Richard Laymen Reports On Road Tunnels- February 9, 2016

Richard Laymen/Rebuilding Space in The Urban Space makes some good points about the need for road tunnels in urban areas, even as he so far fails to defend the space to facilitate their construction, from badly located new real estate development.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2016/02/london-mayor-proposes-roadway-tunnels.html

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

London Mayor proposes roadway tunnels to divert surface motor vehicle traffic and congestion

Central Artery before and after, Boston.  

According to the Guardian ("Boris Johnson unveils road tunnel plans to ease London congestion"). From the article:

“Around eight of every 10 journeys in London are made using our roads – whether by car, taxi, motorbike, bus, cycle, foot or freight – which is why it is vital that we think big. We must deliver long-term solutions that will not just make the most of the space we have for road users but bring environmental and amenity improvements to local areas.” ...

He added: “By pushing forward strategic initiatives we are outlining today, we will lay the foundation for the next wave of improvements to everyone’s experience of the road network across the city.”

The major road tunnels are based on the strategies pursued in Stockholm and Boston, although the latter’s “Big Dig” proved difficult, costly and controversial. The success of flyunders in transforming parts of cities such as Madrid, where its inner ring road was partially buried, may make the smaller projects more viable. TfL believes a 1.3km tunnel at Barking could create a new neighbourhood of 5,000 homes in a blighted area, and that either tolls or the housing could make the project pay for itself.

Who knew that there is the International Tunneling and Underground Space Association?

-- "Urban Road Tunnels," ITA
-- "MADRID CALLE 30: AN URBAN TRANSFORMATION PROJECT"

I mention this because I have suggested this in the North Capitol-Blair Road corridor in DC, and support it for through traffic on New York Avenue (the equivalent of a connection between I-95 through DC to Virginia)--this is not my idea originally, it was suggested in the New York Avenue Transportation Study about ten years ago. 16th Street NW would be another corridor where this is worth considering. [DW- That study proposed a tunnel connecting to the I-395 Center Leg to the northeast under New York Avenue; it made no reference to any northern radial corridor as North Capitol-Blair Road, nor the parallel B&O].

The justification is that the negative impacts on abutting neighborhoods are significant and worthy of mitigation.  The underground trip would be faster and therefore should be worthwhile for users, thereby justifying toll charges for the privilege.  See "Tunnelized road projects for DC and the Carmel Tunnel, Haifa, Israel example--tolls."

I didn't know about the Madrid example. Marseille removed a highway along the waterfront by shifting it to an underused rail tunnel. Thessaloniki built a tunnel around its historic traffic to divert traffic and create a more pedestrian-centric environment along the waterfront.

t.

In Long Beach, an undergrounded rail tunnel, the Alameda Corridor, was built to facilitate freight movement between the port and the freight railway system.

It could have been interesting to have also built a tunnel for truck traffic between the port and the highway system, since the road system is inundated with truck traffic generated by the port.

Miami is creating such a facility, the N.W. 25th Street Viaduct Project, between the Miami Airport's cargo hub and the local freeway system (pictured at left).*

Of course, Boston's "Big Dig" or Central Artery Freeway is another example ("10 years later, did the Big Dig deliver?," Boston Globe) although it is not tolled.

Note that the tunnel underpasses in various places in the city, such as at Massachusetts Avenue and Thomas Circle for the roadway system and on North Capitol Street between M Street and Rhode Island Avenue, were early attempts to facilitate traffic movement but without providing simultaneous improvements in conditions for neighborhoods and the urban street fabric.

Capitol Crossing, before.  

The Capitol Crossing development, which will deck over of the I-395 freeway between Masachusetts Avenue and D Street NE is an example of decking over an existing facility, without creating a new tunnel. [DW- Alas, it reduces the right of way profile 50% with zero consideration of the comparisons of the real estate project's extra profitability versus that of restoring the lost capacity via a pair of new parallel tunnels]]

Reknitting the street grid in Washington by decking over more of I-395.

==========

* Separately, I wonder if the Long Bridge reconstruction project--the bridge carries passenger railroad, freight railroad, and subway trains over the Potomac River between Southwest DC and Arlington County--should add lanes for a bi-directional dedicated busway.

It could serve National Airport when the subway is closed as well as tour bus traffic and other bus traffic to and from DC.

Labels: congestion mitigation, freeways, infrastructure, public finance and spending, tolls, transportation planning, urban design/placemaking

posted by Richard Layman @ 11:34 AM&Permanent Link 9 comments

Anonymous said...

if you are going to have freeways for cars in a large city this is the way to go- but my beef with the Big Dig is that they put too many monster roads up on top instead of what is being done here in DC which is to actually rebuild the city that had been taken out in the first place. Boston is a world better than before the BD but they could have done an even better job using the new freed up space.

12:01 PM

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

Take advantage of the opportunity to bury existing railway corridor, bring log covered waterways back to the surface and create vast new park corridors, as I have long suggested via my Grand Arc proposal for Washington, D.C.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/02/extending-legacy-with-grand-arc.html

Do be sure to write out about misplaced real estate development placed too close to such corridors in in other wrong places as "The Hampshires" townhouses that are essentially demolition specials, as well as poorly designed projects as the Capitol Cross project that combines the righteous idea of covering the Center Leg with the foolishness of wasting up to 50% of its capacity, thus necessitating a new pair of parallel cut and cover tunnelways.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/09/washington-dc-big-dig.html

2:25 PM

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

Also, any tunneled extension from the northern end of the Center Leg should arc beneath the intersection of New Jersey Ave and N Street rather than the 1990s-early 200s plan instead under 4th and New York Avenue. The former would take advantage of the space beneath the recreation field of Dunbar HS and be easier to construct, and provide far superior geometry for the transition to the northeast.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-395-extension-superior-option.html

Thankfully the more recent Dunbar HS building replacement does not conflict with doing that.

Such could then continue as a duel stacked tunnel beneath O Street before turning to join the railroad corridors.

A tunnel beneath New York Avenue would be better for a continuation of a cross-town I-66 Tunnel that from Mt Vernon Square to Washington Circle run beneath K Street- the idea favored by opponents to the 1950s plan for a new swath along Florida Avenue and U Street.

To the east of the railroad, the cut and cover tunnel should then run alongside New York Avenue with a box containing highway and a new WMATA rail subway, beneath a linear park and new development with a deck atop the rail chasm.

The authorities subverted the idea of extending the tunnel east by only considering the pricier, more disruptive and less profitable idea of placing it directly beneath New York Avenue.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-medievalism-overides-popular.html

2:41 PM

Richard Layman said...

the problem with tunneling the Metropolitan Branch is that it isn't particularly wide. So the amount of land generated would be minimal. As a park or bike trail, it wouldn't be worth the expense.

cf. the width of the High Line.

However, it could be worth doing it it were possible to double but probably triple stack tunnels for railroad and subway transit.

But it would cost many billions, and the benefit would likely not be greater than the cost.

Selective tunnels for roads could have much greater social and economic benefit.

3:04 PM

Richard Layman said...

tunneling New York Avenue is a different issue. Normally, I'd say not to do it with transit, since there is no compelling need to move the existing trackage just for the hell of it.

I don't know exactly how the track is threaded, but it seems that from New Carrollton you can figure out how to get to Annapolis, and from New Carrollton to DC there is no need to tunnel.

Just do a London Overground in terms of organizing the service, as I outline in past posts.

2. The I-66 idea is interesting but I don't think serves much purpose. But you could build it in conjunction with the proposed separated blue/silver line that I have written about in the past. Dumping traffic on city streets isn't something that makes sense.

3. But in conjunction with I-66, I've suggested a cut and cover tunnel for an RER type line out of Union Station (a continuation of Penn Line) which would be electrified.

4. I don't know enough about electrification technology to figure out how to make an Annapolis to DC rail line electrified rather than diesel. Maybe it's just as easy to put it underground to be able to electrify it.

3:12 PM

charlie said...

When i was going to Madrid the construction for the tunnel was just starting. A real mess, and it made getting to the in laws hard.

Probably the best analogy in the various plans in DC to bridge/tunnel over E st and the area around 66 and the Kennedy Center.

(Again, we have the tunnel machines but the shadow government only wants to use them for sewage, not for transportation. Different funding buckets)

Or to blow the willinger's mind, build a tunnel under K, run it under georgetown (and take down whitehurst), go under the potomac and then up Spout run).

