[Senate Hearing 107-998]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-998
PROPOSED PLAZA FOR THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
______
83-694 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
second session
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 4, 2002
OPENING STATEMENTS
Corzine Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey... 7
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
WITNESSES
Kaiser, Michael, president, John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts................................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Peters, Hon. Mary, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
accompanied by: Art Hamilton, Associate Administrator, Federal
Lands Highway Office; Doug Lard, Community Planner............. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Tangherlini, Dan, acting director, District of Columbia
Department of Transportation................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 20
PROPOSED PLAZA FOR THE
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER
FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords and Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good morning, everyone. I would like to
extend a special welcome to each of the witnesses here this
morning. President John F. Kennedy, in a 1963 speech at Amherst
College, said it best: ``Art establishes the basic human truths
which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.'' The
performing arts teach us these important truths through
Sondheim and Gershwin, through Baryshnikov and Bach. For over
30 years we have had the good fortune of having the Kennedy
Center serve as our national classroom.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts began as
the National Cultural Center in 1958. During the early 1960's,
President Kennedy led a charge to raise funds for this national
center for the performing arts. In January 1964, Congress
dedicated the National Cultural Center as a living memorial to
President Kennedy, in recognition of his tireless efforts to
promote the arts.
Since its opening Requiem in 1971, the Kennedy Center has
presented a unique perspective in the development of our
national identity through the performing arts. But to continue
to serve as a national symbol for arts and a model for arts
education for students, both young and old, the Kennedy Center
must grow. As part of the growing process, the Department of
Transportation conducted a comprehensive study of ways to
improve access to the Kennedy Center. The study proposes some
ambitious infrastructure enhancements to the Center, with many
public and private partners.
The goal of the enhancements is to improve access to the
Center and to link the Center to the national Mall and the
surrounding neighborhoods. The goal of the enhancements is also
to provide more rehearsal and education space for the Kennedy
Center.
To meet this goal, the study proposes construction of a
plaza on top of the maze of city streets and Interstate 66
running in front of the Center, and construction of a rehearsal
and education center on top of the plaza. Today we convene to
discuss this proposal.
I have long been a supporter of the arts and applaud the
Kennedy Center's efforts and mission as an international
Ambassador of the performing arts. But the proposal before us
today represents a major construction project and major
construction projects are expensive. I am concerned about the
lack of an accurate estimate for the project, and I hope
today's hearing will clarify some of the uncertainties
surrounding the cost of the project.
I am also hopeful that today's panel will help us better
understand the role each entity will play if the proposed plaza
project moves forward. Again, thank you for coming today.
Ms. Peters, please proceed. I look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPANIED BY: ART HAMILTON, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY OFFICE; DOUG LAIRD,
COMMUNITY PLANNER
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I will submit a much
more comprehensive statement for the record, but I have a few
brief oral remarks I would like to make.
As you have indicated, the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts is a wonderful attribute to this area. With me
here today are Art Hamilton, who is the Associate Administrator
for the Federal Lands Highway Office, and Doug Laird, a
community planner who has led the Federal Highway
Administration efforts on the Kennedy Center for the past 3
years. These gentlemen are right behind me and can assist me in
any detailed questions.
Much of the information presented in my statement, which I
have submitted for the record, is drawn from the Kennedy Center
Access Study mandated by TEA-21 and transmitted to Congress in
March 2001. The study was a cooperative effort of the Kennedy
Center, the District of Columbia, the National Park Service and
Federal Highway Administration.
The Center attracts over 5 million visitors a year.
However, compromises in the Center's design, including its
placement, as you indicated, Senator, between I-66 and the
Potomac River, make getting to the Center very difficult.
Nearly 200,000 vehicles use the roads around the Center each
day. Chronic, recurring congestion is a continuing problem.
There is no direct pedestrian or bicycle access to the
Center from the National Mall, and there are inadequate
connections from the river front. Pedestrians and bicyclists
who approach the Center from the south too frequently dash
across Rock Creek Parkway to the Center. In fact, I did that
myself with a bicycle just recently.
Pedestrians from Georgetown face an indirect, unlit, and
under-developed path. In the absence of a clear walkway from
the east, pedestrians sometimes sprint across Interstate 66,
and the bicycle connection to the Custis Trail crosses an I-66
off-ramp. The Foggy Bottom Metro station is a half mile from
the Center. The Center runs a shuttle service between Metro and
the Performing Arts Center; however, the route runs on local
streets through an historic neighborhood. Visitors who choose
to walk often have difficulty finding the Center, since there
are no signs to guide them.
The Access Study presented many improvements to make
getting to and from the Center safer and easier. Among these
are, as you mentioned, a plaza set atop a deck over Interstate
66 to re-establish a local street grid to the east;
modifications to E Street to link the Center with the core of
the city; a stairway to link the Kennedy Center Terrace to the
river front; grade separation of the complex intersection of
Ohio Drive with the terminus of Interstate 66 and Rock Creek
Parkway to relieve hazardous conditions and congestion; and new
connections between Rock Creek Parkway and Interstate 66 to
reduce traffic on the parkway, improve the traffic flow on
Interstate 66, and relieve congestion and address safety
hazards at the Virginia Avenue, Rock Creek Parkway-27th Street
intersections.
I know the committee is concerned about the cost of this
project. In my full statement, I outline the preliminary cost
estimates developed during the Access Study. I also outlined
some of the factors that may lead to increases in these cost
estimates. An environmental assessment is underway using funds
provided in the 2001 DOT appropriations act. Preliminary
engineering is part of that assessment, and we expect this work
to be completed in February 2003. Those projects are on
schedule as we speak.
Initial site investigations are only now beginning. We will
achieve greater certainty about project costs when the
environmental assessment and the engineering analyses are
completed in February 2003. I would be happy to provide updated
cost information to the committee at that.
With a complex project of this nature, the role of each
agency responsible for the enterprise should be carefully
defined at the onset of a project. A detailed memorandum of
agreement will provide a firm foundation for success, while
including flexibility so the various parties can adapt to
unforeseen circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Administration is
committed to work with the Kennedy Center, the District of
Columbia, the National Park Service and other Federal and local
level entities to improve the Kennedy Center. We look forward
to working with this committee to ensure the transportation
system around the Center serves it well and all residents in
the area in the best possible manner.
I again appreciate the opportunity to make brief remarks
this morning and would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Kaiser.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KAISER, PRESIDENT, JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER
FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Kaiser. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to appear
before you today to lend my strong support for legislation that
will increase substantially access to the performing arts, and
to arts education, for children and adults in the District of
Columbia and throughout the United States.
If enacted, the legislation before you will buildupon the
success of the Kennedy Center since its founding in 1971 by
providing greatly enhanced physical access to those living in
or visiting the District of Columbia, and by creating the
resources required to improve the services of the Kennedy
Center that we can offer outside of the District in all 50
States.
This legislation therefore provides a natural development
of the original vision for the Kennedy Center. The Kennedy
Center is both our national arts center and a living memorial
to President Kennedy. I emphasize the word living, because
unlike other memorials, whose beauty lie primarily in their
structures, the importance of the Kennedy Center also lies
within the people whose lives it touches. Each year, thousands
of musicians, dancers, actors and actresses bring performances
to life. Over 5 million school children in all 50 States
benefit from our outreach and educational programs each year.
Millions of patrons enjoy performances at the Kennedy Center,
and millions of tourists visit simply to see our Nation's
tribute to President Kennedy.
The reach of the Kennedy Center has grown beyond what
anyone could have envisioned when the National Cultural Center
was first authorized in 1958. But much more remains to be done.
The proposal before this committee will ensure that the Kennedy
Center's physical facilities can support our enhanced vision of
this Nation's living arts memorial in two important ways.
First, the legislation will expand access to the Kennedy
Center. The reconfiguration of the roadways and the
construction of the new plaza will make physically accessing
the Kennedy Center more user friendly. Traffic will be routed
more directly to the Kennedy Center and new bike trails and
pedestrian paths will make alternative methods of access a
reality.
These changes not only provide physical access, but also
will finally link the Kennedy Center to the rest of the
District. Currently, the Kennedy Center is an island in a sea
of roadways. As envisioned in the Department of
Transportation's report, the reconfigured roadways, bike trails
and pedestrian paths will link the Kennedy Center more directly
to other important landmarks and the Mall. More than four
decades after it was envisioned, the Kennedy Center will
finally become linked to the heart of our Capital's memorials.
Access will be increased not only in a physical sense, but
also in terms of the potential audience. With the expansion of
the Kennedy Center through the creation of the plaza and the
construction of two buildings on the plaza, more opportunities
for reaching new audiences can be realized. The increased green
space around the Kennedy Center makes consideration of outdoor
concerts viable. New rehearsal space that expands the
possibility of master classes or a greater variety of new
pieces created for smaller venues. The greater the variety of
the artistic works that can be brought to the Kennedy Center,
the broader the audience that the Kennedy Center can reach, a
vital goal of an art center charged with serving a
multicultural Nation.
The proposal will also help the Kennedy Center fulfill
another important part of its mandate, to educate the Nation
about the performing arts. One of the new plaza buildings will
be dedicated solely to this mission. The new building will
house displays on the history of the performing arts, drawing
from the collections of the Library of Congress and the
Smithsonian Institution. Visitors will also be able to
experience life in the arts through interactive displays that
allow them to take part in such activities as conducting an
orchestra or designing sets and costumes.
The future of the performing arts in our Nation is
dependent on educating children about this Nation's rich arts
heritage and the joy of involvement in the arts. This new
building, dedicated to educating our citizens about our
Nation's rich performing arts history and increasing an
understanding of the potential of our arts future is an
essential component of fulfilling the Kennedy Center's role as
our national culture center.
I am proud of all that the Kennedy Center has accomplished
over the last 31 years. It has sealed its place as the center
of our Nation's performing arts. It has honored President
Kennedy's memory with continuous arts performances. It has
educated generations of Americans about all that is great in
our Nation's performing arts.
The Kennedy Center is now prepared to buildupon its success
in this new century. As in the past, we will work in
partnership with Congress to bring the shared vision of an
expanded national performing arts center to life. The new
buildings in the plaza will be constructed with privately
raised funds. This will be no small undertaking on the part of
the Kennedy Center. However, I am confident the private funds
required can be identified.
The growing enthusiasm for the activities of the Kennedy
Center can be seen in the increasing levels of private support
we have enjoyed recently. This fiscal year alone, the Kennedy
Center will raise more private money than ever before in its
history, increasing contributed revenue over 25 percent more
than the previous year during a difficult economic period.
I feel confident, therefore, that the partnership and
shared vision that have bolstered the Kennedy Center to a level
of success not imagined at its inception will bring this
project to fruition.
Everyone at the Kennedy Center is deeply grateful to this
committee for its consideration of this legislation and its
past support, and especially to you, Mr. Chairman, for your
continuing interest in the arts and education of this Nation.
We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous support we
have received from the Department of Transportation and
Secretary Mineta and the District of Columbia and Mayor
Williams. I stand ready to work with Congress, with the
Department of Transportation and with the District of Columbia
to realize this vision for our Nation's arts center. I am
confident that our historic partnership will bring unimaginable
benefits to our Nation through an expanded and more accessible
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser.
Mr. Tangherlini.
STATEMENT OF DAN TANGHERLINI, ACTING DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Tangherlini. Good morning, Chairman Jeffords. Thank you
very much for this opportunity to speak before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. My name is Dan Tangherlini, and I
am the acting director of the District of Columbia Department
of Transportation. I have the honor of representing Mayor
Anthony Williams today before you.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a
major national tourist attraction, and the Washington region's
premier entertainment venue. In the year 2000, the U.S.
Department of Transportation published the Kennedy Center
Access Study that was authorized by the Congress in 1998. The
District Department of Transportation participated in this
study, and is assisting in the subsequent environmental
analysis currently underway.
The District Department of Transportation recognizes the
Kennedy Center's severe transportation access constraints. The
2000 study documents the problems, including the series of
freeways and parkways surrounding the Center, which serve to
isolate it from both the District neighborhoods and the
National Mall. Evening commuter traffic congestion on Rock
Creek Parkway and Potomac Freeway and ramps to the Theodore
Roosevelt Bridge interferes with the performance-bound traffic
to the Center. An absence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities
offering safe and direct routes to the Center, and inadequate
access to the facility by public transit. The study notes that
the Foggy Bottom Metro station, the Metro rail station closest
to the Kennedy Center, is one half mile away.
The centerpiece of the proposed transportation access
improvements would be the creation of a plaza which would carry
E Street Northwest directly into the Kennedy Center. The plaza
would be created by constructing a deck over the Potomac
Freeway. The plaza would include a public square and two
building sites on either side of the extended E Street
Northwest.
The D.C. Department of Transportation strongly supports
transportation improvements which will eliminate the Kennedy
Center's physical isolation and connect the Center with the
Foggy Bottom neighborhood and the monumental core of the city.
We also support the aesthetic vision of restoring the L'Enfant
plan street grid, and economic opportunities that may be
created by the project.
We respectfully suggest that the Federal Government should
fund this project through a special appropriation which would
not impact the District's annual allocation of Federal aid, and
that the Federal Highway Administration should construct the
improvements. The Center's initial design concept provided
pedestrian access to the Potomac River and vehicular access for
the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. Yet due to funding
constraints, the Kennedy Center was built in its isolated
environment.
The level of improvements recommended by the study to
correct the original access deficiencies is extensive. The
Access Study places the cost of the improvements at roughly
$270 million. By contrast, the District Department of
Transportation spent approximately $255 million in construction
activity for all of fiscal year 2001. Our entire annual
apportionment and allocation for the current fiscal year is
roughly $125 million.
The District Department of Transportation cautions that the
proposed improvements should not be considered independently of
the District of Columbia's transportation network. The District
is currently engaged in a study to develop solutions to the
structural and operational constraints of the Theodore
Roosevelt Memorial Bridge. The Kennedy Center Access Study
should be closely coordinated with the bridge study.
In turn, both of these projects must be considered within
the larger context of land use and transportation planning in
the west end. To adequately address transportation problems in
the area, including the Kennedy Center, a comprehensive
approach should include a corridor encompassing the Whitehurst
Freeway, lower K Street, straight through to the Roosevelt
Bridge, with the Kennedy Center access being part of it.
In its discussion of the Kennedy Center in the Legacy Plan,
the National Capital Planning Commission states that a
successful transportation plan must extend beyond physical
improvements, and that behavioral changes must occur. It
explains that employers must develop traffic management
programs to reduce congestion and travel times, and that more
people should be incented to use mass transit. A comprehensive
transportation planning approach to solutions would truly weave
access to the Kennedy Center into the transportation fabric of
the District of Columbia.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this
testimony.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
This is a very fascinating event and hopefully we will all
be able to work together.
I want to recognize Senator Corzine now for any statement
he might like to make.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. I appreciate your holding the hearing. I
feel somewhat conflicted, since I actually am on the board of
trustees of the Kennedy Center, and very much supportive of the
initiatives. So I have to be careful about my conflicts of
interest with regard to this. It is an important reality of the
future of one of the great national cultural assets that we
deal with these programs.
I hope that we will have the ability to support
financially, but I also appreciate the comprehensive nature of
how we need to be thinking about this in the overall budgeting
affairs of the District. I'm pleased to be here and look
forward to your serious questioning, since I've had my
opportunity at another time and place.
I also welcome Mr. Kaiser, who has done a terrific job of
leading the Center.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and we appreciate your
endeavors, working with the Kennedy Center, and look forward to
working with you on this project.
Ms. Peters, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am
concerned about the potential costs of those project. In
meetings between our staffs, the discussions of costs have gone
well beyond the $269 million mentioned in the Access Study. Can
you discuss what factors would cause the costs of the project
to increase, for example, will there be added security costs
and other costs that we haven't even considered, as well as the
rather daunting price tag?
Ms. Peters. Certainly, Senator, I would be pleased to
discuss that. As Mr. Tangherlini indicated, the cost estimate,
the preliminary estimated capital cost estimate at the
conclusion of the Kennedy Center Access Study is right around
$270 million. This includes a contingency amount which is
appropriate at this stage, given that there are a number of
unknown factors.
The factors that we feel would most affect a cost increase
of any kind would be the utilities, especially old utilities
that may not have been abandoned and that may still be active
within the project site area. Some of these may include highly
secure lines that lead to the Pentagon and State Department. We
have had concerns with these lines in past projects and would
want to look at that.
Another factor is the Dulles Interceptor, a major sewer
line which goes to the Blue Plains, that apparently goes
directly in front of the Kennedy Center. Depending on parking
garages and connections in between them, there could be a
conflict with that particular line. Then of course the plaza.
Much is yet to be determined on the size of the plaza, and the
proposed buildings. There are several design unknowns,
including whether the tunnel underneath will require
ventilation systems or other accommodations.
In a general sense, contract growth for projects in the
metropolitan Washington, DC area has averaged about 8 percent
since 1997. We would need to include a 2 percent per year
inflator to costs because these costs are in current or 2000-
year dollars. Our Eastern Federal Lands division currently
estimates about a 10 percent contingency cost for all projects
in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. In projects
outside of the District of Columbia metropolitan area, we would
normally use about a 5 percent contingency factor.
Again, our Eastern Federal Lands division, which is the
division of the Federal Highway Administration and Department
of Transportation working most closely on this project normally
at the planning stage would include about a 35 percent
contingency factor. A 40 percent contingency factor has been
included in the planning estimate to date.
As I indicated in my oral testimony, in February 2003, we
will have plans at about a 10 to 15 percent completion level,
and we will have completed the environmental assessment. We
believe that we could have a much firmer handle on costs at
that point in time.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. It's my understanding that
completion of the environmental assessment will help to more
accurately estimate what the project will cost. Can you discuss
when the environmental assessment will be completed?
Ms. Peters. Sir, we are on schedule right now to complete
that environmental assessment in February 2003 and feel very
comfortable that we will be able to complete it at that date.
Senator Jeffords. As you know, we are well underway in our
hearing process on the reauthorization of the Surface
Transportation program. I expect that we will be debating a
bill in the Senate next spring. Would you outline the
Administration's process and schedule for reauthorization and
give me an indication of your progress to date?
Ms. Peters. Certainly, sir. Within the Department of
Transportation right now, each of the modal administrations
working with the Assistant Secretary for Policy have been
developing broad general parameters for a reauthorization
proposal. We intend to brief the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary on those proposals within the month of June and then
begin to firm up the Administration's proposal through the late
summer. We will submit the proposal with the President's 2003
budget, but certainly expect to have substantive discussions
with this committee and with you, sir, in the interim.
Senator Jeffords. Are there ways to improve the vehicular
and pedestrian access to the Kennedy Center without undertaking
this major construction project?
Ms. Peters. Senator, it is my belief that it would be very
difficult to tackle the number of transportation challenges
that we have in the area today without looking comprehensively
at it. I think Mr. Tangherlini made an excellent point, that we
not only need to look at the Access Study for the Kennedy
Center, but also look at the interrelationship of those
proposed changes to the Center to other projects in the area.
Based on the Access Study, we believe that the proposals
made in the Access Study would best correct the transportation
challenges in the area of the Kennedy Center today.
Senator Jeffords. Can you please discuss in detail the role
your agency will play in the construction of the plaza?
Specifically, can you address ownership during the various
phases of the project? It is my understanding that the Kennedy
Center will become the owner of the plaza at the project's
completion. What about before the project's completion? Can you
discuss the role you envision other entities playing in the
project?
Ms. Peters. Certainly, sir. And sir, if I may, I would like
to consult with Douglas Laird. Doug has been the community
planner. I want to make sure I don't misspeak in terms of the
various roles during construction. [Turns to speak to aide.]
Sir, thank you for the opportunity to consult with Mr.
Laird. The District owns the Interstate, the District of
Columbia, and it would remain in its ownership. We would act in
the role of a contractor, the Federal Highway Administration,
and specifically the Eastern Public Lands Office would act as a
contract administrator and contractor during the active
construction of the project.
Senator Jeffords. Has the issue of the project air rights
been resolved with the District?
Ms. Peters. Again, let me check with Mr. Laird, but I
believe that is the District's responsibility as well.
Sir, they have not yet been resolved. It is expected that
the District and the Kennedy Center management will come to
resolution on the use of the air rights in the near future.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Kaiser, what is the Kennedy Center
currently doing in the area of arts education? Could you give
us a little brief information on that?
Mr. Kaiser. Certainly. The Kennedy Center is the largest
independent arts educator in the country. Next year we will
spend $15 million directly in arts education programming in all
50 States. We have a myriad of services, several are based here
in Washington, but I think more importantly are the services we
offer throughout the country.
We work in 87 cities throughout the United States to train
teachers and to train school boards and school districts to
bring the arts into the classroom. We have a distance learning
program that allows up to 300,000 children throughout the
United States to participate in any one educational program
that we might host at the Kennedy Center. We maintain a web
site called Arts Edge which gives lesson plans and teaching
guides to teachers throughout the United States who wish to
bring arts into the classroom.
We are the largest touring group of theater for children
throughout the United States. We commission up to six plays a
year and tour those to all 50 States each year. We bring the
National Symphony Orchestra, part of the Kennedy Center, each
year in what's called the American residence. For 2 weeks, the
National Symphony Orchestra takes residence in a State,
typically a State that's under-served, and conducts 100 master
classes, teaching demonstrations and workshops in public
schools throughout the State. We just came back from South
Dakota a couple of months ago.
These are just a few of the programs that we embark upon at
the Kennedy Center. As I said, it's a very rich web of
programming that we offer to try and bring arts to children
throughout America.
Senator Jeffords. What will this project do to increase or
enhance that mission?
Mr. Kaiser. I think several things. No. 1, we have no real
facilities at the Kennedy Center for education. There's not one
classroom at the Kennedy Center, even though we have hundreds
of thousands of children and classes coming to the Kennedy
Center each year. This facility, the new facility, would allow
us to house real educational programming at the Center, but
equally importantly, would give us the facilities to broadcast
our educational programming throughout America. We have no
studio, even though we do the distance learning programming.
