Greater Greater Washington

DDOT bows to pressure, removes Wisconsin Ave. median

Last week, DC officials quietly reversed their recent traffic calming project in Glover Park and began removing a new median on Wisconsin Avenue.


New left-turn lanes in Glover Park. Photo from DDOT.

With the Glover Park ANC's support, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) replaced one lane on Wisconsin between 35th and Garfield streets with a painted median in January to calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety. However, a number of residents who drive through Glover Park, including Councilmember Jack Evans (Ward 2, including Georgetown), pushed to reverse the move.

DDOT previously said their plan was to leave the median in place long enough to study it, but in the face of pressure, the agency suddenly began removing the median between Calvert and Garfield streets. Drivers struck 2 pedestrians each year in this stretch between 2008 and 2010. DDOT spokesperson Monica Hernandez says the change is "permanent" and that "the plan is to monitor pedestrian safety going forward."

Community supported median on Wisconsin Avenue

ANC 3B, which contains Glover Park, endorsed the median after a long vetting process. In June 2009, DDOT and its consultants at Toole Design Group recommended replacing one through lane with a center left turn median lane. Studies from the Office of Planning and DDOT found that it would increase pedestrian safety, calm traffic and direct it to the commercial strip by removing turning cars from the through lanes.

While DDOT originally proposed a raised median, ANC 3B advocated to start with painted medians so DDOT could study their effect and make changes if needed. After multiple ANC meetings and ample discussion on the Glover Park listserv, DDOT finally completed the painted median in January. Some neighbors immediately began to question the new median's impact on local businesses and whether it had just pushed traffic onto other streets.

Despite some complaints, most Glover Park residents agreed that the new configuration made it safer to move around Wisconsin Avenue, whether by car, foot or transit. The Glover Park ANC was also supportive, though they advocated for continued study and tweaks to reduce congestion.

Political pressure trumps collecting data

DDOT offered to study traffic delays for a year and look at ways to change the light timing, signage and enforcement to reduce congestion, but opponents said that was too long to wait.

Evans kept pressure up on the issue, including railing against it at public forums. He made regular phone calls to Councilmember Mary Cheh (Ward 3, which includes Glover Park) while driving through the area, which he traverses several times a day to take his kids to and from their home in Georgetown.

When DDOT presented preliminary results of traffic studies showing that the median only added 1-2 minutes to driving time, Evans was incredulous. "If we were talking about just a couple minutes, we wouldn't be here," he said.

Last week, DDOT quietly began removing part of the median. The agency made this decision without telling residents of Glover Park or ANC 3B. DDOT spokesperson Monica Hernandez says they acted based on "direction provided by those at the May 1 hearing."

ANC members are disappointed in DDOT's change of heart. "It's outrageous that DDOT would make this change without considering its impacts on pedestrian safety and traffic flow and without consulting with the community most affected by the modifications," said ANC 3B chair Brian Cohen.

Cohen also says Evans' involvement shifted the decision from safety-focused to political. "The change from data-gathering to simply reversing DDOT clearly happened when Councilmember Evans inserted himself into the issue," said Cohen. "Jack Evans hasn't shown the slightest interest in the well-being and safety of the people who live, work, and play in Glover Park. ... It's galling that he's been given carte blanche to make decisions that undermine pedestrian safety in our community."

The Wisconsin Avenue median was the result of extensive study, community discussion, and eventually community buy-in. It's disappointing that DDOT would subvert its own process and put pedestrians at risk based on political pressure. Glover Park residents deserve better treatment from their officials and elected leaders.

Abigail Zenner is an Associate in Government Affairs at the American Planning Association. She is a member of the Ward 3 Vision Steering Committee and often described as a professional parking nerd. When she's not nerding out about smart growth, you may find her teaching a fitness class. Her blog posts represent her personal views only. 
Ken Archer is CTO of a software firm in Tysons Corner. He commutes to Tysons by bus from his home in Georgetown, where he lives with his wife and son. Ken completed a Masters degree in Philosophy from The Catholic University of America. 

Comments

Add a comment »

It was almost comical to listen to Jack Evans complain that he never takes Reno Road to pick up and drop his private school attending daughter because of there being too many stop lights. So he takes Wisconsin and expects an unimpeded drive, twice a day. Sad that DDOT would cater to this clown.

Oh, is he running for Mayor?

by fongfong on Jun 3, 2013 11:15 am • linkreport

Boy, I am glad those engineers at DDOT are licensed and have advanced degrees.

