Understanding

17 years ago, a storm rendered the former Klingle Road through Rock Creek Park unusable. Ever since then, there's been an on-again, off-again controversy about whether to rebuild it. Those in favor say:

"I don't understand her position at all," [Joe] Keyerleber said. "This hiker-biker trail is such a myth. It's way too steep!"

Well to explain things, I suppose it is true that the desire to create a hiking/bike path isn't the premiere issue here. Rather, the larger point is that we have a city most of whose residents don't commute daily to work by car. The city also has some traffic congestion issues. If you opened a new road, that would ease traffic. Which would make driving more attractive. In which case, somewhat more people would start driving to work on their daily commute. So in the end, you'd have the same congestion problem, but a higher overall level of pollution.

If, by contrast, we used the land (which is in the middle of a park) and some of the money for recreational purposes, and the rest of the money to fund our heavily-used-but-in-need-of-repairs transit system we'd be doing a favor to the environment and to public health and in the end the traffic will ultimately be the same either way. I note that my city council representative (and quite possibly yours too if you live in DC and are the sort of person who reads blogs), Jim Graham, is the Council's leading proponent of rebuilding the road and I'm not happy about it.

Comments

Rather, the larger point is that we have a city most of whose residents don't commute daily to work by car.

I note that my city council representative (and quite possibly yours too if you live in DC and are the sort of person who reads blogs), Jim Graham, is the Council's leading proponent of rebuilding the road and I'm not happy about it.

Do you have any references for your first point there? Jim Graham's position would be explained nicely if most DC residents (or most voters in his ward, anyway) did in fact commute daily to work by car, or at least did something daily by car which rebuilding Klingle Rd. would make easier.

Posted by BP Beckley | June 16, 2008 1:48 PM

The same debate is actually going on here in La Crosse, WI. Last years' record rainfall in the SW Wisconsin/ SE Minnesota wiped out Bliss Road, which is an extremely steep road to the top of the bluffs. It's now only open to bikers, walkers and runners, and some want to keep it that way.

I've been to Rock Creek park (my brother and sister live in DC), and I guarantee you this road is steeper than anything in the Metro DC area, let alone Rock Creek. Yet, every serious cyclist, mountain biker, runner, and walker in town can be found on Bliss Road. We consider it a challenge!

Posted by coda | June 16, 2008 1:49 PM

Quit with your Ward 1 bias, some of us who read blogs live in other parts of DC. I, for example, am over in Ward 6--so that means Tommy Wells, whose signs always say "for a livable and walkable community." I would therefore hope he wasn't for the road.

Posted by David | June 16, 2008 1:50 PM

Matt

Your Trust Fund Scumbag persona is clearly showing here. Klingle road is an East-West artery connecting the Black/Latino/Lumpen-Intelligentsia East with the Plutocratic West side of the park. The environmental argument is a smokescreen used by said plutocrats (Russert was a high-profile opponent) to keep the riff-raff and additional traffic our of their plutocratic hood. This was never a traditional commuter route, but was important to people on the East side to access the superior amenities to the West. Jim Graham's constituents are on the East side of the park, so his position is a natrual

Posted by S. Weil | June 16, 2008 2:02 PM

Unless you really believe no money should ever be spent on roads ever, then Klingle road should be repaired. It’s as useful as any road, and it’s not being used for anything other increasing the quietness and property value of a few home owners.

I grew up less then a mile from there and never once used it as a park or for recreation in anyway. Its current utility is only to for the like 3,000 residents that use it in anyway, compared the tens of thousands of people that could use it daily as a road.

Also while it’s in the middle of a “park”, it would also connect to Rock Creek parkway, which is among the traveled roads in the city.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | June 16, 2008 2:12 PM

Coming from a guy who's all about smart urban planning, it's pretty hypocritical of you to support transporation-policy-by-act-of-God.

Closing Klingle Road to cars won't encourage people to use mass transit any more than closing bike lanes will discourage people from biking. If you want to bike, you're gonna bike. If you want to drive, you're gonna drive. You'll just leave a few minutes earlier to deal with the additional mileage. Meanwhile, traffic piles up on Porter Street; how's the air quality there?

