ArlNow reports a "collission between two bicyclists" on Custis

[dasgeh]

@KLizotte 55963 wrote:

I’m always mystified why people choose to recreationally walk or run along the trail given that there are so many nice neighborhoods located parallel to it.

I can answer that last one. I live in Cherrydale, and the Custis is (1) the only good option to get from Cherrydale to Lyon Village with a stroller/kids (Lee Highway sidewalks become impassable and just aren’t safe or pleasant) and (2) the only off-street path we have (well, in south Cherrydale). We have lots of traffic cutting through on our streets, and subpar sidewalks. So, if you need to take a kid for a walk in the stroller, Custis is the best bet. Unfortunately.

[Two Wheels]

@dasgeh 55964 wrote:

I can answer that last one. I live in Cherrydale . . . .

I don’t think your section of the trail is unsafe at all. The section that is unsafe is west from the overpass going over the I-66 westbound Glebe Road exit, i.e., where the collision was.

The I-66 wall along the south side of the path creates blind corners and leaves no escape route on the wall-side of the path. The wall also causes people on that side to ride/walk/run further from the edge of the already-narrow trail.

And to top it off, the section naturally encourages higher speeds by the combination of mild grades in each direction, but especially in the west-bound direction.

[jabberwocky]

Its a MUP. I don’t think its reasonable to ban pedestrians from it. I ride a lot of roads with blind corners and rises and I still expect cars to slow down, pay attention and not hit me. Cyclists should be able to manage the same.

I think this issue on the Custis is that all the hills encourage ELITEness.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@dasgeh 55964 wrote:

I can answer that last one. I live in Cherrydale, and the Custis is (1) the only good option to get from Cherrydale to Lyon Village with a stroller/kids (Lee Highway sidewalks become impassable and just aren’t safe or pleasant) and (2) the only off-street path we have (well, in south Cherrydale). We have lots of traffic cutting through on our streets, and subpar sidewalks. So, if you need to take a kid for a walk in the stroller, Custis is the best bet. Unfortunately.

In the 90s I biked Custis from EFC to Key every commute. I eventually gave up and became a vehicularist and shifted to Washington Blvd or Lee Highway. I never liked mixing with so many pedestrians, kids and dogs on Custis. The thought of hurting a weaker trail user I just couldn’t accept. Final straw was wiping out on wet leaves on the Maywood Switchback over Lee Highway. I still have the silver dollar sized scar on my right shoulder from that one.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 55969 wrote:

Its a MUP. I don’t think its reasonable to ban pedestrians from it. I ride a lot of roads with blind corners and rises and I still expect cars to slow down, pay attention and not hit me. Cyclists should be able to manage the same.

You really ride a lot of roads with less than 10 foot sight lines, no shoulders, unprotected dropoffs, and a wall on one side? In what state? Around here they’d generally be declared substandard and widened/straightened unless they were low-volume unpaved tracks.

[jabberwocky]

@mstone 55984 wrote:

You really ride a lot of roads with less than 10 foot sight lines, no shoulders, unprotected dropoffs, and a wall on one side? In what state? Around here they’d generally be declared substandard and widened/straightened unless they were low-volume unpaved tracks.

No, but car traffic is generally faster than what MUPs would have. Walker Road (in Great Falls) is part of my daily commute, and it has several places where visibility is <10 yards around corners or over rises.

I’ve ridden the Custis many times and never had a situation where I almost hit someone, and I’ve never thought the trail was so inherently dangerous that pedestrians should be banned from it. Sure, there are a few places with poor visibility. Just… go slow? Going around a corner so fast that you can’t stay in your lane and can’t stop if there is something/someone stopped is a bad idea in general, whether you’re in a car, on a bike or on foot.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 55997 wrote:

I’ve ridden the Custis many times and never had a situation where I almost hit someone, and I’ve never thought the trail was so inherently dangerous that pedestrians should be banned from it. Sure, there are a few places with poor visibility. Just… go slow? Going around a corner so fast that you can’t stay in your lane and can’t stop if there is something/someone stopped is a bad idea in general, whether you’re in a car, on a bike or on foot.

It’s not a question of whether you’re in your lane, it’s a question of whether the oncoming traffic you can’t see is in their lane. Over by ballston you literally cannot answer that question until you’re already within a few feet. (And I think there’s still a stretch with no center line painted?) Yeah, speeds are higher on roads, but roads are so much wider that you have a longer sightline, and cars are a bit better about staying in the lines than people walking along having a conversation with each other.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 55999 wrote:

It’s not a question of whether you’re in your lane, it’s a question of whether the oncoming traffic you can’t see is in their lane. Over by ballston you literally cannot answer that question until you’re already within a few feet. (And I think there’s still a stretch with no center line painted?) Yeah, speeds are higher on roads, but roads are so much wider that you have a longer sightline, and cars are a bit better about staying in the lines than people walking along having a conversation with each other.

That’s where signage is important. Signage for the peds to let them know what they’re getting into, yellow lines, and signage for the bikes to let them know what to expect. When you’re getting into a corner, there should be some indication of how much you should slow down. On roads, there are various kinds of caution signs that help.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 56004 wrote:

That’s where signage is important. Signage for the peds to let them know what they’re getting into, yellow lines, and signage for the bikes to let them know what to expect. When you’re getting into a corner, there should be some indication of how much you should slow down. On roads, there are various kinds of caution signs that help.

There are also minimum standards for roads. The reality is that if two people are walking together on a trail, there’s about zero chance that they’ll walk single file, and there’s just not enough room in that stretch for them to walk side by side with a safety margin. It’s an incredibly dangerous stretch, and it only takes a moment of inattention/carelessness/bad decision on either party’s part to end up with a bad situation. The fact that we don’t see more incidents is testament to the fact that (despite FUD memes to the contrary) most cyclists are rationally self-interested and ride very carefully. But back to my previous point, we don’t design roads which require everyone to be perfect all the time (to the contrary, we bend over backward to make sure that motorists aren’t injured when they make stupid decisions) and we shouldn’t design trails which require everyone to be perfect all the time, either–but we don’t have any metrics which actually force the design and maintenance of safe trails in the same way that highway departments are forced to deliver safe roads.

[vvill]

Interesting to hear the opinions on the Custis. There are a number of narrow/sharp/blind corners that make it dangerous to ride at higher speeds, especially when you occasionally get a school running group coming through! Common sense seems to generally prevail but I do think it could use some widening and perhaps user education and/or enforcement. I’ve seen some particularly idiotic things from trail users on the downhill stretch into Rosslyn.

One reason I like the Custis: almost no stops from the top of the Rosslyn hill through to EFC.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 56009 wrote:

There are also minimum standards for roads.

I’m not sure if we disagree. I do agree that the Custis could be better designed, and long term, I think either a redesigned Custis or another alternative for biking in the area should be developed. In the mean time, signs would be very helpful. Signs, btw, are also part of required road design.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 56102 wrote:

I’m not sure if we disagree. I do agree that the Custis could be better designed, and long term, I think either a redesigned Custis or another alternative for biking in the area should be developed. In the mean time, signs would be very helpful. Signs, btw, are also part of required road design.

I think a big part of the issue is that MUPs, from a planning perspective, seem to have been designed from a “pedestrian speed” perspective. Basically big, separated sidewalks. There isn’t much consideration for the faster speeds that cyclists can attain (a decently fit cyclist on a road bike can easily attain car-like speeds, especially on descents).

As the fastest, most energetic users of the trails, we have an obligation to be in control and considerate of other users.

[NicDiesel]

I haven’t ridden the Custis since last year but was planning on giving it a go this weekend. Is it better or worse than the MVT?

[ShawnoftheDread]

@4st7lbs 56117 wrote:

I haven’t ridden the Custis since last year but was planning on giving it a go this weekend. Is it better or worse than the MVT?

Better in that it is far less crowded than the MVT on the weekends. You do have to pay attention and ride safely, though.

[americancyclo]

I like the custis for the same reasons as will, and would also love to see the trail widened on some of those blind corners. An extra foot or two of asphalt in those sections could make a big difference.

[Author]

Posts