I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED WOODMONT AVE. WON'T REOPEN UNTIL 2015 (PHOTOS)

I think the biggest question about the briefly-promised reopening of Woodmont Avenue south of Bethesda Avenue is, why was it proposed to begin with? By my recollection, it was not originally planned to reopen at this stage of the Lot 31 development, anyway. The garage isn't ready, and neither building is near completion. Would it have been great to get it open? Sure.

But I was rightly skeptical when a mid-August reopening was first floated. How could a road be brought up to code with ADA and Bethesda Streetscape requirements from scratch in a couple of weeks? Then we found out how - with no such requirements or pedestrian access. Simply a two-lane cut-through for cars only. This did not seem to mesh with all of the trendy talk about walkable communities, pedestrian safety, "people over cars," bike lanes, and "complete streets" we hear so often in Montgomery County.

Then there were the confusing signs. No Pedestrian Access. Which worked so well on Fairmont Avenue, and still does along the former post office site on Arlington Road, right? Ask any driver who rounds the curve on Arlington, to find a couple of pedestrians' backs facing them in the roadway, how well it worked. Extremely unsafe, and the proposed Woodmont Driveway (to use a more accurate term) would have been dangerous as well, knowing that people were going to save a couple of minutes by plunging into oncoming traffic. One commenter on this blog made a good point about the very winding, bending nature of the road, too. Somehow, I doubt that's what the final road will be like - for safety purposes, if nothing else.

And no one ever explained the full implications (legal or otherwise) of the sign announcing that segment of Woodmont was not a publicly-maintained street. I had always assumed Woodmont would reopen as a finished street, maintained by the County.

Keeping Woodmont closed is hardly convenient for the general public. But inquiring minds want to know a couple of answers. What was the sudden rush to reopen, when nobody was expecting it anyway? And what specifically came to light regarding safety, that wasn't known when the original mid-August reopening date was given? It sounded unsafe from the beginning. And it didn't seem to make sense to have the developer and construction contractors spend the time and money on this, and then call it off.