FW: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
Hanna, K. Mike
All – not sure that this came through from my other email. Just FYI.
From: Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:08 PM
To: Hanna, K. Mike <Han...@bv.com>
Subject: Fwd: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
|
Caution - External Email: This email originated outside of Black & Veatch. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
To: Kristin Calkins <kcal...@arlingtonva.us>
Cc: Brian Shelton <bshe...@arlingtonva.us>, Allison Bullock <abul...@arlingtonva.us>, 'Cynthia Palmer' via Arlington BAC <arling...@googlegroups.com>
Kristin:
Please find attached, the BAC input to the Policy activity.
Thanks
Mike
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 8:52 PM Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kristin - attached is a map with BAC input for Micro Mobility Priority 2 and 3. We would like to also provide some more general concepts:
- The map should extend beyond the boundaries of Arlington far enough into other jurisdictions to allow for proper connectivity - reference to those jurisdiction's systems and planned systems would be a big help.
- The mapping identifies "trails" and does not differentiate between significant transportation trails such as the W&OD and Custis from small, winding, in some cases, unpaved, in some cases with stairs - this gives a false sense of connectivity. EIther only show the major trails or differentiate in some way to identify only the trails that provide dependable safe connectivity.
- In many cases the map does not identify current or planned bike boulevards - these should all be priority 2 by definition.
- There are certain corridors that require safe bicycle and microbility facilities, even if they are identified as Priority 3 - for instance the corridor from Columbia pike to Shirlington along Walter Reed/Kenmore or Wilson Blvd along its entire length. It is not clear how bike and transit facilities can work together or be in conflict, but identifying a route as Priority 2 for transit should not rule out safe bike facilities.
- A general rule of thumb should be in place to establish safe N-S and E-W corridors every 1/4 to 1/2 mile. How those are established is going to depend on a number of factors. For instance if the ultimate designs along Walter Reed/Kenmore or Langston Blvd or Wilson to accommodate transit rule out safe bike facilities, then alternate routes need to be identified - however if both can be accomodated (such as recent improvements along Clarendon between Courthouse and Rosslyn) - that would be preferred, rather than a parallel route that snakes through neighborhoods. Without knowing the design limitations for each case it is hard to identify the preferred bike/micro mobility route.
- The most dangerous area for bikes and micro mobility are intersections. It is not clear how, when, or if some of these intersections can be improved - which has a significant impact on recommending a biking corridor. For instance 15th St N to 16 St N could be a really good east- west corridor, but not unless the crossing at Glebe could be addressed. N. Kirkwood, N. Highland and/or N. Danville could all be great routes north out of the R-B corridor, but only with a safe crossing of Langston and on to the Custis Trail - identifying the designs for one or all of these will have a big impact on how the rest of the network is shaped.
- Dangerous choke-points in the existing network (Langston and Lynne, the W&OD at Shirlington Road) tend to overshadow any hope for the ultimate network - when these have been with us for decades with no solution.
- In general, we struggled with the ultimate long-term best design being the enemy of the routes that we could imagine having relatively near-term fixes (like in the next 10 years) to make a route better than it is now.
I will be providing BAC input on the Policy by tomorrow night.
Mike Hanna
BAC Rep
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 8:48 AM Kristin Calkins <kcal...@arlingtonva.us> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thank you for coordinating the BAC input. We really do need the response as soon as possible. We’re on a tight schedule to review and make any potential changes to the drafts in advance of public engagement. If you can get it to us by COB Tuesday we would appreciate it. Brian and I have set aside our Wednesday to review the AG input and Thursday to reconcile with the current networks.
Looking forward to the feedback.
Thanks,
Kristin
From: Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 5:34 PM
To: Kristin Calkins <kcal...@arlingtonva.us>
Subject: Re: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
EXTERNAL EMAIL
CAUTION: This email contains file attachments. Do NOT open files that you are not expecting to receive, even from known senders.
Kristin - Just FYI. The BAC was only this week and I am still getting input. I may be a few days late getting our responses in.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 12:25 PM Kristin Calkins <kcal...@arlingtonva.us> wrote:
Happy Friday All,
We appreciate all the work you and your committee and commissions are putting in to providing feedback on the Network Gap Analysis and the Policy Activity.
For those of you who have already provided you responses, thank you!! We look forward to the rest of them coming in by COB Monday, October 13.
We hope everyone has a good weekend.
Kristin
From: Kristin Calkins
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Aaron Schuetz <ajsc...@yahoo.com>; Bill Braswell; bpri...@live.com; Catalina Calachan <catalina...@gmail.com>; Chris Slatt (ch...@dodgersden.com) <ch...@dodgersden.com>; Claire Noakes <ecno...@yahoo.com>; Daniel Garay <dgar...@gmail.com>; Evan Pritchard <eprit...@wiregill.com>; garcia...@yahoo.com; John Carey <john.a...@verizon.net>; Justin Fuhmrann <justin....@gmail.com>; Liliana Diaz <lili...@gmail.com>; Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>; Pam Van Hine <pvan...@gmail.com>; Thomas Shannon (thos.s...@gmail.com) <thos.s...@gmail.com>; Tony Striner (Commissions)
Cc: Allison Bullock <abul...@arlingtonva.us>; Brian Shelton <bshe...@arlingtonva.us>; Erin Potter <epo...@arlingtonva.us>; Nate Graham <nsgr...@arlingtonva.us>
Subject: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
Happy Monday Advisory Group,
Thank you for coordinating with your committee and commissions on the Homework due Monday, October 13.
NETWORK GAP ANALSYIS
Share any ideas from your Committee/Commission on how to address gaps in the reconciled networks. The networks are embedded into the presentation as the last three slides.
POLICY ACTIVITY
To help inform draft policies that will support the Vision and Goals, please:
· Identify up to three opportunities to help reach each goal
· Identify up to three challenges to achieving each goal
We’ve been answering clarifying questions on a rolling basis, and thought sharing the general responses would be helpful to the whole group, too:
- How will pedestrian priority be implemented?
- As studies and projects are undertaken the needs of pedestrians will be those first considered and prioritized prior to designing for other modes.
- What do the networks shown represent?
- The draft priority maps we shared represent current recommendations from the Transit Element, transit regional plans, and the Bike Element that have been deconflicted and prioritized.
- What do you want us to identify?
- Right now, we're all working on understanding what pieces are missing from the transit and bicycle and micromobility networks.
- We are identifying gaps are for the whole network, not just missing links of the corridors on the deconflicted networks.
- We want a forward-looking network that we are working towards, not near term and long-term route recommendations.
- What does Transit 2 / Bicycle and Micromobility 3 or the inverse mean?
- The 2 vs 3 means that when a corridor study is done the priority 2 mode is the one that will be considered for right-of way (ROW) and operational needs after pedestrians have been accounted for. Once the priority 2 mode has been accommodated, consideration is given to priority 3.
- What happens when there is not a 3rd priority?
- If there is not a 3rd priority identified, it means that the street is not part of that mode’s network. In many instances if transit is priority 2 and there is no third priority it is in acknowledgement of the limited ROW.
As a reminder our next meeting is Wednesday, October 22, 7pm – 9pm virtually. At this meeting we will provide an overview of the materials we will be sharing in Phase 3 engagement.
Thanks all,
Kristin
Kristin Calkins, AICP
Principal Long-Range Transportation Planner
Division of Transportation
Arlington County Dept. of Environmental Services
Office: (703) 228-0088 | Cell (703) 843-6774
Please note that any email sent to/from Arlington County email addresses may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Hanna, K. Mike
From: Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:08 PM
To: Hanna, K. Mike <Han...@bv.com>
Subject: Fwd: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
|
Caution - External Email: This email originated outside of Black & Veatch. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Hanna <hannak...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Arlington's Transportation Future - Homework Reminder
To: Kristin Calkins <kcal...@arlingtonva.us>
Cc: Brian Shelton <bshe...@arlingtonva.us>, Allison Bullock <abul...@arlingtonva.us>, 'Cynthia Palmer' via Arlington BAC <arling...@googlegroups.com>
Kristin - attached is a map with BAC input for Micro Mobility Priority 2 and 3. We would like to also provide some more general concepts: