The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 10 The End of the Road Table of Contents Fighting Words ............................................................................................................................... 2 The Unusually Permanent End of the Road .................................................................................. 10 Metro vs. Metrobus ....................................................................................................................... 14 The New President ........................................................................................................................ 18 A New Era in the District .............................................................................................................. 19 Home Rule At Last ....................................................................................................................... 21 1974 Transitions............................................................................................................................ 25 Winding Down the Freeways ........................................................................................................ 28 Searching For a Metro Plan .......................................................................................................... 37 The Fading Freeways .................................................................................................................... 50 Completing the Center Leg Freeway ............................................................................................ 56 The Death of I-66 .......................................................................................................................... 57 Metro – Open At Last ................................................................................................................... 84 I-66 – Back From the Dead ........................................................................................................... 95 Rebirth of I-66 ............................................................................................................................. 114 Confirming I-66 .......................................................................................................................... 121 Completing Metro ....................................................................................................................... 136 The Georgetown Metro Station................................................................................................... 151 Completing I-66 .......................................................................................................................... 154 The Barney Circle Connector ...................................................................................................... 156 Closing the Missing Link ............................................................................................................ 172 Unresolved Battles, Unanswered Questions ............................................................................... 176 Part 10 The End of the Road Fighting Words In summing up the District’s freeway issues, Thomas Crosby wrote in the April 7, 1974, issue of the Star: The surest way to draw a hostile crowd in Washington these days is to propose a new super highway. This area has become a hotbed of anti-highway sentiment, and untiring citizen activists have caused the demise of several big and expensive highway projects. Dust, he said, was gathering on the drawing boards for the remaining freeways, delayed by “suits, public hearings media blitz campaigns and even unruly demonstrations.” The message was loud and clear: “no more big highway projects at the expense of neighborhood environments.” In summary: The result has been highway officials charging freeway foes are misguided zealots who don’t realize the failure to build more highways could have a disastrous long-term effect on the area’s goal of a balanced transportation system employing buses, rapid rail and highways. But highway foes argue that the wave of the future – especially in light of the energy crisis – is emphasis on mass transit, both Metrobus and the coming 98-mile regional rapid rail system. Only history will prove which group is correct. Crosby went through each of the planned freeways. In view of citizen opposition, he wrote, Mayor Washington had withdrawn his support of the South Leg tunnel plan between the Lincoln Memorial and the Tidal Basin. “It now appears dead.” Maryland had killed I-95 between the Capital Beltway and the District line. The State planned to widen the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to Interstate standards. The U.S. Department of Transportation was studying the Three Sisters Bridge “but appears to be in no hurry to reach a conclusion.” Crosby added, “The bridge has been so vigorously opposed by District and Virginia citizens that on at least two separate occasions bridge foes have been arrested.” The Industrial Freeway in the New York Avenue corridor “which would connect with I-95 in Maryland and the new Center Leg in downtown Washington, is under active consideration” by District highway officials. “However, highway officials are afraid to announce their plans because of the current anti-highway fervor and because the freeway would require the razing of nearly 600 Washington homes.” Crosby described I-66 in Virginia as “still alive and kicking,” but the pending decision by Secretary Brinegar on the $181 million highway would not be the conclusion. A court challenge was “a virtual certainty no matter what Brinegar decides,” meaning that “the I-66 controversy is likely to be around for some time.” [Crosby, Thomas, “Them’s Fighting Words,” The Washington Star-News, April 7, 1974] Although Crosby described I-66 as “alive and kicking,” the highway got off to a bad start in 1974, largely based on the draft EIS prepared by Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff and released in November 1973. The Council on Environmental Quality and EPA came out against I-66. The council found “little justification” for I-66, saying a mass transit option that included Metro was “clearly . preferable.” EPA Deputy Administrator John Quarles issued a position paper on I-66, saying “it does not seem prudent from the standpoint of attaining clean air.” Because highway construction would result in more automobile traffic, EPA concluded that the route was “environmentally unsatisfactory.” Emilia Govan, learning of the EPA report, said “If reason and logic prevail, this is the death blow for I-66.” She added that if VDH defied Federal law, it “would invite considerable litigation.” Harrison Mann of Citizens for I-66 said of the report, “Apparently many environmentalists haven’t discovered that people too are part of the environment and that their needs are paramount to other factors, like trees, squirrels’ homes, flyways for migrating birds and stuff like that.” On January 11, the Post and Star reported on a Department of Transportation report, prepared in the office of General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Consumer Affairs. Construction of I-66 would be unnecessary and illegal. “Based on the highly questionable need for the highway and also on the substantial environmental impacts,” the report said, “it would appear doubtful” that I-66 “would meet requirements of applicable law.” The highway was not needed to handle peak-hour projected traffic loads in 1995. Two other options in the study, the “base case” and “transit option,” would provide adequate capacity. As a result, the report could find “no justification” for building I-66 as a six- or eight-lane freeway. Moreover, the freeway option “would appear to be inconsistent” with the area’s plans for complying with Clean Air Act requirements. Further, none of the I-66 options could be approved because they did not satisfy Section 4(f) in their impact on parkland. In transmitting the report to FHWA’s Virginia Division Engineer, Harold King, General Davis indicated that at this point, approval of I-66 appeared doubtful. Department of Transportation spokesman H. Davis Crowther told reporters that the staff paper did not necessarily represent Secretary Brinegar’s views and that General Davis may take a different position after reviewing the final EIS. King pointed out that the final decision rested with Secretary Brinegar, not a staff paper: King said yesterday that Davis’ office did not have access to all the information available on I-66 and thus should not have indicated a preference. He said he had received but “not accepted” the report and would send a response to the report to assistant secretary Davis’ office. King added that he did not think “anyone in DOT should make a preference. We are still studying the whole picture. I haven’t made a final decision and I don’t like anyone else to.” ACT’s James Govan responded to the report by saying, “There’s not much more to be said about the fate of the highway when a DOT department takes a position like this.” [Shaffer, Ron, “I-66 Plan Opposed By EPA,” The Washington Post, January 7, 1974; Gay, Lance, “EPA Requests Delay on I-66,” The Washington Star-News, January 7, 1974; Shaffer, Ron, “Federal Report Opposes I-66,” The Washington Post, January 11, 1974; Griffiths, Harriett, “I-66 Leg Illegal, DOT Report Says,” The Washington Star-News, January 11, 1974; Shaffer, Ron, “Federal Report Opposed I-66,” The Washington Post, January 11, 1974; Shaffer, Ron, “3d U.S. Panel