First, a traffic study and usage projections indicate that the majority of the traffic uses the grade-level crossing. With the current volume of traffic, and projected increases, it is a matter of time before there is a serious accident at this crossing.

This crossing should be closed, and the replacement bridge is the opportunity to address the issue of the deteriorating bridge and the grade-level safety at the same time. But the favored Concept 5 ignores the grade-level issue. Why?

More fundamental is the question for the connection these crossings provide between Route 124 and Shady Grove (via Railroad Street and Oakmont). Is this connection needed? If so, then these feeder roads need to be improved to reflect the safety standards appropriate for the major thoroughfare. This means removing the humps on Route 124, widening Oakmont, closing the grade-level crossing, and using either Concept 1 or 3 for the bridge (which provide a direct connection with Oakmont to 124).

Washington Grove opposes Concepts 1 and 3, so they were removed from consideration. It then follows that the county judges that the 124 to Shady Grove connection is not needed. If so, then remove the deteriorating bridge and close the crossing. That traffic can then use the Shady Grove to Midcounty to Route 124 route to get to the same destinations.

A subplot to this little drama is the Concept 5 proposal, which addresses the smaller portion of the traffic that uses the East Deer Park residential street as their highway to Route 124 (via the bridge). If the county is not willing to use Oakmont, a commercial street, as a connector, how can they use a residential street for the same purpose?

Les Slaback, Gaithersburg