[NickBull]

@dasgeh 133357 wrote:

NPS GWMP confirmed that they have no plans to clear the MVT at all this year. I have no idea how effective Mother Nature has been so far. You might want to focus on the on road connections (get to Boundary Channel Dr, then use the 27 Trail, if that’s cleared, to the Memorial Bridge, which is supposed to be clear).

The good news is that they are engaged and at least talking to us.

I just find it amazing that the “National Park Service” places the highest value on being a local highway department. Teddy Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave if such a thing were possible.

[NickBull]

@Steve O 133265 wrote:

Except for the fact that the plowed part doesn’t go anywhere. Feel free to ride back and forth on the one-mile section that is plowed.
See previous posts from me, nickbull and others on the infeasibility of using this section of trail for actual transportation.

Yes, they get an A for effort — at least they are trying to plow, and what they’ve done will likely mean that the trail eventually ends up rideable, sooner than would have historically been the case.

But on a pass/fail system for achievement, they fail to pass, because the trail is im-pass-able.

Nick

[NickBull]

Feasibility study for riding the Custis to work. Conclusion: Not feasible.

W&OD is clear to (occasional) bare pavement between McKinley and the Custis. The Custis is just barely rideable with 2.2″ MTB tires between the underpass of doom (?) under 66 to N. Frederick St (Queen Anne School) where I gave up and rode home. Snow is 5 to 8 inches deep and in places it is loose enough so as to be impassable, while other places it is just hard work to ride but OK. It took me 23 minutes to ride the 1-1/2 miles from N. Frederick back to my house, so an average speed of just under 4 mph.

I think if I had fat bike tires it might just be possible to ride to work. But that depends on the whole Custis being clear at least to this depth, then Key Bridge sidewalks being clear (unless I tried the roadway, Ack!) and then the Rock Creek Trail being clear enough to Maine Ave. And it depends on having a fat bike, which I don’t!

Pictures below: W&OD near McKinley; Custis just north-east of underpass under 66, hill is unrideable; Custis, westbound near N. Frederick, loose snow here is also unrideable. I crashed once during this adventure when my front tire slid out sideways then CAUGHT; but I was only going 2 mph so damage was limited to a sore calf muscle where the frame whacked into the back of my leg.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10634[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]10635[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]10636[/ATTACH]

[NickBull]

@Tania 131917 wrote:

It’s ridiculous to expect/demand the trail be rebuilt (or re-done) in spots that are perfectly safe at reasonable speeds. I brake for tight turns when I drive too.

Oh wait. We’re entitled cyclists. Braking is unnecessary. Yield is a dirty word. Strava times trump all!

I agree. But even if you are going slowly (e.g heading away from DC in the right lane, staying as close to the wall as you reasonably can) you can still get plowed into by some idiot who is coming down the hill fast and decides to pass on the blind corner. I ring my bell like crazy here, either direction.

Steve’s suggestion of actually-useful mirrors is probably the most practical, though these tend to attract vandals. Speed bumps on the downhill? But these could cause more accidents than they prevent as people lose control hitting an unexpected bump.

There are also people who try to merge onto the bike path from the sidewalk right here, insane as that might seem. So a barrier to prevent that would be useful, with a sign pointing to the actual entrance.

Nick

[NickBull]

@DrP 128795 wrote:

Since it is now December, I am replying to the November report on Trollheim bridge (http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?9503-November-2015-Road-and-Trail-Conditons&p=128751#post128751). The bridge was open this morning and I gather it wasn’t closed too long since they replaced only 9-12 boards (some looked nearly new, but so dark that I wasn’t sure if that was darker wood or rain). Many more boards could really use replacing, but oh well.

[P.S. I reported the dead deer along the trail to NPS. Just south of the bridge at the north end of Columbia Island. It looked so peaceful lying there]

Thanks so much for reporting the dead deer, I was expecting to be smelling it for the next week or so …

[NickBull]

@dasgeh 126888 wrote:

I ride this daily, it seems flat or if anything barely off camber. I’m not sure if it’s a tightening radius, but if it is, again, it’s not severe. What makes it dangerous is that people in the two downhill directions (from Rosslyn on the Custis and from Courthouse on Lee’s sidewalk) come in carrying WAY too much speed. The design was premised on the idea that people would slow down. I’m disappointed that the intersection was not moved/squared off more to seem more like the turn it is. Right now, it seems like, and some people treat it like, the “straight” is Custis – Lee’s sidewalk and the turn is to continue on the Custis. The only problems I’ve had here are when different users have a difference of opinion on who’s “turning”.

All that said, we were promised paint and (I think) signs. Not sure what’s taking so long. I’ll ping the authorities.

If it’s painted with a line going round the curve on the main trail, and with a line down the middle of the “spur” that stops at a perpendicular line before joining the trail, that helps to visually tell people which is the main road and which is the joining road.

The off-camber and tightening radius is subtle, but it’s enough that it makes riders drift out of their lanes.

[NickBull]

@Steve O 126852 wrote:

The “improvement” here definitely helps with sight lines. I don’t know what “off-camber” means, but I have found this curve to be less comfortable than I expected it to be after all the hype. Perhaps that is why.

Off-camber means the road slopes toward the outside of the turn, it’s the opposite of a banked turn. This is not only off-camber, it’s a tightening-radius turn. As you start to go into the turn, the rate of turn is not constant but instead speeds up. The combination of the two is hazardous.

As you come up to the turn headed westward, you can see that it is off-camber–it slopes away from the turn. If you go straight here instead of turning, you are going downhill across the path to exit onto the spur. The only way you can be going downhill across the path there is if it is tilted away from the turn, in other words, off-camber.

You can also stand on the opposite side and watch what happens to westbound cyclists as they come in to the turn and then find that it is tighter than they expected (decreasing radius) and that they are drifting to the outside (off-camber)–they end up in the oncoming lane. Eastbound cyclists would have the same problem except that because it’s at the end of an uphill, most will not be carrying a lot of momentum into the turn.

It’s true that the sight-lines are better, though.

Nick

[NickBull]

@Steve O 123368 wrote:

Good except even a flexpost is contrary to FHWA guidance. Bollards should only be installed when there is a demonstrated history of vehicle encroachment and only after other non-hazardous solutions have been ineffective (e.g. signs). Even flex bollards can cause crashes, because the bases are bolted to the ground. A wheel hitting one is likely to cause the rider to crash.

FWIW, bollards (flex) have now been installed down by the fish market at the pedestrian crossing of Maine Ave. This is one that’s a “Yay” because I saw numerous cars trying to make a U-turn through the pedestrian crossing! Perhaps there is a better solution, but this was a location with a “demonstrated history of vehicle encroachment”

Nick

[NickBull]

@creadinger 119113 wrote:

Recap!

So, on Thursday evening around 8:30 I left Alexandria, and headed out the W&OD toward Marshall, VA to test out a bit of night riding and my new dynamo lighting system.
…

Hey, Chris, glad you enjoyed the route. Was there enough moonlight to see how beautiful Rock Hill Mill Rd really is?

What headlight are you using? I have a Luxos-U … basically the same optics as an Edeluxe II or a IQ Premium. For me, those lights are good for 30 to 35 mph descents. But if they’re angled too far down then you don’t get enough light at the horizon line to ride that fast. I find I have to set the light so that the “cutoff line” lights up the sides of the road to about three feet high. That way when you come down a steep descent where the road turns up again at the bottom then it lights up just enough of the rising road that you can see where you are going until the bike pitches up again and gives you proper light. On the next ride, try tilting the light up “way too far” and then gradually tilt it lower until the distant-light just starts to get dimmer (there won’t be much light in the near-field but you don’t care about that, that’s not where you are looking at speed), then come back up just slightly. If cars are flashing you, though, you’re probably still too high.

Nick

[NickBull]

dbb;118644 wrote:

just sent this email to the acting superintendent

“… Significant safety hazard …”

thanks!!!!!

[NickBull]

@dbb 118498 wrote:

Would you suppose there would be enough maintenance funding if we treated the GWMP like the National Park it is and put an entrance station (toll booth) at the various access points? There might be an opportunity to use the EZ Pass system so the people wouldn’t be delayed too long in their search for a scenic drive in the country.

Hah, funny dbb: “scenic drive in the country”

I’ve always wondered how the GWMP fits in with the park service’s mission. Why is it their mission to fund a commuter road? What if the park service exchanged the GWMP (but not the actual parkland adjoining it) to Virginia in return for actual parkland somewhere? For that matter, Arlington is doing a better job on its bike trails than the park service does with the MVT, so maybe they could cede that to Arlington.

On a different topic: The traffic cones at the Jefferson are a disaster, particularly the ones at the easternmost entrance.

[NickBull]

@sjclaeys 118430 wrote:

That is a nice fantasy but I’m suggesting dealing with reality. Find something else to cut, get folks to go along with it and you are golden.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

It’s easy to find something else to cut. E.g., I most likely won’t be driving on any NPS roads in California anytime soon, so I nominate those as the place to cut back. Getting folks to go along with it is the sticking point. Californians are probably pretty happy to nominate the Parkway &/or MVT as good places to cut.

[NickBull]

@dasgeh 85006 wrote:

I happened to have been right there, talking to dbb just last week, as we finished a conversation before riding off in different directions.

Honestly, it don’t think it’s a safe option for people coming downhill off the bridge. While we were there (~5 min), we saw people do all sorts of dumb stuff at the intersection, but the dumbest were the people bombing down the hill from the bridge, taking the desire line full speed, and continuing on to the main MVT with no regard for who is already on it.

…

Yup, I’ve almost been hit by people coming down the “desire” path off the Mason bridge. They were well behind me along the bridge, then while I rode the paved path, they thought they could whip by me by taking the shortcut down the dirt==”desire”==lazy path. But they misjudged how fast I would accelerate out of the turn onto the MVT and were almost unable to brake hard enough on the dirt to avoid hitting me. I saw them at the last second and braked hard. I’ve also had the opposite, people who were following me over the Humpback and then try to take the dirt path to cut past me, only to misjudge it and almost hit me.

It’s such a short piece of dirt that I would think that any serious obstacle (fence or wall) placed across it would make it so that it is not worth taking the shortcut.

Should it just be paved instead, as some have suggested? Suppose it were, then cyclists coming off the Mason bridge are crossing the lanes of two sets of riders, the ones coming from under the bridge on the MVT who are turning and riding up to the Mason bridge, and then a moment later, cyclists coming off the Humpback who are staying on the MVT. And it would be ambiguous at the first crossing point who has right-of-way since both cyclists are on the on-ramp to the Mason, and both are coming around corners where they may not have seen the other rider. At the second crossing, right of way should be clearer since the rider coming down the off-ramp is joining the main MVT. But because they would now be going straight there may be more of a temptation to think that just riding a little harder will let them nip ahead of an oncoming cyclist coming either direction on the MVT. In contrast, the present turn is tougher to just negotiate without slowing down and yielding to cyclists on the MVT.

So I think that it would be better not to pave the dirt and instead to block it. And maybe put Dasgeh’s STFD sign there as well.

Nick

[NickBull]

Saw this fleet of snowplows near the SW9 boundary marker stone near the intersection of 18th St N and N Van Buren St. (near E. Falls Church metro). Are these what Arlington has been using to clear the bike path?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8071[/ATTACH]

[NickBull]

At least somewhere in the world, the trails are apparently not covered with ice: From Sydney, Australia, a public-service video on the Art of Gracious Cycling

http://www.sydneycycleways.net/art-gracious-cycling/

[Author]

Posts