Halifax Active Transportation

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I haven’t heard her say it myself, but apparently Coun. Pam Lovelace who is running for Mayor has said that if elected she will pause all bike lane projects because there are more important priorities. There’s a position I can get behind.

I’d like to know where this was allegedly said, but in any case a mayor can’t just make unilateral decisions on infrastructure spending, so it’s moot.

[IanWatson]

If I'm reading the plans right, those bumpouts are fine. The vehicle lanes appear to travel straight.

Maple Street is absolutely horrible, but in my opinion is a localized failure in design rather than a general indictment of bumpouts.

Edit: The bumpouts proposed for Almon look much more like the bumpouts on the downtown stretch of Portland Street, which have functioned perfectly fine for decades.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Maple Street is absolutely horrible, but in my opinion is a localized failure in design rather than a general indictment of bumpouts.

Point taken, but doesn't it appear that that result should have been 100% foreseeable? It's an expensive error.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Point taken, but doesn't it appear that that result should have been 100% foreseeable? It's an expensive error.

Agreed.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

If I'm reading the plans right, those bumpouts are fine. The vehicle lanes appear to travel straight.

Maple Street is absolutely horrible, but in my opinion is a localized failure in design rather than a general indictment of bumpouts.

Edit: The bumpouts proposed for Almon look much more like the bumpouts on the downtown stretch of Portland Street, which have functioned perfectly fine for decades.

I assume you are referring to the bumpouts as shown in the link below on Portland. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I just don't see the functionality here with very low pedestrian and slow vehicle traffic.

Google search:
Bumpouts are also known as curb extensions, bulb-outs, or neckdowns. Bumpouts extend the curb into the street on both sides of the street at a pedestrian crossing, effectively making the pedestrian crossing shorter. Bumpouts keep pedestrians safer in three distinct ways

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.665577,-6...!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu

[ButterNutPecan]

Bump outs are great, just sucks about snow clearing.

[bartekci]

Originally Posted by Empire

I assume you are referring to the bumpouts as shown in the link below on Portland. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I just don't see the functionality here with very low pedestrian and slow vehicle traffic.

The benefits of the linked bump out are quite clear if one is a pedestrian. They reduce the length of the crossing and place pedestrians in a more visible arrangement, which ultimately benefits both driver and person (reduction of accidents)

They also offer opportunity for beautification or functional improvements of intersections. I see in that link there is a bench, garbage, bike posts. Space would be limited for these without. Planters or other means of greening up the space is also common.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Empire

I just don't see the functionality here with very low pedestrian and slow vehicle traffic.

Almon Street has a fair bit of pedestrian traffic, and will certainly have more as the Young and Robie node develops. I also find that vehicle speeds can get high west of Robie.

Looking at the drawings, I would also say the bump outs on Almon are servicing additional purposes:

• Providing a graceful way for the bike lane to transition from separated to on-street
• Providing a place for pedestrians to stand so that they don't have to worry about crossing bike traffic and car traffic at the same time.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by fatscat

The benefits of the linked bump out are quite clear if one is a pedestrian. They reduce the length of the crossing and place pedestrians in a more visible arrangement, which ultimately benefits both driver and person (reduction of accidents)

As a lifelong Dartmouth resident-pedestrian-driver, my opinion is that the bump-outs on Portland downtown were an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. Crossing the street there had never been difficult and pedestrians were never in serious peril. And they were installed at a time when traffic was only decreasing, as evidenced by the removal of the long-lived traffic signals at King and Portland which had become irrelevant. On the whole, they (the bump-outs) there have been a more or less benign presence, but arguably a needless expense.

The only dumber "improvement" in that area was the installation in the 80s of brick sidewalks, which any fool who's lived in our climate knew would be a complete disaster within a season or two. Just mind-numbingly stupid.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

As a lifelong Dartmouth resident-pedestrian-driver, my opinion is that the bump-outs on Portland downtown were an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. Crossing the street there had never been difficult and pedestrians were never in serious peril. And they were installed at a time when traffic was only decreasing, as evidenced by the removal of the long-lived traffic signals at King and Portland which had become irrelevant. On the whole, they (the bump-outs) there have been a more or less benign presence, but arguably a needless expense.

The only dumber "improvement" in that area was the installation in the 80s of brick sidewalks, which any fool who's lived in our climate knew would be a complete disaster within a season or two. Just mind-numbingly stupid.

Many crosswalks in downtown Halifax were done in porus red brick which broke apart the first winter. Very wasteful when there is so much that needs to be done.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fatscat

The benefits of the linked bump out are quite clear if one is a pedestrian. They reduce the length of the crossing and place pedestrians in a more visible arrangement, which ultimately benefits both driver and person (reduction of accidents)

They also offer opportunity for beautification or functional improvements of intersections. I see in that link there is a bench, garbage, bike posts. Space would be limited for these without. Planters or other means of greening up the space is also common.

Intersections are for safe movement of traffic and pedrestrians. I see bumpouts as indangering both. Beautify pocket parks at Cogswell instead of obstructing intersections. If bumpouts were safe they would not have tire marks and broken concrete from snow plows. The curb will not stop a car from jumping the curb, only cause it to loss control. In this area we experience heavy fog for many days. A curb jutting into the street where it may not be expected is dangerous on a clear dry day. Driving in rain, fog or snow at night creates a danger that outweighs any benifit IMHO.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

As a lifelong Dartmouth resident-pedestrian-driver, my opinion is that the bump-outs on Portland downtown were an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. Crossing the street there had never been difficult and pedestrians were never in serious peril. And they were installed at a time when traffic was only decreasing, as evidenced by the removal of the long-lived traffic signals at King and Portland which had become irrelevant. On the whole, they (the bump-outs) there have been a more or less benign presence, but arguably a needless expense.

The bump-outs, such as those shown here on Maple St., are exceedingly popular with auto repair shops, however.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Almon Street has a fair bit of pedestrian traffic, and will certainly have more as the Young and Robie node develops. I also find that vehicle speeds can get high west of Robie.

Looking at the drawings, I would also say the bump outs on Almon are servicing additional purposes:

• Providing a graceful way for the bike lane to transition from separated to on-street
• Providing a place for pedestrians to stand so that they don't have to worry about crossing bike traffic and car traffic at the same time.

Your first point makes a lot of sense for the flow of bike traffic.

The only reason I brought up them up (and apparently caused some angst) is the second point. Do they actually put pedestrians in a safer position? In one sense I can see that they do if drivers are attentive and obeying the rules of the road. On the other hand, I see the potential of giving a pedestrian a false sense of security, putting them in harm’s way in the case of an inattentive, aggressive, or speeding driver, essentially making them a sitting duck.

I also wonder if it puts pedestrians in a bad position in the case of a long truck making a right turn. I would suspect that the bump outs make truck drivers’ lives more difficult and increase the potential of a poorly negotiated turn whereby the rear wheels come up over the curb increasing the potential of running over a pedestrian standing there.

Then there’s the inclement weather/poor visibility thing that might make it more difficult to see them, especially for a driver who is not familiar with the area.

Those were my thoughts, and that a pedestrian may be protected as well or better by a longer time on the walk signal, while using the funds for the bump outs to put towards better bike lane improvements.

Just my thoughts… sorry if I offended anybody.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Your first point makes a lot of sense for the flow of bike traffic.

The only reason I brought up them up (and apparently caused some angst) is the second point. Do they actually put pedestrians in a safer position? In one sense I can see that they do if drivers are attentive and obeying the rules of the road. On the other hand, I see the potential of giving a pedestrian a false sense of security, putting them in harm’s way in the case of an inattentive, aggressive, or speeding driver, essentially making them a sitting duck.

I also wonder if it puts pedestrians in a bad position in the case of a long truck making a right turn. I would suspect that the bump outs make truck drivers’ lives more difficult and increase the potential of a poorly negotiated turn whereby the rear wheels come up over the curb increasing the potential of running over a pedestrian standing there.

Then there’s the inclement weather/poor visibility thing that might make it more difficult to see them, especially for a driver who is not familiar with the area.

Those were my thoughts, and that a pedestrian may be protected as well or better by a longer time on the walk signal, while using the funds for the bump outs to put towards better bike lane improvements.

Just my thoughts… sorry if I offended anybody.

Another major dangerous element that I have mentioned before is the limited space for cyclists. If a cyclist is maneuvering around a bumpout and a car is passing by in the same direction there is not enough room for a cyclist and a car going in the same direction if there is oncoming traffic. The car must swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid sideswiping the cyclist. I witnessed a near miss on Maple St. due to this design flaw. Aside from the obvious danger a cyclist is supposed to have 1.0m distance from a car that is passing, the math just doesn't add up. All bumpouts should be removed.

[Nouvellecosse]

In my experience as a lifelong cyclist mostly in urban settings, we were always taught not to swerve in and out getting close to the curb when there's no parked cars and getting further out when there are because they makes conflicts in the driving lane more likely. I think the same applies with bump outs. You just treat them like parked cars which take up space and require you to go around as well. If it's a narrow enough road that a parked car or bump out would make the road too narrow for a bike to ride beside moving cars, you have to take the lane. Or if it's just the odd obstruction then you can merge toward the center temporarily, but you need to do it in advance rather than the last second. Although you'd need to ensure the bumpout was visible enough which perhaps needs to be improved. But there will always be people not paying attention or using good judgement so that can't really be avoided.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In my experience as a lifelong cyclist mostly in urban settings, we were always taught not to swerve in and out getting close to the curb when there's no parked cars and getting further out when there are because they makes conflicts in the driving lane more likely. I think the same applies with bump outs. You just treat them like parked cars which take up space and require you to go around as well. If it's a narrow enough road that a parked car or bump out would make the road too narrow for a bike to ride beside moving cars, you have to take the lane. Or if it's just the odd obstruction then you can merge toward the center temporarily, but you need to do it in advance rather than the last second. Although you'd need to ensure the bumpout was visible enough which perhaps needs to be improved. But there will always be people not paying attention or using good judgement so that can't really be avoided.

The drawings for the bumpouts on Almon St. show a dimension of 1.93m / 6.3 ft from face of curb to face of curb. Most cars are approx. 5ft wide so even if parking was allowed the bumpout is much wider than your average car. There is no parking on Maple St. and if fact no stopping to ensure a continuous flow of traffic except for the bottleneck of the bumpouts.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6729584,-...!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Empire

The drawings for the bumpouts on Almon St. show a dimension of 1.93m / 6.3 ft from face of curb to face of curb. Most cars are approx. 5ft wide so even if parking was allowed the bumpout is much wider than your average car. There is no parking on Maple St. and if fact no stopping to ensure a continuous flow of traffic except for the bottleneck of the bumpouts.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6729584,-...!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

I was just referring to my experience with bumpouts in general rather than the proposed Almon design since people seemed to be discussing the overall concept. That said, most cyclists can tell you that parked cars are wider obstacles than their physical dimensions since you should never cycle in the "door zone" in case one might unexpectedly open.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I was just referring to my experience with bumpouts in general rather than the proposed Almon design since people seemed to be discussing the overall concept. That said, most cyclists can tell you that parked cars are wider obstacles than their physical dimensions since you should never cycle in the "door zone" in case one might unexpectedly open.

Parked cars are generally in a defined line and very visible at 4-5ft. high. Not only can a cyclist get squeezed at the apex of the bumpout due to dangerous lack of space but if at the last second a car approaches the cyclist just before the bumpout, the cyclist may be forced headon into the curb. Many examples of the safety concerns for this expensive installation.

Bumpouts are intended to close the gap for pedestrians to cross the street. However, on Maple St. there is no pedestrian landing area, just the typical unkept overgrown grass and weeds and a hazard sign. Fail to see the rationale for this installation.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IMHO, the Almon St bump outs don’t seem to affect cyclists in a dangerous manner, as the cycling lanes are mostly protected along that stretch. The only hazard I see is that the cyclist will have to be aware that they are about to mix with traffic (practically, not conceptually) when the bump out guides them back to the street. I suspect most cyclists will be aware, as that awareness can literally save their lives.

The reason I mentioned them is outlined in my post above. Just not sure if they offer what is believed that they offer. I’m sure there is data on this, though (even though data alone doesn’t always create understanding).

IMHO, Maple St. is a textbook example of why it’s a bad idea to copy/paste a concept without first understanding use/context/situation before rubber stamping an approval. It really boggles the mind how that ever made it to construction without somebody saying “hey… wait a minute…”.

[IanWatson]

Tender is out for the Dutch Village Road reconstruction. At long last the community will get sidewalks!