NPS: Beach Drive May Stay Closed to Traffic During the Summer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

[Anonymous]

And PDF from NPS is here:
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=102800&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=ROCR%20Upper%20Beach%20Drive%20MP%20EA%2D2022%2D0701%5F508%2Epdf&sfid=593578

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

According to the NPS, the closure affected 8,000 users, the vast majority of whom are Maryland residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

According to the NPS, the closure affected 8,000 users, the vast majority of whom are Maryland residents.

It actually said 5,500-8,000 users, and nothing about residency. It also said that recreational use increased so much they had to revert to a seasonal schedule so as not to damage the parks - is it your position that "the vast majority" of users negatively impacted were Maryland residents but none of those who benefitted from recreational use? How can that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

DP but it seems like you haven't gone to the link at all. It's pretty succinct.

Previous proposals for the management of the upper portion of Beach Drive called for making the current full-time closure to motorized vehicles permanent or reverting to the pre-pandemic schedule of weekend and holiday closures. After careful consideration of the potential effects of these alternatives on park resources, as well as consideration of traffic analysis and the many comments received from the public, the NPS sees the seasonal closure as the best way to protect park resources and strike a balance of different uses - whether visitors are walking, cycling, commuting or scenic-driving.

Beginning in late April 2020, the NPS temporarily expanded the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive. This closure has provided a valuable opportunity for park visitors to recreate more freely and safely within Rock Creek Park. This closure, however, has affected other park uses and has increased the creation of informal, unofficial trails, which can cause natural resource damage. Adopting a seasonal closure schedule will allow visitors to enjoy the park's recreation and nature opportunities during the summer and will allow drivers to commute through the park when there are fewer recreational visitors. In addition, the denser vegetation of the summer season will discourage the creation of and use of informal trails and reduce potential damage to the forest and the important habitat it provides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

DP but it seems like you haven't gone to the link at all. It's pretty succinct.

Previous proposals for the management of the upper portion of Beach Drive called for making the current full-time closure to motorized vehicles permanent or reverting to the pre-pandemic schedule of weekend and holiday closures. After careful consideration of the potential effects of these alternatives on park resources, as well as consideration of traffic analysis and the many comments received from the public, the NPS sees the seasonal closure as the best way to protect park resources and strike a balance of different uses - whether visitors are walking, cycling, commuting or scenic-driving.

Beginning in late April 2020, the NPS temporarily expanded the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive. This closure has provided a valuable opportunity for park visitors to recreate more freely and safely within Rock Creek Park. This closure, however, has affected other park uses and has increased the creation of informal, unofficial trails, which can cause natural resource damage. Adopting a seasonal closure schedule will allow visitors to enjoy the park's recreation and nature opportunities during the summer and will allow drivers to commute through the park when there are fewer recreational visitors. In addition, the denser vegetation of the summer season will discourage the creation of and use of informal trails and reduce potential damage to the forest and the important habitat it provides.

That does not say “there were too many people in the park”. It says that with the closure non motorized park users have been more free to cause negative impacts in the park because they are accessing different areas than they were before and this is less likely to happen during the summer when there is more vegetation. It actually doesn’t refer to the number of users at all. A bit embarrassing for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

DP but it seems like you haven't gone to the link at all. It's pretty succinct.

Previous proposals for the management of the upper portion of Beach Drive called for making the current full-time closure to motorized vehicles permanent or reverting to the pre-pandemic schedule of weekend and holiday closures. After careful consideration of the potential effects of these alternatives on park resources, as well as consideration of traffic analysis and the many comments received from the public, the NPS sees the seasonal closure as the best way to protect park resources and strike a balance of different uses - whether visitors are walking, cycling, commuting or scenic-driving.

Beginning in late April 2020, the NPS temporarily expanded the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive. This closure has provided a valuable opportunity for park visitors to recreate more freely and safely within Rock Creek Park. This closure, however, has affected other park uses and has increased the creation of informal, unofficial trails, which can cause natural resource damage. Adopting a seasonal closure schedule will allow visitors to enjoy the park's recreation and nature opportunities during the summer and will allow drivers to commute through the park when there are fewer recreational visitors. In addition, the denser vegetation of the summer season will discourage the creation of and use of informal trails and reduce potential damage to the forest and the important habitat it provides.

That does not say “there were too many people in the park”. It says that with the closure non motorized park users have been more free to cause negative impacts in the park because they are accessing different areas than they were before and this is less likely to happen during the summer when there is more vegetation. It actually doesn’t refer to the number of users at all. A bit embarrassing for you?

No, that's not what it says. But it's a creative reading to defend the hill you've decided to die on, so: good job, buddy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

According to the NPS, the closure affected 8,000 users, the vast majority of whom are Maryland residents.

It actually said 5,500-8,000 users, and nothing about residency. It also said that recreational use increased so much they had to revert to a seasonal schedule so as not to damage the parks - is it your position that "the vast majority" of users negatively impacted were Maryland residents but none of those who benefitted from recreational use? How can that be?

The access point for those 8,000 park users is East West Highway in Maryland. It is also notable that the report does not bother to mention the number of bicycles using the road during the closure. If it was a lot, I am sure that everyone would know. Anyway, this summer closure is not going to survive past 2023.

[Anonymous]

"We should have more cars driven in Rock Creek Park and fewer people because it will better protect the park" is some messed up 'logic'. Like, what planet do you live on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

According to the NPS, the closure affected 8,000 users, the vast majority of whom are Maryland residents.

It actually said 5,500-8,000 users, and nothing about residency. It also said that recreational use increased so much they had to revert to a seasonal schedule so as not to damage the parks - is it your position that "the vast majority" of users negatively impacted were Maryland residents but none of those who benefitted from recreational use? How can that be?

The access point for those 8,000 park users is East West Highway in Maryland. It is also notable that the report does not bother to mention the number of bicycles using the road during the closure. If it was a lot, I am sure that everyone would know. Anyway, this summer closure is not going to survive past 2023.

28k people on one day. https://ggwash.org/view/79613/spotted-on-car-free-beach-drive-thousands-of-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-629-dogs-one-cat-and-one-bird

[Anonymous]

The Park Service plan seems balanced. Although over time I would hope to see more Rock Creek Park roads closed to traffic more often, these decisions cannot be made in isolation. For example, while closure of Beach Drive is contemplated, DC's DDOT is pursuing a plan that would reduce the rush hour travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue from four to two. Connecticut is the main DC arterial road that parallels Beach Drive and Rock Creek Park. No one in his or her right mind can assume that traffic will just go away like pixie dust. In fact, cutting rush hour carrying capacity on Connecticut will likely send traffic through side streets to find alternative routes north and south. Closing Beach Drive during the work week would make this bad situation even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people misunderstand the proposal. It's not all of Beach, just Beach north of Joyce Road. Bikes can't all of a sudden take Beach from Maryland to P street if the closure is made permanent. And it's not going to affect your commute.

Basically: everybody calm down.

Yup. Just the portion that affects Maryland residents of the national park. Not the portion that affects DC resident users of the national park. No biggie. Unless you are a Maryland resident who wants to use the national park.

That's pretty much backwards. Maryland residents now get more use out of the park. They can bike, skate, walk, run, take their pets for walks. DC residents have to make their way to the tip of the District for these benefits. There's no negative impact on Maryland residents, just a slight inconvenience for Maryland commuters.

According to the NPS, the closure affected 8,000 users, the vast majority of whom are Maryland residents.

It actually said 5,500-8,000 users, and nothing about residency. It also said that recreational use increased so much they had to revert to a seasonal schedule so as not to damage the parks - is it your position that "the vast majority" of users negatively impacted were Maryland residents but none of those who benefitted from recreational use? How can that be?

The access point for those 8,000 park users is East West Highway in Maryland. It is also notable that the report does not bother to mention the number of bicycles using the road during the closure. If it was a lot, I am sure that everyone would know. Anyway, this summer closure is not going to survive past 2023.

28k people on one day. https://ggwash.org/view/79613/spotted-on-car-free-beach-drive-thousands-of-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-629-dogs-one-cat-and-one-bird

That’s not what it says. This is the second pretty serious reading comprehension problem you have shown. I’m not sure that the issue is, but you may want to see someone about that and I’m being very sincere.