They should build a car barrier at all those curb cuts to prevent cars from cutting across the sidewalk between intersections. That's jaydriving.

by Dave Murphy on Mar 21, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

Crossing at intersections is no longer as safe as it was because of turning vehicles. Montgomery County continues to punish pedestrians for the irresponsibility of drivers.

I find myself crossing Wisconsin Ave. just north of Bradley rather than at Bradley, for this reason. At Bradley, you have to look for turning vehicles from both ahead and over my left shoulder. Mid-block, I hop onto the median at a break in traffic or use the crosswalk that is ignored by motorists only when there is a break in traffic.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

If you're familiar with the intersection of New Hampshire and University in Langley Park, fences were constructed some time ago to prevent lazy pedestrians from jaywalking across a dangerous 6-lane highway. Same premise at Randolph between *Veirs* Mill and Selfridge Road and same premise here (and right across the street!).

There are currently three traffic lights on Randolph from Selfridge to Colie (less than 3/4 of a mile total) - all with adequate crosswalks. And according to Google Maps, it takes all of one minute to get from your blue arrow back to Veirs Mill.

If you want to really enhance the pedestrian environment at this major intersection, increase the crossing time or just make the crosswalk bigger. Don't waste money by supporting laziness.

by ND on Mar 21, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

This is a stretch even by GGW standards. Montgomery County installed a barrier in the median so people going to McDonald's from a shopping center in the midst of suburban homes won't be encouraged to cross six lanes of traffic with no crosswalk and they're vilified? Also, is it fair to have it both ways where pedestrians don't feel safe going to an intersection, but you promote additional intersections?

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

I was in Seattle recently. I did the streetcar. Then the monorail. Then as I was walking back to my hotel in South Lake Union, I came across a huge traffic sewer called Aurora Avenue. Multiple lanes in each direction, and no pedestrian cross-walk as far as the eye could see (half a mile at least). Obviously I wasn't going to walk half a mile out of the way to cross, but there was a 4ft concrete wall along the central median, presumably for 'pedestrian safety'. I didn't feel very safe as I ran across 3 lanes of traffic, vaulted the wall (in my suit), and then ran across another 3 lanes of traffic.

by renegade09 on Mar 21, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

I don't know what happened, but only half of my post went through. It should be noted it's only an additional 200 feet of walking to get to the intersection if a person wants to go to the McDonald's from the shopping center. Frankly, Montgomery County should be commended for doing anything. Even a post about utility poles in the middle of sidewalks would be more deserving of a post than this.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

Crossing at intersections IS NOT SAFE BECAUSE OF TURNING VEHICLES. That is a reference to vehicles turning right or left.

This situation, combined with the huge distances between intersections in that area - especially if you are carrying anything - makes between block crossing a more attractive alternative.

I'm not advocating a lot of the jaywalking I see, but am pointing out that it's become clear to me that intersections are just not safe for pedestrians, either. At minimum, sightlines are clearer and more simple mid-block.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

Selxic, drivers ignore pedestrians at intersections and often deliberately intimidate them.

Your post would be logical if intersections were safe, but they are not.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

More areas need to introduce Barnes Dances at intersections where ALL traffic stops and pedestrians can cross either straight, or diagonally across the intersection.

Installing Barnes Dances at pedestrian-intensive intersections of Yonge-Dundas and Yonge-Bloor has been very successful in Toronto and has made it possible to permit right turn on red from Bloor to Yonge, which had been outlawed because of pedestrians. That's a win-win for pedestrians and drivers.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

@Capt. Hilts:
In this area, what "huge distances between intersections" are you referring to?

Veirs to Gridley = 1/10 of a mile
Selfridge to Randolph = 390 feet
Colie to Randolph = 2/10 of a mile

Unless you're walking to Toronto, I don't see any big gaps here.

by ND on Mar 21, 2012 3:24 pm • link • report

selxic & ND - Installation of a signal and crosswalk in the middle of the 1000-foot long block would cause no delay whatsoever for the majority of drivers, and a maximum delay of less than one minute (the length of the red signal). If a pedestrian who doesn't want to take a 200-foot walk with heavy groceries and small children (dangerous, and much longer than a minute) is "lazy" and undeserving of concern, why should drivers object to a delay of a few seconds while comfortably seated? Why not install a crosswalk and signal?

by Ben Ross on Mar 21, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report

drivers ignore pedestrians at intersections and often deliberately intimidate them.

I must not be the typical driver.

