Our rubberized asphalt freeways--not weathering well (Phoenix: houses, neighborhoods, buy)

[DougStark]

I was on the fence as to whether to start this thread or not, but decided to give my opinion and get yours.

I've noticed some freeways (especially the 101 in the east valley) where the "top coat" of rubberized asphalt is not holding up. The 101 pavement has perpendicular separation voids about every 6 ft or so.

My question is, why didn't they try this paving method on a portion of the freeway system first before deciding to lay that asphalt topper everywhere? They should have just left it all concrete IMO--now they have a mess to deal with.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I was on the fence as to whether to start this thread or not, but decided to give my opinion and get yours.

I've noticed some freeways (especially the 101 in the east valley) where the "top coat" of rubberized asphalt is not holding up. The 101 pavement has perpendicular separation voids about every 6 ft or so.

My question is, why didn't they try this paving method on a portion of the freeway system first before deciding to lay that asphalt topper everywhere? They should have just left it all concrete IMO--now they have a mess to deal with.

I preferred the concrete freeways pre-2002 here myself, and also liked the old "Botts Dots" lane dividers rather than the modern painted lane dividers

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

I preferred the concrete freeways pre-2002 here myself, and also liked the old "Botts Dots" lane dividers rather than the modern painted lane dividers

Thanks for pointing that out. Those lane dividers are (or were) very effective. Now I know what they're called.

[Hschlick84]

I've mentioned SEVERAL times on these forums, ADOT needs to use grooved concrete. Lasts longer than the cheap stuff and is quiet, stop wasting money on rubber pavement.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I was on the fence as to whether to start this thread or not, but decided to give my opinion and get yours.

I've noticed some freeways (especially the 101 in the east valley) where the "top coat" of rubberized asphalt is not holding up. The 101 pavement has perpendicular separation voids about every 6 ft or so.

My question is, why didn't they try this paving method on a portion of the freeway system first before deciding to lay that asphalt topper everywhere? They should have just left it all concrete IMO--now they have a mess to deal with.

Is it supposed to be for sound? So builders can cram houses right up to the highway?

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I was on the fence as to whether to start this thread or not, but decided to give my opinion and get yours.

I've noticed some freeways (especially the 101 in the east valley) where the "top coat" of rubberized asphalt is not holding up. The 101 pavement has perpendicular separation voids about every 6 ft or so.

My question is, why didn't they try this paving method on a portion of the freeway system first before deciding to lay that asphalt topper everywhere? They should have just left it all concrete IMO--now they have a mess to deal with.

Rubberized asphalt is a huge waste of money and the quality is horrible. It's one of many serious blunders by our wonderful ADOT. What they did when they built the freeways is lay down the concrete, then poured this rubberized crap on top of it. The concrete was good enough as it was, but that apparently wasn't good enough for ADOT or some of the people who complained about the traffic noise from concrete.

So that's the main reason why the freeways have rubber asphalt: it's supposedly quieter. Quite frankly, I don't care about a quiet freeway ... I care about smooth driving conditions, which asphalt does not always offer, but concrete usually does. Freeways are SUPPOSED to be noisy! The complainers who raised a fuss about the noise need to move to a small, quiet town where there are no freeways or traffic problems.

[lvmensch]

Here is the ADOT discussion.

Note the Federal Memo which basically says they don't buy it for noise abatement.

https://www.azdot.gov/business/envir...vement-program

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by DougStark

Thanks for pointing that out. Those lane dividers are (or were) very effective. Now I know what they're called.

There is only one piece of highway in the whole valley that still uses the Botts Dots, and that is the ramp that goes from 48th St to Broadway Rd off of eastbound I-10

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Here is the ADOT discussion.

Note the Federal Memo which basically says they don't buy it for noise abatement.

https://www.azdot.gov/business/envir...vement-program

But in that same link, ADOT admitted to using rubberized asphalt as noise reduction for "quieter freeways". I guess the fine folks at ADOT (and those living near freeways) are too ignorant to realize that freeways which handle a high amount of traffic traveling at a rapid pace aren't supposed to be "quiet".

A three-year, $34 million project to surface about 115 miles of Phoenix-area freeways with rubberized asphalt is working toward a smoother ride for motorists and quieter neighborhoods for those who live adjacent to the roads.

[wase4711]

asphalt, is one of the worst things you want on your roads; coming from Illinois,(sorry to bring that up again), with the Illinois Road Builders Association being one of the largest political Lobbyists/contributors to state legislators, they ALWAYS used Asphalt on EVERY major road/highway, since they know it only lasts a short time, and they can be assured of repaving projects every few years because that crap wont last on roads.

why they would bother with it in AZ is a mystery to me, unless it involves financial donations from that group of lobbyists..