Not really an ICC trail update

WARNING: I fell behind on my reading of the Gazette - which does a great job of covering cycling issues - and am just now trying to catch up, you can expect to see a few articles from the wayback machine over the next few weeks as I catch up. This one is from way back in March.

The Montgomery County Council, back in March, unanimously voted to approve two separate plans for the ICC trail. One (on the map in purple) that would divert bike traffic along New Hampshire Avenue, Route 29, East Randolph and Fairland roads, cost $3.2 million, use 8 foot sidewalks in several places and avoids environmentally-protected areas including the Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park; and the other (on the map in green) that goes along the ICC right of way on a MUP, costs $11 million and uses some park land.

These dollar figures differ a bit from what was last reported ($4.3 million and $16 million).

The council approved the options with the idea that one or both would be exercised. As part of its approval, both options were included in the ICC Functional Master Plan amendment that guides future development.

Bob Simpson, senior planning specialist for the county Department of Transportation, said current off-road sidewalks along area roads are "sufficient" and don't need to be widened.

"The sidewalks are not overcapacity in terms of bike use," he said. "They are plenty good enough for the bicycling that currently exists."

Those sidewalks, again, are four feet wide. If you make them one feet wide they might also meet current needs since no one will ride them.

Despite support from the Council

"The committee's view was it does want to encourage the ICC alignment … as its first preference," Councilman Roger Berliner (D-Dist 1) of Potomac said

Councilwoman Nancy Floreen (D-At large) of Garrett Park said she supports a bike trail along the ICC. She said a continuous bike trail would be consistent with the county's philosophy of "connectivity."

It does not look good for the ICC as planned

But according to a Feb. 5 council staff report, a lack of useable space near the Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley 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?"

Deputy Council Staff Director Glenn Orlin echoed that opinion last week.

"It may be a very, very, very long time before resources, financially and otherwise, are pulled together to build [the ICC trail]," Orlin said. "[The trail diversion option] may be more achievable in the short term."

Comments

[Jack Cochrane]

This was actually a very positive development. It's hard to get facts or feel for things from the Gazette. The negative staff report by Glenn Orlin (who actually supports bikes a lot) was just a recommendation to the Council, and the Council didn't take it. They kept the best path alignment in the master plan for the most critical section in the park area, against the strong wishes of the Planning Department. The Planning Department was playing semantic games to justify its decision to remove the park portion of the trail from the plan. We asked the COuncil to override this and they did. Councimember Floreen chastised the Board for ignoring an explicit directive from the Council in 2005 to leave the trail through the park in the plan. DOT (Bob Simpson is quoted) did not support widening the alternate trail (along New Hampshire, Fairland, etc.) which would be a good project and we'll continue to push for it. but I think he had concerns that that trail could actually make it harder to get the desired trail. There were some portions of the end-to-end ICC trail however that were not kept in the plan, but not as critical as this section. I can elaborate on that later.

[Froggie]

Given that the Route 29/ICC interchange is going to be a freeway-to-freeway style interchange (since Route 29 is already pretty close to freeway through that area), how do they expect to thread a bike/ped route through that interchange?

[Jack Cochrane]

OK, I see what you mean about the council staff report. Yes, there is limited usable space and it would take some rigorous engineering to keep environmental impacts at the very low level the Planning Department allows in the parks (except for the ICC apparently). Council staff was basically laying out the environmental situation to the Council so it could make an informed decision. But staff's comment implying that chances are "miniscule" underestimates public and Council support for this trail, horribly devastating though it might be. I guess the county won't be truly safe from environmental destruction until no six-lane highways have any trails next to them.