So what you’re saying is, a road will last 50+ years if you replace entire road sections at frequent intervals. Ok, that I’ll buy. But wait - maybe you meant they only have to replace sections that are over 50 years old? No… that doesn’t seem right. Let’s see now… how do we explain this paradox?
European roads, according to you, last over 50 years. Yet the very example you cite, the Autobahn, needs entire sections replaced on a regular basis. Why is that? How do we explain the picture on the link I provided, showing one entire set of directional lanes closed, traffic diverted onto one side, while the roadway is replaced? That scene looks oh too familiar. Maybe that particular section was laid down in 1945, eh?
It seems to me that if these roads were as good as you say, they would need less inspection, maintenance and replacement, not more, but that does not seem to be the case.
Why is that? It’s because your 50-year pave- job is a myth, a fallacy. You’re confusing a top-notch maintenance program, frequent inspection and replacement with the erroneous belief it’s the materials and the original construction techniques that are responsible for the outstanding condition of those roads.
Furthermore, the suggestion that such roads would “cost much, much less” flies in the face of logic. I don’t have the figures, but I think it’s a safe bet autobahn construction and maintenance costs per mile are astronomically higher than for here in the States. You get what you pay for.
Do you honestly think American politicians and voters are so short-sighted that were such a thing as cheaper roads that would last longer available, we would reject them and spend more dough on shittier roads because there’s an election around the corner? Or that any construction company which had access to such technology wouldn’t make it available in hopes of beating out the competition for those fat Federal highway construction/rebuilding funds? No…
in your scenario, the wealthy construction magnate would rather spend wads of cash lining the politician’s pockets instead of taking advantage of cheaper technology to become… uh-oh. Low bidder. Yeah, that makes sense.
Someone told you “European roads are designed and built to last 50 years before needing major repair” and you choose to believe they actually do.
They don’t.
Someone told John “50+ year roads can be easily built and cost much, much less.”
They can’t and they wouldn’t.
Those are the issues.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who get called out repeating erroneous information and preaching unsupportable “facts” like to cry “foul” and then avoid the issue by pointing out that I’m a moderator - like that somehow prevents me from disagreeing with them or using plain language. If you’d like to stick to the issues, simply address me as a member - within the TOS, of course.
(fixed quote tags - Nick)
[Note: This message has been edited by Nickrz]