Comments on DDOT wants to build new South Capitol bridge; should it? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Sivad

Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:19:43 EDT

As long as there is good pedestrian access (tunnels, bridges, etc.) to the green space in the oval and there is a good buffer to traffic it should not be an issue. It could be the "square" of SW (i.e., Lincoln Park and Marion Park). It can be a win for reclaimed parkland in the city.
I still feel the bascule bridge is a terrible idea and completely unmemorable. A cable stayed bridge could mark the entrance into a modern Anacostia with an increased height limit.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:58:21 EDT

kk-

I think this is worth looking into:

"Extend the underpass to the start of the bridge and have the underpass lead directly to the left lanes of the bridge in both directions. Deck over underpass with parks and cross streets."

As I point out in the comments in the subsequent GGW article on this, there's an option that makes this lateral space by spacing the inbound and outbound brodge spans apart- though that is not the official 'preferred alternative'

http://www.southcapitoleis.com/pdfs/eis/final/02_chapters/Ch_02_Alternatives.pdf

My question is the transition grade feasibility from the underpass-extended as cut and coverway to the spans.

If done, this places 2x2 of the vehicular traffic underground, thus making the surface SCS and oval or circle area far more pedestrian friendly.

PLEASE develop some drawings.

Comment by kk

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:51:53 EDT

@ Douglas Andrew Willinger

I dont have any drawings I could possibly look for some or create some but it would take a while

Comment by tour guide

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:12:55 EDT

Drive by green space. Ugh!

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:42:25 EDT

We have freeways that already go under rivers, so I doubt that the issue is technical rather than political indifference, as this concerns the less affluent SE.

Comment by Thayer-D

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:03:07 EDT

I though of burying the freeway, but considering recent flooding and rising water levels/larger storms, it might be cost prohibitive to do so.

Comment by Ryan

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:46:11 EDT

They could start by putting up a sign for the 295 North loop ramp, which hasn't had a proper sign for at least a year. It's always a joy to give people directions by trying to explain that the freeway entrance is an unmarked ramp.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:20:21 EDT

"In poor neighborhoods already struggling with public health and cut off from the river by a large freeway, more through traffic could be just the environmental injustice they don't need. "

Strange how so little attention is given to burying much of the Anacostia Freewway.

Too bad the new 11th Street Bridges design was not something more elegant.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:17:26 EDT

kk-

do you have a drawing of this?

Comment by kk

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:12:29 EDT

Why not just build a bridge higher than the ships (if any) that would be traveling through to Navy Yard its possible.

In the case of interchanges with 295 why not have cars enter and exit from the left lane (would require a reconfiguration of 295 and Suiltland Pkwy) to avoid pedestrians.

Extend the underpass to the start of the bridge and have the underpass lead directly to the left lanes of the bridge in both directions. Deck over underpass with parks and cross streets

Bus lanes from M Street to Anacostia Metro Station with dedicated entrance/exit similar to West Falls Church and Dulles Toll Road

Comment by merarch

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:56:25 EDT

The plan demonstrates how automobiles will benefit, but what about pedestrians? Do we have a plan to line the line the oval and circle with buildings? A plan on how these green spaces will be used and how they integrate into the surrounding street grids? No, and that's why I think this plan, at the very least, needs to be developed by the Office of Planning as well as DDOT.

I don't think the circle and oval are bad ideas, but they need to be thought of as urban spaces rather than just roadway elements. For instance, I don't understand why the turn radii entering the circles are so generous if the traffic circles are intended to act as traffic calming features. This is more appropriate for a suburban rotary than an urban public plaza/square/circle whatever, as are the excessive number of traffic lanes around the green spaces.

The bottom line is every major project like this in DC needs to include preserving and strengthening the urban condition as a primary objective. If not, we have to live with the mistake for generations.

Comment by Paul

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:50:19 EDT

Yes, a lot of the monumentality (and bloated road design) has to do with the route many dignitaries take to get to/from Joint Base Andrews in motorcades.

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:45:05 EDT

I'm not a traffic engineer so I can't say whether the "racetrack" circle is a good or bad idea.

I'll only say that something needs to be done with interior of the circle as well as the medians to keep it from being a wasteland of overgrown grass, weeds, and trash.

