RE: Reflecting Pool
I went for a bikeshare ride at lunch yesterday and was thinking how good the reflecting pool looked after the renovation. Then I actually got down close to the water and saw the massive algae blooms in there. ick. Hopefully they will be able to manage it better going forward.

by MLD on Sep 26, 2012 8:47 am • link • report

Railgate is confusing! It's the -gate suffix from tailgate, not from watergate. I thought there was some scandal in the city of my birth. (Let's be clear, though I'm a St. Paulite, just born in Minneapolis).

I was actually back there for the weekend and was impressed by construction on the new light-rail line. It prompted some interesting discourse in my family...

by David F-H on Sep 26, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

I still wonder if the new Union Station plan provides enough space for consolidated bus operations.

by Steve S. on Sep 26, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

Re: Tree cover

On the whole, tree cover does correspond closely with income, if you control for neighborhood type, settlement patterns, and for the neighborhood's recent history. It's silly to think of 14th St and Shaw as wealthy neighborhoods, given that trees take tens of years to mature. It's equally unhelpful to compare streetcar suburbs with central city neighborhoods.

I can see that DC might be an unusual case, though. The gap in tree cover is more apparent in industrial cities - think of Baltimore, Chicago, Providence, and Philadelphia.

Los Angeles is neatly controlled for in terms of settlement patterns. There, the neighborhoods with trees are the ones with the money, a condition that helped spur Villaraigosa's tree-planting initiative. That's even more strongly the case if you take into account the health of the trees.

by David R. on Sep 26, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

The green solution to the algae problem is to add tilapia to the reflecting pool! They eat algae. Then, to solve the tilapia problem, we can add alligators. They eat tilapia. And, as a side benefit, they might eat a few corn-fed tourists too.

by Fishy on Sep 26, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

@ Fishy:alligators

I love the idea of alligators on the Mall. The NPS should be happy too. Finally some real wildlife!

by Jasper on Sep 26, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

The algae problem is so obvious in hindsight that one wonders why better planning to prevent it wasn't implemented.

by Crickey7 on Sep 26, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

The tree cover/wealth relationship is false and ridiculous.

Greater tree correlates more with older neighborhoods. Sure if you control for like 10,000 variables you may find some relationship, but it's really insignificant.

by King Terrapin on Sep 26, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

Are football stadiums incompatible with urbanism? Yes. Name a NFL stadium that's not surrounded by acres and acres and acres of parking. Are a majority of Vikings fans taking light rail? No.

The people that most need to read the Slate piece aren't ever going to see it *cough* ceefer *cough* and if they do, they won't believe it.

PG TOD-So we're not comfortable asking developers to figure out transportation plans for their developments, but we are comfortable using millions in taxpayer dollars to "upgrade" nearby roads that may or may not need "upgrading". I'd love to stay in my town, but the biggest problem with it is that it's in PG county.

by thump on Sep 26, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

Name a NFL stadium that's not surrounded by acres and acres and acres of parking.

Best I can do is:

Seattle. Some surface parking, but not a ton.

St Louis. The stadium is integrated with the convention center, and there's not a ton of surface parking around.

New Orleans.

Chicago. There's a fair bit of structured parking and the surrounding context is parkland, not urban grid - but it's still not exactly the Meadowlands.

There are other cases of waterfront stadiums that don't necessarily have a great urban context, either - Cleveland, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh.

There are others, too - sort of edge of downtown stadiums with a fair bit of parking, often structured. Many are backed up against freeway interchanges. I don't know that any would qualify as good urbanism, but a few at least aren't as detrimental as the suburban football stadium model of, say, Foxboro.

by Alex B. on Sep 26, 2012 10:48 am • link • report

I can't think of an NFL stadium without tons of parking, but I can think of several very large college stadiums with minimal to no surface parking around them. Michigan can seat over 100,000 people, but there are only a few parking lots near it. Penny's stadium fits 52,000 and it had almost no parking near it. The Yale Bowl seats 70,000 and is surrounded by fields of fields, and no parking. And there are probably dozens of NFL sized soccer stadiums in Europe with little to no parking.

NFL stadiums can be compatible with urbanism. It's just that the people designing them and the people using them don't want them to be.

by TM on Sep 26, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

Name a NFL stadium that's not surrounded by acres and acres and acres of parking

Add Baltimore to the list - direct access from Eutaw, Russell, and Hamburg Streets without crossing a parking lot.

by ceefer on Sep 26, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

"The mind is the root of bike hate:"
------

Not at all. It's the actions of enough cyclists for others to take note.

Like I've said previously, I don't want my life ruined by some cyclist's "I'll do whatever I want on the streets while you watch out for me" sense of entitlement.

by ceefer on Sep 26, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

So when will Metro train operators stop announcing that NoMa is the stop for connections to Greyhound? I heard mine say that on my way in this morning.

by Gray on Sep 26, 2012 10:59 am • link • report

@Ceefer-What exactly do you mean by having your "life ruined"? Really, I'm asking. Maybe what you should have said was "I don't want my car to get a dent in it" b/c that would be far more accurate. I'm pretty sick of this BS notion that all of us on bikes are out to get you and that we all "do whatever we want...". It's not what actually happens in the real world. In the real world we all want to get home safe and sound and in one piece to see our families or our pets or this weeks episode of Project Runway. To that end, I, and thousands like me, ride in a way that keeps me as safe as possible and sometimes that means doing things not exactly "by the book". We ride like our lives depend on it, which they do. I challenge you once again to get out and ride in the city (hopefully during commuting hours) to see what it's actually like, b/c every time you describe your version of the truth of cycling behavior it bears zero resemblance to what I see in the 14 miles or so I ride daily, and the hundreds of cyclists I pass along the way. It's pretty clear that you've made your mind up and no amount of actual evidence will dissuade you...exactly what the article describes.

by thump on Sep 26, 2012 12:00 pm • link • report

Alex B., don't forget Kraft is developing around Gillette although some might consider it fake.

by selxic on Sep 26, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report

Not at all. It's the actions of enough cyclists for others to take note.

Right. Where "enough" = "a small fraction" evidently.

And as everyone knows, if a small fraction of a group misbehaves it's completely logical to declare that the whole group is a problem. COMPLETELY logical.

The problem's not in your head at all. No sir. Not. At. All.

by jack lecou on Sep 26, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report

"I don't want my life ruined by some cyclist's "I'll do whatever I want on the streets while you watch out for me" sense of entitlement."

Ceefer, that is such an old, tiresome, cranky, ridiculous comment.

by OX4 on Sep 26, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report

I'll just keep in mind that the numbers still bear out that one is far, far more likely to be hit by a car in their lifetime (whether they are in a car themselves, or a pedestrian) than a cyclist. If the modes switched and as many people were riding bikes instead of cars then we'd have little use for many of the stoplights and stop signs that dot our streetscape.

/cue up arguments of "but that collision was because of something a cyclist did!"

by drumz on Sep 26, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report

It would be nice if the removal of the Greyhound terminal would lead to the extension of the Met Branch Trail for one block to K.

by David C on Sep 26, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Pittsburgh's stadium isn't exactly surrounded by lots. Yeah, there's a lot of parking there (maybe 20% of what's around Foxboro), but its also a significant fraction of all the available parking lots in the city and shared with the baseball stadium next door.

College stadiums are the opposite. Neyland down at Tennessee, Beaver at Penn State, and Ohio at Columbus are the #4, #2, and #3 largest stadiums in the US after Michigan. Beaver has two large surface lots (which are the only two on campus) and other large sports facilities. Neyland...I don't even recall there being a lot anywhere near the place and the terrain precludes it anyhow. Ohio has less surface area in lots than the footprint of the stadium.

Yeah, you can argue these are in smaller cities or towns but...they're bigger than any NFL stadium and are packed week after week.

by Another Nick on Sep 26, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

RE: NFL stadiums

M&T Bank stadium in Baltimore has hardly any parking compared to FedEx Field and its shared with Camden Yards. A lot of people take the Light Rail to games (especially Oriole's games) and the stadium it a model for transit accessibility. You don't have to cross a single street to get to either stadium.

It would be even more transit accessible if the MARC Camden Line, which also serves Camden station, ran on Sundays for Ravens games and midday/late evening for Orioles games. This would definitely improve accessibility for Howard County and DC Area Ravens/Orioles fans (yes, there are still a lot of us here).

by King Terrapin on Sep 26, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

haha just realized ceefer had already commented about Baltimore.

btw
Byrd Stadium in College Park hardly has any parking with direct access to the stadium. Only the "privileged" (i.e. well-heeled alumni) can park in the small garage that surrounds the NW end of the 55K+ capacity stadium. For us less fortunate its a 15 minute walk from one of the many larger garages scattered around the campus. They really need to build Purple Line ASAP.

by King Terrapin on Sep 26, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report

Also, Farmers Field, a proposed NFL stadium/conference center enlargement in LA just had more parking garages approved, but it wouldn't have much parking either. It's supposed to be built by other AEG properties (LA Live) including the Staples Center and Nokia Theater. It will be interesting what happens with that with the sale of AEG.

by selxic on Sep 26, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

M&T Stadium. I can get there by water taxi and and a short walk from any of the trendy waterfront areas of baltimore. Lightrail and foot from many nearby areas, which connects to other transit options. Don't forget the (one) subway that connects to light rail. Shared parking lots with O's stadium. Maybe even make it work with MARC train from DC. Riding your bike there on the harbor area separated bike path from Fells Point / Patterson Park area is a breeze. They are very lenient about bikes on bus and rail in Baltimore.

by Lee on Sep 26, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report

Terrific about the Greyhound move. I once had to do the long walk with luggage from the station to Union Station and it weren't no fun.

@Alex B. Detroit is another not surrounding by parking lots. There are two structured lots somewhat nearby that services both Ford Field and Comerica Park. Most folks park all over downtown and walk to the field (or take the People Mover). There are some shuttle services from nearby Eastern Market and Wayne State University (at last time I checked).

As for bicyclists. Yes you all are saints and car drivers are sinners. And there is never any time when the opposite is true.

by Ray B on Sep 26, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report

As for bicyclists. Yes you all are saints and car drivers are sinners. And there is never any time when the opposite is true.

Come on now...I don't think anyone here is saying that.

by thump on Sep 26, 2012 3:14 pm • link • report

@Ceefer-What exactly do you mean by having your "life ruined"? Really, I'm asking. Maybe what you should have said was "I don't want my car to get a dent in it" b/c that would be far more accurate
----
Thump,

I'm sure your intent is to be snarky, but I'll try not to respond in kind.

To respond, I'm quite fearful of getting into an accident with a cyclist who doesn't care enough about his/her own safety to obey traffic laws and use common sense.

Why?

Because this year, I've had several near-misses with cylists running red lights, blowing past stop signs, jumping off the sidewalk from between parked cars, and darting from lane to lane - more than at night while while wearing dark clothing that could hardly be seen.

A collision involving injury to a cyclist certainly WOULD ruin the life of any driver unfortunate to enough to get into one, particularly in DC given the current political climate and the vocal bike lobby and its apologists. I shudder to think of the legal consequences and publicity that would result from my accidently killing or maining someone on a bike. Not to mention the havoc it would wreck on my conscience. On today's DC streets with the mindset of many DC cyclists, it's a real fear.

I won't even dignify your snide remark about "damage to my car", other than to say that's why I have insurance.

---
"I'm pretty sick of this BS"

You are? Then man, up, handle your business, ride sensibly, and follow the rules - like the you expect the rest of to do.

by ceefer on Sep 26, 2012 6:21 pm • link • report

I see some of ceefer's point here, though no one would mistake us for buddies.

I have this debate with others in the cycling community all the time as I push for others to cut back on lawbreaking. I tell them their reckless actions endanger me because they actually can cause an irrational backlash directed at non-offenders like me, an assertion usually greeted with a snort of disbelief. I think, though, there's enough anecdotal evidence to support it.

by Crickey7 on Sep 26, 2012 6:31 pm • link • report

But I do ride sensibly, you'll have to take my word for it. I don't know what you expect me to do about strangers I don't know.

by Drumz on Sep 26, 2012 9:29 pm • link • report

Moreover, I don't know what you expect government todo about it.

Literally a couple weeks ago MPD said that they ha written thousands of tickets to cyclists. So obviously it's not like cops are ignoring. Meanwhile more bike infrastructure is being built which reduces the rate of collisions involving bikes.

by Drumz on Sep 26, 2012 9:39 pm • link • report

@ceefer-Yep, I was b/c the tired meme of the idiot cyclist is old and you repeat it ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Your idea that we don't care about our safety is laughable. Some 20 year old fixie rider might feel invincible, and constantly do dumb stuff out there, but I assure you, the rest of us don't. It's a real bummer that several times this year you've had close calls with cyclists. You want to know what's a bigger bummer? Having several close calls with motorists every week...not just stuff that causes mental anguish, but stuff that could result in serious physical injury or death. (I bet if you asked any regular rider you'd get a similar response). Invariably, it's some self-absorbed asshat on a cell phone or just some raving jerk who thinks I'm holding them up or just doesn't like that I'm in the road. Last Friday I was spit on by a women on R St. b/c she didn't like that I was "in the road". She said "What the F*&k are you doing in the road"....on R St....between N. Capitol and the MBT...where there are sharrows everywhere and BIG signs that say it's ok for me to take the lane. She did that b/c I had the audacity to yell at her "easy" as she sped around a young woman in a skirt riding a cruiser who she missed by less than a foot. Today on the way into work, a man drifted into the bike lane while I was literally right next to the passenger side window and got within a foot of me before I yelled and he woke the hell up (he wasn't paying attention). Yesterday I was nearly right-hooked by someone on a cell phone who didn't use a turn signal. I avoided it b/c I anticipated her doing something stupid (b/c you know, she was talking on a cell while driving...a proven dangerous behavior that, for some reason, people still think is OK to do while operating a multi-ton vehicle) You know why I call BS when you post something, b/c that's what we deal with out there all the time. Crazy people, impatient people, oblivious people, just plain mean people who don't like that we're doing something different from what they think is "normal". Then there are the run of the mill "I didn't see you" people who completely look past you when pulling out of a driveway or away from a stop sign. The I didn't see you with that hi-viz vest on, and the bright orange/yellow/white shorts on and the blinking 2 watt light on the front and back of your bike. It's harder for me to get mad at them, but I do, b/c COME ON...I'm like the 4th of July and Christmas combined over here! Then there are the people like you who don't ride on the streets and don't have any idea what it's like but think we're all bike messengers circa 1983.
"Handle my business"? You've got to be kidding me! I'm alive and home in bed with the wife tonight so check I guess. As I've repeatedly told you, I DO ride sensibly, that's why I'm still here. As for following the rules...I'll follow all the rules when they keep me safe and ignore them when they don't. It's too bad if you don't like it.
As I say, I think you'd change your tune if you rode in traffic a few times. If you do, I promise I won't get snarky anymore. One final thought, for the next week or two count the number of regular, non-scofflaw cyclists that you see and compare that to the number doing crazy, dumb stuff. I know who will win, but it might be a good mental exercise for you.

@Crikey7-I'm actually with you (and ceefer) in that too often, we ignore the rules just b/c we can. I'm pro-ignoring rules that put my safety at risk, but I hate watching people do it when there clearly is no benefit b/c that's when the backlash happens. Trouble is, a lot of non bicycling people don't understand why we break rules when we do and think we're just doing it for the thrill or b/c we can.

by thump on Sep 26, 2012 10:28 pm • link • report

@ceefer. I'm sure a serious crash with a cyclist would be very upsetting for a long time, though probably not enough to ruin your life. Under the circumstances you describe, however, you would face little legal liability because of the contributory negligence doctrine.

Hopefully by now when driving on a crowded interstate highway, you have learned to predict most hazardous lane changes by drivers will to take risks that you will not take, though occasionally you are probably amazed by unusually hazardous actions. Most illegal and hazardous cycling is fairly predictable once you have seen as many cyclists as you have probably seen.

Both drivers and cyclists violate many laws for their own convenience without creating a large hazard, and there are some irrational daredevils as well in both cohorts. The fraction of drivers who stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks, for example, is as low as the percentage of cyclists who stop and stop signs when nobody is around. Drivers speed so much that they scream about cameras as much as cyclists scream about being ticketed for running stop signs.

If you don't see a little bit of yourself in the cyclists you have been criticizing, you are not looking hard enough.

by Jim Titus on Sep 26, 2012 10:42 pm • link • report

A collision involving injury to a cyclist certainly WOULD ruin the life of any driver unfortunate to enough to get into one, particularly in DC given the current political climate and the vocal bike lobby and its apologists. I shudder to think of the legal consequences and publicity that would result from my accidently killing or maining someone on a bike. Not to mention the havoc it would wreck on my conscience. On today's DC streets with the mindset of many DC cyclists, it's a real fear.

*Splort*

That was the sound of me laughing tea through my nose.

Yes, it really is frightening how the bicycle lobby has virtually captured the law and traffic enforcement apparatus in this town.

Why, one of these days, they may even succeed in getting MPD to properly investigate, start taking proper witness statements and so forth at the scene, and not just assume the cyclist is at fault. Truly, it is the end times.

by jack lecou on Sep 27, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

What benefit does Greyhound achieve with this, Im assuming Greyhound owned the bus station due to how long they have occupied that location.

How much was made by selling the 1st and L terminal vs paying rent in Union Station. Will the same amount or more buses be able to be used at any given time

by kk on Sep 28, 2012 7:39 pm • link • report