I-695 label returns to DC, but it never really left

DDOT opened the inbound 11th Street Bridge this past weekend. Drivers are already confused, not from the change in the lane split from I-295, but in the route number chosen for the bridge: I-695.



My photo from before the opening.

Why did DDOT sign the bridge as I-695? This is a question that been pondered by blogs, the news media, and numerous tweets. The confusion got so bad that DDOT wrote their own post to explain.

As it turns out, the Southeast Freeway between the 3rd Street Tunnel and the 11th Street Bridge has always been I-695, but there were no signs listing it this way. Instead, signs at on-ramps on Capitol Hill, for instance, listed choices as 295 South (toward Anacostia) or "to 395" (toward Virginia or New York Ave).

In late 2008, DDOT submitted a request to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to de-designate I-295 north of the Anacostia side of the 11th Street Bridge, and to extend I-695 across the 11th Street Bridge to meet I-295 and DC Route 295. DDOT said the purpose was to "rationalize the freeway system in the District."

Image from DDOT.

But people are asking, if I-695 has existed all these years along the Southeast Freeway, why hasn't it been signed?

Not even DDOT knows for sure, but one possible reason is that it was intended to go farther.



This image, from a 1970 study, shows one of the alternatives for an extension of I-695 as part of the DC Interstate system. Dating in some form back to the mid-1950s, I-695 would have continued west from the 3rd Street Tunnel, diverged from the Southwest Freeway at Maine Ave, and continued northwesterly to meet I-66 at Constitution Ave NW. The ramp configurations at I-395/Maine Ave SW and at I-66/Constitution Ave NW are remnants of this long-ago plan, officially killed by then-mayor Marion Barry in 1980.

This segment might have been partially signed before it was cancelled. There's an empty space on the sign bridge on westbound I-66 just north of the E Street Expressway that might have housed an I-695 sign, and an associate of mine has reported that he recalls an I-695 sign on the inbound Theodore Roosevelt Bridge back in the 1970s. Any such signage has long since disappeared, however.



This map, from the 1971 DC Interstate System study by DeLeuw, Cather & Associates, shows how the longer I-695 would have fit into the context of the freeway system proposed for the DC core. As it connected I-66 with I-295 around the south side of the core, it would have been long enough to warrant signage. Since the South Leg was cancelled, plus the lack of connections between the 11th Street Bridge and DC 295, there was less of a need to sign I-695 after the freeway cancellations.

So why sign I-695 in DC when there's an I-695 around Baltimore, some ask. Wouldn't that just cause confusion? It might for unaware drivers and tourists, but there's precedent for signing nearby Interstates with the same number. We already have that in the DC area: both DC and Baltimore have I-395. An example with even less intermediate distance can be found in New England. I-291 exists in both Springfield, MA and suburban Hartford, CT, separated by only 22 miles. By comparison, over 31 miles separate DC's and Baltimore's I-695.

Now that DDOT plans to remove the Southeast Freeway spur to Pennsylvania Ave and is building connections between the 11th Street Bridge and DC 295, the agency has decided to reintroduce us to I-695. To reduce driver confusion, DDOT should install consistent signage all along I-695 and at the interchanges at both endpoints. Only time will tell if drivers can adjust to the "great route experiment."

Cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington.

Am I strange to come up with fantasy freeways?

I'm sure some people would think so. For one, it'd be anathema to the anti-freeway types. Some people think it's strange that my hobby involves roads and highways to begin with. Then there's the realist in me that wonders just how I can come up with roads that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being built.

It's gotta be the roadgeek in me...thinking of the "what if" scenario. Upgrades of existing congested highways, freeways that were proposed at one point then subsequently cancelled, completely pie-in-the-sky proposals, etc etc. "Boy, it'd be great if this road existed!"

So with that, I've revised/re-created a Fantasy MN 3. Updated the exit list graphics, added a map of the routing, and included a detailed route log...items I'm trying to introduce as "standard".

Definately some nice-to-haves...especially 4 lanes, a bypass of Rosemount, and a direct connection to US 52. Do I think it has a chance? Not at all. But that's the novelty of it, I guess...

Taking down freeway spurs, and some possible Minneapolis examples

First off, a quick update, as I've been out to sea for 3 months. The Minnesota Legislature DID pass a transportation funding bill, which was promptly vetoed by the Governor. However, when the veto override vote came up, six House Republicans chose to break ranks and vote for the bill, and so both MnDOT and regional transit finally have their first real surge in funding in years. Afterwards, and somewhat in keeping with requirements in the bill, MnDOT announced accelerated timetables for several bridge replacements, including the US 52 Lafayette Bridge, the US 61 Hastings Bridge, and the MN 23 DeSoto Bridge in St. Cloud...which has been closed for the past month after an inspection brought up concerns about the gusset plates.

----------

Moving on to more recent events, about a week ago was the first of some articles around the country (mainly the same article/story appearing in different locations on different days) on removing freeways from urban areas, especially blighted elevated freeways, and highlighting Oklahoma City's removal of I-40 through downtown.

What some of these articles barely mention, however, is that I-40 is not being eliminated. It's being relocated to a covered-over trench along an old railroad line a few blocks to the south. While this will allow the city to build a park along the existing I-40 right-of-way, to say that the freeway is being torn down to make room for a park, without discussing the relocation, is misleading.

Supporters are quick to point out real-life examples of freeway removal as a talking point for further projects. It should be pointed out that most of these removals were spur routes, not major through routes. They were also done either due to structural damage (i.e. the Embarcadero in San Francisco after the '89 earthquake) or because the route was underutilized (i.e. the Park East in Milwaukee).


That said, the story has opened up discussion nationwide about removing or relocating freeways from undesirable locations, either for aesthetic reasons (i.e. along a waterfront), or to open up areas of the central city for redevelopment. Minneapolis is no exception, and there's been some discussion on the StarTribune Roadguy blog about doing the same thing in Minneapolis. Two of the more popular suggestions involve downgrading the 3rd St spur east of the Metrodome that feeds into the U of M campus, and downgrading the 3rd/4th St spur from 2nd Ave N to I-94.

Removing the spur east of the Metrodome to the "U" has several issues related to it, between it being the primary route into and through campus, the proposed Central LRT line, and elevation/grade differences between Cedar Ave and the spur. I'll save this for a future discussion.

Below are some points on the other freeway spur...along 3rd/4th St between I-94 and 2nd Ave N:

- Average traffic volumes on the spur are about 20K daily. Combined with the existing 3rd St/4th St, it’s a total of about 23K. This is on par with many of the one-way pairs around downtown.

- With that in mind, it’s within the realm of possibility to take down the freeway spur and create a 3rd/4th St “boulevard” in between I-94 and 2nd Ave N.

- To maintain traffic flow, though, two main recommendations, if not outright requirements, would be A) traffic signal progression, and B) three lanes on each street. I don’t remember street widths offhand, but I think it’s possible to maintain 3 traffic lanes and still have enough street width for parking and a bike lane, especially inbound along 4th St (which has the wider width available due to the overpass).

- One of two areas of concern is bridging over the BNSF rail tracks. I don’t remember the elevation difference between the BNSF trench and old 3rd St/4th St, but if there’s enough of an elevation difference, you should be able to bridge over the rail tracks without having to bridge over 5th Ave N as well.

- The other area of concern is connecting to the I-94 ramps, especially outbound on 3rd St. The inbound connection to 4th St shouldn’t be much of a problem, but the outbound connection currently has a large building in the way…this building is what causes the break in 3rd St between 10th Ave N and 12th Ave N. It’s not insurmountable, but it may require some tight curviture and will definately impact the parking lots at the building.



So, in a nutshell, I think one's doable, but the other has too many issues that need to be sorted out first.