Comment by JD

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:44:28 EDT

Also, in this no-longer-operative rendering from the previous design of the Florida Rock site (it's all getting designed again), see how the site has been doing its plans based on the traffic oval at South Capitol and Potomac:

www.jdland.com/dc/file-view.cfm?filename=other/floridarock-southcapitolview-200801-1.jpg

(view from the northwest to the southeast across South Capitol)

Of course, this part of the Florida Rock project can't be built until the old Douglass Bridge is demolished, because that crosses the project's footprint.

Comment by JD

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:34:48 EDT

8for8, keep in mind that the new bridge will be on a new, straighter alignment, so that argument of the curves on either end of the current bridge slowing down traffic don't carry over to the new alignment.

http://www.jdland.com/dc/file-view.cfm?filename=other/douglassbridge-rendering-trafficoval-200901-3.jpg

Comment by CityGal

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:48:43 EDT

@8for8 - great points! The bridge does shake or move quite a bit. I wonder how much is normal? I think it's mainly the middle drawbridge part that moves the most (and would be expected to move).

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:41:01 EDT

Re: I-295

Does the slip ramp non cloverleaf design have I-295 beneath or atop Suitland Parkway?

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:38:39 EDT

Great comment @CityGal.
This is a 1950s traffic engineer's wet dream.

Oboe- can you even cite a single example of a 1950s traffic engineering design that features such an oval or traffic circle?

And what can you cite as a better plan? The real plan- Extending the Legacy? Or just another at grade traffic light intersection for this gateway.

Comment by 8for8

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:00:28 EDT

I really don't think this plan has been made by people who travel the bridge. Traffic already slows on both ends because of the curve on the East side and curve plus lights on the West. Circles = superfluous, and will definitely not have public usage a la Dupont.

As for a toll, while there are many, many commuters that cross the bridge, folks do realize it is also an important connector for folks in the poorest Ward to the rest of the city? So a toll = poverty tax for some.

Finally, if you've ever sat on the bridge in rush hour and felt it bounce with passing traffic, you might be less enthusiastic about waiting to see the results of the 11th street bridge change.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:57:15 EDT

Great comment @CityGal.

This is a 1950s traffic engineer's wet dream.

Comment by Thayer-D

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:03:03 EDT

To build on CityGal's many fine points, if the city is really heading towards greater livability through pedestrianization, this seems like an abdication of a great opportunity. The oval and circle seem like fine ideas, but the scale is way off as previously noted, and with the circa 1965 highway ramps on to 295, they will all but destroy this area's potential to be an extension of the pedestrian environment being created around the ball park into Anacostia. If we're planning to accomodate another million residents, let's redesign areas that could accept some of them when we need to re-build infrastructure.

Annacostia Park seems like a great opportunity for re-development considering it's the connective tissue between the ball park area and both Annacostia and Berry Farm. With the Naval Support Facility hogging prime costal realestate to the south, it would be nice to see the city embrace one of its most underused asset, it's miles of waterfront. Why not extend the area that South Capitol is becoming de-highwayized accross the river? This would not only tie East of the river to West but considering the density we are supposed to handle in the near future, we need to envision large chunks of land to accomodate future development. Where's the big picture vision of the city, where are the McMillan styled drawings that paint a picture of what a sophisticated city could be, and not leave another infrastructure project to the narrow domain of the traffic engineer?

Comment by CityGal

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:57:29 EDT

While I understand that the racetrack and circle are intended to calm traffic and create monumental gateways on this important street in DC, as an urban planner or a resident of dc, I do not like the idea of such massive roads surrounding an empty space - even if that empty space is green. Perhaps if the circle/racetrack were smaller and didn't waste so much precious land on the waterfront, this might be ok - but those open spaces between the traffic lanes are not going to be used by pedestrians. Do people use the circle on the VA side of the memorial bridge? (and that circle only has three lanes of traffic around it).

Dupont Circle and (some) other great monumental circles are great because traffic goes slowly around them, there are plenty of safe crosswalks to get to the space, there are reasons to be in the space or distinct areas within the circle (think different rooms)- not one large mass, there are lots of uses and activities and density in the area, and in the case of several there is transit! I don't see enough of these characteristics here in the designs or even planned in the future to make the space justified.

While defered building is not always financially wise - I like the idea of waiting to see how the 11th street bridge plays out before spending millions on another bridge. That, and some other major decisions need to be looked into before a full design is done - such as streetcar tracks over the river (if anyone knows where they are going, please do share - I thought they got nixed from the 11th st bridge, meaning it's a long ways out before they get built there) and the timeline and use of poplar point (which seems to be in hiatus?).

Also, it would be nice if this project addressed waterfront/riverfront estrian and bike access since the project will likely redo all of the shore work there with construction.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:59:51 EDT

The Committee of 100 really appears to have dropped the ball regarding the stadium that should not have been built:

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/04/2002-south-capitol-stadium-committee.html

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:52:57 EDT

Some additional info on the 'South Capitol Commons'

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/03/south-capitol-commons-dead.html

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:46:28 EDT

Instead we got that stadium that would block options B and C in that 2003 study- which were the two options consistent with the often stated goal of a SCS Gateway linear park.

Instead we are stuck with a variation of option A which was the one that did NOT widen the SCS corridor, but consistent with the preferences of the PTB for that stadium alonng with not moving the St Vincent DePaul Roman Catholic Church, now backed up by Nats owner Lerner's recent construction.

The real plan of course was Extending the Legacy, which is the topic of my South Capitol Street blog.

Exceptionally inexcusible was the abandoning of the proposed greenway at least to the west, where new construction has foolishly been allowed to proceed.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2011/06/demolition-special-breaks-ground-on.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/08/western-portion-of-south-capitol-mall_02.html

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:21:47 EDT

For such a pedestrian bridge it's not very walkable.

The ten-year old South Capitol Street proposal under Dan Tangherlini was surprisingly good and it's a shame we didn't go with that grand proposal. A monumental bridge with access to the Anacostia riverfront parkland,a streetcar, a grand South Capitol circle, embassies, terraced condos, shops, cafes, and Life.

http://www.jdland.com/dc/files/SouthCapitolStreetGateway-and-ImprovementStudy.pdf

Instead we keep getting these unimaginative stadia, expanded freeways, etc.

Comment by Dan Miller

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:47:11 EDT

How would this interact with streetcar tracks? As I recall, there was a proposal to ru some tracks down South Cap here.

Comment by ceefer66

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:40:36 EDT

"Speeding up traffic across the river could help some residents who drive that way in the short run, but may also ultimately attract drivers between Maryland and Virginia, or traversing the region longer distances, to use this as a cut-through, or encourage Prince George's County commuters to drive instead of parking and riding Metro."
-----

As someone from Prince Georges who has both driven on Suitland Parkway and used the Metro Green Line to visit my client at M Street and NJ Ave. SE, I would wager that the full Metro parking lots and packed trains indicate that just about anyone from that part of Prince Georges County who CAN park and ride Metro to commute already DO.

Sometimes, we just need to face the fact that roads - and the movement of vehicular traffic - need to be improved.

Comment by ArlRidgeRes

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:38:29 EDT

There was once a post long ago about the idea of a McMillan II plan. Elements of it remind me of this bridge. Ah, here's a link: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/3783/mcmillan-two-envisions-a-classical-anacostia/

The important idea of the McMII plan is the scale of streets and spaces. There are more bridges, smaller bridges. There are more streets and less roads. It breaks down the scale of the bridges and roads; and thus fosters walking. Giving peds a sense of belonging to the space.

Comment by Froggie

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:46:02 EDT

IIRC, one of the reasons given 5 years ago for the traffic oval/circles was to slow down traffic coming off the bridge.

It should also be noted that the EIS/plans for a 6-lane bridge were made WITH the expectation that we'd already be getting a new 11th St Bridge. I'd hazard a bet that SW/Yards Park-area densification plus future development at Poplar Point is why DDOT thought they needed 6 lanes on a new bridge.

Lastly, the existing bridge is borderline decrepit. While a $120-150 million rehab might look tempting to a budget-conscious Council, there'll likely be the need of such rehabs more frequently if we retain the existing bridge. I'm of the opinion that it'd be more cost-effective to replace the existing bridge, ESPECIALLY if the Navy and Coast Guard agree that a drawspan is no longer needed.

Comment by SWDC

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:45:13 EDT

Listen. We must bring the Redskins and FedEx field back to DC and the Waterfront is the perfect Area. Even Ward 8. I say sit on this project until the waterfront becomes what it is supposed to. For now this is pointless, and could be done WAY better.

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:29:41 EDT

I personally don't get the "greenspace" part of the plans...maybe they felt it would satisfy the smart growth sect. But I totally like the idea of allowing people to navigate around in the opposite direction...especially the area as you cross the bridge east. They actually do need some sort of roundabout there.

WRT cost. The article says that w/o placing the bridge DC would have to continue shoring it up every few years. Is there an actual dollar figure that would show us how much it is to continuing tickering w/it?

Oh and Gray needs to stop. Whether they build a new one or not..one city doesn't fit.

Comment by andrew

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:28:52 EDT

@Doug -- I'm a big fan of highways with nice planted medians, so I won't really argue with you on that point.

However, a nice highway median is rarely anything more than something that's nice to look at. Jefferson and Madison Ave are not 5-lane highways, and the mall would be a pretty bleak place if they were.

In this case, the area has a lot of potential to develop into a lively commercial and residential district. The center of a 5-lane traffic circle will never turn into a lively public space, and will likely impede the development of the areas around it.

I'm open to DDOT trying something clever in this area, but the oval seems pretty hard to defend.

Comment by Randall M.

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:20:30 EDT

Douglas,

I've seen that S. Cap plan before. That's pretty old now and I don't think it's the best use of the land. With the construction of the 11th street bridge, I'd like to see if its possible to reduce the capacity of South Capitol. I think Geoffrey is on the right track about that.

Instead of a park in the middle of the road north of the river, maybe eliminate a few lanes, fill in the underpass and add green space on the side east side as far up as reasonable. As development comes, they would have a more accessible park. If we had a few billion, burying the SE / SW freeway and the Union Station rail connection would be great.

Comment by Mark

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:06:59 EDT

It's hard to imagine anyone who would cross a five lane freeway to use whatever parkland is left in the middle of that circle. It's just improbable. Looks cool from an aerial, but there's a reason, I think, it's shown that way, rather than from the perspective of the eventual(?) user.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:57:08 EDT

MLD-

Yes, because that area is already developed, and this area is to be developed- just look at any of the SCS planning document.

Dupont Crcle DOES have something definitly missing here- an underpass for vehicular traffic.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:54:49 EDT

...and NCPC gives a shout-out for the design reflecting their recommendations from a decade ago: https://twitter.com/NCPCgov/statuses/286574999949672448

Comment by SJE

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:52:41 EDT

Any thoughts of making it a toll-only bridge for cars and trucks. That seems to be the flavor d'jour in VA, and removes the $ element from the govt, at least.

Comment by MLD

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:52:23 EDT

Dupont Circle is only activated and filled with people because there is other stuff to walk to all around it. It is relatively easy to get in and out of the circle due to the traffic patterns - even though the pedestrian lights are mistimed you can jaywalk a lot. Logan circle is also used some.

There are a whole host of other circles in DC I invite you to visit to see how boring and useless these spaces can be:
Washington Circle (though maybe this has improved now that it has crosswalks)
Thomas Circle
Scott Circle
Grant Circle
Sherman Circle

Some nice space to walk your dog through I suppose but not really "used" like Dupont is.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:43:54 EDT

There was another plan with a traffic circle like the Lincoln Memorial whcch I have seen but can't find a url; t was cir 2003.

The trashed Extending the Legacy plan had a relocaated Supreme Court in a SCS traffic circle- which I would prefer to the 'backing up the criminal legislature' positon that it has now.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:41:02 EDT

Randall-

Please see that 2005 EIS and other documents which show more then the empty spaces in the pictures in this artcle.

Also, see the home page of my South Capitol blog for my idea of a statue for a traffic circle where the elevated SW-SE Freeway now stands.

Here's a direct link:

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-appropriate-location-for-statue-of.html

Comment by valbert

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:38:37 EDT

Can we put a playing field in the middle of the oval?? With lights. And a track. And the ability to put a bubble over it in the winter(think Harvard Stadium or the tennis complex at Colorado & 16th) . Just looking to fill some other needs for the city...

Comment by Randall M.

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:36:16 EDT

Doug,

I'm not against greenspace in circles, just that these examples aren't good ones. As shown, they don't look as interesting or accessible as some of our other "circle parks" like Dupont or Grant or our "square parks" like Lincoln or Stanton. I'd like a complete street, a complete vision for the area before we roll out the equivalent of mini-highway with grass in an over sized median.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:36:00 EDT

The 'South Capitol Commons'

http://www.southcapitoleis.com/

One would hope that a GGW piece could reference somethng by its name.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:31:56 EDT

A point not mentoned in the article is the $120 million or so project to shorten the existing bridge soley for aesthetics regarding that stadium that the DC city council was arm-twisted into approvng in March 2005. Such a project, so few years before the SCS Bridge replacement was a waste, which the Nationals should have been billed for the cost.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/02/south-capitol-street-eis-released-may.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/06/reported-as-footnote-with-no-mention.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/06/47-118-million-interim-project.html

Comment by DaveS

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:30:08 EDT

Would this plan make more sense if DC subsidized a THIRD major sporting venue on the waterfront?

Comment by drumz

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:26:07 EDT

Doug,

Yes but the national mall actually has things that people want to do there. This however is a side effect of a policy meant to move cars. Instead you could redesign things and leave space to add something for people to use.

Comment by andrew

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:20:38 EDT

Actually, Geoff makes a great point. If DDOT thinks it can keep the current bridge open for a few more years, it might make sense to sit on this for a while, even if they need to dump some more money into the existing span.

If the traffic volumes really decline, I also wonder if they could cut much of the budget by closing the bridge for a year or two. It'd be inconvenient, but could potentially save a ton of money.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:18:27 EDT

"What is the purpose of greenspace / circles? It feels like the greenspace in the middle of an interstate highway, its just for show, not for people"

Statements as that are completly intolerant of WDC's tradition of publc space traffc circles, squares, etc. I suppose there should have been no National Mall as that is green space between roads.

Comment by Douglas Andrew Willinger

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:15:51 EDT

MLD- That area is expected to be extensively re-developed-densified, rather than having those empty lots, so its hardly overkill.

Too bad this article does not cover the questonable decision to remove the SCS underpass beneath M Street rather than some added cover and lengthenng.

Comment by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V)

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:03:12 EDT

As much as I am for transportation investment to improve connections across the river, I concur with Geoff. Let's get 11th ST complete, open, and traffic normalized before running the risk of over designing S. Capitol Street.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:58:31 EDT

5 lanes in one direction anywhere on a surface street in this city is cuckoo bananas.

The additional ramp added on to the freeway exit is crazy as well.

Road diet, road diet, road diet!

If anything, the city should wait and see how traffic sorts out when the 11th Street bridge project is complete and a new normal has settled in. We may find car traffic leaving South Capitol Street for the greener pastures of a new bridge...

Comment by Randall M.

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:55:15 EDT

The road is divorced from the vision of a community along South Capitol Street. It does seem like DDOT planners have once again planned to move traffic but hasn't planned to move all the potential bridge users. Has DDOT consulted with DMPED or the Office of Planning to see what could be built along the corridor? You know, maybe we can set up a TIF (Tax Increment Financing).

What is the purpose of greenspace / circles? It feels like the greenspace in the middle of an interstate highway, its just for show, not for people. Access to the river from the bridge also doesn't seem clear. Lastly, what about the talk last year of infilling sections of the Suitland Parkway to bring it to street level at MLK Avenue, is that included in the cost? Transit? Noting?

It all just seems a little short-sighted.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:52:51 EDT

Pure conjecture but looking at the map would it make sense to basically extend Suitland parkway across the current span and basically disconnect south capitol street?

That way:
People coming along suitland parkway or 295 still have a direct connection to the bridge.

South Capitol turns into Firth Stirling and that's how you use the bridge if you're coming up that way.

Then you can begin un-trenching South Capitol by the stadium.

Then you could the ramps into poplar point and instead just keep that route on the surface and have less of a need for a complicated scheme like above because basically you just have an interchange for 295 and Suitland parkway before the bridge.

Comment by MLD

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:48:55 EDT

The traffic oval on the north side of the river is just ridiculous. Traffic going North on the bridge is almost exclusively continuing on North Capitol. There's no reason the traffic oval is needed to distribute traffic to other streets. Seems to me this is just a case of "hey wouldn't this look cool!"

Comment by andrew

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:48:46 EDT

What's the rationale behind the traffic oval? That just looks like a spectacular traffic jam and waste of space.

That said, the existing bridge is horrible for pedestrians and cyclists. I'm not sure if a retrofit/repair can fix that, or if the bridge could support the weight of wider sidewalks.

I say build a traditional freeway interchange, and try to make it as small and unobtrusive as possible. (The 11th St Bridge did an OK job of this, but missed some key opportunities, and is a huge land hog)

Comment by Steven Vance

Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:35:36 EDT

Has DDOT considered building a roundabout?