advertisement

More decisions yet to be made for GetAbout priority projects

The next step in the process of extending the trail network is deciding what these new paths will be made of: gravel, asphalt or concrete.
Monday, August 11, 2008 | 9:16 p.m. CDT; updated 5:25 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Elli Eckhoff stands in her backyard in the Vanderveen Subdivision. Eckhoff opposes the building of a trail in the area. When Eckhoff and her family moved into their home, they were told that there would be no developing behind their house, but have since been informed that a shared-use trail will follow close to the edge of their property. “I feel strongly against it. This part of town has enough crime, and now we’re going to give them a wooded area to lurk in where our kids play,” Eckhoff said. “With all the green space Columbia has, why do they have to build a trail in people’s backyard?”

The draft of the Trail Design Guidelines was reviewed by the Columbia Parks and Recreation Department, but the department did not endorse the draft. This article has been corrected to reflect those changes.

COLUMBIA — After years of planning, the City Council approved a list of 15 priority projects that will be funded by federal grant money meant to promote nonmotorized transportation.

The grant would fund the construction of new shared-use paths for bicycling, walking and running.

Gravel, asphalt or concrete?

Annual cost to maintain a quarter-mile of trail:

Concrete: $745

Asphalt: $2,168
Gravel in a non-flood area: $1,320
Gravel in a flood-prone area: $4,226
Source:  getaboutcolumbia.com/autoimages/trails_concrete_vs_gravel_48.pdf

 

GRAVEL

Pros:
— Considered by some to be more natural looking.
— Good for flat areas out of flood plains.
— Softer on joints (running).
— Cheaper initial installation cost.
Cons:
— High ongoing maintenance costs.
— Difficult to maintain consistent surface quality.
— Environmental damage caused by gravel erosion.
— More difficult to use in winter because of soft, wet and dirty conditions.
— Gravel migrates on steep trail slopes.
— Difficult to ride bikes on steep slopes and in loose gravel.
— Difficult to remove silt deposits after heavy rains.
— A dirty surface during and many days after it rains.
— Difficult to meet Americans with Disabilities Act surface standards.
— Less stability for running and walking in loose gravel.


ASPHALT

Pros:
— Best initial surface (smooth, no cracks).
— Slightly less expensive than concrete in initial cost.
Cons:
— Edges crack with vegetation. To get a 10-foot wide trail, a 12-foot wide asphalt trail must be installed.
— Constant maintenance of cracks, filling and sealing with clay soils.
— Must be completely overlaid about every 8 to 10 years.
— Little structural strength to withstand soil problems below.
— Requires greater initial excavation in order to provide the required rock base depth. This is more harmful to nearby vegetation including trees.
— Impervious surface.

 

CONCRETE

Pros:
— Best long-term ADA-approved surface.
— Best longevity; should last 20 or more years.
— Best consistency of surface. Does not wash away or break apart.
— Does not wash away in flood areas or on steep slopes.
— Steel reinforcements in concrete help prevent shifting, displacement and cracks formations, causing fewer tripping hazards and barriers for wheelchairs.
— Cleaner surface during and after rains, keeping commuters clean and causes less wear and tear on bikes.
— Does not require gravel base rock, resulting in a smaller impact than asphalt would have on trees.
— Does not result in gravel washing into creeks after every rainstorm.
Cons:

— Initial installation is more expensive.

— Harder on joints (running).

— Less natural looking than gravel.



Related Media

Related Links

Related Articles

The next step in the process of extending the trail network is deciding what these new paths will be made of: gravel, asphalt or concrete.

The draft of the Trail Design Guidelines, which lays out building recommendations, includes plans for materials and trail widths. A draft of these guidelines was endorsed earlier this year by the GetAbout Columbia Citizens Advisory Committee.

The recommendations in the draft favor paved trails, particularly a design that would incorporate a 10- to 12-foot-wide concrete path beside a 5-foot-wide gravel path. The trail would be able to accommodate both foot and wheel traffic, City Park Development Superintendent Steve Saitta said.

"That's a really good compromise," he said of the multipurpose design.

Saitta said not all stretches of the new trails will have the same concrete-gravel compromise or the same dimensions, but the design standard, when adopted, will guide the structure of all the new trails based on the anticipated use and location of each one.

But many Columbians have shown in the past that they favor all-gravel trails, as evidenced by the public outcry following a proposal in 2006 to pave the MKT trail, which was later abandoned.

Ted Curtis of GetAbout Columbia said all-gravel trails would not be the best way to fulfill the project's goal of getting people out of their cars and onto their feet or bicycles. Gravel trails are sometimes inaccessible because of weather or flooding, while paved trails are often lower maintenance, safer and last longer.

Curtis said the majority of the proposed trails are in flood plains.

Curtis also cited the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which recommended concrete surfaces instead of gravel.

"Hard, all-weather pavement surfaces are usually preferred over those of crushed aggregate ... since these materials provide a much lower level of service and require higher maintenance," according to the guide. "In areas that are subjected to frequent or even occasional flooding or drainage problems, or in areas of steep terrain, unpaved surfaces will often erode and are not recommended."

The upkeep of the entire trail system falls on the Parks and Recreation Department and its maintenance budget, Saitta said. The cost of this maintenance can increase when dealing with gravel rather than paved trails. The Parks and Recreation Department currently maintains about 37.43 miles of trails in Columbia.

"What we find most difficult is gravel is prone to washing during flood conditions," Saitta said.

Gravel paths can also be more costly than concrete or asphalt because the gravel has to be replaced frequently. There are different levels of maintenance among the paving options, as well.

"If we go asphalt instead of concrete, it cracks because of the drying out of clay underneath," Curtis said. "We've gotten the most longevity out of concrete for this area because of the high clay content."

According to the Parks and Recreation Department, the average annual cost to maintain a quarter mile of concrete trail is $745, compared to $2,168 for asphalt and $4,226 for gravel in a flood area.

Paved trails also help the city comply with standards set out in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"It has to be a firm and stable surface," Curtis said of the ADA trail requirements. Not complying with such standards can open up the city to liability, he said.

Columbia does have some all-gravel trails, most notably the MKT trail. But that trail doesn't have the usual flooding problems of gravel trails, Curtis said. The MKT Trail is elevated on an old railroad bed, which helps prevent erosion and standing water. However, this kind of trail is not an option for the city's expansion project.

"We couldn't even get the permits to build a trail like that now," Curtis said. "With all the federal regulations, it would be very difficult and destructive to the environment (to build)."

Currently, plans are being developed for the construction of each individual trail. After being submitted, the plans must go back through public meetings, said Public Works Department spokeswoman Jill Stedem.

"A few projects have preliminary designs, but those have not been approved and could still change at this point," Stedem said.

Although there are currently no meetings scheduled to discuss trail surfaces, Saitta said that discussion will be forthcoming.

"It's got to come," he said. "Standards must be adopted fairly soon to tell consultants what we're going to build the trails out of."

 

Click here to read a Q & A discussing the environmental impacts of the trails.

Click here to learn more about GetAbout Columbia and their terminology.

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Todd Guess August 12, 2008 | 9:13 a.m.

Paved trails would be great for those of us who use them year-round. The MKT Trail is obviously the crown jewel of Columbia's trail network, but it is useless in January after a decent snow and several freeze-thaw cycles. Give us trails we can use!

(Report Comment)
John M. Nowell, III August 12, 2008 | 9:44 a.m.

Conrete? There's a real back to nature surface. Where is the outcry from the watershed advisory board members. The majority of the trails run adjacent to creeks. It seems like parks and rec. is at odds with the clean water proponents. Where's Ken Metcalf on this issue?

If a private business tried to put in a concrete parking lot, there would be restrictions about impervious surfaces, etc. and about a year of bureaucratic red tape before a permit "might" be issued. The city just does what it pleases without regard for their own rules and regulations.

If you want a year round surface, ride your bike in one of the many newly marked bike paths in the city streets.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Burris August 12, 2008 | 11:27 a.m.

Would you ride your bike on a busy street? Excuse me if I would like a safe trail where I don't have to worry about large vehicles and cars. Give an opinion after you've been clipped by a car while riding. No matter how safe a bicyclist may try to be, the street is still a more dangerous place than a concrete trail.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 12, 2008 | 2:07 p.m.

As long as the trail is away from the road and has few intersections, Brendon is correct. A trail (or pedway, or bike lane) that runs parallel to a road is considerably MORE dangerous than riding in traffic. 96% of car-bike crashes occur at intersections, and they are often intersections like driveways where the driver, concentrating on traffic, didn't see a cyclist riding on a sidewalk or pedway.

With experience, riding in the street is a better way.

DK

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr August 12, 2008 | 3:18 p.m.

Concrete is not the answer to paving trails. I would think a sturdy road base or a rubberized asphalt would be better.

(Report Comment)
John Beaumonte August 13, 2008 | 8:44 a.m.

I agree with Brendan's comments. My wife and I have both discovered that cycling across an intersection can be extremely hazardous to one's health! Vehicles stopped in a turn lane are only concerned with other vehicles coming toward them from their left side. As a cyclist attempting to cross the intersection in front of them can be harrowing to say the least. Give us the trail anytime!
JB

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements