Make Fairfax Circle a real circle

Traffic

by Spencer Lepler • November 6, 2009 12:40 pm

Fairfax City has made a number of recent decisions that seem as anti-pedestrian and pro-vehicle. Fairfax Circle is the perfect place for the city to take a step in the right direction that is both car- and pedestrian-friendly.

Undated historic image of Fairfax Circle. From Library of Virginia.

The existing not-quite circle at the intersections of Routes 29 and 50 is counterintuitive and possibly dangerous for a number of reasons:

Like much of the landscaping in Fairfax, the planted portions of the circle are useless. Until recently there were no protected pedestrian crossings into the circle, and once in the circle there are no benches or any public amenities to act as a public draw.

This is the point where Routes 29 and 50 merge. In doing so, their names also change. This creates a confusing situation where the roads leading into the circle are (clockwise from the north): Lee Highway (Route 29), Arlington Boulevard (route 50), Old Lee Highway, and Lee Highway (Routes 29 & 50).

This circle has a series of lights, which effectively kills any chance of it being a true traffic circle. This also makes merging into the circle difficult, because given the light cycle the circle may be filled with stopped cars which often create their own lanes.

Route 50 travels through the center of the circle, but there are no left turns allowed and the signage indicating this is quite confusing. Drivers who wish to turn left onto Lee Highway or Old Lee Highway have to first turn right and then proceed through the circle, stopping at the light at route 50, from which they just turned off.

To add to the confusion, left turns from Old Lee Highway or Lee Highway onto Route 50 are allowed and encouraged.

At least the pedestrian access issue has been solved. After some mysterious construction, pedestrian crossing signals have been installed on the right hand turn lanes onto and off from Route 50. This is a literal step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go to make this circle something useable and safe.

This circle is near the border of Fairfax County and Fairfax City and could be treated as a celebrated entry into Fairfax City; this could be achieved by restoring this to a real roundabout, with lights regulating pedestrian crossings and entry into and out of the circle and creating a park-like center with a statue or fountain similar to many of the DC circles. If the traffic along route 50 needs a direct access to the other side of the circle a below grade ramp could be installed; there is already precedent for this treatment in Fairfax County at the intersection of Fairfax County Parkway and Route 29. However, do not believe that an underpass would be necessary. During rush hour traffic crawls in any case, and at all other times of the day, the local 35-mph speed limit should be easy to maintain in a properly timed and lighted DC-style circle.

A real circle here would solve many of the problems highlighted above. This new traffic pattern would be easier for drivers and safer for pedestrians. The break in the continuity of Route 50 would help emphasize the change from Fairfax County to Fairfax City. In addition, the shopping centers surrounding this circle attract a decent number of pedestrians, a park-like circle would provide them with some easily accessible green space.

18 comments — Share	— tags: Fairfax City, roundabouts, traffic, Virginia

Fairfax City needs inviting public spaces, not just pretty ones (Sep 18, 2009)
Fairfax needs a street grid, but more than an island (Aug 4, 2009)
Build a circle at North Capitol and Irving (May 5, 2009)
Fairfax County proposes bus route cuts (Mar 24, 2009)
Fairfax, PG worst for pedestrian safety (Apr 23, 2008)

Comments

I never get this urge of pedestrians to sit in the middle of a traffic circle. Why not go to a real park, where it's actually quiet and there no pollution and noise from cars?

Don't get it at Dupont and don't get it on the Arc the Triomph in Paris.

by Jasper on Nov 6, 2009 12:50 pm

Yes and lets switch Seven Corners into one circle. The math is too obvious not to.

by arlingtonva03 on Nov 6, 2009 1:02 pm

I just don't see how you'd be able to make this work with a "real roundabout", even with signal control. For starters, traffic averages close to 60K a day. The only DC circles (of those that don't already have grade separation) that come close to that are Ward (Mass & Nebraska) and Tenley (Wisconsin & Nebraska). And even including the circles with grade separation, only Connecticut Ave at Dupont Circle can compare with the sheer volume of traffic along Route 50.

Your roundabout/traffic circle idea would work if there was a grade separation for Route 50 through traffic, but that's the only way I see it working.

by Froggie on Nov 6, 2009 1:08 pm

Are you suggesting that they sick Route 50 or perhaps fly it over the circle?

by Zac on Nov 6, 2009 1:18 pm

I would love to see more traffic roundabouts in NoVA.

by NikolasM on Nov 6, 2009 1:21 pm

A better grid around that area would help as well. Unless you're really willing to go out of the way, thats your only way through and it creates huge bottlenecks.

by Canaan on Nov 6, 2009 1:26 pm

US 29/50 are today Fairfax Boulevard to Kamp Washington, where 29 Continues as Lee Highway, and 50 turns right, continuing as Fairfax Boulevard. The new naming is reflected correctly in Bing Maps, but not in Google Maps.

Having lived there, i think putting 50 under the circle, like Connecticut at Dupont, would be a good solution. That would leave 29, Old Lee, and feeders from Fairfax at circle level, making it easier to cross on foot, and allow it to easily handle the volume from Westbound 50. Not to mention that 50 is the only road that actually fully crosses the circle.

by dcseain on Nov 6, 2009 2:21 pm

The street name confusion gets worse now that the city has renamed the Rte 29/50 segment west of the circle "Fairfax Blvd." All of this seems to confuse at least some GPS nav devices. Spoken instructions on a friend's Garmin GPS device advise a left turn from Fairfax Blvd to Arlington Blvd as you're heading east (and going straight).

That said, I can't see a true circle/roundabout as being workable. During rush hour, eastbound traffic stopped at the Blake Lane/Pickett Road signal backs up way west of the circle. This stopped east-west traffic (and a yield-to-traffic-in-the-circle rule) would mean north-south traffic from Old Lee Hwy to Lee Hwy (and the reverse) would never move. As bad as the status quo is, your suggestion seems a recipe for road rage.

by c5karl on Nov 6, 2009 2:21 pm

"Drawing" people into a traffic circle is the dumbest idea, ever. What could possibly be the point? Traffic circles are meant to streamline traffic flow, not impede it,and having pedestrians crossing back and forth only slows and stops traffic.

Dupont Circle would be amazing if the pedestrian access to it was underground. There would be no need for stop lights every 45 degrees around the circle. Traffic shouldn't have to stop. Thats the whole point.

by nookie on Nov 6, 2009 2:23 pm

nookie, are you nuts? If you had underground only pedestrian access to DuPont Circle, it would quicly become a ghost town, as would that whole section of the city. In a walkable environment, you should never inconvenience pedestrians in favor of cars. That's how you cause collisions. Pedestrians will still walk on the most direct route, regardless of how you speed up car traffic and whatever kind of insulting, expensive, worthless underground tunnels you build.

And no, the point of a traffic circle isn't for the cars. It just happens to be better for the cars. The point of a traffic circle is to have a sense of place. The point of a traffic circle is to have an arrangement that better interacts with its surroundings.

The problem with Fairfax Circle is that it appears to have been originally built to be something resembling DuPont Circle - as a center of place. The traffic engineers in the latter 20th century whittled it away to its current state. In its current state, it is neither fish nor fowl. It is a jack of all trades, master of none. The author of this post advocates for choosing one thing to be good at - a center of place.

The Constitution includes a provision that government provides for the general welfare of the people. It does not mention motorists or car traffic anywhere. We got into our current predicament by building exclusively for motorists and car traffic at the expense of everything and everyone else. We aren't going to make our lives or our successors' lives any better by continuing the obviously failed policies of the second half of the 20th century.

by Cavan on Nov 6, 2009 3:07 pm

From what I know, the rotary intersection was meant to streamline traffic flow. But because it represents a shift from highly controlled traffic to largely negotiated traffic, it's actually a nightmare, as 90% of people will tell you.

Roundabouts are a different fish, since they require low traffic and exist in situations that are not as regulated.

by Neil Flanagan on Nov 6, 2009 3:33 pm

If anything should get sunk under that intersection, perhaps it ought to be *all* automobile traffic. Let the circle be a plaza with shop fronts facing it. This was the configuration of the town I stayed in in Germany and it made an attractive and useful solution by putting pedestrians first and separating automobiles as a mode. I highly doubt it's feasible there, but thought I'd broach the possibility.

by Dave Murphy on Nov 6, 2009 4:02 pm

"The Constitution includes a provision that government provides for the general welfare of the people. It does not mention motorists or car traffic anywhere."

Really? A constitutional issue? High school debate teachers everywhere would cringe...

by mch on Nov 7, 2009 5:16 am

I issue a challenge to Fairfax: Take the design of Swindon, England's "Magic Roundabout" and work it into Fairfax Circle. That would be the ultimate traffic experiment for Northern Virginia. http://www.roundabout.net/DIBcounterflow.html

by mgrass on Nov 7, 2009 7:52 am

diameter of Dupont is 400' with 10 spokes.
diameter of Fairfax Cir is 200' with 4 spokes (5, if you count city-owned ROW "Hume Ave" next to Robert's Chevron, where I am about to walk to pick up my wife's car).

main artery through Dupont is grade-separated (Conn Ave.), and the whole of the circle is a park.
main artery through Fairfax is wide and splits the circle in half, making it virtually un-usable space.

dc is a grid with redundancy, allowing auto traffic through Dupont to be greatly mitigated, & enabling ample pedestrian crossings to the circle...making it humane and lively.

Fairfax is still a suburb hell bent on funneling all traffic onto the 2 main roads (50 & 29) and through this Circle.

the result of turning "The Circle" into a true roundabout (without grade separation), would be to create a park too small to feel comfortable, and in addition an impregnable island surrounded by roaring traffic - a ornamented version of the green space on a cloverleaf interchange.

the result of grade-separating Route 50 at much expen$e would help, but would be so small as to still feel like an island in the middle of traffic as opposed to a lively pedestrian oasis like Dupont.

the diameter of dupont circle represents a "sweet spot" of space for a functional and lively circle park. anything more than the city has done (crosswalks and signals recently installed), in order to be successful would need to address the size and grade separate 50. otherwise, you would be spend quite a bit of money to create ornament, but not amenity. for if the goal is to play chess in Fairfax Circle Park, it's got to be loud enough to be fun, but quiet enough to think.

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 7, 2009 9:47 am

The draft Fairfax Boulevard master plan recommends exactly this -- a pedestrian-friendly roundabout -- and the consultant Dover Kohl found it could work for current and future traffic levels. http://www.fairfaxva.gov/Boulevard/FBMP_3_TransportAndEconomics.pdf, p. 5.15. Rick Hall did the transportation analysis, and I think his work is pretty respected and has been implemented in similar communities.

by Douglas Stewart on Nov 7, 2009 9:56 am

The Constitution includes a provision that government provides for the general welfare of the people.

A bureaucrat, of all people, should know the legal distinction between preambles and actual legal content.

by MPC on Nov 7, 2009 9:34 pm

@MPC: I'm not sure why the Constitution is relevant here, but I think he's referring to Article I, Section 8.

by Josh B on Nov 9, 2009 3:33 pm