The other pernicious habit of cabs is dropping/picking up passengers right at the crosswalks. Blocks both other drivers and pedestrians.

Equity Residental's PE is close to 160. Nope, no bubble here.

by charlie on Oct 18, 2012 8:18 am • link • report

If Gray wanted to oppose reducing fines on the grounds of safety, I'd say "valid concern" and cite a couple TRB reports to convince him otherwise. But opposing reducing fines on the grounds of revenue does not exactly send the right message.

by Bossi on Oct 18, 2012 9:19 am • link • report

Re: Gray, you're not helping.

Re: historical landmarking: more evidence that people are abusing the landmarking system. They're saying outright that their concerns have nothing to do with the preservation of the building but the future use of the sites. I can understand the many successes of preservation but again and again the facts of these cases (over buses and street cars no less).

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 9:27 am • link • report

Oddly enough, as far as one can tell, none of the U-turning vehicles in that One Good Wheel blog post seem to be those much-maligned cars from Maryland.

by iana on Oct 18, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

Also, re: pennsylvania u-turns. I look forward to this war of attrition on who caused the first offense a driver or cyclist back in time so we can focus on who to really blame rather than wonder why there is a specific issue on Pennsyvlvania avenue.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

Most recent development has expanded outward of the center, which isn't really the center in DC. The actual center is NW DC. The NE and SE portions of the city are actually the current frontier for development the same way White Flint and Silver Spring have seen a lot more focus on TOD lately. Capitol Heights is probably too far to reasonably see anything before we see some of the potential within the district itself activated. Hopefully the streetcar system will go a long way to contributing there but I would still think it would be a 10-20 horizon before you see interest in the MD side of things there.

by Alan B on Oct 18, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

iana,

Oddly enough, as far as one can tell, none of the U-turning vehicles in that One Good Wheel blog post seem to be those much-maligned cars from Maryland.

It's not that odd when you consider that most are cabs. Anecdotally, I would add that cabs are the biggest users of u-turns in general and in my experience on the PA Ave bike lanes.

Otherwise, at any given time, 2/3rds + of the cars on DC's streets are not not registered in DC.

I expect you'd find the same thing in lots of downtowns, but DC's unique circumstance makes it nice and obvious based on license plates.

by Alex B. on Oct 18, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

Also the whole "maryland drivers are insane" is still a joke. Even on GGW.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

some people who use cabs are also cyclists of one sort or another.

What if we all, whenever we entered a cab, announced "I'm a cyclist, and if you want a tip, please drive in a way that respects cyclists"

If thats too pretentious, how about just initiating an informal discussion with the driver?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

I agree with drumz. The Historic Preservation Office ought to simply toss the application for the Western Bus garage out, based on the comments of the person who filed the application in the article. It is a pretty shameless use of preservation laws.

by William on Oct 18, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

Blaming the u-turns on PA Ave on any one group - cabbies, MD drivers, anyone- isn't going to get anything accomplished. This informal study of the number of illegal turns in just one random half hour makes it pretty clear that the way it is isn't okay, and something needs to be done, whether it's bollards, more enforcement, or whatever.

I urge all of you to go bother your councilmember. I'm going to.

by Jon on Oct 18, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

I think it is very transparent and honorable of Mayor Gray to forthrightly state his view that one of the goals of automatic traffic enforcement is to raise revenue (though I wish he would earmark the revenue toward traffic safety and accident victim compensation).

It has always been a bit silly for some people to insist that (a) the goal of the cameras is revenue while others say (b) it is about safety. The reality is that different people have different goals, and it is rarely clear whether AAA's goal is (c) to ensure that cameras do not make money or (a) promiate safety or both.

The mayor's forthright stance, and that of CM Wells, both make it possible to have an honest debate about the goal of cameras, so that whatever the decision is, everyone will understand why. Both positions are respectable and promote transparency in government. The contemptible perspectives are to say it is about safety while trying to either maximize revenut or minimize revenue.

by Jim T on Oct 18, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

The number of U-Turns on the street indicates to me that there is a demand for a place to execute U-Turns and that people make U-turns without any harm to the public.

So either make u-turns on that street legal, change the streetscape such that u-turns could be made in a more orderly fashion, or put up a concrete barrier to prevent u-turns completely.

by JustMe on Oct 18, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

Jim, the problem with the anti-camera "it's about revenue" argument is that it's usually coupled with a conspiracy theory, the effect of which is to attempt to negate the legitimacy of the safety argument. Safety proponents can accomodate both goals (which I guess makes them safety-plus proponents). It is pretty clearly a net plus for safety, as even AAA Mid-Atlantic acknowledges. AAA's position is nuanced and has valid points to it, but it tends to get drowned out by the part of its message most opponents latch onto, that placement is motivated by revenue.

by Crickey7 on Oct 18, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

@AWITC-There have been a few times when, as I'm exiting a cab, I've said "I would have given you a larger tip, but..." you didn't signal, you were speeding, you cut that guy off, or you passed that cyclist too close. Hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook, and they'll change their behavior.

by thump on Oct 18, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

I do think there is probably some truth to the observation that people from VA and MD drive more aggressively than DC drivers. What are the home streets of DC residents are just the thoroughfares between work and home to VA/MD drivers. Add to it the likely impression that a ticket in another state may be ignored, and you have a nice recipe for antisocial behavior while wielding a deadly weapon.

by TM on Oct 18, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

I think it is very transparent and honorable of Mayor Gray to forthrightly state his view that one of the goals of automatic traffic enforcement is to raise revenue

If it's at least partly about revenue, why are we only focusing on raising revenue from drivers who violate the law. Why not also raise revenue from peds who violate the law? Sure, unlawful peds poise less of a safety threat than unlawful drivers, so proportionally less revenue should be raised from them but there should be some kind of automated enforcement of peds as well if part of the goal is revenue. Everyone should pay their fair share.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

Maryland drivers are aggressive. This is a fact. While we're not totally nuts and irresponsible like NY/NJ drivers, going 10-20mph over the speed limit is the norm, a yellow light means to speed up, and if another driver is doing something stupid he's sure to get honked. Usually MD drivers won't break laws by doing things like illegal u-turns or not stopping at a crosswalk though.

