[scoot]

@Judd 191852 wrote:

No. I think all of the marshals have volunteered for a judicial ride at some point which sometimes go a blistering 4-5 miles per hour.

In fairness, it’s important to ride deliberately whenever you have to deliver a written legal opinion afterwards.

[scoot]

What right-turn lane are we talking about? I’m confused. I thought Subby’s post was referring to this one (from Lorcom westbound onto Old Dom westbound), so that the bike lane could be extended past Old Dom all the way to Old Lee at Woodstock (i.e. to the Lee Heights Shops)

[scoot]

@Steve O 191787 wrote:

N. Wakefield and Fairfax Drive/I-66 on-ramp in Arlington … On occasions when I have noted drivers edging forward and I point out the sign, they immediately stop and wait. They were non-compliant because they did not notice, not because they were deliberately ignoring.

@Steve O 191787 wrote:

There are several NTOR intersections along the Custis in Rosslyn. My best guess from observation is that regular users of these intersections almost always comply. The non-compliant are people who do not see the NTOR signs because they are looking at traffic. I think the percentage of drivers who deliberately ignore NTOR is small.

Interesting. I suspect you are correct. It would require a more extensive effort to test that one.

I would certainly hypothesize that the percentage of drivers who run reds turning left or going straight is far smaller than the number who will make RTORs in violation of red arrows or NTOR signage. If true, the question would be: why? It could be that they do in fact intend to comply with traffic controls. But on the other hand, the risks of running those signals are far more obvious to drivers than the risks of RTOR, so it could also simply reflect an aversion to extremely damaging collisions such as T-Bones.

The Wakefield drivers’ reactions are a good sign, but I would not be too confident that this behavior constitutes evidence of a failure to notice the NTOR sign. The drivers might have been aware of it and thought they could turn safely anyway (as they had previously), but upon being called out upon it also don’t think it’s worth a possible confrontation.

@Steve O 191787 wrote:

I do not know how many of the users at the King & Beauregard intersection would be regulars. My guess is fewer, which might make normalizing “wait for green” more difficult.

The calendar and clock also come into play here. At rush hour, King & Beauregard may have more regular users than it does at 9:30am on a Saturday.

[scoot]

Summary / TLDR:

The vast majority of RTOR drivers at King & Beauregard either don’t stop at all or else they block the crosswalk while stopped. It is true that most drivers cannot see sufficiently down King Street to identify a safe RTOR opportunity from behind the stop line. In this situation, most drivers opt to block the crosswalk while scanning traffic rather than wait for a green.

The only practical way to improve this problem in the short term would seem to be No Turn on Red. Even then, I would expect poor compliance with that signage unless heavily enforced.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 191732 wrote:

Me, at the NE corner of King and Beauregard, turned to cross in the crosswalk across Beauregard

You: The passenger in the pick up or SUV (I don’t remember) with the window rolled down, blocking the crosswalk, waiting to turn on red, while the ped signal for the crosswalk you were blocking was “go”

Me; “Its illegal to block a crosswalk”

You: “so what?”

This post piqued my curiosity so I decided to gather some data at this location over the weekend. Near the end of my Saturday morning ride, I stopped and collected 16 minutes of video (8 traffic light cycles) of vehicles turning from SB Walter Reed / Beauregard onto WB King Street. I hung out on the hill near Wells Fargo behind the large sign, and I do not believe my presence affected driver behavior in any way. I got around to analyzing the video this afternoon.

Some numbers:
37 drivers entered the right-turn lane during this 16-minute period.
32 turned on red, the other 5 did so on green or yellow lights.
20 of the 32 (63%) RTOR drivers did not stop at all anywhere during their turns.

Of the 12 drivers who did stop their vehicles somewhere:

Only 1 vehicle stopped before the front axle crossed SL
Another 2 vehicles stopped beyond SL, but before front bumper crossed CW0
1 other vehicle stopped while barely across CW0, not blocking much of crosswalk
7 vehicles blocked at least half the crosswalk while stopped.
1 driver proceeded through SL, CW0, and beyond CW1 before stopping (thus not blocking crosswalk while stopped).

(SL: stop line, CW0: northeastern edge of crosswalk, CW1: southwestern edge of crosswalk)

So 29 of 32 (91%) RTOR drivers failed to stop before entering the crosswalk.

Looking at the three drivers who did stop before the CW: One was a box truck, the only commercial vehicle in the sample. Perhaps his elevated position offered him a sufficient view of King St traffic that other drivers did not have. Another was a woman driving a blue Hyundai who stopped for almost a full minute and did not appear to be seeking an opportunity to RTOR (although she did eventually do so before the light cycle changed). As for the one driver who stopped even before SL? Extenuating circumstance: he was stuck waiting for one of the seven crosswalk-blockers to clear in front of him.

Three pedestrians used the northside crosswalk along King Street during the 16-min video. All three crossed from east to west. One crossed in front of the Hyundai driver 33 seconds after she had stopped. The other two, a couple, crossed without vehicular interactions (although one of the 20 non-stopping drivers had gone through while they had been crossing the NB lanes of Beauregard).

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 191610 wrote:

As a citizen and advocate, I think its at least likely enough to justify the cost of painting scooter markings in bike lanes, say.

@lordofthemark 191147 wrote:

It IS regulatory. What may be confusing people is the use of pictures as short hands for the law.

Does anyone think that the presence of a bike symbol, but no scooter symbol, with the pointer to the bike lane means scooters are banned from those lanes? Clearly they are not.

The symbols mean – the lane on the right is a “bike lane”. It is open to all vehicles eligible to use bike lanes under Virginia Law and local codes – which means human powered bikes, ebikes, scooters – but NOT cars, motorcycles, etc.. The lane on the left is a general travel lane – it is open to all vehicles eligible to use general travel lanes under Va law and local codes – cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, bikes, ebikes, escooters, etc.

It not practical or necessary to have a symbol for each type of vehicle. A “bikes may use full lane sign” sign can be added if there is an actual problem with harassment.

[scoot]

Sometimes I wonder if the automobile repair lobby is who truly holds sway in this country. It would explain so many things…

[scoot]

11am today

Me: cyclist northbound on Irving St, waiting for signal to cross US-50
Driver 1: Vehicle on EB 50, occupying left lane waiting for a gap to turn onto Irving St NB.
Driver 2: F-150? pickup behind Driver 1, angrily lays on horn when jumping into EB middle lane to get around Driver 1. Has to grab brakes again soon thereafter due to congestion just downstream. (Presumably due to the signal at Fillmore, but that intersection is not visible from Irving.)
Driver 3: young man driving light blue-gray crossover SUV on WB 50, DC plates. Occupying left lane to wait for an opportunity to turn onto Irving St SB. However, he only occasionally glances up at traffic. His attention is focused on a handheld electronic device.
Driver 4: Comes up behind Driver 3. Waits for an opportunity to pass Driver 3 in middle lane. Then honks horn while passing, albeit not quite as obnoxiously as Driver 2 had done previously.

By now the right-lane backup on EB 50 has reached beyond Irving. Driver 1 is in the left lane still waiting for an opportunity to turn. Middle lane is unimpeded at the intersection but is full of cars further ahead waiting to cross Fillmore.

Driver 3: Hearing horn, looks up from his phone and begins to make his turn without fully assessing the situation. I would bet that this driver has historically been on the receiving end of many “go, you idiot, the light is green now” honks.

Driver 5: Small sedan, middle lane EB 50. Slams on brakes squealing to a sudden stop, narrowly averting a collision with Driver 3. Fortunately traffic conditions had prevented this driver from approaching the scene at high speed.
Driver 3: Deer in headlights. Pauses suddenly, then continues through the intersection.

Traffic signal was changing during this interaction, and Irving St now has the green. Driver 5 remains stopped 20% of the way across the intersection. I roll through.

Hopefully Driver 3’s texting buddy wasn’t too inconvenienced by the brief interruption. 😡

[scoot]

No turn is red is absolutely necessary here but also insufficient.

Even with “no turn on red” signage at these two intersections, I expect a low enough compliance rate that I would still feel safer riding in the street through this mess in spite of the obvious hazards of that. This sidewalk will not be safe to ride until both RTOR is prohibited AND some ancillary traffic calming measure is adopted to support that. Cameras for continuous automated enforcement? How about raising the crosswalks, forcing drivers to navigate a speed bump?

[scoot]

Aside:

(Yes I know that no new rider would cycle on the Pike to begin with; they would choose the sidewalk/”trail” along its northside. But with the awful ramp crossings, poor sightlines, and narrow “dismount” section under the 27 bridge, I find that facility even less appealing than riding in the road there. Downhill at least. Uphill I always take the lane under the 27 bridge but usually move over to the sidewalk either at the next ramp or the driveway into the ANC Service Complex.)

[scoot]

I do agree that even though the design is terrible, it is better to have a trail along 66 than not.

We cyclists often lack direct routes that minimize distances and hills, partially because the optimal routes have already been claimed by highways full of high-speed automobiles. The decline of railroad usage has led to some nice trails like the W&OD, but highway corridors could be great opportunities to increase the accessibility of cycling between suburbs. When cycling requires us to divert onto back roads and residential streets, and those diversions add significant distance and/or hills, this increases the difficulty of a given trip and thus creates artificial barriers to increased bicycling mode share.

As an example: a trip from the east end of Columbia Pike to the SW DC waterfront. Driving: I can just hop on 395 and get a direct shot to 9th St SW one block north of Maine Ave. Cycling: after descending the hill on the Pike, I pass the 27 trail then make a U-turn to get back to it (b/c no curb cut in Columbia Pike median), go north around the Pentagon, cut through LBJ Grove, under and then over Humpback Bridge, cross 14th St Bridge, make a sharp turn at Jefferson Memorial to go back under the bridges on Ohio Drive, cut through the National Park Police parking lot, ride the sidewalk onto Case Bridge, then navigate two switchbacks into L’Enfant Circle before dropping out on 9th St SW.

Net result? A cycling route which is 40% longer than the corresponding driving route. And no new rider could find or follow this route without consulting a map or GPS multiple times. How many potential new riders will just give up rather than confronting and surmounting obstacles like these? How many folks are we discouraging and losing, due to infrastructure that forces bicyclists to stitch together table scraps rather than providing convenient and direct routes for them?

[scoot]

Air quality along the 66 trail will be unbearable in the summer. The soundwall will prevent dissipation of heat, highway noise, and exhaust fumes. When the asphalt road surface chips, vehicles will kick up pebbles at highway speeds, some of which will be flung over the jersey wall. None of those issues affect the WWB, which is paved with concrete rather than asphalt.

[scoot]

For an intersection between what should be two calm residential streets, this design appears very unsafe. The angles are odd, only one street has stop signs, and there is far too much extra pavement at the intersection. There may be a bus stop at the corner, but how are bus riders supposed to get to it? Many of the streets in the neighborhood are missing sidewalks, especially those streets (e.g. Oakview) that are most likely to have flagrant speeding. All in all, the area looks awful for pedestrians.

[scoot]

Yes that area is a challenge. Key Bridge really needs on-street protected bike lanes.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 191277 wrote:

Isn’t the trail next to 66 the “Custis Trail” ? why change it?

Mary Anna Custis might get lonely once her husband has been banished from the area…

[Author]

Posts