
How Much Does a Mile of Road Cost? - oftenwrong
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
======
slowhand09
I think of this as I drive 30ish miles each way to work. 5 miles of surface
roads, 19 miles of interstate (2 lanes each way), and 6 miles of surface (2
lanes each way). One cause for increased construction is the need for more
capacity. My frequent lament is poor driving habits. We have regular instances
of sub-optimal speeds in both lanes. A 65 mph limit and vehicles driving 55mph
in both lanes, frequently with 1/4 of open lane ahead. Vehicles behind begin
to crowd and we experience the slinky effect. After 3 years we add another
lane. And the cycle continues. Driver education used to emphasize keeping
right except to pass. I think this isn't taught anymore.

~~~
rahimnathwani
I was surprised to read this in the California DMV driver handbook:

"If you can choose among three lanes, pick the middle lane for the smoothest
driving."

When I learned to drive (in the UK), the official guidance was to stay in the
left-most lane except when overtaking. And then, after overtaking, to
immediately return to the left lane.

~~~
briffle
Oregon has a law that if you have 5 or more vehicles behind you, you must let
them pass. It's more for the highways, not the freeway, but I haven't seen it
enforced in many, many years

~~~
scarejunba
California has this:

> _Vehicles proceeding at a speed less than the flow of traffic and moving on
> a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, must turn off the roadway at the
> nearest place designated as a turnout or wherever sufficient area for a safe
> turnout exists, if a line of 5 or more vehicles forms behind them._

[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/driver_ha...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc/!ut/p/z1/hY6xDsIgGISfyPxYo0lH1IZW2rhVZCEgtZAqEKwdfHpJd-
ttl3x3-YADA-7kZHs5Wu_kI_Ur3wlaHYt1SRAl2xojTMvy3BZtRvINXGYA_QhGwJf3p39AMshic2h64EGOZmXd3QMLb_UCZrQagOlopy4KI51W3g9i9LekxefjBbHwZJ96n1dfdmaJZA!!/?1dmy&urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fdmv_content_en%2Fdmv%2B%2B%2Fpubs%2Fhdbk%2Fshr_slow_veh)

------
Polylactic_acid
I'm planning to live a car free life soon. I'll be moving in to the city so
almost everything is within walking distance and just about everything is
accessable via public transport. The only thing I haven't been able work out
is how I will continue to go mtn biking since bikes aren't allowed on the bus.
But I just can't justify the massive expense of owning a car and a car park
for one activity.

~~~
mumblemumble
Mountain biking is one of the things I gave up when I moved to the city.

I thought that maybe I'd occasionally rent a car and drive out to a state
park, but what I quickly discovered was that, once driving stopped being a
part of my daily life, the idea of regularly driving out to a forest preserve
lost its palatability. Largely because I am no longer inured to driving, so
any plan for how to spend my leisure time that involves devoting a significant
percentage of it to being stuck behind the wheel on a freeway is kind of a
non-starter. So instead I road bike 4 seasons and take a few camping trips per
year. So far it's working for me. Less time stuck in a car and more time out
walking in my neighborhood means I have a greatly reduced need for things like
mountain biking to help me unwind in the first place.

That said, I think that when I originally calculated it out, I figured out
that renting a car 4-5 days a month was still cheaper than owning an
inexpensive car. And not too much of a hassle in most cities - out of 4 urban
addresses I've lived at, only one wasn't close to a car rental office, and
even then it was only about 15 minutes by bus.

~~~
justinator
Consider doing multi-day trips from your front door during the weekends
(bikepacking).

I used to live in Denver and never understood why people would find the need
to drive 10 miles to the nearest trails when you could just ride to them. Then
I realized, once you're done with those initial 10 miles, you could link up
routes that covered practically the entire rest of the state.

Now I'm writing a guidebook on those routes.

Bummer about buses not accepting bikes - that sounds crazy to me. They just
don't have room underneath or a bike rack up front? I can hardly understand
how that could be true!

~~~
Polylactic_acid
>10 miles to the nearest trails when you could just ride to them.

Because they are usually up in the hills so its a fairly large effort to get
there and by the time you are there you have no energy left to do the trails
unless there is a ski lift to get you to the top.

~~~
8draco8
But if you are riding bike seriously 10 miles is nothing. It's literally 30-40
minutes ride. I am runner not biker and on many occasions 10 miles for me is
just a morning run before work.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
The mtb park is 30km away from the city and its uphill the whole way. Sure its
not impossible to do 60km road and then 10km mtb riding but it excludes all
but the fittest cyclists.

------
glangdale
This is interesting information, but from the perspective of a high-value
urban area, even these fairly eye-watering numbers are a understatement. The
capital represented both as infrastructure and forgone real estate usage (i.e.
yes, we need roads, but building more roads than we need diverts incredibly
valuable real estate from other purposes) is huge.

I'm always amused here in Australia when governments like to make the spending
on roads and the amount raised through petrol taxes and registration fees
"balance out". Uhhh, ok, you're sitting on billions of dollars worth of
capital and you're patting yourselves on the back that it's "breaking even".

~~~
beerandt
I'm not sure what you're gunning for here. Spending road money on other
projects? Or that real estate used for roads is somehow removed from the
overall real estate market (in the active commerce sense, not active listing
sense)?

If it's a new project, even if land is behind expropriated, the market value
is being paid. (I assume, bring Australia) So it does balance out, even in
land value. For appreciated value, it doesn't occur in a vacuum. The local
transportation is factored in to the market rates for property.

So I'm not sure in what sense you don't see it as balanced out. Or what you'd
like to see as the alternative.

~~~
glangdale
The way I see it is that the existing road network is an enormous public
capital investment that is permitted to woefully underperform due to political
pressure to make roads cheap or essentially free. The idea that roads are
"breaking even" when you roughly balance road spending and money raised from
roads is artificial.

Given the huge historical capital investment states have made in their roads
they should be making money; or if they are not, we should be acknowledging
that we are choosing to not make money at market rates when we compare the
costs involved with roads with other forms of transport (especially rail).

I don't think we should necessarily do anything different with roads, but we
should acknowledge that, well, pretty much _everything_ at this scale needs to
be subsidized out the wazoo - roads as well as public transport. I'm not
arguing for some sort of dystopia where the government does some crazy user-
pays thing on even public asset; just an end to the endless rhetoric about how
roads "break even" while public transport "needs to be subsidized".

------
ryanar
I feel like I am missing something here, a mile of road in a rural area costs
$1,500,000 to reconstruct? How do small towns afford to maintain their roads??
Perhaps there are many costs that don't inflate as the number of miles
increases, like the equipment needed to break down and repave the roads?

~~~
rayiner
The relevant number here is the cost to repave, not reconstruct, which is
about $330,000-$350,000 per mile for a minor arterial road in a rural or urban
area.

As to how small towns afford it--you don't repave that often, and you focus
efforts on what to repave. For example, Cedar Rapids, Iowa calculated it would
cost $500 million over 10 years to repave everything that needs to be repaved:
[https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Annual-road-repaving-to-
st...](https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Annual-road-repaving-to-start-next-
week-in-Cedar-Rapids-507227201.html).

Cedar Rapids has about 53,000 households, so that's about $943 per household
per year. To put that into perspective, we can do a calculation. 18% of DC
metro area commuters use Metrorail. If you take 18% of the 2.2 million DC
metro households, that's about 400,000 households (roughly) using Metrorail.
The rail capital budget is about $1 billion annually, so about $2,500 per
household per year. Excluding the cost of new rail cars, its about $1,500 per
household.

(Obviously this is a very back-of-the-napkin calculation, but it puts things
into perspective.)

[1]
[https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/budget/upload/FY19-Propose...](https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/budget/upload/FY19-Proposed-
Budget.pdf) (p. 76)

~~~
inferiorhuman
_Obviously this is a very back-of-the-napkin calculation, but it puts things
into perspective._

You're comparing an all-inclusive capital budget versus simply repaving roads.
How much does DC Metro spend on track maintenance annually? How much does
Cedar Rapids spend on lighting and signage?

How much do Cedar Rapids residents spend on their cars? The average _used_ car
payment runs in excess of $4,800 annually. New cars run around a hundred or so
bucks a month more.

The DC metro is a bit of an odd duck since a large chunk of its users don't
actually live in DC. The Census Dept. puts metro ridership at about 21% of all
commuters commuting into DC, and overall about 34% of all DC residents use
public transit (of all modes) as their primary means of transportation.

So even though you're including the cost of things like stations and vehicles,
I think the overall cost is much closer (if not slanted in favor of transit)
than you're letting on. That said, rail is typically one of the most expensive
modes of public transit.

~~~
rayiner
Good point--I forgot WMATA is in the middle of major rail car purchases. The
6-year plan for rail systems, track rehabilitation, and stations is $600
million annually. I've updated my numbers above accordingly.

~~~
inferiorhuman
Again you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The metro budget also
includes expenditures for bus and paratransit service, station improvements,
fare collection modernization, fire alarm upgrades, information technology
projects, police services, and so-called "business support investments".

Per the budget the plan is to spend _at most_ $249 million annually (less for
most years) on track and structures rehabilitation. That's the closest you'll
get to a repaving budget and includes things beyond track maintenance and
replacement.

With that in mind the six year plan would call for per-capita spending of
between $335 and $620 annually, cheaper than repaving the roads.

~~~
rayiner
I excluded those items from the Metro budget. I included signaling and
stations, because those are a necessary part of subway maintenance that don’t
have much of an analog with roads. (Traffic lights must be maintained, but
train signaling systems are very complex and very expensive to maintain in
comparison. There are millions of feet of wiring throughout the Metro system
and each track segment is wired up for the traffic control system to work.)

In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to
address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of
magnitude comparison to put the number into context. (For one thing, the road
maintenance budget for Cedar Rapids is overstated by a factor of two, because
I used the projection of what the city thinks it ideally needs to spend rather
than what it does spend.)

~~~
inferiorhuman
_I included signaling and stations, because those are a necessary part of
subway maintenance that don’t have much of an analog with roads._

Sure, because municipalities typically externalize those costs (e.g. police
doing traffic duty or parking control). Road signaling itself is simpler than
rail signaling but still needs periodic maintenance. You've got stuff like
generators (a necessity out here now that PG&E is introducing recreational
blackouts. Presumably sensor lights increase the cost of repaving.

Likewise Cedar Rapids almost certainly has to plow the roads for a good chunk
of the year where a subway and even a surface rail system typically wouldn't.
Of course with plowing comes the cost of more frequent repaving.

 _In any event, the point isn’t to say that road paving is cheaper, but to
address GP’s question, which is how cities can afford it. It’s an order of
magnitude comparison to put the number into context._

Sure, because governments typically externalize the cost of roads but not
public transit. In San Francisco, SFPD will bill the MTA for any sort of
police presence on Muni. They sure as shit don't bill Caltrans for the cost of
traffic enforcement.

------
dougweltman
This does not address a larger question: how much does a mile of road cost to
_keep_? This is the installed base question.

Consider the amount of road that has been built out in the US relative to the
populations that road is serving. Maintenance and expansion is paid out mainly
from state and local taxes. That's an enormous civilizational overhead the US
contends with, not to mention the economic cost of a large portion of
household capital being tied up in rapidly depreciating assets: cars.

I'm looking at you, suburbia.

~~~
AcerbicZero
Look all you want, but road maintenance costs are primarily a subsidy for the
trucking industry, and by extension the businesses that rely on them.
Businesses that are primarily located in.....cities. If Middletown USA didn't
have to worry about 80,000 lbs trucks hauling kombucha to your local bodega
tearing up their roads, perhaps road costs would be a bit more in-line with
reality.

More importantly if we focused more on making transport costs in-line with the
damage they do to the road surfaces (not to mention the environmental impact
of long and short haul trucking, plus the traffic) instead of city/suburbia
none issue, perhaps we'd all be a bit better off.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
The proper solution would be to tax trucks exactly the amount of damage they
cause. This would cause the cost of imported goods to go up and the cost of
local goods to go down. In the short term you would see the extra cost and
lower taxes cancel each other out and in the long term, local goods become
more common than imported.

~~~
alamortsubite
This is the right idea, but let's not stop there. Why not also tax privately
registered vehicles to some degree by their mass?

I also like the idea of making fines for moving violations somewhat
proportional to vehicle mass. The danger posed to others by a 150 lb moped
pales in comparison to that of a 4500 lb pickup truck. At least in the U.S., a
ticket for speeding 50% over the limit through a residential neighborhood is
the same for both, for example. Neither is OK, but considering the disparity
in the potential for damage and injury to others, imposing equal fines is
insane.

~~~
cameldrv
Because "privately registered" vehicles don't matter for purposes of road
damage.

A fully loaded semi is 18,000 lbs per axle. A really huge personal vehicle, an
F-350, is 4000 lbs per axle. That's 4.5x the weight, 4.5^4=410, so the semi is
doing 410x as much damage. There's really no point in trying to tax personal
vehicles for road damage when over 99% of the damage is being done by trucks.

~~~
alamortsubite
Where are you getting your "over 99%" figure?

~~~
beerandt
You need to approach or exceed a roads per-axel weight limit to do any damage
or serious wear.

Trucks and permit loads are pretty much the only things that get close.

Beyond the elastic limit, damage is an exponential function of the pavement
loading, but only once that certain minimum psf is hit.

For the majority of a highway's loading curve, the damage-per-force is
essentially nil. Plastic deformation and serious fatigue only start as you
approach the design limits.

It's 99%+ because cars don't do _any_ real wear or damage to pavement from
typical use.

------
WhompingWindows
Are expensive roads really needed? What if we see a gradual decline in roadway
expenditures in the USA, transitioning our economy to involve less driving and
more work from home, deliveries via drone/efficient vehicle, promote self-
sufficiency, not to mention biking, walking, trains, etc...my point is maybe
we won't need/use roads as much as we do now.

One would hope so, but it seems our VMT is going up over time whilst people
are locking in very expensive, long-term car purchases.

~~~
markbnj
There are roads in our county in New Jersey that have been transitioned from
paved back to gravel, presumably based on usage and the anticipated savings
from maintaining gravel over asphalt. I'm not a civil engineer and I don't
know what all the tradeoffs are, but it seems to me that we're either going to
have to admit we can't afford so much paving, or we're going to have to agree
to pay higher taxes.

~~~
toast0
The primary downside of gravel is reduced speed, additional downsides are
probably some additional vehicle wear, and lower suitability for heavy
vehicle. Also, it's louder, and flung gravel can be a hazard, and it's not
great for bikes.

The upsides are reduced cost of building, maintenance, and equipment, and
better water permiability. Reduced speeds can be a benefit depending on the
application.

------
melling
Major urbanized is incredibly expensive. Tens of millions...

I read somewhere that China spends $30 million per mile of high-speed rail.
22,000 miles and counting.

The US is going to bankrupt itself trying to modernize its aging
infrastructure.

~~~
peter303
Despite the US leftist whining about the disappearing middle class, the US
middle class is still a beacon to the world in actual prosperity. The Us can
afford 80% to own vehicles to drive on its still decent roads, while its only
60% in Europe and 25% in much-touted China.

~~~
Gwypaas
False equivalency with Europe where a lot of people skip cars in the metro
regions because public transport actually works. For example in Stockholm
37.5%[0] of the people own cars while being the by far richest region in
Sweden.

[0]:
[http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilin...](http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilinnehav/)

------
oneplane
I wonder what the numbers are like in west EU as a comparison.

~~~
wiredfool
That would be an interesting question. My experience is that there's a lot
more chip seal on smaller roads as a refurbishment (tar + a thin layer of
gravel) rather than hot asphalt paving. It's a lot cheaper, but doesn't last
as long.

Motorways in France and Germany seem to be repaved more often, and billiard
table smooth in a lot of cases.

~~~
nickik
France has private-ish roads that are quite expensive. So does italy, there
you have to often literally pay a human everytime you get of the highway. This
leads to many people driving on small roads, polluting and wearing down those
roads.

Not sure about Germany, but they just have a super strong car lobby in
general, and its one of their national pride things, so they tend to find
money for that.

Here in Switzerland we have a very high gas price, but that leads to many
people going for gas outside of Switzerland and we have no idea what to do
when EVy really take off. The true cost of those roads is hidden in the
'normality' of the high gas prices.

Roads are a tricky problem, not just for libertarians.

------
hamilyon2
I was always puzzled by how do English-speaking folk communicate such matter
clearly? I mean the word "cost". It has two meanings: basically all
expenditure that is associated with something or it might mean agreed upon
price of product.

That was interesting data set, and here by "cost" I guess "price" is meant.

How much margin/profits is included in it?

~~~
asdff
> How much margin/profits is included in it?

That's where it starts getting dubious. Technically, all roads and transit are
built at a great loss on paper. However, connecting locations connects people
and enables economic activity, so there is definitely a 'profit' per se but it
would be difficult to quantify precisely.

------
alpb
USA is definitely a high labor cost market. The throughput per unit time from
each worker is probably much lower compared to developing countries. I am
actually more interested in seeing highway cost/mi. stats for each developed
and developing country. If anyone got links, I appreciate.

------
fulafel
This table doesn't include the land cost which dominates in places where land
is scarce.

------
dillonmckay
Are there any sustainable road construction technologies and materials that do
not rely on petrochemicals?

~~~
lukasm
Concrete is pretty much the only alternative that can handle 40+ tonnes trucks
and be cost effective. It will last longer, but it's more expensive to build -
could be cheaper on the long run. You get a bit more tire noise and less
traction than on the asphalt.

~~~
jhloa2
Freeze/thaw cycles seem to absolutely destroy the few segments of concrete
roads we have around here. They don't seem to last more than 2 winters.

~~~
jdsully
Many freeways around Toronto use concrete and according to the MTO it is
cheaper. But the deciding factor appears to be the number of trucks passing
the stretch of road. Concretes durability under weight more than offsets the
decay from weather.

~~~
jhloa2
That's where I notice them as well. I haven't seen it recently, but I recall a
few years ago there was a highway around here (Denver) that was asphalt for
the two leftmost lanes with a concrete slow lane that semi trucks were
supposed to drive on.

Maybe Denver is particularly bad for concrete roads because our freeze/thaw
cycles get really bad. We have so many warm days in the winter interspersed
with cold days and freezing nights.

------
TomMckenny
It would also be interesting to know how many dollars per man hour.

------
basicplus2
Depends upon if the work has been privitised or is in government hands

------
lifeisstillgood
Is there a Primer / tldr for Strong Towns? I kind of get the basic idea
(maintaining town infrastructure sometimes exceeds revenue) but I was looking
for "start here" but don't seem to be able to find it

~~~
burlesona
If you're genuinely interested, the recently published book "Strong Towns" is
the best possible primer. It's not long, and covers the core ideas behind the
movement in enough detail to understand how it all hangs together.

------
__m
Elon will do it for 10% of the cost, it will have the size of a sidewalk /s

