shreve road w&od crossing

[americancyclo]

I wan to know who ran it over with their car?

Also I ‘d appreciate some rumble strips on shreve at the buckelew, chestnut and pinecastle intersections to slow folks down.

[Mikey]

All flexible bollards should be shaped and dressed up to look like small children.

Honestly one of the more dangerous spots in NoVA, I’m surprised there are not more incedents there.

[kcb203]

I almost got hit by a bike there last fall. I was going east, waiting for a break in traffic. The evening sun was directly behind me. A cyclist coming the other way went across and went into the left side of the trail where I was waiting. He didn’t see me at all and missed me by 1/2 inch.

[mstone]

@kcb203 86441 wrote:

I almost got hit by a bike there last fall. I was going east, waiting for a break in traffic. The evening sun was directly behind me. A cyclist coming the other way went across and went into the left side of the trail where I was waiting. He didn’t see me at all and missed me by 1/2 inch.

Yes, it would also be nice if the alignment of the trail were improved (widened & with less of a sharp turn).

[Steve O]

@mstone 86478 wrote:

Yes, it would also be nice if the alignment of the trail were improved (widened & with less of a sharp turn).

It was only a few years ago that they realigned the trail there so that the crossing was at a 90 degree angle to the street. Previously the trail was straight (you can still envision it if you look ahead as you are approaching the curves), but the crossing was very long. Also, it required a much more difficult look over the shoulder to look for oncoming traffic. I think the new alignment is an improvement. Not perfect, but better and safer.

[mstone]

@Steve O 86493 wrote:

It was only a few years ago that they realigned the trail there so that the crossing was at a 90 degree angle to the street. Previously the trail was straight (you can still envision it if you look ahead as you are approaching the curves), but the crossing was very long. Also, it required a much more difficult look over the shoulder to look for oncoming traffic. I think the new alignment is an improvement. Not perfect, but better and safer.

Yes, a more perpendicular crossing is always better. I just don’t get why they didn’t improve the south side of the trail as well as the north side and make it fully perpendicular. (Look at google maps and compare the curves. It looks like there should be enough ROW to push the south side of the trail toward the southwest and make it a normal crosswalk.) It’s like they only had money for half the project–which makes pushing for the rest of the project a straightforward request.

[mstone]

Thought I should follow up. Someone (NVRPA? VDOT? Kind hearted person with a chisel?) did remove the useless mid-crosswalk bollard. Now there’s an awkward brown square in the middle of the crosswalk where they didn’t paint due to the useless bollard, but it’s a vast improvement. Here’s hoping they (the man?) don’t ever replace it. If they do, I already suggested doing it they way falls church does, with a sign in the street before and after the crosswalk instead of RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

[vern]

I think the idea is that if the sign is in the middle of the street then it can’t be missed. Because the intersection is in the middle of the curve, maybe the thinking was that a roadside sign would be less visible since drivers would (should) be focusing on managing the curve and crossing traffic. I actually liked having the bullard in the center of the road.

[brendan]

How a about two bollards, center of the road, outside of the trail-crossing rectangle?

Or is the bollard there to also keep cyclists from veering too far left when crossing?

B

[bobco85]

@brendan 87040 wrote:

How a about two bollards, center of the road, outside of the trail-crossing rectangle?

Or is the bollard there to also keep cyclists from veering too far left when crossing?

B

In Arlington, they’ve been using the 2 outer bollard solution for some of the crosswalks and intersections to “remind” drivers that they must yield to people in the crosswalk. In my experience living in the Ballston area, I think it has helped to slow more drivers down, to prevent unsafe passes of cyclists by drivers on that road, and to get more drivers to actually yield to crosswalk users, but every now and then a driver will knock one of them down (drivers will run into EVERYTHING on/near asphalt), so that’s not surprising.

[Steve O]

@brendan 87040 wrote:

How about two bollards, center of the road, outside of the trail-crossing rectangle?

Or is the bollard there to also keep cyclists from veering too far left when crossing?

As far as I am concerned, a bollard should never be placed in the center of the trail. It is just a crash waiting to happen. Using the double bollard solution outside the trail ROW is far, far better. If a car hits one, they get a smudge on their bumper. If a cyclist hits one they likely go down (particularly if they strike the base), potentially suffering injury and possibly putting themselves in danger of being struck by a vehicle.
We would never put a telephone pole in the middle of the street to “keep cars from veering too far. . .” so neither should we put a crashing hazard in the middle of the trail for any reason.

[hozn]

@mstone 87033 wrote:

Thought I should follow up. Someone (NVRPA? VDOT? Kind hearted person with a chisel?) did remove the useless mid-crosswalk bollard. Now there’s an awkward brown square in the middle of the crosswalk where they didn’t paint due to the useless bollard, but it’s a vast improvement. Here’s hoping they (the man?) don’t ever replace it. If they do, I already suggested doing it they way falls church does, with a sign in the street before and after the crosswalk instead of RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

Yesterday the bollard base was there; it appeared that the sign part had just broken off. Now *that* was an accident waiting to happen I thought to myself. I assume they just removed the base and will replace it when they find time.

I think the ped xing signs in the road are helpful, though I think the approach they took at the West St. intersection is better — moving it to the outside of the crossing lane (but still in center of street). At least that’s how I remember it there.

[baiskeli]

@Steve O 87079 wrote:

We would never put a telephone pole in the middle of the street to “keep cars from veering too far. . .”

Well, medians….

[vern]

@brendan 87040 wrote:

How a about two bollards, center of the road, outside of the trail-crossing rectangle?

Or is the bollard there to also keep cyclists from veering too far left when crossing?

B

yes, that is the better option.

[mstone]

@vern 87035 wrote:

I think the idea is that if the sign is in the middle of the street then it can’t be missed. Because the intersection is in the middle of the curve, maybe the thinking was that a roadside sign would be less visible since drivers would (should) be focusing on managing the curve and crossing traffic. I actually liked having the bullard in the center of the road.

@brendan 87040 wrote:

How a about two bollards, center of the road, outside of the trail-crossing rectangle?

Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said “a sign in the street before and after the crosswalk”. There’s an intersection set up exactly that way like a mile east of the shreve road crossing, so it’s not exactly a novel idea. I have no idea what idiot thought that putting a bollard in the the crosswalk was a good idea, but it wasn’t, and the outcome was entirely predictable.

[Author]

Posts