Greater Greater Washington

Lincoln Park CaBi station canceled after complaints

Neighborhood opposition has scotched a proposed Capital Bikeshare site near Lincoln Park, disappointing residents eagerly awaiting a station.

I was excited about Capital Bikeshare's ("CaBi") much-heralded September 20, 2010 launch in the District. As a Capitol Hill resident who walks 15 minutes to a Metro stop, I was eager for the arrival of a proposed CaBi station on a pedestrian island near Lincoln Park. Nine days later, the station is gone from the plans, my neighborhood is stationless, and our prospects for a CaBi station in the near future are unclear.

The promised station would have occupied a bricked-over pedestrian island on the southeast corner of Lincoln Park, where East Capitol and Mass Ave split.

The island, one of the many triangular plots that dot the District as a byproduct of L'Enfant's use of a grid street pattern with radial avenues, serves ably as a pedestrian island. Otherwise, this oversized triangle of land is not used. But after requesting and receiving public input on the proposed site, DDOT opted not to use the island, citing "citizen concerns."

As of now, there is no alternative on the table, but there are reports that DDOT is considering a different pedestrian triangle at the NE corner of the park or a site within Lincoln Park. Locating the station in the park would require approval of the National Park Service, and NPS's existing concession contracts may prevent them from approving anything.

I was disheartened by both the decision and the lack of transparency about its rationale. Apparently, I was not alone. This week, a Capitol Hill resident started an online petition urging DDOT to restore the bike station to the SE pedestrian triangle. As of this posting, the petition has over three dozen signatures.

Given the apparent neighborhood demand for a CaBi station, I am confident that a station will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, I worry about what this incident portends for future efforts to place CaBi stations in strictly residential neighborhoods. The experience provides a useful case study that DDOT should learn from as they expand into additional residential areas.

I have heard opponents of the use of the pedestrian island advance versions of four arguments against the use of the site:

Biker Safety: Bikers, the argument goes, would have to cross a busy street to access bikes on the island and thereafter merge directly onto a busy street. But neither of the two proposed alternatives offers any more safety to bikers. Under any of the scenarios, pedestrians would have to cross one street to access the bikes, and in each case there are existing crosswalks.

Furthermore, from any of the locations, bikers would merge with either East Capitol or comparably busy streets (11th, 13th , or Mass Ave). Arguably, the stop lights at the pedestrian triangles offer more safety to bike users relative to a location within Lincoln Park insofar as the average moving speed of vehicles at an intersection with a stop light would be lower than at other points around the park.

Crime: It's unclear to me how this argument works. The claim is not that the bikes would be stolen or vandalized; that argument should apply to any of the proposed sites. Rather, the claim seems to be that the bikes might be more broadly criminogenicthat they may attract other mischief, nuisance, or criminal behavior.

This logic seems attenuated at best. Accepting for a moment that the bikes somehow generate more crime per se, it's not clear why either of the proposed alternatives would be more acceptable. They would merely redistribute the supposed crime geographically.

More fundamental, though, is whether the premise of the objection is sound. What kind of crime would the bikes generate? And who would be victimized? Is it the bike users, who could choose to weigh the risks against their benefits, or is it the neighborhood residents more broadly who would be at risk?

If there is a real concern about crime, someone should articulate the specific concern and why the associated risks are acceptable in the alternate sites, but not at the originally proposed site.

Noise: While potentially related to certain criminal or nuisance activities, concerns about noise levels are conceptually separable. Might not the bikes, the docks, and the associated increase in people create noise that would impact nearby residents? How much additional pedestrian and bike traffic would an 11-bike dock create and at what times of day?

These are reasonable questions and presumably there are empirical answers. I don't have any data. But I do have an intuition. By my crude estimate, the facades of the houses closest to the SE pedestrian triangle are at least 75 feet away from the proposed site. My strong suspicion is that the 11 bikes would generate substantially less noise than most individual vehicles that drive along East Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, which pass much closer to those houses than 75 feet. As CaBi expands into additional residential neighborhoods, it would be wise to anticipate this objection and be prepared with data on noise levels.

Aesthetics: This is probably the most nettlesome and least discussed issue. People care about how their neighborhoods look. They also share public space, but not necessarily the same preferences. At the extreme, this confluence of shared space and divergent tastes can result in situations like last year's rabid, frothy-mouthed debate in Adams Morgan over a proposed piece of public art.

I've heard various objections that the CaBi stations are "unsightly" and "intrusive." I happen to disagree. It gives me a certain sense of civic pride to see a bike share in the neighborhood. I will not try to convince anyone of the beauty of CaBi stations. I will, however, argue that that whatever one's position about the aesthetic of the stations, it should be weighed against other public values, like the environment, and public transportation needs.

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Mark Jordan is a Capitol Hill resident and public sector management consultant. From 2000 to 2004, Mark worked on public safety issues for DC Mayor Anthony Williams. 

Comments

Add a comment »

The same thing seems to be happening to the Georgetown Car Barn location. An ANC Commissioner said that some residents objected to the noise which prompted the ANC to vote the location down. This despite the fact that no residents showed up to oppose it and I showed up to support it.

by Ken Archer on Sep 30, 2010 11:30 am • linkreport

I blame the secret Coalition of 100 NIMBYs.

by Thaps on Sep 30, 2010 11:35 am • linkreport

This is classic NIMBY. It's the same as georgetown and the Metro. You guys always want maximum community input for everything. Well, you can't have it both ways GGW.

by Poopsie on Sep 30, 2010 11:36 am • linkreport

What is this noise argument? Cabi stations barely make a peep. High heels, trees swaying in the wind, and car motors are much louder.

by Eric Fidler on Sep 30, 2010 11:38 am • linkreport

I've heard parents concerned about taking away a pedestrian island that they need to cross safely with strollers and/or toddlers. I don't know if the bike station would have taken up the whole island, but if was going to, I can understand their concern.

This is a block from my house, and I think the other arguments against are pretty baseless except for the aesthetic one, but that in and of itself didn't seem like enough of a con to scuttle the whole plan.

I wonder if they could put one at Lola Beaver park at 9th and Mass NE? That's really nearby and District (not NPS) land...

by Nichole on Sep 30, 2010 11:39 am • linkreport

As a resident of Lincoln Park, I have been particularly irked by the display of NIMBYism going on in opposition to this bike station. I joined CaBi, primarily because this specific location was featured on the station map. I figured I could ride to Eastern Market to get on the Metro, ride to H Street, etc. very easily with this station literally a block from my house.

The reasons I have seen espoused on neighborhood list serves for opposing this station are, to put it succinctly, absurd. There were complaints that "double wide strollers" would not be able to squeeze by the obnoxiously large bike stand. Others thought that wheelchair users would be impeded. I literally have never seen anyone use either of these pedestrian islands--they're inconvenient, uninviting and basically useless expanses of brick pavement. It's a lot easier to cross East Capitol St at several other points which do not require crossing to an island. In that regard, CaBi will being giving useless spaces purpose.

Even more absurd, there were complaints that the bikes would be taken by young miscreants and dumped into the Anacostia. Others said that with a station at RFK, why would Lincoln Park need one. I could go on and on.

Sadly the ship has sailed, and it has sailed away from Lincoln Park. I'm just wishing I could get my $50 and my enthusiasm for CaBi back.

by petrograd on Sep 30, 2010 11:39 am • linkreport

I'm a daily bike commuter and ride by that intersection every work day, rain or shine. Because the site in question lies in the middle of three heavily-trafficed roads/commuter routes, I think that the biker safety argument presented in this post holds the most water. If DDOT found the "citizen concerns" compelling based upon the safety issue, they wouldn't be too far off base.

Anyone riding eastbound around the south end of the park, has a pretty good amount of space in the third lane beside the parked cars and along the MetroBus stop before 12th St. The two speed bumps along that stretch help to slow traffic, even during the afternoon commute. Unfortunately, traffic veering right onto Kentucky Avenue or in particular Mass Ave have a tendency to forget to use their turn signals making it difficult for a law-abiding cyclist to anticipate the right hook.

However, DDOT is incorrect to assume that cyclists are any less safe than anyone else crossing that intersection. I regularly see Dog walkers, baby strollers, and kids on bikes/scooters use that intersection to cross the triangle and Mass Ave. Given the restrictions on locating the site in Lincoln park, this location offers the best compromise.

by locus on Sep 30, 2010 11:47 am • linkreport

First off, and most importantly, kudos to Nichole for working Lola Beaver into a sentence. Well done.

As to the point of this article, if neighborhood opposition is going to scuttle something like this, they should work through the ANC or some other recognizable, transparent process. I walk through this island every day, rely on it for my kids safety when we walk across the street, and have absolutely no problem sharing it with a bike station.

It's a shame that Capitol Hill will be associated with NIMBYs because of a handful of anonymous complainers who won't publicly acknowledge their position.

by TimK on Sep 30, 2010 12:03 pm • linkreport

I'll give the aesthetic argument some weight, I'm not sure about the other stations, but the one at Florida and R street appears to have just been dumped on the grass next to the park. It would have been nice to see some attempt made to better tie it in w/ either the park, or at least provide a base for it to sit on. As it's situated, it's going to be a pain to mow around and you'll likely end up w/ a patch of dead dirt connecting the sidewalk to the station if it is heavily trafficked.

For safety, I wouldn't care too much about street crossing, however the locking/unlocking, adjusting bags and such on a small island doesn't seem like a good idea. Too bad nps would likely kill the park placement since that' better all around.

by m on Sep 30, 2010 12:13 pm • linkreport

Wow, this is really disappointing. Not just because of the impact it's going to have on the Hill residents who want to use CaBi, but because it will also make the whole system just that much less useful for everyone else.

by Rob on Sep 30, 2010 12:13 pm • linkreport

The original map of proposed CaBi stations included one in Bloomingdale at the corner of First St & Florida Ave NW, near Big Bear Cafe. I walk by there frequently and haven't seen any signs of one being built. Could something similar be happening here?

I know the pocket park across R Street from Big Bear is National Park Service property, so my guess is that the station would be on the north side of R adjacent to Big Bear.

by Malcolm Kenton on Sep 30, 2010 12:15 pm • linkreport

Ridiculous that a few NIMBYs could nix such an important community benefit, not just for residents but for all those hoping for an important connection in the system. Probably the same people pushing their double-wide strollers down the bike lanes on Capitol Street. Hopefully it gets resolved soon.

by Dave on Sep 30, 2010 12:18 pm • linkreport

Tommy Wells recently tweeted that he was working to find a solution for a Bikeshare location for the Lincoln Park neighborhood.

My annoyance at the loss of the Lincoln Park CaBi station is slightly tempered by the fact that there is now a planned station at 13th and D NE, which is actually closer to my house than Lincoln Park.

Either way, I'm glad I held off on purchasing a membership until seeing whether or not we actually get a station in our neighborhood (and see how long it takes to change the Chinatown SmartBike station to Capital Bikeshare).

Maybe I missed the statement, but I'm a little annoyed at Bikeshare for posting a map with all the planned stations and accepting memberships early, when many of us were joining specifically because of certain stations. Now we don't know when these stations are going to be open, and we're stuck with a (relatively) useless Bikeshare membership. I'm just lucky I was too lazy to join early, so I dodged that $50 bullet.

by jaybeas on Sep 30, 2010 12:25 pm • linkreport

@Malcom it's off the south side of Florida, closer to R st near the basketball courts. Notice the solar panel pointing up into the trees.

by m on Sep 30, 2010 12:31 pm • linkreport

Malcolm - there is a station near Big Bear. It's across Florida, though, alongside the park (at the basketball court).

by The AMT on Sep 30, 2010 12:34 pm • linkreport

It does seem like not a very safe location. Isn't there a grocery store or something like that in the neighborhood where this could be located on the sidewalk in front of instead? That's what they did here in Dupont and it seems like a great solution. The store probably appreciates it too ... since it's bound to bring more customers to it.

by Lance on Sep 30, 2010 12:47 pm • linkreport

Where is this community concern being articulated? I live in the neighborhood and would gladly attend the meeting where this was being hashed out.

@Nicole: if you've heard about this, how come THIH doesn't have anything posted yet? The comments section might bring out the for and against crowd.

