« Monday Morning Commute - Quien es Mas Macho? | Main | Monday Afternoon Commute - Nixon »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The only solution is to bike/pedestriant bridge over the GW trail? Yes it will cost several million dollars, but how many people have been killed or seriously injured trying to cross the GW parkway. Cars a driving this section at 60+ MPH; they don't care if another car is already stopped at a cross walk.

I think some traffic calming engineering could help significantly. Not sure these steps, though welcome, go quite far enough.

"Share the Road" signs? Wouldn't this imply that cyclists would be able to actually, you know, ride ON the road and not just ACROSS it? Not that I'm opposed to that, it just seems like odd signage for a crosswalk.

MM, excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. This isn't about "Sharing" the road.

@washcycle; is there a link or key to the graphic?

I think #3 is by far the most dangerous. I know someone proposed a HAWK signal there (or was it #4?).

BUilding some small walls around #3 (to shelter pedestrians) waiting would also be a good idea.

Rumble strips would really help. Although, with #3, many many drivers are already stressed out enough by the time they get there. I wonder if you can shut that down entirely and just make people use the circle.

ARLnow has the pdf

http://www.arlnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GWMP-Pedestrian-Road-Safety-Audit-Action-Plan-Working-Draft-20120606.pdf

But that doesn't include the top graphic.

are the ST lines the "desire lines?"

I'm with Charlie on his last point---are all the different vehicle movements and lanes of pavement really necessary, or could some of them be removed? I've never seen a freeway-to-road interchange this complicated!

The ramp at 3 is needed for cars going North on the GW parkway to get to 50. But you could shut that down, and build a new ramp near 4 that would bypass the crosswalk and perfom the same function.

You've got the cars coming in from Wash Blvd that also need to get on 50. However, you've got the Pentagon bypass there to 110, and the Wash. Blvd bound cars could just get on the circle and then get back to 50.

@xmal,

I'm with Charlie on his last point---are all the different vehicle movements and lanes of pavement really necessary, or could some of them be removed? I've never seen a freeway-to-road interchange this complicated!

Well..sure...the *could* do that... But then traffic wouldn't flow as efficiently. Drivers might have to slow down to, say, the speed limit.

Froggie had a pretty good redesign of this area, but I can't find a link to it right now.

I had the same reaction as MM to the "Share the Road" sign proposal. I think it's actually dangerous; it might make cyclists who don't know the rules think that they are allowed to ride on the Parkway.

I still think the best option, tho not one that can be done quickly, is to build ramps directly from the north and south sides of the bridge down to the MVT. There would still need to be some other adaptations, tho, since some people will want to get from the bridge to the Pentagon.

The signs could improve the social trail problem. Alot of tourists and noobs can't find the proper crossings.

There should be a sign on the other end of the bridge telling cyclists to take the south side to get to the Mt. V trail.

A sign at the other end of the bridge doesn't really help, since by the time you get to that spot on the north side of the span, there's no practical way to get to the south side of the span. Maybe if it were accompanied by a map showing how you could portage down the big steps and loop under.

I quit using the Memorial bridge a long time ago. It's just too big of a pain in the ass. I guess that's what NPS wanted me to do...

Glad Rep. Moran got the NPS to at least go after low hanging fruit. Agreed with many, more needs to be done. But saying "more needs to be done" should not be tantamount to saying "therefore nothing now will be done." This is a good start.

Hopefully they don't really mean "share the road" but rather were referring to the W11-1 warning sign with the picture of the bicycle, which usually accompanies the W16-1 share the road sign. In this case, however, the W11-15 (Trail X-ing) plaque should be used instead.

For the curb radii, do you mean #6 or #1? #6 is the crosswalk in front of the 110 NB entrance ramp. (and isn't objectively terrible like the others, with a stop sign for vehichular traffic and people kinda going slow anyway given a healthy pedestrian presence) (it's still kinda of blind crossing though)

Judging by the drivers who ignore marked crosswalks already, I question how effective this will be without stop lights. Certainly a lot cheaper than a bridge.

Kolohe, I mean #6.

antibozo, I still think the best option, tho not one that can be done quickly, is to build ramps directly from the north and south sides of the bridge down to the MVT.

It's probably impossible because the Art commission or NCPC would shoot it down. But I've proposed the same thing.

@Wash: The link you asked for.

"I mean #6." http://goo.gl/maps/hTU2

But you can't exit Memorial Bridge / Drive there, only enter it. (and there's already a stop sign). What's the point of changing the curb radius?

Social trails (aka desire paths) are very important and should be addressed by means other than trying to shut them down. They usually indicate some degree of desperation on the part of pedestrians, who rarely see the traffic-engineer (aka motorhead) logic of walking 1000 feet to cover a linear distance of 100 feet.

This is certainly the case for ST 1 and ST 2. FWIW, all three can be seen in Google maps satellite view, though not very clearly in the case of ST 2. ST 3 should be paved if it hasn't already (the satellite view makes it look paved).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader