NPS seriously considering clearing MVT in the future!

[KLizotte]

FYI: an acquaintance of mine works for NPS maintenance on the National Mall and he’s out there actually doing manual labor and not pencil pushing. I don’t think I can emphasize how little money (or functioning equipment) NPS has for snow removal or general maintenance at all. Their budget continues to be slashed, they are unable to fill vacated positions, and more and more services are being contracted out to the lowest cost bidder (you get what you pay for). In fact, some major projects that you see happening on the Mall are being funded by private entities because there simply isn’t sufficient public funds.

People need to be willing to pay more taxes and/or user fees for the upkeep and maintenance of our national parks. Writing to your congressman and newspapers is probably the best way to effect change over the long term.

[KWL]

@NickBull 134240 wrote:

FYI, This issue has hit the WaPo “Dr Gridlock” section:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/02/04/shouldnt-snow-cleanup-include-trails/

At least the GW Parkway folks are no longer saying the MVT needs to be unplowed so the skiers can use it. Seriously, that was a response I got about 15 years ago when I asked for the trail to be cleared.

[dbb]

The folks that work for the NPS are certainly dedicated to their understanding of the mission of the parks. My objection is that at the micro level, they are largely playing the same tune that they have always done. Some big questions are:

• How should the NPS distribute resources (regionally) between roads, monuments, parks and trails. It seems if they can clear a neighborhood park in DC before a trail, the resources are distributed inappropriately
• How should the NPS address clearing the smaller parks in the District? What priority should be assigned to those (largely) neighborhood parks?
• What should the priorities be for clearing?
• Is there middle ground that provides room for some intermediate solution?

While I would like to see all the trails cleared with the same tempo that the roadways get, maybe some trails shouldn’t get that priority treatment (the same could be said for some roads and many parking lots).

Just as the complete streets concept looks to identify places where a comparatively small investment can yield big benefits, there may be a parallel approach for trails. For example, if the NPS would clear the from the wooden bridge across Boundary Channel across the Humpback and up to the point where DDOT has cleared on the 14th Street Bridge, I’d be willing consider less clearing somewhere else.

Right now I’m trying to get the NPS to take the snow fences down on the Humpback approaches as they seem to be causing, not preventing problems.

[BlueMasonJar]

This is helpful for understanding what is going on. Any updates?

[dbb]

MVT Update

There is a work order to remove the Humpback Bridge snow fences. Stay tuned.

Several of us have been invited to a meeting with the NPS this week about the MVT. It is not clear what the outcome will be but the meeting is a hopeful sign.

[Rootchopper]

This discussion hints at an interesting question: why does the National Park Service control so many of these neighborhood parks. Not just the pocket parks either. Why to they hold onto Meridian Hill/Malcolm X Park for example? I seriously doubt that MH/MX Park gets many out of town visitors who are not brought there by local residents. Why does it control the park land around RFK? These areas are almost exclusively locally used.

[dbb]

@Rootchopper 135015 wrote:

This discussion hints at an interesting question: why does the National Park Service control so many of these neighborhood parks. Not just the pocket parks either. Why to they hold onto Meridian Hill/Malcolm X Park for example? I seriously doubt that MH/MX Park gets many out of town visitors who are not brought there by local residents. Why does it control the park land around RFK? These areas are almost exclusively locally used.

I would submit the NPS ownership/operation of the the local parks in the District is an artifact of the Federal presence in the District before home rule (yeah, I understand that home rule is something of an artifice but roll with me on this).

After home rule, I would expect that it was easier to continue the NPS management of the parks as a mechanism to provide some sort of operating subsidy for the District’s open space. The public parks that are operated by the NPS probably aren’t particularly tempting for the District to assume operation because the District would likely not get the funding necessary to operate the parks. The people of the District get the parks without financial burden to the DC taxpayers.

Lest you accuse me of some sort of Virginia based hypocrisy, I freely admit the Mount Vernon Trail is likely used largely by locals (as is the GWMP) yet it is paid for by the kind folks outside of the region.

About a decade (or so) ago, the Washington City Paper did an article on the NPS footprint in DC. I recall a quote from a DC council person when complaints (about crime) with specific parks came from the public, the council staff would ask if the grass had been mowed. Mowed grass equaled (at the time) NPS property and the USPP would get the call. Today, I think the DC govt would likely do a fine job of maintaining the parks, if the funding for that maintenance was available.

[BlueMasonJar]

Thanks for the update, I’ll be interested to read about what happens with the meeting with NPS.

[dasgeh]

Apparently, some people think a “bike accessible facility” includes a facility that you can get to by carrying your bike down a grass slope for a couple hundred yards. It’s like saying it’s bike accessible because you could put your bike on your car and bring it with you to the meeting.

Not naming names.

[BlueMasonJar]

@dasgeh 135094 wrote:

Apparently, some people think a “bike accessible facility” includes a facility that you can get to by carrying your bike down a grass slope for a couple hundred yards. It’s like saying it’s bike accessible because you could put your bike on your car and bring it with you to the meeting.

Not naming names.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Does this have something to do with the meeting with NPS?

[dasgeh]

@BlueMasonJar 135130 wrote:

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Does this have something to do with the meeting with NPS?

Yes, but the problem has been solved. I understand better now why administrators of the GWMP have such a car-centric view of the world.

[Tim Kelley]

@dasgeh 135136 wrote:

Yes, but the problem has been solved. I understand better now why administrators of the GWMP have such a car-centric view of the world.

Well, the problem is still there. We’re just totally avoiding it…

[NickBull]

@dbb 135018 wrote:

I would submit the NPS ownership/operation of the the local parks in the District …

Perhaps we should organize an occupation of one of those parks to protest overweening federal ownership of what should be local lands? Wait, wasn’t there one of those recently out west that didn’t end too well?

Just kidding, everyone!

Nick

[Emm]

@NickBull 135155 wrote:

Perhaps we should organize an occupation of one of those parks to protest overweening federal ownership of what should be local lands? Wait, wasn’t there one of those recently out west that didn’t end too well?

Just kidding, everyone!

Nick

I feel like the second they offered us beer and free water bottles the protest would end peacefully…

[dbb]

emm;135160 wrote:

i feel like the second they offered us cleared trails, beer and free water bottles the protest would end peacefully…

ftfy

[Author]

Posts