Other Federal Biking Laws

I wrote not too long ago about the Bicycle Commuter Benefits Act of 2006 and it's counterpart in the House (To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters), but when I was checking on them online, I found several other federal laws dealing with cycling and I thought I'd highlight them here.

1. H.R. 4384: Energy For Our Future Act - sponsored by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) (30 co-sponsors).

Instructs the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) designate transit-oriented development corridors in urban areas; and (2) award grants to a state or local governments to construct or improve bicycle transportation facilities in such a corridor.

2. H.R. 722: Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2005 - sponsored by Rep James Oberstar [D-MN] (29 co-sponsors)

Directs the Secretary [of Transportation] to establish: (1) a Conserve By Bicycling pilot program for projects to encourage the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles;

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from gross income as a qualifying transportation fringe benefit a commuting allowance of $75 per month for individuals who bicycle, carpool, or car-share to work.

3. S. 808: A bill to encourage energy conservation through bicycling - sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) (1 co-sponsor)

Establishes within the Department of Transportation the Conserve by Bicycling Program under which the Secretary of Transportation shall establish up to ten geographically dispersed pilot projects designed to conserve energy resources by encouraging the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles.

Directs the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study and report to Congress on the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips.

4. S. 562: Safe Streets and Highways Act of 2005 - Sponsored by Sen Mike DeWine [R-OH] (1 co-sponsor)

Requires a State to allocate a certain amount of funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements based on a specified formula.

5. H.R. 4640: Future Fuels Act - Sponsored by Rep Jim Gerlach [R-PA] (1 co-sponsor)

award transit grants to construct or improve bicycle transportation facilities in transit-oriented development corridors, including capital projects.

6. S. 1074: Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act - sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) (0 co-sponsors).

Requires the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) develop enhanced standards for the design of roads and intersection controls to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety; and (2) double the percentage of trips made by foot or bicycle while simultaneously reducing crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians by 10 percent.

7. S. 794 Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2005 sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) (0 co-sponsors).

Amends Federal highway law to require each State transportation department to adopt a policy statement ensuring that the needs and safety of all road users (including the need for pedestrian and bicycle safety) are fully integrated into the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the State's transportation system. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to take necessary actions to double the percentage of trips made by foot or bicycle while simultaneously reducing crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians by ten percent.

Requires the Secretary to allocate certain funds for research that directly benefits the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system for nonmotorized users. Requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to certify, as part of the certification review of their bicycle and pedestrian programs, that the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians (including people who use wheelchairs and people with impaired vision) have been adequately addressed by their respective long-range transportation plans, including a target level that doubles the percentage of trips made by foot and bicycle.

Requires the Secretary to establish: (1) a safe routes to school program for the benefit of children in primary and middle schools; and (2) a task force to study and develop a strategy for advancing such programs nationwide.

Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a nonmotorized transportation pilot program to construct, in four communities, a network of nonmotorized transportation infrastructure facilities (including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle trails) that connect directly with transit stations, schools, residences, businesses, recreation areas, and other community activity centers; and (2) develop specified statistical information on changes in motor vehicle, nonmotorized, and public transportation usage in those communities, and assess how such changes decrease congestion and energy usage, increase the frequency of biking and walking, and promote better health and a cleaner environment.

I've ranked them here by number of co-sponsors, but I have no idea how likely any of these are to pass. I also can't say I know enough about them to endorse any of them - there could always be some amendment outlawing bacon or something and then I'd be upset - but the bills by DeWine, Oberstar (seen here with a bike) and Harkin seem like the best to me. Tom Harkin, it seems, needs to get some friends. What's the deal, does he talk with his mouth full?

In order to achieve my goal of becoming the nerdiest person in the world (you hear that George Will?!) I've signed up for email notifications about these bills.

Biking in the Suburbs

In general I try to focus these posts on areas within the metro area (Prince Georges, Montgomery, Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Fairfax, Falls Church, Alexandria and DC) covered by WMATA, but this article (Manassas Gears Up To Extend Bike Trails) from Prince William County reminded me that the new push in cycling transportation goes beyond the urban core.

