B.C. speed limit bump to 120 km/h - does faster = safer?

[polak]

Yeah, just cause you can provide links that Stony is designed for 110 based on Alberta standards does not mean the road would be limited to 110 in normal jurisdictions where people know how to drive and feel comfortable behind the wheel.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Congrats on not being caught speeding. Please stop tailgating me - I'm already doing 110.

I mostly agree with you, and if the limit is 100, I'm likely going to be at 110 with you.

However, it's not your job to worry about people who want to go faster. Leave them for the police.

On a single lane highway, let them wait for a chance to pass.

But on a multi lane highway, if you're in the left lane the entire time, you're doing it wrong.

[polak]

On a single lane highway you can be a nice person and move to the shoulder a bit to let them pass you quicker. That's what I do when I have a ridge racer on my back. Takes no effort from me and helps them out. An unheard of concept with Alberta drivers.

Just make sure you're not spraying them with rocks.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by polak

in normal jurisdictions where people know how to drive and feel comfortable behind the wheel.

How is that relevant at all? We're all familiar with how wonderful Alberta drivers are. But please, go to your heaven of driving saints and join them in glorious driving perfection.

Originally Posted by Stealth22

However, it's not your job to worry about people who want to go faster. Leave them for the police.

On a single lane highway, let them wait for a chance to pass.

But on a multi lane highway, if you're in the left lane the entire time, you're doing it wrong.

I'm talking about Highway 3, where the multi-lane sections are pretty rare. I'm not policing anyone, I'm only pointing out those who can't pass (on a double solid line!) shouldn't be tailgating cars going plenty fast already.

[4X4]

The thing about Stoney and Deerfoot is that there are portions of it where they could easily bump up the limit. Most of the southern stretches of both are 4 lanes wide, and straight and mostly flat. Why can't those stretches go up to 110, and then bump down again when it narrows or turns?

[indes]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I don't get where people keep saying Stoney was designed for 130 km/h. It's not, and there's plenty of online links to the contract documents that show otherwise. It's designed for 110 km/h, posted 100 km/h. Always has been, always will be. Anything you see or hear saying otherwise is incorrect.

The reason it feels so easy to speed? The government decided to make Stoney Trail "barrier-free", which means putting all hazards outside the designed "clear zone" area for 110 km/h. Generally speaking, this is 9 to 12 meters depending on the curvature of the road. They also added additional requirements for shoulder widths, horizontal and vertical curve design and sight distance designs that well exceeded the 110 km/h design criteria on normal projects.

So while this means the road is more forgiving to people who make mistakes on Stoney Trail, it also makes the road feel incredibly open and smooth, so we all feel it's too slow to "just" 110 in a 100.

Highway 1 and Highway 2 are designed for 130 km/h outside cities, and those are only the roads in Alberta designed to that speed.


Highway 3 will always be 100 km/h unless they widen to a divided 4-lane highway. You will never see a 2-lane undivided road signed for over 100 km/h for many obvious reasons.

Congrats on not being caught speeding. Please stop tailgating me - I'm already doing 110.

Sure I go faster when I can but I absolutely 100% never tailgate, tailgaters make my blood boil. I wait for my spots and pass when I can. Tailgating is a suckers bet to pass people, much better to leave around 3-4 car lengths so I can get to passing speed and pass as quickly as possible after oncoming traffic passes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I don't get where people keep saying Stoney was designed for 130 km/h. It's not, and there's plenty of online links to the contract documents that show otherwise. It's designed for 110 km/h, posted 100 km/h. Always has been, always will be. Anything you see or hear saying otherwise is incorrect.

The reason it feels so easy to speed? The government decided to make Stoney Trail "barrier-free", which means putting all hazards outside the designed "clear zone" area for 110 km/h. Generally speaking, this is 9 to 12 meters depending on the curvature of the road. They also added additional requirements for shoulder widths, horizontal and vertical curve design and sight distance designs that well exceeded the 110 km/h design criteria on normal projects.

So while this means the road is more forgiving to people who make mistakes on Stoney Trail, it also makes the road feel incredibly open and smooth, so we all feel it's too slow to "just" 110 in a 100.

Highway 1 and Highway 2 are designed for 130 km/h outside cities, and those are only the roads in Alberta designed to that speed.


Highway 3 will always be 100 km/h unless they widen to a divided 4-lane highway. You will never see a 2-lane undivided road signed for over 100 km/h for many obvious reasons.

Congrats on not being caught speeding. Please stop tailgating me - I'm already doing 110.

In my opinion this is terrible human centric design. It encourages drivers to drive faster than the design speed because of perceived safety. Instead using barriers will reduce speeds naturally to the design speed. Also since Stoney has only a few curves and is relatively flat the design speed of the as built state of most of the road is greater than the 110 set out in the contract documents

[Acey]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The thing about Stoney and Deerfoot is that there are portions of it where they could easily bump up the limit. Most of the southern stretches of both are 4 lanes wide, and straight and mostly flat. Why can't those stretches go up to 110, and then bump down again when it narrows or turns?

Stoney yes, Deerfoot... no.

If the speed-reduced sections of Highway 16 west of Edmonton are any indication, people just blow through those short zones at the higher limit anyway; it's just better for the sake of simplicity to sign the whole thing at the lower limit. Grandfathering makes Stoney and Henday's limits look artificially low. Between Ivor Strong and Beddington, Deerfoot has no business being 100 according to the new standards (sightlines, Calf Robe and Memorial curves, etc.), but it's been grandfathered in so people like polak don't go burn down City Hall after they reduce the limit from 100 to 80. Deerfoot is 110 north of Beddington, so that's mostly fine... the ramps at Airport Trail would have to be fixed if you want to go beyond that. The proximity of the interchanges south of Ivor Strong to each other would be the reason that stretch won't ever be 110. The current southbound weave between McKenzie and Stoney/22X during the PM rush is tough for even competent drivers, but that's the kind of stuff the "crank everything to 140" crowd don't think about. Mazrim explained why Stoney and Henday are what they are and if people don't understand, then there's not much else to say.

The notion that Stoney Trail in its current state should be at 140, the highest speed limit in North America, with ~70,000 vehicles per day and its current weave zones is moronic. People screaming by at what will end up being 150+ with heavier vehicles at ~70 trying to merge uphill westbound at Beddington with others undertaking them trying to exit to Shag... might as well start stacking up the bodies. There is one road with a 85 mph (135) limit in Texas, and that's it - SH 130 between Austin and Seguin. Look at it on Google Maps, then look at Stoney Trail between Crowchild and Harvest Hills Blvd. Spoiler alert: SH 130 is more like an Autobahn and there is nothing even close to resembling a Beddington/Shag weave situation, nor 70,000 vehicles per day since it's a toll road bypass.

I'm a big advocate of higher speed limits, and we should start with QE2 by eliminating the remaining clovers and at-grade intersections, re-doing all ramps so they have acceleration/deceleration lanes of ~1,000 metres like the new diamond at 11A in Red Deer, then incrementally crank that bish up to 130-140.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah, just cause you can provide links that Stony is designed for 110 based on Alberta standards does not mean the road would be limited to 110 in normal jurisdictions where people know how to drive and feel comfortable behind the wheel.

Incorrect. Nobody has urban freeways at the same speed as their rural interstates. Texas has higher limits than anybody, but in Houston the ring roads (i.e. Stoney Trail) are at 105 and 100. I-10 (equivalent to Deerfoot) is at 100. I-20 through DFW is at 110 or lower. Utah's got 130 out in the middle of nowhere, but I-15 through Salt Lake (equivalent to Deerfoot) is at 110. Rinse and repeat. Among equivalent roads in North America, Stoney Trail would be an anomaly if signed above 110, its design speed.

You seem to be under the impression that the Alberta standards are comparatively low. Highway 1, sections of 2, 43, 63, etc. and all upcoming designs for rural twinned highway are a design speed of 130, which puts us in the upper tier of States with rural limits of 80 mph. It is therefore not a fault of the engineers and our standards, but just a matter of actually convincing the gov't to relinquish ticket revenue and sign the roads at their design speed.

In fact, our standards are lower than the others as those Interstates signed at 120+ are controlled access with no intersections while our twinned highways obviously are not. A twinned highway in Texas equivalent in safety to QE2 is signed at 65 mph (105).

[polak]

Originally Posted by GGG

In my opinion this is terrible human centric design. It encourages drivers to drive faster than the design speed because of perceived safety. Instead using barriers will reduce speeds naturally to the design speed. Also since Stoney has only a few curves and is relatively flat the design speed of the as built state of most of the road is greater than the 110 set out in the contract documents

This is a basic tactic of lowering speeds and they're doing it here where it makes sense. Look at the barracks. I totally support this form of slowing people down where its warranted. Its effecticlve and solves the basic cause of speeding, which is "this is way too slow for this road". Ask any speeder on the planet, not one would speed for kicks if they felt unsafe. Every casual speeder is just chugging along at the speed they feel comfortable at.

Its been proven to work in Germany, why cant it work here?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also since Stoney has only a few curves and is relatively flat the design speed of the as built state of most of the road is greater than the 110 set out in the contract documents

The "few curves" are kind of big deal... the radius of the 90 degree bend at Mahogany is likely the minimum allowed for the 110 design speed, and anything higher would require possible acquisition of right-of-way outside the TUC, longer bridges, etc.

There's no deception in Stoney's speed, but it is victim of a decision made for only "rural freeway" facilities to have design speeds of 130, so in a P3 project there's no way a contractor will spend money for curves, grades, and weave/acceleration distances at a standard higher than required for zero benefit since Stoney will never be reclassified as a rural facility.

I say "victim", but... again, it's not anomalous among other roads of Stoney's type in North America.

Originally Posted by polak

Ask any speeder on the planet, not one would speed for kicks if they felt unsafe. Every casual speeder is just chugging along at the speed they feel comfortable at.

Its been proven to work in Germany, why cant it work here?

Alberta operates under studies conducted stating that the 85th percentile speed on our highways is, on average, 6-10 over the posted limit. This may not seem accurate to anyone who has driven QE2 lately including me, but whatever... point is that it should be noted there is some application of the 85th in Alberta hence limits posted at 10 kph under the design speed, however conservative.

[Sluggo]

And then there is some guy on Stoney thinking he is hot #### driving 100 and holding up 10 cars and 2 trucks driving in the left lane permanently. Those new signs should of had a boded sign underneath saying $100 fine.

[RT14]

I have a lot of experience with QE2 between Red Deer and Calgary going back 20 years, and given my circumstances think I can add some different viewpoints on this subject than have been mentioned this far. I have never driven it in my personal vehicles with cruise set at less than 125km/hr and when younger and dumber used to set it at at 130 or not set it at all and get in speed convoys doing as fast as the leader would brave. Since driving a company vehicle every weekday there and back for the last year I have for the first time in my life been driving it set at 120 as I get paid for the travel and will be damned if I'm going to pay a speeding ticket for work, even though since stepping down to 125 in my own vehicle I've never been pulled over and am quite confident the sheriffs would very rarely even waste their time on someone doing that speed.

So I have a couple points based on the different speeds I've cruised at over the years:

1) Those saying the limit should be 120, as much as I agree with you, I've come to the opinion that until it is expanded to 3 lanes minimum for its entirety, that is just not a feasible option. I'm a huge proponent of staying right unless passing and with 2 lanes and the amount of traffic using that highway, even only doing 10 over right now, the number of times you have to change lanes to pass is ridiculous, which imo is one of the most danger inducing aspects to a drive. What I've discovered is that at 120 I'm still having to pass a lot of vehicles (which surprised me) and because I'm only doing 10 over, am more susceptible to faster drivers coming up behind me during a pass which forces me to pull back into the right when there's a relatively small gap between the vehicle I'm passing and the next one I'm going to have to pass so I'm not holding people up too long. This usually results in me having to slow down until the left lane is clear again and just adds to the number of lane changes. That said, when I've concluded that me speeding up a bit to get passed a number of slower vehicles will likely result in less time lost for me than time gained for someone wanting to pass me, I might choose that option. With 2 lanes and a higher limit, I believe there would be an even greater variance in vehicle speeds which equals more lane changes and at higher speeds, resulting in more accidents.

With 3 lanes and people following common courtesy habits, a limit of 120 or even 130 makes a lot more sense as there would be far less weaving in and out of lanes.

Driven appropriately, with 3 lanes at 120, far right would be people doing 120. Middle would be mostly people doing 125 or more and left lane should be almost always open for speeders to make their passes without ever dealing with those driving at the limit.

2) Regarding Stoney, given the distance and amount of time any driver needs to be on inner city freeways during free flowing traffic, what's the point of upping it 10 km/hr? It's not as if this a 150km stretch that an additional 10 km/hr is going to result in saving 15 min of time. The vast majority of users might save 2-5 min and that just doesn't seem to justify any increased risk and number of accidents.

Maybe I'm wrong on both opinions, and I do believe there are other factors at play that go into decisions on speed limit changes, but those are just a couple that have changed my opinion on those roads.

[Acey]

Good point about the lack of time savings on Stoney. It's really not worth the additional risk. The other consideration is noise attenuation... if you increase the speed limit you have to build higher and thicker berms and noise walls to keep noise at the same level.

Valid concerns about raising the limit on QE2 to 120, but the majority of western States and now British Columbia have gone to that limit on rural divided highways mostly without issue, and almost all are only two lanes each way. In my eyes, the inadequate interchanges and at-grade intersections are a much bigger barrier to an increased limit than a third lane, but aside from those fixes I don't think we'd have any major issues. It'd probably be a good idea to run a campaign about increased following distance, stopping times, and start ticketing blitzes for following too closely and unsafe lane changes.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

To clarify on GGG's post, the Ball Bank testing for curves were originally done with testing equipment using a 1940s model sedan (not a cube van as far I could find when I first read up on this). This Ball Bank test told you speed what to sign the corner at based on the centrifugal force exerted in the corner on the device.

Most drivers today generally can exceed the warning speed by 15-20 km/h with no significant feeling of discomfort, thanks to advances in car and tire technology. BC recently started recommended electronic ball bank tests or even road scanning devices to measure the curves, and also increased the centrifugal force required to mark a warning speed as well.

It's very noticeable going between Alberta and BC now, and Alberta should probably do the same thing.

Regulatory speed limits are a bit more difficult to describe. If you follow the guidelines to the letter when setting your speed, you can still have plenty of variations that make it feel faster to drivers. Sometimes speeds are definitely lowered because of a perceived safety risk, or just politics, and it doesn't seem apparent though.

Read your other posts and was looking for an answer of my own, but couldn't find one and thought you could comment.

I was looking for a design difference between German autobahns and Canadian/US/Australian highways and was unable to find anything concrete. A couple articles mentioned thicker pavement and better maintenance by it wasn't scientific.

Driving in Germany myself I always thought the roads would be "special" but they really weren't. The visible difference was in driver behaviour. I always figured if they did away with speed limits in sections back home behaviour would change too once the police started enforcing certain rules and people realised how serious it is to drive 200kmh.

Would love to hear any technical differences in speck.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Gotta be careful with sightlines too though. Yeah you might personally feel comfortable along the curves, but speed also affects how far you can see ahead. Vertical hills and valleys can hide intersections or anything that jumps out in front of you suddenly, or even just other curves - speed will impact your reaction times. Don't forget that roads operate in 3D.