 |
| Why didn't ICC use the same specs from Layhill bridge for Norbeck? |
For some reason, both bridges got different designs. The Layhill bridge is undeniably fantastic while the Norbeck bridge is seriously flawed.
Yep, the Norbeck bridge is that bad! Initially, the Norbeck bridge opened in March 2011 with four travel lanes and New Jersey concrete barriers lining both sides of the bridge. It has no bike lanes or shoulders, no sidewalks, and no median islands.
Then in September 2011, one travel lane in the northbound direction of Georgia Avenue was eliminated to create a painted median in the road. This allowed enabled traffic planners to create a permanent left-turn lane on the downhill stretch of Norbeck Road, east of the bridge, at the Wintergate traffic light.
Anyone who has driven or even walked/biked over the Norbeck bridge agrees that it is not an attractive or safe design. That brings up the question - why didn't the ICC Project Team use the same specifications from the fantastic Layhill bridge for Norbeck's bridge?
Using the same specs from the Layhill bridge would have solved all the safety problems that currently exist on the Norbeck bridge. And using the same specs from the Layhill bridge would have ensured that the Norbeck bridge would be compatible with future improvements to the rest of Norbeck Road including the inevitable widening to four lanes with ample shoulders, bike lanes, and sidewalks.
So I wrote to Ray Feldman, spokesman of the ICC Project Team. He was very responsive to my inquiries. He said that the Norbeck bridge was temporary while the ICC highway is still under construction through the Winter.
Mr. Feldman said that in 2012 when the ICC highway is finally completed, the bridge would be upgraded. That lead me to believe the ICC Project Team would actually tear down the bridge and replace it with an entirely new, hopefully, wider bridge like the one on Layhill Road.
Not so accordingly to Mr. Feldman. Instead, the Norbeck bridge is permanent while the configuration is temporary. In 2012 when the exit/entrance ramps to the ICC will be removed, the Norbeck bridge will lose two travel lanes. That means there will only be one southbound travel lane and one northbound travel lane.
The loss of travel lanes is not good news for drivers who have to contend with heavy traffic congestion during morning and evening rush-hour, but that will provide enough room to install ample shoulders/bike lanes on both sides of the bridge, plus a sidewalk on the north-side of the bridge that will connect to the ICC bike trail at Wintergate Crossing.
There is more good news for pedestrians and bicyclists. This north-side sidewalk will stretch 600 feet westward from the bridge towards Bailey's Lane and terminate at the property line of the East Norbeck Local Park (ENLP). Then the Montgomery County Recreational Department will add another 800 feet of sidewalk into the East Norbeck Local Park and possibly link up with the ICC bike trail further west.
While I am relieved to learn that the Norbeck bridge will indeed have ample shoulders/bike lanes on both sides, plus the north-side sidewalk, I am disappointed that the ICC Project Team did not see fit to design Norbeck bridge with four lanes, raised median islands, and sidewalks on both sides.
What is going to happen when the County finally decides to widen the rest of Norbeck Road to four lanes replete with sidewalks and ample shoulders on both sides?
Will the County have to tear down the Norbeck biridge and install a new, wider bridge to accommodate the four lanes and sidewalks?
That begs the question: Why didn't the ICC Project Team anticipate the future improvements to Norbeck Road and plan accordingly by using the same specs from the Layhill bridge for the Norbeck bridge? That would have saved a lot of money and labor costs upfront, plus that would have meant a much better bridge on Norbeck for everyone.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment