District of Columbia

[mrsman]

On the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, four new lanes would extend from Baltimore to the District.

So what's the reaction from the DC government going to be to dumping more cars onto DC 295 and US 50?

I actually think it would be better with the additional lanes.  Northbound, you have 2 lanes from I-295 and 2 lanes from US 50 that quickly merge into 3 lanes and then 2 a short time later at Annapolis Rd.  Imagine if the merger stayed 4NB lanes all the way to the Beltway, let alone Baltimore.  4 lanes in each direction is not extra, it is actually what is needed for this highway.

Even SB, 2 lanes expand to 3 lanes at Annapolis Rd and then split at the interchange with the left lane heading to 295, the right lane to 50 and the middle lane splitting between the two.  At this point, there are 2 lanes heading to 295 and 2 lanes heading to 50 from the Parkway.  So expanding the parkway to 4 lanes heading southbound could fir very easily into this split without overloading the interchange.

The downside for DC though is that this will make it plainly obvious that the 695 connector just isn't doing the job of providing a good connector from 395 to Baltimore because of the 2 lane NB section between the 11th street bridge and East Capitol.  So people will still be using Capitol Hill streets and NY Ave to reach the parkway as it will be quicker despite the traffic signals.

I also hope a good transit bus can be establlished along these lanes.  Most of the key employment sites along the B-W corridor such as NASA Goddard, NSA, Ft Meade, and BWI adjoin the parkway and a well constructed BRT system that utilizes the express lanes could do pretty well.

[froggie]

I also hope a good transit bus can be establlished along these lanes.  Most of the key employment sites along the B-W corridor such as NASA Goddard, NSA, Ft Meade, and BWI adjoin the parkway and a well constructed BRT system that utilizes the express lanes could do pretty well.

The problem here is, unless DDOT creates some transit lanes or bus-only shoulders (neither of which are likely IMO), those buses will run into the same congestion along Kenilworth and NY Ave that everyone else hits.

I'd think those "key employment sites" would be better off beefing up shuttle service to their adjacent MARC stations (most of them are near stations on both the Penn and Camden Lines) and supporting MARC improvements which are needed anyway.

[cpzilliacus]

On the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, four new lanes would extend from Baltimore to the District.

So what's the reaction from the DC government going to be to dumping more cars onto DC 295 and US 50?

I actually think it would be better with the additional lanes.  Northbound, you have 2 lanes from I-295 and 2 lanes from US 50 that quickly merge into 3 lanes and then 2 a short time later at Annapolis Rd.  Imagine if the merger stayed 4NB lanes all the way to the Beltway, let alone Baltimore.  4 lanes in each direction is not extra, it is actually what is needed for this highway.

Even SB, 2 lanes expand to 3 lanes at Annapolis Rd and then split at the interchange with the left lane heading to 295, the right lane to 50 and the middle lane splitting between the two.  At this point, there are 2 lanes heading to 295 and 2 lanes heading to 50 from the Parkway.  So expanding the parkway to 4 lanes heading southbound could fir very easily into this split without overloading the interchange.

The downside for DC though is that this will make it plainly obvious that the 695 connector just isn't doing the job of providing a good connector from 395 to Baltimore because of the 2 lane NB section between the 11th street bridge and East Capitol.  So people will still be using Capitol Hill streets and NY Ave to reach the parkway as it will be quicker despite the traffic signals.

I also hope a good transit bus can be establlished along these lanes.  Most of the key employment sites along the B-W corridor such as NASA Goddard, NSA, Ft Meade, and BWI adjoin the parkway and a well constructed BRT system that utilizes the express lanes could do pretty well.

IMO, the entire Baltimore-Washington Parkway, from I-95 in Baltimore City  to the U.S. 50/MD-201 interchange in the Tuxedo (Cheverly) area of Prince George's County. It should be 6 lanes (3 each way).  There might be some places where it should and could be wider, but 6 lanes should be the minimum. 

I do not think Hogan's ideal of cramming-in 4 added managed lanes will work well on a road that was designed and engineered to be a parkway, not a freeway. Much better to have tolls on all lanes, avoiding gantries over the mainline of the parkway, except at the northern and southern termini (instead putting them  at the entrances and exits, in the  style of Highway 407 ETR in Ontario.  With the correct toll rates, the parkway should be a free-flow road at all times, much like MD-200 is.

Regarding D.C., the major pinch points there are the signalized intersection at U.S. 50 (New York Avenue, N.E.) and Bladensburg Road; and the 4 lane section of DC-295 between Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. and East Capitol Street. 

For many years, I have heard people from DDOT (and before DDOT, D.C. DPW) say  that the Bladensburg Road intersection should be replaced with an interchange or some other modifications. 

Of course, DDOT has said they are interested in road pricing, and after the I-395 Express Lanes, the I-295/DC-295 corridor is probably the best place to do it.

Having free-flow traffic on  the B-W Parkway and DC-295 makes it an idea corridor for express bus service.  That's a lot cheaper than more trains, and potentially faster as well, especially when compared to the Camden Line.

[froggie]

Having free-flow traffic on  the B-W Parkway and DC-295 makes it an idea corridor for express bus service.  That's a lot cheaper than more trains, and potentially faster as well, especially when compared to the Camden Line.

Given the desire by many pushing this to widen 295, it may not necessarily be cheaper than "more trains".  You also still have the issue of traffic congestion once you're off 295.  The only way your situation would potentially work and "be cheaper" than MARC upgrades would be if DDOT tolls 295 as-is and doesn't bother with widening.  Figure the political odds of that actually happening.

[cpzilliacus]

Having free-flow traffic on  the B-W Parkway and DC-295 makes it an idea corridor for express bus service.  That's a lot cheaper than more trains, and potentially faster as well, especially when compared to the Camden Line.

Given the desire by many pushing this to widen 295, it may not necessarily be cheaper than "more trains".  You also still have the issue of traffic congestion once you're off 295.  The only way your situation would potentially work and "be cheaper" than MARC upgrades would be if DDOT tolls 295 as-is and doesn't bother with widening.  Figure the political odds of that actually happening.

Several of the employment centers in the  corridor (notably NASA/GSFC, USDA, NSA and other agencies at Fort Meade, BWI (including NSA's Friendship Annex), the Tuxedo industrial area in Cheverly, Arundel Mills, and employment along MD-175 and MD-176 east and west of the parkway) are relatively close to the parkway, so IMO that's not a huge issue - and not an adequate reason  to stop a project like this.

Regarding trains (especially on the Camden Line, which uses a railroad owned by CSX for nearly its entire length), there's also the matter of capacity, and lack thereof, for additional trains.

[Henry]

While a widened Parkway would indeed be a great benefit to the area, it wouldn't feel like a parkway anymore, and I-95 to the west is already more than adequate in carrying traffic between the two cities. I read that when the Between the Beltways part of I-95 was completed back in 1971, the Parkway was going to be redesignated as I-295, but then it was decided against due to its substandard nature and the super expensive upgrades it would have to go through. Extending MD 295 to meet its DC 295 counterpart wouldn't be a bad idea either.

[cpzilliacus]

While a widened Parkway would indeed be a great benefit to the area, it wouldn't feel like a parkway anymore, and I-95 to the west is already more than adequate in carrying traffic between the two cities. I read that when the Between the Beltways part of I-95 was completed back in 1971, the Parkway was going to be redesignated as I-295, but then it was decided against due to its substandard nature and the super expensive upgrades it would have to go through. Extending MD 295 to meet its DC 295 counterpart wouldn't be a bad idea either.

That is why I  suggested above that the  Baltimore-Washington Parkway should be no more than six lanes total, and all lanes should be tolled and that the entire parkway should be a variant of MD-200.

[mrsman]

While a widened Parkway would indeed be a great benefit to the area, it wouldn't feel like a parkway anymore, and I-95 to the west is already more than adequate in carrying traffic between the two cities. I read that when the Between the Beltways part of I-95 was completed back in 1971, the Parkway was going to be redesignated as I-295, but then it was decided against due to its substandard nature and the super expensive upgrades it would have to go through. Extending MD 295 to meet its DC 295 counterpart wouldn't be a bad idea either.

That is why I  suggested above that the  Baltimore-Washington Parkway should be no more than six lanes total, and all lanes should be tolled and that the entire parkway should be a variant of MD-200.

It will be interesting to have a toll road parallel and close to I-95 for so many miles.  It will be reminiscent of the Miami area with 2 main N-S roads (I-95 free, FL Tpke toll) or South NJ (I-295 free, turnpike toll).  I think the area needs something like this, but see no way to overcome politics of tolling existing free lanes.

[D-Dey65]

While a widened Parkway would indeed be a great benefit to the area, it wouldn't feel like a parkway anymore, and I-95 to the west is already more than adequate in carrying traffic between the two cities. I read that when the Between the Beltways part of I-95 was completed back in 1971, the Parkway was going to be redesignated as I-295, but then it was decided against due to its substandard nature and the super expensive upgrades it would have to go through. Extending MD 295 to meet its DC 295 counterpart wouldn't be a bad idea either.

It doesn't exactly feel like a parkway now due to the numerous trucks and buses that get away with using it. I still think it's a shame they gave up on running I-95 directly through D.C.

[cpzilliacus]

While a widened Parkway would indeed be a great benefit to the area, it wouldn't feel like a parkway anymore, and I-95 to the west is already more than adequate in carrying traffic between the two cities. I read that when the Between the Beltways part of I-95 was completed back in 1971, the Parkway was going to be redesignated as I-295, but then it was decided against due to its substandard nature and the super expensive upgrades it would have to go through. Extending MD 295 to meet its DC 295 counterpart wouldn't be a bad idea either.

It doesn't exactly feel like a parkway now due to the numerous trucks and buses that get away with using it. I still think it's a shame they gave up on running I-95 directly through D.C.

Buses may use the entire Baltimore-Washington Parkway, and have for as long as it has been open to traffic.  Even double-deck buses like those used by CoachUSA's Megabus for most trips fit under the bridges on the parkway (both the federal and state-maintained sections).

Trucks on the federal (NPS-matained) section part of the Parkway (U.S. 50 at Tuxedo to MD-175 at Odenton) are mostly illegal, and  truck drivers are subject to a federal summons for driving there (but the fine is laughably low), and Park Police will order them to exit the Parkway at the next interchange. 

There are two exceptions:

(1) If the truck has federal government license plates (including Postal Service trucks) or is a military truck; or
(2) If the truck is engaged in maintenance  or repair work on the Parkway.

[D-Dey65]

Well, trucks for maintenance or repair work being allowed on parkways is universal, and perfectly understandable. That and tow trucks removing broken down cars, and fire engines and such.

[mrsman]

Is there any standard as to what types of vehicles constitute trucks?  Is it a weight or size limit or just the commercial nature? 

[cpzilliacus]

Is there any standard as to what types of vehicles constitute trucks?  Is it a weight or size limit or just the commercial nature? 

There are two limits, both governed by gross vehicle weight.

One is 10,000 pounds.  Trucks over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds are sometimes seen on the NPS Parkways, though  I do not think they are supposed to be there.  In general, I think the U.S. Park Police ignore these trucks (for the most part).

Trucks over 26,000 pounds gross require a CDL to drive and are definitely illegal on the NPS Parkways, and the driver of such a vehicle risks getting a federal ticket.

[abefroman329]

WTOP's Dave Dildine has a story and photo gallery called "A look at the District's screwy road signs." (Link below the quote.) Taking his report at face value makes it sound like those of you who have an interest in seeing some of our old favorites, such as the (in)famous boarded-up signs over I-66 near the Kennedy Center, should make the trip sooner rather than later:

The District Department of Transportation plans to improve the signage along some of the downtown freeways in the coming months, but until then, drivers will be doing a double-take.

http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/08/a-look-at-the-districts-screwy-signs/slide/1/

(Take note of his reference to button copy in one of the captions, too. How often do you see that term in media reports?)

The boarded-up sign has to be a reassurance sign.  For what route, I don't know.

[1995hoo]

WTOP's Dave Dildine has a story and photo gallery called "A look at the District's screwy road signs." (Link below the quote.) Taking his report at face value makes it sound like those of you who have an interest in seeing some of our old favorites, such as the (in)famous boarded-up signs over I-66 near the Kennedy Center, should make the trip sooner rather than later:

The District Department of Transportation plans to improve the signage along some of the downtown freeways in the coming months, but until then, drivers will be doing a double-take.

http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/08/a-look-at-the-districts-screwy-signs/slide/1/

(Take note of his reference to button copy in one of the captions, too. How often do you see that term in media reports?)

The boarded-up sign has to be a reassurance sign.  For what route, I don't know.

I think most of us assume it's for the unbuilt portion of I-695.

If those signs are indeed replaced, I really hope they let us see what was under there, even if only via a photo.

[1995hoo]

WTOP's Dave Dildine and I were exchanging messages about I-66 in DC and in the course of doing so, I found the photo gallery linked below from the DC DOT containing photos from the 1960s showing said road during its construction and just after it opened. The old ramp to the Kennedy Center can be seen in one of them. I note there were more I-66 shields (with the "state" name) than there are today, and I see the famous "mystery sign" on the southbound sign bridge was already covered up (makes sense, of course, if indeed it is an I-695 sign).

Those of you who like old pictures ought to take a look. You'll see the Kennedy Center and the Watergate complex under construction as well.

http://ddotlibrary.omeka.net/items/show/95



Edited to add: After posting that link, I started nosing around their site and found the following gallery of old signs in general.

http://ddotlibrary.omeka.net/items/show/79

[abefroman329]

Fascinating - I had no idea the Watergate complex predated the Kennedy Center.  Thanks.

[Alps]

WTOP's Dave Dildine and I were exchanging messages about I-66 in DC and in the course of doing so, I found the photo gallery linked below from the DC DOT containing photos from the 1960s showing said road during its construction and just after it opened. The old ramp to the Kennedy Center can be seen in one of them. I note there were more I-66 shields (with the "state" name) than there are today, and I see the famous "mystery sign" on the southbound sign bridge was already covered up (makes sense, of course, if indeed it is an I-695 sign).

Those of you who like old pictures ought to take a look. You'll see the Kennedy Center and the Watergate complex under construction as well.

http://ddotlibrary.omeka.net/items/show/95



Edited to add: After posting that link, I started nosing around their site and found the following gallery of old signs in general.

http://ddotlibrary.omeka.net/items/show/79

That is really cool stuff! TIL the signs in the I-395 tunnel used to be backlit. That would really help their target value! I can barely notice today's one-liners.

[AlexandriaVA]

Not sure if discussed, but the opening of the Wharf development in Southwest brings a few new roads into the city's inventory. I haven't been down there yet, I intend to before it gets too cold, but some of them are "shared streets" for all modes (car, bike, pedestrian).

[froggie]

^ Also eliminated a large chunk of Water St NW, including everything west of 7th.

[AlexandriaVA]

Think you mean Water St SW...

[froggie]

I did, sorry...

[AlexandriaVA]

Was battling a head cold but had to get out of the apartment...parked at 7th+G SW in an unrestricted street spot...my guess is the remaining "open" spots like this will be metered or subject to residental permits very soon.

It was a nice day at the Wharf, and it seemed very popular for everyone...young folks, seniors, and families. I'll post some photos from a roads standpoint. Note the integrated of areas for cars, pedestrians, bikes, and even parking spaces.

[1995hoo]

Nice pictures. I find that second one very interesting with the semi-European speed limit unisign.

Thanks for posting. I haven't had time to get down there.

[1995hoo]

Dave Dildine of WTOP just tweeted a link to the following story about a proposal to close Rock Creek Parkway south of Virginia Avenue (past the Kennedy Center) to motorized vehicles and to divert motorized traffic to the I-66 stub. Surely that would require some road reconfiguration to be practical, given how (1) I-66 access at the Virginia Avenue end is primarily via 27 Street and (2) there is no access to Memorial Bridge from south/westbound I-66 (you have to use Rock Creek Parkway or 23 Street).

https://currentnewspapers.com/ancs-suggest-closing-parkway-to-cars-in-front-of-kennedy-center/