attachment a. project documentation · finally, it included a recommendation to “undertake a...
TRANSCRIPT
Attachment A. Project Documentation
a. Kick-off Meeting/Site Visit (December 2019) Meeting Minutes
b. Existing Conditions Memo (February 2020)
c. Preliminary Alignments & Review Meeting (March 2020) Notes
d. Alignments Review Meeting (April 2020) Notes
MEETING MINUTES W&OD East Falls Church Connection Kick Off /Site Visit
Friday, December 20, 2019
1. Attendees Gideon Berger – Arlington DES Transportation, Supervisor of Transportation Planning Jessica Mirr – Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Dept of Transportation Planning Norman Whitaker – Virginia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Director, VDOT NoVA Mike DePue – NOVA Department of Parks and Recreation Andrea Reese – NOVA Department of Parks and Recreation Tina Fink - Toole Design Stacie Desai - Toole Design
Notes
2. Project Overview/Introductions Attendees introduced themselves. Attendees invited, but not available to attend included: Ritch Viola, from Arlington DES Transportation, Kevin Stalica, from Arlington DES Transportation, and Daniel Dadson, from Dadson Consulting (Toole Design’s structural subconsultant). Tina Fink discussed the purpose of the site visit and gave a project overview. This project is a feasibility study to determine options to better serve the W&OD Trail through this gap in the trail. The trail is otherwise a continuous off-road facility along its entire 45-mile length. The project includes an existing conditions analysis and developing alternatives – one on-street or street-adjacent option within the street right of way and one bridge option. Toole will be providing meeting materials for the County to present to various stakeholders for feedback, including those who attended the field meeting.
3. Project Background Gideon Berger and Tina Fink provided project background. This study serves as a first step to develop a capital project for the County’s CIP process. The project purpose is to provide the missing piece of the W&OD trail which is an important connection near the East Falls Church Metro Station. In this area, near Sycamore Street, the W&OD Trail gets routed onto local streets and goes through Benjamin Banneker Park. High volumes of vehicular traffic, bicycles and runners, as well as a lack of complete sidewalks have resulted in the neighborhood asking for relief. A TLC grant has been established for a feasibility study for a trail connection. A potential overpass at Sycamore Street should be considered.
Current projects in the area include a 9-month complete redo of Benjamin Banneker Park which will have a detour condition during construction. Construction will continue through 3rd Quarter 2020. This work will upgrade the trail in the park, but will not address the missing connection. Another local project under construction is the bridge at Lee Highway being constructed for VDOT. A detour for the W&OD Trail is currently in place.
2
4. Site Walk Toole Design led the group on a site walk in the following order.
• Signalized intersection at 19th Street N & Sycamore – the team observed the current detour in place for the Banneker Park Construction project. Despite the cold weather, there were a fair number of cyclists using the detour. Mike DePue noted that on a nice day this section of the W&OD trail sees approximately 2,500-3,000 users. Gideon Berger expressed concerns regarding the bike movement through the very busy intersection with impatient drivers on the entrance ramp to I-66. Gideon also mentioned that the County’s signal team is going to continue to monitor the intersection safety and operation during the detour. Tina noted that there is a Leading Pedestrian Interval for pedestrians crossing Sycamore Street; however, bicyclist follow the motor vehicle signals.
• Walking Tour – The group continued walking up 19th Street toward N. Tuckahoe St and observed the temporary 4-way stop at the 19th Street/N. Tuckahoe St intersection. Gideon stated that the neighbors are happy with the 4-way stop and have been requesting a 4-way stop for some time. The County Engineers have concerns about warrants and making this a permanent condition. Toole asked if Gideon/Ritch can check to see if any traffic studies were done for this area. The group continued along 19th Street, turned right onto N. Van Buren St, and made a left on 19th Rd. Along 19th Then the group entered onto the W&OD Trail and walked the trail along I-66 until it joined 19th Rd. We stopped at the corner of 19th Rd and Tuckahoe St. to discuss bridge alignment options/constructability.
• Bridge Alignment Options/Constructability - The team discussed possible bridge options. Arlington County mentioned that they are looking for this as a second, high cost option; potentially being a two-span structure. Toole Design will coordinate with Dadson to see what is feasible/constructible. Mike DePue asked how much structural design would be included in this feasibility study. Would there be any geotechnical design? Would Dadson look at whether footers can be constructed in the stormwater management area between I-66 and the entrance ramp? Toole confirmed that a high-level cost estimate would accompany a bridge option. It was discussed that the current underpass of the W&OD trail under Sycamore Street could be an option for a possible alignment. It was noted that the residents in this area have had resistance to this idea in the past (calling it their meadow). Additional details assessing the existing conditions regarding a potential bridge alignment will be included in the existing conditions memorandum.
5. Wrap Up/Next Steps The following tasks and next steps were determined.
• Toole Design will coordinate with Dadson to discuss the findings of the site visit and talk about structural options.
• Toole Design will ask Ritch Viola about politics, ownership, and history of the project area. Toole Design will also ask Ritch if there are any traffic studies for the 19th St/Tuckahoe Intersection.
MEMORANDUM February 4, 2020
To: Ritch Viola, AICP Organization: Arlington DES Transportation From: Christina Fink, P.E. Project: W&OD Trail - East Falls Church Connection Alternatives Analysis Re: Existing Conditions Memorandum
1. Introduction The purpose of this memo is to document existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints in the study area for the W&OD Trail - East Falls Church Connection Alternatives Analysis project. This project will identity two alternatives to fill the missing link in the W&OD Trail near the East Falls Church Metro Station. The W&OD Trail is a significant regional trail that serves as a commuter route and a recreational resource with over 2,500 users on weekends and 2,000 on weekdays (see Figures 1 and 2).
The only gap in the 45-mile long W&OD Trail is in East Falls Church. When trail users approach the East Falls Church Metro area, the trail ends and routes users through Benjamin Banneker Park and on residential streets. Requiring these high volumes of trail users to travel via on-street routes creates safety concerns when vulnerable users conflict with motorists. Both local and regional plans have long recognized the need to address this gap. This memo is the first crucial step towards identifying a design solution and securing funding for an improved and off-street connection for this missing link. The study
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Volu
me
Figure 1: Weekend Average Trail Usage by Month
Bike Ped
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Volu
me
Figure 2: Weekday Average Trail Usage by Month
Bike Ped
Note: Data for Figure 1 and 2 is from a continuous counter located on the W&OD Trail near the intersection with the Custis Trail during a period from December 2012 through April 2019 and was summarized as a part of a Parallel Trail Feasibility Study for NOVA Parks in July 2019.
2
area generally includes N. Sycamore St. between the existing W&OD Trail underpass and I-66, Benjamin Banneker Park, and the residential streets between Benjamin Banneker Park and I-66. See Figure 3 for the project area map.
Figure 3. Project Study Area (source: Google Maps) 2. Previous Plans and On-going Projects Toole Design reviewed the following relevant studies and planned transportation projects within and nearby the study area.
2.1 Arlington County Transportation Master Plan (2019) Adopted in April 2019, this plan identified the need to study an off-street connection and recommended widening the existing trail connections in Benjamin Banneker Park. This plan also identified a potential overpass crossing N. Sycamore St. The plan specifically states:
• W&OD Realignment at East Falls Church, “Conduct an engineering study to identify how to provide an off-street direct connection of the W&OD Trail across N. Sycamore Street. May include an overpass of N. Sycamore Street and the East Falls Church Metrorail stations’ south parking area. Also identified in the East Falls Church Area Plan.” (page 51, 2-04)
• Four Mile Run and W&OD Trail Improvements In Benjamin Banneker Park, “Renovate trails within the park and
widen the primary sections of the Four Mile Run and W&OD Trails pavements to 12 feet. Widen the W&OD Trail to 10 feet wide north of Four Mile Run towards N. Tuckahoe St. and incorporate modified signs, new markings to enhance safety and reduce conflicts between users.” (page 48, 1-02)
2.2 East Falls Church Area Plan (2011) This plan, adopted in April 2011, had several references and recommendations regarding the W&OD Trail in the study area and cited as a major goal to “Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections in and through the area”. The plan went on to say that “A major asset of the East Falls Church area is the W&OD Trail … In the East Falls Church area, the trail is
N
Study Area Boundary
3
discontinuous, requiring passage along short segments of local streets.” It also noted that “traffic on arterial streets such as Sycamore St. during peak periods is quite heavy” (Page 21). It included a recommendation for a new metro station entrance and stated that “Any new station entrance should be designed to have convenient access for pedestrians and good connections for cyclists to the W&OD Trail and nearby on-street bicycle facilities” (Recommendation 14, Page 74 & 75). Finally, it included a recommendation to “Undertake a study of options, in cooperation with the City of Falls Church and the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, to connect the W&OD Trail from west of Lee Highway to east of Sycamore St., including possible grade separations.” (Recommendation 32, Page 80).
2.3 Banneker Park Master Plan and Construction The Benjamin Banneker Park Project includes: Capital Maintenance renovations of existing park amenities, which include parking, circulation, dog park, athletic field and playground, as well as redesigning and constructing the segment of the Four Mile Run and W&OD Trail that runs through the park. Benjamin Banneker Park and the trail through it is currently closed for construction. Construction began in December 2019 and will continue through the 3rd Quarter 2020. Parking will be restricted to facilitate construction. Additional details on the trail detour during construction is provided in the existing conditions assessment section below.
2.4 NOVA Parks Dual Trail Projects NOVA Parks has been establishing a strategy to proactively plan for widening or creating a dual trail (i.e. separate trails for bicyclists and pedestrians) on the W&OD Trail for the last several years. A dual trail is currently in the design phase for a one-mile segment of the W&OD Trail in the City of Falls Church. NOVA Parks is currently applying for funding for widened and dual trails in Arlington County. Toole Design worked with NOVA Parks to develop detailed feasibility studies in the City of Falls Church and in Arlington County for these projects. These two segments, totaling over three miles, are just east and west of the East Falls Church Connection Alternatives Analysis study area.
2.5 I-66 Eastbound Widening Project W&OD Immediately beyond the study area to the west, the I-66 Eastbound Widening Project includes construction of a new W&OD Trail Bridge over Lee Highway (Route 29) separating trail users from motorists at the signalized intersection of Lee Highway and Fairfax Drive. The new bridge will improve operations at nearby intersections on Lee Highway and enhance safety for both trail users and motorists. This bridge is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in Fall 2020. Construction of the bridge requires a detour for the W&OD Trail, which is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Detour for W&OD Trail Bridge Construction over I-66
4
3. Existing Conditions Assessment The existing conditions assessment is based on a review of the previous plans and on-going projects described above, and a site visit which occurred on Friday, December 20th, 2019. The purpose of the site visit was to verify conditions and note potential design challenges or opportunities. The site visit was attended by members of Arlington County, NOVA Parks Department, Virginia Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and Toole Design. Toole Design created a base map using geographic information system (GIS) data and aerial photography provided by Arlington County for reference during the site visit. An annotated aerial with cross-sections of key streets and notes from this field meeting are included as attachments to this memorandum.
