Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[Subcity]

This doesn't affect my morning commute, but this morning I did see the big backup on westbound Park Road, from the light at Walbridge.

I think the left-turn light from Klingle, as implemented, is stupid. But assuming it's there for the duration, I have a suggestion:

What if that left turn/left-turn light were prohibited/disabled during rush hour?

Again, the backup doesn't cause a problem for me, but just seeing that this morning, it seems absurd to shorten the westbound Park Road traffic for 20 seconds (?) each cycle and thereby backup traffic for that rare person who wants to turn left there from Klingle.

The inevitability of unintended consequences.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, is that left turn really worth the cost of that severe backup each weekday morning?

At present, and as far as I know, Park is the only westbound artery in our area. Screw that up to accomodate a few people who want to turn left every day? BTW, I've been in Mt P for >25 years and in all that time have seen maybe 5 people take that turn.

Again, what route does the DDOT want drivers to take, east to west? Based on the current arrangement, the answer seems to be: We don't want people driving in that direction at all.

For in and out of town, you have 14th, 15th, 16th. But what about heading cross-town? No arteries.

Of course, someone on Klingle who wants to head down Park at rush hour there could loop around onto Walbridge - effectively making a "jug-handle" left turn as it's called in some parts of the country.

Indeed, I think a jug-handle left should be the only way to do this maneuver and that left turn signal should be yanked.

[micmac]

I take a left hand turn on Wallbridge almost every day heading towards Adam Morgan or Dupont Circle. It is a relief not to worry about a head on collision with someone speeding up Klingle, there is poor visibitliy for both drivers.

[Subcity]

[jack]

[Subcity]

[jack]

[Subcity]

Jack, thanks for the detailed comments. Very informative.

Here's something that baffles me - and that's being polite (to DDOT): Since when does "traffic-calming" require mis-timed traffic lights?

TIMED traffic lights can calm traffic. When the lights on 15th St were perfectly timed, they were timed for cars traveling within the speed limit. You could drive from Rhode Island to Harvard St without ever having to brake. If you drove too fast, you'd have to brake for red lights.

That was also true for the lights on Irving St.

Oh, or here's an idea: Time all the lights on 15th St to fit the speed limit and string speed-enforcement cameras. Then, those who obey the speed limit will be able to travel efficiently and those who speed will get tickets.

In other words, why make traffic inefficient for all in order to coral the outliers?

(Sorry for the possibly mixed metaphor. Also, to be clear, I am not directing this at you, Jack.)

It's my understanding that, in the 1970s, early programs to control traffic lights electonically had two goals: (1) Improve traffic flow and (2) slow traffic to the speed limit. Anyone who thinks you need to mis-time traffic lights to limit speeds is ill-informed. And if that person is employed by DDOT, it seems that s/he is incompetent.

When I worked on Capitol Hill in the 1980s, every morning I'd drive east on Irving and every night I'd drive north on 15th Street and the timing of traffic lights on both streets regulated my speed and allowed me to drive without stopping. Somehow, it appears, powers-that-be decided that if cars can motor along without stopping block after block after block, then that necessarily means those cars are speeding. That is not correct.

I'd like to see a "traffic calming" study that properly times lights for 25 MHP and puts up big signs - "Lights Timed for 25 MPH". Maybe add-in some speed indicators (or whatever they're called) that say, "Your speed is ___".

When the pedestrian traffic-light countdown timer displays were installed, some people said that they would encourage speeding. At the time, seemed like a reasonable possibility and something that deserved consideration. Yet, seems to me they've encouraged people to slow down. When there were no timers, I might speed up a bit in the hope that I'd made the upcoming light. But now, with the timers, I can see how much time remains and immediately know if there's enough time for me to make the light or not. It calms my driving by calming me with the information I need.

In other words, "traffic calming" should not be seen as requiring traffic-stopping. If you calm the drivers, you can calm their driving even as they drive without stopping.

Providing drivers with information and a synchronized system of lights can achieve both enhanced traffic flow as well as enhanced traffic and pedestrian safety. The challenge is to get DDOT and the elected officials who oversee them to understand this.

[jack]