Boundary Channel Drive Interchange Project – Public Meeting

[dasgeh]

Note that options 1 and 2 would make it harder for cyclists to get from connector road to westbound boundary channel (LBJ Park and 27 trail).

My comments, submitted via the survey (which, if I understand correctly, is all I need to do, right?) (next post)

[dasgeh]

here

Quote:

Concept 1:
Connector Road Intersection
People on bikes use the Connector Road to get from Pentagon City to the Mount Vernon Trail or the Memorial Bridge, currently using Boundary Channel Drive to access either LBJ Park or the 27 Trail. The current configuration does not have a safe, easy, intuitive route from Connector Road to westbound Boundary Channel Drive for people on bikes, which is a problem.
West Roundabouts & Ramps
The routing of both ramps to 395 to the south of the western roundabout is a clearly more safe design for people on bikes and walking. Signage and raised crosswalks would be necessary to make sure drivers are aware of the crosswalks along the ramps to 395. Given the low traffic volume on Boundary Channel Drive and Long Bridge Drive, many people on bikes choose to ride in the roadway. However, with the new connection to the Mount Vernon Trail and with the new roundabouts, which some people will feel uncomfortable cycling around, there need to be obvious, convenient, safe transitions from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails that accommodate all bikes, including those with long wheelbases. The current design would require people biking on the roadway to navigate 90 degree turns in crosswalks to access the trail. This maneuver while likely be dangerous, causing cyclists to slow in ways not expected by drivers, and may be tough to execute on some bikes. Please work with people who bike often, like the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, to design transitions and routes that are safe and accessible for all cyclists.
East Roundabouts & Ramps
As mentioned, the transitions for people on bikes to get from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails are currently inadequate.
Long Bridge Park Intersection
The current design includes a slip lane for people in cars to access 395 North, and a crosswalk that crosses that slip lane. This configuration will encourage drivers to gain speed before the crosswalk, and the location of the crosswalk does not allow for a good line of sight. Both of these make the configuration less safe for people walking and on bikes. Instead, traffic for 395N should be routed through the traditional 4 way intersection and should make a tradition 90 degree turn across a traditional crosswalk.
General Comments
There should be a paved trail connecting the western part of the sidepath on the north side of Boundary Channel Drive to the trail connecting to the Mount Vernon Trail (or you will most likely see people creating a “cow path” or “desire line”).
 
Concept 2:
Connector Road Intersection
The traditional intersection is better for people on bikes who use Connector Road to access Boundary Channel Drive westbound. However, there is not an obvious, safe path for people on bikes coming from Connector Road to connect to the Mount Vernon Trail. Instead, all lanes on Boundary Channel Drive should be controlled by the traffic light, and an entrance to the sidepath/trail should be created at the intersection to allow people on bikes to access the MVT connection.
West Roundabouts & Ramps
This is the worst design for pedestrians and cyclists. The routing of both ramps to 395 to the north of the western roundabout is a clearly less safe design for people on bikes and walking who are accessing the Mount Vernon Trail. If this design is used, signage and raised crosswalks would be necessary to make sure drivers are aware of the crosswalks along the ramps to 395. Given the low traffic volume on Boundary Channel Drive and Long Bridge Drive, many people on bikes choose to ride in the roadway. However, with the new connection to the Mount Vernon Trail and with the new roundabouts, which some people will feel uncomfortable cycling around, there need to be obvious, convenient, safe transitions from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails that accommodate all bikes, including those with long wheelbases. The current design would require people biking on the roadway to navigate 90 degree turns in crosswalks to access the trail. This maneuver while likely be dangerous, causing cyclists to slow in ways not expected by drivers, and may be tough to execute on some bikes. Please work with people who bike often, like the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, to design transitions and routes that are safe and accessible for all cyclists.
East Roundabouts & Ramps
This is the worst design for pedestrians and cyclists. With the ramp to 395N directly coming off of the roundabout, drivers will likely travel faster in the roundabout and up the ramp, making the crosswalk across that ramp particularly dangerous. As mentioned, the transitions for people on bikes to get from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails are currently inadequate.
Long Bridge Park Intersection
No comments.
General Comments
There should be a paved trail connecting the western part of the sidepath on the north side of Boundary Channel Drive to the trail connecting to the Mount Vernon Trail (or you will most likely see people creating a “cow path” or “desire line”).
 
Concept 3
Connector Road Intersection
This is the best design for people on bikes who use Connector Road to access Boundary Channel Drive westbound. The entrance to the sidepath/trail at the intersection for people on bikes to access the MVT connection should be made easiest and more clear.
West Roundabouts & Ramps
This design is not safe for pedestrians and cyclists. The routing of both ramps to 395 with little curvature will encourage high speeds from cars, making the crosswalks particularly dangerous. If this design is used, signage and raised crosswalks would be necessary to make sure drivers are aware of the crosswalks along the ramps to 395. Given the low traffic volume on Boundary Channel Drive and Long Bridge Drive, many people on bikes choose to ride in the roadway. However, with the new connection to the Mount Vernon Trail and with the new roundabouts, which some people will feel uncomfortable cycling around, there need to be obvious, convenient, safe transitions from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails that accommodate all bikes, including those with long wheelbases. The current design would require people biking on the roadway to navigate 90 degree turns in crosswalks to access the trail. This maneuver while likely be dangerous, causing cyclists to slow in ways not expected by drivers, and may be tough to execute on some bikes. Please work with people who bike often, like the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, to design transitions and routes that are safe and accessible for all cyclists.
East Roundabouts & Ramps
As mentioned, the transitions for people on bikes to get from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails are currently inadequate.
Long Bridge Park Intersection
No comments.
General Comments
There should be a paved trail connecting the western part of the sidepath on the north side of Boundary Channel Drive to the trail connecting to the Mount Vernon Trail (or you will most likely see people creating a “cow path” or “desire line”). Concept 2
Connector Road Intersection
The traditional intersection is better for people on bikes who use Connector Road to access Boundary Channel Drive westbound. However, there is not an obvious, safe path for people on bikes coming from Connector Road to connect to the Mount Vernon Trail. Instead, all lanes on Boundary Channel Drive should be controlled by the traffic light, and an entrance to the sidepath/trail should be created at the intersection to allow people on bikes to access the MVT connection.
West Roundabouts & Ramps
This is the worst design for pedestrians and cyclists. The routing of both ramps to 395 to the north of the western roundabout is a clearly less safe design for people on bikes and walking who are accessing the Mount Vernon Trail. If this design is used, signage would be necessary to make sure drivers are aware of the crosswalks along the ramps to 395. Given the low traffic volume on Boundary Channel Drive and Long Bridge Drive, many people on bikes choose to ride in the roadway. However, with the new connection to the Mount Vernon Trail and with the new roundabouts, which some people will feel uncomfortable cycling around, there need to be obvious, convenient, safe transitions from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails that accommodate all bikes, including those with long wheelbases. The current design would require people biking on the roadway to navigate 90 degree turns in crosswalks to access the trail. This maneuver while likely be dangerous, causing cyclists to slow in ways not expected by drivers, and may be tough to execute on some bikes. Please work with people who bike often, like the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, to design transitions and routes that are safe and accessible for all cyclists.
East Roundabouts & Ramps
This is the worst design for pedestrians and cyclists. With the ramp to 395N directly coming off of the roundabout, drivers will likely travel faster in the roundabout and up the ramp, making the crosswalk across that ramp particularly dangerous. As mentioned, the transitions for people on bikes to get from the roadway to the sidepaths/trails are currently inadequate.
Long Bridge Park Intersection
[same as concept 1]
General Comments
[same as concept 1]

[Terpfan]

@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?

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.

Pretty much exactly summarizes my thoughts.

They do a good job of speed enforcement there and it’s never busy, even when the GWMP is backed up (I don’t think anyone knows how to get over to it except for a small handful of locals). But those bumps are ridiculous and really hard to see if you don’t turn on your bike light briefly.

[chris_s]

If you’ve been procrastinating on giving feedback, your time is almost up. Public comment ends tomorrow 7/23

Take the Survey

[Steve O]

@chris_s 120533 wrote:

If you’ve been procrastinating on giving feedback, your time is almost up. Public comment ends tomorrow 7/23

Take the Survey

dasgeh’s comments from 6/26 are excellent. As an overall comment, in addition to some specifics, I wrote (or something like this): “these designs appear to have been developed primarily for people driving cars, with people on foot and bicycle as secondary considerations. All designs would benefit from considering all people equally.”

Please add your comments to the survey and feel free to take from comments posted here earlier.
Thanks, Chris, for the reminder.

[chris_s]

The preferred concept has been released and it basically appears to maximize bike <> car conflict. Maximum # of ramp crossings possible.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2016/10/boundary-channel-drive-preferred-concept.html

[paulg]

I agree. I went to the public meeting at the Aurora Highlands Community Center and the vast majority of those attending did not vote for the ‘preferred’ option that they’ve chosen. Might as well not have held the meeting.

What recourse do we have at this stage?

[Author]

Posts