« Bethesda Trolley Trail to be temporarily closed through Battery Lane Park for work on trail and park | Main | Holmes Run Trail Bridge opening ceremony on Thursday »


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

Sadly, he won.

Another opponent of bike lanes, this time on Woodley Place, Brian Reba in ANC 3C-01, also won.

If and until DDOT stops giving the local ANC rep the right of first refusal for improvements that will save lives and benefit the many, we need to keep voting against these opponents of change.

The Trolley Trail just doesn't have the support. I still think we'd be better off seeking on-street bike infra in Palisades rather than the big ticket of the trail and trestle reno.

I think the polling shows it does have the support. DDOT just got funding for the feasibility study, let's see how that goes.

One thing to note here, is that DDOT keeps coming back to this project. It shows up on their radar every decade, and every time it goes down due to local opposition. Clearly DDOT sees it as a good idea - but they just haven't had the backbone to force it through the way the Little Falls Trail or the middle section of the MVT were. No one looks back on those as a mistake, so it's time to just do this already.

Here you go....here's the support documented by DDOT.
Offer is still out if you want to come to the Palisades so I can show you what its about.

66% were in favor of some kind of improvement - but 53% of local residents (and 49% of all in the survey) wanted it to be kept grass/dirt - and only a small fraction want the paved biker path a few vocal folks like you keep pushing for. The way you are using this 'summary' document is misleading. This is already a bike-friendly neighborhood (I bike often) - I don't understand the need to impose additional paving of a few blocks behind people's homes vs. investing more in the CCT or for general traffic safety along MacArthur where people are going to go anyway.

I tend to discount any handle called "savetheX" as if paving a trail is going to destroy a neighborhood. Add to it calling it a "biker path" as if the folks on it will be riding Harleys. Rather than kids on bikes, families with trailers, parents with stroller, and all the other people who regularly use paved trails

"This is already a bike-friendly neighborhood"

So much so that anytime DDOT brings up improving the connection to the CCT on the north side of the neighborhood locals oppose it.

"I don't understand the need to impose additional paving of a few blocks behind people's homes vs. investing more in the CCT or for general traffic safety along MacArthur where people are going to go anyway."

For one, that's a false choice. We can do all of those things. And while it's not a need to pave it, paving it gives it greater utility. I'd be fine with a crushed stone path, but it's not as useful. There's a trade off. But this project is about more than the surface, it's also about bridges connecting it to Georgetown.

Yeah, the bridges are what is most needed. Otherwise it's going nowhere and is useful to pretty much only the people whose property abuts it.

@Save the Palisades
"This is already a bike-friendly neighborhood (I bike often)"

Two lies in the same sentence.
1) There are no bike lanes in the Palisades
2) If you biked often, you would know that.

Where do kids in the Palisades bike? On sidewalks. How safe is that? Cross streets and drive ways are not nearly as safe for 5 to 15 year olds, vs using a trail that hardly anyone uses.

Husker's got it. You need the trestle to make the trail into a transportation segment versus a linear park. And that's not going to happen. I really don't care that much one way or the other, I'm just stating a virtual certainty.

Crickey may be right, I dunno, but it kinda sucks that an area of DC that should be bikable has no good routes through it. I mean, MacArthur is okayish if you are comfortable taking the whole lane; it would be better if people stayed close to the speed limit. Reservoir is fine. I don't much like Foxhall. 44th is a good cut through in one direction for those who know about it.

Never tried 44th. I agree about the others. Reservoir and MacArthur seem like obvious candidates for a bike lane.

"You need the trestle to make the trail into a transportation segment versus a linear park. And that's not going to happen."

I'd say both of those statements are inaccurate. Even without the trestle, a trail from Galena to Foxhall would be a real transportation segment.

And as for what will or will not happen, I think that depends on what the feasibility study, that was recently funded and is starting soon, determines. Even without the existing trestle, a new trail bridge could be built in the ROW. I heard that NPS has said they wouldn't oppose it.

In the battle between ertia and inertia, my money is usually on inertia.

So I am working my way towards restoring the Foundry Branch Bridge.
There will need to be bridges at Battery Kimble Creek, The creek next to Reservoir RD sort of near Fletcher's Boat house, and a bridge over Clark St.
There use to be Trestle for the Streetcar over these areas from 1900 to about the 1970s so it can be done.

I've said it before and I'll say it again Crickey.....DDOT and I have discussed putting bike lanes on Macarthur Blvd and its a no go.
You'd have to remove all the parking on the street to get it done.
Huge amount of blow back.
And second, I don't think there is enough room on the side streets for them to park there even if we could do it.
The median is owned by the army corps and they aren't giving land away.
Even if they could, then you'd have to cut back the trees.

So bottom line, this has all been thought out by yours truly and DDOT.
If we could get a bike lane on Macarthur blvd then I probably wouldn't be working on putting one on the trolley trail....which, BTW is still the safest potential area to bike ride.
2 major cross streets(ReservoirRD and Foxhall RD) and 1 minor one
(Chain Bridge Road)

I disagree that three bridges are needed. Sure at Battery Kemble (AKA Maddux Run/AKA Discovery Creek) there is an actual creek, you need to get over it, a bridge is needed.

Not so much at Clark Place and Reservoir Road. At Clark Place, if you extended the sidewalk along Clark Place behind GDS along the hillside you could make a path that cyclists and pedestrians could use (maintenance trucks would have to come in from the other end). Then continue along Clark Place to Q Street and rejoin the trail. It would be somewhat dissatisfying that the trail would leave the trolleyway for a couple hundred yards, but a lot cheaper. A bridge could always be added later.

At Reservoir Road you can use the road to cross the stream, and create a terraced path or boardwalk into the side of the hill. Again, this would be for cyclists and pedestrians only, trucks would have to come in from the other direction.

Cutting out two bridges would save a lot of money.

An unanswered question is how the trail would cross Foxhall Road. I can't think of a safe and feasible way of doing that short of re-routing the trail up to the traffic light at the intersection, which would be inelegant at best.

I used to think that the trail would have limited utility, but I've come around. It's not going to be a great recreational trail like the CCT, but it will be very useful.

It will provide an alternative route to MacArthur Boulevard, particularly for cyclists who aren't strong or confident. It will act as a neighborhood connector within the Palisades, providing links to destinations that are separated from each other by the geography. And, crucially, it will provide connections to the CCT and C&O. It's hard to believe, but most of the Palisades is separated from the river trails by obstacles like Canal Road, Maddux Run, and the Potomac Palisades. There are lots of places in the Palisades where you can see the canal, but you can't get there. This trail would connect people to the few places where you can get down to the canal.

Regarding bridge at Clark.
I think the area you are referring to when you say "rejoining the trail" is actually owned by GDS.
And I do think a bridge over Clark is necessary. Asumming that NPS doesn't own the land, this might be the easiest bridge to build of the 3.

Regarding bridge over Reservoir creek.....I've heard you say this before and I sort of agree with you on this one.
However Pepco and (Hopefully DDOT) might find it benefitial to build a bridge that trucks can drive on. Assuming they want to fix the powerlines.
Bottom line, this trail is going to cost alot of money. But relative to other road projects, I think its reasonable

Yeah, coming up with many millions of dollars is totally feasible, but bike lane(s) on Macarthur are impossible. I'm not buying it.

Bridges cost money. Cost matters.

Here's a link to a Google Map of the Clark Place gap: https://goo.gl/maps/pPC9CFTL2zz

I like Google because they show property lines, in light gray.

You'll see that there is a spur of the trail that goes off at the corner of Potomac Ave. and Q Street. What I'm advocating is that the trail follow that spur, go up Q to Clark, then follow Clark. The right-of-way of Clark extends for at least 15 feet -- and as much as 30 feet -- toward GDS, about half the space between the building and the road is public land. There's plenty of room for a sidewalk.

If the topography is too unfriendly, there is a small lot between GDS and the trail, it's Square 1356, Lot 924. That lot is privately owned, but it has an assessed value of only $12,120, because it is undevelopable. It's only street frontage is on Clark Place, but there's no way they could get a curb cut there. It could be taken via eminent domain for practically nothing.

Where would we put all of those cars on MacArthur Blvd.
That's the problem.


We need to restore Foundry Branch Bridge and take care of the AZ bridge project before we can even seriously the next phase.
But eventually, its DDOT that's going to decide what to do about these bridges.

BTW I am not 100% positive those lines are the borders because the building I live in doesn't mark the property line in those places.

Finally, i

Brett, you can see property lines at the DC Atlas, http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov/

There is a drop down under "Base Map and Imagery," set it for "DC Property Basemap."

The lines in the DC Atlas match Google Maps. Property lines are often not where they appear to be. DC Atlas is authoritative, if you think it's wrong you'd have to go to court to challenge it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader