NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't try and claim that you care about pedestrians. Pedestrians need cars to get there. If you want to make it safer for pedestrians then ban bikes.

there’s nowhere for pedestrians or bikes. rethinking the use of space doesn’t mean getting rid of parking. It means making space for pedestrians and bikes. and nobody should be driving around Haines Point at any speed greater than 15mph.

Ok, bicycling boomer. All of yall should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to use a tragic death to get rid of those pesky pedestrians.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Neither bikes nor pedestrians have a dedicated space right now on long stretches of roadway. It’s not a good situation.

Im trying to say that maybe you should focus on getting the tidal basin etc shored up so that they pathway is usable again instead of trying to get rid of pedestrians under the guise of protecting them. Maybe work to benefit everyone instead of just bicyclists.

where are you getting that weird thing about pedestrians. I think they need to update the infrastructure to create areas for bikes and pedestrians and minimize cars.

It's a 3 mile walk from the nearest dwelling. The parking lot is next to the playground/picnic area. If cars are banned or the parking lot removed that results in pedestrians being practically unable to use the space. It has been revealed repeatedly on this thread that the pro-bicyclist activists are trying to use pedestrian safety as a stalking horse to get rid of everyone else.

For example: the problem is that silt buildup has led to higher tides that are flooding the walkway. This in turn has driven pedestrians onto the road. However, instead of highlighting that problem and working on ways to restore the pedestrian walkway (which would benefit everybody) the issue is being framed as one of dangerous cars that need to be banned. This proposed solution does not solve anything. All it does is eliminate pedestrian access. Rather than support a common good solution the bicycle proponents are trying to use the opportunity to get rid of the competition as it were.

No, it's not. You can walk from the new condos on the SW Waterfront/Wharf to Hains Point in about 20 minutes. You can also take the jitney from the Wharf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no use in arguing with this person. Parks Service would never do this, it would probably invite an ADA lawsuit FI they did and if there’s not enough money to repair the sea wall, then anything else is wishful thinking.

Yup. I juat don't like thw disenguity. The big irony is that cars are also needed for all the casual and kid bikers while lowering the speed limit further would be opposed by the wannabe racing types.

Huh? the real ADA issue is that there is zero access for anyone with disabilities to access large swaths of the park due to the car traffic and crumbling infrastructure. When was the last time you were there? Your argument isn’t tenable. The real question is why NPS is doing nothing. There was a full renovation plan suggested in 2015 but crickets since then. Meanwhile they have a plan for improving bike/pedestrian trails in other parts of the mall and monuments. My guess is that either the subsidence problem is more dire than we know, or there’s something to do with the new golf course management contract.

but by all means stick with your weird idea that there is a secret bike racing mafia that wants to take it over. that makes a ton of sense.

NPS hasn't done anything because the underlying issue is much broader and impacts the entire tidal basin. The flooding is killing the cherry trees. You'd know that if you cared about anything besides cycling.

No one has demanded with exclusive access except for the cyclists. But at this point I'm in favor of a strict ban on lycra and $1000+ bicycles. That alone would solve all the problems. Especially now that you also want to get rid of the main public golf course in the area too.

I'm not sure that's true, because they are working on fixing some bike/pedestrian paths near the Tidal Basin.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/improving-roads-and-multi-use-trails-around-the-national-mall.htm

PS the more you rant about Lycra the less bona fides you have in discussing urban park usage. Maybe you should just stop? Or engage honestly, that would be ok too. Also maybe stop making sh*t up like that I want to "get rid of the main public golf course." Literally nobody ever said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no use in arguing with this person. Parks Service would never do this, it would probably invite an ADA lawsuit FI they did and if there’s not enough money to repair the sea wall, then anything else is wishful thinking.

Yup. I juat don't like thw disenguity. The big irony is that cars are also needed for all the casual and kid bikers while lowering the speed limit further would be opposed by the wannabe racing types.

Huh? the real ADA issue is that there is zero access for anyone with disabilities to access large swaths of the park due to the car traffic and crumbling infrastructure. When was the last time you were there? Your argument isn’t tenable. The real question is why NPS is doing nothing. There was a full renovation plan suggested in 2015 but crickets since then. Meanwhile they have a plan for improving bike/pedestrian trails in other parts of the mall and monuments. My guess is that either the subsidence problem is more dire than we know, or there’s something to do with the new golf course management contract.

but by all means stick with your weird idea that there is a secret bike racing mafia that wants to take it over. that makes a ton of sense.

NPS hasn't done anything because the underlying issue is much broader and impacts the entire tidal basin. The flooding is killing the cherry trees. You'd know that if you cared about anything besides cycling.

No one has demanded with exclusive access except for the cyclists. But at this point I'm in favor of a strict ban on lycra and $1000+ bicycles. That alone would solve all the problems. Especially now that you also want to get rid of the main public golf course in the area too.

I'm not sure that's true, because they are working on fixing some bike/pedestrian paths near the Tidal Basin.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/improving-roads-and-multi-use-trails-around-the-national-mall.htm

PS the more you rant about Lycra the less bona fides you have in discussing urban park usage. Maybe you should just stop? Or engage honestly, that would be ok too. Also maybe stop making sh*t up like that I want to "get rid of the main public golf course." Literally nobody ever said that.

NP but the fact you keep using the term “urban park” makes you sound silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP but the fact you keep using the term “urban park” makes you sound silly.

DP. It's a park. It's in an urban area. That makes it an urban park, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NPS hasn't done anything because the underlying issue is much broader and impacts the entire tidal basin. The flooding is killing the cherry trees. You'd know that if you cared about anything besides cycling.

No one has demanded with exclusive access except for the cyclists. But at this point I'm in favor of a strict ban on lycra and $1000+ bicycles. That alone would solve all the problems. Especially now that you also want to get rid of the main public golf course in the area too.

Lycra is Spandex. All kinds of clothes these days have Spandex in them. Go check your clothing labels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NPS hasn't done anything because the underlying issue is much broader and impacts the entire tidal basin. The flooding is killing the cherry trees. You'd know that if you cared about anything besides cycling.

No one has demanded with exclusive access except for the cyclists. But at this point I'm in favor of a strict ban on lycra and $1000+ bicycles. That alone would solve all the problems. Especially now that you also want to get rid of the main public golf course in the area too.

Lycra is Spandex. All kinds of clothes these days have Spandex in them. Go check your clothing labels.

Sensitive? It'd be a small price to pay. I'm just supporting the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't try and claim that you care about pedestrians. Pedestrians need cars to get there. If you want to make it safer for pedestrians then ban bikes.

there’s nowhere for pedestrians or bikes. rethinking the use of space doesn’t mean getting rid of parking. It means making space for pedestrians and bikes. and nobody should be driving around Haines Point at any speed greater than 15mph.

Ok, bicycling boomer. All of yall should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to use a tragic death to get rid of those pesky pedestrians.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Neither bikes nor pedestrians have a dedicated space right now on long stretches of roadway. It’s not a good situation.

Im trying to say that maybe you should focus on getting the tidal basin etc shored up so that they pathway is usable again instead of trying to get rid of pedestrians under the guise of protecting them. Maybe work to benefit everyone instead of just bicyclists.

where are you getting that weird thing about pedestrians. I think they need to update the infrastructure to create areas for bikes and pedestrians and minimize cars.

It's a 3 mile walk from the nearest dwelling. The parking lot is next to the playground/picnic area. If cars are banned or the parking lot removed that results in pedestrians being practically unable to use the space. It has been revealed repeatedly on this thread that the pro-bicyclist activists are trying to use pedestrian safety as a stalking horse to get rid of everyone else.

For example: the problem is that silt buildup has led to higher tides that are flooding the walkway. This in turn has driven pedestrians onto the road. However, instead of highlighting that problem and working on ways to restore the pedestrian walkway (which would benefit everybody) the issue is being framed as one of dangerous cars that need to be banned. This proposed solution does not solve anything. All it does is eliminate pedestrian access. Rather than support a common good solution the bicycle proponents are trying to use the opportunity to get rid of the competition as it were.

No, it's not. You can walk from the new condos on the SW Waterfront/Wharf to Hains Point in about 20 minutes. You can also take the jitney from the Wharf.

According to google it's a 50 minute 2.5 mile walk from the Wharf to Hains Point. Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no use in arguing with this person. Parks Service would never do this, it would probably invite an ADA lawsuit FI they did and if there’s not enough money to repair the sea wall, then anything else is wishful thinking.

Yup. I juat don't like thw disenguity. The big irony is that cars are also needed for all the casual and kid bikers while lowering the speed limit further would be opposed by the wannabe racing types.

Indeed. It’s complete shallow self interest and I agree that it’s very annoying. But I think what gets revealed is that they think speed limits and other traffic laws should only apply to cars but not to them. Further extension of the entirely self-serving belief system these people have cultivated among themselves.

oh right, and your desire to drive and park everywhere to the exclusion of anyone else is totally generous!

on the one hand, I’m saying that the park needs to be updates for pedestrians and bikes, and limit car access to the bare minimum needed for access, install speed bumps to keep cars at 15mph. On the other hand you want … to be able to have exclusive use of the roads for parking and driving.

Do you agree that if there is a 15 mph limit for cars that it should also apply to bikes and that Park Police should enforce the limit equally against both cars and bikes?

No, because bikes aren’t deadly the way cars are. That would be a waste of traffic enforcement resources.

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

[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: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.

Don't try and claim that you care about pedestrians. Pedestrians need cars to get there. If you want to make it safer for pedestrians then ban bikes.

there’s nowhere for pedestrians or bikes. rethinking the use of space doesn’t mean getting rid of parking. It means making space for pedestrians and bikes. and nobody should be driving around Haines Point at any speed greater than 15mph.

Ok, bicycling boomer. All of yall should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to use a tragic death to get rid of those pesky pedestrians.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Neither bikes nor pedestrians have a dedicated space right now on long stretches of roadway. It’s not a good situation.

Im trying to say that maybe you should focus on getting the tidal basin etc shored up so that they pathway is usable again instead of trying to get rid of pedestrians under the guise of protecting them. Maybe work to benefit everyone instead of just bicyclists.

where are you getting that weird thing about pedestrians. I think they need to update the infrastructure to create areas for bikes and pedestrians and minimize cars.

It's a 3 mile walk from the nearest dwelling. The parking lot is next to the playground/picnic area. If cars are banned or the parking lot removed that results in pedestrians being practically unable to use the space. It has been revealed repeatedly on this thread that the pro-bicyclist activists are trying to use pedestrian safety as a stalking horse to get rid of everyone else.

For example: the problem is that silt buildup has led to higher tides that are flooding the walkway. This in turn has driven pedestrians onto the road. However, instead of highlighting that problem and working on ways to restore the pedestrian walkway (which would benefit everybody) the issue is being framed as one of dangerous cars that need to be banned. This proposed solution does not solve anything. All it does is eliminate pedestrian access. Rather than support a common good solution the bicycle proponents are trying to use the opportunity to get rid of the competition as it were.

No, it's not. You can walk from the new condos on the SW Waterfront/Wharf to Hains Point in about 20 minutes. You can also take the jitney from the Wharf.

According to google it's a 50 minute 2.5 mile walk from the Wharf to Hains Point. Stop lying.

DP. Depends on where you're going, doesn't it? It's a 23-minute walk (1.1 or 1.2 miles) from the fish market to the golf course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

[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: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.

Don't try and claim that you care about pedestrians. Pedestrians need cars to get there. If you want to make it safer for pedestrians then ban bikes.

there’s nowhere for pedestrians or bikes. rethinking the use of space doesn’t mean getting rid of parking. It means making space for pedestrians and bikes. and nobody should be driving around Haines Point at any speed greater than 15mph.

Ok, bicycling boomer. All of yall should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to use a tragic death to get rid of those pesky pedestrians.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Neither bikes nor pedestrians have a dedicated space right now on long stretches of roadway. It’s not a good situation.

Im trying to say that maybe you should focus on getting the tidal basin etc shored up so that they pathway is usable again instead of trying to get rid of pedestrians under the guise of protecting them. Maybe work to benefit everyone instead of just bicyclists.

where are you getting that weird thing about pedestrians. I think they need to update the infrastructure to create areas for bikes and pedestrians and minimize cars.

It's a 3 mile walk from the nearest dwelling. The parking lot is next to the playground/picnic area. If cars are banned or the parking lot removed that results in pedestrians being practically unable to use the space. It has been revealed repeatedly on this thread that the pro-bicyclist activists are trying to use pedestrian safety as a stalking horse to get rid of everyone else.

For example: the problem is that silt buildup has led to higher tides that are flooding the walkway. This in turn has driven pedestrians onto the road. However, instead of highlighting that problem and working on ways to restore the pedestrian walkway (which would benefit everybody) the issue is being framed as one of dangerous cars that need to be banned. This proposed solution does not solve anything. All it does is eliminate pedestrian access. Rather than support a common good solution the bicycle proponents are trying to use the opportunity to get rid of the competition as it were.

No, it's not. You can walk from the new condos on the SW Waterfront/Wharf to Hains Point in about 20 minutes. You can also take the jitney from the Wharf.

According to google it's a 50 minute 2.5 mile walk from the Wharf to Hains Point. Stop lying.

I just walked from the Wharf (near the fish market) to the mini golf this weekend in about 20 minutes. So you should go see with your own eyes. I feel like a lot of critics on here don’t actually ever visit the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no use in arguing with this person. Parks Service would never do this, it would probably invite an ADA lawsuit FI they did and if there’s not enough money to repair the sea wall, then anything else is wishful thinking.

Yup. I juat don't like thw disenguity. The big irony is that cars are also needed for all the casual and kid bikers while lowering the speed limit further would be opposed by the wannabe racing types.

Indeed. It’s complete shallow self interest and I agree that it’s very annoying. But I think what gets revealed is that they think speed limits and other traffic laws should only apply to cars but not to them. Further extension of the entirely self-serving belief system these people have cultivated among themselves.

oh right, and your desire to drive and park everywhere to the exclusion of anyone else is totally generous!

on the one hand, I’m saying that the park needs to be updates for pedestrians and bikes, and limit car access to the bare minimum needed for access, install speed bumps to keep cars at 15mph. On the other hand you want … to be able to have exclusive use of the roads for parking and driving.

Do you agree that if there is a 15 mph limit for cars that it should also apply to bikes and that Park Police should enforce the limit equally against both cars and bikes?

No, because bikes aren’t deadly the way cars are. That would be a waste of traffic enforcement resources.

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

It’s very typical of bikers, who consider themselves exceptional both morally and legally. What a joke.

Y’all need to learn some responsibility. If you want public right of way it comes with public obligations. I honestly wish you arrogant and selfish bikers would move to your bike utopias because you will soon find out that in other parts of the world they take enforcement seriously and fine cyclists large sums for breaking the law.

[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: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.

Don't try and claim that you care about pedestrians. Pedestrians need cars to get there. If you want to make it safer for pedestrians then ban bikes.

there’s nowhere for pedestrians or bikes. rethinking the use of space doesn’t mean getting rid of parking. It means making space for pedestrians and bikes. and nobody should be driving around Haines Point at any speed greater than 15mph.

Ok, bicycling boomer. All of yall should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to use a tragic death to get rid of those pesky pedestrians.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Neither bikes nor pedestrians have a dedicated space right now on long stretches of roadway. It’s not a good situation.

Im trying to say that maybe you should focus on getting the tidal basin etc shored up so that they pathway is usable again instead of trying to get rid of pedestrians under the guise of protecting them. Maybe work to benefit everyone instead of just bicyclists.

where are you getting that weird thing about pedestrians. I think they need to update the infrastructure to create areas for bikes and pedestrians and minimize cars.

It's a 3 mile walk from the nearest dwelling. The parking lot is next to the playground/picnic area. If cars are banned or the parking lot removed that results in pedestrians being practically unable to use the space. It has been revealed repeatedly on this thread that the pro-bicyclist activists are trying to use pedestrian safety as a stalking horse to get rid of everyone else.

For example: the problem is that silt buildup has led to higher tides that are flooding the walkway. This in turn has driven pedestrians onto the road. However, instead of highlighting that problem and working on ways to restore the pedestrian walkway (which would benefit everybody) the issue is being framed as one of dangerous cars that need to be banned. This proposed solution does not solve anything. All it does is eliminate pedestrian access. Rather than support a common good solution the bicycle proponents are trying to use the opportunity to get rid of the competition as it were.

No, it's not. You can walk from the new condos on the SW Waterfront/Wharf to Hains Point in about 20 minutes. You can also take the jitney from the Wharf.

According to google it's a 50 minute 2.5 mile walk from the Wharf to Hains Point. Stop lying.

DP. Depends on where you're going, doesn't it? It's a 23-minute walk (1.1 or 1.2 miles) from the fish market to the golf course.

I think google was probably calculating the furthest possible extremes. And the jitney is probably even faster, like 5 mins max. Eventually people will be able to kayak from the Wharf to the park too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html