Posts by Mitch Wander

A team of 12 arborists, including Supervisory Forester Earl Eutsler, monitors the approximately 145,000 available open spots for trees. The available space fluctuates for many reasons. For example, redesigned sidewalks or roads can eliminate tree boxes, or a large tree imposing on power lines may be removed and replaced with a number of smaller trees.

Eutsler encourages residents to use online service requests to provide information and feedback to the arborists. Alternatively, residents can request plantings by calling 311 or using the SeeClickFix mobile application. UFA staff are also available at 202-671-5133 to speak with residents about tree concerns.

Eutsler says:

Ideally, each customer would go through 311.dc.gov, where they can enter the comments for themselves, as opposed to relaying a message to a call taker where an abridgement may occasionally occur. Also, people who start with 311.dc.gov will enjoy a virtual file cabinet of every request they have put in, for reference. So customers should start with 311 and be as specific as possible. If they would like to move from the formal request into an actual dialogue with one of our arborists they should leave their email address in the contact information window and add a comment requesting a follow up message from the inspecting arborist.

Of course, our findings are entered into each service request, so the customer could also log back in to see our findings. Please convey that every official service request is reviewed by this office. Our arborists take each request with them into the field (virtually), and update the service request while on site at the tree in question. At the end of each day, our inspection results are pushed back into the main request system where they may be reviewed by the customer.

Residents can also track plans to plant and remove trees through a set of Google Documents spreadsheets. An ArcGIS map shows the locations of existing trees. UFA is moving toward only using ArcGIS to track the tree inventory, planting, and removal in the future.

An open data set of street trees lists the location, tree species, size, condition, and date of last inspection. By plotting the DC GIS data, residents can even analyze the ratio of open to planted spaces in their neighborhoods.

The arborists are limited in the amount of time they can spend caring for every street tree. Residents can adopt and care for newly planted trees through DDOT's Canopy Keeper program.

The non-profit company Casey Trees recently released a comprehensive online reference page about the District's street trees. There are other Casey Trees programs that complement UFA's efforts, such as a tree purchase rebate program for trees on private property.

Residents periodically notice newly planted trees that are not thriving because they haven't gotten enough water or care. UFA tries to avoid these problems by requiring its planting contractors to guarantee the tree for one year, and sets a demanding standard for what constitutes a properly established tree.

If you see newly planted or established trees that need trimming, maintenance, or removal, enter a service request to notify the UFA. Likewise, if you have an empty tree space near your home, enter a service request before June 15th for UFA to plant a new tree during the next planting season.

Complex ownership: Of Arlington's more than 17,000 streetlights, only 5,500 are owned by Arlington County. 12,000 streetlights belong to Dominion Power, but some of the poles on which they sit are still owned by Arlington County. A small number of additional streetlights are owned and maintained by commercial business owners along some of Arlington's older business strips.

This complex ownership can compound speedy streetlight repair. For example, Arlington County must determine who owns each streetlight before it can be repaired. Knowing the approximate location of a burned-out streetlight can help, but Arlington may need the specific pole number to know for sure. If the light does not belong to Arlington, the county must forward along the request to Dominion for action. If you ask Arlington about the status of a repair to a Dominion-owned streetlight, getting a simple answer can be difficult.

Long repair times: Simply submitting a repair request does not always mean that a repair will be made quickly. For example, a group of streetlights have been out near the corner of Lee Highway and Fort Myer Drive for several months. The speed of repairing these or other streetlights can depend upon how quickly the outage is reported, how complex the repair is, and the identity of the streetlight's owner. The burned-out streetlights on Lee Highway, for example, are caused by a single downed pole that contributed to more complex cable problems.

For simple repairs to Arlington-owned streetlights, Arlington staff can perform repairs directly, including changing bulbs, replacing fuses, and basic troubleshooting, and Arlington does so as quickly as possible. If repairs require action by Dominion Power, Dominion currently has 45 days from the report date to Dominion to make most repairs under their flat-rate contract with Arlington. So in some cases, the contract allows for lights to be out for a month and a half after Dominion knows about the problem.

Incomplete reporting: Nearly all broken streetlights repaired by Arlington are brought to Arlington's attention by a constituent report. But constituent reports are often missing critical information, such as the streetlight's pole number and streetlight type. Arlington staff use Google Street View and other tools to try to fill in the blanks, but this takes time and may require an in-person visit.

To supplement constituent reports, Arlington staff drive around selected areas on one week per quarter, workload permitting, to identify additional outages not reported by constituents. If streetlight outages aren't reported by constituents, such as if a streetlight is out in an infrequently trafficked area, it could take many months for Arlington to notice.

These are significant challenges, but Arlington is taking strong steps to address them.

Replacing streetlights: In the years ahead, Arlington plans to replace as many streetlights as possible with attractive, reliable, energy efficient models. Its replacement efforts will help reduce outages and expedite repairs. In some cases, streetlights slated for replacement are currently obsolete models for which replacement parts are hard to obtain and effective repair can be challenging. Replacing such lights with newer LED models can reduce energy use, simplify repairs, and save money.

Hundreds of lights have already been replaced as part of ongoing area development. The replacements are typically Carlyle streetlights which are more aesthetically appealing and fall under Arlington's own repair resources. The Columbia Pike corridor, for example, is scheduled in 2012 for installation of Carlyle lights along a 2+ mile stretch.

Simplifying the ownership structure: Arlington staff appreciate the control the county has has when it owns streetlights outright. This cuts out one step of the repair process and enables faster work. Washington DC has largely avoided this problem because DDOT has nearly total control over streetlights, with the exception of some National Park Service-owned streetlights along federal parkland and adjacent streets.

More than 500 Dominion-owned lights have been replaced by Arlington-owned lights as part of on-going area development. Streetlights owned by building owners are slated for replacement by Arlington-owned streetlights over time. Addressing the complex ownership challenge at the same time as streetlights are replaced can help achieve two benefits at once.

Reducing repair times: In the coming year, Arlington has an opportunity to renegotiate its contract with Dominion for streetlight repair services. Arlington plans to request a shorter repair window than 45 days in order to provide more responsive service for Dominion-owned streetlights. As it negotiates its new contract, Arlington could benefit from the District's example. DC's performance-based contract has been highly successful, and the contractor has met or exceeded all standards over the past three years.

How you can help: Arlington residents represent the front lines of streetlight repairs, and pubic assistance is critical toward ensuring a well-maintained streetlight fleet. Arlington officials emphasize that the quantity and quality of information provided in a repair request are critical for the county to evaluate and prioritize repairs.

The county's online report form requests street address, pole number, problem description and, from a series of photos, the type of streetlight. More precise information is always preferred. This information enables Arlington to quickly determine who maintains the pole and, if the pole is owned by Dominion, to pass along more rapid and comprehensive information.

In addition to the web form, Arlington maintains a phone hotline for streetlights. Arlington consolidates this contact methods and several soon to be enhanced constituent guides related streetlight repairs, construction, conversion, and installation on a streetlight information page.

For streetlight repairs, Arlington does not currently monitor Web 2.0 sites such as SeeClickFix, so the best way to contact them about streetlight repairs remains the reporting forms on Arlington's website.

Keeping Arlington's streets lit for pedestrians, bikers, and drivers is a complex task. But thanks to Arlington's recent steps, and with your help, we can help keep Arlington's streetlights burning more reliably than ever.

Update: The original version of this article said that Arlington had 17,000 streetlights, but the numbers for county-owned and Dominion Power-owned lights added up to more than 17,000. There are actually more than 17,000 streetlights. The article has been updated.

In some cases, new poles and old poles were attached to each other with odd collections of metal cables and brackets. Residents wondered whether there was any rhyme or reason to the seemingly random metal supports. W Street NW even had the distinction of a triple pole cluttering a tree box.

According to meeting minutes, ANC3B first attempted to hold Pepco accountable to a specific removal timeline at a November 2004 meeting.

Commissioner [Christopher] Lively reported that Pepco has been in the area and has almost completed removed [sic] their lines off the old poles on to the new poles. Verizon, Comcast, and Starpower, however, have not removed their lines so the poles still cannot be removed. Commissioner Lively will write a letter on behalf of ANC 3B to OCTT [Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications] to bring the issue to their attention.

Nearly a year later, at ANC3B's October 2005 meeting, Commissioner Melissa Lane brought up the issue again, to Pepco representative Roger Green. Green asked for a list of double pole locations in order to identify removal needs. The ANC complied and expected Pepco to deliver.

In June 2007, ANC3B invited Pepco to explain its plan to remove the double poles.

Pepco Regional Vice President, Vincent Orange, and Linda Jo Smith, Public Relations, reported on the status of the double utility poles that has been a problem throughout Glover Park for the past five years. Pepco replaced their poles but could not take all of them down because other service companies (Comsat, Verizon, etc.) and the district had their products on the original poles. Pepco is making a concerted effort to work with these other companies and get rid of the original poles. Ms. Smith committed to returning in September with a status report.

As a concerned resident, I corresponded with Councilmember Mary Cheh and DDOT in 2008 and 2009. Cheh's Director of Constituent Services stated, "Trust me, we have asked and mentioned it, and reminded Pepco. We will keep doing all of the above until we get responses/action."

Likewise, DDOT's Customer Service Officer assured me, "You will be happy to know that we are working with Pepco and other agencies to resolve the double pole issue. You're right, it isn't happening overnight, but we're getting there."

A few back and forth tweets with the @PepcoConnect Twitter account in June 2011 didn't help either, even after I offered to provide an inventory of locations.

Finally the long drawn out issue turned around in October 2011, when I asked my ANC3B single member district commissioner Brian Cohen to intervene. Cohen worked with Tom Smith, Ward 3 Liaison, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Engagement, who immediately contacted Pepco's Public Affairs Public Affairs Manager for the DC Region, Chris Taylor. Smith also pulled DDOT and the city's cable office back into the issue.

Taylor provided a 521-page document called NJUNS covering the entire Pepco service area. His email walk-through of the pole removal process may be very useful to other neighborhoods trying to resolve this same issue.

To tell you more about the list, NJUNS stands for National Joint Use Notification System. Several states nation wide use this system. The basis of the system is that all utilities in a specific geographic region voluntarily participate in a program to help track progress in removing double poles. As was indicated earlier, equipment must be removed in sequential order from top to bottom. Pepco normally initiates the process when we first remove wires and equipment. Generally, the order is as follows:

1. Pepco
2. DDOT
3. RCN
4. Verizon
5. Pepco inspects to ensure pole is completely stripped
6. Contractor pulls the pole

The NJUNS sends an automated email each time a location is updated. If you look on the report, each page has various steps. At each step, NJUNS automatically sends an email to each utility notifying them of any action that is taken and needed next steps.

Pepco, while now apparently willing to coordinate wire transfers, didn't know where the poles were located. NJUNS listed only three or four double poles for Glover Park, but there were a lot more. Cohen and I counted 41 during our block-by-block survey, and provided a list to Pepco in January 2012.

But moving wires was only part of the problem. In some cases, other utility companies still had wires on the old poles.

Behind the scenes, Pepco lit a fire under the other utilities. Only 2 months after identifying all the pole locations, temporary no parking signs went up and convoys of utility trucks scattered around Glover Park to begin removing the redundant poles.

Over half of the excess poles have been removed already, though ironically 3 new double poles were recently installed.

10 years later, a final resolution is in sight. It took a long time, but Glover Park's double poles are nearly gone. There is hope for other neighborhoods willing to put in the work to identify pole locations and repeatedly follow up with Pepco.

Last year at this time, I commuted by car 22 miles each way from Glover Park to Fort Belvoir. My three-day-a-week compressed shift schedule took me along the Key Bridge, Route 110, Route 395 and Route 95. There was rarely any traffic driving outbound for most of my oddly timed shifts, but on my return trip when shifts ended at breakfast or dinner time, I participated in and contributed to congestion on both Route 110 and the Key Bridge.

My work at Fort Belvoir consisted of three, one-year mobilizations by the Army Reserve. Some time ago, the temporary need for my expertise and labor started to wind down. I started my job search with a basic requirement to work inside the Beltway. Ideally, I wanted a position in downtown DC or Arlington where I could at least bicycle to work once in a while. At the time, riding a bicycle to and from work everyday was only a dream.

When the pieces fell into place and I accepted a challenging position in Arlington along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, I wasted no time breaking the news to my wife: with this change, at the very least, the car would become a last resort for my commute. In fact, I decided that the bus and Metro would play second fiddle to my leg-powered two wheeler.

My wife's concerns mounted as she peppered me with questions of safety and "What if?" scenarios at the dinner table. I had a number of concerns of my own. Luckily, the bicycle community in and around DC was integral in making me a smart, safe and road-ready bicyclist.

The initial inspiration for trying my hand at bicycle commuting came from a blog, of all places. With great admiration and awe, I started reading Brian McEntee's Tales From The Sharrows and following @SharrowsDC for his tidbits on Twitter. He didn't portray his daily rides as always easy or relaxing. Brian identified problems, some caused by others and some by him, and how he overcame them. I figuratively took notes as I plotted changing my commuting method.

I took my remaining questions to Gil Nissey at the free bike clinic he provides to patrons of the Glover Park-Burleith Farmers' Market. Beyond basic bike maintenance, I needed to know what it was like to rely on a bike for work everyday. Gil put my concerns to rest with one simple fact.

In a soft voice, and without an ounce of bragging, Gil stated that he had biked to work during every day of Snowmageddon except for one. I think that at least 10 times I asked him to recount his technique and equipment so that my novice mind could digest it all.

I obtained free printed bike maps from the District Department of Transportation and Arlington County. I also spent considerable time with Google Transit working through bicycle and WMATA routes. I needed to know all my options.

For better or worse, one of my shift rotations would begin earlier in the morning than Metro buses started to run. That meant that the bike would serve as my only choice for transportation to work during those times. I also mapped out several different routes because I knew that some of my rides would occur along side commuting traffic and some during the darkness of night.

On the DC side, it was a no-brainer straight route from Glover Park to the Key Bridge through Burleith and Georgetown. In Arlington, I selected two routes mostly based on bike accessibility, hills and scenery. Going to work, I take the Custis Trail uphill, pass through some neighborhood streets parallel to Wilson Boulevard and finish on the Fairfax Drive bike lanes. Coming home, I return on the Fairfax Drive bike lanes and turn onto the Clarendon Boulevard bike lanes.

After several rides, I had more questions than answers. I consulted the Washington Area Bike Forum to work through what I did not know about biking etiquette, traffic laws and rain gear. This supplemented what I had learned last year in WABA's Confident City Cycling part 2 course.

To address my wife's numerous "What if?" scenarios, I signed up for Capital Bikeshare and the free Guaranteed Ride Home program. I also carry a WMATA SmarTrip card and taxi fare. I have taken my bike on Metrorail a few times when I have had to run more distant errands after work.

I religiously track each trip with the free My Tracks app. This has enabled me to reliably predict the end-to-end time for my entire routine. Depending on weather, time of day and route, I know how long the bike ride should take give or take a couple minutes. I add in sufficient time to put on and take off all my gear.

For winter biking, I have up to seven thin layers for my upper body laid out and ready to go to compensate for the exact temperature. I also purchased inexpensive rain gear and a back fender for wet days. I'm close to purchasing studded bike tires to help me safely traverse winter hazards.

We have retained my car for now, which I still need for my monthly Army Reserve service. Its motorized four wheels remain as backup transportation, though the vehicle now sits unused most days. And, as my biking experience continues to broaden, with every workday, I can swap stories, good and bad, with the bike commuters in Glover Park who continue to encourage me with their many years of biking to and from work.

This transition into the world of bicycle commuters was a combination of luck, research, inspiration and encouragement. My small payback so far has been to coordinate a bike and pedestrian safety program at our local elementary school.

I'm almost beyond being a newbie among bicycle commuters. My gratitude towards the bicycle and transportation community grows with every pedal.

These problems make it difficult to purchase the desired meter time even for regular users. Visitors unfamiliar with the machines or who have less than optimal vision will be even more challenged.

When possible I report malfunctioning meters using the DC.gov 311 online service request center or the SeeClickFix mobile application, which feeds into 311.

When it didn't appear to me that problems reported online were being resolved I contacted John Lisle, DDOT's public information officer, to determine the timeline for meter repairs and the response to 311 tickets. He said that single-space meter issues must be resolved by the contractor within 3 days. For multi-space meters, the contractor must resolve reported problems on the next business day.

During the previous 12 months there were 283 service tickets opened on the 18 meters that I had observed. This equates to 1.3 complaints per meter per month.

At the time of my inquiry a few weeks ago there were no open tickets on any of those meters. However, there were several meters with display problems.

Perhaps the contractor does not consider a moderately non-functioning display to warrant replacement. From the perspective of a meter user, I think it definitely does.

Following my inquiry with DDOT several of the displays were replaced. DDOT deserves credit for following through. From what I can tell, only 2 of the meters I regularly observe still have serious display problems. Both are on the west side of Wisconsin Avenue between R Street and 34th Street.

DDOT noted that the meter maintenance contract is up for renewal this coming year. It will be put out to bid in the coming weeks. If the current contractor isn't maintaining the city's meters adequately then perhaps they should be replaced. The contract renewal process will offer a good opportunity for the city to consider its options.

Where was the emotional debate about the reduction in DPR programs? Did someone defend residents who want to see their parks facilities properly maintained? Why should anyone expect that DPR could continue to operate with a sharply cut agency budget and similar cuts in related support services?

Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. has talked a lot about the benefits he sees to the District of selecting a DC-based landscaping company. It may indeed bring benefits, but Thomas should also consider the benefits to many more District residents of having rec centers open for more hours in his own Ward 5.

Ward 5 has seven recreation centers, three community centers, and a cultural center. All 11 centers are closed every Sunday of the year. Three centers (Fort Lincoln, Theodore Hagans, and Edgewood) are closed all weekend year-round. Not a single center is open for more than six hours on Saturdays. Are these limited hours adequate for Ward 5 residents?

For other signs of problems from underfunding, Thomas need look no further than the now-unavailable DPR Kids Retreat program. The program launched in 2010 as a coordinated effort for kids activities at rec centers on days when DCPS teachers have scheduled professional development. The program only lasted a couple professional development days because of funding constraints. There is no Kids Retreat planned for today, October 14, 2011, the first DCPS professional development day of the year for teachers and staff.

What will it take for Mayor Gray and the Council to examine how the grass cutting debate distracts from the poor state of DPR funding? Aren't tens of thousands of rec center users more important stakeholders than the employees and owners of various landscaping firms?

Focusing too narrowly on the grass cutting contract will only further hurt District residents by neglecting DPR's much more severe funding woes.

Update: John McGaw from the Mayor's Office of Budget and Finance has provided a clarification regarding this post.

The decrease in 2010 is more than offset by nearly $9 million being transferred to the newly created Department of General Services (DGS) to perform facilities maintenance. This adjustment gives DPR a total of $45 million in 2012 with the DGS funds. Nevertheless, the 2012 budget remains well below the $63 and $59 million available to DPR in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Today, over 200,000 vehicles are registered with the RPP program. In many neighborhoods where residential street parking is restricted, open spaces are still nearly impossible to find, especially at peak times. To fix these ongoing problems, DC should learn from the experiences of Seattle, Washington and set more granular prices for RPP stickers.

Data provided by the DMV reveal that over 70% of the nearly 280,000 vehicles registered in the District are part of the RPP program. An additional 3,255 reciprocity permits are issued to diplomats, military personnel, federal appointees, and temporary residents.

Of the total number of RPP permits issued, 75% are assigned to residents of wards 1, 2, 3, and 6. That probably comes as little surprise to residents of those wards who rely on street parking. The overly large parking boundaries do little to prevent same-ward drivers from parking far from their homes, and the low $15 annual cost per permit effectively encourages residents to keep their cars on the street.

Proposals to help alleviate parking woes have included longer enforcement hours, instituting resident-only parking (thus eliminating 2-hour parking for visitors), increasing the number of parking zones, and metering more street spaces near commercial areas. However, these fixes by themselves are merely band-aids.

The fact is that in much of the city there are just too many cars looking for too few spaces, yet changes to the RPP system appear to be near-impossible. Seemingly innocuous steps to alleviate parking demand, such as a proposal earlier this year to charge higher permit fees for multiple-vehicle households, draw intense opposition from some members of the council. What can break the deadlock?

Last year, the City of Seattle implemented a new parking system that increased the number of parking zones (they now have 40 such areas) and started charging households graduated permit fees based on the number of vehicles. But not all residents pay the same rate. Permit fees in each zone range from free to a maximum of $65 every two years in high-demand areas, more than double DC's rate.

The most opposition to DC's plan to charge higher multiple-vehicle permit fees came from representatives of wards that have the least number of RPP holders, which indicates that a one-size-fits-all approach may no longer be viable. Under a system akin to Seattle's, DC would be able to more subtly address the unique needs of individual neighborhoods.

Councilmembers, understandably, do not support higher fees for residents who are not contributing to the parking problems in other neighborhoods. This new proposed system may be more politically viable. Residents of wards without street parking problems would likely see no change to their current permits, and may even see a reduction in fees.

While parking rates would probably not change significantly in half the city's wards, parking-scarce neighborhoods would likely see higher graduated permit fees. Those rates should be priced to better reflect the actual demand for street parking to encourage car owners to find alternate spaces for their vehicles.

As a result, the demand for off-street spaces may rise and developers should be allowed to construct those additional spaces, if they so choose. The key is to find the natural equilibrium in parking demand, rather than keeping fees artificially low.

In order to efficiently price permit rates, the city needs a comprehensive count of the total number of zoned parking spaces. DDOT currently only tracks the total number of RPP blocks, rather than individual spaces. It may be possible to quickly complete this task by asking current parking enforcement officers to count the number of spaces as they work their beats. It would then be possible to better compare vehicle registrations and permits in a given area with the total number of available spaces.

Combined with other proposed actions to reduce the size of the city's parking zones and heightened enforcement, tailoring prices for each community, as Seattle has done, may be the best way to efficiently allocate a scarce public resource among residents.

In the occasional blocks where concrete dominates the landscape, there are small designated areas where dogs can relieve themselves. These are not dog parks, just places for dogs to do their business. The sign shows the purpose of the wooden pole, in case the waste around it doesn't make the use apparent.

Unfortunately, Valencians are known for not picking up dog waste, so it collects in these dog areas, in tree boxes, and even scattered along sidewalks. Dog owners in DC, even without these designated areas, pick up waste much more frequently.

Visitors to our National Mall often seek shade, refreshments and restrooms. All of them can be hard to find on a hot summer day, especially the latter. Valencia has a long east-west park created in the riverbed of where the Turia River used to flow. The long strip of parkland, multiuse paths, cafes, playgrounds and tourist attractions is dotted with some public restrooms.

Cartoon signs direct visitors to these restrooms. These graphically descriptive restroom signs appear in sets of three: girls, boys and persons with disabilities.

Citations for double parking in Valencia don't come cheaply: 200 Euros with a 50 percent discount for prompt payment. Nevertheless, you'll see double parking along business strips outside the central business district. Police generally will not ticket for cars double parked as long as they don't block a crosswalk, bus stop or no parking zone.

There is one non-negotiable condition for double parking: the car must be left in neutral with the parking brake off. That space in front of the red car (below) is there intentionally. If someone needs to pull out of a blocked space, they will push the double parked cars until there is a gap so that the blocked car can pull out.

Would this be a suitable solution for church or event parking on the flat areas of DC? Would you be willing to leave your car so that others could roll it forwards or backwards?

Double parking does not make Valencia a free parking utopia. Residents use collective trash dumpsters and recycling bins instead of individual cans. The trade-off is simple: parking spaces.

On nearly every block, anywhere from one to four parking spaces is consumed by the shared waste containers. On the plus side, there is never a need to lug heavy trash cans to the curb and remove them according to a set schedule. In DC, it takes a permit to even put a storage container in a public parking space.

Street markets are a common sight in Valencia even during the week. They tend to be staggered from one neighborhood to the next so that there is one within a reasonable walk or bus ride. Clear signs advise residents that parking is prohibited on either side of the street along the market routes. Some of the larger markets may wind along five or six city blocks.

DC has a growing collection of farmer's markets. Is there also room for non-food markets selling clothing, toys and household goods?

For drivers who want pedestrians to live up to their end of the safety equation, Valencia has an answer.

A sign reminds pedestrians of their safety obligation on the near side of the intersection. When you press the button to request a walk sign, a red reminder lights up to wait for the green (walk) signal on the far side of the intersection. This creates a second reminder that it is not yet time to cross the street.

The DC region has the more traditional walk and don't walk signals at intersections. Would a second reminder make a difference for pedestrians?

For drivers, there is a second reminder, too. On the far side of intersections and traffic circles, where cars cross a crosswalk after turning, there is a pair of yellow flashing lights at the crosswalk. It is rare to see a driver do anything other than fully stop at these flashing lights when pedestrians are crossing or preparing to cross.

The law across the DC region is on the pedestrian's side. Nevertheless, some drivers try to squeeze between the pedestrians in a crosswalk on the far side of an intersection.

Crosswalks in the DC region vary from thick, high-visibility markings with the direction of traffic to the park of thin lines perpendicular to the direction of traffic. For pedestrians and drivers alike, the appearance of a crosswalk ranges from very clearly visible at a distance to a set of lines that could be confused with a stop line.

Every crosswalk in Valencia is painted with the thick, high visibility lines. Everyone knows what to expect whether crossing a busy wide road or a narrow residential street.

Nobody likes gridlock. Everybody wonders why it happens. In DC, some intersections have "Don't Block the Box" signage. Valencia puts a very visible yellow crosshatch pattern across entire intersections with the potential for gridlock problems.

Like the WMATA Metro serving the DC region, Metro Valencia has a clean, simple system map and a more detailed street map. The detailed map shows the exact location of all nearby valenbisi bike share locations, further integrating bus, rail and bike.

Could WMATA add the Capital Bikeshare stations to its maps? Or, are the locations still evolving too rapidly to keep up with the changes?

A collection of narrow, one-way residential streets have been marked with sharrows. A second set of reminders labels the street as "ciclocalle" and reminds all users of the speed limit. Would this extra signage help all road users in the DC area? Or, are the sharrows road markings sufficient to indicate the sharing intent?

Valencia boasts over 200 stations for its valenbisi bike sharing program. Subscribers don't need to carry an extra card or device to charge out a bike as necessary for Capital Bikeshare. Instead, same MOBILIS card used to pay for bus rides is also linked to the valenbisi account. Could WMATA and Capital Bikeshare integrate their two systems in a similar manner?

Which of these ideas might work across the greater Washington region? Would some be more suitabile either exclusively inside or outside the DC central business district? Which ones shed new light on old problems? Which ones could drive residents, commuters or tourists nuts?

The Metropolitan Police Department publishes data online starting from 1998 indicating each homicide victim's race. Combining the MPD data with population projections derived from official Census figures allows computing the homicide rate per 100,000 residents by race.

An analysis of FBI victim data and population estimates based off of Census Bureau findings reveals that from 1998 to 2003, the number of homicides ranged from 61.6 to 72.9 black victims per 100,000 black residents. Starting in 2004, even as the number of black District residents dropped, the black homicide victim count decreased at an even faster rate.

The rate fluctuated from 49.6 to 58.1 during the five years from 2004 to 2008. Over the past few years rates dropped at an even faster rate, to 43.0 in 2009 and 37.7 in 2010. Although these are notable improvements, for comparison, the national homicide rate was 16.5 black victims per 100,000 black residents in 2009.

Among white residents the homicide rate ranged from 3.3 to 11.3 during the period of 1998 to 2002. From 2003 to 2010, the figure further decreased, ranging from zero to 3.1 per 100,000 residents over the 7-year span. During the five most recent years with data available (2006 to 2010), the rate averaged 1.5 white homicide victims per 100,000 white residents.

In fact, white residents face a lower homicide victim rate in the District than the nation as a whole. Nationally, 2.7 white residents are homicide victims per 100,000 white residents. But, among DC white residents, this figure is lower both when looking at data from either of the most recent two years (zero and 1.3 in 2009 and 2010, respectively) or the latest 5-year average (1.5).

There are many limitations to expressing homicide rates in these terms for any geographic entity smaller than the nation as a whole. Victims at a state or city level may or may not be actual residents of that state or city. Urban areas tend to have a much larger actual number of people present compared to residents because of commuters, tourists and business travelers. However, the data still provides a useful measure of the relative safety of any given location.

It should be noted that a comparable analysis is not available for other races, more than one race, or residents of Hispanic origin. The US Census Bureau tracks Hispanic origin as a separate identifier than race, while MPD uses it as one of the possible race categories. This difference coupled with a consolidated "other" category makes it difficult to extend this analysis to other races and individuals of Hispanic origin.

Of course, race alone does not explain differences in homicide occurrences. Each death is tragic and occurs under different circumstances as Homicide Watch D.C. strives to document.

Nonetheless, analyzing racial trends can provide insight into the perceptions and realities that District residents must negotiate with regard to personal safety. The trends may also prove useful in identifying some of the possible targeted opportunities that relate to public safety, family and community support, education and economic opportunities.

From: Robinson, Tony (EOM)

To: Hoskins, Victor (EOM); Hanlon, Brian (DRES); Harper, Ollie (OPEFM);
Cooper, Ginnie (DCPL)

Cc: Graves, Warren (EOM); Sousa, Jose (EOM); [Philip Artin]; Williams, George (DCPL); Jenkins, Ruth (OPEFM); Coleman, Lucian (OPEFM); Bonvechio, Jeffrey (DCPL)

Sent: Mon Mar 07 14:33:20 2011

Subject: Project/Site Signage

Victor, Brian, Ollie, Ginnie:

All ongoing project and site signage must be updated as soon as possible to reflect the change in leadership. All projects signs bearing former administration leadership (Mayor, Agency Heads etc.) must either be replaced or covered with new leadership names.

I believe the City Administrator has discussed this issue with some of you. If not, this is a priority he has asked me to work with you and your staff in accomplishing as quickly as possible.

Please identify a point of contact on your staff who can provide updates on getting project signage changed and provide ongoing updates until completion. Should you have any questions about this request, please let me know.

Tony

Tony Robinson
Director of Public Affairs
Office of the City Administrator

Staff from Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, Department of Real Estate Services, Executive Office of the Mayor and DC Public Library appear in the email's "to" and "cc" fields. The email also went to one non-DC.Gov email address: Philip Artin, Senior Vice President, Special Projects with construction firm McKissack & McKissack.

It would be interesting to know whether these instructions were approved by Mayor Gray himself or represent an independent effort by City Administrator Allen Lew. In either case, the administration should immediately rescind this order to preserve tax dollars and focus agency leadership on legitimate high-priority projects.

To avoid this problem in the future, Gray can ask that signs not list any names at all, and simply replace the old adminisration's names on current signs with nothing. That will reflect the leadership change while removing the need to replace all names in the future every time a mayor or agency head changes.