The Montgomery County Planning Board voted to approve a permanent road diet for Little Falls Parkway between Arlington Road and Dorset Avenue yesterday. All of the commissioners voted in favor except for Shawn Bartley, who abstained. "I'm very torn on my decision here today," Bartley said just prior to the vote. The approval as it stands today is illegal, because the Board did not obtain the required approval of the National Capital Planning Commission before greenlighting the major change to the parkway. That approval is required under the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, which gave federal jurisdiction over designated parkways in the Washington, D.C. region, including Little Falls Parkway. Montgomery Parks Director Mike Riley said his department intends to seek an after-the-fact approval from the NCPC before beginning construction on the project.
Commissioners who voted to approve did so in opposition to the expressed wishes of not only a majority of the residents in the communities surrounding the parkway, but over the objections of County Executive Marc Elrich; County Councilmember Andrew Friedson, who represents the area where the parkway is location in Bethesda-Chevy Chase; and the elected Mayor of the Town of Somerset, Jeffrey Slavin. While the Planning Board has increasingly voted against residents in recent years, it is virtually unprecedented for the Board to vote against three current elected officials. Slavin opposed the road diet, while Elrich and Friedson asked for the decision to be delayed. Elrich expressed strong skepticism that the road diet was a worthwhile project, particularly in light of the strong community opposition.
The Board vote has tripled-down on the illegality of the parkway road diet. Commissioners are already embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the Kenwood Citizens Association that centers on Montgomery Parks' failure to obtain approval for the temporary road diet from the NCPC. Now the Board has voted to approve a permanent road diet prior to receiving approval from the NCPC, and before resolution of the pending court case.
While the two actions taken on the road diet without NCPC approval represent two of the three illegal aspects of the project, the third illegality is the funding employed. Montgomery Parks did not seek or receive an appropriation of funds for the 2017 temporary road diet from the County Council. Instead, it illegally used money from a trail maintenance fund. That decision became even more controversial this year when residents noted that, while the temporary road diet was constructed, repairs and upgrades needed on the Capital Crescent Trail and Little Falls Trail have not been performed by Montgomery Parks.
Montgomery Parks once again has no intention of getting an official appropriation of funds for the permanent road diet. Riley told Planning Board Acting Chair Jeff Zyontz that Parks will instead illegally use money from a Vision Zero fund, and a Life Cycle Asset Replacement Fund. At a time when the County Council is debating a 10% property tax increase on residents, Montgomery Parks has been allowed to turn its budgeted resources into slush funds.
There are several fronts of intrigue ahead regarding the road diet project. Will the NCPC approve it? What will the outcome of Kenwood's lawsuit be? What will the traffic impact be, especially during rush hours?
And what is the Montgomery County cartel's Ahab-like obsession with urgently getting these two travel lanes away from the public really about? Is it to provide more buildable land for the redevelopment of the Washington Episcopal School campus and Bethesda Pool? Or is it a sneaky way to obtain a right-of-way for the Purple Line extension to Westbard, that will avoid the CCT route through Kenwood? Inquiring minds want to know!
Essentially a "show trial" to broadcast that they care about what the majority of people who actually use the road when the decision was made long before.
ReplyDeleteElrich and current council voters are driving MC to ruin. Look at Portland to our future as they're almost finished with Silver Spring.
Sounds like we need to kick out the entire planning board, just like what was done a few months ago. Sigh.
ReplyDeleteThe Linear Park will create another dangerous uncontrolled crossing and will not have ADA parking. Kids at Bethesda Pool will unknowingly be playing a dangerous game of Frogger across LFP. If Parks feels two lanes is safer, then why not just reinstate the median and have a two way bike lane on south side of LFP? The median made the previous roadway feel “park-like” and was more Vision Zero.
ReplyDeleteI'm very concerned about this Planning Board based on their comments during the session.
ReplyDeleteI believe one member indicated they were voting for this to "save lives".
Apparently the Parkway had inflicted death on the community before the diet.
A four lane road at a hiker-biker trail has already taken one life. Moving the crossing to Arlington would mean an extended walk signal delaying traffic. A bridge over the parkway is way too expensive. A real traffic signal at the crossing would have worked, but again it would delay traffic. This seems like a reasonable idea to delete two lanes and keep only a two lane, two way road, with a large refuge island between lanes at the trail crossing, improved shoulders to allow cars to move over for emergency vehicles and a narrow media where possible.
ReplyDeleteThe next phase will include public involvement on how to reuse the vacated traffic lanes as a linear park that will be well over one acre in size. At the meeting, the planning department presented a very good case that this is the best solution, at least in my opinion.
The sad death on Little Falls Parkway was due to the tragic failure of a recumbent bicyclist to put up his flag, as noted by the bicyclist’s widow at a public meeting. The recumbent bike was obscured when struck. The driver of the car was never charged.
Delete“At least in my opinion,” says Anonymous
ReplyDelete@6:57: "Sounds like we need to kick out the entire planning board, just like what was done a few months ago. Sigh."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more -- this is an ongoing issue with both the county council and planning board not following the law and simply plowing through their agendas with no regard for what residents and taxpayers explicitly and clearly state what they want for their neighborhoods and communities. Consider the vote on Thrive 2050 just days after the prior planning board was dissolved after all members resigned due to ethics and related issues/allegations. I don't even consider this version of the planning board as legitimate, but who will dismantle it and put together a board that will follow existing laws and policies and listen to us?
**The council appoints the board commissioners, who serve four-year terms.**
@6:28 -- How is Elrich part of this problem when he is among those who protested the Board's illegal actions?
ReplyDelete@10:39 -- Google Maps measures the distance from the CCT to the proximal corner of Arlington Rd as 165.25 feet; 77.11 feet to cross all four lanes of LFP; 215.23 feet to return to the trail on the far side. That's 457.59 feet in total. Currently, the span to cross directly measures 84.44 feet. Thus, moving the crossing to Arlington road would be a net increase travel distance of 373.15 feet, or roughly 149.26 extra steps for an average-height man, 169.61 additional steps for an average-height woman. It is paradoxical that health- and fitness-loving users of the CCT find the suggestion of an additional 150 yards to be untenable. It is altogether ludicrous, (read "bullroar,") the county Planning Board could plausibly find closing half the roadway and sending traffic pouring through streets of neighboring communities to be the most efficacious approach to increasing CCT user safety.
The argument of delays caused by pedestrian crosswalk signals is specious and facile. Traffic need come to a halt *already* each time a pedestrian or bicyclist enters the current, uncontrolled CCT zebra walk. Crossers more often than not simply ignore the quaint, superfluous big, red STOP signs posted at either side of the crossing, directed at the CCT users, preferring to not break stride as they launch themselves into the roadway, assuming traffic will halt. This haphazard, whenever-they-appear-in-the-street situation is far more disruptive to traffic, (as you claim concern with,) than would be a synchronized signal that need not be activated if no-one is present to push the pedestrian crossing button. (Many intersections already have this as option, where a longer red signal is applied only if the crosswalk button has been pressed.)
How does reducing from four to two lanes increase pedestrian & biker safety if the crossing remains uncontrolled by signals that [mostly] assure traffic stops? The long and short of it is the current CCT crosswalk has no signal controlling it, which means traffic may or may not halt for folks, Maryland traffic laws notwithstanding. (I assume we agree more drivers consistently obey traffic signals than they do peds/bikes approaching/at/traversing zebra crossings.) Peds/bikers *decrease* their risk of being struck if they cross at signal-controlled crossings, such as at Arlington Road. Jamming four lanes of traffic into two does nothing to mitigate injury risk to trail users trying to cross LFP at a point where no signal device is installed.
The safe, economical, reasonable, logical, community-supported choice for the Planning Board would be to re-route the CCT crossers to Arlington & LFP, and to keep their sticky, corrupt, thieving fingers off the two lanes of roadbed they've helped themselves to illegally.
Regardless of what Elrich said about LFP, he was instrumental in choosing the board members and whatever illusion brought on by his public statement against it, the fact remains that his fingerprints are all over this decision.
DeleteCounty Executive Marc Elrich does *not* choose Planning Board members. Planning Board members are selected by the County Council. While Elrich can veto nominees, the veto can be overridden by a unanimous vote of the Country Council. Elrich attempted to veto the appointment of James Hedrick in March 2023, but was override by the County Council. The composition of the Planning Board reflects the County Council’s choices, not the choices of Marc Elrich.
DeleteWhat happened to the lawsuit against this?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the county, more comments favored the road reduction and linear park than those who want it to be changed back to four lanes. In most planning meetings, more folks tend to show up to object to any changes, and fewer folks come to speak in favor of changes. This suggests that even fewer people really disapprove of the proposed plan.
ReplyDeleteMost were identified as being immediate neighbors to the west and southwest, fearful of increased cut-through traffic, despite the county’s testimony that even two lane road has more than enough capacity to serve the area, even with the full build out of Westbard and the full build out of downtown Bethesda at 32,400,000 SF of development.
Most folks seem to prefer a safer trail crossing and a large linear park.
“According to the County” is unfortunately a low standard. The Parks Department relied on 387 emails, of which 231 favored the project. A 631-person survey of 6 nearby neighborhoods found that ~80% opposed the project, as did the 4,100+ people who signed a petition in opposition to the lane closures. The evidence indicates that the project was heavily opposed. Of course, the Parks Department could have evaluated community support through a professional survey — and it’s reasonable to ask why the Parks and Planning Departments don’t use surveys in assessing public opinion on land use proposals.
DeleteIt’s time to “diet” the planning commission bullies who ideologically do not represent the people they are supposed to services and blatantly abuse their appointed power. These people should be retired immediately like the last corrupt commission.
ReplyDeleteThe one cyclist death on LFP was an older gentleman who failed to stop for the stop sign on CCT, where it crosses LFP. Driver was not as fault.
ReplyDeleteThe cyclist was killed because the car in the second lane failed to see him because they were blocked by the first car. The first car properly stopped to allow the cyclist to cross. All vehicles are required to stop at a striped crosswalk for pedestrians and cyclists when the enter the street. Period.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this was an older gentleman has nothing to do with this tragedy. The whole problem here is caused by having two lanes of traffic in both directions.
The planning department and commission are trying to solve a visibility issue by reducing the road to only two way traffic in two lanes. Traffic engineers have confirmed that two way traffic on only two lanes is more than adequate. The area residents get a new large linear park, and can participate in the planning process.
Robert's comment that this is the precursorm to running the Purple Line along Little Falls Parkway is simply absurd fearmongering.
10:30 - They can participate in the process? That's nice. After they are gonna get steamrolled and ignored? They were part of the process and overwhelming said no but they are likely gonna move ahead anyway. Nice, new linear park? Give me a flipping break? They are called roads aren't they? When are roads changed into parks? The death, while tragic, is no reason to forever alter this roadway that is not now or in the past been a problem. Never. It's a pretty drive that will be destroyed. You happy with that? Anti-car pure and simple.
DeleteAs mentioned in another comment, the gentleman killed was a recumbent bicyclist who had not displayed his safety flag. The gentleman’s widow has said publicly that the accident was caused by his failure to raise the flag. The motorist was found to be not at fault. The current roadway configuration (2 lanes, no median) is arguably less safe than the 2 lanes with median in place until recently. An independent traffic engineer wrote a report to that effect, and the head of safety at Montgomery County Fire and Rescue wrote an open letter expressing his personal opinion that the prior median configuration was safer. The Parks Department has changed its proposal to incorporate a small median at the Capital Crescent Trail Crossing, but why re-engineer the road when a more cost-effective solution (revert to the previous 2 lanes with a substantial median) is available? There are ample trails for bicyclists and pedestrians nearby.
DeleteAnyone shocked here? No, shouldn't be. Disgusted, yes. These fools, both elected and appointed, should all sent home immediately. They work for us remember? They clearly have forgotten. This is just outrageous and hopefully not over. So, they can run rough shod over the will of the people and implement this insane, green utopian plan and their boss, us, just has to take it the back side? This is not right folks and liberals should join together with conservatives and demand they stop this before it's too late. When they get the heavy equipment in, no matter what, I'll never go back to normal. Next is Tuckerman. And Elrich all the way up to new gov, say nothing. If they thwart the will of the people on a road, there's nothing they can't and won't do and you just shut up about it. Unreal
ReplyDeleteMarc Elrich asked that the Parkway plan be put on ice. Don’t blame Elrich for the Planning Board’s poor decision. Further, the County Council is responsible for appointing Planning Board members and can override Elrich’s veto (as it did when Elrich vetoed James Hedrick in March.)
Delete10:30 AM: Residents "can participate in the planning process?" And then have their input completely ignored by planning staff and commissioners, even when clearly representing the majority opinion, as with the road diet?
ReplyDeleteNot much of a "process." But until voters wake up and realize you have to elect Councilmembers who will appoint a Planning Board that actually listens to residents, nothing will change, and they'll keep getting steamrolled flat by the Montgomery County cartel.
Correction. Elrich asked for a delay. Not very definitive as a leader should be. But fair play to him.
ReplyDeleteResidents can attend planning workshops for the development of the linear park. They can sit next to a planner as ideas are discussed and talk about creative solutions. This happens for all public park projects. The public is invited to attend all downtown Bethesda Design Advisory meetings, and speak up about the proposed designs as they are being discussed. Same for Sketch and Preliminary Plan Approval meetings.
ReplyDeleteOr they just can show up at the final approval meeting and complain that they voices are not being heard.
Get involved at an early stage if you want to make a difference.
1:18 - Well stated and accurate. Of course the proposal is more dangerous and much more so.
ReplyDeleteTheir goal, under "Zero Vision" is to eliminate traffic related incidents by 2030. Let that sink in for a minute. They know and we know that's just not possible. Accidents and even fatalities address going to occur no matter what. The more important thing to realize, which has been discussed here and now WTOP (although they should have interviewed a Kenwood resident who opposed this but didn't) is just how much money (ours) this is going to cost. And lastly, as we've seen, petitions and other citizen pushback is futile. They push this thru no matter what. Yes, the time to move is coming for so many down county at least.
ReplyDeletehttps://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/04/get-used-to-2-travel-lanes-on-little-falls-parkway-in-bethesda/
Wow, what a Big Surprise……..NOT. Leftist Marc Elrich has full control of this board !!!
ReplyDeleteHow about look left then right then left again before you cross. See how easy that is. Running a stop sign on any road can be fatal.
ReplyDelete