Posted by paul | June 16, 2008 2:14 PM

If you opened a new road, that would ease traffic. Which would make driving more attractive. In which case, somewhat more people would start driving to work on their daily commute. So in the end, you'd have the same congestion problem, but a higher overall level of pollution.

If there are people who would choose to use the road if it were opened, why wouldn't that be a good thing? Shouldn't we give some weight to their preferences, instead of making them disappear, rhetorically, by saying the "congestion problem" would be the same?

Of course there are externalities -- the higher pollution -- but if we really thought those were greater than the benefits from opening roads, we'd close other roads in the District.

I don't drive to work and am sympathetic with the thrust of the post, but this seems like sleight of hand to disregard the benefits of reopening the road.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | June 16, 2008 2:14 PM

Come. On. The "premiere issue" here is the self-interest of Cleveland Park residents who benefit from having the road closed. The environmental and transportation issues supporters raise are pretty transparent fig leaves for some straight-up NIMBYism.

Posted by bob | June 16, 2008 2:14 PM

Matt is usually pretty good at imitating an economist, but he blows it this time. He says that in the "road" equilibrium there'd be just as much congestion as before, implying that there'd be no benefit. This is false. There'd be just as much congestion but more people would be able to drive to work at any given level of congestion. Those people now able to drive to work would be _better_off_ since they apparently prefer to drive. Matt's formulation makes it sound as if there would be no benefit. In fact, he makes it sound as if roads in general produce only negative externalities when that is obviously false.

You can still say that keeping the road closed is the best choice, but that requires you to say that you think the public costs of the added drivers are greater than the private benefits of allowing people to drive.

Question for Matt: What if they only opened it to electric vehicles, bikes, & BRT? Then no pollution! Does that change your position? If not, why not?

Posted by DCreader | June 16, 2008 2:30 PM

Loose Lips has the solution, in this time when Tim Russert is bringing us all together.

Posted by KCinDC | June 16, 2008 2:36 PM

The obvious compromise solution, which I have rarely heard mentioned, is to have it opened to traffic on weekdays only and to close it to cars on weekends and holidays like Beach Road in Rock Creek Park.

Posted by Virginia | June 16, 2008 2:36 PM

I used to live right on Klingle Road, right where the stopping point was, and I have to say your analysis of what the argument is here is really naive.

No one cares one bit about the environmental or congestion aspects of opening the road; those who claim it are hiding their personal preferences. The reality is that the former part of Klingle Road in question is currently a private backyard for a handful of people who own homes there and don't want traffic coming in and their land value decreasing, versus a large number of people who don't want to have to drive all the way up Porter Street (a half-mile-long upward incline with a stoplight at the top that empties onto Connecticut Avenue, one of the busiest streets in DC) to get from Mount Pleasant to the west side of Woodley Park.

Opening Klingle Road would increase traffic, which I guess is a legitimate concern, but since it would also reduce congestion on other roads and reduce commute times for hundreds of people it's sort of a silly argument. The truth is this is old-fashioned NIMBYism on the part of residents who really don't like the idea of "opening up access to the neighborhood."

I think the whole fight is ridiculous. A throughfare out of Mt. Pleasant to the south/west is desperately needed, and it's physically impossible to create any alternative routes to the south because there's sort of a gigantic National Zoo in the way. So instead, we're deciding to close a road that already exists that would solve all the problems.

Posted by August J. Pollak | June 16, 2008 2:39 PM

"more people would start driving to work on their daily commute"

I don't understand this. There is no metro line across the park. The only east-west transit across the park is by bus. Opening Klingle Road would reduce the length of cross-park trips that now require both cars and buses to go up to Porter Street.

And Connecticut Ave in Cleveland Park - on the west side of the park - is a shopping, restaurant and entertainment area only a mile from Mt Pleasant via Klingle Road. The closure has cut Mt Pleasant residents off from the amenities of the city they are entitled to enjoy. Not to mention from the Cleveland Park metro.

And S. Weil is right about the race/class issue: there are people on the west side who are happy for those on the east side to stay there. That, and the conversion of public land into de facto private yards, is the real issue.

Posted by Bloix | June 16, 2008 3:57 PM

Also while it’s in the middle of a “park”, it would also connect to Rock Creek parkway

No, it wouldn't.

Posted by Herschel | June 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Mr 703 checking in here...

I had to look up Klingle Road. Seems like a very DC road: mostly for DC residents as a way to cut through empty space that is really... empty.

I get it when cities say that they don't want roads that help suburbanites (like myself) cut through their cities, tear up their infrastructure, and menace their children with fast moving, heavy machines.

But Klingle looks like the kind of connecting surface road that cities like to build. It quietly stitches together different neighborhoods over a park and in a way that DC transportation doesn't currently serve (you've got to dip down to Metro Center then come back up if you want to take the 'tro).

So... while I usually say that adding roads to solve congestion is like buying a bigger belt to solve obesity, I don't think that's the case here.

Posted by Daniel | June 16, 2008 4:03 PM

Also while it’s in the middle of a “park”, it would also connect to Rock Creek parkway

No, it wouldn't.

Posted by Herschel | June 16, 2008 4:03 PM

"Also while it’s in the middle of a “park”, it would also connect to Rock Creek parkway, which is among the [most] traveled roads in the city."

Hey, easy there! One thing at a time--Rock Creek parkway *should* be closed to traffic, too. The "compromise" (closed on weekends) has led to a situation where you can barely ride a bike, roller-blade, or enjoy the park through Rock Creek without having to deal with speeding commuters with a massive sense of entitlement.

There's no reason whatsoever to have one of the premiere parks on the eastern seaboard turned into a fouled commuter route 5 days a week.

As to the rest of the pro-road crowd: you're on the losing end of history. In the future it's going to be less convenient to drive in the city. This is a feature, not a bug.

Posted by ibc | June 16, 2008 4:08 PM

Your Trust Fund Scumbag persona is clearly showing here. Klingle road is an East-West artery connecting the Black/Latino/Lumpen-Intelligentsia East with the Plutocratic West side of the park

Beautiful parody of the usual frothing pro-Road advocate. A perfect combination of faux-concern for the downtrodden with the victimization complex of a Serbian militia commander.

Posted by ibc | June 16, 2008 4:45 PM

I live in Ward 1 and walk my dogs up Klingle Road on the occasional weekend, so I guess I would like to see it stay a hiking trail. And whoever says it's too steep is not a hiker. For anyone who is relatively mobile, it is not challenging at all.

However, I understand the other view as well. I liked the suggesting of clsoing it on weekends if it is turned back int o a roadway for autos. Sounds like a good compromise.

Posted by Mike | June 16, 2008 6:44 PM

Klingle road most certainly does (did) connect to Beach Drive, which is the continuation of Rock Creek Parkway. Why does "Herschel" keep claiming it doesn't?

Posted by m | June 16, 2008 7:32 PM

@ ibc: While I personally would avoid the "plutocrat" phraseology, and I'm wary of "victimization," etc., in this case the poster has it exactly right -- a handful of very affluent people are just trying to steal a street from the public for their own selfish reasons.

Posted by m | June 16, 2008 7:44 PM

a handful of very affluent people are just trying to steal a street from the public for their own selfish reasons

It certainly seems to give folks the warm fuzzies to think so; and it certainly is a winning *political* strategy to frame it in that way. But as far as I've been able to discern, public opinion seems to be about equally divided on the issue.

Not sure exactly how not re-opening a road that's been closed for nearly two decades is "trying to steal a street from the public," whether for selfish reasons or otherwise.

In any case, how about making your case against the argument that pro-closure side is actually making (i.e. misallocation of resources, environmental issues, etc...) rather than the Snidely Whiplash parody of an argument based on innuendo and Tri-lateral Commission-style conspiracy theories?

Posted by ibc | June 18, 2008 2:13 PM