Roosevelt Island Parking Area Modifications

[dbb]

Just got this email from the NPS.

George Washington Memorial Parkway Seeks Public Comment on Plans to Improve Safety on the Mount Vernon Trail at Theodore Roosevelt Island Parking Lot

McLean, VA – The George Washington Memorial Parkway, a unit of the National Park Service (NPS), seeks public comments on proposed alternatives for a Mount Vernon Trail safety improvement project at the Theodore Roosevelt Island Parking Lots. This project seeks to improve visitor experience and safety by realigning a segment of the Mount Vernon Trail and reconfiguring the entry to the Theodore Roosevelt Island pedestrian bridge. More information regarding the project, including purpose and need, site characteristics and preliminary alternatives are available on the George Washington Memorial Parkway website at: http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/parkmgmt/planning.htm.

The George Washington Memorial Parkway is accepting public feedback on the proposed alternatives presented from Tuesday, March 4 to Wednesday, April 2, 2014. During this period, people are invited to identify any issues or concerns they might have, so the NPS can appropriately consider them in the preparation of a final alternative. Comments may be submitted electronically on the project website at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mvtatri. Written comments may be mailed to: Superintendent, George Washington Memorial Parkway, c/o Turkey Run Park, McLean, VA 22101.

-National Park Service-

i’ve not had a chance to visit the site yet. The Park Service uses our comments to help determine the most appropriate course of action. This is an opportunity to shape our bicycling facilities.

Topic

[Tim Kelley]

Jinks! I started a thread over here saying the same exact thing (at the same exact time): http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6619-NPS-Announces-Public-comment-for-the-plans-to-Improve-Safety-at-TR-Island-Parking-Lot

[rcannon100]

What I would like to propose – for those of us who care about this – is that we thrash this about here in the forum and attempt to come up with a consensus recommendation. And then one of us writes it up and we all sign on.

At least in my agency, consensus recommendations carry a lot more weight than a bunch of yahoos screaming about how we are evil :p

This seems like a good one for us to speak with a consensus voice.

[rpiretti]

+1 for Bob’s idea. Who’s going to be the “John Hancock” of the bunch of signatures?

[thucydides]

If I’m reading this right the two alternatives (1&2) still under consideration do quite similar things with the trail. They’ll widen that section along the river. They’ll do this by shifting the north parking lot a bit west. They’ll then take away the two 90 degree turns and make it a more gradual S-curve. (The curve is sharper in 2.) We’d still be crossing the parking lot. They’d also get rid of the jersey barriers at the pedestrian bridge but use other means to make it hard for cyclists to go into the lot (though the need to go into the lot is dramatically reduced due to the other changes).

They had some more radical alternatives (3&4) that definitely looked nonviable and were dropped. 3 had the trail cutting to the river right after the pedestrian bridge (with the south lot shifted a bit north, I think). 4 had the trail staying next to GW Parkway all the way until the end of the north parking lot when it then — it appears — cuts across the exit/entrance lane to get to the bridge over GW Parkway. Nutty and dangerous that one.

Unless I’m missing something, it sounds like Alternative 1 is best though maybe I’m falling victim to NPS’s framing of the alternatives. They definitely seem to be favor 1.

[mstone]

1 & 2 both seem fine, and a no-brainer upgrade/vast improvement from the current mess. Alternative 2 will probably kill the big tree in the trail realignment, even if it isn’t cut down immediately, so alternative 1 may be better from that standpoint (though it’s digging close enough that it might also kill the tree). I’d certainly be fine with following the trail after this, rather than taking the parking lot route. The only mystery is why it’s taken so long to get to this point.

Oh, and alternative 3 just looks like an expensive meh, and alternative 4 is probably more dangerous than the current parking lot detour. (I don’t want to cross an entrance with cars flying blind off the parkway.)

[consularrider]

Where’s the alternative to just make the GW Parkway pedestrian bridge crossing over the parking lot entrance and line up directly with the trail? Yeah, I know, too expensive. Of course making comments with no cost estimates can be problematic as well.

[Guus]

Personally, I don’t have many problems with the trail there as it is right now. Alternative 1 seems to be a nice clean-up.

[thucydides]

@consularrider 78484 wrote:

Where’s the alternative to just make the GW Parkway pedestrian bridge crossing over the parking lot entrance and line up directly with the trail? Yeah, I know, too expensive. Of course making comments with no cost estimates can be problematic as well.

You’re absolutely right about cost estimates. That should be a criterion for examination. 1 & 2 look so similar that my guess is they cost about the same. But it’s not like I have any expertise in civil engineering or costing out projects like this.

[bobco85]

Thanks for the information. After looking at the designs and closely examining the differences, I figure it’s best to split this into the 3 parts that the NPS has shown.

Trail Widening
Both widen the trail to 9 feet and remove the ramp to the parking lot, but Alt #2 provides an additional 3 foot pedestrian trail on the side.
I like the additional room provided by the side trail, but I think the removal of the ramp in both alternatives will force cyclists used to taking the ramp and riding in the parking lot to adjust their habits (it may be a bit annoying at first, but people will get used to it).
My choice: Alternative #2

Trail Realignment
For the trail/parking lot crossing, Alternative #1 uses a speed table with stop signs and removes the old 90 degree pedestrian crossing while Alternative #2 uses speed bumps with yield signs and keeps the separate pedestrian crossing. Alternative #1 requires additional work to remove the 90 degree crossing while Alternative #2 requires additional work to remove 2 parking spaces.
While I think that the speed bumps will help with slowing drivers, I much prefer the use of stop signs to signal to drivers they must stop. Removing 2 parking spaces in Alt #2 seems unnecessary. Also, I don’t think the pedestrian crossing is needed anymore with Alt #1’s design.
My choice: Alternative #1

TR Island Bridge Entry
Both designs create separation between the trail and the bridge access area while adding various signage. Alternative #1 allows 1 point of access from the MVT while Alternative #2 allows 2 points of access from the MVT.
I think that Alt #1 is better suited for MVT users and Alt #2 is better suited for TR Island visitors. Limiting the number of access points keeps things simpler (i.e., less confusing) so that the trail can flow more efficiently when there are more people in the area (less likely for crowding on the trail), even if it seems less open due to the separation. I also prefer Alt #1’s layout for the gathering area.
My choice: Alternative #1

All in all, I’d choose Alternative #1, but I think there are ideas from Alternative #2 like the extra pedestrian path that could be incorporated into Alt #1.

[Steve O]

So as part of this project (or sooner–like now), can we get them to remove the useless and dangerous bollards on the bridge? There’s already a curb in the way at the bottom, so no car is going to drive up the bridge anyway. And the one at the top is nothing more than an obstacle to test people’s reactions as it comes into sight coming down the hill and trying to turn the corner.

Steve O
President of RUB (Remove Useless Bollards)

[TwoWheelsDC]

My thoughts were a bit simpler (read: more likely to get done)….narrow the channel between the two parking areas and widen the trail. However, markings on the trail should delineate the bike and ped areas. The proposals sort of get to this, but I think it should be more explicit.

Very crude drawing done in MSPaint…it’s all I have right now!

[Rootchopper]

I prefer option no. 1. I like the idea that trail traffic stays on the trail. It will make for a more predictable flow of bikes. I also like the addition of the speed table. I hate speed bumps. I also agree that the flex post at the bottom of the bridge should be removed.

So kudos the the NPS. Now if they’d only treat the MVT after snow/ice events I could actually ride the darn thing during the winter.

[jrenaut]

I spend a lot more time on streets than trails, so many of you are better qualified to answer, but I don’t love diagonal crossings. It is a much nicer curve, but do we really need to speed up cyclists crossing the street there? And it makes visibility funny. I know there’s not really much there to impede visibility, but I’m always more comfortable at a traditional perpendicular crossing.

[rcannon100]

Assignment: someone come up with a cute, spiffy, whimsical yet meaningless name for us

“The Coalition of Concerned Cyclists about Roosevelt” = CCCR something stupid like that

[Steve O]

@bobco85 78490 wrote:

t Alt #2 provides an additional 3 foot pedestrian trail on the side.

A 3-foot ped trail is very narrow. A typical sidewalk is 4 feet wide, which is enough for two people to walk side by side or one each to pass going opposite ways. A 3-foot trail is uncomfortably narrow to pass someone coming the other way on. The section where the ped walk diverges from the MVT will end up with trampled ground for 1-2 feet on each side of the paved area anyway. That section, at least, should be wider.

Personally, I think it would be better to just make a 12-foot trail with signage for peds to keep right. This will cause some mixing like on the other MUPs around the area, so will require caution during some times of day and some times of year. A lot of the time (like nowadays) cyclists will be able to zoom through, since there will be no peds.

(For official records, I didn’t say “zoom.” I said “proceed.”)

[Author]

Replies