5 reasons you should ride to work, and 5 you probably don't

[wizdofaus]

http://pedalingtowork.blogspot.com/2013/02/gridlock.html

The part you wrote about road maintenance is garbage - roads carrying light traffic will last a very, very long time, it is heavy vehicles that do the damage. These heavy vehicles are not full of commuters (apart from buses, which are a necessity) and therefore will not be impacted by even super take up of cycling. A road with no light vehicles but still carrying the same volume of heavy vehicles will deteriorate at much the same rate and magnitude.

Do you have stats to back that up? The average suburban road carries a LOT more weight in cars than in trucks.
Of course, there's plenty of opportunities to reduce our dependence on heavy vehicles too - indeed, bus commuters are an easy target for cycling advocates.

[Mulger bill]

Road damage comes down to axle load more than anything else IIRC an old paper I read BWWW.

[il padrone]

Try this

road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars

[Mulger bill]

Thanks Pete.
Looking at this pic...

methinks a transport dept somewhere should invest in a km of completely seperated (and enforced) HGV only lane on a freeway somewhere and see what happens over six months.

[find_bruce]

Actually the Australian Road Research Board (now ARRB) have a big machine (accelerated load facility) that does just that.

The problem with real world tests is that there are two different issues, wear caused by use at the intended axle loads and damage caused by excessive axle loads.

[DavidS]

You should add in the parking space required at destination. Typical car space is 4.9m by about 3.0m plus the access road needed.

100 people

DS

[wizdofaus]

Thanks Pete.
Looking at this pic...

methinks a transport dept somewhere should invest in a km of completely seperated (and enforced) HGV only lane on a freeway somewhere and see what happens over six months.

I'm guessing that photo is from North Eastern US? By far the worst paved roads I've ever driven on are there (and I've driven in some fairly out of the way the places, in Thailand, remote parts of the Italian alps & southern Chile, etc.). I gather extreme weather is a part of the problem.
Arguably bicycles need better quality paving than cars (well ok, the sort of bicycles I like to ride), but it has be an order of magnitude cheaper to lay down and maintain a track just for bicycles than it is a road that carries motorised traffic.

[il padrone]

Toorak Rd Hartwell is not too much better than that road. Just the big slab of concrete down the middle for the tram tracks saves it, and that used to be timber blocks once. This road also does not have huge numbers of truck traffic on it.

[wizdofaus]

Toorak Rd Hartwell is not too much better than that road. Just the big slab of concrete down the middle for the tram tracks saves it, and that used to be timber blocks once. This road also does not have huge numbers of truck traffic on it.

Heh, I work just there (near the railway bridge). I wouldn't say it really compares to your photo, but it's definitely one of the worst roads in that general area - almost every time I ride along it I think I've got a flat. I assume there's some particular reason maintenance has been delayed on it. It's surely a case where the damage is primarily coming from commuters - there's no buses along there either that I'm aware of.

[human909]

Obviously you guys haven't seen The Boulevard in East Ivanhoe it has potholes that can swallow a bike!
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=the+boul ... 0,,0,15.67

[wizdofaus]

Obviously you guys haven't seen The Boulevard in East Ivanhoe it has potholes that can swallow a bike!
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=the+boul ... 0,,0,15.67

I've ridden along there a few times too - but certainly not on my roadie. I'd say the condition of that road is, well, at least arguably suitable to the sort of area it serves. But again, nice evidence of how much damage light traffic can do over the years.

[Dan]

That's not evidence at all. Its just an image of the road condition.

[wizdofaus]

That's not evidence at all. Its just an image of the road condition.

You're suggesting it was caused entirely by a mini-earthquake? Rampaging tree roots? (and yes, of course both tectonic movement and tree roots can do a lot of damage, but I seriously doubt it caused all that - then again I have seen bike paths in not much better condition, so I'm prepared to be proven wrong).

[Dan]

That's not evidence at all. Its just an image of the road condition.

You're suggesting it was caused entirely by a mini-earthquake? Rampaging tree roots? (and yes, of course both tectonic movement and tree roots can do a lot of damage, but I seriously doubt it caused all that - then again I have seen bike paths in not much better condition, so I'm prepared to be proven wrong).

I'm not suggesting that at all. What I said was that an image of a road is not evidence of damage being caused by light vehicle traffic. You're right - those things you mentioned (plus many other causes) could have contributed, as could have light (and/or heavy) vehicle traffic. I suspect what you need to now do is trawl the internet for some kind of research paper stating that continuous light vehicle traffic causes road damage, then present it here at the exclusion of any research to the contrary.

[il padrone]

Obviously you guys haven't seen The Boulevard in East Ivanhoe it has potholes that can swallow a bike!
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=the+boul ... 0,,0,15.67

I've ridden along there a few times too - but certainly not on my roadie. I'd say the condition of that road is, well, at least arguably suitable to the sort of area it serves. But again, nice evidence of how much damage light traffic can do over the years.

Ah, there is actually more to the story of that road's decrepitude. It is a private road, so all maintenance is up to the residents, not the local council (much less Vicroads). The local residents have let it decay, perhaps to deter tourist traffic.

[KenGS]

I suspect what you need to now do is trawl the internet for some kind of research paper stating that continuous light vehicle traffic causes road damage, then present it here at the exclusion of any research to the contrary.

Bad news Dan. This is an internet forum.

[wizdofaus]

I suspect what you need to now do is trawl the internet for some kind of research paper stating that continuous light vehicle traffic causes road damage, then present it here at the exclusion of any research to the contrary.

Bad news Dan. This is an internet forum.

It's a fair call though. And indeed what material I've managed to find does back up the main point - that the damage done by "light" vehicles is actually surprisingly little, compared even, say, to the weather.
I'll rethink that particular section of the post, seeing it was slightly tangential to the primary discussion about congestion anyway. I'm thinking of replacing it with a description of how bicycle traffic doesn't require the same sort of forced stop-start travel in order to support intersections safely, but not sure if it's that big a deal really...

[wellington_street]

Road damage comes down to axle load more than anything else IIRC an old paper I read BWWW.

yes, that's correct, along with the positioning of those axles, i.e. those 2 and 3 axles spaced closely together don't turn individually, so when the vehicle turns, the wheels scrape along the road (shearing) which is why you get badly warped pavements at intersections

if the wizard has access to Austroads, he can enjoy some good bedtime reading, e.g:
https://www.onlinepublications.austroad ... AP-T216-13
https://www.onlinepublications.austroad ... AP-R402-12
https://www.onlinepublications.austroad ... AP-R402-12

Austroads' Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design will also give you a good basic understanding of how pavement damage occurs.

[Dan]

Bad news Dan. This is an internet forum.

Bad news Ken, I think you missed the irony. Mods, still waiting for the :Alanis: smiley...

[human909]

Ah, there is actually more to the story of that road's decrepitude. It is a private road, so all maintenance is up to the residents, not the local council (much less Vicroads). The local residents have let it decay, perhaps to deter tourist traffic.

Close to the truth, either way I'm impressed that you know it. It is true that it is a private road, however council has far from washed its hands from it. Maintenance has always been considered a council responsibility and council has regularly performed basic maintenance of filling in the big pot holes. Usually this occurs with the left over asphalt from a near by job.

Recently however the council considered completely rebuilding the road. A few council members were particularly keen to do so and likely had vested interests. One concern raised was public liability. However after resident consultation it was decided that the majority of residents preferred no change to the status quo. So the council gave up on their proposal.

[KenGS]

Bad news Dan. This is an internet forum.

Bad news Ken, I think you missed the irony. Mods, still waiting for the :Alanis: smiley...

touche'

[Dan]

I'd actually use the :alanis: smiley loads. The just doesn't cut it.

[wizdofaus]

Updated the article to change the focus of that point - that even if there's space to build enough roads to reduce congestion, often there's simply not the budget for it.

[find_bruce]

Updated the article to change the focus of that point - that even if there's space to build enough roads to reduce congestion, often there's simply not the budget for it.

To quote Mulger Bill quoting someone else, building roads to reduce congestion is like buying a bigger belt to cure obesity

[il padrone]

I tracked down this reference using Google, actually on a slightly different, but related, issue.

Paul Billings of the American Lung Association, "Building more roads to solve an air pollution problem is like buying a larger pair of pants to solve an obesity problem."

http://exurbannation.blogspot.com.au/20 ... stion.html