One of the key elements of the HUD/EPA/DOT Livability initiative is that livability is defined at the local level. Oh, well…
Next time they should put the tracks in first, then the resident will know going into the purchase decision that transit isn't going to be a “suggestion” but reality.
DHHS would consolidate undisclosed suburban space, not relocate its HQ. It's unlikely that any cabinet agency would abandon a close-in HQ. Moreover, King Farm is one of several sites.
Rich, you're incorrect about a soccer stadium not being a good concert venue. Look at the built-in stage at the Chicago Fire's stadium:
www.Chicago-fire.com/toyota-park
Here's the website for the Los Angeles
Galaxy's Home Depot Center: www.homedepotcenter.com. Notice how many other events are held there other than soccer games (The Galaxy shares their stadium with Chivas similar to the Giants-Jets in the NFL.)
Other teams have stages built into their stadiums too like the Columbus Crew, FC Dallas, and the Colorado Rapids. It's very common to build a stage into a 25k soccer stadium and they tend to have no problem booking them with events in addition to soccer if they want.
RE: Parking, have you seen the stretch of MLK in question? If so, do you really think 15th street is comparable?
i only meant to 'compare them' in the approach that i would take to correcting them—always looking to _increase_ opportunities to make the street better (e.g. make it bikable) instead of looking to _decrease_ what some might perceive (possibly correctly) as negatives of the street (e.g. on-street parking) [This practical and political school of thought coming from Jane Jacobs (to the extent i understand it correctly).]
It'd be interesting to study parking space use on MLK Ave. and see the actual statistics on how much it truly supports business there.
i'm a bit ashamed to say i don't know this (yet), even generally-speaking—but apparently i'm not the only one, since most bicycle advocacy organizations seem to have no problem handing precious street space, especially in business corridors, over to car parking, parklets, bulb-outs, and all sorts of things that preclude the subjective safety required for cyclists.
At the same time, it'd be a good time to develop a sharing parking strategy, even a transportation management district there, to deal with providing parking, as well as support of the sustainable transportation modes.
I like the 'sharing parking strategy'—i like all the rest, too, but the parking strategy stuff seems like it could be 'big bang for the buck'.
Yeah, there are a bunch of parking lots in that neighborhood. Perhaps a better strategy would be to 1) Remove on street parking along MLK., 2) Set up meters in nearby parking lots - like the bank parking and church parking., 3) Pay the banks, church and other nearby lots a cut of the parking meter revenue. Not only does it allow for more space for the streetcar, it makes for a more efficient use of parking.
so, yes, i don't know much about parking policies, especially in/around biz districts, but this sounds reasonable - and i'm sure there are plenty of variations. i'd make sure some of the cash goes back into streetscape improvements/beautification (a la Shoup).
There is another possibility I was close to including in this post but didn't. It might be possible to lay the tracks in the travel lanes, as show above, but to shift the tracks to the curb at each of the two stops. This would permit cars to pass the streetcar at each of the two stops.
...but would make cycling on this street almost-fully-impossible instead of 'just' very-difficult-to-impossible.
Also, can you please share what you think the streetcar will be able to do that the several bus lines running through this same area wouldn't do.
provide dignified transit?
buses were forced upon the American people by GM/Shell/Standard Oil/Firestone because these corporations were interested in selling cars/oil/tires/etc. why do u think these corporations today throw their money behind 'bus rapid transit' instead of streetcars? same reason—they want to keep people in cars.
@Jason The field never really recovered from it, actually.
I think the original Poplar Point stadium proposal included a stage built into the stands (whether there were bleachers that rolled out over it or not I don't recall). It's a feature that's not uncommon in newer MLS stadiums, actually. If they don't have bleachers over them, some teams actually sell tickets on the stage as a “party deck.”
Yes. Which is why these MLS-scale stadiums usually feature a stage of some sort built in to the stands which can then be covered by bleacher seating for soccer games.
Does anyone here remember how the centerfield area at Nats Park was scarred from the stage Dave Matthews Band erected for their concert during the All-Star Break?
So this is obviously incredible shortsighted but out of curiosity where do they think they'd put it on I-370? Since construction of the ICC there is no longer a sizable median and there never will be one again.
Maryland Code, Transportation Chapter, Title 21 - Vehicle Rules of the Road:
§ 21-203. Pedestrian control signals.
(c) Dont walk.- A pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of a “dont walk” or “upraised hand” signal.
(d) Wait signal - Beginning crossing prohibited.- A pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of a “wait signal”.
§ 21-202. Traffic lights with steady indication.
(2) These lights apply to drivers and pedestrians as provided in this section.
(b) Green indication.- Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or, unless a sign at the place prohibits the turn, turn right or left.
(c) Yielding right-of-way to vehicles or pedestrians within intersections or crosswalks.- Vehicular traffic described under subsection (b) of this section, including any vehicle turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle and any pedestrian lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk when the signal is shown.
Richard wrote: HW—don't see how you could look at a map or demographics and make a case for TJ's opening a store in W8
Nor did I make the case that a TJ's would work in Ward 8. I commented that I would “like” to have one there. Just like those who don't live there would “like” to have a streetcar.
Also, can you please share what you think the streetcar will be able to do that the several bus lines running through this same area wouldn't do. What does the n'hood (not transit advocates) gain by adding streetcars? I've seen countless advocates suggest what a good idea this will be but haven't seen anything touting the benefits outside of “more modes of transit is always good.”
And are you really suggesting that streetcars will work on MLK because they have them in Philly? This isn't Philly it's Congress Heights in DC.
I hope the MTA will ignore this “request”. I believe they will find it not only a burden on the project, but a completely idiotic gesture. Not only would this line add an incredible amenity to those condo owners who live along the line, but the noise from it would be less than that of even passing buses and cars! In fact, the grassy median can even remain! It's not a heavy rail system, it's a light rail system. Cross streets, stop signs, everything would remain.
Everytime a story about a pedestrian/cyclist getting hit comes up the comments tend to solely focus on the particulars on a given situation to try and determine who was at fault. Can we steer the discussion to the more substantive than nitpicking the specifics, which we don't have thus wasting time trying to come up with any contingency to fit our view? I think it then becomes fruitless to try and come up with more and more circumstances that may or may not have arose.
Besides correcting mistakes like Halsey's and clarifying existing law I think its mainly fruitless to focus on I'd much rather read responses to the fact that the GHSA seems to not even recognize that pedestrians should have some sort of expectation of safety even if the route they're walking along or try to cross is busy? Why does the fact that a road is busy most of the time mean that pedestrian safety becomes less important?
The driver is supposed to be looking at the traffic signal (red light) and at the road, not at the pedestrian signal. If a driver even knows what the color of the pedestrian signal is, and hits a pedestrian, the driver has been looking in the wrong place and is at fault for failure to keep eyes on the road.
Here's a question I have - is entering the intersection during the “clearance interval” ACTUALLY illegal? Because I haven't seen any evidence that it is. How could it be? As multiple people have said, people take different amounts of time to cross so some people would be able to easily make the light if they enter during the flashing hand.
But it seriously shows our bias when we think that a car should just be able to blow through a left turn at a rate of speed where you can kill someone. And yet it's accepted as just a part of daily driving behavior. People do fast left turns to avoid oncoming traffic, to turn left at the end of a light cycle, etc. And yet somehow it's accepted as a fact that the people who should be making concessions in this equation are the people crossing the street who have no protection whatsoever, instead of the people driving 3000lb vehicles.
Funny, I was just driving through King Farm yesterday (on the way to get my emissions test) and thinking that I would consider moving there if there was good transit someday. Oh well. Thanks Rockville council. Good to know that I voted against so many of you.
Look what Arlington had to do with Seven Corners to stop mexicans from running across the road.
You've put your finger on it here, charlie. The Guatemalans and Salvadorians do a pretty good job of playing by the rules. But those dueced Mexicans! It seems like we've always gotta build a fence!
I know the 9:30 club was looking to lease or purchase Uline arena and try to convert it into that kind of 5,000 seat venue at some point in time - I want to say that was before Jemal purchased it.
I say this a lot, but whatever promising plans we see proposed outside-the-Beltway, at the end of the day, we can always depend on the exurbs to cave to reactionary pressure and do the wrong thing.
Good for inside-the-Beltway property values, though.
Oboe's interpretation of traffic is worth of Abelard. But remember what happened to him….
I think MJohnson brings up an interesting point with the countdown timers, which are a great innovation. However, there is a caveat: those timers are mostly being installed in urban areas. Urban areas are safer than suburban roads for pedestrians.
Pedestrian behavior is indeed a real problem. Look what Arlington had to do with Seven Corners to stop mexicans from running across the road. Now there is a fence to stop and force people to take the bridge. Fetishing “Complete Streets” is not helpful in big box country.*
And the uptick in deaths? Probably nothing more than people driving as the economy recovers a bit and gas prices remained stable, if high.
* Things like the countdown timers or stop buttons which give pedestrians more choice and control are not a bad thing in these cases. More crosswalks—maybe not.
(consider William & Mary, which has an outstanding football team but has a stadium that barely seats 10,000, if that)
The other teams in the (increasingly excellent) CAA all also have generally small stadiums, and are almost all within driving distance to DC. Seating capacity at W&M's stadium is a bit complicated. It's officially 12,000, but higher in reality because temporary stands are constructed in the endzones during the season, and there's a bit of standing room. Of course, regular season games don't even fill it a third of the way, so I'm not sure that any of the CAA teams would want to host regular-season games in DC. This would get them at most one, maybe two events per season. (I'm drifting offtopic aren't I?)
Although amphitheaters probably do make for better venues, the ones in DC suck because of the distance that you have to drive to use them. (Getting to Merriweather is only half the pain—parking there is a nightmare, and the venue itself is nothing to write home about). On the other hand, I'm sure that IMP (Owners of the 9:30 club, and promoters of many Merriweather events) would move their events to a medium-sized DC-based venue if one was available, simply because of the increased capacity and ticket sales.
(Sidenote: DC also lacks a decent 2-5,000 person venue. DAR Hall is awful for the shows that IMP hosts there. Nothing to kill the mood like sitting down for a rock show.)
Idiots. Why would you move somewhere designed around a proposed rail line? And what's with this Science City stuff? Why not just build things where we already have developed land?
There is another possibility I was close to including in this post but didn't. It might be possible to lay the tracks in the travel lanes, as show above, but to shift the tracks to the curb at each of the two stops. This would permit cars to pass the streetcar at each of the two stops.
The challenge, though, is merging back into the travel lane after the stop. Not impossible, but it might delay the streetcar by a few seconds while looking for an opening in traffic. If the stops are placed at stop lights, the lights could be timed to give the streetcar a head start when leaving the stop.
DDOT would have to pave the streetcar stop with a special material to discourage people parking in the stop space.
This week, I nearly got hit crossing 20th Street NW at P by a car turning left even though I had the white hand.
Then I was nearly hit crossing Massachusetts Ave at 21st St when I had a white hand by a car that totally ignored the red light.
No, it's always the pedestrian's fault.
PS The other problem with the red flashing hand. At a few intersections in DC, it turns from white to red literally 3 seconds in. I'm thinking of I and 15th NW as a prime example. It's white long enough to step off the curb. And cars treat the red flashing hand as meaning they have the right to turn onto I whether or not there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
Matt Johnson, you're completely misunderstanding my point. The flashing red hand means “Don't start.” That means the pedestrian who enters the crosswalk is in the wrong. The driver is entitled to expect that the way is clear.
Yes, this is what I was trying to get across. It makes no sense to say that a driver is entitled to expect that the crosswalk is clear in the case where teens entered the crosswalk during the “clearance phase”, but the driver is not entitled to expect the crosswalk is clear in the case where an elderly person entered the crosswalk during the “walk phase” but has not yet cleared the intersection.
This is precisely the bias which David is railing against in this article. No one is suggesting that the driver is solely to blame for this terrible incident, but instead asking officials, the press, and the general public to stop talking about pedestrian issues like they're just little things that get in the way of drivers and their cars getting somewhere.
Whether or not the kids entered the crosswalk during the flashing hand—which, by the way, is never confirmed by anyone in particular, did the driver say they did?—is irrelevant. The fact is the driver should have been looking for pedestrians in the crosswalk and would have been required to yield to them. This driver was obviously driving fast enough to kill someone, leading me to believe he/she wasn't watching for any peds, legally crossing or not.
“The footprints highlighted the Florida Market thumbnail is WAY too big. Playing around with the ruler tool on Google Maps shows that the small riverfront stadium in London (seats 25,000) has a total footprint of ~630x390ft. Anfield, which houses Liverpool FC seats over 45,000 and only occupies ~630x490 feet of ground space.”
It should be noted that both Liverpool and Fulham (while still playing there) regard their stadiums to be outdated. Mostly because their footprints would not sustain 21st century additions and amenities - and increased capacity.
That said, I do think that a United stadium could absolutely be built to coincide with an excellent urban mixed development. No, the playing surface and stands will not be used 365 days a year (if United and Akridge pay for it, do you mind?) - built the exterior could be used for much more every day - just like Verizon Center. Put in retail, maybe even a grocery store for the rest of the development, a pub that would serve match goers and the general public. Nats Park is starting to house non-profits, I believe. This has been the recent model in the UK - partner with retailers or business developers to subsidize the cost of the project. Some examples…
Yeah, there are a bunch of parking lots in that neighborhood. Perhaps a better strategy would be to
1) Remove on street parking along MLK.
2) Set up meters in nearby parking lots - like the bank parking and church parking.
3) Pay the banks, church and other nearby lots a cut of the parking meter revenue.
Not only does it allow for more space for the streetcar, it makes for a more efficient use of parking.
It would be nice if MPD enforced traffic laws in the District. K Street is a hot mess during rush-hour. Pedestrians jay-walk; commuters make left-hand while crossing over double-yellow lines and 2 lanes of traffic; cars constantly block the box and sit idle inside crosswalks; bicyclists do not yield at stop signs and red lights.
Everyone is at fault.
MPD needs officers to be out on the street, as opposed to in their cruisers, ticketing ALL violators.
If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, the driver is required to yield. The flashing upraised hand does not mean that the way should be clear. It's called the “clearance” phase for a reason. It's to give time for pedestrians already within the crosswalk to clear it.
While it appears these teenagers entered the crosswalk in the clearance phase (which, as you point, out is illegal), someone who entered lawfully could still be in the crosswalk.
A flashing upraised hand, therefore, does not indicate that “the way is clear”. Drivers in Maryland are not permitted to enter the crosswalk when a pedestrian is in it.
A study (I'll see if I can find it) was conducted a few years ago to test the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown timers.
What it discovered was that the timers actually increased the number of pedestrians who entered the crosswalk during the clearance/'flashing' phase. But it decreased the number of pedestrians who were still in the crosswalk when the solid upraised hand came on.
So what can we glean from that?
When given adequate information, pedestrians will make better decisions. The flashing upraised hand is designed so that it gives enough time for the slowest pedestrians to cross. An able-bodied teen would still have plenty time to cross if he or she entered just as the flashing hand came on.
They look and say, oh, the timer says I have 25 seconds to cross, and I know it only takes me 15-20.
Or, alternatively, they say, oh, the timer says 3 seconds; there's no way I can make it.
The teens crossing Landover Road would likely have had no indication about how long they had to cross safely. And given suburban signal timing, they might have been standing on a narrow, dark sidewalk for 3 minutes. They made a poor judgment, and it cost a young person his life.
But the person responsible for pedestrian safety should at least understand that the design of our roadways forces people to decide between often-severe inconvenience and taking a risk. And if he can't figure out that roadway design plays a factor, he might need to find a new line of work.
Re: concerts - The 20-30k stadium is a niche. It is different than the amphitheaters, and it's different from arenas, and it's different from megastadia like FedEx or M&T. To some extent, there might be competition between venues, but I think they're more likely to complement each other by pulling in different acts and events that are looking for different things in a venue. Hell, DC101 holds yearly festivals in the RFK parking lot, not even in the stadium.
As a tangent, it would be a trip to go to a concert (let alone play one) in a stadium designed like Boca Juniors' place in Buenos Aires (which some were discussing above as a design solution for the Buzzard Point site). To fit into the small footprint of the stadium, the seating is sloped very, very steep.
Rich is correct that if a pedestrian sees a flashing red hand, he should not start to cross, and to do so is illegal.
But by the same token, if a driver sees a yellow light, he is supposed to stop if its safe and possible to do so. If it is not safe and possible, he should continue through the intersection. To do anything else (speed through it, go through when you could stop, etc.) is illegal.
Once police strictly and reliably enforce that, along with strict speed limits, turn signals (even when changing lanes), complete stops at stop signs, never turning on red when a pedestrian is present and every other traffic law, then I could put some blame on the pedestrian for crossing on a flashing hand.
BTW, let me clarify something in my other comments: I was specifically relying on the given information that these kids entered the crosswalk after the light started flashing. My comments were based on that information. That distinguishes what I was saying from oboe's situation where someone starts crossing but is still there when the light starts flashing. I absolutely agree that in the latter situation the pedestrian has to be given the right to finish crossing even if the driver has to stop for him. But my understanding of the facts presented in this particular case is that that wasn't the situation here.
Matt Johnson, you're completely misunderstanding my point. The flashing red hand means “Don't start.” That means the pedestrian who enters the crosswalk is in the wrong. The driver is entitled to expect that the way is clear. It doesn't automatically mean it's OK to mow down pedestrians, of course, but there is an extremely important aspect relating to civil liability if the pedestrian sues: If the driver could not reasonably avoid hitting the pedestrian who entered the crosswalk illegally (whether because of bad lighting, because the pedestrian ran out at the last second when it was too late to stop, whatever), then the driver isn't liable under Maryland law because the pedestrian was “contributorily negligent.” Maryland is one of a couple of states where the injured party's own negligence will prevent him from recovering from the other party.
What you seem to be saying is, “Damn the sign, the pedestrian is free to walk if he wants and the driver has to stop.” If the hand is flashing and the pedestrian hasn't started yet, you're wrong (though, as I said, I am neither encouraging nor excusing indiscriminate running-down of people who walk illegally, much as I might sometimes want to do that to a fatty who waddles out one second before the light turns).
In other words, I think we're talking about two distinct propositions.
“Yet there's absolutely no mention of this fact in Halsey's article. Who's really at fault: a teenager who hurries to get across the road before the light changes, but while cross traffic has still got the red light, or the driver who hits him despite the red light?”
You left out one possibility for who is at fault. Remember, it was dark. So the driver would have trouble seeing the teenager. That doesn't absolve the driver, but the darkness makes accidents more likely. Why was it dark (and therefore less safe?) Who is responsible for making Maryland intersections in general safe?
[T]he flashing red hand comes on to indicate that it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.
Yes, but is this correct?
As David pointed out, in the strictest possible interpretation, these kids should not have entered the crosswalk when the red hand was flashing. If they were elderly or disabled, or just walking slowly, they could easily have entered the crosswalk when the signal was white and not successfully reached the other side while the red hand began flashing.
That's why it's incorrect to make the leap to say that a flashing red-hand is a signal that “it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.” In fact, it's that kind of assumption that leads to these kind of deaths.
Good point about the amphitheatres. I completely forgot about those, perhaps because I despise going to the one in Virginia due to the traffic. Those venues fill a certain need as well, and certain performers prefer those to the indoor arenas in part for atmosphere reasons. Jimmy Buffett is probably the prime example.
Springsteen played amphitheatres on his “Sessions Band” tour in 2006 but normally plays arenas or stadiums. I imagine the nature of the bluegrass-themed show on that tour probably influenced the decision.
No. That's not quite true. You do a good job describing the intersection dynamics. However, drivers are not “allowed” to complete their turns unless the crosswalk is clear, period.
And even if there was time in the cycle specifically allocated for drivers to make turns without pedestrians present it would be during the solid upraised hand, not the flashing upraised hand.
No I don’t know where he came from with the exception of the fact that he did come from behind me. I saw him when he started yelling at me at my driver side window. And I apologized because I initially thought I was at fault but he kept on yelling!
There is no way he could have legally been in the left lane, to make a left turn into a circle that goes to the right.
How did you come to the conclusion that I “suddenly switch lanes in crowded areas”? I didn’t say that in any of my posts and you were not there to make any confirmation to either the actions of myself or the cyclist!
The area was not crowded, this was at 8am. I stated that there were two vehicles in front of me in the right lane. There was one car in the left lane. There was no bike lane at the time and there was one vehicle parked at the curb but I was ahead of that vehicle. As such I had a clear view of the vehicles ahead of me and to my immediate right. You are making assumptions about what happened and the conditions that existed yet you were not there.
Anywho, this is my last communication on the topic.
On the topic of the Post in general (from Wonkette):
America’s strangest joke of a newspaper is the Washington Post, an Onion-style bland suburban daily that seems to shrink deeper into itself each morning. With a news section full of utterly random paragraph-sized chunks from yesterday’s washingtonpost.com and a bizarre op-ed section featuring press releases submitted by the offices of politicians and the confused yammerings of senile embarrassments like Richard Cohen, the paper appears to be nothing less than an elaborate satire of Washington’s dull insularity and tunnel vision. But, according to accountants, it’s actually a very real cash drain on the Kaplan for-profit education scam company that owns the WaPo.
Mr. Alpert, my point was—and as I said, I'm not familiar with the intersection—how do you know the light was red? If it's a mid-block crosswalk, then yes, you're absolutely right that it would have been red and I concede the point. I thought I was pretty careful in my first comment to say that I don't know the location, and I noted that IF the light is at a regular intersection where there are two streets, then the light for traffic on the street the kids were crossing would have been red, but the light for traffic on the other street would not have been—it would have been green (assuming it's not like the DC Barnes Dance intersection, which I think is a safe assumption).
In other words, pedestrian wants to use crosswalk running parallel to street with green light. Traffic on street he is crossing has red light. Traffic on other street still has green, and the flashing red hand comes on to indicate that it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.
If you can provide further information about the location in question that shows it was not a spot where the driver would have had a green light, then I'd agree with you that the driver was in the wrong. But if the driver had a green light and turned legally without slowing down (and he is not required to do so) only to find that someone ran out in front of him against, then I wouldn't be too sympathetic to the pedestrian unless the driver was going obscenely fast.
Some really good posts here on the sizes, uses, payments and issus. Good reading mostly.
I'll stick with my original: Build it! Keep DC United in DC!
Please.
One of the key elements of the HUD/EPA/DOT Livability initiative is that livability is defined at the local level. Oh, well…
Next time they should put the tracks in first, then the resident will know going into the purchase decision that transit isn't going to be a “suggestion” but reality.
DHHS would consolidate undisclosed suburban space, not relocate its HQ. It's unlikely that any cabinet agency would abandon a close-in HQ. Moreover, King Farm is one of several sites.
@Alex - if we're not careful, people are going to talk ;)
Rich, you're incorrect about a soccer stadium not being a good concert venue. Look at the built-in stage at the Chicago Fire's stadium:
www.Chicago-fire.com/toyota-park
Here's the website for the Los Angeles
Galaxy's Home Depot Center: www.homedepotcenter.com. Notice how many other events are held there other than soccer games (The Galaxy shares their stadium with Chivas similar to the Giants-Jets in the NFL.)
Other teams have stages built into their stadiums too like the Columbus Crew, FC Dallas, and the Colorado Rapids. It's very common to build a stage into a 25k soccer stadium and they tend to have no problem booking them with events in addition to soccer if they want.
RE: Parking, have you seen the stretch of MLK in question? If so, do you really think 15th street is comparable?
i only meant to 'compare them' in the approach that i would take to correcting them—always looking to _increase_ opportunities to make the street better (e.g. make it bikable) instead of looking to _decrease_ what some might perceive (possibly correctly) as negatives of the street (e.g. on-street parking) [This practical and political school of thought coming from Jane Jacobs (to the extent i understand it correctly).]
It'd be interesting to study parking space use on MLK Ave. and see the actual statistics on how much it truly supports business there.
i'm a bit ashamed to say i don't know this (yet), even generally-speaking—but apparently i'm not the only one, since most bicycle advocacy organizations seem to have no problem handing precious street space, especially in business corridors, over to car parking, parklets, bulb-outs, and all sorts of things that preclude the subjective safety required for cyclists.
At the same time, it'd be a good time to develop a sharing parking strategy, even a transportation management district there, to deal with providing parking, as well as support of the sustainable transportation modes.
I like the 'sharing parking strategy'—i like all the rest, too, but the parking strategy stuff seems like it could be 'big bang for the buck'.
Yeah, there are a bunch of parking lots in that neighborhood. Perhaps a better strategy would be to 1) Remove on street parking along MLK., 2) Set up meters in nearby parking lots - like the bank parking and church parking., 3) Pay the banks, church and other nearby lots a cut of the parking meter revenue. Not only does it allow for more space for the streetcar, it makes for a more efficient use of parking.
so, yes, i don't know much about parking policies, especially in/around biz districts, but this sounds reasonable - and i'm sure there are plenty of variations. i'd make sure some of the cash goes back into streetscape improvements/beautification (a la Shoup).
There is another possibility I was close to including in this post but didn't. It might be possible to lay the tracks in the travel lanes, as show above, but to shift the tracks to the curb at each of the two stops. This would permit cars to pass the streetcar at each of the two stops.
...but would make cycling on this street almost-fully-impossible instead of 'just' very-difficult-to-impossible.
An additional point—bikes can be _very_ good for business—and this is for myriad reasons, one being that they are very space-efficient (at least compared to cars), and they afford individuals/families the ability to have loads more spending cash for outlays on dining/entertainment/retail instead of buying/fixing/maintaining/operating cars, and they allow somewhat-conscientious folks like me to have more than a couple of beers while we're out. The empirical data/studies on walk/bike shoppers vs. car shoppers is still coming in, but it looks good—about what we'd expect (Euro studies, someone making the case for a Toronto biz street, most biz owners think, often incorrectly, that most of their shoppers (e.g. 90%) arrive by car (e.g when it might be only 19%), SF study). We know folks continue to seek out bikable areas to live, so they can walk and/or bike 'downtown' (to the retail corridor).
Also, can you please share what you think the streetcar will be able to do that the several bus lines running through this same area wouldn't do.
provide dignified transit?
buses were forced upon the American people by GM/Shell/Standard Oil/Firestone because these corporations were interested in selling cars/oil/tires/etc. why do u think these corporations today throw their money behind 'bus rapid transit' instead of streetcars? same reason—they want to keep people in cars.
@Jason The field never really recovered from it, actually.
I think the original Poplar Point stadium proposal included a stage built into the stands (whether there were bleachers that rolled out over it or not I don't recall). It's a feature that's not uncommon in newer MLS stadiums, actually. If they don't have bleachers over them, some teams actually sell tickets on the stage as a “party deck.”
@Jason
Yes. Which is why these MLS-scale stadiums usually feature a stage of some sort built in to the stands which can then be covered by bleacher seating for soccer games.
Does anyone here remember how the centerfield area at Nats Park was scarred from the stage Dave Matthews Band erected for their concert during the All-Star Break?
So this is obviously incredible shortsighted but out of curiosity where do they think they'd put it on I-370? Since construction of the ICC there is no longer a sizable median and there never will be one again.
Re: headline
“Maryland road safety head, Post's Halsey blame pedestrians and even Michelle Obama for fatalities”
I know what you're trying to say here, but it makes it sounds like Halsey's story also blames Michelle Obama, but that's not in there.
@MLD:
Yes.
Maryland Code, Transportation Chapter, Title 21 - Vehicle Rules of the Road:
§ 21-203. Pedestrian control signals.
(c) Dont walk.- A pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of a “dont walk” or “upraised hand” signal.
(d) Wait signal - Beginning crossing prohibited.- A pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of a “wait signal”.
§ 21-202. Traffic lights with steady indication.
(2) These lights apply to drivers and pedestrians as provided in this section.
(b) Green indication.- Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or, unless a sign at the place prohibits the turn, turn right or left.
(c) Yielding right-of-way to vehicles or pedestrians within intersections or crosswalks.- Vehicular traffic described under subsection (b) of this section, including any vehicle turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle and any pedestrian lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk when the signal is shown.
[Emphasis mine]
Or even what will the streetcars do the area that the new DHS won't
Richard wrote: HW—don't see how you could look at a map or demographics and make a case for TJ's opening a store in W8
Nor did I make the case that a TJ's would work in Ward 8. I commented that I would “like” to have one there. Just like those who don't live there would “like” to have a streetcar.
Also, can you please share what you think the streetcar will be able to do that the several bus lines running through this same area wouldn't do. What does the n'hood (not transit advocates) gain by adding streetcars? I've seen countless advocates suggest what a good idea this will be but haven't seen anything touting the benefits outside of “more modes of transit is always good.”
And are you really suggesting that streetcars will work on MLK because they have them in Philly? This isn't Philly it's Congress Heights in DC.
Again, out n'hood is not simply a spot on a map.
I hope the MTA will ignore this “request”. I believe they will find it not only a burden on the project, but a completely idiotic gesture. Not only would this line add an incredible amenity to those condo owners who live along the line, but the noise from it would be less than that of even passing buses and cars! In fact, the grassy median can even remain! It's not a heavy rail system, it's a light rail system. Cross streets, stop signs, everything would remain.
Everytime a story about a pedestrian/cyclist getting hit comes up the comments tend to solely focus on the particulars on a given situation to try and determine who was at fault. Can we steer the discussion to the more substantive than nitpicking the specifics, which we don't have thus wasting time trying to come up with any contingency to fit our view? I think it then becomes fruitless to try and come up with more and more circumstances that may or may not have arose.
Besides correcting mistakes like Halsey's and clarifying existing law I think its mainly fruitless to focus on I'd much rather read responses to the fact that the GHSA seems to not even recognize that pedestrians should have some sort of expectation of safety even if the route they're walking along or try to cross is busy? Why does the fact that a road is busy most of the time mean that pedestrian safety becomes less important?
Widening some of the BW Parkway with a redesignation as I-95, was the mid 1970s official proposal (with the NYAIF)
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-95-baltimore-washington-parkway_18.html
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/01/bicentennial-i-95.html
Another win for TOD without the T and O.
The driver is supposed to be looking at the traffic signal (red light) and at the road, not at the pedestrian signal. If a driver even knows what the color of the pedestrian signal is, and hits a pedestrian, the driver has been looking in the wrong place and is at fault for failure to keep eyes on the road.
Here's a question I have - is entering the intersection during the “clearance interval” ACTUALLY illegal? Because I haven't seen any evidence that it is. How could it be? As multiple people have said, people take different amounts of time to cross so some people would be able to easily make the light if they enter during the flashing hand.
But it seriously shows our bias when we think that a car should just be able to blow through a left turn at a rate of speed where you can kill someone. And yet it's accepted as just a part of daily driving behavior. People do fast left turns to avoid oncoming traffic, to turn left at the end of a light cycle, etc. And yet somehow it's accepted as a fact that the people who should be making concessions in this equation are the people crossing the street who have no protection whatsoever, instead of the people driving 3000lb vehicles.
@oboe:
+1
Funny, I was just driving through King Farm yesterday (on the way to get my emissions test) and thinking that I would consider moving there if there was good transit someday. Oh well. Thanks Rockville council. Good to know that I voted against so many of you.
Look what Arlington had to do with Seven Corners to stop mexicans from running across the road.
You've put your finger on it here, charlie. The Guatemalans and Salvadorians do a pretty good job of playing by the rules. But those dueced Mexicans! It seems like we've always gotta build a fence!
@andrew
I know the 9:30 club was looking to lease or purchase Uline arena and try to convert it into that kind of 5,000 seat venue at some point in time - I want to say that was before Jemal purchased it.
I say this a lot, but whatever promising plans we see proposed outside-the-Beltway, at the end of the day, we can always depend on the exurbs to cave to reactionary pressure and do the wrong thing.
Good for inside-the-Beltway property values, though.
@Tina: Get in touch with me - smiller /at/ ggwash.org. We are in the beginning phases of organizing something like this in northwest Columbia Heights.
Oboe's interpretation of traffic is worth of Abelard. But remember what happened to him….
I think MJohnson brings up an interesting point with the countdown timers, which are a great innovation. However, there is a caveat: those timers are mostly being installed in urban areas. Urban areas are safer than suburban roads for pedestrians.
Pedestrian behavior is indeed a real problem. Look what Arlington had to do with Seven Corners to stop mexicans from running across the road. Now there is a fence to stop and force people to take the bridge. Fetishing “Complete Streets” is not helpful in big box country.*
And the uptick in deaths? Probably nothing more than people driving as the economy recovers a bit and gas prices remained stable, if high.
* Things like the countdown timers or stop buttons which give pedestrians more choice and control are not a bad thing in these cases. More crosswalks—maybe not.
(consider William & Mary, which has an outstanding football team but has a stadium that barely seats 10,000, if that)
The other teams in the (increasingly excellent) CAA all also have generally small stadiums, and are almost all within driving distance to DC. Seating capacity at W&M's stadium is a bit complicated. It's officially 12,000, but higher in reality because temporary stands are constructed in the endzones during the season, and there's a bit of standing room. Of course, regular season games don't even fill it a third of the way, so I'm not sure that any of the CAA teams would want to host regular-season games in DC. This would get them at most one, maybe two events per season. (I'm drifting offtopic aren't I?)
Although amphitheaters probably do make for better venues, the ones in DC suck because of the distance that you have to drive to use them. (Getting to Merriweather is only half the pain—parking there is a nightmare, and the venue itself is nothing to write home about). On the other hand, I'm sure that IMP (Owners of the 9:30 club, and promoters of many Merriweather events) would move their events to a medium-sized DC-based venue if one was available, simply because of the increased capacity and ticket sales.
(Sidenote: DC also lacks a decent 2-5,000 person venue. DAR Hall is awful for the shows that IMP hosts there. Nothing to kill the mood like sitting down for a rock show.)
Idiots. Why would you move somewhere designed around a proposed rail line? And what's with this Science City stuff? Why not just build things where we already have developed land?
This is a good discussion going on here.
There is another possibility I was close to including in this post but didn't. It might be possible to lay the tracks in the travel lanes, as show above, but to shift the tracks to the curb at each of the two stops. This would permit cars to pass the streetcar at each of the two stops.
The challenge, though, is merging back into the travel lane after the stop. Not impossible, but it might delay the streetcar by a few seconds while looking for an opening in traffic. If the stops are placed at stop lights, the lights could be timed to give the streetcar a head start when leaving the stop.
DDOT would have to pave the streetcar stop with a special material to discourage people parking in the stop space.
This week, I nearly got hit crossing 20th Street NW at P by a car turning left even though I had the white hand.
Then I was nearly hit crossing Massachusetts Ave at 21st St when I had a white hand by a car that totally ignored the red light.
No, it's always the pedestrian's fault.
PS The other problem with the red flashing hand. At a few intersections in DC, it turns from white to red literally 3 seconds in. I'm thinking of I and 15th NW as a prime example. It's white long enough to step off the curb. And cars treat the red flashing hand as meaning they have the right to turn onto I whether or not there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
Matt Johnson, you're completely misunderstanding my point. The flashing red hand means “Don't start.” That means the pedestrian who enters the crosswalk is in the wrong. The driver is entitled to expect that the way is clear.
Yes, this is what I was trying to get across. It makes no sense to say that a driver is entitled to expect that the crosswalk is clear in the case where teens entered the crosswalk during the “clearance phase”, but the driver is not entitled to expect the crosswalk is clear in the case where an elderly person entered the crosswalk during the “walk phase” but has not yet cleared the intersection.
Rich,
You betrayed your bias with this line:
This is precisely the bias which David is railing against in this article. No one is suggesting that the driver is solely to blame for this terrible incident, but instead asking officials, the press, and the general public to stop talking about pedestrian issues like they're just little things that get in the way of drivers and their cars getting somewhere.
Whether or not the kids entered the crosswalk during the flashing hand—which, by the way, is never confirmed by anyone in particular, did the driver say they did?—is irrelevant. The fact is the driver should have been looking for pedestrians in the crosswalk and would have been required to yield to them. This driver was obviously driving fast enough to kill someone, leading me to believe he/she wasn't watching for any peds, legally crossing or not.
“The footprints highlighted the Florida Market thumbnail is WAY too big. Playing around with the ruler tool on Google Maps shows that the small riverfront stadium in London (seats 25,000) has a total footprint of ~630x390ft. Anfield, which houses Liverpool FC seats over 45,000 and only occupies ~630x490 feet of ground space.”
It should be noted that both Liverpool and Fulham (while still playing there) regard their stadiums to be outdated. Mostly because their footprints would not sustain 21st century additions and amenities - and increased capacity.
That said, I do think that a United stadium could absolutely be built to coincide with an excellent urban mixed development. No, the playing surface and stands will not be used 365 days a year (if United and Akridge pay for it, do you mind?) - built the exterior could be used for much more every day - just like Verizon Center. Put in retail, maybe even a grocery store for the rest of the development, a pub that would serve match goers and the general public. Nats Park is starting to house non-profits, I believe. This has been the recent model in the UK - partner with retailers or business developers to subsidize the cost of the project. Some examples…
Leyton Orient (East London)
http://www.homes24.co.uk/doc.html?_a=view&id=1899533
http://www.county4life.com/leytonground.jpg
Coventry City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricoh_Arena#History_and_background
Colchester United
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchester_Community_Stadium#Facilities
Chelsea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamford_Bridge_%28stadium%29#Other_features
Yeah, there are a bunch of parking lots in that neighborhood. Perhaps a better strategy would be to
1) Remove on street parking along MLK.
2) Set up meters in nearby parking lots - like the bank parking and church parking.
3) Pay the banks, church and other nearby lots a cut of the parking meter revenue.
Not only does it allow for more space for the streetcar, it makes for a more efficient use of parking.
*left-hand turns
It would be nice if MPD enforced traffic laws in the District. K Street is a hot mess during rush-hour. Pedestrians jay-walk; commuters make left-hand while crossing over double-yellow lines and 2 lanes of traffic; cars constantly block the box and sit idle inside crosswalks; bicyclists do not yield at stop signs and red lights.
Everyone is at fault.
MPD needs officers to be out on the street, as opposed to in their cruisers, ticketing ALL violators.
@Rich:
You're misunderstanding me, too.
If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, the driver is required to yield. The flashing upraised hand does not mean that the way should be clear. It's called the “clearance” phase for a reason. It's to give time for pedestrians already within the crosswalk to clear it.
While it appears these teenagers entered the crosswalk in the clearance phase (which, as you point, out is illegal), someone who entered lawfully could still be in the crosswalk.
A flashing upraised hand, therefore, does not indicate that “the way is clear”. Drivers in Maryland are not permitted to enter the crosswalk when a pedestrian is in it.
A study (I'll see if I can find it) was conducted a few years ago to test the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown timers.
What it discovered was that the timers actually increased the number of pedestrians who entered the crosswalk during the clearance/'flashing' phase. But it decreased the number of pedestrians who were still in the crosswalk when the solid upraised hand came on.
So what can we glean from that?
When given adequate information, pedestrians will make better decisions. The flashing upraised hand is designed so that it gives enough time for the slowest pedestrians to cross. An able-bodied teen would still have plenty time to cross if he or she entered just as the flashing hand came on.
They look and say, oh, the timer says I have 25 seconds to cross, and I know it only takes me 15-20.
Or, alternatively, they say, oh, the timer says 3 seconds; there's no way I can make it.
The teens crossing Landover Road would likely have had no indication about how long they had to cross safely. And given suburban signal timing, they might have been standing on a narrow, dark sidewalk for 3 minutes. They made a poor judgment, and it cost a young person his life.
But the person responsible for pedestrian safety should at least understand that the design of our roadways forces people to decide between often-severe inconvenience and taking a risk. And if he can't figure out that roadway design plays a factor, he might need to find a new line of work.
(@Rich, might people be more willing to consider your argument if you refrained from gratuitous name-calling?)
Re: concerts - The 20-30k stadium is a niche. It is different than the amphitheaters, and it's different from arenas, and it's different from megastadia like FedEx or M&T. To some extent, there might be competition between venues, but I think they're more likely to complement each other by pulling in different acts and events that are looking for different things in a venue. Hell, DC101 holds yearly festivals in the RFK parking lot, not even in the stadium.
As a tangent, it would be a trip to go to a concert (let alone play one) in a stadium designed like Boca Juniors' place in Buenos Aires (which some were discussing above as a design solution for the Buzzard Point site). To fit into the small footprint of the stadium, the seating is sloped very, very steep.
Rich is correct that if a pedestrian sees a flashing red hand, he should not start to cross, and to do so is illegal.
But by the same token, if a driver sees a yellow light, he is supposed to stop if its safe and possible to do so. If it is not safe and possible, he should continue through the intersection. To do anything else (speed through it, go through when you could stop, etc.) is illegal.
Once police strictly and reliably enforce that, along with strict speed limits, turn signals (even when changing lanes), complete stops at stop signs, never turning on red when a pedestrian is present and every other traffic law, then I could put some blame on the pedestrian for crossing on a flashing hand.
BTW, let me clarify something in my other comments: I was specifically relying on the given information that these kids entered the crosswalk after the light started flashing. My comments were based on that information. That distinguishes what I was saying from oboe's situation where someone starts crossing but is still there when the light starts flashing. I absolutely agree that in the latter situation the pedestrian has to be given the right to finish crossing even if the driver has to stop for him. But my understanding of the facts presented in this particular case is that that wasn't the situation here.
Hope that clarifies a bit.
Matt Johnson, you're completely misunderstanding my point. The flashing red hand means “Don't start.” That means the pedestrian who enters the crosswalk is in the wrong. The driver is entitled to expect that the way is clear. It doesn't automatically mean it's OK to mow down pedestrians, of course, but there is an extremely important aspect relating to civil liability if the pedestrian sues: If the driver could not reasonably avoid hitting the pedestrian who entered the crosswalk illegally (whether because of bad lighting, because the pedestrian ran out at the last second when it was too late to stop, whatever), then the driver isn't liable under Maryland law because the pedestrian was “contributorily negligent.” Maryland is one of a couple of states where the injured party's own negligence will prevent him from recovering from the other party.
What you seem to be saying is, “Damn the sign, the pedestrian is free to walk if he wants and the driver has to stop.” If the hand is flashing and the pedestrian hasn't started yet, you're wrong (though, as I said, I am neither encouraging nor excusing indiscriminate running-down of people who walk illegally, much as I might sometimes want to do that to a fatty who waddles out one second before the light turns).
In other words, I think we're talking about two distinct propositions.
“Yet there's absolutely no mention of this fact in Halsey's article. Who's really at fault: a teenager who hurries to get across the road before the light changes, but while cross traffic has still got the red light, or the driver who hits him despite the red light?”
You left out one possibility for who is at fault. Remember, it was dark. So the driver would have trouble seeing the teenager. That doesn't absolve the driver, but the darkness makes accidents more likely. Why was it dark (and therefore less safe?) Who is responsible for making Maryland intersections in general safe?
[T]he flashing red hand comes on to indicate that it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.
Yes, but is this correct?
As David pointed out, in the strictest possible interpretation, these kids should not have entered the crosswalk when the red hand was flashing. If they were elderly or disabled, or just walking slowly, they could easily have entered the crosswalk when the signal was white and not successfully reached the other side while the red hand began flashing.
That's why it's incorrect to make the leap to say that a flashing red-hand is a signal that “it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.” In fact, it's that kind of assumption that leads to these kind of deaths.
Good point about the amphitheatres. I completely forgot about those, perhaps because I despise going to the one in Virginia due to the traffic. Those venues fill a certain need as well, and certain performers prefer those to the indoor arenas in part for atmosphere reasons. Jimmy Buffett is probably the prime example.
Springsteen played amphitheatres on his “Sessions Band” tour in 2006 but normally plays arenas or stadiums. I imagine the nature of the bluegrass-themed show on that tour probably influenced the decision.
@Rich:
No. That's not quite true. You do a good job describing the intersection dynamics. However, drivers are not “allowed” to complete their turns unless the crosswalk is clear, period.
And even if there was time in the cycle specifically allocated for drivers to make turns without pedestrians present it would be during the solid upraised hand, not the flashing upraised hand.
@M
No I don’t know where he came from with the exception of the fact that he did come from behind me. I saw him when he started yelling at me at my driver side window. And I apologized because I initially thought I was at fault but he kept on yelling!
There is no way he could have legally been in the left lane, to make a left turn into a circle that goes to the right.
How did you come to the conclusion that I “suddenly switch lanes in crowded areas”? I didn’t say that in any of my posts and you were not there to make any confirmation to either the actions of myself or the cyclist!
The area was not crowded, this was at 8am. I stated that there were two vehicles in front of me in the right lane. There was one car in the left lane. There was no bike lane at the time and there was one vehicle parked at the curb but I was ahead of that vehicle. As such I had a clear view of the vehicles ahead of me and to my immediate right. You are making assumptions about what happened and the conditions that existed yet you were not there.
Anywho, this is my last communication on the topic.
On the topic of the Post in general (from Wonkette):
America’s strangest joke of a newspaper is the Washington Post, an Onion-style bland suburban daily that seems to shrink deeper into itself each morning. With a news section full of utterly random paragraph-sized chunks from yesterday’s washingtonpost.com and a bizarre op-ed section featuring press releases submitted by the offices of politicians and the confused yammerings of senile embarrassments like Richard Cohen, the paper appears to be nothing less than an elaborate satire of Washington’s dull insularity and tunnel vision. But, according to accountants, it’s actually a very real cash drain on the Kaplan for-profit education scam company that owns the WaPo.
(http://wonkette.com/435664/washington-post-newsroom-upset-because-black-lady-with-boobs-hosts-wapo-webcast)
Yep, that about sums it up.
—oboe
[Lifelong DC resident; Post subscriber until about 2001]
Mr. Alpert, my point was—and as I said, I'm not familiar with the intersection—how do you know the light was red? If it's a mid-block crosswalk, then yes, you're absolutely right that it would have been red and I concede the point. I thought I was pretty careful in my first comment to say that I don't know the location, and I noted that IF the light is at a regular intersection where there are two streets, then the light for traffic on the street the kids were crossing would have been red, but the light for traffic on the other street would not have been—it would have been green (assuming it's not like the DC Barnes Dance intersection, which I think is a safe assumption).
In other words, pedestrian wants to use crosswalk running parallel to street with green light. Traffic on street he is crossing has red light. Traffic on other street still has green, and the flashing red hand comes on to indicate that it's the time for those drivers to be allowed to complete their turns.
If you can provide further information about the location in question that shows it was not a spot where the driver would have had a green light, then I'd agree with you that the driver was in the wrong. But if the driver had a green light and turned legally without slowing down (and he is not required to do so) only to find that someone ran out in front of him against, then I wouldn't be too sympathetic to the pedestrian unless the driver was going obscenely fast.