So let me understand. Bike DC thinks that their large event will require the closure of the road, so they request to close the road. But the Park Service denies the request because they'd have to close the road.

What?

"Can we close the road and use it for a while"

"No"

"Why not"

"Because you'd close the road for a while"

That's retarded.

by crin on Sep 28, 2009 1:41 pm • link • report

That road has to serve as the substitute for the un-built freeways, so closing it is less practical.

by Douglas Willinger on Sep 28, 2009 2:05 pm • link • report

I would like to enjoy a car-free ride on Rock Creek Parkway. The road would be closed for like, what, two hours at the most? During that time the road would move 10k bikers. How many drivers could it possibly convey during that time... on a weekend?

And why is this detour even necessary? It seems to me like Bike DC is going to unreasonable lengths to accommodate one asshole ANC Commissioner.

by biker on Sep 28, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

Here's a solution. Re-route the bike ride so that all the roads leading to the Park Service get closed.

by Bob Summersgill on Sep 28, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

what would happen if 10,000 bikes just showed up? Bikes are allowed on Rock Creek parkway according to RCP regs.

by Bianchi on Sep 28, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report

I think it is valid for NPS to consider car use on the Rock Creek Parkway. It is a major way in and out of NW DC, and closing it for cars has a huge impact. But on a Saturday morning?

by charlie on Sep 28, 2009 2:31 pm • link • report

I have really mixed feelings about Critical Mass, but nonsense like this is exactly why that group exists.

by BeyondDC on Sep 28, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report

TO give the NPS some credit if there was major congestion and traffic problems because they closed down the road I am sure they would never hear the end of it. In fact given our area I bet congressmen would even go after them,

by matt on Sep 28, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

Isn't it somewhat ironic that the northern roadways into Rock Creek Park are closed to vehicles on weekends for pedestrians and bikers, but NPS seems to be against it in this case?

by Jason on Sep 28, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

I believe even Lakeshore drive in Chicago is closed one day per year for the big bike ride. That's much busier than RC Parkway.

by neb on Sep 28, 2009 2:51 pm • link • report

When I ran the Marine Corp Marathon in 2003 the course went up and down Rock Creek Parkway...

by Rob on Sep 28, 2009 3:03 pm • link • report

Yeah, I don't understand it exactly. It was closed during about the same time period for a triathlon a couple of weeks ago. (I'm assuming they want the stretch from Virginia Ave. to Mass. Ave. or woodley park.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

Yeah, I don't understand it exactly. It was closed during about the same time period for a triathlon a couple of weeks ago. (I'm assuming they want the stretch from Virginia Ave. to Mass. Ave. or woodley park.

On the other hand, that makes it tough to say the NPS is just anti-bike, since they seem to close RCP for various events at various times. Maybe they concluded that getting 10000 people through that stretch of RCP in 2 hours was totally unrealistic, which I suspect it is. That's *a lot* of bikes.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 3:09 pm • link • report

NPS needs to be relieved of its stewardship of urban parks. They have absolutely no idea what they're doing. We need something akin to the Central Park Conservancy to run our parks. Please NPS, go back to Jellystone and leave us alone.

by Reid on Sep 28, 2009 3:10 pm • link • report

Assume parity between cyclists and drivers: Which option disadvantages more people from "enjoying the park" (being on the road)?

by Squalish on Sep 28, 2009 3:19 pm • link • report

Squalish -- I would say it's about equal. Figure that the average speed of a cyclist along the road is ~12mph. Cars probably go anywhere from ~35-45mph typically, so thats 3-4x as many. Of course, 2 lanes each way fit only two cars each way, whereas you can probably get 3-4 bikes in each lane. It's a wash at that point. Yes, you'd have to factor in the distance between bikes as well, which is probably less. On the other hand, cars won't struggle going up the hill into Woodley Park, which would potentially act a choke point.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 3:23 pm • link • report

16th Street and Connecticut Avenue have more than enough capacity to handle Saturday morning traffic. I can't imagine what NPS is thinking. It is long since time for Adrienne Coleman to go.

by David C on Sep 28, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

NPS's relationship with DC is awful. The agency continually impedes any progress or flexibility in public spaces. They refused to allow the use of a tiny portion of technically NPS land for use for a Ward 8 library. They refused to allow the use of NPS land for a large ice rink and baseball academy (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/05/the_park_service_plays_hardbal.html). They are trying to impede the renovation of Francis Field in the West End. And it's taken over a decade (and counting) for NPS to renovate the Carter Woodson home and memorial, which continues to remain a boarded up eyesore despite pleas from the community. I view this as just part and parcel of their view towards the community. They are a very conservative force that has not changed with the times, viewing any park space as wilderness rather than active recreation space. Yet there's nothing we can really do about it.

I do recognize the value of having NPS's federal dollars maintaining DC public spaces. But perhaps it's the least the feds can do given the lack of taxable land the District is saddled with in vast swathes of downtown, not to mention the inability to tax out of state workers who work within DC.

by SG on Sep 28, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report

David, You have an assumption in your posting which is false ... that is that 'The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway' was built as a park. It wasn't. The parkway that joins into Beach Drive just south of (and below)the Calvert Street was built was a parkway for the primary purpose of moving motorists along in a park like setting. Adding in bike trails alongside the parkway was a great accomodation on the part of the Park Service given that their mandate in this case is the care and maintenance of a parkway (aka motorway). Closing it for events such as the Tri-athelon is another great accomodation given their mandate. Yeah, it would have been great if they could have accomodated this even too ... But they aren't remiss in not doing so ... so just there wasn't anything in their mandate that said they should do so in the case of the tri-athelon or that they should build bike lanes for bicyclists to get equal access to what was built and designated as an automoblie only roadway. We might get more action by praising them for going beyond the call of duty in past instances rather than for condemning them for not acting according to our own wishes.

by Lance on Sep 28, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report

It was disheartening to see this letter from NPS. But Rick Bauman has met this afternoon with DC Police, and it looks like we'll have a solution that allows for a police-staffed crossing at 21st and P that will allow Bike DC to use city streets while mitigating disruptions.

Hopefully next year we'll be able to apply early enough and have enough political ducks in line to make sure that Rock Creek Park can be used. Two hours on a Saturday morning should be no big deal.

Anyway, thanks to Rick and Chief Lanier for a workable second-best solution. Here's a case of the Fenty Administration and bicycle enthusiasts working together to everyone's benefit.

by Mike Silverstein on Sep 28, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report

@ah

You are correct. They closed Rock Creek all the way from Independence up to 24th street for the Nation's Tri's bike section.

by Brian S on Sep 28, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report

Lance,

Rock Creek Park itself, on which the parkway stands, was established in 1890 with a mandate for recreation and escape. Even if you are right about the purpose of the parkway, its construction in 1923 certainly does not supersede the mandate for the park as a whole.

The road's existence as a motorway is supposed to be contingent upon the motorway being able to coexist with the original purpose of the park itself.

by BeyondDC on Sep 28, 2009 4:36 pm • link • report

BeyondDC,

The parkway doesn't lie on the parkland that was established in 1890. The parkway lies on land that was acquired specifically for the building of the parkway. Same story with the GW parkway land. All this was part of the nation's first federal efforts at establishing 'parkways'. (I think NY state was first in the building of parkways.) Actually, it was supposed to be a complete ring of parkways on both sides of the river. The fist maps I saw of the DC area in the 80s actually still had the "George Washington Parkway" name next to the Clara Barton part of this loop further up river.

by Lance on Sep 28, 2009 5:42 pm • link • report

National Park Service reference listed in Wikipedia's entry on Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

Significance: Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway is significant for its role in the development of Washington, for its status as one of the best-preserved examples of the earliest stage of motor parkway development, and for its physical design, which combines landscape architecture, engineering, and architecture to provide an attractive and useful local park and commuter artery. The parkway played a significant role in the McMillan Commission's 1901-02 plan for the improvement of Washington's parks and public buildings. It was designed to replace a polluted river valley with a picturesque drive and bridle path linking the two main elements of the city's park system. By the time the parkway was completed, the rising popularity of the automobile and rapid suburban growth transformed it into a major commuter route. The parkway's narrow, twisting roadway, with its abrupt entrance roads, long stretches of undivided two-way traffic, and monumental crossing bridges, reflects the earliest era of motor parkway design. The parkway maintains a high degree of historical integrity despite considerable pressure to modernize the roadway during the 1940s-50s.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hh:@field(DOCID+@lit(DC0806))

Just for clarification: this is the part of Rock Creek Park which lies south of the stables (Mass Ave/ Calvert Street Bridge) and which was added to Rock Creek Park in 1923.

by Lance on Sep 28, 2009 5:49 pm • link • report

OK. Rock Creek Parkway and Beach Drive aren't synonyms. Fair enough (I think of them as the same road).

I assume this means you'd have no objections to closing Beach Drive?

by BeyondDC on Sep 28, 2009 5:56 pm • link • report

Perhaps a useful analogy to the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway is the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, which is also under NPS control.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 8:40 pm • link • report

Beach Drive wasn't closed for cyclists on weekends until the 1970s.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 8:42 pm • link • report

Lance - Parkways were built for "pleasure driving," not for getting to work. If we want to maintain its historic integrity, we need to ban commuters. Certainly, we should ban vehicles with recent innovations like air conditioning or colors other than black.

by tt on Sep 28, 2009 8:54 pm • link • report

ah: not really a good analogy to Rock Creek Pkwy. Definately not the B-W Pkwy, which was specifically built as an intercity route between the two cities (and of which, BTW, the northern segment was built by and is still maintained by SHA, not NPS). The road that probably comes the closest, analogy-wise, would be the southern leg of the GW Pkwy (south of Old Town).

by Froggie on Sep 28, 2009 9:05 pm • link • report

"I assume this means you'd have no objections to closing Beach Drive?"

Correct. AND, I also have no objections to closing the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway to make events such as this one possible. What I object to is a sense of entitlement to closing it ... which David's wrong assumption inadvertently, and unfortunately, fosters.

Lots more flies are caught with honey ... Especially, when one doesn't have any inherent right to make the request one is making ...

by Lance on Sep 28, 2009 10:03 pm • link • report

What I don't understand is why I want to catch flies in the first place. If I have honey, there is no way I'm wasting it on catching flies. I'll put that on bread with some peanut butter - delicious.

by David C on Sep 28, 2009 10:15 pm • link • report

ah -
I wasn't speaking of how many cyclists the roadway could fit, but of how many you would estimate this specific action would add to the road, versus how many motorists it would remove.

For the purposes of this specific event (early on a Saturday morning), a defendable centrist position for NPS is that cyclists and drivers are both using the road for leisure rather than as commuters. The question thus becomes which action (sharing the road, or dedicating it to bikes) will result in more people enjoying the road.

How many bikes are we talking about here?
How many cars are we talking about?

Those are questions that need to be answered by the NPS, if their sole purview is filling up the road. After they have established their position, then the organizers and the city government need to work out whether the least restrictive means to have this bike ride is to challenge NPS' position(and factor in the chances of success), or prepare to go through Dupont Circle.

by Squalish on Sep 28, 2009 10:31 pm • link • report

Man, I'd love to see 10,000 bikes show up and just block the road to protest crap like this.

by anonymous on Sep 29, 2009 2:49 am • link • report

So if 10,000 is the literal expectation, how many drivers would be removed from the road?

by Squalish on Sep 29, 2009 2:51 am • link • report

I regularly ride the parkway on Saturdays. It is a busy place for walkers, cyclists - including families and small children or elders - bladers and others who enjoy the outdoors. Cars are virtually a non factor.

I am glad the Park Service protects this space as a multiple use area for people of all ages and speeds.

John Kidd

by John Kidd on Sep 29, 2009 9:14 am • link • report

The original purpose only has limited consequence. For example, the country's first parkway, the privately-owned Motor Parkway, is now a multi-use trail in some parts.

by Cap'n Transit on Sep 29, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

Squalish, fair enough, but if you're going to get into a "greatest good for the greatest number" you're going to have to go beyond just raw numbers of people involved and consider what the next best alternative is. I'll take stab first at the number of cars using RCPP on Saturday morning and conservatively guess that it's around 40 cars/minute (in both directions), which means about 2500/hour or nearly 5000 for a two-hour period. Assume pessimistically that each car carries 1.5 people. So you're at 7500 people, which compares to the permit request for 10000 people (which is perhaps optimistic).

Anyway, you're looking at comparable numbers of people, but need to consider what would happen if each group is "forced" elsewhere during that period and how much that costs in time, gas, pollution, and further congestions. I suspect diverting the cars is worse than diverting the bikes. But I have no real way of knowing or estimating.

by ah on Sep 29, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

John Kidd, I'm confident you don't ride the Parkway on Saturdays. You may ride Beech Drive, but if you ride the Parkway you do not find walkers, cyclists - including families and small children or elders - bladers or others out there. What you find are a lot of cars driving at highway speed.

by David C on Sep 29, 2009 9:42 am • link • report

This is insane, but not suprising for Rock Creek Park which certainly seems to place maintaining routes for "pleasure driving" above non-motorized access. In the past Bike DC has closed sections of the GW Parkway and Clara Barton Parkway, both important driving route and both under NPS jurisdiction. Potholes on Beach Drive get fixed overnight, but the Rock Creek Trail continues to crumble. I guess this means that future events, such as the Nation's Tri, will not have the option to use Rock Creek Parkway as part of their course.

by Eric on Sep 29, 2009 9:46 am • link • report

As someone who rides the parkway regularly all times of the week (except weekday mornings), I actually find that traffic is worse on the weekends. I often see southbound traffic backed up past P Street as people flock to the Mall. Admittedly, this really only holds true during the summer, and generally traffic only gets bad in the late morning/early afternoon, but its usually bad enough that I try to avoid going southbound on the parkway altogether (if I'm waiting in traffic for 5-10 minutes it makes more sense to use a different route).

For the record, I don't have an issue with closing it off on a saturday morning, but it seems that I have a much different experience than the rest of you.

by rsn on Sep 29, 2009 10:24 am • link • report

Ah, here's some data (PDF) to go with your "conservative" estimates. Monthly average weekend traffic (MAWET) in October at Waterside Drive is 34,217, both directions. That means an average of 1900 cars an hour. 87% of cars had just one occupant, meaning that the average occupancy was well under your 1.5 assumption. Let's say 4200 people in cars would be affected, versus 10,000 cyclists.

Also, your idea that all those 3800 cars would be "forced elsewhere" runs counter to everything that people have actually observed about motorist behavior. In similar situations in the past, many people have gone somewhere else altogether, gone at a different time, taken transit or stayed home.

by Cap'n Transit on Sep 29, 2009 11:16 am • link • report

@cap'n trade:

There are some major flaws with your assumptions. You only used the numbers of cars that travel between waterside drive and cathedral, missing the 12,050 cars that travel between waterside and virginia ave. Furthermore, in reporting vehicle occupancy this report doesn't discriminate between the weekday or the weekend vehicles. In a normal month you will have around 1 million cars travelling through the parkway on weekdays and about half a million on weekends. One can expect that on weekdays the vast majority of cars will have commuters who are drive solo, while on weekends you have a higher percentage of families that are going to visit the Mall.

While this report is interesting, without a breakdown of vehicles by the hour and more importantly a breakdown in vehicle occupancy on weekdays vs. weekends, you really can't accurately estimate how much vehicle traffice travels through the parkway on saturday mornings from this information.

by rsn on Sep 29, 2009 12:11 pm • link • report

@rsn Umm... "cap'n trade"?

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 29, 2009 1:03 pm • link • report

Incidentally, even though the Parkway is my chief route of auto access to western Virginia and used to be my main commuter route when I drove to Tysons, I wouldn't mind routine closures on the weekends. I don't have anywhere I need to be; I can use an alternate route if I have to go to Manassas.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 29, 2009 1:05 pm • link • report

sorry, meant "cap'n transit"

by rsn on Sep 29, 2009 1:25 pm • link • report

"The dominant consideration, never to be subordinated to any other purpose in dealing with Rock Creek Park, is the permanent preservation of its wonderful natural beauty and the making of that beauty accessible to people without spoiling the scenery in the process." -The Olmstead Report, 1918

by Eric on Sep 29, 2009 1:32 pm • link • report

New York City closes it's roadways twice a year for cyclists. The 5 Borough Bike Ride closes off the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, 59th Street Bridge and the Verrazano.

The MS ride (this weekend) closes off the FDR drive, Westside Highway and one side of the Lincoln Tunnel. It defintely inconveniences drivers, but it gives the people back parts of their city for a precious few hours and is a major generator for getting people interested in cycling and the city. NPS should realize that what might inconvenience motorists for a couple of hours provides a myriad of other benefits.

by Gagneur on Sep 29, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report

You don't necessarily have to close a road to lead a ride down it. I say just route the bike ride along the road anyways. For Hub on Wheels in Boston, some roads are closed to cars while the bike riders go through, but the vast majority are still open to cars. It works out just fine.

by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report

Cap'n, as I said, I don't know which outcome is the "right" one, just that it's not open/shut.

But a couple of quibbles about your stats. If 13% of cars have more than one occupant, some of those may have 2, 3, or 4 occupants, so it's not so simply to assume occupancy is 1.2 (or whatever 1/.87 is).

Second, taking a second-best route at a second-best time is certainly a cost. Perhaps it's smaller, but it's a cost. If it weren't, then surely the cyclists would be happy taking to the road between 4 and 6am instead, when they likely could share it with the few motorists using it at that point.

by ah on Sep 29, 2009 2:33 pm • link • report

And, to be clear, I think the NPS decision is an odd one, given that the triathlon was there just a few weeks ago and other races also have used the road.

But the idea that the answer is obvious and can only be right if bikes are allowed seems to me pushing it.

by ah on Sep 29, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report

I served with Cap'n Trade in the Barbary Wars; she's one hell of a pilot!

The PDF gives percentages. You could figure out the averages based on them if you wanted to. And there's quite a bit of overlap between those cars and the cars that use the northern portion of the drive; I picked the biggest number to be conservative.

Whatever quibbles you have, it's pretty clear that the number of car passengers that use the park on a Saturday morning is much less than the 10,000 cyclists expected.

by Cap'n Transit on Sep 29, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report

I'd doubt (and hope) that NPS not would be using a count of people using the road (i.e., people in cars vs. people on bikes) as the criteria for determining whether it should be closed to traffic or not. 10,000 people pleasure biking through the road shouldn't outweigh 1 person using it to get to work. Bigger criteria would hopefully being used such as 'Is this a good opportunity to promote bicycle usage?' vs. 'How many people using the road for non-pleasure purposes will be incovenienced ... and to what degree?'

by Lance on Sep 29, 2009 11:48 pm • link • report

Lance, I was assuming that NPS, being a park service, was operating under the assertion of recreational priority, with the assumption that cars are capable of recreation on a parkway. I was speaking specifically to their position - which IMO should be over-ruleable by the city. I don't see your absolutist position being remotely defensible(10,000 people doing juts about anything should outweigh one person getting to work), and if it's hyperbole... well, if you put the responsibility for traffic planning on the NPS, then if I don't see a situation where riding 10,000 cyclists through a parkway for two hours is preferable to riding through Dupont Circle.

by Squalish on Sep 30, 2009 3:48 am • link • report

Squalish, I was trying to make the point that you can't use numbers in your decision making ... because what is behind the numbers is 'apples and oranges' ... and comparing them is like 'adding apples and oranges'.

Btw, I understand where you're coming from as far as 'recreational priority' but I don't agree with the assumption that recreational priority is the NPS' main mandate or even a priorty mandate. Were that the case, the number of visitors to places such as Yellowstone wouldn't be limited so as to minimize the impact of humans on that fragile land. I haven't (yet) looked up their mission statement on their website, but I'd bet it says something to the effect of 'protecting' national natural resources ...

by Lance on Sep 30, 2009 11:30 am • link • report

@Lance - wouldn't the argument that the NPS is primarily tasked with stewarding natural resources further undermine the case for a major thoroughfare on NPS land?

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 30, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report

JD, you make a good point. And that of course brings up the question 'Why is a motorway ... even if it is a parkway ... under the oversight of the NPS?' Wouldn't DOT be a better steward for this type of national, non-natural, resource?

Could be the reason why it's hard to get NPS to consider 'out of the ordinary' uses for the RCP Pkwy. Again, I personally think it's a good idea to close off the parkway for this use. I just don't think the idea of counting users takes into account all the reasons why this should be the case. Maybe NPS isn't making the right decision in this case because it really isn't equipped to handle this type of decision based on its mandates. Maybe DOT would have made a better decision here?

by Lance on Sep 30, 2009 5:22 pm • link • report

(10,000 people doing juts about anything should outweigh one person getting to work)

What if their "work" is saving the life of the President of the United States?

by ah on Sep 30, 2009 5:58 pm • link • report

If DOT were making the decision rest assured there would be absolutely no photography of the event allowed.

by ah on Sep 30, 2009 6:00 pm • link • report

ah:
It was hyperbole - I accept that. To try to justify it further is just trolling. The Secret Service is an organization of people, not of machines. People have unexpected circumstances thrown at them all the time that requires being late to work. Good organizations build in redundancy in order to accommodate what happens in the real world, and good employees adapt to changes in their commute without giving up on coming to work. That includes the possibility of a water main break, or a flood, or a car accident, or 10,000 bikes descending on one's favorite route. Contingency planning and adapting to the highly unpredictable is, strictly speaking, the primary job of the organization in question. If it is remotely possible that one man's unexpected tardiness is responsible for the death of a President, then the Secret Service needs to do one hell of an organizational restructuring.

by Squalish on Oct 1, 2009 12:21 am • link • report

Squalish, I read ah's posting to be in line with the point I am trying to get across ... namely that numbers counting is missing the point ... there are bigger issues to be considered. AND I'm readily pointing out that the NPS messed up in this instance in that it didn't recognize that one of those bigger issues is that the cause of this bicycle event is a worthy one ... and worth the incovenience it might cause ... even if it means that all Secret Service agents have to use a different route to work on that day. But, again, perhaps that's because the NPS isn't the right place to have a motorway/parkway's ultimate oversight authority sitting. Perhaps DOT would have been better equiped to do the trade-offs calculation.

by Lance on Oct 1, 2009 12:42 am • link • report

In Ottawa, they close roads similar to the Rock Creek Parkway every Sunday morning, so that people can ride, run, walk, etc and enjoy the park. NPS won't do two hours all year? Demand better...

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20448-20597&lang=1

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-16299-9970-9972&lang=1

by Des on Oct 2, 2009 9:40 pm • link • report