Get Your War On

The other day the Washington Post ran a preposterous article deeming a few commonsense measures taken by the Fenty administration to serve the interests of people live, work, and pay taxes in the District of Columbia a "war against workers who drive into the city." Yesterday, Megan McArdle signed on as a war supporter.

Today, I think I'd like to offer some suggestions in case the Fenty administration decides to prosecute the war more vigorously. For one thing, all the reversible-lane (lanes that run inbound during the morning rush hour and outbound during the afternoon rush hour) streets should be made into regular streets. The SE Freeway should be turned into a boulevard, as should the part of 295 that runs east from the Air Force and Naval bases (this will allow the eventual construction of a nice Anacostia riverfront). The stretch of New York Avenue running east from North Capitol Street to the border should be made into a more normal city street rather than a quasi-highway as should the stretch of North Capitol Street running north from Michigan Avenue.

Major thoroughfares like Connecticut Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, H Street, 16th Street should have either parking or traffic lanes removed to make way for dedicated bus lanes that may lay the groundwork for eventual light rail. Everyplace throughout the central city that's currently painted for diagonal or perpendicular parking should be put to parallel parking with the space freed up dedicated to sidewalk, green space, bike lanes, something. Developers and landowners should be freed from any regulatory mandate to build parking lots or garages (one assumes most will still want to provide some parking that may or may not be free).

With less space dedicated to moving and parking private cars there will, of course, be a scarcity problem which should be ameliorated by congestion pricing and performance parking. Revenue thereby generated can go to enhance Metro and Metrobus service.

Photo by Flickr user Alex Massie used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Yes, Matt, we know you hate cars.

Posted by Vidor | July 9, 2008 2:38 PM

In every war, it's also important to win hearts and minds of the enemy. To this end, I would propose the following ameliorative measures:

1. Rapidly expand the parking facilities at the last and second-to-last subway stations on each end of each line.

2. Make parking at these structures free, for periods of up to seven days, to anyone who holds a SmartTrip card that is linked to a major credit card. (And charge a substantial weekly fee if they leave the car for more than a week.)

Posted by southpaw | July 9, 2008 2:50 PM

It's to bad that reasonable ideas like this are apparently seen as extreme. For some reason we Americans have it in our heads that we should be able to drive anywhere with minimal traffic or parking problems at no cost no matter how impractical and inefficient such a system is. Real estate is valuable in a city, and no more of it than necessary should be used up by automobile transportation infrastructure.

Posted by RTG | July 9, 2008 2:52 PM

Reversible-lane streets? Good lord, I didn't know there was such a thing.

Posted by Chris O. | July 9, 2008 2:57 PM

southpaw: Step 1 is accomplished on the Red Line, particularly on the Shady Grove side. That parking complex is HUGE. I agree, though, that this would help, as would the "park for free for a week" idea. As someone who has driven into DC on occasion, I dislike the experience and am all for getting cars out of the District.

Posted by B. Minich | July 9, 2008 3:02 PM

For one thing, all the reversible-lane (lanes that run inbound during the morning rush hour and outbound during the afternoon rush hour) streets should be made into regular streets.

Not to ask a dumb question, but what is the major advantage of making non-reversible streets to city residents?

Of all of the parts of the plan, this one just seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face: being able to accommodate more traffic coming into and out of the city is good for the businesses that Mayor Williams and DC worked so hard to woo back into the city in the first place.

Where the article addresses this, it does so only obliquely:

"Having one-ways creates the expectations among drivers that they are being expedited through the city," Wells said. And that means higher speeds and less-safe streets, he said.

I mean... really? Higher expectations?

Posted by Brad L | July 9, 2008 3:11 PM

Another thread about to get all Mixnered up. Woohoo!

Posted by Dmonteith | July 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Yglesias just loves wars. He loved the Iraq war. Now he loves wars on commuters.

Anyone who lives in the suburbs isn't rich enough to be alive in Yglesias' mind. Shock 'n' awe, baby. Someone ought to explain to the petit bourgeoisie that if they don't have a trust-fund, they are honor bound to move to West Virginia.

Anything to kill poor people is OK for Yglesias. More resources left for the natural born rich.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 3:16 PM

Petey, I'm too lazy/busy to look it up, but aren't those suburbanites commuting into DC to their federal govt-related jobs a good deal richer than the people who live in the city?

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 3:22 PM

"Petey, I'm too lazy/busy to look it up, but aren't those suburbanites commuting into DC to their federal govt-related jobs a good deal richer than the people who live in the city?"

Matt's frame of reference is of the rich Manhattanites who hate those lumpen proletariats who live in Queens. He wants to declare war on those without a trust fund and urban real estate.

It's why he loves Bloomberg, Obama, and the House of Windsor.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 3:29 PM

Why quote a question if you're not going to make any attempt to answer it?

Posted by southpaw | July 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Oops! Obviously, what I meant to say was "all Peteyed up". So many trolls...hard to keep up.

Posted by Dmonteith | July 9, 2008 3:53 PM

Aren't these reversible one-way streets the legacy of D.C's successful fight in the 60s against putting an interstate highway through the city?

Posted by musa | July 9, 2008 3:54 PM

I too am flummoxed by the idea of reversible-lane streets.

Southpaw has the right idea: the city should simultaneously make it harder to drive in the city, and easier to use mass transit. Carrot and stick.

Posted by Persia | July 9, 2008 3:59 PM

I too am flummoxed by the idea of reversible-lane streets.

In addition to DC, we have them in Arlington (where I live) and Silver Spring (where I grew up). They are simply a way to accommodate the fact that traffic flows heavily in one direction at one time of day, and in a different direction later, without building even more roads. They aren't really all the complicated or unusual.

Posted by Brad L | July 9, 2008 4:11 PM

I don't think there is a specific number (though I assume it is significant) because it is up to the individual agencies, but I wonder how much impact would getting the federal government to stop giving free parking make in the traffic flow?

As someone who walks down Pennsylvania Avenue on the Hill and has nearly died/gotten maimed (and that isn't an exaggeration) crossing Independence, I like the idea of reducing the number of MD/VA commuters who speed and run through red lights.

Posted by ET | July 9, 2008 4:17 PM

I don't think there is a specific number (though I assume it is significant) because it is up to the individual agencies, but I wonder how much impact would getting the federal government to stop giving free parking make in the traffic flow?

As someone who walks down Pennsylvania Avenue on the Hill and has nearly died/gotten maimed (and that isn't an exaggeration) crossing Independence, I like the idea of reducing the number of MD/VA commuters who speed and run through red lights.

Posted by ET | July 9, 2008 4:19 PM

Reversible-lane streets sound pretty awesome to me. I think they should do it with highways -- instead of 4 lanes each way, make it 6 and 2 during rush hour, if it's an area with a predictable commute pattern.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 4:30 PM

I think they should do it with highways

Oh, that actually does happen. I-395 has a middle section that runs in different directions at different hours.

And yes, more would be better!

Posted by Brad L | July 9, 2008 4:35 PM

ET, I think congress is the only agency that really gives lots of free parking. Most other agencies only reserve it for high level people or carpool.

Posted by nathaniel | July 9, 2008 4:37 PM

I almost got killed the first time I was driving in DC because of those reversible lanes. I was totally flummoxed by Connecticut Avenue up near Cleveland Park/Van Ness and almost had a head-on collision in my rental car. Yikes.

Posted by Andrew | July 9, 2008 4:46 PM

The post headline would have made more sense if it concerned the Iran Resolution authorizing Bush to set up a blockade of Iran, instead of some local DC traffic problem.

Christ, Matt, where ARE your priorities?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 9, 2008 5:22 PM

The reversible lanes are a nightmare, particularly in a city with as many visitors as DC. They crop in a weird mutant hybrids, as well, such as 15th Street, whihc is a two-way four-lane street downtown, but becomes a four-lane northbound superhighway from Mass Ave to W Street, except that the two-way portion becomes one-way during the evening rush, which invariably leads to people attempting left turns from what has become a middle lane -- causing accidents including one in which I was pasted by an inattentive left-turner.

Posted by Sebastian Dangerfield | July 9, 2008 5:24 PM

ET, I think congress is the only agency that really gives lots of free parking.

Indeed. And good luck getting them to stop.

Posted by roac | July 9, 2008 5:29 PM

The street Matt mentions which I'm familiar with is North Capitol, as I use that street to commute. I'm curious as to one would do to make that stretch a more "normal" city street. Random red lights? More potholes? What?

Posted by Kurt | July 9, 2008 5:31 PM

I don't know why Matt keeps assuming that all these changes inure only to the benefit of "people live, work, and pay taxes in the District of Columbia" and only to the detriment of "workers who drive into the city." It would be more (though not completely) accurate to say that these changes inure to the benefit of those who use mass transit to commute and to the detriment of those who drive, regardless of whether they live in the city or not.

Posted by Ugh | July 9, 2008 5:46 PM

I'm not sure I buy the idea that Matt's ideas are pro-rich, his primary argument is for more public transportation, which is hardly hang-out for the wealthy.

Posted by RTG | July 9, 2008 5:50 PM

This reminds me of Matt's bold prediction that Washington didn't need to build parking for the new stadium for the Nationals -- if you don't build it, they will find a way to get there by public transportation. And he crowed when they sold the place out on opening day.

But what about the typical Tuesday, when someone in Reston is thinking about going to the game, but has to drive to a metro station, take the train there and back, at night, instead of just driving directly to the stadium. Well, the people have voted with their wheels -- despite a new stadium, the Nationals are drawing only 29,000 per game. Most new stadiums sell out their first season due to the curious, even when the team stinks. The Nationals drew 24,000 last year with a bad team and a bad stadium.

Posted by pj | July 9, 2008 5:58 PM

I'm not sure I buy the idea that Matt's ideas are pro-rich, his primary argument is for more public transportation, which is hardly hang-out for the wealthy.

Posted by RTG | July 9, 2008 6:01 PM

The best way to improve transit is to improve congestion (by building roads) while expanding transit. Counterintuitive, possibly, but you need voters to approve of expansions and giving commuters a sense that they're not getting railroaded (no pun intended) is a good way to get them to jump on board with these proposals, even if the cost is higher.

Posted by Joel | July 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Reversible-lane streets sound pretty awesome to me. I think they should do it with highways -- instead of 4 lanes each way, make it 6 and 2 during rush hour, if it's an area with a predictable commute pattern.

With bridges, perhaps: the Golden Gate and (I think) the Bay Bridge do this, though it doesn't really address the fact that commuting over either is a recipe for frustration.

Not on urban clearways with any kind of non-car traffic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 6:40 PM

The best way to improve transit is to improve congestion (by building roads) while expanding transit.

No, that's a good way to waste lots of money on expanded transit that goes unused. Building roads gives people an incentive to keep on driving rather than shift to transit. The only way you're going to get large numbers of people to leave their cars at home and take buses and trains instead is by significantly, and permanently, raising the costs of driving relative to the costs of using transit. Building more roads and promoting more fuel-efficient cars will tend to have the opposite effect.

Posted by Mixner | July 9, 2008 6:41 PM

I've driven over the Golden Gate Bridge (and back) every weekday for the last 4 years. Yes, it has reversible lanes. No, it's not confusing (the one's in DC always flummoxed me, even after a couple of years). And there's rarely a traffic issue on the bridge itself--101 south of San Rafael is the real nightmare.

cheers,
g

Posted by gerrard in the middle | July 9, 2008 7:04 PM

Yes, Matt, we know you hate cars.

+1

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 9, 2008 7:36 PM

Speaking as someone who makes use of the SE Freeway to get to I-295 several times a month from Arlington, what do you propose to replace this road with so I don't have to spend a stupid amount of time on the Washington Beltway?

Posted by Shrike58 | July 9, 2008 8:29 PM

I'm really puzzled by Matt's assumption that (1) poor people don't drive, and (2) traffic only hurts commuters. Consider this a request, I guess, for him to defend one or both of those positions.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 8:58 PM

I used to live a few houses down from the reversible lanes on Constitution, and it made very little difference to me when they ended the reversibility. The lanes reverse during rush hour, when I generally wasn't home! So it's not like the increased traffic made much difference to me, or most people with jobs. But I bet the elimination of the reversible lanes made life a whole lot worse for people commuting into the city from the east.

Matt claims that this policy is "commonsense," but that's foolish. Decisions about urban roads and transit require a careful balancing of multiple competing interests. Commonsense is nice, but it's
not substitute for careful analysis.

Posted by Ragout | July 9, 2008 10:19 PM

"The street Matt mentions which I'm familiar with is North Capitol, as I use that street to commute. I'm curious as to one would do to make that stretch a more 'normal' city street. Random red lights? More potholes? What?"

Cute. But how about putting up speed cameras every 500 meters, so that scofflaws aren't driving 40-50 mph on a road where the speed limit is 25 mph? Would that work for you, champ?

Posted by ibc | July 9, 2008 11:08 PM

"I used to live a few houses down from the reversible lanes on Constitution, and it made very little difference to me when they ended the reversibility. The lanes reverse during rush hour, when I generally wasn't home! So it's not like the increased traffic made much difference to me, or most people with jobs"

Well, that certainly is nice for you, but what about the small children walking to the elementary school at 13th & Constitution? The average speed down Constitution in that area was 40+ mph, and there were accidents every week.

Aw, screw it. As long as *you* were at work, along with "most people with jobs" we don't have a problem.

You really start to wonder just how deep is the narcissism of some someone who has the gall to write an overcooked phrase like "Commonsense is nice, but it's not substitute for careful analysis." Embarrassing.

Posted by ibc | July 9, 2008 11:22 PM

despite a new stadium, the Nationals are drawing only 29,000 per game. Most new stadiums sell out their first season due to the curious, even when the team stinks. The Nationals drew 24,000 last year with a bad team and a bad stadium.

This wasn't due to lack of parking. It was due to the fact that it was just a shitty idea to bring baseball to DC in the first place.

That said, every morning, when I commute out of the city, I wonder who those idiots are who are driving down Connecticut Avenue every day. Seriously, do people like being stuck in traffic on a slow-moving, congested avenue with non-synchronized traffic lights? Who are these people, where are they driving to, and why aren't they using the metro?

Posted by Tyro | July 9, 2008 11:43 PM

ibc,

Yes, there's a downside to busy streets. But there's an upside too. You have to balance them, not insist that your needs, or even the needs of small children, are the only thing that counts.

And, yes, careful analysis is better than pulling facts out of your ass. Accidents every week? BS. Small children crossing busy streets on their way to school? Maybe, but that sounds more like irresponsible parenting to me (or more likely, more BS) not a bad road system. The small children I saw going to school at 5th & C NE, half a mile away, either walked with their parents, or were driven.

For all we know, those parents who dropped their kids off on the drive to work don't have time to do it anymore now that Constitution is so slow, and their kids now go to school less safely.

Posted by Ragout | July 10, 2008 12:06 AM

It's worth noting that commuting times in the DC metro area are some of the longest in the country, second only to NYC.

We should be looking for ways to shorten commuting times in the DC area, not stretch them out.

Posted by Ragout | July 10, 2008 12:32 AM

Matt's frame of reference is of the rich Manhattanites who hate those lumpen proletariats who live in Queens.

Except for the fact that Queens is largely a dense urban area connected to an excellent 24/7 mass transit system, this makes perfect sense!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | July 10, 2008 12:33 AM

It's worth noting that commuting times in the DC metro area are some of the longest in the country, second only to NYC.

We should be looking for ways to shorten commuting times in the DC area, not stretch them out.

Posted by Ragout | July 10, 2008 12:36 AM

"despite a new stadium, the Nationals are drawing only 29,000 per game."

That's still about three times the largest number of fans I ever saw at a game when they were in Montreal. So...progress!

Posted by ERM | July 10, 2008 6:37 AM

I have said before that tourists should not be allowed to drive in the District - it is suitable for professional commuters only. Reversible lanes - ha ! What about the Rock Creek Parkway, a reversible road ? (For non-natives, the entrances to the Parkway tend to have big "Do Not Enter" signs with small print telling when entrance is actually forbidden. In some places, that is the only sign marking the entrance, so you have to tell people "Look for the Do Not Enter sign and enter there" when you are giving directions.)

My favorite among the reversible lanes is the Chain Bridge. If you come down Chain Bridge Road it's a sharp left onto the Bridge. At some times, you have to go to the center lane - the right lane will have traffic moving at speed from Glebe Road in it even if you have a turn arrow. At other times, you have to go in the right lane - the center lane will have oncoming traffic. You cannot see the bridge before you turn and, if the light is green, you cannot possibly read the sign explaining all of this. I used to see people screw this up all the time when I commuted - the absence of daily fatalities there can only be attributed to Divine Providence.

No, there should clearly be a special test required to drive in the District. It is not for beginners.

Posted by Marshall | July 10, 2008 8:17 AM

As far as parking goes,

Trying to keep roads jams during all business hours would ensure that little retail would open in places of traffic. Few people want to fight traffic and pay a lot to park just to shop. One of the secrets of most shopping malls in the U.S. is that the parking is few and available.

Trying to limit business's customer base to those that can walk to it only works in very dense areas. Most of the business on North Capital do not apply. Besides most of the businesses in DC depend upon commuters to exist. Give the commuters less reason to visit a business and many more businesses will close.

I guess they do not teach economics at Harvard. Many organizations such as Washington Hospital Center are in competition with hospitals like Inova Fairfax, Shady Grove, etc for patients and staff. People can drive to Inova and do not pay to park. It is very hard to get to Washington Hospital Center on North Capital Street even with contra-flow lanes and the existing highways. Take them away any a large portion of the staff will quit. If DC starts a commuter tax and makes transit harder, you can probably close all of the hospitals in DC. The staff will move elsewhere and the patients will go to hospitals in the suburbans where the highways and parkings are.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 10, 2008 8:21 AM

Here is why I didn't typically use the Metro when I was commuting. I live about 10 miles from the Vienna Metro stop, and I am not the early sort. If you go in late (say 9:30), the drive times are fairly predictable; I would allow 1 hour to get to work driving.

If I took the Metro, I would have to drive to Vienna, for which I would allow 20 minutes. Now, if you come in late, there is always parking at the Metro (who are these people who leave at 9:00 AM ?), but you have to drive around a little to find it - say 10 minutes. Get to the train (5 minutes) and it will almost certainly be there waiting (the advantage of the end of the line) but you will wait 10 minutes or so for it to leave. The ride into the District is about 45 minutes or so (I don't believe the published 28 minutes in the slightest) and so far I am out $ 8.60 and am maybe 80 minutes into my journey. Now, I worked in Georgetown Heights, so I would get off in Farragut-West. In theory, there are buses from there up Massachusetts Ave., but in practice, there is a long wait, as that is against the rush hour flow, and the buses that come by will be "Out Of Service." So, a bus would be 30 minutes, a walk would also be 30 minutes, or I could break down and take a cab, if I could find one (maybe 10 minutes and IIRC $4 and something). If the trains were running late, by that point I would basically have to take a cab - at least they are not too hard to find at Farragut.

So, taking the Metro was at least 90 minutes, and at least $ 8 plus out of pocket, one way, and, worse, if I wanted to arrive on time, I had to allow more time and leave earlier which meant that I was dealing with rush hour, so all of those steps to get to the train would take longer, and the journey would take me 2 hours or more.

Of course, to come home, all of that would have to be reversed, except that both buses and cabs were actually harder to find in the evening (and, BTW, there was no bus shelter). So using the metro would condemn me to an extra 2 hours or so of traveling time each day I did it. Oh, and the metro closes early on weekdays - if I went out after work, I had to be very cautious of the time, lest I get stranded.

You might say that I should move, but instead I quit that job and now hardly commute at all, which is much more congenial.

BTW, you can imagine how my wife would react if I said that we were going to get dressed up and take the Metro to go into the District for an event in the evening. We like going into DC, but if there is not parking available, we are just not going to go.

Posted by Marshall | July 10, 2008 8:58 AM

I've never commuted into the District by car, but I can tell you that reversible-lane thoroughfares are a godsend when you're trying to get to a Metro park and ride at rush hour. Any public official who removed the reversible lane on Colesville Road in Silver Spring would probably be lynched.

Now, obviously, anyone driving down Connecticut to get to K Street has plentiful mass transit options, whereas someone trying to commute from Howard County to Silver Spring has virtually none. And it's a good idea to make any changes that are necessary to make the city more bike and pedestrian friendly. But taking an already nightmarish traffic situation and making it worse is not a very efficient way to raise support for mass transit. The most likely response is that even more businesses will relocate to the suburbs.

Believe me, traffic and fuel prices are already bad enough to drive commuters into the arms of mass transit. You risk a backlash by trying to make things even worse in the short term.

Oh, one side note:

"BTW, you can imagine how my wife would react if I said that we were going to get dressed up and take the Metro to go into the District for an event in the evening. We like going into DC, but if there is not parking available, we are just not going to go."

Actually, no, I can't imagine. I often see well-dressed couples riding Metro into the city in the evening. If your wife thinks the Metro is too déclassé to take to the Kennedy Center, that's her problem.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 10, 2008 10:04 AM

Marshall, to answer your question about who leaves the Vienna parking lot at 9 AM, it is people who work a few miles away from the Vienna metro and live elsewhere. Metro parking is free between 6pm and 9am, so they take the metro from their homes to the Vienna metro station, get in their car, and drive to work. At the end of the day, they drive back to the Vienna metro, park their car, and head home.

Note that for you, commuting can be done to DC almost entirely on the highways. You can go straight from the GW parkway to your office in Georgetown, mostly, and there's no effective public transit connection to Georgetown. But if you worked downtown, you'd be absolutely crazy to do what you do.

Incidentally, those unlucky enough to have to wear suits every day to work ride the metro while dressed up in formal clothing every day. However, if you're going out at night and for a nice evening, there's little traffic and, presumably, you're prepared to spring for valet parking. The only people who really get on my nerves who drive into the city at night are the people who go around in circles in Adams Morgan looking for parking.

Posted by Tyro | July 10, 2008 10:28 AM

Incidentally, those unlucky enough to have to wear suits every day to work ride the metro while dressed up in formal clothing every day. However, if you're going out at night and for a nice evening, there's little traffic and, presumably, you're prepared to spring for valet parking.

It's not really about wearing formal clothes (a tux ?) onto the metro. When we lived in Paris, we used the Paris Metro in the evening all of the time. And, there are some things in DC that are much better by Metro - going to the Smithsonian on a Sunday afternoon during the summer, for example.

For evening socializing, it's that

- it takes longer than by car, and we have to use the car at least part of the way
- it's hard to predict transit times. In DC, it can also be hard to predict the weather 20 miles away an hour later.
- If you are doing something on a week-night, the metro closing is just too early.
- the metro doesn't really go to where we are going, so we have to change to a bus, get a cab, walk etc. That last step can be very problematic - a shuttle to Kennedy Center ? Sounds cool, but the time we tried it, 3 went by and we couldn't come close to getting on any. We had to walk, in the rain, missed the opening and got fairly wet to boot. No, I am not going though that anytime soon, thank you very much.

So, to me, valet parking is a good investment.

