But I was rightly skeptical when a mid-August reopening was first floated. How could a road be brought up to code with ADA and Bethesda Streetscape requirements from scratch in a couple of weeks? Then we found out how - with no such requirements or pedestrian access. Simply a two-lane cut-through for cars only. This did not seem to mesh with all of the trendy talk about walkable communities, pedestrian safety, "people over cars," bike lanes, and "complete streets" we hear so often in Montgomery County.
Then there were the confusing signs. No Pedestrian Access. Which worked so well on Fairmont Avenue, and still does along the former post office site on Arlington Road, right? Ask any driver who rounds the curve on Arlington, to find a couple of pedestrians' backs facing them in the roadway, how well it worked. Extremely unsafe, and the proposed Woodmont Driveway (to use a more accurate term) would have been dangerous as well, knowing that people were going to save a couple of minutes by plunging into oncoming traffic. One commenter on this blog made a good point about the very winding, bending nature of the road, too. Somehow, I doubt that's what the final road will be like - for safety purposes, if nothing else.
And no one ever explained the full implications (legal or otherwise) of the sign announcing that segment of Woodmont was not a publicly-maintained street. I had always assumed Woodmont would reopen as a finished street, maintained by the County.
Keeping Woodmont closed is hardly convenient for the general public. But inquiring minds want to know a couple of answers. What was the sudden rush to reopen, when nobody was expecting it anyway? And what specifically came to light regarding safety, that wasn't known when the original mid-August reopening date was given? It sounded unsafe from the beginning. And it didn't seem to make sense to have the developer and construction contractors spend the time and money on this, and then call it off.
_1.jpg)
59 comments:
Trying to open this stretch without sidewalks was a recipe for disaster.
Pedestrians were going to be on that street regardless of the signs, and it would have been terribly dangerous with people speeding around that bend. Was there even going to any street lighting?
Nice objective journalism.
Now here come the defensive "well so and so does it too" remarks from Bob.
Even you have to be at least a little curious why the build up to re-opening with 3 electronic signs being activated, the rush to pave and then at the last minute decide not to re-open for months.
The sign was up but there was no buildup except from the media.
Tempest in the (Mad Hatter's) teapot.
Did you think it was going to be a good idea to re-open without pedestrian access?
They clearly planned to open this month. They had electronic signs flashing the dates at three major intersections downtown. What changed?
kenneth, what is the frequency?
Enough about Bob, what's the deal with building the road and suddenly on a Friday afternoon deciding not to reopen for months?
Occam's Razor. Important local businesses, namely the dealership, were putting pressure on the developers to open the road prior to their own grand reopening. Residents were pushing for the same, in anticipation of the increased traffic when Mont Co schools started. So everyone had every intention of opening the street early to placate these interests.... until the county inspectors came to take a look and nixed the idea.
That makes sense considering the dealership is tucked away there with limited access.
Montgomery County news release: http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR_details.asp?PrID=8773
"The construction project is scheduled for completion in fall 2014."
NBC4 news report: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Road-in-Bethesda-Closing-for-20-Months-Due-to-Development-168398746.html
"Road in Bethesda Closing for 20 Months Due to Development"
Does Bethesda Row need 900 more parking spaces?
Back to the road, those old articles are superseded by all of the signage saying the road was going to open two weeks ago.
11:31 Did the media put the sign up?
12:11/12:16 Were those press releases referring to a reopening of a completed Woodmont Avenue (which is my recollection), or to the cars-only "Woodmont Driveway" that was being readied last week?
I think there is an important distinction, as anyone could tell by looking at the right-of-way early this month that there wasn't enough time for that task.
In addition, the sudden announcement was for August 15, not "fall 2014." Again, the road was not expected to open this soon, and certainly not in the form that was canceled at the last minute.
I've deleted a couple of spam ads here. You can always buy an ad if you would like to advertise on this blog.
The county got played by the builder. they were never going to open the road, it is well known within the walls of that builders office that this would neverhappen and the county got played big time.
make it a safety issue and they see lawsuits and agree with builder when they say at the last minute it would be dangerous.
Actually yes. Lots and lots of complaints and requests for more parking.
OOOOH!! Sarcasm!
I represent the MoCo machine - can you explain how I can submit / pay for ads to run on your site?
Also, is there any editorial editing? I really want to get people to subscribe to publications other than this one.
Thank you.
The county was right to halt the developer's attempt to open the road. If anything, I'd like to see the road opened to pedestrians/bikes only, until the garage is ready. I've never been inconvenienced as a driver because of the closure, but I have been stuck on the wrong side of the construction as a pedestrian a few times. Not a big deal to walk around it, but the cut through would be nice.
Yeah this sounds fishy to me. Why have those electric signs up advertising a firm opening date, then suddenly it's moved to 2015? Either there's something more going on, or this project has totally incompetent project managers.
I agree with the other commenter -- let's open it up now for pedestrians, and cars later. The pedestrian path will take up less space so more possible to do.
6:06AM Anonymous: great ad for your blog, but the question is why did anyone think it was a good idea to open a fenced in road without pedestrian access to begin with?
Robert has been covering the Woodmont opening and called out the safety concerns for pedestrians weeks ago.
It doesn't take a county transportation expert to know that people were going to try to walk along that stretch of Woodmont. The intersection of Bethesda Ave and Woodmont is a circus already with people walking against the traffic signals.
The electronic signs are still all over town. They have all been turned off now.
"6:06AM Anonymous: great ad for your blog, but the question is why did anyone think it was a good idea to open a fenced in road without pedestrian access to begin with?"
You think I own the "NOW" blogs? Yeah, okay. And no, no one has asked that question because it's irrelevant. The pertinent facts are
1. the developer looked to open the road
2. the county said no, that'd be unsafe
3. now the road will be opened in a few months, presumably when the site is safer and the garage construction is complete.
May Bethesdians everywhere move on with their lives.
It's funny how Bob and others think any comments mentioning other news outlets are from that source serving as an ad and attack on Bob.
The "NOW" blog guy papered my downtown apartment building with ads awhile back. Every unit got hit with one. I guess it saved him from buying postage, but residents weren't happy finding an ad inserted into their unit. We had to recycle all of it. What a mess!
Buy an ad from Bob if you want to promote your blog!
We're off topic. On the Woodmont issue who knew what and when?
8:38 That's not accurate. The county was touting the opening long before they called it off. You make it sound like the developer was trying to open the road quietly, and the County found out and stopped it. So the pertinent questions of why this was allowed to go forward despite the risks have yet to be answered.
1:50 I don't believe the news outlet itself is spamming here. I believe it is members of a political faction who wish to divert traffic to other websites.
3:32 As you can tell, the main topic here has obviously hit a raw nerve, resulting in spam and diversionary red herrings in the comments. Now we have a new, false narrative about how the whole thing went down. "Move along Bethesdans, nothing to see here" is not a valid response. "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
It hard to keep posting irrelevant references to other websites repeatedly, day after day, and claim it's not spam. Let's get back on-topic. The answers to the questions at hand are not available in other websites, and that's why I'm asking the questions!
9:35 PM - Since when is an announcement by the government a scoop? Isn't it a bit obvious you are spamming when you keep referring to a news outlet multiple times within a comment, and multiple times a day? The article you are referring to does not contain the answers to the questions being asked here.
This "garbage, superficial and sarcastic" post is asking questions that haven't been answered yet. The "actual facts" are that the County and the developer both touted the opening of the road, not just the developer as you claim. We have video of Mr. Pogue from August 15 on MyMCMedia as only one example of the many County public announcements.
So what changed at the last minute? All the ads in the world for other websites don't answer the questions most thinking people have about the road.
9:38 PM - Doritos reviews sound pretty good in comparison to a record of zero major corporations moving to Montgomery County in over a decade. Or MoCo spending $4 million for a Costco store, when Arlington got 2000 jobs, and 800 new ones that pay an average of $100,000, for just $4.5 million. A humiliation would be the best description of that.
If you don't think that's humiliating, then, yeah, you're obviously part of a particular political faction in the county. One that believes in rewarding mediocrity regardless of the consequences. Facts are facts; no paranoia necessary.
Now let's get back to the topic of Woodmont Avenue.
Everyone is scratching their heads about what happened. It was going to open, then at the last hour, it wasn't.
More details are needed. What was found out that delayed the opening?
As a city, we have a problem dealing with pedestrian access and construction projects. With more projects underway and planned, we need to handle pedestrian access better.
And now Dyer is just deleting all the comments he disagrees with because he's that mature.
Don't get all bent out of shape about Robert's post about Woodmont. He's raising legitimate questions about a major project. Check out his "Woodmont Watch" series of articles.
If you've been a regular reader, you know Robert will exchange ideas with folks who agree or disagree with him.
Lighten up a little.
Is it just me, or did anonymous 11:47/11:51/11:52 sound like he was about to burst into tears during his tirade?
11:47/11:51/11:52 is attempting to divert attention from the Woodmont issue, and is apparently in-the-running for Spam King of 2014. He/she well knows that I do not delete comments I disagree with. Any regular reader already knows that from the many contrary and nasty comments that remain in place on hundreds of posts.
What I will delete are blatant spam posts shamelessly promoting websites that a few political operatives wish the public would get their news from instead of my site.
The spam comments repeatedly stress that other websites that "do actual reporting" with "actual facts." That is not a citation, but a clear spiel to suggest to my readers (by an anonymous spammer) that this is somehow not a credible news site, and there is some other place to go for "real" news.
Moreover, because the answers to the questions asked here have not been provided on any website, it is simply spamming to direct people to them. Your spamming is obvious to all readers, and you are in violation of the comment policies of this website. I am glad to debate you anytime on the facts of the Woodmont Avenue debacle.
Facts you don't agree with, or are inconvenient for you, don't automatically become "fake" facts. Consider this fact: I'm writing in my real name, and you are cowering as "Anonymous." Maybe you should consider letting us know which politician, developer or organization you are supporting/working for. No average person is so defensive about the decisions made regarding Woodmont Avenue. You have to be representing someone, a staff member or politician.
Anonymous 11:47/11:51/11:52 is isolated, alone and striking out in all directions with ad hominem attacks.
It's sad to watch.
There's a disturbing war on pedestrians in MoCo. As a transit user, it was impossible to get around North Bethesda as a pedestrian this past winter. The plows plowed the snow from the streets on to sidewalks, blocking pedestrian access from White Flint Metro. This condition existed for over a week after snowfall.
We're still putting cars first. Trying to open thus stretch of Woodmont with no sidewalks continues this trend.
4:11 That's right. I'm hearing many self-proclaimed advocates of walkable communities twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why pedestrian and disability access are mysteriously not mandatory in this or that case. It's the first thing pushed overboard around downtown Bethesda these days.
Perhaps an open road with car access only and no pedestrian access is better than a closed road with no car or pedestrian access?
Political faction. Lol. Get over yourself, Bob.
Would references to pieces on washingtonpost.com be considered ads/spam?
Sure, putting cars makes sense when that's the highest percentage of traffic
9:48 Yes, political faction. Which politician, developer, organization or PR firm do you work for? The average citizen doesn't have the emotional investment you have shown in wanting to divert attention from the unanswered questions here.
So then you'd agree with me that a Potomac River crossing is a more sensible project than BRT, as most people drive. We're making progress here.
Actually I do. But you mistake me for another anonymous with your tone. Which is one of the reasons people make fun of you.
Bethesdanow, Bethesda Magazine, and many other news sources link to you all the time. Think of it as a compliment. But heaven forbid one of their names or links are referenced here...
5:53 I assumed your 9:52 comment was sarcasm, as it certainly would not pass the political correctness test in Montgomery County. We agree on the Potomac River crossing, but I would disagree with the idea of opening Woodmont to cars only.
5:56 I don't have a problem with a legitimate comment. But when somebody is obviously spamming, and posting links to pages that don't answer the questions raised by my article, and bashing my blog to boot, that's not going to happen.
After developer announced earlier reopening of Woodmont they applied for and received last minute permission to close Miller presumably to speed up completion of Woodmont. Then reopening was pushed back to original date, then delayed. Net result is that developers have claimed more of Woodmont and Leland intersection for their own use - including parking their vehicles all over the center of the road - by redrawing the traffic lanes. It is worse now than if they had never tried to reopen Woodmont.
Post a Comment