Councillors green light public engagement on lowering city speed limits

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Maybe I'm just an a-hole, but if you move to a fast busy street, you don't get to complain about the street being fast and busy.

There's a reason I picked a cul-de-sac

That certainly is a take.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The motion also spoke to prioritizing traffic calming measures on collectors because with the width, speed limit alone would not be effective. The inner city has quite a few straight shot roads (including my own) where speeding is actually a problem, or even people abiding by the current speed limit it is not particularly safe. So, while yes, it often won't affect suburban crescents and cul de sacs, there will be impact in large swaths of the city. Making the default speed limit lower is the most cost effective way of affecting some improvement.

But isn't the answer to deal with those roads and areas on a case by case basis? We've had Elbow Drive and it's ridiculousness for years, and didn't need a new blanket measure in that case, so why go through this now?

And if speeding is a problem on those roads as it stands, you need traffic calming anyway, because the new lower limit won't change that. I'm almost positive that I've seen you post that kind of sentiment in the past although I confess I'm not going to go back and look for it.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Bunk

That certainly is a take.

Is that not like moving near the airport and complaining about planes?

I'm not saying there aren't roads where this change is absolutely a good idea.

I'm just against the idea that a blanket change across the board is the right answer

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

But isn't the answer to deal with those roads and areas on a case by case basis? We've had Elbow Drive and it's ridiculousness for years, and didn't need a new blanket measure in that case, so why go through this now?

And if speeding is a problem on those roads as it stands, you need traffic calming anyway, because the new lower limit won't change that. I'm almost positive that I've seen you post that kind of sentiment in the past although I confess I'm not going to go back and look for it.

Elbow might be the case in point of why NOT to do on a case-by-case basis.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bunk

...snip...

Thanks but I want to see the reams of data this decision is based on.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Is that not like moving near the airport and complaining about planes?

I'm not saying there aren't roads where this change is absolutely a good idea.

I'm just against the idea that a blanket change across the board is the right answer

I'm not sure the analogy holds true. I don't think it's unreasonable for residents to believe changes can be made to their street that make it a bit slower and safer. Especially since changes to streets do frequently happen for this purpose - through traffic calming, introduction of playground or school zones, etc. This is not a static element like an international airport. We're talking literally about a 10km/hr change in speed limit, not someone asking for a freeway that they live beside to disappear or something.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bunk

We're talking literally about a 10km/hr change in speed limit, not someone asking for a freeway that they live beside to disappear or something.

You know very well that the only reason that it's a 10km/h change now is to be able to say "well it's only a 10km/h change" later when they go ahead with part two of the plan to reduce the roads to 30km/h and collectors to 40km/h.

'The long-term goal would be to make residential speed limits 30 km/h and lower collector speeds to 40 km/h, but city officials said for now, the more gradual approach will be “credible” for drivers and should produce high compliance.' - https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/speed-limits/

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm not sure the analogy holds true. I don't think it's unreasonable for residents to believe changes can be made to their street that make it a bit slower and safer. Especially since changes to streets do frequently happen for this purpose - through traffic calming, introduction of playground or school zones, etc. This is not a static element like an international airport. We're talking literally about a 10km/hr change in speed limit, not someone asking for a freeway that they live beside to disappear or something.

On those particular streets, it makes sense.

So why not just apply the changes to the roads that need it

[Locke]

Originally Posted by btimbit

On those particular streets, it makes sense.

So why not just apply the changes to the roads that need it

Because that would require doing actual work.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I must be blind and missing all the people walking or biking next to those roads.

What is the accident stats for pedestrians getting hit in communities due to 50km speed limits? Not trying to be an ass, I'm genuinely curious as I almost never hear about any incidents.

Almost everything I read about is accidents on major roads.

[Bill Bumface]

What we should do, is get rid of jaywalking laws (thanks big auto lobby) and then take away driver's rights until we get below current collision levels.

I love cars and driving, but I'm of the opinion society is at a net detriment by having a system completely skewed to the entitlement of drivers.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by btimbit

On those particular streets, it makes sense.

So why not just apply the changes to the roads that need it

Reason being must sign anything that is not a default speed limit. So having two different standards for the same classification of street would be very burdensome.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by zamler

Thanks but I want to see the reams of data this decision is based on.

Maybe I don’t know specifically what you’re looking for, but the presentations and report attachments contain a lot of data and the analysis that goes along with it.

[zamler]

If I'm reading the data correctly on average people are going 58 in a 60 zone, 42 in a 50 (collector) and 35 in a 50 (residential).

Originally Posted by Bunk

Maybe I don’t know specifically what you’re looking for, but the presentations and report attachments contain a lot of data and the analysis that goes along with it.

There are several references to "available on request".

[Stillman16]

Another reason case by case is difficult, is to add the traffic calming, often it requires the adjacent residents to fund and approve the measures.

The blanket approach allows it to be funded by the entire city, and should cause less confusion for drivers, with a common set of rules.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It's also interesting to note that Elbow Drive was omitted from roadways included as part of the study. The one roadway where a review was warranted was omitted... largely because it would probably be identified as a roadway that should be 50, not 40.

Interesting Podcast from the Sprawl this week on the longest playground zone in the city - elbow drive

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Interesting Podcast from the Sprawl this week on the longest playground zone in the city - elbow drive

Link:

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/sprawl...RaPZaOY0gxjJF8

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Maybe I don’t know specifically what you’re looking for, but the presentations and report attachments contain a lot of data and the analysis that goes along with it.

zamler: THEY MADE THIS DECISION WITHOUT DATA

Bunk: Provides enough data to make your head spin.

zamler: NO, NOT THAT DATA

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Torture

zamler: THEY MADE THIS DECISION WITHOUT DATA

Bunk: Provides enough data to make your head spin.

zamler: NO, NOT THAT DATA

Don't be a twat. I asked for data and got it, and posted some of it. Some is not available to me and I would like to see it.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Almost everything I read about is accidents on major roads.

That's not surprising, because those make the news due to the delays they cause on those roads. I never saw any news on the incident I saw years ago on a side street because not enough cars use it to cause an issue while it was closed by emergency services. Everyone, including me, would gawk a bit at the scene, turn around and use a different side street.