I guess I haven't been on the GW Parkway or the Mt. Vernon trail for a while, because I haven't noticed the construction going on there just north of the airport. Officially the project includes
Bridge widening and deck replacement for GWMP bridge over North Access Ramp to Reagan National Airport. The bridge widening is to provide trail access over the bridge, separated from traffic. Currently, the trail crosses the bridge along the shoulder. Only 4-inch high mountable curb separate pedestrians and traffic. Work will also include painting of steel members and repair to bridge lighting underneath.
Work began Sept. 22 and should be completed by the end of this year.
Neither the trail through the airport nor the connection to Crystal City is supposed to be affected. Perhaps the separated bridge and trail will mean that cyclists won't feel they have to bike on the Parkway.
This past weekend I nearly ran into a bycyclist[sic] who was riding his bike on the GW Parkway. I know the Mt. Vernon trail gets a bit crowded on weekends, but riding your bike on the parkway can't possibly be legal can it?
Dr. Gridlock flubbed the answer, but someone corrected him
From byways.org, website of the National Scenic Byways Program (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration) re the GW Parkway: "Non-motorized vehicles such as bicycles are prohibited from the roadway."
Addendum: Based on comments on this post, I'm no longer sure that bikes are prohibited from the GW Parkway, and suspect they're allowed. Use your own judgement.
Bike are also prohibited from the interstates, in case you were confused.
Then there's this letter and response from the Examiner.
A few friends and I regularly make weekday exercise runs between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the multiuse Mount Vernon Trail along the Potomac between Rosslyn and National Airport. With the arrival of warmer weather, we are experiencing the return of a recurring problem: unsafe bike riders. I’m not talking about the occasional individual out for a fun riding excursion, but rather the serious, well-equipped riders who use the trails as if they were the only ones there. Many cruise along at excessive or unsafe speeds, fail to announce their passing, and refuse to obey signs that require they dismount and walk through narrow underpasses or across roadways. On more than a few occasions, we have been nearly run over when moving through the narrow pathway under the Memorial Bridge.
Steve Elkridge:
Look, I know that a crash with a 3,000-pound vehicle is more likely to be fatal than one involving a jogger and a bike, but the point is the same: Show some respect for those with whom you share the road (or the trail) and obey the posted rules.
My main issue with this article was the inane title "Do unsafe bike riders pose a danger on the roads?" Of course. As 'unsafe' bike riders, they're dangerous by definition. And the article doesn't deal with bikes on the road, but on a trail. As for the letter itself, people should announce their passing (though on a busy trail it really stinks) and bike safely around pedestrians, but I repeatedly ignore "dismount and walk" signs. Some trail designers are overzealous in their use of these. If a narrow area is crowded, I'll do it. But if no one else is coming the other way, I just bike through slowly. And I almost never do it to cross a street. A better question is "Can you disobey "dismount and walk" signs and still be a safe bike rider?"
I wonder which part of GW Parkway the person writing to Dr. Gridlock was talking about? I wouldn't ride my bike on the parkway north of Alexandria, but I do it all of the time south of Alexandria, and there are plenty of other cyclists there too. If it's illegal, then I guess I'm breaking the law -- though it's notable that more than one park police vehicle has driven past me on the parkway without stopping an issuing a ticket -- maybe it's because I'm usually going a reasonable speed.
Posted by: Chris | May 25, 2006 at 03:39 PM
Steve Elkridge is absolutely nuts on this one. I have been riding that section of trail for 27 years. In recent years, walkers and runners have completely, actively abandoned their responsibility to work with cyclists to make the trail safe. "Charity" training organizations regularly hold formation runs on the trail, which is incredibly dangerous, and completely inconsiderate of other trail users. Walkers walk two and three abreast, and refuse to react to required warnings when being passed. When walkers and runners start sharing again, I will play along. Safety is a shared responsibility, the rules are clearly posted, and pedestrains are ignoring them.
Posted by: MtVernonTrailBiker | May 26, 2006 at 01:17 PM
MtVernonTrailBiker, you sound just like a motorist who was in Dr. Gridlock a while back, saying "I'll start respecting cyclists when they start respecting the law." Take responsibility for your own behavior. If someone "refuses to react to a required warning" you have to wait -- two wrongs don't make a right, that's not a license to pass unsafely. It's just the same as motorists who don't understand that a cyclist in their way doesn't make it OK to pass unsafely.
The Mt. Vernon trail is a disaster when it is busy -- which is just about any nice day. Like many of our streets, it just can't handle the level of traffic it gets. While there is a lot of discourteous behavior on many parts, I have to say that the primary safety risk comes from cyclists, simply due to their higher speeds and lower maneuverability. I'd much rather ride on just about any street in the city. What's sad is that many beginners think it's a good place to learn, and must come away with a warped view of cycling.
Kudos to Steve Eldridge for recognizing that dangerous and discourteous drivers are a hazard to cyclists. Or at least claiming that -- I read his column semi-regularly and I don't remember him making that point before. But at least that's better than the other guy, Dr. Gridlock, who is unapolgetic in his belief that cyclists don't really belong on the road.
Oh, and don't blame the author for the headline, they're generally written by someone else.
Posted by: Contrarian | May 26, 2006 at 01:46 PM
The GW parkway is an exception to the general rule, which is that bicycles are allowed on any road where they are not specifically prohibited with prominent signs at all entrances. Most states also have laws saying that bicycles can only be prohibited on limited-access highways.
The GW parkway is owned by the National Park Service, which has its own rules, distinct from the states in which the roadway lies, and often much more restrictive of cyclists. In our area, the NPS prohibits cyclists on the GW, BW, and Suitland parkways, but allows them on the Rock Creek Parkway.
Posted by: Contrarian | May 26, 2006 at 01:54 PM
Problem is, the GW Parkway, at least south of Alexandria, is less like BW and Suitland Parkways and more like Rock Creek. Perhaps this is why I see lots of cyclists out on the road on those spots; perhaps that's also why I haven't ever been stopped by the police when riding on the road in that part. It's good to know, however, that when I'm doing that, I'm breaking the law -- that way, I know NOT to argue with the police! :)
Posted by: Chris | May 26, 2006 at 02:16 PM
It's news to me that cyclists are prohibited from riding on the GW Parkway south of Old Town.
The Mt. Vernon trail has a 15-mph speed limit, and 15 mph is probably too fast on weekends given how busy it is. Cyclists who want to ride faster than 15 mph belong on the Parkway.
As for the driver who "nearly ran into" the cyclist -- check it out: the Parkway has passing lanes for faster-moving traffic.
Posted by: Freewheel | May 26, 2006 at 03:50 PM
Well, inquiring minds want to know. I couldn't rest until I got to the bottom of the GW Parkway issue.
If you read this link carefully: http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title36/part1.html#1.5
you'll see that the NPS has limited authority under the law to close parts of the park to the public, which includes members of the public who happen to ride bicycles.
"Except in emergency situations, prior to implementing or terminating a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure, the superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the action. That determination shall set forth the reason(s) the restriction, condition, public use limit or closure authorized by paragraph (a) has been established, and an explanation of why less restrictive measures will not suffice, or in the case of a termination of a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure previously established under paragraph (a), a determination as to why the restriction is no longer necessary and a finding that the termination will not adversely impact park resources. This determination shall be available to the public upon request"
and
"§1.7 Public notice.
(a) Whenever the authority of §1.5(a) is invoked to restrict or control a public use or activity, to relax or revoke an existing restriction or control, to designate all or a portion of a park area as open or closed, or to require a permit to implement a public use limit, the public shall be notified by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Signs posted at conspicuous locations, such as normal points of entry and reasonable intervals along the boundary of the affected park locale.
(2) Maps available in the office of the superintendent and other places convenient to the public.
(3) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area.
(4) Other appropriate methods, such as the removal of closure signs, use of electronic media, park brochures, maps and handouts.
(b) In addition to the above-described notification procedures, the superintendent shall compile in writing all the designations, closures, permit requirements and other restrictions imposed under discretionary authority. This compilation shall be updated annually and made available to the public upon request"
If the NPS wants to prohibit an activity they have to publish the prohibition in the Federal Code of Regulations, which is available here: http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title36/part7.html#7.96
Section 7.96 is the National Capital Region. There is scant mention of bicycles. I say the byways.org website is wrong. And I thought the Internet was supposed to be infallible.
Here's an interesting link to what happened to cycling advocate John Forester when he tried to ride on the parkway: http://crankmail.com/fredoswald/Rt2Road.html#Forester
Suitland and BW parkways are definitely off limits -- see: http://www.nps.gov/nace/supt_compendium_2005.htm
Posted by: Contrarian | May 26, 2006 at 04:41 PM
Interesting. Thanks for the follow-up, Contrarian.
Posted by: Freewheel | May 30, 2006 at 08:58 AM
With the advent and popularity of the iPod, announcing one's intent to pass is often an exercise in futility. Not saying people shouldn't use them, but if someone chooses to walk/jog/bike with headphones firmly in place, I suggest (s)he stay well to the left of the side of the trail.
Posted by: iconoclasst | June 05, 2006 at 06:02 PM
That should be "right" of the side of the trail.
Posted by: iconoclasst | June 05, 2006 at 06:06 PM