I'd be glad if they picked Young's Market at 11th & C NE or even the Specialty Hospital at 8th & C NE (also D6 and 90/92 bus junction).

by HM on Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm • linkreport

I, too, was waiting for this station to open to get a membership. I don't want to repeat others have said, but I just want to add that these little "pedestrian islands" are an ugly waste of space as it is. Perhaps with the station installed and people regularly occupying this spot, cars will realize that East Capitol St., which is 4 lanes wide-one way- at this spot, is not a highway but a neighborhood street.

by Tim on Sep 30, 2010 1:00 pm • linkreport

@HM, we're on it. This only just came about on the listservs etc in the last 24 hrs. Stay tuned - should be later today or tomorrow at the latest.

by Nichole on Sep 30, 2010 1:04 pm • linkreport

If this the result of increased level of public input is what we're going to get from Gray's leadership style, I'm going to miss Fenty even more. Sometimes someone just needs to push through the naysayers to get common-sense changes made. The noise complaints are most ridiculous of all, and bike safety should be a non-issue because that's up to the biker, who can easily decide to walk the bike if conditions are unsafe.

I will say, though, that island does look like a tight fit for a CaBi station. What about the other pedestrian island to the north? It looks much larger.

by Anonymous on Sep 30, 2010 1:06 pm • linkreport

Between this and that Jason Chaffetz article, I've had a week's worth of aggravation this morning. DDOT is being WAAAY to deferential to neighbors with CaBi locations. It's a sad, sad testament to our times that people find a bike station uglier than a row of parked cars. The thing is, they'll get over it. DDOT just needs to ignore this nimbyism for the simple fact that for this system as a whole to work, the locations need to be spread evenly throughout the city with a density high enough to encourage the most trips. Making the system hostage to every skeptical homeowner with a gripe will cripple the system. That's not to say I think moving a station a 100 feet or so is not to be considered, but if the alternative is significantly less convenient or will cause endless delays (as trying to work with NPS would) we should go with the original location.

by Reid on Sep 30, 2010 1:07 pm • linkreport

@Lance

It does seem like not a very safe location.

What basis do you have to make this statement?

Those pedestrian islands are quite large. The long sides of the SE island is in excess of 90 feet - that's more than enough for a CaBi station. Hell, you could probably put two of them there.

by Alex B. on Sep 30, 2010 1:11 pm • linkreport

@Anonymous

The island to the north is on a much busier side of Lincoln Park. In the mornings, it's full of crazed Marylanders (ok, and not a few DC residents) driving to work. The south side is much calmer, as most rush hour traffic takes Independence a block further south.

by TimK on Sep 30, 2010 1:11 pm • linkreport

This sounds like a lack of public input, not more public input. There wasn't a community meeting to talk about it. DDOT didn't announce they were considering cutting the station and asking residents to weigh in. It just seems that a few people complained and DDOT cut it quietly.

This happens a lot with the Fenty administration. Something's in the plan, and then suddenly it's not. That's not public input, that's input from a couple members of the public.

My hope with Gray is that this kind of thing won't happen. Instead, maybe DDOT would be pushed to set up a more organized way to make these decisions, whether through a community meeting, an online survey, or something else. If most Hill residents end up saying no, maybe then they should move it, but I suspect they'd get a lot of people saying yes.

by David Alpert on Sep 30, 2010 1:11 pm • linkreport

Given this poor procedure (identify CaBi locations, collect membership fees based on those CaBi locations, then remove CaBi locations, all without any transparency or public input), how does Gabe Klein get so much credit as the indispensible man at DDOT?

I am all for this site, if people want it, but I do note that there is an operating CaBi site at the Safeway about 4-5 blocks south of this location. Is the eventual plan to have a CaBi site every 4-5 blocks throughout the city?

by Trulee Pist on Sep 30, 2010 1:37 pm • linkreport

On both the aesthetic and noise end... it *might* be feasible to fit in a row of hedges around the perimeter of the island, helping shield both the view & noise of the station in an aesthetic manner that still permits the function of the stations.

by Bossi on Sep 30, 2010 1:49 pm • linkreport

I really hope they go for that northeast corner. It looks like it could have room for future expansion too (barring neighbor complaints, of course). Bixi says a station takes up the size of a parking space, but if the plan calls for 11 bikes, I would triple that to get an estimate of about 75 feet, which I used for this diagram:

I just hope there aren't too many people afraid of change if a public hearing is involved. If people are complaining about noise from bicycles, anything's possible. It could be worth pointing out that the station can be removed as easily as it was installed if things don't end up working out for whatever reason. And if a station can be as small as 3 bikes, maybe they could still put a smaller one at the southern island! (On the northwest corner, away from where the pedestrians use the crosswalks.)

by Omar on Sep 30, 2010 1:56 pm • linkreport

And yes, Trulee, more stations closer together means more likelihood of people using it for quick trips, less inconvenience if a station is full or empty, and better coverage overall. If more people are using the system, there's also less likelihood a station will remain full or empty for long. That, and a five-block walk feels rather long after zipping along on one of those bikes.

by Omar on Sep 30, 2010 2:07 pm • linkreport

CaBi only needs 30 ft x 6 ft to put in a station. This assumes that the site is suitable (ped circulation, sight distances, accessibility, underground conflicts, etc). There are a hundred places where this could go but it's a matter of navigating the waters of bureaucracy and crazed NIMBYs.

Since I mention this every time I'm commenting on a CaBi discussion - how about the enormous and ugly expanse of concrete on the NW corner of 8th St & East Capitol? Two bus routes converge there and it's smack in the middle of countless potential riders.

by Dave on Sep 30, 2010 2:11 pm • linkreport

Omar makes a very good argument with his diagram, and I agree with Lance's comment that putting it near neighborhood commerce is an all around great idea. I think that should be the policy anywhere in the system where it is feasible.

But oh my goodness... Noise? Aesthetics? Crime? Are you kidding me? If those arguments couldn't kill the Southeast Freeway, I don't expect them to last long against a bike station in Capitol Hill. Don't worry if you invested in a membership and aren't getting a station, I'm sure it will come.

by Dave Murphy on Sep 30, 2010 2:39 pm • linkreport

In Montreal, the birthplace of Bixi, the planning standard for adding a new station is that it should be within 300 meters of another station to maintain proper coverage. The system really works best when there is blanket coverage rather than placement just at population destinations.

by CR on Sep 30, 2010 3:01 pm • linkreport

I live next to the NE triangle support the station there.
It would actually be a very safe place to enter the traffic since there are stop lights for the walk way into the park. I think crime and noise are red herrings. As to aesthetics well like Mark has said that needs to be weighed against other factors. The triangle as others have noted it is quite large. During the snow storms I shoveled walkways across the triangle and the station could be placed like Omar has shown and not impact pedestrian traffic.
What troubles me is that CABI/DOT doesnÂ’t seem to want to listen to their core customer base. Who is clamoring for a station central to Capitol Hill. But instead dropped the station after anonymous complaints.
Hopefully all of this publicity will get DOT and the station will be added back to the plan.
Keith M

by Keith M on Sep 30, 2010 3:14 pm • linkreport

Notwithstanding Omar's diagram, there is more than enough room for the station at this island, as well as even the largest of baby strollers, wheel chairs, or scooters. This is not like the small little triangles you see in places such as around Dupont, Scott, Thomas or Washington Circles.

If the neighbors think this is an unacceptable location, then what about taking out the right turn lane on 13th Street in front of the Park Cafe and putting it there? It will slow traffic by making an over-sized four-lane road narrower, and it is in front of commercial properties, further from houses.

Somehow I suspect that whoever the anonymous "neighbors" DDOT is listening to will come up with some equally unpersuasive reason why that wouldn't work, either.

by Stanton Park on Sep 30, 2010 3:43 pm • linkreport

Also, doesn't it seem like they've really slowed down in the rollout of new stations? Could it be that there are a lot more of these under the radar concessions being made?

by Reid on Sep 30, 2010 4:23 pm • linkreport

@Reid

I think the more likely explanation is that the delivery of stations from the manufacturer has slowed a bit.

At the kickoff event, they said they'd have everything installed by the end of October.

by Alex B. on Sep 30, 2010 4:29 pm • linkreport

I live in the neighborhood too, and that block has several speed bumps for a reason. I believe the potential safety issues with that particular island should not be discounted and the city is correct to act cautiously. I'm sure Wells will find another place in the neighborhood soon.

by Neve on Sep 30, 2010 5:43 pm • linkreport

I count 35-0 so far on this comment list for the station. Where are the people against? Why are they not weighing in? Do they actually exist?

by Steve O on Sep 30, 2010 5:59 pm • linkreport

After observing the bike racks at Ky. Ave. SE Safeway and in front of the Harris Teeter, isn't it possible to locate the racks in front of the Park Cafe on the east side of 13th St. SE between Mass. Ave. SE and East Capitol St? Or is the sidewalk too narrow at that location?

by Hill Member on Sep 30, 2010 7:01 pm • linkreport

@Steve O - They're all busy posting on the MOTH listserv.

by Thaps on Sep 30, 2010 7:04 pm • linkreport

I like moths... butterflies just get all the credit.

by Bossi on Sep 30, 2010 7:43 pm • linkreport

@Thaps

Are you just being snide or were there comments on MOTH? Because I just waded through the last five days or so and found nothing on the topic, for or against.

by TimK on Sep 30, 2010 7:59 pm • linkreport

Safety? Try traffic. Until we see evidence to the contrary, it seems fair to assume the "input" came from traffic engineers who see the threat to reduce yet another four-lane hotspot where automobile commuters accelerate to pass their rivals on the drive into town. If it was a resident making the complaint, surely we would have heard from someone by now?

Crime? If this system can get off the ground at the scale promised, it could be the tip of the spear in terms of reducing bike theft. These will be the most difficult to steal bikes on the Hill, in that they will always be locked. Hopefully they will be a model reminder to others to always lock their rides and dry up the supply for thieves.

The Northeast corner is ideal, I live near there as well. I am also intrigued by the idea of reducing the lanes on the east side from their current four in order to widen the sidewalks. It sounds calming.

by WRSMartin on Oct 1, 2010 12:46 pm • linkreport

Someone (also named Chris, but not I) posted a pretty detailed explanation of the "against" viewpoint on the NewHillEast listserv around 1 PM. He raises some pretty valid points, and it doesn't smell of the NIMBYism that people here have been accusing them of.

by Chris on Oct 1, 2010 1:52 pm • linkreport

The new stand on my block on the 14th ST NW corridor is stunningly beautiful (conceptually). I love living in such a progressive neighborhood of such a progressive city. :)

by David on Oct 1, 2010 2:33 pm • linkreport

I think these are a great idea, and hope they pop up like mushrooms all over the city. All I ask is that they are designed so homeless people can't sleep in, under or on them!

by JEC on Oct 1, 2010 6:27 pm • linkreport

Thanks to everyone who has signed the petition. Since this posting, ANC 6A has decided to take up this issue at their next Transportation & Public Space Committee meeting on October 18. 3rd Monday, October 18, 7 p.m.; Community Room of the Capitol Hill Towers, 900 G St. NE; a photo Id is required for entrance to the building. A possible location at the pedestrian island at the Northeast corner of the park is now under consideration.

If you would like periodic updates on this issue, please drop me an e-mail at ryanmatthewvelasco [at] gmail.com and I will add you to the distribution list.

Thanks.

by Ryan Velasco on Oct 3, 2010 9:08 am • linkreport

Someone (also named Chris, but not I) posted a pretty detailed explanation of the "against" viewpoint on the NewHillEast listserv around 1 PM. He raises some pretty valid points, and it doesn't smell of the NIMBYism that people here have been accusing them of.

I thought one of the interesting things about that explaination was just how internally contradictory it was. He was upset about the speeding traffic, and said his main concern was safety, but then brought up the fact that there would be more pedestrian traffic, and that on rare occasions, a CaBi maintenance van might double-park, leading to suboptimal traffic flow.

Sorry, but the reason there's so much dangerous speeding traffic around Lincoln Park is that there just isn't that much pedestrian traffic. The reason there's not more pedestrian traffic is that the immediate neighbors have been on a long-term crusade against any kind of commercial use for the buildings that surround the park. If we had more pedestrians, bikes, and non-commuter cars, it wouldn't be such a raceway every morning and evening. Instead, thanks to the folks who live right on the park, we've got a nice quiet highway for MD commuters to scream through.

by oboe on Oct 6, 2010 11:43 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or