The Columbus Ave project is good but it is not a total redesign all they did was make lanes narrow, use the space that came from the narrowing to add bikes lanes and add new paint. Was there any new construction besides the traffic islands ?

If we really want to transform a street we need to start from the ground up.

Bulldoze the entire street and sidewalk leaving just enough to enter buildings along the street and start over with taking into account people on foot/ in wheelchairs , bikers, public transit, deliveries (depending on area) and cars.

Then focus on ways to figure out how to make it work such as testing with all those mentioned above in a real world situation to see if all can access and move about in the area without problems.

by kk on May 14, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report

It looks like a nice transformation for NYC. When you have a city as overbuilt as NYC, any space you can scrounge out of anywhere is a welcome relief. Fortunately for us, Washington was built with more open space then we'll ever know what to do with ... and unless, someone is proposing to turn Washington into another NYC by, for example, scrapping the height limits to build skyscrapers, there's no need to even consider altering the way our streets are currently being used.

by Lance on May 14, 2011 5:32 pm • link • report

Let me caveat that though by saying I would be for returning the sidewalks that were stripped away during the period where Washington was readying itself for the freeways which through hard work on the part of many, didn't occur. Examples of this would be Connecticut Avenue south of the Taft Bridge, and U street. Additionally, other areas where the streets were widened at the expense of the yards of adjoining properties should be returned to their original widths (e.g. 15th Street where the bike lane experiment is currently happening.) But overall, we have absolutely no need to close streets as NYC has done. We have the pedestrian space already in place ... including but not limited to the many circles and squares where, fortunately for us, L'Enfant programmed in public spaces for us way before this 'Complete Streets' idea suddenly got rediscovered. You might say that DC was the first of the planned 'Complete Streets' cities ... a fact we're still enjoying and which NYC only wishes they could fully replicate.

by Lance on May 14, 2011 5:39 pm • link • report

I'd also caveat that I think some of the 'local' neighborhood main streets could benefit from being made pedestrian only ... Streets such as 17th NW in Dupont and 8th Street SE. (Obviously letting traffic in there at certain hours for deliveries.) I just wouldn't want to see the equivalents of places like 'Time Square' being shut down to traffic (e.g., Penn. Ave.). All these place here (unlike DC) already have wide sidewalks and are filled with all types of triangular and square and circular parks already. I guess I'm just saying, we're already far ahead of the curve in regards to having Complete Streets. Our city was designed with Complete Streets in mind ... unlike NYC's streets which were designed purely to move traffic.

by Lance on May 14, 2011 7:37 pm • link • report

I wonder if Lance has ever walked more than a half a block anywhere in the District. Every time I try to cross the street in Dupont Circle, or around Lincoln Park (try crossing from the southwest corner of the park to the southeast corner of North Carolina sometime) I'm reminded that this city is still designed to get cars around as efficiently as possible, the pedestrian be damned.

by oboe on May 14, 2011 8:36 pm • link • report

@Oboe, I really have the opposite impression. I've come to realize I must be the only pedestrian in this town who's curteous enough to note the sequence of "who's next" when entering a crosswalk at a 4 way stop. It's really rude when pedestrians just walk on through without stopping to see if they're not interupting the sequence of cars at the stop signs. Especially when they have a phone up to their ear. It's not hard ... or even time consuming ... to share the road. It's rude not to.

by Lance on May 14, 2011 9:14 pm • link • report

As I said, you must not get out much. It's pretty much common knowledge--so far as to be a joke--among people who actually spend any time walking around this city, that you can't actually *cross* any of the the streets to get to Dupont. The lights are timed in such a way as to leave the pedestrian stranded on a 6" wide island, with traffic whizzing inches past one's nose. You have to wait another 30-60 seconds for the pedestrian signal that will take you across the next 3-4 lanes of traffic. Same thing in a lot of areas of the Hill. It takes 2-3 minutes to cross the road, and the process is a ridiculous series of bowings and scrapings to the dominance of the automobile.

It's practically a moral obligation to jaywalk in this town. I find your "share the road" construct to be amusingly quaint, though: among most of the folks who spend 99% of their time behind the wheel, and very little of it under their own power, "share the road" seems to translate to "get the Hell out of my way."

:)

by oboe on May 14, 2011 9:57 pm • link • report

There are thee important things in this video.

1) Traffic Islands. Not only are they a refuge for pedestrians, but they also force cars to drive more accurately. We all know how often we cut corners when turning to be a bit faster. Traffic Islands prevent that and slow down traffic.

2) Narrow lanes slow down traffic. Car drivers often complain about "low" speed limits because the road "feel" it's been built for faster. Well, narrow the lanes and that feeling goes away. This would actually be great in sprawl areas as well.

Bulb outs work with traffic islands and narrow lanes to slow down speeds even more.

3) Painted bike lanes. I lived in the Netherlands when the state started painting bike lanes red. I am still surprised by the change that caused. Suddenly cars would stay out of bike lanes. Painted lanes work in the psychology of the driver's mind. We need this desperately in DC. I was biking on R St yesterday and on virtually every block, there was a car half in the bike lane.

Painted lanes also work for bus lanes. Somewhere downtown, there's now a shared bus/bike lane on one of the numbered streets. I forgot which one. Somewhere between 7th and 14th or so. However, cars were just using the lane, ignoring the huge BUS BIKE letters in the lane. Paint the lane green and it will stop.

by Jasper Nijdam on May 14, 2011 10:58 pm • link • report

Wow, Oboe, it takes you 2-3 minutes to cross the road on the Hill? Do you do that by crawling? Handstands?

Or are you just being your usual self, full of unnecessary hyperbolic blather that does nothing to further the conversation?

Remind me again, Alpert, why Oboe is allowed to comment here (besides the obvious reason: that he agrees with your worldview). Again in this post he advocates breaking the law (jaywalking is fine!). Yet he is still allowed to post here? Pretty shameful, Alpert.

by Anon on May 15, 2011 1:42 am • link • report

@Anon:
Oboe, like anyone, is free to comment here because Greater Greater Washington seeks to foster an open comment dialogue. That right does not extend to ad hominem attacks or other uncivil discourse. Short of that, we do not bar people from commenting here.

I have not seen anything in any of Oboe's comments in this thread that warrant a warning, let alone an outright banning.

by Matt Johnson on May 15, 2011 2:07 am • link • report

Anon, jaywalking is the type of activity where the law says one thing, but what is right says another thing.

Example: In America, its ALWAYS "cross at the corner"
In London, it's frequently "cross in the middle of the block"

Tell me what sounds safer:

The corner, with straight traffic, right turns and left turns (ie, there are literally cars coming from every direction). You need to look to your left and right, behind you AND in front of you.

or

Midblock, where you look left to cross to the middle, and then right to cross the rest.

Seems like the law really makes things more dangerous.

by JJJJJ on May 15, 2011 2:42 am • link • report

@JJJJJ

I hope, if you are crossing mid-block in London, you aren't looking left to cross the first half and right to finish the road, LOL.

I do agree with your premise, mid-block crossings are entirely safer by definition. It is also better from a vehicle management perspective as cars can make their moves with a signal without having to worry about pedestrian activity. I also agree with Oboe that the traffic engineering at Dupont Circle and many other locations in the District make no common sense for people on foot. While I am not advocating Jaywalking, I do think that many of the public spaces can be rethought as we go forward as a city.

by William on May 15, 2011 6:17 am • link • report

This comment block could be a textbook illustration of drivers' ignorance about the law.

Lance - The pedestrian in a crosswalk at a stop sign has the right of way. The right of way is not determined, as you seem to think, by a "sequence of cars."

Anon - It is perfectly legal to cross the street in the middle of the block, unless both adjacent corners have traffic lights. In this case cars do have the right of way - but in my experience pedestrians respect the right of way rule more frequently than drivers (not that they have much choice). I see midblock pedestrians stepping into traffic expecting cars to stop much less often than I see drivers failing to yield to pedestrians at intersections.

by tt on May 15, 2011 8:31 am • link • report

This is a great video. Thanks for posting it here. I can't wait to see one of these for DC!

As to mid-block versus intersection pedestrian crossing: the reason we have intersection crossing is that's when cars stop! If cars are constantly plying the roads, then you need to cross at the one place where they have to stop anyway.

In a world where cars occasionally are seen on roads, then mid-block would be safer, because there would be enough gaps in the traffic when it's safe to pass. Obviously, we live in a world where every piece of road has cars on it seemingly all the time.

Back to complete streets, I think it would be great to see some dedicated bus lanes. What we have on 7th St. NW is abysmal: markings that suggest dedicated bike and bus, but nobody respects or enforces them. Better to get rid of the markings or do it right: bus only, bike only, or neither, but not a half-a**ed combination.

by Ward 1 Guy on May 15, 2011 8:54 am • link • report

The reason crosswalks in Britain are mid-block vs. at the end of blocks is simple ... They have few 'end of blocks' ... their cities not having been planned grid cities. You can sometimes go for a mile or more before you reach a true 'intersection' of 2 streets ...

by Lance on May 15, 2011 8:55 am • link • report

@tt ... Does the law really need to formalize common sense and common courtesy? If you're a pedestrian and just walking up to a crosswalk where you see people in cars waiting their turn to cross, doesn't it even cross your mind that they're still people there and you should wait your turn too?

by Lance on May 15, 2011 8:57 am • link • report

The funny thing about the title of this post is that on the Assn. of Ped and Bicycle Professionals there is a thread right now about how the Complete Streets program is mostly about pedestrianism and not bicycling. It's pretty much true, because at the micro scale of the various projects, they are more about streetscapes and walking than about integrating bicycle infrastructure.

That being said, I agree that the L'Enfant City is a pretty good place to walk, motorists notwithstanding.

In fact, in the "trade" based on geography-driven spatial understandings, DC's "Enfant City" is considered an example from the period of the "Walking City"--1800-1890. While it is true that the automobile has changed the city somewhat, for the most part the spatial pattern has been pretty resilient.

But yes, a big problem is speed of cars, and how transportation engineering is focused on LOS for motor vehicles, when in the city, more people move around the city by walking, transit and bicycling than they do by automobiles.

by Richard Layman on May 15, 2011 9:14 am • link • report

@Lance:
Nice one.

No. If I'm walking up to an intersection and I have the right-of-way, I generally don't care whether the people waiting to turn have been there for 15 seconds or for 3 weeks waiting to turn.

If you're driving through a green light, do you ever stop to think, "hey, I know this light has a really long green cycle for this street. Those pedestrians have been waiting for a long time to cross, I'm going to stop and let them cross (against the red), just to be courteous?"

by Matt Johnson on May 15, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Matt, The difference is that you don't have an unqualified right of way as a pedestrian at an intersection like a driver does in regards to traffic lights in the instance you're referring to (i.e., driving straight ahead).

I've just Googled the regs on this. (Yes, it's CA, but I'd be surprised if DC were different in any significant way.) Look at section b "No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." I'd say that covers my concern about the recent phenomenom I've observed of pedestrians not waiting their turn at a 4 way stop ... (And yes, I didn't realize that that which for me was simply common sense is codified. You'd think it wouldn't need to be. But obviously it does.)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_do_pedestrians_have_the_right-of-way_over_motor_vehicles

According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_do_pedestrians_have_the_right-of-way_over_motor_vehicles#ixzz1MQlqe8ro

by Lance on May 15, 2011 10:23 am • link • report

@Lance -

I know that you're new to the area, but if yielding to pedestrians as required by the law bothers you so much, why don't you simply move somewhere where there are many fewer pedestrians? If you go back to Connecticut or move out to Reston, a place which you seem to love, there will be almost no pedestrians and even fewer crosswalks. Problem solved.

by J on May 15, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

@J ... I suspect I've been here since before you were born. By and large it's the new 'hipsters' who have this sense of self-entitlement that's irking to many ... in many ways. And I know it doesn't just manifest itself only in regards to traffic rules ... And I'm sure it manifests itself between/among the hipsters itself. So, I'd suspect you'll need to learn at some point that the world doesn't revolve around your hipster needs .... and hopefully this will occur before you find yourself being runover by another hipster with a sense of self-entitlement that not only matches the size of their inflated heads ... but of yours.

by Lance on May 15, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

Q: Two cars come to a 4-way stop at the same time. Who has the right of way?
A: The pedestrian.

At least, that was what my father taught me when I was learning to drive. I don't know if that's not courteous of drivers, but considering that a vehicle is always going to get someplace faster than a pedestrian, I don't know why the extra few seconds is more valuable to the driver.

In my experience, drivers expect pedestrians to continue through a crosswalk at an intersection and with good reason: that's the safe, legal, and most practical thing to do. I've observed that when pedestrians try to do as Lance suggests and wait for vehicular traffic that it often causes needless confusion among road users. Last week I witnessed an accident in which a pedestrian stopped to let a driver go, but another driver (who thought the pedestrian was going to cross) had already started to proceed through the intersection. Crash. Yes, each driver probably should have been paying more attention, but it demonstrates why clear and reasonable standards (like pedestrians having the right of way) are important.

by Adam L on May 15, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report

Q: Two cars come to a 4-way stop at the same time. Who has the right of way?
A: The car the right.

Look it up. That's the law.

Adam, all I'm proposing is that everyone including pedestrians excercise some common sense and courtesy. That's the way it always used to be. But of late, I've noticed an increasing number of pedestrians who don't even bother to look at what's going on in the intersection before stepping into the crosswalk. They are so absorbed with themselves (and their cell phones) that they just expect everyone (driver, bikers, and other pedestrians) to just accommodate their needs. That's neither curteous nor very smart.

by Lance on May 15, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report

@Lance

The Q&A was a joke. The law for drivers is, of course, the car to the right. What my dad was trying to point out is that you also need to be mindful of pedestrians and other things on the road, not just other drivers.

And no, pedestrians who don't pay attention to traffic aren't very courteous or smart. However, that doesn't change the fact that other road users still must yield to pedestrians who have the right of a way regardless of how self-absorbed they may be.

by Adam L on May 15, 2011 1:53 pm • link • report

Adam, I don't disagree with you. But hopefully some of the non-courteous (or smart) people of all ilks (i.e., drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) will maybe now recognize their behavior after having it pointed out to them ... and take greater care in the future. Assuming, of course, that these self-absorbed folks even both to read GGW ...

;)

by Lance on May 15, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

@Lance:

Look at section b "No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." I'd say that covers my concern about the recent phenomenom I've observed of pedestrians not waiting their turn at a 4 way stop ...

I am not a lawyer, but I'd be stunned if the accepted legal interpretation of that code is anything like what you think it is. Quite comical, really.

by oboe on May 15, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

@ Lance: Does the law really need to formalize common sense and common courtesy?

Yes. Common sense and common courtesy are ambivalent. For some it is common sense that bikers can make a Idaho stop. For others, it isn't. Common sense changes across the country. Traffic in Hawaii is a lot nicer than in Manhattan. Traffic on the Columbus beltway is very different than traffic on the DC beltway.

The law creates clarity: the pedestrian has the right of way. The reason for this law is exactly the same as for the law that decides that the driver on the right gets the right of way: clarity.

Traffic law decides a lot of trivial things. The point is to create clarity. Is driving on the right better than driving on the left? No. But we need to pick one to keep traffic safe. Similarly, the law creates clarity when two cars come to a 4-way stop. And that the pedestrian has the right of way.

One of the most frustrating things in traffic is people trying to be "nice", and ignoring right-of-way rules. All they do is cause confusion, delays and, in the end, accidents.

by Jasper on May 15, 2011 8:01 pm • link • report

@Jasper Nijdam I didn't see your comment when I posted, but we're talking about the same stretch of road: 7th st. NW between Pennsylvania and New York Avenues is supposed to be a dedicated bike/bus lane going north. The southbound version is on 9th St.

by Ward 1 Guy on May 15, 2011 8:54 pm • link • report

Lance said:

"You can sometimes go for a mile or more before you reach a true 'intersection' of 2 streets "

Do we have to go back and talk about how (In america, I dont know about London) an intersection is ANY point when a street (or alley) meets another street? It doesnt matter if theres not a single 4-way intersection in the city, every 3-way intersection provides 3 crosswalks (and a continuous sidewalk).

Ward 1 said:

"As to mid-block versus intersection pedestrian crossing: the reason we have intersection crossing is that's when cars stop!"

Well, no actually. Thats the thing about intersections. People have a very small window to cross. Cars? They can always cross the pedestrian line, thanks to right turns on red, and left turns that end up on red.

I feel much safer crossing without having to worry about the guy trying to make a left that is too busy looking for a gap in the cars to notice me coming from "behind" him in the crosswalk he is about to plow through.

Lance said
"If you're a pedestrian and just walking up to a crosswalk where you see people in cars waiting their turn to cross, doesn't it even cross your mind that they're still people there and you should wait your turn too? "

Those in the car are seated, in a temperature controlled environment with music and entertainments.

The pedestrian is standing, exposed to the elements.

Courtesy would say that those in their comfortable pod can afford to wait longer. And since those in the pod can then continue at 20, 30, 40 or even 50mph, while the pedestrian moves at 3mph, courtesy would dictate that those who will arrive faster at their destination anyway wait.

Also, Lance, your tactic of standing there and waiting for the cycle of cars to pass only endangers everyone.

Every prudent driver is stopped waiting for you to cross. That's the law. By standing there, not moving, you confuse them. Do they move and violate your right of way? Do they ignore all other pedestrians? WTF is going on?

by JJJJJ on May 16, 2011 1:55 am • link • report

Wow -- even by Lance's standards, his statement that pedestrians do not have the right of way at crosswalks is incredible. I don't care how you try to parse California law or the law of any other state it: drivers are supposed ot wait for pedestrians at ALL stop signs, 4-way or otherwise. What's even better is that Lance accuses pedestrians (and "hipsters" -- whatever that means) of having a sense of entitlement. Talk about the pot callign the kettle: Lance's sense of entitlement when he is behind the wheel or commenting on this site is mind boggling!

by rg on May 16, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

I think Lance's point is that a bit more courtesy is needed in this town. And he is right.

At night I often cross a street near my house, in the cold windy rain, three small kids in tow, while dozens of cars roll through a 3-way stop from all directions without any noticing us, let alone giving us time to do so. OTOH, I have also seen passive-aggressive able-bodied pedestrians slowly amble across a street against a light, while the cars pile up behind, pretending to not see the cars they are holding up.

In both cases people are willfully ignoring surrounding situation, and are being discourteous.

by goldfish on May 16, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

@goldfish -that would be reasonable but I disagree that's what Lance meant b/c that's not what he described.

by Tina on May 16, 2011 12:08 pm • link • report