Next Defunct Attractions

Shades said:

jimmyburke said:

... I am beginning to ... empathize with the residents. I've seen some close calls with pedestrians, as well as contractors. It is worrisome to see a close call with a little old lady doing some landscaping or some kids darting across to the lakeside or back. I've seen excessive speed from vehicles, swerving from pot-holes or standing water or trying to pass cyclists etc...

With the exception of the lake reference you just described an incredibly large number of public roads. Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to drive on those roads either?

Shades, I didn't say anything about not being allowed to drive on that road or any other road for that matter. I just expressed what I have witnessed on that particular road and how I have a measure of compassion for some of those folks. I plan on continuing to use it for as long as they allow, who knows, it may not happen. I am sure there are plenty of roads with similar safety hazards around as well as roads with greater hazards. I work right across from "dead mans curve"! Halt all traffic now!

djDaemon said:

...This assumes that there has always been a lot of CP traffic going down that road. There has long been an amusement park nearby, but it stands to reason more people know about and use the Chausee today than was the case, say, in the 1990's...

Until some time in the 90s there was a giant sign at the corner of the chausee and Cleveland Rd. pointing the way to the park down the chausee. Not some small green thing, it was huge and tacky as all hell impossible to miss. It's not some newly found back way in, the park actually encouraged it's use in the past for a long time after the causeway was built and I remember several times sitting in almost stopped traffic on the way out of the park on the chausee back in the 80s.

Maybe the park wants to restrict access purely because it benefits the park and as result also helps the residents? Less traffic on that road means less maintenance throughout the year. This would allow those resources to focus on the Causeway where work does need to be kept up. They could also take staffing away from Traffic/Tolls an utilize those employees elsewhere. It could simply be a win win for both the park and residents.

I mean...

djDaemon said:

They're complaining that CP's guests are using a residential two lane road to reach the park, when there is an alternative direct route with more than double the capacity.

I think it's simply this. The park has a road to handle guest traffic and another road for residential traffic. Why is it hard to understand the difference?

I wonder, with the park owning the lot at the end, and needing tolls to pass, would it make sense to put a "No Outlet" sign on the road? Or better yet, discourage the traffic by removing the "exit ramp" turn off Rt 6?

99er said:

...I think it's simply this. The park has a road to handle guest traffic and another road for residential traffic. Why is it hard to understand the difference?

The reason is up until the end of this season when the giant orange "no right turn" sign and the traffic cones showed up there really was no difference. People have been entering the park on that road for a long time and unless explicitly told not to they will continue. The signs say "private property speed limit 35 enforceable by code whatever" but not "private do not enter" or "private no outlet" or "private authorized vehicles only".

I usually don't need "Do not enter" after I read Private Property.

But my point was moreso that if the park decides to close the already private road to through traffic, there doesn't need to be this gripe with the decision. Whether or not it's done for the residents or just to save the park money, it shouldn't matter to anyone here because there is already a main entrance we should all be using.

If they expected everyone to use the main entrance, there wouldn’t be a toll both at the chausee

Private property signs do not automatically mean "no trespassing" because some private property signs are there to mark boundaries. It's much easier than saying "this is not public land so don't treat it like public land."

CP Maverick is right.

Virtually all commercial property that is open to the public is private property.

Malls, stores, restaurants, etc...

Private property postings are there to regulate unwanted access, not restrict public access totally.

Got it. My point still stands though and I still want to know why would it be so wrong to make the road gated for those who live there?

I never said it would be wrong to gate it, only that up until a few weekends ago there was no reason for any of us to question using the road. It's private property owned by an establishment we are patronizing which up until a few weeks ago had absolutely no signage to suggest we were not allowed or expected to use it.

Then clearly my question wasn't for you but rather those who do oppose a gate or those who don't think the residents have a reason to complain about traffic.

Time to put some willows along the causeway.

CP has the right to gate the road but my sympathy for the residents is very limited.

Well, we already knew the Extreme Sports Stadium was coming down. As of this morning, it has been torn down to the ground. This link takes you to Tony Clark's demolition photo.

https://twitter.com/TonyClarkCP/status/930421312639598595

Yet, I do not see the stadium's neighbor, Wicked Twister, going anywhere. I would hate to lose that great ride.

Paisley said:
... no signage to suggest we were not allowed or expected to use it.

You require being explicitly told that residents' peace and safety is more important than you seeing pretty trees on your way to the park?

djDaemon said:

You require being explicitly told that residents' peace and safety is more important than you seeing pretty trees on your way to the park?

So everyone should be able to gate off their roads citing those reasons? If you want peace and as much safety as is reasonably possible, don't buy a property on a busy road.

Whoa! What did they do with all the dolphins...?

djDaemon said:

Paisley said:
... no signage to suggest we were not allowed or expected to use it.

You require being explicitly told that residents' peace and safety is more important than you seeing pretty trees on your way to the park?

Me driving down the street isn't a threat to their peace and safety so yeah, I need to be explicitly told that the street that I have been entering the park with since the age of 11 and which used to , as I pointed out, boast a huge sign telling people to turn down the road to get to the park is now off limits for me to change what is a totally benign habit.

Paisley said:
Me driving down the street isn't a threat to their peace and safety...

Of course that's not true. Cars create auditory, visual, and environmental pollution, and if a car and pedestrian interact forcefully, the pedestrian almost always loses.

And how long you've been doing this is of course not a logical nor reasonable justification for continuing to do so. Being inconsiderate does not excuse further inconsiderateness.