HSEMA rule prevents K Street Feet in the Street

Government

HSEMA rule prevents K Street Feet in the Street

by David Alpert • June 24, 2010 1:25 pm

DDOT will not be holding a Feet in the Street walking and cycling event on K Street because DC's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency won't allow a special event with any cross traffic.

Cyclists wait for cross traffic in NYC's Summer Streets. Photo by themikebot on Flickr.

Cities around the world, from Bogotá to Paris, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Baltimore, Miami, Portland, Chicago, Kansas City and Las Cruces, New Mexico, have held similar events, variously called Ciclovia, Summer Streets, Sunday Streets, Sunday Parkways, and more.

All involve closing a lengthy segment of a street to traffic, except at major intersections, for walkers, runners, rollerbladers, cyclists and more to enjoy the outdoors, get exercise, and have fun in a way that's often not possible in cities where most public space is dedicated to motor vehicles most of the time. Often "stations" along the way provide exercise classes, bicycle seminars, health information, and more.

Last year, DDOT tried one in Fort Dupont Park to great acclaim from surrounding neighborhoods, but the true spirit of the event involves closing a street through numerous neighborhoods as opposed to using a park drive. In April, DDOT decided to try hosting the event on K Street from 7th Street to Georgetown and the Capital Crescent Trail. 7th, 14th and 17th Streets would have remained open so that cars, trucks and buses could travel between the areas north and south of the route, and the route would have run under Washington Circle allowing traffic to cross there as well.

Unfortunately, they ran into a virtual concrete bollard in the form of DC's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA). According to DDOT's Anna McLaughlin, HSEMA does not allow any areas open to traffic inside an area closed off for a special event, and DDOT did not want to create an enormous barrier across the entire city. MPD and FEMS, which participate in planning for special events through a special task force, were unwilling to budge. It's not clear if this is an official written policy or just general practice at the agency.

This policy makes no sense. This has been done in exactly this way in cities everywhere. Even Arlington allowed cross traffic at some signalized intersections for Bike DC. We have trails which act as roads closed to motor vehicles, but which periodically cross regular streets with (or sometimes without) traffic signals.

Pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles interact all the time at intersections every day. We even have special electrical light-based devices at the corners to guide the orderly interaction of traffic in the various directions. If it were really dangerous for cars to take turns with pedestrians, then every intersection in the city would require concrete barriers walling off the sidewalks from the roads and skybridges or tunnels to cross. It's crazy.

Sure, complete separation greatly reduces the possibility of anything happening. Some have speculated that this rule stems from an incident a few years ago where a driver on drugs drove through a barrier into a special event and killed people. However, it's not possible to completely reduce every risk. Bicycling down a street with no cars and only two signalized intersections with cross traffic is surely safer than bicycling down a regular street with cars and cross traffic at every intersection, and people do that every day, almost always safely.

DDOT plan for Park(ing) Day.

This brings to mind DDOT's response to the folks trying to organize Park(ing) Day, which turns parking spaces into temporary parks for a few hours. In other cities, organizers have done this simply by placing some temporary turf and a bench on a parking space, often with permission. Here, DDOT public space officials wanted concrete barriers on all three sides, barrels and flags at the corners, 2-foot empty spaces inside the barriers, 22-foot clear zones on either side along the curbs.

In other words, to separate people sitting in the park from cars, they required enormous barricades and empty spaces, even though people come far nearer cars every day when sitting at a bus stop and have no such protections. But these security decisions aren't about reason, they're about the approving official eliminating every possible risk no matter how ridiculous and regardless of everyday practice.

If HSEMA, MPD, and FEMS hold firm to this rule, there can't ever be a Summer Streets outside a park. They should try visiting another city to see how workable this really is, or perhaps just try visiting a street corner to see that those work as well. Meanwhile, DDOT will again hold this year's Summer Streets in Fort Dupont.

