The attached Montgomery Village, Inc. Transportation Policy on page 3 item 4 states its position on Goshen Road widening as follows:
4. Goshen Road: The Foundation supports the widening of Goshen Road to the Alternative 8 specifications, a maximum of four lanes in a 91—108 foot variable right-of-way, and completion date of 2010-2012.
The real Goshen Road Travesty [see President's Message, Montgomery Village News, September 11, 2009] begins with this transportation policy which invites the County to invade Whetstone.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Mandatory Referral on Goshen Road Widening
I spoke to Larry Cole of the Montgomery County Planning Department by telephone this morning on the next meeting for Goshen Road Widening.
He reported back to me that the contemplated September 24 Mandatory Referral on Goshen Road Widening would not take place until late October or early November. Larry explained that a forestry issue has been raised requiring more intensive staff work than anticipated.
Community HOA leaders will be notified of the date when scheduled, and it will appear on the Plannng Department calendar.
He reported back to me that the contemplated September 24 Mandatory Referral on Goshen Road Widening would not take place until late October or early November. Larry explained that a forestry issue has been raised requiring more intensive staff work than anticipated.
Community HOA leaders will be notified of the date when scheduled, and it will appear on the Plannng Department calendar.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Goshen Road Widening Communities Affected
Sharon Woods
Severn Run
Whetstone
Walnut Creek
Goshen Run
Goshen Elm Court
Stewart Town
Hunters Woods
Pleasant Ridge
East Village
Severn Run
Whetstone
Walnut Creek
Goshen Run
Goshen Elm Court
Stewart Town
Hunters Woods
Pleasant Ridge
East Village
Foot Traffic at the Back Door
At the Goshen Road Widening public meeting whose proceedings are described below, one resident on Judge Place bordering Goshen Road expressed real concern that the road widenng project would place the hiker/biker trail just feet from his backyard and bring an increase of undesirable foot traffic very close to his the rear of his house and place his outdoor property at risk.
As the neighborhood and surrounding area continue to decline, this resident's concern is real and reasonable. What can the community do about this?
As the neighborhood and surrounding area continue to decline, this resident's concern is real and reasonable. What can the community do about this?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Letter to DOT: Scale Back Goshen Road Widening Project
September 9, 2009
Division of Transportation
Engineering
ATTN: Girum Awoke, PE
100 Edison Park Drive, 4th Floor
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Subject: Scale Back the Goshen Road Widening Project
I attended the 9/9/09 public meeting on Goshen Road Widening purported to be a 30% Design Review as part of the County’s Facility Planning Phase 2. The event was well attended by citizens and well conducted by County personnel.
However, citizens unanimously opposed this project and said so at the meeting. These are hard times, and the Goshen Road widening plan with four lanes, a wide center media, a side-walk, and a hiker/biker trail is too ambitious and its impacts too intrusive. The reasons given for proceeding with this project are capacity, safety, storm drain system, storm water, and landscaping and lighting. Some of the comments aired by citizens include:
1. Roads are destroying our community.
2. This project will cause traffic to come through our community.
3. When it is all done, there will be more accidents and more delays.
4. The $85M cost estimate for the project is just a down payment. These construction projects have a way of doubling the early estimates.
A scaled-down project would meet the objectives. Citizens prefer a safe two-lane road with a side-walk but without a hiker/biker trail. Citizens object to an 80-foot wide project. Instead citizens prefer a 50-foot project that will spare the taking of citizen’s property and community trees. The County planners need to take this into account and perform innovative planning along the following lines:
1. Increased capacity simply invites increased demand... expected from Damascus and Clarksburg. The prospect for improving the level of service at intersections in light of this increased demand is slim. Planners should know this.
2. Better road safety can be achieved by lower speed limits and better traffic engineering at intersections not more lanes and higher speed limits.
3. The undersized storm drain system can be corrected by other means.
4. Storm water management can be improved by other means.
5. As for landscaping, simply keep the trees that are there.
6. As for lighting, provide what safety demands.
What are the civil engineering and traffic engineering factors underlying each of these items.
Important elements were missing in the public meeting on Goshen Road Widening including the following:
1. There was no mention of citizen sentiment by the County yet the citizens in attendance expressed their sentiment of opposition in every speaker. There was no indication that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has any intention of factoring in citizen sentiment. How does DOT factor in citizen sentiment in its Facility Planning Phase 2?
2. I brought up the affordability of another $85M project and the lack of County funds for marginal projects that citizens don’t want. Since funding is determined by politicians based on their priorities du jour, I asked where does the Goshen Road Widening project stack up against the County’s relocation of its Crabbs Branch Way facilities and the PSTA to the Webb Tract... and other projects around the County. Where does Goshen Road Widening sit in the County’s priorities?
3. Montgomery Village is embarking on a land use visioning process, 2030 Vision, in preparation for the Gaithersburg East Master Plan process. The target date for 2030 Vision is January 2011. The decision on M-83 is a key factor in all this and should be a key factor in the Goshen Road Widening project. How is the Goshen Road Widening project aligned with the 2030 Vision, the Gaithersburg East Master Plan, and the M-83 decision?
I look forward to the DOT responses to the questions asked.
Best Regards,
Don O’Neill
Montgomery Village
Whetstone
Division of Transportation
Engineering
ATTN: Girum Awoke, PE
100 Edison Park Drive, 4th Floor
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Subject: Scale Back the Goshen Road Widening Project
I attended the 9/9/09 public meeting on Goshen Road Widening purported to be a 30% Design Review as part of the County’s Facility Planning Phase 2. The event was well attended by citizens and well conducted by County personnel.
However, citizens unanimously opposed this project and said so at the meeting. These are hard times, and the Goshen Road widening plan with four lanes, a wide center media, a side-walk, and a hiker/biker trail is too ambitious and its impacts too intrusive. The reasons given for proceeding with this project are capacity, safety, storm drain system, storm water, and landscaping and lighting. Some of the comments aired by citizens include:
1. Roads are destroying our community.
2. This project will cause traffic to come through our community.
3. When it is all done, there will be more accidents and more delays.
4. The $85M cost estimate for the project is just a down payment. These construction projects have a way of doubling the early estimates.
A scaled-down project would meet the objectives. Citizens prefer a safe two-lane road with a side-walk but without a hiker/biker trail. Citizens object to an 80-foot wide project. Instead citizens prefer a 50-foot project that will spare the taking of citizen’s property and community trees. The County planners need to take this into account and perform innovative planning along the following lines:
1. Increased capacity simply invites increased demand... expected from Damascus and Clarksburg. The prospect for improving the level of service at intersections in light of this increased demand is slim. Planners should know this.
2. Better road safety can be achieved by lower speed limits and better traffic engineering at intersections not more lanes and higher speed limits.
3. The undersized storm drain system can be corrected by other means.
4. Storm water management can be improved by other means.
5. As for landscaping, simply keep the trees that are there.
6. As for lighting, provide what safety demands.
What are the civil engineering and traffic engineering factors underlying each of these items.
Important elements were missing in the public meeting on Goshen Road Widening including the following:
1. There was no mention of citizen sentiment by the County yet the citizens in attendance expressed their sentiment of opposition in every speaker. There was no indication that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has any intention of factoring in citizen sentiment. How does DOT factor in citizen sentiment in its Facility Planning Phase 2?
2. I brought up the affordability of another $85M project and the lack of County funds for marginal projects that citizens don’t want. Since funding is determined by politicians based on their priorities du jour, I asked where does the Goshen Road Widening project stack up against the County’s relocation of its Crabbs Branch Way facilities and the PSTA to the Webb Tract... and other projects around the County. Where does Goshen Road Widening sit in the County’s priorities?
3. Montgomery Village is embarking on a land use visioning process, 2030 Vision, in preparation for the Gaithersburg East Master Plan process. The target date for 2030 Vision is January 2011. The decision on M-83 is a key factor in all this and should be a key factor in the Goshen Road Widening project. How is the Goshen Road Widening project aligned with the 2030 Vision, the Gaithersburg East Master Plan, and the M-83 decision?
I look forward to the DOT responses to the questions asked.
Best Regards,
Don O’Neill
Montgomery Village
Whetstone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
