Bob and Jane Levey Refuted

The November 2000 article in The Washington Post Magazine got publicly discussed in the newsgroup misc.transport.road

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: "Scott M. Kozel" ...@mediaone.net>

Date: 2000/11/27

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Scott Kozel

> From the Washington Post Magazine:

The _Washington Post MAGAZINE_ is a Sunday magazine supplement with
opinion pieces, delivered with the _Washington Post_ newspaper.

> Instead, the Washington area got Metro-all $5 billion and 103 miles of
> it. Much of the money had been earmarked for interstate highways It was
> diverted to subways.

The final cost to construct Metrorail has reached $11 billion. It would
be remiss not to mention that 60 miles was placed under contract
1969-1980, including the bulk of the underground mileage, and that the
cost in 2000 adjusted dollars would be $22 billion or more.

The D.C. Interstate highway money transferred from canceled highways to
Metrorail construction was $2 billion, and the transfer took place in
the late 1970s, using the then-estimated costs of the canceled D.C.
Interstate highways and Maryland and Virginia connections.

> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> saved from destruction.

That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
(less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.

> So were more than 100 square miles of parkland around
> the metropolitan area.

That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. That would be equal to a
10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area of D.C. and
Arlington. There is nowhere near that much parkland in the metropolitan
area.

The cost estimate to complete the full District of Columbia Interstate
system (I-66, I-95, I-266, I-70S, I-295, I-695) was under $2 billion if
it had been built in the 1970s. This cost included the portions of I-95
and I-70S (today's I-270) from the D.C. border to the I-495 Capital
Beltway in Maryland, and the portion of I-266 in Virginia.

This included 3,650 job displacements, and 1,166 occupied dwelling unit
displacements, with extensive construction of (perhaps total)
replacement housing. The 1971 study book shows plan views of many
nearby places with proposed replacement housing, replacement local
shops, new community centers, new commercial centers, new industrial
parks, and replacement recreational parks. It looks like a good plan
was in place to replace the residences, businesses and parkland that
would have been displaced by the new freeways.

Sources: The design study, _District of Columbia Interstate System_, by
DeLeuw, Cather Associates and Harry Wesse & Associates, LTD, 1971,
prepared for the District of Columbia Department of Highways and
Traffic, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration. This was the last official preliminary
design for the D.C. Interstate system. Several copies are at the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Library (the D.C. city library), which is near the
Gallery Place Metrorail station.

See --

Washington D.C. Interstates and Freeways
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

e

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: "Scott M. Kozel" ...@mediaone.net>

Date: 2000/11/27

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Kenneth Dancy" wrote:

> "Douglas A. Willinger" ...@idt.net> wrote:

> > Maybe if you add up all of the alternative alignments studied for a
> > road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
> > Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
> > worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.

> > But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to explain
> > the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so again, I
> > can not explain this, especially considering that the article was about
> > D.C.)

> Lost Highways Article in Washington Post Magazine dated
> 11-26-2000)>:
> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
> around the metropolitan area.

I already specifically replied to that quote, and refuted it. Those
figures are absurd by over two orders of magnitude.

> The city was spared from freeways bored under
> the Mall, freeways punched through stable middle-class black neighborhoods,
> freeways tunneled under K Street, freeways that would have obliterated the
> Georgetown waterfront and the Maryland bank of the Potomac.
>

Those quotes are mostly wrong too.

The only planned freeway tunneled under the Mall was built by 1973, the
3rd Street Tunnel (I-95 then, I-395 now).

The final 1971 plan did not "punch" though any neighborhoods, unless in
one case the New York Avenue area would be considered, but that was a
very dilapidated area then, and was designated a redevelopment
district. It is still mostly empty today.

I-66 in the final plan was planned to be tunneled under the 147-foot-wide K Street, a wise plan.

The comment about the Georgetown waterfront really was not true, since
the existing elevated Whitehurst Freeway there would have been widened.

The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.

> My interpretation is that the 200,000 is DC only, based on previous sentence
> referring to city borders. 100 sq miles refers to metropolitan area.

I think that both quotes were clearly as you say.

> It would be great if someone from mtr wrote about this to Letters of Washington
> Post magazine, preferably Douglas or Scott.

I think we should. As I pointed out in my first post, I clearly
differentiated the _Washington Post MAGAZINE_ from the _Washington Post_
NEWSPAPER. The magazine is essentially opinion pieces.

Actually a lot of the people, events and stages seemed accurate in the
article. It is a shame that they posted some key "facts" that seem so
obviously wrong in favor of smearing the D.C. Interstate system.

> My take is this: That the issue of racism playing a part of the DC freeway
> building would have been less of an issue if they had built I-70S in the
> original NW DC Bethesda corridor instead of moving it to NE DC. They also
> lost a big opportunity to build when it would have been a lot cheaper to do
> so. Now the 2 billion dollar figure seems tame compared to projects that
> are done now, such as Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge.

With increases in the heavy construction consumer price index, triple
that to $6 billion in 2000 dollars.

> Douglas make a good point that cancelling I-95 through DC and MD, led to
> overuse of Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Those structures
> would have lasted longer with I-95 through DC.

Still, the $2 billion was available in the 1970s, and even building just
I-95 alone for about half that price, would have perhaps obviated or
greatly reduced the needed improvements at the Springfield Interchange
and Wilson Bridge. The Wilson Bridge improvements needed today might be
limited to adding one lane each way to the WWB to make it 8 lanes, with
little or no needed improvements to the nearby interchanges and approach
highway. IOW, we might be spending $400 million today instead of $2
billion at the WWB.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: "Kenneth Dancy"

Date: 2000/11/27

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Douglas A. Willinger" ...@idt.net> wrote in message
news:3A229B01.38B354F3@idt.net...

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

> Ron Newman wrote:

> > In article <3a219f95.d2143...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
> > ...@mediaone.net> wrote:

> > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders
than any
> > > > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units
were
> > > > saved from destruction.

> > > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the
District
> > > of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> > > (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> > > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.

> > Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved
throughout
> > the metropolitan area, not just within the District?

> Maybe if you add up all of the alternative alignments studied for a
> road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
> Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
> worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.

> But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to explain
> the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so again, I
> can not explain this, especially considering that the article was about
> D.C.)

Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
around the metropolitan area. The city was spared from freeways bored under
the Mall, freeways punched through stable middle-class black neighborhoods,
freeways tunneled under K Street, freeways that would have obliterated the
Georgetown waterfront and the Maryland bank of the Potomac.

My interpretation is that the 200,000 is DC only, based on previous sentence
referring to city borders. 100 sq miles refers to metropolitan area. It would be great if someone from mtr wrote about this to Letters of Washington Post magazine, preferably Douglas or Scott.

My take is this: That the issue of racism playing a part of the DC freeway building would have been less of an issue if they had built I-70S in the original NW DC Bethesda corridor instead of moving it to NE DC. They also lost a big opportunity to build when it would have been a lot cheaper to do so. Now the 2 billion dollar figure seems tame compared to projects that are done now, such as Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Douglas make a good point that cancelling I-95 through DC and MD, led to overuse of Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Those structures would have lasted longer with I-95 through DC.

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: "Scott M. Kozel" ...@mediaone.net>

Date: 2000/11/27

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

rnew...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:

> "Scott M. Kozel" ...@mediaone.net> wrote:

> > > "Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> > > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> > > saved from destruction".

> > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
> > of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> > (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.

> Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
> the metropolitan area, not just within the District?

No (*), and the article specifically referred to the city of Washington
itself (see above). I quoted the official figure in my last post for
the 1,166 dwelling unit displacements for the canceled D.C. Interstate highways, and that included the canceled connecting segments of those
highways in Maryland and Virginia (I-95, I-70S, I-266).

(*) In 1970 the metropolitan area had about 2.5 million people, so "more
than 200,000" would still be about 25% of all dwelling units in the
metropolitan area. I was being nice when I called it "baloney".

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C.http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

(Ron Newman) wrote:

> Robert Cote ...@gte.net> wrote:

> > > I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other
> > > forum?

> > Yes.

> > http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm

> I don't see a retraction there. I see a statement that the
> 200,000 applies to the entire metro area, not just the District
> (pretty much what I asked in the first place).

1970 metropolitan population - 2.4 million.

That is about 25% of all dwelling units in the metropolitan area.

Impossible

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: Robert Cote ...@gte.net>

Date: 2000/11/29

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

In article <903jnh$j2...@news1.Radix.Net>, "Kenneth Dancy"

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
> "David Jensen" ...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:s7ja2tc3djsen2478u4ibtapnc3faov87j@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:49:29 -0800, in misc.transport.road Ross
> > Williams ...@iname.com> wrote in
> > ...@4ax.com>:

> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:32 -0500, rnew...@thecia.net (Ron
> > >Newman) wrote:

> > >>In article ...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > >>Robert Cote ...@gte.net> wrote:

> > >>> > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing
> > >>> > >units saved throughout the metropolitan area, not just
> > >>> > >within the District?

> > >>> > Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone
> > >>> > would evaluate a regional decision based on its impact
> > >>> > within a narrow political boundary.

> > >>> Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific
> > >>> claim in another forum.

> > >>I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other
> > >>forum?

> > >If anyone wonders why I no longer read Cote, here is the
> > >"retraction":

> > >"Silver Spring, Md.: Was there a typographical error in your
> > >statement "More than 200,000 housing units were saved from
> > >destruction."? In a city of roughly 600,000, that would mean
> > >that one of every three residents would have had their
> > >"housing unit" destroyed by highway construction. I find that
> > >very hard to believe.

> > >Bob Levey and Jane Freundel Levey: That figure referred to
> > >housing units across the metropolitan area, not just in the
> > >city.--Bob "

> > But they still pulled it out of thin air and, because of that,
> > have not been able to provide references to either the 200,000
> > housing units or the 100 sq. miles of parkland.

> > At what point do ignorant exaggerations become lies in your
> > book?

> They should just admit that the numbers are incorrect. The fact
> that they apply the 200K to the larger metro area does not make
> it correct. There have been other posts that imply that this
> figure is also preposterous.

Where is the newspapers' fact checking staff on this? Ross is
excused from his leaping to conclusions, his blind hatred of anyone
who dares question his opinions as facts makes his comments
worthless. I'm concerned with this blatant historical revisionism
that neither the authors nor publishers seem interested in
correcting. Is there some sort of Anti-Pulitzer Prize for the worst
examples of published journalism? We could call them Rossies.

I nominate the Washington Post for the first ever Rossy Award.
Their blatant disregard for factual content in the field of
transportation policy and recent historical FAct is a shining
example of agenda masquerading as information.

David Jensen wrote:

- Hide quoted text -

>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:14:42 -0500, rnew...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:

>>In article <3a219f95.d2143...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
>>...@mediaone.net> wrote:

>>> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
>>> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
>>> > saved from destruction.

>>> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
>>> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
>>> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
>>> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.

>>Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
>>the metropolitan area, not just within the District?

>Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would evaluate a
>regional decision based on its impact within a narrow political boundary.
>But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was said - whatever contradicts
>his world view is BALONEY!

- Show quoted text -

This one is worse than baloney. I expect that the Washington Post will
be correcting their error soon.

Let's try a reality check: 100 sq. miles will support more than 2,000
miles of 8-lane freeway. It would take more than 1,000 miles of 8-lane
freeway to destroy 200,000 residences. Most of the miles in the metro
area were built. We know what the impact was.

The authors do not have any evidence to support their assertion. I've
asked for it. They have not provided it yet, because it doesn't exist

.

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

From: David Jensen ...@dajensen-family.com>

Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:39:26 GMT

Local: Thurs, Nov 30 2000 8:39 pm

Subject: Re: History of DC Interstates

Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:33:36 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Hank Shirley ...@my-deja.com> wrote in
<906rl0$21...@nnrp1.deja.com>:

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

>In article ...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
> Robert Cote ...@gte.net> wrote:

>> In article <906him$pd...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ableami...@my-deja.com
>> wrote:

>> > > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. That would be
>> > > equal to a 10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area
>> > > of D.C. and Arlington. There is nowhere near that much
>> > > parkland in the metropolitan area.

>> > Then it's OBVIOUS that they're talking about the metro area and
>> > not just DC. This is made painfully clear by the term
>> > "metropolitan area" in the very same sentence, which you
>> > apparently missed.

>> 200,000 dwelling units in metro D.C. does not pass the giggle test
>> either. As to the 100 sq miles of parkland... worse. The authors
>> lied because they wanted to believe. You are enabling. It's time
>> to force the newspaper to disavow the article.

>It does make me guffaw out loud. Is that a giggle test? :)

Guffaws definitely show that the article failed!

"And before you accuse me of "pretending to be a historian," I invite
you to see my history degrees, course work, thesis, and publications
from the last 15 years.

"I readily concede that we used "worst-case" numbers; does that really
make the entire story bad history?" Jane Levey

http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/discussionFrameset.asp?webtag=wpmetro...

I am thrilled that this woman is an honest-to-goodness historian. Now, I
don't feel bad at all about treating her like one. Yet, despite my
requests, she has failed to produce any documentation of these
"worst-case" numbers.

I'm sure she must have references because an honest historian would
never make such a "worst case" claim without being able to document it.
Otherwise, her work is worse than "bad history", it's not history at
all. It would only be propaganda and the lies that "True Believers" are
willing to say so they can get at a "Greater Truth". That cannot
possibly be what she wanted to do or what the Washington Post wants in
its pages, could it?