Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Maryland advocates: What I did on my summer vacation | Main | Thursday Morning Commute - There's an app for that »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I've ridden the Matthew Henson Trail a couple of times and would beg to differ with the "EXCELLENT QUALITY" classification. Yes, it's wide enough and doesn't have many at-grade crossings. But much of it is treacherous boardwalk (as pictured), and it has a lot of blind turns. I avoid it. It's great for pedestrians, but sucks for cycling, IMO. I think the classification system may need to factor in surface materials and safe speeds.

Another useful factor would be the designation of pedestrian lanes on bikeways. It's relatively scarce in the D.C. area, but useful.

trails wide enough for designated pedestrian lanes are very hard to find in the D.C. area.

Welsh Bridge should get a canopy of solar panels along its entire length and call it a day.

Any trail classification scheme will be of limited value when so many trails change in type and quality several times over their length. The CCT holds to a fairly uniform standard over its 7 miles between Bethesda and Georgetown. But most trails are more like the Bethesda Trolley Trail, which changes many times over its length.

Perhaps planners could be required to use the lowest classification found along the trail as its "official" classification. Then planners might be more motivated to not severely compromise a trail to make it easier to complete the trail through a tough spot.

+1 Wayne.

It's as though the idea of standards has not trickled down to bike/ped planning.

Mike, i said that.

The point is that, in a generally useful classification system, a MUP with a segregated pedestrian lane should be of a higher classification than one without.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader