10-23-2019, 03:11 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
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.
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 03:30 PM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
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.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2019, 03:32 PM
|
#44
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
|
Reduce the number of distracted drivers - now that would be useful.
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 04:09 PM
|
#45
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Just councillors finding solutions for problems that don't exist to justify their existance.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2019, 04:26 PM
|
#46
|
#1 Goaltender
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2019, 04:30 PM
|
#47
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Calgary
|
i support reducing the speed limits for the reduced road noise
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shogged For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2019, 07:05 PM
|
#48
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2019, 07:21 PM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
|
BeltlineFan,
calf,
D as in David,
delayedreflex,
firebug,
getbak,
Mazrim,
mrkajz44,
PepsiFree,
powderjunkie,
redflamesfan08,
Stillman16,
surferguy,
WhiteTiger,
woob,
Wormius
|
10-23-2019, 09:21 PM
|
#50
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
|
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.
|
|
|
10-23-2019, 09:44 PM
|
#52
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
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.
|
__________________
is your cat doing singing?
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 04:53 AM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-24-2019, 06:23 AM
|
#54
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
|
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.
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:45 AM
|
#55
|
CP Gamemaster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
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.
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:50 AM
|
#56
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
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.
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:52 AM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
|
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
|
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:56 AM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:57 AM
|
#59
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear
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.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-24-2019, 09:57 AM
|
#60
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to cam_wmh For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.
|
|