3.1 Study Area Land Uses The study area includes residential and recreational land uses and a metro station. The residential neighborhood within the study area is comprised of single-family homes, zoned R-6, on local streets. The study area also includes the East Falls Church Metrorail Station, the Park & Ride lot, and the Kiss & Ride Lot for short-term parking and metro user drop-off/pick-up. Based on the East Falls Church Area Plan, over 170,000 passengers use this metrorail station annually and it provides area residents with a convenient transit connection to the rest of the region by way of the Metrorail’s Orange Line. The station is located in the median of I-66. The East Falls Church Area Plan states, “The only station entrance, located on Sycamore St. at the station’s east end, is uninviting and unattractive and residents find the station entrance location to be inconvenient”. This station is one of Metrorail’s most popular for bicycle access, with more than 100 bicycles routinely parked at the station during the day. Benjamin Banneker Park, an 11-acre park lies in the southern portion of the project area. This park provides a variety of recreational facilities, including a soccer field, dog park, picnic area, and playground. A trail system which connects to the W&OD Trail and a section of the Four Mile Run go through the park.
3.2 Trail Routing Prior to Benjamin Banneker Park Construction Prior to the Banneker Park construction, the official route for the W&OD Trail was along 19th Rd. N. and N. Tuckahoe St. However, most bicyclists using the trail avoided 19th Rd. N. and traveled on either N Underwood St. or N. Van Buren St. to/from Benjamin Banneker Park to connect to the W&OD Trail. The result of these multiple routes through the study area is that bicyclists crossed 19th St. N. in several locations, creating several conflict points between motorists and bicyclists. There have also been complaints from residents about conflicts between motorists entering/exiting driveways and bicyclists.
3.3 Banneker Park Construction & Detour W&OD Trail traffic is being detoured with detour signs through the signalized intersections of N. Sycamore St. and 19th St. N. and along 19th St. N, N Tuckahoe St. and 19th Rd. N. An approximately 9-foot wide two-way separated bike lane has been installed using temporary traffic barrier, pavement markings, and signs along the south side of 19th St. between N. Tuckahoe St. and the Sycamore St. intersection (see Figure 5). Prior to the detour, the intersection of 19th St N. and N Tuckahoe St. had stop signs on N Tuckahoe St. only. During the detour, the intersection been converted to an all-way stop. County staff had considered other options for the detour. One option was similar to the current detour, but had bicyclists sharing the lane on 19th St. N. Another option had bicyclists crossing Sycamore St. at a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon south of 19th St. and using sidewalk on Sycamore St. While there have been some complaints from the neighborhood about back-ups on 19th St. N., the option that is currently in place has been identified by the County as the best option for the trail users and there are no plans to change the current detour.
The current detour for the Banneker Park Construction also provides a detour for the on-street bike route that connects to the City of Falls Church via Van Buren St. (see Figure 6).
5
Figure 5. Picture of temporary detour along 19th St. N. as it approaches intersection with N. Sycamore St.
Figure 6. Detour for Benjamin Banneker Park Construction
6
3.4 Residential Streets Typical Sections The residential street network is comprised of low-speed roads (25 mph) with sidewalks on at least one side of the street and on-street parking on one or both sides of the street. See the following table for street classification, roadway widths, and existing roadway features. Typical cross-sections for 19th Rd N. and 19th St N. are provided in the annotated aerial in the attachments section.
Street Name Classification Width Parking Sidewalk
19th Rd. N. Urban Local 30 ft* North side: 2-hr Parking South side: Permit Parking only
North side: 5 ft South side: None
19th St. N. Urban Collector
36 ft* N. Sycamore St. to N. Tuckahoe St.: No parking
N. Tuckahoe St. and N. Underwood St.: Permit Parking only
North side: 6 ft South side: 4 ft
N. Tuckahoe St. Urban Local 30 ft* East side: no parking
West side: Permit Parking only
East side: 5 ft West side: 5 ft
N. Underwood St. Urban Local 30 ft* Permit Parking only both sides East side: 4 ft West side: 4 ft
*All streets have 18-inch gutter pan included in this width
3.5 Signal at 19th St. N./N. Sycamore St. The existing signal at 19th St. N./N. Sycamore St. includes pedestrian signals with countdown timers on all approaches. There is a leading pedestrian interval for pedestrians crossing N. Sycamore St. With the current detour, bicyclists follow the motor vehicle signal heads and motorists turning right from 19th St. N. must yield to bicyclists crossing N. Sycamore St. The Sycamore/19th St. intersection has protected/permitted phasing for left-turns from N. Sycamore St. onto 19th St. N. and the I-66 Eastbound On-Ramp. These permissive left-turns require motorists to look for a gap in traffic at the same time as looking for crossing pedestrians. Research has found that motorists are primarily focused on finding a gap in on-coming traffic, and tend not to look for or see pedestrians until they have already begun to turn. The possibility of protected only phasing will be evaluated in the alternative evaluation.
Figure 7 Bicyclist crossing N. Sycamore St. via Banneker Park Detour
7
3.6 Intersection of 19th Rd N and W&OD Trail Recently, a new pedestrian crossing where the W&OD trail enters onto 19th St. N. was constructed. At the time of the site visit, there was no crosswalk in this location. New trail crossing warning signs and pavement markings for a new crosswalk and sidewalk will be added on the southern side. Figure 8 shows the sidewalk under construction during the site visit.
Figure 8. Pedestrian Curb Ramp and Crosswalk Construction at W&OD Trail Entrance onto 19th Rd. N.
3.5 Structural Observations Based on a separate site visit conducted on January 30, 2020, Dadson Consulting, Inc. (DCI), made the following observations:
• The grass/sloped area between I-66/East Falls Church Metro Station and the Kiss and Ride Lot is a potential location for a bridge abutment. The other abutment location to the east of N. Sycamore St. is also feasible. See Notes 1 and 2 on Figure 9.
• The existing median on N. Sycamore St. could be lengthened to provide a location for a bridge center pier to cross N. Sycamore St. See Note 3 on Figure 9.
• The amount of underground and overhead structures on/near the I-66 on-ramp east of N. Sycamore St. makes it challenging to place an abutment or pier in that area. See Note 4 on Figure 9.
• There may be an opportunity to cross over the I-66 on-ramp approximately 100 to 200 feet east of N. Sycamore St. See Note 5 on Figure 9.
• Depending upon the final alignment of the bridge, a bridge over the Four Mile Run may be necessary. See Note 6 on Figure 9.
8
Figure 9. Structural Observations Map
4. Next Steps The existing conditions field walk identified several opportunities and challenges for a trail connection at the East Falls Church Metro station. Arlington County identified two alternatives; an on-road connection on 19th St. N. and N. Tuckahoe Street, and a flyover bridge alternative. Both alternatives will be mapped and evaluated based on accessibility, connectivity, user comfort and safety, environmental considerations, constructability, and cost. Based on the data collected and analyzed, Toole Design will work with Arlington County and NOVA Parks staff to develop these two concept designs with cost estimates for the next phase of this project. DCI will provide a high-level plan and cost estimate for the potential overpass alternative.
9
ATTACHMENTS • Annotative Base Map Exhibit
• Field Visit Meeting Minutes
270
280
290
290
280
270
280
310 300
290
290
270 270
300
300
300
280
310
280
280
290
300
300
290
280
270
260310
300
290
310
310
310
N. UNDERWO
OD ST.
N. VAN BUREN ST.
19TH ST N.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
W&OD TRAIL
N. R
OO
SEVELT ST.CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY ON-RAMP
19TH RD N.
18TH ST N.
N. SYCAMORE ST.
N. TUCKAHOE ST.
19TH
RD
N.
NOVA PARKSWIDENING STUDY
BANNEKER PARKCONSTRUCTION
BENJAMINBANNEKERPARK
W&OD TRAIL
EAST FALLSCHURCH METROSTATION
FAIRFAX D
R.
B
B
AA
I-66 BRIDGEPROJECT
SWM PONDTRANSMISSION
WIRESSTRUCTURE
TRANSMISSIONWIRESSTRUCTURE
TEMPORARYSEPARATED BIKELANE
TEMPORARYALL-WAY STOP
RECENT TRAILCROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS
PARKING 2 TRAVEL LANES
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
N. TUCKAHOE ST.
5'
SIDEWALK
5'
SIDEWALK
WALL
2 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
19TH ST. N. WITH BIKE DETOUR
6'SIDEWALK
6'SIDEWALK9' BIKE LANE
3 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
19TH ST. N. PRIOR TO DETOUR
6'SIDEWALK
6'SIDEWALK
N
OVERALL MAPSCALE: 1 IN = 100 FT
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
1/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED:
PREPARED:
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
50250 100
EXISTING W&OD TRAIL
TYPICAL SECTION A-A
TYPICAL SECTION B-B
TYPICAL SECTION B-B
MEETING MINUTES W&OD East Falls Church Connection Kick Off /Site Visit
Friday, December 20, 2019
1. Attendees Gideon Berger – Arlington DES Transportation, Supervisor of Transportation Planning Jessica Mirr – Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Dept of Transportation Planning Norman Whitaker – Virginia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Director, VDOT NoVA Mike DePue – NOVA Department of Parks and Recreation Andrea Reese – NOVA Department of Parks and Recreation Tina Fink - Toole Design Stacie Desai - Toole Design
Notes
2. Project Overview/Introductions Attendees introduced themselves. Attendees invited, but not available to attend included: Ritch Viola, from Arlington DES Transportation, Kevin Stalica, from Arlington DES Transportation, and Daniel Dadson, from Dadson Consulting (Toole Design’s structural subconsultant). Tina Fink discussed the purpose of the site visit and gave a project overview. This project is a feasibility study to determine options to better serve the W&OD Trail through this gap in the trail. The trail is otherwise a continuous off-road facility along its entire 45-mile length. The project includes an existing conditions analysis and developing alternatives – one on-street or street-adjacent option within the street right of way and one bridge option. Toole will be providing meeting materials for the County to present to various stakeholders for feedback, including those who attended the field meeting.
3. Project Background Gideon Berger and Tina Fink provided project background. This study serves as a first step to develop a capital project for the County’s CIP process. The project purpose is to provide the missing piece of the W&OD trail which is an important connection near the East Falls Church Metro Station. In this area, near Sycamore Street, the W&OD Trail gets routed onto local streets and goes through Benjamin Banneker Park. High volumes of vehicular traffic, bicycles and runners, as well as a lack of complete sidewalks have resulted in the neighborhood asking for relief. A TLC grant has been established for a feasibility study for a trail connection. A potential overpass at Sycamore Street should be considered.
Current projects in the area include a 9-month complete redo of Benjamin Banneker Park which will have a detour condition during construction. Construction will continue through 3rd Quarter 2020. This work will upgrade the trail in the park, but will not address the missing connection. Another local project under construction is the bridge at Lee Highway being constructed for VDOT. A detour for the W&OD Trail is currently in place.
2
4. Site Walk Toole Design led the group on a site walk in the following order.
• Signalized intersection at 19th Street N & Sycamore – the team observed the current detour in place for the Banneker Park Construction project. Despite the cold weather, there were a fair number of cyclists using the detour. Mike DePue noted that on a nice day this section of the W&OD trail sees approximately 2,500-3,000 users. Gideon Berger expressed concerns regarding the bike movement through the very busy intersection with impatient drivers on the entrance ramp to I-66. Gideon also mentioned that the County’s signal team is going to continue to monitor the intersection safety and operation during the detour. Tina noted that there is a Leading Pedestrian Interval for pedestrians crossing Sycamore Street; however, bicyclist follow the motor vehicle signals.
• Walking Tour – The group continued walking up 19th Street toward N. Tuckahoe St and observed the temporary 4-way stop at the 19th Street/N. Tuckahoe St intersection. Gideon stated that the neighbors are happy with the 4-way stop and have been requesting a 4-way stop for some time. The County Engineers have concerns about warrants and making this a permanent condition. Toole asked if Gideon/Ritch can check to see if any traffic studies were done for this area. The group continued along 19th Street, turned right onto N. Van Buren St, and made a left on 19th Rd. Along 19th Then the group entered onto the W&OD Trail and walked the trail along I-66 until it joined 19th Rd. We stopped at the corner of 19th Rd and Tuckahoe St. to discuss bridge alignment options/constructability.
• Bridge Alignment Options/Constructability - The team discussed possible bridge options. Arlington County mentioned that they are looking for this as a second, high cost option; potentially being a two-span structure. Toole Design will coordinate with Dadson to see what is feasible/constructible. Mike DePue asked how much structural design would be included in this feasibility study. Would there be any geotechnical design? Would Dadson look at whether footers can be constructed in the stormwater management area between I-66 and the entrance ramp? Toole confirmed that a high-level cost estimate would accompany a bridge option. It was discussed that the current underpass of the W&OD trail under Sycamore Street could be an option for a possible alignment. It was noted that the residents in this area have had resistance to this idea in the past (calling it their meadow). Additional details assessing the existing conditions regarding a potential bridge alignment will be included in the existing conditions memorandum.
5. Wrap Up/Next Steps The following tasks and next steps were determined.
• Toole Design will coordinate with Dadson to discuss the findings of the site visit and talk about structural options.
• Toole Design will ask Ritch Viola about politics, ownership, and history of the project area. Toole Design will also ask Ritch if there are any traffic studies for the 19th St/Tuckahoe Intersection.
MEETING MINUTES W&OD East Falls Church Connection Potential Alignment Discussion
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
1. Attendees Ritch Viola – Arlington Department of Environmental Services (DES) Transportation, Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs Manager Gideon Berger – Arlington DES Transportation, Supervisor of Transportation Planning Walter Gonzalez – Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation David Patton – Arlington DES Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner Henry Dunbar – Bike Arlington, Director Operations for Active Transportation Jessica Mirr – MWCOG, Dept. of Transportation Planning, GIS Analyst II Heidi Mitter – Virginia Department of Transportation - NoVA, Transportation Planner, Multimodal Andrea Reese – NOVA Parks, Land Planning and Grants Tina Fink - Toole Design, Senior Traffic Engineer Stacie Desai - Toole Design, Project Engineer
Notes
2. Project Background/Purpose Attendees introduced themselves. Attendees invited, but not available to attend included: Daniel Dadson, from Dadson Consulting (Toole Design’s structural subconsultant) and Mike DePue, NOVA Parks. Tina Fink gave a project overview. This project is a feasibility study to determine options to better serve the W&OD Trail through a gap in the trail near the East Falls Church Metro Station. In this area, near Sycamore Street, the W&OD Trail gets routed onto local streets, which are not equipped to handle the current trail volumes. The project includes an existing conditions analysis, and developing and evaluating on-road and off-road alternatives. In analyzing alternatives, it is important to look at the overall connectivity for through users but also the local connectivity to the metro station, bike lanes on Sycamore Street, and the neighborhood.
3. Update/Schedule Toole provided an update on the project schedule:
• Site Visit on December 20, 2019 • Submitted Existing Conditions Memo to Arlington County on February 4, 2020. Toole Design
is currently revising the memo to address comments and will resubmit and distribute to the group.
• Toole Design has been coordinating with our sub-consultant, Dadson Consulting, to brainstorm structural options.
2
• After this meeting, Toole will refine alignments, develop a comparison matrix, and create presentation materials for a follow-up meeting with additional stakeholders.
4. Alternatives/Discussion
• On-Road alternatives – Toole presented the on-road alignments and presented the cross-section (see attached exhibits). There were two on-street alignments presented. Along each of these alignments, there could be a shared-use path and a combination of a separated bike lane and a sidewalk.
o The group discussed the preference of a shared-use path for both bicyclists and pedestrians versus separation of users with bikes in an on-road separated bike lane and pedestrians on a widened sidewalk. The group expressed that separation of users was preferred especially given the on-going efforts by NOVA Parks to provide an improved and widened trail. NOVA Parks is in the final design stages for expanding the trail to provide separate pedestrian and bicycle paths in the City of Falls Church, just west of this project area. They are also in the process of securing funding for either trail widening or separate trails, depending upon site constraints, in Arlington County, just west of this project area.
o The group discussed alignments on the north versus the south side of 19th St N. An alignment along the north side would have conflicts with the WMATA kiss
and ride entrances. It would also require most trail users to cross 19th St N at the signalized intersection. There is more space available behind the existing curb on the north side, making it easier to install a wider shared-use path on the north side.
An alignment on the south side would have conflicts with an existing driveway that is located behind the existing sidewalk. This alignment would have trail users crossing 19th Street N at the intersection of 19th St N/Tuckahoe St. With this alignment, making the all-way stop at the 19th St N/Tuckahoe St permanent should be considered.
o Regardless of which on-street alignment is chosen, improvements to the signal at Sycamore St and 19th St should be considered. Improvements may include: protected-only left-turn phasing for Sycamore St and tightening geometry on southeast corner. The group discussed the need for one or two lanes on 19th St N approaching signalized intersection. This will need to be discussed with the Arlington County signal staff.
o Ritch asked Toole to consider an on-road option that continues down N. Tuckahoe St. This option would require reconfiguring the street and eliminating parking but would improve an area where sidewalks are currently missing.
o A high-quality on-road solution will be important regardless of whether the bridge is built because it provides connections to other bikeways, the metro station and surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, even if the bridge is pursued, the timeframe of constructing the bridge much longer term than the on-road option. Gideon’s recommendation to the County was that two capital projects are necessary. A short term on-road project for better access and a second long-term bridge project for better mobility. The County should be prepared to provide rationale for why both projects are needed.
3
• Structural alternatives – Toole presented the three structure options (see attached exhibit for options).
o The group agreed that options 1 (shown in pink) and 2 (shown in orange) were the preferred options. For Option 3 (shown in blue), the steep down grade to an at grade crossing at the Sycamore/19th/I-66 on-ramp was not an ideal configuration. Henry referred to a similar situation on the Custis Trail where it crosses the intersection of Lee Highway & North Lynn Street, which has been named to as the “Intersection of Doom” because of the frequency of crashes.
o The team asked Toole Design to investigate another structural alignment which follows the existing W&OD trail, along Tuckahoe Street, crossing over the WMATA kiss and ride lot and the signalized intersection of Sycamore and 19th Street. Toole Design will discuss this option with Dadson Consulting. Putting bridge piers in the WMATA parking lot may not be feasible.
o Several other potential bridge alignments were discussed; however, many of them were eliminated because it was not possible to achieve accessible grades.
o Toole also suggested that a staircase connecting to the metro station would be an important consideration for access to the station. Toole has not yet discussed this with structural engineer and will follow-up on this and other topics.
o The potential impacts to the Resource Protection Area (RPA) around the Four Mile Run was discussed. Toole will add “RPA Impacts” to the evaluation criteria.
• Other discussion topics included: o The potential limitation regarding installing a bridge immediately adjacent to I-66 was
discussed. Toole will add available right-of-way/limited access line information to the plans. Heidi will follow-up on the history of widening in this location, including previous environmental documentation.
o The current lane configuration at the on-ramp to I-66. It was concluded that the two lanes are likely in place to accommodate staging when ramp metering is in use during the peak periods.
o The group discussed the following evaluation criteria to use when analyzing alternatives: tree impacts, RPA impacts, cost, right-of-way, driveway conflicts, modal conflicts, separation of users, directness of connection, parking impacts.
5. Wrap Up/Next Steps The following tasks and next steps were determined.
• Toole Design will coordinate with Dadson to discuss the structural options, including a new alignment and the potential of a staircase.
• Toole Design will locate and show parcel information on the plan to understand ownership when considering alternatives.
• Toole will make final revisions to existing conditions memo and send to the group. • Toole will further explore potential alignments and generate a comparison matrix which will
be shared with the County and then the larger group. • Heidi Mitter will investigate the history/previous discussions of I-66 widening.
270
280
290
290
280
27028
0
310 300
290
290
270 270
300
300
300
280
310
280
290
310 N. TUCKAHOE ST.
19TH ST N.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
W&OD TRAILN
. RO
OSEVELT ST.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY ON-RAMP
19TH RD N.
