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

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.

The operative words are "Too Many" so NPS decided to reduce the amount of people by allowing automobiles again.

Do you understand now? Without cars, more people were "in the park"
More cars actually means less people.

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!

Anonymous wrote:If they’re going to close the road so people can walk on it, it needs to be re-paved immediately.

The pavement surface is uneven and irregular, with potholes and other surface defects that could cause people to trip.

I’m all for closing roads. Any roads. All of them. But they need to be safe for people walking on them. It needs to be repaved ASAP.

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.

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.

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” ....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You: it says x

ME: show me

You: here

Me: that clearly doesn’t say x

You: you’re evil and won’t “read between the lines”

Me: ?????

ME: It doesn't say it
You: NPS is saying that in a roundabout way
ME: If it doesn't say it exactly, then NPS is not saying it at all
You: It's being implied
ME: IF IT DOESN"T SAY IT EXACTLY, THEN NPS IS NOT SAYING IT AT ALL
You: (One last chance) Why would NPS put back the cars and cite that due to zero cars, trails were being ruined?

Anonymous wrote:
You: it says x

ME: show me

You: here

Me: that clearly doesn’t say x

You: you’re evil and won’t “read between the lines”

Me: ?????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

DP but it seems like you haven't gone to the link at all. It's pretty succinct.

Previous proposals for the management of the upper portion of Beach Drive called for making the current full-time closure to motorized vehicles permanent or reverting to the pre-pandemic schedule of weekend and holiday closures. After careful consideration of the potential effects of these alternatives on park resources, as well as consideration of traffic analysis and the many comments received from the public, the NPS sees the seasonal closure as the best way to protect park resources and strike a balance of different uses - whether visitors are walking, cycling, commuting or scenic-driving.

Beginning in late April 2020, the NPS temporarily expanded the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive. This closure has provided a valuable opportunity for park visitors to recreate more freely and safely within Rock Creek Park. This closure, however, has affected other park uses and has increased the creation of informal, unofficial trails, which can cause natural resource damage. Adopting a seasonal closure schedule will allow visitors to enjoy the park's recreation and nature opportunities during the summer and will allow drivers to commute through the park when there are fewer recreational visitors. In addition, the denser vegetation of the summer season will discourage the creation of and use of informal trails and reduce potential damage to the forest and the important habitat it provides.

That does not say “there were too many people in the park”. It says that with the closure non motorized park users have been more free to cause negative impacts in the park because they are accessing different areas than they were before and this is less likely to happen during the summer when there is more vegetation. It actually doesn’t refer to the number of users at all. A bit embarrassing for you?

Is this Clarence Thomas? Do you need the actual report to say "There are too many people"
Read between the lines.
NPS doesn't like PEOPLE making trails.
So, by their logic, they'll allow cars to drive through the park and therefore there will be less people to use it......or do you need the actual documentation to say that too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just needs to be reopened permanently. The continued weekend closure is fine and makes sense. The “compromise” is just political face saving because NPS knows that it is getting little use during weekdays to justify this. Permanent closure of Beach Drive also imperils the proposed Connecticut Ave bike lane, because the studies have relied on Beach Drive being open to justify the loss of a traffic lane. Time to get back to normal.

Actually one justification for NPS is that "there were too many people in the park" and that the people were ruining the park.

And I could care less if the streets are lightly used with automobiles.
It's a park!

One of my all time great experiences in a park was Hyde Park in London. NO CARS. Grass that went on forever. It was so wonderful

I read the report. Could you point me where the report says this?

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=121986

Again, can you point me to where in the report it says that “there were too many people in the park”? I have already read the whole thing. Don’t need a link.

DP but it seems like you haven't gone to the link at all. It's pretty succinct.

Previous proposals for the management of the upper portion of Beach Drive called for making the current full-time closure to motorized vehicles permanent or reverting to the pre-pandemic schedule of weekend and holiday closures. After careful consideration of the potential effects of these alternatives on park resources, as well as consideration of traffic analysis and the many comments received from the public, the NPS sees the seasonal closure as the best way to protect park resources and strike a balance of different uses - whether visitors are walking, cycling, commuting or scenic-driving.

Beginning in late April 2020, the NPS temporarily expanded the closure of the upper portion of Beach Drive. This closure has provided a valuable opportunity for park visitors to recreate more freely and safely within Rock Creek Park. This closure, however, has affected other park uses and has increased the creation of informal, unofficial trails, which can cause natural resource damage. Adopting a seasonal closure schedule will allow visitors to enjoy the park's recreation and nature opportunities during the summer and will allow drivers to commute through the park when there are fewer recreational visitors. In addition, the denser vegetation of the summer season will discourage the creation of and use of informal trails and reduce potential damage to the forest and the important habitat it provides.

That does not say “there were too many people in the park”. It says that with the closure non motorized park users have been more free to cause negative impacts in the park because they are accessing different areas than they were before and this is less likely to happen during the summer when there is more vegetation. It actually doesn’t refer to the number of users at all. A bit embarrassing for you?