Preservation
Arlington's systemic streets
Earlier this year, we explored the nature of Washington's street-naming system. Across the Potomac, Arlington County also has rhyme and reason to street names.
While Arlington was originally part of the District of Columbia (until 1846), it was not incorporated in the plan of Pierre L'Enfant. Unlike its larger neighbor, Arlington's streets don't follow a strict grid, but development has still followed a somewhat rectilinear pattern. The street-naming system dates back to 1932, and was undertaken in order to convince the Postal Service to allow "Arlington" as the mailing address for the entire county.
The county is divided into northern and southern sections by Arlington Boulevard, a major east-west thoroughfare which bisects the county.
In contrast to Washington, east-west streets are numbered. Since Arlington does not have quadrants, but instead has halves, most streets are identified with "north" or "south" relative to Arlington Boulevard. The directional suffix follows numbered streets, but precedes named streets. Numbered streets increase with distance from Arlington Boulevard in both directions. Accordingly, it is flanked on the north by First Street North and on the opposite side by First Street South. Numbered streets are usually "streets," but when additional streets fill in blocks, "Road" and then "Place" is used.
Named streets run north-south. Like DC, the first letter of the street name and number of syllables indicates where in the grid a street is located. The origin for the named streets is the Potomac River. The first "alphabet" is made up of one-syllable words, the second of two-syllable words, the third of three-syllable words, and the fourth is just one street: North Arizona Street. As distance from the Potomac increases, letters increase successively.
Instead of using "Place" to indicate a second street of the same letter filling in the street grid as DC does, Arlington just uses another word of the same first letter and syllables. In that regard, Danville Street could be followed by Daniel Street. A look at a progression of successive letters shows the strata of the alphabets in Arlington's street grid.
None of Washington's state-named avenues continue into Virginia, so Arlington uses a different methodology for indicating major streets. Like the street bisecting the county, major east-west roads are typically called "boulevards". Examples include Wilson and Clarendon Boulevards.
Major north-south streets are often called "drives." Examples include Walter Reed and George Mason Drives.
Many roads pre-date the addressing system of 1932, and have kept their historical names. These include "roads," highways," Spout Run Parkway, and Columbia Pike.
Comments
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money














by Chuck Coleman on Dec 10, 2009 12:02 pm • link • report
by Arlington Aaron on Dec 10, 2009 12:05 pm • link • report
Is Spout Run Parkway an old road or park of the GW parkway?
Where it gets really confusing is North Arlington around MIlitary road -- no grid at all yet they try to shoehorn it in.
by charlie on Dec 10, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report
by neff on Dec 10, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Dec 10, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report
I'd also like to add that an early Federal statue prohibited the Federal government from building any Federal buildings in the District west of the Potomac. Thus, as you can imagine, the District residents west of the river must have resented the burdens of taxation without the benefits of representation and federally subsidized development. Slavery complicated the matter even more.
North Arizona Street is an interesting oddity as it is located at the far western tip of the original District and is now at the junction of Arlington Co., Fairfax Co., and the City of Falls Church. Within one block, the street passes through three jurisdictions, illustrating different road standards.
It starts at the south as Meridian Street in Falls Church with a curb and no sidewalks. As it enters Arlington Co. for the distance of one or two houses, it narrows significantly, loses its curbs and changes names to North Arizona Street. Then it quickly enters Fairfax County, regaining its name Meridan Street, where it quickly intersects a wide road with curbs and a sidewalk.
You can still see the original 1792 boundary stone located a pocket park on the street.
by Eric F. on Dec 10, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report
Interestingly, "Clarendon" once stretched much farther west, encompassing Washington-Lee HS--not to be confused with Clarenford, a neighborhood north of Wash Blvd that was all but demolished for I-66 (though a small pocket remains just east of Glebe).
by JB on Dec 10, 2009 12:22 pm • link • report
by Joe on Dec 10, 2009 12:26 pm • link • report
Another semi-related bit of trivial information, Glebe Road roughly follows the "Arlington Ridge", and you may notice, especially the farther away from JD Highway that you go, that when you are driving towards Glebe it is almost always "up hill" to get there.
by Lou on Dec 10, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Dec 10, 2009 1:49 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Dec 10, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report
Tiny little parkway but does the trick. Though it's considerably more confusing now than the old loop-around exits when I was growing up...
by John Alex Golden on Dec 10, 2009 1:56 pm • link • report
charlie: to answer your question, what is now Sprout Run Pkwy was originally part of the G.W. Pkwy. What is now G.W. Pkwy west of there opened up in stages during the early 1960s.
by Froggie on Dec 10, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report
by Bob on Dec 10, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report
S. Stafford Street still exists but the portion in Shirlington Village was recently renamed Campbell Avenue – a sad departure from history and an otherwise rational naming system.
by Ray from Shirlington on Dec 10, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report
by John Alex Golden on Dec 10, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report
So it's not really what you'd call a grid system. It's kind of like if I threw some marbles on the floor, drew a grid in the area where the marbles are, and identified each marble chiefly by the closest lines on the grid.
@Eric F.: That statute was actually enacted under pressure from Virginia, prior to the District's founding. They just didn't want to have much to do with the federal government. As we all know, it sort of bit Alexandria County in the ass.
@Froggie: Is that true? I'd never heard that before. I do know that Spout Run Parkway was planned to become part of Interstate 266.
@Lou: I thought Arlington Ridge Road followed the Arlington Ridge. (North of Pentagon City, it used to go straight through what's now Arlington Cemetery to Rosslyn. It actually formed the eastern border of the cemetery for a while.)
by Tim on Dec 10, 2009 3:53 pm • link • report
The story as I heard it went something like this: When George Washington was given the power to site the Federal City, the limitation was that it would exist between the Anacostia River and some other point 50 miles up (that I can't recall). Geo. Washington lobbied to be able to locate the city slightly downriver of the allowable swath in such a way that it would encompass most of the pre-existing Alexandria. (Part of the District, thus, is south of the Anacostia.) Both Washington and Congress knew that Washington's family owned great holdings in this area that would likely increase in value substantially from being included in the Federal District. As a compromise, and to avoid the impression of impropriety, in exchange for allowing Geo. Washington to locate the District downriver of what was authorized, the statute was put in place that no federal buildings could be located there, so as not to unfairly enrich (or appear to unfairly enrich) the Washington family.
by Joey on Dec 10, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report
Spout Run Parkway predated the earliest plans of the Interstate system by decades. As I understand it, there were a number of proposals for that land other than just converting it wholesale to I-266, including keeping Spout Run Parkway in addition to running I-266 adjacent to it.
@Froggie, how was that intersection arranged before? I've been curious about how the various parkways in the region got their limited movements. Like how you can't get on the GW Parkway southbound from the Key Bridge, or how you can't get off Rock Creek Parkway northbound at P Street NW, (except during rush hour). I kind of assumed that the parkways used to be significantly less limited-access in form, and that left turns were probably more allowed. Is this right?
by Joey on Dec 10, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report
by kk on Dec 10, 2009 4:45 pm • link • report
As for SRP, I didn't mean for what I said to exclude what you said. But I'm still curious about what Froggie said.
by Tim on Dec 10, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report
Planning for the G.W. Pkwy had existed for decades, but GW Pkwy itself did not exist north of Memorial Bridge until 1952, at which time the northern end of GW Pkwy followed today's Spout Run Pkwy and the short leg of Route 124 to Lee Hwy (Route 29).
This was considered temporary, though, as GW Pkwy was planned to extend further north....up to Great Falls at one point, but as we all know it never got built past the Beltway. The next leg north...up to 123...opened during the 1960-61 timeframe, at which point the former northern end became Spout Run Pkwy.
Regarding I-266...the original, ca. late 1950s design for I-266 had it following Spout Run, but only eastbound would have been concurrent....westbound Spout Run Pkwy would have still been separate from I-266. 1964-and-later plans had I-266 completely separate from Spout Run Pkwy.
by Froggie on Dec 10, 2009 6:22 pm • link • report
by Richard on Dec 10, 2009 6:27 pm • link • report
@Richard
Ball St. was originally the second alphabetic street. The first one was demolished for the Pentagon, I believe.
by Chuck Coleman on Dec 10, 2009 8:35 pm • link • report
by Wes on Dec 10, 2009 10:13 pm • link • report
Also, interesting tid-bit about Washington and why no fed buildings could go in west of the Potomac. Despite this I'm sure the Washington family benefited immensely from the situating of DC here .. Just look at the Lee's and the estate they held right across from today's Mall area. (I believe they were descendents of Martha's ... ?) Makes you wonder where the rest of the Washington family ended up ... and what kind of wealth situating the capital here brought to them as a family.
by Lance on Dec 10, 2009 10:36 pm • link • report
Originally all streets north of Arlington Blvd were supposed to have “N” and those south “S”. However we found memo’s making changes over the years to various streets … notably ones that were only on one side of Arlington Blvd like Fairfax Dr. The memo’s usually declared that since the street was unique and only on ones side of Arlington Blvd it didn’t’ need a N/S designator.
by CntyCartographer on Dec 11, 2009 7:49 am • link • report
by Alex B. on Dec 11, 2009 8:57 am • link • report
Also, on a related note, why does Arlington County http://gis.arlingtonva.us/GIS/gis_products.asp">charge for GIS data when the District offers theirs for free on their website?
by Froggie on Dec 11, 2009 10:38 am • link • report
The 1935 book does list US and State route numbers if that's what you're looking for.
As to the charge for the GIS products... I don't know why DC doesn't charge for their data. The State of VA does allow us to charge under the state's FOIA law and for topographic data allows us to charge more to recover some costs. If you would like to discuss it more send us an email (you can find it on our site.)
by CntyCartographer on Dec 11, 2009 11:02 am • link • report
I honestly believe that the "system" was invented to keep people who don't live in Arlington, out of Arlington...
by Kearns on Dec 11, 2009 11:24 am • link • report
Sure beats the alternative of having no system at all and naming the streets at random, like in Falls Church.
After 9 years of living here, I'm pretty good at navigation in Arlington. The biggest change for my California brain was that all trips don't require the freeway.
by Michael Perkins on Dec 11, 2009 11:57 am • link • report
by Wes on Dec 11, 2009 12:30 pm • link • report
by Ray from Shirlington on Dec 11, 2009 12:43 pm • link • report
After working on the County maps for the last twenty years I've come to really appreciate the naming system. Give me a block number and street name and I can nearly pinpoint the spot on a map of the County... I've lived in Fairfax for as long and can't tell you were any street is since the names are so random.
I feel that once you know the convention you can easily navigate to any place in the County without a map and not get lost (temporarily misplaced but not lost...:) But there's no way you could navigate in Fairfax without an up-to-date map to guide you.
by CntyCartographer on Dec 11, 2009 1:04 pm • link • report
Regarding the GIS data...even within Virginia, VDOT posts centerline files online for free, as do several DOTs and other governmental entites across the country. Guess I'm just used to not having to pay for what is considered public information.
by Froggie on Dec 11, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Dec 11, 2009 5:40 pm • link • report
by Wes on Dec 11, 2009 8:23 pm • link • report
It's true that VDOT does give away some street data for free... however ask VGIN for their VBMP data and you'll find that they got an exemption from FOIA for it so they could charge even more for it than what FOIA allows.
Most FOIA laws that I've seen allow a charge of some type some more some less. I don't set policy here though... however for the jurisdiction I do live in (Fairfax) I'm glad they do charge... I'd like some of my tax dollar recouped from companies that would just take the data and make a profit from it. I can't say why Arlington set up the charge since that was done about nineteen years ago and has been policy ever since.
FOIA was a means to allow the public to inspect government records and allow for a more "open" government. It wasn't a means to supplement private enterprise in their work so they could save a few bucks. Personally I'd have no problem giving away the data for a citizen to use for their own personal use or to use to question some "government" action. But for someone to take it and use it for profit when I (Joe Taxpayer) paid for it and I am not getting anything in return... I have a problem with it. I'm always amazed when I hear people complain about people getting something "free" from the government (handouts, food, etc)... but somehow that never translates to GIS data... :) just my two cents. (sorry to go way off topic.)
by CntyCartographer on Dec 13, 2009 10:03 am • link • report
by Froggie on Dec 13, 2009 1:37 pm • link • report
by Rob Pegoraro on Dec 13, 2009 2:03 pm • link • report
We do offer the data for free to entities working on projects for the County. I know ours is generally some of the cheapest since most jurisdictions charge by the "tile" per layer and we just sell the whole county on one disk with almost all the data.
If you have some suggestions on how we can go about offering our data for a citizen's personal use while still charging an entity that wants to use it for profit we'd love to hear it... we're always open to suggestions. It's just that if it requires any staff time to do something, we'll have to charge back that time. And just putting the data on a web site for download by all opens it up to everyone who wants to use it for profit.
I'd love to find a method that works for all. Especially if it can save us some staff time and the citizen's money.
by CntyCartographer on Dec 14, 2009 9:19 am • link • report
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3704
F. A public body may make reasonable charges not to exceed its actual cost incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records. No public body shall impose any extraneous, intermediary or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body. Any duplicating fee charged by a public body shall not exceed the actual cost of duplication. The public body may also make a reasonable charge for the cost incurred in supplying records produced from a geographic information system at the request of anyone other than the owner of the land that is the subject of the request. However, such charges shall not exceed the actual cost to the public body in supplying such records, except that the public body may charge, on a pro rata per acre basis, for the cost of creating topographical maps developed by the public body, for such maps or portions thereof, which encompass a contiguous area greater than 50 acres. All charges for the supplying of requested records shall be estimated in advance at the request of the citizen.
by CntyCartographer on Dec 14, 2009 9:34 am • link • report
For the second one, what's their definition of "topographical maps"?
by Froggie on Dec 14, 2009 9:42 am • link • report
"...definition of topographical maps"... :) you hit the nail on the head... they don't define it. I know the NOVA GIS staff in each county define that statement in different ways to suit their needs.
For us the only data that we currently charge "more" for are the contour CD and the Ortho CD. Those two datasets are not part of the basic data CD. The utilities are not either but we don't release those unless specially requested since 9/11 and they have to go through a few extra approvals.
by CntyCartographer on Dec 14, 2009 4:09 pm • link • report
by Jim Smart on Jan 17, 2011 12:18 am • link • report
Add a Comment