OUTER BELTWAY,

NEW POTOMAC CROSSING

OFFICIALLY ON THE

TABLE

Governors McDonnell, O'Malley Begin

Discussion on Top Regional

Transportation Priority

Isn't it great to be ahead of the curve? In addition to advocating for the construction of the DC Outer Beltway on this blog, I've also been keeping you up to date on the small moving parts behind the scenes on the issue. Like the "Outer Beltway bills" in Richmond, the redesignation of corridors, Sen. Mark Warner getting on board, etc.

So now that it is being discussed at the highest level, regular readers have known this was coming long ago.

Yes, the Outer Beltway is finally going to happen after 60 years of delay.

What does the Outer Beltway mean for Bethesda? It means great news: finally, the gridlock between Tysons Corner, the I-270 spur and Gaithersburg will be relieved. If the Rockville Freeway is also built, the spur backups would be entirely eliminated. With eventual completion of the I-270 widening, the Watkins Mill interchange, and the M-83 Highway, I-270 would essentially be jam-free.

If I-95 were one day completed through DC - as it was planned to - and the North Central Freeway and Northern Parkway were built, so too would the Beltway gridlock be a memory of the past.

But in a day of tight budgets, the Potomac Crossing is the first step.

Where will the Outer Beltway go?

There are only two reasonable route options, and only two matching connections on the Virginia side.

On our side, we have the ICC/I-370 (the final Outer Beltway alignment chosen by planners in the 1970s), and the Rockville Freeway right-of-way (Rockville Facility).

The ICC is the likely choice, as it now reaches the Sam Eig interchange of 270, as well as I-95 at its eastern end. And it's already built.

The Rockville Freeway/Facility provides access to both interstates, as well. Currently known as Matthew Henson State Park, this highway facility reaches the ICC near Indian Spring Country Club. Hence I-95 traffic could take the ICC, and exit onto the future Rockville Freeway.

The Rockville Freeway would then connect to the existing Montrose Parkway (a silly road squatting on a portion of the Rockville Freeway right-of-way). Originally, the freeway was to occupy the full west portion of Montrose Road over 270. That right of way remains all the way to Falls Road. In fact, I have seen the real estate records for the purchases of land around the future freeway's intersections with Seven Locks Road and Falls Road. (Cloverleaf interchanges would have been built at both).

Two advantages the Rockville Freeway alignment would have over the ICC are shorter distance to Virginia (hence, far cheaper), and a clearer path to the Potomac River west of 270 (cheaper yet! Those eminent domain seizures and lawsuits are expensive).

Originally, the Rockville Freeway was planned as the Outer Beltway, and was to cross the Potomac near Virginia's Riverbend Park.

That brings us to the waiting connections across the river.

The two options are VA Rt. 28, and VA Rt. 286 (formerly SR 7100) a.k.a. Fairfax County Parkway.

In a world of sensible people, both get connected to Maryland. But it's complicated.

The Rockville Freeway was designed to line up with the Fairfax County Parkway to create the western half of the Outer Beltway. Once the ICC alignment was chosen for the Outer Beltway, planners dropped the Rockville Freeway crossing.

At that point, planners on both sides began to consider the Rt. 28/Dulles Airport corridor for the Virginia portion of the Outer Beltway.

If the ICC is selected as the Potomac Crossing route, you can be pretty sure it will connect with Rt. 28 (a.k.a. Sully Road for its northern section).

Wait a minute, you might ask, why would they take the longer route?

Good question!

To answer it, pretend you are a leprechaun. I'm serious.

Now open Google Maps, and search for "Dulles Town Center" (Sterling, VA).

Ok, just to the left of that is Sully Road. Now, Lucky the Leprechaun, scroll south on Sully Road, and start counting the cloverleafs. Each one of those is a grade-separated interchange (like the Beltway, the Outer Beltway will have exits, not traffic signaled intersections).

Wow, this is your lucky day! There are a ton of them!

Now look at Fairfax County Parkway. Uh-oh. Lots of work to be done.

One of the many stealth actions smarter planners on the Virginia side have taken is to prepare Rt. 28 for interstate highway designation.

They've also taken smaller steps towards that on the Fairfax County Parkway, but as you can tell from the map, it's nowhere near ready. 28 needs work too, once you get into Centreville. But there's plenty of room there to expand.

So if you're gambling, put your money on the ICC-370-Potomac River Bridge-VA Rt. 28 alignment.

There's plenty of time and room to bring Fairfax County Parkway up to interstate standards, and one day connect it to the future Rockville Freeway via another Potomac River bridge, as originally planned.

How will the Outer Beltway be completed?

It's interesting. Remember I told you a few weeks back my prediction that the ICC will be extended to Bowie? That gets you to MD Rt. 301.

Now, take VA Rt. 28 to its end. Then take Route 17. You've got an interchange with I-95 there as you head east. You've made a critical connection with Fredericksburg. Now keep following 17 east, and then Rt. 218 east. Eventually, you connect to...

Rt. 301! You've made a complete circle. An Outer Beltway.

But there are many alternative routes to accomplish that.

Right now, expect the governors to concentrate on the bridge crossing, and handling interstate volumes between western Montgomery County and the Dulles area.

And, alas, rumor has it that there will be tolls!

OUTER BELTWAY

STUDY ADVANCES

IN

VIRGINIA HOUSE

Virginia House Bill HJR-131 has been approved by the House Rules Studies Subcommittee. The bill, sponsored by Del. J. Randall Minchew (R-District 10), mandates a Virginia Department of Transportation study of a new Potomac River crossing into Montgomery County. It would also explore a request for inclusion of Route 28 as part of the federal interstate system.

The bill now goes to the full House Rules Committee.

One small step for man; one giant leap for DC area drivers.

WHERE'S IKE?

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial

Downplays Accomplishments,

Despite Intriguing Design

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial proposed by the famed Frank Gehry is quantifiably a failure. But don't expect a talk radio-style rant against it on this blog. I'm not going to trash the whole design.

In fact, let me start with the strengths of the proposal: First, it's very different from other Presidential memorials and from other memorials in general. It is going to get attention and stand out when tourists visit Washington and make the rounds.

Second, it makes you think. A lot. Put aside a conversation-starting object like the Washington Monument, and consider the other memorials: While none-the-less impressive, they often have a very clear and literate message. And the standard large statue. Usually that is a good thing. I was glad that Dr. Martin Luther King received the full statuary treatment in his memorial this year. There is controversy about the design and quotations, but by making Dr. King as large or larger than many other historical figures around town, his large impact on our society is emphasized for future generations.

At the same time, Dr. King's memorial tells you what it's all about via text - literally - as you enter the memorial. While the regarding of the statue itself is a moving experience for most visitors, the art's message is not as open to interpretation.

Ike's memorial is the total opposite, and you can spend quite a bit of time considering "what it all means." In business or marketing, that would be considered a failure. In art that is a success.

An outdoor "indoor" space is created by hanging metal tapestries. It is vast, but visitors can also see what is outside of the memorial from within. You could say it represents grand scale, such as the massive scale of the American and Allied war effort Eisenhower led to victory in Europe. Grand scale, such as the truly incredible Interstate Highway System Ike transformed from blueprints into a national mobility revolution.

The tapestries are unique but make a lot of sense. Metal, of course, could reflect the guns, the tanks - the war machine. But the spaces in the exterior suggest Eisenhower's concern for the greater country beyond his military world, reflected in his famous and now-recited-as-cliche warning about the "military-industrial complex." (Before you jump to any conclusions, I am a strong supporter of our military and "military-industrial complex," and would very much like to have more firms like Lockheed Martin move their corporate headquarters here to Montgomery County. Of course, a majority on our county council have expressed just the opposite opinion, and have made that clear through their anti-business policies and public comments.) Ultimately, metal suggests the permanence of a leader who helped the country through two wars.

I think Ike deserves a notable monument for his accomplishments, and his skill as a manager of perhaps the most impressive period of economic growth in our nation's history. He certainly falls into the category of the calm, rational, firm-in-principle yet pragmatic and nuanced leader that one would place Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush into. It's no coincidence that those two men are - like Ike - among the most underappreciated presidents in American history.

That's where the monument fails, however. It will inspire much fascinating thought and discussion. But will the visitor who didn't appreciate Ike when he arrived understand why he was important when he left? Is all the educational heavy lifting strictly the responsibility of the visitor and not the memorial?

What did Eisenhower stand for? In the abstract, strength and mobility. In concrete terms, those were reflected by great military and economic achievements, and the interstate system.

I don't get a sense of either of these from the memorial.

We don't need another Colossus-style statue of a grim-faced Eisenhower towering over Washington. And I don't think the idea of a statue of Eisenhower as a boy is a terrible idea in itself. But we need something that says here was a man who harnessed military might and battlefield strategy to preserve our nation.

And something that at least suggests motion or movement. One of the overlooked founding principles of our nation was freedom of movement. It's changing for the worse today, but our country was meant to be a place where one could move about freely for business or pleasure. No border guards demanding paperwork. No pronouncements or dictates regarding where one could live or work (in theory!). No unwarranted recording of citizen movement. And the ability to move goods for commercial enterprise.

Nothing revolutionized or better fulfilled that goal than our interstate system. It continues to provide mobility and economic opportunity for all Americans some 50+ years later. Where is the intoxicating power of freedom in this memorial?

I won't say the Gehry design should be scrapped. But as it stands now, it is like the Lincoln Memorial without Lincoln's statue inside. Literally.

Check out some of the design yourself, and tell me what you think:

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/design.htm

I can sum it up in one sentence: Where's Ike?