518
2/25/00 Yvonne Weight:
It would appear that no consideration was given to the “Alexandria Orb”
configuration of Route 1, although such a design creates the possibility
that significantly more space could be covered and utilized as park or
recreation land; indeed, DOT should be required to show in each and
every EIS how much concrete it could actually cover.
4/14/00 FHWA:
During the planning process, twenty-five configurations were studied for
the U.S. 1 interchange. In addition, opportunities were provided for
individuals to present their proposals during the Coordination
Committee Meetings, work group sessions and other public meetings
and hearings. Based upon the consideration of the Coordination
Committee, not all proposals were determined to be further studied. The
requirements for comparative elements to be included in the EIS are
based on items that encompass community, environmental, traffic, cost
elements and differentiating factors.
5/30/00
a) None of these 25 Route 1 interchange configurations included any
designed to cover any of the ramps; this stands in contrast to the use of
"fly under" ramps used successfully in the Mercer Island I-90 project and
elsewhere;
b) Opportunities were of course provided during the public comment
periods allowed at the various
does not mean that a proposal's presentation during any of these periods
would receive formal consideration by the Coordination Committee; from
the documentation that I am aware of, this Committee apparently gave
NO formal consideration to the Alexandria Orb proposal, despite the
comparative elements so involved that are enumerated above.
Attachment 3 - Comments and Responses
78
523
(Consideration of the Orb proposal; extension of covered portion of I-495
to the west of the official preliminary plan.)
4/14/00 FHWA:
This aspect of the project, extending the deck to the west
would be considered outside the scope of the project. The access to
Hunting Creek would be unchanged from the access today.
5/30/00
Untrue on both counts. The Orb proposal falls entirely
within the geographic area of the existing proposed project, in fact the
project area includes the interchange to the west of the Route 1
interchange, to say nothing of to the east to include the river crossing and
the two interchanges to its east. By extending the covered area of I-495
to the west as part of the Alexandria Orb proposal, it would entirely
bridge the gap between the
northern shore of Hunting Creek, with a terrace to so provide this access,
possibly in the manner that access is provided to the
west of the Lincoln Memorial.
525
2/25/00
The Alexandria Orb/Promenade proposal is a replacement design for that
portion of the project upon land in
western extension . Indeed, the Alexandria Orb/Promenade is a
consolidation of an extended, landscaped highway deck, with a partially
underground spherical replacement design for the Route 1 interchange.
It does not alter the basic design configuration of the bridge itself. As so
conceived and drawn (in AUTOCAD 14), this proposal is fully compatible
with a 12 lane configuration with separate local and express roadways,
with a ramp configuration without conflict with the addition of Metro rail
via left-hand local roadway and right-hand express roadway shoulders,
as well as being adaptable to a broad range of bridge crossing options,
including partial and full tunnel river crossings, as well as those with
differing numbers of lanes.
Attachment 3 - Comments and Responses
79
4/14/00 FHWA:
The US 1 interchange was studied extensively during the
planning process, documented in the 1997 FEIS and is not subject to
major reconsideration. The Stakeholder Participation Panel assigned to
refine the
movements, although still had some issues.
5/30/00 Douglas Willinger TPHDS:
This design is not necessarily set in cement, as attested
by the example of the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel's adaptation and
eventual replacement of the "Scheme Z" design configuration for the
approach ramps to the replacement I-93 Charles River Bridge. Popular
disenchantment with the officially chosen "Scheme Z" alternative would
led to its outright abandonment, and its replacement with a new design to
plug into the rest of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Official recognition
of this sentiment led to a renewed design effort for this portion of the
project, minimizing any possible delays to the rest of the project. By
adapting and incorporating the Alexandria Orb/Promenade proposal within the project
design, we can take advantage of the time that we have (especially given
the legal delays that are likely to occur over the next 9 months) the
project could essentially proceed without further delays. In any case,
construction will begin upon the bridge (or tunnel, in the event of such a
change in plans), before it begins upon the approaches, thus further
allowing time to adopt the Alexandria Orb proposal, which is confined to
the interchange, the approach and the roadways in the immediate area of
Royal Street.
No comments:
Post a Comment