N. SYCAMORE ST.
N. TUCKAHOE ST.
EAST FALLSCHURCHMETROSTATION
ESTIMATED LOCATION OF
TRANSMISSION WIRES
SWM POND
CANTILEVER
SIGN
STRUCTURE
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
ESTIMATED LOCATION OF
TRANSMISSION WIRES
ESTIMATED LOCATION OFOVERHEAD WIRES
APPROX. BASE OFTRANSMISSION POLE
APPROX. BASE OFTRANSMISSION POLE
OPTION 1
ALL ELEVATED STRUCTURE
OPTION 3AT-GRADECROSSING ATINTERSECTION
R=22'
V=10 MPH
36'
30'
30'
N
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
3/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED:
PREPARED:
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
50250 100
PLAN SHEET1 IN = 50 FT
EXISTING W&OD TRAIL
STRUCTURAL OPTION 2STRUCTURAL OPTION 1
ASSUMED DESIGN SPEED: 18 MPH (MIN RADIUS = 60')
280 EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION (FROM GIS)
STRUCTURAL OPTION 3ON-ROAD OPTION 1 (NORTH SIDE)ON-ROAD OPTION 2 (SOUTH SIDE)
2 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
EXISTING 19TH ST. N. WITH BIKE DETOUR
6'S/W9' BIKE LN
3'BUFFER
4'BUFFER
4'S/W
3 TRAVEL LANES
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
19TH ST. N. WITH PROPOSED SUP
ON SOUTH SIDE
6'S/W
4'BUFFER
19TH ST. N. WITH PROPOSED SBL
ON SOUTH SIDE
10'THRU
10'THRU
11'SUP
6'S/W
14' BIKE LN
3'BUFFER
4'BUFFER
4'S/W 2 TRAVEL LANES
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
10'THRU
10'THRU
2'BUFFER
2'BUFFER
10'RT TURN
3 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
EXISTING 19TH ST. N. PRIOR TO DETOUR
6'S/W
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
4'BUFFER
3 TRAVEL LANES
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
19TH ST. N. WITH PROPOSED SUPON NORTH SIDE
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
10'RT TURN
10'THRU
10'THRU
2'BUFFER 14'
SHARED USE PATH
2 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
19TH ST. N. WITH PROPOSED SBLON NORTH SIDE
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
10'THRU
10'THRU
4'BUFFER
12'BIKE LN
2'BUFFER
8'S/W
TYPICAL SECTIONS
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
3/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED:
PREPARED:
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
50250 100
SCALE: 1 IN = 10 FT
MEETING MINUTES W&OD East Falls Church Connection Study Presentation
Thursday, April 23, 2020
1. Attendees Ritch Viola – Arlington Department of Environmental Services (DES) Transportation, Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs Manager Sarah Crawford – Arlington DES Transportation, Assistant Director of Transportation Valerie Mosley – Arlington DES Transportation, Transportation Planning & Capital Projects Management Bureau Chief Dan Nabors - Arlington DES Transportation, Engineering and Operation Design Manager Walter Gonzalez – Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation Adam Lipera - Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation, Urban Forester Irena Lazic - Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation, Long Range Park Planning Section Supervisor Bob Upton – Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation, Trails and Park Manager David Patton – Arlington DES Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner Jessica Mirr – MWCOG, Dept. of Transportation Planning, GIS Analyst II Heidi Mitter – Virginia Department of Transportation - NoVA, Transportation Planner, Multimodal Andrea Reese – NOVA Parks, Land Planning and Grants Mike DePue - NOVA Parks, Land Manager Tina Fink - Toole Design, Senior Traffic Engineer Stacie Desai - Toole Design, Project Engineer
Notes
2. Project Background/Purpose Attendees introduced themselves. This project is a feasibility study to determine options to better serve the W&OD Trail through a gap in the trail near the East Falls Church Metro Station. In this area, near Sycamore Street, the W&OD Trail gets routed onto local streets, which are not equipped to handle the current trail volumes. The project includes an existing conditions analysis, and developing and evaluating on-road and off-road alternatives. The objective of this meeting is to narrow down alignments to one preferred structural alignment and one preferred on-road alignment.
3. Discussion/Questions Ritch and Tina provided an overview of the project including project scope and schedule. Tina provided an overview of all the alignments and explained the evaluation criteria, descriptions, and ratings key that were used in comparing alternatives.
2
Structural Alignments
Tina then presented each structural alignment and evaluation criteria rankings, which was followed by a discussion:
• Trees – Toole posed a discussion question to the group: Are impacts to trees and the Resource Protection Area worth a more direct route?
o Andrea noted that trees are very important to the community and will be an important factor.
o Adam suggested doing a tree study to evaluate the quality of trees which would be impacted.
o Valerie agreed that it is important to understand the type of trees before ranking alternatives.
o Irena said natural resources need to be assessed and the County will need to perform an analysis in the future. She noted that the timber switchbacks on Structural Alignments 2 and 5 would prevent future development in the park.
o Toole (Stacie and Tina) explained that the switch back is needed to achieve ADA grades. Toole used either a grade of 5% or 8% with level landing areas. Mike mentioned that NOVA Parks prefers 3% grade but would be okay with ADA in constrained locations.
• WMATA Parking Lot – Alignments 4 and 5 would require piers in the WMATA parking lot. Is this a concern? Valerie asked if WMATA has been involved in discussions. Without having a representative from WMATA on the call, it is hard to determine whether this is an issue. Toole explained that WMATA has not been involved in this study.
• Overhead power lines – Valerie was concerned about the proximity of the overhead power lines. Adam used to work for Dominion Energy and knows the transmission specialist in this area. He can give us his contact information. He said Dominion has strict horizontal clearance requirements, especially with transmission lines.
• Bridge construction along I-66 – Alignments 1, 2, and 3 would construct a bridge parallel to I-66. Does VDOT have concerns with this? Heidi does not see any immediate concerns since it would be a separate structure. Mike also noted that NOVA Parks aims for a 20’ clear area on the bridge (total width of 24’). The Lee Highway Bridge was limited in width because of the proximity to Dominion lines.
• Alternate ideas suggested: o Sarah suggested an alternate route along the I-66 on-ramp. Does VDOT need two lanes
on the on-ramp or can a trail be cantilevered on the southern side of the on-ramp? Can the trail use the on-ramp alignment to avoid tree impact and connect down with the trail where the tree coverage is less? Toole to ask structural engineer about feasibility. Toole to follow-up with Heidi about this option.
o Mike asked about an alignment that follows the green space along the western side of Sycamore Street. Toole to follow-up on this option in the final report.
After the discussion period, the group used mentimeter to rank their preferences for structural alignments. With 11 attendees responding, the following is the order of preferred alignments; Alignment 4, Alignment 1, Alignment 2, Alignment 3, Alignment 5. (See attached results) Based on these results, it appears that attendees preferred alignments that did not follow a switch back in the park area east of Sycamore Street.
3
On-Road Alignments
Tina then presented each on-road alignment and evaluation criteria rankings. There was not enough time for a discussion of on-road alignments. Toole asked the group to rank preferences or the on-road alternatives and list questions in the chat. With 6 attended responding, the following is the order of preferred alignments; Alignment 2A, Alignment 3A, Alignment 1A, Alignment 2B, Alignment 3B. Alignment 1B. (See attached results) . Based on these results, it appears that attendees that responded preferred options with separated bike lanes over options with shared use paths. Toole will follow up with Ritch to provide answers and next steps to the group.
4. Wrap Up/Next Steps The following tasks and next steps were determined.
• Toole Design will provide the power point materials to the group. PowerPoint is attached to these meeting minutes.
• Toole Design will coordinate with Ritch to determine the next steps in producing concepts for the preferred alternative and the final report.
Attachments PowerPoint Presentation
Mentimeter Results
W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
April 23, 2020
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Logistics Welcome everyone! First, some
logistics: Please rename yourself in zoom.
Two options: Everyone is muted by default to avoid
people talking over each other. You can unmute yourself at any time.
You can ask questions using the “Raise Hand” or entering questions into Chat
Or move your cursor over your image, select the “…” that appears in the top right, select Rename.
Right click over your name in the participants window, and Rename.
Introductions Project Background Project Scope & Alignments Overview Structural Alignments Review & Discussion On-road Alignments Review & Discussion Wrap-up/Next steps
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Meeting Outline
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Introductions Let us know: Name
Organization
Position/Title
Name the last time you were on a trail and what you were doing
Project Background
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection 4/23/2020
Project Purpose & Need Only gap in 45-mile W&OD Trail
Trail users must use on-street connections via Benjamin Banneker Park Detour in place
(through May 2020) due to park construction
N. Tuckahoe St south of 19th
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
S. Tuckahoe Street
N. Tuckahoe St north of 19th St. N
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
S. Tuckahoe Street
N. Underwood St
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
S. Tuckahoe Street
N. Van Buren St.
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Current Detour
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
W&OD Trail Daily volumes range between 800 in
winter to 2,500 in summer Based on counts in June 2019,
Shared-Use Path Level of Service: LOS D or E on weekdays
LOS E or F on weekends
Data from continuous counter located near the Custis Trail during a period from 12/2019 through 4/2019
Project Purpose Provide high-quality
regional trail connection Improve local access to
Metro station, other bikeways and neighborhoods
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Study Area Boundary
Project Scope & Alignments Overview
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Project Scope Site Visit – Complete (December 2019) Existing Conditions Memo – Complete (February 2020) Preliminary Alignments Meeting – Complete (March 2020) Alignments Review Meeting – TODAY Objective: select one structural and one on-road alignment for further
development
Final Report with Preferred Alignments – Upcoming (May 2020)
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Alignments Overview 5 Structural Alignments 3 On-Road Alignments
with two options each Separated Bike Lane
Shared-Use Path
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Evaluation CriteriaRegional Connectivity
Local Connectivity
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users
Driveway Conflicts
Property and Utility Concerns
Parking Impacts
Tree Impacts
Resource Protection Area Impacts
Cost
Evaluation Criteria
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Evaluation Criteria DescriptionsRegional Connectivity How well does the alignment provide a direct and regional connection?
Local Connectivity What is the quality of connections to nearby bike lanes, neighborhood destinations, and metro station?
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users What is the degree of conflict between trail users and motor vehicles at intersections?
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users How well are pedestrians and bicyclists separated?
Driveway Conflicts What is the degree of driveway conflicts?
Property and Utility Concerns What is the degree of property and utility conflicts?
Parking Impacts What is the degree of parking removal required?
Tree Impacts What is the degree of trees impacted?
Resource Protection Area Impacts What is the degree of impacts to the RPA?
Cost What is the level of expense?
Evaluation Criteria & Descriptions
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Evaluation Criteria Ratings Key Each alternative ranked using one of four ratings for each criteria
Ratings Key
Poor Fair Good Great
Significant Some Minor None
$$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$ or $
BestWorst
Structural Alignments
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Structural Alignment 1
Regional Connectivity Great
Local Connectivity Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users None
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Good
Driveway Conflicts None
Property and Utility Conerns Some
Parking Impacts None
Tree Impacts Significant
Resource Protection Area Impacts Some
Cost $$$$$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Structural Alignment 1All-elevated structure
Steel Bridge Examples
Structural Alignment 2
Regional Connectivity Good
Local Connectivity Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users None
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Good
Driveway Conflicts None
Property and Utility Conerns Some
Parking Impacts None
Tree Impacts Some
Resource Protection Area Impacts Some
Cost $$$$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Structural Alignment 2Elevated over
Sycamore St. and I-66 on-ramp
Timber Boardwalk/Bridge Examples
Structural Alignment 3
Regional Connectivity Good
Local Connectivity Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users Some
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Good
Driveway Conflicts None
Property and Utility Conerns Some
Parking Impacts None
Tree Impacts Significant
Resource Protection Area Impacts None
Cost $$$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Structural Alignment 3Elevated over
Sycamore St. only
Tree Impacts Some
Structural Alignment 4
Regional Connectivity Great
Local Connectivity Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users
None
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users
Good
Driveway Conflicts None
Property and Utility Conerns
Some
Parking Impacts None
Tree Impacts Some
Resource Protection Area Impacts
Some
Cost $$$$$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Structural Alignment 4Elevated over kiss and ride lot, Sycamore St.
and I-66 on-ramp
Tree Impacts Significant
Resource Protection Area Impacts Some
Structural Alignment 5
Regional Connectivity Good
Local Connectivity Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users None
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Good
Driveway Conflicts None
Property and Utility Conerns Some
Parking Impacts None
Tree Impacts Significant
Resource Protection Area Impacts Some
Cost $$$$$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Structural Alignment 5Elevated over kiss and ride lot, Sycamore St.
and I-66 on-ramp
Tree Impacts Some
R P t ti
DiscussionThere are more environmental impacts and a higher construction cost associated with Alignments 1 and 4.
Are those impacts/costs worth providing a more direct route?
DiscussionAlignments 1, 2, and 3 result in constructing a parallel structure along I-66.
Does this present any concerns?
DiscussionAlignments 4 and 5 require building piers in the WMATA parking lot.
Are there concerns about piers in their lot?
Which structural alignment do you prefer?(rank all options)
On-Road Alignments
4/23/2020 W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
19th St. NOn-Road Alignment 1 (North side)
19th St. NOn-Road Alignment 1 (North side) Option 1A
Separated Bike Lane
Option 1BShared Use
Path
Regional Connectivity Fair Fair
Local Connectivity Great Great
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users Some Some
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Great Fair
Driveway Conflicts Significant Significant
Property and Utility Conerns Minor Minor
Parking Impacts None None
Tree Impacts None None
Resource Protection Area Impacts None None
Cost $ $$
EVALUATION CRITERIA
On-Road Alignment 1
19th St. NOn-Road Alignment 2 (South side)
19th St. NOn-Road Alignment 2 (South side) Option 2A
Separated Bike Lane
Option 2BShared Use
Path
Regional Connectivity Fair Fair
Local Connectivity Great Great
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users Some Some
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Great Fair
Driveway Conflicts Minor Minor
Property and Utility Conerns Minor Minor
Parking Impacts None None
Tree Impacts None None
Resource Protection Area Impacts None None
Cost $ $$
On-Road Alignment 2EVALUATION
CRITERIA
N Tuckahoe St.On-Road Alignment 3
N Tuckahoe St.On-Road Alignment 3 Option 3A
Separated Bike Lane
Option 3BShared Use
Path
Regional Connectivity Poor Poor
Local Connectivity Good Good
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users Minor Minor
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users Great Fair
Driveway Conflicts Significant Significant
Property and Utility Conerns Minor Some
Parking Impacts Some Some
Tree Impacts None None
Resource Protection Area Impacts None None
Cost $ $$
On-Road Alignment 3EVALUATION
CRITERIA
N Tuckahoe St.All Alignments
All options for N. Tuckahoe St show converting street to one-way to maintain some/all parking.
Is it preferable to keep the street two-way and remove more parking or convert to one-way?
On-Road Discussion
On 19th St. N, options with separated bike lanes require removing a motor vehicle travel lane approaching Sycamore St. signal.
Is removing the motor vehicle travel lane worth improved separation and comfort for trail users?
On-Road Discussion
N
Alignment 3 avoids crossing at the signal, but has circuitous routing, more driveway conflicts, more impacts to parking, and lower quality local connections.
Do you think it’s worth these trade offs to avoid the crossing signal?
On-Road Discussion
Alignment 1 has two crossings at the signal at N. Sycamore St./19th St. N.
Alignment 2 has one crossing at the signal and one crossing at 19th St. N./N. Tuckahoe St.
Is one of these alignments better for conflicts between motorists and trail users?
On-Road Discussion
Which on-road alignment do you prefer?(rank all options)
Wrap-up/Next steps
Evaluation Matrix – All Options
Attachment B. Detailed Evaluation Matrix
Option 1ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 1BShared Use Path
Option 2ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 2BShared Use Path
Option 3ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 3BShared Use Path
Poor Great Good Good Great Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor PoorForces trail users to travel on a circuitous route into Benjamin Banneker Park and on residential streets
Provides most direct regional connection from east to west ends of study area.
Provides improved regional connection, but travel users are forced to make
several turns as they cross Four Mile Run and I-66 on-ramp
Provides improved regional connection, but travel users are forced to make
several turns as they cross Four Mile Run
Provides most direct regional connection from east to west ends of study area.
Provides improved regional connection, but travel users are forced to make
several turns as they cross Four Mile Run and I-66 on-ramp
Forces trail users to travel on or adjacent to streets (combination
of collector and local streets)
Forces trail users to travel on or adjacent to streets (combination
of collector and local streets)
Forces trail users to travel on or adjacent to streets (combination
of collector and local streets)
Forces trail users to travel on or adjacent to streets (combination
of collector and local streets)
Forces trail users to travel on a circuitous route into Benjamin
Banneker Park and on residential streets
Forces trail users to travel on a circuitous route into Benjamin
Banneker Park and on residential streets
Good Good Good Good Good Good Great Great Great Great Good GoodNeighborhood streets
with missing and substandard sidewalks
unable to accommodate large volume of trail users
There is an opportunity for a staircase from the bridge to the sidewalk to provide direct access to the Metro
station. Bikes can use a runnel (bike channel) on staircase or use on-street
alignment to access Metro Station.
There is an opportunity for a staircase from the bridge to the sidewalk to provide direct access to the Metro
station. Bikes can use a runnel (bike channel) on staircase or use on-street
alignment to access Metro Station.
There is an opportunity for a staircase from the bridge to the sidewalk to provide direct access to the Metro
station. Bikes can use a runnel (bike channel) on staircase or use on-street
alignment to access Metro Station.
Trail users can use existing staircase near Kiss-&Ride Lot. Add runnel to staircase.
Trail users can use existing staircase near Kiss-&Ride Lot. Add runnel to staircase.
More direct connection to bike lanes on Sycamore St. and
Metro Station
More direct connection to bike lanes on Sycamore St. and
Metro Station
More direct connection to bike lanes on Sycamore St. and
Metro Station
More direct connection to bike lanes on Sycamore St. and
Metro Station
More direct connection to W&OD trail at Benjamin
Banneker Park
More direct connection to W&OD trail at Benjamin
Banneker Park
Some None None Some None None Some Some Some Some Minor Minor
Conflicts at unsignalized intersection of
Tuckahoe/19th St N intersection
Conflict at crosswalk at Sycamore/19th St./I-66 ramp Intersection
Conflict at 2 crosswalks at Sycamore/19th St. signalized
Intersection
Conflict at 2 crosswalks at Sycamore/19th St. signalized
Intersection
Conflicts at unsignalized intersection of Tuckahoe/19th St
N intersection. Conflicts at 1 crosswalk at Sycamore/19th St.
signalized intersection
Conflicts at unsignalized intersection of Tuckahoe/19th St
N intersection. Conflicts at 1 crosswalk at Sycamore/19th St.
signalized intersection
Conflicts at unsignalized intersection of Tuckahoe/19th St
N intersection
Conflicts at unsignalized intersection of Tuckahoe/19th St
N intersection
Poor Good Good Good Good Good Great Fair Great Fair Great FairBikes on-street and and
pedestrians on incomplete sidewalks
Bikes and pedestrians mix on 24-foot wide bridge, which provides 20 ft of
usable space, or 4 functional travel lanes
Bikes and pedestrians mix on 24-foot wide bridge, which provides 20 ft of
usable space, or 4 functional travel lanes
Bikes and pedestrians mix on 24-foot wide bridge, which provides 20 ft of
usable space, or 4 functional travel lanes
Bikes and pedestrians mix on 24-foot wide bridge, which provides 20 ft of
usable space, or 4 functional travel lanes
Bikes and pedestrians mix on 24-foot wide bridge, which provides 20 ft of
usable space, or 4 functional travel lanes
Bikes in separated bike lane, pedestrians on sidewalk
Bikes and pedestrians mix on a 14 foot shared-use path, which
functionally provides 3 lanes
Bikes in separated bike lane, pedestrians on sidewalk
Bikes and pedestrians mix on a 11-14 foot shared-use path,
which functionally provides 3 lanes
Bikes in separated bike lane, pedestrians on sidewalk
Bikes and pedestrians mix on a 14 foot shared-use path, which
functionally provides 3 lanes
Ratings KEY
Poor Fair Good Great
Significant Some Minor None
$$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$ $ Page 1 of 2
W&OD EAST FALLS CHURCH METRO CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MATRIX
Separation and Comfort of Trail Users
ALIGNMENTSStructural Alignment 5Elevated over kiss and
ride lot, Sycamore St. and I-66 on-ramp
On-Road Alignment 1 East side of N. Tuckahoe St. &
North side of 19th St.
On-Road Alignment 2 East side of N. Tuckahoe St. &
South side of 19th St.
On-Road Alignment 3 East side of N. &
East side of S. Tuckahoe St.
Vehicle Conflicts with Vulnerable Users
Local Connectivity
Regional Connectivity
Structural Alignment 1All-elevated structure
Structural Alignment 2Elevated over Sycamore
St. and I-66 on-ramp
Structural Alignment 3Elevated over Sycamore
St. only
Structural Alignment 4Elevated over Kiss&Ride lot, Sycamore St., Four Mile Run, and I-66 on-
ramp
Existing
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Option 1ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 1BShared Use Path
Option 2ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 2BShared Use Path
Option 3ASeparated Bike Lane
Option 3BShared Use Path
Some None None None None None Significant Significant Minor Minor Significant Significant
14 private driveways in conflict
Conflicts with metro parking lot entrance
Conflicts with metro parking lot entrance
One private driveway in conflict. One private driveway in conflict. Six private driveways in conflict Six private driveways in conflict
None Some Some Some Some Some Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Some
Impacts VDOT ROW at SWM area Impacts VDOT ROW at SWM area Impacts VDOT ROW at SWM area
None None None None None None None None None None Some Some
N. Tuckahoe St. is converted to one-way to reduce impacts to
parking.
N. Tuckahoe St. is converted to one-way to reduce impacts to
parking.
N. Tuckahoe St. is converted to one-way to reduce impacts to
parking.
N. Tuckahoe St. is converted to one-way to reduce impacts to
parking.
Eliminates parking along west side of S. Tuckahoe St.
Road converted to one-way
Eliminates parking along west side of S. Tuckahoe St.
Road converted to one-way
None None None Some None None Significant Some Significant Some Some Some * Requires phase separation or other
signal changes for one (1) crosswalk at signal
* Requires phase separation or other signal changes for two (2)
crosswalks at signal* Requires removing travel lane on 19th Street approach signal*Requires converting Tuckahoe
north of 19th Street to one-way.
* Requires phase separation or other signal changes for two (2)
crosswalks at signal* Requires converting Tuckahoe north of 19th Street to one-way.
* Requires phase separation or other signal changes for one (1)
crosswalk at signal* Requires removing travel lane on 19th Street approach signal* May require improvements to
19th/Tuckahoe Street intersection
*Requires converting Tuckahoe north of 19th Street to one-way.
* Requires phase separation or other signal changes for one (1)
crosswalk at signal* May require improvements to
19th/Tuckahoe Street intersection
*Requires converting Tuckahoe north of 19th Street to one-way.
* Requires improvements to19th/Tuckahoe Street
intersection* Requires all of N. Tuckahoe
Street between 19th Road and 18th Street to one-way.
* Requires improvements to19th/Tuckahoe Street
intersection* Requires all of N. Tuckahoe
Street between 19th Road and 18th Street to one-way.
None Significant Some Some Significant Some None None None None None None
Impacts to trees in stormwater management area between I-66 on-ramp and Sycamore Street and trees
near Four Mile Run.
Impacts to trees in stormwater management area between I-66 on-
ramp and Sycamore Street
Impacts to trees in stormwater management area between I-66 on-
ramp and Sycamore Street.
Impacts to trees in stormwater management area between I-66 on-ramp and Sycamore Street and trees
near Four Mile Run.
Impacts to trees in stormwater management area between I-66 on-ramp and Sycamore Street and trees
near Four Mile Run.
None Some Some None Some Some None None None None None None
Crosses over Four Mile Run RPA Slightly impacts Four Mile Run RPA Slightly impacts Four Mile Run RPA Slightly impacts Four Mile Run RPA
N/A $$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$
Includes bridges over N. Sycamore St., I-66 On-ramp, and Four Mile Run.
Requires approximately 5 concrete piers, 2 abutments, 1 wingwall, 2 retaining
walls, 2 steel bridges, 1 timber bridge, and 2 timber ramps.
Includes bridges over N. Sycamore St. and I-66 On-ramp. Requires
approximately 3 concrete piers, 2 abutments, 1 wingwall, 2 retaining walls,
2 steel bridges, and 2 timber ramps.
Includes bridge over N. Sycamore St. only. Requires approximately 1 concrete
pier, 2 abutments, 1 wingwall, 2 retaining walls, 1 steel bridge, and 1
timber ramps.
Includes bridge over Kiss&Ride lot and N. Sycamore Street. Requires approximately
4 concrete piers, 1 abutment, 3 steel bridges and 1 timber bridge.
Ratings KEY
Poor Fair Good Great
Significant Some Minor None
$$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$ $ Page 2 of 2
Structural Alignment 5Elevated over kiss and
ride lot, Sycamore St. and I-66 on-ramp
On-Road Alignment 1 East side of N. Tuckahoe St. &
North side of 19th St.
On-Road Alignment 2 East side of N. Tuckahoe St. &
South side of 19th St.
On-Road Alignment 3 East side of N. &
East side of S. Tuckahoe St.
Cost
Parking Impacts
Resource Protection Area Impacts
Traffic Impacts
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Existing Structural Alignment 1All-elevated structure
Structural Alignment 2Elevated over Sycamore
St. and I-66 on-ramp
Structural Alignment 3Elevated over Sycamore
St. only
Structural Alignment 4Elevated over Kiss&Ride lot, Sycamore St., Four Mile Run, and I-66 on-
ramp
Tree Impacts
Driveway Conflicts
Property and Utility Concerns
Includes bridge over Kiss&Ride lot and N. Sycamore Street. Requires approximately
4 concrete piers, 1 abutment, 3 steel bridges and 1 timber ramp.
Attachment C. On-Road Alignments and Options Typical Sections
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH 30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
6'S/W
4'BUFFER
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
10' RTTURN LANE
10' TRAVELLANE
10' TRAVELLANE
2'BUFFER
14'SHARED USE PATH
10' TRAVELLANE
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
3'BUFFER
12'BIKE LN
2'BUFFER
8'S/W
10' TRAVELLANE
11'SHARED USE PATH
6'S/W
12' BIKELANE
3'BUFFER
4'BUFFER
4'S/W
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
10' TRAVELLANE
2'BUFFER
3'BUFFER
10' RTTURN LANE
19TH ST. N. (LOOKING WEST)
EXISTING
OPTION 1A(SEPARATED BIKE LANE)
OPTION 1B(SHARED-USE PATH)
10' TRAVELLANE
10' TRAVELLANE
10' TRAVELLANE
OPTION 2A(SEPARATED BIKE LANE)
OPTION 2B(SHARED-USE PATH)
3 TRAVEL LANES
36' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
6'S/W
3'BUFFER
4'S/W
4'BUFFER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
4/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED: CF
PREPARED: SD
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
TS-1
1 3
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
5'S/W
WALL
6'4'
BUFFER5'
S/W
N. TUCKHOE ST. NORTH OF 19TH ST. N. (LOOKING NORTH)
EXISTING
OPTIONS 1A, 2A, AND 3A(SEPARATED BIKE LANE)
OPTIONS 1B, 2B, AND 3B(SHARED-USE PATH)
18' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
WALL
4'BUFFER
5'S/W
7'PARKING
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
WALL
4'BUFFER
5'S/W
3'BUFFER
14'SHARED USE PATH
2'BUFFER 9' BIKE
LANE11' TRAVEL
LANE
5'S/W
6'
7'PARKING
11' TRAVELLANE
6'
8'PARKING
11' TRAVELLANE
11' TRAVELLANE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
4/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED: CF
PREPARED: SD
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
TS-2
2 3
PARKING
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
VARIESS/W
30' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
VARIESBUFFER
TRAVEL LANES PARKING
20' OVERALL ROADWAY WIDTH
4'BUFFER
14'SHARED USE PATH
N. TUCKAHOE ST. SOUTH OF 19TH ST. N. (LOOKING NORTH)
EXISTING
OPTION 3A(SEPARATED BIKE LANE)
OPTION 3B(SHARED-USE PATH)
9'PARKING
11' TRAVELLANE
7'PARKING
2'BUFFER 9' BIKE
LANE11' TRAVEL
LANE
EXISTINGUTILITY POLE
VARIESS/W
VARIESBUFFER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
4/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED: CF
PREPARED: SD
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
TS-3
3 3
Attachment D. Structural Preferred Alternative Conceptual Design
270
280
290
290
280
27028
0
310 300
290
290
270 270
300
300
300
280
310
280
290
310 N. TUCKAHOE ST.
19TH ST N.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY.
W&OD TRAILN
. RO
OSEVELT ST.
CUSTIS MEMORIAL PKWY ON-RAMP
19TH RD N.
N. SYCAMO
RE ST.N. TUCKAHOE ST.
EAST FALLSCHURCHMETROSTATION
R60.
00
R60.00 SWM POND
CANTILEVER
SIGN
STRUCTURE
R60
.00
R10
0.00
OPTION 1
R200.00ESTIMATED LOCATION OFOVERHEAD WIRES
APPROX. BASE OFTRANSMISSION POLE
APPROX. BASE OFTRANSMISSION POLE
OPTION 1
ALL ELEVATED STRUCTURE
R60.00
R60.00
500 LF BEGINNINGAFTER ON-RAMPEL 280+18.5 = 298.5298.5-272/530 = 5.0%
26'
N
W&O
D T
RAI
L EA
ST F
ALLS
CH
UR
CH
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
ALTE
RN
ATIV
ES A
NAL
YSIS
ARLI
NG
TON
CO
UN
TY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
4/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED: CF
PREPARED: SD
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GEO
RG
IA A
VEN
UE,
SU
ITE
800,
SIL
VER
SPR
ING
, MD
209
10PH
ON
E: (3
01) 9
27-1
900
FAX
: (3
01) 9
27-2
800
ww
w.to
oled
esig
n.co
m
PLAN SHEET1 IN = 50 FT
EXISTING W&OD TRAIL
ALIGNMENT OPTION 2ALIGNMENT OPTION 1
ASSUMED DESIGN SPEED: 18 MPH (MIN RADIUS = 60')
280 EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION (FROM GIS)
ALIGNMENT OPTION 3
Bridge Data
4 in. Concrete Slab over Corrugated S.I.P. Forms
Bridge 1 Span: 160'-0" First Main Truss Span over N Sycamore St
Bridge Span 2: 50'-0" Second Main Truss Span over Ramp
Bridge Width: 24'-0" Clear Rail to Rail
Boardwalk Length: 860.0 ft
Bridge Deck Area: 5460 sq. ft.
Superstructure Cost Estimate
Item Description
Total
Quantity Unit
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Mobilization 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
Crane Rental 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Deck Concrete - Bridge 67 C.Y. $800.00 $53,926
Slab Concrete - Ramp 58 C.Y. $800.00 $46,222
160 ft Prefabricated Steel Truss 4320 S.F. $200.00 $864,000
50 ft Prefabricated Steel Truss 1350 S.F. $200.00 $270,000
Railing - Ramp 360 LF $40.00 $14,400
Reinforcing Mesh 6x6 - Deck 1,802 LBS. $3.00 $5,405
Reinforcing Mesh 6x6 - Ramp 1,544 LBS. $3.00 $4,633
Post 6x6 1,577 L.F. $9.50 $14,978
Railing Boards 2x10 1,720 L.F. $5.50 $9,460
Railing Boards 4x6 4,012 L.F. $7.50 $30,090
Railing Boards 6x8 2,581 L.F. $11.00 $28,391
Deck Boards 3x8 35,776 L.F. $6.80 $243,277
Stringers 6x14 22,704 L.F. $26.50 $601,656
Floor Beam 8x16 2,200 L.F. $55.00 $121,000
Total Cost of Superstructure: $2,347,438
Unit Cost of Superstructure: $430
W&OD Trail East Falls Church Connection
Prefabricated Steel Truss Pedestrian Bridge & Timber Boardwalk
Substructure Cost Estimate
Item Description
Total
Quantity Unit
Unit
Price
Total
Price
Abutment Concrete 107 C.Y. $800.00 $85,333
Pier Concrete 34 C.Y. $800.00 $27,470
Concrete Retaining Wall -Ramp 454 C.Y. $800.00 $363,022
3 Rows of 86 - 12"φ Timber Pile 258 Each $1,200.00 $309,600
Bracing 2x8 3,510 L.F. $10.50 $36,855
3' Drilled Shaft 630 LF $500.00 $315,000
Pier Protection 50 C.Y. $800.00 $40,000
Structure Excavation 30 C.Y. $100.00 $3,000
BPPS 47 C.Y. $800.00 $37,333
Structure Fill 2,133 C.Y. $150.00 $320,000
M.O.T. 1 L.S. $40,000.00 $40,000
Reinforcing Bars Abutment & Pier 21,151 LBS. $2.00 $42,301
Total Cost of Substructure: $1,619,914
Unit Cost of Substructure: $297
Bridge Cost (Superstr. + Substr.) : $3,967,352
Unit Bridge Cost : $726.62 per ft2
Utility Coordination LS $100,000.00
Survey LS $50,000.00
Engineering Design LS $750,000.00
Contingencies (30%) : $1,460,206
Total Bridge Cost : $6,327,558
Unit Bridge Cost (w/contingency) : $1,158.89 per ft2
Total Cost of Pedestrian Bridge & Boardwalk $6,327,558
Attachment E. On-Road Preferred Alternative Conceptual Design
19TH ST N.
N. TUCKAHOE ST.
N. TUCKAHOE ST.
N. SYCAMORE ST.
CURTIS MEMORIAL
PKWY ON-RAMP
PARKING11' TRAVEL LANE
9' BIKE LANE
2' BUFFER
10' TRAVEL LANE
12' BIKE LANE3' BUFFER
10' TRAVEL LANE
EXIST SIDEWALK
EXIST GRASS
ONE-WAY AHEAD SIGNS TO BEPLACED AT 19TH RD/N.UNDERWOOD ST. INTERSECTION
19TH RD N.
EXISTINGDRIVEWAYENTRANCE
WMATAEAST FALLSCHURCHMETROPARKINGLOT
W&OD TRAIL
EXISTING GREENBIKE LANE
FLEXIBLECHANNELIZERPOST (TYP.)
BIKE CONFLICTCROSSING
6" WHITE(TYP.) 10' C.C.
BIKE LANEMARKING(TYP.)
BEGINS
EXISTING CROSSWALK, RAMP,AND SIDEWALK CONNECTIONRECENTLY CONSTRUCTED
PROPOSE14' WIDESIDEWALK
20'
BIKE CONFLICTCROSSING
EXISTING STOP SIGNTO REMAIN
EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN
EXISTING NO PARKINGSIGNS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING PARKINGSIGNS TO REMAIN
STOPONE WAY
ONE WAY
RECOMMEND 4-WAYPERMANENT STOP
STOP
14'
NOTURN
ON RED
NOTURN
ON RED
EXCEPT
INSTALL NEWCURB RAMPS
4" YELLOW DASHED LINE
NOPARKING
ANYTIME
RECOMMEND INSTALLINGRUNNEL ON EXISTINGSTAIRCASE FOR BIKEACCESS TO METRO, BIKEPARKING, AND BIKE SHARESTATION.
4" YELLOW DASHED LINE RECOMMEND BIKE SIGNALSEE FINAL MEMORANDUMFOR ADDITIONAL DETAILSON SIGNALIZATIONIMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
APPROX. LOCATION OFEXISTING PEDESTRIANCROSSING. ADJUSTCUT THRU IN MEDIANTO ACCOMMODATEFUTURE CROSSWALK
FOR NORTHBOUNDSYCAMORE ST N.
APPROX.LOCATION OF
EXISTING INLET
NOTE: PEDESTRIAN RECALL IS RECOMMENDED FOR TRAILCROSSING. IF PEDESTRIAN RECALL IS NOT PROVIDED,PASSIVE DETECTION (E.G. LOOPS, VIDEO) IS RECOMMENDEDAND BICYCLE DETECTOR MARKINGS AND BICYCLE DETECTORSIGN SHOULD BE PROVIDED. A SEPARATE PUSH BUTTON FORBICYCLISTS CAN BE PROVIDED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THEPASSIVE DETECTION.
APPROX.LOCATIONOF EXISTINGPEDESTRIANCROSSING
RECOMMEND PROVIDING WAYFINDING SIGNS. REFER TOARLINGTON COUNTY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDINGSTUDY PHASE 2 PACKAGE THAT TOOLE DESIGN PREPARED IN2014.
FOR EASTBOUND19 ST N.
STOP
ONE WAY
STOP
BEGINS
ENDS
CROSSWALK USE
PARKING
STOP
PARKING
PARKING
N
PLAN SHEETSCALE: 1 IN = 20 FT
W&
OD
TR
AIL
EA
ST
FALL
SC
HU
RC
H C
ON
NE
CTI
ON
ALT
ER
NA
TIV
ES
AN
ALY
SIS
AR
LIN
GTO
N C
OU
NTY
SHEET NAME
SHEET NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
6/2020DATE
REV 1
-REV. 2
REV. 3 -
-
CHECKED: CF
PREPARED: SD
OF NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8484
GE
OR
GIA
AV
EN
UE
, SU
ITE
800
, SIL
VE
R S
PR
ING
, MD
209
10P
HO
NE
: (30
1) 9
27-1
900
FA
X:
(301
) 927
-280
0w
ww
.tool
edes
ign.
com
EXISTING W&OD TRAIL
1 1
20100 40
W&OD East Falls Church Connection Alternatives AnalysisOpinion of Probable Cost
Toole DesignJune 2020
Proposed Separated Bike Lane with Buffer along N. Tuckahoe and N. 19th StreetsItem Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total CostSite PreparationPavement Removal SY 67 $40 $2,667Curb Removal LF 100 $15 $1,500
Pavement and Curb ItemsMill and Overlay SY 2756 $20 $55,111Curb LF 135 $40 $5,400Curb ramp with detectable warning surface EA 1 $1,500 $1,500Concrete Sidewalk SY 100 $80 $8,000
Pavement Marking/Signs
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking WhiteLines (4") LF 780 $1 $780Thermoplastic Pavement Marking WhiteBuffer Lines (6") LF 1,140 $1 $1,140Thermoplastic Pavement Marking White Lines (12") LF 456 $5 $2,280Thermoplastic Pavement Marking White Lines (24") LF 75 $8 $600Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Yellow Lines (4") LF 202 $1 $202Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Yellow Lines (6") LF 330 $1 $330Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 8 $250 $2,000Cycle Lane Coating, Green SF 648 $10 $6,480Manufacture & Install Sign and Post EA 16 $300 $4,800Flexible delineators EA 14 $60 $840Bike signal heads EA 2 $10,000 $20,000
Subtotal $113,700Lump Sum Item AssumptionsMaintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $11,370 $11,370
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $11,370 $11,370
Landscaping (10%) LS 1.00 $11,370 $11,370
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $11,370 $11,370
Subtotal $45,500
Mobilization and Startup Costs (5%) 1 LS $7,960 $7,960
Total $167,160
30% Contingency $50,200 Total Estimated Cost $218,000
Assumptions:
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the concept plan. A 30% contingency has been applied to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown prior to design. Unit costs are based on 2020 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from VDOT. This cost opinion does not include design or engineering; signal adjustments; landscaping and other amenities; easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection, or construction management; escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is provided for the Client’s information, and is based on the design professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known at the time of preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or market conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the opinion as compared to actual bids or cost to the Client.
Attachment F. Comment-Response Documentation
Submittal: DRAFT Final Memorandum
Project Name: W&OD East Falls Church Connection Alternatives Analysis
1 General Arlington County Dept. of Parks and Rec. We did our review of the materials and we didn't have any issues. Our concerns were addressed and reiterated in the document and as part of the next steps. N
2
General NOVA Parks NOVA Parks continues its preference to avoid creating new permanent at-grade crossings for the W&OD Trail. For that reason we will prefer a structural rather than an on-road alignment for the future permanent choice at East Falls Church. That said, we understand that the county prefers to route the W&OD separately from the trails in Benjamin Banneker Park if possible, and we understand the physical constraints as well. This is a thoughtful analysis of the options at East Falls Church and we very much look forward to working with you to implement a more continuous and connective route in the future. Thanks to the county for undertaking the study and involving us!
A Additional text added to section 4.4 to emphasize NOVA Parks preference to avoid creating a permanent at-grade crossing.
3
VDOT - Traffic EngineeringStructural Preferred Alternative - Timber is probably not the best choice for railing and superstructure over live traffic and may prove to be more challenging to maintain. D
Proposed pedestrian bridge over roadway does not use timber. Pedestrian bridges over roadway and ramp are prefabricated steel trusses. Timber is proposed for land ramps/elevated trail.
4 VDOT - Traffic Engineering Structural Preferred Alternative - Center Pier will need to be shielded by Concrete Barrier. R VDOT bridge pier protection BPPS will be proposed for preliminary and final design.
5 VDOT - Traffic Engineering Structural Preferred Alternative - Proposed structure also limits VDOTs ability to widen the highway and/or on-ramp in the future. N
6
VDOT - Traffic Engineering On-road Preferred Alternative Suggestions - Based on how the two way bike and two way vehicles segment is striped and signed, I did not find this scheme to be compliant with the MUTCD, FHWA guidance for separated facilities or NACTO guidance. It appears to be a hybrid scheme and may potentially violate driver expectation at intersections where turning vehicles may collide with turning cyclists or even cyclists colliding with peds in some locations.
A
Plans have been updated to remove turning arrow in separated bike lane, to add a "Bikes Use Crosswalk" sign, and "Bike Lanes Begin" signs to clarify the right of way. Additionally, the all-way stop configuration at the intersection helps reduce speeds so users are more aware of other users.
7
VDOT - Traffic EngineeringOn-road Preferred Alternative Suggestions - Recommend evaluating intersection delay after adding bike phase. R
This will be addressed during preliminary design, which will occur after this initial feasibility study is complete. A "Traffic and Parking Study" has been added to the list of next steps.
8
VDOT - Traffic EngineeringOn-road Preferred Alternative Suggestions - There are one or two other on-road options that appear safer for all users. N
As noted in the memorandum: "While these two preferred alignments were advanced to conceptual design, other options can continue to be explored as this project advances past this initial analysis."
9 VDOT - Planning I don't have comments from Planning at this time given our agreement on the goals and merits of having a better trail connection - and that much of the infrastructure is Arlington maintained. N
10
General
VDOT - Location & Design From Heidi: Assuming the bridge does not provide access to I-66, CTB approval is not required for this break in Limited Access right-of-way (I-66 Ramp). If it did provide some access to I-66:Adding a pedestrian facility inside the existing limited access right-of-way of the I-66 ramp requires action by the Commonwealth Transportation Board per Code of Virginia. If so, please add this to the report. (Comment classified as "Required")
N
11
Memo page 10, Attachment D
VDOT - Location & Design If VDOT is maintaining the proposed W&OD overpass, the minimum vertical clearance between N Sycamore Street and a proposed shared use path/trail bridge shall be 17’-6” per the VDOT Manual of the Structure and Bridge Division Page 06.04-7 regardless of the existing vertical clearance of the I-66 bridges.
If the proposed bridge is being maintained by others, the minimum vertical clearance shall meet AASHTO standards regardless of the existing vertical clearance of the I-66 bridges.(Comment classified as "Required")
RFinal profile not currently developed at this phase. Minimum vertical clearance of 17'-6" over N. Sycamore will be included as requirement for preliminary and final design.
12 11, Attachment EVDOT - Location & Design The decision to make the 19th Street N/N Tuckahoe Street intersection an all-way stop is deferred to
Arlington County since they maintain both streets. (Comment classified as "Clarification")N
1311, 12, Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design If the at-grade intersection improvement option is chosen, please coordinate the proposed intersection improvements with VDOT Central Office to confirm if an Interchange Modification Report (IMR) type of safety and operational analysis is needed per IIM-LD-200.9.Heidi: given the I-66 On-Ramp as part of the Intersection. (Comment classified as "Clarification")
N The "Traffic and Parking" will mention the need to determine if an IMR is needed.
14 4VDOT - Location & Design It is suggested to use the correct red/white/blue interstate route shield for “I-66” instead of the incorrect
“US 66” route shield. (Comment classified as "'Recommended") A
15 Attachment CVDOT - Location & Design Review of the typical sections in Attachment C is deferred to Arlington County since they maintain the
streets shown. (Comment classified as "Clarification") N
16Attachment D
VDOT - Location & Design Please consult VDOT Structure & Bridge to see if a Bridge Pier Protection System (BPPS) is required in the median of N Sycamore Street per LRFD guidelines. (Comment classified as "Required") R
BPPS will be required due to traffic count and horizontal clearance. BPPS will be included in the requirements for preliminary design.
Comment - Response Documentation
Item Number CommentsDrawing No. or Page No.* Agency ResponseInitial Code #
CODE
A = Accept Comment - Correct, Add to, or Clarify plansD = Dismiss CommentC = Clarify or Discuss and resolve prior to next design phaseR = Resolve comment in next design phaseN = Comment noted, no action required
20_06_30 Comment Responses on Final Report Page 1 of 3
Item Number CommentsDrawing No. or Page No.* Agency ResponseInitial Code #
17
Memo page 8, Attachment D
VDOT - Location & Design With the proposed trail being at approximate elevation 300’ over N Sycamore Street and having to remain at approximate elevation 300’ to cross the I-66 ramp, the area in the between has to be supported by retaining walls on both sides due to the existing elevations of adjacent N Sycamore Street and the existing SWM pond.Please clarify if the remainder of the alignment shown in Attachment D will be on “…timber piles and ramps where it is not crossing over roads…” as stated on Page 8 of the memorandum. Please consider adding a clarifying note to the Attachment D plan exhibit if this is true. (Comment classified as "Clarification")
D
Portion of trail between East Abutment and prefab truss bridge over I-66 on-ramp is proposed to be constructed with timber boardwalk. Timber boardwalk provides the least disturbance and open structure that blends with surrounding.
18Attachment D
VDOT - Location & Design The existing guardrail on the left side of the I-66 ramp may have to be upgraded to BPPS/barrier depending on the final location of the proposed bridge abutment. (Comment classified as "Required") R VDOT bridge pier protection BPPS will be proposed for
preliminary and final design.
19 General VDOT - Location & Design Please depict existing limited access right-of-way on future plan view exhibit its as this is an additional
item of coordination.(Comment classified as "Required") R This will be addressed during preliminary design, which will occur after this initial feasibility study is complete.
20 Attachment DVDOT - Location & Design The cost estimate was not reviewed, however, please consider Comments #11, #16, #17, and #18 when
evaluating if the estimate needs to be updated. (Comment classified as "Clarification") A Cost estimate will be adjusted to reflect additional retaining wall system at the East Abutment.
21Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design With the pavement width being reduced around the 19th Road N/N Tuckahoe Street sharp curve, parking in the curve may need to be restricted to accommodate vehicle off tracking and to provide sufficient sight distance per AASHTO Chapter 3. (Comment classified as "Required")
A/R
The plans have been revised to more clearly show existing parking restrictions along 19th Rd N/N Tuckahoe St. The sight distance and off-tracking will need to be evaluated in more detail during preliminary design.
22
Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design
Northbound N Tuckahoe Street (mislabeled S Tuckahoe Street) needs to be configured in a way that discourages traffic from continuing straight across 19th Street North and discourages right turns into the separated 19th Street North bicycle lanes.(Comment classified as "Required")
R
N Tuckahoe St label is updated. There is a "DO NOT ENTER" sign for northbound N Tuckahoe St. During preliminary design, an additional sign below the stop sign for N Tuckahoe St to indicate that only a left and right turn are allowed could be added. During primary design, additional design treatments (such as a yellow flex post) can be explored to discourage motorists from entering the separated bike lanes.
23
Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design
The lane shift for 19th Street North through traffic in the N Tuckahoe Street intersection does not meet MUTCD requirements (L=WS2/60) and the transition work needs to be extended on the west side of the intersection accordingly.(Comment classified as "Required")
A
Given that motorists will be stopped at the stop signs, motorists will not be traveling at speeds close to the posted speed limit, which significantly reduces the transition lengths needed. The current transition is approximately 60 feet, which works out to a speed of 20 mph, which is higher than motorists will be traveling through the intersection. The plans have been updated to show dotted extension lines to clarify to eastbound and westbound motorists their required path of travel.
24Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design When lane/pavement width is reduced at Arlington County maintained intersections, turning movement checks are strongly recommended to ensure that the design vehicle can still make the turning movements without encroaching into the lanes of oncoming traffic. (Comment classified as "'Recommended")
R This will be addressed during preliminary design, which will occur after this initial feasibility study is complete.
25Attachment E
VDOT - Location & Design If the horizontal location of the curb line along the I-66 ramp is being changed, a new curb ramp in each direction of travel will be required per VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix A(1) instead of recommended as stated.(Comment classified as "Required")
AA new curb ramp on the northeast corner has been added to the plans. The note for the curb ramp on the southeast corner has been changed from "recommended" to "install.
26 Attachment EVDOT - Location & Design A no right turn diagrammatic sign (MUTCD R3-1) is needed for Westbound 19th Street North traffic at the
N Tuckahoe Street intersection. (Comment classified as "Required")A
27 Attachment EVDOT - Location & Design The cost estimate was not reviewed, however, please consider Comments #22-#25 when evaluating if the
estimate needs to be updated. (Comment classified as "Clarification") A Cost estimate has been updated.
28
General
Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton)
Overall, this is a thorough and impressive study. You condensed and synthesized a great range of factors and stakeholders to arrive at logical, defensible, and priority-ranked recommendations. The only significant gap in the W&OD deserved this level of attention, and the County thanks Toole Design Group and COG / TPB / TLC for dedicating time and resources to jump-start a solution.
The pursuit of twin tracks for on-road and structural alternatives has evolved naturally into strategies for both short-term and long-term solutions. Proceeding in both directions, and framing / phasing the recommendations makes great sense. Especially in light of NOVA Parks’ reluctance to accept a permanent street-level crossing of Sycamore as a best final solution, it is preferable to see the on-road improvements as provisional. This sets the table for a longer-term engagement, design, and funding challenge to find a structural solution that avoids street-level conflicts entirely.
The move from considering many alternatives to focus on and further refine only one on-road choice and one structural choice is well-presented. That winnowing involved both the polled preferences of stakeholders, as well as expert staff suggestions. The complete range of alternatives might again be opened up, but it had to be narrowed to reach more pointed recommendations.
The study and final memo have adequately addressed and balanced consideration of near and long term approaches; local and regional connectivity; intra-agency (Arlington DES/DPR) and inter-agency (Arlington, NOVA Parks, VDOT) imperatives; and built/natural environments. It may be a shortcoming that WMATA could not be brought into the discussion, but that reflects more on the timetable of this short-term study, than on your aims for completeness. Likewise, the absence of motor vehicle volumes is a
N
20_06_30 Comment Responses on Final Report Page 2 of 3
Item Number CommentsDrawing No. or Page No.* Agency ResponseInitial Code #
29
General
Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton)
My initial impression is that the budget outlined for even a conceptual structural solution is too low. When a single block of engineered sidewalk can cost $500,000, it’s hard to imagine that 1,000’ of combined 24’ wide bridge and boardwalk, regardless the precise alignment, can be constructed for $3.6 M. As a suggestion, it gets things rolling, but my personal feeling (I’m not an engineer) is that an eventual built connection might cost multiples of that amount. For all the reasons laid out in the study, a realistic level of investment can be justified and should be sought.
A
We have revisied the cost, including reviewing unit costs. We also made the following adjustments: bridge pier protection (BPPS) added at N. Sycamore and one side of ramp; prefab bridge over N. Sycamore raised to 17’-6” vertical clearance; height of substructures raised accordingly; unit cost of prefab bridges increased to account bridge location and inflation since unit price used previously was a few years old; and reinforced concrete unit price set uniform. We also added lump sum costs for utility coordination, suvey and engineering design and increased the contingency to 30%.
30 p.3, bottom: Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) “The goal of this project…” duplicates the line from the top of p.2. A
When we started the discussion about alignments, we wanted to remind readers that there are two things that the project is trying to accomplish. The sentence is re-worded to not be a duplicate sentence.
31 p.3, bottom: Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) “primary” should be “primarily” A32 p.3, bottom: Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) “in the time before” could be “until” A33 p.9, end of first bulleted list: Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) Instead of “pervious surfacing,” suggest “pervious surfaces” A
34 p.10 Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) under “Structural preferred alignment,” the sentence about Alignment 4 is awkward. It could perhaps be turned around, to read that Alternative 1 advanced because it avoided extraordinary expenses implicit in pursuing Alignment 4.
A
35 p.12 Arlington County DES, Planning (David Patton) under “additional considerations,” it seems that the volumes of eastbound 19th Street and right-turning northbound Sycamore Street are being conflated. D
This should refer to the eastbound right turns because those are the right-turning motorists that would conflict with trail users when the right-turning motorists have a green light.
36 Arlington County DES, Planning (M. Valerie Mosley)
I suggest adding Traffic & Parking Analysis as an item to explore further in the “6. Next Steps” section. For the on-road options, we need to understand the volumes and parking impacts more thoroughly, and for the structural options we need to better understand the volumes for the I66 on-ramp--I recall that someone asked if the I66 ramp could be narrowed, which could open up more space for Alignment 1.
A
37 Arlington County DES, Planning (M. Valerie Mosley)
I concur with David on the estimated cost for the structural option. How did TDG derive those costs? I anticipated about 2-3 times the current estimate, especially considering the already acknowledged utility constraints. I suggest revisiting the estimate with the engineer and at a minimum increasing the contingency to 30%.
A See response to comment #29
20_06_30 Comment Responses on Final Report Page 3 of 3