I-66 "Spot Improvement" now completed

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.

The project to widen I-66 westbound between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street is now completed.  This is one of several projects that VDOT calls "Spot Improvements."  In this case, the "spot" is about 1.5 miles long (map).  This is the first of these projects, and was begun in the summer of 2010.  Neither of the other two projects is currently underway nor scheduled for the immediate future.

Who owns the signs? And why won't they take them down?

I've noted a couple of signs in Northern Virginia that indicate the way to Dulles Airport.  One is on Route 50 in Arlington just past the Courthouse exit at the 10th St. exit.  The other is on Little River Turnpike between Braddock Road and Old Columbia Pike.

View Dulles Airport signs in a larger map

Here's what they look like:  

This is the sign on Route 50 in Arlington.

Here's its location.  You can see the 10th St. exit sign that is in the median.

Here's the one on Little River Turnpike.

The existence of these signs raises a number of questions:

• Who owns them?
• How long have they been there?
• Why are they still there?
• What purpose do they serve?

I suspect these signs date from before I-66 was built, since no one would take Route 50 to get to Dulles with I-66 available.  Also, neither of these--as far as I have noticed--has any follow on signs, so a traveler who noted the sign would never see another one to guide them on their way.  A single directional sign far from its destination without any more to assist the traveler is probably worse than no sign at all.

There may be more of these Dulles airport signs.  Have you seen any?  Where?

Taking a macro view, who is responsible for signage in general?  Once a sign is placed is it ever taken down?  I've seen signs in my neighborhood that have rusted so badly they can barely be read and that are completely outdated.  Signs like these are everywhere, and they just accumulate.

Perhaps every sign should have information on the back of it that tells who owns the sign and who is responsible for it, as well as contact information.  At least that way someone could try to follow up and notify the owner if it gets damaged or becomes obsolete.
======================
Steve Offutt, Arlington

Solving the Lynn Street/Lee Highway Bike/Car Conflict

The intersection of Lee Highway and Lynn Street in Rosslyn, where the Custis Trail crosses Lynn St., has been the subject of great scrutiny lately. (GGW reported on a recent meeting at this very intersection.)  This is one of the most dangerous intersections for cyclists in the Greater Washington area. By reconfiguring the exit ramp for the Key Bridge, this conflict can be entirely removed, dramatically improving safety while also potentially improving traffic flow.  (This post has been cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington, including a number of reader comments.)

The problem at this intersection is traffic turning right from the I-66 off-ramp onto Lynn Street traveling towards the Key Bridge.  This traffic has a green light at the same time as the pedestrians and cyclists have the cross signal. There are two lanes of right turning cars (and sometimes cars in the third lane turn right illegally). By shifting the Key Bridge traffic to the north of the Custis Trail crossing, this conflict will be eliminated.

Arlington County installs new bike signal on Custis trail

Arlington County has installed a bike-only signal in the Rosslyn area of the Custis Trail at the corner of N. Oak Street and Lee Highway, which went into service on Tuesday, May 17.  This is one of the intersections on the "Rosslyn Hill" section of the Custis that includes several crossings.  There have been collisions at some of these crossings in the past.  This area is definitely the most dangerous section of the Custis Trail.


View Custis Trail bike signal location in a larger map

New Fairfax County Parkway Interchange Gives Peds and Bikes Short Shrift

Plans to rebuild two intersections along the Fairfax County Parkway at Fair Lakes Parkway and Monument Drive--adding ramps and interchanges--fail to make pedestrians or bicyclists welcome.

VDOT is planning to rebuild the intersections of the Fairfax County Parkway at Monument Drive and Fair Lakes Parkway (map). They will eliminate the intersections, replacing them with bridges and ramps. The detailed plan is available here (pdf, 9.3M). Robert Thompson discussed this project in an article in the Washington Post on Saturday, and details can also be found on the VDOT web site. It includes this language: "Shared-use paths and sidewalks will enhance pedestrian access at the interchange and to the Rocky Run Stream Valley Park trail system." Since I am not personally familiar with this area, it may be true that they are improving the current situation, but that would only be because it must be really bad now.

Although sidewalks and shared use paths are included in the project, this will be a dauntingly scary place to be either a cyclist or pedestrian. This is obvious from the artist's rendering of the project, in which it is virtually impossible to make out any pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. The artist's rendering nicely details traffic flows, lanes and other automobile-related details. One can make out some sidewalks, but it's not at all clear how they are supposed to connect or how one could safely use them. The buildings in the lower left in the rendering are currently a Residence Inn. There is an office building shown on the lower right that one could probably hit with a golf ball from the Residence Inn. Although one could ostensibly walk from one to the other, it seems that the Fairfax County planners have not given much thought to actually making that a feasible option.

Looking at the detailed pdf graphic, it appears that pedestrians will be required to cross at least three slip lanes (one of them an acceleration slip lane) with no signals. They will also be required to walk under a 6-lane wide bridge next to eight lanes of traffic--a rather unpleasant experience one can imagine.

It's understood that VDOT is trying to make the Fairfax County Parkway more and more of a limited-access highway, and their goal is to move more cars at higher speeds and greater capacity than before--for better or worse. However, it's large projects like these that provide an opportunity to think more creatively about accommodating all modes. Particularly as bicycling is growing in popularity, it is important to create easier and safer ways of crossing barriers like these.

(This  post originally appeared on Greater Greater Washington, including more than 30 comments)

Monday What's on the Web: Street Films

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------

Street Films is an awesome site filled with hundreds of videos related to the urban form--particularly transportation.  Based in New York, many of the films feature New York City, but one can find interesting perspectives from around the world.

They categorize their content under these topics:

• Bicycles
• Car-Free
• Cars & Parking
• Education
• Health & Safety
• Pedestrians
• Public Space
• Traffic Calming
• Transit

One of my favorites, which injects a good deal of humor and satire, is this one:

I-66 "Spot Improvement" Underway

The "spot improvement" on westbound I-66 between the George Mason Drive and Sycamore Street is underway.

These spot improvements, which are essentially short-distance widenings have been the subject of great debate for more than a decade.  VDOT has long wanted to widen I-66 to three lanes in each direction; Arlington, smart growth and environmental groups have been strongly opposed.  The original agreement to build I-66 included an agreement to not widen the highway beyond two lanes in each direction.  VDOT has instead proposed a series of "spot improvements," which widen sections of I-66 to three lanes.  This section is called "Spot 1," and it has a page on the VDOT web site.

In February of 2009, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board voted to put these projects on hold,only to reverse itself the very next month.  Since then, there has been little to stop this project from moving forward, particularly because it has received earmarked funding from Congress that can be used for nothing else.

The contract was awarded in May, and construction has begun.  Here are photos:

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.

This one shows I-66 looking westbound from Ohio Street.  Note the (semi) vegetated median between the left shoulder and the Metrorail tracks.  That is being partially removed to make room for the additional roadway width.

The photo at the top of the post shows the demolition of the median next to the Metrorail tracks.

The Custis Trail passes under I-66 along this stretch of highway.  At the point were it crosses underneath there are three bridges: one for each direction of traffic and one for the Metrorail tracks.  The westbound bridge is being widened.  To accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic during construction, VDOT has constructed this structure for protection.  There have been occasional detours while work is being done here.  The detour is well marked and only slightly longer.

Once the bridge is widened, there will be less daylight at this point.  Although there is some relatively inadequate lighting now, it may need to be upgraded as part of the improvements.

The following information was mined from the project documents of the Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2030:

Do traffic congestion conditions necessitate the proposed project?  Yes
If so, describe those conditions: Recurring congestion
Is this a capacity-increasing project on a limited access highway or other arterial highway of a functional class higher than minor arterial? Yes

Please identify any and all planning factors that are addressed by this project:
  - Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
  - Increase the safety of the transportation system for all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase the ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight.
  - Promote efficient system management and operation.
a. Is this project being proposed specifically to address a safety issue? Yes
Briefly describe the nature of the safety problem:
Existing levels of congestion is exacerbated by the intense weaving and merging movements happening over a short distance along with inadequate sight distance. The recurring congestion and associated operational/safety effects poses concerns on the corridor’s ability to serve as an efficient emergency evacuation route.

The suggestion that this will improve the road as an emergency evacuation route is just silly.  The capacity of I-66 for evacuation will not be increased by adding a lane for a mile and a half.  This language is likely a holdover from the arguments used for widening the entire length of I-66 inside the Beltway.

Many people believe that once the "spot improvements" are all in place, the argument to widen the relatively short remaining sections will grow very strong, and VDOT will eventually prevail.  It will be interesting to see how long that takes.

(Cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington)

Garnering Support for Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Last year, the Washington Post published an article about speeding and red-light cameras (Shudder speed, Nov. 5). The article cited many cases of citizens hating the cameras, voting against them, vandalizing them and otherwise being significantly opposed. Personally, I'm fine with the cameras, since I do not speed or run red lights, which is, of course, the ultimate weapon to use against them.

However, I do find myself in partial agreement with those who argue that the cameras are used to raise government revenues. At the end of the day, if everyone obeyed the rules, the cameras would collect no revenue, which is good and a laudable goal. However, until that day, the cameras are collecting fines. I believe that money could be strategically used to garner support for the use of the cameras themselves.

The article stated that DC collected about $36 million in revenue for fiscal year '08 from camera fines. If half of that is actually needed to operate the cameras and administer the fines, etc., that leaves $18 million in other revenues. I actually have no idea of these numbers: I am making them up. I would think that once the system is established, that the administrative costs would be much lower than this, but I don't know.

I suggest we take a lesson from the state of Alaska. Citizens receive a payment from the Alaska permanent fund, which is funded from minerals royalties. DC could do likewise, refunding each citizen their share of the camera excess revenues fund. Using my example above, each citizen would get a check for about $30. That's not an enormous amount, but it helps resolve two issues:
- Arguments about the cameras being primarily as revenue generators would become moot, since the city would not keep any revenues beyond the costs of administering the program.
- Support, particularly among law abiders and non-car owners would strengthen. I know that if my household was going to get a check every year from fining criminal drivers, I would be very supportive.

(cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington)