DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents 20130904 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Highlights from the Final Report ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Supplemental Report Objectives .................................................................................. 1-6 2.0 Refined Multimodal Package ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Roadway Refinement ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Transit Refinement ......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Refined Package Model Results ................................................................................... 2-8 2.4 Peak-Only Tolls versus All Day Tolls .......................................................................... 2-20 2.5 Refined Multimodal Package Conclusions ................................................................. 2-22 3.0 Refined Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Refinement ................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Regionally Significant Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................ 3-4 3.3 Additional Considerations for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements .................. 3-7 3.4 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 3-7 4.0 HOV Occupancy Requirements ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing and Competing Service .................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Travel Demand Model Analysis .................................................................................. 4-4 4.3 HOV Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) .................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Issues and Opportunities .............................................................................................. 4-15 4.5 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 4-16 Appendix A – Refined Package Component Costs ................................................................... A-1 A.1 Highway Component Costs .......................................................................................... A-1 A.2 Tolling Component Costs ............................................................................................. A-14 A.3 Transit Component Costs .............................................................................................. A-15 A.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Component Costs .................................................................. A-25 A.5 Management Component Costs ................................................................................... A-35 Appendix B – Travel Demand Model Methodology ................................................................ B-1 B.1 Model Run Revisions and Verification ....................................................................... B-1 B.2 Peak Toll and All-Day Toll Modeling ......................................................................... B-6 i Table of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Appendix C – Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Profiles ............................................................. C-1 C.1 Custis Trail Renovation ................................................................................................. C-1 C.2 Fairfax Drive Trail Connectors ..................................................................................... C-4 C.3 Arlington Boulevard Trail – Glebe Road to I-495 Interchange ................................ C-8 C.4 Arlington Boulevard Trail at I-495 Interchange ......................................................... C-11 C.5 Arlington Boulevard Trail – I-495 Interchange to City of Fairfax ........................... C-15 C.6 West Falls Church Connector Trail .............................................................................. C-18 C.7 VA 7 Falls Church to Tysons Connector ..................................................................... C-21 ii I-66 Multimodal Study List of Tables List of Tables 1.1 Multimodal Package Summary Recommendations Framework ...................................... 1-3 2.1 Services Scaled Back Due to Low Performance ................................................................... 2-6 2.2 Summary of Annual 2040 Transit Costs 2011 Dollars (Millions) .............................................................................................................. 2-8 2.3 Measures of Effectiveness Summary ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.4 Refined Package Level of Service for the Morning Peak Hour ......................................... 2-13 2.5 Refined Package Transit Load Factors for the Morning Peak Period ............................... 2-14 2.6 Refined Package PMT, Person Throughput, Congested VMT, and Transit Ridership .............................................................................................................. 2-20 2.7 Multimodal Package Summary Selection of Measures ...................................................... 2-23 4.1 HOV Restrictions Model Runs ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.2 Forecast of Performance of I-66 HOV Lanes at Cutlines .................................................... 4-8 4.3 Forecast of Performance of Arterials at Cutlines ................................................................. 4-13 4.4 Forecast of Daily Ridership on I-66 Express Buses ............................................................. 4-15 4.5 Forecast of Daily Ridership on Orange Line ........................................................................ 4-15 iii List of Tables This page intentionally left blank iv Cambridge Systematics, Inc. List of Figures List of Figures 2.1 Package 1 I-66 HOT/HOV/Bus Lanes ................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Package 2 Widen I-66 HOT/HOV/Bus Lanes ..................................................................... 2-2 2.3 I-66 Refined Package – Planning-Level I-66 Roadway Components ................................ 2-4 2.4 Peak-Period VMT by Level of Service ................................................................................... 2-9 2.5 Refined Package Daily PMT ................................................................................................... 2-10 2.6 Refined Package Improved Travel Time By Mode Compared to CLRP+ ....................... 2-10 2.7 Refined Package I-66 Level of Service Morning Peak Hour .............................................. 2-15 2.8 Refined Package Arterial Level of Service Morning Peak Hour Inbound ....................... 2-16 2.9 Refined Package Arterial Level of Service Morning Peak Hour Outbound .................... 2-17 2.10 CLRP+ Inbound Buses per Hour in the Morning Peak Hour ........................................... 2-18 2.11 Refined Package Inbound Buses per Hour in the Morning Peak Hour .......................... 2-19 2.12 Refined Package I-66 Toll Definitions .................................................................................. 2-21 3.1 Phase I Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ................................................................................ 3-2 3.2 Interim Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ................................................................................ 3-3 3.3 Regionally Significant Projects ............................................................................................... 3-5 4.1 Cutline Location ....................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.2 LOS I-66 HOV Lanes Inbound 2020 HOV 2+ Scenario ....................................................... 4-9 4.3 LOS I-66 HOV Lanes Inbound 2020 HOV 3+ Scenario ....................................................... 4-10 4.4 LOS I-66 HOV Lanes Inbound 2030 HOV 2+ Scenario ....................................................... 4-11 4.5 LOS I-66 HOV Lanes Inbound 2030 HOV 3+ Scenario ....................................................... 4-12 v List of Figures This page intentionally left blank vi Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Introduction 1.0 Introduction This Supplemental Report documents findings from continuing refinement analyses associated with the I-66 Multimodal Study after the June 2012 release of the Final Report. Building on the projects in the region’s Financially Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP) and additional improvements recommended by the I-66 Transit/TDM Study, the I-66 Multimodal Study con- sidered a wide range of complementary and mutually supportive multimodal improvement options that could be implemented to mitigate congestion and improve mobility along the I-66 corridor inside the Beltway. Among the options explored were expanded public transportation, additional highway lane capacity, enhanced transportation demand management (TDM), high- occupancy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Report Prepared for Albany, NY Joseph D. Tario Senior Project
    DEMONSTRATION OF ROUNDABOUT LIGHTING BASED ON THE ECOLUMINANCE APPROACH Final Report Prepared for THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Albany, NY Joseph D. Tario Senior Project Manager and THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Albany, NY Humayun Kabir Project Manager Prepared by THE LIGHTING RESEARCH CENTER , RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 21 Union Street Troy, NY 12180 John D. Bullough and Mark S. Rea Principal Investigators Jeremy D. Snyder, Nicholas P. Skinner, Rosa I. Capó, Patricia Rizzo, Ute Besenecker Project Team Members Project Nos. 18233 / C-08-03 August 2012 NOTICE This report was prepared by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the New York State Department of Transportation (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors and the State of New York make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. The Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Alternatives Development and Screening Report
    APPENDIX C Draft Evaluation of Managed-lane Concepts Draft Evaluation of Managed-lane Concepts Little Cottonwood Canyon Environmental Impact Statement S.R. 210 - Wasatch Boulevard to Alta Lead agency: Utah Department of Transportation April 3, 2020 This page is intentionally left blank. Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area for Managed Lanes .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Roadway Context .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Reversible-lane Concepts ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Moveable Barrier ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Reversible-lane Control Signals and Signs ............................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Other Reversible-lane Technologies ....................................................................................... 15 3.0 Peak-period Shoulder Lane Concept .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Four Mile Run Valley
    CHAPTER 2 FOUR MILE RUN VALLEY EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW This chapter contains an overview of existing conditions in the Four Mile Run Valley AREA PLAN STUDY AREA study area. In 2016, the County engaged a team of consultants to review and analyze The Four Mile Run Valley Area Plan study area [See Figure 2.2: 4MRV Planning Area existing conditions and surrounding context, and to help develop ideas and concepts Map] is approximately 95 acres in southern Arlington County bordered by the Nauck for review with the 4MRV Working Group and the broader community. In addition residential neighborhood (north), Four Mile Run stream (south), I-395 (east), and to reviewing existing plans and policy documents that might inform this planning pro- Barcroft Park (west). The study area is divided into four subareas: cess, the consultant team carried out analysis of existing conditions in six topic areas: Urban Form, Transportation, Environment, Economics, Open Space, and Historic Re- Subareas A and B located along S. Four Mile Run Drive include significant community sources. This chapter highlights key conditions, constrains and opportunities from that spaces and recreational resources, including the Four Mile Run Trail, the W&OD Trail, analysis, organized in the following sequence: Allie S. Freed Park, and the immediately adjacent Jennie Dean Park, Shirlington Dog Park, and Barcroft Park. The greatest visibility of Four Mile Run itself is from area • HISTORY bridges; along much of its length, the waterway is faced by the rear of lots/buildings • 4MRV TODAY and dense vegetation. • LAND USE / ZONING • WATER RESOURCES Subareas A and B contain primarily service commercial uses, including many auto- and dog-oriented services.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Washout Facility Steamboat Springs, Colorado
    CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Washout Facility Steamboat Springs, Colorado Prepared for: City of Steamboat Springs 137 10th St Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 Prepared by: Baseline Engineering Corporation 1950 Ford Street Golden, CO 80401 Project #: CO‐20158a Prepared: October, 2018 City of Steamboat Springs Development Plan Application City of Steamboat Springs Washout Facility, Steamboat Springs, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Attachments .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Proposal Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Legal Description ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Area of Work ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Crosswalk™ Automatic Activation Bollards
    SPEC Sheet #3000 Features/Benefits: Aesthetically pleasing Optional audible sounds Smart Crosswalk™ Automatic Activation Easily installed on sidewalk Simple control panel installations Bollards 12 VDC operation (down to 9 VDC) Automatic Activation Series — Bollards Internally illuminated courtesy light LightGuard Systems Part Number: LGS-T3A Directional detecting infrared sensors Description: Automatic Pedestrian Detection Bollards Application Notes: Infrared sensors are housed inside the Bollards and are typically preset by our factory. However, adjustments to the alignment of the sensor modules may be changed in the field. The infrared light beams are projected to the respective receiver module. The Bollard system is directionally sensitive and is activated only when a pedestrian enters into the crosswalk zone not when exiting. A pair of Bollards are placed at each end of the crosswalk, usually four bollards per crosswalk. When pedestrians enter into a crosswalk zone they pass between the Bollards and the Smart Crosswalk™ system is automatically activated. Each Bollard has a 24/7 LED courtesy light making the Bollard visible at night or during inclement weather. In order to capture the most pedestrians crossing the street, it is recommended that the bollards be placed a few feet wider than the crosswalk. General Performance Specifications Parameter Value Maximum separation 60 Feet Power consumption 2.5 Watts Operating temperature -20° to 80°C Operating voltage 9 VDC to 15 VDC Color White (custom colors available) Courtesy light color Amber Size 42” Tall, 8” Diameter © 2016 LightGuard Systems®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2292 Airport Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403 | Phone (707) 542-4547 | Fax (707) 525-6333 SPEC Sheet #3000 Bollard Installation Guidelines INSTALLATION STEPS Step 1 Prior to installing Bollards, the proposed site should be inspected several times to observe the everyday habits of local citizens who utilize the crosswalk.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Residential Development, Planning, and Zoning in Arlington County, Virginia
    A History of Residential Development, Planning, and Zoning in Arlington County, Virginia April 2020 Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the guidance and feedback from Arlington County staff, including Mr. Russell Danao-Schroeder, Ms. Kellie Brown, Mr. Timothy Murphy, and Mr. Richard Tucker. We appreciate your time and insights. Prepared by Dr. Shelley Mastran Jennifer Burch Melissa Cameron Randy Cole Maggie Cooper Andrew De Luca Jose Delcid Dinah Girma Owain James Lynda Ramirez-Blust Noah Solomon Alex Wilkerson Madeline Youngren Cover Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arlingtonva/29032004740/in/album-72157672142122411/ i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................ i Prepared by ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iii Key Findings ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Corridor Analysis of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    2015 Corridor Analysis Of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia 0 http://www.novaregion.org/index.aspx?nid=299 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) thanks the following individuals for their contributions to this report: • Donald Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; • Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; • Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; • Debbie Andrews of Prince William County Department of Parks and Recreation; and • Members of the Potomac Heritage Trail Association. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided by a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service (Grant Cooperative Agreement P14AC01704). Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Report prepared by: Corey Miles, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission Figure 1 Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Corridor 1 http://www.novaregion.org/index.aspx?nid=299 The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 2015 Commissioners Listed by Jurisdiction (As of December 2015) Commissioners are appointed by and from the governing bodies of NVRC’s member localities on a population-based representation formula.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosslyn Multi-Modal Transportation Study
    Rosslyn Multi-Modal Transportation Study September 2012 – FINAL DRAFT Arlington County DES – Transportation Planning Photo: Courtesy of Rosslyn BID Ross Table of Contents Executive Summary I. Study Overview II. Development and Travel Demand Forecast III. Existing Conditions and Preliminary Recommendations: Chapter A. - Rosslyn Streets Chapter B. – Transit in Rosslyn Chapter C. – Walking in Rosslyn Chapter D. – Bicycling in Rosslyn Chapter E. – Rosslyn Parking and Curb Space Management Chapter F. – Transportation Demand Management IV. Summary of Transportation Recommendations List of Related Studies and Plans This study was written during the summer of 2011, by staff from the Arlington County DES, Transportation Division. Mapping Appendices assistance provided by the Arlington DES, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Office. Development and demographic data provided by the Arlington DCPHD, Planning Research and Analysis Team (PRAT). 1 can spend more time enjoying the attractions of the region and current four-lanes in a single direction to better balanced two- Executive Summary: less time traveling. Arlington County seeks to continually directional streets. Sidewalks, crossings, curb space assignment expand the availability of transportation options, serving more and streetscape should also be revised. Removal of the existing Introduction: travelers as the region continues to grow. Fort Myer underpass of Wilson Boulevard could help to transform the Rosslyn street system and would allow for The Rosslyn Multimodal Transportation Study is an evaluation of One noteworthy transportation concern is how to transition reallocation of considerable street space to other uses. As the existing and planned transportation facilities, services and Rosslyn from a community with significant cut-through vehicle financial costs and disruptions of that change may prove operations for Rosslyn over the next 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer on Impact Protection for Critical Transportation Infrastructure
    Primer on Impact Protection for Critical Transportation Infrastructure December 2018 FHWA-HIF-18-054 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, or endorsement of any one product or entity. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Cover image source: Poulin/123rf.com TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HIF-18-054 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Primer on Impact Protection for Critical Transportation December 2018 Infrastructure 6. Performing Organization Code: V-335 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Wojtowicz, CPP; Nathan B. Grace* DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-18-17 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. U.S. Department of Transportation 11. Contract or Grant No. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center HW22A1 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Virginia District
    THE VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION NORTHERN VIRGINIA DISTRICT 2014 – 2019 WORKINGCommonwealth DRAFT Transportation Board Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 480 05/15/2013 FY14 DRAFT SYIP FY2014-2019 Six-Year Improvement Program NORTHERN VIRGINIA DISTRICT Funding Allocation Summary (000's) NORTHERN VIRGINIA DISTRICT System Fund Source Name FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Totals Interstate Accounts Receivable Local $1,663 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,663 CMAQ TERMS - Federal 2,114 0 0 0 0 0 2,114 TERMS - State Match 529 0 0 0 0 0 529 CTB Formula Bridge - State 0 7,414 5,000 0 0 0 12,414 High Priority - Federal 499 0 0 0 0 0 499 High Priority - Soft Match 125 0 0 0 0 0 125 High Priority - State 0 5,249 11,049 4,419 23,028 44,328 88,073 Paving - Federal 497 0 0 0 3,858 0 4,356 Paving - Soft Match 124 0 0 0 965 0 1,089 Paving - State 0 11,021 27,267 0 0 0 38,288 Highway Safety Improvements Federal 5,812 0 0 0 0 0 5,812 Soft Match 646 0 0 0 0 0 646 NHPP Statewide - Federal 53,000 23,604 22,500 6,819 2,376 0 108,298 Statewide - Soft Match 13,250 5,901 5,625 1,705 594 0 27,075 RSTP (STP Regional) MPO - Federal 5,984 0 0 0 0 0 5,984 MPO - State Match 1,496 0 0 0 0 0 1,496 Total $85,739 $53,189 $71,440 $12,943 $30,821 $44,328 $298,460 Primary Bond Proceeds CPR Bonds $15,410 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,410 CMAQ MPO - Federal 4,561 2,930 5,200 3,735 5,354 8,384 30,164 MPO - State Match 1,140 733 1,300 934 1,339 2,096 7,541 PM 2.5 - Federal 0 3,693 0 2,099 0 0 5,793 PM 2.5
    [Show full text]
  • TABULATION of BIDS Mills Civic Parkway/South Jordan Creek
    TABULATION OF BIDS Mills Civic Parkway/South Jordan Creek Parkway and South Jordan Creek Parkway/Coachlight Drive Intersection Improvements City of West Des Moines Project No.: 0510-077-2017 1 2 Bid Date/Time: May 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM HENRICKSON CONTRACTING ABSOLUTE CONCRETE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE GRIMES, IOWA SLATER, IOWA ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICEUNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICEUNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE EARTHWORK 2.1 Class 10 Excavation CY 362$ 35.00 $ 12,670.00 $ 27.50 $ 9,955.00 $ 54.00 $ 19,548.00 2.2 Special Backfill TON 425$ 40.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 27.50 $ 11,687.50 $ 38.00 $ 16,150.00 SEWERS AND DRAINS 4.1 Storm Sewer, Trenched, RCP, 15" LF 24$ 250.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 195.00 $ 4,680.00 STRUCTURES FOR SANITARY AND STORM 6.1 Manhole Type SW-402 (Top-Only) EA 2$ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 5,300.00 6.2 Manhole Type SW-503 Modified (Top-Only) EA 1$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100.00 6.3 Intake Type SW-501 EA 2$ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 10,800.00 6.4 Intake Type SW-505 EA 1$ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 8,100.00 6.5 Removal of Existing Structure (Top-Only) EA 3$ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 1,855.00 $ 5,565.00 STREETS AND RELATED WORK 7.1 9" PCC Pavement, Reinforced SY 1325$ 100.00 $ 132,500.00 $ 59.00 $ 78,175.00 $ 77.50 $ 102,687.50 7.2 Removal of Sidewalk SY 116$ 35.00 $ 4,060.00 $ 20.00 $ 2,320.00 $ 16.50 $ 1,914.00 7.3 Shared Use Path, Reinforced PCC, 6" SY 10$ 140.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 52.00
    [Show full text]
  • Cue Sheet of the Ride
    Arlington History Ride Cue Sheet 2021 version Distance Directions Total 0.0 Start at Arlington Historical Museum, 1805 S. Arlington Ridge Rd. 0.0 Museum may be closed for pandemic distancing. 0 R on Arlington Ridge out of parking lot 0.0 0.2 Note Little Tea Room stone tower on R at Lynn 0.2 0.3 Stop for the view at Prospect Hill, then take S. Nash St down hill 0.5 0.2 At T, turn L onto Army-Navy Drive 0.7 0.8 L on 28th Street South 1.5 0.5 R on South Meade 2.0 0.2 Cross Glebe, take sidewalk to R, cross bridge and bear left onto asphalt trail 2.2 0.2 At railings, L to remain on trail and pass under I-395 (Sign says to W&OD) 2.4 0.6 R when trail emerges at Shirlington Road 3.0 0.1 L at light to cross Shirlington Road onto W&OD Trail 3.1 1.7 Cross Columbia Pike—Barcroft historic markers on L. Continue on trail 4.8 0.5 Pass Sparrow Pond observation deck on right 5.3 0.3 Cross bridge and turn sharply left on trail down toward bathroom facility. 5.6 0 Right/Left jog to take trail behind bathrooms to T at second parking lot 5.6 0.2 Look for George Washington Survey Marker behind a curved stone wall to L. 5.8 Park may be closed for pandemic distancing. 0 Follow through second parking lot, stay on road to climb steep hill.
    [Show full text]