Cyclist struck at Arl Mem’l Circle, 2/25/20

[arlcxrider]

About 8 am today, south side of the circle, where the two lanes come off the GW Pkwy. Bicycle was wedged under the front bumper. Rider was up and alert, and exchanging information with the driver. No police on scene. Another cyclist had stopped, and the situation seemed under control, so I didn’t stick around.

[dasgeh]

@arlcxrider 198748 wrote:

About 8 am today, south side of the circle, where the two lanes come off the GW Pkwy. Bicycle was wedged under the front bumper. Rider was up and alert, and exchanging information with the driver. No police on scene. Another cyclist had stopped, and the situation seemed under control, so I didn’t stick around.

Do you mean (1) the crossing of the 2 lanes (which has at times been narrowed to 1 lane bc construction) going to Memorial Bridge, (2) the crossing of the one lane connecting 27 to the GWMP (the crossing is just one lane but it used to be two and sometimes drivers still make it two); or (3) the crossing of the two lanes of the GWMP itself (close to the river)?

[arlcxrider]

(1), south entrance to the Circle of Doom (technically Washington Blvd I guess). Sorry it wasn’t clearer. “Hotspot 5” in the latest NPS study.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21318[/ATTACH]

[dasgeh]

Thanks. It’s hard to be clear here, but that map definitely helps.

[arlcxrider]

Slightly off-topic, and I’m sure this has been thoroughly hashed over elsewhere in the forum, but I don’t think the NPS’s preferred plan (“Alternative C”) is going to improve things all that much. They’re proposing two dedicated lanes to make the turn onto the Bridge, with in-circle traffic yielding, essentially what exists today, with only a minor modification. I don’t really see how maintaining the status quo supports the study’s claims that this will reduce vehicle speeds at the bike/ped crossing, site of today’s crash. Or the study’s claim that moving the crossing closer to the circle will be safer for peds/bikes because drivers will be “anticipating” conflicts there (they mean conflicts with other four-wheeled vehicles.) To reduce speeds they need to make the circle *harder* for entering cars to negotiate, not easier. Or drastically re-design the circle for a much tighter radius–but I’m sure that’ll have the ardent historic preservationists up in arms. The NPS plan for the ped/bike crossings is moving the crossing closer to the circle, with better signage, and rumble strips. Traffic calming doesn’t seem to be on the menu.

https://s26551.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GWMP_Safety-Improvements_EA_Pt1.pdf

[chris_s]

@arlcxrider 198776 wrote:

Slightly off-topic, and I’m sure this has been thoroughly hashed over elsewhere in the forum, but I don’t think the NPS’s preferred plan (“Alternative C”) is going to improve things all that much.

It’s a terrible plan that will burn up tons of resources at a cash-strapped agency for minimal gain because the bureaucrats think a traffic light will mar the historic viewshed.

[zsionakides]

@chris_s 198787 wrote:

It’s a terrible plan that will burn up tons of resources at a cash-strapped agency for minimal gain because the bureaucrats think a traffic light will mar the historic viewshed.

I would like to see the northbound GW Pkwy rerouted to where Southbound Washington Blvd is now. Washington Blvd is 4 lanes wide through there and massively oversized for the amount of traffic that could even theoretically go through there. Washington Blvd’s 4 lanes would become 2 lanes each way with a separator. This would require an overpass or traffic circle on the northside of Columbia Island to reconnect to the existing GW Pkwy where Arlington Blvd crosses.

Doing this would allow the movement of the MVT to where the GW Pkwy is today getting it out of the flood plain and allowing a 2 way path under the Memorial Bridge. It also gets rid of hotspot 8, which is probably the highest speed one there.

[Steve O]

Once upon a time the crossing was closer to the circle as shown in this photo.
I actually liked it better that way. Traffic tended to be moving slower as they approached the circle and the path was at the same grade as the road. I think the sightlines for both trail users and road users were better. Now people using the trail sort of “pop up” into view of the drivers.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21322[/ATTACH]

[dbb]

Six or seven years ago, we (me and a NPS engineer) moved hotspot 6 away from the split and closer to the river. In addition to choking that ramp to one lane, it allowed motorists to focus on the split and then pay attention to the crosswalk. That seemed to work, likely more a result of the road diet.

I only use that crosswalk occasionally but think that crosswalk gives me a fighting chance. The crosswalk at hotspot is still terrifying and I avoid it as often as possible.

[Mario20136]

@arlcxrider 198748 wrote:

About 8 am today, south side of the circle, where the two lanes come off the GW Pkwy. Bicycle was wedged under the front bumper. Rider was up and alert, and exchanging information with the driver. No police on scene. Another cyclist had stopped, and the situation seemed under control, so I didn’t stick around.

Hi,

I am the “other” cyclist that stopped and inquired if he needed any assistance. I did capture a short video “after” the accident occurred. I will post the edited video shortly. I just feel sorry for the guy. He looked very distressed after seeing his bike crushed by the impatient driver.

[chris_s]

@dbb 198792 wrote:

Six or seven years ago, we (me and a NPS engineer) moved hotspot 6 away from the split and closer to the river. In addition to choking that ramp to one lane, it allowed motorists to focus on the split and then pay attention to the crosswalk. That seemed to work, likely more a result of the road diet.

I only use that crosswalk occasionally but think that crosswalk gives me a fighting chance.

Agreed, #6 is SO much better since the move and lane reduction.

[Author]

Posts