Hear hear. Some of the lycra brigade are ridiculous on the Mt. Vernon trail. I used to bike and walk there frequently. Not so much anymore. There are a group of cyclists who feel entitled to make dangerous passes at dangerous speeds, regardless of the pedestrians, joggers, families, and other bikers who are around. Complete a-holes.

by aaa on May 14, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

aaa, yes, Lycranauts ride too quickly on the MVT, and on all other MUPs for that matter. Race bikes traveling over 16 mph belong on the road, not on an MUP.

With that said, a narrow MUP is a terrible place to try to teach a child how to keep a 2 wheeler upright. First teach a child how to stay upright, in an empty school or church parking lot. Then teach them how to maintain a straight line, in a parking lot. Finally, teach them how to maintain a straight line on the right side of a path, in a parking lot. Then take them onto a narrow MUP.

by dukiebiddle on May 14, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

@aaa:

As a proud member of the lycra brigade, I don't think the Mt. Vernon trail is friendly to anyone on the weekends during the spring/summer. Rollerbladers and joggers who are listening to their i-Pods and paying absolutely no attention to their surroundings are at least an equal hazard. I was clipped by a jogger who did a u-turn on the trail without looking behind him at all before doing this. A bigger hazard than experienced cyclists who know how to control their bicycles are the parents who let their kids wander 100 yards ahead without keeping an eye on them.

by Ben on May 14, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

"There are a group of cyclists who feel entitled to make dangerous passes at dangerous speeds, regardless of the pedestrians, joggers, families, and other bikers who are around. Complete a-holes."

And there are the groups of pedestrians who feel they can block the middle of the trail and not move over even when requested. As well as the joggers with their ipods blasting who are totally oblivious to everyone but themselves. As well as the parents who think that an extremely busy multiuse trail is the place to teach a totally inexperienced child to ride their bike.

by Fred on May 14, 2011 11:07 am • link • report

@Fred--

Exactly right. There is no reason these people needed to be running 2-3 abreast on a busy Sat/Sun morning.

by Ben on May 14, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

Fred, a classic MVT user. Hundreds of freds out there with powertaps and lackluster bikehandling skills.

by j on May 14, 2011 11:27 am • link • report

Teaching a kid to bicycle on the MVT is akin to teaching a teenager to drive a stick-shift on the GW Parkway... there are certainly better venues for learning the tricks of the trade.

by Josh C. on May 14, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

Ok folks. Newsflash: Yesterday was "Blame someone else Day".
http://holidayinsights.com/other/blamesomeoneday.htm

How about we join forces and try to use our energy to convince the NPS to widen the GW trail. The reason why the path gets to frustrating is that its relatively narrow and very, very busy. It's not that the lycrabrigage consists of reckless speeders (even though they arE), while all pedestrians are cluelessly absorbed in their mp3-players (which they are too).

The trail should be twice as wide. Especially in the busy sections. Near Roosevelt Island, the airport, on the north side of Alexandria, and certain twisty, hilly parts near Mt Vernon.

by Jasper on May 14, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

Ben -- I am a biker, and I am not blaming the entire lycra brigade. There is an irresponsible subset among them who are especially noticable on the MVT. You and me have both been on the trail enough times to recognize the most commonly occurring dangerous activity among the following: pedestrians blocking the trail, joggers u-turning, or bikers riding and passing too fast. Which one have you seen most often? Be honest.

by aaa on May 14, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

@aaa:

My own pet peeve is cyclists who are biking and riding too fast without making any attempt to alert pedestrians that they're on their way. The last time I was down there, walking - it's been over a year, because of this - I lost count of the number of people who would pass me without so much as a ring of the bell or a little shout. They'd come up behind me; I had no way of knowing they were there. And I don't think I'm a terribly oblivious pedestrian; I don't wear an iPod, I keep my ears open, and I get out of the way whenever I need to. I recognize cyclists have the right of way down there (it IS the Mount Vernon BICYCLE Trail, after all). And really, most of the cyclists I've encountered there have been no trouble at all. But there's always that handful that ruins it for everyone else...and unfortunately in my experience the handful is rather larger than it ought to be.

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on May 14, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the Mount Vernon Trail is a Mixed Use Trail, NOT a bike trail. While everyone is expected to be considerate to other trail users and stay to the right, pedestrians always have right of way over cyclists on a Mixed Use Trail.
-a cyclist

by dukiebiddle on May 14, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report

Good point on widening the thing. As it is, I avoid MVT like the plague anywhere near mid-season. Teaching a kid how to ride there is no more sensible than teaching a teenager how to drive by sending them onto the Beltway.

by movement on May 14, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report

Any clue how many WMATA bus riders use NextBus? I have to imagine it's a significant percentage.

by Gavin on May 14, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report

If it is wide enough to widen the MVT in certain areas, is it wide enough to support 2 trails?

This was a problem back in the 80's for the chain of lakes area in Minneapolis esp. around Lake Calhoun/Harriet/Lake of the Isles. So the path was split into 2 bi-directional paths: one for peds/joggers and one for bikers/skaters. Haven't been in over a decade, but from what I recall it worked quite well. But only if the space is available, of course.

by greent on May 14, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

@dukiebiddle:

Ah - I always thought it was primarily a bike trail. Ah, well...regardless, I always try to stay on the right.

@greent:

That's certainly a possibility; I'm not sure if it's viable along the whole length of the path, though. I don't know what it's like up north of Alexandria and the airport; south of the airport I think it could be supported for at least a portion of the way. Might be tricky in portions of the Belle Haven area, due to the way the park's been laid out.

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on May 14, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report

I'am very suspicious that 1/3 of bus riders use an app in Boston because most if not all non smartphones do not have many apps. I have never seen a transit app for any Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, or LG non smartphone.

BTW what is consider an app to them are we talking about a phone or computer application or any service which can be used such as Nextbus or Nexttrain which are not apps.

by kk on May 14, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report

The article I read on that Philly permeable street said it cost $330,000. http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-10/news/29528452_1_storm-water-system-storm-water-sewer-system
Sent it to CM Wells, CM Cheh and WASA Director Hawkins. DC is to spend 3billion 5oo million on a tunnel to accomplish what Philly is trying to do by greening. DC has a 5 million dollar Tiger Grant for improving the cityscape and lighting of 5 blocks of K St NW from 7th St to NJ Ave. It let the first contract April of this year. My question to Wells, Cheh and Hawkins why not DC? No response yet.

by Dan Maceda on May 14, 2011 3:36 pm • link • report

When I saw the comments about widening the trail I couldn't help but picture the New Jersey Turnpike where it's a quad-carriageway with the "Cars Only" and "Cars-Trucks-Buses" setup. The idea of setting up the Mount Vernon Trail so that cyclists use one lane in each direction and pedestrians/rollerbladers/whatever use another sounds nice in theory, but I suspect that in practice it would just create further problems because I'm fairly certain people wouldn't use the correct lanes.

I sort of sympathize with that father's concern about teaching his kid to ride, but I think that sort of trail is the wrong place. Now, if his kid were already a competent bike rider and they were out on the trail and ran into problems with the Tour de France wannabes, that's a different story. A little kid simply can't be expected to ride as fast as a grown adult, especially not on the uphills, but if the kid is a competent bike rider he's certainly entitled to use the trail. But a better place to learn to ride a bike would be a church or school car park.

by Rich on May 14, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report

@Rich
In New York City, the main mixed use paths (for example, West Side Highway) are four lanes. The center two lanes are for bicycle traffic and the outer two lanes are for pedestrian traffic. It works much better.

by movement on May 14, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

Splitting the MVT would be great. In Vancouver, the seawall trail that rings Stanley park is packed all the time with cyclists and joggers, walkers, and rollerbladers. The entire length of the trail is divided and marked for each. It works great.

Here's a pic of how it looks.

by jyindc on May 14, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

If the MVT is widened, then make sure that the additional section is not paved. Instead keep it nice and gravelly with strategically placed diagonal ruts that wreck havoc on skinny ZIPPs. Otherwise we'll see the same issue of latent demand when highways are widened.

Of course, we could also require bike registration, use speed cameras, and place unmanned police bikes on the median to slow things down :)

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on May 14, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report

Gravel paths are actually good for runners. In Central Park, a lot of people run on the unpaved reservoir path.

But here's an even better approach: Close a lane of the GW Parkway every weekend and let cyclists and runners use that.

by David Alpert on May 14, 2011 5:24 pm • link • report

@ Smoke_Jaguar4: Otherwise we'll see the same issue of latent demand when highways are widened.

Yeah, cuz more bikers, runners and walkers is just as bad as more cars....

by Jasper on May 14, 2011 6:15 pm • link • report

When I bike on the CCT I get tired saying "on the left" over and over again. But I do it because that's what you have to do.

I think splitting the MVT might make sense, but you're never going to be able to create a lane for each and every type of user. At some point we just have to learn to share the space like adults.

by TM on May 14, 2011 6:19 pm • link • report

I don't have a dog in this fight because I rarely ride MUPs. I find the area roadways much less dangerous than riding on, say, the Capitol Crescent Trail on a weekend afternoon.

Having said that...what kind of complete imbecile takes his young child out to teach him how to ride on the segregate path equivalent of the B/W Parkway?

On the off chance that the correspondent was honestly asking if it were a bad idea--or if anyone else is--then let me just answer: "Yes, it's a bad fucking idea."

I taught my daughter to ride in the Arboretum. She rides on neighborhood sidewalks and at the park. She doesn't ride on the Mt Vernon trail, or the Capitol Crescent.

In any case, every one of the area multi-use trails is simply packed with selfish walkers, joggers, cyclists, and rollerbladers. A good portion of every user mode acts like a selfish asshole. The idea that "the problem is Lycranauts doing 17 mph (!)", or joggers with iPods, or walkers who walk four abreast, is missing the point.

by oboe on May 14, 2011 8:52 pm • link • report

@Jasper:
My point was if we widen the path, then we need to make sure that this actually accommodates non-cyclist rather than simply fill the lane with more bikes.
In the bigger picture, I'm glad this is a 'problem', since it show cycling has become a serious form of transportation in the DC area. We now need to show the same good planning foresight to ensure these pathways safely meet the needs of all who use them - cyclists, rollerbladers, runners, walkers, dads teaching their kids to bike, etc...

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on May 14, 2011 9:37 pm • link • report

I too avoid MUPs as much as I can, but unfortunately, there is no bikeable parallel route to the MVT.

On a side note, terms like "lycra brigade" are quite frankly hack. People have been pulling that one out for 30 years now. Tired. Now if you want to be hack that's fine, but I expect more from the commenters here at GGW. It's time to come up with some new insults for cyclists [Also any reference to "Lance Armstrong" should be retired just like he is]. I recently heard the term "the bike reich". Now I like that. It's fresh. It's clever. It's not older than Eric Fidler. I challenge you, those who need to group cyclists and insult them, come up with some new insults.

by David C on May 14, 2011 10:51 pm • link • report

Oboe wrote:

"Having said that...what kind of complete imbecile takes his young child out to teach him how to ride on the segregate path equivalent of the B/W Parkway?"

Once again, oboe gets to completely flaunt this site's commenting rules -- I'm pretty sure calling someone an "imbecile" is an "ad hominem attack" -- yet is allowed to continue commenting.

Alpert, you really need to step up and enforce your self-created rules for everyone, not only upon people who don't agree with you.

by Anon on May 15, 2011 1:51 am • link • report

^ "...with whom you don't agree."

by my mom on May 15, 2011 2:04 am • link • report

@Anon:
Our enforcement of the commenting rules has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with the person making the comments.

@Oboe:
Please refrain from name calling.

by Matt Johnson on May 15, 2011 2:10 am • link • report

@Jasper/Rich: better yet would be separate paths altogether for bicyclists/skaters and pedestrians, not unlike what exists in the very popular Minneapolis park system. A few issues here and there with people not on the right trail, but it's worked well overall for the past 30+ years. Here's a few photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26904234@N04/2516673436/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minneapolisorg/2500777474/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shadydeals/3985467900/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/upd42geo/578308259/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wjries/130301404/

by Froggie on May 15, 2011 9:09 am • link • report

@ Froggie: better yet would be separate paths altogether for bicyclists/skaters and pedestrians

Sure. Whatever. Separate paths also means a widening. I did not want to get in the technicalities of how to implement a widening. There are actually a few spots where it's gonna be hard and expensive.

I wonder if the NPS thinks about such things at all.

by Jasper on May 15, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report

If walkers can't maintain the *speed limit* on these mixed-use paths, then they have no reason to be on them. I'm tired of riding along at 20 mph and coming around a corner, endangering myself by braking severely, then trying to pass some arrogant, entitled walker who's barely making 4 mph.

--Oboe's Id (or: If cyclists thought like drivers)

by Oboe's Id on May 17, 2011 9:50 am • link • report

I would have slowed down for the pedestrian, but if I did then another cyclist might have rear-ended me, so it's safer not to.

-- More Oboe's Id

by David Alpert on May 17, 2011 9:55 am • link • report