Councillors green light public engagement on lowering city speed limits

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Fire, I don't know your commute/experience, but others like myself, see value to this non-arterial reduction from 50. It's not universally opposed.

85% oppose it or don't even understand why we would consider it, based on the poll.


For comparison, a poll in the US found that 83% of people found that holding neo-Nazi or white supremacist views was unacceptable.


This is basically less popular than Hitler.

[Aleks]

Safety meeting time. Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt. Stay in bed everyone.

I will say this, I have some experience in this "accidents" area, and the stats are clear the VAST majority are non injury property damage only. Again, anecdotal based on my personal (but very valid) experience is that the number of TRUE injuries is again, a fraction of the "injury number" of nearly 700. More often than not the injuries are scrapes, bruises, "just in case", or "I don't feel good" usually from overstimulation and fear. The number of actual severe injury accidents I've attended (in Calgary only, not rural) are very low and the factors of those injury accidents are very often *excessive* speed (look at the person killed last week), intoxication, inattention, or plain ####ing around (how do you roll your car on 3rd St downtown anyhow!?). All of those things are currently addressed in the traffic laws, so altering something such as "you shouldn't drive over 30km/h" goes out the window when you combine it with "you shouldn't drive drunk/high/on your phone/120kph in an 80 zone".

This also will have an effect on ems responses. We have a *silly* policy stating we can't drive over 15km/h in excess of the speed limit, at any time. Take a guess how many cars pass me on the roads . That's an aside, but it will slow those of us that adhere to the policy down as well

I wanted to add an edit here, there are a number of fallicies that are outlined in the Edna Flanders idealism of lower speed is better for everyone. I didn't read anywhere that higher speed results in more engagement in the act of driving. More engagement means more attention, better alertness and anticipation. I drive quite fast, very often in all conditions and take a wild guess how many accidents I get into...Driving everywhere at 30 is a snoozefest that I believe will result in more inattention, both by way of well I'm driving slow and bored so I'll check my phone, dick with the radio, etc, as well as just those moments of fatigue based "micro sleeps" (Matthew Walker, a sleep expert has great info on this kind of stuff)


Another edit.....I spent 2 weeks in Ireland a month ago, put 2200kms on in a sporty little rental car, and it just solidifies that the limits arent the issue, the driver education and training is. I encounter not 1 single roadside accident anywhere in the country. The roads are extremely narrow, and the speed limits for these roads that can barely fit cars coming face on were typically 80km/h. Blind corners, no straight stretches, foliage encroaching on the lanes, cyclists riding on them, etc. It was so refreshing being able to drive to your comfort and ability, rather than an artificial imposed limit. Sure some people drove 60. Or 50 on those roads, but you passed them and went on your way without anyone getting ragey or trying to keep you from driving how you want. 80. On 2 lane roads as wide as some of our single lanes. No ridiculous speed enforcement either.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

There aren't going to be many signalized intersections in the 30 km/h residential areas, if any. I think you might be misunderstanding what a residential and collector street look like.

You don't need intersections to set up the cameras. They just park an unmarked vehicle on the side of the road as they do in school zones with a camera and collect the dough. Now they will be able to do that anywhere on a residential road.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The biggest thing you can do to reduce collisions is to design/retrofit streets such that people will naturally drive slowly and more safely. We all see those wide sweeping streets that turn into a raceway. Changing a speed limit alone has some utility, but it is not on its own sufficient. However, it is a necessary step in leading to design changes to align with the posted speed limit. A street designed so that cars will usually travel 30 looks a fair amount different than one designed for 50. My residential street happens to be a bit wider than the norm and people fly down it. It sucks.

One of the biggest requests to the City is for traffic calming. I tend to think people want other people to drive slowly on their street, but they want to be able to drive fast on other people’s streets.

In Garrison Green the city installed a bunch of traffic calming measures. It has for sure helped. Forand Street Leaving the community is essentially a drag race though. We have a very high density of kids out and about here.

I had someone come look at my listed house. One of the reasons they stated for not wanting to make an offer is that there was too many traffic calming measures.. LOL.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

85% oppose it or don't even understand why we would consider it, based on the poll.


For comparison, a poll in the US found that 83% of people found that holding neo-Nazi or white supremacist views was unacceptable.


This is basically less popular than Hitler.

Yeah I hadn't a chance to read the Herald article, and see the data.

I'd like to see larger poll volumes, but 15% is not convincing enough to me. Council has done a poor job, at selling these changes in the name of safety. The case studies are overly complex and don't specifically break-down these $250k in societal-empirical savings. I still would like them reduced, for my own community experience, but not at the costs, and the overwhelming objection.

[Resolute 14]

For anyone who wishes council would squabble less and do more work, this is a good example of what happens when they attempt to do work.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Fire, I don't know your commute/experience, but others like myself, see value to this non-arterial reduction from 50. It's not universally opposed.

What value is everyone missing?

The value isn’t in reducing pedestrian fatalities on residential roads. There were 5 in the last 7 years and a lower limit wouldn’t have prevented any of them.

And I’d highly doubt that it would reduce fatalities in motor vehicle accidents on residential roads affected by the drop. The last one wouldn’t have been prevented by a lower limit since it was a left turning van vs. motorcycle

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What value is everyone missing?

The value isn’t in reducing pedestrian fatalities on residential roads. There were 5 in the last 7 years and a lower limit wouldn’t have prevented any of them.

And I’d highly doubt that it would reduce fatalities in motor vehicle accidents on residential roads affected by the drop. The last one wouldn’t have been prevented by a lower limit since it was a left turning van vs. motorcycle

Like I mentioned, the case studies/examples have been poorly demonstrated. Lets not making it exclusive to fatalities, as injuries and property damage should also be attributed.

We know we can drive 10-15% faster than posted limits, without being ticketed in most cases.

In Mission/Cliff Bungalow, go drive 60km/hr - down 18th/19th/20th/21st Avenues. That's my anecdotal reason behind my want for reduction.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I love driving. I'm a gear head.

I'll be the contrarian. Cliff Bungalow, and Mission, NEED their Avenues ALL restricted below 50. Optimally 40.


We have many freeways/highways, that are too low though. TC, should be 120. #2 AB, should be 120.

Living in Mission I feel like its lucky if I ever get over 40km/hr anyways, so for this area of the city I don't think we would see any difference. It would be a lucky morning commuting to Foothills where I'm going over 35km/hr on 4th street.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by J epworth

Living in Mission I feel like its lucky if I ever get over 40km/hr anyways, so for this area of the city I don't think we would see any difference. It would be a lucky morning commuting to Foothills where I'm going over 35km/hr on 4th street.

Yeah me too. Unfortunately, I've been dusted a few times by those going much faster than that. Definitely not the types that live in the area.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

For anyone who wishes council would squabble less and do more work, this is a good example of what happens when they attempt to do work.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You don't need intersections to set up the cameras. They just park an unmarked vehicle on the side of the road as they do in school zones with a camera and collect the dough. Now they will be able to do that anywhere on a residential road.

The problem with that is that there is currently a limited number of these vehicles, and the people who run them (since they can't be unmanned) and if the city wants to enforce this asinine new speed limit via photo radar, they are going to have to spend a pretty penny to get it going.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

The problem with that is that there is currently a limited number of these vehicles, and the people who run them (since they can't be unmanned) and if the city wants to enforce this asinine new speed limit via photo radar, they are going to have to spend a pretty penny to get it going.

The only cost would be new vehicles and that cost would be fairly quick to recoup issuing thousands of 20 over tickets. The plan is already to divert the already stretched resources from Bylaw and Transit to issue tickets, so it stands to reason they would just use those resources in the interim.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Yeah I hadn't a chance to read the Herald article, and see the data.

I'd like to see larger poll volumes, but 15% is not convincing enough to me. Council has done a poor job, at selling these changes in the name of safety. The case studies are overly complex and don't specifically break-down these $250k in societal-empirical savings. I still would like them reduced, for my own community experience, but not at the costs, and the overwhelming objection.

WHy should people have a choice.

Follow evidence based practice where ever it leads.

This whole polling thing is ridiculous. If there was a poll to raise the speed limit in residential zones to 60. It would probably get an equal objection. 50 is just considered good because it is what we have.

The real work that should be being done is evaluating and calculating the probability of injuries and fatalities before and after this measure based on best available data, evaluate the cost of those fatalities and injuries and compare that to the lost time from people slowing down.

If its a net good its a net good. No consultation should be done, only explanation.

[chemgear]

Also note that while the engagement is costing $250,00 - the actual cost of making a change will cost tens of millions of dollars more (signage change, etc.)

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GGG

WHy should people have a choice.

Follow evidence based practice where ever it leads.

This whole polling thing is ridiculous. If there was a poll to raise the speed limit in residential zones to 60. It would probably get an equal objection. 50 is just considered good because it is what we have.

The real work that should be being done is evaluating and calculating the probability of injuries and fatalities before and after this measure based on best available data, evaluate the cost of those fatalities and injuries and compare that to the lost time from people slowing down.

If its a net good its a net good. No consultation should be done, only explanation.

Look I’m an advocate if it makes sense. My initial inclination was anecdotal.

But if I, like the majority haven’t seen the COMPELLING detailed reasoning—- wel that’s where the bolded comes into play— the city hasn’t done the real work.

Just used headline grabbing “OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN” & “save $250k”

How? Detail it. Show intimate case studies.

[kermitology]

https://visionzeronetwork.org/projec...nd-case-study/

Lowering the speed limits overall allow us to make changes to road design which naturally reduce speed of vehicles. This is a chicken and the egg scenario. We can't retrofit existing infrastructure until one parameter changes, the easiest being speed limits.

My wife is taking a proposal to council in December with Calgary's first entirely vision zero designed community, Rangeview. Interestingly, when they changed the design to be based on Vision Zero based design the economics made the community more profitable.

I'd love to see a more complete CBA regarding the overall spend differences of reducing the speed limits.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Fire, I don't know your commute/experience, but others like myself, see value to this non-arterial reduction from 50. It's not universally opposed.

There are some that absolutely could use it, I'm just against doing it city wide

[powderjunkie]

Weird that the terminology they use doesn't match the city webpage called 'Road Classification'

https://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...ification.aspx

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Look I’m an advocate if it makes sense. My initial inclination was anecdotal.

But if I, like the majority haven’t seen the COMPELLING detailed reasoning—- wel that’s where the bolded comes into play— the city hasn’t done the real work.

Just used headline grabbing “OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN” & “save $250k”

How? Detail it. Show intimate case studies.

I agree, do the work, show it to people.