Thank you for sharing! I would be interested in more up-to-date resources if you have them. Additionally, I still believe that the “poor/cheap” element is not entirely accurate until further evidence is provided. You yourself seem to suggest that it is more related to the sheer size of freeways and interstates that make open-graded mixes cost-ineffective, which I agree with.
You yourself seem to suggest that it is more related to the sheer size of freeways and interstates that make open-graded mixes cost-ineffective, which I agree with.
No, what I said is that you can absolutely use open asphalt outside of freeways, but that the benefit is smaller. Whether or not you want to do it all depends on how you weigh your cost-benefit analysis. Many Dutch cities use it in the city for noise reduction, regardless of higher cost. But if you value things like noise and splash reduction less, then the cost-benefit will land more solidly on “don’t build expensive things”.
Thanks for the slight correction. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I still believe that the “poor/cheap” element is not entirely accurate until further evidence is provided. You yourself point out that it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis, which can be tremendously swayed by land use (noise reduction matters less with lower density) and practical considerations (America is just… really really big).
Thank you for sharing! I would be interested in more up-to-date resources if you have them. Additionally, I still believe that the “poor/cheap” element is not entirely accurate until further evidence is provided. You yourself seem to suggest that it is more related to the sheer size of freeways and interstates that make open-graded mixes cost-ineffective, which I agree with.
No, what I said is that you can absolutely use open asphalt outside of freeways, but that the benefit is smaller. Whether or not you want to do it all depends on how you weigh your cost-benefit analysis. Many Dutch cities use it in the city for noise reduction, regardless of higher cost. But if you value things like noise and splash reduction less, then the cost-benefit will land more solidly on “don’t build expensive things”.
Thanks for the slight correction. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I still believe that the “poor/cheap” element is not entirely accurate until further evidence is provided. You yourself point out that it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis, which can be tremendously swayed by land use (noise reduction matters less with lower density) and practical considerations (America is just… really really big).