June 27, 2002

c/o 340 W. Edmonston Drive
Rockville, MD 20852

Larry Marcus, Chief of Transportation, et al
Rockville City Hall
111 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850

Re: Hungerford Resolution on the Fleet Street Extension project

Dear Mr. Marcus et al,

The Hungerford neighborhood passed a resolution, at our last general meeting, June 12^th, declaring our general opposition to the Fleet Street Extension project in the near term. The motion statement was "We oppose the Fleet Street Extension project until the City presents thorough design and traffic study to identify impacts." This motion followed a general discussion of construed traffic aspects that may effectively route traffic around the neighborhood as a whole and off residential streets. Notwithstanding the tone of this discussion leaning favorably, this motion still carried by a large majority of those present.

What interpretation should be applied to this resolution? I suggest the prime one is that residents are increasingly uncomfortable with the gap between stated intentions and the funding schedule verses practical design/implementation substance. Addressing negative opinion regarding feared impacts and general change-resistance cannot occur with absence of substantial information. The past and current state of indeterminate substance regarding this project is not conducive to garnering reluctant public support. While explicitly, the resolution logically says very little (i.e. "we oppose this until you have something to show us."). Implicitly, I believe this is a call to deliver on specifics of this looming road construction. The risk in not delivering substance soon is forfeiture of local resident goodwill by arousing suspicion for cause of delay.

When substance is forthcoming, you can expect an animated discussion. Obvious difficulties exist, such as narrowness of the right-of-way, proximity of residences, busy intersections at both ends, signal/control potential, pedestrian (especially school crossing) issues, and fitting this road stretch into background traffic patterns. Our Association already has suggestions we would like considered, such as closing Mount Vernon Place where it would meet this new road or expanding the right-of-way to the east in lieu of apparently wide parking surface. Major neighborhood concerns include potential traffic generation in proximity, ingress/egress to neighborhood access streets, possible pedestrian isolation from beneficial Rockville Pike amenities, and a neighborly sympathy for heavily affected homes.

Historically, this neighborhood strongly opposed the full opening of Fleet Street. A major focus of this opposition was the potential connection of the roadway to the southern Jefferson Street portion (running behind Congressional Plaza), thereby effectively increasing the width of the Rockville Pike corridor and bringing that congestion and commercial pressure even closer to our residential neighborhood. Then with the redesign of Ritchie Parkway becoming the present and open Wootton Parkway combined with a lack of probable southern Jefferson Street connection, opinion on this Fleet Street connection tilted to more favorable. In the last two years we have identified this shift in two neighborhood straw polls that were precisely divided between favorable and opposed positions. This latest carried motion is the first change we have identified and its direction leans toward a resurgence of opposition.

We will keep you informed of further perceived changes of opinion. My recommendation to the City is using its portion of funding for this project to accomplish the traffic study and design now. That done, a thorough public outreach and review effort can occur. Relegate subsequent funding from development sources (Sandy Spring Bank building and RMHS rebuilding) for construction costs. While that funding is not assured on a known schedule, I do not doubt that eventually sufficient funding can be applied if an intent to proceed with this project exists. Meanwhile, we can settle questions on specifics, seal a public debate on doing this, or not, and handle local expectations accordingly.

Sincerely,
David Hill,
President

cc
A. Chambers, Dir. of Planning
R. Spalding, Chief of Planning
W. Pentz, City Manager
B. Ferguson, Spec. Project Coord.
C. Bartlett, (acting) Neigh. Resource Coord.
Mayor and Council, c/o City Clerk