Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-23-2019, 03:11 PM   #41
cam_wmh
Franchise Player
 
cam_wmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger View Post
With so much variance in road type, street parking, width, pedestrian traffic, snow clearance, visibility etc this really is almost impossible to do properly. Some should be lowered, many should stay as is.

I think the city should target some inner city streets that would benefit from this and lower the speed limits in those zones only, with possible expansion to more streets with public input. And for a lot less than $200k.

I’d also be in favour of more of the larger rounded speed bumps.
I like this idea. Beltline, Mt Royal, Bankview, Mission, Cliff Bungalow, reduced to 40km/hr. Other than 4th/5th/8th Streets, and 11th/12th/17th Aves.
cam_wmh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 03:20 PM   #42
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

This is an actual problem and almost nothing is being done about it.

https://ama.ab.ca/2018/01/02/distrac...ouble-standard
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 03:30 PM   #43
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Ugh. They did this in Victoria despite evidence from the civil engineers here that it would make no difference in collisions. All it's done is increased congestion and made it more annoying to drive.
This is what no one considers until it's too late. Slowing traffic increases congestion - it is simple math. The longer it takes each car to get where they are going, the more cars there are on the road at any given time (assuming the same number of trips).

More cars on the road, means more congestion, means more accidents.

And Farrell's quote that an accident with an injury costs society $250k... ok, but does reducing the speed limit actually reduce the number of accidents? Not if congestion increases.

When I was living in Wpg (I know), my street, which was maybe 1 to 2 kms long, had 3 stop signs on it, and 3 schools. They decided - to save the children - they would put more stop signs on it, because this would slow down traffic. I told them this was a dumb idea, and was ostracized for saying so. They said it would slow down traffic, which would cause people to use a different road. I said: people aren't using this road because it is a tourist attraction, they are using it because they have to.

Well, they were right that it slowed down traffic. So much so, that there were lineups from one stop sign, right through the next one. As a result, the street was bumper to bumper all day. And that made things substantially more dangerous for the schools. It lasted 2 weeks and they took down the stop signs (but I remained ostracized).

The law of unintended consequences. People like Farrell are the Patron Saints of it.
Enoch Root is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 03:32 PM   #44
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
This is an actual problem and almost nothing is being done about it.

https://ama.ab.ca/2018/01/02/distrac...ouble-standard
Reduce the number of distracted drivers - now that would be useful.
Enoch Root is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 04:09 PM   #45
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Just councillors finding solutions for problems that don't exist to justify their existance.
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 04:26 PM   #46
81MC
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Exp:
Default

This is going through, not a doubt in my mind. And I’d bet there will be an hell of a lot of patrol cars hanging out on the other wise of 60kmh zones, handing out very expensive tickets.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
81MC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 04:30 PM   #47
shogged
First Line Centre
 
shogged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

i support reducing the speed limits for the reduced road noise
shogged is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shogged For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 07:05 PM   #48
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

I don’t mind residential non-arterial bring 40kmh.

Where this all comes from is the Vision Zero movement in traffic design. Rather than looking at an acceptable rate of fatalities the goal is zero.

Lowering speed limits has been shown to lower average and peak car speeds. Whether this translates into lower fatalities or injuries has not been determined yet.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/cit...imit-in-boston

Quote:
We found significant reductions in the odds of vehicles in Boston exceeding 25 mph, 30 mph and 35 mph associated with the reduced speed limit, and the decline was biggest for the odds of vehicles exceeding 35 mph," Harkey says.

There was a 29.3 percent decline in the odds of speeding for vehicles traveling faster than 35 mph. The odds of speeding fell by 8.5 percent for vehicles going faster than 30 mph and 2.9 percent for vehicles exceeding 25 mph.
This isn’t Councillors trying to find solutions to problems that don’t exist, or the city going out on a limb doing things that haven’t been tried elsewhere or a cash grab. What they shouldn’t do is ask the public for feedback to hide behind some report. Get your engineers to evaluate all of the data in jurisdictions that have implemented it and make a risk based decision.

What anyone in this thread thinks is irrelevant.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 07:21 PM   #49
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

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.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 10-23-2019, 09:21 PM   #50
topfiverecords
Franchise Player
 
topfiverecords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
Exp:
Default

How are they going to inform all drivers of a lower speed than the country wide standard of 50km on unmarked roads? Surely they’re not going to spend millions upon millions littering every possible residential neighbourhood with speed limit signs.

Without signage, only local residents who are in the know by some type of media campaign are going to slow down.
topfiverecords is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 09:29 PM   #51
DeluxeMoustache
 
DeluxeMoustache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

I want my tax money back
DeluxeMoustache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2019, 09:44 PM   #52
handgroen
First Line Centre
 
handgroen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
I'd be interested in knowing what has instigated the idea that this is a problem that requires resolution.

It really seems like this has been manufactured as a problem.
Spoiler!
__________________


is your cat doing singing?
handgroen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2019, 04:53 AM   #53
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

I think you can respond to an online poll here...


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...y-speed-limits


68% leave speed limits unchanged.



Honestly these councilors need to just go quietly.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 10-24-2019, 06:23 AM   #54
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
This is an actual problem and almost nothing is being done about it.

https://ama.ab.ca/2018/01/02/distrac...ouble-standard
I think a big part of the problem is policing it requires manpower. Distracted driving is the biggest issue today but it's also the hardest to police as they just can't put up cameras (yet) and start fining people on their phones while behind the wheel. They reduce the speed limits to 30 km/hr and leave unmarked police cars with photo radar and it will be a license to print money for the city. I expect it could lead to a bigger boon than the intersection cameras as few people are going to be able to handle driving 30 km/hr through non-playground zones.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2019, 09:45 AM   #55
Mazrim
CP Gamemaster
 
Mazrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
I expect it could lead to a bigger boon than the intersection cameras as few people are going to be able to handle driving 30 km/hr through non-playground zones.
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.
Mazrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2019, 09:50 AM   #56
woob
#1 Goaltender
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Ugh. They did this in Victoria despite evidence from the civil engineers here that it would make no difference in collisions. All it's done is increased congestion and made it more annoying to drive.
Seconded. We had family in Victoria (she moved to Calgary last year) and it was so annoying to drive there. I found out about 40 everywhere via a speeding ticket. I was cruising along at 50 like a normal person and got pulled over for speeding. Family member from Victoria pipes up from the back "Oh yeah, it's 40 on the majority of streets here." Thanks for that timely information.
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2019, 09:52 AM   #57
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

personally i am fine with leaving the limits as is.

sometimes i wish that playground zones with fences around them would have the speed restrictions removed, as there are a lot of times you drive by these areas and there appear to be nobody around.

but i understand the need to balance this with the assumed increase in foot traffic leading to these areas.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2019, 09:56 AM   #58
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
I think you can respond to an online poll here...


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...y-speed-limits


68% leave speed limits unchanged.



Honestly these councilors need to just go quietly.
Another 17% are like "WTF, why are we even talking about this. So basically roughly 15% are holding up the rest of the city and want to throw money away.
chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Old 10-24-2019, 09:57 AM   #59
woob
#1 Goaltender
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear View Post
Another 17% are like "WTF, why are we even talking about this. So basically roughly 15% are holding up the rest of the city and want to throw money away.
I wanted to answer both A and E.
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Old 10-24-2019, 09:57 AM   #60
cam_wmh
Franchise Player
 
cam_wmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Just councillors finding solutions for problems that don't exist to justify their existance.
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.
cam_wmh is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cam_wmh For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021