There are a lot of people who hate the Inter-County Connector project. I suspect most readers of this blog are in that group. There are many reasons to dislike the project such as the fact that it's monopolizing much of Maryland's transportation money, damaging a swath of Maryland countryside, evicting people from their homes and that the bike trail that was sold with it was significantly downgraded. But, there are some smaller projects that are associated with the ICC that will benefit cyclists.
Because the highway does so much environmental and community damage, the project must include some environmental and community stewardship projects. This is pretty standard. Part of the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail in PG County was built as community stewardship by the Wilson Bridge Project. The ICC has something like 63 environmental projects that include stream restorations, wetland construction, fish passages etc...They also have 7 Community Stewardship projects of which five are bike trail related.
There isn't a wealth of information on these. I've contacted the ICC media office, but have yet to hear back. [Update: I interviewed them and you should read that post for more accurate information than what is listed below]. Here's what they do list and show on a map.
- Wayfinding Signage north of Lake Bernard Frank. It includes 47 signs with a budget of $100,000-$500,000. It is to be completed April 2011
- Layhill bike/pedestrian trail in the area of Northwest Branch Recreational Park
- Improvement to 5500 feet of the Rock Creek Park Trail. Budgeted at $2.5M-$5M and to be completed October 2010.
- A bike/pedestrian trail near the intersection of I-95 and Cherry Hill Road
- Old Gunpowder Road Bike/Pedestrian Trail. A 14500 foot long, 8 foot wide sidepath along Old Gunpowder road from MD 198 to Briggs-Chaney Road. 5-10M, Completion date TBD
It may not make up for everything, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. All though not every one sees it this way. John Mathwin of Rockville wrote in the Post this weekend.
Because of the damage done to the watershed by the intercounty connector, Maryland has proposed various mitigation projects. One such project would connect two bike paths near Lake Frank in Montgomery County. To make this connection, trees and other plants now occupying this section of Rock Creek Park would be replaced by a nearly half-mile stretch of asphalt 10 feet wide. Thus to mitigate against the loss of trees, more trees will fall; to mitigate against the loss of permeable groundcover in the watershed; impermeable surface will be added.
This project does not mitigate, it exacerbates.
To be fair, this project (probably the Rock Creek one listed above?) isn't meant to be environmental mitigation but rather community stewardship and has a separate goal. And I'm not really supportive of labeling bike trails as items that exacerbate environmental damage. This is really an argument against all trails.
While it's true that it increases impermeable surface, most new projects have methods for controlling and treating storm water runoff of trails. I've heard Heather Deutsch of DDOT talk about it, so it is something that trail planners think about and plan for. I'd be surprised if this project doesn't.
As for cutting down trees, yes I suppose that will happen - though I've seen trails rerouted to preserve bigger trees. A 5500 foot long 10 foot wide trail will take up about 1.3 acres. Not a huge area. And if it reduces car trips and gets people to enjoy parks and nature, the benefits could outweigh the costs.
I'm trying to read the map...is that I-95 and Cherry Hill Road? Could it be a northern continuation of the Paint Branch Trail?
Posted by: Jon | February 03, 2010 at 07:34 AM
The sidepath along Old Gunpowder would not be a continuation of the Paint Branch Trail, as I read it. It's described as following the road, not the stream valley. I hope they consider extending the trail south of Briggs Cheney to Powder Mill Rd too - there is a short stretch of trail in that section, but it's so short that it's rather useless. The rest of the road is narrow with little to no shoulder and lots of rush-hour traffic.
Posted by: Purple Eagle | February 03, 2010 at 08:30 AM
Jon, you're right. I made a typo.
Purple Eagle, I think Jon is talking about the 4th item on the list, not the 5th.
Posted by: washcycle | February 03, 2010 at 09:25 AM
As an avid biker, I think you are doing a serious disservice by describing the ICC in such a negative fashion. The ICC has been master planned over 50 years - plenty of time for all those in "rural" MoCo to sell and find a new place to live - I don't see you complaining about Bethesda being developed back in the 1950s, yet it is no different. The ICC is long overdue - return the underbuilt, rural roads around there to the people - not a chance I would ever ride my bike on Muncaster Mill, Bowie Mill, Olney Sandy Spring. The ICC is long overdue. Plus, it will concentrate development further south than if it were not built, contributing to further sprawl, longer car trips, etc.
That being said, there should be a bike path paralleling the entire highway like originally planned.
Posted by: steven | February 03, 2010 at 01:08 PM
This caught my eye: "Wayfinding Signage north of Lake Bernard Frank. It includes 47 signs with a budget of $100,000-$500,000."
So... that means a cost of $2100-$10600 PER SIGN.
Those must be some REALLY special signs...
Posted by: Matt | February 03, 2010 at 01:13 PM
I was merely noting the complaints people have about the ICC. You can make the argument that the positives of the ICC outweigh the negatives, but that isn't the same as saying the negatives don't exist. Looking at your reasons for the ICC:
1. This has been planned for a long time, so let's do it.
2. Removing traffic from the other regional roads
3. It will concentrate development further south
#1 is not a reason to do something. #2 and #3 are probably untrue, due to induced demand and the way sprawl follows highways. Even if #2 and #3 are true, there may have been other ways to achieve those goals with the money spent that have fewer negatives. So, I don't think I'm doing the project a disservice.
Posted by: Washcycle | February 03, 2010 at 01:19 PM
I missed the distinction between #4 and #5. Cherry Hill, Powder Mill, and Old Gunpowder roads frequently confuse me . . partly because of similar names and partly because Cherry Hill turns so much, and then changes names as it goes further west.
I would like to know more about this proposed bike trail at Cherry Hill/95. A section of Cherry Hill was just rebuilt (at the intersection with Sellman) without any bike accomodations - other than the fact that the wider road provides more shoulder space.
Posted by: Purple Eagle | February 03, 2010 at 02:01 PM
Wash...but herein lies the catch. Development generally occurred around that area of MoCo with construction of the ICC in mind. Lack of construction of the ICC has in turn created a lot of the congestion that has been seen on local arterials that have had to pick up the slack.
Even factoring in "induced demand" (which is factored into traffic modeling these days anyway), #2 will happen to local parallel roads...including Randolph, Norbeck, and Route 198.
#3 will depend on the Montgomery County government. People like using highways as an argument against development/sprawl, but too often don't take into account that development needs to be approved by county officials at some point.
Posted by: Froggie | February 03, 2010 at 02:33 PM
Are you saying the PBT will be extended north of 95. Not following this exactly.
Posted by: David Daddio | February 03, 2010 at 03:33 PM
I would very much like to contact you by phone to chat. I am the Media Relations Manager for the ICC. I read that you contacted my office, but you have not heard back. Something must not be working, as I have not heard from you. If you would be kind enough to call 301-586-9296 and leave a number, if I am not there, I will be delighted to call you back. Thanks for your interest in the ICC. Fran Counihan
Posted by: Fran Counihan | February 03, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Are they rebuilding Rock Creek Park Trail? The current trail is barely usable. It is far too narrow for two-way bike/pedestrian traffic.
Posted by: Michael | February 04, 2010 at 04:19 AM