There is no studio for us to be able to house and to broadcast
from at the Kennedy Center. The exhibition space we anticipate
itself would allow us to bring children and adults to the
Kennedy Center to learn about the rich heritage of the arts in
America, and again, equally importantly, we would make a
virtual museum on line that would bring all of the exhibitions
at the Center available to people in their classrooms and their
homes.
The second building, which would house rehearsal
facilities, would be open to the public and would allow the
public for the first time at the Kennedy Center to see how art
is put together, which we believe is a very important part of
the educational process. So there are many ways that we think
these new buildings will allow us to enhance substantially our
educational programming.
Senator Jeffords. When I had the responsibility of the D.C.
educational system some years back, I went and visited a
program where they were teaching math through music.
Mr. Kaiser. Absolutely.
Senator Jeffords. Has that been enhanced?
Mr. Kaiser. Yes, sir, there are two ways that has been
enhanced. No. 1, again, the Arts Edge web site now brings that
information to teachers all over America. You don't have to
come to Washington in order to learn how to, for example, use
music to teach physics or use music to teach math. Equally
importantly, we have instituted several programs that bring
teachers from all over America to the Kennedy Center at our
expense and we actively are training teachers who then go back
to their home cities and serve not just the students in that
population but also serve as models for other teachers in their
locations.
Senator Jeffords. I was fascinated by the programs you
have, and appreciate them.
Mr. Kaiser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Kaiser, can you discuss the need for
the added rehearsal space in the education center, and how will
this project help fulfill your goal of the Kennedy Center as
the enhanced vision of this Nation's living arts memorial?
Mr. Kaiser. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Kennedy Center when it
was originally constructed left out several important
facilities, and one of which was rehearsal facilities. We have
no rehearsal facility that is large enough to adequately
rehearse an opera, for instance, yet we have 26 weeks a year of
opera performances in our opera house. We have no facilities
for rehearsal that allow the public to watch rehearsals. We
have no facilities for rehearsal that allow adequate dance
rehearsals, and yet we are becoming the largest presenter of
ballet and modern dance in the world.
We need the facilities to be able to continue to bring the
best of art to Washington and to our Nation's capital. So I
believe the rehearsal facilities would allow us to fulfill our
mandate as the national arts center.
Senator Jeffords. This project obviously will represent a
major public-private partnership, and obviously have some
funding necessities. Can you explain what is needed and how you
intend to be able to pay for it?
Mr. Kaiser. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We anticipate that the cost
of building the two new buildings, which would be entirely
borne by private contributions, would be approximately $250
million. We would embark upon a serious capital campaign to
raise that $250 million. Our preliminary studies suggest that
that money will be available to us, although it will be a
challenge over the next several years to find that money.
We are blessed that this project will take so long, which
will give us a little extra time to find the money. We are
very, very comfortable that the growth in private funding to
the Kennedy Center, not just from local citizens, but our
increased fund raising throughout the Nation, in fact
throughout the world, will allow us to raise this money. There
is a tremendous interest in this major new arts facility which
would be the largest arts project in this Nation in the next
decade.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much. I have one more
here. Mr. Tangherlini, you mentioned that inadequate access to
the facility by public transit is a major issue for the Kennedy
Center. How will this project improve this problem, and what
will the District do to help improve the situation in the
meantime?
Mr. Tangherlini. The lack of mass transits access is
compounded by the lack of pedestrian access. The closest mass
transit station is one half mile from the Kennedy Center. But
it might as well be 10 miles when you look at some of the
difficulties you as a pedestrian would have to navigate to get
from the mass transit station to the Kennedy Center. So that in
and of itself makes the mass transit access even much worse for
the Kennedy Center.
We are currently engaged in a broader effort to study
transit routes, transit alternatives routes, additional transit
routes in the District of Columbia. The Kennedy Center,
particularly through the Kennedy Center access proposal, is
certainly one of the places that we're looking at getting
better access to, between existing transit opportunities and
potential ones that we could develop.
Senator Jeffords. What will the District do to improve the
situation in the meantime?
Mr. Tangherlini. Currently the District of Columbia is
supporting efforts like the Georgetown bids commuter shuttle,
from the Foggy Bottom station. That shuttle ties in nicely with
the Kennedy Center shuttle itself. We are also working with the
Kennedy Center to try to find better ways to provide pedestrian
access as well as guiding systems, signs that tell people how
to get to the Kennedy Center. That hasn't been as well
developed as it could.
But as Administrator Peters said, there is only so much you
can do when you have a place that is isolated by so many
freeways and parkways that is so difficult to get to.
Senator Jeffords. Is the District committed to improving
public transit to the facility after the project's completion?
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely. The District is committed to
improving access to the Kennedy Center. We continue to have a
very good relationship with the Kennedy Center and Mr. Kaiser
in particular, and the Mayor is very supportive of the Kennedy
Center. If there are ways we can assist the Kennedy Center in
connecting it with the rest of the city, we would definitely be
committed to that.
Senator Jeffords. And how would that be accomplished?
Mr. Tangherlini. Again, through programs like the
Georgetown bids circulator, through specific pedestrian
improvements, signage, developing transit alternatives that
look at the Kennedy Center as a major trip generator, source of
potential riders, and including them in our broader transit
planning with the Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA or
Metro.
Senator Jeffords. When the Kennedy Center site was chosen,
the location of the Roosevelt Bridge was an issue. Today,
access to the bridge remains an important issue. Today, many
believe that the bridge and access to the bridge are a serious
issue for the Kennedy Center and many northwest residents.
Can you discuss the challenges of bridge access and how
this project can improve the current access problem?
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely. The volume of commuter traffic
across the Roosevelt Bridge and on the Parkway creates a
barrier and isolation from the northwest in particular, they
have to cross much of that traffic to get to the Kennedy
Center. Usually the shows start right at the height of rush
hour, the ones that most people are trying to get to.
So this, by separating the local street network from the
commuter road network, would allow better access to the system,
would allow for better flow of the commuter traffic as well as
allowing access through the local road network to the Kennedy
Center. We believe that as we look at the Roosevelt Bridge,
which has really begun to reach its engineering useful life,
and ask the questions, start asking fundamental questions about
access, we have to look at that bridge as well, and say, how do
these two projects relate, ask ourselves as the District, have
our needs changed over time as it relates to these particular
two pieces of infrastructure.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Mr.
Kaiser about the consideration of operating results in
conjunction with the project. One will be adding programmatic
efforts at the same time one is trying to raise money for
capital projects. Are operating results now in a position where
they can be supportive of expanding additional programmatic
efforts that would be associated with it? What kinds of
challenges are posed there in fund raising? How does that all
interrelate to the viability of the financial underpinnings of
the project?
Mr. Kaiser. Thank you, Senator. It's a very important
point. We have to separate very carefully the fund raising
activities for the new buildings from those for operations.
Because one doesn't want to raise money for the buildings and
cannibalize operating resources. We have been very encouraged
that this current fiscal year that started in October, just
after September 11, we will increase our contributed funds 25
percent over the year before, the privately contributed funds.
There's a tremendous interest in the Kennedy Center programming
and there's a growing number of donors from throughout this
area, but also throughout the Nation who want to support the
work of the Kennedy Center.
We have done some detailed work in-house to study whether
there will be a group of donors who do not currently fund
operations but who might be interested in funding a large
capital venture. We are very confident that we will be able to
develop a separate set of funding sources for these two
buildings.
Senator Corzine. But you will also be increasing your
operating expenditures when you add these new facilities, or
are plans in place, or are the operating results adequate to
support the additional programmatic efforts?
Mr. Kaiser. I believe so, Senator. The buildings will only
open at the earliest 9 years from now. What we would hope to
do, and I think what any cultural institution would hope to do
is, as you start to identify new donors who pay for the capital
is to turn them, once the building is built, into operating
funders. They are invested in the buildings.
We are also confident that the increase in contributed
funds that we've experienced for operations will allow us to
build steadily the education and artistic programming that we
have at the Center during the construction period.
Senator Corzine. Do the plans in construction of the site
contain contingency overruns in the way that was described with
regard to the transportation activities?
Mr. Kaiser. Yes, absolutely. In fact, the original estimate
for the rehearsal building was substantially less than what we
are currently estimating that we need to raise privately. Our
hope is that we can actually build the buildings for less than
we are estimating from private funds and to use any excess as
endowment to support the ongoing operations of those
activities.
From my experiences building another large facility, I
recently built the Royal Opera House in London. What we found
was that again, the donors who paid for the building became
invested in the operations of the building and we were able to
increase our annual fund raising 25 percent the year after we
opened the building. So I'm very comfortable that we will find
the resources, and I'm very comfortable that we will be able to
support additional programming during the time we are building
the buildings.
Senator Corzine. Do you have any contingency plans on
cutbacks if there are necessary adjustments to the program? Are
those identified?
Mr. Kaiser. We identify those annually in our budgeting
process. So we have a very, very sophisticated financial
control system now that allows us to cut back as we need to. I
have ideas of where we could cut back in the future, if we felt
we had a long term need to reduce the size of our operations.
None of those cutbacks affect educational programming
whatsoever. We have the ability, particularly, to reduce the
number of certain performances that are of more cost to the
Kennedy Center.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kaiser.
Senator Jeffords. So the last question I have for you is
the air rights. Do you have to purchase those air rights?
Mr. Tangherlini. I'll take a stab at it, Mr. Chairman. The
air rights are controlled, we've actually done some analysis,
and much of them are controlled by the District of Columbia.
That would be an agreement that would have to be negotiated
between the District of Columbia and the Kennedy Center. We
have a legislative branch that would involve themselves in
those discussions as well.
Mr. Kaiser and I both met with the Mayor and the District
of Columbia is very supportive of this project and would look
very favorably and try to develop the most favorable terms
possible for the air rights related to this project.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Peters, do you have any comments on
the air rights?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, as was indicated, sometimes these
can be difficult issues. Generally, when there is a will to
negotiate air rights, such as exists between the Kennedy Center
and the District of Columbia here, they can be negotiated.
We've looked at these issues around the country and we believe
that there is a good foundation for negotiating the air rights
issue here.
Senator Jeffords. I want to thank you all for coming. I'm
excited, also, it's an awesome goal that you have established.
I look forward to working with you to see if we can make this
project a reality. I just praise you for the work that's been
done. We have a number of other problems, other than the
questions of the structures that we have to obviously try to
find answers to as well.
I certainly am excited and looking forward to working with
you. That should indicate the way I feel about the project, I
think, as to what this committee, I will request to them. I
thank you very much for your appearance today. Very helpful.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Mary Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
ways to improve access to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts. With me are Arthur Hamilton, Associate Administrator, Federal
Lands Highway Core Business Unit, and Douglas Laird, a Community
Planner who has led the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) efforts
on the Kennedy Center study for the past 3 years.
Much of the information I will discuss is drawn from the Kennedy
Center Access Study, mandated by section 1214 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and transmitted to Congress in
March 2001. The Access Study was a cooperative effort of the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the District of Columbia
Department of Public Works, the National Park Service (NPS), and FHWA.
The Access Study follows from the National Capital Planning
Commission's Legacy Plan (1997), which first envisioned a plaza over
the Potomac Freeway to connect the Center with the surrounding
community. A project steering committee of senior staff from each
cooperating agency guided the study, which examined a broad range of
alternatives for improving access, mobility, and safety to and around
the Center. In addition, the Access Study sought input from over thirty
other organizations with interests in the future of the Center and its
surroundings. Four public open houses were held during the study and
presentations were made to local citizen groups.
The 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (section 378 of P.L. 106-346) provided $10 million
for ``planning, environmental work, and preliminary engineering of
highway, pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle access to the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in the District of Columbia.''
An environmental assessment is now underway and is expected to be
complete in February 2003. Preliminary engineering is proceeding as
part of the environmental assessment. It will be completed in enough
detail to provide for conceptual review and approval actions from
Federal agencies in the spring of 2003.
My comments today will focus on the need for access improvements,
some preliminary information about the potential costs of those
improvements, and ways of structuring a plan for their implementation.
NEEDS
In its dual roles as the Nation's showcase for the performing arts
and a living memorial to the late President Kennedy, the Center
attracts over 5 million visitors a year. Two million patrons enjoy the
Center's rich cultural offerings, while three million more come to
visit the building and memorial. The Center is prominently located on
the banks of the Potomac River in the city's Monumental Core. Its
proximity to regional highways and transit facilities are part of the
Center's success in drawing visitors and patrons alike. However, the
construction of Interstate 66 (I-66) and compromises in the Center's
design, including its placement between the Interstate and the Potomac
River, have resulted in conditions that can make the final leg of a
journey to the Center challenging, particularly for visitors who arrive
by bicycle or on foot.
Patrons who attend nighttime performances at the Center must travel
at the end of Washington's evening rush hour. Drivers face a host of
challenges. Their principal problem is chronic recurring congestion,
stemming from the truncation of I-66. These connections were left
unresolved when development of a larger Inner Loop Freeway was
abandoned in the early 1970's. Intersections along the Rock Creek and
Potomac Parkway (hereafter referred to as the Rock Creek Parkway), Ohio
Drive, and Virginia Avenue are not only congested, they also suffer
high accident rates.
The roads around the Center are heavily used. Nearly 200,000
vehicles traverse the complex of ramps and roadways adjacent to the
Center throughout the day. Improvements must ensure that these volumes
are served and that traffic is not backed up onto the Roosevelt Bridge
or diverted onto neighborhood streets.
Patrons who do not drive to the Center face even greater
challenges. There is no direct pedestrian or bicycle path to the Center
from the east or southeast from the National Mall, and there are
inadequate connections from the riverfront. Pedestrians and bicyclists
who approach the Center from the south along the Potomac River
encounter a dangerously narrow portal on the east side of the Rock
Creek Parkway under the Roosevelt Bridge. Pedestrians are frequently
observed to dash across the Parkway near a blind corner on the Center's
southwestern corner. Visitors who might stroll along the river from
Georgetown face an indirect, unlit, and underdeveloped path. The Center
is disconnected from E Street, which ends in a series of elevated ramps
at the Center's entrance. In the absence of clear walkways, pedestrians
improvise a hazardous footpath and sprint across I-66. On the Center's
southeast corner, the bicycle connection to the Custis trail crosses an
I-66 off-ramp.
The Foggy Bottom Metro station is half a mile from the Center-an
uncomfortable walking distance for many patrons. The Center runs a
highly successful Show Shuttle transit service that ferries visitors
between Metro and the Center. However, the route is indirect and runs
on local streets through an historic neighborhood. Visitors who choose
to walk have difficulty finding their way to the Center, since it is
not visible from the Metro station and there are no directional signs
to guide them.
REMEDIES
The Kennedy Center Access Study presented many improvements that
would make getting to and from the Center safer and easier, while
dramatically improving the Center's setting and the West End's
cityscape. Major elements of the overall improvement package identified
through the Access Study are outlined below.
Kennedy Center Plaza: The centerpiece of the proposed
design is a plaza, set atop a deck over I-66, that would provide a new
public space and stately approach to the Center from the east. The
plaza would be connected to E and 25th Streets, thus reestablishing the
local street grid. I-66 immediately east of the Kennedy Center would be
modified to accommodate traffic beneath the plaza. The plaza, using
Interstate air rights, would contain a large public square and two
building sites. We understand the Center intends to develop these
buildings to house exhibits on the performing arts and provide
administrative and rehearsal space for the Center and the Washington
Opera. The plaza would create a rare opportunity to define new civic
space in the Monumental Core.
Riverfront Access: A grand open stairway (with elevators
for the handicapped) would link the Kennedy Center terrace to the
riverfront promenade, where a floating dock could serve river boats.
The open design would preserve views to the river from the Rock Creek
Parkway . These changes would facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and river
access and restore an important element of the building's original
design.
E Street Approach: E Street would be modified at its
western terminus to link the Center with President's Park and the core
of the City. Through-traffic would continue to use the E Street
expressway below the plaza, while local traffic would use an improved
surface-level street connected to the plaza.
Traffic and Safety North of the Kennedy Center: New
connections would be built between the Rock Creek Parkway and I-66 in
the vicinity of K Street. This would improve the Interstate's
directness and convenience, diverting traffic from the Parkway to I-66.
Reduced through-traffic on the Parkway would improve the riverfront
promenade for pedestrians and cyclists. The improvements would also
relieve congestion and address safety hazards at the Virginia Avenue,
Rock Creek Parkway, and 27th Street intersections.
Traffic and Safety South of the Kennedy Center: The
complex intersection of Ohio Drive with the terminus of I-66 and Rock
Creek Parkway would be grade-separated to relieve hazardous conditions
and congestion.
Transit Improvements: The E Street improvements would
allow the Kennedy Center Show Shuttle to travel a direct route, thereby
avoiding neighborhood streets. Alignment options for possible future
light rail service, which could provide direct access to the Center,
would be preserved.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements: The plaza and
connecting facilities would provide new linkages between the Kennedy
Center and the surrounding community. Safe bicycle connections would
also be provided to the Custis/I-66 trail across the Roosevelt Bridge.
Signing Improvements: Effective directional signs for
through and local pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic would be
installed.
Parking Improvements: The area below the plaza would
provide at least 500 new parking spaces. This parking would meet the
needs of the plaza's new buildings, ensuring that traffic generated by
the site could be accommodated without intruding upon the scarce
parking supply in the surrounding neighborhood. It could also serve the
Kennedy Center's overflow parking needs.
We understand that these proposed improvements have been
coordinated with, and are consistent with, the garage expansion and
related site improvements that are part of the Center's comprehensive
building renovation plan.
COSTS
Building the improvements described in the Access Study will be
complex and challenging. I would also like to emphasize that throughout
the course of the Access Study no specific funding sources for the
various improvements were identified nor were funding plans developed
for the improvements.
A preliminary capital cost estimate was developed during the Access
Study. To put the estimate into perspective, several caveats must be
kept in mind:
The estimate was based on preliminary conceptual designs.
The plaza's final configuration and the designs of other improvements,
including any security enhancements, are likely to change as
engineering proceeds. More will be known once the environmental
assessment and preliminary design now underway are completed.
Gross quantity estimates were derived from visual
inspections and adjusted from base-mapping with engineering experience.
They are not based on accurately measured quantities, since no such
data has been available through this stage of the project's
development.
Estimates were based on typical unit costs for
infrastructure construction in the District of Columbia in 1999 and
were adjusted during the Access Study to the year 2000.
Due to the very preliminary nature of the estimates, costs
were not adjusted to reflect inflation over the period of final design
and construction, roughly estimated to be 8-10 years.
Improvements at the base of the Roosevelt Bridge will rely
in part on the outcome of a current bridge study. The District of
Columbia is now in the third year of examining bridge conditions.
Bridge options could range from minor structural and geometric
improvements to complete bridge reconstruction on a new alignment. The
process for identifying, reviewing, and finalizing options could take
several more years.
Access Study costs were developed to provide a rough idea
of the resources required to implement the improvements and nothing
else.
Table 1 provides a summary of these initial rough estimates.
Initial site investigations are only now beginning and costs are likely
to rise as additional conditions affecting construction are revealed.
For example, a major sewer line (known as the Dulles Interceptor) was
brought to our attention in May 2002. An area below the Center was
built around these sewers, which run along the Center's length. The
sewers will limit circulation from the Center's parking garage to the
new parking area below the plaza and will require us to reconsider how
traffic from the Center will reach westbound I-66 and the Roosevelt
Bridge. Such is the nature of conceptual design. Cost estimates can
only achieve greater certainty as concepts are refined and a thorough
engineering analysis is undertaken.
Table 1.--Preliminary Estimated Capital Costs (Plaza and Access) in year
2000 Dollars for Kennedy Center Access Study Area Long-Range Plan
Improvements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Plan Element (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Sector:
Plaza, including surface-level E Street $223
connection to 23rd Street and 500 parking spaces on one
level beneath the plaza.................................
Riverfront Connection........................... 13
North Sector 11
South Sector 19
E Street (21st to 23rd Streets) 13
Total.................................................. $269
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the capital and operational costs associated with the
improvements is provided below. Capital cost estimates define the
construction and engineering costs associated with designing and
building the proposed improvements, while operations and maintenance
costs give insight into the ongoing, recurring costs required by the
new infrastructure.
CAPITAL COSTS
Preliminary capital cost estimates for the conceptual plan were
developed using typical unit costs for infrastructure construction in
the District of Columbia. These estimates are based on quantities
estimated through visual inspections. No exploratory work was
undertaken in their development. Table 1 summarizes the estimated
capital costs for major plan elements. The principal cost is for the
reconfiguration of roadways and the construction of the plaza over I-
66. The estimated cost of this improvement is approximately $223
million (all costs are in year 2000 dollars), and it includes the
construction of a new, surface-level E Street connecting the plaza to
23rd Street. It also includes one level of parking (approximately 500
spaces) beneath the plaza.
The plaza portion of the project presents a complex challenge, and
this difficulty is increased by the need to coordinate the construction
of two buildings within the plaza. The plaza and buildings cannot be
built independently, because ancillary building infrastructure (such as
waste sewers and utilities) must be carried to the building along or
within the plaza deck itself. The project must rise as a single,
coordinated enterprise.
Table 1 does not include any costs for the two buildings within the
boundaries of the plaza except for grading and excavation of their
footprints as part of developing the total area beneath the plaza for
parking and relocated roadways. Plaza costs assume the buildings will
be built. If the buildings are not built, the cost to fill these two
spaces, totaling 100,000 square feet in the plaza, would add another
$25.5 million to the $223 million plaza costs (in unadjusted year 2000
dollars).
The costs reflected in Table 1 include one level of parking beneath
the plaza (approximately 500 spaces). They assume that excavation,
columns, and foundations are part of the deck costs and that the cost
for parking includes flooring, ceilings, walls, and outfitting the
space for parking.
Roadway and pedestrian/bike path costs were estimated using
District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) standards for
materials, including bituminous asphalt for the primary roadways and
concrete pavement with granite curbing for plaza roads. Rock excavation
costs were calculated for lowering I-66 and constructing parking under
the plaza. Roadway excavation/demolition was included for the removal
of existing roadways that would be abandoned under the new design.
The plaza construction cost assumes a concrete deck and steel
girders with the deck and girders totaling approximately five feet in
depth. This is the deck depth required to support roadways and
vehicular traffic. The two new buildings will have their own support
systems. All bridges and overpasses are assumed to consist of concrete
decks with steel girders. Retaining walls are assumed to be reinforced
concrete with footings.
Landscaping and urban design costs include normal landscaping
components as well as specific features and surface treatments. For the
plaza area, these include special surface treatment for accommodating
outdoor events on the public square, a fountain feature, building
entrance zones, and side/rear yards for the buildings.
The cost estimate also includes basic mechanical and electrical
systems for areas underneath the plaza. The roadway area under the
plaza would not be a tunnel; it would be open on three sides. The best
engineering assessment at this time is that full-scale mechanical
ventilation systems would not be required. However, this issue should
be further analyzed during the design phase after the size of the plaza
and final roadway configurations have been determined. In addition,
fire and emergency access requirements should be determined at that
time.
A 40 percent contingency was added to the estimated construction
costs. A 15 percent planning and design fee, a 15 percent construction
management fee, a 10 percent engineering/administrative fee, and a 10
percent maintenance of traffic through construction work zones fee was
then applied to the post-contingency cost estimates to yield the total
capital cost.
The capital costs outlined above are for a traditional design-bid-
build contracting mechanism. A design-build contract might prove
advantageous to coordinate the design and construction of the plaza
with its associated buildings, but it would come at a higher cost and
require moneys in advance. In contrast, design-bid-build contracting
comes with more certainty about fiscal costs, but at the expense of a
delayed schedule, which in itself will cause costs to rise with
inflation.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Operation and maintenance of the improvements identified in the
Access Study would incur continuing costs. These costs would include:
Lighting. An extensive overhead lighting system would be required
under the plaza, using standard lighting fixtures on the roadway
sections. If special lighting fixtures were used on the plaza,
maintenance costs would be slightly higher. Street light lamps would
typically be replaced on a 4-year cycle. Overhead lights under the
plaza should be re-lamped on a 2-year basis. Electrical power for the
lighting systems would be the only operational cost.
Ventilation (if required). If subsequent design studies determine
that the areas beneath the plaza require ventilation, carbon monoxide
detection, closed-circuit television, heat detection and traffic
control systems, regular service would be needed to ensure the systems
are functioning properly. These systems would require electrical power.
Mechanical. Lowering the grade of I-66 may require a storm water
pumping station. If a pumping station is needed, the sump pumps would
require regular maintenance. Operational costs would be minimal.
Structural. This includes normal bridge or structural maintenance
items such as drainage system cleaning, concrete repair, girder
painting, graffiti removal, leak sealing, etc. Annual costs would be
minimal for many years, but the long-term costs for maintaining a large
elevated structure would be significant. A comprehensive maintenance
program that would keep drains operating, cracks sealed, and girders
rust free would extend the life of the structure. A major
rehabilitation project should be expected in approximately 30 years.
Roadway. Items to be maintained include pavement, pavement
markings, striping, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks. Pavement markings
would need replacing every 5 years. Pavement, curbs and gutters, and
sidewalks have an expected lifetime of 20 years between major
rehabilitations. Minor maintenance, such as pothole and sidewalk
repairs, would occur annually or when required.
Signs. Signs would require maintenance to repair knockdowns (from
accidents) and graffiti removal. If overhead signs are used under the
plaza, they would require regular maintenance to replace bulbs and/or
lighting fixtures on the sign structures. There would also be some
costs for electrical service.
Landscaping. Trees and shrubs would be trimmed and/or pruned on a
regular schedule and replaced when necessary.
Snow and Ice Control. All roadway surfaces would require
application of abrasives and/or salt during inclement winter weather.
Cleaning. All roadways would require regular sweeping and flushing,
and the roadsides should be kept free of litter.
Annual maintenance costs, except for the regular replacement of
streetlight lamps, snow removal, and cleaning would be relatively low
for many years. After 10 years or so, annual costs would start to rise
as various elements reach the end of their service lives. Major
rehabilitation work should be anticipated in 30 years. The costs for
maintenance and operation for all elements of the new deck, pedestrian
bridges, and roadways are estimated at approximately $100,000 per year.
This estimate is based upon current DDOT expenditures for major
roadways.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
With a complex and highly visible project of this nature, the roles
of each agency responsible for the enterprise must be described as
carefully as the project itself. We know that strong institutional
arrangements and clear understandings of responsibilities are critical
to keeping the project on schedule and containing costs. These
agreements will provide a firm foundation for success, but they must
build in sufficient flexibility so the parties can adapt to unforeseen
circumstances.
A detailed memorandum of agreement (MOA) is the best way to meet
these goals. This would provide the various agencies with a complete
understanding of their requirements and allow their roles to evolve as
the project progresses. The agencies involved include the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, DDOT, NPS, and FHWA. Elements
of the MOA are outlined below.
For each party, the MOA would identify:
Jurisdictional and maintenance responsibilities for the
project;
Administrative, financial, and project implementation and
management oversight;
Engineering and other services in connection with the
survey, design, construction, and improvements of the project.
The body of the MOA would identify individual agency roles in more
detail including:
Lead agency for project development and what this entails,
such as final design approval and funding requirements and
responsibilities.
Cooperating agency or agencies and what this entails, such
as providing consultant assistance contracts, permits, and right-of-way
plans.
Definition of the standards under which the project is to
be designed and constructed, such as American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards for
roads and National Building Code and National Electrical Code for
buildings.
Final disposition of as-built plans and project records.
Responsibilities for providing comments and concurrences
on milestones in the development and implementation of the project.
Funding and how it is provided, and in accordance with
what applicable rules and regulations it will be administered.
The MOA would also include standard clauses required by law,
including references to the Anti-Deficiency Act, Non-Discrimination,
Prohibitions on Lobbying, and coordination of responsibilities under
the Federal Tort Claims Act.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, FHWA is committed to work with the
Kennedy Center, the District of Columbia, the National Park Service,
and others at the Federal and local level on possible access
improvements to the Kennedy Center that would improve the safety and
efficiency of all transportation modes in its vicinity. We look forward
to working with this Committee over the coming years to ensure that the
transportation system around the Kennedy Center serves the Center and
all residents in the best possible manner.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the results of the
Kennedy Center Access Study. I will be happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
______
Statement of Dan Tangherlini, Director, D.C. Department of
Transportation
Good morning Chairman Jeffords and members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Thank you for this opportunity to speak
before the Committee. My name is Dan Tangherlini and I am acting
director of the Department of Transportation, District of Columbia
Government.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a major
national tourist attraction and the Washington Region's premiere
entertainment venue. In the year 2000, the U.S. Department of
Transportation published the Kennedy Center Access Study that was
authorized by Congress in 1998. The District Department of
Transportation participated in this Study and is assisting in the
subsequent environmental analysis currently underway.
The District Department of Transportation recognizes the Kennedy
Center's severe transportation access constraints. The 2000 Study
documents the problems including:
The series of freeways and parkways surrounding the Center
which serve to isolate it from both District neighborhoods and the
National Mall;
Evening commuter traffic congestion on the Rock Creek and
Potomac Freeway and ramps to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge which
interferes with performance-bound traffic to the Center;
An absence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities offering
safe and direct routes to the Center; and
Inadequate access to the facility by public transit. The
study notes that the Foggy Bottom Metrorail Station, the Metrorail
Station closest to the Kennedy Center, is one-half mile away.
The centerpiece of the proposed transportation access improvements
would be the creation of a plaza, which would carry E Street NW
directly into the Kennedy Center. This plaza would be created by
constructing a deck over the Potomac Freeway. The plaza could include a
public square and two building sites on either side of the extended E
Street NW.
The District Department of Transportation strongly supports
transportation improvements, which will eliminate the Kennedy Center's
physical isolation and connect the Center with the Foggy Bottom
neighborhood and the Monumental Core of the City. We also support the
aesthetic vision of restoring the L'Enfant Plan street grid and
economic opportunities that may be created by the project.
We respectfully suggest that the Federal Government should fund
this project through a special appropriation which would not impact the
District's annual allocation of Federal Aid, and that the Federal
Highway Administration should construct the improvements.
The Center's initial design concept provided pedestrian access to
the Potomac River and vehicular access from the Rock Creek and Potomac
Parkway, yet, due to funding constraints, the Kennedy Center was built
in its isolated environment. The level of improvements recommended by
the study to correct the original access deficiencies is extensive. The
Access Study places the cost of improvements at $269 million. By
contrast, the District Department of Transportation spent approximately
$255 million in construction activity in fiscal year 2001. Our entire
annual apportionment and allocation for the current fiscal year is $126
million.
The District Department of Transportation cautions that the
proposed improvements should not be considered independently of the
District of Columbia's transportation network. The District is
currently engaged in a study to develop solutions to the structural and
operation constrains of the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge. The
Kennedy Center access project should be closely coordinated with the
bridge study.
In turn, both of these projects must be considered within a larger
context of land use and transportation planning in the West End. To
adequately address transportation problems in the area, including the
Kennedy Center, a comprehensive approach should include a corridor
encompassing the Whitehurst Freeway, Lower K Street, and the Roosevelt
Bridge.
In its discussion of the Kennedy Center in the Legacy Plan, the
National Capital Planning Commission states that a successful
transportation plan must extend beyond physical improvements and that
behavioral changes must also occur. It explains that employers must
develop traffic management programs to reduce congestion and travel
times.
A comprehensive transportation planning approach to solutions will
truly weave access to the Kennedy Center into the transportation fabric
of the District of Columbia.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
__________
Statement of Michael Kaiser, President of the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Michael
Kaiser. As president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, I am pleased to be able to appear before you today to lend my
strong support for legislation that will increase substantially access
to the performing arts, and to arts education, for children and adults
in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States. If
enacted, the legislation before you will buildupon the success of the
Kennedy Center since its founding in 1971 by providing greatly enhanced
physical access to those living in or visiting the District of Columbia
and by creating the resources required to improve the services the
Kennedy Center can offer outside of the District in all fifty states of
the union. This legislation, therefore, provides a natural development
of the original vision for the Kennedy Center.
The Kennedy Center is both our national arts center and a living
memorial to President Kennedy. I emphasize the word ``living'' because
unlike other memorials whose beauty and majesty lie primarily in their
structures, the importance of the Kennedy Center also lies within the
people whose lives it touches. Each year, thousands of musicians,
dancers, actors and actresses bring performances to life. Over 5
million schoolchildren in all 50 states benefit from our outreach and
educational programs each year. Millions of patrons enjoy performances
at the Kennedy Center and millions of tourists visit simply to see our
nation's tribute to President Kennedy.
I am proud of all that the Kennedy Center has done to meet its
national mandate. The reach of the Kennedy Center has grown beyond what
anyone could have envisioned when the National Cultural Center was
first authorized in 1958. But much more remains to be done. The
proposal before this Committee will ensure that the Kennedy Center's
physical facilities can support our enhanced vision of this nation's
living arts memorial in two important ways.
First, the legislation will expand access to the Kennedy Center.
The reconfiguration of the roadways and the construction of a new Plaza
will make physically accessing the Kennedy Center more user-friendly.
Traffic will be routed more directly to the Kennedy Center and new bike
trails and pedestrian paths will make alternative methods of access a
reality.
These changes not only will provide pragmatic physical access, but
also will finally link the Kennedy Center to the rest of the District.
Currently the Kennedy Center is an island in a sea of roadways. As
envisioned in the Department of Transportation's report, the
reconfigured roadways, bike trails and pedestrian paths will link the
Kennedy Center more directly to other important landmarks and the Mall.
More than four decades after it was envisioned, the Kennedy Center will
finally become linked to the heart of our capital's memorials on the
Mall.
Access will be increased not only in a physical sense, but also in
terms of the potential audience. With the expansion of the Kennedy
Center through the creation of the Plaza and the construction of two
buildings on the Plaza, more opportunities for reaching new audiences
can be realized. The increased green space around the Kennedy Center
makes consideration of outdoor concerts viable. New rehearsal space
expands the possibility of master classes or a greater variety of new
pieces created for smaller venues. The greater the variety of the
artistic works that can be brought to the Kennedy Center, the broader
the audience that the Center can reach--a vital goal for an arts center
charged with serving a multicultural nation.
The proposal will also help the Kennedy Center fulfill another
important part of its mandate--to educate the Nation about the
performing arts. One of the new Plaza buildings will be dedicated
solely to that mission. The new building will house displays on the
history of the performing arts, drawing from the collections of the
Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution. Visitors will also
be able to experience life in the arts through interactive displays
that allow visitors to take part in such activities as conducting an
orchestra or designing sets and costumes.
The future of the performing arts in our Nation is dependent on
educating children about this nation's rich arts heritage and the joy
of involvement in the arts. This new building dedicated to educating
our citizens about our nation's rich performing arts history and
increasing an understanding of the potential of our arts future is an
essential component to fulfilling the Kennedy Center's role as our
nation's cultural center.
I am proud of all that the Kennedy Center has accomplished over the
last 31 years. It has sealed its place as the center of our nation's
performing arts; it has honored President Kennedy's memory with
continuous arts performances; and it has educated generations of
Americans about all that is great in our nation's performing arts.
The Kennedy Center is now prepared to buildupon its success in this
new century. As in the past, we will work in partnership with Congress
to bring this shared vision of an expanded national performing arts
center to life. The new buildings on the Plaza will be constructed with
privately raised funds. This will be no small undertaking on the part
of the Kennedy Center. However, I am confident the private funds
required can be identified. The growing enthusiasm for the activities
of the Kennedy Center can be seen in the increasing levels of private
support we have enjoyed recently. This fiscal year, alone, the Kennedy
Center will raise more private money than ever before in its history,
increasing contributed revenue 25 percent over the prior year during a
difficult economic period.
I feel confident, therefore, that the partnership and shared vision
that have bolstered the Kennedy Center to a level of success not
imagined at its inception will bring this project to fruition. Everyone
at the Kennedy Center is deeply grateful to this Committee for its
consideration of this legislation and its past support and especially
to you Mr. Chairman for your continuing interest in the arts and
education of this nation. We would also like to acknowledge the
tremendous support we have received from the Department of
Transportation and Secretary Mineta and the District of Columbia and
Mayor Williams.
I stand ready to work with Congress, with the Department of
Transportation and with the District of Columbia to realize this vision
for our nation's art center and am confident that our historic
partnership will bring unimaginable benefits to our Nation through an
expanded and more accessible John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts.