Roads
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.
Photo by the author.
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.
I-695 South Leg proposal, from 1970 study.
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.
1971-proposed Inner Loop freeway system.
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."
Adam Froehlig, aka "Froggie," is a US Navy sailor working as a GIS analyst. Transportation is his primary hobby and he is often seen at transportation meetings in Alexandria and southeastern Fairfax County in addition to being a member of the Alexandria Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the transportation representative for the Huntington Community Association. He lives in Huntington and blogs at Just Down the Parkway.    |
Comments
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
by Steve D on Dec 21, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Dec 21, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report
I was sorry to see no credit given by Adam to the group most directly responsible for leading and paying for the opposition to these intown Interstates ... The Committee of 100 on The Federal City.
That's right the antis did something good again. What an inconvenient truth for a blog that likes to derided this NIMBYism.
by Lance on Dec 21, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
If we could wipe the slate clean I'd suggest renumbering I-395 as I-695 from the Springfield interchange through Arlington and continuing onto the SE Freeway, and reserve I-395 just for the short spur that is the 3rd Street Tunnel. But that ship has long since sailed.
Something we *could* do is renumber DC 295 as I-295, and have the I-295 designation go from the WW Bridge to US 50 where it would become MD 295/BW Parkway. Eliminate "DC 295" completely from existence. I've got to imagine there is confusion on a daily basis regarding I-295 vs. DC 295 vs. MD 295.
The feds are pretty strict about not naming a road an interstate unless it's built to interstate standards. Once DC 295 finishes renovation it might finally be close enough to those standards that the redesignation would be approved. (I doubt the BW Parkway could ever get renamed since it's run by the National Park Service, it has lower speed limit, trucks are banned, etc.)
by Marc on Dec 21, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
The 695 being close to 695 in Baltimore has NOTHING to do with its designation. Auxiliary interstates, a.k.a. 3di's, are given unique numbers within each state. More here: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i695.html#695dc
by Cephas on Dec 21, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Dec 21, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
I-295 was designated and signed along the Anacostia Freeway, 11th Street Bridge, and the one mile of the East Leg of the Inner Loop that was built. These segments were built in the 1960s.
The current project includes demolishing that segment of the East Leg, thus opening the way to sign I-695 across the 11th Street Bridge.
by Beltway on Dec 21, 2011 2:50 pm • link • report
To my knowledge, the current project no longer includes the removal of the east leg. A lot of the mitigation projects specified in the EIS seem to have been either cancelled or put on indefinite hold.
Although the plan is for the East Leg to be turned into an "urban boulevard," the only realistic change will be the removal of interstate signs along that portion of road. It will remain a grade-separated freeway in a trench.
That entire area seems to have been cast off and neglected, which is a shame, because it has lots of potential, and improvements could have easily been built into the 11th St Bridge, CSX tunnel, or DC Water tunnel projects that will be going on in the area. Instead, it appears to be destined to remain a neglected and unknown corner of the city for at least another generation.
by andrew on Dec 21, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
by John on Dec 21, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
by JessMan on Dec 21, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report
KC has cut and cover tunneled freeways like the I-66 K Street tunnel, the tunneled North Leg East, the tunneled segment of the East Leg?
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-695-south-leg_18.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-north-leg-west-k-street-tunnel.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-295-east-leg-to-east-capitol-street_17.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report
The East Leg as a whole has been deferred, but one item will be built under the current project: westbound (i.e. inbound) will be rebuilt to have an at-grade intersection with 11th St SE before it merges onto the new inbound I-695 lanes being built.
by Froggie on Dec 21, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report
Wow, looking at Kansas city on google maps (satellite, remove labels), is pretty crazy. They've got their downtown core (about a square mile by the looks of it) completely ringed by interchanges and interstates. Nuts! Also, half of that downtown core appears to be surface parking.
by nick on Dec 21, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1950-62-plans.html
Hence the administration in power 1961-63 proposed a scaled back yet continuous freeway and rail transit systems:
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/05/jfk-administration-dc-freeway-system.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report
That's right the antis did something good again. What an inconvenient truth for a blog that likes to derided this NIMBYism."
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/04/doctrinaire-anti-new-highways-position.html
"...the growing fuel crisis which, according to Administration spokesmen, will lead to gas rationing within six months and, by 1990, may well render the private automobile as obsolete as the horse and buggy."
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
Do people get a little confused? Yes. But is someone driving north from Virginia to Baltimore going to be confused by a 695 sign that is 30 miles south of Baltimore? I think (I hope) not; that is why they have destination cities on highway signs.
It's not like MDOT is going to sign I-595 between the beltway and Annapolis....
I remember a year or so ago that google maps labeled both 595 and 695 for a short period of time, then removed them, probably because no one had any idea what they were.
by Jamie on Dec 21, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
Check out the maps of the DC freeway system- they do NOT show the K Street Tunnel AND they have the infamous 1964 version of the North Central Freeway.
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
Check out the maps of the DC freeway system- they do NOT show the K Street Tunnel AND they have the infamous 1964 version of the North Central Freeway.
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 4:59 pm • link • report
No one in Maryland uses MD295, they use the B/W Parkway.
by Birdseed on Dec 21, 2011 5:30 pm • link • report
by Reza on Dec 21, 2011 5:46 pm • link • report
In any event, this project removed I-295 from the East Leg.
by Beltway on Dec 21, 2011 6:18 pm • link • report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/04/dc-295-kenilworth-avenue-corridor.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 6:53 pm • link • report
I spent some time in Kansas City doing some work training over a couple months, and despite what it may look like on the map, the roadways work very well there. Kansas City isn't like Washington which had the L'Enfant Plan which is more than a simple grid. The way the Interstates have been placed on the grid there they actually add to that grid by giving express options which a grid can't do on it's own. We've kind of done that here with Rock Creek Parkway, GW Parkway, Clara Barton, and the SE Freeway and adjoining tunnels. Their's really isn't much different from ours ... though it's a bit more efficient because when they decided to nix the inner elevated freeways in DC, they didn't go the extra step and build more tunnel type freeways. Personally, I'm hopeful that someday we address the need for 'Big Dig' type freeway projects under the main corridors to bring a seamless connection in from the suburbs. What we have now is mainly freeways ending in weird places. I guess that was the price to pay for not getting stuck with elevated freeways (i.e., the funding went to Metro), but after all these decades we need to address the still outstanding problem of this city not being able to offer hi-speed travel within its borders with the few exceptes noted above.
It's not the freeways in and of themselves that most people would oppose for Washington, it's the fact that they were going to be elevated and as such destroy the built environment. Kansas City doesn't have much of a built environment worth saving other than its inner core ... which IS being saved with the way they configured the freeways there AND, more importantly, the freeways there are 'saving' it by re-tieing it to the suburbs which is really where everything happens there.
by Lance on Dec 21, 2011 10:10 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Dec 21, 2011 10:14 pm • link • report
Along with mis-routed; the North Central Freeway became widely opposed with its deviation from the JFK Administration plan
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/05/significence-of-waffling-on-b-north.html
The re-studied proposal also tacitly admitted that the route first proposed was needlessly, even carelessly if not ruthlessly, destructive of our communities. The new version hugged both sides of the existing Baltimore and Ohio railway, thus avoiding a new swath of destruction to divide our communities and sharply reducing the number of homes to be taken.
The reduced, re-routed proposal was made public last year with endorsement of D.C. And Maryland highway authorities. The D.C. Portion was forced through the National Capital Planning Commission by votes of representatives of the D.C. Highway Department and of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. From this we concluded, reasonably enough, that the highway authorities of the two jurisdictions (Maryland and D.C.) had reached a firm understanding with the Bureau of Public Roads.
Many of us were therefore astonished and aroused to preparations for renewed protests when Washington newspapers recently reported that the Bureau has acted to open it all up again. We have not found the Bureau forthcoming with candid information, but the press articles intimate an intention to force Maryland to accept modifications of route or design ostensibly "cheaper."
The result is that the whole controversy, which had been somewhat quiescent, is beginning to agitate the communities again.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/12/within-beltway.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 21, 2011 10:20 pm • link • report
That stretch of roadway is referred by some as Kenilworth Avenue, and the signs on the Pennsylvania Ave SE/Sousa Bridge---eastbound----call it the Anacsotia Freeway though you don't see another sign ANYWHERE in the city other than on the Sousa Bridge designating that roadway Anacostia Freeway.
Most people it seems already think of the entire stretch of roadway between the Maryland line near the Wilson Bridge to the Maryland line near Eastern Avenue NE in Deanwood as I-295 so make it so. Either that, or re-brand, with signage, the entire stretch of roadway from Blue Plains to Eastern Avenue as the Anacostia Freeway..which if you look at Google Maps..is what it is designated as now.
by Christopher on Dec 22, 2011 8:38 am • link • report
My understanding is that part of Kenilworth Ave cannot be signed as an interstate because it does not meet interstate standards.
by Alex B. on Dec 22, 2011 9:08 am • link • report
by FafouDabou on Dec 22, 2011 11:09 am • link • report
by Christopher on Dec 22, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
As for taking traffic out of the neighborhoods, I had a conversation with a couple GGW contributors on this last night. The biggest winner by far with this project will be the outbound Sousa Bridge, as much of the traffic on the bridge will instead be able to use the new 11th St Bridge ramp connections without having to wait for signals. Howard Rd should also benefit.
I don't see this project benefiting New York Ave much unless further improvements to Kenilworth Ave are made. IMO, DDOT will need to widen Kenilworth Ave to a consistent 6 lanes north of the 11th Street Bridge and also work with SHA to build better connections between Kenilworth and 50 East. If those are done, I think it'll enable DDOT to permanently reduce New York Ave to 4 lanes. DC can then do whatever they want with the 2 extra lanes...permanent on-street parking, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, transit lanes, what have you.
by Froggie on Dec 22, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report
As far as DC signing I-695 instead of "SE Freeway", it does make some sense, since that particular area of DC can be confusing thanks to the mishmash of highway names/designations--I-395, SE/SW Freeway, I-295, DC 295, I-695, MD 295, Anacostia Freeway, Kenilworth Ave, Balt-Wash Parkway. The numeric designations should be what's displayed on the signs, either alone or along with the highway names.
In MD--a state with a disproportionately large number of interstate and state highways because of the very high pop. density--the SHA sets a good example by not posting the official highway names at all or only posting the names on a sign at the very beginning of the highway and using the numeric designation the rest of the way (for eg. I-270 "the Eisenhower Memorial Highway" and I-95 in MD/DE "the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway"). I-595 wasn't signed to avoid driver confusion, although interestingly both US 40 and I-70, as well as US 40 and I-68, are signed throughout their concurrency.
by King Terrapin on Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm • link • report
2- Apply the name 'John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway' also to the south of Baltimore segment, and especially, the future PEPCO-B&O Grand Arc Mall Tunnel extension down to South Capitol Street with a JFK Monument.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/02/extending-legacy-with-grand-arc.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/12/within-beltway.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/05/jfk-i-95-dedication-november-14-1963.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 22, 2011 6:38 pm • link • report
As I understand it, SHA chose not to sign I-595 (though they left room for it on the overhead signs approaching 50 on the Beltway) because it has long been known as Route 50/John Hanson Hwy...which has been a limited-access facility since it was built in stages during the 1950s.
by Froggie on Dec 23, 2011 10:10 am • link • report
It was built as a 4-lane freeway in the 1950s, between the B-W Parkway in D.C. and MD-70 near Annapolis.
Half of its length is overlapped with US-301. That would further complicate the situation of a third overlap with I-595, all of differnt lengths, given that the US-50/US-301 freeway now extends onto the Eastern Shore.
by Beltway on Dec 23, 2011 10:11 pm • link • report
by Jack Love on Dec 26, 2011 8:42 pm • link • report
There was a proposed I-266, that would have supplemented I-66 between Arlington and D.C., and would have included a Potomac River bridge at the Three Sisters Islands.
by Beltway on Dec 26, 2011 9:16 pm • link • report
Now that you mention it, I do recall an I-266 but memory on it is hazy.
by Jack Love on Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm • link • report
I don't know if this has ever been discussed on-line, but I would surmise that I-695 was not to be two separate segments, but would have overlapped the I-95 Southwest Freeway, so I-695 would have covered the whole southern part of the Inner Loop. In that context it is logical for the South Leg to be I-695 (and not something like I-466).
by Beltway on Dec 26, 2011 10:57 pm • link • report
Either way, it is frightening to think of what downtown might be like today if any of that freeway madness had come to pass. K Street as I-66? A GINORMOUS interchange at the intersection of New York and New Jersey Avenues, and another one up at Brentwood? The East Leg slicing through Northeast? And a Friggin' interstate in Rock Creek Park?
Just dreadful.
by Jack Love on Dec 27, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report
Virginia (which would bear the brunt of this change) would never sign off on it.
I'd suggest the other way around and sign it as I-395 from Springfield, along SE/SW Freeway, and across the river to 295 (e.g. along the current "new" I-695 segment). Then the current I-395 stub under the Mall to NY Ave could be something else entirely, maybe I-195.
I'm a bit of a purist with the prefix numbers, so odd numbers should mark stubs and even numbers should note circumfrentials. That ship has long since sailed too.
by Jack Love on Dec 27, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report
What was so frightening- other than people lying about it (a recent article claiming an above ground interchange at Mt Vernon Square, and the WP lying about it (and the I-95 route) and refusing to publish corrections?
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-top-not.html
It is not 'freeway madness' as Jack Love claims, rather it is anti-freeway madness to confuse the later designs with the earlier ones.
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 27, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
We dodged a bullet in the '60s, thank God.But such things are as unlikely today as an effort to convert the Vatican into a discotheque. Perhaps less so.
by oboe on Dec 27, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
How do you figure that?
We got the worst designed freeway (SW-SE Freeway), then refused to apply the lessons learned, by cancelling the mainly underground remaining system, so the vehicular traffic dumps onto streets as NYA. Build the bad but not the good.
Then we allow townhouses too close to the SW Freeway, making its undergrounding more difficult-less likely, all in sight of the Ds of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development- that's SOME government.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/03/sw-se-freeway-burial.html
by Douglas Willinger on Dec 27, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-695-south-leg_18.html
by Douglas Willinger on Jan 4, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report
Add a Comment