Weekday closures of the Capital Crescent Trail June 2-13

Sections of the Capital Crescent Trail will be closed Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, June 2–13, 2008 as the Montgomery County Department of Parks makes significant improvements to the trail.

“We expect these changes will improve safety and provide a better experience for all trail users,” said Department of Parks Southern Region Division Chief Brian Woodward.

For up to two weeks, June 2 – 13, sections of the Montgomery County portion of the Capital Crescent Trail, about 5.5 miles of paved surface trail from Bethesda Avenue to the District line, will be closed to public access as the department’s contractor adds a center line to the trail, marks trail intersections and crosswalks and installs and marks speed limit signage along the trail. The 15 mile speed limit signage will be the first time a speed limit has been posted on the trail. The work is anticipated to proceed as follows:

The first section to be improved on or about June 2: Bethesda Avenue to Little Falls Parkway
Next section: Little Falls Parkway to Dorset Avenue
Third section: Dorset Avenue to River Road Fourth section: River Road to Massachusetts Avenue
Last section improved, no later than June 13: Massachusetts Avenue to the District line

“Our contractor will work as quickly as possible to finish before June 13, weather permitting,” added Woodward. “We appreciate trails users’ patience as we get this important work completed.”

The Capital Crescent Trail will remain open for use on weekends, Saturday and Sunday, during the project and at peak bicycle commuter times during the week, before 9:00 am and after 3:00 pm, to minimize service disruption. Park Police officers will also be stationed along section endpoints during project work hours to ensure the expeditious completion of the work.

“It is unfortunate that the trail has to be closed for any amount of time, but we are pleased that this work is being done in that it will enhance the safe use of the trail for all types of users,” said Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail Board Chair Peter Gray. “We also are appreciative of the consideration given to bikers who use the trail to commute to and from work.”

For more information or updates on the project, please call 301-299-0024 or visit www.MontgomeryTrails.org.

Comments

[Jeff]

This is the first I've heard about a speed limit being instituted. Seems a shame. Going downhill towards DC this will basically mean coasting only.

[Jan]

Seems that if they're going to post a speed limit like you would see on a roadway, then they should also post signs that you should have a dog no more than half a foot away from the owner. Also, it should be mandatory that all walkers not wear earphones in both ears (cyclists have this restriction - why can't walkers/joggers?) Dog walkers and ipod wearing joggers/walkers are just as much of a hazard as cyclists going 15 mph.

[washcycle]

What will they do if you don't have a speedometer. That actually came up in Denver as I recall.

[jeff]

First comment was a different Jeff (hey buddy, I was here first!).

While I'm not opposed to speed restrictions on a multi-use recreation trail, it's really unfair to base trail safety improvements on it. The safety issues on the CCT are due to the trail not being able to handle the capacity of users it gets. Real safety improvements would include a natural surfaced extension to widen the trail and either creating 4 way stops at intersection, or redirecting stop signs so that cars yield to more vulnerable trail users.

[JeffB]

Sorry Jeff! Didn't mean to tromp on such an awesome name ;)

Back to the trail ...
Is the CCT an arterial commuter route or is it a serene walking path for adjoining residents?

I think a speed restriction makes sense on busy weekends. During the week and especially during morning/afternoon rush 'hour' people should expect faster traffic.

I ride the trail nearly every week day and I do think many cyclists are not riding in a respectful manner.

[JeffB]

Sorry Jeff! Didn't mean to tromp on such an awesome name ;)

Back to the trail ...
Is the CCT an arterial commuter route or is it a serene walking path for adjoining residents?

I think a speed restriction makes sense on busy weekends. During the week and especially during morning/afternoon rush 'hour' people should expect faster traffic.

I ride the trail nearly every week day and I do think many cyclists are not riding in a respectful manner.

[Joe]

I agree the speed limit will not solve the over crowding problems on the CCT. A new long range problem is that this restriction is the beginning of bicycles being pushed away from the CCT. It would be similar to restricting a lane on 495 25 mph and allowing bicycles and motor vehicles to share it.

The CCT is a bicycle trail, it should not be treated as a sidewalk.

[Contrarian]

Do they close roads to paint stripes and put up signs? For two weeks? Sounds like someone's going a bit over the top.

[Rocky6]

It's ironic that trail-widening is offered as the solution to congestion. Much like the strategies for I-270 and I-66!

A wider CCT would certainly make it easier to ride faster, thereby increasing the speed gap between various trail users and increasing the danger of collisions. There would probably also be more dangerous pack riding, such as we see on the W&OD.

Note how some cities, DC included, are now exploring improving safety for all users by narrowing roads, not widening them.

There's no simple answer, we all just need to be considerate of others on the trail: better animal control, limited iPod volume, predictable trajectories, and allowing adequate reaction time for when things go screwy.

[jeff]

Joe-The CCT is a multi-use path, and not just for bikes. While that may seem like semantics, it is important in order to keep all trail users in mind when discussing convenience and safety.

Contrarian- The limited width (12ft?) is probably the reason for the closure. When streets get restriped there are always additional lanes for traffic to use. With that said, 2 weeks is entirely too long for this.

Rocky6- Though I see what you are getting at, I don't think the widening comparison is really fair. The widening of 66 or 270 is countered with the building and promotion of alternatives, be it transit, car/van pooling or biking. The CCT is one of the alternatives here that is now over capacity at peak times regardless of the speed of its users. Education, common sense and courtesy would improve conditions for sure, but wouldn't solve the problem. As I mentioned to some overly reactionary fellow on the MABRA listserve, I think time and energy would be better spent for commuters to advocate for better on-road facilities be it weekday closure of beech drive, wide outside lanes of/bike lanes on macarthur, wisconsin or connecticut, etc.

[Rocky6]

(Original) Jeff:

I completely agree that improving on-road capabilities would make a big difference.

The CCT-Interstate analogy is fair, I would argue, because adding capacity only serves to add demand for the route, thus negating any reduction to congestion.

Of course, I could be wrong. I think it's great there can be a debate over the merits of widening paths to improve the viability of bicycle transportation. Hard to imagine such a discussion 10 years ago.

[Joe]

Jeff, I agree, the CCT is a multi use trail and that includes bicycles. The problems on the CCT are not casued by bicycles alone. All users types are equally to blame for the saftey issues but fit cyclists are the ones taking the limitations on their commuting, recreating and their fitness level.

Removing the two bridges in Bethesda. That will reduce the number of users on the trail solving the over use problem. Yes that will add two at grade crossings but for cyclists that will still be less intersections than avoiding the CCT because the other types of users can't share the trail.

Again, the major problem is that the CCT is over used. All types of trail users must take blame for the saftey issues and be a positive part of the solution.

1)Stay far right
2)ALL USERS warn before passing
3)ALL USERS LOOK BACK before passing or TURNING
4)If it is not safe to pass then SLOW DOWN AND WAIT.
5)ALL USERS STOP AT ALL STOP SIGN. YES WALKERS AS WELL!!!!!
6)Dogs on short leashes 100% of the time.
7)Turn the music DOWN!!!
8)Remeber, the CCT is a multi use trail. ALL USERS SHOULD EXPECT TO BE PASSED!!

Bike lanes will NEVER replace the ease of use and saftey that by definition a multi use bcicyle trail provides for all types of cyclists.

[washcycle]

I'm not sure if the "induced demand" argument is applicable to the CCT. For starters i don't think it's actually congested yet - not the way I-66 is for example. But if widening the trail induces demand, what are we waiting for?

[Rocky6]

I agree with WashCycle's doubt that the trail is truly congested.

I don't ride it every day as some here no doubt do, but I ride it frequently and I've never felt crowded on a weekday. Of course, I commute at unusually early hours, so that could contribute to my perception.

The trail is more crowded on sunny weekend afternoons, so that could be what Joe is referring to when describing the trail as "over used."

My point about "induced demand" (great phrase, didn't know there was jargon for this already) was only that I don't think widening the path will ease congestion or reduce the trail's current danger level.

I certainly support any measure to encourage my bike commuting and if a wider, faster path is the answer, let's do it. Just don't expect user complaints to decrease.

I like Jeff's suggestion to encourage development of on-road routes. This will give riders more options than simply concentrating them on one path.

[Joe]

Yes, weekends is when the trail can reach over capacity use on nice days. There are times that I've sat behind walkers at less than 5 mph with 50 to 100 meters worth of on comming traffic until the opportunity to pass.

It's busy on weekdays at rush hour but no where near as busy as on a 70 deg sunny weekend morning.

I talked with Parks and found out that they are:

- Repainting the yellow line
- Installing rummble strips of some type at Little Falls and Dorset crossings.
- Installing 15 mph speed limit signs. They were unaware of how this would be inforced.

Unfortunatly there is nothing being done to have people look before turning or entering the trail or to keep head phone volume low. Two items that have directly played a part in the few accidents that have happened on the CCT.

[Rocky6]

Aargh, typo in my last item. Paragraph #4 should read:

I certainly support any measure to encourage MORE bike commuting and if a wider, faster path is the answer, let's do it. Just don't expect user complaints to decrease.

[Purple Eagle]

What an unusual argument - I have never encountered anyone suggesting we should add at-grade intersections and remove bridges. Advocates of safe trail travel are usually fighting for the opposite. Why do you anticipate that this change would reduce congestion? Are walkers and runners less likely to wait for a light than cyclists? I have to say this sounds exclusionary "let's get ride of the pedestrians so we can have the trail to ourselves" (my paraphrase of what it at least sounds like you are suggesting).

"Removing the two bridges in Bethesda. That will reduce the number of users on the trail solving the over use problem. Yes that will add two at grade crossings but for cyclists that will still be less intersections than avoiding the CCT because the other types of users can't share the trail."

[washcycle]

I have to say that removing the bridges sounds like the nuclear option to me. I'd like to think there is a better way (and I too question if this would even solve the crowding on weekends issue).

[Joe]

I agree 100%. Removing the at bridges and adding at grade crossings is a horrible idea. It would remove some of the ped traffic. Long uninterupted trails have the most ped traffic (and all types of traffic) simpily due to the lack of road crossings. It has a lesser affect on bicycle traffic as other routes would include more crossings.

It's also 100% unrealistic to think that a 15 mph speed limit will solve conflict problems on the CCT. People need to share and respect each other. Not try and remove a user group from the trail.

I will say that in the past 2 to 3 months I have found the CCT to be more friendly. I am use to thank you and friendly waves on the W&OD but up intill recrently that almost never happend on the CCT when giving a warning before passing. It's still uncommon but it is nice change.

Bike lanes/roads should not be a forced option.

A friend of my in the last town I lived in was the main person behind trying to get a bicycle trail.
He was hit and killed on shoulder that was a designated bicycle lane.

[Chris Loos]

The solution to congestion on the CCT is to BUILD MORE TRAILS. I live on the complete opposite side of the District, yet I always find myself over on the CCT because its so nice to ride on. I suspect a lot of other cyclists feel the same. Give us more options, and we won't clog up one trail.

[jeff]

Woah, hold on- rumble strips?? This is the first I've heard of these. Can anyone else comfirm this? Peter, Wayne or Jack- any of you one to speak to this?

Oh, and the idea of removing the bridges isn't even worth responding to other than to point out more access points generally creates more users, not less.

[m.o.w.]

I'm with Chris: the CCT is a beautiful facility, and more trails like it would be great. I get frustrated, just like everyone on this forum, with the gridlock caused by pedestrians who seem to take their lives into their own hands by pretending there are no cyclists on the trail. But...shouldn't we as athletes and proponents of fitness be happy that so many people are getting outdoors and being active? The CCT is certainly not the only trail in America that is loved to death. Although certainly a different situation, many say the same about the AT, to name one. Its the great trail paradigm and also a disconnect: we set aside these beautiful places and then people flock to them. What did you expect?

[Joe]

I called the number with the above press release. Thats' were I head of the rumble strips. I just hope they don't add pinch points at the intersections. That would be chaos with everyone trying to funnel through a crossing on a weekend.

Interesting so one likes the idea of removing the bridge but to some it's ok to force fit riders to slow down or ride the road. By the way I like bridges. I've been pushing to keep the Viers Mill/Rock Creek Trail bridge in the masterplan. Not sure if it made it into the current budget. One of the council members wanted to take it out to save money.

I drove down to Bethesda tonight to ride instead of ending a ride in the dark on the roads. As usual all the cars stopped and waved me through the crossing on the CCT as I came to a stop at the intersections. My heart rate was never above 115 on the way down my speed, 20mph most the way down when not slowing for trail traffic. On the way back up riding a confortable pace entering the tunnel with lights heart rate 142 speed 19.8 mph. With an average heart rate of 129, ave speed 16.8 it was an easy ride. Commuting is allowed on the trail and YES I use to drive to VA to ride their trails at night before I learned I was allowed to commute on the CCT at night.

To top it off as I was leaving Bethesda going driving up to the CCT trail crossing by the book store a group of peds walked INFRONT OF A CAR WHICH HAD A GREEN LIGHT!!!

Cyclists exceding 15 mph is not the real danger on the trail.

[Joe]

I agree a big part of the problem is that we need more miles of high quality trails such as the CCT. I think that has alot to do with the large numbers on the weekends.

Sadly as I have been working for more trails I have learned that the majority of paved trails in the masterplan have been removed. To top it off the ICC trail, the last major trail in the masterplan has been cut in half and butchered into pieces. It's very depressing to see what little is left.

[silverspringtrails]

The rumble strips are to be installed only at the two at-grade crossings in Bethesda, where there are stop signs on the trail. Cyclists regularly run these stop signs, often without slowing. The rumble strips have been promised to be very low profile, so as to not create a tripping hazard for pedestrians. They probably won't slow a cyclist determined to blast through the stop sign, but will serve to remind others of the at-grade crossing hazard.

Wayne

[Contrarian]

When the trail crosses a road, pedestrians and cyclists have right of way, motorists are the only ones legally required to stop. There is no legal requirement for a pedestrian or a cyclist to stop for a stop sign when using a crosswalk. So why are the trail "improvements" all aimed at the users who have the right of way, (cyclists and pedestrians) instead of the ones who don't, the motorists? Shouldn't the rumble strips be on the roadway?

If they want to give motorists the right of way the only way to do that under current law is to install a traffic signal. On weekends the traffic volumne seems to be enough to support one.

These "improvements" don't seem to be well thought out.