Get rid of NY Ave's freeway signs

Roads

Get rid of NY Ave's freeway signs

by David Alpert • December 8, 2008 12:57 pm

Cary Silverman makes a good suggestion: replace the large, green freeway-style signs on New York Avenue with ones that better fit an urban environment where cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians are all using the public space.

Photo by Cary Silverman.

I can't tell you how many residents have struggled with trying to get across 10 lanes of flying traffic from Mount Vernon Square to the new Safeway at 5th and New York Avenue, or the number of accidents at that intersection or the NJ/NY/3rd/4th Street intersection. ...
Get rid of the big green signs. The send the message that drivers are indeed in the freeway. And there appears to be no need for them. There are an abundance of smaller signs already along New York Avenue pointing out where to turn for 395, which way is to downtown, and how to get to 50. Perhaps one sign is needed to inform truck drivers of the height and hazmat restrictions of the 395 tunnel, but six?
And the flashing "STOP PEDS" sign as drivers approach the convention center doesn't quite do it. Of course, removing the signs is not even by far a silver bullet and does not excuse the need to make the street truly more pedestrian friendly and safer for drivers, but it will begin to change the atmosphere.

16th Street, Connecticut Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue, North and South Capitol Streets, Pennsylvania Avenue, and other major boulevards into the city get by fine with regular signs. New York Avenue is US-50, but Georgia Avenue is US-29, and it doesn't have big green signs.

These seem to be a vestige of an era when transportation officials were trying to make New York Avenue as freeway-like as possible, and expected to build a full elevated freeway overhead as they'd done to M K Street in Georgetown and Virginia Avenue in Southeast. That's not going to happen anymore, and our signs should send the right visual cues to clarify New York Avenue's role as a place where pedestrian crossing is welcome and common, as well as a major traffic artery.

15 comments

Tags: DC, Mount Vernon Triangle, New York Avenue, roads

Balance the flow, shorten the leg (Apr 14, 2009)
North Capitol: Competing visions for handling traffic (Dec 19, 2007)
DDOT shares downtown bicycle facility plans (Mar 19, 2010)
Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track slated for May (Mar 10, 2010)
Boy's death in Georgetown spurs debate over traffic safety (Jul 15, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Hear, hear.

And while you're at it, get rid of the overhead street signs in downtown Bethesda. The ones that are only painted on one side when the street is one-way, sending the message that pedestrians are not worthy of being told where they are.

by Ben on Dec 8, 2008 1:18 pm • link • report

There are similar signs on Mass. Ave. that are similarly very freeway-like. Signs that get that safely get traffic going in the right direction are needed, but I suspect there can/should be better ways of doing it. I'm sure other major cities have similar areas where main arterials meet a limited-access-road, we should take our cue from there. One thing to be careful about though, is that these signs DO signal to the average pedestrian bicyclist that this IS an area with heavy traffic and extra care is required ... In our quest to beautify the area, we don't want to increase the danger to peds and bicyclists by not giving them the cues they need to take extra care.

by Lance on Dec 8, 2008 1:48 pm • link • report

You mean K St, not M St (for the overhead freeway).

Bad road signage is a problem all over the country, not just New York Ave. We need better standards, and jurisdictions need to follow the standards.

by Michael on Dec 8, 2008 2:11 pm • link • report

The sign is actually confusing. The first time I drove that way I missed the tunnel entrance because the sign had led me to expect something more conspicuous.

But 50 IS a freeway outside the Beltway: 65 limit, HOV lanes, the lot. The only way you know you're not on an interstate is the exits aren't numbered. Brought to you by the State of Maryland. (29 has freeway-like stretches, but not so close to Washington.) The problem with NY Ave. is the freeway ends, but the traffic flow it generates continues. The task is to reduce that flow; signage is a second order issue. Closing 395 between NY Ave. and Mass. Ave. has been suggested and will help some, I think (and will get that sign down, too!).

by jim on Dec 8, 2008 2:38 pm • link • report

Route 50 outside of the beltway to about I-97 is an interstate, I-595 Maryland. It's just not signed as one. Also, I'm not sure where you think there aren't exit numbers, but Google maps shows exit numbers for all of the exits where it's an interstate and quickly looking at street view shows them also (see this street view for example with 301 and 197).

by Byron on Dec 8, 2008 3:37 pm • link • report

@Jim - I don't disagree with your diagnosis that the traffic flow is a bigger deal than the signage. However even the radical change of closing 395 between NY Ave & Mass Ave gains support I wouldn't expect it to occur before 2015. Therefore, because it is lower hanging fruit, perhaps the signage can be change to more accurately reflect the environment more rapidly.

by FourthandEye on Dec 8, 2008 3:56 pm • link • report

The signage is the least of the problems with New York Ave (and not really a problem, at all) in the city. The real problem is its unannounced merger with Mass Ave and the the subsequent disappearance and re-appearance of Mass Ave.

The problem with Bethesda is the crazy street pattern with diagonals and the weaving of Woodmont. Pedestrian or driver, that area is a mess.

by Rich on Dec 8, 2008 5:19 pm • link • report

The problem with Bethesda is the crazy street pattern with diagonals and the weaving of Woodmont. Pedestrian or driver, that area is a mess.

by Rich on Dec 8, 2008 5:19 pm • link • report

A few misconceptions in both David's post and Michael's reply.

First, the K Street freeway was planned as a tunnel, not elevated.

Second, the New York "Industrial Freeway" was planned as mostly tunnel (with a little below grade) up to around Florida Ave. It wasn't until east of Florida Ave that the freeway would have gone elevated for the most part. Plus, the freeway was seen as a buffer between residential areas to the north (between Brentwood and Fort Lincoln) and what was then mostly industrial area along New York Ave and the railroad. The goal was just as much to provide access to those industrial areas as it was to facilitate traffic into downtown and through the District. Though on that note, the 1971 studies indicated that most traffic along New York Ave had either an origin or a destination within the District.

As for the overhead signs, they're not so much a vestage of [i]"an era when transportation officials were trying to make New York Avenue as freeway-like as possible"[/i] as they are a vestage of a major street with VERY heavy traffic, not to mention a jurisdiction that has very poor overall signage (for example, have any of you ever tried to follow US 1, US 29, or US 50 through the city without the aid of a map?).

Last tidbit: US 29 ditches Georgia Ave at Rhode Island Ave. But don't look for any signs to tell you that.

by Froggie on Dec 8, 2008 5:29 pm • link • report

Froggie: We're talking about the Whitehurst (which is above K Street in Georgetown), not the unbuilt K Street freeway.

by David Alpert on Dec 8, 2008 5:37 pm • link • report

Okay, that makes a little more sense then.

by Froggie on Dec 8, 2008 5:50 pm • link • report

Before the K St. freeway (in the L'Enfant city) was planned to be a tunnel, it was planned to be an open cut like the existing Center Leg (I-395). Yuck. Thank goodness that never happened.

by Cavan on Dec 9, 2008 8:39 am • link • report

I wasn't able to get to it in time, but there was an opportunity to influence DDOT on this as it relates to NY Ave. and FL Ave. intersection. (This was OP trying to influence DDOT.)

I really think that we need a city planning-DDOT-advocates conference on signage, from wayfinding to highway signage, etc.

This is something I spend a lot of time on when I do consulting studies in other communities, even in terms of how signage directs people to cities off highways, and in terms of three dimensions (to the place, through-by the pass, and around/within the place and subdistricts; the Florida Market signage I did was an attempt to demonstrate how we can do intra-neighborhood district directional and interpretational signage within DC's signage hierarchy).

I really need to sit down and write one of my position papers/master memos on it. I have done bits and pieces, and I joke that the recommendations I make elsewhere are a form of "gap analysis" of DC.

BTW re your earlier entry on parking signage in Columbia Heights, I didn't have my camera the other day in Bethesda, but they handle it marginally better with the name of the garage on some of the P signs. Anyway, parking and mobility signage is another area that needs to be addressed.

As I have written e.g., the blue wayfinding signs in the city need to better demarcate transit and they need to be modified to include smart bike info.

Etc., etc., etc.

by Richard Layman on Dec 9, 2008 4:05 pm • link • report

The one on H St between 4th and 3rd needs to go, too, for the same reason. Whenever I cross there, half the drivers look as shocked as if I had tried to walk across the Beltway.

by tom veil on Dec 10, 2008 3:19 pm • link • report

Cavan-

The open trench version of the North Leg was to run alongside Florida Avenue and U Streets to New Jersey Avenue, and then to continue easterly as an elevated.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1950-62-plans.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/213171/North%20Leg_1959_1280.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/354713/image017.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/362430/image023.jpg

The K Street tunnel came during the mid 1960s and was promoted by those opposed to the above plan:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-66-north-leg-west-k-street-tunnel.html

That basic plan makes sense and ought to be constructed, though with a different alignment in the My Vernon Square area to Florida Avenue:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-395-extension-superior-option.html

This would not only be safer, but preserve the vanguard of historic neighborhoods that greet visitors in NE.

I would have this as separate from the I-66 tunnel, with the latter continuing easterly beneath NY Avenue.

by Douglas Willinger on Dec 17, 2008 4:22 pm • link • report