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

[Anonymous]

As GGWash satires go, this is pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As GGWash satires go, this is pretty good.

not really. GGW is naively anti-car infrastructure. I actually think parking should be *improved and increased* at the arboretum to provide more access; and that the use of the roads should be redesigned so that the core of the arboretum is car-free and can better accomodate pedestrians/bikers and be more enjoyable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

Don't dishearten OP. She is saving the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mile one way from the visitor center parking lot to the Asian Collection, so you're at 2 miles round trip with a hill before you even step foot into the paths. There are plenty of people who cannot walk that, and it's not because they are lazy AF.

it’s half that distance from the NY Avenue lot, and you could leave open the lots on the eastern end too, just restrict driving to between the lots. A trolley would make the rest accessible. Also I question how much value there is seeing everything from a car anyway - seems better to park and have thoughtfully designed accessible paths for walkers, wheelchairs, etc.

Have you actually been to the Arboretum? Real question.

No one views the arboretum from their car. None of the features are readily accessible by car. And no one views the Asian Collection by car in particular! It is on a steep hill and you climb down a path with lots of steps toward the Anacostia. A major reason people (including me) usually drive there is that once you are there, there is tons of walking involved. Walking from the NY Ave lot is feasible but will easily eat up a lot of your visit time walking along access roads with no sidewalk.

There are 3-4 areas in the park where people usually park: Visitors Center, Capitol Columns, Asian Collection, NY Ave. in my experience, cyclist most often use NY Ave because it’s not that close to anything and is kind of ugly, but it’s a great place to load and unload bikes. Most people park at the Visitors Center because from there you can walk most places in the park, plus it is useful to park near restrooms. The Asian Collection is rarely busy because people don’t know about it — I’ve never seen the lot full, even during high season. It’s not uncommon for me to just drive straight there if I’m visiting during a busy time with my kid, because we can happily spend 60-90 minutes over there and then get in the car and leave while avoiding the crowds. She is way too young to walk there from either NY Ave or the Visitors Center, walk around, and then walk back. I am certain the same is true for many older people as well.

I do think it’s silly when people park at the Capitol Columns because they are walkable from the Visitors Center which has a much larger lot and is more central. But tourists often do it. Shrug. It really does not account for much traffic except during the high season. I’d be fine with them getting rid of that lot, but I actually think they use it when people rent it out for events.

“No one”? I’ve actually viewed the arboretum by car with two elderly relatives. For one of them, it was one of her last outings. She was born in DC at a time when she was legally not allowed in many places that are now common tourist attractions, and she wanted to enjoy some of the beautiful parts of the city while she still could. Those of you blithely going on about what “everyone “ could do well to look beyond your own experiences— which are hardly universal.

Seriously. I can count on one hand the number of times I've encountered a notable number of cars on the roads at the arboretum, and the majority of those had elderly passengers. And that happens two weeks out of every 52.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

DP. I hadn't noticed any whining. The PP had some specific and useful ideas, even if you don't like them. Obviously if your advocacy begins and ends with posting on DCUM, you're not going to get anywhere, but posting on DCUM can definitely be part of the package..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

DP. I hadn't noticed any whining. The PP had some specific and useful ideas, even if you don't like them. Obviously if your advocacy begins and ends with posting on DCUM, you're not going to get anywhere, but posting on DCUM can definitely be part of the package..

If OP’s subject line isn’t whining, I don’t know what is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

DP. I hadn't noticed any whining. The PP had some specific and useful ideas, even if you don't like them. Obviously if your advocacy begins and ends with posting on DCUM, you're not going to get anywhere, but posting on DCUM can definitely be part of the package..

If OP’s subject line isn’t whining, I don’t know what is.

That's interesting, because I perceived it as frustration. But you're welcome to assume the worst of people, if you choose.

[Anonymous]

With you OP. I was there the other day and a group of those souped up cars with extremely loud popping mufflers came through, destroying the peace and tranquility of everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

DP. I hadn't noticed any whining. The PP had some specific and useful ideas, even if you don't like them. Obviously if your advocacy begins and ends with posting on DCUM, you're not going to get anywhere, but posting on DCUM can definitely be part of the package..

If OP’s subject line isn’t whining, I don’t know what is.

That's interesting, because I perceived it as frustration. But you're welcome to assume the worst of people, if you choose.

Frustration: "Why are cars allowed in the National Arboretum?"

Textbook toddler-style whining: "why are cars allowed in the National Arbortetum? Why? Why? WHYYYY?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just had a lovely walk around the Arboretum this weekend, but it was really significantly worsened by car traffic. Not a lot, but enough that the noise and interruption on the path was meaningful. For the life of me, why do they let cars in? What's the point of that? Cars should be allowed in to park, then everyone should walk/bike. Maybe a day a month where the disabled and elderly can be allowed to drive.

YES! Add lots of bike share stations, and incentivize a bike store to set up shop near the front gate.
At the very least, a day a month car-free. The Arboretum is not relaxing at all for my family, because little kids and big cars are not very visible to each other, and neither of them are good at remembering to watch out for each other's presence when not in large numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but I still don’t think that entitles you to demand that the whole design be car centric with cars everywhere. The car traffic should be strictly limited to 2-3 lots. just like any other park. Prospect Park in Brooklyn is much much bigger and people still manage to enjoy it without driving all over it.

Well since that is how it was designed, we are entitled to use the facility as it was designed. Who the hell are YOU to demand it be redesigned and not be accessed as it was intended?

People get to advocate for changes in the design and use of public facilities - just as you get to advocate against changes.

You’re whining on an anon message board - that’s not advocacy.

DP. I hadn't noticed any whining. The PP had some specific and useful ideas, even if you don't like them. Obviously if your advocacy begins and ends with posting on DCUM, you're not going to get anywhere, but posting on DCUM can definitely be part of the package..

If OP’s subject line isn’t whining, I don’t know what is.

That's interesting, because I perceived it as frustration. But you're welcome to assume the worst of people, if you choose.

Frustration: "Why are cars allowed in the National Arboretum?"

Textbook toddler-style whining: "why are cars allowed in the National Arbortetum? Why? Why? WHYYYY?"

Toddler-style argument-free complaint about someone's legitimate complaint, "it's not the message, it's the delivery!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just had a lovely walk around the Arboretum this weekend, but it was really significantly worsened by car traffic. Not a lot, but enough that the noise and interruption on the path was meaningful. For the life of me, why do they let cars in? What's the point of that? Cars should be allowed in to park, then everyone should walk/bike. Maybe a day a month where the disabled and elderly can be allowed to drive.

YES! Add lots of bike share stations, and incentivize a bike store to set up shop near the front gate.
At the very least, a day a month car-free. The Arboretum is not relaxing at all for my family, because little kids and big cars are not very visible to each other, and neither of them are good at remembering to watch out for each other's presence when not in large numbers.

Okay, so don't come? The Arboretum IS relaxing to my family, which includes two little kids. We went a lot already, but it's been a godsend during the pandemic. In fact, the accessibility to all of it by car makes it really nice for us as parents of small kids. We aren't limited to how far a 2 year old can make it on foot, or how far we want to shove a stroller or haul a picnic for four people. We can drive to a nice, more isolated area of the park, park our car off to the side of the road and walk into a practically empty clearing well off the road where we can then let the kids loose to run around while we enjoy our lunch that we only had to carry 20 yards instead of a mile on foot. It's lovely!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just had a lovely walk around the Arboretum this weekend, but it was really significantly worsened by car traffic. Not a lot, but enough that the noise and interruption on the path was meaningful. For the life of me, why do they let cars in? What's the point of that? Cars should be allowed in to park, then everyone should walk/bike. Maybe a day a month where the disabled and elderly can be allowed to drive.

YES! Add lots of bike share stations, and incentivize a bike store to set up shop near the front gate.
At the very least, a day a month car-free. The Arboretum is not relaxing at all for my family, because little kids and big cars are not very visible to each other, and neither of them are good at remembering to watch out for each other's presence when not in large numbers.

Okay, so don't come? The Arboretum IS relaxing to my family, which includes two little kids. We went a lot already, but it's been a godsend during the pandemic. In fact, the accessibility to all of it by car makes it really nice for us as parents of small kids. We aren't limited to how far a 2 year old can make it on foot, or how far we want to shove a stroller or haul a picnic for four people. We can drive to a nice, more isolated area of the park, park our car off to the side of the road and walk into a practically empty clearing well off the road where we can then let the kids loose to run around while we enjoy our lunch that we only had to carry 20 yards instead of a mile on foot. It's lovely!

Not really a solution. I'm not the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just had a lovely walk around the Arboretum this weekend, but it was really significantly worsened by car traffic. Not a lot, but enough that the noise and interruption on the path was meaningful. For the life of me, why do they let cars in? What's the point of that? Cars should be allowed in to park, then everyone should walk/bike. Maybe a day a month where the disabled and elderly can be allowed to drive.

YES! Add lots of bike share stations, and incentivize a bike store to set up shop near the front gate.
At the very least, a day a month car-free. The Arboretum is not relaxing at all for my family, because little kids and big cars are not very visible to each other, and neither of them are good at remembering to watch out for each other's presence when not in large numbers.

Okay, so don't come? The Arboretum IS relaxing to my family, which includes two little kids. We went a lot already, but it's been a godsend during the pandemic. In fact, the accessibility to all of it by car makes it really nice for us as parents of small kids. We aren't limited to how far a 2 year old can make it on foot, or how far we want to shove a stroller or haul a picnic for four people. We can drive to a nice, more isolated area of the park, park our car off to the side of the road and walk into a practically empty clearing well off the road where we can then let the kids loose to run around while we enjoy our lunch that we only had to carry 20 yards instead of a mile on foot. It's lovely!

So you want to be able to drive all over the core of the arboretum to get to more isolated spots, thereby making the more popular spots less enjoyable for others. Do I have that right?

that's no way to manage a scare resource (green space in a city).