September 2022 update: Early block-by-block concept plans for the Connecticut Avenue safety project include a HAWK signal at Connecticut Avenue and Chesapeake Street NW. Also, DDOT has lowered the speed limit on Connecticut to 25 miles per hour.
It’s difficult to measure something that’s not there. But we thought we’d give it a shot.
Last spring, DDOT revealed that its studies of unsignalized Connecticut Avenue pedestrian crossings did not find enough foot traffic at Chesapeake Street to warrant a HAWK light, which is a traffic signal that can be activated by people waiting to cross. One resident who attended the public meeting suggested the results were low because the count last year was just a few days before a popular playground on Chesapeake east of Connecticut closed for renovation. So DDOT agreed to try again this summer.
Traffic studies at unsignalized pedestrian crossings have their limitations. They measure how many people try to cross, not how many consider a crossing too risky due to vehicle speed and volume.
That’s why we decided to ask what no DDOT pedestrian count can: Would more people cross Connecticut Avenue at Chesapeake Street, NW, if there was a signal to control traffic? Here are the results of our survey.
The answer, by the way, is yes.
The sample, we must report, is small. Just 91 people took our survey. Less than a quarter (21) reported using the crossing on a daily basis. One-third (30) cross here about once a week, and eight cross monthly.
The most striking result: Even those who brave the crossing say there are times when even they do not dare. Every single one of the 21 who cross at Chesapeake daily indicate they avoid the crossing at times because it’s too dangerous. There’s also significant overlap between the weekly and monthly users and those who avoid the crossing.
As it is, 70 of the survey takers say they avoid crossing at Chesapeake only because it is too dangerous. And 56 respondents say they would use the crossing more with a signal there.
Why do people want a signal at Chesapeake? In most cases, it’s the most direct way to get to where they need to go. The most popular destinations among crosswalk users and would-be users were the Forest Hills Playground and the bus stops on both sides of Connecticut.
Here, detouring to a crossing with a signal is not an insignificant undertaking for those on foot, and DDOT recognizes that in this case. From a technical standpoint, Chesapeake qualifies for a signal. The distance between the lights at Brandywine and Davenport is nearly 1,000 feet, the largest gap between signals in the study area stretching from Appleton Street to Legation Street. The same DDOT study does call for HAWK signals at the Ellicott and Legation intersections.
We’ve shared the full results of the survey with DDOT’s pedestrian coordinator, George Branyan. Stay tuned.
Michael Chorost says
I live at that intersection and I don’t feel the need for a light there. The light at Davenport is one block up, so having two lights at adjacent streets seems excessive. Also, I wouldn’t want traffic idling there – it would just increase the air pollution in the area.
Anne Rollins says
I do not think a HAWK light is a good idea for the Chesapeake crossing, mainly because I worry that the light may not be visible to cars approaching from the north in time to stop. During rush hour especially, cars speed over that hill and may either hit cars stopped for the light or pedestrians on the cross walk. Even when driving, I often avoid turning left onto Chesapeake from Connecticut for the same reason.
Joey S. says
Pedestrians need to learn to walk to the currently available lighted intersections. Traffic is already bad enough in this area (2nd worst in nation?), so we do NOT need yet another traffic light in this neighborhood, slowing down traffic and increasing driver frustration even more.
Pedestrians need to use common sense and stay out of the way of traffic, and cross only at crosswalks, *when* and *if* they have the light. I am sick and tired of watching pedestrians wade into traffic, often on a cell phone, thinking they have the right and priveledge to to stop four or more lanes of traffic because they are too lazy, thoughtless, selfish, and.or inconsiderate to act with prudence. Their behavior needs to change.
regards,
Joey S.
Matt B says
People, including children and the elderly, live on this street. Their needs should also be taken into account. The only issues are not driving speeds and frustrations. In fact, I’d argue that the people who are walking in this neighborhood are more likely to live in this neighborhood than the people driving through. As such, the needs of walkers should be a higher priority than the needs of drivers. The intersection is dangerous even to able-bodied adults and that danger flows directly from engineering design. In my opinion, it is appropriate for the DOT to redesign the street to improve pedestrian safety.
In any event, pedestrians have the right to cross at any intersection, even absent a crosswalk. Pedestrians crossing at Chesapeake need not wait for a light at Davenport or Brandywine to cross. Rather, car traffic is obligated to stop along the width of Connecticut Avenue as soon as a pedestrian steps foot into the crosswalk. That means even if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk on the West side of the street, the cars in the easternmost lane are obligated to stop. Of course, I’ve never seen that happen. I assume it’s ignorance of the law, rather than lazy, thoughtless, selfish, and/or inconsiderate behavior…
But, let’s not digress too far. If you’ll get off your high horse about the pedestrian behavior that needs to change, I won’t mention how I’m sick and tired of watching cars break the law, endangering pedestrians who are–by law–entitled to cross even if they don’t “have the light”…
Matt B says
Here’s a DOT website about motorist, cyclist and pedestrian responsibilities as it relates to crosswalks, amongst other things, http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary.pdf
Martey Longmire says
I think a light at this intersection would be excessive as it is only one block in either direction to a signaled intersection. I also live on the Southeast corner of this intersection. While I count myself lucky to be able to cross when both of the lights at Davenport and Brandywine give me a clear path, it is no trouble to walk the extra few steps to go to one of those intersections. I fear this would create some significant traffic flow issues.
Matt B says
It may be no trouble to you. But that doesn’t mean it is not challenging for some residents…
Livia Bardin says
“Pedestrians need to stay out of the way of traffic,” another light will slow traffic, there are already enough lights, are all very car-oriented perspectives. Pedestrians are “slowed” by having to walk a long block in either direction to cross at a light, but that doesn’t seem to matter to these commenters. A HAWK light will not “slow” traffic because it will be synchronized with the regular lights and will only stop cars that would be stopped anyway at the next intersection, whether to the north or the south. . ..
Tracy Johnke says
DDOT removed the pedestrian enhancements in Woodley Park because drivers loudly objected to the 2-3 minutes the changes added to the drive time in that area. Therefore, walkers should expect similar accommodations for the time they lose having to walk a block or two out of their way just to get across the street.
Plus, I’ve seen so many similar comments elsewhere that misrepresent or misunderstand how the HAWK lights work. Perhaps because the signals are triggered on demand, many assume traffic must stop on a dime to allow people to cross, when in fact the lights will be synced with the rest.