There is an interesting development occurring along the Katy Trail in Dallas (follow the green line above) involving what is and isn't expected of trail users in terms of yielding right-of-way.
Background: The Katy Trail is an urban rail-trail conversion. It has peak trip-rates as high as 500 users per hour (crossing a point), although many of these are repeat trips by the same user. Knox Street is a 4 lane local collector (30 mph) in a mixed-use environment with an average of 8,000 vehicle trips a day.
By looking at the aerial photo, you can see that the sight-lines along the trail are very dangerous due to the close proximity of buildings and landscaping (vision rods instead of cones of vision). An art installation along the trail at the intersection (interactive posts that light up and make musical chime sounds when users pass through) adds to the dangers of the crossing.
There have been numerous events with cyclists, joggers, and skaters failing to yield to motorists on Knox Street. Neither the trail users nor the street traffic can see the crossing traffic until they are at the intersection. Flashing lights, street marking, and what is essentially a road table for the crossing (the old rail bed is raised above the street grade, and flat on top) are used to control street traffic, while a stop sign is used on the trail.
Many runners, cyclists, and skaters ignore the stop sign on the trail at an alarming rate. Nothing new here, as this is one of the problematic issues with trail crossings: trail users have a higher level of failure to yield than do street users. The trail's "stop sign" is not an enforceable traffic control device, but really is more of a caution (which is why I recommend YIELD signs on trails instead... don't train people to ignore unenforceable traffic signs).
A request was made by the Friends of the Katy Trail (a private organization that controls the trail's operation) for a 4-way stop to be placed at the intersection. After studying the request, the City's Traffic Engineer realized that trail users would continue to ignore their stop sign, creating confusion and higher danger levels in the intersection. The City Traffic Engineer proposed a signalized intersection, with a pedestrian operated signal request. Treated as a signalized pedestrian crossing, running the stop signal would be violation of City Traffic Ordinance, and would be enforceable by fine. This would provide a due penalty for any pedestrian, skater, or peda-cyclist who ignored the signal phase, and allow for citing any motorist who ran the red light during the ped crossing phase.
The Friends of the Katy Trail are very unhappy about this. What they want is for vehicles to yield to trail users at all times, despite the imbalance in traffic (2,000 ADT on the Katy Trail, vs. 15,000 ADT on Knox Street). This of course makes no sense, and encourages trail users to "play in the streets" rather than be required to show reasonable behavior in dealing with right of way issues. It's a dangerous precedent that costs people their lives.
Last night, the Friends of the Katy Trail were set to unveil a plan for a proposed six mile, $60+ million (more of less) cycletrack through Dallas' Uptown, Arts District, Central Business District and Victory development, that would create literally dozens of trail crossing even more dangerous than this one. The necessarily right-of-way would come from cutting Routh Street in half (down to two lanes with no on-street parking), mixing urban pedestrians with trail users along Ross Avenue, and utilizing r.o.w. that has been secured for the new DART light rail line through the CBD. The designer? Portland's Alta+Design (no stranger to developing high-risk bicycle and pedestrian facilities).
Interesting footnote on the Katy Trail's 2,000+ ADT: Even though the Katy Trail connects upscale, high-density housing (and comes within a half mile, along a quiet residential street, of Southern Methodist University in the City of University Park) with Dallas' Central Business District and Victory Development, only 12 identifiable commute trips were recorded during a recent trail count at peak hours... a number unchanged since the year 2002 even though recreational traffic has increased by 30%, as have the number of residential units.
5 comments:
As someone who lives on the trail, that specific intersection is the one burr in my bike shorts. It sits on the border of two towns, and the border dispute is part of the problem. Highland Park paid NOTHING for the trail, fought it for years (didn't want the unwanted elements getting near their lily-white bastion), and then, when they cut the ribbon at the grand opening, couldn't wait to get their baby-joggers on cement.
I'm an advocate of the alternative of speed bumps. How about Speed DIPS? I saw them used once at a mall in Virginia, and anyone traveling over 10mph suffered horrendous undercarriage damage to their vehicles. But that's just the car side, which runs E-W.
Cyclists and Pedestrians routinely blow through the stop signs going North. Southbound, trail users are a little more cautious. Perhaps it's because it's more open and traffic is viewable. But Northbound, you'll routinely get bladers, cyclists, runners, walkers, moms, dads, and even kids on trikes, rolling through the intersection. The cops tend to just sit there and observe, which is criminal.
I could probably go on and talk about the serious MISSION CREEP that the Friends of the Katy Trail are attempting as they try to spread the wealth around in the Uptown area, but hopefully this economy will have them scaling back.
Philip, focus on the trail, and maybe getting HP to "Pony Up" some connections to SMU for the coeds or something. Maybe focus on some better entries and exits instead of the gravel crap we have mid-trail? Maybe work WITH the homeowners, instead of continuing to step all over them?
Won't be seeing any planted trees in my name along the trail any time soon....
The New York Time ran a piece Sunday touting an absurd connection between the presence of bicycling facilities and greater adherence to traffic laws by cyclists. This intersection would seem to belie that supposition. Imagine that.
I have always found the current signage at that crossing to be really confusing.
From the standpoint of a road user approaching the crossing from either direction, you see a trail crossing sign (picture of a bike)and a flashing yellow light. It is not apparent what if any traffic controls the trail users have. If you look closely, you can see that there are stop signs tucked back behind the stone walls and street post, but the placement and conditions are such that, at least to me, this was not apparent even after MANY crossings on the roadway.
Given the flashing yellow light and (apparent) absence of any traffic controls for the trail users, I always understood that the road traffic was to yield to the trail traffic, which is what I have typically done. Of course seeing road users like me pause at the flashing yellow light, trail users are likely encouraged to treat the stop signs as yield signs, and take advantage of the yielding road traffic--a feedback loop of the worst kind I suppose.
Waco, great comment. Your experience is not unique. The signage on Knox is the appropriate set of advance warnings according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The trail signage was originally straight from the AASHTO Guide for Trails, but was changed when the Friends of the Katy Trail did the landscaping at the crossing (aesthetics over safety).
The worst thing you can do there is yield to trail traffic unless you have to (to avoid hitting someone). When you yield to traffic that doesn't have the right-of-way, bad things happen. You could get rear-ended, but worse (as happened at Greenville and Royal Lane), a motorist could pass YOU on the left (not knowing why you stopped) and strike the trail user you were incorrectly yielding to.
The suspension of basic right-of-way rules is a very dangerous thing, as we have learned all too painfully.
And when you point this out to trail and traffic safety engineers, as well as the 501c3 that is supposedly in charge, how do they respond? Do they blink with no emotion?
Does someone need to be injured? Does someone need to be sued?
WHAT
IN
THE
HECK?
Post a Comment