Saturday, February 28, 2015

I-395 Center Leg Capitol Crossing- Non Interstate Spec Shoulders?

Shall the I-395 Center Leg even meet Interstate highway specifications anymore?



Is this even legal?

I am unaware of Congress de-certifying the I-395 Center Leg as an Interstate Highway!
http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/interstate-highway-standards/

The maximum lane number in each direction is not less than two and there should be emergency escape ramps and climbing lanes in some parts of the highway if needed. The minimum width of each lane should be 3.62 meters. The outside shoulder width is 3 meters while the inner shoulder width is 1.2 meters. In rural places, the median width should be 11 meters and in urban areas, it should be 3 meters.

The minimum vertical clearance in urban places should be 4.3 meters and in rural place, it is 4.9 meters. Bridges along the highway should have not less than HS-20 structural capacity. It is also important that bridges have lanes that measure 12 feet. Tunnels along the Interstate should have a width of not less than 13.1 meters. These should have two lanes. Each lane should have a width of 3.6 meters. The outside shoulder of the lanes should measure 3 meters while the inner shoulder should be 1.5 meters (4.9213 feet).  Additionally, it is important that tunnels have safety walkways. These should be found on each side of the tunnel. The walkway should measure .7 meters.




 
 "Typical I-395 cross section"  page 10 2009 Air Rights EIS

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/12/current-i-395-center-leg-air-rights-row.html

4.9213 required.

4.0 shown in cross section labeled 'typical I-395 cross section.

? shown in overhead at actual spot of the pinch.



The I-395 3rd Street Tunnel Capital Crossing Air Rights projects needs to be STOPPED until the design is changed to fully respect the full 8 lane plus shoulders right of way.

Likewise the project should be re-designed to maintaining both the on ramp and the off ramp, with a redesign that keeps the idea of the center loader ramps- a basic design that needs to be adopted to Interstate highways particularly those in urbanized areas as infinitely more suitable for reconciling freeway related and more localized traffic, including pedestrian any bicycle.

The U.S. Congress ought to investigate the planning and those involved with this unwarranted selling out of the sunken I-395 Center Leg right of way.



Friday, February 27, 2015

An Opponent to the Northwest Freeway Passes Away

who had been appointed by President Kennedy as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the National Capital Transportation Agency to work upon Recommendations for Transportation in the National Capital Region: A Report to the President for transmittal to Congress by the National Capital Transportation Agency November 1, 1962


Thomas Farmer - from Cleveland Park, Washington, D.C.
d. February 5, 2015 at 91



Died February 5, 2015 at the age of 91.

Was from the Cleveland Park area of Washington D.C. NW

From 1961 to 1964, he was chairman of the advisory board of the National Capital Transportation Agency and roughly concurrently helped form the Northwest Committee for Transportation Planning.

Cleveland Park was the neighborhood of the attorney Peter S. Craig, where the I-70S Northwest Freeway was proposed to have its south-eastern portion run between the Wisconsin Avenue corridor to then cross Rock Creek Park and run through the Mount Pleasant area before turning due south a few hundred feet west parallel to 14th Street NW to meet the I-66 North Leg of the Inner Loop along U Street as that latter freeway was proposed in the 1955 Inner Loop Study.

The NW Freeway, as shown in 1957 and 1959 study reports, would have entered Washington, D.C. at Friendship Heights,  paralleling Wisconsin Avenue from the Capital Beltway through Bethesda, and so continuing to a set of cut and cover tunnels beneath Tenley Circle, with this Wisconsin Avenue corridor segment displacing about 74 houses within the District, according to the 1957 report.

A prohibition upon a mixed use - allowing trucks - freeway in Glover Archibold Park led to the 'Cross Park Freeway' routing for the south-eastern portion of the I-70S NW Freeway through the Cleveland Park area, displacing there about 0 homes, before crossing Rock Creek Park where the segment to the east would have displaced probably 1,000+ houses in the Mount Pleasant area.  Although the freeway's impacts where primarily to the east, it was Cleveland Park that would be perhaps the main nexus of the opposition to any freeway planning to the west of Rock Creek Park, that would successfully get the U.S. Congress to include a 5 year moratorium on such planning in far NW.

A significant amount of such activists, including those from Bethesda would then -- cir 1960-1962 -- favor routing I-70S along a North Central Freeway paralleling Georgia Avenue that would have displaced an upwards of 4,000+.  Others though, including Peter S. Craig, would favor the alternative routing along the B&O railroad-industrial corridor, displacing far far fewer houses while avoiding establishing a new local bisection, as adopted by the Kennedy Administration's transportation report dated November 1, 1962. 

As Farmer had been appointed by President Kennedy as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the National Capital Transportation Agency from 1961 to 1964, which helped produce that November 1, 1962 report, he might not have been dogmatically opposed to freeways within Washington D.C. in general.

1959 NW Freeway - Cleveland Park

1959 NW Freeway - Mt. Pleasant


 1962

At this time, "A Trip Within The Beltway" has no further details on Thomas Farmer's freeway related activism, and can simply gather from the time-line and his location -- Cleveland Park -- that he was active against the Northwest Freeway
http://www.usaidalumni.org/alumni/tributes/

Thomas Farmer

New! Thomas Laurence Farmer, whose Washington career in public service and private law practice spanned 63 years, died February 5, 2015 at his home in Cleveland Park surrounded by his family. He was 91 years old. The cause was neuro-degenerative illness.

Thomas Farmer combined private law practice with a passion for politics and international affairs. He first came to Washington in 1951 where he worked for the CIA for three years as a Covert Operations Officer. He returned to Washington in 1958 as an Associate of the New York law firm of Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett and to work in John Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Appointed by President Kennedy as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the National Capital Transportation Agency from 1961 to 1964, he helped lead a crucial battle that prevented interstate highways from bisecting Washington.

From 1964 to 1968, he worked as the General Counsel for the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development, and contributed to the establishment of the Asian Development Bank. From 1977 to 1981 he served as Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Board during the Carter administration. From 1970 to 1994 he was partner in the law firm Prather, Seeger, Doolittle and Farmer.

Born in 1923 in Berlin, to an American father and a German Jewish mother, Tom Farmer came with his parents to New York City in 1933. He graduated from Great Neck High School in 1940 and from Harvard College (A.B. 1943), where he was a member of the Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson. He served in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946 and worked as a member of the Military Intelligence Division of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Washington. He then read Law at Brasenose College, Oxford (LL.B. 1948) and at Harvard Law School (LL.M. 1950).

Tom Farmer was deeply involved in developing relations between the United States and Germany in the Postwar era. In 1983 he helped found the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies as a Director and Secretary-Treasurer, and was a Trustee until his death. In 1994, with Henry Kissinger and German President Richard von Weizscker, he helped found the American Academy in Berlin, served as its Founding Chairman until succeeded by Richard Holbrooke, and continued as a Trustee until his death. In 1993 he became the only non-German appointed to the Treuhandanstalt, the “Trust agency” of the Federal Republic of Germany after reunification in 1990, and helped implement privatization of the state-owned coal industry in the former East Germany. He received the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1997.
He is survived by his wife, Wanda Walton, his three children: Daniel, Sarah and Elspeth, and five grandchildren. A prior marriage to Elizabeth Midgley ended in divorce.*

And from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/thomas-l-farmer-dc-lawyer-and-civic-activist-dies-at-91/2015/02/26/ba61de6a-bc48-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Thomas L. Farmer, a Washington lawyer who represented banking interests in his professional life and fought freeway construction through the nation’s capital as a civic activist, died Feb. 5 at his home in the District. He was 91.

The cause was progressive supranuclear palsy, a neurodegenerative disease, said a daughter, Sarah Farmer.

From 1970 to 2002, Mr. Farmer was general counsel to the Bankers Association for Foreign Trade, and for two years after that, he was senior counsel for international finance for the American Bankers Association.

He was chairman of the advisory board of the National Capital Transportation Agency from 1961 to 1964 and, about that time, he also helped form a citizens group called the Northwest Committee for Transportation Planning.

With the committee, he was a leader in a successful battle to block the construction of interstate highways through the city. Highway opponents argued that a network of interstate freeways would have torn up the city and destroyed neighborhoods.

JFK Was Re-Considering The 3 Sisters Bridge & North Leg






Recommendations for Transportation in the National Capital Region: A Report to the President for Transmittal to Congress by the National Capital Transportation Agency November 1, 1962

had rejected the 3 Sisters Bridge and North Leg,

yet by mid 1963 JFK was reconsidering these links:



http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-straw-that-broke-camels-back.html

Owing to concerns that the proposed 2x2 'express street would be inadequate, along with abandoning the Crossing at 3 Sisters, a follow-up letter dated June 1, 1963 letter enumerates the cross town I-66 North Leg and Three Sisters Bridge as the most controversial segments require further study
“…I noted that certain portions of the highway network within the District of Columbia required further study. The guidelines which I believe should be followed in this re-examination are as follows:
The re-examination should focus upon the sections of the highway plans which have from the beginning been the most uncertain and the most controversial- the North Leg of the Inner Loop and the Three Sisters Bridge, both of which involve the manner in which necessarily involve a re-study of those additional portions of the plan which are directly affected by the conclusions reached in the re-examination…”
With his November 1962 report having rejected the Three Sisters Bridge, his June 1963 letter calling for that bridge’s ‘re-examination’ meant that it might be needed, hence having JFK place freeways alongside Catholic University of America and Georgetown University.


Canceled B&O D.C. I-95 next to Catholic University of America



The canceled I-266 Three Sisters Bridge- pointing at Georgetown University 

Hence in the months leading up to his assassination, JFK was reconsidering a highway proposal that had been rejected by the November 1, 1962 transportation report, hence placing a second interstate highway next to a major Roman Catholic Church property.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/sampling-of-attitudes-towards-dc-i-95.html




Wednesday, February 25, 2015

I-66 Additional Decking Contemplated In Rosslyn


Eleven companies as reported here, have formally shown interest; these include Akridge, Vornado Realty Trust, Monday Properties, The JBG Cos.  Brandywine Realty Trust.Developers, and Comstock Partners LC- infamous for their 'Hampshires townhouse development project upon the least environmentally impactive route for DC I-95



"Site 4" would likely be the easiest new cover-way to construct, for involving a new roof atop an existing trenched freeway segment and have the best potential for reconnecting existing developed areas.

"Site 3" involves taking the western portion of the existing Gateway Park that was built as the surface atop the cut and cover tunnel segment of I-66.  As this park was part of the design to mitigate I-66 upon downtown Roslyn which is heavily built up, "Site 3" may logically the likeliest to be opposed.

"Site 1" and especially "Site 2"are upon the side of a hill and hence would likely involve either a wall or terracing.  if such were extended to also cover the adjacent George Washington Memorial Parkway, local access to the Potomac River waterfront could be enhanced.

Sites "4", 1, and 2" all involving essentially extending the tunnel portion of I-66 that was built with only 2 lanes plus one shoulder in each direction.

From my recollection of reviewing Washington Post indexes of the controversies regarding the construction of I-66, activists sought to so constrict this, meaning that only 3 lanes per direction without shoulders could be accommodated without relatively expensive reconstruction- whether demolishing the outer walls and constructing replacements spaced further out, or constructing parallel tunnel-ways.  

Given that the Roosevelt Bridge into Washington D.C. has 7 lanes total with a movable center divider to provide 4 lanes in the peak traffic direction, it would be sensible to treat the covered portion of I-66 as at least a potentially 6 lane highway.   Hence, any extension of the tunnel-cap should provide space for at least 3 lanes plus one shoulder per direction, and hence be somewhat wider than the existing facility.

IMHO the focus upon reducing the width of I-66 as misguided, that local concerns were better met with further mitigation, such as additional cover/air rights atop the freeway, as well as a 4 rather than a 2 track WMATA rail line thus providing express service to potentially reduce traffic pressure from the highway..  As that portion of I-66 had been earlier planned with 3 lanes per direction plus one or two shoulders per direction, the decision to construct each of its directional covered carriageways with only 2 lanes and a single shoulder saved nothing in the way of right of way/displacement and simply reflected the dictates of that time.

For more on the history of I-66, see the link from Scott Kozel's site "Roads To The Future":
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Int66_MetroViennaRte.html

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Center Leg Constriction To Start Today


Project to illegally constrict the I-395 sunken right of way, blocking off the outer 2 lanes in each direction and narrowing the median shoulder to start today- February 24, 2015.

Rejection of late 2014 developer proposal to fully close highway segment during construction, means that motoring public gets to witness the rip off of the right of way as it physically happens.

 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 23, 2015

Media Contacts

Reggie Sanders — (202) 437-0809, reggie.sanders@dc.govreggie.sanders@dc.gov
reggie.sanders@dc.gov%3cmailto:reggie.sanders@dc.gov>>

Michelle Phipps-Evans — (202) 497-0124, michelle.phipps-evans@dc.govmichelle.phipps-evans@dc.govmichelle.phipps-evans@dc.gov%3cmailto:michelle.phipps-evans@dc.gov>>

Phase One of I-395/3rd Street Tunnel Construction Project Begins February 24th Two-lane traffic will be maintained in each direction during peak hours with limited closures during off-peak hours

(Washington DC) The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) announced today that Property Group Partners (PGP), the developer of Capitol Crossing, will begin construction in the I-395/3rd Street Tunnel on February 24th, 2015. Work in northbound and southbound lanes will be performed between D Street and New York Avenue, NW, and have no significant impact on traffic during daytime hours. Minor traffic impacts, which will be primarily overnight, will occur to accommodate this enabling work.

Motorists should anticipate delays during this first phase due to periodic lane and ramp closures at night and one permanent ramp closure (I-395 3rd Street off-ramp). This phase of the construction project will take approximately five to six months to complete, weather permitting.

Motorists can anticipate the following impact on traffic in the area:

·        The I-395 southbound off-ramp to the 3rd Street Tunnel will be closed permanently during this phase. There will be no vehicle parking on the ramp, and motorists should seek alternative routes.

·        The southbound travel lanes will be reduced to a single lane of traffic on a limited number of weekdays during off-peak hours, from 11 pm to 5 am; and on certain weekends from midnight to 7 am.

·        The I-395 northbound 3rd Street Tunnel on-ramp will close on a limited number of weekdays during off-peak hours from midnight to 5 am; and on certain weekends from midnight to 8 am. During the 3rd Street on-ramp closures, traffic will be diverted to the 3rd and D Street on-ramp.

·        The northbound travel lanes will be reduced to a single lane of traffic during off-peak hours from 9 pm to 5 am for a limited number of weekdays; and on certain weekends from midnight to 8 am.
·        The northbound off-ramp at 2nd Street, NW, will remain open.

·        Motorists will experience more delays at the following intersections:

o  New York Avenue and the 3rd Street Tunnel entrance.

o  New York Avenue and 4th Street, NW

o  New York and New Jersey Avenue, NW

o  2nd Street and D Street, NW

o  3rd and D Street Tunnel Entrance

Truck traffic must follow truck detours and adhere to over-height restrictions. Traffic on northbound and southbound I-395 will experience slower speeds through the work zones.

At this time, no parking restrictions are anticipated. Pedestrians and bicyclists should pay attention to changing traffic patterns as well.

Motorists are urged to stay alert and use caution when traveling through the work zones. Fines are doubled for speeding in work zones. Motorists are also advised to plan for additional travel time, use alternate routes or seek alternate means of transportation, as traffic delays are likely to occur.

For additional details, please contact the project’s public outreach office at (202) 719-0196.

For more information about the project, visit www.3rdsttunnel.com<http://www.3rdsttunnel.com<http://www.3rdsttunnel.com%3chttp/www.3rdsttunnel.com>>

See more articles on this constriction project:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/01/choking-i-395-center-leg.html










Wednesday, February 18, 2015

EYA Fostered & Exploited Buyer Ignorance & Lack of Forethought


http://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/Dangerous-Cargo-Hazardous-Materials-That-Travel-Through-DC-287852791.html

When Maureen Cohen Harrington moved into her home on Virginia Avenue Southeast, she said she never thought about trains. But she said she started paying attention when she realized CSX wants to temporarily reroute trains through her front yard, as close as eight steps from her front door by her count, so CSX can double the size of its nearby tunnel.

See:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/12/newcomer-development-residents-threaten.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/02/wheres-dc-safe-rail-on-takoma-transit.html


Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Where's DC Safe Rail on Takoma Transit Oriented Development?

D.C. Safe Rail opposes the project to rebuild the freight rail tunnel under Virginia Avenue (with temporary open trench at lower grade) adjacent to a group of EYA townhouses constructed within the past decade.

What do they, and such allied groups as the 'Committee of 100 on the Federal City' have to say about the far more egregious case of new transit oriented development adjacent to an ELEVATED freight railroad in a different part of Washington, D.C. -Takoma?

from a recent search



 Elevation 314 next to elevated heavy freight rail at the Takoma Metro Station
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/08/forgotten-elephant-building-too-damn.html

Spring Place- with wood framed construction to reduce costs.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/11/takoma-dc-death-trap-residential.html
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/two_five-story_apartment_to_go_up_in_takoma/4662

Choking the SW-SE Freeway/Virginia Avenue Tunnel


to block augmentation and burial- keeping the city locally divided for the sake of badly placed real estate development

U.S. NCPC's sensible basic design 
for under-grounding the SW Freeway 
via a Washington Channel Tunnel



SW Freeway

In 2008 US National Capital Planning Commission releases an interesting design proposal for the SW Freeway
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-i-395-gateway-if-its-coordinated.html
Yet developers and their friends in government work to place new buildings too close thereby locking in the existing SW Freeway design.

 New proposed development planning 
to prevent extra capacity 
and prevent Washington Channel Tunnel

EYA- the developer that built the townhouses next to the Virginia Avenue Tunnel,
 effectively placing opposition to that rail freight tunnel's reconstruction, 
placed this row of 28 townhouses only 16 feet from the SW Freeway- 
right where an extra few lanes and a lid atop the freeway would make far better sense

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/02/preserving-elevated-i-395.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/02/preserving-elevated-i-395.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/07/ncpc-eco-district-to-lock-in-existing-i.html


SE Freeway- Virginia Tunnel
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/04/planning-in-vacuum-csx-se-freeway.html
"Committee of 100" seeks suit blocking tunnel reconstruction, seeks to relocate railroad from tunnel alongside more affluent area to less affluent area without a tunnel wile requiring new river crossing.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/11/getting-over-committee-of-100-seeks-to.html
Much of the opposition to the freight rail tunnel reconstruction in more affluent area comes from people living in townhouses built only within the past decade by EYA
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/12/newcomer-development-residents-threaten.html

June 1, 1967 Duncan Wall Letter To Spiro Agnew


"...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..."



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quiescent

qui·es·cent

 (kwÄ“-Ä•s′É™nt, kwÄ«-)adj.
1. Quiet, still, or inactive. See Synonyms at inactive.
2. Characterized by an absence of upheaval or discord


                                                                                    June 1, 1967
Governor Spiro T. Agnew,
State Capital
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Governor Agnew;
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.

We showed that the methods of traffic projections which were claimed to justify the North Central were fallacious, the results in error by as much as 400 percent. Our contention was tacitly admitted in “re-studied” versions of the proposal made public last year, sharply reducing the original plan of 5 lanes each way.

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.
                                                  Sincerely yours
                                                  Duncan Wall
7311 Holly Ave
Takoma Park, Maryland 20012

The controversy had largely died down, only to become inflamed when the Feds began making noises that they were going to replace the 1966 plan that more or less followed the 1962 JFK plan, with extremely unpopular 1964 plan.

The Feds would likewise stoke the freeway opposition by technically ignoring the 1966 and 1971 design studies, by keeping the extremely unpopular 1964 plan for the North Central Freeway and the 1955 plan for the North Leg technically on the books right up to the mid 1970s when the freeways were 'de-mapped'.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/01/feds-stoked-controversy-over-dc.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html





Monday, February 16, 2015

1966 'Supplementary' Study North Central Freeway

the 'supplementary' study that should have been the initial study
of the step in the right direction betrayed by the US FHWA
















Blair Park-Montgomery Community College Tunnels



Entering Washington, D.C. alongside Takoma Park- 3 lane carriageways flanking the railroad transitioning to an elevated configuration




November 29, 1966

Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of Change Order No. 2 to District of Columbia Formal Agreement No. 2224, we submit herewith our Engineering Feasibility Report which records the study of the location for the north Central Freeway within the corridor of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad between Rhode Island Avenue and the Capital Beltway.

The study, which supplements the comprehensive location studies for the Project presented in the Engineering Feasibility Report of October 1964, was conducted to determine the feasibility of constructing the freeway throughout its route in close proximity to the existing railroad and the proposed rail rapid transit line in order to minimize displacement and disruption to established neighborhoods.

As a result of the study, it has been determined that location of the Freeway within the Railroad corridor for the full length of the project is feasible and will effect the desired reduction in displacement and neighborhood disruption. It has been further concluded, after investigation of alternative alignments and concepts, that if the freeway is constructed within the Railroad Corridor, it should conform to the low level concept which is developed and described in the Report. Under this concept the Freeway would be located contiguous to the Railroad, with a grade line generally at or below the elevation of the Railroad.

The Report examines alternative alignments and concepts within the designated corridor, and presents data, drawings, and suggested design treatments pertaining to the low level concept.

We appreciate the cooperation received from the members of your staffs the staffs of the District of Columbia and Maryland Divisions of the Bureau of Public Roads and the staffs of the departments and agencies in the District of Columbia and Montgomery County who have furnished data and have participated in the review of our work.

Very Truly Yours

J.E. Geiner Company

E.J. Donnelly

As the Washington Post would report, May 8, 1967:
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.
This cheap skate attitude surely served the purpose of poisoning popular sentiment against the B&O North Central Freeway. According to a letter dated June 1, 1967 from Takoma Park resident and former --- to Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew:
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.

We showed that the methods of traffic projections which were claimed to justify the North Central were fallacious, the results in error by as much as 400 percent. Our contention was tacitly admitted in "re-studied" versions of the proposal made public last year, sharply reducing the original plan of 5 lanes each way.

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.
Notably latter 1966- early 1967 was a time of transition and bureaucratic reorganization, with the U.S. Bureau of Roads being replaced by the then brand new U.S. Federal Highway Authority, with the outgoing administrator Rex Marion Whitton, who served from 1961 to 1966, quoted by the Kansas Evening Star about his retirement that at [the age of] 68

"I want to get out while I am still winning or at least that I am still winning"
as if on que of an impending planned scuttling.

Rex Marion Whitton- retires while still winning


Lowell K Bridwell- given the assignment to assist in the scuttling of the assassinated JFK's B&O North Central Freeway concept

Was the conclusion of a two year dialog amongst neighborhood groups. Adopted in November 1962 by the JFK Administration; a June 1963 letter signed by JFK ..
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1966-north-central-freeway.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html

Sunday, February 15, 2015

B&O-PEPCO I-95

From 1971 and 1973:

from: District of Columbia Interstate System
by DeLeuw, Cather Associates and Harry Wesse & Associates, LTD, 1971



Power Line Route

This alignment follows the Baltimore & Ohio Metropolitan Line from Interchange B northerly through Fort Totten.  Passing under new Hampshire Avenue, it swings to the northeast and again passes under New Hampshire Avenue beyond the District line.  The alignment then enters the Potomac Electric Power Company transmission line right of way and continues along this right of way to a point beyond Northwest Branch Par where it swings onto its own parallel right of way.  It continues west of the University of Maryland to the I-95 Interchange at the Beltway.

This alternative would significantly reduce encroachments on parkland at Fort Totten and Fort Drive.  It would also reduce the complexity of construction in the Fort Totten area.  The route would offer an opportunity for interchange connections with New Hampshire Avenue and Blair Road which would obviate a penetrator road needed under the Fort Drive alternative.  It would provide greater opportunities for intercepting Maryland traffic at interchanges within Maryland, and would more readily attract a part of the traffic which would otherwise be potential to I-70S.

Throughout all portions of the Power Line right of way taken for a highway, all or part of the high tension lines would be placed underground.  This would permit joint use of the right of way as a multi-use transportation corridor with minimal land takings.

A number of alternatives for relocation of high tension lines were investigated.  The final recommendations would depend on detailed studies.  It was determined however, that several alternatives for placing high tension lines underground are feasible and that the cost is not prohibitive.

This alignment would offer several advantages within the District of Columbia.  The total length of the freeway within the District would be approximately the same as the Fort Drive route.  Construction costs would be substantially less because of less interference with the Metro lines.  While the route would take some parkland along the Baltimore & Ohio railroad tracks, sufficient park width would remain to assure desirable continuity of the Fort Circle concept.

From Interchange B to the Beltway, a freeway on this route would be 8.6 miles long.  It would displace 59 dwelling units and 32 businesses within the District.  Displacement in Maryland would be between 40 and 110 dwelling units, depending on ultimate design and the alignment selected.  The estimated total cost of I-95 on this alignment would be on the order of $176 million.

It was concluded that this alignment should receive serious consideration by both the District of Columbia and the Maryland Department of Transportation if I-70S is eliminated from official plans.  It is emphasized that estimates of displacement and construction costs herein are order of magnitude.  They are based only on preliminary investigations by the Consultant.  the Maryland Department of Transportation has not studied these alternatives in detail, and a decision on any of these alignments would not be reached until after extensive study.

In view of this, this design concepts presented later in this chapter follow the Fort Drive alternative which is the official Interstate cost study alignment referred in the 1970 Highway Act.  The Power Line alignment crossing under New Hampshire Avenue has been noted in Figure VII-27 as an alternative for the I-95 route if I-70S were eliminated.

Also see:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/06/1973-pepco-i-95-extension-inside.html



From the 1973 Maryland Transportation Study
The I-95 PEPCO alternative examined in Alternative No. 5 extends from the present terminus of I-95 at the Capital Beltway to the District of Columbia line near the intersection of Eastern and New Hampshire Avenues.  It would connect with a new Northeast Freeway along the B&o railroad in the District.  The basic roadway section section is  depressed open cut with a 2-2-2 lane configuration.  To lanes would be provided in the north and southbound directions plus two reversible lanes in the median.  the reversible median lanes would be used in the predominant direction of traffic, and could be reserved for exclusive use by buses and carpools during peak travel hours.
From the Beltway interchange to north of Metzerott Road the highway would be located on State owned property immediately west of the PEPCO transmission line right if way (Figure 8).  South of Metzerott Road, it would enter and follow the PEPCO right of way to New Hampshire Avenue near Ray Road.  The highway would be grade separated over New Hampshire Avenue and would proceed adjacent to the to the southbound lanes in a depressed open cut section to the District (Figure 8)  A tunnel section crossing New Hampshire Avenue was examined and found not to be practical due to very high costs, problems in grades and retaining wall design, and problems encountered in trying to avoid the power substation located in the southeast quadrant of the Ray Road/new Hampshire avenue interchange.
The highway would be carried in a 750 long tunnel under Northwest Branch.  this configuration would avoid severing the stream valley  across the right f way and would permit unrestricted access between the park areas.  the natural stream bed would have to be relocated during the construction periods but would be reestablished in approximately the same location.

The highway would be bridged over Sligo Creek where the natural topography is a deep gorge.  The structure wold be approximately 25 feet above the stream and would not restrict access between the park areas on either side of the right of way.

Diamond interchanges would be provided at University Boulevard and at East West Highway.  Use of diamond interchanges would permit all construction to take place within the PEPCO right of way.  New coordinated traffic signals would be installed at the intersection of the ramps with University Boulevard and Eats West Highway.  in addition to the 2 full interchanges, a partial interchange located at Metzerott Road would be provided with the university of Maryland Access Road movements to and from the north.
Two options for future disposition of the PEPCO transmission lines were considered (Figure 90):

1.  Bury all of the lines within the existing right of way; and

2.  Bury some of the lines and carry the remainder non single pole structures within, but along the edge of the existing right of way.

The treatment of the powerlines in the PEPCO right of way has considered both existing and future requirements.  There are currently four 230 kv circuits carried on the truss structures with in the right of way.  According to PEPCO, provision is needed for an additional four 230 kv circuits.  There is currently one 69 kv circuit with provision needed for an additional 11.  There are also two 33 kv circuits in the right of way with provision necessary for an additional four 33 kv circuits.
230 kv            4                  4                8
69kv               1                 11              12
33kv               2                   4                6
In burying all of the transmission lines, the capacity of the main transmission  circuits will be limited due to the inability of the underground circuits to dissipate heat in extremely hot weather conditions.  Some provisions may have to be made for this condition in the way of extra cables of special cooling facilities.  The cost of burying all of the existing 230 kv lines has been estimated at 6.8 million dollars.  Due to the extensive costs at the Takoma substation and the cost of moving the existing circuits underground burying all of the lines would add approximately 20 million dollars to the total cost.
The main factors to be considered in evaluating these options are cost, access to the lines for maintenance and emergencies, and aesthetics.  Burying all of the lines would be the most expensive ad present some problems of access to the lines could be provided in median and shoulder areas.  Another possibility, because of the unique 2-2-2 lane configuration, would be to close a pair pf lane during service and repair periods, and utilize the remaining two pairs of lanes for north and southbound traffic.
The estimate shown in the cost section of this report assumes burying some of the lines.

In addition to the highway and transmission lines, hiker-biker trails were examined along both sides of this alignment.  A air of trails were developed which could tie to a trail in Sligo Creek and Northwest Branch Park as well as along east-west streets that cross the right of way.

All existing road crossings of the PEPCO right of way would be maintained.  Because of the mostly depressed section, the possibility of providing additional crossings, particularly for pedestrians, is strong.
...
The I-95 PEPCO would be approximately 5.3 miles long from the current terminus south of the Capital Beltway to the District line [4.72 miles or 24,850 within the PEPCO corridor itself], with interchanges at the University of Maryland Access Road [Adelphi Road], University Boulevard and East-West Highway.  Nearly eighty percent of the roadway would be in a depressed open cut configuration.  A short (750) tunnel would be used crossing Northwest Branch.

Design Speed: 70 mph (55 mph at the overhead crossing atop New Hampshire Avenue)

Maximum Grade: 5%

Linear Feet: bridge: 1,500; depressed: 19,300; embankment: 4,300; tunnel: 750