Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Would love to see the traffic report. Hopefully they envision school traffic only using CT Ave. Putting more volume at that time of day at the intersection of Reno and Van Ness is going to be problematic and spill into the neighborhoods (even more than it already does).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

DDOT should be figuring out how to take traffic off of Reno rather than directing more traffic there, especially to the problematic Van Ness intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

DDOT should be figuring out how to take traffic off of Reno rather than directing more traffic there, especially to the problematic Van Ness intersection.

If I were a Sheridan parent, I'd be worried about the number of cars heading north on 36th after the UDC drop off in order to avoid Reno. It's a tight squeeze already. DOT should think about restricting access to 36th for through traffic during school hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Would love to see the traffic report. Hopefully they envision school traffic only using CT Ave. Putting more volume at that time of day at the intersection of Reno and Van Ness is going to be problematic and spill into the neighborhoods (even more than it already does).

Most can walk or ride bikes as they do now. There will be a school bus for most of the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

DDOT should be figuring out how to take traffic off of Reno rather than directing more traffic there, especially to the problematic Van Ness intersection.

If I were a Sheridan parent, I'd be worried about the number of cars heading north on 36th after the UDC drop off in order to avoid Reno. It's a tight squeeze already. DOT should think about restricting access to 36th for through traffic during school hours.

Yes, lets everyone pile on Murch kids and make their lives miserable. First the city, then Lafayette, now Sheridan, who's next to slam our little punching bags?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

If you are concerned about Reno Road traffic take a look at the DCPS "solution" to the Murch shortfall -- all delivery/trash/parking entering from Reno -- forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

They need to adjust both the light at Conn Ave/Van Ness St. and the light at Van Ness St./Reno, which is incredibly fast.

Does anyone attend Murch who lives south of Van Ness? If not, why should these lights matter much?

Hearst families who live on the east side of Conn Ave, especially in the big buildings drive there. But, also, Mary Cheh told families that she envisions on the Murch drop off and pick up occurring on Van Ness Street on the side of UDC. She said she thought the metered street parking would be removed. So Murch families would have to drive south on Conn Ave and turn right onto Van Ness and then queue up to drop off. Then they would have to advance to the Van Ness/Reno light. Disaster for traffic.

anyone that knows Reno knows that is a bad plan.

If you are concerned about Reno Road traffic take a look at the DCPS "solution" to the Murch shortfall -- all delivery/trash/parking entering from Reno -- forever.

I was just going to point this out to people the "new' plan - the one they are working on until the next $10 million comes through has a driveway being created just past Davenport on Reno before Ellicott. This will be for teacher parking and the loading dock. Can you imagine that hell?

So please if you ever drive on Reno road weigh in with the Mayor's office on this. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

True. If they can't fund the design that was approved in October with a service entry on 36th, Reno Rd. will be dealing with trash and delivery trucks turning in and backing out all day long for the rest of your lives.

A few teacher's coming and going twice a day wouldn't be horrible, but a service entry on Reno would be awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True. If they can't fund the design that was approved in October with a service entry on 36th, Reno Rd. will be dealing with trash and delivery trucks turning in and backing out all day long for the rest of your lives.

A few teacher's coming and going twice a day wouldn't be horrible, but a service entry on Reno would be awful.

Reno is like a polluted river where, as it flows down, the stuff just gets worse. "Down river" in Cleveland Park, people are thinking about how to narrow 34th St. (Reno south) to deter traffic and increase safety for pedestrians, especially kids walking to Eaton (which is just 30 feet from this busy roadway).

[Anonymous]

Can they slow Reno down to 25 mph?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone will post about the community meeting here. I want to hear how DGS and DCPS explain themselves when they compare the nickel and diming they are doing to Murch when compared the the blank checks they've been writing for other renovation projects.

It's surreal, but it is what it is. DCPS loves to play Robin Hood 2.0: steal from wealthy taxpayers to pay for huge projects in areas that vote for the Mayor.

NP. I have not read this whole thread and I'm probably jumping into a snake pit--but I don't think this is true? Shepherd Park/Colonial Village largely voted for Bowser--heck, she even lives here now--yet there are similar frustrations that the Shepherd Elementary community has had with cuts to their renovation project, including:

1) upgrade to full kitchen removed--it seems Shepherd is one of the only renovation projects in recent years in which a full kitchen will not be a part of the modernization. So kids will have to continue with "heat and eat" options.

2) renovations to gym/auditorium removed--as a result, there are acoustic problems that interfere with concerts and other activities. Also, the gym is too small to have home games, so all basketball games are "away" games (which is too bad since the boys' team has now made it to the citywide semi-finals).

3) underground parking was nixed (although I honestly am okay with this, as it seems this is not needed as much as the other parts of the project that were removed)

Despite these cuts, the budget has increased from $20 to 30 million. There was a petition campaign last year to get these items reinstated, but to no avail. There was even a meeting with DGS and Brandon Todd a few weeks ago (planned for months), and still, it seems no changes to the current situation will be made--so I don't think this is a question of political favoritism.

Of course, you can say that that Shepherd's renovations will only benefit 330 kids--however, the student population is growing, as they may be adding another PK class next year, and there are lots of new families moving in to the neighborhood. So the size of the school is sure to grow (although I certainly hope not too much).

My point is not to detract from the validity of the Murch community's argument. It sounds like the full scope of renovations at Murch sorely needs to be done. It's just to say that no school community seems spared from DGS's incompetence (except perhaps Ellington). Maybe we should all band together in some way, looking for renovation problems experienced by multiple schools--I dunno, perhaps that would get more recognition/traction. But then again, I haven't been in DC long, so perhaps too optimistic about how things work.

These are similar issues and frustrations as those faced by Murch with the ludicrous "redesign" -- A functional cafeteria (with a kitchen) and a functional gym that can hold the whole student body and actually allow a PE program more than once a week should not be things that are eliminated from any design proposal. Good luck!

Lafayette's new cafetorium is not designed to hold the whole student body. Probably the same with Janney? I don't think that particular issue is that big a deal.

The current revised plan has a cafeteria that fits one third of the students, so there would have to be three lunch periods. Can you imagine a kindergartner eating lunch at 1030 and making it to the end of the day in one piece? Maybe one that fits half the population is workable elsewhere but that's not what is being proposed here.

Please. My K kid had lunch at 10:30 and lived. It is called afternoon snack time. A lot of schools do this.

[Anonymous]

A cafeteria for 1/3 school sounds about right. What are much parents expecting here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A cafeteria for 1/3 school sounds about right. What are much parents expecting here?

This Murch parent expects a cafeteria that fits 1/3 of the students. Sounds right to me too. Looking forward to a kitchen too. That sounds so modern!