Comments
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_iqw0ajw wrote
Getting into the valley is wild.
Park Heights feels the safest but you still have to be confident enough to take a lane
Stevenson is very steep and stays wet. The turn coming off of hillside will kill someone eventually.
Greenspring is steep narrow and aggressive.
Falls road is wild. The turn where the JFT entrance has me shaking my head 8/10 times.
routable t1_ir3uc4y wrote
Agreed. I’d add the option of taking the Red Trail through Lake Roland to avoid the dicey section of Falls. Adds some miles and mud though.
bOhsohard t1_iqwf0i6 wrote
did a ride to philly last year, and took this route // honestly it was my fav way of going north, out of the city: https://www.strava.com/routes/2891333822416428928
ThisAmericanSatire t1_iqwjguq wrote
Thanks! I'll mark that on my map as a northbound route
Joke_Insurance t1_ir3lez9 wrote
How long did that ride take you?
bOhsohard t1_ir3m4ua wrote
10 hours? I think we averaged like 14mph including a 1.5h lunch break 80mi in
Joke_Insurance t1_ir62q7v wrote
Awesome!
And jc, did Strava help you map out that route? Asking because I would like to do a long-distance bike ride someday.
bOhsohard t1_ir6rd6z wrote
Ehh sorta - this was like a combo of a route a friend did, the ride with GPS routes, and my personal knowledge of the routes there.
Also checked the ride history, it took us 9h15 and we did avg 14. Just a group of 4 // I didn’t think it was too bad of a ride, just was super cold for the first few hours since it was in November
danhalka t1_iqy4krd wrote
I used to bike from Bolton Hill to Timonium. Falls was the popular route but Charles worked well for me. You have more than a lane's worth of shoulder for much of it, but the lighting was spotty and the stretch along the golf course was a dicey straightaway with no shoulder at all. There's a ghost bike there now. All in all, it was a fine way to get to 695 and hop into Lutherville until they changed the traffic circle into a multi-lane light and on/off ramp. Now I think I'd choose falls.
ThisAmericanSatire t1_iqy5d0o wrote
I've done Charles going north (downhill). There is a 100 yard stretch just north of the Joppa bridge where the shoulder becomes a 3rd car lane and there is no bike lane.
Going north, and downhill, it's not too bad because I'm going fast.
I would not return south (uphill) on Charles because of that section.
danhalka t1_iqy6npq wrote
Yeah, the traffic there got much heavier a while back around when they changed the way Charles ended at 695. I used to be fine sitting & spinning for that climb headed south, but I wouldn't want to do it now.
routable t1_ir3tppe wrote
Crazily that section is signed as part of the East Coast Greenway. That uphill section would suck for a through rider unfamiliar with the area.
dizzy_centrifuge t1_iqymo7l wrote
The safest way imo would be Charles>Francke>Greenspring>Wight>Ashland
finsterallen OP t1_iqvdmhh wrote
>At a meeting Monday, the Baltimore County Council will vote on whether to help fund the study, which could represent a meaningful step forward for the idea, long discussed by cycling advocates — though it still has a long way to go. After the study, a final design would need to be completed and funding obtained for its construction.
>The study would assess possible routes to bridge the gap between the start of the NCR, also known as the Torrey C. Brown Rail Trail, off Ashland Road in Hunt Valley, to the northern end of the Jones Falls Trail, in Mount Washington Village. By car, the two trails are separated by about 12 miles.
>And while the NCR Trail ends at the Mason-Dixon Line, the Heritage Rail Trail picks up from there, allowing travelers to go up to York, Pennsylvania.
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_iqvh22f wrote
Build the superhighways and people will ride them.
[deleted] t1_iqwcdyl wrote
[deleted]
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_iqwcotq wrote
Well sorta. It’s just induced demand on the other foot. This is literally building more lanes except for bikes.
Molozonide t1_iqvii6l wrote
Yes! I have always wanted this! Right now, I have to use the light rail to get from one trail to the other.
XanderCruse t1_iqvlqcy wrote
Which light rail stop do you get off at to access the NCR trail? Hunt Valley always seemed a bit of a dangerous ride to get to the start to me. Is there a safe way to get there?
bmore t1_iqvm2tl wrote
McCormick or Pepper Road stop. Take Wight through the PA Dutch parking lot to Ashland. Ashland still sucks but you avoid a lot of scary York Road.
