No snow clearing this winter

[Tim Kelley]

We had some good conversation on the topic of snow plowing at the BAC meeting last night. Thanks to all the members (and new members!!) from the forum who came out to take part.

[Steve O]

Yes, I was at the BAC meeting last night, and I was pleased to take part in the discussion. This morning I posted this message to the BAC list serve. This is a repeat of a message I sent almost four years ago, so if you remember it clearly, you may move on to the next message.
Steve
=================

Hi BAC,
For those of you who may not have had the opportunity or have forgotten my rant from 2010 posted on this list, here it is again. I think everything I have written here still applies (which is disappointing, since it’s now four winters later. One would hope progress would actually occur). I would be curious to ask the lawyers in the room about the liability associated with the known hazard of the Custis luge.

From Feb. 18 2010. Enjoy!
==================================

Prepare yourself; I’m about to rant.

Supposedly Arlington is the model TOD community: bicycle and pedestrian friendly, excellent transit service, smart land-use decisions, etc. I hear at our meetings that we are going to strive to move up from Silver to Gold designation from LAB. Here it is, eight days after the snowstorm and not one flake of snow (now ice) has been removed from any of the key (and in some cases essential) ped/bike commuter corridors. The part of the Custis Trail shown on the blog post noted earlier will still have ice on it a month from now (bet you lunch on that) unless action is taken. In fact, I am certain that the bike/ped counts on Mar. 11 will be impacted by the fact that significant sections of the trails will still be either impassable or difficult to use.

The Car-Free Diet campaign promotes Arlington as a place to live without a car, because of all these supposed amenities. Yet someone who lives in parts of Rosslyn without a car has no–zero!–options for getting to the Metro (okay, taxicab; one). What are they to do? Walk on Lee Highway? Risk injury on the Custis luge?

At the last BAC meeting I had a discussion with Kevin Stalica about clearing the trails, particularly the sections near Rosslyn, Ballston and EFC that provide Metro access to hundreds and hundreds of people.
He is clearly in an uncomfortable position, being saddled with responsibility to clear transportation facilities, but expected to do so with Park funds. Park funding will always be lower priority, and as long as the trails are treated as a recreational amenity, that’s the treatment they will receive. (He later forwarded me some information about the liability law regarding snow clearing. I’m no lawyer, but the way I read it, now that the Custis luge has been publicized as a significant hazard, the County has an obligation to fix it or could risk being sued for negligence.)

This has to change. With Jay Fisette in our camp, I think we need to push on having the key sections of the trails that are used significantly for transportation to become the responsibility of the Transportation Department for maintenance and upkeep. Prioritization should be based on the number of PEOPLE who use these facilities, not the number of cars. (Hello Arlington, isn’t this what it’s all supposed to be about?) Yes, that would mean the Custis Trail would get priority over my street.

That said, if a small vehicle plow had been dispatched immediately after the snow stopped and before it was tramped down, it could have cleared a 5-foot wide path on the 17 miles of Arlington Loop (I know,
some of that is NPS, but who cares) plus the section from the Custis/ WOD intersection to EFC in 4-5 hours max. At $100/hour, it would have cost under $500 total. No salt or chemicals needed. If you clear
down to the pavement right away, it dries out on its own. By now it would be totally usable. (And as some have intelligently pointed out, if you clear 1/2 the trail, the other half remains for the skiers for much longer–everyone wins.)

If someone tries to clear the Rosslyn part of the Custis now, it will take many hours and big-time treatment, costing thousand of dollars. Clearing all the trails would take days. I can hear the whine already, “We doe-on’t have the muh-uhny to do it.” A few years ago I was in New York a couple of days after a large snowstorm. I stayed on the west side near Ground Zero. I could see the West Side trail (or whatever it’s called) totally cleared as far as I could see, and one cyclist I talked to said it was cleared all the way up. The streets were still a mess. Somehow NY has figured out a way to prioritize that route for the thousands of peds and cyclists who are dependent on it.

Dave Patton has documented the fact that a significant number of people are using the 4-Mile Run underpass at 395 for transportation; it’s necessary for them. Yet as far as the County is concerned, they may as well not exist. But better get that cul-de-sac with two houses on it plowed out; you betcha. How is this any better than Fairfax or Loudoun Counties? They haven’t plowed the W&OD either.

Personally, if Arlington applies for LAB Gold status without addressing this issue I will lobby LAB against it. No community should be granted status like that while neglecting their bike facilities and rendering them unusable for 10% or more of the year.

Rant ended. Have a great day.

Steve

[Rootchopper]

Well, if we are going to have a luge runs, can Arlington install a t-bar? Walter Reed could use one too.

[dasgeh]

I think there’s a larger discussion we’re not having, that was touched upon in an earlier post (sorry – I couldn’t put my finger on it to quote): Are we going to push Arlington County to treat the non-road cycling infrastructure as transportation infrastructure or are we ok with Arlington treating it as recreational infrastructure?

I think we should be pushing in this area: for cycling to become mainstream transportation, the cycling-related infrastructure must be maintained like the other transportation infrastructure. That pretty much happens for the on-road cycling facilities, because they are managed by the roads team, and because the marginal cost of maintaining them is negligible.

I’m going to assume most of this crowd agrees with me up to here. So how do we make it happen? Another group I’m involved in was told by another elected board that in order to be most helpful, we should come up with a timeline that shows the steps for the budget and for official policies over time top achieve our goals. Recognizing that a large change can’t happen overnight, developing a road map that shows manageable steps can help the powers-that-be see that these small steps are both reasonable in their given timeframe and important to the larger goal.

Applying that to this case: a roadmap would show that by dedicating a tiny percentage of the snow budget to a pilot program to start ArlCo on the path of figuring out how to clear the trails is not just a tiny pilot program, but an important step in a larger process of treating cycling as real transportation. Showing that could help propel this ask to the front of line, which is really what we want.

[OneEighth]

Just gonna chum the waters a bit…

I understand the desire to have cycling infrastructure treated as transportation first and foremost, but would caution against unintended consequences. If it becomes transportation before recreation, what argument do you use against allowing motorized vehicles? Bit of a slippery slope argument, but something to consider nonetheless.

[mstone]

@OneEighth 68444 wrote:

I understand the desire to have cycling infrastructure treated as transportation first and foremost, but would caution against unintended consequences. If it becomes transportation before recreation, what argument do you use against allowing motorized vehicles? Bit of a slippery slope argument, but something to consider nonetheless.

You’d use the same argument that you use against having cars drive on sidewalks or train tracks–public safety. The fact that something is used for transportation does not mean that it should be used by every transportation mode.

[OneEighth]

@mstone 68453 wrote:

You’d use the same argument that you use against having cars drive on sidewalks or train tracks–public safety. The fact that something is used for transportation does not mean that it should be used by every transportation mode.

Not talking about motorized vehicles as unambiguous as cars.

[jabberwocky]

@OneEighth 68458 wrote:

Not talking about motorized vehicles as unambiguous as cars.

I think motorized vs human powered is a pretty easy distinction to make. MUPs are for human powered vehicles. Roads are for motorized vehicles.

The issue is whether these paths are purely for recreation (in which case, who cares if they are cleared of snow) or if they are transportation corridors (in which case they should be treated like any other transportation route and cleared of snow so they can be safely used).

I’ve commented before that Reston has a large MUP path network. They actually treat their paths like any other transportation network, which means they are cleared of snow very quickly (Reston has a small fleet of mini-dozers and snowblowers specifically for the paths). In snow events, the trails are often clear before some of the side roads. After big storms, its a bit surreal to see all these little neighborhood paths totally clear of snow, with families walking their kids to school and people out jogging, and then you get to the Fairfax County Parkway path or the W&OD and its a rutted, dangerous, icy mess.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@jabberwocky 68463 wrote:

Roads are for motorized vehicles.

I’m sure you didn’t mean that.

[dasgeh]

@OneEighth 68444 wrote:

Just gonna chum the waters a bit…

I understand the desire to have cycling infrastructure treated as transportation first and foremost, but would caution against unintended consequences. If it becomes transportation before recreation, what argument do you use against allowing motorized vehicles? Bit of a slippery slope argument, but something to consider nonetheless.

This:
@mstone 68453 wrote:

You’d use the same argument that you use against having cars drive on sidewalks or train tracks–public safety. The fact that something is used for transportation does not mean that it should be used by every transportation mode.

And if you’re referring to ebikes, I think they should be allowed on the MUPs. If you’re talking about motorcycles and other vehicles with internal combustion engines and/or that are not limited to meet the federal ebike standard, again, it’s an easy distinction. MUPs are transportation infrastructure for human-powered and similar vehicles (bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs, ebikes, these things). But even if you think that MUPs should be limited to human power, that’s separate from whether they should be treated like transportation infrastructure.

[jabberwocky]

@ShawnoftheDread 68467 wrote:

I’m sure you didn’t mean that.

I meant motorized vehicles use only roads. Obviously human powered vehicles can as well. Sorry, I’m having one of those days. :p

[jnva]

Wait a minute, I just put snow tires on my ebike. Was looking forward to some snowy commutes on the W&OD. Nothing’s much more fun than trying to stay upright in the snow.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 68468 wrote:

these things)

I think we should be able to agree that those things should be banned on the grounds they’re awkwardly embarrassing to even be near.

[Rod Smith]

Ride on the plowed roads after a snow. It’s safer and easier than riding on an unplowed bike path and you won’t be ruining the trail for skiers. Motorized bikes should stick to the road in all weather.

[OneEighth]

No internal combustion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLFE1D5F0B0F46A7AD&v=ZAPk9xo6sVE

[Author]

Posts