Greater Greater Washington

Public Spaces


NPS considers less traffic an "adverse effect"

The National Park Service's mission is to "preserve the natural resources of America." Apparently, they consider traffic to be a natural resource.


The historic appearance of Rock Creek.
Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

Back in 2005, the NPS went through a public process to revise the General Management Plan of Rock Creek Park. They considered four options: A) install a few traffic-calming measures on Beach Drive and some trail upgrades; B) do nothing; C) permanently close the parts of Beach Drive that are closed on weekends; and D) close those roads weekdays off-peak but keep them open rush hours.

In the spirit of their stewardship of America's wilderness, the Park Service preferred alternative A, keeping all roads open to traffic all the time. They only included alternatives C and D because of public pressure, but rejected them. Closing the roads, they argued, "would result in a major adverse effect on the existing pattern of park use and visitor experience. Historic park roads are considered a cultural resource. By closing them to motorized traffic, Alternative C would modify some of the design features that define their significance."

So, having the park crowded with cars and filled with noise and pollution is "historic", despite the traffic now being triple the original design capacity and the fact that 60 mph is not a historic speed.

More bafflingly, NPS concluded that "all four alternatives would have fairly similar effects on air quality, the water quality and hydrology of Rock Creek and its tributaries, wetlands and floodplains, deciduous forests, and protected and rare species." The amount of traffic has no effect on the air quality? What school of environmental management did these people go to?

What's going on with the National Park Service? At the NCPC meeting I went to, the NPS representative seemed to be, by far, the least interested in good design and the most eager to simply build anything. Even Bush presidential appointees on NCPC seemed to value the Mall more highly than the National Park Service. Is this bad management from the Bush administration, or has NPS always been like this?

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

This is the logical next step after preservationists successfully preserved the parking lots at strip malls in Cleveland Park and downtown Silver Spring. Next, we will banned from tearing down the historic MacArthur Freeway, an irreplaceable historical structure that is a unique example of how architects and planners of the 1950s juxtaposed noisy highways with dense urban neighborhoods. Maybe cars that drive on that road will even be required to use leaded gasoline.

by tt on Mar 31, 2008 10:50 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC