Bumped-out curbs on St. Matthews

[ghurley]

Can someone please explain why the City is expanding the bolulevard
into St. Matthews Ave. so as to reduce the number of lanes at
intersections? How is this supposed to help cyclists exactly?

Gabriel

[David Wieser]

I believe that is for traffic calming. It also improves safety for pedestrians crossing the street, as they won't be a target crossing the street as long as before.

I haven't seen it, but there should be a full lane for the car and space for a cycling lane. It is my understanding that they nixed the traffic circles?

Having narrower roadways encourages slower speeds. Hopefully there is enough space for the cyclists as well though!

David

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "West Central Commuter Cyclists" group.
> To post to this group, send email to westcentralco...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to westcentralcommuter...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/westcentralcommutercyclists?hl=en.
>

[Jennifer Sparling]

It's true the new bump outs on St.Matthew's force cyclists farther
left potentially into the middle lane of traffic but they weren't put
in place to calm traffic for cyclists, they were put in place to calm
traffic around the two corners of St.Matthew's and banning/burnell for
the hundreds of people namely children who cross there every day. The
bump outs are on a section of road that cuts between an elementary
school and a community centre; drivers don't seem to care or notice
that and speed through that section like maniacs. Little kids have
actually been hit trying to cross the road there and recent safety
audits of that area show how dangerous it is.

So the bump outs aren't coming out of nowhere... but with that said
the city is, and has been for a while, fully aware of how St.Matthew's
is a great road to put some dedicated bike lanes/infrastructure on and
that obviously hasn't happened yet. Also the city-wide
implementation of "school zones" would probably do a whole lot more
for slowing down traffic and making the neighborhood safer for kids
crossing the road.

A bit of my background: I manage the compost bins at the Orioles
community garden near the bump outs, which involves hauling compost
via bike+trailer around that part of St.Matthews several times a week
all year round. Also some of the other folks I work with have been
directly involved in consultation with the city to improve the safety
and active transportation situation in the neighborhood and they have
been working very long and very hard to even have something a small as
a bump out installed.

Thought I would let ya know and add two cents for good measure.

Jenn Sparling
Compost Coordinator
Daniel McIntyre/St.Matthews Community Association

On Nov 26, 8:15 pm, David Wieser <davidwie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that is for traffic calming.  It also improves safety for pedestrians crossing the street, as they won't be a target crossing the street as long as before.
>
> I haven't seen it, but there should be a full lane for the car and space for a cycling lane. It is my understanding that they nixed the traffic circles?
>
> Having narrower roadways encourages slower speeds.  Hopefully there is enough space for the cyclists as well though!
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

[ghurley]

Jennifer:

The curbs are also bumped out at intersections that are far from any
school. As well, how many times have the children been hit by
bicyclists? Because the 'traffic calming' bumpouts are in the two
outer lanes - the lanes that most cars don't drive in. The outer lanes
are mostly used for parking and bicycling. So when the city reduced
the outer lanes, they are punishing cyclists while hardly affecting
the motorists. Bad policy.

Gabriel

> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/westcentralcommutercyclists?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Daniel Gravenor]

Gabriel:

It isn't just children.  Plenty of people walk in the vicinity.  Bump-outs dramatically reduce the amount of road surface that someone who is mobility-challenged has to cross (reduces it by 50%!).  Imagine someone dropped off by bus or walking home from school (elderly or child) having to cross 2 lanes of traffic instead of 4.  They can wait at the end of the bump-out until traffic clears and then cross those two lanes instead of having to wait and then cross 4.

If it is as you say, that cars are either parked or don't go in those lanes, then it doesn't impact car traffic much.  It helps pedestrian traffic, and only slightly impacts cycling traffic at those two intersections.

If you are so concerned about good policy for cyclists like many of us are, to say that bump-outs are bad policy is counter-productive.

Basically you are saying that cyclists don't feel confident merging into the regular traffic lane for those two intersections (but they would be there anyway, again if you say it is usually full of parked cars - or in the case of rush hour cyclists would be mingled with fast moving traffic anyway).

If you don't feel confident cycling in traffic, then you shouldn't be on the road and should advocate for more dedicated pathways.

Bump-outs, like other traffic calming measures slow traffic down - which we all know is a good thing for reducing life-threatening injuries in collisions.

[ghurley]

On Dec 28, 4:57 pm, Daniel Gravenor <dgrave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically you are saying that cyclists don't feel confident merging into
> the regular traffic lane for those two intersections (but they would be
> there anyway, again if you say it is usually full of parked cars - or in
> the case of rush hour cyclists would be mingled with fast moving traffic
> anyway).

I am saying that money designated for building bike routes should not
be put towards hindering cyclists. Yes, I think there are people who
don't feel like merging in and out of disappearing lanes. I certainly
don't. Regarding parked cars, they leave enough space for a bicycle to
fit between the traffic and the parked cars. So that's a non-issue.

> If you don't feel confident cycling in traffic, then you shouldn't be on
> the road and should advocate for more dedicated pathways.

Saint Matthews was recently designated as a bicycle route. The
boulevards were widened there after it was designated as such. St.
Matthews was one of those streets that left enough room for cyclists
and motorists to share the road. Now this room is being eroded in the
name of Traffic Calming, even though these intrusions on space don't
actually slow down the cars. Not that the cars are speeding to begin
with.

> Bump-outs, like other traffic calming measures slow traffic down - which we
> all know is a good thing for reducing life-threatening injuries in
> collisions.

I don't know that it's a good thing, because as I said, it doesn't
actually slow the cars. The cars drive in the middle lanes and are
unaffected.

[bwalzer]

I live a block north of the street in question.

>
> I am saying that money designated for building bike routes should not
> be put towards hindering cyclists. Yes, I think there are people who
> don't feel like merging in and out of disappearing lanes. I certainly
> don't. Regarding parked cars, they leave enough space for a bicycle to
> fit between the traffic and the parked cars. So that's a non-issue.

I thought this was Active Transportation? I think that includes the
pedestrian mode. I personally cross that street at least twice a day
on foot and a significant number of times in the summer on bike. The
bumpouts make both types of crossings easier even in the case where I
am not actually at the bumps.

> [...]

> actually slow down the cars. Not that the cars are speeding to begin
> with.

St. Matthews runs parallel to Portage. As a result it attracts people
that are trying to "make time" when Portage is busy. In particular,
people will speed in the the curb lane in sections where there are no
parked cars. The bump outs should help here at least a bit. They
shorten the distance to the point where the speeder has to weave back
into traffic and slow down.

Bruce

[ghurley]

On Dec 30 2011, 4:58 pm, bwalzer <ggro...@59.ca> wrote:
> I live a block north of the street in question.
>
> > I am saying that money designated for building bike routes should not
> > be put towards hindering cyclists. Yes, I think there are people who
> > don't feel like merging in and out of disappearing lanes. I certainly
> > don't. Regarding parked cars, they leave enough space for a bicycle to
> > fit between the traffic and the parked cars. So that's a non-issue.
>
> I thought this was Active Transportation? I think that includes the
> pedestrian mode. I personally cross that street at least twice a day
> on foot and a significant number of times in the summer on bike. The
> bumpouts make both types of crossings easier even in the case where I
> am not actually at the bumps.

Wouldn't pedestrian crossing lights be more helpful?

[ghurley]

Now that there painted lanes on the street, I feel much better about the bumped-out curbs. When I first biked on St Matthews (with the bumpouts, without the lines), cars tried to squeeze me onto the boulevard. Now they no longer do this. I'm glad this worked out!

Gabriel