Mount Vernon Trail Safety Improvement Project – Theodore Roosevelt Island Parking Lot

[Steve]

I realize that they are looking for comments directly to them, but thought I’d start some thoughts here at least. To that end…

I would prefer that they shift the south parking lot west, to cover the current trail, and put the trail on what is now the east side of that parking lot. This completely deconflicts cars from bikes. I realize that this might produce a fairly low speed curve, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, and isn’t really different than the low speed curve it would take to cross the parking lot. I also realize that this probably increases the bike/ped conflict, but to me, that’s a better choice than bike/car conflicts. If the parking lot funneled peds toward the bridge in a sensible way, to make for a more narrow trail crossing (perhaps with a painted and signed “crosswalk” this conflict could be pretty reduced. Just my thoughts.

[consularrider]

It looks like the comment period in that link closed last week.

[Tim Kelley]

@consularrider 81887 wrote:

It looks like the comment period in that link closed last week.

Odd, since they were presenting to us last night.

[dasgeh]

They offered to take comments via email. I will post more with the email addresses soon.

But, I have to say, it was very frustrating to hear them completely mis-define the problem (it doesn’t help that they don’t have user numbers aside from the trail counters). On weekdays, at least, the issue isn’t bike-car conflict, it’s bike-ped conflict. It’s mitigated somewhat by the ability of bikes to take the road for the worst part. All of the options involve getting rid of the curb cut nearest to the bridge to Rosslyn, which will make taking the road more difficult. This will mean not only that bikes will be mixing with slower peds, but also that in the winters when the trails don’t get cleared, we won’t have the cleared parking lot option. For the times that I go through there (am/pm rush), anything that precludes the option of using the road will make the situation worse.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 81900 wrote:

But, I have to say, it was very frustrating to hear them completely mis-define the problem (it doesn’t help that they don’t have user numbers aside from the trail counters). On weekdays, at least, the issue isn’t bike-car conflict, it’s bike-ped conflict. It’s mitigated somewhat by the ability of bikes to take the road for the worst part. All of the options involve getting rid of the curb cut nearest to the bridge to Rosslyn, which will make taking the road more difficult. This will mean not only that bikes will be mixing with slower peds, but also that in the winters when the trails don’t get cleared, we won’t have the cleared parking lot option. For the times that I go through there (am/pm rush), anything that precludes the option of using the road will make the situation worse.

You don’t understand, bikes in the road is the problem. NPS will fix the problem. Pray they don’t fix it any further.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 81900 wrote:

This will mean not only that bikes will be mixing with slower peds, but also that in the winters when the trails don’t get cleared, we won’t have the cleared parking lot option. For the times that I go through there (am/pm rush), anything that precludes the option of using the road will make the situation worse.

I know I’m (mostly) alone on this, but I just couldn’t disagree more. I think the multiple options (on trail/thru parking lot) simply confuses things and makes things more dangerous. I think part of it is the notion that things should always be *easiest* for bike traffic. Well, it’s a tight area, with lots of different types of users, and at the entrance to a park. There are some places that bikes may have to slow down. It’s no different than gravelly point on the weekend, where you might have to slow to a crawl to get thru.

I believe that if the trail was a little wider, cars and bikes were deconflicted, and there was no double 90 degree turn, that it can be a safe and fairly easy, albiet maybe a very slow section of trail.

In snow, I would think that the ramp and boardwalk are much worse than the trail, so I don’t see how the little parking lot section really makes anything in the snow better.

[mstone]

@Steve 81924 wrote:

I believe that if the trail was a little wider, cars and bikes were deconflicted, and there was no double 90 degree turn, that it can be a safe and fairly easy, albiet maybe a very slow section of trail.

And if I could print money I’d be rich! I don’t think there’s an option on the table for a trail that’s wide, straight, and without conflict…

I think it’s true that eliminating some of the current problems can improve the situation greatly, but I think it’s also true that NPS doesn’t prioritize bike & ped issues as highly as vehicle access–which is unfortunate.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 81924 wrote:

I know I’m (mostly) alone on this, but I just couldn’t disagree more. I think the multiple options (on trail/thru parking lot) simply confuses things and makes things more dangerous. I think part of it is the notion that things should always be *easiest* for bike traffic. Well, it’s a tight area, with lots of different types of users, and at the entrance to a park. There are some places that bikes may have to slow down. It’s no different than gravelly point on the weekend, where you might have to slow to a crawl to get thru.

I believe that if the trail was a little wider, cars and bikes were deconflicted, and there was no double 90 degree turn, that it can be a safe and fairly easy, albiet maybe a very slow section of trail.

In snow, I would think that the ramp and boardwalk are much worse than the trail, so I don’t see how the little parking lot section really makes anything in the snow better.

I don’t think should be *easiest* for bike traffic, but I think if you’re requiring bikes to slow down to pedestrian speeds, then you’re basically banning bike riding through an area. On a nice afternoon, requiring bikes to stay on the 9′ wide trail with pedestrians would effectively be just that. Yes, you can bring your bike through, but you’ll have to ride at a walking speed. For short stretches, this is fine, but when that’s the design of a half-mile of the trail, then I question whether it’s a bike trail.

Similarly with the snow clearing: yes, when it snows, the trollheim is bad and the bridge over the GW parkway are bad. Yes, I often walk my bike through those sections. However: 1) those sections are pretty short for me (I take the TR Bridge), and if I had to walk my bike the entire length of the TR parking lot, it would probably be three times as long as I walk my bike now. Consider the speed differential, that’s 5 minutes in a 45 minute commute. And 2) there were plenty of times this winter where the trollheim and the GW bridge had clear paths, but that section of the trail that you get to miss by going through the parking lot was STILL covered in ice.

At some point, if you make bike riding annoying and slow enough, you will chase us into cars. (and you’ll never get the bike-curious to ride).

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 81926 wrote:

And if I could print money I’d be rich! I don’t think there’s an option on the table for a trail that’s wide, straight, and without conflict…

I think it’s true that eliminating some of the current problems can improve the situation greatly, but I think it’s also true that NPS doesn’t prioritize bike & ped issues as highly as vehicle access–which is unfortunate.

This was certainly demonstrated when NPS listed as a con for one of the rejected options the possibly of a few cars having to wait to leave the parking lot. Oh the horror!

[chris_s]

If anyone has that email address for comments handy, I could REALLY use it.

[Tim Kelley]

@chris_s 81936 wrote:

If anyone has that email address for comments handy, I could REALLY use it.

I asked around and makayah_royal@nps.gov was the one who presented last night.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 81929 wrote:

For short stretches, this is fine, but when that’s the design of a half-mile of the trail, then I question whether it’s a bike trail.

At some point, if you make bike riding annoying and slow enough, you will chase us into cars. (and you’ll never get the bike-curious to ride).

I measure from the bridge going over to the island up to the start of the ramp over GWMP being 0.17 miles, which is really the stretch in question, I belive (basically the start of the parking lot to the end of it). So let’s not act like it’s longer than it is. I believe the trollheim is actually longer than the length of the parking lots. I also think it’s quite a stretch to imply that people aren’t going to ride because it’s slow thru a short section of trail thru that park.

I think there are places where bikes might be required to slow to pedestrian speeds, at least in order to pass. I don’t think that will ruin cycling for the entire MVT. I also think a widening of this particular trail will help with that, which was part of my stated recommendation.

This isn’t a “bike trail.” It’s a multi-use trail. I just think some of the arguments made here sound unbelievably similar to those made by drivers that don’t like bikes taking the lane. They move to slow, they’re in the way, we can’t possibly be asked to slow down to those speeds, it’s our road…..

I think a complete solution to this area has to consider all users. Safety should be #1. Speed #2. I think that using a parking lot as the bike path is not necessarily the safest solution. And I ride this section every day, so it’s not like I’m not affected by it.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 81943 wrote:

I believe the trollheim is actually longer than the length of the parking lots. I also think it’s quite a stretch to imply that people aren’t going to ride because it’s slow thru a short section of trail thru that park.

I imagine that the entire trollheim is longer than this stretch, and fair enough, it may be more like 1/5 mile than half. So it adds 3 minutes to the trip to slow from 12mph to 3mph. At some point, if the commute gets slow enough, people will take a faster option.

@Steve 81943 wrote:

I think there are places where bikes might be required to slow to pedestrian speeds, at least in order to pass. I don’t think that will ruin cycling for the entire MVT. I also think a widening of this particular trail will help with that, which was part of my stated recommendation.

This isn’t a “bike trail.” It’s a multi-use trail. I just think some of the arguments made here sound unbelievably similar to those made by drivers that don’t like bikes taking the lane. They move to slow, they’re in the way, we can’t possibly be asked to slow down to those speeds, it’s our road…..

My point is that it’s not multi-use if it’s effectively pedestrian-only.

These arguments are not similar to arguments against bikes taking the lane: we’re talking about infrastructure design, not behavior. At no point am I saying (or do I see anyone else saying) that pedestrians should yield to cyclists, or step off the path so cyclists can keep up speed. We’re talking about the design of the infrastructure, and I think that the infrastructure should be designed so that all users can move about in a safe and efficient manner. I don’t think it’s efficient to design infrastructure that, based on the current volume of users, requires cyclists to slow to a walking pace for a significant distance. Municipalities should encourage cycling: slowing cycling down to a walking pace discourages cycling.

I think a complete solution to this area has to consider all users. Safety should be #1. Speed #2. I think that using a parking lot as the bike path is not necessarily the safest solution.

I don’t disagree with this. Currently, I think taking the parking lot is the safest option, for reasons gone over in other threads. As far as which is better: status quo, alt 1 or alt 2, I think you have to consider that, given the volumes of peds and the lack of cars on weekdays, you’re still going to have bikes go through the parking lot and just hop the curb. That’s why I think alt 2, with a slightly raised bike lane and rounded curb (cars will know if they’re driving on the bike lane, bikes can still use the parking lot when it’s better for them, etc), and a re-aligned car/trail crossing to make it 90 degrees and lose a few parking spaces, is the safest, then status quo, then alt 1 (which will involve no snow clearing).

[chris_s]

They finally extended the comment period on the website. Comments are now open through April 22nd.

[lordofthemark]

not to go too far off topic, but could we have a sticky or something with geographic nicknames explained, like trollheim? I know we have a forum dictionary but its mostly about things cyclists and others do, not places.

[Author]

Posts