Post #1020: PriUPS

This post is prompted by a recent article on Texans using their hybrid vehicles as electrical generators.  This being Texas, of course the vehicle in question is a pickup truck, in particular, the Ford F150 hybrid pickup.

And so, in 2021, Texan F150 hybrid owners are finding out what Prius owners have known since at least 2005:  A hybrid car makes an excellent backup generator.  In this post, I’ll lay out the simplest approach to using your Prius (or similar full hybrid) as an emergency generator. Continue reading Post #1020: PriUPS

#531: The $9M Patrick Henry parking garage?

When did this become a $9M project?  Beats me.  Last I recall, the only number mentioned was something like $4.7M.  Pretty sure that lower number was what was in the discussion of the capital budget.

I guess I haven’t been paying attention, because that’s the first I’ve seen of that $9M number.  But there it is, in black and white, in the documentation for that portion of tonight’s Town Council meeting, which you may access on this Town of Vienna web page.

Wait, doesn’t $9M for 188 spaces work out to be near $50K per parking place?  Didn’t (at least some) Town Council members balk at paying far less than that, for a parking garage on Mill Street?  Again, I must not have been paying close attention, because that’s sure how I recall it.  Isn’t that vastly more per space than the Town is going to pay at a proposed Church Street garage?  What the heck?

How many parking places does the Town need at this location?  You’d figure, you’d get a clear idea of that first, then proceed, right?  Nope.  Not clear that anybody has any estimate of that, but … but the Town will eventually do some sort of study, at some point, to guess at that.  It’s on the calendar for some time a couple of years from now.

How much time does the Town have to think this over?  One month.  According to Town staff, the agreement has to be signed no later than next month’s Town Council meeting.

Does this have anything to do with a modified Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), for the Town Council to re-approve at this meeting?  See materials on this Town of Vienna website page. Maybe, I haven’t quite had the time to look at it, except to see that, when the Town couldn’t fit the $35M borrowing into its current economic model, it … changed the economic model so that the $35M in proposed 2020 borrowing now fits.

Is the 2020 bond issue still, by far, the largest amount the Town has ever borrowed?  Yep.

Do we still burn through all the reserves in the bond fund, down to the agreed-upon $2M minimum safe level?  Yep, somehow, with the new economic assumptions, the reserves fall to exactly $2M with $35M in borrowings, which is exactly the minimum acceptable level.  (This is from materials for Tonight’s Town Council meeting).

Does that new projection include additional 2022 and later borrowings to cover the increased cost of the parking garage?  Not clear, because not shown.  Last time around, the figured the cost of the garage in as about $4.7M, but free to the Town (paid for by some other entity).  So it’s not clear that an additional $9M in liabilities has been worked into the future borrowing scenario.  Here’s how the Town’s projected borrowings stood as of the last (what I though was the final approved) version of the CIP.  (This is calculated from the prior CIP, not the new CIP to be approved at tonight’s Town Council meeting.)

Today, gold hit $1673 per troy ounce (per Kitco).  Does anybody remember or care what happened to meals tax revenues for 2009, during the last recession?  Nope.  Likely I’m the only person in Town who cares about that.  But just FYI, here’s the historical on that one:

Does it bother anyone but me that the Town is projecting no trouble paying for all this, based on nothing but ultra-strong revenue growth for immediate, mid-term, and far future?  Apparently not.

How long does the Town Council get to think about this new proposed CIP?  Per the presentation, no time at all — they have to approve it tonight.

Post #518: The 1/28/2020 meeting of the Transportation Safety Commission

You can download my recording (.mp3) of the roughly 30 minute meeting at this Google Drive link.  The meeting was short, I took no notes, and the following items are a handful that I noted when listening to the tape.  Approximate times into the recording are given in mm:ss.

Scooters! (01:15).  The Town has posted its rules for rental scooter contractors who wish to offer scooters in the Vienna.  So far there have been no takers.  The Town Council modified the original TSC recommendation to a) reduce speeds to 6 MPH along Maple and Nutley (with the understanding that scooters would likely be on the sidewalks there), and b) asked that similar reduced-speed zones be set up around schools, parks, and (I think) the library (?).

Chick-fil-A drive-through exit pedestrian safety issue (03:08).  This issue is my reason for attending.  You can read the background in Post #423 and thereabouts.

Briefly, the transformers in front of Chick-fil-A prevent prevent persons exiting the drive-through from seeing pedestrians or bicyclists approaching from their right.  I raised this as a safety concern at the last TSC meeting.  The upshot is that a) Town staff and at least one TSC member agree that this is a hazard and b) Town staff are working with Chick-fil-A to get a mirror in place so that drivers can see pedestrians and bicyclists approaching from the blind side.  This is about as good an outcome as I could have hoped for.

Improvements to W&OD bike crossings (05:25).  They summarized the Town Council proposal for changing the W&OD bike crossings on Park and Church to make them, in effect, a raised crosswalk — like a speed table.

Bicycle Month (06:40).  This is a series of bike-related events sponsored by or with participation of the Town of Vienna government, slated for May 2020 this time around.   It sounded like the Bicycle Advisory Committee may be looking for sponsors for some of those events, and if so, presumably the chair (Beth Eachus) would be the person to contact.  They also discussed need for signs on the W&OD to direct bicyclists to businesses near there.

Revised Citizen’s Guide to Traffic Calming Measures (09:25).  This was a description of what is being planned to finish off the revised version of (what used to be called) the Citizen’s Guide, that is, the handbook that laid out how neighborhoods could apply to have traffic calming measures (e.g., speed bumps, signs) installed on their roads.  Later in the meeting, a citizen raised some questions about comments on the Citizens’ Guide to traffic calming (29:25).  At that point, they did a recap of the likely schedule moving forward.

Apps that direct cut-through traffic onto neighborhood streets (10:20).  This was a rather cryptic item, but apparently Fairfax County has noted that widely-available traffic apps are directing more traffic through neighborhood streets, to avoid slow arterial roads.  I’m not sure what the upshot of this is.

Plans for a Town of Vienna self-directed walking tour or historical sites walking tour (11:00).  This was just presented as a concept, no details.

Extensive discussion of the Robinson estate sidewalk bequest (12:10).  This is a sum of several million dollars, for use in sidewalk construction in the Town of Vienna, but it comes with numerous restrictions.  It’s to be used for concrete sidewalks only (not, e.g., for any associated storm water management), it’s to be used within a reasonably short time frame, it’s to be used to fill gaps in the existing sidewalk network, and so on.

Specific issues with Tapawingo (potholes), Marshall Road (pedestrian light), (15:40)

Followup on Tapawingo and Kingsley meetings with citizens regarding traffic calming (19:50).

School-zone 25-MPH flashing signs in 25-MPH zones (20:40).

Dealing with excess signage on some streets (23:50).

Timeframe for study of the neighborhood bounded by Maple/Courthouse/Nutley (28:15).  Upshot is that the study will be several months away, as they wanted to get traffic counts only after winter has passed.

Post #511: Three followups to the last Town Council work session

Source of this image is linked here.

This is about three unrelated points from the Monday Town Council work session that, in hindsight, struck me as possibly worth writing up:  The Town traffic simulation, the treatment of the Town strategic “plan”, and the end game 18 to 24 months from now.


Town traffic simulation.

Part of the Town’s “Multimodal” traffic study estimated the impact on traffic congestion from Maple Avenue development.  I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out what the consultants did to arrive at their numbers.  As of last night’s meeting, I have officially given up on that, because I can’t make head or tail out of it.

But I did take away one thing from trying to puzzle that out:  There’s a lot of uncertainty (wiggle room) in that calculation.  That’s worth noting, I think.  See if you can follow this.

  1. Back in August, the contractor presented results showing 758 additional net new evening rush-hour trips from Maple Avenue redevelopment.  They did not talk about it during that presentation, or during their next presentation.  But it was on a slide that they skipped over (Post #358).
  2. One issue I had with that is their “baseline” traffic, i.e., the number of trips that they assumed occurs right now.  Their graphic clearly showed that they assumed that (e.g.) currently-empty buildings were generating traffic on Maple.
  3. The single worst example of that was the assumption that the Suntrust Bank (east) currently gets 381 trips in the afternoon rush hour.  As previously noted, that’s a ludicrous number — it amounts to one car going into or out of that bank parking lot every 10 seconds.  Councilman Majdi called them out on that, but both the contractor and Town Manager strongly defended that as “science”.  I was so ticked by that misuse of the term “science” that I sat in the bank parking lot and counted cars to demonstrate that the actual traffic to that building was about one-tenth of that (Post #465).
  4. When I want to look at the final report, I couldn’t find those 381 trips.  As it turns out, at yesterday’s work session, it was revealed that the contractor removed those 381 existing trips from the baseline.  Simply zeroed them out.  That’s why they are no longer in the report. And so, presumably, we have no further cause for complaint.
  5. OK, fine, I can do arithmetic.  If they remove 381 from the baseline, that should then add 381 to the net new trips.  (Why?  Because you net out the existing traffic, when calculating the net new traffic.  If you reduce existing traffic by 381, then you should have increased the net new traffic from development by 381.
  6. And yet … in the final report, the net new trips from Maple Avenue actually decreased from 758 to 500.

So, without pondering how they justified that, just do the math.  Focus on the simple arithmetic of how they had to have gotten from the prior estimate to the current estimate.  Solve for X:  758 + 381 + X = 500.  Turns out, X = -639.  That is, they managed to extract a further 639 net new trips out of their analysis, to get from the original estimate that (presumably) netted out the Suntrust 381 in the baseline, to the final estimate that did not.  Just as a matter of arithmetic.

This X factor of -639 trips is what economists call a structural uncertainty in the estimate (as opposed to a statistical uncertainty).  It’s the uncertainty that arises from doing the numbers one plausible way versus another (as opposed to a more traditional statistical uncertainty, which arises from purely random factors, so to speak).

So this lower bound for the true stuctural uncertainty of the estimate — how much it changes based on choices made by the analyst — is larger than the estimate itself.

A lot of other things about the methods and results looked counterintuitive to me.  For example, the net new traffic during the AM rush hour, to the extent that it left Vienna, flowed mostly westward (i.e., against the direction of morning rush hour traffic).  About 2.5x as many additional cars exited Vienna at Nutley as at Follin.  But put those issues aside.  The simple arithmetic of getting from the draft to the final — the X above — is what convinced me that I would never have any real understanding of how they arrived at their numbers.

So this is truly a black box, and a black box it shall remain.  There are open-source software packages that allows individuals to model transportation networks (e.g., here, here, or here.)  All of them require considerable amounts of data as input (e.g., traffic light timings, traffic counts).  I’m not going to put in the effort to try to gin up my own estimate.  But my conclusion is that this is the only way to avoid having the results be a total black box.


Addendum:  Traffic counts and the K-Q curve.

Addendum:  I also have no clue what these traffic models do when actual traffic passes the peak of the “K-Q curve”.  (Briefly, as you try to stuff more and more vehicles through a given roadway (increase the density of cars per square foot, traditionally represented by “K”), each individual car may move more slowly, but in aggregate, the total flow of cars (represented by the letter “Q”) increases.  That is, at first, each car may move slower, but you get more total cars moving through the road segment.  But as you continue to add cars, you reach a point where the reverse is true:  You get so crowded that adding more cars actually reduces total traffic flow.  Not only does each car move more slowly, but you actually get fewer total cars to pass through the road segment in a given amount of time.  That point — where jamming more cars onto the road actually begins to reduce not just speed, but total traffic flow — that’s the peak of the K-Q curve, as in this diagram (k = density of cars, q = total flow of cars through the roadway, v = average car speed).

Source:  Wikipedia.

As I understand it, this is the reason you will see (e.g.) metered on-ramps (ramps with traffic lights) at the on-ramps to the inside-the-beltway portion of I-66.  They are trying to avoid passing the peak of the K-Q curve.   Once you pass that peak, you are helping nobody by allowing more cars onto the roadway.  Not only does every individual car move slower, but you actually get fewer total cars to pass down the highway in a given amount of time.  All you do is increase the size of the backup.

It sure seems to me that we hit the peak of the K-Q curve during morning rush hour.  At least sometimes.  At the point where traffic from the Courthouse and Maple light backs up all the way to Nutley, it’s tough for me to imagine what we haven’t hit and passed the maximum possible through-put of the Maple-Courthouse intersection.  Here we are, just before 9 AM, looking east and west on Maple, at the Nutley Street intersection.

But here’s the technical question.  Look at the diagram above and think of the curved line as a hill.  In terms of traffic counts, you get the same traffic count if you are halfway up the upslope of the hill (before the peak of the K-Q curve, where traffic is light and moving well) as you do halfway down the downslope side of the hill (past the peak, where traffic is packed and moving slowly).

I think this explains one oddity of the report, in that the consultants seem to think that we have one long rush hour period from about 8 AM to about noon.  Because they are looking at the traffic counts, and the flow of cars is about the same throughout that period.  Like so:  The flow of traffic (cars/hour) is the same at 9 AM as it is at 11 AM.

Source:  Vienna multimodal transit report, 12/20/2019 draft, page 3-13.

But as anyone who drives that road can tell you, there’s a stark difference in the level of traffic queues or waiting times between 9 AM and 11 AM.  Just before 9, traffic routinely looks like the pictures above.  Whereas around 11 AM, traffic flows far more freely.  But you see no difference on the graph above, because the traffic counts, by themselves, are blind to the fact that Maple hits capacity during the rush hour.  The count you get when you are on the downslope side of the K-Q curve (just before 9 AM, with huge backups as pictured above) is the same as the count you get when you’re still on the upslope of the curve (around 11 AM say, when traffic moves pretty well).

So that’s just an oddity that I noticed.  Traffic counts (cars/hour) do not, by themselves, accurately measure traffic, because of the ambiguity caused by hitting the peak of the K-Q curve.  Very light traffic and very heavy traffic can generate identical traffic counts.  And the graph just above doesn’t show that we have one long rush hour.  It just shows that the total traffic counts don’t change much between the absolute peak of the AM crunch (which I place at about 8:45 AM) and the must less crowded mid-morning period.  I think that, as much as anything, demonstrates that we hit some measure of capacity on Maple during AM rush hour.  Once you hit capacity on Maple — as I infer that we due during the AM rush — additional traffic does not result in additional traffic counts.

I’ll mention one other truly weird possibility.  At this most recent meeting, Coucilman Noble made much out of the new traffic light system that Vienna is getting.  (I have the vague notion that VDOT, not the TOV, is responsible for that, but that doesn’t matter).  If that traffic light system actually increases throughput during the periods when Maple is at capacity (something that I doubt will happen, per discussion of capacity above, but is possible), then, by traffic counts alone, it will make it look as if traffic has gotten worse during rush hour.  That’s just another example of the way in which traffic counts, alone, can provide a misleading indicator of traffic when a road is at capacity.  If there’s a fundamental change in the roadway (in this case, new light timing), traffic (counts) going up can mean that traffic (wait times) is going down.

And as a final, final note on that, if the Town of Vienna wants Vienna citizens to be aware of some profound benefit they are going to get from new traffic signals, I suggest that they actually provide at least some sort of description of what they intend to do.  Near as I can tell, the entirety of what Vienna has to say about this project is a total of 23 words on this page on the Town of Vienna website.  Normally, as you may realize, I will do my homework to understand what the Town is about.  But from the description, I can’t even find the words to Google up what this is.

 


Town Strategic “Plan”

In theory (and by law), anything the Town of Vienna government does needs to comply with the Town’s strategic plan.  But if you look back at when the Town developed MAC zoning, they developed MAC zoning (2014), then rewrote the strategic plan (“mixed use development) to match it (2015-2016).

This more-than-begs the question of what you mean by “plan”, if you rewrite the plan to match what you subsequently decided to do.  I have a vague idea that it isn’t even remotely legal to do that.

That said, based on the last work session, that’s the plan going forward.  When Councilman Majdi brought up the idea of addressing the comprehensive plan first, that was (of course) immediately shot down.  The agreed-upon sequence is now to rewrite the zoning (with apparently no restrictions whatsoever), and then once again rewrite the comprehensive plan to match whatever comes out of the zoning rewrite, if necessary.

Just in passing, and to underscore how loosey-goosey this is, Town staff have now set it up so that this Town Council is actually providing less guidance to this process than occurred during the original development of MAC zoning.  At least, under MAC, Town Council somehow arrived at a firm limit on building height.  Here … near as I can tell, anything goes.  Town Council has not publicly agreed on even one single thing that they want to see in a revised MAC zoning.  It’s all up to the Department of Planning and Zoning.  That’s no surprise, given that Planning and Zoning appears to be controlling this process.


Looking 18 months down the road.

Fundamentally, the limit on the density of development on Maple Avenue appears to be a political limit.  It’s really about what the median Vienna voter wants.  There’s no technical barrier to filling Maple Avenue with Chick-fil-A-car-washes.  It’s just that the people who live here do not, on average, seem very fond of that idea, and they will vote for people who say they won’t do that.

This is all the more true if you purposefully ignore any other possible limits to growth.  E.g., if you will not discuss development in the context of the capacity of Maple to move traffic, or in the context of impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods.  Barring all that — if you acknowledge no other limits — then the only limit on the density of Maple Avenue development is a political limit.

This is a point that Councilman Majdi brought up at that work session.  And either his fellow Council members didn’t get it, or they just shot it down as sort of knee-jerk reaction.

So I need to point out the following:  Town staff have structured this process so that our elected officials have no say in shaping the new MAC.  They will have no formal input in what happens to MAC zoning until the very end of the process.  The process will be controlled by the Department of Planning and Zoning, with input from the Planning Commission (still largely staffed by holdovers from prior Town Council.)  Only at the very end of the process will Town Council be presented with the finished products.

Councilmember Patel tried to reverse that — to get Town Council to have first say over the shape of the revised MAC zoning — and got quashed by the pro-MAC members of Town Council.

So I’m just pointing out the disconnect here.  The only functional limit on MAC density is a political limit.  And our political body is (formally, at least) completely shut out of the process of shaping the new MAC, until the very end.

The only logical conclusion is that this is likely to end (or, at least, risks ending) in some sort of train wreck.  The people actually structuring the new MAC are not subject to any political constraint — they are not elected.  And the people who are elected are not part of the MAC-rewrite process.  That’s exactly what the response to Councilmember Patel established.  But in the end, the constraint on what can and can’t be done is a political one.   So this is a fundamental mis-alignment of incentives, and poor overlap between scope of authority and scope of responsibility.  Town Council is going to be responsible for what comes out of this process, but they have been stripped of all authority to shape it.  

What guarantees that Town Council will be handed a new MAC that is politically acceptable?  Nothing.  The process is literally and purposefully structured that way.  Any notion that Town Council would offer overall guidance (by having first crack at proposals) was firmly snuffed out at this past Town Council work session.

And that’s the scenario that I reckon as a train wreck.  Suppose the very-pro-development Department of Planning and Zoning, working in a political vacuum, comes up with a zoning proposal that appears unacceptable to the median Vienna voter.  Then what happens?

I believe that Town staff are actually counting on that possibility of train wreck.  That is, they are counting on being able to cram this down Town Council’s throats, at the end of the process, one way or the other.  They think that those who oppose larger buildings and higher-density development will blink, in order to avoid that train wreck.  (E.g., to avoid vetoing a proposal that too two years and a quarter-million-dollar contract to develop, and that includes a bunch of purely technical and non-controverial fixes to Town Code in addition to a rewritten MAC.)  By refusing to separate out the non-controversial “clean up” portion of this work, from the more controversial changes to Town zoning, they can given Town Council a one-vote take-it-or-leave it choice (as I have already noted, per Post #483 and others).

Or, possibly, they are hoping that this next election will lead to a change in the fortunes of the pro-MAC portion of Town Council.  So that by the time this comes to a vote, they’ll have the votes for a higher-density MAC zoning.  That’s certainly possible.  From what I can tell, the anti-MAC forces seem totally disorganized at this point.  I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Post #478: Bus strike

Above:  Fairfax Connector 463 bus route.

Just in case you hadn’t heard, the Fairfax Connector bus workers are on strike.  You can read about it at this link.

Per Fairfax County, it looks like the main Maple Avenue bus (the 463 route, Vienna Metro to Tyson’s Metro via Maple Avenue) should run on a Sunday schedule (hourly, 8 AM to 8 PM).  But if you read the details, that’s not guaranteed.  It will depend on how many drivers show up for work despite the strike.

According to Fairfax County’s Facebook page, the bus tracker website will show incorrect information.  It will continue to show a weekday schedule, so you can’t rely on it to tell you when the next bus is coming.

None of the other Connector routes in Vienna will be running.

Post #474: 11/26/2019 Transportation Safety Commission meeting

I attended part of the TSC meeting last night.  There was a total of three people in the audience.

I brought the situation at the Chick-fil-A drive through to their attention (see just-prior post).  They seemed to understand that this might be hazardous and asked Department of Public Works to look into it.

Otherwise there were just a few things of note.

Rental electric scooters (Post #472 and earlier posts).  They made some small amendments to the “memorandum of understanding” that would govern any rental scooter agreements here in Vienna.  Mostly, they wanted language added that would specifically mention the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), in the sense of banning any scooter parking that would impede ADA-mandated access points.

They also had extensive discussion of the geofencing of Maple, Nutley and possible other streets to limit speeds, with the idea being that scooter users would likely be on the sidewalk on those streets.  There was some discussion of limiting speed to 6 MPH on those roads, but they stuck with the DPW recommendation of 10 MPH.

So, in a nutshell, if rental electric scooters are offered here in Vienna, the rules will look something like this, unless the Town Council changes them at their next meeting:

  • It is legal to ride on the sidewalk (but riding in the road is encouraged where it is safe to do so).
  • Speed limit of 20 MPH, except Maple and Nutley speed limit of 10 MPH (under the assumption that they’ll be most on the sidewalk on those street).
  • You can park them anywhere, but you can’t block any right of way (e.g., sidewalk) and in particular you can’t block any ADA access.  (And obviously, you can’t park them on private property without the property owner’s permission or acceptance.)
  • To enforce that, they are going to ask the vendor to require that each user send a picture of the parked scooter (or some equivalent technology).  Apparently, that system — you need to send a photo of the parked scooter in order to end your trip — is commonly used as a way to enforce reasonable parking of the scooters.

My opinion is that it’s probably wishful thinking to believe that a vendor would offer rental scooters here.  But you never know.  In particular, our Metro ridership (based on Census survey data) tends to be an older, high-income population.  I doubt that rental scooters are likely to generate many trips to Metro.  But again, you never know.

My (scant) observation in Fairfax City was that these were used by most college-age kids, and that the Fairfax City ban against using these on the sidewalks was routinely ignored.  (Per Fairfax City:  “City Code currently prohibits e-scooters, e-bikes, and other vehicles from sidewalks and trails (except on certain designated routes). “)  So even if you don’t like the idea of rental electric scooters on the sidewalks, my guess is, if they are going to be used here, there’s no practical way to keep them off the sidewalks.

One last tidbit:  Apparently, and news to me, electric scooters are allowed on the W&OD.  That was announced by DPW staff at this meeting.  I could find nothing on-line to validate this, not even on the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority website.  Their website notes that e-bikes are allowed, but as far as I can tell, there’s no mention of electric scooters.

Separately:  Unsafe conditions on Kingsley and Tapawingo.  DPW met with citizens regarding unsafe intersections on Kingsley and Tapawingo, on November 19 and 20.  The had a total of about 22 citizens show up to discuss potential changes to those roads and intersections to improve safety.

Post #473: No standards for pedestrian sight lines

This post is a courtesy for the Vienna Transportation Safety Commission (TSC).

The first point is to provide a convenient reference to Post #424, which is my summary of the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit hazard.  In a nutshell, I think that the obstructed view of the sidewalk there constitutes a clear hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists, on what is now a walk-to-school route thanks to the Madison HAWK light.

At tonight’s (11/25/2019) TSC meeting, I’m going to ask the Town to do something about that.

My second point is that there does not seem to be any technical guidance on this issue whatsoever, from either the Virginia Department of Transportation or from Federal sources.  The issue being, specifically, when a driveway meets a sidewalk next to a public road, what constitutes adequate sight lines between drivers in the driveway, and pedestrians on the sidewalk.   (So, not an issue of driver-to-driver sight lines, but driver-to-sidewalk-pedestrian sight lines.)

Best I’ve seen, so far, from VDOT or federal sources, is a vague statement that one should have adequate sight lines.  And that’s in the context of roadway intersections, not driveways entering a roadway.

After considerable searching, I found a handful of municipalities that addressed this exact issue.  Near as I can tell, all of them ask for the area to be kept clear of visual obstructions 10 feet or more back from the sidewalk, when a driveway enters a roadway.  This should be contrasted with the 1-foot distances between the sidewalk and the obstruction (a 5′ tall transformer box) at the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit. 

So, if you were looking for solid evidence that the situation at the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit is hazardous, here are four cities that would have banned it.  These are all standards for vehicle-pedestrian sight lines.

Lincoln, NE (.pdf) says you can have no obstructions with 10 feet of the sidewalk where a driveway enters a street.  Like so:

City of Kirkland, WA requires a 22′ setback, as measured along the sidewalk, but they assume that cars will be moving 10 MPH down a driveway.  Not sure this is relevant.

Bellevue, WA says 14′ from the back edge of the sidewalk must be kept clear, but that’s measured in the middle of the travel lane.

City of Albuquerque requires 11′ be kept clear around residential driveways.

I think this is enough to show that where this issue of pedestrian visibility at driveways is explicitly addressed, the required setbacks from the sidewalk that must be clear of visual obstruction vastly exceed what we have at the Chick-fil-A drive through exit.

Post #472: CORRECTED: Rental electric scooters tonight

Correction:  I attended the meeting and found that my original draft of this was wrong.  Councilman Noble’s idea of geofencing some sidewalks for slower speeds is included in the Town’s plan for this.  As of last night, the idea was to limit scooters to 10 MPH on Maple and Nutley, with the idea that scooters were likely to use the sidewalk on those streets.  The concept was that other streets might be added if “scooters on the sidewalk” became an issue elsewhere in Vienna.

Tonight (11/26/2019), at 8 PM, the Transportation Safety Commission will discuss the Town’s proposed pilot program for rental electric scooters (and other issues).  As I see it, the two key unresolved issues are whether you want to allow rental electric scooters on the sidewalk, and whether you want to allow them to park anywhere (as long as they don’t block the right-of-way.) 

If you need to know the background, see Post #377.  Briefly, repeated from that post:

due to a change in Commonwealth law, the Town needs to have some sort of program in place to regulate the use of rental scooters and bikes.  If not, then on 1/1/2020, the rental and use of such devices is deemed legal, including, if not explicitly barred, use on the sidewalk.  We probably don’t want that …

So it’s not like the Town is going out of its way to attract rental electric scooters.  It’s more a matter of self-defense.  (Though, I must say, my interactions with scooters in the City of Fairfax has been positive so far — see Post #393).

The meeting materials on this topic may be found at this Town of Vienna web page.  The term of art here is SMD for shared mobility device.

After skimming the documents, near as I can tell, this is just a pro-forma adaptation of the same contract that most other jurisdictions are using.  More-or-less, this appears to be the same “cookie-cutter” draft that was presented to Town Council earlier.  It outlines the framework for contracting, and nothing else.

In particular, I’m still uncertain about two key details, sidewalk use and location of “corrals” for parking scooters.   As I recall, these are both issues that the Town Council needed to resolve.

The “corrals” don’t appear to be mentioned in the legal documents.  In fact, the only mention of parking of these scooters, in general, appears to be this:

Defined response times for removing devices for critical issues designated by the Town

I think that means that the Town will ask this company to pick up scooters that are reported as blocking a sidewalk or entrance.  And, based on these documents, it’s up to the company to determine the standard for quickly they plan to pick those “mis-parked” scooters up.  But otherwise, there’s no indication that there are any parking rules at all (beyond what is specified in the Commonwealth statute above).

The sidewalk issue is, I think, critical, because as I understand it, the default under Commonwealth law is that these things are legal on the sidewalk And certain Town Council members (Majdi, at least) really objected to that.  So if the Town wants to keep them off the sidewalk, I think Town Council has to pass an amendment to Town Code to do that?  I’m not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.

Commonwealth of Virginia law says this, emphasis mine:

The governing body of any ... town may by ordinance prohibit the use of ... personal delivery devices ... on designated sidewalks or crosswalks ... Unless otherwise prohibited, electric personal delivery devices may be operated on the sidewalks ... of any locality of the Commonwealth. ...No person shall park a ... scooter in a manner that impedes the normal movement of pedestrian or other traffic or where such parking is prohibited by official traffic control devices.

So I think that if Town Council wants to keep these off the sidewalks, they must actively say so.  And (from a part of that statute that I omitted), they are required to post signs saying so.  So this isn’t trivial.

Near as I can tell, the only mention of “mobility devices” in Town of Vienna code is section Sec. 21-8. – Prohibited or restricted activities.  That prohibits certain activities (e.g., riding two abreast in the roadway) and requires riders 14 and under to wear helmets.

To be clear, then unless the Town passes ordinances to the contrary, as it stands, rental electric scooters can be used on the sidewalk, and can be left anywhere that does not literally block the use of the sidewalk or road.

I certainly hope that the TSC is preparing to make recommendations to the Town on these key issues.  It’s a tough call.  On sidewalks:  Without sidewalk use, you pretty much can’t get to Metro or use Maple Avenue.  Councilman Noble’s suggestion of geofencing those streets to enforce lower speed limits (while allowing sidewalk use) appears to have fallen by the wayside.   So somebody needs to make the call here, otherwise the defaults (in red above) apply.  On parking:  If the Town designates a handful of areas for legal scooter parking, that pretty much negates the use of the scooter as a disseminated transportation modality.  (Or, in English, then you can get to where you want to go.)  But no rules means that these might be parked anywhere as long as they literally don’t block the sidewalk right-of-way.

Aside:  This 8 PM meeting will be preceded by separate meetings of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees, starting at 7 PM.  Having attended the last one of those, I can state that if you are thinking of attending those, just realize that they don’t expect or make accommodations for citizens to attend.  Typically, there’s no agenda posted in advance (which is true for tonight’s meeting).  The last BAC meeting consisted of Committee members standing around a table in the front of the room, commenting on a paper copy of a proposed bike map.  There was literally no use in attending the meeting as a citizen.

 

Post #456: Fairfax County’s 527 Plan for Maple Avenue

Source:  Linked from terminator.fandom.com

I am not yet done posting about all the interesting items that popped up at the 11/7/2019 Town Council work session.  This post is about an offhand remark that Councilman Noble made, regarding the “Tysons 527 plan” for Maple Avenue.

I have to admit my ignorance here, because I had no clue what he meant.  But it sounded somewhat important.  So, after some digging, this turns out to be the long-rumored Fairfax County plan that calls for widening parts of Maple Avenue.  If you plan to be in Vienna a decade from now, it will be well worth your time to have a look at that.  The time frame for this report is the year 2030.

I cannot over-emphasize that this is all theoretical.  This is about dealing with somebody’s guess (projection) of traffic in the year 2030, based on a guess (projection) of additional development at Tysons.  As far as I can tell, nobody has any actual plan for doing any of this to Maple Avenue.  At least, for now.

So, first caveat:  These are not firm plans for anything.  Hence the picture at the top of the page.  I have no clue as to whether or not anyone could actually require that Route 123 be changed in this fashion.  I believe this is merely Fairfax County’s way of showing might be done, to certain Maple Avenue intersections, in response to the additional traffic load that Tysons development might create.

And, second caveat:  We may not get all this projected traffic after all.  Public discussion about this Chapter 527 filing brought up some opinions that the additional traffic wouldn’t flow down Maple at all.  These projections were made more than a decade ago.  And, for the last decade, there has been no increase in actual Maple Avenue traffic (Post #398).  In fact, if you download the spreadsheet, you can see that average daily traffic on Maple has declined slightly over the last decade or so.  So what you are looking at below is based on the opinion, of one set of traffic engineers, as to the impact that Tysons development would have on Maple.  Don’t get the impression that this is the only opinion, or that there isn’t a lot of uncertainty about that opinion, or that the projected additional Maple Avenue traffic must materialize.  So far, it hasn’t.

That said, as I have been hearing about this terrible report for years, I’m going to summarize what it says.  At the least, it shows you what some set of traffic engineers thought it would take to fix a couple of difficult intersections on Maple Avenue.  But keep the caveats above in mind.  The sections of this post describe:

Continue reading Post #456: Fairfax County’s 527 Plan for Maple Avenue