[hugodahl]

I've often wondered, especially as I cringe, clench and brace as I encounter another pothole (or chasm) why this is still an issue? Particularly since there are very well known and enduring roadways capable of handling much heavier loads and stresses - specifically airport runways and taxiways.

I can't recall ever seeing a runway shutdown abd inoperable for months on end due to "road work". I can think of a few reasons around why this isn't a thing, most of them being human factor (no money on building something I won't get paid again to fix later). The only "true" reason I can fathom is that runways are much more expensive to build. Order(s?) of magnitude more expensive.

Am I way off the mark, or is there something I've clearly missed?

[tmm]

> I can't recall ever seeing a runway shutdown abd inoperable for months on end due to "road work".

I’m guessing you haven’t flown through Phoenix recently? They have had a runway closed for repaving (might be reopened now) since early January.

Runways are generally concrete rather than asphalt and there are plenty of concrete highways. It tends to be a louder and less comfortable surface to drive on and when repairs do need to happen, they’re more disruptive than a simple asphalt resurfacing. I’m sure there are other reasons to prefer asphalt, but I’m not a civil engineer.

[fotbr]

Two years ago (maybe three?), they closed one of the runways at the local international airport for the better part of a year for repairs (and partial replacement).

That particular runway was poured in the late 50s or early 60s, and last had major work in the 90s. So it happens, just not on the every-two-or-three-years schedule that it does for roads (or yearly, depending on where you are).

The obvious difference, at least around here, is that runways are made of concrete - lots of it, each batch truckload tested as it is poured (slump tests, anyway), while roads are made from asphalt, as little of it as the DoT will allow, and as far as I can tell, zero quality control testing.