Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

In the 1980's, Briggs Chaney was zoned for high-density residential development in anticipation of a light rail line that was never built. The neighborhood continued as planned, with mainly garden apartments and townhomes and a few single-family homes.

Dan, I respectfully disagree with the above statement.

The badly-flawed 1981 Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan did not contain any recommendation in favor of light rail. It actually contained language counseling against a light rail line, which was estimated to have cost $350 million (in 1980 dollars). There were some activists along U.S. 29 that wanted light rail (I believe the late Harry Sanders (RIP, great guy)) was one of them, but there was significant opposition, especially in the Four Corners area (and the 1981 plan was for Cloverly, Fairland and White Oak only, not Four Corners).

The intent behind the "concept of transit serviceability," which was the central theme of the 1981 plan was that residents would take buses to the Silver Spring Metrorail station (in 1981, the Glenmont terminal station was still many years in the future). Now those buses also had to use the very congested general-purpose lanes on U.S. 29 (Columbia Pike and Colesville Road) - there was never shoulder use allowed south of Tech Road, and I can recall it taking an hour on the Z9 or Z11 bus to get from the Silver Spring Metrorail station to Briggs Chaney on weekday afternoons (developers were required to fund free operation of the Z11 for several years in the 1980's).

There was, however, a reason why the residential densities were made so high in the Fairland Master Plan Area. Many of the parcels of land that were vacant when the 1981 plan was written were designated as receiving areas for transferable development rights from the Upcounty Agricultural Preserve (which was new at the time), and staff at the M-NCP&PC and the Montgomery County Council were looking for places to receive them - and there was little objection to them coming to Fairland.

by C P Zilliacus on Jun 8, 2012 1:47 pm • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam