SIgh. More red light camera lies.

When you're looking at fatality rates, and comparing data from 1992 to today, guess what? You're more likely to die in a crash in 1992. Why? Crash protection and quicker medical response.

Insurance companies LOVE red light cameras, because as they admit, they increase the number of small, non-fatal accidents in return for minimal decrease in fatal accidents. It allows them to raise rates across the board.

Red Light cameras should be subject to the EU rules: if you want one, you have to put up a big honking sign saying "RED LIGHT CAMERA HERE". Great way to get people to stop.

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 8:58 am • link • report

An increase in fender benders in exchange for a decrease in human deaths and an increased tax on people breaking the law? Sounds like a good deal to me.

by TM on Feb 1, 2011 9:12 am • link • report

When you're looking at fatality rates, and comparing data from 1992 to today, guess what? You're more likely to die in a crash in 1992. Why? Crash protection and quicker medical response.

Charlie, the study compared the decline in fatalities at camera-monitored intersections with the nationwide decline. Even controlling for improvements in vehicle safety, roadway design, and medical response, intersections with cameras saw a more pronounced decline -- smaller than the benefit from technological improvements, but statistically significant nonetheless.

What I found noteworthy about the article is that AAA continued its streak of being the only private entity quoted by the Post alongside governmental (or, in the case of GHSA, intergovernmental) bodies in articles about road safety. True, John B. Townshend tends to get the shoulder angel duties while Lon Anderson speaks for the automotive id, so it's not as obvious in this case, but the streak still stands.

by cminus on Feb 1, 2011 9:22 am • link • report

@TM; increase in fender-bender and MINOR injuries in return for what?

676 deaths caused by red light running in 2009. Out of 40,000?

Now the injuries are more serious; over 100K. I forget the total number of injuries in the US, but I think it is about an order of magnitude over deaths.

And red light cameras increase the number of those injuries in return for marginally fewer deaths.

The study's conclusion is red light cameras were installed in every city -- that would save about 163 people a year. Again, out of 40K deaths.

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 9:40 am • link • report

I was here before and during the Control Board years. While the raw intrusivness was offensive on an academic level, the way that Barry was running the city into the gutter was evern more offensive. I am glad we had a control board and frankly wish it would be appointed again for a couple of years.

The biggest utility of the Control Board is that they weren't politicians looking for their next vote. They governed based on basic requirements and need. Half of what our city Council and Mayor(s) do is to ensure their popularity for a future vote, or to "pay back" those who helped them get where they are.

Mayor Williams and Fenty were exactly the same way. The only difference and saving grace during that decade was the literal tripling of the Districts property tax base and the jobs that were associated with it.

DC is now it its 4th budget year with a deficit. The past two were half a billion dollars, this one is already 600 million and anyone who can look at the Districts budget in say 2006 (4.3 billion), and the City budget today (5.4 billion) can come up with quite a bit of low hanging fruit in that 26% increase over 5 fiscal years.

A control board can do that, can make those logical, clinical decisions without having to worry about their jobs or popularity.

by freely on Feb 1, 2011 9:41 am • link • report

There's no better monument to the bankruptcy of today's architectural education that the insular, arrogant, and dehumanizing Eisenhower memorial is the product of one of our most reveared (by academia) architects. This is exactly the kind of sophmoric studio product being turned out of most of our schools.

Blocking the surrounding building's view with stainless steel screens and monstrously overscaled concrete pillars that reduce the significance of the user to an ant. How did we get so out of whack, so upside down that this is the best we can do to memorialize someone?

Not every monument need be the Trevi Fountain, but it's as if beauty, the balm of humanity has been banished from the art of architecture. The Vietnam memorial's quiet poetry envelopes us in its solemnity, with out being historicist. The WWII memorial's enveloping shape provids a gracious interlude in the vast expanses of the mall, while using a classical vocabulary to pull the other monuments and buildings into a greater whole.

Gehry's Bilbao is masterful, in its context, but those sites and programs are few and far between. His proposal here shows that he's a one trick pony, and further encourages the modernist tripe of the lone master standing above the horde of humanity. We begin in schools with the romance of the rebel architect (fountain head) against all odds and evolve into the institutionalized starchitect (Koolhouse), if we play the faux intellectual role right. I'm afraid until we re-establish the role of architect as serving the public rather than (the fake)l'enfant terrible, we will continue to see these pompous and arrogant monuments/buildings disfigure our public spaces.

by Thayer-D on Feb 1, 2011 9:44 am • link • report

A control board can do that, can make those logical, clinical decisions without having to worry about their jobs or popularity.

Or the health and wellbeing of their constituents....

Let's not pretend that Williams and Fenty had nothing to do with the tripling of the tax base, or that every other city in America isn't facing the same sort of budget crisis (and corresponding pension nightmare/infrastructure backlog). If you've got an axe to grind with the current administration, you might as well be honest about it, and say so up front.

by andrew on Feb 1, 2011 9:46 am • link • report

@freely

The big difference is that the last time the Control Board took over, the rest of the country was in the midst of an economic boom.

Right now, every single local and state government in the nation is hurting. This is due to the recession, not any egregious fiscal mismanagement. The situations are not even remotely similar.

by Alex B. on Feb 1, 2011 9:46 am • link • report

Re: Eleanor Holmes Norton's complaints of GOP meddling

Since she has been stripped of her vote, EHN is reduced to hopeless jawboning. OTOH, if the district representative was Republican, you can be sure that his/her vote would be reinstated forthwith.

by goldfish on Feb 1, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

@Alex/Andrew

I have no axe to grind. I said Williams and Fenty weren't fiscal geniuses and that the boom the city experienced had nothing to do with them.

In fact, both Williams and Fenty to a lesser extent blew every single budget they set, as I said the saving grace was that the city was producing a surplus to cover their spendy ways.

And Alex yes, the "nation" is hurting, but DC is the jobs Mecca of the nation right now, and while our suburban friends have budget deficts as well, they are half what ours is per capita. The situation is VERY similar. DC is again swiming in a pot of money and is the only swimmer who is unable to benefit from it.

Lastly, the "health and wellbeing of their constituents"? So you are saying the health and well being suffered 5 years ago when our city managed to spend 26% less?

I've lived in this town a long time and I love it. It doesn't mean I can't also be critical of the fact that it functions like a 7 year old with tourettes. Anyone who can count to ten can look at this years budget and eliminate a billion dollars of spending, spreading the pain evenly without too much trouble.

The fact and reasoning that our city doesn't lies in my original post...job security.

by freely on Feb 1, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

@goldfish: That vote was a vanity vote at best. If you can't break ties, which she couldn't, it's meaningless. IN effect, she was allowed to "vote" only when it didn't really count.

by John on Feb 1, 2011 10:05 am • link • report

The study's conclusion is red light cameras were installed in every city -- that would save about 163 people a year. Again, out of 40K deaths.

Except that you're comparing the annual reduction in deaths from the use of red light cameras to the total number of traffic deaths, from all causes. The IHSA report cites 676 deaths in 2009 from red light running, so a back-of-the-envelope estimate would suggest that widespread use of red light cameras would mean a 24% reduction in fatalities from the kind of problem red light cameras are intended to address. It doesn't solve the problem, but it's a step forward.

It's not really appropriate to compare the reduction in fatalities from the use of red light cameras with the total number of fatalities from all traffic incidents, since red light cameras aren't exclusive with other harm reduction techniques. In fact, by being revenue generators, they can allow jurisdictions to fund other fatality reduction efforts.

by cminus on Feb 1, 2011 10:09 am • link • report

@John -- in that case then DC should end its support for this conceit, and withdraw the (meaningless) representative.

by goldfish on Feb 1, 2011 10:13 am • link • report

@ cminus; that is exactly the point. Red light running isn't even in the top 100 ways to die in a car. Maybe not the top 1000. Talk about high hanging fruit....

Even bigger flaws with the study: it assumed that a reduction in accidents in a particular city was associated with that city installing cameras. Obviously not every intersection or red light has a camera.

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 10:25 am • link • report

Ah, yet another reactionary document from the Committee of 100. They claim overhead wires would absolutely ruin K Street NW. Because you know, K Street NW is so much more beautiful and scenic than the Ringstrasse in Vienna, Maximilianstrasse in Munich, Avenue Louise in Brussels, the Charles Bridge in Prague, La Canabiere in Marseille, Banhofstrasse in Zurich..........

by rg on Feb 1, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@Alex B. - The fiscal crises facing many towns and cities is a result of broader mismanagement by each of those towns and cities, which planned budgets based on rosy expectations of continued growth and tax revenues combined with unrealistic financial commitments in the form of pension and similar benefits. The fact that it has happened "everywhere" (which it hasn't) doesn't mean it was acceptable financial management with all problems attributable to "the economy".

by ah on Feb 1, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

@Erik, They agree with most but not all routes, but oppose any increased density to pay for lines

Did you read the blog you reference?

http://emmcablog.org/2011/01/31/156

"The Committee urges giving priority to routes in areas underserved by mass transit and where large scale development has been approved."

by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

You guys don't honestly think that adding wires would take away from the aesthetic quality of the streets?

Ya'll need to wake up and smell the hipster. If you can't even admit you're wrong from time to time, people will never take you seriously and just write you off as as bitter troll.

by MPC on Feb 1, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

@MPC:
The aesthetic quality of K Street? Have you been to K Street?

by Nate on Feb 1, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

@MPC: But the buttloads of "Ye Olde Lincoln Navigators" already cruising by do so much of the aesthetic quality.

by John on Feb 1, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

I'll defend K St. The separated service roads and mature tree canopy make it one of the nicer-looking places downtown. A grassy streetcar median would be a lovely addition to it.

I don't think a streetcar would ruin this in the long-term, although the loss of the tree canopy would be extremely unfortunate in the short-run.

I was actually at the meeting last year when Gehry pitched the Ike Memorial to Congress. The tapestries were specifically designed to hide the brutalist federal buildings around the site, which he made no secret of his disdain for (along with a quip about how the Forrestal building was designed with a waffle iron). All of the designs included additional plantings to hide the buildings. I'm not a huge fan of Gehry, but he does have a point.

(As a random aside, before realizing who he was, I commented to his face that I thought the memorial looked like a partially-built freeway overpass, which though aesthetically hideous, would indeed be an appropriate memorial for Ike)

by andrew on Feb 1, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

I suggest we conduct an experiment and string a streetcar wire across 7th street on the mall and see how horrible the view is. Also run it across Pennsylvania Ave. It is such a thin wire you will barely see it.

by NikolasM on Feb 1, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

@NikolasM - I'm not arguing against wires, but it's not the wires themselves that are the issue alone. It's the various connectors and catenaries that add to the supposed visual pollution.

by ah on Feb 1, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

http://www.flickr.com/photos/perkinsms/2801220247/in/set-72157606976151047/

Overhead wire for the historic "F" Market trolley, San Francisco, CA.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/perkinsms/2802041758/in/set-72157606976151047/

Overhead wire for the San Jose light rail, downtown section.

If you make low visual impact a design criteria, it can be done. Requiring wire-free operation on the battery at turns and junctions makes a big difference. Even the vehicles DDOT has already purchased have some limited range on the battery alone. I think it's about a half-mile, which is more than enough to get across intersections that have viewshed concerns. The rest of the system can be constructed similar to the photos I linked above.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 1, 2011 11:53 am • link • report

And what I meant to say that low visual impact can be part of the design without significantly increasing cost or requring a change in vehicle strategy.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 1, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

Red light running isn't even in the top 100 ways to die in a car. Maybe not the top 1000. Talk about high hanging fruit....

Except that as opponents never cease reminding us, these cameras are a profit center for the cities that operate them. Red light running is not one of the largest source of traffic deaths, but it's one that we have a good technique to address that doesn't require diverting resources away from other problems. Stopping red light running is low-hanging fruit; it's just not as tasty as the fruit on the higher branches. That doesn't mean you don't go for the low-hanging fruit if you can reach it without giving up on the rest of the tree. (Okay, I think I overdid the metaphor here.)

Even bigger flaws with the study: it assumed that a reduction in accidents in a particular city was associated with that city installing cameras. Obviously not every intersection or red light has a camera.

That's a fair point, although it doesn't sink the study entirely. But it does suggest future studies, if someone could identify alternate variables: is there some third factor that cities with red light cameras are more likely to have than cities that don't, and which reduces fatalities from running red lights whether or not a camera is present? (Greater congestion, say?) Someone should commission such a study; I'd like to see it.

by cminus on Feb 1, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

Thayer, it's constantly amusing to hear you talk about architecture schools like you do. Chill out.

by Neil Flanagan on Feb 1, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

@ charlie:if you want one, you have to put up a big honking sign saying "RED LIGHT CAMERA HERE".

Drive over Key Bridge into Arlington. Plenty of signs warning you. The goal is not to ticket people. The goal is to make people stop for the red light.

@ Reps meddling with DC politics: You gotta love those Republicans that got elected on promises of reducing the size of government, and anti-Fed power slogans that turn around and increase the Feds power in local DC politics. I wish every single DC politician that's called to Congress would point this out in his opening statement. They're not gonna get anything anyway. Just pull a Colbert and state the obvious.

by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

@ Jasper; there is one small sign, obscured by vegetation. Assuming drivers can see it, it doesn't look much different than the warning you can't use radar detectors. Coming the other way, there isn't any sign on the other red light camera on ft. meyer. In DC, on K st there isn't aren't any signs either.

I agree that one red light camera is racking up a small fortune. But again, it is mostly people going through right at yellow, and before the opposing light turns. You don't usually have a problem with people blowing through that light at red because traffic does back up. You do have problem with people making right turns on red, which blocks bike and pedestrian traffic, but that light doesn't seem to go off (radar set too low?) when people do that.

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report

Clearly, unless red-light camera solve cancer, they're useless. I mean, what's 100 odd lives a year? There's something just unamerican about saving lives and doing it while making money. Makes my bones shake.

Now, killing people and doing it while spending money, like in a war, now THAT is what america is all about.

by JJJJJ on Feb 1, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

Dear Congresswoman Norton,

The sky is not falling.

Perhaps you should have done more during your other nineteen years in Congress to ensure that your role is more than a victim or an alarmist.

by mch on Feb 1, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report

The Eisenhower memorial designs are god-awful ugly.

by Fritz on Feb 1, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report

@ cminus, JJJJJ; we have different definitions of low hanging fruit. Revenue generation as the sole criterion for traffic violations? Also, the cost factor, which I'll get to in a second, isn't quite so true. Finally, you willing to trade a minor increase in the fatality rate (and revenue) in return for a higher accident rate and injury rate?

In terms of your second point, which is interesting, three quick response come to mind.

1) they found a statistical significance, but how did they get there? Despite my love of back of the envelope math, I'm not good enough to say whether a different Baynes method would get different results. It would not be unheard of.

2) The economy? Cities that want red light cameras are cash strapped; in a bad economy people are driving less. Throw gas prices into that mix for a bit.

3) Fear Factor: a plus for cameras; if you know they are around, you might be more careful.

In terms of the money, lets remember there are companies that pay a lot of money to lobbyists and politicians to install and run these cameras. They are very unpopular and when subjected to popular votes tend to get booted. Like any industry or technology, some regulation is needed:

1) run by cities, not private companies
2) checked yellow light timing by outside authority
3) no points on license to boost insurance company profits
4) large and visible warnings of cameras
5) open and public benchmarking of results

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

@ charlie:there is one small sign, obscured by vegetation.

There are at least two coming from Key Bridge on Ft Myer. One at the GW Parkway and one before the first Lee Hwy intersection. I'll see if I can find more tonight. I never walk along the other side, so I don't know what's there.

I agree there is a jungle of terribly placed signs out there, but that seems to be general policy in VA (& DC). That sign jungle is partially due to the fact that so many people want silly signs (like the red light camera signs) to be there.

by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report

@ Jasper; I've only seen one sign on Ft. Meyer.

"The other side" I was referencing was Lynn St, near 19th?, where the other camera is located. I don't walk there either so there might be a sign.

by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

Regarding C100 Report:

The authors are Meg Maguire, Dorn McGrath, Monte Edwards and Dick Wolf. I don't know McGrath, but I know regarding the other three:

(1.) Their collective hair is on fire regarding "viewscapes" and therefore 2/3rds of the report, outside the very helpful descriptions of zoning and current architecture along each route, is focused on the question of overhead wires. Their Route Summary table has four (4) column headings, the first two of which are: "Effects of overhead wires on viewsheds?" and "Federal Laws to Consider" (mostly, the 1899 Overhead Wire Ban);

(2.) One purpose of this report is to get the last word in their on-going argument with DDOT about overhead wire streetcar systems (Appendix A is A Word on Wires, followed by Appendix B, Critique of DDOT's Wireless Technology Assessment, end of report). OK, you got the last word, C100. For now....

(3.) Weirdly, these same three who are up nights worrying about viewsheds and overhead wires are all for re-routing Pennsylvania Avenue SE at Eastern Market and complain they have not been consulted with thoroughly by DDOT regarding rerouting Pennsylvania Ave SE at Potomac Avenue, projects that would destroy the "viewshed" of the Capitol building from that direction at 15th Street SE and again at 9th Street SE. What's up with that?

The report represents a lot of good work investigating and summarizing the neighborhoods of all the proposed streetcar lines and is well worth reading. But c'mon. Surely DDOT will announce any day now that when it comes to building out the 37-mile streetcar plan, "We're broke!" So let's focus on what's important. Those poor bastards with businesses on H Street NE have suffered so much through construction.

Let's resolve the two issues that could make that H Street NE streetcar line less useful if left unresolved: (1.) Require Union Station (Amtrak) and Potomac Development (Railway Express Building) to cooperate in building an inside connection to Union Station at the west end of the H Street NE line; and (2.) Figure out how to connect the Anacostia streetcar line with the H Street NE line (the streetcar will come over the 11th Street Bridge from the south, then either turn left and go north on 8th Street past Eastern Market Metro to H Street NE, or else turn right then go north on 15th Street past Potomac Avenue Metro to H Street NE).

These three oppose to the death any streetcar on 8th Street. Fine, c'mon board for the 15th Street streetcar, but do something to connect the Anacostia Line with the H Street NE line, and bring the H Street NE Construction Nightmare to a positive conclusion.

And get over yourselves regarding the damn overhead wires.

by Trulee Pist on Feb 1, 2011 5:43 pm • link • report

@Trulee

Is the Maryland Ave NE viewshed also destroyed because Maryland and Mass Aves have to go around Stanton Park?

I don't see how squares along Pennsylvania SE at Eastern Market and Potomac Avenue ruin any viewsheds at all.

That said, the C100 report is hilariously fixated on wires. They argue there aren't enough trees on some routes to obscure the wires - then on others, that the wires will require trimming of trees, which is apparently unacceptable. It's a lot of jumping though hoops to essentially oppose the very idea of streetcars. Of course, they know they can't come out and say that, but they can put such ridiculous requirements on the system as to effectively kill it.

I also find their conception of what makes a city (no added density anywhere) to be completely opposite of reality - that's what a city is, a dense agglomeration that grows denser over time.

by Alex B. on Feb 1, 2011 5:51 pm • link • report

There can be no argument about taste. That's been true since it was pronounced "De gustibus non disputandem est." I think the idea of PA Ave SE is an uninterrupted boulevard leading from the river to the pretty Capitol building. A circle or square absolutely ruins that "viewshed." Someone else's tastes may vary.

I agree with you that the wires fixation in the report is remarkable.

by Trulee Pist on Feb 1, 2011 7:04 pm • link • report

@ Lance

Do you read the blog posts before you start barking at the post author?

Your write:
Did you read the blog you reference?

http://emmcablog.org/2011/01/31/156

"The Committee urges giving priority to routes in areas underserved by mass transit and where large scale development has been approved."

The excellent emmcablog.org item states:

The group also urges that the city do no rezoning to increase density

I think Erik Weber had it right the first time.

by Trulee Pist on Feb 1, 2011 7:09 pm • link • report

Charlie, why exactly do you think these cameras need warning signs?

Is "this is an intersection, the light is red" not enough of a warning?

As for yellow light timing, it is a lie that it is "tinkered" with to enhance revenue. You simply can't do that. Yellow lights are set up based on the speed limit and width of intersection. There is no tinkering. It is a standard amount, which ensures that there are no surprises.

People report that after an installation, the timing changed. This isn't surprising. Traffic lights are set and ignored for many years, meaning the timing shifts ever so slightly. So when the engineers come by to hook things up, they take the opportunity to reset the signal at what it was originally programmed for, or change it if the intersection or speed limit has been modified. So maybe the yellow light goes from 4.5 seconds to 4....but only because those .5 seconds were a result of a faulty timer. In 5 years time, it will probably be back at 4.5 again.

by JJJJJ on Feb 1, 2011 7:15 pm • link • report

@Trulee Pist, Can you not read what you just copied over?

Erik references the blog saying it says (in reference to the Com100) "but oppose any increased density"

But the blog itself actually says (as you just copied over):

"The Committee urges giving priority to routes in areas underserved by mass transit and where large scale development has been approved."

So, no, the Com100 does NOT oppose increased density. It just recognizes that that increased density needs to go where it is lacking ... not where it is already present.

The so-called 'smart' growth folks' argument that we must increase density in the already built out areas such as say Georgetown, Connecticut Avenue, Dupont, etc. fails to be a real smart growth argument given that this city has plenty of areas and neighborhoods which have yet to re-gain their pre-Post War loss of residents ... Areas which are just waiting to be built out ... Areas which have already been identified in the Comprehensive Plan to benefit from the same re-habilitation which Dupont, Penns Quarter, Logan, and many other areas have already benefited from. Let's not go subverting the Comprehensive Plan's directions to where development is supposed to occur by using the placement of the streetcar lines to allow already built up (and expensive) areas to be further built up (and more expensive). We don't need another Manhattan where only the wealthy can afford to live. We need a whole city rebuilt ... One which includes all levels of housing and retail and office space for all levels of income and retail and business needs. We need to make good use of all our city as planned for in the Comprehensive Plan and not let ourselves be used by the developers as stooges to let them Manhattanize a few select neighborhoods while much of the city languishes with even less people in it than it had in 1950.

by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 7:38 pm • link • report

@Trulee Pist Let's resolve the two issues that could make that H Street NE streetcar line less useful if left unresolved: (1.) Require Union Station (Amtrak) and Potomac Development (Railway Express Building) to cooperate in building an inside connection to Union Station at the west end of the H Street NE line; and (2.) Figure out how to connect the Anacostia streetcar line with the H Street NE line (the streetcar will come over the 11th Street Bridge from the south, then either turn left and go north on 8th Street past Eastern Market Metro to H Street NE, or else turn right then go north on 15th Street past Potomac Avenue Metro to H Street NE).

hmmm ... so you recognize there is a problem, but you don't recognize that had what the Com100 is advocating been in place BEFORE DDOT had started the project, that these problems wouldn't have occured in the first plan? We shouldn't be fighting fires, we should be planning to avoid the fires in the first place is essentially what the plan is saying AND it's offering a roadmap for doing so.

by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 8:01 pm • link • report

*in the first place.

by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 8:02 pm • link • report

@Charlie
Revenue generation as the sole criterion for traffic violations?

Hardly the only factor; I'd cheerfully take a major revenue loss if it meant a correspondingly major reduction in fatalities. But, if an initiative both reduces traffic fatalities and brings in more money than it costs to operate, without stopping people from doing anything that they shouldn't have been doing anyway, the cost/benefit ratio is compelling.

Finally, you willing to trade a minor increase in the fatality rate (and revenue) in return for a higher accident rate and injury rate?

Depends on how much higher the minor accident rate is. Probably, given that the stereotypical "slam on the brakes as the light turns red" accident typically involves minimal vehicle damage and less injury, while highway deaths have a higher impact on future productivity than most other common causes of premature death (the decedents are disproportionately younger). Do you have any data demonstrating that there is such an increase, or how big it is?

1) they found a statistical significance, but how did they get there? Despite my love of back of the envelope math, I'm not good enough to say whether a different Baynes method would get different results. It would not be unheard of.

I can't answer that -- haven't seen the full report, just the press release and resulting article -- but you're right that methodology could make a difference. Given the degree of reduction, a quick eyeballing suggests the result would be significant under any method, but that's not a position I would care to defend before a Congressional subcommittee.

2) The economy? Cities that want red light cameras are cash strapped; in a bad economy people are driving less. Throw gas prices into that mix for a bit.

Not unreasonable, but you'd first have to demonstrate that red light cameras are linked to the state of the local economy; visit the beautiful traffic enforcement cameras of Montgomery County if you think that's self-evident.

3) Fear Factor: a plus for cameras; if you know they are around, you might be more careful.

That's kind of the point of red light cameras, so it's not exactly an alternative hypothesis.

In terms of the money, lets remember there are companies that pay a lot of money to lobbyists and politicians to install and run these cameras.

That hardly disproves the claim that they generate more revenue than they cost to operate -- a claim, I repeat, usually raised by opponents of red light cameras.

3) no points on license to boost insurance company profits

DC puts no points on your license for automated enforcement violations. As a result, I've heard from lots of people who oppose red light cameras and insist that the real intent isn't safety, because if the city was really concerned with safety they'd assess points. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

by cminus on Feb 1, 2011 11:54 pm • link • report

I agree with Lance that the current 37-mile streetcar plan lay dormant a long time then was re-introduced in a splashy way by DDOT under Klein and Fenty without the basics of financial planning, consultation with residents about routes, etc. Too bad. Now I suspect it will be a long while before we see the whole 37 miles built.

What C100 did in driving the proposed route and describing the neighborhoods, architecture and zoning was a good service.

The obsessive nattering about overhead wires by C100 in its otherwise useful report makes the report a little less useful, in my mind.

But here's the current reality on the ground:
There is a streetcar on H Street NE, nearing completion. Whatever it takes to complete its connection at the west end into Union Station should be done, pronto. We're looking at you, Amtrak and Potomac Development.

There is construction underway on the other side of the river, at Firth Sterling Avenue SE near MLK Avenue, and I believe the 11th Street Bridges are designed to carry that second streetcar line over the Anacostia into Capitol Hill. Right now, the plan is to run that line from the 11th Street Bridge up 8th Street SE to H Street NE.

That's what I want! But I am pretty sure I'm not going to get what I want, because both 8th Street residents and the authors of this C100 report are opposed and will probably get their way.

I'm looking ahead! If the connector between the two streetcar lines cannot use 8th Street, I have a suggestion: Come up Potomac Avenue SE to the Potomac Avenue Metro, then go up 15th Street from there to the starburst intersection at H Street NE and Benning/Bladensburg/Maryland Ave.

How about it? Are you on board for the 15th Street Streetcar line, Lance? Because the way I read the C100 report, they just trash the 8th Street connector line, but offer no alternatives.

by Trulee Pist on Feb 2, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

@Trulee, I really don't know enough about the 8th Street vs. 15th issue to comment ... Other than to say I if 15th Street (NE and SE?) is in the comprehensive plan to be further 'developed' than it would make more sense than to put it on 8th St which is already developed if we're going to use the streetcar lines to spur developed. Personally ... and I'm stressing the word 'personally', I think streetcars shouldn't be being used to spur development but instead a better and higher use of the money we're spending on them would be to use them to relieve congestion. I.e., Do as they've done in Europe and put these things into areas where you otherwise have traffic jams ... and, in especially congested areas ... IMHO using it to spur development is like using a shotgun to swat flies. Yeah, you'll make that neighborhood easy to get to ... but wouldn't a cheaper method such as better and more parking garages and better bus service accomplish the same thing ... at a far far cheap cost?

by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report

*to spur development.

by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report

@Lance

If we use streetcars for transportation only, then 8th St SE/NE is the obvious route through the Hill, contrary to the C100's report. It's already a busy corridor thanks to the 90s buses. That is the logical north-south connection in the area.

by Alex B. on Feb 2, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report

@Alex, I dunno ... is 8th St SE/NE congested during long periods of the day? The places I've seen tramways used in Europe usually have at least one terminus in a very congested area. Equivalent areas I can think of in DC (with which I am familiar) would be M Street and Wisconsin Avenue in Georgetown (either or both) ... Or 14th Street in Logan and up through Columbia Heights ... or Connecticut Avenue starting downtown and going all the way to Chevy Chase Circle. Is 8th Street NW/SE really like any of these places? I dunno. Besides the report from the Com100 agrees with DDOT's contention that streetcars can/should be used to spur development. As I emphasized earlier, I personally don't agree with that. However, if the development angle is an accepted starting point, than yeah, 8th Street probably doesn't need help developing ... given other streets nearby that really do ...

by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 10:02 pm • link • report

@Lance

The 8th street line isn't about development at all, it's about transportation. 8th Street is a key north-south link through the Hill. The street used to have streetcars on it. It now carries one of the major bus lines in the city. If you want a system built for transportation and not development, why should the C100 object to that link?

by Alex B. on Feb 3, 2011 9:05 am • link • report

@Alex B. Like I said earlier, wanting a system built for transportation and not development is what I personally would advocate. And I emphasied 'personally' ... I.e., I am not in agreement with the C100 on this point.

by Lance on Feb 5, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report