by Julia K. Stevenson
When committing to Vision Zero in 2015, Mayor Bowser made us all a promise: She pledged to bring roadway fatalities and serious injury numbers down to zero by 2024. She was acknowledging that such trauma is not an inevitable consequence of modern times; rather, that it is preventable if we commit to transforming our street and sidewalk system to one that prioritizes safety for all users.
“Safe Streets are what we need as a community, and together, we can get there. We cannot and will not accept the constant toll of traffic injuries and death in our community.” – From the mayor’s message in the Vision Zero DC 2022 update
2024 was a decent target year back in 2015, but it remains unattained. The number of traffic fatalities in DC has actually risen nearly every year since.
In March of this year, DC Auditor Kathy Patterson blamed the Bowser administration, which “failed to follow the ambitious announcement in 2015 with appropriate resources in both funding and manpower.” (Read the audit and The Washington Post report.)
This is unacceptable.
Vision Zero is a global movement, and if we want our neighborhood to benefit from this laudable presumption and realize this fundamental goal, we must be intentional about the safety of people on our roads.
The Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Safety Improvement Project is just such an opportunity. This is a chance to play a constructive role in putting an end to ever more people killed while walking, biking or driving. Mayor Bowser, by following through, would make good on her promise to create a safer environment for travel, one that will benefit all residents and visitors to our neighborhood.
From car-centered to people-centered transportation
I think it would be helpful to take a look at the safety-conscious context within which the Connecticut Avenue study developed. Perhaps it will help us all endorse a common vision of road and traffic safety.
Historically, U.S. transportation policies have focused on the automobile, and the typical calculus was concerned with efforts to ensure that drivers travelled with as little delay as possible from point A to point B. This model also included unlimited parking wherever, no matter the context.
The Federal Highway Administration is now championing a Safe Systems approach to road infrastructure. It is premised on the acknowledgement that humans make mistakes, so we should be designing roads that lessen the likelihood of those mistakes occurring while driving.
Street design provides guidance and visual cues – it influences behavior – so if designed properly, streets can be mostly self-enforcing. These are road systems then, either built or modified, that aim to safely tolerate human errors.
Strategies for implementing such safety-conscious thinking include narrowing traffic lanes, adding curb extensions and safety islands, enhancing the visibility of crosswalks, and physically separating people traveling at different speeds – hence, protected bike lanes.
“The District is refocusing our efforts on Vision Zero by embracing a Safe Systems approach… the District is authorized to design roads that make operating at safe speeds intuitive, and by introducing an inclusive and holistic design approach… in every project we undertake.” – Vision Zero DC 2022 update
Complete Streets is another policy and design approach for addressing problematic transportation issues. It is actively encouraged by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
In 2022, the National Complete Streets Coalition released a report called “Dangerous by Design.” This report addressed the increase in traffic deaths and critical injuries nationwide. And as with Safe Systems, it posited that the way we’ve been designing our streets is part of the problem. It said that the most dangerous streets we have are “the big, fast, wide streets designed for cars to run at expressway speeds through busy cities and towns.”
According to those who study traffic safety, speed limits, on their own, are insufficient. Sitting behind the wheel of a car (and increasingly large pickups and SUVs), people are likely to drive at the speed that it feels as if that road was built for. And Connecticut Avenue was built for speed. In transportation engineer parlance, it is an arterial road – long and straight, having clear sight lines and multiple lanes – design characteristics that foster faster, deadlier speeds.
The Complete Streets design concept seeks to ensure safe access for all users of the road, as does Safe Systems, but in addition, Complete Streets specifically promotes the use of other mobility devices. Such an approach reevaluates road systems by looking afresh at how road use could be enhanced for greater benefit. This means that cars must give space to other modes of transportation, necessarily, and given the unique history of American roadway systems, persistent inequities associated with these past approaches need to be confronted and fairly worked out.
“Riding a bicycle isn’t a revolutionary act; it’s a common way for millions of Americans to get from place to place each day.” – Smart Growth America
Only 64.3% of DC households had one or more motor vehicles in 2021, the lowest percentage nationwide. Knowing this, to continue to preference cars on our roadways is an inequitable distribution of monies and resources.
A further significant inequity is to be found when the environmental impacts of various transportation options are assessed. Climate change is increasingly threatening our health, economic vitality and the world’s ecology. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2021, the transportation sector was the top contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and more than 20 percent of transportation emissions came from passenger vehicles.
To allow cars to continue to dominate our roads and to cede so much land use to storing them when not in use, actively encourages their dominance in the transportation landscape, despite all other considerations.
This is unsustainable.
The Connecticut Avenue plan
And yet we have been given a remarkable chance to transform Connecticut Avenue into a road that works for everyone. In December 2021, after years of study by DC’s Department of Transportation, and much strategizing and conferencing with numerous stakeholders, Mayor Bowser committed to the Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Safety Improvement Project’s Concept C.
This plan laid out a number of improvements, such as adding refuge islands and curb extensions, both of which will shorten crossing distances for pedestrians, and adding left- and right-turn lanes at various intersections, which will add coherency to the flow of traffic. And the plan included a well-connected set of protected bike lanes.
People feel safe on them. And in truth they are. “If you build it, people will ride.”
DC was one of the first U.S. cities to start building modern protected bike lanes, and a DDOT study showed that bike traffic in those areas grew seven times faster than the citywide rate.
When a protected bike lane was built on a particular street in NYC, there was a 190% increase in weekday ridership, and 32% of those biking were children under the age of 12.
Connecticut Avenue is our main street and we can redefine its character while making it safe. It is important that everyone be aware that when Concept C was selected in 2021, it was the compromise – concessions had been made on all sides so no one group who had participated in this long process was completely satisfied.
And yet as it stood, in late 2021, it was a remarkable plan because of the promise it held for making more people safe on Connecticut Avenue than ever before. What a terrible shame it would be to back away from this promise. Protected bike lanes are such a simple approach, akin to sidewalks for pedestrians. Trade-offs get made: street parking must give way so as to enhance the safety of cyclists and scooter riders.
As cities all across the country have found, safety enhancements produce almost immediate results; in places where streets have been redesigned, there are significant drops in fatalities and serious injuries. Isn’t this something we should be aspiring to?
We are all jockeying for space but when considering how we want our roads to function, we must be fair. Everyone outside of a car is vulnerable – shockingly so. Most people understand the obligation to keep pedestrians safe – why is it that, too often, we expect bicyclists and scooter riders to ride unprotected in the midst of 2,500+ pound motor vehicles?
I wish we would all keep uppermost in our minds that the safety of all users should always be our highest priority. As a community I hope we are capable of embracing this.
Julia K. Stevenson is a lifelong resident of Washington DC. She is on ANC 3F’s Streets and Sidewalks Committee. She lives with her family on Albemarle Street.
Paul Harrison says
Informative and well-said Julia! While it may be hard for all of us to conceptualize what our neighborhood would have looked like with an I-270 extension built across Military Road turning south down Nebraska to Chain Bridge, that was the official vision from the 1940s until the 1970s. That plan was abandoned and that foresight it is a big part of why we have metro today instead.
Once we turn Connecticut into a walkable community street rather than a suburban arterial we should be confident that future generations will look back and think “Wait, the plan was to divide the neighborhood with six lanes of heavy traffic driving at 40 mph even though there’s a metro line underneath?” It is far past time to turn Connecticut Avenue into a neighborhood asset, not a traffic bypass.
FHC says
We haven’t heard of the I-270 extension plan (yikes), but the city definitely envisioned a neighborhood highways network. Seems inconceivable today.
Steve Seelig says
Excellent piece Julia. Every user should have an expectation of safety.
I wish though we didn’t have people who don’t really live on the Avenue holding rallies where they chant “Connecticut Avenue is for car commuters” as did the Save CT Avenue group. That same group argues that bike lanes are actually more dangerous for everyone. We tend to live in a fact free world these days.
Green Eyeshades says
I am very grateful to Forest Hills Connection and the author for staunchly defending the “Concept C” design for our Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Safety Improvement Project
Common sense principles in the main blogpost:
“cars must give space to other modes of transportation ….”
“Only 64.3% of DC households had one or more motor vehicles in 2021, the lowest percentage nationwide. Knowing this, to continue to preference cars on our roadways is an inequitable distribution of monies and resources.”
“DC was one of the first U.S. cities to start building modern protected bike lanes, and a DDOT study showed that bike traffic in those areas grew seven times faster than the citywide rate.”
Stephen C Schwartz says
Thank you, Julia.
Eileen Kane says
I really disagree with the proposed Connecticut Ave design. I don’t mind creating one bicycle lane on Connecticut Ave and while agree that we should have fewer cars, my bike days are over.
I believe that Connecticut Ave should be focused on expanded public transportation – which we are going to lose without more advocacy. I lived for the first 17 years in this city without a car using a bike, walking and public transit. Before covid, we had many people riding the L1 bus downtown – always packed until Dupont Circle. While the ridership volume may not be the same, by focusing so much access to bikes and giving little attention to bus service and parking, we do a disservice to those depend on the bus and to the businesses in the corridor that sell more than food. It’s time to re-think this plan and create parking on one side and two way bike lanes on the other side with safe boarding spots for bus passengers and better pedestrian features. The raised bus platform that was recently tried out on New Mexico Ave near AU has been removed – and while that intersection is now very bike friendly, it really is awful for pedestrians who need to cross there.
RS says
Plan C noted above already did quite a bit to improve pedestrian safety – including adding islands to shorten the crossing distance, and I recall they were going to use the raised bike lane noted above at bus stops. I’m not sure if you have driven OR cycled on streets where both bike lanes are located on the same side of the street – IMO they are extremely confusing for drivers making turns and are really problematic for cyclists trying to pull out of the way when they need to cross the street. I disagree that more area needs to be made for the L bus – the Red Line directly parallels the majority of Connecticut Ave and the metro stops are less than 1 mile apart – easily within walking distance. I’d rather the city put bus prioritization in areas that really need it.
Gawain Kripke Kripke says
This is really excellent. Thanks for publishing and writing.
Gawain Kripke
ANC3C07
P.A. Brown says
In full agreement. DC law makes it explicitly clear that our streets are for all users, not just automotive vehicle drivers, yet our streets remain designed largely to prioritize motor vehicle drivers, not those using bicycles or walking. Having genuine protected bike lanes should be a priority.
Those who oppose protected bike lanes on the argument that there are many fewer people using bicycles than cars miss the point: that all road users, regardless of number, deserve protection. Besides, having a safe route to ride along Connecticut Ave will undoubtedly bring out more people who won’t use a bike along that route today because they do not feel safe.
Thank you and kind regards.
Karl Driessen says
Nice piece Julia! Just back from a quick grocery run to Connecticut Avenue on my bike. Almost every day I am reminded of how necessary the proposed safety improvements are for our neighborhood. As density increases and urban mobility options evolve, we need to adjust our infrastructure. The Safe Systems and Complete Streets approaches seem to provide the right framework for thinking through this.
Paul says
All travelers on our roadways need protection. We do not have enough protection for walkers in Forest Hills neighborhoods. I often see elderly citizens walking in the streets because of lack of sidewalks, or broken sidewalks. If there is a “streets and sidewalks” committee in the ANC, then maybe it should broaden it’s focus to include the streets and sidewalks other than Connecticut Avenue to accommodate all the folks who like to walk, and to stop the crazy drivers speeding on through Forest Hills.
Whatever happens on Connecticut Avenue, I hope it stems the flow of Maryland commuters through our neighborhoods.
Livia Bardin says
All this talk about commuters ignores the reality that for nineteen hours of regular week days and for all twenty-four hours of weekends and holidays, Connecticut Ave is a sucession of urban neighborhoods, populated by thousands of people who are NOT just driving through, but are going to the cleaners, the market, and all the other local businesses that make our neighborhoods work.
Many of us don’t own cars and of that group, many are elderly and have mobility problems. Parking is important for neighors with mobility problems who do drive.. Wheel-chair and walker users may need local transportation to get to the Metro stations (and don’t disregard the substantial length of upper Connecticut Ave that isn’t served by Metro). Bikes are trendy, but let’s not minimize the very real difficulty of fitting them into the limited space available without disregarding others whose needs are at least equally valid and who have few options for meeting them.
RS says
Bikes are hardly “trendy” Livia and no one is taking all of the parking. Instead what is being offered is a safer way for the “thousands of people” that live in the neighborhoods that are able bodied to do all of the things you mentioned, thereby opening the parking for those that truly need it. We need to stop turning everything into a US vs THEM argument and instead consider that cities should be designed with EVERYONE in mind. Copenhagen is a fantastic model of a city that has done just that and DC could learn a thing or two about making changes to the city that minimize the need for cars while still providing access and services to everyone.
P.A. Brown says
It’s absolutely true that streets should be shared by all, and by all safely. That means accommodating people of all ages in cars, on bikes, and as pedestrians. I would not call that “trendy”, but rather caring and common sense. Indeed, it is precisely what DC already sets out as policy:
Code of the District of Columbia
§ 50–2381. Complete Streets policy.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term:
(1) “Complete Streets policy” means a policy by which streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District’s transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.”
Certainly on a six lane road (Connecticut Ave), there is room for BOTH lanes for drivers in cars, and a dedicated protected lane for people on bikes.
Roberta Carroll says
Not all streets have the same rating and are the same. Connecticut Avenue does not have room for 2 moving lanes of traffic and a bike lane on each side. There are buses that use the road, stopping and in this case taking up a moving lane. Trucks stop and load and unload for businesses and that would take up a so called moving lane that would not be moving. There is no room for parking to go to the businesses and use them. So the use of Conn. Ave. is reduced for a bikers which are about 2% of the population. It does not make sense for a major road in the city.
P.A. Brown says
All users deserve a safe option to use our streets, even if fewer people use bicycles than drive. Reducing everything to absolute numbers would have resulted in constructing a freeway thru Upper Northwest, as was planned in the late 1950s and early 1960s. That road would certainly have benefited a much greater number of drivers than the relatively few people who stood to lose their homes.
The logic of prioritizing people like me who drive over those who use bikes strikes me as somewhat selfish, and certainly not the sharing approach that I favor.