Comments on Fence will cut off park from Dupont Metro, 42 bus stop - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Kyle

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:26:41 EDT

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.

Comment by greent

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:31:17 EDT

@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.

Comment by Allisonn

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:01:12 EDT

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?

Comment by kk

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:30:46 EDT

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

Comment by Andrew

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:55:34 EDT

@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.)

Comment by greent

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:04:24 EDT

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.

Comment by MDE

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:16:42 EDT

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.

Comment by Scoot

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:13:24 EDT

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.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:34:05 EDT

@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?

Comment by Anon2

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:22:17 EDT

@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.

Comment by Pelham1861

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:19:37 EDT

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.

Comment by Jacques

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:01:14 EDT

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.

Comment by oboe

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:14:04 EDT

@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.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:10:58 EDT

+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.

Comment by Matt Johnson

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:10:15 EDT

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

Comment by Lance

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:00:59 EDT

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.

Comment by Jazzy

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:51:02 EDT

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.

Comment by Randall M.

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:30:53 EDT

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.

Comment by spookiness

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:52:58 EDT

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.

Comment by Jazzy

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:45:11 EDT

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...

Comment by MDE

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:37:31 EDT

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.

Comment by Cpt Ed

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:37:08 EDT

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

Comment by MDE

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:34:36 EDT

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.

Comment by Scoot

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:30:57 EDT

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.

Comment by HogWash

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:29:55 EDT

@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.

Comment by grumpy

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:29:46 EDT

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?)

Comment by Jazzy

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:29:32 EDT

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.

Comment by Brad

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:14:51 EDT

@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.

Comment by thedoc

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:08:45 EDT

@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.

Comment by Christine

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:08:01 EDT

@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

Comment by Mike Silverstein

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:07:30 EDT

@ 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.

Comment by Cpt Ed

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:58:36 EDT

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.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:53:50 EDT

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

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:44:49 EDT

HogWash: A quick question, who's DAI?

Comment by HogWash

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:39:41 EDT

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.

Comment by Mike Silverstein

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:30:32 EDT

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

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

Comment by Brad

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:20:01 EDT

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

Comment by Dave J

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:17:41 EDT

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.

Comment by Anon2

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:17:02 EDT

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.

Comment by Mike Silverstein

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:16:22 EDT

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.

Comment by aaa

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:15:34 EDT

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?