7:32 PM

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

The B&O Metro Branch corridor would be simultaneously widened, to the degree that it would still fit, in Brookland between the mainline of CUA buildings, and the Turkey Thicket neighborhood. That would likewise avoid Brooks Mansion, and would displace relatively few dwellings, less than the 34 of the cir 1970 version of the 1996 North Central Freeway. However my version would pace southbound tunnel box carriageways stacked, immediately west of the RR, directly beneath John McCormack Drive, and unstacking to the south in the lightly developed industrial area along 8th Street NE, with a southbound portal immediately past Franklin Street thus affording THE best vista perhaps anywhere along the Interstate Highway System.

The displacement besides the 34 or so targeted by the 1966-70 plan would be confined to the foolishly misplaced new buildings such as the 2 Arts Space buildings nearest to the RR.

To the north, recently recklessly located buildings as the Elevation 314 project would be demolished, as they should as safety hazards as residential wood framed buildings within a footprint of a potential freight rail derailment from a set of ELEVATED tracks, as would the Cedar Crossing and a corner of the adjacent project. The late 1990s Takoma Co-Housing project is thankfully just outside the footprint. To the north, the historic Cady Lee mansion and the row of houses along Takoma Avenue would all be avoided; however the foolishly placed mid 1960s Montgomery Gardens apartment complex would be at least partially demolished.

For the connection to the PEPCO corridor, a depressed, part or all covered link along the north side of New Hampshire Avenue would displace 27 1940s houses just inside D.C., strip retail just inside Maryland, and of course a good chunk of that recent demo special of "The Hampshires" which was a completely irresponsible development, before swinging across New Hampshire Avenue to run via the PEPCO corridor to the I-95 stubbs at the Capital Beltway. To address the challenging topography, I would have NH Avenue upon a new bridge with I-95 passing through its southern abutment.

New retail and housing could then be constructed in a lid atop the NHA I-95 segment, rather than keeping it as an open trench. I would do the same in spots to the north along the PEPCO corridor, including a lid with such at University Avenue.

The benefits would be immense. Not simply for achieving a full northern I-95 link plus one towards I-270 and a cut and cover tunnel beneath Georgia Avenue as an alternative to the old Northern Parkway proposal. But as well with the creation of a vast new northern radial park - a northern Mall in essence - for Washington D.C. extending down to the rear of Union Station- already the existing end-cap. And furthermore, as I see it, with a resurfacing of the long buried Tiber Creek.

New high speed tolling would make this only even more practical.

7:49 PM

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

"Or to blow the willinger's mind, build a tunnel under K, run it under georgetown (and take down whitehurst), go under the potomac and then up Spout run)."

Something akin to that was briefly proposed by the Committee of 100 cir 1968.

A variant of that would be to build a 3 Sisters Bridge, but rather than the mess of spaghetti for its approaches, do those via a tunnel that makes the elevation change arcing beneath the recreation field of Georgetown University.

The existing I-66 terminus near the Watergate ought to be reconstructed as an underground semi-Orb beneath a new pedestrian park overlook.

7:54 PM

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

The New York Avenue corridor to the east of the B&O RR is a fantastic canvas for redevelopment extending to and past Montana Avenue, with downtown DC-Paris scaled buildings along its northern side with the new freeway and WMATA line in tunnel box. there is a great deal of space that could be worked with by digging out the space immediately north of the Avenue, and then extending a deck atop the RR chasm.

7:57 PM

 

Douglas Andrew Willinger said...

" I have suggested this in the North Capitol-Blair Road corridor in DC, and support it for through traffic on New York Avenue (the equivalent of a connection between I-95 through DC to Virginia)--this is not my idea originally, it was suggested in the New York Avenue Transportation Study about ten years ago."

That study only addressed a tunnel beneath New York Avenue extending from existing I-395 Center Leg; it said nothing about the northern part of North Capital Street, nor Blair Road, etc.

What would be the locations of your proposal's southern and northern portals? Presumably you would have it start on NCS in the vicinity of New Hampshire Avenue, but how far would it go? Georgia Avenue? 16th Street? The Capital Beltway? Would not a portion of it run along the B&O, and how would you thread it through Takoma DC and SS MD?

Should not any coverage of real estate development in say the Takoma Station area address the need to preserve a clear path for such a tunnel?

You ought to study this more and present a drawing.

9:21 PM

May 1, 2012 Presentation On SW-SE Freeway Reconstruction-Removal

Found here.

May 1, 2012 www.planphilly.com "Highway Removal Studio"
presentation on Washington, D.C.'s Southeast/Southwest Freeway

http://www.viddler.com/v/dc2a5552

Good insofar of its inclusion of a Washington Channel Tunnel as proposed in 2008 by U.S. National Capital Planning Commission

Poor insofar of its zero discussion of construction feasibility, of tying the Washington Channel Tunnel into the existing freeway trench and in removing the elevated segment to the east with a lowered replacement.

Impractical in its renderings showing the row of Capitol Square Townhouses closest to the southern retaining wall of the SW Freeway between 10th and 7th Streets SW., as staging the freeway tunnel reconstruction project while maintaining traffic, would require a new excavation along the southern side.

Impractical in removing the freeway to the east of the Center Leg without a replacement tunnel, particularly given the recent 11th Street Bridges reconstruction which added new high capacity ramps to the south of the Anacostia River to and from the northeast with DC295.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2016/03/renewed-silliness-to-remove-se-freeway.html

Renewed Silliness To Remove SE Freeway

disregarding the recent 11th Street Bridge replacement with its new ramp connections to the DC 295 Anacostia Freeway to and from the northeast.

via an article appearing February 29, 2016 in The Washingtonian "Let's Tear Down The South East Freeway And Build A New Neighborhood"

http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/29/southeast-freeway-development-construction-navy-yard-dc-neighborhood/

makes an interesting juxtaposition with the accompanying simplistic freeway removal ideology to discourage use of the New York Avenue corridor and the Center Leg and thus shift traffic to the SE Freeway-11th Street Bridge-DC 295 Anacostia Freeway combo.

http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/29/southeast-freeway-development-construction-navy-yard-dc-neighborhood/

The article is authored by Dan Reed, who studied for a Masters degree at the University of Pennsylvania, where he, with colleagues Susannah Henschel and Matt Wicklund, explored the possibilities and impacts of removing urban freeways,  particularly regarding Washington, D.C.'s  Southeast-Southwest Freeway, working with the National Capital Planning Commission.  He writes the following, which contains a number or serious flaws:

The Southwest Freeway, which carries a significant amount of traffic between the Potomac River and Fourth Street, Southwest, probably couldn’t be removed without overburdening the local street network. By the time it changes to the Center Leg Freeway and then to the Southeast Freeway, at South Capitol Street, the roadway carries a third fewer cars and could be replaced with a surface street that handles some of the traffic, with M Street, Southeast, and Pennsylvania Avenue picking up the excess. Biking and rapid transit could take care of the rest.

The amount of traffic upon the initial- western- segment of the Southeast Freeway is destined to carry significantly more traffic with the recent 11th Street Bridge replacement project that added new ramp connections on its southern end directly into the DC 295 Anacostia Freeway heading to and from the north-east, thus establishing a seem-less through D.C. connection.

The freeway changes dramatically along its path—sunken below street level here, rising onto an elevated there—so my colleagues and I developed three different treatments. At Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth streets, Southwest, the sunken Southwest Freeway is crossed by bridges. We thought about building a big cap over the freeway here, like Boston’s Big Dig, but decided it would be too expensive for the limited amount of new space it would create. Instead, we expanded each bridge to create a platform for small retail buildings, sort of like the Ponte Vecchio in Italy. They would help connect the north and south sides of the freeway visually for those crossing the bridges, while new retail could draw more street life to an area that has very little today.

The freeway is in a trench as it crosses 10th and 7th Streets SW, before rising to an elevated berm to the east thus crossing over 4th Street SW- thus the above statement is factually incorrect about the freeway being sunk below the 4th Street crossing.

How would a cap above the existing sunken segment be too expensive?  Other cities have had far more extensive cut and cover freeway projects, yet somehow this is "too expensive" for such a freeway within Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital.  Rather, this would be a good time to remove the bottleneck with its dangerous two into one lane merge with the on ramp from Main Street, by replacing the existing retaining wall which is not designed to support a tunnel roof, with a new wall set out further to the south, allowing adding a couple lanes per direction, at the expense of a row of townhouses built in 1999 too close to the freeway- a mere 16 feet or so from the existing retaining wall.  This would be necessary to facilitate construction staging for the removal and replacement of the elevated segment to the east with a new lowered cut and cover tunnel segment.

Farther east, where I-395—now the submerged Center Leg Freeway—bends north toward New York Avenue, we’d build a platform, like the Capitol Crossing development, and place new retail, office, and apartment buildings atop it, reconnecting local streets that currently dead-end at the freeway. In the space where the 395/695 interchange now takes up nearly three square blocks, we’d create a grand new public square, similar to Farragut Square, granting this area much-needed open space.

This disregards that the freeway transitions from a trench at 7th Street SW to an elevated berm by the time it crosses 4th Street SW.   Any new platform to reconnect local streets, and such a "grand new pubic space" absolutely requires not simply covering an existing freeway segment but rather its removal and replacement with a new set of roadways constructed at a lower elevation.

East of there, we’d eradicate the Southeast Freeway entirely. Before the 1960s, Virginia Avenue—which still exists in fits and starts around Foggy Bottom and L’Enfant Plaza—was a broad boulevard not unlike Pennsylvania or Massachusetts Avenue. Our design puts it back. The new street would extend from just east of South Capitol Street to the 11th Street Bridge and all the way to the Anacostia, where it would end in a new waterfront park.

This disregards the above stated need to completely reconstruct the eastern portion of the SW Freeway at a lower elevation, as well as the recent 11th Street Bridge replacement project with its new ramp configurations making this a continuous through D.C. freeway route.   Without such a reconstruction, his platform atop the freeway would have to be likewise elevated, could not restore the street grid as the elevated highway would still be in the way, and would require a ramp to transition from the elevated freeway to the restored Virginia Avenue street level boulevard.

The idea of a restored boulevard could actually make sense if built atop a SW-SE freeway reconstructed underground.

Because of the need to maintain traffic throughout the construction project, the way to do this would be by a staged program:

- first constructing a parallel tunneled freeway facility, starting with a Washington Channel Tunnel akin to the 2008 U.S. National Capital Planning Commission proposal, continuing east beneath G Street SW-SE to Virginia Avenue, dipping under the new railroad tunnel, to a temporary merge into the SE Freeway, together with tunnel connections to the north along the Center Leg beneath 2nd and 3rd Streets.  This G Street Tunnel would be two levels, eastbound atop westbound.  Once completed, open the G Street Tunnel to SW-SE Freeway traffic heading to the 11th Street Bridges.

- secondly, remove the row of townhouses closest to the SW Freeway's southern side between 10th and 7th Streets SW, excavate that area, build a new retaining wall designed to support tunnel roof, framing additional freeway capacity, and continue this east, crossing beneath 4th Street SW, to the existing ramp to the Center Leg, and perhaps with an extension further east squeezed alongside the existing elevated SW-SE Freeway to minimize housing displacement, before merging to the east with the new G Street Tunnel to the existing SE Freeway.  Subsequently begin closing and removing the elevated SW-SE Freeway, and start constructing the underground replacement.  That could ultimately be shifted slightly southwards to improve the geometry of the connections with the Center Leg.  And it all would be opened together with the direction of the G Street Tunnel from the 11th Street Bridge. 

- subsequently, finish the new 2nd and 3rd Street Tunnels along the Center Leg.  Before these could be used as a through route, they would need a merge into northbound I-395, which would occur within a tunneled extension to the north-east, employing not the substandard geometry of the 1996 Ron Linton plan's curved transition at the rear of the Bibleway Church complex and then directly beneath New York Avenue, but rather a gentler radii curve arcing beneath the New Jersey Avenue/N Street intersection and the Dunbar field, to a straight line continuation under O Street NW/NE.   Optionally, build a temporary connection to New York Avenue near the location of the Fed Ex building.  Or expedite a permanent underground tunnel box freeway extension to the east along the northern side of New York Avenue featuring parallel box for a new WMATA rail transit line, and a decking over of the railroad chasm, with a new linear park and city scale real estate development atop; such would be easier than constructing that tunnel directly under New York Avenue as discussed during the late 1990s and early 2000s, and far more potentially profitable with the line of new real estate development.  

- This tunneled extension from the Center Leg to alongside New York Avenue should have design flexibility to ultimately accommodate tunnel box versions of freeway connections to the north along the Grand Arc reconstruction of the B&O Metropolitan Branch with a vast linear park atop, to an East Leg to RFK Stadium and the eastern end of the SE Freeway as a cover-way essentially extending the structure of Barney Circle, and for a tunnel directly under New York Avenue

Once the New York Avenue corridor box tunnel freeway is completed to Maryland Route 50, traffic could be shifted from the antiquated DC 295 Anacostia Freeway to facilitate the latter's reconstruction as a modernized cut and cover facility bring its specifications up to date while permitting opening up local access to the Anacostia River waterfront.

The failure of the Dan Reed article in addressing any of this, speaks volumes as to the deficit of thought with much of the trendy [anti] intellectualism of the ideology of outright freeway removal

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2016/03/may-1-2012-presentation-on-sw-se.html

About the Least Expensive Type of Underground Freeway

See more:

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2015/01/old-and-new-elevated-and-box-tunnel.html

 Eastern portion of 1996 'Ron Linton' New York Avenue Tunnel-

Why does this not swing to the north side of the Avenue east of the Red Line to excavate a parking strip rather than the more difficult option of continuing further east directly beneath the Avenue?

Madrid, Spain Shames Washington, D.C.

While the U.S. Congress lets our Nations Capital be run as a medievalist fiefdom with misplaced development overrunning our important corridors.

See:

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2011/05/madrid-spain-reclaims-riverfront.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcLXQYcRR4s

Open Letter To Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Feds, DDOT and Congress

http://dc.curbed.com/archives/2014/12/capitol-crossing-developers-outrage-congress-over-i395-closing.php

Dear Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, The U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Authority and Members of the U.S. Congress;

It is good that the proposed temporary closure of the I-395 segment was averted for the construction of the Capitol Crossing I-395 Air Rights Project..

But are you aware that the Capital Crossing I-395 Air Rights Project PERMANENTLY shuts off 50% of the  I-395 right of way?

 Capitol Crossing Center Leg Right of Way PINCH

http://pgp.us.com/pdf/395_air_rights_property.pdf

Perhaps not, as that fact has not been reported in any of the newspaper or real estate cheerleader web sites.  This includes so far the site Greater, Greater Washington.

That freeway was designed and built with a 8 lane right of way plus shoulders.

I-395 Center Leg showing extra capacity

That includes its northern tunnel segment, built from 1975 to 1978, but unopened until a 1983-1986 finishing project was completed, after the cancellation of the extensions.  Hence it includes non-load bearing walls to block off the extra space for storage space for such things as the Lions from the Taft Bridge.  Supposedly I-395 is to end simply at New York Avenue, dumping its traffic there.  That can be seen by an aerial showing the expansion joints upon K Street that mark off its 4 lane southbound, 5 lane northbound and one lane northbound on-ramp.

Note the expansion joints showing the true capacity potential

Non load-bearing wall- I-395 northbound
http://www.dcroads.net/roads/center-leg/

That is because the Center Leg was not supposed to simply end at New York Avenue making that road itself the main artery.

 Northern Center Leg Tunnel with connections to the northeast and to the west.

Rather it was to have continuations.

I-395 was to continue as planned through the 1970s alongside New York Avenue, previously being designated as I-95.

And there was to be a freeway heading due west as an extension of I-66.

Planning for these urban highways dated back at least to 1955 for plans that were largely unpopular for their potential building displacement and permanent impacts.

The original 1955 Plan

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1950-62-plans.html

Emergency Committee on the Transportation Crisis (ECTC) poster 

showing the 1955 Center Leg-North Leg routing, 
plus the highly politicized and sabotaged B&O North Central Freeway

Above ECTC poster close-up of names showing Marion Barry

However the design of the built northernmost Center Leg segment was to accomodate later plans designed to largely avoid these displacement problems and to avoid the permanent disruptions via being built as cut and cover tunnels.

The crosstown I-66 link by the mid to late 1960s has been envisioned as a tunnel entirely beneath K Street for most of its length, with its western connection beneath Washington Circle and a brief stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue: a plan initially promoted by opponents of the 1955 plan such as Elizabeth Rowe.

The I-395/I-95 continuation meanwhile had been redesigned to a cut and cover tunnel starting  alongside New York Avenue, limiting a cutting of a new swath for the 3 to 4 block segment from 4th Street NW to North Capitol Street and 1st Street NE displacing about 600 dwellings (those between North Capital and 1st Street NE were torn down under the administration of Anthony Williams), plus 148 for the I-66 connection westward to Mt Vernon Square.   These were the plans featured in the November 1971 DeLeuw, Cather and Harry Weese study "District of Columbia Interstate Highway System".

Center Leg-North Leg Interchange

DeLeuw, Cather, with Harry Weese "District of Columbia Interstate System" November 1971

These extensions avoided almost all of the displacement of the 1955 planning.

Yet they were 'demapped' during the 1970s.  That was primarily for the sake of jumpstarting the funding for the WMATA rail system which had been design together with the freeway system, along with two other ideas: that private automobiles would become obsolete by the 1990s when it was envisioned that the world was going to run out of petroleum (with zero consideration of alternative fuels nor electric propulsion); and assuming that Virginia was not going to build their inside the Beltway segment of I-66 which was in fact completed and opened by 1982.


In the years since, an alternative design for the I-395 tunnel continuation was promoted through the Office of the D.C. Mayor, Marion Barry, who himself was a 1960s era activist against earlier planning efforts, known as the Ron Linton plan.  That was for a tunnel not alongside but rather beneath New York Avenue, thus avoiding the 600 or so dwelling displacement of the plans in the above mentioned 1971 plans.

That plan featured a total of 4 lanes within a street right of way sufficiently wide to accommodate 6 lanes with shoulders.  It also featured a pair of one lane connections to the west into an underground loading and perhaps parking area of the new D.C. Convention Center.  This 1996 study additionally included consideration of new WMATA rail line for the New York Avenue corridor, as a shot of life for new development opportunities along the New York Avenue corridor towards the Maryland border.  Although that would also be true for a revived crosstown I-66 K Street Tunnel, such was not included, as the 1996 study simply viewed the right of way beneath New York Avenue only for I-395.

This 1996 'Ron Linton' tunnel was favorably received, but was formally allowed to languish owing to the idea that a nation as wealthy as the United States of America was somehow too poor to afford even such a tunnel beneath New York Avenue to the vicinity of Florida Avenue and the B&O-CSX-WMATA Red Line railroad corridor.  Strangely it did not even consider the idea of swinging this tunnel alongside New York Avenue in the area to the east, despite the ample brownfields area.

Even more strangely, an alternative design concept for an I-395 was never considered: one that would avoid the traffic construction disturbances of a cut and cover tunnel beneath New York Avenue between New Jersey Avenue and Florida Avenue NE without an alternative means of routing traffic, displacing as few as 33 dwelling (a 95% reduction from the 1971 plans) while providing vastly superior geometrics, and accommodating an I-66 K Street  New York Avenue Tunnel, that I devised as a private citizen: a tunnel arcing beneath the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and N Street and outwards as a double stack beneath O Street, taking advantage of the corner of the open recreation field of Dunbar High School.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-395-extension-superior-option.html

The existing 2009-2001 planning makes ZERO consideration of any of this.

It even pinches the Center Leg median further than an unjustified restriction to only 2 lanes per direction by virtually eliminating the media shoulder.

It gives away this existing design flexibility to further maximize developer profits, simply assuming that there shall never be an extension from I-395, either to the west or the northeast.

Again- this permanent right of way constriction was not reported to the public by the news media.

Though the project was planned with the idea of keeping the I-395 open through the construction, it is like the developer was recently proposing its closure in order to largely prevent people from seeing for themselves the right of way constriction until completed.

That and the fact that the project's web site fails to show the portion of the plans with the right of way constriction further suggests such a cover-up, until it is too late to change without massive expense.

What is the public going to think about the lack of attention given to stopping the proposed permanent I-395 right of way pinch, following all of the attention given to the proposed temporary closure?

However, it is not too late- yet.

Suspend this project now, until it is redesigned to fully respect the sunken I-395 8 lane plus shoulders right of way.