Public Spaces
National Zoo blocks pedestrian access from the east
Tourists often reach the National Zoo by Metro to the Connecticut Avenue entrance. But many local residents walk or bike to the east side gate off Harvard Street from Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, or nearby neighborhoods. Begninning this spring, they have been turned away, as the Zoo closed all east side entrances due to construction.
Photo by Wayan Vota.
At the Harvard Street bridge, a sign directs visitors to the Connecticut Avenue entrance. While this detour may inconvenience someone in a car, it forces a nearly 1.5-mile walk for pedestrians. Rather than walking back through Adams Morgan, people began walking down the dirt shoulder of an off-ramp and crossing Beach Drive to enter the Zoo.
Rather than finding a way to accommodate pedestrians, the National Park Service put up a temporary fence to prevent people from walking on the shoulder. This resulted in people simply walking on the actual onramp, resulting in an even more dangerous situation. ABC 7 News reported on this matter earlier in the month.
Eventually the Zoo established a shuttle bus to take visitors from the Harvard Street gate around to Connecticut Avenue. The bus service, however, is infrequent and not a solution for pedestrians. On at least one recent weekend, the Park Serivce stationed police to keep pedestrians off the ramp. This past weekend, a reader reports that a jogger was struck by a car while crossing Beach Drive at this spot.
While the inconvenience is only temporary, it calls into question the Zoo's interest in being a good neighbor to those on the east side of the park. By closing the Harvard Street bridge, the Zoo not only cut off pedestrian access, but also to the jogging and bike trail.
The bike lane on Harvard Street directs cyclists to use the Zoo's bridge to connect to the trail in Rock Creek, but even under normal conditions that bridge is closed whenever the Zoo is closed. As a result, residents on the east side of the park must go all the way through Adams Morgan and cross Rock Creek via Calvert Street. The other option is going north to Klingle Road, and then going across via Porter Street.
Adding a connection somewhere in the middle, that is not dependent on Zoo hours, would solve this problem. Reader John C. suggests a bike and pedestrian bridge connecting Mount Pleasant to Jewett Road, a street that travels the perimeter of the Zoo. Jewett Road currently has no pedestrian access, and is only open during Zoo hours. A bike and jogging path alongside Jewett Road would let pedestrians and cyclists easily travel from Mount Pleasant to the Rock Creek Trail, or to the businesses on Connecticut Avenue in Cleveland Park. This would involve cooperation from the Zoo, but would prove a great benefit to the community.
A possible location for a pedestrian bridge connecting Jewett Road to Mount Pleasant (via Kenyon Street, for example).
The east side gate to the Zoo is only 0.7 miles from the Columbia Heights Metro, and is within walking distance of many growing neighborhoods. The Zoo should take more interest in encouraging people who live nearby to visit by foot.
Presently, the DC Circulator advertises that it goes to the zoo, via its stop in Woodley Park. Interestingly enough, the Circulator's westbound stop at 16th and Columbia is only 0.5 miles from the eastern gate, while the stop at Woodley Park is 0.4 miles from the main gate on Connecticut. There are plenty of options out there to make the Zoo more a part of neighborhoods both to the east and the west.
After hearing about the closure of the Harvard Street bridge, Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) asked Zoo officials about the construction project, and if the end result would be more pedestrian friendly. The Zoo responded noting the addition of the shuttle bus service, as well as the temporary signage at the closed bridge.
Debra Nauta-Rodriguez, the acting executive officer of the Zoo, has promised Graham a further response to these concerns.
Dave Stroup is an online organizer and progressive activist. He enjoys public transit, Democratic politics, and rabble-rousing.   |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report
by jm on Apr 19, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
You state "By closing the Harvard Street bridge, the Zoo not only cut off pedestrian access, but also to the jogging and bike trail."
This closing also cuts off the many local residents who DRIVE to the east side gate off Harvard Street from Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, Ward 4, Columbia Heights and nearby neighborhoods who used this access to get to the WEST side of the Park because of Klingle Road being closed.
So it is not just only pedestrians who are inconvenienced, and put into harms way, but also our residents who drive are scrabbling to get across the Park.
Thank you Mary Cheh for your idiocy.
by chinaindc on Apr 19, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report
by Dave Stroup on Apr 19, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report
A trail connecting east and west would be nice but it's not likely the Zoo would be up to working with the park service to reach any kind of solution anytime soon.
A jogger was hit at this same spot last year. The stance has always been that they shouldn't have been crossing there. The fact that people continue to do so shows there is a need.
It's worth pointing out the zoo is planning to build several parking garages in the coming years. A plan neighbors east and west signed off on. How bout doing a little something for the neighbors in return?
by Anon on Apr 19, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
by the truth on Apr 19, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
Many, perhaps even most, of the pedestrian traffic on the east side of the zoo is from people driving who park in Mount Pleasant and walk in. I lived for ten years a block from the zoo and saw many, many people park on the streets in Mount Pleasant and walk in to avoid the busy parking lots in the zoo.
I'm not trying to make some statement about all those bad people taking up parking in my neighborhood (because it wasn't that serious a problem compared to the difficulty parking at night), but the number of people who would can actually walk to the zoo from their home and did so on any kind of regular basis is probably not that great.
Rather, I'm saying that a lot of the people who might have used the east entrance were not really "foot traffic" which should be understood when discussing the scope of the problem.
Walking across rock creek parkway, by the way, is idiotic. The zoo should ideally find a way to keep the east side open for pedestrians, sure. At the same time, most of the people being inconvenienced are those who live near the zoo already -- it's not like a lot of people are suddenly walking in only to find the entrance closed, and having to walk another mile and a half. People who live nearby are presumably aware of this already and can plan accordingly when they go to the zoo.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 1:47 pm • link • report
Before the construction of the newer bridge, there was a four-way intersection where Harvard St., the back entrance to the Zoo, and Beach Dr. met. The new bridge replaced that intersection, ensuring that in order to access Beach Dr. and the trail, you have to enter the Zoo. That's great for the Zoo, but a further obstacle for people trying to get to Rock Creek.
I'm disappointed that NPS and the Zoo are willing to erect snow fences and signs in order to deter pedestrians - and even to post officers - but that they won't simply install a crosswalk on Beach Dr.
by David R. on Apr 19, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report
by CP on Apr 19, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report
What did the Zoo think would happen if they closed the bridge? Of course people will try to cross the street.
I have been watching people cross the street to the bike path on my commute since construction began. It is a mess.
Assigning police to stop pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the street it nuts. Instead why not have the cop stop traffic so people can cross the street?
Did they also set a speed trap? Almost all the cars going through Rock Creek Park travel above the speed limit. Try driving through Rock Creek at the sped limit and see how many cars back up behind you. What's the point of a limit if its not a limit?
This is just more evidence the Zoo is a crappy neighbor. Another example is their portion of the bike path that bypasses the Rock Creek Parkway Tunnel. The Zoo is the only unreliable weak link in the trail. The Zoo locks their gates to the trail at night (often before it gets dark), when there is minor flooding, when they have events like Boo At The Zoo, and other times for no apparent reason. There is no advanced warning about closings. They just close the trail. When the gates are locked one either has to go at least a mile up and down big hills to get around the tunnel, or go through the tunnel. Its not pleasant or safe for pedestrians and there is very little sidewalk between the road and the tunnel wall. If you are on a bike headed Northbound at rush hour there is almost no way to get into the street to ride through the tunnel, because there is a constant flow of traffic, so you have to walk or ride on the sidewalk through the tunnel. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
This makes not just the Zoo portion of the trail useless but the whole trail useless to those that don't want to deal with the Zoo forcing them through the tunnel.
The Zoo should do more to keep the trail open.
by mike on Apr 19, 2010 2:02 pm • link • report
@David R- I too think a sidewalk down the off ramp and a crosswalk to the trail would be nice but I'm not sure they allow crosswalks on the Parkway. A simple solution to this whole debacle would have been to open the gates on Beach Drive and have a crossing guard stationed there until the work was complete. Several neighbors suggested this to the zoo but their response was essentially. "ain't our problem".
And the fact remains that even when construction on the bridge is done, joggers have always been cut off by the zoo gates at times in the mornings and evenings. It's silly that there are only two points to access the popular trail.
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 2:02 pm • link • report
If you want to propose a solution that improves pedestrian safety and making a legal crossing without the bridge, such as adding a four-way stop the the zoo entrance, removing the fence next to the Mt. Pleasant exit and/or building a pathway for pedestrians, then let's talk about it. But just because there's a 25 mph speed limit there doesn't mean it's safe for pedestrians to be crossing and scurrying up and down the hill. It's not set up for pedestrians right now, period.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:05 pm • link • report
I don't agree with this. There are several other ways to enter the park that are nearby: Porter Street/Klingle Road, Park Road, Adams Mill Road, Calvert Street. As long as you are aware that you can't cross that way, it should not be much of a detour from wherever you are starting to get into the park (except as I noted, from those who live right next to the bridge).
Again - I am not arguing that this is ideal, far from it - but under the circumstances it's just a temporary inconvenience to find another way across and there are reasonable alternatives. Anyone in that immediate vicinity has far more options to easily get to the west side of the park even now than most of the rest of the city.
"And the fact remains that even when construction on the bridge is done, joggers have always been cut off by the zoo gates at times in the mornings and evenings. It's silly that there are only two points to access the popular trail."
I agree with the gate thing and always hated that. But there are many more than two points of access to the trail, I am not sure what you mean by this. Maybe there are only two points of access on that half-mile stretch?
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:14 pm • link • report
Via Harvard St.: 0.4 mi
Down the park to Calvert St., up Calvert, along Columbia: 2.1 mi
Up to Klingle Rd., over on Adams Mill Rd., back to Harvard St.: 2.5 mi
So if you happen to live in the neighborhood, yes, this is kind of a big deal.
by David R. on Apr 19, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
No, not if you're on foot, or on bicycle. Park Road is notoriously hostile to anyone on foot or on bike. Klingle is a speeding racetrack. The Adams Mill Road gate is not only prohibited to pedestrians and bicyclists, but is now posted with a guard to make sure that nobody tries to get through that way. Calvert Street? A long hike, and then Connecticut Avenue is suitable only for the bravest of bicyclists.
The Adams Mill Road gate could be a perfectly safe way to reach the Zoo, and the bike path, but the Zoo won't consider that. Why not? They prefer to make people dash across Beach Drive traffic?
by Jack on Apr 19, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report
If we're talking about green-line traffic from CoHi who's just trying to get to the park, you can be on the trail in 1 mile vs. 0.7 miles. Or you could go to Petworth instead and walk to Piney Branch Parkway which is 0.9 miles.
A crossing is closed. Of course it will make the trip to anywhere longer for people for whom that used to be the best entrance. But it's not like it's impossible, or even likely horribly inconvenient, for the vast majority of people, to go another way.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report
Obviously the less dense areas of 16th street heights have connectivity issues as well but up there it's mostly single family homes. You don't have people darting across beach drive further North in the park because the demand isn't there. The density in Woodley, Cleveland Park, Lanier Heights, Mount Pleasant I think results in a need for more access. If the Harvard Bridge were always open it wouldn't be a problem. When it's closed the trail access at Klingle and trail access at Calvert are over a mile apart. That's why you have people running across Beach Drive in between like lemmings when the zoo locks down. And usually it locks down too early for joggers and cyclists. Not to mention that it closes without warning during its special events. In my opinion if demand has been demonstrated to this degree then steps should be taken to accommodate it. Before another jogger gets swiped.
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report
If you're on foot, you can use the trails, there are many alternatives to actually walking on Park Road.
"Klingle is a speeding racetrack"
There's a sidewalk. It's huge. It's also rarely traveled by pedestrians and very suitable for cycling if you don't want to ride in the road. You don't even have to cross Porter St. to get into the park, there's an underpass at the bottom of the hill.
"A long hike, and then Connecticut Avenue is suitable only for the bravest of bicyclists."
You are aware of the paved path that parallels beach drive? Isn't that what we're talking about here? Are less-brave cyclists also unable to share the path with joggers?
Look - I'm really not arguing that what has been done is ideal. But since there are alternatives that for most people situations would add at most ten minutes to the trip, there's no excuse to be crawling down that hill near the Mt. Pleasant exit and dashing across the road.
I would strongly support them doing something to eliminate the problem. In the meantime you're an idiot for crossing where it's clearly not safe to do so to save ten minutes on your trip to the zoo.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report
What would be the point of enforcing the 25 mph speed limit? Driving 40 mph is perfectly safe...so long as no pedestrians are present. And, anyway, pedestrians have no business crossing that road--have you seen how fast folks drive their cars through there?
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 2:54 pm • link • report
The reason people are crossing the road there is because there are not viable alternatives. If you are going to the zoo on foot and reach the Harvard St. bridge, only to find it closed, at that point your viable route around is not a 10-minute detour. It is a couple mile walk.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report
Much how I feel about walking in Rock Creek park on Beach Drive on the weekends. Too unsafe with all the bike packs going 25 MPH.
Seriously, is it possible to have any discussion about a problem involving roads where it's not just the car's fault? Will anything make you happy other than abolition of all cars?
I have personally done the Mt. Pleasant on-ramp scramble once or twice from the zoo in the past when I lived there and it's scary. I learned that taking five minutes to walk over the bridge was well worth it. Beach Drive has a lot of traffic. 25 MPH around a blind corner is plenty fast to make it unsafe.
If you want to lobby for improving this park/zoo access I am totally behind it, including new traffic controls and any kind of reconfiguration. But right now, it's not safe for pedestrians and the speed of cars is only a small part of that problem.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report
Rail at people for crossing Beach Dr., if you want, but after you're done with the ranting, there will still be people crossing the street - foolish, impatient, or just unwilling to run an extra couple of miles.
I'm still astonished that the Zoo devoted considerable resources to trying to get people to stop when they could have instead have built a temporary pedestrian crossing. Instead of a fence and signs warning away pedestrians, put up stop signs and ped-xing signs.
I can only conclude that it didn't happen because the Zoo doesn't realize that it has neighbors or because NPS isn't interested in meeting the needs of people on foot.
by David R. on Apr 19, 2010 2:58 pm • link • report
by Dave Stroup on Apr 19, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report
How about ANONZ, Annoyed Neighbors of the National Zoo? I'd join that group.
by Ward 1 Guy on Apr 19, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report
Yes, and that's too bad, but if I am driving and faced with a ten minute detour, would you say I should just drive through the construction site or go the wrong way on a road if it looked clear? It's a detour. It's temporary.
For the hypothetical person you speak of, they will not make that mistake again, would they?
I know why people are crossing the road, that doesn't make it safe.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report
But just because there's a 25 mph speed limit there doesn't mean it's safe for pedestrians to be crossing and scurrying up and down the hill. It's not set up for pedestrians right now, period.
Pardon my french, but this is a load of bull-hockey. Here's the section of road we're talking about.
http://bit.ly/9ognmb
The idea that this is some sort of hyper-confusing mixing-bowl of high-speed traffic that just could not be crossed safely is ridiculous. The *only* thing that makes crossing this narrow two-lane stretch of road with fine sightlines is ridiculously excessive automobile speeds.
In a sane world, where there were legal repercussions for driving recklessly, and where drivers were operating their vehicles legally (at or below 25 mph), we could put up a couple of signs that say "Cars Must Yield to Pedestrians", paint a crosswalk, and cars would be required to stop if they saw a pedestrian crossing.
Of course, that would require an officer or two for a few days (to stop drivers, and issue heavy fines), and that would be a declaration of "War on Drivers!!". Can't have that, can we?
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report
"I have personally done the Mt. Pleasant on-ramp scramble once or twice from the zoo in the past when I lived there and it's scary. I learned that taking five minutes to walk over the bridge was well worth it."
Upon seeing that entrance was closed what bridge were you walking over that only made for a 5 minute detour? The detour over Calvert bridge is going to cost you a lot more than 5 minutes.
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 3:05 pm • link • report
You seem to have completely lost sight of what people are actually arguing/advocating for here, in your quest to be "right" about whatever it is you're saying.
1. Nobody is saying that people playing frogger across Beach Drive is a good thing or that people should do that.
2. What people ARE saying is that the Zoo has completely mishandled the problem of people walking across Beach Drive by a)putting up fences everywhere and b)actually having park police turn people away.
3. People ARE saying that the Zoo/NPS should have created some sort of viable alternative for people to access the zoo on foot from the east. Instead of trying to create a viable alternative, they put up more barriers.
4. In your response to me, you said "if faced with a ten-minute detour..." and again I will say it is not a 10-minute detour.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report
All right, fine, you win. Everyone should just ignore the rules and scramble down a steep hill, possibly tripping and falling into the road, and the cops should be criticized for trying to stop people from hurting themselves. Power to the people!
How many times in this thread have I said I am totally behind an improvement?? The only thing I'm against is, under the prevailing circumstances which is a very unsafe crossing, letting people do something really stupid.
"Upon seeing that entrance was closed what bridge were you walking over that only made for a 5 minute detour"
This was before the bridge was closed, to walk into the zoo and over the bridge instead of cutting directly across the road from the trail. People have always done it, from the trail to get to Mt. P. I admit I did it once or twice, and it was stupid.
Yes, it's a long detour. But at the same time you'll only have to do that once without knowing ahead of time, and the fact that a lot more people are apparently doing this now makes it that much more of a problem.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report
I think the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the "frogger across Beach Drive" issue.
It's nice to live in the only first world country where we can generally agree that, while it's sad, it's an unavoidable fact that pedestrians won't be able to cross a 25mph two-lane road through a fucking national park without being run over by cars averaging 40mph.
What a nation of children we are.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report
Really, where are those lawmen when people are driving at highspeeds on Beach Dr.? Just paint a crossing accompanied by some signs and tell the lawmen to focus on drivers instead of walkers.
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 3:24 pm • link • report
Every street in DC is 25 MPH. I can rarely cross 13th Street in the evenings at a traffic light without waiting for the light to change because traffic is heavy. I have to wait sometimes as much as 2 minutes EVERY FUCKING DAY, twice, because of those goddamn Maryland commuters. That costs me more time than a weekend zoogoer would face on his one detour, EVERY WEEK.
I can't believe in this day and age I have to wait for the light to change to cross the fucking street. Speeding is absolutely not an issue, either, there's so much traffic it's rarely above 20.
What's your point? Are you angry at speeders? Are you angry at the fact that a gorgeous parkway is popular? Is your solution to just say that we should accept anarchy, rather than encourage order?
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report
by SJE on Apr 19, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report
"Accept anarchy"? It seems to me we *have* accepted anarchy. There are laws regarding driving on the public roads. The speed limit is 25 mph. There's a law that says cars must yield to pedestrians. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. The current situation where no traffic laws whatsoever are enforced in the NPS-controlled "parkways" is anarchy.
So I assume you're fine with Bianchi's solution: paint a crosswalk, put up a couple of signs, and for God's sake, make the drivers stop on the rare occasion someone wants to cross the street?
You say you have to wait 2 minutes to cross the street because of Maryland commuters. Am I outraged about that? Hell yes. I've complained about crosswalk signals that are timed to maximize the convenience of MD commuters rather than pedestrians. It's outrageous.
Just to summarize. Things I am outraged by:
1) Drivers who 20-30% over the speed limit on two-lane roads through National Parks (whether 45 mph on Beach Drive, or 70 mph on GW Parkway).
2) Signalized crosswalks where pedestrians are given 8 seconds to cross 6 travel lanes and a 10 yard median after waiting 120 seconds for the walk signal.
But at least DDOT looks like they're getting better. NPS couldn't give a damn.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 3:42 pm • link • report
That said, for now, I am going to wait for the light to change, because I like being alive.
"45 mph on beach drive"
BS. That's as fast as you can possibly go even on the straight stretches, and few people do. I drive it all the time, and prevailing traffic speed is rarely over 30 on the part south of the park station. North, it can be a little faster, like 35 on some stretches north of the park station. But I don't any faster than that, and I've rarely had any cars building up behind me.
In rush hour and on weekends, there are so many bikers anyway, it's usually closer to 20.
The problem is traffic volume.
Even if the speed limit (and traffic speed) was 15 MPH, you can't dash across a road with that much traffic. Just like 13th Street.
"So I assume you're fine with Bianchi's solution: paint a crosswalk, put up a couple of signs..."
I think I've said so about a half-dozen times in this thread, I actually proposed exactly that in one of my first comments.
I agree with your assessment of NPS, too. Part of the problem is that traffic (at least from my observations in the last 20 years) in Rock Creek Park has increased a lot, while the road configuration has not changed at all. The relative lack of controls might have been fine when it wasn't so heavily used but it's definitely not now.
It should be more pedestrian friendly. Even at stop signs, such as Piney Branch and Beach Drive where I run frequently, there are no crosswalks. Then the sidewalks disappear and reappear for no apparent reason. It's totally unclear where you "should" be going as a pedestrian for a half-mile north and south of Pierce Mill. It's pretty ridiculous actually, and I definitely blame NPS for this.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report
NPS, be a better neighbor! Respect and encourage non-motorized access to RCP and the zoo!
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
As far as a crosswalk is concerned. There is one on the shoreham st offshoot of the parkway, down the road from the intersection in question. seen here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=20009&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,49.921875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia,+20009&ll=38.921602,-77.051081&spn=0.000515,0.000762&t=h&z=20
Anyone who uses the recreation trails regularly knows that that crosswalk means nothing to motorists. 9 out of ten just cruise on by you. I'm always sure to give a thank you wave to the ones that actually do stop.
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report
by Oh, no, Klingle Road again! on Apr 19, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report
Are you talking Beach Drive or Rock Creek Parkway? I assume beach drive... I hardly ever see any cyclists on RCP proper. Anyway neither of us can really prove it one way or the other, I just don't see it -- especially south of the park station, it's ridiculously windy. Really - I'm not just being contrary. But I'll make a point to drive home through the park today (my commute is reverse, so i won't be in traffic) and see what I see. I don't go that way too much since I no longer live in Mt. P but that was not my recollection.
"It would be nice if the NPS spent a little money on a multipurpous rec path..."
It would be nice even if you could legally bike on the horse trails, which probably about mimic the places that (and are really the only practical places for a wideish trail given the geography) you'd like a multipurpose trail.
But that really wouldn't work for the horses. Or for road bikes without paving them. No easy answer here. The stable and horses certainly represent a small fraction of park users, but the stable is also a unique facility and asset to the park that is part of what makes it interesting. Even though I don't ride horses I would not support a change that eliminated the stable or removing the places that horses can ride without bike traffic.
Even as a runner I learned to stop running whenever I saw or heard a horse because they can spook easily. So no easy answer there.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report
by Oh, no, Klingle Road again! on Apr 19, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report
Did you read this article and/or thread? Granted it's about a lot of things. But the stretch of Klingle Road you are talking about is not one of them. But since you brought it up: As a jogger I would just be happy if they removed the fences on either end. Fine if you don't want to restore the road or produce the funds for a new park/bike trail there. I'd be happy to run on it as it is. (And of course I already do but it would still be nice if they took the fences away so I dont need to be climbing/squeezing my way onto it)
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 4:44 pm • link • report
Anyone who uses the recreation trails regularly knows that that crosswalk means nothing to motorists. 9 out of ten just cruise on by you. I'm always sure to give a thank you wave to the ones that actually do stop.
If I'm on a bike, I usually just put the bike up on its rear wheel and start wheeling it across the intersection. It's amazing how quickly drivers respect the crosswalk when they've got some skin in the game.
@Jamie:
I'll make a point to drive home through the park today (my commute is reverse, so i won't be in traffic) and see what I see.
Here's a challenge: Drive from East-West Highway to Calvert Street with your cruise control set to, say, 30 mph. Make a note of how many cars you "collect", flashing their high beams. Bonus points for those that *pass* you over the double-yellow line.
:)
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 4:49 pm • link • report
My captcha: "objector tax" ... ha ha
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 4:51 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report
NYC pays for its zoos and Central Park.
Chicago pays for Grant Park.
Philadelphia for Fairmount Park, LA for Griffith Park, San Diego for Balboa Park (and the San Diego zoo costs over $30 per person to enter!) and on and on and on.
But in DC, we get a free major urban park and a free zoo. Its one of the benefits (dare I say it) of the unique status of DC as a district rather than a state.
Imagine for a second if the city had to pay for and run Rock Creek Park? Done laughing yet? Imagine if the city had to try and administer the zoo...bye bye pandas, hello high admission fees.
The American people, including those peopel who don't live in DC own Rock Creek Park and the National Zoo. A resident of Omaha or Anchorage or Alexandria (VA or LA) has just as much claim to the park and zoo as a lifelong resident of DC.
by urbaner on Apr 19, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report
What was your point again? Seriously, I'm not sure what it is - because the park is Federal land we shouldn't discuss how its used by the majority of its users, or have a say about its use?
Don't worry - we really don't, since we aren't represented in congress. Practically speaking people in Alaska do have more say over it than we do. But we still like to yap about it. We'll be drilling for oil in wildlife refuges in Alaska too, but those guys get a cut so they probably favor it.
by Jamie on Apr 19, 2010 5:33 pm • link • report
Louisianans can't very easily advocate for better access to their national zoo because they don't know the local travel topography. We do know it and we can do the advocating for them while we do it for ourselves. I think this is self-apparent. Any improvement to getting around DC, including walking/biking to the zoo, benefits visitors and residents alike.
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 5:46 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 5:47 pm • link • report
by John C on Apr 19, 2010 6:48 pm • link • report
While I must admit this is some first class Teabagging, I'm not sure exactly why you'd think anyone here would disagree...
by oboe on Apr 19, 2010 6:48 pm • link • report
The safety and comfort of the Zoo's legitimate, taxpaying visitors should not be left completely out of consideration.
by Turnip on Apr 19, 2010 6:59 pm • link • report
by Jazzy on Apr 19, 2010 7:41 pm • link • report
Look at any old and current data on the people whom reside on both sides of the park you will see social class, racial, employment differences.
Look at how many bridges/roads cross Rock Creek Park from Maryland to the Potomac it was design like that for a reason to keep people off the other side when it was built that was a effected way of social stratification now not so good. Its the same of being on "the other side of the tracks"
by kk on Apr 19, 2010 8:47 pm • link • report
The social construct you're describing is, I think, a result of the "favored quarter" history as described on this blog by Cavan, not as a direct result of geological formations.
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 9:17 pm • link • report
by Rich on Apr 19, 2010 9:39 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Apr 19, 2010 10:45 pm • link • report
Amazing! Who says venting on the internet never gets results? :) That is great news. A victory for all. Maybe not perfect but about 10 times better than no crosswalk.
by Jamie on Apr 20, 2010 8:04 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Apr 20, 2010 8:06 am • link • report
Quote of the day.
by Jamie on Apr 20, 2010 8:07 am • link • report
http://www.mtpleasantdc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6761&start=15
It is clearly temporary. We'll have to wait and see if it becomes a permanent feature. Apparantly the zoo is going to make an effort to speed up bridge renovations and have it open to pedestrians this saturday.
by John C on Apr 20, 2010 9:03 am • link • report
by MLD on Apr 20, 2010 9:38 am • link • report
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=20009&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,49.921875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia,+20009&ll=38.924701,-77.044831&spn=0.001031,0.001523&t=h&z=19
by John C on Apr 20, 2010 9:52 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 20, 2010 11:14 am • link • report
good stuff.
by AJ on Apr 20, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report
Add a Comment