I-66 Trail should be outside the sound wall, but VDOT giving into irrational fears instead of rational ones

The I-66 Outside the Beltway project will include 22 miles of parallel trail, which is great, but there is a real fight going on right now about what that trail will be like.  Specifically over the ~5 miles that will inside a sound wall.

For about five of the project’s 22.5 miles, the trail would be squeezed between the highway and the concrete wall that will serve as a buffer between traffic noise and adjacent neighborhoods.

Trail users, led by FABB, want the trail to be outside the sound wall. 

“It is air pollution, it’s noise, small particles that get kicked up from the highway,” said Bruce Wright, a member of the Fairfax Alliance for Better Bicycling. “Imagine riding on this trail and there is really no place to go if you have a problem. You are right next to a very tall soundwall, and you are right next to a jersey barrier.”

But it seems that VDOT is putting it inside the wall to address the irrational fears of neighbors while ignoring the rational concerns and fears of trail users. The only way to fix this is to speak up. 

Susan Shaw, the director of megaprojects at VDOT, said opponents of the design will have an opportunity to publicly state their cases in hearings later this year, before a final decision is made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

 At community meetings, residents said they fear a trail will bring crime, such as break-ins, to their neighborhoods.

The design plans are a response to property owners’ complaints that placing the trail outside the sound barrier could bring unwanted strangers riding bikes into their neighborhoods. 

I had always assumed that there was an engineering or project reason for this - like it would allow for access to break downs, or storm water benefits or something. I had no idea this was to placate the unfounded fears of jittery neighbors. (What the hell is an unwanted stranger - and can't roads or sidewalks also bring them? Can I oppose a sidewalk outside my house because it might bring "unwanted stragners"? I'm sorry, but eff that)

Update: I have since talked to someone closer to all of this who told me that VDOT is using utility space to build this trail. They indicated that the sound barrier could not move, meaning that if the trail is placed outside the barrier, more land will need to be taken from adjacent landowners. I had not understood that to be the case before. <end>

VDOT should listen to everyone, but when the desires of one group are in direct contrast with the project goals - and when their reasoning is so unfounded - they should politely tell them no.

the idea to place six segments of the trail inside the sound wall, starting with a 1.2-mile stretch in Dunn Loring, is about striking a balance between the needs of travelers and rights of property owners along the highway in Fairfax County, Shaw said.

“We are coming into peoples’ backyards. We are doing strip takes across those backyards with right-of-way just to get the roadway in,” said Shaw.

None of that is changed by moving the trail outside of the wall. And any loss of privacy can be fixed with a simple 6-foot tall privacy fence. More importantly, you don't need to compromise with lunacy. 

While safety concerns influenced the process, [Susan Shaw, the director of megaprojects at VDOT] conceded, “I don’t believe there is any data that would suggest that [crime] is an issue.”

OK, so you don't need to address it. 

Comments

[Doug]

So.... If VDOT is building the wall on people's land, then I get the whole idea of the people not wanting a trail in their land. But if VDOT is taking the land from them (eminent domain), then really the people don't have much recourse if the trail is on the other side.

Frankly, VDOT should say "don't want the trail bc it's on your property? Then you don't get the wall either.

I've been riding a bike on small streets and have particles and stuff hit me when going 5mph!

Now imagine a TRUCK at 65 kicking a rock my way.

[fongfong]

There is a long history in my part of Ward 3 about people not even wanting a sidewalk along a public street. So yes, there are plenty of people who don't want to see "strangers."

It strikes me that there have to be just as many people who live along this stretch that would want to have direct access to a bike trail, rather than have it on the other side of the wall. Sure, having a property along I-66 is value destroying, but at least one enhancement to value would be access to a trail.

[Ren]

This belongs in the Onion.

[Jonathan Krall]

Thanks for this report. I agree with fongfong. VDOT needs to remind people that bike trails raise property values.

[drumz]

" At community meetings, residents said they fear a trail will bring crime, such as break-ins, to their neighborhoods."

At community meetings people ought to actually be prepared to give examples when stating things like this.

Crime on trails happens but usually its because there is crime in the neighborhood already.

But it doesn't matter because people have irrational ideas about their property as if they're hermits in the Maine backwoods rather than living in the largest county in the region. These people are the same ones to write notes asking people not to park in front of their house even though parking is allowed there and the homeowner themselves have driveways and garages.

[David Blair]

I would actually like a bike trail adjacent to my back yard, but I can understand why people would not. If they bought a house with a private backyard, of course they might want to keep it that way. I have little patience for opposition to removing parking, road diets, etc. But this is different. The glass (or plastic) partition that goes part of the way on the Wilson bridge trail does a pretty good job of making the trail usable.
Isn't something like that, or higher, a pretty good compromise.

[Michael Neubert]

The article linked to talks about debris, absence of shade, and air pollution - there is also water thrown up from the roadway during rain. I have been splashed with the equivalent of several buckets of filthy water from the 14th street bridge deck more than once; it isn't the sort of experience that encourages riding.

[David Blair]

Sometimes, the "excellent" is the enemy of the "okay." I'd much rather all the money being poured into I-66 go into bike paths. But, that won't happen and it likely won't happen that VDOT goes against the homeowners' wishes. The trail on the Wilson bridge is not bad, especially in the sections with the transparent barrier. Maybe cyclists should be fighting to ensure there is such a barrier on the I-66 path. Also, since this is only five miles of a 22 mile trail, it might open up access to quiet side roads so you could avoid that section.

[washcycle]

David,

Maybe. But that isn't being offered. I'd be surprised if a plastic partition/trail/wall would be cheaper than a wall/trail/privacy fence. And with a good privacy fence it's hard to argue that the trail is in your backyard.

VDOT is perfectly content to go against the homeowner's wishes when it comes to expanding I-66, so I don't see that as a valid argument. But to be clear, a Wilson Bridge-style transparent barrier isn't being offered. I think if cyclists are going to fight, they should fight for the best possible option which is wall/trail/privacy fence. The question is why landowners would oppose that and why VDOT would give into it.

As for "quiet side roads" which do you have in mind. Remember that every mile reduces the utility for transportational cyclists by 33%.

[drumz]

There's no way to have a private backyard without a fence in any of the neighborhoods we're talking about.

[Brett Young]

I'd like to see the area that the neighbors are up in arms against.....from what I saw on google maps, there isn't much space to put a path there.
And the green will be gone
Is this the area that is being discussed?
https://goo.gl/maps/e5y1yvREVHt