Friday, February 10, 2023

Kenwood sues M-NCPPC over Little Falls Parkway road diet


Kenwood, the Chevy Chase neighborhood that directly abuts Little Falls Parkway, has filed a lawsuit against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to block Montgomery Parks' plan to reduce the road to one lane in each direction. The lawsuit, filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court by the Kenwood Citizens Association, calls shrinkage of the road's capacity - at the same time M-NCPPC has approved massive growth on either end of the parkway in downtown Bethesda and Westbard - "arbitrary and detrimental." It specifically cites M-NCPPC's failure to receive approval for the reduction of the parkway's size from the National Capital Planning Commission.

The NCPC has held federal authority over the Little Falls Parkway right-of-way for almost a century, since it was one of several Maryland stream valleys identified by the federal government as future parks or highway facilities. Having received federal funds to cover the purchase of the land for Little Falls Stream Valley Park under the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, M-NCPPC must receive permission from the NCPC to sell, redevelop or change the use of that land or parkway.

M-NCPPC in 2011 had to seek approval from the NCPC to sell part of Little Falls Stream Valley Park to a private developer building townhomes. The NCPC approved that sale.

The Kenwood Citizens Association suit is asking the court to affirm that Montgomery Parks violated federal law by closing half of the parkway without approval from the NCPC, and to immediately order the road diet removed, and the parkway fully reopened to traffic.

KCA says it's shocking that the Montgomery County Planning Board, the land-use authority arm of M-NCPPC for Montgomery County that oversees Montgomery Parks, would flout federal rules so soon after recent Board scandals ended in the forced resignation of all its commissioners. "The Parks Department acts under the authority of the Montgomery County Planning Board. Given recent County scandals, we are surprised that even under new leadership the Parks Department is willing to play fast and loose with such an important issue directly affecting safety in these communities,” KCA President Pete Rizik said yesterday. 

This is not the first time Kenwood has objected to County attempts to reduce vehicular capacity of the parkway through road diets. The community was initially successful in overturning the first effort by the Planning Board to deploy a road diet at the Capital Crescent Trail crossing of the parkway. But the Board immediately reversed its decision under heavy pressure from the Montgomery County Council. 

After the initial public process on the trail crossing question, Montgomery Parks has never followed the required public engagement protocols for any of the further changes, speed limit reductions, and escalating road diets on the parkway. Montgomery Parks also illegally used money from a trail maintenance fund for changes to the parkway, rather than go through the required capital budget process at the County Council.

Kenwood and other adjacent communities have suffered from cut-through traffic as Montgomery Parks has implemented a barrage of road diets, speed bumps, bollards, overwhelming signage, barricades and other obstacles on the parkway. County officials have continued to ignore those safety concerns for residential streets, while continuing to shrink the capacity of very parkway that was designed to keep that through-traffic out of those residential neighborhoods. The result has been increased speeds and cut-through traffic on residential streets, putting children and pedestrians in general at greater risk.

"We have asked the Parks Department to follow federal law and undergo NCPC review," KCA attorney Michele Rosenfeld said Thursday. "Having been ignored we have no choice but to seek judicial intervention."

34 comments:

  1. How awesome! More on the way hopefully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:06 AM

    POPCORN TIME!

    This should be entertaining. Kenwood has the dollars and the high-priced lawyer residents to stuff M-NCPPC in a basketball hoop, although I suspect in the end NCPC will simply rubber-stamp whatever mallet-headed mods and restrictions are sought by the defendants.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:13 AM

    The funny thing is that the people who live in Kenwood most likely voted for the morons in Rockville so while it's good to see a lawsuit over an idiotic lane closure these liberals are the frog in the pot so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My guess is the courts will rule with Kenwood. But it would help if they got the HOAs at Kenwood Forest 1 and Kenwood Forest 2 onboard.

    If the courts do rule for Kenwood, MNCPPC will then ask for a stay until NCPC rules. So likely won't change anything. But if the court does not provide the stay and requires the MNCPPC to remove the barriers and reopen the parkway, will MNCPPC drop the road diet because of cost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:49 AM

    @6:06 AM - Careful, there is an "NCPC" and they have nothing to do with this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:42 AM

    Let's go Kenwood! Stick it to the county.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:51 AM

    Best news I've heard all day. Can they do the Old Georgetown Road bike lanes next please?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:04 PM

    Total first world problem…can’t they think of better things to do with their time and money? It’s a stupid road, one might file this under “white privileged” all the way…

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous5:37 PM

    Great, more dumb boomers refusing to believe that their decades of car centric transit ever could have been wrong and continuing to impose their rule on the rest of us through their privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous4:32 AM

    3:04/5:37 Can't seem to grasp that this road diet affects more than just the Kenwood neighbors most of which have to drive for work/shopping and cannot afford to sue the cabal in Rockville. As someone who rides almost every day it doesn't rain, LFP diet is a cluster meant to force will rather than improve things.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous4:48 AM

    I recently moved to the Bethesda area from California. One thing my wife and I noticed immediately was how mind boggling so many of the traffic calming measures are in the area. Be it insanely long lights with no changes to how they function during non-rush hours, no turn signs that seem completely arbitrary (and no, I’m not talking about the ones to reduce cut-through traffic) unnecessarily slow speed limits, speed bumps that don’t make any sense and - relatedly - no parking signs for spots that would be perfectly fine parking places downtown. One gets the impression it is overseen by an amateur student council on a power trip (and I come from a place with completely dysfunctional government).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous7:51 AM

    Looking forward to Kenwood Country Club being expropriated and built over with "Soviet-style", "stack-and-pack" "low-income" housing. That would serve them right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:51 PM

    Of course the 7:51 socialist thinks so. Take a look in the mirror sometime, it's not pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Quips aside, is there an actual argument for that road being four car widths wide through there, with all four handed over to motorists? Maybe the "Linear Park" isn't the best answer, but what's the harm in seeing if some taxpayers would like at least some free choice among transit options?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:45 PM

    @2:54 There is already a linear park running parallel to it -- the Capital Crescent Trail. No need to expend it further, especially by taking away two travel lanes and making traffic worse.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5:14 PM

    I have always been very grateful for the much more peaceful, smooth, relatively uncomplicated section of my trip on this PARKWAY. I and millions of others from Marlyland, DC, and Virginia choose this wonderful segment of our many and varied trips.

    On Little Falls Parkway we are able to avoid segments of Wisconsin and or Connecticut Ave. where there is congestion, having to navigate lane changes to get around left turn and stopped delivery/construction truck back ups, and there are trees instead of parked cars and commercial buildings.

    Parkways usually have smoother surfaces than the rough pavement damaged by heavy trucks and frequent water main/utility repairs such as on Wisconsin Ave. and Arlington Blvd, etc.

    Just because we are in "horrible" automobiles and not on our bicycles with our groceries, hardware purchases, or children on our backs or side baskets is no reason that we should be deprived of the relative tranquilty, safety, and natural beauty of our Little Falls Parkway the way it has functioned so efficiently for many decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:44 PM

      5:14 - great statement. Thanks.

      Delete
  17. 5:14 - How beautifully put. I tried to strike that same sentiment but you did so much better.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As will be the case on Tuckerman as well as has been reported.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous7:36 AM

    Who was responsible for the arbitrary and capricious installation of the "speed" bumps on the short section of Little Falls Parkway between Mass. Ave. and River Rd.? To slow the 25mph section down to 20mph? This is not really a residential street. These bumps do dislocate the tiny otoliths in the inner ears of many people to add to the frequent complaint of dizziness and vertigo.

    Again this is an example of where millions of citizens are impacted where there are only very rarely any people biking or walking on this unpopulated section of L F Parkway. The Crescent Trail is running parallel right behind the small number of expensive new Townhomes whose owners have a direct access to the Crescent Trail which is for walkers and cyclists.

    If dangerous speed is that much of an issue here over many other nearby roads where there are even more speeders, wouldn't speed cameras or an occasional officer parked on one of the gravel turn-offs be more efficient and not produce vertigo. I have seen officers parked to ticket left turning vehicles from Mass. Ave during some afternoon hours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:03 AM

      Even as an avid cyclist, this speed mgmt is knee jerk ridiculous. It detracts from the places where it is necessary like OGR. I have my doubts, too, that Tuckerman is warranted. But, that said, the 'sport road riders' can sure can benefit from a safe way to the park: I'm from the 'functional/shopping/commuting/business riding' camp, and love OGR now!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:44 AM

      Sounds like the speed bumps are slowing you down from going a dangerous speed. Logic suggests you want them removed so you can drive dangerously.

      As for the avid cyclist, anyone that claims to be an avid cyclist is not an avid cyclist, witness the fact that to justify arguments about ripping out bike lanes, they need to tell everyone about why they are best qualified to seek removal of infrastructure for other cyclists.

      As an avid driver, I have no problem with this road diet nor with the speed bumps. Bring on more so the rest of the avid drivers slow the heck down.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous5:14 AM

    People who say "bUt tHe cApItaL cResCenT tRaiL ruNs pAraLLeL tO iT" have obviously never ridden or walked on the Trail on a weekend or weekday evening when the weather is nice. It is dangerously overcrowded.

    I'm glad that capacity is being added for cyclists and pedestrians using excess lanes on roadway that was ridiculously overbuilt for its purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous6:49 AM

    I'm glad 5:14 isn't inconvenienced by having to travel down those streets during rush hour.

    This is zero self-awareness: "Dangerously overcrowded" CCT. Better to describe LFP, OGR and soon to be Tuckerman that way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:03 AM

    Not only does the CCT run parallel to LFP, but near where the road diet begins (Dorset Road) there is also a paved trail for walking/biking on the east side of LFP. This whole thing is complete madness, give us our parkway back, 90% of residents polled want it back to the way it was. This is truly local government overreach, and there was zero public input from those who foot the bill (taxes) for this pet project.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:35 PM

      As a bike only guy, I even agree that LFP is 'a bike lane too much.'

      Delete
  23. Anonymous12:53 PM

    @ 6:49 AM - Just another one who believes that only the needs of drivers matter - all other travelers can go to hell.

    And at the same time, pretending that your own car is somehow magically not part of the traffic that you are complaining about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In addition to more traffic confusion, the newly configured LFP poses an unnecessary danger to Capital Crescent Trail bikers and pedestrians who cross the parkway.

    First, where you once had one-way traffic moving along two separate roadways, you now have both directions confined to a single, congested roadway creating confusion for trail users.

    Secondly, the single, two-way roadway has created a dangerous blind spot for motorist turning left from Arlington Road - and for the trail users. The new line-of-sight blocked by trees makes it impossible to see bikers or pedestrians emerging from the trail until the last moment close to the crossing stop sign.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous4:51 PM

    Nice try 12:53. Opposing a 50% reduction of a road used by thousands every day is the opposite of the selfish me-first attitude demonstrated by someone who can't wrap their head around the fact that not everyone can afford to live here and needs to drive to and from work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous12:56 PM

    @9:44 So if you're an "avid cyclist", you cannot disagree with a 50% road diet/speed bumps or by decree not be said cyclist. In addition the "avid driver" must not have a problem with more restrictions.

    Wow, you must be really fun at parties...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous7:22 PM

    Please put the linear parks in high-density housing areas, not the area with some of the most expensive single-family housing in the country. Really! Norwood Park, LIttle Falls trail, the Capital Crescent Trail all exist already right here. Isn't that enough??

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Thank you, Kenwood!

    I live in the area and regularly use the Capital Crescent Trail for exercise and the Little Falls Parkway for driving to DC. When the M-NCPPC closed the parkway on weekends for two years, we had to either cut-through Kenwood or use Wisconsin Avenue to get around the closure. For someone who cares about the environment, this generates more pollution due to the less efficient routes compared to LFP and more gas usage.

    When M-NCPPC reopened the parkway on weekends, it decided that we need a road diet and a new park. We have Norwood Park, Little Falls trail, Capital Crescent Trail, Elm Street Urban Park, Caroline Freeland Urban Park and many other green areas. We really don’t have enough green space?

    The change to two lanes is downright dangerous. We drive on LFP at night almost everyday. We are over 70. The headlights from opposing traffic blinded the vision on a dark road. And the pedestrian crosswalk comes up suddenly for people who are not familiar with the area.

    Thanks again to Kenwood for filing this lawsuit. Hopefully the court will stop this nonsense. Additionally, I would like to know if there is any local resident group that can join together to file petitions to stop this road diet.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous4:22 AM

    We have classic cartoon characters controlling conforming county citizens creating capricious conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous12:18 PM

    THANK YOU KENWOOD! I HOPE OLD GEORGETOWN RD FOLLOWS SUIT!

    ReplyDelete