Recently came upon this (http://www.theanacostiawaterfront.com/assets/anacostia/documents/11th%20St%20Skanska-Facchina%20Proposed%20Concept%20-%20Big%20Board.pdf). (Alternative URL (http://www.jdland.com/dc/files/11thstreetbridges_0905_skanska_proposed_concept.pdf))
There's been a few changes made to the design of the 11th St Bridge project (i.e. I-295/I-695 in DC). Here's the major changes as compared to the preferred alternative:
- The local bridge and Navy Yard-side approach have been shifted slightly north, while the freeway bridge and Navy Yard-side approach have been shifted slightly south, to where both will be within the wide expanse in between the two existing bridges. This was done to allow most of the new bridges (70% according to Skanska) to be built "off-line" while maintaining traffic on the existing bridges.
- The I-295/I-695/DC 295 interchange has been modified significantly. The preferred alternative, I-295/DC 295 was the "through route" with a semi-directional interchange connecting to I-695. Skanska's plan has the I-295/I-695 connection as the "through route", and also lowers the profile of the interchange, in response to comments/concerns from the adjacent neighborhood. The original-plan flyover from I-295 to I-695 soared well above the trees, as viewed from Ridge Pl SE, while in the new design, DC 295 to I-295 is the tallest ramp and will be covered by the trees (again as viewed from Ridge Pl SE). This was also done, according to Skanska, because of expected traffic flow, driver expectation, and to reduce mainline weaves.
- In that same area, the SB off-ramp to local 11th St has been moved to where it meets 11th St at the intersection with the NB ramps. It also exits from the left of the ramp from DC 295 to I-695, instead of exiting from DC 295 itself.
- Near M St and the SE Fwy, only the westbound flyover bridge is being built. Eastbound will remain in its existing condition.
I've heard that these changes...in particular not building the eastbound flyover bridge...are because DC is about $100 million short of what it needs to build the full preferred alternative (est. $360 million), even after switching to design-build. So they're building as much as they can with the $260 million they have available.
Seems to me that they can't do anything about the "other" I-695; that would be the hidden route for the Southeast Freeway east of I-395/I-295. I remember seeing this designation on old road atlases, and I've researched it quite a bit. At one point, it was to form an inner loop within the District, and at another, it was to continue eastward to DC 295 as the Barney Circle Freeway. Now there's been talk about completely dismantling the freeway, as has happened in other cities (in fact, they're getting rid of the unused western end of I-170 in Baltimore, as we speak). Any further developments on this?
I-695 is the Southeast Freeway east of I-395; I-295 ends at I-695.
The ramps to/from the 11th Street Bridges (only used for RFK Stadium access) were torn down a couple years ago. These actually would have carried I-295 into the median of I-695, where it would continue past RFK Stadium to I-95. The new 11th Street Bridges will include access to/from DC 295, making the part of I-695 east of I-295 much less useful.
To clarify, I-295 is what would have continued past RFK to I-95 near New York Ave.
DDOT has already received permission to de-designate I-295 north of the Anacostia side of the 11th Street Bridge, and designate the 11th St Bridge itself as I-695. Whether they actually sign I-695 after the 11th St Bridge project is anyone's guess.
The long term goal, of which part of the westbound side will be done with the 11th St Bridge project, is to convert the extant part of the Southeast Freeway between 11th St and Pennsylvania Ave as a surface boulevard.
As for dismantling all of the Southeast Freeway...while some urbanist groups would like to see that, there hasn't been enough serious talk on it to where DDOT has undertaken study. I have my doubts that it'll even be looked at anytime soon...DDOT just redid the bridge decking on the Southeast Freeway about 10 years ago.
You are better off proposing tunneling Southeast-Southwest Frwy from Potomac Park to the 11th Street Bridge. Adding new ramps from southbound DC 295 to I-695 westbound is only going to put more traffic on that segment. Not that I'm complaining - no more having to use the Howard Road exit to the Douglass Bridge.
Sorry to brush off an old thread, but this is related to the ongoing 11th Street Bridge project in DC, where I-295, hidden I-695, and DC 295 come together.
WTOP is reporting (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=1015&sid=2579796) that the first major part of the project will open this weekend: the flyover ramp from southbound DC 295 to continue south on I-295.
Since first built ~50 years ago, DC 295 to I-295 was the "mainline", and the ramp from the 11th St Bridge merged from the right. The bridge project is drastically revamping the interchange, and now the 11th St Bridge (EB I-695) to SB I-295 movement will be the "mainline" with SB DC 295 merging in from the right.
is there any plan to sign 695, or is there no need?
Too early to tell. It's currently "signed" as TO I-295 or TO I-395 on the respective ends.
We know now. Those of us who did the "DC add-on" to the ICC meet today saw visual proof that DDOT will indeed sign the 11th Street bridge as I-695...there's a pull-through sign already installed on the new inbound bridge stating "I-695 TO I-395, Capitol Hill". It was dark by the time we got there, but I plan on getting a pic tomorrow while running errands.
Can't wait to see that picture Froggie!
