Monday, April 28, 2008
 

HOT lanes plans available for public review

As mentioned in an earlier blog entry, the Beltway HOT lanes project public hearings will be held on May 20 & 21. One month before the hearings the current plans for the project must be available to the public for review. We recently rode to the VDOT headquarters, a not very bike-friendly location, to look at the plans. FABB's position has been that VDOT and the HOT lanes contractors Fluor and Transurban should follow the guidelines in the Fairfax County Comprehensive Trails Plan for all reconstructed bridges over the HOT lanes.

We've posted copies of some of the plans online. From our initial review, it appears that most of the Trails Plan facilities are included in the project plans. A summary table of the VDOT and Fairfax Co DOT agreement on bike/ped facilities lists the Trails Plan requirements, the HOT lane team proposals, and the County recommendations, most of which match the Trails Plan. The key text in the document is the last entry, footnote 4: “VDOT concurs with the FCDOT Staff Recommendation.”

There are still some outstanding issues:
  • Leesburg Pike - Route 7—While we are quite sure that multiuse trails will be included on both sides of the bridge, we do not have a copy of those plans.
  • Gallows Road—The planned bike lanes on Gallows Rd do not appear to be included in the plans. Gallows Rd is a major bike commuter route. It is one of the few roads in the county for which funds are available for building bike lanes. It's critical that bike lanes be included on this road.
  • Wakefield bike/ped bridges—This bridge near Wakefield Park is currently 8 feet wide. The new bridge will not be any wider. It should be the same width as the W&OD Trail bridge, 16 feet. At a minimum it needs to be 10 feet, VDOTs standard for a multiuse trail.
Overall we are very encouraged by the inclusion of bike facilities in the plans. All cyclists who are interested in being able to safely cross the Beltway by bicycle should either attend the public hearings and speak out in support of the proposed plans, or send comments by June 5 to Meeting_Comments@VDOT.Virginia.gov.

See the FABB HOT Lanes Summary Page for more in formation.
Comments:
According to AASHTO's _Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities_ which is the basis for VDOT's bikeway design standards, shared-use paths on structures (e.g., bridges and tunnels) should be at least four feet wider than the approaching (10-foot minimum width) paths. This extra width provides a two-foot clear zone in each direction which should buffer the path at all times.

Thus, the bicycle bridges crossing the Beltway should be at least 14 feet wide.
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007