I drive up and down Georgia Ave every day. These new lights at the beltway have slowed things down immensely. Hopefully they will figure out how to synchronize them with the other lights but I am not optimistic.

Where in the traffic engineer handbook does it say that in order to relieve congestion you install traffic lights? Why in this area do we consistently have a traffic light at every intersection? Then complain about how bad congestion is?

I don't know about the University light, but there's now one at Georgia Ave and the inner loop along with a no turn on red sign. So in the mornings around 7:30, when there wasn't any traffic slow down on the inner loop, there is now. The Georgia Ave. South folks are lining up on the shoulder before the exit to get off and then there's always the people who try to butt in near the actual exit.

I use that regularly.

Two problems that this new interchange does not deal with:
1) Is there enough room in the new ramp area to prevent backups onto the beltway?
2) Even if the light is green for those drivers exiting the beltway, it is now a 90 degree turn. why?

For 1 it looks like the answer is "probable" as the ramp has 2 lanes for each turning direction. For 2 I wish I had an inkling of how the black science of traffic management works. Or doesn't.

And I presume that you mean "Drivers on Eastbound University heading to the Inner Loop." as that is where the In-n-Out merge is/was.

Followup:

The exit that is modified is in the upper right here. The ramp that is removed is in the upper left.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Silver+spring&ie=UTF8&ll=39.015032,-77.004966&spn=0.005002,0.006191&t=h&z=17&om=1

I called SHA about this, and a well meaning, but relatively clueless gentleman explained to me that "studies have shown" that putting lights at ramps helps move traffic better. There was simply no point in trying to use logic with these folks. This light will not only slow traffic, but it will actually make the intersection more dangerous than it was, because of that 90 degree turn.
No one (including SHA) was able to give me any reason whatsoever why they felt the need to tear up a perfectly good ramp (the one from the outer loop to University Blvd eastbound, which I was told will be closed) for this. I figure if traffic lights move people better, why not just put a light on the Beltway???
Dr G., were you able to get a satisfactory answer?

Also, for what it's worth, they haven't finished paving the off-ramp. There is an entire layer of asphalt that's missing, as well as numerous gaps along the curb, but they've already painted the lines on the road.

It's a really atrocious job all the way around, but we can't do anything about it.

Honestly, that new light on Georgia coming off the beltway is an absurdity. What the legislature needs to do is pass a law that gives local drivers input on changes to traffic like that, because no one who actually drives on Georgia Avenue would be dumb enough to put another freakin light there. It already takes long enough to get through the area with the ridiculous lights at Seminary that are untimed and make no sense either. But to add another one to the beltway? Ugh.

I already take Metro to work when I can, but that isn't all the time. At this point the SHA should give Metro whatever funding is needed to keep the Red Line operating 24/7 if they're going to keep doing insane things like that. That new beltway light may be the dumbest thing SHA has done in a while, and lucky for me I'm the one who pays for it in gas and lost time, as well as with my tax dollars!

I asked the SHA guy why there was no community input on this. He said that it was considered "an urgent traffic need." Dr. G highlighted above that there were 11 accidents in three years there (or one every 100 days or so). By that definition, virtually every intersection along University Blvd would qualify for SHA to completely screw it up on an "urgent" basis.

On the flip side, I have to give credit where credit is due. Montgomery County made several minor, but helpful changes to the Forest Glen/Georgia intersection (namely, extending the left turn lane on Forest Glen), even after the state said it didn't fit their formula for traffic management. And sure enough, things are a little bit better there.

Jeff Waldstreicher was able to get SHA to reverse one of their disastrous plans on Georgia - to have a northbound lane end at the off-ramp from the outer loop. My only hope is that he can help us mitigate the damage at University as well.

Also for what it's worth - the guy who designed the University debacle is no longer with SHA. 'nuff said.

"Where in the traffic engineer handbook does it say that in order to relieve congestion you install traffic lights? Why in this area do we consistently have a traffic light at every intersection? Then complain about how bad congestion is?"

The area "under the bridge" in a cloverleaf interchange is called a "weaving" segment....a place where cars have to "switch places". In the so called traffic engineering handbook (in this case, it is the highway design manual commonly referred to by engineers as the "Green Book"), weaving segments are very bad. Basically, they cause everyone to slow down in the weave lane and the right lane of the Beltway, which causes a ripple effect on the other Beltway lanes. As we all know whenever there is an accident, it only takes something very small to "disturb" the flow of traffic in order to create a big traffic jam. Therefore, eiliminating those weaving segments can greatly improve the traffic flow.

There are several ways to do this. One way is to add a collector road (like on the Beltway and Route 1 in College Park or Nutley Street and I-66 in Vienna). This basically keeps the weaving segment but seperates it from the mainline of the highway. Therefore, exiting traffic can still get screwed up, but the majority of traffic not exiting the highway doesn't have to slow down since to them there is just an exit and then an entrance ramp.

The other common way to fix a weaving segment is to shut down one of the ramps in the cloverleaf. This is far cheaper than building a collector road, and would not require taking of adjacent property, etc. In order to do this on a busy road, a traffic signal needs to be installed to safely accomodate the people whose ramp has been closed.

Installing the traffic signal on Georgia Avenue or University Boulevard won't help the traffic flow on either of those roads (but if the signal is designed properly and synchronized with adjacent signals, it won't hurt the traffic flow on those roads either). It probably won't help traffic exiting the Beltway, where cars who once had a free-flowing path will now have to wait at a signal. But it will help the through traffic on the Beltway...a lot! And since there are far more thru vehicles on the Beltway than on the local roads, a greater good is served by fixing traffic on the mainline of the Beltway even if it is at the expense of traffic on local roads. Of course many DC area commuters, being the selfish "me, me" types, only care about their drive and could care less about others around them...these are the people who will be complaining loudly.

As for the signal at Georgia Avenue...I think Dr. G mentioned that an additional lane on the ramp will open soon. When that happens, the same number of cars can get through the green light in half the time (two at a time)...or twice as many cars will get through in the current amount of time, meaning the traffic jams seen now will likely get significantly better. This also likely means that some green time can be taken away from the ramp and given to Georgia Avenue. No one ever said construction was convenient and fun for everyone, so lets let the project get finished and then we can judge if it is a success or not.

Woodley Park - in this case, you already have a bottleneck right before the University Boulevard interchange on the Outer Loop - that is, the merge at Northwest Branch. You may notice that in the morning and afternoon rush hours, traffic actually moves better through the 193 interchange than it does past either New Hampshire or the stretch between Colesville and Georgia. Note that both the New Hampshire and Georgia exits, which cause the worst of delays, have lights at the bottom of them, as well. This is why I don't believe that the formula that SHA is working from fits the actual situation here. As you said, all of the other directions through the interchange lose, and I am trying to say that it won't help the Beltway either.
My biggest worry is that they will tear up the ramp before anyone can see if the project is a success or not. They are already planning to do it. The jersey barriers are sitting right next to the ramp.
As for Georgia Avenue, you have three SB lanes on Georgia, and 4 after the light. Why on earth is there a No Turn on Red sign that applies to both lanes there? That is the biggest cause of the 15 mile backups on the beltway and 270. Using simple math, unless the ramp light to SB Georgia is green more than 50% of the time, than one continuous thru lane will always be better than two lanes and a signal with a big fat no turn on red sign posted. In reality, there are two more lights within feet after the ramp, so unless Georgia SB is incredibly poorly synchronized, the folks on the offramp will almost always hit *another* red light 800 feet away at Seminary Place.
Once again, aside from construction contractors, who are we helping here?

One more unrelated note for Dr. G...I don't think you mentioned in your long list of traffic advisories last week that the ramp from I-66 eastbound to the Whitehurst Freeway (which would primarily affect those coming from E Street and Independence Avenue heading to the Whitehurst and Canal Road) is closed for repairs for the next week.

This will likely have a significant impact on anyone travelling through the area (myself included), as northbound traffic on the segment of I-66 that runs through the tunnel near Kennedy Center was horribly backed up after well after 9 AM this morning. Evening rush won't be pretty with all of those cars either using K Street or the Rock Creek Parkway exit from I-66...both of which are bad enough as it is.

My advice: before 6:15 PM, try the Rock Creek Parkway exit from I-66, stay in the right lane, turn right onto 27th Street and left onto the Whitehurst. After 6:15, that exit becomes very badly backed up when Park Police switch the parkway back to 2-way (since the construction on the parkway started, they have had to completely stop traffic for well over 5 minutes to let the parkway northbound lanes clear to make the switchover). So after 6:15, use K Street, which should be better than before 6:15.

"But...", you do bring up some good points. I admit to not being very familiar with the area, but it sounds like at the very least they could allow the right lane of the Georgia Avenue ramp to "free flow" into the right lane of Georgia Avenue without even stopping.

Dr G. -
One more thing to look at is that SHA wants to reconfigure the New Hampshire Avenue exit from the Outer Loop as well. This is drawing a bunch of neighborhood opposition. Not sure what the current status of the project is.

I believe the plan is to put all of the ramp traffic onto Elton Road (which parallels the beltway), for the sake of 2-3 trucks per day which have issues making a U-Turn at Powder Mill Road. Once again, seems like there could be a simpler solution here.

Woodley, the innerloop merge onto southbound Georgia was a free flow exit. Then last week they put a light in! Now traffic backs up in both places. Incredible!

Dr. G your post raises an interesting question. At University they are attempting to minimize the "weave zone" by having drives have to choose either left or right turns and closing one ramp, but at Georgia they are pouring 2 lanes onto SB Georgia. Why not do the L/R dance from the inner loop at Georgia also and thus eliminate the weave and dodge of vehicles going from NB Georgia to the outer loop with the vehicle exiting the inner loop to go NB on Georgia which occurs during both rush hours.

Of course I know the answer - it would be too logical!

Jim,
There already is a light at the ramp from the inner loop to NB Georgia, but it confuses drivers on the actual ramp, because the light just periodically stops traffic on Georgia when the next light (the OL ramp) is also red. You get half the people stopping at the bottom of the ramp, even though the lane continues through. What would help here is better signage. Put up a yellow weave merge sign on both the ramp and on Georgia, and remove the yield sign at the bottom of the ramp, which a lot of drivers mistake as a stop sign, for whatever reason.

Jury is out on whether this hurts or helps until the second lane is open.

But WHY turn on the light before both lanes are open? It's the perfect way to make everybody hate the change.

"Weaving" segments shouldn't cause any issues; whether you're going on or off, just keep your eyes open and make adjustments accordingly to make a successful transition to the lane you need. But you can't do this if you're stopped or moving at 3 mph. honestly, I think people are just scared behind the wheel and really just have no idea, of what to do, what the rules are and just wait for someone else to give them permission to do what they need to do.

I'm not familiar with the interchanges in Maryland that are at issue here, but I wanted to say that I think "Stick" made a great point in his second post when he asked why the solution to every problem around here involves throwing up another traffic light.

How about people find alternate routes to their destination instead of using Georgia Ave.? We all know it's bad, but there are other exits a mile in each direction. And the way the beltway backs up in the morning, side streets are sometimes faster.

And let me second the 'stop putting up more traffic lights' sentiment. This is the LAST thing we need around here. I always thought there should be a law saying that you can't have more than 1 traffic light in, say, a 100 yard span of roadway.

What they just did at the Georgia inner loop exit is the same thing that they already did at the Route 355 inner loop exit, i.e., put a traffic light at the end of a ramp that was freeflowing. The light at 355 exit is ill-timed with the subsequent lights and that add 6 minutes onto my drive home. In this case, the light totally favors the southbound 355 traffic.

GA AVE and Univ BLVD drivers, don't bet on anything better for you!

I don't use an exit from the beltway onto Ga Ave - I drive down from Silver Spring. I live off Ga and work on GA so there is no other decent solution for me. A ten mile commute can take an hour to get home (evening is worse than 6:15 am).

I avoid the University/495/Colesville area as much as possible. That interchange through 4 corners near Blair is slow.

But at southbound Georgia I'm all for the exit ramp light.

I turn left onto Dale Drive -evenings & weekends when it's allowed. Getting across 3 lanes after the Beltway exit is nerve racking. I've never had an accident doing it but that's mostly luck.

That's not getting into the craziness of that variable turn lane, which truly distinguishes residents from tourists!

With the light I should be able to swing into the middle lane from the get-go and avoid that multi-lane change maneuver.

That said, I don't drive that route at rush hour so I probably don't really know what a disaster it is!

They've said there were 11 accidents that have occurred from 2003 to 2005.

I wonder how many accidents have already occurred due to the traffic light from the backup leading up to the Georgia Avenue exit now on the inner loop?

Plus, have they really relieved that congestion on the outer loop that was mentioned? I bet not.

I'm torn about the GA light. It will correct one issue. Before it fed into a right turn only lane. If you used that lane as a "feeder," invariably when you saw a gap to merge into, the person behind you would fill the gap and not let you in. The only way to drive defensively there was to NOT use that lane, but that makes the mess even messier. Why they turned the light on before both lanes were open is beyond me. And the no turn on red is ridiculous. Are there pedestrians there I need to worry about?

..."but it sounds like at the very least they could allow the right lane of the Georgia Avenue ramp to "free flow" into the right lane of Georgia Avenue without even stopping."

It used to be that way, but the right lane on SB Georgia is a right-turn only lane that goes very shortly nto a shopping center. My experience has been that people "free-flowed" into that lane, and then clogged things up trying to merge over into the thru-lanes. I suspect that is one reason why they put in the light, so right turners would have free access to the thru lanes.

I have not seen a single commenter here mention the needs of pedestrians. Off-ramps from the Beltway that don't have traffic lights are unsafe to cross on foot. Period. Furthermore, the driver who comes off the Beltway on a ramp is likely to drive at excessive speed on heavily populated streets like Georgia Avenue (near a Metro station and stores) and University Boulevard (near a big high school).

