NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who needs to get to DCA or BWI anyway? Anacostia doesnt need to be connected to anywhere and NW doesnt really include 16th St East, amirite. Who's with me! Shut down Chain Bridge. Shut down the airports. Isolate Anacostia and EOTP. Disconnect MD and VA. Brilliant!

Both National Airport and BWI Airport have good transit connections.

"Anacostia" is not a synonym for "DC east of the Anacostia River", and 26% and 28% of households in Wards 7 and 8 don't have access to a vehicle.

I guess it's hard to imagine when you go everywhere in the DC area by car, but the reality is that lots of people are already currently going places not by car, and even more people would be able to do so, for more of their trips, if we stopped prioritizing car travel over all other travel modes.

BWI does not. And yes Anacostia is the common name for the area of town that uses the suitland parkway. You'd know that if you've ever actually been to that area. Any idea that starts with the premise that 20% dont use it so let's eff over the 80% that do is fundamentally stupid. Just admit that you didn't realize how many important local transportation links were NPS. Because otherwise, how do I put this nicely...

But all that's besides the point. All of those roads were specifically built to link important monuments, sites, or national parks by road. For instance, Suitland Parkway links Andrews Air Force Base to Bolling Air Force Base. Another important one connects Yellowstone to the Tetons. Rock Creek connects the Zoo to the Lincoln Memorial. Interestingly enough, according to Wikipedia it's on the National Register of Historic Places as an example of an early motorist highway. You can't just eliminate their underlying purpose for being.

BWI does have good transit connections (MARC, light rail, commuter bus) - to say nothing of I-95.

While many people do commonly use "Anacostia" as a synonym for "east of the river," it's still wrong.

Yellowstone is not in the DC area.

And speaking of underlying purposes for being - the underlying purposes for being were RECREATIONAL driving. If you want to have a recreational drive from the zoo to the Lincoln Memorial, for some reason, then you should be able to do that. But no commuting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who needs to get to DCA or BWI anyway? Anacostia doesnt need to be connected to anywhere and NW doesnt really include 16th St East, amirite. Who's with me! Shut down Chain Bridge. Shut down the airports. Isolate Anacostia and EOTP. Disconnect MD and VA. Brilliant!

Both National Airport and BWI Airport have good transit connections.

"Anacostia" is not a synonym for "DC east of the Anacostia River", and 26% and 28% of households in Wards 7 and 8 don't have access to a vehicle.

I guess it's hard to imagine when you go everywhere in the DC area by car, but the reality is that lots of people are already currently going places not by car, and even more people would be able to do so, for more of their trips, if we stopped prioritizing car travel over all other travel modes.

BWI does not. And yes Anacostia is the common name for the area of town that uses the suitland parkway. You'd know that if you've ever actually been to that area. Any idea that starts with the premise that 20% dont use it so let's eff over the 80% that do is fundamentally stupid. Just admit that you didn't realize how many important local transportation links were NPS. Because otherwise, how do I put this nicely...

But all that's besides the point. All of those roads were specifically built to link important monuments, sites, or national parks by road. For instance, Suitland Parkway links Andrews Air Force Base to Bolling Air Force Base. Another important one connects Yellowstone to the Tetons. Rock Creek connects the Zoo to the Lincoln Memorial. Interestingly enough, according to Wikipedia it's on the National Register of Historic Places as an example of an early motorist highway. You can't just eliminate their underlying purpose for being.

BWI does have good transit connections (MARC, light rail, commuter bus) - to say nothing of I-95.

While many people do commonly use "Anacostia" as a synonym for "east of the river," it's still wrong.

Yellowstone is not in the DC area.

And speaking of underlying purposes for being - the underlying purposes for being were RECREATIONAL driving. If you want to have a recreational drive from the zoo to the Lincoln Memorial, for some reason, then you should be able to do that. But no commuting.

DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

The secret with these people is that they are hypocrites. They have cars, they just don’t want you to have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

The secret with these people is that they are hypocrites. They have cars, they just don’t want you to have one.

You can have as many cars as you want. Just don't expect to store them on public property for free, and don't expect to be able to drive them fast through urban or suburban areas. 20 mph is plenty fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

The secret with these people is that they are hypocrites. They have cars, they just don’t want you to have one.

You can have as many cars as you want. Just don't expect to store them on public property for free, and don't expect to be able to drive them fast through urban or suburban areas. 20 mph is plenty fast.

Let me correct that, they have their cars and they live in houses in the city with a garage but they don’t want you to have either. Apparently only they deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

The secret with these people is that they are hypocrites. They have cars, they just don’t want you to have one.

You can have as many cars as you want. Just don't expect to store them on public property for free, and don't expect to be able to drive them fast through urban or suburban areas. 20 mph is plenty fast.

Let me correct that, they have their cars and they live in houses in the city with a garage but they don’t want you to have either. Apparently only they deserve it.

You think this is about garages?

You don't want to pay market value to store your car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP but seriously just give it a rest already. Honestly cannot wait for people like you and your crew to have kids and then you’ll flip a full 180 on cars.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and my oldest child is about to graduate from high school.

How are you going to handle it in ten years when that kid is driving a full-size SUV because they refuse to tote around their new child on a bike like you did with them?

The secret with these people is that they are hypocrites. They have cars, they just don’t want you to have one.

You can have as many cars as you want. Just don't expect to store them on public property for free, and don't expect to be able to drive them fast through urban or suburban areas. 20 mph is plenty fast.

Let me correct that, they have their cars and they live in houses in the city with a garage but they don’t want you to have either. Apparently only they deserve it.

You think this is about garages?

You don't want to pay market value to store your car?

You’re the one that brought up parking, not me. There is nothing wrong with cars. I like walking, I like driving. I like transit. I like getting places I need to go to as conveniently as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You’re the one that brought up parking, not me. There is nothing wrong with cars. I like walking, I like driving. I like transit. I like getting places I need to go to as conveniently as possible.

If you want to talk about cars, you also have to talk about parking - unless the cars are just going to endlessly drive around. Otherwise, the issues are inseparable. A discussion about cars is inherently also a discussion about parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You’re the one that brought up parking, not me. There is nothing wrong with cars. I like walking, I like driving. I like transit. I like getting places I need to go to as conveniently as possible.

If you want to talk about cars, you also have to talk about parking - unless the cars are just going to endlessly drive around. Otherwise, the issues are inseparable. A discussion about cars is inherently also a discussion about parking.

I’m not talking about parking. I’m talking about parking.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Just got back from a nice afternoon in Haines Point, and I'm struck yet again about how utterly absurd the traffic management is. They need to create a one-way interior loop, a few additional parking lots, and leave the exterior loop for bikers and pedestrians. The current scenario is a terrible use of space. And before anyone comes to rant about white gentrifiers: well over 1/2 of the bikers were black - maybe even upwards of 75%. The parking lot for the golf clubhouse is also horribly designed - no sidewalks to exit! You're forced into the driving lane.

Cars also are going entirely too fast, especially on the portion with separated lanes going to the golf clubhouse.

What would it take to get NPS to even care? Is the whole island just sinking so they're not going to do anything anyway?

[Anonymous]

Why should these parks be open to bikes either? A bike is just another type of vehicle. If you’re going to shut out cars, the. It makes zero sense to allow bikes. Either enjoy the park on foot, or don’t come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should these parks be open to bikes either? A bike is just another type of vehicle. If you’re going to shut out cars, the. It makes zero sense to allow bikes. Either enjoy the park on foot, or don’t come.

This is exactly how the Department of Interior operates. National Parks and Forests allow both cars and bikes (some National Forests have logging roads that are closed to cars but bikes can pass but that is because they are not maintained and not safe for cars). Wilderness Areas allow neither cars nor bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should these parks be open to bikes either? A bike is just another type of vehicle. If you’re going to shut out cars, the. It makes zero sense to allow bikes. Either enjoy the park on foot, or don’t come.

This is exactly how the Department of Interior operates. National Parks and Forests allow both cars and bikes (some National Forests have logging roads that are closed to cars but bikes can pass but that is because they are not maintained and not safe for cars). Wilderness Areas allow neither cars nor bikes.

Obviously, Hains Point is not a wilderness area. It’s an urban park, and historically it’s used heavily by bikers. But the current situation is untenably focused around cars. It’s even worse for pedestrians.