Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[Harry]

Saw this posted on the Greater Greater Washington blog and think it would make sense to do on Mount Pleasant Street:

http://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/guerilla-urbanism-north-oak-cliff-residents-create-their-own-complete-street/

I see more bikes on Mount Pleasant Street than almost any other and yet we have no bike lanes.

We have so many places to eat but hardly any outdoor seating to speak of.

just a thought.

[jack]

[Noah G]

This is exciting stuff. Is there anyway that the average Mt. P. resident can support this initiative?

Thanks.

[jack]

[jack]

[Harry]

Sounds good to me Jack. I think the more outdoor seating options there are the more likely we will be able to nurture the idea of Mount Pleasant as a restaurant row and eventually attract new restaurants to the neighborhood.

[Subcity]

A good Streets-For-All approach would be a nice bright 2-way bike lane up the center of MtP Street. Safer than bike lanes next to parked cars, and keeps and enhances the current neighborhood-ness of the street. Cars on MtP Street are a very basic part of the neighborhood. IME, compliance with the crosswalk at Kilbourne is the best in the city (don't mean to damn with faint praise). Reminds me of California, where compliance is normal. In other words, cars respect pedestrians on MtP Street.

I say all this as someone who shops on MtP Street by walking there.

[jl]

These are great ideas (loved the link to Oak Cliff), but how exactly does Joe Sixpack work to get it done? ANC has wrote a letter, now what can we do?

[jack]

[MPHS]

That's a cool video, though I think the guerilla urban planning would never fly in this neighborhood, where every little proposal or concept has to be run by a dozen community groups. Just doing it is heresy around here.

Further, Mount Pleasant Street has little in common with that street. It's already only 2 lanes of traffic, and traffic is slow moving most of the time. There is no bike lane on the block in front of Heller's, of course, but it would be nice if there were. So it seems that they were solving a different problem.

Sure it would be nice to have more outdoor seating. What's the obstacle? The sidewalks are not narrow. Why do you have to eliminate parking to do that? It's nice to have parking when you're unloading laundry or buying a gallon of milk or a heavy load of groceries, and it's not like the neighbors on surrounding blocks welcome people parking in front of houses.

If you're cutting traffic access on MtP St, where's it supposed to go? Would Lamont and 17th become two way? It's hard to enjoy outdoor seating when the traffic pattern just creates idling cars, so that's key as well.

[Subcity]

[jl]

Valid complaints certainly. I can think of no worse a group of peolpe to run a city than the asshats mbarry stuck with us until they start to die off.

However, here we are. What does one do from here? It might be us over-educated gentrifing yuppies (not the ironic ones of course or those thatve been here since 'back in the day') are too smart to let progress happen rather than the nimby subsection.

We can always 'what if' an idea infinitely and go nowhere.

[Dwight]

I hope the "Encounter Zone" will incorporate existing ideas such as the ones from the formal charette performed a few years ago. It is attached and advocates many of the same items.

[jack]

[jack]