VDOT Release on Custis-W&OD Roundabout Completion

I wonder what the accident incident comparison will look like before/after death [emoji88] trap installment [emoji848]

Sent from Boomer_Cycles via my iPhone using Tapatalk

@kwarkentien 203117 wrote:

Perhaps I’m missing something here but I rode through here a week ago and I thought it did exactly what it was supposed to do: separate and slow traffic through this intersection. I had no trouble navigating it and didn’t find it awkward or troublesome. You shouldn’t be flying through there in either direction as (1) it’s a blind intersection; and (2) it’s within the park and adjacent to areas where children and families are gathering. I think this is much ado about nothing. But I suppose only time will tell.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Try navigating it on a tandem or long tail with kids in the back, then see how you feel about it.

There are better pictures at the link that the OP provided, which include “Yield” on the pavement:

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern-virginia/2020/custis-trail-i-66-underpass-at-bon-air-park-in-arlington-reopened12-4-2020.asp

But wait! There’s more!

The project includes lighting as well. The plan is to install a bunch (five) of light poles in the immediate vicinity of the circle. I’d posit that the area is likely to be overlit.

Big concern is a proposed light pole on the inside of the turn for westbound cyclists coming out of the underpass. That pretty much leaves no room for maneuver (light pole on the right and the raised curb of the circle’s island on the left. A cyclist coming out of the tunnel meeting a walker or cyclist salmoning in the circle may have no safe bail-out options. That inside corner is likely to be pretty congested as a wayfinding sign is up as well.

My comments to Arlington DES and BikeArlington are below:

“I took a look at the plans for the lights at the circle and recommend the fixture marked Pole CCI5P-02 be moved or eliminated. It is at the “pivot point” for westbound cyclists and presents a collision hazard. I’ve observed eastbound cyclists entering the circle clockwise (an artifact of the circle design) and if a westbound cyclist is caught by surprise, this pole creates a hazard as it eliminates the ability to bail out to the edge of the trail. I’d expect that the circle will be brighter than any other part of the trail so eliminating one light may not have any significant impact. If the decision is to not eliminate the fixture, moving it back to the wall (supporting the roadway above) would also work. Please do not create an obstacle at trail’s edge.

Even if there are no oncoming cyclists, the fixture is located at a point where maneuvering is required and we shouldn’t make that location any more demanding.”

[ATTACH]21871[/ATTACH]

@mstone 203159 wrote:

You’re arguing a strawman in a way that’s frankly insulting to a number of people who have not historically shown signs of arguing facilities on the basis of personal convenience rather than safety.

“Strawman”–I don’t think you understand what that term means, and apparently you get insulted far too easily. No one is going to run over the center island because the arrow is poorly done, and others having to slow down a bit when you yourself probably would have anyway doesn’t make it more unsafe. I’ve gone through here a number of times now; it is safer than it was. It was an area that deserved caution before, and it does so now as well, but now there are indicators to that effect. Just because they didn’t do exactly what you wanted them to does not make it terrible.

@mstone 203174 wrote:

“Motorists complain about those because they have to slow down and be careful, and of course some won’t be careful, but surely we’re better than that?”
So you meant to say something other than what you said? Who is the “we” that’s somehow on the edge of not being “better” than complaining about having to slow down? The strawman here is that you’re the first person suggest that complaints about this design are somehow related to speed, then you argue against that suggestion. If you had argued for the design by directly countering points previously raised as criticisms or raised your own points in support of the design (even regarding speed, as kwarkentien did!), then you would not have been arguing a strawman.

Not a strawman; a strawman would be if I took someone else’s argument and distorted or simplified it in order to argue against it more easily than I could the actual point being made. I simply made a comparison that you decided to take issue with or don’t feel is relevant, whereas I feel that it is relevant.

Safety here is related to speed; it seems that would be clear without it being repeated by me. If you slow down and look where you are going, then the safety issue is lessened, just as with the traffic islands. And yes, I realize that some won’t slow down, but that’s no different than with the previous design or any design that could be shoehorned in here.

But in no way do I wish to get in the way of you complaining about things. Proceed.

Need to create strava segments in all 3 directions

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

@loki 203181 wrote:

Need to create strava segments in all 3 directions

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

That’s 6 Strava segments; loki could have 6 KOMs! [love the username]