30 for Sunnyside?

[Bigtime]

I saw this mentioned in the Herald article today about Rocky Ridge wanting to try and use "pace cars" to slow traffic on their roads.

http://www.30forsunnyside.com/

The name pretty much says it all, looks like a group is starting a petition to have the speed limit in all of Sunnyside (excluding Memorial and 10th street) to 30km/h.

Personally I've never noticed a problem with speeding cars in our neighbourhood, the only road that can really accommodate it is 7th/2nd avenue, and even then it has a few 4-way stops and a big playground zone by Sunnyside school.

Almost all the other roads in the community and narrow and have on street parking, so they naturally limit the speed of vehicles traveling on them.

Thoughts?

Here is the map showing the proposed area:

http://i.imgur.com/g7byiO2.jpg

[You Need A Thneed]

How many cars drive much more than 30 now? It doesn't look like there is much opportunity to do so. It would probably be better to spend the effort getting a couple of small roundabouts put in.

[Bigtime]

Yeah I just don't understand the need for this in Sunnyside, we walk along 7th/2nd avenue all the time (the widest road) and I very rarely see traffic speeding through. Nothing like what you see on the main roads through the suburbs.

Or are they pitching it here because they figure it is an easier sell than other communities? The Sun will have a field day with this.

[MarkL]

Wow, what a great idea! After the latest epidemic of pedestrian fatalities in Sunnyside, this is almost a no-brainer. I hope that the successful campaign in Sunnyside leads to a wider adoption of 30km/h zones throughout the city!

[GTING]

This seems appropriate:
Qh2sWSVRrmo

[freeweed]

That's the most passive-aggressive, hall monitor bullshit I've heard yet.

I'm still trying to figure out where all of these kids are dying in playground zones in Calgary.

Ironically, the very same parents that bitch about speeding are the prime causes of traffic danger in Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak. I live close to the school, and it's unbelievable how much traffic the area sees thrice daily. You'd think it was a shopping mall with tens of thousands of shoppers on hand. Or a major freeway. Constant traffic for 30-45 minutes each time.

Did all of these people grow up on farms, or what? As a kid I had to deal with 50 km/h zones daily, and often 60-70. As a pedestrian and cyclist. I managed to be on and cross the road safely every time. In fact, out of all the kids killed on the roads throughout my entire childhood, they all died from their own (or their friends') drinking and driving. I can't think of a single kid killed by someone speeding through a playground zone. And I mean ever.

[Boris2k7]

I shall not mention all the bullshit speedbumps in Evergreen/Shawnee...

Erm, oops...

[MarkL]

Now that I got my sarcasm for the morning out, I have to ask: when was the last pedestrian fatality in Sunnyside?

[rotten42]

That's the most passive-aggressive, hall monitor bullshit I've heard yet.

I'm still trying to figure out where all of these kids are dying in playground zones in Calgary.

Ironically, the very same parents that bitch about speeding are the prime causes of traffic danger in Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak. I live close to the school, and it's unbelievable how much traffic the area sees thrice daily. You'd think it was a shopping mall with tens of thousands of shoppers on hand. Or a major freeway. Constant traffic for 30-45 minutes each time.

Did all of these people grow up on farms, or what? As a kid I had to deal with 50 km/h zones daily, and often 60-70. As a pedestrian and cyclist. I managed to be on and cross the road safely every time. In fact, out of all the kids killed on the roads throughout my entire childhood, they all died from their own (or their friends') drinking and driving. I can't think of a single kid killed by someone speeding through a playground zone. And I mean ever.

totally agree!

[ken0042]

As a kid I had to deal with 50 km/h zones daily, and often 60-70. As a pedestrian and cyclist. I managed to be on and cross the road safely every time.

Yeah, it makes me wonder if the better course of action would be to update the pedestrian right of way rules. Something like you would see in Manioba or Ontario; where pedestrians have right of way but need to indicate their intentions. The one thing that I couldn't believe when I first moved to Calgary was how pedestrians here just step out into traffic without really looking.

I also see parents walking with their kids and demonstrating the same lack of care and attention.

[freeweed]

Yeah, it makes me wonder if the better course of action would be to update the pedestrian right of way rules. Something like you would see in Manioba or Ontario; where pedestrians have right of way but need to indicate their intentions. The one thing that I couldn't believe when I first moved to Calgary was how pedestrians here just step out into traffic without really looking.

I'm not sure the rules (laws, really) are any different. I think it's just something that has evolved in Calgary as an extreme form of "politeness".

I could be mistaken though - someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure it's still legally jaywalking unless you're at a proper, controlled intersection. And there, you're not required to signal anything. Pedestrians have the right of way, end of story - presuming they're crossing with the light if it exists.

[Policy Wonk]

That's the most passive-aggressive, hall monitor bullshit I've heard yet.

Let me introduce you to the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, who was given a $100,000 grant to produce this report.

http://www.vandu.org/documents/WereAllPedestrians_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

This was implemented, against the wishes of the Vancouver Police.

[Calgarian]

I agree completely that this is just over reacting to a problem that doesn't really exist. I think that these people should have to prove that there is actually a need for the 30km/h speed limit by showing statistics of the number of pedestrians (children) that are hit by cars every year.

As the neighbourhood continues to change to a higher density built form, I very much question whether people will even be able to drive 50. In the Beltline, most roads are very narrow, and with cars parked on both sides, you rarely get over 30 anyway (aside from 11th and 12th Aves of course, I regularly hit 60 on them).

[Bigtime]

Agreeing with many of the points made here, and like I've said the only road in Sunnyside that doesn't have natural calming due to width and on-street parking is 7th/2nd avenue. And even then I've never seen people ripping by on it.

I think they are trying to sell this in Sunnyside first since it is a relatively small (distance wise) community, and any "results" they can claim can be used for the next neigbhourhood they target.

[RyLucky]

Nobody drives fast in sunnyside. We don't need a reduced speed limit. We don't need any traffic calming.

What we do need is a xwalk on memorial at 8th st.

[Full Mountain]

I'm not sure the rules (laws, really) are any different. I think it's just something that has evolved in Calgary as an extreme form of "politeness".

I could be mistaken though - someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure it's still legally jaywalking unless you're at a proper, controlled intersection. And there, you're not required to signal anything. Pedestrians have the right of way, end of story - presuming they're crossing with the light if it exists.

A pedestrian can cross at any intersection controlled or not and have the right-of-way, jaywalking would be crossing not at a corner or in a prohibited location.

[freeweed]

A pedestrian can cross at any intersection controlled or not and have the right-of-way, jaywalking would be crossing not at a corner or in a prohibited location.

Bad wording on my part. I probably should have said "designated intersection". As opposed to the middle of the road, which Calgarians seem fond of doing (and traffic seems fond of stopping for).

[Calgarian]

A pedestrian can cross at any intersection controlled or not and have the right-of-way, jaywalking would be crossing not at a corner or in a prohibited location.

It's surprising how many people don't know this. I've been honked or yelled at a million times for crossing in an unmarked crosswalk. Most drivers refuse to believe that they don't have the right of way.

[Mazrim]

People are going to continue driving at whatever speed they were doing before here even if they change these speed limits. Since the standard is 50km/h in a residential area, guess what....they will keep doing 50 if they did before. They'll probably just laugh at the 30 and wonder why they bothered.

[DizzyEdge]

Makes sense that there's not really any speeding in Sunnyside since there's no where to cut through to. Now the blocks around the intersection of 20th avenue and 4th st NW, they get some pickup truck drivers going 60 down a road with wall to wall parked cars on both sides and could use some speed abatement.

[MasterG]

It's surprising how many people don't know this. I've been honked or yelled at a million times for crossing in an unmarked crosswalk. Most drivers refuse to believe that they don't have the right of way.

This is my world when walking across 5th street. You'd think that the Elbow Park types that rallied so hard for their unnecessary 1 km playground zone along elbow (which dropped the speed limit from a breakneck 40 to children-safe 30) would be more prepared for pedestrians to cross 5th. Instead, if they stop (not often) its a slamming on the breaks honking stop of pure un-believalbility as they stare at a person who dares cross 5th at an unmarked intersection.

[Bigtime]

Makes sense that there's not really any speeding in Sunnyside since there's no where to cut through to. Now the blocks around the intersection of 20th avenue and 4th st NW, they get some pickup truck drivers going 60 down a road with wall to wall parked cars on both sides and could use some speed abatement.

Exactly, anyone stuck on Memorail knows that if they try to sneak through quickly on 2nd avenue they'll just end up stuck at 10th street anyways.

[Radley77]

This is my world when walking across 5th street. You'd think that the Elbow Park types that rallied so hard for their unnecessary 1 km playground zone along elbow (which dropped the speed limit from a breakneck 40 to children-safe 30) would be more prepared for pedestrians to cross 5th. Instead, if they stop (not often) its a slamming on the breaks honking stop of pure un-believalbility as they stare at a person who dares cross 5th at an unmarked intersection.

I have a massive spreadsheet with all the pedestrian accidents in Calgary... some 7 MB worth. One of the freaky things I learned is that 1 in 6 or 7 accidents is a hit and run. Also, killing a pedestrian after running a red light may only carry a fine of $2,000 as in this article with no license suspension:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/05/29/edmonton-man-who-killed-pedestrian-fined-2000

And it's not just pedestrian deaths, there is a whole suite of injuries that happen from soft tissue damage to permanent brain injuries. There is of course also aggressive pedestrians out there who don't look and it's really sad that more pedestrians don't adopt a bit more safety culture by doing simple things like wearing clothes with a bit of reflective clothing.

I haven't got around to mapping the data on a community by community basis, but it's something I'm trying to work towards...

[30 for Sunnyside]

Hello there everyone. I am really pleased to see that the conversation about road safety, and specifically, the 30 for Sunnyside initiative is something you are talking about. It is an important conversation, and even though some of you disagree with our platform, it is still great you are discussing it. I do want to address some of the concerns you raise:

No one is dying in Sunnyside, so why reduce the speed limit? As we mention on our website's FAQ, we should not have to wait until someone dies to do something about the dangers of speeding. Lowering the residential speed limit reduces both the severity and the likelihood of automobile crashes. Being struck by an automobile at 30 km/h carries with it a 90% chance of survival. You are 8 times more likely to die when struck at 50 km/h. These risks are real, regardless of how many people are dying now. It is irresponsible to ignore these dangers and say that we should only act when someone has died. We should act to prevent those deaths in the first place.

Speeds in Sunnyside are low enough already. It is true that many of the roads in Sunnyside naturally reduce speeds. However, this alone is not enough to reduce speeding. Motorists still drive along my very narrow road, 4th Avenue, at speeds exceeding 50 km/h. In fact, high speeds on narrow roads are very dangerous, because it is less likely you will see pedestrians stepping out at crosswalks or elsewhere because of densely parked cars.

Again, as we mention in our FAQ, lower speed limits are not, in themselves, sufficient to provide proper safety on our streets. Traffic calming and narrower roads both reduce speeding. Ideally, we should be able to combine these features with lower speed limits to bring about the most effective reduction in speeds. The benefit of 30 km/h limits are that they can impact speeding on all roads, not just ones with traffic calming. Of course though, there are many avenues worth exploring.

I think they are trying to sell this in Sunnyside first since it is a relatively small (distance wise) community, and any "results" they can claim can be used for the next neigbhourhood they target.

It is true that Sunnyside is one of the best neighbourhoods to begin this project. It is small in size, does not feature major roads cutting through it and is almost exclusively a residential area. Impacts on trip times with a 30 km/h limit come down to seconds, so it is an easier "sell" to the majority of people.

Ironically, the very same parents that bitch about speeding are the prime causes of traffic danger in Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak.

Thankfully we are not those type of people. I myself walk and ride my bicycle almost exclusively through the city.

Think of the children! I am not sure this is much of a criticism of our initiative. Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in Canada, and an issue that impacts the youth more than anyone else. It seems to me that we should indeed provide the safest possible environment for our children.


In the end, the 30 for Sunnyside initiative is about making streets in Sunnyside even safer, and making sure pedestrian and cyclist deaths do not happen in the first place. Like I said, it is irresponsible to wait until someone dies to do something.

I hope all of you visit 30 for Sunnyside (http://www.30forSunnyside.com) and fill out the survey. All of your opinions are important. Thanks!

[artvandelay]

Oh bajeezus.

[artvandelay]

Why in the bloody hell would anyone want to live in a neighbourhood with speed limits that low? I grew up in a community with a mile-long playground zone and it was bad enough through that every day.

If I lived in Sunnyside I would start a counter petition.

[93JC]

Oh lord...:rolleyes:

Someone in my neighbourhood, North Glenmore Park, floated the same idea last year. They suggested that a blanket 30 km/h speed limit be introduced over the entire area south of Glenmore and east of Crowchild. The reasoning was to "enhance the safety of our residents and neighbours and their families and the children attending the Calgary Girls School and/or using our Community Hall". Of course the road in front of the school and the community hall are ALREADY 30 km/h school and playground zones...

They also suggested that "users of our pathway systems in this area" would be 'safer' with a blanket 30 km/h zone throughout the neighbourhood, which was silly considering that of the three spots where the pathway system intersects the roads two of them already fell within a playground zone and the third, a mid-block crossing, would probably be better served by having the crosswalk itself being marked better and if necessary perhaps mid-block bulbs added to the sidewalk. I even sent them the standard detail for a mid-block crossing from the Roads Dept.

The following month's newsletter made mention of having received 'feedback', and that they welcome any other feedback the residents have. The blanket speed limit idea hasn't resurfaced since.


The idea of a blanket 30 km/h limit in Sunnyside is just as ridiculous, for the exact same reasons I pointed out to my own community association six months ago:

1) How many pedestrian-vehicle, cyclist-vehicle and/or vehicle-vehicle collisions have occurred within the affected area? In the last month? In the last year? As long as anyone can remember? The number is probably very, very low, and may even be ZERO. It is true that a pedestrian struck by a car travelling 30 km/h will not be injured as severely as they would be if the car was travelling 50 km/h, however if pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles aren't be hit in the first place you're trying to to solve a non-existent 'problem'.

2) The legal limit is 50 km/h but in most residential areas, particularly areas like Sunnyside where the roads are narrow, undivided and tend to have parking on both sides, the vehicular traffic never approaches 50 km/h. The average motorist's speed is probably already close to 30 km/h. So, again, you're trying to solve an non-existent 'problem'.

3) The roads around the school are already 30 km/h playground zones.

4) A neighbourhood-wide 30 km/h limit is practically unenforceable. Good luck getting CPS to patrol Sunnyside for speed demons doing 36 in the neighbourhood 30 zone.

5) The neighbourhood has no commuter traffic going through it. I find it hard to believe that local traffic is that much of a 'problem'.



I clicked the link to the website. I think I audibly said "Oh for fuck's sake..." when I got the bottom of the "more FAQ" page. "Is changing the speed limit enough [to make our streets 'safe']" is asked rhetorically and the answer according to this group is no. And three following words stuck out in the response: traffic calming measures.


http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A9314/931409/300_931409.jpg

[MarkL]

There are a few fundamental issues with proposals like this, as I see it. When it comes down to it, it's a question of tradeoffs. Why not 20 for Sunnyside? Or 10 for Sunnyside? This would provide even more safety, and prevent even more theoretical accidents.

We could also mandate 5 point harnesses and full crash helmets for all drivers and passengers of vehicles which would prevent countless injuries every year.

For this proposal the arguments are essentially between an increase in safety and a decrease in the efficiency of the transportation system. The real question is whether the marginal increase in safety is worth the decrease in the efficiency of the system.

I see a few parallels between this proposal and the woman who tried to get Oak trees cut down because her kid is allergic to nuts (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/11/13/fallen_acorns_a_threat_to_kids_with_allergies_vaughan_mother_claims.html).

There is a point where we're going too far trying to sanitize and put pads on everything in the world, and I for one, believe your 30 for Sunnyside proposal goes too far.

p.s. I am a dog-walking, bike-riding, core-dwelling Urbanist.

p.p.s. There is also a point where rules are found so ridiculous that people simply ignore them and get in the habit of ignoring them - which is worse. This happens all the time with some of the more pointless and brazenly deceptive Playground Zones all over the city (The Elbow Drive monster being the most notorious).

[30 for Sunnyside]

There are a few fundamental issues with proposals like this, as I see it. When it comes down to it, it's a question of tradeoffs. Why not 20 for Sunnyside? Or 10 for Sunnyside? This would provide even more safety, and prevent even more theoretical accidents.

For this proposal the arguments are essentially between an increase in safety and a decrease in the efficiency of the transportation system. The real question is whether the marginal increase in safety is worth the decrease in the efficiency of the system.

You raise some very important points Mark. The obvious reason that the initiative is 30 km/h rather than 20 or 10 is because, while 20 or 10 would be safer, it would be almost impossible to "sell". People are already widely familiar with 30 km/h zones and their reason for existing, which of course is higher pedestrian safety. 30 km/h also provides an optimal balance of safety to efficiency.

It is great that you raise the point about efficiency versus safety. We assert that safety in an entirely residential area should trump transportation speeds. Residential neighbourhoods are not for speeding around or even travelling quickly through. They are the places people live. I hear much about how people want to live in serene and quiet neighbourhoods where children can play safely, but nothing about how they want to be able to drive quickly through their communities.

Also, what is the actual decrease in efficiency that would come with a 30 km/h speed limit? Since Sunnyside is small in size, the difference between 30 and 50 km/h really comes down to a couple dozen seconds. A few dozen seconds compared to the significant improvement in collision survival statistics. I cannot speak for everyone, but giving up a few dozen seconds to ensure the safety of the people who live in our community seems like a pretty reasonable trade off.

So really, we might ask whether the marginal increase in traffic efficiency is worth a significantly higher risk to the safety of vulnerable road users.

Your questions are no doubt common ones that people have, so I appreciate you raising them.

[freeweed]

I hear much about how people want to live in serene and quiet neighbourhoods where children can play safely, but nothing about how they want to be able to drive quickly through their communities.

Then where's the problem? If no one advocates driving quickly, then it sounds like this is a non-issue. Clearly everyone in these neighbourhoods is already driving very slow and safely, yes?

Why not just ban cars from the neighbourhood and be done with it? People can simply park their vehicles outside of the neighbourhood, and walk the rest of the way. That way, you are 100% guaranteed to never see a traffic fatality. And you're only losing a few minutes out of your life, in such a small area. Why wait until we see a traffic fatality before taking this step?

[Calgarian]

So you are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist? I would say that the fact that people aren't getting hit by cars means that the existing speed limit is more than safe enough. This seems like nothing more than a bunch of neurotic people trying to convince everyone that the area is currently dangerous (although it obviously isn't).

Here's a better idea than blanket speed limit for an entire neighbourhood. Identify which intersections are actually risky and put pedestrian lights there. Leave the speed limit as is.

[Radley77]

So you are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist? I would say that the fact that people aren't getting hit by cars means that the existing speed limit is more than safe enough. This seems like nothing more than a bunch of neurotic people trying to convince everyone that the area is currently dangerous (although it obviously isn't).

Here's a better idea than blanket speed limit for an entire neighbourhood. Identify which intersections are actually risky and put pedestrian lights there. Leave the speed limit as is.

This is the historical accident data for bike for 1996-2011. The worst intersection being Memorial and 10 St NW which is one of the riskier ones in the city (and I think FFWD Weekly magazine always has this intersection as well in the survey as being unsafe):

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8759/sunnysidecyclingacciden.png

I still haven't gone around to mapping pedestrian accidents...

[Radley77]

Here are some ideas on how could improve the 10St & Memorial intersection:

- wavy lines as approach the pedestrian crossing
- zebra stripes across
- pedestrian refuge island in the middle
- markings saying look right and look left
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3918/pedestriancrossing.png

[Bigtime]

Thanks for posting the map Radley, keep in mind this proposal EXCLUDES 10th street and Memorial.

I'm quite surprised to see that the only road I would be even slightly concerned about (2nd avenue) has only 1.5-2.5 biking incidents in one spot.

I am beginning to think this is a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist in the community.

[DizzyEdge]

What about 40km like most (all?) of airdrie seems to be? That I don't mind because since people tend to drive 10 over the limit anyway so at least that way most people will end up driving 50.

[freeweed]

So you are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist? I would say that the fact that people aren't getting hit by cars means that the existing speed limit is more than safe enough. This seems like nothing more than a bunch of neurotic people trying to convince everyone that the area is currently dangerous (although it obviously isn't).

What people seem to easily forget is this: speed limits aren't a new thing. Back when cars first came into widespread use, there WERE no speed limits. Chaos ensued, people were killed - and as a society, we organized and studied the problem. Traffic engineers, insurance risk managers, city planners - EVERYONE got involved to try to determine what is a "safe" speed for a given road or situation.

And by and large, 50 km/h was agreed upon as a reasonable compromise between safety and road efficiency. Children were taught how to deal with traffic at these speeds, and drivers were trained to obey them (and enforcement was put in place to ensure compliance to a reasonable degree).

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. And it's worked perfectly fine for DECADES. 50 km/h (30mph in the US) is considered adequate for residential areas.

All we're seeing here (and with cases like Elbow Drive, Airdrie, and a hundred other examples) are neurotic busybodies who insist that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Without even pointing to a legitimate problem. For those that compare this to school/playground zones - I point to you the fact that most cities have nothing anywhere close to Calgary's level of stupidity here. Children in most Canadian cities deal with 50km/h traffic around their playgrounds, and yet somehow kids in Winnipeg aren't being mowed down at a higher rate than in Calgary. Ask yourselves why that is the case, and perhaps you'll understand why a lot of us think this is a needless exercise.

Personally, I think a lot of people just have way too much time on their hands these days. And life is just so damned safe that they have to try to invent problems to solve.

[MasterG]

Thanks for posting the map Radley, keep in mind this proposal EXCLUDES 10th street and Memorial.

I'm quite surprised to see that the only road I would be even slightly concerned about (2nd avenue) has only 1.5-2.5 biking incidents in one spot.

I am beginning to think this is a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist in the community.

Agreed. For Sunnyside, this is over-regulation plain and simple. I am all for reducing traffic by limits, pace-cars (:rolleyes:), enforcement etc. but where the urban form does not solve this problem naturally. Sunnyside has no cut-through traffic, little local traffic, narrow streets with parked cars, stop signs dead ends and huge amounts of pedestrians and cyclists that have all cultured drivers to naturally slow down to safe and appropriate levels. It is literally the best example Calgary has of a Jane Jacobs-esque urban form that works without pointless regulations like this.

There is simply no need for this.

[Cage]

Counter proposal to the 30 for Sunnyside crowd.

Sunnyside gets their 30kp/h zome throughout the community.

Citizens outside of Sunnyside get reduced hassle along Memorial and 10th street through the following measures:
- All access points to Memorial other than 5A street all walled off. 5a street turned into a lighted intersection.
- Pedestrian access is walled off at Memorial with grade separated access to river bank.
- Street parking along memorial is banned.
- Memorial speed is increased from 50 to 70kph.

Put the full proposal to plebesite of Sunnyside residents.

My guess, the DINKs will vote against the proposal in droves.

[MasterG]

You raise some very important points Mark. The obvious reason that the initiative is 30 km/h rather than 20 or 10 is because, while 20 or 10 would be safer, it would be almost impossible to "sell". People are already widely familiar with 30 km/h zones and their reason for existing, which of course is higher pedestrian safety. 30 km/h also provides an optimal balance of safety to efficiency.

It is great that you raise the point about efficiency versus safety. We assert that safety in an entirely residential area should trump transportation speeds. Residential neighbourhoods are not for speeding around or even travelling quickly through. They are the places people live. I hear much about how people want to live in serene and quiet neighbourhoods where children can play safely, but nothing about how they want to be able to drive quickly through their communities.

Also, what is the actual decrease in efficiency that would come with a 30 km/h speed limit? Since Sunnyside is small in size, the difference between 30 and 50 km/h really comes down to a couple dozen seconds. A few dozen seconds compared to the significant improvement in collision survival statistics. I cannot speak for everyone, but giving up a few dozen seconds to ensure the safety of the people who live in our community seems like a pretty reasonable trade off.

So really, we might ask whether the marginal increase in traffic efficiency is worth a significantly higher risk to the safety of vulnerable road users.

Your questions are no doubt common ones that people have, so I appreciate you raising them.

I agree that 30 is obviously safer than 50, but its just not an issue at this location. People don't drive 50 now in Sunnyside. Even if they do, I have seen no evidence that accidents and vehicle pedestrian conflicts are an issue here.

Why doesn't Sunnyside advocate for something that actually would improve safety and reduce conflicts? Lobby for the pedestrian or full light crossing across Memorial at the Peace Bridge. More people will get hit there than all of Sunnyside combined at 50km/h or 80 for that matter.

Please save the political capital for real issues that can actually improve the livability of the neighbourhood.

[hulkrogan]

Roads that would have these speedlimits would have almost zero traffic enforcement anyway. How fast you go down a residential street is pretty much an honor system. I find myself rarely going 50km/h on a true side street. The are too narrow and with poor visibility for people/animals running out. Most people do the same. The teenager I see ripping down my street at 70km/h every couple days? Well he obviously doesn't care about speed limits anyway, and he knows he'll never get caught, as putting a speed trap on said street would be ridiculous.

Now we move onto a huge problem with new neighborhoods.

The city is INCREASING the required width of residential streets... to make room for bikes.

I find narrow streets much safer. Everyone is driving at a crawl becaue you can barely fit two cars. Also much less land waste.

[ByeByeBaby]

Given that there are two whole bike accidents in Sunnyside in a mere 15 year timespan, the facts speak for themselves. Let's skip the middle step and just ban cars in Sunnyside. If the residents are truly concerned about the safety of their children, they would obviously be willing to adopt such a modest proposal. And if they are not, we have to ask why they value convenience so much over the lives of their children.

[Radley77]

Been starting to look at the pedestrian data. Haven't mapped Sunnyside yet, but found this really interesting. Top 3 locations for pedestrian accidents are:
17 Ave SW & 4 St SW (Beltline/Mission), and the other ones were 6455 McLeod Trail (Chinook Centre) and 3625 (Market Mall). There have been nearly 100 pedestrian accidents between those too malls, about a dozen major injuries, no fatalaties and scads of minor injuries.

[Calgarian]

What people seem to easily forget is this: speed limits aren't a new thing. Back when cars first came into widespread use, there WERE no speed limits. Chaos ensued, people were killed - and as a society, we organized and studied the problem. Traffic engineers, insurance risk managers, city planners - EVERYONE got involved to try to determine what is a "safe" speed for a given road or situation.

And by and large, 50 km/h was agreed upon as a reasonable compromise between safety and road efficiency. Children were taught how to deal with traffic at these speeds, and drivers were trained to obey them (and enforcement was put in place to ensure compliance to a reasonable degree).

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. And it's worked perfectly fine for DECADES. 50 km/h (30mph in the US) is considered adequate for residential areas.

All we're seeing here (and with cases like Elbow Drive, Airdrie, and a hundred other examples) are neurotic busybodies who insist that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Without even pointing to a legitimate problem. For those that compare this to school/playground zones - I point to you the fact that most cities have nothing anywhere close to Calgary's level of stupidity here. Children in most Canadian cities deal with 50km/h traffic around their playgrounds, and yet somehow kids in Winnipeg aren't being mowed down at a higher rate than in Calgary. Ask yourselves why that is the case, and perhaps you'll understand why a lot of us think this is a needless exercise.

Personally, I think a lot of people just have way too much time on their hands these days. And life is just so damned safe that they have to try to invent problems to solve.

Exactly! the current limits exist for a reason, and as long as people are paying attention to what they are doing, they work very well.

Just from following the news, people on their phone (or some other distraction) are the biggest cause of accidents. Also, people driving in (and commuting from) areas where there is very little pedestrian activity seem to have lots of issues as they aren't used to looking out for pedestrians. Lowering the speed limit in places might help, but won't address the root of the problem.

[MasterG]

Been starting to look at the pedestrian data. Haven't mapped Sunnyside yet, but found this really interesting. Top 3 locations for pedestrian accidents are:
17 Ave SW & 4 St SW (Beltline/Mission), and the other ones were 6455 McLeod Trail (Chinook Centre) and 3625 (Market Mall). There have been nearly 100 pedestrian accidents between those too malls, about a dozen major injuries, no fatalaties and scads of minor injuries.

Where do you find that data? I have seen the bicycle map one before but can't remember where its from

[Radley77]

Thanks for posting the map Radley, keep in mind this proposal EXCLUDES 10th street and Memorial.

I'm quite surprised to see that the only road I would be even slightly concerned about (2nd avenue) has only 1.5-2.5 biking incidents in one spot.

I am beginning to think this is a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist in the community.

Along 2nd Ave NW, the first instance found in the spreadsheet was 574th in terms of severity with 1 major incident, 1 minor incident and 1 no injury accident. There was maybe 1 or 2 other minor pedestrian incidents over a 15 year period along the rest of 2nd Avenue in Sunnyside (seems really safe).

[Bigtime]

I appreciate the digging you are doing on the statistics Radley77!

[lubicon]

Roads that would have these speedlimits would have almost zero traffic enforcement anyway. How fast you go down a residential street is pretty much an honor system. I find myself rarely going 50km/h on a true side street. The are too narrow and with poor visibility for people/animals running out. Most people do the same. The teenager I see ripping down my street at 70km/h every couple days? Well he obviously doesn't care about speed limits anyway, and he knows he'll never get caught, as putting a speed trap on said street would be ridiculous.

Now we move onto a huge problem with new neighborhoods.

The city is INCREASING the required width of residential streets... to make room for bikes.

I find narrow streets much safer. Everyone is driving at a crawl becaue you can barely fit two cars. Also much less land waste.

Bingo.

As a resident of one of these new communities I can attest to this. We have major roads (4 lanes both divided and undivided - think Boulevards etc.) and stick them with 50km/h speed limits. We line them with houses, schools, and playgrounds. Then we are surprised when traffic becomes 'a concern'. For the love of dog why plan a system like this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or psychic to predice what the results will be.

[freeweed]

As a resident of one of these new communities I can attest to this. We have major roads (4 lanes both divided and undivided - think Boulevards etc.) and stick them with 50km/h speed limits. We line them with houses, schools, and playgrounds. Then we are surprised when traffic becomes 'a concern'. For the love of dog why plan a system like this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or psychic to predice what the results will be.

Well this is the thing. And a lot of people realize parts of it, but I think it's easy to forget the bigger picture.

The fact is, and this is backed up with decades of research, the vast majority of drivers will drive at a fairly "safe" speed - based on conditions. Narrow road, hard to see around corners? People slow down. 4-lane divided road with no intersections and little traffic? People will drive 60, 70, maybe even 80. Unless they're worried about a ticket. And most of the time, the speeds that people naturally drive are pretty damned safe (except when we put schools and driveways on these major streets). This is why the Autobahn isn't a slaughterhouse. Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

Of course you'll always get a small handful who drive like idiots, regardless of conditions or speed limits. There's not much you can do about these except enforcement. Which is precisely what traffic cops are supposed to be dealing with. Not nailing someone who is doing 35 in a 30 zone on a clear day with no other traffic when it's -30 outside and all the kids are inside.

It's also why there's no need to put "max 50, but 30 if the roads are slippery" on all of our signs. People for the most part slow down of their own accord. And the few that don't, either learn or pay the consequences.

Speeding just isn't the insane killer we make it out to be lately. Undue care and attention, is. But cameras and radar have gotten to the point that speed can easily be measured, focused on, and enforced - you'll notice that "speed kills" has gone from an occasional campaign to the primary discussion on all traffic issues, and this transition happened in lockstep with automated speed monitoring (and the legalization of photo radar, etc). Kinda the same reason why we now focus on holding your phone as being such a distraction, when literally all research shows that it's the conversation that is the problem, not what your hands are doing. It's just easier to notice, and enforce, when people are holding their phone. It's got little to do with actual safety.

Much like this topic. It's safety theatre at best.

[MasterG]

Well this is the thing. And a lot of people realize parts of it, but I think it's easy to forget the bigger picture.

The fact is, and this is backed up with decades of research, the vast majority of drivers will drive at a fairly "safe" speed - based on conditions. Narrow road, hard to see around corners? People slow down. 4-lane divided road with no intersections and little traffic? People will drive 60, 70, maybe even 80. Unless they're worried about a ticket. And most of the time, the speeds that people naturally drive are pretty damned safe (except when we put schools and driveways on these major streets). This is why the Autobahn isn't a slaughterhouse. Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

Of course you'll always get a small handful who drive like idiots, regardless of conditions or speed limits. There's not much you can do about these except enforcement. Which is precisely what traffic cops are supposed to be dealing with. Not nailing someone who is doing 35 in a 30 zone on a clear day with no other traffic when it's -30 outside and all the kids are inside.

It's also why there's no need to put "max 50, but 30 if the roads are slippery" on all of our signs. People for the most part slow down of their own accord. And the few that don't, either learn or pay the consequences.

Speeding just isn't the insane killer we make it out to be lately. Undue care and attention, is. But cameras and radar have gotten to the point that speed can easily be measured, focused on, and enforced - you'll notice that "speed kills" has gone from an occasional campaign to the primary discussion on all traffic issues, and this transition happened in lockstep with automated speed monitoring (and the legalization of photo radar, etc). Kinda the same reason why we now focus on holding your phone as being such a distraction, when literally all research shows that it's the conversation that is the problem, not what your hands are doing. It's just easier to notice, and enforce, when people are holding their phone. It's got little to do with actual safety.

Much like this topic. It's safety theatre at best.

I have heard of a lot of these concepts, but you summarized this very nicely and concisely. Thank you sir, good post :tup:

[Radley77]

I appreciate the digging you are doing on the statistics Radley77!

No prob. Hoping to educate a bit with this info on a community by community basis. Will be interesting to see if the Peace Bridge accident data drops along 10 St NW as more people move to shoe into the safer Peace Bridge and 7 St NW route.

The following map is of pedestrian accidents for Sunnyside as well, sad to see there was a fatality at 10 St NW & 3 Av NW.:

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/5346/sunnysidepedestrianacci.png

[Bigtime]

Once again barely anything in the community proper. This is definitely a solution to a non-existent problem.

[speedog]

No prob. Hoping to educate a bit with this info on a community by community basis. Will be interesting to see if the Peace Bridge accident data drops along 10 St NW as more people move to shoe into the safer Peace Bridge and 7 St NW route.

The following map is of pedestrian accidents for Sunnyside as well, sad to see there was a fatality at 10 St NW & 3 Av NW.:

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/5346/sunnysidepedestrianacci.png

Let me get this right - only four pedestrian accidents in 15 years in the proposed 30kph zone?

Wonder how that compares to let's say, Ramsay or Bridgeland, two similar sized communities in the inner city.

[Boris2k7]

Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

IMO, these days it's more like "20 over the limit." At least on major arteries.

:)

[Radley77]

A bit more details about the fatality on 10 St NW and 3 Ave NW, a pickup van struck a 85 year senior female pedestrian who was crossing with right of way in broad daylight in 2004. I'm not sure if there have been any changes to this intersection since 2004.

[Calgarian]

Why did the residents of Sunnyside reject the move of the pedestrian crossing to 8st that was proposed as part of the Peace Bridge project? what with their concern for safety and all...

[MarkL]

What people seem to easily forget is this: speed limits aren't a new thing. Back when cars first came into widespread use, there WERE no speed limits. Chaos ensued, people were killed - and as a society, we organized and studied the problem. Traffic engineers, insurance risk managers, city planners - EVERYONE got involved to try to determine what is a "safe" speed for a given road or situation.

And by and large, 50 km/h was agreed upon as a reasonable compromise between safety and road efficiency. Children were taught how to deal with traffic at these speeds, and drivers were trained to obey them (and enforcement was put in place to ensure compliance to a reasonable degree).

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. And it's worked perfectly fine for DECADES. 50 km/h (30mph in the US) is considered adequate for residential areas.

All we're seeing here (and with cases like Elbow Drive, Airdrie, and a hundred other examples) are neurotic busybodies who insist that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Without even pointing to a legitimate problem. For those that compare this to school/playground zones - I point to you the fact that most cities have nothing anywhere close to Calgary's level of stupidity here. Children in most Canadian cities deal with 50km/h traffic around their playgrounds, and yet somehow kids in Winnipeg aren't being mowed down at a higher rate than in Calgary. Ask yourselves why that is the case, and perhaps you'll understand why a lot of us think this is a needless exercise.

Personally, I think a lot of people just have way too much time on their hands these days. And life is just so damned safe that they have to try to invent problems to solve.

The only thing I want to add to this post is that many of these standard traffic rules, such as the 50km/h speed limit were established during a completely different technological era. Cars have become magnitudes safer (for pedestrians and cyclists as well) since then, yet the old rules remain. All I have to do is drive my 2.5 ton, single brake cylinder, drum brake 1965 Dodge to be reminded of this fact.

[freeweed]

The only thing I want to add to this post is that many of these standard traffic rules, such as the 50km/h speed limit were established during a completely different technological era. Cars have become magnitudes safer (for pedestrians and cyclists as well) since then, yet the old rules remain. All I have to do is drive my 2.5 ton, single brake cylinder, drum brake 1965 Dodge to be reminded of this fact.

You're exactly right, and I didn't even touch on that, was trying to be conservative. Technically most of our speed limits can be increased without adding to safety concerns. So if anything, 50 is "too slow" for many residential areas.

[Radley77]

Let me get this right - only four pedestrian accidents in 15 years in the proposed 30kph zone?

Wonder how that compares to let's say, Ramsay or Bridgeland, two similar sized communities in the inner city.

Bridgeland and Ramsay are both fairly benign with perhaps a few spots like near schools or specific intersections that are worse or higher risk. Myself, I feel safer running or jogging on the residential streets instead of on the sidewalk in broad daylight with less worry about blind corners.

Wheras in the Beltline, a near disaster is happening. For example on 8 St where the pedestrian and public realm improvements are proposed there has between 5 to 25 pedestrian accidents results in injuries on EVERY street between the years I have data on. While Beltline does have a higher modal share of pedestrians than many other communities, there is an increased need for intersection design that speaks specifically to the safety needs of pedestrians.

[patm]

Yeah, it makes me wonder if the better course of action would be to update the pedestrian right of way rules. Something like you would see in Manioba or Ontario; where pedestrians have right of way but need to indicate their intentions. The one thing that I couldn't believe when I first moved to Calgary was how pedestrians here just step out into traffic without really looking.

I also see parents walking with their kids and demonstrating the same lack of care and attention.

What we need is European pedestrian laws.

Get the FUCK out of the way of any car with no red light unless you want to die motherfucker.

[Radley77]

What we need is European pedestrian laws.

Get the FUCK out of the way of any car with no red light unless you want to die motherfucker.

Alberta's pretty much has that already and even if a pedestrian does have the right of way, a driver is probably only looking at a $2,000 fine with no license suspension like this case:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/05/29/edmonton-man-who-killed-pedestrian-fined-2000

Best to always make eye contact.

[Calgarian]

What we need is European pedestrian laws.

Get the FUCK out of the way of any car with no red light unless you want to die motherfucker.

Why would we want this as a law? Pedestrians have the right of way and that's the right way to do it.

[patm]

Why would we want this as a law? Pedestrians have the right of way and that's the right way to do it.

That way everyone looks both god damn ways and doesn't assume that everyone can see them when they step on to a road. Pedestrians are easy to stop and control. If they're the ones responsible for looking, then there is almost no chance that they step into traffic blindly and get hit by a car that they didn't see.

The same cannot be said for cars. A lot of things can obscure a drivers vision (sun, distraction.. etc.) and guess what, 3 ton cars going 50-60 km/h are a lot harder to stop in time.

Makes ZERO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO sense in my mind that pedestrians have the right of way at intersections without lights.

[Calgarian]

That way everyone looks both god damn ways and doesn't assume that everyone can see them when they step on to a road. Pedestrians are easy to stop and control. If they're the ones responsible for looking, then there is almost no chance that they step into traffic blindly and get hit by a car that they didn't see.

The same cannot be said for cars. A lot of things can obscure a drivers vision (sun, distraction.. etc.) and guess what, 3 ton cars going 50-60 km/h are a lot harder to stop in time.

Makes ZERO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO sense in my mind that pedestrians have the right of way at intersections without lights.

There's no reason the pedestrian should just step in front of a car. If common sense is applied (i.e. the pedestrian and driver make eye contact prior to the pedestrian stepping out in the road) then there is no issue.

My beef with giving cars the right of way is that as a pedestrian I'll be standing at the corner at an unmarked crosswalk for 20 minutes in rush hour before I can cross. As it is, most drivers stop for me, but if they have the right of way and know it, I bet this will change fast. I think that because cars are the more dangerous of the 2, we need to make the rules such that drivers have to pay extra attention.

[DizzyEdge]

Why did the residents of Sunnyside reject the move of the pedestrian crossing to 8st that was proposed as part of the Peace Bridge project? what with their concern for safety and all...

I had heard there was some miscommunication and they thought the plan was to just add the 8th st cross, so they thought there would be 2 crossings a block apart.

[Calgarian]

I had heard there was some miscommunication and they thought the plan was to just add the 8th st cross, so they thought there would be 2 crossings a block apart.

That's valid then. They definitely need to move that crosswalk though.

[Cage]

I had heard there was some miscommunication and they thought the plan was to just add the 8th st cross, so they thought there would be 2 crossings a block apart.

My recollection was the other way around. The cross walk on 7th would move to 8th street when the residents of Sunnyside wanted cross walks and intersections at 7th, 8th and 10th streets. I could be wrong.

[patm]

There's no reason the pedestrian should just step in front of a car. If common sense is applied (i.e. the pedestrian and driver make eye contact prior to the pedestrian stepping out in the road) then there is no issue.

My beef with giving cars the right of way is that as a pedestrian I'll be standing at the corner at an unmarked crosswalk for 20 minutes in rush hour before I can cross. As it is, most drivers stop for me, but if they have the right of way and know it, I bet this will change fast. I think that because cars are the more dangerous of the 2, we need to make the rules such that drivers have to pay extra attention.

Yes common sense says that you shouldn't just walk into the street when there is a car coming yet pedestrians still get hit. Every single one of those pedestrians walked into the street when there was a car coming. Every SINGLE one. If cars have the right of way that would never happen.

Put pedestrian lights up at those kind of intersections. Not like the ones we currently have where each pedestrian gets the magical power to stop all traffic for themselves but ones that have a delay just like at real intersections.

Thats a very backwards way of fixing that specific problem. Somethings you can't fix with a law, like the sun glaring into your eyes. Even with the best sunglasses you could still miss someone walking into the middle of the street like an idiot.

[Radley77]

Yes common sense says that you shouldn't just walk into the street when there is a car coming yet pedestrians still get hit. Every single one of those pedestrians walked into the street when there was a car coming. Every SINGLE one. If cars have the right of way that would never happen.

Put pedestrian lights up at those kind of intersections. Not like the ones we currently have where each pedestrian gets the magical power to stop all traffic for themselves but ones that have a delay just like at real intersections.

Thats a very backwards way of fixing that specific problem. Somethings you can't fix with a law, like the sun glaring into your eyes. Even with the best sunglasses you could still miss someone walking into the middle of the street like an idiot.

It's not true that every pedestrian that is hit did not walk into a street when a car was coming. There are cases where pedestrians have been struck when crossing a crosswalk in a lit intersection when a vehicle turns into the crosswalk and strikes them in the middle of the crosswalk. There is no way a pedestrian can prepare for that outcome. There are also cases where pedestrians have been struck and the road is clear when they start to proceed across and then a vehicle comes from an alleyway to turn and strike them.

The current system implies a shared risk between both the pedestrian, the driver and the broader public. If a pedestrian is struck in a crosswalk, they may be maimed and may become harder for them to have a good paying job in the future. The driver will be fined according to the laws, and the public picks up the tab for paying for the health care costs that result. The pedestrian that is injured and the public by means of taxpayers carry the majority of the burden.

In addition, there have been large number of studies done on the value of active mobility to the public and that there is a mean benefit to cost ratio for pedestrian/cycling of 5:1. So by a large margin the benefits of walking/biking outweigh the risks.

Lastly by installing a timed delay for intersections would result in pedestrian randomized timing for crossing and negate the option for pedestrians who choose to press the button when there is a lull in the traffic (which is what I always do as I evaluate what other users of the road are doing and can make choices not to screw over vehicles that would otherwise have to decelerate to a stop).

[Full Mountain]

Yes common sense says that you shouldn't just walk into the street when there is a car coming yet pedestrians still get hit. Every single one of those pedestrians walked into the street when there was a car coming. Every SINGLE one. If cars have the right of way that would never happen.

Put pedestrian lights up at those kind of intersections. Not like the ones we currently have where each pedestrian gets the magical power to stop all traffic for themselves but ones that have a delay just like at real intersections.

Thats a very backwards way of fixing that specific problem. Somethings you can't fix with a law, like the sun glaring into your eyes. Even with the best sunglasses you could still miss someone walking into the middle of the street like an idiot.

Pedestrian accidents more often than not occur because of driver inattention, I would bet that there are very few accidents each year where the pedestrian wasn't in a mark crosswalk.

The party with the most at stake should always have the right of way, a car is a 2000-4000 pound block of metal protecting its occupants, pedestrians/cyclists do not have this protection. If a pedestrian/cyclist takes a risk they risk only themselves physically, if a driver takes a risk they risk everyone around them as well as themselves.

As a pedestrian/cyclist it takes me much more human energy to accelerate from a stop than the driver, sorry I will press the crosswalk button when I arrive at the intersection, I will not wait for a break in traffic. If they happen to coincide that's great for the drivers.

If a driver is blinded by the sun, then they should slow down to the point where if something happens they can stop, speed limits are not the recommended speed only a maximum and a vehicle should only travel those speeds in ideal conditions (i.e. right next to never).

[Calgarian]

Pedestrian accidents more often than not occur because of driver inattention, I would bet that there are very few accidents each year where the pedestrian wasn't in a mark crosswalk.

The party with the most at stake should always have the right of way, a car is a 2000-4000 pound block of metal protecting its occupants, pedestrians/cyclists do not have this protection. If a pedestrian/cyclist takes a risk they risk only themselves physically, if a driver takes a risk they risk everyone around them as well as themselves.

As a pedestrian/cyclist it takes me much more human energy to accelerate from a stop than the driver, sorry I will press the crosswalk button when I arrive at the intersection, I will not wait for a break in traffic. If they happen to coincide that's great for the drivers.

If a driver is blinded by the sun, then they should slow down to the point where if something happens they can stop, speed limits are not the recommended speed only a maximum and a vehicle should only travel those speeds in ideal conditions (i.e. right next to never).

This echos my thoughts almost exactly.

We can't protect people all the time, someone will do something stupid despite our best intentions (like the girl in Montreal who was texting and walked between to moving subway cars and died). Like Full Mountain said, and I said before, the people who can do the most damage (motorists) should be the ones who are forced to pay the most attention, and in this case that means surrendering the right of way to those who have the most to lose (pedestrians / cyclists).

In addition, we are trying to encourage people to not rely on driving everywhere (especially in the inner city), making it less convenient for them to do this would be counterproductive to that result.

[Calgarian]

Yes common sense says that you shouldn't just walk into the street when there is a car coming yet pedestrians still get hit. Every single one of those pedestrians walked into the street when there was a car coming. Every SINGLE one. If cars have the right of way that would never happen.



Do you walk much? I'm getting the impression that you really don't. For example, when a car is trying to turn right at a red light, the driver is usually looking left and has no idea that there are pedestrians coming from their right (whose right of way it absolutely is) and can suddenly floor it to beat an oncoming car and cream someone who they didn't even know was there. I've kicked so many peoples cars who just about ran me over due to their own incompetence. Basically my point is that it isn't always the pedestrians fault as you say it is, the driver is guilty just as often.

Like I said, the biggest thing is to pay attention and use common sense. This is getting to be a big city and we have a lot of people getting around in a lot of different ways. People need to be aware of everyone and everything that is going on around them, regardless of whose right of way it is.

[Radley77]

Map of Pedestrian Fatalities in the Downtown
Purple markers are the fatalities, and yellow dots are other major and minor injury locations
I'd like to see Alderman Mar being a bigger champion to bringing safer intersection and street design in addition to his current crime focus.
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1326/pedestriandeathsdowntow.png

[93JC]

Can I ask where you got the collision data, Radley77? I'd love to see it if I could.

[Radley77]

Can I ask where you got the collision data, Radley77? I'd love to see it if I could.

The pedestrian and cyclist accident info is from the Calgary Police Service via a request I made under the FOIP act. I plan to work with community associations, AMA, Bike Calgary and other community organizations before making the full data set publicly available. Repeatability shows predictability and hope to work with these and other organizations to offer suggestions for change...

[speedog]

User "30 for Sunnyside" sure seems to have gone silent in this thread.

[Slug]

As being a former resident of Airdrie (where all residential streets are signed at 30kph and everybody drives them at 40). I just naturally tend to do that on similar looking streets in Calgary and passively wondering where are all the signs went and what the actually speed limit was. Now that I know what the true limit is thanks to information presented here and being ever so slightly miffed by being socially engineered by safety advocates in my former city.... I will adjust my speed accordingly.

[Jimby]

The posted speed limit on my kid free street is 20 k/ph. God likes us better than Sunnyside.

[93JC]

The pedestrian and cyclist accident info is from the Calgary Police Service via a request I made under the FOIP act. I plan to work with community associations, AMA, Bike Calgary and other community organizations before making the full data set publicly available. Repeatability shows predictability and hope to work with these and other organizations to offer suggestions for change...

You can't upload the files CPS gave you to Google Drive, Scribd or the like? *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* :)

[Full Mountain]

The only thing I want to add to this post is that many of these standard traffic rules, such as the 50km/h speed limit were established during a completely different technological era. Cars have become magnitudes safer (for pedestrians and cyclists as well) since then, yet the old rules remain. All I have to do is drive my 2.5 ton, single brake cylinder, drum brake 1965 Dodge to be reminded of this fact.

You're exactly right, and I didn't even touch on that, was trying to be conservative. Technically most of our speed limits can be increased without adding to safety concerns. So if anything, 50 is "too slow" for many residential areas.

Survivability rates for pedestrians in vehicle collisions go from 95% at 30 to 15% at ~60. I hardly think that raising the speed limits around pedestrians is a right approach. Time to reorder our priorities, Chicago has recently changed from cars first to pedestrians first, then transit, bikes, and cars last. I think this is something that needs to be done ASAP in Calgary, part of this would be changing the default speed limit to 30 unless otherwise signed (most currently signed roads wouldn't need to be changed).

[Mista_Incognito]

Nobody drives fast in sunnyside. We don't need a reduced speed limit. We don't need any traffic calming.

What we do need is a xwalk on memorial at 8th st.

No kidding, if there is one single safety issue in Sunnyside it’s that everyday countless people are jay walking across busy Memorial drive. Poor planning if you ask me.

[ByeByeBaby]

Survivability rates for pedestrians in vehicle collisions go from 95% at 30 to 15% at ~60. I hardly think that raising the speed limits around pedestrians is a right approach. Time to reorder our priorities, Chicago has recently changed from cars first to pedestrians first, then transit, bikes, and cars last. I think this is something that needs to be done ASAP in Calgary, part of this would be changing the default speed limit to 30 unless otherwise signed (most currently signed roads wouldn't need to be changed).

Is back in 2009 ASAP enough for you? (see page 21 of the CTP (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgary.ca%2FTransportation%2FTP%2FDocuments%2FCTP2009%2Fcalgary_transportation_plan_2009.pdf%3Fnoredirect%3D1&ei=xD21UfCEFISZjAK-6IHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNEx5cn42WFPgd6j6rtS0VTTaWV7Nw&sig2=kCG7Q89x2bqk_pHMXpux2w&bvm=bv.ilding ,d.cGE)). Sure, you may not notice, since construction sites still block off top-priority pedestrian routes but not bottom-priority SOV roads. Since we still approve bottom-priority auto-oriented big box malls, without forcing them to put top-priority pedestrians and cyclists on top. Since there are still places without sidewalks for the top-priority pedestrian mode (places in the Beltline, for fuck's sake) and we will allow new communities with incomplete sidewalks, but would never allow them without bottom-priority roads.

But on paper, we totally have made pedestrians the priority.

And I actually agree; why not make 30 the default speed limit? And actually enforce the laws, rather than the ridiculous "everybody does it" approach we use now.

[Radley77]

You can't upload the files CPS gave you to Google Drive, Scribd or the like? *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* :) Likely to upload it in the next couple months once have reviewed it with a few organizations first. PM me if you have something more specific in mind.

[lubicon]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said, but in Alberta 30 IS the default speed limit in an urban area. 30 MPH (or 50km/h) that is, and this is what I am assuming you mean as 30km/h would be ridiculously low.

[sync]

i always thought the speed limit in a residential area, unless posted otherwise, was 30 kmh.

[ByeByeBaby]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said, but in Alberta 30 IS the default speed limit in an urban area. 30 MPH (or 50km/h) that is, and this is what I am assuming you mean as 30km/h would be ridiculously low.

Yeah, you're misunderstanding what is being said. You have not, in fact, stumbled onto a wormhole back to a message board from before September 1977, speed limits in Canada are in km/h. 30 km/h does not seem ridiculously low to me on local roads in all residential areas; surely the point is to only drive a short distance on them anyway.

[Radley77]

i always thought the speed limit in a residential area, unless posted otherwise, was 30 kmh.

It's 50 kmphr within urban areas, though council can prescribe a speed limit higher or lower:
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/T06.pdf

This is an interesting proposal for a woonerf in Inglewood:



Cyclists and foot traffic to rule Inglewood lane

An idea to transform an Inglewood street giving pedestrians and cyclists priority over motorists would bring a touch of the Netherlands to Calgary. On Monday, city council will be asked to consider allocating some of the $4.6 million from the 2012 Calgary Parking Authority surplus to transform Catherine Avenue into a woonerf - a concept that allows vehicles but limits speeds to walking pace to give walkers and cyclist room to travel.

The Catherine Avenue woonerf proposal would involve the city formalizing a legal lane behind parcels at 8th Avenue S.E. between 12th and 13th streets S.E. A woonerf would serve as the new lane. The plan would create 48 parking spaces, according to a city report. The intent here is to construct these spaces to replace the surface parking lot off of 12th Street S.E. that is currently used for Rouge restaurant. The surface parking lot would be reclaimed to become part of the surrounding river park," the report reads. The idea has support from Inglewood's business revitalization zone. "We're pretty clear our interest is getting people into Inglewood. We put pedestrians and cyclists pretty high. That's a top priority for us," said Rebecca O'Brien of the Inglewood BRZ. "It's a neighbourhood ready to experiment with creative ideas able be open to progressive new levels." The woonerf concept was developed in the Netherlands and is gaining popularity. It is coming closer to reality in downtown Banff. There, town planners have been given the green light to develop design concepts for Bear Street

I've heard much the same comments from many community association presidents in the area. That they are ready to experiment and they place a high value on having spaces within the community which are friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. I could see 8 Ave being converted into a bike lane in a few years with the Elbow River Traverse and this woonerf project...

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=8501700

[Boris2k7]

Yeah, you're misunderstanding what is being said. You have not, in fact, stumbled onto a wormhole back to a message board from before September 1977, speed limits in Canada are in km/h. 30 km/h does not seem ridiculously low to me on local roads in all residential areas; surely the point is to only drive a short distance on them anyway.

I'm sure that a car driving at 30km/hr doesn't seem ridiculously slow to you... if you are standing still on the sidewalk.

Hell, I have to constantly feather the brake just to get my Jeep to go that slow.

[Full Mountain]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said, but in Alberta 30 IS the default speed limit in an urban area. 30 MPH (or 50km/h) that is, and this is what I am assuming you mean as 30km/h would be ridiculously low.

No I mean 30 km/h

[Full Mountain]

I'm sure that a car driving at 30km/hr doesn't seem ridiculously slow to you... if you are standing still on the sidewalk.

Hell, I have to constantly feather the brake just to get my Jeep to go that slow.

I really don't care what you have to do to drive at that speed, I have my skin and bones on the line, as far as I'm concerned I should be able to walk on the sidewalk an not fear being sideswiped by a car. Additionally slower cars generally make less noise, this makes any neighborhood more enjoyable.

[woychukb]

I really don't care what you have to do to drive at that speed, I have my skin and bones on the line, as far as I'm concerned I should be able to walk on the sidewalk an not fear being sideswiped by a car. Additionally slower cars generally make less noise, this makes any neighborhood more enjoyable.

If you are getting sideswiped while walking down the sidewalk I doubt the driver is going to be too concerned about what the speed limit is.

[93JC]

I really don't care what you have to do to drive at that speed, I have my skin and bones on the line, as far as I'm concerned I should be able to walk on the sidewalk an not fear being sideswiped by a car.

:sly:

What does the speed limit have to do with being "sideswiped on the sidewalk"? Vehicles travelling at 30 km/h are less likely to jump the curb and run you down?

[93JC]

Likely to upload it in the next couple months once have reviewed it with a few organizations first. PM me if you have something more specific in mind.

Oh I was just curious about a few neighbourhoods. I have no idea what format the cops gave the data in, I was just hoping that the raw data itself (minus your analyses) would be pretty easy to upload.

It's no biggie.

[Full Mountain]

If you are getting sideswiped while walking down the sidewalk I doubt the driver is going to be too concerned about what the speed limit is.

:sly:

What does the speed limit have to do with being "sideswiped on the sidewalk"? Vehicles travelling at 30 km/h are less likely to jump the curb and run you down?

A car @ 50+km/h <2 feet away is a scary thing. 30km/h would help significantly.

My peve comes from the 11th/12th couplet it's rare that the cars in the curb lane are at speed limit, generally they are 5-10k over the limit when I'm stand on the corner. Additionaly many drivers also have little idea how wide their vehicles are and come dangerously close to the curb and by proxy me.

Three factors are a play here
1 - A 30k car is less likely to jump the curb
2 - A 30k car has as significantly shorter stopping distance (link (http://www.2pass.co.uk/img/stoppingdistances.png))
3 - I'm far more likely to survive the 30k car collision than a 50-60k car collision (32k - 95%, 48k - 55-63%, 64k - 15-17%)(source (http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm))

[Boris2k7]

I really don't care what you have to do to drive at that speed, I have my skin and bones on the line, as far as I'm concerned

With cars moving at 50km/hr? No you don't.

I should be able to walk on the sidewalk an not fear being sideswiped by a car.

This isn't even a real problem.

Additionally slower cars generally make less noise, this makes any neighborhood more enjoyable.

Also not a real problem.

[Calgarian]

So people are less likely to get hurt by a car going 30 than 50, they would also be less likely to be hurt if we mandate helmets and bubble wrap suits when walking down the oh so dangerous sidewalks in our city.

[RyLucky]

If cars obey the rules and drive under 2500rpm, it's nearly impossible to get above 30 in sunnyside. First ave has stop signs at every block, passes a playground, and goes nowhere (ends at Ctrain). Second is the main drag, has 2 major 4way stops, and passes through the same playground zone. Third ave has passes through a different playground zone, has stop signs nearly every block, and like first ave, ends at the tracks. Fourth ave is only a couple blocks long and is more narrow than the others.

Streets: 3 through 6 are no longer than two blocks, and there is a stop sign at 2nd ave for those that cross it. 5a, 7, and 8 go through playground zones.

One thing that makes sunnyside a great place to live is that it already is a slow community that makes almost no sense to cut through.

As for the argument over the functionality of playground zones, I think slowing to 30 one of those things that realistically has only a minor effect on safety, but the consequence of an accident with a child would be so devastating that that it's worth the slight inconvenience of slowi down even if it is only a courtesy.

[MasterG]

If cars obey the rules and drive under 2500rpm, it's nearly impossible to get above 30 in sunnyside. First ave has stop signs at every block, passes a playground, and goes nowhere (ends at Ctrain). Second is the main drag, has 2 major 4way stops, and passes through the same playground zone. Third ave has passes through a different playground zone, has stop signs nearly every block, and like first ave, ends at the tracks. Fourth ave is only a couple blocks long and is more narrow than the others.

Streets: 3 through 6 are no longer than two blocks, and there is a stop sign at 2nd ave for those that cross it. 5a, 7, and 8 go through playground zones.

One thing that makes sunnyside a great place to live is that it already is a slow community that makes almost no sense to cut through.

As for the argument over the functionality of playground zones, I think slowing to 30 one of those things that realistically has only a minor effect on safety, but the consequence of an accident with a child would be so devastating that that it's worth the slight inconvenience of slowi down even if it is only a courtesy.

Agreed about Sunnyside. This whole thing is a non-issue for that neighourhood. There are literally no problems with speed, traffic, or lack of pedestrian friendliness (except the aforementioned crossing Memorial by the Peace Bridge).



I am fine if playground zones address a legitimate safety issue. But fenced off schools set back from the road in the suburbs where parents drive the kids to school anyways? Its a waste of time and effort to police and develop.


The main problem I have is that it safety is being used disingenuously. See Elbow Drive between 4th Street and the Elbow River. Rich, powerful community association and members asked for that to be put in for the sake of "safety". Yeah right. It exists completely for the properties on the road to reduce the noise of traffic on their doorsteps. The rest of the community supports it because traffic is reduced. Its not fair that Elbow gets a slower speed, while 5th Street SW doesn't even though it has more pedestrians, accidents and conflicts between cars and other users of the road.

Using the safety of children as an argument to protect property from noise (again 40km/h noise, not Deerfoot) and traffic (again Elbow Drive, not a country club's driveway) is simply wrong.

These communities should be allowed to lobby for reducing speeds, but call it what it is. 30km/h to protect my property value and so that I don't have to deal with as much traffic when I leave my $2 million house in the inner city.

Imagine if every neighbourhood had the clout and power to do that, the city would be in gridlock.

[MichaelS]

Three factors are a play here
1 - A 30k car is less likely to jump the curb
2 - A 30k car has as significantly shorter stopping distance (link (http://www.2pass.co.uk/img/stoppingdistances.png))
3 - I'm far more likely to survive the 30k car collision than a 50-60k car collision (32k - 95%, 48k - 55-63%, 64k - 15-17%)(source (http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm))

4 - A 30k car is more likely to sneak up on me, because it is quieter and thus reducing my reaction time to get out of the way. :P

[Full Mountain]

With cars moving at 50km/hr? No you don't.

This isn't even a real problem.

Also not a real problem.

I hardly think you have the authority or the knowledge of my situation to determine what I think is a real problem

[Full Mountain]

4 - A 30k car is more likely to sneak up on me, because it is quieter and thus reducing my reaction time to get out of the way. :P

Ha! :haha: