Public Spaces
Build a circle at North Capitol and Irving
DC and federal officials and a team of consultants have created three options for redesigning the cloverleaf interchange at the intersection of North Capitol and Irving Streets. Dubbed the "Memorial in the Park," "Center of Centers," and "Four Corners," each continues the grade separation of east-west and north-south traffic while also trying to create a more hospitable area for people.
North Capitol Cloverleaf overlaid onto Dupont Circle for scale comparison.
The interchange is DC's only traditional freeway cloverleaf interchange, occupying about 19 acres in what is becoming a more urban, more walkable part of the city. The adjacent Armed Forces Retirement Home plans to develop its southeastern corner, adjacent to the cloverleaf, into mixed-use buildings to fund its ongoing operations. Catholic University is growing, and the nearby McMillan Sand Filtration site will become a new neighborhood of its own as well.
The interchange is part of a short freeway piece of North Capitol between more urban segments to the north and south. It encourages high-speed traffic and discourages pedestrians and bicyclists. It generates a large "dead zone" in the surrounding bus network. And it creates inaccessible empty space instead of more valuable parkland that people can actually use.
The study team developed three alternatives. One would reroute the roads to the southeast, creating a park space for a large memorial and giving the roads a "parkway" design. The park would be 7.5 acres, about the same size as Capitol Hill's Lincoln Park. It's also the most expensive of the four, likely costing $40-45 million.
The second option would build a circle with 2.6 acres of green space in the center, a little more than Dupont Circle's 2.3. Like Dupont, one roadway (Irving) would pass underneath, while the other (North Capitol) would use the circle along with turning movements. This would probably cost $37-41 million.
The third would divide the green space into four corner parks, with the larger two about the same size as the Navy Memorial at one acre. A ring road would let vehicles transfer between the two roads. This option is the cheapest, at an estimated $28-31 million. It'd also be possible to also leave out the ring of buildings, creating more empty space instead of stores and residences.
Left to right, top to bottom: The current North Capitol interchange; the "parkway/memorial" option; the "circle" option; the "four corners" option.
According to the study team, replacing the interchange with a simple at-grade intersection would require each roadway to have ten lanes, and even then cars would take longer to move through the intersection, not to mention the very long pedestrian crossing times.
DC should choose the circle design. It builds on the existing L'Enfant public space vocabulary of Washington. The well-designed circles mix public parks and vehicular movements in a generally pleasing balance. However, the circle actually be circular. An oval shape might help the cars move through the area a bit more quickly, but at the cost of some parkland. Also, encouraging cars to slow down through the area would improve this public space. A circle works fine for DC's existing circles, and would preserve the continuity across the city.
I'm also curious if the study team evaluated having both roadways pass underneath the circle, meeting at a traffic light underground while turning cars still use the circle. I've always wondered if that would improve Dupont Circle. It would slow traffic passing through somewhat, but since cars wouldn't have to wait for left turning movements, would delay drivers far less than a regular at-grade intersection.
The "memorial" design looks too much like the Kennedy Center's "ramp spaghetti" and other contemporaneous designs that aren't really pedestrian-friendly. That design creates a park that would serve the AFRH development well, but cuts the park off from the other sides. One day, the VA Medical Center or the houses to the southeast could become more walkable in design, and the interchange should not hinder that possibility. Likewise, residents of the future McMillan site development should be able to walk to this plaza without passing over and under ramps clearly designed for vehicles above all.
The "four corners" is okay, but the park is either too small or too large. If built, the ring of buildings cuts off the parks from the roadway, decreasing "eyes on the street" and making the park into more of a courtyard for the buildings. Without the buildings, it's just a larger version of the circle with an uncrossable road cutting it in two. There are no crosswalks on North Capitol in the middle, meaning people will have to walk all the way to one end to cross, or dash dangerously across midblock.
The study also briefly considers Irving and North Capitol outside the cloverleaf. It recommends redesigning North Capitol into a greenway with a median and hiker-biker sidepath north of the cloverleaf, and into an urban boulevard with wide sidewalks and off-peak parking south of the cloverleaf. Other recommendations include reducing travel lanes on Irving to add a bicycle lane, and removing the "slip lanes" to make the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Irving Street a more pedestrian-friendly, 90-degree standard intersection. To help drivers, it recommends widening Michigan Avenue slightly at 1st Street, NW to lengthen the turn lanes and add protected left turn phases to the traffic lights.
All of the designs show potential locations for stops on a future Irving Street transit line. For now, that could mean a rerouted H bus or a future Circulator, but in the future this corridor should get light rail or a streetcar running from Woodley Park to Brookland. Metro is also considering giving it the "Priority Bus Corridor" treatment like 16th Street or Georgia Avenue; the 80 bus on North Capitol is already on the priority corridor list, though at the very bottom.
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
If they go with the circle option, they should put North Capital under the circle, not Irving, given the much higher traffic volumes on North Capital. You'll thus have much less traffic on the circle, with fewer potential vehicle-ped conflicts as a result.
by Froggie on May 5, 2009 1:30 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on May 5, 2009 1:33 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on May 5, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report
by Patrick T. Metz on May 5, 2009 1:43 pm • link • report
by Froggie on May 5, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report
Can we also get some plans to make the Klingle-Porter intersection more ped/bike friendly and less like an expressway design too?
by Bianchi on May 5, 2009 1:47 pm • link • report
by Pat O on May 5, 2009 1:49 pm • link • report
this is a great idea—for some time far down the road.
right now, there are problems elsewhere on north capitol that should be addressed—that would be farther south, on the stretch from massachusetts avenue up to michigan avenue.
the road was widened (with tunnels under streets like new york avenue, rhode island avenue, and t street) and slip lanes were added back in the 50s in order to facilitate the flow of suburban drivers. this greatly diminished the street's ability to serve as a viable commercial district for the neighborhood.
if we're going to pour money into making north capitol better for pedestrians long-term, let's start where there are already people living and there's more short-term potential for such intervention to have an impact. bring north capitol back to the surface at new york avenue and rhode island avenues (get rid of the tunnels) and get rid of the slip lanes, recreating the public "parking" from the l'enfant plan (along with wider sidewalks—there are many stretches of north capitol where the sidewalks are not ADA-compliant due to extremely narrow width).
making north capitol more pedestrian and bike friendly in the stretch between michigan and hawaii avenues is a laudable long-term goal, but it's not the smartest place to direct our limited money and ddot's limited ability to do massive projects on one stretch of asphalt. start further south...
by IMGoph on May 5, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report
by Froggie on May 5, 2009 2:03 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on May 5, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report
Infrasctructure and development need to move together. All that investment and still no development of the filtration site due to nimbyism or whatever would be a waste when other, much more populated places ache for improvement.
by NAB on May 5, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on May 5, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report
DDOT's decision to close their EA on Minnesota Avenue was significant partly because now that's not on the plan. Likewise, here it's important to just get the right thing on the plan so that we're designing buildings around the right ultimate road configuration, and one day, maybe many years from now, when they're ready to redo the roads, they won't do it the wrong way because some old plan says so.
by David Alpert on May 5, 2009 2:33 pm • link • report
Don't turn urban planning discussions into geometry book exercises, and don't ignore what's there in deciding what you want to see there.
1. What problem are you trying to solve? If the problem isn't worth fixing, leave the status quo alone (or better, use a fraction of the money to improve the status quot, rather than a ton of money to demolish and start over.
2. This intersection is dominated by Children's Hospital and the Washington Hospital Center, no? That's what springs to MY mind when I think of N. Cap and Irving. NW quadrant is WHC, that's not going anywhere. SW quadrant all the way down to Michigan Ave. is Children's Hospital. Any changes should start by recognizing the special importance of transportation as it relates to these critical medical institutions that all DC residents depend on at some point in their lives. NE quadrant is a giant open field and forest between N. Cap and the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Catholic U. doesn't start until you are PAST the Shrine, right? I'd like to know what the Archbishop plans for that forest and field; it ain't necessarily what the President of Catholic U. wants, and I'm not sure who's got the final say. In other words, there are people and institutions already here, why run roughshod over them just to change for the sake of change?
3. I agree with IMGoph that if there's money to be spent on maximizing the value of N. Cap for residents of DC, I want to see that money spent considerably south of here.
4. Finally, once you've idenitified a.) the problem you want to solve; and b.) the current best uses to be preserved; and c.) whether this is a priority project or something to be back-burnered for more worthy projects, ONLY THEN are you ready to start looking at alternatives and seeing which best meets the goals of a.) and b.) and c.).
I do agree that the cloverleaf makes me think twice every time I use it (even the half-cloverleaf at Military and Beach Drive/Ross Drive can throw me for a loop), and probably isn't the best solution inside city limits, but before prancing down one road or another, how about a more pragmatic analysis of need, current use and priorities?
by Trulee Pist on May 5, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report
I hate Dupont Circle however. That is no traffic circle, nor a roundabout. Dupont Circle is traffic hell. An unnavigable jungle of poorly indicated side-roads and a random jungle of traffic lights.
So, if they go for a decent traffic circle, count me in. If they intend to make another Dupont Circle, count me out.
by Jasper on May 5, 2009 3:42 pm • link • report
I agree with David's view about the circle being the best option.
by Cavan on May 5, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report
by Cavan on May 5, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report
For further out, sure, fill it in and develop it. The circle looks pretty good. I'll just hope for a helicopter if I'm hurt that badly.
by Ward 1 Guy on May 5, 2009 4:22 pm • link • report
by Nate on May 5, 2009 4:24 pm • link • report
by Cavan on May 5, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on May 5, 2009 4:42 pm • link • report
What's worse is that the problem could be solved if they made the yellow arrow mean "yield to pedestrians" on streets other than Mass Ave.
by цarьchitect on May 5, 2009 5:58 pm • link • report
by цarьchitect on May 5, 2009 6:00 pm • link • report
I like the idea of North Capital Street being the road that meets the circle. This would certainly discourage people treating North Capitol like a freeway, and perhaps get a few people to follow the 30 mph speed limit.
by Dave Murphy on May 5, 2009 6:04 pm • link • report
The circle would also create a canvas for a mixed-use street grid neighborhood to be served by light rail at some indeterminate future.
by Cavan on May 5, 2009 8:45 pm • link • report
Again, I don't know if I am for it, against it, or indifferent. I just object to a tendency of people to start scrippling circles and squares all over the map without giving a damn about how people are already using the space: What problem are you trying to solve, and What people and institutions are already there making the best use of the space, and What kind of priority should we give to this proposal over all the other needs of the city?
by Trulee Pist on May 5, 2009 10:18 pm • link • report
by Froggie on May 6, 2009 7:21 am • link • report
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?essay_id=462572&fuseaction=wq.essay
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html
has introduced his work to an American audience.
His concepts of shared space, and techniques of minimal signage, clear design and a respect for an individuals situational awareness suggest a sophisticated approach to such contested design problems.
Julian Hunt, AIA
by Julian Hunt on May 6, 2009 9:33 am • link • report
No, rather make them into tunnels. Like the depressed segment of CT Ave just north of DuPont Circle, the depressed segments of North Capitol Street around Rhode Island Avenue should be covered.
by Douglas Willinger on May 6, 2009 12:38 pm • link • report
It's interesting that you compare the proposed park's size to Lincoln Park. Lincoln is extremely popular in my opinion because it's a great hybrid between the European-style parks in older sections of DC (like Stanton Park a few blocks from Lincoln) and more modern parks that encourage activity. On any given weekend, Lincoln park is bustling with adults, kids and dogs, while Stanton park is virtually empty. People value outdoor recreation more than they used to, and these older parks with hedge rows and statues in the center are more ornamental--not really an asset to a young neighborhood.
DC should keep all the accessible, enjoyable parkland they can get in a changing area like Bloomingdale. There are plenty of postage stamp parks in the city, but even a game of pickup soccer requires a trip to the Mall, or Virginia.
I'm surprised that you would criticize Brookland residents who want to keep their grassy vacant lot beside the Metro in the name of "open space," but advocate creating the same kind of open space in this project.
by Chris B on May 6, 2009 5:51 pm • link • report
A circle at North Cap and New York is more feasible but would likely be even less safe due to the massive public housing unit across the street. (As a matter of precaution, I no longer walk on the south bound side due to a number of very uncomfortable encounters).
While the block that straddles North Cap and the Red Line is undergoing a massive multi-million dollar development project that will undoubtedly yield very positive returns to the community, commercial services will (presumably) be limited to the tenets.
Although aesthetic and community-based improvements are apparent to the Bloomingfield neighborhood, it lacks any immediate potential for commercial growth. At present, the only viable ventures are the half-dozen liquor stores and Chinese take-out joints.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to luring commercial development is the fact that North Cap is effectively a two lane highway.
by Randolph on May 7, 2009 1:13 am • link • report
i would like to see truxton circle brought back just north of florida avenue. i was also advocating for the return of simple surface intersections where rhode island avenue and new york avenue cross north capitol street.
also, do you mean bloomingdale? there is no neighborhood in DC called bloomingfield.
by IMGoph on May 7, 2009 9:38 am • link • report
would require demolishing a bit of the 1960s development to NY Ave's south, and of the vanguard of historic DC residential neighborhood to the north (which would have also been done on a longer length with the 1970s design I-95/I-395 extension), an action I oppose.
by Douglas Willinger on May 7, 2009 10:28 am • link • report
Such proposals don't just happen - EEK (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut and Kuhn) DC office, deserve the credit for these choices.
by Ralph Bennett on May 7, 2009 12:24 pm • link • report
Such proposals don't just happen - EEK (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut and Kuhn) DC office, deserve the credit for these choices.
by Ralph Bennett on May 7, 2009 12:25 pm • link • report
I think we can all agree that an impediment for commercial development on North Cap is the swift traffic flow that is partially brought about by the tunnels. Perhaps the most viable immediate fix to this would be the installation of a circle. For folks like me that cycle and walk the North Cap route to Union Station, the road is unsafe - even for drivers... I've seen dozens of serious accidents at the intersections of North Cap. It's pretty revealing that the city (thankfully) hired traffic directors to protect those crossing the side walks.
Has the city commissioned a study on redeveloping Truxton Circle?
by Randolph on May 7, 2009 2:54 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on May 8, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report
by no freeways guy on Oct 11, 2009 7:53 pm • link • report
Add a Comment