36 comments

Tags: bureaucracy, DC, downtown DC, Fort Dupont, HSEMA, K Street, security, Summer Streets

DDOT proposing K Street "Feet in the Street" (Apr 5, 2010)
Feet in the Street Saturday in Fort Dupont (Aug 28, 2009)
This year, let's have a great Summer Streets (Mar 25, 2010)
DDOT being narrow-minded, overcautious on Park(ing) Day (Sep 14, 2009)
Remove rush hour parking? Or allow parking all the time? (Jun 2, 2011)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. 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 »

So, who actually "owns" the streets? Is it DC's DOT or DC's Homeland Security? It would make the most sense that DOT "owns" them and therefore can do whatever they want on them.

by Teyo on Jun 24, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report

I believe this policy was put in place after that woman plowed throw the crowd at a street fair in Anacostia a few years ago. Stupid reasoning, I agree, but I think that's where it came from.

by Reid on Jun 24, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

Disband all "homeland" security everywhere. The taking of our civil rights and liberties has to stop.

Stop the police state before it stops you.

by NoMoreDHS on Jun 24, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report

There's that big space in the middle of the city with no cars. How about trying to use that?

by Nathan on Jun 24, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

Take that Osama bin Laden. Stings doesn't it. USA! USA!

by David C on Jun 24, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

Good Grief.

by andrew on Jun 24, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

@Teyo

It doesn't matter who "owns" the streets, per se. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. Just try tearing down a house in a historic preservation zone...

by Adam Lewis on Jun 24, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

Pedestrians and cyclists are terr@rists! ;-)

by ed on Jun 24, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report

Homeland Security is a terrorist

by mike on Jun 24, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report

@Teyo, So, who actually "owns" the streets? Is it DC's DOT or DC's Homeland Security?

The streets in DC are 'owned' by the feds ... legally. The term used is 'titled' ... and they are 'title' to the federal government. They were retained as by the feds under the Homerule Act's provisions. Ultimately, the feds own this city, lock stock and barrel ... as set out in the US Constitution.

by Lance on Jun 24, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

I had no idea DC had its own "Homeland Security" agency. I don't get it. What are they responsible for? What do they do all day, other than shut down street festivals?

The Soccer in the Circle event showed how exciting it is to have a mass of people enjoying the outdoors. It would be awesome to close off the traffic circle and parts of Connecticut Ave. But, I guess Homeland Security wouldn't approve. (Can we just abolish the entire department?)

by M.V. Jantzen on Jun 24, 2010 3:55 pm • link • report

The concern here seems to be in the interest of pedestrian and motorist safety - a responsibility of DDOT. What's the Homeland Security or Emergency Management risk here? If anything, closing one continuous stretch of road causes more of a security threat or evacuation challenge, but it sounds like they would have approved closing the entirety of K St without breaks right?

by Erik W on Jun 24, 2010 4:14 pm • link • report

Then of course there's always the approach of Lexington, Kentucky: http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/2414/

Let's see if HSEMA (nor DHS) would prefer moving it to DCA.

by Erik W on Jun 24, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report

@ Lance Are you sure the feds owns the roads? I've never heard that before, and it seems unlikely.

by jcm on Jun 24, 2010 4:36 pm • link • report

Does anyone at DC HSEMA have even one functioning brain cell? Perhaps DDOT should have countered with, "OK, we won't allow cross traffic at 7th, 14th, or 17th, we'll just close it all." Would that make anything safer? Not likely. Instead, it would lead to traffic jams that would prevent every vehicle from moving, including ambulances, fire trucks, police cruisers, buses, trucks, and cars. Maybe MPD could set up check points to ensure only vehicles with a "legitimate" reason for crossing K Street would be allowed through.

Ultimately, a dispute like this between departments should be resolved at the Mayoral level. Either DDOT has let us down by not appealing to the mayor, or the Mayor has let us down by siding with HESMA/MPD.

by Stanton Park on Jun 24, 2010 4:46 pm • link • report

@jcm

What Lance means is that technically the Feds "own" much of the public property in D.C., however this is a technicality for all intensive purposes. What really matters is who has administrative jurisdiction over a certain public properties. Land transfers between the Feds and D.C. government happen all the time. In the case of D.C. streets, I believe D.C. has administrative control over most streets; the city is responsible for approving construction projects, maintaining the roads, streetscapes, etc.

However, Lance was a bit overzealous when he said "the feds own this city, lock stock and barrel". Per the U.S. Constitution, Congress has jurisdiction over the city but private property owners and others own a lot of the property in D.C., not the federal government.

by Adam Lewis on Jun 24, 2010 4:50 pm • link • report

Adam, Really not trying to be rude, but I'd want to know this. The phrase is "all intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes" it is a common mistake and one I made until someone pointed it out to me recently.

by anonymous on Jun 24, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

@jcm

Yes, the federal government owns the land upon which most of the roads are built, including all the triangles and circles in the roadways. This is why bits of green space throughout the City, like DuPont Circle, are federal parks and not city parks. The DC Government, however, owns the pavement. This is why DC taxpayers pay to pave and resurface roads and sidewalks and pays for traffic signs and controls.

You may not remember, but as the First Gulf War was ending, the city had just finished repaving Constitution Avenue. When the war ended, the First President Bush decided to have a military parade down the newly-paved street including tanks which tore up the new pavement. The DOD decided they did not need to reimburse the city for the damage as the road was federal property. More recently, the federal government decided to reclaim Pennsylvania Avenue between 15th and 17th Streets, NW, to eliminate traffic there. They could do this without DC's consent because the federal government owns the land.

I assume, but do not know, that the DC government has authority to establish and enforce traffic regulations.

by Stanton Park on Jun 24, 2010 5:00 pm • link • report

Not sure if anyone's asked this already...

How does this compare with other large events such as last week's Capital Pride Parade? That totally shut down a good chunk of the Dupont area from about 6pm through to 10pm. They're different entities & certainly different scopes, but from how I'm interpreting the HSEMA response given by DDOT: it sounds like HSEMA's argument would be applicable.

by Bossi on Jun 24, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report

@Adam Lewis ... I meant the roads ... 'titled' to the feds as Stanton Park explained.

by Lance on Jun 24, 2010 8:26 pm • link • report

... and, by 'lock stock and barrel' ... I meant (1) that when you take into account the land over which they have direct control (federal buildings and reservations, the streets, circles, squares, and parks ... don't forget Rock Creek Park) which surely make up greater than 50% of the land surface of the District and then (2) add to that the control they hold in ways in which they protect the national interest (e.g., the Commission of Fine Arts, Homeland Security, etc.), the Federal Government gets to call the shots.

by Lance on Jun 24, 2010 8:33 pm • link • report

I fucking hate reading stuff like this, it makes me so mad.

by J on Jun 24, 2010 8:57 pm • link • report

Why does this event need to be held on city streets in the first place? The Washington area has some of the best bike paths in the country. There's a stretch on the Mt. Vernon Trail south of Old Town that crosses maybe one street before getting to Mt. Vernon. That would seem like an ideal location for this type event. Maybe the organizers can check with the National Park Service about that route as it's within the George Washington Parkway area from what I can tell.

by Lance on Jun 24, 2010 10:13 pm • link • report

;)

by Lance on Jun 24, 2010 10:15 pm • link • report

@ Reid, the reason for the change was because some cracked up woman drove through a street festival in SE several years ago. As a result, event organizers can no longer partially close streets which has had a huge impact on the cost of special events, and a large impact on the traffic surrounding them. For example, with Bike DC if you only needed to use the west bound lanes of Constitution Ave, you'd still have to close the entire road.

by Eric on Jun 25, 2010 9:19 am • link • report

I don't understand why people haven't realized yet that you shouldn't bother checking with these antiquated agencies full of people disconnected from real life. Just set up your event and do it, the city hand-wringers and worry warts can just suck it up and lump it if they don't like it. They are irrelevant, counter productive and should be completely ignored.

by James on Jun 25, 2010 1:32 pm • link • report

This being K Street, who cares. Not like it was going to be that momentous to stroll K Street on a Sunday.

But, why not Rock Creek Park instead. Since, it is a park, after all, that gets treated like a highway on ramp.

by mtp on Jun 25, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

In my opinion, the context of the choice road is key... and one person's opinion of a perfect road may not mesh with anothers.

mtp's choice of Rock Creek Park would certainly be a fantastically beautiful option, with the trees & stream helping to keep temperatures quite comfy.

However, in my opinion I'd prefer to see something more urban. I can't say K St suits my fancy... I associate that more with office buildings than much of anything interesting.

My personal preference would be M Street in Georgetown: lots of small shops & oodles of pedestrians. Perhaps keep M open on each end to maintain vehicular connectivity into Georgetown's grid streets.

by Bossi on Jun 25, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report

mtp, I think the point of events like these is to do it on streets in an urban setting that are normally the domain of cars. Why not do Summer Streets in Central Park? Because part of the point is to get people out of the parks and to experience the whole city. And there's a novelty element to it. You can already stroll in much of Rock Creek on weekends. Fromm a bike advocacy point it can help people experience riding on a street without traffic, and give them confidence to ride on one with traffic.

by David C on Jun 25, 2010 6:24 pm • link • report

I think that there is something important being missed here in all the commentary suggesting a homeland security invasion.

HSEMA (which is a D.C. government agency, NOT the feds) is not inserting themselves arbitrarily or because of a homeland security crisis. Rather, HSEMA are involved because they are the agency that coordinates and permits all special events in the District. check out http://bit.ly/9mhkdt

I'm not certain which of these 3 is true:
1) HSEMA has simply had this responsibility as a legacy of what they were before their current incarnation, or
2) it was thought logical that the agency that already coordinates public safety and emergency response also coordinate public safety (and permitting) for special events, or
3) D.C. has unique public safety requirements that cause the Powers That Be to have thought it a good idea that Homeland Security & Emergency Management be involved in permitting and planning for any mass gathering here

Whichever is true, it's still clear that HSEMA is involved because they are the lead agency that decides what special events in D.C. get permitted. All special event proposals go through them - in fact, the Mayor's Special Events Task Group is staffed and chaired by HSEMA http://bit.ly/b38OmX
Therefore, it is totally routine for them to examine the details of special event proposals and then recommend that permits be given or denied (or the proposal modified).

by Robert Smith on Jun 25, 2010 10:56 pm • link • report

Following up on the merits of the decision.

Clearly HSEMA studied the special event proposal and weren't comfortble with some things about it. And clearly they were able to get all the other public safety agencies to support them. I doubt we know all the details here. I'd personally like to see the DDOT proposal as an entirety before I'd judge.

Even from the little we do know, I do see a couple of things about this proposal that would give me cause for pause. For example, the choice of K Street strikes me as possibly being a particularly difficult or disruptive location to stage the event. I can totally picture myself studying the plan and then saying "Why don't you do this on Constitution or Independence or somewhere else? Those streets are about 5 times easier to close down."

You may think it's acceptable, but it's certainly not *ideal* to separate a special event into 5 different mini-events because traffic has to pass through, is it? It's totally possible that HSEMA looked at this and saw a mess, and simply asked DDOT to go back to the drawing board. DDOT didn't have time to make another new plan before this year's event, so they decided to go back to last year's location for one more year.

I have no idea what actually happened, but I'm just trying to give some food for thought.

by Robert Smith on Jun 25, 2010 11:17 pm • link • report

As aggravating as the end result may be, I have to second Robert Smith's input. With some work alongside public agencies under my own belt, I know quite well how readily good intentions from one side can come off as clueless to others... it'd be helpful if more detail could be provided both on the plan itself & on HSEMA's response.

by Bossi on Jun 25, 2010 11:23 pm • link • report

The denial was only based on the rule against cross traffic. It wasn't that there were other general concerns about the event, according to DDOT, just that they don't allow cross traffic in any events as a general policy.

by David Alpert on Jun 26, 2010 8:41 am • link • report

During the tail end of races, once more space has opened up, MPD officers routinely allow traffic to cross closed roads. I see it during National Marathon - an officer waits for an opening between runners, then waves a few cars through during the break.

by David R. on Jun 26, 2010 9:42 am • link • report

Add Merida to the list of places that closes a major street for a Sunday bike/walk promenade. With everyone obeying traffic lights, so cross streets can cross now and then.

DC GOVERNMENT (mayor, council and definitely police chief) need to go to New York City and look at how things are done. Far bigger parades allow cross street traffic in pulses. Not like here where everything has to stop for the duration.

While there, the mayor and police chief need to see how police actually help move traffic. It would do wonders for things like the national Xmas tree lighting annual traffic fiasco.

by Dan Gamber on Jun 26, 2010 9:49 pm • link • report

David, what you are missing here is that you have only the applicant's (DDOT's) side of it. Naturally they are going to say something like "our whole proposal was great, but HSEMA killed it because of that stupid rule on cross-traffic." I'm not sure that someone from HSEMA who was at the meeting would necessarily agree with that explanation.

(Note: to be fair, you might have trouble getting HSEMA to talk honestly. It strikes me that one D.C. government agency would look out for another. In other words, I doubt that HSEMA would tell you "DDOT's plan was rejected because it was a piece of crap" even if indeed HSEMA felt that way.]

by Robert Smith on Jun 27, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report