Winter bike commuting won't really catch on until we maintain bike facilities the way we do roads. Maybe not every trail needs to be cleared after a snow, but the CCT at least.

« MTA to present Purple Line/CCT plan to CCCT | Main | Falls Road Hiker/Biker Path »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345198c369e200e55059b5538833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ice on the trail:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

I think the Mt. Vernon trail, too -- it's a huge thoroughfare & usually terrible after storms. I've had winter commutes where I wound up walking several miles because I couldn't bike on the ice -- crazy! Kinda soured me on biking after snow/ice storms...
Maybe also the Custis/W&OD. Those & the CCT are the main thoroughfares in my book.
Posted by: Jenny | February 19, 2008 at 03:50 PM
If it goes below 32, I'll ride Nokian Hakkapeliittas to work. The advantage has been obvious on days where there has been snow on the trail, but they have also saved my butt on supposedly safe mornings when a patch of black ice appears out of nowhere. If the county is going to clear snow, they will also treat the trail. Studded bike tires seem like a lot more sustainable solution--fiscally and environmentally.
Posted by: anakcu | February 19, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Our narrow trails with their numerous bottlenecks and bridges could not even handle a pickup truck push plow. Unless the trails were greatly improved, you'd have the same situation you have now; long clear stretches punctuated by sheets of ice.
Another vote for snow/ice studs, and a wish for plenty of frosty goodness.
Posted by: Jay | February 20, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Great picture! You can even see the blue of the "blue ice." Yes, Mt. Vernon Trail near Memorial Bridge is a constant hazard. Drainage problems keep water sitting on the path, where it freezes and thaws. On those days, I take Roosevelt Bridge instead of Memorial Bridge from Va. into D.C.
Posted by: Mike doan | February 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM
I thought ISTEA was supposed to fund such treatment as suggested here?
Posted by: Grendel | February 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM
They could easily service the paths with an ATV fitted with a plow -- and at minimal cost. If you plow it well enough you won't necessarily need to salt it. The biggest problem is the rutting that happens, especially on bridges. Not even studded tires will save you from getting your tire caught in the ruts and falling.
If studded tires aren't required for other forms of transportation (due to proper road maintenance), why should they be required of cyclists? They're great, and I have a pair, but a lot of people who commute on bikes don't have the money for $80 tires ... or bus fare ... or a car. This is a public safety issue, and it should be resolved.
Posted by: worktheweb | February 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Rather than complaining, there's no reason why trail users couldn't just salt the trail themselves. According to the Salt Institute website, the normal rate for highways is 250 lbs/lane-mile. You'd probably need no more than a third of that for a bike path. If every cyclist scattered 10 pounds of salt on his commute the trail would be clear in no time.
Of course, there's always the bike plow:
http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/organizationalchart/peterson/snowplow_files/Bike_Plow.html
Posted by: Contrarian | February 20, 2008 at 04:33 PM
I don't know about treating the trails from an environmental standpoint (I'm sure you don't have to salt them), but clearing 100 miles of trail 15 times a year has got to be cheaper than thousands of bike commuters buying studded tires at $100 a pair.
Posted by: washcycle | February 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Without studs, ice you can see is a whole lot better than ice you can't. Plowing without treating sets up the perfect conditions for black ice in the worst places--very slight downhill turns. If local governments did decide to do this, then $100 for a pair of studded tires would seem like a great bargain if only in terms of peace of mind.
Posted by: anakcu | February 21, 2008 at 08:17 AM
Why stop at environmentally irresponsible salt usage? If we really want to put trails on equal footing with roads in the DC area, we could add road rage, reckless driving in hazardous/crowded conditions, disregard for pedestrians... Wait: that's the Capital Crescent right now!
Posted by: guez | February 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I didn't mean no treating, I meant no salt. You can also use Calcium Magnesium Acetate and Potassium acetate. Both of which seem to have less environmental impact (but cost significantly more). Still we're talking about very small amounts.
http://www.stormcon.com/sw_0107_environmental.html
Posted by: VC | February 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM
If you are going to get technical, the "no sodium chloride". Those other products are also salts.
Posted by: Purple Eagle | February 21, 2008 at 04:25 PM
I've salted some areas on the WOD, in frustration. And don't feel particularly guilty about it.
That said, I almost always abandon the trails in favor of the road, when the weather goes bad. You know, better alive than right and dead. Ice falls are the worst.
Posted by: MB | February 21, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Instead of drivers complaining about road conditions, maybe they should salt and plow the roads themselves!
Posted by: Jack | February 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM