{"id":45747173,"date":"2006-06-14T11:32:53","date_gmt":"2006-06-14T11:32:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=45747173"},"modified":"2006-06-14T11:32:53","modified_gmt":"2006-06-14T11:32:53","slug":"cars-on-the-capital-crescent-trail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=45747173","title":{"rendered":"Cars on the Capital Crescent Trail!?!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"\"\"Act by June 15th to protect the CCT!<\/em>
\nAfter concept pic ——– Before pic
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

The popular Capital Crescent Trail, which was recently recognized by the Project for Public Spaces as one of “21 great places that show how transportation can enliven a community”, is under threat from the construction of a boathouse for Georgetown University.\n<\/p>\n

The National Park Service recently released an Environmental Assessment on a proposal to construct a large boathouse for Georgetown University along the popular Capital Crescent Trail. The proposed location for the boathouse would be on land upstream (west) of the Washington Canoe Club near the CCT trailhead in Georgetown. Access to the site would require construction equipment, boat trailers and delivery vehicles to share the use the Capital Crescent Trail for a distance of 800 feet hundred feet.\n<\/p>\n

Read more to take action!<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Take action https:\/\/parkplanning.nps.gov\/commentForm.cfm?projectID=15645&documentId=14911<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n

\n

This is a comment
\nsubmitted to the park service by a concerned skater and cyclist
\nwho just remembered that tomorow is the deadline for
\ncomments:
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

\tThe Environmental Analysis is a very well written document, and
\nappears to do a reasonable job of explaining the primary impacts of
\nthe proposed facility. The pictures and diagrams were particularly helpful.\n<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the EA does not reflect an evaluation of the
\nfull-range of alternatives. Two obvious alternatives would be (a) a
\nboathouse comparable to the size of the existing boathouses and (b) a
\nboathouse that is only a boathouse–rather than an integrated
\ntraining facility.\n<\/p>\n

The most serious flaw of the EA is the failure to consider the
\nboathouse-only option. A general principal in the permitting of
\nfacilities along tidal shores is that “waterfront dependent”
\nfacilities are granted more leeway than facilities that are not
\nwaterfront-dependent. Thus, the Corps of Engineers will give a
\nwetlands permit to a marina while denying a permit to a restaurant,
\nbecause the marina **must** be next to the water; but the restaurant
\nneed not be next to the water–even though doing so may provide a
\nnicer view. Combining a restaurant with a marina will not generally
\nget the permit to which the marina, but not the restaurant, is entitled.\n<\/p>\n

Clearly, a boathouse must be next to the water. But it is no more
\nimportant for the practice facility to be next to the water than for
\na restaurant to be next to the water. There is at least some basis
\nfor expecting that the Corps might deny a permit for a practice
\nfacility to be built on wetlands. That leaves us with a question:
\nShould the Park Service be more liberal regarding what it allows on
\npublic waterfront lands, than the Corps is regarding what it allows
\non wetlands? Even if its okay for the Park Service to allow
\nnon-waterfront-dependent uses on waterfront park lands, we have a
\ndifferent question now: Isn’t the Park Service at least obligated to
\n**consider** the option of only allowing waterfront-dependent uses on
\nthe park land? For this reason, a reasonable person would conclude
\nthat the current EA does not reflect a reasonable range of alternatives.\n<\/p>\n

My impression is that at one time, a much smaller boathouse was
\nconsidered, and that much of the momentum for the land swap was based
\non more modest plans changed later in the process. Again, it may be
\nreasonable for the Park Service to allow larger facilities as greater
\nneeds become evident–but it is not reasonable for an alternatives
\nanalysis to exclude from consideration the option that brought
\neveryone to the table to begin with.\n<\/p>\n

Therefore, I recommend that the EA be redone–perhaps as a complete
\nEIS–with an evaluation of (a) the original proposal for a modest
\nboat house and (b) a large boathouse with the same storage as the
\ncurrent proposal but without training facilities and other facilities
\navailable on campus. A particular focus ought to be on whether the
\nmore modest facilities could be built without a 1-2 year construction
\ndetour for the Capital Crescent Trail.\n<\/p>\n

In closing, I would like to offer for your consideration an example
\nof how the State of Maryland Department of Transportation handled a
\nsimilar issue–a story that saddens cyclists but that still reflects
\na stronger commitment to environmental management than the Park
\nService seems to show here. The planned intercounty connector from
\nBeltsville to Shady Grove once included plans for a complete bike
\ntrail. The need to squeeze the footprint as much as possible led
\nMDOT to remove the bike trail from the crossings of various stream
\nvalley parks–at the encouragement of both state and federal
\nenvironmental officials. That decision disappointed cyclists but at
\nleast the logic was clear. The current proposal shows no similar
\neffort to shrink the footprint to its minimum necessary size–in fact
\nthe option is not even considered.\n<\/p>\n

It’s a sad day when the National Park Service shows less
\nenvironmental sensitivity than a state highway department.<\/em><\/b>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Take action https:\/\/parkplanning.nps.gov\/commentForm.cfm?projectID=15645&documentId=14911<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n

\n

More info https:\/\/www.cctrail.org\/Action_Page.htm#defend<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n

oldId.2006061411325348<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Act by June 15th to protect the CCT! After concept pic ——– Before pic The popular Capital Crescent Trail, which was recently recognized by the Project for Public Spaces as one of “21 great places that show how transportation can enliven a community”, is under threat from the construction of a boathouse for Georgetown University. … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Cars on the Capital Crescent Trail!?!”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45747173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biking-in-maryland"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45747173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=45747173"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45747173\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=45747173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=45747173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=45747173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}