Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich has asked the Montgomery County Council to take away funding from the Montgomery Parks department, that the department intends to use to construct a controversial road diet on Little Falls Parkway in Bethesda. In a Sunday memo to Council President Evan Glass, and to members of the Council's Planning Housing and Parks committee, Elrich asked them to remove all funding in the Vision Zero and Life Cycle Asset Replacement funds that Parks has earmarked for the road diet. Elrich's directive followed the unprecedented approval of the road diet by the Montgomery County Planning Board last Thursday, over the objections of a majority of the community, Elrich, and the councilmember who represents the area, Andrew Friedson. In turn, Elrich is now employing the rarely-used power of the purse to overrule the Planning Board.
The success of Elrich's strategy to block the road diet will depend upon the willingness of a majority of councilmembers to support his request. Whether or not Elrich prevails, the move provides a powerful illustration of the message I've tried to drive home here for years: If you want to change the Planning Board, and restore the public's role in the planning process, you must elect Council members who will support the growth and zoning policies you want to be implemented. The Council appoints the Planning Board chair and commissioners, with the approval of the Executive.
But the Council's power to control planning decisions doesn't stop with the appointments. The Council also controls the funding for planning: it controls the purse for the Montgomery County Planning Department, the Planning Board, and Montgomery Parks.
Friedson has not yet publicly indicated that he is inclined to cut the capital budget funds Elrich has requested. But, again, here is a great illustration of what I've been arguing for. Friedson could call the Planning Board before the PHP Committee and say, "You just ignored my letter to you, and the overwhelming opposition of my constituents to the road diet project. Now I'm cutting your funds. How do you like that? Want to keep ruling against the public? I'll keep cutting your budget."
If Friedson is smart, he will support Elrich's defunding request. But the larger point here is that if you elect an executive like Elrich, and then a majority on the Council who support responsible growth policies, you the voter can truly take back the reins of planning, zoning and growth. "You want to pass something like Thrive 2050? Well, how about I completely defund your department next year?"
Just as some on the Council who did not vote for Planning Board Commissioner James Hedrick supported him on the "revote" to rebuke Elrich for his veto of Hedrick, so should the Council now want to defund the road diet to rebuke the Planning Board and Montgomery Parks for their illegal use of funds. The Council never allocated funds for a road diet on Little Falls Parkway. Montgomery Parks has been illegally taking, and intends to continue taking, money that the Council allocated for other specific purposes, and use it for the road diet.
The illegal use of funds caps off the illegal nature of the road diet crusade from the beginning. Not only has Montgomery Parks never requested nor received a capital budget allocation for a Little Falls Parkway road diet, but it has never received the required official approval from the National Capital Planning Commission for its 2017 temporary road diet. Much less the permanent one. Any change in use of the parkway and associated parkland must be approved by the NCPC, under the federal Capper-Cramton Act of 1930.
Will Marc Elrich prevail? It's unclear, but the Council's response will show Bethesda and Chevy Chase residents which side they stand on. Elrich has made it clear he stands with the residents, 71% of whom opposed the road diet in recent testimony before the Planning Board. This is why Elrich continues to be elected, even when opponents spend tens of millions of dollars against him. He is one of the few elected officials who will stand up to the idea that an increasingly-tiny group of people, who represent developers and other special interests, are now going rule by fiat over the rest of us in the style of an authoritarian regime.
26 comments:
Thank you for the great reporting on this issue, Robert!
Not trying to nitpick, but you keep mischaracterizing the "community support" (or lack of it) part.
Although it's quite possible that "a majority of the community" is against the road diet, you refer to "residents, 71% of whom opposed the road diet in recent testimony before the Planning Board," when what you actually seem to mean is "71% of residents who testified recently before the Planning Board opposed. . . ."
According to Kyle Lukacs, trail planner with Montgomery Parks, although the public input they received via email included 230 proponents, it also has 155 people opposed.
As I wrote before, at any public hearing, the vast majority of folks that attend oppose an issue, when most of the public actually are indifferent or approve of an issue. Blogs like this rile up the minority when in fact most folks agree that the county, park planners, county planners and planning commissioners are doing the right thing to save lives, without impacting traffic flow. Emergency responders have stated several times that the proposed changes are safe, especially with proposed road shoulder enhancement.