The county has some 75 miles of bike trails and, as mandated by the Virginia Department of Transportation, all future highway construction requires separate bike lanes along roadways.

But traffic-choked city thoroughfares such as Manassas's Sudley Road offer little protection to cyclists. The issue has vexed the city for years, and Manassas's plan for a safer urban cyclescape has been implemented, albeit in low gear. The Manassas Bike Trail Committee first published its master plan in 1993, but to date, the city has only about six or seven miles of bike trails.

An update to the master plan probably will be released this fall, and central to it is a $350,000 extension of the Winter Branch Bike Trail to Runaldue Road.

"We're trying to connect the different trails so that people can ride throughout the city to the train depot, parks and all the landmarks," said Higgs, who said she's hopeful that with increased energy costs, there will be a greater interest in pedal power.

"With prices of gas going higher, people are looking for alternatives to get around, and bicycles are a good way," she said.

Since the Bike Trail Master Plan was created, Manassas has completed two major projects: the Winter Branch Trail and the Fairview/Richmond Trail, a bike path that parallels Fairview and Richmond avenues and passes by Metz Junior High School. More than 10 other proposed bike lane projects exist merely as dotted lines on planning maps.

The city's strategy involves a variety of configurations designed to improve cyclists' safety and riding experience. In addition to building standalone bike paths, the pavement along the shoulders of roadways can be extended to allow for bicycle traffic. Better signage and roadway markings are also key to reducing accidents, planners say.

Williams's father, Ben Williams Sr., agrees. He said that the signs are a reminder to drivers that they're legally obligated to share the road with bicycles and that bike trails aren't a fix-all because cyclists still need to use roadways. The key, he said, is greater respect from drivers.

"People will scream at me and tell me to ride on the sidewalk," said Ben Williams Jr., 63. "But the sidewalks are for pedestrians and for kids. We're vehicles, and we have the right to be on the road."

Williams, who has been riding in the area for 30 years -- "before there were any shoulders on [Route] 234" -- said he had learned to simply ignore abusive drivers.

"Even Lance Armstrong gets yelled at," he said.

It sounds like the city is taking cycling seriously. They're treating it like a transportation option, not just a recreational opportunity. Still, if you go to PW County's website, there is little to no mention of bicycle planning - even on their Transportation page (which does have a whole section on commuter parking). I couldn't find anything online about the Winter Branch Trail. I couldn't find a bike map for the town or the county. So building facilities is nice, but alone it's not enough. Unless you're Ben Williams Jr., you might have trouble figuring out how to use your bike as your second car in Manassas.

Ten for Tuesday - No pain in the posterior

1. Daniel Prieto holds out bike trails as an example of luxurious spending.

Surely $3 billion to protect subway riders against terrorists can't be too much to ask when last year's transportation bill contained up to $3 billion for bicycle and walking trails.

Not that I'm against protecting subway riders, but what's he trying to say?

2. The Gazette ran a story on Nick Bax, a local teen who made the U.S Junior duathlon team and rides competitively for a national team.

‘‘Cycling is something that I’m good at,” he said. ‘‘It satisfies that craving for competition, and the chance you have to see if you can push yourself past the other people [in a race]. There is a real sense of accomplishment.”

3. One of my co-workers got himself in this Post article about recumbent bikes.

"The seat on my recumbent bike is as comfortable as the bucket seat in my car," says Greg Greer of Silver Spring. "It's like sitting in a chair, feet propped up in front. There's no strain on the back, neck, shoulders or wrists. No numb hands. No pain in the posterior."

I've never ridden a recumbent and it never occurred to me they'd be hard to take uphill, but it makes sense.

4. RPUS does a roundup of bike stories. I'll answer his first question - since I'm thinking about getting a folding bike.

why not just buy two bikes--one to ride to the station and one to ride from the station--as that would often still be less expensive than a folding bike?

I wouldn't want to leave a bike or two locked up at a station unless it was in a bike box. Bike boxes rent for $25 a month. For two that's $50 or $600 a year. Bicycle lockers are available for $70 for one year plus a $10 key deposit. For two that's $140 a year. I'd get a folding bike. Not sure what I'd do.

He also has a link to the Journal of World Transport and Policy's bicycling special. One paper was on whether helmet laws were good or not. It questions the benefits of helmets

"The proportions of head injuries did not change over the period despite helmet use in the USA increasing from 18% of cyclists in 1991 to 50% in 2000. However, cycle use during the period fell by 21%. Thus those who continued to cycle were 40% more likely to suffer head injury by
2001 than in 1991."

And claims that cycling without a helmet is better for you than not cycling at all. Since helmet laws discourage cycling, they conclude, they are bad for society.

The whole paper is pretty good and an interesting read. Still I feel naked without my helmet (and my girlfriend yells at me when I don't wear it). I'll keep it on.

 

The post also reminds me that I need to read Effective Cycling.

5. This seems like piling it on, because Brown probably isn't going to win anyway, but he seems to have riled up couriers at the Environmental Forum.

ATTENTION ALL DC BIKE MESSENGERS!!!

Do NOT pick up or deliver packages for Michael A. Brown--DC Candidate for Mayor.

Last night at the DC Environmental Network Mayoral Candidate Forum, Michael A. Brown announced that if elected mayor, he plans to enforce traffic laws, specifically by ticketing couriers.  He made false accusations about every single one of us and greatly misrepresented a hard working group of people--most of us residents of the District.

6. This is pretty scary, and a reminder to keep your radar up.  This was on the Four Mile Run trail, which the article oddly doesn't mention.

Police are investigating an apparent attempted rape on an Arlington bike trail, authorities said.  At about 6:20 p.m. Sunday, a woman walking on a bike trail between South Walter Reed and South George Mason drives was attacked from behind by a man, police said. He allegedly pulled her into nearby bushes and assaulted her.

7. Both the Post and Examiner covered the Georgetown Waterfront Park groundbreaking.

Bikers and joggers will be able to travel unimpeded from Mt. Vernon, Va. to Cumberland, Md.

8. A couple more things about local bike racing. Prince William County is trying to get professional BMX racing to return to the track at the G. Richard Pfitzner Stadium Complex in Woodbridge

With BMX (bicycle motocross) racing set to be an Olympic sport for the first time in 2008, it would seem that there is no better time for Prince William -- home to the only BMX track in Northern Virginia -- to try to host a pro race or even an Olympic qualifying event. The sport's popularity is likely to rise in the coming years.

And Silver Spring hosted the second annual Martens Volvo Grand Prix.

Also happy were the event’s organizers, including Susan Hoffman, marketing and special events manager for downtown Silver Spring. The second year of the event drew larger crowds than the year before, and the hope exists that the Grand Prix of Silver Spring will become a permanent fixture of the summer.

‘‘It brings people downtown, which is exactly what we want to do,” Hoffman said. ‘‘We’re ready for primetime, and we want people from outside the area to come here.”

9. The CCCT is looking for volunteers to help count Capital Crescent Trail users.

The CCCT is performing a trail traffic survey in cooperation with the Montgomery County Parks Department. Documenting the heavy use of the CCT by the public is an effective way to convince public officials to protect the trail. Trail use data will also help the Parks Department justify giving the CCT a higher priority for repair and maintenance. The last trail use survey was taken in 2000. We need a new survey that shows the growth in trail use.

CCCT needs volunteers to count trail traffic for one hour periods in September. CCCT will provide trail traffic survey forms and instructions to volunteers, and each volunteer can independately perform the one hour traffic count on a day in September that is convenient. Traffic counts are needed at four locations - near the Bethesda trailhead, near Brookeway Drive at milepost 5.5, near Kentbury Drive at milepost 2.5, and near Grubb Road at approx. mile 0.8. Traffic counts are needed for weekday, evening, and weekend time periods.

CCCT needs approx. 80 hours of total volunteer time to complete the systematic group of traffic counts. Each hour you can volunteer will be appreciated. If you can give more than one hour, great! Please contact us at survey@cctrail.org to volunteer.  Give us any preferences you have for survey location and time periods.

10. And finally, another reason bikes are awesome.

A scheme under which gunmen in the Democratic Republic of Congo are given bicycles in exchange for their weapons is being extended due to its success.

A BBC correspondent says it has proved more successful than the UN disarmament exercise, following a five-year war.

The BBC's Jonathan Kacelewa in Bukavu says a bicycle, worth about $50, makes a big difference to the lives of local people.

DC's Comprehensive Plan

The District of Columbia has a working draft version of it's Comprehensive Plan out. This is the first revision of the Comprehensive plan since 1984 so it's a reasonable to expect it to have a greater emphasis on cycling than that document did (because bike commuting has doubled since 1984).

A city's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) provides policy and planning guidance on the physical development and redevelopment of the city. It addresses a range of issues: land use, economic development, housing, environmental protection, transportation, public facilities, urban design and historic preservation. It also guides our city's zoning laws, which in turn affects how your property and the properties around you may be used, the types of uses allowed in residential and commercial areas and the amount of parking that must be provided.

Bicycling shows up in the plan in two of the city wide elements, Transportation and Parks, Recreation & Open Space. There are some positive things but more could be done. For example

Action T-1.1-B: Transportation Improvements
Examine the potential for requiring transportation support facilities such as crosswalks
bus shelters, and bicycle facilities into projects that go through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Process.

Why not just call for requiring these facilities in buildings that go through the process? Anyway here are the key things it says about cycling.

Transportation: This section basically says - see the bike plan - which isn't bad. The bike plan is only a few years old. Here are the specific actions

Action T-2.3-A: Bicycle Facilities
As appropriate, require large new commercial and residential buildings to be designed with features such as secure bicycle parking and lockers, bike racks, shower facilities, and other amenities that accommodate bicycle users.
Action T-2.3-B: Bicycle Master Plan
Implement the recommendations of the Bicycle Master Plan to:
• Improve and expand the bike route system and provide functional and distinctive signs for the system
• Provide additional bike facilities on roadways
• Complete ongoing trail development and improvement projects to close gaps in the system
• Improve bridge access for bicyclists
• Provide bicycle parking in public space and encourage bicycle parking in private space
• Update the District laws, regulations and policy documents to address bicycle accommodation
• Provide training to District staff
• Review District projects to accommodate bicycles
• Educate motorists and bicyclists about safe operating behavior
• Enforce traffic laws related to bicycling
• Establish a Youth Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program
• Distribute the District Bicycle Map to a wide audience.
Action T-2.3-C: Performance Measures
Develop, apply, and report on walking and bicycle transportation performance measures to identify strengths, deficiencies, and potential improvements and to support the development of new and innovative facilities and programs.

The plan is lacking in specifics. Look at the first action. "As appropriate..." Well, what's appropriate? It doesn't say. And when would it not be appropriate? When something is open to interpretation, people will interpret it as best fits their agenda.

One weird thing, the bike route map shows present and proposed bike routes and trails, though it doesn't label it as such. It makes it seem as though it's the present system. And the bike lanes seem limited to only actual lanes - not proposed. Again, it's confusing.

Parks, Recreation & Open Space - again, this document refers to the Districts Bicycle Plan, with two pertinent actions.

Action PROS-3.3-A: Bicycle Master Plan Implementation
Initiate focused trail planning, acquisition, and construction efforts to eliminate gaps in the bicycle trail network and to improve substandard trails, as itemized in the District’s Bicycle Master Plan. Coordinate with the National Park Service for trails where both DDOT and NPS have responsibility.
Action PROS-3.3-B: Signage
Provide more consistent and unified signage along the city’s trails to improve their identity and accessibility.

Again, they said "more consistent" signage. Why not "Provide consistent signage"? More consistent than what? Maybe I'm nit-picking, but if signage just gets more consistent than now - but not uniformly consistent, then the action can be checked off. It leaves wiggle room.

The plan could be adopted soon.

The planning office will give a final draft to the council, which will hold hearings and could adopt the plan by November, said Barry Miller, associate director for comprehensive planning.

For a wider review of the Comp plan (not just bikes) see RPUS.

Purple Passion

It seems that this summer, purple is the new black.  It's probably just the Governor election in Maryland, but the purple line has been front and center lately in a way I've never seen before. There have been a dozen stories written about it lately. Of course since it's suppose to run on the same rigth-of-way (ROW) as the Capital Crescent Trail (CCT), and the trail is used as the main reason for not building it, it matters to cyclists.

There's a lot of debate on the issue and as you could guess not all of it is accurate. First there's a debate about what form of transit the purple line should take.

Some in the county, including County Executive Doug Duncan and Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition President Mier Wolf, have pushed for heavy rail.

But the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition has openly fought ANY purple line because they claim they want to protect the CCT. The two candidates to replace Duncan both claim to support the purple line with small differences.

On the campaign trail, [Isiah] Leggett and his primary opponent for the Democratic nomination, council member Steven A. Silverman (D-At Large), have said they support the Purple Line but disagree on its design. Silverman favors a predominantly above-ground system, while Leggett said he would consider some tunneling known as "cut and cover" to avoid neighborhoods.

And then the Governor is clearly pushing for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Officials do not have a preference as to what mode the transitway should take, but Flanagan said bus rapid transit ‘‘may beat light rail in terms of cost effectiveness.”

How is that not a preference? Plus, what they're talking about is not true BRT - that would run in it's own right of way like a train on rubber wheels - their system will run on regular roads. When buses are the alternative, no wonder this is true.

Among the directors of the "Save the Trail" organization is the Vice President for Government Affairs of the National Asphalt Pavement Association, Jay Hansen.

As someone else wrote about the Governor's position

It is interesting that this tour apparently focused on the difficult engineering challenges while the effort to build the intercounty connector has focused so much on how engineering can resolve environmental and community conflicts.

Interesting too, that this project won't even start until the ICC is complete - but they claim it wasn't pushed to the back burner. While I'm discussing the ICC, I also saw this recently

Another element planners could address is the desire for a bike path. The ICC master plan calls for one running the entire length of the highway, but the state plans to construct only about seven miles of a bike path, almost all in Montgomery County.

Back onto the purple line, personally, I think heavy rail make the most sense, but I could live with light rail. The argument is that a metrorail type line wouldn't be able to win federal funding because it's cost-to-ridership ratio would be too high. Someone in the know told me that under today's standards metro wouldn't have been able to get federal funding, but that may be a different problem for a different blog.

So what about the positions on this? One thing that's been coming up a lot is that the ROW is too narrow.

We learned that it will be very difficult to do anything. They showed us how little space there was to build anything between existing train tracks and neighborhoods; they showed us how little space there is coming into the Silver Spring Station; and they showed us some narrow roads where houses would have to be taken to make way for the project.

and

There isn’t much room between the CSX railway and residences and businesses on either side of the tracks in downtown Silver Spring. Another transit line next to the tracks would be a tight squeeze.

yet, the bicounty transitway study seems to show a different picture. And I read this

An approx. 60' width is needed to accomodate two light-rail tracks and a 10' wide trail. The County owned Georgetown Branch Corridor right-of-way is at least 60' wide over its 3.3 mile length from Lyttonsville to Bethesda, and is 90' wide or more for over 1/2 of its length. Adjacent property owners have encroached upon the r.o.w. in many places so that it appears much narrower. At the Columbia Country Club, 4/5 of the public right-of-way has been fenced off for the private use of Club Members, with no compensation given to the public.

Why is it such a tight squeeze?

In those areas, 25 feet must separate the transitway from the CSX tracks, and planners have had to develop alternatives, such as raising the transitway over the tracks, that would preserve the community and be cost-effective.

That's just ridiculous. All over the country - all over the world, transit runs right next to rail. Ever ridden the red line out to Silver Spring? That is a CSX "rule" I think, not a federal railroad rule - and as such it can be changed. Again with the CSX. Another claim of too narrow comes from a board member of the Coalition for the CCT.

the danger arising from a trail-transitway separation of eight feet (perhaps less)

But again, that happens all the time. Look at this photo.

Arguments about destroying greenspace are valid. There is the question of are we willing to sacrifice the park-like setting of the eastern CCT for transit improvements. I'm not sure what the answer is, I do love trees, but I don't think this means taking all of the parkness away.

All trees must be removed in a 60' wide swath to make room for transit and trail between Rock Creek and Bethesda if the Inner Purple Line is built on the surface. Trees would remain along the south side of the corridor to shade the trail for the major part of this section, where the right-of-way is considerably greater than 60' wide. But the tree canopy will be opened. Light-rail cars will pass by trail users as frequently as every several minutes during rush hour periods. Much of the park character of the Trail will be lost in Chevy Chase/East Bethesda neighborhoods. But access to trails and parks would increase overall if the Purple Line transit/trail is built. Neighborhoods east of Rock Creek do not have good off-road access to Rock Creek Park. Completion of the Inner Purple Line transit/trail would provide neighborhoods on both sides of Rock Creek with good access to a trail and to Rock Creek Park. Trail users would be separated from motor vehicle traffic at the roadway crossings, so vehicle interactions overall would be reduced.

So, there would be some green space. I think it's important that bike advocates walk the walk. If we want to get space in places for our transit choice we shouldn't stand in the way of other good transit options.

But is it a good transit option? I haven't heard anything definitive about it. Opponents like to say that it won't do anything.

"To destroy the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring, to put in a light-rail system that will not meet the transportation needs of the county or improve the Metro system, is foolish to say the least," Pam Browning said.

But I tend to agree with the Post.

It would begin to compensate for Metrorail's main deficiency -- its radial design, which reflects planners' flawed assumption that the District would forever be the lone focal point for the region's development and job growth. Much of the economic boom in recent decades has taken place in or near suburban hubs ringing the city; naturally, traffic has followed. A four-mile link between the Metro stations in Bethesda and Silver Spring, two of Montgomery's major development centers, would reflect the new reality of commuting patterns. Eastward, there is equally powerful logic in a rail line linking Silver Spring, College Park and New Carrollton.

And the Purple Line has benefits for cyclists.

The preferred CCT alignment for the final 1.1 mile from Lyttonsville into Silver Spring is along the CSX corridor. A CCT built along any other route into Silver Spring would not provide good separation from motor vehicles and would not have a seamless connection to the Metropolitan Branch Trail that is needed for the regional trail network. CSX has said it will never allow the CCT in their r.o.w. as a trail-alone project. But CSX has sent a letter to Maryland DOT Secretary Flanagan in early 2004 affirming its willingness to discuss the Inner Purple Line joint transit/trail project with state planners. It is much better for the CCT to be in the CSX r.o.w. as part of a transit/trail project than to be excluded from the CSX r.o.w. entirely.

Despite the individual letter above, the CCCT and WABA have the same positions stated best in this letter

Polarizing the issue into a "if you are not with us you are against us" kind of debate hurts bicyclists because it diverts attention from the real challenge. A public right-of-way such as the Georgetown Branch is a community asset that should be designed to serve the broadest population possible. It will take commitment and creativity to make sure that this valuable transportation corridor will serve everyone: transit users, cyclists, and pedestrians. WABA is committed to making that happen.

Finally, all this brings me to something that Richard Layman said on his blog.

This is the one concern I have with "Rails to Trails" programs. You create a built in constituency to oppose transit, if people aren't willing to co-locate transit and trails.

At first I was inclined to disagree. So few rail-trails are suitable for conversion (in low density areas - like the Western Maryland Rail-trail, too narrow - like the CCT in DC, plenty wide enough, etc...) that I didn't figure this happened very often. Then I saw this in my hometown.

NOISY protests over a possible light rail line on Richmond have eclipsed a quieter discussion of where to put rapid transit in the East End, a historic neighborhood in the midst of economic revival and on the threshold of gentrification.

The other remaining option, also a rail corridor, is a half-block north of Harrisburg.  The leafy strip, an abandoned rail right-of-way scarcely 50 feet wide in places, has been converted into a community treasure called the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail.

Homes back up to it, and if a two-direction transit route was built there, the space left for walking and biking would be cramped.

"Definitely not," said Jessica Hulsey, who lives a short stroll from the trail. "We worked very hard to create these trails."

So, it does happen. I still disagree and claim that it's the exception, not the rule. There are thousands of miles of rail trail in the U.S, very few of these miles involve transit conversion fights. But we need to be cognizant that when we fight to "save a trail" from transit conversion - especially one that was always set aside for such use - we shoot ourselves in the foot when the next rail trail opportunity comes along.

----- COMMENT: Ernie Brooks Your article leads me to believe that your understanding of rail-banking may be in error. Rail-banking is a way to preserve the existing railroad corridors for reversion back to their original use should that ever become necessary. When a Right-of-Way (ROW) is railbanked it can have interim uses of various types, including trails, light rail, Metro-type heavy rail, busways, etc., but if it is ever determined that the nation's freight lines (such as CSX) need to re-establish use there, they can take the ROW back (with proper compensation, of course.) Therefore, a local passenger rail use of a rail-banked corridor would fall under an "interim use" classification, just as locating a trail in the ROW would, not a "re-establishing rail" classification, and it would be subject to removal if the original rail line ever needed to be re-established. Granted, it isn't very likely that the original rail service would ever be resurrected in the Georgetown Branch ROW, but that is officially why it would be rail-banked, and not so that it will be available for other types of rail service. ----- COMMENT: Wayne Phyillaier The fact that a local rail transit project would be an allowed "interim use" and would not be considered as "re-establishing rail" under the rail-banking program is a distinction without a difference, for the point being made that "...when we fight to "save a trail" from transit conversion - especially one that was always set aside for such use - we shoot ourselves in the foot when the next rail trail opportunity comes along". The County Council voted $10M to purchase this right-of-way largely to consider it for a future rail transit use. If not for that potential future use, the Council would not have purchased the corridor and the CCT would not exist today. Cyclists understood this, and argued that an interim use as a trail would not be used to block future transit uses if that was the ultimate decision. The strong "Save the Trail" movement we are seeing should cause politicians elsewhere to have second thoughts about allowing any interim trail use if they want to keep a rail-banked corridor under consideration for future public transit. The Purple Line transit/trail must be sold to the public on its merits to be the best ultimate use of this corridor. But if cyclists now argue transit should be blocked here because "we got here first", then we are not playing fair. Wayne Phyillaier COMMENT: washcycle Ernie, I was going to write two things. One - you're correct, my knowledge of rail banking is incomplete and probably full of errors. Two - basically what Wayne said, that the county bought the line for future transit purposes, and that that was what I was referring to. ----- COMMENT: Richard Layman Railbanking misses the point. Washcycle understands things fine. So do I. I am a big transit advocate. I am a big bicycling advocate. I believe that such can co-exist. But apparently many others do not, and therefore, you get the kind of b.s. in Bethesda. They probably could care less about the trail, but the seize on it as a way to further deflect transit. I know that the National R-t-T-C is concerned about the anti-transit problem in Bethesda. This is why I wrote a few weeks ago to just change the alignment, like Robert Smith wrote yesterday, even though it is not a good idea. Had these people not fought this so vociferously, the line would have been constructed by now. Here's another photo that you could have used in your entry, showing path + bike + light rail in a pretty compact arrangement. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/12328091/ It's from Barcelona, and the photo is courtesy of John Norquist. ----- COMMENT: Kathy Jentz EMAIL: editor@washingto We at ACT - http://www.actfortransit.org/- are working very hard to get this issue to the fore-front of this political cycle. Thanks for picking up on this issue and making such a thorough report. There is a lot of BS going around and misinformation deliberately put out by those who want to keep the ROW out of the country club and others who do not have the best interest of the county citizens of the near future in mind. Please check out our site for answers to some of your questions. You are welcome to attend some of our informational meetings as well as to discuss this in more depth. ----- COMMENT: Jim How many of you actually use the trail. ACT has a very close alignment with the Chevy Chase Land Company which stands to make a lot of moola if the light rail stops at Chevy Chase Lake. This is from the "Save the Trail" website. "The Action Committee for Transit fought to keep the Trail closed; fought to keep the Tunnel closed; fought to prevent the re-building of the Trestle over Rock Creek Park. Richard Hoye (Vice President of ACT) routinely sends spam emails to Petition signers claiming that he and ACT are friends of the Trail -- but this is false." The Save the Trail group is made up of voluteeers who are not being paid by developers. How about ACT. Lets talk BS. You advocates who have never used the trail in your life but are for the trail know who you are and in my mind you are simply mercenaries. Mucho Buena Suerte Sin Verguenzas. ----- COMMENT: Wayne Phyillaier Jim, I use the CCT several times every week. I am a past Chair of the Coalition for the CCT. When I was the Chair I personally organized two rallies and a petition drive to open the trestle. I continue as an officer on the CCCT Board, and last fall personally coordinated the recent CCT trail traffic survey. I continue to be the www.cctrail.org webmaster for the CCCT. I have never taken a penny from any developer and have no development interests here. I do want to see the CCT be completed into my Silver Spring neighborhood and do want to give the Purple Line transit a fair chance to pass or fail on its own merits. My position is explained fully at www.silverspringtrails.org Jim, I will not question your motives or affiliations. I don't know your motives, and they are not important. But I do question why you find it necessary to launch a personal attack against people you do not know, intead of discussing the facts and issues. Are you afraid of a clean and fair debate?

Two-tier Bike Parking

  Two-tier Bike Parking 
  Originally uploaded by portlandtransport.

This is the Netherlands. Top rack slides out for more parking.

Route Tools

One of the holy grails of bike commuting is "mapquest, but for bikes." My map isn't quite that good (and seriously, if anyone knows to make it run faster or get rid of those three >>> on the top right, it would be much appreciated) but it was an attempt to fill the void between online mapping for cars and what there is for bikes - which isn't much. There's mapmyrun.com, which works well enough - though it has a few quirks unique to runners. It also suffers from the same problem as my map - namely that too many points will cause it to crash (see this ride that I tried to create)

More recently, I was pointed to bikely.com, which seems like mapmyrun for bikes, but without the ability to add markers. Still, that's a step up. In fact, I like so much I'll add it to the tools section on this blog.

Funding was recently given to The University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center to renew the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse. They run the pedbikeinfo.org site, which in turn hosts the bicyclinginfo.org site. It's a pretty good site, but they don't do much to address the route issue.

WABA tried to create a mentor program, by which experienced cyclists would ride with people who wanted to bike to work and show them a preferred route; but it was either too hard to manage or too sparsely used and it's now defunct.

Ideally I'd like to see the DC area do something like what's happening in, where else, the Netherlands. Thousands of cyclists teamed up, a la Wikipedia, Linux, Firefox etc... and using GPS receivers created a route planner. I can't figure it out, my Dutch is rusty, but the article makes it sound fantastic.

Unless someone wants to set something like this up, I suggest we just use the bejeezus out of bikely. My one annoyance, to heck with creativity, the naming convention should be standardized. Something like  <Start Zip or Neighborhood> <Start City, State> to (<End Zip or Neighborhood> <End City, State (if different)>  or <Loop>) for <Experience level> - <Distance>. So for example

Georgetown, Washington, DC to 20812, Glen Echo, MD for Intermediate riders - 10.9km