I believe I see what Markster is referring to (well, not in terms of pedestrians, but in terms of turn radius)
The yellow is the traffic flow. Note how from Victoria on to Charles, the traffic turning right "hugs" the shape of the curb, because of the sort of cutout type of shape they've created. That is to say, if the curb continued to follow it's radius (dotted red), it would end up at the edge of the vehicle ROW, effectively being a normal curb at any other intersection.
On the other hand, turning from Victoria into the School of Pharmacy parking lot, the curb radius tangents at the LRT ROW; the right-turning traffic no longer hugs the curb, and the turning raidus is sort of assumed by the driver (though not hard to assume). The red line shows what would have been a better (more consistent) curb alignment. Note how in blue, the cutout curbs would also complete the curve of Victoria St. Looks nicer
I think the complaint is more aesthetics than it is functionality. There's no real consistency as to why some curbs are "cutout" and others aren't.
The yellow is the traffic flow. Note how from Victoria on to Charles, the traffic turning right "hugs" the shape of the curb, because of the sort of cutout type of shape they've created. That is to say, if the curb continued to follow it's radius (dotted red), it would end up at the edge of the vehicle ROW, effectively being a normal curb at any other intersection.
On the other hand, turning from Victoria into the School of Pharmacy parking lot, the curb radius tangents at the LRT ROW; the right-turning traffic no longer hugs the curb, and the turning raidus is sort of assumed by the driver (though not hard to assume). The red line shows what would have been a better (more consistent) curb alignment. Note how in blue, the cutout curbs would also complete the curve of Victoria St. Looks nicer
I think the complaint is more aesthetics than it is functionality. There's no real consistency as to why some curbs are "cutout" and others aren't.