The Washington, DC region is great >> and it can be greater.


White Flint at forefront of urbanism on Rockville Pike

Rockville Pike between the NIH and downtown Rockville is an ugly mess of an edge city. Like Tysons, it has too much density to be truly car friendly, but all the ugliness of suburbia: strip malls set back behind acres of surface parking. This is all connected by a six lane road with speed limits that are too high to be safe for pedestrians. The irony is that unlike Tysons, Rockville Pike already has a Metro line—the busiest line in the Metro system, the Red Line.

Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

Sunday's Post featured a cover story about early stage plans to redevelop Rockville Pike between Medical Center and downtown Rockville from sprawling shopping centers and giant surface parking lots into a walkable, mixed-use area. I am most impressed that planners in our county (I'm a Montgomery County resident) are realizing the positive economic impacts of a walkable urban environment. They are seeing that an environment that shares resources and conserves energy will look far better on the county's books as we move forward into the future.

Over at White Flint, plans are even farther along. Montgomery County is working in partnership with the landowners (developers) of the commercial real estate and local citizens in order to create a walkable place around the White Flint Metro. Just like in Wheaton, citizens have seen the successes of neighboring walkable places in Bethesda, Silver Spring, and downtown Rockville, and want some too.

According to the Gazette, the County is working with the community to write a new Sector Plan. Although the process is not as far along as in Wheaton, there are some good ideas coming out of the process. I really like plans modify the existing curvy, wide roads with blocks that are too large for walking. The plan would turn the road infrastructure into a human-scale walkable grid (although with some curvy blocks).

Street plan for White Flint. From Glatting-Jackson. The roads with
names exist currently; the unlabeled roads would be added.

Of course, no one can plan for anything walkable without the usual concerns from the auto-centric viewpoint of traffic and parking. However, the studies predict that there will actually be larger throughput for cars on a decentralized street grid because there will be fewer car trips taken for local needs. For instance, someone who lives in one of the apartments/townhouses will walk to the corner store rather than taking up space on the road. Someone driving from one shopping center to another can take a side street instead of the Pike. And through traffic can take alternate routes around any blockages on the road. Our experience with Bethesda (I'm not counting Silver Spring and Wheaton here because they were both originally built for walkability), and North Arlington has shown there is little net effects on traffic in the long term with these sort of suburban-to-walkable retrofits.

Just like VA-7 in Tysons, planners acknowledge that Rockville Pike is a large road with a lot of through traffic. No one plans to cut back the amount of lanes. However, there are plans to subtly boulevardize it in the urban area, similar to Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda and Wilson Boulevard in Arlington. There will be more urban cross streets, buildings that come up to the sidewalk, people walking on the sidewalk, and trees that will say to motorists that they are in a zone where they need to drive more gently.

Times are changing. Plans for car-dependent to walkable urban retrofits seem to be . I know that not everyone agrees with me 100% (and I respect and usually understand the opposing view) but I am looking forward to a more urban future.

Cavan Wilk became interested in the physical layout and economic systems of modern human settlements while working on his Master's in Financial Economics. His writing often focuses on the interactions between a place's form, its economic systems, and the experiences of those who live in them. He lives in downtown Silver Spring. 


Add a comment »

amazing... I wrote this post over the weekend and now the Washington Post has this story today:

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 9:46 am • linkreport

Excellent plan. Gridding the streets is key in an area like that. It is too bad that there are major choke points along the Red Line that keep it from getting built out like the Orange Line in Arlington (NIH, the Beltway, Georgetown Prep, etc.) but from Grosvenor on north, I think it can be done. I still think they desperately need an infill station up by Montgomery College between Rockville and White Flint.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 20, 2008 10:06 am • linkreport

Of course, if Montgomery County goes ahead with these plans, DC will need to abandon any TOD plans for neighborhoods near the DC’s western Red Line stations. Even with 8-car trains and the minimum feasible spacing between trains, there will be no capacity in our two-track system for current DC residents, future DC residents and probably even Bethesda residents to board trains to commute to work. In fact, this is likely to be a problem even without 300 foot tall buildings along the Rockville Pike.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 10:21 am • linkreport

I think Tom hits the nail on the head. There's no way that Metro can handle that type of capacity increase on the red line. We're going to need major capacity upgrades at these locations.

by Adam on Oct 20, 2008 10:53 am • linkreport

Granted Washington is not Tokyo, or even Seoul, two places I have lived, but those "full trains" are not really full. There is a lot more room on them. Some of it can be realized by the new configuration of the trains cars themselves. Some of it is people realizing they can get a lot closer to their neighbor. Yes there will be some people turned off by it, but there are mornings on the S1 I take in which people get way closer to each other then I have ever seen on the metro.

