05-25-2017, 05:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017, 05:26 PM by danbrotherston.)
(05-25-2017, 04:19 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(05-25-2017, 02:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those. It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget.
If we’re going to save costs by not paving something, we should start with minor residential streets, not paths meant for bicycles or pedestrians. Seriously, is there a single road in the urban part of the city narrower than 6m, or unpaved? Skipping paving even one such road would pay for a substantial bike path paving project.
So much this. I cannot stand the enormous waste we have when paving roads. Unnecessarily wide with huge intersections.
In the Netherlands (which has plenty of money for paving virtually all of their cycle network) most roads are only required width. Quieter residential streets will be 1 lane-width wide with another car-width for parking. If you come across across an oncoming car (the rare occasion that it happens, you pull aside for them to pass), it seems totally pointless to pave an enormously wide expensive road and incur the drainage issue with such pavement, (not to mention safety issues), just for the rare case of passing an oncoming car.
The same is true on quiet rural roads, which usually only have space to pass at turnouts...expect to pull over and wait as needed.
So much money spent on such minimal improvements in mobility.
[/rant over]