Nice piece about the most expensive and least effective solution to the problem.

by Cavan on May 19, 2009 10:03 am • link • report

It's good to see some effort for pedestrian infrastructure being made, but if all that money were allocated to some simple signal, crosswalk, and intersection improvements, it probably would have gone much farther.

Here's hoping this is just the start to a larger effort to make 7 Corners more hospitable to its many pedestrians. I'd hate to see this end up like the pedestrian bridge over Holmes Run along Columbia Pike, where a nice, surely-expensive bridge leads to a dead-end sidewalk and a narrow dirt trail along the curb.

by RichardatCourthouse on May 19, 2009 10:25 am • link • report

Nice article. Happy to see something from outside the Beltway. But boy, do I understand what people mean when they talk about government waste. Seriously, 2.6 million for a bridge that looks like a long jail cell?

Sometimes I think that politicians just let projects go over budget on purpose. As an investment to not have to do more in the future.

BTW, I do not think there is an easy solution for all the traffic on US-50 within the Beltway. It is the only alternative for folks and visitors coming from west of town (I-66) to I-66, especially during rush-hour. With increased metro parking rates, it is simply not cost- not time-effective to park & ride (anymore).

I'd like to see if anyone here has a decent solution. Say you're coming from Charlottesville to go to some event in downtown DC. You will spend one night here too. How do you get here?

by Jasper on May 19, 2009 10:36 am • link • report

Jasper, Amtrak? it stops in Charlottsville and DC.

by Bianchi on May 19, 2009 10:47 am • link • report

I'm not convinced this is the MOST expensive solution, that's a bit of unhelpful hyperbole. It's something that works within the constraints of what's already there. If the county were to go all eminent domain and insist the place become a walkable urbanist paradise, there wouldn't be a need for a bridge, but the project would cost a bit more than $2.6 mil.

by NAB on May 19, 2009 10:55 am • link • report

Jasper - it's well inside the beltway.

In general, I'm not sure what is the point of complaining about this. "Least" effective and "most" expensive? Huh? Wondering how many posters / readers have spent any time in this area. It's very very busy, very ugly and very hopeless, minus possibly putting Route 50 in a tunnel or something like that. The pedestrian bridge is a huge improvement over existing conditions. Assuming people use it. Yes, the entire area is probably pretty pedestrian unfriendly. And yes, walking down to Patrick Henry is awfully inconvenient, but so is getting hit by a truck going 50 MPH. I always thought the people standing in the median there, waiting for a chance to dash across three lanes of high speed traffic were simply morons. Especially those dragging young children with them. It's a freaking highway, people. The posted speed limit is 45. You don't belong in the middle of the street. So, with the bridge, the route is there. (Also lots of new fences to try to keep people off the highway.) Hopefully, people will use it and the accidents / fatalities will diminish / disappear. If they do, then $2.6 m is a small price to pay.

As for the northern terminus of the bridge on the south side of the access road. That road goes nowhere and gets very little traffic. Route 50 was the issue.

by Josh on May 19, 2009 11:08 am • link • report

The area is pedestrian unfriendly.

The area is driver unfriendly. Perhaps even more so, which is why people even try to walk across the street (instead of spending 20 minutes driving from one side to the other).

It is a mess because it developed from a small crossroads into a significant shopping/business area that is divided by all those roads. A mall would be far superior and a more sensible plan, but that is not what happened. So one must take the conditions as given and deal with them. If it's expensive, that's life.

by ah on May 19, 2009 11:14 am • link • report

I stand corrected on the 7 corners inside the Beltway thing. Sorry. I meant: Good to see a post from the more outer area.

@ Bianchi: Amtrak? Are you kidding me? I checked at trip next week Tuesday morning and back on Wednesday at night. $91 and 2h50 min travel time in, 2h17 out.

Timewise that's actually comparable to driving, but once you add travel time to and from the stations, it gets less exciting, especially considering how car-dependent C'ville is. Furthermore, there seems to be only one train each way, so you better be on time.

However in my little 2001 Civic it would take me about 8 gallon of gas @$2.20 = $17.60 in gas. Add to that a dime per mile in write off, $23.20, you end up with about $40 for the trip. That leaves me with $50 for parking, insurance, maintaince, AAA membership (ok, AAA gets me $10 off my rail ticket, making it $81) and I am still making a profit. And don't forget that a car doesn't cost more when it takes two people.

And here we have, in short the problem with Amtrak.

Don't get me wrong. I love trains. I have been seriously corrupted by a couple of years of free and heavily discounted transit while I was a student.

by Jasper on May 19, 2009 11:28 am • link • report

Josh, everywhere I've seen a pedestrian bridge over a suburban arterial, that bridge has been empty while pedestrians scramble across the road in its vicinity.

That's what I meant by least effective.

The most effective way to increase pedestrian safety is to put those roads on a diet and redevelop the strip malls into mixed-use human-scale places like Clarendon. Otherwise, you can throw all the supposed pedestrian facilities at the problem and it won't make any difference.

That bridge seems like a great idea from behind a windshield. The thinking is "those stupid pedestrians will now get the heck out of my way!" However, from the pedestrian's viewpoint, it's punishment. Who wants to climb all those stairs just to cross the street? It would take more time to climb the stairs than it would to scramble across the street. Notice how it's a pedestrian bridge and not a detour for the cars in favor of a pedestrian right-of-way.

This pedestrian bridge is an attempt to throw money at a problem that requires planning and political will. Seven corners is an edge city. It has more economic activity than can be supported by an auto-dependent arrangement. It needs an urban plan that will rezone it into a human-scale town with a transit connection (streetcar, ideally) to the Metro. Otherwise, you're just wasting money... just like this bridge.

by Cavan on May 19, 2009 11:30 am • link • report

How many of the illegals who populate that area will use this? Close to none, I bet.

by Montezuma on May 19, 2009 11:39 am • link • report

Cavan, I agree with your points on the bridge itself, but fear that 7 Corners as a whole is a lost cause. Putting Rte 50 in a tunnel, as one person suggested, really seems to be the only way that this whole cluster**** of a mess could be reclaimed for the common pedestrian. It's a giant spaghetti of arterials, access roads, parking lots, strip malls and planning/zoning idiocy. 7 Corners is wholly unpleasant and no one would miss it if the earth opened up and swallowed it in one go. I pity from the bottom of my soul anyone who has to visit that area for any reason.

by iammrben on May 19, 2009 11:50 am • link • report

A ped bridge may not be the "best solution" in terms of making the area more walkable. But it's hard to argue that the bridge isn't the "safest solution". Grade separation wins the safety argument hands-down.

by Froggie on May 19, 2009 11:53 am • link • report

The bridges are a good idea but they usually fail because they take people out of there way in terms of the distance.

Lets take this crossing and the one at pg mall since there the only two i can think of at the moment.

People take the quickest rout from point a to b with these this is not the quickest route. Lets say im directly across the street from the crossing and i want to go direct across the street; Most of these cross do not put you at the exact same spot on the other side the street and if they do it is usually with steps, why would I walk up steps walk across bridge then back down steps when I could just go straight across the street no steps involved.

This bridge also seems to be lacking a elevator Why would I want to travel what seems like an extra 100-300 feet twice to get to the ramp if im in a wheelchair, pushing a stroller or carrying some heavy ass bags or boxes perhaps.

by kk on May 19, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

^

Not if it relegates pedestrians to second-class status and therefore encourages even more driving.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 12:00 pm • link • report

Sorry, my previous post was directed at Froggie. KK was too fast.

This bridge is *something*, and if you're happy with *something* then yeah, good news. If you actually want Seven Corners to be a walkable environment, it doesn't help much.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 12:01 pm • link • report

7 corners is neither walkable nor drivable. I don't really see how drivers have it much better there.

by ah on May 19, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report

Jasper: If you had booked far enough in advance, it looks like you could have gotten those very same Amtrak tickets for $70, or $63 with your AAA membership. Or, if you don't mind taking the bus and arriving in DC at 11:50 instead of 10:10, you could take the bus in and the train back (booking the whole trip through Amtrak) for $57, or $51 with the discount. Or you could take the bus both ways (booking through Greyhound) for $44.

You might have your reasons for not liking any of those options, but they are options.

by Johanna on May 19, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

7 corners is one of the worst places to have to go or transit through in the DC area, hands down. but i don't understand why they went with a ped overpass rather than adding traffic lights, a crosswalk, and some speed bumps. as kk noted, without elevators, the ped overpass is pretty inconvenient for a lot of people.

by AJ on May 19, 2009 12:43 pm • link • report

@ Johanna: So, to travel for a decent price, I need to learn a stack of discount rules comparable to the fee and surcharge list in my credit card agreement? Really? Do you think those are choices? You are correct. But they are also choices that people are not aware of. And hence people do not choose them.

People will only use transit if it is easier and preferably cheaper than driving a car. It just isn't in the current set up. Who wants to book a trip weeks ahead of time? Who wants to hassle through a stack of confusing and restricting options?

What need to happen is that there is a clear overview of the service, with clear pricing, and preferably a train every hour of half hour. Once a day doesn't cut it.

Oh and BTW, in my imaginary example, arriving at noon is not an option, because the two day event the person is attending starts both days at 9am.

by Jasper on May 19, 2009 12:47 pm • link • report

You can't have everything you want all at once. A redeveloped Seven Corners would be wonderful, but it's a long, long way off. In the meantime, this pedestrian bridge is sorely needed and will save lives.

I presume that a lot of the negativity being focused toward the bridge is from people who don't interact with Seven Corners on a daily basis. Spend some time here; try to cross Route 50 yourself; and then imagine doing it every day. You'll be grateful for this immediate relief to a much, much longer-term problem.

by Matt! on May 19, 2009 12:54 pm • link • report

BDC: note the first sentence in my comment. I wasn't saying the bridge was the best solution all-around, though given that Route 50 is a major arterial, there's not much you can do to improve walkability along/across it, period. My main point is that, from a purely safety standpoint, the bridge is the safest option.

by Froggie on May 19, 2009 1:25 pm • link • report

Having grown up less than a mile from this bridge, I agree with most of the criticisms of this story. Even if light rail ever makes it down route 7, there will still be a ton of folks driving through the area on rte 50. This area became a highway a long time ago and there really aren't many other ways to get into the district. Planning could make it better, but its going to take a lot of time and energy. One step at a time I hope.

by Allan on May 19, 2009 1:27 pm • link • report

@Jasper: I'm not sure I understand what you find so confusing and complicated. Of everything I just said, the only thing that's even remotely confusing is that when you search for trains, Amtrak lists bus routes as options, but if you want to take the bus both ways, you can't book it through Amtrak, but you can through Greyhound (since it's really a Greyhound bus). If what you're saying is that that should be more clearly explained, I agree with you. But even as it is, it's got nothing on my credit card agreement.

I also agree with you that it would be much better if there were low-priced high-speed trains running every half hour between everywhere and everywhere else. If you have any ideas for how to make that dream a reality, let me know - I'd love to help out.

As it is, who's willing to take those once-a-day trains between DC and Charlottesville? I am, for one. I booked the trip two weeks in advance, for Memorial Day weekend, and paid $51.30. I'll be happy to update you on my experience when I get back.

And if your imaginary person's imaginary two-day event starts at 9:00 AM, the train arriving at 10:10 AM wouldn't work very well anyway.

by Johanna on May 19, 2009 1:38 pm • link • report

>My main point is that, from a purely safety standpoint, the bridge is the safest option.

And my point was that no it isn't. From a purely safety standpoint, getting people to drive much slower and having actually effective urbanism is much safer than throwing up a bridge that is inconvenient to use (and will therefore be used by few people).

The bridge may well be the best thing we can get at that location right now, but let's not pretend it's a great, or even good, solution.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report

I agree with Matt! This is a short-term solution. We all know and the local gov't knows that Seven Corners sucks pretty much all around. But that is a place that will require a ton of time and commitment and political will to get fixed, like Cavan said.

Maybe it'll be better in a couple decades. That's how long it would take to plan and fix it right. There are a bunch of roads crossing and busy commercial strips on both sides. Light rail or BRT along with consolidating the parking spaces into more garages with denser development in lieu of the spaces and some streetscape improvements would go a long way into showing the potential in this area. But that's going to take time, this bridge is a reasonable, short term solution to at least provide more safety to pedestrians.

by Vik on May 19, 2009 2:05 pm • link • report

Except that the bridge isn't a solution to anything. It's just a CYA so the politicians can claim they "did something." It would be ok if the put the bridge up then also made plans to turn this edge city into an actual town.

But that's not what they did. They put the bridge up and told themselves that's the solution and no further plans are needed.

by Cavan on May 19, 2009 2:16 pm • link • report

The logic of BDC is shoddy as usual. How is an at-grade crossing ever safer than a grade-separated crossing (bridge)? I don't care how slow cars drive, a bridge will always be safer than a crosswalk.

Convenience is certainly a different thing, but all things being equal, you really honestly think that crossing the street is more safe than taking a bridge over it? You're just pissed that putting up a bridge is a solution that isn't trendy enough.

by MPC on May 19, 2009 2:32 pm • link • report

MPC: A bridge is safer if people use it, but if some people don't use it, it can be more dangerous. Set aside 7 Corners for a second and let's consider a more walkable place like the Silver Spring Library. If lots of pedestrians are crossing the street at-grade, then cars will have to go slow and county engineers will design the area to be safer. If there's a bridge, then say 90% of people will take it, and 10% of people will dash across the road. The cars will go faster, not expecting pedestrians, and engineers will not think they have to make the area safe because there's a bridge. As a result, more people could get hit.

I don't know what the effect will be here. But already, some number of people cross 50 instead of walking to the nearby bridge. More people will take this bridge, but still some might not. Probably, in this case, it'll be safer in the short run, but it's not "obvious" that "a bridge will always be safer."

by David Alpert on May 19, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report

1) Haven't a bunch of fences been put up to discourage crossing at the wrong place?

2) The problem is thinking that 7 corners can easily be changed in "better" ways. It can't, at least not at reasonable cost. There are hundreds of possible designs, but I'll bet none wouldn't involve destroying a number of buildings and taking a bunch of private property in order to create a better traffic flow with proper pedestrian accomodations. So you're stuck with an area that's terrible all around, and this bridge seems like the least-bad solution to part of the problem.

by ah on May 19, 2009 2:47 pm • link • report

Dave, read this sentence to yourself:

A bridge is safer if people use it, but if some people don't use it, it can be more dangerous.

Tell me what is dangerous about the bridge. That's still what I want to know.

by MPC on May 19, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report

If some people don't use the bridge, then the intersection can become more dangerous overall. The bridge isn't the danger. Separating cars and people, which increases speeds and makes the roadway more hazardous for anyone not on the bridge, does.

by David Alpert on May 19, 2009 3:00 pm • link • report

BDC wrote: And my point was that no it isn't. From a purely safety standpoint, getting people to drive much slower and having actually effective urbanism is much safer than throwing up a bridge that is inconvenient to use (and will therefore be used by few people).

Except that under your (and David's) scenario, you can still have vehicle-ped accidents. Something that doesn't exactly happen with grade separation.

by Froggie on May 19, 2009 3:01 pm • link • report

But it does, Froggie!!!

The existence of the bridge does not mean that people will actually use it to cross the street!

It will be ignored because it will take more time and effort to climb the stairs, cross the bridge, descend the stairs, than it would to just cross the road.

No one thinks that they're going to get hit when they cross a road. Most think that they're too smart or fast or whatever for that to happen to them.

No matter how hard one tries to imitate Le Corbusier's line of thinking with respect to separating uses and micromanaging the people, it is always just wrong. The world doesn't work in a certain way just because a few people behind windshields of cars wish it to be so.

by Cavan on May 19, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report

You are mistaking theory for real life, Froggie. All the on-the-ground experience from the past 60 years indicates that real life just doesn't work the way you want it to.

In theory separating out all the pedestrians would be safer, but in real life separating out all the pedestrians causes there to be many fewer pedestrians and much faster traffic, which is not a safe situation.

The big mistake here is thinking that pedestrians will walk a quarter or a half mile out of their way in order to use a bridge. Most pedestrians won't do that.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 3:16 pm • link • report

David, by that logic we should integrate people and cars and let them all use Route 50 at the same time because it would be safer.

It would be nicer if roads were built to accomodate pedestrians on sidewalks with good, safe crosswalks. And we ahve those, at least in some places. But we also have highways because it's more efficient to travel faster. Route 50 is a highway, both by its designation as U.S. 50 and in practice by its (mostly) divided, multi-lane nature. I can't see how it's less safe to provide a bridge to cross a highway.

by ah on May 19, 2009 3:29 pm • link • report

@ Johanna: I'm not sure I understand what you find so confusing and complicated.

7 prices for one single trip. Being able to book train, and train+bus through Amtrak, but not bus only. The fact that there is no connection possible according to the Amtrak website from Lorton or Franc-Spring despite there being Amtrak stations.

it would be much better if there were low-priced high-speed trains running every half hour between everywhere and everywhere else. If you have any ideas for how to make that dream a reality, let me know - I'd love to help out.

Simple. Raise taxes and build the network. Or, stop building roads and start building railroads. Elect some folks who understand trains can be built just as well as roads.

Holland and Belgium have the densest rail networks in the world. France and Japan have wonderful high-speed rail networks. China is building railroads at lightning speed, with trains that go possibly even faster. All those countries can afford and sustain the cost.

There is no reason why the US couldn't. Perhaps not from Omaha to Oklahoma, give them a good road. But at least from Boston to DC. And Sacramento to Diego. The only problem is political will.

by Jasper on May 19, 2009 3:50 pm • link • report

I'm w/ Cavan, BDC and DA. I see 2 things going on; 1)If the goal is to make conditions safer for pedestrians then the solutions must be from the pedstrians perspective. This bridge is a "solution" completely from the motorists' perspective. This failure to see from the pedestrians' perspective has contributed to the second thing going on; 2) Motorists are asked to do nothing in order to improve safety conditions for all raod users while pedestrians are asked to do everything. Peds are asked, with this "solution", to accommodate motorists by getting off the road.

If the goal is to prevent injury/fatality then the solutions must be derived from the perspective of the person you want to protect. That means, in this case, inconveniencing motorists by asking them to slow down or stop. Yet motorists are not asked to contribute anything to overall safety. A single bridge which, it has been pointed out, is very inconvenient to use for the person we want to protect is a poor solution. It can make safety worse b/c the motoring class of road users is given the message with this bridge that they should not expect pedestrians and that they are not expected to contribute to safety conditions for any non-motorized road users. It reinforces the entitled mindset of motorists - it is a "solution" strickly from one perspective -- not the perspective of the person we are trying to protect, and that's why it's a poor "solution".

by Bianchi on May 19, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

ah I understand what you're saying about a highway. But the use of US 50 in this section has changed. Granted I haven't been there in a long time, but it is more like an urban throughway then a rural highway, isn't it? If it hadn't made this transition then there wouldn't be the "problem" of a critical mass of pedestrians driving the state to spend multi-millions on a foot bridge. If the problem is too much motorized traffic then the only long term solution is better mass transit and non-motorized alternatives.

by Bianchi on May 19, 2009 4:22 pm • link • report

There are strip malls and big box stores on both sides of Rt 50 at this location. At Seven Corners it is not so much a through highway as it is an arterial street.

If we want to treat 50 as a through highway, Seven Corners will need a MUCH better secondary street system (including more streets that cross over 50).

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report

I agree with just about everyone, but I don't think this area is a lost cause or something that politicians plan to forget about. I think the residents and gov'ts have changed in enough ways to know that areas like Springfield, Seven Corners and others that are congested and messy need to become less congested and messy and more pedestrian friendly and denser in order for the county to grow and stay competitive given that it's already built-out. It's not as if we'll see a proposal next week, but Seven Corners is an area that is ripe for redevelopment and more density. The logistics and complexities are higher though relative to the potential I feel for it to be redeveloped before a place like Springfield, however.

But the bridge is not a long-term solution, if it is, it's a bad one, but it is something, we just can't be complacent as voters and citizens and keep pushing for improvements. We're not there yet from the collective thinking standpoint, but it's showing a lot of signs of improvement w/ no turning back with a lot of that due to the relatively new emphasis on environmental friendliness and sustainable growth.

by Vik on May 19, 2009 4:30 pm • link • report

Even if Seven Corners was a pedestrian paradise, how many people are going to walk to the Home Depot?

by Lowes on May 19, 2009 4:37 pm • link • report

Home Depot isn't the only destination at Seven Corners.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 4:42 pm • link • report

Wow! Lots of comments. Steve the poster here.

Those of you who have actually visited this area understand why this bridge represents an improvement. No, it's not perfect, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good. More than 50 people have died in this area in the last 20 years (50!). Most of them pretty much in the vicinity of where the bridge is. My son goes to TJHSST, and I intend to show him how to bike there this summer. This bridge is a HUGE improvement over any other option for getting across Rte. 50 (in fact, without it, I'm not sure I would encourage him to try biking there). The other solutions presented in the above comments will all happen, if ever, long after he is out of grad school.

@Cavan @BDC Yes, a better solution would be to redesign everything. I'm not that interested in killing another 50 people while we wait for that to happen. Also, the long schlep is not the bridge, it's the long walk to the unpleasant intersection; the bridge is actually in the location where many people were killed. Stairs and ramps are a pain, but I believe a lot of the locals will use it. Tell you what, I'll go watch one day and report back.

@David Alpert There is no intersection where this bridge is, so your point does not apply. The nearby intersection requires a 1/3 mile longer schlep, not shorter. AND, it is still going to be used; the bridge just increases the choices for pedestrians; it does not replace any existing crossing.

@ah @Vik Thank you for understanding the situation. It helps a lot if you've actually been there.

@David said:

"If lots of pedestrians are crossing the street at-grade, then cars will have to go slow and county engineers will design the area to be safer."

Good idea in theory, but it's been tried and miserably failed here--at the cost of human lives. For 20 years lots of pedestrians have been crossing the street at-grade, people have been getting hit and killed, the cars already go fast, and engineers have not designed the area to be safer. I'm not sanguine another 20 years of carnage is the right strategy.

by Steve O on May 19, 2009 4:49 pm • link • report

Steve, thank you for the extra information. Since the bridge is placed where the fatal crossing attempts occured then it can enhance safety and as Vik said "is something", though not a long-term solution. I hope Vik's right that "improvement w/ new emphasis on environmental friendliness and sustainable growth" continues and occurs at a pace that surprises everyone.

by Bianchi on May 19, 2009 5:06 pm • link • report

I know this is a new-urbanist blog, but folks need to recognize that Seven Corners will never be Clarendon. Arlington Blvd. is a major east-west artery in a way Wilson Blvd. never was. From Patrick Henry Dr. on the far eastern edge of Seven Corners to the Roosevelt Bridge, Rte. 50 is almost a limited access highway, and it carries freeway volumes of traffic.

There's a lot Fairfax County could to do make the area more walkable (and drivable) on either side of Rte. 50 -- just as it plans to do on either side of Rte. 7 in Tysons -- but it will never be an urban paradise that spans both sides of the highway.

I've already used the pedestrian overpass. It's not only faster that walking down to the Patrick Henry crosswalk, it's faster than driving and parking, given the 24-hour gridlock on all the nearby roads.

It's not a great solution, but since Seven Corners is unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon (the county seems more focused on Bailey's Crossroads right now), it's far better than doing nothing.

by c5karl on May 19, 2009 5:36 pm • link • report

c5karl: 30 years ago people would have said that Clarendon-then could never be like Clarendon-now. For goodness sake, if we can do it at Tysons freaking Corner then we can do it at Seven Corners.

If you don't want Seven Corners to evolve that is one thing, but it most certainly *can* be done.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2009 6:24 pm • link • report

This bridge cuts down on the distance one has to walk to get to an intersection with a light. It also connects an area with a lot of apartments, to the other (south?) side which has a lot of stores, a supermarket, and a rather busy bus stop which loops through the shopping center. It is not a new urbanist utopia, but it is a much needed improvement.

by spookiness on May 19, 2009 9:22 pm • link • report

Wow, I don't check GGW for one day, and there's finally an article about my neighborhood.

What I don't understand about this is, instead of a bridge, why not have a crosswalk with a button and stoplight? Pedestrians walk up to the intersection. They push the button. Eventually traffic gets a red light, pedestrians get a walk signal, and they cross in safety, with no need to climb two flights of stairs.

This is already done on Route 50, if you look about a mile east, just past the Arlington County border. There is a crosswalk exactly as I described. It appears to be synced to the light further east at N Manchester St, so little to no congestion on 50 is caused by pedestrians using the signal.

Am I missing something? With 47 comments, no one has suggested this solution. It seems blindingly obvious to me, and I would love to have one or more such crossing between Route 50/Route 7 and Route 50/Patrick Henry Drive. It would also have been much cheaper than building a bridge, but now that we have that bridge, it could complement it.

by Scott F on May 20, 2009 12:58 am • link • report

^ Traffic on Route 50 would become (even more) congested.

by Arlingtonian on May 20, 2009 4:11 am • link • report

"Arlingtonian", you didn't read my comment. There is such a crosswalk a mile west, and it is (seemingly) timed to correspond to the light at N Manchester St, so it produces a trivial amount of extra congestion. Pedestrian stoplights in this area could be linked to the one at Patrick Henry Drive in the same way.

by Scott F on May 20, 2009 7:31 am • link • report

If you did read that and you still believe the congestion would be significant, explain why. Without that crosswalk, there would be a long stretch (perhaps half a mile) with no crossing, and getting to the other side of 50 would be a nightmare. That sounds a lot like Seven Corners. With it, crossing is no problem.

by Scott F on May 20, 2009 7:36 am • link • report

Scott F -- the difference is that a mile east there's basically just route 50 traffic that's stopped, so it's much easier to time the signal to minimize traffic disruption. At Patrick Henry Drive, the signals are already quite long, because they have a long left turn signal both ways on Route 50, and then other protected lefts on to Route 50, plus some other aspects of the cycle. Combine this with traffic coming out of 7 corners onto Route 50 in a fairly steady stream given the oddball light cycles in 7 corners and you're going to create significant interference with traffic regardless of the timing. I realize that's not a negative in the view of many, but on some board in an alternate universe those drivers would be screaming.

by ah on May 20, 2009 9:07 am • link • report

@Scott F - you didn't read *my* comment - a stop light an pedxing is exactly what i suggested, oh, about 30 comments above you and twelve hours earlier.

by AJ on May 20, 2009 9:27 am • link • report

Scott -

The crosswalk a mile east is not timed with anything. It's pedestrian activated and exists, from what I can see, primarily because there are bus stops there on either side of Route 50. I've driven this stretch hundreds of times and have only seen this light red very rarely. There just isn't much call to cross the highway there. On the other hand, before the fences went up preventing people from crossing Route 50 where the bridge is now, you almost always saw people waiting to risk their lives and the lives of everyone around them by dashing across the highway. The congestion caused by a pedestrian operated crosswalk there would be MUCH higher than the one on the county line (roughly).

It's amazing how many people seem to have very strongly held opinions about the usefulness of this solution or that without actually having been to the site of this bridge. Several people seem to think it's a boondoggle because people will still cross the highway and won't use the bridge. You can't anymore. There are high steel fences that have been installed coincident with this project (actually the fences have been there for many months). So what the county / state did first was to PREVENT the reckless crossings. THEN they provided an alternative to walking all the way to Patrick Henry. Which is, by the way, the site of a cross walk and a traffic light. Convenience may be lacking here, but engineers have done just about all they can (again, short of draconian and hugely expensive things like putting Route 50 in a tunnel) to improve safety.

Somebody suggested speed bumps. That's hilarious. Um, no.

As far as pedestrian bridges never being used - again, peds really don't have an option here anymore. But also, if you drive another two or three miles east on 50, you'll come to another ped bridge (recently redone and repainted) near the Thomas Jefferson community center and school. It's not overwhelmed with users, but it does get steady use. Especially by students going to and from school. Entirely residential neighborhood to the north. No elevator. Valued highly by the neighbors. I don't know what it saves over the nearby intersection with light and crosswalk. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with ped bridges. Perhaps all this negative commentary is really just pent up frustration with how ugly and maddening Seven Corners is to begin with.

by Josh on May 20, 2009 9:45 am • link • report

I don't usually post here. But, this strikes me as the silliest sentence I've seen on this or any other planning blog in a long time: "From a purely safety standpoint, getting people to drive much slower and having actually effective urbanism is much safer than throwing up a bridge that is inconvenient to use."

Gee, why didn't we think of that earlier? Jimmy, order me a case of effective urbanism. With a side of "having people drive slower on a highway." Problem solved!

As a frequent driver in this area, I can vouch it's the existing crosswalk that's incovenient to use. People are running across the middle of route 50 all the time. How is having a bridge there less convenient than that alternative?

by MVM on May 20, 2009 10:25 am • link • report

Yes MVM, when you're a driver, pedestrians are an inconvenience.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2009 10:32 am • link • report

MVM, urbanism is a long-term solution.

The bridge is there for the cars, not the pedestrians. It's all about the cars. Pedestrians are a nuisance in this scenario.

by Cavan on May 20, 2009 11:15 am • link • report

Cavan, Bianchi: Look, I'm as go-go urbanism as the next girl but its not happening at 7 corners. Rt.50 is a highway, its designed for cars and primarily used by cars. Like it or not pedestrians are secondary and should be treated as such. The bridge is a practical solution to a real safety problem.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't even own a car but has zipcared herself on out to 7 corners many a time.

by laur84 on May 20, 2009 12:14 pm • link • report

And Georgia Ave/MD Rte 97 is a highway through Silver Spring. Conditions change, laur84.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report

AJ, my bad on missing your suggestion. I was skimming to catch up.

Josh: Not timed with anything - you sure? I don't doubt you, it's not unlikely it's a coincidence I've seen that light and N Manchester St go red around the same time, but I'm curious how you have absolute knowledge of this. It could be synced only at certain times of day, or other things. Regardless, that solution could work for a crosswalk light west of Patrick Henry Drive. Set it up as a green wave so drivers in rush direction never have to wait at both stoplights. Basically, if a pedestrian has pushed the button, then drivers there get a red at about the same time they would at Patrick Henry Drive.

Volume of pedestrians is irrelevant - peds who missed their opening (linked to green for PH Drive traffic), would simply have to wait. Yes, it'd be a long wait, same as at PH Drive now, but not having to walk there is still an improvement.

This could still be done about halfway between the bridge and Patrick Henry Drive. I think it would be a huge improvement to the neighborhood.

ah: "...traffic coming out of 7 corners onto Route 50 in a fairly steady stream given the oddball light cycles in 7 corners" - Interesting remark. But Route 50 tunnels under those oddball light cycles. If eastbound traffic comes in a steady stream, it's probably because there are no stoplights west of Seven Corners for quite a distance. I'm going to have to sit and watch traffic from the bridge sometime...

by Scott F on May 20, 2009 3:09 pm • link • report

@Scott A light there is harder (but maybe not impossible) than the one near Manchester. The frontage road on the south side is essentially an entrance ramp onto the highway, so there is an additional factor to take into account (perhaps a separate light with a safe haven?). The long cycle will result in people deciding to dash across during openings rather than wait(I know I do this myself--although probably I wouldn't here), so creating the crossing location might actually result in more people mixing with speeding cars. I wouldn't be surprised if the cycle is long enough that you could take the bridge and order your latte at Starbucks before the light would change. :)

I learned at the ribbon cutting this morning that they are planning to put in sidewalks and lights to accommodate pedestrians up at the Seven Corners mish-mash--probably by 2011.

I intend to follow up this post with what I learned today at the ribbon cutting and some observation data, maybe next week.

The location halfway between the bridge and PH is less useful than halfway between the bridge and 7 corners, IMO, although I'm in favor of something every 300 feet if given my druthers.

by Steve O on May 20, 2009 3:55 pm • link • report

I just go to the target and maybe the home depot. Driving around there is such a pain otherwise.

by Adam on May 20, 2009 10:36 pm • link • report

The intersection is a mess from Rt. 7. It could definitely benefit from replacing the traffic lights with a clover leaf to avoid the left turns from E/W on Rt. 7. Might have to wait for the car dealer to go out of business though.

The silliest thing about the whole area to me is that it is less than a mile from East Falls Church. They should run a street car up Roosevelt St. to Wilson.

by MatthewMc on May 24, 2009 11:39 pm • link • report