suns along the Mohawk

Last night (June 21), the County held a Public Meeting at the Central Library unveiling its Bike Trail Extension Feasibility Study on linking the existing segments of the ALCO Heritage trail along the Mohawk River to Riverside Park and the Stockade neighborhood. Currently, the riverbank trail ends at River Street, along the East Front Street neighborhood.  The meeting was hosted by Ray Gillen, who is the head of County Economic Development and Planning and the chair of Metroplex, and by Gregg Urspring, a representative of the engineering firm performing the Study.

This is a brief summary of the Meeting and the Study. We were promised that the Schenectady County website will soon post the slide images and the text of the draft Study, along with a way to leave comments, and I will add that information as soon as I receive it. [update: Find a link to the PowerPoint presentation from the Public Meeting at the bottom of this County webpage.]

The Feasibility Study:

1. TWO OPTIONS. The study presents two options for making the linkage from the current extent of the ALCO Heritage Trail to Riverside Park:
   1. OPTION 1: Under the CSX Bridge:  Trail would run under the existing CSX/Amtrak Bridge, with two alternative alighnments (a steeper one with an 11% slope and one with an 8% slope). It would require placing fill against the existing bridge abutmenmt, out to the first pier; constructing a protective cover over the trail where it runs under the bridge; removal is likely to be needed during winter months due to ice floes.
   2. OPTION 2: Front Street Path: It would start at the “Riverside Park Walkway”, cross Union College property (with an Agreement already in place), run through Front St. Park, then along a sidewalk on Front St. and through either CSX railroad or vacant property to the existing ALCO Heritage Trail.
2.  STUDY ASSUMPTION: Riverside Park is already Part of the Bike-Trail System. The question addressed in the Study is how to link with it. However, to the relief of many at the Meeting who demurred at deciding how to link to the Park without first deciding whether the Park walkway would be converted to a bike trail, the Study does provide that there must be an additional planning stage in which necessary “improvements” are considered at Riverside Park, especially to its existing “walkway”. An example of a possible improvement/reconfiguration of Riverside Park is to create a separate pedestrian path to meet many concerns expressed about a trail’s impact on the Park’s current users. [editor’s note: For explanations of our concerns, see our discussion at http://tinyurl.com/RiversideBikes2 ]

• There was no final attempt to reach a consensus at the Meeting between Options 1 and 2. More thoughtful evaluation will be possible when the Study is online. At this point, I personally am leaning toward Option 2, given the significant problems raised by placing a segment of the trail under the bridge, with worries about floods and ice floes, and seasonal closings. I still want a chance to read the Study before coming to a final conclusion.
• See Stephen Williams’ report on last night’s meeting here in the Gazette.

Here are images from the Study slideshow that help illustrate the points above.

OPTION ONE

OPTION TWO

NEXT STEP & RIVERSIDE PARK

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

    Readers of this website know that I am an avid user and strong admirer of Riverside Park (as a mellow and beautiful experience and a photography subject, in fair weather and foul). From the first declarations that Riverside Park would be getting a shared use path — one path for both pedestrians and bicyclists, going in both directions — I have voiced and posted concerns that increased numbers of bicycles, many going at fast speeds, would ruin the Riverside Park experience, for many current users, by creating a “scared use” path. The response from Bike Schenectady proponents has consistently been that they will assure that a shared-use path meets engineering requirements, not that the shared-use notion might be abandoned.

    Therefore, acknowledgment in the Feasibility Study and at the Public Meeting that there must be strong consideration to having separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists, in order for a Bike-Ped Trail to be safe and workable, is a positive outcome.

•  I presume that, if further study and public input show it is not feasible to reconfigure Riverside Park to adequately meet justifiable concerns over safety and aesthetics — that is, without significant damage to the quality of the Park experience — options will be fully considered and proposed that have cyclists skirting the Park or walking bikes through the Park. [seeˆLet’s Make Riverside Park a Pedestrian Sanctuary“]

• Note that Option Two in the Feasibility Study shows that trail proponents realize we can have a successful Trail without the need to hug the riverbank wherever possible.

As further information or insights arrive, I will update or follow-up this posting.