New "speed control" bariers at Roosevelt Island

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 45107 wrote:

The point is those who don’t agree with you should have the choice. No one wants to force you to take the parking lot. The barriers force us to take the trail. Given that there’s a plausible argument that it’s less safe, why not let users decide?

I’ve never defended the barriers.

I’m just explaining why I don’t use the parking lot.

The NPS may have a different idea about that though.

As far as making it better, I’ve been dreaming of a new bridge that starts between the parking lot and the GWMP and goes up and over, first the entrance to the parking lot then turns to go over the GWMP. It might be longer than the current bridge, which would mean less steap (yay). It certainly would eliminate the stupid hairpin (YAY YAY).

We can all dream.

[consularrider]

@dasgeh 45107 wrote:

… As far as making it better, I’ve been dreaming of a new bridge that starts between the parking lot and the GWMP and goes up and over, first the entrance to the parking lot then turns to go over the GWMP. It might be longer than the current bridge, which would mean less steap (yay). It certainly would eliminate the stupid hairpin (YAY YAY).

But wouldn’t that shorten your ride by a tenth of a mile? You’d have to ride a loop around your house to make up for it!

[Steve]

@rcannon100 45099 wrote:

Shall we just keep repeating the same arguments so that you can continue to defend the car-oriented NPS shoving biking into an unsafe navigation?

I suppose.

But seriously, I’m not saying that the trail is good. I’m just saying that I think we are making too big of a deal out of a minor inconvenience. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve never seen a wreck on the trail there. My guess is that we won’t see a huge uptick in crash data there as a result of the barriers. The tree is in a bad spot, but bikes can easily see cars heading south in the lot while they are riding up the trail (prior to the first right turn), and so they don’t exactly come out of nowhere. First you tell me that no cars are ever there, but then you tell me that we’re all gonna get mowed over by cars coming thru the crossing.

I just think that this isn’t the most dangerous place in the BikeDC area. That’s all. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fixed.

[baiskeli]

@Steve 45121 wrote:

I suppose.

But seriously, I’m not saying that the trail is good. I’m just saying that I think we are making too big of a deal out of a minor inconvenience. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve never seen a wreck on the trail there. My guess is that we won’t see a huge uptick in crash data there as a result of the barriers. The tree is in a bad spot, but bikes can easily see cars heading south in the lot while they are riding up the trail (prior to the first right turn), and so they don’t exactly come out of nowhere. First you tell me that no cars are ever there, but then you tell me that we’re all gonna get mowed over by cars coming thru the crossing.

I just think that this isn’t the most dangerous place in the BikeDC area. That’s all. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fixed.

I agree, and I’ll add that having bikes going two different ways adds a new hazard. At the crossing, some cyclists are going to enter or exit the trail, and others are going to go through the rest of the parking lot, while others are using the trail. At the end, some are going to merge into trail traffic from the lot, in a place where pedestrians are already coming off the bridge.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 45130 wrote:

I agree, and I’ll add that having bikes going two different ways adds a new hazard. At the crossing, some cyclists are going to enter or exit the trail, and others are going to go through the rest of the parking lot, while others are using the trail. At the end, some are going to merge into trail traffic from the lot, in a place where pedestrians are already coming off the bridge.

You clearly don’t ride through there often. There are already cyclists going every which way — There’s a curb cut closer to the bridge. Heading south, almost every bike takes that curb cut and then the parking lot to the crossing. Some take the trail from the crossing, some keep going to the bridge area (when the barriers are moved). The bridge isn’t close enough to to the curb cut to create a hazard with peds being surprised by/surprising cyclists.

I’m not saying it’s the highest priority. I’m just saying is we should get the choice.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 45131 wrote:

You clearly don’t ride through there often.

I’ve probably been through there thousands of times. Been riding here since the late 1980s.

There are already cyclists going every which way — There’s a curb cut closer to the bridge. Heading south, almost every bike takes that curb cut and then the parking lot to the crossing. Some take the trail from the crossing, some keep going to the bridge area (when the barriers are moved).

Well, yeah, that’s my point.

The bridge isn’t close enough to to the curb cut to create a hazard with peds being surprised by/surprising cyclists.

Not those on the trail, perhaps, but those going between the trail and the lot might have a problem.

I’m not saying it’s the highest priority. I’m just saying is we should get the choice.

Well, that’s when we need to ask the users of the parking lot and pedestrians what they think.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 45104 wrote:

I don’t know how they could make that trail better though. If they go made it straight, they’d have to put the crossing at the entrance/exit to the GW Parkway, which would be much riskier. The best way would have been to put the bridge over the entrance. Hey, maybe they could run the entrance around and under the existing bridge? That might work.

Why not just move the parking lot over so the trail can remain between the parking lot and the water and never cross the road at all? That why I find this one so galling–there’s no real need for there to be a car conflict at all.

[dbb]

@mstone 45140 wrote:

Why not just move the parking lot over so the trail can remain between the parking lot and the water and never cross the road at all? That why I find this one so galling–there’s no real need for there to be a car conflict at all.

A coworker who rides there every day avoids the trail by the water because of the risk of being inadvertently hooked by someone fishing on the cast. He keeps muttering something about a treble hook in his thigh.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 45140 wrote:

Why not just move the parking lot over so the trail can remain between the parking lot and the water and never cross the road at all? That why I find this one so galling–there’s no real need for there to be a car conflict at all.

There are probably many answers to why they didn’t do that in the past, but the current answer is “there’s no money.”

[mstone]

@baiskeli 45147 wrote:

There are probably many answers to why they didn’t do that in the past, but the current answer is “there’s no money.”

NPS has money for a number of things other than increasing pedestrian and cyclist safety. Skip the next paving of the parkway and there’s your funds right there.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 45156 wrote:

NPS has money for a number of things other than increasing pedestrian and cyclist safety. Skip the next paving of the parkway and there’s your funds right there.

You’re saying the Parkway doesn’t need repaving?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NPS official reading in on our conversation. He’s saying to himself, “yeah, let’s see, should I pick regular scheduled road maintenance or completely rebuilding a perfectly good parking lot so some cyclists can avoid having to slow down a little just to make a turn on a perfectly good bike trail. Hmmm.”

(But he’s not reading it today because he was furloughed).

[consularrider]

@baiskeli 45157 wrote:

You’re saying the Parkway doesn’t need repaving?

A lot of it has been recently repaved, so it will be hard to steal money from there.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 45157 wrote:

You’re saying the Parkway doesn’t need repaving?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NPS official reading in on our conversation. He’s saying to himself, “yeah, let’s see, should I pick regular scheduled road maintenance or completely rebuilding a perfectly good parking lot so some cyclists can avoid having to slow down a little just to make a turn on a perfectly good bike trail. Hmmm.”

Actually, there’s enough money there for a lot of pedestrian and cyclist safety improvements, not just the one.

To be fair, I felt the same way when they repaved 7100 again (only a few years after the last repaving) but haven’t repaved the MUP since…ever.

consularrider: I’m sure it won’t be all that long before for it’s up for another round, because, you know, cars need nice roads.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 45159 wrote:

Actually, there’s enough money there for a lot of pedestrian and cyclist safety improvements, not just the one.

Okay. Even so, this one will be quite low on the priority list.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 45160 wrote:

Okay. Even so, this one will be quite low on the priority list.

It’s enough of a priority for them to put up idiotic barriers…

[Author]

Posts