« Montgomery County makes it legal to bike commute via trails (starting next week) | Main | The Berlin Wall Trail »


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

Would it be more effective to just have a tiny 1 foot grass median between the two "trails"?

Otherwise I feel people will just balloon out when walking in a group anyway.

At least that's my experience with wide sidewalks around the area at least.

Won't wider trails just induce more demand?

Drums, I read a good argument against the green strip. In short without it people will take the opportunity to cross back and forth; but they're more likely to do that for good (to avoid a crash) than evil (pass safely)

Why should pedestrians be forced to walk on a grass strip? So, bicyclists can race by? Nonsense, the trail isn't a road. Slow down your bike.

I always thought trail widening would be necessary, and glad to see it starting to be considered. Seems like an unusual and confusing design to have the 8' walking strip on one side though.

@Contrarian, of course it will induce demand! Just like building a trail in the first place induces use, creating a safer and more enjoyable riding experience will attract and allow more people to use the trail. The difference is that the demand is for an activity contributing positively to society, which is kind of the point, right?

Matt - I think you are misunderstanding the design, the grass strip would seperate the directions. The walking strip would still be paved.

As for slowing down - even at a very cycling pace of 10 MPH, the need to pass constantly is an annoyance to riders, to walkers, and possibly a danger. And of course the trail IS a transportation facility - many people use it to commute.

"very modest cycling pace"

Can they make all the road crossings like the one at TR Island -- crosswalk raised to the level of the trail, trail markings continue through the raised roadway portion?

The W&OD and other trails are a type of facility we probably want to have greater usage. So induced demand is a benefit rather than a drawback.

The issue with highways is that induced demand is either ignored or played down.

I can be persuaded on a grass strip. I've not seen very many trails that do have separate walking/biking paths so I'd trust the word of an actual designer or planner.

Widening trails in parks destroys the natural environment near the trails, makes the trails unsightly and adds impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off into the Chesapeake Bay.

This is of little, if any, concern to cycling advocates. However, the damage that widening trails does to parks destroys the frequent contention that cycling helps protect the environment. As a result, trail widening reduces public support for cycling-related expenditures.

The W&Od Trail is a former rail corridor, so the natural environment comes pre-destroyed. But, expanding bike infrastructure does come with some trade offs. We might disagree about what is "unsightly" but runoff is a definite tradeoff. I'd support efforts to reduce or mitigate that. But I don't see how the park - which is mostly a linear trail park- is damaged by making that trail better.

It's possible to use pervious paving, at some cost. If taht can't be done, there is some tradeoff. I seldom see the loss of pervious syrface mentioned wrt to road widenings, libraries, shopping centers, etc. The best approach would be a pervious surface tax, which the projet would have to absorb.

However the claim that widening the W&OD would ruin the W&OD linear park makes me suspect Mr.Berne is not very familiar with it.

So now soccer moms can cluelessly walk 6-abreast with their strollers. Oh goody.

The slower walkers should keep right not hogging the left side and faster runners and bikes pass left when the W&OD trail is less crowded.


I rode 27 MPH on the less crowded part of CCT but when I pass a walker or runner I slowed down to 10 MPH which not many cyclist do when I walk or run on CCT.

The W&OD isn't meant to be preserved as wilderness. It's meant to open up what was a railroad corridor to others (not just cyclists btw).

There is an environment there because mother nature takes over what isn't being used though.

But widening the trail wouldn't be free of environmental impact. No one really argues that it won't be. So we should measure what those impacts would be and mitigate them. Doing that isn't hard.

As both a biker and a walker, I've had recent good experience with the parallel trail concept and really like the design. I used the bikeshare in Brisbane, Australia recently on part of their extensive network of trails. They use the parallel design and it worked really well in busy weekend use. They used lots of paint so everyone knew where they were supposed to be (bike lanes painted green, checkerboard in mixing zones at trail junctions, numerous pedestrian and cyclist/rollerblader symbols with directional arrows, etc). I also recently took a walk in Newport Beach, CA, along some water in a nature reserve. They also had similar parallel design (though one direction of the bikeway was a sharrow for one-way, slow, car traffic). Not as much paint, but it still worked well in my experience on a weekday morning. As a pedestrian, I was glad to have my own space.

"Widening trails in parks destroys the natural environment near the trails, makes the trails unsightly and adds impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off into the Chesapeake Bay."

How do you feel about the project to make I-66 wider?

I am not in favor of widening I-66. The widening destroys trees and shrubs on the side of the road. The official name of I-66 inside the Beltway is the "Custis Memorial Parkway".

Parkways have trees, shrubs and other vegetation that enhance the driving experience. That is the reason that it is more enjoyable to travel on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Clara Barton Parkway than it is to travel on parts of I-66 that have been widened.

Widening roads and highways reduces traffic congestion for only a short time. Before long, people change their driving patterns and developers construct new buildings near the widened roads because the decreased congestion has decreased travel times.

The resulting increase in traffic again congests the road or highway. Highway users gain nothing, but lose their views of the destroyed trees and shrubs.
Wildlife also loses its habitat.

Widening paved trails has the same effect. The W&OD Regional Park contains meadow areas, which are uncommon in suburbs and cities. These unique natural features provide habitat for pollinators, wildflowers, and wildlife that are rapidly disappearing from Northern Virginia.

The W&OD Railroad had only one set of tracks in the area that the Regional Park now occupies. The wider portions of the W&OD Trail now occupy more space than the railroad ever did.

Any further widening of the W&OD Trail will decrease the further the size of the meadows and other natural areas that once bordered the railroad and now border the W&OD Trail. This will decrease the attractiveness of the Regional Park and will result in a loss of wildlife habitat.

Further, there are no studies that demonstrate that widening a trail increases safety. Widening trails encourage cyclists to increase their speeds. At the same time, widening trails encourage both cyclists and pedestrians to travel side-by-side.

The combination of increased speeding and side-by-side traveling creates conflicts between trail users and increases the severity injuries resulting from accidental collisions. As a result, widening a trail decreases its safety, rather than increasing it.

Parallel paved cycling and pedestrian trails don't work. Speeding cyclists use the pedestrian trail, as it is often less congested than the cycling trail. This creates conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians.

"Widening paved trails has the same effect. "

Well no. Bike trails don't cause sprawl or congestion, it does pave over some previously unpaved land. In that sense it is true that widening comes with some negative environmental trade-offs. But if a better trail leads to more transportation by bike (as opposed to by car) those benefits should outweigh the costs. And then there are other benefits to consider as well. You've made a case that they're are costs, not that the costs exceed the benefits.

Wider trails are recommended by AASHTO, NACTO and FHWA as ways to improve trail LOS.

Good cycling amenities work, improving overall transportation, benefiting the environment, reducing the need for roads and saves lives.

Proof it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader