Comments on Lack of connections, visibility hurt ICC Trail - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Eric Brenner

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:09:23 EDT

http://washcycle.typepad.com/bikemap/

While not marked on this map, the western stub of the ICC bike trail starts at Needwood Rd crossing (also can get on at Muncaster Mill rd.) then can go east until just short of Georgia Ave. Not good for much other than local rides.

Comment by Mary

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 15:38:20 EDT

So, thought I would take a ride on the infamous ICC bike path, but I still can't find out where it starts on the "Shady Grove" end of the ICC. Can someone describe exactly where this stupid thing starts near needwood?

Comment by Eric Brenner

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:17:39 EDT

For those who don't do a lot of biking in this part of the county, the majority of the north-south bike traffic still seems to use Old Columbia Road, adjacent to Rte. 29. Straight, fast, pretty safe, but obviously not the same as a separate trail.

Comment by B_76

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:00:48 EDT

It is a trail! I drove down the ICC this weekend to stay with a family member while the power was out (believe it or not they had power and I didn't right near the city). I saw the trail, but assumed it was some sort of access highway. Now I know it's a trail. I would totally try it. Where I was a little bit confused was does it connect to any of the other trails heading south? Aka, could you in theory commute using this trail to cross east to any trail system like Paint Branch or on the western side what about around Lake Needlewood? I doubt it connects to Shady Grove Metro, but if so, that could be a good selling point too--bike to Metro.

Comment by David C

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:28:14 EDT

No. The better question is why does it matter? Even if no other highway anywhere in the world was ever built with a trail, it wouldn't change anything. This trail has several flaws that make it undesireable and not particularly useful. We shouldn't built crappy things especially when we have the capability to built great things. And pointing that out does not make one self-righteous (a misuse of the word in any case) or self-important. So the whole question is moot.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:03:46 EDT

Perhaps the better question would have been how many of those were built as part of the same project?

Comment by Jasper

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:38:16 EDT

@ Why??:Yeah and how many of those are "high-$$$ ones traveling through lower density suburbs?"

To summarize: none.

Well, none except those along the Fairfax County Parkway, and VA-123 (Ox Road). As far as I know, there is no dense living around the Woodrow Wilson bridge either, unless you count fish. Nor long the GW Parkway, except for Crystal City and Alexandria. But Arlington Cemetery is generally quite dead, nobody lives at Haines Point or the airport, and you can't call the upscale villas in Belle Haven and Mt Vernon high density either. Nobody lives along the Clara Barton Parkway either.

So... Plenty. Please look at a map before spewing nonsense.

Comment by Jack Cochrane

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:10:10 EDT

Here's the map i created on CycleMoco for planning purposes:

cyclemoco.com/2011/12/icc-trail-along-needwood-road-five-years-if-were-lucky/

Click on the map to enlarge. Lots of colors so its not so easy to use for riding, but it's all there.

Comment by David Alpert

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:03:52 EDT

Kristina: Great question. I haven't been able to easily find a map of the ICC trail and Google Maps doesn't seem to have it all on there yet.

WashCycle posted a map in 2008 from the study. This shows, for instance, the route parallel to Columbia Pike for a while that Dan was talking about.
http://washcycle.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345198c369e2010536e75c42970b

Anyone know where there is a better map?

Comment by C. P. Zilliacus

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:49:39 EDT

Kristina wrote:

I enjoy your articles (all of them) but was wondering if you could include more maps in your articles, especially relating to areas and transportation around the area. I'm relatively new to DC and having a map of the ICC trail would help me to understand where things are. Thanks!

The Wikipedia article about the InterCounty Connector (Md. Route 200) has a good overview map - please click here for the article.

Comment by C. P. Zilliacus

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:43:44 EDT

Why??? wrote:

Yeah and how many of those are "high-$$$ ones traveling through lower density suburbs?"

In the case of the ICC and the ICC Trail, they were both master-planned improvements appearing in every master plan through which the ICC passes. Regardless of the land use densities.

At least in Maryland, master-planned is supposed to mean legally binding, though federal environmental regulatory staff (especially the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Engineering District; EPA Region III in Philadelphia; and the Fish and Wildlife Service) repeatedly demonstrated contempt for approved and adopted master plan documents through the (seemingly endless) ICC studies and environmental impact statement processes as far back as the 1970's. And that contempt includes the ICC multi-use trail.

I already stated above that planning staff in both counties should have been much more proactive in supporting a complete ICC trail, and in some cases [inexcusably] opposed it, in other cases failed to advocate for it.

Comment by Why???

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:09:39 EDT

@Jasper

I-66, GW Parkay, Fairfax County Parkway, VA-123, The Clara Barton Parkway, Rock Creek Parkway, Beach Dr, Anacostia Freeway, Ritchie Highway.

So, to summarize: More than you thought.

Yeah and how many of those are "high-$$$ ones traveling through lower density suburbs?"

To summarize: none.

...and your notion of "freeway" (Rock Creek Pwy and Beach Dr?!) and "adjacent" is pretty interesting.

Comment by Kristina

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:48:45 EDT

Comment by Jack Cochrane

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:26:52 EDT

C. P. - I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Ehrlich supposedly blinked when Duncan was starting to talk about the trail, but Flanagan kept him on course. Also Flanagan supposedly (according to my source) demonstrated contempt or at least disdain for the trail at interagency working group meetings. When I met with him about the trail, he was polite but seemed to smirk at us. But it's difficult for us to really know what happened.

Comment by C. P. Zilliacus

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:08:34 EDT

Richard Layman wrote:

The comments do remind me of a conversation (when I was working for Baltimore County) I had with a colleague who works for the MD Dept. of Planning. He described an ICC planning meeting with his department and MDOT Sec. of the time Robert Flanagan and his people. My colleague and others advocated for the trail, strongly. Flanagan was super pissed. The Dept. of Planning was ordered to back off on the trail at the threat of their jobs.

Secretary Flanagan, like it or not, was under orders from his boss, then-Gov. Bob Ehrlich, to get his administration's highest priority highway project built - or at least to get the environmental impact statement done to a record of decision.

You can be critical of Flanagan for not putting strong emphasis on the ICC trail (in the scheme of things, this multi-user trail is not a very expensive project as compared to a six-lane freeway), but as I suggested above, I believe the blame lies with the staff at the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission in both counties (and their bosses at the respective Planning Boards and County Councils) for not pushing hard for a master-planned transportation improvement) - all the way from Shady Grove to U.S. 1 - which is what the ICC trail was (and presumably still is).

There were also objections to the trail raised by regulatory staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - the ACE especially objected to the trail segment between Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue) and Old Columbia Pike, across the Paint Branch (of the Anacostia River) watershed.

Comment by Jack Cochrane

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:01:09 EDT

Some positive developments:
- The county is doing initial planning for construction of the missing ICC trail segment from Layhill Local Park (on Layhill Rd) to Bonifant Road -- through the old trolley museum property more or less. The trail will then be built along Bonifant (not too bad) and Notley Road (semi-tolerable) to reconnect with the existing ICC trail at Notley. When that's all complete, trail users will be able to get from Needwood Road to New Hampshire Ave without any truly horrible sidepaths.
- The county has already put into their six-year budget a sidepath along Needwood Road to connect the ICC trail to Rock Creek Park. Then trail users will be able to start in Rock Creek Park or anywhere along the Rock Creek trail.

Comment by Jack Cochrane

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:20:04 EDT

Excellent post Dan. To echo C. P. Zillacus's comment, the trail along Rt. 29 is really a north-south connection for bicyclists and serves little east-west purpose. The state decreed it to be part of the ICC trail because the ICC trail (such as it is) is along Fairland Rd west of 29 and along Briggs Chaney Rd. east of 29, and needs to follow Rt. 29 in between. But it isn't likely to get much use as part of the ICC trail because the ICC trail on Fairland Rd (which isn't even built yet) and Briggs Chaney Rd are sorry excuses for bike trails, the Rt. 29 portion is a big detour for anyone trying to use the ICC trail for transportation, and the rest of the ICC trail has huge gaps. The detour aspect is somewhat mitigated by the fact the Rt. 29 trail is quick, having no signals or anything else to slow you down.

As a north-south trail, the part along Rt. 29 under the ICC is great, but it's usefulness is limited by the fact it really get you very far. To travel along Rt. 29 for any distance on a bike you have to use a combination of roads, bike lanes, paths, and scary sidewalks. A mile of path in the midst of that isn't going to get any recreational use at all.

Comment by Tina

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:09:04 EDT

...oh yeah... that Governor. He probably threatened to put the trail advocates on the terrorist watch list, along with supporters of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Great leadership!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245_2.html?sid=ST2008100703347

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:48:07 EDT

the governor... The ICC was probably his biggest priority as Governor.

Comment by Greenbelt

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:06:38 EDT

I still think the best public use for the ICC would be to open one direction to non-motorized users only. Just build a few more ramps and a couple cones -- cost would be chump change considering we've already spent $3 billion on state-of-the-art 20th Century infrastructure!

Comment by Tina

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:02:12 EDT

@Richard layman - DOT had power to threaten jobs of people at Planning?

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:57:12 EDT

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:47:17 EDT

@ CP Zilliacus:you left out a very important

Sorry. I-95 and I-495 added. And since the Anacostia Freeway is I-295, we can conclude that I-66, I-95, I-295, I-495 and I-695 all have trails along them. That leaves I-395 and I-270 as the two interstates without a trail next to them.

The answer to Why?? then becomes: Most.

Comment by C. P. Zilliacus

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:46:21 EDT

Dan Reed wrote:

The ICC was originally planned to have a bike trail running parallel to it, but in 2004, the State Highway Administration got rid of it, claiming it would reduce the toll road's construction costs and environmental impacts.

I also blame the staff at M-NCP&PC in both counties for not pushing for a complete trail - hard - all the way from U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue) to Shady Grove, including grade-separated bike crossings of I-95; U.S. 29 (Columbia Pike) and Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue).

The segment that Dan highlights under Md. 200 just east of U.S. 29 is, I believe, more about north-south (U.S. 29) bike traffic than it is about east-west (Md. 200) movement.

Somewhat annoyingly, there are disconnected segments of the ICC trail that have been built - between Notley Road and Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue); and between Briggs Chaney Road and Old Gunpowder Road.

Comment by C. P. Zilliacus

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:39:38 EDT

@Jasper, was about to enumerate some of the trails along freeways, but you beat me to the punch.

However, you left out a very important one that seems to be getting decent utilization - the Capital Beltway, at least crossing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and with connections from Md. 414 (Oxon Hill Road); Va. 400 (South Washington Street); U.S. 1 (Richmond Highway); and the Mount Vernon Trail.

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:03:34 EDT

@ Why:How many freeways in the area have an adjacent trail at all

I-66, GW Parkay, Fairfax County Parkway, VA-123, The Clara Barton Parkway, Rock Creek Parkway, Beach Dr, Anacostia Freeway, Ritchie Highway.

So, to summarize: More than you thought.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:36:18 EDT

@Why???:

Here's an idea: Maybe once in a while you could write a piece praising something in our area.

Like this? http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15195/top-of-the-park-neighborhood-shows-density-done-right/

Or this? http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15196/montgomery-council-votes-for-townhouses-at-chelsea-school/

Or this? http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15105/better-streets-buildings-boost-walking-in-briggs-chaney/

Or this? http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15057/plan-revitalizes-burtonsville-with-housing-street-grid-parks/

Comment by Tina

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:31:38 EDT

@Why??? - How is including a bike path on a roadway project "catering primarily" to bike trails? If the infrastructure plan were catering primarily to bike trails then we would have the bike trail as the primary plan with the roadway tacked on secondarily.

Have you heard of Complete Streets? http://www.completestreets.org/

I believe MD is a state that has adopted Complete Streets (CS) as have PG Co. and Mont.Co.

Even the CS policy does not place biking and walking infrastructure as the first priority, it only says that where a roadway for automobiles is being built/renovated some thought and effort for walking and biking safety should be considered. Even in CS its automobile centric transportation that is catered too first and foremost. How self-righteous and self-important of car drivers!

Comment by Gull

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:10 EDT

@ Why???

I think the article sounds harsher than Dan really means it to be. I think he's raising important points of reference for future infrastructure. Maybe the part about the actual route could be tempered, but the points about the lack of connection to anything else is very valid. It's probably a great trail to get a nice 30 mile ride in (round trip), but why not have the trail connect to the adjacent neighborhoods and roadways, to get more people using it? The excuse will be it's not in the States requirements to do anything more than build the trail, and the connections are the responsibility of the County, or the development HOA's/developers. I'd imagine any new developments adjacent to the trail would be made to connect, but it will be up to the County to build the old connections, and that is money that they really don't have right now. I've not looked into some of the on-street issues personally, but it also does seem pointless to build a trail that has no safe roadway crossings. That should take first priority in any future improvements.

Comment by Why???

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:08:35 EDT

Why do area cyclists feel so self-righteous and self-important that all infrastructure projects should cater primarily to them?

Instead of attacking the ICC trail, you should be praising it. How many freeways in the area have an adjacent trail at all, especially a high-$$$ one traveling through lower density suburbs? I absolutely guarantee you that Gov McDonnell in fascist Virginia has no plans for including any trails in his Outer Beltway plans.

Here's an idea: Maybe once in a while you could write a piece praising something in our area.

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:36:57 EDT

Good post, but likely this trail will suffer from the same general issue of the ICC, it's infrastructure in a distant part of the county, not located in an area where there is a high likelihood of biking as transportation. I

I think it was important for the trail to be built, from a complete streets infrastructure standpoint, but you run into the general problem of likelihood of use.

http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/bikeways/documents/Bike-Heat-Map-2011-08-17.pdf

But that's still no excuse to not build the right connections to neighborhoods. What is potentially won't be achieved without the right connections, except by the hardiest riders.

While not exactly the same context, these plans show a different way, of trails as connectors between neighborhoods and commercial districts and other civic assets:

- also the NW Branch Trail between Rte. 1 and West Hyattsville Metro

- Cynwyd Trail, Lower Merion Township, PA

- Redmond Connector, WA

The Met. Branch does it too, somewhat.

Comment by selxic

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:32:45 EDT

Interesting... one of the original "Twerk Team" members is from the Baltimore area.