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

[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.

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.

Well, thank's for demonstrating the problem. The design is bad, hence this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arboretum has dozens of specific walks and trails that start from different parking lots. People aren’t touring the arboretum by car. They are driving to the parking lot nearest their favorite trail. There are also may trails in the woods and fields that are no where near the road and you can walk uninterrupted by traffic. You don’t need to walk on the driving roads.

Why oh why should a nature park be criss-crossed with car routes to drive to parking lots? Can you not see how absurd that is?

It's not a nature park. It's a tree museum. Get a grip. Find a park designed the way you want it.

[Anonymous]

OP, it's you! You have a terrible sense of self-righteousness and entitlement. It's you.

[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.

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.

Oh my god how do we call them and put you in charge??

[Anonymous]

OP is like if Jared Kushner moved to Brookland.

[Anonymous]

90% of the year this argument is pointless because there are simply not that many people at the park. If you walk, you don't deal with many cars and they mostly go slow. And most of the people who drive are simply doing it to reach the more far flung areas of the park and are respectful of low speed limits and look out for pedestrians and bikes.

It's just that in the spring, you get lots of people who visit the park infrequently (including tourists) showing up to see the most crowded part of the park and not observing any of the unspoken rules of the arboretum, like minimizing driving. If you go there a lot, you know that you can park at the visitors center and walk to almost everywhere you want to go on accessible trails. The only real exception are the Asian gardens which are a bit of a hike if you have mobility issues, children, or limited time, so many people will drive over there if that's the focus of your visit.

But no one drives, parks to look an "an azalea" then drives to look at a dogwood, etc., as a PP mentioned. That kind of behavior, and accompanying entitlement, only happens during azaleas and to a lesser extent on summer weekends. For those of us who have been visiting the Arboretum for years, especially if you live in NE where it is more accessible than the mall or waterfront areas, this really isn't an issue most of the time. Like everything in DC, you just have to learn to work around the tourists and crowds in the high season. It's one of the costs of living in this lovely city with so many free amenities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arboretum has dozens of specific walks and trails that start from different parking lots. People aren’t touring the arboretum by car. They are driving to the parking lot nearest their favorite trail. There are also may trails in the woods and fields that are no where near the road and you can walk uninterrupted by traffic. You don’t need to walk on the driving roads.

Why oh why should a nature park be criss-crossed with car routes to drive to parking lots? Can you not see how absurd that is?

It's not a nature park. It's a tree museum. Get a grip. Find a park designed the way you want it.

People walk through museums, not drive, if we're going to use that metaphor.

[Anonymous]

There's no longer a tram because funding was cut.

I think it's really cute that someone thinks FONA will get more donations if it's pedestrianized, though. I'm sure that's why OP hasn't donated yet.

The place operates on fumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a big difference between the level of mobility issues that would warrant a handicap placard and what would make walking a large park like this difficult if not impossible. And no, I have never claimed that 100% of people driving are not physically able to walk, but your proposal doesn't account for those who aren't. Your sanctimony also ignores the people who would simply prefer not to, and your preferences do not trump theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's you! You have a terrible sense of self-righteousness and entitlement. It's you.

So many amenities and programs and changes you probably enjoy right now were the product of a "self-righteous" person or group of people with an idea and energy to make it into reality. Sorry it offends you when people try to improve things.

[Anonymous]

Because they don't care about seeing the trees or gardens - they want to drive in for a selfie or photo op for social media, then drive out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arboretum has dozens of specific walks and trails that start from different parking lots. People aren’t touring the arboretum by car. They are driving to the parking lot nearest their favorite trail. There are also may trails in the woods and fields that are no where near the road and you can walk uninterrupted by traffic. You don’t need to walk on the driving roads.

Why oh why should a nature park be criss-crossed with car routes to drive to parking lots? Can you not see how absurd that is?

It's not a nature park. It's a tree museum. Get a grip. Find a park designed the way you want it.

People walk through museums, not drive, if we're going to use that metaphor.

It's not a metaphor.

[Anonymous]

I love the visitor center building. Just for the record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no longer a tram because funding was cut.

I think it's really cute that someone thinks FONA will get more donations if it's pedestrianized, though. I'm sure that's why OP hasn't donated yet.

The place operates on fumes.

I mean, all the more reason to revitalize it and make it a more attractive place for what DC clearly wants - pedestrian-focused areas for recreation. It's not hard to see this trend, from Beach Drive to Navy Yard to the Wharf to RFK Fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:90% of the year this argument is pointless because there are simply not that many people at the park. If you walk, you don't deal with many cars and they mostly go slow. And most of the people who drive are simply doing it to reach the more far flung areas of the park and are respectful of low speed limits and look out for pedestrians and bikes.

It's just that in the spring, you get lots of people who visit the park infrequently (including tourists) showing up to see the most crowded part of the park and not observing any of the unspoken rules of the arboretum, like minimizing driving. If you go there a lot, you know that you can park at the visitors center and walk to almost everywhere you want to go on accessible trails. The only real exception are the Asian gardens which are a bit of a hike if you have mobility issues, children, or limited time, so many people will drive over there if that's the focus of your visit.

But no one drives, parks to look an "an azalea" then drives to look at a dogwood, etc., as a PP mentioned. That kind of behavior, and accompanying entitlement, only happens during azaleas and to a lesser extent on summer weekends. For those of us who have been visiting the Arboretum for years, especially if you live in NE where it is more accessible than the mall or waterfront areas, this really isn't an issue most of the time. Like everything in DC, you just have to learn to work around the tourists and crowds in the high season. It's one of the costs of living in this lovely city with so many free amenities.

It seems to be working out fine for most of us, present OP excluded.