Final Report on Trans-Ocean City Bike Route Is Complete
Mayor Jay Gillian is expected to address the issue at a public City Council meeting on Thursday, Oct. 13.
Photos
Pdfs
A final report recommending a safe bicycle route through the chaos of island traffic was issued last week.
The state Department of Transportation and a consultant, the RBA Group, released the Haven Avenue Corridor Report -- a complete copy is available by clicking on the PDF icons at the right.
Mayor Jay Gillian is expected to comment on the report at the public City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 13, at City Hall.
The idea of creating a safe bicycle corridor from the Ocean City-Longport Bridge at the north end of the island to the Corson's Inlet Bridge at the south end has been universally applauded. But a proposal to use an abandoned railroad bed across wetlands as part of the route has led to years of acrimonious debate.
The report makes "no specific conclusions" about the feasibility of the rail trail, but it does suggest the process could be long, costly and not necessarily permissible. The bulk of the report identifies a route on existing roads and suggests low-cost strategies for reducing the impact of traffic.
The report also identifies strategies for converting West Avenue into a safe bike route between 36th and 49th streets as an alternative to the proposed rail trail.
"We've reviewed the report one final time with the steering committee that worked with the consultants, and we are now prioritizing the recommendations," Business Administrator Mike Dattilo said.
He said some priorities include providing a safe crossing of Ninth Street, improving the existing bike path behind the Ocean City Primary School and repaving Simpson Avenue between Battersea Road and Fifth Street.
"Overall, we are finding the report very informative and useful," Dattilo said. "As we develop our capital plan, we'll incorporate several measures outlined in the report over the next few years."
In This article
-
City Council Meeting
April 14, 2011 / April 28, 2011 / May 12, 2011 / May 26, 2011 / June 9, 2011 / June 23, 2011 / August 11, 2011 / August 25, 2011 / September 8, 2011 / October 13, 2011 / October 25, 2011 at 7:00 pm -
City of Ocean City
861 Asbury Ave, Ocean City, NJ -
Wilda Connor
3:10 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The old railroad tracks would have been ideal!
hasabrain
5:55 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Converting the old railroad tracks was confirmed to take a long time, "be costly and not necessarily permissable." Now how in the world does someone read that and conclude that it "would have been ideal?" The RBA report concludes that the material with the least environmental impact would be a boardwalk costing 1.5 to 2 million per mile with mitigation likely costing double that. Just submitting permit applications could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the probability of getting the many permits needed, zero. Federal funding would not be available as you cannot use federal funds to destroy wetlands - it is against the law. Get a grip folks, hundreds of thousands of Ocean City taxpayer dollars have already been thrown away on this idea. It just won't work. There will still be people in Ocean City who cannot take no for an answer and these folks will continue to pursue this - continuing the controversy. They will try to waste more money on this project because, unfortunately, some in Ocean City have used the tax base as their own private piggy bank for their own special projects. It is time - past time - for people to have respect for the tax payer dollar and to stop wasting it on their own personal dream projects.
Milo Turk
2:49 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Read further down about what I think can be done to avoid destruction of wetlands, and, therefore, wetland mitigation, to determine the minimizing of environmental impact at the least cost to the city -- through mapping. Details below.
Duffer
6:36 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Total waste of taxpayers money on all levels.
glwood57
9:36 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
would be nice, but, there is so much waste now......locking up the playgrounds after daylight would be a better use of funds than funding this project.......a taxpayers nightmare...how about using the IPE wood for the boardwalk for a more permanent solution to wear & tear & a cost saving over the long term......we will listen to the non resident outspoken visitors to take care & fight the issues!
Milo Turk
2:31 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
A possible way to determine the path of this bike route would be to figure out where different land uses are combined to show where environmentally sensitive values such as physiograpic, hydrological, riparian, and ecological features come into play. The place where these areas are least overlapped, on a map, will show where there is room for urbanization. Then the positive factors for urbanization that would be overlapped on the map would include things such as cultural features, firm soil and bedrock foundations, and good surface drainage and permeability. This would be the optimum place to put a bike route, whether it is made out of concrete or a wooden boardwalk.
sister
10:34 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Milo: Every expert who has studied this project area has determined that it is not permissable due to the wetlands rules, freshwater wetland rules, State threatened and Endangered wildlife rules - on and on. 80 feet of this is owned by the State of NJ as the tides run freely - there is no land. Too many people who refuse to listen to the experts have made too many statements that are totally wrong and yours may take the cake! You should volunteer for the OC Environmental Council - they are full of it too!
SayHeyYo
3:59 pm on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Hard to understand how people still ignore these essential facts that have been out there for years and were confirmed, again, by the DOT study:
1. The wetland options, if they could get permits and the millions of dollars in due diligence, materials and construction, and mitigation, would destroy 1 1/2 miles of wetlands and wildlife habitat, And that is just along the linear dimension. The on-street options that the report's experts lay out would accomplish the goal of safe biking with ZERO environmental impact and close to zero dollars.
2. Because the goal can be accomplished with no environmental impact, most of the major permits would not be issued.
3. The grants listed in the report are for all kinds of multiuse non-car routes, especally bike routes. They are competetive grants. Granting agencies will not hand out money just for applying for it. They do not throw good and scarce money at projects that do not and cannot get permits and are intensely controversial in the project area. They give their money to projects that will happen.
3. The report does not address overall safety of the various options and only generally refers to safety "challenges" of the wetland options. This refers to the FACTS that the wetland bike path would be isolated, remote, narrow, elevated, unlit and surrounded by marsh and water - as much as 10 feet at exceptionally high tides at parts. Does that seem safe?
We are geting safe biking on West Ave in the south end.BE HAPPY. MOVE ON