Calgary Speed limits to be standard 30km/hr?

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Reading the twitter thread from that reporter, this would also have a big impact on bus schedules.

Don't busses operate mainly on collector roads?

I've yet to see what the City defines as a residential road and therefore what the possible impact of this would be.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Don't busses operate mainly on collector roads?

I've yet to see what the City defines as a residential road and therefore what the possible impact of this would be.

Administration has been directed to look at implementing this on collectors as well. For the city’s time estimate of 30 seconds to be accurate, it would need to be restricted to residential roads and only travel on them for about 600 meters

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bunk

What kind of argument is that? Any human activity is about managing risk to a reasonable extent, not eliminating all risk.

Good lord.

The point is I don't understand why it's even necessary to lower the speed limit when it hasn't been an actual issue. How often are accidents occurring in residential zones that are 50?

For some roads and inner city communities, 40km or even 30km does make sense since the road can be fairly narrow, and it's safer to drive slower. But for roads that are plenty enough wide enough for parking lanes, and two lane traffic to comfortably go down at 50, there is no need to reduce the limit. There isn't an epidemic of people getting run over, or cars crashing into each other here.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The point is I don't understand why it's even necessary to lower the speed limit when it hasn't been an actual issue. How often are accidents occurring in residential zones that are 50?

For some roads and inner city communities, 40km or even 30km does make sense since the road can be fairly narrow, and it's safer to drive slower. But for roads that are plenty enough wide enough for parking lanes, and two lane traffic to comfortably go down at 50, there is no need to reduce the limit. There isn't an epidemic of people getting run over, or cars crashing into each other here.

Exactly. I've known border collies that stop at intersections and don't run out on to roads. Not entirely sure what the problem is here.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The point is I don't understand why it's even necessary to lower the speed limit when it hasn't been an actual issue. How often are accidents occurring in residential zones that are 50?

For some roads and inner city communities, 40km or even 30km does make sense since the road can be fairly narrow, and it's safer to drive slower. But for roads that are plenty enough wide enough for parking lanes, and two lane traffic to comfortably go down at 50, there is no need to reduce the limit. There isn't an epidemic of people getting run over, or cars crashing into each other here.

Right, its like a City Council 'Make Work' project.

I am unaware that this has, in any way, been a serious concern for anyone other than maybe Mrs. Lovejoy.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Bunk

What kind of argument is that? Any human activity is about managing risk to a reasonable extent, not eliminating all risk.

Good lord.

That is an equally dumb retort. Transportation engineering is about logical action in response to actual statistics and known tendencies of driver behaviour, not implementing solutions that are seeking a problem. I go to school in a building with a bunch of civil engineers with combined centuries of experience in this field... not one of them thinks this is a good idea, more specifically the way the proposal came about and the planned implementation. I'll take their word over yours.

[Flamenspiel]

I don't have a problem with this, 50 is an ok speed but the issue was that commuters cutting through the nieghborhood are going 60-65 and that is too fast with all the kids on bikes and walking home from school. Taking it down to 40 will keep people at 50-55.

It would be ideal to enforce 50 but that would tie up a lot more police on this file.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't have a problem with this, 50 is an ok speed but the issue was that commuters cutting through the nieghborhood are going 60-65 and that is too fast with all the kids on bikes and walking home from school. Taking it down to 40 will keep people at 50-55.

It would be ideal to enforce 50 but that would tie up a lot more police on this file.

You realize that that is not how it works right? Someone doesn't see a 50kph limit and decide to go 60kph. They drive the speed they are comfortable with based on the road. That's why arbitrarily setting a speed limit won't reduce speeding, the road design has to reflect the limit you want on it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The point is I don't understand why it's even necessary to lower the speed limit when it hasn't been an actual issue. How often are accidents occurring in residential zones that are 50?

For some roads and inner city communities, 40km or even 30km does make sense since the road can be fairly narrow, and it's safer to drive slower. But for roads that are plenty enough wide enough for parking lanes, and two lane traffic to comfortably go down at 50, there is no need to reduce the limit. There isn't an epidemic of people getting run over, or cars crashing into each other here.

According to the City, about 1/3 of collisions are on these roads. Children are over represented as a cohort in injuries.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You realize that that is not how it works right? Someone doesn't see a 50kph limit and decide to go 60kph. They drive the speed they are comfortable with based on the road. That's why arbitrarily setting a speed limit won't reduce speeding, the road design has to reflect the limit you want on it.

Partially true. People do slow down on playground zones, and average speeds do drop no matter what the road design. But you are right that the most important factor in behaviour is road design.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Acey

That is an equally dumb retort. Transportation engineering is about logical action in response to actual statistics and known tendencies of driver behaviour, not implementing solutions that are seeking a problem. I go to school in a building with a bunch of civil engineers with combined centuries of experience in this field... not one of them thinks this is a good idea, more specifically the way the proposal came about and the planned implementation. I'll take their word over yours.

I work with traffic engineers everyday in my field. There is definitely a generational divide happening in the field in terms of questions on design speed, safety, speed limits, etc.

Younger engineers tend to feel that constraining the carriageway, ruducing lane widths, on street parking, street trees, curb bulbs that slow traffic result in a safer conditions for all users. Old school tend to believe that simpler, less constrained environments are safer, even though they induce higher speed.

In any event, I agree that speed limits alone, especially in really big streets have limited utility. Must be combined with design changes and calming measures. That’s why this motion ALSO points to this, not speed limits alone.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You realize that that is not how it works right? Someone doesn't see a 50kph limit and decide to go 60kph. They drive the speed they are comfortable with based on the road. That's why arbitrarily setting a speed limit won't reduce speeding, the road design has to reflect the limit you want on it.

I'll concede thats is part if it, but road design is not always adequate.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

This is really just a comment on your own driving style.

Wrong. 85th percentile speed is an actual thing that traffic engineers take into account, hence the alleged measures that will be taken to reduce the design speed of the road. People in Druh's camp have already said lowering limits alone potentially has a negligible impact until you fix the road.

[Finger Cookin]

Is this actually happening or are we just arguing about the possibility of the policy?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Is this actually happening or are we just arguing about the possibility of the policy?

Happening. Next is to determine 30 or 40, how to apply it, and to exactly what roads. Q4 2019.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Acey

Happening. Next is to determine 30 or 40, how to apply it, and to exactly what roads. Q4 2019.

Well, only if Council approves the final recommendation on what and how. They did endorse a reduction in principle, however. But things change.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Acey

Wrong. 85th percentile speed is an actual thing that traffic engineers take into account, hence the alleged measures that will be taken to reduce the design speed of the road. People in Druh's camp have already said lowering limits alone potentially has a negligible impact until you fix the road.

As I said above, road design is not always adequate. I am not going to concede that people ignore limits, thats absurd and not very clever. Anyway, enough said, we will agree to disagree.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Acey

Wrong. 85th percentile speed is an actual thing that traffic engineers take into account, hence the alleged measures that will be taken to reduce the design speed of the road. People in Druh's camp have already said lowering limits alone potentially has a negligible impact until you fix the road.

The point of lowering the limit is more to change road design. You can’t change the road design specifications until the limit is lower. That’s what I think the ultimate reason for this is.

[Bunk]

Speaking as a developer - I'd love to see further changes in the residential (and especially collector) road standards for new neighbourhoods. Narrower carriageway is cheaper to build. Or at least I can put the spending into space that actually creates value for the community such as street trees instead of excessively wide pavement that encourages people to speed through the neighbourhood. There's a good reason why homes on collectors are less valuable than those on quieter and lower speed streets.

[Royle9]

What a shame, this is such a waste of time and money and focuses on the most irrelevant issue with drivers in this day and age.

Speed kills, there's no denying this. But there are a plethora of circumstantial factors that are far more serious or significant than just the speed on the dashboard.

Distracted driving is out of control, rampant, disgusting and I'd wager we all see it every day nearly causing an accident or two on your daily commute every day. I see 5-6 significant scenarios a day myself and until that changes this 50 vs 40 debate..... frankly is a joke.

Cell phones, combing hair, eating food with 2 hands, doing makeup, reading a book/news paper, smoking, I see it all every day. These people drive like idiots 90% of the time speed limit or not and these are the people causing accidents in record numbers not the people doing 50 vs 40.

I cant even stand to listen to some of the ward's representatives anymore, they beat this agenda of death and child safety in residential neighborhoods and completely ignore the obvious #1 cause of accidents over the last few years.

I can almost guarantee in 2-3 years this reduction on the limit will fail to mitigate any impact on collision injuries and deaths if reported correctly. Over 80% of the accidents we see today involve distracted driving AND speeding, I'd sooner step onto the road at a crosswalk in front of a car doing 60 in a 50 paying attention vs a car doing 40 in a 40 and texting on their phone.