Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements – 2018/2019

[Erin Potter]

If you’ve noticed a lot of construction equipment along the Custis Trail in Rosslyn, it’s because the Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements project is about to start another phase of construction. This one will begin as early as December 3, and will narrow part of the trail to 6 feet between Fort Meyer Drive and Lynn Street.

When all is said and done, the project will do some great things for trail users, including widening the Custis Trail, shortening crossing distances, and giving everyone more space within the project area.

I wrote up a short piece on the BikeArlington blog with a bit more detail. We have a second piece going up this week, and I’ll share that one here too.

[Judd]

@Erin Potter 183087 wrote:

If you’ve noticed a lot of construction equipment along the Custis Trail in Rosslyn, it’s because the Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements project is about to start another phase of construction. This one will begin as early as December 3, and will narrow part of the trail to 6 feet between Fort Meyer Drive and Lynn Street.

When all is said and done, the project will do some great things for trail users, including widening the Custis Trail, shortening crossing distances, and giving everyone more space within the project area.

I wrote up a short piece on the BikeArlington blog with a bit more detail. We have a second piece going up this week, and I’ll share that one here too.

‘‘Tis the year of narrow trails and construction detours in Arlington.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yule]

Planned 16’ wide trail with 6-foot buffer (existing 10’ & 3’buffer)

Great news.

Looking good:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18629[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]18630[/ATTACH]

[VikingMariner]

Praise be the little baby Jesus.

[accordioneur]

I’m happy for this project. I’m sad that it doesn’t really do very much, in my opinion, to improve safety at the IOD and its surrounding intersections. I love “luminous bodies” and “semi-custom fences” as much as the next guy, but pedestrian bridges over Lynn St. and both directions of Lee Hwy would be much better.

[Steve O]

@accordioneur 183417 wrote:

I’m happy for this project. I’m sad that it doesn’t really do very much, in my opinion, to improve safety at the IOD and its surrounding intersections. I love “luminous bodies” and “semi-custom fences” as much as the next guy, but pedestrian bridges over Lynn St. and both directions of Lee Hwy would be much better.

The IOD can be much improved for much less cost than building bridges (or tunnels), and actually is better than those alternatives.

[accordioneur]

@Steve O 183435 wrote:

The IOD can be much improved for much less cost than building bridges (or tunnels), and actually is better than those alternatives.

Do you feel the current work will accomplish those improvements?

Also, I read the linked post. It proposes some smart improvements but ignores a number of danger spots in the greater IOD (that is, other than the Custis trail crossing at Lynn St.). For example, my most recent terrifying near accident was on the south side of Gateway Park.

[Steve O]

No. The Esplanade project does only a little to improve the IoD, if anything. I also think it will exacerbate conflicts at the Marriott (cars will need to roll forward onto the trail in order to see Lee Highway and turn onto it).
My post did not specifically deal with the south side of Gateway Park, which is its own sh**show.

The purpose of my post was to suggest a superior alternative to a tunnel or bridge over/under Lynn St., which almost certainly would take longer and be way more expensive (and therefore less likely to ever happen), to fix the IoD. It only dealt with that one location. Other people have been thinking about the rest of Rosslyn for a while.

[dasgeh]

I’m also disappointed the project does not involve mode separation on the Custis.

[Steve O]

Note the absurd location of the beg button pole – right in the path of travel. Also encroaching on the queuing area, which can be one of the busiest in the whole DMV.
I’m all for accommodations as per ADA, but this pole needs to be moved about 2-3 feet to the south and off the trail.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20347[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20348[/ATTACH]

This is just one more example of why it makes sense to bring 90% drawings to the BAC. We would have caught this before it was installed. The same thing happened up the hill at Scott St. Arlington County had to go back and pay to have the pole moved, a waste of taxpayer money. That money and time could have been saved if the people who ride bikes–and are actually appointed to help the county make bicycling better–had been given an opportunity to see the placement first.

[bentbike33]

@Steve O 192825 wrote:

Note the absurd location of the beg button pole – right in the path of travel. Also encroaching on the queuing area, which can be one of the busiest in the whole DMV.
I’m all for accommodations as per ADA, but this pole needs to be moved about 2-3 feet to the south and off the trail.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20347[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20348[/ATTACH]

This is just one more example of why it makes sense to bring 90% drawings to the BAC. We would have caught this before it was installed. The same thing happened up the hill at Scott St. Arlington County had to go back and pay to have the pole moved, a waste of taxpayer money. That money and time could have been saved if the people who ride bikes–and are actually appointed to help the county make bicycling better–had been given an opportunity to see the placement first.

While your point about letting actual cyclists review late-stage plans for cycling infrastructure is very well taken, when I went through east-bound this morning (admittedly at speed to make the walk signal at IOD) I did not find the beg button pole to be a problem. It certainly was a problem when riders had to cross over to the temporary trail as depicted in your pictures, however. Note that the old crosswalk paint no longer aligns with the new curb cuts. Seems to me the pole is just barely out of the new line of travel.

[Steve O]

@bentbike33 192830 wrote:

While your point about letting actual cyclists review late-stage plans for cycling infrastructure is very well taken, when I went through east-bound this morning (admittedly at speed to make the walk signal at IOD) I did not find the beg button pole to be a problem. It certainly was a problem when riders had to cross over to the temporary trail as depicted in your pictures, however. Note that the old crosswalk paint no longer aligns with the new curb cuts. Seems to me the pole is just barely out of the new line of travel.

I got an email indicating that VDOT and Arlington are reviewing.
Did you go through when there were a lot of cyclists and pedestrians traveling in both directions?
Or when a person in a wheelchair was using the button?

Admittedly, I have not tried it since they opened it up, but it most certainly appears to be on the edge of the trail. If the trail is wider than the curb cut, then one might wonder why the curb cut is not as wide as the trail? Kind of defeats the purpose of making a wider trail, particularly right at the point where the most people–cyclists and peds–will be passing each other in both directions.

I can’t think of any examples where a light pole or signpost is placed in the street–even at the edge where it’s mostly out of the path of travel of cars. So I’m not sure why it’s okay to put this pole at the edge of the path of travel if the people are riding bikes instead of driving cars.

[bentbike33]

@Steve O 192832 wrote:

Did you go through when there were a lot of cyclists and pedestrians traveling in both directions?
Or when a person in a wheelchair was using the button?

No and no. It was about 7am, no westbound users, I was rushing to make the walk signal, focusing on its timing, the Lee Hwy right turn lanes, and whether or not the trail entrance on the other side of Lynn had been shifted for construction purposes. The beg button pole was not a factor for me in that situation, and I’m pretty sure I remained well on my side of the new center line. Would it be better further from the main trail travel zone? Sure. Is it as bad as the original Scott Street beg-button pole location? No.

[dbb]

@Steve O 192825 wrote:

This is just one more example of why it makes sense to bring 90% drawings to the BAC. We would have caught this before it was installed. The same thing happened up the hill at Scott St. Arlington County had to go back and pay to have the pole moved, a waste of taxpayer money. That money and time could have been saved if the people who ride bikes–and are actually appointed to help the county make bicycling better–had been given an opportunity to see the placement first.

As an alternative, the BAC should review and comment on the design guidelines the county uses to identify the placement of stuff on trails, sidewalks, and similar places that may affect cyclists. If the guidelines are appropriately detailed, and there is a process where approvals to deviate from them is appropriately reviewed (and burdensome), it might be more self-correcting. Maybe the BAC should be consulted for deviations from the guidelines? At the core, you are right. The present process doesn’t seem to be working too well.

[huskerdont]

I looked more carefully today and it is on the edge of the line going up from the curb cut. So, it’s sort of out of the way going west, but eastbound it would be less so since the curb isn’t guiding you way from it. With the amount of traffic that goes through there though, eventually someone will run into it.

[Author]

Posts