Street/Sidewalk Bulbouts

Anecdotal: I live near several one-way city street intersections with these and I think the primary benefit is for pedestrians. It is a shorter walk across the roadway and I don't start my street crossing partially hidden from drivers since I'm not behind cars parked along the curb. I don't think it has any really traffic control effect, other than helping pedestrians.

It is also a very bike friendly community, but these force bikes to merge into the traffic stream, which can be dangerous. Finally, I guess they take away some parking spots, but if that's a pro or con is dependent on personal opinion. I favor walkability in my city.

The Pedestrian and Bike Info Center indicates that no studies have confirmed that curb extensions reduce traffic speeds.

I suspect that truck and bus drivers are not big fans of bulbouts...

If they didn't have a demonstrable benefit, they would not exist.

I don't know that they "calm traffic," but they do enhance pedestrian visibility, shorten the distance a street crosser is exposed to traffic when crossing streets, fill space that might not adequately accommodate a parking space, and provide a space that does not block pedestrian passage that could be used for amenities such as vegetation, sidewalk events or public art, as is done in my city.

''Bulbouts'' are clearly at odds with bike lanes and subsequent bike traffic, but they could allow pedestrians to spend less time crossing crosswalks, at the same walking pace as their normal pace at a non-bulbed-out intersection, which would be one or two lanes-worth longer, without bulb-outs...

Also, for a vehicle to turn right at such an intersection could cause a right-turner to have to turn a little more sharply, in order to get around the extended sidewalk area of the bulb-out, which may not be all that calming to the right-turning driver...

I was surprised at how many variations on curb extension variations exist. Based on comments thus far and the little bit I've read, curb extensions are good for pedestrians but not necessarily for cyclists. Wouldn't urban areas want to encourage both forms of locomotion over automobiles? What about buses?

Good Link!

Another shortcoming of bulb-out-types of (traffic enhancements) is that, when bus-stop ''pinch-points'' are located just across intersections, the risk of backing up traffic into the immediately rearward intersection is greatly increased...

Having a bus-stop at the far end of a street, ending with an intersection, creates reduced visibility of pedestrians, as well as oncoming vehicles, which suggests that bus-stops would be the least intrusive when located in the middle of long blocks, not at either the beginning, or at the end of, long blocks...

The ones I've seen were in town center areas and seemed to add a friendly atmosphere, they dropped the speed limits to 10 mph and had traffic lights at each intersection with brightly painted yellow crosswalks, additionally the road was red bricked and was all very charming...The area had parking in the middle between lanes and on both sides in front of the shoppes and restaurants....It felt very safe walking and crossing the road...

Maybe too safe?

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "bulbout"? It sounds to me like the result of someone shooting at street lights!

My dictionary returned "no results".

HUSH's link (post 1) gives a pic and a good description. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Thanks. I can understand the term for this purpose, but hadn't seen it before, and didn't see it in the linked article, either..

I also wondered what a "bulbout" was, since we don't have them--NE Ohio. Until I saw the description, I thought it might be what people from NJ described as a "jug handle," but the discussion didn't fit; we don't have those either.

I had only heard the term bulb out/bulbout once when a dozen years ago I got stopped by a cop because my trucks license plate light was off. The cop said that I had a bulb out, he then proceeded to inform me that it was an infraction to have light bulb out. I then pulled a new bulb out of my glove box and replaced the bulb that was out and the officer sent me on my way.

As for a bulbout being a curb extension, I wasn't aware that it was called that. As for anything positive about a curb extension, I can't see that.

First, you had a perfectly good street and someone decided to muck it up. Look at the examples:

Curb extension - where there once was a street that was good and wide to easily make a right hand turn, has now been turned into a narrow alley way that rather than " calming " drivers, has only increased their level of anxiety.

Pinch point - here is another lame idea. With the general need for more parking in the inner city, some traffic engineer, who probably doesn't even live around there, decided that putting in concrete was a better solution than the 6 - 8 vehicle curb side parking that was there before.

Drain extension - the stupidity here is plainly obvious : the average person is walking down a street and steps off a curb to cross the street, people do this all the time subconsciously, what they don't expect is a 1 - 2 foot drop off and doing a face plant into the roadway or coming the other way having to step up 2 feet and slipping and skinning their shin.

Madison, WI just has to try anything new so we have all varieties of "traffic calming" obstacles in our roadways. Whatever roadway effects they may have traffic wise, they are a nightmare in the snow. Our plow drivers are awesome, but there are some "ideas" even they can't compensate for.

In London, UK, they had the bright idea of 'floating bus stops'. These have the bus stop in the roadway as usual but have a cycle lane between the road & pavement so that bus passengers have to cross the cycle lane to get on or off the bus. This has resulted in a number of accidents between pedestrians & cyclists and a campaign to have these stops removed.

I live near Portland, Oregon. The stated policy in the metropolitan service district traffic plan is to actively make automobile usage more difficult to get people out of cars and get them walking, bike riding and using public transportation. The practices include use of bulbouts, removal of traffic lanes, blocking through traffic on some streets and reduction of speed on city streets to 25 mph, even on major arterioles.

The city also implemented "Vision Zero", which is intended to result in zero fatalities or injuries from traffic accidents among drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians in the city. So far each year the number of fatalities has gone up. Rule changes have included requiring traffic to stop anytime a pedestrian is at a designated cross walk and the speed limit changes. We are now over 60 people per year killed by automobiles in the Portland city limits. 75% are due to pedestrians stepping off the curb, NOT in a designated crosswalk(Jaywalking), and into oncoming traffic. Six fatalities were due to pedestrians stepping in front of light rail trains, usually wearing hoodies with ear buds plugged in. Four were killed by city buses. This doesn't count injuries (although most train interactions tend to be fatal). Recently a person wandered onto I5, the major north/south freeway in Portland, at 4 am, was hit by several cars and was killed. The police closed the freeway in both directions for over five hours while an "investigation" was conducted with the resulting rush hour disruption. We never heard why the person felt it was necessary to go walking in traffic.

When I was a kid, we learned to stay out of traffic, watch where we were going and use the crosswalk. They don't teach that any more and they actively promote the notion that you, the pedestrian, always have the right of way, despite those loud, crunchy noises that used to be your legs.

Bottom line is that the local political direction is to eliminate automobile use and entitle pedestrians and bicyclists. The public transportation system is largely ineffective in actually getting a mass of people where they need to go in a timely manner. The money is going to remove roads and build light rail. As a result, the Portland metropolitan area is one of the worst traffic cities in the US by intention.

Welp, that's decided, Not moving to Portlandia!

Wonderful country, insane politics.

Thanks, all, for your comments!

This intersection clutter appeared a few weeks ago, as an "experiment" by the Active Transportation Coalition in our community, to try to determine if it would be effective in "calming" traffic, decrease the time that pedestians spend in crosswalks, and provide space for socializing, i.e., benches. Now, there is not enough room for making right turns without driving into the oncoming lane. These streets are all about 33' wide, and are 2-way.

Your lowest pic looks like an amazingly poor implementation of the idea.

I am going to have to assume this is a failure?

Obviously the bench for "socializing" is replaced by a warning sign indicating a problem still exists with the intersection that a bulbout is not helping.

No. If you look closely at the backgrounds, they are different intersections.

What bugs me is the sign: "Opposing traffic does not stop" I'm quite familiar with signs saying: "Crossing traffic does not stop", when a minor road crosses a more frequently travelled road. But I can't think of any safety reason for this sign. I presume that the red flags indicate that this Stop sign has been installed recently. Also, why is the "Opposing..." sign mounted on a temporary A-frame instead of below the Stop sign?

I can't be sure that it is a Stop sign, but there is a similar sign with flags on the diagonally opposite corner. I suspect that the opposite sign is indeed a Stop sign, which means that whoever ordered the "Opposing..." sign does not understand the difference between "Crossing" and "Opposing".

Same intersection; photos taken from different angles. I, too, had a problem with the "opposing" traffic sign... it should have read, "Crossing Traffic Does Not Stop," but, hey, ya gotta use what ya have, right? There is a stop sign for the opposing traffic, too. The two stop signs were switched from one street to the other when the wood pallet/bumpouts were installed. There had been no crashes at this intersection in over 20 years. The local coalition that conceived and implimented this project claims it is trying to be "pro-active, not re-active," apparently trying to solve problems that don't exist.

They could be the same intersection, looking in opposite directions, but I don't believe the same corner. The fire hydrant could possibly be hidden behind the A-frame sign in the snowy picture, but I don't think so, and that fence looks way too old to have replaced the row of bushes shown a month earlier.

Further, the street-name sign with the bent post is definitely visible in the snowy picture, but not in the October one.

...and I don't think these images have been "Photoshopped".

Hmmm....

OK now we're happy....no more evil cars...

I think of them more as "Traffic Clogging" measures than "Traffic Calming".

I live in Cardiff, Wales UK and have noticed they are removing the road narrowing's but retaining the raised area of the road, to slow the traffic down. To me, it seems "almost" the best of both worlds.

Best regards,

John

Just came across this post..

well, if it’s for calm traffic and pedestrians, speed bumps would slow traffic down.. may upset the drivers.