VDOT to lower speed limit on Algonkian Parkway

Thanks to The Loudoun Scoop I saw an article in Leesburg Today about corridor studies being completed here in Loudoun. One of the studies is dealing with the backups that occur on Route 28 heading to the Waxpool road exit. That’s a daily event and it definitely warrants study since the whole point of the interchange build-out to begin with was to improve traffic flow. I have thoughts about that but that’s going to wait for another post. Today’s little outrage comes courtesy of the other corridor study, the one dealing with safety issues on Algonkian Parkway.

Drivers along Algonkian Parkway in eastern Loudoun are soon going to have to slow down even more. The Virginia Department of Transportation has received approval to reduce the speed limit along the road from 45 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour, Terrie Laycock, acting director of the Office of Transportation Services told the board’s Transportation and Land Use Committee Monday night.

The process is already under way and should be completed some time in the next few weeks, she said.

…

The Algonkian Parkway study started after two pedestrians were killed while crossing the street last year. The first, a 25-year-old woman was killed in January while crossing against the light. The second, a 21-year-old Russian woman was killed in August was crossing at CountrySide Boulevard at night when she was struck by a car.

Folks, the answer to every safety issue on the roads does not always involve slowing down. Accidents happen in parking lots where people are going 15 mph; is anyone suggesting lowering the speed to 5? Or 2? It’s a knee-jerk, thoughtless response to a tragedy and it will not produce the additional safety margin we need.

The incidents referred to in the story are the 2007 pedestrian fatalities at the corner of Countryside Parkway and Algonkian Parkway. In both cases, young women were struck and killed as they attempted to cross Algonkian Parkway near that intersection. That intersection has a traffic light, by the way, but did not have a marked crosswalk when the women were hit. Something the Leesburg Today story fails to mention is that, in both cases, the women were 1) crossing the road at night, 2) crossing against the light, and 3) were struck by motorists who were not exceeding the speed limit of 45 mph.

When young people are killed in an accident, it’s tragic. We all feel remorse over the incident, the sense of loss to the community that a promising young life has been cut short. We should not allow ourselves to be blinding to the reality of the situation, however. The cause of the accident and the result of a fatality was not the speed the cars were maintaining. The cause of the accident was that the pedestrians were out in the road where they should not have been and the visibility at the intersection is not just poor, it’s critically compromised. I wrote about this issue after the second fatality in August of last year:

The unpleasant truth regarding both of these fatalities is that the pedestrian was crossing the street against the light. Whether they were in a crosswalk or not is immaterial – they were in the road when they should not have been. Lowering the speed limit is likewise immaterial. Both women would have been killed as easily at 35 mph as they were at 45 mph. The argument that lowering the speed to 35 would provide the driver more reaction time is misplaced. The reaction time is only valuable if the driver can actually see the person in the road where no one was supposed to be. This is the crux of the problem at that intersection.

I live in Countryside. I pass that intersection literally every day and I understand completely why a driver would strike a person crossing that road at night, against the light, and inside the crosswalk. Approaching that intersection from the West, the driver is coming downhill. At the moment the driver crests the hill and comes into visual range of the intersection, the vehicle is actually above the level of the signal light. As they approach, they descend and are traveling directly toward the light. In short, the signal is shining directly into their eyes. The road beyond that signal is not lit and is therefore masked almost completely by the signal light. The green light, in particular, is bright enough to obscure the crosswalk that sits just beyond it. With no available light past the signal, I submit that there is virtually no chance to see a person crossing against the light.

What is needed here is a streetlight positioned to illuminate the crosswalk. I’m not suggesting that we install enough lights to turn night into day throughout that intersection, but we can install one or two and tailor the lighting to fall on the crosswalk itself. Lit in this fashion, a driver approaching that intersection at night would have visual contact with a person crossing that road and that contact is the key to avoiding more pedestrians being hit and possibly killed.

This is as true today as it was then. Simply ratcheting the speed down every time there’s an accident is not a rational approach. It’s a “gotta-do-something” flailing reaction designed to show action is being taken rather than effective solutions being deployed.

The lighting along this road is the more critical issue than the speed, especially at intersections with traffic lights where the glare of the actual light signal is creating blind spots. VDOT and the Loudoun BoS should be moving forward with that plan rather than wasting time with speed cuts that will not produce significant safety improvements.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Dangerous intersection needs light, not more obstructions
• Light ‘em up: street lights at Countryside and Algonkian Parkways come on…
• Intersection in Countryside to get a safety review
• PhantomAlert Service Warns Drivers of Speeding Cameras