Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty
Well sure, but the question is does lowering speed reduce risk(and even then that Boston study showed it barely affects speed, let alone harm reduction). Then the question becomes 'is it significant enough to overcome the negatives?'.
I'll try and watch the meeting. Does he actually reference studies? Because again, theory is great but a pretty low level of proving something.
What about pedestrian safety? Traffic calming measures alone?
You and council would convince a lot more people if due dillegence was actually done. It really doesn't seem that way.
|
I wasn't able to catch all his presentation, or all the Q & A, so I couldn't say for certain what particular studies he might cite, but he is heavy on evidence based assertions. He does talk about the cost effectiveness of traffic calming alone versus speed limits and the relative impact of each alone or in combination.
I mean, the issue has been talked about since the Pedestrian Strategy as well as in the Traffic Safety Plan for years, but the average person doesn't pay that close attention. There is also another major step in consultation and Administration work before anything can be implemented, so that's another layer of due diligence. A notice of motion is typically to initiate the start of a process, is not a final Council decision.
Personally, I think the best solution overall is to invest much more money in traffic calming, including road narrowing so it's more self enforcing, rather than relying solely on limits and police enforcement. But, it seems hard to motivate major investment in that kind of thing.