For metro cars: The Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.

by ah on Oct 5, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

Nice discourse on speed cameras is here. It addresses many of the issues that undermine the legitmacy of automated enforcement.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 9:04 am • link • report

Who the hell is the "Cultural Landscape Foundation?" Sounds like one of Albrecht Muth's dummy corporations he set up to bilk investors.

by monkeyrotica on Oct 5, 2012 9:05 am • link • report

My takeaway from the CLF's listing of Penn (apart from the valid complaint about the planters and maintenance) is that old-timey/vaguely Parisian=good and "modern"=bad. But the street has been there for two hundred years and is a living street...it's not like it was a road that was only important in one particular era and we should preserve how it looked then, it has always been an iconic street. Calling it an "endangered" because it doesn't have whatever look they think would be more appropriate, and despite the street's current liveliness, is a little over the top.

by MM on Oct 5, 2012 9:10 am • link • report

"D.C. would stop publicizing the exact locations of speed cameras—they provoke drivers to slow suddenly, risking accidents—standards for where cameras are located and how speed limits are set would become public and more transparent, and the proceeds from the fines would go into a fund aimed at maintaining the system, instead of being used to close budget gaps."

The problem with both types of camers is there are some very large companies (Xerox among others, now) that are setting up these systems. They are not doing so on a chairtable basis -- they are trying to make money on them.

If anything, we need bigger signs warning of their use and stop using the money to just build more cameras for these companies.

by charlie on Oct 5, 2012 9:11 am • link • report

Re: Tyson's corner.

If the the Corner was dropped shouldn't the area just be called Tyson? Then again in the WTOP story they don't use an apostrophe at all so apparently they don't care.

Note: I realize that it'd still be called Tysons regardless of whatever happened to Tyson and his corner.

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 9:24 am • link • report

"Corner" stopped being an accurate description back when the 123/7 intersection became an interchange -- so why change the name now? "Tysons Corner" has a nice sense of place and connection to the area's history. "Tyson" is a mediocre poultry company.

by Arl Fan on Oct 5, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

I guess nobody told the "Cultural Landscape Foundation" that the battle to preserve historic Pennsylvania Avenue NW (i.e., the part that their web page is talking about) was already fought and mostly lost in the 1960s and early 1970s. What's there now is the result of that, and has about as much history as Burger King.

by iana on Oct 5, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

I don't agree with Brown on very much, but I agree that DC needs municipal garages. Major transit friendly cities like NY, Chicago and even Paris have parking authorities that own public garages in their CBD's near their most popular tourist attractions. DC has left the job of providing garage parking to the public sector and they are not doing a good job especially on nights, weekends and holidays.

by keithdcil on Oct 5, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

One key fact was left out of the Examiner story concerning the history of the "bumpy tiles". WMATA was ahead of the curve when it designed their station platforms to accommodate visually impaired. The texture of the granite edge is different then that of the tiled part of the platform. Prior to the passing of ADA, it worked pretty well, after the passing of ADA, those looking for the truncated domes became unaware of the difference between the texture of the of the granite edge and the rest of the platform.

by Sand Box John on Oct 5, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

iana,

I guess nobody told the "Cultural Landscape Foundation" that the battle to preserve historic Pennsylvania Avenue NW (i.e., the part that their web page is talking about) was already fought and mostly lost in the 1960s and early 1970s. What's there now is the result of that, and has about as much history as Burger King.

No, that's exactly what they're interested in:

http://tclf.org/sites/default/files/microsites/landscape-patronage/pennsylvania-avenue.html

Thirdly, the current Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site is only recognized for contributing historic elements from the 1791 to 1962 period. Later features, most significantly the work implemented by PADC, are not included in this designation. These are unique and nationally significant components of this iconic Washington, DC landscape, and like other periods of development along the Avenue, are an integral part of the Avenue's history.

They cite lots of big name architects and landscape architects for their work along PA Ave - nevermind the fact that a great deal of that work isn't particularly good or noteworthy.

by Pennsylvania 6-5000 on Oct 5, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

Public garages might be a nice idea but that's millions of dollars in capital costs and then upkeep that could go to bettering many other projects. Keep focusing on improving the street parking circulation and keep working on ways to help bring in people to the neighborhoods, with or without cars.

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

I find that having to pay $2 an hour for a parking space means that I almost always can find a space. That way, I don't have to use a parking garage, where it is $8 for the first hour, and up to $25 for longer periods. This encourages me to come to the city, not stay away.

The main effect of $2 parking is that it keeps people from taking a space first thing in the morning and staying there all day, going out periodically to feed the meter. Now, if people are going to be there all day, they might as well use a commercial parking garage, since they're going to pay the same amount anyway.

The only negative is that I have to stash a bunch of quarters and dollar coins in the car. But is that a problem? No.

by Steve on Oct 5, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

See the parts of the country that use the most oil.

I initially read that as "use monorails" and got excited!

by Gavin on Oct 5, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

If parking garages are desirable (and I think at least some might be), I'd prefer to provide some incentive for the many private garages in office buildings downtown to be open on weekends and/or later at night, rather than building new garages. I'd say there's no real shortage of garage parking in the core of the city, it's just that most of it is only there to serve daytime office workers.

by iana on Oct 5, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

What would you decorate a Metro train to look like?

The obvious ones would be:
A metro station
The White House
The House
The Senate
Congress in general
Supreme Court
The Mall
The Zoo
Rock Creek Park
Mt Vernon
Great Falls
cherry Blossom basin
Lincoln or Jefferson Monuments

by Jasper on Oct 5, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

The alternative to WMATA bumpy tiles was called "IRIIS" and I think this is the patent for it:

http://www.google.com/patents/US5838238

Interesting quote in the patent itself (????!!!!): "Any solution proposing platform bumps is expensive based on WMATA estimates to install and maintain such a system".

by B.O. on Oct 5, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Goldfish:

The article in the link does what so many speed camera opponents do: conflate the issue of determination of speed limits with cameras, as if the two are linked. Despite a prevalent conspiracy meme in anti-camera literature, there is no evidence of that.

The 85th percentile "rule" is one of the touchstones of that meme. It's true that this guideline appears in the manual of many state's highway department manuals. It's also clear that few state highway departments pay more than lip service to it, whether or not they have speed camaeras in that state. The manuals set parameters for determining the percentile, they qualify it with the other safety factors the engineers must consider, and they also tell you that localities may determine as a matter of general public policy to have uniform speed limits that generally apply to the certain classifications of roads in certain types of areas, regardless of the 85th percentile. That's certainly the case in DC (as it is in most states), where the default is 25, with higher limits being specifically allowed for certain roads. In those roads only, some type of traffic study is considered appropriate. As a result of all of these factors, the use of the 85th percentile as being a guide to setting speed limits in urbanized areas is so heavily qualified as to be useless.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

charlie wrote:

The problem with both types of camers is there are some very large companies (Xerox among others, now) that are setting up these systems. They are not doing so on a chairtable basis -- they are trying to make money on them.

If anything, we need bigger signs warning of their use and stop using the money to just build more cameras for these companies.

The company thing is quite a red herring. Did you know cars are made by big companies? They are not doing that on a charitable basis — they are trying to make money on the cars. Clearly, that means we should stop having money to go car companies.

Cities want to make streets safer and get people to slow down. They contract with a company that makes cameras. In DC, the company doesn't get more money if they write more tickets. It's just a contractor, like DC contracts out for paving companies to pave streets, light bulb companies for streetlight bulbs, grass seed companies for grass for parks, furniture companies for benches, and so on.

Those are all companies trying to make money on a product they sell to cities. It's good to have many companies making these products and competing, so that cities can choose from a number of products and prices to buy what they need.

by David Alpert on Oct 5, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

I like "Tysons Corner" because it's sort of ironic now, but I think I'd agree that marketing-wise and for people who know little about the place, dropping the "Corner" is better.

by Vik on Oct 5, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

@Crikey: I agree that the 85th percentile is a difficult guide. However, it does roughly identify 'natural' driving behavior. If 85 percentile speed is well above the legal limit for a particular street, this clearly identifies engineering and safety problems, which therefore undermines the legitimacy of automated enforcement. We are all aware of examples of this.

Instead of the 85 prcentile rule, how else do you propose to recognize such problem areas?

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

I have been surprised by the number of stations that still do not have the bumpy tiles at the edge of the platforms after several decades. Yes, the granite edge was designed to provide a cue, both visual and by feel, for the edge of the platform, but the bumpy tiles are much more effective and provide a wider safety zone from the edge of the platform.

In my observations, most people, including those with antsy kids, stay behind the bumpy tiles on the platforms. I think the tiles add a safety zone to keep, not just the visually impaired, but also the general public, especially visitors who are not familiar with Metro systems (ie tourists), further back from the edge of the platform.

It would be interesting to compare the accident rate from people falling on the tracks, getting hit or clipped by the train, at the stations without the bumpy tiles versus those with them. The known suicide and suicide attempt cases should be set aside because the bumpy tiles don't matter in those situations. How often do people get hit on the hands or outstretched arms, injured because their briefcase or something they were carrying was struck by the incoming train? Has WMATA compared the passenger injury rates, normalized for passenger numbers of course, between the stations with the bumpy tiles and those without?

by AlanF on Oct 5, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

@DaveAlpert; last time I checked, they aren't just building cameras, they are operating them, and taking a percentage of the revenue. That is very different.

by charlie on Oct 5, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

Why the need to give someone two warnings for going 6-10 mph over the speed limit? (That's a serious question).

And if going 5 mph over isn't deemed a fineable offense, then why not raise the speed limit 5 mph. I'm beginning to think I have the wrong impression about the meaning of word "limit".

by 7r3y3r on Oct 5, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

In the article re: at-large candidates debate, Beatty is quoted: Beatty said the current rates to buy a parking permit as a resident as well as parking fees at meters were "almost like a war on cars."

Is she serious?!? Because based on that comment, I cannot take her seriously.

An RPP costs $35 per year. I won't comment on parking meters fees -- I rarely use them and don't really know, or really care, what they cost. But reserving residential streets for resident parking and charging a nominal fee for a parking sticker strikes me as municipal support for car ownership rather than a weapon in a war on cars. The slim chance she had of getting my vote has declined to zero...

by rg on Oct 5, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

Lisa Sutter from MPD said they are not getting a percentage of revenue.

They are "operating" them insofar as they have staff who review the pictures and so some processing, but an actual DC police officer looks at each one to be sure it's an actual violation of the law.

The contractor doesn't actually make the decisions about what to enforce, or where they go, and doesn't get more money if they write more tickets.

by David Alpert on Oct 5, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

One Paris rapid transit train is now decorated to look like the Palace of Versailles, giving riders a luxury experience. What would you decorate a Metro train to look like?

I would decorate it to be air-conditioned.

by Scoot on Oct 5, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

The 85th percentile guideline is an attempt to tell trafic engineers that a balance msut be struck between safety concerns and the negative effect of setting a speed too low for the apparent maximum safe speed, as estimated by a target percentile of drivers. Too low, and the number of speeding drivers results in a disregard for the law.

The problem is that we've designed too many roads to seem safe to drive at speeds that are not conducive to other goals. They become unfriendly to bike on, to walk near or even to be too close to. And they overestimate the ability of drivers to guage safe speeds for neighborhood settings.

The answer is not to increase the speed limits. The answer is to calm the traffic, so that drivers feels a lower speed limit is appropriate.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

Well cameras seem like a good way to track problem areas.

The thing is, I too want calmer streets that naturally push down speed limits but I don't think that we can't both have street calming (which takes time and money) and better/more enforcement (via cops or cameras because some people will still drive recklessly.)

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

@7r3y3r: And if going 5 mph over isn't deemed a fineable offense, then why not raise the speed limit 5 mph. I'm beginning to think I have the wrong impression about the meaning of word "limit".

I agree: speeding is speeding. Drivers should be pulled over and ticketed for going 25.01 mph in a 25 mph zone.