Virginia drivers are very different. It's remarkable how everytime there's someone driving 50mph in the far left lane they have VA tags. I've always wondered if this has to do with the fact that traffic is so chronically bad down there that they're simply not used to driving fast. Also, when I encounter VA drivers in DC they always look lost, especially around the traffic circles in NW.

I would say DC is in the middle, you don't usually see them flying, but they don't play around either.

by King Terrapin on Oct 18, 2012 11:48 am • link • report

Falls Church,

The reason we regulate pedestrians as well is because of cars. We don't need rules about walking in places that are completely pedestrianized. So I'm fine with making sure who is capable of the most damage rather than a misguided application of fairness.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

Capitol Heights is probably too far to reasonably see anything before we see some of the potential within the district itself activated.

While Cap Heights is far in terms of distance, it's not far from the city center in terms of transit time. It takes about 20 mins transit time from Cap Heights to Metro Center. By comparison, it takes 25 mins transit time to Metro Center from the east end of the H ST NE corridor.

The reason Cap Heights is not getting more development attention is due to a lack of safety, not accessibility to the city center. It's not helping that the Mayor's budget doesn't fully fund the Police Chief's budget request.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

RE: Capitol Heights

Why would Prince George's devote its resources to Capitol Heights of all its Metro stations? If you visit the area you would notice that it lacks, the er, "appeal" of other TOD Metro locations in the area. Prince George's should continue focusing on stations like Largo TC, PG Plaza, New Carrollton, and Greenbelt (which has been left languishing despite its excellent candidacy for TOD).

by King Terrapin on Oct 18, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

"If it's at least partly about revenue, why are we only focusing on raising revenue from drivers who violate the law. Why not also raise revenue from peds who violate the law? Sure, unlawful peds poise less of a safety threat than unlawful drivers,"

1. It would be harder even with cams to enforce, and it would be far less cost effective I imagine. Especially if you confined it to ped violations that actually presented danger (not all jaywalking does so, of course)

2. Ped violations present virtually no danger to anyone but themselves.

3. Its not mostly about revenue of course. Revenue is a side benefit - though to some folks an important one.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

@TM

A car is not a weapon. Just because something can be used to inflict pain or harm others does not make it a weapon.

by sk on Oct 18, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

Drumz,

If you're arguing that jaywalking should not be an offense, that's a different argument. Or, if you're arguing that jaywalking fines should never be enforced, that's also a different argument.

However, if we agree that jaywalking should be against the law and that there should be a fine for jaywalking, then why aren't we raising revenue from jaywalkers in addition to speeders? And, don't go back to the argument that fining jaywalkers doesn't improve safety. As the Mayor implied, keeping fines high on speeders doesn't necessarily improve safety but he wants to keep the fines high to raise revenue. Well, if the goal is raising revenue, then jaywalkers are a gold mine.

When a fine is not designed to discourage a behavior because it's designed to raise revenue, then its not really a fine, it's a tax. If we're going to tax drivers, then we should tax peds.

However, if you want to make the automated enforcement program strictly about safety and not revenue, then I completely agree that there is need for jaywalking cameras.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

@Falls Church
If it's at least partly about revenue, why are we only focusing on raising revenue from drivers who violate the law. Why not also raise revenue from peds who violate the law? Sure, unlawful peds poise less of a safety threat than unlawful drivers, so proportionally less revenue should be raised from them but there should be some kind of automated enforcement of peds as well if part of the goal is revenue. Everyone should pay their fair share.

I don't understand, who are these pedestrians who are creating rampant safety hazards? Virtually everyone knows the damage that a car can cause to a person - as a result, the VAST majority of illegal pedestrian behavior like jaywalking happens when it is safe to do so. Not to mention the fact that a lot of it happens because we prioritize cars over pedestrians even in places where pedestrian traffic is higher.

We pick our enforcement battles where it is cost-effective to do so:
Automatic enforcement of speeding/red light running: easy (license plates) and cheap (cameras)
Automatic enforcement of pedestrians: difficult/nigh-impossible (how would you identify someone to send them a ticket) and cheap (cameras)

There are plenty of places where we are redesigning roads for lower speeds, and redesigning roads for pedestrian priority. But we can't do it everywhere at once - we don't have unlimited resources. Automatic enforcement of cars is cheap and effective, why should we not use it?

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report

Why would Prince George's devote its resources to Capitol Heights of all its Metro stations?

Because of its proximity to DC (it's right on the DC border), which also means it's close to high paying jobs. If PG could clean up the area and make it a suitable place to live for professionals with jobs downtown, it would boom.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report

"As the Mayor implied, keeping fines high on speeders doesn't necessarily improve safety but he wants to keep the fines high to raise revenue."

did he actually imply that? He said that in places where cameras will be kept anyway, the fines should not be reduced. He did NOT say, IIUC, that cameras should be added or kept in places where they do not materially help safety. You may think there are places where they exist where they do not do that, but the Mayor did not say that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report

Also, they do enforce jaywalking - I have several friends who have gotten tickets. They have all been in places where there is a ton of jaywalking, because the pedestrian signals don't make sense in relation to where traffic is coming from and how much traffic there is.

E.g. the intersection of 14th St/Park Rd/Kenyon St in Columbia Heights - people jaywalk there constantly when it is safe to do so because the signals say "don't walk" even when it is patently clear to anyone who is at the intersection that there is no danger from traffic.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

Ped violations present virtually no danger to anyone but themselves.

So, if speed cameras had no safety benefit, would the Mayor get rid of them? I think the answer is "no" based on what he just said. What the Mayor implied was that even if there was no safety benefit to higher fines, he would want to keep the fines high to collect additional revenue. Maybe he wouldn't keep the fines as high if there was no safety benefit, but he clearly implied that he's willing to set the fines higher than needed for safety purposes.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report

@King Terrapin-I'm sure your list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but you forgot W. Hyattsville which is crying out for TOD.

by thump on Oct 18, 2012 12:12 pm • link • report

"If PG could clean up the area and make it a suitable place to live for professionals with jobs downtown, it would boom."

The cost to transform an area, especially to reduce crime in an area adjacent to (surrounded by?) other high crime areas, is going to be rather high compared to making improvements in places (like Hyattsville, etc) that have less marks against them, even if they are further away.

Note the transformation of neighborhoods in DC rarely (never?) happened as the result of the DC govt making a concerted effort to clean up the area around a particular metro station - it happened mostly because of the spread of people from adjacent areas as prices increased. Where DC made a concerted effort to clean up an area - take Near SE as an example -there were already strong adjacent areas (Cap Hill in that case) I think the same is true in most other cities and counties.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report

He said that in places where cameras will be kept anyway, the fines should not be reduced. He did NOT say, IIUC, that cameras should be added or kept in places where they do not materially help safety.

He basically said that he wouldn't lower the fines even if there was no safety benefit from higher fines because the city needs the revenue. I agree he didn't say anything regarding camera locations because that wasn't the question. The question was about the proposed bill reducing the level of fines.

The Mayor said nothing about opposing the bill due to safety concerns. He only opposes the bill due to the impact on revenue.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 12:16 pm • link • report

"So, if speed cameras had no safety benefit, would the Mayor get rid of them? I think the answer is "no" based on what he just said. What the Mayor implied was that even if there was no safety benefit to higher fines, he would want to keep the fines high to collect additional revenue. Maybe he wouldn't keep the fines as high if there was no safety benefit, but he clearly implied that he's willing to set the fines higher than needed for safety purposes."

I think theres a difference between "the enforcement mechanism is there for safety but the level of the fine is determined by revenue needs" and "The enforcement mechanism is there for revenue needs". The hypothetical ped cams you suggest are only equivalent in the latter case, not the former.

Lets take a further thought experiment. Its possible that lower fines could generate MORE revenue - because drivers might shrug off low fines, while not doing so with high fines (ie the demand for speeding my be price elastic). In that case a pure revenue focus might be to keep the cams with lower fines. Would you object to that because it shows a revenue rather than a safety focus?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report

"So, if speed cameras had no safety benefit, would the Mayor get rid of them? "

I have no idea. However since there is a safety benefit, I dont see the need to either impose cams for peds, or to eliminate the cams, because of what the mayor said.

There are folks in Virginia who oppose cutting certain defense programs because it will cost jobs in the commonwealth. That does not mean that those programs are not beneficial to defense, or that they should be cut, or that those who advocate for them on nat security grounds are all liars. It means that politics is the art of coalition building, and that coalitions are built for projects and policies using both the principle benefits, and the side benefits.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report

lets be clear - your earlier post

"If it's at least partly about revenue, why are we only focusing on raising revenue from drivers who violate the law. "

was not about mayor Grey. The folks who find it at least partly about revenue, include a great many people other than mayor Grey. Now its possible that to Mayor Grey its ONLY about revenue - in which case you might suggest to Mayor Grey that he advocate for ped cams (you will still have to show how you ID the peds correctly - perhaps you could require they wear license plates on their backs, as some want for bicycles). However to GGW commentors who support the cams, almost all of whom AFAICT are quite concenred about safety, that argument doesnt really apply.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

" Photo enforcement brought in an estimated $80 million in 2010 and the mayor's proposal to expand the program is expected to generate an additional $25 million.

But Gray insisted the cameras were about public safety, not revenue..."
----

And I also believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

by ceefer66 on Oct 18, 2012 12:27 pm • link • report

Are there laws about "driving" in the left lane in Maryland?

After delivering a beautiful rant about highway driving to a young co-worker, he gave me a ride to a Metro station and did several of the things I hate. The top two were not maintaining a speed and how much he used his brakes for no reason and driving slow in the left lane. I asked him about it and he said he does it a lot and didn't understand the lines that formed behind him. Since he's currently in school in Pennsylvania, I asked him if he ever noticed the signs that are even more common (and law) about using the left lane. His response was "Yes, but that's Pennsylvania not Maryland."

@King Terrapin: It seems more common for drivers from from father out suburbs of VA to drive in the left lane on highways. The rural portions of the state were against making it a law mostly because they wanted more space to drive their tractors and farm vehicles on narrower roads, but they're some of the best about observing keeping to the right highways. All bets are off on secondary roads though. Driving on the shoulder (whether one exists or not) appears to be much more common in Maryland.

by selxic on Oct 18, 2012 12:27 pm • link • report

@selxic

Great story. I don't think anyone even teaches people about good driving habits any more.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 12:38 pm • link • report

@ selcix:It seems more common for drivers from from father out suburbs of VA to drive in the left lane on highways.

I think they may be related to the fact that Virginia has a annoying boatload of "right lane must turn right" signs up, which make driving in the right lane a rather scary, especially when you're in unknown territory.

It seems Virginia is the only place with so many of these signs. Don't know why. It's one of the many weird traffic things in VA.

by Jasper on Oct 18, 2012 12:39 pm • link • report

I think theres a difference between "the enforcement mechanism is there for safety but the level of the fine is determined by revenue needs" and "The enforcement mechanism is there for revenue needs".

There isn't really a difference. The enforcement mechanism IS the fine. That is, you can put up all the cameras you want, but if you set the fine at 1 cent, there is essentially no enforcement.

I have no idea. However since there is a safety benefit, I dont see the need to either impose cams for peds, or to eliminate the cams, because of what the mayor said.

We're not talking about eliminating cams. The bill would not do that. The bill under question would merely reduce fines.

In that case a pure revenue focus might be to keep the cams with lower fines. Would you object to that because it shows a revenue rather than a safety focus?

Yes, I would. Call me crazy but I actually believe in the importance of ped/bike safety and I don't think a few extra dollars of revenue is worth compromising safety. In the long run, the improved safety would pay for itself in your scenario because it would encourage more walking, TOD, development, etc.

However to GGW commentors who support the cams, almost all of whom AFAICT are quite concenred about safety, that argument doesnt really apply.

The bottom line is that DC's camera program will always be mired in controversy and political opposition unless it is made 100% about safety. So, if you care about safety and the expansion of the camera program, you'll make it an explicit policy of the program to only locate cameras and set fines with the goal of safety in mind.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

Blaming the u-turns on PA Ave on any one group - cabbies, MD drivers, anyone- isn't going to get anything accomplished.

Actually, I'd argue that cabbies frequently drive as though they're immune to traffic regulations.

The taxi drivers in this city are insane, dangerous, and aggressive. For some reason, they never seem to get ticketed for it.

by andrew on Oct 18, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

Also, if the legal structure already exists for us to have speed cameras and red-light cameras, why can't we stick a DPW employee on Pennsylvania Ave with a digital camera to capture these guys in the act, and mail them a ticket for it?

Yeah, it'd be hard to automate a camera that detected people making illegal U-turns through the bike lanes. However, you could easily justify the costs of putting a human on the street if they'd be able to generate ~50 citations per hour just by snapping some photos.

It wouldn't stop the problem immediately, but if we've already deemed other methods of enforcement to be impractical, Dave Salovesh seems to have proved that it's pretty easy to just snap some photos.

by andrew on Oct 18, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report

"There isn't really a difference. The enforcement mechanism IS the fine. That is, you can put up all the cameras you want, but if you set the fine at 1 cent, there is essentially no enforcement."

the discussion however is about lowering fines to $50, not to 1 cent.

"We're not talking about eliminating cams."

you suggested (as a rhetorical device) putting cams up for peds, where none now exist. that suggests to me that the issue is cams vs no cams. If cams are going to exist anyway, and the question is 50 dollar fines or higher fines, I do not see how the ped cam thing relates.

"Yes, I would. Call me crazy but I actually believe in the importance of ped/bike safety and I don't think a few extra dollars of revenue is worth compromising safety. In the long run, the improved safety would pay for itself in your scenario because it would encourage more walking, TOD, development, etc."

Very good, but I suspect most people who complain about traffic cams would be delighted to have the lower fines.

"The bottom line is that DC's camera program will always be mired in controversy and political opposition unless it is made 100% about safety."

AFAICT all traffic cam programs are mired in controvery and political opposition, period.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

I think articles like this are pointless. Why? Because they simply illustrate one issue while simultaneously ignoring an equally as troubling one. Everyone is an equal opportunity offender. I also think a little perspective might be in order.

According to DDOT’s traffic volume maps, that section of PA avenue gets 30,000 vehicles per day. Lets assume that half those vehicles are during a rush hour period of 3 hours (1.5hrs in the morning, 1.5 hrs at night). That means 5,000 vehicles per hour travel PA avenue right there during that time of day, or 83 per minute. So in the 30 minutes you sat there, you saw 2500 vehicles go by, and 25 of them did a u-turn, or 1%.

I work in Penn Qtr and as I frequently do on nice days I took my sandwich outside and sat on a bench, this time at the intersection of Pennsylvania and 7th a bit ago at 11:30. Having read this article this morning I sat there for a total of 12 minutes making an anecdotal count myself.

In the 12 minutes I sat there munching on my leftover chicken sandwich I watched a total of 19 cyclists bike pass on the PA Ave Bike lanes. 16 of them ran clear red lights while crossing 7th. Not, amber “just turned yellow”, but full on “had been red for some time” lights. Two did as they should, and stopped and waited for the green and the last (going east on PA) did some weird thing where he cut over into the west bound traffic lanes at 7th and proceeded to bike the wrong way down PA avenue all the way to 6th and PA Ave.

So of the 19 total cyclists in the PA Ave bike lanes, 90% of them broke (not bend, broke) clear traffic laws putting them and everyone else in danger. This does not include the 4 cyclists I witnessed going north/south on 7th across PA Ave, all of which did so against the light.

In complete fairness during that 12 minutes, I also witnessed 2 cars perform a u-turn across the bike lanes and another do a strange left on red and some woman trying to win the worst mother of the year award by pushing her infant in a stroller across PA Ave as fast as she could between lights while 6 cars had to come to uncharacteristly abrupt stops to avoid her.

So again, I ask what is the point of this subjective finger pointing?

by PaAve on Oct 18, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report

So again, I ask what is the point of this subjective finger pointing?

The point is to ask attention for the fact that traffic law gets broken all the time. By everyone. And that if we want safer traffic, we need to start learning the law, and obeying it, even if that costs a whopping 30 seconds.

We should also point fingers at MPD for not doing any enforcement. Why not send a few cops on the street and let them enforce crap like this. Just set them on the same bench as you with a camera and let them write fines for all the broken laws they can keep track of. No need to halt drivers. Just take a picture, and send the fine home. Bikers and pedestrians can be stopped.

by Jasper on Oct 18, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

AFAICT all traffic cam programs are mired in controvery and political opposition, period.

It's not just the cameras. Considering that when I suggest that people drive at the speed limit I proceed to get lectured on how the speed limit isn't fair, that's somehow more dangerous, its actually a cyclist's fault, and that I'm restricting their freedom of movement suggests to me that the problem would persist even if we had robocop on traffic enforcement.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

"I watched a total of 19 cyclists bike pass on the PA Ave Bike lanes. 16 of them ran clear red lights "

I was riding the 15th street cycle track the other day, and I noted over half the cyclists (not counting myself) obeying the red lights (despite the absence of cross traffic on a quiet weekend day). Is there something different between PA Ave and 15th, or was it just the luck of the draw?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 1:18 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Shhhh! Simply driving in the right lane can often get me places faster in northern Virginia because the lane is often empty on a few stretches of 50, 66, 95, 495, 395 and the 395 HOV lanes.

