Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Ah. No, is it not something that would generate work for what we do.
Disproven? Disputed, maybe.
I’d also clarify that I support a 40 limit, mich more than a 30 limit.
The reason that posted limit matters with respect to design is that it is unusual (perhaps off-side with the Traffic Safety Act) to design street standards that are for below posted speeds. What the charter allows is the City, not the Province to set a lower default limit (meaning no signage), which enables different street standards to (at minimum more easily than they otherwise would be) to be implemented. At least that’s what I gathered from the discussion.
The presentation, once it’s posted would be a nice place to start - on Calgary specific data. Once again, the proposal does not ONLY look at speed limit. The Notice of Motion has an unusual level of detail. This is also not into implementation - Administration was asked to make their best recommendations, including answering these types of questions (that Councillors also asked). Also, more generally, read up on New York, or Sweden’s Vision Zero work. Lots of interesting stuff there. Other good reads on the topic are Jeff Speck or Janette Sadik Khan.
|
Thanks for more information.
Apparently Sweden has gone from 541
overall traffic fatalities in 1997 to 253 in 2017 despite traffic volume increases.
Except they've done it primarily by implementing infrastructure such as roundabouts and putting median cable barriers on rural roads (ie 'dividing' the highways), as well as more enforcement of posted speed limits using speed cameras.
So again, what is actually going to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths?
And as mentioned prior,
what about >50% of deaths being rural? What about the 85% of overall fatalities not involving pedestrians?
I don't quite understand why the focus is on posted speed limits rather than the other seemingly much more important changes to infrastructure.