Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

As is Murch. 3 kids have been hit by cars within 2 blocks of Murch. Numerous car accidents too.

[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).

The "neighborhoods" include Murch neighborhoods. The current Murch boundary includes the N. border of UDC.

[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.

No, there is going to be a drop off lane through the parking lot for anyone driving, so they could turn left or right coming out of the UDC parking lot. They are also building a new service road to the trailer campus.

This might be the only part of the project that has been well planned, thanks to UDC facility staff.

[Anonymous]

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

Only one person complained about that. The cafeteria problem was that there wasn't going to be one. As long as one exists, folks are fine, but it was one of the things they cut out entirely to save the budget. Designs are changing by the hour; which is really not a good way to build a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one person complained about that. The cafeteria problem was that there wasn't going to be one. As long as one exists, folks are fine, but it was one of the things they cut out entirely to save the budget. Designs are changing by the hour; which is really not a good way to build a school.

The bigger problem with the new cafeteria design is the placement of the kitchen. The approved design constructed a new cafeteria, partially underground, at the corner of 36th and Davenport. The new design puts the cafeteria in the current gym with a kitchen at the back, which can't be done without violating historic preservation guidelines. So there's no way this cafeteria happens, at least not as depicted in the designs we saw Wednesday night.

[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.

Don't worry the Sheridan parents will still try to run over the public school kids. They are in a really big hurry to drop their children off, and if you get in the way it is your fault. They are also entitled to park where ever they see fit too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't worry the Sheridan parents will still try to run over the public school kids. They are in a really big hurry to drop their children off, and if you get in the way it is your fault. They are also entitled to park where ever they see fit too.

If ever a street cried out for a series of speed humps, it is 36th Street!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

As is Murch. 3 kids have been hit by cars within 2 blocks of Murch. Numerous car accidents too.

Part of the problem is the configuration of Reno/34th between Fessenden and Garfield Streets, where there is the extended median/turn lane for several miles. (There are passing lanes between Van Ness and Tilden.) Some traffic engineers have said that the extended turn lane, instead of enhancing safety, reduces safety by increasing vehicle speed. Drivers perceive the lane as a median and increase their speed for a faster road. Drivers don't have to slow down or stop for turning vehicles. Instead of a parking lane to separate a travel lane from the sidewalk, the high-speed travel lanes are moved to the side adjacent to the sidewalks, which in many places don't even have a tree box buffer.

By contrast, Reno north of Fessenden and 34th south of Garfield don't have the turn lanes. There is parking on one or both sides of the street. Through traffic moves well, but from observation at a calmer speed. In effect, the no-turn lane configuration calms traffic. With all the kids walking along the corridor, it makes sense IMO to re-paint Reno more like north of Fessenden, possible with turn lanes only at the most major cross routes (like Nebraska).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Except the newest design puts the kitchen in a spot that DGS told Murch community last June could not be used due to historic preservation issues. Amazing to watch DCPS keep trying to to fit the necessary blocks into a space that isn't big enough...that's why the feasibility study almost 3 yeas ago said they have to dig down and why logic should have dictated it would indeed cost more than renovations not requiring going underground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one person complained about that. The cafeteria problem was that there wasn't going to be one. As long as one exists, folks are fine, but it was one of the things they cut out entirely to save the budget. Designs are changing by the hour; which is really not a good way to build a school.

700 kids and a cafeteria that fits 240? Think its fair to say more than one parent has a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one person complained about that. The cafeteria problem was that there wasn't going to be one. As long as one exists, folks are fine, but it was one of the things they cut out entirely to save the budget. Designs are changing by the hour; which is really not a good way to build a school.

700 kids and a cafeteria that fits 240? Think its fair to say more than one parent has a problem with that.

Time for the Hunger Games to reduce enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
700 kids and a cafeteria that fits 240? Think its fair to say more than one parent has a problem with that.

Time for the Hunger Games to reduce enrollment.

May the odds be ever in Murch's favor! (For a change.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one person complained about that. The cafeteria problem was that there wasn't going to be one. As long as one exists, folks are fine, but it was one of the things they cut out entirely to save the budget. Designs are changing by the hour; which is really not a good way to build a school.

700 kids and a cafeteria that fits 240? Think its fair to say more than one parent has a problem with that.

This situation is so fu--ed up! And instead of putting in a couple of focused days to fix it, Bowser and Kaya are off quaffing mojitos in Havana and absorbing school management ideas from washed up Commies.

[Anonymous]

Its not 700 kids into a cafeteria that's the problem. Its 700 kids into a footprint that's meant for 400. It's the boundaries that need to be changed, not the building plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its not 700 kids into a cafeteria that's the problem. Its 700 kids into a footprint that's meant for 400. It's the boundaries that need to be changed, not the building plans.

I agree but too late for that. Gotta wait till next time and make it work in the meantime.