Calgary Speed limits to be standard 30km/hr?

[Wormius]

14th is an oddity there because it borders on the elementary school and the community centre, yet it isn’t designated as a playground or school zone. Meanwhile along Dalhousie Dr near Shaganappi - no playground or school in sight, it’s a 30 zone.

[Weitz]

Why don’t we actuallly talk about why this is happening? Farrell is on another of her bs things. Just like fluoride. It only takes 10 seconds of actually talking with the idiot to realize she gets obsessed with dumb things that the stats don’t actually back up become her pet projects. As someone how lives on the same block and has chatted with this lady. I’m just shocked people vote for her.

The stats show this is stupid. 8% of pedistrisn collisions happen on streets they want to lower the limit on. And 2.9% of all collisions are fatal. Talk about wasting money on a problem that doesn’t exist.

[soulchoice]

I swear the councillors here in Calgary have the mindset that is more suited for a small town than a major metro city. Leave the limts as is. Its bad enough we have more playground zones than most cities, in addition to extending the hours to a specific time rather than sundown.

If someone wants 30 or 40 km speed limits, move to Airdrie. Better yet, move to Milo, I am sure the residents there are ok with those limits.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Why don’t we actuallly talk about why this is happening? Farrell is on another of her bs things. Just like fluoride. It only takes 10 seconds of actually talking with the idiot to realize she gets obsessed with dumb things that the stats don’t actually back up become her pet projects. As someone how lives on the same block and has chatted with this lady. I’m just shocked people vote for her.

The stats show this is stupid. 8% of pedistrisn collisions happen on streets they want to lower the limit on. And 2.9% of all collisions are fatal. Talk about wasting money on a problem that doesn’t exist.

I never understand why ward 7 voters don't get rid of that witch

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I never understand why ward 7 voters don't get rid of that witch

Because contrary to your opinion, she does a good job of representing the views of her constituency.

This is one step towards enabling a better standard for street design (NACTO: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-...-design-guide/). The standards that are part of NACTO can’t really be put into effect without changing things like residential speed limits.

Farrell and others are trying to get the city to a place where we are on a path to vision zero.

You may not agree with this, but there are a lot of people especially in inner city wards, who want to see alternatives to car infrastructure and street design available. Many people in Farrell’s ward bike and walk to work downtown, and want to be able to do so safely. I’m sorry, but that is not a BS project in my mind.

I ask you to take a moment to think about this from the perspective of someone like that.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You may not agree with this, but there are a lot of people especially in inner city wards, who want to see alternatives to car infrastructure and street design available. Many people in Farrell’s ward bike and walk to work downtown, and want to be able to do so safely. I’m sorry, but that is not a BS project in my mind.

I ask you to take a moment to think about this from the perspective of someone like that.

How many driver at fault pedestrian deaths or serious injuries where the vehicle was travelling above 30kph have there been in those wards? And no, cyclists can't be included in this statistic UNLESS they were unmounted and walking at the time of the collision.

If there are streets in these areas that are a problem based on real statistics, then they should be trying to fix these specific roads. But instead, she wants a blanket "solution" that will affect a lot of areas where there is no issue at all.

Also, what is Druh's plan to address all the collisions where the pedestrian is at fault? Would she, or you for that matter, support putting measures such as hard barriers along roads so pedestrians are prevented from crossing except at designated crosswalks? Remember, the goal of vision zero is get rid of fatalities and serious incident regardless of fault.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Because contrary to your opinion, she does a good job of representing the views of her constituency.

You're the first person I've seen defend or say anything positive about her.

Make the changes in her ward then and leave the rest of the city alone

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by btimbit

You're the first person I've seen defend or say anything positive about her.

Make the changes in her ward then and leave the rest of the city alone

That’s not how council works

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by kermitology

That’s not how council works

It was talked about a few years ago (speed limit down just in her ward) but it got voted down rather easily. I even recall a thread on CP where it was almost unanimously laughed at for being unnecessary. Here we are 4 years later with the same dumb plan, blanketed across the entire city for some reason, the same idiot councilor trying to ram it through, the same non-existent problems it's trying to address, and yet somehow it has almost 50-50 support

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Because contrary to your opinion, she does a good job of representing the views of her constituency.

This is one step towards enabling a better standard for street design (NACTO: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-...-design-guide/). The standards that are part of NACTO can’t really be put into effect without changing things like residential speed limits.

Farrell and others are trying to get the city to a place where we are on a path to vision zero.

You may not agree with this, but there are a lot of people especially in inner city wards, who want to see alternatives to car infrastructure and street design available. Many people in Farrell’s ward bike and walk to work downtown, and want to be able to do so safely. I’m sorry, but that is not a BS project in my mind.

I ask you to take a moment to think about this from the perspective of someone like that.

Then lower speed limits where there's high pedestrian and cyclist traffic such as in her ward? For me in the suburbs its asinine.

[GGG]

Is there good public data on the cause of each pedestrian death somewhere. It would be interesting to see if we could find any kids that would have been saved by this law in the last 10 years.

The one pedestrian fatality near me in evergreen was the drunk driver running over a kid in Bridlewood. So that one wouldn’t have had any affect. Someone else mentioned a backing over death. So with only 9 per year it wouldn’t take too long if we had the dataset to see the potential benefit.

[btimbit]

edit; Dur wrong thread

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Then lower speed limits where there's high pedestrian and cyclist traffic such as in her ward? For me in the suburbs its asinine.

This is my opinion. Citywide this isn't something I support. For the inner city roads, and newer communities that have a more urban style residential street, sure, have slower speed limits since 50 may not be safe in those communities. But if a road is massive in width, and cars can comfortably go 50, and be aware of surrounding activities that if they need to stop, they should be able to do so, then I don't get the point in artificially lowering it to a lower level than necessary.

[gottabekd]

Saw a quick news story where they interviewed random people about this, and one lady said something about how going 30 all the time would make it easier so you don't have to pay attention to when school zones are in-effect or when sundown is. Some people have so little knowledge about the current laws. Though I guess to be fair, the times on the playground zone signs are hard to read if you blow past them at 60.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Saw a quick news story where they interviewed random people about this, and one lady said something about how going 30 all the time would make it easier so you don't have to pay attention to when school zones are in-effect or when sundown is. Some people have so little knowledge about the current laws. Though I guess to be fair, the times on the playground zone signs are hard to read if you blow past them at 60.

Yeah....

When 'not having to pay attention to things while driving' is your 'go-to' then there is a bigger problem at heart here....

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Well, now you're all riled up about speed limits, and not talking about the Olympics negatively with other people.

I barely talk Olympics, certainly not overly negatively. You must have me confused with someone else.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Because contrary to your opinion, she does a good job of representing the views of her constituency.

This is one step towards enabling a better standard for street design (NACTO: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-...-design-guide/). The standards that are part of NACTO can’t really be put into effect without changing things like residential speed limits.

Farrell and others are trying to get the city to a place where we are on a path to vision zero.

You may not agree with this, but there are a lot of people especially in inner city wards, who want to see alternatives to car infrastructure and street design available. Many people in Farrell’s ward bike and walk to work downtown, and want to be able to do so safely. I’m sorry, but that is not a BS project in my mind.

I ask you to take a moment to think about this from the perspective of someone like that.

The issue at hand is that you can't paint the suburbs with the inner city brush. What's not a BS project for inner city can still be a BS project for other parts of the city that have different infrastructure.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The issue at hand is that you can't paint the suburbs with the inner city brush. What's not a BS project for inner city can still be a BS project for other parts of the city that have different infrastructure.

This.

I don't doubt for a second that there is roads that would benefit greatly from this change.

So just change those ones

[btimbit]

Here's a reply from their councilor ( ward 2) someone posted on Beyond. Mine hasn't replied yet sadly

Thank you for your email to Councillor Magliocca on Councillor Farrell’s Motion to reduce the speed limit in Calgary to 30 km/h on residential roadways. Councillor Magliocca has read through this Motion and is opposed to it for a number of reasons.

First of all, there was zero consultation with Calgarians on this matter. Matters like this, which will impact all Calgarians should have public input. Unfortunately, this Motion is just an attempt to push the anti-car ideology of some Councillors on to all Calgarians, without consultation.

Councillor Magliocca is also very concerned about what passing this Motion will mean to taxpayers. The Motion specifies signage costs in the range of $5 Million, plus more for education and engagement programs. $5 Million could be used to do substantial pedestrian safety enhancements like RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) crosswalks lights, line painting and safety signage. If this Motion passes, property taxes may need to be increased in next year’s budget to pay for new speed limit signs and other implications of this Motion.

Councillor Farrell’s Motion references Brussels and Stockholm as city’s that have went towards lower speed limits. Furthermore, much of the background information in the Motion references European studies. The goal of many of these European studies is to reduce the amount of cars on our streets and increase biking and walking. The fact of the matter is that Calgary is not Brussels or Stockholm. Calgary is a winter city in which most Calgarians drive to work, to shop and to wherever else they choose to go to. Councillor Magliocca believes that it should not be City Councils job to change the behavior of Calgarians.

Councillor Magliocca is also concerned that this motion will cause confusion on Calgary roadways. The Motion specifies that the 30 km/h speed limit would apply to residential roadways and “select minor” collector roadways. Unless there is a sign on every single street, it would be very difficult for Calgarians to know the speed limit on different streets throughout the city. This will also cause significant enforcement challenges. Overall, this Motion will cost taxpayers a lot of money and do very little, if anything, to improve driver and pedestrian safety. For these reasons Councillor Magliocca will not be supporting Councillor Farrell’s Motion.

Councillor Magliocca appreciates your comments on this matter and will keep your comments on file for when this matter is debated on Monday.

[TorqueDog]

I'm in Ward 11 and my councillor replied (bonus: he is opposed to it as well):

Thank you for your email and comments about lowering the speed limit. Councillor Farkas agrees that 30 km/h is too slow. Although we know 30 km/h saves lives in playground zones, doing it throughout the city could paralyze traffic. He believes the city should focus on problem areas through traffic calming and better engineering, rather than bringing in a city-wide change that may have unintended consequences.

As Children go back to school, he is aware that safety concerns are top of mind for parents and he is happy to continue this conversation in a measured and thoughtful way. He is open to seeing data about the safety outcomes at 40 km/h.

Thank you again for your feedback, I will pass this to Councillor Farkas.

Not quite the comprehensive reply as Joe Magliocca, but good enough for me that Farkas at least agrees that the proposal is untenable as it stands.