Just kidding. While out with a bunch of friends last night, I realized that the real friction is not between drivers, bikers, and pedestrians; it is between commuters, and people who live here.
People who commute into DC have put the city into their mental "Work" basket. Wherever they are in the city, they tend to act as if they are in some commercially zoned suburban office park, where children and pedestrians basically don't belong. They feel entitled to be in an environment designed to move cars from point A to Point B as efficiently as possible. Bicycles and pedestrians slowing down their commute seem like unreasonable intrusions.
For residents of DC, the city is the mental equivalent of your suburban cul-de-sac. Children live here, dogs walk here, people take a stroll of a fine summer evening. When we see commuters behaving as if they were on a highway, rather than in a residential area, we get, well, a tad miffed. And as you've probably guessed, I think we have the right of it.
Commuters into DC do not even have the excuse for their sense of entitlement that commuters into New York or San Francisco have: that without them, the businesses wouldn't be there, and the economy of the city would drastically suffer. The business of DC is mostly various non-profit, or very thinly profitable, entities that do not pay significant taxes--only a quarter of DC's revenue comes from sales and business taxes, and of course a lot of those are paid by the residents. The business that does bring substantial revenue into DC, tourism, is not going anywhere, because they're not going to move the Washington Monument to Silver Spring.
Nor, as some of the commuters have alleged, do their gas taxes pay for the roads. Federal highway funds provide about 20% of the capital budget for DC streets; the rest comes from those of us who live and pay taxes in the city. Most commuters don't even buy gas here. Unlike in other cities, the residents of DC are already, on net, paying for the privilege of having commuters here. Those of us who are not lucky enough to own sandwich shops downtown do not find this particularly rewarding.
And DC is just not built for high speed commuting. The streets are narrow, and almost all of them pass through residential neighborhoods. Yet commuters screamed in outrage when DC proposed slowing down the high-speed corridors that have made the neighborhoods they pass through actively hostile to their residents. Their argument was--well, I want to get home. The thing is, so do we. Only when we get there, we find you rocketing your car through it as if you were auditioning for the Indy 500.
Hmmm...maybe you shouldn't be purchasing a handgun anytime soon....
I think the real friction is between people who've lived somewhere for less than a year and look down on the "B&T" crowd, and everyone else...
And DC is just not built for high speed commuting.
Of course, it's not built for high density living, either. It's not the fault of all the residents, but DC's zoning restrictions and bans on tall buildings have a lot to do with why there have to be so many commuters. It's not the fault of the commuters or the surrounding area that DC currently cannot have enough people live there as work there, and that so many commuters are necessary.
In many other cities, more jobs would move out to the suburbs, but just as the Washington Monument isn't moving to Silver Spring, it takes government agencies a long time to move out as well.
Having grown up in New York City, I'd hardly be picking up B&T snobbery now. But I'm not looking down on the suburbanites; it's just that I recognize our interests are not shared. Can you come up with a good reason that I should want to make my city conducive to high-speed automobile traffic that makes it a vastly less pleasant place for me to live?
The government agencies will never move, because they don't have the incentive that drives most businesses to the suburbs: land cost and taxes. The government is not an efficient institution.
Some people would live here, but most wouldn't; they want houses and yards and schools. Which is fine. But I feel no obligation to make my neighborhood a worse place to live so that they can get home to their yards more quickly.
Megan,
I have to question the logic of saying that the only economic benefit to the District of commuters is the taxes. Certainly those little sandwich shops are part of the local economies, as is the 930 Club, stores, theaters, etc. I'm sure that people living in the District make up a substantial and perhaps majority of the clientele of these businesses, but certainly some commuters contribute. And these aren't things that tourists are usually in town to see. Plus, it assumes that the commuters are working in offices in the District, whereas there are substantial numbers who drive in to meet with various government officials, but may not do so daily.
None of this excuses bad driving, and it's my understanding that people still make it into London even with the congestion charge.
Aaron
"The government agencies will never move, because they don't have the incentive that drives most businesses to the suburbs: land cost and taxes."
Actually, it's proximity to the seat of decisionmaking that keeps agencies in the city. The only agency to which this rule seems not to apply is the CIA - but Agency culture is, although internally bureaucratized, something of a different animal - and their control of information gives them a punch that most other places can't touch.
But for most government agencies, Tyson's Corner might as well be the moon, when it comes to meeting people for lunch or even business purposes. There's no collaring someone for a brief post-meeting conversation in the hallway to make a point when you're teleconing in.
The thing people never realize when they gripe about commuters is the contribution they make to the economy - they don't just show up, eat at their desks, and drive back to noVa. Most people who have to do that commute do a lot of shopping (and routine medical work) in the city - when your day is already twelve hours long, you don't want to waste your weekends.
"The government agencies will never move..."
The FDA is in the process of moving to White Oak, Maryland, a neighborhood in Silver Spring.
My guess is that there's a higher ratio of bewildered tourists rolling haphazardly through the streets than you'd find in other cities.
I can remember family trips to DC as a kid where Mom and her boyfriend would try to figure out how to get to parking in order to see some sight while not being run over by area residents in a rush to get to work or some other important business on time. You then get this conflict where most of the drivers know where they're purposely going and how to get there frustrated by sight-seers trying to go slowly enough to compare street signage to a road map.
If you're a resident, the tourists make dangerously unpredictable traffic maneuvers. If you're the tourist, the locals seem disturbingly aggressive and impatient.
The obvious solution is to build a scale model of DC for tourists and, possibly, residents with a demeanor of people on Prozac. Locate it somewhere near Savannah for a longer tourist season.
Oh, and I forgot. The DoD moved to the burbs about 60 years ago. You know, that oddly shaped building in Arlington.
Can you come up with a good reason that I should want to make my city conducive to high-speed automobile traffic that makes it a vastly less pleasant place for me to live?
Obviously not, by definition.
The government agencies will never move...
The USPTO is currently in Alexandria, after moving from Crystal City in 2004. I agree that the incentives aren't as strong, but some agencies do move, especially when they need more space. If the commutes get too awful for their employees, that can play a role in deciding to move. It takes a long time, so yes, DC is stuck having lots of jobs downtown. To me, that's even more reason why it's crazy that DC doesn't want to make it possible for people to live there.
Some people would live here, but most wouldn't; they want houses and yards and schools.
Surely, yes, but any difference at the margin makes a difference, yes? More people would live downtown if higher density was allowed. Not everyone, but I know some who would. Higher density downtown would have various other knock-on effects, like more Metro service.
As long as DC is actively making the problem worse on the margins and actively encouraging workers to not live there but to commute in, I doubt it will get better.
Good post, thanks.
I think you are almost there on this subject, a couple of more posts should do it.
Commuters are fully vested citizens of the United States of America. We are not. We outght to be getting out of their way at intersections, staying out of their dedicated lines at the lunch counters, and thanking them for visiting us every day. Get used to it.
Just thing how bad it would be without the Metro. In the South (think Dallas, Houston and Atlanta), many residents of the core city feel the same way, but there's not even a semblance of efficient mass transit to help with the traffic burden.
AT - I'll have you know I've lived here for almost a decade and I still look down on the B&T crowd.
Thacker - we might not be zoned for Manhattan-like densities, but remember that DC was at 800,000 back in 1950. A lack of physical space isn't what's keeping people in the burbs.
But I agree with you and everyone else that, although some might move, most of the jobs that are in DC are here because of the proximity to power and each other. So I don't think we [DC residents] should be too concerned about whether our decisions make life inconvenient for commuters. It might be "mean" or "unfair," but it's unlikely that policies designed to restrict and reduce automobile traffic and promote transit will substantially harm the job market. If commuters have a problem with that I would suggesting buying a house with a yard in one of the many suburban feeling DC neighborhoods and then vote as you see fit.
A lack of physical space isn't what's keeping people in the burbs.
Oh Ryan, I agree it's not a lack of physical space. Zoning, regulation costs, the amount of time and effort it takes to construct any new housing, and everything else are far more a barrier than physical space.
DC did indeed used to have more people living downtown. It also had less office space then. Since the '50s, DC has steadily decreased housing stock in order to build more commercial and government buildings.
If commuters have a problem with that I would suggesting buying a house with a yard in one of the many suburban feeling DC neighborhoods and then vote as you see fit.
If they could afford it. The "many suburban feeling DC neighborhoods" have house prices far beyond that in the suburbs; that's a lot of why some people are out in the suburbs. That's part of the objection to many of the zoning laws and other regulations-- they're about making things nice for the wealthy residents of Georgetown and the other expensive neighborhoods. If their property values going up (and more traffic going mostly through those other neighborhoods that have wider roads) is the price of zoning ensuring that their neighborhoods maintain that suburban feel, so be it.
"It's not the fault of the commuters or the surrounding area that DC currently cannot have enough people live there as work there, and that so many commuters are necessary."
The District once was a far more populous city than it is today – about 800,000 in the 1950s, compared to not quite 600,000 today. Theoretically, there should be quite a bit additional living space available
This sounds to me like a good libertarian opportunity, actually. Shrink the federal government, and we'll have a lot fewer people both living and working in DC - at which point traffic would be much less of an issue, and people would go back to positive sum interactions instead of the zero or negative sum interactions Megan's describing.
Alternately, if there really are two populations of people with conflicting interests - a startling political concept occurs to me - compromise! Now, I know that DC's filled with people who have no understanding of politics, but surely someone there has heard of the concept.
"Commuters are fully vested citizens of the United States of America. We are not. We outght to be getting out of their way at intersections, staying out of their dedicated lines at the lunch counters, and thanking them for visiting us every day."
Thanks, mark. I'll remember that next time I'm in town.....wanna do lunch?
Maybe a stupid question, but if we all asked smart questions, there'd be nobody to mock.
What's the deal with the "sandwich shop downtown" metaphor? I mean I'd love to shake the hand of whoever invented maybe the most perfect form of portable food ever, but that doesn't mean I'm looking to open a shop downtown.
What does it all mean?
The District once was a far more populous city than it is today – about 800,000 in the 1950s, compared to not quite 600,000 today. Theoretically, there should be quite a bit additional living space available
Theoretically, yes. Physical space, yes, there's enough. Thanks to zoning laws and construction regulations, and office space (government and commercial) replacing residences, there isn't. In many cities, gentrification is associated with condos and loft apartments and other high density developments; not in DC. It's a problem that would be easy enough to solve, but it's self-imposed by the District.
The solution is to have a few main arteries, perhaps with some undeground sections, to get commuters downtown efficiently without having them rocket through residential neighborhoods. Put gobs of parking -- this time PROBABLY underground -- at the end of these routes, and commuters won't trouble residential neighborhoods at all. They'll still go to commercial areas for haircuts, dental appointments, shopping and so forth, but they'll be on foot for that.
Don't say that Metro is an adequate substitute for this, or at least don't say it unless you want to build several more Metro tunnels downtown. It's already a strain to shove as many trains through at rush hour as we have now.
DC is going to have to burrow down one way or another to accommodate a growing population. Don't know if it will ever have an incentive to build up the way that city on the island did... London hasn't. But people who point out that surface streets are inadequate often have a point, even if their usual solutions would make them even more so.
The USPTO is currently in Alexandria, after moving from Crystal City in 2004. I agree that the incentives aren't as strong, but some agencies do move, especially when they need more space. If the commutes get too awful for their employees, that can play a role in deciding to move.
The problem with that is that people are commuting from all directions; if you move your agency to Alexandria you're screwing people coming from Gaithersburg, and vice versa. The real solution is to increase working from home, for people who can do that.
I commute daily into the District from Virginia -- by bus, if that modifies the hatred any. The route does not go through any DC residential neighborhood at any point, so I do not get to see the conditions giving rise to this post. I assume we are talking about Connecticut Avenue, 16th St., and other routes that do go through a lot of residential areas on their way to Maryland. On that assumption, I have some questions:
Does the engineering, maintenance, signalizing etc. of those routes change when they cross the District line? (Maybe it does, I really don't know.)
Do drivers change their behavior when they cross the line? (I doubt it.)
Lots of people live in the northern part of the District. Some of them surely commute on these same roads (and I bet a substantial number commute into Maryland). Is there an observable difference between their behavior and that of the Maryland residents? (Doubt that too.)
The point is this: I suspect that the burden that commuter traffic on 16th St. imposes on the neighborhood with the flower street names in the far north of DC is no different from the burden on the neighborhood across the line in Silver Spring. That burden obviously raises issues about fairness. The same issues arise with respect to the commuter route that runs three blocks from my house, most of whose traffic starts and ends in Virginia. Why should the District line make a difference in how these issues are addressed?
No one has noted that part of the congestion problem in DC has another self inflicted cause: there's no North-South arterial highway channeling traffic away from the surface streets. US 95 does not go thru DC as it does in most NE corridor cities. Why? When it was supposed to be built in the mid-1960s, the good citizens of DC NIMBY'd it.
That said, respect for the law, concern for common safety, and good manners all dictate driving with care and common sense anywhere.
Rising bollards, Miss McGargle.
http://www.brighton-hill.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=339
@d.blumgart:
"No one has noted that part of the congestion problem in DC has another self inflicted cause: there's no North-South arterial highway channeling traffic away from the surface streets. US 95 does not go thru DC as it does in most NE corridor cities. Why? When it was supposed to be built in the mid-1960s, the good citizens of DC NIMBY'd it."
Sure, I'll field that one: because the "good citizens of DC" decided around that time that they didn't want to live under a highway overpass. Kudos for your suggestion that rather than allowing drivers to race pell-mell through residential surface streets, we instead bisect the city with a super-highway, and allow commuters to literally drive all over us.
Really pretty entertaining when the unexamined suburban entitlement mentality is on full display. Without irony.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Zoning, regulation costs, the amount of time and effort it takes to construct any new housing, and everything else are far more a barrier than physical space."
Surely you didn't mean to forget fear of the darkies..?
Megan seems to be one of those people who moves in next door to an airport and then complains about the noise. The problem with speeding and other unsafe driving isn't that there are too many commuters, but rather that the streets are entirely lawless. DC residents have never bothered to create for themselves a police force with the resources and the inclination to enforce road safety. Ultimately, DC will have better success in controlling the problem if it addresses its own failure of governance in this regard rather than simply trying to export blame.
It seems naive to wish that commuter traffic would just go away. Obviously, that's not going to happen as long as so much of the Government is here. And if the Government ever does relocate in sufficient bulk to significantly lessen the number of commuters, then clearly the District will dry up. Much as Megan might like to believe otherwise, the only reason her neighborhood is so desirable is because of federal taxes and federal workers.
So, the question is, what to do with commuters? The District decided long ago that it didn't want highways for commuters to get in and out. So commuters use the major roads. Now residents complain that they don't want commuters on the major roads, so the District wants to restrict those further. This will push commuters onto minor roads, which are even more residential. Presumably, District residents will discover that they don't like that either.
My job is uniquely federal; I can't work elsewhere and do what I do. Megan could have lived anywhere in the region. She chose to live close in, in a busy neighborhood with poor policing, and that choice necessarily carries some tradeoffs.
I have no sympathy for unsafe drivers. Ticket them 'til their ears bleed. But a high level of commuter traffic is an inevitable feature of the city Megan opted to live in, and it's unhelpful to act like I'm the villain here because I'm trying to work for the public and my country in the only way I can.
Oh, and agencies move around the District and the suburbs all the time, particularly as to non-headquarters buildings. It's always for cost reasons.
Megan seems to be one of those people who moves in next door to an airport and then complains about the noise.
Things sure worked a lot better when DC was populated almost entirely by disenfranchised impoverished black folk. Suddenly all these white newcomers are moving into the city, and trying to upset the apple cart.
I agree with your point on enforcement, though. There's been some pressure that the MPD start pursuing a zero-tolerance approach to speeding--any speed over the posted limit should result in a $50 fine. 5 mph or greater results in a $200 fine.
So your dream of a well-policed DC may not be too far off.
I realized that the real friction is not between drivers, bikers, and pedestrians; it is between commuters, and people who live here.
An interesting insight into the conflict, and one that I think has substantial explanatory power. Speaking for myself, I'm less fussed about people who impose minor slowing on my commute than I am about hard-to-see bikers who pass me on the right as I try to make a right turn. The pedestrians slow me down, but at least I know I'm not going to hit them.
Kudos for your suggestion that rather than allowing drivers to race pell-mell through residential surface streets, we instead bisect the city with a super-highway, and allow commuters to literally drive all over us.
Pick you poison, dude, and live with the choice. Most cities are criss-crossed by highway overpasses; fine with me if you don't like them, but the consequences are what they are and it does no good to whine about them.
As a resident of the DC metro area, I find Megan's constant whining about this subject pathetic. I am sorry princess that we can't turn DC into a giant pedestrian and dog park for you. The major thoroughfares out of Washington are no more residential than the ones out of Boston or New York. All cities have fast moving dangerous traffic on the big streets. Any idiot who gets on their bike and thinks it is safe to ride down Connecticut or Wisconsin Avenue deserves what they get. Further, fast drivers don't all have Maryland or VA plates. Lots of people with DC plates drive like lunatics. Lots of people period drive like lunatics. I suspect that if Megan lived out in Pentegon City she would be writing about the evil drivers coming over from DC and bothering her.
Once in a while Megan's spoiled Manhatten white girl shows. This is one of them.
Really pretty entertaining when the unexamined suburban entitlement mentality is on full display.
Restating the point made in my prior post: People who live in the suburbs have highways running through their neighborhoods, which allow people who live elsewhere to transit their neighborhoods expeditiously. Apparently you believe your neighborhood is entitled to an exception. Why?
Pick you poison, dude, and live with the choice. Most cities are criss-crossed by highway overpasses; fine with me if you don't like them, but the consequences are what they are and it does no good to whine about them.
Well, no, dude. You're begging the question. All the momentum I've seen is that we'll see a) highway overpasses removed from urban centers (e.g. Whitehurst Freeway), and b) greater enforcement of local traffic regulations that will make your morning commute a lot less pleasant.
In other words, get used to taking the beltway to go from PG County to Herndon, as opposed to Constitution Ave. If, on the other hand, you work in DC proper, get a bus schedule.
Try not to whine about it though; that's just the way things will be in another 10-15 years. Look on the bright side, you'll probably get a lot more reading done.
Is it news that D.C. has a crappy, corrupt, ineffective government? It sounds like the crappy government has structured the city so that it's a pain in the ass to commute there and yet, with the Federal government mostly located in D.C., a lot of people need to work there one way or another. Some will be living in D.C., the poorly run, crime-infested city, or they will choose to live somewhere more pleasant. If the city is going to refuse to provide easy/fast/safe ways in and out for commuters, then they'll just have to find other ways in and out.
Not that the commuters or other drivers should speed or drive recklessly, they shouldn't. But the economist in you should know that if you set up a situation a certain way, you'll get certain behaviors... and whining about the rightness or wrongness of it won't actually solve the problem.
Punitive policing may help improve safety, but it will only make everyone even more unhappy.
the unexamined suburban entitlement mentality
As opposed to the unexamined urban entitlement mentality, which says that commuters should not have access to high-speed highways because they have ugly overpasses, should drive really slowly on surface streets because city residents want them to, and, as RyanA suggested, if commuters have a problem with this self-contradictory and absurd pair of demands, they should just conjure a million bucks out of the air and buy a nice house and yard in the district. Because I'm sure there is enough vacant single-family housing within walking distance of employers that there would be no need for any commuters at all if only they wouldn't be so damn insistent on living in suburbs just for the heck of it.
I guess Megan figures that the DC police have nothing better to do than write traffic tickets. I have a better idea, how about Megan keeping her bike off the busy streets out of the city during rush hour and the DC police worry about doing something about the unbelievable crime rate?
People who live in the suburbs have highways running through their neighborhoods, which allow people who live elsewhere to transit their neighborhoods expeditiously. Apparently you believe your neighborhood is entitled to an exception. Why?
Because folks that live in the 'burbs--generally speaking--want them. Folks who live in the cities--generally--do not.
I do like how John's stream-of-consciousness whine de coeur at 12:22 incorporated a slam on Megan for whining, though. Nice recursion.
Look, it's not whining to instruct your local leaders to reprioritize the resources at their disposal. That's what's happening in DC. It's going to continue to happen because the vast majority of DC residents want it to happen.
So why all the pissing and moaning? If you don't like it, you can get a job elsewhere, move, or what have you. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to get used to it. But it might make your life a little more pleasant if come to grips with it somehow. At least until it all becomes too much for you, and you move somewhere else.
