Depends on the definition of "city street," I'd guess. Rock Creek Parkway immediately came to mind, but that's not a city street. I'd guess Canal Road isn't either. What about Water St NW, from Wisconsin Ave to the end? Still part of the grid for the most part.

by srfrjulie on May 18, 2011 8:30 am • link • report

Off hand, Chain Bridge Road comes to mind. I think it's about 30% longer than the stretch of West Virginia you mentioned, with houses on one side.

By way of clarification, however, perhaps you mean where traffic does not have a legal obligation to stop for pedestrians. Are you sure that DC law requires pedestrians to use a cross walk even where the intersections are widely spaced?

by Jim T on May 18, 2011 8:33 am • link • report

PS. Also, pedestrians crossing West Virginia have the right of way over vehicular traffic, since there is a crosswalk every few hundred feet. That's not to say that the traffic actually stops--and along most of this stretch most pedestrians crossing are probably walking to or from a car parked on West Virginia Ave.

by Jim T on May 18, 2011 8:40 am • link • report

Julie: I wouldn't count Rock Creek Parkway or Canal Road as "city streets" for this exercise. I checked that stretch of Water Street, and it's under half a mile. Good guess!

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 8:47 am • link • report

Jim: I added your suggestion of Chain Bridge Road to the map. It is indeed longer than any of the four lengths of road I suggested!

I am not certain about DC law regarding required use of crosswalks. I assume that, since you can get a ticket for jaywalking downtown outside of a crosswalk, the law is similar and uniform throughout the city. If anyone knows better, please, chime in.

You're certainly right that cars on West Virginia Avenue do no regularly stop for pedestrians. Part of the reason I wrote this article is to draw attention to the fact that speeds on this street needs to be brought down, and automobile traffic needs to respect other modes.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 8:56 am • link • report

Wow! I went to Google maps for street view pics and the first thing I thought of when I saw the pics of WV Avenue alongside Gallaudet University was any number of county roads in south Florida that are straight as an arrow and disappear into the horizon.

by ksu499 on May 18, 2011 8:57 am • link • report

Reno Rd. has some pretty long stretches without lights or stop signs.

by TM on May 18, 2011 8:58 am • link • report

@Jim T, @Geoffrey Hatchard:
In DC, it is only jaywalking if you are crossing outside the crosswalk between 2 intersections that are signalized. If there's only a signal at one end of the block, you're allowed to cross outside of a crosswalk, but drivers retain the right-of-way.

by Matt Johnson on May 18, 2011 8:59 am • link • report

McCormack Drive in NE is pretty long and doesn't have any crosswalks except for at the Brookland Metro. It's used by the cement trucks coming off Michigan and Taylor going to the end of the road. I'm not aware that it is heavily used as any kind of commuter road but in the 80s and 90s it was in horrible shape, dark, and just not pleasant to walk along. And, cars didn't feel compelled to drive slowly but were forced to slow down by all the potholes in the street. Since then, though, all the potholes were fixed, and sidewalks and meters were installed.

by dc denizen on May 18, 2011 9:01 am • link • report

I can think of some stretches that need either fewer traffic lights or traffic lights that are actually in sync so that you can make it through more than two of them at a time... South Dakota and the northern stretches of N. Capitol come to mind.

by Ann on May 18, 2011 9:08 am • link • report

Ann: You and I certainly have different ideas of what's good for a city street when it comes to traffic control then! I would say that South Dakota needs better traffic enforcement - being a pedestrian along many stretches of that road is like playing Frogger. My girlfriend used to live at Otis and South Dakota, and it wasn't uncommon to watch cars doing better than 60 mph along the street. Definitely not safe.

As for North Capitol's northern stretches, traffic generally flows pretty smoothly through there. I'm not sure what else would be needed to make it better for automobiles. Sure, it backs up somewhat during rush hour, but there's really no way to avoid that.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:11 am • link • report

How about Foxhall between Garfield and Reservoir?

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 9:14 am • link • report

"Were [the Gallaudet Fence] not there, crossing West Virginia Avenue would still be very difficult, because traffic doesn't have to stop anywhere along this boundary."

Perhaps if the fence were not there it would be more likely that traffic control devices would be installed. Not to suggest speeding is right, but if there's a long fence on one side of the road the need for pedestrian crossings is somewhat limited.

by ah on May 18, 2011 9:14 am • link • report

dc denizen: I added McCormack Drive to the map as well. Also longer! It's certainly a unique example (not a neighborhood street, per se), but the number of large trucks on the road coupled with an increasingly popular Metropolitan Branch Trail, as well as Catholic University, means there are plenty of chances for incidents there.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:15 am • link • report

ah: You have a good point, I should have been clearer. The Gallaudet University entrance on West Virginia has recently been reopened, and as I mentioned, the university is looking to increase its connectivity to the neighborhood, so there's a possibility that traffic control will be a part of that in the future.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:18 am • link • report

How about some speed limit enforcement before building introducing stop signs? Put a speed camera up there, and have UPD come by once a week. Of put some smooth but speed limiting speed bumps in. Speed bumps like these:

There are even smoother ones that allow a pleasant drive when obeying the speed limit, but take out your suspension if you speed.

Or you can "bump" the intersections forcing vehicles to slow down.

View Larger Map

Notice the absence of stop or yield signs. This is an intersection of equal streets. By default the person on the right hand, including bikes and pedestrians, has the right of way. These speed bumps do not feel bumpy unless you speed. For cars driver at safe speeds, and bikes, they are completely smooth.

by Jasper on May 18, 2011 9:21 am • link • report

Steven: Foxhall Road would win were it not for the light at Whitehaven Parkway! I added the stretch from Garfield to Whitehaven to the map, though.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

Jasper: I like the idea, but I would wager DDOT would be less-than-willing to allow any kind of speed humps or tables on West Virginia Avenue.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:26 am • link • report

@Matt Johnson
"In DC, it is only jaywalking if you are crossing outside the crosswalk between 2 intersections that are signalized. If there's only a signal at one end of the block, you're allowed to cross outside of a crosswalk, but drivers retain the right-of-way."

You're right that pedestrians are permitted to cross outside of marked crosswalks. I'm not sure what you're referring to though - it sound sliek you're suggesting peds can just cross anywhere. DC does recognize the concept of an "unmarked crosswalk" - a crossing at the intersection of two streets, even absent a marked crosswalk. In the case of an unmarked crosswalk, peds not only can cross, but have the right of way. It looks like WV Ave would have many such unmarked crosswalks where each of the side streets ran into WV. That said, Dave's post wasn't exactly saying it wasn't legal to cross here, just suggesting this is a long stretch where drivers don't have to *worry* about pedestrians legally crossing. And judging from the average speed, it seems like Dave's right - none of them are worrying too much about pedestrians.

by Paula Product on May 18, 2011 9:26 am • link • report

@Geoffrey

On Foxhall, there is a signal at Cathedral, so it may not qualify if you factor that in.

by Andrew on May 18, 2011 9:35 am • link • report

Andrew: The stretch of Foxhall that I included doesn't go as far north as Cathedral, so that's OK.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:37 am • link • report

M St SE, from 12th St east to its terminus; 0.9 mi. (It's a very minor road, but does seem to fit your criteria)

by andrew on May 18, 2011 9:45 am • link • report

andrew: I added M Street to the map, but I started from the circle east of 12th Street (at what should technically be 13th Street). That makes it a little shorter (down to .8 miles). It's fun when you get to set the rules!

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:54 am • link • report

@Paula Product:
Just to be clear: In DC, pedestrians have the right-of-way:

• In crosswalks at signalized intersections (when they have a "walk" signal).
• In any other designated crosswalk outside of an intersection.
• In "unmarked" crosswalks (defined below).

Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way, but are not prohibited from crossing a street, except when the street which they wish to cross has a signal at both ends of the block.

That means that if you're walking north on 14th Street just north of Randolph (NW) on the east side of the street, and you want to cross to the west side of the street, you can do so legally without going to the corner. That's because Shepherd Street (at the north end of the block) has a signal, but Randolph Street (at the south end of the block) does not have a signal. However, in this case, the pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to motor vehicles and bicycles, and must cross perpendicular to the curb.

I'm inserting the relevant provisions from the DC Code of Municipal Regulations below:

§18-9901 - Definitions:
Crosswalk - that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the transversable roadway; or any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

§2208 - Right-of-Way: Intersections
§2208.11 - A driver of any vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian who has begun crossing on the "WALK" signal to continue to the opposite sidewalk or safety island, whichever is nearest.

§2208.12 - When official traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

§2304 - Crossing at Places Other than Crosswalks:
§2304.1 - Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

§2304.2 - Each pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

§2304.3 - No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any place other than by a route at right angles to the curb or by the shortest route to the opposite curb, except in a crosswalk.

§2304.4 - On Kenilworth Avenue, N.E., between Benning Road and Eastern Avenue, no pedestrian shall cross the main roadway other than by proceeding over designated overpasses or through the designated underpasses.

by Matt Johnson on May 18, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

Good idea to look into these stretches of road. I wonder if they have higher rates of crashes or tickets?

by Gavin on May 18, 2011 10:23 am • link • report

@Geoff: perhaps one reason some traffic speeds incessantly along South Dakota (and many other streets) is because they're trying to beat the light. In my experiences and travels, poor signal timing directly contributes to this, especially where local drivers know the signal timing situation.

by Froggie on May 18, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

@Steven and Geoffrey - Foxhall may once have had a long stretch, but for light lovers those days are over. There are lights at the Field School, the entrance to Philips Park, and Whitehaven Parkway. There will be another light added across from the German Embassy entrance in the future, once 1801 Foxhall gets developed. So that's four lights between Garfield and Reservoir in the near future. There is also a heavily signed pedestrian crossing at W.

Since the topic of Foxhall came up, this scheme isn't great, because W, not the entrance to Phillips Park should have the light. W is a heavily used street from the Palisades whereas the entrance to Phillips Park is rarely used. I don't know why DDOT approved a signalized intersection there instead of making Phillips Park exit onto W street, where a signal could have been provided. What it means is that putting a needed signal at W is less likely because it would mean 4 lights within about 1/4 mile.

by ah on May 18, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

It's fun when you get to set the rules!

Oh no! Now he's mad with power!

(But, really, this stretch of M St works decently without sidewalks, bike lanes, or too much traffic control, because there's not that much traffic to begin with. However, DDOT's going to need to make some changes if/when the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail is finally connected to the road.)

by andrew on May 18, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

@Matt Johnson
Thanks for clarifying (I misunderstood you and it sounded like what you were referring to was an amalgamation of the unmarked crosswalk rule and something else). Thanks for posting the code cites - that clears it up.

Still, "right of way" or no, it'd be bold to step out onto WV Ave in your average rush hour.

by Paula Product on May 18, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

This article touches on one of the main ways in which we privilege drivers over pedestrians (and cyclists) in this town--and it points to the way in which things should change.

These are all essentially loop-holes that absolve drivers of their duty to drive safely, but sold to the public as a way of protecting pedestrians. The motor vehicle code has become as bloated as tax code. We should just cut most of this stuff out, and say that, in 99% of cases, drivers must simply drive slowly and carefully enough to avoid any road obstacle.

Of course, this is only possible in an urban environment, where there might be two or three roads where the speed limit should be any higher than 20-25 mph.

But this nonsense about allowing drivers to set their own speed limit, then crafting a thousand and one laws that put the pedestrian on the hook for always staying out of the way of this out-of-control vehicles (as though this never-ending stream of motor vehicle traffic is some kind of force of nature) is *exactly* ass-backwards.

How often do we hear drivers complain about pedestrians getting in their way ("He stepped out of nowhere!") as they drive 10-20 mph over the (already excessive) posted speed limit?

Set a reasonable district-wide speed limit of 20 mph, with exceptions for certain arterials set at 30 mph--and enforce those limits as strictly as technology and the law allow--and put the onus back on motor vehicle operators where it belongs.

[There's actually a fascinating thread on a local MPD listserv, where--in response to complaints about speeding cars and lack of enforcement--one of the managing officers responded that:

"Although its clear there are motorists who fail to yield right of way we often issue an equal amount of tickets to pedestrians (not in xwalk/ against signal) and bicyclists. I've included the PSA Lieutenant in this response so he can start selective enforcement..."

But there already *is* selective enforcement: I don't know of a single instance where a driver was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit, and there are continually high-profile enforcement campaigns against pedestrians and cyclists. So while it's not shocking that drivers, pedestrians are ticketed in equal numbers, it is shocking that MPD thinks this is a desirable thing, or an indicator that each mode is equally threatening to public safety.]

by oboe on May 18, 2011 10:56 am • link • report

There are a couple of roads near RFK that might be cheating:
1. The access road from RFK to SE Freeway. (this might be just a really long on ramp)
2. From Independence and 19th to East Capitol and Stoddert Rec Center (looks like there is some limited access here and Independence changes into East Capitol but it's functionally the same road.)

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

Oh, and how about Ohio Drive SW from Buckeye Drive to (wait for it...) Buckeye Drive!

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 11:07 am • link • report

Steven: The RFK related roads are really all ramps - I'm not going to count that. And Ohio Drive is kind of a special circumstance. It's a road in a park - I don't think we can count that if we're not going to count things like Beach Drive either.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

Err.. sadly not quite Buckeye to Buckeye, there's a stop sign near the parking lot.

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

"This article touches on one of the main ways in which we privilege drivers over pedestrians (and cyclists) in this town--and it points to the way in which things should change."

I'll bet we could find much longer stretches where a pedestrian could walk without having to stop once at a traffic control device (using the perhaps unwarranted assumption that cars would stop at stop signs and yield to pedestrians at appropriate crossing points. I'll start with Loughboro from New Mexico Ave to Sibley Hospital entrance.

by ah on May 18, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

So are we going to have the counterpart to this, where we identify the closest traffic control points?

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

Benning Road NE between Oklahoma Ave and 34th St NE.

by goldfish on May 18, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

goldfish: That's basically a bridge. And there are permanent speed cameras on that stretch in both directions, which you could call traffic control, so I'm going to say no. Good try!

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

It's really okay the way it is. There are other more efficient routes out of Trinidad. Can you point me to one of your columns where you're not whining about something insignificant?

by Gipp on May 18, 2011 11:31 am • link • report

Gipp: I'm sorry that you feel it's necessary to attack what I've written about with insults.

Can you let us know what route would be more efficient for a Gallaudet student or employee living in Trinidad to get to campus from a home on Penn Street, let's say?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

@oboe, you're baiting Hogwash to call you irrational and uncomprehending that large social changes take time, and accuse you of ME! ME! ME!, because you know, a car is just an inanimate object.

by Tina on May 18, 2011 11:40 am • link • report

@Tina:

Just as @Lance approaches every issue from the perspective "What position on this specific policy would provide the maximum benefit to me, Lance, personally?", I approach each issue with the goal of irritating as many people as possible.

:)

by oboe on May 18, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

From Penn it would take about 5 minutes to walk less than that to drive or bike. Driving or Biking you would go south on Montello R on Florida. Walking you would take the sidewalk down WV ave on the Trinidad side until you see an opening in traffic and cross over, then mosey on over to the entrance.

Now where's my link?

by gipp on May 18, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

gipp: Your definition of efficiency and the rest of the world's are clearly quite different.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

@Oboe, Personally, that's why I like your comments. I'm also fairly certain that many times, you're a little tongue-in-cheek or over the top to illustrate your points.
Since coming to this blog, I've gone from a militant driver (DAMN the speed cameras...DAMN the speed limit, etc. etc.) to a militant pedestrian. Part of the reason being I now have a dog and must walk it. I've come to the understanding that if I don't strenuously assert my rights as a pedestrian, no motorist will do it for me. The other part is that, listening to the many here who's sole means of transportation is something other than a motor vehicle, it becomes easier to recognize that we have indeed, in most cases, built for the convenience of cars over the safety of people.
I feel more keenly aware of my responsibilities and actions now when I am behind the wheel and I am thankful for it. I still haul ass on limited access roads and the highways, but in and around cities, I now recognize that I am the true interloper and act accordingly.

by thump on May 18, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

It's worth noting that 25mph isn't exactly slow. You can't stop on a dime, and you can only match that speed on a bike if you're pedaling furiously, or on a significant downhill incline.

It's certainly not low enough for a pedestrian to be able to step out into the road without looking, and expect drivers to have sufficient time to react and stop without hitting them.

(I'm not really defending drivers here -- just being realistic about reaction times and stopping distances. Lowering the speed limit to 25mph citywide would not be a magical solution to our problems.

In any event, most of our neighborhood streets *are* already limited to 25mph. Those with higher vehicle speeds (but the same low limit) should either have traffic-calming measures installed, or have their limits raised.

A street that is signed at 25mph, but allows vehicle speeds of 60mph is inherently unsafe, and needs to be redesigned.

by andrew on May 18, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report

@thump- ...if I don't strenuously assert my rights as a pedestrian, no motorist will do it for me. ... easier to recognize we have indeed, in most cases, built for the convenience of cars over the safety of people.

I commend your ability to take in new information, indeed to seek out new information that challenges your current world-view, and be modified by it. You set a good example unlike that rascally oboe ;-)

(OT, Amazing how having a dog can change and enrich your perspective in so many unexpected ways, and connect you more closely to people!)

by Tina on May 18, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report

Hayes St NE --> Mayfair Terrace --> Jay St.

by goldfish on May 18, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

@Geoff: On thing to note about the stretch of Mass Ave SE, is there is heavy pedestrian traffic on Saturdays & Sundays. There is a Seven Day Adventist church on Mass just east of Fort Davis and a Baptist Church at Mass & Alabama. The church goers park going down Mass Ave as far down as halfway between Randle Circle & Fort Davis. There are no sidewalks except right in front of the Seven-Day Adventist church and no crosswalks. However during church service there are usually 2 MPD cruisers parked on Mass to slow down the traffic

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 18, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

goldfish: That was one of the original four on the map.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report

In Northeast DC, Eastern Avenue from Rhode Island Avenue northwestward to Varnum Street is 0.8 miles without any traffic signal or stop sign. The posted speed limit is 25 mph but cars often do 40, even 50. This street has a wide shoulder, a significant hill, and bus stops on both sides of the street.

However these bus stops are heavily used by the residents living on the pretty densely populated Mt. Rainier, Maryland side of Eastern Avenue. The DC side is mostly parkland. Unforunately for the Marylanders, Eastern Avenue itself is part of DC. So most of the people affected by the dangers of this street are Marylanders who have little political pull with the DC city government that has to improve the street.

A Mt. Rainier city councilor told me that he and others have been lobbying DC for a traffic signal at Eastern Avenue and Randolph Street for 20 years. In 2007, the Mt. Rainier city staff said in print that DC had notified them a traffic signal would be installed. But as of 2011, there is still no signal.

When I lived on 30th Street in Mt. Rainier, I walked across this intersection every day to access the G8 Metrobus stop on Randolph near Eastern. My neighbors and I called the Randolph & Eastern corner the "intersection of death." One morning I encountered a neighbor there, still wearing a hospital wristband, picking up momentos of his car that had been totalled the night before as he was rear-ended, waiting to turn left from Eastern onto Randolph.

by John S on May 18, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report

West Virginia Avenue used to be a railroad. If you look at it, it points right at the Camden line (or Penn, whatever) on the north and Union Station on the south.

by David C on May 18, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report

Anacostia Ave NE from Benning Road to East Capitol St

by goldfish on May 18, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report

Western Ave. between Westmoreland Cir. and River Rd. has a fairly long stretch without traffic lights or stop signs. Not as long as West Virginia Ave. though. -Frank

by Frank on May 18, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report

John S.: Thanks for sharing this. The jurisdictional issues like this that come up are something that should seemingly be so easy to fix, yet they remain intractably stuck for-seemingly-ever. It's stupid not to do something that would help people on both sides of the line, if you ask me. The benefits to the District far outweigh the costs.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report

For about half the length of New York Avenue, most drivers seem to *think* that they don't have to stop for anything.

by tom veil on May 18, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report

goldfish: You might have a winner with that one, if you only travel that route clockwise, starting at Baker Street and Kenilworth Avenue, heading south, then west along East Capitol, then north along Anacostia Avenue. It's nearly a mile in length - but you can't traverse it both ways.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

A subliminal protest against the insanity of the freeway demappings.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/doctrinaire-anti-new-highways-position.html

After all such was against the later designs, aka the I-66 K Street Tunnel, foolishly deleted because we were supposed to run out of petro by the 1990s and human being lacked invovation skills, so they say, for the sake of feel-goodism: WDC cancels its freeways, yet we are stil dumping trillions into the middle east wars.

by Douglas Willinger on May 18, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/04/doctrinaire-anti-new-highways-position.html

"... the growing fuel crisis which, according to Administration spokesmen, will lead to gas rationing within six months and, by 1990, may well render the private automobile as obsolete as the horse and buggy."

by Douglas Willinger on May 18, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report

@John S.-To piggyback on your comment; I'd love to see a roundabout put in at RI Ave and Eastern. It's a perfect location for a roundabout because 1) It provides a nice gateway into DC/MD depending on where you come from. 2)It keeps traffic flowing instead of the back ups which now happen. 3) This has to be one of the worst intersections in DC for taking a left...4 lanes with no left turn arrow, no dedicated turning lane, and traffic is moving between 30-60+ mph. A roundabout makes it easier to turn left. 4) It provides a transition in speed from DC to MD. There is a downhill slope from SD Ave into Mt. Rainier. Let's just say that if you're driving 30 (the DC speed limit), you're getting passed like you're standing still. That means that when they come into Mt. Rainier (25 mph), they're going way too fast and will probably kill my dog and maim me while we're trying to cross in the marked crosswalk at the roundabout on 34th and RIA.
Unless, of course, I jump back and smack their vehicle with my metal "walking stick". Militant pedestrian.

by thump on May 18, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

Douglas, even I have to ask...what on earth does that have to do with the current topic???

by Froggie on May 18, 2011 5:22 pm • link • report

People driving freeway speeds on surface streets within a city that irresponsibly demapped its freeway system as a subliminal protest.

by Douglas Willinger on May 18, 2011 6:15 pm • link • report

Jeff just has a solution looking for a problem.

by TGEoA on May 18, 2011 6:45 pm • link • report

@thump, I like the way you think.

Like you, I've had an awakening in recent years. I've lived in DC nearly car-free for 15 years, but it took me a while to really notice the car-centric design of the roadways and the danger to pedestrians.

What changed? I didn't get a dog. I had a kid. Which, for the first 2-3 years, is about the same as owning a dog. :)

by TJ on May 18, 2011 8:44 pm • link • report

TGEoA: Whose solution is that? I didn't see anyone named Jeff posting here today. Not sure if I'm missing something.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 10:47 pm • link • report

Shorter Douglas Willenger:

People driving highway speeds through residential neighborhoods is a problem which could be easily solved by converting neighborhood streets into highways.

Plus Freemasons.

by oboe on May 18, 2011 11:09 pm • link • report

You good old boys club types have already done that- sans the grade seperation of course, for such things as New York Avenue and New Hampshire Avenue, via the botched planning starting around the time of the JFK assassination.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/05/1960s-washington-dc-freeway-planning.html - follow the link to the one about the Federal City Council

And none of you have dared answer my question- what's buried under that field at 6000 New Hampshire Avenue?

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/02/feb-24-discussion-at-greater-greater.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-hampshire-avenue-b-connection.html

Which is right where THE D.C. I-95 route goes!
(see the dashed lines)

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/pepcobo-i-95.html

by Douglas Willinger on May 18, 2011 11:29 pm • link • report

Dalecarlia Parkway in NW is 1 mile from Westmoreland Circle to Loughboro Road at Sibley Hospital. There are two access points to local neighborhoods east of the road.

by Reza on May 19, 2011 12:13 am • link • report