I'm curious anyone has thought to combine Residential Permit parking with meters. Perhaps that could help. Essentially give residents a discount while pricing visitors. Assuming the residential users were less than all of the available spots there could be a balance of paid and residential users.

by Cullen on Nov 9, 2009 11:53 am  

A speed hump? Only if you want me to honk every time I drive over it :)

by ontarioroader on Nov 9, 2009 11:59 am  

On narrow roads vehicles often seem to be traveling faster than they really are. How has it been determined that vehicles are actually speeding on this block?

by Anonymous on Nov 9, 2009 12:01 pm  

There are speed bumps and speed bumps.

Really annoying ones like this:
http://www.shercomindustries.com/img/products/speedbump_street.jpg

And less annoying ones like this:
http://www.eco-trees.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/speed-bump_7JJ5b_691.jpg

In general, I don't think a speed bump can help on such a short stretch.

It might be smarter to limit the traffic lanes aby painting some bike lanes, and perhaps reducing the lane to one lane in one or two spots.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/trafficmanagement/coll_20mphspeedlimitsandzones/dft_roads_504803-19.jpg

Could be a nice addition of a bit of green.

by Jasper on Nov 9, 2009 12:08 pm  

I definitely agree with Jasper here; rather than improve conditions for pedestrians by installing features to slow motorists, why not improve conditions for pedestrians by installing features that... improve conditions for pedestrians (while also helping to slow motorists)?

by Lucre on Nov 9, 2009 12:42 pm  

This is a good opportunity to improve conditions for pedestrians. Chicanes, anyone?

by JTS on Nov 9, 2009 12:47 pm  

Eliminating free visitor parking in Dupont (and Adams Morgan) would go a long way to reducing cars speeding through residential blocks. If (at least some) visitors took transit or parked in pay lots it might also help reduce noise on residential blocks when visitors return to their cars at closing time.

by j on Nov 9, 2009 1:10 pm  

Unfortunately, they'll probably get one, like 500 other streets since Fenty took office.

There are two major problems. First, I see no evidence whatsoever that there is a significant safety problem in the vast majority of situations where speed bumps have been installed. In all my time in DC, I have never heard of an automobile/pedestrian accident occurring on a side street of the sort where speed bumps are usually installed. That is, they almost always occur at light-controlled intersections. The result is, most speed bumps address a perceived problem only, with the consequence of hindering traffic (including emergency traffic). If anyone has evidence of any kind of pervasive safety problem, on the side streets, e.g. reports of pedestrian accidents on non-major routes, I would be very interested to see it.

Problem #1 wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for problem #2. The speed bumps that DC installs are enormous. Drive around in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and most speed bumps in neighborhoods are at most 6" tall and are designed as plateaus. You can safely drive over them at about 15 MPH.

The speed bumps in DC require coming to a nearly complete stop to traverse, and in cars with low ground clearance, can actually scrape the bottom of your car.

This is ridiculous and results in lots of additional noise as traffic must stop completely and start again at sometimes 3 on a block, wastes fuel, in simple increases driver frustration. On my own block the speed bump creates a huge amount of noise from people who ignore it and bottom out their cars, and others who slam on their brakes and race off after it. The result is probably a net decrease in safety and certainly a decrease in quality of life on my street.

The size of the speed bumps is seriously problematic. I would prefer there were none at all, but if they must be installed, there should be standards for the design and size of them. There do not appear to be any.

by Jamie on Nov 9, 2009 1:30 pm  

I live on the 1800 block of S St, off an alley that connects S and Riggs. I would not want to see a bump put in. The block really isn't long enough for divers to pick up any speed. I frequently bike and drive on that block, which is in bad enough shape as it is, and don't think it needs any additional hazards.

by Josh on Nov 9, 2009 1:35 pm  

On a one-way street, why would a driver need to "race" for parking? No one can pass, so you can go slowly. If you have a two way street, however, then you have to in case someone makes a u-turn.

I call shenanigans and suspect the residents don't want parkers circulating. If that's a legitimate complaint, solve the real problem.

by ah on Nov 9, 2009 2:32 pm  

I say the residents who want bumps or humps should pay for them. Give the people what they want, but make them pay their way.

I live on the unit block of Adams St NW where there a two humps. People regularly bottom out on them, but that's their own stupid fault considering the paint on them and the signs next to them.

Narrowing the street is probably more effective and pedestrian friendly, but much much more costly. But I would be more in favor of public money spent that way than on humps.

by dano on Nov 9, 2009 3:10 pm  

Why should the residents be able to buy the humps? Residents shouldn't just be able to buy out humps, any more than they should be able to buy their way out of sidewalks.

If there's a good reason for them, then the city should install them spreading the cost to all taxpayers. If not, then they should not be installed at all.

by ah on Nov 9, 2009 3:17 pm  

Instead of speed bumps, which do sometimes damage cars, how about altering the street a bit the way they do in London or other European cities, so that it twists the street a little bit to the left and then to the right, requiring drivers to move a little more slowly than they normally would. There is a name for this sort of a twist, and it doesn't completely slow down traffic, but it does mean that you can't speed straight down a block. You need to be more alert.

by Kevin on Nov 9, 2009 4:34 pm  

Chicane?

by ah on Nov 9, 2009 5:12 pm  

The result is, most speed bumps address a perceived problem only, with the consequence of hindering traffic (including emergency traffic).

If people perceive a street is too dangerous because of speeding traffic, then those people will not want to walk or bike on that street -- nor let their kids walk nor bike on that street -- that results in a degradation of the quality of life of and in the neighborhood, deleterious effects on the health and well-being of those who live in the neighborhood, deleterious effects on those who would otherwise consider walking or biking through this neighborhood, etc.

that's a very high cost to pay for allowing cars to speed down this block, so it needs to be corrected.

can't say i'm crazy about speed bumps, but they'd be better than nothing. the chicane stuff seems interesting, though i don't recall ever seeing any real-world examples.

is there such a thing as a 'temporary speed bump'?

the first step seems to be to drop the one-way in favor of a human-oriented two-way street. start there, then we'll look at alternative scenarios. the people who made this segment of Riggs into a highway achieved it by making it a one-way -- the answer to undoing their damage is to undo their damage, by making the street two-way again.

a chicane on this street is not advisable -- you'd get an S-curve/Death-curve scenario like the Bay Bridge currently has, with cars speeding and then running into whatever gets in their way. it's not the drivers' fault as much as it's the road designers' fault.

by Peter Smith on Nov 9, 2009 7:54 pm  

Hopefully, the bump will be in front of the petitioner's bedroom window. The endless thump, thump, thump will be a reminder of what a dumb idea this was. I'm a regular in this general area and see little point in doing this.

When I lived in Atlanta, there was a mania for adding bumps in my area and it stopped when people realized they were noisy and really didn't make a huge difference.

by Rich on Nov 9, 2009 8:51 pm  

Dear Suburbanites,

As soon as y'all stop driving like douchebags, we will stop erecting speed humps.

That is all,

City Dweller

by oboe on Nov 10, 2009 12:24 am  

"the first step seems to be to drop the one-way in favor of a human-oriented two-way street."

I am not really sure I understand this notion. I live on a one-way street and it's wonderful. It prevents through-traffic from coming from the south, meaning almost all traffic on my street is local. Since traffic only comes one way, it just "feels" safer while on foot since you know there are only cars coming from one direction. There are never the massive cluster-blockages that happen when people in residential areas double-park to unload or load on narrow 2-way streets, and just a couple cars coming in both directions create a snarl as they try to navigate around the double-parked car.

Please help me understand why one-way streets are anti-human. Humnans can go wherever they want, and cars can only go one way. Sounds anti-car to me. I would never, ever want my own one-way street changed to two ways.

by Jamie on Nov 10, 2009 8:54 am  

Why not turn Riggs into a Woonerf or a variation of it? Another option would be to put a green circle or some other diversion/barrier at one of the intersections to prevent through traffic.

I really don't see anything wrong with Riggs.

by norde on Nov 10, 2009 11:21 am  

I live on a one-way street and it's wonderful.

right out of the gate, i'll say that of course opinions will differ on the one-way vs. two-way debate -- but the debate is starting to get more informed, and I don't believe we'll be supporting one-way streets in the future. in short, one-ways short-change bicycle access, so one-ways have to go.

the residents of Riggs Ave, east of 18th, aren't crazy about having cars careening down their street. they got enough signatures for a speed bump. they're prepared to get one. they want one. is there any reason we should want to prevent them from getting one?

i think the answer may be 'yes'. we may want them to try to two-way the street, first.

It prevents through-traffic from coming from the south, meaning almost all traffic on my street is local.

sounds like the one-waying of your particular street is working out great for the specific circumstances of you/your street/neighborhood. i don't know that Riggs residents care where their speeding traffic is coming from or going to -- just that it stops tear-assing down their street.

Since traffic only comes one way, it just "feels" safer while on foot since you know there are only cars coming from one direction.

i've made this same argument before about being a pedestrian on one-way streets. it's like heaven. just step off the 'one-way/highway' for a few seconds, let the burst of car traffic speed through at inhuman speeds, and then you can look down the street -- see nothing coming -- and just chill and have the entire street to yourself for the next 15-20 seconds at least, if not more. you feel like a king.

then again, i still always look both ways when i head out onto a one-way street. i saw a car turn the wrong way down a one-way again last night -- happens all the time.

There are never the massive cluster-blockages that happen when people in residential areas double-park to unload or load on narrow 2-way streets, and just a couple cars coming in both directions create a snarl as they try to navigate around the double-parked car.

agreed -- and it is exactly this 'friction' which helps to calm/slow cars up/down the street. without that friction, cars are free to move as quickly as they like -- and they do.

Please help me understand why one-way streets are anti-human.

ultimately, i believe that most one-way streets are anti-human, and certainly this seems to be the case for Riggs, because it is generally agreed upon that one-way streets increase the speed of auto traffic (making what is already the deadliest proposition for any city dweller (cars) even deadlier, and intimidating; and this speed problem is what Riggs residents are trying to address/fix), one-way streets seem to endanger kids more than fully-brain-developed adults (adults can fully assess the risks of speed/traffic; kids can't), and one-way streets are generally anti-cyclist (forcing cyclists to ride on sidewalks, endangering themselves and pedestrians, or forcing them to go around, exposing themselves to longer, thus riskier, trips, and deterring cycling because of those longer distances, and deterring cycling because of the higher-speed auto traffic; and we know the incredible safety effectiveness that cyclists can bring to auto, cycling, and pedestrian environments).

the speeding and child endangerment problems are possibly strong, but it's the third argument -- that one-ways are bad for bikes/cyclists -- that seems to me to be the most concrete/indisputable. in any decent society, we should not tolerate bicycles being unable to travel certain streets in certain directions -- i'm down with the green/livable streets transportation hierarchy -- it's a human rights issue -- it's ok to make cars go around, but not bikes. this is part of why the 15th Street contraflow bike lane is so important -- it restores some of the cyclist's inherent rights to the road.

i'd be curious to know the history of Riggs -- when did it become one-way? and why? i wonder if any of the neighbors were around for it. i wonder what led to the petition -- did someone on the street just have a child? did the traffic pattern in the area just change due to 'X'? etc.

i like the idea of a woonerf, but that seems to be more...pie in the sky. or, does anyone actually know what it is? does that mean we...do some traffic calming, like install some chicanes? put down some new bricks that I'm sure the City doesn't have money for? lower the speed limit of the street so that won't be enforced either?

how does a neighborhood go about declaring itself a neighborhood that wants to woonerf-ize their entire hood? maybe portland's 'bicycle boulevards' can provide an example?

by Peter Smith on Nov 10, 2009 12:01 pm  

The core of your position on one-way streets seems to be that they are better for bikes.

Why can't bikes just go around the block like cars? Or ride legally on the sidewalk?

One-way streets have many positives, and since the vast majority of traffic is still cars, hindering that to the benefit of a tiny majority seems really misguided.

New York City is almost all one-way streets. Bikes seem to do just fine there, there are a lot more than there are in DC. If anything I would think having lots of one-way streets is better for bikes since you have fewer opportunities for cars to not see you.

The only reason it seems to me that you favor two-way streets is because they slow down traffic and save cyclists from having to go around the block, at the cost of lots of other positives. Considering that good traffic flow is actually one of the goals of city infrastructure planning, I fail to see why this makes any sense.

by Jamie on Nov 10, 2009 12:07 pm  

Consider the Speed table: A speed table is a traffic calming device designed as a long speed hump with a flat section in the middle. Speed tables are generally long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top.[1] The long, flat design allows cars to pass without slowing as significantly as with speed humps or cushions.[2] Because they slow cars less than similar devices, speed tables are often used on roads with typical residential speed limits.

by dc native on Nov 10, 2009 12:37 pm  

@Jamie, I read Peter Smith's comments about 1 way streets differently than you did. Their negative effect on the behavior of cyclists seemed to be only one part of his grievance with them. (And it seemed to be more on their behavior then on their convenience.) He makes a good point that the main reason for a one-way street is to increase traffic speed, and that that in and of itself is a reason for not having one way streets in residential areas where there are many competing interests for the public space we call the street. I know neighbors tend to like 1 way streets because they think it cuts down on the traffic going down them ... At least intuitively that's what one would think would happen since drivers can only use them going in one direction. But as Mr. Smith points out, the other ramifications may be less evident. For example, because traffic doesn't need to worry about on-coming traffic it will tend to go faster ... And because traffic can go faster, the street will tend to become more of a through street in that direction than it would otherwise. Can that cause it to have more overall traffic than it would if it were 2 ways? Possibly ... Do the higher speeds make it less safe for pedestrians crossing the street to visit their neighbors? Definitely. Do bikes end up on sidewalks to avoid the faster moving traffic on the street? Yes again. I think Peter is right. Turning a residential street into a one-way street is counter to the overall objectives for residential streets ... And turning it back into a two-way street is a better solution than putting a bandaid on the problem by installing a speedbump.

by Lance on Nov 10, 2009 12:43 pm  

The core of your position on one-way streets seems to be that they are better for bikes.

no. (assuming you meant 'two-way')

but we can roll with that argument. why not?

Why can't bikes just go around the block like cars?

they could. we sometimes do. it sucks. it's not fair. it's part of the reason so few people cycle. cyclists need the shortest, most direct routes from Point A to Point B. it takes effort to move ourselves. we deserve to be able to go from point a to point b directly, not in some roundabout fashion. if bikers were told to 'go around' to accommodate pedestrians, then i'd listen to that case, but for cars? no way. cars are the worst invention in the history of the world -- their destructiveness to the urban environment can't even be measured. we have to phase them out. we are starting to do that by prioritizing walking and biking over motorized transport, in particular car transport. it's ok for cars to go around, but not humans.

Or ride legally on the sidewalk?

this is not fair to pedestrians, who are scared/harassed/injured by cyclists, and it's not fair to cyclists who have to ride over uneven pavement, up and down curbs, putting themselves in more danger than if they were in the street, etc. and it's not legal in the core business district in DC. soon it'll probably be illegal to ride on sidewalks anywhere in DC, as should probably be the case, except in special/extreme circumstances.

One-way streets have many positives

i think they can have one positive for pedestrians -- they can feel calmer -- maybe. the other 'benefits' are that one-ways seem to allow cars to dominate and speed more easily down the street -- those are benefits for people behind the wheel, and so are not benefits at all, but are detriments -- everyone who is not behind the wheel loses.

and since the vast majority of traffic is still cars, hindering that to the benefit of a tiny majority seems really misguided.

the vast majority of traffic on any street is shaped by a number of factors -- whether the heaviest mode is pedestrians, bikes, transit, or cars is all about how the street is designed, land use decisions, zoning, etc. but where we are now says nothing about where we want to go. if you want to maintain the car-centric nature of DC, then continue to allow cars to dominate the city, including Riggs Street. if you want to promote walking and biking, however, then you need to calm auto traffic. it's that simple. if you want that 'tiny minority' to turn into a 'huge majority', then you have to make the city more pedestrian- and bike-friendly, which means the city must become less car-friendly.

New York City is almost all one-way streets. Bikes seem to do just fine there, there are a lot more than there are in DC.

nyc is changing like crazy. i don't know that it's comparable to any other city in america, really -- with its crazy density, but in any case i don't know of any streets they've been two-waying or one-waying. i do know they are installing buffered bicycle lanes on their existing one-way streets, and i'm pretty sure they have installed at least one very important contraflow bike lane (by definition, on a one-way), and they've installed a two-way, middle-running, physically separated cycletrack, and 200 miles of bike lanes over the last couple/few years -- so, yes, bikes seem to be doing ok in NYC right about now, but i suspect the great un-one-waying of NYC is going to occur naturally, over time, just as it is all across America. i would not be at all surprised to hear about a major NYC thoroughfare being two-wayed within the next year. the place has been in just complete, and splendid, upheaval. they'll probably take a break for a couple/few months over the holidays, and then get back to it in the spring.

sometimes it's just helpful to look at the flow of history. Thirty or forty years ago, Moses and his crew came to every city in America and started wrecking them. how did he do it? highways, one-ways, etc. well, how do we undo the damage? yep -- do the opposite -- knock down the highways, two-way the one-ways, etc.

the newly-elected bike-riding mayor of seattle has the streetfilm of the sf embarcadero freeway tear-down on his home page.

If anything I would think having lots of one-way streets is better for bikes since you have fewer opportunities for cars to not see you.

i agree that there does seem like there could be, or should be, some type of benefit to one-way streets for bicycles, but the only city i'm aware of that is seeing any of these theoretical benefits is NYC -- specifically because they installed cycletracks and buffered bicycle lanes on a couple of high-speed, one-way streets -- like 9th Ave.

The only reason it seems to me that you favor two-way streets is because they slow down traffic and save cyclists from having to go around the block

no -- i gave three general reasons -- one was that one-ways are bad/unfair to cyclists. but the specific bikey reasons you mention are very important, and on their own could justify two-waying a one-way street.

at the cost of lots of other positives

'positives' to me do not include 'positive for drivers/cars'. they include only things that positively impact safety for everyone, the pedestrian and biking realms, the life/activity/vitality of/on the street, livability, etc. i think there may be only one positive to a one-way street, and it's not enough to justify the existence of that one-way street, so one-way streets should be dismantled. two-way streets have many more positives/fewer negatives than one-way streets, so we should promote two-way streets.

Considering that good traffic flow is actually one of the goals of city infrastructure planning, I fail to see why this makes any sense.

'traffic flow' should encompass 'soft traffic' -- pedestrians, bikers, and other human-powered and motor-assisted transport (wheelchairs, etc.).

and 'traffic flow' does not have to mean 'get everyone from point a to point b as quickly as possible, all else be damned' -- it could be something more nuanced like, 'get everyone from point a to point b as quickly as possible, as comfortably as possible, in as dignified a fashion as possible, as economically and sustainably as possible, while maintaining a safe/comfortable/livable environment for all the city's residents, workers, and guests'.

by Peter Smith on Nov 10, 2009 1:26 pm  

I don't think that a speed hump is necessary on this section of Riggs.First of all, Riggs between 19th and 18th is one way, but Riggs between 18th and New Hampshire is already two-ways.

I live on S St between 18th and New Hampshire, and often park on Riggs between 18th and New Hampshire. I can count on one hand the number of times I driven down Riggs and seen a car coming in the other direction (or behind me). It is not a very widely-traveled road compared to it's northern and southern neighbors, S St. and R St, which have much bigger problems with people speeding down the street.

by Alissa on Nov 10, 2009 7:27 pm  

Since they installed a speed hump behind my house, we hear autos bottom out several times an hour. Often, a particularly nasty "crunch" will be followed by whoops and shouts from the nearby park, and chuckles from behind fences. While the bumps probably haven't done much to improve safety on the street, they've at least given the neighborhood something to share and enjoy together.

by Lucre on Nov 11, 2009 10:55 am  

@Lucre: Your neighbors 'enjoy' hearing someone ruin their car? Do they cheer when bicyclists wipe out? Strange neighbors ...

by Lance on Nov 11, 2009 2:22 pm  

One-way streets are definitely safer for pedestrians crossing the street. You have to be concerned only with traffic coming from one direction. As I walk a lot in the District, I definitely prefer the one-way street setup.

by ksu499 on Nov 12, 2009 8:41 am  

To me, speed humps are a way of reclaiming our streets as a place where people live as opposed to a commodity that is to be used [abused] by cars.

I live in Ward 3 and I am sick of speeding cut through traffic. I am sure that statistics would show that there are very few ped/vehicle accidents. However, the reason that is the case is that parents and children have learned to stay away from the streets for fear of losing their lives.

There are many kids in my neighborhood, but you rarely see kids playing or running along the sidewalk; too dangerous. Play is something kids do in the backyard or at the park.

Our quality of life suffers dearly when speeding vehicles turn our residential streets into danger zones.

When you turn off of Conn or Wisc Ave in to the adjacent neighborhoods, you should immediately lower your speed. You're entering someone's home. Show some respect.

But DC and the surrounding suburbs are much too self-centered for this type of common sense to prevail.

Our only option is to erect barriers that force people to slow down. The honking, complaining, and protests? To me, they're indicative of the problem. People feel it is their right to flout the law. They feel comfortable putting their schedules ahead of the safety of their neighbors. Pathetic.

by dcproper on Nov 13, 2009 1:35 pm  

@dcproper: You make some good points. However, in my opinion there are better ways of accomplishing what you're looking for. For example, 15th Street NW was built as a residential street with deep yards (like 16th Street NW) where the traffic in the street was mainly residential. In the 1960s that pattern got destroyed when at least half of the deep yards on either side of the street got paved over and it was turned into a one-way, high speed feeder road for the freeway that was supposed to be built over T Street NW. The freeway never happened, but this high speed feeder road remained. Now, can it be returned to what is was meant to be? (... and thereby restore the urban fabric of the neighborhood where it creates a cutout gap in the middle of its neighborhood?) Of course it can ... and that can be done simply by restoring what was there before. You don't need to put in speed bumps, or opposite direction commuter bike lanes ... You just need to restore the street to its original narrow width, make it 2 way (so that traffic slows down) and get rid of the synchronized traffic signals. I.e., you just need to restore what was.

by Lance on Nov 13, 2009 11:00 pm