8th Street north and southbound is one of the busiest Metro bus corridors in the DC system. How can those buses possibly navigate that "triptych" and it's 100 degree turn.

Occam's Razor. Keep it simple. This all strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

by crin on Jul 2, 2009 11:21 am • link • report

I do like option 3 because most of the intersections between states, numbers and letters in Capitol Hill are squares rather than circles, as you pointed out. How much acreage would the oval in option 2 contain? Option 2 would be great if it was big (Thomas Circle sized) and the remnants of the square were allowed to be developed with building that were comparably tall as the existing ones.

I am concerned that the oval in option 2 would never be used because of a lack of context, just like the current configuration. If there were restaurants and stores and housing surrounding it, it would become a vibrant local park like DuPont or Stanton Square or Logan Circle.

by Cavan on Jul 2, 2009 11:22 am • link • report

crin: There wouldn't be a 100-degree turn. The actual plan has a slip lane to cut off that corner a bit on 8th. You can see it in the pedestrian slide photograph. I made the 4 diagrams at the top since I couldn't get the actual slides.

Unfortunately, according to the presenters, their webmaster is on vacation, and everyone is really skittish about sending out the powerpoint before it's officially posted. Therefore, we have to make do with inferior drawings.

by David Alpert on Jul 2, 2009 11:37 am • link • report

+1 crin. The great unanswered question is, "What problem is the Town Square trying to solve?"

What's odd to me about both Triptych and Central Park is that they are designed to lop off the head of 8th Street. You can get so focused on linking Eastern Market/7th Street retail with Barrack's Row/8th Street retail that you forget that one of the charms of the neighborhood is the way one can walk, bike or drive into the neighborhood down 8th Street and at Pennsylvania Avenue you are seamlessly led into a nice commercial district that complements the large residential neighborhood. Both Triptych and Central Park work by cutting 8th Street north of Pennsylvania from 8th Street south of Pennsylvania.

I asked at the meeting why, despite promises made 10 months ago, we still have no cost estimates whatsoever--it's hard to participate in the "public comment period" without even a rudimentary sense of what one option costs vs. another option. I threw out my "back of the envelope" estimate--the two options that re-route Pennsylvania Avenue will cost roughly 5,000 to 10,000 times more than the option that does not re-route Pennsylvania Avenue. Is it an analysis error to consider the cost differences in assessing one option vs. another?

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 2, 2009 11:57 am • link • report

I kind of would have liked to see an option to bury Pennsylvania Ave, kind of like what we have around DuPont Circle. That would make it easiest, IMHO, for bikers and pedestrians to continue using 8th Sreet to its fullest.

by tom veil on Jul 2, 2009 12:04 pm • link • report

2 and 3 are good. I like 3, but either way.

The bigger question: Why aren't we doing this to Seward, Edward R Murrow and James Monroe Squares too? They all suffer from the exact same problem.

by BeyondDC on Jul 2, 2009 12:09 pm • link • report

Be good to hear from some residents of the area.

by Jazzy on Jul 2, 2009 12:12 pm • link • report

Would it be realistic to open up the central park 8th st segment to buses as well as emergency vehicles? There's a ****load of bus traffic that goes through that area, and facilitating it with stops people can get to easily should be a priority for any redesign there. People dash across 8th and Pennsylvania a lot because the 90s stop (located in the middle of a block without any retail or residences, only a dilapidated park) is not where the potential passengers are likely to be.

by Lucre on Jul 2, 2009 12:15 pm • link • report

Oh, the problem is that these are important public spaces which should be used as parks for people, but have been chopped to pieces and given over to cars with only the leftovers serving their actual intended purpose.

Imagine cutting a road right through the middle of Dupont Circle. I think that would be a big problem.

by BeyondDC on Jul 2, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report

I should clarify: I mean the northbound 90s stop between Pennsylvania and the northern portion of D.

by Lucre on Jul 2, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

I live just a few blocks north of this area on 8th street, and would love to see something happen with this area. I love going to Eastern Market, but unlike Dupont, there's really no where to go to sit and enjoy the area. Unless you have money to spend at a restaurant, you just have to keep walking. Having a place to read, eat a sandwich, and visit with neighbors would be invaluable.

Right now, this space is terribly misused. I've walked through it a million times and I hardly even know what's on the northeast side of Pennsylvania. There's some sort of sad memorial tree and some unshaded benches over brick I think. It's totally uninviting.

by Drew on Jul 2, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report

BeyondDC: I agree in the sense that as long as these portions remain disconnected, using the leftover park space as park space gets disincentivized, and the park gets neglected, as is currently the case, especially with the northeastern portion of the space in question.

Just for the record, and for the sake of saying something outrageous, I personally don't enjoy Dupont Circle, and feel like, done right, cutting a road through it would make for a more pleasant, walkable area, but that would also necessitate removing the underpass and barriers, and making shorter blocks and wider sidewalks along Connecticut.

I love the squares in capitol hill, but neither Stanton, Lincoln, Garfield, or whatever others I can't think of at the moment get as much of their traffic from surrounding retail as the Eastern Market area. That means that the people coming to use that space are more likely to live a ways from there than the people who live near a park mostly surrounded by houses, and thus more likely to need comfortable bus connections.

I'm not convinced reconnecting is a solution in search of a problem, but crin's comment did get me thinking about the importance of the intersection of 8th & Penn to bus traffic, and I think it's worth trying to facilitate that if possible in a way that complements improvements to the public space.

by Lucre on Jul 2, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

What is not mentioned in these plans or in this discussion is what to do with the unutilized streetcar right of way that is in the median on PaAv. In my opinion, there needs to be a new streetcar line placed here- as it would be a lot easier to put one in an existing ROW than to make a new one. It would be a lot more environmentally friendly to have new streetcars than the loud noisy buses- and the city really needs to look into replacing as many bus lines with streetcars as is possible. For those who might not know it- this was the city's very first streetcar line- The old Georgetown Navy Yard line.

However- if the city is not looking to ever put back the streetcars in the historic ROWs-why can't we have a separated , dedicated bicycle way put down the center of the median? It is terrible to waste this land when it could go to a great use to enhance the community.

by w on Jul 2, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report

Just back from Europe, where a square of this size would almost always contain a raft of outdoor tables from adjoining restaurants, I was surprised last weekend to see how little used the 'square' is, even on a busy Saturday. Underuse of the existing square (particularly where the metro entrance is) is really the problem and none of these plans do much for that: 'The Oval' reduces the usable green space by converting a bunch of it to useless decoration (who will sit in that oval?); 'Central Park' is worse, putting three lanes of Penn Ave. traffic between the green space and pedestrians coming from either Eastern Market or 8th st.

Instead: close the stub of D st. from 7th to Penn Ave to through traffic and annex it to the square (perhaps as a "shared street" ), encourage a transition to restaurant/cafe tenants for the buildings on 700 block (now Fed Ex, Radio Shack, etc.), have them have lots of outdoor seating, plant more trees to make the square itself more pleasant, etc. That and a little road diet for Penn Ave. would give this area much more of a sense of place than any expensive (unlikely?) diversion of the arterial.

Also - why not accept that pedestrians want direct routes from where they are to where they want to go and simply add a midblock pedestrian crosswalk over Penn Ave between 7th and 8th (with the signals at 7th and 8th set up to support this). [Of course there really should have been a metro entry on the N. side ...]

Regarding Penn Ave itself, does anybody know why the trees on the green median are not nice large shade trees (and for that matter, why the median itself isn't a linear park with a path on it, e.g. unter den linden ). It looks like a highway beauty strip (hm.. that might be the answer).

by egk on Jul 2, 2009 1:35 pm • link • report

>I'm not convinced reconnecting is a solution in search of a problem, but crin's comment did get me thinking about the importance of the intersection of 8th & Penn to bus traffic

Agreed. Just because there is a legitimate problem with chopped-up disconnected squares doesn't mean solving the problem isn't complicated.

by BeyondDC on Jul 2, 2009 1:43 pm • link • report

To address Tom Veil's comment about burying Penn. Ave beneath the square, it's not possible because of the Metro station. The Metro station isn't deep enough. Even if technically feasible, it would be incredibly expensive.

by Alex B. on Jul 2, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report

BwyondDC sez: Seward, Edward R Murrow and James Monroe Squares ...They all suffer from the exact same problem. And that problem is what, exactly?

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 2, 2009 2:24 pm • link • report

I love the suggestion by w that the street car ought to be reinstated, but imho it should be reinstated throughout the city. As for the public square, the current form would be way to large for the scale of the surrounding buildings, more like Red Square or some Stalinist plaza. So while I like #3 in concept, I would vote for a modified option #2. That modification would be to build up the left over spaces at the edge of the oval to give the outdoor room some walls. Then again the row we'd have over traditional versus modernism makes my head spin just thinking about it.

by Thayer-D on Jul 2, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report

@egk -- Designer Amy Weinstein pointed out that majestic oaks remain part of the boulevard east of 9th Street. None of the beautiful big shade trees to the west survived Metro construction.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 2, 2009 2:50 pm • link • report

w referred to the "unused" streetcar right of way down the median of Pennsylvania Avenue. This right of way is not unused. The Orange and Blue line use it, just slightly below ground. As Alex B pointed out, that's why Pennsylvania Avenue can't be put underground here. It also makes it difficult and expensive to put streetcars back, as the Metro tunnels are fairly shallow.

I like egk's idea of a linear park through the median, but fear for the safety of pedestrians given the horrible movements for vehicular traffic making a left turn from or crossing Pennsylvania Avenue. Unter Den Linden is wider and only has two significant cross streets. The vehicular traffic patterns there are very different.

by Stanton Park on Jul 2, 2009 2:58 pm • link • report

I'm puzzled by the consistent determination on the part of these planners to force people to take extremely roundabout routes between the station entrance and 8th Street to the north, across Pennsylvania, with "stronger plantings" and all. The direct route midblock across Pennsylvania is an extremely powerful "desire line" which has been stronger than all plantings so far and would probably continue to be so; that the architects can't accept this and work it into _any_ of their alternatives makes me a little skeptical of the whole enterprise, as also does their apparent ignorance of the heavy bus traffic on 8th Street in particular -- okay, they never ride buses, but don't these folks ever even walk around the neighborhood?

by david on Jul 2, 2009 4:03 pm • link • report

I live about 100 yards from this place. Is this even necessary? Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

by beeto on Jul 2, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report

Absolutely with David on the desire line issue - people are walking that way for a reason, quit trying to deliberately make their lives inconvenient. I live at 12th and Independence and it is currently a major pain in the ass to get through that intersection to the metro. BTW, I strongly support option C (Central Park) over all the others.

by Sean Robertson on Jul 2, 2009 4:34 pm • link • report

I look at the bottom two and all I see are more light cycles for the Circulator to have to get through. I live near here and just don't see the need for "traffic calming".

Maybe others see something I don't

by beeto on Jul 2, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report

Option 2 would have to be the best for bus dealing with the buses, with option3 you could have all the metrobuses stopping at two stops one for east/southbound traffic and another for northbound/westbound traffic. The only problems I can see coming from that is the circle would be backed up everything you have more than 2 buses stop at the same time.

Option 3 would be the worst for bus traffic as it would add at least 5 minutes to get around the square, plus push the buses further from the actual station than they should be, it could be alright if the street around the square was clockwise so that buses could pass by and would not be that far from the metrostation.

by Kk on Jul 2, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report

egk: Don't touch my Radio Shack and FedEx!! I need my printer ink!

by beeto on Jul 2, 2009 4:46 pm • link • report

Okay, last comment. I know this is heresy on this blog, but why not just scrap that dingy unused park on the North East side and open it up for commercial development? Toss a couple of stores and restaurants there to make it a destination in and of its

by beeto on Jul 2, 2009 4:54 pm • link • report

I live in the area and went to the meeting last night. Let me address some things here.

1. "This all strikes me as a solution looking for a problem." The problem is we have vastly underused public space and a desire for more public space. The plaza is disjointed and has become a place for cars and traffic not for people and we need more places for people. We need more places for children to play. We need more trees and green space. With a metro station there, we need a place that's easy and pleasant for pedestrians to pass through. In other words the problem is that the Eastern Market Metro Plaza sucks. Do you ever use if for anything other than walking across as quickly as possible? Do you ever hang out there? Eat lunch there? Take your kids there? Wouldn't it be better if you could do those things? Wouldn't this be better? And I reject the notion. There's nothing wrong with a $100, but isn't a $1000 better? Wouldn't you rather have a $1000? Think of this as a $1000 and the current plaza as a nickle.

2. "Would it be realistic to open up the central park 8th st segment to buses as well as emergency vehicles? There's a ****load of bus traffic that goes through that area." Yes there are a lot of buses, but more than half are going along Penn and would thus go around the park. Only the 90 buses and the Circulator would pass through which equates to one every 5 minutes or so - not exactly intolerable.

