@Barry Farm

Have any developers indicated interest in this project? Assuming they go for the max of 900 market rate units, that would put the overall neighborhood at ~32% public housing, which would likely be a huge benefit to the residents there. Shame Saint E's is going to take another two decades to develop.

by Nicoli on Sep 7, 2012 8:49 am • link • report

It's important that everyone follow the rules of the road.

But on 5th St NW btwn NY Ave and RI Ave hundreds of cyclists have made the north-bound bike lane essentially a contra-flow lane because NJ Ave and 6th St NW/Rt 1 are so incredibly hazardous by comparison for cyclists (and peds) -- even when going with the flow. (Despite the motorists/parents who ignore reasonable traffic speeds when trying to get out of the daily traffic morass around the KIPP DC Shaw Campus.)

A 6th St NW/Rt 1 protected bike lane will allow more cyclists to safely follow the rules of the road and avoid getting tickets.

Image of cyclist going south on one-way north-bound 5th St NW: http://ccca-online.org/sites/default/files/bikesouth.jpg

http://ccca-online.org/6thStCycleTrackNOWPlease

by @ShawingtonTimes on Sep 7, 2012 8:54 am • link • report

Barry Farm redo: Again the city is turning over all 26 acres to a SINGLE developer. Same error they are about to do with the SW water redevelopment.

Why not sell single lots or chunks of lots and break this up? That is what makes a city a city: varying buildings symbiotically make a neighborhood.

Minor point to Dave Alpert: you turned off html bolding?

by goldfish on Sep 7, 2012 8:57 am • link • report

goldfish: I did; some people suggested that in the thread about how to improve comments. (Should I turn off red as well? :) )

by David Alpert on Sep 7, 2012 9:00 am • link • report

@ShawingtonTimes

Luckily, there is a plan to turn NJ Avenue into a two-way street with bike lanes:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15729/new-jersey-avenue-will-become-2-way-with-bike-lanes/

by MLD on Sep 7, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

RE: Stop Sign Cameras

Has there been any clarification on whether the cameras will only enforce motorists or will they also detect & enforce bicyclists?

RE: Elevated Walkways/Bikeways

For what it's worth, I recall Tokyo having these when I lived there way back in 1999. Commercial frontages weren't at ground-level anymore, but rather they fronted into the elevated sections on their 2nd or 3rd story. Fancier buildings had dual-lobbies: one at ground level for VIP arrivals and a more conventional lobby at the elevated level.

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2012 9:14 am • link • report

Speaking of Klein, it appears that the team of Klein and Kubley are in a bit of trouble in Chicago with how they handed (I mean handled) the bidding and award of their bikeshare system. So much so that the city is neck deep in lawsuits and the deployment of the system has been put off atleast a year.

by anon23 on Sep 7, 2012 9:15 am • link • report

@David Alpert: no please leave it available the commenter to choose color. (Editing my comments here has taught me a little of html formatting.)

by goldfish on Sep 7, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

Goldfish,

I agree, unfortunately that adds a degree of complexity to the bidding process and you could still run the risk of someone buying a plot and sitting on it (and we know how loath the city is to tax these vacant plots to try and get something built).

Barry farms is going to be tough to redevelop anyway because even though its right next to a metro its also sandwiched between a rail line (soon to be streetcar though) and the intersection of two highways. So the risk of that wonderful symbiosis not happening is that much higher.

by drumz on Sep 7, 2012 9:21 am • link • report

@drumz: the main issue here is to eliminate "the projects" stigma. Once that is gone, I think developers will recognize the awesome strengths of the location -- easy and quick drive to downtown, near Metro and beautiful parks, great recreation opportunities, etc. -- and develop with vengeance (as they should).

by goldfish on Sep 7, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

Agreed, which may be one reason to go with a single developer since they can focus on it being a big shiny project that will attract people because we like big shiny projects.

I still agree that all things equal, small lots are better but I can follow the logic of either side.

by drumz on Sep 7, 2012 9:43 am • link • report

@drumz: I also think there is a danger of giving a single developer too much. Particularly for Barry Farms, this RFQ is developer welfare.

Too much control over such a large area is a local monopoly and is bad for a city. It leads to design regimentation. If several builders were selected, they would compete with each other, which would add zing to the street.

Off course is it easier for the city to turn it all over to a single outfit, but we don't pay our city contract officers to take the the easy way out.

by goldfish on Sep 7, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

London is considering elevated bike highways. The highways could use old railways and might even require tolls.

There is a massive practical problem here. Do they really expect bikers to stop on an uphill slope, take out their wallet, touch an Oyster pole, and then continue uphill to the elevated track?

That is never going to work.

Tolls are bad. Always.

by Jasper on Sep 7, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

What about the new "hidden" speed cameras on the SE/SW Freeway and Anacostia (DC-295) Freeweway?

