LETTER TO EUGENE L. KILCULLEN FROM (SANITIZED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 22, 2008
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: April 9, 1984
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
~~~~~~?d
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
:TCJ: '(Officer designation, loom number, and
~: D/a%L
;:~:7D .43 Hgs~ '
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
OL 2043-84
~ 9 ~ APR 19~Q
STAT
STAT
COMMENTS (Number each .comment, to show from whom
fo whom. prow o line across column after each comment.)
FORM 61 0 USE VREVi0U5
I_79 EDITIONS '~
Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
 Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
l:cnU:J Inlciln~rnu' i\~ri~iy
Mr. Eugene G. Kilcullen
President
c an, irginia
Dear Mr. Kilcullen:
0 9 APR 1984
This letter is in response to .your letter of 28 March 1984. I would like
to state at the beginning that the issues raised in your letter do not result
from planning ambiguities but rather from continued miscommunication.
Through the CIA Traffic Advisory Committee, we have worked diligently to
agree upon planning assumptions for future traffic growth in this area, assess
the+impact that growth will have on local roads, identify locations where road
improvements will be required, and to create alternative design concepts for
those needed improvements. The results of these efforts have been documented
in the Technical Memoranda prepared by Dewberry and Davis and made available to
cor~lnunity representatives for study and discussion within the o~wlnity.
The perception that we have not seriously pursued improvements to the
Parkway is unfortunate. I am enclosing a copy of Technical Memorandum No. 2
from Dewberry and Davis. You will note that the report deals at length with
traffic operation on the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWt~), I-495, and
the connecting interchange. The lack of major road improvement alternatives
for the GWMP is not a result of little effort, but rather a physical fact
supported by the consultant's analysis. Planned widening of. the Cabin John
Bridge and associated improvement of the Parkway ramps will provide short-term
improvements in the Parkway operation. However, in the longer term, no
additional improvements can be found that will relieve the capacity constraints
associated with moving GWMP traffic onto and off of I-495. Consequently, the
only beneficial road improvement that has been identified along the GWh~ is
what you describe as the minimal effort associated with improving acceleration
ramps from the CIA exits onto the Parkway.
The CIA Traffic Advisory Committee meeting of 13 March was preceded by a
notice to Committee members stating that the meeting would deal with reducing
the number of alternatives identified for Route 123 improvements. At the
beginning of the meeting, Mr.. Maxfield presented Committee members with a
? letter containing a series of issues. One of the issues was the proposal you
reference to create a visitor center along Turkey Run Road. This proposal was
new to the Committee members, its merits had; not~been-evaluated, and it was
peripheral to the announced agenda for the 13 March meeting. For these
reasons, the proposal was not discussed. Rather, Dewberry and Davis was
requested to review the proposal and comment on it.
Mr. Fowler is correct in stating that the only designs he is currently
tasked with developing are those associated with Route 123 improvements. With
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
 Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
Mr. Eugene L. Kilcullen
respect to the Turkey Run Road proposal, the request~to Dewberry and Davis was
simply to render a professional opinion on its merits. Again, it is important
to realize that Turkey Run Road has been considered throughout the analysis.
Based on the amount of traffic projected to use the road, no additional
improvements are requi-red except for the minor addition of a turning lane at
Turkey Run Road and Route 193. If we are to place more employee traffic on
Turkey 'Run Road, then the analysis indicates the only place we can expect the
traffic to .cane from is Route 123. Route 193 is operating at capacity and our
CWt~ entrance is already capable of handling the traffic caning from the
Parkway.
That brings the discussion to our conversation of 27 March. I stated at
that time that the Agency had reviewed the proposal to install the major
visitor center along Turkey Run Road and found that proposal unacceptable. I
further stated that the Agency had no objection to placing more of its employee
traffic on that road. I also stated that placing more employee traffic on
Turkey Run Road would probably require a two-way connection between Routes 123
and 193 and that members of your Committee had already expressed opposition to
this two-way connection.
With regard to the proposal to create a visitors center at the G~
entrance to the Agency, I am enclosing a copy of a status report recently
provided to -Traffic Advisory Committee members.
We regret that some tnecnbers of the community still hold the view that this
Agency is not sensitive to their concerns. I assure you that within the
constraints imposed by current and planned regional transportation systems we
are doing our best to address all traffic concerns associated with the CIA
expansion.
Sincerely,
STAT
Chairman
CIA Traffic Advisory Committee
Enclosures:
1. Technical Memorandum No. 2
2. Visitors Center Status Report
cc: CIA Traffic Advisory Committee
(w/Mr. Kilcullen's Letter)
Representative Erank Wolf (w/encl 2)
Senator Clive Duval (w/encl 2)
Delegate Robert Andrews (w/encl 2)
Mrs. Nancy Ealck (w/encl 2).
Mr. H. M. Shaver, Jr.
VDN&T, Rictmond, Va. (w/ericl 2
and Mr. Kilcullen's Letter)
President, McLean Citizens Assn (w/o encls)
Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
 Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
 Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
C:cnUal Intclli~;cncc A~;cncy
2 6 MAR 1984
STAT
This letter is in response to your letter of 9 March 1984 in which you
requested an interim report on our study of a visitor center at the George
Washington Memorial Parkway (GWh1P) gate.
We have been attempting to design a secure and efficient visitor center
for the Parkway gate since last fall. To date, wee have managed to accommodate
all security requirements in the design but have been continually frustrated in
our attempts to provide efficient traffic operation. The problem is the short
distance between our property line and the ring road within the compound.
While the visitor center at the Route 123 gate requires about 800 feet, we have
approximately 300 feet to provide the same function on the Parkway gate.
All design concepts .we have developed so far result in creation of a major
"T" intersection on the~~ring road. The disadvantai3e of this intersection is
the disincentive it offers to peak hour employee traffic. While the community
is interested in seeing more of our employees use the Parkway, creation of this
intersection, which would require signaling for peak hour traffic management,
is seen as a disincentive to employee use of the Parkway entrance.
The trade-off is that the design does allow processing of visitors
arriving in private automobiles. However, the major visitor arrivals occur in
the offpeak hours when traffic operation on the major arteries is not a
problem.
As you recall, the proposed GW[~ visitor center does not eliminate the
need for the Route 123 visitor center. The Route 123 center is still required
for caiunercial deliveries and public transportation. The Parkway Center would
accommodate the private automobile traffic and was originally proposed by
citizens immediately adjacent to our Route 123 entrance who perceived a
potential noise problem with the Route 123 center.
Our perception has been that, over time, other citizens have begun to view
the visitor center issue as a factor impacting the design of the off site road
improvements. As noted above, the peak visitor processing period occurs after
our employees are on duty and after the peak traffic hour on the offsite roads.
Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
 Approved For Release 2008/08/22 :CIA-RDP90B01370R000100010016-3
STAT
While the nature of the final offsite roads design may affect the design and
placement of our visitor facilities, the reverse is not true.
You have recently received a copy of a letter from the Ad Hoc Committee
for Traffic to/from CIA containing a proposal to place a visitor center on
Turkey Run Road. This proposal is unacceptable to the Agency. While there are
a number of problems associated with the proposal, the basic problem is that
the western portion of our compound is unsuitable as a major visitor entrance
to a Federal Agency Headquarters.
I assure you that we continue to seek ways to encourage traffic on to the
G