About the wealthiest unjustly placing the burden elsewhere
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2013/08/washington-dc-war-on-people-shuns-east.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-se-freeway-plan-benifiting-greatest.html
The Hill East stance against a Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and an extension
of the SE Freeway along the west side of the Anacostia River that could serve
as a traffic alternative to the obsolete Anacostia Freeway along that river’s
east side, is a textbook example of a wealthier area getting over upon a less
affluent area to the east.
That freeway – the
Anacostia Freeway – the sole continuous route Washington
DC freeway, was constructed between 1956 and 1964.
It may have displaced few residences. But it was built with an almost entirely surface and elevated design that locally separates
the neighborhoods to the east- notably Washington, D.C.’s least affluent from
the waterfront, with little more than some lip service to portions of it being
rebuilt in a tunnel configuration as local mitigation.
Such is alas but a link in a chain of a series of instances of wealthier
areas within Washington DC getting over upon less affluent areas.
- The Failure to build the Northwest
Freeway entering Washington, D.C. along the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.
This would have been a freeway ideally along the Wisconsin Avenue corridor
in Bethesda MD and upper NW to the area of
Tenley Circle, before entering a
tunnel- necessary for the topographical transition to downtown.
The NW Freeway appears in planning documents during the latter 1950s,
including an engineering study in 1957.
That
study had two main options, one along Canal Road, the other along Wisconsin
Avenue to Tenley Circle and continuing south via the
Glover Archibald Park
corridor. Each had variants directly to the
Whitehurst Freeway or an
inland option along the Whitehaven Park corridor.
1957 NW Freeway Report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/03/1957-northwest-freeway.html
The Wisconsin Avenue corridor option had the best serviceability for that
existing commercial corridor, being located roughly midway between Canal Road
and Rock Creek Park, and connecting directly with the eastern spur of I-70S
(I-270), taking advantage of the wide corridor by Medical Center. As
that corridor was to be extensively redeveloped to accommodate WMATA red line
induced transit oriented development, it would have fit largely if not
primarily within the footprint of this redevelopment, particularly in downtown
Bethesda and Friendship Heights.
1965 local downtown Bethesda, MD
NW Freeway route proposal
As envisioned by 1957-1959 planning,
the NW Freeway would extend southward from the MD-DC line to a set of cut and cover tunnel underpasses beneath
Tenley Circle with the possibility of an underground connection with an
east-west intermediate 'Fort Drive' Beltway segment along Nebraska
Avenue. According to the 1957 study,
that segment from the
MD-DC line to Tenley Circle area would have displaced 74 residences.
A failure to overturn an agreement prohibiting a road allowing trucks
through Glover Archibald would lead to a search for an alternative route for the
southern NW freeway extension, with a brief consideration of a 'Cathedral
Heights Tunnel’ concept roughly paralleling that park. That might have facilitated
this extension with likely little or no residential displacement, and
relatively unobtrusively, through that wealthy area, upon a direct route to the
Whitehurst freeway corridor along the Georgetown waterfront. It could have been
done as a deep drilled tunnel, or as a box tunnel along a ridge overlooking
Glover Archibald with a pedestrian promenade – I have yet to see any details. But was nonetheless dropped.
By 1958, planning had subsequently turned to a ''Cross Park Freeway” option-
a less direct route turning due east starting though a somewhat less wealthy
area and subsequently an even less wealthy area-
that instead turned due east to cross over Rock
Creek Park, landing in Mt Pleasant as an open trench along Adams Mill Road
before turning south to meet the Inner Loop North Leg – the east-west crosstown
D.C. I-66 – at an interchange at 14
th and U Streets.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1959-northwest-freeway.html
That option would have started with a split just south of Tenley Circle,
with an Glover Archibald Parkway that would have prohibited trucks, and with
the Cross Park Freeway largely or entirely in a deep open trench through the
Sidwell Friends School area and along the northern side of Tilden Street in the
Cleveland Park neighborhood area, displacing few if any residences to the west
of Rock Creek Park, and perhaps about 1,000 to the east of Rock Creek Park.
1959 NW Freeway
By 1959, this option was refined for the segment west of Rock Creek Park: with
open trench replaced with deep bored tunnel from east of Wisconsin Avenue to west
of Reno Road emerging as a trench paralleling the north side of Tilden Street NW and
crossing beneath Connecticut Avenue as a cut and cover tunnel.
Meanwhile to the east of Rock Creek Park, NO
tunnel options are even mentioned in this planning, which there considers only
two options: a trench with retaining walls or one with sloped embankments.
While the impacts to the east of Rock Creek Park were by far the severest,
about 1,000 in Mt. Pleasant versus perhaps none in Cleveland Park and 74 along
the Wisconsin Avenue corridor,
it was opposition in those latter areas which
had the greatest mitigation via tunnels that got away with effectively stopping
any further official consideration of a NW freeway, via a 1960 act of the U.S.
Congress banning design consideration of any freeways to the west of Rock Creek
Park.
1959
- The Failure to Build B&O D.C. I-95
Meanwhile, planning considerations would continue for the two remaining
northern radial Washington, D.C. freeways shown in the 1959 Mass Transportation
plan study report- each of which then as planned would have displaced far more residence
than the upper NW portion of the NW Freeway - the North Central and North East Freeways
respectively along Georgia Avenue and 11
th Streets.
Of these two freeways only the North East,
which was to serve as I-95 had had an engineering study by 1960.
That study -
A Report on location: The Northeast Freeway, Washington,D.C., June 1960 Prepared fot the Board of Commissioners by The ClarkesonEngineering Co., Inc., Consulting Engineers, Inc. Boston, Albany andWashington, and the District of Columbia Department of Highways - considered three main route options.
These
were:
2 variants to the east, roughly as the 1959 Mass Transportation Plan
envisioned for I-95, designated options A and B, respectively displacing 792
and 732 residences;
2 variants to the west, roughly where the 1959 Mass Transportation Plan
envisioned for the North Central along Georgia Avenue, designated options F and
G, respectively displacing --- and ---, with F including a 4,200 foot long drilled
tunnel segment
3 variants in the area between, partially paralleling the B&O railroad,
designated C, D and E respectfully displacing 1,095, 1,117 and 922 residences-
with the latter two to the railroad’s west immediately alongside CUA
1960 I-95 Report
The partial B&O routes (C, D and E) plus route F would have entered D.C.
via a route segment through the Catholic Sisters College neighborhood, while
option G would have employed the existing Fort Park Drive right of way –
already in existence for the planned but unbuilt Fort Drive circumferential
parkway/intermediate beltway.
Paradoxly, this 1960 reports figures list the greatest residential displacement
figures for the options along the B&O railroad -
the sole such corridor in northern Washington D.C.
and such affording the least potential displacement impact - though the one running
alongside perhaps the largest piece of private property there: Catholic
University of America.
Nonetheless, while selecting the variant that would run furthest of the two
away from Catholic University, without explaining the route’s turning eastward
away from the railroad through western Brookland neighborhoods south of
Michigan and Monroe Streets and west of 10th Street, requiring the removal of
historic
Brooks Mansion, this 1960 report recommended the partial B&O
route option, avoiding the introduction of an all new local separation No
reason is given why such a route would not have instead simply continue immediately
along the railroad’s eastern side.
With early 1960s Washington DC highway planning discussions noting the logic
of this centrally located B&O railroad industrial corridor, the planning by
late 1962 turned to the concept of a combined North Central-North East Freeway
routing along the B&O railroad corridor, with an I-70S B&O North
Central Freeway and an I-95 North East Freeway converging into an I-95 B&O
North Central Freeway.
With the open
opposition of Roman Catholic Church officials to the ‘Catholic Sisters’ route
for the northernmost I-95 North East Freeway segment in Washington D.C. leading
to its re-routing via the Fort park Drive right of way entering D.C. between
Gallatin and Galloway Streets, the combined B&O-Fort Drive I-70S/I-95 ‘Y’
route became a main component of
the November 1962 transportation study of theAdministration of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
"Significance of Using B&O Route. Use
of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad corridor to bring Routes 70-S and 95 into
the city is the key to meeting the need for additional highway capacity in
northern Washington, Montgomery County and northwestern Prince Georges Counties
and at the same time avoiding the substantial relocation of persons, loss of
taxable property and disruption of neighborhoods that would result from
construction of the Northeast, North Central and Northwest Freeway proposed in
the 1959 plan. Further savings are realized by placing the rapid transit line
to Silver Spring and Queen’s Chapel in the same railroad corridor."
1962
A study report was due out in the summer of 1963 but would not then
appear. Owing to President Kennedy's interest in reduced impact
highways, and given the 1963 and 1965 reports on the then proposed Inner Belt
in Boston (the area where Kennedy was from) which featured underground
partially enclosed semi tunnel freeways beneath park promenades, he may have intended
such a design along the B&O railroad in NE Washington, D.C. particularly along
the segment running alongside Catholic University of America.
1963-1965 Boston Inner Belt Proposal
Whatever the case, President Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963; and
the North Central Freeway study report that would finally appear about a year
later would effectively do that- assassinate- his vision for such a freeway
aligned tightly along the B&O railroad corridor.
That report, released October 1964, would feature
an upwards of 37 potential routes, with
preliminary options almost entirely nowhere near the railroad, and with a
'recommended route' partially along the railroad but with serious route
deviations in Brookland, D.C. (placing it further way from Catholic University)
and especially in Takoma Park MD. that latter route rather than displacing
about 30 residences along the railroad would instead swing 1/3 of a mile
further east on a longer route instead displacing some 471 houses in Takoma Park's
oldest neighborhoods- understandably sparking massive protests. At this
time President Johnson would further stroke local resentment by stating his
opposition to any freeway to the west of Rock Creek Park- despite the comparative
impacts.
1964
Despite JFK''s vision for a low level freeway along the B&O railroad, officials
in 1965 touted a quad decked elevated freeway above the railroad.
1965
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1965-elevated-multi-level.html
It was not until late 1966 that they finally released a study report roughly
conforming to JFK;s 1962 planning.
1966
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1966-north-central-freeway.html
Though conforming to public opinion, officials came under attack by the
Committee of 100, which had supported JFK' B&O route North Central Freeway
concept, turned 180 degrees. Through the law firm of Covington
& Burling a law suit alleging lack of proper approval was pursued- that the
freeway lacked the approval of the necessary entities - the DC City Council and
NCPC, when in fact such bodies then supported the B&O route freeway, before
themselves withdrawing their support by late 1968. Such a reversal
of official support would come only AFTER the actions of other officials,
namely within the created in 1967 US Federal Highway authority to come out in
support of reverting to the infamous 1964 planning to save a few million dollar
upon retaining walls.
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.
A local citizen from Takoma Park, MD in 1967 would write in a letter to Spiro Agnew:
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.
Official noise favoring the 1964 plan would continue into 1968 until both
the D.C. City Council and U.S. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) formally reversed their support for any NCF
Freeway, ignoring the distinctions between the 1964 and 1966 planning, along
with its utility for providing what would have been Washington D.C.'s sole
northern radial freeway.
With respect to interstate
traffic moving into the metropolitan area from the north on I-70S and I-95,
vehicles with destinations beyond the District clearly should be diverted
around the beltway. Interstate traffic with destinations within the District
has options that are obviously as satisfactory as such traffic finds in any
metropolitan system. The interstate system -- as a city to city system -- gives
no assurance of freeway access to the heart of the central city. Both I-70S and
I-95 traffic can move down the same arterial street network used by the
commuters, and presumably a large part of this interstate traffic will be at
non-peak hours.
I-95 traffic can be channeled
over a short jog on the beltway to the Baltimore Washington Parkway for a
penetration into the District over that route. Three options would be provided
for this interstate traffic with downtown destinations -- via Kenilworth
Freeway, via the proposed new Anacostia Parkway, and via New York Avenue (which
is being improved as a major entrance into the Nation's capital from the east).
Additional capacities to handle this I-95 traffic, of course, will of course be
needed on the beltway and the Baltimore Washington Parkway. (An alternative
would be a new highway in Maryland that would bring I-95 directly into the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway at or near the Kenilworth interchange.)
The Commission believes that
these facilities can adequately provide for interstate traffic from the north
with central area destinations. The construction of a freeway to the north (in
addition to the string of major surface streets) in order to accommodate
interstate traffic would simply open up another arterial gateway for the
suburban commuter. This the Commission rejects as both unnecessary and
undesirable. (pp. 31-32)
Local impacts were given as the reason of this opposition which focused
disproportionately along 69 residences between the east side of the freeway
route and the west side of 10th street NE. I say disproportionately, owing
to the relative lack of attention to the some 600-1000 further south and west
for the final connecting segment to the Center Leg - todays I-395 3rd street
tunnel, let alone the lack of attention to the geometric reality that that
latter segment's impact is
reducible to a mere 33 or 34 if it were to run beneath the recreation field of Dunbar HS as a tunnel. Such is a strange omission,
given all of the hoopla over stopping 'white mans roads through black man
home'.
In the meantime the Committee of 100 would promote an alternative plan- with
far less local serviceability and greater environmental impact running along a
far lengthier segment of the Northwest Branch. Peter Craig of DC highway
fighting fame since the late 1950s battle over the NW freeway went from proposed
cut and cover tunnels with existing right of ways in 1962 to such more out of
the way routes with far higher impacts. This was done under what we could
call a mockery of environmental justice.
1968 'Committee of 100' I-95 Proposal
1966 'lid' proposal for I-95 B&O North Central Freeway alongside Catholic University of America southwards from Taylor Street
1971 'lid' proposal for I-95 B&O North Central Freeway from just north of Michigan southward to Rhode Island Avenue- I am not aware of Catholic University of America ever objecting to the deletion of the 'lid' segment northward to Taylor Street alongside the main body of its campus
In the time since
such theatrics, the freeways have remained unbuilt. This includes
an extension of the SE Freeway along the western shore of the Anacostia River that
could be relatively easily built
as a box tunnel freeway to better open up thatwaterfront to local use, while providing a valuable alternative route to the
outdated existing Anacostia Freeway to the east- better facilitating that
latter freeway's reconstruction in a below grade tunnel.
SE Freeway Extension - East Leg of the Inner Loop Late 1960s
In the meantime,
a madness has engulfed local planning with ill-advised real
estate development to constrict the North Central-North East route. This includes a hideously placed, yet
approved by U.S. NCPC PERJURY residential development project
‘The Hampshires’ by Comstock on a key property needed to connect the B&O and the
New Hampshire-PEPCO inside the Beltway I-95 route- an
infinitely superior and more environmentally friendly alternative to the long planned Northwest Branch route.
All of this ill development betrays the public interest and places a disproportionate
amount of the traffic burden upon less affluent areas.
.jpg)
