Three Montgomery County Council members are questioning the local Planning Board’s decision to abandon a temporary road-lane reduction and realign the Capital Crescent Trail’s crossing with Little Falls Parkway in Bethesda.
In June, the planning board voted to get rid of the road diet on Little Falls Parkway and move the Capital Crescent Trail to the intersection. This month om Hucker, Evan Glass and Hans Riemer of the county council wrote a letter to the planning board saying that it flies in the face of the Vision Zero commitment. I'm not sure how much this will do, since the planning board doesn't have to listen to the Council, and it's not even an official position of the council, but it's nice.
It's worth noting that Park & Planning commissioned a traffic study, which generated best practice recommendations. It recommended the road diet.
Installation of the interim road diet along Little Falls Parkway approaching the Capital Crescent Trail was quantitatively shown to significantly improve safety at the trail crossing while also minimizing adverse impacts to vehicular operations along the corridor. The interim road diet has eliminated the multi-lane threat, slowed vehicle speeds through this segment of Little Falls Parkway, and increased visibility between trail users and drivers....
Unlike all other alternatives, signalization of the trail crossing introduces delay to trail users (approximately 30 seconds on average), where they currently have none. Our analysis showed that the additional signal phase for trail users is also projected to increase travel times along the corridor for vehicular traffic by approximately 13 seconds over pre-road diet conditions. These increases in delay for all users may result in non-compliance in the form of violations of the “no right turn on red” restriction for vehicles and “jay walking” by trail users, potentially degrading the safety benefits of signalization.
Conclusion: By eliminating the multi-lane threat, reducing vehicle speeds and increasing motorist and trail user awareness, the road diet has been effective in improving safety for trail users. Significant reduction in conflicts and crashes from 12 in the two-year prior to the road diet down to 5 in the two years post-road diet. “Severity” of conflicts appears reduced due to slower vehicle speeds. Compliance of drivers yielding to trail users is very high and wait times for trail users are very low.
City officials say the road change won’t happen until at least another year, and it's possible the planning board could change its mind.
In other CCT news, Purple Line Transit Partners says that the 4.3 mile expansion to the trail being built in conjunction with the Purple Line could open before the Purple Line.
“We could conceivably start looking at ways to open the trail before the Purple Line is open,” he said. “There could be times we have to close it again when construction crews have to come in and finish some landscaping.”
I don’t think they’re saying the CCT will open before the Purple Line construction is finished, but that it COULD open, at times, before the Purple Line is running (because there will be some time between completion of construction and operation).
"I'm not sure how much this will do, since the planning board doesn't have to listen to the Council"
Do you mean in this instance (it's only a letter from some members) or is this general.
Posted by: drumz | August 13, 2019 at 05:00 PM
As I understand it, the Council has no power over the planning board. So even a formal, unanimous vote by council would do nothing.
Posted by: washcycle | August 13, 2019 at 05:24 PM
But, the council does appoint the planning board members.
Posted by: washcycle | August 13, 2019 at 05:26 PM
The County Executive may have indirect power via the budgeting process. The County Executive submits proposed capital and operating budgets to the Council by January 15 and March 15, respectively. The Council then holds public hearings and deliberates on the spending and revenue proposals. By June 1, the Council must take final action on the budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The Executive has an item veto which the Council may override by six votes. As a result of a 1996 Charter amendment, a six-year CIP is prepared every other year in the second and fourth year of an Executive/Council term.
The capital budget includes spending for construction projects such as schools and roads and is financed largely through bonds. The operating budget includes expenses for personnel, programs and capital budget debt service (principal and interest payments on the bonds).
Posted by: Crickey | August 14, 2019 at 08:49 AM
@washcycle: I had heard that the change to abandon status quo temporary lane reduction requires $$ (more than currently budgeted for parks), and the council DOES control that (though the letter is just a letter, and it would take a council vote to block the money). ?
Posted by: Kenneth Katz | August 26, 2019 at 11:59 AM
> The County Executive may have indirect power via the budgeting process....
Has the County Executive or anyone from his Administration said anything about this decision or his opinion of it...? Is Elrich in fact interested at all in reversing the PB vote?
Posted by: Infinitebuffalo | August 30, 2019 at 04:05 PM