There was a protest 10k and walking tour on the Georgetown Branch Trail this past weekend and the Post covered it. On the upside they correctly called it the Georgetown Branch Trail instead of the Capital Crescent Trail, on the downside they continued to call Pam Browning et. al. "Trail advocates". At best both sides have sizable numbers of "trail advocates" so using that terms is about as useful as calling them "humans." Anyway, Pam Browning claimed that about 500 people turned out
On the four-mile path yesterday, advocates had tied purple ribbons and "endangered" signs to the trees to symbolize those that would be cut down to make way for light-rail tracks. As joggers and bikers whizzed by, Browning cited an analysis by a nonprofit conservation group finding that construction along the trail would destroy 17 acres of trees.
Ribbons which they left up as Andrew wrote me (anyone have photos?)
Good question. I've been told the CCCT will address this at their next meeting. The protest focused on two points: the loss of 14 acres of trees (or about 9.5 football fields worth), and the high cost.
As for trees, 14 acres is the difference between the high-investment BRT and the low-investment BRT on the entire route. Between the low-investment BRT (the only one that doesn't use the Georgetown Branch) and LRT, it's more like 7-12 depending on which system you use, but the section in question appears to be about 9 acres (comparing the low BRT to the mid BRT both of which use the same route almost everywhere but in Chevy Chase) (See Table 4.10-1). So that's more like 8 football fields. The mitigation plan hasn't been defined yet, so it's unclear how much of that we'll get back, but clearly, trees will be replanted where possible. Perhaps, the entire right of way could be claimed by the county and extra trees planted to make up for the lost ones. Perhaps they could be planted on land the Country Club has encroached on.
"They need to be fiscally responsible," said Lynda Williams, whose home abuts the trail. She showed walkers a swath of her back yard that she said would be lost to the proposed project.
Since the state determined that "All [light rail] Build Alternatives use the Georgetown Branch right-of- way and do not require any residential property acquisitions in the Chevy Chase community" I'm guessing Lynda Williams isn't losing a swath of her back yard, but is instead losing exclusive access to county land she doesn't own or pay for. Perhaps we can be fiscally responsible and ask her for back rent. By the way the low-cost BRT option they support will evict one person and force the state to take land from nine other land owners. Perhaps there's some more land in Lynda Williams' back yard we can plant trees on.
As for the money issue, I should point out that Pam Browning has been an advocate of a tunnel and the $5 Billion outer purple line, both of which are significantly more expensive than the $1.2 Billion light rail line. Now there is no arguing that a Metro-style line in a tunnel isn't the better technical choice, but if you're concerned with money, it becomes less of a winner. Now she's all about Bus Rapid Transit, even though it too will cut down trees - just trees east of Jones Bridge Road.
It doesn't seem this is about saving trees, or the trail or money, but about not building rail on THIS strip of land from Jones Bridge Road to Bethesda through backyards that people don't actually own.
Next on the agenda
Dr. Gridlock was asked about the Purple Line last week and part of it went like this:
Bowie: I would think that people would like the multi-modal routes better - isn't that what going green is all about?
Dr. Gridlock: On the green issue: I used to hear a lot from intercounty connector opponents that the project wasn't green and we really should be spending our money on transit. Now, I hear a lot from Purple Line opponents saying we really shouldn't be spending our money on the transitway because it's not green enough.
Photo by jrspeaks
The Post article missed the most ironic thing about this event - the 10K race itself was held on the CCT between Bethesda and D.C., and no part of it was on the Georgetown Branch Trail they were claiming to "protect". They could not hold a 10K race on the Georgetown Branch because it was too muddy and too incomplete to support a race. I posted on this at www.finishthetrail.org , see the "Runing away from the trai" post.
Also, the Post reported Pam Browning as leading a 4 mile walk. She did lead a walk on the Georgetown Branch, but barely went 1 mile before turning around. They are totally focused on only the part of the trail in their back yards.
Wayne Phyillaier
Posted by: silverspringtrails | March 11, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Given the distribution of the ribbons it seems that the only portion of forest that needs protecting is between the tunnel and Conn Ave....the rest of it (with the real woods) is of no concern...
Of course neither is leaving a mess all over this "beautiful woodland".
Posted by: think a little | March 11, 2009 at 06:07 PM
This is the same Pam Browning who sent out an alert asking anti-PL folks to do reconnaissance at a MoBike picnic to see what those sneaky bicyclists are up to. She said bike groups have been "infiltrated" by pro rail people. Maybe in her world that happens a lot.
Posted by: Jack | March 11, 2009 at 06:48 PM
I've just posted a few photos of the purple tape now trashing the trail at www.finishthetrail.org
Posted by: silverspringtrails | March 11, 2009 at 08:43 PM
This issue did come up for discussion at the most recent Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail board meeting. It was decided that the chair should pass on emails complaining about the Purple Ribbons to MCDOT. I also want to emphasize that the Coalition had no part in the event on saturday and did not endorse putting ribbons on the trees.
Peter Gray CCCT Board Chair
Posted by: Peter Gray | March 12, 2009 at 04:51 PM