Why are there so many bends in road? Today I drove down a new road and it has a very small bend that then bends straight back to where it would have been without the bend. Seems strange! But maybe it was to do with who owns the road each side although there isn't anything either side of the road.

Then I watched a film where a road in the desert (USA) has bend as well and nothing either side of the road for miles, so why do roads have these bends?

Why are there so many bends in road?
a minor detail called property rights.
Then I watched a film where a road in the desert (USA) has bend as well and nothing either side of the road for miles, so why do roads have these bends?
quicksand maybe? dead rat? hole in the head?
viable choice would be an ancient indian cemetary or something similar.

most bends in roads is the result of property rights though.

highways are designed to have bends every so often to help combat driver fatigue that results from driving a straight line for too long. what sort of road are you talking about?

Bends or curves in the roads are there to improve your sports car handling


techniques! :cool: ;)

Why are there so many bends in road? Today I drove down a new road and it has a very small bend that then bends straight back to where it would have been without the bend. Seems strange! But maybe it was to do with who owns the road each side although there isn't anything either side of the road.

Then I watched a film where a road in the desert (USA) has bend as well and nothing either side of the road for miles, so why do roads have these bends?

blame the romans!

alexb...this is a result of a Capitalist society

Could also have been drunk engineers! ;)

there must be lots of cars at those turns...they need all that place for the many cars so that they don't cause havoc and traffic for the highway.

Hi alexb,

It just makes driving more interesting.

Nicola

Roads also sometimes remain longer than the objects next to them.
Once there were settlements, large trees, small hills, ponds etc. and the road had to avoid them all, therefore bending. In time, those settlements were abandoned and destroyed, large trees died, small hills became evened out, ponds dried out - but the road remained if it was used.

Some roads also bend in order to meet with other roads.

Also, some bends are because certain objects in nature (like large trees, a solitary rock etc.) were once used as direction signs. Written road signs are a later invention.

Cheers all, there are a lot more reasons for these bends than I imagined :)

Its easier for cyclists to weave in and out of traffic. The lousy fuckers.

A minor detail called property rights. Most bends in roads is the result of property rights though.Yes. I worked for a municipal government for many years and knew some of the civil engineers. They try to build roads that follow property lines, rather than going across someone's property and separating it into two pieces. Put yourself in the place of the owner of the land and you'll see the logic in that. You could end up, as a practical matter, having "taken" the odd fragment from its owner because you have effectively destroyed his ability to use it, indeed perhaps blocked his access to it. This would make roadbuilding even more expensive.

Yes. I worked for a municipal government for many years and knew some of the civil engineers. They try to build roads that follow property lines, rather than going across someone's property and separating it into two pieces. Put yourself in the place of the owner of the land and you'll see the logic in that. You could end up, as a practical matter, having "taken" the odd fragment from its owner because you have effectively destroyed his ability to use it, indeed perhaps blocked his access to it. This would make roadbuilding even more expensive.

That's why I think roads should go to the private sector. Way more efficient.

That's why I think roads should go to the private sector. Way more efficient.

Then how are they going to be maintained, who pays for them?

I know of some really harsh disputes among neighbors because of roads. These things not rarely go to court.

It is better if the State takes over the roads (and other intfrastructure) because people tend to fight over them incessantly, sometimes never coming to a resolution and everyone suffers the consequences.

Then how are they going to be maintained, who pays for them?

The same way we pay for them now- with money.
If you want to use the road, you buy a pass, or pay tolls. I hear several roads in Cali have been turned over to private companies, and they do quite well, especially in reducing heavy traffic and the like.

See, we pay for all sorts of stuff, and because the government does it inefficiently, society ends up paying way more than they should. If you privatized it, and had people that wanted to use it pay for it, it'd be a much more fair and efficient system.

Roads often have curves at state boundaries as well. I'm not entirely sure why, but it might be to correct for the fact that maps on paper are flat but the globe is spherical.

. I hear several roads in Cali have been turned over to private companies, and they do quite well, especially in reducing heavy traffic and the like.

See, we pay for all sorts of stuff, and because the government does it inefficiently, society ends up paying way more than they should. If you privatized it, and had people that wanted to use it pay for it, it'd be a much more fair and efficient system.


The reason there's less traffic is because they charge more than many people can afford to spend. They eliminate travel by having tolls that don't allow poor people to drive on them.

If there's a problem with the road, say a large pot hole, and an accident is caused by it, who's responsible for the injuries and fixing of the vehicles that are destroyed?

My son is a manager in a surveying/engineering firm that designs roads for the state DOT. Most of the thing mentioned here are correct - like property lines, etc. But other reasons I haven't seen mentioned are also very important.

Many roads follow trails and paths that were established long ago and one BIG one is following contours to avoid low spots that might flood and require filling. And unless removal of hills is actually needed for construction (resulting in excess dirt and rock) it's generally avoided because filling is one of THE most expensive parts of road construction.

And unless removal of hills is actually needed for construction (resulting in excess dirt and rock) it's generally avoided because filling is one of THE most expensive parts of road construction.

cutting corners I doubt is any reason the roads are the way they are. Here in colorado.....they assign a 15 man crew an 8 hour shift to fix a fkn pot hole because they have left over "budget" they need to spend. If they dont spend their budget or go "over" the next years budget will be less, and they dont want that.

So in terms of DOT they almost never cut corners.....why would they?

cutting corners I doubt is any reason the roads are the way they are. Here in colorado.....they assign a 15 man crew an 8 hour shift to fix a fkn pot hole because they have left over "budget" they need to spend. If they dont spend their budget or go "over" the next years budget will be less, and they dont want that.

So in terms of DOT they almost never cut corners.....why would they?

Want to try that again?

I'm not talking about maintenance - that's a totally separate budget from a construction project. Construction projects not only involve state money (and maintenance is usually county money) but a large amount of federal funds as well.

Also, I'm talking about millions of dollars per mile while you are only talking about a few hundred per mile. So your comparison isn't valid.

Want to try that again?

I'm not talking about maintenance - that's a totally separate budget from a construction project. Construction projects not only involve state money (and maintenance is usually county money) but a large amount of federal funds as well.

Also, I'm talking about millions of dollars per mile while you are only talking about a few hundred per mile. So your comparison isn't valid.

ok I see the difference however. I do have a question. If the "state" alots a large budget each year for several years for a large construction project ie: Colorado and its t-Rex project. how do they maintain that level of funding after the project is finished? Do they just say....ah hell were done now so lets reduce the budget?

If this is the case i'll shut the hell up, but from my experience they always have something "major" going on and the budget is always on par or increasing from years past.

ok I see the difference however. I do have a question. If the "state" alots a large budget each year for several years for a large construction project ie: Colorado and its t-Rex project. how do they maintain that level of funding after the project is finished? Do they just say....ah hell were done now so lets reduce the budget?

If this is the case i'll shut the hell up, but from my experience they always have something "major" going on and the budget is always on par or increasing from years past.

They are finished with it. You don't seem to understand that a construction project is a PROJECT - and it's funded as a one-shot deal. Once the project is completed, that's it - done.

And that's where, later on, maintenance funds come into play to keep it up. And there's NO federal money at all involved in that. And the upkeep costs are FAR, FAR, FAR below what the original construction cost was.

Sure - every state always has some new construction projects going on somewhere. :)

They are finished with it. You don't seem to understand that a construction project is a PROJECT - and it's funded as a one-shot deal. Once the project is completed, that's it - done.

And that's where, later on, maintenance funds come into play to keep it up. And there's NO federal money at all involved in that. And the upkeep costs are FAR, FAR, FAR below what the original construction cost was.

Sure - every state always has some new construction projects going on somewhere. :)

Initially yes the upkeep costs are far far far less than the origional construction costs but over time obviously wont be the case.

I was under the impression that such large projects were funded yearly do to the large $$ involved, they couldnt one lump sum the projects. I guess thats not the case.

Initially yes the upkeep costs are far far far less than the origional construction costs but over time obviously wont be the case.

It would take decades - 50 or 60 years before th upkeep costs started to get close to the original construction costs.

I was under the impression that such large projects were funded yearly do to the large $$ involved, they couldnt one lump sum the projects. I guess thats not the case.

You're not too far off. :) They always have what's estimated to be the full cost of the project already figured out BUT often do break it up in annual installments. Very few states would have the cash on hand to fund a $3 billion project in one lump sum. And many of them cost far more than that.

The main thing I wanted you to understand, though. is that the project funds are for construction only, and don't have anything to do with maintenance.

It's a conspiracy by oil companies to increase the length of drive-time so you buy more gas. =p

- N