NPS: Beach Drive May Stay Closed to Traffic During the Summer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2022/07/rock-creek-park-cars-bicycles-beach-drive-national-park-service.html
Too many pesky people are walking through the woods, creating “desire paths” ....

That is not too many park users. It is too many people breaking the rules and causing negative impacts. If a growing number of people starting littering, it would not be that there were too many park users. It would be that there would be too many people littering. I cannot believe that there are so many idiots.

Then the answer is to limit the amount of people allowed to use the park.

I mean, just because a patch of woods exists, that doesn’t mean that people should by default be allowed to go traipsing through it as they please. Nature lives there. That’s a home to various creatures. Respect it and keep out.

Far better to allow documentarians and photographers get pictures or film of it that you can enjoy from your home rather than feel like you have to go there in person.

Let wild places be wild. Stay out of them!

This. If they are going to treat it like a park instead of a road, start treating it like a park complete with rangers charging admissions and entry fees

Shenandoah NP charges $15 for walk-up or bicycle users. I think that is a fair price for NPS to charge those same users of Rock Creek Park.

Particularly considering the damage they are causing to the park. Need to charge user fees to compensate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
You fail basic reading comprehension and also, bizarrely, an understanding of the layout of this very park. I sincerely hope that you send NPS thousands of comments falsely premised on this lie that they are doing this because there are too many park users. They will just throw those away.

I feel like I'm debating Donald Trump. You continue to attack and insult, but everyone else can see that's exactly what NPS did.
It's written in that article and the DCist article.

Bottom line advocates for closing the park to cars are going to continue to fight for this.
And hopefully DC council and Montgomery Co will continue to push for closing the park to auto traffic.

[Anonymous]

Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

Except that's not DDOT's policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
You fail basic reading comprehension and also, bizarrely, an understanding of the layout of this very park. I sincerely hope that you send NPS thousands of comments falsely premised on this lie that they are doing this because there are too many park users. They will just throw those away.

I feel like I'm debating Donald Trump. You continue to attack and insult, but everyone else can see that's exactly what NPS did.
It's written in that article and the DCist article.

Bottom line advocates for closing the park to cars are going to continue to fight for this.
And hopefully DC council and Montgomery Co will continue to push for closing the park to auto traffic.

There is an actual report written by NPS which explains why they proposed this option and the other alternatives. I suggest that you go and read it. The DCist article willfully misinterprets that report and it looks like you have been manipulated as a result. This just shows the power of bad journalism. NPS never said that reopening Beach Dr was necessary because there were too many non motorized park users. They said that the non motorized users that accessed the park via the closed Beach Dr were breaking park rules and causing environmental impacts which were likely higher during winter months and lower during summer months.

There is nothing wrong with continuing to advocate for your preferred outcome and good luck to you. I am just pointing out that your understanding is based on a false premise and as a result NPS will not take your input seriously. Good luck with your name calling campaign though, I am sure that it will sway the professional career civil servants at NPS to be more amendable to your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

Public space is for public uses. Major arterials are public space. People need to be able to get around safely on them. Single occupancy cars are the least efficient way of doing that. If we really wanted to have rational use pf public space, then all cars would need to have at least 3 people in them, and mass transit, bikes and pedestrians would have the other spaces.

But we won't be honest, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

Public space is for public uses. Major arterials are public space. People need to be able to get around safely on them. Single occupancy cars are the least efficient way of doing that. If we really wanted to have rational use pf public space, then all cars would need to have at least 3 people in them, and mass transit, bikes and pedestrians would have the other spaces.

But we won't be honest, so...

Oh I am ALL for honesty. In that spirit .... ALL bikes should be tandem bikes and will need to carry 2 adults. And all motorized scooters should be long enough and will need to carry two people on them. Single occupancy bikes and scooters are less efficient than double occupancy. If we want to have rational use of public space, then any and all modes of transportation must carry the maximum number of people. Motorcycles and Vespas will need to have two riders in order to use Beach Drive, too.

This also includes horses along the RCP bridle path, by the way. And strollers -- only double strollers on the walking path! Anything less is Not Rational

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

Oh you wanna move traffic put in bus lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is an actual report written by NPS which explains why they proposed this option and the other alternatives. I suggest that you go and read it. The DCist article willfully misinterprets that report and it looks like you have been manipulated as a result. This just shows the power of bad journalism. NPS never said that reopening Beach Dr was necessary because there were too many non motorized park users. They said that the non motorized users that accessed the park via the closed Beach Dr were breaking park rules and causing environmental impacts which were likely higher during winter months and lower during summer months[i].

Oh, scary. Non motorized users are "breaking park rules" and "causing environmental impacts". Compared to operators of internal combustion engine 2 ton steel death mobiles traveling 45 mph through the park.

#DefundNationalParkService
#DisbandParkPolice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suck it drivers. Parks are for people not cars. I hope they close every single road in Rock Creek Park to cars and only allow bikes and public transit.

I’m fine with that. And major arterials are for moving traffic, not expansive bike lanes. Bikers can use closed Beach Dr to their heart’s content.

Except that's not DDOT's policy

They can’t constrain an arterial like Connecticut Ave and close Beach Drive at the same time. Traffic won’t magically go away. More likely it will cut through neighborhoods looking for a route around the main road congestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is an actual report written by NPS which explains why they proposed this option and the other alternatives. I suggest that you go and read it. The DCist article willfully misinterprets that report and it looks like you have been manipulated as a result. This just shows the power of bad journalism. NPS never said that reopening Beach Dr was necessary because there were too many non motorized park users. They said that the non motorized users that accessed the park via the closed Beach Dr were breaking park rules and causing environmental impacts which were likely higher during winter months and lower during summer months[i].

Oh, scary. Non motorized users are "breaking park rules" and "causing environmental impacts". Compared to operators of internal combustion engine 2 ton steel death mobiles traveling 45 mph through the park.

#DefundNationalParkService
#DisbandParkPolice

#SendWokeIdiotstoRussia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is an actual report written by NPS which explains why they proposed this option and the other alternatives. I suggest that you go and read it. The DCist article willfully misinterprets that report and it looks like you have been manipulated as a result. This just shows the power of bad journalism. NPS never said that reopening Beach Dr was necessary because there were too many non motorized park users. They said that the non motorized users that accessed the park via the closed Beach Dr were breaking park rules and causing environmental impacts which were likely higher during winter months and lower during summer months[i].

Oh, scary. Non motorized users are "breaking park rules" and "causing environmental impacts". Compared to operators of internal combustion engine 2 ton steel death mobiles traveling 45 mph through the park.

#DefundNationalParkService
#DisbandParkPolice

Yes. They were causing more environmental damage to the habitat in the park than cars do because cars stay in the road while they were just trampling wherever they wanted to. There is a reason why they require users to stay on designated trails and if you don’t have enough respect for the environment not to destroy it then you don’t belong in the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. They were causing more environmental damage to the habitat in the park than cars do because cars stay in the road while they were just trampling wherever they wanted to. There is a reason why they require users to stay on designated trails and if you don’t have enough respect for the environment not to destroy it then you don’t belong in the park.