Reimagining the Arlington Expressway
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4356250721_s87LQN9-L.jpg)
Inspired by Boston's Big Dig, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) wants to change the face of the complexion of the Arlington Expressway. Although there's not funding in place, here's a look at what the TPO is considering. We'd love to know your opinion.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-sep-reimagining-the-arlington-expressway
The concept is great. I have serious doubts that a rebuild of the expressway could be done for $45 million....perhaps they are missing a zero ($450 million seems more likely).
I have doubts it can be redone for that cheap as well. However, I'd like to see them push the envelope a bit. If we're going to completely retrofit the street, let's go ahead and add the dedicated bus lanes, floating bus stops (to eliminate bike lane/bus stop conflict points), separated cycle tracks, etc. Let's really make it a corridor where various modes are equally designed for the highest safety, comfort, and accessibility for each respective end user.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/images/figure17.jpg)
Floating bus stops - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page09.cfm
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/images/bus_stop_austin.jpg)
A floating bus stop in Austin, TX
(http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/02/ECR_BRT-Dedicated-PIc-1.jpg)
Rendering of BRT with a dedicated bus lane.
(https://surveymonkey-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/survey/68670861/16442633-8417-4af7-83ac-a4e5bc39fc2d.jpeg)
Cycle track in Long Island City, NY.
why don't their renderings show the bike lanes and other amenities they list?
The bike lane is that narrow strip of asphalt between the outside right turn lane and the through lanes:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4356251049_7ZpRCW2-L.jpg)
If the corridor is rebuilt, it would be good to physically separate the cyclist from vehicles abruptly switching lanes in order to eventually make right turns.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLQD5wkVAAEwonP.jpg)
^An example from the NYDOT.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZl2dxLdFRXP8rsOMyyB4qIXw5SuntcfUzzYPK7Z0IvopsBlc5lA)
Those bike lanes look terrifying. They need a grade separation or physical barrier. What is proposed will only add to pedestrian incidents.
Of the two, I like the second option more. I think they should consider fully-segregated bike lanes. I assume, as opposed to the big dig, they can't just put sections of this underground, huh?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on September 18, 2015, 11:20:44 AM
Those bike lanes look terrifying. They need a grade separation or physical barrier. What is proposed will only add to pedestrian incidents.
Something like this makes more sense:
https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/cycle-superhighway-east-west (https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/cycle-superhighway-east-west)
I assume that if it can be done through central London, it can be done on the Arlington Expressway.
ah, thanks Lake. I totally missed that, but to me that also indicates that they should be separated more clearly.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on September 18, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
ah, thanks Lake. I totally missed that, but to me that also indicates that they should be separated more clearly.
Preach. Not in love with either of these, to be honest. Granted, I think the idea here is what can be done cheap (grade separated stuff usually costs more), but still - don't want to see anyone die in those bike lanes. I also don't think the ped enhancements are great in option 2.
I also think that citing the Big Dig makes sense. For one, it's the exact opposite of something done cheap. Second, they were able to get rid of the highway because they threw the through traffic under ground - very different scenario.
Both of these options just look like your standard 4 to 5 lane each side of a median super corridor that doesn't really enhance any experience for pedestrians. They look identical to Southside Blvd and we all know how pedestrian friendly that corridor is. You have to cross 7 lanes of traffic on one side of the median in some parts. The renderings make it look prettier with the trees and street facing storefronts than what it will turn out to be in my opinion if they go this route. I think there should be a few more progressive ideas incorporated into this concept like the others have mentioned. Plan for 50 years down the road, not 5. It is a very wide corridor, it seems like you could provide separation for different modes to make it safer and more attractive. Also, I like the idea for at least planning for an option for light rail. Maybe dedicated bus lanes that could be converted some day if needed.
So both of these plans will no longer make it an expressway, correct? Either way with no money I guess it's moot, but something like this could be a shot in the arm for the area. With those traffic numbers and these proposed designs, I think the retail would fill up quickly.
Any idea how serious this is? Will money ever show up for this?
Totally agree that these options are not acceptable. The TPO seriously needs to be better than this. The number of lanes should be as low as possible. Are we going to continue to emphasize the automobile or the community? There needs to be great wide sidewalks separated from travel lanes, ideally with green space and trees. Separate the bike lanes.
The current design still looks like the great divide between the two sides of the road. Do they or don't they want to connect the two sides for people, and therefore, for great development?
Quote from: CCMjax on September 18, 2015, 12:46:07 PM
Both of these options just look like your standard 4 to 5 lane each side of a median super corridor that doesn't really enhance any experience for pedestrians. They look identical to Southside Blvd and we all know how pedestrian friendly that corridor is. You have to cross 7 lanes of traffic on one side of the median in some parts. The renderings make it look prettier with the trees and street facing storefronts than what it will turn out to be in my opinion if they go this route. I think there should be a few more progressive ideas incorporated into this concept like the others have mentioned. Plan for 50 years down the road, not 5. It is a very wide corridor, it seems like you could provide separation for different modes to make it safer and more attractive. Also, I like the idea for at least planning for an option for light rail. Maybe dedicated bus lanes that could be converted some day if needed.
Ennis: If the Matthews bridge is only 4 lanes (2 each way), why can't they continue four lanes the entire length of the road? Are they proposing to get rid of the service roads that exist today? Is it better to connect the two sides or put a huge green space in between? I like your ideas below. Again, though, if we want to connect the two sides for peds and bikes, I'm not sure how wide you can get and still accomplish that.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2015, 08:50:10 AM
I have doubts it can be redone for that cheap as well. However, I'd like to see them push the envelope a bit. If we're going to completely retrofit the street, let's go ahead and add the dedicated bus lanes, floating bus stops (to eliminate bike lane/bus stop conflict points), separated cycle tracks, etc. Let's really make it a corridor where various modes are equally designed for the highest safety, comfort, and accessibility for each respective end user.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/images/figure17.jpg)
Floating bus stops - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page09.cfm
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/images/bus_stop_austin.jpg)
A floating bus stop in Austin, TX
(http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/02/ECR_BRT-Dedicated-PIc-1.jpg)
Rendering of BRT with a dedicated bus lane.
(https://surveymonkey-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/survey/68670861/16442633-8417-4af7-83ac-a4e5bc39fc2d.jpeg)
Cycle track in Long Island City, NY.
In the TPO proposals presented, the service drives would no longer exist. Also, at some point in the future, we're going to have to deal with the Mathews Bridge. When that day comes, it (or its replacement) will be widened. As for the median space, I'd suggest if we'd have one, we should utilize it. See example below:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8475/8145840357_04a491fe2b.jpg)
It appears that there's a sidewalk/shared use path in the median of one of the proposals. However, it doesn't appear that goes all the way through the corridor.
If the road will look like your last photo with buildings lining both sides like that, then let's do it. How many lanes wide on each side in that photo? An important point is that the road design has to foster the development so we actually get what we need. As long as you have 8 to 10 foot sidewalks, 10 being better and a buffer between sidewalks and travel lanes, then I really like the median use in this photo.
But if actually gets built leaves the built environment the same as we have now, then we've done the wrong thing.
And why do we have to widen the Matthews? Perhaps if we add one lane for transit only, but otherwise, stop doing the madness. Continuing to widen roads will only lead to more of the same development pattern.
^It's a bottleneck that's not built to today's design standards. Anything new will, so in addition to extra travel lanes, it will most likely come with wider shoulders, bike/led facilities and perhaps a transit envelope. Also, I believe the New York street shown above is four lanes with parallel parking. Last, our zoning code needs to be largely overhauled. I'd be surprised if you could build a mixed-used structure, with zero front yard setbacks, on that strip today.