Roosevelt Island Parking Area Modifications

[DismalScientist]

If you do a perpendicular crossing, you get sharp 90 degree turns. That’s why cyclists were taking the parking lot. Your ability to see cars behind you will suck with either a diagonal or perpendicular crossing, so IMO a diagonal crossing is the best we can get.

(I never thought that cyclists using the parking lot was such an awful problem to begin with, but having a diagonal crossing and no direct parking lot access at the north end seems reasonable and an improvement over current conditions.)

[jrenaut]

@DismalScientist 78500 wrote:

If you do a perpendicular crossing, you get sharp 90 degree turns. That’s why cyclists were taking the parking lot. Your ability to see cars behind you will suck with either a diagonal or perpendicular crossing, so IMO a diagonal crossing is the best we can get.

(I never thought that cyclists using the parking lot was such an awful problem to begin with, but having a diagonal crossing and no direct parking lot access at the north end seems reasonable and an improvement over current conditions.)

Agree that it’s a sharper turn, but I think it improves the visibility. And I suspect cyclists taking the parking lot has more to do with the narrow, crappy, crowded trail than with the turn. But as I said, I don’t often go through there, and I don’t think I’ve ever been there during prime commuting times, so I defer to those of you who commute that way.

[PotomacCyclist]

@rcannon100 78498 wrote:

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

Teddy’s Rough Riders ActiveTransportation Party [TRAP], or Trollheim Recovery and Accident Prevention (since the trolls live nearby)

[mstone]

@jrenaut 78497 wrote:

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.

The perpendicular crossing sucks because you have an awkward turn to make while also keeping track of other trail users and cars. The diagonal crossing will let you basically keep the bike going straight while looking around for people/cars rather than watching the ground to make sure you make the turn. I think that maintaining a constant (reasonable) rate of speed for cyclists will make for a much safer and more predictable crossing, as you will just look left and right while approaching the crossing, then cross. The big slowdown means that a car can come up while you’re fumbling at the corner as opposed to being aware from a distance what’s going on.

For the record, I was also perfectly happy with just getting in the road and controlling conflicts that way, but it apparently makes someone’s head explode at NPS.

[jrenaut]

@mstone 78509 wrote:

The perpendicular crossing sucks because you have an awkward turn to make while also keeping track of other trail users and cars. The diagonal crossing will let you basically keep the bike going straight while looking around for people/cars rather than watching the ground to make sure you make the turn….

Makes sense. I guess I was assuming that one should put a foot down before crossing. Of course, that kind of makes my point moot, since the diagonal visibility isn’t really an issue if you’re stopped.

Simply widening the right angle turn (which probably means losing a parking spot) might be a good alternative.

[americancyclo]

whatever gets me through this awful parking lot faster is the best option.

[dasgeh]

@jrenaut 78497 wrote:

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.

The problem with this perpendicular crossing is that you are not perpendicular to traffic until you cross the street. So you’re visibility is much worse than the typical perpendicular crossing (it’s better if you’re headed west, but not much, especially with the large trees). I didn’t realize how dangerous this parking lot was until I drove in it one day. As a driver, there’s no indication that these trail users who are chugging along beside you are suddenly going to turn into your path. I go through there _every day_ and even I found it surprising when driving. That’s why I stopped taking the trail.

Trail widening
After a quick glance, I think both of these alternatives are disappointing. We need true mode separation there. During commuting hours, there just aren’t many cars, so the easy mode separation is bikes take the parking lot, peds take the trail. If you remove the curb cut near the bridge, you’ll lose that, making the situation worse. They should either widen enough to have a bike trail and a ped trail, or paint a cycletrack in the north parking lot (similar to the MS paint drawing above) and widen the trail by south parking lot to separate peds and bikes.

Trail realignment
Alt #1 is my preference. With lots of good signage

TR Island entrance
I don’t feel strongly, but the point should be made that the bike parking looks limited to standard bikes. It doesn’t look like there’s room there for cargo bikes (longer and sometimes wider), which are on the rise are here, especially for families. Should be an easy fix, but it’s a point that needs to be made.

Strategy
In my agency, the way to get the most bang for your collective buck is to have a base text/idea, but to have comments submitted individually, with tweaks. That way, the idea gets however many “votes”, but it doesn’t get labeled “form letter”. One letter with lots of signatures often gets counted as one letter, which isn’t what we want.

[mstone]

@jrenaut 78511 wrote:

Makes sense. I guess I was assuming that one should put a foot down before crossing.

Good grief, why?

[dasgeh]

@jrenaut 78511 wrote:

Makes sense. I guess I was assuming that one should put a foot down before crossing. Of course, that kind of makes my point moot, since the diagonal visibility isn’t really an issue if you’re stopped.

Simply widening the right angle turn (which probably means losing a parking spot) might be a good alternative.

Also, the trail is very narrow, even the turn that’s not right before you cross the street has issues: when there is more than one users on the trail, bikes basically have to stop to make the turn without getting in someone else’s way. With my cargo bike, we have to stop until there’s a break in traffic, because with the long wheelbase, we need all the pavement to make the turn at any speed. On a nice weather day (remember those?) that can actually be a wait. And then others pile up behind us.

Seriously, I didn’t realize how bad the double turns were until I rode it. They’re not dangerous in the same way Lynn/Lee or 17th/Constitution is dangerous, but they’re dangerous in that someone not expecting such ridiculously bad design could easily wipe out and take a few people with them — or be hit by a car in the parking lot.

[mattotoole]

Heading south from the parking lot, the wayfinding sign where the boardwalk splits off left is important, but useless because:

• Through traffic splits off left vs. continuing straight, counterintuitive to begin with
• The sign is obscured by the guardrail/chain/post/whatever
• Like all signs on the MVT, it’s too small to be read at 12+ MPH
• The sign cannot be read at night as it’s not reflective

[Anonymous]

Regarding option #2, separating peds and bikes in this area would be good if doable, but I don’t see that design accomplishing that. There are too many pedestrians, and too many peds in groups, to think there is any chance at all they will segregate themselves to walk in single file (not to mention squishing past each other when going opposite directions) on the 3′ wide “pedestrian” path, with a perfectly good, segregated-from-motor-vehicles, 9-foot “bicycle path” right there next to it. I anticipate it actually creating more bike-ped conflict than exists now, as cyclists expect peds to not be on the bike portion but peds don’t really have adequate room on the walking portion… which you can see as the conceptual artist didn’t even bother trying to show two pedestrians passing each other on that path…

[Fast Friendly Guy]

@dbb 78463 wrote:

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.

Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in the room? If the goal is increased safety at TR ……REPLACE TROLLHEIM plank bridge!
with a non-slip flat surface! It’s deterioration is exponential with whole sections rotting out (now marked by cones) It’s worse than corduroy and UNSAFE!

I’ve lost count of the number of serious falls, spills, accidents at the chicane turn intersection with TR Bridge that I know of personally! I, myself have fallen even when I know the hazard and I’m being cautious. Signage is NOT ENOUGH to stop people from being hurt!

I honestly don’t know how we can seriously focus on the parking lot when the benefits of repairing/rebuilding the plank bridge far exceeds the relatively minor changes offered in the parking lot trail crossing!

Am I alone in this?

Dave

[Steve O]

@Fast Friendly Guy 78546 wrote:

Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in the room? If the goal is increased safety at TR ……REPLACE TROLLHEIM plank bridge!

If I recall, when the NPS reps came to the BAC meeting last year, I asked the question of all the cyclists in the room, “Who here has gone done (there)?” Virtually everyone in the room raised their hand. I then posed the hypothetical question to the NPS reps: “If there were an intersection or a part of the parkway on which more than 75% of drivers had crashed at least once, would you do something about it?”

So far they have not.

So, Dave, yes, I am with you.

[NickBull]

@Fast Friendly Guy 78546 wrote:

Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in the room? If the goal is increased safety at TR ……REPLACE TROLLHEIM plank bridge!
with a non-slip flat surface! It’s deterioration is exponential with whole sections rotting out (now marked by cones) It’s worse than corduroy and UNSAFE!

I’ve lost count of the number of serious falls, spills, accidents at the chicane turn intersection with TR Bridge that I know of personally! I, myself have fallen even when I know the hazard and I’m being cautious. Signage is NOT ENOUGH to stop people from being hurt!

I honestly don’t know how we can seriously focus on the parking lot when the benefits of repairing/rebuilding the plank bridge far exceeds the relatively minor changes offered in the parking lot trail crossing!

Am I alone in this?

Dave

No you are not alone!

Even if all they did was to make the north-west entrance to the trollheim concrete through the turn and then leave it as wood for the rest of the way, it would be far safer, and with essentially no environmental impact and very little cost.

Every single regular bicycle commuter I know has gone down in that corner.

As to the parking lot alternatives, #1 is clearly better. Bikes are separated from the roadway. In #2, ditzy cars trying to park in the north parking lot are going to back into the bike “lane”. Cars dropping off pedestrians will pull to the right and park next to the curb, right in the bike lane. As to the diagonal crossing, in #1, by keeping the path that bikes stay on at the same level, it says to cars “you are crossing the bike path.” In alternative #2, bikes that are on the roadway suddenly cross the path of cars in the same roadway. It’s insane!

The only benefit to #2 over #1 is that by giving pedestrians a little area of their own, it might help to keep some of the fishermen off the path. But I don’t see any reason that #1 can’t be modified to include a separate pedestrian walkway.

Nick Bull

[Arlingtonrider]

The issue of sliding on the Trollheim bridge (before it got that great name) has been discussed a few times on the forum, going back several years. It seemed that everyone wanted to do something about it, but the issue always came down to what the fix should be. As I recall, a number of paints and materials were discussed and NPS was interested in ideas, but none of them seemed to be a good solution. Maybe someone better at searches than I am can come up with a link to that discussion.

[Author]

Posts