Speaking of bike paths

Hi. Locally we have an abandoned rail corrider that will be an
excellent bike path
(http://groups.hamptonroads.com/FNSC). I was wondering if anyone else
had checked out the National Trails Symposium in Illinois/Iowa.
Cycling in the south would be a fun presentation if the deadline had
not already passed.

"Terri" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi. Locally we have an abandoned rail corrider that will be an
excellent bike path
(http://groups.hamptonroads.com/FNSC). I was wondering if anyone else
had checked out the National Trails Symposium in Illinois/Iowa.
Cycling in the south would be a fun presentation if the deadline had
not already passed.

Have you asked the Rails to Trails people if they have this section on their
agenda?

Along the East Caost we have a movement that claims they are for
building bike paths along these old railways. But they want to leave
them dirt. I attended a planning meeting and many of the people there
really wanted horse trails.

The claim that people in New England will be riding on dirt rail trails
doesn't make much sense to me. Thy don't work in the winter for most
bike, they don't work during mud season (April, May, and early June).
They don't work after rains. And they certainly don't work for
motorized wheelchairs as was claimed at the meeting.

Washington DC have done a great job with bike paths. They have paved
paths and they are in an area with high traffic density. Cities like
Montreal also have set an example of how much bike paths can bring to a
city.

But I am not sure of the value of these rail trails. I think in many
places a lane along the side of the road would be more useful and a lot
more cost effective.

On Sun, 21 May 2006 17:07:06 -0700, wrote:

Along the East Caost we have a movement that claims they are for
building bike paths along these old railways. But they want to leave
them dirt. I attended a planning meeting and many of the people there
really wanted horse trails.

Plenty of equestrians use rail trails. They're for everyone except motor
vehicle users.

The claim that people in New England will be riding on dirt rail trails
doesn't make much sense to me. Thy don't work in the winter for most
bike, they don't work during mud season (April, May, and early June).
They don't work after rains. And they certainly don't work for motorized
wheelchairs as was claimed at the meeting.

Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well. It's
also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the difference
between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs. the whole thing.

Pavement is great in winter if it can be plowed, but without the budget
for that there's no advantage.

Washington DC have done a great job with bike paths. They have paved
paths and they are in an area with high traffic density. Cities like
Montreal also have set an example of how much bike paths can bring to a
city.

Big cities like can afford paved paths, and need them because they
serve so many users.

But I am not sure of the value of these rail trails. I think in many
places a lane along the side of the road would be more useful and a lot
more cost effective.

In many places in VA, there's barely enough right of way to fit the road
itself, let alone an adjacent path. Besides, bikes belong on all roads,
and all roads should be built to accommodate them.

Not everyone wants to ride on or near a road though. Traffic issues
aside, road-free areas are more scenic and quieter. Also, since railroads
have gentle grades, rail trails do too -- so they're more pleasant to
ride for non-athletic, everyday folk.

If you're not convinced of the value of rail trails, visit the Virgina
Creeper Trail, and see what it has done for the Damascus/Abingdon area.
Note the incredible variety of riders who enjoy it -- young and old,
novice to expert, fit and unfit -- and see the smiles on all their faces.

Matt O.

Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well. It's
also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the difference
between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs. the whole thing.

Pavement is great in winter if it can be plowed, but without the budget
for that there's no advantage.

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.


Pat in TX

But I am not sure of the value of these rail trails. I think in many
places a lane along the side of the road would be more useful and a lot
more cost effective.

I agree with you. There is too much interest in non paved bike
paths around here. Progress also seems very slow for a design with
lower initial costs albeit higher maintenance costs.

--
---
William O'Hara www.N1eY.cOM

Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well.
It's also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the
difference between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs.
the whole thing.

The trails are not exactly moving along with lightning speed around
here in Massachusetts. The real issue has been securing the ROW.
I think the Massachusetts Central Railroad would be a complete trail
across the state by now, if they had legal right to the whole thing.

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. You can stroll along in the park in the dirt, if you want.

A trail is for moving along at a sensible speed for a reasonable cost.

These dirt or stone trails have to cost more to maintain and can
not be opened throughout the year. I think that those issues present
serious drawbacks just themselves.

Like I said previously the trails aren't moving around at lightspeed,
here. There is a circular belt, which I don't think is completed
yet.

I noticed in Chicagoland that they have much more in trails. Their
trails are paved generally( the trail to Hennepin is stone). Their
trails are also a lot longer than some of the trails around here. The
only decent lengths near me are the Cape Cod Trail and the Minuteman
Trail, which are both more than 20 miles away.




--
---
William O'Hara

William O'Hara wrote:
Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well.
It's also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the
difference between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs.
the whole thing.

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. You can stroll along in the park in the dirt, if you want.

That sounds like a good thing to me (a cyclist)! Now if there was just
a way to keep dogs on retractable leashes off it, it would be perfect.

A trail is for moving along at a sensible speed for a reasonable cost.

These dirt or stone trails have to cost more to maintain and can
not be opened throughout the year. I think that those issues present
serious drawbacks just themselves.

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?"

Pat

In article ,
says...
William O'Hara wrote:
Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well.
It's also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the
difference between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs.
the whole thing.

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. You can stroll along in the park in the dirt, if you want.

That sounds like a good thing to me (a cyclist)! Now if there was just
a way to keep dogs on retractable leashes off it, it would be perfect.

A trail is for moving along at a sensible speed for a reasonable cost.

These dirt or stone trails have to cost more to maintain and can
not be opened throughout the year. I think that those issues present
serious drawbacks just themselves.

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.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

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

In article ,
says...

William O'Hara wrote:

Packed dirt is a fine riding surface, is permeable, and drains well.
It's also *a lot* cheaper than a paved surface. This can be the
difference between a trail being built or not, or short sections vs.
the whole thing.

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. You can stroll along in the park in the dirt, if you want.

That sounds like a good thing to me (a cyclist)! Now if there was just
a way to keep dogs on retractable leashes off it, it would be perfect.

A trail is for moving along at a sensible speed for a reasonable
cost.

These dirt or stone trails have to cost more to maintain and can not
be opened throughout the year. I think that those issues present
serious drawbacks just themselves.

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.

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.

I sit on our county bikeways-walkways committee, plus a citizen group that
mirrors it. I'm also heavily involved in a regional trails project, and
putting together a statewide trails conference. So I talk to engineers
and other builders/maintainers about this stuff regularly.

What have you two done lately?

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.

Why are gravel trails any different? We ride ours (VA) year-round, and I
see plenty of bike tracks in the snow on MA trails too. I bring my bike
whenever I visit, whatever the season.

Y'all need to get out more!

Matt O.