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.

 

Comments

[Crikey7]

I've never seen such a brouhaha over a tiny, little-used road that was routinely impassable in bad weather.

The money spent on stream restoration is welcome. Rock Creek and its tributaries are slowly regaining their health, though there are still large stretches with no aquatic life at all.

[MM]

Last time I checked, MUPs are part of the city transportation network...so maybe Ms. Oliver favors ripping up sidewalks to make room for additional traffic lanes, as well? I mean, without that extra space for cars, we're destined for a ZOMGtrafficmaggedonpacalypse!

[oboe]

$11 MILLION FOR A DOG PARK?!?

OUTRAGE!!!1
1

[Crikey7]

It's like saying building Gravelly Point cost eleventy zillion dollars, since it's only there because of the airport.

[katie]

as a regular commuter between mount pleasant and glover park I have missed that road mightily for all these many years. as a female cyclist I will never use that bike trail at night and depending on what kind of traffic it gets (unlikely much) may not use it during the day unless I'm riding with somebody else.

[Bob]

This is a waste of money for just a trail. Make it a trail and a road and everyone will be happy. All near by streets like Macomb and Porter are clogged with traffic and it takes 45 minutes to get across town since Klingle has been closed. With all the trails in Rock Creek Park this is an unnecessary bike trail. The hikers can use the Tregaron Park and its 13 acres that runs parallel to Klingle Road.

[Crikey7]

Apparently, making it a road would not, in fact, make everyone happy. Not making it a road apparently made fewer people unhappy that making it a road would have, and so a road it will not be.

[washcycle]

Bob, only your last two sentences are true statements. But then I'll ask if we should only build things that are "necessary." Clearly the road isn't necessary since we've survived 20 years without it.

[Anon]

Share the road! What is wrong with you people? $12M for the neighborhood bike trail no one will use or $13M for a trail and a road that the entire city to use.

Selfish, selfish, selfish and further, there are so many other transportation needs in this city that we're going to spend $12M for 3 blocks of trail?

Seriously wrong. I cannot believe that the bikers in this city or the few that hang on this site would think spending that amount is a good thing to do and I will say this again, SELFISH. We have an opportunity to have both.

[washcycle]

Anon, really? Again with the $12M trail?

1. DDOT has officially stated that the project is $8M to $11M, which means not $12M. So is it your position that DDOT is now lying about the cost or that you know something they don't?

2. The trail is only part of this project. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Don't you see how deceptive that appears?

But yeah, by all means call us selfish as you misrepresent the facts in an attempt to get what you want.

[Crikey7]

It's really not that cyclists have been pushing for a bike trail. Still, given that there would apparently be some kind of means of access and egress created with the other aspects of the project, including a bike trail required modest additional cost and increased recreational use of the Park. That's consistent with the Park's charter.

What it did not do is increase general vehicular access to the park. It's true that some vehicular aspect to the park is consistent with the park's charter, but (a) there is already sufficient vehicular access and (b) opening up a road through the park would mean it primarily was used for transportation purposes, not recreation. That's not consistent with the charter, and it's why so many diverse groups opposed it. And succeeded.

[I forgot]

Until there is a discussion of the incremental cost of building a trail in addition to all the other stuff that needs to be done, the incremental cost of building a road, and the incremental cost of building a road and a trail, I don't see how anyone can make any sense of all of this ranting.

If transportation through the park without access to the park is not consistent with the park's charter, you might as well rip out the parkway, the Taft Bridge and all the other transportation systems used primarily to get through the park.

But what do I know? I live in Virginia and, frankly, don't give a rat's ass what happens.

[MM]

"$13M for a trail and a road that the entire city to use." This argument confuses me...so you want more traffic in the neighborhood? Building a road, particularly this road, will have zero net effect on traffic...there's no additional capacity to carry traffic out of the city, so this just gives Maryland commuters one more cross-park route to sit on during rush hour.

[Crikey7]

Rock Creek Parkway was a special exception created by an act of Congress that serves to modify the charter along its length. Beach Drive serves to provide essential access to the recreation areas. In its master planning process, the NPS proposed, as one alternative, closing that road to traffic during rush hour. They knew, based on their studies, that its use as a major commuting corridor severely stresses the park, as tens of thousands of cars a day cut right down the center of the valley. As a political matter, though, that alternative was a complete non-starter.

[Anon]

Deceptive? Ha, you're the one who can't get it through your head that in order to get a trail, one must spend, as you say $8-$11M to get there. You can't pull out the cost of the trail and "pretend" that it's a separate project. It is going to cost a hell of a lot of $$ to get to that point. Why not pull out the cost of the road then?--that's $2M.

So, for $1M more, we can have a wider road with a path for bikes. Do you not want to "share the road" washcycle?

Huh?

[Crikey7]

Again, it's like saying building Gravelly Point cost the entire amount to build the airport and Gravelly Point, since we wouldn't have had it without the airport.

We weren't pushing for Gravelly Point. But since you had to have a clear area on the approach anyway, and the incremental cost to build it was pretty modest, it sure is nice to get a recreation facility and make-out spot in the bargain.

[Bob]

Klingle Road is not part of Rock Creek Park and never was or will be. The park starts AFTER the road. Because the road was not repaired and was not usable does not mean it is not usable today. If you had a building that was not repaired and it sat empty it does not make it useless in the future. A developer comes along and guts the place fixes it up and everyone says what a pretty building. I would like to live there. Those of use who used the road know it is usable and because DDOT did not do there job we expect them to build that road back and then everyone can use it again. If you want a bike trail beside it go for it. It never was a bike trail in the past and you won't miss it if you don't have a bike trail here.

[Crikey7]

That's hair-splitting. NPS owns up to the edge of the road, and the road itself would be an access point to the park.

[washcycle]

You can't pull out the cost of the trail and "pretend" that it's a separate project.

I'm not pretending. I'm saying that it is. We could, in fact, pull out the cost of the trail and only build the trail. It's just that that would be very stupid. If we're going to be doing all that digging, we might as well do all the work we need. Like adding streetcar tracks to H Street.

Why not pull out the cost of the road then?--that's $2M.

No it isn't. Not even according to repair Klingle Road it isn't. But even so, fine. You want to spend $2M to build a road instead of $1M to build a trail. While I doubt that is even a possible option - that, at least, is an accurate statement of what you want and what you opppose.

So, for $1M more, we can have a wider road with a path for bikes.

As I said, I doubt that is true and all of the existing data contradicts that.

Do you not want to "share the road" washcycle?

There is no road to share.

[washcycle]

Those of use who used the road know it is usable and because DDOT did not do there job we expect them to build that road back and then everyone can use it again.

And everyone else decided that the benefits were not worth the cost.

If you want a bike trail beside it go for it.

I think we're OK with just the trail, since there is no "it" to be beside.

[Purple Eagle]

I thought I read somewhere that there is not enough room to build both a road and a trail. Anyone know if this is true?

[eevee]

It's true.

Q: Could Klingle Road be widened?

A: No. The right-of-way is barely wide enough to carry one lane of traffic in each direction, and the National Park Service has publicly stated that they will not grant a wider right-of-way.

From http://dc.sierraclub.org/klingle-valley/faqs.htm#traf (which is on the non-road side, as you might guess.)

[washcycle]

I think there was one proposal to have a one lane road going down and a contraflow bike lane in the uphill direction.

[Crikey7]

There are times when compromise simply isn't an option. The very thing that road proponents desire, a new road that would handle significant traffic now being routed onto Porter, is precisely what the road opponents don't want. Sometimes it really is zero-sum.

[Bob]

Again your facts and the Sierra Club are wrong. The District was given a 50 foot right of way and they still have 50 feet width on Klingle. See the EA for correct info. Sierra Club says that NPS was given some land in the past and the EA went over boundary lines and that Sierra CLub claim is not accurate. There is enough room for a road and a bike path.

[Anon]

@Purple Eagle: Yes, there is enough room. The city owns a 50-foot Right of Way and certainly enough "room" to "share" the road with everyone.

@washcycle who said, "We could, in fact, pull out the cost of the trail and only build the trail." No, absolutely FALSE. And laughable, thank you for that...:)))

Also, the NPS isn't the only "owners" of the land on either side of the ROAD. It is a 2 lane road you know. There are other owners as well. So when it comes time to rip up the road to put another road down for the hike path, should that ever happen, why on earth would NPS complain about the city coming on their land to build a hike path when the same access would be required to build a road?

As to compromise, it is very clear that there are always options. It's unfortunately, washcycle, that you show your true colors and have proven you don't want to compromise. Selfish, selfish, selfish......

So, let's say, hypotheically, that it will cost $12M for a road and bike lane that everyone can use. Are you for it wash cycle? Huh? Would you support a bike lane and road if it cost the same?

Do tell.

[Crikey7]

Don't know about washcycle, but I'm against a road even if it could be built for the same cost, which it can't. The arguments against a road are compelling to me. Those arguments do not apply to a hiker-biker trail.

As for compromise, it's a binary thing here. Road, or no-road. Within each, there are elements that can be tweaked to accomodate different interest groups. But between the 2, there is not.

[oboe]

I'm usually irritated by disingenuous people who argue in bad faith, but somehow I don't find this discussion irritating at all. Perhaps it's because the Repair Klingle folks lost so comprehensively, and their desperate arguments are just a reaction to that fact.

Anyway, no road for you. And the city's a better place for it. :)

[Anon]

@oboe @crikey, I hope you are in the minority because we don't need people like you coming to the table to work things out or help resolve controversy.

Stay home.

As to "losing" everyone lost here, not just the roadies.

[washcycle]

The Berger Study does include a two-lane road with a bike/ped facility but it notes that "Existing conditions do not provide the necessary space required to expand the roadway to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic." Which means they would need to dig out the hillside on one side and fill on the other. And this would require lots of long-term maintenance.

No, absolutely FALSE.

Well, it's hard to argue with such well-reasoned logic.

It's unfortunately, washcycle, that you show your true colors and have proven you don't want to compromise. Selfish, selfish, selfish......

That's mature.

let's say, hypotheically, that it will cost $12M for a road and bike lane that everyone can use. Are you for it wash cycle? Huh? Would you support a bike lane and road if it cost the same?

If you could get all the costs - not just construction but maintenance and environmental impacts and other external costs - to be equal, then sure, I'd have no problem with that. But, of course, you can't even get construction costs to be equal.

And for the love of God, could you stop throwing around that $12M number. That isn't what DDOT is saying it costs. DDOT is your original source for that number. I would think that a recent, official statement on the cost would supersede an unofficial report of the cost from a few months ago.

[oboe]

I hope you are in the minority because we don't need people like you coming to the table to work things out or help resolve controversy.

Sure, but as Crickey7 pointed out, we don't want to "work things out", or "resolve controversy".

You lost; go find another obsession.

[ah]

"Apparently, making it a road would not, in fact, make everyone happy. Not making it a road apparently made fewer people unhappy that making it a road would have, and so a road it will not be."

I think if you look at the development of this, a more accurate statement is:

- Making it a road would make a few people really unhappy.
- Making it a non-car trail would make a large number of people only slightly less happy.