Jack Cochrane of MoBike sent me some comments on my ICC Fail post
The problem is that FHWA and other agencies did not view the path as justifying the additional environmental impact. The path would of course get fewer users than the 6-lane highway, but would increase the footprint of the project by a more significant percentage it seems. That's how these things get looked at. It doesn't just hurt cyclists. There are some people who are losing their homes simply because environmental agencies wouldn't allow the highway to follow the master-planned route through Rock Creek, in order to avoid environmental impacts deemed more important than people's homes. These trade-offs are largely not MDOT's call. Of course MDOT is complicit. MDOT was afraid all along that the slightest bit of extra environmental impact might cause the project to not be granted the environmental permits, as was about to happen in 1997. So MDOT took a really dim view of the trail. They never fought for it. They didn't look for ways to make it work by buying parkland elsewhere as they did to mitigate other impacts, whatever. They didn't study trail options in the parks. MDOT Sec. Flanagan called the trail "fluff" and said he didn't want to hear about it any more during one of the EIS internal sessions.
But M-NCPPC is also to blame. They never wanted the trail through the parks either. I believe they were arguing against the trail in the parks all along, more than we realized. Now with MDOT basically out of the picture and the road mostly designed, M-NCPPC's opposition is shown in stark relief.
Money of course was a huge issue. But I feel compelled to explain the environmental issue to people. The whole NEPA / EIS process is stacked against trails in some ways, and MDOT doesn't have full control over that. Plus other agencies like M-NCPPC were screwing things up. However you're right that money is a huge issue. The 7-mile trail being built will cost $35-40M. The full trail might cost $120-130M according to more recent estimates if built right next to the highway, but building the trail "down in the woods" rather than on every long ICC bridge in the parks would cost significantly less. That's what we want the county to support (SHA having already designed the bridges without room for a trail). MDOT didn't study this option. EPA said publicly (feeling some heat from trail supporters) that it would not oppose a trail through the woods. But that idea never got far. MDOT simply refused to spend more than the $40M. They wouldn't even spend a little to make room for a future trail under some underpasses. Flanagan almost laughed when we said we wanted a $100M trail (I met with him in person).
Believe me, we begged for wider/longer bridges. We gave Flanagan pages of analysis. They wouldn't spend anything extra at all. They thought it would be for naught because "no one will build the trail between the bridges" (like between U.S. 29 and New Hampshire Ave.).
The road design is unfortunately set in stone by the EIS permits. But there's no reason why the path can't be built just beyond the right-of-way, or even within it I think after the ICC is built.
Park & Planning's claim that a path shouldn't be built next to the highway because of environmental impacts doesn't pass the laugh test. There's no permit issue now, no NEPA concerns. Just Park & Planning judgment (or lack thereof!). That's the battle we have to fight, in front of the Planning Board who will hear the issue in July. The PB recommended against the trail in the very same areas, for the very same reasons, in 2005. That's what we're afraid of. They said all sorts of nice things about trails then too, and claimed that's why they support this trail (P.S. the horrible sidepath trail, not the good trail). But the Planning Board chair is actually a strong bike supporter now, so we'll see. In any case, we went to the County Council in 2005 and they unanimously overruled the Planning Board decision and said the trail should be built within the ICC right-of-way from Needwood Road to the county line. So we'll do that again if we have to. Funny, Park & Planning staff cite the 2005 Planning Board decision as reason not to put the trail in the parks, but when reminded of the Council overruling of that decision, staff says "well, the council said 'within the right-of-way' and the state has precluded that option" -- a technicality since the council simply meant near the highway as opposed to the detour route.
He points out that MoBike does not support the trail on the deckover
not fighting for the trail along the ICC through the deckover structure because it is in fact very tight in order to avoid impacting homeowners. We don't want to further impact those homeowners who really are getting shafted. That's the section where the ICC was never master-planned and homes are being sacrificed to protect wetlands to the south. The alternate route is fairly direct and not too bad, IF it really can really follow the yet unbuilt M-83 (another highway) as advertised -- that's the western third of the trail alignment as shown there, and IF the other links can really be built. The original trail plan was to forge the path straight along the original ICC alignment, shown as the gray band on the map there. That solution will be difficult politically I think (the Council never supported it) and in fact it dumps you somewhat further south than we want to be. Nevertheless we'll argue for that too.
Our lead proposal in the US Highway 29 area is to build a dedicated trail bridge over Rt. 29 at a narrow point about halfway between the ICC and Briggs Chaney Road, with connections along the ramps back down to the ICC right-of-way.
He has other criticisms
the connection between the ICC trail and Matthew Henson Trail is much too circuitous. That connection is just as important as connecting the two parts of the ICC trail itself. Matthew Henson heads 5 miles west/SW and connects to Rockville, very important.
Jack points out that M-NCPPC is not bound by the EPA and are free to do what they want. He also mentioned that for many of the sidewalks to be "upgraded" to 8 feet, there simply isn't the ROW to do that - so even that is a pipedream. It sounds like there are two factions within parks - one pro-trail and one anti-trail.
If you support a better trail you should 1) Write the Planning board and tell them to reject the Amendment to the Master Plan - the Amendment "would remove the good trail from the master plan and replace it with the bad one." and/or 2) go to the July 10th meeting to speak (You can sign up online). Hard to do if you have a job, I know.
This is Montgomery County's way of increasing bicycle use: make you ride 2 miles to go 1 mile.
Posted by: Jack | July 03, 2008 at 01:37 AM