Roosevelt Island Parking Area Modifications

Jinks! I started a thread over here saying the same exact thing (at the same exact time): http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6619-NPS-Announces-Public-comment-for-the-plans-to-Improve-Safety-at-TR-Island-Parking-Lot

+1 for Bob’s idea. Who’s going to be the “John Hancock” of the bunch of signatures?

1 & 2 both seem fine, and a no-brainer upgrade/vast improvement from the current mess. Alternative 2 will probably kill the big tree in the trail realignment, even if it isn’t cut down immediately, so alternative 1 may be better from that standpoint (though it’s digging close enough that it might also kill the tree). I’d certainly be fine with following the trail after this, rather than taking the parking lot route. The only mystery is why it’s taken so long to get to this point.

Oh, and alternative 3 just looks like an expensive meh, and alternative 4 is probably more dangerous than the current parking lot detour. (I don’t want to cross an entrance with cars flying blind off the parkway.)

Personally, I don’t have many problems with the trail there as it is right now. Alternative 1 seems to be a nice clean-up.

Thanks for the information. After looking at the designs and closely examining the differences, I figure it’s best to split this into the 3 parts that the NPS has shown.

Trail Widening
Both widen the trail to 9 feet and remove the ramp to the parking lot, but Alt #2 provides an additional 3 foot pedestrian trail on the side.
I like the additional room provided by the side trail, but I think the removal of the ramp in both alternatives will force cyclists used to taking the ramp and riding in the parking lot to adjust their habits (it may be a bit annoying at first, but people will get used to it).
My choice: Alternative #2

Trail Realignment
For the trail/parking lot crossing, Alternative #1 uses a speed table with stop signs and removes the old 90 degree pedestrian crossing while Alternative #2 uses speed bumps with yield signs and keeps the separate pedestrian crossing. Alternative #1 requires additional work to remove the 90 degree crossing while Alternative #2 requires additional work to remove 2 parking spaces.
While I think that the speed bumps will help with slowing drivers, I much prefer the use of stop signs to signal to drivers they must stop. Removing 2 parking spaces in Alt #2 seems unnecessary. Also, I don’t think the pedestrian crossing is needed anymore with Alt #1’s design.
My choice: Alternative #1

TR Island Bridge Entry
Both designs create separation between the trail and the bridge access area while adding various signage. Alternative #1 allows 1 point of access from the MVT while Alternative #2 allows 2 points of access from the MVT.
I think that Alt #1 is better suited for MVT users and Alt #2 is better suited for TR Island visitors. Limiting the number of access points keeps things simpler (i.e., less confusing) so that the trail can flow more efficiently when there are more people in the area (less likely for crowding on the trail), even if it seems less open due to the separation. I also prefer Alt #1’s layout for the gathering area.
My choice: Alternative #1

All in all, I’d choose Alternative #1, but I think there are ideas from Alternative #2 like the extra pedestrian path that could be incorporated into Alt #1.

My thoughts were a bit simpler (read: more likely to get done)….narrow the channel between the two parking areas and widen the trail. However, markings on the trail should delineate the bike and ped areas. The proposals sort of get to this, but I think it should be more explicit.

Very crude drawing done in MSPaint…it’s all I have right now!

I spend a lot more time on streets than trails, so many of you are better qualified to answer, but I don’t love diagonal crossings. It is a much nicer curve, but do we really need to speed up cyclists crossing the street there? And it makes visibility funny. I know there’s not really much there to impede visibility, but I’m always more comfortable at a traditional perpendicular crossing.

@bobco85 78490 wrote:

t Alt #2 provides an additional 3 foot pedestrian trail on the side.

A 3-foot ped trail is very narrow. A typical sidewalk is 4 feet wide, which is enough for two people to walk side by side or one each to pass going opposite ways. A 3-foot trail is uncomfortably narrow to pass someone coming the other way on. The section where the ped walk diverges from the MVT will end up with trampled ground for 1-2 feet on each side of the paved area anyway. That section, at least, should be wider.

Personally, I think it would be better to just make a 12-foot trail with signage for peds to keep right. This will cause some mixing like on the other MUPs around the area, so will require caution during some times of day and some times of year. A lot of the time (like nowadays) cyclists will be able to zoom through, since there will be no peds.

(For official records, I didn’t say “zoom.” I said “proceed.”)