The first, has a speed limit of 40 MPH, which is absurdly low for such a wide, straight highway. I understand that during high traffic times the weaving can be dangerous, but the way the camera is installed (hidden behind an overpass), the absurdly low speed limit it is not about safety.

I set my cruise control to 40 MPH as soon as I cross the 14th St bridge into DC, and *that* is a traffic hazard. Anything higher and you will get the flashes.

Now on the DC-295 while I am against the nature of where the camera is placed - this road has no shoulders, and a higher speed limit. Again, one of those new smaller speed camera boxes, again hidden behind an overpass, but the speed limit is 45.

How long until there is any public anger about the SE/SW camera?

by Rick on Sep 7, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

Re: SHA-I understand their problems with ROW, but I still don't think SHA gets at all how to deal with the inner ring suburbs. Could lane width be reduced? Could a lane be removed? It looks like this stretch of WI Ave sees between 35-40K vehicles/day. I don't go up that way anymore, but I remember WI Ave being pretty high speed, and I wouldn't want to walk/ride right next to it.

Re: Lainier and tickets-I'm assuming the tickets to cyclists and pedestrians were given by actual officers. I'd like to know what the number of tickets given out by actual officers is to drivers. I'd like to think that number reflects the percentage of drivers and cyclists/pedestrians using the roads, but my guess is that actual officers rarely issue tickets to drivers now, instead relying on the cameras.

Re: Walk/Bike Friendly-I snorted at work when I heard that on NPR yesterday afternoon. It must really suck to be a cyclist or pedestrian everywhere else. Also, the comments on the Post make me alternately want to cry and punch someone in the throat.

by thump on Sep 7, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

Can we just have a blanket ban on complaining about the speed cameras on 295/395/695? Every time the word "camera" is written on this site it turns into a circular shouting match about how this or that camera means every camera is an indefensible assault on my liberties. It's tiring and nobody here is setting the camera policy.

How long until there is any public anger about the SE/SW camera?

If you want to generate some public anger, then write to your council members and the mayor and DDOT and Lanier and rally some other people to do the same. Complaining about it in the GGW comments is unlikely to get you anywhere.

by MLD on Sep 7, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

Has there been any clarification on whether the cameras will only enforce motorists or will they also detect & enforce bicyclists?

Unless the cameras come equipped with a net to catch and hold cyclists, I'm not sure how the system would mail a ticket, no matter how well-deserved it might be, to a person riding an unregistered bicycle with no license plate. Facial recognition software?

by dcd on Sep 7, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

Your summary of the Examiner article doesn't quite capture the incompetence of the DC Board of Elections staff in handling Inititative 70. Assuming the Examiner's reporting is correct, individual staff there used different standards to evaluate the same petitions -- this implies that there is no clear standard for evaluating these petitions and raises serious questions about DC's ability to process any and all ballot petitions, not just this one.

by grumpy on Sep 7, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

@dcd-

Ahh yes, good point- hadn't thought that through all the way :)

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2012 11:28 am • link • report

@thump:

Re: Lainier and tickets-I'm assuming the tickets to cyclists and pedestrians were given by actual officers. I'd like to know what the number of tickets given out by actual officers is to drivers. I'd like to think that number reflects the percentage of drivers and cyclists/pedestrians using the roads, but my guess is that actual officers rarely issue tickets to drivers now, instead relying on the cameras.

I have never, nor do I know of anyone, who has ever gotten a ticket from an MPD officer. Ever. I'm sure tickets have been issued, probably following a collision. And on very, very rare occasions I've seen MPD do a perfunctory sting operation in a crosswalk in a residential area.

As far as the SE/SW freeway goes, 40 is perfectly reasonable given the fact that that stretch of roadway is essentially one big tangle of on-, off-ramps and merging.

(And, no, "anything over 40" will most certainly not trigger the camera. You need to be doing at least 50 mph.)

by oboe on Sep 7, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

@Oboe; we've had this argument before. That last cite I could find was several years ago in the 50K range. clearly part of the move to cameras is freeing up officiers from traffic duties.

And in terms of 295, the camera will go off at 41 MPH. As MPD has now stated, to prevent too many challenges they won't usualy ticket unless it is 10 MPH.

But since you bike everywhere I guess you don't knwo what cars actually do.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2012 11:45 am • link • report

It's tiring and nobody here is setting the camera policy.

I believe that D Alpert is on the camera policy committee.

Agree that the highway cameras need to go. DC should focus its camera program on ped/bike safety. There is no huge demand from drivers for cameras on driver-only roads.

by Falls Church on Sep 7, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

IMGoph-style neighborhood name kvetch: Comments, NB - it is not Barry Farms, it is Barry Farm. Singular.

by Dizzy on Sep 7, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report

@ MLD,

"Can we just have a blanket ban on complaining about the speed cameras on 295/395/695? ... It's tiring and nobody here is setting the camera policy...If you want to generate some public anger, then write to your council members and the mayor and DDOT and Lanier and rally some other people to do the same. Complaining about it in the GGW comments is unlikely to get you anywhere."
---

You're right.

Complaining here at GGW where many if not most of the posters and commenters support the speed cameras, are often intolerant of those who don't, and are highly unlikely to even consider changing their point of view, is a waste of time and effort.

I have a better idea. Virginia and Maryland commuters (especially Maryland commuters who are prime target of DC speed cameras) should start hounding their members of Congress in both the House and Sentate with letters, phone calls, and emails. All it will take is ONE sufficiently lobbied/harrassed/ticked off Congressmember to say "Enough!" and get Congress to take a hard look at DC's "photo enforcement" tactics.

Congress approved the intial funding of the traffic cameras back in 2002. I'm not sure if Congress still funds the cameras, but it's not much of a stretch to imagine Congress stepping in and putting a halt to what is frankly "photo enforcement" run amock.

Anyone who thinks I'm wrong should take a moment to remember how Congress has consistenly intervened in DC affairs. Like with the DC gun laws. And the needle exchange program. And abortion funding. And the forced death penalty referendum. Can we all say "Control Board"?

At the rate DC is acting out on its addiction to "photo enforcement" revenue (it's actually become a line item on the Mayor's budget), I expect the traffic cameras to be severly reduced if not killed outright within a couple years.

And that would be too bad because red light cameras are a good thing. So are speed cameras, when they're actually installed for safety reasons.

by ceefer on Sep 7, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report

You're right all it does is take one cranky congressman and they can do whatever they want to DC. Anyway interesting point there. Didn't GGW just write about how a District voter's vote is supposed to matter?

by singleton on Sep 7, 2012 5:45 pm • link • report

Your'e right. A District voter's vote is supposed to count.

But Congress has the last word. Reality bites. And I'm just the messenger.

by ceefer on Sep 7, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report

News about the initiative's mishap exposed something interesting about the government. So the initiative has already been useful, in an unexpected way.

But it also looks like the initiative's crew did not get suitable legal advice. They trod barefoot on the thorns. It makes their case more poignant now, but it also makes you wonder, how could they ever have succeeded?

by Turnip on Sep 7, 2012 10:09 pm • link • report

That last cite I could find was several years ago in the 50K range. clearly part of the move to cameras is freeing up officiers from traffic duties.

Sure, but if you'll remember, there was no way of telling how many of those were tickets issued to people following accidents (which is standard procedure), or after apprehending criminals; or were issued following a routine traffic stop--which, as far as I know, has never happened to anyone ever. The idea that too much of MPD officers' time is spent pulling over drivers and ticketing them for crosswalk violations, or the like, doesn't pass the smell test.

And in terms of 295, the camera will go off at 41 MPH. As MPD has now stated, to prevent too many challenges they won't usualy ticket unless it is 10 MPH. [S]ince you bike everywhere I guess you don't knwo what cars actually do.

Actually I drive quite a bit (not as much as most Americans, obviously, but I'm in the car at least every other day). I've also driven past that camera at between 45 and 50 mph, and have never triggered it (based on a visible flash).

Are you sure your claim that "the camera will go off at 41 MPH" is based on real-world experience, and not just something you "know" to be true?

by oboe on Sep 9, 2012 5:20 pm • link • report

anon23, it appears that the team of Klein and Kubley are in a bit of trouble in Chicago with how they handed (I mean handled) the bidding and award of their bikeshare system. So much so that the city is neck deep in lawsuits and the deployment of the system has been put off atleast a year.

That might be overstating it.

The city is being sued by a rival bidder and that bidder blames Klein, that part is true - but I doubt that suit will win and it looks like they're wrong about Klein being to blame since the City Council awarded the contract. Unless you think that the City Council does as Gabe Klein tells them to do.

Nor is that the reason for the delay. “Rather than rush to get the bikes on the street … we are looking to launch in the spring so we can ensure that we do this right, and have the infrastructure and planning fully in place so the program is a success from Day One,” Scales said in an e-mail to the Chicago Sun-Times.

by David C on Sep 10, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

ceefer, Virginia and Maryland commuters (especially Maryland commuters who are prime target of DC speed cameras) should start hounding their members of Congress in both the House and Sentate with letters, phone calls, and emails.

Well, I actuallys support making the fines and speed limits more rational then they are, but when I read something like this, it makes me irrationally happy to think of all the out-of-staters paying $125 tickets.

by David C on Sep 10, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

I will be "irrationally happy" when Congress puts and end to the speed camera nonsense - and they eventually WILL. [Deleted.]

by ceefer66 on Sep 12, 2012 8:26 am • link • report