In an effort to fix the crossing problem, the Taj Mahal pedestrian bridge (which turned out to have safety problems of its own) was built at Georgia Avenue. Can we afford to have such bridges at every Beltway exit? Do we want to have our neighborhoods disfigured with them?

In most other urbanized areas like Montgomery County, all expressway exits have traffic lights. It's time to stop pretending that we live in the countryside and stop allowing neighborhood roadways to be treated as speedways.

Walker - you're correct, up to a point. The thing is, the "solution" at University (as you said, Georgia is already taken care of here) once again, makes things worse for pedestrians.
You still have a free flowing ramp to cross over on either side of University Blvd when you cross the beltway (and by the way, I don't see a ton of pedestrian traffic there anymore, since the buses started running every 8 minutes there.)
Now, the peds on the shopping center side of University have to walk across 4 lanes of traffic at the light, one of which will always be trying to make a right on red. On the fire station/high school side of University, you still have the heavily used ramp to the Inner Loop to contend with.
It's just a bad design all the way around.

"It's just a bad design all the way around."

When this section of the beltway was designed in built (mid 1960s) the beltway was only two lanes in each direction, giving more room for merge lanes, and clover leaf interchanges were common. Construction close to the beltway made having land for better interchanges difficult when lanes were added.

The state of MD is building traffic lights at the foot of exit ramps all around the state, its just not in MOntgomery County in Silver Spring. There are interchanges off I-695 near Baltimore that have also been redesigned in much the same way to reduce accidents and increase safety. The exits at Liberty Rd (MD 26) and Wilkens Ave (MD 372) come to mind. I like the concept behind the better traffic control brought forth by these signals, however I still don't understand why the new signals come complete with "No Turn on Red" signs. I get stuck at the base of the ramp off I-695 and Liberty Rd at 2am, only to wait one minute for a light to change so I can make a RIGHT turn. This is what is so ridiculous about this problem. (Of course, this is generally a moot point in Montgomery Co as most signals go "on flash" between 12:30am and 5am.)

For all you Marylanders, it could be worse: At least you aren't in Virginia where they put up new traffic signals with every neighborhood development (whether its a new development or not) after a few complaints. I think its really all about job stability and money exchange between the state and road construction contractors.

Similar problem: Glebe Road exit from Northbound 395. Crossing traffic from merging Shirlington Circle, meets exiting Glebe Road exiting traffic, PLUS the fact that light at the foot of Glebe offramp often backs traffic up onto 395.

"The state of MD is building traffic lights at the foot of exit ramps all around the state, its just not in MOntgomery County in Silver Spring."

Didn't they install roundabouts instead of traffic lights at the new interchange in PG County (I think it's Ritchie-Marlboro Road....the one before the Central Avenue exit)? To me that makes more sense where feasible, recognizing that in some places the traffic volume or the nature of the intersection makes a roundabout undesirable. Essentially, the roundabout lets you go if it's clear and stop if it's not, whereas a light is arbitrary.

Looks like my worst fears for what's left of traffic flow thru there came true. Even if there's only right turn traffic to trip the sensors, both directions on University get a red light.

Score another one for the geniuses at SHA.

Woodley Park mentions the higher costs of building collector roads as opposed to these signalized ramps in one of the earlier post in this blog.

I will say there is one recent MD SHA project for which they did opt for a collector-distributor lane. Its at the I-695 outer loop interchange with MD 45 (York Rd) in the Towson area. The CD lane works marvels for traffic all around this area to include York Road traffic (one less signalized intersection) and mainline I-695 traffic that no longer has to contend with the merging and weaving of exiting/entering traffic.

(Frankly, the only reason MD SHA built the CD lane here was probably because it would be completely impossible to build a signalized intersection on York Rd given the extreme congestion alerady in this area at rushhour AND the existing infrastructure (buildings) along York Rd that would have to be razed.)

All in all, its unfortunate that there is not more available land near I-495 to allow for new CD lane construction. These lanes would be a great benefit to many beltway interchanges; the I-495 interchanges, particularly the outer loop, at the Toll Rd and Route 123 South come to mind. On the plus side, I use the CD lanes at the River Rd/Cabin John Parkway interchange off I-495 multiple times a week and they work exactly as they should. (Of course except for when traffic snarls in the mainline and folks bailout into the CD lane(s).) They do promote traffic safety without the traffic signals.

I have been using the University East Exit for 8-9 years, and I have never witnessed a beltway back-up that was caused by it. The backups occur further up the road.

They were tearing up the old ramp today, seems like they are in a hurry to get it done before anyone notices.