Photo by Michael E. Grass

It hasn't for years. But the Route 29 signage along the former New Hampshire Avenue and Dupont Circle alignment has somehow endured. Along the actual route of Route 29 in the District—Georgia Avenue, 7th Street NW, Rhode Island Avenue, 11th Street NW, K Street NW, the Whitehurst Freeway and Key Bridge— isn't really signed well at all. For instance, going from the Key Bridge to Whitehurst Freeway and vice versa, there aren't signs marking the critical Route 29 turn-offs.

Why is this important? Well, it's not that important. (And I sort of like the old signs from yesteryear.) But it's something I've written about for five years, first on DCist, then on my personal blog and then again during a DCist guest editing stint back in June.

When the D.C. government was touting its post-Snowpocalypse Twitter-fueled pothole repair effort, it seemed like a good idea to test the District Department of Transportation's social media savvy by also tweeting a request to have the errant signs removed. Why not?

While there are easier ways to make such a request, such as calling 311 or making a phone call to DDOT, I decided to test the effectiveness of Twitter. And while I got a prompt reply from the agency, it did not get much of a follow-up. I pestered here and there, but it was clear that removing the Route 29 signs was not a high priority. But it was an "interesting" request for the city. You can't say much in 140 characters or less, but it was something!

My first inquiry on the matter was back in March. It's now August and the signs are still up. (One, however, was mowed down by a run-away taxicab.) In the meantime, I've tweeted requests to DDOT on other more critical matters, like fixing crosswalk signals that were facing the wrong direction. (I do care!) Those requests were promptly attended to.

On Thursday, I inquired again about the Route 29 signs and I got a new response from DDOT! They'll make arrangements for those blasted signs at Dupont Circle to come down and they'll update me when they're removed. That's some progress, yes?

City Paper colleague Jason Cherkis may be the "most passionate—and least decisive—writer" as it comes to the mayor's race, but for this undecided City Desk contributor, the first candidate to release a comprehensive Route 29 highway signage plan is more likely to get my vote!

The Issue: The community is already, um, barking about a dog park that opened last month on 17^th and  S Street. The astroturf park was established by the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and is maintained by the non-profit Circle Dogs DC, which opened it before a set of rules was established. At an Advisory Neighborhood Commission meeting to deal with the canine-related backlash this week, issues raised included: the number of dogs allowed in the park (optimal number was calculated to be 12.2), the distinction between dog toys and tennis balls, and whether humping is an owner-control issue or a reason to keep out un-neutered dogs. But according to Borderstan, the meeting hasn't yet resolved two important questions: Why are children still allowed to play in the park? And who exactly will be dealing with neighbor's complaints in the future? 

Dogs, Dogs, Dogs! The original petition for the dog park states: “We do not believe that dogs are more important than people, but we do believe that dog owners are equal to other park patrons.” On that note, Circle Dogs DC has supported the notion of a “culture of responsibility”—making sure dog-owners (who preferred to be called “guardians”) respect hours, curb barking, etc. The group says that once more people are involved on its board, it shouldn’t be difficult to enforce rules. The park is undoubtedly a success, at least by one measure: ANC 2B commissioner Bob Meehan told City Desk: “Sometimes there are 20 to 30 dogs in the park at one time.”

Rules, Rules, Rules! But neighbors are concerned that dog-owners are failing to self-police, and DC Circle Dogs isn’t big enough (i.e., four volunteer board members) to handle all the issues. This has left DPR National Park Service to pick up the slack—a solution that, as in the case of opening and closing the area, doesn’t always work. Others contend dogs aren’t the real issue, children are. Says Meehan: “Sometimes parents treat it like a petting zoo.” Matt, commenting on Borderstan, adds: “So…it’s just fine for parents to place toddlers on the ground with strange dogs running around in all directions. Have we lost our minds?”

Next Step: ANC 2B passed a resolution this week dealing with the opening/closing hours issue, and there's a proposed meeting in one or two months. In terms of children, “it’s against the rules for dogs to be in children parks. It’s not against the rules for [supervised children] to play with dogs," says Meehan. He adds that, "The [Tuesday meeting] was the first one where dog-owners and neighbors were listening to each other! It was also the most constructive meeting in which nothing was accomplished.”

Photo of park by Jess Erfer, Creative Commons Attribution License