Memorial Avenue driveway of E.C Glass is extremely wide and has very large turn radii that encourage drivers to speed through pedestrian crossing

[partytax]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.40579/-79.16638

[partytax]

Abusing an OpenStreetMap editing tool to determine that this corner has a radius of 327 feet (1027 foot circumference/pi):

[partytax]

Drew another circle to represent the effective turn radius of a vehicle turning out of this driveway. Effective turn radius is 346 feet (1086 foot circumference/pi). Calculated this because it's what NACTO uses for calculating the speed at which vehicles will be traveling while taking these turns.

[partytax]

NACTO article I will reference going forward: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/corner-radii/

The article references this 2004 report, which lays reports on turn radius and speed relationships in existing literature starting on page 13 (page 23 in PDF): https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/turn_speeds_and_crashes_within_right_turn_lanes_fitzpatrick.pdf

The most salient model in this report comes from a 1970 paper in the Traffic Engineering & Control journal by J. Emerson:

The author of the 2005 paper converted Emerson's graph to US customary units:

[partytax]

Here's an annotated version of Emerson's graph to indicate that an effective turn radius of 346 feet suggests a design speed of 38 mph. It is also worth noting that there is a real world data point, albeit taken from a rural context, that is very close to ours in turn radius and speed.

[partytax]

At 38 mph, the chances of a vehicle killing a pedestrian are very high. Here's a 2017 report from the National Transportation Safety Board that speaks on the issue on page 23: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf#page=23 : "Further, the link between injury severity and speed extends to pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle crash. According to the European Transport Safety Council, 5% of pedestrians struck by a vehicle at 20 mph are fatally injured. This likelihood increases to 45% at 30 mph, and 85% at 40 mph (ETSC 1995). The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety similarly found that the average risk of severe injury to a pedestrian increased from 10% at 16 mph, to 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph (Tefft 2011)."

It references this 1995 European Transport Safety Council report: https://archive.etsc.eu/documents/Reducing%20traffic%20injuries%20from%20excess%20and%20inappropriate%20speed.pdf#page=12 : "There is also a clear relationship between speed and the severity of injury. Accident analysis shows that the higher the impact speed, the greater the likelihood of serious and fatal injury. For car occupants in accidents with impact speeds of 50 miles/h (80 km/h) the likelihood of death is 20 times that of an impact speed of 20 miles/h (32 km/h) (IIHS, 1987). This relationship is particularly critical for the vulnerable road user. Whereas 5 per cent of pedestrians struck by a vehicle travelling at 20 miles/h (32 km/h) die; at 30 miles/h (48 km/h) 45 per cent die, and at 40 miles/h (64 km/h), 85 per cent die (Schweizerische Beratungsstelle für Schadenverhütung, 1976; Ashton and Mackay, 1979)."

That report references a 1979 report from Ashton & Mackay: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296059442_Some_Characteristics_of_the_Population_who_suffer_Trauma_as_Pedestrians_when_hit_by_Cars_and_some_resulting_Implications

Here's a graph from the report showing the likelihood of injuries and fatalities in a head-on collision of a vehicle with a pedestrian by vehicle speed:

[partytax]

The 38 mph design speed of the curve converts to 61 km/h. Here is an annotated version of the above graph which suggests an 79% fatality rate and a 96% non-minor injury rate:

[partytax]

I believe pedestrians are avoiding a direct crossing (like I do), so the VDOT crash map does not show any pedestrian injuries or fatalities at the location of study.

https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ef9957cd10964a7286d2f9df5b85e833

[partytax]

Similarly, TREDS does not show any pedestrian injuries or fatalities from the years on record (2018-2024).

https://www.treds.virginia.gov/Mapping/Map/CrashesByJurisdiction

[partytax]

The length of the unmarked crossing is 113 feet, which is a very long distance for a pedestrian to be exposed to traffic encounters. The driveway should be narrowed significantly, such that the crosswalk is reduced to a width not requiring an island per this NACTO guide: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/

It's difficult to say what that width may be, as the driveway is about 26 feet wide away from the entrance and is supposed to have a lane in each direction.

[partytax]

Perhaps just matching the radius of the corner at the north side of the driveway would work.

[partytax]

Here is a rough proposal of what ought to be done [with flex posts if we can't afford concrete]. Red circles represent the approximate radius of the existing north side of the driveway. Green line represents the proposed sidewalk and crosswalk path. The black line represents the proposed revised curb line.

[partytax]

After walking by today, I was reminded that there is a stop sign for people pulling out of the driveway. This limitation does not apply to drivers pulling into the driveway, of course, so speeds may still be very high.

[partytax]

Recap of conditions

• Crossing is excessively long at 113 feet. This distance is hostile and unsafe for a pedestrian to traverse.
• Effective turning radius for motorists turning south onto Memorial Avenue or northwest into driveway is 346 feet, a speed which encourages motorists to travel at 38 mph.
• Crossing is unmarked, so motorists may be unaware that the crossing even exists and not yield at all.
• Crossing is in a school zone with high numbers of pedestrians before, after, and during school hours

Suggested mitigations

Short term

• Install flexible delineators to narrow the driveway entrance to the profile defined by the black line in the image above.
• Paint a high-visibility continental pattern crosswalk across the remaining driveway width.
• Paint a stopping bar for vehicles before the crosswalk

  Long term

• Rebuild the curb at the black line in the image above and convert the asphalt area behind it to grass (lower maintenance cost).
• Build a sidewalk along the green line to conform with the new driveway entrance geometry.

[partytax]

Emailed David Pinkstaff in traffic engineering and requested that he take a look at this issue. I already linked him to some other road issues, so he knows the URL. My emails never get through to city employees if I include any kind of link.

Mr. Pinkstaff,

I appreciate you taking time to discuss street lamp maintenance the other day. If you have a minute, please take a look at Lynchburg Road Issue #115. I heard you may be responsible for certain intersection safety investigations, and this E.C. Glass driveway has one of the longest unmarked crossings in the city (113 ft.). Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Nathan

[partytax]

Received response from David Pinkstaff in traffic engineering:

Very interesting, and we will be looking into that situation.

[partytax]

Would like to add that there is precedent in the city for decreasing corner radii at intersections near schools. Here's the before and after of the south corner of the Monroe St. x 12th St. intersection (used street view for after because no aerials have been taken yet):

[partytax]

Marking as reported because it was reported to David Pinkstaff. Will wait some time before inquiring about any progress toward safety improvements here.

[partytax]

Switched to enhancement because, while the driveway design is "broken", it's not broken in the sense that you could request a repair. It needs a redesign.