What ramps are currently complete and open for this project? I will be passing through the DC area at the end of December and would likely be using one of the "missing moves" (I-295 S to 695 or 695 to I-295 N).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 27, 2011, 12:05:11 AM
What ramps are currently complete and open for this project? I will be passing through the DC area at the end of December and would likely be using one of the "missing moves" (I-295 S to 695 or 695 to I-295 N).
None. I was through there Friday, and the Anacostia Freeway southbound relocated roadway is open to traffic, it is mostly elevated on bridge, although it is only 2 lanes and with shoulders only a couple feet wide.
Well I guess I can scratch that detour off the list. At least I'll be able to check out the ICC (with a toll.. grr).
I did a quick blog post (http://ajfroggie.blogspot.com/2011/11/hidden-route-unhidden.html) this afternoon that includes a link to the photo I took. The Washington Post will also be using my photo in an upcoming article/post.
I have a single word to say about that one: Wow.
Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2011, 02:35:26 PM
I did a quick blog post (http://ajfroggie.blogspot.com/2011/11/hidden-route-unhidden.html) this afternoon that includes a link to the photo I took. The Washington Post will also be using my photo in an upcoming article/post.
Great to see a hidden Interstate finally get posted.
Also Froggie, don't forget to post a link to that Washington Post article once it's online. ;)
Great news. Maybe I-595 next? (I'm not holding my breath, mind you...)
Unlike I-695, signing I-595 would be pointless.
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2011, 09:54:41 PM
Unlike I-695, signing I-595 would be pointless.
DC I-695 is pointless and counterproductive, IMHO.
It would be more logical for I-295 to continue over the 11th Street Bridge and over the Southeast Freeway, and connect to I-395. The Anacostia Freeway would be I-295 south/west of the 11th Street Bridge, and would be DC-201 north/east of the bridge.
I-695 is currently not signed as anything, just to I-295 and I-395.
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2011, 10:52:17 PM
I-695 is currently not signed as anything, just to I-295 and I-395.
But that is the plan, which I disagree with.
Unsigned I-695 should be I-295.
Here's the Post blog piece from Mike DeBonis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/interstate-695-reappears-in-dc/2011/11/28/gIQAcelz5N_blog.htm).
QuoteIt would be more logical for I-295 to continue over the 11th Street Bridge and over the Southeast Freeway, and connect to I-395. The Anacostia Freeway would be I-295 south/west of the 11th Street Bridge, and would be DC-201 north/east of the bridge.
This would create more confusion than it would solve. Since Kenilworth has long been known as DC 295, it's
"more logical" to leave it as such as a direct continuation of I-295. That DDOT is starting to sign I-695 here is somewhat surprising...I expected them to just continue signing it as "TO I-395" and "TO I-295/DC 295".
Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2011, 02:35:26 PM
I did a quick blog post (http://ajfroggie.blogspot.com/2011/11/hidden-route-unhidden.html) this afternoon that includes a link to the photo I took. The Washington Post will also be using my photo in an upcoming article/post.
You wrote (on your blog):
QuoteThis is quite likely the first I-695 shield in DC in 40 years, if not ever. I-695 was originally slated to follow both the Southeast Freeway and also the cancelled "West Leg" of the core freeway system, from I-395 at Maine Ave northwest to I-66 near the Roosevelt Bridge.
Many years ago (1970's or 1980's), there
was an I-695 shield posted on the off-ramp (marked "Independence Avenue" - in my opinion, it should read "Ohio Drive") from the eastbound T. Roosevelt Bridge (I-66/U.S. 50) (this is the very first exit from the bridge on the D.C. side of the river).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2011, 11:10:22 AM
....
Many years ago (1970's or 1980's), there was an I-695 shield posted on the off-ramp (marked "Independence Avenue" - in my opinion, it should read "Ohio Drive") from the eastbound T. Roosevelt Bridge (I-66/U.S. 50) (this is the very first exit from the bridge on the D.C. side of the river).
Oddly, the National Park Service calls that part of Ohio Drive–i.e., the segment between Rock Creek Parkway and the Potomac River Freeway–"Old Constitution Avenue." The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock posted a number of blog entries that used that name and I asked him once where that road is, as I had never heard that term used and I've lived around here since 1974. "mtantillo" of this forum echoed the question. I did some research and every reference I could find to that street name was related to the reconstruction of Ohio Drive last year. It seems that prior to the construction of the Roosevelt Bridge, Constitution Avenue went straight to the riverbank and ended at Rock Creek Parkway at the spot where there is now sort of a faux-roundabout (in the evening rush hour, the "Kennedy Center Only" sawhorse is set up at about this point). So for some reason the National Park Service calls the realigned road right there "Old Constitution Avenue" even though no map anywhere uses that name.
This map is from the Ohio Drive construction and shows the name:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.washingtonpost.com%2Fgetthere%2F2010%2F04%2F20%2FOhio%2520Drive%25202010.jpg&hash=7635c0b101787e741384efacc0364ebc447fab18)
I'm hearing from a reliable source that, weather permitting, DDOT hopes to open the new freeway bridges to traffic on December 16 (2 weeks from tomorrow). Which explains the overhead sign I photographed.
Over the weekend, NPS flew over the bridge project and took some photos. They gave DDOT permission to post the photos on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddotphotos/sets/72157628296116551/with/6462195963/). You can see how close to completion the freeway bridges are in these photos, and the last photo of the set gives some perspective on the I-695 sign photo I took.
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
Over the weekend, NPS flew over the bridge project and took some photos. They gave DDOT permission to post the photos on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddotphotos/sets/72157628296116551/with/6462195963/). You can see how close to completion the freeway bridges are in these photos, and the last photo of the set gives some perspective on the I-695 sign photo I took.
The piers and abutments have no aesthetic design to them ... unlike the older bridges and elevated ramps, which are stone-clad, much like older freeway bridges all over D.C.
It's still early in the construction process too. Give it time.
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2011, 07:13:18 AM
It's still early in the construction process too. Give it time.
The piers and caps are the basic "post and lintel" design, not something that will be clad with stone or other aesthetic treatment.
DDOT plans on shifting traffic to the new inbound 11th Street Bridge this weekend, with the goal of it being open by the Monday morning rush hour. Traffic shift for the outbound bridge is tentatively proposed for sometime next week.
Here's a DDOT Twitter photo (http://yfrog.com/ocftqmpj) of the ribbon-cutting from this morning, with a closer shot of the I-695 overhead sign I photographed a couple weeks ago.
WTOP has this photo of northbound I-295 near the South Capitol Street exit. This looks to be at around the point where there used to be that weird sign that said "Navy—Yard" (with the inappropriate dash between those words). I notice the sign uses the bubble-shaped Interstate shields that seem to be becoming more common on new signs in Northern Virginia as well.
One wonders whether, using highway engineers' logic, the ramp to I-695 ought to be denominated an "Exit" as well, since you're leaving I-295 to access I-695. (Sort of like VDOT's widely-detested designation of the Beltway thru lanes as "Exit 170A" in Springfield.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg%3Ffilter%3Dwtop_article&hash=7c221414b8df254387da070d53bc18d697226a65)
Interesting, to say the least. Any eastbound postings yet?
Quote from: Takumi on December 20, 2011, 10:35:31 AM
Interesting, to say the least. Any eastbound postings yet?
Don't know because I haven't driven on the road recently. If the traffic is heavy tonight leaving the Caps game I might go home that way instead of via the 14th Street Bridge, but otherwise it will be several weeks at the earliest before I'm on that road.
first one to spot a state-named variant is the opposite of a rotten egg!
Had to run an unexpected errand earlier this afternoon and took a detour to see the new bridge. There are no I-695 signs on the eastbound Southwest—Southeast Freeway; all those signs remain as they were. In that direction you still go over the old bridge, as well, and I didn't get to look over to see what sort of signs appear on the new one. I went over the old bridge and then made a cloverleaf U-turn at the South Capitol Street exit to take the new bridge. There is an orange advance sign perhaps half a mile before the one shown above (on the gantry for the northbound loop ramp towards the Douglass Bridge and the ballpark) that says "TO I-395 SOUTH/LEFT LANES" and gives a distance, I don't remember what the distance was. Then the sign shown above. At the split, the two left lanes go to the new bridge and the two right lanes become DC-295, and the overhead signs there are more conventional green, with the pull-through sign for the bridge reading "I-695 TO I-395/Capitol Hill," basically an identical sign to the one on the bridge that froggie's linked in prior posts.
The I-695 signs disappear as soon as you pass the one on the bridge. North of the river that route isn't mentioned anywhere. However, it looks like they're building a new ramp to connect the bridge to the Southeast—Southwest Freeway in place of the potholed old narrow one now in place, so perhaps there will be more signs when that's done.
I have to say that as unorthodox as the orange sign shown up above is, I thought it was quite effective, and I saw no last-minute kamikaze lane-changing by people who suddenly realized they needed to be on the other side. In fairness, though, it was early afternoon (not rush hour) and the traffic isn't nearly as bad around Christmas. A better test will come in January when everyone's back at work. Having the left lanes go to the bridge is a big improvement over the old arrangement simply because it eliminates the weave area between South Capitol Street and the bridge.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2011, 09:25:27 AM
One wonders whether, using highway engineers' logic, the ramp to I-695 ought to be denominated an "Exit" as well, since you're leaving I-295 to access I-695. (Sort of like VDOT's widely-detested designation of the Beltway thru lanes as "Exit 170A" in Springfield.)
If DDOT were so inclined, they would've marked the through lanes from I-395 northbound to (unsigned) I-695 eastbound with an exit number. They didn't. But they did mark the ramp from SB I-395 to EB I-695 as exit 7.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2011, 11:29:06 AM
first one to spot a state-named variant is the opposite of a rotten egg!
A recently-ejaculated sperm?
I wrote this article (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13099/i-695-label-returns-to-dc-but-it-never-really-left/) for a local blog this morning about some of the confusion the I-695 marking has created among drivers and locals.
