Urban bike trails aren't just for recreation

Bicycling

Urban bike trails aren't just for recreation

by Cavan Wilk • January 5, 2009 2:33 pm

For many years, one of the main points of debate over the Purple Line route between Bethesda and Connecticut Avenue in Montgomery County has the interim Capital Crescent Trail, an unpaved section along the old railroad right-of-way that the light rail Purple Line would also use. Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, after largely staying out of the debate, weighed in on the matter through two columns last month. Fisher took a common, but incomplete, approach that framed the debate as "Trail Lovers" against transit advocates. Other articles in the Post have framed this issue similarly. This approach shortchanges the potential of paved off-road trails in urban places.

One of the many impediments to practical cycling on the incomplete Capital Crescent Trail. Photo by Wayne Phyillaier of Finish the Trail.

Currently, bicyclists make up many of the patrons on the interim trail. While many cyclists ride for recreation, many people use bicycles as practical transportation, especially on the completed section of the Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Georgetown. That's feasible on the completed part of the trail because it connects centers of activity. It is not feasible on the incomplete part of the trail because the eastern terminus does not connect to anything. Today, the trail ends almost two miles short of downtown Silver Spring.

According to a 2006 survey by the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail, the interim portion of the trail east of Bethesda gets much less usage than the completed portion between Bethesda and Georgetown. If Maryland builds the light rail Purple Line, they will also build the final portion and pave the segment between Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Fisher's framing of the debate assumes that paved trails in urban areas are only for recreation. I'm not trying to lambaste Mr. Fisher. In fact, I found his coverage of the Purple Line to be a good read. However, his view of the role of trails shortchanges their full potential. When a trail connects places that people want to go, enhances mobility within a region. Many bicycle owners would use a completed Capital Crescent Trail, running alongside the Purple Line, for practical uses like commuting to work, visiting a friend, or shopping (after attaching a basket or trunk to their bicycle). Over the long term, more people will use the trail for practical transportation because of its convenience. Just as shiny new highways induce more traffic because they make discretionary automobile trips seem more convenient, a completed Capital Crescent Trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring will induce more bicycle trips. Many of those induced bicycle trips will replace automobile trips.

Bicycles are non-polluting, inexpensive, and are urban-friendly because they don't require huge parking structures. Practical bicycle transportation infrastructure also makes nice recreational hiker/biker trails. That's why bicycle advocates like WABA have endorsed the light rail Purple Line option to also complete the trail. Building the Purple Line isn't about the trail versus transit. It's about having a useful trail and transit at the same time.

5 comments — Share	— tags: bicycling, bike trails, Capital Crescent Trail, Maryland, Montgomery, Purple Line

Railbanking could fix the Anacostia streetcar dilemma (Jul 21, 2009)
Town of Chevy Chase takes ball, goes home, calls referee a cheat (Jan 21, 2009)
Tell Maryland MTA you support the light rail Purple Line (Dec 12, 2008)
Sign the Purple Line petition (Sep 16, 2008)
What's up with the Purple Line (Jun 4, 2008)

Comments

A paved road also makes the trail more usable both in bad weather and after it. With skinny tires (and by that I mean less than 32cm) and any kind of rain, you can't use that portion of the trail--it gets pretty hairy, especially when it puddles up over gravel. Wet pavement, however, doesn't pose the same kind of challenge.

by rumpole on Jan 5, 2009 2:46 pm

This is a bit aside from this posting but there will be a session on bike-sharing programs at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting this Sunday, Jan. 11. Here is the information on the session.

------------------------------------------

Public Bicycle Systems: A New Approach to Urban Mobility

Sunday, January 11, 2009, 1:30 PM - 4:30 PM, Hilton

David Brook, Carsharing Consultant, presiding

Sponsored by:

Emerging and Innovative Public Transport and Technologies Committee (AP020)

Note: With the launch of the Paris Velib system, interest in public bicycle systems has skyrocketed in the past few years. Washington, DC and Montreal have launched their systems, and other cities are planning major programs. This workshop provides a detailed look at the role of public bicycles in urban mobility and discusses implementation considerations for planners. A round table discussion with speakers and guests will follow. At the end of the session, we will visit a nearby smart bike station.

New Mobility - How Public Bicycle Sharing Can Play an Important Role (P09-1331)

Sue Zielinski, University of Michigan

Status of Public Bike Systems in North America and Implementation Issues (P09-1333)

Paul DeMaio, MetroBike LLC

Findings from EasyConnect: A Public Shared Bike System (P09-1335)

Susan A. Shaheen, University of California, Berkeley

Bixi - Montreal Public Bicycle System (P09-1764)

Alain Ayotte, Stationnement de Montréal

Roundtable Discussion on Public Bike System Implementation and Policy (P09-1342)

Clayton Lane, Consultant

I. Introduction, David Brook

II. New Mobility - How Public Bicycle Sharing Can Play an Important Role, Sue Zielinski

III. Status of Public Bike Systems in North America and Implementatin Issues, Paul DeMaio

IV. Findings from EasyConnect: A Public Shared Bike System, Susan Shaheen

V. Bixi - Montreal Public Bicycle System, Alain Ayotte, Stationnement de Montreal

VI. Roundtable Discussion on Public Bike System Implementation and Policy, Clayton Lane

by Ben on Jan 5, 2009 2:58 pm

Recreational cycling is impeded as well by the incomplete state of the Capital Crescent Trail. The photo with this article shows a family group on a weekend, more likely out for recreation than for practical riding. The photo is at the on-road Georgetown Branch Trail crossing of 16th street, and illustrates why cycling on the trail in Silver Spring of any kind, recreational or practical, is only a small fraction of that seen in Bethesda where the trail is complete.

by Wayne Phyillaier on Jan 5, 2009 4:38 pm

Does anyone have numbers on biking? For all the calls to cater to their interests, build bike lanes and kiss their feet, I never see any around downtown and on the weekends all I see are fat administrative law judges biking around with their SES buddies trying to prevent another stroke until they hit retirement age.

by Economic Geography on Jan 6, 2009 12:58 am

I posted links to numbers on biking on the interim Capital Crescent Trail in the post.

There is also a link to WABA. They have more information about biking in our region.

As far as bike lanes and interests, just like cars and highways, or train ridership and trains, it's a chicken and egg phenomenon. If you build it, they will come. However, it's the effects on land use that are the big picture. Bike paths compliment mass transit and walkable, streetgrid-oriented places because they don't take much space and don't require large parking structures. However, large roads and large car traffic kills walkable places by pushing everything farther apart with really wide roads and large parking structures.

by Cavan on Jan 6, 2009 9:00 am