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.

Quick GW Parkway cycling note

Coming out of tonight's Mt. Vernon Transportation Committee meeting: the committee is open to the concept of allowing bicycles on the George Washington Parkway on the weekends. I don't think we have support for an all-weekend allowance, but most of the committee members there tonight are open to the idea of at least partial hours for bikes on the weekend...most likely on weekend mornings.

The next step would be to draft a resolution or letter of support for the Mt. Vernon Council of Citizens Associations to approve and pass on to local elected officials and the National Park Service. As the committee's unofficial bicycle advocate, I've also been asked by the committee chair to invite WABA and FABB to speak at our next monthly meeting.

It's a step in the right direction.

A hidden route, unhidden

Most of my regular readers are probably aware of DDOT's 11th St Bridge project, which is replacing the existing 11th Street Bridge over the Anacostia with three new bridges...one for each direction of freeway and a new local bridge that'll link 11th St SE with Martin Luther King Ave SE.

A few of you may know that the Southeast Freeway between the 3rd St Tunnel (I-395) and the 11th St Bridge has carried a hidden Interstate designation: I-695. As part of the 11th St Bridge project, DDOT requested in 2009 to truncate I-295 (which had crossed the bridge, the ramp connections above M St SE that were taken out last year, and extended to Barney Circle) to Anacostia and extend I-695 across the 11th St Bridge.

This past weekend, I found visual proof that DDOT intends to at least partially sign I-695:



This 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. Though it's possible that the covered panel here may have had an I-695 shield at one point, it's hard to say for sure.

Thursday meetings galore...

Three notable meetings tomorrow (Thursday):

- Fairfax County will be hosting the third in a series of eight meetings on the county's Bicycle Master Plan, focusing on the Mount Vernon area (mostly Mt. Vernon District and part of Lee District). The meeting will be at the South County Government Center on Route 1, from 5:30 to 8pm.

- Alexandria will be hosting the latest of its High Capacity Transit Corridor Study meetings at Patrick Henry Elementary School from 7-9pm. The meeting will focus on the latest concepts for Corridor B along Duke Street.

- WABA is hosting a Happy Hour at Brasserie Beck in DC at 11th and K NW. The Happy Hour begins at 5pm.

Unfortunately, I can't be in all three places at once.

Transit maps on Flickr

Many months ago, I had several people ask me to post my transit concept maps for DC online. After those months of procrastination, not to mention adding a few more maps to the pile, I've gotten around to it and created a Flickr set.

The set will become a repository for the maps I create showing various transit concepts in the DC area, including my proposal for around Mark Center:



Or potential streetcar corridors:



There's also my oft-mentioned proposal to extend the Yellow Line to (and beyond) Fort Belvoir:



Lastly, there's been a lot of talk about a separated Blue Line through DC (with a separated Yellow Line thrown in for good measure):



More maps will be posted to the Flickr set as they're created.

A permanent fix for a problematic spot

A persistent problem spot on the area's bicycle/pedestrian network has been on the George Washington Parkway near Memorial Bridge. In this area, bicycles and pedestrians transiting between the Mount Vernon Parkway and the Memorial Bridge must cross both the northbound GW Parkway main lanes plus a northbound ramp at-grade. The site has been the scene of numerous crashes this year (the latest being a pedestrian right before Halloween), all of which involve either a vehicle hitting a cyclist or pedestrian, or rear-end crashes among vehicles as some drivers stop/slow to allow bikes/peds across and the vehicles following behind do not stop and thus crash.

Even without the crashes, regular vehicle traffic has other concerns. The area is confusing jumble of ramps going all sorts of different directions. All too often, drivers not familiar with the area realize too late that they are in the wrong lane for the particular ramp they want to take and try to change it at the last possible moment. The result is further congestion and the occasional vehicle crash.

Unfortunately, there is no easy fix to the problem. Longstanding National Park Service policy is for no traffic signals along their parkways, so this precludes putting a traffic signal or even a HAWK signal at the location. Ideas for a bike/pedestrian overpass have brought concerns about loss of trees and "overhead obstructions". This has led to more recent calls for a bike/pedestrian underpass, but this will require a fair bit of money and regrading to implement.

Ultimately, something will have to be done. It will be a bitter pill to swallow, but the only way NPS can reduce the crash risk is to do something that either costs a lot of money or goes against their current policies.

To that end, I have devised my own permanent fix that solves many of the problems endemic in the area:



My proposal involves a lot of construction, which NPS may not be very keen on doing and will in turn cost a lot of money. However, it solves many of the safety/traffic problems in the area. Among the benefits:

• Straightens out the GW Parkway main lanes and moves all entrances/exits to the right. The existing configuration has three left-side entrances/exits.
  
• Retains all existing access and greatly streamlines and simplifies the ramps connecting the GW Parkway to Memorial Bridge, Route 27, and Route 50 West.
  
• Elimination of many of the existing roads/ramps allows for renaturalization/revegetation of those ramp locations to mitigate the loss of trees due to construction.
  
• Eliminates the need for at-grade crossings for bicycles/pedestrians connecting between the Mt. Vernon Trail and Memorial Bridge.
  
• Greatly expands the bicycle/pedestrian network in the area, utilizing some of the eliminated roads/ramps.
  
• Allows for separate bicycle/pedestrian paths along this segment of the Mt. Vernon Trail, very much needed due to heavy trail use. The bicycle path can utilize the existing northbound lanes.
  
• Allows for the possibility of a streetcar line across Memorial Bridge, connecting K Street NW at Washington Circle to the Pentagon and the proposed Arlington streetcar network.
  
• Allows for a full interchange on Route 110 connecting to both Memorial Bridge and the Iwo Jima/Marine Corps memorial (as shown on the map). Alternatively, this option could be left off and the existing congifuration along Route 110 remaining as-is.

This proposal would require a lot of money and would likely involve multiple years of construction, but the benefits of a reduced road footprint, better safety, and an expanded bike/ped network are well worth it. Even if my specific proposal isn't followed, it would be in NPS's best interests to look at a long-term solution for this area and implement it as soon as possible.

GGW Post on Alexandria Bikeshare

My post on GGW about Alexandria Bikeshare is now online. The maps I posted yesterday are in there, as is some details from last night's City Council meeting and discussion of the program. Just wish we could get the stations in sooner than Spring.

Alexandria joins Bikeshare

A quick word now before I wrote a longer post for Greater Greater Washington tomorrow: Alexandria City Council unanimously approved joining the Capital Bikeshare system. First 6 stations to be implemented sometime between spring and summer 2012.

Bikeshare proposal in Alexandria

The Alexandria City Council is expected to vote tonight on whether to join Capital Bikeshare. The docket item is now online.

The initial round of 6 Bikeshare stations (with 54 bikes) is to be funded via already-approved FY 2012 CMAQ funding, with operating expenses to be covered from the city's pot of Transportation Management Plan (TMP) funds. No city general funds will be used, and the docket is quick to make that point clear.



This graphic is from the City Council docket item for tonight's council meeting, showing the draft list of proposed stations. The white circles on the map are for the initial round of six bikeshare stations. Green circles are "To Be Implemenented By Others", likely developer-funded stations as there has been considerable interest among developers and property owners for including Bikeshare stations...as an example, the recently approved Harris Teeter development in North Old Town offered a Bikeshare stations as part of the new development. Black circles show future expansion locations. This is of note since Council approved FY 2013 CMAQ funding on September 27, including $400K for Bikeshare.

The street shading is from the city's map of Potential Bicycle Activity (page 6), from the city's Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan. It's basically their version of a "heat map" identifying potential areas of bicycle activity. It could also be used to identify potential locations for Bikeshare stations.

By comparison, here is my own idea on Bikeshare station placement, from June 2011:



Of note:

Not much difference between the city's proposed initial round and my own. We both put stations at the King St and Braddock Rd Metro stations, but while I put the rest of the stations along King St, the city puts one in at Pitt and Pendleton.

The city's draft map only focuses on Old Town and Carlyle, though they have announced interest in future expansion into Rosemont, Del Ray, Arlandria, and possibly even into the West End. Meanwhile, I include stations along Mt. Vernon Ave and in Potomac Yard in my proposal.

The city includes 6 stations "to be implemented by others", likely via development proffers. My map only has one since I was only aware of that one at the time I created it. Four of my station locations are at/near these proffers.

It's still too early to tell just how the City Council will vote on this. Two councilmembers are on record as in support, but indications are that the others are either lukewarm or disinterested. We'll find out tonight with the voting.

Regional map data abounds, but is expensive

Detailed map data offers tremendous potential to expand our understanding of the world in which we live. Unfortunately, most localities in the immediate area charge for this data, which should be publicly available to everyone.

Past posts on Greater Greater Washington and here on Just Down The Parkway have featured user-created maps based on GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data from DC and Alexandria.

DC's GIS data availability in particular has been described as "a treasure trove of interesting information." There are numerous data layers available to the public for free at the city's GIS Data Catalog.

But DC is the only jurisdiction in the region that offers so much data for free. The City of Alexandria and every county in the immediate DC area charge for the same type of GIS data. Some charge exorbitant rates.

I contacted each jurisdiction's GIS office in order to determine the price charged for three common map layers: building footprints, zoning, and elevation contours. The prices are shown in this chart:



Alexandria and Loudoun charge a nominal price for CDs containing their full data set, which offers all of the GIS data they make available to the public. Arlington is similar but more expensive, as they separate their contour data from the rest and charge more for the contours. Prince William splits their land area up into several small geographic squares called "tiles," and then charges by tile instead of countywide. Fairfax provides countywide data, but charges a higher rate.

Even Fairfax is affordable compared to jurisdictions in Maryland, though. By comparison, both Montgomery and Prince George's charge excessive rates. They both charge "by tile," like Prince William, but with several hundred tiles within each county, the cost of full coverage skyrockets significantly.

There are some exceptions. Both Fairfax and Montgomery offer downloads of limited data for free. In Montgomery's case the free data comes as Google Earth "kml" files. However, the bulk of their GIS data, including the three layers mentioned above, comes at a price.

A number of free or low-cost GIS programs are available for the general public. As GIS becomes a more mainstream way to gather information, good data availability will become even more paramount. Making it available to the public at a nominal cost or free of charge is a good opportunity for jurisdictions to be more open with their residents, and to foster understanding and innovation.

It costs each jurisdiction virtually nothing to give the data to additional users. Some localities have argued in the past that they need to charge to recoup the cost of generating the data. However, that ignores the massive public good that comes from making it possible for people to create maps on their own, even if those maps will just get posted online somewhere and never earn anyone a dime.

Some area jurisdictions, DC in particular, have recognized this. It would behoove the other jurisdictions to follow suit.

Cross-posted on GreaterGreaterWashington.