I don’t see much talk about that self-evident fact. Asphalt sucks in so many ways. What would be a better alternative that needs not worry about cars but mostly bicycles?
Self-evident in your mind, maybe. Ever tried to walk or cycle on a dirt road that’s more holes than actual path?
I don’t know. It depends.
Asphalt spread out on very large surfaces sure sucks. Like parking lots and street parking. It contributes to flooding and heat island effect. It’s also bad for runoff polluted water, fulled with micro particles of plastic from tire shedding. Too much asphalt everywhere is bad.
But! Some major bike green ways and rail trails here have started to put asphalt on their bike paths, and they have good reasons for doing so. Those rail trails were covered with fine crushed rocks before, and the runoff was also pretty bad for the environment. The maintenance was higher because the gravel needs to be replaced. And the path couldn’t be used for some weeks in the spring and fall because of thaw cycles. This article in French has a mayor saying they had this studied and it was better for the environment to have their part in asphalt. Plus, bike are not heavy enough to damage the asphalt so it also needs much less maintenance for cycle routes.
I’m all for having asphalt on major bike roads and rail trails. But not on rural roads mainly for cars, and not to cover parking lots.
It’s still bad for the environment, you’re essentially bisecting it. Animals can cross the road, but mycelial networks (which underpin pretty much everything in the forest) often can’t. A ribbon of asphalt divides entire networks, isolating and perhaps even killing them, which leads to collapses in other areas. It also impacts drainage and encourages runoff.
This can be mitigated by using wood chips as a road surface instead of pavement. There are experimental mycelium-based road surfaces in development as well.
The holy Grail obviously is a flat, hard surface more similar to asphalt but without those issues, as I know wood chips and other rough surfaces can be both annoying to ride on and preclude certain vehicles/tires (i.e. road bikes) from riding on them at all.
So what are the ways asphalt sucks in your opinion?
(providing the road is well maintained…)I have a hard time coming up with road surface types that don’t suck more in most aspects.
I’m more of a titsphault man myself
Pigeonsphault is more nutritious.
Asphalt is actually pretty cool right? It’s resilient and highly reusable as far as I know.
While more resuable than concrete, the process is very energy intensive and requires bitumen every time. It also doesn’t last very long.
Bitumen is recyclable, though it isn’t nearly as easy as reclaiming the aggregate. And there are techniques where you don’t need to expend lots of energy, collectively called “cold in-place recycling.”
For example, California’s cold recycling program.
Have a look at Dutch streets. Many of them are paved with bricks. It allows rainwater to be absorbed rather than running off causing flooding.
It allows rainwater to be absorbed rather than running off causing flooding.
There’s an old theater I performed at twice in Southern Ohio. Built before the Civil War, and surrounded by brick buildings, a brick street out front, brick alley, and brick parking lot area.
The second time I was there, the street had been paved, as had the back parking area, and large portion of surrounding alleys. Only the single side alley was still brick.
The first time it rained the week I was there, the basement, while not flooded completely, had so much water running through it to the sunken boiler room, the owners had to toss down some quick 2x4 walkways so nobody was ruining costumes and footwear or slipping and suing. The walls of the basement looked like mini waterfalls.
I popped outside during a lull and the back parking area and alley were basically acting as a funnel, pushing all the water right up to the sides of the building.
I just checked a satellite map view and it looks like they’ve at least re-paved the back alley (don’t know if it drains any better but it’s clearly much darker and there’s lines painted) and the building beside it is gone and instead there’s a ton of grass. So maybe it’s better, but I’m sure they shortened the remaining life of the building by a ton.
That doesn’t work everywhere. The netherlands doesn’t experience too many freeze/thaw cycles and their ground doesn’t freeze for half the year.
But isn’t asphalt even moral susceptible to frost related damage?
I come from an area with both types of road surfaces and the condition of the asphalt is generally much worse after winter.A massive part of that is water instrusion under the road or into cracks of the surface itself. The frost also expands the underground material sometimes leading to humps on the road that develop to cracks that make the problems worse and worse.
Exactly.
But so far mainly seen this for asphalt once it is a few years old.
It also is much harder to rectify again for asphalt without tearing it all up and rebuilding it from scratch, leading to the emergency pothole covering cycle of death, ending in the typical uneven patchwork asphalt surfaces l see everywhere.I’ve seen a lot of brick driveways and patios warp and heave from the winters in my area. The patios aren’t built to the standard of a road of course but asphalt driveways do seem to outlast the brick ones. The brick driveways have the same benefit as the road with increased permeability.
The patios aren’t built to the standard of a road of course
l guess that’s the relevant difference. Brick needs good groundwork and proper drainage.
That’s the case for the official brick town roads here, some of which are hundreds of years old. (although these really old ones are not nice to ride with a bike on, rough stones with huge gaps)
Not being a solution “everywhere” doesn’t negate its value, but having lived in the Netherlands and visited Copenhagen myself, I can tell you that paving bricks are applied well in both places and that they hold up just fine against frozen weather.
Is there some kind of drainage system under the bricks? If the ground is frozen, id assume meltwater will collect between and under the bricks.
Yes, klinkers aren’t laid directly on the ground, it usually has a layer of sloped gravel and another layer of sand/fine gravel compacted with a vibrating plate, which prevents water pooling between and beneath them in the first place
Absolutely there is. Nobody except ignorant homeowners DIYing a patio ever puts pavers directly on dirt; we’ve known better than that since at least Roman times, if not earlier.
(source)
I prefer cycling on asphalt.
Pavestone (including Belgian pave just like what was used on Paris-Robaix) and dirt are good only if you have big cushy tires or a suspension fork. Or assuming dirt roads don’t get dusty or muddy enough to get you blinded temporarily or splattered or forced to get off and walk through the mud.
Where I am, it’s either asphalt or concrete, but how good are they depends on the subcontractor and the quality of materials bought. And of course, I ride a dirt road only if either I don’t have much of a choice or I’m feeling sporty than commuting.
What the hell are you talking about… Asphalt is such an ideal surface for cycling that it was a national cycling club which started and led the public campaign to make it the default road surface.
Asphalt roads are literally cyclist-gotten gains. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water!
OP hates cars so much that they even see asphalt as an evil.
NCC recommends installing devil’s horns as a handlebar and bitumen is demons’ cum. There’s no way around this, infinitesunrise, you maker of arguments™. I’m sorry.
Biking on pavement takes less effort, and pavement is also more suitable for things like wheelchairs and strollers.
Paved streets have existed for thousands of years before cars; there’s nothing wrong with them in and of themselves. It’s building them too wide in order to try to accommodate ever-increasing car traffic that’s the problem.
