Jones Point comments

[Bruce Dwyer]

Comments also attached as a Word 97 file.
August 22, 2000

Dear Sandra,

In response to your request to members of the Park & Rec. Commission, I am
providing comments on the Jones Point/Urban Deck design plans as of August
14, 2000.  I reviewed these plans at the meeting of the Bicycle Committee so
the comments also reflect the Committee’s views.  The Committee is generally
pleased with the design efforts to date and offers the following comments
for further consideration.

1. The City Bike Plan Project B4 recommended that the Mt. Vernon Path be
aligned along the river behind Hunting Towers.  At the time of this
recommendation, the committee did not envision a very desirable alignment
being possible in the approximate current location.  We understand that the
Hunting Towers property is a current issue.  As the resolution of this
proceeds, we ask that the river alignment of the path be given significant
weight.  Please also consider the possibility of an easement similar to what
was achieved for the path at the north end of the city with the property
owners of Marina Towers and the power plant.

2. We would like the multi-use path connection between Jones Point/Royal St.
and the bridge crossing to be reexamined in light of the probable downsizing
of the urban deck.  We were never very please with the proposed
configuration to have the path make a circuitous “U” route up-grade to
Washington St., to cross the urban deck to a cantilevered path running
between the roadway and St. Mary’s cemetery.  We feel a more direct route
with a ramp from Royal St. to the bridge may be preferable. It would be more
direct, always a concern for pedestrians, and may even be less expensive
than the “U” route.  Part of reason for the “U” route was pedestrian access
between Jones Point and the urban deck playing fields and park, which may no
longer be necessary.  Examples of ramps in National Park Service
jurisdiction that work in similarly difficult situations are the bridge from
the Mt. Vernon Path to Rosslyn, and two circular ramps on the Clara Barton
Parkway.

4. We have always been looking at the multi-use path location through Jones
Point Park as an “either/or situation.”  We recommended that a user count of
current and projected path usage might be large enough to justify more that
one route through the park. The alternate route could be the “potential
 path” through the woods or the “secondary path” at the end of Lee St, or
another location.  The currently proposed river path could be very congested
during events especially when the playing fields are in full use.  The
alternate route would provide a safe alternative to avoid pedestrian/bicycle
conflict.

5. Some of the drawings would seem to indicate that the multi-use path may
have severe turns and may not be of sufficient width.  We strongly recommend
that the path be designed to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities” to maximize safety.  For example, the recommended minimum path
width is 10 feet with a 2-foot clearance on either side of the path.  In
congested areas, such as Jones Points, the recommendation for path width is
12-14 feet.

6. We see two major locations of pedestrian/bicycle conflict and offer these
suggestions:
-At the north end of the Promenade, there is a pedestrian path connection to
the Mt. Vernon Path.  We think that the existing Ford’s Landing promenade
and the new Jones Point promenade should be connected to provide a more
pedestrian friendly opportunity to stroll along the river.  A deck
connecting the two promenades instead of the primary path connection shown
could accomplish this without the strollers having to venture onto the Mt.
Vernon path.  Pedestrians who want to go between the J.P. promenade to the
section of the Mt. Vernon Path connecting to Union St. could use the
existing concrete deck along the south of Ford’s Landing.
- The Mt. Vernon Path routing from the north edge of the passive recreation
area to just past the area of the south of the bridge playground traverses a
lot of ground where pedestrians will be using the path and, more
dangerously, CROSSING the path to get to and from playing fields,
playgrounds, parking lots, the promenade and the event lawn.  We suggest two
alternatives. Push the playing fields a little south and east so that the
Mt. Vernon path could cut to the west at the north and west edges of the
playing fields before turning to the west again on the north side of the
parking area to turn south at Royal St.  This more northern route could
connect with a ramp to the bridge as well as.  This route may cause more
vehicular/bicycle conflict, but in our opinion is less dangerous than the
pedestrian/bicycle conflict situation it avoids.  Another alternative would
be to continue the Mt. Vernon Path under the bridge closer to the river,
where there still may be potential conflict points, but not the volume that
would be associated with the heavy use of playing fields and playgrounds by
younger people less aware of being cautious on the paths.

7. We are please to see the multi-use path from the US Rt. 1 interchange
connection to the urban deck. While we recognize that the urban deck
drawings are very preliminary, we do want to note that they do not show a
multi-use path design that is friendly to through bike or rollerblade
traffic.    Several comments apply:
-The turning angles need to be considerably less severe.
-If the connection to the bridge is going to be through the minimum deck
design, consider widening the east side of the deck somewhat to accommodate
the multi-use path.
-If the Mt. Vernon Path could be realigned along the river, the connection
from the US Rt.1 path for cyclists may be able to be aligned to coincide
with the light at the Hunting Terrace intersection.  Pedestrian traffic
going into Old Town from the Rt. 1 area should still be routed directly up
to the urban deck. (to minimize pedestrian travel distances), to cross the
urban deck on the west to the light at Church St. If these configurations
are not possible, a pedestrian/bicycle activated light would be an absolute
necessity to cross Washington St. just south of the urban deck.

8. We are particularly pleased that the interim plans include keeping the
Mt. Vernon trail segment open during construction. If closing of the interim
path is necessary during construction, it should not be closed without there
first being a route planned and marked to use as an alternative during the
closure periods. Further, we recommend that the interim trail work include
repair to the tree root and other damage to the path from where it turns
south at Ford’s Landing to where it joins the current park road.  This
segment of the path is in no condition to last until a new trail is built.

9.  Two other comments from me as a Park Commissioner:
-I am very much in favor of the smaller deck design with the cost savings
being used to locate playing fields in much more suitable locations.
- There was discussion of the impracticality of having some sort of
structure at the shipways to indicate the size of the ships build here.
Perhaps, a painted outline on the bridge supports could serve an
interpretive purpose without incurring any real maintenance costs.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the design. Please
contact me (703-549-3263) if you have any questions.

Bruce Dwyer
Park Commissioner and Bicycle

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jonespointdesigncomments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://bicycle.alexandria.va.us/mailman/private/bsc/attachments/20000822/54e629df/jonespointdesigncomments.doc