Issue on 4 Mille Run trail just before Mount Vernon

[hoffsquared]

I am looking forward to this being completed. I currently come off FMR, get on Glebe, then cross Rt. 1 to get into Crystal City. I am comfortable with this but would rather have as much bike/ped only trail as possible for my commute. My work is at the south end so going get on MVT to the CC waterpark doesn’t make much sense.

[mstone]

@dbb 61458 wrote:

The fenced area is a construction site. I think that the builders need to protect themselves from the potential liability.[/quote]

It’s an erosion fence, not a security fence. And are people really breaking down the fence while there’s active construction activity going on and the crew is standing right there? That’s pretty ballsy… I suspect that, instead, the activity is happening while the site is idle. A reasonable accommodation would be to identify a non-hazardous area where people could skirt the active construction, and lower the erosion control fence at that spot. E.g., put in one of those bolsters they use to plug up storm drains during construction to block the water for a couple of feet while still allowing people to step over easily. A more ambitious accommodation would involve throwing down some temporary gravel or asphalt. Again, if this were impacting motorists they’d have no hesitation in temporarily paving a shoulder or median to maintain access. Instead, this is more an attitude of “clear off the field and come back when we finish building your new playground; if you had something important to do, you’d be in a car anyway”.

Quote:

While desire lines exist, it isn’t clear why they should be maintained by the government. In many cases they exist only because the trail users seem to be too lazy to use the facilities that have been constructed.

I think the fact that they’re building a giant ramp there constitutes de facto acknowledgement that the desire to transit that area is legitimate. If the government had placed a priority on pedestrian access over the past 50 years, you’d have a point. But they didn’t, and desire paths are the norm in huge parts of the region. Fixing that will take decades, and just stomping our feet and saying people should suck it up if government hasn’t gotten around to providing reasonable access yet seems silly.

@JustinW 61454 wrote:

. I suspect that accommodations are made in cases of disruptions to existing, formal paths.

Actually no, most of the time pedestrians aren’t accommodated whether there’s a formal path or not, so I think that argument is a red herring. Also, recall that this is a society where speed limits are determined by how fast motorists feel like going–but somehow pedestrian desires just don’t matter?

[DismalScientist]

/sarcasm

Fences on public grounds constitute oppression by the automotive oligarchy.

To mix metaphors: Pedestrians and cyclists UNITE! Mr. construction man, tear down this fence!

/sarcasm

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 61475 wrote:

/sarcasm

Fences on public grounds constitute oppression by the automotive oligarchy.

To mix metaphors: Pedestrians and cyclists UNITE! Mr. construction man, tear down this fence!

/sarcasm

Yes, you’re definitely being sarcastic. You’re also ducking the question of why they would keep rebuilding the obviously pointless fence rather than just helping people get to where they’re trying to go. This is obviously not the worst issue facing the world today, but I think it’s more than reasonable to ask why ignoring pedestrian needs is the norm for road projects and demand that the public works departments that work for us do a better job in this area.

[DismalScientist]

I think the point is they are trying to build pedestrian and cyclist access, However, the overly impatient seem to wish to delay that process.

(BTW, this is not a road project.)

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 61483 wrote:

I think the point is they are trying to build pedestrian and cyclist access, However, the overly impatient seem to wish to delay that process.

How would it delay their project to allow people to walk to the side of the active work without hopping an erosion control fence? I’m really curious about the answer. As I said before, this smells more like bureaucratic cussedness than any legitimate concern.

[DismalScientist]

I don’t know from personal examination, but from the photos it looks like the site goes from one bridge to another. If so, they can do the project all at once without having to give pedestrian access to one part of the site and having to redo that side later.

I don’t see why construction should require that “unofficial” access be maintained, particularly when slightly inconvenient alternatives existed before and during the construction.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 61506 wrote:

I don’t know from personal examination, but from the photos it looks like the site goes from one bridge to another. If so, they can do the project all at once without having to give pedestrian access to one part of the site and having to redo that side later.[/quote]

So, basically, “because we don’t feel like it”. Construction projects move and reconfigure vehicle access all the time, it’s not considered a big deal.

Quote:

I don’t see why construction should require that “unofficial” access be maintained, particularly when slightly inconvenient alternatives existed before and during the construction.

Why should construction require that any access be maintained, ever, as long as some inconvenient alternative exists? Like, if they need to lay a comm line in your street, they should just close it for a month on either end of the block because you could still hop over back fences or something, right?

Don’t get me wrong, I think ripping up the fence is a dick thing to do. But that doesn’t mean that the project couldn’t have done a better job in maintaining the existing access, official or not. And we should expect that projects do that, rather than just letting them devalue pedestrian access; it should just be an automatic part of the process, and we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

[DaveK]

@mstone 61516 wrote:

Why should construction require that any access be maintained, ever, as long as some inconvenient alternative exists? Like, if they need to lay a comm line in your street, they should just close it for a month on either end of the block because you could still hop over back fences or something, right?

Don’t get me wrong, I think ripping up the fence is a dick thing to do. But that doesn’t mean that the project couldn’t have done a better job in maintaining the existing access, official or not. And we should expect that projects do that, rather than just letting them devalue pedestrian access; it should just be an automatic part of the process, and we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

Under the rules by which public entities have to operate, there was no official existing access. You can’t just wink and nod and cut down some plants off to the side of the work site, that’s not how it works. The work that’s going on now is to create a safe and ADA-accessible path from Potomac Yard to the trail, something that did not exist before. That’s valuing pedestrian access.

[dasgeh]

Honestly, I imagine many of the people using this path now just don’t know what the alternative is. Is it really so much of an imposition to put up a sign? You can’t see the alternative from there (which is probably why there was a desire line in the first place).

[DaveK]

@dasgeh 61533 wrote:

Honestly, I imagine many of the people using this path now just don’t know what the alternative is. Is it really so much of an imposition to put up a sign? You can’t see the alternative from there (which is probably why there was a desire line in the first place).

Now that’s not a bad idea. I imagine by the time this trickles down (it’s technically an Alexandria-permitted project) the stairway and ramp will be done, but it wouldn’t hurt to ask…

[dbb]

I would expect that most of the people using the old billy goat trail were able to see the alternative route from their apartment window. The test of that would have been to see how many people used the desire path when it was wet and muddy. I’d expect that peds and cyclists stayed on the pavement, went a bit further and kept their bikes/shoes clean. The days of a highly sloped sidewalk ended with an acceptance of (and legislation for) accessibility. As cyclists, we benefit from those policies as well.

If signage isn’t included with the new ramp/bridge demo effort, I am sure that the County will be able to get some created and installed.

[PotomacCyclist]

@DaveK 61525 wrote:

Under the rules by which public entities have to operate, there was no official existing access. You can’t just wink and nod and cut down some plants off to the side of the work site, that’s not how it works. The work that’s going on now is to create a safe and ADA-accessible path from Potomac Yard to the trail, something that did not exist before. That’s valuing pedestrian access.

Exactly. There was no official direct access between Potomac Ave. and Four Mile Run Trail before. Once the new path is completed, there will be. I’d say that’s a huge positive.

Cyclists and pedestrians traveling from Potomac Ave. to the west will have to cross Rte. 1 for the duration of the bridge demolition project, but that was the case before (unless they used the unofficial and risky dirt path). Meanwhile, cyclists and pedestrians traveling east from Potomac Yard, Potomac Ave. and the south part of Crystal City now have a direct connection to FMR Trail and then the Mt. Vernon Trail. I don’t see a reason to complain here. This project is improving (official) connection between Potomac Yard and FMRT, not worsening it.

[CaseyKane50]

I rode the “detour” this afternoon. It was 1/2 mile from the top of the construction site, north on Potomac Avenue, left onto Clark Street, left onto Route 1 and then a right down the ramp and around to where the desire path entered onto the Four Mile Run Trail. Total time – 2 minutes and 45 seconds, which included waiting at the traffic light at Clark and Route 1.

I agree that what is really lacking at this site (and nearly every other site involving bike and pedestrian infrastructure) are appropriate signs directing users to the detour route. I even think signs should have been posted alerting users of the upcoming project before the fencing was erected. There also should be a sign somewhere at the construction site providing contact information.

One of the big issues I had with the desire path was not that folks wanted and created it, but what it did along the Four Mile Run Trail – the dirt and rocks from the new path made the FMRT dangerous and added to the work the county had to do to maintain the trail.

[CaseyKane50]

I haven’t noticed any significant progress on the project nor seen anyone working on this for the past week. This is week three of a project that I was told was going to take four weeks to complete. I should note that the “desirees” appear to have completed their restructuring of the fence and have marked out their new trail through the project site.

[Author]

Posts