Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1948-09-02
1103 Lewis Avenue,
Rockville, Md,
August 81, 1913.
Montgomery County Commits

August 81, 1913.
Montgomery County Commits
sioners,
Rockville, Md.
Gentlemen:
Since the closing of the B. & O..
bridge at Agnew Drive in Rock
crest, there have been formed at
least three bridge committees"
who have made various proposals
for opening the bridge, the con-
struction of a new bridge and so
forth. After having discussed this
matter with various members of
these bridge committees'i and
others, it is the opinion of the writ
er that the greatest confusion ex-
lists concerning the progress of the
bridge problem. and even about
the ends for which they are striv-
ing. While a considerable sum of
money was raised by public sub
scription, the bridge is still closed,
and there seems to be little reason
to hope that it will be opened in
the near future. IL %
Although the testimony is con-
flicting, it appears that the pres
ent bridge was not condemned by
the state highway department, but
was closed because a railroad
foreman saw a large truck cross
the bridge (Which has a load limit
of two tons). 1t appears that be-
cause the bridge is railroad prop
erty, the county police have not
been responsible for enforcing the
load limit.
l am convinced that the present
bridge is adequate to handle Rock
crest traffic at the. present time.
This bridge has the further advan-
tage that its narrow width and the
poor visibility tend to discourage
the use of this route as a short
cut to Viers Mill Road. Since Rock
crest was designed as residential
community, any proposal which
tends to the creation of a highway
through Rockcrest would be a
gross injustice to the residents,
and tend to depress property val
ues. 1t would also create a danger
Gus traffic hazard for the many
children in Rockcrest, and this in
spite of the construction of side
walks, Fairgrounds, etc.
Two especially disturbing pro-
posals have been made for the So
luton of the bridge problem. One
is for the construction of new
steel bridge at the present site at
Agnew drive. The other contem-
plates a similar structure at Ed
monston drive. In this latter case,
Edmonston drive would be extend
ed to Views Mill road, thus Great
ing q cross highway through Rock
crest. / can see no merit in these
proposals. Such a solution would
be expensive, depress property
values, create a traffic and safety
hazard, and moreover would be of
no advantage to the development
of Rockcrest and the adjacent
areas to the southeast along both
Rockville Pike and Viers Mill road.
AS a shortcut, the distance saved
would be too little to be of practi-
cal advantage. Furthermore, both
sites for the bridge would require
equally dangerous approaches on
Route 240, involving a hill and a
curve. 1t would seem very foolish
planning indeed to create more
serious traffic hazard at either of
these points.
1t seems to me that the most
satisfactory solution to the prob
lem at this time would be the re-
opening of the present bridge, with
authority granted to the county
police TO enforce the load limit of
two tons. If it is true that the
bridge needs reinforcement to
make it safe for passenger vehi-
Giles, the cost would certainly be
small.
Amy projected new construc-