Action Plan for a Safe Trail:

Trail safety is the highest priority of the Board of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail. The issue of Trail safety dominated the discussions during the monthly Board meetings in the winter and spring of 2007. The Board has concluded that the Trail safety problem must be addressed with a serious and sustained effort on several fronts - better trail engineering, better enforcement of trail rules, and safety education. On May 3, 2007 the CCCT sent a letter on Trail safety to the Montgomery Counry Executive, County Council, and Planning Board and to the National Park Service outlining what needs to be done and requesting the needed funding and support. The first recommendation is to widen the trail. That letter states, in part:

"The Capital Crescent Trail is by far the most popular trail in the Washington Area and many users are from distant states and consider the Trail an important part of their Washington visits. However, popularity has come at a price; the Coalition has become increasingly aware that as the number of users on the Trail has increased (see the latest traffic count done by CCCT volunteers at www.cctrail.org) to over one million uses per year, the number of conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists has also appeared to be on the rise. Anecdotally, severe individual episodes evidence the need for measures that will enhance the safe use of the Trail. Number one among these is the need to widen the paved Trail between Bethesda and Georgetown, particularly in the area between downtown Bethesda and Massachusetts avenue, where use of the Trail is at its highest levels. Widening the Trail, making the paved portion at least 16 feet wide, will allow a greater separation between pedestrians and wheeled users such as bicyclists and roller bladders. While widening the Trail could be costly, there are few topological obstacles to overcome, thus making this doable over a short period of time. "

The letter lists more action that is needed from public officials or that CCCT can do to address all three areas of engineering, enforcement and education:

• Consider a physical means of slowing cyclists at the Dorset Avenue and Little Falls Parkway crossings.
• Have more frequent trail patrols by both the Montgomery County Park Police and the National Park Police.
• The CCCT is recruiting for volunteers to be trained under the Park Patrol programs of the National Park Service and the Montgomery County Parks.
• Provide increased safety related signage on the Trail.
• The CCCT is distributing the first of a series of safety brochures at local bike shops and in the information boxes along the trail.
• The CCCT is reaching out to neighborhood-based organizations and to the Washington Area Bicyclist Association to join in a safety education campaign.

CCCT has requested meetings with the County Executive, County Councilmembers, Planning Board Commissioners, and the County and National Parks officials, to begin the work to make these changes become a reality. You can help us by letting your Councilmember and the County Executive know of your concern for improved safety on the CCT. Share your suggestions with us on what needs to be done at contact@cctrail.org.

The Purple Line Transit:

It is very unlikely that the Interim CCT would have opened before the transit issue is decided without the CCCT neutrality on transit. The debate, and compromises, that led to the Task Force agreement in support of opening the Interim CCT is worthy of having its own documentation some day! The 1994 Task Force Report calling for opening the Interim CCT is at InterimUse.pdf . At the rate things are going, the CCCT leadership in that effort will have been responsible for 20 years of Interim Trail usage that wouldn't otherwise have happened.

Looking ahead:

CCCT neutrality on the transit issue continues to be important as we move forward. The possible location of the Purple Line within the Georgetown Branch ROW between Silver Spring and Bethesda presents quite a complicated set of issues. If transit does go forward as currently proposed, the CCT will remain in the ROW but will run alongside the rail. This would dramatically alter the park like character of the current trail in that section, but it would open a direct trail extension from the current eastern terminus of the off-road trail at Stewart Ave. to the transit center and future Metropolitan Branch Trail in Silver Spring. On the other hand, if the Purple Line is not built within the ROW, we retain the park like character of the current trail, but it would be impossible to get an off road trail extension into the Silver Spring transit center. Because there are significant positives and negatives for the CCT whichever way the Purple Line decision goes, the Board of the Coalition for the CCT has decided to remain neutral on this issue. That doesn't mean we are ignoring those developments; we are actively engaged in the discussions involving the Purple Line, with our attention focused on making sure we end up with a first class trail between Bethesda and Silver Spring after the dust settles.

It is great that there are active citizens groups involved on both sides of the transit issue who are pursuing what is best for them. CCCT believes it is important that the trail has an advocacy group that remains outside this one very divisive issue and that has credibility on CCT issues with groups on both sides of the divide.

Build the Metropolitan Branch Trail:

DPWT has entered Phase II of the design study for the Metropolitan Branch Trail

Why is the Metropolitan Branch Trail important to the Capital Crescent Trail?

Courtesy Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) The Metropolitan Branch Trail is crucial to the regional trail network.

The Metropolitan Branch Trail is the missing link for the 22 mile "bicycle beltway" trail loop that includes the CCT and the National Mall. The MBT will also give the CCT a safe off-road trail connection to the Sligo Creek/Anacostia Tributary Trail system. The MBT is essential to complete the regional trail network that will connect the CCT to many destinations and neighborhoods in eastern Montgomery County and in D.C.

The Montgomery County section of the MBT has been long planned!

Courtesy WABA. The complete map is at www.metbranchtrail.com Montgomery County DPWT must build the MBT from the S.S. Metro Station to the Takoma Park Campus at King Street. The City of Takoma Park has already built the trail to the D.C. line.

The Montgomery County Council approved the Silver Spring CBD Master Plan in 2000, calling for the CCT and the MBT to be built as a continuous, high quality off road trail system directly through Silver Spring along the CSX rail corridor. The Master Plan specified that these trails should have grade separated crossings of busy roadways, including Georgia Avenue and Burlington Avenue (a.k.a. East-West Highway). The following year Montgomery County Park and Planning developed a CCT/MBT Facility Plan that explored cost and feasibility of trail bridges and underpasses, and recommended a new trail bridge over Georgia Avenue and a trail underpass at East-West Highway. Both the Master Plan and the Facility Plan were developed with much input from CCCT and WABA representatives, from numerous public workshops, and from public hearings.

Courtesy Wayne Phyillaier The Facility Plan calls for the MBT to cross Georgia Avenue here, on a new trail bridge.

After three years of inaction, DPWT issued a contract in May 2004 to develop a design concept for Montgomery County's short section of the MBT. Midway through that design study DPWT management decided the bridge and tunnel would be too expensive, and injected new lower cost options into the design study that did not have the bridge and tunnel. After 1 1/2 years of study, DPWT brought forward its design options, along with its recommendation that the MBT be built on the cheapest alignment without a bridge or tunnel.

Capital Crescent Trail users understand how important it is to have good bridges and underpasses to cross busy roadways. If the MetBranch Trail is build on the lowest cost alignment, cyclists will cross busy East-West Highway at-grade, will be required to dismount to walk across Georgia Avenue on the existing narrow CSX bridge sidewalk, and will follow an indirect alignment through Fenton Village on a sidepath trail that is cluttered with cars parked at numerous business driveways.

Strong public support for the MBT counters the DPWT "cheapest is best" recommendation:

Response at a November 2005 Public Workshop was strong in support of keeping the Metropolitan Branch Trail on the Master Plan alignment, with a bridge and a tunnel. In May 2006 DPWT presented the project to the Planning Board and again argued for the weaker, low cost trail alignment. CCCT testified in strong support of the bridge and tunnel. The Planning Board agreed with CCCT and the public and recommended the trail be completed with a bridge and tunnel. In June 2006 the County Council Transportation and Environment (T&E) Committee reviewed the project, with DPWT still arguing for the trail with neither a bridge or tunnel. The Council directed DPWT to begin Phase II design for the trail with both a bridge and a tunnel on the Master Plan alignment.

The design process has slowed within DPWT.

Sixteen months after the Planning Board and County Council directed DPWT to design the trail on the Master Plan alignment, DPWT has still not begun the Phase II design. DPWT asserts it needs to engage CSX and WAMATA in more discussions of right-of-way issues on the Master Plan alignment before DPWT can begin the Phase II trail design. DPWT also has decided to seek funding in the FY09 CIP budget for the Phase II trail design, and apparently does not intend to even begin Phase II design until it has secured separate funding for this project. This appears to be a departure from other trail projects, where Phase II design began and was carried under a "Facilities Planning" project umbrella until there was sufficient cost information to seek separate project funding for desing completion and construction. As of Fall 2007, it appears that it will be at least another year before Phase II trail design can begin.

CCCT will continue to support this trail as an essential part of the regional trail network. The very low priority this trail is receiving in Montgomery County DPWT is unfortunate and needs to be corrected.

Downsize the Georgetown Boathouse:

Oversized Boathouse Threatens the Georgetown Trailhead

Boathouse drawing by Frank Morgan; Photo and montage by Dave Winer Drawing to scale of the proposed boathouse alongside the existing boathouses, as it would be seen from the Virginia side of the Potomac River. It would be twice the size of the adjacent Washington Canoe Club and Potomac Boat Club combined and would stand 21' higher than the canal, blocking river views from the canal towpath.

Georgetown University Boathouse: A Bad Deal for the Public!

1. What Is The Issue? The Public Will Permanently Lose C&O Canal National Historical Park Property To A Private Entity

• The development sets a precedent for loss of other publicly owned sites and parkland to a private entity.
• The boathouse will be the first structure to be built in the C&O Canal National Historical Park (C&O NHP) since the founding of the park. The land is being swapped for unbuildable "bottomland" upstream.
• The land at this location forms part of a busy and narrow public recreational corridor of the C&O NHP, the Potomac Gorge and the Capital Crescent Trail, valued by hikers, bikers, boaters, historians and others.

2. Georgetown University Boathouse Impacts Views In The Historic Setting

The massive size of the proposed structure is totally inappropriate for the site. The height, length, depth, width and bulk of the building, combined with the new access road and 70-foot dock, will have a profound negative visual impact on the surrounding areas used for recreational purposes, such as the river shoreline, the C&O NHP, the Capital Crescent Trail, the American Discovery Trail, the National Heritage Trail and the Towpath. In addition, the project will also affect views from the GW Parkway, Canal Road and Key Bridge. Indeed, the NPS got approval for a boathouse on the site by calling for a 4,000 square foot structure. However, the Georgetown University (GU) Boathouse as now proposed is 23,000 square feet. Why the Bloat?

How Big is 23,000 square feet? Let's put its Enormous Size into perspective! It is:

• Twice the size of the adjacent Washington Canoe Club and Potomac Boat Club combined!!.
• Five times larger than what was originally proposed.
• Two-thirds larger and one-third taller than the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed by GU and NPS in 1998. (But NPS and GU said it was an "average" size. In fact, it is the largest boathouse on the East Coast and the largest structure ever built in the C&O NHP.
• The length of a football field.
• Twenty-one feet above the canal, seven feet above Canal Road.

Does the University "need" a Boathouse this big? AbsolutelyNOT!

• The adjacent Potomac Boat Club can holddouble the number of boating shells in a boathouse that is one-third the square footage and one-sixth the volume.
• The rowing tank can be located on campus. No other university has a tank this large in a boathouse. Most are on campus if they have one.
• GU's rowing program is similar in size to schools with facilities one-third the size.

But surely everyone agrees to the size? NO! The following Commissions Oppose the Size!

• Size and scale were unanimously opposed by the C&O NHP Presidential Advisory Commission.
• National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) stated that the project must comply with MOA between GU and National Park Service (NPS). (NPS now proposes to modify the MOA after the NCPC review, thereby violating the intent of the NCPC guidance.)
• Dozens of national, regional and local groups have joined to oppose the structure once the true size and impact were known. NPS worked hard to hide the true size and scale.

Does the boathouse "need" to be there? NO! Excellent Alternatives Exist!

• Anacostia River is ripe for development - away from the 220 year old C&O NHP.
• Other Potomac River sites that won't impact the C&O Canal are available. These include sites recommended by NPS in the 1987 Georgetown Waterfront Plan.

3. Physical Impacts to Washington Canoe Club (WCC) and C&O NHP

No National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) study exists to analyze the impacts of this building. An outdated 1995 environmental assessment (EA) only discussed the land swap. ("Splitting" an EA is against federal regulations.) To date there has been no engineering analysis showing the impact (or lack thereof) of damage to either the C&O Canal or WCC from the construction. The potential for extensive destruction is great. Likewise, GU and NPS reneged on their promise to conduct a hydrologic study of the building's impact on the Canal and the Washington Canoe Club (WCC) - both historic structures -- at flood stage. Will the US taxpayer be left holding the bag to pay for the eventual damage and massive cleanup?

Hydrologic Impacts

• The proposed GU boathouse accommodates flooding with a flow-though design. WCC, located immediately downstream of the site, expresses concern that water that previously accumulated in the adjacent wetland will "flow-through" to exacerbate flooding at WCC. What effects will this design have on WCC and the Canal?
• Devastation will occur to the C&O Canal and WCC if the fragile Canal breaks due to undercutting of the embankment. GU will move the Capital Crescent Trail to accomodate a new road for the GU boathouse. Measurements show that the Canal will require a retaining wall to maintain structural integrity of the bank. Neither GU nor NPS acknowledges the need to alter the Canal bank to accommodate the new road. No study exists to assess the impact of the 200 auger piles that will be placed just 25 feet from the Canal embankment.
• The seventy-foot dock will cause river silt to accumulate and severely impact the shoreline, used by WCC and other boaters.
• How much of the proposed 25,000 cubic yards of fill to be used in construction will end up downstream in WCC boathouse as a result of flooding

Impacts During Boathouse Construction

• WCC and the Canal need provisions to protect their historic properties during and after construction. The access road to the new boathouse would be immediately adjacent to the boathouse. What is the setback between the new road and WCC building? Will GU post a bond to assure that no damage occurs? Will GU be required to barge concrete and heavy materials to the site, similar to construction of Wilson Bridge?
• WCC has concerns regarding the effects of auger piles and the injection of high-pressure grout into the ground. These piles could easily alter the C&O Canal embankment and cause it to collapse. Such a collapse would wipe out the historic Washington Canoe Club. Certainly there is no engineering evidence to counter this possibility. How far will NPS allow this project to proceed without sound engineering analysis? What else is the NPS hiding?

4. Bikers And Hikers Traveling the Capital Crescent Trail (CCT) Will Face Serious Safety Hazards And Diminished Usage Of The Trail. The University Will Take A Portion Of The CCT To Construct An Access Road For Its Boathouse

• The CCT provides a major recreational and commuter link through the city for hikers, walkers and bikers. In fact, the trail is currently almost half the width it should be to handle the 600 users per hour who crowd the trail during peak times in the afternoon and weekend. This is especially true in the section near Georgetown.
• Yet, GU would effectively reduce the width of the CCT by 30 per cent, forcing users to navigate between a road barricade on one side and Canal embankment on the other. The relocated CCT would still have a paved width of ten feet, but the GU plan removes any shoulder or safety "breakdown area" along the side. This reduces the effective width to approximately seven feet.

5. Who Opposes The Current Location And Size For The GU Boathouse?
Defenders of Potomac River Parkland Includes:
American Canoe Association, American Whitewater Association, Audubon Naturalist Society, Canoe Cruisers Association, C&O Canal Association, Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail, DC Chapter of the Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, National Parks Conservation Association, Potomac Pedalers Touring Club, Washington Canoe Club, area citizens and residents of communities adjoining the Park (Georgetown, Palisades, and Foxhall Village).

Open the CCT to neighborhoods east of Rock Creek!

The Georgetown Branch Trail goes on-road in Silver Spring, seen here where the trail crosses 16th Street.

The Interim CCT provides a scenic crossing of the Rock Creek stream valley on the Rock Creek Trestle. But the off-road Interim CCT ends in an industrial area at Stewart Avenue, over one mile from downtown Silver Spring. The Georgetown Branch Trail completes the trail connection from Stewart Avenue to downtown Silver Spring.

The Georgetown Branch Trail is an on-road bike route with numerous crossings of busy roadways. This on-road trail is neither attractive nor safe - leaving trail users with no effective trail connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring and leaving Silver Spring neighborhoods without any easy access to the CCT. The CCT traffic survey performed in 2006 showed that use of the Interim CCT near its end at Stewart Avenue was barely 1/10 that elsewhere on the CCT.

We will not realize the full benefit of the Capital Crescent Trail until the Trail is complete and safe to downtown Silver Spring.

A plan for for action:

A comprehensive study on completing the CCT into downtown Silver Spring has been completed by professional trail consultants Lardner and Kline: "Facility Plan for the Capital Crescent and Metropolitan Branch Trails".
This Plan received much input from CCCT and the public through a public advisory group, two widely advertised public workshops, and a public hearing. The Plan recommends that the Capital Crescent Trail be built along the CSX corridor into downtown Silver Spring because this is the most direct and safe alignment. Completion of the CCT must be coordinated with transit decisions because the Purple Line Transit is also planned to be built in this corridor, and CSX Railroad refuses to grant any r.o.w. for the trail unless it is part of the transit project.

This Plan also recommends that an Interim Trail be built into downtown Silver Spring. An Interim Trail would provide improvements in trail continuity at modest cost while we wait for transit decisions. The Interim Trail would follow the CSX alignment wherever possible, and use alternate routes along streets where a CSX r.o.w. is not available. The CCCT supports this Interim Trail, but only as a temporary trail. It is too indirect and has too many at-grade crossings of busy highways to be appropriate as a permanent CCT.

The Plan was approved unanimously by the Montgomery County Planning Board in 2001. The Plan is available at our CCT Archives. See CCCT Testimony in support of the plan.

Recommended Interim and Final Trail Alignment Partial Map of the proposed CCT alignment, taken from the "Facility Plan for the Capital Crescent and Metropolitan Branch Trails", by Lardner and Kline. Go to WHOLE MAP for an image of the entire map with legend.

This plan can be used to advance the Interim Trail and to make the Trail safer and more accessable for neighborhoods east of Rock Creek:

• Build a short connecting path to Rosemary Hills. (Completed Sept. 2004)
• Sign the new Georgetown Branch on-road bike route through Rosemary Hills and North Woodside. (Completed May 2005)
• Improve the storm drain system and repair the eroded Interim CCT between the trestle and milepost 0.5. (Completed June 2007)
• Build a trail bridge over the CSX tracks at Talbot Avenue so trail users do not share the existing one-lane bridge with motor vehicles.
• Implement the "Lyttonsville Road - Grace Church Road Alternate" route to provide a safe trail crossing of 16th Street.
• Build the 16th Street to Fenwick Lane trail section, including under the Spring Street CSX Bridge, to provide an off-road crossing under Spring Street and to connect to the Silver Spring Green Trail.

We will need the continuing attention of our elected officials to complete a safe and effective CCT to Silver Spring:

Advocacy by CCCT and our members can bring results. The CCCT will continue to meet with and to write the Montgomery County Executive's office, DPWT, and County Councilmembers to let them know what is needed. But we will also need your help to call or write elected officials. Watch the CCCT website and newsletter for volunteer opportunities and action alerts.