VA - I-66 "spot improvements" in limbo
Oscar Voss
Board voted this week to remove three proposed "spot improvements" to
westbound Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway from next year's
transportation improvement plan. Work on the first project, to create a
westbound auxiliary lane connecting the Fairfax Drive on-ramp to the
Sycamore Street off-ramp (that stretch is one of the worst off-peak
chokepoints), would have started next year.
This decision was supposedly driven by VDOT's failure to fully fund a $15
million study of transportation alternatives in the I-66 corridor. VDOT
points out, however, that the projects were never tied to completion of that
study. My sense in any case is that the expensive and time-consuming study
($15 million and three-four years, as a precondition for projects totaling
about $75 million which have already been talked about for ages, seem
disproportionate) was sought as a stalling tactic, by people (lots of them
in my Arlington County, including the county government) who will be
dead-set against the projects no matter what the study ends up concluding.
This decision could be revisited later, but VDOT seems resigned to having
the projects put on hold for a few more years.
"Vote to Forgo I-66 Expansion Imperils Federal Funds, Increases Ire,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021902957.html
see also:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/02/i-66_spot_improvements_blocked.html
--
Oscar Voss - oscar...@comcast.net - Arlington VA
my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://home.comcast.net/~oscar.voss/
Hawaii Highways: http://www.hawaiihighways.com/
Scott M. Kozel
>
> The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's Transportation
> Planning Board voted this week to remove three proposed "spot
> improvements" to westbound Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway from
> next year's transportation improvement plan. Work on the first project,
> to create a westbound auxiliary lane connecting the Fairfax Drive
> on-ramp to the Sycamore Street off-ramp (that stretch is one of the
> worst off-peak chokepoints), would have started next year.
>
> This decision was supposedly driven by VDOT's failure to fully fund a
> $15 million study of transportation alternatives in the I-66 corridor.
> VDOT points out, however, that the projects were never tied to
> completion of that study. My sense in any case is that the expensive
> and time-consuming study ($15 million and three-four years, as a
> precondition for projects totaling about $75 million which have already
> been talked about for ages, seem disproportionate) was sought as a
> stalling tactic, by people (lots of them in my Arlington County,
> including the county government) who will be dead-set against the
> projects no matter what the study ends up concluding.
>
> This decision could be revisited later, but VDOT seems resigned to
> having the projects put on hold for a few more years.
Preliminary engineering costs of $15 million on a project, when the
near-term prospects of being able to construct the project are in doubt,
can easily get cut in the current funding climate.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Froggie
>
> This decision was supposedly driven by VDOT's failure to fully fund a $15
> million study of transportation alternatives in the I-66 corridor. VDOT
> points out, however, that the projects were never tied to completion of that
> study. My sense in any case is that the expensive and time-consuming study
> ($15 million and three-four years, as a precondition for projects totaling
> about $75 million which have already been talked about for ages, seem
> disproportionate) was sought as a stalling tactic, by people (lots of them
> in my Arlington County, including the county government) who will be
> dead-set against the projects no matter what the study ends up concluding.
Personally, I found it annoying that VDOT kept funding for the "spot
improvements", but dropped the much-needed pavement rehab/resurfacing
of I-66 between the Beltway and Fair Oaks (US 50).
And yes, it's very much a stalling tactic. Numerous people, not just
in Arlington but around the local blogosphere, are very much against
ANY widening of I-66, even if just auxiliary lanes.
Froggie | Alexandria, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Nate Nagel
>> On Feb 21, 3:09 am, "Oscar Voss" <oscar.v...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> This decision was supposedly driven by VDOT's failure to fully fund a $15
>> million study of transportation alternatives in the I-66 corridor. VDOT
>> points out, however, that the projects were never tied to completion of that
>> study. My sense in any case is that the expensive and time-consuming study
>> ($15 million and three-four years, as a precondition for projects totaling
>> about $75 million which have already been talked about for ages, seem
>> disproportionate) was sought as a stalling tactic, by people (lots of them
>> in my Arlington County, including the county government) who will be
>> dead-set against the projects no matter what the study ends up concluding.