In all fairness, there are areas I regularly drive in Maryland where traffic patterns aren't quite as predictable, but I will stay over in the right lane. People often get over to the left to avoid traffic exiting(!?) although there may not be significant entering traffic and they are just slowing down the left lane by shifting lanes a lot.

by selxic on Oct 18, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

"25 of them did a u-turn, or 1%.

I watched a total of 19 cyclists bike pass on the PA Ave Bike lanes. 16 of them ran clear red lights "

so comparable in magnitude number of violators - going by these numbers the higher proportion of cyclist violators is offset by the larger number of automobile violators (and Im guessing you did not check for speeders).

I am guessing the danger to others per violation was higher for the motor vehicle violators than the cyclist violators.

I would say that suggests the need for a greater focus on motor vehicle violators than on bike violators.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report

If MoCo wants to encourage not driving to Walter Reed, an important thing is to give realistic options. There are a lot of Walter Reed people living in the Silver Spring are (its between the two campuses). The main bike route to the new WR site requires the Georgetown Branch trail and Jones Bridge Road or Wisconsin Ave. JBR is not very bike friendly (fast and narrow, and the sidewalk is not adapted for bikes). The GBT has been long neglected, and is threatened with being closed to bike if and when the Purple Line is build.

If the goal is to get people to Walter Reed without cars, improvements to bike routes is a very cheap option.

by SJE on Oct 18, 2012 1:27 pm • link • report

@Awalkerinthecity,

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. From the two subjective studies we've seen today, cyclists were far and away the worst offenders in terms of percentage.

Yes, the OP saw 25 vehicles, but that was out of 2500 that passed during that same period.

And I see people trying to equivocate away these things by invoking some weird "well, yeah, I broke the law but when you did it was "MORE" dangerous than when I broke it. This is pure claptrap.

The cyclists (nor vehicles) don't break laws in a vacumn and assume all the risk themselves. When a cyclist decides to ignore red lights, they frequently (as was clearly witnessed earlier) then force others to avoid them. Cars have to swerve, jam on their brakes to avoid the cyclist and in fact I saw a car nearly swerve into a northbound circulator bus. The driver u turns in a PA Ave bike lane, hits a cyclists, one is injured. A cyclist runs the red, forcing 4 to six lanes of traffic (~a dozen vehicles at any given moment) to avoid them. Now you tell me, what is causing the most danger to the most people?

I saw 17 break the law, this was out of 19. Pretty significant. Did the OP see 90% or 2250 vehicles break the law during the 30 minute observation? I doubt it, if for no other reason than breaking the speed limit is a cyclists typical first retort, and it is pretty hard to break the speed limit on PA avenue during rush hour.

by PaAve on Oct 18, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report

Well I knew it would happen anyway but at least it took 50 or so comments for someone to say "but cyclists break laws too!" in reference to a story about a specific move made by cars that specifically puts cyclists in danger because of the inherently dangerous flaw at these intersections.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

"Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. From the two subjective studies we've seen today, cyclists were far and away the worst offenders in terms of percentage."

I am talking absolutes, not percentages. Absolutes matter in terms of priorities for enforcement.

As for your issue with drivers swerving to avoid cyclists running lights - when I rode on 15th street, while several cyclists ran reds, NONE involved drivers swerving or stopping sharply to avoid the cyclist. The cyclists were running the red when there was no approaching auto traffic. Its my experience (mostly in the suburbs) that cyclists who run reds mostly do so when they see no approaching auto traffic, precisely because they want to avoid danger to themselves. I find the notion that 90% of cyclists would make moves exposing themselves to considerable physical danger like that to strain credulity. Since you are not merely posting anonymously (as am I) but under a handle I have never seen here before, I don't really know what to do with your subjective report.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

If cams are going to exist anyway, and the question is 50 dollar fines or higher fines, I do not see how the ped cam thing relates.

Ped cams (or if that's not technically feasible, a concerted effort to derive more revenue from jaywalkers through greater enforcement or higher fines) is relevant because if we're going to have speed fines set at a higher level beyond what's needed for safety just to raise revenue, we should also set jaywalking fines (or level of enforcement) beyond what's needed for safety, to raise additional revenue.

AFAICT all traffic cam programs are mired in controvery and political opposition, period.

Because they are viewed as existing for the purpose of raising revenue, not improving safety. Not even ceefer66 opposes cameras for the purpose of improving safety and he even suggested in a different post that cameras should be installed at Washington Circle to improve safety.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

The last thing I will offer on the subject is a link to DDOT's study of PA Ave Bike lane usage, safety etc located on sheet 11 of a Bike Facility Evaluation DDOT did in April of this year. Feel free to read all of it, but one intersting nugget is below:

"Cyclists understand how they are supposed to
behave at the intersections, but frequently do not
comply. All surveyed cyclists understood that they
should follow the through-traffic motor vehicle
signal. However, the video data revealed a high
violation rate. In the observed data, an average
of 42 percent of cyclists arriving on a red signal
violated the signal, though this varied substantially
by intersection and by cross street volume. This is a
high violation rate compared to the data in the few
published studies available on cyclist compliance
with bicycle-specific traffic signals and is very high
compared to motorist compliance."

http://dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/On%20Your%20Street/Bicycles%20and%20Pedestrians/Bicycles/Bike%20Lanes/DDOT_BicycleFacilityEvaluation_ExecSummary.pdf

by PaAve on Oct 18, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

" because if we're going to have speed fines set at a higher level beyond what's needed for safety just to raise revenue, we should also set jaywalking fines (or level of enforcement) beyond what's needed for safety, to raise additional revenue."

1. I don't get the "should". We "should" add taxes that get the most revenue net of admin cost, with the most added side benefit, and the least side negatives. Its quite possible that keeping fines above $50 for traffic violations does that, but for jaywalking does not.

2. even if I agreed with your view of consistency, its still "only" Mayor Grey who has said the fines should be higher for revenue.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

"In the observed data, an average
of 42 percent of cyclists arriving on a red signal
violated the signal, though this varied substantially
by intersection and by cross street volume."

that seems much closer to my experience than to yours.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

BTW, PAave, to follow on what Drumz said, how does this argue for not dealing with the problem of U turns?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 2:25 pm • link • report

The cost to transform an area, especially to reduce crime in an area adjacent to (surrounded by?) other high crime areas, is going to be rather high compared to making improvements in places (like Hyattsville, etc) that have less marks against them, even if they are further away.

Cap Heights doesn't need to be transformed to do well. Crime just needs to be brought down to the level of neighboring Deanwood/Shrimp Boat levels. Look, I'm clearly biased as I own a property walking distance from that metro but I honestly believe Cap Heights is a better place to invest than Largo, given the prices that are available today.

There's a shortage of housing within walking distance of metro stations and every jurisdiction would benefit from a concerted effort to make sure that the housing near their metro stations is safe enough for middle class professionals. It should be safe enough to walk home in the dark from the metro to your home wearing clothes that would be appropriate for a federal job -- and I'm talking about just making it safe enough for "longtime residents" not even safe enough for "newcomers". That's all that's needed for now. It's a small investment with a big return.

by Falls Church on Oct 18, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report

Plus if I can reasonably guess that someone will try to U-turn then yeah I'm going to enter the intersection during the clearing period to get the jump on them, because at least then I'm putting distance between me and someone who may not even know I'm there despite the world's biggest hint of putting bike lanes in the middle of the roadway.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

Thats the point Awalkerinthecity,

We differ in that one of us sees a problem, and the other doesn't.

We have 1% of the overall daily vehicluar traffic doing this.
While I am not ignoring there is "an" issue there, I don't really think 1% ( which is likely a of something that has resulted in what...1 accident in the past couple of years is really something egregious enough to worry about.

Especially considering we ackowledge that a whopping 42% of cyclists in the same bicycle facility violate the signals.

Seems to me one issue is a solution looking for a problem, and the other is a serious issue. 42%? Wow!

by PaAve on Oct 18, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

Except cyclists don't routinely injure people and cause traffic snarls.

But again, its pointless to debate on who's worse because that doesn't actually do anything except make you feel good. Let's actually talk about how we can make the PA. avenue bike lanes safer by reducing illegal u-turns. We can do this through more rigorous enforcement or reworking the problems intersections or both.

We can do this in order to stop all these dangerous law breaking cyclists. So if you have a specific suggestion then please feel free otherwise you complaining about people you see running red lights won't really get you anywhere.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 2:47 pm • link • report

PaAve, I don't think casual violation of signals by bicyclists (effectively, treating red light signals as stop signs) is a "serious issue," and no one else does, either.

Of course, I don't think that harmlessly making u-turns on a wide street is a serious issue, either, as long as it doesn't impede traffic.

by JustMe on Oct 18, 2012 2:47 pm • link • report

It's possible to believe that both of these things are legitimate issues.

Also, 1% is a GIGANTIC number if we're talking about something that endangers lives.

If the brakes didn't work on 1% of our buses, we'd have a pretty big problem. Sure, not all of the buses would crash right away, but that's no excuse to ignore the problem.

One percent is a lot.

by andrew on Oct 18, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report

PaAve: I get the impression that you really don't like bikers. Generally I think this has some combination of causes:

1) "I am angry that bikers do stupid, unsafe things!" This is a totally valid opinion! As a cyclist myself, I am also angry that some bikers do stupid, unsafe things. But I think what you are really angry at is people who do stupid, unsafe things, and not specifically bikers. Two weeks ago I got hit by a car who ran into me as I approached an intersection in a bike lane because they were in too big a hurry to check the road around them before swerving to turn right. Do I hate all drivers because of that? No! Because it would be dumb to assume that all drivers are so callous. Similarly, please don't assume that all bikers are so callous as to be blatantly putting others in danger. "42% of bikers running lights" is not the same as "42% of bikers darting into traffic making people slam on brakes". 42% of bikers don't have a death wish. Probably closer to that 1% number you keep bringing up.

2) "I am jealous that bikes can break the law but I can't!" This is probably 90% of the real rage toward bikes. People are mad that THEY have to wait for a green light but the BIKE doesn't have to, they can just cruise through without getting a massive fine! Life is unfair! Ok, how about this: It's often actually SAFER to go through an empty intersection against the light - but only as long as the biker has ensured that they absolutely will not be crossing in front of a car with right-of-way. I'd estimate that the 42% number comes from people who almost all stop, wait for a clear intersection, and then cross, safely. This is not some safety epidemic that is, as you claim, a "serious issue".

If a bike rides out in front of oncoming traffic and gets creamed, they had it coming. If a bike is in the Pennsylvania Avenue lanes and gets creamed by a U-turning taxi who doesn't give two hoots about bikers, the biker didn't bring that on themselves. I don't really see how the two are related, outside of both being dangerous actions. I would argue that biking through an empty intersection is not equivalent.

by Andrew on Oct 18, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

Andrew nails it.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 3:16 pm • link • report

So maybe only 1% of drivers broke the Uturn law, but I can guarantee you 100% of them violated the speed limit. If you're going to frame the argument as "who breaks the law more" drivers still lead the pack.

by MM on Oct 18, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

One obvious thing that rarely gets talked about is the fact that signals are timed for the express purpose of moving auto traffic along PA Ave in the most convenient way possible. This of course means that cyclists in the cycletracks are going to be hitting every single red light as the ride down that avenue.

As a thought experiment, let's recalibrate the lights so that they're timed to permit a cyclist riding at 12 mph to avoid ever getting a red light, and we'll see what happens to compliance among drivers.

It's kind of amusing really: DDOT does everything humanly possible to ensure that their traffic signals dovetail with the natural behavior of drivers, and drivers pat themselves on the backs because they manage to comply at higher rates than pedestrians and cyclists (for whom every step or pedal stroke is a struggle against the existing enforcement mechanisms.)

by oboe on Oct 18, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

Andrew nails it.

Yup.

by oboe on Oct 18, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report

We're still stuck in the old image of DC as a car-centric city where walkers and bikers need to thread their way trough carefully. In fact, like most large cities and European cities, walking and biking is the new norm, at least in the "old city" or center city. Most use transit which makes walking necessary, or walk without transit. Add the vast new number of bikes and cars are now the transportation mode that needs to be reminded the streets are no longer theirs and they need to thread carefully through the walkers and bikes. It creates resentment by those who primarily drive but it's just the way it is now.

For example, 15th Street NW by me used to be a mini-freeway north. Now it has the bike track, is getting more elaborate pedestrian crossings, has left turn lights, and a speed limt of 30 (still too high). OTOH 14th by me has pedestrian crosswalks that are ignored by cars and a bike lane used by cars turning right. Even though there are thousands of people walking there every night and hundreds of bikes using 14th. Car traffic hasn't been tamed there and is dangerous.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 18, 2012 4:44 pm • link • report

and yes, my pet traffic peeve is cars thinking the bike lane is also a right-turn lane on all streets. It not only endangers bikes but also drivers like myself who stay clear of the bike lane to turn right only to have another car pull up beside me in it to turn right. I'm sure there are a lot of accidents from this.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 18, 2012 4:54 pm • link • report

Andrew nails it.

Yup

It's kind of amusing really: DDOT does everything humanly possible to ensure that their traffic signals dovetail with the natural behavior of drivers, and drivers pat themselves on the backs because they manage to comply at higher rates than pedestrians and cyclists (for whom every step or pedal stroke is a struggle against the existing enforcement mechanisms.)

...and YUP!

Exactly what I think everyday on Q St. on my way home from work. "Wouldn't it be great if these lights were set for bikers." I leave 15th and have to stop at 14th, or if I do squeak by 14th, at 13th or 12th NW. Then I have to stop at RIA. Then I'm stopped at 9th. Then at 7th (though sometimes you get through). Probably won't make the light at 6th and for sure won't make NJ Ave. I've never been able to take a left at 1st Street without stopping.

I've tried going more slowly and WAY faster than normal, but haven't been able to get through more than two lights thus far.

PaAve- It's super easy for those of us that bike (especially daily commuting) to spot people that don't. It's really tough to take you guys seriously, other then I can feel my blood pressure rising, b/c practically speaking, you don't understand what we face. We hear things like "blow through red lights" and laugh to ourselves (or punch walls in frustration). I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist "blow" through a light, if ever. I've seen plenty of slowing, and checking, and going through, but not a whole lot (ie. any) of straight disregard for life and limb. I've said it before and I'll say it again. My #1 priority is getting home safe and sound. I'm not a car, and I'm not a pedestrian. I occupy some middle ground and the rules of the road don't adequately reflect that. Thus, I have no problem breaking rules that may put me at greater risk. If breaking those rules "saves" me some time, even better. If I can go through a red light in order to get some distance between me and the wanna-be Dale Earnhart driving a mini-van behind me, I'm going to do that.

by thump on Oct 18, 2012 4:59 pm • link • report

SJE,

"The GBT has been long neglected, and is threatened with being closed to bike if and when the Purple Line is build."

"Long neglected"? One could suggest that "neglect" is what has allowed that right of way to become a trail used by bikers in the first place.

On your second point, the trail is planned to be improved concurrently with the construction of the Purple Line - it will not be closed.

by Chad on Oct 18, 2012 5:03 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris -

The proper legal way to turn right when there is a bike lane is to put on a blinker, merge into the bike lane when it is clear, and make your turn from the bike lane. Turning from the car lane through the bike lane is both illegal and dangerous.

by Jon on Oct 18, 2012 5:05 pm • link • report

"Because they are viewed as existing for the purpose of raising revenue, not improving safety. Not even ceefer66 opposes cameras for the purpose of improving safety and he even suggested in a different post that cameras should be installed at Washington Circle to improve safety."
----

Correctamundo!

and I also think they belong in school zones and on those streets where we see "deaf person" signs.

NY Avenue east of Blandensurg Road, East Captol Street under 295, Independence Ave, SE, 395 and 295 are another story.

by ceefer on Oct 18, 2012 5:13 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris
and yes, my pet traffic peeve is cars thinking the bike lane is also a right-turn lane on all streets. It not only endangers bikes but also drivers like myself who stay clear of the bike lane to turn right only to have another car pull up beside me in it to turn right. I'm sure there are a lot of accidents from this.

You are supposed to merge into the bike lane before turning right. You are the one doing it wrong.

The bike lane is a LANE like any other, you are not supposed to just turn across it, you are supposed to look for traffic, merge into the lane, and then turn.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report

The only exceptions are the PA Ave/15th Street lanes where they are protected separately by bollards and have protected/signalized turns across them.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 5:29 pm • link • report

From someone who's actually dealt w/DC Council legislation: Gray is absolutely correct to note the issue of the revenue loss that is inherent in the Cheh-Wells traffic bill.

For a bill to be enacted, it needs to have a clean fiscal impact statement from OCFO. The Cheh-Wells bill can't get one b/c by forsaking revenue, it means it will have a negative fiscal impact of millions of dollars (my back of the envelope math is between $10-15 million a year in lost revenue).

Which means the bill won't go anywhere unless Cheh and Wells identify how they will make up for that lost revenue.

Option 1: Identify revenue from somewhere else to offset the loss (highly unlikely given the amount involved).

Option 2: Pass the bill subject to appropriations and then identify the money in the FY 2014 budget. Which means trying to put this bill on the Council's budget "wish list" and trying to move it in front of the 20 or so other items that are already on the wish list (highly unlikely social welfare advocates will support money going to this rather than to social welfare programs).

So, to conclude, we have a bill introduced after a whopping 3 or 4 semi-public meetings, which will have a significant revenue loss on the city, and which can't be enacted without addressing that revenue loss.

So Gray was quite correct in noting his concerns about the revenue loss. When you're building a budget and are factoring in close to $100 million from speed/red light camera fines, that's all you need to know about the program.

by Lurker on Oct 18, 2012 6:21 pm • link • report

Well that explains why so many people move cars into bike lanes, but it seems to make bike lanes less important if they're also right turn lanes for cars.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 18, 2012 7:43 pm • link • report

@Drumz

Routinely injure people? Aren't we being a little hyperbolic? How many cyclist have been injured by u turners on PA Ave bike lanes? I did a quick google and I saw one cyclist injured on PA Ave in the past 2 years since the bike facility opened. At 30K vehicles a day thats 2.2 million vehicles and zero have been struck on the PA Ave bike lanes by someone doing a u turn and 1 have been struck in general. Thats .0000004 %

Reasonable people would agree that someone that happens .0000004% of the time really isn't a big deal.

@Andrew,

Why is it that when someone disagrees with the idea that 42% of people violating the law isn't a joke, they are labeled "some angry bike hater". I believe in GGW ideals, I don't own a car and ride metro to my Penn Qtr job every day.

I disagree when everyone flaunts the law be that a driver, cyclist, or criminally insane mother running her infant child across the street against her signal. I fear that you've resorted to the tried and true method of argument when you've lot the intellectual highground...self obsessed disregard.

@MM, Again I challenge you to find a vehicle on PA Ave during rush hour (which his was) that is physically able to break the speed limit with the crushing volume of traffic on it.

And we come to the crux of the matter. DDOT counted 160 cyclists per hour on the PA Ave bike lanes, we will assume thats over a 10 hour period, or 1600 people a day. Thats 768,000 cyclists over the past 2 years Folks here say that 42% of the cyclists openly violating the law is no big deal because no one, or few people got hurt doing so.

If this is a true and valid rationale, then it also has to be valid for drivers who do the same thing. If 1% of ~2.2 million people (22,000) can make a u turn and not cause an accident, then by this rationale, it is just as permissable and safe as the 42% of the PA Ave cyclists violating traffic laws.

The low count of actual accidents comes from a variety of reasons. A lot of drivers were paying keen attention, many more swerved or braked in a way that avoided an accident, and there was simply luck.

As I stated above in my observations, more than a handful of vehicles had to brake, swerve etc to avoid hitting the cyclist that ran the red at 7th street. The same is certainly true for cyclists. They aren't hurt more because of a mixture of awareness, avoidance and luck

by PaAve on Oct 18, 2012 9:22 pm • link • report

Cool, I'm all for keeping the convo about the u-turn problem rather than figuring out who whether its all these scofflaw cyclists who are the real problem. That's a much more productive discussion than trying to prove that cyclists are a bigger danger on the roads than cars because they break the law more often or whatever you want to figure out to support that premise.

So yeah, why does the fact that you've seen cyclists run red lights do to make sure that people aren't making u-turns on pennsyvlania avenue and cutting people off in the bike lanes?

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 10:16 pm • link • report

I'm gonna have to grab a chicken sandwich and picnic out at 7th and Penn next week, because PaAve's story sounds a little hinky. 7th is wide and busy; because of street architecture and the hill on 7th North of Penn, it's hard to predict where a vehicle may be coming from. Also, it isn't unusual for bikes to turn on to 7th (which requires waiting for a left turn signal anyway). For all those reasons, I wouldn't expect bikes to run red lights at that intersection at lunchtime at all, let alone run them 19 times. Some jackass might do it. But PaAve's apparently found a whole herd of migratory jackasses.

My sister and I biked the length of the PA lanes at lunch today; maybe we rode right past PAave. We followed the rules, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary, including at 7th Street.

I don't care about the Jackass that meets his end in the Penn Quarter cyclectrack; but I do care about the fact that a U-turning cab driver could hurt my sister as she's safely riding down Penn. Ave. I wish we could talk about THAT. How can be actually fix THAT problem?

by Steven Harrell on Oct 19, 2012 12:25 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris
Well that explains why so many people move cars into bike lanes, but it seems to make bike lanes less important if they're also right turn lanes for cars.

The reason you should move into the bike lane before turning is to prevent conflicts. Bikes can use both the bike lane and the regular lane - if there is a car in the bike lane waiting to turn they should wait behind it or pass to the left if it is safe to do so. Having cars move to the right makes turning behavior more predictable - if you move to the right I know you are going to turn and so I know to either wait or pass you to the left. If you just drive straight in your lane while slowing down I have no idea whether it is safe to keep going my speed and pull up beside you/pass you on the right, or whether you are about to turn in front of me.

by MLD on Oct 19, 2012 8:09 am • link • report

Chad: speaking with MoCo people who were planning the Purple Line, there was clearly an expectation that the trail WOULD be closed during construction. Even for minor work they have closed the trail in the past.

As for neglect: the trail is not in anywhere near the state of the CCT on the other side of Bethesda, and lacks clear markings to get there from Silver Spring. Trees blocked the trail for weeks after the Derecho. What are you talking about?

by SJE on Oct 19, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

Well now I understand the rule on right-turning a car by moving into the bike lane. Thanks.

It may be good to publicize this as there's a lot of confusion and obviously many car drivers think that bike lanes can also be car lanes even when not doing a right turn because they see cars moving into the bike lane so often. When I ride my bike I see cars constantly weaving in and out of the bike lanes, not just for right turns.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 20, 2012 11:46 am • link • report