Properly planned, a new 1 acre linear park will create an enhanced experience for local residents without negatively impacting traffic flow or causing cut through traffic.
6:27: How many of the 230 were actual residents of the area?
6:16: The public hearing is the time when people have the ability to weigh in on an issue. If they choose to not testify, that is as much a factor as testifying in favor or against, in effect saying they don't care one way or the other. 71% of the residents who had an opinion on the issue stated they were opposed.
Ehich finally does something great! Now get rodent issue on Woodmont taken care of
No, once again, it's 71% of the residents *who testified about their opinion* who said they were opposed.
Certainly, many people who had an opinion (one way or the other, and maybe a very strong opinion) didn't testify, for various reasons (like maybe not being able to attend the meeting), but that doesn't mean "they don't care one way or the other."
Was there any kind of poll taken of members of the relevant community? Failure to participate in that, I think, would come closer to your logic.
It doesn’t matter if some of the 230 supporters do not live in the immediate area. I imagine some of those opposed are not in the immediate area as well. Everybody has a right to speak up. Roads, parks, crosswalks and trails are in place for all residents. The county has proven that this project improves safety at the CCT and does not negatively impact the vocal minority of NIMBY’s who live nearby. In fact those nearby residents will get a great new linear park to enjoy, and a much safer trail crossing.
By the way, Little Falls Parkway is only two lanes wide north and south of this section. This modification will make the entire length of the road a consistent 2 lanes wide, which seems like it will reduce the bottlenecks that currently exists when 4 lanes are channeled into two lanes at two locations.
Now this is news. Elrich siding with the citizens he was elected to support but usually doesn't?
What a smart and bold move. That should show you how bad this LF Pkwy deal is when Elrich is on our side. This isn't over.
7:09: If we ascribe greater power to people who don't vote in elections, than to those who do, that would be a dangerous path to go down. There is a process, even if Montgomery Parks failed to follow it until this spring, and the process has rules. If you choose not to participate in the process, how do we know what your opinion is? Ergo, the commissioners (theoretically) can only use the feedback they have in front of them.
7:48: The section between Dorset Avenue and River Road will still be 4 lanes. It was actually a majority of the "NIMBYs who live nearby" who opposed the road diet, and the County Executive, and the councilman who represents the area. Although the Planning Board in recent years frequently has voted against the wishes of the majority in a particular community, I can't think of a case where they've also voted over the wishes of the executive and councilmember at the same time. That's what makes this unprecedented. Somebody very powerful really wants this road diet, and the public has a right to know who's pulling the strings behind the scenes here, and what the true goal of this is. Maybe it's for the Purple Line...
The county is full of nice quiet parks, including in our downtowns. Why are people from our of the area clamoring to sit by the road on Little Falls Pkwy?
I can see the selfies already- "Take that, Kenwood residents!'
My, my, what a bunch of hypocrits we have here. One moment its a kick, the next momement (most of the time) to the a** of the CE. How fake can you get.
@6:44 That's not Elrich's problem.
Project Description:
The purpose of this pilot project is to study the potential of permanently reducing Little Falls Parkway from four lanes to two (one in each direction) between River Road and Arlington Road (1.3 miles) with the goal of maintaining a safe and functioning road that is aligned with vision zero principles, reducing neighborhood cut-through traffic, and preserving recreational and open space. This portion of the parkway was previously part of Montgomery Parks’ Open Parkways program which was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide more outdoor space for recreation and exercise. Since April 2020, more than 300,000 users have taken advantage of the Little Falls Parkway Open Parkway program.
8:41: That's their end goal, but not what they voted to do last week, as the Montgomery Parks press release confirms:
"The Montgomery County Planning Board approved the Little Falls Parkway pilot project with four votes for the project and one abstaining, at a work session on Thursday, April 27, 2023. The Board approved reducing the number of lanes between Arlington Road and Dorset Avenue from four to two and incorporating turn lanes, shoulders, a median at the Capital Crescent Trail crossing, and a median between the travel lanes where feasible."
A good move by Erlich. Nice.
Though I'm typically more liberal than Robert, his continued comments about the Purple Line going through the parkway appear to be accurate.