Oh wait -- nobody, nobody, NOBODY drives 25 mph on Rock Creek Parkway in front of the Watergate. As an experiment, I did drive 25 on that street for several months. Besides annoying the many drivers that got caught behind me -- some of whom offered threatening gestures -- I got eyeballed by every passing police officer (exceeding the speed limit) whom I presume thought I was chatting away on my cell phone.

So the speed limits are a joke -- nobody really follows them to the letter; there clearly is a 5 mph cushion for enforcement. This undermines their legitimacy.

By dispensing with police officer road judgement, wide use of automated enforcement has exposed the intractable speed limit mess; how the limits are set, and whether a given limit is appropriate.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

@DaveAlpert; OK, thanks for the update.

by charlie on Oct 5, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

I would decorate it to be air-conditioned.

So, perhaps cars with air conditioning could look like igloos.

The vast majority, however, would look like something like the inside of a steel mill.

by ah on Oct 5, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

In April 1997, Robert Peccia & Associates, a Montana-based transportation consulting firm, had presented the Park Service with a traffic safety study of the Rock Creek Park roads—which include Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway (the full name of Rock Creek Parkway), Beach Drive, Broad Branch Road, and all the associated winding streets within the park grounds. Peccia & Associates had found what cops who work the creek already knew: Beautiful, verdant Rock Creek Park is the most dangerous place in the city to operate an automobile.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

We have the cushion of speed limits because of human/technological error. There isn't really a comprehensive fix to it. Camera's aren't going to catch you for a fraction of breaking the speed limit. But there is a limit and cameras (and Police officers) should realize when someone is breaking that limit. Keeping up with the flow of traffic doesn't work in the court room anyway.

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

@drumz: thanks for that answer/response!

by 7r3y3r on Oct 5, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

If 85 percentile speed is well above the legal limit for a particular street, this clearly identifies engineering and safety problems, which therefore undermines the legitimacy of automated enforcement. We are all aware of examples of this.

I always find it odd that the 85 percentile rule excuses pretty much all manner of drivers' misbehavior, and yet, when 85+ percent of cyclists jaybike, or "Idaho Stop", it's proof that they should be denied access to the roads.

Anyone care to explain why this is?

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 11:28 am • link • report

@drumz: We have the cushion of speed limits because of human/technological error.

In the olden days, what was the speed measurement uncertainty -- 2-3 mph? In that case, doubling this to 5 mph gave reasonable certainty that a driver's measured speed was greater than 5 mph over the speed limit, that person was indeed speeding.

Now however, with lidar technology you can be sure that the speed measurement uncertainty is much better. Practical devices read in integer mph values with an error of +1, -2 mph; but the actual errors of such devices are clearly much smaller. So as technology has improved, the "enforcement cushion" should be decreased -- +1 mph is certainly obtainable these days.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:34 am • link • report

@oboe: the 85th percentile does NOT excuse driver behavior; but this speed is well above the legal limit, it does identify road design problems and hence, the legitimacy of enforcement.

IIRC, the 85th percentile speed on Pennsylvania Ave SE is 42 mph (speed limit is 30 mph). I think that is too fast given the number of pedestrians; some changes should be done to the street to lower this.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

I'd like to point out that there's a pretty obvious reason why we don't see automated speed camera enforcement in the places where everyone claims to support it: in the neighborhoods, near schools, near high volume pedestrian areas, etc...

http://dcist.com/2012/08/even_dcs_traffic_cameras_tolerate_a.php

It's because the de facto minimum speed limit in DC is 36 mph. So, the narrow one-way street I live on? You're not speeding unless you're doing 37 mph. The residential street outside my kid's school they're trying to cross in the morning rush hour? The streams of MD commuter traffic aren't speeding unless they're doing 37 mph.

That's the real ****ed up situation here.

Wells and others seemed to stress the importance of the public better understanding why speed limits are what they are.

Yeah, no ****. The problem is that everyone understands that sticking a bunch of cameras at the city line where there are no foot/bicycle traffic is a pure money-making strategy. But no one has ever explained why this is the case. Political leadership would consist of explaining that the 37 mph minimum speed limit is the cause, and using it as a lever to lower the minimum legal speed limit on residential roads. Then moving cameras off the separated highways and into the neighborhoods.

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

You're right that we certainly have the technology to be that accurate. Then you do run into the issue of the human driver who can very inadvertantly drift withing a few mph at any given moment. I don't know what the answer to that is (besides self driving cars).

However, there needs to be something done about the attitude of the speed limit being defaulted at N+5. One of the ways to do it is to enforce the speed limit where its set.

and as an aside, Regarding people preferring a police officer's judgment. I find that to be a red herring because it basically comes down a driver taking their chances on the nature of the cop that pulled them over. That is a bug of how we should enforce our laws rather than a feature. Same as hoping you'll get out of a ticket on a technicality by the officer not coming to court that day.

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

IIRC, the 85th percentile speed on Pennsylvania Ave SE is 42 mph (speed limit is 30 mph). I think that is too fast given the number of pedestrians; some changes should be done to the street to lower this.

Absolutely agree with this. Just saying, it's also evidence that current bicycle laws need to be updated as well...

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

Now however, with lidar technology you can be sure that the speed measurement uncertainty is much better.

That hasn't improved the speed measurement accuracy of the speedometers in cars, however, which can vary by 8% to 10% based not only on their internal accuracy, but on calibration, tire wear, temperature, air pressure, and vehicle weight.

In theory, speedometers are supposed to be set high to account for this error. In practice, it doesn't always work out that way.

by Arl Fan on Oct 5, 2012 11:44 am • link • report

@drumz: Then you do run into the issue of the human driver who can very inadvertently drift withing a few mph at any given moment.

If the speed limit was enforced as a HARD limit, i.e., ticketed for going 25.01 mph in a 25 mph zone, then people would actually drive 20 mph to avoid this drifting problem. This means that genuine enforcement would reduce speeds by about 15 mph (from 5-10 mph over to 5 mph below the limit).

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

Hahaha, so they're naming it after a chicken brand? Excellent marketing strategy!

Planning, design, and layout- wise Tysons Corner is the armpit of the entire Metro Area, and a textbook example of how not to plan an urban area. Not only is the insanely bad traffic the worst in the region, there's absolutely no walkability, and most of the buildings are scattered haphazardly around the area.

The 30 years late Metro doesn't really help if its surrounded by wasteland. I don't understand why anyone would choose to live there over nearby Arlington, or better yet DC, Bethesda, or Silver Spring.

by K Street on Oct 5, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

@Arl Fan: the driver is responsible for her own equipment.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

RE: decorating Metrorail cars

I'd start with cleaning the carpets and fixing the AC in the 5000 series cars before going into any elaborate decorations. That said...how about the Oval Office?

by Clark on Oct 5, 2012 11:56 am • link • report

RE: speed cameras,

"We're very open-minded on this," said Gray's spokesman Pedro Ribeiro on the task force's proposals. "This has never been about revenue, it has been about safety,"
------

Yeah. And I believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

And the Great Pumpkin is coming on 10/31.

by ceefer on Oct 5, 2012 11:57 am • link • report

Then you do run into the issue of the human driver who can very inadvertantly drift withing a few mph at any given moment. I don't know what the answer to that is (besides self driving cars).

Sure, but the answer to that is that you don't drive at 25 mph in a 25 mph zone. In which case 20-25 mph is your cushion. Obviously, that would entail changing the sense of entitlement that says, "The speed limit is the lowest possible speed one should drive--but occasionally people will accidentally exceed it."

Obviously on a highway this is unreasonable. But on neighborhood streets, there should be a zero tolerance policy for speeding. In most residential neighborhoods, *20* mph is too fast, never mind 25-30.

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

If the speed limit was enforced as a HARD limit, i.e., ticketed for going 25.01 mph in a 25 mph zone, then people would actually drive 20 mph to avoid this drifting problem. This means that genuine enforcement would reduce speeds by about 15 mph (from 5-10 mph over to 5 mph below the limit).

Shoot. @goldfish beats me to it, and more eloquently.

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

"The 30 years late Metro doesn't really help if its surrounded by wasteland. I don't understand why anyone would choose to live there over nearby Arlington, or better yet DC, Bethesda, or Silver Spring"

mostly because they WORK in Tysons (or at least one person in the household does) and the short commute is worth it (even under todays poor layout). And of course Tysons is going to be rebuilt - the "wasteland" will be sprouting new developments.

by AWalkerInTheCIty on Oct 5, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report

Anyone who claims they prefer live officers because they can explain the situation is simply not telling the truth. in interviews, officer who issue speeding tickets consistently say they rarely accept such explanations, as indeed they shouldn't. The obvious reason for preferring live officers is that enforcement goes from being a sure thing under cameras to being a rare thing.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report

@Crikey7 -- As a rule, police officers do not pull people over that are driving reasonably. So by the time a motorist is trying to jive an officer, the officer is already convinced that the motorist is out of line. Speed cameras, otoh, to not have such judgement.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report

the driver is responsible for her own equipment.

@goldfish: Absent a practical and reliable way to check the calibration at all times, that's simply not a good rule. Particularly where the enforcement mechanism is automated and the driver is not informed contemporaneously.

by Arl Fan on Oct 5, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report

@Arl Fan: there are radar signs that display speed everywhere.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 12:16 pm • link • report

Not true. I see speed traps manned by live officers on a regular basis. They pull over as they see infractions, and only sometimes is it the worst offenders.

by Crickey7 on Oct 5, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report

RE: "Preferring an officer's judgment." People say this, but what they really mean is that they prefer officers to traffic cameras because:
- Officers prefer to do things other than traffic enforcement because they are more effective at fighting crime
- Officers don't usually pull people over who are travelling "with traffic"
- Officers can only catch one person at a time
- Officers can only be in a few places at once

There's no "judgement." People rarely get out of tickets if they get pulled over in the first place. People just want to be able to drive whatever speed they feel is appropriate and get away with it.

Also, the claims of anti-camera people that we should be focusing more on road design is bogus too - whenever we actually try to talk about road design those same people come out screaming about the "war on drivers."

by MLD on Oct 5, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report

@Crikey7: I see speed traps manned by live officers on a regular basis. They pull over as they see infractions, and only sometimes is it the worst offenders.

Yes, there are speed traps where all the police do is read the radar gun and wave drivers over that are going 10 mph over the limit. Actually since the officers are acting like trained monkeys, this is an argument FOR automated enforcement, because it is cheaper. Obviously this is not the same thing as a patrolling officer pulling someone over.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report

@ Vik:I like "Tysons Corner" because it's sort of ironic now, but I think I'd agree that marketing-wise and for people who know little about the place, dropping the "Corner" is better.

I like "Washington, DC" because it's sort of ironic now, but I think I'd agree that marketing-wise and for people who know little about the place, changing it to the name of the sitting president is better. We could live in Obama, DC!

by Jasper on Oct 5, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

Oboe,

You right.

by drumz on Oct 5, 2012 1:41 pm • link • report

originally tysons corner was the actual intersection of chain bridge and leesburg, not the entire area now called Tysons Corner. That and a general store at that place.

Then with the coming of the highways it became the name of a mall, and of a larger area.

There is no reason, with metro rail coming, and a rebuild of the area, that its name can't change again. Certainly lots of people in Va just call it "Tysons".

by AWalkerInTheCIty on Oct 5, 2012 1:47 pm • link • report

Anyone who claims they prefer live officers because they can explain the situation is white

by sk on Oct 5, 2012 1:51 pm • link • report

@goldfish: Hardly. I've probably driven 100 miles since the last one I passed. And because temperature is one of the things that affects speedometer accuracy, this afternoon's rsults may differ from this morning's.

The sensible approach is to have a buffer of 5-10 mph before enforcement to account for measurement error, speed drift, etc. And if someone chooses to drive 5 mph over to take advantage of the buffer, then they lose that protection if their speedometer also happens to be wrong by a couple mph, and the radar gun is a couple mph off, and they accidentally speed up a little as they go down a hill.

by Arl Fan on Oct 5, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

@Arl Fan: regardless, drivers are responsible for their equipment; speedometer error is not an excuse for speeding.

Driver caught doing 45 mph in a 35 mph zone: "But officer, my speedometer said I was doing 35."

Officer: "Speeding is speeding. Sign here. Good luck at the hearing."

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report

Speaking of red light cameras, I got an automated one today where I am in the right lane, not moving in both pictures, but the car in the left lane is behind in one, in front of the other, but they got my license plate. These aren't being reviewed very well.

by aaron on Oct 5, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

"We're very open-minded on this," said Gray's spokesman Pedro Ribeiro on the task force's proposals. "This has never been about revenue, it has been about safety,"
=====

But it's not about "safety". Because if it was, the speed cameras would be plain sight in school zones and in neighborhoods and commercial areas downtown where safety can be potentially compromised - not hidden behind shrubbery and abuttments on downslopes on interstate-compliant highways built for a safe speed of 70 mph where the speed limit has been arbitrarily set to an artificially low 40 mph.

And the fines would be punitive. And points would be assessed.

But it's not about safety. It's about revenue. It's about trapping people, primarily commuters and tourists and it's about making it difficult and cost-ineffective to fight the tickets.

It's more worth one's while to just pay the fine and forget about it (except to remember where the camera is) because after all a speed camera ticket won't have any long term effect on driving records or insurance. If it did, people would trot down to the court in droves. Some would even hire lawyers. But who is going to take time off from work to fight a $150 ticket when they have nothing to lose but the fine? Many contractors bill more than that per hour.

It's about the money. That's why it's a line-item in the Mayor's budget. That's why collection agencies are contracted to go after those who don't pay under threat of derogatories sent to the credit bureaus. And any claim to the contrary insults the intelligence.

by ceefer on Oct 5, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

But it's not about "safety". Because if it was, the speed cameras would be plain sight in school zones and in neighborhoods and commercial areas downtown where safety can be potentially compromised - not hidden behind shrubbery and abuttments on downslopes on interstate-compliant highways built for a safe speed of 70 mph where the speed limit has been arbitrarily set to an artificially low 40 mph.

Sure, but we've been over this a thousand times. We can't have the speed cameras in front of schools because AAA and the "war-on-drivers crowd" have been successful in preventing the de facto speed limit in residential areas from being reduced below 36mph. DDOT isn't allowed to post a speed limit below 25 mph, and the "cushion" is 11 mph.

Let's lower that to 3 mph, then set the speed limit in the neighborhoods to 20 mph and then putting cameras in the neighborhoods will make sense. As it is now, there's no point in putting speed cameras in the neighborhoods because area drivers almost never "speed". Because speeding is defined as 37 mph.

I think it was Mary Cheh who introduced legislation to lower the neighborhood speed limit to 20 mph--which of course was met with screeches of outrage from various "drivers rights" groups because "no one can drive 20 mph".

by oboe on Oct 5, 2012 5:39 pm • link • report

@Dave Alpert

I don't know what your friend in MPD really knows because it is commonplace for the camera contractor to get a piece of the pie. In MD it is 35 to 48 percent of every ticket, WJLA has reported on it numerous times. In Montgomery County it is 40 percent, and in my hometown in PA it is 35 percent.

I also happen to know a PM from Xerox who has installed a few cameras in the District an while this is anecdotal, indicated her company gets 35 percent of the revenue they create.

Point is, if you were right, DC would be the only jurisdiction with cameras that doesnt split the revenue, and that is highly unlikely.

by Camerasdc on Oct 5, 2012 6:21 pm • link • report

As it is now, there's no point in putting speed cameras in the neighborhoods because area drivers almost never "speed". Because speeding is defined as 37 mph.

Just because that is true doesn't mean it makes sense to put cameras on 295/395. If ped/bike safety is the goal, there's no reason to put cameras on interstates where they are not allowed.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2012 8:22 pm • link • report

Re: Tysons Corner

Dropping "Corner" is just a recognition of what people already do. I work in Tysons and live near there and rarely hear people use "Corner" if they're from around here.

The 30 years late Metro doesn't really help if its surrounded by wasteland. I don't understand why anyone would choose to live there over nearby Arlington, or better yet DC, Bethesda, or Silver Spring.

First off, no one actually lives in Tysons. Correction, about 10K people presently live in Tysons. The reason people live NEAR Tysons is that someone in their household works nearby (Tyson is the 12th largest jobs center in the country) and/or because there are a lot of things within a 20 min drive and if you live in Falls Church or Vienna, you also have metro access.

Also, there is a wide range in personal preferences. Not everyone wants to live in an urbanist area like Arlington, DC or Bethesda.

by Falls Church on Oct 5, 2012 8:30 pm • link • report

AAA and the "war-on-drivers crowd" have been successful in preventing the de facto speed limit in residential areas from being reduced below 36mph.

In other places around the US, people do get ticketed for going 5 mph over the limit. Lowering the enforcement cushion in DC to this level is not radical.

because "no one can drive 20 mph"

I drove 5 mph under the limit in DC for about a year. It is pretty tough. The lights are badly timed for such speeds; the yellows are too long and my driving rhythm was disrupted, causing me to drive "jerky." An evening trip across town that normally takes 15-20 minute would take 25-35 minutes. Yes, driving at such speed cost me a lot of time and decreased my mobility.

by goldfish on Oct 5, 2012 11:43 pm • link • report

It's not the cameras it's the settings. Just like the police in crooked speedtrap towns in Georgia used to pull people over on their way to Florida for going 1 mile over the limit.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 6, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

I drove 5 mph under the limit in DC for about a year. It is pretty tough. The lights are badly timed for such speeds; the yellows are too long and my driving rhythm was disrupted, causing me to drive "jerky." An evening trip across town that normally takes 15-20 minute would take 25-35 minutes. Yes, driving at such speed cost me a lot of time and decreased my mobility.

Sure, but we're talking about neighborhood streets, not Mass Ave. There's not reason whatsoever that anyone should be driving faster than 20 mph off the major arterials (i.e. narrow 1 or 2 lane residential streets.)

As far as light timing goes, perhaps DDOT should reconsider timing the lights for the maximum convenience of folks driving 15 mph over the speed limit. This would have the added benefit of not causing cyclists to hit every single light in succession--which has the unintended consequence of encouraging cyclists to treat red lights as yield signs.

As it is, drivers are encouraged by DDOT to speed in every possible way, from road configuration, to light timing, to non-enforcement.

by oboe on Oct 6, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

@monkeyrotica:
Since your comment was just to question the name of an organization, who the hell is "monkeyrotica, anyway?" Monk-Erotica... Monkey-Rot-ika... So many interesting references! Clever!

Oh wait, I'm sorry. We're not supposed to have ad hominem attacks in the comments, are we? And that was a silly reaction on my part anyway. I take it back. Have a nice day!

by James on Oct 6, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

oboe: Sure, but we're talking about neighborhood streets, not Mass Ave. There's not reason whatsoever that anyone should be driving faster than 20 mph off the major arterials (i.e. narrow 1 or 2 lane residential streets.)

The speed limit on most arterials such as Mass Ave and Independence Ave is 25 mph.

Be careful what you wish for. Before advocating a blanket 20 mph default city speed limit, I suggest you actually drive that speed -- no really, actually drive 20, NO exceptions for when you are late or in a hurry -- for several weeks. As I found out, it is pretty tough to stick to.

by goldfish on Oct 7, 2012 5:12 pm • link • report

@goldfish,

Not sure if you understand the concept of a "default" 20 mph speed limit. This would of course mean that neighborhood streets would be permitted to 20 mph, not that all streets would suddenly become 20 mph. As it is now, DDOT cannot legally post a 20 mph speed limit on normal roads.

by oboeoboeOboe on Oct 7, 2012 11:16 pm • link • report