Encourage NPS to fix the Trollheim & Maybe Do Other Stuff on and around TR Island

[scoot]

@zsionakides 163680 wrote:

I would rather see one the pedestrian paths re-purposed as space for the highway and the other side doubled in size. If you took away the “shoulder” space as well, you could probably fit about a 9-10′ fit trail across most the bridge. Raise the barriers up on either side and it’s a comparable facility to the 14th st bridge. If we’re going to spend money on an approach to the south side, which isn’t cheap, it would be better to get a better trail instead.

+1

Good sidepath on one side of TR Bridge >> Second copy of the awful one that presently exists.

[bentbike33]

@zsionakides 163680 wrote:

I would rather see one the pedestrian paths re-purposed as space for the highway and the other side doubled in size. If you took away the “shoulder” space as well, you could probably fit about a 9-10′ wide trail across most the bridge. Raise the barriers up on either side and it’s a comparable facility to the 14th st bridge. If we’re going to spend money on an approach to the south side, which isn’t cheap, it would be better to get a better trail instead.

Having one-way facilities doesn’t deal with passing pedestrians on such a narrow path.

While a reconfigured TR bridge along these lines would be superior, it would take at least an order of magnitude more funding than a Virginia connection to the south sidepath. It does not look like the sidepaths could be converted to roadway anyway as they are not at the same level and are cantilevered outboard of the main beams.

[zsionakides]

@bentbike33 163699 wrote:

While a reconfigured TR bridge along these lines would be superior, it would take at least an order of magnitude more funding than a Virginia connection to the south sidepath. It does not look like the sidepaths could be converted to roadway anyway as they are not at the same level and are cantilevered outboard of the main beams.

You’re correct, you wouldn’t be able to build out roadway over the south sidepath. The best you can get is removing the shoulders and re-striping to get about 2-3 ft of additional sidepath on the north side, which still would be an improvement over what’s there now. At least passing would be a little less harrowing.

Ideally, one of the travel lanes would be eliminated and used to expand out both sidepaths to about 9′ each. This would involve cutting the lanes to a 4-2 configuration during rush hour and 3-3 during non rush hour. It would require a traffic study, but may be feasible with the traffic levels.

[bentbike33]

@zsionakides 163723 wrote:

You’re correct, you wouldn’t be able to build out roadway over the south sidepath. The best you can get is removing the shoulders and re-striping to get about 2-3 ft of additional sidepath on the north side, which still would be an improvement over what’s there now. At least passing would be a little less harrowing.

Ideally, one of the travel lanes would be eliminated and used to expand out both sidepaths to about 9′ each. This would involve cutting the lanes to a 4-2 configuration during rush hour and 3-3 during non rush hour. It would require a traffic study, but may be feasible with the traffic levels.

Unfortunately, the problem with either plan is that the side path surfaces are about a foot above the road surface. They cannot be widened without substantial construction.

Stupid design.

[chris_s]

Relevant Info: http://www.waba.org/blog/2016/09/ddot-sidestepping-complete-streets-policy-in-bridge-rehab-plans/

[Author]

Posts