Our
Response: The Klingle Road project is not "pork." Upkeep of our
public transportation infrastructure is a fundamental obligation
of our city government. Moreover, repairing Klingle Road is
not "environmentally destructive." To argue otherwise
requires facts. The studies do not support the doomsday rhetoric.
What IS environmentally destructive, and Expensive, is the waste that
has taken place in Klingle valley over the past decade and are half
due to the Sierra Club and selfish, illegal political cronyism for the
benefit of a paltry few.
JB: Right now the city
is moving to rebuild a 0.7-mile segment of Klingle Road at an
estimated cost of $7.18 million. The case for spending so heavily on
such a minor road, which has been closed to automobile traffic for
fourteen years, is flimsy at best.
Our
Response:
The road is classified as a "collector," not a minor road. Moreover,
Klingle Road was never "closed." It was hijacked. Road
closures require an act of the DC City Council signed by the
Mayor. Citizens are not required to "make a case" to have the city
keep its roads in good repair. The Sierra Club made its case to the
Council for closing the road and lost. The Council decided to keep
the road open.
JB:
The citys draft environmental study
released over the summer fails to demonstrate a transportation need
for rebuilding and reopening Klingle Road for automobile traffic.
Our
Response: It is not necessary to establish a "need" for repairing
an existing road. What is necessary is for Sierra Club to establish a
need to close the road, which they failed to do.
JB:
In this study, the city concluded that the long-term adverse
impacts to traffic of not rebuilding the road would be minimal.
These findings mirror the findings of the 2001 Klingle Road
Feasibility Study, which stated:
Reopening Klingle Road would produce negligible long-term
beneficial impacts to traffic congestion or safety at surrounding
intersections. Given the limited size of the ROW [right of way],
reopening Klingle Road would only lead to minor improvements in
relieving congestion at surrounding intersections. When it was last
open to traffic, the road only carried about 3,200 car trips per day.
Our
Response: The amount of traffic carried by a road is not germane
to any issue here. How many car trips per day does the road to your
house carry? If it is fewer than 3,200, should we close the road?
Unless and until a road is "closed," the city has a legal obligation
to keep its public roads open and in good repair, no matter how much
or how little traffic they carry. Sierra Club tried to get the City
Council to close the road, and they lost.
JB:
A simple cost-benefit analysis, even without consideration of
the harm it would inflict upon the natural environment of Klingle
Valley and Rock Creek Park, demonstrates the sheer absurdity of this
project.
Our
Response:
Cost-benefit analyses are not applicable to whether or not we repair
roads. If we did a C-B analysis for every road, we would have no
roads left. And again, more unsupported doomsday rhetoric about "the
harm...upon the natural environment." What harm? The very studies
from which you quote found no environmental reason not to build the
road. Instead they found environmental reasons why the road should be
built.
Sierra
Club comes to this issue with unclean hands and has no position
preaching about environmental concerns, because it is largely due to
their efforts to keep the city from fulfilling its public obligations
that has led to the increased costs to taxpayers and the severe
environmental degradation that exists in Klingle valley today.
Repairing the road and the associated repairs to the sewer systems
will alleviate the environmental damage that Sierra Club ironically
has caused. This should be done without further delay before the job
becomes even more expensive than it is already.
JB: In fact, two years ago, the
DC Environmental Network highlighted this proposed road project in its
DC Green Scissors report (http://www.greenscissors.org/DCEN.pdf)
and concluded that cutting it from the budget would save $4 million.
Since then the cost has escalated, and many of us remain convinced
that the cost will only continue to increase.
Our
Response: It is interesting how "environmentalists" will
disparage a project they don't like as costing too much, but no expense
is too great for projects that the do like. The city had Klingle Road
slated for rebuilding long before it washed out in 1991. The federal
money and federal (4F) approval were there. The detailed studies and
plans had all been done (at some cost to the city, now lost, by the
way). The contract had been put out to bid and awarded to a
minority-owned DC business. And, the cost was even less than it was
two years ago. A few cronies and Sierra Club folks single-handedly
caused this project to become way more expensive and way more involved
than ever, and apparently intend to delay it even more,
thereby costing the city ever more money in a pointless attempt to win
a political, not an environmental, victory.
Open
both eyes -- there are two sides on the coin: Sierra Club complains
that the road was never used. How can it be, then, that the road will
cause harm to the environment?
###############
Cutting
Environmentally Harmful Pork in Rock Creek Park
Jason Broehm, Dupont Circle,
jason_broehm@hotmail.com
In response to Garys invitation
[themail, September 18], I know of a local pork project that could
save DC and Federal taxpayers a lot of money and at the same time save
Klingle Valley from an environmentally destructive road. Right now the
city is moving to rebuild a 0.7-mile segment of Klingle Road at an
estimated cost of $7.18 million. The case for spending so heavily on
such a minor road, which has been closed to automobile traffic for
fourteen years, is flimsy at best. The citys draft environmental
study released over the summer fails to demonstrate a transportation
need for rebuilding and reopening Klingle Road for automobile traffic.
In this study, the city concluded that
the long-term adverse impacts to traffic of not rebuilding the road
would be minimal. These findings mirror the findings of the 2001
Klingle Road Feasibility Study, which stated: Reopening Klingle Road
would produce negligible long-term beneficial impacts to traffic
congestion or safety at surrounding intersections. Given the limited
size of the ROW [right of way], reopening Klingle Road would only lead
to minor improvements in relieving congestion at surrounding
intersections. When it was last open to traffic, the road only
carried about 3,200 car trips per day.
A simple cost-benefit analysis, even
without consideration of the harm it would inflict upon the natural
environment of Klingle Valley and Rock Creek Park, demonstrates the
sheer absurdity of this project. In fact, two years ago, the DC
Environmental Network highlighted this proposed road project in its DC
Green Scissors report (http://www.greenscissors.org/DCEN.pdf)
and concluded that cutting it from the budget would save $4 million.
Since then the cost has escalated, and many of us remain convinced
that the cost will only continue to increase.
###############
