District of Columbia

[The Ghostbuster]

I think the numbers are fine as-is. Maybe the interchange should have been constructed so that Interstate 695 had to exit to continue onward instead of Interstate 395 (formerly Interstate 95). I'm not sure if the "simplified" resigning proposal would have made much difference.

[epzik8]

WTOP reports that the DC Department of Transportation has asked AASHTO to void its application to renumber I-395 and I-695 and that any changes to the signage may be "years away."

Nearly four years after proposing more logical route and exit numbers, the District's Department of Transportation has asked federal officials to void the original deal in order to buy more time.

DDOT acting Director Sharon Kershbaum wrote to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that the department now wants to withdraw its applications for the changes until it can actually move toward fixing the signage to "eliminate unintended confusion."

The article has a link to a .PDF copy of the letter in question, which the article describes as saying that "the agency needs an additional two to three years to figure out how to re-sign the freeway and tunnel in a way that makes sense to local and out-of-town drivers."

Then it says this:

The association's Special Committee on Route Numbering rescinded the application in April. The transportation organization sent a confirmation letter to DDOT on May 7.

The Federal Highway Administration is still weighing whether to accept DDOT's request for additional time.

I mean, at this point why bother?

Sadly, I agree. Should have made the changes within a few months of sending the requests.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I wonder how many Federal Highway Administration/DOT employees in the DC area use that stretch of highway.

[mrsman]

I think the numbers are fine as-is. Maybe the interchange should have been constructed so that Interstate 695 had to exit to continue onward instead of Interstate 395 (formerly Interstate 95). I'm not sure if the "simplified" resigning proposal would have made much difference.

Agreed.  There is no need to change the numbers.  The signage at the point where 395 and 695 merge would be clarified with the use of control cities.  Guiding traffic that is already at the point to where they need to go.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8824093,-77.0186999,3a,75y,92.96h,84.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBhT9YCr40M1Wdcdb0EUiyA!2e0!5s20221201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

I would add either "Baltimore Anacostia" or "Baltimore Annapolis" as controls for the 695 sign.  This indicates that thru traffic is to stay on 695 and not go to 395.

It is also fitting that most of the lanes of the expressway do continue onto 395 and only one lane continues to the 3rd street tunnel.  Yes, technically 695 is an exit since it is a different number, but I think the clarity of putting in the long distance controls of MD-295 and/or I-295 would be helpful here.

[Plutonic Panda]

It would be nice to see this bill become reality:

One of the proposals would forbid Washington's local government from banning right turns at red lights. Another would do away with the automated traffic-enforcement cameras that ticket D.C. drivers for speeding, blowing stop signs and other violations.

- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/16/culture-war-traffic-lights-republicans-00174179

[froggie]

Disagree.  As one with a lot of experience with driving in DC, there are SEVERAL locations where NTOR and/or red light cameras are warranted.

A case could be made regarding the speed cameras (particularly on the expressways).  But if the choices are do nothing else or ditch everything, I'd vote for do nothing else.

[Plutonic Panda]

Disagree.  As one with a lot of experience with driving in DC, there are SEVERAL locations where NTOR and/or red light cameras are warranted.

A case could be made regarding the speed cameras (particularly on the expressways).  But if the choices are do nothing else or ditch everything, I'd vote for do nothing else.

More traffic enforcement? Just not automated. I am just not a fan of automated enforcement with few exceptions it seems the goal is revenue above all else.

[1995hoo]

I agree with froggie that there are quite a few locations in DC where no-turn-on-red is appropriate—some on a 24/7 basis, others at certain times of day like 7 AM to 7 PM (the District seems to be unwilling to consider that, however). A blanket ban on turning on red seems like overkill, but the current mayor is gung-ho on the idea of a total ban.

Several of the speed cameras are located in what I'd call "gotcha"-type locations. The one on I-66 is a good example (hidden behind a pillar on the left as you emerge from the tunnel heading towards K Street, the Whitehurst, or Virginia Avenue), as are the two on K Street where it passes under Washington Circle (both likewise hidden behind pillars as you emerge from the tunnel).

[1995hoo]

Regarding the DC Interstate numbers, I drove to Union Station on Monday morning for a trip to New York and I noted that just after the exit for the Southwest Waterfront (Exit 4, leads primarily to 9th Street SW but also has a way to loop around to the L'Enfant Promenade), the District has applied I-695 shields to the pavement in the left two lanes and an I-395 shield to the pavement in the far right lane. I got back to DC yesterday afternoon to go to a concert at the Anthem and I took a picture while walking from the L'Enfant Plaza parking garage. I'll try to upload it later, but it's not a particularly good photo due to heavy afternoon rush-hour traffic. I found myself questioning the value of pavement-marking type route shields there for precisely that reason—constant extremely heavy traffic—but I suppose on the other hand they don't do any harm unless and until the District eventually does renumber the roads and renders them obsolete.

[mrsman]

I agree with froggie that there are quite a few locations in DC where no-turn-on-red is appropriate—some on a 24/7 basis, others at certain times of day like 7 AM to 7 PM (the District seems to be unwilling to consider that, however). A blanket ban on turning on red seems like overkill, but the current mayor is gung-ho on the idea of a total ban.

Several of the speed cameras are located in what I'd call "gotcha"-type locations. The one on I-66 is a good example (hidden behind a pillar on the left as you emerge from the tunnel heading towards K Street, the Whitehurst, or Virginia Avenue), as are the two on K Street where it passes under Washington Circle (both likewise hidden behind pillars as you emerge from the tunnel).

The cameras also don't need to be in places like the K Street underpass where there are no pedestrians and few crashes. Those spots only embolden opponents of any enforcement. The cameras in neighborhood danger zones don't make as much money, but they're doing important work to make that neighborhood safer.

https://ggwash.org/view/40292/dcs-traffic-cameras-could-reduce-deaths-if-they-were-more-swift-certain-and-fair

I agree with the above quoted section from an old ggwash article.  Speed cameras really should be limited to normal streets with pedestrians, where speed limits are objectively fair.  Putting in speed cameras on highways or quasi-highways like the K Street tunnel or North Capitol Street are really only done for revenue instead of safety.

There is definitely a feeling that DC is not doing a good job of running a city that is meant to house the federal govt.  In terms of traffic, a lot of the planning is just too left oriented.  Camera enforcement, long waits at traffic signals, bus lanes, bike lanes, lack of parking all make driving very difficult here.

I would also agree that a total ban on NTOR is overkill, the deciding factor should be based on traffic engineering concepts like intersection geometry, speed, and number of pedestrians on an intersection by intersection basis, not a blanket ban or a blanket prohibition of a ban.  More realistic speed limits on many of the streets and prohibition of speed cameras on any areas that are deprived of pedestrians like expressways and quasi-expressways.

[IMGoph]

It would be nice to see this bill become reality:

One of the proposals would forbid Washington's local government from banning right turns at red lights. Another would do away with the automated traffic-enforcement cameras that ticket D.C. drivers for speeding, blowing stop signs and other violations.

- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/16/culture-war-traffic-lights-republicans-00174179

As an actual resident of the city, and someone who believes in democracy (as in, the people get to vote on representatives who make laws for them), I absolutely disagree. Hell no, some guy from 2000 miles away who's angry that he can't drive a little bit faster to get to the airport after 'legislating' for 3 days a week can just take a chill pill. I have watched to many friends here die (literally die, I am not being hyperbolic) because of impatient drivers.

No, we will ban right on red and people will live with it. Because it will help people live.

[Rothman]

NYC has lived quite well with the rule, so no biggie.

[Henry]

I think the numbers are fine as-is. Maybe the interchange should have been constructed so that Interstate 695 had to exit to continue onward instead of Interstate 395 (formerly Interstate 95). I'm not sure if the "simplified" resigning proposal would have made much difference.

Agreed.  There is no need to change the numbers.  The signage at the point where 395 and 695 merge would be clarified with the use of control cities.  Guiding traffic that is already at the point to where they need to go.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8824093,-77.0186999,3a,75y,92.96h,84.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBhT9YCr40M1Wdcdb0EUiyA!2e0!5s20221201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

I would add either "Baltimore Anacostia" or "Baltimore Annapolis" as controls for the 695 sign.  This indicates that thru traffic is to stay on 695 and not go to 395.

It is also fitting that most of the lanes of the expressway do continue onto 395 and only one lane continues to the 3rd street tunnel.  Yes, technically 695 is an exit since it is a different number, but I think the clarity of putting in the long distance controls of MD-295 and/or I-295 would be helpful here.

I've never had any problem with the way the numbers are now. Changing them now would create more confusion than it's worth, especially as everyone is still getting used to having another I-695 signed that's not too far from a certain temporary partial loop around the city where orioles, ravens and crab cakes reign supreme.

[The Ghostbuster]

Besides, the Interstate 395 designation indicates a spur route, so 395 and 695 should remain as-is. Of course, if 95 through Washington DC had been completed as originally proposed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe they should have proposed renumbering 395 to 695 all the way to the Interstate 95/495 Springfield Interchange, and left the Center Leg Freeway solely as 395.

[sturmde]

Well, what a cluster, no surprise.  Frankly, I'd say renumber I-395 from the beltway as I-62.  As it enters DC, that continues, and I-395 going north can become I-362.  Then I-62 follows I-695 to I-295 and continues on it back south to the Beltway.  The net result is an E/W routing skirting the southern side of DC.  It's our national capital, using a 2di is merited...

[LilianaUwU]

Well, what a cluster, no surprise.  Frankly, I'd say renumber I-395 from the beltway as I-62.  As it enters DC, that continues, and I-395 going north can become I-362.  Then I-62 follows I-695 to I-295 and continues on it back south to the Beltway.  The net result is an E/W routing skirting the southern side of DC.  It's our national capital, using a 2di is merited...

who's your dealer? i need to know so i can avoid them at all costs

[The Ghostbuster]

Now that's an even worse proposal than the 695-to-395, and the 395-to-195 proposal. If an Interstate 62 were ever proposed, a better place to put it would be along the US 460 corridor between Petersburg and Norfolk (although this could also be numbered as an extension of Interstate 85).

[74/171FAN]

Please leave the fictional conversation out of this thread.  -Mark

[Plutonic Panda]

I think speed cameras should be completely eliminated with the exception of school zones and construction zones. This goes for automated enforcement of any kind. I am completely against red light cameras. We can hire more law enforcement officers for that. From what I understand, penalties from red light cameras are not the same as penalties from getting caught by an actual police officer for doing it. It's also been shown that red light cameras cause wrecks In some areas. I seem to recall and Los Angeles in West Hollywood. They did away with it because the system stopped generating revenue because everyone knew where they were at. So now if someone wants to run a red light All they have to do is just run the one down the street.

The right turn on red ban makes sense If they would just tweak it to add exceptions. I do agree on some areas there should be a no RTOR. But a city wide, right turn on red ban Makes no more sense than the opposite.

I'd rather live in a society where we don't have automatic traffic enforcement cameras, everywhere And some people break the law Then one where we are constantly monitored.

[Rothman]

Although red light cameras irk me, I don't see "just hire more law enforcement, with their salaries and benefits" being a winning argument.

[IMGoph]

I think speed cameras should be completely eliminated with the exception of school zones and construction zones. This goes for automated enforcement of any kind. I am completely against red light cameras. We can hire more law enforcement officers for that. From what I understand, penalties from red light cameras are not the same as penalties from getting caught by an actual police officer for doing it. It's also been shown that red light cameras cause wrecks In some areas. I seem to recall and Los Angeles in West Hollywood. They did away with it because the system stopped generating revenue because everyone knew where they were at. So now if someone wants to run a red light All they have to do is just run the one down the street.

The right turn on red ban makes sense If they would just tweak it to add exceptions. I do agree on some areas there should be a no RTOR. But a city wide, right turn on red ban Makes no more sense than the opposite.

I'd rather live in a society where we don't have automatic traffic enforcement cameras, everywhere And some people break the law Then one where we are constantly monitored.

Who's the "we" in the "we can hire more law enforcement" statement here. Are you a DC taxpaying resident? Do you pay for MPD (and all of the other things in our budget)?

While our mayor has tried to hire more cops (and has been offering hiring bonuses to achieve that), it hasn't been working. I won't go deep into the concerns that our many of our neighbors have about the inherent danger for them of any interaction with law enforcement, because I know the mods here abhor things that seem to be leaning into politics, and I know the politics of most roadgeeks leans a lot more conservative than the average DC resident. More cops isn't the answer on our DC streets.

[sturmde]

Please leave the fictional conversation out of this thread.  -Mark

Fictional?  Methinks you've never seen the original proposal for the DC area with weird 2di numbering.  The point is... the 395/695 split is accident-inducing.  Something needs to be done to prevent the last minute weaving...  It's NASCAR-level bumping at times and dangerous.  It's not fictional to discuss a real world problem.  No one's advocating for building anything that isn't there, it's talking about possible alternatives.  This is a discussion board....

[74/171FAN]

Please leave the fictional conversation out of this thread.  -Mark

Fictional?  Methinks you've never seen the original proposal for the DC area with weird 2di numbering.  The point is... the 395/695 split is accident-inducing.  Something needs to be done to prevent the last minute weaving...  It's NASCAR-level bumping at times and dangerous.  It's not fictional to discuss a real world problem.  No one's advocating for building anything that isn't there, it's talking about possible alternatives.  This is a discussion board....

The discussion about the interchange itself is not the issue.  Your I-62 renumbering proposal is fictional because it has not been proposed by a politician or DOT.  The I-195/I-395 change is not fictional because it was submitted to and approved by AASHTO in 2020.

[1995hoo]

The I-395 number from the Beltway in Virginia into DC is exceptionally unlikely ever to change regardless of whether the changes in DC mean it "should" have an even first digit. The current number is simply too entrenched, too well-known. Changing it would be counterproductive and would create massive confusion for the average motorist. Some people were perplexed enough when the Fairfax County Parkway was renumbered from Route 7100 to VA-286, and I'd argue that number was far less well-known than I-395 because a lot more people use the name "Fairfax County Parkway," whereas the use of the name "Shirley Highway" for I-95/I-395 has become quite rare.

Plus, as has been noted elsewhere, what do you change it to? Can't use I-295 because Virginia already has one. Can't use I-495 for the same reason. While Virginia doesn't have an I-695 or an I-895, both of those are in use near Baltimore and people complained that it was "confusing" to have I-695 posted in DC when those signs went up. The current I-395 in Virginia and DC is longer and far better-known than the minuscule stub with that number in Baltimore.

[epzik8]

US 211, 240 and 240 ALT are on this old Gulf map of DC along with an unbuilt Washington Circumferential Route (Capital Beltway). No date on the map.