TheWashCycle

Klingle Trail by 2015

With the Klingle Trail lawsuit decided in DC's favor it appears that the pieces are coming together. One of the lead plantiff's in the court case seems to be done

“To be honest, I think I’m not inclined to pursue this in the courts,” she said. “We thought we at least needed to challenge this particular precedent of closing this road thousands used and converting it into essentially a dog park."

It's not a dog park - though those are nice - but whatever.

Most of the $8 million to $11 million for the project, which includes the trail, has been identified.

Hernandez said the city has identified $6 million in federal highway money to fund the work in the fiscal year that begins in October. An additional $3 million was included in the recently passed city budget for future work, and more money is being sought for stream-restoration work.

Some people will fight on though

Eleanor Oliver, a co-plaintiff and longtime Cleveland Park resident, said she’s still willing to fight against what she called “a little vasectomy” to the city transportation network.

“I think there are further legal options,” she said. “But perhaps the judge is right — go back to the council.. . . We’re going to get so choked with traffic they’re going to have to open it up.”

Right, I mean once the road closure has had time to really sink in and take effect, people will see how crazy this all is. Just 30 more years, and they'll see.

Work will start in about 18 months

The D.C. Department of Transportation is planning to start construction on the trail in the spring of 2014, six years after it was authorized by the D.C. Council. The work will take between 12 and 18 months and cost $8 million to $11 million, depending on how much the department works on restoring the stream, agency spokeswoman Monica Hernandez said.

 

Case to stop Klingle Trail is dismissed

In November of 2011, opponents of the Klingle Trail filed suit in DC District Court to declare the Klingle Trail project unlawful and to prohibit the FHWA from funding it and DDOT from constructing it. In 2012 the various defendents asked that the case be dismissed because the plantiffs lacked standing to sue.  The court agreed and the case has been dismissed.

Plaintiffs argued that the removal of the road and installation of the trail would impair their ability to use, enjoy and appreciate Rock Creek Park, the streams and scenary and that, for example, one senior with mobility issues would be denied access to this right of way. They also argued that the trail will increase traffic congestion on nearby streets leading to greater pollution, exposing them to unnecessary toxins and contaminate the water. It would also decrease connectivity in the area.

As a result, the critical question is whether it is action by these Defendants - as opposed to actions by others - that have caused these harms. And the answer is quite simple: Of course not. The D.C. Council, rather than any of these Defendants, closed Klingle Road.

Judge James E. Boasburg goes on to point out that the injuries described have nothing to do with the trail, and so there is no standing to stop the trail because it won't remedy these injuries. He never addresses whether these injuries are real.

I will.

I can't possibly see how closing this road impairs their ability to use the Park. You can still get to it, even if disabled, with a very minor detour. Or, of course, they can use the trail to get into the Park.  Are they really arguing that everyone should have a road to the Park that is as short as possible?

And then the pollution claim is really nuts. Somehow the trail is causing more pollution than a road? That is a bold assertion.

They have a point about being less connected, sort of. It is harder to drive to and from certain places without the road. But it is easier to walk and bike to them with the trail. In net, that is probably a slight loss. But them's the breaks. If a reduction in connectivity is an issue that can overturn other legitimate concerns, then I'll sue to have Pennsylvania Avenue reopened.

Boasburg's got a sense of humor BTW. When discussing the road he throws in phrases like "although the wheels were set in motion (so to speak)" and "Then in 2008, the D.C. Council changed gears."

Friday Morning Commute - Winter wears on its smiling face a dream... of spring

This is the last day of work before the clocks change and evening commuting becomes a mostly daylight affair. Hooray!

• WABA's take on the MPD response to the Shawn Streiff crash last week: "We have not seen a full culture change at MPD in which all officers apply the law to bicyclists properly and there is still a significant “windshield perspective” issue that often affects crash responses. But the fact that, in this case, a mechanism was in place to ensure that the police’s response would be reviewed by a more senior officer with an understanding of the substantive bicycle law and the ongoing procedural concerns surrounding bicycle crashes shows progress.
• JDAntos plots CaBi use versus temperature. "when [temperature] dips below 40 and above the mid 80s, Bikeshare use is pretty easy to predict using temperature.  In the middle (say, 50s through 70s), temperature is less a driving force in peoples’ decisions to bike." Some other ideas for the series would be to show how percipitation impacts ridership (rainfall per day vs. ridership per day), Metro service outages or ridership vs. CaBi ridership, length of day (did he do that one?) and maybe compare each federal holiday to the average equivalent day.
• Neighbors of Klingle Road are suing to force the city to reopen it as a road (and not as a trail as is currently planned) because building the trail will risk public health and cause pollution. Sigh...
• Riverdale Park's "Park and Planning will begin construction of the trolley trail through Riverdale Park in about two months"

he Cafritz property zoning will be addressed in April, so that is another chunk of the Trolley Trail on the table.

Wednesday Morning Commute - Orange it is

Good morning

• All right guys, who among you is a Prince William look-alike
• Logan Circle bike theft victim is still looking for thieves
• Sweet, another bike trail in Rock Creek? (just kidding)
• Alexandria hotel offers Civil War bike tour.
• May is bike month in Arlington (and everywhere else too).
• The trees planted along the MBT last week include fruit trees like apple, pawpaw and persimmon for an urban orchard. And so it begins squirrels. [I was all excited because we used to call papaya "pawpaw" in Cameroon and I love papaya, but that's now what this is]

Friday Morning Commute - Guilty as charged

Getting ready for Kidical Mass tomorrow

• The Exercists writes about the possibility of bike sharing in Baltimore and pretty much nails me. "(For example, a good chunk of Wash Cycle's attention now goes to the DC bikes.)" So keeping with that:
• CPB has a list of good things about CaBi. 
• Matthew Yglesias writes about CaBi and the network effect. He also hints at the feedback loop. More users leads to political pressure for more stations and that leads to more users which leads to more station and on and on until either full saturation or world domination, whichever comes first.
• Speaking of the network effect, Boston is going with Bixi. Update: Your keys should work there, but can you make it in 30 minutes? Official word is not yet, but maybe someday.
• DCBAC wonders about expansion versus densification.
• TIGER III is coming this summer. The DC area's super-bikeshare proposal was one of the highest-scoring proposals not to receive funding, so it's possible it'll be resubmitted.
• DCBac covers the DDOT hearing, where David Alpert asked that CaBi ad revenue go to DDOT and others asked that Klingle be made back into a road. Gotta admire the dedication.
• Boundary stone bike tour, visit nine historic boundary stones in Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax County, riding on paved streets and bike trails, sponsored by Center Hiking Club. Bring lunch, water, a bike and a helmet. 9:15 a.m., East Falls Church Metro station, on Sycamore Street under Interstate 66, Arlington. $2. 703-243-0179 or www.centerhikingclub.org.

Klingle Trail issued a FONSI

Good news for those who love the idea of the Klingle Trail.

The FHWA has determined that the Preferred Alternative and options will not have a significant impact on the natural, human or built environment and has issued a FONSI for the Klingle Valley Trail project.

As Lydia DePillis explains

The issuance of FONSI means that the proposal... won't have to go through a lengthy environmental impact statement process.

Next on the agenda

Lock down funding in the city's fiscal year 2012 budget to actually engineer the thing. And then get the money needed to construct it, which will be a mix of federal and local dollars. And then, most likely, get the City Council to perform a formal street closing. Bottom line: Nothing happens before 2013.

Klingle Valley to get 10 foot trail, lights, trail connection

The Klingle Valley Trail Final Environmental Assessment (EA) is finished and available for public review and with one exception the most trail-user friendly/stream friendly options were chosen as the best alternatives.

First the good news, the preferred alternatives include the fully restored stream bank and lights along the trail which should aid bike commuters. The hours of illumination would even be limited and timed to correspond to prime commuting hours.

For the trail connection to the Rock Creek Trail they modified Option C by narrowing the trail a bit. Instead of being 6-10 feet wide it will 6-8 feet wide. It will be constructed along the south side of Klingle Road as a side path and continue along the ramp before connecting with the Rock Creek Trail below Porter Street, NW. The existing 20-foot wide vehicle travel lane will be narrowed to 12 to 14 feet wide, and the trail would be separated from the road by a curb. It's unclear how much of the trail would have been 10-feet wide before the modication so this is a small loss.

The one place where the preferred alternative differed from what users might have asked for was in the width of the trail (in scanning the comments I saw more calls for a wider trail than narrow. But mostly it's people who want the road back or no build). Instead of being 12 feet wide, they chose the 10 foot option. 10 foot is sufficient, and this trail may not be as busy as others, but 12 would have been better. The report doesn't give a justification for the preferences, but cost is a good guess.

The whole project, if the preferred alternative is built, would cost between $7M and $10M $4.5M and $7M. 

Klingle Valley Trail Public Hearing

The Public Hearing on the Klingle Valley Trail Draft EA was last night. Even though the meeting was geared towards discussing the trail alternatives, many people wanted to rehash the road vs. trail fight. Those who did discuss the trail were torn on the width/permeable issues; mostly opposed lights; universally supported restoring the entire creek, and barely discussed the Klingle to Rock Creek Connection.

By my count speakers were for the trail by a 12-7 margin with 3 people supporting doing nothing. The pro-road group represented the local establishment (the ANC, Neighborhood Alliances, Crestwood Resident Association etc...) with a couple of environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club speaking for the trail. The arguments for the road were mostly about procedure ("NPS has a rule that this has to be a road", "the road has never been formally closed" , the connection to Rock Creek Park Trail is out of scope) and history ("this has always been a road" so it's wrong to change it, bikes used to go down the road, the same thing happened to Blagden Avenue and they rebuilt that road so they should rebuild this one) but very little about how the benefits of the road will outweigh the benefits of the trail. One attempt at that was by an ANC member named Gail (? bad note taking on my part) who said that we either "build a recreational trail that is open for only a few or build a road that is open for all." Many people in DC don't own cars. She also demanded that DDOT "give us the road we're entitled to".

The road closure issue is discussed in the EA

If converted from motorized to non-motorized use under the proposed action, this segment of roadway would have to be officially removed as a local street from the DC functional classification map using the appropriate processes under 23 CFR 470.109 (a) and 470.115 (a) (Federal Aid Highways re: converting a designated fed-aid highway to non-vehicular trail) and The Street & Alley Closing & Acquisition Procedures Act of 1982, D.C. Code sections 9-201.01 et. Seq. Section 9-202-01 (re: street closings and requirement of public hearing for such act).

One man argued that the permeable surface only works at low grades, so the trail will require massive environmentally damaging earthworks. If that is true, we should go with the impermeable surface.

Many argued that emergency vehicles and utility vehicles would need to use the ROW so it has to be a trail. I've seen both kinds of vehicles on trails often. Many also tried to argue that the road was cheaper than the trail or - if you'll believe it - that the road with a parallel trail would be cheaper.

One woman argued that because DDOT plowed the trail during Snowmaggedon it must be a road. Another said she skied the trail 6 days after the snow and it wasn't plowed. [And of course, the logic is somewhat iffy anyway].

The lawyer for Tregaron estates showed up and naturally they oppose the trail and plan legal action. They feel they negotiated the donation of the Tregaron Conservancy in good faith and are now left with five housing lots they can't build on. I don't understand the issue well enough to say whether they've suffered damages or if DC needs to do something to make them whole, but here were my thoughts in 2008. Many road supporters mentioned this project that would add "tax generating homes" to the city.

there is no reason these houses couldn't be built because of the trail. One could argue that (gasp!) a house doesn't have to be accessible by car to have value. Is no one really willing to live in a house in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in DC and fronting Rock Creek Park because they can't park in the driveway (but can bike up to it)?

Pro-trail advocates argued that we have a beautiful city and we should preserve natural places, that to deal with congestion we need fewer roads and more transit, and that building the trail is the fiscally responsible thing to do. One woman read a letter from her seven year old son who bikes the existing ROW to and from school. Quotes include "When I ride to school I get to feel good" and "I like riding my bike with my Mommy" and "I like to come home because I get to go fast." Adorable.

Update: City Paper has more, including a quote I failed to write down.

Laurie Collins testified on behalf of the Coalition to Repair and Reopen Klingle Road—calling the proposed trail a “three-block hike-bike path to nowhere”

On the subject of the trail. Some people wanted the narrowest trail possible for environmental reasons. One woman wanted an even wider trail than proposed because Beach Drive gets so crowded on the weekends that it is "unsafe." Most people opposed the lights because they thought them unnecessary and that they would interfere with nocturnal animals. There was a lot of concern about the permeable material, but most people thought that if DDOT could make it work, they would support it.

Some people clearly think the fight for the road is not over, and as long as they're so committed and the trail isn't built, they're probably right.

Klingle Valley EA Includes Several Options, Comments Sought

The Klingle Valley Trail Environmental Assessment was released this month and it includes four decisions, each with its own set of alternatives, that will have to be made before the project moves forward. These include the design of the trail, the restoration of Klingle Creek, access from the trail to the Rock Creek Trail and trail lighting. The more desirable and user friendly options also carry the highest price tags. 

In all of the proposed actions, DDOT will build a multi-use trail with two trailheads, provide better storm water management and restore the Creek. They would remove the existing road and all of it's associated elements as well as a few trees that present a hazard. They would add in a bioretention island on the west side and signage and/or pavement markings to connect users to the bike route on Woodley Road. Due to the steep terrain, the trail will not be designed to ADA standards. At the Indian Embassy property the trail would be lifted out of the flood plain.

Trail Options

There are four options including a No Build Alternative (#1). All of the build options include 2 foot wide shoulders and a 7 foot wide swale to capture runoff. Alternative 2 would build a 10 foot wide trail with a permeable surface, Alternative 3 is identical, but it has a 12 foot wide trail and Alternative 4 is similar to Alt 2, except that it has an impermeable surface. They would all take 8-12 months to build.

Access to Rock Creek Trail

Option A would build a trailhead on the east end and trail users would use the existing road to connect. Option B would narrow the 20 foot roadway to 14 feet and create a 6 foot bike/ped lane with a physical barrier and paint. Option C would also narrow the road to 14 feet but then build a multi-use trail (with a width that would vary from 6 feet to 10 feet) along the south side of the ramp that leads to the Rock Creek Trail below Porter Street, NW.

Lighting

Either the project will include trail lighting or it won't. If it does they're looking at pole lighting and bollard lighting, using solar powered lights - which they previously noted would be difficult there - and low energy LED.

Stream restoration

Option A restores the most critical 420 feet of the stream and Option B restores the entire 1595 foot long stream. 

Analysis

For the resources that the EA was to address, all options had either a benefit, minor and/or temporary negative impact or no impact (mostly no impact). The only exception was the removal of the hazardous trees.

The study also eliminated some options. It did not study a connection to Connecticut Avenue due to the steep grade. The idea of turning the Klingle-Porter Intersection into a park was deemed unreasonable because it would be too disruptive and too expensive.

From a technical standpoint Alternative 3, Access Option C, Stream Restoration Option B and the lighting option with lights are the best. Together they create a wide, permeable trail with the best possible connection to the Rock Creek Park Trail and lighting for transportation; and completely restore the stream. They also happen to be the most expensive options as seen in the table below.

The addition of lighting is critical if the trail is to be a commuter route and DDOT should make the investment.

The maintenance savings for the impermeable trail surface don't seem worth it ($40,000 up front cost to save $2000 a year and increase runoff) and so Alternative 4 should not be considered. 

Choosing between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 seems difficult at first because of the over $2 million difference between the two. That seems like a lot of money for 2 extra feet of width. Turns out, it is. Running through the numbers in Table 2 below, it's clear they made a math error. In order to get the high value in the Total Cost row for Alternative 2, they added $143,000 for access option C instead of $1,430,000. The real price difference for the two is $746,000. And at that price it may be worth it - more so if they can get the woman in the drawing above to not walk down the middle of it.

The most difficult choices deal with the trail connection and the stream restoration. The road in question gets very little traffic and so $1M+ to get a narrow sidepath seems like an unnecessary expense. It would be nice - and possibly even required for pedestrians, but it would be nice to know what DDOT would do with the money if it weren't spent on the connection. Complete stream restoration on the other hand, though pricey, seems like the right thing to do.

A public hearing has been scheduled to discuss the EA for Wednesday, June 23, 2010, starting with an open house from 6-6:30 p.m. and presentation and comments from 6:30-8 p.m. The hearing will be at the National Zoo's Visitor Center Auditorium, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Red Line - Woodley Park-Zoo).  The public comment period closes July 6, 2010, and comments must be received no later than July 6, 2010.

Cross-posted at GreaterGreaterWashington

Klingle Valley Trail Public Meeeting #1

Last night's Klingle Valley Trail EA information meeting was kind of a non-event. There were poster boards and information sheets, a video of the area as it is now and DDOT employees there to talk to, but it had the feel of an obligatory exercise. There was information on the existing conditions, scope, possible trail elements, meeting schedule and project summary, but nothing new really. The next phase is the Environmental Studies and Alternatives Development at which point there will be a meeting sometime this Winter. The whole process will end in July.

Some of the issues that will have to be decided include:

1. Access, as in 24 hour access, and will the trail be lit (solar power probably won't work there as it does on the Met Branch because of the tree cover).

2. How the trail connects into the Rock Creek Park Trail at the east end and to the street system on the west. I assume a connection to Connecticut Ave is not possible.

3. The surface. By law it has to be porous. But will a porous material work on the slopes of Klingle Valley? If not, will a good storm water management strategy be adequate? 

4. Width. The law calls for 10 feet, which should really be a minimum. Does this allow for 10 feet for a bike path and 10 feet for a parallel hiking, jogging path?