Statement of Walter S. Groszyk, Jr.
Future of the Whitehurst Freeway Roundtable
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
I have lived in the shadow of the Whitehurst for 35 years. My comments are those of a private
citizen and homeowner.
Further Study of Whitehurst Deconstruction Is Premature: A District priority is the reconstruction
of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge into a 'signature' bridge. This project will likely cost $500 million
and not be completed until about 2015. During reconstruction, some Roosevelt Bridge traffic will
be diverted onto Key Bridge and the Whitehurst Freeway. This will preclude any Whitehurst
demolition before 2015-2016. During the interim, new traffic models with updated data will be
prepared. Further study of the effects of Whitehurst deconstruction should be deferred for at least
five years and incorporate the traffic models of 2011 and 2012, not the by-then-obsolete ones of
2006 and 2007.
The Recently Completed Alternatives Study is Erroneous and Misleading: The consultant's
study overlooked or deliberately omitted key aspects of a Whitehurst de-construction.
These include:
* omitting the cost and site of the ventilation building required for the tunnel alternatives. There is
no place to put such a large structure along the K Street corridor without raising vociferous
community opposition. Without an acceptable site, this suffocates the viability of the tunnel
alternatives, and perhaps was why the need for such a building is never referenced.
* overlooking the fact that K Street between 29th and 27th streets is four lanes. Presently, ten
traffic lanes carry Whitehurst and K Street traffic over Rock Creek and Rock Creek Parkway.
With demolition of the Whitehurst, six of these traffic lanes will disappear. K Street cannot be
widened from its current four lanes because it is constrained by ramps leading to and from
southbound Rock Creek Parkway and Georgetown. Four lanes at K Street will be an instant and
terrible choke-point bounded by new sets of traffic signals. It defies common sense to suggest
that four lanes will readily handle the same or greater traffic flow that ten lanes previously did.
* omitting unfavorable traffic data. Data is included selectively to make a case for de-construction.
As an example, traffic times from/to Canal Road and the Potomac Expressway are omitted. This
route uses two Whitehurst ramps and avoids traffic signals between Key Bridge and 21st Street.
Tearing down the ramps, and forcing traffic to traverse the signaled intersections of a new K
Street will significantly increase travel times, a result not supporting tearing down the Whitehurst.
* overlooking the fact that numerous parking garages and loading docks directly open on K St.
Every K Street block between 29th and 34th streets is fronted by one or more portals to
underground parking garages. Most of these blocks also have one of more loading docks for
commercial deliveries and trash hauling. The effect on through traffic on K Street of vehicles
entering and leaving these facilities was not factored, nor was the ability of vehicles to make
turning movements against traffic into these facilities considered. Undoubtedly, the use of these
garages and loading docks will impede traffic flow on K Street, and increase overall travel times.
By pretending these facilities don't exist, one can obtain faster traffic times. (I know of no other
major two-way street or avenue in downtown DC that has such a cluster of parking garages and
loading docks directly intersecting with through traffic.)
Other Failings of the Recently Completed Alternatives Study: To gauge fairly the alternatives
presented in this study is simply impossible. Why? First, cost estimates for the selected
alternatives are both significantly under-priced and unsupported, Was this done to lure buy-in with
the promise of a cheap project?
Second, the promised identification of potential ways to finance the project was abruptly
dropped -- midway -- as a study element. Did this happen because the feasibility of the financing
arrangement(s) vanished with reality?
Third, the study area omitted all Georgetown streets north of M Street and failed to study traffic
flow and counts for the nexus of Rock Creek Parkway, Virginia Avenue, and 27th Street. By
doing so, one nicely avoids having to discuss impacts of a Whitehurst deconstruction on these
streets by treating the area as an irrelevant neighborhood.
Fourth, no effort was made to enumerate the loss of a large number of street parking spaces for
Georgetown visitors. Better to bury that impact if one is seeking support from segments of the
Georgetown community, perhaps?
Fifth, similarly buried were the facts that a swath of the new waterfront park needs to be taken to
add width to K Street west of Wisconsin Avenue, and that some traffic timings on M Street are
predicated on a significant number of Virginia drivers not coming to Georgetown in the future.
Fewer drivers means less congestion and quicker times. (It also may mean less business for
Georgetown.)
Sixth, assertions are presently being made that tearing down the Whitehurst will facilitate easy
access to the parking garages on K Street from those living in Foxhall, the Palisades, and adjacent
areas of Montgomery County. (Without a Key Bridge ramp, Virginians are shut out from this
'opportunity'.) Yet, nobody knows how many residents living in the above areas presently use
these garages; indeed, the study didn't even bother counting the number of spaces in the garages
and or the daily number of users.
I have many years experience in overseeing the award of Federal planning grants to states and
local governments. I have seen many completed plans and studies. Regrettably, this study is
missing so much data and sound analysis that it serves as a poor foundation for any further study.
If the District wishes to seriously study the impact of tearing down the Whitehurst, I strongly
recommend it wait five years and begin anew with a fair, objective, and thorough assessment.
Future of the Whitehurst Freeway Roundtable
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
I have lived in the shadow of the Whitehurst for 35 years. My comments are those of a private
citizen and homeowner.
Further Study of Whitehurst Deconstruction Is Premature: A District priority is the reconstruction
of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge into a 'signature' bridge. This project will likely cost $500 million
and not be completed until about 2015. During reconstruction, some Roosevelt Bridge traffic will
be diverted onto Key Bridge and the Whitehurst Freeway. This will preclude any Whitehurst
demolition before 2015-2016. During the interim, new traffic models with updated data will be
prepared. Further study of the effects of Whitehurst deconstruction should be deferred for at least
five years and incorporate the traffic models of 2011 and 2012, not the by-then-obsolete ones of
2006 and 2007.
The Recently Completed Alternatives Study is Erroneous and Misleading: The consultant's
study overlooked or deliberately omitted key aspects of a Whitehurst de-construction.
These include:
* omitting the cost and site of the ventilation building required for the tunnel alternatives. There is
no place to put such a large structure along the K Street corridor without raising vociferous
community opposition. Without an acceptable site, this suffocates the viability of the tunnel
alternatives, and perhaps was why the need for such a building is never referenced.
* overlooking the fact that K Street between 29th and 27th streets is four lanes. Presently, ten
traffic lanes carry Whitehurst and K Street traffic over Rock Creek and Rock Creek Parkway.
With demolition of the Whitehurst, six of these traffic lanes will disappear. K Street cannot be
widened from its current four lanes because it is constrained by ramps leading to and from
southbound Rock Creek Parkway and Georgetown. Four lanes at K Street will be an instant and
terrible choke-point bounded by new sets of traffic signals. It defies common sense to suggest
that four lanes will readily handle the same or greater traffic flow that ten lanes previously did.
* omitting unfavorable traffic data. Data is included selectively to make a case for de-construction.
As an example, traffic times from/to Canal Road and the Potomac Expressway are omitted. This
route uses two Whitehurst ramps and avoids traffic signals between Key Bridge and 21st Street.
Tearing down the ramps, and forcing traffic to traverse the signaled intersections of a new K
Street will significantly increase travel times, a result not supporting tearing down the Whitehurst.
* overlooking the fact that numerous parking garages and loading docks directly open on K St.
Every K Street block between 29th and 34th streets is fronted by one or more portals to
underground parking garages. Most of these blocks also have one of more loading docks for
commercial deliveries and trash hauling. The effect on through traffic on K Street of vehicles
entering and leaving these facilities was not factored, nor was the ability of vehicles to make
turning movements against traffic into these facilities considered. Undoubtedly, the use of these
garages and loading docks will impede traffic flow on K Street, and increase overall travel times.
By pretending these facilities don't exist, one can obtain faster traffic times. (I know of no other
major two-way street or avenue in downtown DC that has such a cluster of parking garages and
loading docks directly intersecting with through traffic.)
Other Failings of the Recently Completed Alternatives Study: To gauge fairly the alternatives
presented in this study is simply impossible. Why? First, cost estimates for the selected
alternatives are both significantly under-priced and unsupported, Was this done to lure buy-in with
the promise of a cheap project?
Second, the promised identification of potential ways to finance the project was abruptly
dropped -- midway -- as a study element. Did this happen because the feasibility of the financing
arrangement(s) vanished with reality?
Third, the study area omitted all Georgetown streets north of M Street and failed to study traffic
flow and counts for the nexus of Rock Creek Parkway, Virginia Avenue, and 27th Street. By
doing so, one nicely avoids having to discuss impacts of a Whitehurst deconstruction on these
streets by treating the area as an irrelevant neighborhood.
Fourth, no effort was made to enumerate the loss of a large number of street parking spaces for
Georgetown visitors. Better to bury that impact if one is seeking support from segments of the
Georgetown community, perhaps?
Fifth, similarly buried were the facts that a swath of the new waterfront park needs to be taken to
add width to K Street west of Wisconsin Avenue, and that some traffic timings on M Street are
predicated on a significant number of Virginia drivers not coming to Georgetown in the future.
Fewer drivers means less congestion and quicker times. (It also may mean less business for
Georgetown.)
Sixth, assertions are presently being made that tearing down the Whitehurst will facilitate easy
access to the parking garages on K Street from those living in Foxhall, the Palisades, and adjacent
areas of Montgomery County. (Without a Key Bridge ramp, Virginians are shut out from this
'opportunity'.) Yet, nobody knows how many residents living in the above areas presently use
these garages; indeed, the study didn't even bother counting the number of spaces in the garages
and or the daily number of users.
I have many years experience in overseeing the award of Federal planning grants to states and
local governments. I have seen many completed plans and studies. Regrettably, this study is
missing so much data and sound analysis that it serves as a poor foundation for any further study.
If the District wishes to seriously study the impact of tearing down the Whitehurst, I strongly
recommend it wait five years and begin anew with a fair, objective, and thorough assessment.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Walter Groszyk oversaw a large regional and local planning program at the Environmental Protection Agency and
was involved in planning and program management government-wide at the Office of Management and Budget.
He is an active member of the Citizens Association of Georgetown.
He submitted this statement for the Future of the Whitehurst Freeway Roundtable held by Councilman Jim Graham
on February 27, 2007.
was involved in planning and program management government-wide at the Office of Management and Budget.
He is an active member of the Citizens Association of Georgetown.
He submitted this statement for the Future of the Whitehurst Freeway Roundtable held by Councilman Jim Graham
on February 27, 2007.