Home>Responses To Visualize Comment Period
Print

Responses To Visualize Comment Period

Interior page for staff to review commentss.

Visualize 2045 Inputs and Scope Submissions

 
This comment is being submitted on behalf of:This comment pertains to:Name of Agency/Business/OrganizationFirst NameLast NameCityStateZip/Postal CodeSubjectFile Upload
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueMarilynnLiottaSilver SpringMaryland20902Potomac bridgesNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
No more bridges across the Potomac..think about pollution please. And fix the metro and it's parking facilities so it's appealing enough to transport more people.
An IndividualRichardSchubertBethesdaMaryland20817Outer beltwayNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Just because there is an undeveloped piece of land does not mean it needs to be destroyed. I strongly encourage you to REJECT any proposition that would lead to furtherance of an Outer Beltway. There are already more than enough roads traversing Montgomery County; enough trees have been cut; enough watersheds polluted; enough rocks blasted; enough concrete and asphalt poured. Try to take a longer view: someday your children and grandchildren will need to deal with the results of the destruction such a road would bring-- please don't do it. Thank you. Richard Schubert Bethesda MD
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueAlisonPearceGarrett ParkMaryland20896Outer Beltway BridgeNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
I am opposed a new outer beltway bridge. A major highway bridge increases the likelihood of a chemical spill that could contaminate our drinking water. In 1997, 1 out of 10 trucks in the US was transporting hazardous material. About half of those carried flammable liquids, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil. Accidents are common, and a study of data from 1991-2000 found that the likelihood of a spill in the event of a crash was 50% higher for hazardous materials than non-hazardous. One tanker truck of hazardous material can contaminate an entire drinking water system. Water intakes for Fairfax County, the City of Rockville, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, and the District of Columbia are all downstream from the most likely crossing.
An IndividualDraft project submissions for the Visualize 2045 Constrained ElementMsDianaSterlingSterlingVirginia20165Proposed northern Potomac bridge crossingNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
Hello, I'm writing to ask that you vote no to a new Potomac bridge in Loudoun county. It will generate new traffic, by as much as 85% according to one VDOT study. Loudoun will become a mainline for big rigs carrying freight. Route 28, Route 7 & the Dulles Toll Road will turn into a parking lot (again). A second crossing will divert taxpayer dollars from critically needed projects such as Metro and improvements to east/west corridors that could ease our already congested roadways. The bridge will bring more pollution, noise and lowered home values. It will destroy a large chunk of the Potomac River watershed, wetlands and our dwindling green spaces. A bridge in this location also threatens our drinking water supply. Please do not include such a crossing in the plan. sincerely, ~D Diana Bendit
An IndividualNitinAgarwalGaithersburgMaryland20878Please oppose the proposed bridge on PotomacNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
The proposed northern Potomac bridge would create a new and unnecessary risk to this already fragile drinking water supply. Four of the region’s drinking water intakes are downstream from the most frequently proposed northern bridge crossing, and an accident which leads to a major spill of gasoline or other toxic chemicals would directly threaten drinking water for the majority of the region’s residents. If the intakes need to be shut down, we will have only 48 hours of drinking water supply without the Potomac. Accidents are common, and a study of data from 1991-2000 found that the likelihood of a spill in the event of a crash was 50% higher for hazardous materials than non-hazardous.
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueRobertGoldbergGermantownMaryland20876-4422Outer Beltway - northern Potomac bridge crossing Outer_Beltway2.pdf
Text Area:
An IndividualDraft project submissions for the Visualize 2045 Constrained ElementParrieHenderson-O’KeefeWashingtonDistrict of Columbia20010Additional Northern Potomac Bridge CrossingNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
DO NOT ADD AN ADDITIONAL BRIDGE ACROSS THE POTOMAC. We can not continue to pave every piece of precious land in service to the almight automobile! Find alternatives that DISCOURAGE car use, not encourage it. When you start putting automobiles ahead of safe water and green spaces you’ve made a deal with the devil. You don’t raise our region, you lower it. Our quality of life goes down, our safety goes down, and we destroy our environment. This is insane.
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueLindaKeenanSilver SpringMaryland20901Proposed North Potomac BridgeNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
I am writing to urge you to oppose any new bridges across the Potomac River. We should not be planning to accommodate more auto traffic and increase runoff, we should be planning projects that encourage other modes of transportation that do not increase impervious surfaces. I will urge all of my elected officials to oppose new bridges and Beltway widening. Thank you.
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueAnnaFarbColumbiaMaryland21044Outer Beltway BridgeNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
The proposed northern Potomac bridge would create a new and unnecessary risk to this already fragile drinking water supply. Four of the region’s drinking water intakes are downstream from the most frequently proposed northern bridge crossing, and an accident which leads to a major spill of gasoline or other toxic chemicals would directly threaten drinking water for the majority of the region’s residents.
An IndividualOther Regional Transportation IssueKATHERINEBENJAMINGARRETT PARKMaryland20896Potomac bridge crossing for outer beltwayNo file uploaded.
Text Area:
No to the bridge. Protect our drinking water!
Results: 56 Comments found.