Hey, GGW and AAA's Lon Anderson on the same side. Who knew.

by dontedc on Jul 21, 2010 9:21 am  

Has Foxnews taken over Dave's brain?

AAA is right.

Get rid of those illegals driving trucks.

And just be pushy on the metro.

by charlie on Jul 21, 2010 9:22 am  

Re speed cameras: If the speed camera are being placed to maximize revenue, then they are being placed where lots of drivers are breaking the law. How is this a problem? If the speed limit is too low then that should be addressed separately. Speed cameras cannot maximize revenue unless people are speeding.

Re Big Bear: If I were them I'd up and move. They've been a terrific neighbor for Bloomingdale. If Bloomingdale won;t reciprocate, they should move somewhere they'll be appreciated. There are tons of neighborhoods that would love to have them, and would have no problem with the liquor license.

by jcm on Jul 21, 2010 9:27 am  

Who cares about bsom? I thought the discussion was overdue. Next up...doorblockers and escalefters.

by Redline SOS on Jul 21, 2010 9:30 am  

@DDOT: departments which are currently scattered in many buildings far from each other

Might I point out that DC is a really tiny piece of land, with excellent transit options? Nothing is far from anything in DC. Especially DDOT should not have a right to complain about transportation issues as that would indicate they're not doing their jobs.

[This is aside from the point that consolidating a department in one building might be very good for that department]

by Jasper on Jul 21, 2010 9:31 am  

Wait let me get this right: painting a road to commemorate the dead: ok by the NCPC; paint the road with bike lanes to prevent deaths in the first place? Hell no.

Also, I agree with jcm, cameras only ticket speeders. Who cares whether the objective is safety of revenue. We need taxes, better to tax a negative activity than a positive one, like income. Letting selfish drivers define this argument as saying raising revenue=bad is a surrender to their selfish dashboard view of the world.

by Reid on Jul 21, 2010 9:35 am  

Jasper: That last part was my point. It's now about transit, it's that any organization is more effective if its members are in the same building and can more easily talk to each other. Now the planners are at 14th and U and the engineers are at New York and Florida. That's an obstacle to working together smoothly.

by David Alpert on Jul 21, 2010 9:36 am  

It's hard for me to understand the placement of the speed cameras. None are on freeways, with just one on a freeway exit ramp and one on a parkway. As far as I can tell, the only major commuting road with one is North Capitol Street.

Also, most of them are on Southeast. As far as I can tell, the only major high-speed roads in Southeast are the SE Freeway and the Anacostia Freeway. But neither has one of these new cameras.

by Tim on Jul 21, 2010 9:50 am  

So DDOT's new lease is more than twice its current rents? How does that make any financial sense?

And anyone that thinks the speed cameras are about anything more than bringing in tons of revenue should read the city's budget documents that spelled out just how much revenue the new cameras were estimated to bring in and how that revenue would be used to close the budget gap.

Captcha: pampered helplessness

by Fritz on Jul 21, 2010 9:50 am  

jcm/Reid: in two of the speed camera locations mentioned by the Post article, the speed limit is indeed set too low: Suitland Pkwy, and southbound 295 near Blue Plains.

by Froggie on Jul 21, 2010 9:53 am  

@jcm: Big Bear jumped the gun with their attempt to get a liquor license. Their current closing times (8:00 PM weeknights, 5:00 PM Saturdays, 3:00 PM Sundays) seem a bit too early for a place with a liquor license; if they stayed open later, their chances might have been better.

To put this into perspective, the one other non-Tryst coffeehouse/bar combo I can think of (OpenCity in Woodley Park) is open until midnight, 1:00 AM on weekends. Big Bear needs to expand their hours before they go chasing after a liquor license again.

by Jason on Jul 21, 2010 9:54 am  

Yep. Those speed cameras are usually placed in minimally-dangerous locations with artificially-low speed limits.

Similarly, since they're usually hidden, and there's no feedback, they do very little to make drivers actually drive slower. If they were coupled with those "Your Speed is ___; SLOW DOWN CAMERA AHEAD" signs, it might actually have some effect (although I suspect revenues from the cameras would approach zero, as they'd be nearly 100% effective in their stated goal).

by andrew on Jul 21, 2010 10:03 am  

Dr. Gridlock's commenter says "I... slow to under the speed limit near trail crossings."

Dr. Gridlock responds: "I agree with you about the need for cyclists to obey traffic laws."

Does Dr. Gridlock agree with the commenter's assumption that drivers have the right to ignore traffic laws except at especially dangerous locations?

by Ben Ross on Jul 21, 2010 10:03 am  

Regarding the Silver Line delay, why didn't the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and WMATA build the first section to Tysons and then start on the extension to Wiehle Ave in Reston after this is completed instead of working on everything at the same time? I assume it is because of financing issues and perhaps political constraints.

If this had been done, the Silver Line to Tysons could have been completed in 2011-12, instead of having to wait to 2013 to get the benefits of the extension.

by Ben on Jul 21, 2010 10:10 am  

@jcm-the fact that people are breaking the law does not mean they're creating a safety issue, or the largest safety issue. It is quite possible the speed limit is inappropriately low (or even deceptively low--a drop in speed limit without a significant change in roadway conditions).

Assuming a limited number of speed cameras and an objective to maximize safety, then they should be located where exceeding the speed limit creates the highest risk of danger to others (e.g., school zones, busy intersections).

by ah on Jul 21, 2010 10:12 am  

@Ben: They are doing it that way. The delay is specifically referring to Phase I, which goes out to Whiele Avenue. Phase II, which will complete the line to a stop or two past Dulles, hasn't been approved yet.

by Tim on Jul 21, 2010 10:26 am  

You know what? You speed-defenders are totally right and have given me a great idea! I'll simply not pay all of my taxes this year. If and when the IRS audits me I'll simply argue that the tax rates are artificially high and that it's unfair for the IRS to use automated "computing devices" to catch me. They should have to have an IRS agent read my return with his own eyes. Freedom!!!1!

by Reid on Jul 21, 2010 10:30 am  

From the commentary I've read from those in the know in Bloomingdale, the ANC voted not to support the liquor license application. Failing to support a liquor license is different from voting to protest a liquor license. An official protest gives you standing before the liquor board whereas defeating a resolution of support doesn't mean much.

It's moot anyway, since I hear the proprietor has withdrawn his application.

by Eric F. on Jul 21, 2010 10:31 am  

@Tim-- I understand it is being built in two phases, with the first phase to Wiehle but the project should have been segmented further, with construction from Tysons to Wiehle beginning only after the Falls Church - Tysons section is finished. Some of the benefits of the improved mobility from metro could have been realized sooner instead of having to wait until 2013 for the entire Phase 1 section.

by Ben on Jul 21, 2010 10:34 am  

If the speed limit is too low, it should be changed. The correct response to a bad law is not an arbitrary decision to not enforce it.

Speed limits are safety devices. When you enforce the speed limit you are by definition improving safety. It is not MPD's job to pick and choose which laws to enforce. And I wouldn't want them to have that power.

by Jcm on Jul 21, 2010 10:40 am  

@Reid FTW...

Seriously, if you need any further example of the windshield perspective, it's the way drivers talk about speed limits.

"Speed limits should be whatever the majority of drivers drive! That's the *safe* speed limit." Of course, the needs of other road users (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, etc...) don't even enter into the equation. They exist merely to get the Hell out of the way.

Of course drivers don't understand why on Earth there should be speed cameras, because speed limits are artificially low. Everyone else who shares the public spaces knows *exactly* why speed cameras are needed--and the fact that they generate butt-loads of money merely sweetens the pot.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 10:44 am  

@Silver line: I like Ben's ideas about segmenting the construction to at least get it to Tyson's, but i think it's probably a moot point as of now. How come GGW and Metro haven't put a dashed silver line on their maps yet? I know this question has been asked before, but I'm not sure I've seen an answer. Sorry if you already answered it.

by Shipsa01 on Jul 21, 2010 10:44 am  

We're probably not too far away from integrated speed & red light cameras built into the back of every traffic light. It would probably work to just change all the traffic lights to the 'housing' of such a device and then rotate a few dozen camera internals between these housings.

by ontarioroader on Jul 21, 2010 10:48 am  

Wiehle Ave is only one stop beyond Tysons, and all the track in between and the station are at surface level. Would stopping at Tysons really have shaved an entire year off the project? I kind of doubt it.

by MLD on Jul 21, 2010 10:51 am  

@JCM; "It is not MPD's job to pick and choose which laws to enforce"

Actually, isn't it the contracting company -- and not MPD -- that is "enforcing" these laws.

Great. Let's enforce some speed limits on bikes as well. And jaywalkers. MPD always has some leeway in term of enforcing laws.

by charlie on Jul 21, 2010 10:54 am  

The choice of where to segment the Dulles line was probably driven by FTA's requirements for minimum operable segments, as well as what they'd consider a natural terminus for a segment.

by Alex B. on Jul 21, 2010 11:03 am  

@Reid, Wait let me get this right: painting a road to commemorate the dead: ok by the NCPC; paint the road with bike lanes to prevent deaths in the first place? Hell no.

I read through the link provided by David, and unless I missed it, I don't see where this is project has been approved by anyone.

by Lance on Jul 21, 2010 11:15 am  

@Jason I don't understand what big bear's hours have to do with the discussion. As far as I know, they weren't at issue? Anyway, if the business is viable now, selling a glass of wine won't suddenly stop that.

@Charlie yes, we should enforce bike laws and jaywalking laws. Sunday church parking, too.

by Jcm on Jul 21, 2010 11:16 am  

Actually, isn't it the contracting company -- and not MPD -- that is "enforcing" these laws.

Not really. MPDC decides where to locate the speed cameras and operates the vehicles in which they are installed. The contractor merely processes the information (speed/photo) and sends the violation. MPDC is the one engaging in discretionary decisionmaking about where to locate cameras and when to place the mobile unit at a given location.

by ah on Jul 21, 2010 11:21 am  

Having ridden large stretches of the W&OD trail in the past and now having a similar trail in Portland, OR (springwater corridor) I wonder: Why do the trail users have to stop? shouldn't it be the cars on mostly residential cross streets that have to stop? It seems like this is designed to be a trail-priority route... so make it so! Its such crap that bikes have to stop when its their trail.

by Allan on Jul 21, 2010 11:21 am  

Perhaps Lance can chime in to explain and praise the "selfless acts" of the ANC Commissioners when it comes to Big Bear. This is an example of everything that's wrong with the ANCs.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 11:27 am  

re: Jaywalking

Given that the signals in this town are tailored to the needs of drivers at the expense of pedestrians, it's no wonder we have a problem with jaywalking in this town.

Here's a thought experiment: imagine DDOT reviewed each intersection in town, and adjusted the signals to maximize the pedestrian experience. When pedestrians approached an intersection and pushed the button, cross-traffic was immediately given a red light, and that light was held for, say 70 seconds. How much red-light running would there be in DC? It would be universal. Just as jaywalking is today.

I cross Pennsylvania Ave at North Carolina SE every morning in rush hour. There are four lanes of traffic in either direction, and a 30' median in the middle. While the Don't Walk signal is displayed on the median, the "Walk" signal is show on the opposite side of Pennsylvania. You get to watch the little counter count down from 50 to about 20 seconds before the signal on the median turns to "Walk". Hardly any cross traffic at all. Almost all of the Pennsylvania Ave crossings are the same way.

It's as thought the system was designed to train folks to jaywalk.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 11:30 am  

@Ben The Silver Line is initially opening to Whiele avenue, because that's where the first pocket track will be.

You'll also be pleased to know that it appears as though the Silver line is being built with several pocket tracks (a noted deficiency of the extant portions of the current system). Weirdly enough, they seem to be clustered together (there's one right past Whiele, and another past Reston Pkway, which is the station after Whiele, and a third between Dulles and the yard lead)

This means that, although operations between EFC and Whiele ave cannot be opened gradually, they *should* be able to gradually push outward toward Reston Parkway, then Dulles, and finally Ashburn.

by andrew on Jul 21, 2010 11:33 am  

Why do the trail users have to stop? shouldn't it be the cars on mostly residential cross streets that have to stop? It seems like this is designed to be a trail-priority route... so make it so! Its such crap that bikes have to stop when its their trail.

It's because driving is normative behavior. Cyclists and pedestrians are freaks living on the fringes of decent society. Plus, drivers are going about important business and trail users are merely recreating. Therefore they must be given priority in all things.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 11:36 am  

JCM -

Except that speed limits are themselves arbitrary. Indeed, they exist to promote safety. In an area that has little safety risk from driving faster, why devote resources to enforcing there? Reminds me of the time I rolled through a stop sign in the middle of the night in a residential area with no one around, only to be given a ticket by the cop that had parked down the block with his lights off, just waiting for such a sap as myself.

I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against speed cameras, but I do not understand people who believe that we must obey laws, just because they are the law. There are such things as unjust laws and you and I both know that the cops know where the unjust (or least unreasonable) speed limits are (as others have mentioned here). Why do they bother to devote resources to those areas where there are other areas begging for additional enforcement with much more demonstrable safety risks.

Allan -\ What a bunch of selfish clap trap. The exact same argument is: why should cars have to stop when it's their road? Jesus H Mary and Christ. Why should walkers have to stop? It's their sidewalk. Here's a good idea: where bike trails cross railroad tracks, we'll make the trains stop until it's clear to go. Think of the nifty new trails we can build on runways - the airplanes will have to stop whenever a biker comes by.

by Josh S on Jul 21, 2010 11:37 am  

There are such things as unjust laws and you and I both know that the cops know where the unjust (or least unreasonable) speed limits are (as others have mentioned here).

Problem is folks like yourself are incapable of objectively making that sort of decision. While your dedication to civil disobedience is admirable, let's leave aside the delusions of Ghandi and try to understand that speed limits aren't in place primarily to protect drivers.

Allan -\ What a bunch of selfish clap trap. The exact same argument is: why should cars have to stop when it's their road? Jesus H Mary and Christ. Why should walkers have to stop? It's their sidewalk. Here's a good idea: where bike trails cross railroad tracks, we'll make the trains stop until it's clear to go. Think of the nifty new trails we can build on runways - the airplanes will have to stop whenever a biker comes by.

Sorry, but this is blindered auto-centrism to the extreme. "Why should cars have to stop when it's their road?" I can't tell if you're being serious, or just lampooning, but in case you *are* on the level, here's a proposition: let's paint a couple of yellow lines on either side of the trail. Then when we get to the road, we'll just extend them across the road and connect up with the trail.

Hey! Lookee here! Now the *cars* are crossing the trail rather than the pedestrians and bikes crossing the road! Why should bikes and pedestrians have to stop when it's their road.

God, it's almost noon and it's still too early for this dreck.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 11:51 am  

@ Josh S If the speed limit is too low, it should be changed. I don't think you or I have the right to pick and choose which laws we will obey. I do believe we have the right - and responsibility - to work to change laws which are unjust.

We don't live in a dictatorship, where arbitrary rules are handed down from on high.

by jcm on Jul 21, 2010 11:57 am  

I support speed cameras, but I'm uncomfortable relying on them for revenue, because it creates a perverse incentive. The state now has a vested interest in seeing you break the law. There was at least one case (in CA, I think) where the contractor shortened the yellow light cycle to catch more red light violators. That is the kind of thing we need to be on the lookout for.

The better plan, is to hire a contractor to make intersections/roads safer. If they use cameras, then the city gets the revenue (they "pass through" the contractor), but the contractor is paid based on measurable safety improvements so cameras may not be the best tool.

And if we're going to rely on cameras, then we should start assessing points. Some people can afford the tickets, but they can't afford to lose their license.

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 12:21 pm  

< When pedestrians approached an intersection and pushed the button, cross-traffic was immediately given a red light, and that light was held for, say 70 seconds. How much red-light running would there be in DC? It would be universal. Just as jaywalking is today.

Is there any intersection in DC that is so car-centric that as soon as an auto approaches the light turns green and pedestrians must scramble?

Pretty much every intersection requires pedestrians and cars to take turns. Sure, quarrel with the relative amount of time for each, but it's not like cars don't currently do a bunch of waiting for both cross traffic and pedestrians.

by ah on Jul 21, 2010 12:26 pm  

Is there any intersection in DC that is so car-centric that as soon as an auto approaches the light turns green and pedestrians must scramble?

Personally, I think it would be a big help if pedestrians learned to scramble when the light turned green in DC. As it stands now, they proceed across the crosswalk as though nothing as happened.

And, really, speed limits in some parts of the city are kept inappropriately low, even in places where pedestrians are not even a factor. I'm thinking of some of the northeastern stretches of New York Avenue, where the posted limit is 35 mph.

And don't even get me started about poor light-synchronization.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 12:34 pm  

@ah:

You'll have to give me an example of an intersection in DC (or anywhere for that matter) where cars are given insufficient time to make it through the intersection in a single cycle.

Can't think of any offhand.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 12:44 pm  

Those of you defending the speed camera placement are really just being blindly anti-driver. I'm on your side 80-90% of the time on this site, but it is inherently a bad idea to use speed cameras as a revenue generator, for the reasons David C cited.

DC has limited resources to place these cameras, and there are many locations they could be place where they could have a meaningful impact on road safety and possibly save lives. That stretch of North Capitol, which is on my commute on days I drive to work, is not one. There are no pedestrian crossings there, it's not a cycling route for anyone I've ever seen, and traffic is rarely heavy. Placement is what it is solely because people exceed the speed limit there.

by Nate on Jul 21, 2010 12:54 pm  

[T]here are many locations they could be place where they could have a meaningful impact on road safety and possibly save lives

Actually, from my conversations with councilmembers and MPD, that's not the case. The current generation of cameras cannot be used in many of the most needed locations because of technical constraints. Otherwise Constititution, Independence, C Street, and Maryland Ave would be lined with these things.

Leaving aside conspiracy theories, constituents are clamoring for speed cameras in the neighborhoods and being told those locations are unsuitable. If they were, the government would make just as much money, and constituents would be happier.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 1:12 pm  

There are no pedestrian crossings there, it's not a cycling route for anyone I've ever seen, and traffic is rarely heavy.

It's a no-mans-land of dangerously speeding cars--wonder why no one rides a bike on it?

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 1:19 pm  

@ah - I think for the most part, except where there are pedestrian activated lights, which is a relatively new invention compared to standard lights, the lights are there to give drivers of cars a chance to take turns with pedestrains just piggy-backing on that opportunity given to the drivers. The pedestrian safety aspect is retrofitted to this model. Oboes pointing out that there exists in abundance intersections where peds can't get all the way across in one cycle illustrates this very well.

by Bianchi on Jul 21, 2010 1:26 pm  

Using speed cameras against cars to raise revenue: Brilliant idea.

Using traffic laws against pedestrians and cyclists to just enforce the laws: Worse than Hitler.

by Fritz on Jul 21, 2010 1:34 pm  

Using traffic laws against pedestrians and cyclists to just enforce the laws: Worse than Hitler.

Not sure where you read that; you really should quote previous posts if you want to address/summarize/etc...

Poor sad drivers...always the victims.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 1:42 pm  

Even Hitler wasn't worse than Hitler.

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 1:46 pm  

@oboe:
So you're telling me with three lanes of traffic in each direction going the speed limit (35) you would ride there? I bike a lot, and I find that pretty implausible.

by Nate on Jul 21, 2010 1:58 pm  

So you're telling me with three lanes of traffic in each direction going the speed limit (35) you would ride there?

You've just described Bladensburg Road which I commute on every day.

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 2:11 pm  

@JustMe Perhaps Lance can chime in to explain and praise the "selfless acts" of the ANC Commissioners when it comes to Big Bear. This is an example of everything that's wrong with the ANCs.

I don't know anything about this situation other than what I'm reading here and on the linked blog. Are you saying you think they should never oppose any application? I've just done a VERY brief review of the link and I think this blogger's comment pretty much sums up why the ANC voted not to support the application:

Joe cleary
July 20th, 2010
10:53 pm #1Lydia, you forgot to mention in your article (I hope not conveniently) that the ANC commissioners exposed in their resolution that big bear,as a coffee shop,is currently in violation of several dc zoning and other laws. How could they possibly turn a blind eye to those facts when considering their final vote

The ANC acted admirably, not because they fell on the side of those against bb but because they followed the rule of law and showed no partiality to a fellow commissioner

by Lance on Jul 21, 2010 2:16 pm  

Just to be sure this isn't missed ... Meg Maguire, Chair of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City has issued David (and others) a challenge:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=6613#comments

by Lance on Jul 21, 2010 2:22 pm  

@Nate:

So you're telling me with three lanes of traffic in each direction going the speed limit (35) you would ride there? I bike a lot, and I find that pretty implausible.

Drop the speed limit to 25 and, sure, I'd ride North Capitol any day. Of course, to a lot of drivers, that's utterly ridiculous, the speed limit should be much *higher*...because no one cycles there. Why not raise the speed limits on all multi-lane DC roads to, say, 45 mph? After all, you'd immediately make them unsuitable for non-auto use, but that would be fine, because no one rides, cycles, runs, etc... there.

Of course, if you were to universally lower the speed limit in DC to 25, a) it would open many, many routes to cyclists, b) average auto trips would see a minimal impact, and c) average bicycle trips on many of these routes would be significantly shorter. There's no quicker route to ride from the Capitol to Takoma Park than out North Capitol.

(As an aside, I've ridden to Rosaryville State Park in Maryland from Capitol Hill on Pennsylvania Ave [extremely unpleasant; though not egregiously unsafe], so I'm perhaps less risk-averse than most.)

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 2:24 pm  

Sure, why don't we make everything as hard for car commuters as possible? After all, anyone whose commute is 15-20 minutes longer by metro than by car can clearly just afford to move or easily find another job right? Look, I'd love a shorter commute, but not at the cost of significantly higher rent, which is the only way I could get one unless I got incredibly lucky. I don't live very close to the closest metro (and it's a long-ish metro ride to the office once I'm there), it's a really long uphill bike ride that would require a shower at my destination, and there is no bus route that would not require multiple transfers. Even so, I still metro as often or more often than I drive. But some days, there are reasons I have to drive, and others I find it more convenient to drive.

I see absolutely no reason that North Capitol north of the intersection at Michigan needs a lower speed limit. South of there, it already is lower, and that should be enforced better. I can't imagine why anyone would want or need to cross the street along that stretch, since there's nothing there until you get much further north or south, so you aren't doing it for the pedestrians. There are fairly close alternative cycling routes on either side of N. Capitol.

You might think lowering the speed limit to 25 wouldn't affect commute times much, but I think you are underestimating the effect that the additional congestion that would bring would have on things like backups at left turn lanes, which are already pretty bad in some spots.

by Nate on Jul 21, 2010 3:14 pm  

Why not raise the speed limits on all multi-lane DC roads to, say, 45 mph? After all, you'd immediately make them unsuitable for non-auto use, but that would be fine, because no one rides, cycles, runs, etc... there.

Which is completely reasonable! Not all roads are supposed to be multi-use! In fact, it's safer that way: by designating certain areas *most* appropriate for cars, fewer cars will be on multi-use roads that are friendlier to bicyclists and pedestrians.

What would be a better idea would be a separate bike trail along the northern reaches of North Capitol so that the entire traffic layout wouldn't have to be re-vamped just to accommodate bicycles.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 3:26 pm  

@oboe, @bianchi -- there may well be intersections with insufficient timing for pedestrians, but that's why I said you should take issue with the timing. There are plenty of intersections that don't allow sufficient time for all the cars to get through. And for the pedestrians who can't make it across: WALK FASTER!

by ah on Jul 21, 2010 3:27 pm  

I see absolutely no reason that North Capitol north of the intersection at Michigan needs a lower speed limit.

According the DDOT's latest Traffic Safety Report, the North Capital Street Corridor (from Mass to Riggs) is the third most dangerous in the District (behind only Pennsylvania Avenue and New York Avenue).

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 3:30 pm  

the North Capital Street Corridor (from Mass to Riggs) is the third most dangerous in the District (behind only Pennsylvania Avenue and New York Avenue).

Which is, as you may have noticed, south of Michigan Ave.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 3:34 pm  

Mass is south of Michigan. Riggs is north. So either you're confused or Google Maps is wrong, and I don't want to live in an America where that could be true.

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 4:01 pm  

There are plenty of intersections that don't allow sufficient time for all the cars to get through. And for the pedestrians who can't make it across: WALK FASTER!

I see you've changed the rules. Pretty amusing you've changed it to insufficient "time for all the cars to get through." We're talking about intersections where there's literally not enough time for a healthy adult to walk across the street in a single cycle--never mind children and the elderly.

As @ah says, "WALK FASTER!"

I can't think of a more stark reminder of the auto-centric perspective at work.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 4:23 pm  

What would be a better idea would be a separate bike trail along the northern reaches of North Capitol so that the entire traffic layout wouldn't have to be re-vamped just to accommodate bicycles.

Sounds great! So it sounds like we're in agreement: let's drop the speed limit to 25 along that stretch for now. Then once we've built a separate bike trail (that doesn't take bike commuters 20 minutes out of their way), we'll raise the speed limit back up.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the entire traffic layout wouldn't have to be re-vamped just to accommodate bicycles". You lower the speed limit to 25, then have blanket enforcement with speed cameras. Cyclists and drivers share the same two lanes in-bound and out-bound.

No "re-vamping" the "traffic layout" needed.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 4:27 pm  

You might think lowering the speed limit to 25 wouldn't affect commute times much, but I think you are underestimating the effect that the additional congestion that would bring would have on things like backups at left turn lanes, which are already pretty bad in some spots.

You're going to need to show some sort of mechanism by which slower traffic speeds *cause* congestion. ("Just imagine how short rush hour would be if everyone drove 80 mph! Everyone would be at their destination in 20 minutes!")

I think you're making the common error of confusing cause and effect. It's actually been shown that--leaving aside the case of superhighways--slower speeds lead to *less* congestion...not more.

It's the reason we're told, in case of fire, to proceed in a calm and orderly fashion for the exits, rather than running pell-mell.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 4:33 pm  

@oboe:
If a road is at, say 65-75% of capacity, which is what I would guess that part of N. Cap is at (let's say Mich to Riggs), and it takes each individual car longer to pass through it, you can't see how that increases the potential for additional accumulation at bottlenecks like turn lanes? I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but the types of studies I've seen that suggest lowering speed limits decreases commute time usually deal with heavily congested roads, I believe, which North Cap is typically not in that stretch.

by Nate on Jul 21, 2010 4:42 pm  

@ ah -There are plenty of intersections that don't allow sufficient time for all the cars to get through.

That's because, as I stated, the lights are there primarily to let drivers take turns crossing it.

You had asserted the lights are there primarily so drivers and pedestrians can take turns. Except in the case of ped activated lights, which are historically new, this is just not the historical intention of lights. There is always time for, at a minimum, the first line of cars to proceed with a green light before the "turn" is given over to the cross-traffic at every lighted intersection. Pedestrians historically have been forced to piggy-back on this design.

Certainly you can see that if the light were designed with the intention of allowing pedestrians to cross we would not have something like the 18 seconds to cross Connecticut Ave NW at Nebraska at a corner that has been known for years to have a multiunit bldg that houses elderly members of the community in it.

"Walk faster!" Maybe you think you're being funny. Maybe you think dead pedestrians are hilarious to behold especially when they are the most vulnerable -the very young and the very old. "They should've walked faster! They should've known their place! They should never have asserted their desire to cross the street in a way that inconvenienced drivers. Whatever tragedy was befallen upon the pedestrian for trying to cross the road he asked for it with his own behavior. He wasn't in the cross-walk. The light had turned". Right?

Fortunately this dehumanizing attitude toward people who walk across streets instead of driving is changing. One example is the placement of pedestrian activated lights. Another is the consideration by a DOT of who lives in the immediate community and what the limitations of that population might be - like elderly people needing a little extra time to get across six lanes of traffic to the pharmacy and grocery opposite from where they live.

captch: "variables, mort" indeed!

by Bianchi on Jul 21, 2010 5:03 pm  

I'm a bit skeptical of those claims and "studies" that suggest lowering speed limits decreases congestion/commute time. In no small part because throughput in an urban area isn't affected so much by the speed limit as it is affected by traffic signals. Especially in this town, where signal timing is absolutely abysmal...and that's one of the main reasons I've seen people speed: to try and make the next light. Because if you go the speed limit, you won't.

Best way to get drivers to go the speed limit isn't with speed cameras. It's to time/coordinate the signals so that you can make every light while going the speed limit. Accomplishes the same safety mission. But of course, the city can't raise ticket revenue with that solution...

by Froggie on Jul 21, 2010 5:05 pm  

oboe, that's an awful idea. I like being able to zip up north on my car one north capitol once I get above Michigan Ave. It's one of the ONLY places where that's possible for cars. I DON'T want bicyclists there, who are free to use OTHER ROADS to do that.

David: DDOT is describing a "corridor" that runs on North Capitol street BETWEEN Riggs and Massachusetts Avenue. That entire corridor is well SOUTH of Michigan Ave. North Capitol above Michigan avenue is fine with higher speed limits.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 5:14 pm  

Feel free to prove me wrong, but the types of studies I've seen that suggest lowering speed limits decreases commute time usually deal with heavily congested roads, I believe, which North Cap is typically not in that stretch.

Just as a base-case, and putting aside your "bottleneck effect", we're talking about a difference of ~5 min for a 7-8 mile trip from the Capitol to Takoma Park.

I've seen occasional (inconclusive) studies regarding the behavior of traffic flow on interstates. Never dealing with surface streets. I'm more than willing (seriously) to entertain the idea that marginally slower speeds would have some crippling effect on traffic flow, but I just don't see it without a whole lot more explication.

Hopefully Lance will arrive soon to wave his hands impressively at us about this matter.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 5:14 pm  

Best way to get drivers to go the speed limit isn't with speed cameras. It's to time/coordinate the signals so that you can make every light while going the speed limit. Accomplishes the same safety mission. But of course, the city can't raise ticket revenue with that solution...

I think we've gone over this ground a few times. I don't work for the DOT for a large, old, city, but my guess is that creating some sort of fantasyland where the traffic signals are always timed just right is a heck of a lot harder than it appears.

You might be able to get away with that in suburban Gaithersburg, but my guess is the complexity of the urban street grid makes that impractical.

Alternately, it could be a conspiracy launched by fifth columnists from within the city government to bring down Big Car...

:)

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 5:21 pm  

we're talking about a difference of ~5 min for a 7-8 mile trip from the Capitol to Takoma Park.

If only there were some form of transportation that would allow those with bicycles to, I don't know, have their bicycles transported along with them at faster speeds between the Capitol and Takoma Park, rather than insisting on taking up space on one of the few easy-to-drive-through arteries in the city. Or maybe there might be some other road available somewhere.

FYI, New York City manages to have pretty good light synchronization when going north-south.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 5:23 pm  

I like being able to zip up north on my car one north capitol once I get above Michigan Ave. It's one of the ONLY places where that's possible for cars. I DON'T want bicyclists there, who are free to use OTHER ROADS to do that.

I like the feel of wind in my hair as I ride two abreast in Rock Creek Park, and I DON'T want cars there, who are free to use OTHER ROADS to do that.

Regardless of your (or my) personal preferences, I think the curtain is coming down on the days of "pleasure motoring" in the DC limits. It's just a matter of demographics.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 5:25 pm  

@oboe:
I think you vastly overestimate the 'serious' cycling demographic. And I mean vastly overestimating it. Even if you pretend that people like me who frequently use cycling as a mode of transportation would agree that all roads in DC need to be bikeable (which obviously not all of us do), look around sometime on any road in the District. Even in areas not frequented by suburban commuters or tourists, see how many cars you see relative to bikes. It's not even close!

by Nate on Jul 21, 2010 5:41 pm  

I think the curtain is coming down on the days of "pleasure motoring" in the DC limits.

I'm not doing that for fun. Pleasure and driving in DC don't go together. My intent is to get from north to south as quickly as humanly possible, and it's hard enough to do that already. The northern stretches of North Capitol above and immediately below Michigan is really the only effective driving artery for that. If you're a bike rider, you're totally free to use Georgia Avenue once you get up that far north, which has extremely slow rates of movement.

Thankfully I don't have to use that route that often, but when I needed to drive down from Silver Spring or Takoma Park for whatever reason, it was the only effective option. We should thank our lucky stars that they didn't have 395 tearing a scar through the center of the city, but arteries like New York Avenue and North Capitol as pipelines for auto traffic in and out of the city are necessities and should not be expected to serve a dual purpose as bike lanes, particularly since there are other options.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 5:52 pm  

@ JustMe
A quick look at google maps will show you that Riggs Road intersects North Capitol about 2 miles NORTH of Michigan Ave.

As for joy rides on upper North Capitol, are you serious? You oppose better transportation facilities because it'll stop you from having fun? This is a city, not a theme park.

by Scott F on Jul 21, 2010 5:54 pm  

JustMe DDOT is describing a "corridor" that runs on North Capitol street BETWEEN Riggs and Massachusetts Avenue. That entire corridor is well SOUTH of Michigan Ave.

Huh? Is not Michigan Ave south of Riggs? You're not making any sense. Are you nookie?

Also Riggs/North Cap was one of the 30 most dangerous intersections.

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 6:02 pm  

For oboe and other ideologues, only when cars are outlawed will outlaws have cars.

I'm a big believer in demographics being destiny. But if you think the city's demographics will result in new bicycle pants-wearing overlords, well, I guess you also believe DDOT has a plan to run their streetcars hobby.

Oh wait...

by Fritz on Jul 21, 2010 8:36 pm  

For some reason I read "Riggs" and thought "Randolph." My mistake. But, weirdly, I don't see the corridor between, say, Bryant and Michigan as particularly dangerous. South of Bryant, sure. But north? No.

As for joy rides on upper North Capitol, are you serious? You oppose better transportation facilities because it'll stop you from having fun?

It was oboe who claimed I wanted North Capitol to have appropriate speed limits because it was "fun." No one drives in DC for pleasure. I want my drives in DC to be the way a closeted Senator wants sex with his wife to be: over with and arrived at the destination as quickly as humanly possible.

by JustMe on Jul 21, 2010 9:16 pm  

The ratio of bikes to cars in DC is about 1:40

by David C on Jul 21, 2010 10:21 pm  

For oboe and other ideologues, only when cars are outlawed will outlaws have cars.

I suppose it's an ideology of sorts to want to allow pedestrians enough time to cross the streets, and cyclists to ride from point A to B safely. So guilty as charged.

The problem is, it's a zero-sum game. Cars have to lose for pedestrians (and bikes) to gain. The current trend is reversing forty some-odd years of auto-centrism. Unfortunately, I think you guys are on the losing end of this. I think some of the anger stems from the fact that you understand this as well.

by oboe on Jul 21, 2010 10:55 pm  

@oboe: Given that it's the ideologues that believe all car drivers are potentially murderers and that every car accident involving a bike or pedestrian is automatically the fault of the driver, I think you're projecting the anger issues onto the rational non-ideologues.

And it's really not a zero sum game, although I understand why the ideologues need to portray it as such. It's far easier to rally the troops when you can paint someone or something as the common enemy, rather than acknowledging there are shades of gray to most things in life.

But I salute you as you await our new spandex overlords.

by Fritz on Jul 22, 2010 9:07 am  

So, I take it, jcm, that you have never broken a law in your life? Never sped once? Never jaywalked once? Always followed the six billion pages of the IRS code to the letter? Of COURSE there is an arbitrary nature to laws - they are created by man. Traffic laws are about as arbitrary as they come. I'm all about the rule of law, and hardly walk around "picking and choosing" which laws to follow. But I also recognize that some laws have less meaning than others.

oboe, oboe, oboe -

My, you're a smug one, aren't you? Got it ALLLLL figured out. "folks like yourself"? Have we met?
I'll admit, I did like the thought experiment of changing the stripes on the pavement to turn the bike trail into the priority passage and presto chango the road is crossing the trail, not the other way around. You're absolutely right and it sort of goes along with what I've been saying about the arbitrary nature of traffic laws.
However, the nature of my comments were in response to what someone else had said along the lines of "why should bikers have to stop, it's their trail?" And my feeling that this was an extraordinarily childish thing to say. Most trail / road intersections that I have experience with involve a great deal more cars than bikes, with the possible exception of pleasant weekend afternoons. Just as a mere matter of moving humans, it seems logical to give the priority to the mode with the greater share. In the same way, I fully support the ability of buses and streetcars to have the ability to make lights turn green or stay green so that they can move through the intersection more quickly.

by Josh S on Jul 22, 2010 9:58 am  

I think you're projecting the anger issues onto the rational non-ideologues...And it's really not a zero sum game, although I understand why the ideologues need to portray it as such.

Yes, it really is a zero-sum game. As a single example from previous comments, tweaking the pedestrian signals so that folks can actually cross the street without jaywalking will improve the pedestrian experience at the expense of the driving experience.

Regardless of whether you support the changes in DC over the last decade, I think it's pretty obvious to even the most pro-driver observer that that's the way DC's urban environment is headed. That's why the Post is deluged with letters from angry commuters who are angry the happy-motoring experience in DC is different from, say, Dale City.

Think of all the changes: There's a growing number of speed cameras to rein in scofflaw drivers, I've got an MPD cruiser down the block specifically tasked with busting drivers who refuse to yield the ROW to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Our DDOT director is taking away general traffic lanes and dedicating them to bus and bicycle use. DC's one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country--as it gentrifies this stuff is only going to accelerate.

You guys are losing; and as the number of folks who move into the city specifically because they want to be able to walk places grows, it's only going to get worse.

We'll never get to the point where driving in DC is as unpleasant as walking in, say, Manassas, but the "roads are for cars" gang are in for some serious disappointment if they think things are bad now. I can see where the anger comes from, but at the end of the day, you choose the environment in which you live.

One note on "ideologues" vs. "rational non-ideologues". Obviously, a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder, but I respectfully submit that when the "ideologues" include the director of your local government's DOT, the mayor, and at least a plurality of the electorate, while the "rational non-ideologues" consist of a loose coalition of spittle-flecked Dr. Gridlock correspondents, suburban non-residents, and irrational bicycle-haters, it may be time to review the labels. :)

by oboe on Jul 22, 2010 10:00 am  

Just as a mere matter of moving humans, it seems logical to give the priority to the mode with the greater share.

No, actually, historically we give priority to the most vulnerable users. That's why it's pretty much universal in law that pedestrians have right-of-way. It's only in the last few decades or so that this would even be a question. If there's so little trail use, then the impact on the flow of auto traffic should be minimal.

Just one more data-point that car culture really does tend to turn folks into sociopaths.

by oboe on Jul 22, 2010 10:10 am