In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's ruts in the asphalt about the width of bike tires. You think
>>>> they were caused by what, elephants wearing inline skates?
>>>
>>>The only time I've seen such things it was because kids rode across the
>>>surface before it was cured. The tire tracks then become part of the
>>>surface when it hardens.
>>
>> That wasn't the case here, but I suspect it happened when the asphalt
>> softened in the sun. Not great asphalt to begin with, obviously.
>
>And I know of road surfaces that potholed like the moon in the first
>winter.

I'm in Pennsylvania; I could throw a chunk of asphalt from any given
location and hit at least three such.

>So your point is that contractors often do poor work and/or cheat
>on specifications. As if this somehow reflects on the needs of bicycling.

My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable maintenance-free
meccas you make them out to be. A paved bike path will be destroyed
not by the bikes but by the winter and vegetation. An unpaved one
will become rutted by the bikes and washed out in rain. A
crushed-gravel one will need the gravel periodically replenished
(particularly after winter) and will also wash out in heavy rain (I've
seen it happen).

Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
for him.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.