« Washington Boulevard Trail extension could start in upcoming spring | Main | Animation of the Virginia Avenue Trail »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Disappointing. Many people at the community meeting emphasized the importance of minimizing conflicts between trail users and highway access ramps, and this recommended design doesn't do that.

Frankly the existing design is far better than this. Hit head against wall.

I don't know Kathy, the existing design doesn't connect to the MVT. This design is much better than what is there now IMO, it just may not be ideal.

We currently have MVT -> LBJ Grove (after and under humpback) -> Boundary Channel Bridge -> Boundary Channel Drive -> Long Bridge Drive. It's somewhat indirect but very low conflict.

Or we have MVT -> (turn before and under humpback) -> dirt path -> Boundary Channel Drive -> Long Bridge Drive. That's more direct, but requires using the ramp for crossing NB traffic at Boundary Channel Drive.

The preferred concept gives us a trail where the dirt path is and keeps us off Boundary Channel Drive, but it also requires trail users to cross both on and off ramps for 395.

At a roundabout.

Drivers headed to or from 395 will have to track motor vehicle traffic in the roundabout and look for people on the trail. Trail users won't be able to judge if traffic is continuing around the roundabout or using an exit. Drivers may see trail users paused on the refuge islands and presume any users on the main trail are also stopped - and the refuge islands seem too small for more than a couple of people. (Will this add a bunch of the trail stop signs and "dismount to cross" points that we detest everywhere else?)

And that's just looking at the leftmost exchange. The rightmost one has the same problems, and it repeats some of them for a slip lane from Boundary Channel Drive to Long Bridge Drive (and 395), then asks trail users to cross it.

For road-confident cyclists, the merge from the dirt path to Boundary Channel Drive to turn right on Long Bridge Drive becomes a turn off the trail, two roundabouts, and contention with traffic headed for 395.

I agree, this is not ideal. I'm not sure it's actually better, and in some ways it sure looks worse than the no-build no-trail option - but it'll be smoother and faster for the drivers that trail users will be dealing with.

OK, well the first option doesn't go away, this only changes the 2nd option.

And really, the 2nd option doesn't either. Only the dirt trail part, which I see as an improvement. The new option doesn't keep us off Boundary Drive, it gives us the option to stay off of it. But, you can bike right to that exact same spot as now and do the exact same thing. Except now you have a crosswalk and an island. So, for that you come out ahead too.

But - you will also be able to stay on the trail. This does come at the cost of having to make some at-grade crossings, so some may prefer it and others may not. But, I don't see how having more options - even bad ones - is a loss.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader