Pedestrians
"Pedestrian crossing" options oddly resemble interchanges
Montgomery County DOT has released design alternatives in their study of a "pedestrian crossing project between the National Naval Medical Center and the Medical Center Metro station."
The alternatives could improve the experience for pedestrians crossing Rockville Pike/MD-355, but also look a lot like the vehicular interchanges that MCDOT staff insisted were not the purpose of the study. Meanwhile, the purely pedestrian options don't exist except as part of larger vehicular options.
The interchange alternatives do look much better than the "not a secret plan" plan suggested by Clark Construction, which would have sent pedestrians far out of their way through a tunnel with a sidewalk to cross from Medical Center Metro to Navy Med.
"Jughandle" (left) and "Diamond Interchange" (right) alternatives.
Images from Montgomery County.
These alternatives, by contrast, sink Rockville Pike down to pass under the connecting road between the two, and provide other connections for vehicles to that roadway. One adds a ramp from Rockville Pike to the north to the NIH side of the road, while the other creates a diamond interchange. Pedestrians are still traveling on a road with a sidewalk, but at least it's an overpass.
The study maintains the pedestrian-only options originally studied by WMATA to add a new elevator entrance on the Navy Med side or to build a pedestrian underpass or bridge across 355, but only as part of other options that also add vehicular capacity. One adds the jughandle interchange, while another adds additional left turn lanes from 355 in both directions.
For a project usually described as a "pedestrian crossing," it's notable that the alternatives are named based on their vehicular impacts, not on their effect on pedestrians. There's "Alternative 3: Grade Separation w/NIH Jug Handle" and "Alternative 4: Grade Separation w/Diamond Interchange." Even the alternatives that don't add an interchange are named based on the vehicular movements: "Alternative 5: Double Left Turns w/ one of five WMATA alternatives." It's clear where the MCDOT officials' and consultants' minds were focused.
This project is a great illustration of how agencies can manipulate the EIS process to get what they want. As one agency official told me, the Purpose and Need statement is key. By wording it in a certain way, officials can shape the outcome.
In this case, the project was originally a Metro station access project. But MCDOT officials wanted it to be a vehicular access project. Therefore, they first started calling it a "multimodal" access project, then put vehicular movements into the Purpose and Need, and presto, we have some interchanges with sidewalks.
The full evaluations of the alternatives will come out next. But spending considerable money to lower Rockville Pike and speed traffic is unlikely to be a worthwhile use of Montgomery County's limited money. Instead, they should build the direct elevator entrance to the Metro station to maximize ridership of the existing rail line, and focus on transit, pedestrian, and bicycle projects that increase those modes' share of trips on the Pike instead of speeding up vehicles.
The County is accepting comments until May 25th. You can send them to Kenneth.Kendall@montgomerycountymd.gov.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
by butler on May 20, 2010 1:01 pm • link • report
It's a consulation exercise, and if you want to keep the status quo for traffic movement, I think you would support Alternative 5 (double left turns). Then it becomes a question of how to increase access to NNMC from the Medical Center metro. I think the direct elevator access you support IS listed as one of the options. Personally I think I would favor a deep elevators + TSM option. I don't have any objection to the 'jug handle', although the 'diamond' doesn't look like it will help pedestrians/cyclists.
I take it the 'deep tunnel' would connect underground to the Medical Center metro mezzanine? Is it impossible to install escalators on the NNMC side?
by renegade09 on May 20, 2010 1:20 pm • link • report
by Distantantennas on May 20, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report
by Douglas A. Willinger on May 20, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report
There is no room for escalators given the security buffer from the helipad (which is what the President, VP, and other top-tier official uses). It's also physically higher on the east, meaning the escalators would be further out than if you were comparing it to the existing escalators on the west.
@Douglas-
Are you referring to a SPUI?
@In general...
I'll be preparing my comments (as a citizen) & sending to Ken tonight... I'll copy/paste them here as soon as I put them together.
by Bossi on May 20, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report
by Bossi on May 20, 2010 11:52 pm • link • report
The diamond looks like an SPUI.
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/05/inside-beltway-wisconsin-avenue-grade.html
by Douglas A. Willinger on May 21, 2010 1:20 am • link • report
by Bossi on May 21, 2010 8:39 am • link • report
Every time I go by this thing I can't help but wonder why the pedestrian/bicycle overpass couldn't just have gone straight across the beltway onramps with a gradual grade. It's not like it needs huge piers or an elaborate structure for the slightly larger span that would be needed, it's only five feet wide.
Not that anyone actually walks or bikes around that horrendous area anyway...
by Jamie on May 21, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
My guess as to why it curves westward would be to accomplish two things:
1 - Reduce bridge span, which saves money both for initial construction as well as continuing upkeep.
2 - Reduce the span needed to accommodate the change in grade. On the south side, the lift would likely nix the connection with Lansdowne Way. On the north side, it may have come too close to clear the Beltway bridge.
And I've actually seen pretty decent usage of the bridge. I'd wager pretty much everytime I go through the area I see at least someone or a group on there... it's certainly not downtown DC, but it's more ped/bike activity than is seen throughout much of the suburbs. And during AM/PM peaks there's actually a pretty good amount of peds/bikes along here to/from the Metro station.
by Bossi on May 21, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report
I am dying to know where anyone would be walking to from Forest Glen over that bridge. I mean if you're going to metro to go shopping somewhere I can think of about fifty better options than those run-down strip malls there...
Anyway I'm sure they wouldn't have built it if there wasn't the foot traffic to warrant it, it's just a really awful area (for pedestrians and cars alike).
by Jamie on May 21, 2010 3:59 pm • link • report
And I wasn't arguing against your opinion that the bridge's 90-degree turns are brutal for bikes- I completely agree; I was just offering reasons as to why it is the way it is... and until we, the people, are willing to cough up dough for transportation: we unfortunately get what we pay for.
Though as far as generators on the south: there's actually some very tasty food in that commercial area, but I'll give that's unlikely to attract Metro riders. Rather, a huge residential population fuels ridership to/from Forest Glen Metro and, hence, ped crossings past the Beltway. Hence why the bridge is actually pretty busy at the AM/PM peaks, but is a bit more surburban-volume off-peak.
by Bossi on May 21, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
Why not just build a bus station along with a kiss & ride lot on the Navy Med side? The Navy security fence could easily be shifted for much less cost than sinking Rockville Pike. If it's paired with the elevators into the tunnel then no one would ever need to make a left turn to get into the station. The bus routes would also be much faster since they wouldn't be making left turns. There would also be less confusion with the buses since it would always be clear that buses on the Navy side go north and buses on the NIH side go south.
From the pedestrian perspective, no one would cross the street to get on Metro. Currently, anyone taking a bus and going to the Navy hospital needs to cross the street. With the change, everyone would need to cross the street for one commute direction, so that would be a neutral change. Decreasing the left turns also leaves time for a longer walk signal without significantly slowing traffic.
by Dan on May 21, 2010 8:06 pm • link • report
Overall the left-turns aren't really the greatest issue for the vehicular traffic... much of the congestion actually arises from 355/Cedar to the north as well as 355 / Jones Bridge to the south... well to the south sometimes it's just downtown Bethesda in general.
If there's really a grade-separating mood out there, I'd put my sights on 355/Cedar before here. Maybe then South / S.Wood would become a bottleneck, but right now it's dwarfed by Cedar.
Of course, that's just my purely vehicular thought...
Though to your credit, a NB K&R has come up before & I think it was actually alluded to in the main post's link at the top.
by Bossi on May 21, 2010 9:26 pm • link • report
by Richard on Nov 3, 2010 5:21 pm • link • report
by Sivad on Nov 4, 2010 11:53 pm • link • report
by andrew on Dec 6, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report
Add a Comment