Montgomery Parks officials presented twelve different concepts to create a "permanent, safer condition" at the increasingly-controversial Capital Crescent Trail crossing of Little Falls Parkway in Bethesda at a public meeting last night. Andy Frank, a civil engineer, predicted that the ultimate project solution would likely be a "compromise." But many in the crowd expressed frustration that all of the compromise appears to be on drivers, and anger that "crazy cyclists" who routinely break traffic laws on the CCT and at the crossing continue to avoid punishment.
Residents of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the parkway criticized Parks for not considering the impact of constricting increasing traffic loads on their communities. Attendees who live in Kenwood and along Hillandale Road reported increased cut-through traffic since Parks instituted a "road diet" on the parkway 18 months ago. Frank acknowledged that official traffic counts show the road diet has reduced traffic on that stretch of the parkway between Hillandale and Arlington Road, as drivers seek to avoid the new bottleneck.
David Barron, President of the Kenwood Citizens Association, told Parks officials the current road diet on Little Falls Parkway needs to end. "It needs to be open. We have an influx of traffic [since the road diet]. They're turning down Kennedy Drive. Waze is putting traffic in our neighborhood," he said, referring to the app that helps drivers avoid traffic jams. Calling the parkway "the aorta" of the nearby road grid, he invoked the name of the late District 1 councilmember Betty Ann Krahnke (R), whom he said "would want to open up the parkway."
Many in attendance also questioned why the parkway now, and in the future, would be reduced to one lane when new development downtown and at Westbard is expected to bring over 10,000 new residents and their cars to the area. Marriott and the Intelligence Community Campus - Bethesda are each bringing over 3000 employees to the same vicinity. It would be the equivalent of declaring you are entering the Olympic decathalon, but first having blockages intentionally installed in your circulation system.
"We are already seeing a tremendous increase in traffic" since the road diet, noted a resident of Hillandale Road. Residents of the road must back out of parking spaces that line the busy cut-through. But the War on Cars in this area is just getting started. Parks officials announced that the increasingly-political Montgomery County Department of Transportation is now studying road diets for both Hillandale and Arlington Road, apparently not realizing how absurd it sounds to suggest a "road diet" for already two-lane Hillandale.
Near the end of the meeting, Frank acknowledged that Parks does not consider traffic flow or throughput as priorities for the parkway, saying the road is only meant to allow access to the park. This attitude is a major concern going forward, as the Planning Board and County Council each included Little Falls Parkway in their traffic volume allowances for the Westbard sector plan. To now say that the road is not a critical artery is fraud of the highest order.
The options available boil down to several concepts. One is to make permanent the current road diet by replacing the bollards with concrete curbs (which doesn't sound very park-like; there are no curbs on the rest of the parkway). Second, is to control the crossing via traffic lights - either at the current crossing site, or by forcing CCT users to walk to existing signaled crossings at either Arlington Road or Hillandale Road.
Third are the Cadillac options: a bridge over the parkway, or a tunnel beneath it. A grade-separated crossing had strong support from the crowd, and was the most-mentioned solution by those who spoke during the comment period. Such a crossing is not popular among the Council and Planning Board, who won't dare charge their developer masters a fee or tax to fund it. It also has little support among anti-car extremists, as a bridge or tunnel would allow drivers to continue on their merry way with no new hardships to navigate.
Fourth are extreme road solutions. A roundabout at Arlington and Little Falls intrigued one commenter, but received dismissive murmuring among the larger crowd. Parks' proposal to entirely close Little Falls Parkway between Arlington and Hillandale was found to be laughably ridiculous. All solutions are likely to include a wide speed hump at the crossing, which Parks is calling a "speed table."
One couldn't help but notice that all solutions allow CCT users to keep doing what they are doing, and what many of them are doing is clearly illegal. A resident who regularly uses the trail declared all of the proposals to be "overkill. The issue is not motorists. The real issue is crazy cyclists. Solving the problem at Little Falls Parkway is not solving the problem of cyclists. Cyclists never stop, particularly those crazy guys in the morning."
Park Police have on one or two occasions ticketed cyclists who blew through the stop signs on either side of the crossing, one attendee said. One resident echoed my sentiment on this page a few weeks back, in suggesting deploying cameras that could ticket cyclists on the trail for speeding and ignoring stop signs. The intersection being discussed is not a safety issue at all, if drivers and trail users follow existing traffic laws. For example, when crossing the four-lane parkway, just because the driver in the nearest lane has stopped doesn't mean a cyclist or pedestrian is to rush forward without looking at who may be approaching in the second lane. It's just common sense.
Instead, we are confronted with government, and the infamous MoCo nanny state, run amok. Special snowflakes must be fully protected from evil drivers, and their own lawbreaking, lest they melt. Indeed, the whole controversy started over a very tragic crash where the driver was determined not to be at fault after striking a recumbent cyclist. In last night's most dramatic moment, the widow of the cyclist addressed the crowd, and blamed a guardrail for her husband and the driver being unable to see each other - though she acknowledged that detectives said it appeared her husband had ignored the stop sign before crossing.
There were a couple of good news items at last night's meeting, however. One is that Parks is planning to install lighting at the crossing - much needed, especially since their "brilliant" idea of erecting dozens of signs and bollards that now obscure the view of trail users crossing in the dark. Second, whatever project is chosen, they plan to fund it by legal means this time. The current "road diet" was funded through illegal means, by using a countywide trail maintenance fund for a road-only project.
Parks officials say they will use last night's public feedback, and additional feedback from a Town Hall message board on their website, to whittle the project options down to 3 or 4. By fall, they will further flesh those concepts out, and obtain more public feedback on them. By winter of 2018 and 2019, they will develop a budget, and present the final option to the Planning Board for approval. They will then (legally!) request inclusion of the project in a future CIP budget.
 |
Roundabout proposal for the intersection
of Arlington and Little Falls |
 |
| Add caption |
32 comments:
Down with these snowflakes who want to prevent vulnerable road users from being killed! I need to get to my kid's soccer game three and a half minutes faster!
The cyclist who was killed never stopped for the stop sign, right? Why are we re-engineering the whole thing to handle that scenario?
Also, isn't the head of the Parks department running for County Council (ALbornoz)?
Don't understand your logic. Parents usually drive more carefully with kids in the car, and I would bet the majority of people on the Little Falls are driving to work.
Why all the hate?
The cyclist who was killed was not seen by the driver who was speeding even though the car beside him had stopped because he had seen the cyclist. But I guess we would not want to mildly inconvenience a driver even if it means killing another human being.
What's really funny is drivers who can't see any alternatives to the automobile, complaining that people are driving on their precious neighborhood streets.
5:53 AM "having no resume to speak of"
Life long resident, community activist involved in all the major issues around the county, local news publisher...seems like a good resume for public service!
It would have been nice to see these concepts sequentially, so we could follow the article and see the plan that you are describing. Instead, we get multiple images of the same concept, that do not seem to be in any order. Is it really that hard to take some time with these images and organize your report? It’s great that you attended and captured the images and described the proceedings, but it is very hard to follow with multiple images out of order. You know, a single photo of concept 1, followed by a description of concept 1, the move on to concept 2...
I went to vote today and you are not on the ballot, why is that?? Are you supposed to be a write in?? I want to support you Robert!!
WESTBARDRETARD2018
The problem with returning the parkway to four lanes is exactly what 6:24 pointed out, which is that even if one car stops to give the cyclist or pedestrian right-of-way, there is no guarantee that the driver in the next lane will as well. That sort of miscommunication resulted in two deaths on Viers Mill Road at Turkey Branch, and is why they now have a pedestrian-activated signal at that crossing.
Robert, you're using "road diet" fairly indiscriminately, as if it always means reducing the number of lanes. In the case of Hillandale Road, the presenters corrected themselves and amended their statement to "traffic calming" which includes lowered speed limits, speed bumps, and narrowed lanes. For example, Huntington Parkway underwent two rounds of traffic calming in the 90's. The first round involved altering the shape of the lanes, including bump-outs and curves to slow drivers down. That didn't exactly work out (drivers just got used to the new path and would still speed), so they added speed bumps. Frankly, the speed table - referred to as such because it is a speed bump with a wide flat portion on the top that pedestrians and cyclists can navigate safely - would probably be among the best options for Little Falls Parkway because it would force cars to slow down regardless.
ALL THAT being said, I don't disagree with having a Parks officer out giving citations to people who violate the law. That one commenter was over the top with his description of cyclists, but he wasn't wrong that there are a group of cyclists who go too fast and don't obey traffic laws. A combination of better education and stricter enforcement would probably help reduce those instances. As long as it gets paired with better education for drivers on how they need to behave around cyclists - can't tell you the number of cars that have buzzed me on Rock Creek Parkway as they passed on a blind curve with oncoming traffic. There's a reason I now take the whole lane when approaching a curve - really don't want to end up a splat on the side of the road.
The frustration is palpable regarding Dyer covering Bethesda's largest retail center (Montgomery Mall).
What that has to do with the trail crossing is anyone's guess however.
10:30/6:24: Isn't it common sense for a pedestrian or cyclist to look before crossing that second lane? Assuming the second car will also stop is crazy. If someone has reached adulthood without the common sense to look both ways before crossing the street, there's no government in the world that can help them.
The presenters were the ones who said "road diet" for Hillandale. They did not amend that statement, and repeated it several times over the course of the evening. Traffic calming is not a road diet.
Do you mind waiting longer for the BCC Rescue Squad as they slow for "speed tables" on Little Falls Parkway when responding to your heart attack or fire? LF Parkway is a major arterial route for emergency response, and should not qualify for speed humps. Little Falls Parkway is not Huntington Parkway, which is a residential street.
We need enforcement of cycling laws, but political pressure seems to be blocking that. Riding in the road on MacArthur Boulevard when there's a bike path alongside? Illegal. Same on Sangamore. These hyper-aggressive road rage cyclists need to stop trolling drivers, stop giving the finger, and start obeying the law.
8:08: Are you a Republican? My name is only on the Republican ballot in the primary.
8:04: Your response is more your frustration that your folks failed to attend and report on this meeting. The concepts are here. Each one has a title, and some have additional images as needed for detail. What is your complaint? This is the only comprehensive media coverage of the meeting, and has full analysis of the major issues.
@6:24AM: That's not what happened at all. The cyclist ran the stop sign, was held at fault for the accident, and would have been ticketed had he not died. Had the accident occurred the way you described, the driver would have been held at fault and charged. The driver was distraught over what happened and was also a victim here. I can't imagine how my life would change if I killed someone, and I imagine most of you can't either, so let's have some compassion.
@3:42PM: As a matter of law, once one vehicle on a multilane road has yielded to a pedestrian, all other vehicles on the roadway must also yield. It is common sense to make sure that all vehicles are yielding, but it's not a legal requirement. It is also common sense that if a car in the adjacent lane has stopped at a pedestrian crossing, you should stop too.
The solution at this intersection is not to redesign it to accommodate people who break the law. The solution is for everyone to follow the law. The new speed limit of 25MPH is reasonable through this stretch, but nothing will prevent more deaths if everyone doesn't follow the law.
The pedestrian-activated light is probably the worst idea, because almost no cyclists will stop to activate the light. You'll have approaching motorists who assume the intersection will be clear of pedestrians because they don't have a red light, and cyclists who are coming through without warning.
"These hyper-aggressive road rage cyclists need to stop trolling drivers, stop giving the finger, and start obeying the law."
I have never, ever, encountered this kind of behavior, Dyer. Maybe you need to stop being a dick of a driver.
Robbie needs this so he can start riding a bike.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/retard-helmet.html
@6:59PM: I have seen it, mostly from cyclists toward pedestrians on the trail, and there are numerous videos of cyclists exhibiting this behavior toward other cyclists online. I don't drive, so I've never seen it directed toward car drivers.
"One is to make permanent the current road diet by replacing the bollards with concrete curbs (which doesn't sound very park-like; there are no curbs on the rest of the parkway)."
There are already curbs along this stretch - specifically, from the parking lot for the pool to just beyond Arlington Road. You never noticed this, Mr. Life-Long Resident of Bethesda?
7:59: Wrong. There's a curb section of a few meters past the driveway, then a long break before the Arlington Road intersection. Still resentful of my lifelong residency of Bethesda? That's to be expected from a carpetbagger like you.
6:59: You obviously don't drive very much in Bethesda.
7:10: A self-proclaimed Hans Riemer supporter using the R=word as an insult in 2018 - early voters will definitely make a note of that when voting.
If you walk or cycle past a stopped vehicle on a multi-lane road without checking for other vehicles then you've got some sort of death wish. It simply won't be very long before you go SPLAT. Relying on the common sense or good will of drivers is stupid beyond words.
I normally think of Dyer as a reasonable guy, but believing that this is somehow a politicized topic? Get a grip. This isn't Chris Christie's bridge.
When demographics start changing, infrastructure needs to change too. The world has decades of research and experience in traffic engineering telling us that bike safety leads to lower congestion and lower accident/injury rates. In the battle of 'an entire field of experts in this specific area' vs. 'an association of NIMBYs' I think I know where I stand 99 times out of 100.
@9:30PM: True enough, but, oddly, it's when a pedestrian has the most protection under the law. It is better to be safe than dead right, though. You should be able to rely upon drivers following the law (not their good will in this instance), but experience says you cannot.
@10:53PM: Yes, bike safety is extremely important. That's why bikes and cars should yield right of way as required by law. Let's remember that we're talking about re-engineering this intersection because cyclists have shown they're incapable of complying with the law. This intersection was modified before the accident to put the jogs in the trail to encourage cyclists to stop or at least slow down. It didn't work.
"We need enforcement of cycling laws, but political pressure seems to be blocking that. Riding in the road on MacArthur Boulevard when there's a bike path alongside? Illegal. Same on Sangamore. These hyper-aggressive road rage cyclists need to stop trolling drivers, stop giving the finger, and start obeying the law."
