This article was republished with permission from 草莓传媒’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from 草莓传媒鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for聽听迟辞诲补测.
In a tersely-worded letter to the Maryland Department of Transportation, the U.S. Navy served notice that the state should not plan on gaining control of 鈥渁ny鈥� military property in Bethesda for the widening of the Capital Beltway (I-495).
The letter also took the agency to task for not considering transit alternatives and the impacts of the pandemic on commuting patterns.
The Nov. 4 correspondence is among thousands of comments provided to MDOT during a just-completed public feedback period on the Hogan administration鈥檚 plan to add four 鈥渆xpress toll lanes鈥� to Interstates 495 and 270.
During testimony before a legislative panel on Friday, Transportation Secretary Greg Slater called the Navy鈥檚 objections 鈥減retty significant and serious.鈥� An influential local official agreed.
The two-page letter was signed by Capt. Mary S. Seymour, the Commanding Officer at Naval Support Activity Bethesda, a base whose main tenant is the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. A sprawling property across from the National Institutes of Health, NSA Bethesda fronts on MD 355 and borders the Beltway.
The Navy raises several objections to the state鈥檚 proposal to add four lanes to the two highways.
The letter chides MDOT for continuing to assert that it will take NSA Bethesda property for the project.
鈥淎s previously stated in multiple letters from the installation to MDOT, the Navy will not cede any property for the construction of this toll road,鈥� Seymour writes. 鈥淒oing so would compromise Antiterrorism/Force Protection guidelines and impact the NSA Bethesda Mission. The Navy requests the project remove the property acquisition from consideration in the鈥� analysis.鈥�
The letter notes an 鈥渙ngoing disagreement鈥� between the state and Department of Defense over 鈥渞ight-of-way and fence line impacts鈥� and finds MDOT鈥檚 鈥渁nalysis of the construction footprint to be woefully inadequate.鈥�
鈥淭he information in the [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] shows disruption to mission critical infrastructure on the northeast corner of the installation without providing any technical information on the potential size and duration of those impacts,鈥� Seymour wrote.
鈥淚mpacts to those facilities and infrastructure will cause an immediate degradation of installation support services to Walter Reed Military Medical Center and mission critical construction. This is a direct contradiction to the DEIS assumption that 鈥渋mpacts to any individual facility would not alter access to or use of the hospital facilities.鈥�
Echoing complaints from state legislators, local officials and members of the public, the Navy faults the state for failing to consider the potential benefits of increased transit. 鈥淭his document is supposed to analyze a multi-modal transportation system, yet focuses exclusively on toll roads.鈥�
In addition, the letter urged greater analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on both road and transit use. 鈥淭hese impacts are changing commuter behavior and should be reflected in this document,鈥� Seymour told MDOT.
In an appearance before a House Transportation and Environment subcommittee on Friday, Slater, the state鈥檚 transportation chief, told lawmakers he had read the Navy鈥檚 letter.
鈥淚 think certainly some of the concerns that they鈥檝e raised are pretty significant and serious,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd we want to work through that with them and really talk through all of those [concerns] with them.鈥�
The consensus-oriented secretary, who is popular with officials from both parties, said he took issue with the tone of the Navy鈥檚 letter, which he described as 鈥渒ind of a not-super-productive dialogue.鈥�
He said he has urged his project team to reach out to NSA Bethesda officials in the near future.
While the substance of the Navy鈥檚 objections mirrored those that have been raised for many months by environmentalists, Democratic officials and homeowners near the two highways, several officials said it was striking for DOD to be raising the same issues.
鈥淭here now seems to be a pretty unified wall of opposition to this project,鈥� said Montgomery County Planning Board Chairman Casey Anderson, whose agency has clashed with MDOT staff during project discussions.
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 really feel there was going to be a solid, almost-unanimous opposition among all the relevant entities that own property or have some legal role in approving this,鈥� he added. 鈥淚 feel a little better about this than I did six months ago.鈥�
Del. Marc Korman (D-Montgomery), the chair of the T&E subcommittee on capital spending, called the Navy鈥檚 objections 鈥渟ignificant.鈥�
鈥淭he meat of the letter is them saying 鈥� and I鈥檓 paraphrasing 鈥� you鈥檙e not taking any of our land, for national security reasons, and stop pretending you are,鈥� he said in an interview.
Ben Ross, head of the Maryland Transit Opportunities Coalition and a vocal critic of the project, called the Navy鈥檚 objections 鈥渁 big obstacle鈥� for the state.
鈥淭he Navy repeatedly raised this issue with MDOT during DEIS preparation, and MDOT did not modify its plan to use Navy property,鈥� he said in an email. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 see U.S. DOT approving鈥� something that requires land from the Navy that the Navy says it needs for 鈥榤ission-critical鈥� reasons.鈥�
Efforts to get reaction from supporters of the project on Friday were not successful.
