Capitol Hill Restoration Society • Washington, DC

Councilmember Jim Graham presided over a marathon Public Works and Transportation Committee hearing April 18 on the allocation of 2008 budget funds for the Department of Transportation (DDOT). One major issue was whether the Council should authorize DDOT to start spending money on the proposed Eleventh Street Bridges expansion, or halt construction spending to explore a less expensive, less damaging alternative? Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells also attended for much of the testimony on the project. His views will be key to whatever decision is made.

Readers of the CHRS News will remember that the issue isn’t whether the current bridge needs replacement or whether there should be a new connection northbound to the Anacostia Freeway. Most observers agree with both. Rather, the issue is whether the current 8 lanes should be expanded to 12, a 50 percent increase in freeway lanes between the Eleventh Street Bridges and I-395. As a result of these additions, DDOT projects almost 50,000 more vehicles will cross the Anacostia River at Eleventh Street. Some would access Eleventh Street northbound directly, others would spill off I-395 between Second and Tenth Streets, SE, near Barracks Row and the Ellen Wilson development, and others would continue past Capitol Hill.

While the current projected cost is a minimum of $475 million, that figure is based on last year’s estimates. New cost estimates will rise considerably due to large recent increases in costs of raw materials and energy, almost all to be paid for by DC taxpayers.

The choice for the Council is whether it is wise to spend more than $475 million dollars for the proposed bridge expansions. These expansions would affect our community in various negative ways, including:

increasing the need for parking in the District;
taking people off mass transit; and
increasing health problems related to pollution

DDOT’s own data is inconclusive, showing a traffic decrease by small percentages on some Capitol Hill Streets and an increase in traffic by small percentages on other Capitol Hill streets. Their analysis actually shows increased traffic jams on Pennsylvania Avenue in Ward 7. Traffic on other, heavily traveled Hill streets was not even analyzed. The Council needs to decide whether it would it be smarter and cheaper to redesign the proposed capacity expansion to cause less harm and cost less money.

Norm Marshall, Principal of Smart Mobility, the transportationconsulting firm that analyzed the Environmental Impact Statement for CHRS, was the leadoff witness, and emphasized points raised in the Smart Mobility study (available at www.CHRS.org). Mr. Marshall was asked to be available at this hearing by Chairman Graham.

Marshall was limited in his ability to provide Chairman Graham with answers to questions raised at the previous DDOT oversight hearing because DDOT had failed to provide the necessary data requested by Chairman Graham. Graham expressed disappointment in DDOT but he did ask Mr. Marshall questions that led Marshall to state that in his experience in assisting other large cities with transportation planning, the trend is to reduce rather than to expand freeway capacity into a city, partly because it increases demands for scarce services such as parking. Marshall also said that he knows of no instances where such a large-scale bridge project is being done primarily with local funds.

Testimony in favor of a smaller, cheaper alternative was also provided by CHRS Board members Barbara Eck and Tom Grahame as well as local activists Chris Herman and Pat Taylor.

A key question is whether the proposed expansion violates the Comprehensive Plan. Speaking for the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, an advocacy group of long standing emphasizing appropriate land use and planning, Ward 7’s Laura Richards also advocated for a smaller alternative. She noted that the proposal to increase the Eleventh Street Bridges capacity ‘by 50 percent from 8 lanes to 12 — runs counter to the Comprehensive Plan...,’ which de-emphasizes reliance on cars. The Plan states: ‘...the city does not foresee making significant investments in road widening to accommodate more autos. Instead, the District will continue to manage roadway resources and provide for viable transportation choices throughout the city.’

Opponents of a smaller, cheaper alternative testified that the current proposal should go forward immediately, either because of the poor condition of the bridges (implying that a delay of 12 to 18 months to identify a smaller, cheaper alternative would be too dangerous, or couldn’t be addressed with shortterm repairs), or because the capacity expansion will reduce traffic numbers on several streets in Hill East and such reductions should occur as soon as possible.

Pat Taylor, however, who lives on Seventeenth Street, SE, one of the streets currently used by commuters traveling at dangerously high speeds, provided written testimony that the reduction in rush hour traffic on Seventeenth Street (from 2,200 to 2,000 vehicles per hour) would be barely noticeable to residents. Taylor suggested that a better and cheaper alternative for traffic-calming in Hill East would be to reduce traffic speeds by converting Seventeenth and Nineteenth Streets to two-way streets with lower speed limits. Taylor noted that DDOT says it will not make such a change until the Eleventh Street Bridges capacity expansion is completed, and she questioned why the most workable and cheapest alternative was not a priority.

Update, Feb. 22, 2008
Report Raises Critical Questions on Bridge Project—
CHRS Asks Tommy Wells to Raise Concerns with DDOT

by Thomas Grahame

Dick Wolf, Barbara Eck, and Tom Grahame of the CHRS Board met with Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells on Friday, February 22, to discuss the findings of the Smart Mobility, Inc., study of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Eleventh Street Bridges proposal. Smart Mobility, Inc. is a consulting firm providing services in computer modeling and analysis of land use and transportation systems. The study was commissioned by CHRS. In light of the unknown effect on Capitol Hill of the new traffic patterns and because our concerns have gone unanswered for months, CHRS asked Councilmember Wells to submit questions to the DC Department of Transportation (DDOT).

Here are the main points of the Smart Mobility, Inc., study findings:

Almost 50,000 more vehicles per day would cross into DC at the Eleventh Street Bridges, if the capacity expansion proposal goes forward.
There would be a net increase of 44,000 vehicles over the Anacostia on the expanded Eleventh Street and Sousa Bridges combined, after subtracting the slight reduction in traffic estimated for the Sousa Bridge.
A large increase in bridge capacity for vehicles takes people off mass transit.
Increased pollution near busier roadways results in more asthma, respiratory problems, even cardiovascular death.
The project will increase global warming emissions, at a time when the Mayor has pledged to reduce them to 1990 levels in five years.
All proposed alternatives are very similar, all have 12 lanes instead of today’s eight, and all increase capacity to use freeways.
The EIS is misleading because it states several times that “The project does not include adding capacity to the freeway system.” Yet it does add such capacity — two added lanes on the connection between the Eleventh Street Bridges and the Southeast Expressway.
Adding this large amount of vehicular capacity is inconsistent with the planning goals of the District, and of the National Capitol Planning Commission.
The main beneficiaries are Maryland commuters.
Click here to download PDF of the report

Issues Raised by Unexplained Estimated Drop in Future Sousa Bridge Traffic

The EIS shows a projected decrease in Sousa traffic from 93,000 average daily trips (from DDOT website) in 2002 to 77,000 in 2030, under a proposal that provides no changes to Eleventh Street Bridges. Yet estimated traffic on the Eleventh Street Bridges increases in the same time period by almost 40,000 vehicles per day under the same proposal.
Why this big reduction in Sousa traffic over next 22 years? Traffic doesn’t spontaneously decrease over time.
What unspecified new projects cause this reduction? How much will they cost?
Smart Mobility, Inc. suggests that a new boulevard may have something to do with the decrease, but it is probably responsible only for a small portion.
Without the decrease caused by unidentified projects, Smart Mobility, Inc. finds that traffic would be higher than the EIS projects, especially over the Sousa Bridge. We need on-the-record answers from DDOT, to know how they came up with the reduction, the costs involved to account for it, how much extra traffic will occur, and where it will go if the unidentified projects don’t go forward.

Questions for DC Department of Transportation (DDOT)

At the end of this positive meeting, CHRS asked Wells if he would submit the following questions to DDOT for on-the-record answers:

What will be the 2030 impact on traffic in parts of Capitol Hill not previously studied, e.g., Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Streets north of Pennsylvania Avenue, under the proposal to build the new bridge vs. the proposal to not build the new bridge?
What specific projects are included in the EIS which cause traffic volumes over the Sousa bridge to decline from 93,000 per day in 2002, to 77,000 per day in 2030, in the proposal which anticipates no changes to the Eleventh Street Bridges? How much would such projects cost?
What would be the additional traffic volumes in 2030, in both the build and no-build alternatives, if these unspecified projects were not included in the base forecast?
Ask DDOT to provide street level, three dimensional renderings of the Eleventh Street Bridges as they would look when completed, including the context of buildings on either side of the river.
How is the Mayor going to meet his goal of reducing DC greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in five years, if we have an added 44,000 cars crossing the Anacostia on the expanded Eleventh Street and Sousa Bridges?

November 2007

More Commuter Traffic Likely Headed for Hill Neighborhoods

DDOT Releases Eleventh Street Bridges EIS: Comments Due November 20

by Tom Grahame and Barbara Eck

The DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the new Eleventh Street bridges. Adoption of this report will allow work to begin on the rebuild and redesign of the bridges. Comments must be received by November 20. Anyone who wishes to look at the FEIS can do so at: www.11thstreetbridgeseis.com/ whatsnew.asp. Comments can be emailed to EleventhSt@ch2m.com.

CHRS is currently reviewing this voluminous document, and will have specific comments on the FEIS before the deadline. We have been involved in community meetings dealing with Anacostia River Crossings (bridges at various locations) since 2003. CHRS has kept members apprised of DDOT plans and reported our involvement and our assessment of these plans in the newsletter and in other local newspapers. We will reserve our comments on this FEIS pending completion of our review, but will briefly describe the bridges project that the FEIS purports to have studied.

The FEIS presents several alternatives. Each alternative would replace the eight lane bridge span and provide freeway connections on both sides of the river. Each alternative would also build a four lane “local” bridge between Capitol Hill and Anacostia. The increased bridge capacity because of the added local lanes is more likely to facilitate commuter traffic through our neighborhoods rather than reduce traffic and congestion, which is a stated objective of the Eleventh Street Bridges project.

There has been some incorrect information given out at to whether the proposed bridges will have increased lanes. A piece in the Washington Post District Weekly incorrectly stated that “the two bridges still would have 12 lanes total.” We contacted the writer to point out that there are currently only eight traffic lanes on the bridge. She checked it out and explained that she had misunderstood the FEIS lane description and will post a correction.

Community groups have suggested that one of the alternatives which should have been analyzed was the original proposal that DDOT brought before the community in 2003: a simple freeway connection via the Eleventh Street Bridge to I-295 northbound (Kenilworth Avenue), retaining the eight lanes of traffic, but allowing flows with freeway connections both northbound and southbound. CHRS and other community groups supported this concept four years ago, when DDOT presented this option as a potential way to reduce traffic on the Sousa Bridge and on Pennsylvania Avenue. Development along M Street, SE, is a reality which has created new traffic flows. It makes sense to provide a traffic connection north on I-295 at M Street rather than forcing traffic across the already heavily congested Sousa Bridge to make the I-295 connection. DDOT presented this sensible, reasonable alternative and community groups agreed.

The Restoration Society believes that if DDOT thinks that this simple, northbound connection (which would cost an estimated $500 million—far less than the alternatives studied) is inferior to the alternatives presented in the FEIS, it should have presented an analysis in the FEIS demonstrating this inferiority. DDOT should have studied the differences in traffic densities and flows in this simple connection alternative to convince the community that this DDOT proposal which they previously embraced was insufficient to improve traffic flow and decrease congestion and commuter traffic through residential neighborhoods. This option was not studied. Therefore, we will review and assess the FEIS as it stands.

We will also continue to press DDOT to conduct a new, comprehensive mobility study that integrates urban land use and multi-modal transportation system planning. Members who wish to file comments should do so by November 20 at the email address given above.

October 2007
DDOT Hedges on Request for New Study on Projects’ Cumulative Effect on Neighborhoods

Director Meets with Neighborhood Coalition

by Barbara Eck

CHRS and other members of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Eastern Washington met with DDOT Director Moneme to urge that a comprehensive, mobility study be conducted for the neighborhoods along the Anacostia River. The Coalition had sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council stating the need for a new study that would take into account ALL the development projects along both sides of the river. The Coalition letter (published in the July/August 2007 News) identified the deficiencies in the mobility study that the city government is relying upon to make decisions about transportation, roads and bridges that will significantly impact our neighborhoods now and in the future.

The existing mobility study falls far short of providing the comprehensive look that is needed, given the potential for the Anacostia Waterfront projects and other development, to affect the integrity and viability of our neighborhoods and the flow of commuter and other regional travel. While the study disclaims any goal of simply “moving cars,” regional drivers and commuters appear to be the major beneficiaries of the “rationalized” system it evaluates. It does not show how Anacostia Waterfront projects and other transportation projects and related economic development will affect our communities.

Director Moneme and members of his senior staff listened to our criticism of the scope of the mobility study and our plea to DDOT to commission a new study prepared by consultants who are expert in the integration of urban land use and multi-modal transportation system planning. We pointed out that highway planners like those that prepared the current study, are focused on moving vehicles and we believe that the focus should be on alternate modes of transportation and decreasing commuter traffic through our neighborhoods. We also asked for the monetary and environmental cost of various projects, the Eleventh Street Bridges in particular.

Mr. Moneme stated that the final EIS for the Eleventh Street Bridges project would be out shortly and that would answer many of our questions. He conceded that community meetings may have not always given comprehensive information and that questions of cost and impact may not have been handled adequately. He assured us that he would see that all our questions would be answered and that he would be sending us a response to our letter to the Mayor. We await his response, but the impression he left with Coalition members is that there is no need to study the effect of all the new development projects in relation to traffic and transportation, and that the various DDOT projects along the Anacostia will move ahead as planned.

September 2007
New Traffic Mobility Study for Eastern Washington, DC Requested

Memorandum (Abbreviated version):

FROM: Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Eastern Washington
DATE: August 1, 2007
TO: Hon. Adrian Fenty, Mayor, District of Columbia
Hon. Vincent Gray, Chair, DC City Council
Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, DC Office of Planning
RE: Request for a New Traffic Mobility Study for Eastern Washington, DC

Gentlemen and Ms. Tregoning:

Communities on both sides of the Anacostia River face major impacts from large-scale transportation proposals. The transportation proposals alone involve reconfiguration of three major bridges and the addition of multiple new linkages that will hugely affect neighborhood and commuter traffic flows. The development proposals will greatly intensify land use bringing many additional people through and into the Anacostia River communities for work and recreation. Their addition will have large impacts on existing traffic corridors and open space.

All our affected communities have significant questions and uncertainties about (1) what exactly is planned, (2) how all the plans in combination will affect our communities and (3) what the cost to local taxpayers of the transportation infrastructure will be.

Acknowledging only the second of these three concerns, the District of Columbia government undertook a study of “future land use and transportation demand in the Anacostia corridor”. This was issued in March/April of 2006 and was entitled “The Anacostia Waterfront Transportation Mobility Study”. The other two concerns, i.e. the totality of what is planned and the cost of the transportation “package,” have gone largely unaddressed.
We seek the following actions:

Preparation of a new Mobility study in light of the fundamental deficiencies (summarized below) of the first mobility study. This new study should be prepared by consultants who are expert in the integration of urban land use and multi-modal transportation system planning and who are not involved with particular AWI and other initiatives in the affected communities.
Preparation of a single document that accurately describes all AWI, Great Streets and other significant development projects planned for implementation in the Anacostia River communities.
Full disclosure of how much parkland is proposed to be taken for development purposes and how much private property is proposed to be taken by eminent domain.
Realistic estimates of the total cost of these transportation infrastructure projects including a breakdown of how much will be paid by the federal government, how much by District taxpayers and how much by other jurisdictions.
Estimated costs of alternatives to particular plans which were identified by our communities in District-sponsored, planning meetings.

Deficiencies of the First Mobility Study
The existing mobility study falls far short of providing the comprehensive look that is needed, given the potential for the AWI and other projects to affect the integrity and viability of our District neighborhoods and the flow of commuter and other regional travel. While the study disclaims any goal of simply “moving cars,” regional drivers and commuters appear to be the major beneficiaries of the “rationalized” (but uncosted) system it evaluates. It does not show how AWI and other transportation projects and related economic development will affect our communities.

Major shortcomings of the mobility study (attached) include:

Failure to examine how freeway and arterial conditions will affect neighborhood traffic conditions
Failure to examine conditions on the freeways and arterials including the SE/SW freeway and Pennsylvania Avenue. This issue is key to understanding commuter movement across and through our neighborhoods.
Failure to integrate redevelopment of the 14th Street Bridge into transportation planning for the Anacostia River communities. This issue is important in the understanding of how the proposed system will affect the use of the freeway by regional and interstate car and truck drivers as a beltway alternative.
No assessment of conditions on the expanded 12 lane, 11th Street Bridge comprised of freeway and non-freeway lanes. For example: this expansion is proposed, in part, in order to shift a large amount of commuter and other regional traffic from the South Capitol Street Bridge. This shift would increase 11th Street Bridge traffic by 64% to 209,000 vehicles daily. A significant portion of this traffic would be carried by the four non-freeway lanes of the 11th Street Bridge and the community streets on both sides of the river. Yet this major impact on the communities is not even mentioned in the mobility study.
Failure, conceded in the mobility study (p.A3-21), to examine the impact on the transportation network of the intensified land uses resulting from AWI-sponsored projects and other development initiatives on the east side of the river. For example: the Office of Planning’s Great Streets proposal for Pennsylvania Avenue SE calls for unbroken high-rise mixed-use development from the Sousa Bridge to the Maryland state line at Southern Avenue
Failure to address conditions resulting from Stadium events.
Failure to describe or assess the benefits of comprehensive community traffic mitigation

In Sum

1) We believe it is important to do this new mobility study as quickly as reasonably possible. It is important for the future of these communities that residents be provided with this information in time to inform discussion of and decisions about AWI, Great Streets and other major development initiatives. We have heard that some contracts may already have been signed, or signing is imminent, for the 11th Street Bridges Project despite the fact that the final Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been released. We fear that any such contracts might “lock in” particular designs before resident, the Mayor and the Council have had an opportunity to fully digest costs and neighborhood impacts.

2) The same information must be provided to all residents and affected communities. To date, information from District government employees and government consultants varies from meeting to meeting. Citizens who attend a meeting in one neighborhood receive different and conflicting information from that received by citizens in another neighborhood. Information given to the same residents changes from meeting to meeting without explanation. For instance, residents have been told affirmatively that an east of the river trolley will/will not be built; the contracts have/have not been let and that the trolley will run on Martin Luther King Avenue/Good Hope Road. It is apparent that planners and their advisers are talking past each other and that no one is speaking candidly to the communities. We request an open process with full disclosure for all neighborhoods and wards bordering the Anacostia.

We look forward to meeting with you to discuss these concerns. Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Lisa Alfred, President
Barney Circle Association
Friends of Garfield Park

Christopher Jerry
Fairlawn Citizens Association

Patrick Crowley, President
Association for the Preservation of Historic Congressional Cemetery

William Phillips, Chair
Friends of Garfield Park

Dianne Dale
Poplar Point Garden

Vanessa Ruffin
SW Neighborhood Association

Frazer Walton, President
Kingman Park Neighborhood Association

Richard Wolf, President
Capitol Hill Restoration Society

<< Return to Top of Page >>

September 2007
Community Coalition Formed

by Barbara Eck

On behalf of CHRS, Tom Grahame and Barbara Eck spearheaded a meeting in July among community organizations and activists from both sides of the Anacostia River to discuss development and traffic issues facing our various neighborhoods. The initial meeting was intended as a get-acquainted session to identify issues and common concerns. Insofar as common ground could be identified, we hoped to have further meetings to determine how our collective weight might most effectively influence the city government.

There was ready agreement that communities on both sides of the Anacostia River face major impacts from large-scale transportation proposals. These proposals alone involve reconfiguration of three major bridges and the addition of multiple new linkages that will hugely affect neighborhood and commuter traffic flows. The variety of development proposals, as well as projects already underway, will greatly intensify land use, bringing many additional people through and into the Anacostia River communities for work and recreation. Their addition will have large impacts on existing traffic corridors and open space.

All of our affected communities have significant questions and uncertainties about (1) what exactly is planned, (2) how all the plans in combination will affect our communities, and (3) what the cost to local taxpayers of the transportation infrastructure will be.

The goal of the group was to seek full disclosure from the city. The same information must be provided to all residents and affected communities. There was agreement that the multiplicity of community meetings had resulted in different, and often contradictory, information being given to different groups. Information from District government employees and government consultants has varied from meeting to meeting. Citizens who attend a meeting in one neighborhood receive different and conflicting information from that received by citizens in another neighborhood. Information given to the same residents changes from meeting to meeting without explanation.

To secure answers to our questions and clarification of contradictory information, we decided to organize as the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Eastern Washington and to send a letter to the Mayor and Council requesting the following action:

Preparation of a single document that accurately describes all Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, Great Streets, and other significant development projects planned for implementation in the Anacostia River communities.
Full disclosure of how much parkland is proposed to be taken for development purposes and how much private property is proposed to be taken by eminent domain.
Realistic estimates of the total cost of the transportation infrastructure projects, including a breakdown of how much will be paid by the federal government, how much by District taxpayers, and how much by other jurisdictions.
Preparation of a comprehensive Mobility Study prepared by consultants who are expert in the integration of urban land use and multi-modal transportation system planning and who are not involved with particular AWI or other initiatives in the affected communities.
We will follow up with meetings with individual Councilmembers and Mayor Fenty’s designees in the Department of Transportation and the Office of Planning.

<< Return to Top of Page >>

April 2007
DDOT Needs to Do Comprehensive, Peer-Reviewed Traffic Study for Capitol Hill and Surrounding Areas

by Barbara Eck and Tomas Grahame

Readers of the CHRS News may remember that CHRS has requested that DDOT produce a comprehensive traffic study that would show the impacts of all the different traffic projects which are being proposed.

In 2005 and 2006, there were five such studies: South Capitol Street; Middle Anacostia Crossings, or MAC (mainly new 11th Street bridges options); Kenilworth Avenue Corridor (affecting the Hill mainly through a new bridge at Massachusetts Avenue over the Anacostia, and through a new “park road” on the western banks of the Anacostia); Capitol Hill Transportation Study; and the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. We were told at various times that the impacts for projects in one study—for example, the Capitol Hill Transportation Study—would be modeled in some other, upcoming study. However we have been unable to get DDOT to do a study that modeled all the impacts of all the new projects together.

Now there are going to be more traffic generators. The new ball park and the increasing development it will spawn, development in NOMA (North of Massachusetts Avenue), and the present and future proposals for H Street (many in the community near H Street are rebelling against the scale of new proposals there) are all in the mix.

Several questions stand out:

How much traffic would be generated?
What streets would each endeavor use, and what would the volumes be?
How would these volumes and destinations change with different configurations of the proposed new 11th Street bridges?
Would we still be able to experience Capitol Hill as a liveable, walkable neighborhood?

Let’s not forget that DDOT has a goal of getting more people out of their cars and walking to destinations. If the walkability goal is threatened, what changes can be made in traffic plans to ensure that people who want to walk instead of drive would find that option safe and attractive?

It is hard to know what to think about new traffic proposals without a comphrensive study, before most of the new projects are set in stone. One that is not set in stone is the upgrade of the 11th Street bridges. CHRS signed on to support the original proposal for this upgrade three years ago, because DDOT told neighborhoods on both sides of the river that connecting the 11th Street bridges to I-295 (Kenilworth Avenue) northbound would remove traffic and thus reduce congestion on the Sousa Bridge. Although the 2005 MAC study showed a one-third reduction in 2030 Sousa Bridge volumes, compared to today’s volumes, the 2006 11th Street bridges Draft Environmental Impact Statement showed virtually no improvements, with or without the new connection.

DDOT’s latest proposals now call for far more than just a new northbound connection; they call for four additional traffic lanes, said to be “local” but connecting easily with the freeway. These new lanes bring with them the possibility of crowding Capitol Hill with traffic coming up 11th Street. Additionally, the latest cost estimates are nearing $500 million, and we understand that the DC cost-share is over 80 percent. And, of course, the proposals would destroy the historic boathouse now in use by many Capitol Hill residents and take about 12 acres of parkland.

CHRS recognizes that despite the lack of suggested benefits on the Sousa Bridge, there may be reasons for upgrading the 11th Street bridges; we are, after all, seeing much new development. However, it isn’t clear what the traffic flows from different options would be, what the costs of alternatives would be, and whether there might be designs that could save the popular boathouse while also keeping costs down.

DDOT’s record on this project has not been stellar. So let’s have a comprehensive and transparent traffic study BEFORE committing to a specific 11th Street bridges upgrade alternative. That train is moving fast. However, our sense is that both the new mayor and our new Councilmember favor walkable communities not dominated by traffic, so our guess is that both should favor such a study.

March 2007
Direction of Transportation Projects Affecting Capitol Hill Now Less Clear

by Tom Grahame

There are now more new transportation projects than ever, but how they work together, and what their impact will be on Capitol Hill neighborhoods, is uncertain. What is clear is that more traffic wants to get into DC, and transportation officials are trying to find ways for that to happen, rather than finding ways to reduce traffic demand.

On February 27, a public meeting with transportation officials was held at Amidon Elementary in SW, about ways to reduce congestion on the Fourteenth Street Bridge corridor and in areas adjacent to I-395, in DC and in Virginia. No plans were produced—it’s early in the process. The three stated goals of the project are to: 1) reduce congestion, 2) enhance safety, and 3) improve traffic operations.

Other goals could have been voiced by Federal Highway Administration officials, such as reducing ozone and carbon dioxide pollution produced mainly from vehicular emissions, reducing dependence on foreign oil for national security purposes, and reducing the number of cars that would have to cross the Fourteenth Street Bridge in an emergency.

Among the issues raised by members of the audience in a too-short public comment period were two significant concerns. First, that the study area is too small, and is missing important traffic generators and destinations which will affect the study area, such as the new developments in SW and SE, including the new stadium. Readers of the CHRS News won’t be surprised that highway officials are defining small study areas and not taking into account important developments in adjacent areas. A second concern is that not enough consideration is being given to non-concrete alternatives that could not only reduce congestion, but also reduce pollution and reduce the number of people and cars who have to travel over the Fourteenth Street Bridge. Such alternatives could include a “congestion charge,” similar to the highly successful congestion charge implemented by the Mayor of London which has sharply reduced both traffic and pollution in the area of implementation. (Monies gained could flow to Metro to buy new cars as Metro rider-ship increases). A higher gasoline tax and more incentives for telecommuting could also be considered.

Closer to Capitol Hill, there is greater uncertainty about projects such as the Eleventh Street Bridges upgrade (part of the Middle Anacostia Crossings study); various Kennilworth Avenue improvements; and projects directly under the control of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC), such as a new Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and a Park Road. CHRS Board members have been told or the last two years that although these areas were all relatively small, and the Environment Impact Studies only considered each small area; everything would “come together” in the AWC plans.

But the new DC Council will soon consider dissolving the AWC. Should this happen, it would remove the central planning function the AWC provides, which likely would mean less coordination regarding adjoining areas. The fate of the proposed Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and Park Road would be uncertain as well. Without the AWC, there would be less of a bulwark against giveaways to developers, adverse zoning results in Hill East by the Anacostia, and (perhaps?) unwanted roadways. On balance, losing the AWC would likely be harmful for Capitol Hill.

<< Return to Top of Page >>