Silver Spring Trails

Update: Planning Board approves application at its Oct. 13 meeting.

The Gazette reports that the Planning Board has approved the Fenwick Station application, with the stipulation that a bike share station be built with the project.

October 4, 2011

The Silver Spring Post Office at the corner of Second Avenue and Spring Street is being sold. An application is being presented to the Planning Board on October 13 for a six story residential building on this site, called Fenwick Station. The M-NCPPC website has posted the staff recommendation at Fenwick Station Project Plan.

This project plan includes a proposed extension to the Silver Spring Green Trail, a pathway along the future Capital Crescent Trail, and space reservation for a future bike share station.

Fenwick Station preliminary plan
(click on image for a larger view)

The proposed Green Trail is along Second Avenue (along the top of the above plan), the future CCT pathway is behind the building, and space would be preserved for a future bike share station at a proposed public plaza (at the corner of Second Avenue and Spring Street, at the upper left corner of the above plan). There is also a connector path planned from the corner of Second Avenue and Spring Street to the future CCT.

From the staff recommendation:

The 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan recommends the Silver Spring Green Trail (shared-use path; SP-10) along Second Avenue/Wayne Avenue between Spring Street and Sligo Creek Parkway/Trail (8-foot wide trail with an adjoining 5-foot wide sidewalk). This trail currently exists between Cameron Street and to the east of Fenton Street, and is on the east side of Second Avenue/north side of the Wayne Avenue. The trail is proposed to be shifted to the west side of Second Avenue between Fenwick Lane (West) and Spring Street, along the subject property frontage as part of this development. Staff has worked with the applicant and MCDOT to ensure that this shift is appropriate given the proposed bike-share station at the intersection of Spring Street and Second Avenue, connection to the future Capital Crescent Trail from Spring Street/Second Avenue at this location, and the number of driveways/curb-cuts that currently exist along the east side of Second Avenue between Spring Street and Fenwick Lane (East). The remainder of the trail between Fenwick Lane and Cameron Street may be accommodated safely and adequately along Second Avenue with a crossing at the Second Avenue/Fenwick Lane (East) signalized intersection.

The Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan also recommends the Georgetown Branch Interim Trail (shared-use path; SP-6; the future Capital Crescent Trail), to the west side of the property, within the Third Avenue right-of-way. The applicant is providing an interim trail within the Third Avenue right- of-way that connects to the subject property, which will ultimately be replaced by the future Capital Crescent Trail that will be provided as part of the proposed Purple Line transitway project.

When I first saw the plan for this extension for the Green Trail at a neighborhood meeting last week, I was skeptical. There are two problems with the concept:
1) the trail will switch to the other side of the street at the light at Fenwick Lane, after running only one block in front of the Fenwick Station development, and
2) the configuration of an 8′ wide trail immediately adjacent to a 5′ wide sidewalk fails to strongly define the bicycle space. This configuration is the same as now exists for the Green Trail between Cameron Street and Colesville Road just two blocks to the south, and pedestrians use it as a glorified sidewalk while few cyclists use it. The sketch of the proposed configuration presented in the staff report, and below, inadvertly makes the point by placing a pedestrian squarely in the center of the bike path instead of in the adjacent pedestrian sidewalk.

Green Trail profile at Fenwick Station

But I can warm up to this Green Trail extension now that I see a bike share station is also proposed. The Green Trail can combine with the bike station at the corner of Second Avenue and Spring Street, and the access path to the CCT along Spring Street, to make a strong statement at a very visible entry point to the Silver Spring CBD about bikes belonging.

Similarly the proposed pathway behind the building and near the future CCT alignment can have an enhanced impact for showing the potential benefit of the future CCT. The pathway, along with the regrading that will occur there, will clean up the littered and badly eroded area there now. The pathway will connect to the Woodside trail to give an attractive footpath continuous from South Springwood in the Woodside neighborhood to Fenwick Lane in the CBD. It will be easier to imagine what the CCT can do for Silver Spring when a significant piece of the alignment can be experienced, even if only as a footpath.

Residents of Woodside held a meeting about the future CCT on March 8. Representatives were present from MTA, MNCPPC, MCDOT, and the office of Councilmembers Elrich and Ervin to answer questions from the community. Much of the discussion is summarized in the Gazette online article Woodside community discusses Capital Crescent Trail.

Some trail opponents were requesting a detailed analysis of the economic benefit of the part of the trail along Woodside. The inference appeared to be (at least to me) that if this part of the trail is not cost effective, then it should be eliminated or moved. One trail opponent asserted the trail should be moved to Second Avenue. When I pointed out that an off-road trail could not fit along Second Avenue, the response was “They can share the Road!”.

Mike Madden of MTA made the obvious point that the CCT is planned to be part of a regional trail network, and you can’t take away a segment here or there without destroying the whole. He also said as reported in the Gazette: “I don’t know how you would economically justify a trail,” Madden said. “It’s like trying to justify a park.”

I found it interesting that one of the strongest trail opponents was demanding a detailed economic analysis to justify the Trail while also expressing concern that funding for the trail might compete for funds with the new Silver Spring Library. I’m not aware that the library has ever had a detailed analysis of its economic benefit compared to its cost, and doubt that is realistic to do. I strongly support the library. I don’t support a double standard that requires an unrealistic economic analysis and justification for trails but not for parks or libraries.

Aside from the unrealistic demand for a detailed trail economic analysis and justification, I believe the concerns expressed by residents were either addressed at the meeting or will be addressed in future meetings as the design of the Purple Line and Trail moves forward. The majority of Woodside residents will continue to support the trail. They understand that any trail along Second Avenue will always be a fake trail.

Feb. 2 update: The Gazette article Residents fear extending Capital Crescent Trail would derail Silver Spring neighborhood” goes to more specifics about the trail opposition. From the article:

“There are some people who don’t agree with longstanding position that has been the subject of numerous votes and they are acting like this is a recent issue,” [Woodside Civic Association president] Smedley said.

Simons, however, said the plan has never been properly conveyed to the neighborhood. Simons lives about a block away from where the trail would run on Third Avenue. Simons said she first heard about the trail’s planned path last September.

“We feel duped because this was not communicated to us,” Simons said.

This is so frustrating. This has been one of the most widely advertised planning efforts we have ever seen.

January 30, 2011 post:

The local discussion over Capital Crescent Trail plans in Woodside continues. Comments left on the Woodside Civic Association listserve indicate that a few residents intend to challenge the proposed trail alignment along the CSX corridor and may propose alternative alignments.

Looking for another trail route is nothing new. Hardly anyone would choose a trail alignment alongside an active rail corridor if a good route could be found in a park or along a quiet road. I participated with a Citizens Advisory Committee along with a team of M-NCPPC Community Planners as we searched for alternative routes during the development of the North and West Silver Spring Master Plan in 1999-2000. In the end we concluded the alignment along the CSX corridor was the only route that could provide a good off-road trail into downtown Silver Spring. Routes down Second Avenue, First Avenue, and on the other side of the CSX tracks were investigated but failed, mainly because no safe alternatives for a trail crossing of 16th Street and for entering the Silver Spring CBD to the transit center existed other than along the CSX alignment.

A year later, another team of M-NCPPC Community Planners, professional trail consultants, and a citizens advisory committee of neighborhood residents and trail supporters from CCCT and WABA reached the same conclusion when developing the Facility Plan for the Capital Crescent & Metropolitan Branch Trails.

People certainly have a right to oppose the proposed alignment of the Capital Crescent Trail in Woodside if they believe it is not in their interests. But some of the comments I hear are inaccurate and/or unfair.
1) It is unfair to assert this alignment has been presented recently with little study and with little opportunity for residents to speak out. The proposed alignment has been studied extensively and discussed openly in well publicized public hearings and workshops for many years – including during the development of all five of the approved planning documents listed below.
2) It is inaccurate to describe this alignment as a plan coming from MTA and for the Purple Line. This alignment was developed by community planners, residents and trail advocates from within Montgomery County, as the best alignment for an off-road trail regardless of the Purple Line. Montgomery County has always had responsibility and control regarding the trail plans. MTA has promised to execute this trail plan as part of the Purple Line project at the request of Montgomery County.
3) It is inaccurate to describe the Georgetown Branch bike route down Second Avenue as an acceptible alternative for the Capital Crescent Trail. Second Avenue will not support an off-road trail (or even bike lanes). The Capital Crescent Trail has always been planned to be a good quality off-road trail.

It is not possible for Woodside to opt out of the approved CCT alignment without forcing neighbors both north and south (in North Woodside and the Silver Spring CBD) and all trail users to lose the safe CCT off-road alignment. The trail cannot jog over to Second Avenue only at Woodside. If the trail does not follow the CSX alignment at Woodside then the trail would be on narrow streets in North Woodside, would cross 16th Street at a dangerous at-grade intersection, and would enter the downtown Silver Spring district on busy Second Avenue at the Silver Spring Post Office. My video A trail through Woodside shows these problem areas.

For those just now becoming aware that a trail is planned along the CSX corridor, I recommend they look at some of the planning that has been done over the last 10 years:

Purple Line Functional Master Plan
Approved by the Montgomery County Council July 27, 2010 and adopted by M-NCPPC September 8, 2010.

Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan
Approved by the Montgomery County Council February 1, 2005 and adopted by M-NCPPC March 16, 2005.

Facility Plan for the Capital Crescent & Metropolitan Branch Trails Summary
(See CCCT Archives for links to the entire document)
Approved by the Montgomery County Planning Board January 2001.

North and West Silver Spring Master Plan
Approved by the Montgomery County Council August 1, 2000 and adopted by M-NCPPC September 20, 2000

Silver Spring CBD Sector Plan
Approved by the Montgomery County Council February 2000 and adopted by M-NCPPC March 2000.

Update – I should change the title of this post to “24 years late to the party”. See Glenn Orlin’s comment to this post about much earlier plans, including this one:

Georgetown Branch Master Plan Amendment
Approved by the Montgomery County Council November 1989 and adopted by M-NCPPC January 1990.

Dec. 27 update:

The MTA has made the drawings that were presented at the Dec. 16 Woodside meeting available. These are large (5-14 Meg) pdf files.

• Woodside Trail Map
• Profile looking south near North Springwood Drive
• Profile looking south near Ballard Street

Dec. 17, 2010 post:

Several residents who live near the future Capital Crescent Trail in Woodside have expressed concerns about the impact the Trail will have on their homes. The MTA has responded by holding a meeting with Woodside residents and other interested public to discuss the Woodside area CCT design plans. Approx. 30 local residents braved the cold and snow to meet with Purple Line Project Manager Mike Madden and other members of the PL design team at the Coffield Community Center in Lyttonsville on December 16, 2010.

The future CCT will cross the CSX tracks at Talbot Avenue and will be on the north/east side of the CSX tracks through Woodside to downtown Silver Spring. The future CCT will be adjacent to Woodside homes from the 16th Street railroad bridge to the Spring Street Bridge.The Purple Line light rail will remain on the south/west side of the tracks until just before the Silver Spring transit Center. The light rail and trail will both be built at the same time by MTA, but since the light rail is on the opposite side of the CSX tracks from Woodside the light rail and 16th Street station design was only briefly touched on – the focus of the meeting was the trail design.

Among the concerns raised by residents during the meeting about the future CCT: possible loss of private yards from the residences along Third Avenue; loss of neighborhood privacy; undesirable increase in lighting near the trail; crime from the trail; and the cost of the trail.

The MTA showed plan drawings and typical section drawings that showed how the 12’ wide trail with 2’ wide shoulders would fit within the space available between Third Avenue and the CSX tracks. The chain link CSX fence that is now between the train tracks and Third Avenue would be removed and replaced by a concrete crash wall and the trail. The crash wall is a requirement from CSX, to protect trail users from train accidents. There would also be a retaining wall between the trail and Third Avenue in some places where the Trail and Third Avenue are not at the same grade. Third Avenue would not be narrowed, realigned, nor restricted to one-way vehicle traffic. Nothing would be “taken” from any of the side yards along Third Avenue – an important point since fliers passed in the Woodside neighborhood by trail opponents proclaimed that homes would have their yards taken for the trail.

Current plans do not yet show details for fencing height and style – these will be determined later in the design process. Some residents at the meeting expressed a desire to have extensive fencing to isolate the trail from the neighborhood to protect the neighborhood from crime, or to screen homes from the trail for privacy. Others pointed out that too much fence would block Woodside residents from having any access to the trail. MTA representatives pointed out that there are only one or two residences adjacent to Third Avenue where the trail is elevated higher than the street so that visual screening from the Trail might be a strong issue. Fencing details can be worked out collaboratively between MTA, the residents, and trail advocates as the design progresses.

Several residents were very concerned that the Trail would bring excessive lighting – stray lighting from the Spring Center on the other side of the CSX tracks is already at an undesirable level for some residents. Mike Madden indicated MTA is in discussion with the County on the trail lighting policy. The County position has been that trails they maintain will not have lighting and will be closed at dark. But the CCT will be the primary access path for pedestrians to reach the Purple Line stations between Bethesda and Silver Spring, and MTA will need the trail to be open near the stations during the hours the Purple Line will operate. Lighting can be designed to be focused down onto the trail, to minimize the stray light impacting the neighborhood. Lighting details will be worked out as the Purple Line preliminary design progresses.

The discussion about fears that crime would come into the neighborhood from the trail was more difficult and contentious. Some residents came to the meeting convinced the Trail will bring rapists and thieves to prey on the community. MTA team members pointed out that many studies had been done on trail safety and the great majority have found trails do not bring crime. Casey Anderson, Woodside resident and WABA board member, described the recent positive experience on the Mathew Henson Trail and also the nearby experience with the CCT in Bethesda. Another Woodside resident pointed out that the recent attempted rape in the neighborhood that was cited as an example of crime near the CSX tracks actually began on Spring Street, and that the would-be rapist attempted to drag the victim toward the CSX tracks because that area was secluded and trashy – a condition that would be corrected by the Trail. Mike Madden offered to bring representatives from the Mont. Co. Police to a future neighborhood meeting to discuss measures that can be taken to address crime. But some of the local residents appeared unmoved in their conviction that the CCT will bring crime to the neighborhood.

At the end of the meeting several residents expressed the view that it was ridiculous to spend $60M for a biking trail. Mike Madden had pointed out that this cost estimate was very approximate and depended on how the cost share for construction items needed by both the transit and the trail, like retaining walls and grading, would be apportioned between the trail and the transit. Madden also pointed out that not all of the $60M would need to come from the County – there may be other state funding sources that are not part of the transit funding that can be tapped.

I left the meeting with the impression that a few of the residents appear to be intent on killing the trail and they will continue to use the crime and cost issues to try to raise community opposition. The trail opponents will not be credible when they assert trails bring crime when there are so many studies of trails nationwide and so much experience on nearby trails that counter that claim. We will need to address the trail cost issue more directly. That will be the subject of a future post.

The Georgetown Branch Trail goes through my Woodside neighborhood. The trail is on-road on a quiet street while in Woodside.

But the trail does little to connect Woodside to adjacent neighborhoods across busy highways, or to connect Silver Spring to Bethesda. For that, we are still waiting for the Capital Crescent Trail.