I also think that as people learn to ride crowded trains, and the poles blocking the exits are removed, the times spent at stations will be reduced. People if you are near the door of a crowded train, get off the train to let peopel off and then reboard.

by nathainel on Oct 20, 2008 11:39 am • linkreport

I'd have thought that there's a fair amount of capacity on the Red line north of the Beltway-- after all, it's only in the past year that all Red line trains go to Shady Grove, rather than have half of the train routes end at Strathmore/Grosvenor. Are there any studies available on the subject?

by MattF on Oct 20, 2008 12:18 pm • linkreport

From the look of this plan, transit clogging might not be as much of a problem as one might think. That problem could be alleviated if the area becomes a business center and a commercial destination itself. For example, rather than having everyone go downtown on the Red Line, some people might go from Shady Grove to here, or against the flow from Dupont. Perhaps Cavan can fill us in on some of the use planning?

This kind of urban decentralization might require an outer purple line or BRT/LRT transit to be realized completely, but you know, the funding requirements for those plans would require more density in the first place.

by The King of Spain on Oct 20, 2008 12:49 pm • linkreport

This plan will be a boon to the (growing) population of elderly people in MoCo, who would like more concentrated amenities without the "whole world is a frontage road" feeling. I know several retirees and disabled citizens who have moved to housing near outer Red Line stations for precisely this reason.

by Ward 1 Guy on Oct 20, 2008 1:15 pm • linkreport

To be honest, little focus has been on the Red Line itself. Most of the work has been on the immediate concerns of planning for a series of urban neighborhoods in a way that enables current landowners to make a profit, reduce carbon emissions, foster a sense of place, be sustainable with respect to the commons, satisfy existing residents' concerns and other related issues.

My $.02 regarding the Metro... there is more room on the Red Line. Granted, I don't live on the western side but I have taken during rush hour rather than my usual trip up the eastern side. My observations during those trips were that is operates similar to the eastern side. On the eastern side, about 1/3 to 1/2 get off at Union Station. Of those remaining, 1/3 get off at Fort Totten or Takoma (Brookland is really, really underused), 1/3 at Silver Spring and then the final third at one of the final three stations. On the west, it seemed to be about 1/2 got off between DuPont and Bethesda. Of the remaining half, 1/2 got off at Grosvenor. Most of the rest went to Rockville/Shady Grove with only a handful getting off at White Flint and Twinbrook.

Keep in mind that the long term plans for the Metro are to have the Red, Green and Orange lines all running all eight car trains at peak hours. Of course, that's dependent on buying more cars and upgrading the system's electrical capacity. Currently, every 3rd to 4th is an eight car train because that's all that WMATA owns and has enough electricity for.

Another thing to think about with these plans is that there are currently many people coming from way past the end of the Metro and taking it all the way downtown. When these new urban neighborhoods become places of employment in and of themselves, many of the traffic from the exurbs would get off at places like White Flint, much like many now get off at Bethesda since it has 55,000 jobs. I would not worry about DC residents not being able to board trains. Even though our Metro is well used, there is more capacity. Also, we forget that the flows of people in urban environments are more fluid since it's a mixed use environment. You could think of it more like the electron cloud surrounding a nucleus of an atom rather than birds migrating. It's a much more efficient use of transit.

From my daily experience riding the Metro, far too many passengers only get on the center two cars in a train. I always sit in the front or last car and never have a problem with space. However, I'm not sure that's completely relevant to crowding. It's just my perception.

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 1:28 pm • linkreport

Even if the Red Line becomes too clogged, the area is bounded by a rail line on the east that presently carries MARC rail. I'd think adding a station to MARC would be a low-cost option (though it slows others down).

by David C on Oct 20, 2008 2:59 pm • linkreport

"Even if the Red Line becomes too clogged, the area is bounded by a rail line on the east that presently carries MARC rail. I'd think adding a station to MARC would be a low-cost option (though it slows others down)."

How does this help the DC residents who find that they can't board trains in their stations?

Cavan, With all due respect, you cannot draw conclusions about available capacity on the western side of the Red Line by extrapolating from your experience on the eastern side of the Red Line. I can assure you that it is not usual for rush hour trains that arrive at DC’s stations on the western side to be full, although a few people might try to squeeze in at every stop. And this isn’t only in the center cars, since the Montgomery County passengers are astute enough to realize that they need to go to the front or back of the train if they plan on boarding. Yes, WMATA has plans to add two more cars to the six-car trains, but after that, and reducing the headway to 2.5 minutes (which probably isn’t reasonable with the longer dwell-time for crowded trains), they have reached full capacity with no expansion possibilities for the two-track system, and as more commuters have boarded the train before it reaches DC, fewer DC commuters will have the opportunity to board. And WMATA expects to reach fully capacity quickly, even before factoring in these new plans. Can DC really increase density near those Red Line stations, assuming that most of those residents will use the Metro for most of their transportation needs, including commuting to work?

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 3:09 pm • linkreport


Change the alignments of the seats within the cars and you can increase the overall capacity of of the line a great deal.

Also, if people are going in from Rockville to the Union Station area, an improved MARC service can relieve a lot of that pressure. Say you up the MARC headways, offer through service to L'Enfant and Crystal City, etc.

by Alex B. on Oct 20, 2008 3:32 pm • linkreport


I have to admit that I have not had the opportunity to conduct a full professional study about the matter. Consequently, your guess is as good as mine.

No, I did not extrapolate based on my daily commute. If you read my previous post, you'll see that I was writing about my anecdotal experiences with riding the western side during rush hour. I included info on there about my commute as a means of comparison, so that maybe a reader could relate it to his/her daily experiences on other Metro lines.

While I suppose it is possible that the Red Line could fail with greater ridership, I personally think that our experience with North Arlington suggest otherwise. The Orange Line's biggest fault during rush hour is having to go through the Potomac tunnel bottleneck.

However, I can neither prove my suppositions nor disprove yours.

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 3:53 pm • linkreport

Alex B.: The WMATA projections assumed an increase in the capacity of the cars by removing seats and having more of the passengers stand, as well as 8-car trains and minimum headway. But, keep in mind that there is a limit to the seats that can be removed or realigned if we expect people to choose to ride Metro. If we keep in mind that a ride from Shady Grove to Metro Center takes 34 minutes under ideal conditions and that our population is aging or simply has better options than standing shoulder to shoulder in a crowded seatless or limited seating train, we see that some will not find your plan acceptable. But, even if you converted all the cars to standing room only and the Montgomery County residents were still interested in riding Metro, it wouldn’t be long, with this plan before District residents will find that they cannot board the trains that pull into their stations. It just is irresponsible to assume that we can keep building up density by Metro stations when we have a limit on the capacity of the Metro system.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 3:54 pm • linkreport

Cavan, I don't ride the Orange line from northern Virginia during rush hour, but I can say that I have heard from many coworkers about how crowded the trains are in the morning. One person said that they have difficulty boarding at Ballston, and so chose to drive to the Metro Center area instead, and otheres have reported even having difficulty boarding at West Falls Church at certain hours.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 3:59 pm • linkreport

So we should do nothing instead?

I understand your concerns. What do you propose should be done with respect to Rockville Pike between Grosvenor and downtown Rockville instead? Should we leave it as a gas guzzling edge city?

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 4:19 pm • linkreport

Tom, I hear what you're saying, but you're worried about step #3,956 when we're on step #4.

For one, adding that density will make Rockville a destination in its own right. The relationship is not linear - you'll likely see a substantial reverse commute develop.

Furthermore, many trips simply will not materialize. You'll get people living and working within the same area and walking, rather than riding Metro. Adding that kind of density makes all sorts of service retail, restaurants, and other amenities feasible. Not everyone will be going into DC, as there are substantial employment anchors along the Pike already.

Finally, such increased density and improved land use provides the base from which to actually improve the services offered. This is not a chicken or the egg kind of scenario - when you add that density, it's a lot easier to push for more alternatives.

In short, what you mention is a concern, but under no circumstances is it a reason to not move forward with these changes.

by Alex B. on Oct 20, 2008 4:25 pm • linkreport

I simply am saying that planners need to do more than simply assume that Metro can absorb all the density that they want to put everywhere. There are capacity limits with a two-track system, and our plans are rapidly approaching those limits. More density along the Rockville Pike will have an impact on how useful the Metro system is within the Beltway, and DC planners need to be looking at transportation capacity, other infrastructure concerns, and carefully consider the impact of development plans outside their jurisdiction as well as development that is in the pipeline, both inside and outside the District, and the zoning envelope within their jurisdiction. Since I am not a Montgomery County resident, I am not advocating for or against this plan, just cautioning that DC needs to consider the impact of this plan as it makes its own decisions.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 4:32 pm • linkreport

Another thought just crossed my mind...

We will be more likely to get funding for Metro upgrades and redundant localized transit services such as streetcars and shuttle buses if there is increased demand (density) for such services.

Perhaps those developments would address your concerns?

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 4:40 pm • linkreport

This discussion has really highlighted the need for secondary transit services such as streetcars in the District. The heavy rail system is the regional backbone of the transit system. However, there is plenty of room for more bones to address neighborhood transit needs.

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2008 4:43 pm • linkreport

Tom, I disagree with your assertion that we are rapidly approaching capacity on the red line.

My estimation, granted I am pulling it from my backside but as you link no sources I think you may be doing the same, is that changing to 8 car trains and reconfiguring the seating arrangments, might mean that the red line is only operating at 50 to 60% capacity. While people would prefer sitting, people will get use to standing for 30 or 40 minutes. People will also get use to moving to the center of the car instead of only crowding around the doors.

by nathaniel on Oct 20, 2008 5:16 pm • linkreport

Instead of pulling your "estimation" from your backside, you can check the many projections and studies posted on the WMATA web-site. Since some of the information is in graphs, where it is difficult to back out specific numbers and they didn’t provide graphs for some of the years that they studied, I did not include my estimate of the data that was graphed.

As for removing seats and having large numbers of passengers standing for 30 or 40 minutes, you might want to consider the fact that many commuters might not be as young as you seem to be and would find that to be a hardship, or would find driving even in traffic preferable. Remember also that on a long ride, one major advantage that Metro has over a private vehicle or even a bus is the ability to read a book or newspaper or even use a laptop computer. WMATA has been studying the alternative configurations, many with far fewer seats. These test cars were described in several articles in the Washington Post.

Cavan: I don’t think that adding secondary transportation services in the District is sufficient to fill the gap of providing Metro-quality service to support TOD development at the Metro areas inside the Beltway after we have increased the demand outside the Beltway to such an extent that it becomes difficult for District residents to actually use the Metro for rush-hour commuting.

by Tom on Oct 20, 2008 5:41 pm • linkreport

Remember that the Purple Line will significantly change the ridership pattern on the Red Line. Lots of seats will open up on inbound trains at Bethesda as people get off to transfer.

Relatively few people will transfer to the inbound Red Line from the Purple Line, because if you're going from Silver Spring to downtown it's quicker to take the Red Line directly. Mostly people arriving from the Chevy Chase Lake station will make the transfer - the number of boardings is relatively small at Chevy Chase Lake, according to the EIS (I don't have it in front of me), and not all of them will be going inbound on the Red Line.

Much more numerous will be transfers from Red Line to outbound Purple Line, people going to jobs at Medical Center, Rockville, and if these plans succeed, White Flint and Twinbrook.

This is a significant point about the Purple Line that few people appreciate. It greatly improves the efficiency of utilization of the Red Line, since most new trips are using underused portions of that line. Also, it provides a safety valve when the Red Line is blocked downtown - you can go the other way and cut across to your destination.

Another point about White Flint. People taking the Red Line to jobs at White Flint will mostly be reverse commuters. At Bethesda currently, about two thirds of the riders arriving in the morning are reverse commuters. White Flint is further out, so the percentage of reverse commuters is likely to be even higher.

by Ben Ross on Oct 20, 2008 5:49 pm • linkreport

So Tom are you arguing that development might make Metro so popular that it is beyond capacity and will drive people to drive?

First of all, that's a problem I'd love to have.

B. Fine, so they're going to drive, but the roads are so clogged that it's driving people to Metro. Hmm...where does the circle end? More cyclists, bus riders, telecommuters, etc... and people clamoring for transit improvements that partially solve the problems

#4, It's true that standing doesn't work for all people. Neither does biking or walking. But if pressures in the system changed things so that those who could stand did, and those who couldn't drove, wouldn't that be more fair?

by David C on Oct 20, 2008 5:52 pm • linkreport

I've been away from the computer today and missed this fascinating debate, but here are a few thoughts.

First, we should absolutely upgrade the Red Line. I'd love to see an express Red starting farther out in Gaithersburg or so, stopping at Rockville and Bethesda, then maybe down Wisconsin to Georgetown or something. However, we're not getting that anytime soon. In the meantime, there's MARC, and as I've written many times before, we should work out the freight issues so we can upgrade MARC to transit-frequency service.

Most importantly, this growth is going to happen no matter what. If we don't put more housing and walkability on Rockville Pike, then it's going to go out in Darnestown or Frederick, and that's worse, because those people have to drive. At least if it's on a crowded Red Line, some people can still drive, but some people won't; some will commute to work outside the peak hour; some will take the bus; some won't work downtown; and one day, we can expand the Red Line.

Dense development near Metro also creates ridership off-peak. People don't only commute to work. They also go downtown, to, Bethesda or to Rockville Town Center to eat or for a movie. They go see the Nats. They go visit friends. They go out to bars. If they're on Metro, then some of those trips will happen on Metro during night and weekend hours. And Metro has plenty of capacity then. The more non-commute ridership Metro gets, the more frequency it will run on evenings and weekends, which will make Metro even more appealing for evening and weekend use. Right now, it's pretty bad on weekends, and so a lot of people (myself included) often avoid it; housing around Metro helps reverse that slide.

In summary, putting housing near Metro can't be worse than putting it elsewhere, and there are a lot of reasons it's better.

by David Alpert on Oct 20, 2008 5:52 pm • linkreport

Tom - the Purple Line might remedy that by taking some through-traffic from SS to Bethesda, but I doubt people will put up with two transfers to save a few minutes & a crowded train, and the Corridor Cities Transitway will likely cause a significant increase in western Red Line ridership in the meantime. Making the MARC Brunswick Line between Germantown & Union Station more attractive(cheaper, lower headway, less freight traffic, Metro-integrated-fare?) as an express route, in conjunction with a Separated Blue Line that hits Union Station would help to balance it out.

by Squalish on Oct 20, 2008 5:58 pm • linkreport

For DC resident it will eventually mean waiting for the next train or so but not in the near future; To fix the problems for DC residents there will need to be a line going east to west. Whatever is done cant be fixed by adding trains no matter what because of the way the system is built the answer will be to eventually build a new line

The should have done is have the silver line going from dulles through Tysons Corner then up Dolly Madison Blvd and through the northern part of DC meet the Greenline somewhere and continue to Greenbelt and possibly BWI sometime in the future hitting two problems at once traveling in dc and traveling to the airport. and build a line going up 16th street then toward Kensington and then straight north to whereever and eventually build the complete circular purple line that goes through MD and VA but as how things are going will not happen until atleast 2070

by kk on Oct 20, 2008 8:04 pm • linkreport

Increased housing on Rockville Pike will have some impact on DC metro capacity but also keep in mind that more and more of the ridership is within the outer rings rather than to and from the core. Particularly if you look decades down the road, which the Rockville Pike planners are doing.

The smart growth vision for Rockville Pike, which is a great plan, will surely require additional transit capacity. At its base, that doesn't seem very surprising.

by Hans on Oct 20, 2008 9:22 pm • linkreport

I am disappointed in that there is no traffic circle -- ala DuPont style -- at the intersection of the Pike and Montrose.

I am also disappointed that then built the Montrose Parkway rather than a depressed-cover way of the existing Montrose Road. Ripping out those woods for an all new road -- unneeded IMHO rather than some DuPont circle style grade separation of the already existing Montrose Road -- was a WASTE and I am baffled that there was so little said about that versus say the Klingle Road issue in D.C.

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 20, 2008 11:08 pm • linkreport

Douglas: I was under the impression that work is already beginning on Montrose (at this stage, tree cutting & leveling) to tunnel under Rockville Pike, albeit without a circle. A diversion has been in place for the last year in order to work on the I-270 junction, and the Rockville Pike junction was up next.

by Squalish on Oct 21, 2008 2:05 am • linkreport


One last point, you say people won't stand for 30 or 40 minutes. Well it was said that people wouldn't get out of their cars either, but they sure seem to have. Yes I am young, but in other places I have seen old people (70+)stand for those lengths of times. People will stand if that is what is required to avoid high prices on gas, parking and heavy traffic. Also it is quite easy to read a newspaper while standing, I do it everyday as do others.

If you only look at what people are doing now, then you will come to the conclusion that there will be problems. But if you look back 10 years you will see great changes in behavior, why do you think these behavior changes will suddenly stop?

by nathaniel on Oct 21, 2008 8:25 am • linkreport

OK, so it seems like instead of careful interjurisdictional planning, you would prefer to imagine express trains and local trains on a two-track system operating with minimal headway or assume a population with job locations and interests that don’t require Metro use or don’t require peak-hour Metro use, or ignore the fact that some residents might be in families with jobs in very different locations, or some individuals have job location changes after they choose a residence, and a myriad of other reasons when your type of crystal-ball gazing might not give you an accurate projection of the impact of various proposals.

I prefer to base interjurisdictional planning on reasonable estimates of future capacity and models of economic decision-making that reflect the complex decisions facing our future residents. We cannot simply plan based on slogans and the assumption that Metro can handle any and all the transportation needs of as many residents, customers and employees as we choose to place near Metro stations. The sky is the limit. Interjurisdictional planning requires determining how much capacity there is and where the development should go.

And David C, which Metro system do you ride where those who are capable of standing do, and allow those who might find it more difficult to sit.

kk: You seem to be missing the point. Waiting for the next train at District stations isn’t an option if all the trains have reached full capacity, both sitting and standing room, outside the Beltway, perhaps even at Shady Grove. And by the way, District residents already are frequently waiting for the next train.

nathaniel: Perhaps you have seen some people over 70 standing on the Metro, and I have seen pregnant women, people with difficulty walking and elderly citizens sitting on the platform letting several trains go by until they can be certain that they will get a seat when they board. When you read your newspaper while standing on the lurching Metrorail train, are you also carrying a purse and a briefcase? Perhaps, when you grow up, you will develop some more understanding and sympathy for others.

Signing off, Tom

by Tom on Oct 21, 2008 10:46 am • linkreport

Tom, I routinely stand on the metro when I could have a seat. I am too tall to comfortably ride in any seats except those reserved for those who need seats, i.e. those by the doors. I see many other people, tall or not, doing this each day.

Secondly, I think the point here is that we need to encourage people to live where they work and work where they live. If I live in Frederick, drive to Shady Grove and commute to downtown DC I'm missing the point of the metro. If I live in NW DC and take the red line outbound to work at this new development in White Flint or in Rockville or Bethesda, whatever, then, while the jurisdiction might be different I still live where I work. The attitude that the District is better just because it's the District is outdated. There are dense urban areas outside the District, (and areas of suburban hell), and the more we promote these areas and remove the sprawl the better off the region will be as a whole.

Increasing density along the red line in western Montgomery won't mean all those people will be inbound to downtown DC every morning. Some will work in Maryland. Others that live in DC will work in Maryland at the new jobs higher density will create. I have quite a few friends that do this in the District and work in either Maryland or Virginia. The more dense we make the rest of the transit served area the better we distribute the trips on said transit.

by Chris on Oct 21, 2008 11:50 am • linkreport


Will this be a true tunnel beneath the existing Pike grade, or is the Pike being elevated on a berm ala MD Route 5 (yuck!)

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 21, 2008 12:41 pm • linkreport


It was not my point that people who could stand would give up their seats, but that people who could stand would take metro. People who could not stand would drive.

Having said that, I see people give up their seats ALL THE TIME. So which Metro are you riding where people don't?

by David C on Oct 21, 2008 2:47 pm • linkreport

Looks like it hasn't been bid yet. Do you know where to look to find the planning documents?

by Squalish on Oct 21, 2008 3:51 pm • linkreport

See these:

Not ideal, but correctable without demolition.

Fortunately it keeps the Pike at its existing grade.

The bridge could be converted to a circle with add ons to make it like the interchanges proposed for New York Avenue in D.C. with Bladensburg Road.

I would like to see the depressed grade separated Montrose roadway configuration extended and air rights development atop.

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 21, 2008 9:24 pm • linkreport


Am I the only person baffled by the relative little attention to saving the Montrose woods versus the attention to the Klinge Road issue?

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 21, 2008 9:26 pm • linkreport

Douglas, there was an enormous fight over the building of Montrose Parkway.

There are plenty of inconsistencies around, but this isn't one of them.

by Ben Ross on Oct 22, 2008 8:54 am • linkreport

Measured by a comparison of activist effort to amount of trees destroyed there sure was.

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 22, 2008 3:18 pm • linkreport

I'm sorry, but it's called a freeway. I know- I-270 is about one mile away, but 6-lane roads aren't attractive to cross on foot; underpasses help. And anyway,I don't understand why more drivers don't use Old Georgetown Pike south of White Flint; or does it sound too elitist of a name? It is a lovely 4-lane road.

by Adam on Oct 24, 2008 10:21 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

You can use some HTML, like <blockquote>quoting another comment</blockquote>, <i>italics</i>, and <a href="http://url_here">hyperlinks</a>. More here.

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.


Support Us