Leggett, who correctly did not want to delay construction of the road at all initially, stated that the one-year delay of the highway would be used to make design changes related to bicycles and pedestrians. He did not specify what those were, or who would approve those changes, and under what public oversight.
What we do know is that developers have wanted to kill the road outright, because it only benefits residents and commuters. It does not help developers, because it is a relief valve, rather than a road that lets developers build more "stuff." Developers want the money from the Montrose Parkway East to go to projects across the County that will allow them to build more stuff, the taxpayers who forked over the highway money be damned.
What we also know, is that several developer tools on the Planning Board have long dreamed of canceling the elevated portion of the parkway over Parklawn, in order to allow developers to build up to the edges of what would be an ordinary urban street. I was able to stop this attempt singlehandedly in 2013, when my testimony changed the votes of several commissioners, who were poised to cancel the grade-separated design for Parklawn at the behest of now-chair Casey Anderson. They also want other sabotage design changes that would similarly increase traffic congestion and lengthen travel time for commuters using the parkway. Such changes would ensure drivers in Rockville, Aspen Hill and other points east of a much-longer trip to and from I-270. Day after day after day.
CLICK HERE to take the first step in shortening your commute |
It's critical we elect a Council that will cancel any sabotage design changes to the Montrose Parkway East, and will begin construction on that project and M-83 immediately.
Why not just have one blog, if you're going to run the same articles on all four of them?
ReplyDeleteWhy read all four blogs?
DeleteHe can't get enough dyer.
DeleteWell, I'm certainly not going to read all four blogs if it's mostly the same articles on all of them. Back to my original question - what exactly is the point of having four separate blogs if two of them run mostly content from the first, and one doesn't have local news at all?
DeleteSome MoCo news is just applicable to the scope of multiple blogs.
DeleteNot really "applicable to the scope of multiple blogs".
DeleteLet's look at the articles that ran on "Suburban News Network" from Monday March 19 through Sunday March 25:
-Robert Dyer @ Bethesda Row - 15 articles
-EastMoCo - 6 articles - 4 "hyperlocal"; 2 re-posted from Robert Dyer @ Bethesda Row
-Rockville Nights - 5 articles - 2 "hyperlocal"; 3 re-posted from Robert Dyer @ Bethesda Row
-Sam Eig - 2 articles - 0 "hyperlocal; 2 re-posted from Robert Dyer @ Bethesda Row
So why not just have one blog with 21 articles a week - 15 from Robert Dyer @ Bethesda Row, plus the 4 hyperlocal articles from EastMoCo and the 2 hyperlocal articles from Rockville Nights?