Strange brief note halfway down of the 5-page WaPo headline that FBI is investigating the ridiculously low assessments on DC commercial properties.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 8, 2012 8:55 am • link • report

Hey now we can debate the merits of a speed camera for a stop sign and we'll be able to inject all sorts of "but bikes" rhetoric into it since we know that drivers always stop for stop signs and cyclists couldn't pick out a stop sign out of a line up.

I'll wait for the first person to bring up the 85th percentile rule and apply it to stop signs as well.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

Re: streetwidths

This mainly applies only to SFH neighborhoods (I know which are overwhelmingly the most popular style of housing across the country) but in Northern Va. where townhouse developments with the garages facing the street are ubiquitous I would often wish that there was one street space for me to use while visiting a friend but since anything that wasn't a curb cut was a yellow curb with the three visitor spaces already taken I would curse the zoning board of Fairfax for not allowing for rear alley access.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2012 9:02 am • link • report

Bascially, the new model OTR is using to assess commerical property is flawed. OTR is losing the majority of appeals, so they are settling cases left and right.

by charlie on Aug 8, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

It's obviously a biased report, but there are a few flaws in that study about New York City. It's a lot easier to issue a citation for tinted windows than it is for speeding on a street that accommodates pedestrians and cyclists after an accident has happened. Likewise, I'm not sure of the point of the piece about parking or what either do for this region.

by selxic on Aug 8, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

Many of the excess parking spots are in residential neighborhoods where street width minimums create parking spots.

Not to mention that extra wide street entice speeding, and make it twice as far for pedestrians to cross.

Driver lawbreaking behind most crashes

From the link:
Driver distraction 16%
Alcohol 12%
Not yielding 9%
Unsafe speed 8%
Pedestrian error 30%

Residents of a Russian city paint the faces of local bureaucrats onto potholes to get repairs more quickly.

Awesome.

by Jasper on Aug 8, 2012 9:24 am • link • report

I can't say this is true in NYC, but the majority of fatal crashes involve one fatality -- the driver. Rather hard to issue a ticket there.

Again, maybe not NYC. However suicide by car is a very popular choice.

by charlie on Aug 8, 2012 9:24 am • link • report

RE: Medical Center

Excited to hear this moving forward- I'd worked on the initial study. I just hope the "shallow tunnel" isn't as deep down as had been tossed around early on; otherwise it may not see much use. White Flint's isn't particularly shallow and still, qualitatively from memory, seems to be only about a 50/50 split between at-grade and tunnel crossings.

by Bossi on Aug 8, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

@drumz
I'll play. In the history of mankind, there has never been a vehicle that caused an accident by running a stop sign. Conversely, 100% of vehicle accidents are caused by colliding with someone or something else.

It is not the action of stopping that prevents collisions. It is the action to yielding. You can't yield to something that you cannot see and in order to see you have to be moving. As long as you are stopped your field of view never improves.

Coming to a complete stop when not necessary is a waste of time and energy. The important action is the action of slowing down enough to stop if needed and gaining the visibility needed to ensure you can continue safely. And those who fail to do this? They are every bit a menace to society as garden variety thugs, vandals, and murderers and should be treated accordingly. (NYC, this means you.)

by movement on Aug 8, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

@Movement

Well put. I am not going to +1, but will just say I agree. I guess I just don't understand the hostility to bikers running stop signs, after slowing down. When are we finally going to legalize the Idaho Stop?

by Kyle-w on Aug 8, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Not Washington-related, but I thought y'all would get a kick out of this bit of news from where I grew up. And you thought being an urban planner was tough around here...

Baldwin County's comprehensive plan voted down and all but shouted down

BAY MINETTE, Alabama — Egged on by a large crowd invoking property rights, United Nations Agenda 21, the U.S. Constitution and even the Communist Manifesto, the Baldwin County Commission killed the Horizon 2025 comprehensive plan today.

Following the 3-1 vote, many in the audience sang "God Bless America."

"This battle is about more than just planning," said commission Chairman Bob James. "This battle is to protect the Constitution of the United States and, to me, the Ten Commandments."

The resolution "repealed, rescinded, voided and nullified," the plan, with that phrase boldfaced and in all capital letters.

by Dizzy on Aug 8, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

Re: Dizzy's link,

What makes this funnier is that the town of Fairhope is located in Alabama which eschew individual property rights for a single tax zone that is meant to ensure community focused uses for the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairhope,_Alabama

by drumz on Aug 8, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

Yep, Fairhope is also in Baldwin County. Lovely town, closest thing the area has to something like Georgetown. It is, however, very much an oasis in comparison to the rest of the county. Fairhope is home to The School of Organic Education; by contrast, the county as a whole is strongly in favor of things like teaching creationism.

More hilarious quotes from the article:

Several speakers derided the language in the plan that described it as being advisory only and offering guidelines for development. James agreed, saying that Mao Tse-tung, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini espoused philosophies that were originally guidelines, and millions of people were killed.

Richard Thompson of Fairhope presented commissioners with copies of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto from Wikipedia. "We’re getting real close to the communistic plan here. Maybe with a little "c," not a big "C."

Speakers also said Horizon 2025 was tied into U.N. Agenda 21, which promotes sustainable development, and a few even tried to connect it with what they said was an attempt by the U.N. to get the United States to repeal the Second Amendment right to possess arms.

by Dizzy on Aug 8, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

I'll wait for the first person to bring up the 85th percentile rule and apply it to stop signs as well.

When drivers break the law, it's the fault of traffic engineers. When cyclists break the law, it's because there's something unique to folks who ride that makes them disdainful of our Nation's mores and values.

Also, too, it's more important for cyclists to obey the law than drivers becuase if I hit a car, it's likely to be fender-bender which insurance will put to rights, but if I hit a cyclist, they could well die, which would upset me, and potentially require years of therapy.

by oboe on Aug 8, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

@movement

I'll play. In the history of mankind, there has never been a vehicle that caused an accident by running a stop sign. Conversely, 100% of vehicle accidents are caused by colliding with someone or something else.

Do you think that this definition of "cause" is very useful? It seems like there might be room for other contributing factors beyond "the collision happened because two objects attempted to occupy the same space."

It is not the action of stopping that prevents collisions. It is the action to yielding. You can't yield to something that you cannot see and in order to see you have to be moving. As long as you are stopped your field of view never improves.

If you are stopped and actually looking around like you are supposed to, then yes, your field of view improves dramatically. If you drive right through and look in one direction, your view is updating constantly but not necessarily improving.

Forcing drivers to stop at an intersection forces them to at least consider their need to yield. If they stop and pay attention properly, it also dramatically increases their awareness of others in the intersection.

by Gray on Aug 8, 2012 11:16 am • link • report

Surprise surprise...Another 4th string incompetant hired by Gray and his minions after he was forced out of his last job in Georgia because "shocker" he was personally overruling his entire staff and reducing assesments regardless of fact or value.

And then "shocker" DC doesn't vet yet another Gray hire at all and here we are a year later, with this guy costing the District taxpayers almost 50 million dollars in collectiable tax revenue because he lowered assesments for a few "select" developers by nearly 3 billion dollars.

It is really amazing how the improvements to DC governement that took place 2000 and 2010 can all be undone in such a short period of time by one man who makes no bones about striving for the lowest common denominator.

by anon on Aug 8, 2012 11:25 am • link • report

What are the situations where 85% or more of cyclists roll roll through a stop? I suspect its only at intersections with very light auto traffic, good visibility while approaching, and in places where the terrain makes a full stop a momentum killer even for slower cyclists.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 8, 2012 11:31 am • link • report

I was more generally commenting on how when we were debating cameras the anti-argument was generally "the law doesn't reflect the situation, therfore the cameras are illegitimate" and then we have arguments about cyclists that generally say the same. I was anticipating that critique now that we are looking at a camera for a stop sign and people's biggest pet peeve with cyclists is that the "never" stop.

(note, I ride idaho stop style anyway, and want cameras all over the city). But all we'll end up doing is skirt around the issue of its cars/drivers that are capable of the most harm therefore laws should be more stringent compared to laws regarding cyclists.

By recognizing this hopefully we can move past the "but the other mode does it too!" strategy when it comes to contentious issues.

by drumz on Aug 8, 2012 11:41 am • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity
Yes, I can think of a couple examples: 17th & S NW, V & NH NW
I would say 9 out of 10 times I do not have to stop at either of those. And really my only reasons for not stopping are that I can clearly see traffic and there is very little traffic at those intersections. Also, they are on one-way streets so you only have to worry about traffic from 2 points rather than 3.

On many of the crosstown streets (e.g. Q, R) you only have to completely stop at major intersections where there is a light because there is little traffic on the streets you cross with stop signs. Otherwise I just slow a bit and then cruise through if there is no traffic.

by MLD on Aug 8, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

@ AWalkerInTheCity:What are the situations where 85% or more of cyclists roll roll through a stop?

Any intersection in Georgetown, excluding M, WI Ave and Reservoir.

Traffic is quiet (out of rush hour), but always slow.

by Jasper on Aug 8, 2012 11:55 am • link • report

@WalkerInTheCity: "What are the situations where 85% or more of cyclists roll roll through a stop? I suspect its only at intersections with very light auto traffic, good visibility while approaching, and in places where the terrain makes a full stop a momentum killer even for slower cyclists."

You'd be wrong. Go to 2nd and F NE, a VERY busy, intersection during rush hour (cars, bikes, peds). As a pedestrian who crosses that area every day, I'd put the number of cyclists who actually heed the four-way stop sign at that intersection at around 5 percent. Cannot believe there hasn't been more accidents there.

It's gotten about 100 times worse since they installed the CaBi station a block away.

by anon on Aug 8, 2012 12:40 pm • link • report

I think I have a hard time believing that 2nd & F NE is a "very busy" intersection? Where are people going from there? There are other clearly thoroughfare roads nearby.

by MLD on Aug 8, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

I bike through that intersection every day as well.

People do run the stop all the time, but there's good visibility, there are almost never conflicts, and traffic on F St is very light. Realistically, you could just solve the problem by removing the Stop signs on 2nd St and installing some speed bumps to keep speeds down.

For whatever reason, cars/bikes that do stop at that intersection can never figure out whose turn it is to go. I have no idea why it's so bad at that particular intersection, but that always seems to be the way that it is.

by andrew on Aug 8, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

Oh, and I wouldn't put Bikeshare at more than 20% of the bikes on 2nd St during commuting hours.

It's not a busy intersection. 2nd St can sometimes get a bit backed up, but there's virtually no traffic on F.

Now, 2nd & K.... that's a cluster$*#& of an intersection.

by andrew on Aug 8, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report