Intersection of Doom Underpass

[scoot]

Whatever happened to the Steve O plan? I liked that one better.

[chris_s]

In my opinion, Steve O’s plan is politically infeasible due to the amount of change that would have to occur on NPS land.

[Steve O]

@chris_s 117300 wrote:

In my opinion, Steve O’s plan is politically infeasible due to the amount of change that would have to occur on NPS land.

The safety problems are long-standing and severe, the solution known.

Agree with the “safety problems are long standing;” partially agree with “the solution known.“


I should probably do a blog post on this, but an underpass under Lynn Street only solves part of the problem. There are numerous movements that all need to be thought through, each of which presents different issues:

1 – Eastbound Custis to MVT (underpass solves completely)
2 – MVT to westbound Custis (underpass solves completely)
3 – Eastbound Custis to Key Bridge (underpass maybe solves partially, ramp crossing from GWMP still exists)
4 – Key Bridge to westbound Custis (ramp crossing with GWMP still exists; underpass maybe solves partially)
5 – MVT to Key Bridge (doesn’t cross Lynn, but still crosses ramp from GWMP)
6 – Key Bridge to MVT (doesn’t cross Lynn, but still crosses ramp from GWMP)
7 – Key Bridge into Rosslyn (underpass irrelevant; crossings still at GWMP ramp and I-66 ramp)
8 – Northbound Lynn to Key Bridge (underpass irrelevant; crossings still at I-66 ramp and GWMP ramp)
9 – MVT into Rosslyn (underpass could be used to go to Ft. Myer Drive into Rosslyn. Underpass irrelevant to access Lynn St. sidewalk; crossing at I-66 ramp)
10 – Rosslyn (northbound Lynn) to MVT (underpass irrelevant; crossing still at I-66 ramp)


If, in fact, we are able to move this underpass proposal forward faster, the project needs to address all of the movements above–not just the Custis under Lynn.


The Steve O proposal actually does a better job solving all of these movements than the underpass does. The Goodman modification (as he presented at BAC a while back) works similarly, but with less encroachment on NPS land. Also, I believe that an underpass also requires working with NPS on property between Lynn and Ft. Myer Dr. I do not know how politically difficult that will be. I agree that working with NPS is hard. I don’t think we should discard this less expensive and–in some ways, better–solution out of hand, though.


Also, these solutions are not incompatible with an underpass, which could still be built later, although the need for one is reduced.


I am worried that building the underpass will take away from thinking about these other issues and improving the additional movements that the underpass does not address. I fervently hope that whatever approach we undertake, we keep in mind ALL of the issues that not only improve safety but create a welcoming and comfortable experience for people riding bikes in all directions.

[PotomacCyclist]

What about minimizing the intrusion onto NPS land, while still splitting up the I-66 ramp? (I don’t know what the Goodman modification is. Maybe this is similar to that proposal.)

The MVT bridge over the GWMP could be extended further to the west, so that the trail picks up on the ground very close to the I-66 ramp. This would open up room for the new Key Bridge exit lane to pass under the MVT bridge, but a little farther away from the GWMP and its viewshed.

Then the new lane could join the Key Bridge ramp from the GWMP at a location much closer to the MVT. This would preserve more trees and require much less land from the NPS.

Something like this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8779[/ATTACH]

The orange X’s indicate the section of the old GWMP off-ramp that could be removed. Trees and grass could be planted there, replacing the concrete and asphalt. The exact bend of the curves could be modified as required for safety purposes.

Other orange X’s indicate where the old MVT would be removed. The new I-66 ramp could run on that right of way. Maybe this could cut down on construction costs for a new I-66 ramp.

Although none of this may ever get built, it’s still better to cut down on the potential cost and the potential infringement on NPS land, to make it more palatable to the NPS.

EDIT: I don’t know why the map image is appearing so small. I tried two different versions, with a larger initial screenshot, but the attachments are still showing up in mini-size.

[scoot]

I’m more worried about the fact that the underpass doesn’t solve many of the problems (and the likelihood that it will turn into an ice rink come winter) than I am about NPS objection. But that’s why I’m a physicist, not a politician

FWIW, NPS is obviously not completely opposed to the idea of major infrastructure projects to improve safety.

[baiskeli]

It seems to me the nature of a major project like an underpass guarantees that it ends up being “long-term.”

[KLizotte]

All ya gotta do is write a comment on the website saying that improving the safety (and convenience) of pedestrians and cyclists is paramount however they decide to go about doing it. That NPS, VDOT, DC and AC gotta implement a complete streets policy in the area ASAP. No one collecting the comments on the website is gonna take building advice from anyone posting a comment but they will take notice if everyone is emphasizing the need to improve safety (as opposed to putting in pretty planters and streetlights, for example).

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 117312 wrote:

It seems to me the nature of a major project like an underpass guarantees that it ends up being “long-term.”

They need to start studying and design work asap. There’s been push back in part because Parks thinks they can use the land they bought (connected to the driveway to nowhere) to build a boat house. The boat house can work around the safety improvement for the trail.

In other words, what klizotte said – send in comments that the timeline needs to be moved up.

[rcannon100]

@dasgeh 117327 wrote:

They need to start studying and design work asap. There’s been push back in part because Parks thinks they can use the land they bought (connected to the driveway to nowhere) to build a boat house.

[chris_s]

Things that Arlington County thinks it can accomplish in *less* time than it would take to do the underpass:

1) Implement two-way traffic operation on Fort Myer Drive and Lynn Street
2) Implement phased Gateway Park master plan.
3) Coordinate with National Park Service on planned boathouse facility.

[mstone]

damn the all-powerful boat lobby! first they sabotaged bike to work day last year, now this!

[jabberwocky]

@mstone 117335 wrote:

damn the all-powerful boat lobby! first they sabotaged bike to work day last year, now this!

Temporary halt in the war on cars, time for the WAR ON BOATS!

[pfunkallstar]

Any underpass should be decorated to look like the Death Star trench run. That is all.

[rcannon100]

[Terpfan]

@PotomacCyclist 117305 wrote:

What about minimizing the intrusion onto NPS land, while still splitting up the I-66 ramp? (I don’t know what the Goodman modification is. Maybe this is similar to that proposal.)

The MVT bridge over the GWMP could be extended further to the west, so that the trail picks up on the ground very close to the I-66 ramp. This would open up room for the new Key Bridge exit lane to pass under the MVT bridge, but a little farther away from the GWMP and its viewshed.

Then the new lane could join the Key Bridge ramp from the GWMP at a location much closer to the MVT. This would preserve more trees and require much less land from the NPS.

Something like this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8779[/ATTACH]

The orange X’s indicate the section of the old GWMP off-ramp that could be removed. Trees and grass could be planted there, replacing the concrete and asphalt. The exact bend of the curves could be modified as required for safety purposes.

Other orange X’s indicate where the old MVT would be removed. The new I-66 ramp could run on that right of way. Maybe this could cut down on construction costs for a new I-66 ramp.

Although none of this may ever get built, it’s still better to cut down on the potential cost and the potential infringement on NPS land, to make it more palatable to the NPS.

EDIT: I don’t know why the map image is appearing so small. I tried two different versions, with a larger initial screenshot, but the attachments are still showing up in mini-size.

Or, what if they just ran the Custis down underneath Key Bridge for eastbound?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8784[/ATTACH]

So the Yellow line would be the MVT and Custis trails. The red circles would be options for roadway adjustments to accomodate it. Either you eat into the median at the red circle directly under Key Bridge (it’s big enough) or you simply shift the start of the Key Bridge exit ramp to accomodate running a the continued MVT/Custis underneath that portion of the Key Bridge arch (as it currently stands, I think it would be a little too close, although I don’t know for sure). This leaves the green circle as the expensive part of the project for a crossing underneath or above the ramp. But, given you’re now only needing to go under or over one lane of roadway, I suspect it would be much cheaper than having to deal with going under 10 cumulative lanes of traffic and a walking area in between.

The downsides to this are it creates a large hill for folks to have to climb to get to the Custis or Key (depending on which way you’re going) and that would be two hills in a row. The second downside is it doesn’t address the pedestrian angle of people walking to Rosslyn.

The plus side from an NPS standpoint is it allows them to claim real connectivity of the MVT, I think you can do it without removing any trees (at worst, maybe one tree), and the adjustments to roadways are relatively minor. Needless to say, it requires almost all NPS approval making it likely DOA.

[Author]

Posts