Greater Greater Washington

DDOT proposes Eckington bike lane, commissioner opposes

DDOT wants to help people on bikes traverse R Street in Eckington with sharrows and a one-block contraflow lane. ANC commissioner Sylvia Pinkney is organizing a petition to oppose the project, but some of her fellow commissioners and neighbors don't share her distaste.


Image from Google Street View.

R Street has an existing bike lane west of Florida Avenue, but there is a gap in Eckington, where people biking use R Street to access the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

Most of R in Eckington is 2-way, with one lane each way and parking on each side. In these areas, DDOT plans just to add "sharrows," the shared-lane markings that remind drivers that people biking are allowed to ride in the lane (though legally this is true whether or not the markings exist.)

For one small block between 2nd and 3rd Streets NE, R Street is one-way eastbound. It's wide enough for two lanes, but two lanes aren't really necessary. DDOT is suggesting replacing one of those with a contraflow lane, between the parking and the sidewalk. It will be painted green.

Segment of project from Eckington Place to 3rd Street, NE.

Drivers have to go one block out of the way, to Randolph Place NE, if they want to go west through this area (or take a different route). But this is not good for people on bikes since it requires going up a fairly substantial hill around McKinley High and then down again. Also, people riding on the Met Branch Trail know R Street is a way to get all the way across town, while many people aren't so familiar with Randolph Place.

However, ANC Commissioner Sylvia Pinkney is organizing against the lane. Pinkney's district is just to the west, covering R between 2nd and North Capitol. She is also the commissioner who led the charge against the Youth Build Public Charter School.

In an email to neighbors, Pinkney announced her opposition to both the bike lane and the sharrows.

The community struggled for five years to obtain speed humps to slow the traffic on R Street. Between the construction trucks, Fed Ex trucks, buses, local community traffic, and every driver that chooses to cut through R street to avoid Florida Avenue and access North Capitol Street, R Street has become a dangerous heavily traveled thoroughfare.

It is because R Street NE is dangerous, heavily traveled, and not wide enough for a bike lane, that the meeting participants agreed that bike lanes and symbols should not be installed on R Street. If R Street is not wide enough for a bike lane it is not safe for bikers.

There are several secondary streets in Eckington that lead to the bike trail. I am certain R Street is the most heavily travelled, most dangerous, and the narrowest of them all.

Pinkney's concern for cyclists' safety is touching, but misplaced. There really aren't other decent routes. One of the multiple readers who wrote in about this issue said,
I live on the unit block of S Street NE, and take that street to work every day. There is no other way to get to the R Street bike lane without going on North Capital, Florida Ave or Rhode Island Ave, so how does disallowing sharrows make me safer?
Putting in the bike lane would actually help neighbors who want traffic calmed. If this street becomes an even more common bike route, the many people riding in the lane will force drivers to slow down and give the street more of a feeling of a low-speed neighborhood street than a high-speed thoroughfare. Likewise, the contraflow lane will narrow the 200 block, also calming traffic.

First-term ANC Commissioner Tim Clark, whose campaign platform included making Eckington safer for cyclists, is enthusiastic about the proposal. He wrote in an email,

Some people's belief that the community would outright object to the lanes is based on a common misconception that people in our community don't embrace cyclists or bike lanes. I myself found this not to be true when I spent 3 days canvassing the 200 block of R. Street. In fact, it's very far from the truth.

So far I've had only one resident to object to the plan. Many of the residents where more than willing to share the road with bikers and felt it would make the street a lot safer. They only asked that the lane be kept to the outside of their cars to avoid any possible property damage. ...

My residents are supportive of the plan and making our community safer for all pedestrians. With the massive NoMa West project and increased residential growth over the last couple of years, our roads have become increasingly crowded, which has encouraged more residents to bike. R Street is also one of the only east-to-west connectors for bikers in the city, so there's a need to make the commute safer.

If you live in the area or frequently ride or drive through Eckington, please email the ANC members and DDOT's Mike Goodno to register your support for the project.
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

I bike through eckington a lot these days. It's a great way to get from NoMA up to the U Street or Columbia Heights areas without having to muck about crossing Florida or New York Ave more than once.

It's a pretty quiet neighborhood that's safe to bike in, although there are indeed virtually no bike lanes. I've always wondered why there was a lonely bike lane on Eckington Place. Now I know!

by andrew on Jun 1, 2011 10:19 am • linkreport

Thank you, David, for covering this issue, and for providing information about who to contact at DDOT. I live one block south, on Quincy Place NE, and often bike with my children in a trailer to the MBT, so I use the stretch of R Street from Eckington Place to the MBT, and sometimes from 1st and R NE to the MBT.

I feel strongly about this issue, and am disappointed that Sylvia took this position, and hasn't yet responded to the multiple emails on the Eckington list in support of the plan (and only one email so far that may be against the plan).

by J.T. Engelhardt on Jun 1, 2011 10:30 am • linkreport

If we are going to use sharrows more we need better public education on what they mean. They first time I saw them I was really confused about what they meant. I don't find the signage intutitive.

I don't actually like them because I think it implies that you only need to be concerned about bikers if you see sharrows. However, that's just my preference and I wouldn't actively oppose them.

by Kate W on Jun 1, 2011 10:36 am • linkreport

I agree that DDOT needs to be more proactive on letting people know what sharrows mean. They should come to the Eckington Civic Association and ANC meetings to get the word out.

(Speaking of the ECA, President Ted McGinn announced that he's very much in favor of the sharrows and the lane, and will be bringing it up at their next meeting.)

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 11:00 am • linkreport

I'm all in favor of better bike infrastructure here, but going one bigger, why is this block one-way to begin with? I haven't been there but looked on Street View and can't see any real reason. It's just a neighborhood street which suddenly goes from one lane in each direction to two lanes in one direction, for a single block. Making it bidirectional could help with traffic calming as well as making it less confusing to navigate.

by Gavin on Jun 1, 2011 11:11 am • linkreport

Gavin: I'm with you 200%! My personal view is that 2/3 of the one-way streets in the city are pointless, and actually help speed up traffic through neighborhoods, since drivers know they don't have to worry about oncoming traffic. Ridding the city of these one-way blocks would force drivers to pay more attention, and likely reduce their speed.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 11:15 am • linkreport

As far as I know, the controversy is about the unit and 100 blocks of R. The bike lanes could easily be routed down Quincy.

R Street is a clusterf*** every morning. What DDOT should be focusing on is ways to keep commuters' cars and fed ex trucks out of our neighborhoods and encourage bikers to stay off the arterial roads by making our neighborhood streets accommodating.

However, as it stands, the fed ex trucks arent going anywhere and their presence makes it unsafe for bikers and cars alike. I'm all for bike lanes, but unless we get rid of the fedex trucks, encouraging more bikes than there are already here will just make things worse.

Route them down Quincy instead, an extra 3/4ths of a block to go down Lincoln further and then back up Eckington isnt going to hurt anyone.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 11:17 am • linkreport

Anon: Do you use a bicycle for daily transportation? I'm not trying to be snide, but having to go a block out of the way and then a block back for a cyclist can be a real pain in the neck. The energy expended in stopping, restarting, and building up momentum repeatedly is so much more significant for cyclists than it is for automobiles. Forcing cyclists to go out of the way isn't the solution for safer streets.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 11:19 am • linkreport

If cyclists were worried about less than a full block, they probably wouldnt be biking in the first place. Cyclists go out of their way all the time to take a more peaceful and a safer route.

In fact, since bikes are allowed on ALL of the city streets, perhaps we should just sign BOTH streets and let the bikes decide. One morning for a cyclist going down R Street fighting the exasperatingly rude Fed Ex trucks will have 2 outcomes: 1.) a dead/injured cyclist or 2.) a cyclist who decides next time to travel down quincy.

My problem is conning bikes into using R, when that street is bad for anyone trying to use it. There are better alternatives only mere feet away. Since we have streets paralleling each other, why cant we just divide up the traffic?

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 11:33 am • linkreport

Anon: The problem with your logic is that, if carried to it's ends, you get freeways and other types of traffic sewers. Cities have learned that complete streets (accommodating all uses safely on one street) make more sense than creating places where automotive (car and truck) traffic can operate with impunity.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 11:39 am • linkreport

I've found the FedEx/UPS trucks to be particularly bad over the past few weeks. They use bike lanes for parking like it's their business.

There's an easy solution too. Hire a separate package-runner, and have the driver circle the block while the runner goes door to door. FedEx/UPS already do this during peak season, and in areas where they know they can't get away with illegal parking.

I notice it a lot on the East Capitol St bike lanes.

(Of course, this could be solved with curbside bike lanes, which would have the added effect of making the street feel narrower, hence lowering vehicle speeds)

by andrew on Jun 1, 2011 11:41 am • linkreport

Anon 11:17: I live on Quincy NE and don't bike for daily transportation. Just on the weekend and some weeknights, often with my kids in a trailer. I don't really agree with your conclusion that since R St. is a cluster, we shouldn't do the sharrows on R Street. Advertising that bikes have the same rights as cars will attract more bikes, hopefully, and slow traffic on that stretch on R. Hell, maybe it will even discourage the FedEx and Ft. Myer trucks to use R St and you'd have more bikes and less trucks.

But, if the planners wanna use Quincy for valid reasons (which means not because of any neighborhood politics), that's fine with me, but you still need bike lanes to get from the intersection of Eckington Place NE and R Street to the MBT.

by J.T. Engelhardt on Jun 1, 2011 11:54 am • linkreport

The problem with carrying logic to its end is that while it may make an effective argument, rarely ever do policies lead to the extreme end.

I am proposing 2 blocks of bike lanes being moved over to a street less than a block away. I am not proposing a biking ghetto or 100% segregation.

As for bike lanes discouraging trucks to use R Street, I think you are vastly misunderstanding the mentality of professional drivers.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 12:00 pm • linkreport

I live on the Unit Block of R Street NE - indeed, right across from Sylvia Pinkney. Several points:

1) I think that putting sharrows on Quincy is a bad idea - while Quincy itself is a fine street to bike on, how would bikes get SAFELY from R to Quincy and back to R again? Let's consider traveling Eastbound. You cannot cross North Cap at Quincy, so you would have to do it at R, then turn right onto Lincoln Road, which often feels like a freeway. Bikes would have to turn left, across traffic, onto Quincy from Lincoln Road at at VERY confusing intersection - SB traffic has a light, and NB traffic has a stop sign. Considering the speed at which people whip off of North Cap onto Lincoln, this would end in disaster. At the other end, Quincy dumps you out onto Eckington Place, about half a block SOUTH of the stopsign at R and Eckington Place. To be legal, a bike would have to again cross speeding traffic to get to the far side of the road, in order to turn right again on R. I have no idea why anyone would think this a feasible/appropriate option.

2)Is anybody else completely baffled by Sylvia's "logic"? Seriously, read the first paragraph. I paraphrase: "We've battled to slow traffic down! But too many people use the road! It is dangerous! Bikes would make it more dangerous!" Really? Because I think MORE (see point three) bikes might just serve to slow people down even more, and perhaps would be the straw that broke the camel's back, convincing FedEx to FINALLY choose another route.

3) The irony of all this discussion: THE BIKES ARE ALREADY THERE. The boat has sailed on this one - the sharrows only serve to remind stupid drivers that they don't own the road. And as someone who bikes, walks and drives on these streets, usually with my kids in tow, anything to remind people to slow down and share would make me happy.

by elizqueenmama on Jun 1, 2011 1:18 pm • linkreport

Anon:
So why not just put bike lanes on both streets? Seems just as good as any other option.

by Canaan on Jun 1, 2011 1:20 pm • linkreport

EQM: Easy, put a stop sign on Eckington Place at Quincy.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 1:40 pm • linkreport

Canaan:

I suggested that earlier:

"In fact, since bikes are allowed on ALL of the city streets, perhaps we should just sign BOTH streets and let the bikes decide. One morning for a cyclist going down R Street fighting the exasperatingly rude Fed Ex trucks will have 2 outcomes: 1.) a dead/injured cyclist or 2.) a cyclist who decides next time to travel down quincy."

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 1:43 pm • linkreport

Anon:

Have you ever been to this neighborhood? There is not enough room between Quincy and R on Eckington Place to add another stop sign.

C'mon, at least think your suggestions through. I'm afraid that you are just being a rabble-rouser here, with no intent on actual constructive dialogue. . .

by elizqueenmama on Jun 1, 2011 1:43 pm • linkreport

No, I'm completely serious. There could easily be bike lanes down quincy and a 3 way stop at the quincy/eckington intersection. It would make Eckington less appealing to motorists, both private and professional, as a cut through.

Hell, add one at Q, too. Why should Eckington Place be a 4 lane super highway, complete with shoulders, parking, and bike lane. Narrow it, and make it move slower.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 1:54 pm • linkreport

Anon: It's not a four-lane road. It's one lane each way with a center turning lane. The fact that you think it's a four-lane road lends credence to Elizabeth's assumption that you haven't seen the facts on the ground firsthand.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 1:58 pm • linkreport

Oh, sorry, I checked google maps and it is 3 lanes.

That doesnt change the fact that each street should have a stop sign. People drive down it with impunity. I've seen cars that must be going 40-50mph.

Call me an out of the area rabble rouser if you want, but I just think that this could be done better. However, this is one of those lines in the sand, a litmus test, if you will, on urban living issues, and the folks who are pro-bike lanes dont want a compromise, they want what they want, even if it doesnt make any sense.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 2:04 pm • linkreport

Anon: I think you're setting up some kind of false dichotomy here. Us "pro-bike lane folks" would like to see bicycle infrastructure everywhere. We're already compromising by having to pick and choose where it is best to have it located. How about we get the "pro-automobile driving folks" to compromise on which streets get to have cars and which ones don't.

Kind of changes your perspective, doesn't it?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 2:23 pm • linkreport

Bikes are vehicles, they're allowed on all roads except for the notable exception of highways. This is about the route that DOT encourages bikers to use.

Personally, I wouldnt care if all roads had bike lanes painted on them. However, thats not the world we live in. We have to choose which ones get the lanes and i think that in this instance Quincy is better than R.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 2:51 pm • linkreport

Anon:

As Geoff indicated, it HAS been narrowed. But you still haven't addressed that there are only 200 feet between the two intersections. Is it legal to put successive stop signs that close?

Also, you haven't addressed the Lincoln Road end of things.

This isn't an issue of whether you live here or not, it is an issue of the feasibility of your suggestions. The reality is that sharrows on R Street would be GOOD things for all involved - not something that we should find an alternative for. Yet you are pushing an unfeasible/illogical alternative as something that is necessary.

I just don't get it.

by elizqueenmama on Jun 1, 2011 3:08 pm • linkreport

You turn left/right onto Quincy from Lincoln. Its not different than turning left/right onto R from Lincoln. There's a stop light and everything.

Personally, I dont think Eckington Place is narrow enough. Its more narrow than 4 lanes, plus bike lanes, plus parking - but its still REALLY wide. Its like a giant straw feeding into eckington. I dont think that there is any regulation preventing successive stop signs, many times only 20-30 feet apart. In fact, have stop signs at every intersection, whether or not the streets are close, is common throughout the city.

Giving Eckington Place the right-of-way promotes speeding and bad behavior. This is far more concerning to me than whether bike lanes exist or not. In an ideal world, Eckington would be narrowed further, with traffic circles, and wider bike lanes. I know this isnt possible, given the fiscal situation we're in, so I'll take a couple stripes on the ground and a couple more stop signs.

Also, Q Street is going to be extended through the new project to MBT, so perhaps put bike lanes on both Q and Quincy, and if Fed Ex trucks are ever removed from R, put the bike lanes there too.

I bet the residents of R, who are opposed to bike lanes, would welcome them if they could exchange them for Fed Ex trucks. If I were an R Street Resident, I'd team up with the ANC Commissioner and fight to remove the fed ex trucks on the condition that the residents who are currently opposed would support bike lanes once the trucks are gone.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 3:30 pm • linkreport

Anon: You're still working extra hard to create a solution for a problem that only exists because you insist on its existence.

If you're concerned about "the fiscal situation we're in," then wouldn't the shortest route with the least amount of change be the simplest and best. Occam's Razor and what not? That would be R Street. Not Q. Not Quincy.

Remember that we're talking about a road network, not just a street here and a street there, or a block here and a block there. R Street crosses North Capitol at the safest point of these three roads we're discussing here. Taking Q Street across North Capitol would require crossing through Florida Avenue as well, probably running against traffic at some point. Quincy Place's intersection with North Capitol includes Lincoln Road just a couple feet away, along with a traffic light that only blinks orange in one direction. The R Street intersection, on the other hand, is a standard four-way light - the simplest for a cyclist to deal with.

All of the ideas that you're bringing up for Q and Quincy are simply more convoluted. The simple, elegant solution is the sharrows on R. Why try so hard to justify something longer, more difficult, and more complex?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 3:57 pm • linkreport

Like I said, because the Fed Ex trucks and buses make traveling on R hazardous for cars, let alone bikes. The buses need to be there, the Fed Ex trucks dont.

As for the fiscal issue, are you seriously proposing that because I understand no one is going to build the traffic circles I want, that a few extra linear feet of paint is also a significant fiscal issue? Please. We're talking about the few feet from Quincy to R on Eckington.

I've been proposing a compromise this whole time, but you and other posters have repeatedly exhibited how unwavering you are. There's no reason why, except for the preference of bikers to take the shortest route, that even makes sense.

And since it comes down to preference, why does the biker's preference trump the drivers? Or the walkers? or the resident's?

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 4:07 pm • linkreport

You're being trolled by someone whose only understanding of the neighborhood is looking at it on Google Maps.

by Jonathan on Jun 1, 2011 4:13 pm • linkreport

Anon: The cyclists' preference doesn't trump anyone's. The issue is and was about "sharing the road." You are repeatedly advocating a position where sharing is dismissed out of hand. That's a legitimate position, and it's one that I feel is absolutely incorrect.

Look, I'm not going to change your mind. That's fine. You're not going to convince me that your solution is more elegant either.

The fact is that, from Eckington Place west to North Capitol, putting sharrows on R Street is the simplest solution. Q Street will go to Harry Thomas Way someday, but there still won't be a direct connection from HT to the MBT until the parcel in between is developed fully. Quincy is a non-starter for a direct connection. Even if we paint bike lanes for you on Quincy and Q, and leave R completely alone between North Capitol and Eckington Place, we still have to do something on the stretch of R between Eckington Place and the MBT.

I've made my case eminently clear. You can have the last word. My feeling is that you're not convincing anyone that your proposal is more ideal.

And please, calling my position "unwavering" is silly. The shortest distance between two points is still a straight line, unless Euclidean geometry has changed since I was in 9th grade.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 1, 2011 4:16 pm • linkreport

"There's no reason why, except for the preference of bikers to take the shortest route, that even makes sense."

Another reason is so that a clean, straight, simple route to access the MBT is available to people. It's important to encourage awareness and access to the trail so it leads to increased usage, for public health and for safety, to name a couple reasons. A woman was mugged under the New York Avenue bridge just last week, plus there have been numerous problems with kids assaulting and harrassing people near where the MBT goes over Rhode Island Avenue.

This would plug into the existing bike lanes on R Street west of Florida Ave, so it makes it simple and direct, except for that problem intersection at R Street and Florida Ave NW, which is a nightmare for all modes (car, bike, pedestrian) to cross. I hope eventually a traffic light will be put there.

by J.T. Engelhardt on Jun 1, 2011 4:21 pm • linkreport

The problem with cyclists is that you interpret everything different than your preference as believing that "sharing the road" is being dismissed. It really interferes with compromise. Any alternate is immediately deemed "anti-bike" or even worse "pro-smog".

Its the same mindset that puts you in such a difficult position at the ANCs, on the road, and in the minds of many. Take it from me, who is actually an ally, who you've done your best to alienate and demonize, cyclists rarely do any favors when they interact with others. Your condescending geometry lesson emphasizes this. I know i'm not proposing a straight line.

I am, by no means, anti-bike lanes. I am against these plans, but for very specific reasons.

But I guess, since I dont live in the neighborhood, I shouldnt speak up. Geoffrey, where do you live again?

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 4:35 pm • linkreport

The problem with anonymous commenters is that they generalize about large groups of people, painting all cyclists with the same brush. They add to that by making things up such as claiming that they've been deemed "anti-bike" or "pro-smog" even though no one mentioned either of those terms.

No one attacked you personally at all from what I can see, but have instead pushed back against your idea. That's what happens when you put your ideas out there. It would be great if everyone jumped up and said "Wow, this is the best idea I've heard of since someone suggested a TV show where semi-celebrities dance with and impregnate professional dancers." But that is rarely what happens. Instead people tend to tell you why your idea sucks. It's disheartening, but it's life. Don't take it personally.

by David C on Jun 1, 2011 5:03 pm • linkreport

I have no dog in this fight -- frankly, the back-in-forth on this issue has long past its point of tediousness -- but this comment from Anon needs to be emphasized.

"The problem with cyclists is that you interpret everything different than your preference as believing that "sharing the road" is being dismissed. It really interferes with compromise. Any alternate is immediately deemed "anti-bike" or even worse "pro-smog".

Its the same mindset that puts you in such a difficult position at the ANCs, on the road, and in the minds of many."

Thank you! This neatly sums up everything that's wrong with this blog, namely the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality that served George W. Bush so well in the eyes of the entire planet.

by Another Anon on Jun 1, 2011 5:14 pm • linkreport

his neatly sums up everything that's wrong with this blog, namely the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality that served George W. Bush so well in the eyes of the entire planet.

I think you mean Hitler, right?

by David C on Jun 1, 2011 5:16 pm • linkreport

@David C

"The problem with anonymous commenters is that they generalize about large groups of people, painting all cyclists with the same brush."

Right, because commenters on this blog NEVER paint all drivers with the same brush.

by Another Anon on Jun 1, 2011 5:22 pm • linkreport

Back to the issue at hand, I don't think its fair when people who want to see more bike infrastructure get told "no, your mode of transportation would make ours slower,more dangerous,whatever so you shouldn't get infrastructure" would make them kind of protective of what they do get no? Its kind of hard to make compromises when there is a distinct set of people who don't want you on the road at all.

by Canaan on Jun 1, 2011 5:39 pm • linkreport

Oh man, I'm so much more anonymous than David C.

David C., I assume you are David Cameron, the PM of the UK. Thank you for honoring us with your presence, I didnt know you were so pro-bike.

Cannan, as I said, my idea doesnt take anything away, it just adds it in a different place, a mere few feet to the south.

by Anon on Jun 1, 2011 6:19 pm • linkreport

Right but while some may see it as compromise one can still see it as not seriously taking into consideration the needs and desires of cyclists, and not for the sake of the same cyclists but for the sake of people driving along that same street.

/I still say build it on both b/c that go a longer way to creating a net positive for everyone.

by Canaan on Jun 1, 2011 7:36 pm • linkreport

, because commenters on this blog NEVER paint all drivers with the same brush.

Unless someone can come up with an example, I'd say you're correct. That has never happened.

by David C on Jun 1, 2011 10:16 pm • linkreport

I would LOVE to see the bike lanes/sharrows on R st. It really stinks going illegally (biking against traffic)down the 200 block of R st and feels very unsafe. I also have a problem with the sometimes one-way T st, which is the other way I exit the MBT on bike. Would love a lane on that stretch, especially going up that gruesome hill out of breath.

It seems like all my neighbors to the south are just mad at the trucks anyway--why not team up and ban them from R st? Certainly the bikes are not causing any problems. Last time I checked bikes are quiet and do not emit diesel fumes.

by eli on Jun 2, 2011 3:11 pm • linkreport

Glad to hear about this proposal, since right now getting from the MBT to Bloomingdale involves going up and around the McKinley High hill. Only R, T, and V cross from Bloomingdale to the MBT, and *all three* are one-way eastbound at some point. Does this make any sense? No.

by Payton on Jun 3, 2011 11:34 am • linkreport

Sigh, another ANC going "I don't wanna". The solution is not to convince ANCs. The solution is to get rid of ANCs.

Te shortsightedness of people is astounding. FedEx and UPS trucks do not idle on your street for fun. They are there to deliver packages. No trucks = no packages.

by Jasper on Aug 4, 2011 9:33 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or