why are cars allowed in the National Arbortetum? Why? Why? WHYYYY?

[Anonymous]

Admittedly, I have not been there during the pandemic, but walked daily in the arboretum for years. The only time I ever encountered many people/cars there was during azalea season, which is now.

Technically, I believe it is considered a research facility (run by ARS) first and foremost, that just happens to be open to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

No, no, and no, on all counts. And, I'm not against parking lots or the concept of locating the parking lots close to different features. I just think it's totally absurd that the park is laid out to priortize car traffic THROUGH the features, which disrupts everyone's enjoyment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

[Anonymous]

Oooh, OP you aren't going to like this little tidbit. When I attended a free city run drivers ed course in the early 2000s, we used the Arboretum for practice driving. My very first time behind the wheel was there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

It's not a park or nature preserve. It's a research facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

It's not a park or nature preserve. It's a research facility.

it's a research and education facility with a public mission, established by federal law and funded by federal dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the park is very large. If you mean that they should ALSO have better walking trails that can be safely accessed WITHOUT the use of a car (meaning without having to walk on the edge of the road), I completely agree with you. Right now the park has trails that are most accessible by car, which is very American, and not pedestrian-friendly.

What on earth are you talking about? The arboretum is plenty pedestrian friendly as it is. No one needs to drive to see any part of the park. If you're using "pedestrian-friendly" to mean lazy AF, then ok, you have a point. But the arboretum is easily walkable in any part of the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oooh, OP you aren't going to like this little tidbit. When I attended a free city run drivers ed course in the early 2000s, we used the Arboretum for practice driving. My very first time behind the wheel was there

thank you for adding to my annoyance quotient. sincerely!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

It's not a park or nature preserve. It's a research facility.

it's a research and education facility with a public mission, established by federal law and funded by federal dollars.

Sure, but does that change its mission? It wasn't created for recreation and its actual purpose is barely funded, so expecting it to be made more pedestrian-friendly is a pipe dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the park is very large. If you mean that they should ALSO have better walking trails that can be safely accessed WITHOUT the use of a car (meaning without having to walk on the edge of the road), I completely agree with you. Right now the park has trails that are most accessible by car, which is very American, and not pedestrian-friendly.

What on earth are you talking about? The arboretum is plenty pedestrian friendly as it is. No one needs to drive to see any part of the park. If you're using "pedestrian-friendly" to mean lazy AF, then ok, you have a point. But the arboretum is easily walkable in any part of the park.

And it's only walkable if you walk along the roads open to cars. And there's the problem. When I look the map of the arboretum, it looks like it would be very easy to consolidate parking lots and only use the R street lot, NY Ave lot, and perhaps keep open the lots on the eastern side. Then you could permit car traffic only between the NY Ave lot and the eastern lot, using the road at the northern periphery. If they opened up the MD Avenue gate, then they could also use that lot, but not allow any traffic circulation beyond the lot. If there's truly a demand for transport between locations, a trolly with a modest fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the park is very large. If you mean that they should ALSO have better walking trails that can be safely accessed WITHOUT the use of a car (meaning without having to walk on the edge of the road), I completely agree with you. Right now the park has trails that are most accessible by car, which is very American, and not pedestrian-friendly.

What on earth are you talking about? The arboretum is plenty pedestrian friendly as it is. No one needs to drive to see any part of the park. If you're using "pedestrian-friendly" to mean lazy AF, then ok, you have a point. But the arboretum is easily walkable in any part of the park.

What about people with mobility issues? Do you just dismiss them as lazy AF? shouldn't they be able to enjoy the park as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

It's not a park or nature preserve. It's a research facility.

it's a research and education facility with a public mission, established by federal law and funded by federal dollars.

Sure, but does that change its mission? It wasn't created for recreation and its actual purpose is barely funded, so expecting it to be made more pedestrian-friendly is a pipe dream.

It wouldn't cost any money to make it pedestrian friendly. You'd just limit where people can drive. That would probably attract more visitors and a more vibrant "friends of" group and more donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the park is very large. If you mean that they should ALSO have better walking trails that can be safely accessed WITHOUT the use of a car (meaning without having to walk on the edge of the road), I completely agree with you. Right now the park has trails that are most accessible by car, which is very American, and not pedestrian-friendly.

What on earth are you talking about? The arboretum is plenty pedestrian friendly as it is. No one needs to drive to see any part of the park. If you're using "pedestrian-friendly" to mean lazy AF, then ok, you have a point. But the arboretum is easily walkable in any part of the park.

What about people with mobility issues? Do you just dismiss them as lazy AF? shouldn't they be able to enjoy the park as well.

They'd be able to access the park at the parking lots. it would be much much more accessible then because they could use wheelchairs/scooters on the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the park is very large. If you mean that they should ALSO have better walking trails that can be safely accessed WITHOUT the use of a car (meaning without having to walk on the edge of the road), I completely agree with you. Right now the park has trails that are most accessible by car, which is very American, and not pedestrian-friendly.

What on earth are you talking about? The arboretum is plenty pedestrian friendly as it is. No one needs to drive to see any part of the park. If you're using "pedestrian-friendly" to mean lazy AF, then ok, you have a point. But the arboretum is easily walkable in any part of the park.

What about people with mobility issues? Do you just dismiss them as lazy AF? shouldn't they be able to enjoy the park as well.

You think 100% of the people driving around the park have mobility issues?

If you have a handicapped placard, that's one thing. The people don't. Most are overwhelmingly lazy AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess OP. You are a millennial who doesn’t have a car and you live in one of the gentrified neighborhood in north east that is convenient walking or biking distance to the Arboretum. Am I right?

Bonus points for admitting that you are a fairly recent arrival to the district of Columbia and this is your first home that you’ve purchased

To add, just as you’re tired of cars in your new pandemic walking routine, people like me, who’ve been going there for years,
are so bummed that throngs of millennials have “discovered “ the once-quiet place. We’re dismayed that you clog it up consistently with off-leash rescue dogs and shouty loud preschoolers and babies climbing in the trees which is clearly inappropriate.

We have to coexist now and so do you

\

Guess what - the fact that you have been going there for years doesn't give you any more or less right to it.

Large urban parks are going car-free everywhere; so it only makes sense to consider it for the National Arboretum as well. I'm sorry, but no, you don't have the right to get in your car, drive 1/3 mile to see an azalea, then get back in your car and drive another 1/3 mile to see a dogwood. That is giving a huge amount of priority to cars. The parking lots obviously need to be consolidated and car traffic limited to access to the parking lots.

I have exactly that right. It’s the way it’s designed. I can drive circles all day if I want to. If you want trails with no cars around you’re looking in the wrong place.