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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it’s so obvious that you went one time in peak season and only visited the meadow and Capitol Columns. The fact that you keep saying people see it from their cars or walking the main roads shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know exactly what I’m talking about, and the most recent master plan update reflects that (partially).

The master plan shows getting rid of a few connector roads and making one way loops (which I would support). It also shows increased parking thoughout the park, including parallel parking on the newly one way roads. It does not show restricting traffic in the arboretum to 2-3 parking lots and having everyone walk or bike as you’ve been advocating.

Right, that's why I don't fully agree with it. What it does recognize is that the current car traffic pattern is haphazard and accretive, not the result of planning, and that they need to remove some roads and create better links for pedestrians. What I disagree with is the notion that it's a desirable design to create "loops" for people to drive around. I think that's a terrible priority.

The master plan in no way supports your central thesis that cars shouldn't be in the arboretum. I don't know why you keep pretending like it does.

It supports that the current car patterns doesn't work and that more thought should be put into the pedestrian priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a park. Stop moaning about the cars. If you want a park head out to SNP.

If you want a park, head out to Rock Creek Park, which has a major commuting highway through it, oh wait...

Or: if you want to say it's not a park, it's a research facility, then there really shouldn't be any visitors at all.

Rock Creek park is a great example actually - Beach Drive is closed to traffic.

The major commuting highway through Rock Creek Park is the Rock Creek Parkway.

Ok, the point is that they prioritized pedestrian/bike usage on a big chunk of it, in recognition that public space should not be car-centric. They could have easily said, "pedestrians and bikers can stay on the trails and bike paths." But they didn't - they had a great vision of opening up the park to its highest and best use (as a park, away from cars, but still accessible by car.)

Are you thinking of a different Rock Creek Park than I am? Because there are definitely roads running through it that you will get run over on if you try to walk on them.

Yes, not sure why you think that's a relevant point? My point is that by closing Beach Drive (completely during the pandemic, and prior to that on the weekends), they had the foresight to create an unequalled experience in the park that deprioritizes cars. Not that cars don't use Rock Creek at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it’s so obvious that you went one time in peak season and only visited the meadow and Capitol Columns. The fact that you keep saying people see it from their cars or walking the main roads shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know exactly what I’m talking about, and the most recent master plan update reflects that (partially).

The master plan shows getting rid of a few connector roads and making one way loops (which I would support). It also shows increased parking thoughout the park, including parallel parking on the newly one way roads. It does not show restricting traffic in the arboretum to 2-3 parking lots and having everyone walk or bike as you’ve been advocating.

Right, that's why I don't fully agree with it. What it does recognize is that the current car traffic pattern is haphazard and accretive, not the result of planning, and that they need to remove some roads and create better links for pedestrians. What I disagree with is the notion that it's a desirable design to create "loops" for people to drive around. I think that's a terrible priority.

The master plan in no way supports your central thesis that cars shouldn't be in the arboretum. I don't know why you keep pretending like it does.

It supports that the current car patterns doesn't work and that more thought should be put into the pedestrian priority.

You: Cars should only park in 2-3 lots and everyone should walk or bike
Also You: This document that actually proposes more parking in more locations in the Arboretum supports my idea that cars shouldn't be allowed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it’s so obvious that you went one time in peak season and only visited the meadow and Capitol Columns. The fact that you keep saying people see it from their cars or walking the main roads shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know exactly what I’m talking about, and the most recent master plan update reflects that (partially).

The master plan shows getting rid of a few connector roads and making one way loops (which I would support). It also shows increased parking thoughout the park, including parallel parking on the newly one way roads. It does not show restricting traffic in the arboretum to 2-3 parking lots and having everyone walk or bike as you’ve been advocating.

Right, that's why I don't fully agree with it. What it does recognize is that the current car traffic pattern is haphazard and accretive, not the result of planning, and that they need to remove some roads and create better links for pedestrians. What I disagree with is the notion that it's a desirable design to create "loops" for people to drive around. I think that's a terrible priority.

The master plan in no way supports your central thesis that cars shouldn't be in the arboretum. I don't know why you keep pretending like it does.

It supports that the current car patterns doesn't work and that more thought should be put into the pedestrian priority.

You: Cars should only park in 2-3 lots and everyone should walk or bike
Also You: This document that actually proposes more parking in more locations in the Arboretum supports my idea that cars shouldn't be allowed!

Ok, let me explain it to you one more time.

This isn't about parking, per se, but about how cars get from the parking lots. My argument is basically that the design is too haphazardly car-dominant, and doesn't clearly set out the pedestrian, car-free sections. The Master Plan clearly supports this. I disagree with the Master Plan in that it continues to envision cars as a modality for viewing the arboretum ("loops.") But I think it goes in the right direction, because it would eliminate some paved roadways and limit cars more than they are limited now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

I guess we should pave all the beaches, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

They are different issues, but I think the unlimited car traffic likely does also impede access. It just makes it a less hospitable place to walk, so people are less likely to go there to walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

So we should allow people to drive their cars on roads through the National Zoo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

Right. I think the Arboretum needs to do some harder thinking about the purpose of cars in the park. I'm willing to concede that there may be more purpose to people driving to different points in the park than just the 3 lots. But even so, I do not think that "viewing the arboretum by cars in thematic loops" is an acceptable usage pattern. If they focus on the points they think people should be able to travel by car between, then they could create some very limited car traffic routes and leave the rest of the arboretum to pedestrians.

The fact is, we are a growing nation with a shrinking amount of green space. We're going to need to learn to manage it better to preserve what people need when they experience nature. Quiet, calm, and no cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

I guess we should pave all the beaches, then.

I haven't been to the arboretum recently. Is it all paved now? When I was last there there was lots of grass and there were trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.