades to come. I don't think the policy your suggesting is at play here helps anyone. There's a finite amount of money available for these projects and following that logic these jobs would all be going to reconstruct the same projects over and over again year after year while the problems spread and roads crumble beyond any budget's ability to handle them.

Besides with the proper long-term government thinking , any contractor that can supply a higher quality product that lasts longer will command an overall higher price in the bidding process based on cost-benefit ratios. That is, of course, assuming we have leadership that's capable of thinking that far in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.