Regarding the first article, with the speed limit on parts of 395/695 being either 45 or 40 MPH - with previously camera cars and soon to be fixed speed cameras, YES I would think it is about money.

When *I* go the limit, I'm putting *myself* at risk. Tell me how that is about money and not safety.

by dmvdriver42 on May 25, 2012 8:57 am • link • report

re: the first article, why are local governments so obsessed with speed cameras if it's not money? From a pedestrian and cyclist's perspective, I would see a huge improvement if they were installing red light cameras and aggressively ticketing anyone who blocks the box. It's extremely rare that I see someone who is endangering others solely from speed whereas I see at least half a dozen people run a red light *every single day*, almost always requiring pedestrians to dodge or delay crossing to avoid being hit.

We have this weird combination of speed limits which are often too high in crowded residential neighborhoods and very, very low on the actual highways - most of the times where I feel at risk due to speed, the driver is actually close enough to the speed limit that a camera would make no difference.

Forcing the issue be about speed cameras makes it easy for the cynics to dismiss it as a revenue scheme; focusing on actual safety measures would remove that objection and gain allies since all but the most entitled drivers aren't fans of people who run lights or block the box, either, and those actions pose far more risk and disruption than simply speeding.

by Chris Adams on May 25, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

Most people believe traffic cameras are to make money, not to improve safety, a new poll shows. The result means political problems ahead as DC adds to its camera network.

Given that this is a WTOP poll of area residents from "around the Beltway", I don't find this all that surprising. My guess is that anyone who listens to WTOP is a car commuter who doesn't live in DC. I wonder what a poll of WTOP listeners would show if they asked whether it's more important to provide alternative transit services like CaBi and bike lanes, or ensure that commuter traffic flow efficiently. I bet car commuters from the far exurbs of western Virginia would like to see Rt 50 expanded to 4 lanes through Middleburg.

The good thing about our (mostly) autonomous status is that it's not up to suburban commuters to determine how DC sets it's traffic policies.

by oboe on May 25, 2012 9:18 am • link • report

@ Chris Adams:It's extremely rare that I see someone who is endangering others solely from speed

I see it every night when I walk my dog. In my neighborhood, the speed limit is 25, which is appropriate given all the turns in the road. A lot of drivers, however, drive 35-40, presumably because they "feel" it's safe. However, when crossing the road, I can't see them coming, and they don't see me. I end up running for my life.

Forcing the issue be about speed cameras makes it easy for the cynics to dismiss it as a revenue scheme; focusing on actual safety measures would remove that objection

Exactly. Politicians and the police should just come out with the cold hard numbers of reduced incidents at points where cameras, be it for red lights or speeding, were installed. On places like the SE Freeway, they could point to less congestion due to better adherence to the speed limit.

If they can't figure out how to get those numbers, perhaps they can call GGW's number hero: Matt Johnson!

by Jasper on May 25, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

Odd. My own poll shows that respondents overwhelmingly think opposition to speed cameras is not about preservation of rights and freedoms, but about people's piggishness.

by Crickey7 on May 25, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

Yuppified Union Market...

Cool! Maybe we can finally get a decent set of vendors in a local market; unlike in Eastern Market, where (aside from a few standouts) the same set of mediocre vendors sits, immovable, for the rest of time.

by oboe on May 25, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

$2.6 Billion is enough to bankrupt us collectively or individually as consumers.

Green roofs are sweet but don't do that much for water drain off. They are great for lowering cooling costs for their buildings. But a green roof on a building that covers an previously permeable surface doesn't remedy the harm.

Small items like replacing sidewalks and parking spots with permeable surfaces can help little bit too.

But the scandal, the huge part of the $2.6 Billion we're on the hook for is one big elephant in the room:

Ten years ago a bill was passed in DC that granted commercial buildings FREE sewage service for pumping out below-ground structures (those hated underground garages). Almost every building of seven stories or more in DC is solid concrete core requiring underground structure which becomes a garage. (This is why the 7-story limit on many DC streets is a disaster in preference to the 6-story ecologically sound model).

Commercial buildings make a lot of money off their underground structures which are not possible without almost 24-hour pumping out of ground water into the sewers. They can afford to pay for that service- we cannot afford to pay for the ground water problem those big buildings cause.

They should not be getting free sewage for that water !

by Tom Coumaris on May 25, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

I sort of agree with @Chris Adams. I wish they would start concentrating on intersections instead of speed mid-block (at least in the more dense areas of DC) - blocking the crosswalk, running red lights, blocking the box. I think these are real problems that I see everyday. That's not to take away from speed infractions but it appears that where cars and peds intersect is where the most problems are.

by dc denizen on May 25, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

I think there's a lot of potential for "food destinations" like Seattle's Pike Place Market or SF's Ferry Building Marketplace. I would love to hear more about the failures of our own Eastern Market - I rarely go there - perhaps Oboe or someone could write a post about that--? How could it be improved?

by M.V. Jantzen on May 25, 2012 9:42 am • link • report

I don't think "yuppified" is the right word to use for the Union Market. It looks like high quality food retailers, with a lot of room for smaller artisans. I think the current vendor mix looks fantastic! It reminds me a lot of Chelsea Market in NYC, except that Chelsea Market has an incredible location. I worry that Union Market's location could keep it from developing the same energy as the Ferry Building or Chelsea Market or Pike Place. All three of those listed are waterfront - what does Union Market's location bring to the table?

by Allie on May 25, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

What a laughable poll on Marriage Equality: According to the Press Release 46.7% of those polled are liberal African-American voters. If that's the case this poll is a disaster for the Marriage Equality ballot initiative. Maryland's full voting population is not 46.7% black. This faulty poll seems silly.

If the public employee unions who are backing this initiative really want it to pass - they better get out there and work for it by getting voters to the polls -- not taking polls which are, in effect, lies to try and influence voters.

This is even more true when national polls show NO such bounce for gay marriage from African-American voters nationally. In fact Obama is now trailing in a few swing states as a result of his stance which was nothing more than a smokescreen...he's for gay marriage but also for state's rights. So in other words, the 31/32 states who voted against gay marriage have the President's blessing.

by Pelham1861 on May 25, 2012 10:18 am • link • report

On I-395, I hope the appropriate outrage accompanies the start of actual photo enforcement of the ridiculous (and dangerous) 40-mph limit. If they want to make that a surface street, I'm all for it, but don't build a controlled-access highway designed for 70 or 80 mph and then force people to slow to a crawl on it. (And why 40 mph? Why not 30? Twenty? Three?)

by Bill on Capitol Hill on May 25, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

I've always admired the existing Union Market buildings and had a lot of hope for it, especially after seeing their slick marketing video. After seeing what they're actually going to build there I think it's going to be a stinker though. the think Chelsea and Eastern market have going for them is attractive urbanism, something the existing buildings seem to have already. You should like to an image of the proposal, I'd be curious to hear what others think about the actual buildings being proposed.

On the otherhand, if they build a light rail to it...

by Thayer-D on May 25, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

@Pelham1861
If the public employee unions who are backing this initiative really want it to pass

Marriage equality is a plot by public employee unions? That's a new one!

This is even more true when national polls show NO such bounce for gay marriage from African-American voters nationally.
Meanwhile, back in reality-land:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/signs-of-shift-among-african-americans-on-same-sex-marriage/

by MLD on May 25, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

re: Union Market

The current vendor mix is pretty good. Need goat? Get it halal from a number of butchers! Need the basics? Mexican Fruits can get you 30 eggs for $3.50, tomatos for $1 a pound, or fresh nopales for $0.50 a pound. Need something exotic? Head down to Afrik to get Nigerian spices and, if you're feeling brave, some Nigerian-style dried fish.

Its streets are the closest thing to a woonerf I can think of in the city. I'm really concerned that bringing in upscale vendors will mean the ones there will get their rent boosted beyond what they can pay, and that will be the end of the last real DC market.

by OctaviusIII on May 25, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

The Union Market would benefit if some new places came in, but there were also policies/help for the existing businesses to make their storefronts more friendly/inviting for people to just wander into. You can get plenty of cool stuff in those places but it is not apparent to lots of people and certainly the environment is not conducive to someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

by MLD on May 25, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

The speed camera monies should be used solely to redesign roads to accommodate all users safely. Build bump outs, chicanes, bike lanes, etc. Once the road is reconfigured and after a trial period (to gather data), get rid of the camera in that location.

by thump on May 25, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

Raising the fine from about $50 to $125 along with 30-35 mph speed limits in areas where there are no pedestrians does, in fact, indicate to me that it's about money.

by JustMe on May 25, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

A lot of drivers, however, drive 35-40, presumably because they "feel" it's safe. However, when crossing the road, I can't see them coming, and they don't see me. I end up running for my life.

Haven't you heard? If 85% of the drivers go that speed, it's considered de facto safe, and is the "correct" speed limit.

by dcd on May 25, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

Exactly, and if someone runs you over, it's never because they're going to fast, but because you weren't cautious enough.

by oboe on May 25, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

@Pelham

The poll specifically over-sampled African American voters since they were the most likely to be against gay marriage. Had those voters not been oversampled, the numbers would likely have been better for the pro-equality side.

by Adam L on May 25, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

All these people complaining about speed cameras being 'all about the money'. How about if DC impounded your car for a week instead? You could have the choice between that and a fine.

by renegade09 on May 25, 2012 11:41 am • link • report

40 mph on an elevated highway? That is ridiculous. There was just an article on this website about maintaining reasonable speed limits.

by lemon on May 25, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

The speed camera poll reflects exactly what I've thought about speed camera perceptions all along. Specifically, that some small percentage of cameras are about raising money while the vast majority are about safety -- HOWEVER, the rotten apples (the revenue generators) spoil the perception of ALL cameras, including the ones for safety.

If you are pro-speed cameras (as I am generally) then you will fight to remove the small minority of bad cameras to change perceptions about cameras in general and create the political will for more good cameras.

What are the "bad" cameras? Admittedly there's some controversy over that but I'd say relocate the controversial ones (like the one on Porter) to less controversial areas (like those heavily populated by peds/bikers) for the time being. Once you've got cameras in all the low hanging fruit areas, you can then turn the discussion to areas like Porter. That's the way to get public opinion on your side and speed the eventual rollout of more cameras.

by Falls Church on May 25, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

@Falls Church:

You forget the freeway speed cameras. A strong argument could be made that they are SPECIFICALLY for revenue generation and not safety.

Though I think there'd be more acceptance of them if DDOT were to raise the freeway speed limits. Nobody's saying that Connecticut or 14th or M Street should be 35-40. But to keep the SE/SW Freeway at 35-40 is ludicrous.

by Froggie on May 25, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

Goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: To post 40 mph on a freeway is absurd, but to ENFORCE it is super-duper-beyond-belief absurd.

Whether we like it or not, speed limits, and especially freeway speed limits, are just starting points for negotiation. I doubt anyone who the cops weren't after for some other reason was ever pulled over on that stretch for doing less than 60 or maybe even 65. So essentially the level of enforcement suddenly went from 61 or 66 to 41.

Let's see how many cops drive that stretch at 38 or 39. Yeah, that'll happen.

by Bill on Capitol Hill on May 25, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report

My, that Union Market mock-up is quite thrilling. I also hope that the smaller vendors don't get pushed out, and would love to see some concessions made to help make the market area a little more cohesive, pedestrian-friendly, and inviting.

As it stands, I could walk to this market. It's kind of a long walk, but not bad for a casual Saturday morning excursion (it would be an ideal bike trip, but I ain't trying to bike on Brentwood Rd./9th St./Brentwood Parkway/6th St. as they currently exist). But I rarely do. Brentwood Rd./9th St. is about as uninviting as a road can be for pedestrians...narrow sidewalks right up on the road with nothing much to look at. The Brentwood Parkway and 6th Street aren't much better, currently. This could be vastly improved by just making the Brentwood Parkway and 6th Street section more inviting: widen the sidewalks, get some more trees in there, and slow the traffic down. Also make people stop before turning right onto Penn. People got used to that detour while the 9th St. bridge and NYA ramps were under construction, and lots of people still use that route to access NYA. There was a mock-up of the area fully built-out in the City Paper a few days ago, and these things are going to be necessary to accommodate new residents and businesses. For example, A while back WCP reported that they're re-doing the awful Comfort Inn at Penn/NYA into a much nicer tourist-class hotel, so making this area walkable would go miles to providing a better experience for travelers staying in that location, which is, ultimately, walkable to the NYA Metro. It would also push those tourists through what could be a real "local gem." If we want tourists to appreciate DC's neighborhoods, it would behoove us to start with ones they will be exposed to by default, and the improvements wouldn't be half bad for locals, either.

by Ms. D on May 25, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

@Jasper: There's no question that higher speeds increase the risk of a close call turning into an accident but I'd like to focus on the underlying problem that many drivers feel comfortable inconveniencing everyone else if they think it'll shave a minute off of their commute. I've seen plenty of drivers almost hit pedestrians while going well under the posted speed limit - at 4th & Blair NW this is basically every light cycle during the morning and afternoon commutes and rarely over 10mph - and based on facial expressions most of them seem annoyed that pedestrians aren't getting out of their way.

by Chris Adams on May 25, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report

@ Ms. D

Why do trees matter there are many streets around the world that dont have trees and the traffic is fine. The issue is rules that are not enforced and people who dont obey rules. The solution is changing the mindset of the people not the environment. If the people can not change on their own give them a reason tickets, fine, jail whatever.

Beauty as in trees and stuff to look at should have no weight in anything, the only thing that matters can a person get from point A to point B safely anything else is void.

The goal is to get people to slow down and that should be done however it can. Sidewalks have been different sizes in all locations around the globe to complain about size walk as long as it is wider than the width of a person is pointless.

by kk on May 25, 2012 1:31 pm • link • report

@Bill on Capitol Hill:

Whether we like it or not, speed limits, and especially freeway speed limits, are just starting points for negotiation.

Funny, I was just saying the same thing about cyclists treating red lights as stop signs, but I was assured that the law was the law, and that one's use of the roadway was contingent of obeying it to the letter.

by oboe on May 25, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

@kk

Actually there are many studies that show that street trees actually encourage drivers to slow down.

See pg 72 -> http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/Tree&Driver_ITE.pdf drivers went slower when there were street trees.

by MLD on May 25, 2012 1:48 pm • link • report

@ Chris Adams:many drivers feel comfortable inconveniencing everyone else if they think it'll shave a minute off of their commute

That's not a driver only thing. That's just entitlement that many in this area feel. They have an important meeting to go to and that means everybody else needs to get the F out of the way. Pedestrians jay-walk, and bikers ignore many red lights. And all justify their behavior in their head.

by Jasper on May 25, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report

@MLD

So what about places that have few or no trees; the argument does not stand up always. There are cities in deserts that have few trees but do they go faster than anyone in a city with lots of trees no.

That PDF only shows info on the US what about other places around the planet this does not hold true.

by kk on May 25, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] Sure, the sidewalk all along this route is wider than the width of ONE person, but not by much in many places. So, if one comes upon someone else traveling in the opposite direction or slower than they are, they are significantly inconvenienced in getting around them. In addition, it's impossible in many places to walk next to someone. So, sure, I SUPPOSE that all that's "required" is a sidewalk one person wide, but that doesn't make many people want to walk around an area. Furthermore, having the sidewalk right up against the street, with no street parking, when combined with several sharp curves and lots of reckless driving makes walking both appear to be and actually unsafe. With no buffer and lots of lawlessness, one miscalculation by a driver could easily kill a pedestrian.

Sure, tickets and other enforcement might slow some people down and cut down on other risky behaviors (passing in what are technically one-lane, no passing areas; not yielding to pedestrians legally crossing; running/pushing lights; and parking wherever people feel like it), but it's far cheaper in the long run to just build the environment better. The street along 6th and the southern part of the Brentwood Parkway is too wide, and leaves ample room to widen the sidewalk, include a tree lawn, and plant some trees and other vegetation. Organized parallel parking could be easily marked with parking lines, and bump-outs of the sidewalk could be installed to keep people from driving in parking lanes when they're vacant and shorten the distance pedestrians have to cross at crosswalks (also, this makes it more clear to pedestrians where to cross...back when the funky flea market was roaring, people would just wander across the street wherever they felt like it). I'm pretty sure that in the end that would be cheaper than stationing police in the area 24/7, because even traffic cameras aren't going to solve all the illegal, dangerous behaviors I see in this area.

Besides MLD's link demonstrating that street trees slow drivers down, they also make the environment much nicer for walking. On a scorching summer day, or even a mild, sunny one, would you rather walk down a barren sidewalk a few feet from blacktop slapping you in the face with radiated heat, or enjoy a shady stroll underneath trees, with some space between you and the road? Also, would you rather walk along a sidewalk past stores and cafes and other people, or be the sole pedestrian traversing past closed or lightly used businesses that don't open onto the sidewalk? I suppose anything, even just a shoulder wide enough to walk in, is fine if you really need to get somewhere and have no other choice, but we're talking about getting people to patronize retail establishments here. They have a choice, and most people also have a choice of the mode they use to travel there (I ride with friends or use a Zipcar to get there, currently).

Making something "walkable" is more than just plopping in a 2' wide stretch of concrete. For people to walk, they need to both BE and FEEL safe, and it must be a pleasant experience. I have walked much longer distances than the 1.4 miles from my home to Union Market without straining, but those walks were along pleasant, safe, busy sidewalks. I was surprised to find that the walk is only 1.4 miles, it seems much further in the barren wasteland that is the entire stretch from my house to the southern side of Florida Ave. It would be easy to improve this experience at least along the Brentwood Parkway and 6th St.

by Ms. D on May 25, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

The "things around the pedestrian" could be things other than stores and cafes, as well. Some of the most pleasant neighborhoods to walk around in DC are residential.

by Ms. D on May 25, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

Yuppified Union Market: Grungy Florida Market could soon be a thing of the past. A new list of vendors for the new Union Market include uptown staples like gelato and artisanal soda.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Reading a most excellent, discerning article on food in DC now at Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/getting-a-good-meal-in-dc-requires-some-ruthless-economics/2012/05/25/gJQAjJwspU_print.html

by Jazzy on May 25, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report

Union Market is part of DC's charming underbelly. It's dirty and working-class, but it's not blight - at least until the fire.

I welcome new development, but I think there are interesting qualities and real-life effects that shouldn't be so easily discarded in the hopes that that the market will have enough grit to be lovable.

Thayer: you realize that the dystopian project you dread was just a bad cell phone camera shot of a conceptual model, right? [Deleted for violating the comment policy.] You can't judge a project from one image, particularly one that will change a hundred times before it gets built.

by Neil Flanagan on May 25, 2012 3:43 pm • link • report

@ Ms. D

I dont care about form over function and that is what you're mostly saying. Some of things you have listed are valid but others are just beautification.

I have friends that use to lived along Mt Olivet Rd. I have walked from there to Burger King on Florida Ave as well as the KFC that used to be along there also. I have walked along deserted rural roads for miles before. Being on a sidewalk or patch of dirt by myself does not matter to be aslong as i can get to where I'am going. I'm not some person who is scared of being alone in an area I have done it many times in my life.

The heat does not matter to me if I need to go somewhere I will go regardless of the weather. To be concerned about having shade when not all places had trees to begin with is trivial. I have walked places in blizzards and heat to the temperature of 104 F; if you need to do something you do it regardless of obstacles. People will patronize anything if they have a will and a desire to go there extras can be nice but are not required for someone to go somewhere.
For the majority of my life I was 100% dependent on walking or taking a bus so I know how is it being a pedestrian.

Yes, there are issues with people not obeying the law but these happen on all streets. People do many things that are illegal park infront of fire hydrants, double park, block crosswalks etc. Changing the environment will not change the person. It is a personal moral issue to whether someone will or wont follow a law/rule. This can be solved by making the person want to follow the law by burdens or by jail time. This could be done by taking there ability to drive forever or giving out tickets. Personally I would give out tickets for the 10% of a persons income so that they will have a real burden if they break the law.
If a person driving or walking goes against traffic laws and gets hurt so be it they were in the wrong from the start.

We should not be giving and admitting defeat to criminals by redesigning a street so that they can not go fast is not the answer the answer is changing their mindset and making them not want to speed regardless of how the street looks.

I have never sped or jay walked in my life so there is no reason anyone else could not also. The reason they do so are selfishness and entitlement.

by kk on May 25, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report

I'm curious, kk, as to why you're so hostile to creating an inviting built environment for pedestrians? I don't doubt that if people REALLY need to get somewhere, and have to do it on foot, they will, but what is so wrong with making that option more pleasant? We spend billions of dollars paving roads for drivers, and listen to them whine and moan when there's so much as a bump...why is it such an affront to widen sidewalks and plant some trees where it's very feasible to do so?

by Ms. D on May 26, 2012 12:00 am • link • report

Ms. D, I think we're being strung along by someone just being pedantic.

by Tyro on May 26, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

"A lot of drivers, however, drive 35-40, presumably because they "feel" it's safe. However, when crossing the road, I can't see them coming, and they don't see me. I end up running for my life."
-----

Ummm, I learned to look both ways, wait until it was clear, cross on the green, not to cross in the middle of the block and not to cross from between parked cars by the time I was 6.

You can lower the speed limit to 5 mph, if people don't use common sense, they will get hit.

by ceefer66 on May 26, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

@ ceefer66:Ummm, I learned to look both ways, wait until it was clear, cross on the green, not to cross in the middle of the block and not to cross from between parked cars by the time I was 6.

Great for you. I'd like you to come show me how this works in my neighborhood.

I do not know how your vision works, but mine follows the general principles of physics: in a straight line, not around the corners in the road.

If I want to use a traffic light to cross the street to come home, I have to get off 3 stops and a mile and a half before the one next to my home, or sit by for 3 stops and a mile and a half further down the road.

I was talking about suburbia. I live on a superblock bisected by I-95 and served by a VRE station. Too bad that a *ride* around the block takes 25 minutes.

Please read and entire post before you blab something out.

by Jasper on May 26, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report

Neil, I hope you're right. I'm glad you thought it was dystopian, I thought even diehard modernists must see how messed up it looks. As for not judging a project by one image, that's what images are for, judging. When you and I and others call this proposal dystopian, that's supposed to filter back and hopefully inspire the developer to make some changes for the better. Have you seen their marketing video? You'd think they where re-building the meat packing district in Manhattan.

by Thayer-D on May 26, 2012 9:19 pm • link • report

1. So what if it IS about money? Isn't this - breaking the law and endangering others - exactly the kind of thing we should be taxing. Now, as mentioned before we should set speed limits at a reasonable speed, and we have to be on the look out for perverse incentives - like suddenly and inexplicably dropping the speed limit, but in general isn't it better to tax people for speeding than for having a job?

2. We could make it NOT about money by simply adding points for tickets or notifying car insurance companies about tickets. Or we could make speeders spend time in drivers detention on Saturday mornings. But I don't believe for a second that that would make speeders any happier.

by David C on May 28, 2012 10:43 pm • link • report