ICC trail gets through County Committee

This story always confuses me. Let's see if I can get it right. The main issue focuses on the east end of the ICC trail (pictured). As part of the ICC, the trail will be built east to New Hampshire Avenue. The planning board then wants to route the trail along New Hampshire, Fairland, Route 29 and Briggs Chaney Road  (red line) to save $12 million and avoid building on park land. Mobike and other cyclists have argued that if they can find the money and room for the highway they can fit in a trail (green line). To follow the Planning Board recommendation would leave a two-mile gap in the trail.

"Frankly, we can't find or think of a place in this region where you have a paved, two-lane bike path with no connection for about two miles," Hardy said.

Jack Cochrane, chairman of Montgomery Bicycle Advocates, said the two-mile stretch is significant, particularly since it links the path with Interstate 95.

A council staff report on February 5th was less than rosy in its assesment

According to a Feb. 5 council staff report, a lack of useable space near the park, combined with stiff environmental challenges, could keep that stretch of the trail on the drawing board.

"It is reasonable to assume that [the bike trail along the park] will never be built because of the extraordinary topographical challenges it poses," the report said. "The question should be asked then: Should it be designated as a bikeway anyway, so as not to close out the possibility of its being rebuilt, no matter how miniscule?"

The report recommended that the ICC trail be adopted, as well as the shared-use paths between New Hampshire Avenue and Route 29.

That seems reasonable, though the shared-use paths will cost about $4.3 million. It seems the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee agreed

A County Council committee recommended that part of a proposed bike trail along the Intercounty Connector remains along the Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park, contrary to recommendations from Planning Board staff.

I'm not sure if this is a win or a loss. On the upside, the trail would remain in the Master Plan and the sidepath built as an interim solution. On the down side, 'interim' might be synonymous with 'permanent' in this case.

The next step for the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment committee is to submit its recommendations to the County Council.

I'm not sure what happened with this (Jack?)

In addition to examining the Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park, the committee also weighed in on portions of the bike trail near Needwood and Muncaster Mill roads, as well as the trail along Layhill and Bonifant roads near Georgia Avenue.

Comments

[Joe]

"Frankly, we can't find or think of a place in this region where you have a paved, two-lane bike path with no connection for about two miles," Hardy said.

Is this 2 miles of uninterupted trail a bad thing? IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING!!!!!!

If they hate it so much why did they even stick it in the masterplan in the first place?

[Jack Cochrane]

I believe the T&E Committee actually voted on what to send the full Council at this session. If you're not paying attention you'll miss it. They supported keeping the trail in the master plan in Paint Branch but not in Rock Creek or the lower half of NW Branch parks, where the detours aren't as bad.

The gist of the Gazette article is correct, though sloppily reported. The councilmembers seemed confused over whether the trail would go through the woods in the park or 20' from the highway, no thanks to M-NCPPC's spin. Within the park, it can go thru the woods if not next to the highway. M-NCPPC's Dan Hardy gave all kinds of reasons why not to go through the park, but the reason they're fighting it is 100% environmental. They cited red herrings including cost and believe it or not "lack of appeal to cyclists" due to no access over a two mile stretch and proximity to the highway. Dan actually questioned whether cyclists would ride 20 feet from a highway (duh, Custis Trail), yet parts of the trail they support are next the highway more than the parts they’re opposing! As for lack of turn-offs or side connections within the two mile park section, I said context within a 16-mile trail means you don't leave out 2-mile sections. The Planning Board promised us to study the trail in the park in good faith as a compromise, then they turn around and tell the Council it will never be built. I felt like I was arguing with partisans, not working with professionals, which is a shame because I think Dan Hardy is a good guy.

[Jctagg]

Please help me get this straight: the T&E Committee voted to override Park and Planning's recommendations with respect to the portion of the trail east of New Hampshire but not with respect to the section from Layhill to Notley Roads just west of New Hampshire? I ask because the latter section of the ICC trail is arguably quite important as well. It would be approximately a 1/2 mile from the eastern terminus of the recently completed Matthew Henson Trail that links up with the Rock Creek Trail system, etc. In the future, the isolation of large swatches of eastern Montgomery Co. from our area's best hiker-biker trails could be greatly alleviated by just a 1/2 mile extension of the Matthew Henson Trail. But if the Council removes the ICC trail between Layhill and Notley Roads from the master plan, this future option -- a "no-brainer" to anyone who knows the area and currently has to drive to the Matthew Henson Trail -- disappears. Therefore, it makes little sense at this point to remove this section of the ICC trail from the County's Master Bike Plan.

The alternative for this section of the ICC trail proposed by Park & Planning would have the bike route go along Layhill and Bonifant Roads. But this only makes sense as a purely stop-gap measure to save money. Given the car traffic and especially the topography, only a dedicated bike path could work as an effective long-term solution. Park and Planning's claim -- that to build the path as currently planned (next to the ICC) is environmentally problematic -- is patently absurd. I laughed out loud in disbelief when I read that environmental concerns formed their supposed justification. I live down the street from the ICC construction site on Northwest Branch, and the environmental impact of building the bike path is so clearly negligible in comparison that one wonders about hidden agendas.

IMHO, to let the Northwest Branch section of the ICC trail be taken off the Master Plan would be a huge mistake and a huge setback. I would truly appreciate anyone who can point me to any relevant officials that I might e-mail, write, call, etc. on this issue. I guess we're talking about the entire Council at this point, right??

[think a little]

Actually Im far more concerned with the west end-the detour onto needwood is a death trap-6% grade and no shoulder coming out out the park is asking for a fatality given the traffic speed on that road

[Jack Cochrane]

James: Yes the entire Council would be who you want to write to. The Planning Dept. plan isn't quite as bad as that in NW Branch though. First, they will connect Layhill to Bonifant via a diagonal trail more or less parallel to the ICC, thru/near Layhill Park and trolley museum land. It will hit Bonifant a bit east of the ICC, follow Bonifant and Notley as sidepath, then back to the trail, which doesn't add distance but adds street/driveway xings and a couple lights. Then Matthew Henson will supposedly extend straight east through NW Branch Park (south side of ICC) to meet the ICC trail at Notley. I think T&E endorsed the M.H. extension but didn't put it in the master plan because that wasn't up for vote, so it's just in the park trails plan for now (subject to arbitrary cancelation). See www.mobike.org for my contact info if you have questions.