The reconstruction of Konstantego Ildefonsa Gałczyński Street began at the beginning of May. The work was scheduled to be completed by August 12, but continued until approximately August 24. This means that for more than three months, estate residents and drivers had to deal with disruptions.
After the work was completed, residents were struck by the number of raised pedestrian crossings. Eight were built along a relatively short section of the street. Some are located close to one another.
“A newly renovated road and eight speed humps along such a short stretch. Crossings so close together, like in a circus. It’s absurd,” one reader wrote to our editorial office.
A resident of the estate also contacted us about the matter. In her opinion, the solutions used may cause problems not only for passenger-car drivers, but also for public-transport buses.
“As many as eight speed humps have been installed along the entire length of the street. Some are very close together. The city office claims that they are raised pedestrian crossings,” the reader wrote.
Buses operated by the Municipal Transport Authority do indeed run along Gałczyński Street. The current timetable includes, among others, the Gałczyński Pętla, Gałczyński ZEC and Gałczyński Biedronka stops.
What do the regulations say?
Regulations distinguish several types of speed humps: strip, plate and island humps. Pedestrian crossings may be marked on plate humps of an appropriate length. Such a solution is then called a raised pedestrian crossing.
At the same time, detailed technical conditions concerning traffic-safety devices indicate that the use of speed humps on streets served by passenger bus transport is prohibited. The exception is island humps, divided in such a way that buses can pass over them without driving their wheels onto them.
The regulations also specify the distances between humps installed in a series. Successive elements should be at least 20 and no more than 150 metres apart. The distance should be adapted, among other things, to local conditions and traffic volume.
The term “raised pedestrian crossing” alone therefore does not determine whether the solution used complies with the documentation and regulations. It is necessary to examine the traffic-organization design, the technical parameters of the raised sections and the legal basis on which they were designed along a bus route.
Did the number of crossings affect the grant?
The reader also refers to unofficial information according to which the large number of raised crossings may have been connected with the amount of funding. For now, however, there are no documents confirming this claim.
Information previously provided by the city shows only that funding from the Government Roads Development Fund covered 65 percent of the total reconstruction cost. It does not indicate that the local government received a separate amount for each crossing built.
It therefore needs to be explained why as many as eight raised crossings were designed on Gałczyński Street, what distances were maintained between them, and whether the traffic organization takes into account the regular operation of MZK buses. It is also important to establish whether the design was agreed with the carrier and what impact repeated journeys over the raised sections may have on passenger comfort and bus operation. We will ask the city about this later this week.