Cycles of all sorts

Moving motor vehicles generate a "sweeping" effect that pushes debris such as grit and broken glass to the edge of the roadway.

By excluding motor traffic, cycle lanes and cycle tracks become parts of the road that are no longer routinely "swept" thus collecting more broken glass and gravel. In addition, some off-road designs are simply not accessible to standard road sweeping equipment. One UK study estimated that cycle path users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists. Both sides of the argument acknowledge that many cyclists will simply refuse to use poorly maintained facilities.

Cycle facilities skeptics go further and argue that there is no point funding new cycle facilities unless there is a simultaneous commitment of increased funds to maintenance and sweeping afterwards. A similar issue arises in areas subject to high leaffall in autumn, or high snowfall in winter, any cycle facilities must be subject to regular clearing or else rapidly become unusable.

For example, the city of Copenhagen spends of the order of DKK 9.9 million annually on maintaining its cycle path network. German federal law requires local authorities to declassify cycle tracks that do not conform to strict design and maintenance criteria .

The maintenance issue is used as another illustration of the claimed need to take a more “holistic” view of infrastructure management. Those countries with prominent, extensive, cycle-track networks such as Denmark and the Netherlands also tend to have higher urban population densities. It is arguable that this creates a local tax base that is able to justify and support the increased maintenance efforts required. The higher density also means that the maintenance effort is made more efficient simply by being more concentrated. In contrast, it is argued that caution should be exercised when proposing to construct such systems in less densely populated communities where the required maintenance effort may not be supportable.