Thanks Robert! Much appreciated. Good points. I'm similar to @9:56 and try to keep an open mind :-)
Happily the planning board did the right thing and reduced the capacity of a now under utilized roadway. We're now in the post-pandemic era, and remote work is here to stay. We no longer need the road capacity of Little Falls.
To my ears, the residents are whining on the yacht. People don't like change, even if it makes perfect sense. The poor souls who are whining might have to adapt to a minor change, and heaven forbid, a car ride that takes and extra 2 minutes.
Props to the planning board for standing up to the irrational residents. Hopefully they can also stand up to the irrational county executive who wants to defund them. Be strong planning board.
Extending the Purple Line to Westbard, and later across or under the river to Tysons would be incredible! Great idea Robert!
You aren’t from here. If you were you would never write what you did. Look at the video of the vote from 2019. They voted 4-1 to move the crescent trail to Arlington and LFP with an All-stop. But parks took democracy and kicked it down the road.
You are an idiot. If an all stop is good enough for vision zero at Arlington and Bethesda Ave. then it is good enough for Arlington and and LFP - just like what was approved in June 13th 2019.
During that vote to move the CCT to Arlington and LFP one of the planning board members at the time was so upset that she was lied to about the death at LFP. The bike was riding a recumbent bike at far with no flag going the wrong direction. But you never see that noted.
This parkway has done its job for decades. Let it do its job. Quiet most of the time. Flush traffic in and out in the am and pm. Otherwise sleepy parkway in a big park straddled by 2 bike paths.
Parks and the Planning Board are ignoring the fact that more than 4,000 people have signed a petition asking for the return to 4 lanes for LFP. Here's the link to the change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/let-s-make-little-falls-parkway-safe-again?recruiter=1296948504&recruited_by_id=4baf1a90-b6eb-11ed-bb93-b93672a4584e&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_35648131_en-US%3A3
By the way, Elrich would certainly bolster his amazingly rare stance here by showing up on the now closed side of Little Falls complete with all local news cameras. Heck, even invite the mayor of Somerset who is, rightly, opposed. That would put pressure on the council. They should absolutely defund this madness. And let's be honest, they clearly are no strangers to defunding.
Good point, JAC (8:31 AM)! I just called Elrich's office with your suggestion :-) And although I don't know the mayor of Somerset (Jeffrey Slavin) personally, he has been responsive when I've contacted him about various issues, whether we agree or not.
2:00 - Good stuff. Yeah, this is absolutely newsworthy and would show Elrich cares. I am not sure he cares about the other important things around here but great photo and video op.
Too bad this handy bikeway map, showing parallel bikeways, doesn't seem to be available
https://gis3.montgomerycountymd.gov/bikewaymap/
Let’s make Little Falls Parkway Safe AGAIN…How is it not safe? Some man ran a stop sign and unfortunately paid the price. The very first lesson I taught my kids and still remind them today. Are we going to close a road every time someone doesn’t look both ways before they cross the street? Is it safer for commuters to cut through neighborhoods as oppose to using a 4 lane pkwy with no houses and just one trail crossing? Build a bridge build a tunnel if you the public is so incompetent to look after themselves. The pkwy was just fine until the aging population got too old, just like our government. Lower the bar. Let’s not forget either. Outside developers seem to be the ones who dictates what happens in our backyard. Seem to recall not too long ago they proposed that one section of Leland st between Bradley and Wisconsin be used to create more green space. 😂. I guess they found an alternative
I support the park and would be sad to see it eliminated. We use it every weekend and see many young families riding bicycles and walking together and it’s great. I drive on the road, too, and just don’t see the traffic issue as insurmountable. All that is needed is a narrowing of the trail and widening of the road for a right turn lane at Arlington Road.
Erlich is going to oppose this and make it a big “win” and then raise property taxes.
Nothing Dyer posts here should be assumed to be accurate. He is a conservative crank who must have gagged on his lollipop when Elrich did something he likes. Could this be an issue of filthy rich people in Kenwood and Somerset determining what's best for the rest of us? Disclosure: I hate the bicycle lanes on OGR because even careful drivers are confused, but I also use Little Falls quite often when the afternoon rush hour is starting and have had no problem staying in lane at a reasonable speed for a mile. It's a matter of sensible lane markings, in my opinion. I've never seen Elrich stand up like this, so it has to be more than just a considered opinion on the best road policy at work here.
Post a Comment