Likes Likes:  90
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
ELITE ELITE:  0
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: Help Name the Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Along I-66

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    While I don't think it's ideal to have the trail inside the sound wall, I would rather have more trails that are separated, than worry about them being next to a highway.

    In my case it would have been great if they built a trail along 395/95 like they are doing for 66. They could put the whole thing inside the sound wall and I'd ride it to avoid the long roundabout ways I have to commute by.
    You might, but most people won't and that will make it harder to argue for future projects because "nobody uses them".

  2. Likes Steve O liked this post
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,555
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I've said this before, but this kind of trail is okay for commuters. And that's fine. But recreational cyclists, runners, dog walkers---this is useless for them. So unless a whole lot of commuters use it, the powers that be can easily justify getting rid of it.

  4. Likes Steve O liked this post
  5. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    You might, but most people won't and that will make it harder to argue for future projects because "nobody uses them".
    I don't agree that most people won't use such facilites. The WWB trail is quite well utilized despite it being next to a 10 lane highway with only a jersey barrier, VA portion excepted with the nice clear sound proofing. People will use the facility that is convenient for them to get from point A to point B. We have such a dearth of safe bike facilities, that even ones next to a highway are going to be a major improvement over sharrows, riding on sidewalks, unsafe bike lanes, etc.

  6. Likes dasgeh liked this post
  7. #34
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I really don't think it will be that easy to get rid of it - weren't there reasons they did not want the utility lines under a general travel lane? So I don't think they can easily put in a general travel lane here.

    I hear the concern about an underutilized facility being used in arguments against new infra - but A. IMO people on bikes over value the benefits of riding in MUPs vs in street infra, and tend to over use them. So this is less likely to be under used than even a valuable in street connection. And there really aren't many (any?) low stress E-W routes in that area. B. The "lets not do it it won't be used" tends to come up in debates about, again, in street infra, which tends to conflict directly with parking/or general travel lanes, not for MUPs which are usually a matter of $, and so do not stir up NIMBYISM the same way. Heck the NIMBYs are usually like "its too DANGEROUS to ride in the street, I don't hate bikes, I bike myself, I always put my bike in the car and drive to the Mount Vernon Trail, its lovely, but I can't bike my kids to school, ya know"

  8. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    MoCo
    Posts
    1,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I imagine it filling with windblown trash from the highway, and never getting cleaned up.

  9. Likes Steve O liked this post
  10. #36
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerdont View Post
    I've said this before, but this kind of trail is okay for commuters. And that's fine. But recreational cyclists, runners, dog walkers---this is useless for them. So unless a whole lot of commuters use it, the powers that be can easily justify getting rid of it.
    Seems like it would be the ideal place for pathletes - they can ride without dealing with either dog walkers and slow bike riders OR with cars.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zsionakides View Post
    I don't agree that most people won't use such facilites. The WWB trail is quite well utilized despite it being next to a 10 lane highway with only a jersey barrier, VA portion excepted with the nice clear sound proofing.
    the WWB bridge is a heck of a lot shorter, does not sandwich pedestrians between a sound wall and the highway, and actually has a view. not in any way comparable.

    People will use the facility that is convenient for them to get from point A to point B. We have such a dearth of safe bike facilities, that even ones next to a highway are going to be a major improvement over sharrows, riding on sidewalks, unsafe bike lanes, etc.
    unsafe? yeah, well, I guess you haven't look closely at what happens at the ramps for this mess of a trail.

  12. Likes Steve O, scoot liked this post
  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    MUPs which are usually a matter of $, and so do not stir up NIMBYISM the same way
    There are two reasons the trail is between a sound wall and a highway. The first reason is that VDOT didn't want to do a trail at all and didn't put much effort into it. The second reason was that NIMBYs didn't want a trail in their backyards, and that kept local political leaders from putting in much effort to try to get VDOT to make improvements.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crickey7 View Post
    I imagine it filling with windblown trash from the highway, and never getting cleaned up.
    That doesn't take imagination, just pictures of other VDOT-provided bike/ped facilities. Also, it's not just wind, it's snowplows and service vehicles throwing stuff over the wall so it's not blocking valuable car space in the breakdown lane.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    the WWB bridge is a heck of a lot shorter, does not sandwich pedestrians between a sound wall and the highway, and actually has a view. not in any way comparable.



    unsafe? yeah, well, I guess you haven't look closely at what happens at the ramps for this mess of a trail.
    WWB is similar in length to the segments on I-66 inside the sound wall and has similar noise issues. There are a couple similar sections on the Custis trail where the trail is between the highway and sound wall, but those are shorter segments. Both trails are well utilized regardless.

    I agree that the ramps designs aren't good. The usage of the trail will really depend on where users are going. If they are taking short trips to the metro stations or park and rides to catch a bus, then the ramp issue won't be significant. If users are trying to go the full length of the trail, I think crossings could be a deterrent.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •