Posts about Rock Creek

DDOT sent the Congo and the State Department a letter a month ago, finding that the paving violated DC regulations. That was the basis for the State Department's follow-up letter telling the Congo to take the paving out.

Another successful fix comes from Mount Pleasant, where ANC commissioner Jack McKay alerted us recently to a change that had destroyed the pedestrian walkway along Irving Street. This section, where Irving climbs from Adams Mill Road along the edge of Rock Creek up into the neighborhood, has high-speed traffic and no sidewalk.

McKay wrote,

...that bit of road is also a vital pedestrian link between a bus stop and the Harvard Towers, a 193-unit DCHA structure housing mostly the aged and the disabled. Being aged and/or disabled, the residents mostly take the bus, and for years walked in the street, into oncoming traffic, to reach this bus stop.

But in 2006 the Mount Pleasant ANC persuaded DDOT to build a temporary barrier of jersey wall, creating a safe pedestrian passageway to that bus stop. (The ANC also purchased a bench for that bus stop, which DDOT installed so that those folks would no longer have to sit on an uncomfortable guard rail while awaiting the bus.)

Initially there was a series of posts in the street to guide drivers away from that jersey barrier and into the traffic lane. The posts gradually vanished, ampu­tated by careless drivers. That left the jersey wall barrier exposed in the street, with only the post mounting hump remaining to direct cars away from it.

Recently, the jersey barrier was moved over, creating a less crash-prone arrangement for the speeding cars but blocking the path for pedestrians.

Was this a misguided DDOT crew thinking they were making the road "safer"? We don't know, but after being alerted to the situation, DDOT restored the jersey barriers to their correct spots and added one of the sand-filled crash barrels.

This stretch of road still feels like a highway, and crash barrels are more usually seen on high-speed highways than local streets, but making the roadways in and around Rock Creek Park more hospitable to all modes is a longer-term issue that will involve additional significant changes from both DDOT and the National Park Service. Meanwhile, it's great that residents can at least walk safely to their bus stop.

For many advocates, the prohibition on nonmotorized users at Broad Branch Road was a bad indicator. Bridges are traditionally choke points where bicycle and pedestrian access is critical. Why would DDOT install a facility it considers insufficient to handle bicycles and pedestrians, and then restrict their use entirely?

Because the temporary bridge is a structure DDOT already had available, it came with some restrictions if a temporary facility were to be installed quickly. Most notably, the bridge has a single 13-foot wide lane and no sidewalks. As a result, vehicles traveling on this bidirectional roadway must alternate in order to cross the bridge. Because of these movements and the narrow bridge width, DDOT explained in press releases that it "discourages" cyclists and pedestrians from using the bridge.

The signage installed did more than discourage, however. It entirely prohibited cyclists and pedestrians. In a phone call with us, DDOT representatives explained that the sign was too restrictive and would be removed.

DDOT was under pressure to install a temporary bridge at this location. In order to do so cost-effectively, it had to use a bridge already in its possession. The agency could not responsibly encourage all cyclists and pedestrians on a substandard bridge but did not want to prohibit expert users who needed to use the facility and could do so safely. Hence, the "discourage" policy.

While this policy is not anyone's ideal, it is understandable. This policy seems to abide by the Complete Streets philosophy by allowing access but not encouraging use of a substandard temporary facility. This is only acceptable because the bridge's temporary nature, and political pressure from the adjacent council members will help ensure its final replacement by mid-September.

The Broad Branch Road bridge doesn't violate the Complete Streets policy, but is DDOT following it with its other, more permanent projects? Next, we'll take a look at street reconstruction projects, including some constructed before the policy was issued, and one identified as a "complete street" by DDOT Director Terry Bellamy in his confirmation testimony.

Many DDOT projects do take all road users into account, but not always to the extent they should. In order to be meaningful, DDOT's complete streets policy should have an impact on the agency's projects. It's not yet clear that it has.

Harnik suggested five specific projects that would make cycling safer and more enjoyable in Washington:

• A bike lane, the width of one full car lane, on 15th Street, NW from Florida Avenue to I Street.
  
• Closing the service lanes on K Street except to bicycles and delivery trucks, like European bike boulevards.
  
• A bike lane on Pennsylvania Avenue from Georgetown to the Sousa Bridge.
  
• Close Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park and the Arboretum to motor vehicles on Sundays.
  
• Close the George Washington Parkway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway for two days a year.

How are we doing with those? The 15th Street bike lane is a hugely successful reality, and now goes farther than Harnik proposed, all the way down to Pennsylvania Avenue where it connects to the Pennsylvania Avenue lane.

The Pennsylvania Avenue lane only goes from the White House to the Capitol, plus the part always closed to traffic and usually open to bikes past the White House itself.

K Street remains a heavily car-centric road. The K Street Transitway plan would improve that, but not really for cyclists. Instead, DDOT is proposing cycle tracks on L and M Streets, but those projects haven't moved forward since Gabe Klein took his cycle track enthusiasm to Chicago.

Beach Drive does close to motor vehicles on Sundays. The Arboretum does not. The GW Parkway does become a bike-only road once a year, for Bike DC; the BW Parkway does not.

In summary, DC went above and beyond on one and partway on three. Harnik wrote when he sent along the article, "Not bad, until you realize it's been 32 years!"

The event was sponsored by Friends of Rock Creek's Environment (FORCE), a 6-year-old nonprofit that works to protect water quality in the Rock Creek watershed (area in which all rain that falls flows into Rock Creek and its tributaries), which covers much of the District and Montgomery County and is part of the greater Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Along with coordinating hands-on cleaning and maintenance of the creek and its surroundings, including the removal of invasive plant species, FORCE works in the political arena for policies to curb the less visible forms of water pollution caused by a variety of human activities, and encourage "river smart" home and landscape designs that minimize stormwater runoff.

FORCE is one of several water quality protection organizations serving greater Washington. Others are the Anacostia Watershed Society, Potomac Riverkeeper, Friends of Sligo Creek, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. All are deserving of your support, as polluted local waters come back to bite us in many ways.

Sure, there are more visitors to NYC than to Washington, but the number of visits to Central Park by New Yorkers alone is equal to the total number of visits to Washington's Mall and monuments by everyone (25 million per year).

Rock Creek Park, by comparison, gets 2 million visits per year, making it the 32nd most visited urban park in America. It edged out Audobon Park in New Orleans, a metro area 1/4 the size of Washington.

Both parks were design projects of Frederick Olmsted in the late 1800s. Both parks offer roughly the same activities to visitors.

So why is the larger park used so much less than the smaller park?

Could it have something to do with the transfer of control of Rock Creek Park to the National Park Service in 1933, whereas Central Park is managed by a conservancy on contract with the city?

With the National Park Service currently planning a rehabilitation of its 3.7 mile trail, now is a good time to envision what our park could really become.

Which of the following features of Central Park would be impossible to have in Rock Creek Park, despite being present in Central Park?

• Traffic banned after 7pm and on weekends (Rock Creek has partial closures on weekends)
  
• 25 mph speed limit (Rock Creek Parkway is 35 mph)
  
• 21 playgrounds
  
• 9,000 benches
  
• 58 miles of trails (25 miles in Rock Creek)

If New York City can support these features in Central Park, then the National Park Service can support them in Rock Creek Park as well.

But what can realistically be done?

Requests for these types of features have fallen on deaf ears at NPS before. And it seems unlikely that NPS will transfer control of Rock Creek Park over to the DC Parks and Recreation Department, particularly since the park crosses state lines.

The solution may be to establish a Rock Creek Park Conservancy to manage the park under contract with NPS. The Friends of Pierce Mill is currently raising money for a study to assess the feasibility of a conservancy for Rock Creek Park.

Interestingly, Central Park was saved from years of decline by the creation of the Central Park Conservancy in 1980 by a group of civic and philanthropic leaders. Today, the Conservancy's mission is "to restore, manage and enhance Central Park, in partnership with the public, for the enjoyment of present and future generations".

It seems more likely that NPS would agree to contract out management of Rock Creek Park to a conservancy than to relinquish control of the park to local governments. By leveraging the underused oasis that is in our midst, few initiatives would do more to make Washington a more livable, walkable city.

These options would also add a new trail along the Piney Branch Parkway from the RCPT to Arkansas Avenue.

A related project involves the Rose Park Trail, which runs along the west side of Rock Creek Park from P Street to M Street, including through Rose Park at the northern end.

NPS plans to either resurface (Option B) or resurface and widen (Option C) this trail. Both of these options would create a better connection to M Street, where a Capital Bikeshare station might end up, and other connections as well.

There is also a proposal to move the RCPT closer to the river in the area between Pierce Mill and Blagden Avenue. The trail would replace what is now a "social trail" and the existing trail would be replaced with a gravel "interpretive trail."

The biggest project is rebuilding 3.7 miles of the RCPT between P Street and Broad Branch Road. It would create new connections to P street, Arkansas Ave, Blagden Ave, Broad Branch Road and Porter Street; realign the trail around the various bridges over the Creek; and improve the grade below Calvert street;

The project would also improve the crossings over Shoreham Drive, Jewett Street and the Zoo entrance, and create a better crossing of the Creek south of the Zoo tunnel, where the sidewalk is extremely narrow.

Obviously, I think the more ambitious options are better for both the RCPT and the Rose Park Trail. I have no opinion on the realignment.

Almost all of the public comments were in favor of the widening and repaving options, with two exceptions. One, a man from Friends of Rose Park (F.O.R.P.), opposed widening or realigning the trail, but did not voice any opposition to letting cyclists use the trail. Another wants Klingle Road reopened.

The man from F.O.R.P. was pretty angry about the trail widening. During the open house, he raised his voice at a few rangers and DDOT employees because NPS had promised F.O.R.P. that they would not widen the trail (which is apparently true, though I doubt it applied in perpetuity).

During the public comment section, many commenters noted that the trail is already a multi-use trail, not a pedestrian path as F.O.R.P. wishes to label it. One commenter noted that Rose Park has been the site of several recent crimes and that having more trail users (cyclists) might discourage crime.

The man from F.O.R.P. was also concerned about a very large elm in the park also mentioned in the Georgetown Current article. I'm confident the trail can be widened and rerouted to not only avoid harming the tree but in a way that helps it.

Those who favored the project still had other suggestions including:

• Keeping the zoo loop open 24/7/365
  
• Making sure that detours caused by construction were well signed and easy to use
  
• Keeping the trail maintained (signage indicated that the trail is currently cleared of snow; is that true?)
  
• Building a fence to separate the Rose Park trail from the playground and using brick pavers to slow down cyclists
  
• Creating an elevated crossing of M street at the Rose park trailhead
  
• Making mountain biking legal in RCP which would allow NPS to tap into some free labor
  
• Creating a connection from Harvard Street to the trail
  
• Looking at the section from M to P street
  
• Improving drainage under Porter Street
  
• Building bike parking at every NPS facility trail users might visit including bathrooms
  
• Allowing CaBi into the park

The EA will be finished by late spring with another public hearing in the summer and a decision in the fall. If you'd like to comment on this project, you can do so here.

Cross-posted at The WashCycle.

Interestingly, this wasn't the first significant effort by Georgetowners to try to tie the neighborhood more closely with the neighborhoods directly across the park. Before a bridge was proposed, the Georgetown Citizens Association seriously proposed that Rock Creek be turned into a culvert, and the Rock Creek gorge filled in with land. This would open the area to residential development and facilitate movement between Georgetown and downtown. The plan was shot down by the McMillan Commission in 1901.

So a bridge it would have to be. By 1910, plans began to be formed. However, as mentioned above, there were some serious complications. First of all, Q st. came to a dead end at Dumbarton House. The historic mansion had to be relocated 100 feet to where it sits today. Secondly, Q St. in Georgetown is 185 feet south of Q St. across the park. The solution to this problem resulted in one of the bridge's most elegant features: its gentle curve.

The bridge was designed by Glenn Brown, a secretary of the American Institute of Architects and one of the main proponents of the McMillan Commission and its efforts to bring the City Beautiful design theory to Washington. And City Beautiful design elements are all over this bridge. First of all, it is a neoclassical bridge with strong influences from Roman aqueducts. Secondly, the very fact that a bridge was constructed with such grand scale and style instead of with a purely functional style was also a fundamental technique of the City Beautiful movement.

Finally, like the Columbian Exposition that kicked off the City Beautiful movement, the bridge's design reflects a nostalgia for the by then disappeared American Frontier: the sidewalks are supported by a series of arches each decorated with a bust taken from a life-mask of the Sioux Chief Kicking Bear and the bridge's entrances are adorned with four massive bronze statues of buffalo. (It's probably not a coincidence that the actual Kicking Bear was part of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, which probably did more to stoke that nostalgia than any one thing.)

Those stately buffalo are probably the bridge's most distinctive feature, and they're why some call it the Buffalo Bridge (although frankly, GM hardly ever hears anyone actually use this name). They were designed by Phimister Proctor, who also designed the lion sculptures on the Taft Bridge. As you may remember, a few years ago they were in bad shape. An effort organized by the Dupont Circle Conservancy restored the buffalo to their current dark bronze state. By the way, apparently in 1923, the tail of the southeastern buffalo was cut off. Thankfully, at some point his dignity was restored.

The bridge's construction was finished in 1915.

Some more interesting tidbits:

• On the east end of the bridge, there used to be a plaza with a fountain. On the other end there was a streetcar yard (I'm not sure if it's part of the streetcar yard, but from this undated photo above, there appears to have once been a large factory building just west of the bridge).
• Originally there was a median down the center of the bridge where the lamps were (you can sort of see that above). It was removed in 1938 due to concerns over traffic safety and the lights were moved to the sidewalks.
• Perhaps the oddest fact of all: the undisputed expert in all things Dumbarton Bridge is none other than Minor Threat's Jeff Nelson, who's apparently been working on a book about the bridge since a year after Salad Days was released.

Pretty much all of this information (plus the historic photos) came from the Historic American Building Survey from the Library of Congress.

This article was crossposted on the Georgetown Metropolitan.

The "ramp spaghetti" in front of the Kennedy Center, the freeway under Juarez Circle, the ramps to the Whitehurst, and Rock Creek create a big barrier between Foggy Bottom and the waterfront, and many small park segments many of which are inaccessible or underutilized.

The plan includes new pedestrian connections across Rock Creek and the Potomac, and suggests decking some of the freeway ramps to the Whitehurst to build better parks. It also resurrects the Kennedy Center's ideas to cover the ramps between it and E Street to connect it to the neighborhood.

Of course, covering freeways is expensive, or we'd do it all the time. That freeway is also wider than it needs to be, since it was originally built to continue up along Florida Avenue or K Street. Some of the ramps could probably come down instead of being decked over.

Besides improving the waterfront access, DePillis reports that the plan includes a new entrance to Foggy Bottom Metro, benches at Juarez Circle, a Native American cultural center, and another performing arts center near the Kennedy Center. DePillis couldn't post the entire plan, but we look forward to seeing more!