Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Moderator: Site Management Team
Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
I notice on new motorways in Eastern Europe some are using concrete slab surfaces. It makes me wonder why in the UK and Ireland don't we do this? Is it more expensive? Bumpier surface?
I would have thought concrete had far more longevity than tarmac which would cut the cost of maintenance long term.
I have always been curious why we don't use concrete.
I would have thought concrete had far more longevity than tarmac which would cut the cost of maintenance long term.
I have always been curious why we don't use concrete.
- FosseWay
- Assistant Site Manager
- Posts: 19621
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
We have done in the past -- quite a bit of the M42 is concrete, for example.
I can't answer your question from a cost or engineering perspective, but from the user perspective I'm very glad it's not widely used in the UK and Ireland. It's very noisy and rather bumpy compared to even worn-out tarmac.
I can't answer your question from a cost or engineering perspective, but from the user perspective I'm very glad it's not widely used in the UK and Ireland. It's very noisy and rather bumpy compared to even worn-out tarmac.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15744
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Some of the SW quadrant of the M25 is concrete too, or at least used to be. It's too noisy, just ask anyone who lives near the A50 between Stoke and Derby where there are long stretches of concrete. Yes, it's hard wearing, but it's a bugger to fix if damaged, and the white lines disappear from view quickly in rain as well.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Agreed. Stretches of the M90 were the same, it was always a relief to get past them and back on to tarmac. I also got the impression that you never got quite the same grip on concrete as you did on tarmac.FosseWay wrote:We have done in the past -- quite a bit of the M42 is concrete, for example.
I can't answer your question from a cost or engineering perspective, but from the user perspective I'm very glad it's not widely used in the UK and Ireland. It's very noisy and rather bumpy compared to even worn-out tarmac.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Yes, it's awful to drive on. Part of the M90 has been patched that many times its like dring on a washboard. The A90 Brechin bypass is just noisy.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
It looks like they're laying tarmac over it in piecemeal stages just now. There were certainly some resurfacing works around junction 5 a few months ago and I'm sure one side of the motorway near junction 7 was resurfaced recently as well. Whether the plan is to resurface all the concrete sections between junction's 5 and 8, I don't know but it does seem to be slowly disappearing.A8000Bob wrote:Yes, it's awful to drive on. Part of the M90 has been patched that many times its like dring on a washboard. The A90 Brechin bypass is just noisy.
I've never found the Brechin bypass to be as bad to drive over compared with the M90 but that's probably because it's not as patched as the latter.
- RichardA626
- Member
- Posts: 7811
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 22:19
- Location: Stockport
- Contact:
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
The M60 between junctions 1 & 2 used to used concrete due to the fact it was built on what used to be Heaton Mersey engine shed yard, & there was a lot of ash & clinker in the ground.
It used to be very noisy to drive over.
It used to be very noisy to drive over.
Beware of the trickster on the roof
- novaecosse
- Member
- Posts: 4722
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
- Location: Dundee, Scotland
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Brechin isn't jointed concrete. It's continuously reinforced. Which means its pleases itself where it cracks, and when the cracks join up, bits pop out.Burns wrote:It looks like they're laying tarmac over it in piecemeal stages just now. There were certainly some resurfacing works around junction 5 a few months ago and I'm sure one side of the motorway near junction 7 was resurfaced recently as well. Whether the plan is to resurface all the concrete sections between junction's 5 and 8, I don't know but it does seem to be slowly disappearing.A8000Bob wrote:Yes, it's awful to drive on. Part of the M90 has been patched that many times its like dring on a washboard. The A90 Brechin bypass is just noisy.
I've never found the Brechin bypass to be as bad to drive over compared with the M90 but that's probably because it's not as patched as the latter.
M90 Southbound is in better condition than Northbound, so has been getting concrete repairs and then overlaid with a thin surface course.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Can anyone tell me why it is that even on concrete road sections they seem to use tarmac when the road is on a bridge - e.g. SW M25? Is it because tarmac is lighter so the bridge can be less strong than if concrete is used?
Ian (M5 Driver)
Ian (M5 Driver)
AKA M5 Driver
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15744
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
I think that's exactly it. There may be something about heat expansion and contraction involved as well.IAN wrote:Can anyone tell me why it is that even on concrete road sections they seem to use tarmac when the road is on a bridge - e.g. SW M25? Is it because tarmac is lighter so the bridge can be less strong than if concrete is used?
Ian (M5 Driver)
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
I think it's because tarmac is more flexible and so will last longer on a bridge with expansion/contraction.
Or, it may just be that they had to resurface the bridge due to maintanence and did it with tarmac as that is now the standard.
Although your issue of weight may also be correct, I've seen in France they use steel reinforcement in their concrete subbases, though I don't know if that was the practice in the UK or not.
Or, it may just be that they had to resurface the bridge due to maintanence and did it with tarmac as that is now the standard.
Although your issue of weight may also be correct, I've seen in France they use steel reinforcement in their concrete subbases, though I don't know if that was the practice in the UK or not.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Quite the contrary. Concrete is cheaper, provides the smoother surface and keeps in shape for much longer than asphalt. However, concrete has a disadvantage over asphalt, a decisive one in fact. It takes the cement a full four weeks to hydrate while asphalt cools down and is loadable within hours. The heavily trafficked motorways in Britain rarely allow to close an entire carriageway for two or more months. So they lay asphalt instead.odlum wrote:I notice on new motorways in Eastern Europe some are using concrete slab surfaces. It makes me wonder why in the UK and Ireland don't we do this? Is it more expensive? Bumpier surface?
The newly built motorways in Ireland are a different matter though. I presume that concrete hasn't been considered simply because Britain don't build concrete motorways anymore. Another reason may be that the Irish motorway network is simply too small, so that it isn't economic viable for the Irish construction industry to acquire the necessary concrete mixing and concrete laying machinery.
- Johnathan404
- Member
- Posts: 11478
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:54
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
In the UK most, if not all concrete surfaces will be 30-40 years old, which is probably why they are so bumpy, noisy, poorly-drained and generally unsightly.
However one big disadvantage for concrete is that low sun can make it difficult to see the road markings.
It does make an awful noise when you drive on it though.
However one big disadvantage for concrete is that low sun can make it difficult to see the road markings.
It does make an awful noise when you drive on it though.
Last edited by Johnathan404 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 20:14, edited 1 time in total.
I have websites about: motorway services | Fareham
- dragonv480
- Member
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 23:14
- Location: Dumfries and Galloway
- Contact:
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Concrete also has a much higher road noise associated with it, both for drivers and people living near by
Cheers!
Gaz Wilson
Gaz Wilson
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
I was under the impression that it was done to preserve the life of the bridge deck. Although hard wearing, Concrete surfaces will need redoing eventually - if only for skid resistance etc. By using tarmac on the bridge the surafce can easily be planed off and a fresh layer applied withot adversley affecting the strength of the bridge structure. As you say it may also allow the acyual design of bridge deck to be shallower than would overwise be the caseIAN wrote:Can anyone tell me why it is that even on concrete road sections they seem to use tarmac when the road is on a bridge - e.g. SW M25? Is it because tarmac is lighter so the bridge can be less strong than if concrete is used?
Ian (M5 Driver)
In the USA I believe its the other way round and they frequently have concreate decks even when the rest of the road is tarmac. However this is done with the intention of replacing the whole bridge deck when required.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Very true. Certanly there were quite a few new build roads in the 80s and early 90s to use it, the M20 Ashford - Maidstone, parts of the M40 between Oxford & Warick, the A27 between Havant & Chichester and quite long bits of the M25 - all the way from Sevenoaks to the M3 IIRC.firefly wrote:Quite the contrary. Concrete is cheaper, provides the smoother surface and keeps in shape for much longer than asphalt. However, concrete has a disadvantage over asphalt, a decisive one in fact. It takes the cement a full four weeks to hydrate while asphalt cools down and is loadable within hours. The heavily trafficked motorways in Britain rarely allow to close an entire carriageway for two or more months. So they lay asphalt instead.odlum wrote:I notice on new motorways in Eastern Europe some are using concrete slab surfaces. It makes me wonder why in the UK and Ireland don't we do this? Is it more expensive? Bumpier surface?
The newly built motorways in Ireland are a different matter though. I presume that concrete hasn't been considered simply because Britain don't build concrete motorways anymore. Another reason may be that the Irish motorway network is simply too small, so that it isn't economic viable for the Irish construction industry to acquire the necessary concrete mixing and concrete laying machinery.
- sotonsteve
- Member
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 21:01
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Anybody heard of whisper concrete? A concrete surface that is as quiet as low noise asphalt.
On the A12 south of Boreham part of the concrete road surface has been experimentally retextured and is surprisingly quiet. It is a myth that all concrete surfaces are noisy, concrete can be done quietly, but the reason it isn't done in the UK is perhaps because it gained a reputation for being noisy at a time before low noise concrete had been developed, and the stereotype stuck.
On the A12 south of Boreham part of the concrete road surface has been experimentally retextured and is surprisingly quiet. It is a myth that all concrete surfaces are noisy, concrete can be done quietly, but the reason it isn't done in the UK is perhaps because it gained a reputation for being noisy at a time before low noise concrete had been developed, and the stereotype stuck.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Using asphalt avoids things like this and this happening
Sotonsteve, according to the first article I linked to above the A30 from Honiton to Exeter was surfaced with whisper concrete "But surface noise levels were much higher than expected" and the local residents have been up in arms ever since campaigning for an asphalt surface.
Sotonsteve, according to the first article I linked to above the A30 from Honiton to Exeter was surfaced with whisper concrete "But surface noise levels were much higher than expected" and the local residents have been up in arms ever since campaigning for an asphalt surface.
- andrewwoods
- Member
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:23
- Location: Poole
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
Johnathan404 wrote:In the UK most, if not all concrete surfaces will be 30-40 years old, which is probably why they are so bumpy, noisy, poorly-drained and generally unsightly.
I remember the original bits of the M40 were in concrete - it was really noisy, even when it was new.
Re: Concrete on motorways - why don't we use it?
The A50 (Doveridge bypass section) is late 90s, that is concrete. As others have said it is noisy, I can remember locals putting up banners protesting at the noise the surface caused.Johnathan404 wrote:In the UK most, if not all concrete surfaces will be 30-40 years old, which is probably why they are so bumpy, noisy, poorly-drained and generally unsightly.
However one big disadvantage for concrete is that low sun can make it difficult to see the road markings.
It does make an awful noise when you drive on it though.
When driving on concrete the constant changes to tarmac on the bridges just make the noise seem worse.