Memorial Circle Transportation Plan and Environmental Assessment – Open House

[dasgeh]

I also stopped by. There were not many members of the public there, and it seemed like they were all cyclists. So there’s that.

They are taking comments for the next 7 days, not limited to these designs. Some of the designs still had at-grade crossings, and some of the NPS representatives toyed with ideas like pedestrian/cyclist refuge islands, which would allow peds/cyclists to cross one lane of traffic at a time. I strongly recommended that all designs with any at-grade crossings be disqualified.

I spoke to a number of people from NPS. They would all encourage me to put my comments in writing (they had forms there or there’s the online option). The one comment that actually got a few of them to pull out and take notes was the idea to design with family cyclists in mind. In other words, when thinking about whether a crossing works for “cyclists”, think about whether it works with the Dad on a long-tail biking a toddler or two around the area, or for the 8-year-old who is biking with her family. If it works for those people, it will work for all people on a bike.

And WABA was there. Greg pointed out that NPS is also looking at the Memorial Bridge itself, and that the designs should probably work together….

[PotomacCyclist]

An older thread related to the earlier phase of the public outreach process:

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?7506-Memorial-Circle-Safety-Improvements

[bobco85]

I just finished uploading the video of all the sketches. There were a few sketches with multiple copies, and I put them in numerical order according to file name. I also added a quick video capture of scrolling through the project area on Google Earth. Hopefully this will help people see all of the designs.

[video=youtube_share;f_2FRdlXQL8]http://youtu.be/f_2FRdlXQL8[/video]

I’ll send the link to the BikeArlington e-mail as well.

[PotomacCyclist]

You might even be able to convince the NPS to add the video to the project website. They seemed excited to hear that someone was creating a video like this. I don’t know if that would break some sort of regulation. Maybe they could post it on their Facebook and Twitter pages.

[mstone]

I’d rather they just post a pdf.

[dasgeh]

Oh one other thing: some of the notes at the open house were “low impact” changes, which is NPS code for changes they could make in the short term. Things like rrfb at the crossings, more enforcement, any enforcement. When submitting comments, you might consider including a section on what NPS could do now to make the area safer.

[kwarkentien]

“rrfb”?

[bobco85]

@kwarkentien 110233 wrote:

“rrfb”?

RRFB stands for Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/

[PotomacCyclist]

IMG_0783 is very interesting. It’s likely to be one of the more expensive proposals, but it could be the most beneficial in terms of improving safety for trail users. (I’m not sure about pedestrians traveling from Arlington Cemetery to Memorial Circle and Memorial Bridge. That’s also an important issue.)

The concept solves the problem of the dangerous trail crossings by removing the need for so many crossings. All three of the dangerous trail/road intersections would be gone, because they would no longer be required. The trails would still be there (although one section would be moved a couple hundred feet, which shouldn’t be a problem for anyone). The GWMP would be realigned and much of the “spaghetti” road mess would be gone. There would be one remaining trail/road intersection, but it looks like a bike tunnel would be built there. Thus, cyclists traveling on the Washington Blvd trail or the MVT and headed to Memorial Bridge would now have an entirely intersection-free route. Much of Columbia Island would become a car-free park, to the east of the new GWMP alignment. I think this would be incredible. Cyclists, runners and pedestrians could travel or linger or stop to take in the incredible views in that area without having to worry about high-speed automobile traffic just feet away.

As you can see from the image, this concept would remove most of the road lanes on Columbia Island. The existing road configuration splits the northbound and southbound lanes of the GWMP into separate routes on the island. It’s the same with Washington Blvd., or actually a bit worse, because northbound Wash. Blvd. is itself split further into two separate paths. The concept would consolidate all of that mess, so the north and southbound routes would lie close to each other, and away from most of the trail network. The trail network can easily be expanded in the area that would be cleared of road lanes.

Cyclists traveling from the Wash. Blvd. trail or the MVT to the Cemetery would still face one road intersection, but the sightlines are relatively good (I think). Pedestrians traveling from the Cemetery to Memorial Bridge would face that same new crossing. But since drivers would be heading straight into Memorial Circle and a 90-degree turn, they would not be able to maintain speed the way they can through existing road/trail intersections.

[For cyclists on the Wash. Blvd. trail, there would be one more troublesome road crossing, but to the south of Columbia Island, so it may not be within the scope of this project. The crossing is at the exit ramp from Wash. Blvd. to the north Pentagon parking lot. This crossing could be made safer if the bike trail/sidewalk were widened and extended along the curved ramp for 40 ft., before crossing the road. This would make it easier to judge whether an oncoming driver is headed straight along Wash. Blvd. or is turning right into the parking lot. The other road crossing, 100 ft. to the north of that spot, is less of a problem because it’s easier to see cars/drivers headed up that ramp.]

If NPS is serious about resolving all the safety issues at Memorial Circle and on Columbia Island, they should go with something like the IMG_0783 proposal. I will edit this comment and send it into the NPS website/comment form.

Any thoughts on this? Agree or disagree? My only worry about this proposal is the cost. It would involve the removal and realignment of a lot of road lanes. But the benefits would be significant, for all users and visitors. It would also open up most of Columbia Island and turn it into a true recreational park, where people could relax or travel leisurely without fear of high-speed car traffic.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8016[/ATTACH]

P.S. I see that this photo was already posted on the thread. I don’t think there are any remaining intersections for trail users on Columbia Island, other than for those traveling to the Cemetery.

[dasgeh]

There are lots of aspects of 783 that are great, but I think we shouldn’t minimize the danger created by the unsignalized, at-grade crossings for the bike/ped paths. This is a major route for people coming from north/central arlington to the Memorial Bridge via the 110 trail. These crossings would take place just before cars enter the circle. While the speeds would be lower than with, eg, the current Pkwy crossing, they’re still likely to be high and drivers will be focusing on traffic in the circle.

[PotomacCyclist]

I added another paragraph for the submission to the NPS website:

The benefits would be significant, for all users and visitors. It would open up most of Columbia Island and turn it into a true recreational park, where people could relax or travel leisurely without fear of high-speed car traffic. Memorial Circle and Columbia Island are supposed to be parks and a place of remembrance (with Arlington Cemetery, Memorial Bridge and the Lincoln Memorial nearby), not a high-speed freeway. The Cemetery hosts 4 million visitors a year, most of whom are not local DC-area residents. Many of them walk between the Cemetery and Memorial Bridge and the Lincoln Memorial. I have seen many people, including families, trying to dodge traffic in Memorial Circle because it’s not apparent how pedestrians are supposed to traverse the area. People should be the priority on Columbia Island, not high-speed cars.

[PotomacCyclist]

@dasgeh 110249 wrote:

There are lots of aspects of 783 that are great, but I think we shouldn’t minimize the danger created by the unsignalized, at-grade crossings for the bike/ped paths. This is a major route for people coming from north/central arlington to the Memorial Bridge via the 110 trail. These crossings would take place just before cars enter the circle. While the speeds would be lower than with, eg, the current Pkwy crossing, they’re still likely to be high and drivers will be focusing on traffic in the circle.

That is the one flaw with this proposal. I hope it’s addressed in the final proposal or hybrid proposal. But it makes a great start by removing all of the other grade crossings.

Perhaps the road lane could be further reconfigured, to include some twisting turns before it approaches the circle. Drivers would have no choice but to slow down significantly if the road were to be designed like that. As the road approaches the Circle, it could take a steady turn to the right, then enter the Circle more like a merge than a 90-degree turn. The drivers would have to slow to a near stop in such a configuration. This would make it much safer to retain a trail crossing there.

The other idea would be to include a bike/pedestrian tunnel there, but I don’t know if there is enough room. It would also affect the viewshed of the Circle and that is something NPS said they do not want to do. Maybe the tunnel could be designed without too severe of a grade change for trail users and without affecting the aesthetics of the Circle (which is an important consideration for NPS on this project).

I think I’ll post a follow-up comment about the intersection, to highlight the problem. That intersection is important for all the pedestrians who walk between the Cemetery and the bridge.

[chris_s]

783 indicates traffic signals on Memorial Drive which I believe NPS is dead-set against. That said, given the low volumes normally seen there, I’m not sure they would actually be necessary.

[Dewey]

Thank you for doing this video @bobco85. It helped me to see all the drawings. I too found the inconsistency confusing. IMG0803 marked “tunnels option” appears in line with @PotomacCyclist’s tunnels suggestion but includes an at grade crossing south of the circle. I do not like the idea of tunnels to redirect folks under existing roads without fixing the problems above.

I agree with @PotomacCyclist IMG0783 is my preferred option. I like how this option moves vehicle traffic to the south west, opening up waterfront park space for public enjoyment. I appreciate the cloverleaf connectors from the Mt Vernon Trail up to the Bridge sidewalks. As @Dasgeh and @PotomacCyclist mentioned, Pedestrians walking to Arlington cemetery and cyclists coming up the bike paths on Memorial avenue would need to cross the two entry/exit roads on the south west side of the circle. This would require at-grade crosswalks with light signals otherwise you would simply move the road/pedestrian/cyclist interface problems to the south west. Tunnels under those entrance roads might be an alternative to at-grade light signals.

[dasgeh]

Friendly reminder (to me, at least):

Quote:

A comment period closes in 1 Days, 12 Hours, 14 Min.

[Author]

Posts