30 for Sunnyside?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MasterG

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/2013/05/2...ian-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.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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.

Originally Posted by freeweed

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 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...

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.

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 30 for Sunnyside

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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):



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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. For Sunnyside, this is over-regulation plain and simple. I am all for reducing traffic by limits, pace-cars (), 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]

Originally Posted by 30 for Sunnyside

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.