Greater Greater Washington

Public Spaces


Fence will cut off park from Dupont Metro, 42 bus stop

The small triangle park across Q Street from the Dupont Circle Metro north entrance will soon get a long-needed renovation, but will also get a fence that will make it harder to use the park, walk along Connecticut Avenue, or wait for the bus.


The park from Q St. near the Metro entrance. Photo by the author.

In 2007, a Planned Unit Development was approved for 1000 Connecticut Avenue. PUDs must provide community benefits in exchange for the zoning relief they get, and in this case, gave funds to the Dupont Circle Citizens' Association (DCCA), which transferred them to Historic Dupont Circle Main Streets (HDCMS) to pay for the park renovation.

NPS moved very slowly during the intervening years to prepare for the renovation, and told neighborhood leaders that they wouldn't consider any changes that didn't conform to the original landscape plan, devised in 1929.

On Friday, HDCMS announced that the project is finally about to start this fall. To the surprise of many, the announcement also revealed plans to add a 30-inch iron fence. The fence will stop people from walking directly between the park and the Metro station, or from standing off the sidewalk to wait for the 42 bus:

The purpose of the project is to repair and replace existing features in kind, and to install a new fence on the south side of the park, in order to enhance both aesthetics and visitor use. HDCMS and its contractors have coordinated with NPS staff regarding preservation of the character-defining features of the park and consistency with its 1929 landscape plan. ...

The project includes: repairs to damaged flagstone, curbs, and concrete flat work; replacement of existing, tulip-style trash receptacles with Victor Stanley models; turf restoration of the compacted soil areas; restoration of the existing benches; replacement of a cherry tree and installation of a Chinese fringe tree; and a new wrought iron fence to remedy the existing social paths (compacted soil areas) caused by pedestrian traffic to and from the Dupont Metro Station. [emphasis added]

The new fence will provide protection for restored plantings and rehabilitated turf in the park. The NPS is considering two standard fence styles in use in US reservations. The work is expected to take place during 2011/2012. Please see http://parkplanning.nps.gov/DupontTrianglePark for more information about this proposal.

In short, people are crossing from the park to the Metro station, because they want to sit on the benches before or after using the Metro. But instead of creating a pathway to the Metro, NPS's response is to fence it off and block people.


One of 3 alternatives for the park. All include a fence along 3 sides (to the left of the seating area). The other two slightly round off one or both corners. Image from NPS.

Why must NPS slavishly follow a 1929 landscape plan, specifically? What's so special about 1929?

Rob Halligan, former president of the Dupont Circle Citizens' Association, wrote:

When we came to the Park Service with the money to renovate the park, we weren't too happy to hear that they were inflexible on any modification or improvement that didn't adhere to that 1929 plan. We did point out that the present use and environment (Metro station, the grand houses are around it are now businesses, cars everywhere rather than mostly horses), but they wouldn't take that into account when trying to add or change any element.
In 1929, there was no vehicular underpass or subterranean streetcar station, both of which were built in 1948-1950. There was no Metro station, and nothing generating over 23,000 trips to and from the southeast corner of 20th and Q every day.

Parks change. The Wikipedia article and its cited sources say Dupont Circle wasn't even a traffic circle until 1871. The park got a statue in 1884, which was then replaced by a fountain in 1921. It had playground sandboxes for a while in the 1930s, right after the Park Service took it over; at the time, at least, they apparently didn't feel that all parks need to stay exactly as they were in the 1920s.

Is the "right" Dupont Circle one with a statue? Or a fountain? Or sandboxes?

Someone created a plan for this park in 1929. It's a fine layout, though not especially remarkable. Now, the neighborhood has changed, and specifically having one path to 20th Street and one to Connecticut Avenue but none to Q might not be most appropriate.

If the Metro station had existed in 1929, the landscape designer may well have put in paths there as well. The grass is worn away between the benches and Q Street, proving people want to cross there.

This fence won't "enhance visitor use." And saying the fence will "remedy the existing social paths" is quite the Orwellian doublespeak; the right remedy for social paths is to design a good path, not to block it off.

For that matter, NPS isn't even pushing for the same plan as in 1929. That plan had a fountain and shrubs, said resident Ingrid Suisman, who has been pushing for the renovation for six years. But NPS refused to allow those elements, saying they are too hard to maintain. The need to follow 1929 plans apparently doesn't extend to removing elements, only changing them... and adding fences.


Worn areas show "desire lines" for crossing from the Metro to the park and the bus stop. Photo by the author.

The grass is also badly worn away along the southeast corner. ANC Commissioner Mike Silverstein said that a lot of people stand there to wait for the 42 bus, which stops along the side of the park. The sidewalk here is extremely narrow, made worse by large light poles and trash cans that take up some of the space.

With a new fence along the curb, everyone waiting for the bus will have to stand in the narrow sidewalk or in the street, and anyone trying to walk along Connecticut will have to as well. Silverstein fears the fence will now force people to walk or wait for the bus in the street, which could be very dangerous.

Connecticut Avenue was once narrower, with wider sidewalks; it was widened in the 1920s, around the time of this landscape plan.


The sidewalk is too narrow for 2 pedestrians to walk side by side even when nobody is waiting for the bus. Photo by the author.

When DC renovated the triangle parks at S and T Streets, they changed their use and layout. They fenced off most of the S Street park for a dog park. Before, there was a pathway cutting off the corner from S to New Hampshire Avenue; that got moved closer to the corner, and benches moved.

Meanwhile, on the adjacent triangle at T Street, there was a very old tree which arborists determined needed protection to survive. A small area for people to congregate was built, while the rest was closed off for the tree.

Some space gained more protection for plants, while other space became more designed for people and animals. The triangles remained parks, but different parks that serve the needs and desires of the neighborhood today. The same can happen with the Q Street triangle without violating the L'Enfant Plan (which didn't even specify whether these triangles, circles and squares would be grassy, paved, or just dirt).

This park could be designed to better serve the needs of people today without reducing the amount of plantings. The paths to the center seating area could traverse the triangle north-south instead of the current east-west. Or, maybe the seating area should move closer to Connecticut Avenue to double as a bus waiting area at the busiest times.

It's probably too late for any real changes, and some could cost more money than is available. This project is already happening several years later than neighborhood leaders had hoped. Silverstein said, "The money has been sitting for a couple of years while NPS has been deliberating and processing. Letting the money and the project languish while we process it to death is something else that should be avoided."

Unfortunately, NPS wasn't using that long period of time to get public comment on plans or anything like that. Wiliams wrote in his email, "Work is expected to begin shortly after the [30-day public] comment period closes September 12th!" In other words, they clearly see this comment period as a formality, as all the design work has already been completed and it's just a last step before actually putting shovels in the ground.

Sadly, without the ability to make more substantial changes, just renovating the park as is will surely lead to grass again being trampled. But that's still better than fencing it off and creating an impassable barrier at exactly a spot where thousands travel every day.

Suisman feels a fence is better than none, and the park can serve more as an oasis with the fence. But today, the park is being well used by people waiting to meet others by the Metro, or waiting for buses. It contributes positively to the area as it is. We shouldn't take away that value and transform the park into a mostly empty zone, which won't be any quieter but will be less utilized, just because a 1929 designer chose that role when the neighborhood looked very different.

It's not 1929 anymore (though looking at the economy, sometimes you wonder). DC can have great parks that fit the L'Enfant Plan without having to freeze them permanently exactly like they were in 1929. Unfortunately, the Park Service continues to look backward instead of forward, and interpret its mission as one of preventing any change rather than finding ways to maximize green space and recreation in the current day.

HDCMS executive director Paul Williams declined to comment for this article, and NPS spokesperson Bill Line has not yet replied to emails.

ANC Commissioner Mike Feldstein plans to organize a community meeting to discuss the park. Meanwhile, you can submit comments to NPS using this online form. Ask them to delete the fence and to allow new paths at the places residents want and need to walk.

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'm a little bit torn on this one. Sure, it's nice to have people walking on a grassy or natural surface, but it won't be grassy or natural anymore if people walk on it.

As far as the sidewalk space -- it is definitely too narrow. Isn't this right where that drunk Russian chap killed someone with his car too?

by aaa on Aug 16, 2011 11:15 am • linkreport

Thank you for reporting on this, David.

The Dupont North Metro stop is one of the busiest in the system, handling an average of 24,000 passengers daily in June - the most recent month with figures available.

The bus stop at Connecticut and Q southbound is an important intermodal connecting point. It's where passengers from Adams-Morgan and Mt Pleasant connect on to the Red Line.

This sidewalk is also used by Connecticut Avenue pedestrians going in both directions, and by passengers with disability heading to the Metro elevator just south of Q Street on Connecticut Avenue.

The park design is beautiful, and the people involved in it are great folks who worked very hard and have the very best of intentions. (Full disclosure: the PUD is in my Single Member District and I was involved somewhat in the original amenities package. I'm not entirely a disinterested party)

But we must understand that a major Metro stop brings pedestrian safety needs that cannot be met by a single lane sidewalk at a bus stop just a few yards away from the Metro escalators.

Pedestrians must not be channeled into the street so that we can protect a few blades of grass and be faithful to a 1929 landscaping plan that isn't being followed, anyway.

By all means, beautify the park. And thank those neighborhood volunteers who have worked so hard. But allow them to strike a balance that takes into account the safety of those who live in, work in, and visit our neighborhood.
No wrought iron fence along the southern or eastern borders of the park.

Also, please note: the link to the NPS cite with the park plans and news release states that the comment period ends SEPTEMBER 2ND at 11:59pm.
Not September 12th.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 16, 2011 11:16 am • linkreport

Why is NPS even involved in this at all? I thought most of these vestpocket parks had been transferred to DC around 2007 or 2008? Is this piece somehow within the purview of the "Federal park" that is Dupont Circle?

I'm skeptical the plan above will produce much of anything but a more comfortable resting area for homeless people. There's no "there" in the proposed design and no particular reason anyone would actually spend time in the area.

While I'm generally unimpressed with DC's maintenance of its own little parks, involving NPS in this situation seems absolutely absurd. Your points about redesigning the park are excellent, and it is very unfortunate we may have to wait another 82 years for another chance to reevlaute how this sliver of land gets used.

by Anon2 on Aug 16, 2011 11:17 am • linkreport

Write all you want, it is fairly obvious that the NPS doesn't really care what people without Congressional representation have to say on the matter.

by Dave J on Aug 16, 2011 11:17 am • linkreport

Submitted my request that NPS widen the sidewalk. Thanks, David.

by Brad on Aug 16, 2011 11:20 am • linkreport

@ aaa: Yep. That's exactly where the young lady was killed.

You probably remember the "Justice for Jovainne" signs that her mom put up.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 16, 2011 11:30 am • linkreport

Is there supposed to be a different photo accompanying this article? I'm referring to the one with the two women walking on the sidewalk but the caption says that it's too narrow for two people to walk side by side. Aren't they doing that in the photo.

DAl, not sure if this is a new thing but the

HDCMS executive director Paul Williams declined to comment for this article, and NPS spokesperson Bill Line has not yet replied to emails.

...is a much welcomed practice..even though quite a few of the "regulars" don't think it's warranted for a blog like this.

by HogWash on Aug 16, 2011 11:39 am • linkreport

HogWash: A quick question, who's DAI?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 16, 2011 11:44 am • linkreport

FHWA recommendations for sidewalk width in such a place is at least 8 feet wide.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/pdf/swless13.pdf

by Richard Layman on Aug 16, 2011 11:53 am • linkreport

Good catch Hogwash! Its also not true to anyone that has witnessed activity within this park that "thousands of people" sit on the benches before or after using the Metro. I may also point out that the "desire lines" pictured look as if they have seen much desire in the last few months or years....they are almost completely grown back in.

A fence would protect the area, perhaps even so much as it will create a nice place for lunch without having to worry about an errant car or people walking on your lunch. You can lean on it, hang your purse on it while waiting for the bus (this happens nearby at 20th and Mass Ave where many, many more riders wait for any given bus, with the same size sidewalk). The fence placement would really only make someone now cutting across the corner walk about 5 feet more along the sidewalk.

by Cpt Ed on Aug 16, 2011 11:58 am • linkreport

@ Hogwash:

A careful examination of the photo of the two women walking will reveal a light pole and a trash can directly in front of the woman on the right.

If he keeps walking alongside the other women, she will hit the trash can. And then the light pole.

Take another look, please.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 16, 2011 12:07 pm • linkreport

@Anon2

I believe you are referring to The Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-396) which involved a number of sites (like Poplar Point)that DC wanted for redevelopment purposes. It is my understanding that many small parcels like Reservation 149 remain under NPS jurisdiction, though, because DC Parks and Recreation doesn't have the resources to maintain them. For more information on the land transfer see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ396/pdf/PLAW-109publ396.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08684.pdf

@ Mike Silverstein

Good catch on the confusion regarding the closing date for public comment. The project home page on the NPS website says that the closing date for public comment period is September 2, while the document page says September 12. For anybody who wants to comment, here is a link to the site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=427&projectID=31628&documentID=42495

by Christine on Aug 16, 2011 12:08 pm • linkreport

@HogWash, @Cpt Ed
Look at the photo again. In about two feet, the women pass a trash can and large light post. When the reach these obstacles, they will not be able to walk side by side anymore. Enlarging the photo helps show this point.

by thedoc on Aug 16, 2011 12:08 pm • linkreport

@HogWash, Yes, the photo shows the two women walking abreast. But in about two steps, they're going to have to walk single file to get past the lamppost and trash can. I invite you to walk that stretch of sidewalk; it's tighter than it should be to pass oncoming pedestrians, and that's not particularly safe when the sidewalk is right next to the street.

by Brad on Aug 16, 2011 12:14 pm • linkreport

There's one solution that not many want to adhere to: don't walk on the bloody grass! It's so easy to do, people. And yet, I see the careless trodding over the grass all the time. (This looks terrible, by the way.) But right there is a beautiful slate walkway provided. Mandatory courses in civic pride, aesthetics and beauty appreciation are in order, I think. Why the sloth and laziness? Who knows. It's a great park.

by Jazzy on Aug 16, 2011 12:29 pm • linkreport

If they're going to put up a fence then they definitely need to widen the sidewalk. Alternatively, what if the bus stop were moved? (there's already a bus shelter just past the stop light for the D2, right? couldn't the 42 bus stop there instead?)

by grumpy on Aug 16, 2011 12:29 pm • linkreport

@GH, DAl refers to DAlpert.

Oh ok. I guess I get ya'll point. The entire length of the sidewalk should be wide enough to allow two people to walk side by side, even if there are obstructions along the way.

BTW, I work not far from this area and have used the exact sidewalk boatloads of times. I'm not really an alarmist about it though.

by HogWash on Aug 16, 2011 12:29 pm • linkreport

There is a fence separating private property from the narrow, obstructed sidewalk on the corner of 20th and Massachusetts Ave. You present this doomsday-type scenario of people being forced into oncoming traffic (ironically similar to the suggestion 50 years ago that sidewalk cafes would have the same deleterious effect), but the reality at this particular corner is that people just form a line to wait for the metrobus there.

I think the packed soil area on the south corner of the park should be paved to create more room for people who are using the triangle as a transit depot, esp. since that area is probably arid anyway. And then the sidewalk going up the triangle should be widened.

I don't really have a huge problem with the idea of a fence preventing people from using the park as a shortcut to get to the Metro. There are already a lot of ways to get to and from the Metro without having to walk through the park, and to suggest that "thousands" of people walk through the park -- based solely on ridership data from Metro -- is somewhat tortured and most likely very exaggerated.

by Scoot on Aug 16, 2011 12:30 pm • linkreport

As a transportation planner and a frequent user of that very stop, I would recommend the following:

1) Move the curb a bit so that the roadway is two full lanes. Currently it's about 1.9 full lanes and cars stopped at the southbound signal there often take more space than they need. What was that article the other day about using a touch of paint to make a big difference? Here's another location.
2) Mark the curb lane as bus only along the entire hypotenuse of the triangle there.
3) Shrink the park itself a bit to make room for a wider sidewalk.
4) Make the park's walkway go not to 20th street but to the corner of 20th and Q.

The thing about this bus stop is that it's rarely a boarding stop. The 42 goes very slowly from this stop south and many folks just take the Metro the one or two stops that the bus would take them. Therefore, the street, sidewalk and park should be reconfigured to facilitate the movement of alighting passengers from the 42 (and L1/L4) to the neighborhood and the Metrorail station, and it likely doesn't need a shelter.

But honestly, if you make the street improvements recommended above, the buses be able to pull all the way up to the signal before opening doors obviating the park short-cut to the metro. The main reason people walk through the park/grass is because the bus lets them out mid-block because cars are blocking access to the bus stop.

by MDE on Aug 16, 2011 12:34 pm • linkreport

If you look into this further, the project is not trying to be a new design, but rather rehab and planting of what is there now: complete new designs, paths, walkways, and implementation would cost far more than their tiny $60k budget (not that they would be allowed anyway, apparently). Its really apples to oranges to try and compare this park with the S & T park and their $5 or $6 million budget.

What prevents it looking like it does today in a few weeks after completion?

by Cpt Ed on Aug 16, 2011 12:37 pm • linkreport

The 42 used to stop south of Q street but I think D2 buses laying over were blocking the stop too frequently, so they moved the 42 stop to the north side of the intersection. I'd be all for them moving the 42 stop back to the south side, but I'm not sure if there are operational impacts to such a move.

by MDE on Aug 16, 2011 12:37 pm • linkreport


If you look into this further, the project is not trying to be a new design, but rather rehab and planting of what is there now: complete new designs, paths, walkways, and implementation would cost far more than their tiny $60k budget (not that they would be allowed anyway, apparently). Its really apples to oranges to try and compare this park with the S & T park and their $5 or $6 million budget.
What prevents it looking like it does today in a few weeks after completion?

by Cpt Ed on Aug 16, 2011 12:37 pm

Intelligent plantings and regular maintenance. And that other thing I said before...

by Jazzy on Aug 16, 2011 12:45 pm • linkreport

It will never change but the whole site plan just seems reversed compared to how you'd design it today if you could. It faces the wrong way, the landscaping blocks the view south instead of the traffic coming from the north. It could be more of a place for meeting and connecting, but now it just has its back to everything.

by spookiness on Aug 16, 2011 12:52 pm • linkreport

I'm not sure that this is a big deal. It protects the grass and offers a clear boundary. It also prevents people from crossing at the middle of the block. At 30 inches, if you really wanted to cut through, people could hop the gate. We are talking about a 50 foot walk, max to get into the park? Really, this ranks about 143rd in grievances against NPS.

by Randall M. on Aug 16, 2011 1:30 pm • linkreport

I haven't really examined the proposal, and though I'm generally against fences, criticism of NPS is not necessarily warranted. Not when you compare them to the disaster that is DPR. Compare the two types of parks. NPS maintains theirs in a bit more than a half-hearted manner. DPR does not.

by Jazzy on Aug 16, 2011 1:51 pm • linkreport

On an email that's been circulating on this subject one of the folks responsible for getting us the money to redo this reservation noted that the solution to the dilema here is simple ... move the bus stop down a block where there's already a widely paved sidewalk and another bus stop AND where one doesn't need to cross the street to transfer to our from the Metro Station. It's so obvious, you have to wonder why we didn't all already think about this. Because the area has changed since this park was first developed, it has quite withOUT intent become a defacto bus stop overflow area. This despite the fact that areas meant for handling Metro-sized crowds were specifically built to handle these crowds in the intervening years. This isn't really a complicated issue. Just move the bus stop to the Metro Station sidewalk. That solves a lot of problems. AND let's not start asking that plans that lots of people worked on for so long be changed because 'we' suddenly arrived at the party. Some of us didn't even know this park existed back when those who worked in earnest in getting this improvement made first started working on it. I remember first hearing about these plans at least 6 years ago. I'm now reading elsewhere that it's been closer to 10 years that this is in progress. And 10 years is definitely a long enough time for public comments.

by Lance on Aug 16, 2011 2:00 pm • linkreport

@Lance:
See the comment by MDE above. The layover of the D2 bus prevents that stop from being used by the 42.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 16, 2011 2:10 pm • linkreport

+1 for MDE - but they need to clip the corners too. That's shown in Alternatives 2 and 3, and that would be much less uncomfortable.

I used to use this bus stop regularly, and it is seriously congested at rush hour. I did have to step into the road on particularly bad days. Wider sidewalks and better bus signage should be the goal. Maybe instead of concrete, the park service could use permeable block sidewalks, to make it feel different from the rest of the sidewalk.

Jazzy: The bigger point is that the grass shouldn't be there at all. Look at the site plan: you would never design this park this way if you were doing it now.

by Neil Flanagan on Aug 16, 2011 2:10 pm • linkreport

@HogWash:

Oh ok. I guess I get ya'll point. The entire length of the sidewalk should be wide enough to allow two people to walk side by side, even if there are obstructions along the way.

Don't back down, HogWash. These two women could easily walk side-by-side if they turned 90 degrees and side-stepped like crabs.

by oboe on Aug 16, 2011 2:14 pm • linkreport

You could have the 42 and the D2 both pick up south of Q street, but in order to prevent further backups, you'd need to remove a couple of parking spaces on the block of Q.

I'd personally be all for either:
a) Removing all parking on that 1/2 block of Connecticut, except on Sundays during the farmers market (though I'm sure there would be fallout with the businesses--Sweetgreen and BGR).
b) Turning that area into a loading/15 minute parking zone, to provide for the short-term needs of takeout customers at BGR, Sweetgreen and Starbucks.
c) Shutting that 1/2 block off to all non-bus traffic. As it is, any car that uses that block currently could be easily diverted to 20th Street (and turning left onto Mass or P for a more orderly entry to the circle)... I would bet that a significant amount of the traffic on that 1/2 block is just people hoping to grab one of those parking spots, anyway.

by Jacques on Aug 16, 2011 3:01 pm • linkreport

Much ado about nothing for a 60K improvement of sorts. If you want something different or more dramatic have local residents and business owners pay for park improvements and maintain the park.

As for that park being used by the general public...what I've seen there for years has been mostly homeless & drunks. And please, spare us the Federally mandated size of sidewalks. Somehow this nation (and commuters) have safely navigated public transportation for more than a century without massive loss of life. For the time and personnel it took to come up with that silly regulation...we could probably have seen hundreds of parks renovated.

by Pelham1861 on Aug 16, 2011 3:19 pm • linkreport

@Lance:

The other option would be shifting the 42 bus stop to 20th Street instead of CT Ave. This was recently done during some amount of construction on the circle and it actually sped up the southbound service. Having to wait for the lights to change on the access road is a lot less efficient than driving south to Mass and then east to the circle.

by Anon2 on Aug 16, 2011 3:22 pm • linkreport

@Neil F. 'The bigger point is that the grass shouldn't be there at all. Look at the site plan: you would never design this park this way if you were doing it now.

That's a matter of opinion. I'd argue that they've already paved over the almost the entire block just south of there to accommodate the transit users ... and that this very little spot of green is needed more here than it was needed back in the '20s when there was a lot of 'other' green in the area. I.e., enough accommodations have already been made for the needs of the transit users ... It's a matter of balance. And ... like the theory of highway sprawl ... if we pave this space over and make it easier for transit users to board the bus there, won't it only result in more transit users coming to the stop ... and further trampling the little remaining green space in our neighborhood. Isn't this sprawl, like building more roads, self feeding and therefore self defeating?

by Lance on Aug 16, 2011 3:34 pm • linkreport

if we pave this space over and make it easier for transit users to board the bus there, won't it only result in more transit users coming to the stop ... and further trampling the little remaining green space in our neighborhood. Isn't this sprawl, like building more roads, self feeding and therefore self defeating?

The transit usage around the pocket park is not really affected by the number of people who can fit on the sidewalk but rather by the number of transit vehicles (buses, trains, etc) that service the area in a particular period of time. Basically the only way you are going to induce more crowding from transit users is if you increase the transit service around the park.

If you widen the sidewalks, that is going to bring more foot traffic to the area -- transit users and non-transit users alike. The reason that we have regulatory bodies, parks departments, civic associations and the like is so that one faction cannot decide to remove a park on a whim.

by Scoot on Aug 16, 2011 4:13 pm • linkreport

Ooh, I like Anon2's suggestion, except there'd be two streets to cross to get to the Metro from the bus stop if it were located at the NW corner of 20th and Q. I like all of Jaques' ideas about limiting vehicular use to that block of Connecticut Ave., too.

by MDE on Aug 16, 2011 4:16 pm • linkreport

I agree with Anon2's suggestion of moving the bus stop - going down the service lanes and around that part of the circle can add 5+ minutes to travel time.

I do agree the sidewalk should be wider... but I also agree with Lance that that park is (has been) a nice green spot on the north side of Dupont, so even if it were possible to pry an inch from NPS... I wouldn't support shrinking the park.

by greent on Aug 16, 2011 6:04 pm • linkreport

@Lance: I think maybe a better analogy would be to improve a highway onramp? (such as the very short highway onramps onto the Arroyo Seco Parkway in LA or many of the downtown onramps.)

Perhaps more drivers will pick that onramp over the next one over because it's easier to get on, but if the highway is just as congested a new better onramp isn't going to increase highway traffic. It will just make it safer for drivers to get one. Similarly, changing the park area so that it's better for transit riders will upgrade the user experience, but the ultimate driver of traffic is still the transit service.

(Incidentally, I don't live in DC, so I'm actually agnostic on this change.)

by Andrew on Aug 16, 2011 9:55 pm • linkreport

Doesnt that fence create a ADA issue for people in wheelchairs getting off or on the bus

by kk on Aug 17, 2011 3:30 pm • linkreport

There are a number of sidewalks where pedestrians are forced to walk single file each way due to the installation of Cabi stations. Can GGW do a companion pieec looking at those areas where needed pedestrian space, even near Metro entrances was lost to make way for bike-sharing parking?

by Allisonn on Aug 17, 2011 5:01 pm • linkreport

@Allisonn: I think about this everyday when I pass the CaBi station at 16th & U. I am always happy the station is empty, because otherwise it is a single file path past the bike station. I really do not like that CaBi stop, and I hope DDOT has plans to move that station onto the other curbside when they redo this intersection. (Disclosure: I am a CaBi member).

On the 42 bus stop - The layover of the D2 bus prevents that stop from being used by the 42 Why not move the D2 layover stop then? If the D2 laying over causes ripple effects to the area, move it.

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 5:31 pm • linkreport

Um, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I work near this park and people use it as a spot to sit and eat lunch or meet friends. Nothing will be lost because of the fence and if anything it will keep the grass greener since people wont be cutting across it.

by Kyle on Aug 18, 2011 12:26 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

Support Us