Wall in White Flint endangers pedestrians

Pedestrians

Wall in White Flint endangers pedestrians

by Cavan Wilk • August 18, 2010 12:58 pm

Outside the White Flint Metro station, a stone wall has been erected to force pedestrians to cross Marinelli Road at the intersection of Rockville Pike. While this barrier prevents pedestrians from crossing outside of the crosswalk, it also creates new dangers.

Across the street from the White Flint Metro. Photo by the author.

Improving pedestrian conditions here is especially important because White Flint lacks a bus loop. Among Montgomery County Metro stations, only Forest Glen and White Flint do not have off-street bus stops (Silver Spring's bus bays have been temporarily closed due to the construction of the new transit center).

As a result, many patrons transferring between buses and the Metro are forced to cross Marinelli Road or Rockville Pike. An underpass does allow pedestrians to cross under the Pike, but the same facilities don't exist for people crossing Marinelli. The current configuration is just plain hostile to pedestrians and makes little sense in front of a Metro station &mdash especially in front of the station at the center of what Montgomery County hopes will be its next downtown.

Photo by author.

Because of the placement of the bus stop located on the south side of Marinelli across from the Metro entrance, there is a desire line across the street. The wall makes pedestrians go the long way around, and is typical of the conventional mid-20th century transportation orthodoxy which asserted that cars and pedestrians should be kept separate.

Additionally, the wall creates hazards for motorists. While I was taking photos, I saw two motorists turn left from southbound Rockville Pike (MD 355) into the oncoming lanes on Marinelli Road. A friend of mine who lives in one of the apartment buildings adjacent to the Metro said to me that she did the same thing the first time she turned left onto Marinelli. This wall violates the concept of driver expectancy. Drivers often drive based on what they expect, not necessarily according to actual conditions. To many drivers, a wall implies the side of the road rather than a median.

The wall also partially obstructs drivers' view of pedestrians in and around the crosswalk. It is especially hard for drivers to see road hazards, shorter pedestrians, children, and wheelchair users.

A more progressive approach would be to relocate the bus stop directly across the street from the Metro entrance. The stop line for cars approaching the Rockville Pike intersection on westbound Marinelli Road would also be moved back to allow a crosswalk to occupy the new desire line to the bus stop and NRC headquarters across the street.

As White Flint develops into a more urban area, Montgomery County will need to begin to treat the needs of pedestrians as more important than those of drivers. If Rockville Pike remains as hostile to pedestrians as it is now, no amount of density will turn White Flint into an urban center.

21 comments

Tags: Maryland, Montgomery, pedestrian safety, walkability, White Flint

White Flint at forefront of urbanism on Rockville Pike (Oct 20, 2008)
Pedestrian safety should be paramount at construction sites (Aug 20, 2010)
Defunding Pike conversion threatens Montgomery's growth (Oct 26, 2010)
MDOT improving pedestrian safety in the wake of tragedy (Nov 19, 2010)
"Pedestrian crossing" options oddly resemble interchanges (May 20, 2010)

Cavan Wilk became interested in the physical layout and economic systems of modern human settlements while working on his Master's in Financial Economics. His writing often focuses on the interactions between a place's form, its economic systems, and the experiences of those who live in them. He lives in downtown Silver Spring.

Comments
Add a comment »

Building barriers between lanes (except on high-speed roads) seems wrong in almost any situation. Like the ones on Connecticut Avenue north and south of Dupont Circle, it doesn't even stop all pedestrians from trying to cross in the wrong place anyway, and creates a great hazard for those who try. I'm not saying we shouldn't put some blame on them for doing something stupid - but why create situations in which some people will inevitably do stupid things when you don't have to?

You have to accept the way people want to use the road in these situations. In dupont, there is no legal crossing of Connecticut between Dupont Circle and N Street, or between Q Street and R Street (a long block). There are already traffic lights governing flow north and south of the circle- why not just add signals that match those inbetween those blocks and permit peds to cross halfway? It wouldn't even slow traffic in any substantive way.

Same with this one - why not just move the bus stop as you suggest, or add a pedestrian crossing signal that is timed with the one on rockville pike so people can cross in the middle?

by Jamie on Aug 18, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

Among Montgomery County Metro stations, only Forest Glen and White Flint do not have off-street bus stops

This is half-true. There are bus bays inside of Forest Glen where Ride On routes 7 and 8 stop as do shuttle buses during certain cases when the station loses power/Wheaton's escalators die. However, for logistical purposes the Y and Q Metrobuses don't use those bays to not add to run time going on/off Georgia Ave.

The odd thing about that wall is that a gap should have been built as the discharge-only terminal for the C8 (and a couple J5) Metrobuses plus Ride On 81 is blocked from the Metro by that wall. Unless the wall came after Metro, it made no sense to keep it as is. With the plot east of the station being redeveloped and a 100+ long scaffolding set up from the station to the garage, now is the time to dump it for the sake of access.

by Jason on Aug 18, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

Portland just built a wall with near the same issues: http://vimeo.com/14013716

Walls as pedestrian "enhancements" really needs to be eliminated!

by Barry Childress on Aug 18, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

Ok. Let me analyse this:

Problem: Pedestrians cross the road because it is the shortest way.
Current solution: Build a wall, blocking pedestrians from crossing the road.
Evaluation: This solution does nothing to fix the problem.

How about:
Logical solution: Make a pedestrian crossing on the road.

by Jasper on Aug 18, 2010 2:02 pm • link • report

There used to be a marked cross walk at the "desire line" to get between the Metro station and NRC HQ, set back from the intersection of Marinelli and 355. It was used heavily by NRC staffers exiting Metro and going to work, and on their return trip home as well. When my commute to work included the White Flint station, I routinely witnessed close encounters between cars and pedestrians in that crosswalk . . . cars speeding both east and west on Marinelli. The wall was constructed over 5 years ago, after what I presume were one too many car-pedestriam accidents or near misses. I'm not suggesting that the wall was the right or wrong approach, just adding some historical perspective to the discussion.

by DCDave05 on Aug 18, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

Though my general prejudice is in favor of pedestrians over cars' needs, I guess I have some sympathy for planners trying to herd pedestrians toward the crosswalk rather than the desire line when the intersection has been particularly dangerous in the past and the crosswalk isn't particularly far out of the way. A good example is the metal barricades they've put up at the acute-angled intersection of 16th and Pine streets NW, in front of the Shrine of the Sacred Heart, to get pedestrians on 16th Street to use the crosswalks that cross Pine Street perpendicularly rather than following the direct north-south line of 16th Street. The streets running at an angle to the true cardinal directions in the Mt. Pleasant/Columbia Heights area were already there in the 1880s before 16th Street was plowed through the neighborhood so it has a lot of those funky intersections. You see the same thing with some other older neighborhoods in U.S. cities that a later grid was clumsily superimposed on, such as Greenwich Village west of Washington Square (where 6th and 7th Avenues were rammed through the pre-existing off-kilter grid in the 1920s as part of cut-and-cover subway construction).

However, it is particularly egregious when following the rules would force pedestrians to go really far out of their way, as in the White Flint example and the examples Jamie mentions above.

by neff on Aug 18, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report

"Among Montgomery County Metro stations, only Forest Glen and White Flint do not have off-street bus stops."

Jason is correct. Forest Glen Station has a very functional bus loop right in front of the station. However, the area not have a critical mass of Metrobus riders to warrant all buses using the bus loop at the Kiss & Ride lot. Mostly hyperlocal Ride-On buses use the loop and the Metrobuses run right next to, and stop next to the station along Georgia Avenue. The thing that Forest Glen needs is a tunnel under Georgia. Then we'd be good.

by Eric on Aug 18, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report

I was in Nairobi recently, and while being driven around the city I noticed several places where pedestrians had solved the problem of a concrete wall in the median by taking a sledgehammer to the wall. Not suggesting people do the same thing here, but it's an entertaining contrast.

by Phil on Aug 18, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report

Didn't there used to be a loop a White Flint I thought I recall a loop being west of Rockville Pike about 15 years ago.

Just because Silver Spring is undergoing construction does not excuse the way the bus bays are arranged. They could have put some on East West Hwy, Colesville Rd, 2nd Ave west north of Colesville RD instead of having all up the hill. Then there is not enough signs to know where each bus stops at.

If Montgomery County wants this to be downtown and you are against this than what is the excuse for in DC there are many stops where the stops are just like this

by kk on Aug 18, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report

Are you sure about the purpose of the wall? My recollection was that it appeared about the same time as other "anti-terrorist" features around the building that houses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It could have been a coincidence, but I have always assumed it was an anti-terrorist device.

by Stanton Park on Aug 18, 2010 5:29 pm • link • report

@kk:
I don't think Cavan is objecting to having bus stops on street. He is objecting to forcing riders transferring between modes to cross a street, and then making that crossing dangerous, inconvenient, and hostile.

If there was a bus loop, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 18, 2010 6:35 pm • link • report

Native of White Flint here:

That barrier was constructed, I believe, as some sort of protection for the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I can't say for sure, but I think it was installed in conjunction with numerous other security upgrades around the NRC building (like the giant boulders and pop up barriers). I think they want to discourage people from entering the property from anywhere other than their defined entrances.

by Alex P on Aug 19, 2010 9:07 am • link • report

Stanton Park and Alex P,

The wall doesn't block a vehicle from getting close to the NRC building. Both photos were taken from the sidewalk in front of the building. The building is set back a little from the sidewalk. A wall in the median does not keep vehicles away from a building.

by Cavan on Aug 19, 2010 10:28 am • link • report

The was was built with other securtiy improvements around NRC. I believe it serves part of the Marinelli side defenses and would deter a truck at full speed going though the Rockville Pike intersection to the weakest part of the NRC defenses. I agree that the pedestrian visibility at the intersection is terrible and the barrier should be modified and a mid-block opening should be placed to coincide with the street network that will be constructed when the NRC annex building is constructed.

by Cyrus on Aug 19, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

We spend a lot more money to prevent the death of 3,000 of 9/11 then we do to prevent the 4,000 pedestrian deaths annually. Something is wrong with this picture.

by Barry Childress on Aug 19, 2010 6:58 pm • link • report

I checked with MC-DOT yesterday, and it turns out Cavan is correct. The wall was built primarily to discourage pedestrians from crossing in the middle of the block where they were though to be in danger from vehicular traffic (specifically buses). Stone was selected as a more attractive and lower-maintenance material than a fence. Protection for the NRC building was a minor consideration, as large rocks had already been strewn about the NRC property to prevent vehicles from approaching the building.

by Stanton Park on Aug 21, 2010 12:46 am • link • report

Montgomery County prefers, at heavily trafficked intersections, to have pedestrians cross at crosswalks with pedestrian signals - - especially when these signals are already located in proximity to the "desire line" crossing. This stone wall effectively "channelizes" pedestrians to the signalized crossing - - essentially 40 feet to the west of the Metro Station entrance. Comments regarding the history of this wall are correct. At this entrance to the White Flint Metro Station, there had previously been an uncontrolled, unconventional crosswalk set back from the intersection. Pedestrians attempting to cross there were placed in serioius jeopardy of vehicles hitting them, as drivers proceeding on green signals would unexpectedly encountered pedestrians attempting to cross Marinelli some 40 to 60 feet back from the intersection. The orignal condition that Cavin is suggesting be restored was indeed a very hazardous crossing situation. This is why the County changed it over 5 years ago. The wall had nothing to do with security, but rather with improving pedestrian safety and aesthtics. The stone wall was intended to reflect the "white flint" location. That being said, the County usually favors softer channelization measures for pedestrians - - such as the landscaped streetscape and median berms of Silver Spring and Bethesda. We don't believe these softer channelization measures endanger pedestrians either. I also will add that observations of our traffic engineers and review of pedestrian collision data indicate these measures - - only one of the many measures now being employed in the County - - are indeed working. The White Flint Metro Station entrance on Marinelli is much safer today than it was at the turn of the century. We don't want to go back.

by Jeff Dunckel, Montgomery County Pedestrian Safety Coordinator on Aug 23, 2010 7:13 pm • link • report

Mr. Dunkel,
I live near White Flint and I walk extensively, but I also drive so I know what it is like to be both a driver and pedestrian. Yes, the meandering of people in that road was worrisome. What's also worrisome, are some of these awful outdated crosswalks in this area. One in particular is located on the Pike, the northwest corner near the Mid-Pike shopping Plaza. When walking north on the west side of the Pike across Old Georgetown Road, one is directed to use the crosswalk from that little island which in turn leads the pedestrian into the path of fast moving traffic taking a right off the Pike to get on Old Georgetown...many of those cars are not expecting a crosswalk there, as it is recessed a bit and ends up being a blind curve. I never use that crosswalk, opting to instead cross DIRECTLY across and I wonder...for crumb's sake, can't there be anything better? I used to push my baby across that intersection and he is 15 now and I worry about him being on his own around here, navigating this car centric territory. I am also concerned about there being no pedestrian signal on the northeast corner of Randolph Rd. and Parklawn Dr., which is a high traffic intersection. There is one on the other side of Randolph. Why not on both sides? Does it have to do with the little island? Heaven help us here if the Montrose Parkway is built, and it's complete with menacing on-ramps...Thank you for any information you may have.

by Rainee on Sep 3, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

Um...I misspelled your name Mr. Dunckel, sorry...

by Rainee on Sep 3, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report

Rainee, Thanks for bringing these intersections to our attention. That entire area of Rockville Pike, from Old Georgetown Road north to Hubbard/Bou is under extensive reconstruction with the new grade-separated interchange of Randolph/Montrose Pkwy and Rockville Pike. This area is also the center of much debate over the future of Rockville Pike in the White Flint Sector Plan revisions. There is much energy behind making this entire area more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. I will discuss these intersections with our traffic engineers. However, recoginize these are State roadways where the MSHA has authority over intersection designs. Randolph and Parklawn is ours; I'll let you know what our traffic engineers say about that situation. Thanks again for being our eyes and ears on the street!

by Jeff Dunckel, Montgomery County Pedestrian Safety Coordinator on Sep 3, 2010 5:51 pm • link • report

You're very welcome. Anything to get people to walk more. And I will be getting in touch with the State for certain about the interchange in planning for Montrose Parkway East. I have spoken to the County about it, and since it will be under the State's authority,I will have to speak with them also. I know that pedestrians are kept in mind more so these days, but a little pinch doesn't hurt. I would hope that it would be feasible for any on-ramp to have a signal...Thank you for your response on this. Keep on walkin'!

by Rainee on Sep 14, 2010 3:31 pm • link • report