Finish the trail calls on Cyclists to Speak up for the Purple Line

Wayne Phyillaier makes a strong "pro" argument.

The present trail in inadequate

The trail ...crosses busy Connecticut Avenue and Jones Bridge Road at-grade at traffic lights. The trail ...has no off-road trail connection to the Rock Creek hiker/biker Trail. The interim trail ends abruptly in an industrial park in Lyttonsville, and cyclists must follow the on-road Georgetown Branch Trail for over 1-½ miles to complete a trip into Silver Spring. This on-road bike route has many turns and numerous at-grade crossings of busy streets and state highways.

and without the Purple Line, "there are no credible plans to complete the trail as a safe off-road trail."

The completed trail will be a vast improvement over the interim one

The rebuilt trail would be a 10’ wide paved asphalt trail with at least a 2’ clear space on both sides. All of the Purple Line options except the “low investment” options would have a trail bridge over Connecticut Avenue and an underpass at Jones Mill Road. The trail would cross Rock Creek on a new bridge separate from the transit bridge, and there would be a direct, off-road trail connection to the Rock Creek hiker/biker trail. The trail would be separated from transit by an approx. 10’ wide planted buffer over most of this length.

The trail would remain in the Bethesda tunnel, elevated above the transit, if the “high investment” light rail is built. The DEIS indicates the trail would not remain in the tunnel for the lower cost Purple Line options. However, the Maryland Transit Administration has indicated it is open to considering keeping the trail in the tunnel for other options if there is strong public support. An ongoing MTA structural study of the Bethesda Tunnel indicates there may be fewer problems associated with modifying the tunnel to accept both the Purple Line and the trail than was believed when the DEIS was written. An alternate off-road trail route is proposed around the Bethesda Tunnel along Bethesda Avenue and Elm Street Park for all Purple Line options, regardless of the status of the tunnel route.

The DEIS includes concepts to build a new 1.4 mile long off-road trail extension from Lyttonsville to the Silver Spring Transit Center in downtown Silver Spring.  All five of the crossings of busy roadways at traffic lights that now exist along the Georgetown Branch on-road bike route would be replaced by grade-separated crossings along the new trail route.

Neither WABA nor the CCCT have taken an official position (pro or con) on the Purple Line, so the people speaking for cyclists, Save the Trail, are not cyclists and are not interested in what's best for cyclists.

Purple Line opponents are spreading the myth that the rebuilt trail will have a width less than 10’ in places because the Georgetown Branch Corridor is too narrow to support a full width trail and the Purple Line. The DEIS and an examination of the corridor show this is just not true.

“Save the Trail” groups claim to speak for the interests of all trail users, including bicyclists. But their chief interest is in keeping transit away from their neighborhoods. Some of their members have spoken at a recent town hall meeting against paving the trail because they do not want more cyclists on the trail, and instead want the trail to continue to be like a neighborhood park.

They have also put forward the false, and potentially disastrous, myth that rails next to trails are dangerous. I have not heard this for a few years, but it must be ruthlessly squashed each time it comes up.

I have not previously taken a position on the Purple Line here because I believe a reasonable person can find the costs (money and the park like nature of the ROW) are not worth the benefits (improved transit and trail). I still believe that. But I'll now say that I disagree. I think this is a good thing for cyclists. Furthermore I think the Purple Line and trail are good for the community, and - since they meet the Federal Government's none-too-charitable cost/benefit requirements - worth the cost.

Phyillaier points out that not only should cyclists be in favor of this, and tell MTA about it but they should ask that the trail be 12' wide instead of 10.

The permanent CCT section west of Bethesda is 10’ wide and is severely overcrowded during many periods. The rebuilt trail east of Bethesda will suffer similar overcrowding conditions if only built to the same 10’ width. The trail design profiles presented in the Purple Line DEIS show that it is possible to build a 12’ wide trail within the corridor with only a minimal cost increase and impact on the trail buffer space. An even wider trail may be possible, at a greater cost and impact. It is a serious deficiency of the DEIS that the feasibility, cost and benefits of a wider trail is not evaluated. MTA should be asked to address this.

And he's in favor of the on street route in Bethesda Update: to complement, rather than replace, the tunnel.

To Contact MTA

Purple Line public hearings will take place at four locations in November. You can sign up at the door to speak. Locations and dates are listed at the MTA Purple Line website www.purplelinemd.com/aadeis.

Written comments can be submitted until January 14, and carry as much weight as testimony given at the hearings. Email your statement to [email protected].
You can send written comments to
:
Diane Ratcliff, MTA Director of Planning
6 St. Paul Street, 9th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

Photo by ericluedtke

Comments

[finishthetrail]

To clarify, I support BOTH the tunnel route and the on street route for the trail in Bethesda. Both are needed because they serve different purposes.

WABA and CCCT will be clarifying their positions on the Purple Line at the November 18 public hearing. I hear they both will ask that the trail be at least 12' wide if the Purple Line is built. If so, then both organizations think the trail will be so well used if completed alongside the Purple Line that it will be crowded. That totally refutes those who assert the Purple Line will devastate the Trail and make it too unattractive to use.

Who said "No one goes there any more, it is too crowded"?

[Washcycle]

Right, I knew that and meant that. Will fix.

[Contrarian]

The safety canard raises its head again!

There is nothing unsafe about the "unfinished" eastern end of the CCT. Sure, it runs on neighborhood streets, but they're low traffic. The only gripe I have is that it's poorly signed and it's easy to get lost. That could be fixed with signage, or more imaginatively, striping the streets along the trail with distinctive colors.

Clearly the "finished" part of the trail is more dangerous, with its crowded conditions and poorly designed street crossings.

Oh, and Yogi Berra is credited with saying "Nobody goes there, it's too crowded."

[finishthetrail]

The unfinished eastern end of the trail does run along quiet streets, but crosses numerous busy ones. It has many more "poorly designed street crossings" than does the finished western end. It is the crossings that will get you.

[Contrarian]

The "crossings" on the eastern section are intersections. They are perfectly designed for vehicles. Nothing tricky about that at all. On the western side, you have crosswalks.

I'll take an intersection over a crosswalk any time.

[finishthetrail]

Cyclists are very diverse in their preferences, and you are certainly free to take the intersections. The streets of Silver Spring will remain available to you when the Purple Line is built.

And you will have lots of intersections. If you travel east/south from Stewart Avenue on the existing street route to the transit center to connect to the future MetBranch Trail, you must deal with 9 stop signs at intersections: At Stewart, Kansas, Michigan, Lanier, CSX bridge, 3rd, 2nd, Noyes, and Ballard. And you must deal with 5 traffic lights: 16th, Spring, Fenwick, Cameron, and Colesville. You can cheat on most of the stop signs, but the lights at 16th and at Colesville are at 6 lane state highways with heavy turning traffic, so they are serious crossings and not at all neat. And then you will still have to deal with getting through the transit center traffic to reach the MetBranch trail trailhead in the future.

My preference will be to take the future CCT built along the CSX corridor with the Purple Line. I will have 3 stop signs: Stewart, Michigan, and Lanier. I will have 0 lights. I will have a direct, seamless connection to the future MetBranch on an elevated trail structure above the transit center. And my ride will be shorter.

But feel free to stick to the streets if that is what you like.

[washcycle]

I don't care for the crossing at 16th with it's angled streets. And most people don't cross Connecticut at the intersection, they use the crosswalk. These crossings are fine for experienced adults, but the CCT should be available to a wider demographic.

[Contrarian]

Is having to wait at a stoplight unsafe? No, it's inconvenient. As is so often the case when talking about transportation issues, "unsafe" and "inconvenient" are being used as synonyms. Hence my original comment about the safety canard.

Trails crossing roads at crosswalks controlled only by stop signs on the trail? That's convenient -- and unsafe.

[Jack]

We definitely want to minimize the number of at-grade crossings of streets, especially major streets. It's inconvenient to the point of completely undermining the special value of these trails. Groups like WABA support them because they allow virtually continuous uninterrupted travel, like freeways (oops, dirty word), like parkways for bikes. That's not even getting into the issue of families of cyclists trying to use the trail.