I'm not an expert of this particular intersection. I don't see any issues with sight lines and can imagine more problems with people crossing "mid-block." What type of signage is at the intersection? I see well marked crosswalks with crossing signs. What signs do drivers have (since the timing is likely in place for pedestrians)? I don't understand what adding another intersection and a traffic light 200 feet away would solve. If the developer was redeveloping the shopping center to make it a more "urban" shopping center that would be different. As it is, an additional intersection would just create more problems for drivers and pedestrians.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 3:32 pm • link • report

Again, ND, there are two issues here: where it is legal to cross and where it is safe to cross.

Right now, as defined by Monty County, at the intersection is the only legal place to cross. But it is not safe.

And if you are carrying goods or leading small children - in the heat of summer - those distances seem to expand.

Crossings at mid-block timed to coordinate with the lights at the main intersection are an easy solution - NOT a wall. If it's good enough for rich folks in Chevy Chase who want to cross Connecticut Ave., why won't it work up Viers Mill?

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report

@Ben Ross: Google has a measuring tool. I'm not sure where you're getting 1000-feet from.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some just don't make sense. This is a prime example.

The intersection in question is probably the most dangerous in all of Montgomery County. Several times a year I hear about traffic delays as a result of a pedestrian being struck somewhere along this intersection. True, pedestrians do not have it easy. I do some jaywalking there myself, cross Viers Mill, between one shopping center and another, I only do it when traffic is clear, and traffic is far more visible on Viers Mill than it would be for someone crossing Randolph, which crests in the intersection. When traffic isn't clear, I wait for the light and use one of two crosswalks between the two centers.

My understanding is that most of the pedestrian accidents there are jaywalkers, not cars that fail to yield to those in the crosswalk. So, the County has chosen to save people from their stupidity. That's a problem? I'm not seeing it.

Furthermore, the idea of a light there, or even a crosswalk, is a terrible idea. It will cause any number of collisions among cars who aren't expecting traffic to suddenly stop 20 yards beyond the intersection.

Some walls suck. Some serve a useful purpose. This falls in the latter category.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 21, 2012 3:44 pm • link • report

There are far worse intersections in Montgomery County - for walkers, for bikers, and for cars. There's no mid-block signal at Wheaton High School, or at the Twinbrook Shopping Center, and people will continue to jaywalk whether a pedestrian signal exists or not.

I'd love to see the statistics for accidents involving pedestrians at Veirs and Randolph. I've lived a few blocks away for quite some time now and I cannot recall any major incidents occurring.

by ND on Mar 21, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report

Pretty sure this column is actually by Dan Reed, no matter what the authorship info says.

by funInSun25 on Mar 21, 2012 3:49 pm • link • report

Capt Hilts makes a decent point about how mid-block crossings can work -- and if there were much demand for it, I might see the point for it here. However, I don't. It's really just those who park in the shopping center lot, perhaps because its easier to get to from wherever they're coming from, and then make a run to McD's. There might be a bus stop on the McD's corner, but I won't swear to it.

Comparing it to Chevy Chase is apples to oranges. There is considerably more foot traffic in Chevy Chase than you would get in a day at this particular crossing. Moreover, Randolph is a major cross-county road, carrying traffic that is trying to avoid the Beltway. Though it has speed cameras, traffic there moves considerably faster than it does through Chevy Chase.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 21, 2012 3:55 pm • link • report

@ND -- Your wish is my command. First among 7 "high-incidence" areas identified in a study by the County.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/DOT/Dir/pedsafety/pdf/randolph_prsavhb_09_16_2011.pdf

The area is defined to include this stretch of Randolph, extending a block in either direction of the intersection. There were 15 incidents between '04 and '08, and I'd bet the rate of incidents has gone up since then. Most of hte pedestrians hti there are Latino. While one look around would convince you that this is because almost every pedestrian at this intersection is Latino, the County decided that there might be either language or cultural reasons for this, and insisted the ESOL classes include instruction on pedestrian safety.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Mar 21, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

I still don't understand how people aren't allowed to cross the street between intersections but cars are allowed to cross the sidewalk between intersections. That's not only more unsafe for pedestrians, it creates more hazards for drivers. In the image above there are no less than seven curb cuts between intersections. Why does the county intentionally block human beings from crossing the street but not vehicles from crossing the sidewalk?

by Dave Murphy on Mar 21, 2012 4:49 pm • link • report

People naturally like to take the most direct way between two points, even if it is relatively more dangerous than an indirect route. A certain percentage of pedestrians are not going to bother to go out of their way to go to the intersection to cross. These people either will forego the trip or get into their cars, either to go that strip mall, or go somewhere else instead. It makes riding the bus less attractive, because you're less likely to be able to hop off and make a quick stop in the store. It just makes things more cumbersome for the pedestrian.

by Steve on Mar 21, 2012 5:06 pm • link • report

This is not simply not a safe stretch for mid-block pedestrian crossings. And the crack against the folks involved in the Pedestrian Safety Program is unwarranted. Montgomery County has in recent years seen a shocking number of pedestrian fatalities, and they're trying to bring that number down.

by Crickey7 on Mar 21, 2012 5:11 pm • link • report

They should build a car barrier at all those curb cuts to prevent cars from cutting across the sidewalk between intersections.

I still don't understand how people aren't allowed to cross the street between intersections but cars are allowed to cross the sidewalk between intersections

I passed the first comment thinking maybe it was a joke. Are we really supposed to believe Dave Murphy doesn't recognize those pedestrian-vehicle intersections as intersections with their own set of rules?

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 5:29 pm • link • report

Veirs to Gridley = 1/10 of a mile
Selfridge to Randolph = 390 feet
Colie to Randolph = 2/10 of a mile

This is pretty awesome, I have to say. Let's just put things in perspective:

Veirs to Gridley = nearly two football fields
Selfridge to Randolph = more than a football field
Colie to Randolph = more than three football fields

Damn those lazy pedestrians!

Distances must seem so short if you've never gotten out of your SUV unless you were in your garage or outside the door of your office.

by oboe on Mar 21, 2012 5:29 pm • link • report

I passed the first comment thinking maybe it was a joke. Are we really supposed to believe Dave Murphy doesn't recognize those pedestrian-vehicle intersections as intersections with their own set of rules?

Clearly one option is to paint 6-7 pedestrian crossings midblock, right? And force drivers to yield ROW. I'm curious how selxic feels about that solution.

by oboe on Mar 21, 2012 5:35 pm • link • report

Football fields are measured in yards not feet, oboe.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 5:36 pm • link • report

Bah, you yanks with your bloody "football".

by oboe on Mar 21, 2012 5:41 pm • link • report

Selfridge to Randolph = 390 feet [does it?] = 130 yards = one football field (between the goal lines) plus 30% of another football field (between the goal lines)

by Miriam on Mar 21, 2012 5:45 pm • link • report

The point remains that the intersections, themselves, are not safe primarily because of turning vehicles, but also because of short walk lights. Imagine yourself being of a certain age , having kids in tow or carrying goods.

Look the elderly woman was killed on Bradley x years ago when she was crossing from the South Side to the North side and a car approaching from the South turned right and hit her. She was at an intersection and crossing with the light.

Look at the problems they've had on Penn. Ave. in DC with city buses hitting and killing pedestrians while turning.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 5:50 pm • link • report

Clearly the only solution is for all modes of transportation to intersect only with like transport. Sidewalks should only intersect with other sidewalks and roads should only intersect with other roads. It's sad that our infrastructure is where it is and we're stuck trying to lessen the impact of horrible decisions made over the years. There should be tunnels and ramps all over this country. Instead, we've fallen behind and people are dying because of the poor infrastructure decisions.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 6:46 pm • link • report

Both Veirs Mill and Randolph Roads are part of Phase 1 of the proposed county BRT system and I'd imagine that this intersection would be a major transfer point. Pedestrian improvements would be required at this intersection to accommodate the bus lanes and people transferring, and thus pedestrians walking between the businesses around there.

by MD on Mar 21, 2012 7:26 pm • link • report

I'm with selxic. I've driven through that intersection many times and use to live near there. Pedestrians constantly just cross the street where they shouldn't with no regard to oncoming traffic. There is no reason they can't walk to the intersection and cross when signaled to do so. Perhaps the signal to walk should be longer. Unfortunately there are careless drivers out there, but there are also careless pedestrians.

by Abby on Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by thesixteenwords on Mar 21, 2012 8:29 pm • link • report

Lower the speed limit in areas with high volumes of pedestrian traffic.

by oboe on Mar 21, 2012 9:23 pm • link • report

As much as I hate them what about a pedestrian bridge, but not with the typical design which requires long walks but similar to the shape of the Cryllic letter Ж so that you never actually go out of your way to cross as the bridge follows the path of the sidewalk.

by kk on Mar 21, 2012 9:24 pm • link • report

Unfortunately there are careless drivers out there, but there are also careless pedestrians.

Yes, and when the pedestrians begin killing drivers in alarming numbers, we must look at reining them in, too.

by oboe on Mar 21, 2012 9:32 pm • link • report

"Clearly the only solution is for all modes of transportation to intersect only with like transport. "

doesn't the barnes dance do that, effectively, without actually adding any concrete?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2012 9:47 pm • link • report

I agree in principle with the author's contention that this intersection and the surrounding area could be improved for pedestrians. The sidewalks should be separated from the road. The intersection should have better crosswalks with long enough crossing times to allow people in wheelchairs to easily cross the entire street without being stranded in the median. The medians at the intersection need to be large enough to handle more than one person. All that is especially true when there are people transferring between buses. There also needs to be fewer places where cars access crosses sidewalks (the gas station alone has three on Randolph).

I disagree that a mid-block crossing is a solution. Especially where proposed, which is about 200 feet from the intersection. It sounds more like the author has a personal agenda here.

by Steve K on Mar 21, 2012 10:13 pm • link • report

EVERYBODY here has an agenda!

But Montgomery County needs to think of solutions to help protect pedestrians other than always re-routing them.

I walked up Rockville Pike from Twinbrook to Rockville last summer. Sometimes there was just inches between me and the fast-moving cars. Crossing was hazardous. And the last blocks to get to the Rockville Metro station were the worst because I had to cross curved right turn lanes [on which motorists often do not slow down]. I cannot imagine making that walk if I were a bit older or slower, or had kids with me.

Intersections and the sidewalks that lead up to them are not safe and won't be so long as moving cars quickly is SHA's priority.

So, yes, I guess, I, too, have an agenda.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 10:18 pm • link • report

" Furthermore, the idea of a light there, or even a crosswalk, is a terrible idea. It will cause any number of collisions among cars who aren't expecting traffic to suddenly stop 20 yards beyond the intersection."

They have exactly such a light at a very similar spot on Rt. 50 in VA. Its at the big strip mall with tge indian movie theater near Graham Rd. The mid block light is great for peds, causes zero delay to cars because of how the lights are timed and is not the least bit confusing for drivers.

by Falls Church on Mar 21, 2012 10:53 pm • link • report

Yes, it's obvious you have an agenda Capt. Hilts. I was surprised much of the route you just described has sidewalks of average width and room for grass between the curb and the sidewalk in the narrow areas. Once again, I must not be a typical driver because I always slow down to make turns too.

by selxic on Mar 21, 2012 10:54 pm • link • report

Falls Church, that's exactly how it can be done - synchronized with the traffic lights. It's a much easier crossing.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 10:54 pm • link • report

Selxic, then you have not walked up Rockville Pike.

In fact, the few stretches where there are trees on the east side [where I walked], they are to the RIGHT of the sidewalk where they do not enhance shade or safety for pedestrians. The sidewalk abuts directly to 355. The narrowest stretch, ironically enough, was in front of a county-owned office building.

Thank you for slowing down. But, I had to stand and wait for quite a while before crossing.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 21, 2012 10:58 pm • link • report

This reminds me of MoCo's pedestrian safety initiative a few months ago. It consisted of ticketing jaywalkers, not ticketing drivers of multi-ton vehicles that pose a threat to pedestrians.

But this is MoCo, where all government actions are about revenue enhancement. It's easier to stop a pedestrian and write a ticket than to chase a car and write a ticket. Ticketing pedestrians provides a much better ROI.

by Grax on Mar 22, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

You might help your cause if the vehicles in your scenario were doing something illegal, Grax. As outrageous as it may seem, some responsibility for pedestrian safety resides with the pedestrian.

by selxic on Mar 22, 2012 9:45 am • link • report

All I'm saying is that if mid-block crossings are okay for cars, they should be okay for peds too. Frankly, I don't like EITHER of them. But if we're building fences to keep folks on the sidewalk, we should be making efforts to get rid of as many of those curb cuts as possible too. curb cuts are very, very dangerous, especially on roads like Viers Mill and Randolph.

by Dave Murphy on Mar 22, 2012 10:13 am • link • report

You might help your cause if the vehicles in your scenario were doing something illegal, Grax.

