Concrete roads tend to be cheaper over the long term, as they require less maintenance. In some regions the difference can be significant depending on traffic volumes and climate.

The just have a truck roll around and dump some more asphalt in the holes, tap it with the shovel and it usually fixes it up fine. If not they come around 6/12 months later and do it again.

With concrete, can you just drive by and drop some cement in the cracks and holes and move on? Don't you have to usually cut out parts, repave and block off the road for an amount of time?

Around here (NY) they don't do any new construction with concrete surface, sometimes they pour concrete in sections and surface it with asphalt. Asphalt is the superior coating, bar none.

I'm not sure that is exclusive to concrete. In the northeast coast our asphalt roads have all the same problems except the "lifted out of alignment" and noise).

Right now since it is snow season I have to constantly look out for foot deep potholes that will destroy an axle.

Since they replaced large sections of it with asphalt, it's under construction every single year.

Back in 1992 I drove on some (formerly) East German autobahn that had not been touched since the end of WWII. Our speed was limited to about 45 MPH due to the state of disrepair, but jeeze, it was 50 years old!

Concrete Autobahn is mostly replaced with proper asphalt Autobahn when a section is renewed.

[1] Since it's Autobahn many people don't drive a cosy 140 km/h (85 mph) but rather 160-250 km/h (100-160 mph) [and when the road is free 300 km/h, 190 mph, are observed regularly] so I assume the noise is worse on the Autobahn than on concrete highway.

While certainly impressive, this leaves the question: Where the f..k is all that water going?

Typically, at least in cities here, the water goes off into drains, and then into a water treatment plant which prevents nasty stuff like oil or other car-originated toxins from compromising the ground below.

Something like this system, if not connected to drainage piping, would basically let all the liquid waste seep into the ground - compared to a sealed asphalt/concrete ground, where firefighters can spread sand or other oil binders to prevent widespread release into the environment.

Basically they lay a regular layer of non-porous bitumen, with side drains etc and appropriate camber.

They then lay the porous bitumen layer over the top. It's like a griller drip tray, without the delicious pork chops.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11911

That said, Asphalt is probably one of the better uses for crude oil. Sticking it semi-permanently to the ground has got to be better than burning it and releasing all it's carbon into the atmosphere.

[1] http://www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/energy_efficiency.aspx [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Input_energy

The "tar sands" are a naturally-occurring asphalt deposit. To make asphalt cement out of it basically just requires digging it up and separating the sand from the bitumen. That's a very small part of the energy required to make synthetic crude.

The problem with concrete is that they cook it with nasty stuff like coal ash. Plants spew all sorts of particulate pollution and mercury. Plus they frequently pollute water sources with stuff like sulfuric acid.

It's making use of a waste product (from coal power plants) that otherwise gets dumped into the environment where it can pollute soil and waterways.

Asphalt shingles are building materials, and it is definitely true that demand for construction materials in Texas is rising. Texas has a few shingle plants, and there are others in nearby states.

So we might say that "construction materials" != road building materials (though Texas is always in the process of building roads), and also that "asphalt demand" isn't entirely dependent on road building.

It can be unbearable.