AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: District of Columbia  (Read 218485 times)

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2012, 11:43:50 AM »

Washington Post: Single District speed camera: 116,734 tickets worth $11.6 million

Some of the material in this article is factually deficient:

For another questionable item in the article (not about D.C., but still reflecting the article's accuracy):

"Speed cameras are employed in Virginia if authorized by local ordinance."

That's news to me.  There are plenty of red-light cameras in some Virginia communities, but even in notorious speed trap Falls Church city I've never seen a speed camera.

Good point. Indeed speed cameras are NOT in use in Virginia and are NOT allowed under state law.

I just tweeted Dr. Gridlock about the errors since he's usually responsive on such things. He also knows who I am from my comments on his blog and traffic-reporting tweets I've sent him in the past. Be interesting to see if anything gets corrected.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 11:53:30 AM by 1995hoo »
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2012, 09:44:49 PM »

Those cameras are in fact on Interstate 295 near the Blue Plains sewage treatment facility, one for each carriageway (I pass them frequently on my way home from Nationals Park, and when traffic is even moderately heavy you CAN'T speed past the camera because all the local drivers know it's there and slow down to 40 to 45 mph in the 50-mph zone). The 50-mph speed limit there is absurd. I have no quibble with a low limit further north near South Capitol Street and especially in the 11th Street Bridge work zone, but posting 50 mph on the southern end of that road can only be intended as a "gotcha" measure to screw the suburban drivers.

There are also a set of similar devices (speed cameras mounted in what appear to be steel traffic signal cabinets) on D.C. 295 (Kenilworth Avenue, N.E., an expressway-class road with full access control and no signalized intersections, but mostly lacking shoulders) between Benning Road, N.E. and Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E. on both sides.  Posted limit there is 45 MPH.   
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2012, 10:45:29 PM »

Those cameras are in fact on Interstate 295 near the Blue Plains sewage treatment facility, one for each carriageway (I pass them frequently on my way home from Nationals Park, and when traffic is even moderately heavy you CAN'T speed past the camera because all the local drivers know it's there and slow down to 40 to 45 mph in the 50-mph zone). The 50-mph speed limit there is absurd. I have no quibble with a low limit further north near South Capitol Street and especially in the 11th Street Bridge work zone, but posting 50 mph on the southern end of that road can only be intended as a "gotcha" measure to screw the suburban drivers.

There are also a set of similar devices (speed cameras mounted in what appear to be steel traffic signal cabinets) on D.C. 295 (Kenilworth Avenue, N.E., an expressway-class road with full access control and no signalized intersections, but mostly lacking shoulders) between Benning Road, N.E. and Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E. on both sides.  Posted limit there is 45 MPH.   

You're right, but if you read the article I linked, it's very clear he's taking about the ones on the Interstate portion because he specifically refers to the southern part near the Beltway.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #53 on: October 25, 2012, 06:19:02 AM »

Those cameras are in fact on Interstate 295 near the Blue Plains sewage treatment facility, one for each carriageway (I pass them frequently on my way home from Nationals Park, and when traffic is even moderately heavy you CAN'T speed past the camera because all the local drivers know it's there and slow down to 40 to 45 mph in the 50-mph zone). The 50-mph speed limit there is absurd. I have no quibble with a low limit further north near South Capitol Street and especially in the 11th Street Bridge work zone, but posting 50 mph on the southern end of that road can only be intended as a "gotcha" measure to screw the suburban drivers.

There are also a set of similar devices (speed cameras mounted in what appear to be steel traffic signal cabinets) on D.C. 295 (Kenilworth Avenue, N.E., an expressway-class road with full access control and no signalized intersections, but mostly lacking shoulders) between Benning Road, N.E. and Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E. on both sides.  Posted limit there is 45 MPH.   

You're right, but if you read the article I linked, it's very clear he's taking about the ones on the Interstate portion because he specifically refers to the southern part near the Beltway.

Yeah, I think you are correct.  It's amazing to me that people cannot distinguish between I-295 and D.C. 295 (and the part of the corridor that is now D.C. 295 was long referred to as "295" before the D.C. 295 signs went up).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #54 on: October 25, 2012, 07:48:25 AM »

The plot thickens....on Channel 4 news at 11 last night Jim Vance talked about this story and he showed a picture of DC-295. Makes me wonder whether the Post's Halsey was being sloppy in describing the camera location or in describing the route number. Clearly he messed up (and, as Oscar notes, he was utterly wrong on Virginia law).
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #55 on: October 25, 2012, 11:35:38 AM »

The plot thickens....on Channel 4 news at 11 last night Jim Vance talked about this story and he showed a picture of DC-295. Makes me wonder whether the Post's Halsey was being sloppy in describing the camera location or in describing the route number. Clearly he messed up (and, as Oscar notes, he was utterly wrong on Virginia law).

Not making excuses for Halsey, but some years ago, the Virginia General Assembly did permit local governments at least some automated traffic enforcement.  I think just about every signalized intersection on Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and Va. 123 (Maple Avenue) in the Town of Vienna (Fairfax County) had automated red light violation detectors and cameras installed.

I have no problem with automated enforcement for safety reasons.  Maryland SHA's automated speed enforcement in work zones (where motorists are warned - several times - approaching work zones) is a good thing (it was especially appropriate in the long-term work zone (two bridge redeckings, recently completed) on I-270 between Md. 109 (Hyattstown) and Md. 80 (Urbana).

And I don't have a problem with D.C. having automated enforcement along its neighborhood streets, where motorists need to obey the speed limits to protect pedestrians and bike riders.

But there are not supposed to be any pedestrians or bicycles on D.C. 295 or I-295.

And annoyingly, I don't think I have seen any automated speed enforcement at the one spot along the I-295/D.C. 295 corridor where it would be highly appropriate and useful to have - at the 11th Street Bridge construction project.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2012, 10:36:32 AM »

Washington Post: D.C. implementing parking rules to limit visitor spots, discourage driving

Quote
District officials are reserving thousands of on-street parking spaces for residents on weekdays in the city’s most crowded neighborhoods, part of an aggressive effort to limit spots for visitors.

Quote
The restrictions are a slice of a city strategy to promote bicycling and mass transit while increasing the odds that residents can find parking. The changes, which could affect as many as 10,000 spaces, come as the city eliminates some on-street parking to make room for bicycle lanes and prepares to set aside hundreds of meters for the disabled.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2012, 10:49:09 AM »

Washington Post: Bike commuters power though the winter cold

Quote
The sounds of the city recede to a low hum, less present than the bite of winter’s chill as the pale yellow sunlight knifes between the trees and the whir of bicycle wheels breaks the stillness of the suburban bike path.

Quote
“When the early evening comes in the fall and it gets cold, it’s actually very solitary and beautiful to just cruise that trail through the woods, even in the dark,” said George Branyan, 49, who plans to pedal 15 miles each way between his Greenbelt home and downtown office in all but the worst conditions this winter.

Quote
Along the Northeast Branch Trail, near College Park, riders are scarce during the winter, he says. “Just all the animals — foxes, rabbit and the deer. You don’t want to surprise the deer because, unlike hitting a deer with a car, it’s a little different with a bike.”
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mtantillo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 576
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 10:03:09 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2012, 08:20:31 PM »

Washington Post: D.C. implementing parking rules to limit visitor spots, discourage driving

Quote
District officials are reserving thousands of on-street parking spaces for residents on weekdays in the city’s most crowded neighborhoods, part of an aggressive effort to limit spots for visitors.

Quote
The restrictions are a slice of a city strategy to promote bicycling and mass transit while increasing the odds that residents can find parking. The changes, which could affect as many as 10,000 spaces, come as the city eliminates some on-street parking to make room for bicycle lanes and prepares to set aside hundreds of meters for the disabled.

If they really wanted to help residents, they would leave the current system alone during the day, and implement one side residents only at night. 

During the day, residential zones in DC are currently 2 hour parking for the entire zone (which correspond to the 8 wards of DC, roughly), with an exemption for those with a residential permit for that zone.  During the day, I personally don't have a problem with residential parking areas being used as overflow parking for business districts, because many residents leave the neighborhoods with their cars to commute to work,so in many areas, there are available spaces.  And DC's residential parking is far more friendly than most other area jurisdictions, which ban all non-resident parking during the day.  Plus for people actually visiting residents (as opposed to just visiting the neighborhood), each resident gets one guest pass plus they can get as many temporary ones as they want from the nearest police station.  I say leave those spots alone for people patronizing neighborhood businesses, deliveries, and short term visitors, but still discouraging all day commuter parking on residential streets with time limits for non-residents. 

But at night when all the residents come home from work, this is when parking is a problem in many neighborhoods, and also when DC has no parking restrictions on most residential streets!  It is tolerable Monday to Thursday nights, not that good on Sunday nights (I suppose a lot of residents have overnight visitors that don't leave until the next morning), and awful on Friday and Saturday nights when you have people coming in from the suburbs for the nightlife.  This is when it would be really nice to have one side reserved for residents (and their guests with a proper permit). 

Our neighborhood is bad all weekend, not just in the evenings, because people come in to visit a tourist attraction in the neighborhood that has pay parking...but they don't want to pay for it, so they just use up all the residential spots.  I did the street parking game for 4 years, now I pay big bucks for a garage spot in my building so I can come and go as I please. 
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2012, 09:05:03 PM »

Washington Post: D.C. implementing parking rules to limit visitor spots, discourage driving

Quote
District officials are reserving thousands of on-street parking spaces for residents on weekdays in the city’s most crowded neighborhoods, part of an aggressive effort to limit spots for visitors.

Quote
The restrictions are a slice of a city strategy to promote bicycling and mass transit while increasing the odds that residents can find parking. The changes, which could affect as many as 10,000 spaces, come as the city eliminates some on-street parking to make room for bicycle lanes and prepares to set aside hundreds of meters for the disabled.

If they really wanted to help residents, they would leave the current system alone during the day, and implement one side residents only at night. 

During the day, residential zones in DC are currently 2 hour parking for the entire zone (which correspond to the 8 wards of DC, roughly), with an exemption for those with a residential permit for that zone.  During the day, I personally don't have a problem with residential parking areas being used as overflow parking for business districts, because many residents leave the neighborhoods with their cars to commute to work,so in many areas, there are available spaces.  And DC's residential parking is far more friendly than most other area jurisdictions, which ban all non-resident parking during the day.  Plus for people actually visiting residents (as opposed to just visiting the neighborhood), each resident gets one guest pass plus they can get as many temporary ones as they want from the nearest police station.  I say leave those spots alone for people patronizing neighborhood businesses, deliveries, and short term visitors, but still discouraging all day commuter parking on residential streets with time limits for non-residents.

A few thoughts.

(1) This is an example of "be careful what you ask for, because you just might  get it."  Transit in the District of Columbia  (including the money paid by the D.C. Government to WMATA for rail and bus service) is profoundly dependent on taxes and fees collected from D.C. highway users (including fuel taxes, parking meter revenue, parking fines and taxes on private off-street parking lots).  If the modal shares that the D.C. Mayor has called for were to happen, then I think WMATA would have to shut-down or drastically curtail its operations for lack of money.

(2) I need my private vehicle.  I use it every day (frequently to do work in D.C.), and would not consider living in a place where parking of vehicles is so actively discouraged. 

(3) I also think that blatant discrimination against non-residents (in the form of discriminatory parking policies aimed at nonresidents) is probably a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), though I believe the courts have ruled otherwise.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mtantillo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 576
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 10:03:09 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2012, 01:08:53 PM »

Washington Post: D.C. implementing parking rules to limit visitor spots, discourage driving

Quote
District officials are reserving thousands of on-street parking spaces for residents on weekdays in the city’s most crowded neighborhoods, part of an aggressive effort to limit spots for visitors.

Quote
The restrictions are a slice of a city strategy to promote bicycling and mass transit while increasing the odds that residents can find parking. The changes, which could affect as many as 10,000 spaces, come as the city eliminates some on-street parking to make room for bicycle lanes and prepares to set aside hundreds of meters for the disabled.

If they really wanted to help residents, they would leave the current system alone during the day, and implement one side residents only at night. 

During the day, residential zones in DC are currently 2 hour parking for the entire zone (which correspond to the 8 wards of DC, roughly), with an exemption for those with a residential permit for that zone.  During the day, I personally don't have a problem with residential parking areas being used as overflow parking for business districts, because many residents leave the neighborhoods with their cars to commute to work,so in many areas, there are available spaces.  And DC's residential parking is far more friendly than most other area jurisdictions, which ban all non-resident parking during the day.  Plus for people actually visiting residents (as opposed to just visiting the neighborhood), each resident gets one guest pass plus they can get as many temporary ones as they want from the nearest police station.  I say leave those spots alone for people patronizing neighborhood businesses, deliveries, and short term visitors, but still discouraging all day commuter parking on residential streets with time limits for non-residents.

A few thoughts.

(1) This is an example of "be careful what you ask for, because you just might  get it."  Transit in the District of Columbia  (including the money paid by the D.C. Government to WMATA for rail and bus service) is profoundly dependent on taxes and fees collected from D.C. highway users (including fuel taxes, parking meter revenue, parking fines and taxes on private off-street parking lots).  If the modal shares that the D.C. Mayor has called for were to happen, then I think WMATA would have to shut-down or drastically curtail its operations for lack of money.

(2) I need my private vehicle.  I use it every day (frequently to do work in D.C.), and would not consider living in a place where parking of vehicles is so actively discouraged. 

(3) I also think that blatant discrimination against non-residents (in the form of discriminatory parking policies aimed at nonresidents) is probably a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), though I believe the courts have ruled otherwise.

1) Well, it is clear that DC's proposed policies have nothing to do with making life easier for residents and everything to do with making things hard for those who wish to drive into the city during the day.  So personally I hope it doesn't come to fruition. 

2) Ditto.  I chose my neighborhood specifically because it had easier street parking than other DC neighborhoods.  But ever since I've grown out of my "city living is awesome" phase, I wish I had a place with free off-street parking. 

3)  I would tend to agree except in places where residential street parking is oversaturated, in which case I think the government is rightfully giving those that need the spots first dibs on them, and yes, the courts have agreed.  I only support residential permit schemes in residential areas though, not in commercial districts...that parking should be available to all who are willing to pay or hunt for a spot. 
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2012, 10:12:33 PM »

D.C. Examiner: Traffic woes likely to persist for decades, officials say

Quote
Even if the Washington region completes all its planned transportation projects, such as the Silver Line and the Purple Line, traffic in 2040 will be just as bad as it is now -- and in many places worse.

Quote
That's according to a new analysis from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, released Wednesday, that shows the region's economic and population growth will outpace all current plans for transportation improvement, even if regional leaders push through projects struggling to get funding like the light rail Purple Line from Bethesda to New Carrollton in Maryland.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12706
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 04:43:55 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2012, 10:26:19 PM »

D.C. Examiner: Traffic woes likely to persist for decades, officials say

Quote
Even if the Washington region completes all its planned transportation projects, such as the Silver Line and the Purple Line, traffic in 2040 will be just as bad as it is now -- and in many places worse.

Quote
That's according to a new analysis from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, released Wednesday, that shows the region's economic and population growth will outpace all current plans for transportation improvement, even if regional leaders push through projects struggling to get funding like the light rail Purple Line from Bethesda to New Carrollton in Maryland.
*cough cough I-95 completion cough*

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13883
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 08:43:31 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2012, 01:04:27 AM »

Quote
That's according to a new analysis from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, released Wednesday, that shows the region's economic and population growth will outpace all current plans for transportation improvement, even if regional leaders push through projects struggling to get funding like the light rail Purple Line from Bethesda to New Carrollton in Maryland.
This report brought to you by the dumb growth industry.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2012, 11:45:04 AM »

This one is a bit of a shocker:

WTOP reports DC is expected to announce speed limit increases on at least two roads, although the article doesn't say which ones.


Edited later the same day: In a very sloppy and error-riddled article, WTOP reports that, quote, "The speed limit for Benning Road NE from Oklahoma Avenue to I-295 will increase to 35 mph. I-295 within the District from Eastern Avenue to Blue Plains will increase to 50 mph." Of course pretty much all of the REAL I-295 is already posted at 50 and the part from Eastern Avenue to the 11th Street Bridge is not part of I-295 at all.

Later in the article, the reporter says, "Gray will implement the new speed limits through emergency rule. Because the city is not raising them above 55 mph, the move will not require federal approval." I see this "federal approval" nonsense fairly frequently in articles about speed limits and it really bugs me because it's been seventeen years since the National Maximum Speed Law was repealed.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 02:37:41 PM by 1995hoo »
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10303
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 08:51:24 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2012, 09:20:09 PM »

The infamous Watergate Exxon appears to be no more

Quote
The World’s Most Famous Gas Station — a.k.a. the Watergate Exxon, where a gallon of gas reliably cost at least a dollar more than the average price elsewhere in Washington — appears to be no more.

Quote
Update: The Washington City Paper is reporting that the closure is temporary.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2012, 09:15:07 AM »

Dr. Gridlock reports DC raised the speed limits on four more streets effective at 12:01 this morning.

I do kind of wonder whether the cameras will be reset, or whether the tolerance had been higher than the new limits such that now there will be a reduced tolerance.

I also agree with froggie's comment there about DC being stubborn on not considering the two roads that are most in need of a review. I was talking to one of our neighbors on Sunday and she was complaining that she and her husband have gotten multiple speed camera tickets on I-295. I'm not totally sympathetic because I feel like any further speed camera tickets you incur after you get one in the mail are your own fault—I mean, the ticket put you on notice that there is (or may be) a camera somewhere along there, so why are you still flying along? But there's no question the 50-mph speed limit past the cameras outside Blue Plains is ludicrously low.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2012, 12:00:55 PM »

how does the general public know about the tolerance of a speed camera?  when there were speed cameras in Phoenix, I swear I was the only driver doing 63mph in a 65, figuring that my odometer may not be 100% accurate.

turns out the tolerance is 80, but how was I supposed to know that??
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2012, 12:55:48 PM »

how does the general public know about the tolerance of a speed camera?  when there were speed cameras in Phoenix, I swear I was the only driver doing 63mph in a 65, figuring that my odometer may not be 100% accurate.

turns out the tolerance is 80, but how was I supposed to know that??

Maryland publicizes it and says the tolerance is 12 mph over the limit. DC does not, presumably under the theory that if they publicize the tolerance it means drivers will just drive as fast as they can within that tolerance (a dumb thing to do, IMO, because of the risk of speedometer error).

I do not support speed cameras, but I also don't think the public has any right to know what, if any, tolerance the devices allow. If the speed limit is 50 mph, people don't really have a "right" to "expect" to be able to get away with going anything faster than that, even if the 50-mph limit is unreasonable.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2012, 12:59:18 PM »

I'd be opposed in theory to having any tolerance at all... but I'd want a corresponding increase in signed speed limits, but good luck with that.

Texas seems to be the most honest in this regard - they tend to give you less than 5mph tolerance, but they have the highest speed limits in the nation. 
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2012, 01:17:53 PM »

I'd be opposed in theory to having any tolerance at all... but I'd want a corresponding increase in signed speed limits, but good luck with that.

Texas seems to be the most honest in this regard - they tend to give you less than 5mph tolerance, but they have the highest speed limits in the nation. 

I agree with both comments as a general matter except that I think a small tolerance should be permitted to allow for speedometer error. I know some people would say it's the driver's responsibility to get the speedometer fixed, but frankly it's just not really worth the cost most of the time. If the speed limit is 75 mph and your speedometer says you're going 75 when you're really going 78, it's just not enough of a discrepancy to warrant the expense of getting it fixed and it's a bit overbearing for the State to force you into doing so. Of course at some point you do reach a point where error is too significant. I don't profess to have a sense for where that line is.

The other thing that always strikes me is the point I made in my comment to the blog entry I linked. The governments always bleat their stupid argument that speed limits are set for "safety" and that it's very important that you obey them. So if I-66 from Haymarket to I-81 is posted at 65 mph, they're saying it's "unsafe" for me to go 70. But then in 2010 after a change in the law they posted that same stretch at 70 mph (which is what the current limit is, and I generally obey it). That sort of thing takes away from the "safety" argument's credibility.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10191
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:57:02 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2012, 02:23:34 PM »

I agree with both comments as a general matter except that I think a small tolerance should be permitted to allow for speedometer error.

It's also to allow for radar/speed equipment error. 
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12706
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 04:43:55 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2012, 06:57:31 PM »

Texas seems to be the most honest in this regard - they tend to give you less than 5mph tolerance
I got a warning for 73 in a 70.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:42 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2012, 07:59:53 PM »

Texas seems to be the most honest in this regard - they tend to give you less than 5mph tolerance
I got a warning for 73 in a 70.

I got one for 82 in a 70.  The deputy seemed to be most interested in what the heck a vehicle with Virginia plates was doing in Motley County, Texas.

Hawaii claimed to have a zero-tolerance policy in the mercifully brief period when its speed cameras were operating.  That was one of the many mistakes with the rollout of the speed cameras, which contributed to the program's deep unpopularity and swift demise.   (When uniformed police officers are caught on tape giving the finger to your speed cameras, that's a sign that you might've really screwed up.) 
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 08:08:42 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10359
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:12 PM
Re: District of Columbia
« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2012, 06:17:17 PM »

Reportedly the new ramp from outbound I-695 to northbound DC-295 opened this afternoon. Here's a picture from the DC DOT's Twitter post. I was unable to go check it out. Maybe tomorrow (though unlikely).

DC-295 doesn't serve just US-50; it also connects to MD-295. Adding control cities of "Annapolis" and "Baltimore" on the right-hand sign would not have been a disservice to people. DC isn't necessarily averse to out-of-territory control cities. Various signs around the city list "Richmond," "Baltimore," or just "Virginia."

Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.