Boundary Channel Drive Interchange Project – Public Meeting

[scoot]

@dbb 118979 wrote:

That was discussed with the designer that was standing by this panel and he indicated that third leg of the triangle was likely an oversight and was indeed necessary.

How about the lack of a direct connection into the roundabout?

[dasgeh]

I think this area is one where many cyclists will take the lane most of the time, but there needs to be easy access for all bikes from the road to the trails, especially the trail that will get you to the MVT, and probably the trails around the roundabouts. It may even make sense to sign the route for bikes, to encourage taking the trails around the roundabouts.

[dbb]

@scoot 118983 wrote:

How about the lack of a direct connection into the roundabout?

On concept 1 I would likely use only the crosswalk to the left of the roundabout to get on Boundary Channel Drive heading north. I find motorists (myself included) to drift to the outside of a turn so I probably would consistently use the trail under 395 and then would stay on the trail past the roundabout.

If we had a burning desire to use the actual roadway in the roundabout, I would probably make that transition at one of the two crosswalks. We might be able to flare the ADA ramps there to permit that.

[Steve O]

@dbb 118946 wrote:

Here are some closeups of the roundabouts on the Pentagon side of the interstate. The Columbia Island lagoon in in the upper left of each image and you can see one or both of the small buildings the Pentagon has on the lagoon.

Each concept shows roadways that will be removed as cross hatched.

I like this concept for the north side, because it connects Long Bridge Park to MVT with no crossings.
I hate the south side of Boundary Channel, though, because of the way those crossings are designed–moving the bike traffic out of the sight lines and onto the curves–not even where the traffic is going slowest. For s-bound traffic I would feel safer riding in the road than following the path.

Looking at how W-bound traffic on BC turns left onto Connector Road gives me chills. Drivers will wait for traffic to clear and then accelerate across BC onto Connector Road only to encounter an unexpected trail crossing 60 feet later. Yikes!

That design really has to be rethought, because it does not create a feeling of comfort and safety and probably increases danger over the current design (which is just a wide road)

[Steve O]

The more I look at these the more it looks like they were designed to allow cars to keep moving by curving around this way and/or that way and then attempting to MacGyver in bicycle facilities on top.

In concept 1 why is a roundabout better than just a T intersection with a light? Not for the people on bikes, that’s for sure. And the roundabout probably has more impermeable surface, too.

[scoot]

@dbb 118996 wrote:

I find motorists (myself included) to drift to the outside of a turn so I probably would consistently use the trail under 395 and then would stay on the trail past the roundabout.

Motorist drift is not an issue if you take the center of the lane through the roundabout.

To clarify, I drew a zoomed-in view of the route I would like to travel when using this connection. Pink lines are from MVT to BC (either direction on BC), while the yellow lines represent movements from BC to MVT. I believe many other cyclists would also prefer this direct transition to the roundabout, as opposed to having to use the sidepaths and crosswalks (which will inevitably be littered with “stop and dismount bicycle” signs just like every other MVT crossing…)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8974[/ATTACH]

The current proposal does not appear to accommodate these movements, so we’d get another desire path. Can this be fixed? It would require another 100 feet of asphalt trail, plus curb cuts (if the plans include curbs).

[GB]

@Steve O 119012 wrote:

The more I look at these the more it looks like they were designed to allow cars to keep moving by curving around this way and/or that way and then attempting to MacGyver in bicycle facilities on top.

It’s almost as if these roads were designed for cars.

[scoot]

@Steve O 119011 wrote:

I like this concept for the north side, because it connects Long Bridge Park to MVT with no crossings.
I hate the south side of Boundary Channel, though, because of the way those crossings are designed–moving the bike traffic out of the sight lines and onto the curves–not even where the traffic is going slowest. For s-bound traffic I would feel safer riding in the road than following the path…

That design really has to be rethought, because it does not create a feeling of comfort and safety and probably increases danger over the current design (which is just a wide road)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. I had noticed those setbacks too, but I suppose I’m fixated on the roundabout connection at the moment.

Bad crossings like this are both a safety hazard and unnecessarily inconvenient for bike riders. Hence why I feel safer and more efficient taking vehicle lanes in many places. Of course the crossings along the Route 27 trail between Pentagon and Memorial Bridge suffer from similarly poor design, and I do use the trail there…

[dbb]

I find that motorists have trouble seeing bikes when they are driving in a straight line and the bikes are going the same direction. Alas it may be more than the motorist can process to ask them to drive in a circle and not run into some cyclist that is entering the roadway. I’d expect Dave Kirschner will be looking at this thread for additional comments that can be shared with the designers. I agree that by taking the lane you may be safest in a roadway. I’d think that in a sidepath as described, you would be even safer.

If concept 1 is built as shown, I’ll use the sidepath

[bobco85]

@bobco85 118861 wrote:

My opinion comes from a perspective of a cyclist who rides on the road through this area primarily on evenings/nights/weekends a.k.a. off-peak times.

I’ll break my opinion of the concepts into 3 separate parts: Connector Rd/Boundary Channel Dr intersection, West traffic circle, and East traffic circle.

Connector Rd/Boundary Channel intersection:
– I like Concept 1 the most here because I don’t think a stoplight is necessary there (this may show my ignorance of the situation during rush hour).

West traffic circle:
– I like Concept 3 the most because it splits the on-ramp and off-ramp to separate sides, meaning cyclists/pedestrians would only have to cross 1 road regardless if they were on the north or south side of the circle.
– I think Concept 1 would be most convenient for accessing the MVT, but I don’t like the bunching of the on-ramp and off-ramp on the south side of the circle.
– In general, I’m glad they are foregoing the cloverleaf design for I-395 here.

East traffic circle:
– I like Concept 2 the most because it keeps things simple by routing all Long Bridge Drive traffic around the circle.

All in all, I’m glad that they will be taking parts of each of the 3 concept designs, as none of the 3 are perfect in my mind. Haha, I’m actually more excited about the idea that the I-395 underpass might actually get repaved!

This is what I’m thinking of, combining aspects from each of the 3 designs:
[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8975&stc=1[/IMG]

[scoot]

@dbb 119019 wrote:

I find that motorists have trouble seeing bikes when they are driving in a straight line and the bikes are going the same direction. Alas it may be more than the motorist can process to ask them to drive in a circle and not run into some cyclist that is entering the roadway.

Traffic in a roundabout always has ROW over those attempting to enter. Entering bikes should yield just like anyone else would. I’ve never encountered a motorist failing to notice me taking the lane in any of the Fairlington roundabouts.

Does ICD mean inner circle diameter? If so, these roundabouts are 60% larger than the ones in Fairlington. Which means drivers can navigate them at higher speeds. Reducing the diameter of these circles would be very helpful (both to road and sidepath riders). Although I suspect that slowing down vehicles is not high on the list of objectives for the folks who drew up these concepts…

[mstone]

@Steve O 119012 wrote:

In concept 1 why is a roundabout better than just a T intersection with a light? Not for the people on bikes, that’s for sure. And the roundabout probably has more impermeable surface, too.

Roundabouts are pretty much always better than a T intersection with a light. This country has a godawful fixation on traffic lights, which lead to a profusion of right turn lanes and left turn lanes and double left turn lanes and 100 foot wide intersections built entirely for cars. I hope we someday get to a point where we can install roundabouts without people complaining that americans are too stupid to understand them. The advantage is that you get the same vehicle throughput with a lower average speed.

[dbb]

Got an email from Arlington County

Thank you to everyone who attended the Boundary Channel Drive Interchange Public Information Meeting on Tuesday evening, especially with the stormy weather outside. For anyone who was unable to attend the meeting, we have created an online comment form using a survey that attempts to share similar information as was presented at the meeting.

If you know anyone who might be interested in commenting, please share this link with them. The public comment period officially closes on Thursday, July 23rd.

1. Boundary Drive Concept Designs Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BoundaryInterchange

2. Project Webpage http://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/boundary-channel-drive-interchange/

3. June 23 Meeting Presentation https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/06/BCD-IMR-Public-Mtg-Presentation-06.23.2015.pdf

4. Project Fact Sheet http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/06/FACT-SHEET-Boundary-Channel-Drive-06-2015.pdf

Once the “preferred design alternative” has been developed, we will be back in touch.

[KLizotte]

The legend is too small to read. Can anyone tell me what the hashed roadways mean? Does that mean they go away?

Connector road has very, very little traffic, even during rush hour. I’ve never felt like a traffic light was needed at the proposed intersection.

Seems like option 1 is best since it reduces the number of roads a cyclist has to cross to get around the area presuming the hashed roadways go away.

Creating another access path to MVT would be great but the biggest issue in the area is repaving Boundary Channel under 395. It’s a minefield under there!

I would also like bike path striping on Boundary Channel too, esp southbound. And a few speed tables although most drivers are good along that stretch.

[dbb]

@KLizotte 119045 wrote:

The legend is too small to read. Can anyone tell me what the hashed roadways mean? Does that mean they go away?

Hashed roadways go away. You see in option 1 all of the roadways on the river side of Boundary Channel Drive go away.

[Author]

Posts