Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 113

Thread: Roosevelt Island Parking Area Modifications

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Crystal City to L'Enfant Plaza
    Posts
    2,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Roosevelt Island Parking Area Modifications

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,696
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Jinks! I started a thread over here saying the same exact thing (at the same exact time): http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showth...nd-Parking-Lot

  3. #3
    rcannon100's Avatar
    rcannon100 is online now Puppies! Puppies! Puppies! Puppies! Puppies!
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." ~ Samuel Beckett
    Posts
    3,807
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Vienna, VA
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    +1 for Bob's idea. Who's going to be the "John Hancock" of the bunch of signatures?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  6. Likes DismalScientist liked this post
  7. #6
    mstone is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.)<shudder>
    Last edited by mstone; 02-27-2014 at 09:58 AM.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mostly Frankfurt am Main with time in Dominion Hills
    Posts
    4,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  9. Likes Rob_O liked this post
  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consularrider View Post
    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.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Tukwila, WA
    Posts
    2,029
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Thanks for the information. After looking at the designs and closely examining the differences, I figure its 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 dont think the pedestrian crossing is needed anymore with Alt #1s 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 #1s layout for the gathering area.
    My choice: Alternative #1

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •