Should Downtown Fendale create a "Dupont Circle" at 9 and Woodward.

[Johnlodge]

How can that be the NE corner? Is the plate reversed?

Fixed, doh.

[jjw]

Why don't DC just build a Belle Isle? After all, there are no beaches or island parks in the Patomac.

Incidentally just because you build something does not mean people will use it. Look at Grand Circus Park, its nearly deserted 90 percent of the time.

Leave the Fruit Loops for Battle Creek. Why rain on its parade? Why take it away from the Sugar Smacks and Tony the Tiger?

No island parks in the Potomac? You don't know DC very well.

[jjw]

And curious? Why the Ferndale location. Isn't that an area, if in a car, you want to speed through?

[Detroitnerd]

Roundabouts are the latest fad in urban fixes. They force pedestrians to use traffic signals because you can't see oncoming traffic. They cost a shit-ton of money to build, so contractors love them. You have to reconfigure everything to change right of way. Brainless "greenies" cheer because you have this "green space" in the middle of doubtful utility. And then it's all set to be completely rebuilt again when urban fix fads change in ten years. God forbid they ever try to run a streetcar through there after they put in a roundabout.

I'd say turn the Woodward-Eight mile intersection back into a grade intersection and you'd get beaucoup returns on that along Ferndale's sleepy car-lot strip compared to this boondoggle.

[Johnlodge]

I'd say turn the Woodward-Eight mile intersection back into a grade intersection and you'd get beaucoup returns on that along Ferndale's sleepy car-lot strip compared to this boondoggle.

What a load of horseshit that bridge was. If I remember correctly, Ferndale even said don't do it, but MDOT, in their infinite wisdom, was not to be swayed. Here's you and I bitching about it in 2007

::Wayne and Garth flashback sounds::

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1188267858

[Pickford-Bentler]

If you are on foot, and something is on the far side, it is worse than crossing Woodward to get over there.

I got stuck at GWU one week and spent a lot of time in the evenings walking in the area. For walkability, I far prefer downtown Arlington or downtown Alexandria.

I used to live in Rosslyn. It was a nice walk over the Key Bridge to Georgetown. I agree about walking across Dupont Circle. Drivers confused by the "thing" tend to not be paying attention to pedestrains.

[Patrick]

Why don't DC just build a Belle Isle? After all, there are no beaches or island parks in the Patomac.

Fail

Theodore Roosevelt Island my friend. I go there every weekend and relax and take walks and it is right in the middle of everything with Rosslyn on one side and Foggy Bottom on the other. Regarding the Detroit-Dupont Circle....sounds kinda expensive eh? plus people in MI have no idea how to drive in a traffic circle anyways.

[Detroitnerd]

Whoa, that's right. I remember that MDOT's rationales always have to be tied to SAFETY and TRANSPORTATION. So much so that no other considerations, such as PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, BEAUTY and HUMAN SCALE, matter.

[Pickford-Bentler]

Fail

Theodore Roosevelt Island my friend. I go there every weekend and relax and take walks and it is right in the middle of everything with Rosslyn on one side and Foggy Bottom on the other. Regarding the Detroit-Dupont Circle....sounds kinda expensive eh? plus people in MI have no idea how to drive in a traffic circle anyways.

That is a nice place to stop along the bike trail. From there one can take the Custis trail through Arlington or cut over the Key Bridge to the Canal Trail or the Capital Crescent Trail.

[fryar]

What a load of horseshit that bridge was. If I remember correctly, Ferndale even said don't do it, but MDOT, in their infinite wisdom, was not to be swayed. Here's you and I bitching about it in 2007

::Wayne and Garth flashback sounds::

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1188267858

In any event, it appears at least to have been less than entirely clear what is going on there:

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 2053
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:48 pm: So eight mile goes below ground level, but if you want to get onto woodward you ramp up and make the turn, but if you are through traffic on woodward, you just take the bridge over the whole ordeal? Alright, I guess I didn't notice. I went over the bridge on woodward and saw no pictures, so came back and stayed next to the bridge on ground level, but I was so busy looking at the bridge to figure out why it is interesting, I must have missed 8-mile beneath me.

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1445
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:49 pm: No, Woodward goes beneath 8 Mile.

ETA: It would probably be better termed as a tri-level intersection... but I'm not a Civil Engineer, so I dunno.

[[Message edited by iheartthed on August 23, 2007)

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 683
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:53 pm: No, Woodward goes over Eight Mile, Eight Mile goes underground, and the connecting ramps are more or less at grade. I drive on that frequently.

Quite a few of us were hoping MDOT would replace the whole abomination with an at-grade intersection, but they didn't.

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1296
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:53 pm: No, Woodward goes beneath 696. Woodward leaps OVER 8 mile.

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 2054
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:53 pm: Woodward goes over the bridge though. Now I'm confused. Screw it, I'll just go drive by it on my way home. I live like five minutes away.

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1297
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:54 pm: There is a citizens' group in the area that LOVES the bridge. I don't understand why, but whenever people started talking about replacing the bridge with an intersection at grade, this group would get very vocal, write letters, etc.

[[Message edited by detroitnerd on August 23, 2007)

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 2055
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:55 pm: 696 is a completely different intersection, thats at 10 mile. And Woodward goes both OVER and UNDER 696, depending on if you want to get on 696, or just stay on Woodward as through traffic.

Woodward definitely goes over 8 mile., but perhaps some lanes go under it as well?

I heartily laughed.

[EastsideAl]

Roundabouts are the latest fad in urban fixes.

Having driven quite a bit in Britain and Ireland many years ago I still don't understand the way Americans go about building and using roundabouts/traffic circles.

Pretty much every significant intersection and small town over there has a roundabout in it. Often 'roundabouts' there will have no real middle ground at all, just a big white spot marked in the middle of the road with arrows around it indicating the direction of travel.

The theory is that traffic then doesn't have to stop and wait and idle, which is what creates poor air quality in towns and other congested areas. Also that the curved and constricted configuration of the roundabout serves to slow traffic down somewhat, again creating less pollution, making muti-road intersections much easier to navigate, reducing the frequency and severity of accidents, and making crossing points [[which are usually next to, but not in, the roundabout) safer for pedestrians. In city centers, an added benefit of roundabouts vs. crossings with lights is that they don't create the sort of stopped and standing traffic, with spewing exhaust, that can often make walking in congested areas unpleasant.

But, outside of New England [[where they've successfully used 'rotaries' for many years), dumb Americans always seem to want to build big looping traffic circles with, of all things, LIGHTS in them. This really blunts the whole purpose of having roundabouts, and renders them all but useless for traffic or pollution control purposes.

And while a circle with something attractive in the middle of it can be a nice focal point for a city or a neighborhood [[like Dupont Circle, or Columbus Circle in NYC), building them so big with nothing of particular interest in the middle often just creates, as Detroitnerd points out, a vaguely park-like neutral space encircled by auto traffic. And also necessitates the installation of the aforementioned stupid lights and crosswalks in order to get people into, across, and out of that dubiously useful space.

[ghettopalmetto]

Roundabouts, and by extension, squares, serve several purposes. Initially, one purpose was to break up the urban form by providing an "open space". Of course, in our car-obsessed culture, this now seems a bit trivial, as we have all the open space we could ever want in the acres upon acres of asphalt parking lot we construct.

Other uses, of course, include management of multiple-way intersections [[Would you REALLY want to eliminate Dupont Circle in favor of a six-sided traffic signal???) and traffic calming [[It's a bit difficult to drive around a circle or square at 100 mph. As was noted above, drivers are often flummoxed by these devices. I say "good"--it forces them to pay fricking attention to what they're doing.

The space contained within is what you make of it. Squares and circles in the United States date back to New England, and most small towns in the South were centered on the courthouse square [[Which, quite frankly, is the built form on which New Urbanism is predicated). Dupont Circle may be the finest example of a pleasant setting within one of these "traffic devices", but Lincoln Park on Capitol Hill is also eminently attractive and is a great asset to residents of that neighborhood.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of traffic circles whose primary objective seems to be keeping four lanes of traffic moving through at 1000 mph. When you couple this with a lack of anything at the perimeter, it's no wonder the space contained in the center is a useless piece of shit.

[DetroitPlanner]

No island parks in the Potomac? You don't know DC very well.

Yeah I can see a nice beach in the Patomac now! I was referring mostly to the beach bro.

[lilpup]

Not only do I remember when there was parking in the middle but I remember the Federals and going to Radio City for movies and the children's Xmas program every year.

[Hornwrecker]

I'm not sure what transpired on that corner, maybe a fire? It's a shame that's gone and the ugly ass building took it's place. Note the crow's nest has now been replaced with those funky traffic light obelisks.

Federal took over that whole corner, is what happened.

Attachment 7542
wsu/vmc

[Paddington]

Fuck I hate roundabouts. The other day I was in Oakland County and I came across a series of them. What a bitch to drive on. They do seem to be the latest fad though. Columbus, OH was also building a number of them in the suburbs.

I like good ol' traffic light intersections with dedicated left turn lanes and right turn lanes. Keep the roads to 4 lanes if possible, with a center turn lane. Skip the Michigan turns and huge central medians if possible.

[Gistok]

I don't think the Ferndale Building is comparable to a Walgreens or IHOP. It's been there since, what, 1915 or something? It may not live up to your Gistokiness, but it's no IHOP.

John.... the thread started out as a "Woodward going underground/9 Mile Rd. circle"... but quickly evolved into a large traffic circle. My comments were based on the large traffic circle model.... which would require the elimination of the buildings on all 4 corners.

[Hermod]

Federal took over that whole corner, is what happened.
wsu/vmc

Funny thing in Detroit:

It was Hudson's
It was Crowley's
It was Sear's
It was Ward's

So it also had to be Federal's

For some reason folks always used the possessive when speaking of Federal Department Store.

[jjw]

Yeah I can see a nice beach in the Patomac now! I was referring mostly to the beach bro.

It's Potomac----not Patomac. Nice beach on Belle Isle? Yes, but I'll stick with Roosevelt Is.---no cars and leads to miles of walking and bike trails, cleaner.

[oldredfordette]

Funny thing in Detroit:

It was Hudson's
It was Crowley's
It was Sear's
It was Ward's

So it also had to be Federal's

For some reason folks always used the possessive when speaking of Federal Department Store.

It's like Ford's. People say I work at Ford's, as if the old man was still running the show.

[Pickford-Bentler]

It's like Ford's. People say I work at Ford's, as if the old man was still running the show.

In the 1930s, I think Bennett's would have been the proper possessive name of the Ford Motor Company.

Some of my father's stories from that era seem to follow a plot out of one of those old Jimmy Cagney gangster flicks.

[lilpup]

Ford's
Meijer's
Kroger's
Kresge's
Ward's
Penney's

not Dodge's rather Dodge Brothers
not Buick's
not Chevrolet's

Field's once upon a time in Chicago
Bloomingdale's in New York

[Hermod]

It's like Ford's. People say I work at Ford's, as if the old man was still running the show.

Yeah, but did you ever meet "Mr. Federal"??

That is like a GM worker saying , "I work at General's".

[DC48080]

Funny thing in Detroit:

It was Hudson's
It was Crowley's
It was Sear's
It was Ward's

So it also had to be Federal's

For some reason folks always used the possessive when speaking of Federal Department Store.

It was never "Sear's" [[ the possessive, with an apostrophe ). The name Sears refers to Richard Warren Sears who was one of the founders of Sears Roebuck and Company.

In typical Internet fashion the apostrophe is far too often over and inappropriately used.

[casscorridor]

I think a better canidate is the Trumbull/Grand River/MLK intersection. It is so disfunctional already, I doubt a circle would make it worse.