22 Mile Trail Parallel to I-66 — Helpful Video and Input Needed
Our Community › Forums › Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling (FABB) › 22 Mile Trail Parallel to I-66 — Helpful Video and Input Needed
- This topic has 159 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by lordofthemark.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 10, 2017 at 11:11 pm #919475eminvaParticipant
Hello —
The VDOT “Transform 66” project continues apace. The good news is that VDOT has responded to our requests and included a 22 mile mixed use trail parallel to I-66 all the way from the beltway to Gainesville, VA. The bad new is that when I say “parallel,” well, just take a look at the short video:
Please take a look at this and if you are able, attend one of the meetings. If you can’t attend a meeting, please send an email. It seems to be the last chance for input.
Thanks.
Liz
June 11, 2017 at 1:15 am #1072001CBGanimalParticipantThanks for sharing!!!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
June 11, 2017 at 8:16 pm #1072005JuddParticipantYikes. I don’t think I’ll be able to make it to any of the meetings this week but I’ll definitely send an email tonight. I drove home from Georgia today and spent time observing all the road noise and debris that ends up on the side of the road. This would be an awful “Trail” as currently depicted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
June 11, 2017 at 9:54 pm #1072007trailrunnerParticipantSeems like when I-66 gets plowed, a lot of the snow and ice from the freeway will wind up on the trail, making it unrideable until spring, and a mess throughout the year.
June 11, 2017 at 11:13 pm #1072009n18ParticipantMy main problem with the trail is how much Sun exposure it gets so any snow would melt faster. Ideally it should be to the south of I-66 including the south of any noise wall. However, the current design puts it to the north side of I-66, and the noise wall is north of it.
Here is the current design:
<-- Gets full Sun here
If they just switch the noise wall so it’s between the trail and cars, then the trail doesn’t get sun in the winter months:
<-- No Sun here
What I prefer:
<-- Gets some Sun here because of possible trees and building to the south
And after seeing the video, I don’t like it. We are blocked from seeing trees and birds with tall noise wall, so it’s not enjoyable, and only 2 feet tall barrier between us and cars, so it’s not safe. However; on the plus side, car drivers would be able to see us going faster than they are. Unfortunately, I can’t get to the meetings either.
June 11, 2017 at 11:24 pm #1072010CBGanimalParticipantAnyone interested in riding there after work tomorrow? Leaving Crystal City around 4 or 430?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
June 12, 2017 at 4:31 am #1072014bobco85ParticipantI watched the video and looked at some of the designs, and the biggest question that I have on the proposed design is: Who is going to actually use this trail?
I think the people that are likely to use the trail in its current design are moderate to expert cyclists and runners. It looks to be well made for going long distances and will benefit athletes for training more than anyone else.
I think the people that are likely to not use the trail are beginner cyclists, nature lovers, children, elderly people, dog-walkers, and pedestrians in general. Trail-users will be subjected to loud, noisy traffic, oven-like conditions during the summer (all the asphalt heating up nearby and a noise wall reflecting some of the light at people without any shade), and lots of trash and debris from vehicles (especially during the winter). I don’t think people would enjoy using the trail because there are no landmarks, no interesting trees, no nature to enjoy, and as stated before, no escapes should a situation occur on the trail.
This trail is basically a narrow 2-way bike lane along an interstate and nothing more. It needs to go on the outer side of the noise wall and/or have grade separation.
June 12, 2017 at 4:45 am #1072015bobco85ParticipantI found this 10 year old report titled “Shared Use Paths in Limited Access Highway Corridors” online and noticed that it includes the Custis Trail here (PDF document): http://www.altaprojects.net/highwaytrails/highwaytrailsfinal0507.pdf Note that there are other highway-adjacent trails shown that we can reference.
Here’s some of the info it lists for the Custis Trail. Compare this with the design proposal.
- Type of Separation from Vehicle Traffic
- Horizontal and vertical setbacks
- Sound walls
- Guardrails
- Fencing
- Landscaping
- Benefits
- Horizontal and vertical setbacks (in most locations)
enhance user experience - Multiple access points to adjacent residential neighborhoods and other bike/ped destinations
- Horizontal and vertical setbacks (in most locations)
- Drawbacks
- Minimal separation (in some locations) between bike/ped traffic and high-speed vehicle traffic creates negative user experience
June 12, 2017 at 12:10 pm #1072018ursusParticipantI have been wandering around the website from the original post in this thread. Is there something that discusses or illustrates what happens to the bikepath at vehicular entrances/exits to I-66?
June 12, 2017 at 12:50 pm #1072022mstoneParticipant@ursus 161368 wrote:
I have been wandering around the website from the original post in this thread. Is there something that discusses or illustrates what happens to the bikepath at vehicular entrances/exits to I-66?
It depends on the exchange, the short answer is “whatever is cheapest and impacts vehicular throughput the least”. There is no doubt in my mind that VDOT will do a lousy job with this trail, because VDOT is VDOT. But, I’d rather be in the position of trying to improve the trail in 25 years than trying to get ROW for a trail in 25 years.
Quote:I think the people that are likely to use the trail in its current design are moderate to expert cyclists and runners. It looks to be well made for going long distances and will benefit athletes for training more than anyone else.The problem with biking in Fairfax & PWC generally is that for years VDOT has been pushing the idea of major roads with high speeds collecting from local roads which are basically culs-de-sac. If we don’t get trails along roads like 66, it’s really hard to go longer distances because the lower speed roads aren’t through roads. Compounding that is geography: if you look at a map you’ll see a lot more long north-south roads than east-west roads, because of the hill & stream valley topography. There aren’t that many options to get from east to west across western fairfax into PWC, and (here’s the double whammy) the ones that exist are mainly being “upgraded” by VDOT into super stroads. It used to be that 50 or 29 were quiet alternatives to 66, but now there’s not all that much difference between them from a cyclist perspective–and that’s a trend that’s likely to continue because they keep building mcmansions and the voters moving there keep complaining about traffic, and the only solution VDOT has every come up with is to take an existing road and turn it into a 4 or 6 lane highway with 6 or 8 lane intersections. So, yeah, this is a really crappy bike route, but if we don’t get it there’s a good chance that there won’t be any bike route at all. (Talking about cycling for transportation here–trying to get from arbitrary point A to arbitrary point B using the existing road network is a very different thing than trying to find any quiet road to do some training.) I don’t expect that there will be many pleasure trips from one end of the new trail to another, but it’s an important connector from one useful N-S road to another.
June 12, 2017 at 2:06 pm #1072030n18Participant@ursus 161368 wrote:
I have been wandering around the website from the original post in this thread. Is there something that discusses or illustrates what happens to the bikepath at vehicular entrances/exits to I-66?
From the maps, it appears that they all will be tunnels, or whatever “Shared Path Structure Box” means.
If you want to see the maps, go here, then download the last map first and work your way up, so you would see them from east to west. The trail is not one straight line from west to east. Some segments detour to nearby Bike-Friendly Roads. It ends at Gallows RD at Dunn Loring Metro, and from there you would continue on Gallows to join the W&OD.
Here are the list of detours from Centreville to Dunn Loring metro:
Vienna metro: Exit at Black Lane, then use Sutton RD/Country Creek RD to get to the tunnel at Nuttly ST. See Google map here.
Rt50/Fair Oaks Mall: Get to West OX Rd, Post Forest RD, Random Hill RD. There is a trail segment from I-66 tunnel that needs to be build by others(County, etc.) to connect it to Random Hill RD. See Google map here.
Rt28/Braddock/Sully RD: Requires a trail segment from I-66 tunnel that needs to be build by others(County, etc.)I don’t see any trails west of Centreville.
June 12, 2017 at 2:13 pm #1072032AnonymousGuestThey’re seriously planning to put the “trail” inside the sound wall?!?!
DFA$%UJFsthgdjw^r
June 12, 2017 at 2:43 pm #1072035zsionakidesParticipant@n18 161358 wrote:
My main problem with the trail is how much Sun exposure it gets so any snow would melt faster. Ideally it should be to the south of I-66 including the south of any noise wall. However, the current design puts it to the north side of I-66, and the noise wall is north of it.
Here is the current design:
<-- Gets full Sun here
If they just switch the noise wall so it’s between the trail and cars, then the trail doesn’t get sun in the winter months:
<-- No Sun here
What I prefer:
<-- Gets some Sun here because of possible trees and building to the south
And after seeing the video, I don’t like it. We are blocked from seeing trees and birds with tall noise wall, so it’s not enjoyable, and only 2 feet tall barrier between us and cars, so it’s not safe. However; on the plus side, car drivers would be able to see us going faster than they are. Unfortunately, I can’t get to the meetings either.
The Woodrow Wilson bridge trail has clear sound barriers between traffic and the trails on the Virginia part of it which works quite well. That would be a solution to keep the trail on the north side, which I’m assuming has been surveyed out, while getting sun to the trail in winter. It would also allow drivers to see how much faster bikes go than cars during rush hour.
June 12, 2017 at 3:16 pm #1072038Steve OParticipant@Amalitza 161382 wrote:
They’re seriously planning to put the “trail” inside the sound wall?!?!
To protect the neighbors from the sound of clicking freewheels I think.
Seriously, though. There is no way this makes any sense from either a usefulness or safety point of view.
- There is no way the trail can be cleaned of debris or snow. With the soundwall on one side and the barrier on the other, it is impossible to plow.
- For debris, there would need to be some sort of custom trail cleaning vehicle that would need to be out there at least weekly. It would either have to be pretty small or it would block the entire trail (with no way to go around, see below)
- Undoubtedly stuff that falls off cars (mattresses, abandoned tires, etc.) will get thrown onto the trail, because that’s the obvious way to get it out of the road.
- In the cases of the trail being blocked (car crash involving a vehicle encroaching on the trail or something) there appears to be no way to go around. Trail users are essentially trapped in the trail by the soundwall.
June 12, 2017 at 3:23 pm #1072039eminvaParticipantThese are all really great comments — again, if you can’t attend a meeting and haven’t already contacted VDOT, I implore you to cut and paste your comment and send it to Transform66@VDOT.Virginia.gov.
The discussion here has been helpful for me to formulate my comment, so by all means, keep talking here, but also let VDOT know. They are the ones who can do something about it.
Thanks, everyone.
Liz
- Type of Separation from Vehicle Traffic
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.