Bike path next to new highway will damage environment

[ny biker]

They're building a new six-lane highway in Maryland. The plan was supposed to include a paved path next to the highway for cyclists and pedestrians. Now they're saying the bike path should not be built because it will be bad for the environment.

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082003756.html

Planners May Alter Highway Bike Path
Environmental Concerns Along Connector Cited

By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page B01

It was the one part of the six-lane intercounty connector that even highway haters embraced as a small but eco-friendly offset to a road that will pave over streams, woods and wildlife.

Now, the possibility of building a continuous, off-road bicycle and walking trail along the Maryland highway's 18.8-mile route is in jeopardy -- in the name of protecting the environment.

Montgomery County planners say a continuous 10-foot-wide asphalt bike path would cause too much damage to ecologically sensitive parkland traversed by the toll road under construction between Gaithersburg and Laurel. Instead, planners say, cyclists and walkers should be detoured in some areas onto local roads, such as New Hampshire Avenue and Layhill Road.

But bicycle enthusiasts say forgoing a continuous off-road trail on environmental grounds is absurd, saying damage from a path would be minuscule compared with that from the highway. Requiring walkers and cyclists to use sidewalks along busy roads, they say, would be too intimidating and potentially dangerous for many people, particularly recreational riders and children.

"We really don't understand the rationale behind dropping a bike trail for environmental issues when they're already running a big highway through there," said Eric Gilliland, executive director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association.

Just as bewildering, bike advocates say, is the timing. As gasoline prices, traffic jams and waistlines grow, governments have been pushing cycling and walking as healthy, eco-friendly ways to get around.

The debate is playing out before the Montgomery County Planning Board, which will decide whether to preserve the bike route that runs adjacent to the highway and through parkland, as outlined in the county's master plan, or support a state plan that would use some local roads. The Planning Board is scheduled to consider the issue again next month before making recommendations to the County Council, which will have the final say.


The problems, county planners say, started in 2004, when Maryland highway officials conducting a fast-tracked environmental study of the connector dropped plans for an off-road bike path. At the time, highway officials were facing a federal review of the connector proposal, which had been stymied for decades because of environmental concerns. Highway officials said they cut the bike trail because they needed to curb costs and reduce the project's environmental "footprint."

The state eventually agreed to build 11.4 miles of a trail in separate segments in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. That left county officials to link those new pieces along local roads by using existing bike lanes and sidewalks or building new ones.

Although the long-planned east-west bike path through central Montgomery avoids local roads, it falls within the state-owned right of way for the connector, said Chuck Kines, bikeways planner for the Montgomery planning department. Connecting the state-built pieces of a new bike path without using state-owned property or local roads would require building a trail through county parkland, Kines said.

Many Montgomery parks department officials who act as stewards of that parkland want to protect its flood plains, wetlands and large forests, including habitat for endangered species, Kines said. That means limiting rainwater runoff from pavement, including asphalt bike paths, that can contaminate streams and other habitat.

As a transportation planner, Kines said, he believes it would be "shortsighted" not to build a continuous, off-road bike path along the highway. However, he said, parks officials think improving local roads, such as by widening sidewalks to accommodate bikes, would be sufficient.

"As environmental planners, they're concerned about environmental impacts, not necessarily whether a bike path serves its intended purpose," Kines said.

Bike advocates say riding on a separated parklike trail is far safer than navigating parked cars and driveways on streets. A continuous, off-road path along the connector route, they say, would provide a vital east-west link in the region's trail network that would enable people to ride or jog safely between Gaithersburg, Rockville, Clarksburg, Silver Spring and Laurel.

"It's their duty to build a transportation facility that accommodates all vehicles, not just automobiles," said Jack Cochrane, chairman of Montgomery Bicycle Advocates, which pushes for improved bike amenities.

Bike advocates say bike paths can be made more eco-friendly by being built around environmentally sensitive areas or as wooden, water-draining boardwalks.

Construction on the $2.4 billion highway began in November. It is scheduled to open in segments between 2010 and 2012.

[7rider]

Oh, the ICC will pass about a mile north of my house. This whole bike path issue just grates my cheese.
I really think the horse has left the barn with respect to environmental damage on the whole highway. I can't for the life of me figure this out.
Just a whole stupid mess. Grrrr.....

[Thorn]

Sigh...first the San Francisco post, then this. Around my neck of the woods, the local government thinks they can save money by not putting in extended, paved shoulders on new roads and instead they want to build "sideways". Anywhere else in the world they're called sidewalks, and, with the number of driveways on the roads in question, they are, truly, sidewalks with all of the hazards associated with sidewalks. Impractical.

I sat and argued with the alderperson and nothing I said registered. Saving money was more important than bike safety. This sounds the same--Let's route them elsewhere. It won't cost but a couple of signs. Sure it isn't safe, but they'll never know.

What does it take to make the governing bodies understand that having safe bicycle-friendly routes will get more cars off the road? And, more cars off the road means less infrastructure costs? We live in such a car-centric society. Sad.

[ny biker]

It is truly ridiculous. And I think the roads they're talking about using are not quiet residential streets, so even if cyclists use them there will not be any pedestrians on them.

[Kalidurga]

The Moco Planning Council has been on my s%$t list for a while. Now that the ICC's been approved, it's likely that they're going ahead with the M-83 project, which is a 4-6 lane continuance of Mid-County Highway that's intended to connect the ICC to the new developments in Clarksburg. One of the routes under consideration will run on top of a creek between my condo complex and Montgomery Village Elementary School. It will then cross the Seneca Greenway not once, not twice, but three times on its way up to Clarksburg. How's that for environmental impact? And, there's been some mention of a bike path to go along with it, but you have to look really hard to find any details on that part of the plan.

Between the ICC and the M-83, I'm starting to consider moving out with Zen.

[malkin]

How can people be so stupid?

[bmccasland]

How can people be so stupid?

Do you really want an answer to that question???

[Kalidurga]

How can people be so stupid?

Now that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one...

[shootingstar]

The problems, county planners say, started in 2004, when Maryland highway officials conducting a fast-tracked environmental study of the connector dropped plans for an off-road bike path. At the time, highway officials were facing a federal review of the connector proposal, which had been stymied for decades because of environmental concerns. Highway officials said they cut the bike trail because they needed to curb costs and reduce the project's environmental "footprint."

The state eventually agreed to build 11.4 miles of a trail in separate segments in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. That left county officials to link those new pieces along local roads by using existing bike lanes and sidewalks or building new ones.

............................Construction on the $2.4 billion highway began in November. It is scheduled to open in segments between 2010 and 2012.

I think I know someone who transferred from our construction project to this Maryland project.

The 'cost' issue says volumes to me..it is the TRUE red flag. Already the environment assessment impact study was done but it is not clear what the govn't asked in writing in the bid phase for how the different transportation systems are built and how to restore the environmentally sensitive areas or at least protect them. Looks like cycling needs is truly being kicked way down at the bottom.

One wonders if there was something in the project construction project documents that requires the winning engineering firm to install various mechanisms, ie plant certain plants, construct certain runoff channels. All of this must be in written directly into a contract that holds the firms to do the job to their quoted prices.

I would have to dig through our publicly released documents on what we have to do for environment compensation for building our highway approaches, bridges (main bridge plus several other smaller road bridges), and cycling /pedestrian ramps. But for certain, the contract stipulates we must do a number of things, restore with replanting of thousands of new plants, etc. It does mean committing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Includes safe salvage of endangered wildlife species in our area: snowy owl, water shrew, red-legged frog, red salmander (latter was found and brough to receptionist who immediately called one of our environmental coordinators), baldheaded eagle....etc. all from areas where we are building several smaller road bridges and ramps.

It's alot of effort...and it amazes some of our ex-pat employees from other countries where environmental protection law and compliance, is not as stringent.

WE must reduce construction activity in certain areas of river for several months because of the millions of salmon swimming upstream from Pacific. However this compliance was written in the contract

If it's not in the contract (and groups of vocal citizens could really help here), then the engineering firm will ask for more money...meaning thousands of dollars before they lift a finger to help.

So it can be done in Maryland the right way ..if there was alot of public pressure with strong support from funding bodies.

I hope there is, Kalidurga. But it does require a few dedicated cycling advocates and go over the technical details of the plan options with the govn't officials. So drag along some engineering-cycling advocate friends on board. Get what you want in writing..only this can begin the accountability process.

You would not believe it, but if there is no strong cycling voice, others just make the decision for you..

[Grog]

I agree with Shootingstar that costs are probably a big part of the issue.

With oil costs going up, the cost of asphalt (which contains I think 25% oil) become much higher too. I heard on NPR when we were in Oregon that many counties could not afford to pay for their usual road refections (which should be about 1/7th of their network every year) because of the costs. Obviously, bike routes would come last under these circumstances... especially as long as bike routes are considered "recreational."

There are many ways to argue against that, and I do think a public group of citizens could do something to help.

Good luck - I am sure you'll find some expertise around here to help as needed... or at least encouragement!