(By the way, the subway actually goes very close to the Watergate and Kennedy Center - that round windowless building at the end of Virginia Avenue is part of the subway infrastructure and includes a staircase 300 feet or so down to the tunnel under the Potomac. Pity there isn't a stop there. It's also a pity that the good people of Georgetown voted down the subway there.)

My biggest Metro beef, however, is when in the blazes are they going to extend it out to Dulles ? This has been in the works for decades and somehow never seems to actually get any closer. Once you get it to Tysons a ring rail connection from Springfield to Dunn Loring to Tysons to Maryland would become the obvious next step, but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.

Posted by Marshall | July 10, 2008 11:49 AM

"and at least $8 plus out of pocket"

Versus driving a car, which doesn't cost any more than leaving it at home?

Marshall, I'm not picking on you, but you are a reflection of the mindset in which a car costs nothing but the gas to run it.

People are fascinated by gas prices but ignore that when gas was "cheap" (levels we'll probably never see again) it could easily cost 60 cents a mile to drive a non-descript, not-too-new vehicle.

If gas has gone up $2.50 a gallon in a year, at ~20 mpg that's only 12½ cents a mile increase. I say "only" because the psychological shock value is incredible.

Part of me wants to get hardcore drivers (i.e. folks who would never read a blog entry on transit) to understand this. Another part of me wants to leverage their panic politically and do something with it. And of the two voices on my shoulder I can't decide which one is the angel and which one is the devil.

Posted by ThresherK | July 10, 2008 11:58 AM

"and at least $8 plus out of pocket"

Versus driving a car, which doesn't cost any more than leaving it at home?

Marshall, I'm not picking on you, but you are a reflection of the mindset in which a car costs nothing but the gas to run it.

People are fascinated by gas prices but ignore that when gas was "cheap" (levels we'll probably never see again) it could easily cost 60 cents a mile to drive a non-descript, not-too-new vehicle.

If gas has gone up $2.50 a gallon in a year, at ~20 mpg that's only 12½ cents a mile increase. I say "only" because the psychological shock value is incredible.

Part of me wants to get hardcore drivers (i.e. folks who would never read a blog entry on transit) to understand this. Another part of me wants to leverage their panic politically and do something with it. And of the two voices on my shoulder I can't decide which one is the angel and which one is the devil.

Posted by ThresherK | July 10, 2008 12:01 PM

"The street Matt mentions which I'm familiar with is North Capitol, as I use that street to commute. I'm curious as to one would do to make that stretch a more 'normal' city street. Random red lights? More potholes? What?"

Cute. But how about putting up speed cameras every 500 meters, so that scofflaws aren't driving 40-50 mph on a road where the speed limit is 25 mph? Would that work for you, champ?

Yes, when I think "normal city street" I think speed cameras all over the place. When I go up to NYC I make sure to visit the speed cameras along Broadway and 42nd street.

And by "scofflaws" I think you meant to say "sensible people", aka 99.999% of the people who drive on that road.

Posted by Kurt | July 10, 2008 12:03 PM

"and at least $8 plus out of pocket"

Versus driving a car, which doesn't cost any more than leaving it at home?

No, of course not. But, out of pocket is out of pocket, you have to have at the point of sale. The bus back was especially annoying, as you had to have exact change, and there were no stores nearby with which to get it.

The new IRS rule is, what, 85 cents a mile for your car ? That would mean my 30 mile commute would be $ 25 by car, one way, which is a lot more than even the Subway + parking + cab combination. (I eventually got into the mode of taking whatever came first, a cab or a bus, on the DC end.)

Look, I support the Metro. I use it when I can. I take the train to NYC when I have to go there, and almost always use the subway there. I was just trying to show why commuters in the DC area might rationally decide to use their cars. An hour of my time is definitely worth $ 12 to me.

Posted by Marshall | July 10, 2008 12:25 PM

And by "scofflaws" I think you meant to say "sensible people", aka 99.999% of the people who drive on that road.

