Upper Beach Drive to Remain Closed to Cars Year Round

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

And if you spent 4 seconds searching, you would have your answer. It has even been posted in this thread previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

And if you spent 4 seconds searching, you would have your answer. It has even been posted in this thread previously.

Where? I've read the whole thread. Like I said, I read the news reports and NPS Twitter announcing the decision. I have seen no support for the idea that this was an environmental decision, just multiple posters assuming that it must be and then running with that assumption as fact. You have spent more than 4 seconds replying to insist that I'm wrong, but still won't provide the support for your position that you say only takes 4 seconds to provide. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. But you're not proving anything w/r/t your position, you're just insisting you don't have to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

Oh sweetie, this is an anonymous message board. You're not in debate club anymore. Go do your own googling or admit you don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

Where's your proof that there's environmental harm from pedestrians? I missed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

Oh sweetie, this is an anonymous message board. You're not in debate club anymore. Go do your own googling or admit you don't care.

I do care that the basic premise of this thread seems to be invented from whole cloth. And I am pretty sweet, thanks for noticing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

Oh sweetie, this is an anonymous message board. You're not in debate club anymore. Go do your own googling or admit you don't care.

I do care that the basic premise of this thread seems to be invented from whole cloth. And I am pretty sweet, thanks for noticing.

You can't prove that can you, you're just asserting that now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you point me to where NPS said “cars were bad for the park”?

When it closed Beach Drive permanently.

Did they? Have a link or evidence?

I’d hate to believe that you’re just making this up.

So you think cars spewing carbon based exhaust into the park is ok?

Thank you for confirming that NPS never said “cars were bad for the park” as the rationale for the decision and that you made that up. I’m glad that you are big enough to admit your error.

Adding pollution is never good for the environment.

Increasing congestion increases pollution. Thanks for the talk.

There is already congestion and the park is already closed. At least the park is cleaner now than it was. And going forward it will continue to heal.

NPS found that continued closure led to increased degradation of habitat in the park due to pedestrian users making their own trails.

This is the salient point that's being ignored by all the people saying the park is now cleaner (HAHA! might as well just say you've never been on the trails) and this is an environmental decision. Cars on Upper Beach weren't destroying RCP. But during the lockdown NPS did a survey and found that pedestrians were, by tromping everywhere (leaving trash) and not sticking to the marked trails.

I don't drive to work, and never drive on Beach above Joyce. But it's telling that the people celebrating this as a win for Mother Earth are just making things up because they sound like they *should* be true.

NPS ultimately decided, though, that the better way to deal with the environmental issues from increased ped/bike usage during the closure of upper Beach was to develop an actual use plan that will make it possible for all those people to use the park without the environmental issues--better trail marking, more access points, more trash recepticles, etc. Also, I would just note that nothing in the language you quoted suggests that there is not a large environmental impact from allowing cars on Beach Drive. There are environmental impacts from both, but NPS ultimately concluded the environmental impacts from peds/bikes were manageable and reducible and outweighed by the benefits of the closure.

Link, please? Because the report describing the negative effects of hikers was published. AFAICT the only thing NPS has "published" this time is a decision to keep a portion of Upper Beach closed to thru traffic, and people in this thread are helpfully supplying the reasoning as environmental because, again, it feels like it should be true in their hearts.

Are you quoting the draft as "published" and ignoring the final version? Seems disingenuous.

No, I'm asking for a link to the NPS report that says this was done for environmental reasons. Do you have that? There has been no such report linked to any of the news reports about the closure I've read. I have no reason to believe this was an environmental decision, as opposed to a way to compromise between the use groups without closing too much of the road.

use the google machine

The party making the assertion supports the assertion. I believe you are making an unfounded assertion.

Prove that to me. You made that assertion, but don't back it up. Yes, pedantry is fun isn't it.

https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

To support your proposition, one must present evidence.

Basic princples of argumentation are not pedantry, but I'm not surprised you're confused. Your turn.

Where's your proof that there's environmental harm from pedestrians? I missed that.

Protecting park resources

The year-round closure does have the potential to have negative impacts on park resources, particularly wildlife, rare, threatened and endangered species, and their habitats. During the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive, the park has seen an increase in visitors cutting through the forest (often to get to or from the road) and damaging plants and sensitive wildlife habitat. The NPS plans to mitigate these impacts by developing a visitor use plan, which will include monitoring and active management of unofficial trails and implementing the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Plan for the Hay's Spring amphipod. The public can help us protect sensitive resources by staying on designated trails (look for trail blazing) in Rock Creek Park and keeping dogs on leash. Additional planned mitigation measures are listed in the EA.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=124589

And that's from the final announcement, not the interim. There's nothing at all about how the closure protects park resources by banning cars, just how they'll have to have a mitigation plan because they already know the closure puts resources at risk.