Modifications to Jefferson Memorial roadway and security

[Mikey]

The thought came to me yesterday while trying to filter through some very angry drivers on East Basin Drive to get to the 14th street bridge. How great would it be if during Cherry blossom season, east basin drive from the split with 395, and Ohio drive up to the FDR memorial were closed off to car traffic. Busses could still drop people off along buckeye drive, or farther up Ohio drive, but the entire area around the Jefferson, and down Mason memorials would be for pedestrians and bikes. heck, I’d even walk my bike here to make it happen. This would also reduce the traffic jams in the right hand lane of East Basin Drive from Maine ave to the 395 split since everyone going through here would either have to go to Virginia or Hains Point.

Parking would be bad, but heck, it’s bad now, which may force more people to use public transit or bike.

Just a thought.

[dbb]

To hijack Daniel Burnham (noted, but dead, architect) who said “Think no small thoughts for they have no power to stir men’s souls!” I think you are on to something. A quick blast through the EA last night suggests the visual impact crowd is concerned about the appearance of the barriers.

If East Basin Drive were closed permanently, the barriers could be moved well away from the memorial and traffic coming off Maine Ave could either go down Ohio to Buckeye to the roads along the Potomac or on to I 395. An added benefit would be they would be fewer in number as only choke points would need to be addressed. Service vehicles could still enter through the barriers but there would be few and honest to god parking (that satisfies the visual impact crowd) spaces for them. East Basin Drive would be open for lookers, peds and cyclists. Just like the service vehicles in front of the White House, they would be more aware of their surroundings and everybody would be happier. Some of East Basin Drive and the little pennisula between EB Drive and I 395 could be landscaped (and barriers there hidden in the landscaping) to cut down on the visual impact of the interstate.

Something to muse on.

[dbb]

As we ponder this, if you have a topic for comments to the EA please post in this thread. The collaborative process of the group will allow all those responding to build on our favorites in a way that strengthens the overall response and gets the best possible outcome.

[bobco85]

I like Alternative 3 the most. The concentric circular barrier would be somewhat hidden by the trees and more visually appealing to visitors (it’s a memorial, not a fortress).

For East Basin Drive, I would have concrete bump-outs to push vehicles to the left (bypass) side and differentiate between the pick-up/drop-off and parking areas. The concrete bump-outs would follow the corners of the U’s sidewalks to minimize visual impact (and yes, I did just use that term).

I’m at work, so no Photoshop today, but Paint will have to do:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2702[/ATTACH]

During the Cherry Blossom festival, I think they should not close off Ohio Drive southbound at Independence Ave. By forcing traffic to only use East Basin Dr to access the area, they created too much back-up around the Jefferson Memorial that created even more back-up at Maine/15th. Since Ohio Drive is the width of 4 lanes, they could easily keep it 2-way and have the outer lane be parking for each direction. At the very least, better signage is needed.

[dbb]

I was thinking that the NPS either needs to concede the issue of the No Stopping or Standing in front of the memorial or address it. While it appears they have conceded it, the cars/trucks/busses significantly impact the majesty of the memorial (the only place one can be fairly close but take it all in is on the East Basin Drive side). Idling busses, traffic cones, portapotties and the interstate take away from that experience a bit.

I think the pick up drop off zone should be a lane and a quarter wide because we are trained (sort of) not to stop in the street. The NPS could come up with a place for busses to drop tourists off.

My initial thought was that considering the “scope” of the project to begin at the curb will likely get them a well considered, NEPA compliant installation that won’t address the real issues. Given the 14th St Bridge EIS has some overlap with this project, they need to be considered in a more holistic fashion.

[dbb]

Here were the comments I submitted. They are my opinions alone and are offered to provide the benefit of my thoughts as you provide your own.

Deadline is tomorrow (Saturday night – mountain time)

Feel free to offer differing opinions or amplify on my thoughts.

Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Vehicular Barrier Design – March 2013

General Observation

The assessment seems to have been scoped to avoid any topic that would be difficult to accomplish. Instead of a more integrated planning process, the assessment seems to have limited consideration of the affected environment to the NPS property from the north curb of East Basin Drive to the seawall of the Tidal Basin. Such an approach fails to consider current unmet needs and other ongoing planning efforts (such as the 14th Street Bridge EIS).

I have no feelings or preferences for any of the specific styles, types or routes of the barriers. My concerns are more centered on the issues that were not addressed specifically traffic, parking, bicycle routes, and enforcement/management.

I offer these observations as someone who uses East Basin Drive as part of my normal bicycle commute, passing by the memorial in the morning or afternoon about 300 times per year for the past four years.

Page I – Although the Purpose and Need statement express concern that the jersey barriers currently around the Memorial “impact views to and from the Memorial”, the proposals do little to actually address those impacts. Absent an effective management strategy, the most significant impacts will continue to be present after a new vehicle barrier is selected, designed and installed. The visual impacts are largely the result of operational and enforcement decisions; not land use decisions. The NPS allows, through the use and absence of enforcement, parking and other visually incompatible activities in the area they are trying to protect.

Page 1 – The Purpose and Need statement suggest the NPS wants to “Improve drop-off and loading for buses and parking for visitors with disabilities”, “Protect important viewsheds”, “Maintain contextual compatibility with the Memorial and the National Mall”, “Reduce pedestrian/bicycle conflicts”, and “Improve site furnishings integration”. Unfortunately many of these issues were not really addressed in the EA. While the EA provides strong analysis that could lead to the selection of a new vehicle barrier, it glosses over the operational topics identified above.
• Unless prevented, National Park Service vehicles, contractor vehicles, busses and motorists will continue to stop and park directly in front of the Memorial on EBD. To date, signs have proven ineffective.
• The National Park Service regularly uses the sidewalk in front of the Memorial on EBD as a location for portable toilets or temporary bus stops.
• The National Park Service has permitted US Park Police officers assigned to the Memorial to park in the entrance to the U shaped driveway outside the security barrier. The Park Police use traffic cones to protect their autos, frequently blocking accessible ramps and crosswalks. This continues in spite of numerous attempts to control the use of traffic cones by Park Police leadership.
• The discussion of the roadway neglects to acknowledge the fact that the EBD route is one of the major transportation routes for bicycle commuters entering the District from Virginia.

The decisions made as a result of this EA may impact other planning efforts. In that regard, there is a significant potential to waste resources as something done in one plan may have to be undone as part of another project. This might include the route down from the bike lane on the George Mason Bridge (the upstream span of the 14th Street Bridges) that connects to the Districts road system, a major bicycle transportation corridor.

Page 13 – Soils. The discussion of soils suggested that the barrier design options would reduce the soil damage from the creation and use of “social paths” or “desire lines” but does not specifically say how that would occur.

Page 16 – Air Quality. The EA suggests that the construction activity would have negligible impacts and suggests that the roadway improvements would result in decreased vehicle emissions. Based on my observations, none of the proposed improvements will cause busses to continue past the Memorial to an offloading spot further west. To effect that behavior, active management will be required.

Page 21 – Chapter 2: Alternatives.
The discussion of the alternatives fails to acknowledge the significant traffic problems with the area in front of the Memorial on EBD. EBD is two lanes in front of the Memorial and then chokes to one lane where busses park to the west of the existing concession stand. This causes significant traffic congestion as vehicles stop or attempt to change lanes. This is compounded by the NPS tolerance for vehicles (including NPS vehicles) parking in the “No Stopping or Standing” zone immediately in front of the Memorial.
The pedestrian circulation is often impaired by the siting of portable toilets on the sidewalk, signs blocking the sidewalk during peak tourism times, and traffic cones in crosswalks and curb ramps that block routes for the disabled visitor as well as other visitors.
Bicycle circulation is key as the route is a major transportation connection to/from Virginia into the District.

Page 23 – Action Alternatives. The list of features of the action alternatives seems to omit the role of active enforcement of the traffic and parking plan. As the bus drivers, motorists and NPS employees have demonstrated in the past, if enforcement is weak the restrictions will be ignored.
The plan should include a location for the portable toilets that is visually appropriate. Locating them directly in front of the Memorial is unattractive and insensitive to the site.
The discussion of the handicap auto parking should include parking (if appropriate) for the Park Police assigned to the Memorial. Parking at the turnout to the U-shaped drive is unattractive and inappropriate.
The new barriers should completely close the U-shaped drive to prevent parking or stopping in those locations. All the figures that show the alternatives appear to show some recess at the entrance to the U-shaped drive. Installing the barriers with a reentrant at those locations will encourage stopping, standing or parking there.
The discussion of the increased sidewalk width and separation of cyclists and pedestrians is vague. Unless those issues are addressed, the project will end up with a wide sidewalk with conflicts. One alternative would be to install a cycle track along EBD next to the sidewalk and separate it from the roadway with some curb or raised barrier.

Narrowing the width of EBD directly in front of the Memorial should result in improved flow as vehicles stopping would close the road. Additionally, the chokepoint near the existing concession stand would be eliminated as EBD would be one lane the entire length.

Page 42 – Table 1 Discussion of Alternatives. The discussion of the traffic improvements resulting from improvements to the bus drop-off and disabled parking facilities will only be realized with effective enforcement. The plan should eliminate alternative (and illegal) parking locations to force the use of the ones provided.

Page 46 – Table 1 Discussion of Alternatives. The discussion of the scenic resources fails to address the impacts of illegal parking and the positioning of portable toilets. Absent some plan, those operational details will likely default to the problematic approach currently used/

Page 51 – Table 1 Discussion of Alternatives. The discussion of the impacts to Transportation and Traffic is silent on the impacts to the cycling community. This should be specifically studied and discussed.

Page 73 – Chapter 3: Affected Environment. The discussion of Transportation and Traffic fails to address the use of the Jefferson Memorial site as a major bicycle commuting route to/from Virginia and the District. Unless the alternatives address this in concert with the 14th Street Corridor EIS, the ultimate plan is likely to be flawed. The text suggests that the US Park Police is “charged with keeping traffic flow moving and keeping cars and taxis from stopping along EBD.” This is very rarely done and as a result, motorists and bus drivers have learned they can park or stop with impunity.

Page 119 – Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. The discussion of the alternatives suggests that the No Action Alternative would have “minor, long-term impacts would occur as potential back-ups may result from conflicts between buses, cars dropping off visitors and through traffic.” The discussion of the three alternatives suggest that widening the sidewalk and providing a loading zone would improve driver behavior and address the choke point where EBD goes from two to one lane. While a wider sidewalk might be the result of the a narrower roadway (commonly called a road diet), how traffic would be improved was not stated. A wider sidewalk will not ease traffic alone. The EA should include some discussion of the approach that will be used to streamline the traffic flow. Based on my experience and observation, it will require both a constructed remedy and aggressive management by the NPS and US Park Police.

[Author]

Posts