"Chaos" in Bethesda--oh Buffy has a hangnail and doesn't notice the elevators next to the Metro. Seriously, Bethesda merits sooner attention only if it's busier than other stations scheduled for work before it. Bethesda folk have plenty of money and could fundraise for something if they wanted it faster. A second exit does seem justified, even if the Purple Line is far off.

by Rich on Oct 25, 2011 9:09 am • link • report

Since their speed cameras went live late last month, Prince George's County has issued 13,173 speeding tickets.

Nice line from the link: D.C. cameras ticket drivers for traveling as little as 1 mph over the limit -- in Maryland, drivers can be ticketed only when caught traveling 12 mph over more over the limit.

by Jasper on Oct 25, 2011 9:42 am • link • report

Monument Valley is a very popular park, except, well, that it's not a park. It's a corner of the Navajo Nation, fully inhabited and used. If the NPS can't figure out how to manage visitors in a city where people live and work, they should compare notes with the Navajos, for a start.

by Omri on Oct 25, 2011 9:51 am • link • report

D.C. cameras ticket drivers for traveling as little as 1 mph over the limit -- in Maryland, drivers can be ticketed only when caught traveling 12 mph over more over the limit.

Good.

Frankly, the speed limit in most of DC is too damned high anyway. For anyplace other than separated highways, it should be 20mph. Major arterials should be 25. If drivers aren't psychologically capable of keeping their speed below 25, the roads should be narrowed, or other traffic-calming measures taken. The blatant disregard for traffic-laws leads to a huge number of killings of non-auto users by drivers every year. Time to get serious about it. Maybe if folks start to rack up enough fines, we'll see a market for speed limiting devices on cars. Save yourself some money.

It's a speed limit. Limit your speed to 25, and you've got nothing to worry about.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2011 10:02 am • link • report

From DA's op-ed:

"But Dyke’s power is limited. He doesn’t have the ability to affect a local budget, the way Hynes (a member of the Arlington County Board) and McKay (who is on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors) can. Ultimately, Northern Virginia taxpayers cover 70 percent of the state’s contributions to Metro. When the WMATA board is facing the possibility of higher fares or service cutbacks, Dyke can’t use a position as a local elected official to push for additional resources."

Again, that 70% is a gas tax. It's nice that Northern Virginia voters want to tax themseves to get better metro service. Wonderful -- but that money isn't controlled by local juridictions. The local politicans gave 126M to metro last year. It's not a small sum. Off the top of my head Virginia is giving $50M in capital money.

by charlie on Oct 25, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

To be clear, the Historic preservation staff argue that the Brightwood Car Barn should not be designated a landmark. God help us when they start landmarking Walmarts (except maybe the first one in Arkansas).

by David C on Oct 25, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

Actually, you'd be forgiven if you couldn't find the elevators at Bethesda. They're located more than a block away from the main station entrance, and there are no signs clearly marking their presence. Even if you do manage to walk past them, they're really hard to spot.

Worse still, there are a number of elevators near the main station entrance that don't actually lead to the station (but give the impression of doing so). Then, there's also the issue of the shopping mall across the street with the fake Metro pylon out front, which leads to even more confusion for visitors.

by andrew on Oct 25, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

@andrew:
I agree with you that WMATA needs to more clearly sign the route to the nearest elevator not only at Bethesda, but at all stations.

As for the Metro pylon across the street from Bethesda's main entrance, there is an entrance to the station from that building. But it's not open at all times.

by Matt Johnson on Oct 25, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

It's a speed limit. Limit your speed to 25, and you've got nothing to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with that principle in theory but that's not how speed limits are enforced in 99% of the country. Drivers are accustomed to having a certain amount of wiggle room to go over the speed limit because that's what they've been taught through experience. It's unfair to just change things on them without a fairly expansive communication program.

Your idea to lower the speed limits (but keep the same amount of wiggle room) would make a lot more sense.

by Falls Church on Oct 25, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

@oboe

Yeah, but the speed cameras tend to be placed in areas where the posted limit is *way* too low, and the cameras themselves are not marked (which is great for issuing tickets, but not so great for getting drivers to reduce their speeds). The cameras on NY Ave and in the 395 tunnels come to mind as being placed expressly for the purposes of generating revenue. (Even David Alpert agrees with me on this one)

Don't get me wrong. Neighborhood streets should indeed be limited to 20-25mph, but good luck actually managing to drive faster than that on an average DC street.

by andrew on Oct 25, 2011 10:47 am • link • report

Re: Mandatory Bike/ped spending

“This program has been the lifeblood of the nation’s trails, biking and walking programs,” said Kevin Mills, vice president of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. “It’s wildly popular across the country.”

If the program is wildly popular, than if they go from making it mandatory to use fed transpo dollars for bike/ped to making it optional, won't there be little actual impact? Seems like everyone will opt to still use some of their fed dollars for bike/ped.

But wildflowers along the highway contribute to erosion control, and if you ask the states, they’ll tell you it saves them a whole lot of money on mowing.”

So, won't states just exercise their option to continue funding wildflowers?

by Falls Church on Oct 25, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

@Falls Church,

Yes, but only because everyone's a completely rational actor, and there are no market-distorting effects ever. Our current obsession with austerity in the face of a liquidity trap is a perfect example of this.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

Drivers are accustomed to having a certain amount of wiggle room to go over the speed limit because that's what they've been taught through experience. It's unfair to just change things on them without a fairly expansive communication program.

Could we consider the sending out millions of dollars in tickets to be the communication program? I agree that the placement of cameras is not optimal, but it's my understanding that there are technical obstacles with putting cameras in crowded residential areas.

As far as not being able to drive over 25 in those areas, I see it all the time in my neighborhood. Take Constitution Ave NE, eastbound on weekday mornings. It used to be that it was one-way. Despite the school at 13th and Constitution, and a flashing 15 mph sign, the average speed was in the mid 30s. The only thing that seems to have worked is to stick a bunch of stop signs up.

Drivers will drive as fast as congestion allows them. At least automated enforcement gives us another option. The change in driver "entitlement" needs to start somewhere.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

@Falls Church

Oh My God. It's the law. There doesn't have to be any justification or a communication program for actual enforcement. I understand if there are technical issues, like the calibration of the speed measuring tools which might get a speeding ticket thrown out if it was actually for 1 mph over but probably not 3 mph. So let's start writing tickets for 3 mph over the limit!

This is a case where my driver friends and I get into fights. They say "I'm sick of cyclists breaking all the traffic laws." I respond in kind by asking when they last broke a traffic law. When they deny that they did that day I asked them if they drove at or under the speed limit that day.

by David F-H on Oct 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

Could we consider the sending out millions of dollars in tickets to be the communication program?

No. If you're going to change how you enforce a law, then you need to communicate that change in advance of enforcement actions.

Oh My God. It's the law. There doesn't have to be any justification or a communication program for actual enforcement.

There are 159 minor offenses in DC that can result in anything from a citation/ticket to jailtime (examples include distributing handbills, using more than 2 hooks on a fishing line, having an unleashed dog, photography at a single location for more than 5 minutes, hitching animals to street lamps). Do you think if they started strictly enforcing all 159 offenses and putting people in jail there would not need to be a justification or communication?

by Falls Church on Oct 25, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

@Falls Church

Oboe sums it up pretty well. Many of the TE programs are designed to mitigate the negative impacts of roads and driving. Turtle tunnels, for example, exist to overcome the "barrier effect" of roads. But without a mandate, local and state governments won't perform that mitigation. They'll just build more roads, for "tragedy of the commons" reasons - and political pressure. A state DOT might very well think wildflowers are cost effective for the reasons listed, but try telling that to state voters. So, now, they can blame the feds.
Transportation museums should probably come off the list - I'm not going to defend those. But that we should mandate that some transportation money NOT be spent on roads is a good thing.

by David C on Oct 25, 2011 12:31 pm • link • report

However, D.C. cameras ticket drivers for traveling as little as 1 mph over the limit -- in Maryland, drivers can be ticketed only when caught traveling 12 mph over more over the limit.

I don't think this is true, at least as a practical matter, in DC. The law may allow it, but MPDC has a threshold above the speed limit, but they have flexibility. I thought I read the threshold was 11mph, but it may be 9mph.

by ah on Oct 25, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

@Andrew...
My theory on why the cameras in the 395 tunnel are placed where they are is that most of the congressmen/senators have exited before then. It would not be very politically savvy for the District to start ticketing all of them.

But that's just my theory. For unrelated reasons, I usually exit at Mass. Ave and don't have to pass that speed camera gauntlet.

by Mass Exiter on Oct 25, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report

But without a mandate, local and state governments won't perform that mitigation. They'll just build more roads, for "tragedy of the commons" reasons - and political pressure. A state DOT might very well think wildflowers are cost effective for the reasons listed, but try telling that to state voters.

While the above statement may be true for wildflowers, it doesn't seem to reconcile with what the rails-to-trails VP said about bike programs -- that they are "wildly popular". That would imply wildly popular with voters, not just popular with state DOTs.

Turtle tunnels, for example, exist to overcome the "barrier effect" of roads. But without a mandate, local and state governments won't perform that mitigation.

The mandate doesn't require states to perform that or any mitigation. It just requires them to use some of their transpo dollars for a specified set of activities that may or may not have anything to do with mitigating the effects of roads and driving.

Actually, if the pro-mandate people re-characterized their argument to say that a portion of the gas tax should go toward mitigating gasoline's negative externalities (so that the price of gas is closer to its true societal cost), that would be a much stronger argument.

by Falls Church on Oct 25, 2011 2:45 pm • link • report

Falls Church, rail trails could be wildly popular - including with voters - and yet still not have the constituency to overcome the road lobby which has a lot of power without having votes.

The mandate doesn't require states to perform that or any mitigation.

No, but it requires them to choose from 12 options, of which at least 1 is mitigation. Though really several of them have a mitigation element to it.

A portion of the gas tax does go toward mitigating gasoline and driving's negative externalities - it's called CMAQ. And I'd bet you that at least 85% of the people who support TE would support a larger gas tax with revenue dedicated to mitigation efforts. But neither party supports raising the gas tax.

by David C on Oct 25, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report