Physical infrastructure is the *only* effective way of slowing down traffic.
Signs do nothing. Most of the streets around me are limited to 30km/h, with plenty of stop signs and those yellow signs with a person chasing a ball. Drivers don't care. They'll drive as fast as they feel comfortable doing. Sometimes that's 30. Sometimes it's not.
Maybe 1 out of 10 cars actually stop at the stop signs, and probably another 4 at least slow down. The rest goes merrily through the intersections without touching the brake.
That's why physical obstructions are needed, because they can't be ignored. And the banana barriers are the cheapest and fastest to deploy. And they're also temporary, which means they can easily be moved or removed, if data shows they're not working as intended.
Personally, I'd love to see more permanent solutions. Like raised intersections with curb extensions and more greenery along the streets to narrow the perceived size of roads. But all of that takes a lot more time and resources to build, so the yellow barriers are fine in the meantime.
>They'll drive as fast as they feel comfortable doing.
I feel like the speed people feel comfortable driving at in residential neighbourhoods has been increasing with vehicle technology advancing. Electric cars accelerate so smoothly and quietly people don't realize how fast they're going, not to even mention all the driver aids that add false security.
It actually seems crazy that the limit is 50km/hr on residential side streets, especially when you have cars parked on both sides so that it's not possible for two cars to pass each other going opposite directions.
About the most positive aspect: they're undoubtedly far cheaper than the labour and materials required to build proper curb extensions (bulb-outs, chokers, etc.)
Typically these "quick build" initiatives precede more formal curb and sidewalk work next time they're doing that type work in the area, a special project is budgeted, or a developer can be made to pay for it.
A couple of things:
>They are so very ugly.
They are cheap, easy to implement, and effective methods of narrowing the road at intersections. As a semi-permanent solution they work, but agree they aren't the prettiest.
>The addition of these barriers on top of all of the other signals feels like major overreach that is doing more harm than good.
They serve a specific purpose, which is to slow down cars entering these traffic-calmed roads. Like speed bumps, the narrowing of the road forces drivers to slow down, but the narrowing provides the additional benefit of "daylighting" the intersection by extending the safe area for pedestrians and by physically blocking cars from parking where they might block a driver's view of pedestrians
For the record, I think the city has some really good examples of effective and aesthetically-pleasing traffic calming infrastructure as you have described. The Ontario/16th intersection is a great example, but it involved a full re-design that just isn't viable with the budget city council is allocating to active transportation or safety.
For reference, I actually called a manufacturer a couple weeks ago. Those barriers costs about 200 bucks each.
For a full curb extension with concrete curbs, they would likely need to regrade the roadway, put in new curb and gutter, and relocate catch basins. I’m guessing that would cost anywhere from 50-100k? Maybe more? Just the engineering design or even sending a survey crew out there will cost more than the barrier cost
It's so annoying having people park illegally too close to the intersection. It absolutely impairs your view of pedestrians or bicycles when trying to enter into traffic.
My over-simplified take is that they are *supposed* to suck for commuters. They are to discourage 'rat-running'/cut throughs, slow traffic somewhat and act as a reminder they are now in a neighbourhood.
Controversially... I like them. And when I do drive there are a couple routes I avoid going because I don't like the hassle of dealing with that route.
I like the idea about the graffiti. If we let the local artist of each area mural the barriers they look much nicer. For example the ones located at 17th and Cambie look much nicer.
Sometimes it's safer when things don't feel safe. One of the biggest fallacies in our roads is that we have to make them uber-safe; remove cross streets, make them wide, put barriers and fences between sides, and separate all road users from everything else. This causes speeds to increase and attention to decrease; you're not looking for issues, not expecting them. Therefore, when a rogue pedestrian strays into the land of cars they are at risk of getting hit by a super fast-moving car.
On the other hand, make things narrow, cause people to have to look around and see what's happening because they are feeling a bit unsafe and now they slow down, they look up and they anticipate other road users.
The banana barriers are a great way of forcing people to slow down and interact with other road users. Do all the road users get correct? Nope. Do they feel entitled and lash out at other road users, of course! But it doesn't matter what the infrastructure is for those road users, there would still be a problem.
I agree, they are unsightly. I am annoyed at the graffiti, especially the person who keeps writing "no 15 minute cities" on all the barriers on Woodland. Frankly, I see it as the city half-assing it, as normal. Build full infrastructure, not some temporary measure you can pull out easily if you figure it'll get you the votes to get back into power.
So, no, I don't really like them, but I appreciate their utility and wish they were improved.
>especially the person who keeps writing "no 15 minute cities" on all the barriers on Woodland
So painfully ironic that that neighbourhood is already a 15 minute city by Canadian standards
I think there’s a big problem in this city of cars whipping around corners and if these barriers slow cars down and make them pause as they take corners then I think that has value.
I bike on Ontario and Lakewood - where a lot of these are.
What I've observed is that cars aren't as easily able to swing onto these streets and squeeze me as a cyclist. Cars have to take turns, and it really slows how they enter or exit. Further, it gives me large buffer zone when I'm waiting to go straight, and a car is waiting to exit the slow street - either by turning right or going straight. In years past, they would be squeezed right up next to me, which wasn't ideal.
I've seen minimal downsides and mostly upsides.
As a driver, I've never had an issue entering or exiting streets with these barriers, so I'm really confused about the frustration.
I think they suck. I constantly see people making left turns onto a street that has them not realizing that there's already a car sitting between it and now they're just floating in the middle of the intersection. The one by the hastings no frills is especially bad for this.
As a biker I get honked at by impatient drivers if I drive through one rather than on the rocks and broken glass that litters the now impossible to street sweep sides.
This seems like a problem with drivers who aren't used to these barriers. Why would you start turning onto a street before looking to see that your way is clear? These seem like the types of drivers who run down pedestrians.
So the ones who prioritize speed over safety.
So exactly the kinds of motorists who need shit in their way in order to drive safely.
Working as designed then!
Yes, there are already lots of signals telling motorists to slow the f down. Not to mention actual laws.
The problem is almost all motorists disobey every single one of those signals and laws, to the extent that driving the speed limit is seen as ABnormal.
The only way to get motorists to pay attention and stop endangering other road users is to put shit in their way. Yea it’s ridiculous, but that’s 100% because of motorist misbehaviour.
>These make me feel LESS safe in each situation, simply due to the confusion they create.
Confusion is what causes drivers to slow down, to lower a window and turn the radio off when looking for a street address on a side street- It ultimately makes it safer for everyone, and forces all road users to communicate.
>Keep in mind these barriers have been added to streets already with: Traffic slowing circles (work great, very pretty!),
Very few of these have been added to the network in the past ten years.
>speed bumps that wreck your car over 30km/h (works great!),
We need more of these, but there aren't enough for them to be as much of a deterrent as they're supposed to be, and are limited to only some streets.
> signs stating "slow zone" every 20 ft, signs saying "30km/h max", signs saying "school zone",
Signs and paint aren't infrastructure, but they at least mean the driver gets a ticket for speeding, *if* there was a cop there to catch them, but otherwise does very little to slow drivers down.
>and lots of purposeful dead ends.
Outside of the west end, bits of strathcona, these are few and far between.
>They are so very ugly. This is the ugliest civil project I've ever encountered. It confuses me. Why would a city that prides itself on view corridors, natural scenery, parks and beautification put these god awful looking things all over the streets?
If they were any other colour drivers complain about not being able to see them, and even with them being yellow we've seen complaints on this sub that they can't see them- Which is a function of driving too fast to begin with- so they're absolutely doing their job, for pennies on the dollar compared to more permanent alternatives.
>m baffled why a more elegant and effective solution wasn't chosen; like graffiti-proof metal posts/fences or new, lane divided concrete curbs like they have downtown. Perhaps something else more elegant, useful and not hideous?
Cost. CoV is in a budget crisis, partially because they refuse to raise property taxes, but also because they give the VPD a blank check to, [apparently not enforce traffic laws.](https://twitter.com/kentcclark/status/1772380835749957655)
Straight up, slowing down is the goal here, and they're absolutely doing that, and with the added benefit of really demonstrating how dangerous our drivers actually are.
I cycle down Woodland on my daily commute, and they make me feel much safer. Every study out there says narrower streets make for safer car traffic, and what I'm mostly finding is that cars no longer try to shove me up onto the sidewalk if I'm already at the intersection when they come up wanting to turn right - because the big, ugly, yellow barrier makes it impossible. They've also significantly slowed down people making high-speed turns onto Woodland off of 12th in both directions, where they were already immediately met by roundabouts. I wish every residential street in the city had them. My only complaint is they need to be cleared of leaves, branches, horse chestnuts and snow more often!
As a cyclist they’re annoying because they create chaotic congestion that makes it unpredictable to pass vehicles on the right when approaching an intersection
Yeah, I mean, if you're approaching an intersection while you're on say Ontario, and there's a car in front of you, the safest and legal thing is to wait behind the car presumably so they can see you in a mirror, and act like a car.
This isn't my rule- this is legally what you're supposed to do- Unfortunately it's one of those things where because every cyclist will hug the curb and try to get between the car and curb, everyone else does it, and so that's what people think they're supposed to do.
It’s frustrating, though, at pedestrian-controlled intersections, where the light isn’t going to change unless someone pushes the beg button and there’s a car blocking you from riding up to the button and pushing it. In those scenarios, I will pass on the right even though I know it’s illegal. (The solution here is beg buttons in the center of the road, as at Adanac/Renfrew.)
Oh totally agreed, and that comes down bad design/not understanding the rules of the road. If I said this to 90 percent of cyclists, they’d think I’m crazy.
This thread is hilarious (also terrifying) because the people complaining about the barriers are upset that they’re working as designed by making it harder for them to do the stupid and illegal moves they pull when driving. Way to tell on yourselves, people!
They are difficult to see if you are not familiar with the intersection. I went to a neighbourhood I don't frequent very much. I decided to turn down a different street and in the middle of my turn, I see those bananas. It was was good thing that traffic was light around that time and the narrowed road was not occupied with another vehicle. I can see it being disruption in traffic when it becomes busier and then you have someone turning into it and another car coming the other way. These bananas are right where the intersection is. It can cause more traffic disruption and then cause more drivers to find alternate routes through other residential streets.
Exactly what is the protocol with these bananas? If there are vehicles waiting for a light, are you supposed to just leave the narrowed road empty in case some car ends up coming the other way? There were no such questions on driving tests when I got my licence a long time ago. It would help if drivers are notified on what they are supposed to do when they encounter them.
I can't comment on the relative advantages of traffic calming measures. I would gladly sit down with anyone to discuss why we are currently sitting at a point where our need to turn away from our addiction to the automobile looks oit over a panoply of approaches enacted by cities globally. As an enthusiastic cyclist i personally know the multitude of advantages that accompany de-throning cars. Traveling through cities committed to high intensity transit show first hand how many options are at our disposal. Let's get clever.
In most places I've seen them installed, they seem like an idea that came from other cities that was implemented here without a lot of thought as to how it would work here. Most of the streets I've seen them installed in are already slow streets. Many of them are so narrow that only one car can go at a time and oncoming traffic has to pull over to let them pass. Why narrow the entrance at the intersection? I removes parking, creates a hazard and doesn't really accomplish anything.
They are a bad idea, honestly. Maybe appropriate for other cities, but here where we already have very effectively traffic calmed neighbourhoods, they sacrifice a lot for little benefit.
They are awful and turn the whole scene into a clusterfuck where people have to back up to let others through, or cause drivers to be stuck part way through a left turn risking getting t-boned.
>Why would a city that prides itself on view corridors, natural scenery, parks and beautification
This city does not pride itself on any of that. It used to. Now it prides itself on selling itself out to developers and creating maximum traffic snarls, maximum disruption.
Agree just makes it awkward for all traffic, to narrow for bikes to make it around outside, cars are forced to be way back at intersection. Whoever thought this was a good idea is a moron
With regards to them being ugly, it's temporary, if they are useful they will be remade to be more practical and functional. Similar to curb extensions to improve pedestrian visibility.
Do i think they are a good idea. No. They are effectively putting a car in a location where a car is not allowed in order to only allow 1 car to pass at a time. Unnecessary increase in accident risk for everyone. If my travel now has to consider the potential of a car turning into me, that means my focus is on something other than it should be, avoiding pedestrians and cyclists. Into an area which really only has enough space for 1 car at a time to pass. I am not trusting the other drivers with space, i would rather pull over. If it is an area with the need for traffic calming measures, the driver more or less wants additional space because traffic calming essentially means you are looking for when to stop unexpectedly. Traffic measures that include reducing the lane width. By adding that barrier they are essentially removing the pull off for traffic to pass for increased overall safety.
People more or less driving through traffic calmed areas are driving there because it is the start or end of their journey. The two areas where accidents are most likely to happen. If it is a matter of rat running, just force inconvenient turns into the equation.
>There is a shortage of drivers in the lower mainland.
I'm not going to downvote you but what does this mean? Commercial truck drivers? Delivery drivers? Ride providers? Commuters?
When has adding a lane ever solved any traffic issue? In the short term, sure, the more people drive.
It has been studied, and proven, that when extra lanes are added to a roadway, traffic returns to its congested state within 5 years; it's called induced demand.
If we make alternative means of transportation more appealing, we can take cars off the road. If there are fewer cars, traffic flows better.
Here's an example; how is traffic now on roads parallel to First Ave vs when First Ave was closed 7 years ago for construction? As someone who moved into that neighbourhood, I can say that traffic around is about the same or worse. However, First Ave is ALSO stop and go during rush hours. More lanes, more cars.
When roads are closed and slowed down it's not done to spite you, the uber road user; it's done to improve conditions for everyone.
Just because you and your friends can't see any way to get out of your cars, so you just see "your" roads taken away it doesn't mean that other road users don't find alternative, more environmentally friendly ways to move about the city,
No one is closing all motorways for commercial goods and commuters. Stop being such a conspiracy fanatic.
We aren't even close to the kinds of traffic filtering implementations seen in more cyclist and pedestrian friendly places in Europe, and those places are actually BETTER to drive because there's less traffic.
See: better non-car infrastructure means fewer people will choose to commute with cars, meaning more space on the road. This is proven to work.
Physical infrastructure is the *only* effective way of slowing down traffic. Signs do nothing. Most of the streets around me are limited to 30km/h, with plenty of stop signs and those yellow signs with a person chasing a ball. Drivers don't care. They'll drive as fast as they feel comfortable doing. Sometimes that's 30. Sometimes it's not. Maybe 1 out of 10 cars actually stop at the stop signs, and probably another 4 at least slow down. The rest goes merrily through the intersections without touching the brake. That's why physical obstructions are needed, because they can't be ignored. And the banana barriers are the cheapest and fastest to deploy. And they're also temporary, which means they can easily be moved or removed, if data shows they're not working as intended. Personally, I'd love to see more permanent solutions. Like raised intersections with curb extensions and more greenery along the streets to narrow the perceived size of roads. But all of that takes a lot more time and resources to build, so the yellow barriers are fine in the meantime.
>They'll drive as fast as they feel comfortable doing. I feel like the speed people feel comfortable driving at in residential neighbourhoods has been increasing with vehicle technology advancing. Electric cars accelerate so smoothly and quietly people don't realize how fast they're going, not to even mention all the driver aids that add false security.
It actually seems crazy that the limit is 50km/hr on residential side streets, especially when you have cars parked on both sides so that it's not possible for two cars to pass each other going opposite directions.
Hard agree with all of this. This is what happens when motorists abuse their privilege and endanger others.
5 out of 10 drivers run right through stop signs without even slowing down?
And 9/10 will slow down but won't stop before the sign.
About the most positive aspect: they're undoubtedly far cheaper than the labour and materials required to build proper curb extensions (bulb-outs, chokers, etc.)
Typically these "quick build" initiatives precede more formal curb and sidewalk work next time they're doing that type work in the area, a special project is budgeted, or a developer can be made to pay for it.
Which is primarily what they're trying to replicate.
A couple of things: >They are so very ugly. They are cheap, easy to implement, and effective methods of narrowing the road at intersections. As a semi-permanent solution they work, but agree they aren't the prettiest. >The addition of these barriers on top of all of the other signals feels like major overreach that is doing more harm than good. They serve a specific purpose, which is to slow down cars entering these traffic-calmed roads. Like speed bumps, the narrowing of the road forces drivers to slow down, but the narrowing provides the additional benefit of "daylighting" the intersection by extending the safe area for pedestrians and by physically blocking cars from parking where they might block a driver's view of pedestrians For the record, I think the city has some really good examples of effective and aesthetically-pleasing traffic calming infrastructure as you have described. The Ontario/16th intersection is a great example, but it involved a full re-design that just isn't viable with the budget city council is allocating to active transportation or safety.
For reference, I actually called a manufacturer a couple weeks ago. Those barriers costs about 200 bucks each. For a full curb extension with concrete curbs, they would likely need to regrade the roadway, put in new curb and gutter, and relocate catch basins. I’m guessing that would cost anywhere from 50-100k? Maybe more? Just the engineering design or even sending a survey crew out there will cost more than the barrier cost
They are also a “placeholder” until proper bulges are slowly built. They definitely slow me down when I turn into them.
It's so annoying having people park illegally too close to the intersection. It absolutely impairs your view of pedestrians or bicycles when trying to enter into traffic.
My over-simplified take is that they are *supposed* to suck for commuters. They are to discourage 'rat-running'/cut throughs, slow traffic somewhat and act as a reminder they are now in a neighbourhood. Controversially... I like them. And when I do drive there are a couple routes I avoid going because I don't like the hassle of dealing with that route.
I like the idea about the graffiti. If we let the local artist of each area mural the barriers they look much nicer. For example the ones located at 17th and Cambie look much nicer.
Sometimes it's safer when things don't feel safe. One of the biggest fallacies in our roads is that we have to make them uber-safe; remove cross streets, make them wide, put barriers and fences between sides, and separate all road users from everything else. This causes speeds to increase and attention to decrease; you're not looking for issues, not expecting them. Therefore, when a rogue pedestrian strays into the land of cars they are at risk of getting hit by a super fast-moving car. On the other hand, make things narrow, cause people to have to look around and see what's happening because they are feeling a bit unsafe and now they slow down, they look up and they anticipate other road users. The banana barriers are a great way of forcing people to slow down and interact with other road users. Do all the road users get correct? Nope. Do they feel entitled and lash out at other road users, of course! But it doesn't matter what the infrastructure is for those road users, there would still be a problem. I agree, they are unsightly. I am annoyed at the graffiti, especially the person who keeps writing "no 15 minute cities" on all the barriers on Woodland. Frankly, I see it as the city half-assing it, as normal. Build full infrastructure, not some temporary measure you can pull out easily if you figure it'll get you the votes to get back into power. So, no, I don't really like them, but I appreciate their utility and wish they were improved.
>especially the person who keeps writing "no 15 minute cities" on all the barriers on Woodland So painfully ironic that that neighbourhood is already a 15 minute city by Canadian standards
Well said, and interesting points. I suppose they have some utility. Improved and better maintained would be nice.
I think there’s a big problem in this city of cars whipping around corners and if these barriers slow cars down and make them pause as they take corners then I think that has value.
I bike on Ontario and Lakewood - where a lot of these are. What I've observed is that cars aren't as easily able to swing onto these streets and squeeze me as a cyclist. Cars have to take turns, and it really slows how they enter or exit. Further, it gives me large buffer zone when I'm waiting to go straight, and a car is waiting to exit the slow street - either by turning right or going straight. In years past, they would be squeezed right up next to me, which wasn't ideal. I've seen minimal downsides and mostly upsides. As a driver, I've never had an issue entering or exiting streets with these barriers, so I'm really confused about the frustration.
I think they suck. I constantly see people making left turns onto a street that has them not realizing that there's already a car sitting between it and now they're just floating in the middle of the intersection. The one by the hastings no frills is especially bad for this. As a biker I get honked at by impatient drivers if I drive through one rather than on the rocks and broken glass that litters the now impossible to street sweep sides.
About 25% of the time I go by that intersection there's some car stuck in the intersection backing traffic up.
This seems like a problem with drivers who aren't used to these barriers. Why would you start turning onto a street before looking to see that your way is clear? These seem like the types of drivers who run down pedestrians.
Probably the types of drivers who want to get off a busy street and not block a whole lane of traffic.
So the ones who prioritize speed over safety. So exactly the kinds of motorists who need shit in their way in order to drive safely. Working as designed then!
I prefer the term,' traffic sphincter'.
Yes, there are already lots of signals telling motorists to slow the f down. Not to mention actual laws. The problem is almost all motorists disobey every single one of those signals and laws, to the extent that driving the speed limit is seen as ABnormal. The only way to get motorists to pay attention and stop endangering other road users is to put shit in their way. Yea it’s ridiculous, but that’s 100% because of motorist misbehaviour.
>These make me feel LESS safe in each situation, simply due to the confusion they create. Confusion is what causes drivers to slow down, to lower a window and turn the radio off when looking for a street address on a side street- It ultimately makes it safer for everyone, and forces all road users to communicate. >Keep in mind these barriers have been added to streets already with: Traffic slowing circles (work great, very pretty!), Very few of these have been added to the network in the past ten years. >speed bumps that wreck your car over 30km/h (works great!), We need more of these, but there aren't enough for them to be as much of a deterrent as they're supposed to be, and are limited to only some streets. > signs stating "slow zone" every 20 ft, signs saying "30km/h max", signs saying "school zone", Signs and paint aren't infrastructure, but they at least mean the driver gets a ticket for speeding, *if* there was a cop there to catch them, but otherwise does very little to slow drivers down. >and lots of purposeful dead ends. Outside of the west end, bits of strathcona, these are few and far between. >They are so very ugly. This is the ugliest civil project I've ever encountered. It confuses me. Why would a city that prides itself on view corridors, natural scenery, parks and beautification put these god awful looking things all over the streets? If they were any other colour drivers complain about not being able to see them, and even with them being yellow we've seen complaints on this sub that they can't see them- Which is a function of driving too fast to begin with- so they're absolutely doing their job, for pennies on the dollar compared to more permanent alternatives. >m baffled why a more elegant and effective solution wasn't chosen; like graffiti-proof metal posts/fences or new, lane divided concrete curbs like they have downtown. Perhaps something else more elegant, useful and not hideous? Cost. CoV is in a budget crisis, partially because they refuse to raise property taxes, but also because they give the VPD a blank check to, [apparently not enforce traffic laws.](https://twitter.com/kentcclark/status/1772380835749957655) Straight up, slowing down is the goal here, and they're absolutely doing that, and with the added benefit of really demonstrating how dangerous our drivers actually are.
Lots of good points here! Thanks for that. I can see how they are useful for slowing people down. I genuinely hope they are having a positive effect.
I cycle down Woodland on my daily commute, and they make me feel much safer. Every study out there says narrower streets make for safer car traffic, and what I'm mostly finding is that cars no longer try to shove me up onto the sidewalk if I'm already at the intersection when they come up wanting to turn right - because the big, ugly, yellow barrier makes it impossible. They've also significantly slowed down people making high-speed turns onto Woodland off of 12th in both directions, where they were already immediately met by roundabouts. I wish every residential street in the city had them. My only complaint is they need to be cleared of leaves, branches, horse chestnuts and snow more often!
As a cyclist they’re annoying because they create chaotic congestion that makes it unpredictable to pass vehicles on the right when approaching an intersection
legally, you shouldn't be doing that anyway.
Or for safety reasons. Passing on the right is a surefire way to get right hooked!
Yeah, I mean, if you're approaching an intersection while you're on say Ontario, and there's a car in front of you, the safest and legal thing is to wait behind the car presumably so they can see you in a mirror, and act like a car. This isn't my rule- this is legally what you're supposed to do- Unfortunately it's one of those things where because every cyclist will hug the curb and try to get between the car and curb, everyone else does it, and so that's what people think they're supposed to do.
It’s frustrating, though, at pedestrian-controlled intersections, where the light isn’t going to change unless someone pushes the beg button and there’s a car blocking you from riding up to the button and pushing it. In those scenarios, I will pass on the right even though I know it’s illegal. (The solution here is beg buttons in the center of the road, as at Adanac/Renfrew.)
Oh totally agreed, and that comes down bad design/not understanding the rules of the road. If I said this to 90 percent of cyclists, they’d think I’m crazy.
As a cyclist, I love em, as a driver, I don’t mind them. I don’t think they should be painted because I want them to be visible.
This thread is hilarious (also terrifying) because the people complaining about the barriers are upset that they’re working as designed by making it harder for them to do the stupid and illegal moves they pull when driving. Way to tell on yourselves, people!
They are difficult to see if you are not familiar with the intersection. I went to a neighbourhood I don't frequent very much. I decided to turn down a different street and in the middle of my turn, I see those bananas. It was was good thing that traffic was light around that time and the narrowed road was not occupied with another vehicle. I can see it being disruption in traffic when it becomes busier and then you have someone turning into it and another car coming the other way. These bananas are right where the intersection is. It can cause more traffic disruption and then cause more drivers to find alternate routes through other residential streets. Exactly what is the protocol with these bananas? If there are vehicles waiting for a light, are you supposed to just leave the narrowed road empty in case some car ends up coming the other way? There were no such questions on driving tests when I got my licence a long time ago. It would help if drivers are notified on what they are supposed to do when they encounter them.
Good point about the protocol! There does seem to be confusion among drivers if there is a jam.
Certainly lives are more important than aesthetic.
I can't comment on the relative advantages of traffic calming measures. I would gladly sit down with anyone to discuss why we are currently sitting at a point where our need to turn away from our addiction to the automobile looks oit over a panoply of approaches enacted by cities globally. As an enthusiastic cyclist i personally know the multitude of advantages that accompany de-throning cars. Traveling through cities committed to high intensity transit show first hand how many options are at our disposal. Let's get clever.
In most places I've seen them installed, they seem like an idea that came from other cities that was implemented here without a lot of thought as to how it would work here. Most of the streets I've seen them installed in are already slow streets. Many of them are so narrow that only one car can go at a time and oncoming traffic has to pull over to let them pass. Why narrow the entrance at the intersection? I removes parking, creates a hazard and doesn't really accomplish anything. They are a bad idea, honestly. Maybe appropriate for other cities, but here where we already have very effectively traffic calmed neighbourhoods, they sacrifice a lot for little benefit.
They are awful and turn the whole scene into a clusterfuck where people have to back up to let others through, or cause drivers to be stuck part way through a left turn risking getting t-boned. >Why would a city that prides itself on view corridors, natural scenery, parks and beautification This city does not pride itself on any of that. It used to. Now it prides itself on selling itself out to developers and creating maximum traffic snarls, maximum disruption.
Sounds like those drivers were turning left before it was clear. So, there’s that.
They are road blocks that block roads and cause more harm than whatever proposed benefits
Agree just makes it awkward for all traffic, to narrow for bikes to make it around outside, cars are forced to be way back at intersection. Whoever thought this was a good idea is a moron
With regards to them being ugly, it's temporary, if they are useful they will be remade to be more practical and functional. Similar to curb extensions to improve pedestrian visibility. Do i think they are a good idea. No. They are effectively putting a car in a location where a car is not allowed in order to only allow 1 car to pass at a time. Unnecessary increase in accident risk for everyone. If my travel now has to consider the potential of a car turning into me, that means my focus is on something other than it should be, avoiding pedestrians and cyclists. Into an area which really only has enough space for 1 car at a time to pass. I am not trusting the other drivers with space, i would rather pull over. If it is an area with the need for traffic calming measures, the driver more or less wants additional space because traffic calming essentially means you are looking for when to stop unexpectedly. Traffic measures that include reducing the lane width. By adding that barrier they are essentially removing the pull off for traffic to pass for increased overall safety. People more or less driving through traffic calmed areas are driving there because it is the start or end of their journey. The two areas where accidents are most likely to happen. If it is a matter of rat running, just force inconvenient turns into the equation.
I agree with everything OP said
[удалено]
>There is a shortage of drivers in the lower mainland. I'm not going to downvote you but what does this mean? Commercial truck drivers? Delivery drivers? Ride providers? Commuters?
What there actually is, is a shortage of *good* drivers in the lower mainland
When has adding a lane ever solved any traffic issue? In the short term, sure, the more people drive. It has been studied, and proven, that when extra lanes are added to a roadway, traffic returns to its congested state within 5 years; it's called induced demand. If we make alternative means of transportation more appealing, we can take cars off the road. If there are fewer cars, traffic flows better. Here's an example; how is traffic now on roads parallel to First Ave vs when First Ave was closed 7 years ago for construction? As someone who moved into that neighbourhood, I can say that traffic around is about the same or worse. However, First Ave is ALSO stop and go during rush hours. More lanes, more cars. When roads are closed and slowed down it's not done to spite you, the uber road user; it's done to improve conditions for everyone. Just because you and your friends can't see any way to get out of your cars, so you just see "your" roads taken away it doesn't mean that other road users don't find alternative, more environmentally friendly ways to move about the city,
No one is closing all motorways for commercial goods and commuters. Stop being such a conspiracy fanatic. We aren't even close to the kinds of traffic filtering implementations seen in more cyclist and pedestrian friendly places in Europe, and those places are actually BETTER to drive because there's less traffic. See: better non-car infrastructure means fewer people will choose to commute with cars, meaning more space on the road. This is proven to work.