One thing to keep in mind is that rush hour parking doesn't eliminate only the parking lane but also may cause significant hiccups to traffic flow from people parking or deparking. If all the cars are locked in place during rush hour you don't have this problem (i.e., the same as having temporary barriers), but you know that can't work.

by ah on Jun 2, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

I used similar arguments to support eliminating peak hour parking restrictions on a handful of major streets in Baltimore. Charles and Boston Streets become even faster and less ped/bike friendly during peak hours, not to mention the inconvenience for local residents and reduced business patronage when customers can't park on the street.

Peak hour restrictions were originally meant for one purpose; facilitating traffic flow during rush hour. We are well beyond this paradigm now and it's time we reevaluate these restrictions.

by Mark on Jun 2, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report

Anecdotally, the L1 and L2 move much quicker down Connecticut when they can just stay in the right lane and not have to constantly merge and reenter due to parked cars. I definitely would not want the rush hour restriction to go away for this specific reason.

by Dizzy on Jun 2, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report

Agree with @Dizzy on the bus issues on 16th St/the S lines.

by greent on Jun 2, 2011 4:05 pm • link • report

Another problem with rush hour parking restrictions is that it makes it problematic to put in a bike lane. So much so that DDOT won't do it. What you end up with is a bike lane to the left of a travel lane (during rush hour) or a bike lane under parked cars (during the rest of the day). Removing rush hour restrictions makes it easier to add traditional bike lanes.

by David C on Jun 2, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

I think 16th St. NW (really, all of it, but particularly between Euclid St. and Arkansas Ave.) is a perfect candidate for the "no parking ever" experiment. The area through Adams Morgan/Columbia Heights/Mt. Pleasant is terribly congested already and I can't count the number of times that I've been on an S bus in a traffic jam because it's 6:31 PM and cars will just stop and park because, legally, they can. While they're at it, they might redesign the road through that area, or at least simplify the lane markings, to make it just 4 lanes (2 in each direction, perhaps with the occasional center left turn lane) for the entire length of 16th St.

by David T on Jun 2, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report

DC has enough gridlock already, it really needs the rush-hour lanes esp. in downtown, Dupont, etc.. Even for people who are just passing through, often like myself. The parking (and left turns) of cars create a lot of stops, and removing that parking is necessary for traffic flow at peak times. Plus, buses use these too, so it's a public transit issue too.

I'd argue that there needs to be MORE enforcement of these lanes, as I frequently see cars disobey them and stay parked while cars are stuck and trying to move out of lanes. When I lived in SF, tow trucks would just travel the right lane and ticket and tow cars that were even parked just for a minute. This would bring more revenue for public transit and the city.

by Luke on Jun 2, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

As someone who travels along more minor lanes that go from one to two, and sometimes three lanes during rush hour (specifically, Michigan Avenue East towards Irving Street, then onto Keyon, then Park, up to Tilden), I'm frequently stymied by folks who continue to park in the rush hour lanes during rush hour, thus creating frequent bottlenecks as drivers cut off other cars in their attempt to move forward faster. It makes what should be a somewhat pleasant drive highly stressful. If there are going to be no-parking lanes during rush hour, they need to be serious, and policed. Or, they need to be eliminated.

by Stella on Jun 2, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report

Related, slightly off-topic question:

Anyone know what the law says about whether or not vehicles are allowed to travel in lanes that are always dedicated parking lanes? If there is a lane where vehicles are permitted to park 24/7/365, but there are no cars parked, can vehicles use that lane for travel?

Just looking for letter-of-the-law here; don't care too much about real-world practice.

by Bilsko on Jun 2, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report

One word: Buses

They need that right lane to travel and not need to constantly weave in and out of traffic during rush hour.

I would even go as far as restricting parking at ALL times on main streets. Let's turn those parking lanes into transit and bike lanes. I see little justification for allowing someone in their Jeep Liberty to park on the street to grab a Georgetown Cupcake while bicyclists and transit users sit in idle traffic.

by John M on Jun 2, 2011 4:51 pm • link • report

M St. SE (and also SW) I think could clearly use a road diet. I think Tommy Wells had some plans to that affect but some neighbors protested. Perhaps this would be good evidence that it would not be that bad?

by Steven Yates on Jun 2, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report

Many main streets in Japanese cities don't have curbside parking at all hours. Could we draw conclusions from these real-world examples?

I know it made life much easier for the bus drivers.

I agree that there needs to be very strict enforcement of these main arteries. Perhaps the enforcement needs to be beefed up while the number of rush hour routes is decreased?

by Rob on Jun 2, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report

@ Daivd T: I agree. That stretch of 16th is an awful headache - rush hour or not. Friday/Saturday evenings coming into DC on 16th, that stretch can take you a half an hour - to go 6 blocks.

I especially despise the 2 bus stops 50 feet away from each other, one at Spring St and one in front of the Woodner. Drives me nuts.

by greent on Jun 2, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report

I don't agree with the idea of removing rush hour parking restrictions as I think it will lead to more people driving to already congested areas. As for M Street SE, it is nothing but a 6 lane highway. IMHO, only public transit vehicles should be allowed downtown.

by snowpeas on Jun 2, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report

@John M.

I just wish d. would enforce the bike & bus only lanes that we already have along 7th and 9th streets NW, as well as the no turns at 7th and H St NW.

by @SamuelMoore on Jun 2, 2011 5:53 pm • link • report

@ Michael Perkins: You assume that there is anybody in the DC government with time to think about issues likes this. I would say the existence of such a person is right there with the DC unicorn herd.

by Jasper on Jun 2, 2011 8:09 pm • link • report

"I have not noticed an increase in congestion due to this narrowing, suggesting that three lanes are not necessary to carry the traffic flow."

Well, depending where you are, there are lot of streets that just plain suck, whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 lanes. You also have to consider the effect on surrounding streets, which might become worse.

by SJE on Jun 2, 2011 10:19 pm • link • report

@Luke
I think the point Michael (and others) were making is that in many, if not most, instances, the extra rush hour lane is not appreciably affected the overall volume of traffic. Almost as many cars can pass through a given block in x minutes if there are 2 lanes as opposed to 3. Although theoretically, the extra lane (going from 2 to 3) ought to increase capacity by 50%, in practice it's a few percent at best. And in my experience, that's about what it is. (There may be places where the extra lane makes a huge difference- I haven't seen them in DC.) Partly, this is a result of violators and/or insufficient enforcement. Someone parks in the rush hour lane, or just stops and waits for a passenger, etc. When that happens, the entire block might as well be given over to parking, or a bike lane, or a sandbox, because that one snag squeezes the street back down to 2 lanes. That's not quite true if traffic is sufficiently light, but in that case, the road is below capacity, lessening the need for a 3rd lane anyway. But another reason we never achieve that theoretical 50% extra capacity, is that if the road is crowded, it matters what the next block looks like. If it narrows down to 2 lanes, or there's an "obstacle" like a long light, then it means that even if we stream an extra 50% of our original volume through the block, that traffic can't enter the next block, which is full. So the benefit of the rush hour lanes is less than it appears to be at first blush.

Reserving the lanes for rush hour traffic also forecloses the possibility of useful features that Michael and others mention - bus lanes, bus stops, bike lanes, etc. Those features might do more to speed the flow of traffic than the rush hour configuration would, especially if one figures in additional bus passengers and cyclists.

And as others have pointed out, DC could do a lot more to enforce its existing regs both for rush hour parking and parking/stopping in bus zones and bike lanes. Although it's not necessarily a model most eats coast cities might look to, Berkeley, CA, has pretty aggressive camera-based enforcement of bus zone stopping/parking. Given the need for better enforcement, that might be something DC should consider (although they ought not get too aggressive - the backlash would be loud, even without a huge number of false positives.) The revenue would be sufficient to pay for implementation, but hopefully people would soon figure ought they're really not supposed to stop in those areas, and revenues (and violations) would taper off.

by Paula Product on Jun 3, 2011 1:23 am • link • report

The point is to get as many cars as possible as quickly as possible. To that end, the parking restrictions make sense.

However, I'm in favor of Diamond lanes like in major cities like SF, where ONLY buses and maybe bicycles are allowed to travel.

I think the way to enforce the lane restrictions is vehicle/bicycle mounted cameras. They're available at a reasonable price and simply need a good reason to become ubiquitous. DC would have to amend it's evidence laws, but the ability to turn in lane violators would go a way towards enforcing behavior.

by ahk on Jun 3, 2011 8:06 am • link • report

@Bilsko
Anyone know what the law says about whether or not vehicles are allowed to travel in lanes that are always dedicated parking lanes? If there is a lane where vehicles are permitted to park 24/7/365, but there are no cars parked, can vehicles use that lane for travel?

Cars are only allowed to pass on the right when the vehicle they are passing is stopped - say to make a left turn and there is sufficient room to do so safely and they do so at a safe speed.

By the way - cars are NEVER allowed to enter a bike lane for the purpose of passing another stopped car. That is why it's a solid WHITE LINE folks!

by JeffB on Jun 3, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

For those streets, DDOT should consider eliminating street parking altogether, and devoting the space to dedicated cycle tracks, bus lanes, or other non-automobile uses.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

by EJ on Jun 3, 2011 9:21 am • link • report

JeffB: I think Bilsko was not talking about using a bike lane but rather when there's a curb parking lane, and then a travel lane, but the curb parking lane is empty. Can you drive in the empty curb parking lane? What if you're turning right; can you drive in it for half a block and then turn right? People do; I don't know what the vehicle code says.

by David Alpert on Jun 3, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

The example I know best is M st NW from Wisconsin to the Key Bridge. Eliminating the parking, then widening the sidewalk slightly, would help a great deal. Bike lane -- not so much.

There is a tremendous amount of revenue generated on the rush hour parking tickets.

Parking enforcement is pretty good, what is bad right now is idling delivery trucks. I saw one on M st with about 5 tickets on the windshield at 5:30.

Broadening the hours would also be good. 16th, for example, could use rush hour restrictions until 7:30 or 8.

by charlie on Jun 3, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

@David Albert,

Yes - I threw the bike lane item in for free :) I had the audacity last night to be cycling in such lane just when a motorist badly needed it to pass a double parked UPS truck. My presence earned my the universal motorist sign of disapproval (i.e., long blast of car horn).

Here are the DC regs directly addressing Bilkso's question:

http://www.dcregs.org/Gateway/RuleHome.aspx?RuleNumber=18-2202

2202.5 The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

(b) On a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and of sufficient width for two (2) or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; and

(c) On a one-way street or upon any roadway upon which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement; where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two (2) or more lines of moving vehicles.

2202.6 The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle on the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall the passing movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

So to apply these to your questions:
Can you drive in the empty curb parking lane?
To pass a turning car, yes. To just drive there for the length of the block? Not sure, I'd say no as that is not the "main-traveled" portion of the roadway.

What if you're turning right; can you drive in it for half a block and then turn right? No - see above.

People do
What motorists do and what the regulations say they should do often don't intersect.

by JeffB on Jun 3, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

DC has enough gridlock already, it really needs the rush-hour lanes esp. in downtown, Dupont, etc.. Even for people who are just passing through, often like myself.

Not sure what the "even" is doing here. It's pretty clear the trade-off is between providing the best possible commuting experience for "people who are just passing through" versus providing a decent quality of life for folks who aren't just trying to drive in, out, and across the city as quickly as possible.

As far as I'm concerned, DC hasn't got nearly enough gridlock already--at least when it comes to operating private automobiles. As someone said upthread, remove excess road capacity, and dedicate it to bus & bike traffic. Or expanding the sidewalks.

by oboe on Jun 3, 2011 11:31 am • link • report

@JeffB & @DaveA

Jeff - thanks for weighing in with the observations and link. It took me a second to get the jist of the "passing on the right" explanation, but it makes sense.

I purposely didn't mention it in my original question, but I'm curious about the law as it applies to bikes (insofar as they are defined as "vehicles")

Specifically, I'm thinking of some stretches of MacArthur Blvd where parking is permitted all day/every day. I use MacArthur for my commute to/from work and on one stretch in particular, the curb lane is frequently empty and if I don't take it, I often catch flack from motorists zooming by (nevermind the 25mph speed limit or the passing lane that they have). - Streetview the southbound lane here, for example: http://goo.gl/maps/qiFv

If my bicycle is considered a 'vehicle', am I obligated to use te curb lane (remember, dedicated parking, but with short stretches where cars are normally not parked)? I'm not passing vehicles on the right, but my understanding is that the rule that I have to satisfy on my bicycle is that I be in the right-most *travel* lane. If the curb lane is a dedicated parking lane, even if its empty I don't think it can be considered a 'travel lane'

Thoughts?

by Bilsko on Jun 6, 2011 11:44 am • link • report