HAWK signal on GW Parkway on 11/18?

[mstone]

@bobco85 72071 wrote:

To me, it seems like the message they are giving is this: We want to slow down traffic with the beacons so that pedestrians will be more likely to have time to start walking into the crosswalk. Once pedestrians are in the crosswalk, traffic would then be required to yield (stopping if necessary) just like for any crosswalk. The difference of course is that a HAWK signal is active whereas the beacons are passive.[/quote]

Right, because they live in a fantasy world where it’s perfectly safe and reasonable for people to start walking into a crosswalk on an expressway exit ramp, hoping that people will stop some time after they start walking. Because drivers are so good at what they do, and forcing them to stop is unreasonable.

[KLizotte]

Have seen the signal in action twice now and each time the cars stopped in both lanes. It seems to work really well at stopping traffic so long as the cars have adequate time to stop (I did see one car go through but there is no way it could have stopped given when the light was activated). I think the lights in this configuration work better than if they were flashing all of the time because of the element of surprise.

I just tried to go to the NPS link above but the site just hangs. I then went to the NPS website and typed in GW Parkway signal but the link also hangs. Not sure if this is a temp problem of if they have taken down the site(s).

[dbb]

I just went to the site at

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=56190

and got in pretty easy. I will post my comments for others to consider and adapt.

Bottom line: Perfect? No, Improvement? Hell yes, Safer? Without a doubt.

The comment period goes through 5 Feb. If you haven’t used the signal, please try to do so this month. If you have experienced it as both a motorist and cyclist, you should comment on both aspects.

[dbb]

I just posted my comments to the website. You have until Wednesday.

Here are my comments. Feel free to adapt/modify my comments to reflect your personal experience with the warning lights. Please provide comments as the comments may be the basis for keeping the lights at that location. Are they perfect? No, they could be improved. Are they a great improvement? You betcha!

My comments:

During the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to use the new warning lights at the Columbia Island crosswalk across the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Of all the safety improvements the National Park Service has implemented at that location, the warning lights have been the most effective.

The crosswalk at that location is hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians for a number of reasons. There are two lanes of traffic to cross; motorists are generally travelling above the posted speed limit; motorists often elect to pass cars that are yielding to crosswalk users in the other lane; and the motorists don’t seem to understand they must yield to the crosswalk users (as the right of way rules for the District of Columbia apply to this crosswalk).

Because of the hazards of using that particular crosswalk, I have often gone out of my way to avoid that location. The new lights will reduce those hazards.

In the past several years, the National Park Service has installed rumble strips and warning signs to slow motorists and protect crosswalk users. Those approaches were not particularly effective.

When I have used the warning lights, not only do the first cars stop, so do the ones that are further back. The fact that the lights are illuminated on both sides of the roadway allows motorists to be alerted to the presence of a crosswalk user. The lights consistently caused motorists to stop and passing in the crosswalk seems to be reduced.

As effective as the lights are, they are not visible to the crosswalk user so there is some uncertainty that the lights are operational. That is a result of placing the lights closest to the approaching traffic. For permanent use, the lights should have an indicator that shows they are working or they could be moved to the side of the trail opposite the approach. That would allow crosswalk users to see the lights in operation.

Seeing the lights in operation would also encourage crosswalk users to activate them. I have observed individuals not activate the lights prior to crossing. While those crossings are generally successful, they do present an additional risk to both crosswalk users and motorists.

In summary, the lights seem to work superbly. It remains to be seen if the motorist’s behavior is permanent. To maximize the change to motorist behavior, enforcement should be added as an additional facet of the lights and crosswalk.

[dbb]

Giving this a bump to keep it on top. More comments will be better and may lead to making the lights permanent. That will provide tangible evidence that action is required and we can work for more.

[NickBull]

Thanks for bumping this, I hadn’t seen it before. I submitted the following:

Twice now, I have had the opportunity to use the new warning lights at the Columbia Island crosswalk across the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Cars slowed down immediately — that’s the first time cars have _ever_ slowed when I crossed at that crosswalk. So it is an effective safety improvement that I hope will become permanent.

The one thing that I do not understand is why cars are not _required_ to stop. By making it optional to stop, there is always the risk that a pedestrian will think cars are stopping, but some car decides not to stop and wipes out the pedestrian.

I can understand a concern that if every pedestrian who comes up to the intersection presses the button, then at certain times the signal could be red for too much of the time. But a solution to that would be to have the signal delay switching to red if it has been pressed “too recently” so that more pedestrians can clump up and cross at once. This would help to balance the needs of motorists and pedestrians, while maximizing the safety of both.

Nick

[Tim Kelley]

This came across my inbox:

George Washington Memorial Parkway

The trial period for the Rectangular Rapid Flashing (Warning) Beacon located at the Mount Vernon Trail crosswalk of the northbound lanes of the Parkway, just prior to Arlington Memorial Bridge and one mile north of I-395, has ended. During the week of February 17th the two beacons will be removed. All comments that were submitted will used in the upcoming Environmental Assessment (EA) process that will evaluate long-term safety and traffic improvements in the area.

[oldbikechick]

This makes me very sad. Those lights were great and really seemed to work well. Why not leave them there while they decide what to do? I guess I will be adjusting my commute again to avoid that crossing.

[NickBull]

@Tim Kelley 77429 wrote:

This came across my inbox:

And … the park service reverts to form. Pro-car, anti-bike.

[PotomacCyclist]

@oldbikechick 77465 wrote:

This makes me very sad. Those lights were great and really seemed to work well. Why not leave them there while they decide what to do? I guess I will be adjusting my commute again to avoid that crossing.

I blocked out that route from my mind a while back. It doesn’t even occur to me to use that route to ride between Arlington and DC any longer. It’s just too aggravating or scary. I might look around once in the spring, but I doubt I’ll ever take that path on a regular basis again. Not until they build a bike bridge over the road.

[dbb]

I sent the superintendent of the GWMP an email suggesting they leave the lights in place until the EA is done. I am hoping to meet with him and his staff next week.

[bobco85]

I hope they keep the beacons while figuring out a more permanent set-up (and maybe figuring out other places to use them, too). The beacons worked amazingly well, as I was surprised that general traffic on the GWMP could actually respond to the presence of non-vehicles.

[dasgeh]

@dbb 77468 wrote:

I sent the superintendent of the GWMP an email suggesting they leave the lights in place until the EA is done. I am hoping to meet with him and his staff next week.

Dana, Thank you. Seriously. I know how hard it is to develop the relationships to have this kind of access, and how much time it takes. You’re work is making us all safer. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[oldbikechick]

I take it as a good sign that the lights are still there. Thanks dbb!

[dbb]

I wasn’t successful, for reasons described below. I think the fact the lights are still there is like a function of the other workload of the staff.

I learned that the flashing lights were on loan from a vendor for the test period and have to be returned. I am hoping at the conclusion of the environmental assessment, a decision to purchase those or similar lights will be made and we will have flashing lights to help us across that crosswalk.

[Author]

Posts