DC Councilmember Phil Mendelson got an earful from residents Friday at a hearing he held on bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement. The basic gist from the stories, reports, and tweets is that there's a chronic problem both with a general lack of traffic enforcement. There's also a lot of errors, inconsistencies, and falsehoods regarding MPD officers knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian laws.
Several other blogs and news sources have already covered this extensively, so I'll simply defer to them. Here's a few:
Greater Greater Washington, including David Alpert's testimony at the hearing.
TBD On Foot live blogging.
TheWashCycle Blog.
WTOP's Kate Ryan.
Lastly, several tweets were made using the #pedbike hashtag.
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
February 07, 2011
November 30, 2010
Bike Crash VMS
I'm woefully behind....between meetings and a mini-vacation for Thanksgiving, it's been a busy month.
But today, I found this of note:
It's a Variable Message Sign that was recently placed on Belle Haven Rd, just east of Fort Hunt Rd, looking for any witnesses to the November 14 bicycle crash that killed Christopher Benton. Witnesses are asked to call the number on the VMS...the number happened to be flashing when I took the photo.
But today, I found this of note:
It's a Variable Message Sign that was recently placed on Belle Haven Rd, just east of Fort Hunt Rd, looking for any witnesses to the November 14 bicycle crash that killed Christopher Benton. Witnesses are asked to call the number on the VMS...the number happened to be flashing when I took the photo.
November 02, 2010
Meetings galore...
Not one but two transportation-related meetings for me last night. With two more later in the week.
First up was a quick in-and-out at the Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group meeting (out quickly because I had to leave early for meeting #2), where I learned a few interesting tidbits:
After that, it was a quick trip to the transportation committee meeting for the Mount Vernon Council of Citizen's Associations. Recently, I became the alternate member on the committee for the Huntington Community Assocation, my neighborhood civic association. This represents my first real foray into the Fairfax County side of the house. While I'm officially a county resident, I've been attending the various Alexandria transportation-related meetings since I transferred here...something which I intend to continue.
This meeting started off with a recap by the committee chair of a forum she recently attended. On October 14, there apparently was a "Transportation and Traffic Solutions Forum" in DC, with guest speaker Ian Lockwood, a nationally known expert on traffic calming whose resume includes traffic calming projects on Route 50 in western Loudoun County and a stint as head of the West Palm Beach, FL Transportation Planning Division. The chair was quite impressed with some of the topics discussed at the forum by Mr. Lockwood, namely that widening of arterials may result in death of a business district (as apparently happened in West Palm Beach). Other items of interest included walkability and a roadway grid network.
This sparked a good bit of discussion at the meeting. Meeting attendees were mostly receptive to the walkability aspects, with several complaints about how Route 1/Richmond Hwy *ISN'T* pedestrian friendly. Discussion got less consensual when it came to the other aspects like road narrowing or a parallel grid. Many of the meeting attendees have been supporting (if not outright fighting for) a long-promised widening of Route 1 to 6 lanes, especially recently in light of BRAC changes at Ft. Belvoir and the expected congestion that will result from all the jobs moving to Ft. Belvoir and the Engineering Proving Ground. At the same time, it appears that both businesses along Route 1 and the neighborhoods immediately adjoining Route 1 are opposed to a wider corridor footprint. How to widen Route 1 while minimizing the footprint/impact has long been debated in this part of the county, with some residents and meeting members complaining that corridor businesses and even elected officials have been playing obstructionist to Route 1 improvements.
While a parallel grid was generally supported (from my viewpoint), there were concerns about right-of-way and redevelopment needs/impacts in order to shoehorn such a grid in along the Route 1 corridor.
During the meeting, a resolution was passed requesting the county, CTB, VDOT, and area officials secure funding for something else long-promised: a transit study along the Route 1/Richmond Hwy corridor. There was a definitive preference among committee members that the study be on RAIL transit. I took this as meaning that area residents (as represented by committee members...all from area neighborhood associations) are supported of rail transit along Richmond Hwy but would be opposed to bus lanes or some sort of BRT.
Concerns were also raised about the Fairfax County Trnasportation Bond Referendum (presumably on today's ballot). The question to voters was whether the county should raise $120 million in bonds to pay for transportation improvements. While the fact sheet associated with the referendum points out that the county's intent is to use this bond money for the county's share of WMATA's capital program, the main concern was with the wording of the referendum, which didn't specify this...leading some to speculate that the money would be used elsewhere if other money "was found" to cover the WMATA obligation.
Lastly, there's another forum featuring Ian Lockwood on the calendar. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is sponsoring a Future of Fairfax Forum, with Mr. Lockwood as one of the guest speakers. The forum will be on Wednesday evening, the 17th, in Mclean. Click on the link for more info and to RSVP.
More meetings later in the week, including the Alexandria Transportation Commission. Stay tuned.
First up was a quick in-and-out at the Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group meeting (out quickly because I had to leave early for meeting #2), where I learned a few interesting tidbits:
- A planning study for the Holmes Run Trail tunnels near I-395 has begun.
- The Royal Netherlands Embassy will be hosting a 2-day bike workshop, titled the ThinkBike Workshops, on November 15-16. The workshop, in partnership with DDOT and MWCOG, will discuss all sorts of issues related to bicycle travel, discuss Dutch bicycle infrastructure and "best practices", and will include recommendations for improving bicycling in the DC area. The public is invited to the "closing session" on the evening of the 16th at Union Station. For more info, click on the links.
- MWCOG has shared some info from the Census American Community Survey, namely a comparison of bike commuting share for member jurisdictions from 1994 to 2007/08. Of note is Alexandria's bike commuting share during those 14 years, which skyrocketed from 0.7% in 1994 to 2.7% in 2007/08. While DC's share is larger overall (3.5% in 2007/08), Alexandria by far had the biggest percentage increase during the timeframe in question. Surprisingly, Arlington only posted a 0.3% increase, to 1.4% in 2007/08...though this might be explained in part due to development patterns. Much of Arlington's growth over the past 15 years has been along the Rosslyn-Ballson corridor, and it's reasonable to assume that those residents are commuting via Metro instead of by bike. Not surprisingly, Prince William County remained flat...zero percent. Most other area jurisdictions had modest increases.
- Thought the region didn't win the TIGER 2 grant to expand Capitol Bikeshare, the city of Alexandria is looking at a smaller grant application (through MWCOG) that would allow for a limited expansion of CaBi into the city....enough to put a few stations in the Potomac Yards area (where the city would concentrate first).
After that, it was a quick trip to the transportation committee meeting for the Mount Vernon Council of Citizen's Associations. Recently, I became the alternate member on the committee for the Huntington Community Assocation, my neighborhood civic association. This represents my first real foray into the Fairfax County side of the house. While I'm officially a county resident, I've been attending the various Alexandria transportation-related meetings since I transferred here...something which I intend to continue.
This meeting started off with a recap by the committee chair of a forum she recently attended. On October 14, there apparently was a "Transportation and Traffic Solutions Forum" in DC, with guest speaker Ian Lockwood, a nationally known expert on traffic calming whose resume includes traffic calming projects on Route 50 in western Loudoun County and a stint as head of the West Palm Beach, FL Transportation Planning Division. The chair was quite impressed with some of the topics discussed at the forum by Mr. Lockwood, namely that widening of arterials may result in death of a business district (as apparently happened in West Palm Beach). Other items of interest included walkability and a roadway grid network.
