See:
https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/general-highway-history/dc-freeway-revolt-and-coming-metro
Monday, January 29, 2024
Saturday, September 30, 2023
The Legal Basis of Blocked Washington, D.C. Expressways
I initially posted this February 6, 2007
https://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/doctrinaire-anti-new-highways-position.html
The legal basis of the Washington, D.C. expressway "de-mappings"
To get $1.4 billion transferred to transit, "de-map" - aka "for all time" links representing the basic compass lines, surrendering easements to real estate development, with zero regard of long term costs to conflict with reviving these expressway links as tunnels. To wit, what occurred afterwards starting in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, with erecting costlier office towers rather than say a strip mall, creating considerably higher eminent domain & demolition costs.
Statement of Peter S. Craig, Trustee, Committee of 100 on the Federal City. May 12, 1975
Peter S. Craig Papers ; Gelman Library Special Collections Division, G.W.U.
... Section 137(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (codified as 23 U.S.C. 103(4)), which authorized the Governor (Mayor Washington, in the case of D.C.), and the responsible locally elected officials (the D.C. City Council) to jointly request the U.S. Department of Transportation to transfer federal aid, formerly earmarked for freeways, for 80% of the cost of transit improvements. Such fund transfers may occur on either of two alternatives:
First, that the Interstate segment being deleted "is not essential to the completion of a unified and connected interstate System." The following un built freeways meet that test:
(1) North Central Freeway (70-S); Maryland has already abandoned 70-S (now I-270)
(2) Northeast Freeway (I-95); Maryland likewise has abandoned I-95 within the Beltway
(3) New York Avenue Industrial Freeway. This is not even on the Interstate System.
(4) East Leg of Inner Loop (I-295). Without an I-95 to Maryland, this is a freeway leading nowhere; the I-295 label should be returned to the already-constructed Kenilworth Avenue Freeway where it began.
(5) North Leg-West Section of Inner Loop (K Street Freeway)(I-66). This Council already has urged that Virginia abandon I-66 inside the Beltway in Virginia. Consistent with this action, I-66, within the city should also be scrapped. [DW note: that I-66 was actually built and opened in 1982]
(6) North Leg-East Section (Center Leg and I-66 to East Leg). Also not essential.
(7) South Leg, Inner Loop (-695). There are enough "95s" around and through Washington without adding this one. We have I-495 around the city and I-295 through it.
(8) Three Sisters Bridge (I-266). Even Virginia's State highway Department -- never distinguished for its concern for area residents (Virginians included), has concluded this bridge should not be built. With no Virginia connection, it would be a bridge leading nowhere.
(9) Georgetown Waterfront Tunnel (I-266) This segment is also not essential for an Interstate System, although (if properly tunneled and restricted in capacity) it may be desirable to achieve other urban goals.
Second, and independently of the first reason it, freeways may be deleted and the federal aid transferred to mass transit -- even if the freeway segment might be deemed essential for a "unified and connected Interstate system" if such freeway segment "would not be essential after completion of one or more substitute public mass transit projects." See 23 C.F.R. 476.304(3). All previously planned but un built freeways in D.C. meet this test. This has been adequately demonstrated by the numerous in-depth studies published by the Committee of 100 on the Federal City and other independent analysts.
Several red herrings have been raised concerning the flexibility of the federal-aid transfer provision. None, however, has merit. For example, former D.C. Highway Director Airis, wanting to construct the South Leg of the Inner Loop (under the Lincoln Memorial) [sic] claimed that fund transfers were not applicable in that case because there were no plans for rail rapid transit "in the same corridor"; i.e., between Theodore Roosevelt Bridge and the Southwest Freeway. The Act of Congress and the DOT regulations contain no such rigid requirement. To the contrary, the federal aid transfer authority may even extend outside the urbanized area of Washington. This was made explicit by the DOT regulations which provide (23 C.F.R. 476.314):"The proposed projects must serve the urbanized area from which the Interstate segment is withdrawn, but need not utilize the same transportation corridor as the withdrawn segment and need not be physically located within that urbanized area."Thus, theoretically at least, the South Leg of the Inner Loop could be removed from the Interstate System and the federal matching funds for this project applied for construction of an extension of Metro to Annapolis or the Eastern Shore. Such an extension, although outside the urbanized area of Washington, would nonetheless "serve the urbanized area" of Washington.
With this wide-open legal authority to get rid of unwanted freeways and to transfer that federal aid to public transit, it is remarkable there has been so little sign of activity at the District Building to implement this authority.
Over one billion four hundred dollars of federal aid is involved. It provides a vehicle, without Congressional action, to increase the ratio of federal aid to local participation for Metro from its present 2/3-1/3 [67/33] split to an 80/20 split. Without any increase in local participation (and local taxes) it offers an additional $840 million in federal aid for Metro. If the full $1.4 billion of federal aid for Metro were desired for transit improvements, the additional matching cost to local jurisdictions (D.C., Maryland and Virginia) would be $112 million. These funds may be spent anywhere -- not merely in the District of Columbia. They could hasten the day when the full 98- mile rail rapid transit system is operating as originally planned. They could also be devoted to purchases of new buses and other transit improvements.
There is no reason for the Council to wait, simply because the city administration has been delinquent on its promises to establish a city Department of Transportation under new and competent leadership. The time is overdue for people-moving, rather than car-moving, to be the primary objective of this city's transportation planning.
We therefore recommend that the Council immediately initiate the following actions:
1. Set a date for prompt hearings on amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to delete all un built freeways (with the exception of the Whitehurst Freeway -- pending completion of the Georgetown Waterfront Study now underway), including: South Leg Freeway, North Leg-West Section (K Street Tunnel), North Leg-East Section, New York Avenue Industrial Freeway, East Leg Freeway. (North Central, Northeast and Three Sisters Bridge Freeways were eliminated in 1968).
2. Enact a resolution directing the Mayor to request changes in the designated Interstate System reflecting the Council's determinations regarding freeways that should not be built.
3. Enact a resolution requesting DOT to transfer the Federal aid for the freeways thus "de mapped" to Metro, without limiting such transfers to segments within the District of Columbia. In other words, such transfers should be available for completion of Metro within suburban Maryland and Virginia as well as in the District of Columbia.
Committee of 100 on the Federal City
Letter of May 12, 1975; Elizabeth Rowe, Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council:
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City respectively requests early action by the Council on two very pressing transportation matters:
First the de mapping of unnecessary and unwanted freeways in the District of Columbia through amendment of the city's Comprehensive Plan and appropriate requests to the US Department of Transportation for the removal of such freeways from the Interstate system.
Second, the initiation by the Council, in cooperation with the Mayor, of a request to the U.S. Department of Transportation for the transfer of the federal aid formerly earmarked for such freeways (in excess of $1.4 billion) for completion of the presently-authorized Metro rail transit system.
These actions are necessary to implement two very pressing needs: First to remove forever the cloud of destruction and more autos in an auto-chocked city caused by the presence of obsolete freeway plans in the comprehensive plan and on the interstate system; and second, to help meet the escalating costs of construction of the Metro system.
Respectfully submitted,
Mrs. Elizabeth Rowe, Chairman
Sunday, August 27, 2023
Grand Arc Opportunity For New Hampshire Avenue/Maryland WMATA Line
The Grand Arc Project, my selection of a name for a project constructing a D.C. North Mall/Enclosed filtrated Underground North Central Freeway (electronically tolled Expressway), offers the tantalizing opportunity to add a new WMATA line along New Hampshire Avenue into Maryland.
Since the existing WMATA Red Line would be rebuilt underground, we have the opportunity for creating a new two track WMATA line spur, beneath the hill at New Hampshire Avenue, between the RR corridor and the DC-MD line. Such a line would connect to and from the south with the Red Line, and the Grand Arc Project's inclusion of reconstructing the railroad underground provides opportunity to increase the number of WMATA as well as MARC/CSX tracks. Squandering the opportunity would be unacceptable, and neglects the fundamental stage-ability: of starting with this new spur, at least to its nearest station, somewhere in Maryland, between the District line and the vicinity of Sheridan Street. This is essentially a two block long segment of the 6 lane New Hampshire Avenue commercial strip zone, and a prime candidate for re-development. This initial stop would be called Sheridan Station.
This entire initial segment, including the portion within the District, would be underground.
To the north, where the topography descends into the valley at Ray Road, its extension would transition to a bridge, perhaps as a lower level of a new span for carry New Hampshire Avenue over the valley. Past that, it would enter its second tunnel segment to pass beneath the log established parking lot of Giant Supermarket
Have a second station in the southeast quadrant of the next main commercial area at the intersection with 410 East West Highway. Likewise, place that segment underground. Be sure to guarantee a guarantee of rent stabilization for the existing businesses in the strip malls, within the first level of the inevitable replacement development.
Owing to the topography, of the valley at Ray Road, this line could emerge upon its own narrow viaduct, and if a bridge was constructed to place New Hampshire Avenue atop that valley, place the new WMATA line as its lower level. Have it transition to tunnel (cut and cover) extending beneath the existing Wendy's and north past East West Highway (Rt 410).
Where the topography again descends, either have it elevated, perhaps above the median of New Hampshire Avenue, or optionally, continuing it as trench & cut and cover, to a cut and cover segment towards and at the northeast quadrant of New Hampshire Avenue's intersection with University Boulevard, at the site of this line's 3rd initial stop- University Avenue Station.
Initial project would stop here, with its design fully anticipating a further continuation along New Hampshire Avenue to White Oak, by the U.S. F.D.A. Center, with the initial portion of a subsequent extension along the wide 6 lane expressway spec Route 29, with the next stop being at the commercial area alongside Rt 29 just south of Cherry Hill Road- fairly near to the Rt 29 interchange with MD 200/ICC Inter County Connector.
As an option, examine the use of moled tunneling, to start near the DC/MD line, to see if such could extend under the various valleys.
Construction of the Grand Arc Project would provide some added rail capacity alongside the underground vehicular expressway, with the WMATA & MARC/CSX RR, each improved from 2 to 3 track operation.
Saturday, August 12, 2023
Whatever Happened With The Tunnelfication of Washington, D.C.'s SW-SE Freeway?
We ALL know that the District's SW-SE Freeway is a monstrosity. BAD design. NO safety shoulders. Open trench bisecting SW, before rising up upon a hideous viaduct that crosses atop South Capital Street. And continuing east, a Chinese wall along Virginia Avenue to the interchange with the 11th Street Bridge, and a brief surface segment, before its sole well designed segment, the pair of 4 lane rectangular box tunnels beneath Pennsylvania Avenue SE's Barney Circle.
30 years ago, the Washington Post published a good article, by Roger K. Lewis, March 27, 1993, "For The 21st Century A Capital Design Reach In Need of A Regional Reach". Within was an illustration, indicating an underground replacement for the SW-SE Freeway.
Washington Post, March 27, 1993
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, U.S. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) published a few brochures with illustrations of the South Capital Street area with the SW-SE Freeway viaduct removed.
In 2005, NCPC published a brochure showing a westernmost portion of an underground SW Freeway, extending further west to extend beneath Washington Channel.
Nevertheless, NCPC fails to show any plans that are workable.
Note how the renderings above have substandard capacity (refusing to correct the bottleneck), poor geometry (too sharp a curve), and impractical to build as it transitions upon exactly the same right of way, which must maintain traffic through the reconstruction.
Even worse, the 1990s NCPC planning with the South Capital Mall - what it would obviously be called, yet such a phrase appears nowhere in any of their public publications - did not even include an underground replacement for the SW-SE Freeway. Instead it presents the unworkable-absolutely impractical notion of I-395 simply connecting to 14th and F Streets! An anti express highway exemplified by such NCPC published statements at that time, that "amphibious cars - contemporary versions of the old Army ducks - could render bridges obsolete" - try picturing that!
Anyone looking at the situation can see the obvious, that a band of land MUST be cleared directly to the south. And do note that the area WAS already cleared during the late 1950s-early 1960s for the SW Redevelopment Project. Yet nonetheless, that area was subsequently filled with new residential development by the early 1970s.
By 1993, that area had become developed except for the plot bordered by the SW Freeway southward to G Street, and extending west-east between 9th and 7th Streets SW. That is the area that people likely saw as being reserved by the feds for serving as the staging area for a project to reconstruct the SW Freeway underground, as well as definitely widening that short stretch of expressway to the interchange with the Center Leg/3rd Street Tunnel. Indeed that segment was built with inadequate capacity, lacking the must have minimum of two added lanes per direction, owing to the 1955 design report's excuse over aesthetics, never-mind the failure to design it as a cut and cover tunnel, and that the space was cleared anyway for the SW Redevelopment.
Nevertheless, and quite weirdly, in 1999, shortly after the start of the administration of D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, motorists are horrified, seeing a new real estate development project there being erected- the "Capital Square" townhouse project. It fills that parcel with townhouses, including a row of 28 at the northern side, a mere 16 or so feet from the open trench 1950s design expressway. This "Capital Square" project is undertaken by an entity called "E.Y.A. Associates.
They are the same firm that subsequently constructs another townhouse project to the east, facing the southern side of the same expressway between 3rd and 4th Streets, between I Street to the south and Virginia Avenue, complicating not only ever under-grounding that segment (which is an elevated earth filled berm), but also complicating the indisputably required Virginia Avenue railroad tunnel reconstruction project. E.Y.A. reportedly underplays the likelihood of that project to potential townhouse buyers. These townhouses are filled with new dwellers. At least one of them gets to bring a law suit to block the project. And that effort is supported by the "Committee of 100 on the Federal City", which instead sought to replace that railroad with one to the south side of the Anacostia River, and which would NOT be a tunnel. Fortunately that effort failed, and the Virginia Avenue railroad tunnel project gets built.
Now, one would suppose that the SW-SE Freeway corridor would have undergone an effort to purchase properties for the space to construct an underground replacement. As traffic MUST be maintained through the construction, a band of land MUST be assembled. As this area includes existing occupied dwellings, simply purchase them over time, at least when they come onto the market, and either demolish, or at least have occupied by people told that the use is only for a set period of time.
But get this, one such area IS cleared out, with dwellings removed, and without any protest sufficient to block such dislocations- the area immediately west of 4th Street SW, right next to the expressway where it transitions from trench to viaduct. And real estate developers are allowed to erect a new residential building- at 600 4th Street SW, called the "Kiley Apartments".
And this occurs in the same general area where the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Authority are situated.
What is preventing the U.S. government from doing its duty?!
Who decried that only the City of Boston is to get a serious project to reconstruct its main existing expressways underground with its Central Artery Tunnel Project (with its mainline done sadly with NO shoulders)? If Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil could get such for Boston, why NOTHING for the nation' Capital, Washington, D.C.?!?!
Thursday, August 10, 2023
Why Is Biden Allowing the Continual Blight of the SW-SE Freeway Viaduct Atop South Capital Street?
30 years ago, in 1993, the Washington Post published an article about future planning for Washington, D.C., which featured reconstructing the SW-SE Freeway, removing the surface and elevated highway and submerging a replacement expressway within a new tunnel.
Illustration from the Washington Post, 1993
Yet, D.C. Department of Public Works is now embarking upon a project to reconstruct the existing horrifically blighting elevated facility. See: https://seswbridges.ddot.dc.gov/
DDOT is planning to rehabilitate the SE/SW Freeway (I-695) Bridges, which comprise the elevated interstate of I-695 over South Capitol Street SW, New Jersey Avenue SE, and Virginia Avenue SE / 2nd Street SE, along with the associated ramps. This series of bridges were built from 1958 to 1963 and rehabilitated in 1991. Due to the age of the bridges and continued deterioration to some elements, the main objective will be to rehabilitate the bridges and update key features to further extend their service life. Additional improvements to lighting, signing, lane striping, and drainage will be incorporated in conjunction with the bridge rehabilitations.
What gives? If Boston, Massachusetts could have it Central Artery/3rd Harbor Tunnel project - the "Big Dig" - approved way back in 1986, started circa 1991, and completed about 2005, why can't Washington, D.C., our nations capital, have its project to replace its disgusting, badly designed, no safety shoulder 1959-67 SW-SE Freeway likewise replaced?
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
Strong Towns Misrepresents SW Freeway SW Displacement
"Strong Towns" which is typically dogmatic against constructing any new expressways, misrepresents building demolition impacts of late 1950s, early 1960s construction of the SW-SE Freeway:
"Smart Growth America’s analysis puts numbers behind these arguments. It estimates that the construction of ... I-395/695 in DC destroyed 99% of buildings in the city’s southwest quadrant, displacing 4,700 people and causing an average of $483,000 in lost home equity."
This claim that the freeway/expressway destroyed 99% of the buildings in the district;s sw quadrant is false, it completely neglects the time periods SW Urban Renewal District program. The expressway itself displaced a fraction of all of this.
Read about the SW Redevelopment at the blog Whose Downtown
The federal government established the Redevelopment Land Agency and the National Capital Planning Commission to design, monitor, and complete the redevelopment of Southwest D.C. under the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1950. The rationale provided for the urban renewal project included concerns about congestion in the downtown area and preoccupation over unhealthy slum conditions and unsightly dilapidated buildings. The major expansion of the federal government during the New Deal and World War II created pressure to free up residential space for federal employees who worked downtown. Additionally, Title I of the National Housing Act of 1949 stipulated that major urban cities would receive funds in order to renovate blighted areas, including neighborhoods classified as slums or buildings deemed unsafe and uninhabitable. These acts gained judicial support when in 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that a property could be condemned and taken by the federal government solely to beautify a community for the benefit the general public.[2]
The implementation of the urban renewal project displaced the large number of African Americans living in Southwest D.C. The project leveled 99 percent of buildings in the Southwestern quadrant of the city and forced the 4,500 African American Families who had previously resided in Southwest D.C. to relocate to other areas –mainly to Northeast and Southeast D.C.[3] Of the 5,900 new buildings constructed in the area, only 310 were classified as moderately-priced housing units.[4] The project tore apart the culture and history of historic African American neighborhoods. Following resettlement in other areas of the city, 25% of displaced residents reported not making a single friend in their new neighborhood.[5] While local critics deemed the urban renewal program to be the “Negro Removal Program,” the project had a wide impact on the nation as it became a model for other large cities to emulate.[6]
https://whosedowntown.wordpress.com/urban-renewal-the-story-of-southwest-d-c/
I challenge anyone to look at SW DC, whether on a map, or in person, to see the considerably larger area now occupied by post 1950s buildings.
The Strong Towns article misstating the 99 percent figure is titled "What We Must Do To Address The Historic Harms of Highways" offers nothing with regard to that with any of the existing urban expressways, such as the D.C. SW-SE Freeway (which really needs a major project to reconstruct with added capacity to deal with the bottleneck, within new tunnel shells equipped with vehicular exhaust filtration, underground.
Strong Towns does this typically in conformance to its jesuitical, neo medievalist opposition to any new roads.
Smart Towns needs to get its facts straight, as well as abandon its neo medievalist idiotology, and start consideration of reasonable design solutions for a host of major underground, filtrated urban highway projects for both existing and new roads.
Wednesday, July 12, 2023
Takoma WMATA Station Boondoggle Threatens Corridor
Yet another insane development. Whereas a past proposal would have 95 new dwellings, this project situates 440 new dwellings, directly along DC's sole northern radial transport corridor for the sake of added profits.
Authorities expected to rubber-stamp this nonsense July 13, 2023
See:
(Note that Greater Greater Washington articles no longer routinely include a comment section- why might that be? - to be expected perhaps from a site that has devolved into a cheerleader for reckless development.)
Projects would mandate that the area be forever divided by elevated railway.
See my alternative proposal for a park covered multi-model transport corridor published in 1997
https://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/07/volvos-subliminal-message-for-takoma.html
Note how all of this ill placed development came AFTER I made proposal during the later 1990s.
Read how the authorities deliberately blundered this planning in the wake of 11-22-63
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html
Also see a look at the dangerous nature of such development, built within a freight rail derailment zone, placing transit development profits over people:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/03/choking-b-grand-arci-70s-corridor.html
Let's break the chains of Roman Catholic Church and masonic organization mis-rule!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