But enough of the shrill puling, please. Thx.
You know, both sides end up suffering from traffic-calming. In fact, I'd say residents suffer more, because you drive there more, and have more of the shortish kinds of drives that traffic-calming makes long.
If you stuff a city full of traffic-calming devices, that means, EVERYBODY, including YOU, will spend virtually all your driving time on a handful of extra-congested Officially Approved Routes. The city was designed to work for a much smaller amount of traffic pushing through far more roads, so we shouldn't be shocked that it doesn't work so well. Unless you ENJOY waiting.
I voted in my community aginst traffic-calming for exactly that reason.
And, isn't lots of traffic a basic part of the urban experience, for better and for worse? That's what I think of when I think of visits to NYC,
"Because I'm sure there is enough vacant single-family housing within walking distance of employers that there would be no need for any commuters at all if only they wouldn't be so damn insistent on living in suburbs just for the heck of it."
It is pretty clear Megan doesn't get out much or know much about Washington DC. Very few people actually work in the area where she lives. Most people in DC work downtown or in the K-street corridor. Clevland Park and Adams Morgan are too far from those places to walk. People commute by car from them just like they do from Maryland and Virginia. Megan should go out on Military drive sometime during rush hour and see the huge influx of traffic of people coming home from jobs downtown or on Capital Hill to their homes on the NW side. If she would pay attention, Megan would realize that she lives in a suburb. Just because it is with the District, doesn't mean it is not a suburb.
Sounds right to me, and explains why you keep using the phrase "sandwich shops" so much.
This is one of my favorite blogs because you so often avoid the personal attacks that are so common when people debate economics or politics, and you have made a point of reminding us all to consider your opposition as well-meaning humans who disagree with you, instead of settling into "us vs. them, and them is evil" mentality.
So this "us true natives vs. you foreigners coming into my town" screed really feels beneath you. You even use the phrase "want to make my city conducive..." after someone has already called you on having just moved there. The "this is my town, you should live by my rules" is really not justified.
I've got no dog in the fight, living nowhere near DC. I'm usually a big fan, and the thing that I admire most is when you put aside person venom or self-righteousness to really examine an issue. So when you feel yourself getting whipped up into the "us vs. them" mindset, please take a few deep breaths before posting...
In other words, get used to taking the beltway to go from PG County to Herndon, as opposed to Constitution Ave. If, on the other hand, you work in DC proper, get a bus schedule.
For Christ's sake. I don't live or work anywhere near DC, I think the whole place is a $#!^hole, and the only way you'll get me back there is to draft me and give me a Pentagon assignment. For the 6 months total I did work there, I took public transit from Crystal City and just west of Glover park. I even ran to work some days.
But I still think it's stupid to refuse to allow urban freeways while simultaneously bitching about commuters on the surface streets. Commuters are a fact of life, one for which there is no practical or plausible cure. So you need to find a way to live with them rather than raging at their very existence.
Go ahead and take out Whitehurst; it's what, a mile long with stoplights at either end? What you need is 66 through town one way and 95 the other, and a controlled-access pathway from I-395 to DC-295. Take US-50 off of NY Ave while you're at it.
Oh, and I just moved in the last few years to a part of the city designed around a handful of arterial roads. Sure enough, I spend much more time now waiting for traffic lights getting onto and off the two next to me. Yucko. Is it so evil of me to want to be able to visit my local businesses without going through four traffic lights?
"Look, it's not whining to instruct your local leaders to reprioritize the resources at their disposal. That's what's happening in DC. It's going to continue to happen because the vast majority of DC residents want it to happen."
Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country if not the highest. So you are saying we should reprioritize the already understaffed police resources and spend them on making sure Megan doesn't have to be scared by the fast traffic instead of doing something about the murder and robbery rates? Yeah that makes sense.
I really wonder what Megan expected when she moved to Washington DC. Has she ever been on Storow Drive in Boston? Has she ever been on Broad Street in Philadelphia or anywhere in center city for that matter? All the traffic in big center cities is fast and dangerous. It is the city. I have an idea for Megan. There is place out in Western Kansas called Coldwater. It has a population of about 600. People drive there until they hit the century mark. As long as you stay off the highway that runs through the center of town, no one drives over 20 miles an hour. I think Megan might be a lot happier there.
"So this "us true natives vs. you foreigners coming into my town" screed really feels beneath you. You even use the phrase "want to make my city conducive..." after someone has already called you on having just moved there. The "this is my town, you should live by my rules" is really not justified."
What is really funny about that is that Megan has lived in the District for like a year. But now she is a "true native" and going to do something about all of those evil commuters from Maryland and Virginia. That is just laughable and incredibly unselfaware of her. But not to worry. In a few years Megan will get married and have a kid to send to school and immediately scurry off to Maryland for the better schools and be blogging about how people from the District come up and ruin things for the natives in Bethesda.
Again, I'm not even going to argue with you about whether the changes are a good thing or not. I and the majority of DC residents clearly think so. You clearly don't.
I'm just describing to you what is happening in DC, and what will continue to happen. Our mayor used to be a crack-head. Our mayor is now a competitive road cyclist (i.e. one of those guys in lycra you see down in Rock Creek, failing to stay right). Half of the members of the city council have some variation of "walkable communities" as one of their main campaign themes. This is just a fact of life going forward.
Oh, and if you need any further evidence of the hypersensitivity of non-DC residents on this issue, you need look no further than those upbraiding Meghan for calling the town she lives in "my city". You guys make the Campus Womyn's Collective seem like a bunch of thick-skinned nihilists.
Not sure how it's Meghan who's whining exactly, but there you go. Now, recommence your bellyaching.
"While out with a bunch of friends last night, I realized that the real friction is not between drivers, bikers, and pedestrians; it is between commuters, and people who live here."
So, is it safe to say that your "bunch of friends" included "commuters" who freely admitted that once in the city they "tend to act as if they are in some commercially zoned suburban office park, where children and pedestrians basically don't belong" and that they "feel entitled" and yada yada yada? Or was this an insight drawn without such input from any of these suburban creeps?
And for someone to move into a city and decide the best thing to do is to radically change the commuting patterns in the city, and thereby frustrate the living and working decisions of thousands of people -- words fail me.
The opportunities for snobbery in the DC area are endless. People in my inner-ring suburb whine about folks from exurbia who don't know how to parallel park and can't figure out which local intersections are two-way stops and which are four-way. And that's before you even get into the District itself. DC proper has no monopoly on bitching about the traffic.
But here's the thing -- most people who have been in the area for a while have lived in several different jurisdictions and a whole bunch of different neighborhoods. We change jobs within the region, and perhaps go get graduate degrees from one of the many universities within commuting distance. Maybe our partners work in the District while we work in Virginia, or vice versa. And so on. After a while, "your town" becomes the whole urban area and not just one particular bit of it. That's the point to an urban area -- you get all those options in one big place, instead of having to move 500 miles away just because you change jobs or decide to get another degree.
And that means we need efficient ways to get around the entire region. Some of those ways can be mass transit or bikes, but some are going to involve cars. It's a given, so let's plan for it.
Gas taxes alone, no. Gas taxes plus the taxes assessed on automobiles however pays for most of the cost of the roads in DC.
"Half of the members of the city council have some variation of "walkable communities" as one of their main campaign themes."
I live just outside the district but inside the beltway. I went to college here. I dare say I have spent more time in Washington and know the city a heck of a lot better than Megan. There are plenty of "walkable neighborhoods" in Washington. Yes, the major thoroughfares in Washington that lead out of the city like Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues have very fast traffic. But that is true in any city. If you get off of those streets and onto the side streets, the neighborhoods are perfectly walkable. If someone is blazing down a small side street at 50 mph, that is a problem. But since the side streets don't lead anywhere that doesn't happen much. I would say that DC for all of its problems is one of the most pedestrian and bike friendly cities in the country. It is not perfect, but it never will be. You have to strike a balance between commuters and pedestrians. Megan doesn't seem to want a compromise, she wants her way at everyone else's expense.
MC,
You are exactly right. But what you don't understand is that we are talking about Megan McArdle here. Don't you know who she is? She is special and clearly those of us who live in the DC metro area need to change this city to suit her.
So to pull a couple of things together:
When we see commuters behaving as if they were on a highway, rather than in a residential area, we get, well, a tad miffed.
and
Half of the members of the city council have some variation of "walkable communities" as one of their main campaign themes.
One of the best ways to make communities walkable--and to prevent drivers from treating them as highways--is to put in actualhighways, intended to take cars off of the streets that city dwellers cherish so much. Thus, cars get their space, and people get theirs. This is why most suburban communities, designed after the advent of the car, feature big arterials lined mostly by trees and/or business and itty-bitty side streets with actual houses on them. It's also why actual cul-de-sacs (as opposed to the purely mental variety) are considered desirable places to live.
But ibc, for some reason you (and apparently many DC residents) oppose this sensible course of action which benefits both sides by separating two incompatible worlds. Can you clear up the mystery as to why?
It is not perfect, but it never will be. You have to strike a balance between commuters and pedestrians. Megan doesn't seem to want a compromise, she wants her way at everyone else's expense.
Again, don't blame Meghan. It's pretty much 70% of DC residents. Thanks for your input though--we'll add your opinion to the list of folks who don't live in the District, but think things are already overweighted in favor of peds and cyclists.
Oh, and as far as DC being too ped-centric, you should try walking down Connecticut through Dupont Circle one of these days. Make sure you obey all the walk signals. You'll soon be cured of that misapprehension.
"But ibc, for some reason you (and apparently many DC residents) oppose this sensible course of action which benefits both sides by separating two incompatible worlds. Can you clear up the mystery as to why?"
Unless you are willing to do a big dig and put it underground, highways in urban areas are eyesores that make the places almost uninhabitable. Go look at what the old central artery did to Boston sometime. If New York had listened to Robert Moses there wouldn't be a little Italy anymore, just a big highway running up the east side of Manhatten. Atlanta wouldn't have the Virginia Highlands area if people had followed your advice.
The answer is to do what we have now, which is live with the traffic so you can keep your neighborhood.
Given the politics of DC, it's probably easier to get the cops to prioritize traffic enforcement over violent crime. Increased traffic enforcement means giving tickets to (mostly) white people, many from out of the district (and who are labeled by origin, just in case), while increased violent crime enforcement means arresting (mostly) black people who are, well, violent. Most out-of-district people who get traffic tickets don't get lawyers and file police brutality complaints. All in all, it seems that the cops would have a pretty strong set of incentives to increase traffic enforcement at the expense of fighting crime.
"Oh, and as far as DC being too ped-centric, you should try walking down Connecticut through Dupont Circle one of these days. Make sure you obey all the walk signals. You'll soon be cured of that misapprehension."
Connecticut is one of the main ways in and out of the city. It is a four lane street. Only an idiot would think that it would be safe to ride a bike on. As far as walking, I have walked all over Connecticut avenue and never had a problem. It is called paying attention. Maybe you are blind or have some kind of mental imparment, but any person of average intelligence and awarness should have no problem walking on Connecticut. They are called sidewalks. Try them sometime. No I am sorry it is not practical to make the District into you and Megan's private bike and dog park.
But ibc, for some reason you (and apparently many DC residents) oppose this sensible course of action which benefits both sides by separating two incompatible worlds. Can you clear up the mystery as to why?
Because Paris doesn't have them?
Look, it doesn't matter why I personally oppose putting spans of super-highway over existing neighborhoods. Even if you were to convince me, you're not going to convince enough DC residents to do that. That train left the station in the mid '60s, and I doubt we'll be seeing it again.
It's politically DOA.
"Make sure you obey all the walk signals. You'll soon be cured of that misapprehension."
Oh my God, you mean that you are expected to obey the law as a pedestrian and not just walk out in front of car? That is just shocking. You poor dear.
The answer is to do what we have now, which is live with the traffic so you can keep your neighborhood.
That works fine for me if you can stop the residents complaining about commuters. But a number of people here seem unwilling to "live with it," as you suggest, but also unwilling do do anything about it other than claim commuters are in the wrong for wanting to get home.
That said, every major city has big highways, and it would be hard to say that they're all unlivable.
Given the politics of DC, it's probably easier to get the cops to prioritize traffic enforcement over violent crime.
Sure, and it wouldn't even have to be one or the other: why not deputize traffic enforcement folks that were essentially rolling meter maids.
Heck, you wouldn't even need to stop the offending vehicles. Surely the technology for some sort of rolling speed camera exists. Take the photo along, stamp it with the time and speed, and mail it off to the address.
No problem!
John,
Decaf, buddy. Otherwise, you're in for a verrry aggravating decade or three.
Oh, and I wasn't talking about the sidewalk, I meant crossing, on foot, to or from Dupont Circle.
And besides, I ride Connecticut Ave on my bike all the time. Piece o' cake: you just take up the right-hand traffic lane.
I've walked down Connecticut through Dupont Circle any number of times. It's hardly a big deal, although I'll concede that most of the nearby streets are more pleasant for walking if I'm not actually going to one of the businesses along Connecticut itself. The main drag is seldom the best walking street in an area if your goal is moving efficiently, as opposed to going to Kramerbooks.
Even if you were to convince me...
I'm not really trying to convince you to put in highways. I'm trying to convince you to choose between putting in highways and complaining about commuters on surface streets. The commuters exist. They must commute. Some percentage of them will (inevitably, even if wrongly) behave badly. You--and others like you--should choose between advocating actual solutions (say, highways) or dealing uncomplainingly with tons of traffic on surface streets.
It's pretty much 70% of DC residents.
And that figure comes from where? Because as I and others have mentioned, there are plenty of DC residents who drive to work everyday
John re: Dupont Circle ped crossings:
Oh my God, you mean that you are expected to obey the law as a pedestrian and not just walk out in front of car? That is just shocking. You poor dear.
Funny that you've no idea what I'm talking about. Since any local know exactly what my point is, it's pretty clear you never walk in that area. Do you always comment this extensively on topics you're clueless about?
"John,
Decaf, buddy. Otherwise, you're in for a verrry aggravating decade or three.
Oh, and I wasn't talking about the sidewalk, I meant crossing, on foot, to or from Dupont Circle.
And besides, I ride Connecticut Ave on my bike all the time. Piece o' cake: you just take up the right-hand traffic lane."
Fair enough. Sorry to offend. I think the District if very ped friendly and bike friendly. Yeah it has traffic but so does every other city in the world I have been to. I just don't see what Megan's gripe is. It is a city. There is lots of traffic. What did she expect? I don't see how slowing the traffic down will help. So then the traffic can back up and just sit there. That doesn't sound like a very good option. I am in total agreement about people who scream down side streets. But, that is not a local versus commuter issue. Lots of locals do that. But on the big avenues, there is always going to be heavy fast traffic and they are never going to be pedestrian friendly.
I'm trying to convince you to choose between putting in highways and complaining about commuters on surface streets.
No need to convince me; you're arguing with a demographic. And you left out the third strategy: complain while also making auto commuting more of a pain than it currently is.
This is the strategy that the current DC government is pursuing, or didn't you read the recent Post article that kicked off all this "War on Cars" silliness?
Right. If we're complaining that a tax on the value of the car (on on registration, etc.) that's independent of miles driven, congestion created, etc. is stupid and should be replaced with one that hits externalities, sign me up for that movement.
That's quite a bit different from the oft made claim that drivers don't pay for the roads. They do, but in a stupid manner. Someone who keeps a car for emergencies but rarely drives it shouldn't be paying as much for roads as they do compared to someone who dries all the time.
"Funny that you've no idea what I'm talking about. Since any local know exactly what my point is, it's pretty clear you never walk in that area. Do you always comment this extensively on topics you're clueless about?"
I have lived in Washington on and off for 12 years and have been to Dupont Circle any number of times and know exactly where you are talking about. Yes, Dupont Circle is really busy. You can get across the Circle, you just follow the lights and pay attention. Do you expect to be able to blindly walk when it says "walk" without making sure no one is running the light? What you are saying makes no sense.
ibc has openly stated that he hates me and wishes I would quit my job and move away. Nevertheless I have to be fair and say I know what he means about walk signals. The signals on commuter streets in downtown DC are set to give pedestrians a very short opening to cross the street, because what holds up traffic worse than anything is cars waiting for pedestrians to cross so they can turn right.
The PTO's doing that too, actually. They have a very advanced telecommuting program. Of course, everyone with a security clearance job in other agencies and contractors can't work from home.
But yeah, moving to the suburbs isn't the greatest answer for everyone for the reasons you state. But with DC refusing to allow enough housing for the jobs that are there and at the same time refusing to make it easy to commute, and everything else, it still ends up being the best answer for some agencies.
"The signals on commuter streets in downtown DC are set to give pedestrians a very short opening to cross the street, because what holds up traffic worse than anything is cars waiting for pedestrians to cross so they can turn right."
That is true, but Megan is like six foot five and her dog is the size of a small horse. She ought to be able to hump it accross the street in time with legs that long.
And you left out the third strategy: complain while also making auto commuting more of a pain than it currently is.
That is a deeply stupid option because it won't actually make life better for residents. To use a DC analogy, cars are like campaign money; squeeze them in one place and they squirt out in another. Much better to channel them to a place where they can flow as freely as is practical, safely away from you.
No, I didn't read the Post. Why would I, when I don't even read the Oregonian?
Gas taxes alone, no. Gas taxes plus the taxes assessed on automobiles however pays for most of the cost of the roads in DC.
Huh? The sales tax is assessed in the commuters' home jurisdiction (MD/VA), as are any annual taxes. So DC doesn't get any of that money.
I do doubt that commuters, net, are a drain on the city's coffers though, since they use so little of the city's services. DC spends about 9 billions a year. Of that, 3B goes to social services, which commuters don't use. 1.5B goes to schools, which commuters don't use. 1.5B goes to the enterprise fund, which commuters don't use. 1 billion goes to public safety, with commuters responsible for a negligible amount of that. 1 billion goes to the government itself ("Governmental Direction and Support" and "Economic Development and Regulation"), which commuters don't use to any meaningful extent. And 424 million goes to public works, where commuters *do* use a significant portion. Meanwhile, on the revenue side, DC takes in about 1 billion in sales taxes, with commuters presumably contributing a significant portion.
What, ibc, when much of the population decline over the last twenty years or so has been black middle-class District residents moving to Prince George's County? Fear of incredibly poor city government, crime, and bad schools cut across racial divides in the District.
But developers and gentrifying single young professionals haven't let fear of black people stop them. To the contrary, you see more of the reverse-- poor people protesting the attempts to gentrify their neighborhood, fearing (understandably) higher rents. Try heading east from Union Station on H street (say, to go to Horace and Dickie's.) Right as you cross 2nd you'll see signs from the neighborhood protesting some planned condo buildings and high rises that developers want to put up and push a wave of gentrification east from Union Station. Developers would develop, and people would move in-- current residents in the District, whether poor or wealthy, tend to like things the way that they are, however.
Well, as a DC resident, I would like to have a few good through streets that make it easy to get into and out of the District.
For me, driving to VA is a snap. It only takes about 5 to 10 minutes to hop onto Rock Creek and be across a bridge. But driving from DC into MD is a real pain. It always seems to take 20 - 25 minutes just to get out of the District and into MD. I would love a quick way to drive to MD.
I walk around my neighborhood a lot and really haven't noticed that the traffic is that bad. I even walk to the U Street Metro everyday to go to work. This is near where Megan lives, but I haven't noticed the traffic to be especially bad in that area.
So, I guess I have to agree with the poster who called Megan a big whiner. :) It is just normal traffic in the city. Get used to it.
Huh? The sales tax is assessed in the commuters' home jurisdiction (MD/VA), as are any annual taxes. So DC doesn't get any of that money.
Yes, so DC car owners pay for roads that are used a lot by non-District residents. The District does have a car sales tax, an excise tax when you register a vehicle bought outside DC, etc.
It is a dumb way to do things. Congestion charges and tolls would be better.
The signals on commuter streets in downtown DC are set to give pedestrians a very short opening to cross the street, because what holds up traffic worse than anything is cars waiting for pedestrians to cross so they can turn right.
Yep, thanks. Spent a nice 50 seconds standing on the 2' wide concrete median the other day--with a stroller--watching the traffic whizzing by at 50 mph. This was trying to cross Connecticut Ave E-W just south of Dupont. I think the total time permitted to cross the 8 lanes of Connecticut (on a diagonal) was...maybe 10 seconds?
The way the signals are set up to cross from the sidewalk to Dupont Circle itself are as follows: wait for the walk signal outside of Starbuck. It turns green. You now cross to the first median. The signal to cross from the 18" wide concrete median to the circle proper is orange, so you must stand there for another 40-50 seconds as the side-view mirrors of trucks whiz past your nose. Part of this time, the traffic behind you has got the green light, so they're whizzing by your back at this point. Very ped-friendly.
It's worse if you skirt the circle past the Irish joint, Books-A-Million, etc...
I think there are actually plans in the works to "fix" the lights in this area. I'm afraid it's not going to go down well with folks who primarily see the space as a commuter route rather than a public gathering space.
PS: Sorry if I left you with the impression that I felt anything but sloppy platonic buddy-love for ya.
A government that stuck to its enumerated powers would solve the entire problem. Yes, it will never happen.
My sympathy is less than it might normally be, however. It's a character flaw, I'm sure.
IBC,
Dupont is one of how many circles in the city? It sounds to me like your gripe is with one particular place. The answer is to dig a tunnel for pedestrians to go underneath the street and into the circle. That is the way it is done on a lot of busy traffic circles in other places. It makes a lot more sense than slowing the traffic down. Further, sometimes life is like that. No matter where you live there are going to be places that suck to walk to and around. I will say it again, I am sorry we can't turn the entire District into a private dog and pedestrian park for you and Megan. As far as the 70% of DC residents want it that way. Well that may be true but DC residents have managed to vote into the office the most consistently corrupt and incompetant city government in US history over the last 40 years, so I am not sure I give much credit to their collective opinion.
It sounds to me like your gripe is with one particular place.
I was using Dupont as an example to show that a) the idea that cars always get the short-end of the stick is ridiculous; and b) most commuters just don't have the experience walking and cycling in the district to speak to the issue.
The answer is to dig a tunnel for pedestrians to go underneath the street and into the circle. That is the way it is done on a lot of busy traffic circles in other places.
Ah, the "Morlock Strategy"! You really should run for DC mayor... ;)
I will say it again, I am sorry we can't turn the entire District into a private dog and pedestrian park for you and Megan.
Well, 70%... Oh, wait...
As far as the 70% of DC residents want it that way. Well that may be true but DC residents have managed to vote into the office the most consistently corrupt and incompetant city government in US history over the last 40 years, so I am not sure I give much credit to their collective opinion.
Well, you survived 20 years of Marion Barry. I guess you'll have to find a way to survive the next century of multi-modal street-sharing, traffic-calming, pedestrian malls, light-rail, BRT, and other abominations. As our nation's greatest SecDef once said, "Democracy is messy."
Oh, and I'd take issue with your assertion:
DC residents have managed to vote into the office the most consistently corrupt and incompetant city government in US history over the last 40 years
I'd argue that during the DC government worked exactly as it was supposed to at least over the Barry years.
That government was repeatedly elected to create a maximalist welfare state, while creating a huge number of patronage jobs, thus creating a black middle class.
Mission accomplished.
Sure, they were never that good at plowing snow of the streets, or the things that middle-class white folk see as "Things Government Must Do", but then again, the majority of voters never really saw that as a priority.
"Ah, the "Morlock Strategy"! You really should run for DC mayor... ;)"
Go to Paris and see the traffic circle that surrounds the Arc de Triomphe or to Berlin and see the cicle at the center of the Tier Garten for an example of what I am talking about. Both of them have walking tunnels that enable pedestrians to safely get to the center of the circle. Of course in DC the tunnels would immediately be taken over by bums and become unsafe, but that is another problem.
John,
I have a theory of policing in DC along the lines of what you've said. In my limited experience I've found that cops are real jerks to regular people who are breaking minor laws, even when those people are being entirely cooperative. They tend to be meaner than necessary and spend a lot of time yelling/lecturing. I suspect this is caused by two factors. 1) Cops are bullies at heart; 2) It's easier to bully compliant non-criminals than hardened street thugs.
So yes, DC cops have better things to do than write traffic tickets, but ticketing is a much easier and safer way to spend a shift than actual po-lice work.
Cristina,
Also law abiding middle class people tend not to file complaints and sue them.
Go to Paris and see the traffic circle that surrounds the Arc de Triomphe...
No, flippancy aside, you make a good point.
Actually, you could even make the space more friendly by adding retail (i.e. newsstand) like they do in London, or Moscow. Late-night, you gate it off so vagrants can't sleep down there, etc...
Of course, this is all very off-topic, as the issue at hand is the MGWOD! (Megan's Global War on Drivers), not strategies for making DC more livable.
In fact, there used to be a tunnel under Dupont Circle. Unfortunately as stated it was a homeless and crime magnet. Also there was once retail under there but it didn't pay. I don't remember what the sequence of events was.
The through traffic on Connecticut does go under the circle, so commuters have very little impact on conditions in the circle itself.
"Actually, you could even make the space more friendly by adding retail (i.e. newsstand) like they do in London, or Moscow. Late-night, you gate it off so vagrants can't sleep down there, etc..."
The already tried that. It was called the Dupont Circle Underground. It went bust. But, maybe it was because the shops they chose really sucked.
And, actually there is a car tunnel that goes under DP Circle. It is for through traffic on Connecticut Ave.
In fact, there used to be a tunnel under Dupont Circle. Unfortunately as stated it was a homeless and crime magnet. Also there was once retail under there but it didn't pay. I don't remember what the sequence of events was.
Right, but remember, timing is everything. Wasn't this during the early-eighties; I don't remember it during the mid-eighties.
I wonder if it would be possible toroute the underground pedestrian traffic to the underground Connecticut thoroughfare, and put an underground pedestrian crossing signal there.
locks little fingers with dantonj, counts to 10, makes wish
I the whole idea of tucking retail away from direct interaction from the street has been revealed to be unworkable. What used to be an enclosed mall in the National Press Club Building on F Street has been reconfigured to give old-fashioned direct access from the sidewalk to the shops. I believe the same is true of Mazza Gallerie. And didn't Underground Atlanta go belly-up decades ago?
On the other hand, the basement food court in the International Square building between 18th & 19th & I & K is mobbed at lunchtime. But I think part of its success is due to the fact that the Farragut West Metro gives direct access to it.
(On a related subject, how about some renewed agitation for a tunnel between the two Farragut Square stations? Among other things, it would partially solve the problem of crossing Connecticut on foot.)
"And didn't Underground Atlanta go belly-up decades ago?"
No it is still there and doing ok but not great. The problem it has is that it is "downtown" and all of the happening places in Atlanta are in "midtown".
Oh, and I forgot. The DoD moved to the burbs about 60 years ago. You know, that oddly shaped building in Arlington.
Posted by Njorl
And others noted FDA to Silver Spring outskirts, CIA in Langley, FBI in West By-God.
Why, oh why, can't the Atlantic Monthly find better bloggers?
hard-to-see bikers who pass me on the right as I try to make a right turn. - Rob Lyman
This is a serious concern. In societies with high bike ridership and ubiquitous bike lanes, what happens is that drivers check their right side mirrors every time they make a right turn, and allow any bikers to pass. In the Netherlands, for example, failing to check your right mirror before making a right turn is considered as egregious an error as failing to check the mirror before changing lanes. But because of low bike ridership in the US, drivers understandably don't habitually check their right mirrors for bicycles before turning.
It'd be a good idea to include a rule like this in driver's ed. At the same time, it should be noted that biking societies like the Netherlands have clear and widely disseminated rules for bikers, as well -- like not speeding up and trying to pass a car that's slowing down to turn right. In the US, obviously, there's no such thing as biker's ed; there ought to be.
It'd be a good idea to include a rule like this in driver's ed
In England, before you can get a motorcycle license, you have to get a learner's permit, and drive around on what's essentially a souped-up moped.
There should be a requirement that, in order to get a license to operate a motor vehicle, you need to put in x number of miles on a bicycle on the city streets.
It would definitely cures some of the "Roads Are For CARS!!!" chuckleheads of their chuckleheadedness.
Is it some sort of rule in D.C. that you can't use your left turn signal PRIOR to a light changing to green (without a left hand arrow)? I swear, every time I dare to pull up to one or two cars sitting at a red light in the left hand lane NOT using their signal, it ends badly.
I pull up, wait for the light to turn green, THEN their left turn signal comes on, and oh, I'm stuck behind these morons while the right lane moves smoothly. What is the deal? I've driven in countless other states and this is not a practice I've ever witnessed with such frequency.
Must say, I've driven significantly in about a dozen states, and NOWHERE are there a greater number of patently miserable drivers than DC metro area.
I've spent some time in D.C. over the years. I've driven a few times but since it's usually just me it makes more sense to take the train from my origin someplace along the Northeast Corridor. I spent most of my life in suburban New Jersey, 15 miles outside of Manhattan. Most of the time it made much more sense to take mass transit into Manhattan, which, unless you want something in the Port Authority Bus Terminal or Penn Station means you will be a pedestrian.
Dupont Circle keeps coming up. I've walked in that neighborhood and other's with similar street grids in D.C. The grid itself is partly to blame for the unfriendliness.
If I was on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, lets say on the west side of Broadway just north of 99th street and I wanted to go to the east side of Broadway just south of 97st I have to cross 99th, 98th, 97th and Broadway. Being a New Yorker, if there is no traffic on any of the cross streets, I cross against the light. I can cross Broadway in one cycle of the light. When I get to 97th and Broadway I can cross 97th or Broadway, depending one which has the light and then cross the other when it changes. It will change soon because I was crossing the street while it was red. Works that way in most of Manhattan, even below 14th because even there, the streets are more or less on a rectangular grid.
Semi comparable trip around Dupont Circle could be from east side of Connecticut Ave just north of Q to the west side of Conn. just north of N. ( block lengths are different and Broadway isn't as wide as Conn, Ave. )I have to cross Conn., Q, Massachusetts, P, New Hampshire and 19th. Going around the circle I have to watch my back much more carefully than I do in NYC. I may or may not be able to make it across Conn, all at once or spend time on the median. There will a be time at the circle, where the timing of the lights gets me across the street to walk ten feet to the next intersection... where I have to wait for a light. I would much rather negotiate much busier intersections in Manhattan, things around Times Square for instance.
Might be more comparable to compare a trip around Dupont Circle to a trip across 96th and Broadway. Even then 96th and Broadway is much easier and it's mostly because the grid is simpler. Even if there was no car traffic at all and you obeyed the lights, a trip around Dupont Circle is going to be much more annoying. . . I find myself ranting to myself, when I'm walking in D.C., "It's only two blocks away, why did I have to cross 14 streets to get there?" ...
Moving into my supposedly quiet upper NW DC neighborhood ten years ago, I was astonished to find out that the side streets - around American University - were basically cut-throughs for drivers looking to get from VA across Chain Bridge. Rude, dangerous, obnoxious, hazard to other drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This is not to say that the drivers of the District are any better. My wife stopped at a crosswalk at American University for a student actually in the middle of the crosswalk the other day, and was promptly rear-ended by some guy on his cell phone, who was annoyed she hadn't run the student down and was pissed that he was even in the cross walk to start with. No matter how egregious the offense against pedestrian crossing rights, even walking in a cross walk with the light, I have never in a decade here seen a police officer ever stop anyone for nearly killing a pedestrian - unsurprising, I suppose, given the police car that killed at guy crossing on Wisconsin in front of Starbuck's, two blocks from the police station, last year. A proposal to raise the fine for violating an occupied pedestrian crosswalk from $50 to $500 was attacked in the Washington Post a few weeks ago as evidence not of a desire better to protect pedestrians, but ... drum roll ... as evidence of a desire to harass all those poor, put-upon commuters. I can think of many ways to improve DC city streets, most of them involving slow, public, and unattractive ways for uncivil, law-violating drivers to expire - or better yet, their kids, so as to give them an idea of the risks to which they subject ours.
Moving into my supposedly quiet upper NW DC neighborhood ten years ago, I was astonished to find out that the side streets - around American University - were basically cut-throughs for drivers looking to get from VA across Chain Bridge. Rude, dangerous, obnoxious, hazard to other drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This is not to say that the drivers of the District are any better. My wife stopped at a crosswalk at American University for a student actually in the middle of the crosswalk the other day, and was promptly rear-ended by some guy on his cell phone, who was annoyed she hadn't run the student down and was pissed that he was even in the cross walk to start with. No matter how egregious the offense against pedestrian crossing rights, even walking in a cross walk with the light, I have never in a decade here seen a police officer ever stop anyone for nearly killing a pedestrian - unsurprising, I suppose, given the police car that killed at guy crossing on Wisconsin in front of Starbuck's, two blocks from the police station, last year. A proposal to raise the fine for violating an occupied pedestrian crosswalk from $50 to $500 was attacked in the Washington Post a few weeks ago as evidence not of a desire better to protect pedestrians, but ... drum roll ... as evidence of a desire to harass all those poor, put-upon commuters. I can think of many ways to improve DC city streets, most of them involving slow, public, and unattractive ways for uncivil, law-violating drivers to expire - or better yet, their kids, so as to give them an idea of the risks to which they subject ours.
What, ibc, when much of the population decline over the last twenty years or so has been black middle-class District residents moving to Prince George's County?
Apropos this, did you see, ibc, the WSJ article noting the white percentage in the District has increased from 28% to 32% since 2000? And that there's actually been an absolute increase in the number of white people living in DC, with a decrease in the number of black people? It's a combination of the black middle class moving to Prince George's County and the gentrification of the city. (And lots of rather Megan-like young single people moving in.)