Posts by Ben Ross

Inefficiency is the least of the problems with this style of law enforcement. Police who drive all day don't understand the reality of walking on the county's roadways. When you get out of the squad car and join the thousands who cross Veirs Mill every day (it's among the county's busiest bus corridors), you suddenly learn that "it's kind of scary."

All of this raises the question: in an increasingly urbanized county, where is the cop on the beat? Downtown Bethesda throngs with people on weekend evenings, and the police sit in parked squad cars behind rolled-up windows. If they were on foot, they would have plenty to do—especially in the late evening when drivers often zoom through the emptying streets.

Foot patrols succeeded in calming downtown Silver Spring after a series of brawls in 2010. But they ended once the brawls went away.

Street fighting is hardly Montgomery County's biggest law enforcement problem. Driver violations of pedestrian rights are ubiquitous, and they do far more harm. There are as many pedestrian deaths per year in the county as homicides.

Where people walk, we need police on foot. Not just on a few not-so-secret "stings"—Capt. Didone said these operations will continue only through the end of the month—and not just in response to occasional outbreaks of crime.

Police should be walking every day, in Aspen Hill and Germantown as well as Bethesda and Silver Spring, protecting the rights of pedestrians as a routine element of law enforcement. Drivers need to understand that they can be ticketed any time they break the law, not just between 11:00 and 3:00 during the month of May.

Engineers from the State Highway Administration say that many segments of University Boulevard carry fewer vehicles today than 20 years ago, while elsewhere traffic levels are about the same. With a few changes, the street can carry as much traffic in 4 lanes as it does with 6 lanes today.

While the street will have to be widened to make room for station platforms, the MTA won't need as much room as they did in their previous plan to keep all 6 lanes and add the Purple Line. With less space needed for car traffic, only 8 businesses will be displaced, compared to 25 before.

Reducing the number of car lanes on University Boulevard will cut speeding, meaning that a street where pedestrians are now frequent collision victims will be transformed into a safer and more welcoming place to walk or bike. There will be room for wider sidewalks and possibly even a cycle track, and there will be bike parking at each of the three Purple Line stations along the corridor, at Piney Branch Road, the future Takoma-Langley Transit Center and Riggs Road.

Meanwhile, key intersections will get traffic lights and turn lanes. This will not only make the street safer to cross, but allow trains to move more smoothly, reducing potential collisions with other vehicles or pedestrians.

These upgrades will help the Purple Line fulfill its economic promise. Both Montgomery and Prince George's counties want to transform the aging strip malls along University Boulevard into an urban corridor akin to downtown Silver Spring. Making University Boulevard a safer and more attractive place to walk will support that goal.

This design change is also good news for Montgomery County's bus rapid transit initiative, which proposes a countywide network of dedicated bus lanes. In dense, close-in areas like Bethesda, Silver Spring and Takoma Park that have the most potential ridership, existing pavement is often the only place new bus lanes can go. However, plans to repurpose traffic lanes for buses have met resistance from residents and county officials alike.

If transportation engineers say we can give car lanes to transit on University Boulevard, it can work elsewhere in the region as well. Hopefully, the Purple Line in Langley Park will serve as an example to the Montgomery County Planning Board and County Council as they consider the BRT plan this year.

Spirited argument is important in public policy, but it should not cross into insults. When it does, that has a chilling effect on open discourse. Fostering an inclusive conversation about the shape of our region is the purpose of this site, but discourse must be civil to be truly open. That's why our comment policy here on Greater Greater Washington prohibits invective like this. In our articles, we try hard to avoid crossing this line, and are disappointed when we or others do, intentionally or inadvertently.

The "war on cars" frame unnecessarily pits drivers against cyclists and pedestrians instead of working together for positive solutions. The City Paper article, by Aaron Wiener, does a good job of debunking that, and is worth reading for much more than the insults it quotes.

When pressed, Townsend told Wiener he wants to back away from the "war on cars."

"I regret the rhetoric sometimes," he says. "Because I think that when you use that type of language, it shuts down communication with people who disagree."

We hope Townsend, his colleagues, and their superiors also regret the things he said about David and Greater Greater Washington. We look forward to the day when AAA ceases using antagonistic language and begins working toward safety, mobility, and harmony among all road users.

In the meantime, residents do have a choice when purchasing towing, insurance, and travel discounts. Better World Club is one company that offers many of the same benefits as AAA, but without the disdain.

Speeders' behavior is more likely to change if they understand why they got the red light, but if drivers get that message too soon, they might speed up more to beat the light instead.

If a light turns green and then a speeder fairly quickly shows up, turning it red again, there might be pedestrians in the parallel crosswalk. They'll need time to finish crossing, which would mean a 4-way red period. However, these will have to be minimal so that drivers are not overly tempted to run red lights.

And how would this work on multi-lane roads when one speeder might stop traffic for many other law-abiding drivers? Signals always give some unnecessary red intervals—they can't perfectly match changing traffic volumes through the day—but the red lights shouldn't excessively interfere with vehicle movement. The first experiments should probably be on narrow roads with relatively light auto traffic.

There shouldn't be legal obstacles. Radar-actuated traffic signals are approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and state laws that limit the placement of speed cameras do not apply to them. Some cities (including DC on parts of 16th Street) already limit speed with traffic signals by synchronizing closely-spaced lights so that drivers who exceed the limit hit a red.

How and where might this strategy work best? And will objections to automated speed limit enforcement diminish when the radar system no longer raises revenue from drivers?

The new signage is now up at 3,500 of the 12,000 Metrobus stops, including all Metrorail stations and stops on priority corridors. The old schedules are gradually being replaced, but 4,500 stops still have them. It will take several more years to finish the makeover—how long depends on how many of the routes where the new signs are already up change their schedules. Each change ties up WMATA staff and contractors, who have to swap out timetables at each stop along the line.

Metro's long-range goal is to post a schedule and map at all 12,000 bus stops. This, however, will require time and additional funding.

Posting a customized schedule at each bus stop—at considerable expense—reverses a cost-saving measure of a decade ago. In the intervening years, WMATA and other bus services have focused on giving riders real-time bus arrival information over the Internet.

But a focus group two years ago urged WMATA to renew the investment in hard-copy timetables at bus stops. For a system trying hard to attract new riders, it makes sense. The bus and the bus stop, in plain sight of everyone on the street, are its best advertisements. The easier it is for someone walking by to figure out when the bus comes and where it goes, the more likely they are to give it a try.

Peter Rousselot, the leader of the anti-streetcar group Arlingtonians for Sensible Transit, promised last October that extra-long buses on Columbia Pike (which he calls Bus Rapid Transit, although it lacks many features that BRT advocates usually promise) "could have the same type of permanent stations as the streetcar, same look and amenities in the same locations as the streetcar."

Other Arlington streetcar opponents agree. County board member Libby Garvey says BRT could accomplish all the goals of a streetcar line, and the Taxpayers Association insists that BRT "will perform virtually identical" to the streetcar.

But what happens when a rail station-like bus stop actually gets built on Columbia Pike? Rousselot calls the $1 million dollar bus stop "superexpensive." Garvey is similarly unimpressed and uses the bus stop as an argument against the streetcar. The Taxpayers Association is, of course, outraged.

Actually, there is little extravagance on the Columbia Pike super stop in the context of rail-like transportation. Brad McKee talks to people who have actually designed stations to better understand that project. Building a full-scale transit station requires underground utility work, lighting, new curbs, and materials strong enough to stand up to heavy outdoor use for decades. The million dollars Arlington spent is a bare minimum; costs can run up to $5 million or even more.

McKee points out that the Washington Post reporter asked random people on the street if a million dollars was too much for "a bus stop." Rousselot, Garvey, and the Taxpayers Association had just been pushing for a "rail-like" station for buses. They then turned around and argued that "a bus stop" shouldn't cost so much. Which is it?

It's hardly uncommon to see transit opponents, in search of political cover, promote Bus Rapid Transit—or some kind of bus that they can call BRT. Up to now, the prime example in our area was former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich's proposal to replace the Purple Line with a bus bypassing Columbia Country Club. But Arlington's let's-call-it-BRT claque set a new standard last week. It takes nerve to issue loud denunciations when you're given exactly what you claim to want.

Moreover, the rule is only enforced to require building the parking, not using it. Garages that contain required parking spaces are often filled with equipment for lawn care or shop work. County enforcement staff say they have never received a complaint about such violations of the zoning ordinance.

Sometimes, requiring off-street parking actually reduces the availability of parking. Montgomery County mandates one off-street space for houses built between 1955 and 1958. A parking space for a single-family house requires a driveway (except in neighborhoods with alleys, which exist in DC but not MoCo). That takes away at least one parking space, and sometimes more if driveways are spaced closely together.

The parking space goes to waste in the daytime if the owner drives to work. Without an off-street space, there would be no need for a driveway and one more space would open up at the curb. The curb space, available 24 hours a day, would supply more parking than an off-street space that is useless during working hours.

These rules may not do much for those who want to park. But parking minimums do reduce the supply of affordable housing.

Montgomery County requires an extra parking space (and sometimes two) when a property owner splits off part of a house into an accessory apartment. If there's no space to shoehorn the parking onto a small lot, the owner has to go through the time-consuming and expensive special exception process.

New apartment buildings near the Red Line and future Purple Line need underground garages, which can run up to $50,000 per space in lower levels. Driving up construction costs makes it harder to build for the middle class.

From this vantage point, the debate over off-street parking is about much more than where people put their cars. It's about what kind of communities we want to live in. Will our laws put economic limits on who can live here, or will we build places that welcome everyone?

New marked crosswalks alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways.

Local agencies, reluctant to make cars go slower and short of funds to install the pedestrian warning lights called hawk beacons, usually take this as an injunction to simply leave the crossing unmarked.

The MUTCD bases this provision on studies of crash data. Pedestrians crossing big highways, these studies report, have a greater chance of being hit by drivers at marked crosswalks than at similar unmarked ones.

There are several possible reasons for this.

• Traffic engineers often locate marked crosswalks at the places where they interfere least with vehicle movement. Pedestrians may put a higher priority on safety when choosing where to cross.
  
• Politicians may demand crosswalk markings at the intersections with repeated crashes, meaning the crashes are not a consequence of the marked crosswalk but the cause.
  
• Researchers have other suggestions, too, as Tom Vanderbilt discusses on page 198 of his book Traffic.

Whatever the causes of this phenomenon, if it is real, there is an easy way to save lives: FHWA and state transportation agencies could instruct pedestrians to ignore crosswalk markings when they cross highways without traffic lights. Cross at whatever intersection feels safest, not the one with a marked crosswalk.

Of course, you will never hear that advice in a safety campaign. They urge pedestrians, as the current DC effort puts it, to "always use a crosswalk." Pedestrians understand this to mean a marked one, and the campaigns reinforce that belief with images of marked crosswalks.

The FHWA's own pedestrian safety campaign does not explicitly recommend using marked crosswalks. But—somewhat like advertising for an escort service—what isn't said matters more than what's said. The text assumes that the reader already has an idea of what's going on and carefully avoids correcting that impression. The real message is in the pictures.

Why would highway agencies promote pedestrian behavior that their research shows to be unsafe? One potential reason is that the traffic engineers don't really believe the research. The study results are often inconsistent; the researchers offer many cautions. Scientists know that when you get a result contrary to common sense, it's most often wrong. If it still stands up after checking and double-checking, you may have a great discovery, but more often you'll find a subtle mistake buried in your work.

The other possibility is that safety isn't really what this recommendation is about. Rather, it may reflect drivers' desire, reinforced by the historic biases of the traffic engineering profession, to get pedestrians out of unmarked crosswalks where they slow down cars. Peter Norton has shown that safety campaigns, when they started in the 1920s, aimed to push pedestrians off the streets and make room for cars.

Intentionally or not, the traffic engineering profession gravitates toward conclusions that support its existing practices and priorities. When the research supports a road design that speeds traffic—wonderful! A safety recommendation that would slow down vehicles—unthinkable!

Frank Sedwick was crossing Georgia Avenue at Heathfield Drive in Aspen Hill. The nearest traffic signal is 1,500 feet away at Connecticut Avenue, and there is no marked crosswalk or signal on the high-speed turn ramp that pedestrians must cross to reach it. According to a blog commenter, Mr. Sedwick had a prosthetic leg.

Charles Aboagye was crossing US 29 at Oak Leaf Drive. He was standing in the median and tripped. Here, the marked crosswalk is 785 feet away. To reach that crosswalk, one must walk within inches of cars and trucks speeding along what drivers perceive as a limited-access highway. The risk of tripping and falling during a long trudge down the sidewalk is far greater than in the median, where the law (universally ignored) indeed requires drivers to stop and let you pass.

Engineering fixes are needed for safer crossings at Heathfield and Oak Leaf Drives. Road design policies must change, and even then rebuilding will take time. In the meantime, the roads we have now must be made safer to walk on. That will only happen when the police stop blaming the victims and insist that drivers stop at all crosswalks, both marked and unmarked.

Other cities are teaching this. Minneapolis suburbs have launched campaigns to ticket drivers who fail to yield.

In California's Ventura County, an area more suburban than Montgomery, police gave drivers this reminder after a car that stopped for a pedestrian was rear-ended: "Pay attention while driving near crosswalks and actively look for pedestrians crossing the street. Additionally, pay attention for other cars on the roadway that might be slowing or stopping for pedestrians."

Telling those on foot to dress like hunters in the woods will not make streets more walkable. Nor will it prevent the deaths of people who are walking on the sidewalk or standing in a median strip. Lives will be saved when drivers obey the law by stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. Montgomery County police must change their attitudes and issue tickets to those who fail to yield.

From the northbound bus stop (off the picture past point A on the picture below), I proceeded along the Route 355 sidewalk and reached the intersection at B. There I walked across a wide turn lane designed for high speeds that has no traffic signal—fortunately weekend traffic in the turn lane is light—and reached the traffic island at C.

There is no crosswalk across the south side of the intersection (because there's a traffic light here, there's no unmarked crosswalk). Therefore, I had to wait for the walk signal to cross the 9 lanes of Shady Grove Road. The wait was substantial, because this is a slow light; the signal cycle is 2½ minutes.

When I reached the next traffic island at D, I found a "beg button"—a button that you press to get a walk signal. Cars made left turns for a little while, the through lanes began to move, and I got my signal to proceed across the 8 lanes of Route 355. The walk and flashing don't-walk phases, together, lasted 23 seconds.

I walk briskly, so I was able to finish the 104-foot crossing before the signal became a solid don't-walk. But a slower, and strictly law-abiding, pedestrian would have had to stop in the median. There is no beg button in the median, so they would have had to wait—who knows how long—until another pedestrian came along who follows traffic rules so punctiliously that they bother to push beg buttons.

Having finally reached point E, I had to wait again for a walk signal. This time I had 10 lanes to cross, but here there is a long green that gives you plenty of time. Finally, I walked along the sidewalk from F to G, and after 8½ minutes I arrived at the southbound bus stop.

The Montgomery County Department of Transpor­tation is not ignoring this troubled intersection. It has installed 4 new beg buttons, not yet operational. But the way MCDOT is using these devices almost flaunts the low priority it assigns to pedestrian safety and convenience.

One of the new buttons is at location C. That's where pedestrians cross a high-speed turn lane that has no traffic light. The turn lane won't change at all. It still won't have a light; you will still take your life in your hands to cross during rush hour. The beg button will only control the through lanes, making you wait through the 2½ minute light cycle if you arrive when the light is already green. Walking will be even slower; a few more cars will get through.

MCDOT is willing enough to spend money on walk signals. Here and there, as at this intersection, it will make traffic islands prettier and improve curb cuts. But getting people where they want to go on foot, quickly and safely, is never as important to the department as moving cars.

Ironically, this is a place the county has designated for transit-oriented land use. It is only ¾ of a mile from the Shady Grove Metro station and on a future Bus Rapid Transit route. According to the master plan for this area, "Residents will find walking along tree-lined streets and using bike paths as convenient as driving."

The master plan, which the County Council enacted in 2006, specifies that road builders must "provide four-way crosswalks at all intersections." Seven years have passed, and MCDOT can't seem to find a can of paint. It takes as long to cross the street, at Shady Grove and 355, as the Purple Line will take to go from Silver Spring to Bethesda.