Jolley Cut

[coalminecanary]

The Jolley Cut is a nightmare... it's built like a freeway but the speed limit is 50. Good luck finding anyone going a reasonable speed, especially downbound.

Worst of all, the sidewalk is a joke. Through the major straightaway, where the pedestrians are squeezed between downbound traffic and a concrete guardrail, the sidewalk actually NARROWS to an ungodly width. It is very difficult for two people to pass without having so step off the curb.

Meanwhile, this is probably the number one access for bikes and walkers linking one of the best mountain parks to the lower city.

On top of all this, the bruce trail actually uses Jolley as part of its route. Can you imagine what a pathetic Joke Hamilton looks like to trail users who are all of a sudden spit from a forest path into the path of a downbound mountain bus careening around the corner?

This could be fixed so easily with not much more than some curbs and paint.

Downbound vehicular traffic should be limited to one lane. There is plenty of space at the top of the access to allow merging down to one lane before the curve. Downbound traffic currently moves too fast (well over the speed limit), and there is minimal need to actually pass on that stretch. Upbound can remain 2 lanes to allow for passing slow moving vehicles.

At the bottom of the curve (the top of the straightaway/bridge section), the pedestrian access from the bruce trail as well as the off-street path from concession both meet the jolley. A bike friendly ramp should be installed at the stairs here. At this point, the lanes on the jolley itself should be configured as follows from south to north

Escarpment Top
____________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  upbound traffic 1
____________________ upbound traffic 2
                     downbound traffic
==================== curb/median with plantings (or a barrier)
- - - - - - - - - -  two-way bike lane
==================== curb
____________________ widened sidewalk

Escarpment Bottom

This should continue at least as far as the pedestrian crossing at the apartment building, but even better, it should continue to st joseph's drive.

The core (james/john) is in desparate need of a cycle-friendly mountain access. The James stairs are not bike-friendly.

There also needs to be better pedestrian access to sam lawrence park in general, and Jolley is the best place for that.

In fact, I think that a pedestrian crossing in the middle of the jolley would be great, with a small staircase to access the lower section of sam lawrence. It is really dumb right now, if you are in that lower section you can see the jolley and almost reach it, but to get back down the escarpment on foot you ahve to walk back up to the top of the jolley, down concession, around that back area and link up with the death-trap-sidewalk. A 30 foot staircase and crossing on the jolley would cut that trip by about 10,000 percent.

Another little bonus could be a mini-park in that triangle where the curve ends and the straightaway begins.

[coalminecanary]

here is a picture (you might have to scroll right)

[drpgq]

These are some good ideas. One thing with downbound being one lane is the bus stop at the apartment buildings. Things would get pretty slow whenever a bus stops there and would probably back up traffic up the escarpment during rush hour. I could easily see the traffic engineers at city hall saying nyet for that reason. I have biked up that sidewalk many times. Any solution that would give proper space would be awesome.

[urban_planner]

I like your thoughts, however the Jolly Cut is way to bust to take out a lane. Look at this photo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattlori/3234563125/

'Tried to embed but it didn't work so you will have to take the link!

Ya maybe there was an accident or it was because of snow but regardless its still a very busy rd and if they close james mt rd for LRT at some point thats potentially even more traffic on the access and the claremont.

[urban_planner]

One option might be th have it set up like the sherman cut with 3 lanes with 2 down bound in the am and 1 up bound and then 2 up bound in the PM and 1 downbound. Something like this might be an option that would also add $$$ to any potential project like this.

[Millstone]

The Jolley Cut has evolved into what it is now... and it hasn't really seen a makeover since the 70s when Hwy 6 was routed up the Clarence access, when the overpass was created.

The main curve of the cut is especially dangerous, given its rough pavement and unforgiving lane widths. If this were done correctly, it would be slightly wider with supersmooth pavement much like RHVP, and possibly a median barrier like the Kenilworth access. Then there's enough room for your bike lanes and what have you.

John could use a resurfacing all the way to King.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by drpgq

One thing with downbound being one lane is the bus stop at the apartment buildings.

True, but you'd have room for a bus bump out there if you wanted - the sidewalk could temporarily narrow and the planted median disappears for the length of a bus stop. it could be done...

Originally Posted by urban_planner

I like your thoughts, however the Jolly Cut is way to bust to take out a lane.

I think that photo is misleading. I could stand there and 23.75 hours a day, 363 days a year and any photo I take would make it look barren and empty. No sense sacrificing the hug majority of time for the 3 days that a snowstorm bogs it down. Most of the other accesses are 1 up 1 down and people do fine. The Sherman access is 1 up/down from charlton and it flows with no problems.

LRT will not likely take from james mountain road. I truly believe we will see a-line on claremont, which is like 3 lanes p and 4 lanes down - more than ample room with no detriment. Man - the jolley has the same throughput capacity as the 403. Claremont has MORE capacity than the 403! Is that really necessary capacity?

Originally Posted by urban_planner

One option might be th have it set up like the sherman cut

thought about this and it might curb some traffic naysayers but I personally think that it over complicates it, and most places with those bidirectinal lanes are working to change them back. I am certain that people would learn to live within a one-lane downbound within about 2 days of installation and you'd never notie the difference. Look at York - they took it down to one lane, and it's a "really busy access into the city" but it doesn't back up to Burlington - everyone learned the new configuration and it's as smooth as it's ever been, it just also happens to be drastically better for cyclists too!

Originally Posted by Millstone

The main curve of the cut is especially dangerous, given its rough pavement and unforgiving lane widths. If this were done correctly, it would be slightly wider with supersmooth pavement much like RHVP, and possibly a median barrier like the Kenilworth access. Then there's enough room for your bike lanes and what have you.

Yep - this cut is going to need some attention soon, and when it does they really need to think about the sidewalk problem as well as bike access. They compromised on the kenilworth construction and claimed "no room for bikes" - we need at least one paved access with dedicated bike and pedestrian space. Not everyone lives right next door to a mountain staircase ;-)

[adam]

I disagree with Millhouse. Widening lanes and smoothing pavement will do nothing but promote more speeding and result in more traffic fatalities. We need to keep lanes narrow so people travel at reasonable city speeds. We can't have traffic going through the downtown at highway speeds any longer. Its simply not acceptable and backwards to downtown revitalization.

[urban_planner]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

I think that photo is misleading. I could stand there and 23.75 hours a day, 363 days a year and any photo I take would make it look barren and empty. No sense sacrificing the hug majority of time for the 3 days that a snowstorm bogs it down. Most of the other accesses are 1 up 1 down and people do fine. The Sherman access is 1 up/down from charlton and it flows with no problems.

LRT will not likely take from james mountain road. I truly believe we will see a-line on claremont, which is like 3 lanes p and 4 lanes down - more than ample room with no detriment. Man - the jolley has the same throughput capacity as the 403. Claremont has MORE capacity than the 403! Is that really necessary capacity?



thought about this and it might curb some traffic naysayers but I personally think that it over complicates it, and most places with those bidirectinal lanes are working to change them back. I am certain that people would learn to live within a one-lane downbound within about 2 days of installation and you'd never notie the difference. Look at York - they took it down to one lane, and it's a "really busy access into the city" but it doesn't back up to Burlington - everyone learned the new configuration and it's as smooth as it's ever been, it just also happens to be drastically better for cyclists too!

First of you can't say most of the mountian access are 2 lanes when its not. 3 are and 3 aren't and of the 3 that are one of them become one way with 2 lanes of traffic headining in the same direction over the rush hours. that being the sherman access and cut. Just to clarify that up, the other 3 that are multi lane are Jolly Cut, Clairmont and Kenilworth, One could also argue Centennial Parkway

The thing with York Blvd is that the 403 is right beside it and Im sure more people take that road into Hamilton over york and york has a very long strectch without a traffic light.

I agree with your point on the clariemont. Now the we are down to lets say 2000 people working in the factories in the north end from the 20,000 we once had I don't think we need that many lanes going to upper james however it is still quite a busy access during peak times. I'm not to sure how it has more Capacity then the 403 both have 2 lanes down 3 lanes up.

Anyway Im not saying your ideas are totally un realistic. Just point out some inaccurate information and some other points to take into consideration.

[adam]

One of the major problems from mountain accesses to the downtown like James access to James St South is people try to continue driving at 80km/h when they are no longer in a suburban/rural area. A downtown requires speeds of 40km/h to be a destination. If people don't want to slow down and respect those of us who have chosen to make the downtown our home then they should avoid the downtown entirely.

[coalminecanary]

Kenilworth is 2/2. Claremont is enormous. Jolley is 2/2. But Sherman West is 1/1 all the time. Sherman East is 1/1 most of the time, except during rush. James Mt Rd is 1/1. Beckett is 1/1. Even Wilson is 1/1 with a short passing lane on the upside, and none of these gets jammed up. If Jolley was only one lane down, life would go on, and those in such a huge hurry would use Claremont instead.

The 403 is 3 up 2 down I think , and I'm pretty sure Claremont is 4 up 3 down which is why I said it has more capacity than the 403...

But all of this is beside the main point which is that the Jolley is pretty much the only access with a sidewalk, and we need better non motorized mountain access - the Jolley is the perfect candidate for this, and the current setup is atrocious.

[coalminecanary]

...and there are zero bike lanes on any mountain access - a huge hole in the transportation infrastructure. There is no way to pedal up to central mountain. The only reasonable options are the trails, which only get you to either the far east mountain or ancaster - or the stairs which are not the easiest trek unless you are quite fit. You can't use your granny gear on the stairs!

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

I disagree with Millhouse. Widening lanes and smoothing pavement will do nothing but promote more speeding and result in more traffic fatalities. We need to keep lanes narrow so people travel at reasonable city speeds. We can't have traffic going through the downtown at highway speeds any longer. Its simply not acceptable and backwards to downtown revitalization.

This is not downtown, it is a mountain access designed for cars. I know that hurts your little brain, but currently it is unsafe and provisions must be put into place to modernize it. Keeping lanes as narrow as they are around the bend isn't a solution. Bike lanes can be added without sticking it to the commuters. Add in some blind spots for police to hide so the speeders can be nabbed.

[markbarbera]

I don't think the Jolley Cut is the best option for introducing a bike lane up and down the escarpment. Claremont would be a better option, particularly if it is being retrofitted for LRT/BRT in the near future. I expect BRT will be the initial phase of the A-Line, and a dedicated bus lane on the Claremont could easily accomodate bike traffic as well.

I had been using the Jolley cut almost daily over the winter months, and feel the need to debunk a couple of urban myths. In my usage of this cut, I have not witnessed any speeding per se (speed limit for Jolley is 50km/h), and its traffic volume is significantly higher than how it has been portrayed thus far in this thread.

[adam]

Widening lanes increases the perceived safety... and so drivers feel it is safe to go faster. Higher speeds encourages dangerous driving. It is widely accepted that cars will travel as fast as they can go until perceived safety begins to decrease. By reducing the speed of the Jolley Cut to 40km/h and narrowing lanes, it will ensure cars don't have a perceived sense of safety above this speed. Therefore they will in fact travel the speed limit and it will be safer for ALL forms of transportation: bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc.

Widening lanes and eliminating sidewalks was en vogue in the 1950's.... what year is it again?

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

Widening lanes increases the perceived safety... and so drivers feel it is safe to go faster. Higher speeds encourages dangerous driving. It is widely accepted that cars will travel as fast as they can go until perceived safety begins to decrease. By reducing the speed of the Jolley Cut to 40km/h and narrowing lanes, it will ensure cars don't have a perceived sense of safety above this speed. Therefore they will in fact travel the speed limit and it will be safer for ALL forms of transportation: bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc.

Widening lanes and eliminating sidewalks was en vogue in the 1950's.... what year is it again?

I'm sorry, but it's completely idiotic to assume that people will not go above 40 km/h given your logic.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I don't think the Jolley Cut is the best option for introducing a bike lane up and down the escarpment. Claremont would be a better option
[...]
I had been using the Jolley cut almost daily over the winter months, and feel the need to debunk a couple of urban myths.

I also use it regularly and see speeding quite frequently, both as a driver and a pedestrian (on my bike I tend to avoid all of the road accesses). Perhaps people are more cautious in the winter (which coincides with me being less likely to feel like walking up the escarpment!) Beyond speed though... even at 50km/h the sidewalk is way too narrow and way too close to the traffic lane.

In a perfect world there would be bike lanes on both accesses, since both are wide enough and have a reasonable enough grade. But Claremont is much longer than Jolley, almost double in length if you take into account the ramps leading up to it, when compared to the distance from St. Joe's drive to the pathway at the jolley's curve. One side effect of this is that it's very indirect - you cover a lot of east-west ground using it. Plus the access to Claremont is more difficult to navigate - a bunch of ramps. Also Claremont is not really downtown. TO get from downtown (james/john) to say concession, or even upper james, you have to go something like 5 or 6 blocks out of your way east before you even start your climb.

Jolley actually starts in downtown proper, and ends up at a reasonable destination - sam lawrence park/concession street. On Claremont, with 3-4 lanes in each direction, a cyclist can take an entire lane without affecting traffic or making anyone angry. This is impossible and dangerous on the Jolley, since it has fewer lanes and a giant blind curve. I still think Jolley should receive priority.



ps: why does google think calremont is clarence?

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by Millstone

This is not downtown, it is a mountain access designed for cars.

... which leads to and from downtown.

Originally Posted by Millstone

currently it is unsafe and provisions must be put into place to modernize it.

I agree that this access is unsafe, but as it stands the people most at risk are pedestrians and cyclists. The cars have more than enough room on this street already. Widening the lanes will not make it safer. It is a well known fact that smooth wide lanes encourage speeding. How does this make it safer? Please explain your reasoning... Making it more comfortable for drivers to travel fast does not mean it's safer to do so. The curve is there, and it's not going away. If the curve is dangerous, then the road needs to be designed to slow cars down, not speed them up. Wide, smooth, fast lanes work great on a highway with gradual curves and good grading. The jolley cut has a hairpin turn and a steep grade - at the same time. The road needs to be designed to curb speeding rather than encourage it. We need to work within the physical limitations of the route. To me this is common sense...

Originally Posted by Millstone

I'm sorry, but it's completely idiotic to assume that people will not go above 40 km/h given your logic.

The logic is perfectly sound - narrow lanes, plantings close to the road, bump outs, chicanes, bends, etc - these design features give visual clues to motorists that they are travelling on a road which requires more attention and slower speeds. They do in fact work to slow cars down. And lower speeds make streets safer.

Originally Posted by Millstone

I know that hurts your little brain

Originally Posted by Millstone

I'm sorry, but it's completely idiotic

You know, we are trying to have a civil discussion here. Despite the fact that you are discounting proven facts as 'idiotic opinions', we have refrained from personal attacks. Comments such as these bring nothing to the discussion...

[coalminecanary]

I cleaned up my rant for raise the hammer in case anyone is interested :-)
http://raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=943

[SteelTown]

Looks like the sidewalk will get bigger along the Jolley Cut....

$4-million permanent barrier planned for Jolley Cut

By Mark Newman, News Staff
News
Apr 08, 2010
http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/news/article/207101

The city will not tamper with potentially loose rock along the upbound lanes of the Jolley Cut.

“There’s really nothing we can do that is short of millions of dollars,” said Gary Moore, director of engineering services in Hamilton’s public works department.

Moore said a geotechnical study last year on the section of the escarpment in question near the hairpin turn, where limestone sits on softer shale, showed there is no impending risk of any large amounts of rock coming down.

A large chunk of rock came off about three years ago and some debris rolled onto the roadway.

Small amounts of rock from the face of the escarpment will likely continue to break off from time to time due to erosion, Moore said.

The city will replace the temporary concrete barrier at the foot of the site with a permanent one this summer.

The city also looked at filling in and stabilizing the eroded area with liquid concrete spray, but Moore noted it would only affect the surface rock and would have to be redone every few years, eventually costing the city millions of dollars.

“It’s a temporary fix at best,” Moore said.

The three-foot high permanent barrier is part of $4 million worth of work the city is planning for the Jolley Cut starting around late June. It’s expected the access will be reduced to one lane in each direction when the work begins.

The sidewalk on the north side between the bridge over the Claremont Access and the stairs leading to Sam Lawrence Park will be replaced with a wider walkway and another concrete barrier will be installed between the sidewalk and the road. Moore said some minor bridge repairs will also be done and the road will be resurfaced from the bridge up to Concession Street.

Last year the lower section of the access (Arkledun Avenue) between the bridge and John Street was resurfaced.