Help Name the Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Along I-66

[huskerdont]

I’ve said this before, but this kind of trail is okay for commuters. And that’s fine. But recreational cyclists, runners, dog walkers—this is useless for them. So unless a whole lot of commuters use it, the powers that be can easily justify getting rid of it.

[zsionakides]

@mstone 191381 wrote:

You might, but most people won’t and that will make it harder to argue for future projects because “nobody uses them”.

I don’t agree that most people won’t use such facilites. The WWB trail is quite well utilized despite it being next to a 10 lane highway with only a jersey barrier, VA portion excepted with the nice clear sound proofing. People will use the facility that is convenient for them to get from point A to point B. We have such a dearth of safe bike facilities, that even ones next to a highway are going to be a major improvement over sharrows, riding on sidewalks, unsafe bike lanes, etc.

[lordofthemark]

I really don’t think it will be that easy to get rid of it – weren’t there reasons they did not want the utility lines under a general travel lane? So I don’t think they can easily put in a general travel lane here.

I hear the concern about an underutilized facility being used in arguments against new infra – but A. IMO people on bikes over value the benefits of riding in MUPs vs in street infra, and tend to over use them. So this is less likely to be under used than even a valuable in street connection. And there really aren’t many (any?) low stress E-W routes in that area. B. The “lets not do it it won’t be used” tends to come up in debates about, again, in street infra, which tends to conflict directly with parking/or general travel lanes, not for MUPs which are usually a matter of $, and so do not stir up NIMBYISM the same way. Heck the NIMBYs are usually like “its too DANGEROUS to ride in the street, I don’t hate bikes, I bike myself, I always put my bike in the car and drive to the Mount Vernon Trail, its lovely, but I can’t bike my kids to school, ya know”

[Crickey7]

I imagine it filling with windblown trash from the highway, and never getting cleaned up.

[lordofthemark]

@huskerdont 191383 wrote:

I’ve said this before, but this kind of trail is okay for commuters. And that’s fine. But recreational cyclists, runners, dog walkers—this is useless for them. So unless a whole lot of commuters use it, the powers that be can easily justify getting rid of it.

Seems like it would be the ideal place for pathletes – they can ride without dealing with either dog walkers and slow bike riders OR with cars.

[mstone]

@zsionakides 191384 wrote:

I don’t agree that most people won’t use such facilites. The WWB trail is quite well utilized despite it being next to a 10 lane highway with only a jersey barrier, VA portion excepted with the nice clear sound proofing.[/quote]

the WWB bridge is a heck of a lot shorter, does not sandwich pedestrians between a sound wall and the highway, and actually has a view. not in any way comparable.

Quote:

People will use the facility that is convenient for them to get from point A to point B. We have such a dearth of safe bike facilities, that even ones next to a highway are going to be a major improvement over sharrows, riding on sidewalks, unsafe bike lanes, etc.

unsafe? yeah, well, I guess you haven’t look closely at what happens at the ramps for this mess of a trail.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 191386 wrote:

MUPs which are usually a matter of $, and so do not stir up NIMBYISM the same way

There are two reasons the trail is between a sound wall and a highway. The first reason is that VDOT didn’t want to do a trail at all and didn’t put much effort into it. The second reason was that NIMBYs didn’t want a trail in their backyards, and that kept local political leaders from putting in much effort to try to get VDOT to make improvements.

[mstone]

@Crickey7 191387 wrote:

I imagine it filling with windblown trash from the highway, and never getting cleaned up.

That doesn’t take imagination, just pictures of other VDOT-provided bike/ped facilities. Also, it’s not just wind, it’s snowplows and service vehicles throwing stuff over the wall so it’s not blocking valuable car space in the breakdown lane.

[zsionakides]

@mstone 191390 wrote:

the WWB bridge is a heck of a lot shorter, does not sandwich pedestrians between a sound wall and the highway, and actually has a view. not in any way comparable.

unsafe? yeah, well, I guess you haven’t look closely at what happens at the ramps for this mess of a trail.

WWB is similar in length to the segments on I-66 inside the sound wall and has similar noise issues. There are a couple similar sections on the Custis trail where the trail is between the highway and sound wall, but those are shorter segments. Both trails are well utilized regardless.

I agree that the ramps designs aren’t good. The usage of the trail will really depend on where users are going. If they are taking short trips to the metro stations or park and rides to catch a bus, then the ramp issue won’t be significant. If users are trying to go the full length of the trail, I think crossings could be a deterrent.

[n18]

@Crickey7 191387 wrote:

I imagine it filling with windblown trash from the highway, and never getting cleaned up.

There would be a 32″ Jersey barrier and 6 feet chain link fence on top of it as shown in this PDF, so there should be less debris.

[scoot]

Air quality along the 66 trail will be unbearable in the summer. The soundwall will prevent dissipation of heat, highway noise, and exhaust fumes. When the asphalt road surface chips, vehicles will kick up pebbles at highway speeds, some of which will be flung over the jersey wall. None of those issues affect the WWB, which is paved with concrete rather than asphalt.

[bentbike33]

@zsionakides 191394 wrote:

There are a couple similar sections on the Custis trail where the trail is between the highway and sound wall, but those are shorter segments.

Nowhere, however, is the Custis Trail as close to the road as the inside-the-sound-barrier portions of this trail, except perhaps where the Custis is outside the sound barrier.

[huskerdont]

@lordofthemark 191388 wrote:

Seems like it would be the ideal place for pathletes – they can ride without dealing with either dog walkers and slow bike riders OR with cars.

Pathletes can avoid pedestrians, true, but that’s a lot of pollution to be gulping in while breathing hard. Scoot about nails it on the air quality.

All in all, better to have than not have, and I’m happy for those whose commutes will be improved, but it is a huge lost opportunity for the recreationally inclined.

[zsionakides]

@bentbike33 191398 wrote:

Nowhere, however, is the Custis Trail as close to the road as the inside-the-sound-barrier portions of this trail, except perhaps where the Custis is outside the sound barrier.

The bridge over Spout Run is right next to the highway. Also the part coming out of Bon Air park.

[phog]

@Bob James 191360 wrote:

66 Commuter Connection Trail. I would have loved this trail along 66 when I was commuting between Manassas and Capital Hill. As it was, I had to go an extra 10 miles each way for the safest way in. I like direct trails along highways when you have to get from point A to point B the quickest way. I would ride more scenic routes for recreational riding. Custis is good, but it’s too hilly (especially westbound) to be commuter friendly (especially if when wet, snow, or ice on trail).

That is a mind-boggling commute. Manassas to the Capitol, WITH an additional 10 miles of workaround, as a COMMUTE? Again, mind=blown. Respect!

[Author]

Posts