[NickBull]

@thucydides 54776 wrote:

I definitely see the pond as feature not a bug. I hit it at top speed this morning. Got a bit wet. This weekend I did a trail race in Richmond while Andrea was still going on. There were dozens of deep puddles. Many of runners tried to rim around the puddles. Not me. I splashed right through every one of those babies. I guess I’m 50 going on 5.

You won’t feel like that if you hit a puddle that is hiding a deep pothole. Friends of mine hit a puddle like that and broke both rims on their tandem and had some serious road rash. If you know absolutely for sure that the puddle doesn’t hide a pothole, then by all means say “whee” and fly on through it.

But the Custis pond could just as easily be hiding the fact that the trail has collapsed and is itself causing the blockage. Remember the holes that developed under the trail just west of the S curve of death and that were covered with iron plates for quite a while? Until they clear the pond, you can’t know for sure what’s going on under it.

Nick

[NickBull]

@baiskeli 44672 wrote:

Sure, it’s manageable. All safety is manageable. But on the trail, I have zero vehicle threats to manage at all. And it’s not speed that’s the issue, it’s blind spots.

I looked around for other opinions on the web, and found this in a list of hazards and how to deal with them, from Bicycling Magazine:

“Hazard- A motorist exits a driveway or parking lot into the path of a bicyclist.

How to handle- AVOID IT: No bike-handling tricks can overcome the danger of riding on a road with numerous parking-lot exits. Just take a less-direct route. “

http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutrition/injury-prevention/parking-lotted

I still don’t see how a busy parking lot is better than a bike trail to ride a bike on. But you don’t have to convince me, nor I you. Just watch out for me if you’re entering the trail and I’m already on it.

I’ll bet that 99 percent of the people on this forum who go through that parking lot are going through while commuting on weekdays when it is unusual to see _any_ cars in the parking lot. I try to avoid the MV trail on weekends because of the joggers and other pedestrians. But even then, the parking lot is safer than the trail. You just watch for backup lights and cars that have people in them.

[NickBull]

@baiskeli 44512 wrote:

Okay, that’s the different perspective (literally) I needed.

How often, exactly, do you ride through this area? Your replies earlier in this thread make it seem like you actually know what you are talking about. But your replies later in the thread, e.g. this one make it seem like all your earlier comments are just theoretical and not based on personal experience.

I ride through here every day. “dasgeh”‘s post of 2/22 at 5:09 pm pretty-well sums up the hazards. Riding through the parking lot is a straight shot with no hard-to-see hazards. Trying to follow the trail is considerably more hazardous, particularly if there are oncoming bicycles and cars. You have to look three directions at once, some of them occluded by trees. In a ten-mile ride to and fro work, the most hazardous locations in order are the crossing at Lynn Street near the Key Marriott, the Roosevelt Island parking lot, the Bridge of Death, and the S-Curve of Death.

Nick

[NickBull]

@Tim Kelley 44251 wrote:

Here’s what my contact at NPS had to say,

“I don’t know why they disappeared and then reappeared but the reason for the barricades is to cut down on trail users cutting through the parking lot. We are seeking funding to make some permanent modifications to the area that would widen the trail, increase the turning radius of the 90 degree turns, and near the pedestrian bridge add a gathering area with bike racks, a water fountain, and a Mount Vernon Trail map sign.”

After they finish doing all that work, they should feel free to put the jersey barriers back. But meanwhile they increase the risk of my commute every day. Having ridden through there every work day for a decade, I have never seen an accident or near-miss until they put in those stupid barriers. Pedestrians stand around on the corners that bicyclists are trying to ride through. Oncoming bicyclists have near misses trying to traverse something that is essentially one lane. Bicyclists trying to make the turn can easily get clipped by other bicyclists who don’t know that they should be making the turn. Cars don’t see bicyclists because there are trees between the cars and that path so the cars can’t see the cyclists. Just how is all of this increasing safety?

Those and the fact that every cyclist I know has crashed on the bridge of death show the park service’s priorities in exquisite detail. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about cyclists. All that they care about is cars and making life easier for cars.

Nick

[NickBull]

@dbb 43052 wrote:

And then there was one!

Just rode through the Jefferson area and there was but one (yes one!) cone.[ATTACH=CONFIG]2393[/ATTACH]

The little sign was interesting.

Magnificent work!

I’m slightly worried though, because this morning as I rode by that spot, there were two park service guys, one of them a policeman, using a penlight to try to look into a white sedan with dark tinted windows parked right where the blue car is in your photo. Hope the cones don’t come back.

[NickBull]

@KLizotte 43040 wrote:

I don’t see why you would have to be concerned with what is going on behind you. Just ahead and both sides which isn’t any different than it is now.

I finally found some pics of what other cities have so hopefully what I’m proposing is clearer:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2391[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2392[/ATTACH]

By “behind you” I mean coming up the path that was behind you, though once you’re in the bump out it is now on your left. So you have to look left for the guy who was coming down the path behind you; look right for the pedestrians and bicycle coming down the sidewalk; don’t forget to look for bike salmon coming around illegally parked cars; look left down the parkway for the car that thinks it is merging onto the bridge at 50mph when in fact he’s in the wrong lane and coming down the parkway by mistake; and look across the street to see that someone is coming flying down the path on the other side and will be trying to make that turn, then making an S curve to get lined up to merge onto the sidewalk. So the S curve will be crossing into your side of the crosswalk.

So you have to look for five possible hazards.

Alternatively, if you you ignore the guy who was coming up behind you fast, who jumps the curb rather than wasting time going into the bump out, then when you start to cross the street you get T-boned. That’s why you have to be concerned about what’s going on behind you.

Nick

[NickBull]

@KLizotte 43036 wrote:

Hmmmm….the only thing I don’t like about your’s or bobcat’s proposals is the poor sight lines since cars are coming pretty quickly around that curve, esp if they didn’t mean to take that exit and think they are heading to the bridge.

As another poster noted above, heading eastbound the sightlines are good. Heading westbound is more tricky because you would need to look over your shoulder to look for cars, and pay attention to oncoming cyclists since you would need to cross their lane to get into the crosswalk. And then there is the issue of all the pedestrians along that sidewalk. There aren’t many peds now but in a few months…..

Perhaps NPS could try to put in signs and markings to direct peds to the inner trail by the Jefferson Memorial?

A potential way to improve sightlines and cut down on conflicts is to put in a turning “bump out” (not sure what the technical term is for these things). In a way, we already have one with the driveway there. Ideally cyclists heading westbound would be directed to pull into the bump out so that they become perpendicular to the street and can safely stop out of the way of eastbound cyclists and pedestrians before going into the crosswalk to get to the newly extended trail on the other side. Again, the trail may have to bifurcated to force cyclists to do this as some will try to cut across diagonally at high speeds putting other users at risk. If I’m gonna cross there I want to have a good place to slow down/stop and be able to check both directions without having to look over my shoulder. Also remember that Cabi riders probably don’t have the best riding skills either.

Unfortunately I’m unable to find a photo of a “bump out” in the real world; I know they have them in Montreal. Here’s a crudely edited pic of what I mean.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2390[/ATTACH]

Hi, from your bump out, you can’t really see very well to the left, and you’ve got pedestrians and bikes potentially going both directions — the oncoming ones for obvious reasons, plus the ones coming up from behind you and don’t want to get slowed down into a bump out, so they just jump the curb or go in the wrong lane. So from the bump-out, you have to look four directions at once–the parkway, oncoming pedestrians and cyclists, pedestrians and cyclists coming up from behind, and pedestrians and cyclists crossing in the new crosswalk from the other side of the parkway. From my perspective, the bump-out just makes things more dangerous.

I’ve gone through this intersection every work day for a decade, both directions. The biggest hazards in my experience are the orange cones, which appeared only about two years ago. Next most dangerous: when you are going westbound, oncoming bikes, either on the bikepath or in the “salmon” lane. But the oncoming bikes have right of way, so you just have to slow down and let them through. The main thing that makes them actively dangerous is that I’ve had a number of near-misses with cyclists at night who had no lights on. Anyway, once you’ve made the crossing from the sidewalk to the “near” lane of the parkway, then there is plenty of time to look for traffic in the second lane before moving over to the path to the bridge. Well, except for cherry blossom season when the parked buses mean there is little room to move over. But now that we all know that it’s illegal to stop or stand there, I’m sure that that lane will be clear for this year’s cherry blossom season

I guess what I’m saying is: Let’s not spend a vast amount of money to extend the bike trail, only to make the whole exercise more difficult and accident prone.

The “sharrows” idea has some merit since maybe it would help remind motorists that bikes have the right to use that stretch of road. But I think I’d still generally rather stick to the sidewalk. Drivers are intent on getting home at maximum speed, and I’ve had a number of them pass me very aggressively when I’ve gone in the road along there. Frankly, I don’t think those drivers would be the slightest bit intimidated by the sharrows unless there was some serious enforcement

So if money is to be spent, I would favor widening the section heading up to the bridge, as discussed elsewhere. And a second priority would be making a pedestrian walkway on the “inside” of the concrete barrier and routing the pedestrians that way. Or make a clear bike path with divider lines and “no pedestrians” signs. Separating pedestrians and cyclists in that section would be helpful.

Oh, and fix the square curb cuts with the slick slopes, those are dangerous, too.

Nick

[NickBull]

@bobco85 42976 wrote:

This is what I had in mind, a modification of dbb’s design.

Here’s what I came up with:[ATTACH=CONFIG]2387[/ATTACH]

Considering that the path would be mostly used by cyclists who would inevitably cross the street diagonally, I changed the crosswalk with that in mind. There would also be no reason to have the middle crosswalk, so I photoshopped that out. I also sent the path around the tree, whatever that weird gas line looking thing is, and the gutter drain. My only concern would be with the sight lines for people traveling westward.

I think this increases the hazard for people heading westward. You still have oncoming pedestrians & cyclists coming along the sidewalk next to the concrete barrier. Now instead of being able to check that the near lane of the parkway is clear, then ride a block where you can double-check that second lane, instead you have to check that both lanes are clear because you are forced across right at that point. As you mention the sight lines are bad there. Thus, coming westward, I would still want to use the “middle crosswalk” that you are “removing”. Coming eastward I would take your proposed new route. It solves the problem of choosing between getting on the sidewalk or salmoning, and as you ride eastward you have plenty of time to check that the oncoming parkway is clear (and can check for pedestrians and bikes on the other side of the road as you ride along).

I never noticed that there is no signage indicating that it’s a one-way road, but that’s probably a good idea to have.

Nick

[NickBull]

People coming up the stairs can also turn right into the bike path without knowing the bike path is there. I have no idea what signage is there to tell them about it, I’ve never stopped. But whatever it is, at least some people don’t notice since I’ve had pedestrians step in front of me.

The railroad tie retaining wall is not a problem from my perspective.

The stupid-looking rope and stakes is probably useful. Without those, cyclists heading along east along the sidewalk parallel to E Basin Dr SW will be even more likely to try to shortcut across the grass to the bikepath. As it is, I’ve had cyclists try to cut across the grass and whip onto the path in front of me. This would just extend the problem further along the path. And then those dumb short-cutters would be merging onto the path at a place where the sight-lines are worse, just after the trees, and they won’t be able to see the oncoming cyclist coming down the trail, or vice versa.

Personally, I’d prefer that the rope and stakes be extended all the way down to the rental bike stand.

From the photo, it looks like putting the path to the right of the sign might possibly work. But that might actually make the merge point getting onto and off the bridge more dangerous since people coming up toward the bridge have had “the whole trail” to themselves for that little bit, and may psychologically be more likely to be too far to the left as they come toward the bridge. So then people coming down the bridge (where there are bad sightlines and the stairs to worry about) may be confronted by cyclists who are too far to the left.

FWIW, I’ve ridden this section of trail every work day since 2004, except for the month of snow a few years ago when the snow was deeper than my axles. It could clearly be improved but with a little care it is not the worst part of my commute.

Nick

[NickBull]

@Tim Kelley 42774 wrote:

FYI–this is still in the queue to be done when the county starts marking in the spring. It got pushed back when they were focused on completing the newly paved streets and didn’t get done last season. It’s high on the priority list for when they’re able to start working again though.

Hi, Tim,

It needs more than just marking, the section of road between Lee and the new pavement is badly beat up and has longitudinal cracks running parallel with the road.

I’ll post something to their “issues” interface.

Nick

[NickBull]

@dbb 42960 wrote:

All,

I spent some time this afternoon at the Jefferson Memorial meeting with staff from the National Park Service National Mall and Memorial Parks. …

Thanks, dbb!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NickBull]

@Hancockbs 42965 wrote:

I ride this stretch at least three times a week. I’ve never seen the cones as a problem. While moving them back is also not a problem, this is not what I think we should be spending time and resources complaining about. To me, this is similar to complaining about car drivers not following the law while we are running stop signs. We all need to look at the plight if others and consider the full picture rather than just our little circle of concern. I only post this because you asked for comments, not to try to stir something up.

Having crashed into the cones last April, I do consider them a problem. This was during the Cherry Blossom time, so there were lots of pedestrians, cars, etc., including an oncoming pedicab. The cones were set out between the lanes of the parkway, so to get across from Jefferson to the 14th St bridge, I had to speed up a tad because of the lines of oncoming pedestrians and pedicab, then take one last look to check for traffic in the one open land of the parkway. I must have pulled left as I looked, and when I looked forward again was headed straight for a cone. I could have easily gone left of it because that’s where my inertia was going, but if there was a car that I hadn’t noticed I’d be dead. I tried to go right of it but hit it head on. It basically folded and I went down, landing mostly on my elbow. Nothing seemed broken and I wasn’t bleeding much so I rode ten miles home. But before going upstairs, I decided I’d better try to clean up a bit so I wouldn’t freak out my wife. Doing so, my finger went right into a hole in my elbow and blood came pouring out. I got it cleaned up, but when I went upstairs my wife took one look at me and said “We’re going to the hospital.”

So … I do find those cones objectionable, and getting them out of the way will be a huge improvement.

Nick

[NickBull]

Thanks, dbb!

Nick

[NickBull]

@Arlingtonrider 39825 wrote:

I noticed as I came through this morning that none of the cones were blocking the sidewalk ramp. They were all carefully lined up out of the way of cyclists. I’m not sure if that was due to another cyclist or the NPS, but someone somewhere paid attention.

Must be a friendly cyclists, they’re all still there.

[NickBull]

Wonder why the park service is so bicycle-antagonistic. I guess they just see their role as to provide commuter roads and the bicyclists can just go f themselves.

[Author]

Posts