Speaking of bike paths

On Mon, 22 May 2006 22:16:40 -0500, Pat in TX wrote:

A rail trail not too far from me has been finished with some kind of crushed
gravel or "chat". It is good for mountain bike riding and is not just plain
packed dirt. I imagine a horse could walk on that as well. So, there is more
to "paving" than asphalt or concrete.

Indeed there is. Soft surfaces are better for hikers and horses, and
pretty good for bikes too. These trails are multi-use...

Matt O.

On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:39:36 -0400, David Kerber
wrote:

In article ,
says...
I'm not following you here. The rail trails I know of have gravel
surfaces, of varying coarseness. They are open year round, except
possibly in case of major floods or snow. Does somebody actually plow
any paved rail trails? No worries about pavement cracking, potholes,
etc. in gravel, crushed stone, or sand surfaces. So just why do "dirt
or stone trails have to cost more to maintain?"

Because they wash out easily in any kind of heavy rain, and develop
potholes at least as easily as pavement does. If they close unpaved
trails in the snow, then that's a problem in northern areas. Paved
trails are still rideable in the snow until it gets several inches deep.

The wash out problem is not with the surface as much as it is the
overall quality of construction, like route selection and drainage.
Take a look at the Virginia Creeper trail -- it's mostly a very fine
gravel, which could wash easily. But the original builders managed to
drain away from the rail bed, so washing is not a problem for 33
miles. (The last mile is the 6% grade, and I'll grant that needs some
bigger gravel to prevent erosion.) Not bad for a 100 year old route
that hasn't seen rail traffic for 30 years or so!

Pat

Email address works as is.

On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:57:56 -0500 in rec.bicycles.rides,
"William O'Hara" wrote:

If you don't pave with asphalt or concrete, you will not get much
usage. You're losing rollerbladers, wheelchairs, and lots of other
people.

then it might actually be a *bike* trail, and somewhat useful if
it actually goes where cyclists want to go. multiple use trails
are useless because you can't get up to speed because of the
rollerbladers, dogs, kids on trikes, etc.

BIKES BELONG ON THE ROAD NOT ON TRAILS.

On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:39:36 -0400 in rec.bicycles.rides, David
Kerber wrote:

Because they wash out easily in any kind of heavy rain, and develop
potholes at least as easily as pavement does.

not if they are properly built.

I'm not following you here. The rail trails I know of have gravel
surfaces, of varying coarseness. They are open year round, except
possibly in case of major floods or snow. Does somebody actually plow
any paved rail trails? No worries about pavement cracking, potholes,
etc. in gravel, crushed stone, or sand surfaces. So just why do "dirt
or stone trails have to cost more to maintain?"

Yes. Places do plow the trails. Why do they cost more? The aggregrate
doesn't stay together without a binder forever. The stuff is slowly
displaced by trail wear, water, wind, etc.

Doing a good paving job with a solid subbed should last a long time under
bicycling. They don't present a load of 3000# running atop it nonstop
throughout the day. A lot has to do with maintaining adequate drainage
underneath the road.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list
ICRR

Not if they're well designed and built, with good drainage, etc.
Asphalt has a lot of problems -- it's impermeable, so drainage is a
bigger challenge, it cracks and forms potholes from cracks, it suffers
from ice damage, frost heaves, edge erosion because of the drainage
challenges, etc. Well built gravel/dirt surfaces don't have these
problems. They're much cheaper and easier to fix, with no special
equipment needed, etc., so they're actually cheaper to maintain. The
quality of repairs to dirt/gravel surfaces is always better too --
usually seamless.

This whole thread seems bizarre when bicyclists campaigned for
paving in the first place.

If the government is going to maintain the trail, then they have
no problem to maintaining it. They will have the asphalt equipment.

There is no way that the asphalt surface is going to be ruined in
a short time if properly installed.

The Cape Cod trail's path lasted a very long time. It was exposed
to the salt air and it had some of the highest usage in the state.
It is now being repaved.


--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list
ICRR

then it might actually be a *bike* trail, and somewhat useful if
it actually goes where cyclists want to go. multiple use trails
are useless because you can't get up to speed because of the
rollerbladers, dogs, kids on trikes, etc.

BIKES BELONG ON THE ROAD NOT ON TRAILS.

I would actually like to have Bike Highways. I agree with you.
I seldom ride any trails as the utility isn't there for me.
I do not have a direct route to Boston. I would love to have
a specialized route for Bicycles from the South shore all the way
to Boston with out any stop signs. Merges should be completed
just like the highway.

It would see large numbers of users.


--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list
ICRR