Redesigned I-66 Trail reduces inside-the-wall trail mileage by 40%

Shortly after my last post on the subject, VDOT released an updated design for the I-66 trail. The new design reduces the part that is inside the sound barrier from ~5 miles to 3 miles and it makes some other changes as well. 

The Transform I-66 project, whatever it's downside is, will do a lot to improve cycling and walking in the corridor. The project will add 11 miles of trail with another 7 provided by others. It will improve 11 bridges with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities and add 8 permanent count stations along the trail. 

The main purpose of the new design was to reduce the amount of trail that is inside the sound barrier (ISB). In some cases the bike lane was moved outside the sound barrier (OSB), and in others the sound barrier was removed. In the Fair Lakes area, the long stretch of ISB trail was broken up and reduced and the section near Route 28 redesigned. (Solid Purple is ISB, Green is OSB and Purple with white is no sound barrier). 

Old

New

And the ISB sections were reduced west of Oakton as well

Old

New

In addition, the section near Fairfax County Parkway was realigned. The trail no longer runs along I-66 west of West Ox but instead uses Fair Lakes Parkway and Fair Lakes Circle to connect to the same crossing of Fairfax County Parkway. It may be a shorter route, but how they design this portion (using the interactive map, it looks like a sidepath) will likely determine whether it is better or not. 

Old

New

This doesn't correct ALL the things that should be improved, but it is progress. Still, it means that trail users will have long sections where they're sandwiched between the highway and the barrier, sections that will be loud and dirty. 

Which might be OK, if there were a good reason for this. But the only reason given is that some people didn't like the trails on the residential side. 

VDOT developed the concept plan for the 66 Trail consistent with local jurisdiction trail plans. During earlier public outreach for the project, VDOT received many comments opposed to placing the trail on the residential side of noise barriers in locations where the trail passes near homes. Those comments led to a contract requirement to locate the trail on the highway side of noise barriers in areas adjacent to homes.

Hearings on the latest designs were held mid-month and comments are due on Wednesday. The first construction work on this project will start next month.

 

Comments

[richardb]

No wonder they don't want to bike trail near the residents. Bikers can't be bothered to follow basic traffic laws and everyone resents us for it. If we want nice things we need to start acting respectfully when we are on the road.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

While this is not an ideal solution, it definitely shows a payoff to the hard work of advocates. Keep doing it, folks!

And trolls are gonna troll.

[DE]

"If we want nice things we need to start acting respectfully when we are on the road."

You are talking about car drivers here, correct? What a world that would be if drivers all the sudden started acting respectfully toward each other and other road users.

[Atlas Cesar]

Sadly not even a clever troll.

[drumz]

When I started paying attention there's a lot more of the Custis Trail that runs practically next to 66.

HOWEVER, it's broken up a lot and there are other tools (like plants, berms, changed elevation, etc) that do more work to separate the two groups and exits into the neighborhoods are still frequent*.

So even if places outside the beltway still need to run along 66 we still need to push to make it as good as we can.

*And that simple fact makes me wonder how people can be so afraid of the trail when you just need to go a couple miles down the road to see how much of a non-thing it is.

[richardb]

Oh no you are getting a different view point on how bicyclists act and how it harms their ability to get things done. Does not compute does not compute, must be troll must be trolllllllllllllll. Must shut down head and run red light.

[DE]

That some bad behavior by some cyclists is somehow relevant to infrastructure improvements is a false argument--even if we could do something about the minority of cyclists who behave poorly, which we can't, any more than car drivers can make other drivers behave safely.

Many drivers disobey traffic laws at great danger to other road users, but no one argues that we shouldn't improve the infrastructure because of it.

So yeah, that kind of repeated one-note posting, irrelevant to the subject at hand and couched in that kind of bitter language, registers to some as trolling. To me it just sounds like some angry person who hates bicycles, and probably many other things as well, and gets off on telling people so.

[DE]

These mostly seem positive, but I wonder what residents think of the "and in others the sound barrier was removed."

[richardb]

@DE there is absolutely no way that bicyclists running red lights and generally disobeying traffic laws is the minority. And drivers who have way more political clout see that behavior and guess what they stick us next to the sound barrier. Because the biking community has less power and goes out of its way to garner hatred from the dominant political power in situations like this.

