Greater Greater Washington

Roads


Will Montgomery fund a new sprawl highway?

Montgomery County residents say the proposed Midcounty Highway between Gaithersburg and Clarksburg costs too much, cuts through sensitive park and agricultural land, and won't solve the area's traffic challenges. But will the county decide to build it anyway?


TAME members at last night's public hearing at Seneca Valley High School in Germantown.

Midcounty Highway Extended, or M83, first showed up in area master plans in the 1960s. If built as planned, it would be a 6-lane controlled-access highway parallel to Route 355 on the east side of I-270. Montgomery County would pay for the project completely, presumably to avoid complying with stringent federal environmental regulations.

Former County Executive Doug Duncan revived the project several years ago, and the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) continues to push the highway forward today. MCDOT just completed an Environmental Effects Review earlier this year and will seek support from the County Council and County Executive Ike Leggett later this year to include the project in next year's budget.

Last night, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers held a public hearing at Seneca Valley High School in Germantown regarding whether they should grant a joint permit to impact wetlands and streams in the highway's path. Dozens of highway opponents from the Transit Alternatives to the Midcounty Highway Extended (TAME) Coalition, many of whom have fought the project for years, turned out in force to testify against the project. There were other voices in the crowd as well, in particular a contingent opposing the alternative through their neighborhood, but supporting the highway if it went through someone else's backyard.


Alternative routes being studied for Midcounty Highway. Image from MCDOT.

MCDOT originally evaluated 11 alternatives, and has since narrowed the field down to just 6, including a no-build option. Alternatives 4, 8, and 9 are the most controversial and involve the most new pavement and right-of-way through environmentally sensitive areas and existing neighborhoods. They also happen to be MCDOT's preferred alternatives. MCDOT estimates that Alternative 9 would cost $350 million to build, though local activists say it could be double that.

Alternative 2, the cheapest option, would make improvements to Route 355 and use transportation demand management (TDM) to give travelers other ways to get around, while alternative 5 involves widening it. MCDOT did not look at any transit alternatives. Their report contains a footnote saying that the community requested a transit alternative, but says that the county's Bus Rapid Transit plan is still too nascent to be considered.

MCDOT contends that new construction would impact only 0.9 acres of wetlands because they propose building bridges over and through wetland areas. Yet it is clear that the construction process to build those bridges will require filling in parts of the wetland areas and compacting their soils, which are key for filtration and other ecosystem functions. Over the long term, more pavement over wetlands means more polluted stormwater runoff into waterways already under threat from other development, such as Ten Mile Creek.


Impacts of each proposed M83 alignment. MCDOT's favored alignments are in dark grey. TAME prefers alignments 2, 5 and the no-build option. Data from MCDOT's executive study and traffic projections.

In addition to water quality impacts, opponents pointed out a litany of other impacts from Alternatives 4, 8, and 9, including additional carbon emissions from induced traffic, impacts to the county's prized Agricultural Reserve, the loss of parkland, the division of neighborhoods, the taking of homes and local businesses, and more.

Local activists also questioned whether M83, if built, would even provide the traffic relief that transportation officials say it would provide. Indeed, MCDOT's own projections show more traffic-jammed intersections if it builds any of M83's more costly alignments.

For the $350 million it costs to build M83, Montgomery County could build Alternative 2 and 20-45 miles of the proposed bus rapid transit plan, if you use the federal average cost per mile to build BRT. This would enable a high quality transit connection and a viable alternative to driving between Clarksburg, Gaithersburg, and points south. But this alternative has never been evaluated.

Looking at the chart above, it's easy to do the math. The county's favored alignments destroy the most acreage of parkland, farmland, and wetlands, take the most property from local businesses and residences, cost the most, and still have more failing intersections than the cheapest, lowest impact alternatives.

Later this year, the issue will go before the County Council, and then to the County Executive, who will both have a chance to weigh in on whether to include funds to continue the project in next year's budget. It remains to be seen whether the County leaders will continue their progressive planning tradition by investing scarce local dollars in transit and smart growth, or whether they sink hundreds of millions into a 1960's-era sprawl highway. If they check their math, the choice should be simple.

The Maryland Department of the Environment and Army Corps of Engineers will accept written comments until August 21. If you'd like to see Montgomery County consider real alternatives to Midcounty Highway, you can contact them using this form.

Kelly Blynn is the Campaign Manager for the Coalition for Smarter Growth's Next Generation of Transit Campaign. A former international campaigner at the climate change organization 350.org, she believes in thinking globally while acting locally, and she is now working hard to organize with communities for sustainable and equitable transportation in the Washington, DC region. 

Comments

Add a comment »

350 million is a light rail system(very basic) or a street car line if you include federal funding.

Baltimore's 22.5 mile Blue Line cost 400 million in '92 without any federal funding.

by Richard B on Aug 8, 2013 12:18 pm • linkreport

Wow, another ploy to force push a rapid bus trolley that most people will not use due to the fact that Gaithersbur/Germantown lack employment/upscale retail growth that forces upper Montgomery county tax payers to spend time and money in northern Virginia.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 12:51 pm • linkreport

I don't understand why a highway through a mostly-developed area is being called a "sprawl highway".

If a rail line was being proposed instead, the same people howling about a "sprawl highway" would be re-branding rail-induced sprawl as "economic development".

by ceefer66 on Aug 8, 2013 1:10 pm • linkreport

That's because its been shown time and time again that highways really only relieve congestion for a little bit while rail lines have been able to absorb a lot more pop. growth without resultant increase in traffic. (See: Arlington).

But that's secondary to the fact that it's a lot of money that could probably be better spent elsewhere. You could get far greater returns using it to ensure that BRT is sped-up rather than watered down.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2013 1:14 pm • linkreport

@ceefer
I don't understand why a highway through a mostly-developed area is being called a "sprawl highway".

Check the map, the proposed road is either in greenfields or relatively recent fringe suburbs.

A rail line out there would be called "the train to nowhere" or more likely a freight line to bypass the now built up metropolitan branch

by Richard B on Aug 8, 2013 1:18 pm • linkreport

ceefer66(I don't understand why a highway through a mostly-developed area is being called a "sprawl highway".) -

Now what that says is they are soo hello bent on stopping new highways in the Maryland suburbs that they are misusing the word sprawl.

and

Most of the highway haters are not from suburban Maryland and are more than likely from out of state.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 1:25 pm • linkreport

What, exactly, are these improvements to 355 that Alt 2 provide? Because I really wonder if they'll be enough. Thinking about that area (read: I lived in that area for ten years in a neighborhood that M-83 would've gone right past), 355 is really the only north-south route anyone east of 355 can take to get from Gaithersbug/Montgomery Village up to Germantown. Well, okay, there's also Wightman/Brink at the end of Montgomery Village, which is 2 lanes and windy, and there's Watkins Mill/Germantown Rd, which is 2 lanes, windy, and pretty crowded already. But in all seriousness, I wonder how many people who are opposed to M-83 are people who live in that area. Yes, I'd LOVE for the money to go to improving transit opportunities, and I'd LOVE for MoCo's BRT to stop being drawings on paper and be a reality, but the other reality is that transit is godawful in that part of Montgomery County, which is why we're having this conversation in the first place! Depending on what Alt 2's improvements are, I'm not sure whether or not just improving 355 is going to be enough.

by Justin..... on Aug 8, 2013 1:27 pm • linkreport

hasn't this road been in the area master plans for decades?

by SilverSpring on Aug 8, 2013 1:51 pm • linkreport

Although this road has been planned for decades, most of the communities this would connect are finished being built, and although traffic is bad at times, it's not nonfunctional gridlock, suggesting to me that improvements to 355 and other roads may be enough. Most of the 'new' development for Gaithersburg and Germantown are proposed on the west side of 270, and i'm not sure how much demand there really is to get from upper Clarksburg to Montgomery Village that 270 and an improved 355 wouldn't be able to handle. It's not like either location is an employment or retail center. I'd rather see the money improve MD 27 from the upper end of Clarksburg down to Brink, and to help add the Master Planed additional lane on 270 north to Clarksburg Road. Aren't freeways supposed to be the way we move people quickly between towns?

The alignment of M-83 cuts right through Seneca Valley State Park, and would create disturbance through the middle of one of the few remaining high quality, non invasive invaded forests. We'd not just be adding a new source of water pollution, but opening up that whole part of the park to invasion of non-native plant species that thrive on the disturbance of a roadside.

by Gull on Aug 8, 2013 2:18 pm • linkreport

drumz( That's because its been shown time and time again that highways really only relieve congestion for a little bit while rail lines have been able to absorb a lot more pop. growth without resultant increase in traffic. (See: Arlington).)

- If that were even close to being true then they would not have built the Springfield mixing bowl, I-495 Hot Lanes, I-395/95 Hot Lanes, I-66 widening, Fairfax and Prince William County Parkways.

drumz(But that's secondary to the fact that it's a lot of money that could probably be better spent elsewhere. You could get far greater returns using it to ensure that BRT is sped-up rather than watered down.)

- The same old excuse that stopped I-270 from continuing into downtown dc from bethesda. What became of it; metro red line and now they stoop soo low to waste Maryland tax payers money by building a BRT trolley which is a watered down depressed heavy rail.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 2:37 pm • linkreport

The Montgomery County Master Plan was begun in the 1960s and amended several times since. Always, the extension of M-83 was the Alt. 9 route and everyone who bought a home that is adjacent to that area should ALWAYS have been on notice that one day there might be a road. Meanwhile, the right of way itself has been allowed to turn into trees although originally it was farmland. Meanwhile, proposed Alt. 4 runs a route that was NEVER on the Master Plan and the citizens who bought homes there did so believing there would not be such a road. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

They are folks who did their due diligence and now you want to punish them by having Clarksburg traffic run through their neighborhoods. They also have trees and animals and streams in their neighborhoods, and you left out of your comment the historical Prathertown community that would have nice high walls between it and the road (talk about ghettoizing!) You want to take away THEIR streams and trees and grass that surround their homes for the sake of the unoccupied right-of-way that was set aside all those years ago for M-83 and for which there has been more than 40 years of notice for anyone caring to consult county planning documents. Some of the people who live along the Alt. 4 route do not have a lot of money but what they had they put into homes that were not supposed to have 6 lane highways running under their bedroom windows. What did they do to deserve that? Thosee opposing Alt. 4 did everything right in finding a place to live and relied on the county plan; now you want to sucker punch them for the sake of trees that would not be there had the road been built when it was supposed to be built. By the way, DOT says it can build the original route so that the impact on wetlands would not be worse than Alt. 4.

You should [deleted for violating the comment policy] let us know why any person who bought a home near the original route should be protected at the expense of those who did not.

Virginia Nuta

by Virginia Nuta on Aug 8, 2013 2:53 pm • linkreport

Why not go with no-build and then avoid conflicts between people who support alt-4 and alt-9 entirely?

by drumz on Aug 8, 2013 2:59 pm • linkreport

drumz( Why not go with no-build and then avoid conflicts between people who support alt-4 and alt-9 entirely?)

- Only if they scrap the I-95/395 HOT Lanes project.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 3:28 pm • linkreport

Steve, why does adopting the no build option for the Mid-County highway require scraping the I-95/395 HOT project in Virginia? That's a rather nonsensical response. They are two wildly different projects with vastly different aims.

by Birdie on Aug 8, 2013 3:39 pm • linkreport

Steve,

Ok.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2013 3:44 pm • linkreport

- The same old excuse that stopped I-270 from continuing into downtown dc from bethesda. What became of it; metro red line and now they stoop soo low to waste Maryland tax payers money by building a BRT trolley which is a watered down depressed heavy rail.

I wasn't aware that I-270 was planned to cut through to DC, but thank God that plan got cancelled. Given how successful the Red Line has been for development along Wisconsin and Conn Aves, I would say it was money well spent. If someone is mourning the highway extension and damning the Red Line, I have a pretty good idea about the merits of his other arguments.

BTW, I live in suburban MD for quite a number of years.

by Watcher on Aug 8, 2013 3:44 pm • linkreport

lived

by Watcher on Aug 8, 2013 3:45 pm • linkreport

I personally wish that we could think in 21st century terms and look to combinations of different types of mass transit. For example, I recently visited Israel and rode their new light rail that runs down Jaffa Road's median strip, thinking how great it would be to do this on 355, which is no narrower than Jaffa Road. Imagine that once you reach 355, you could ride this speedy little train, get off in Rockville and get on Metro. Imagine having the ability to stop off enroute to shop in Rockville, Gaithersburg and Germantown without having to do much walking. It would be a boon for business. People get on and off easily without having to travel to remote underground stations, even in Jerusalem's suburban areas.

The folks who live along Brink and Wightman have a bad traffic problem even now with vehicles speeding through their rural roads. Alt 4 would make it worse. Doing nothing doesn't solve their problems or the problems of Clarksburg either. Those of us who chose to live closer in have to suffer for Park and Plannings failure to control the situation in Clarksburg? Anyway, the "Stick with the Plan" contingent have a legitimate problem which is not of their making, and they believe that the original plan which has been on the books for 40 years would help solve the problem. It is not helpful to call them names. Nor is it accurate to say they want a road in "other people's back yards" without disclosing that "other people's back yards" were chosen with the knowledge there would be a road there.

by Virginia Nuta on Aug 8, 2013 3:55 pm • linkreport

@Virginia Nuta I think you may have misunderstood the article and my testimony last night. We are clearly against Alternative 4 AND Alternatives 8 and 9, and like you say, would like to see the County look at 21st century options, not a 1960s era road. We would rather see Alternative 2 evaluated more closely combined with a serious look at Rapid Transit, which to my knowledge has not been done. I realize Alternative 9 has been on the books for a long time, but it is still a major highway that would have the same detrimental effects to others' neighborhoods, parks, and agricultural land, as it would in the Alternative 4 alignment. In 2013, we should look at how we can best move people, not just cars, in the way that does the least harm.

by Kelly Blynn on Aug 8, 2013 4:09 pm • linkreport

@Watcher
I wasn't aware that I-270 was planned to cut through to DC

It wouldn't have. Well not completely. It would have been concurrent with 495 from it's current meeting point near Rockville pike and then branch off after crossing rock creek park. From there it would have gone south along the old B&O tracks. It would have made western silver spring a much less interesting place to live and depending on the option picked would have tunneled/been sunken through takoma, brookyn, def tunneled rhode island ave and then resurfaced around NoMa.

Probably good they didnt build it, but it was never going to go down Wisconsin.

by Richard B on Aug 8, 2013 4:25 pm • linkreport

I was at the hearing last night, and I live in the area.

Alt 4 is clearly a bad idea. But I don't think that this makes Alt 8 or Alt 9 (the master plan alignments) a good idea. I think that it makes Alt 8 and Alt 9 equally bad ideas. Pitting the people who live around Alt 4 against the people who live around Alt 8/Alt 9 would be an example of a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Also, let's assume that the highway actually will cost only (!) $350 million. Is M83 really the best transportation project for Montgomery County to spend $350 million on?

And yes, M83 has been on the books for a long time. But I don't think that's a reason to build it. There are a lot of things that seemed like a good idea in 1964 that we no longer consider a good idea. M83 is one of them.

No to Alt 4; no to Alt 8; no to Alt 9. Yes to transit.

by Miriam on Aug 8, 2013 5:15 pm • linkreport

Birdie( Steve, why does adopting the no build option for the Mid-County highway require scraping the I-95/395 HOT project in Virginia? That's a rather nonsensical response. They are two wildly different projects with vastly different aims.)

- The only difference is that one project is in Virginia and the other is in Maryland, but if it makes you happy how about they scrap the Loudoun County Parkway project and the I-395/95 HOT Lane Project.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 5:21 pm • linkreport

@Miriam - exactly.

I-270 was supposed to relieve congestion on 355. M83 *may* relieve congestion on both I270 and 355, but only for a few years. We need a real, long term, permanent solution. Another road is not the solution - transit is.

by Ronit on Aug 8, 2013 5:53 pm • linkreport

Watcher( thank God that plan got cancelled. Given how successful the Red Line has been for development along Wisconsin and Conn Aves, I would say it was money well spent. If someone is mourning the highway extension and damning the Red Line, I have a pretty good idea about the merits of his other arguments.)

- And now the anti-Maryland highway haters have run out of steam with the heavy rail subway support they are now hustling Maryland tax payers to support a BRT trolley to run on existing 6 lane highways within short distance of subway lines and bus routes. That's like saying that building the red line subway was a big mistake if they are trying to hustle a BRT trolley along MD Highway 355 and MD Highway 97.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 6:08 pm • linkreport

Guys, Steve's basic thesis here and in other threads that Maryland elected officials are actually trying to make Maryland worse off in comparison to Northern va in order to force Marylanders to spend time and money south of the Potomac. Keep that in mind.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2013 6:13 pm • linkreport

That's like saying that building the red line subway was a big mistake if they are trying to hustle a BRT trolley along MD Highway 355 and MD Highway 97.

No, it's saying we need to connect more places with transit, because there's too much traffic already but we're still growing. The Metro stations are two miles apart - BRT connects those places with places in-between along 355.

by MLD on Aug 8, 2013 6:15 pm • linkreport

Virginia Nuta(I personally wish that we could think in 21st century terms and look to combinations of different types of mass transit. For example, I recently visited Israel and rode their new light rail that runs down Jaffa Road's median strip, thinking how great it would be to do this on 355, which is no narrower than Jaffa Road. Imagine that once you reach 355, you could ride this speedy little train, get off in Rockville and get on Metro. Imagine having the ability to stop off enroute to shop in Rockville, Gaithersburg and Germantown without having to do much walking. It would be a boon for business. People get on and off easily without having to travel to remote underground stations, even in Jerusalem's suburban areas.)

- Build it along along VA 7, VA 236, VA 644, Van Dorn Street, Braddock Road, VA 234, Dale Blvd, Resting Parkway, and Telagraph Road. If it works in NOVA then it is a possibility it may work in some parts of Montgomery County.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 6:37 pm • linkreport

Miriam( No to Alt 4; no to Alt 8; no to Alt 9. Yes to transit.)

- Translation = No to any new modern upscale Business/Economic Growth for Suburban Maryland and Yes to more Sprawl Growth in Northern Virginia.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 6:50 pm • linkreport

Richard( It would have made western silver spring a much less interesting place to live and depending on the option picked would have tunneled/been sunken through takoma, brookyn, def tunneled rhode island ave and then resurfaced around NoMa.)

- I-66 goes through Rosslyn, I-395 goes through Pentagon City, Crystal City, and Shirlington which all seems to be doing better than Silver Spring.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 7:05 pm • linkreport

Ronit( I-270 was supposed to relieve congestion on 355. M83 *may* relieve congestion on both I270 and 355, but only for a few years. We need a real, long term, permanent solution. Another road is not the solution -transit is.)

That is if you do not support Economic/Business growth in Suburban Maryland. A lot of people in do not want Maryland to equal out Northern Virginia in terms of Business and Economic Growth so there is this strange politcal cloud over suburban Maryland with the anti-roads, anti-growth cheap transit hustle talk in hopes to keep Maryland as Business Friendly and Economic Growth Friendly as the state to the south of Maryland.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 7:13 pm • linkreport

MLD( No, it's saying we need to connect more places with transit, because there's too much traffic already but we're still growing. The Metro stations are two miles apart - BRT connects those places with places in-between along 355.)

- Which further proves my point that is like saying that it was a big mistake in building the red line to now saying it is not good enough transit that already cadets thousands and you people are going to actually ride a trolley like BRT.

Like I said before, this is a game to discriminate against improving/building new roads in suburban Maryland in hopes to reduce population and business growth in suburban Maryland while Northern Virginia continues to thrive in business and population growth with their current and future highway and subway transit projects.

by steve on Aug 8, 2013 7:26 pm • linkreport

SilverSpring:

"hasn't this road been in the area master plans for decades?"

This. It's funny how opponents come out of the woodwork and act shocked when it comes tome to build transportation infrastructure planned decades ago. It's the same thing with the Purple Line and the NIMBY's in Chevy Chase Lake and the "Save the Trail" crazies.

Honestly, I have a neutral stance regarding the Mid-County highway. Unlike many commenters on this site I prefer a balanced approach to building new transportation infrastructure. Transit projects should definitely take priority, but at the same time you can't ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans still use cars as their primary source of transportation and for most transit is impractical.

by King Terrapin on Aug 8, 2013 7:51 pm • linkreport

A couple of things...

First, Option 9 has been opposed by the residents of Montgomery Village since the 1960s and has, at least, to this point, been done successfully.

Second, I live in the path of M83 (Options 8,9). I bought my condo at a time when the road was removed from the Master Plan. Should I be punished because I took due diligence when purchasing my condo? For the record, I ride the Ride-On 65 bus to Shady Grove metro station daily.

Third, MD has shown, at least in the case of the ICC that it is ready to pull the plug on public transportation options. With the exception of the 201, most of the other ICC bus routes have either been curtailed or cut back. Therefore, one cannot trust the County or the State when it comes to assurances regarding highways..

Fourth, trains leaving Shady Grove Metro station after 6:50 a.m. are already packed. I-270 is also packed after 6:30 a.m. A road that just feeds commuters into a packed train or a packed highway isn't going to help the overall commute. However, public transport, either in the form of Metro or MARC does have the advantage of being able to take larger numbers of people in a smaller space between two fixed points. If more people used buses like the 65, 90, 58, 79100 etc. to Shady Grove Metro there would be pressure for MoCo to add service. It could also relieve congestion on the roads. This would Metro needs a 3rd track so the Red Line can work like the 1/9 train in New York, but that's a discussion for a different time.

Fifth, I disagree with the notion that not building this highway will have a negative impact on economic growth. These areas have already been developed as fully mature residential neighborhoods. Where would the businesses go? New business development has been pushed to the west side of I-270, because that's where the undeveloped land is. East of I-270, the neighborhoods have already been built or the farms are protected from development by virtue of the Ag Reserve.

by Michael on Aug 8, 2013 11:08 pm • linkreport

@ Richard -

An earlier proposal did have what is now I-270 going down Wisconsin Avenue. The route was parallel to Wisconsin Avenue to the vicinity of Tenley Circle, then swinging east along Tilden Street, Van Hazen Parkway and Rock Creek Park, then through Adams-Morgan and then south along 14th Street into downtown.

A spur from Tenley Circle through Glover-Archibold Parkway to the proposed Three Sisters Bridge was also proposed.

by Frank IBC on Aug 8, 2013 11:55 pm • linkreport

Michael(Fifth, I disagree with the notion that not building this highway will have a negative impact on economic growth. These areas have already been developed as fully mature residential neighborhoods. Where would the businesses go? New business development has been pushed to the west side of I-270, because that's where the undeveloped land is. East of I-270, the neighborhoods have already been built or the farms are protected from development by virtue of the Ag Reserve.)

- Regardless of any excuse they need to go ahead and build the planned highway or scrap the Trolley like BRT they are trying to hustle the Maryland tax payers to support.

by steve on Aug 9, 2013 11:46 am • linkreport

So MD taxpayers should support highway hustlers?

by Watcher on Aug 9, 2013 12:06 pm • linkreport

King Terrapin: It's funny how opponents come out of the woodwork and act shocked when it comes tome to build transportation infrastructure planned decades ago.

I admit, I didn't do anything to protest the addition of this road to the master plan, since the addition of this road to the master plan happened in the 1960s several years before I was even conceived (although my parents were in fact dating at the time). I wasn't aware that I was required to support everything enacted by a government body before I was born, but I guess you learn something new every day.

by iaom on Aug 9, 2013 12:57 pm • linkreport

Virginia,

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] While the residents living in the path of Option 4 are mostly town home owners and and single family home owners with land, many of the residents who live along Option 8 and 9 route are condo owners and renters. Does this justify pushing an unwanted road on the backs of those who are perceived to be less wealthy? Because that has been the history of unwanted road construction in this county for decades. It has been done at the expense of these communities and dare I say at the expense of the community at large. This is one of the things that I thought was a thing of the past in the 21st century.

This road should not be built ANYWHERE!!! Homeowners who purchased in areas where infrastructure was lacking but was promised to be built in the future did so at their own risk. While improvements to 355, 124 and 270 and/or creating BRT may help alleviate some of the congestion, nothing, including building M-83 is going to alleviate a statistically significant portion of it.

by Michael on Aug 10, 2013 4:52 am • linkreport

Watcher( So MD taxpayers should support highway hustlers?)

Common sense have proven that a combination of planned highways then build upscale rapid transit has definately made Northern Virginia better off than Suburban Maryland when it comes to Business Growth, Economic Growth, and Professional White Collar Population Growth.

by steve on Aug 10, 2013 8:24 am • linkreport

Michael( This road should not be built ANYWHERE!!!)

- That is your opinion but in reality no matter how you Hate for Maryland to have highways comparable or greater than Northern Virginia there will be a highway built in that part of Montgomery county despite the discrimination views against Maryland who more than like don't pay any Maryland taxes.

by steve on Aug 10, 2013 8:32 am • linkreport

iaom( I wasn't aware that I was required to support everything enacted by a government body before I was born, but I guess you learn something new every day.)

- You have the right to not support new highways getting built in Montgomery County/Suburban Maryland however that does not define the end of highway building in Suburban Maryland. As long as Highways continue to exist in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Arlington there will be a continuation of highway building in Montgomery County/Suburban Maryland despite discriminating anti-Highways views towards Maryland from a small group of folx that are than likely not from the state of Maryland.

by steve on Aug 10, 2013 8:52 am • linkreport

Common sense have proven that a combination of planned highways then build upscale rapid transit has definately made Northern Virginia better off than Suburban Maryland when it comes to Business Growth, Economic Growth, and Professional White Collar Population Growth.

by steve on Aug 10, 2013 8:24 am

Are you unaware of the existence of the orange, blue, and yellow lines? You know the ones that have spurred all that development without the horrible traffic that is found in Tysons?

by Watcher on Aug 10, 2013 7:39 pm • linkreport

Are you familiar with the terms "Clarendon", "Virginia Square", and "Eisenhower Avenue"?

by Watcher on Aug 10, 2013 7:41 pm • linkreport

are you familiar with the term "gridlock on I66" ?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 11, 2013 8:21 pm • linkreport

Watcher(Are you unaware of the existence of the orange, blue, and yellow lines? You know the ones that have spurred all that development without the horrible traffic that is found in Tysons?)

I-66, I-395, and VA 267 runs along those rail corridors. You just proved my point that with the combination of Highways and Heavy Rail transit has proven to make Northern Virginia nor Business/Economic growth friendly than Suburban Maryland that does not have any interstate highways entering DC from Montgomery County, MD.

by steve on Aug 11, 2013 9:46 pm • linkreport

Watcher( Are you familiar with the terms "Clarendon", "Virginia Square", and "Eisenhower Avenue"?)

I am familiar with I-66 passing through Clarendon/Virginia Square and I-495 passing through Eisenhower Avenue.

by steve on Aug 11, 2013 9:50 pm • linkreport

AWalkerInTheCity(are you familiar with the term "gridlock on I66" ?)

- I am aware that they are planning to add extra lanes on I-66 from the Beltway to DC.

by steve on Aug 11, 2013 9:53 pm • linkreport

Steve

citation please? I am quite sure you are incorrect.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 12, 2013 9:10 am • linkreport

I66 bypasses those place. Just as I270 bypasses parts of MoCo that are targeted for dense growth.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 12, 2013 9:11 am • linkreport

I am a 9-year Clarksburg resident and it is interesting to see all the discussion (which I am yet to finish reading) by folks who have no stake in this issue trying to determine how majority of Upcounty residents should live our lives.

It is hypocritical that ACT (for example Mariam is not a Clarksburg resident and will have no benefit from M-83 and other ACT folks live Downcounty) and CSG folks (live in DC?) are suddenly compassionate about trees and environmental disaster. Someone need to alert Ajay Bhatt of Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail that he has new friends :) I guess it is OK to cut down trees as long as you are building transit and not a much needed roadway that will make all the difference in the lives of couple of hundred thousand or more Upcounty residents.

The City of Gaithersburg supports Alt 9, so does Clarksburg Civic Association. The notion that MV was opposed to M-83 from the get go is ludicrous because MV was built around M-83 and ROW's been reserved since the 50's for the roadway. None of the alternatives to Alt 9A or the Master Plan Alignment make any sense of Clarksburg, Damascus, or East Germantown residents. Sure, transit in the form of BRT is necessary for MD 355; but none of these transit and smart growth folks showed up to testify for Clarksburg to request extension of BRT to Clarksburg. I do not see any of these folks lining up to lobby SHA to extend the I-270 southbound HOV to Exit 18 in Clarksburg, which could mean that County could run express buses similar to RideOn 100 from Clarksburg to Shady Grove.

Of course, it is easy to sit in one's own comforts in Silver Spring or Bethesda or Takoma Park and deny the same to others who sorely need it to make a difference in their own quality of life and access to jobs. Instead of TAME/Dayspring denying these to thousands of people, maybe they should move to PA.

by CE on Aug 12, 2013 11:46 am • linkreport

Steve,

Do you realize that you have used the word "hate" and "haters" three times on this one thread?

You have used the word "hustler" and its verb form 4 times to describe those of different opinion to your's?

Do you realize that your tone is offensive?

Do you realize that many of your arguments are abject examples of rhetorical fallacies?

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by SummersEve on Aug 12, 2013 6:18 pm • linkreport

CE(Of course, it is easy to sit in one's own comforts in Silver Spring or Bethesda or Takoma Park and deny the same to others who sorely need it to make a difference in their own quality of life and access to jobs. Instead of TAME/Dayspring denying these to thousands of people, maybe they should move to PA.)

- I am having a very hard time believing that most of the people claiming to oppose Suburban Maryland highways are from Maryland or DC.....

by steve on Aug 13, 2013 6:01 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)

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.

or

Support Us