DOCSLIB.ORG

The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 5 After the Court Revolt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 5 After the Court Revolt The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 5 After the Court Revolt Table of Contents Considering the Three Sisters Bridge ............................................................................................. 2 The U.S. Court of Appeals Acts ..................................................................................................... 3 Reaction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Searching For a Way Forward ...................................................................................................... 12 Chairman Natcher’s Views ........................................................................................................... 22 The Kluczynski Hearing ............................................................................................................... 28 Martin Luther King, Jr. ................................................................................................................. 50 Seeking Elusive Compromise ....................................................................................................... 52 A Layman’s Guide ........................................................................................................................ 54 National Capital Planning Commission’s Future ......................................................................... 63 The City’s View ............................................................................................................................ 72 Return of the Freeway-Subway Rift .............................................................................................. 76 The Administration’s 1968 Act .................................................................................................... 78 Planning for the District ................................................................................................................ 83 Mandating the Freeways ............................................................................................................... 86 Senate Committee Action on the 1968 Act ................................................................................... 93 Congressional Action .................................................................................................................... 96 Completing the 1968 Act ............................................................................................................ 104 The Conference Report ............................................................................................................... 111 Two Bills in One Day ................................................................................................................. 118 Senate Action .............................................................................................................................. 122 Awaiting Presidential Action ...................................................................................................... 128 To Veto or Not to Veto ............................................................................................................... 129 Action on the 1968 Act ............................................................................................................... 137 Negotiating with Lame Ducks .................................................................................................... 143 Air Rights For City Streets .......................................................................................................... 144 The District Plan ......................................................................................................................... 146 Reaction to the draft Major Thoroughfare Plan .......................................................................... 151 The Public Speaks, December 3-4, 1968 .................................................................................... 155 NCPC and the City Council Act ................................................................................................. 160 Taming the Highway Bulldozers ................................................................................................ 167 The Final Days of the Johnson Administration .......................................................................... 173 The Baltimore-Washington Parkway Gambit ............................................................................. 175 Part 5 After the Court Revolt Considering the Three Sisters Bridge By late January, Deputy Mayor Fletcher was meeting with Secretary Boyd on the fate of the Three Sisters Bridge. “We hope to have something within the week,” he told reporters. On the basis of those talks, Chairman Kluczynski had agreed to hold off introducing his bill requiring construction of the bridge. He gave the city and Secretary Boyd until the end of the month to announce a “reasonable” solution. He defined “reasonable” as including construction of the bridge. At month’s end, Fletcher said negotiations would require another week. “The problem is hugely complex. The solution, to be a good one, must not satisfy anyone completely. The solution requires a give and take on all sides.” [Hoagland, Jim, and Carper, Elsie, “Three Sisters Bridge Impasse Seen Broken,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, “January 25, 1968; Hoagland, Jim, “City Defers Proposal on 3 Sisters Span,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, January 31, 1968] When NCPC met on February 9, it considered a proposal for a design team, similar to the Interstate design team reviewing Baltimore’s comparable problems with routing of I-95. The team would develop a comprehensive highway plan, including alternatives for the Three Sisters Bridge and North Central Freeway. NCPC members discussed the proposal in a lengthy executive session outside public view, but did not vote on it. Chairman Rowe refused to talk with reporters about the discussions, but Flor’s sources told him “that she tried unsuccessfully to get the commission to adopt a new transportation plan, to settle the highway dispute, that would have been a clearcut victory for opponents of the highway program.” One reason for delaying the vote was that the NPS representative protested a decision until he had discussed it with Interior Department officials. Flor wrote that the “intended effect of the action, apparently, was to put the planning commission back into the controversy over freeways.” In recent months, NCPC appointed members had been sidelined while the freeway debate had been dominated by Members of Congress, District officials, and representatives of Cabinet-level departments. Flor also reported that Deputy Mayor Fletcher and Council Chairman Hechinger, who both attended the meeting, “discussed proposals developed by the District government which call for retention of plans for the Three Sisters Island Bridge.” In public business, NCPC gave final approval for the National Fisheries Center and Aquarium in East Potomac Park. The approval did not cover the Ponte Vecchio-type bridge across Washington Channel. NPS officials told NCPC they had been unable to attract a bidder to develop the bridge. NCPC had given up hope for the associated underground parking lot beneath the 10th Street Mall overlook. Design of the aquarium was underway, with construction expected to begin in mid-1969 if budget cutbacks resulting from the Vietnam War could be resolved. NCPC heard a presentation from landscape architect Halprin on his master plan for the Anacostia Park and Kingman Lake swimming lagoon near D.C. Stadium. The plan included locks to keep polluted Anacostia River water out and chlorinating the lagoon. The Post reported: One feature of Halprin’s master plan calls for a change in alignment of the pending East Leg of the Inner Loop highway system. Instead of an exposed right-of-way to the east of the stadium, Halprin suggests a tunnel to the west. He also said NPS and District highway officials were studying his master plan. In addition, NCPC gave final approval to addition of the Spacecraft Operations Building at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The center’s current 6,779 employees were already complaining about traffic problems on the interchange between the Baltimore- Washington Parkway and the Capital Beltway. More employees in the new operations building would worsen the problems. NPS Director Hartzog suggested that BPR compel the Maryland State Roads Commission to take over the Federal portion of the parkway so it could handle Interstate traffic. [Lewis, Robert J., “Planners Final Okay Given for Aquarium,” The Evening Star, February 9, 1968] Elsewhere on February 9, the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation adopted a resolution calling for a halt to new highway construction near the Potomac River until alternatives could be studied. The council was concerned that the Three Sisters Bridge would affect several historic sites, including the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the Georgetown waterfront, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Potomac Palisades. The Post article about the resolution concluded: Mayor Walter E. Washington and [Secretary] Boyd are working on a compromise proposal in an effort to satisfy Rep. John C. Kluczynski . Kluczynski threatened to introduce a bill in Congress to force the building of the Three Sisters Bridge if Boyd continues his opposition. [“Historic Sites Unit Opposed Roads Plan,” The Washington Post
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Managed Properties in the District of Columbia
    United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees April 2005 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Managed Properties in the District of Columbia a GAO-05-378 April 2005 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Managed Properties in the District of Highlights of GAO-05-378, a report to Columbia congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In recent years, several challenges NPS manages 356 federal properties in the District, covering about 6,735 have emerged concerning future acres of land. Most of the properties are what NPS refers to as circles, recreational opportunities in the squares, and triangles, and are less than 1 acre in size. The second largest nation’s capital. These challenges total number of properties are parks and parkways, which represent about include ensuring that an adequate 93 percent of the total acreage for the 356 properties. supply of parkland and open space is available to meet the needs of an increasing resident population and NPS officials reported to GAO that 202 properties it manages in the District the estimated 20 million annual had various recreational facilities such as park benches, outdoor grills, and visitors to the District of picnic tables or shelters. Of the 202 properties, 25 had 205 sports facilities, Columbia’s cultural institutions, such as basketball and tennis courts and baseball and softball fields. historic sites, parks, and open spaces. Most of the properties with sports facilities were in good or fair condition, according to NPS deferred maintenance records, but information on the GAO identified (1) the universe of condition of individual sports facilities is limited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Respite Winter 2007
    National Park Service Park News U.S. Department of the Interior The offi cial newspaper of Rock Creek Park The Respite Winter 2007 Winter in Rock Creek Park WINTER IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. MANY PEOPLE TRAVEL TO Welcome from the warmer climates seeking milder temperatures and more sun- shine during the winter months. For the rest of us, winter Superintendent provides an opportunity to appreciate nature in all of her seasonal splendor. In Washington D.C., specifi cally Rock Rock Creek Park is a unique urban oasis in our nation’s capital. It offers Creek Park, winter is a chance to see the landscape around us visitors the opportunity to relax and without the camoufl age of foliage. Nature reveals Rock Creek refl ect. It is a respite from the every- Park’s best kept secrets in the winter. day. Whether you spent your child- hood wandering through these woods When it snows, animal tracks are seen on freshly fallen pre- or this is your fi rst visit to the park, you cipitation. To the exploring spirit, these tracks reveal the path will fi nd something that brings a smile to dens and nests that uncover the homes of park residents to your face and peace to your heart. who are often seen during other seasons. Hiking and biking on the park trails The land in winter is exposed - not a full exposure but a tan- are one of the more popular recre- talizing glint revealing our history and heritage. The Rock Deer at Rock Creek Park near the Nature Center ational activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Parks Management Strategies National Park Service National Capital Region
    Small Parks Management Strategies National Park Service National Capital Region FINAL April 2017 National Capital Parks East National Mall and Memorial Parks Rock Creek Park National Capital Planning Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 03 Overview of the Planning Effort 04 The Value of Small Parks 07 Planning Methodology CHAPTER 2—VISION + GOALS 10 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats 12 Small Parks Vision Statement 12 Vision 13 Goals 13 Supporting Efforts CHAPTER 3—SMALL PARK CHARACTERISTICS 18 Cultural Resources 20 Commemorative Resources 23 Recreation Resources 23 Community Context 24 Encroachment and Unsanctioned Uses 25 Summary of Challenges and Opportunities CHAPTER 4—MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 28 Management Mechanisms 33 Small Park Alignment Score Process CHAPTER 5—ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 6—REFERENCES A compendium of supporting materials developed during the small parks management strategies planning process is included in the Small Parks Management Strategies Supporting Documents and is provided under separate cover. CHAPTER 01INTRODUCTION 2 Chapter 1—IntroduCtIon INTRODUCTION he purpose of this Small Parks Management TStrategies document is to help the National Park Service (NPS) National Capital Region (NCR) develop consistent strategies for improving the approach to the management of small urban parks. The planning effort builds on the parks’ needs for holistic, consistent, and coordinated management and partnership strategies across the small park network. Updated management for parks in the NCR will help the NPS fulfill its agenda for urban parks in the next century. The focus of this effort is on NPS small parks ranging from 0.0045 acres to approximately seven acres in size that represent the most common park type found in the city.
    [Show full text]
  • National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior
    National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final — December 2018 National Capital Region of the National Park Service US Department of the Interior National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final — July 2018 Cover Photos (clockwise from top left): Arlington Memorial Bridge; Washington Monument; Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Towpath; Lyndon B Johnson Memorial Grove; Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Back Cover Photo: Park ranger interacting with visitors on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Towpath Page intentionally left blank National Capital Region ii Long Range Transportation Plan This first National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan was prepared as a collaborative effort between the Washington Support Office Facilities Planning Branch, National Capital Regional Office, Denver Service Center, and the Federal Highway Administration’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Divisions and John A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Following a 30-day stakeholder review period, the final version of the National Capital Region Long Range Transportation Plan is hereby accepted by the National Capital Regional Director as of the date shown below. ACCEPTED Date Robert A. Vogel, Regional Director, National Capital Region NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Page intentionally left blank National Capital Region ii Long Range Transportation Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary x Background . x Purpose of the Plan . xi National Capital Region LRTP Vision . xii. Summary of Findings. xiii . Chapter 1 Planning Framework 1 Transportation in the National Capital Region . 2 Transportation Assets . 3 . The Project Process . 3. Goals and Objectives . 5 . Strategies . 8 Measuring System Performance .
    [Show full text]
  • ATP Performance Measures Database: 1
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’S ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: PILOT DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ATATSS-TRANSTRANSPORTATIPORTATION DATA PILOTLOT SURSURVVEYEY PPARKSARKS July 2004 – Februaruary 20200505 Denali Glacier Isle Royale Acadia Yellowstone Mesa Verde Zion Grand Canyon 8 Pilot Survey Parks MARCH 2006 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation NPS-Alternative Transportation Program: Pilot Data Collection Summary and Future Recommendations PREFACE This document is the culmination of three years effort of the Alternative Transportation Program (ATP) Data Needs Working Group. This group was composed of dedicated staff from the National Park Service (NPS), the Federal Highway Federal Lands Division (FHWA-FLD), the Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Environment (FTA), and the United States DOT John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center’s (Volpe Center) Office of Surface Transportation Programs. Funding support this endeavor was provided by the NPS Park Facility Management Division – Transportation Program and the FTA Office of Planning and Environment (Sean Libberton, FTA Project Sponsor). Within the NPS Transportation Program, both the Alternative Transportation Section (Lou DeLorme, Team Leader) and the Park Roads and Parkway Section (Mark Hartsoe, Team Leader) provided staff and financial support for the development of this document and the background work. The author of this document is David W. Jackson, Transportation Industry Analyst with the US DOT Volpe Center Planning and Policy Analysis Division (RTV-3B). The Pilot Data Collection Program could have not been possible without the extensive coordination, guidance, and outreach by Susan Grosser, the NPS ATP Data Collection Project Lead.
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 3 Heritage Guide
    WARD 3 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 3 Cultural and Heritage Resources District of Columbia Office of Planning Ward 3 Heritage Guide Produced by the DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2020 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Next page: View looking Southeast along Conduit Road (today’s MacArthur Boulevard), ca. 1890, Washington Aqueduct TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Ward 3 Overview........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Creek Park Foundation Document Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Rock Creek Park District of Columbia Contact Information For more information about the Rock Creek Park Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (202) 895-6000 or write to: Superintendent, Rock Creek Park, 43545 Williamsburg Lane, NW, Washington, DC 20008 Description Rock Creek Park administers 2,749 acres within the District of Columbia and is both an individual unit of the national park system as well as an administrative unit that oversees numerous park sites and resources beyond the original core of Rock Creek Park (US Reservation 339) addressed in the enabling legislation. The park administers a total of 99 additional areas, which include the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, the Old Stone House, part of the Civil Brief Description of Rock Creek Park and Associated Sites War Defenses of Washington (CWDW), Dumbarton Oaks Rock Creek Park. Rock Creek Park itself was first established Park, Meridian Hill Park, and Glover Archbold Park. These in 1890 to protect the natural and historical landscape of the sites were not included in the original enabling legislation of the park but were authorized for their own unique qualities Rock Creek Valley in Washington, DC. Stretching from the (see appendix A for enabling legislation and a list of sites and Maryland state line to the National Zoo, Rock Creek Park resources managed by Rock Creek Park). This document exists as a green oasis amidst the dense urban development contains analysis with specific guidance for planning and of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The park was management of Rock Creek Park and its administrative park one of the first designated federal park units, and among sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Stewardship Strategy Summary
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY SUMMARY ROCK CREEK PARK DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 2018 CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................................. 1 Rock Creek Park .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Legislated Park Unit Managed by Rock Creek Park ............................................................................................................... 1 Associated Park Sites Managed by Rock Creek Park ............................................................................................................. 1 Brief Description of Rock Creek Park and Associated Sites .................................................................................................... 2 Park Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Park Significance .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Resource Stewardship Strategy Overview ......................................................................................................... 8 Relationship with Other Park Plans ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Consequences General Methodology for Assessing Impacts
    United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region Rock Creek Park 3545 Williamsburg Lane, N.W. Washington, DC 20008-1207 January 28, 2015 From: Nicholas Bartolomeo, Chief of Resource Management Re: Memo to File, AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Facility Colocation, PEPC Project 35769 This memo to file documents changes as of this date to the compliance of PEPC Project 35769, AT&T WTF Colocation, in Rock Creek Park. The site plan for AT&T’s facility colocation at the Verizon Wireless Colorado Avenue-Rock Creek Tennis Center monopole location was revised following the completion of NEPA and NHPA compliance by the National Park Service, Rock Creek Park in 2014. The site plan as submitted on December 4, 2014 to the National Capital Planning Commission for review reflects the current plan for this portion of the project. Specifically, the plan calls for the installation of 12 antenna on the existing Verizon monopole at the site, directly below the existing Verizon antenna. Ground equipment will be hosted in a 12’ x 22’ cabinet located due east of the monopole, directly adjacent to the existing tennis court facility and connected to the monopole by an underground cable conduit. National Park Service staff have reviewed these revised plan and concluded that impacts to natural and cultural resources to the site, as described in the approved project Environmental Screening Form and Assessment of Effects documentation, has not changed. Therefore, the approved project compliance documents will not be revised. This memo to file also documents changes to the proposed implementation of the project by AT&T.
    [Show full text]