This may belong in the political section, however it has to do with the roads, so I'm posting it here.

Granted, I've only lived here a few years, however I'm still curious, after living in other cities which had smaller population than OKC, I can not seem to understand why OKC chooses to use asphalt on the "busy streets" instead of concrete. From what I've seen, other cities seem to use concrete on the busy streets, but OKC seems to use asphalt even if it only lasts a few years before it develops serious ruts or potholes. With our relatively average property and sales taxes, I would think that our roads would be in better shape, at least main ones compared to other similar cities.

I do appreciate they are investing in high quality concrete roads in the business district (the MAPS area), however what about the roads which actually have a high number of cars/day?

Some examples I've noticed are not that old but are already in poor shape:
Rockwell on the southbound lanes just after I-40 bridge going to I-40 East
May, especially near 50th in both Northbound and Southbound Lanes
Rockwell or Macaurthur at any intersection from 39th Expressway to NW Expressway.
NW 23rd from May to Classen
NW 122nd for several areas from I44 to I235
Memorial from I-44 to I-235

Anyone driven on Hefner Parkway lately? It is pretty smooth still. I've read that pour is nearly 30 years old (unconfirmed).

It would seem the cheaper long-term route would be to lay down higher quality roads in higher traffic areas? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Which is cheaper varies over time, Asphalt even though it requires changing more frequently used to be cheaper over the lifetime of the road. Now with the crud oil it comes from and labor costs going up that may no longer be the case. Even though Hefner Parkway was poured over 30 years ago it has been getting some surface work in recent years.

When I lived in Charlotte it was pretty much all done in asphalt. This isn't really an OKC thing. Asphalt is cheaper. I am glad the state of Oklahoma is doing the Interstates in cement though. Arkansas just redid theirs in the early 2000s and used asphalt and they are already starting to show their age.

Which is cheaper varies over time, Asphalt even though it requires changing more frequently used to be cheaper over the lifetime of the road. Now with the crud oil it comes from and labor costs going up that may no longer be the case.
Obviously asphalt is significantly cheaper even with the higher crude prices today, however in higher traffic areas the usable life degrades much quicker and it would with concrete which would last many times longer in high traffic areas and would be a more cost effective choice in the long run.

When I lived in Charlotte it was pretty much all done in asphalt. This isn't really an OKC thing. Asphalt is cheaper. I am glad the state of Oklahoma is doing the Interstates in cement though. Arkansas just redid theirs in the early 2000s and used asphalt and they are already starting to show their age. I'm talking about our city streets, not the interstates. Obviously with all the semi-truck traffic on the interstates, concrete is a better option.

Obviously asphalt is significantly cheaper even with the higher crude prices today, however in higher traffic areas the usable life degrades much quicker and it would with concrete which would last many times longer in high traffic areas and would be a more cost effective choice in the long run.

The reason I threw in the word lifetime in my original statement was even if you factored in every replacement cycle Asphalt was still cheaper than the concrete road even with it's longer maintenance cycles. Also some of the mile line city grid street upgrades (aka widening) are paid for by developers building up that area and so they often pay for the lowest standard the city allows.

The hefner parkway get patched up more often them most think driving the concrete truck for a few years taught me that but they do everything at night so it does not effect daytime traffic.

Asphalt is used for 2 reasons its faster to lay asphalt on a busted up concrete road and its cheaper. When the go to redo asphalt they can simply scape up the old reheat and relay it. Once the concrete underneath goes to crap they will repave with asphalt. You would be surprised that the city still uses concrete on side streets.

The city I believe would use concrete even at the higher cost if they could tear out the old and lay new in twice the time it takes to lay asphalt. The city's main priority is to keep the roads closed for the shortest amount of time possible.