While it's true Soviets didn't commonly keep lawns like this, roads in the USSR were pretty decent for most of its existence, mainly due to the fact that at the height of the Soviet Union (mid 1970's), less than 1% of households (not less than 1% individuals, less than 1% of entire households) owned a car, and less than 15% of long distance transport of goods was transported via road. This isn't even talking exclusively about trans-siberian shipping, either. Cargo from Novgorod to Leningrad, 180km, were shipped via train exponentially more than road.
The roads didn't really start deteriorating until cars started being produced and given to the populace en masse, towards when the mid to late 80's when the Union was having financial troubles, so between post WWII reconstruction and the late 80's, the roads were in pretty good condition.
the height of the Soviet Union (mid 1970's), less than 1% of households (not less than 1% individuals, less than 1% of entire households) owned a car, and less than 15% of long distance transport of goods was transported via road.
The foundations laid by the Soviets in mass public transport in Moscow in the 60's and 70's outshines the vast majority of US cities in 2024.
The sudden burst of car ownership took a massive toll on roads that were in no way designed for such things. A large portion of the western parts of the Soviet Union experience four distinct seasons, too. Huge swings in temperature between summer and winter as well as moisture levels ranging from not raining for weeks on end to almost flooding. It's no wonder why they turned to shit, esp as the USSR was running low on money.
I mean, good to know that the roads were good until they started to be used for their intended purpose. Unfair comparison, imo, because I bet the roads on the picture are used by cars quite regularly.
Mass car transit wasn't their intended purpose. They were meant to be a small go-between for local use, not the primary method of transit. Which was part of the problem when people wanted to Westernize the country without access to super-exploitation.
Except they were used for their purpose. The fact that individual households did not have their personal cars doesn't mean that they were not used. In case this concept is alien to you, the USSR had public transport.
The roads intended purpose was for public transport, business use vehicles, emergency vehicles and bicycles. They simply were never designed for the exponential increase in wear and tear. Like no-one involved in planning expected car ownership going from 1% of households to like 40% within a decade.
They would have built them sturdier to begin with if they expected heavy traffic regularly. It happened to China too, when we shifted from bicycles to personal cars, although it's getting better again with mass transit infrastructure being the focus of this century so far.
While it's true Soviets didn't commonly keep lawns like this, roads in the USSR were pretty decent for most of its existence, mainly due to the fact that at the height of the Soviet Union (mid 1970's), less than 1% of households (not less than 1% individuals, less than 1% of entire households) owned a car, and less than 15% of long distance transport of goods was transported via road. This isn't even talking exclusively about trans-siberian shipping, either. Cargo from Novgorod to Leningrad, 180km, were shipped via train exponentially more than road.
The roads didn't really start deteriorating until cars started being produced and given to the populace en masse, towards when the mid to late 80's when the Union was having financial troubles, so between post WWII reconstruction and the late 80's, the roads were in pretty good condition.
We need to go back
The foundations laid by the Soviets in mass public transport in Moscow in the 60's and 70's outshines the vast majority of US cities in 2024.
The sudden burst of car ownership took a massive toll on roads that were in no way designed for such things. A large portion of the western parts of the Soviet Union experience four distinct seasons, too. Huge swings in temperature between summer and winter as well as moisture levels ranging from not raining for weeks on end to almost flooding. It's no wonder why they turned to shit, esp as the USSR was running low on money.
Retvrn
I mean, good to know that the roads were good until they started to be used for their intended purpose. Unfair comparison, imo, because I bet the roads on the picture are used by cars quite regularly.
But fuck cars, still.
Mass car transit wasn't their intended purpose. They were meant to be a small go-between for local use, not the primary method of transit. Which was part of the problem when people wanted to Westernize the country without access to super-exploitation.
Except they were used for their purpose. The fact that individual households did not have their personal cars doesn't mean that they were not used. In case this concept is alien to you, the USSR had public transport.
You can also walk, bike, and ride horses on roads. At least if there aren't many cars around.
The roads intended purpose was for public transport, business use vehicles, emergency vehicles and bicycles. They simply were never designed for the exponential increase in wear and tear. Like no-one involved in planning expected car ownership going from 1% of households to like 40% within a decade.
They would have built them sturdier to begin with if they expected heavy traffic regularly. It happened to China too, when we shifted from bicycles to personal cars, although it's getting better again with mass transit infrastructure being the focus of this century so far.