3. Running a bike trail down the center of the median isn't really a good option. I love bike trails but this trail would be very dangerous. Lots of at grade crossings. Cars that block the intersections (waiting for the light to change). It'd be a disaster. Put in a bike lane or a cycletrack and you'd have a better result. Besides the space isn't wasted. It's filled with cherry trees and that's very nice.

4. "he direct route midblock across Pennsylvania is an extremely powerful "desire line" which has been stronger than all plantings so far and would probably continue to be so; that the architects can't accept this and work it into _any_ of their alternatives makes me a little skeptical of the whole enterprise." Both the triptych and central park designs address the desire lines. Central Park moves Penn to the edge, so you can walk straight to the corner of D and 8th without crossing a street. Triptych moves the intersection closer to the Metro Station.

Needless to say, I like these options better than the current situation. What I love about the Hill is the people. I'd rather have more space for people and less for cars and traffic (which I love much less). Cost certainly is an issue but I disagree with Mr. Riehle's position that we cannot discuss which is best until we know the costs. As an engineer I'm skeptical of his back of the envelope calculations. Georgetown Waterfront Park cost $15 million to build. I don't see this costing more than that. So do you see Option A costing $3000 and Option C costing $15M?

by David C on Jul 2, 2009 6:15 pm • link • report

David C., as a neighbor, I agree somewhat with what you say, but...

1. Adding on to the time it takes to turn from 8th st., to Penn, or vice versa is intolerable, and will just add to congestion on side streets.

2. The difference between this space and the waterfront development is that in Georgetown they created a destination. There is a reason to go there. If there was some retail development here, then I'd be all for it.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, and I agree that the current layout is not pedestrian friendly, but from a cursory look all I see is more stop & go traffic.

by beeto on Jul 2, 2009 7:34 pm • link • report

+1 on beeto "I see no need for traffic calming."

I don't want calm traffic sitting here idling and smelling up the joint. I want alert traffic moving through...this is not just a solution in search of a problem, its a major screw-up of a perfectly operational intersection.

The funny thing about these presentations, as a resident of the 600 block of SC Ave pointed out last night: The dangerous intersection is the one at 7th and South Carolina and D Street SE, and NONE of the three proposals does anything to increase safety at that intersection. But they bollox up all the other intersections for no good reason.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 2, 2009 8:30 pm • link • report

Regarding costs, I don't need information on cost estimates down to the nickel, but they did promise last October that the next time we met, we'd see 3 alternatives with "conceptual price estimates." Good enough for me!

We were supposed to meet in January, when that promise was made, but now it's July, no explanation for why the January meeting was cancelled, and no cost estimates.

So, I worked it out on the back of an envelope as best I could. Am I wrong? OK, I'm wrong, but I'd like to see someone else work out the math, because while it is not the determinant factor, cost is something worth considering along with other issues. The incompetent study committee should have done better and provided that information.

For example, people wring their hands over the underutilization of the park to the northeast. There is one factor more than any other that drives down use of that park: The removal of benches. Who removed those benches? She said so herself, when she was announced as a new member of the Task Force in October: Former Councilmember Sharon Ambrose stated, "I have been involved in beautifying this park for a long time, going back to when I removed the benches." Her successor, Tommy Wells, also bears some of the blame: When the city replaced benches in the park, he stole in under dark of night and removed them, figuratively speaking, then boasted about it later as his contribution to park maintenance.

The cost of replacing the benches would be insignificant. Then we could impose a rule: If Mayor Fenty puts benches in the park, local elected officials should not remove them. Leave the benches in place for a while, and see utilization of the park soar.

Amy Weinstein's done a fabulous job of re-imagining the current park to the northeast in Option #1 "Exiting (Improved)." Somewhere between replacing the benches and Option #1 is a solution I prefer.

Or better yet, shut down this silly, bullying, unaccountable Task Force study, and let the Hine lot developer, whoever that might be, incorporate in their Hine development a plan to spruce up the Metro plaza and the park to the northeast.

Street Sense has a proposal that already does that, at no cost to the city!

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 2, 2009 8:50 pm • link • report

I find it very interesting that David ends his post with the promise, "Next: Residents' reactions"....then, nothing.

Could it be because residents, by a margin of 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 expressed skepticism about both the plans that reroute Pennsylvania Avenue, and most residents in attendance were for "Improved Existing," Option 1, that leaves Pennsylvania Avenue alone, fixes the timing of the pedestrian crossing lights, and spruces up the Metro plaza and the park?

It makes you wonder who these little residents think they are, expressing opinions about what goes on in their neighborhood. Who asked them?

As Dick Wolf, formerly President of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, says in Voice of the Hill, "Some residents like this area the way it is, but the issue is larger than them.”

http://www.voiceofthehill.com/FRONT-PAGE/Some-residents-reject-proposal-to-br-reroute-Penn-Ave-say-they-weren-t-consulted

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 3, 2009 1:55 pm • link • report

@beeto - the design team has done some preliminary studies on the traffic that show that the designs will not increase traffic on the side streets or congestion. They've promised to post this study on their website. My reference to GtownWF was that it was about the same price. Not that it was the same type of "place." EM metro plaza has many very good, albeit different, reasons to go there. As now, people pass through it frequently. In addition there already is retail along the south side and, when the Hine redevelopment is complete, there will be along half the north side. Furthermore, there's is a library on the west side.

@Thomas Riehle. As I pointed out, their traffic studies show that congestion - and thus idling will not increase. Study after study has shown that when you remove capacity traffic goes away. In addition, the new trees and sound buffers will actually make it less smelly and noisy. 7th and South Carolina will be very different after this - but there is no indication that will be better or worse. This project wasn't supposed to fix that any more than it was to fix bus bunching.

There may have been some overpromising on schedule and poor choices on benches - but these facts have no bearing on which option is best.

As I recall Street Sense offered to improve the tiny triangle on the NW of the plaza, but not the whole plaza.

I'm sure you'll see a post on reactions. Where did residents express their opinion in a way that is counted? Besides, I've been to enough community meetings to know that they don't represent an accurate sense of the community. They skew wealthy - because wealthier people have the time to go to meetings. They skew older - young people have dating/children to take up their evenings. They skew towards long term residents and owners - because they have established communication systems. And they always skew hyperlocal. So the closer you live to the plaza the more likely you are to come. But guess what living right on the plaza and living in the neighborhood for 10 years doesn't make you anymore important than someone who lives 9 blocks away in an apartment they've only been renting for 3 months. It just makes you more likely to invest 3 hours of a Wednesday night to go down to a church basement and yell at people who spent considerable time studying the traffic and telling them that they don't what they're talking about because your armchair analysis shows inevitable mayhem.

Finally, I agree that money is an issue. But at this point we're in a very blue sky phase of the project and it's instructive to ask "If money were no issue, which would we choose?"

by David C on Jul 3, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report

Thomas, I'm guessing that it's probably because a) it's only been a whopping 14 hours since the last post, b) Today is a national holiday, and c) we're entering a long weekend.

Hold your freaking horses.

I get your opposition to these ideas, but playing up the conspiracy theory card is just about the least persuasive argument I can think of.

by Alex B. on Jul 3, 2009 3:24 pm • link • report

David has a thorough set of notes documenting what the Town Squares said during their 1 hour and 15 minutes of introductions, followed by 15 minutes presenting their options, and then every Q and A, then other comments made by those attending this filibuster, errr, community input meeting.

David can count up the comments himself and report to us whether a distinct majority of those present were skeptical of the need to reroute Pennsylvania Avenue SE, and whether most adopted some form of the EMMCA position: Leave Pennsylvania Ave SE alone, fix the pedestrian light timing, spruce up the Metro Plaza and the park.

No rush.....we can wait.

BTW, @David C., the design team's own traffic expert contradicts what you say. He says it will take longer to traverse the area under Option 2 or Option 3. Incredibly, after 2 years of "study", they still have not studied exactly how much MORE time traffic will spend in their box (or oval) than it does now in traversing the area. The very conscientious and nice gentleman from the traffic consultancy did promise to get that information posted to their website soon. We'll patiently wait and see on that, too, but just to be clear, he did NOT say "their traffic studies show that congestion - and thus idling will not increase." In fact, kinda the opposite. Also, where in the drawings do you see evidence that 7th and SC and D Street SE will be "very different"? It looks untouched in all three options, no?

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 3, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

David C., I hate to be a crank, but I cannot let this crack stand:

You write about who attends community input meetings: They skew wealthy - because wealthier people have the time to go to meetings. They skew older - young people have dating/children to take up their evenings. They skew towards long term residents and owners - because they have established communication systems.

You have just described to a T the handful of supporters of this stooopid Town Square scheme who came. They marched in, made their comments, marched out....then left the rest of the meeting to the majority in attendance, who are younger, with kids at home, less wealthy, newer to the area, and fed up with entitled bullies who think because they want this done, it will be done. City planning by whim.

Tell me again one good reason to mess with Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 3, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report

@Thomas, I may have not understood the traffic expert correctly, but what I wrote above was my understanding. When they post the report, I guess we'll know.

7th and C will be different because the streets around it, and thus the traffic flows, will be different. Especially in the Central Park Design, where it will then take all the southbound traffic from Penn. That one looks much different.

I stand by my position that a community meeting hardly represents a cross-section of the community. It sounds like you agree. But I'd be interested in how EMCCA's mean membership compares in wealth, age and longevity to the ANC's mean.

One good reason to mess with Pennsylvania Avenue is to create more space for people.

You're complaints ($, traffic) with this are largely external to the options. Imagine that money were no issue. Imagine that traffic would not be impacted. Which of these options would you choose? If you say B or C, then you agree that their is a reason to mess with Penn SE.

Tell me why EMCCA is fighting so hard to save a commuter route for Maryland residents that is probably used at capacity for about 2% of the day. Why don't you want more space for people?

by washcycle on Jul 3, 2009 5:21 pm • link • report

That last comment was me.

by David C on Jul 3, 2009 5:22 pm • link • report

You want more space for people? Fix the park.

Here's someone who heard the same things I heard at that meeting: "Parents in the audience laughed off the idea of taking their kids to Pennsylvania Avenue to play and said they would stick with the parks that they already have."

http://www.thehillishome.com/2009/07/eastern-market-town-square-designs-unveiled/#more-824

I do not know how else to ask the community its opinion except through a community meeting, where the Town Squares make their very best case for rerouting Pennsylvania Avenue. They have done that now, six times (!) and it is still no sale. After six tries (and remember, all six meetings were called by the Town Square proponents, at a time and place of their choosing, and presumably with all their resources available to bring fellow proponents to the meetings), you have to start conceding that a vast majority of neighbors are flabbergasted by the stupidity of the idea of rerouting Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

Traffic, I know, is irrelevant in your book. We can wait to see what their traffic consultant, in whom I have great confidence, says about the specifics of traffic impacts. I don't think the report will be good, but we'll see.

Money is no object in your book. I guess the same goes for me. You could not pay me enough money to go along with these ridiculous plans to reroute Pennsylvania Avenue and screw up a perfectly working vehicle, bus, first responder and pedestrian intersection to impose this Rube Goldberg scheme on us.

Health effects on residents, noise, increased pedestrian danger (which is easier to cross, Washington Cirle or 8th and PA Ave SE?), economic loss, sight line and vista to the US Capitol....none of these are considerations, of course.

I'm trulee pist.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 3, 2009 7:01 pm • link • report

I am resident in the immediate area and have been following this issue across several blogs and news reports with interest. EGK makes the case for leaving well enough alone. The bloviating and disingenousness of Mr. Riehle, however, does his cause no good.

1. "The united neighborhood," and "the majority in attendance." EMCCA is D st NE between 7th and 9th, simple as that.
2. Throwing the kitchen sink as criticism. Maryland commuters, evacuation routes, sightlines, MOTH. It reeks of disingenuousness. Admit your real concern for your doorstep and $ value and people will take you more seriously.
3. Posting under different names, swamping comment rolls, etc. Calling supporters of the idea stupid. It irritates people. I for one am beginning to go from "no strong opinion" to "oppose EMCCA."

by Rob on Jul 4, 2009 5:06 am • link • report

@ washcycle:

Q: Tell me why EMCCA is fighting so hard to save a commuter route for Maryland residents that is probably used at capacity for about 2% of the day.

A: they aren't really.

And I meant 800 block D St SE, above

by Rob on Jul 4, 2009 5:14 am • link • report

Option 3 might look nice in plan, but it creates an island effect behind a wall of traffic. Dupont Circle avoids this to a great extent because through traffic is routed beneath the circle. It's also misleading to refer to it as a "central park", a name that evokes something much larger - it's a small square and the traffic around it (while it can be mitigated) will dominate such a small swath of land. The land area is approximately half the size of Lincoln Park and the same size as Stanton Square - but with a much wider boulevard (PA is about 2x the width of MD Ave) hitting it).

Option 2 also is deceptive in plan. The geometry looks nice, but how accessible will the oval really be? In the end, maybe all it does is take public space away from each triangle.

Maybe keep it as is, but somehow narrow PA Ave's land area (smaller traffic island, narrower lanes) through the square to afford each triangle additional pedestrian area.

by stevek_fairfax on Jul 4, 2009 8:36 am • link • report

I really don't think any option which puts "park" space between the two fully-functional halves of Pennsylvania Avenue is viable - it functions as a much bigger barrier to use than the other streets in the area. Don't even bother with option 2 or 3.

If anything, the people who would like to eliminate 8th street or Penn Ave's straight-shot path should instead be studying completely replacing D street's 'route' around the park with a reinstated C street and E street - so the only direction cars not on Pennsylvania Avenue are moving is north-south. The fact that the Metro station is on one side and Eastern Market is on the other means anyone using that facility already spends time on both sides, you just have to get them to explore further. Another road in between them and the things to the northeast and south is an effective barrier to that exploration.

The most effective way to improve the situation regarding "Dividing the neighborhood in half" over that is with some expensive grade separation. If you can route a few lanes of Pennsylvania Avenue traffic (not necessarily the whole thing) underground beside the Metro vault, you're much more free in your options.

The team's options strike me as primarily a useless "beautification" effort that doesn't target the pedestrian factors that increase actual usage.

by Squalish on Jul 4, 2009 3:25 pm • link • report

I am an area resident (very close, but not on the square in question). The first I heard of this was on this blog. My opinion went from "Oh, cool" to "no thanks."

There is not a pressing need for new big park space in the area. Just look at a map. Why not just improve the space that is already there?

I also don't see any need to reroute Penn. Ave traffic. It will just slow things down. The "if you decrease capacity, you decrease traffic" meme just doesn't hold water here. Penn. ave is a major artery in and out of the city. Where will the traffic be diverted to? Side streets?

I agree we need to make it more pedestrian friendly, but these bottom two plans just ain't doing it for me. If anything, I want to make it easier for cars to get on to and move along 8th st. I want to encourage more people to go there.

by dcdc on Jul 4, 2009 5:34 pm • link • report

I really don't see Penn as a major artery. I lived on Penn for nearly a decade and most of the time - like 99% - the street was empty or lightly used. If there wasn't an accident or 9/11 it was generally under utilized.

by David C on Jul 5, 2009 12:12 am • link • report

Ok, you may be right on penn not being a major artery, but i still dont want to inhibit car or pedestrian traffic to 8th st.

by dcdc on Jul 5, 2009 12:46 am • link • report

I'm amused by those who think of public space for children as restricted to parks with playgrounds. Millenium Park in Chicago comes to mind, where there are a ton of interesting and stimulating attractions for children to explore, none of which involve a jungle gym.

by Hill Resident in Close Proximity on Jul 7, 2009 1:14 pm • link • report

My vote is for option #3. It is the most appealing, with the largest continual green space. Small pocket parks are useless. I love the comments that state there is no need for a park. That is the most bizaar argument I've heard so far. Is there ever a need? It is a desire that improves quality of life. Many of the commenters on here we've heard from time and time again. Their arguements seem desperate as they probably live on D street..ie NIMBY. They do not speak for all of us in the neighborhood and my vote is for #3. The only thing that I don't like about it is the lack of cars on 8th street, but I can get over it. Cars on Pennsylvania avenue move way too quickly and I could care less if commutes take Maryland residents an additional five minutes. One worry that I do have is what will happen once the construction is complete? It is very evident that DC did not have the resources or will to maintain the area around the Eastern Market Metro station, although some of this land was probably owned by the Federal Government. Will they maintain it now? It would seem a shame to spend all of this money just to see the project neglected by the city.

by Shane on Jul 7, 2009 4:25 pm • link • report

What I find really strange about this discussion -- proponents of option 1 repeatedly reference PA as a major traffic artery which needs fluidity. However, PA Ave bottlenecks from 4 lanes to 2 when it merges into Independence at 2nd St. SE. By this logic, PA Ave traffic should be backed up to Barney circle during AM rushhour, yet this never happens.

PA Ave wastes so much space. Traffic never consumes all 4 lanes provided, even at the peak of rush hour. Two lanes would be more than sufficient to handle existing traffic. The 11th St Bridge project will further obviate this commuting route by allowing west bound commuters to reach the SE Freeway directly from 295 in both direction.

An honest look at the traffic patterns on PA Ave shows an enormous amount of wasted space caused by an oversized highway-like PA Ave, which chops up the EM Plaza and adjoining parks solely for benefit of MD commuters. I agree with those concerned about routing traffic around the square because it has potential to adversely impact residents on the 800 block of D St. SE, bringing whatever volume of projected traffic closer to their front door. However, they could also be across the street from a fabulous public square that's an amenity for both homeowners and the community. Currently this block has a collection of dillapidated benches harvested for scrap wood, an abundance of weeds, and a gathering spot for the homeless. Option 1 just provides better digs for the homeless.

by B on Jul 8, 2009 3:15 pm • link • report

The way to reduce traffic (including pollution from idling cars) is to make driving through the area less appealing. Development of Barney Circle and Anacostia will only increase traffic demands. Efforts to avoid the adverse effects of automobile traffic should focus on finding alternative routes to diffuse the traffic flow along that corridor, rather than simple "no"-ism to making the area more pedestrian friendly and less automobile-friendly.

I anticipate that Thomas may regret his suggestion to let the Hine School site developer take on re-development of the Market Plaza traffic area if the Mayor selects a developer other than DSF/StreetSense/Menkiti proposal that he advocates.

by Sweeney on Jul 8, 2009 3:40 pm • link • report

@ Sweeney
You might be right! A principal of Stanton Development is on the foolish Task Force, and the Task Force designer is Amy Weinstein, also designer for the Stanton Hine proposal.

A principal of Scallan Development (Bozzutto Hine proposal) is also co-chairman of the foolish Task Force.

This Task Force has approached the community six times, each time at a time and place of their choosing, taking extended periods (1 hour 50 minutes once; 1 hour 35 minutes another time) to make the case for re-routing Pennsylvania Avenue, and each time, 70%-100% of the residents at the meeting expressed opposition to rerouting Pennsylvania Avenue SE. Yet the foolish Task Force continues to deny that there is a lot of community resistance to re-routing Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

You might like Option #1, or #2, or #3, but you cannot deny that this foolish Task Force is not good at listening to and incorporating public comment. That's clear on their own website, in the Official Minutes of Public Meetings.

So, a vote for Stanton or Bozzutto is a vote for a developer who participants in the kind of resistance to community involvement that this foolish Task Force exhibits. That's one more reason to write to dcbiz@dc.gov and endorse DSF/Street Sense for the Hine site!

Thanks for the good idea.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 9, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report

The claim 70% - 100% of attendees at meetings don't want Pennsylvania Avenue moved has been stated. I've only been to two meetings so I can't comment on all of them. I do know that the statistic is much lower on blogs such as this. Different audience, different opinions... Just because we could not attend the meetings doesn't mean that we don't have a right to be heard. Go option #3!

by Shane on Jul 10, 2009 9:47 am • link • report

No formal poll was done. And Mr. Riehle's non scientific estimate does not match my own. I can tell you, for a fact that it wasn't 100%.

by David C on Jul 10, 2009 10:01 am • link • report

@Thom,
Out of curiosity, which ones ar the Stanton and which ones are the Bozzutto principals?

Sharon Ambrose - Member at Large
Don Denton - Barracks Row Main Street
Seth Shapiro - Market Row Street Merchants Association
Ray Gooch - Grace Church Residents
John Gordon - Barracks Row Main Street
Ken Jarboe - Advisory Neighborhood Commission/Capitol Hill SE (ANC 6B)
Norma Wright - Eastern Market Metro Community Association (EMMCA)
Margaret Missiaen - 600 Block S. Carolina Avenue Residents
Julie Olson - Advisory Neighborhoor Commission/Capitol Hill SE (ANC 6B)
David Perry - Barracks Row Main Street
Susan Perry - Capitol Hill Business Improvement District (BID)
Donna Scheeder - Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee
Harry Schnipper - Capitol Hill Association of Merchants and Professionals
Kate Sylvester - 400 Block 7th Street SE Residents
Tip Tipton - Barracks Row Main Street
Dick Wolf - Capitol Hill Restoration Society

by Sweeney on Jul 16, 2009 6:29 pm • link • report

I have been living just three blocks from the Eastern Market Metro station for several months and would be very happy to see option 3. I know there are quite a few busses that run on PENAV but I believe that this layout would improve the overall safety of bus-chasing pedestrians. It also provides a lot more room for an actual park.

by Will on Oct 30, 2009 12:01 am • link • report