Comments on: Greater Greater Washington – I Need Your Help

By: abuelo jack

abuelo jack — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:02:44 +0000

I should note also that this change was written into the Columbia Heights Traffic Study, issued more than five years ago. One of the objections raised to making this change is the reversible traffic lane on 16th Street, switching direction on one lane to expedite rush-hour traffic to and from the ‘burbs. This sort of complicates the left turn from 16th. But that’s an illustration of DDOT’s insistence on expediting commuter traffic flow, at whatever cost to pedestrians and residents.

By: abuelo jack

abuelo jack — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:26:41 +0000

If 16th Street traffic wanting to turn left onto Park Road could do so from 16th Street, instead of doing the circuit of the park, then there would be negligible traffic on Pine, and those wretched bike-rack barricades could come down. The Mount Pleasant ANC has been pressing for this change for a few years now, and reported DDOT is ready to make the change. It’s time we arranged things for the benefit of pedestrians, and residents of the neighborhood, instead of designing everything solely to expedite commuter traffic racing out to the suburbs.

By: Nat

Nat — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:21:19 +0000

My guess is that DDOT erected the barricades to prevent pedestrians from crossing a dangerous intersection. The wide angle at Pine and 16th, coupled with the turn lane, encourages drivers to make the turn at 30 mph or above, leading to potentially deadly conflicts with pedestrians. The plans that W Jordan posted would correct this problem by decreasing the curb radius and allowing for left turns onto park from northbound 16th St.

Until those plans or something similar get implemented the walk up the east side of 16th St. will be unnecessarily tortuous.

By: Eileen

Eileen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:23:34 +0000

By DC statute, drivers are required to stop and give pedestrians the right of way at both “marked” and “unmarked” crosswalks at unsignaled intersections (as well as when peds start with a “green” or “walk” signal at a signaled intersection). Crosswalks exist at all intersections, regardless of whether there are any markings — see http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/01.htm#toc110157044 for the definition. The relevant DC Code provision is 50-2201.28 (available online at http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000).

The barricades in the photo appear to be obstructing pedestrian access to an “unmarked” crosswalk at the unsignaled intersection of Park and 16th. Assuming that’s correct, this is yet another case of the DC government abusing its authority by burdening the rights of pedestrians, rather enforcing the law as it is written, which would require that public safety be protected by ticketing and/or arresting drivers who break the law.

By: ibc

ibc — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:21:57 +0000

Look, it’s quite simple: driving is normative behavior. Walking is for freaks and malcontents.

Starting from that position, since there is nothing that we can do to make drivers slow down and pay attention–at least nothing that won’t be a slight inconvenience to them–I’m afraid we need to put up these barricades. Otherwise, drivers will run down pedestrians here.

–DDOT

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:34:59 +0000

Heh, DCMom says it’s 10 feet added to the crossing (by following pine street rather than going straight up 16th) Anonymous guesses that it’s 50 feet. Google maps says it’s 130 feet. Something tells me the wild guesses above reflect about how far the commenters themselves are willing to walk without driving .

By: padrock

padrock — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:53:56 +0000

It does seem kind of silly, as that turn lane is nothing more than a jughandle for people trying to take a left onto park from 16th street. It would be easier just to use the barricades to close off that turn lane from 16th street on market days and not use them at all during the week, no?

By: Hurleybird

Hurleybird — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:05:36 +0000

When I run south along 16th Street and the sidewalk in front of the church is full of people, this barricade fencing forces me out into oncoming traffic on 16th Street. Good times.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:14:48 +0000

I assumed they were there to keep the Sunday pedestrian traffic from being all over the street. Also so that cars can easily come off 16th Street for the left turn onto Park without stopping in the middle of 16th Street for random pedestrian traffic.

They do not “force you to walk in the street.” There is a perfectly good sidewalk there and the barriers add maybe 50 feet to your walking distance along that stretch on 16th Street (i.e. you have to walk an extra 50 feet to get from the corner of the church & Park back to 16th.)

If you feel like it’s dangerous to walk in the street or cross in between parked cars I have some advice for you – use one of the crosswalks that is half a block away.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:38:56 +0000

Where such barricades are used in Europe, the formwork is more attractive than these temporary steel things and pedestrians are given a designated crossing point elsewhere.

I have no problem with barricades for public safety, but I fail to see how this intersection warrants a greater need for safety than any other intersection in the neighborhood or city, and if pedestrians shouldn’t cross there, they should be given a crosswalk further up the block.