[*Updated, 11:45am: I have heard back from Olympic National Park spokesperson Barb Maynes. Her comments are now included at the end of the article.]
“This is an unnecessary exclusion of bicyclists on what is a federally funded road open to all other forms of traffic.”
–Bicycle Alliance of Washington
At the recent National Bike Summit, much excitement and optimism was in the air about the future of bicycles in America’s National Parks.
During a speech to the 500-plus attendees, Brian Wademen, Chief of Staff for the Department of the Interior (they manage national parks) said, “Don’t be shy to advocate for park access.”
Also, support for the National Parks Services’ 2016 Centennial Initiative — which could help fund bike projects in National Parks — was one of the four key issues the League of American Bicyclists encouraged advocates to lobby for on Capitol Hill. In their outline of the issue, the League wrote, “Parks are better experienced on foot and by bicycle than from inside cars and RVs.”
However, a decision to ban bicycles from a popular bicycling road in Olympic National Park (about 90 miles northwest of Seattle) has Washington bike advocates scratching their heads.
The decision comes as Olympic National Park officials embark on a two-year construction project to repair storm damage to the road. Parks spokesperson Barb Maynes told a local newspaper that bicycles will not be allowed on the road during that time because it’s “a safety issue.”
The road in question is Hurricane Ridge Road whose 17 mile, 5420 foot climb is a popular route for area bicyclists (Google map).
The Bicycle Alliance of Washington has launched a campaign to overturn the decision. They’ve issued a press release saying the ban is “Unacceptable,” and that they believe, “this is an unnecessary exclusion of bicyclists on what is a federally funded road open to all other forms of traffic.”
To back up their campaign, the Bicycle Alliance of Washington lays out several points why they feel the bike ban is unfair. They question why the road will remain open to all other vehicle traffic, why the ban should continue on weekends (even though no construction will take place), and why Parks officials did not contact a single bicycle group before reaching their decision, even though “bicyclists are the most affected users.”
Yesterday, I spoke with Gordon Black, the executive director of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington. He said that Parks officials should have done more outreach to the bicycle community before making their decision. “If they knew they were planning to close the road specifically to bicycles,” he said, “it would be incumbent upon them to make sure we knew about it.” He added that he realizes “there is a valid safey concern,” but that he’s seen many other projects around the region remain open to bike traffic during construction.
Black is set to meet with Olympic National Park staff to discuss the issue and says he’s “optimistic we’ll be able to reach a compromise. I have several ideas we can discuss, I just think there’s got to be a middle ground here before having it completely closed.”
Barb Maynes, the spokesperson for Olympic National Park, stands by the parks’ decision. She says they conducted a broad outreach program that began in 2003 with notices and press releases to media and outdoor equipment retailers from Portland to Vancouver B.C. Maynes also claims they sent the notices directly to a bike club based in Port Angeles.
In the 60-day comment period that followed, Maynes says 11 responses came in and none of them mentioned a concern with the closure.
As for why they decided to ban bikes during the project, Maynes told me, “A number of things crossed the line for us in terms of safety.” She said crews will be removing culverts and pavement, stretches of the road will become gravel and one-lane only, heavy equipment will be operating, and there will be no guard rails. According to Maynes, with all those things going on bicycles add, “another layer of complexity” for both work crews and motor vehicle drivers to deal with.
Maynes acknowledges that Hurricane Ridge is a “great ride for bicyclists” but she encourages riders to explore other rides in the area during the two-years of construction. She also says, if bicyclists can just be patient, they’ll appreciate the new and improved road. “The new road will be wider, have better pull-outs, and a better road surface. We’re taking the long-term approach and hoping that if bicyclists can just use the other options for two years, what they’ll get is a much better experience in the future.”
For more information, see the action alert posted on the Bicycle Alliance of Washington’s website.
Yes, one of the origins for my monicker was being the first up Hurricane Ridge one incredible Saturday in the summer of 05. It\’s an incredible ride and totally incomprehensible that we should be banned. Note that the \”safety\” issue implies that drivers should not and/or cannot be expected to exercise the level of care necessary to share the road with bicyclists. Shameful.
This is ridiculous. I have done that climb 4 times, it is one of the best climbs in the state. It is absolutely absurd to close that road, especially if other vehicles will be allowed to use it.
I am pissed and am busy writing some e-mails.
Let\’s see, if they\’re doing repair work and their safety solution is to ban a particular kind of vehicle, might I suggest that they ban those 50 ft long RVs that damage the roads and make them so susceptible to \”storm damage\” in the first place.
Looking at that winding route on Google certainly makes me think that it is those ships on wheels that are not the appropriate vehicles for that road.
Another opportunity to mention that at Yellowstone for instance (which I\’ve ridden through), 2 people on foot or on bikes pay $24 to enter while as many people as you can fit in an RV pay $25.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm
Outrageously inappropriate given how much pollution those things spew and how much damage they cause to park roads.
The other big news out of the Failure-in-Chief\’s regime has been that they\’re going to reverse over a century of policy and allow guns into the National Parks. So with this bit of news, the math goes like this:
guns in National Parks = good
bikes in National Parks = bad
I have just updated the post with comments from Olympic National Park spokesperson Barb Maynes.
just to play devils advocate…
being squashed by an inattentive back-ho driver isn\’t much fun either…
doesn\’t sound like it\’ll be the most pleasant ride anyway during construction…personally, if I ride in remote locations, its typically to get away from traffic, noise, and construction..
I agree that it is a shame to shut down that climb for such a prolonged period of time. My experience climbing Hurricane Ridge during a foggy October day was perhaps the most painful and rewarding hour and a half I have ever spent on a bicycle. However, I feel that allowing bicycles to DECENDE down a 17 mile winding and foggy road during construction is a safety hazard. A bicycle can easily hit 45 + mph on the decent. Think about it.
It is a long road and I seriously doubt the entirety will be noisy all at once.
Her response is sickening. Major outdoor retailers were informed? They did not let the largest bike shop in Portland know about it, and I have seen no notices in any other shops.
Notifying the bike club in Port Angeles? What all 4 people? Why not notify the BTA? Perhaps any of the large cycling companies and groups in Portland/Vancouver?
2 years! What a bunch of crap. If a car can get up it, if an RV can get up it, my damn bike can get up it as well. In addition, unlike the motorists, I will not be a danger to the construction workers.
I was planning on doing this as part of one of my mini tours this summer. Think I will have to go commando and ride it anyway!
This pretty much sums it up-
According to Maynes, with all those things going on bicycles add, “another layer of complexity” for both work crews and motor vehicle drivers to deal with.
\’deal with\’
They just don\’t want us slowing down all the tourists heading to the top in their rented RV\’s.
Steve…in all reality, how many times do you actually think you\’re going to ride hurricane ridge in the next two years?
every weekend?
once a month?
annually?
maybe not at all?
This is crazy! Open to RVs but not bikes? Clearly a decision that makes it easier on Park management. What about visitor experience? It\’s a shame that most people\’s experience of the Parks is from a car.
Post extra warning signs about the potential hazards and let us ride!
I would probably ride it 2-3 times bahueh. Also 1000\’s of cyclists ride it every year. So as I hope you can see, this ain\’t about me.
Also bahueh, I will not be having an abortion in the next few years. Should that be relevant in that debate?
I know that is sort of off topic, just pointing out the bus sized gap in your logic.
Steve and bahueh, please focus only on the issue and not each other.
thank you.
Someone should tell Barb Maynes that having no guard rails is actually safer for bikes (and motorcycles)…
–Bill
Don\’t know the lay-out of the road, is it a two laner, three… or more? I can see if it was important to keep one alternating lane moving in each direction behind a flag truck without a pokey cyclist screwing it all up. But if the reason is only to keep workers more focused on the task at hand then what-the-f\’?
Bahueh (10), are you suggesting that only vehicles that promise to use the road many times during the construction be allowed?
I think the fundamental issue is fairness and cyclist are singled out because they are the easiest target.
Of course cyclist are \”another layer of complexity\” the same be argued supporting a ban on motorcycles, rv\’s or. How many times have you been stuck in a long lane of traffic following a pokey RV up a windy or steep road.
Construction would be smoother and faster if there was no traffic on the road. Why stop at a ban on bikes unless you think people on bikes are second class road users?
Perfectly said, dano.
Oh to dream:
Maynes acknowledges that Hurricane Ridge is a “great drive for motorists” but she encourages them to explore other drives in the area during the two-years of construction. She also says, if motorists can just be patient, they’ll appreciate the new and improved road. “The new road will be wider, have better pull-outs, and a better road surface. We’re taking the long-term approach and hoping that if motorists can just use the other options for two years, what they’ll get is a much better experience in the future.”
Dano-
second class road users? you\’re talking to a Cat.3 road racer with about 8-9K miles under his belt annually.
I was simply playing devils advocate…Steve got all huffy.
My simple statement, if it can be heard through the whining, is that there are thousands of miles of alternatives and quieter places to ride with equal if not greater beauty than hurricane ridge..
make it your summer to find them…I dislike that ride due that same exact RV and car traffic…
Pretty much the same response as above (hope this copies okay):
Official Correspondence Via Electronic Mail
No Hard Copy to Follow
Olympic National Park
600 East Park Avenue
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
IN REPLY REFER TO:
A36, xL7615 (OLYM-S)
March 20, 2008
Dear Mr. Schraufnagel:
Thank you for your comments related to the closure of Hurricane Ridge
road to bicycles during the upcoming construction projects. While we
recognize this will be a short term inconvenience for those that ride
this spectacular road, once completed it will provide a better biking
experience. The paved shoulders will be widened slightly and the road
surface will be improved.
The project first underwent public scoping for 30 days on September 24,
2003. Scoping is undertaken to allow the public to submit issues and
factors that should be considered in the formulation of an environmental
assessment. As part of the scoping process we sent out press releases to
200 media outlets, interested groups, public officials, and agencies. In
addition we sent 70 letters to individuals and close to 300 letters to
those who live near or adjacent to the project area. In response to the
scoping we received 11 comments. One commenter addressed the concern
that asphalt paving was a better surface than chip seal for bicycling
and in fact asphalt paving is what the final surface will be.
An environmental assessment was released for public review on October 4,
2004 for 30 days. It included the provision for closing the road to bike
use during the construction period. Again, press releases and letters
were sent out in the numbers noted above to receive public input for the
document and the proposals for work schedules, visitor impacts, and
resource impacts among other issues. We received three comments in
response to the environmental assessment. There were two comments
related to bike use: one the chip seal versus asphalt paving comment as
noted above and a second stating it would be nice to have uphill and
downhill bike lanes added.
On March 3, 2006 a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was released
to the public also including the closure as an impact to visitor
experience. No comments were received. As a result, the contract for
repaving and rehabilitation of Hurricane Ridge Road was issued for bids
by the Federal Highway Administration. The closure to bicycles as
spelled out in the environmental assessment along with other
requirements, were factored into the bid process and a contract has
since been awarded.
Safety is a primary concern in any decision or project we undertake. We
understand that the closure to biking during the construction period
will inconvenience those who would like to continue to ride, however at
this time there is no plan to revisit the decision to close the road
during construction. Once complete, we’ll be happy to see riders on the
road again.
Sincerely,
Susan K. McGill
Susan K. McGill
Acting Superintendent
I remember wanting to go check out Glacier National Park with my bicycle, because the train goes right through it, and there is a train staion in the Park – perfect!
Then I realised, some of their roads like Going-to-the-Sun Road (aka that famous one featured at the beginning of The Shining!) are closed to bicyclists throughout the summer.
So. Then the National Park lost my business. 🙁
I get so sick of people claiming they do this stuff in the name of \”safety\”. I don\’t care for who, the cyclist, the workers, families, kids, babies, etc etc. Life\’s not safe! Use common sense and don\’t descend the mountain at 45mph in the fog. Do that and chances are you won\’t run into a gravel pot hole and break your neck. Or cripple some worker not paying attention. Then again, maybe you will. That\’s life. It\’s dangerous and we better do everything we can to sanitize it as if we were a bunch of domestic cats in need of declawing. Because clearly we are not intelligent or responsible enough to make our own decisions. Make no mistake that is the message we are getting with this decision. It goes beyond discriminating against cyclists.
I\’m tempted to go get arrested when this road closes down.
#20…Cat.3 or not, in the food chain of road users, bikes are down there bud…with or without the patches on your jersey.
Steve, #8: Why should the Olympic National Park, in the far Northwest corner of Washington state, contact anyone in Portland, Oregon (the length of the state of Washington away) or the BTA, an Oregon organization?
I would think you should be more upset that they didn\’t contact anyone in Seattle or Olympia, or whatever the BTA-equivalent in that area.
Here\’s a link if anyone is interested in discovering exactly where this park is; I didn\’t know until I looked into it, I\’m sure there\’s others out there like me)
Maybe we need to spend some time backing up the Washington\’s BTA folks on this; if you feel you must write a letter, here\’s what you should stress:
Tourism dollars. Make it clear how far you travel to get to this park; how much you spend on lodging, food, etc in this area.
If there truly are thousands of bikely people who ride this every year, they all should send letters stressing the money they spend in that area. Nothing gets official attention like a drop in tourism spending.
As per KT comment, I have added a Google Map graphic that should help with visualizing the location.
Also KT, I fixed your link.
Well, KT.
I am upset about several things. One of which was them not notifying groups that might actually care.
She made a point to mention that large sporting goods retailers in Portland were contacted. I know for a fact that large CYCLING retailers were not.
Well known local cycling groups were also omitted. Many people do the coastal route from Portland. This is a major metropolitan area with lots of tourism and recreation overlap into Washington. Surely you are aware of that? It is not like we are on the East coast.
Since you are so concerned with my feelings, I too am concerned with yours.
I am surprised you are not more upset. Instead of telling me how to craft my letter, perhaps you should be penning your own? The National Parks are already heavy handed with bicycle access, this is nothing new and yet another symptom of how we are treated.
One big reason it\’s annoying not to have heard about this previously is, as you can see from the response from the NPS posted by Schrauf above, the Federal government is required (and spends a lot of money to) go through an elaborate public notice and comment period for the decisions that it makes.
The idea is that the public gets to have its say and the Federal agency is required to respond to substantive comments before making a final decision. Yet, in this case, they received no or few comments and so they took an action that, had people actually known about, would have received a lot more attention and a lot more negative comment.
Basically, what I\’m saying here is that the Federal government\’s process for addressing the concerns of National Park users failed miserably in this instance. I\’m not sure whether that was anybody\’s fault, but it\’s frustrating and disappointing.
I agree with DJ Hurricane that the \”public process\” itself deserves part of the blame.
The other big disconnect I realized after talking with Barb Maynes from Olympic National Park is that they (like most of America) see bikes as a recreational activity… and therefore it would never have occurred to them to engage with bicycle advocacy groups, who (to their own detriment in my opinion) are usually more focused on bikes as transportation.
I\’d be curious to know what (if any) type of contact the Bicycle Alliance of Washington has had with Olympic National Park prior to this situation.
If the road is important enough to them to be upset about this decision, they should have established partnerships and relationships with the National Parks folks before this ever happened.
If those relationships had existed, I guarantee the Bicycle Alliance would have been contacted and worked with on this before it got to this point.
I\’m not excusing the Parks folks, but advocates have a responsibility to not just complain when things go wrong, they must be proactive and play the game of politics if they want their voices to be heard.
How is that you idiot bicyclists who can\’t stop at stop signs on paved roads as required by law, think that you can ride your bikes on long sections of gravel road under construction? Get half a brain, why don\’t you? The ban is temporary and the road will be in better and safer shape for your bikes when completed. You whiners need a real problem to get upset about.
Jerry,
Your mom just called. She said to tell you dinner is at 6, and to not be late!
The information supplied in Schrauf\’s comment #21 from Susan K. McGill
Acting Superintendent/ Olympic National Park, is amazing. A public informational process dating back to 2003 that included:
\”…press releases to
200 media outlets, interested groups, public officials, and agencies. In
addition we sent 70 letters to individuals and close to 300 letters to
those who live near or adjacent to the project area\”,
…and yet, if my count of the letters received as noted in McGill\’s letter is correct, the park apparently received a mere 15 letters in response to its plans.
While the exclusion of cyclists DURING construction makes sense, beware, these prohibitions have an ugly habit of becoming permanent after the crisis has abated.
And yet wsbob, no one here ever heard about it. No notice from the BTA or Washingtons equivalent. No \’interested\’ group that I know of heard of it. No media that I follow mentioned it.
I am not a hermit and spend waaaay too much time reading news and following newsgroups/threads. I also regularly visit national parks and retailers in my area.
Makes you wonder if she is either full of it, or wonder who on earth they actually notified. Sort of like picking a group of \’stakeholders\’ who agree with you before you start the process..
Anonymous,
Why does the exclusion of bikes make sense again? They appear to be letting every other road user group through. I am sure motorcycles are still allowed. I wonder if you could ride a horse up?
\”Makes you wonder if she is either full of it, or wonder who on earth they actually notified.\” steve
Then call up Susan K. McGill/Acting Superintendent, and ask for a list of the \”…200 media outlets, interested groups, public officials, and agencies.\” to whom they sent notification of the project and related road closure to bikes.
Then when you get that list, call up some of the recipients and ask if they received the notices and if and how they used them to notify the public of the park\’s plans.
That\’s the first thing to do; actually find out if notice was sent, and what people did once they got the notice. This McGill person sounds pretty certain in her letter to Schrauf, but you sometimes you never know.