Intersection of Doom story

[kcb203]

@chris_s 85008 wrote:

So about that private landowner…

an agreement to purchase that land is on the agenda for tomorrow’s Arlington County Board Meeting

That’d be one less stakeholder to coordinate.

Agenda. Staff Report.

It was originally on the consent agenda for Saturday’s meeting, but somebody pulled it for further discussion.

Yikes, $2.4M is a lot of money for .6 acres of land that’s probably undevelopable given its location with poor road access and being in the DCA flight path. Especially given that it was sold by the government to the developer for $445,000 in 1998.

[chris_s]

@rcannon100 85013 wrote:

Arlco owning that land does not get the bike traffic safely over, under, around, whatever, the Intersection of doom.

Any bike/ped tunnel under the intersection almost has to go through that land, for one.

[rcannon100]

@chris_s 85023 wrote:

Any bike/ped tunnel under the intersection almost has to go through that land, for one.

But then that would make it Federal land, not Arlco land…. right??? Arlco buying it didnt solve. Arlco will need to transfer the land.

[chris_s]

@rcannon100 85026 wrote:

But then that would make it Federal land, not Arlco land…. right??? Arlco buying it didnt solve. Arlco will need to transfer the land.

1) I doubt Arl Co would have to transfer the land to NPS in order to make a tunnel part of the trail. Parts of Mt Vernon trail already go through land owned by other folks.

2) Better to have the land in the hands of the only entity to expend any effort here than in the hands of a private entity.

[Steve]

Does the League advocate on issues like this ever? It seems to me that the best way to lobby for a change is always to lobby at the level higher than those enacting the changes. Like when we want something local in ArlCo, we don’t really lobby DES, we lobby the Board and hope they direct DES. So when things involve VDOT, ArlCo, NPS, etc., shouldn’t we really be lobbying our local congress or state reps, not the county board? It would seem to me that this is the kind of thing that LAB should help local advocates with, but I don’t know if they actually do that.

[rcannon100]

Actually DES is probably the most responsive Arlco agency. DES is very good to work with. And it can cause probs to go over people’s heads who are willing to work with you.

But as for the Intersection of Doom, given the jurisdictions involved that are unwilling and unresponsive, I recommend an appeal straight to the top – to the person who is really in charge. Do you think we could get an appointment with Putin??

[dasgeh]

@Steve 85033 wrote:

Does the League advocate on issues like this ever? It seems to me that the best way to lobby for a change is always to lobby at the level higher than those enacting the changes. Like when we want something local in ArlCo, we don’t really lobby DES, we lobby the Board and hope they direct DES. So when things involve VDOT, ArlCo, NPS, etc., shouldn’t we really be lobbying our local congress or state reps, not the county board? It would seem to me that this is the kind of thing that LAB should help local advocates with, but I don’t know if they actually do that.

I think you want to lobby at the right level, not the level above the right level. In my experience, staff at DES is great. We’ve run into problem at the level above staff, so we’ve lobbied the County Board. And sometimes that has worked.

Since this issue involves VDOT, yes, I think we should lobby state level (Favola & Brink). And since it involves NPS, we should lobby federal level (Moran, Webb & Kaine).

Given the new state administration, how do things look on the executive side of the state level? Any reports for changes to VDOT?

And my understanding is that WABA lobbies all levels for things of interest to our region; VBF lobbies VA govt for things of interest to all of VA; and the League (and others) lobbies federal government for things of interest to nation-wide cycling. So the League would not be the right people to help us with a local intersection.

[rcannon100]

Actually DES is probably the most responsive Arlco agency. DES is very good to work with. And it can probs to go over people’s heads who are willing to work with you.

But as for the Intersection of Doom, given the jurisdictions involved that are unwilling and unresponsive, I recommend an appeal straight to the top – to the person who is really in charge. Do you think we could get an appointment with Putin??

[n18]

I like an overhead bridge like the SkyCycle idea. It gives a bird’s eye view of the area. Others seeing bikers overhead would feel jealous, and wish they have bicycles to enjoy the view, so this should work towards the county’s goal of promoting bicycling in the area.

[chris_s]

The County Board approved purchasing the Lee/Lynn parcel as expected.

“Under consideration for the site are: an ancillary boathouse that would offer educational and recreation facilities to complement a potential lower boathouse site now under review by the National Park Service; possible realignment of a bicycle trail to improve safety and access; and an open space for passive recreation use.”

Release: http://news.arlingtonva.us/releases/county-board-approves-acquisition-of-lee-highway-property-along-potomac-river

[Steve O]

There were two letters to the editor in today’s Post related to the story. The second one is annoying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-make-the-intersection-of-doom-safer/2014/05/13/246c9e3c-d9e9-11e3-a837-8835df6c12c4_story.html

[jrenaut]

That second one is mostly annoying because the Post chose to publish that garbage. It sounds like he copied it verbatim from the comment section of every single article written about bikes on the entire internet.

[Steve O]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5597[/ATTACH]

That light pole is a huge problem. I suspect that the cyclist, coming from Key Bridge, did what we all do and exited the sidewalk at the curb cut on the other side of the pole. Attempting to stay on the sidewalk all the way to the corner is almost impossible (note woman with backpack) and creates enormous conflicts among all the sidewalk users. It’s just another of the 20 things that are wrong with this intersection. Is there, in fact, enough space between the pole and the curb to even meet ADA compliance?

Woo-hoo: can’t wait ’til 2016 when it might be removed.

I propose that the zebra striping be widened to 30 feet wide to encompass that entire area. Then riders acting like sane people cannot be cited for being “outside the crosswalk.”

I propose moving the pole to the west side of the intersection, where there is lots of room beside the trail to mount it. 2018 anyone?

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 85297 wrote:

That light pole is a huge problem. I suspect that the cyclist, coming from Key Bridge, did what we all do and exited the sidewalk at the curb cut on the other side of the pole. Attempting to stay on the sidewalk all the way to the corner is almost impossible (note woman with backpack) and creates enormous conflicts among all the sidewalk users. It’s just another of the 20 things that are wrong with this intersection. Is there, in fact, enough space between the pole and the curb to even meet ADA compliance?

Woo-hoo: can’t wait ’til 2016 when it might be removed.

I propose that the zebra striping be widened to 30 feet wide to encompass that entire area. Then riders acting like sane people cannot be cited for being “outside the crosswalk.”

I propose moving the pole to the west side of the intersection, where there is lots of room beside the trail to mount it. 2018 anyone?

I agree that the pole is a huge problem. It looks like it’ll be gone when they put in a slip lane in the new plan, but does anyone know for sure?

When I first read the article, I had the same suspicion about the victim having used the driveway curb cut. But (1) I have no facts and (2) the pictures seem to show the bike in the cross walk, which it wouldn’t have gotten to after the collision. Anyway, point is, we don’t know what happened. It seems like NPP won’t either, unfortunately.

I like the idea of the super wide zebra striping, along with MODE SEPARATION. There are too many pedestrians and cyclists using that part of the trail to safely mix. Just last night, some clueless pedestrian almost caused a bike pile up when he blithely walked from the right most side of the crosswalk to the left side of the cross walk as he was crossing the street.

[bobco85]

Was kinda bored this afternoon and disappointed in the lackluster improvements that are on the way for the Intersection of Doom, so I decided to come up with an alternative that I think could be possible. Throwing caution to the wind, here goes my redesign:

Currently the area looks like this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5598[/ATTACH]

My redesign (trying to look realistic):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5599[/ATTACH]

My redesign with labels:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5600[/ATTACH]

I really wanted to solve the danger in having 2 right turn lanes from the I-66 off-ramp so I eliminated right turns from those lanes. Now, if possible I would have a bridge to cross over the I-66 off-ramp to avoid the new crossing I created, but I figured the at-grade crossing would be more likely. Also, I do not think the boathouse is ever happening so I figure Arl Co or NPS will buy the private property and eliminate the useless driveway.

I was inspired by Steve O’s design when making this (I really like his idea of splitting the I-66 off-ramp), even if it doesn’t quite look the same as his. Hopefully something can be done to make this intersection safer.

[Author]

Posts