Potomac River Rowing Boathouse National Park Service Study

[dbb]

Part Two

Scope of the Project

The 2002 Feasibility Analysis provided space and size estimates for the facilities:

This is an extract from Table 2.5 showing only the Maximum requirements
Maximum Program
Total Footprint / Area ±14,000 SF (140’ x 100’)
Total Area ± 19,000 SF
Boat Storage ±11,200 SF
(6 bays – 72 long boats)
Boat Repair Area ± 3,200 SF ( 2 add’l bay)
Storage Area ± 1,800 SF
Exercise Area ± 2,000 SF (2nd Floor)
Lockers/Showers ± 2,000 SF (2nd Floor)
Outdoor Rigging Area 9,100 SF
Office Space Less than 500 SF
Parking Space for trailer turnaround/emerg access
Dock/Float Approx. 150 feet in length to allow two eights to use the dock simultaneously
Gas Storage 100 SF

This will be a big project. Additionally, the boats, trucks and trailers will be long. A quick search of the web indicates that a eight rower shell is about 55 feet long. Including the truck and the tongue of the trailer, the total length of the truck and trailer would be about 80 feet.

Discussion of the Three Questions

The current issue open for comments asks three questions. They are:

1) If you intend to use the facility, what would your requirements be?
2) Do you have any concerns regarding the preliminary alternatives and proposed site locations presented?
3) What additional information or other comments do you have?

The first question seems targeted at rowers only, the second opens the discussion to the concerns of cyclists, and the third is wide open.

Discussion of the Alternatives

What else was considered? – The discussion in the NPS docs suggests the action alternatives were the result of 8-12 proposed projects that were reduced to the five above. It isn’t particularly clear what other sites had been considered. Are the projected footprints of the considered alternatives still accurate? If not, what changes have occurred?

What about other facilities? – Is expansion of existing boating facilities an option? There are rowing facilities in the District of Columbia and in Alexandria. If this alternative was considered, what was the outcome of that analysis? If not considered, why not?

Integration of studies – How will these alternatives, and the decision processes associated with this effort be integrated into other assessments that are considering long term plans and improvements? This includes, but is not limited to. the 14th Street EIS, the Long Bridge Park connection to the GWMP, improvements to the trail around the south end of the Columbia Island lagoon, traffic safety improvements along the GWMP, improvements to rowing facilities in the District, and the Gravelly Point improvement plans.

The alternatives presented seem to have relied on a number of boating advocates. What non-advocates were involved in the process? Why weren’t other users of the GWMP facilities engaged in this process?

Given that the alternatives that were considered then included or discarded were identified 10-15 years ago, they may not consider the use changes of the MVT. It seems that the scoping and alternative identification process would appropriately be revisited to ensure those choices remain relevant.

If the boating facility is expanded to support other boaters (kayakers and others), how will the requirements change? Is there any study of the needs of the paddling community?

As access to the CSX and the Roosevelt Island sites is only available from the northbound lanes of the GWMP. What will the impact be on traffic because of the requirement for vehicles to turn around to enter or exit the considered facilities? Will this require restrictions for certain vehicles (such as trucks with boat trailers turning at DCA)

What issues prevented the Columbia Island Marina from being considered as an alternative site?

What other sites were initially considered to identify the alternative sites? What criteria were used to evaluate the sites?

Would Roaches Run be able to support the facility? Could a low boathouse be placed to the south of the Mount Vernon Trail (to the east of the navigation facility near the portable latrines)?

CSX/Gravelly Point/Roaches Run Discussion

Page III-36 of the feasibility study indicates the wastewater for the location would be pumped to the restrooms at Gravelly Point, which are indicated as “proposed”. As of 2012, those restrooms are portable latrines. Information from the NPS indicates that improvements at Gravelly Point will be composting toilets, not conventional flush toilets.

The CSX site would be to the north of the Gravelly Point parking lot, just south of the CSX bridge. It appears that the CSX site is about 0.4 miles from the Gravelly Point parking area. Just south of the CSX bridge, the distance from the GWMP to the edge of the Potomac River is about 300 feet. Providing access to the rowing facility would require a roadway capable of accommodating fairly long vehicles. This facility might also impact the sports fields that are extensively used at Gravelly Point.

How would the time of day of the use of the rowing facility be affected by other peak uses of the parking areas at Gravelly Point? During warm weather, the parking area is often full, with vehicles parking on the grass. Increasing the number of vehicles would likely exacerbate that problem.

Key Bridge Sites

Three of the five alternatives are located just to the north (upstream) of the existing pedestrian/cyclist bridge. The alternatives include an upper site, a lower site and a blend of the two. The upper site appears to propose a boat house on the hill (with vehicle access between the Lynn Street intersection and the Key Bridge, near the Custis Trail crossing of Lynn Street). The lower house would seem to require a new pedestrian/cyclist bridge and would provide vehicle access from the TRI parking lot.

The upper site access would present additional congestion at an intersection that is currently problematic. The access would appear to use the existing curb cut to the immediate left of the Custis crossing of Lynn. It is not clear if the current Arlington County/VDOT Lynn redesign includes any aspect of this proposed project. Trucks coming out of the boat house would likely have to go into Georgetown to turn around.

The lower site would seem to require reconstruction of the pedestrian/cyclist bridge, an activity that would have significant impacts on cyclists using the Custis and Mount Vernon Trails.

How would the time of day of the use of the rowing facility be affected by other peak uses of the parking areas at Roosevelt Island? During warm weather, the parking area is often full. Increasing the number of vehicles would likely exacerbate that problem.

Daingerfield Island Site

Because this alternative appears to have the smallest impact on the use of the MVT by cyclists and pedestrians, I didn’t focus on it.

Impacts on Other GWMP Uses

Compared to the other uses of the GWMP facilities (the Mount Vernon Trail, athletic fields, boat ramps, etc.), how does the projected use of the rowing facility compare with the extant uses?

There will be significant operations and maintenance expenses if any of the alternatives are selected and constructed. What is the estimate of those costs? How will the cost of the operations and maintenance of the facilities be provided? How would the additional maintenance costs associated with the boathouse facility affect other GWMP activities, such as maintenance and improvements on other facilities?

The three questions asked by the NPS didn’t really seem to address the real questions, which include:
How does this impact (or be integrated into) other county and federal planning efforts?
What will the impacts be to other uses of the GWMP?
What will the impacts be to parking at the identified sites
What will the impacts be to traffic on the GWMP?

Given the increased use of the river by uses other than rowing, how will those activities be supported or impacted?

The NPS representatives indicated that there are studies planned or ongoing concerning the DC waterfront. It would seem that given the predominant use of the river in this area is recreational, that integrating the studies would produce a more integrated result.

You can submit comments to the NPS by 31 Aug at

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=48320

[dbb]

Deadline for comments is 31 August

[Author]

Posts