But go on run that red light, you totally are going to get where you are going .5 seconds sooner and you can feel smug about sticking it to the man.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

richardB

There are plenty of posts on this blog where you have the opportunity to discuss behavior at red lights and stop signs. There is no particular evidence that this was AT ALL in play here (in fact IIUC one homeowner said that she loved cyclists just not "in her backyard") That is simply not what the topic of discussion is, and yes, trying to change the topic to the one YOU prefer to discuss, and to provoke contention, is, in fact, what trolling is.

[DE]

"But go on run that red light, you totally are going to get where you are going .5 seconds sooner and you can feel smug about sticking it to the man."

What a strange thing to say to random person on the Internet who for all you know is law abiding.

[DE]

One thing that tends to get lost in these discussions is that it's not just about cyclists. Runners, walkers, and dog walkers could all use this multi-use path if it were done right. But you really can't see much of that happening between the sound wall and the Interstate.

[Crickey]

Meh. I nearly got smooshed this morning by a car that ran a red light. I saw zero cyclists running any.

[RichardB]

@ACyclistInThePortCity

Everything is related.

If that woman loved cyclists she wouldn't care if they were in her backyard, but she sees their behavior and know that won't shout that they are passing or slow down for kids trying to cross the path.

Regardless of car drivers behavior which is often despicable, the point is that the majority of voters are car drivers and bikers are a minority. And I am pretty sure almost every driver in the D.C. area has a daily story about a biker running a red light and knows we won't get ticketed for us and resents it. And those drivers pay the AAA to advocate on the behalf FYI.

Someone in the bike advocacy community said we are our own worst enemy in regards to scofflaws. Every red light that is run just makes Infrastructure gains so much more tooth and nail. Could you imagine how much better it would be if that NIMBY woman actually liked cyclists instead of just giving a good sound bite.

[Crickey]

I obey all the traffic laws. I do not feel the promised wave of love and affection. I do it because it makes me safer and because it's the right thing to do, and while I don't approve of anyone breaking any traffic laws, I feel the causation portion of your hypothesis remains unproven.

Yours in Scientific Discovery,

Crickey

[washycle]

"If that woman loved cyclists she wouldn't care if they were in her backyard..."

But people opposed to this aren't saying they don't want cyclists in their back yard. They're saying they don't want runners or dog walkers or other people there either. If we said "bikes are banned on these trails", they would not suddenly say "Oh, OK, then that's fine." This is why your non-sequitur about red-light running is illogical. It doesn't match the actual evidence in any way.

Also, you are being a troll. It's time for you to grow up and comment about red-light running only on posts that deal with that issue. Either behave yourself or find your comments deleted with ruthless joy.

[oboe]

No wonder they don't want to bike trail near the residents. Bikers can't be bothered to follow basic traffic laws and everyone resents us for it.

I too am an Avid Cyclist who is Extremely Concerned. One could even say I'm something of a concern troll on the matter.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

[i]Everything is related.[/i]

No, not everything is related.

{i]If that woman loved cyclists she wouldn't care if they were in her backyard, [/i]

That is precisely what a NIMBY is. Someone fine with something - affordable housing, power lines, whatever, as long as its not near their property (though the usage has expanded) There are plenty of people who are fine with something, but dont want the real or perceived costs of proximity. In this case the neighbors didnt want the perceived costs of loss of privacy. That is what they said. Having cyclists stop at red lights would not have prevented them from staring into backyards, which is what the neighbors complained about.

[RichardB]

@washcycle

You are that lame that you censor the comments with relevant discussion because you don't like it?

[Crickey]

Richard, you need a big hug. C'mere.

I implore you to join me in starting at the Leading Pedestrian Indicator, which is legal in DC since 2013. It's great because it allows you to simultaneously follow the law and still feel like you're sticking it to the man.

[washcycle]

I am lame but mostly for my continued insistence that Mad Men is unwatchable and over rated. I allow people to make comments with which I disagree all the time. What I'm not going to allow is for you to continue to hijack posts about one subject to bring it around to your preferred subject matter of red-light behavior. I urge anyone who would like to discuss that in detail to find an appropriate post here or to find one of Richard's many youtube videos documenting such bad behavior. You can even comment on them.