W&OD Bollards at Maple Ave

[bobco85]

Forgive me if this is old news as I haven’t been out that way very often recently, but how long have the bollards at Maple Ave been down? I noticed the collar(d)s are there but the bollards appear to have been broken off (the collar(d)s look damaged) instead of just removed with the bollards lying next to the trail on the Whole Foods side of Maple Ave.

i thought they were put in because of one of the more recent trail-drivers, but without them there what is preventing the “occasional” person from accidentally driving onto the trail? Well, other than awareness and an understanding of common sense

[jnva]

The one on the whole foods side was put in recently, but I noticed a few days ago the were both removed. It almost looks like they were pulled out and broken.

[Steve O]

A couple of years ago, as president of RUB (Remove Useless Bollards), and working with Arlington County to get rid of them virtually everywhere, I contacted someone from the W&OD. I was told that they removed all the bollards 10-15 years ago as a safety measure–that they determined the danger of the bollards to the cyclists was greater than the risk of someone driving onto the trail. They were removed from the entire length of the trail.
I was disturbed to notice the bollards at Maple, because that seems to go against their general policy.

I do not like them, and I hope that the collars are removed and the crossing is returned to its bollardless state.

[Steve O]

I found the original. Paul McCray of the NVRPA responded to one of my blog rants about bollards with this on Feb. 9 2010:

“We have had a number of incidents on the W&OD Trail when a car has driven up the path, usually by mistake. To my knowledge though we’ve never had damage beyond some ruts in the turf beside the trail and never had a trail user injured due to a vehicle on the path. We took out our bollards and gates 15+ years ago just to eliminate any chance of accidents and to ease access for police, fire, rescue and maintenance.”

Of course, there was the recent injury on the trail from the crazy/impaired woman in Vienna. IMO, one serious incident in two decades + does not warrant a change in policy.

[jnva]

That doesn’t explain why this put there, then days later haphazardly removed.

m

[bobco85]

Without causing this thread to sidetrack (my opinion: in this spot I think the use of flexpost bollards having reflective parts was mostly okay but needed diamonds painted around them on the trail), I was trying to figure out whether this was an act of vandalism or not.

It seems like vandalism in this case. That said, now it is more dangerous because the collards will be invisible instead of the reflective flexpost bollards. I hope they are repaired and properly installed (with diamonds painted).

[mstone]

@bobco85 62159 wrote:

Without causing this thread to sidetrack (my opinion: in this spot I think the use of flexpost bollards having reflective parts was mostly okay but needed diamonds painted around them on the trail), I was trying to figure out whether this was an act of vandalism or not.

It seems like vandalism in this case. That said, now it is more dangerous because the collards will be invisible instead of the reflective flexpost bollards. I hope they are repaired and properly installed (with diamonds painted).

If they want a bollard there, I think the trail needs widening at the intersection. Agree that the collard is worse than the bollard.

[rpiretti]

Saw this on Sunday, seems like whoever removed them would not leave them in the bushes to sit for an extended time. Maybe I should go pick them up and decorate my house with bollards. Although, my one year old might hit the bollard while he is riding his Thomas train underscoring their disastrous effects.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 62159 wrote:

I hope they are repaired and properly installed (with diamonds painted).

No. I hope that they are removed entirely, which they should be. They haven’t been there for 15+ years; there’s no need for them now–particularly in light of the fact that trail usage is going up. FHWA guidance discourages the use of bollards as a default option. Long before we install bollards other solutions need to be tried, such as signage, paint treatments or other design changes. We don’t put telephone poles in the middle of the street; we should not put posts in the middle of the trail. Period.
(FHWA guidance is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/bollards_access.cfm)

[jnva]

@Steve O 62235 wrote:

No. I hope that they are removed entirely, which they should be. They haven’t been there for 15+ years; there’s no need for them now–particularly in light of the fact that trail usage is going up. FHWA guidance discourages the use of bollards as a default option. Long before we install bollards other solutions need to be tried, such as signage, paint treatments or other design changes. We don’t put telephone poles in the middle of the street; we should not put posts in the middle of the trail. Period.
(FHWA guidance is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/bollards_access.cfm)

The bollard on the side of whole foods was new, the one on the other side has been there as long as I can remember…

[bobco85]

I think the problem isn’t random drunk people mowing people down on the trail, it’s that people consistently mistake (I’m being generous here) the trail crossing for the Whole Foods parking lot entrance.

@Steve O 62235 wrote:

No. I hope that they are removed entirely, which they should be. They haven’t been there for 15+ years; there’s no need for them now–particularly in light of the fact that trail usage is going up. FHWA guidance discourages the use of bollards as a default option. Long before we install bollards other solutions need to be tried, such as signage, paint treatments or other design changes. We don’t put telephone poles in the middle of the street; we should not put posts in the middle of the trail. Period.
(FHWA guidance is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/bollards_access.cfm)

I agree that following the FHWA guidelines, which the bollards did not fully do, would be a good idea and that there are better alternatives. I’ll call bollard reinstallation my Plan B (for back-up from making references given the name ) However, I disagree with your analogy about flexible bollards equating to telephone poles.

Plan A for me: paint could be used to better show the trail as being separate. The use of green paint, already in use to differentiate bike lanes from car lanes, across the entire crosswalk and maybe 10-15 feet beyond that would help communicate the bike path as being separate from a regular road. “No Motorized Vehicles” signs could be used, too.

Plan B for me: paint diamonds around the collards, resurface the crossing from its current light color to a darker (brick red?) color to increase contrast, and reinstall the bollards. “No Motorized Vehicles” signs could be used, too.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 62246 wrote:

I disagree with your analogy about flexible bollards equating to telephone poles.

Even flexible bollards cause crashes. It’s much better having your hand strike one of these than a concrete one, no doubt. But if your wheel hits the base, it’s still very likely you will crash. Given the large crowds of cyclists and peds at these crossings, there is a significant “second user” problem, in which the following cyclists cannot see the hazard until it is too late to avoid. Painting diamonds around the bases does nothing to help with this problem.
My plan B would be a total redesign – not placing a hazard in the middle of the trail.
For a dissertation on why they are a very bad idea in general, read this series:
http://www.ohiobikeways.net/bikewaysblog.htm#bollards

I would also point out that the one on the west side of the intersection can just be driven around quite easily (or over, for that matter, since it’s designed that way). So if it’s there to let people know there’s a trail, how about just some signs instead? Why subject some 7 year-old wobbly newbie to scrapes and cuts caused by a bollard crash when a sign will serve the same purpose? (Both of my kids, when they were young, had encounters with bollards that made them crash.)

[Mikey]

Could you dig up the asphalt for the first 30 feet of the trail and replace it with concrete? or low profile pavers? If you made it look more like a sidewalk I think you would have fewer people mistaking it for a road – just a thought.

[dasgeh]

@Mikey 62260 wrote:

Could you dig up the asphalt for the first 30 feet of the trail and replace it with concrete? or low profile pavers? If you made it look more like a sidewalk I think you would have fewer people mistaking it for a road – just a thought.

Wouldn’t green paint be similar, and less destructive (and teeth chattering)?

[mstone]

@dasgeh 62267 wrote:

Wouldn’t green paint be similar, and less destructive (and teeth chattering)?

gah, this is too hard. let’s just glue down a bollard.

[Author]

Posts