New East Falls Church bridge over 4MR – Why the bollards??!!

[MCL1981]

You thinking of this only as it applies to unauthorized motor vehicles. In which case, yes you’re right, these appear pointless. However, there is likely a very good reason. Maintenance vehicles. On the CCT, they just put up these huge neon yellow signs on the bridge crossing the C&O and Canal Rd that say NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES (same as your bollards). This bridge is in the middle of the trail, up in the sky, nowhere near a road. But park maintenance drives trucks on the trail all the time. They’re no longer allowed to drive on the bridge.

[KLizotte]

@MCL1981 18882 wrote:

You thinking of this only as it applies to unauthorized motor vehicles. In which case, yes you’re right, these appear pointless. However, there is likely a very good reason. Maintenance vehicles. On the CCT, they just put up these huge neon yellow signs on the bridge crossing the C&O and Canal Rd that say NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES (same as your bollards). This bridge is in the middle of the trail, up in the sky, nowhere near a road. But park maintenance drives trucks on the trail all the time. They’re no longer allowed to drive on the bridge.

These bollards say “authorized vehicles only” so I guess it’s ok if vehicles go over this bridge so long as they are official.

I agree these are silly and a nuisance.

[mstone]

the maintenance vehicles will just drive right over them.

[Dirt]

I actually thought they were a good idea. They might make people think before flying out onto the W&OD. I love the construction of that new bridge. It is in a horrible spot though. Soooo many goofballs fly through that area with no thought for their own safety or that of anyone else that I think there will be issues. The number of people who crashed in EXTREMELY WELL MARKED construction site ’cause they were going way too fast impressed even me.

I am often wrong on these things. I hope I am this time.

[Steve O]

And now they’ve added a fourth bollard on the other end of the bridge, which is even more meaningless. Why not one in the middle, too? Or a whole obstacle course of them?

I disagree with @Dirt. Placing dangerous obstacles in the path of travel is not an appropriate method for trying to improve cyclists behavior. We don’t do that with cars. In fact, as discussed on another thread on the forum, it may actually be illegal.

[Dirt]

@Steve O 18893 wrote:

I disagree with @Dirt. Placing dangerous obstacles in the path of travel is not an appropriate method for trying to improve cyclists behavior. We don’t do that with cars. In fact, as discussed on another thread on the forum, it may actually be illegal.

Of course they do it with cars. The signs in the middle of the street at W&OD crossings in Falls Church are great examples that work quite well. Cross walk signs in the middle of the streets throughout DC have done remarkable things to get drivers to let pedestrians cross.

Sorry to be so negative, but I see no down-side at all to those bollards. They might be spaced a little further apart so that recumbent trikes can fit through without having to do a 3-point turn. I’ll have to test that out next week.

I know it is a serious point of objection for you. I respect that. I obviously see it very differently.

Rock on!

[dasgeh]

This sounds like a place where markings on the pavement would be more appropriate to slow people down.

To be fair, there are places where signs are put in the middle of the street to slow down motorists, but the signs are put in places where, by design, cars shouldn’t be driving (on the double yellow line, on barriers). On MUPs, there’s not the same prohibition of moving (riding, running, skating) on the middle of the trail. Plus, these bollards are often placed all the way across the trail, in places where it’s perfectly appropriate for trail users to expect to be. Add to that the fact that some users of the trail need more space to turn (recumbent, bikes with trailers), and it seems particularly silly to set up these bollards in this way.

[americancyclo]

This is a spot where anyone entering the trail from the bridge should be stopping to look for traffic anyway. I also don’t see this bridge serving many folks anyway, mostly people walking to the metro. I could be wrong, but I’ve only ever seen a small number of folks using the old bridge in my many times passing this curve of the trail.

[DismalScientist]

I used to use that bridge every day (when I used to go by Metro). I think it would have been better to put the new bridge downstream. As it is, the bridge location just adds distance on the trail and the poor sight lines make the trail intersection more dangerous. BTW, the bridge is the fastest way to continue on the W&OD. Just take the trail to Sycamore and 19th. Follow 19th across and turn right on the street after the Metro station. You are back on the W&OD at the top of the hill.

When EFC is redeveloped, the W&OD will be moved to a bridge parallel to I-66, presumably connected to the metro. This will make the trail to Sycamore and the new bridge superfluous. So much for planning.

[americancyclo]

@DismalScientist 18937 wrote:

BTW, the bridge is the fastest way to continue on the W&OD. Just take the trail to Sycamore and 19th. Follow 19th across and turn right on the street after the Metro station. You are back on the W&OD at the top of the hill.

I’ll bet you a beer at the next forum happy hour that the fastest way to continue through across 29 on the W&OD is to take Van Buren to 19th to Vanderpool. :p

[consularrider]

@americancyclo 18941 wrote:

I’ll bet you a beer at the next forum happy hour that the fastest way to continue through across 29 on the W&OD is to take Van Buren to 19th to Vanderpool. :p

I have to agree with you. Why would you want to have to go through that extra stop light at Sycamore if you don’t have to?

[DismalScientist]

I haven’t tried that route. I make the mistake of following the directional signs. Perhaps I need some electronic equipment on my bike to override traffic signals like ambulances have.:p

[Steve O]

“When EFC is redeveloped, the W&OD will be moved to a bridge parallel to I-66, presumably connected to the metro. This will make the trail to Sycamore and the new bridge superfluous.”

Perhaps. That project has been included in the plan, but there is far from any guarantee that it would actually get built (given that VDOT would be involved)–nor do we know how many years from now that might be. I hope it does, because that would eliminate the only on-street section of the W&OD on the entire trail.

[Steve O]

Back to the bollards discussion.

Here’s a thought experiment:
The bridge was open and usable for a couple of weeks prior to the installation of the bollards. If it had remained that way, do you think there would have been requests to install them? Would anyone have even imagined they were missing? I believe trail users thought the project was essentially complete and, like me, were caught by surprise by the sudden appearance of bollards that serve no purpose. If they hadn’t magically appeared, this thread would not exist.

I personally saw no threads here on the forum or anywhere regarding that bridge that suggested it was incomplete without having bollards placed on it. Nor would one have ever been created.

If we think bollards are an appropriate way to get people to slow down at intersections, then why not install them at the intersection of the Custis & W&OD? Or at the Custis Trail milepost 0 where the trail goes under I-66 and the sightlines are blocked by the highway structure? Or at every place the W&OD and 4MR trails diverge and reconverge? Or how about that bridge across the creek in Benjamin Banneker Park; that’s an almost exact analogy; why no bollard there? I could come up with dozens of trail intersections where it would be good for cyclists to slow down, but I hardly think that warrants installing bollards on all of them.

So that then begs the question of why this particular trail intersection is special. How is it different and more deserving of bollards than any of the others?

[Dirt]

Hi Steve.

I want to preface this by saying that I’m really not trying to be argumentative. I mean my comments respectfully and am trying to discuss this in a way that is constructive. The internet is a not perfect way to communicate in that it is difficult to understand tone and inflection. I write this because I want you to know that I completely see where you’re coming from.

I’ll also add my usual “Who the hell am I?” disclaimer. I’m just a guy that rides these trails and intersections 2-6 times per day, 250+ days per year. I am virtually ignorant of the planning and execution of transportation infrastructure.

Bollards everywhere are not the answer. Bollards at that bridge are probably a good thing. They are out of the line of bicycle traffic by 15 feet or more. It isn’t a place where bicycles will normally ride. The pedestrian traffic at that bridge have just got off the metro, are probably either walking with headphones on or a cell phone pressed to their ear and they’re approaching an area with limited sight lines. A visual reminder that they’re about to enter traffic is a very good idea in my book.

The other intersections you mention, and a bunch that you didn’t are definite problem areas, and probably wouldn’t be good candidates for bollards because all of the sides of the intersections have relatively high bicycle AND pedestrian traffic. I don’t now a good answer for those trails intersections. Well, I do have ideas, but they’re utterly ridiculous… they involve consistent enforcement of the laws and rules for cars, pedestrians and bicycles. Not really a practical solution.

Thank you sincerely for a good discussion.

Pete

[Author]

Posts