Intersection of Doom story
Our Community › Forums › Road and Trail Conditions › Intersection of Doom story
- This topic has 93 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
chris_s.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm #1000617chris_sParticipantMay 8, 2014 at 4:06 pm #1000618chris_sParticipant
Also relevant, Arlington BAC is sending a letter (decided at Monday’s meeting, not sent yet) requesting / suggesting a signal timing change pilot for this Summer. Separating the crossing of the trail traffic from the right turns off of I-66 via signal timing would be a cheap and easy band-aid until a full fix is possible. Arlington County / VDOT have been reluctant in the past because they fear that it will backup traffic onto I-66, but there is a compelling argument that it will not significantly impact or may actually help traffic off of I-66 hence the request for a pilot. It’s easy enough to change it back if it causes a new, worse safety issue at the I-66 exit due to backups onto the freeway.
May 9, 2014 at 12:27 am #1000662PotomacCyclist
ParticipantThe proposed sale of air rights over I-66 could be relevant to this story, especially since the money received from such a sale might be spent on improving transportation in and around Rosslyn.
http://www.arlnow.com/2014/02/20/county-to-study-selling-air-rights-over-i-66/
I don’t think a sale will happen soon, but it’s something to keep in mind for the medium and long-term. With that much potential money available, Arlington and VDOT could add major new infrastructure at that location.
May 9, 2014 at 1:57 am #1000678mstone
ParticipantMaybe someone should point out that if traffic backs up onto the highway and cars get hit, the occupants are protected by a big metal cage and airbags and crumple zones. Whereas the pedestrians that keep getting hit due to substandard pedestrian facilities have nothing protecting them from black suvs with Maryland plates. So, maybe, backing traffic up onto the highway would send fewer people to the hospital?
May 9, 2014 at 3:15 am #1000687bobco85
Participant(Someone please fact-check me on this, I’m not 100% sure it’s true) Don’t forget to mention that in order for anything to get done at that intersection or the land adjacent to it, it needs the approval of 5 different entities: DOT, VDOT, NPS, Arlington County, and a private landowner. I believe this complexity is a major detriment to progress on the Intersection of Doom.
May 10, 2014 at 2:04 am #1000789chris_sParticipant@bobco85 84744 wrote:
(Someone please fact-check me on this, I’m not 100% sure it’s true) Don’t forget to mention that in order for anything to get done at that intersection or the land adjacent to it, it needs the approval of 5 different entities: DOT, VDOT, NPS, Arlington County, and a private landowner. I believe this complexity is a major detriment to progress on the Intersection of Doom.
It’s not accurate to say that for “anything to get done” would require all 5, a tunnel would definitely require at least 4 of them (not sure about DDOT).
May 10, 2014 at 3:11 am #1000790rcannon100
ParticipantIt would only take one jurisdiction to post police officers there, helping facilitate traffic flow JUST LIKE you have in any bad intersection in major urban environments.
It would only take one jurisdiction to install a raised cross walk.
It would only take one jurisdiction to make it a no-turn-on-red intersection.
It would only take one jurisdiction to install a red light camera.
It would only take one jurisdiction to widen the sidewalk so that pedestrians arent spilling out into the road.
Shall we continue?
May 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm #1000798
jrenautParticipantIt would only take one man (or woman) with a bulldozer, a load of concrete, and a dream to detour 66 into the river right there.
May 10, 2014 at 6:29 pm #1000812Rootchopper
ParticipantWe may soon see the day that pedestrians and cyclists who use this intersection take matters into their own hands.
May 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm #1000890JimF22003
ParticipantMay 12, 2014 at 1:05 pm #1000897jrenautParticipantKind of a weak article, but good to get the issue some publicity. Also, failing to capitalize “intersection of doom” seems like a pointed insult at those of us who know the intersection as a huge problem. I’m going to start referring to that newspaper as “the washington post”.
May 12, 2014 at 4:50 pm #1000931chris_sParticipant@bobco85 84744 wrote:
…it needs the approval of 5 different entities: DOT, VDOT, NPS, Arlington County, and a private landowner…
So about that private landowner…
an agreement to purchase that land is on the agenda for tomorrow’s Arlington County Board Meeting
That’d be one less stakeholder to coordinate.
It was originally on the consent agenda for Saturday’s meeting, but somebody pulled it for further discussion.
May 12, 2014 at 5:07 pm #1000935dasgeh
ParticipantI, for one, thought the story was a good start. As many have pointed out, this intersection hasn’t gotten the changes it’s deserved. Hopefully some attention will change that.
May 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm #1000936ParticipantDo I remember the story that the private land owner tried to get Arlco to buy the land previously, and Arlco refused?
Arlco owning that land ~ I guess it might help a little ~ dont see how it solves much. Arlco owning that land does not get the bike traffic safely over, under, around, whatever, the Intersection of doom.
May 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm #1000943kcb203
Participant@chris_s 85008 wrote:
So about that private landowner…
an agreement to purchase that land is on the agenda for tomorrow’s Arlington County Board Meeting
That’d be one less stakeholder to coordinate.
It was originally on the consent agenda for Saturday’s meeting, but somebody pulled it for further discussion.
Yikes, $2.4M is a lot of money for .6 acres of land that’s probably undevelopable given its location with poor road access and being in the DCA flight path. Especially given that it was sold by the government to the developer for $445,000 in 1998.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.