Of course, the White Flint area is no longer branded as White Flint, so it is somewhat mystifying as to why the planning process is still using the older terminology. It is now known as the Pike District.
One can imagine the potential for a Pike & Rose 2 diagonally across from the existing one, for example. Or perhaps an entirely different concept for the redevelopment of that Montrose Crossing shopping center, which Federal Realty owns.
But the area contains much more land than that. The White Flint 2 website suggests some topics that will be debated during the process. I'd suggest you monitor one they don't mention directly - the ongoing attempt to "dumb down" the original Montrose Parkway plan (which, in itself, was a major dumbing down of the Rockville Freeway concept for that right-of-way). That drive may be hidden under the innocuous heading of "What transportation policies should be introduced or amended?" (emphasis mine).
There have been efforts afoot to slowly turn portions of the parkway, originally intended to keep cross-county traffic moving through White Flint and other areas, into an urban street. That appeals to developers of course, but it would be a traffic disaster for those of us who actually live and drive in the county.
A grade-separated Montrose Parkway is essential for the success of the Pike District. The parkway eventually will need to be extended to Connecticut Avenue, Georgia Avenue and out to the ICC near Indian Head Country Club. Dumbing it down would have catastrophic impacts on our countywide transportation system for decades to come. And in fact, the MD 355/Montrose Parkway interchange could be decked over to enable seamless development above it along Rockville Pike, connecting the two phases of White Flint. Dumping pass-through traffic into the local, urban street grid of the Pike District would be a major blunder, and a threat to pedestrian safety.
You can RSVP for the June 17 meeting on the White Flint 2 website.
5 comments:
Whole lot of assumptions, Dyer. Why not pump the brakes and see what actually is proposed before you get all preemptively indignant? Just because you haven't thought of anything to complain about in awhile doesn't mean you should go around making up things that you might possibly get angry about at a future date.
9:17: Consider it a rhetorical shot across the bow. But seriously, there's nothing new or surprising about the attempts to sabotage the Montrose Parkway. I guarantee this will come up in the discussions. Along with trying to come up with free pass "measurements" of traffic that will make failing roads and intersections appear to have phantom capacity.
"Of course, the White Flint area is no longer branded as White Flint, so it is somewhat mystifying as to why the planning process is still using the older terminology. It is now known as the Pike District."
Not really "mystifying". The name "Pike District" was not created by government edict, but by the White Flint Partnership, a group of developers and real estate firms, and it has only been in existence for half a year. The White Flint Partnership still uses that name, too. As White Flint has been the offical name of a master planning sector for several decades now, the official name is not going to change overnight.
"There have been efforts afoot to slowly turn portions of the parkway, originally intended to keep cross-county traffic moving through White Flint and other areas, into an urban street."
You're making it sound like there is an existing road that is going to be radically altered. No such road exists.
3:30: Montrose Parkway is an existing road, and there are additional segments already planned to connect it to Veirs Mill Road. If you follow the link in the article, you'll see proof of one already-failed attempt to "radically alter" the segment that would pass over Parklawn, by making it a traditional at-grade intersection instead.
Post a Comment