If asphalt is a problem, use concrete.

If oil is a problem, use biomass, Hemp, or even algee (which can be grown vertically), and then as an option, for serial hybrids; google "Fisker Karma".

by Douglas Willinger on Nov 15, 2008 10:08 pm  

Concrete can be used for new construction, or major reconstruction.

However, for most street/road maintenance, including regular repaving (i.e. mill-and-overlay), it's not that easy.

by Froggie on Nov 16, 2008 9:39 am  

Concrete is both more expensive, and more labor intensive for its construction and maintenance. Hence the point of the post.

by Cavan on Nov 16, 2008 2:26 pm  

Great post. Great blog too. I just found it and I've been checking it out.

>>>And, most frustrating of all, is we are sinking so many resources into building highways that we might not even be able to maintain in the very near future<<<

Yeah, Kunstler refers to this as the psychology of previous investment. It's very frustrating indeed.

I actually host a weekly podcast with Kunstler and we discuss these issues every week. It would be great to have and hear from more listeners in the DC area.

http://kunstlercast.com

by DC on Nov 16, 2008 3:50 pm  

Cavan: only upfront is it more expensive/labor intensive. Concrete actually has lower life-cycle cost than asphalt, in part because with proper maintenance, concrete can go upwards of 40 years before requiring any major work. Whereas asphalt typically needs the top layer stripped and redone at about 7-10 years.

by Froggie on Nov 16, 2008 7:31 pm  

Thank you for the information. That is good to know. So it's more expensive to build, but lasts longer. Hmm... perhaps that means that we'll finally be forced to maintain what we've got before we go building more new roads.

Also, it sounds like it will be a boon for a walkable place. There will be a smaller land area of roads per capita so it will be cheaper to build them compared to the alternative. They will also last longer. Exciting stuff.

by Cavan on Nov 16, 2008 7:40 pm  

No. We need to build the D.C. grade separated highway system out of hi quality concrete and get away from this jesuitical distraction that we can not afford highways AND transit while far more $$ trillions are p*ssed away by the Pentagon/Pentagram, including for such things as "REX 84".

Although they are building an ICC, the authorities have utterly neglected completing the grade separated highway network within the beltway, asides from the ill conceived 11th Street Bridges replacement project (with its inexcusable treatment of its approaches).

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/11/11th-street-bridges-fiasco-evacuation.html

by Douglas Willinger on Nov 16, 2008 9:26 pm  

Doug, I'll be the first to agree that some of the cancelled routes would have been VERY useful and had a lot of utility. But face it...given today's world, and what would likely be even heavier opposition now than 40 years ago, they're just not realistic.

by Froggie on Nov 16, 2008 10:10 pm  

I doubt that would necessarily be the case with general public, with good designs and funding (e.g. we would also build new transit, starting with a Purple Line.

But as for that which now sits at the top of the pyramid, you are alas absolutely correct!

by Douglas Willinger on Nov 16, 2008 10:37 pm  

Concrete is definitely better, but it too has flaws. In addition to the large amount of energy needed to pulverize stone in a concrete kiln, it produces a lot of carbon dioxide, and it's hard to reuse. Probably better over time than asphalt, but still something to consider before pouring money into the problem.

Kunstler is an interesting individual. A parlor trick my college roommate could do was to transpose lullabies and kids' songs into a minor key. It was creepy to hear them performed so, and Kunstler seems to operate on the same principle. He says things that are not untrue, but aren't really new, and frames them apocalyptically but compellingly.

Why not be interested in solutions and healthy conservation, rather than rambling melodramatically in purple but crude prose or complaining about even the good things that are happening? He stakes all of his solutions on the eventualities (as he sees them), and past examples, rather than trying to make the fall soft enough to survive peak oil without total economic contraction. I would also like to note that his understanding architecture history is superficial and generally factually wrong, criticisms notwithstanding.

by The King of Spain on Nov 16, 2008 11:23 pm  

King, well said. I think the peak oil theorists' warnings are something to be heeded, but not taken completely literally. There will be effects. I think that our experience this summer with $4/gal gasoline was a nice little preview.

Nevertheless, times are changing and it's important to recognize where things are going and be shrewder with our natural resources. I think one obvious point is getting away from this pave over everything mentality and move towards a diversified transportation system. The good news there is that we have a very mature road system. We need to maintain it, not build more. We need intracity and intercity rail, too. We'll need to be able to move people and goods around without oil or asphalt because they will be increasingly expensive in the future.

by Cavan on Nov 16, 2008 11:43 pm  

Bottom line, asphalt is cheaper than concrete, but the gap is closing:

http://www.roadsbridges.com/Cost-and-Performance-of-Concrete-article679

by RJ on Nov 17, 2008 8:32 am  

I would love to see a Marshall Plan on building up our public transportation infrastructure. If we are going to bail out Detroit, they should be an integral part in not just pushing non-carbon base fueled cars, but building highspeed trains and trolleys in coordination with the Federal government building rail lines. We (the taxpayer) have been directly and indirectly subsidizing the automobile, and by extension, suburbia, at the expense of our urban cores. With the global demand on oil, it's time to play catch-up with a sustainable future that won't relegate us to fighting for these dwindling resources.

by Thayer-D on Nov 17, 2008 8:35 am  

It's so frustrating to drive the VA beltway every day and be witness to each and every step of the deceptively expensive HOT Lanes Swindle, KNOWING that even under the most rosey scenario, gas will be around $4 bucks a gallon when the thing is done and only then will everyone go "oh, we should have built a 3 light rail lines into Tysons Corner for the same cost instead". So frustrating.

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 17, 2008 10:28 am  

Cavan - I agree with you, but I wonder what the most likely disposition is of someone who believes that even the most optimistic, visionary, impossible-to-fund measures being dreamed now are a factor of ten too small. When your studied opinion is that asphaltenes will be too valuable to the chemical industry to spend paving roads, how do you see the value in lobbying for incremental change? To even begin to make the case for revolutionary change you have to scare people into believing in the possibilities.

Kunstler's calm, apocalyptic certainty has been both a moderating influence to the "doomers" who are more inclined to give up on society and buy a survival compound, and to the unaware, which he's been valuable in informing of the problems posed by Peak Oil to our country in particular.

Alt-energy has progressed, the production plateau & price crisis has scared the populace, & awareness of the problem has been raised to the point that the future he envisions is no longer a certainty, and he's part of the reason for the latter point.

by Squalish on Nov 17, 2008 3:46 pm  

That's one of the reasons I got in this game. I believe that our best days are still yet to come. I see his commentary as the future if we select the "no build" option.

We have to make it happen. We have two choices. We plan and do something and shape history. Or, we get swept away by its change. The fundamental supply and demand ratios for certain raw materials will be what they will be. It will up to us to adapt and plan to make ourselves a better nation.

Incremental change always comes before monumental change. Incremental change lets people get a taste of it and see that the world doesn't end, and that it is good. I think I said something to that effect in one of my Wheaton posts. In the '80s and '90s, many were skeptical about whether TOD in Bethesda and Arlington would work. In the beginning of this decade, many were convinced that downtown Silver Spring and downtown Rockville's best days were long behind them. Same with most of DC. Now that these places are clearly successes, every jurisdiction in the region wants to get some. From Reston, to Tysons to Springfield to Hyattsville, to the suburban parts of DC, everyone has plans to do some sort of TOD. Some are better than others, but at least the concept is not scary anymore.

We will need much, more walkable urban development. We have to set the stage for it, otherwise our future elected officials won't have a blueprint to get it done when the cost of raw materials will make it essential.

As for me, I'm 27. I believe that my personal best days are ahead of me. Same for the region. Same for the United States. I first moved here in 1999 to attend the University of Maryland. I remember what DuPont and Logan and Adams Morgan were like back then. I've seen them become national centers for cosmopolitan living. Places I cherish deeply. Places that make me proud to be a Washingtonian because they are so vibrant. Places I show people from out of town after we do the tourist stuff. If that can happen, based on what they looked like in the '90s, the sky is the limit. Of course, in retrospect, the first wave of 21st century urban revitalization was the low-hanging fruit, merely the beginning of the beginning.

by Cavan on Nov 17, 2008 4:22 pm  

Kunstler's views on energy are very well informed. I don't share all of his politiics, and his views on new urbanism are naive, but he has done his homework on the energy situation.

"Smart Growth" was unveiled by Gov. Glendening in 1996 as a cover for the ICC project, it allowed for "connector roads" to be built between cities, ie. designated growth areas. It sounds nice unless you think about it.

And "smart growth" could only make sense if the dumb growth was removed when the allegedly better growth was being built. In reality it's just another scam for more pavement and concrete to replace forests and farm soils.

The thickness of the breathable part of the atmosphere is less than the diameter of the Capitol Beltway - whatever we all do on Earth takes place in a very thin film of air. That is the reason to stop converting forests into condos, connector roads, etc. We are in overshoot, it might last a bit longer but in nature it is a cancer cell that thinks it can grow forever (it kills the host).

The real issues of post Peak Oil:

- the economy requires endless growth on a finite planet. On the energy downslope this will no longer be possible. Some of the early winds of the economic contraction are already blowing.

- oil is very energy dense. Solar power is great - I've used it for two decades

- but it's not going to replace fossil fuels. Solar panels and wind turbines are ways to use fossil fuels, not alternatives to them. We should use the rest of the oil to make as many as possible, but we've waited far too long for the shift.

- half of the electricity is from coal, another sixth from natural gas (declining faster than oil) and about a fifth from generation of nuclear wastes.

The most important issue is not personal mobility but transportation of food. Future generations will find it hard to believe that anyone would live thousands of kilometers from their food supplies, this is a one time event in the history of the human race.

Unfortunately, the "environmental" movement is stuck lobbying two-faced Democrats and not doing much of anything to help communities prepare for the permanent economic shock. Teaching practical skills - bicycle coops, car sharing, tearing out lawns and parking lots to grow food, insulating homes - these are going to be needed on a scale that most of us cannot imagine.

Fun fact: Federal Transportation law requires federally funded highways to anticipate a two decade planning horizon, so a road approved now would be for traffic in 2030. But we are at Peak Traffic as well as Peak Oil. It's anyone's guess what oil or traffic levels will be in 2030, but since oil and traffic levels matched almost perfectly on the rise up the Peak Oil curve, they're going to match roughly the same on the downslope. That is a reason new highway capacity is not needed, whether widening existing roads or building new ones through forests and farms.

Details are at http://www.road-scholar.org
Peak Traffic: Planning NAFTA Superhighways at the End of the Age of Oil
Troubled Bridges Over Water: Time for Transportation Triage

by Mark Robinowitz on Aug 7, 2010 9:26 am