It's pretty rare for a car to come to a complete stop before making a right on red. That's illegal and important for ped safety.

by Falls Church on Mar 22, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

What seems to have been overlooked by all of the commenters is that there are bus stops at the location that pedestrians are crossing. These are not just "lazy" folks walking to McDonalds but bus riders coming to/and from work or shopping at these locations. Is 150' or 200' too far to walk? Maybe not in the view of some (especially those sitting in their cars climate controlled cars) but studies have shown that pedestrians are unlikely to walk more than 150' to a crossing. To walk the extra 300 ft. (150 in each direction) and wait for the signal adds up to 190 seconds – over three minutes – to the crossing. For drivers a wait of over 60 seconds in level-of-service F.

by Frank Spielberg on Mar 22, 2012 10:48 am • link • report

What seems to have been overlooked by all of the commenters is that there are bus stops at the location that pedestrians are crossing. These are not just "lazy" folks walking to McDonalds but bus riders coming to/and from work or shopping at these locations.

And some are probably elderly or handicapped. Or they're young mothers trying to juggle a bag full of groceries and a two-year-old's hand.

by lou on Mar 22, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report

I doubt it's many bus riders. The bus stops are within 75 ft of the corner and in the direction of the corner. Yes, it probably is lazy folks going to Mickey D's or maybe going to the office building behind it.

by Steve K on Mar 22, 2012 6:24 pm • link • report

Clearly most of the commentators have never been within 5 miles of this intersection....I live 3/4 of a mile away, drive Randolph often, walk my dog bank that is behind the McDonalds, and bike up Viers Mill to get to the Rock Creek Trail.

Basically you have a bunch of lazy pedestrians who would rather take the direct route than walk an extra 3 minutes to cross at either available light. They do this at night, in dark clothing, without paying attention to oncomming traffic. Then they get smeared.

The county has done public awareness campaigns in english, spanish and korean, they have added streetlights and buggered up the timing of the lights to make it more pedestrian friendly to cross at either Viers Mill or by the old Roundhouse space. And you know what? Lazy people still take the most direct route.

So now there is a fence, and hopefully less people will get smeared. Fencing saves lives daily at Viers Mill by Wheaton Mall and over in Langley Park at University & New Hampshire.

Pedestrians do not have ultimate right of way to jaywalk across major arterial roads whenever and however they feel like it. Adding a light mid-block would just mean 1. massive poluting traffic backups and 2. pedestrians crossing on the red do not walk sign.

by Think A Little on Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am • link • report

Crossing in front of speeding cars, or at night wearing dark clothing is stupid.

But, a mid-block crosswalk - timed with intersection lights - is still the best solution.

Crossing at the intersections, for example, on Bradley Blvd., whether it be at Wisconsin Ave. or Hillandale, you must constantly look back over your left shoulder to make sure someone turning left isn't going to run you over. Hillandale is particularly un-nerving as cars heading west on Bradley do not slow down to make the left turn.

This is awkward if you are elderly or have kids or goods in tow. A mid-block crossing solves this problem.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 23, 2012 6:12 am • link • report

selxic,

I think you're missing the point. Yes, the street is wide and dangerous for pedestrians to cross. There are multiple ways to solve that problem. You could, for instance, build a fence to keep pedestrians out. This would surely discourage some people from trying to cross and would probably reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries as a result. (Note that some people might still try to cross even with the fence there and this could actually increase the danger for those people, but that's not the point). And oh, this would happen to have the added benefit to motorists that they wouldn't have to slow down for all those annoying jaywalking pedestrians who seem so determined to get killed. That's why GGW correctly identifies this as the car-friendly solution. It's a solution that protects pedestrians by removing them from the environment.

Contrast that with the solution GGW is proposing: add a signaled crosswalk where people want to cross. First note that this would be safer than the existing crosswalk at the intersection because this crosswalk would not be at an intersection so there would be no turning traffic. It is the turning traffic that makes the existing crosswalk dangerous and extra time on the light isn't going to fix that because drivers will still turn right on red. So this new crosswalk would be safer for pedestrians to cross than both the existing crosswalk and the wide stretch of street where they are already crossing. The downside to this is that it would be another light for motorists to stop at. It would slow car traffic. So this solution is a win-win for pedestrians because it allows them to go where they want to go and do so safely. It is a loss for motorists because it gives them another light to stop at.

So both of these solutions increase pedestrian safety, one at the expense of convenience for motorists (the signaled crosswalk) and one at the expense of convenience for pedestrians (the fence). Not surprisingly, in a municipality where most people drive, the planners have opted to increase motorist convenience at the expense of pedestrian convenience but, ironically, all in the name of pedestrian safety.

by Killer Cars on Mar 26, 2012 11:25 am • link • report