Greentext

4430 readers

908 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

347

Anon watches an American flick (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You yourself seem to suggest that it is more related to the sheer size of freeways and interstates that make open-graded mixes cost-ineffective, which I agree with.

No, what I said is that you can absolutely use open asphalt outside of freeways, but that the benefit is smaller. Whether or not you want to do it all depends on how you weigh your cost-benefit analysis. Many Dutch cities use it in the city for noise reduction, regardless of higher cost. But if you value things like noise and splash reduction less, then the cost-benefit will land more solidly on "don't build expensive things".

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Thanks for the slight correction. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I still believe that the “poor/cheap” element is not entirely accurate until further evidence is provided. You yourself point out that it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis, which can be tremendously swayed by land use (noise reduction matters less with lower density) and practical considerations (America is just… really really big).