5 reasons we need a car-free city park

In March 2020, to create more room people to recreate while physically distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Denver Parks and Recreation closed roads in several city parks to vehicle traffic. Now, one year later, they’re determining which closures to make permanent. Several parks will maintain the pandemic-era closures, but Denver’s central park, City Park, will be returning to more-or-less the way it was pre-pandemic (read: full of cars).

As a local resident who utilizes City Park daily for transportation and recreation, I’m firmly in favor of keeping City Park car free. To be clear, this does not actually mean there will be no cars in the park. It means that there will be parking available for cars in multiple locations around the perimeter of the park (as well as ADA parking in the center of the park for those with mobility limitations) and cars can drive on short stretches of park roads to access these parking lots. A car-free park means that vehicles are not allowed to drive through the center of the park.

There are so many reasons I support a car-free City Park, but here five of my top reasons we need people-full park that’s light on cars:

one // It’s safer for everyone. Three of the four roads that form the boundaries of City Park are on part of what is called the “High Injury Network” (HIN). This is not a positive achievement: the HIN “represents the corridors in Denver with the highest number of fatal and injury crashes. Collectively, the HIN accounts for 5% of streets in Denver, but 50% of traffic deaths” (Source: Denver Vision Zero).

Colorado Boulevard to the east of the park, 17th Avenue on the south side of the park, and York Street on the west side of the park are all arterial road that are part of the HIN. They’re busy roads that get a lot of people where they need to go every day. Speeding on these roads is common. Entering the park via any of these roads is dangerous, for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people driving motor vehicles.

Furthermore, allowing cars to drive within the park decreases the safety park goers. Kids riding bikes, people walking their dogs, families having picnics. Cars often cut through the park to avoid the traffic on the busy roads mentioned above. These cars often don’t follow the speed limit and are mostly just concerned with getting where they need to go.

As urban dwellers, we need safe spaces to recreate. Low-income residents are twice as likely as high-income residents to be killed while walking. And African American children are two times as likely to be killed while walking as white children. Latino children: 40% more likely. No matter who you are, being out and about poses significant risks. We need safer streets. But in the meantime, we need parks to be a respite from the risks of the roads.

Limiting the routes cars can drive through City Park is not a limitation on people. It’s a prioritization of people. It puts the safety and health of our citizens ahead of convenience or presumed desires. It’s not about closing the streets to cars. It’s about opening them to people.

two // The people want it. In a survey conducted by the Denver Parks and Recreation department in late 2020, 78% of the 1500 respondents who commented about City Park said they wanted to see the road closures made permanent for the long term. The survey respondents were predominately white (89%), and the survey notes point out that “The amount of people who identify as Black or African American and do not want roads/lots to remain closed is significantly higher compared to all other race/ethnicities. The amount of people who identify as White or Caucasian and do want roads/lots to remain closed is significantly higher than all other race/ethnicities besides Asian/Asian American.”

These are important takeaways. Nevertheless, to ignore the preference of such a strong majority because of conjecture about what hypothetical respondents may want? It doesn’t make sense. More outreach and data collection could have been done. But if the city is confident in the role equity considerations played in their survey outreach, then they should listen to results.

three // Exercise is good for everyone. In the context of championing road closures in City Park, exercise is a factor in a few different ways:

First is the idea that you don’t have to park directly next to your destination. This seems hard for some Denverites to wrap their head around. But unless you have a mobility limitation, parking a short walk from your destination is usually a good thing! It’s a chance to exercise, get fresh air, and enjoy your surroundings. It rarely pours rain in Denver, so really those 300+ days of sunshine per year make this a great walking city.

Additionally, open, car-free space in the park allows more people to move their bodies without safety concerns. People can rollerblade, bike, run, skateboard, stroll…The Mayo Clinic recommends at least 30 minutes of exercise everyday, and a 2018 study revealed that only 23% of Americans get enough exercise. 

This is again a great context within which to emphasize the point that no one is arguing against driving to the park, I’m just arguing that cars shouldn’t be driving through the park.

four// It’s good for wildlife and the environment.
In a stretch of trees adjacent to one of the closed roads on the west side of City Park, two red-tailed hawks are nesting. My children look for them every time we walk in the park. I don’t have hard data on the increase of wildlife in the park since the roads have been closed, but my observations tell me it isn’t insignificant. Our cities have always encroached on wildlife. Parks are a small refuge for all animals amidst the urban chaos.

Additionally, Denver residents endure elevated pollution levels daily. The air quality in our region continues to deteriorate each year despite stated goals to address the problems causing it. Our city leadership knows that we have to reduce car traffic and increase walking, biking, and transit trips to curb the negative effects of transportation emissions (between 1/4 to 1/3 of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation!).

The parks department should be protecting nature and the environment by implementing policies that prioritize transit and help residents take fewer polluting trips.

five // RTD buses serve the park and surround attractions.
City Park is a regional park that should be accessible to people from the whole city and region (and beyond). In conversations about access and parking, it’s important not to make “access” synonymous with “car access.” City Park is well served by public transportation. The park is surrounded on all four sides by arterial roads with bus lines.

Of course, the convenience of Denver’s bus system can be debated and these bus routes will not provide the most convenient access for everyone. But as a city, we are striving to meet stated climate goals, and to do that we must continue to discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicle. As such, plans for City Park should incentivize walking, biking, and using transit to get to the park. And maybe make some convenient parking for electric vehicles too. The Parks and Recreation Department’s current plan to open the park back up to cars for events and everyday use is not forward-looking. It prioritizes and normalizes an outdated view of modality. We, as a city, have an opportunity to set forth as we mean to go on. Let’s reduce our air pollution, improve the health of our residents, and keep our friends and family safe.