Higher Speed = More Road Maintenance

[Ext User(King Beasley)]

Higher speeds mean more road maintenance. That's certainly the case for
dirt roads, I'd assume this is would also be the case for sealed roads.

Could this be one of the reasons GovCo's are so reluctant to bring in a
more reasonable 120 or 130 on our dual carriageways?

[Ext User(Allan A)]

Speed of the vehicle has precious little to do with maintenance
requirements, except in the case of a fresh seal where the bitumen hasn't
yet thickened up (viscosity wise) and stone loss will result. Hence go slow
on new construction.

Pavements are designed structurally to carry a specific number of
"equivalent standard axles" - which translates to numbers of heavy
vehicles - over a given lifetime. Typically 20 years for flexible pavements.
Provided the seal is maintained (ie, water kept out), the materials are OK
and the construction carried out properly, and the estimates of traffic over
the 20 years are reasonably close, then the design life should be achieved.
Speed doesn't come into the design equation.

A bitumen surface is generally likely to fail because of the environmental
effects over time - UV light eventually makes the bitumen brittle and it
cracks and breaks up, even if there is no traffic at all.

Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of variables
including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as a
rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not credible.

Notwithstanding the above, there are exceptions. When F1 first came to
Adelaide in the '80s, a special hotmix surface had to be designed to cope
with the massive acceleration and grip that the tyres transmitted to the
road surface. And any manholes in the roads (it was a street circuit) had to
be bolted down so the tyres didn't pick them up and hurl them in the air....

Allan A

"King Beasley" <headhoncho@alp.org.au> wrote in message
news:42f4b15c@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Higher speeds mean more road maintenance. That's certainly the case for
> dirt roads, I'd assume this is would also be the case for sealed roads.
>
> Could this be one of the reasons GovCo's are so reluctant to bring in a
> more reasonable 120 or 130 on our dual carriageways?

[Ext User(Hotman Paris Hutapea)]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:55:35 +1000, "Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
>vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of variables
>including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as a
>rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
>that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
>statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not credible.
>

bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.

cars don't wear out roads.

--

Attorney at Law
5/37 Paknabiel Way
Denpasar, Indonesia.

[Ext User(reg-john)]

"Hotman Paris Hutapea" <legal@eagle.com> wrote in message
news:8nf9f1992nkp0v5410kp16t8vnf7he8d3j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:55:35 +1000, "Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
>>vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of variables
>>including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as a
>>rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
>>that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
>>statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not credible.
>>
>
> bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.
>
> cars don't wear out roads.

they do you fucking twit.



>
> --
>
> Attorney at Law
> 5/37 Paknabiel Way
> Denpasar, Indonesia.

[Ext User(JD)]

Allan A wrote:

> Speed of the vehicle has precious little to do with maintenance
> requirements, except in the case of a fresh seal where the bitumen hasn't
> yet thickened up (viscosity wise) and stone loss will result. Hence go
> slow on new construction.
>
> Pavements are designed structurally to carry a specific number of
> "equivalent standard axles" - which translates to numbers of heavy
> vehicles - over a given lifetime. Typically 20 years for flexible
> pavements. Provided the seal is maintained (ie, water kept out), the
> materials are OK and the construction carried out properly, and the
> estimates of traffic over the 20 years are reasonably close, then the
> design life should be achieved. Speed doesn't come into the design
> equation.
>
> A bitumen surface is generally likely to fail because of the environmental
> effects over time - UV light eventually makes the bitumen brittle and it
> cracks and breaks up, even if there is no traffic at all.
>
> Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
> vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of variables
> including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as a
> rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
> that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
> statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not credible.
>
> Notwithstanding the above, there are exceptions. When F1 first came to
> Adelaide in the '80s, a special hotmix surface had to be designed to cope
> with the massive acceleration and grip that the tyres transmitted to the
> road surface. And any manholes in the roads (it was a street circuit) had
> to be bolted down so the tyres didn't pick them up and hurl them in the
> air....
>
> Allan A

This analysis assumes the surface has no irregularities that are large
relative to the size of the wheel. As soon as these exist - and they are
common, mostly due to the poor design or construction of the pavement
foundations, but also due to failure of the water seal - the force on the
sides of the irregularity and hence its rate of wear is a function of the
vehicle speed, although in practice this varies less than variation in axle
loading. For example, an increase of 30% in speed (which is what is being
discussed) has less much effect than the difference between axle loadings
of perhaps one tonne for a large car to perhaps five tonnes for a heavy
vehicle or 500%.

A recent trip up the Hume from Melbourne to Yass just after the recent rain
revealed a number of holes large enough to risk major damage to small cars.
As you would expect , all were in the left lane where most traffic travels
- but is it coincidence that all were in the freeway sections where speeds
are generally higher?
JD

[Ext User(Tsunami)]

"JD" <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote in message
news:42f52008@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Allan A wrote:
>
> > Speed of the vehicle has precious little to do with maintenance
> > requirements, except in the case of a fresh seal where the bitumen
hasn't
> > yet thickened up (viscosity wise) and stone loss will result. Hence go
> > slow on new construction.
> >
> > Pavements are designed structurally to carry a specific number of
> > "equivalent standard axles" - which translates to numbers of heavy
> > vehicles - over a given lifetime. Typically 20 years for flexible
> > pavements. Provided the seal is maintained (ie, water kept out), the
> > materials are OK and the construction carried out properly, and the
> > estimates of traffic over the 20 years are reasonably close, then the
> > design life should be achieved. Speed doesn't come into the design
> > equation.
> >
> > A bitumen surface is generally likely to fail because of the
environmental
> > effects over time - UV light eventually makes the bitumen brittle and it
> > cracks and breaks up, even if there is no traffic at all.
> >
> > Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
> > vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of
variables
> > including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as
a
> > rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
> > that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
> > statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not
credible.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the above, there are exceptions. When F1 first came to
> > Adelaide in the '80s, a special hotmix surface had to be designed to
cope
> > with the massive acceleration and grip that the tyres transmitted to the
> > road surface. And any manholes in the roads (it was a street circuit)
had
> > to be bolted down so the tyres didn't pick them up and hurl them in the
> > air....
> >
> > Allan A
>
> This analysis assumes the surface has no irregularities that are large
> relative to the size of the wheel. As soon as these exist - and they are
> common, mostly due to the poor design or construction of the pavement
> foundations, but also due to failure of the water seal - the force on the
> sides of the irregularity and hence its rate of wear is a function of the
> vehicle speed, although in practice this varies less than variation in
axle
> loading. For example, an increase of 30% in speed (which is what is being
> discussed) has less much effect than the difference between axle loadings
> of perhaps one tonne for a large car to perhaps five tonnes for a heavy
> vehicle or 500%.
>
> A recent trip up the Hume from Melbourne to Yass just after the recent
rain
> revealed a number of holes large enough to risk major damage to small
cars.
> As you would expect , all were in the left lane where most traffic travels
> - but is it coincidence that all were in the freeway sections where speeds
> are generally higher?
> JD

I thought they just flattened a bit of the world and put down sticky black
shit.
Who woulda thought.....

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"King Beasley" <headhoncho@alp.org.au> wrote in message
news:42f4b15c@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Higher speeds mean more road maintenance. That's certainly the case for
> dirt roads, I'd assume this is would also be the case for sealed roads.
>
> Could this be one of the reasons GovCo's are so reluctant to bring in a
> more reasonable 120 or 130 on our dual carriageways?

No, its because they would have to spend a shitload of money training the
coppers on how to get Falcoms up to that speed!

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior2)]

"Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:42f5498e$0$1909$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "King Beasley" <headhoncho@alp.org.au> wrote in message
> news:42f4b15c@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> > Higher speeds mean more road maintenance. That's certainly the case for
> > dirt roads, I'd assume this is would also be the case for sealed roads.
> >
> > Could this be one of the reasons GovCo's are so reluctant to bring in a
> > more reasonable 120 or 130 on our dual carriageways?
>
> No, its because they would have to spend a shitload of money training the
> coppers on how to get Falcoms up to that speed!

Because everyone knows the average labourer's, office clerk's, fruit truck
driver's, reitree's & soccer mum's are just fine at these speeds too.
Just don't blame me when dumb stuff happens 30kph faster.
Extra speed doesn't kill, or hurt even.

[Ext User(Duncan)]

"Hotman Paris Hutapea" <legal@eagle.com> wrote in message
news:8nf9f1992nkp0v5410kp16t8vnf7he8d3j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:55:35 +1000, "Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which may
> >vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of variables
> >including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as a
> >rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes evident
> >that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The sometimes
> >statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not
credible.
> >
>
> bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.
>
> cars don't wear out roads.

Why would the adminsitration costs of registering a truck be more expensive
than a car? The paperwork would be pretty similair.
Rego covers admin costs, it has nothing to do with paying for roads. The
biggest contribution an individual can make to covering costs of roads is by
income tax. Everything else is insignificant by comparison.

eg. My rego was $30[1], after that pays for all the paperwork a little may
got to the government.
I paid a large 5 figure amount of income tax, kinda makes the $30 minus
expenses a little insignificant.

[1] For a motorbike, cars pay more ($130?) so it does seem there is some
sort of penalisation going on for larger vehicles.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior2)]

"Duncan" <abc@def.ghi> wrote in message
news:dd3qhg$hk$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> "Hotman Paris Hutapea" <legal@eagle.com> wrote in message
> news:8nf9f1992nkp0v5410kp16t8vnf7he8d3j@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:55:35 +1000, "Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Pavement wear is proportional to an exponent of the axle load (which
may
> > >vary anywhere between 3 and 11 or more, depending on a range of
variables
> > >including pavement type) but a "fourth power law" is commonly quoted as
a
> > >rule of thumb. If you do some rudimentary maths, it soon becomes
evident
> > >that virtually all pavement wear is due to heavy vehicles. The
sometimes
> > >statement about big 4WDs making a difference to road wear is not
> credible.
> > >
> >
> > bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.
> >
> > cars don't wear out roads.
>
> Why would the adminsitration costs of registering a truck be more
expensive
> than a car? The paperwork would be pretty similair.

Log books, speed limiters etc



> Rego covers admin costs, it has nothing to do with paying for roads. The
> biggest contribution an individual can make to covering costs of roads is
by
> income tax. Everything else is insignificant by comparison.
>
> eg. My rego was $30[1], after that pays for all the paperwork a little
may
> got to the government.
> I paid a large 5 figure amount of income tax, kinda makes the $30 minus
> expenses a little insignificant.
>
> [1] For a motorbike, cars pay more ($130?) so it does seem there is some
> sort of penalisation going on for larger vehicles.
>
>
>

[Ext User(Hotman Paris Hutapea)]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:04:57 GMT, "reg-john" <mcflyyyyyyy@keke.com>
wrote:

>>
>> bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.
>>
>> cars don't wear out roads.
>
>they do you fucking twit.
>

no wonder people call you a cunt

--

Attorney at Law
5/37 Paknabiel Way
Denpasar, Indonesia.

[Ext User(kevcat)]

Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:04:57 GMT, "reg-john" <mcflyyyyyyy@keke.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> bingo. trucks should be paying far more for rego too.
> >>
> >> cars don't wear out roads.
> >
> >they do you fucking twit.
> >
>
> no wonder people call you a cunt


How much do you think a truck costs to register

when you look at the amount of fuel tax(exise and GST) tax on tyres and
anything else with running a truck

ya don't think in excess of $60,000pa is enough?

Kev

[Ext User(Hotman Paris Hutapea)]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:54:47 GMT, kevcat <kevcat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>How much do you think a truck costs to register
>
>when you look at the amount of fuel tax(exise and GST) tax on tyres and
>anything else with running a truck
>
>ya don't think in excess of $60,000pa is enough?
>

it's a good point, petrol is used as a defacto rego charge.

someone posted here recently about britain's move to a road user
charge.

i don't know how much trucks pay or whether it's enough, or too much,
but certainly in terms of road wear they should pay more than cars.

--

Attorney at Law
5/37 Paknabiel Way
Denpasar, Indonesia.

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:14:43 +1000, Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote:

> i don't know how much trucks pay or whether it's enough, or too much,
> but certainly in terms of road wear they should pay more than cars.

If you looked at it on a transport 'efficiency' base, the car owners
should bay a hell of a lot more than the truck owners.

--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:54:47 GMT, kevcat <kevcat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >How much do you think a truck costs to register
> >
> >when you look at the amount of fuel tax(exise and GST) tax on tyres and
> >anything else with running a truck
> >
> >ya don't think in excess of $60,000pa is enough?
> >
>
> it's a good point, petrol is used as a defacto rego charge.
>
> someone posted here recently about britain's move to a road user
> charge.
>
> i don't know how much trucks pay or whether it's enough, or too much,
> but certainly in terms of road wear they should pay more than cars.

I filled up the truck this afternoon, $640.00 of diesel will last about
1400klms.
Considering that a significant proportion of that is tax its not easy to
see that trucks pay mega bucks in tax.



Daryl

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

D Walford wrote:
> $640.00 of diesel will last about 1400klms.

Oh well, there goes my idea of getting one of those as a daily driver
;-)

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>
> D Walford wrote:
> > $640.00 of diesel will last about 1400klms.
>
> Oh well, there goes my idea of getting one of those as a daily driver
> ;-)

Just think of the money you could make delivering goods on the way to
and from work:-)



Daryl

[Ext User(Allan A)]

"JD" <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote in message
news:42f52008@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>
> This analysis assumes the surface has no irregularities that are large
> relative to the size of the wheel. As soon as these exist - and they are
> common, mostly due to the poor design or construction of the pavement
> foundations, but also due to failure of the water seal - the force on the
> sides of the irregularity and hence its rate of wear is a function of the
> vehicle speed, although in practice this varies less than variation in
> axle
> loading.

True, once the deformation sets in then higher speed "impacts" will cause it
to get worse quicker. But at that stage the pavement is pretty much stuffed
anyway.



For example, an increase of 30% in speed (which is what is being
> discussed) has less much effect than the difference between axle loadings
> of perhaps one tonne for a large car to perhaps five tonnes for a heavy
> vehicle or 500%.

The "equivalent standard axle" use in pavement design is an axle with dual
tyres and carrying a load of 8 tonne (approx - I don't have the exact figure
in front of me at the moment). So the static difference compared to a car
axle, even a reasonable big car, is a ratio of around 8 to 1. So using the
4th power law, which is generally pretty much on the conservative side, the
relative pavement damage from one truck axle compared to one car axle is
8x8x8x8 or 32,768 as much. Add up the axles on a truck compared to the axles
on a car. As I say the 4th power law is conservative, start looking as some
pavements where the exponent can be as high as 12 and you get an idea of the
huge differences in wear with heavy vehicles.


> A recent trip up the Hume from Melbourne to Yass just after the recent
> rain
> revealed a number of holes large enough to risk major damage to small
> cars.
> As you would expect , all were in the left lane where most traffic travels
> - but is it coincidence that all were in the freeway sections where speeds
> are generally higher?
> JD

It's been so dry for so long that many of the weaknesses in the pavements
have gone without being a problem. Great for the bean counters who simply
see it as "you don't need so much money for maintenance" and a horror story
for the engineers who can see what is going to happen. A bit of rain, water
in the pavement and suddenly heaps of road starts to go to pieces.

Most of the heavies spend most of their time in the left lane, which is why
it's usually the first one to come apart. The freeway (110) and two lane
(100) limits are not all that different. To really understand why a
particular section is falling apart you'd have to know the age of the
pavement, original design and maintenance history.

Allan A

[Ext User(Allan A)]

"D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:42F6F548.5192341A@iprimus.com.au...
> Hotman Paris Hutapea wrote:

>>
>> i don't know how much trucks pay or whether it's enough, or too much,
>> but certainly in terms of road wear they should pay more than cars.
>
> I filled up the truck this afternoon, $640.00 of diesel will last about
> 1400klms.
> Considering that a significant proportion of that is tax its not easy to
> see that trucks pay mega bucks in tax.
>
>
>
> Daryl

You get into wonderful arguments about who is paying their "fair share", and
it can be argued all sorts of ways. Do you or don't your factor in
"environmental costs" and "social costs" and a host of other things.
Depending on your agenda you can argue it all sorts of ways.

The treasury types have a hatred of "hypothecation" (ie, money you collect
from road users is dedicated to road expenditure) as they love their "budget
flexibility".

But on a straight cash basis, the money collected from fuel taxes,
registration, taxes and duties on vehicle purchases, etc etc, the money
collected exceeds by many times the amount spent on construction and
maintenance by all levels of government.

Allan A