I love that when 99.9999% of car drivers exceed the speed limit by 15-20 mph, making a road unusable for any other mode of transport (e.g. bikes), they're "sensible people". But when cyclists roll a stop sign at 5 mph, or run a red light when there's no cross-traffic, they're demon scofflaws from hell.

Your attitude is all you really need to know about the almost delusional, *massive* sense of entitlement evinced by most "sensible drivers." It's so deeply ingrained, you can't even see it when your nose is rubbed in it.

The best of all is the natural follow-up argument that a bicyclist riding in the right-hand lane of North Capitol Street is both suicidal and rude, because he can only do like 20 mph, while the de facto speed limit among "sensible people" is 45-50.

And you wonder why cyclists and pedestrians have an attitude in this town.

Posted by ibc | July 10, 2008 1:15 PM

I don't complain about bikes who roll through stop signs or even red lights when it's safe. Nor would I complain about bikes on that road, though in five years I've never seen one. The fact of the matter is actually driving 25 MPH on that road is not safe, nor would 1 out of every 20 cars driving 25 MPH make anything safer for bikers. Eliminating one of the 3 car lanes to add a bike lane or widening the shoulder for bikes would be about a bllion times better than speed cameras (which - to get back to the original point - still have nothing to do with "normal city roads").

Also, speed cameras are a nice way to pick up a few bucks, but they hardly make things safer. Cars that know about them just speed up and slam on the brakes when needed, as on 395.

OT: I like "Demon Scofflaws from Hell". That would be a good band name or fantasy football team.

Posted by Kurt | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM

The fact of the matter is actually driving 25 MPH on that road is not safe, nor would 1 out of every 20 cars driving 25 MPH make anything safer for bikers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "driving 25 mph on that road is not safe". I can only imagine you're afraid other motorists might assault you? If so, that's exactly why other traffic calming measures need to be enacted. Whether that's speed cameras, single lane, some future speed-limiting technology, god knows, speeds have to come down.

The goal should be to reduce speeds while keeping traffic moving as consistently as possible. Think 25 mph everywhere in the District but without stalled bumper-to-bumper traffic.

By the way, I'm glad *you* don't have a problem with bikes on [N. Capitol]. But that's absolutely not the case with the other 99.99998% of the "sensible people" exceeding the speed limit by 20-25 mph.

These limits are only artificially low if you're operating under the assumption that only cars will be permitted to use a given road. And once other users have been bullied off the road by speeders in autos, the same folks who make it dangerous keep them off by saying it's too dangerous for non-auto traffic. Of course, we're only trying to protect folks.

It's like the old Catskills joke about the guy who kills his parents, then asks the judge for leniency because he's an orphan. I can't think of a better definition of chutzpah.

Posted by ibc | July 10, 2008 1:56 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "driving 25 mph on that road is not safe".

It's safest to drive with the flow of traffic. Yes, I know "traffic" includes bikes, but the ratio of cars to bikes on that road has got to be 200-1 or more. It's a good long-term goal to make the streets more ridable for cars and bikes, but right now getting cars to drive 25 on that road is simply not going to happen.

Posted by Kurt | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM

It's a good long-term goal to make the streets more ridable for cars and bikes...

I'm glad we finally agree on something. My point was that you're not on some kind of river or something, you have a bunch of individuals making decisions in the aggregate. Those decisions can be affected.

How about Beach Drive? Posted limit: 25, de facto speed limit 35-40. I'm interested in your thoughts on driving the speed limit in RCP.

Personally, I set my cruise control at about 2-3 mph over whatever the posted speed limit. Maybe not as safe for other autos, but in an urban environment, it's safer for everyone else.

Posted by ibc | July 10, 2008 2:34 PM

I drive much slower on Beach Drive than on North Capitol because of how it's built - single lane, windy, can't see around curves, no shoulder. Anyone who speeds significantly on those roads is a jackass.

Posted by Kurt | July 10, 2008 2:46 PM

Personally, I set my cruise control at about 2-3 mph over whatever the posted speed limit

Demon Scofflaw!!! From Hell!!!!!!!!

;)

Posted by Kurt | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM