Little Falls Parkway road diet ending, CCT to be re-routed to stoplight

[secstate]

Many of you have probably seen this decision by the Montgomery County Planning Board to revert Little Falls Parkway to four lanes and divert the CCT to a nearby stoplight. It’s an astonishing move given the volume of bike and pedestrian traffic that goes through there on nice days. Some communities would see the trail as a resource to be enhanced but apparently it’s just an annoyance. Note well, it’s all our fault.

https://www.thewashcycle.com/2019/06/little-falls-parkway-.html

Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights (CCCFH)… blames the cyclists for the problems

“A core problem is that the CCT has become a bicycle commuter route. It was never intended as such. This results in safety issues in conflicts with the pedestrians and runners on the trail and with the automobiles on the Little Falls Parkway at the Trail/Parkway intersection. Aggravating the safety issue is the disregard that so many bicyclists have for the rules of the road.

Constricting traffic on Little Falls Parkway to accommodate bicyclists is not at all an optimal solution to the safety issue”

Kenwood Citizen’s Association echoed this. The trail is “not a commuter trail”, they say…

Grr.

[ChristoB50]

@secstate 191596 wrote:

Aggravating the safety issue is the disregard that so many bicyclists have for the rules of the road.[/url]
Grr.

I mean, they’re not technically wrong in that particular observation… (Though the choice of “so many bicyclists” wording is {hopefully} a bit of exaggeration.)

I don’t routinely use the CCT, but have a few times – it is wildly popular with pedestrians, cyclists, kids, seniors, the whole mix… and rightly so — a really lovely trail; I’ve certainly enjoyed my rides on it.
In good weather, it undoubtedly goes well beyond “design capacity” for the number of walkers & cyclists that pour onto it, particularly along certain stretches…
But when you add into that mix the particular cyclists who don’t really want to follow the rules of the road (whether common sense rules, or posted rules) it does increase risk to other users, while also presenting a horrible “cyclists P.R.” issue, lumping all of us riders in with a subset of the bad apples.

[creadinger]

So if they don’t want commuters using the CCT, what the hell route would they prefer commuters take?! Take a lane on Wisconsin? Massachusetts, River, or MacArthur? Without an alternative solution for commuters, it is a stupid stupid argument.

[mstone]

@creadinger 191601 wrote:

So if they don’t want commuters using the CCT, what the hell route would they prefer commuters take?!

one in a car, that’s the only normal thing to do

[secstate]

@ChristoB50 191599 wrote:

In good weather, it undoubtedly goes well beyond “design capacity” for the number of walkers & cyclists that pour onto it, particularly along certain stretches…
But when you add into that mix the particular cyclists who don’t really want to follow the rules of the road (whether common sense rules, or posted rules) it does increase risk to other users, while also presenting a horrible “cyclists P.R.” issue, lumping all of us riders in with a subset of the bad apples.

Yes, well this is just the tribal bikes vs. cars problem. There’s simply a ton of crap public behavior in this city.

As for overcapacity, it seems like the solution is to improve the trail rather than inconvenience users.

[creadinger]

@secstate 191603 wrote:

Yes, well this is just the tribal bikes vs. cars problem. There’s simply a ton of crap public behavior in this city.

As for overcapacity, it seems like the solution is to improve the trail rather than inconvenience users.

Yeah, it seems like when other road-type thingies exceed the user capacity they add lanes and lanes and lanes… so why is nobody talking about making the CCT, a 6-lane bikeway with specific space for pedestrians and everyone else? Why does widening only work for highways?

[ChristoB50]

@secstate 191603 wrote:

There’s simply a ton of crap public behavior in this city.
As for overcapacity, it seems like the solution is to improve the trail rather than inconvenience users.

No disagreement from me on either of those 2 points!
(Though you may have to consider replacing “city” with region / country / human condition… )

[Steve O]

Wow. Just wow.

[huskerdont]

@ChristoB50 191599 wrote:

I mean, they’re not technically wrong in that particular observation… (Though the choice of “so many bicyclists” wording is {hopefully} a bit of exaggeration.)

I don’t routinely use the CCT, but have a few times – it is wildly popular with pedestrians, cyclists, kids, seniors, the whole mix… and rightly so — a really lovely trail; I’ve certainly enjoyed my rides on it.
In good weather, it undoubtedly goes well beyond “design capacity” for the number of walkers & cyclists that pour onto it, particularly along certain stretches…
But when you add into that mix the particular cyclists who don’t really want to follow the rules of the road (whether common sense rules, or posted rules) it does increase risk to other users, while also presenting a horrible “cyclists P.R.” issue, lumping all of us riders in with a subset of the bad apples.

The statement is completely irrelevant to the subject though. That old canard is used almost every time there’s a discussion of bicyclists to justify whatever action some group wants to take, but the fact is, this intersection isn’t about just bicyclists; it’s runners, walkers in general, dog walkers, people with strollers (not a cliche–the last time I went through there, I slowed and waited behind a pair as they crossed), kids. So they’re using the easy hatred of “lawless cyclists” to make the trail more dangerous for everyone, just so they can drive through there more quickly. The quote is from a neighborhood association that is not really within walking distance of the intersection; their only interest is in their driving through there. If they truly gave an eff about the safety of the runners and pedestrians they mention in the rest of the quote, they wouldn’t be trying to make that area of the trail more dangerous for their own convenience, but they are.

I was happy to read in the Post recently that more people actually do blame drivers than cyclists and pedestrians for our unsafe roads. Reading anonymous comments online, you’d think cyclists were at fault for most everything, with the odd pedestrian looking at his or her phone responsible for the rest.

[mstone]

@creadinger 191604 wrote:

Yeah, it seems like when other road-type thingies exceed the user capacity they add lanes and lanes and lanes… so why is nobody talking about making the CCT, a 6-lane bikeway with specific space for pedestrians and everyone else? Why does widening only work for highways?

NIMBYs

[ChristoB50]

@huskerdont 191608 wrote:

The statement is completely irrelevant to the subject though. That old canard is used almost every time there’s a discussion of bicyclists to justify whatever action some group wants to take, but the fact is, this intersection isn’t about just bicyclists; it’s runners, walkers in general, dog walkers, people with strollers (not a cliche–the last time I went through there, I slowed and waited behind a pair as they crossed), kids. So they’re using the easy hatred of “lawless cyclists” to make the trail more dangerous for everyone, just so they can drive through there more quickly. The quote is from a neighborhood association that is not really within walking distance of the intersection; their only interest is in their driving through there. If they truly gave an eff about the safety of the runners and pedestrians they mention in the rest of the quote, they wouldn’t be trying to make that area of the trail more dangerous for their own convenience, but they are.
I was happy to read in the Post recently that more people actually do blame drivers than cyclists and pedestrians for our unsafe roads. Reading anonymous comments online, you’d think cyclists were at fault for most everything, with the odd pedestrian looking at his or her phone responsible for the rest.

Agreed… I’m not saying it is a good thing the diet is being ended, nor saying that the C.A. is accurate in their broad blame.
Just expressing no surprise whatsoever that the C.A. is up in arms “because of cyclists” who exhibit bad behavior, as their most convenient excuse.
The whole universe of cyclists gets painted with the same bad brush in this case. Regardless of the (hopefully larger) set of cyclists fully mindful of the rules and using the trail responsibly; but all of those are forgotten, painting so broadly to justify an action.
And while the (let’s say) “renegade cyclists” can and do escalate risk to everyone else, so can any other variety of of trail user, through ‘bad trail-user behavior’. They just tend to be slower moving, and thus likely not perceived as any nuisance to the original complainers — who you get the sense, are outraged every time a cyclist passes them on the trail (also seemingly saving their “I had to stop at a crossing” anger just for cyclists, not for pedestrians, skaters, etc!)

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@ChristoB50 191624 wrote:

Just expressing no surprise whatsoever that the C.A. is up in arms “because of cyclists” who exhibit bad behavior, as their most convenient excuse.
The whole universe of cyclists gets painted with the same bad brush in this case. Regardless of the (hopefully larger) set of cyclists fully mindful of the rules and using the trail responsibly; but all of those are forgotten, painting so broadly to justify an action.

Here’s the thing though. Even if you or I could wave a magic wand and get every cyclist to operate according the regs and the Universal Truths of Kindness (TM), the C.A. would still say they want what they want because of all those lawless cyclists.

[consularrider]

@secstate 191596 wrote:

Many of you have probably seen this decision by the Montgomery County Planning Board to revert Little Falls Parkway to four lanes and divert the CCT to a nearby stoplight. It’s an astonishing move given the volume of bike and pedestrian traffic that goes through there on nice days. Some communities would see the trail as a resource to be enhanced but apparently it’s just an annoyance. Note well, it’s all our fault.

https://www.thewashcycle.com/2019/06/little-falls-parkway-.html

Grr.

And neither the George Washington Parkway nor the Clara Barton Parkway were built as commuter routes either. The correct answer is, “So what?” All were paid with taxpayer dollars on PUBLIC lands, so the neighborhood NIMBYs need to get off their high horse.

I’m not going to bother to do any actual research, but most days I would imagine that there is more pedestrian/cycle traffic on the CCT than there is motor vehicle traffic on Little Falls Parkway. Don’t you just love making this stuff up?

[creadinger]

So is that the answer? I recognize it would be annoying given the bad connection at Mass Ave… but should cyclists just stat taking Little Falls Parkway all the way down to Mass Ave and back instead of the trail??

If the NIMBYs don’t want us on their precious ‘local, noncommuter’ trail we’ll take the road and while we’re at it maybe we’ll take the lane. Some of them may see how useful the trail actually is for everyone.

[DCAKen]

This decision has been delayed for at least five years

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/development/planning-board-reverses-decision-to-realign-capital-crescent-trail-crossing-with-little-falls-parkway/

[Author]

Posts