Although performance is important, cost-effectiveness is often the preferred method of determining which materials and procedures to use. Obviously, a treatment that costs $15/m inplace
and performs adequately for 5 years is more desirable than a treatment that costs $30/m in-place and performs for the same amount of time.
However, this philosophy has limits. Forinstance, even if biannual applications of asphalt cement were determined to be the most cost-effective treatment alternative, it would most likely be impractical because crews would be restrained from tending to other activities and would be placed in harm’s way much more often.
