Last June, Mayor Bowser and DDOT announced new “slow streets” around the District where the speed limits would be lowered to 15 miles per hour and vehicle traffic would be limited – all to allow pedestrians and other road users to use the street for physically-distant recreation and travel.
In our neighborhood, there are now slow streets on Davenport, Yuma and 36th Streets NW. The slow street on 36th between Reno Road and Connecticut Avenue was among the first to be announced, and as far as we know, the first to be installed.
Within a few months, the barriers were still standing, but missing the speed limit and “Local Traffic Only” signs.
Those sad looking barriers have been replaced.
And new signs have been added along 36th.
Have you seen any changes on the other slow streets?
Forest Hills Neighbor says
Unfortunately, we have seen on a daily basis cars not adhere it to either the speed limit or to use for local traffic only. Davenport has cars racing through this sign, and now without a barricade, I doubt much more adherence will follow.
Kathy Hudson says
I live off Davenport and find the barricade at Davenport and Connecticut unsafe. It blocks an entire lane such that it is difficult to enter. I have found myself stuck in Conn Ave traffic multiple times. Buses, bikes, and cars have to pull around as I wait for outgoing vehicle to clear the single lane. Why not just post and enforce lower speed limit with regular street-side signage. Safer and less of an eyesore.
Elizabeth Mettler says
I agree. We have a large van and like to cross Connecticut Avenue at the lights – with both Davenport and Yuma slow streeted that leaves just Brandywine & Albemarle. Davenport is an especially useful one for us.
In addition, why was Yuma selected at that point? It is a major point for accessing the businesses in that block of Connecticut including the Days Inn and Avis Rent a Car.
I personally do not like this program. I’d rather all the money from these signs was invested in other ways to make it safe for pedestrians – sidewalks everywhere on both sides of the streets, a Hawk signal at Chesapeake (and wherever else needed), bike lanes and better enforcement of stop signs.
Roberta Carroll says
I agree this slow street does not belong on Yuma block right off Conn. Ave. This is a commercial block and not a residential block. Traffic cannot turn onto Yuma if that barricade sits blocking the entrance to the street. The second block on Yuma has driveways that all the cars back out into the street and it is hard to see the oncoming traffic. The third block has an elementary school with drop off and pick up traffic twice a day plus twice a week a farmers market. Slow streets should only be on residential streets.
FHC says
I can understand the resistance to the barricade at Yuma and Connecticut and Davenport and Connecticut – drivers really have to strategize! But streets with driveways and schools are the perfect locations for slow streets. Wouldn’t it be easier to back out of a driveway if the traffic is slower? And safer to walk to school?
Remember, drivers aren’t barred from those streets. They’re just being asked to take it slow.
Carren Kaston says
There’s a slow-street sign at Rodman as well, starting at Reno Road and going west. Like the poster above, I find the sign kind of an unsafe impediment. I guess I’m also puzzled because Rodman Street traffic is already slow, from what I’ve seen. That’s because it’s a narrow street with parking allowed on both sides. So it’s very difficult for more than one car at a time to travel through and cars are constantly waiting, immobile, while a car from the other direction cautiously inches by. Finally, at the western end of Davenport, there are speed bumps, which automatically enforce slow traffic. I would have thought that speed bumps did the trick of slowing traffic since if cars ignore the bumps and try to speed through, their ride will be very jolt-y and uncomfortable. So I’m at a bit of a loss as to why Rodman was selected for the slow street program.
Green Eyeshades says
The map shows that the Slow Street on Rodman actually starts at Connecticut Avenue, runs west from Connecticut & Rodman along Rodman ACROSS Reno all the way to the complicated intersection with Idaho Avenue, and then continues on Idaho Avenue a few extra blocks to Wisconsin Avenue.
It seems obvious that these restrictions on Rodman and Idaho are designed to prevent cutting across town between the major arteries of Wisconsin and Connecticut. If only local residents who live along those portions of Rodman and Idaho were to use those streets, cross-t0wn traffic would be sharply reduced.
The designers of Slow Streets possibly should not be blamed for DDOT’s failures to add substantial numbers of warning barricades at multiple intersections along the Slow Streets. And DDOT perhaps is not to blame for the failure to enforce speed limits. But which agency is to blame for the failure to prevent NON-local traffic and “THRU traffic” from using the Slow Streets?
Carren Kaston says
Green Eyeshades’ comment was, “It seems obvious that these restrictions on Rodman and Idaho are designed to prevent cutting across town between the major arteries of Wisconsin and Connecticut. ” I agree that was the intention. But I was asking why it was necessary on Rodman Street, which is so narrow that only one vehicle can drive on it at a time anyway. And the speed bumps slow things down even further.
KeliDC says
As stated by others, the barricades pose a traffic hazard. The slow streets campaign may be an admirable plan. It may even work on Beach Drive. It is a danger at Davenport Street and I presume other feeder streets. The plan can stay. The barricades must go.