Lynchburg-Urban-Network / lynchburg-road-issues

3 stars 0 forks source link

Fort Avenue has no painted bicycle facilities through its intersection with Campbell Avenue / Langhorne Road despite bike lanes northeast and southwest of intersection #166

Open partytax opened 5 months ago

partytax commented 5 months ago

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.40331/-79.15859

It is important to consider cycling-oriented intersection designs here because 2024 adopted budget has a capital improvement plan item for reconstructing this intersection:

Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 18-06-37 2024 Adopted Budget (PDF) pdf

Really basic concept proposed below. Bike boxes to facilitate left turns (not illustrated) would also be extremely useful.

BLUE: Existing exclusive cycling facility GREEN: Proposed exclusive cycling facility YELLOW: Proposed shared car/cycle lane

Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 17-46-31 OpenStreetMap

Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 17-55-17 OpenStreetMap

partytax commented 5 months ago

2022 adopted Parks & Recreation Master Plan has bicycle facilities going the length of Fort Avenue. This intersection is represented by the third dot from the northeast terminus.

https://www.lynchburgparksandrec.com/master-plan-2022/

Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 18-01-40 20150_LYNCHBURG DRAFT REPORT_110222 3 pdf

partytax commented 4 months ago

Below are screenshots from conversation I had in Strong Towns group leaders Discord (reproduced here with permission of participants): 2024-02-21_20-02-1708565256 2024-02-21_20-02-1708565354 2024-02-21_20-02-1708565374

partytax commented 4 months ago

Measured from aerial imagery and Fort Avenue is ~37' wide, while Campbell Avenue & Langhorne Road here is ~39' wide.

partytax commented 4 months ago

Before turn lanes, bike lanes are 5' wide and car lanes are 12' wide.

partytax commented 4 months ago

Looks like part 9 of MUTCD 11th edition is dedicated to bike facilities

partytax commented 4 months ago

Interesting part of MUTCD 11th edition:

Section 9E.02 Bicycle Lanes at Intersection Approaches Standard: 01 Except as provided in Paragraph 2 of this Section, a through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only lane. Option: 02 A through bicycle lane may be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only lane provided that the bicycle lane is controlled by a traffic signal that displays bicycle signal indications (see Chapter 4H). Support: 03 Unless controlled by a bicycle signal indication, a bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right of a right turn only lane or from the left of a left turn only lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and would violate the expectations of right-turning or left-turning motorists. Guidance: 04 When the right (left) through lane is dropped to become a mandatory right-turn (left-turn) lane, the bicycle lane markings should stop at least 100 feet before the beginning of the right-turn (left-turn) lane. Through bicycle lane markings should resume to the left (right) of the mandatory right-turn (left-turn) lane. 05 Except as provided in Paragraph 2 of this Section, an optional through-right (through-left) turn lane next to a mandatory right-turn (left-turn) lane should not be used where there is a through bicycle lane. Standard: 06 A bicycle lane located on an intersection approach between general-purpose lanes for motor vehicle movements shall be marked with at least one bicycle symbol and at least one arrow pavement marking as provided in Paragraph 4 of Section 9E.01. 07 A bicycle lane shall not be marked within a general-purpose lane, either with dotted or any other line markings. Option: 08 Where there is insufficient width in the roadway to include both a bicycle lane and a general-purpose turn lane, bicycle travel may be accommodated within the turn lane or general-purpose lane using shared-lane markings. Standard: 09 Where a general-purpose turn lane is controlled by a traffic control signal, through bicycle movements shall not be accommodated in the turn lane unless the turning movement is always permitted to proceed simultaneously with the adjacent through movement. Support: 10 Examples of bicycle lane markings on approaches to intersections are shown in Figures 9E-3, 9E-4, and 9E-9. Guidance: 11 The longitudinal line defining a bicycle lane should be dotted on approaches to intersections where turning vehicles are permitted to cross the path of through-moving bicycles (see Figure 9D-7).

partytax commented 4 months ago

Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-10-00 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-09-13 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-08-59 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-08-54 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-08-47 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf Screenshot 2024-03-04 at 12-08-34 MUTCD 11th Edition - 2023 - mutcd11thedition pdf

partytax commented 3 months ago

Wow I forgot to update this issue with the latest illustrations:

proposed-intersection

partytax commented 2 months ago

Talked to Parks & Rec director and he said the part of the master plan suggesting bike facilities on Fort Avenue doesn't seem institutionally feasible at this time.

partytax commented 2 months ago

Hold on...most of that section of the P&R plan on Fort Avenue is already done. This is just a fill-in. I need to talk to him again.

partytax commented 2 months ago

Left a message with Ryan Roberts requesting a status on this CIP project.

Maybe should have reached out to Public Works main number.

Have not seen any utility marking at this intersection, so it's not being constructed imminently.

partytax commented 2 months ago

Received email from David Pinkstaff with information about this project. I suppose it got pushed into the future due to other projects being a priority.

Nathan-

Annually, the city tries to fund several replacements for signal lights on span wires, as Im sure you’ve noticed, there are several downtime that need to be replaced.

The City tries to find funding for at least two per year.

There are no current plans for Fort & Campbell, however it is on our future candidate list.

We are hoping that by 2026-27 we can engage a design consultant.

Do know however that acquiring right of way for the poles could make for additional layers of difficulty and time for the projects.


David Pinkstaff

(434) 455-3931 o

(434) 401-8863 c

partytax commented 2 months ago

Responded to David Pinkstaff's email and attached a copy of our proposal:

Thank you for the update. My group, the Lynchburg Urban Network, is primarily interested in this project because we presume it would be accompanied by a repaving/repainting. We've identified some relatively low-cost changes that would make the intersection safer and more comfortable for people on bikes. I've attached a proposal we've prepared, and we would appreciate if you'd file it for consideration when the time comes for this intersection to be upgraded.

Nathan

proposal.pdf

partytax commented 1 month ago

LUN folks commented and suggested that the buffer zone would be confusing and after Garfield Avenue bike lane should end and there should be a lot of sharrows to warn drivers and cyclists.

Alternatively, get rid of turn lane setup and have bike lane all the way to intersection.