District of Columbia

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/DildineWTOP/status/1354531264137719814

[Alps]

Someone didn't get the memo about mile-based exit numbers.

[The Ghostbuster]

The exits on 395 were unnumbered until 2008. If the exits had been numbered via mileage, it would have been an alphabet soup of Exit 1s and 2s. That is probably why they went the sequential route. Heck, even 395's Virginia exits aren't completely mileage-based, although that might be irrelevant.

[jakeroot]

I think sequential exit numbering would be much easier to make sense of. The freeway just isn't long enough to justify having mileage-based numbering.

[vdeane]

Ugh. Every other place that is redesignating or re-signing a whole route that currently sequential is converting to mileage-based.  Someone should tell DDOT that sequential is not allowed anymore.  If they don't want mile-based numbers, then they shouldn't have added numbers in the first place.  Any chance they could just take the numbers down?

They could also reduce the suffixes by using exit 0.  Such would avoid any suffix higher than D.

Regarding I-395 in VA, the 2020 MUTCD would appear to allow exit numbers to be off by 1 to avoid suffixes, so it would be compliant upon adoption.  Ditto for I-295 in DC.

[famartin]

If we tried to go by mileage based, we could do something like this...

NB I-395:
1A - US 1 NORTH/14th Street/National Mall
1B - Potomac Park/US Park Police
2A - 12th Street Expressway/Capitol One Arena
2B - Maine Avenue/SW Waterfront/Nationals Park
3A - I-195 NORTH/D St NW/US Senate/C St SW/US Capitol/The House
3B - S Capitol St/Nationals Park
4A - 6th St SE
4B - 11th St SE/ Southeast Blvd
5A - DC 295 NORTH
5B - I-295 SOUTH

SB I-395:
4B - M St SE/Navy Yard
4A - 8th Street SE
3 - I-195 NORTH/Downtown
2B - 6th St SW/7th St SW/L'enfant Plaza
2A - Maine Avenue/12th St/ Downtown
1B - Potomac Park/US Park Police

I bend the rules a little here, but I think its close enough to be acceptable.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/dildinewtop/status/1354543926468866048

[jmacswimmer]

FWIW: Looking back thru GSV, it looks like DDOT actually did renumber some (but not all) of 395's exits to mileage based circa 2014...before reverting back to sequential.

[1995hoo]

FWIW: Looking back thru GSV, it looks like DDOT actually did renumber some (but not all) of 395's exits to mileage based circa 2014...before reverting back to sequential.

But what's weird is that if you click back to the previous exit (Maine Avenue, Southwest Waterfront, Nationals Park) in that same October 2014 Street View, you'll see that sign had an Exit 4 tab. The numbering on that road, and frankly the signage in general, has just always been pretty bad. Even if anyone here disagrees with particular aspects of what they're doing with the new signage, it's fair to give them credit for trying to fix a longstanding mess. I reserve judgment on how well they do until I see the finished product, of course!

[Roadsguy]

Where did I-295 and I-695 officially end before the 11th Street Bridge project? Did I-295 officially cross the river and end at the Barney Circle (or at least at I-695), and did the unsigned I-695 ever run concurrent with I-395 to Maine Avenue, or did it always end at the merge with I-395?

Also, when was the DC 295 designation actually created? According to old Street View imagery, it wasn't signed at all on BGSes before the 11th Street Bridge project, and still isn't in a lot of places. There was always route trailblazer signage, but that was and still is very sporadic, especially on the Kenilworth Avenue Freeway section. DC 295 seems like it would have been a relatively recent development, considering that the original plans for I-295 took it on a completely different route onto the east leg of the inner loop to I-95. Was the Kenilworth Avenue Freeway originally intended to simply be unsigned?

[1995hoo]

DC-295 signs went up in the early 1990s. I-295 did indeed cross the river; it was supposed to continue underneath Barney Circle and then along what is now the RFK Stadium Access Road, curve past the stadium, and ultimately connect up to (unbuilt) I-95 roughly near "Dave Thomas Circle" where I-95 was to curve north along the railroad tracks. The DC-295 designation was intended to help provide continuity between I-295 and MD-295 (setting aside that there's a gap in the numbering where the highway runs along MD-201 for a short stretch).

