This morning while getting dressed I heard a short report on WTOP radio about this weekend being the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Capital Beltway. They played a few recorded excerpts from some speeches made that day, though unfortunately they didn't play the remarks by Maryland's congressman Carlton Sickles, who apparently said simply, "I'm so happy, I can't express myself."
What you don't get on the radio, however, are the photos they have on their website. It's not a huge collection by any means, but the "then-and-now" format makes it interesting to look at (even though one of the pictures is of old I-95/current I-395 near the Beltway). What I find most interesting is photo #7. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to embed it here due to the "gallery" format they use, so I'll just have to refer you to the link below. Photo #7 is of the Inner Loop at the split for the I-270 Spur. The "then" image shows old-style signs with no Interstate shields. The one that really catches my eye more says "I-495 BELTWAY/BETHESDA" with an upward-pointing arrow similar to the downward-pointing ones some New Jersey Turnpike signage (most notably the late, lamented southbound Exit 6 gantry) used for years. (The slash in the quotation denotes a line break, similar to the usage when quoting poetry.) I remember southbound I-95 in Maryland at the Beltway had a sign saying "BELTWAY EAST" without a route number up into the 1980s, though I don't have a picture of it–the sign was located at the loop-around ramp that carried the bulk of I-95 traffic heading to the eastern half of the Beltway because the current two-lane flyover that splits to the left didn't exist yet. Back then you either used the loop-around ramp (currently marked for traffic heading to College Park via US-1) or you used another ramp that curved around the back of the Park-and-Ride, made sort of a U-turn, and then used the ramp that would have connected unbuilt northbound I-95 coming from DC to the Inner Loop. I remember even as a kid finding that "BELTWAY EAST" sign to be strange because it didn't have a route number on it. Maybe cpzilliacus might remember that sign and know where to find an image?
Here is the link to the photo gallery, which does not have an accompanying article: http://www.wtop.com/862/3682358/Beltway-Looking-back-on-50-years#idx1
here's the 270 photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F35%2F3579%2F357958.png%3Ffilter%3Dwtop_picgallery_large&hash=3001014d14c60582b66468838d927770a14a4104)
Thanks. When I tried it in my browser it didn't look like it would work because of the format of the URL, but I guess I was wrong.
The other thing I find interesting about those old signs is the use of all-caps for everything. I'd love to see a color photo showing what shade of green they used back then.
The comparison also underscores another item that I've been noticing a lot lately: Everything's gotten incredibly overgrown in the past half-century. Particularly in the East.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 15, 2014, 02:34:41 PM
The comparison also underscores another item that I've been noticing a lot lately: Everything's gotten incredibly overgrown in the past half-century. Particularly in the East.
overgrown with humans, or with trees?
Well–I suppose both now that you mention it–but I was referring to the trees.
I'm certainly grateful for trees and appreciate the oxygen, erosion control, and so on that they provide, but comparing old highway photos with recent ones, many highways seem so much more claustrophobic now. And because of the traffic, of course.
The Northeast/east/Mid-Atlantic region would be overgrown with vegetation if no one ever did anything. Not sure if it's because the weather over here, the fair amount of rain we get, the soils, or whatever it may be, but if it's not mowed, traveled on or walked on consistently, it will become an overgrown forest.
In Agentsteel's picture, you may expect some growth after 50 years, but you notice that the interchange there has been redone since the original opening. So that forest-looking area is only a few decades old at most.
I like the trees. unless one can give a reason why the growth isn't ecologically sound (i.e. invasive species like kudzu), I will have no problem with them.
if they obscure a sign - I say, move the damn sign!
That photo made me think of this one: (courtesy of MDRoads (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/060-079.html))
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdroads.com%2Fpics%2FQueen_Annes%2FUS50-MD71.jpg&hash=8e5f7a9c1d7694dc35d38f18284014389920a5b9)
Outstanding photo. Thanks for finding and posting that. Looks like the US-50/301 split on the Eastern Shore near where the Queenstown golf courses are today.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2014, 03:04:20 PM
Outstanding photo. Thanks for finding and posting that. Looks like the US-50/301 split on the Eastern Shore near where the Queenstown golf courses are today.
That it is. Flimsy overhead signs and gantry by today's standards. That flyover bridge carrying WB 50 still has its colonial-style brickwork decoration (similar to the over/underpasses on 50/301 near Annapolis). The only difference is that that flyover (which eventually became 2-lanes; don't know if it was 1 lane or 2 in the '50s) was recently redecked (without a total closure on the flyover or underneath other than maybe to move equipment or hoist girders into place as necessary). But the brickwork remains.
ixnay
Washington Post: Circular reasoning: Beltway, now 50, was a 20th-century solution. Can we do better? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/circular-reasoning-beltway-now-50-was-a-20th-century-solution-can-we-do-better/2014/08/14/4cab9816-1f0e-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html)
QuoteWhen the final portion of the Capital Beltway opened 50 years ago this weekend, the idea of building wider highways to solve transportation problems was at its zenith. Over the next half-century, the D.C. region would add many more highways, but others would be canceled as we made different choices.
QuoteThe biggest update in the Beltway design came in 2012, when the high-occupancy toll lanes opened. Now, the Virginia government is expanding the HOT lanes network to include 29 miles of Interstate 95/395 and is considering a project on Interstate 66 beyond the Beltway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2014, 02:01:54 PM(even though one of the pictures is of old I-95/current I-395 near the Beltway).
The
then picture of old I-95 (now I-395) was taken from the 1971 edition of the smaller/mid-size
Rand McNally Road Atlas & Travel Guide, Interstate: Road to the Future article segment.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 15, 2014, 02:46:46 PM
Well–I suppose both now that you mention it–but I was referring to the trees.
I thought you were referring to the shields. Those are freaking huge in the photo. And would it have killed Maryland to keep the control cities?
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2014, 02:56:37 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 15, 2014, 02:46:46 PM
Well–I suppose both now that you mention it–but I was referring to the trees.
I thought you were referring to the shields. Those are freaking huge in the photo. And would it have killed Maryland to keep the control cities?
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2014, 02:56:37 PMI thought you were referring to the shields. Those are freaking huge in the photo. And would it have killed Maryland to keep the control cities?
If one looks how the road's striped
today, it's worth noting that those BGS' are located
past the beginning of the theoretical gore area. All the BGS' prior to the gore (http://goo.gl/maps/8m78w) feature normal-sized shields and control destinations.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2014, 03:37:41 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2014, 02:56:37 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 15, 2014, 02:46:46 PM
Well–I suppose both now that you mention it–but I was referring to the trees.
I thought you were referring to the shields. Those are freaking huge in the photo. And would it have killed Maryland to keep the control cities?
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
I think there have been some threads over the years about largest shields. The largest one I can picture on a BGS is on the Capital Beltway's Inner Loop in Virginia between Van Dorn Street (Exit 173) and Springfield (Exit 170). It's definitely larger than those two at the I-270 Spur.
Picture from AARoads.com:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia095/i-095_sb_exit_170_03.jpg)
Armor All Man, VDot just found your shield.
ixnay
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2014, 03:37:41 AM
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
not counting shields painted directly on the lanes... probably.
as of 2006 there was a six or eight foot I-95 shield somewhere on the New Jersey turnpike, but that was more ceremonial than anything since, if I recall correctly, it was nailed to the side of a row of tollbooths.
there were also huge Pennsylvania Turnpike shields that served as their own BGS; easier illustrated than demonstrated:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/PA/PA19680761i1.jpg)
but those are not interstate shields.
48" high is the largest officially specified shield in various state MUTCDs for use on green signs. I know Virginia's 1964 MUTCD allows for a 48x48; this may be a remnant of that kind of thinking. I cannot tell if it is 48 or 60 inches tall.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2014, 03:37:41 AM
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
not counting shields painted directly on the lanes... probably.
as of 2006 there was a six or eight foot I-95 shield somewhere on the New Jersey turnpike, but that was more ceremonial than anything since, if I recall correctly, it was nailed to the side of a row of tollbooths.
there were also huge Pennsylvania Turnpike shields that served as their own BGS; easier illustrated than demonstrated:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/PA/PA19680761i1.jpg)
but those are not interstate shields.
48" high is the largest officially specified shield in various state MUTCDs for use on green signs. I know Virginia's 1964 MUTCD allows for a 48x48; this may be a remnant of that kind of thinking. I cannot tell if it is 48 or 60 inches tall.
The trailblazer from you know where.
And judging from the classic 'Stang at right and the Shell sign with SHELL on it' I'd say late '60s.
ixnay
Moving back to the topic, the completion of the CB made possible a well-worn political metaphor. How come nobody mentioned that?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on August 21, 2014, 06:13:05 PMAnd judging from the classic 'Stang at right and the Shell sign with SHELL on it' I'd say late '60s.
The metallic red car behind it looks of mid-70s vintage. I can't quite make out the model but I do know metallic red (as opposed to just red) was a very common color during the 70s.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2014, 08:53:39 AM
Quote from: ixnay on August 21, 2014, 06:13:05 PMAnd judging from the classic 'Stang at right and the Shell sign with SHELL on it' I'd say late '60s.
The metallic red car behind it looks of mid-70s vintage. I can't quite make out the model but I do know metallic red (as opposed to just red) was a very common color during the 70s.
Note the cobra headed lighting mast. Probably even more recent than that
photo was taken 1979 by Michael Summa.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2014, 03:37:41 AM
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
not counting shields painted directly on the lanes... probably.
as of 2006 there was a six or eight foot I-95 shield somewhere on the New Jersey turnpike, but that was more ceremonial than anything since, if I recall correctly, it was nailed to the side of a row of tollbooths.
That is the shield on the New England Thruway section of I-95 north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york095/i-095_nb_exit_017_02.jpg)
The other larger than average shields for the Capital Beltway are posted along I-95 south ahead of its merge with I-495:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_sb_exit_027_05.jpg)
What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!
Quote from: Zeffy on August 22, 2014, 09:51:35 AM
What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!
Given the various sign pics. that have since been posted in this thread; which signs are you referring to... the I-270/495 split BGS' at the gore? Those, IMHO, are the worst.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 22, 2014, 09:51:35 AM
What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!
Given the various sign pics. that have since been posted in this thread; which signs are you referring to... the I-270/495 split BGS' at the gore? Those, IMHO, are the worst.
The I-95 and 395/495/644 signs, as well as the 270/495 split. Plus the 95 south ones approaching the Capital Beltway.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 22, 2014, 12:24:00 PMThe I-95 and 395/495/644 signs, as well as the 270/495 split. Plus the 95 south ones approaching the Capital Beltway.
In terms of ugliness; the ones at the 270/495 split, I agree due to their abnormal shield shape and use of narrow Series B text (a non-no for 2d/3d shields IMHO). But the majority (if not all) of the others you listed are essentially standard shaped shields & text/numerals that have been
uniformly enlarged. Nothing else has really changed regarding those signs.
Having lived in the DC area for 40 years, I think the large shields and large text on those I-95/I-495 signs is a good thing, especially at the Springfield Interchange in Virginia, because I-95 changes direction at both those places. It's theoretically less important coming south in Maryland because (a) you can go around the other side of the Beltway and rejoin I-495 at the other end, whereas in Virginia I-95 bears off to the south; and (b) in Maryland there are two other ramps a short distance down the road such that if you miss the left-side exit* you can still easily rejoin I-95, whereas the Springfield Interchange in Virginia is a very unforgiving design such that if you miss your exit,* you'll have to go on to the next interchange and turn around for another try. Having good signs at those locations is really important given the number of long-distance drivers who seldom pass through these interchanges. (I've given our relatives from Brooklyn super-thorough directions to my parents' house near Fairfax City and they STILL managed to mess up BOTH the College Park and Springfield Interchanges–they wound up calling from Dumfries, roughly 15 miles south of the Beltway. This was back before Springfield was rebuilt, though.)
Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.
*I'm using "exit" in the sense of the lanes splitting off from the mainline, which is especially apt in Virginia where four lanes go straight while two lanes of I-95 bear off on a flyover. I'm aware it's not an "exit" in the engineering sense, but I'm not concerned with pedantic usage even though I'm sure someone will take offense.
flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out. proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."
it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar. just a heads-up that things may get interesting.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2014, 01:52:50 PM
flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out. proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."
it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar. just a heads-up that things may get interesting.
Wrong thread, perchance?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 02:33:37 PM
Wrong thread, perchance?
yep. that's what I get for having my browser crash between replies.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 01:47:02 PMOf course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.
Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2014, 04:00:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 01:47:02 PMOf course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.
Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.
I thought about mentioning sat-navs because I strongly suspect blind adherence to outdated navigation data is a major cause of last-second swerving and other failure to get in the correct lane in the Springfield area, given how radically it was redesigned during the lengthy construction project.
Quote from: PHLBOSQuote from: 1995hooOf course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.
Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.
And then there's both (http://www.wcax.com/story/26340505/vt-police-gps-leaves-trucks-stuck-on-notch-road)...
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2014, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOSQuote from: 1995hooOf course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.
Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.
And then there's both (http://www.wcax.com/story/26340505/vt-police-gps-leaves-trucks-stuck-on-notch-road)...
Sounds like an ideal place for big "Truckers: Do Not Follow GPS" signs. Of course, those won't be 100% effective either!
There you go, Captain America! Your shield's on the NET!
ixnay
Quote from: Alex on August 22, 2014, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2014, 03:37:41 AM
Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?
not counting shields painted directly on the lanes... probably.
as of 2006 there was a six or eight foot I-95 shield somewhere on the New Jersey turnpike, but that was more ceremonial than anything since, if I recall correctly, it was nailed to the side of a row of tollbooths.
That is the shield on the New England Thruway section of I-95 north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york095/i-095_nb_exit_017_02.jpg)
The other larger than average shields for the Capital Beltway are posted along I-95 south ahead of its merge with I-495:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_sb_exit_027_05.jpg)
I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.
iPhone
Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 10:39:04 AM
I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.
eh? I remember there being advance notice anytime I drove down to UMD... did they get rid of the "To US 1 College Park" signs?
Quote from: odditude on August 28, 2014, 01:21:08 PM
Quote from: Laura on August 28, 2014, 10:39:04 AM
I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.
eh? I remember there being advance notice anytime I drove down to UMD... did they get rid of the "To US 1 College Park" signs?
That's what I thought I recalled as well, so I went into Street View (recognizing it could be out of date, although it turned out to say "September 2013") and found two signs prior to those listing Route 1 and a third sign referring to the University of Maryland:
http://goo.gl/maps/57ixa
http://goo.gl/maps/CF3vR
http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)
It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.
Quote from: odditude on August 29, 2014, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)
It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.
I don't really know that area well enough to comment. I hardly ever go to College Park, and when I have, I've usually come from the District or around the western side of the Beltway. Took the LSAT there in 1994, the MPRE there in 1998, and I've been to a couple of UVA football games (for the last one we attended, we took the Metro for fear of our car being vandalized....proved justified, some friends' cars were severely vandalized) and NCAA lacrosse Final Fours over the years. So I just assumed the sign was intended to mean "take I-95/I-495 to Route 1" because I associate Route 1 with being how you get there, but I suppose I should know better than to assume anything!
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 29, 2014, 04:31:59 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 29, 2014, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)
It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.
I don't really know that area well enough to comment. I hardly ever go to College Park, and when I have, I've usually come from the District or around the western side of the Beltway. Took the LSAT there in 1994, the MPRE there in 1998, and I've been to a couple of UVA football games (for the last one we attended, we took the Metro for fear of our car being vandalized....proved justified, some friends' cars were severely vandalized) and NCAA lacrosse Final Fours over the years. So I just assumed the sign was intended to mean "take I-95/I-495 to Route 1" because I associate Route 1 with being how you get there, but I suppose I should know better than to assume anything!
For those who have not clicked through the signs, this sign tells people on I-95 south heading into the College Park I-95/495 interchange that to head to University of MD, take 95/495 south. But there is a problem.
I-95 south is four lanes. The #1 and #2 lanes* (counting from the left) lead to a flyover ramp that puts you on the left side of the Beltway going south. Great for through traffic heading toward FedEx Field, Andrews AFB or the Wilson Bridge to Virginia. But there is no access to the next exit south (US 1) from the left lanes.
The #3 and #4 lanes (counting from the left) lead to a ramp toward I-495 west. The #3 lane also leads you down the I-95 stump toward a park and ride and a weigh station and a loop ramp that puts you on the RIGHT side of 95/495, leading to the US 1 exit. The university is best reached from US 1. So even though US 1 is south of the 95/495 interchange, you don't want to follow the signs of 95/495 south to get to the US 1 exit. The best way is to follow the signs to I-495 west.
Now there are some signs that tell you to be in the #3 lane to get to US 1 by taking the I-495 west ramp. The problem is that there is no sign telling you to take US 1 to the University.
So I beleive that the sign telling I-95 south drivers to take I-95/495 south to the university is a misprint. It should say that drivers to the university should follow US 1 south.
* Excuse the California-ism. The traffic reporters in the L.A. area refer to the lanes of the freeway as the number 1 lane, number 2 lane etc., counting from the center divider. I feel that it is a helpful shorthand to discuss this situation.
There are one of two possible scenarios here:
- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.
- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus. This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts. Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.
Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.
Quote from: froggie on September 01, 2014, 07:16:47 AM
There are one of two possible scenarios here:
- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.
- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus. This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts. Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.
Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.
I think it's likely the first because there are signs directing Beltway traffic to take US 1 to the university.
It's quite possible to have a destination along Route 1 that is not part of the University. There is a distinction to be made here.
Quote from: froggie on September 01, 2014, 07:16:47 AM
There are one of two possible scenarios here:
- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.
This is correct, though it does not (IMO) matter. U.S. 1 (N and S) are what matter, not the University (even though it is a very large generator and attractor of traffic).
Quote from: froggie on September 01, 2014, 07:16:47 AM
- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus. This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts. Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.
That diverts the out-of-town drivers that do not know better.
Quote from: froggie on September 01, 2014, 07:16:47 AM
Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.
Or just built I-95 as it had been planned - more proof that the notion that Metro could replace freeway connections from the Maryland suburbs to D.C., in spite of what elected officials fervently believed, was false.
That would have ripped up a lot of Brookland and (to a lesser extent) NoMA, for little net gain to the city (and a lot of negative externalities to boot). So it's no wonder DC opposed it.
This thread seemed to be the most logical place to post this...
I noticed some early film footage of present-day I-270 at the Capital Beltway split in this FHWA video from the late '80s. The film clip is concerned with traction on wet pavement, and apparently the original surfaces of the Capital Beltway and I-270 were quite poor in this regard.
Based on the cars and the signage, the film would appear to have been taken a few years after the Beltway's completion.
Skip to about 29:30: https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-48e (https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-48e)
Quote from: briantroutman on April 06, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
This thread seemed to be the most logical place to post this...
I noticed some early film footage of present-day I-270 at the Capital Beltway split in this FHWA video from the late '80s. The film clip is concerned with traction on wet pavement, and apparently the original surfaces of the Capital Beltway and I-270 were quite poor in this regard.
Based on the cars and the signage, the film would appear to have been taken a few years after the Beltway's completion.
Skip to about 29:30: https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-48e (https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-48e)
The first part of film starting at about 29:30 was at the place where (present-day) southbound I-270 divides (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Bethesda,+MD&ll=39.03567,-77.144623&spn=0.013434,0.023282&cid=5782761299277001544&hnear=North+Bethesda,+Montgomery+County,+Maryland&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.035756,-77.144656&panoid=HH7LwDkRWEvnDuHucAvtdg&cbp=12,162.62,,0,13.46) and here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Bethesda,+MD&ll=39.032903,-77.141469&spn=0.013434,0.023282&cid=5782761299277001544&hnear=North+Bethesda,+Montgomery+County,+Maryland&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.033132,-77.142034&panoid=hmsDF6-a1Cd_nmH50PAsiQ&cbp=12,333.67,,0,9.02)), with the left fork going toward Rockledge Drive and Md. 187 (Old Georgetown Road), and the right fork toward Democracy Boulevard. This was pre-Interstate design, originally built as U.S. 240 (Washington National Pike), opened in the late 1950's, with the film from the late 1960's, when the freeway was signed I-70S (what is signed as I-270 there is now designated as "secret" I-270Y and signed southbound as I-270 Spur).
The second location (with the VW and Chrysler spinning out) was not far away, from the "roller coaster" part of I-495 (Capital Beltway) through Rock Creek Park (which
was Interstate design, open to traffic in 1964), the two spinouts being on the Inner Loop between today's Md. 355 (Rockville Pike) and Md. 185 (Connecticut Avenue) (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Bethesda,+MD&ll=39.009831,-77.08894&spn=0.013505,0.023282&cid=5782761299277001544&hnear=North+Bethesda,+Montgomery+County,+Maryland&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.009981,-77.089061&panoid=2EX0KmKP7XGPkNKh4Lq_uA&cbp=12,320.54,,0,10.94)). It had a posted speed limit of 50 MPH back then, which was generally ignored.
Both of these freeway segments were paved with flexible (asphalt) pavement that was notoriously slippery when it got wet (most of the rest of I-495 in Maryland was originally paved with portland cement-based concrete). It took several repaving jobs and quite a few years to come up with a wearing course that was better when it got wet.
Nice find! Thanks for posting that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 06, 2015, 03:50:22 PM
Nice find! Thanks for posting that.
Agreed. I remember the signage and the not-so-great design of U.S. 240/I-70S/I-270, which can still be seen (in part) at the interchanges at Md. 109 in Montgomery County and at Md. 80 and Md. 85 in Frederick County.
I'm trying to ignore that those were real people driving those vehicles, but I've got to wonder how long the "professional cameramen" stood there waiting for those spinouts (at least one of which was captured from 2 different angles).