Park and Planning closing commuter routes at dark

Public Spaces

Park and Planning closing commuter routes at dark

by David Alpert • December 21, 2009 12:06 pm

We don't close main arterial streets at night even if a road is less safe. So why do many local governments close walking paths and bicycle trails, even ones that are used as commuting routes?

Northwest Branch Trail. Photo by rllayman.

Reader Bianchi wrote in with a report:

My S.O. and I bought a house in Historic Hyattsville this fall. He uses the Northwest Branch bike trail to get to either West Hyattsville metro or Fort Totten. Last night, on his way home between 6 and 6:30 pm (when it was already dark), a PG County cop car came up behind him while he was on the bike trail and pulled him over.
The officer told him the trail was closed when dark because there had been some reports of mugging. S.O. asked the officer (rhetorically) if he thought riding on the street with cars with no bike lane was really safer.
He feels the question of which route is safer to bike should be left to him, the biker. The 'no use at dark' prohibition affects the morning commute too. I guess one solution to street (or bike trail) crime is to just prohibit people from being on the street.

Bianchi contacted Hyattsville Mayor Bill Gardner. Here was his response:

Almost all of the parks and the trails in the County are owned and managed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). The Commission's policy is that park facilities close at dark, period. It has been a struggle to get them to change, although apparently they did re-designate a trail in Montgomery Co. near a Metro as a commuter route a couple years ago and it is open after dark.
We have met with them to request they change the policy, given that the trails in our area are commuting routes. After a bit of work and some publicity, M-NCPPC provided lighting and cameras along a couple short sections of the trail near the metro station. They didn't agree to "open" the trails after dark in other areas. The trails are policed primarily by the M-NCPPC police, but they do collaborate with the county and city police.

All park facilities? M-NCPPC doesn't close the roads that go through their parks, like all the roads crossing the portion of Rock Creek in Montgomery County. NPS doesn't close the GW Parkway. The difference is that park agencies see those as commuter transportation facilities

Leaving aside the question of whether it's right to have commuter transportation facilities a major part of a parks agency's mission, a bike and walking trail is a transportation facility as well. Just because people use it for recreation doesn't make it not a transportation facility; many people jog on streets, too.

Commenter Woodley Parker wrote about the Klingle trail, "I live right above the proposed trail and I would prefer that it not be lit at night. In fact, the trail should probably be closed at night just like many other parks."

I disagree. It shouldn't be closed any more than Beach Drive is closed, or Porter or Tilden Streets (none of which is closed). Klingle Valley isn't going to have a vehicular road, but it's still going to be a pedestrian and bicycle through route. As such, it should have lights (though they could be much smaller than the lights on a roadway) and be open at all times. So should the trails in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties that serve a transportation function as well as a recreational one.

22 comments

Tags: bike trails, Hyattsville, Klingle Valley, Maryland, parks, Prince George's

Klingle Road dead, dead, dead; bike trail alive (Jun 3, 2008)
Share the road, because the sign is blocking the path (Jun 3, 2010)
DDOT presents Klingle trail progress (Dec 17, 2009)
Turn the Porter-Klingle interchange into a park (Dec 21, 2009)
DDOT ponders four decisions for Klingle Valley trail (Jun 21, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Wow, I did not realize that this was being done. Do they ever consider closing the CCT?

by SJE on Dec 21, 2009 12:51 pm

They don't close the roads because drivers are rarely mugged/raped/killed while driving through a park. Bicyclists and peds are much more vulnerable. Since they don't have the resources to patrol the paths at night, they close them.

by jcm on Dec 21, 2009 12:54 pm

This speaks to just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change America's idea of transportation. You guys are fighting the good fight but this is like David's little brother going up against Goliath.

by staypuftman on Dec 21, 2009 1:00 pm

Sometimes it takes years of change just to get the obvious.

by Cavan on Dec 21, 2009 1:21 pm

@ jcm

Arent peds. vulnerable on the sidewalks beside streets.

As I recall people get shot, stabbed, hit all while on the sidewalks of a busy street does the street get closed no.
They made close off a lane or 2 but the rest is not.

If its going to happen it will happen regardless let people choose their own fate. People need to stop being afraid of things let a person decide what is best for them instead of having big brother take all the responsibility this country is becoming a sissy & police state.

by kk on Dec 21, 2009 1:30 pm

So, for our "safety" they force us to ride on busy streets?

Given that the numbers of fatalities on our roads far exceed the number of murders we should not allow anyone to drive.

by SJE on Dec 21, 2009 1:44 pm

Interesting conversation. I think it's worth pointing out that even on the most beautiful spring day virtually no one can be found on many MNCPPC trails.

Probably a tiny fraction of the population uses any significant length of these trails as a commuter route. It would be a huge expense for the public to take on lighting even half these paths.... the result would be improved safety and somewhat more commuters, but at huge costs. They close the parks to everyone to avoid all sorts of crime that inevitable occurs in these types of dark places where no one is watching. Many of these parks back up to private property where folks don't want people lingering at night.

It makes much more sense to designate specific commuter areas around metro stations or specific high traffic routes that have a lot of walkers (i.e. around metro stations), light them, and open only those particular sections after dark.

by David Daddio on Dec 21, 2009 2:05 pm

Quite honestly, I see this as good reason to make streets safer, and not parks - unless they are commuter routes during daylight.

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 21, 2009 2:07 pm

The existence of lighting is a non-sequitur: plenty of crimes happen in the city, where it is lit. My point is that bikers are far more likely to be injured by a car than by another person, and so putting people on the road is likely to be more dangerous than letting them ride on a dark trail.

by SJE on Dec 21, 2009 4:14 pm

I'd guess the reason that the county is so willing to close the bike path at night is that most people view bike paths as a recreational use. If they were viewed as a commuter route, then the solution might be to better light the path, and add patrols. But of course, it's kind of a catch 22. Before the path can be lit and patrols added, there'd probably have to be a demonstrated need for it ...

by Lance on Dec 21, 2009 9:01 pm

I think we're running into a chicken vs. egg question here. Of course no one commutes by bike because the park isn't lighted at night so we should close it because it's not safe to let people use a park that's unsafe at night.

This sound like a time for civil disobedience aka use the park and let them ticket you. Now you've got evidence that people use the park and it should be open.

by Cullen on Dec 21, 2009 9:46 pm

I don't think night commuting could ever be a great share of usage, and comprehensively lighting all the local trails would be ruinously expensive, but I was always frustrated with MNCPPC's policy on The Great Scary Time of Daily Darkness. There are few places to go in MoCo in the evening, and it would be really nice to be able to have some fun(whether it be sports, a party, or a picnic dinner) at the parks after sunset without being harassed by police. I'm more scared of being tased in the current situation than being mugged in the alternative one. Lighting just the very heavily-used areas wouldn't be so difficult.

by Squalish on Dec 22, 2009 2:29 am

What good is lighting the entire park in the name of "public safety" when nobody is there to keep a watchful eye on these two or three commuters in Rock Creek at night? The last thing we need is more ugly light pollution to disturb the owl population (yes, there are owls in the park at night). It should also be noted that incidents of criminal activity increase when such isolated areas are illuminated. If I'm not mistaken this is a point Jane Jacobs (among others) has written about. Or you can drive out to the suburbs and ask any teenage kid or local cop. Brightly illuminated places far removed from supervision beg for trouble every single time.

by jps on Dec 22, 2009 3:47 am

If police resources are already stretched thin and they feel that allowing this trail to remain open after dark would be an even greater strain, I'll go along with their decision.

It's not like there is a shortage of horrible crimes already in Prince George's County.

Maybe the cop actually was concerned about the SO's safety.

by Mike on Dec 22, 2009 8:03 am

I live in a Rouse neighborhood where the only way to walk to the local grocery store is via non-MNCPPC trails & sidewalks which close between dusk & dawn. I've twice been stopped by the neighborhood's security guys for walking after dark & have asked the same question: "Roads don't close; why do walkways?" Same response: security... my neighborhood is paranoid about it, having declined a pedestrian bridge to connect to a rail station on fears of cut-through traffic & undesirables :)

by Bossi on Dec 22, 2009 10:09 am

I ride on the NW branch trail daily for my commute and have been wondering if I would run into trouble with the police for being on it after dark. When I first started riding on the trail last winter, I was a bit worried about security, but I have had no problems yet. So far, my biggest concern has been hitting a deer. Overall, I would much rather take my chances with muggers along the trail than ride along Riggs Road, which is my street route. If I get a ticket, well, so be it. I'd rather pay that than get run over by a car that didn't see me.

Of course, with 1.5 feet of snow on the trail at the moment, I probably won't be riding on the trail again until mid January...

by Mark on Dec 22, 2009 10:41 am

Did the Klingle Road person, after having successfully won the right to enhance his property values by forestalling the reopening of this former vehicular road, actually say he wanted there to be no lights to disturb him? I believe that redefines Chutzpah for me. Every time I ride my bike through that neighborhood, I remember how it used to be with cars moving through from East of the park. Despite being an alternative vehicle kind of guy, I always thought the whole debate was one of class warfare - those on the west side wanting to keep their little area devoid of those who did not live there. But to then say you didn't want folks to walk through your area after dark because (yikes) you might see someone not of the neighborhood, really takes the cake.

by Steve on Dec 22, 2009 11:31 am

@ Lance-"Closing" the trail in dark hours is apparently a MD state policy. The city of Hyattsville wants the trail "opened" for commuters. I don't know for certain but I think PG Co. backs up City of H-ville on this.

@ others -The trails are used heavily b/c the streets are so unsafe for walking and biking. See Mark's note above.
Plus, the trails were DESIGNED specifically to lead to the metro! That bike trail in VA is so heavily used that overcrowding on the trail is an issue. See archived news on it.

Also, we don't need it to be lit. We have headlamps on our bikes. We just don't want cop CARS chasing us down on the bike trail with their colored LIGHTS ON telling us to get off the trail at 6 pm. This isn't coming-home-from-a-party at 2:30am use we're talking about. 6pm on a weekday. 7am on a weekday. Rush hour. I don't believe cop was concerned for SO's saftey. If that had been the case cop would have been patrolling trail for muggers to keep it safe, not sending SO into rush hour traffic with no supporting bike infrastructure. its a Bad policy.

But I am pleased to report that my local elected reps in Hyattsville recognize the absurdity and see changing it as an opportunity to improve standard of living in the area. It's a state policy so it will challenging.

by Bianchi on Dec 22, 2009 11:42 am

correction, not a state policy but a MD Nat'l Capital Park Planning Com. (M-NCPPC) policy. So I guess the federal level is involved too.

by Bianchi on Dec 22, 2009 11:47 am

@Bianchi:
The federal level is not involved.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bi-county agency in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. It was created in 1927 as a counterpart to Washington's planning agency, the "National Captial Park and Planning Commission". Since it was supposed to serve the same purpose, just in Maryland, it became "M"-NCPPC.

Since each county's commission appoints a parks director for each county, the M-NCPPC is essentially the county parks department for Prince George's County, in this case.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 22, 2009 2:36 pm

Real and perceived safety will be improved by greater usage of the trail system. The reason why authorities aren't as concerned about the safety of pedestrians on sidewalks is that there are more "eyes on the street." Closing the M-NCPPC trails ensures at dusk ensures that there will be few law-abiding citizens on them after dark.

I recall a temperate evening last summer when I walked with my young children and some of their friends down to the Northwest Branch in Hyattsville for some fishing. We stayed a little longer than planned, but even when it was almost dark, there were a number of groups strolling the trail, enjoying the nice weather. One of the groups included the parents of a few in our cohort, and once that fact was noticed, several children spontaneously ran down the levee -- unfortunately, in three different directions. After grabbing the fishing gear, I chased down the hill, but lost track of some of the kids in the encroaching darkness. I eventually found all of them (or they found their way to my home), but at no time was I worried about their safety (just about my shirking of my duty to have kept them all in my care). If we were the only people that were on that stretch of the trail that night, I would have felt much differently.

I think the challenge is in creating enough demand for the trail system that there is a critical mass of people using it for transportation, recreation, etc. Enforcing a lot of restrictions on use isn't going to get us there.

by Chris on Dec 22, 2009 4:01 pm

Please note that most of our trails are built with Transportation Enhancement Funds which clearly states "Bicycle projects must be principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-broch.htm

M-NCPPC can close recreational facilities so are they saying they are misspending Federal money by treating trails as recreational only?

by Barry Childress on Dec 24, 2009 12:26 am