[PHLBOS]

Ugh. Every other place that is redesignating or re-signing a whole route that currently sequential is converting to mileage-based.  Someone should tell DDOT that sequential is not allowed anymore.  If they don't want mile-based numbers, then they shouldn't have added numbers in the first place.  Any chance they could just take the numbers down?

They could also reduce the suffixes by using exit 0.  Such would avoid any suffix higher than D.

Regarding I-395 in VA, the 2020 MUTCD would appear to allow exit numbers to be off by 1 to avoid suffixes, so it would be compliant upon adoption.  Ditto for I-295 in DC.

IIRC, the I-695/Baltimore Beltway still uses sequential interchange numbers; however, most are located in such a manner that a conversion would likely mean few if not no changes for those.

It's also worth noting that MassDOT has seemed to have gotten a pass for not including I-291, I-391 & the Lowell Connector in its interchange renumbering plans.  Like the new numbers for I-395 in DC; such a conversion would've created excessive alphabet soup for those Bay State roads.

[Roadsguy]

RE: I-695, I answered my own question by finding this document detailing the route changes for the 11th Street Bridge project. I-695 did indeed officially begin at I-395. The document also confirms that I-295 ended at the Barney Circle, and even still officially existed as a planned designation north to Capitol Street. Additionally, the reason the originally-planned redesignation of I-395/695/195 never happened was because it depended on the cancelled Barney Circle Freeway project.

[AlexandriaVA]

The exits on 395 were unnumbered until 2008. If the exits had been numbered via mileage, it would have been an alphabet soup of Exit 1s and 2s. That is probably why they went the sequential route. Heck, even 395's Virginia exits aren't completely mileage-based, although that might be irrelevant.

In fact, they're not mileage-based at all. They're all in sequential clusters based on local interchanges.

Cluster 1: Springfield Interchange
Cluster 2: Edsall Rd
Cluster 3: Duke St/Little River Turnpike
Cluster 4: Seminary Rd
Cluster 5: King St
Cluster 6/7: Shirlington and Quaker Lane/Glebe Rd
Cluster 8-9-10: Columbia Pike/Pentagon/US-1 south/Pentagon City/Crystal City/GW Parkway

[1995hoo]

RE: I-695, I answered my own question by finding this document detailing the route changes for the 11th Street Bridge project. I-695 did indeed officially begin at I-395. The document also confirms that I-295 ended at the Barney Circle, and even still officially existed as a planned designation north to Capitol Street. Additionally, the reason the originally-planned redesignation of I-395/695/195 never happened was because it depended on the cancelled Barney Circle Freeway project.

North Capitol Street, FWIW. The directional reference is not a prefix on those particular street names in the same manner that it would be in many other cities because they are three separate streets that don't join up (North Capitol Street, East Capitol Street, and South Capitol Street; there is no West Capitol Street because it would be where the National Mall is).



In the "you learn something new every day" department, I read that apparently one reason portions of DC-295 are so narrow and substandard is that once upon a time the right-of-way was constrained by streetcar tracks that ran out to (appropriate for this forum) Deane Avenue NE.

[AlexandriaVA]

Standard is a relative term. Once you get used to being tailgated at 60 MPH in a 45 MPH zone, everything comes easy soon after that 

[froggie]

RE: I-695, I answered my own question by finding this document detailing the route changes for the 11th Street Bridge project. I-695 did indeed officially begin at I-395. The document also confirms that I-295 ended at the Barney Circle, and even still officially existed as a planned designation north to Capitol Street. Additionally, the reason the originally-planned redesignation of I-395/695/195 never happened was because it depended on the cancelled Barney Circle Freeway project.

East North Capitol Street, FWIW.

FTFY.  I-295 was cancelled north(west) of East Capitol when 95 through the District was axed.  But, for some reason, the section between Barney Circle and East Capitol remained on the books.  Perhaps because the East Capitol St bridge was intended at the time as the connection across the river.  This would have been before the Barney Circle Freeway project was conceived.

[1995hoo]

RE: I-695, I answered my own question by finding this document detailing the route changes for the 11th Street Bridge project. I-695 did indeed officially begin at I-395. The document also confirms that I-295 ended at the Barney Circle, and even still officially existed as a planned designation north to Capitol Street. Additionally, the reason the originally-planned redesignation of I-395/695/195 never happened was because it depended on the cancelled Barney Circle Freeway project.

East North Capitol Street, FWIW.

FTFY.  I-295 was cancelled north(west) of East Capitol when 95 through the District was axed.  But, for some reason, the section between Barney Circle and East Capitol remained on the books.  Perhaps because the East Capitol St bridge was intended at the time as the connection across the river.  This would have been before the Barney Circle Freeway project was conceived.

Thanks. I don't think I knew about that and I can see I misread his post because I was thinking of the original plan when I-95 was still on the books. Either way, the point about those three streets' names remains valid.

[vdeane]

So I ended up looking in to what could be done with mileage-based numbers on I-195 and I-395.  IMO, if you use exit 0 and clever fudging by 1 (also, I've never really been a fan of numbering termini as NY historically has not, so I didn't here, though as noted below, that's not strictly necessary to get the benefits of this scheme), you can get something that's both close to the mileage and actually reasonable; these use no suffix higher than C.

I-395: (existing/proposed in graphic->proposed):
1->0A
2->0B
3->1A
4->1B
5->1C
6->2A
7->2B
8->3A
9->3B
10->3A
11->3B
12A-B->4A-B or not numbered (terminus)

I-195 (existing->proposed):
6->not numbered (I-395 ramp)
7->not numbered (terminus)
8->0
9->1
10->2

All on the mile or off by 1, and taking advantage of the fact that the intermediate interchanges on existing I-695 are half interchanges (actually, such would allow I-195 to retain exit numbers at I-395 if my proposed 0 were made a SB 1 or 0C; then existing exit 7 could be 0A-B).

Ugh. Every other place that is redesignating or re-signing a whole route that currently sequential is converting to mileage-based.  Someone should tell DDOT that sequential is not allowed anymore.  If they don't want mile-based numbers, then they shouldn't have added numbers in the first place.  Any chance they could just take the numbers down?

They could also reduce the suffixes by using exit 0.  Such would avoid any suffix higher than D.

Regarding I-395 in VA, the 2020 MUTCD would appear to allow exit numbers to be off by 1 to avoid suffixes, so it would be compliant upon adoption.  Ditto for I-295 in DC.

IIRC, the I-695/Baltimore Beltway still uses sequential interchange numbers; however, most are located in such a manner that a conversion would likely mean few if not no changes for those.

It's also worth noting that MassDOT has seemed to have gotten a pass for not including I-291, I-391 & the Lowell Connector in its interchange renumbering plans.  Like the new numbers for I-395 in DC; such a conversion would've created excessive alphabet soup for those Bay State roads.

I mean, as much as I'd rather everything be uniformly mileage-based in accordance with MUTCD standards, if it's still sequential but not too noticeable I won't complain a ton.  But this proposed scheme for I-395 is definitely noticeable.  As is I-664 in VA (which really needs a renumber south of the bridge).

The exits on 395 were unnumbered until 2008. If the exits had been numbered via mileage, it would have been an alphabet soup of Exit 1s and 2s. That is probably why they went the sequential route. Heck, even 395's Virginia exits aren't completely mileage-based, although that might be irrelevant.

In fact, they're not mileage-based at all. They're all in sequential clusters based on local interchanges.

Cluster 1: Springfield Interchange
Cluster 2: Edsall Rd
Cluster 3: Duke St/Little River Turnpike
Cluster 4: Seminary Rd
Cluster 5: King St
Cluster 6/7: Shirlington and Quaker Lane/Glebe Rd
Cluster 8-9-10: Columbia Pike/Pentagon/US-1 south/Pentagon City/Crystal City/GW Parkway

One could argue that I-395 in VA is de facto mileage-based, as all the numbers are right on or off by 1, especially as the 2020 MUTCD will be more lenient with off by 1 to reduce suffixes.

[famartin]

So I ended up looking in to what could be done with mileage-based numbers on I-195 and I-395.  IMO, if you use exit 0 and clever fudging by 1 (also, I've never really been a fan of numbering termini as NY historically has not, so I didn't here, though as noted below, that's not strictly necessary to get the benefits of this scheme), you can get something that's both close to the mileage and actually reasonable; these use no suffix higher than C.

I-395: (existing/proposed in graphic->proposed):
1->0A
2->0B
3->1A
4->1B
5->1C
6->2A
7->2B
8->3A
9->3B
10->3A
11->3B
12A-B->4A-B or not numbered (terminus)

I-195 (existing->proposed):
6->not numbered (I-395 ramp)
7->not numbered (terminus)
8->0
9->1
10->2

All on the mile or off by 1, and taking advantage of the fact that the intermediate interchanges on existing I-695 are half interchanges (actually, such would allow I-195 to retain exit numbers at I-395 if my proposed 0 were made a SB 1 or 0C; then existing exit 7 could be 0A-B).