XanderCruse t1_iqvnc9s wrote
I see. Still have to go down Paper Mill? I was imagining Shawan and York Rd, which would be pretty scary haha.
bmore t1_iqvorcm wrote
Yeah but you turn off into the Ashland development at the trail head instead biking up to the Paper Mill crossing itself. Less scary but still a rough section.
Arillious t1_iqw13v5 wrote
But won't it just funnel all the rifraf from the city up into the suburbs like the light rail?!?
/s
hoofglormuss t1_iqwd3om wrote
Yep and they won't be Riff Raff anymore because they're pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them by the job creators! That's what the trickle down people want right?
rental_car_fast t1_iqwrrwj wrote
I can't help but laugh when people argue this. Like do you think some dude is going to steal all your fine china and take off on a bike? lol
routable t1_ir3twb7 wrote
That conversation has already started sadly on the NCR fb groups.
ashtree-lane t1_iqvjtxq wrote
This would be amazing
Resident_Structure73 t1_iqvqgjw wrote
Get all the funding and scrap it...oh wait, that only happens for skateparks.
Cunninghams_right t1_iqw6hwc wrote
more bike infrastructure is always good. we really need a fully separated lane between Maryland ave and President st along Pratt. it's currently a deathtrap a it just spills people onto Pratt.
Synaptician t1_iqx92zl wrote
They each got some problems, but you're better off taking the Guildford Ave or Falls way bike lanes from midtown and further south instead of the Maryland Ave if you want to get to President.
Cunninghams_right t1_iqy03lc wrote
the fallsway southbound route is not protected enough. it's also ugly as fuck. if we're going to have the Maryland ave bike lane, which is very popular, then we should connect it.
thegree2112 t1_iqwv0ih wrote
Just do it!!
thegree2112 t1_iqwvdt4 wrote
If we can’t get the red line this is the best shot we have
Willothwisp2303 t1_iqvpdew wrote
Those are really densely populated areas. I'm curious how they would try to route the extension to try to avoid those substantial costs of taking people's backyards.
bmore t1_iqvsu6s wrote
In the article, following the existing NCR railroad ROW, which the Light Rail currently operates on, is discussed.
Willothwisp2303 t1_iqvy6gp wrote
Thanks! I'm out of free articles.
Did they discuss how wide those are? Going through Lutherville the light rail really is in people's backyards. I can't imagine they would want the trail touching the light rail tracks but there's not exactly wide margins around it. Would Ruxton allow a trail in the middle of their NIMBY area?
bmore t1_iqw2tr8 wrote
It did not. That's what the feasibility study is for though. There are some good examples of rail with trail under construction now, such as the green line extension in Somerville, MA that essentially use the maintenance corridor/ROW directly adjacent to the tracks. So it is definitely possible.
I'm sure the NIMBYs in Ruxton will fight anything that is of benefit to them, like a trail, if it is also of benefit to anybody that is not them. That's nothing new. Hopefully the county will have some courage there.
dorianator228 t1_iqynz6p wrote
This is wonderful to hear. Just riding from the end of the Torrey C Brown trail to the Hunt Valley light rail station is a treacherous ride. The majority of Northern Baltimore County is not very bike-friendly, so this should be a welcome addition.
AutoModerator t1_iqvdj6i wrote
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iqwv1y2 wrote
[deleted]
dopkick t1_iqywphz wrote
Keep going and connect Baltimore to the BWI trail, connect the BWI trail to WB&A, connect WB&A to the DC area network, and also connect the end of B&A to DC. NOVA has such an expansive network of trails (although not all are perfect, by any means) compared to suburban MD.
Also build a bridge over (or tunnel under, although less likely given the elevation on the northern end) Cold Spring to replace that extremely awkward intersection.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqw2d5i wrote
In a region with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority?
How many more busses could the money for this buy?
How many bus shelters could be built?
How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail?
How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system?
I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).
bmore t1_iqw3lh4 wrote
>In a city with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority? >
This is a county study. The city trail already goes to within yards of Lake Roland.
>How many more busses could the money for this buy? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many bus shelters could be built? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.
The economic benefits of linking trails up is discussed in the article, and they are far greater than the cost (which is, as noted, paid for with restricted funds for biking that would otherwise go to other jurisdictions).
> >Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).
As outlined in the piece, the abandoned ROW of the NCR extends further south than the trail does now, and is then utilized by the light rail, which has adjacent unused ROW. The compelling opportunity you want to exist...exists.
bOhsohard t1_iqwf7cq wrote
damn bro, why'd you have to go and read the article? i just want to make reactionary complaints based off of misreading the title 😡
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlfm9 wrote
Ok, in that case... does it make sense to have funds restricted for bikeways existing, and if it does, does it make sense to use that money for something purely recreational?
Also, I am well aware of the RoW of the original NCR. I think the biggest challenge there is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is going to be colocating it with the Light Rail's RoW. Much of that right of way was originally acquired in the 1840s so it's not nearly as generous as former railroad rights of way that came later (and had provisions for multiple tracks and access roads). It's a tight squeeze as it already is, and I'm not sure how pleasant of a ride it'll be with a chain link fence between riders and 50mph light rail trains.
bmore t1_iqxc1k7 wrote
If you want to repeal the Maryland Bikeways program that was passed through the House of Delegates 136-0 and the Senate 45-0, go for it!
I don't really see it as purely recreational. With the mileage between stops on the light rail a colocated trail could be a tremendous first and last mile connector between stations and employment and housing.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqxcpcr wrote
You know, from that perspective (the first/last mile thing), I think it makes WAY more sense!
That's the type of thing I think is most useful from something like this, much more so than a trail across Cockeysville.
TerranceBaggz t1_iqywp37 wrote
Trails like this aren’t purely recreational. The Bay Area has one that goes like 30 miles out into the exurbs. People use it to bike to their jobs in downtown SF and Oakland all the time. I’ve biked parts of it and seen people biking to and from work on it.
buuj214 t1_iqw8ryk wrote
It's not exactly binary; it's not like, whelp, we added a trail, guess we can't also solve other problems. 'Don't make improvements until all problems are solved' is not a reasonable approach. Any level of government needs to be able to address all types of problems, solutions, and improvements at the same time.
That also ignores all the social and economic benefits of having recreation but that's a whoooole other discussion.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlxdm wrote
No, I agree it's not binary. But in a world of finite funding, I cannot help but think the state could be using it in ways that would improve more peoples lives.
I'm not talking about things like "lets fix poverty!", but concrete expenses like the ones I've mentioned.
It's not like the opportunity for recreation doesn't already exist. And it's not like most people who would be using this trail extension don't already have the means to access either of the trails it's connecting. Sure, maybe a few, but is that number of people outweighed by the number who would benefit from some of the other things I talked about? I doubt it.
It's nice to have nice things, but my point is, we already have a lot of nice things. Maybe we should focus on having some more things that actually matter.
[deleted] t1_iqxgg2k wrote
[deleted]
UnrealSquare t1_iqw3rv6 wrote
Though trails like this can, and certainly would, also be used for non-recreation purposes, recreation is important.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwm1nx wrote
It is. But the entire purpose of it is to link two trails that already exist for recreational purposes.
UnrealSquare t1_iqwome2 wrote
And there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to get from one to the other now is pretty difficult without driving.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwp3kb wrote
Then drive.
UnrealSquare t1_iqwpk0e wrote
Not everyone has a car (something like ~30% of Baltimore city residents) or wants to contribute to pollution and congestion for recreation. Why are you so against something that will benefit both city and county residents by giving them another option to travel back and forth between the two that doesn't impact those who choose to drive?
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwqwc8 wrote
I'm not so against it. I just want people to have some perspective on stuff like this.
ThisAmericanSatire t1_iqvizbr wrote
This is great.
I've been struggling to find a safe route from the northern part of the JFT to the rail trail. The biggest problem is that the only way to cross 695 is by riding on a road and the majority of roads that cross 695 are high-speed and/or high traffic roads, and just not really safe to ride a bike on.
Basically, I can get from Canton to Lake Roland with no problems. But getting from Lake Roland to Timonium is dangerous.
The safest route across 695 seems to be Thornton Road, but getting to Thornton still requires you to ride on narrow suburban roads with hills and blind turns - Bellona Ave, Ruxton Rd, etc.