In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>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.

Your proof is that a poorly paved surface will essentially self distruct.

> A paved bike path will be destroyed
> not by the bikes but by the winter and vegetation.

There are several once paved bike paths in northern cook county IL forest
preserves. They are quite ridable. I found the fine gravel an odd color.
On closer examination I found that the gravel was once pavement.

> An unpaved one
> will become rutted by the bikes and washed out in rain.

There was some single track trail that was in use from before I could
ride a bicycle until last year when houses were built there.

> 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).

I too, but only in portions where the contours of the land were not
respected.

> 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.

Get rid of the car passing in the same lane and there is only a need for
18 inches.