I've thought about the concept of Exit 0 more since it was brought up here the other day, and it occurs to me that it probably confuses the public more than its worth unless said exit is actually at the road terminus.  So I'm gonna prefer my own numbers I posted earlier today

[jakeroot]

If we tried to go by mileage based, we could do something like this...
...
I bend the rules a little here, but I think its close enough to be acceptable.

So I ended up looking in to what could be done with mileage-based numbers on I-195 and I-395.  IMO, if you use exit 0 and clever fudging by 1 (also, I've never really been a fan of numbering termini as NY historically has not, so I didn't here, though as noted below, that's not strictly necessary to get the benefits of this scheme), you can get something that's both close to the mileage and actually reasonable; these use no suffix higher than C.

I really don't get either argument here. How does mileage-based exit numbering help drivers on this very short stretch of freeway? The one advantage (accuracy relative to route mileage) is completely lost when you fudge the numbers anyway. And you still have the alphabet soup issue. Drivers are not traversing this road for hours, counting down the miles to their exit. It's literally just a short freeway with a dozen-plus exits over a very short stretch. The best thing we can do is reduce confusion, and there is no way that 1A, 1B, 2A, etc is somehow less confusing than 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, especially when the former wouldn't even necessarily be accurate anyway.

For the record: the USDOT headquarters is just off this freeway, on New Jersey Ave. If they haven't yet spoken up about what is certainly their employees' most used freeway, we really should just calm down until they say something. After all, they'll probably notice!

[1995hoo]

Another factor–and it's one that I recognize may not be on vdeane's radar for obvious reasons–is the history of problems the DC EMS department has had in dispatching emergency response personnel. There have been all sorts of problems over the years involving teams dispatched to the wrong locations, and that highway has been a problem spot multiple times. Anything they can do to reduce ambiguity or possible reasons for confusion is probably a good thing, especially given how many accidents that road sees, and I'd suggest that sequential exit numbers without letter suffixes would be more specific for emergency response purposes because under that system each exit will have a fully unique number, rather than a partially unique one differentiated by suffix.

[famartin]

If we tried to go by mileage based, we could do something like this...

NB I-395:
1A - US 1 NORTH/14th Street/National Mall
1B - Potomac Park/US Park Police
2A - 12th Street Expressway/Capitol One Arena
2B - Maine Avenue/SW Waterfront/Nationals Park
3A - I-195 NORTH/D St NW/US Senate/C St SW/US Capitol/The House
3B - S Capitol St/Nationals Park
4A - 6th St SE
4B - 11th St SE/ Southeast Blvd
5A - DC 295 NORTH
5B - I-295 SOUTH

SB I-395:
4B - M St SE/Navy Yard
4A - 8th Street SE
3 - I-195 NORTH/Downtown
2B - 6th St SW/7th St SW/L'enfant Plaza
2A - Maine Avenue/12th St/ Downtown
1B - Potomac Park/US Park Police

I bend the rules a little here, but I think its close enough to be acceptable.

Seriously guys, what's wrong with this?

[jakeroot]

Seriously guys, what's wrong with this?

Zero advantage over sequential non-alphabetized exiting.

Another factor–and it's one that I recognize may not be on vdeane's radar for obvious reasons–is the history of problems the DC EMS department has had in dispatching emergency response personnel. There have been all sorts of problems over the years involving teams dispatched to the wrong locations, and that highway has been a problem spot multiple times. Anything they can do to reduce ambiguity or possible reasons for confusion is probably a good thing, especially given how many accidents that road sees, and I'd suggest that sequential exit numbers without letter suffixes would be more specific for emergency response purposes because under that system each exit will have a fully unique number, rather than a partially unique one differentiated by suffix.

I had no idea, but a great point to bring up.

[famartin]

Seriously guys, what's wrong with this?

Zero advantage over sequential non-alphabetized exiting.

How so?  Its a reasonable compromise. By setting the numbers to the nearest milepost -1, it works out reasonably well. Most highways have lots of letter suffixed exits. Not sure why its a big deal as long as we are keeping them to A's and B's.