« GW law student is not impressed by L Street cycle-track | Main | M Street SE/SW Transportation Study Draft Report »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not quite sure why the local groups are opposed, other than because of construction concerns (both interruption and impact on the creek/valley). One should not that putting the road in initially had a far greater impact than what is contemplated, which if anything might correct some current runoff issues.

People often are fooled by the outward appearance of an area like this. It looks pristine, but in fact the creek has for decades had issues with excess peak runoff and water quality, not to mention the entire ecology of the lower Rock Creek Valley is out of whack. That's not to say we should make things worse (and these changes would not), but it's also not true that any roadwork at all is a some kind of sacrilege against untouched wilderness. That stopped being true when they channelized the storm drainage that dumps out into the Creek right near Linnean and built a road to carry commuter traffic through this part of the Park.

Making it 15mph, or adding a bike lane, makes it a highway? If so, MORE HIGHWAYS

I do not think quoting Alan Beach's non-sequitor is overly relevant. None of the other ANC folks who were there (including mine) are quoted at all and I did not get the sense of 'opposition'

In fact, given that the road starts with two lanes and ends with two lanes means there is no real argument from drivers about losing parking or driving lanes. The only caveats I heard were worries about the length of road closure although there was little explicitly stated about how the alternatives differ in road closure time (if at all different).

Clearly the biggest issue might simply be cost BUT remember this is also a FHA project not just DDOT.

Crikey7 & SJE (both of whom I respect greatly): did you both fill out and send in (you can do it electronically) a Comment sheet?

@Crikey, I think you can make an even stronger case - not only will construction "not hard an untouched wilderness", but it has the potential to reduce stormwater impacts and thereby improve the water quality of the stream. I noticed what looked like bioretention structures in some of the drawings.

ken: I am not a resident of DC, so I think I have no say in it.

@SJE - I'm definitely unsure about that at all - if you use that section of Broad Branch and have informed opinion (that you do) then I think your comments are as valid as mine (probably more so).

a waste of time, effort and money.

let it go bicyclists, you have more important issues: one would be an on-road route to get through NW DC!!!!

I actually like riding along Connecticut Ave and Wisconsin Ave. It's the east side of the Park that has cycling issues. I still have nightmares from commuting on 16th Street. You have to get all the way to the MBT till it gets good again.

That still doesn't mean we can't upgrade a road into the Park to make recreational access better.

I like the Big 10. U of Md. was treated poorly by the ACC. In any case, collegiate cycling teams are arranged in cycling conferences, not Big 10 or ACC.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader