History of DC Interstates
Larry Gross
Lost Highways
If you drive south from Baltimore along Interstate 95, you have to make
a choice when
you reach the Capital Beltway: west toward Silver Spring or east toward
College Park? If
you try to continue south, toward the District, you'll find that the
roadway stops dead
about 200 yards later, in a field of flowers.
If you enter the District via the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, you'll
encounter a similar
superhighway stub: Soon after crossing the Potomac, Interstate 66 dumps
you onto local
streets.
If you try to drive to a game at RFK Stadium via the Southeast-Southwest
Freeway, you
can't quite get there, because the freeway ends in a mound of dust about
a mile short of
your destination.
And if you drive north along Interstate 395 past the Capitol, keep a
foot near the
brake. About a mile after the tunnel passes the famous dome, the road
dead-ends at New
York Avenue, at the front door of the Church of God and Saints of
Christ.
There was a time when the Washington area was supposed to have 450 miles
of interstate
highways. About 38 of those miles were supposed to pass through the
District of
Columbia. But because of an epic political battle that lasted 22 years,
only 10 were
ever built-and all were finished before the protests started in earnest.
Instead, the Washington area got Metro-all $5 billion and 103 miles of
it. Much of the
money had been earmarked for interstate highways. It was diverted to
subways. But this
was no simple swap on a spreadsheet. The struggle to block
freeway-building wrenched
local politics between 1954 and 1976 like no other issue, involving
public protests,
court decisions, presidential-level politics and cooperation between the
races that
would have been extraordinary in any other era.
Should a single congressman have ordered the city to build certain roads
and bridges,
even though most local residents did not want them? He did.
Should a fledgling city government have knuckled under to that
congressman so it could
get money for Metro? It did.
Could an unlikely coalition of blacks and whites block freeways that
they didn't want,
in a town without any representation in Congress or heavyweight
political experience? It
happened.
Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than
any other major
city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were saved from
destruction. So
were more than 100 square miles of parkland around the metropolitan
area. The city was
spared from freeways bored under the Mall, freeways punched through
stable middle-class
black neighborhoods, freeways tunneled under K Street, freeways that
would have
obliterated the Georgetown waterfront and the Maryland bank of the
Potomac.
full article:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/postmagazine/A50985-2000Nov22.html
Larry Gross
should have checked first.
LarryG
Scott M. Kozel
The _Washington Post MAGAZINE_ is a Sunday magazine supplement with
opinion pieces, delivered with the _Washington Post_ newspaper.
> Instead, the Washington area got Metro-all $5 billion and 103 miles of
> it. Much of the money had been earmarked for interstate highways. It was
> diverted to subways.
The final cost to construct Metrorail has reached $11 billion. It would
be remiss not to mention that 60 miles was placed under contract
1969-1980, including the bulk of the underground mileage, and that the
cost in 2000 adjusted dollars would be $22 billion or more.
The D.C. Interstate highway money transferred from canceled highways to
Metrorail construction was $2 billion, and the transfer took place in
the late 1970s, using the then-estimated costs of the canceled D.C.
Interstate highways and Maryland and Virginia connections.
> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> saved from destruction.
That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
(less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
> So were more than 100 square miles of parkland around
> the metropolitan area.
That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. That would be equal to a
10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area of D.C. and
Arlington. There is nowhere near that much parkland in the metropolitan
area.
The cost estimate to complete the full District of Columbia Interstate
system (I-66, I-95, I-266, I-70S, I-295, I-695) was under $2 billion if
it had been built in the 1970s. This cost included the portions of I-95
and I-70S (today's I-270) from the D.C. border to the I-495 Capital
Beltway in Maryland, and the portion of I-266 in Virginia.
This included 3,650 job displacements, and 1,166 occupied dwelling unit
displacements, with extensive construction of (perhaps total)
replacement housing. The 1971 study book shows plan views of many
nearby places with proposed replacement housing, replacement local
shops, new community centers, new commercial centers, new industrial
parks, and replacement recreational parks. It looks like a good plan
was in place to replace the residences, businesses and parkland that
would have been displaced by the new freeways.
Sources: The design study, _District of Columbia Interstate System_, by
DeLeuw, Cather Associates and Harry Wesse & Associates, LTD, 1971,
prepared for the District of Columbia Department of Highways and
Traffic, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration. This was the last official preliminary
design for the D.C. Interstate system. Several copies are at the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Library (the D.C. city library), which is near the
Gallery Place Metrorail station.
See --
Washington D.C. Interstates and Freeways
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Paul S. Wolf
>
> > So were more than 100 square miles of parkland around
> > the metropolitan area.
>
> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. That would be equal to a
> 10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area of D.C. and
> Arlington. There is nowhere near that much parkland in the metropolitan
> area.
Actually, it would be more than that, as it would include all of DC,
Arlington, AND that part of Alexandria that was in the original DC
before the VA part was retroceded back to VA. (basically everything NE
of the Arlington/Falls Church line extended along King Street then
extended to the Wilson Bridge)
> Sources: The design study, _District of Columbia Interstate System_, by
> DeLeuw, Cather Associates and Harry Wesse & Associates, LTD, 1971,
> prepared for the District of Columbia Department of Highways and
> Traffic, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
> Federal Highway Administration.
One other point to keep in mind is that, as I recall, DeLeuw Cather and
Harry Weese were the general design consultants for WMATA Metro at the
time of the original construction phases in the 70's (when I was working
for the DC Dept. of Highways & Traffic).
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:paul...@cuyctyengineers.org
Traffic Engineer, Cuyahoga County Engineer's Office, Cleveland, Ohio
SP Cook
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > From the Washington Post Magazine:
>
any
> > other major city on the East Coast.
And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic nightmares,
and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry captive, might
actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
And a Metro that nobody rides.
SP Cook
Sherman Cahal
> any
> > > other major city on the East Coast.
>
> And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic
nightmares,
> and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry captive,
might
> actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
Well you still have those dozens of memorials and parks...
> And a Metro that nobody rides.
Hey I have seen *some* people on the metro in 1996 when I made my way
through DC.
Scott M. Kozel
> > > any other major city on the East Coast.
>
> And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic nightmares,
> and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry captive, might
> actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
The District of Columbia has enough land area to retain and develop a
considerable base of light industry and technology businesses.
> And a Metro that nobody rides.
Actually the weekday Metrorail ridership reported by WMATA is about
590,000.
David Jensen
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in
<3A225E68...@mediaone.net>:
>"SP Cook" <PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > From the Washington Post Magazine:
>> >
>> > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than
>> > > any other major city on the East Coast.
>>
>> And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic nightmares,
>> and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry captive, might
>> actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
>
>The District of Columbia has enough land area to retain and develop a
>considerable base of light industry and technology businesses.
But which would suffer most if the Federal government moved to Kansas
City or Omaha: DC, NoVA or MD Suburbs? (no, KC and Omaha are not
options)
>> And a Metro that nobody rides.
>
>Actually the weekday Metrorail ridership reported by WMATA is about
>590,000.
It is quite busy, and useful to the places it goes.
Ron Newman
<koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> > saved from destruction.
>
> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
David Jensen
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote in
<rnewman-2711...@ppp39-239.thecia.net>:
How many miles were actually stopped? 200,000 housing units implies
moving half a million people. Even Robert Moses, no slouch at rebuilding
a city didn't come close to that level of impact.
Rough estimates: The 100 square miles of parkland would support more
than 2,000 miles of 8-lane freeway. The 200,000 housing units would
support another 1,000 miles of 8-lane freeway. They are an order of
magnitude off and metro DC didn't cancel all of their freeways.
Ron Newman
<PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> And a Metro that nobody rides.
Certainly not my experience when I've visited DC. And I've now read
that they are going to move to 8-car trains to relieve crush loading
on some lines at rush hour.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> > > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> > > saved from destruction".
> >
> > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
> > of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> > (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>
> Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
> the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
No (*), and the article specifically referred to the city of Washington
itself (see above). I quoted the official figure in my last post for
the 1,166 dwelling unit displacements for the canceled D.C. Interstate
highways, and that included the canceled connecting segments of those
highways in Maryland and Virginia (I-95, I-70S, I-266).
(*) In 1970 the metropolitan area had about 2.5 million people, so "more
than 200,000" would still be about 25% of all dwelling units in the
metropolitan area. I was being nice when I called it "baloney".
Scott M. Kozel
> >considerable base of light industry and technology businesses.
>
> But which would suffer most if the Federal government moved to Kansas
> City or Omaha: DC, NoVA or MD Suburbs? (no, KC and Omaha are not
> options)
Actually I probably was not clear enough in my statement, that I was
referring to the -potential-.
D.C. would suffer the most under your scenario. Moving the capital is
academic though, since I recall that the cost to move the capital of
Alaska when it was being discussed about 20 years ago, was something
like $20 billion. Imagine what it would cost to move the U.S. capital
in 2000 dollars... And of course financial cost is only one of a number
of major "cost" criteria in such a decision.
Douglas A. Willinger
Ron Newman wrote:
>
> In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> > > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> > > saved from destruction.
> >
> > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
> > of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> > (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>
> Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
> the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
Maybe if you add up all of the alternative alignments studied for a
road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.
But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to explain
the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so again, I
can not explain this, especially considering that the article was about
D.C.)
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
Kenneth Dancy
"Douglas A. Willinger" <doug...@idt.net> wrote in message
news:3A229B01...@idt.net...
11-26-2000)>:
Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
around the metropolitan area. The city was spared from freeways bored under
the Mall, freeways punched through stable middle-class black neighborhoods,
freeways tunneled under K Street, freeways that would have obliterated the
Georgetown waterfront and the Maryland bank of the Potomac.
My interpretation is that the 200,000 is DC only, based on previous sentence
referring to city borders. 100 sq miles refers to metropolitan area. It
would be great if someone from mtr wrote about this to Letters of Washington
Post magazine, preferably Douglas or Scott.
My take is this: That the issue of racism playing a part of the DC freeway
building would have been less of an issue if they had built I-70S in the
original NW DC Bethesda corridor instead of moving it to NE DC. They also
lost a big opportunity to build when it would have been a lot cheaper to do
so. Now the 2 billion dollar figure seems tame compared to projects that
are done now, such as Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Douglas
make a good point that cancelling I-95 through DC and MD, led to overuse of
Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Those structures would have
lasted longer with I-95 through DC.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Douglas A. Willinger" <doug...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> > Maybe if you add up all of the alternative alignments studied for a
> > road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
> > Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
> > worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.
> >
> > But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to explain
> > the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so again, I
> > can not explain this, especially considering that the article was about
> > D.C.)
> >
> <quoted from Lost Highways Article in Washington Post Magazine dated
> 11-26-2000)>:
> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
> around the metropolitan area.
I already specifically replied to that quote, and refuted it. Those
figures are absurd by over two orders of magnitude.
> The city was spared from freeways bored under
> the Mall, freeways punched through stable middle-class black neighborhoods,
> freeways tunneled under K Street, freeways that would have obliterated the
> Georgetown waterfront and the Maryland bank of the Potomac.
> </end of quote>
Those quotes are mostly wrong too.
The only planned freeway tunneled under the Mall was built by 1973, the
3rd Street Tunnel (I-95 then, I-395 now).
The final 1971 plan did not "punch" though any neighborhoods, unless in
one case the New York Avenue area would be considered, but that was a
very dilapidated area then, and was designated a redevelopment
district. It is still mostly empty today.
I-66 in the final plan was planned to be tunneled under the
147-foot-wide K Street, a wise plan.
The comment about the Georgetown waterfront really was not true, since
the existing elevated Whitehurst Freeway there would have been widened.
The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.
> My interpretation is that the 200,000 is DC only, based on previous sentence
> referring to city borders. 100 sq miles refers to metropolitan area.
I think that both quotes were clearly as you say.
> It would be great if someone from mtr wrote about this to Letters of Washington
> Post magazine, preferably Douglas or Scott.
I think we should. As I pointed out in my first post, I clearly
differentiated the _Washington Post MAGAZINE_ from the _Washington Post_
NEWSPAPER. The magazine is essentially opinion pieces.
Actually a lot of the people, events and stages seemed accurate in the
article. It is a shame that they posted some key "facts" that seem so
obviously wrong in favor of smearing the D.C. Interstate system.
> My take is this: That the issue of racism playing a part of the DC freeway
> building would have been less of an issue if they had built I-70S in the
> original NW DC Bethesda corridor instead of moving it to NE DC. They also
> lost a big opportunity to build when it would have been a lot cheaper to do
> so. Now the 2 billion dollar figure seems tame compared to projects that
> are done now, such as Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge.
With increases in the heavy construction consumer price index, triple
that to $6 billion in 2000 dollars.
> Douglas make a good point that cancelling I-95 through DC and MD, led to
> overuse of Springfield interchange and Wilson Bridge. Those structures
> would have lasted longer with I-95 through DC.
Still, the $2 billion was available in the 1970s, and even building just
I-95 alone for about half that price, would have perhaps obviated or
greatly reduced the needed improvements at the Springfield Interchange
and Wilson Bridge. The Wilson Bridge improvements needed today might be
limited to adding one lane each way to the WWB to make it 8 lanes, with
little or no needed improvements to the nearby interchanges and approach
highway. IOW, we might be spending $400 million today instead of $2
billion at the WWB.
Douglas A. Willinger
What about the I-695 South Leg? The 1968 diagonal route would have
crossed invisible beneath the Reflecting Pool, as I-395 now passes
beneath the Mall 3 blocks west of the Capitol.
> The final 1971 plan did not "punch" though any neighborhoods, unless in
> one case the New York Avenue area would be considered, but that was a
> very dilapidated area then, and was designated a redevelopment
> district. It is still mostly empty today.
Unfortunalely, much of the area from the northern end of the I-395 3rd
Street Tunnel to the EAST is being restored.
However, thanks to the configuration of Dunbar HS, only 2 blocks of
homes would have to be demolished, fered than the 1971 plan which would
have taken the more architectually interesting homes immediately along
the north side of New Yoork Avenue.
The area to the WEST of I-395 to Mt. Vernon Square though IS largely
empty. However, Mayor Williams wants to fill it with homes without talk
of at least completing the tunnel first in order to avoid taking more
homes.
> I-66 in the final plan was planned to be tunneled under the
> 147-foot-wide K Street, a wise plan.
Very much so. The Sierra Club ought to be actively promting the I-66
K-Street/New York Avenue as part of their restore the core campaign.
>
> The comment about the Georgetown waterfront really was not true, since
> the existing elevated Whitehurst Freeway there would have been widened.
A 1972 Georgetown working group came up with plans fro an underground
Whitehurst replacement, which went nowhere in the climate of "not
another inch" of new highway construction.
>
> The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
> Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.
It does not extend into D.C., even though this could be accomplished in
an envirnmentally sensible manner, ala I-70 in Colorado's Glenwood
Canyon, via recycling the existing Canal Road for one direction of a 4
lane parkway.
> > My interpretation is that the 200,000 is DC only, based on previous sentence
> > referring to city borders. 100 sq miles refers to metropolitan area.
>
> I think that both quotes were clearly as you say.
The Levey's stated that this 200,000 figure refers to the region,
including but not confined to the District.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
Quote:
---
Silver Spring, Md.: Was there a typographical error in your statement
"More than 200,000 housing units werer saved from destruction." In a
city of roughly 600,000, that would mean that one of every three
residences would have had their "housing unit" destryoed by highway
construction. I find that very hard to believe.
Bob Levey and Jane Freundel Levey: That figure referred to housing
units accross the metropolitan area, not just in the city.-- Bob
---
But given how less built up the area is outside the District, I do not
see how that figure is possible- unless the outer boundaries of this
area in question is much larger than one might expect- perhaps
everything between North Carolina and New Jersey?
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
Scott M. Kozel
>
> The Levey's stated that this 200,000 figure refers to the region,
> including but not confined to the District.
>
> http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
>
> Quote:
>
> "More than 200,000 housing units werer saved from destruction." In a
> city of roughly 600,000, that would mean that one of every three
> residences would have had their "housing unit" destryoed by highway
> construction. I find that very hard to believe.
>
> Bob Levey and Jane Freundel Levey: That figure referred to housing
> units accross the metropolitan area, not just in the city.-- Bob
Then they are rapidly losing credibility with me, since it is outrageous
to suggest that regional unbuilt highway plans would have removed "more
than 200,000 housing units". The real figure was probably 1/100 of
that. T
Washington (the District of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population
in the 1960s and 1970s (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over
two-thirds of all housing units in the city.
In 1970 the metropolitan area had about 2.5 million people, so "more
than 200,000" would still be about 25% of all dwelling units in the
metropolitan area.
That is ridiculous.
Robert Cote
<doug...@idt.net> wrote:
Even then 100 sq miles is some 11 thousand miles of 2x2
right-of-way. That represents some 30 times more freeway centerline
miles than we see now in the DC Urbanized Area. Just plain
unbelievable. .
C. P. Zilliacus
> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders
> > than any other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000
> > housing units were saved from destruction.
>
> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the
> District of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s
> and 1970s (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over
> two-thirds of all housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you
> slice it.
What hasn't been mentioned here (and was not mentioned by Mr. and Ms.
Levey) is the massive loss of jobs that the District of Columbia has
suffered since the decision was made to not build any more urban
freeways in D.C. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, many of them jobs
that were filled by residents of D.C. One example - People's Drug
(now CVS) used to have a large warehouse and distribution center in
N.E. Washington, off of New York Avenue. This operation moved first
to Alexandria, Virginia, and some years later to Fredericksburg,
Virginia. There are still D.C. residents that drive the long trip
south (ironically, along the completed sections of I-95, now 395 inside
the Beltway) to their jobs in Fredericksburg.
Other examples include commercial printing plants that used to be in
N.E. Washington, now gone forever, and, as Levey should be reminded,
the production presses of the Washington Post itself, moved to
Springfield, Virginia and College Park, Maryland.
So D.C. residents are bearing the brunt of highway-related job losses,
just like they took most of the misery associated with the four terms
of Marion S. Barry, Jr. as mayor (Mr. Barry was also somewhat
prominent as a D.C. anti-freeway activist).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
scott
>> 11-26-2000)>:
I read this article and my impression was that people were opposed to it
because it was far too much freeway. If they justt tried to run 66 under K
street amd complete 95 thru the district and forget all of the other stuff
would it have been built?? Seems like the planners tried to do way too much
and instead didn't build enough.
>The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
>Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.
>
What??? How did it get moved to Virginia from MD? Amazing the things the
ancients could accomplish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott
dtw-msp-cph-dca/iad-bwi
ARMOURER ERIC
Once upon a time I was employed in the construction litigation business in DC
and lived there from Oct 1985-to Oct 1991 since in had been a road geek for
many years I decided to to do a lot of reasearch into the DCfreeway plans.
This included going to the DC main library, the Rockville city library which is
an official state depository for MD documents and walking most of the DC
freeway system via adjoining roads. From that this is my opinion on this.
First of all DC was very different in the '60's and 70's back then there was
very little develpment much past say 5 miles outside the beltway and
fortunately MD had the sense to purchase a lot of their right of way fro these
roads when they were still undeveloped farmland. There is a swath of forrest
right behind my old White Flint area office for an abandoned freeway. But:
Although I wanted to see a more substantial freeway network in DC I feel that
they would have made some critical mistakes for an area like DC. I will
address these for each road.
North Central Frwy: IMHO the raod alignment along the current Red Line made
sense but the design was UGLY even in the late 60's drawings I saw the road
looked like a 40's era NYC freeway" bad accel and decel lane lengths ugly
trench like design with with poorly impacting visual aspects.
The 6 lane I-695 tunnel under the LInclon Memorial connecting the SW Freeway
with the TR bridge. The portholes were less than 50' on either side of the
Lincoln Memorial and passed underground within 100" of the buildings foundation
under the circle there (I hope I don't need to say more)
I-66 via U street: This always made sense to me, at the time most of the
houses that were to be torn down were allready abandoned for a good 5-10 years
this neighborhood was a slum years B$ the freeway palns were announced.
Allthough there was a lot of revitalization in that area in the late 80's.
Archibald-Glover Parkway (the original I-70s: If this road had been built
Bethesda would be a slum today IMHO. It was planned a a trench freeway
parrallel to Wisconsin Ave form the beltway to Tenly Circle and about 100' west
of Wisconsin.
The GW parkway North Shore/New Whitehust Freeway I-266. There was a time in
the mid 50's that the ,plan was to multiplex US 240 on to the beltway, down the
Cabin John Pkway and along this freeway. I feel this road, though it would
have run along the Georgetown waterfront, was better and is better in design
and asthetic than what is/was there now. The drawings showed some care as to
how the road looked in Georgetown, my main and only problem was that from Mac
Arthur Blvd to I-66 at E strret that 4 of the 8 lanes were an elevated
structure over and in the Potomac River about 30 feet south of the shore.
Norhtwest Freeway:
Should have built it around 1982, wasn't needed before then
ICC in MD: I owned a home at Old Balto RD and Edmonston DR in Rockville in
1986-1988 and I lobbied hard to get this built including the Rockville
Faciltiy.
To sum up my opinion: 2/3 of the planned DC freeway were needed and still are,
however if they had been built according to their 1960's-70's plan I think the
local governments would be begging for Billions to replace and rebuild these
roads because of design/capacity problems but also because they would be
visually ruinous to the DC area of today, plus as mentioned earlier, Bethesda
and that wonderful Metro center up there would not exist it would be an 8 lane
freeway trench.
Eric C. Joseph
James River Armoury
San Diego
P.S. To the owner of the Tacoma Park Design Studio, I wish you were around in
1991, I would have enjoyed working for you.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> >The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
> >Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.
>
> What??? How did it get moved to Virginia from MD? Amazing the things the
> ancients could accomplish.
The Clara Barton Parkway aka George Washington Parkway is in Maryland.
There is also a George Washington Parkway in Virginia.
Larry Gross
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> "SP Cook" <PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > From the Washington Post Magazine:
> > >
> > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than
> > > > any other major city on the East Coast.
> >
> > And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic nightmares,
> > and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry captive, might
> > actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
>
> The District of Columbia has enough land area to retain and develop a
> considerable base of light industry and technology businesses.
>
> > And a Metro that nobody rides.
>
> Actually the weekday Metrorail ridership reported by WMATA is about
> 590,000.
hmmm.. wonder how many cars that would be?
Larry Gross
Ron Newman wrote:
> In article <8vtggu$dmv2$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "SP Cook"
> <PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > And a Metro that nobody rides.
>
> Certainly not my experience when I've visited DC. And I've now read
> that they are going to move to 8-car trains to relieve crush loading
> on some lines at rush hour.
but remember.. transit is a loser and only losers ride it....:-)
Robert Cote
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> > "SP Cook" <PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From the Washington Post Magazine:
> > > >
> > > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its
> > > > > borders than
> > > > > any other major city on the East Coast.
> > >
> > > And what do we learn from this? Least Interstates, most traffic
> > > nightmares,
> > > and a rotting urban core that, but for DC unique one-industry
> > > captive, might
> > > actually be the first great old city in the US to simply die out.
> >
> > The District of Columbia has enough land area to retain and develop
> > a
> > considerable base of light industry and technology businesses.
> >
> > > And a Metro that nobody rides.
> >
> > Actually the weekday Metrorail ridership reported by WMATA is about
> > 590,000.
>
> hmmm.. wonder how many cars that would be?
>
150,000. That's a whopping increase of 2.7% to the 3.5 million
people driving 23 miles daily. BFD. .
Hank Eisenstein
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
"C. P. Zilliacus" <patrick....@mix.cpcug.org> wrote in message
news:8vui8e$9r9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>,
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders
SPUI
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:1qzU5.1864$ao2.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Even then 100 sq miles is some 11 thousand miles of 2x2
> right-of-way. That represents some 30 times more freeway centerline
> miles than we see now in the DC Urbanized Area. Just plain
> unbelievable. .
Would interchanges add a lot? Or were interchanges planned to be simple slip
ramps to frontage roads (which would neccesitate an entire block cleared for
the whole length btw)?
--
Daniel Moraseski - from Orlando FL, originally from Manalapan NJ
Now attending MIT (Cambridge MA (near Boston))
http://spui.twu.net - FL NJ and Boston roads, and a list of SPUIs
Editor of http://roadlinks.cjb.net (highway cat of Open Directory Project)
Robert Cote
Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
> How can you know those jobs would not have left anyway? -Hank
One can look at where the jobes went for comparison and one could
also remember how expensive it is to move in the first place. There
needs to be a strong motivation to move these kinds of operations.
Douglas A. Willinger
SPUI wrote:
>
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:1qzU5.1864$ao2.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> > Even then 100 sq miles is some 11 thousand miles of 2x2
> > right-of-way. That represents some 30 times more freeway centerline
> > miles than we see now in the DC Urbanized Area. Just plain
> > unbelievable. .
>
> Would interchanges add a lot? Or were interchanges planned to be simple slip
> ramps to frontage roads (which would neccesitate an entire block cleared for
> the whole length btw)?
The earlier plans included some large interchanges, such as the 1959
plans for the I-70S (Cross Park Freeway extension through Mt. Pleasant
with the I-66 North Leg at 14th Street and U Street, or the late
1950s-1960s plans for the I-66 Center Leg at Florida Avenue NW to met
the I-95 Center Leg (which would have continued today's I-395 north of
New York Avenue, along New Jersey Avenue), or the mid 1950s to early
1960s plan for the original East Leg along 11th Street with the South
East Freeway, all of these which would have taken homes.
The latter plans (e.g. 1971) included one large sprawling interchange
between the I-95 North Central Freeway, the I-95 North Leg (connection
to today's I-395 3rd Street tunnel/ex-I-95 Center Leg), and the I-295
East Leg, then rerouted to virtually avoid neighborhoods with a routing
to RFK Stadium; however this interchange was located in railyards and
hence did not take homes or parklands.
All plans, including the original Florida Avenue/U Street I-66 and to a
lesser extent the latter K Street Tunnel alternative would have had the
large interchange that exists today near the Watergate, which could be
buried as part of a revived I-66 K Street Tunnel and hence reclaimed for
parkland.
The other interchanges in the later plans were generally slip ramps that
take relatively little space, with a good number as tunnel ramps
constructed within existing right of ways. Few featured clover-leaf
style ramps.
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
Brian ten Siethoff
> > > > And a Metro that nobody rides.
> > >
> > > Actually the weekday Metrorail ridership reported by WMATA is about
> > > 590,000.
> >
> > hmmm.. wonder how many cars that would be?
> >
>
> 150,000. That's a whopping increase of 2.7% to the 3.5 million
> people driving 23 miles daily. BFD. .
But an increase of what percentage on the roads to the places Metro
actually goes? Let's see what happens when 150,000 cars are added to I-66,
US 50, I-395, South Capitol Street, etc., during rush hour.
Your statistic is meaningless and misleading.
Brian ten Siethoff
.......................................................................................
Robert Cote wrote:
In article <3A2328BB...@mail.NO.utexas.SPAM.edu>, Brian ten
Siethoff <bt...@mail.NO.utexas.SPAM.edu> wrote:
Which is it? Meaningless OR misleading? Obviously you don't like
the answer or you don't understand the answer but neither maskes it
meanigless or misleading.590,000 boardings is 245,000 round trips. The average vehicle
carries 1.6 persons for the equiv of 150,000 vehicles.If Metrorail actually only ran durring rush hours and only carried
people that would otherwise only drive on the routes you mention
you'd have a point. I'm also being generous as to the total effect
of Metrorail. One would only have to look at the park'n'ride lots
to realize that there's a whole lot (sorry) of cars that are only
partially being taken off the roads that I am giving Metrorail full
credit as having releived.Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate) statistic,
and you're missing the point.
Comparing Metrorail ridership to the use of the entire road network
in the D.C. area is ridiculous. A analogous comparison would be passenger
miles traveled on sidewalks in D.C. vs. passenger miles traveled on streets
and highways. One would find that sidewalks carry a tiny percentage
of total trips (on a passenger mile basis). Therefore, one might
conclude that sidewalks are a gross waste of taxpayer money and advocate
the abolition of sidewalk funding in urban areas and the abandonment
of sidewalk maintenance.
David Jensen
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in
<3A22B23B...@mediaone.net>:
>"Kenneth Dancy" <kdancy@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Douglas A. Willinger" <doug...@idt.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe if you add up all of the alternative alignments studied for a
>> > road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
>> > Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
>> > worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.
>> >
>> > But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to explain
>> > the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so again, I
>> > can not explain this, especially considering that the article was about
>> > D.C.)
>> >
>> <quoted from Lost Highways Article in Washington Post Magazine dated
>> 11-26-2000)>:
>> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
>> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
>> saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
>> around the metropolitan area.
>
>I already specifically replied to that quote, and refuted it. Those
>figures are absurd by over two orders of magnitude.
They reiterated it today at
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
Total idiocy. They did claim that it applied to the entire metro area,
but it is still incredible. The numbers they are using imply that more
than 3,000 miles or highways were canceled in metro DC.
>I think we should. As I pointed out in my first post, I clearly
>differentiated the _Washington Post MAGAZINE_ from the _Washington Post_
>NEWSPAPER. The magazine is essentially opinion pieces.
Hey it's the newspaper's magazine. They are responsible for the
propaganda that goes into it.
Robert Cote
<sp...@mit.NOSPDAMMedu> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:1qzU5.1864$ao2.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> > Even then 100 sq miles is some 11 thousand miles of 2x2
> > right-of-way. That represents some 30 times more freeway
> > centerline miles than we see now in the DC Urbanized Area.
> > Just plain unbelievable. .
>
> Would interchanges add a lot? Or were interchanges planned to be
> simple slip ramps to frontage roads (which would neccesitate an
> entire block cleared for the whole length btw)?
Sure, interchanges would add a lot, as would the additional sound
barrier and environmental mitigation and as you note, whole parcel
purchases and intersections. I just did a rough take the current DC
Urbanized Area centerline freeway miles, 307 and add 30 lanes in
each direction to make those existing freeways actually cover an
additional 100 sq miles.
Let's be generous and say it's "only" 5500 new 2x2 miles of freeway
if you want. The point was to show how silly the 100 sq miles claim
was and is. Think about this way if you wish; adding ten times the
existing centerline miles of freeways would require r-o-ws 350 feet
wide! How wide does a SPUI get anyway. ;-)
David Jensen
Larry Gross <lcg...@erols.com> wrote in <3A22E64D...@erols.com>:
>
>
>Ron Newman wrote:
>
>> In article <8vtggu$dmv2$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "SP Cook"
>> <PAC...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > And a Metro that nobody rides.
>>
>> Certainly not my experience when I've visited DC. And I've now read
>> that they are going to move to 8-car trains to relieve crush loading
>> on some lines at rush hour.
>
>but remember.. transit is a loser and only losers ride it....:-)
Thanks, Big Don.
I've driven in DC and I've Metroed in DC and driving is generally more
convenient, though parking is not. I like trains. DC has a decent train
system, but it isn't as convenient as it needs to be to be successful
(successful defined as being able to pay it's own way).
Robert Cote
Siethoff <bt...@mail.NO.utexas.SPAM.edu> wrote:
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > > > > And a Metro that nobody rides.
> > > >
Robert Cote
> Robert Cote wrote:
> > Brian ten Siethoff <bt...@mail.NO.utexas.SPAM.edu> wrote:
> > > Your statistic is meaningless and misleading.
> >
> > Which is it? Meaningless OR misleading? Obviously you don't like
> > the answer or you don't understand the answer but neither maskes it
> > meanigless or misleading.
> >
> > 590,000 boardings is 245,000 round trips. The average vehicle
> > carries 1.6 persons for the equiv of 150,000 vehicles.
> >
> > If Metrorail actually only ran durring rush hours and only carried
> > people that would otherwise only drive on the routes you mention
> > you'd have a point. I'm also being generous as to the total effect
> > of Metrorail. One would only have to look at the park'n'ride lots
> > to realize that there's a whole lot (sorry) of cars that are only
> > partially being taken off the roads that I am giving Metrorail full
> > credit as having releived.
> >
> > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
> > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
>
> You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate)
> statistic, and you're missing the point.
Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
spent refuting a "worthless" statistic. Don't read too much into
this. The quality of the vehicles Metrorail replaces has some value
that a simple 1:1 comparison ignores. Conversely it is wrong to
think of fixed rail transit like Metrorail as anything other than an
urban preservation subsidy.
> Comparing Metrorail ridership to the use of the entire road
> network in the D.C. area is ridiculous.
I agree. Imagine how much Metrorail would cost if it were anywhere
near as comprehensive and responive as the woefully neglected DC
metro roads infrastructure. If 2.7% of the miles costs $400 million
in subsidies then the proportional roads budget would be $15 billion.
That's pure additional subsidy BTW.
Brian ten Siethoff
Robert Cote wrote:
<snip>
> > > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
> > > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
> >
> > You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate)
> > statistic, and you're missing the point.
>
> Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
> you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
> with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
> spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
I do not disagree with your estimates of annual passenger miles traveled
in the D.C. area. That's why I didn't attempt to refute it. My point
is that Metro is not designed or intended to carry a large share of the
total passenger miles in the D.C. area. It's designed to accommodate a
high volume of passengers traveling between origins and destinations
that generate a large demand for travel.
Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more efficiently than
rail, if designed properly and adequately funded. Nobody can deny that
public transportation requires a subsidy to survive. I think you and
others have done a great job of proving that and backing that up here.
My favorite: for the per-passenger cost of Austin's proposed light rail
system, each projected rider could instead be given a Lexus by the
transit agency.
> The quality of the vehicles Metrorail replaces has some value
> that a simple 1:1 comparison ignores. Conversely it is wrong to
> think of fixed rail transit like Metrorail as anything other than an
> urban preservation subsidy.
>
I've always thought of public transportation on some level as exactly
that: an "urban preservation subsidy". In some ways, the Metro belongs
in the same category as the Smithsonian, the Lincoln Memorial, Rock
Creek Park, and other public amenities. The Metro is just one more
thing that makes Washington, D.C., a great city, IMHO. It allows for a
dense urban area where I can work, eat, shop, and go to football games,
museums, and theaters without owning a car. It's a lifestyle I enjoy
living.
There are a lot of people like myself who love to use transit every day
instead of driving alone and dealing with traffic. I know I don't pay
my fair share: all you drivers subsidize my commute heavily, and all I
can say is "Thanks" as I flash my student ID and board the bus for
free. But then I sit down next to a woman who can't afford a car.
Thanks to the bus/light rail/subway she can get to a job across town
that helps her pay rent and buy food and clothing for her kids. Would
you rather subsidize mass transit or a bigger welfare check for her?
As a taxpayer, I have a right to support urban preservation subsidies.
I will patronize, stand up for, and most importantly vote for public
transportation anywhere I live in the U.S. because I think the social
benefits of public transportation are worth the taxes we spend on it.
You have a right to lay out all of the facts in front of the people and
try to convince them that they're wasting their money. You shouldn't
have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll never benefit from mass
transit because you're an a/c repairman or parent or otherwise
unable/unwilling to depend on a fixed-route service. Well shucks,
that's too bad. You've been overruled by the majority. In this
wonderful mix of capitalism, socialism, and democracy, that's all that
counts.
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
I too have driven auto and rode Metro in D.C. I generally agree. You
generally
can get around in a car ( hmm.. wonder why it ain't much worse with all
those interstates that did not get built) but the real cruncher is finding
a place
to park. If you live in Fredericksburg... taking the VRE and connecting
with
Metro is a popular option ( though there still are thousands and thousands
of SOV commuters - many of whom bitch about the 'unfairness' of the HOV
lanes).
Larry Gross
Robert Cote wrote:
That's an impressive statistic! Is that typical?
Kenneth Dancy
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A22D8CA...@mediaone.net...
> dkf...@aol.comma (scott) wrote:
> >
> > >The George Washington Parkway was built on the Maryland bank of the
> > >Potomac by 1970, and no further highways were planned there.
> >
> > What??? How did it get moved to Virginia from MD? Amazing the things
the
> > ancients could accomplish.
>
> The Clara Barton Parkway aka George Washington Parkway is in Maryland.
>
> There is also a George Washington Parkway in Virginia.
I also recall that Clara Barton Parkway was renamed from George Washington
Parkway. I recall from older maps (early 1970's) that the two roadways that
exist now were going to be connected (by a bridge over the Potomac I guess)
north of the American Legion Bridge.
C. P. Zilliacus
Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> In article <8vuqi2$2e0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Hank
> Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> > > C.P.Z. wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its
> > > > > borders than any other major city on the East Coast. More
> > > > > than 200,000 housing units were saved from destruction.
> > > >
Robert, that is entirely correct.
Washington has never been much of a city for industrial facilties - the
main product is (and was) paper. Still, the population consumes
things, just like any other city. So there were, at one time, some
pretty major warehouses and distribution centers in the city, and
printing plants. Only a very few left now, as it has become
progressively more difficult for trucks to move around in the District
of Columbia (due to larger permitted truck dimensions and the same
(often narrow) city streets). The only two major printing plants left
in the city are money losers - the Government Printing Office (GPO),
and the semi-official voice of the inside-the-Beltway Republican Party,
"Rev." (and convicted felon) Moon's _Washington_ _Times_. Besides the
U.S. Postal Service and one Fedex center, the only big warehouse left
belongs to the May Company/Hecht Company (for some reason, they have
remained in Washington).
C. P. Zilliacus
Brian ten Siethoff <bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Robert Cote wrote:
[snipped]
> > Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
> > you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
> > with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
> > spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
>
> I do not disagree with your estimates of annual passenger miles
> traveled in the D.C. area. That's why I didn't attempt to refute it.
> My point is that Metro is not designed or intended to carry a large
> share of the total passenger miles in the D.C. area. It's designed
> to accommodate a high volume of passengers traveling between origins
> and destinations that generate a large demand for travel.
I don't think you were around when Metro was being designed and touted
to the citizens of the region that pay for it. I was. It was
advertised as the solution to all regional congestion problems, and as
a TOTAL substitute for the now-cancelled D.C. Interstate system.
It has turned out to be neither.
> Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more efficiently
> than rail, if designed properly and adequately funded. Nobody can
> deny that public transportation requires a subsidy to survive.
Why? Does public transportation "need" Section 13(c) to inflate the
wages and salaries paid to lucky employees of certain transit
authorities?
[more snipped]
> I've always thought of public transportation on some level as exactly
> that: an "urban preservation subsidy". In some ways, the Metro
> belongs in the same category as the Smithsonian, the Lincoln
> Memorial, Rock Creek Park, and other public amenities.
Then it should not be funded out of transportation dollars (using
reasoning like the above).
> The Metro is just one more thing that makes Washington, D.C., a
> great city, IMHO. It allows for a dense urban area where I can work,
> eat, shop, and go to football games, museums, and theaters without
> owning a car. It's a lifestyle I enjoy living.
Fine. Hundreds of thousands of former D.C. residents apparently do not
agree with you, as they have "voted with their feet" since Metro
construction started (and the freeways were cancelled). Oh, and D.C.'s
core is not really all that dense, thanks to the federal limit on the
height of buildings.
> There are a lot of people like myself who love to use transit every
> day instead of driving alone and dealing with traffic. I know I
> don't pay my fair share: all you drivers subsidize my commute
> heavily, and all I can say is "Thanks" as I flash my student ID and
> board the bus for free. But then I sit down next to a woman who
> can't afford a car.
In many cases, it would have been cheaper to purchase her a car,
rather than build an under-performing rail system for billions of
dollars.
> Thanks to the bus/light rail/subway she can get to a job across town
> that helps her pay rent and buy food and clothing for her kids.
Where might that job be? In the Washington region (even in Maryland,
but especially in Virginia), the job growth has been in areas not
served by Metro. I'm curious - where is the light rail in the
Washington area?
> Would you rather subsidize mass transit or a bigger welfare check
> for her?
How about purchasing her a car - a form of "empowerment" ?
> As a taxpayer, I have a right to support urban preservation
> subsidies. I will patronize, stand up for, and most importantly
> vote for public transportation anywhere I live in the U.S. because
> I think the social benefits of public transportation are worth the >
taxes we spend on it.
Then fund it out of "urban preservation," not transportation (as in
motor fuel tax revenues).
> You have a right to lay out all of the facts in front of the people
> and try to convince them that they're wasting their money. You
> shouldn't have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll never
> benefit from mass transit because you're an a/c repairman or
> parent or otherwise unable/unwilling to depend on a fixed-route
> service. Well shucks, that's too bad. You've been overruled by the
> majority. In this wonderful mix of capitalism, socialism, and
> democracy, that's all that counts.
Transit has been losing market share for _decades_. This has happened,
in large part, because the U.S., as a _nation_, has become more
affuent. It has also happened because people value their time (more
than you do, apparently), and because they make _rational_ decisions
about transportation mode choices.
Robert Cote
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles
> > > > for a region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually.
>
> ...My point is that Metro is not designed or intended to carry
> a large share of the total passenger miles in the D.C. area.
> It's designed to accommodate a high volume of passengers
> traveling between origins and destinations that generate a large
> demand for travel.
I disagree on two points. First, this is not how Metro was sold to
the public. It was supposed to carry a large share of the passenger
miles, justifying its' high price. Second, Metro does not serve
bpth origins and destinations but rather only one end of any trip.
The park'n'ride lots and truly ugly bus transfer policies being
clear evidence that Metro does a poor job of serving full trips.
> Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more
> efficiently than rail,
Agreed but then this is the entire point is it not? Metro by any
enumerable transportion measure is by far the worst transportation
choice of the 2 1/2 modes being discussed. Roads (POVs) and buses
having signifigant overlap of interests and common benifits. Based
on price and performance to date every other use of the money
would have benefitted more people sooner. Basically we spent the
money on the most expensive, least flexible, longest construction
time, most disruptive and poorest performing option and justifying
it with vague exogenous benefits based on faulty premises that were
known to be wrong when presented.
> if designed properly and adequately
> funded.
Aye, there's the rub. We've seen in this specific instance that
Metro has consumed the vast proportion of transportation funding for
decades and the result is the second worst congestion in the nation.
I should note that the TTI/STPP formula for calculating "congestion"
is both fraught with poor science and unfairly penalizes places with
fewer freeway miles per population regardless of actual measured
travel delays. I have severe problems with STPP and their
methodology but it's all most people have to work with.
> Nobody can deny that public transportation requires a
> subsidy to survive.
You have been around m.t.r very long. ;^)
For a really hearty laugh go over to rail americas and read about
High Speed Rail ridership and revenue projections.
> I think you and others have done a great job
> of proving that and backing that up here. My favorite: for the
> per-passenger cost of Austin's proposed light rail system, each
> projected rider could instead be given a Lexus by the transit
> agency.
Oh yes. The land where Dahmus rules. He posted again last week
that Austin pays for its' own roads through property and sales
taxes. The real funding documantation is available:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/ats/citizens_guide.pdf
I actually did this first for my local Metrolink. A very sucessful
commuter rail that my county subsidizes in order for people with
average $65k salaries to keep their jobs in downtown Los Angeles
while their diesel trains idle overnight in a poor neighborhood with
EPA "severe" air quality.
> > The quality of the vehicles Metrorail replaces has some value
> > that a simple 1:1 comparison ignores. Conversely it is wrong
> > to think of fixed rail transit like Metrorail as anything other
> > than an urban preservation subsidy.
> >
>
> I've always thought of public transportation on some level as
> exactly that: an "urban preservation subsidy". In some ways, the
> Metro belongs in the same category as the Smithsonian, the
> Lincoln Memorial, Rock Creek Park, and other public amenities.
> The Metro is just one more thing that makes Washington, D.C., a
> great city, IMHO. It allows for a dense urban area where I can
> work, eat, shop, and go to football games, museums, and theaters
> without owning a car. It's a lifestyle I enjoy living.
There is one difference. Transit as a transportation choice is not
a public service of the same class as clean water, sanitary sewers
or safe home heating. If you don't pay your water and sewer bill,
the DWP will cut you off. They don't offer monthy passes and they
don't do any means testing. Are you saying transit is more
important than clean water and the public health issues of sewerage?
When was transit promoted to greater importance? Was this a
Proposition or Legislative law?
Would the DWP be considered effective if they encouraged water usage
and electricity consumption by giving their services out for free
(or deeply discounted)?
In the context of a public agency that loses money on every
passenger, attempts to build ridership and foster dependency looks a
lot like empire building by beauracrats and social engineering by
transit planners.
Even welfare as a public service is based on
demonstrated need. Transit does not require demonstrate need.
> There are a lot of people like myself who love to use transit
> every day instead of driving alone and dealing with traffic. I
> know I don't pay my fair share: all you drivers subsidize my
> commute heavily, and all I can say is "Thanks" as I flash my
> student ID and board the bus for free. But then I sit down next
> to a woman who can't afford a car. Thanks to the bus/light
> rail/subway she can get to a job across town that helps her pay
> rent and buy food and clothing for her kids. Would you rather
> subsidize mass transit or a bigger welfare check for her?
As I mention above, you are almost asking for means testing.
> As a taxpayer, I have a right to support urban preservation
> subsidies. I will patronize, stand up for, and most importantly
> vote for public transportation anywhere I live in the U.S.
> because I think the social benefits of public transportation are
> worth the taxes we spend on it.
I've written before:
This is why you can be called an urban preservationist. Not a bad
thing but advocating for greater acceptance of a development
pattern because it is your personal preference is exactly the
complaint of people on the other side of the arguement (sprawl
apologists). If you wish personal preference to be a determining
factor for future patterns of land use and transportation
infrastructure your view would lose to the overwhelming majority.
There is also the moral arguement about your desire to live in a
virbant urban environment but your apparent unwillingness to pay for
it.
I've also agreed with you:
What, then, makes rail [transit] worthwhile?
Urban land use, historic preservation, community pride,
social justice, unique geographical constraints, the list
is long. The list just doesn't have very much to do with
transportation solutions however.
> You have a right to lay out all of the facts in front of the
> people and try to convince them that they're wasting their money.
You misunderstand my motivation. People somehow think my strident
insistence on accurate economic
and ridership performance is anti-transit. The only people who
think that accurate economic and ridership information is
anti-transit are those who must think the truth hurts transit
advocacy. I think the truth helps transit advocacy. Look at what
happened in LA. There's a law that prohibits local money going to
underground transit construction. It will be a generation before
that law fades and a half century before its' effects wil be
reversed. Do you think that law passed because the people were
upset that they were told the truth? No. They over- reacted
because they were lied to.
> You shouldn't have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll
> never benefit from mass transit because you're an a/c repairman
> or parent or otherwise unable/unwilling to depend on a
> fixed-route service. Well shucks, that's too bad. You've been
> overruled by the majority.
Be careful what you wish for.
> In this wonderful mix of capitalism,
> socialism, and democracy, that's all that counts.
Where's the capitalism?
C. P. Zilliacus
Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
[snipped]
> I should note that the TTI/STPP formula for calculating "congestion"
> is both fraught with poor science and unfairly penalizes places with
> fewer freeway miles per population regardless of actual measured
> travel delays. I have severe problems with STPP and their
> methodology but it's all most people have to work with.
I am not certain that STPP had any big role in e the formula that the
folks at TTI have developed. The formula that TTI uses is not at all
perfect, but (and this is a BIG but) - it's a whole lot better than
nothing at all. Additionally, I consider the people at TTI to be
honest and straightforward. They document what they do (including
assumptions and the like), unlike the developers of "Most endangered"
lists and most environmental extremists, who like to blab about t
[more snipped]
> In the context of a public agency that loses money on every
> passenger, attempts to build ridership and foster dependency looks a
> lot like empire building by beauracrats and social engineering by
> transit planners.
Except that most users of the transportation system CANNOT use Metro to
get where they want to travel.
[snipped]
> You misunderstand my motivation. People somehow think my strident
> insistence on accurate economic
> and ridership performance is anti-transit. The only people who
> think that accurate economic and ridership information is
> anti-transit are those who must think the truth hurts transit
> advocacy. I think the truth helps transit advocacy. Look at what
> happened in LA. There's a law that prohibits local money going to
> underground transit construction. It will be a generation before
> that law fades and a half century before its' effects wil be
> reversed. Do you think that law passed because the people were
> upset that they were told the truth? No. They over- reacted
> because they were lied to.
This is EXACTLY correct!
> > You shouldn't have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll
> > never benefit from mass transit because you're an a/c repairman
> > or parent or otherwise unable/unwilling to depend on a
> > fixed-route service. Well shucks, that's too bad. You've been
> > overruled by the majority.
>
> Be careful what you wish for.
>
> > In this wonderful mix of capitalism,
> > socialism, and democracy, that's all that counts.
>
> Where's the capitalism?
Not in transportation policy.
Robert Cote
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > 590,000 boardings is 245,000 round trips. The average vehicle
> > carries 1.6 persons for the equiv of 150,000 vehicles.
> >
> > If Metrorail actually only ran durring rush hours and only carried
> > people that would otherwise only drive on the routes you mention
> > you'd have a point. I'm also being generous as to the total effect
> > of Metrorail. One would only have to look at the park'n'ride lots
> > to realize that there's a whole lot (sorry) of cars that are only
> > partially being taken off the roads that I am giving Metrorail full
> > credit as having releived.
> >
> > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
> > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
>
> That's an impressive statistic! Is that typical?
Yes, Portland has managed 2.9%, Boston, New York and Los Angeles,
(yes, Los Angeles) are close but pretty much everywhere else transit
is a blip on the radar and falling as share.
Ross Williams
<bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Cote wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
>> > > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
>> >
>> > You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate)
>> > statistic, and you're missing the point.
>>
>> Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
>> you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
>> with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
>> spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
I agree with Robert - it is amazing how much time people waste getting
sucked into refuting his worthless facts.
>
>I do not disagree with your estimates of annual passenger miles traveled
>in the D.C. area. That's why I didn't attempt to refute it. My point
>is that Metro is not designed or intended to carry a large share of the
>total passenger miles in the D.C. area. It's designed to accommodate a
>high volume of passengers traveling between origins and destinations
>that generate a large demand for travel.
>
>Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more efficiently than
>rail, if designed properly and adequately funded. Nobody can deny that
>public transportation requires a subsidy to survive. I think you and
>others have done a great job of proving that and backing that up here.
>My favorite: for the per-passenger cost of Austin's proposed light rail
>system, each projected rider could instead be given a Lexus by the
>transit agency.
>
>> The quality of the vehicles Metrorail replaces has some value
>> that a simple 1:1 comparison ignores. Conversely it is wrong to
>> think of fixed rail transit like Metrorail as anything other than an
>> urban preservation subsidy.
>>
>
>I've always thought of public transportation on some level as exactly
>that: an "urban preservation subsidy". In some ways, the Metro belongs
>in the same category as the Smithsonian, the Lincoln Memorial, Rock
>Creek Park, and other public amenities. The Metro is just one more
>thing that makes Washington, D.C., a great city, IMHO. It allows for a
>dense urban area where I can work, eat, shop, and go to football games,
>museums, and theaters without owning a car. It's a lifestyle I enjoy
>living.
>
>There are a lot of people like myself who love to use transit every day
>instead of driving alone and dealing with traffic. I know I don't pay
>my fair share: all you drivers subsidize my commute heavily, and all I
>can say is "Thanks" as I flash my student ID and board the bus for
>free. But then I sit down next to a woman who can't afford a car.
>Thanks to the bus/light rail/subway she can get to a job across town
>that helps her pay rent and buy food and clothing for her kids. Would
>you rather subsidize mass transit or a bigger welfare check for her?
>
>As a taxpayer, I have a right to support urban preservation subsidies.
>I will patronize, stand up for, and most importantly vote for public
>transportation anywhere I live in the U.S. because I think the social
>benefits of public transportation are worth the taxes we spend on it.
>
>You have a right to lay out all of the facts in front of the people and
>try to convince them that they're wasting their money. You shouldn't
>have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll never benefit from mass
>transit because you're an a/c repairman or parent or otherwise
>unable/unwilling to depend on a fixed-route service. Well shucks,
>that's too bad. You've been overruled by the majority. In this
Ross Williams
<patrick....@mix.cpcug.org> wrote:
>In article <3A2375F5...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Brian ten Siethoff <bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Robert Cote wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>> > Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
>> > you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
>> > with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
>> > spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
>>
>> I do not disagree with your estimates of annual passenger miles
>> traveled in the D.C. area. That's why I didn't attempt to refute it.
>> My point is that Metro is not designed or intended to carry a large
>> share of the total passenger miles in the D.C. area. It's designed
>> to accommodate a high volume of passengers traveling between origins
>> and destinations that generate a large demand for travel.
>
>I don't think you were around when Metro was being designed and touted
>to the citizens of the region that pay for it. I was. It was
>advertised as the solution to all regional congestion problems, and as
>a TOTAL substitute for the now-cancelled D.C. Interstate system.
But then can your memory be believed. Based on the other CCKC factoids here
it cannot. Try to provide some reference for what is a factual claim. All
you need is a quote from an advertisement for Metro that says it will be "a
total substitute for the .. Interstate system."
>
>It has turned out to be neither.
>
>> Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more efficiently
>> than rail, if designed properly and adequately funded. Nobody can
>> deny that public transportation requires a subsidy to survive.
>
>Why? Does public transportation "need" Section 13(c) to inflate the
>wages and salaries paid to lucky employees of certain transit
>authorities?
>
>[more snipped]
>
>> I've always thought of public transportation on some level as exactly
>> that: an "urban preservation subsidy". In some ways, the Metro
>> belongs in the same category as the Smithsonian, the Lincoln
>> Memorial, Rock Creek Park, and other public amenities.
>
>Then it should not be funded out of transportation dollars (using
>reasoning like the above).
>
>> The Metro is just one more thing that makes Washington, D.C., a
>> great city, IMHO. It allows for a dense urban area where I can work,
>> eat, shop, and go to football games, museums, and theaters without
>> owning a car. It's a lifestyle I enjoy living.
>
>Fine. Hundreds of thousands of former D.C. residents apparently do not
>agree with you, as they have "voted with their feet" since Metro
>construction started (and the freeways were cancelled). Oh, and D.C.'s
>core is not really all that dense, thanks to the federal limit on the
>height of buildings.
>
>> There are a lot of people like myself who love to use transit every
>> day instead of driving alone and dealing with traffic. I know I
>> don't pay my fair share: all you drivers subsidize my commute
>> heavily, and all I can say is "Thanks" as I flash my student ID and
>> board the bus for free. But then I sit down next to a woman who
>> can't afford a car.
>
>In many cases, it would have been cheaper to purchase her a car,
>rather than build an under-performing rail system for billions of
>dollars.
>
>> Thanks to the bus/light rail/subway she can get to a job across town
>> that helps her pay rent and buy food and clothing for her kids.
>
>Where might that job be? In the Washington region (even in Maryland,
>but especially in Virginia), the job growth has been in areas not
>served by Metro. I'm curious - where is the light rail in the
>Washington area?
>
>> Would you rather subsidize mass transit or a bigger welfare check
>> for her?
>
>How about purchasing her a car - a form of "empowerment" ?
>
>> As a taxpayer, I have a right to support urban preservation
>> subsidies. I will patronize, stand up for, and most importantly
>> vote for public transportation anywhere I live in the U.S. because
>> I think the social benefits of public transportation are worth the >
>taxes we spend on it.
>
>Then fund it out of "urban preservation," not transportation (as in
>motor fuel tax revenues).
>
>> You have a right to lay out all of the facts in front of the people
>> and try to convince them that they're wasting their money. You
>> shouldn't have to pay to subsidize my ride, right? You'll never
>> benefit from mass transit because you're an a/c repairman or
>> parent or otherwise unable/unwilling to depend on a fixed-route
>> service. Well shucks, that's too bad. You've been overruled by the
>> majority. In this wonderful mix of capitalism, socialism, and
>> democracy, that's all that counts.
>
>Transit has been losing market share for _decades_. This has happened,
>in large part, because the U.S., as a _nation_, has become more
>affuent. It has also happened because people value their time (more
>than you do, apparently), and because they make _rational_ decisions
>about transportation mode choices.
>
>
Ross Williams
>In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
><koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
>> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
>> > saved from destruction.
>>
>> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
>> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
>> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
>> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>
>Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
>the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would evaluate a
regional decision based on its impact within a narrow political boundary.
But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was said - whatever contradicts
his world view is BALONEY!
Robert Cote
ro...@cfst.org wrote:
Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific claim in
another forum.
> But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was
> said - whatever contradicts his world view is BALONEY!
Evidence? Thot not.
Ross Williams
metropolitan areas when they no longer needed access to railroads.
Ross Williams
<patrick....@mix.cpcug.org> wrote:
>In article <nyCU5.2452$ao2.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
>> In article <8vuqi2$2e0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Hank
>> Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > C.P.Z. wrote:
>> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its
>> > > > > borders than any other major city on the East Coast. More
>> > > > > than 200,000 housing units were saved from destruction.
>> > > >
>> > > > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington
>> > > > (the District of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population
>> > > > in the 1960s and 1970s (less now), so "more than 200,000"
>> > > > would be over two-thirds of all housing units in the city.
>> > > > Baloney, any way you slice it.
>> > >
>> > > What hasn't been mentioned here (and was not mentioned by Mr.
>> > > and Ms. Levey) is the massive loss of jobs that the District of
>> > > Columbia has suffered since the decision was made to not build
>> > > any more urban freeways in D.C. Hundreds of thousands of jobs,
>> > > many of them jobs that were filled by residents of D.C. One
>> > > example - People's Drug (now CVS) used to have a large
>> > > warehouse and distribution center in N.E. Washington, off of
>> > > New York Avenue. This operation moved first to Alexandria,
>> > > Virginia, and some years later to Fredericksburg, Virginia.
>> > > There are still D.C. residents that drive the long trip south
>> > > (ironically, along the completed sections of I-95, now 395
>> > > inside the Beltway) to their jobs in Fredericksburg.
>> > >
>> > > Other examples include commercial printing plants that used to
>> > > be in N.E. Washington, now gone forever, and, as Levey should
>> > > be reminded, the production presses of the Washington Post
>> > > itself, moved to Springfield, Virginia and College Park,
>> > > Maryland.
>> > >
>> > > So D.C. residents are bearing the brunt of highway-related job
>> > > losses, just like they took most of the misery associated with
>> > > the four terms of Marion S. Barry, Jr. as mayor (Mr. Barry was
>> > > also somewhat prominent as a D.C. anti-freeway activist).
>>
>> > How can you know those jobs would not have left anyway? -Hank
>>
>> One can look at where the jobes went for comparison and one could
>> also remember how expensive it is to move in the first place. There
>> needs to be a strong motivation to move these kinds of operations.
>
>Robert, that is entirely correct.
No he isn't.
>
>Washington has never been much of a city for industrial facilties - the
>main product is (and was) paper. Still, the population consumes
>things, just like any other city. So there were, at one time, some
>pretty major warehouses and distribution centers in the city, and
>printing plants. Only a very few left now, as it has become
>progressively more difficult for trucks to move around in the District
>of Columbia (due to larger permitted truck dimensions and the same
>(often narrow) city streets). The only two major printing plants left
>in the city are money losers - the Government Printing Office (GPO),
>and the semi-official voice of the inside-the-Beltway Republican Party,
>"Rev." (and convicted felon) Moon's _Washington_ _Times_. Besides the
>U.S. Postal Service and one Fedex center, the only big warehouse left
>belongs to the May Company/Hecht Company (for some reason, they have
>remained in Washington).
Which is a pattern repeated throughout the country. Regional warehouses
need cheap land and access to suppliers and customers. Both are better on
the urban fringe - no matter how many highways you shove through
neighborhoods in the urban core.
Robert Cote
ro...@cfst.org wrote:
> No he can't. And wharehouse operations moved to the urban fringe
> in most metropolitan areas when they no longer needed access to
> railroads.
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:24:04 -0500, "Hank Eisenstein"
> <nix...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >How can you know those jobs would not have left anyway? -Hank
>
A normal response would include context.
A normal response would also be a postscript/addendum rather than a
preface.
A normal response would incorporate previously distributed replies
that indicate clearly that not only did I call the situation
correctly wrt corporate relocation but that subsequent posters have
confirmed this view as well.
The only conclusion; your posts are not normal.
Douglas A. Willinger
Ross Williams wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:14:42 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
> >In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
> ><koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> >> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> >> > saved from destruction.
> >>
> >> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
> >> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> >> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> >> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
> >
> >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
> >the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>
> Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would evaluate a
> regional decision based on its impact within a narrow political boundary.
> But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was said - whatever contradicts
> his world view is BALONEY!
--
Ross:
Being that you are not very familar with Washington, D.C. and the
surrounding area,
your statement above was uncalled for.
Douglas A. Willinger
Ross Williams wrote:
> Which is a pattern repeated throughout the country. Regional warehouses
> need cheap land and access to suppliers and customers. Both are better on
> the urban fringe - no matter how many highways you shove through
> neighborhoods in the urban core.
Nor highways that you do not build in the industrial areas of the urban
core,
where much of it is underutilized: a.k.a. much of Washington, D.C.'s New
York Avenue.
Robert Cote
ro...@cfst.org wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:06:24 GMT, C. P. Zilliacus
> <patrick....@mix.cpcug.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <nyCU5.2452$ao2.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> In article <8vuqi2$2e0$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Hank
> >> Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > C.P.Z. wrote:
> >> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within
> >> > > > > its borders than any other major city on the East
> >> > > > > Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were saved from
> >> > > > > destruction.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test.
> >> > > > Washington (the District of Columbia) had about 750
> >> > > > thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s (less now),
> >> > > > so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> >> > > > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice
> >> > > > it.
> >> > >
> >> > > What hasn't been mentioned here (and was not mentioned by
> >> > > Mr. and Ms. Levey) is the massive loss of jobs that the
> >> > > District of Columbia has suffered since the decision was
> >> > > made to not build any more urban freeways in D.C.
> >> > > Hundreds of thousands of jobs, many of them jobs that were
> >> > > filled by residents of D.C. One example - People's Drug
> >> > > (now CVS) used to have a large warehouse and distribution
> >> > > center in N.E. Washington, off of New York Avenue. This
> >> > > operation moved first to Alexandria, Virginia, and some
> >> > > years later to Fredericksburg, Virginia. There are still
> >> > > D.C. residents that drive the long trip south (ironically,
> >> > > along the completed sections of I-95, now 395 inside the
> >> > > Beltway) to their jobs in Fredericksburg.
> >> > >
> >> > > Other examples include commercial printing plants that
> >> > > used to be in N.E. Washington, now gone forever, and, as
> >> > > Levey should be reminded, the production presses of the
> >> > > Washington Post itself, moved to Springfield, Virginia and
> >> > > College Park, Maryland.
> >> > >
> >> > > So D.C. residents are bearing the brunt of highway-related
> >> > > job losses, just like they took most of the misery
> >> > > associated with the four terms of Marion S. Barry, Jr. as
> >> > > mayor (Mr. Barry was also somewhat prominent as a D.C.
> >> > > anti-freeway activist).
> >>
> >> > How can you know those jobs would not have left anyway?
> >> > -Hank
> >>
> >> One can look at where the jobes went for comparison and one
> >> could also remember how expensive it is to move in the first
> >> place. There needs to be a strong motivation to move these
> >> kinds of operations.
> >
> >Robert, that is entirely correct.
>
> No he isn't.
Why? Everyone following this thread NEEDS to know why. Not only
that you disagree. You'd do that based only on your lack of
principles. No, we need FActs. Why isn't a comparison of jobs
migration to urban policies or the corporate cost benifit analyses
of distribution facilities a legitimate course of study? Shall we
add these unanswered questions to Vol I No 3?
> ...Regional warehouses need cheap land and access to suppliers
> and customers.
Really? Never thot customers came into this equation. Indeed
Walmart built the largest retail empire on the planet by ignoring
your sage prognostigations. When you were preparing your research
prior to publishing this amazing and groundbreaking bomshell, did
you assemble an appendix of references? Thot not. It was published
was it not? After all your flat out claim would set the entire
previous three decades of retail theory on edge. Must have made you
and your sponsor (cfst.org) rich. After all it is not sensible
transportation to place retail outlets in the places that Walmart
has located. Boy will they be suprised to find out they've been
doing everything wrong all this time. Did they reply when you were
published?
David Jensen
Ross Williams <ro...@cfst.org> wrote in
<laa82t4b9rkilgumv...@4ax.com>:
>
>But then can your memory be believed. Based on the other CCKC factoids here
>it cannot. Try to provide some reference for what is a factual claim. All
>you need is a quote from an advertisement for Metro that says it will be "a
>total substitute for the .. Interstate system."
>
Feel free to point out the errors.
David Jensen
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:14:42 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>>In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>, "Scott M. Kozel"
>><koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
>>> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
>>> > saved from destruction.
>>>
>>> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
>>> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
>>> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
>>> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>>
>>Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
>>the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>
>Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would evaluate a
>regional decision based on its impact within a narrow political boundary.
>But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was said - whatever contradicts
>his world view is BALONEY!
This one is worse than baloney. I expect that the Washington Post will
be correcting their error soon.
Let's try a reality check: 100 sq. miles will support more than 2,000
miles of 8-lane freeway. It would take more than 1,000 miles of 8-lane
freeway to destroy 200,000 residences. Most of the miles in the metro
area were built. We know what the impact was.
The authors do not have any evidence to support their assertion. I've
asked for it. They have not provided it yet, because it doesn't exist.
Ron Newman
<tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved
> > >throughout the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
> >
> > Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would
> > evaluate a regional decision based on its impact within a narrow
> > political boundary.
>
> Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific claim in
> another forum.
I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other forum?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Douglas A. Willinger
Robert Cote wrote:
>
> In article <rnewman-2811...@ppp39-60.thecia.net>,
> rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
> > In article <X0WU5.1583$YG.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, Robert
> > Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units
> > > > >saved throughout the metropolitan area, not just within the
> > > > >District?
> > > >
> > > > Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone
> > > > would evaluate a regional decision based on its impact within
> > > > a narrow political boundary.
> > >
> > > Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific
> > > claim in another forum.
> >
> > I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other
> > forum?
>
>
> http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
>
> And the associated, bulletin boards. .
--
Guess what?
I just tried logging onto the Washington Post page above and followed
the links towards the
bulletin board page "D.C.'s Lack of Highways" only to find that it no
longer appears in the
list on the left hand portion of the page. I was able to access it only
by typing my last name into their search engine, and can say that it
still has the same number of messages -- 16 -- that it did about 24
hours earlier.
However, when I tried to add a message inquiring about the lack of a
link for "D.C.'s Lost Highways", I got a message saying that that board
was accepting NO new messages! (This, only a day and a half after the
Levey's November 27, 2000 1:00 PM Chat, which came at about the time
this board was established)..
Is this the Levey's or the Washington Post's way of dealing with truth,
by suppressing it rather than dealing with it?
*IF* this was an intentional act by these writers to shy away from
debate and refuse to acknowledge the truth about D.C.'s highways, it
indicates a lack of respectful, professional journalism. IF so, and if
the writers fail to address the issue of the misleading statements in
their article of November 26, 2000, it can serve as a clear indication
of the moral bankruptcy of those that do not care one whit about the
environment or what happens to other communities, such as that which is
now happening in Virginia in southern Alexandria with Hunting Terrace
and Hunting Towers, as well as Freedman's and St. Mary's Cemetery and
the other adjoining neighborhoods, as exemplified by those who would
simply oppose all unbuilt D.C. Freeways without regard to the
environment or to communities, and who would flippantly dismiss the
issues of what is happening in Virginia largely if not exclusively due
to the lack of an I-95 link through and for the District, until 2009,
long after significant portions of Hunting Towers and other
neighborhoods are demolished.
IF, on the other hand this a merely a coincidental technical problem
with the WP site, then we can expect the Levey's to deal with the truth
in a forthright manner with documentation and any neccessary
retraction/clarification in the WP print edition. Certainly they would
not want to mislead people into believing that D.C. highways would take
200,000 homes, 100 square miles of parkland, that I-95 through D.C.
would REQUIRE 4,000 homes, nor that a 22 year battle was waged against
highway plans that would have taken this number of homes.
Douglas A. Willinger
I just tried it again. No link as reported above, but now the reply
features works, whereas it
would not about half an hour ago.
It is still at 16 messages, howver the last two messages, one by David
Jensen, the other by myself, is now marked as read, whereas this was not
the case when I checked earlier today.
At this momment in time, the proverbial jury is still out; we shall have
to wait and see. I do hope that this is only a cooincidential technical
problem and not some form of censorship: after all, the issues and the
truth do matter.
John
--
___>^..^<___
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:sug82to40n181u5sh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:56:05 -0800, in misc.transport.road
> Ross Williams <ro...@cfst.org> wrote in
> <laa82t4b9rkilgumv...@4ax.com>:
>
>
> >
> >But then can your memory be believed. Based on the other CCKC factoids
here
> >it cannot. Try to provide some reference for what is a factual claim.
All
> >you need is a quote from an advertisement for Metro that says it will be
"a
> >total substitute for the .. Interstate system."
> >
>
> Feel free to point out the errors.
>
404 not found
your reference has run aground
John
___>^..^<___
"Ross Williams" <ro...@cfst.org> wrote in message
news:d5a82tolnhi4uba56...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:08:06 -0500, Brian ten Siethoff
> <bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Robert Cote wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > > Regardless, Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a
> >> > > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
> >> >
> >> > You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate)
> >> > statistic, and you're missing the point.
> >>
> >> Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
> >> you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced it
> >> with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
> >> spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
>
> I agree with Robert - it is amazing how much time people waste getting
> sucked into refuting his worthless facts.
>
You forget - he does not deal in "facts",
rather, he much prefers "FActs"
wrob
> I disagree on two points. First, this is not how Metro was sold to
> the public. It was supposed to carry a large share of the passenger
> miles, justifying its' high price.
When Metro was designed, it was intended to be twice as extensive
as it is by the present date. Which is to say, it was intended to be
approximately as extensive as the interurban system was when
Metro was first contemplated. As it is, Metro serves a small fraction
of the metropolitan DC area, and serves it very well. 300,000 people
a day is what percentage of the ambulatory citizens who live in
Metro's catchment area? Say again? (do the math and don't try
and claim that Reston, for instance, is inadequately served by
Metro. Reston with its 60,000 people and Tysons Corner with
its hundreds of thousands of jobs are not served by Metro and
won't be for at least another 6 years.)
> Second, Metro does not serve
> bpth origins and destinations but rather only one end of any trip.
> The park'n'ride lots and truly ugly bus transfer policies being
> clear evidence that Metro does a poor job of serving full trips.
As a daily Metro rider, I have to say this info is a bit dated.
Metro is no longer known as a BART-type system.
All but 6 stations in Virginia and all but 10 stations in MD
either are, or are slated to become, urban zones dense enough
to turn LB into a rail-basher. Indeed, this is the PRIMARY
rationale for radial extension of Metro: from the day it broke
ground, Metro was not funded to reach far enough into
auto-friendly territory to be considered a car friendly system.
OTOH, the few segments where commuter oriented stations
are strung together are among the most inefficient in the system.
All the ridership increase is happening in suburban
EMPLOYMENT and REDEVELOPMENT corridors.
Which is to say that without some loss-leader extensions
out into the boonies that will in turn spur more sprawl,
Metro is truly irrelevant to those not close to the system.
Look at a map of Fairfax county and calculate the
relative impact of Metro on Northern Virginia today,
and after the Dulles extension is built. Visit Ballston
and compare to Tysons Corner.
> > Roads (and buses) can accommodate this demand much more
> > efficiently than rail,
What demand? Demand for people driving between their
Chantilly cul-de-sac and the local strip mall? This is
a huge percentage of total trips that no new "facility"
can improve (i.e. improve the way these suburbs
are designed for local travel.) With Metro, and
our traffic, placing a station at the strip mall renders
all further auto travel unnecessary.
> Agreed but then this is the entire point is it not? Metro by any
> enumerable transportion measure is by far the worst transportation
> choice of the 2 1/2 modes being discussed. Roads (POVs) and buses
> having signifigant overlap of interests and common benifits. Based
> on price and performance to date every other use of the money
> would have benefitted more people sooner. Basically we spent the
> money on the most expensive, least flexible, longest construction
> time, most disruptive and poorest performing option and justifying
> it with vague exogenous benefits based on faulty premises that were
> known to be wrong when presented.
There was no other option on the table for serving the
hub of the region, which still dwarfs any other
employment hub in size.
> > Nobody can deny that public transportation requires a
> > subsidy to survive.
>
> You have been around m.t.r very long. ;^)
>
> For a really hearty laugh go over to rail americas and read about
> High Speed Rail ridership and revenue projections.
If Metro wanted to make an operating profit, all it would
have to do is wait for ridership to increase 30% as projected.
subsidies could then be focused on maintenance.
BTW, operating subsidies for Metro is an utter non-issue
in the Washington area. You might as well come here and
complain that DC is spending too much repaving its roads
(which it is, because the *&^* telecom companies
witing to erect hundreds of thousands of square feet of
data centers around the new New York Ave. Metro station
are busy tearing up newly paved roads for free.)
> I actually did this first for my local Metrolink. A very sucessful
> commuter rail that my county subsidizes in order for people with
> average $65k salaries to keep their jobs in downtown Los Angeles
> while their diesel trains idle overnight in a poor neighborhood with
> EPA "severe" air quality.
Whereas, say, a surface-route North Central Freeway
(pace Doug's Takoma Park Highway Design Studio) would
do nothing of the sort to DC area.
http://www.wpni.com/wp-dyn/style/postmagazine/A50985-2000Nov22.html
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:aLZU5.2722$YG.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> "John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
> > "Ross Williams" <ro...@cfst.org> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I agree with Robert - it is amazing how much time people waste
> > > getting
> > > sucked into refuting his worthless facts.
> > >
> > You forget - he does not deal in "facts",
> > rather, he much prefers "FActs"
>
> You two duke it out. Brian and I (Robert) are discussing DC transit
> and roads while you two obsess.
>
> Why is "Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a region
> that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually." worthless to a
> discussion of Metrorail regional transportation performance?
>
What percent of roads/rails are used by each mode.
Repeatedly we've shown that what's important is the -where- of the road.
Robert Cote
Robert Cote
> > >> > > for a
> > >> > > region that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually. .
> > >> >
> > >> > You repeat a modified version of your worthless (but accurate)
> > >> > statistic, and you're missing the point.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, I've just made a point you have no reply for IMO. At least
> > >> you've withdrawn the "meaningless and misleading" and replaced
> > >> it
> > >> with the ever popular "worthless." Amazing how much time you've
> > >> spent refuting a "worthless" statistic
> >
> > getting
> > sucked into refuting his worthless facts.
> >
> You forget - he does not deal in "facts",
> rather, he much prefers "FActs"
You two duke it out. Brian and I (Robert) are discussing DC transit
and roads while you two obsess.
Why is "Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a region
that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually." worthless to a
discussion of Metrorail regional transportation performance?
Perhaps dps.org should be nominated for spam portal status as well?
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
> --
> ___>^..^<___
>
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:aLZU5.2722$YG.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > "John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
> > > "Ross Williams" <ro...@cfst.org> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Robert - it is amazing how much time people waste
> > > > getting
> > > > sucked into refuting his worthless facts.
> > > >
> > > You forget - he does not deal in "facts",
> > > rather, he much prefers "FActs"
> >
> > You two duke it out. Brian and I (Robert) are discussing DC
> > transit
> > and roads while you two obsess.
> >
> > Why is "Metrorail provides 1.2 billion passenger miles for a region
> > that consumes 48 billion pass miles annually." worthless to a
> > discussion of Metrorail regional transportation performance?
> >
>
> What percent of roads/rails are used by each mode.
37,400 all day Metro Station parking spaces and you really want to
go into mode share? Be careful what you wish for or we'll have to
deduct for these vehicles from the Metrorail totals. Indeed, this
seems to be evidence that Metro Stations create localized road
congestion.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> North Central Frwy: IMHO the raod alignment along the current Red Line made
> sense but the design was UGLY even in the late 60's drawings I saw the road
> looked like a 40's era NYC freeway" bad accel and decel lane lengths ugly
> trench like design with with poorly impacting visual aspects.
The 1971 final study that I cited had the of the I-95 portion of the NCF
mostly depressed with about 40% covered, with lots of Joint Development
of nearby places with proposed replacement housing, replacement local
shops, new community centers, new commercial centers, new industrial
parks, and new recreational parks.
It was a good design with modern design elements including full
shoulders and well-designed ramps.
See my post "New Maps - Unbuilt D.C. Interstate 95".
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is also a George Washington Parkway in Virginia.
>
> I also recall that Clara Barton Parkway was renamed from George Washington
> Parkway. I recall from older maps (early 1970's) that the two roadways that
> exist now were going to be connected (by a bridge over the Potomac I guess)
> north of the American Legion Bridge.
That appeared on one thoroughfare plan that I was aware of, but it was
never on any actual TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan).
Exile on Market Street
<doug...@idt.net> wrote:
> I just tried it again. No link as reported above, but now the reply
> features works, whereas it
> would not about half an hour ago.
>
> It is still at 16 messages, howver the last two messages, one by David
> Jensen, the other by myself, is now marked as read, whereas this was not
> the case when I checked earlier today.
ISTR that the list at the left listed the "most current" discussions on the
message boards, and that there were only three or four of them when I
checked there yesterday.
Perhaps the previous time you tried it, the discussion was being moved from
the current discussions to the archives?
--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"Believe me. You wouldn't want to go here if *your* mother was the
president."
--Penn President Judith Rodin on her son Alex, off to Duke
---------------------------------------------(_Philadelphia_, Nov. 2000)--
David Jensen
Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
<anca2tojviiisk399...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:32 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <X0WU5.1583$YG.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, Robert Cote
>><tech...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved
>>> > >throughout the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>>> >
>>> > Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would
>>> > evaluate a regional decision based on its impact within a narrow
>>> > political boundary.
>>>
>>> Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific claim in
>>> another forum.
>>
>>I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other forum?
>
>If anyone wonders why I no longer read Cote, here is the "retraction":
>
>"Silver Spring, Md.: Was there a typographical error in your statement
>"More than 200,000 housing units were saved from destruction."? In a
>city of roughly 600,000, that would mean that one of every three
>residents would have had their "housing unit" destroyed by highway
>construction. I find that very hard to believe.
>
>Bob Levey and Jane Freundel Levey: That figure referred to housing
>units across the metropolitan area, not just in the city.--Bob "
But they still pulled it out of thin air and, because of that, have not
been able to provide references to either the 200,000 housing units or
the 100 sq. miles of parkland.
At what point do ignorant exaggerations become lies in your book?
Kenneth Dancy
They should just admit that the numbers are incorrect. The fact that they
apply the 200K to the larger metro area does not make it correct. There
have been other posts that imply that this figure is also preposterous.
Robert Cote
<kdancy@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote:
Where is the newspapers' fact checking staff on this? Ross is
excused from his leaping to conclusions, his blind hatred of anyone
who dares question his opinions as facts makes his comments
worthless. I'm concerned with this blatant historical revisionism
that neither the authors nor publishers seem interested in
correcting. Is there some sort of Anti-Pulitzer Prize for the worst
examples of published journalism? We could call them Rossies.
I nominate the Washington Post for the first ever Rossy Award.
Their blatant disregard for factual content in the field of
transportation policy and recent historical FAct is a shining
example of agenda masquearading as information. .
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Kenneth Dancy" <kdancy@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > They should just admit that the numbers are incorrect. The fact
> > that they apply the 200K to the larger metro area does not make
> > it correct. There have been other posts that imply that this
> > figure is also preposterous.
>
> Where is the newspapers' fact checking staff on this? Ross is
> excused from his leaping to conclusions, his blind hatred of anyone
> who dares question his opinions as facts makes his comments
> worthless. I'm concerned with this blatant historical revisionism
> that neither the authors nor publishers seem interested in
> correcting. Is there some sort of Anti-Pulitzer Prize for the worst
> examples of published journalism? We could call them Rossies.
>
> I nominate the Washington Post for the first ever Rossy Award.
> Their blatant disregard for factual content in the field of
> transportation policy and recent historical FAct is a shining
> example of agenda masquearading as information. .
No, Robert, there is a huge difference here ---
As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
staff.
I have over the years found the _Washington Post_ newspaper to be a
reliable, even-handed source of information about local transportation
issues, both highway and transit. They have strongly supported the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge project and the Springfield Interchange project,
something that the authors of that opinion piece probably would not have
done. That article was entirely out of character of the newspaper.
Ron Newman
<tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units
> > > > >saved throughout the metropolitan area, not just within the
> > > > >District?
> > > Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific
> > > claim in another forum.
> >
> > I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other
> > forum?
>
> Yes.
>
> http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
I don't see a retraction there. I see a statement that the
200,000 applies to the entire metro area, not just the District
(pretty much what I asked in the first place).
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
>
> > What percent of roads/rails are used by each mode.
>
> 37,400 all day Metro Station parking spaces and you really want to
> go into mode share? Be careful what you wish for or we'll have to
> deduct for these vehicles from the Metrorail totals. Indeed, this
> seems to be evidence that Metro Stations create localized road
> congestion.
There are a whole variety of ways to get to a WMATA rail station, and
there are dozens of feeder bus lines that interface with the suburban
and outer urban stations. WMATA Metrobus carries over 600,000 weekday
riders, and the bus-rail component is over 130,000. Three of the
terminal Metrorail stations have adjacent interface with commuter rail
lines.
There are usually 6 different ways to access suburban and outer urban
Metrorail stations - walking, bike-n-ride, bus-n-ride, cab-n-ride,
kiss-n-ride, and park-n-ride. This diversity of station access provides
a larger area of immediate service to the station, a radius of a mile in
the case of the first one, and several miles or more in the case of the
other five.
Stations in the CBD would typically not have bus-n-ride, cab-n-ride,
kiss-n-ride, and park-n-ride.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > > I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other
> > > forum?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/levey1127.htm
>
> 200,000 applies to the entire metro area, not just the District
> (pretty much what I asked in the first place).
1970 metropolitan population - 2.4 million.
That is about 25% of all dwelling units in the metropolitan area.
Impossible
Douglas A. Willinger
Exile on Market Street wrote:
>
> In article <3A2460D1...@idt.net>, "Douglas A. Willinger"
> <doug...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> > I just tried it again. No link as reported above, but now the reply
> > features works, whereas it
> > would not about half an hour ago.
> >
> > It is still at 16 messages, howver the last two messages, one by David
> > Jensen, the other by myself, is now marked as read, whereas this was not
> > the case when I checked earlier today.
>
> ISTR that the list at the left listed the "most current" discussions on the
> message boards, and that there were only three or four of them when I
> checked there yesterday.
>
> Perhaps the previous time you tried it, the discussion was being moved from
> the current discussions to the archives?
I am happy to report that I recieved an answer from a webmaster at the
Washington Post within about 24 hours of my inquiry about the missing
link, which I have found out has been restored.
I do look forward to reading the replies of the Levey's and would hope
that they encourage others to discuss this fascinating topic upon the
"D.C.'s Lack of Highway's" board. I was dissapointed that they did not
relay my post inviting the chat room participants to migrate over to the
board. One hour just does not do this issue any justice.
David Jensen
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in
<3A258AE3...@mediaone.net>:
>As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
>article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
>_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
>pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
>staff.
So the Washington Post Magazine is not the analogue of the New York
Times Magazine?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
> >article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
> >_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
> >pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
> >staff.
>
> So the Washington Post Magazine is not the analogue of the New York
> Times Magazine?
I don't know much about the latter. The former is a small supplement
about 5 by 10 inches in size, and about 1/4 inch thick. In 30 years,
I've never seen the newspaper post those kinds of figures.
David Jensen
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in
<3A25A38A...@mediaone.net>:
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
>> >article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
>> >_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
>> >pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
>> >staff.
>>
>> So the Washington Post Magazine is not the analogue of the New York
>> Times Magazine?
>
>I don't know much about the latter. The former is a small supplement
>about 5 by 10 inches in size, and about 1/4 inch thick. In 30 years,
>I've never seen the newspaper post those kinds of figures.
The NYT Magazine tends to run long articles about items of interest to
their readers. Imagine the Atlantic Monthly as a NYC weekly.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
> >> >article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
> >> >_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
> >> >pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
> >> >staff.
> >>
> >> So the Washington Post Magazine is not the analogue of the New York
> >> Times Magazine?
> >
> >I don't know much about the latter. The former is a small supplement
> >about 5 by 10 inches in size, and about 1/4 inch thick. In 30 years,
> >I've never seen the newspaper post those kinds of figures.
>
> The NYT Magazine tends to run long articles about items of interest to
> their readers. Imagine the Atlantic Monthly as a NYC weekly.
The _Washington Post Magazine_ seems somewhat similar to _Parade_
magazine.
David Jensen
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in
<3A25DA26...@mediaone.net>:
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> > David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >As I pointed out in another post, the newspaper did not endorse that
>> >> >article, other than allowing an opinion piece to be published in the
>> >> >_Washington Post Magazine_, which is a Sunday supplement of opinion
>> >> >pieces. I don't consider that to be the position of the newspaper
>> >> >staff.
>> >>
>> >> So the Washington Post Magazine is not the analogue of the New York
>> >> Times Magazine?
>> >
>> >I don't know much about the latter. The former is a small supplement
>> >about 5 by 10 inches in size, and about 1/4 inch thick. In 30 years,
>> >I've never seen the newspaper post those kinds of figures.
>>
>> The NYT Magazine tends to run long articles about items of interest to
>> their readers. Imagine the Atlantic Monthly as a NYC weekly.
>
>The _Washington Post Magazine_ seems somewhat similar to _Parade_
>magazine.
Nevermind.
Exile on Market Street
da...@dajensen-family.com wrote:
All of the Sunday newspaper magazines run what are known as "features" --
longer stories on subjects of presumed interest to the magazine's audience.
In the trade, these are not called "opinion pieces" -- those are what run
on a newspaper's editorial or Op-Ed pages -- but it is true that, unlike
hard news stories, these can reflect an author's point of view.
Since _Parade_ is a national Sunday supplement that runs in many newspapers
-- including some, like _The Washington Post_ and _The Philadelphia
Inquirer_, that have their own magazine supplements -- its pieces tend to
be lighter and more service- or celebrity-oriented than the more locally
focused stories in the newspapers' own magazines.
_The New York Times Magazine_ is indeed _sui generis_ in that it often
tackles weighty subjects that are not necessarily New York oriented and
frequently runs issues on a single subject. Since the _NYT_ has a national
audience, this makes sense. But it too can cut close to home: to
celebrate the 100th anniversary of the consolidation of New York City, the
_Times Mag_ ran a cover story that argued that Brooklyn did indeed get the
short end of the stick in consolidation, as opponents in that city had
warned.
But for most of the rest of the magazines, the focus is of necessity local.
Ron Newman
> When Metro was designed, it was intended to be twice as extensive
> as it is by the present date.
Really? What I've always heard is that the present system, about to
be completed with the final Green Line extension, is more or less what
was originally proposed.
Ross Williams
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:31:13 -0500, "Douglas A. Willinger"
<doug...@idt.net> wrote:
>> >> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the District
>> >> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
>> >> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
>> >> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>> >
>> >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved throughout
>> >the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>>
>> Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would evaluate a
>> regional decision based on its impact within a narrow political boundary.
>> But Scott's point is he doesn't like what was said - whatever contradicts
>> his world view is BALONEY!
>
>--
>Ross:
>
>Being that you are not very familar with Washington, D.C. and the
>surrounding area, your statement above was uncalled for.
>
As it turns out the authors of the paper confirmed the fact that they were
talking about the region.
Ross Williams
<kdancy@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote:
>
>"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:s7ja2tc3djsen2478...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:49:29 -0800, in misc.transport.road
>> Ross Williams <aadvocacyt...@iname.com> wrote in
>> <anca2tojviiisk399...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:32 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <X0WU5.1583$YG.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, Robert Cote
>> >><tech...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > >Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved
>> >>> > >throughout the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Likely in fact since I don't see any reason that someone would
>> >>> > evaluate a regional decision based on its impact within a narrow
>> >>> > political boundary.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amazing since the author has already retracted the specific claim in
>> >>> another forum.
>> >>
>> >>I didn't know that. Can you provide a pointer to this other forum?
>> >
>> >If anyone wonders why I no longer read Cote, here is the "retraction":
>> >
>> >"Silver Spring, Md.: Was there a typographical error in your statement
>> >"More than 200,000 housing units were saved from destruction."? In a
>> >city of roughly 600,000, that would mean that one of every three
>> >residents would have had their "housing unit" destroyed by highway
>> >construction. I find that very hard to believe.
>> >
>> >Bob Levey and Jane Freundel Levey: That figure referred to housing
>> >units across the metropolitan area, not just in the city.--Bob "
>>
>> But they still pulled it out of thin air and, because of that, have not
>> been able to provide references to either the 200,000 housing units or
>> the 100 sq. miles of parkland.
>>
>> At what point do ignorant exaggerations become lies in your book?
>
>They should just admit that the numbers are incorrect. The fact that they
>apply the 200K to the larger metro area does not make it correct. There
>have been other posts that imply that this figure is also preposterous.
>
I haven't seen any posts that would support this claim. CCKC "imply" all
sorts of things such as their claim that the above was a "retraction".
ablea...@my-deja.com
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders
than any
> > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units
were
> > saved from destruction.
>
> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the
District
> of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
Perhaps the authors are referring to the entire area, not just the
District of Columbia.
>
> > So were more than 100 square miles of parkland around
> > the metropolitan area.
>
> That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. That would be equal
to a
> 10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area of D.C. and
> Arlington. There is nowhere near that much parkland in the
metropolitan
> area.
Then it's OBVIOUS that they're talking about the metro area and not
just DC. This is made painfully clear by the term "metropolitan area"
in the very same sentence, which you apparently missed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Cote
wrote:
200,000 dwelling units in metro D.C. does not pass the giggle test
either. As to the 100 sq miles of parkland... worse. The authors
lied because they wanted to believe. You are enabling. It's time
to force the newspaper to disavow the article.
wrob
> In article <3A247147...@erols.com>, wrob <wr...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > When Metro was designed, it was intended to be twice as extensive
> > as it is by the present date.
>
> Really? What I've always heard is that the present system, about to
> be completed with the final Green Line extension, is more or less what
> was originally proposed.
Only in the sense that the present system now about to be completed,
is more or less what the federal gov't agreed to *fund* under
the present capital arrangement, which will have to be rewritten
for future extensions. Thus it is the 1969 "Adopted Regional System".
HOWEVER the design of the ARS was created under the assumption
that the 1969 ARS would be complete within *10 years*.
Plans for a much more extensive system that were drawn
up in the 50's -- less than 20 years after the trolleys to those far-out
places went defunct -- were deferred in an effort to get funding for
as much as possible.
You may say that this indicated that a system twice as big was
a bad idea; but folks would be asserting the same thing had
Gerald Ford succeeded in cutting off Metro's funding when
only 1/3 of it was built, leaving a white elephant! As it is,
I think Metro barely extends far enough to *justify* the
spacing between its stations, and attendant rate of
suburban ridership growth! Extending Metro to, say,
Laurel, Fair Oaks, Dulles or Germantown by, say, 1990
would have been a no brainer to the original planners;
They made the big mistake of targeting all the enormous
scads of development in exactly those areas *in anticipation*
of the speedy completion of ARS. Things could have easily
gone the other way, had they been advised to build Metro
in the 70's in anticipation of already approved "transit-oriented"
development, which Congress refused to do. Indeed,
slow growth of Metro may be as much to blame as slow growth
of highways for the present congestion in the Beltway area.
Hank Shirley
Would you believe the article if it said that Bill Clinton's
grandfather weighed 17,000 pounds before he died?
Hank Shirley
> >
> > Is it possible that 200,000 is the number of housing units saved
throughout
> > the metropolitan area, not just within the District?
>
> road; for instance, the early study (1963-64) for the North Central
> Freeway considered about 30 different though overlapping routes, thoe
> worst of which would have taken about 4,100 homes in the District.
>
> But only one of them would have been built, so I am at a loss to
explain
> the 200,000 number. (Outside the District is less built up, so
again, I
> can not explain this, especially considering that the article was
about
> D.C.)
It's nonsense.
Even Hiroshima probably didn't lose that many on 8-6-1945.
Hank Shirley
It does make me guffaw out loud. Is that a giggle test? :)
David Jensen
Hank Shirley <hgsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in
<906rl0$21u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
Guffaws definitely show that the article failed!
"And before you accuse me of "prentending to be a historian," I invite
you to see my history degrees, course work, thesis, and publications
from the last 15 years.
"I readily concede that we used "worst-case" numbers; does that really
make the entire story bad history?" Jane Levey
http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/discussionFrameset.asp?webtag=wpmetro&ctx=&msg=684.26
I am thrilled that this woman is an honest-to-goodness historian. Now, I
don't feel bad at all about treating her like one. Yet, despite my
requests, she has failed to produce any documentation of these
"worst-case" numbers.
I'm sure she must have references because an honest historian would
never make such a "worst case" claim without being able to document it.
Otherwise, her work is worse than "bad history", it's not history at
all. It would only be propaganda and the lies that "True Believers" are
willing to say so they can get at a "Greater Truth". That cannot
possibly be what she wanted to do or what the Washington Post wants in
its pages, could it?
--
What's a pomo historian?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Kenneth Dancy" <kdancy@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote:
> > "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> been able to provide references to either the 200,000 housing units or
> >> the 100 sq. miles of parkland.
> >>
> >> At what point do ignorant exaggerations become lies in your book?
> >
> >They should just admit that the numbers are incorrect. The fact that they
> >apply the 200K to the larger metro area does not make it correct. There
> >have been other posts that imply that this figure is also preposterous.
>
> I haven't seen any posts that would support this claim. CCKC "imply" all
> sorts of things such as their claim that the above was a "retraction".
Then 1) your ISP is dropping posts, and/or 2) you are ignoring many
posts in this thread.
Kenneth Dancy
<ablea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:906him$pdk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A219F95...@mediaone.net>,
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders
> than any
> > > other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units
> were
> > > saved from destruction.
> >
> > That "fact" doesn't even pass the giggle test. Washington (the
> District
> > of Columbia) had about 750 thousand population in the 1960s and 1970s
> > (less now), so "more than 200,000" would be over two-thirds of all
> > housing units in the city. Baloney, any way you slice it.
>
> Perhaps the authors are referring to the entire area, not just the
> District of Columbia.
>
> >
> > > So were more than 100 square miles of parkland around
> > > the metropolitan area.
> >
> to a
> > 10-mile by 10-mile square, or about the entire area of D.C. and
> > Arlington. There is nowhere near that much parkland in the
> metropolitan
> > area.
>
> Then it's OBVIOUS that they're talking about the metro area and not
> just DC. This is made painfully clear by the term "metropolitan area"
> in the very same sentence, which you apparently missed.
It OBVIOUSLY isn't as "painfully clear" to you as it should be.
Here is the text in question (again!!!)
<plagiarize, A HREF="Washington post magazine, dated 11-26-2000">
Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
around the metropolitan area.
</plagiarize>
Metropolitan area only refers to the "100 square miles of parkland". The
statement "200,000 housing units" is in a completely different sentence. If
metro area is supposed to be applied to both facts in the two different
sentences, then perhaps the assertion could be documented this way:
More than 200,000 housing units and 100 square miles of parkland in the
metropolitan area, were saved from destruction.
Much clearer, but the statistics are still "painfully" incorrect.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> <ablea...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Then it's OBVIOUS that they're talking about the metro area and not
> > just DC. This is made painfully clear by the term "metropolitan area"
> > in the very same sentence, which you apparently missed.
>
> It OBVIOUSLY isn't as "painfully clear" to you as it should be.
>
> Here is the text in question (again!!!)
>
> <plagiarize, A HREF="Washington post magazine, dated 11-26-2000">
> Today, Washington has fewer miles of freeways within its borders than any
> other major city on the East Coast. More than 200,000 housing units were
> saved from destruction. So were more than 100 square miles of parkland
> around the metropolitan area.
> </plagiarize>
>
> Metropolitan area only refers to the "100 square miles of parkland". The
> statement "200,000 housing units" is in a completely different sentence. If
> metro area is supposed to be applied to both facts in the two different
> sentences, then perhaps the assertion could be documented this way:
>
> More than 200,000 housing units and 100 square miles of parkland in the
> metropolitan area, were saved from destruction.
>
> Much clearer, but the statistics are still "painfully" incorrect.
Unfortunately, they are kind of "statistics" that people like
"Baloney Boy" Ross Williams like to believe.
Ross Williams
wrote:
The voice of Virginia'sl ong dead highway commissioner, AKA the Virginia
HIghwayman, continues to be heard.
John R Cambron
Ron Newman wrote:
>
> In article <3A247147...@erols.com>, wrob <wr...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > When Metro was designed, it was intended to be twice as extensive
> > as it is by the present date.
>
> Really? What I've always heard is that the present system, about to
> be completed with the final Green Line extension, is more or less what
> was originally proposed.
Right you are, however the ARS as revised in 1970 showed on there
published map as 'future' extensions, A route Red line beyond
Shady Grove to Gremantown along CSX ROW, C route Blue line beyond
Huntington to Farfield along VA US 1, D route Orange line beyond
New Carrollton to Bowie along Amtrak NEC ROW, E route Green line
beyond Greenbelt to Laurel along CSX ROW, F route Green line beyond
Branch Avenue to Brandywine by way of power line ROW east of Branch
Avenue MD 4 south of Capital Beltway MD I 95 495, G route Blue line
to largo (this future extension has been adopted in to the present
ARS and is to have ground breaking before the end of this year),
J route Yellow line beyond Van Dorn to Burke along NS ROW, and K
route Orange line beyond Vienna to Centerville in median of VA I 66.
Two new branches are also shown, Pentagon to Lincolnia by way of
Columbia Pike in Arlington Seminary Road and VA I 395 in Alexandra.
(the junction for this branch was built in to the south end of the
Pentagon Station), the other branch was from east of West Falls
Church station to Dullas Airport in median of Dullas Connector
Road VA 267 and Dullas Access Road (the junction for this branch
was also built, it is under the Haycock Road overpass and one of
the columns that will support the inbound flyover was built see:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Metro_WFCStation_Track.jpg
column stub can be seen in photo between center track and right
track, Haycock Road overpass is the overpass in the distance.)
--
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
Model Railroader HO N John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/ North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================