Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Chasing Legends in Arlington | Main | Pennsylvania Avenue Bike Lanes 2.0 Now Open - Late Entries »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

hopefully the AAA people don't read your blog, or they'd know they could take up this issue as another skirmish in the war against drivers.

Hey WashCycle,anyone identify themselves as "nookie"? There's a huge flamewar about this over at GGW. How civil was the meeting? I had considered going,but figured it wold turn into a zoo like it has on every message board I've read.

BTW,I think Klingle Valley should be turned into a MTB park. That's what this city's missing.

For many the best take-away would be the comments from that cute 7-year-old who savors his daily bike ride through Klingle. What could be sweeter? (And Mom’s raising a little civil disobedient there, admitting that they pass through the no trespassing signs. Bravo.)

But my favorite was Steve Taylor, new to DC. He said he didn’t even know he was coming to the meeting (a WABA friend told him to go), but when he heard some of the comments felt he had to get up to speak. He discovered Rock Creek and Klingle after all the snow melted this winter, and charged all DC residents with preserving its natural beauty. (He is from south Florida, where he laments that there’s not much to save anymore. Point taken.) He boldly said to Gale Black that the valley does not belong to her ANC, whatever that is; it belongs “to the city, to the United States.”

Those with any quibble with the EA based remarks on – stop me if you’ve heard this – there used to be a road there and they want it put back. Comments of this small band, with few exceptions, did not refer to the contents of the document at hand, but to historical memory.

'Cross course. Just sayin'.

If nookie spoke, they didn't identify themselves as such.

Steve Taylor was funny, but he didn't realize he was speaking for the open road. He said it belonged to everyone, which is what the Coalition to Repair the Road also supports. The road does belong to everyone. By putting in a hike/bike path, you shut out so many people; the elderly, the handicapped, etc., and it can only be accessed by the neighborhood.

As to the 7 year old, his mother also noted that Porter Street is so backed up that she can't stand sitting in traffic either. Again, another reason to support an open road. She didn't speak about taking her son on the road during rain, sleet, snow, ice, etc.....

Bill, why can't the elderly and the handicapped use trails? Your answer will come as news to the many elderly and handicapped already using trails now.

I lived in Woodley Park when Klingle Road was still there. I biked the road many times and found it very enjoyable and a good route to Rock Creek Park. I think the most important thing for cyclists is that something be built (road or trail). For the general public, I think a road would be a very useful connection between different parts of the city.

Why would any handicapped and/or elderly person venture to a path in the middle of a roadway? Would they drive, park their car (in a handicap spot?), walk down or zoom down in their wheel chair? How would they get back up the steep hill in a wheelchair?

Even more thought provoking, how will elderly people, including the wheelchair bound, climb a 12% grade from Porter to Woodley Road?


Repave it. How many people actually utilize this little slice of Yellowstone in DC? Very few. You can slice it anyway you want but the rich do not want increased vehicular traffic in their neighborhood. Do you blame them? Stop trying to cloak this in the garment of environmentalism.

It comes down to this. Would you spend $7M for a dog park for a few people or $7M for a road that everyone can use?

why are we still talking about restoring a road when it's been voted down repeatedly and shown to be absurdly expensive ans serves only a small number of people. the road would exclude everyone who is not in a car as roads tend to do. handicapped or otherwise. can we officially put the road concept to rest, put the self-serving trail blockers aside and move forward?
My concern is that an isolated park will become a "dog run" park with no leash or scoop enforcement. I'd like to see an emphasis on connectedness to rock creek parks and any other nearby tributaries. so that it is truly accessible and available to everyone who can get out of their cars.

@Jason ha ha ha ha

Bill, I don't think you've framed the question correctly. The trail is only about $1M if you look at the table here. The $7M figure includes utility improvements, landscaping, stream restoration and lighting. All of which will need to be added to the $7M road repair. So, you're comparing Apples to PCs.

The real question is would we spend $1M for a trail/park that some people would use or $7M for a road that some other people would use.

I think your framing of the question is a bit dishonest.

Washcycle, unfortunately that's not true either.

You have to include the costs of a new storm water management system in any scenario regardless of it being a trail or a road.

So, if you want a 3-block dog park, benefiting a few, it will cost $7M. If you want a road, benefiting all, it will cost $7M.

Even the Cheh legislation included $2M to jump start the clean up so hey, let's be honest here.

Bill, This EA doesn't estimate the cost of repairing the road. But the 2001 Berger Study, which the Rebuild Klingle Road Organization links to, placed the cost of the trail at $1.3M (option c). Option F which rebuilds the road would cost $5.17M. Even the cheapest road option comes in at $3.5M. So the ratio of the trail to road cost is at least 1:2.7 and as high as 1:4. Those are numbers that road users support. So what has happened over the last 9 years to bring that ratio down?

Also, the report notes the higher maintenance costs of the road.

"Because of the high erodibility of the soils in the project area and the
steepness of the natural topography, the road would require long-term
maintenance to ensure soil and slope stability."

There would be environmental costs "Road reconstruction would have long-term adverse impacts on the wildlife
resources that utilize Klingle Valley in a seasonal or permanent fashion.
Reconstruction of the road would reintroduce vehicular traffic into the valley,
reducing habitat suitability. Lighting associated with the road, along with an
overall increase in human activities following road completion, would also
limit use of the area by some species. Increased fragmentation of Klingle
Valley associated with reconstruction of the road would further limit wildlife
use."

"The long-term impacts of the vehicular traffic on the water quality
would be negative because of an increase in the concentrations of metals,
oil and grease associated with traffic."

As far as "few" vs. "many", I've seen no estimates as to how many people will use a bike path, but I think it could easily match the numbers used as a road. And even people who don't use the trail benefit from the availability of excess cash and a cleaner environment.

Please cite for me exactly the place where you've seen the road cost placed at $7M - including the stream stabilization, lighting, stormwater management etc... and where you saw the trail listed at the same price.

washcycle, this time around, it will cost $7M for a hike bike trail.

The last estimates stated by the Department of Transportation on June 3, 2008 for a road with storm water management is $7.18M.

This from a press release:

(Washington) According to the District’s Department of Transportation, it will cost $9.6M to renovate the area to make it suitable for a permeable surface hike/bike path on Klingle Road. Estimated cost to rebuild two lanes of Klingle Road for public motor vehicle traffic remains at $7.18M. The DC Council has yet to hear who might use what could be the most expensive and unnecessary hike/bike path in the country.

Ward 1 Council Member Jim Graham introduced an amendment, which was voted down, that would leave intact the current language in the Budget Support Act, but would result in a pause to examine what the best purpose of the area would be.

Ward 4 Council Member Muriel Bowser questioned the city carving out substantial land without knowing who would use this hike/bike path.

"Why put pedestrians in the middle of a stream bed?" said At Large Council Member Carol Schwartz. After all, Ward 3 Council Member Cheh called Klingle Road a steep gorge in a stream bed subject to flooding and Schwartz does not want to see those who may use this area drown in Klingle Valley.

The amendment seeks $2M in federal aid but Council members have varying ideas on how it would be spent. For a Council that purports to take its legislative responsibilities seriously, this Alice in Wonderland amendment is mystifying.

Bill, that's a Repair Klingle Road press release. I wouldn't call that an objective study. Where do those numbers come from? I have to say, based on my knowledge of trail and road construction - which is hardly authoritative - I can't imagine how a trail can cost more than a road. It seems counterintuitive. Not to say it's impossible, but you know what they say about extraordinary claims.

I can't find where DDOT made the $9.6M estimate. Perhaps you can.

Wait, I did.

"Graham said he had pestered the D.C. Department of Transportation over the last two weeks for an estimated cost of constructing the hiker-biker trail. He said Transportation Department director Emeka Moneme told him on Monday night that it would cost $9.6 million. But Graham said 'something happened' and he was unable to get that estimate in writing so he could show it to the rest of the council. 'There is no e-mail. There is no fax,' he said."

And no analysis or documentation to support that guesstimate.

So it's hearsay, reportedly from the Director of Transportation without any paper trail. Which, and I'm no lawyer, sounds inadmissible. Do you have any numbers that can be verified?

I heard, for example, from a leprechaun that the road would cost $63B.

Well washcycle, what can I say. There are many road repair costs floating around--all floating around $7M. And actually, the cost of roads are cheaper now with the recession.

Yet, no matter what, I think we can all agree, beyond doing nothing, that the storm water management of the valley needs to be fixed.

Those figures, whether you like it or not, are including in the hike/bike path costs.

So please, don't try to paint an illusion, or mask it.

If you want to pretend that the city isn't going to fix the storm water issues along with a proposed hike/bike path(which I believe the 7 year old should get a tetanus shot since Klingle Valley is a human health hazard) then you continue to paint that illusion to those who read this blog.

The hike bike path WILL cost $7M. That's very clearly written in the draft EA.

Oh, and, the road will cost $7.18M.

QUOTE BY WASHCYCLE: "I can't find where DDOT made the $9.6M estimate. Perhaps you can."

You wanted to know where that came from? Dave Alpert at GGW actually quotes it. Mr. Moneme, under oath, and on the record before the Council: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=906


"Graham asked DDOT how much it will cost to build a bike path. Graham has repeatedly asked "with great intensity," and last night, Moneme told him DDOT's conclusion: it would cost $9.6 million to renovate into a way suitable for a bike path."

Well washcycle, what can I say. There are many road repair costs floating around--all floating around $7M.

You could say "and here is one such example of where it is floating around"

And actually, the cost of roads are cheaper now with the recession.

And so certainly you could cite a study that proves that. Because there is also inflation to deal with.

Yet, no matter what, I think we can all agree, beyond doing nothing, that the storm water management of the valley needs to be fixed.

Agreed, and that costs $1.075M for the stream restoration and about $300k for the stormwater management (plus a contingency). $168k for the retaining wall etc...

Those figures, whether you like it or not, are including[sic] in the hike/bike path costs.

No, actaully they aren't. You could fix all of that and not build the trail. Or you could (though I don't recommend it) build the trail and not fix all of that other stuff. The cost of the trail is about $1M (depending on the option chosen) as reflected in line 1 - "Trail Improvements" - of Table 2 from the EA. Now if you could tell me where this $7M price is floating around, I could see if it was just the price of the road (and thus comporable to line 1) or the price of the road plus other improvements (and thus comporable to a subtotal line).

If you want to pretend that the city isn't going to fix the storm water issues along with a proposed hike/bike path(which I believe the 7 year old should get a tetanus shot since Klingle Valley is a human health hazard) then you continue to paint that illusion to those who read this blog.

That is not what I'm saying. The cost of the trail, above and beyoind the stream fix is about $1M. That's pretty clearly stated in the EA. And if the valley is a health hazard, that is all the more reason to keep cars out.

The hike bike path WILL cost $7M. That's very clearly written in the draft EA.

No it isn't. The cost of the trail, plus stormwater management, plus utility improvements, plus retaining wall construction, plus Landscaping, plus a contingency, plus design and construction services, plus total Klingle Creek Restoration, plus a full multi-use trail connection to Rock Creek Park Trail, plus Lighting costs between $5.23M and $7.58M. But the trail, even counting the first 7 items, which would be coincident with the trail but are separate, would be - at most - $4.145M.

And, that isn't even the right number to worry about. What needs to be considered are the lifecycle costs. The 30 year maintenance costs of a road - and correct me if I'm wrong - far exceed the initial construction costs, but as we know here in DC, you can go years without spending a nickel on trail maintenance.

Oh, and, the road will cost $7.18M.

Again, according to whom? Cite your source or quit repeating this "fact". You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You wanted to know where that came from? Dave Alpert at GGW actually quotes it. Mr. Moneme, under oath, and on the record before the Council: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=906

No, that is Graham reporting what, he says, Moneme told him. That is not Moneme saying it in front of Alpert. Moneme wasn't there. And he wasn't under oath. It is Second-hand info via Graham, and something Moneme never said first hand in any report or public statement.
And it is patently wrong. We have two other studies - including the one that RebuildKlingleRoad links to - that say otherwise. So I would weigh those two studies as having more weight than what Graham says Moneme said - which doesn't sound like an offical DDOT study result. There is absolutely NO science or research behind that number, if Moneme actually said it.

The city is going to fix the stream and deal with the stormwater. But those costs have nothing to do with the trail. They can do that and build the trail, or do that and build the road, or do that and build nothing. So you can take

zzzzzzzz.....

Apology accepted.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply any apology. You were putting me to sleep.

Too late. I already accepted it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader