Roads
6-year study suggests tweaks around 14th Street bridges
Near the Jefferson Memorial, 5 bridges cross the Potomac carrying motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, the Metro, and freight and passenger trains. How can they be improved?
The Federal Highway Administration, DDOT, VDOT, and the National Park Service have been working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 14th Street Bridge corridor since 2006. They looked at the roads and paths on the bridges themselves and for some distance on and around I-395 and Route 1 (14th Street and Jefferson Davis Highway).
The study started with a long list of ideas from a number of public meetings, from double decking the 14th Street bridge or building a circumferential Metro line, to instituting cordon pricing or tolls, to painting murals on the concrete walls.
They analyzed a number of options and condensed them down to 3 bicycle and pedestrian options, 4 roadway options, and 6 Transportation Demand Management options. This post looks at the roadway and TDM alternatives; the next one will delve into the bicycle and pedestrian options.
Vehicular options
One of the most significant conclusions from the draft EIS is what it chose not to recommend: More single-passenger vehicle capacity. The team looked at adding new general-purpose lanes (which, on a freeway-type bridge, aren't as much "general purpose" as "motor vehicle only") or HOT lanes. Once Virginia decided not to run HOT lanes through Arlington, the HOT lane options became moot, and adding new auto capacity generally did not reduce congestion.
There are 5 remaining proposals that would affect motor vehicles:
Add a bus lane. A lot of commuter buses drive to the Pentagon and then over the 14th Street bridge to DC, and many local buses also cross in this area. This alternative would use the existing shoulder of the Rochambeau bridge (the center of the 3 road bridges, which carries the express lanes in both directions) for a bus lane, and convert one lane on 14th Street to a bus lane.
The heavy volume of buses moves a great many people in this corridor. Helping buses bypass congestion and give riders a quicker ride would further improve the value of taking transit from many parts of Virginia.
Ban left turns at 14th and C (at a cost of about $203,000). C Street SW ends at 14th, in the last intersection with a traffic signal before the bridge. The study says that giving time for vehicles to turn left from southbound 14th onto C, or left from C onto southbound 14th, creates significant delay, and this option would forbid these turns. Drivers would only be able to turn right in or out of C.
On its own, this sounds like a bad idea because it would move further away from a functional grid in this area, and make 14th more like a freeway. It could, however, be a reasonable way to reduce some of the extra delay that comes from the bus lane option, making that a little more palatable.
The most important question, which the report does not specify, is how this would affect pedestrians. People cross on foot to get to and from the Holocaust Museum, for instance, and already the signal here forces them to wait long periods of time for the various movements. Removing the left turns could allow more pedestrian crossing time, or it could make things worse, depending on the final signal timings.
DC should also add a marked crosswalk along the south side of this intersection, where there is none today. Every side of every intersection ought to have a marked crosswalk, regardless of its effect on traffic, but an animation of the proposal makes it appear that there would be no traffic effect with left turns prohibited, anyway.
For the final EIS, the team should investigate pedestrian crossings and suggest timings that help them cross more safely and with a shorter wait.
Restripe around Maine Avenue, 7th and 9th Streets ($185,000). There are a lot of ramps on and off in this area, creating a lot of merging and weaving. This option would narrow the on-ramp at Maine Avenue to 1 lane instead of 2, reducing the amount of merging on the freeway itself.
Also, it would add a solid white line between some of the freeway's lanes east of 9th Street. Drivers getting on at 7th Street would only be able to then continue to the 3rd Street tunnel (the one that goes under the Mall to New York Avenue, also signed as I-395), and drivers getting on from 9th Street would have to continue onto the Southeast Freeway (now signed as 695) instead. Drivers might ignore this line, but FHWA hopes it will decrease weaving.
Remove some ramps on the Virginia side ($2.7 million). There are 10 ramps on and off 395 right around the Pentagon, also creating a lot of merging and weaving. This alternative suggests removing the ramps from 395 northbound to the GW parkway northbound, and the matching ramp from the GW Parkway southbound to 395 southbound. Drivers can still get where they need to go by taking Washington Boulevard (Route 27) instead, which is actually shorter, anyway.
In addition, this alternative would change around the ramps at Boundary Channel Drive, the access road to the Pentagon north parking lots. Now, there are cloverleaf-style ramps on and off of 395 southbound, so that cars coming from or going to each direction of Boundary Channel have their own ramps.
Instead, the ramps in the southwest quadrant would go away, and the northwest quadrant ramps changed so that cars can turn in either direction on and off of Boundary Channel.
Arlington has proposed another option to add roundabouts instead of traffic signals at the ends of the ramps.
Transportation Demand Management options
Reconfiguring roadways is not the only way to reduce congestion. Transportation Demand Management is the field concerned with helping people better understand their travel options besides solo driving. Maps, real-time information, and public service ad campaigns can help people choose transit. Employers can provide incentives or assistance for people to carpool, telecommute, or commute outside peak hours.
The TDM options that the DEIS proposed to carry forward to the final version include:
- Expand incentives for telecommuting
- Expand flexible work hours
- Increase prices for parking and/or decrease supply
- Better coordinate among agencies along the corridor (Federal, District, state, and local) to share information and respond to crashes or other incidents
- Create a program to educate drivers in the corridor in "[crash] avoidance maneuvers and defensive driving skills"
- Make signs better and more consistent across the corridor
The study team is accepting comments on the draft EIS until March 15th. They will then begin work on the final EIS. I will send them all comments made on this post through at least the end of Wednesday, March 14. If you want to send them your own, more detailed comments, you can do so through this form.
The bicycle and pedestrian proposals, meanwhile, are worth a whole discussion on their own. Part 2 will examine these in detail.
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch













by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Mar 12, 2012 12:20 pm • link • report
There are two of them that the agencies involved would own: better information sharing and better/more consistent signs.
The rest, while nice, aren't anything either VDOT, NPS, or DDOT has any control over.
I'd say that is sandbagging. TDM does deserve better proposals.
Say you can identify 10K frequent users of the bridge. get their SMS/email, then proactively alert them of accidents or construction. If you can divert a significant portion...
For that matter, as a Virginia resident of of 20+ years, I still don't have a easy place to look for conditions on the bridge. One web site, (14stcomplex.com) with camera feeds, traffic feeds and an expalation of construction could do a lot more. Or if you have to website, tell me about it.
As a side note, are signs going to be useful in 5-10 years when everyone has GPS navigation?
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report
Removing the left turns at 14th & C is also a good idea -- not sure there's even a high pedestrian demand related to the Holocaust Museum there that can't be filled better by crossings at Independence and 14th. C Street doesn't really go anywhere - it's a canyon between two forbidding edifices that ends after a very-long block, so I think most pedestrians are coming up Independence to the museum anyway.
by Arl Fan on Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report
Plus, there are guests at the Mandarin Oriental, who to get to the Mall may walk on Maine or D to 14th and would want to cross at C to go to the museum or just in general to get to things farther west.
by David Alpert on Mar 12, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report
I honestly can't recall ever seeing *that* many buses on 395, especially around the 14th St Bridge, since Metro seems to heavily encourage riders in the area to transfer to the Blue or Yellow lines to finish their trip into the city. Would buses actually be used?
Also, why were peak-hour tolls or expanded HOV restrictions never even seriously considered?
With that out of the way, I'd hope that additional steps could be taken to further reduce weaving by outbound traffic between the 395 tunnel and the bridges. This always seemed like a much bigger traffic bottleneck than the bridges themselves. You've got to shift something like 4 or 5 lanes to get from the tunnels into a lane that runs all the way through to the bridges. During rush hour, this is a difficult and dangerous feat to accomplish.
by andrew on Mar 12, 2012 2:21 pm • link • report
by charlie on Mar 12, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Mar 12, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Mar 12, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report
West on Independence, left on 12th, right on C and left onto 14th is the cleanest way to the bridge. It avoids the nasty merges onto the freeway at the Capitol and 9th St. It avoids the mess on 15th St.
More people should use it. The reason the study wants to do away with it is most people don't use it.
by jim on Mar 12, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report
by Falls Church on Mar 12, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report
@David - Interesting point about this being a walking route for those driving to the museum and parking. It's always a good practice to keep pedestrians in mind when restructuring an intersection, but I'm not sure I'm persuaded that there's more than a modest inconvenience here for more than a few. For instance, at the link you provided, the museum advises:
Public transportation is strongly advised as public parking is very limited. The Metro stop is Smithsonian (orange/blue lines), one block from the Museum...
Expect to walk a minimum of three to five blocks to the Museum entrance if you are traveling by car. (emphasis in original).
And for many of the park-and-walk folks, they're probably crossing the 14th Street Bridge and will benefit from reduced congestion even if they face the same or a slightly-longer wait at that intersection than they do now.
As for the guests at the Mandarin Oriental, how many people are we really talking about here? With 400 rooms typically ranging from $300 to over $1000 per night, do we really think there are more than a couple of dozen per day who are tourists walking to the museum?
by Arl Fan on Mar 12, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report
On a related note, presumably the vacant lot at 14th & D could be developed at some point- anyone know if there are plans there?
by RichardatCourthouse on Mar 12, 2012 5:25 pm • link • report
By DC law, any leg of any intersection is actually a crosswalk; it's just not a marked crosswalk. So people still can legally cross, but traffic engineers decide not to design the crossing to be safe.
Also, the area can and will change over time. For example, it sure seems like there should be something on that parking lot site at the SE corner of 14th and D. If well designed, that would increase pedestrian volume here.
As RichardAtCourthouse said, this area already has its grid significantly impaired. But it's still an intersection in a city with a grid, and we should design intersections on that basis, with an eye toward gradually restoring the grid-like nature of the area when opportunities permit.
Anyway, in this case, adding a crosswalk to the south side of 14th and C would not seem to cause any trouble. It would just force a driver turning right from 14th onto C to stop and yield to pedestrians, which they should do anyway. If pedestrian volume is low, as today, then it shouldn't cause any trouble. If it's high, then we need the crosswalk.
by David Alpert on Mar 12, 2012 5:58 pm • link • report
by DCDweller on Mar 12, 2012 5:59 pm • link • report
Eliminating the left-turn on C might alleviate the congestion on the bridge, but it would push the problem elsewhere, not solve it.
by Stacey on Mar 12, 2012 8:30 pm • link • report
by Jay on Mar 28, 2012 7:28 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Mar 28, 2012 8:29 am • link • report
Add a Comment