Posts by Jim Titus

How effective are bicycle helmets?

In theory, helmets should absorb the shock from a crash. If your head strikes the ground or a vehicle, your brain could be seriously shaken by the sudden deceleration. With a helmet, the foam around your head forms a cushion.

They can also prevent head fractures by spreading the force of the impact. It's like the difference between being hit on the head by a rock or a beach ball with the same weight.

It's hard to tell how often helmets actually prevent head injuries, however. Experiments on people are unethical, so instead researchers collect hospital data on people involved in bicycle crashes.

In 1989, a team of researchers led by Dr. Robert S. Thompson, a preventative care specialist at the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, collected data about cyclists in Seattle who went to area hospitals after a crash. Only 7% of the cyclists with head injuries wore helmets, but 24% of those without head injuries did wear helmets. Their statistical analysis, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, estimated that helmets had reduced the risk of a head injury by 85%.

Dr. Thompson's study was a "case-control study" like those that first found a link between smoking and cancer. There is no true "control" group, but epidemiologists say these studies are good for showing whether something has a good or bad effect on health, though not for quantifying it.

Dozens of researchers sought to replicate the Thompson findings in their own communities. They also found that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries, but less frequently than Thompson's team found. Some studies even found that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. If you consider the entire body of research rather than just one study, and look at both head and neck injuries, helmets only reduce the risk of injury by about 15% to 45% .

Nonetheless, public health advocates seized on the 85% estimate as a good way to communicate risk: failing to wear a helmet makes you more than 6 times as likely to experience a head injury. Government websites and newspapers have repeated it to the point where it has become ubiquitous in discussions about bicycle helmets.

Misinformation encourages helmet laws, discourages better helmets

Bicycle safety is one of WABA's central missions. It requires helmets on all rides that it organizes, and it sponsors the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, an independently-funded organization that reviews bicycle helmets and encourages improvements in their design. In the 1990's, WABA supported proposals to require children under the age of 16 to wear bicycle helmets, which eventually became law.

But WABA draws the line at laws requiring adults to wear helmets. Such laws do little to promote safety, but they discourage bike sharing and other uses of bicycles for short trips.

This year, WABA fought hard against a bill in the Maryland General Assembly that would have required all adults to wear bicycle helmets on any trip, no matter how short. The Maryland Department of Transportation supported the mandatory helmet bill, citing the 85% estimate, while an article about it in the Washington Post cited a figure from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that helmets prevent 80% of head injuries. Fortunately, objections from cyclists persuaded the bill's sponsor not to move forward with it.

Recently, most helmet research has focused on making helmets cool, rather than more protective. Better ventilation and more fashionable designs might encourage more people to buy and wear helmets, but it does not make them safer. Could that be because everyone is assuming that helmets are already 85% effective? Would that change if people thought helmets were less than 50% effective?

WABA pushed agencies to correct the misinformation

Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error.

Meanwhile, NHTSA staff told me that they were too busy to discuss the matter, so we made a formal "request for correction" under the Data Quality Act, which requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research.

Two months later, NHTSA agreed to remove the 85% estimate from its website. We expect other agencies to follow the lead of NHTSA and CDC, though some may need some encouragement.

This probably won't be the last we hear this factoid. Some nongovernmental public health advocates have ignored the results of the last 20 years of research and won't correct their stump speeches simply because the federal government removes an outdated estimate from its websites.

Will NHTSA step forward? The agency funds a lot of data collection efforts, and it clearly seems to think that the public needs to know how effective helmets are. Now that it concedes that it has been propagating the wrong answer for all these years, will it fund the research needed to provide the correct answer?

A version of this post is cross-posted at WABA Quick Release.

The county lacks a trail network

Major trails lead out of the District of Columbia in almost every direction: The Mount Vernon Trail to the south, the Custis/W&OD Trail to the west, Capital Crescent to the northwest, and Rock Creek to the north. But there's nothing going east.

I created this map for WABA's oral testimony at M-NCPPC's Fiscal Year 2013 budget hearing to help the commissioners visualize the county's lack of major trails into Washington and how they might cure the problem.

In Prince George's County, most trails are very short. The few longer trails generally lack connections to transit, and they stop just before their destinations. The WB&A Trail starts 2.5 miles from the New Carrollton Metro station and stops at the Patuxent River. The Henson Creek Trail stops across the Beltway from the Branch Avenue Metro Station.

Neither trail has an interim on-road bike route. You just have to turn around. For several years, the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) has urged M-NCPPC to extend the WB&A Trail west to the New Carrollton Metro station, but to no avail.

One exception is the Anacostia Tributary Trail System, which runs from College Park to Bladensburg and west to Langley Park. Soon, it will extend south to the Anacostia Trail along the east side of the Anacostia River in DC.

No agency is trying to create a trail network

M-NCPPC's transportation planners have created a master plan for what the ultimate network should be by the year 2100. But no entity is responsible for actually creating it. Certain segments are simply built when convenient.

Several government offices are responsible for some aspect of the bicycle infrastructure in Prince George's. M-NCPPC's Parks Department builds trails in parks. Its Planning Department often requires developers to build trails through new neighborhoods, if a trail appears on the county's master plan. Transportation planners at M-NCPPC occasionally conduct feasibility and preliminary design studies of trails useful for transportation.

The State Highway Administration sometimes builds sidepaths along state highways. Although the county's Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) has not built trails, it is responsible for most of the bicycle network that actually exists: the county roads.

No one coordinates these disparate activities. So rather than a network, the county has a set of standalone trails: Short, disconnected segments through new developments and a few reasonably long trails.

Residents ask for more trails, Parks Department responds

M-NCPPC is revising its master plan for parks and recreation for the first time since 1982, and trails have become a big part of it. In a poll that asked residents which park amenities they use, more residents listed trails than any other M-NCPPC facility.

In response, the Parks Department proposed adding 200 miles of paved trails, along with almost 100 miles in unpaved trails. About 20 percent of its capital budget would be dedicated to trails, according to Chuck Montrie, the park planning supervisor.

The plan emphasizes trails that "connect urban centers and neighborhoods with existing trails facilities; employment centers; Metro stations; historic, environmental, and cultural resources," along with "neighborhood anchors including schools, libraries, and parks."

The County Council is now reviewing the plan. At a hearing last month, WABA enthusiastically endorsed the increased emphasis on trails. WABA also recommends an interim goal of 40 miles by 2020, and connecting trails to designated transit-oriented districts, such as New Carrollton. (I spoke on behalf of WABA.)

Will M-NCPPC take the lead?

The draft plan prioritizes connecting trails to other trails and Metro, but M-NCPPC doesn't always own the land necessary for those connections. So what will have the higher priority: a difficult crossing over the Beltway to a Metro station, or connecting two trails on park property in a low-density area?

Is M-NCPPC proposing to take the lead on creating a trail network designed for both transportation and recreation? Or is it merely saying that if two possible trails on park property are equally challenging, it will build the one that goes somewhere? The plan does not say.

Montrie has indicated that M-NCPPC may be ready to move beyond park boundaries. "Stream valley trails can only take us so far," he recently told a meeting of local advocates. "We are going to have to build other types of trails."

M-NCPPC planners think that this plan might get agencies to start taking responsibility for bicycle transportation. I recently suggested to Fred Shaffer, a transportation planner who also chairs the county bicycle advisory group, that the county seems unwilling to even consider cycle tracks on county roads. "That may change," Shaffer responded. "Parks and DPW&T may soon start working together to achieve the 200-mile goal."

Is M-NCPPC ready?

Every June, the Maryland Bikeways Program solicits proposals from local governments for bike lanes and trails that are useful for transportation. Proposals have the greatest chance for funding if they connect existing trails to rail transit stations or other population centers.

With the new plan's emphasis on trails to Metro, one might expect that M-NCPPC would propose to connect the Henson Creek or WB&A trail across the Beltway to the planned transit districts, which County Executive Rushern Baker hopes can help jump-start the county's economy. But no: The Parks Department intends to seek funds to connect the Henson Creek trail to a recreation center. And its focus is not extending the WB&A trail west to New Carrollton and on to the Anacostia Trail, but east into Anne Arundel County.

Last week the Planning Department started to think about how to extend the WB&A trail west accross the Beltway. But lately its transportation planners have had their hands full with the Purple Line and a new policy requiring developers to build more sidewalks.

Creating functionally useful trails will probably take more staff, and a change in how park planners view their mission.

The goals of the bills [are] ... to make the process more streamlined and thus extremely attractive to bring private investment to redevelop the County's 15 metro rail (and future MTA rail) stations and encourage smarter, more sustainable growth. Currently, the direction of the private sector is to pursue more sprawl pattern development in our County for the foreseeable future.

Well-intentioned and endless talk about TOD will not make it happen. Policies that actually stimulate market forces and private investment towards transit oriented development are necessary to attract development to more established areas of the County that have been ignored for decades.

In an action alert, the Coalition for Smarter Growth said it agrees that the deregulation proposed by the two bills would likely spur development around transit station areas. But it also believes that the rules would encourage shoddy, suburban-style, non-pedestrian- and non-transit-oriented development.

"Right now, it's more difficult to develop near a transit station than far away from one. That's a problem, but these bills are the wrong way to solve that problem," the action alert reads.

Former council member Tom Dernoga, meanwhile, criticized the rapid process. "Blind-siding the public (and apparently some of your colleagues) with a late-filed bill is not going to advance important land-use issues in a manner that the public will accept. At a minimum, a study group should address the underlying issue," he wrote in an email to Franklin which Greater Greater Washington has obtained. "Any valid policy bases are obscured by the manner in which they are being pursued."

The bills were originally scheduled for a "fast track" markup session at today's Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee meeting, chaired by Franklin. In response to rapid public criticism, Franklin pulled the bills from the agenda and promised to revise them.

Scott Peterson, spokesperson for County Executive Rushern Baker, stated that the county executive is still reviewing the bills and had not yet developed a position on them.

The existing form-based code shows an alternative to CB-79

CB-79 would exempt projects built near transit stations from the county's detailed site plan, conceptual site plan, and comprehensive design plan review processes, and allow them to skip directly to the permitting phase. Besides giving residents a voice, these development review processes are also the main way that elected officials and planning departments of the various cities and towns weigh in on new development projects. Laurel is the only municipality that is able to control its own zoning.

Exempting transit station area development projects from public hearings before the county's Planning Board may also violate state law, specifically the Regional District Act. This act sets up a public hearing process before the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) and then the council. CB-79's exemption of certain development projects from this process could therefore be an unlawful end-run around state-sanctioned public processes.

Fortunately, there's an alternative already ready to go. More than 2½ years ago, the county created a form-based code called Subtitle 27A. One of its specified purposes, according to M-NCPPC, was "to streamline and standardize regulations and processes, and [incentivize] development in and around the county's most important transit resources."

Subtitle 27A would apply only in Metro station areas and other urbanized areas designated by the county's general plan as "centers" and "corridors." M-NCPPC, the community, and the County Council would develop a "regulating plan" for each station area through a public process.

That plan sets clear rules for the types of buildings and their form in particular blocks. It defines the height and scale of buildings, where they can be placed in relation to the street, the portion of a lot that can be built on, the types of building materials that can be used, etc. The plan also details the streetscape specifications for every street in the area—everything from roadway, lane, and sidewalk width to planting requirements for street trees.

Once a regulating plan is in place for a particular station area, there is little need for an extensive development review process, since developers and the community all know the rules ahead of time. Accordingly, under Subtitle 27A, development plans move directly to the permitting process.

M-NCPPC reviews the plans to be sure they conform with the regulating plan, and if they comply, the project gets its permit, subject to any appeals. M-NCPPC has the authority to make limited adjustments to particular regulating plan standards, but no other adjustments are permitted unless the regulating plan itself is amended through a public comprehensive planning process.

Thus, the form-based zoning regulations in Subtitle 27A accomplish the goals of CB-79, while still ensuring quality urban-form TOD in transit station areas and preserving the public's right to a fair hearing. Unfortunately, however, the county has yet to begin the public planning process to implement Subtitle 27A in any of the county's urban centers and corridor areas, including Metro and MARC station areas.

Problematic traffic tests could disappear or become more multi-modal

Under existing subdivision rules, a developer must conduct a traffic study to determine whether the existing roads can handle increased automobile traffic from the development. If not, the developer must pay for road improvements, such as new lanes or traffic signals, and/or wait for government agencies to build them before proceeding.

Any mixed-use development with housing, shopping, and employment centers would generate more auto trips in the immediate vicinity. Under the current rules, developers would therefore have to pay for more road infrastructure. Not only does this increase the cost of development, but the increased road capacity could also ironically make the neighborhood more hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists, thereby hindering further transit-oriented development.

These traffic analyses do not account for the automobile trips that are saved by locating dense mixed-used developments near transit centers. Often the trips it decreases are elsewhere in the county, because residents who live in mixed-use developments typically live closer to work, shopping, and other destinations, and are therefore able to walk, bike, or take public transit for many routine trips.

CB-80 would exempt all projects near transit stations from current rules requiring traffic studies and increased road capacity. This might make higher-density mixed-use TOD easier to build. Right now, strip malls that bring off-peak traffic have an easier time passing the traffic tests than mixed-use residential or commercial. Therefore, without the rules, developers could propose more walkable, transit-oriented projects that they don't think could gain approval today.

On the other hand, many worry that developers would simply build suburban-style, single-use, automobile-oriented development instead. That is what they are most accustomed to building in Prince George's, and surrounding areas are still primarily car-dependent. Without the traffic tests, a project like garden apartments could bring many auto trips to a transit station area, frustrating future development of urban, walkable communities.

Land near some stations like New Carrollton may be too valuable for this to happen, but at many other stations it is more likely. Plus, exempting everything within a half-mile could mean a project 0.45 miles from a station, even across a freeway, would face no traffic tests even if the intervening space is not very walkable.

Apart from the question of the type of development, many people who live near transit facilities would tolerate some increase in traffic, but only if transportation capacity increased. Because the existing rules always encourage more roads, CB-80 seems to imply that the choice is either more roads or no increase in capacity.

But there is another possibility: the county could create traffic generation standards that factor in all of the transportation methods typically associated with TODs. The Transportation Research Board has created comprehensive guidance on how to develop a multi-modal level of service (LOS) analysis tool. These standards would ensure that the right transportation facilities such as bike lanes, wide sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals are in place to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

It's great that County Council members want to encourage smart growth around transit stations. However, abandoning all development review and regulation in urban areas is not likely to result in compact, walkable mixed-used TOD. Instead of fast-tracking these bills, the council should take the time necessary to engage in a dialogue with all stakeholders on these important issues.

According to state employees, the sign came to symbolize a struggle between two schools of thought among traffic engineers: the traditional view that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable, and if that's not safe, stay off the road; and the modern view that cyclists are welcome on all roads, even if that requires riding in the center of the lane.

Within SHA, skeptics became supporters

While gradual, SHA's transformation has been remarkable. In April 2011, its Office of Traffic and Safety announced that SHA would not post any "use full lane" signs (PDF).

Tom Hicks, who was director of the office, explained in June 2011: "We assume that the bicycle requires a 4-foot operating width all the way to the right, while the automobile requires a 10-foot operating width. Drivers may have to move left into the next lane to pass. Potential conflict is increased if the cyclist moves farther to the left."

With some encouragement from MDOT Secretary Beverly Swaim-Staley, a few months later, Mr. Hicks became a strong supporter of Maryland's yellow "use full lane" warning sign. "We think that this sign will be very useful on some highways," he told me. "I knew there was a solution in there somewhere." Last week, SHA posted the white rectangular version of the sign on MD-193, MD-212, MD-450, MD-500, and MD-704, which suggests that Cedric Ward, his successor, may prefer that version of the sign, which is officially known as "R4‑11".

Once the guidance on these signs is refined and fully implemented, there will be no ambiguity on state highways about where a bicyclist is assumed to ride.

Local governments have different stances

Cities have been most eager to use the signs. Laurel has the white rectangular signs and sharrows as part of a bike route parallel to US-1, and the city engineer endorsed placement of the yellow warning sign along US-1. The City of Baltimore uses the R4-11 signs on bicycle boulevards. Across the state line, the District of Columbia and Arlington (which operates its own roads) have used the R4-11 sign for more than a year.

Montgomery County has not posted any "use full lane" signs yet, but it intends to follow the approach described in the recent SHA guidance for the sign (PDF), according to Fred Lees, the county's chief of traffic engineering studies. Anne Arundel plans to limit the signs to a few cases where citizens report hazards caused by drivers not expecting to see cyclists using the full lane. "We already have 70,000 signs on county roads. Signs that merely tell people the law should not be needed," says James Schroll, the chief traffic engineer for Anne Arundel County. "There are better ways to inform residents that the law allows cyclists to take the lane."

Prince George's County still has the ambivalence about bicycling that SHA had in the past. Haitham Hijazi, Director of the Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) says that the County will use the R4-11 signs along some roads that have at least two lanes in each direction.

But the county has rejected requests to post those signs on two-lane roads. In a meeting with WABA, DPW&T explained its reasoning:

DPW&T believes that signs and pavement markings increase its liability because doing so would imply endorsement of riding those roads. Today, cyclists ride those roads at their own risk. The County has never stated that all of its roads are part of the cycling transportation network. Installing signs and pavement markings would in effect endorse biking on those roads, making the county liable.

In rejecting a request for a sign on Church Road, where drivers regularly honk at cyclists using full lane, DPW&T traffic engineer Cipriana Thompson said that "this is a use-full-lane situation," but disputed the research that R4-11 signs increase safety. Others at DPW&T suggest that cyclists who use the full lane do so for political reasons, rather than their own safety:

DPW&T cares about public safety and is concerned when members of the community take safety lightly or knowingly commit acts of high-risk behavior as a mechanism to achieve a public action.

Advocates and officials seek common ground

WABA and other advocates disagree with the view that cyclists should not ride on 2‑lane roads that are too narrow to share. But rather than debate the point, they plan to work with Hijazi on specific roads that he is willing to improve. Councilman Eric Olson (D‑College Park) supports a pragmatic approach: "I look forward to working with DPW&T and the bicycle community on the new signs."

The American Automobile Association (AAA) is also supportive. John Townsend of AAA Mid-Atlantic, who lives in Prince George's County, has seen first-hand the need for better signage. "When I drive to church on Sunday morning, I see a lot of bicyclists on Lottsford Vista Road," he observes.

"That road has been widened in some places, but parts are still narrow, and cyclists move into the lane there. We already have deer warning signs, so surely we should have signs to warn about vulnerable people in the roadway."

The meaning of "share the road" has evolved. For decades, the law required cyclists to keep as far to the right as practicable. This made sense when most cyclists were children proceeding slowly. But at higher speeds, riding too far to the right is hazardous. Drivers and pedestrians are not looking for fast vehicles close to the curb, and cyclists can't see them emerging from driveways, cross streets, or parked cars.

When lanes are too narrow for a car to pass a bike safely, too many drivers try to pass bikes within the lane anyway. So on those roads, it is safer for a cyclist to ride near the center of the lane, according to Maryland's Driver Manual.

Section 21-1205(a)(6) of the Maryland Transportation Code says that a cyclist may ride in the center of a narrow lane. But many drivers learned to drive (and bike) back when cyclists were supposed to simply keep to the right. And on any given road, drivers and cyclists may have different perceptions about whether the lane is too narrow to share. So "drivers and cyclists often must guess what the other is going to do," says Shane Farthing, Executive Director of the Washington Area Bicyclists Association.

Signs will educate, warn drivers

The Federal Highway Administration's official handbook of highway signs, The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), included a new sign in its most recent update to ensure that drivers and cyclists have the same expectations. This sign, called the R4-11, says "Bicycles May Use Full Lane." Because it has the shape of a white rectangle, R4-11 is technically a "regulatory sign," giving it the force of law. Wherever it's posted, cyclists may ride in the center of the lane, even in states that have not legalized this practice, such as New Jersey.

In Maryland, which allows cyclists to take the lane, the shape and color of the sign does not change the driving rules. But there are certain requirements for the placement of all regulatory signs, according to Tom Hicks, who recently retired as SHA's Director of Traffic and Safety. Those requirements can be administratively burdensome, so SHA will also use a yellow diamond "warning" sign with the same words.

"The signs will increase safety by providing drivers with a warning about where bikes may be," says Dustin Kuzan, SHA's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. A study in Austin, Texas found that placement of similar signs has little impact on where cyclists ride. But drivers moved to the left as they passed bikes enough to increase the median passing clearance by 3 feet.

John Townsend of AAA Mid-Atlantic agrees: "These signs are a really good idea. Bicyclists have the right to use the full lane on narrow roads. As drivers, we are operating the heavier vehicle which can seriously injure a cyclist. So it is up to drivers to avoid a collision. But drivers need information about where the bicyclist might be riding, and these signs will help."

"The signs may also decrease hostility between drivers and cyclists by informing all road users that cyclists have the right to be in the center of the lane," Kuzan adds.

SHA plans to post the signs on state roads through Montgomery and Prince George's Counties this summer. Additional details on SHA's plans and policies are available on Washcycle.

The new signs aren't for every road

The "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs are a step toward implementing the general bicycle policy established by the previous SHA administrator, Neil Pederson, shortly before he retired last summer. Under that policy, every state highway where bicycles are not prohibited should have one of five bicycle configurations:

• Wide shoulder
  
• Bike lane
  
• Wide lane (and possibly sharrows) for side-by-side lane sharing
  
• Narrow lane with "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs (and possibly sharrows)
  
• Sidepath

The new signs will not be used on all roads with narrow lanes. Some rural highways have little or no shoulder, but SHA is unlikely to post the "Use Full Lane" signs in areas where there are few if any cyclists.

Additionally, some highways have wide shoulders that could technically become bike lanes, but poor pavement or right-side hazards like driveways and vegetation make them unsafe for cycling. Neither cyclists nor SHA want additional substandard bike lanes.

SHA is reluctant to post "Use Full Lane" signs where there is a real shoulder. "SHA is still discussing the use of the R4-11 in these situations," says Kuzan. "The challenge is determining which shoulders are so unsuitable that a cyclist should not even straddle the fog line," which might leave enough room for a car to pass within lane.

Signs by themselves will make only a small difference during rush hour. On any weekday morning, the state highways leading into Washington are full of cars traveling 40-50 mph. These speeds are intimidating to cyclists, whether the cars are passing with one foot or four feet of clearance.

SHA plans to widen parts of US-1 near College Park to add bike lanes, according to Gregory Slater, SHA's planning director Along MD-450 and MD-704, Prince Georges County has asked SHA to implement a "road diet" and reduce the number of general travel lanes to create space for bike lanes and better sidewalks. SHA officials are discouraged from using the term "road diet", but Mr. Slater says that SHA is looking at "redistributing roadway capacity." "Things have to slow down a bit," he says.

Realistically, bike lanes along most state highways inside the Beltway are still decades away. The "Use Full Lane" signs are something we can afford now. They are likely to make these highways safer during off-peak times, and they may help to educate drivers about how to share the road.

Will that education carry over to local roads? Or will drivers assume that bicycles may not use full lane if these signs are not posted? We don't know yet.

The state would be picking up a large portion of the inflated tab. Will the Governor merely provide funds to enable local decision-making at its worst, or will he lead these counties to build the better, lower-cost trail that, for a variety of institutional reasons, they are unable to pursue on their own?

The Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis Trail runs along the right of way of the old railroad of the same name from Lanham to the Patuxent River in Prince George's County, a distance of about 6 miles. One mile northeast of the Patuxent, the trail picks up again and continues for 4 miles to Odenton. From there, you can take mostly local streets to connect to the BWI Airport and Trail.

Anne Arundel County is preparing to build a trail along the South Shore Line of the old WB&A railroad from the eastern end of the WB&A trail to Annapolis. Meanwhile, Prince George's County plans to build a trail from the western end of the WB&A Trail to Bladensburg and the Anacostia River Trail. Building the connection over the Patuxent River to connect the two segments of the WB&A Trail is thus the highest priority in the Missing Links Program at the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).

The land between the two trail segments is undeveloped. A single developer owns the old railbed for about half the distance, and the land next to the railroad right of way for the other half. As part of the permit process for the planned Preserve at Two Rivers, Anne Arundel County could easily extend the trail in a straight line to the water's edge.

Instead, the County wants the developer to build a winding detour that would reach the Patuxent River on the Anne Arundel side about a mile north of where the trail currently reaches the river on the Prince George's side. Under the proposed site plan, the development will also place homes atop the old right of way, and thereby ensure that a straight trail is never built.

Railroads were always good at finding the route with the most favorable topography. Thus, the old railbed would provide a gradual slope down to the river. The detour would send the trail first up a small hill, then down a steep incline toward the river.

The route down to the river is so steep it requires several switchbacks. According to officials who attended a meeting on the subject in September, the turns are so sharp that the maximum safe speed is 7 mph, and the steep slopes do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Then, at the bottom of the hill, the detour trail would have to cross several hundred feet of floodplain wetlands before reaching the river.

Why does Anne Arundel County prefer a costly detour that seriously degrades the quality of the trail? I have been unable to find any official willing to offer a clear rationale.

According to Ken Alban, Chief of Capital Projects for the parks department, the county is pursuing the detour because a decision was made to pursue the detour years ago, before he took his position. "I have many projects and I cannot be continually revisiting the rationale behind each one, or nothing would ever get built," he says.

The detour alignment was originally proposed at the turn of the century by Buz Meyer, who owned the land along the Patuxent River immediately southeast of the railbed. Both the County and Meyer claimed ownership of the railbed itself.

Several officials who were with the county ten years ago told me that the decision to pursue the detour was made around 2001 by then-County Executive Janet Owens. Until then, the County had planned to run the trail on the right of way, but it eventually conceded that the right-of-way within about 1000 feet of the river was owned by Meyer.

Why didn't the county simply move the trail alignment by about 50 feet from the old roadbed to the adjacent parcel to the northwest? Three county officials told me that Meyer did not want the trail near his land because of the risk of stray bullets from his property, which was used for hunting and firearms training.

Apparently the detour was the only alternative in 2001. But circumstances have changed. A developer now owns the land northwest of the railbed. And Buz Meyer died recently. His son, Andrew Meyer, told me that he opposes the trail being on his property, but that he does not care if a trail is on the adjacent parcel, as long as people do not trespass on his land.

A fence could easily be built. In fact, a high wall was built to stop bullets and trespassing where the WB&A Trail runs along the grounds of the Berwyn Rod and Gun Club in Bowie.

Mr. Alban asked me why cyclists would want this more direct route. I told him it would allow people to arrive at their destination 10 minutes sooner. He told me he was surprised: "No one has ever suggested to me that this trail will be used for transportation," he said. "I doubt that people will use this trail for commuting."

Prince George's County has consistently favored the direct trail and opposed the detour since 2001, when then-county executive Wayne Curry sent Owens a letter explaining the the County's position.

A few years ago, Prince George's added a ½-mile segment extending the trail to the water's edge, which would be superfluous if the detour trail was built. County park and planning staff continue to favor the direct connection. But after a decade, they have also become pessimistic about whether it will ever be completed. So they are building a short trail along another old rail spur that would facilitate the detour, should it become the only option.

State officials almost universally are skeptical about the detour, but feel that there is nothing they can do even though the prospect of state funds is driving the process. Steve Carr of the Department of Natural Resources told Maryland's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee that because the detour runs through wetlands in a floodplain, the permit process could take years.

I asked whether the state can do a complete alternatives analysis and pick the optimal route in a public process. "If and when the state conducts a design study, it can conduct an alternatives analysis," said Dustin Kuzan, the state's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator.

"But what if Anne Arundel County and the planned development make the direct route far more costly before that study begins," I asked. "We may not fund the best option, but the state can not make local land use decisions," he said.

Maryland is thinking of funding a wasteful detour bridge that makes no sense today, because the detour was the only practical alternative ten years ago. Middle management apparently lacks authority or incentive to pursue the more valuable and lower-cost alignment. MDOT needs leadership from Governor O'Malley to ensure the state doesn't waste money building an inferior trail.

When it comes to bicycle and pedestrian issues, M-NCPPC and DPW&T are as different as night and day. "Bicycling and walking are the foundation of the county's transportation network, because no one parks a car in their living room," said Eric Foster, head of M-NCPPC's transportation planning section.

M-NCPPC requires new developments to include trails, sidewalks, and complete streets. The county master plan has a comprehensive network of bike routes similar to those in Arlington and Montgomery counties.

But DPW&T has not made bicycling or walking part of its core mission. DPW&T views the bike routes in the master plan as future bike routes if and when the road is widened, not as the network people should be using now.

Last fall, I suggested some signs and pavement markings to make biking safer along Church Road in Glenn Dale. M-NCPPC endorsed the request because it is an official bike route. But DPW&T declined because "by placing sharrows on the road, we would be endorsing riding a bike on Church Road."

Oxon Hill Road connects the $60 million Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail to points south along the Potomac River. This road is potentially the gateway for thousands of bicycle day trippers from Virginia and the District. DPW&T agrees that this road should eventually have a bike lane.

Members of the county Bicycle and Trail Advisory Group suggested that during the planned repavement, DPW&T should post signs warning motorists that cyclists are using the full lane. The traffic office representative replied "we hope that people will not ride bicycles on Oxon Hill Road while it is being repaved."

Bringing DPW&T into the 21^st century has long been a goal of county cycling advocates.

In a recent letter to County Executive Baker which I helped write, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) pointed out that other metro-area jurisdictions "each have full-time staff in their transportation departments explicitly tasked with improving cycling and walking; but Prince George's does not."

WABA recommended that Mr. Baker "create a full-time bicycle and pedestrian coordinator position within the county government, direct DPW&T to make bicycling and walking a priority using professional best practices, and develop a bicycle-pedestrian plan with specific milestones to be implemented in the next 4 to 8 years."

In his response, Rushern Baker generally agreed with WABA's goals, though not necessarily about the specific recommendations:

I also share your belief that walking and biking is beneficial for the environ­ment by getting cars off the road, as well as in addressing the physical well-being of individuals. ... I very much share your goals for looking to the transit oriented redevelopment model for creating a more vibrant, sustainable model for the County that emphasizes strong pedestrian and bicycle connections. ... I intend to work with our County agencies and specifically DPW&T.

Mr. Baker also endorsed the longstanding partnerships, in particular the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee headed by Eric Foster and Trails Coordinator Fred Shaffer, both of M-NCPPC. He added:

While your concern about staffing is well-taken, and that planning and implementation serve two different functions, it is important to note that allotted staff resources also include Daniel Janousek, a senior planner with M-NCPPC, who is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian activities. DPW&T staff coordinates regularly with M-NCPPC on the implementation of plans and how to best fulfill walkable and bikable communities.

Mr. Baker's letter had about all WABA could have realistically expected: an affirmation that he wants to make the county more bikeable and walkable; a hint that he recognizes the need for implementation staff; and a pretty strong commitment to use the existing staff expertise as effectively as possible to move the county forward.

But the transition team report had a very different message. Released March 11, 2011, its report looked very broadly on what is needed to improve county government. But it also included some extremely detailed revisions to transportation planning.

It proposed to shift virtually all of the work by Daniel Janousek and Fred Shaffer from Eric Foster's transportation planning section at M-NCPPC to DPW&T, as well as the review of both the design and need for transportation projects. The transition team added:

Trails coordination is also an important transportation function, part of the overall network as there is constant conflict between DPW&T and Park & Planning for the size and location of a trail along the side of a road. This review authority should also be moved to DPW&T.

Thus in a single week, the County Executive said that the county has a great team that will be energized to do great things. But his transition team said that the county's trails program is so dysfunctional that it needs to be shifted from an organization with the required expertise (M-NCPPC) to an organization with little demonstrated interest or capacity (DPW&T).

Is this an ill-considered proposal to gut the only program in the county truly working toward complete streets? Or did the transition team simply assume that once the policy decisions are made, DPW&T will be provided funding to hire a world-class team of people to carry out the mission? The two documents we saw this month were presumably drafted by staff with different experiences and perspectives, but not necessarily different goals.

Mr. Baker seems to be articulating the right vision and the right goals. Creating a county government that can carry out those goals may require some re-organization. But dismantling what works is probably not the best place to start.