Is DDOT serious that they are making this change based on a few people turning out at a Council forum? Why not count the thousands of people who didn't turn out because they were ok with it.

Maybe we can get other changes by flooding Ms. Hernandez email with our little pet projects? Oh wait, we aren't Jack Evans. Nevermind.

by William on Jun 3, 2013 11:16 am • linkreport

When DDOT presented preliminary results of traffic studies showing that the median only added 1-2 minutes to driving time, Evans was incredulous. "If we were talking about just a couple minutes, we wouldn't be here," he said.

Yeah, I think it more likely that a person's perception, rather than DDOT's study, is inaccurate. I've noticed that people tend to exaggerate the affects of a change to the point where their feelings become fact in their mind even in the face of contrary evidence. (Mostly because people hate change, but that's another story.) I used to think speeding through the city would get me to my destination much quicker. Then I started going the speed limit and noticed that I got across town within a few minutes of my previous drive time but without the anxiety and frustration that I used to feel every time I had to slow down because I caught a light or was behind someone going slow (read: going the speed limit). There's something to be said about keeping calm.

by 7r3y3r on Jun 3, 2013 11:32 am • linkreport

If I'm working at DDOT, now I'm going to think twice about implementing other traffic calming projects since this one got quickly reversed. That's the real sad part about this.

by Jared Christian on Jun 3, 2013 11:47 am • linkreport

I think that there were more than a few people who didn't like this. Evans is like Darth Vader to the GGW crowd, to Ken especially and it it is easy to simply say he was 100% responsible, but reality tells us that isn't true.

Also, this is a stretch of road of just over half a mile (.6) according to google, so adding 2 minutes to that trip for every vehicle on that street is pretty significant.

And this made me laugh

"Maybe we can get other changes by flooding Ms. Hernandez email with our little pet projects? Oh wait, we aren't Jack Evans. Nevermind."

You mean like when GGW did exactly that to get the streetcar funding restored?

People love public outreach and involvement, until the opposing side has more of it.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 12:26 pm • linkreport

A vocal minority wanted to put the median in, and a vocal minority wants to remove it. Welcome to DC.

by Scoot on Jun 3, 2013 12:29 pm • linkreport

"Maybe we can get other changes by flooding Ms. Hernandez email with our little pet projects? Oh wait, we aren't Jack Evans. Nevermind."

You mean like when GGW did exactly that to get the streetcar funding restored?

People love public outreach and involvement, until the opposing side has more of it.

Well you have one situation where a transportation project that has been studied, funded, and partially built was all of a sudden struck out over night.

On the other hand you have a situation where DDOT studied, funded and did construction for the explicit goal of making a street safer and had the ancillary effect of not really affecting the speed of traffic and now the whole project is a big waste because some people (including a CM) "feel" as if they can't go super fast on Wisconsin Ave(because it was so easy to drive down before).

Yeah, totally the same.

by drumz on Jun 3, 2013 12:32 pm • linkreport

I guess this is some of the insightful public policy we can get used to more of if, god forbid, Evans is elected mayor.

by Joe on Jun 3, 2013 12:33 pm • linkreport

A vocal minority wanted to put the median in, and a vocal minority wants to remove it.

DDOT and the ANC wanted to put the median in, and then study the effects for a year to determine whether to remove it or tweak it.

A vocal minority wanted to skip the studying and just remove it, with no backup plan for protecting the 2 peds per year struck on that part of Wisconsin.

by Ken Archer on Jun 3, 2013 12:33 pm • linkreport

It's galling that he's been given carte blanche to make decisions that undermine pedestrian safety in our community."

It's even more galling that DDOT caved to political pressure instead of basing decisions on the safety and well-being of all road users.

by thump on Jun 3, 2013 12:42 pm • linkreport

Reason #528 to vote against Jack Evans - no matter what offic ehe's running for. Does a new traffic light configuration slow down Jack as he drives from his house to his Safeway? Jack lobbies to get it changed to make his trip faster (and everyone else's slower). Someone slowing down Jack's drive from his house to his kids' school? Jack gets the roads reconfigured to make his trip fast, and everyone else's more dangerous. So, a few kids get killed because of Jack? F_ck 'em. They're not Jack's kids.

by Paula Product on Jun 3, 2013 12:44 pm • linkreport

Ken, it was in for 6 months. They quantified the effect it had on traffic (adding 2 minutes) to a .6 mile trip.

It isn't Mandarin, 6 months is plenty of time to see if it is working or not.

And lets be honest here...anyone with a shred of deductive ability would have known that taking the lane from a stretch of road that sees more than 18,000 vehicles per day wasn't going to have an significant negative effect.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 12:51 pm • linkreport

Ken:

The reason this issue is an issue at all is because the ANC wanted to direct car traffic to the struggling retail strip in Glover Park, and then asked the Office of Planning to look into how that might be done. Did it not? Evans is a shady character for sure, but let's not pretend that the median is something that most residents in the area would care about or have any significant opinion as to whether or not it should be implemented. We're talking about two small groups of people engaged in a political tug of war, not Jack Evans vs. the world.

by Scoot on Jun 3, 2013 1:04 pm • linkreport

I just read Ken's thing in full above. 2 whole ped's a year are hit along this stretch?

Ok, assuming 18K vehicles per day, 240 days a year (we will ignore all vehicle traffic on weekends to make a point) comes out to 4.3 million vehicles per year.

So the odds of getting hit by a car along this stretch is 1 in 2 million.

The odds of someone getting struck by lighting is 1 in 280,000.

Are we really saying there is a significant issue with something when your chances of getting struck by lighting are 7 times greater?

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 1:19 pm • linkreport

Despite several large apartment buildings, this section of Wisconsin Avenue between Wisc/Calvert and Wisc/Mass has noticably less pedestrian activity than the Glover Park commercial section of Wisconsin Avenue. The unsignalized intersection at Wisconsin/Fulton, however, is a bit hazardous for pedestrians and it seems that vehicles often do not yield to pedestrians here and there isn't a good line-of-sight for drivers going north on Wisconsin Avenue prior to this crosswalk because it is at the top of the hill.

I think that the District Department of Transportation should have waited until both the Cathedral Commons development a half-mile north on Wisconsin Avenue and the Tunlaw Road/37th Street street improvements would affect both pedestrian activity and vehicle traffic prior to reverting back to the previous lane configuration. It is possible that the Cathedral Commons development (with the new restaurants and expanded supermarket) will generate more pedestrian activity, extending to this section of Wisocnsin Avenue.

by Glover Parker on Jun 3, 2013 1:19 pm • linkreport

@Huh?

This is people killed. Not all people hit by cars are killed. Plenty more just get broken bones, concussions etc.

The point is not simply that less people will be hit/killed (they will) it is that more people who live/work/play in this area will be willing to come to this stretch as they FEEL safer. We should be prioritizing roads like this for people who live/work/play here, and not simply commutters (be they DC/MD/VA) residents who simply pass through.

by Kyle-w on Jun 3, 2013 1:26 pm • linkreport

Time to raise the speed limit on this stretch because it's unfair to keep it artificially low because instead if we want drivers to go slower we should wait for traffic calming.

Rinse. Repeat.

by oboe on Jun 3, 2013 1:33 pm • linkreport

" just read Ken's thing in full above. 2 whole ped's a year are hit along this stretch?
Ok, assuming 18K vehicles per day, 240 days a year (we will ignore all vehicle traffic on weekends to make a point) comes out to 4.3 million vehicles per year.

So the odds of getting hit by a car along this stretch is 1 in 2 million"

shouldnt the denominator be the number of people crossing the street? you're not calculating the chance of getting killed, but the chance of killing someone if you are randomly selected driver.

by EveryoneShouldDriveaCivic on Jun 3, 2013 1:34 pm • linkreport

@Kyle-w:

Hey, as long as speeding traffic makes it intolerable for anyone to walk anywhere in the city, things will be much safer for pedestrians. No peds, no problem!

by oboe on Jun 3, 2013 1:35 pm • linkreport

Everyoneshoulddrivecivic.

Ok, then tell us how many people cross the street and we will go from there.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 1:42 pm • linkreport

I regularly see MD commuters drive down my one-way street at 30, 35 mph. The parents here live in fear of having their children run over, and every month someone ploughs into a parked car, but, hey, you know what? No one's been killed yet.

Therefore, it's not a problem. (I guess quality of life doesn't mean much, heh.)

by oboe on Jun 3, 2013 1:48 pm • linkreport

The point is not simply that less people will be hit/killed (they will) it is that more people who live/work/play in this area will be willing to come to this stretch as they FEEL safer.

Well, put. Frankly, how many have died is a stupid metric.

by oboe on Jun 3, 2013 1:48 pm • linkreport

So do I have this right?

We can't use speed cameras to slow traffic because its unfair to drivers driving at the "design" speed. We should re-design the road.

So then we re-design the road to reset the "designed" speed but that gets rejected because it SLOWS traffic.

by JeffB on Jun 3, 2013 1:51 pm • linkreport

I dont know. You would have to ask DDOT, or the ANC. I'm merely pointing out that your back of the envelope analysis isn't even getting at what you think its getting at.

Which itself is not necessarily the right way to do cost benefit analysis. I would think its the value of time (1 minute times the number of vehicles, more or less) compared with the value of lives losts, and other costs related to accidents, on the other hand. As a first pass.

A more sophisticated CBA would also include the increase in walking that would take place when traffic is calmed.

Determining that might well take time, and a view of all seasons, so that may be why DDOT wanted a full 12 months - and its not something one could get simply from deductive reasoning.

by EveryOneShouldDriveACivic on Jun 3, 2013 1:52 pm • linkreport

Oboe, considering DDOT's very accomodating nature in installing speed bumps on residential streets wherever, whenever they are wanted, one would assume you and all the parents on your street who apparently live in fear, would have requested some.

3 residents on the street adjacent to mine wrote one letter, made two phone calls and 6 weeks later, two speed humps were installed.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 1:52 pm • linkreport

JeffB

well these planners shouldn't impose their urban standards on what is essentially a suburban area.

Oh wait, I thought this was Arlington. Never mind.

by EveryOneShouldDriveACivic on Jun 3, 2013 1:54 pm • linkreport

I live just north of the intersection and the changes have calmed the traffic and made it more traversible via foot. I think its outrageous that complaits would usurp the planned and funded study. Are we now going to fund and implement policy on a reactionary basis?

by Ben on Jun 3, 2013 2:13 pm • linkreport

@Huh

In both the streetcar situation and this one, years of studies, community input and DC taxpayer dollars went into the development of the plans. In both cases, residents who were involved were outraged that the process could be subverted by simple politics. In one case, Chairman Grey restored funding to the streetcar system. In this case, DDOT has overturned the will of the community because a few people complained about it.

Maybe the correct course of action would have been to let the 37th Street process see its course and then study the area holistically.

Instead, DDOT, at the expense of its engineers and planners, has turned methodology on its head by catering to squeaky wheels. That is no way to make policy in the District.

The speed hump discussion is a strawman. Speed humps are used to slow the rate of vehicles, not manage traffic volumes.

by William on Jun 3, 2013 2:26 pm • linkreport

I live a few blocks north of this stretch of Wisconsin and have traveled through it as a pedestrian, cyclist, bus passenger, and driver. To be honest, prior to and following the median's implementation, I've had equal problems with cars pulling out of parallel parking spots without looking and pedestrians walking directly in my path when I had the right of way. (Actually, the former happens ALL THE TIME - I'm a defensive traveler and assume someone's going to hit me whether I'm on foot or in my car, and I couldn't tell you how many times pedestrians in Glover Park either ignore the crossing signal or dart out into traffic to bypass walking to the crosswalk. The last time it happened, someone had their face in their phone and gave me a dirty look after they walked against my green light.)

Drivers speed through this area, but there *has* to be a happy medium for everyone that doesn't involve eliminating a travel lane. I can't imagine how long it would have taken me to get home on a 30s bus during rush hour with the median in; that stretch of road was congested enough without it. I don't remember how the study went initially, but was there a discussion of putting a speed camera here? Or installing an additional stoplight at Wisconsin & 35th (I vaguely remember hearing of someone getting hit in the crosswalk there)? I feel like I see at least one cop outside the bars in the evenings, as well; why aren't they ticketing dangerous drivers?

by Liz on Jun 3, 2013 2:33 pm • linkreport

William,

I was talkingdirectly to Oboe who was complaining about the speed on his road so obviously discussing the request of speed humps which DDOT hands out liberally is relevant to the discussion.

And lets not be hyperbolic. There weren't "years" of studies on this median, 7 months between actual proposal by DDOT and construction, and in fact there wasn't even a basic LOS study done by DDOT to quantify or model the effects or delays to be introduced.

Removing a lane from this congested road that sees 18,000 vehicles per day as it is would have been modeled and illustrated very nicely as a 2 minute loss over ~half a mile, which is a pretty big deal.

They were shooting from the hip, as DDOT has been doing of late and wanted a year to "study" it because they had no idea what the effect would be and it is embarrasing that DDOT is wasting money like that. Propose, STUDY, build. Not propose, build, hope for the best.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 2:48 pm • linkreport


"a 2 minute loss over ~half a mile, which is a pretty big deal."

Maybe not.

"When DDOT presented preliminary results of traffic studies showing that the median only added 1-2 minutes to driving time, Evans was incredulous. "If we were talking about just a couple minutes, we wouldn't be here," he said. "

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 3, 2013 2:52 pm • linkreport

We can't use speed cameras to slow traffic because its unfair to drivers driving at the "design" speed. We should re-design the road.

So then we re-design the road to reset the "designed" speed but that gets rejected because it SLOWS traffic.

There is a difference between slowing traffic and calming traffic. The project's stated goals were to reduce traffic in the area from traffic calming. I think the complaints were that while traffic may have improved pedestrian mobility, it may have had the unintended effect of making traffic worse.

Since the DDOT did not have time to conduct its studies, there isn't really a lot of empirical data to either suggest that pedestrian mobility is any better than it was before, or that traffic is any worse than it was before, or that retail has fared any better than before. Each side only has anecdotal evidence to rely on. Problem is that one side (Evans) seems able to kill the program virtually overnight, while the other side (the ANCs) has to mobilize a lot more people and jump through a lot more hoops to get what it wants.

by Scoot on Jun 3, 2013 3:07 pm • linkreport

Ten years ago, when Evans' kids attended a pre-school in NW, he tried to get DDOT to use eminent domain to widen the street on which the school was located, to faciliate faster pickups and dropoffs. He has not been shy about using his Council member position as a personal bully pulpit -- meaning that he leverages his position to play the bully to address his personal needs over those of other Washington residents.

by James on Jun 3, 2013 3:08 pm • linkreport

@Glover Parker, who wrote: "It is possible that the Cathedral Commons development (with the new restaurants and expanded supermarket) will generate more pedestrian activity, extending to this section of Wisocnsin Avenue."

I think it's a shame that DDOT has torn out the pedestrian inprovements in Glover Park. However, I think that DDOT has the opposite concern about Cathedral Commons, up Wisconsin, namely the amount of vehicle activity that this development destination will generate. I've heard DDOT officials say privately that the development traffic study was a joke (but they weren't the ones who signed off on it), but that the project is approved and now DDOT is scrambling to avoid it becoming a traffic cluster-blank when it opens.

by James on Jun 3, 2013 3:16 pm • linkreport

Stuff like this is why I wrote in RGIII when Evans was running unopposed in November.

by worthing on Jun 3, 2013 3:19 pm • linkreport

@Huh

I direct you to the archives of this blog:

2009: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/4146/sidewalks-median-and-two-way-streets-among-glover-park-recommendations/

and the DC Office of Planning:

2006 (PDF): http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+3/Glover+Park+Commercial+District+Study+%28Completed%29

So, yes, "years" would be the right term to use. Studies at the expense of DC taxpayers overturned because a few cranky people, including a Councilmember, complained.

Again, that is NOT how the city ought to be conducting traffic policy.

by William on Jun 3, 2013 3:21 pm • linkreport

@Scoot -- there are actually several pedestrian improvements that will continue, in the form of widened sidewalks on several stretches between 35th and Calvert.

I am somewhat hopeful that the resulting slightly narrower travel lanes may have some traffic calming effect even in the absence of the median, but based on my experience driving and biking that stretch of Wisconsin in the past, I don't believe that removing the median is going to improve the driving experience for anyone, as even before the median was put in, the road operated as effectively 1.5 lanes in each direction, not two.

by Jacques on Jun 3, 2013 3:27 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by Dizzy on Jun 3, 2013 4:47 pm • linkreport

Also, Jacques has this exactly right: I don't believe that removing the median is going to improve the driving experience for anyone, as even before the median was put in, the road operated as effectively 1.5 lanes in each direction, not two.

Much like M Street during rush hour, the curb lanes in Wisconsin Avenue during rush hour carry very little through traffic. The combination of loading/idling vehicles (including buses), turning vehicles, and changes in the number of lanes mean that you're not getting a full two lanes of throughput anyway. As a driver, I preferred the current configuration because it was more predictable and did not necessitate as much weaving between lanes. Lots of people did violate the painted median, though, which caused some issues.

As a pedestrian, I haven't noticed any real increase in safe "feeling," but the streetscape improvements, better sidewalks, etc. are very noticeable and appreciated.

by Dizzy on Jun 3, 2013 5:01 pm • linkreport

William,

The 20006 document doesn't have one word in it related to installing a median and removing a traffic lane. Lots about landscaping, sidewalks BID formation etc, nothing about Median.

So I stand corrected, and it is even more embarrasing for DDOT. All that time and not one LOS analysis? That is simply downright poor traffic engineering, then again from what we've seen out of DDOT the past few years, not all together suprising.

You can continue to believe it was a cranky old Council member who rules NW DC but it simply isn't true.

by Huh? on Jun 3, 2013 5:04 pm • linkreport

*sigh*

Fine, since my first attempt got deleted, let me dial down the snark:

Cohen also says Evans' involvement shifted the decision from safety-focused to political. "The change from data-gathering to simply reversing DDOT clearly happened when Councilmember Evans inserted himself into the issue," said Cohen. "Jack Evans hasn't shown the slightest interest in the well-being and safety of the people who live, work, and play in Glover Park. ... It's galling that he's been given carte blanche to make decisions that undermine pedestrian safety in our community."

As has been pointed out above, this is not a first-time occurrence with Evans. He's done it in other instances. The one that stuck in my craw the most was when he and Mary Cheh leaned on DDOT to make their traffic analysis contradict Georgetown University's traffic analysis and proposals as part of the campus plan process. The distinguished CMs' involvement also resulted in Ron Lewis effective ghost-writing parts of DDOT's analysis.

Curiously, no objection to this was raised at the time by prominent Georgetown urbanists. Perhaps this is because they were not personally affected by the issue at stake there. You know what they say: "where you stand depends on where you sit."

by Dizzy on Jun 3, 2013 5:05 pm • linkreport

Those pesky buses, getting in the way of people going places!

by MLD on Jun 3, 2013 5:08 pm • linkreport

@MLD

Those pesky buses, getting in the way of people going places!

Speaking as someone who has dozens of entries for the 30s in his SmarTrip record every month, I can tell you that the buses aren't really going anywhere either - the whole thing builds upon one another. Keep in mind: I like the traffic calming measures and would prefer they go ahead and install a permanent median. And the point I was making is, in agreement with Jacques, that the travel lane number hasn't really changed at all, because the curb lane was just as unreliable before the change as it is now.

Now, there is also now the issue of buses not pulling up to the curb and thereby blocking both lanes, which leads to people going around the painted median now. I like to think they would be less likely to happen if there was a raised median, which is why I'm all for it.

by Dizzy on Jun 3, 2013 5:20 pm • linkreport

Would a traditional LOS analysis be the appropriate way to look at traffic calming whose principle aim is to improve the pedestrian experience? Wouldn't it simply say that road LOS is maximized with more lanes? Which would miss the point of the project?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 3, 2013 5:27 pm • linkreport

While keeping traffic moving along Wisconsin Ave. in both directions through very congested Georgetown and Glover Park is important, I find that sacrificing the safety of the people in Glover Park for automobiles is pretty reckless. Glover Park's population is pretty young and vibrant with lots of new and younger families in the making. The intersection at Wisconsin and Calvert is particularly harrowing for any pedestrian. Personally, I was the victim of a hit and run on Wisconsin and Calvert last month (May 2013). I was extremely lucky to escape with only bruises and abrasions but the fact that these types of accidents occur in such a small stretch of Wisconsin Ave with such frequency is entirely disconcerting.

by Bruised Glover Parker on Jun 3, 2013 9:12 pm • linkreport

What exactly is a "traffic calming" measure other than a nice way of saying "intentionally slowing down traffic through the creation of a bottleneck"?

I have lived in Glover Park the past 9 years and I have never had a problem with crossing the street. If you follow the simple rules of Walk/Don't Walk, then there is no reason why you would be subject to being hit unless someone is running a red light, which would not be prevented with medians.

None of the arguments for turning one of the busiest thoroughfares through DC into two lanes truly make sense. Are people expected to use the medians as some sort of refuge in the middle of the street? No. So how could purposely congesting traffic serve to increase pedestrian safety?? The only possible way involves protecting jay walkers, who are walking out in front of oncoming traffic anyway. Otherwise, if you are crossing the street properly during a "walk" signal, the presence/absence of a median in the middle of the street has no bearing on your safety.

by Traffic Calming? on Jun 10, 2013 8:52 pm • linkreport

Do city councilmembers ever pay thier tickets, if one were even written?

by Lisa on Jun 14, 2013 2:59 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or