That's not illegal. Bicycles have the right to be in the road, per County AND State law. In fact, in every other part of the state but Montgomery County, it is illegal for them to use the sidewalk as they are considered vehicles.
@6:34AM: Bicycles must use a separate path when one is available. (See http://www.sha.maryland.gov/index.aspx?PageId=357, "Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane or shoulder and may not ride on the roadway," TR § 21-1205.1(b)(2), https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-1205.1.html.)
Whether the bike lane on MacArthur qualifies is frankly fuzzy. It is marked as a bike lane, but it is too narrow for cyclists to safely pass, and its location along the roadway makes it impractical for cyclists to leave the bike lane to pass another cyclist and safely return to the bike lane. Nonetheless, an officer who wrote a ticket to a cyclist for cruising on the roadway on MacArthur where there's a bike path probably would prevail in court, because a cyclist who spent a long time in the roadway would have a hard time arguing that one of the exceptions applied. That said, no one is going to write this ticket, because they have better things to do. Riding in the roadway is inconvenient for other road users, but it's not as unsafe as failing to yield right of way. (For what it's worth, one of the worst bike wrecks I ever saw happened when a group of cyclists tried to overtake a loan cyclist on MacArthur. The group of cyclists was clumped in a pack and was frustrated that the cyclist in front of them was going to slowly. One of the cyclists near the front of the clump clipped the slow cyclist, wrecked, and took out the rest of the pack following behind him. Lots of broken bones and ripped spandex.)
What's funny is that the bike like suddenly becomes attractive to cyclists at the ramp to the Clara Barton. Many southbound cyclists will weave over to the bike lane when approaching the all-way stop at Glen Echo because they seem to think that being in the bike lane relieves them of their obligation to observe the all-way stop at the ramp to the Clara Barton. It does not. You need to stop whether you're in the road or the bike lane.
There would be far less conflict among cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists if they all actually understood their rights and obligations under the transportation article and actually followed the law. Too many people think their rights on the road are absolute, and that leads to collisions and conflicts.
6:34: 7:12 is correctly citing the applicable law to both roads I mentioned. In the MacArthur case, not only is there is a bike lane, but the last encounter I had with a cyclist in the roadway was on a stretch where is there is actually a paved bike trail parallel to the road.
It is very dangerous to have bikes in the traffic lane on MacArthur, because it is a winding, two-lane road. Visibility of the oncoming lane is often blocked. It's very difficult to safely pass around the cyclist.
A paved trail parallel to the road is not a bike lane. If it's not connected to the road, bikes are allowed on the road.
1:42: Wrong. Paved trail next to the road means you have to be on the trail. Again, it's just an attempt to troll drivers by blocking the road when there's a whole separate facility for them taxpayers have shelled out for. Time to find a new hobby besides trying to gin up road rage.
If you get "road rage" just from seeing measures taken to protect cyclists, then maybe you shouldn't be driving.
3:28: Nobody ever said they got road rage from "seeing measures taken to protect cyclists." Some people seem to get road rage from the idea of cyclists being required to follow the basic rules of the road. Perhaps they shouldn't be cycling.
If the trail is separated from the road, cyclists can use the road.
@3:05PM: You're not applying the law correctly.
@4:39PM: The definition of bike lane does not hinge solely on whether a bike way (separate and more expansive legal definition that includes bike lane as a type of bike way) is separated from the road. Otherwise, Dyer would be right about some parts of MacArthur, because parts of that bike way run directly adjacent to the road. A bike way is a bike lane only if it is designated for single directional bicycle flow. The bike way on MacArthur is designated for bidirectional flow and is marked with traffic control devices to that effect. Thus, it is not a bike lane, so the law requiring cyclists to use bike lanes does not apply. Now, there are parts of MacArthur with a paved shoulder, and, technically, cyclists should be using the shoulder where there is one, but because of the way the road is designed, it's really not safe to ride on the shoulder. The road is poorly designed and dangerous, but I'm not sure what else can be done without changing the topography around it dramatically. To be safe, it needs more space in long stretches, and that simply space doesn't exist in those stretches.
It would be.a good idea for police to ticket cyclists who fail to yield to pedestrians who are lawfully within crosswalks, fail to stop at stop signs (stopping means the wheels of the vehicle cease movement), and fail to stop for red lights (stopping for red lights means stopping behind the white line if one exists). These are the offenses that lead to collisions and injuries, so it makes sense to focus there. It will force cyclists to adjust their expectations for their PRs, but fewer people will die.
A bridge is the right answer but if built too soon, MD will have to tip their hand and finally admit that the purple line phase 2 is planned to head to Sangamore plaza and said bridge will have to be built to accommodate the PL.
Post a Comment