>
> Personally, I found it annoying that VDOT kept funding for the "spot
> improvements", but dropped the much-needed pavement rehab/resurfacing
> of I-66 between the Beltway and Fair Oaks (US 50).
I couldn't possibly agree more. At least *inside* the beltway the
pavement is in relatively decent shape. Outside? Not so much.
> And yes, it's very much a stalling tactic. Numerous people, not just
> in Arlington but around the local blogosphere, are very much against
> ANY widening of I-66, even if just auxiliary lanes.
Really, I-66 should be 6 lanes from the Beltway all the way to the
Potomac. I don't see that happening though.
What is also needed is more capacity at the merge with 267; that seems
to be a miserable choke point every evening. I'd hate to try it
eastbound in the AM... I suspect a lot of the problem stems from a lane
ending on I-66 and then two more lanes of traffic immediately merging
in. Getting rid of the ending lane might help some.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
John Lansford
Nevertheless, even a spot improvement project has to have an
environmental document completed for the proposed work. Was there one
done for these improvements, or was it considered part of the larger
future widening? If the former, one must be done; if the latter, no
work can be started until the document is finished.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
guyp...@gmail.com
> ...�Numerous people, not just in Arlington but around the local blogosphere, are very much against ANY widening of I-66, even if just auxiliary lanes.
No doubt a very vocal minority. I'd like to hear from the users of
I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
there is "no support".
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Froggie
>
> No doubt a very vocal minority. I'd like to hear from the users of
> I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
> there is "no support".
No, as Oscar Voss can attest to, they're very much the majority in
Arlington.
Nate Nagel
I'm a user but not a carpooler (I have a "reverse commute") and I can
say that I'm definitely in support of anything that will get me home
earlier. Most days it's easier to get off I-66 just inside the beltway
and take back roads instead.
Nate Nagel
> guyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:38�am, Froggie <frog...@mississippi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...�Numerous people, not just in Arlington but around the local
>>> blogosphere, are very much against ANY widening of I-66, even if just
>>> auxiliary lanes.
>>
>> No doubt a very vocal minority. I'd like to hear from the users of
>> I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
>> there is "no support".
>
> I'm a user but not a carpooler (I have a "reverse commute") and I can
> say that I'm definitely in support of anything that will get me home
> earlier. Most days it's easier to get off I-66 just inside the beltway
> and take back roads instead.
>
> nate
>
Forgot to add, a ramp from 267 to Haycock Road or thereabouts (so that
Falls Church traffic doesn't have to merge onto I-66) might be a great
help as well. There's already a bus ramp to the West Falls Church Metro
station, but no passenger car exit after 123 in Tysons/McLean. That's
actually a pretty long distance between exits for a semi-urban highway
(123 to Westmoreland Road/US-29) There is a ramp from I-66 proper to
Leesburg Pike in that area, but there's no way to get on I-66 EB from
267 or the Beltway SB... (and if there were, you'd still take 267
instead as the beltway is usually more congested than I-66 at least in
the evenings)
Does anyone know what's going on with the bridge over the beltway on 29
in Merrifield? They've had the NB lanes removed for a while now but
last weekend was the first time I got to drive across it in my pickup
truck, where it was high enough to see over the Jersey barrier. It
looks almost like there's going to be a direct ramp from the beltway to
US-29 which would be nice, although it might just be temporary earth
ramps for the construction. (I also drove over the Wilson Bridge the
same day for the first time since its completion, but it's really not
that exciting now that it's built, nor is it really pertinent to this
discussion.)
Froggie
>
> Forgot to add, a ramp from 267 to Haycock Road or thereabouts (so that
> Falls Church traffic doesn't have to merge onto I-66) might be a great
> help as well.
It'd be a tight fit, but it might be physically possible. The
potential problem with such a ramp (besides it being a tight squeeze)
is that you'd be bringing traffic into what is predominantly a
residential area. I can't imagine area residents would be happy with
that.
The other problem is that, after a quick glance, there's no feasibly
location to put a reciporichal ramp (from the area to WB 267) without
acquiring some houses and right-of-way or impacting Pimmit Run.
> but there's no way to get on I-66 EB from 267 or the Beltway SB...
> (and if there were, you'd still take 267 instead as the beltway is usually
> more congested than I-66 at least in the evenings)
This part makes no sense, since 267 merges into I-66 EB. And Outer
Loop traffic is directed to use 267 to access EB 66.
> Does anyone know what's going on with the bridge over the beltway on 29
> in Merrifield? They've had the NB lanes removed for a while now but
> last weekend was the first time I got to drive across it in my pickup
> truck, where it was high enough to see over the Jersey barrier. It
> looks almost like there's going to be a direct ramp from the beltway to
> US-29 which would be nice, although it might just be temporary earth
> ramps for the construction.
The HO/T lanes to/from the south will have direct ramps at US 29.
There will be no access to/from the north (i.e. towards I-66), nor
will there be US 29 access from the main Beltway lanes.
Nate Nagel
>> On Feb 22, 9:05 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>> Forgot to add, a ramp from 267 to Haycock Road or thereabouts (so that
>> Falls Church traffic doesn't have to merge onto I-66) might be a great
>> help as well.
>
> It'd be a tight fit, but it might be physically possible. The
> potential problem with such a ramp (besides it being a tight squeeze)
> is that you'd be bringing traffic into what is predominantly a
> residential area. I can't imagine area residents would be happy with
> that.
>
> The other problem is that, after a quick glance, there's no feasibly
> location to put a reciporichal ramp (from the area to WB 267) without
> acquiring some houses and right-of-way or impacting Pimmit Run.
>
>> but there's no way to get on I-66 EB from 267 or the Beltway SB...
>> (and if there were, you'd still take 267 instead as the beltway is usually
>> more congested than I-66 at least in the evenings)
>
> This part makes no sense, since 267 merges into I-66 EB. And Outer
> Loop traffic is directed to use 267 to access EB 66.
I meant that if one were trying to get to Falls Church proper, from
either 267 or the Beltway southbound, one cannot access the stretch if
I-66 between the beltway and 267 so as to take the Leesburg Pike exit.
One must either take the 123 exit to Anderson Road/Magarity/Great Falls
(which is a much longer stretch of primarily residential roads) or else
stay on 267, merge onto I-66, and take the Westmoreland Road exit. The
merge together of 267 and I-66 is always miserable in the evenings,
although generally it's due to sheer volume and drivers do tend to
"zipper" fairly well. My point was that if all of the Falls Church
traffic could avoid having to merge onto I-66 (or they somehow widened
I-66 in that area, but I'm not holding by breath for that to happen)
things might flow a little better.
guyp...@gmail.com
> > On Feb 21, 11:10�pm, guypol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > No doubt a very vocal minority. �I'd like to hear from the users of
> > I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
> > there is "no support".
>
> No, as Oscar Voss can attest to, they're very much the majority in
> Arlington.
>
Read his post again. "Lots of people" in no way equals a majority.
Maybe they are a majority at meetings and on blogs, but nobody ever
said those settings represent a true cross section of opinion.
More likely -- as I said -- a very vocal minority.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Oscar Voss
news:3i10q4ljf9vmf29o0...@4ax.com...
> Nevertheless, even a spot improvement project has to have an
> environmental document completed for the proposed work. Was there one
> done for these improvements, or was it considered part of the larger
> future widening? If the former, one must be done; if the latter, no
> work can be started until the document is finished.
Some environmental document (I don't know what kind offhand) was done for
the spot improvements.
There is no "future widening" in the works for the westbound lanes
(eastbound spot improvements is a long-range possibility, but not being
currently explored -- the westbound improvements are to be funded by a
Congressional earmark justified in part by improving mass evacuations out of
D.C., a rationale that doesn't apply going inbound). Everybody realizes
anything more extensive than spot improvements would require widening the
right of way, which is politically a nonstarter plus VDOT is unlikely to
have the money in the foreseeable future.
Oscar Voss
news:961c7a0d-89fc-42ac...@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 11:10 pm, guypol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> No doubt a very vocal minority. I'd like to hear from the users of
>> I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
>> there is "no support".
> No, as Oscar Voss can attest to, they're very much the majority in
> Arlington.
Right, but I think the majority of users are people in D.C., and Fairfax
County and beyond, either passing through Arlington but sometimes commuting
to jobs in Arlington. The pass-through traffic is much of what annoys
Arlingtonians.
There certainly is a lot of support for I-66 improvements from outside
Arlington, but not nearly as vocal as the opponents in Arlington. In any
case, the MWCOG vote to put the I-66 improvements in limbo was tipped by two
Fairfax County representatives who voted in favor.
Oscar Voss
news:gnrlf...@news5.newsguy.com...
> guyp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:38�am, Froggie <frog...@mississippi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...�Numerous people, not just in Arlington but around the local
>>> blogosphere, are very much against ANY widening of I-66, even if just
>>> auxiliary lanes.
>>
>> No doubt a very vocal minority. I'd like to hear from the users of
>> I-66 -- who, by definition, are carpoolers -- before deciding that
>> there is "no support".
>
> I'm a user but not a carpooler (I have a "reverse commute") and I can say
> that I'm definitely in support of anything that will get me home earlier.
> Most days it's easier to get off I-66 just inside the beltway and take
> back roads instead.
If we ever have any future meetings on I-66 spot improvements, you should
attend and talk to the Arlingtonians who don't like people like you (or me)
congesting their back roads. Maybe that will help convince them that it'd
be easier for everybody if we could just take the freeway.
Oscar Voss
> Personally, I found it annoying that VDOT kept funding for the "spot
> improvements", but dropped the much-needed pavement rehab/resurfacing
> of I-66 between the Beltway and Fair Oaks (US 50).
Ah, but part of the funding for the spot improvements is a Congressional
earmark, not in the pool of $ available for other uses.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> There is no "future widening" in the works for the westbound lanes
> (eastbound spot improvements is a long-range possibility, but not being
> currently explored -- the westbound improvements are to be funded by a
> Congressional earmark justified in part by improving mass evacuations
> out of D.C., a rationale that doesn't apply going inbound). Everybody
> realizes anything more extensive than spot improvements would require
> widening the right of way, which is politically a nonstarter plus VDOT
> is unlikely to have the money in the foreseeable future.
There is ample space in the right-of-way to add a mainline lane and full
shoulder in each direction, between I-495 and the Lee Highway C-D
roadways in Rosslyn.
Froggie
>
> > Personally, I found it annoying that VDOT kept funding for the "spot
> > improvements", but dropped the much-needed pavement rehab/resurfacing
> > of I-66 between the Beltway and Fair Oaks (US 50).
>
> Ah, but part of the funding for the spot improvements is a Congressional
> earmark, not in the pool of $ available for other uses.
True, but therein lies one of the many problems with Congressional
earmarks: they almost invariably require a local or state funding
match...money that IS in the pool that's available for other uses.
Froggie
>
> There is ample space in the right-of-way to add a mainline lane and full
> shoulder in each direction, between I-495 and the Lee Highway C-D
> roadways in Rosslyn.
Not if you don't want the pavement edge butting up against the
retaining wall in some areas. Even with the "spot improvement
project", VDOT had to go for some design waivers because there isn't
enough room in some spots to even add the auxiliary lane to full
specs.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There is ample space in the right-of-way to add a mainline lane and full
>> shoulder in each direction, between I-495 and the Lee Highway C-D
>> roadways in Rosslyn.
>
> Not if you don't want the pavement edge butting up against the
> retaining wall in some areas. Even with the "spot improvement
> project", VDOT had to go for some design waivers because there isn't
> enough room in some spots to even add the auxiliary lane to full specs.
That is not correct ... I reviewed the original construction plans when
the highway was being built, and what I said is correct.
Here is what I wrote on my I-66 website article --
The Roads to the Future author visited the I-66 section inside the
Beltway regularly while it was under construction 1977-1982, and on the
section west of Spout Run Parkway, it was apparent that there is a
cross-section wide enough for 8 lanes and full emergency shoulders on
both sides of the road. Those retaining walls appear to be sitting on
top of a small embankment, but the walls and footers go down to well
below the roadway elevation. The parking garage over the highway at
Washington & Lee High School might have piers spaced narrower than that,
though, and might need to be modified. There are some sound barriers
sitting inside the 8-lane cross section, but they could be moved without
much expense.
Oscar Voss
news:gnt1vb$u4t$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Froggie <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> There is ample space in the right-of-way to add a mainline lane and full
>>> shoulder in each direction, between I-495 and the Lee Highway C-D
>>> roadways in Rosslyn.
>>
>> Not if you don't want the pavement edge butting up against the
>> retaining wall in some areas. Even with the "spot improvement
>> project", VDOT had to go for some design waivers because there isn't
>> enough room in some spots to even add the auxiliary lane to full specs.
>
> That is not correct ... I reviewed the original construction plans when
> the highway was being built, and what I said is correct.
>
> Here is what I wrote on my I-66 website article --
>
> The Roads to the Future author visited the I-66 section inside the Beltway
> regularly while it was under construction 1977-1982, and on the section
> west of Spout Run Parkway, it was apparent that there is a cross-section
> wide enough for 8 lanes and full emergency shoulders on both sides of the
> road. Those retaining walls appear to be sitting on top of a small
> embankment, but the walls and footers go down to well below the roadway
> elevation. The parking garage over the highway at Washington & Lee High
> School might have piers spaced narrower than that, though, and might need
> to be modified. There are some sound barriers sitting inside the 8-lane
> cross section, but they could be moved without much expense.
One of those sound barriers is between the eastbound lanes and about two
miles of the W&OD trail, a popular trail that's a key part of the local bike
trail network. Making room for more eastbound lanes would probably require
cantilevering parts of the bike trail over Four Mile Run, but even with that
it looks like it would be a tight squeeze, especially if you tried to add
two eastbound lanes rather than just one. Moreover, part of the westbound
segment between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street is hemmed in by another
bike trail running along the top of the retaining wall, as well as the
Jacksonville Street bike/pedestrian bridge. Leaving them alone -- and also
constrained by the above-ground Metro Orange Line in the median -- is why
VDOT needs design exceptions just for one auxiliary lane in that stretch, as
Froggie mentioned.
The W&L parking garage has enough space between the supporting pillars
underneath for a third lane in both directions -- one of the proposed "spot
improvements" would add an auxiliary lane under the garage -- but no more
unless you could somehow move the pillars. Relocating the pillars would
probably impact the bike trail running alongside the westbound lanes.
Oscar Voss
from the TIP. The new chairwoman of the Fairfax County board says the
county's representatives on the regional panel, who provided the votes
needed to remove the spot improvements from the TIP, have been instructed to
ask for a re-vote, and to re-vote in favor of the projects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/22/AR2009022202037.html
(registration may be required)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> One of those sound barriers is between the eastbound lanes and about two
> miles of the W&OD trail, a popular trail that's a key part of the local
> bike trail network. Making room for more eastbound lanes would probably
> require cantilevering parts of the bike trail over Four Mile Run, but
> even with that it looks like it would be a tight squeeze, especially if
> you tried to add two eastbound lanes rather than just one. Moreover,
> part of the westbound segment between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street
> is hemmed in by another bike trail running along the top of the
> retaining wall, as well as the Jacksonville Street bike/pedestrian
> bridge. Leaving them alone -- and also constrained by the above-ground
> Metro Orange Line in the median -- is why VDOT needs design exceptions
> just for one auxiliary lane in that stretch, as Froggie mentioned.
There is plenty of space in the median between the rail line and the
roadway, to add a lane and full inside shoulder each way. Now if the
opponents would fight that on the basis that "it looks like mainline
widening", and the alternative is put forth to add the lane on the right
so that it looks like an auxiliary lane, then you may be correct.
Most likely the new auxiliary lanes wouldn't be needed (or just a few
short additions would be needed) if the mainline was widened to 3 lanes
each way.
> The W&L parking garage has enough space between the supporting pillars
> underneath for a third lane in both directions -- one of the proposed
> "spot improvements" would add an auxiliary lane under the garage -- but
> no more unless you could somehow move the pillars. Relocating the
> pillars would probably impact the bike trail running alongside the
> westbound lanes.
Yes, 3 lanes each way would fix.
Oscar Voss
> "Oscar Voss" <oscar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> One of those sound barriers is between the eastbound lanes and about two
>> miles of the W&OD trail, a popular trail that's a key part of the local
>> bike trail network. Making room for more eastbound lanes would probably
>> require cantilevering parts of the bike trail over Four Mile Run, but
>> even with that it looks like it would be a tight squeeze, especially if
>> you tried to add two eastbound lanes rather than just one. Moreover,
>> part of the westbound segment between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street
>> is hemmed in by another bike trail running along the top of the retaining
>> wall, as well as the Jacksonville Street bike/pedestrian bridge. Leaving
>> them alone -- and also constrained by the above-ground Metro Orange Line
>> in the median -- is why VDOT needs design exceptions just for one
>> auxiliary lane in that stretch, as Froggie mentioned.
>
> There is plenty of space in the median between the rail line and the
> roadway, to add a lane and full inside shoulder each way. Now if the
> opponents would fight that on the basis that "it looks like mainline
> widening", and the alternative is put forth to add the lane on the right
> so that it looks like an auxiliary lane, then you may be correct.
In at least the 0.2 mile stretch where VDOT would seek a design exception
(which is the one where the ROW is hemmed in by the bike trail to the
north), there's no room between the inside shoulder and the Metrorail ROW,
thus the need for a design exception. I think there are other spots on I-66
where the ROW is similarly hemmed in, like around the East Falls Church
Metro station (that particular stretch would not be affected by any of the
spot improvements.
I think the decision to go with auxiliary lanes rather than adding a
mainline lane was not so much P.R. (if so, the P.R. isn't working, certainly
not in Arlington County), as to focus scarce resources on cheap and quick
fixes for some of the worst chokepoints.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There is plenty of space in the median between the rail line and the
>> roadway, to add a lane and full inside shoulder each way. Now if the
>> opponents would fight that on the basis that "it looks like mainline
>> widening", and the alternative is put forth to add the lane on the
>> right so that it looks like an auxiliary lane, then you may be correct.
>
> In at least the 0.2 mile stretch where VDOT would seek a design
> exception (which is the one where the ROW is hemmed in by the bike trail
> to the north), there's no room between the inside shoulder and the
> Metrorail ROW, thus the need for a design exception. I think there are
> other spots on I-66 where the ROW is similarly hemmed in, like around
> the East Falls Church Metro station (that particular stretch would not
> be affected by any of the spot improvements.
>
> I think the decision to go with auxiliary lanes rather than adding a
> mainline lane was not so much P.R. (if so, the P.R. isn't working,
> certainly not in Arlington County), as to focus scarce resources on
> cheap and quick fixes for some of the worst chokepoints.
I wasn't suggesting that it was "P.R.", I am going by my recollection of
driving the highway ... and I just now looked at satellite mapping of
the highway, and it agrees with what I said.
Actually it is rather interesting how there is a considerable grass
median between the roadway and the concrete barriers along the rail
line. And portions of the ped/bike trail should be fairly inexpensive
to move 20 or 30 feet further from the highway.
Scott M. Kozel
> driving the highway ... and I just now looked at satellite mapping of
> the highway, and it agrees with what I said.
>
> Actually it is rather interesting how there is a considerable grass
> median between the roadway and the concrete barriers along the rail
> line. And portions of the ped/bike trail should be fairly inexpensive
> to move 20 or 30 feet further from the highway.
I checked the project website, and looked at the plan views of the
proposed improvements, and I see where there are several design
exceptions, but I don’t see where they will be required in the final
design, if there is some extra funding.
The narrowed inside shoulder near Westover Park is to enable 3 lanes
and a full right shoulder to pass over a mainline bridge, as there is
ample room in the median (between the roadway and the rail line) to do
it to without an exception, if the bridge was widened into the median.
The narrowed right shoulders under the overpasses at Haycock Road and
Great Falls Street, could be obviated by rebuilding one span of the
overpass to a longer span.