This sparked a good bit of discussion at the meeting. Meeting attendees were mostly receptive to the walkability aspects, with several complaints about how Route 1/Richmond Hwy *ISN'T* pedestrian friendly. Discussion got less consensual when it came to the other aspects like road narrowing or a parallel grid. Many of the meeting attendees have been supporting (if not outright fighting for) a long-promised widening of Route 1 to 6 lanes, especially recently in light of BRAC changes at Ft. Belvoir and the expected congestion that will result from all the jobs moving to Ft. Belvoir and the Engineering Proving Ground. At the same time, it appears that both businesses along Route 1 and the neighborhoods immediately adjoining Route 1 are opposed to a wider corridor footprint. How to widen Route 1 while minimizing the footprint/impact has long been debated in this part of the county, with some residents and meeting members complaining that corridor businesses and even elected officials have been playing obstructionist to Route 1 improvements.
While a parallel grid was generally supported (from my viewpoint), there were concerns about right-of-way and redevelopment needs/impacts in order to shoehorn such a grid in along the Route 1 corridor.
During the meeting, a resolution was passed requesting the county, CTB, VDOT, and area officials secure funding for something else long-promised: a transit study along the Route 1/Richmond Hwy corridor. There was a definitive preference among committee members that the study be on RAIL transit. I took this as meaning that area residents (as represented by committee members...all from area neighborhood associations) are supported of rail transit along Richmond Hwy but would be opposed to bus lanes or some sort of BRT.
Concerns were also raised about the Fairfax County Trnasportation Bond Referendum (presumably on today's ballot). The question to voters was whether the county should raise $120 million in bonds to pay for transportation improvements. While the fact sheet associated with the referendum points out that the county's intent is to use this bond money for the county's share of WMATA's capital program, the main concern was with the wording of the referendum, which didn't specify this...leading some to speculate that the money would be used elsewhere if other money "was found" to cover the WMATA obligation.
Lastly, there's another forum featuring Ian Lockwood on the calendar. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is sponsoring a Future of Fairfax Forum, with Mr. Lockwood as one of the guest speakers. The forum will be on Wednesday evening, the 17th, in Mclean. Click on the link for more info and to RSVP.
More meetings later in the week, including the Alexandria Transportation Commission. Stay tuned.
July 31, 2010
Why drivers hate us bikes...
My curmudgeonly associate had this to say on Twitter last night:
To which I'll add red light runners (REGARDLESS of mode) and those who don't even bother to slow down at 4-way stops...both of which I see all the time in Old Town. I'll admit that I don't always stop at 4-ways, but I'll at least slow down to see if cars are coming, because if a car gets there first, they have the right-of-way. Period.
dear fellow cyclists on H street—cutting other cyclists off & then riding down the wrong side of the road epitomizes why drivers hate us.
To which I'll add red light runners (REGARDLESS of mode) and those who don't even bother to slow down at 4-way stops...both of which I see all the time in Old Town. I'll admit that I don't always stop at 4-ways, but I'll at least slow down to see if cars are coming, because if a car gets there first, they have the right-of-way. Period.
July 12, 2010
"Let's make a deal", Mississippi style
Mississippi recently passed a 3-foot passing law for vehicles to give bicyclists at least 3 feet of space when passing. Quite impressive, given Mississippi's near-complete rule-by-car mentality.
So yesterday, the SunHerald (Mississippi Gulf Coast newspaper) writes an article about the new law. The comment section, as expected, has some negative comments...many of which have been heard before in the DC region, including on TheWashCycle.
My favorite has to be "Let's Make a Deal":
Perhaps someone should take him up on that deal...though I'd throw in a counterproposal: when drivers themselves learn to stop at red lights and stop signs, we'll deal.
So yesterday, the SunHerald (Mississippi Gulf Coast newspaper) writes an article about the new law. The comment section, as expected, has some negative comments...many of which have been heard before in the DC region, including on TheWashCycle.
My favorite has to be "Let's Make a Deal":
When cyclists learn to stop at red lights, stop signs and buy tags I give them 3 feet. The cyclists that ride in Woolmarket stay in the traffic lane, go around cars at stop signs and are not equipped to ride in dusk hours. Rural roads that are barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass and have no sidewalk or curd and gutter just screams for an accident. Are riders required to wear helments in this law?
Why is a cyclist allowed to ride on the roads I have to buy a tag to drive on but a 4 wheeler can not?
Perhaps someone should take him up on that deal...though I'd throw in a counterproposal: when drivers themselves learn to stop at red lights and stop signs, we'll deal.
June 15, 2010
Route 1 ATL to get new drains
Got a bit of a surprise over the weekend. I've received a few E-mails from the Wilson Bridge public affairs team E-mailed me regarding my complaint about debris on the Route 1 ATL and the clogged drains near the start of the bridge.
First off, right after I sent my original E-mail, a team was dispatched to clear the drains of the debris I had noted. This has been done, though the rest of the sand/dirt along the trail has yet to be cleared up (another E-mail to VDOT/WWB is being sent this morning).
As for the drains themselves, the Wilson Bridge team has known of their tendency to clog for some time. The drain grates that were installed (with the narrow slots) are apparently the ones that meet Federal design standards. The bridge team has been working, and recently received approval from FHWA and VDOT, on a design exemption to install grates with wider slots (so as to reduce the chances of them clogging). Now they're just waiting for manufacture of the new grates so they can be installed, with the goal of having them installed by the end of July.
So this should hopefully eliminate our recurring Active Transportation LAKE. I also hope they don't run into the same problem that DDOT did recently with installing grates in the wrong direction... (i.e. parallel to the travel path)
First off, right after I sent my original E-mail, a team was dispatched to clear the drains of the debris I had noted. This has been done, though the rest of the sand/dirt along the trail has yet to be cleared up (another E-mail to VDOT/WWB is being sent this morning).
As for the drains themselves, the Wilson Bridge team has known of their tendency to clog for some time. The drain grates that were installed (with the narrow slots) are apparently the ones that meet Federal design standards. The bridge team has been working, and recently received approval from FHWA and VDOT, on a design exemption to install grates with wider slots (so as to reduce the chances of them clogging). Now they're just waiting for manufacture of the new grates so they can be installed, with the goal of having them installed by the end of July.
So this should hopefully eliminate our recurring Active Transportation LAKE. I also hope they don't run into the same problem that DDOT did recently with installing grates in the wrong direction... (i.e. parallel to the travel path)
June 10, 2010
Route 1 ATL update
Checked earlier this afternoon...still the leftover mudpuddle, so no cleanup yet. If there's nothing by tomorrow, I'll be calling VDOT back (and sending out another E-mail)...
June 04, 2010
The Route 1 Active Transportation LAKE
Yes, lake. Not lane. Lake. But first, an update on another issue.
The other issue being the traffic signal at Route 1 and Fort Hunt Rd, just south of the Beltway. The pedestrian signals here have been hiding behind black plastic bags for months. It got to the point where Turbineblade (coincidentally a neighbor of mine who's a bicycle enthusiast) complained on TheWashCycle on Tuesday.
So I did a quick walkabout after the storms yesterday evening to check on both the signal and the "lake".
Of course, no walk/bike ride would be complete without some driver stopping halfway into the crosswalk. No excuse for this guy...the light on Huntington Ave was red for a full 20 seconds before he got down here.
Then there's the dirt/silt piles. Not just the sidewalk here on this side, but the ATL (bike/ped path) on the other side of Route 1 have had these dirt/silt piles ever since the February snowstorms. Nobody has bothered to clear them off yet. More on that later.
Then I got down to the intersection at Fort Hunt Rd, where I happily saw that the plastic bags were removed and the pedestrian signals were operational:
I did notice two problems with the signals, though. First, and this is the same issue at Huntington Ave, they're not automatic...you have to push the button in order to get the walk signal. While I could see doing this late at night for crossing Route 1, I see no reason why the pedestrian signals can't be automatic during the normal daytime cycles...especially on Route 1 itself. Also, the daytime cycle lengths for cross-traffic crossing Route 1 are long enough to where they could also easily be automatic for the pedestrian signals.
The second problem is that the walk phase on the northbound Route 1 side changes to "don't walk" way too quickly, especially since the green phase for northbound Route 1 is quite long.
Now, moving on to our Active Transportation Lake, which "Whiteknuckled" complained about on TheWashCycle on Wednesday. I've noticed this one too in recent weeks, especially after it rains (like it did yesterday evening). Here's one of the culprits:
This is one of two drains (the other is hidden under the "lake") that have been clogged with dirt and debris ever since the storm. Because they're clogged, we get this "lake" forming every time it rains.
So last night, I sent out an E-mail about both the "lake" and the dirt/silt on the paths/sidewalks. I addressed it mainly to VDOT and the Wilson Bridge team, but also CCed several others, including the Fairfax County Supervisor for the district, the two State Delegates for the area...their district line goes right through the Route 1/Fort Hunt Rd intersection, and the State Senator for the area. Below is the E-mail I sent, verbatim:
Before I even got to bed, I had an E-mail from Delegate Surovell, saying "This is ridiculous" and directing his legislative assistant to get an answer from VDOT. Early this morning, I got an E-mail from Bob Driscoll, manager for VDOT's Fairfax Maintenance district, stating he wasn't sure if his maintenance district was responsible for this section, but he'd direct it to the proper maintenance district if it isn't Fairfax.
So we'll see. Hopefully, it'll get to the right person, get to them soon, and we'll have cleared out drains and an "empty lake" before too long.
The other issue being the traffic signal at Route 1 and Fort Hunt Rd, just south of the Beltway. The pedestrian signals here have been hiding behind black plastic bags for months. It got to the point where Turbineblade (coincidentally a neighbor of mine who's a bicycle enthusiast) complained on TheWashCycle on Tuesday.
So I did a quick walkabout after the storms yesterday evening to check on both the signal and the "lake".
Of course, no walk/bike ride would be complete without some driver stopping halfway into the crosswalk. No excuse for this guy...the light on Huntington Ave was red for a full 20 seconds before he got down here.
Then there's the dirt/silt piles. Not just the sidewalk here on this side, but the ATL (bike/ped path) on the other side of Route 1 have had these dirt/silt piles ever since the February snowstorms. Nobody has bothered to clear them off yet. More on that later.
Then I got down to the intersection at Fort Hunt Rd, where I happily saw that the plastic bags were removed and the pedestrian signals were operational:
I did notice two problems with the signals, though. First, and this is the same issue at Huntington Ave, they're not automatic...you have to push the button in order to get the walk signal. While I could see doing this late at night for crossing Route 1, I see no reason why the pedestrian signals can't be automatic during the normal daytime cycles...especially on Route 1 itself. Also, the daytime cycle lengths for cross-traffic crossing Route 1 are long enough to where they could also easily be automatic for the pedestrian signals.
The second problem is that the walk phase on the northbound Route 1 side changes to "don't walk" way too quickly, especially since the green phase for northbound Route 1 is quite long.
Now, moving on to our Active Transportation Lake, which "Whiteknuckled" complained about on TheWashCycle on Wednesday. I've noticed this one too in recent weeks, especially after it rains (like it did yesterday evening). Here's one of the culprits:
This is one of two drains (the other is hidden under the "lake") that have been clogged with dirt and debris ever since the storm. Because they're clogged, we get this "lake" forming every time it rains.
So last night, I sent out an E-mail about both the "lake" and the dirt/silt on the paths/sidewalks. I addressed it mainly to VDOT and the Wilson Bridge team, but also CCed several others, including the Fairfax County Supervisor for the district, the two State Delegates for the area...their district line goes right through the Route 1/Fort Hunt Rd intersection, and the State Senator for the area. Below is the E-mail I sent, verbatim:
I'm writing regarding the Active Transportation Lane (bike/ped path) along Route 1 in eastern Fairfax County, between Huntington Ave and the bridge over Hunting Creek on the south side of the 95/495 Beltway (constructed as part of the Wilson Bridge project).
Ever since the February snowstorms, the path/lane has been covered with piles of dirt and silt leftover from snow clearing operations. This dirt and silt has still not been swept up/removed. Also, at the south end of the Hunting Creek bridge, there are two deck drains that have been clogged with dirt/silt/debris, which in recent weeks has resulted in this section of the lane flooding over every time it rains, as can be seen in the attached photograph (taken after this evening's thunderstorms). I'm not sure if this is still under the Wilson Bridge contractor or if it's under VDOT maintenance now, but this situation is unsatisfactory and these dirt piles and drains should be cleared out as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions for me, please E-mail me.
Before I even got to bed, I had an E-mail from Delegate Surovell, saying "This is ridiculous" and directing his legislative assistant to get an answer from VDOT. Early this morning, I got an E-mail from Bob Driscoll, manager for VDOT's Fairfax Maintenance district, stating he wasn't sure if his maintenance district was responsible for this section, but he'd direct it to the proper maintenance district if it isn't Fairfax.
So we'll see. Hopefully, it'll get to the right person, get to them soon, and we'll have cleared out drains and an "empty lake" before too long.
April 08, 2010
Street Smart and Street Complete
The bulk of last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting was about two street items: Street Smart, and Complete Streets. The Complete Streets item in particular has been long-awaited.
A subcommittee of the Commission met last month to evaluate the 10 elements that comprise Complete Streets (on page 2), and also drafted up a proposed ordinance...some members of the Commission think a Complete Streets policy would "have more teeth" if it was codified into the city code, and I'm inclined to agree. There's the thought that many various plans (including the city's Master Plan and the various Small Area Plans) make mention of Complete Streets elements, but there's nothing that "brings it all together". It's also thought that a Complete Streets ordinance would have more permanence. The draft ordinance is available online (pages 3-4), and the goal is to have the ordinance before City Council by September (give or take a month).
There's a few reason for the delay. The Commission wants to bounce it off the city's attorneys to make sure everything lines up all legal-like before it goes to Council (small steps early will save the need for bigger steps later). There's also the relation to the city's new Strategic Plan, which is expected to be approved this summer and makes specific mention of Complete Streets. And there have been a few questions already brought up, mostly related to definitions, about Complete Streets.
For example, Jonathan Krall (who posts occasionally on area blogs) sent the city a letter that questions what the definition of "appropriate accommodation" is, and suggests that it be defined as "one that is everywhere visible, accessible, and connected". His concern mainly relates to connectivity for bikes and pedestrians...namely that they could come to the end of a facility and "perceive no safe way to proceed other than to turn around and return from whence they came".
Jon's wasn't the only concern about definitions. A Commission member voiced concern about the general lack of definitions in Complete Streets policy. Another made mention of a public question about the definition of "accessible transportation".
A member of an area citizen's health group (I missed both her name and the group she represented) thanked the Commission for its pursuance of a Complete Streets policy, and also requested that the ordinance includes mention of the public health benefits of Complete Streets.
The meeting then moved on from streets that are complete to streets that are smart. City staff gave a brief update on the Street Smart Campaign which is currently ongoing. This is a regional collaborative on both sides of the Potomac to raise awareness of traffic safety and laws for all modes. It includes driver/bike/pedestrian education (including a TV ad that is running on area cable stations) and increased enforcement of all modes (not just ticketing drivers, but pedestrians and bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws).
There was a question of how this ties in to the US DOT and Ray LaHood's recent focus on distracted driving. There apparently is no direct connection, but there is certainly some correlation between the two since they serve similar purposes.
Relating to Alexandria specifically, members of the Commission requested a brief on bike/pedestrian crash hotspots within the city. City staff had two maps posted at the meeting of bike/ped crashes within the city (the ones on pages 15-16 of this document), and the request is for further elaboration on those crash hotspots.
The program in Gainesville, FL mentioned earlier in the week by GreaterGreaterWashington was also mentioned at the meeting...posting signs showing traffic compliance statistics to "guilt-trip" drivers into obeying traffic laws.
My one concern with the Street Smart Campaign: if you truly want it to be effective, you can't just do a one-month enforcement blitz twice a year. You need continuous enforcement of the traffic laws. And even though this Spring campaign has been going on for 3 weeks, I have yet to see any traffic enforcement in Prince George's County. Time to get with the program, PGC.
Wrap-up note...a few items related to the proposed city budget were mentioned. The city's still looking for ways to reduce expenditures to help address the $44 million budget gap for FY11. Current proposals related to transportation are for reductions in sidewalk clearing (which mainly involves Old Town and Mt. Vernon Ave) and maintenance, parking meter maintenance (concern that this could backfire and cost the city parking meter revenue), bus shelter cleaning, development review, and traffic calming (mainly maintenance of traffic calming fixtures). The city also proposes raising the parking meter rates in Old Town from $1/hr to $1.25/hr (makes it comparable to Eisenhower Ave) and increasing rates for DOT Paratransit for those trips that go more than 6 miles outside the city.
Although the WMATA subsidy is currently being held flat, there's enough flexibility in the proposed tax rate to accommodate a $1.6 million subsidy icnrease if that goes through. Unfortunately, the city's budget process wraps up before WMATA's budget process, so there's a bit of a time disparity mucking up the waters here.
Lastly, after last month's meeting, I had explained the Add-on Commercial Property Tax, which is an additional property tax on commercial property (approved by the General Assembly a few years ago) that the city can levy to expand transportation options. It's probably not going to happen this year. The general feeling amongst City Council (as explained last night) is that the city needs a clear, articulated, and expanded project list that includes the project impacts on and benefits to the businesses that would be paying the tax. The existing project list (explained last month) is a start, but is apparently not good enough. It can't be ruled out entirely for this year, but it's not looking likely either.
A subcommittee of the Commission met last month to evaluate the 10 elements that comprise Complete Streets (on page 2), and also drafted up a proposed ordinance...some members of the Commission think a Complete Streets policy would "have more teeth" if it was codified into the city code, and I'm inclined to agree. There's the thought that many various plans (including the city's Master Plan and the various Small Area Plans) make mention of Complete Streets elements, but there's nothing that "brings it all together". It's also thought that a Complete Streets ordinance would have more permanence. The draft ordinance is available online (pages 3-4), and the goal is to have the ordinance before City Council by September (give or take a month).
There's a few reason for the delay. The Commission wants to bounce it off the city's attorneys to make sure everything lines up all legal-like before it goes to Council (small steps early will save the need for bigger steps later). There's also the relation to the city's new Strategic Plan, which is expected to be approved this summer and makes specific mention of Complete Streets. And there have been a few questions already brought up, mostly related to definitions, about Complete Streets.
For example, Jonathan Krall (who posts occasionally on area blogs) sent the city a letter that questions what the definition of "appropriate accommodation" is, and suggests that it be defined as "one that is everywhere visible, accessible, and connected". His concern mainly relates to connectivity for bikes and pedestrians...namely that they could come to the end of a facility and "perceive no safe way to proceed other than to turn around and return from whence they came".
Jon's wasn't the only concern about definitions. A Commission member voiced concern about the general lack of definitions in Complete Streets policy. Another made mention of a public question about the definition of "accessible transportation".
A member of an area citizen's health group (I missed both her name and the group she represented) thanked the Commission for its pursuance of a Complete Streets policy, and also requested that the ordinance includes mention of the public health benefits of Complete Streets.
The meeting then moved on from streets that are complete to streets that are smart. City staff gave a brief update on the Street Smart Campaign which is currently ongoing. This is a regional collaborative on both sides of the Potomac to raise awareness of traffic safety and laws for all modes. It includes driver/bike/pedestrian education (including a TV ad that is running on area cable stations) and increased enforcement of all modes (not just ticketing drivers, but pedestrians and bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws).
There was a question of how this ties in to the US DOT and Ray LaHood's recent focus on distracted driving. There apparently is no direct connection, but there is certainly some correlation between the two since they serve similar purposes.
Relating to Alexandria specifically, members of the Commission requested a brief on bike/pedestrian crash hotspots within the city. City staff had two maps posted at the meeting of bike/ped crashes within the city (the ones on pages 15-16 of this document), and the request is for further elaboration on those crash hotspots.
The program in Gainesville, FL mentioned earlier in the week by GreaterGreaterWashington was also mentioned at the meeting...posting signs showing traffic compliance statistics to "guilt-trip" drivers into obeying traffic laws.
My one concern with the Street Smart Campaign: if you truly want it to be effective, you can't just do a one-month enforcement blitz twice a year. You need continuous enforcement of the traffic laws. And even though this Spring campaign has been going on for 3 weeks, I have yet to see any traffic enforcement in Prince George's County. Time to get with the program, PGC.
Wrap-up note...a few items related to the proposed city budget were mentioned. The city's still looking for ways to reduce expenditures to help address the $44 million budget gap for FY11. Current proposals related to transportation are for reductions in sidewalk clearing (which mainly involves Old Town and Mt. Vernon Ave) and maintenance, parking meter maintenance (concern that this could backfire and cost the city parking meter revenue), bus shelter cleaning, development review, and traffic calming (mainly maintenance of traffic calming fixtures). The city also proposes raising the parking meter rates in Old Town from $1/hr to $1.25/hr (makes it comparable to Eisenhower Ave) and increasing rates for DOT Paratransit for those trips that go more than 6 miles outside the city.
Although the WMATA subsidy is currently being held flat, there's enough flexibility in the proposed tax rate to accommodate a $1.6 million subsidy icnrease if that goes through. Unfortunately, the city's budget process wraps up before WMATA's budget process, so there's a bit of a time disparity mucking up the waters here.
Lastly, after last month's meeting, I had explained the Add-on Commercial Property Tax, which is an additional property tax on commercial property (approved by the General Assembly a few years ago) that the city can levy to expand transportation options. It's probably not going to happen this year. The general feeling amongst City Council (as explained last night) is that the city needs a clear, articulated, and expanded project list that includes the project impacts on and benefits to the businesses that would be paying the tax. The existing project list (explained last month) is a start, but is apparently not good enough. It can't be ruled out entirely for this year, but it's not looking likely either.
January 20, 2010
VDOT to reopen closed rest areas
Just heard about this one. Per today's CTB resolution, VDOT plans to reopen its closed rest areas by mid-April, according to this brief. These were the 19 rest areas they closed last summer due to budget cuts. The new Governor (sworn in this past Saturday) vowed to make reopening them a priority, and apparently it worked.
Which is fine by me. Because the Welcome Center on westbound 66 near Manassas was my usual stop for picking up state highway maps...
Which is fine by me. Because the Welcome Center on westbound 66 near Manassas was my usual stop for picking up state highway maps...
January 13, 2010
Alexandria Bike Meeting Followup
The city has updated the LocalMotion webpage to include the material from Monday night's meeting:
2009 Year in Review. Which I just noticed is organized via the "5 E's" that the League of American Bicyclists uses.
Meeting notes. Taken by one of the city staff members present. Looking at the sign-up sheet, I was pretty close on meeting attendence. Excluding city staff, the guest speakers, and Councilwoman Hughes, there were 20 people at the meeting.
The Presentation given at the meeting. Of note:
- Page 9, the prioritization criteria the Transportation Commission uses.
- Page 10, FY 2011 CMAQ/RSTP-funded projects. The city originally expected to get $3 million, but MWCOG gave only $2.5 million instead.
- Pages 12 and 13 reference the draft Strategic Plan goals/initiatives associated with bikes/peds.
- Page 17 shows some of the bike counts the city did on the Mount Vernon Trail.
- Page 20 shows planned specs for bicycle parking lockers and shelters.
- Page 21 has the planned 2010 projects, including the locations for the Rapid Flash Beacons that I'd missed catching at the meeting.
- Page 25 has typicals of the planned wayfinding signage. I was a little off on the height...the specs show a 6ft height for the signs.
- Page 27 has upcoming events, including dates and topics for the Confident City Cycling classes being offered this spring.
[EDIT: in addition to the 2008 bike/ped crash maps on pages 15-16 of the presentation, I found this earlier map showing bike/ped crashes between 2004 and 2006.]
2009 Year in Review. Which I just noticed is organized via the "5 E's" that the League of American Bicyclists uses.
Meeting notes. Taken by one of the city staff members present. Looking at the sign-up sheet, I was pretty close on meeting attendence. Excluding city staff, the guest speakers, and Councilwoman Hughes, there were 20 people at the meeting.
The Presentation given at the meeting. Of note:
- Page 9, the prioritization criteria the Transportation Commission uses.
- Page 10, FY 2011 CMAQ/RSTP-funded projects. The city originally expected to get $3 million, but MWCOG gave only $2.5 million instead.
- Pages 12 and 13 reference the draft Strategic Plan goals/initiatives associated with bikes/peds.
- Page 17 shows some of the bike counts the city did on the Mount Vernon Trail.
- Page 20 shows planned specs for bicycle parking lockers and shelters.
- Page 21 has the planned 2010 projects, including the locations for the Rapid Flash Beacons that I'd missed catching at the meeting.
- Page 25 has typicals of the planned wayfinding signage. I was a little off on the height...the specs show a 6ft height for the signs.
- Page 27 has upcoming events, including dates and topics for the Confident City Cycling classes being offered this spring.
[EDIT: in addition to the 2008 bike/ped crash maps on pages 15-16 of the presentation, I found this earlier map showing bike/ped crashes between 2004 and 2006.]
January 12, 2010
Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group Meeting - January 11, 2010.
Last night was the year's first meeting of the Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group. This is an informal meeting held every other month by which city staff can provide information on city projects and plans and solicit input and comment from Alexandria citizens regarding walking and bicycling. These meetings are headed by Yon Lambert, one of the city's Transporation Planners and part of the city's Transportation & Environmental Services Department.
This was my first time attending the group's meeting, having been invited by Dave Levy (vice-president of BikeWalk Alexandria), whom I'd met the week before at an Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting. Also in attendence was Bruce Dwyer, one of WABA's volunteers and an Alexandria resident.
There were a large number of people in attendence. From what I gathered, typically these meetings have about 5-10 citizens attending. Last night's meeting had over 20. Too early to tell whether this is a sign of the resurgence in bicycling or simply an anomaly.
In part because of the large number of attendees, the meeting started off with an introduction about the group and its purpose and also a brief "2009 Year in Review" regarding city bicycle and pedestrian accomplishments in 2009. The year in review is still in draft format, but will be posted to the city's LocalMotion website once finalized. Here are a few of the highlights:
- Although there was a slight increase in bicycle crashes over 2008 (21 vs. 19), there was a decrease in pedestrian crashes (49 vs 57), and for the second year in a row there were zero fatalities.
- Opening of the Active Transportation Lane on the Wilson Bridge on June 6, an event that I also participated in.
- A "road diet" and inclusion of a climbing lane on West Braddock Rd.
- Rehabilitation and resurfacing of the Holmes Run Trail between Duke St and North Ripley.
A brief mention was also made of the previous meeting, a joint meeting with Arlington's Bicycle Advisory Group back in September, but Alexandria staff felt it was very data heavy and so did not go into a lot of detail on it. Minutes of this meeting are posted on TheWashCycle.
There were two guest speakers at the meeting. The first was John Kamoroske, a longtime Alexandria resident (over 50 years) and the chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. He gave a brief overview of the Planning Commission and its function, how citizens can provide input to improve small area plans (including Potomac Yards and the Waterfront...but studies that are underway), and also spoke about Transportation Management Plans (TMP's) and how they are a potential source, albeit a small source (only about $3 million citywide in 2009), of funding for bike/ped improvements in the vicinity of a given TMP.
The second guest speaker was Jayme Blakesly. By day, he is a lawyer with the Federal Transit Administration and a bicycle commuter. By evening, he is an Alexandria resident and is the vice-chair and one of the citizen representatives of the Alexandria Transportation Commission, which advises the City Countil on transportation issues. Jayme gave a brief overview of the Transportation Commission, including the Long Range Plan and CIP planning process and prioritization criteria, along with showing several slides from the Transportation Commission meeting from last week (which I also attended).
Mr. Blakesly touched on two goals of the city's draft Strategic Plan:
- Goal 2. The City Respects, Protects and Enhances the Health of its Citizens and the Quality of its Natural Environment. And Initiative 3G in particular, which specifically addresses Pedestrian and Bicyclist Travel.
- Goal 3.There is an Integrated, Multimodal Transportation System that Efficiently and Effectively Gets People from Point "A" to Point "B." A multimodal transportation network that supports sustainable land use and provides internal mobility and regional connectivity for Alexandria.
He also spoke passionately about Complete Streets, which also got discussed at last week's Transportation Commission meeting, and rehashed several points about Complete Streets made at that meeting. Besides questions about how to retrofit Complete Streets into the existing street network or incorporate it into the street design manual (the latter of which being something that New York City has apparently done), Mr. Blakesly believes that Complete Streets shouldn't just be implemented as city policy but should be codified within the city's municipal code.
The next subject was on bike/ped counts on the Mount Vernon Trail. Besides the generally year-round counts that NPS does (and also posts some typical information online), the city conducted volume counts in September, not just on the Mount Vernon Trail, but also on Four Mile Run near Commonwealth Ave and on Holmes Run just north of Duke St. Naturally, these other two locations had fairly low volumes overall. The Mount Vernon numbers were significantly higher...I don't remember the specifics offhand but want to say that it's in the range of 2-4K north of Pendleton St. Another thing that struck me (and verified by the NPS graph on the above link) was the much higher usage on weekends, especially on good weather weekends. The Mount Vernon Trail sees a fair bit of commuters during the morning and evening peak, but nothing like what it sees during the middle of a weekend day, where bicycle volumes can approach 450 an hour.
I asked if city staff or NPS has taken these numbers and calculated out the Bike Level of Service (LOS) for the trail. Mr. Lambert did not have an easy answer for me, but thought that NPS did. I may try to contact NPS to see if they have that data, or I may try to get the city's counts from Mr. Lambert and do my own calculations...I have the 2000 HCM at home, which includes the methodology for calculating Bicycle LOS.
Next was discussion on the planned Holmes Run/Chambliss Crossing, which is in the final stages of planning. The crossing has long been desired by the city due to the lack of nearby stream crossings, and would connect into a trail on the Fairfax County side that extends up to Columbia Pike. At first just a crossing project, the project will now include bank stabilization and stream restoration, in part to save money by doing two separate projects at once and in part to address concerns by the local neighborhood, including their opposition to any trail crossing that would have a negative impact on the stream and its flooding potential.
TheWashCycle previously covered the adopted plan to build a Low Profile Crossing. According to city staff, this type of crossing has been deemed acceptable by the local neighborhood. The main hangup right now is with VDOT. Because of safety/ADA concerns, VDOT wants railings included on the low-profile crossing. Understandable from a safety standpoint, but it would significantly change the profile of the crossing and would also introduce potential jamming points for debris to logjam during a flood, which would impact flooding in the neighborhood, while leaving out the railings reduces this logjam/additional flooding potential. The city is in discussion with VDOT to hopefully resolve this issue.
A few miscellaneous items:
- The city's "Confident City Cycling" classes will continue. Last year, these were sponsored through WABA. Unfortunately, I missed writing down the dates that they will be held this upcoming spring.
- The city has come up with specifications for bicycle parking lockers and parking shelters. The latter looked like bike racks with an overhang similar to a bus shelter open on one side.
- There was mention of the new HAWK signal that was installed last year on Van Dorn St.
- The next BikeDC event is tentatively planned for Sunday, May 9. City staff are working with BikeDC and other organizations to see about getting one of the bike routes extended into Alexandria.
The city is in the process of installing four "Rapid Flash Beacons" at various, mid-block pedestrian crosswalks (I didn't catch the specific locations). The beacon is basically a specialized Pedestrian Crossing warning sign that, when activated, has LED lights that flash at a fast rate, bringing the motorists attention to pedestrians in the crosswalk area. The first one was installed in St. Petersburg, FL in 2004, and evidence suggests that it greatly increases vehicle compliance rates (for stopping for peds in a crosswalk), upwards of 60%. Portland, OR installed their first Rapid Flash Beacon a few months ago and has plans for more. Alexandria is pursuing them because initial results elsewhere are positive and because they cost considerably less than a HAWK signal...around $18K for the RFB vice $100K for a HAWK.
The city has preliminary designs for new bicycle/pedestrian Wayfinding signage. These signs, which will stand about 7ft high or so, would be implemented along the city's three core trail corridors: Mt Vernon, Holmes Run, and Four Mile Run. Signage along on-street facilities will continue to be in the already-existing format, which will keep it in line with recent changes to the Federal MUTCD. The city's Wayfinding Stakeholder Advisory Group is having its next meeting on January 26 at City Hall (unfortunately, a mid-morning meeting).
According to city staff,four 40 design teams have submitted proposals for the planned Four Mile Run Pedestrian-Cyclist Bridge design competition. This is the planned bike/ped bridge across Four Mile Run that will connect Commonwealth Ave to Eads St. The winner will be announced on March 27.
There was some discussion on the long-planned intersection improvements at King St and Beauregard St/Walter Reed Dr intersection. A large wall map at the meeting highlighted the latest planned design. From what I saw, the main improvements focused on better channelization, medians, and dual left turn lanes for two of the intersection legs. But one notable feature is that the plan includes bike/ped paths or sidewalks on both sides of both streets approaching the intersection. Also of note was how there has been negative pushback from the neighborhood on adding bike/ped paths to the project...the most common argument being "nobody bikes here, so why include them?".
The last main topic of disussion involved Eisenhower Ave and the two projects related to it. The first project is expected to be let to bid next month, and involves building a bicycle/pedestrian trail underneath Eisenhower Ave where it crosses Cameron Run. The trail will tie seamlessly into the Holmes Run trail to the north, and the Eisenhower Ave trail to the east, enabling bikes and pedestrians to connect between the two without having to cross Eisenhower Ave at-grade.
The second project is a much larger project, what the city is calling the Eisenhower Avenue Widening Project, though that isn't completely accurate itself given the current plans, of which there was a big map posted on the wall at the meeting. Originally a project to widen Eisenhower Ave between Stovall St and Holland Ln from 4 to 6 lanes, the project has since morphed into a "Complete Streets" project with several features:
- Landscapped median and curbs.
- Sidewalk bulb-outs at many intersections.
- The traffic circle at Holland Ln will be replaced by a standard T-intersection.
- Bike lanes on both sides of Eisenhower.
- Wider sidewalks.
- A wide combination sidewalk/shared use path along the south side of Eisenhower between Stovall St and Mill Rd. This would be an extension of the existing path to the west, would connect to the under-construction path over the Beltway at Telegraph Rd, and would also connect to a future city path to the east (more on that later).
- The "third lane" westbound is a strange part of the project. It would be interrupted by the sidewalk bulb-outs at Mill Rd, Mill Race Ln, and Swamp Fox Rd. Between Mill Rd and Mill Race Ln would be permanent on-steet parking. West of Mill Race Ln, approaching both Swamp Fox Rd and Stovall St, the lane will be a right-turn-only lane during peak hours, and on-street parking during off-peak hours.
- Between Holland Ln and Mill Rd is where the "third" lane westbound is most unique. Along this stretch, the lane would be continuous and 16ft (15ft plus 1ft gutter) wide. During peak hours, the lane would function as a general traffic lane with a 5ft bicycle lane curbside. During off-peak hours, though, the lane becomes a parallel-parking lane, with a 7-8ft bicycle lane next to the travel lane and the parking lane being curbside. Presumably, striping would allow the delination between the two configurations, but there is a very real concern about how right-turning traffic at Mill Rd would weave with through bicycle traffic. Mr. Lambert noted that this is only a preliminary configuration and is subject to change pending further refinement and/or input.
Besides that special lane and the weaving impact, there was concern from a few of the bicyclists present about how the bulb outs would affect the bicycle lane and bike traffic. However, looking closely at the map, it appears that enough street width will be provided at the bulb-out intersections to allow for a continuous bike lane without requiring bikes to merge into the right traffic lane at the bulb-outs.
[Edit...additional item I forgot] The city has a plan to build a shared use trail running southeast from the Mill Rd/Eisenhower Ave intersection. This trail would follow an easement along the old Cameron Run channel and then around the south side of the city's waterworks to connect to the south end of Payne St. By utilizing Payne St and the Franklin/Gibbon St combo, this would give bicyclists another way to get between Eisenhower Ave and the south side of Old Town and the WWB trail.
The last item of the meeting involved an upcoming support facility. An owner of one of the area bicycle courier companies (didn't catch the name) was present with handouts for the planned VeloCity Bicycle Co-op. The coop will be a non-profit organization located at 204 South Union St (along the Old Town waterfront) offering bicycle-related youth programs, do-it-yourself maintenance, training workshops, and other events. The goal is to have the Co-op open by April.
Cross-posted at TheWashCycle.
This was my first time attending the group's meeting, having been invited by Dave Levy (vice-president of BikeWalk Alexandria), whom I'd met the week before at an Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting. Also in attendence was Bruce Dwyer, one of WABA's volunteers and an Alexandria resident.
There were a large number of people in attendence. From what I gathered, typically these meetings have about 5-10 citizens attending. Last night's meeting had over 20. Too early to tell whether this is a sign of the resurgence in bicycling or simply an anomaly.
In part because of the large number of attendees, the meeting started off with an introduction about the group and its purpose and also a brief "2009 Year in Review" regarding city bicycle and pedestrian accomplishments in 2009. The year in review is still in draft format, but will be posted to the city's LocalMotion website once finalized. Here are a few of the highlights:
- Although there was a slight increase in bicycle crashes over 2008 (21 vs. 19), there was a decrease in pedestrian crashes (49 vs 57), and for the second year in a row there were zero fatalities.
- Opening of the Active Transportation Lane on the Wilson Bridge on June 6, an event that I also participated in.
- A "road diet" and inclusion of a climbing lane on West Braddock Rd.
- Rehabilitation and resurfacing of the Holmes Run Trail between Duke St and North Ripley.
A brief mention was also made of the previous meeting, a joint meeting with Arlington's Bicycle Advisory Group back in September, but Alexandria staff felt it was very data heavy and so did not go into a lot of detail on it. Minutes of this meeting are posted on TheWashCycle.
There were two guest speakers at the meeting. The first was John Kamoroske, a longtime Alexandria resident (over 50 years) and the chair of the Alexandria Planning Commission. He gave a brief overview of the Planning Commission and its function, how citizens can provide input to improve small area plans (including Potomac Yards and the Waterfront...but studies that are underway), and also spoke about Transportation Management Plans (TMP's) and how they are a potential source, albeit a small source (only about $3 million citywide in 2009), of funding for bike/ped improvements in the vicinity of a given TMP.
The second guest speaker was Jayme Blakesly. By day, he is a lawyer with the Federal Transit Administration and a bicycle commuter. By evening, he is an Alexandria resident and is the vice-chair and one of the citizen representatives of the Alexandria Transportation Commission, which advises the City Countil on transportation issues. Jayme gave a brief overview of the Transportation Commission, including the Long Range Plan and CIP planning process and prioritization criteria, along with showing several slides from the Transportation Commission meeting from last week (which I also attended).
Mr. Blakesly touched on two goals of the city's draft Strategic Plan:
- Goal 2. The City Respects, Protects and Enhances the Health of its Citizens and the Quality of its Natural Environment. And Initiative 3G in particular, which specifically addresses Pedestrian and Bicyclist Travel.
- Goal 3.
He also spoke passionately about Complete Streets, which also got discussed at last week's Transportation Commission meeting, and rehashed several points about Complete Streets made at that meeting. Besides questions about how to retrofit Complete Streets into the existing street network or incorporate it into the street design manual (the latter of which being something that New York City has apparently done), Mr. Blakesly believes that Complete Streets shouldn't just be implemented as city policy but should be codified within the city's municipal code.
The next subject was on bike/ped counts on the Mount Vernon Trail. Besides the generally year-round counts that NPS does (and also posts some typical information online), the city conducted volume counts in September, not just on the Mount Vernon Trail, but also on Four Mile Run near Commonwealth Ave and on Holmes Run just north of Duke St. Naturally, these other two locations had fairly low volumes overall. The Mount Vernon numbers were significantly higher...I don't remember the specifics offhand but want to say that it's in the range of 2-4K north of Pendleton St. Another thing that struck me (and verified by the NPS graph on the above link) was the much higher usage on weekends, especially on good weather weekends. The Mount Vernon Trail sees a fair bit of commuters during the morning and evening peak, but nothing like what it sees during the middle of a weekend day, where bicycle volumes can approach 450 an hour.
I asked if city staff or NPS has taken these numbers and calculated out the Bike Level of Service (LOS) for the trail. Mr. Lambert did not have an easy answer for me, but thought that NPS did. I may try to contact NPS to see if they have that data, or I may try to get the city's counts from Mr. Lambert and do my own calculations...I have the 2000 HCM at home, which includes the methodology for calculating Bicycle LOS.
Next was discussion on the planned Holmes Run/Chambliss Crossing, which is in the final stages of planning. The crossing has long been desired by the city due to the lack of nearby stream crossings, and would connect into a trail on the Fairfax County side that extends up to Columbia Pike. At first just a crossing project, the project will now include bank stabilization and stream restoration, in part to save money by doing two separate projects at once and in part to address concerns by the local neighborhood, including their opposition to any trail crossing that would have a negative impact on the stream and its flooding potential.
TheWashCycle previously covered the adopted plan to build a Low Profile Crossing. According to city staff, this type of crossing has been deemed acceptable by the local neighborhood. The main hangup right now is with VDOT. Because of safety/ADA concerns, VDOT wants railings included on the low-profile crossing. Understandable from a safety standpoint, but it would significantly change the profile of the crossing and would also introduce potential jamming points for debris to logjam during a flood, which would impact flooding in the neighborhood, while leaving out the railings reduces this logjam/additional flooding potential. The city is in discussion with VDOT to hopefully resolve this issue.
A few miscellaneous items:
- The city's "Confident City Cycling" classes will continue. Last year, these were sponsored through WABA. Unfortunately, I missed writing down the dates that they will be held this upcoming spring.
- The city has come up with specifications for bicycle parking lockers and parking shelters. The latter looked like bike racks with an overhang similar to a bus shelter open on one side.
- There was mention of the new HAWK signal that was installed last year on Van Dorn St.
- The next BikeDC event is tentatively planned for Sunday, May 9. City staff are working with BikeDC and other organizations to see about getting one of the bike routes extended into Alexandria.
The city is in the process of installing four "Rapid Flash Beacons" at various, mid-block pedestrian crosswalks (I didn't catch the specific locations). The beacon is basically a specialized Pedestrian Crossing warning sign that, when activated, has LED lights that flash at a fast rate, bringing the motorists attention to pedestrians in the crosswalk area. The first one was installed in St. Petersburg, FL in 2004, and evidence suggests that it greatly increases vehicle compliance rates (for stopping for peds in a crosswalk), upwards of 60%. Portland, OR installed their first Rapid Flash Beacon a few months ago and has plans for more. Alexandria is pursuing them because initial results elsewhere are positive and because they cost considerably less than a HAWK signal...around $18K for the RFB vice $100K for a HAWK.
The city has preliminary designs for new bicycle/pedestrian Wayfinding signage. These signs, which will stand about 7ft high or so, would be implemented along the city's three core trail corridors: Mt Vernon, Holmes Run, and Four Mile Run. Signage along on-street facilities will continue to be in the already-existing format, which will keep it in line with recent changes to the Federal MUTCD. The city's Wayfinding Stakeholder Advisory Group is having its next meeting on January 26 at City Hall (unfortunately, a mid-morning meeting).
According to city staff,
There was some discussion on the long-planned intersection improvements at King St and Beauregard St/Walter Reed Dr intersection. A large wall map at the meeting highlighted the latest planned design. From what I saw, the main improvements focused on better channelization, medians, and dual left turn lanes for two of the intersection legs. But one notable feature is that the plan includes bike/ped paths or sidewalks on both sides of both streets approaching the intersection. Also of note was how there has been negative pushback from the neighborhood on adding bike/ped paths to the project...the most common argument being "nobody bikes here, so why include them?".
The last main topic of disussion involved Eisenhower Ave and the two projects related to it. The first project is expected to be let to bid next month, and involves building a bicycle/pedestrian trail underneath Eisenhower Ave where it crosses Cameron Run. The trail will tie seamlessly into the Holmes Run trail to the north, and the Eisenhower Ave trail to the east, enabling bikes and pedestrians to connect between the two without having to cross Eisenhower Ave at-grade.
The second project is a much larger project, what the city is calling the Eisenhower Avenue Widening Project, though that isn't completely accurate itself given the current plans, of which there was a big map posted on the wall at the meeting. Originally a project to widen Eisenhower Ave between Stovall St and Holland Ln from 4 to 6 lanes, the project has since morphed into a "Complete Streets" project with several features:
- Landscapped median and curbs.
- Sidewalk bulb-outs at many intersections.
- The traffic circle at Holland Ln will be replaced by a standard T-intersection.
- Bike lanes on both sides of Eisenhower.
- Wider sidewalks.
- A wide combination sidewalk/shared use path along the south side of Eisenhower between Stovall St and Mill Rd. This would be an extension of the existing path to the west, would connect to the under-construction path over the Beltway at Telegraph Rd, and would also connect to a future city path to the east (more on that later).
- The "third lane" westbound is a strange part of the project. It would be interrupted by the sidewalk bulb-outs at Mill Rd, Mill Race Ln, and Swamp Fox Rd. Between Mill Rd and Mill Race Ln would be permanent on-steet parking. West of Mill Race Ln, approaching both Swamp Fox Rd and Stovall St, the lane will be a right-turn-only lane during peak hours, and on-street parking during off-peak hours.
- Between Holland Ln and Mill Rd is where the "third" lane westbound is most unique. Along this stretch, the lane would be continuous and 16ft (15ft plus 1ft gutter) wide. During peak hours, the lane would function as a general traffic lane with a 5ft bicycle lane curbside. During off-peak hours, though, the lane becomes a parallel-parking lane, with a 7-8ft bicycle lane next to the travel lane and the parking lane being curbside. Presumably, striping would allow the delination between the two configurations, but there is a very real concern about how right-turning traffic at Mill Rd would weave with through bicycle traffic. Mr. Lambert noted that this is only a preliminary configuration and is subject to change pending further refinement and/or input.
Besides that special lane and the weaving impact, there was concern from a few of the bicyclists present about how the bulb outs would affect the bicycle lane and bike traffic. However, looking closely at the map, it appears that enough street width will be provided at the bulb-out intersections to allow for a continuous bike lane without requiring bikes to merge into the right traffic lane at the bulb-outs.
[Edit...additional item I forgot] The city has a plan to build a shared use trail running southeast from the Mill Rd/Eisenhower Ave intersection. This trail would follow an easement along the old Cameron Run channel and then around the south side of the city's waterworks to connect to the south end of Payne St. By utilizing Payne St and the Franklin/Gibbon St combo, this would give bicyclists another way to get between Eisenhower Ave and the south side of Old Town and the WWB trail.
The last item of the meeting involved an upcoming support facility. An owner of one of the area bicycle courier companies (didn't catch the name) was present with handouts for the planned VeloCity Bicycle Co-op. The coop will be a non-profit organization located at 204 South Union St (along the Old Town waterfront) offering bicycle-related youth programs, do-it-yourself maintenance, training workshops, and other events. The goal is to have the Co-op open by April.
Cross-posted at TheWashCycle.
September 14, 2009
The "Idaho Stop"...
So, after an hour-long bike ride this evening (something I'm trying to do more often), it occurred to me that the more I get back into bicycling, the more I find myself in favor of the "Idaho Stop".
For those not familliar, the Idaho Stop, named so because it's coded within Section 49-720 of the Idaho statutes, basically allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as a yield sign, or treat red traffic lights as a stop sign. It doesn't give cyclists carte blanche to enter the intersection willy-nilly...vehicles in or near the intersection still have the right-of-way as normal. But what it does is allow the bicyclist to not have to stop completely at stop signs in situations of no traffic, light traffic, or a gap in traffic. And since it takes a lot of energy to stop, start back up, and get back up to speed on a bicycle (I've read reports suggesting that upwards of 25% of the energy a bicylist exerts is because of stopping and starting), this enables bicyclists to maintain speed and save energy in these situations.
I used to be concerned about this law passing in other areas, namely due to unfamiliarity as well as safety concerns with cyclists thinking they could just enter the intersection without yielding to traffic. The latter is still a concern, but I find myself more in favor of it now. Funny what seeing the other side (or re-experiencing the other side) of things can do to one's viewpoint...
For those not familliar, the Idaho Stop, named so because it's coded within Section 49-720 of the Idaho statutes, basically allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as a yield sign, or treat red traffic lights as a stop sign. It doesn't give cyclists carte blanche to enter the intersection willy-nilly...vehicles in or near the intersection still have the right-of-way as normal. But what it does is allow the bicyclist to not have to stop completely at stop signs in situations of no traffic, light traffic, or a gap in traffic. And since it takes a lot of energy to stop, start back up, and get back up to speed on a bicycle (I've read reports suggesting that upwards of 25% of the energy a bicylist exerts is because of stopping and starting), this enables bicyclists to maintain speed and save energy in these situations.
I used to be concerned about this law passing in other areas, namely due to unfamiliarity as well as safety concerns with cyclists thinking they could just enter the intersection without yielding to traffic. The latter is still a concern, but I find myself more in favor of it now. Funny what seeing the other side (or re-experiencing the other side) of things can do to one's viewpoint...
November 18, 2007
Saucier intersection back in the news
So while I was gone (out to sea for a month), looks like yet another fatal accident at the US 49/MS 67 intersection in Saucier, MS. With the resultant calls, please, cries, and screams for MDOT to install a traffic signal there.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
So I decided to write the following letter to the SunHerald. Will be interesting to see if they publish it:
Give and take
Another fatal accident at Hwy 49 and Hwy 67 in Saucier. Another screaming call for a traffic light at that intersection.
But, as tragic as ANY fatality or injury at that location is, this isn't the time for emotional decisions. A full-fledged solution, coordinated between MDOT, the residents of Saucier, and the drivers who use the road every day, is what it's time for.
The location is a tricky one, to be sure. There's school traffic, local traffic, commuter traffic, and long-distance traffic all rolled into one location, each with different needs. Long-distance traffic (as you have on Hwy 49 as it's THE 4-lane connector to Hattiesburg and Jackson) does not mesh well with local and school traffic. Throw in commuter traffic going to Gulfport and the result is the mess we have.
There are, in effect, four possible solutions to the situation. But each one has its own give and take.
The first is lowering the speed limit on Hwy 49. But without consistent and continuing speed limit enforcement (unlikely unless we increase the number of state troopers), this will do little to change the problem. This also does little to change the situation for those crossing Hwy 49, especially if those crossing drivers are not paying attention, which has been the cause of some of the accidents.
The second solution is adding a traffic signal, which is where you have your biggest give-and-take. On the one side, adding a traffic signal tends to reduce the severity of accidents, and makes it easier for local traffic to cross Hwy 49. On the flip side, studies show that adding a traffic signal on rural highways (as Hwy 49 is) tends to increase the overall number of accidents, plus increases travel delay on the main highway. There is also the driver expectation that rural highway do not have traffic signals, and introducing one will cause confusion for some or lead to potential accidents. A contributing problem in this case is the same southbound curve that already restricts visibility of the intersection from Hwy 49. A traffic signal also does not eliminate the possibility of nasty accidents. Instead of cases where one driver is going too fast or cuts in front of traffic as we have now, a traffic signal introduces the potential for nasty accidents from drivers running red lights, especially along a busy highway like Hwy 49.
The third solution is to close the median crossing at Hwy 67 and install U-turns on either end. This reduces the problem of crossing traffic, as crossing traffic will only need to deal with one side of Hwy 49 at a time and does not penalize Hwy 49 traffic as a traffic signal would. The downside is that it's more inconvenient for crossing traffic or left-turning traffic. Though this requires some right-of-way, and a large enough pull-out for trucks and buses to make a U-turn, it's less expensive than the last solution.
The last solution to the Hwy 49/Hwy 67 problem is the safest solution, but also the most expensive and the one that takes the most time to implement: a diamond interchange. This solution would allow local traffic to freely cross Hwy 49, as well as allow Hwy 49 traffic to travel unimpeded by cross-traffic. Unfortunately, diamond interchanges require some right-of-way, several million dollars, and at least a year or two to implement. And in this case, any interchange decision would be impacted by the ongoing Hwy 601 study and the decision on where to put the new Hwy 601.
So it all boils down to give-and-take. How much do MDOT and the residents of Saucier want to give up to get what they want. And how much will both Hwy 49 and local travelers have to suffer in the process. The answer won't be easy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)