About a week ago, in response to a few complaints about speeding bikes on the Capital Crescent Trail, Maryland’s National Capital Park and Planning Commission announced it would place 15-mph speed limit signs on the trail. WABA suggested some dialogue might be a better move than hasty speed-limit signing. Eric Gilliland pointed out that “It seems a lot easier for Montgomery County to install speed limit signs on a trail rather than bike route signs on local roads.”

It’s not only easier to install signs, it’s easier for them to build whole enormous highways than keep trail promises. Today, WashCycle writes a historic summary about the Intercounty Connector’s on-again, off-again relationship with bicycle facilities. The ICC originally had a bike trail, whose inclusion contributed to the “environmental mitigation” that let planners claim this wasn’t a horribly destructive project. Then, in 2004, the trail was cut, to save money (because $3.1 billion isn’t too much, but $3.2 would break the bank) and to reduce the environmental impact.

As gas prices soar and property values out in the distant exurbs plummet because of the cost of driving, does anyone in Maryland state government still think this freeway is a good idea—or for that matter, will even stand a chance of making back its investment in tolls?

As the Post article on the CCT speed limits points out, the trail also serves commuters, who might drive instead of biking. Seems Maryland can’t shake its addiction to policies that promote just that.

Continue the conversation about urbanism in the Washington region and support GGWash’s news and advocacy when you join the GGWash Neighborhood!

Tagged: bicycling, icc, roads

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.