http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
Weirdly, that page , shows the earlier routings for the northern portion of the Inner Loop and the 1964 routing for the North Central Freeway (with the 1967 routings for the South Leg and the East Leg).
It completely disregards the extensive evolution of the highly controversial I-66 North Leg routing via the open trench and raised berm along Florida Avenue and U Street being replaced by the I-66 North Leg K Street Tunnel.
The I-66 K Street Tunnel alternative had the later 1960s support of both the D.C. City Council and U.S. NCPC, with the District Department of Public Works being the sole hold out favoring the U Street plan until late 1969 or early 1970.
The highly unpopular Open Trench and Raised Embankment Along Florida Avenue and U Street
The plan initiated by opponents to the Florida Avenue-U Street Plan:
the I-66 K Street tunnel
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html
The I-66 portion of the North Leg of the Inner Loop would have extended from the present I-66 terminus near the Watergate Apartments at K Street NW, extending as the North Leg under K Street NW in a tunnel, and emerging east of Mount Vernon Square and junctioning with I-95 about a mile north of the U.S. Capitol Building. The I-66 portion of the North Leg would have had 6 lanes. The I-66 K Street Tunnel was the solution to the original I-66 alignment that would have run east-west through urban neighborhoods alongside Florida Avenue NW, and between T and U Streets NW about a half mile north of K Street NW. If the K Street Tunnel had been built, it would have been a cut and cover design, about 1.5 miles long, buried out of sight under the straight 147-foot wide avenue, and passing under Mount Vernon Square, and it would have run from near Watergate almost to today's New York Ave./I-395 junction. I-66 crosses the Potomac River from Arlington, Va. to D.C. on the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, which opened on June 23, 1964.
Likewise the FHWA page on the 'de-mapings' shows the extremely unpopular 1964'Recommended route" #11 'Railroad-Sligo East' version of the B&O Route- which was widely, strongly and legitimately opposed.
This map of the freeways 'de-maped' during the 1970s
shows the 1964 version of the North Central Freeway
that deviates from the B&O railroad
shows the 1964 version of the North Central Freeway
that deviates from the B&O railroad
1964 version of North Central Freeway
deviates from B&O railroad just north of New Hampshire Avenue
1966 version of the North Central Freeways
stays with the B&O railroad- here shown at New Hampshire Avenue
The opposition to the 1964 North Central Freeway plan was so strong that the authorities had to return 2 years later with the 'supplementary' North Central Freeway study report of November 1966 for a low level B&O route more or less conforming to the 1962 JFK vision. That report included an illustration of a possible decking over of the freeway alongside the main body of Catholic University of America as well as a bit to the south- though fails to include any isometric drawings in detail as done in 1963 and 1965 with the Fenway segment of the proposed Boston Inner Loop.
Proposed park atop Boston Inner Belt- 1965
Proposed lid atop North Central Freeway CUA area- 1966
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html
Citizens of Takoma Park and Silver Spring had reason for their demonstrations of bitter dissatisfaction with the highway authorities of your predecessor's administration. After we had been given reason to believe that the causes of our protests had been in at least some part overcome, the matter now threatens to break into renewed bitterness. I am sure you will wish to avoid this as much as many of us....As reported by The Washington Post, May 8, 1967:
The re-studied proposal also tacitly admitted that the route first proposed was needlessly, even carelessly if not ruthlessly, destructive of our communities. The new version hugged both sides of the existing Baltimore and Ohio railway, thus avoiding a new swath of destruction to divide our communities and sharply reducing the number of homes to be taken.
The reduced, re-routed proposal was made public last year with endorsement of D.C. And Maryland highway authorities. The D.C. Portion was forced through the National Capital Planning Commission by votes of representatives of the D.C. Highway Department and of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. From this we concluded, reasonably enough, that the highway authorities of the two jurisdictions (Maryland and D.C.) had reached a firm understanding with the Bureau of Public Roads.
Many of us were therefore astonished and aroused to preparations for renewed protests when Washington newspapers recently reported that the Bureau has acted to open it all up again. We have not found the Bureau forthcoming with candid information, but the press articles intimate an intention to force Maryland to accept modifications of route or design ostensibly "cheaper."
The result is that the whole controversy, which had been somewhat quiescent, is beginning to agitate the communities again. I can assure you this is so, for although I recently resigned chairmanship of the Metropolitan Citizens Council for Rapid Transit and write this simply as an individual citizen who wishes your administration well, I do remain in close touch with neighborhood sentiment on transportation-related issues.
Top officials of the Bureau have ordered a full review of the plans for the 3 ½ mile road … While it is good practice to disrupt as few people as possible in road building, is it worth the added cost of $22 million?
… Rejection by the Bureau would certainly fan the embers of one of the Washington area’s freeway controversies spearheaded by a group called the Save Takoma Park Committee. It rallied the residents of the middle income suburb composed largely of turn of the century homes on tree lined streets to strident opposition at hearings in Washington and Silver Spring on the original [1964] alignment.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.htmlA cost savings of $22 million would translate percentage wise to 12.3%, given the approximately $271 million cost given in the 1966 'Supplementary' North Central Freeway Engineering Report for the B&O Low Level Option.
Such was why the D.C. City Council and U.S. NCPC would reverse their long standing support for the JFK B&O freeway concept by the end of 1968:
February 6, 1967: presentation of the new B&O Low Level North Central Freeway plan to NCPC
May 1967: NCPC approves 1st link of North Central Freeway
October 1967: NCPC approves final link of North Central Freeway 8-2
February 1968: law suit decision by U.S. Court of Appeals
February 17, 1970: D.C. City Council votes against North Central Freeway
September 17, 1970: legislation in Congress in the House Public Works Committee ordering North Central Freeway construction.
April 9, 1972: Maryland drops I-70S
February 1973: Maryland drops I-95 by the Northwest Branch Park corridor.
July 16, 1973: Maryland drops I-95 via the PEPCO right of way.
Also see:
The following maps show the DC freeway system as the design had evolved by the 1970s:
The federal action of retaining the earlier unpopular routings is consistent with the crafted controversy of the scuttling of the B&O route via the 1964 betrayal of the recently assassinated JFK's planning, the FHWA cir 1967-1968 waffling, along with such things as the highly questionable "support" of such organizations as the Federal City Council.
Should not the FHWA de-maping page instead show maps as these found on Scott M. Kozel's informative site Roads to the Future - and that below of what Maryland canceled in July 1973?
PEPCO-B&O I-95
I was once told by an elderly lady involved with the anti-freeway protests of the 1960s and 1970s that despite the design and routing evolution of that time that had lead to the development of plans that were far far less controversial, that the Feds in fact had formally retained the infinity more controversial earlier plans, thus crafting the levels of anti urban freeway sentiment sufficient to bring about the 'de-mapings.'
I had found that too incredible to believe particularly with the design evolutions that had occurred. However, the FHWA 'de-maping' page shows maps backing that up.
View the page for yourself:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
Withdrawal of I-70S, 95, 66, 266, 295, 395 &695 -- Washington, DC
Description of Withdrawn Routes
The withdrawal of seven Interstate Routes or portions thereof (I-70S, I-95, I-66, I-266, I-295, I-395 & I-695) in Washington, DC was accomplished in six stages.Withdrawal Action
Stage One
On June 27, 1975, Mayor Walter E. Washington requested
the withdrawal of two segments from the Interstate System: (a) I-95
between I-295 and the Maryland State line and (b) all of I-70S in the
district.
On October 3, 1975, Federal Highway Administrator
Norbert T. Tiemann and Urban Mass Transportation Administrator Robert E.
Patricelli approved the withdrawal of the two routes under the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). The withdrawal removed 5.4 miles in
DC from the Interstate System.
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of Interstate Construction (IC) funds was increased by
approximately $159.2 million to $304.3 million since the withdrawal was
approved prior to the May 5, 1976, enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1976. The increase was accomplished by increasing DC's IC
apportionment for FY 1977.
On December 29, 1976, Mayor Walter E. Washington
requested the withdrawal of two more segments from the Interstate
System: (a) the portion of I-66 between I-266 and I-395, and (b) the
I-266 Three Sisters Bridge over the Potomac River to the Virginia State
line. The two route portions total 2.50 miles.
On April 29, 1977, Federal Highway Administrator
William M. Cox and Urban Mass Transportation Acting Administrator
Charles F. Bingman approved the withdrawal of the two routes under the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of IC funds was decreased by approximately $103.5 million
accomplished by decreasing DC's IC apportionment for FY 1977.
On August 7, 1978, Mayor Walter E. Washington
requested the withdrawal of portions of the East leg and North Leg
Freeways (I-295 and I-395).
On September 8, 1978, Federal Highway Administrator
Karl S. Bowers and Urban Mass Transportation Administrator Richard S.
Page approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C.
103(e)(4). The two route portions total 4.70 miles.
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of IC funds was decreased by approximately $130.1 million
accomplished by decreasing DC's IC apportionment for FY 1977.
On April 30, 1980, Mayor Marion S. Barry requested the
withdrawal of a 1.7-mile segment of the South Leg Freeway portion of
I-695 between I-66 and I-395.
On August 27, 1980, Federal Highway Administrator John
S. Hassell and Urban Mass Transportation Deputy Administrator Lillian
C. Liburdi approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C.
103(e)(4). In addition a 0.12 mile segment of I-695 was deleted from the
Interstate System under Section 103(f).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of IC funds was decreased by approximately $45.9 million
accomplished by decreasing DC's IC apportionment for FY 1980.
On January 27, 1982, Mayor Marion S. Barry requested
the withdrawal of the westerly 0.6-mile segment of I-266 between the
Three Sisters terminus and Key Bridge.
On June 28, 1982, Federal Highway Administrator R. A.
Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Administrator Arthur E. Teele
approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of IC funds was decreased by approximately $10.8 million
accomplished by decreasing DC's IC apportionment for FY 1982 and 1983.
On May 19, 1983, Mayor Marion S. Barry requested the
withdrawal of (a) the remaining 0.51-mile segment of I-266 and (b) a
0.25-mile segment of I-66 within the I-66/I-266 interchange area.
On August 19, 1983, Federal Highway Administrator R.
A. Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Acting Administrator G. Kent
Woodman approved the withdrawals under the provisions of 23 U.S.C.
103(e)(4).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), DC's unobligated
balance of IC funds was decreased by approximately $12.9 million
accomplished by decreasing DC's IC apportionment for FY 1983.
Withdrawal Value
The "Base" withdrawal value was based on the Federal share of the cost to complete these Interstate routes as reported in the Interstate Cost Estimate (ICE) at the time of the withdrawal. The Base cost was adjusted quarterly to determine a new withdrawal value in accordance with Section 125 of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 reflecting variations in the cost of construction. The adjustment due to construction cost variances was terminated by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. These values are shown in the following table:| Stage One Base Cost (1975 ICE) | 304.3 million | ||
| Stage Two Base Cost (1975 ICE) | 300.6 million | ||
| Stage Three Base Cost (1977 ICE) | 403.5 million | ||
| Stage Four Base Cost (1979 ICE) | 230.4 million | ||
| Stage Five Base Cost (1981 ICE) | 110.2 million | ||
| Stage Six Base Cost (1981 ICE) | 121.8 million | ||
| Obligations for Highway Projects | 233.4 million | ||
| Obligations for Transit Projects | 1,963.5 million | ||
| Remaining Entitlement | 0.8 million | ||
| Final Withdrawal Value | 2,197.7 million |
See some detailed histories here:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/09/getting-over.htmlAnd see this as an example of how media entities over simplify the history- willfully.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-washington-city-papers.html
No comments:
Post a Comment