Someone recently added eastbound exit numbers to OSM: 1A for South Capitol and 1C for Pennsylvania. Have these been signed?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.8825&lon=-77.00613&zoom=16&layers=M
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2011, 07:58:16 PM
Someone recently added eastbound exit numbers to OSM: 1A for South Capitol and 1C for Pennsylvania. Have these been signed?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.8825&lon=-77.00613&zoom=16&layers=M
I took "exit 1A" two days ago, and don't recall seeing any signed exit number. Dunno about "exit 1C".
No those have not been signed. And I was on it last night.
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2011, 09:28:45 PM
We know now. Those of us who did the "DC add-on" to the ICC meet today saw visual proof that DDOT will indeed sign the 11th Street bridge as I-695...there's a pull-through sign already installed on the new inbound bridge stating "I-695 TO I-395, Capitol Hill". It was dark by the time we got there, but I plan on getting a pic tomorrow while running errands.
I finally downloaded and viewed the photos I took of the project on November 25th, and lo and behold one of them is the northbound bridge with the "695 to 395" overhead sign!
I didn't notice that when I drove through there ...
So I-395 and I-695 signs now exist in both Baltimore and DC? Interesting!
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2011, 10:40:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2011, 09:28:45 PM
We know now. Those of us who did the "DC add-on" to the ICC meet today saw visual proof that DDOT will indeed sign the 11th Street bridge as I-695...there's a pull-through sign already installed on the new inbound bridge stating "I-695 TO I-395, Capitol Hill". It was dark by the time we got there, but I plan on getting a pic tomorrow while running errands.
I finally downloaded and viewed the photos I took of the project on November 25th, and lo and behold one of them is the northbound bridge with the "695 to 395" overhead sign!
I didn't notice that when I drove through there ...
Drove through there today ... what's with the orange overhead signs on I-295 NB approaching the 11th Street Bridge? Orange is used for construction signs, but those appear to be a permanent movement.
I see that the East Leg is still continuous with the Southeast Freeway, and with plenty of traffic ... the new northerly ramps between the 11th Street Bridge and DC-295 should remove most of that traffic, thus facilitating the conversion of the East Leg to a boulevard.
They might not yet have the permanent sign yet, though.
Oddly, the actual split has permanent overhead signs. It's just the advance signage that is orange. Not sure yet why.
Is DDOT going to update the signage on 9th Street SW at I-395 to show I-695 also? I remember it saying I-395 for South and I-395 North and TO I-295 for North there. I would change it to have TO I-695, TO I-295 and TO DC-295
Couldn't say.
Meanwhile, DDOT reported on Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/DDOTDC/status/155066950727380992) that the new outbound bridge will open Saturday night.
Dr. Gridlock is making this Sunday's Commuter Page about the bridge and he says he plans to mention the route number. Maybe he'll learn the answer to the signage question.
Here's a closer shot of the new I-695 BGS, from Wikipedia:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7157%2F6550503675_a2f6fc10e8_o.jpg&hash=5819d65f4a339afc9eccc1d1d273b0d2ebf8f41a)
Too bad it's not in Clearview :-( (sorry if I P.O.'d you, Jake, I don't mean to)
Since this (and my original) photo was taken, the M St SE sign has been covered and temporary signage is used for the M St SE exit. Reason for this is because not all 4 lanes on the bridge are open. The rightmost lane, which will be the future Exit Only lane to M St SE, is closed to traffic.
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&biw=1280&bih=852&tbm=isch&tbnid=bXbJEmqox4YISM:&imgrefurl=http://ddotdish.com/2011/12/20/hidden-in-plain-sight-interstate-695/&docid=ddOqL82snL-P7M&imgurl=http://ddotdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_4189.jpg&w=4752&h=3168&ei=kdtTT7TNGsOOsQK9tuHvBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=78&sig=103810437609310375283&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=223&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&tx=74&ty=64
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
pic of I-695 sign above
Please do not double post. You were perfectly capable of explaining what the link was in the same post as the link. Also, linking to http://ddotdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_4189.jpg would have sufficed without the unnecessarily long Google Images link. -DTP
Also, since it was signed as part of the 11th Street Bridge project, we have a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1052.25) covering that.
I've merged the two topics together now.
We drove over the east/southbound 11th Street Bridge last night on the way home from the Caps game because the Ninth Street Tunnel's right lane was badly backed up. I noted that the pull-through signs on eastbound I-695 approaching the split for the bridge have a large I-295 SOUTH listing at the top and still do not mention I-695; underneath they have a greenout panel, which I assume covers up a DC-295 NORTH sign. The I-295 SOUTH thing doesn't surprise me at all, but if they wanted to be consistent in their signage (I know, we're talking about DC here....) it would have said I-695 on top with "TO I-295 SOUTH" and greened-out "TO DC-295 NORTH" beneath that. I suppose having that many shields on the sign might have been deemed unnecessarily confusing. In the interest of accuracy, though, there ought to be a "TO" preceding the I-295 shield.
BTW, as we went around the ramp from the bridge onto southbound I-295 I thought I noticed a "Right Lane Must Exit" sign up on the DC- to I-295 flyover bridge. I assume it was an advance sign for Howard Road (at 10:00 on a Sunday night I wasn't going to loop back around to try to find out). I smiled when I saw it because I know the "Must Exit" terminology (which once prevailed in Delaware) gives many folks here heartburn.
Edited to add: After I posted, I re-reviewed the thread and noted the question about the signage in the Ninth Street Tunnel. No changes there as of last night–it still says I-395 to I-295. As a practical matter I think "TO I-295" is probably more informative to the average driver than "TO I-695" would be. I suppose when the bridge work is done they ought to alter the sign to list DC-295 as well, but when you think about it, it ought to be on there already (the main change the new bridge and ramps will make is that the connection will be more direct than it is now).
The Local 11th Street Bridge (which was part of the DC Meet tour last weekend) opened on Thursday. The bridge is not fully completed yet, but enough has been finished to allow for a partial opening, which is needed in order to build other parts of the project.
The bridge ties directly into Martin Luther King Blvd on the Anacostia side, and currently connects to O St SE on the Navy Yard side. This is a temporary setup, as the approach to the old outbound bridge needs to be demolished before the permanent connection to 11th St SE can be built. Southbound traffic uses 11th St SE to O St SE to the bridge. Northbound traffic turns right onto O St SE, which is now 1-way eastbound for about 200 feet under the new freeway bridges, then turns left onto 12th St SE to connect to M St SE.
The bridge opening coincided with the permanent closure of both the old outbound bridge (which had recently been the temporary local access into Anacostia) and the inbound ramp from 13th St SE in Anacostia. The latter is expected to cause some confusion and congestion as drivers from Anacostia wanting to access the SE/SW Freeway (http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/DDOT%20Photos/Maps/Map_11thStreetLocalBridge2.jpg) must now either head down MLK Blvd to Howard Rd to 295 (already congested and requiring merging 2 lanes to the left within 1/3 mile), or must follow the local bridge and weave around the Navy Yard and Barracks Row area to access the westbound freeway from 3rd and Virginia SE.
The bridge is currently configured for 2 northbound lanes, 1 southbound lane, and a bike/ped path.
Also of note, assuming no major delays, DDOT plans to open two new freeway ramps by the 4th of July. One is the "missing connection" from southbound DC 295 to the inbound bridge (I-695). The other will be a new ramp from 11th St SE to the inbound SE Freeway (i.e. WB I-695). This latter ramp partially restores the local connections to the freeway system and will also be where the Southeast Freeway stub extending to Pennsylvania Ave/Barney Circle will intersect 11th St SE, though I don't know if that change will also be part of the ramp opening.
Dr. Gridlock from the Washington Post: D.C.'s 11th Street Bridge: Local span opens, freeway ramps finishing up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dcs-11th-street-bridge-local-span-opens-freeway-ramps-finishing-up/2012/05/25/gJQAPid0sU_story.html)
QuoteIn the early winter of 2010, as construction was getting underway on the District's new 11th Street Bridge, the effort reminded me of the work plan for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge: Put up a new span, take down an old span. Divert traffic and repeat.
QuoteThat was back when the 11th Street project amounted to a few workers floating around on barges in the middle of the Anacostia River so they could pull out old wooden pilings. Then things got serious.
Does the local bridge have streetcar tracks?
No. DDOT wanted to put them in, but FTA wouldn't allow it. Here's an article (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12338/did-the-fta-have-leeway-on-the-11th-street-bridge/) from a DC-area land-use/transportation blog on the subject. Ideas have been floated to route the streetcar across the old outbound bridge (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14255/streetcar-could-make-recreation-bridge-an-active-place), but no serious study of that has been done yet.
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2012, 04:49:53 PM
No. DDOT wanted to put them in, but FTA wouldn't allow it. Here's an article (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12338/did-the-fta-have-leeway-on-the-11th-street-bridge/) from a DC-area land-use/transportation blog on the subject. Ideas have been floated to route the streetcar across the old outbound bridge (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14255/streetcar-could-make-recreation-bridge-an-active-place), but no serious study of that has been done yet.
I know that the bridge deck of the (new) Woodrow Wilson Bridge (the currently unused left lanes of each outer roadway) was engineered to be strong enough to possibly support a rail transit project in the future.
Are any of the spans at the 11th Street Bridge strong enough to carry rail transit vehicles? I don't know the answer to that.
The Local bridge, yes. DDOT is building it to accommodate streetcars as part of its long-term streetcar plan. They just couldn't put the rails in at construction like they were able to with the H St NE and Benning Rd reconstructions.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2012, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2012, 04:49:53 PM
No. DDOT wanted to put them in, but FTA wouldn't allow it. Here's an article (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12338/did-the-fta-have-leeway-on-the-11th-street-bridge/) from a DC-area land-use/transportation blog on the subject. Ideas have been floated to route the streetcar across the old outbound bridge (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14255/streetcar-could-make-recreation-bridge-an-active-place), but no serious study of that has been done yet.
I know that the bridge deck of the (new) Woodrow Wilson Bridge (the currently unused left lanes of each outer roadway) was engineered to be strong enough to possibly support a rail transit project in the future.
Are any of the spans at the 11th Street Bridge strong enough to carry rail transit vehicles? I don't know the answer to that.
Would the load per axle be any more than that of an 80,000 pound truck? That is about the same weight as a WMATA Metrorail car without passengers. (varies depending on the car series)
Hearing that the new ramp from SB DC 295 to the inbound bridge (i.e. WB I-695) will open on Monday (http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm/3730/New-Ramp-from-DC295-Southbound-to-I-695-Opens-Monday/). DDOT confirmed the opening by e-mail.
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2012, 09:15:46 PM
Hearing that the new ramp from SB DC 295 to the inbound bridge (i.e. WB I-695) will open on Monday (http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm/3730/New-Ramp-from-DC295-Southbound-to-I-695-Opens-Monday/). DDOT confirmed the opening by e-mail.
It is indeed open. Drove it today. Two lane ramp from southbound D.C. 295 to northbound I-695. Big improvement over the former "routes," but it's going to fill up fast in peak commute periods.
Traffic using this ramp and headed for M Street, S.E. need do nothing, but traffic headed for I-395 must move left to continue west toward I-395 (northbound Third Street Tunnel; southbound S.W. Freeway and Shirley Highway).
WTOP report from last week: Vince Gray opens new southbound DC-295 ramp (http://www.wtop.com/1015/2970100/Vince-Gray-opens-new-southbound-DC-295-ramp)
Is the ramp going the opposite way (eastbound I-695 to northbound DC 295) scheduled to open anytime soon?
Quote from: Takumi on August 04, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
Is the ramp going the opposite way (eastbound I-695 to northbound DC 295) scheduled to open anytime soon?
Late September or early October per the report I heard.
Edited to add: The third photo in the gallery linked in that WTOP story is of the "suggested speed on the arrow sign" style you asked about in another recent thread.
Would like to see some photos of the new ramp (advance signage, etc.). I did not get into DC on my Delaware trip in June but will likely do so in December.
Quote from: Alex on August 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
Would like to see some photos of the new ramp (advance signage, etc.). I did not get into DC on my Delaware trip in June but will likely do so in December.
I would have liked to have taken a detour to check it out on the way to the game today, but it was bobblehead day so getting to the ballpark early took priority. Maybe I can get over there Thursday or Friday of this week. If I do, I'll try to stick my phone on the sun visor to film it so I can get some screenshots.
D.C. Project Gets $90-Million Add-On
http://enr.construction.com/infrastructure/transportation/2012/0815-dc-project-gets-90million-addon.asp
"Two and a half years after beginning work on the $300-million first phase to replace two 50-year-old freeway bridges across the Anacostia River, the District of Columbia Dept. of Transportation (DDOT) has authorized a $90.7-million add-on to the project. The extra work will complete functional and operational requirements on the north side of the river, creating direct connections between the Southeast-Southwest Freeway and Interstate/DC Route 295."
See the URL for the rest of the article, and plan views of the project.
Quote from: Alex on August 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
Would like to see some photos of the new ramp (advance signage, etc.). I did not get into DC on my Delaware trip in June but will likely do so in December.
I had some free time this afternoon and drove over to DC to use the new ramp. The video failed on my first pass, however, so I wound up going around through the streets and making another trip through. Click on the first image below to play the video.
I should have driven the RX-7 because it's a beautiful day (top-down weather) and the belt clip for my phone stays on the sun visor better when I hang it upside-down (due to the dark blue band on the windshield). But I didn't decide to go to the bridge until after I'd made two other stops, so I was driving my sedan and the belt clip always falls off the visor in there. So the video is somewhat bouncy at times, especially when I was shifting with my right hand. But if you see something that interests you, you can always pause it. Alex, if you want to capture any screenshots for the main site, that's fine. (You might need to rebalance the colors. Since it was around 3:00 PM I was looking towards the afternoon sun and it puts the signs in shadow. Or send me a PM and I can send full-size images.) The first BGS you see for the new ramp says the same as the others, 695 to 395/Capitol Hill. The adjacent sign says 295 South TO 95/495 and then has some plastic covering something up, perhaps an "Exit Only" banner(?). The I-695 BGS at that point looks like it may receive another "Exit Only" arrow in the future if in fact the median construction adds another lane–I don't know what the lane configuration is intended to be when it's all done.
The ramp has one of those warning signs Takumi mentioned in another thread (I think I may have noted that previously in this thread). The orange sign after that says "Right Lane Must Exit at M Street."
Because of the dump truck you'll see at the end, I had to turn the camera off and use two hands to drive. So I don't have any video of the new ramp that's being constructed on the north side of the bridge. It's in between the two very old, narrow, bumpy ramps now in use and it will put bridge traffic onto the Southeast Freeway in a different location. Looks like it's in a fairly advanced stage of construction, but again, I didn't get a great look because of that dump truck.
Point of origin in this video is the bottom of the ramp from the Sousa Bridge. After my first pass resulted in no video, I went around to Barney Circle and over the bridge and got back onto DC-295 southbound.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fth_33c8953e.jpg&hash=794f161d265e37aab31d69435c0669c22ab42a5a) (http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/?action=view¤t=33c8953e.mp4)
Also, a picture from my drive over to the bridge (I took I-295/DC-295 to the Pennsylvania Avenue exit and did a cloverleaf U-turn). I knew there were "BOSs" (Big Orange Signs) in this area but the ones I had seen used downward-pointing arrows. This is the first sign I've seen in the District of Columbia that uses this style of arrow-per-lane indicator.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F925ed92c.jpg&hash=37287f271ccdc17e3739d884915a46d5c84d018f)
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock has a column about the I-695 number today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/i-695-is-still-an-unfamiliar-sign-on-dc-highways/2012/08/20/770f623e-e1a0-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html). He's responding to a letter from a reader complaining about the I-695 shields being incorrect. I was a bit amused by the rather pompous tone of the reader's letter. If you're going to write in an arrogant tone, make sure you have the facts straight first:
QuoteDear Dr. Gridlock:
I am in town visiting family and am very familiar with the area. There is a sign [nearing the 11th Street bridge] labeled "I-695 to I-395." The last time I checked, Interstate 695 is the Baltimore Beltway, which most certainly does not connect to Interstate 395. I know the sign should say Interstate 295, but a tourist or out-of-towner might not.
Donella Oleston, Seattle
I find Dr. Gridlock's reply to be a little silly, though, in suggesting that people might be confused by the duplicative 3di numbers in different states. I mean, we've had I-395 in Virginia/DC and Baltimore for years with no problem. Same for I-195 in Richmond and near BWI Airport. Same with I-295 in DC/Maryland, Delaware/New Jersey, New York...... etc.
The point Dr. Gridlock misses with respect to this I-695 is that the vast majority of the people who will encounter the sign are local drivers who know where they're going regardless of what the sign says. The long-distance drivers who either seldom drive in this area or who drive through DC and Baltimore once or twice a year at Thanksgiving time and maybe on a summer vacation are unlikely ever to encounter DC's I-695 because they'll be swinging around DC on the Beltway (either because their sat-navs take them that way or because it's the only way they know).
So, perhaps this reader should stay away from central New Jersey, then . . . there is an I-295 there, but also an I-95 that disappears and reappears somewhere different!
Seriously, though, part of it might be that the I-695 designation might have shown up on signs without much fanfare (that I know of). One commenter said it shows up on Google as well, but not sure about printed maps or GPS, so it may be a surprise to most people who need directions in this area of town. It is also not as well posted as the other interstates in the city. I think that to the reader, who is "very familiar with the area," it is just something else to complain about. I got a kick out of the tone of her remarks.
I do think that it is ridiculous to suggest confusion between same route numbers in two different metro areas, even if they are 40 miles apart. Is this now the closest posted "duplication" of 3di's?
Quote from: akotchi on August 23, 2012, 01:11:08 PM
I do think that it is ridiculous to suggest confusion between same route numbers in two different metro areas, even if they are 40 miles apart. Is this now the closest posted "duplication" of 3di's?
I-291, Hartford and Springfield.
Baltimore could renumber its 695 easily enough since it has two other 2dis - 70 and 83. DC has only 95. Also, Baltimore uses five 3dis (195, 395, 695, 795, 895), while DC uses five (295, 395, 495, 595, 695), so there has to be SOME duplication unless 695 is renumbered. Baltimore's 395 could easily become 995, since it's so short. So, once again, 695 is the odd man out. The only other option is to blame DC for signing it, but who'd want to do that? :P
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
Baltimore could renumber its 695 easily enough since it has two other 2dis - 70 and 83. DC has only 95.
D.C. also has I-66.
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
Also, Baltimore uses five 3dis (195, 395, 695, 795, 895), while DC uses five (295, 395, 495, 595, 695), so there has to be SOME duplication unless 695 is renumbered. Baltimore's 395 could easily become 995, since it's so short.
IMO, I-97 should be I-995.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
Baltimore could renumber its 695 easily enough since it has two other 2dis - 70 and 83. DC has only 95.
D.C. also has I-66.
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
Also, Baltimore uses five 3dis (195, 395, 695, 795, 895), while DC uses five (295, 395, 495, 595, 695), so there has to be SOME duplication unless 695 is renumbered. Baltimore's 395 could easily become 995, since it's so short.
IMO, I-97 should be I-995.
I-66 only meets I-495, or do you suggest that it have a similar situation to the I-x78 routes in NY?
Quote from: deanej on August 26, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
I-66 only meets I-495, or do you suggest that it have a similar situation to the I-x78 routes in NY?
That is correct. I was just pointing out that I-66 does enter the District of Columbia, that's all.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
IMO, I-97 should be I-995.
IMO, I-97 should be extended along the US-301 and VA-207 corridor, to I-95 at Carmel Church, VA. It would be inter-state in scope and I-97 would be an appropriate designation.
Quote from: Beltway on August 26, 2012, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
IMO, I-97 should be I-995.
IMO, I-97 should be extended along the US-301 and VA-207 corridor, to I-95 at Carmel Church, VA. It would be inter-state in scope and I-97 would be an appropriate designation.
My solution to
that is to extend I-85 north from Petersburg as a multiplex with I-95 (and I-64 through Richmond - a multiplex with three 2DIs), then have I-85 branch off to the northeast, following Va. 207 and then U.S. 301 to Bowie, then a twisted path along U.S. 50 and (what is now) I-97 to I-695.
I-97 should go down the Delmarva to Raleigh.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 10:57:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 26, 2012, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
IMO, I-97 should be I-995.
IMO, I-97 should be extended along the US-301 and VA-207 corridor, to I-95 at Carmel Church, VA. It would be inter-state in scope and I-97 would be an appropriate designation.
My solution to that is to extend I-85 north from Petersburg as a multiplex with I-95 (and I-64 through Richmond - a multiplex with three 2DIs), then have I-85 branch off to the northeast, following Va. 207 and then U.S. 301 to Bowie, then a twisted path along U.S. 50 and (what is now) I-97 to I-695.
No, that is way too long of an overlap. I think that I-97 would be the best proposal.
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 06:24:27 AM
No, that is way too long of an overlap. I think that I-97 would be the best proposal.
Ever noticed the overlap of I-80 and I-90 across much of Ohio (Turnpike) and Indiana (Toll Road)?
I've driven it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 06:24:27 AM
No, that is way too long of an overlap. I think that I-97 would be the best proposal.
Ever noticed the overlap of I-80 and I-90 across much of Ohio (Turnpike) and Indiana (Toll Road)?
Yes. That was established when those turnpikes were incorporated into the Interstate system 50 years ago, given that the Great Lakes pushed I-90 traffic down to I-80. That doesn't justify what you are proposing.
The VA-207/US-301/MD-3 Interstate corridor deserves a number of its own, and extending I-97 is ideal.
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 06:24:27 AM
No, that is way too long of an overlap. I think that I-97 would be the best proposal.
Ever noticed the overlap of I-80 and I-90 across much of Ohio (Turnpike) and Indiana (Toll Road)?
Yes. That was established when those turnpikes were incorporated into the Interstate system 50 years ago, given that the Great Lakes pushed I-90 traffic down to I-80. That doesn't justify what you are proposing.
The VA-207/US-301/MD-3 Interstate corridor deserves a number of its own, and extending I-97 is ideal.
I know this is more of a Fictional Highways thing, but what would you do with the leftover part that goes to Annapolis? MD 32 could continue along the "old" I-97, unless it is incorporated into an Interstate corridor that extends all the way to I-70.
Quote from: Henry on August 27, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 06:24:27 AM
No, that is way too long of an overlap. I think that I-97 would be the best proposal.
Ever noticed the overlap of I-80 and I-90 across much of Ohio (Turnpike) and Indiana (Toll Road)?
Yes. That was established when those turnpikes were incorporated into the Interstate system 50 years ago, given that the Great Lakes pushed I-90 traffic down to I-80. That doesn't justify what you are proposing.
The VA-207/US-301/MD-3 Interstate corridor deserves a number of its own, and extending I-97 is ideal.
I know this is more of a Fictional Highways thing, but what would you do with the leftover part that goes to Annapolis? MD 32 could continue along the "old" I-97, unless it is incorporated into an Interstate corridor that extends all the way to I-70.
Md. 32 has two segments that are clearly not up to Interstate standards.
First, the segment between I-70 is far from Interstate-standard. Some parts are almost Super-2 design (and I believe this section of 32 has the highest AADT of any two-lane highway in the state at almost 28,000), other parts are just rural arterial. And the diamond interchange at I-70 won't do if Md. 32 is upgraded to a freeway.
Second, there westbound side of the highway has some
very sharp curves as it passes by the main National Security Agency complex at Fort George G. Meade.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Some parts are almost Super-2 design (and I believe this section of 32 has the highest AADT of any two-lane highway in the state at almost 28,000), other parts are just rural arteria
define "almost". what differentiates it from the traditional super-2 design (two lane undivided, with no at-grade crossings)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2012, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 02:53:21 PM
Some parts are almost Super-2 design (and I believe this section of 32 has the highest AADT of any two-lane highway in the state at almost 28,000), other parts are just rural arteria
define "almost". what differentiates it from the traditional super-2 design (two lane undivided, with no at-grade crossings)
Several at-grade crossings, including a set of driveways into a highway maintenance complex for both the State Highway Administration and Howard County.
There are several driveways leading to Md. 32 from properties along it near I-70 West Friendship, and there may be a few curves that are too sharp for a Super-2 between West Friendship and Dayton.
The worst at-grade crossing has been converted to a grade-separated interchange (at Burntwoods Road and Pfefferkorn Road (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dayton,+md&hl=en&ll=39.274092,-76.987081&spn=0.018571,0.038581&hnear=Dayton,+Howard,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=15))), and even though Md. 32 was made a divided highway at this point, it's still only one lane each way.
Quote from: Henry on August 27, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 10:14:58 AM
The VA-207/US-301/MD-3 Interstate corridor deserves a number of its own, and extending I-97 is ideal.
I know this is more of a Fictional Highways thing, but what would you do with the leftover part that goes to Annapolis? MD 32 could continue along the "old" I-97, unless it is incorporated into an Interstate corridor that extends all the way to I-70.
I-97 could follow the corridors of MD-408 and MD-2 between US-301 at Upper Marlboro and where I-97 currently terminates at US-50.
That would be a direct extension of the current route.