I think the person who doesn't want the bus shelter in front of their home should invite anyone waiting for the bus into the house whenever the weather is inclement or sunny/hot.

by kenf on Sep 15, 2008 10:09 am • link • report

Please, kenf, save the snide remarks.

Like it or not, that area *is* primarily residential. If you have to plop it in front of someone's house (and let's face it, that doesn't help your real estate value), I agree with the compromise position- scale it back, make it blend in as much as possible.

by Tim on Sep 15, 2008 10:13 am • link • report

One thing not mentioned, but which I'd think plays a part (even if unsaid) is that wherever you put a bus shelter you're also putting in "noise" ... i.e., the stopping and going of a bus. I have a bus stop (and bus shelter) on the corner near my house. I can hear when a bus stops there or pulls out even though there is a large church between my house and the shelter. I couldn't imagine living closer to it ... and I, unlike the folks in Chevy Chase DC, am in an urban area.

Obviously there aren't easy solutions as to where to place bus shelters (or stops for that matter), but I think common sense would indicate we shouldn't put them in front of someone's home. I think anyone can appreciate that no one should be forced to live like they were "in Grand Central Station". They really should be located in front of public buildings. Places like Chevy Chase DC may have a problem if they attempt to put the shelters in parts of the neighborhood that aren't yet urban. But of course that begs the bigger question. Do bus stops in the first place belong in non-urban residential streets? I would vote on the side of 'no' because on the one-hand people who choose to live in a non-urban environment like that are hardly the type who will by and large choose to give up there personal transportation in favor of mass transit, and most importantly, it is highly unlikely that placing mass transit in this area will be economically viable. Mass transit is extremely expensive and requires lot of ridership to make it worse. If you've got a neighborhood where you can't find public/commercial establishments to place bus stops in front of, then you've got a neighborhood that doesn't have a reason to draw the large number of outsiders to it to make mass transit work from a dollar standpoint.

Putting bus stops in there in the hope that that will help transform the neighborhood into an urban one, is putting the cart before the horse ... and basically telling the residents who bought there "we don't care if you bought in a non-urban area, we know what is best for you and will turn it into an urban area". And that is just not right.

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 10:20 am • link • report

what area of nebraska ave is under discussion? while the street is primarily residential, it isn't exactly what i'd call a quiet residential street. nor would i call it pretty at all.

the main problem i see with putting bus shelters on nebraska is that the sidewalk isn't wide enough to accommodate both a shelter and comfortable pedestrian traffic.

by jenny on Sep 15, 2008 10:21 am • link • report

The compromise solution is fine - there's no reason why shelters can't fit the character of the neighborhood. Assuming a smaller shelter is adequate for the ridership at this stop, a smaller shelter is a fine solution.

That being said, I have very little sympathy for anyone who moves to an arterial street in a large city and then expects suburban tranquility. Especially since presumably there has always been a bus stop at this location, and the homeowner knew there would be bus issues when s/he bought the property.

I'm willing to compromise if it's easy and it makes sense (like a smaller shelter), but my patience only extends so far. If the homeowner wants a compromise then cool, let's work towards that. On the other hand, if the homeowner is going to draw a line in the sand and NIMBY out with a no-way-no-how attitude, then my willingness to work harder on his behalf goes away.

Long story short: Be reasonable, and I will be reasonable in return. Be a jackass, and expect to be treated like one.

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 10:22 am • link • report

Hey Lance, you have to put bus stops in residential neighborhoods because otherwise nobody can get to the bus from where they live.

No really. It actually is that simple.

Also, can we get a clarification: I assumed this was an existing bus stop that is being upgraded with a shelter. Lance assumed there is no existing bus stop here. Which is it?

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 10:26 am • link • report

It's an existing bus stop, which currently has no shelter.

by David Alpert on Sep 15, 2008 10:29 am • link • report

@BeyondDC "I'm willing to compromise if it's easy and it makes sense (like a smaller shelter), but my patience only extends so far."

Now, I'm confused. You use that (proposed) stop? You live in the house behind it? If neither applies, how are you in any position "to compromise"? I mean, are you affected in anyway other than that you would like to see more mass transit around?

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 10:32 am • link • report

"It's an existing bus stop, which currently has no shelter."

Is there a public building near where the stop is now ... that the stop could be move to ... and a full size shelter erected in front of?

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 10:37 am • link • report

Lance,

1) As a public transportation planner (in a jurisdiction that is not DC), I am telling you how I would react if this came across my desk.

2) Generally speaking it is in the city's best interest to have a robust transit system. As someone who spends a great deal of time in the city and who uses the transit system, it is in my interest that decisions about the transit system are based on sound policy, not on who cries the loudest about their perceived entitlements.

3) I do not believe that someone who moves to an arterial street in a big city with an existing bus stop in front of their house is entitled to then dictate to the rest of the city that their house should be particularly quiet. Whether this resident recognizes it or not, tranquil suburb is NOT the existing character of that street. This resident is not entitled to dictate changes to the city based on faulty assumptions about how his street functions. It is reasonable to ask for an accommodation. It is not reasonable to expect utter silence, nor to expect the needs of the other 560,000-some Washingtonians to be put aside.

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 10:56 am • link • report

Nebraska Avenue is a major arterial, and it is fully urban by any definition. Buses have been running on Nebraska Avenue for decades. The changes proposed by DDOT -- bulbouts, median islands, restriping -- will help make Nebraska safer and more pleasant for pedestrian, cyclists and residents.

There are small bus shelters available for any built context -- urban, suburban, rural. For example, here are rustic designs by Littlethorpe Shelters, a metal shelter in a California neighborhood, and a glass shelter in Stretton Parish, UK.

by Laurence Aurbach on Sep 15, 2008 10:58 am • link • report

I think it's a misnomer to refer to the position that says do a context-appropriate shelter a "compromise" between the two sides. No one on the pro-shelter side is saying "I want to see large, ugly, shelters covered with illuminated ads in front of someone's house." Instead, they are saying "find a way to provide shelter for bus riders in residential areas, especially in locations where people are transferring between bus lines and don't have control over how long they'll have to wait." There aren't too extremes here -- only one. Unless, that is, DDOT and/or Clear Channel insists that the choice is between the glowing billboard bus stop or no bus stop at all.

by Cassie on Sep 15, 2008 11:08 am • link • report

@ Beyond/Laurence, Correct the person bought in front of a bus stop and can't know say "it shouldn't be there". While the ideal solution would seem to me to move it nearby in front of a non-residential building and put in a full-size bus shelter, if that is not possible than I'd agree with you both that a more appropriate shelter can/should be place in front of the house. I'd suspect one concern the homeowner would have would be that a bus shelter could be used as a "homeless shelter" as often happens in the urban parts of the city. The types of bus shelters that discourage/prevent this I'd guess should be proposed. (E.g., a benchless one ... or one with seats vs. benches, etc.) ... Note that I'm not thinking of depriving the homeless of a place to go ... Just that like public toilets (discussed in an earlier post), bus shelters shouldn't be used as a substitute for what we really need ... i.e., 24 hr real shetlers/homes for the homeless.

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 11:24 am • link • report

I doubt it's possible under the Clear Channel agreement to build bus shelters other than the normal ones (i.e., large enough to accommodate advertisements).

I'm torn on this. On the one hand I think that it's attitudes like this that produce such awful sprawl as Atlanta and Houston (just let me drive and park and not have to feel like I live in a city, despite the fact that I do). The city should build its transportation system for the future it wants, not the present assumptions it's stuck with. A good model of intraurban transportation relies on the "last mile" of bus or trolley lines to connect neighborhoods to larger transportation nodes. (Although, it seems that Lance is the only one complaining about the location of the stop in the first place.)

On the other hand, I don't think the success of a bus line is contingent on the bus stop. If the neighborhood (not just the homeowner) doesn't want a shelter, and the stop primarily serves the neighborhood, then I don't think it should be shoved down their throats. I don't think shelters are crucial to building a good transit-shed system. There are plenty of well-used bus-stops downtown without shelters.

This is a case where bad attitudes (NIMBY) and faulty logic (I don't live in a city) nonetheless lead to an acceptable result. In a way, I kind of find bus stops with just signs to be sorta quaint.

by Reid on Sep 15, 2008 11:29 am • link • report

I was under the impression that the ClearChannel bus shelter program did, in fact, have at least two shelter designs. This is what I remember from a public presentation that ClearChannel made some time ago, and seems to be the case if you click on the "New Shelter Design" section of their website. There is the full-sized shelter, with the big advertising-filled sidepanel, which presumably goes in the commercial districts, but there is also the smaller shelter, with two modest side-panels, and much less (if any) advertising, which goes in residential areas. I do recall from the meeting there was a discussion of making the shelters fit the area in which they were installed.

I do know that additional shelters are going to be installed, but only at existing bus stops. Noise is really a non-issue because the behavior of the buses isn't going to change. If anything, the shelter will be a small-scale sound wall that would muffle the sound.

Bus shelter enthusiasts can also find the entire ward-by-ward shelter upgrade schedule at the Clear Channel site.

by thm on Sep 15, 2008 11:58 am • link • report

I do think it's contingent on the city to have negotiated a deal w/ Clear Channel to supply context-sensitive shelters. If the city hasn't done that, then the city is to blame.

Another point: As a bus rider, I care much more about having a bench than having a canopy. There are some locations where a bench is all that's really necessary (plus a flag, timetable and map, obviously). Depending on where this location is specifically and what sort of ridership there is at the stop, a bench might be all you need. Might not be adequate, but worth talking about.

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 12:58 pm • link • report

Not knowing about the specific site, I would say that considering a shelter should take into account the ridership #'s at the stop and the surrounding density, whether it is the site of a transfer, or if there is another shelter a short distance away. On the other hand you have to place transit where people actually live, so putting near commercial buildings is not realistic. As far as compromises, if I was a trans. planner and designer of bus stops (or shelters) I would always incorporate tree plantings. A shelter is nice for rain, but the sun and heat is the bigger problem here more often. Everybody appreciates shade, and planting trees is not a tough sell, and sometimes a nicely designed bench can be welcome and not visually polluting. My perfect bus stop would be more like a mini-park/community gathering place than a bus stop, good looking, with good furniture, some vegetation, and ideally no ads.

by spookiness on Sep 15, 2008 3:00 pm • link • report

I like this discussion. I agree that a scaled down shelter is fine, and seats are important. Where on NE Av is this? I too am in the camp of no sympathy for someone who lives in a city and complains about the "urban" feel of it. You live in a city! (What happened to that discussion about "Near Bus line" as a real estate perk?) And yes public toilets are no substitute for real 24hr temporary homes for those in need.

by Bianchi on Sep 15, 2008 3:20 pm • link • report

Bianchi, Please consider the "living in a city" means different things to different people. While I like the "being where I can walk to where I want to go and not having to use a car", I can understand that for some people being in a city may mean "only having to drive a short distance from home to be 'in the heart of everything' ... but NOT being able to walk or have buses running in front of my house." Like I say, that's not what I live in the city for, but I'm okay with others wanting that for their neighborhoods. And it's their business.

And I suspect you might agree with them that not everything in the city has to be ... well .. "city". Rock Creek park and its paths is one such example ...

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 3:59 pm • link • report

Lance, we're talking about an established bus stop and DDOTS reccommendation that it get a shelter because it meets the criteria for a shelter. Apparently the home-owner complained that a shelter at the existing bus stop would be "too urban". Many commenters have concurred that a scaled down bus stop is acceptable and I agree. The stop is already established. It's a city and we have busses and sometimes bus shelters. NE is on a bus route.

by Bianchi on Sep 15, 2008 4:09 pm • link • report

Sorry Lance, but it is not reasonable for large numbers of people to expect easy access to urban amenities AND a tranquil home neighborhood. The two are mutually exclusive, since urban amenities depend on high population density and on users coming in from the outside. Every person in this country is not entitled to have their cake and eat it too.

If you want to live close to the central core, you have to be willing to put up with things like buses because those are the things that make the central core function.

It is totally reasonable to advocate for a balance (thus willingness to consider smaller shelters, for example), but it is not reasonable at all to feel entitled to mutually exclusive arrangements. Anyone who feels so entitled (and isn't super-wealthy) is going to be disappointed time and again. Personally, I am not going to waste my time catering to unrealistic and unfair expectations.

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 4:12 pm • link • report

... Nor will I waste the taxpayers time, as a public servant.

by BeyondDC on Sep 15, 2008 4:14 pm • link • report

As a bus rider, I care much more about having a bench than having a canopy.

@beyonddc: as a bus rider myself, i'd fall on the canopy side of the argument if i had to choose between a bench and a canopy. a bench in the rain is unusable; a canopy will keep you dry in the rain and shaded in the sun.

by jenny on Sep 15, 2008 4:21 pm • link • report

if this is NE Ave in Chevy Chase DC generally determined by the boudaries of Military, Broadbranch, Western and Reno I don't see how anyone could define NE Ave as a "side" street. It's great that it feels that way, but that's not what it is.

by Bianchi on Sep 15, 2008 4:23 pm • link • report

I think we've all made some great suggestions, but the bottom line is that the bus stop there serves a residential neighborhood ... and as such by and large the effected people will be the residents of that neighborhood. As people living near the shelter they'll be the ones putting up with any negative aspects to it, and as the only people likely to use the shelter while waiting for a bus, they'll also be the ones to benefit from it. As such, can we all agree that the neighborhood should be making the decisions related to what kind of shelter (if any) belongs in front of that house? ... (with of course 'great weight' consideration being given to the homeowner(s) most effected by any such shelter.)

i.e., this really isn't any of our business ...

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 5:33 pm • link • report

Lance: How much 'great weight' should go to the affected homeowner? Certainly some, but as the discussion on the list shows, there are many other people affected. The residents of that block can more easily say "just wear a raincoat if it's raining", but that decision more greatly impacts those who live a few blocks away, while the shelter affects those close by.

by David Alpert on Sep 15, 2008 5:38 pm • link • report

Lance,

That is a great idea. While we're at it, let's give great weight to people who live on streets with stop signs or traffic lights so they can determine traffic patterns for their block.

Heck, while we're at it, lets also give people trump power over zoning issues too. Let's just create a mishmash of our built environment, our planning community and everything that impacts all of our lives so nothing that benefits the greater good gets accomplished.

by William on Sep 15, 2008 6:21 pm • link • report

Lance - the only voice we have from the community cannot expect to be neutral about its appearance versus its benefits: a literal NIMBY vote. If serious community opposition arose, your point *might* have some weight. But it hasn't yet. IMO, a large advertising-included shelter is appropriate for "city streets," and a smaller less well-lit shelter appropriate for more suburban neighborhoods. The basis for this is that the 'view pollution' is a drop in the bucket for streets with preexisting lighted advertising or heavy traffic.

Noise is an issue with bus stops, but it's irrelevant to this proposal.

by Squalish on Sep 15, 2008 9:16 pm • link • report

The consensus here seems to be that this is a design problem, not a civil rights or planning issue. I've seen bus shelters on sleepier streets though, and they don't look that bad, if out-of place. The homeowner could always plant a hedge. But you asked for suggestions and I'm glad to offer this one.

What's needed piece of civic infrastructure that is scaled to need and respects context. The options mentioned by thm are probably too intrusive, because of their size. Look at the site (broadly). The properties consist of mall-like grassy lawns with a tree canopy at the fringes and a path in the middle. That suggests that the main aesthetic problem is the interruption of the view to to the street. The way you avoid interrupting the view that is by having as few and as thin legs as possible and cantilevering a canopy over the pad, so it looks like the Cyrillic character "Г" but backwards.

There is already a small post at the site, marking it for the driver, so if you take that space that is already occupied and make it three feet thick, or however much space is available. You cantilever the roof off to one side and put a low bench on the pad. It'd be thinner than those nice historic lampposts and prettier than the utility poles, plus, you could put community info on them in addition to small ads and bus schedules. Honestly, this kind of thing probably is already manufactured, they just need to find it.

by The King of Spain on Sep 15, 2008 10:15 pm • link • report

"Let's just create a mishmash of our built environment, our planning community and everything that impacts all of our lives so nothing that benefits the greater good gets accomplished."

William, I think you missed the part where I mentioned that both the people impacted AND the people benefitting from the shelter are neighborhood people. I.e., it is THEIR issue to decide ... not ours.

There is no "greater good" involved in this issue ... Unless, you happen to consider "winning one for YOUR cause" the "greater good". It's not.

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 10:21 pm • link • report

Excuse me the shelters Laurence Auerbach mentioned. Although, this one is a lot like what I'm talking about, although it is oriented in the wrong direction.

http://www.bus-shelters.co.uk/bus-shelters-small/bushby1-med.jpg

I would orient the cantilever to be parallel to the street and eliminate the windscreens.

by The King of Spain on Sep 15, 2008 10:21 pm • link • report

David asked: "Lance: How much 'great weight' should go to the affected homeowner?"

Certainly more than you individually give the neighbor down the street who might like to see a shelter with reclining seats, wet bar, and a flat screen television (yes, joke intended) ... but less than you give the whole of the other neighbors who'll be affected by and/or are apt to actually use that bus shelter to catch a bus. I.e., it's a matter of balancing interests ... not negating anyone's interest or letting any individual interest dictate the results effecting the whole.

And in that light, OUR opinions as outsiders in this matter really don't matter much. Whether a shelter gets built there or how large it is isn't our business to decide as we are highly unlikely to ever benefit from it or be negatively impacted by it. We are disinterested parties.

by Lance on Sep 15, 2008 10:30 pm • link • report

I think it is BECAUSE we are disinterested parties that David was asking the opinions of the readers. Obviously none of us are influencing this issue or decision.

I agree with the idea that a scaled version of a shelter (such as King of Spain suggests) would be appropriate, but really that is up to WMATA and others within the city government.

by William on Sep 16, 2008 6:56 am • link • report

@William, Actually, I think it is up to the neighborhood there to decide what is appropriate for them, and then it is WMATA's responsibility to accomodate that decision as best it can within its financial and shelters standards constraints.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 7:21 am • link • report

Lance, I quote the original post:

"The list owner... asked me to report suggestions back to the community."

I would hope people recognize that the most we can do is influence the decision. It seems like for the most part, we are coming to a consensus on what we, transit users who at least try to be sensitive to the neighborhood, would find acceptable. If I was a resident of that neighborhood, I'd want to know that.

by Adam on Sep 16, 2008 9:08 am • link • report

These decisions aren't made totally in a vacuum, either. The city or WMATA has contracts for bus shelters; a discussion across neighborhoods about suitable shelter types will help with future shelter contracts. Likewise, one neighborhood can learn from another.

by David Alpert on Sep 16, 2008 9:11 am • link • report

I commend Mohammed Khalid for communicating the empirical evidence to the community (of the effectiveness of bulb-outs, etc.) even in the face of opposition to the solutions based on willful ignorance or bias. For someone who has seen the evidence it can be very difficult to "translate" that evidence into practice accepted by policy-makers and the community. This type of evidence- based policy-making is needed throughout and across government agencies.

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 9:24 am • link • report

Adam/David, I'm not in disagreement with the gist of what both of you are saying. I just think it's important though that we keep in the back of our minds that the ultimate decision on how to handle this issue must be made by the neighborhood within the constraints which WMATA must work within. And no, I don't think our aim should be to influence the neighborhood in any fashion ... but rather to provide them with ideas with which to come to their own conclusions for their own needs. "Influencing" sounds too much like "I'll show you why I know better ... " Not being either a user of transit in that neighborhood or the homeowner who will be very much affected by whatever transpires, "influencing" the decision based on our own "greater interests" would be quite unfair to all parties in that neighborhood. Bianchi's statement: "This type of evidence- based policy-making is needed throughout and across government agencies." illustrates the "one size fits all" solutions which are dangerous in that they exhibit this "I know what is best for everyone" attitude. This is the kind of thinking that leads to problems.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 10:23 am • link • report

No Lance. It's the kind of thinking that leads to solutions. The neighbors want to get cars to slow down. There is evidence that bulb-outs slow down car speeds. Bulb-outs are a solution that meets the expresssed desire of the neighborhood. Without evidence everything tried is a haphazard experiment that may in fact lead to results opposite of what is desired. What we don't want is some poliy-maker saying "hey! I have a great idea! Lets do 'X' to address the problem of 'Y'. It seems logical to me even though there is no evidence to support it". Is that really what you would prefer to actions or policies based on evidence?

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 11:41 am • link • report

"What we don't want is some poliy-maker saying "hey! I have a great idea! Lets do 'X' to address the problem of 'Y'."

Bianchi, that's precisely the point I was making. No, we don't want a policy maker (i.e., someone from outside the neighborhood) dictating a solution to the neighborhood's problem. Suggestions are okay ... dictating and "influencing" is not. Yes, there are cost constraints and safety constraints and probably lots of other constraints that will keep the neighborhood from being totally in control of how they solve their problem. But by and large, they (and not us or some city planner wanting to use them as an example to prove "a greater good") should be in control.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 1:14 pm • link • report

Lance, they want traffic to slow down. Bulb-outs work in other places to slow traffic. It's an evidence based solution. Do you think the neighbors who are probably very competent and knowledgeable in their own work should dictate to DDOT an action that is unproved just because the neighbor isn't privvy to the evidence and doesn't think bulb-outs will work? Should DDOT ignore the evidence just because a neighbor "doesn't think" it will work? What do you have against using information? Besides, It's not a private street. It's publically owned and paid for. We pay a bunch of people in DDOT to be on top of the latest evidence for solving problems such as "What works to slow down traffic". If we aren't going to value their expertise then why do we pay for them?

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 1:40 pm • link • report

Bianchi, where were you when certain residents in Chevy Chase, DC dictated to DDOT that it install an unwarranted signal and then convinced DDOT that the novel solution which was implemented was "confusing" so it could be converted to a traditional signal?

Yes, taxpayers pay a lot of money to DDOT to implement these kinds of solutions, but recent actions by the agency confound any concept that Level of Service and the same old solutions will be superseded.

by Andrew on Sep 16, 2008 1:56 pm • link • report

Andrew, I read about it after the fact. I don't live in CH CH and I don't accept any responsibility for what residents there did/do to influence DDOT decisions. Apparently DDOT must have learned something from that experience (they accumulated evidence, you might say) and stood up to opposition against bulb-outs in this case. Or at least Khalid stood firm in expressing the evidence that bulb-outs work to slow down trasffic. i don't work for DDOT, either, so I do not accept responsibility for what their policies are beyond what the average citizen can do to become part of a process to influence policy. I applaud use of evidence in policy-making, Such as DDOT recommending bulb-outs as a solution for slowing down traffic.

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 2:27 pm • link • report

It was a rhetorical question...I could have used your support at the time, for the pedestrian signal.

The evidence however, is that this was solely a political decision, as DDOT still has not responded to the repeated requests since June, to provide engineering, traffic or safety metrics and study results which justify the switch to a traditional signal.

I just find it amazing that Khalid would support bulb-outs on the one hand (yea!) and be steadfast against a ped signal on the other (boo!).

by Andrew on Sep 16, 2008 2:42 pm • link • report

Andrew, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Let's hope Khalid is learning to stand up for evidence in more situations regarding pedestrian safety. It seems to me it is the elected politicians most resistant to accepting evidence. Not always of course.

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 2:54 pm • link • report

Chevy Chase is suburban, and proudly so. To my knowledge Chevy Chase DC and MD were built contemporaneously. When you don't even want or need sidewalks, why would you need a bus shelter? Ddot put a bus shelter down my street, and I don't see the need for it, other than cutting sidewalk space.

by Adam on May 17, 2009 11:42 am • link • report