Lake Frank Connector Trail Brouhaha

Last month I wrote about the projects proposed as stewardship projects, including a trail that would connect the Lake Frank Trail to a spur of the Maryland portion of the Rock Creek Park Trail. The neighbors are upset about both the placement of the trail and the way in which it came about.

Plans in 1998 and 2000 had the trail going across the spillway near Lake Frank (a shorter distance along the stream that connects Lake Frank to Rock Creek). The 2006 ICC record of decision didn't include the connector, and instead removed unused parking lots and replaced them with a different trail. But then Park and Planning officials were concerned over dam safety and stormwater surges if a trail was built there, so they created a substitution in the master plan.

Instead of removing pavement from the two parking lots, more pavement in the form of the trail was added to the Lake Frank area. The substitution also changed the placement of the connector trail, which specified a paved trail to be built behind Manor Lake residences.

When people in the neighborhood found out about the change, they felt -rightfully - blindsided. They organized and have been trying to change things since.

As I see there are three issues.

(1) As Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large) of Takoma Park put it "community involvement was missing." I'm not even sure trail users were consulted on the location change. But in the end this is a process complaint, not a reason to not build the trail in that place. You can argue that they dropped the ball and should have done things differently, but that doesn't change the merits, or lack thereof, of the project.

(2) The trail is being built at the expense of the parking lot removal. The parking lots will still eventually be removed, but just later. So this is a question of priorities. It's legitimate to ask which project should come first, but again, it doesn't change the location or need for the trail.

(3) the location of the trail. Even they admit that the community has "no problem with the trails, only the placement of the trails." The only problems listed in the article is that it is too close to the homes of people and that it "would threaten the natural scenery and stability of the area." I'm not sure what to make of the second part, but the only thing specifically stated is that it will be "buffered by a wooded berm for the majority of that trail."

I suppose it depends on how close to the homes it will get, but it will all be on Park property. You buy a home on the edge of a Park and you expect to always have this view of an untouched natural landscape. I just don't think you have a right to that view - especially not when the park wants to change it a little to fulfill a legitimate park role, recreational trails.

Comments

[Richard Layman]

technically this is a matter of privilege versus rights. As well as about how a community resource is managed, mediated by the interests of specific neighbors. Planning efforts don't always properly address these types of interests at different levels. Typically, immediate neighbors, given their increased likelihood of getting involved, have more input and the representation of broader goals and objectives is usually underrepresented. (You really see this in DC planning processes.)

[Casey Anderson]

Richard correctly describes the neighbors (highly motivated) vs. the general public (interests are more diffuse, therefore less motivated to weigh in) dynamic in this and other similar situations. What makes this one a bit unusual is the presence of Patty Kane, a prosecutor for the Montgomery State's Attorney, as one of the neighbors opposing the Parks Department's preferred route. When you get someone like Ms. Kane (aggressive litigator type personality, i.e., advocates for her position at all costs and to heck with the public interest) involved, the ability of elected officials to withstand pressure from the neighbors to weigh in against the bureaucracy becomes overwhelming, even when the bureaucracy has produced a well-reasoned decision. Ultimately no elected official is really interested in standing up to someone like Ms. Kane over an issue like where a trail should be built. Unfortunately, the result is that the trail either doesn't get built at all or costs twice as much on the alternative route.

[Joe]

The Gazette article is one sided and incomplete. There were people their including poeple who live in the neighborhood making all the noise against the trail.

The trail in question is part of the Upper Rock Creek trails Corridor Plan. There were many meetings on it and there were even neighborhood that came out against other aspects of the project. To my knowledge thye recieved the same notice as those who live next to lake Frank.

It is intersting that on one hand they cry foul on the possible loss of the pavment removal then turn around and try to stop the best trail route with the least environmental disturbance.

[Jack]

I guess the outer several hundred feet of the park are no longer public. They exist for the sole benefit of the adjacent neighborhoods. Don't put anything there. Keep park users in the middle of the park. Especially those scary bicyclists!

[Jack Cochrane]

We need bicyclists to start sending letters on this issue! When it became undeniably clear that the community-demanded trail option would be much more expensive and environmentally damaging than the county-supported option, they switched to talking almost entirely about removal of the abandoned parking lots. This is very disingenuous but strategically advantageous. They are furthermore saying that they weren't informed of the decision by the county & state to build a trail instead of remove the parking lots. (Whether they were well notified remains a question). This makes undoing an already made decision appear more legitimate. They are getting ever wider community and politician support. Of course building the lots will result in making the trail project much more difficult to fund and then they will have more time to fight it tooth and nail.

Multiple letters to the editor opposing the trail have been appearing since March, some characterizing the trail as a useless facility that merely adds pavement. In fact the trail is the first segment of the planned North Olney Trail that will connect the Rock Creek Trail to Olney.

[Alison Horton]

There is a meeting about this very issue tomorrow night 5/11/10. Please come down to the Shady Grove Maintenance Yard Training Room, Building B
16641 Crabbs Branch Way
Rockville, MD 20855 which is right around the corner (so to speak) from the Shady Grove Metro and speak up. The meeting starts at 7