Calgary Roads

[Mazrim]

Also agree about pedestrian education, almost every day I see pedestrians making stupid decisions, I can’t help but wonder where people picked up these bad habits from.
Shockingly, the exact same place drivers pick up all their bad habits...

[Tobyoby]

Whether it's bad pedestrians or bad drivers is irrelevant, the fact is, cars kill people, but pedestrians don't. Those car drivers whining about the slower speeds should shut the f*ck up and just deal with it. It's not like a pedestrian not paying attention is ever going to kill you. By lowering the speeds you're only adding a minute or two to your drive to the mall or some fast food drive-thru.

[Corndogger]

Whether it's bad pedestrians or bad drivers is irrelevant, the fact is, cars kill people, but pedestrians don't. Those car drivers whining about the slower speeds should shut the f*ck up and just deal with it. It's not like a pedestrian not paying attention is ever going to kill you. By lowering the speeds you're only adding a minute or two to your drive to the mall or some fast food drive-thru.

How about we triple your taxes so you can help pay for the skyrocketing healthcare costs that will result from this stupid plan that serves no purpose other than to help the anti-car crowd get off and to rob drivers.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks? "Cars kill people, pedestrians don't" sounds like the gun debate and "lowering speeds will only add a minute or two" is already being used for cycle tracks and has been proven to be a massive pile of bullshit.

If you're unwilling or incapable of paying attention as a pedestrian you should be banned from walking the streets. End of story! If you're going to advocate to ruin the quality of life of the vast majority then the rest of us are going to do the same to you.

[suburbia]

It's not like a pedestrian not paying attention is ever going to kill you.

zI0_fwrEYDI

[milomilo]

We really need numbers to debate this effectively, but no useful statistics appear to be available, which is actually shocking. Surely after every injury a police report was done? Do they have no information on the speed of the vehicle, whether speed was a factor etc?

Yes, 30 is objectively a much safer speed to be hit at than 50. So it's easy to just pull that number out, say think of the children and lay down 30 everywhere. But this is not an intelligent way to make policy. Right now, where are most people getting hit? Were they speeding? Did they hit people at 50, or did they hit them at 30 after braking? There are a lot of things to look at, but none of this appears to have been studied.

I welcome council taking a look at this, as long as they look at it properly and base the final outcome on facts and statistics rather than emotion.

[BlaineN]

I think he's talking about a pedestrian directly killing a driver. It probably happens once in a while due to a driver swerving to avoid a pedestrian.
zI0_fwrEYDI

[Tobyoby]

Ummm, this makes no sense whatsoever. So let's get this stright - health care costs are going to triple by lowering the speed limit? :haha: :haha::haha::haha:

How about we triple your taxes so you can help pay for the skyrocketing healthcare costs that will result from this stupid plan that serves no purpose other than to help the anti-car crowd get off and to rob drivers.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks? "Cars kill people, pedestrians don't" sounds like the gun debate and "lowering speeds will only add a minute or two" is already being used for cycle tracks and has been proven to be a massive pile of bullshit.

If you're unwilling or incapable of paying attention as a pedestrian you should be banned from walking the streets. End of story! If you're going to advocate to ruin the quality of life of the vast majority then the rest of us are going to do the same to you.

There are just as many drivers not paying attention as there are pedestrians not paying attention, the difference is that you're more dangerous when you're a driver. Also, lowering the speed limit isn't going to ruin your quality of life. Next time you want to head over to KFC or Little Caeser's to stuff your face, try walking over. It'll do you some good, and best of all you won't be a drain on the health care system.

If you're unwilling or incapable of paying attention as a pedestrian you should be banned from walking the streets. End of story! If you're going to advocate to ruin the quality of life of the vast majority then the rest of us are going to do the same to you.

[X_ting_on]

Not sure why you're resorting to personal attacks, but from somebody who doesn't really care either way on this topic, it very much seems like a solution looking for a problem. The majority of streets are fine as they are, I don't see why there cannot be analysis on a case-by-case basis of the areas that have heavier pedestrian presence or poor road geometry.

Did you even read his post? He seems like someone who cares, and he was responded to a personal attack. You should go back and read all of the posts.

You might be right, it’s something that may not be needed badly, but in the end it’s about safety. True a number of suburbanites would have to take a few extra minutes further commute home, but getting hit by a car at 30 km an hour as opposed to 50 km an hour, does make a difference and studies have proven it.

Maybe it could be done by a case by case method, but the easiest thing to do is make a blanket speed limit of 30, and adjust some of the streets up to 50.

[X_ting_on]

Are usually don’t comment on this for him very often, unless I see something that is ridiculous. The statement about skyrocketing healthcare costs due to a lower speed limit is totally retarded. I’m assuming it’s a typo and you meant it in reverse.

How about we triple your taxes so you can help pay for the skyrocketing healthcare costs that will result from this stupid plan that serves no purpose other than to help the anti-car crowd get off and to rob drivers.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks? "Cars kill people, pedestrians don't" sounds like the gun debate and "lowering speeds will only add a minute or two" is already being used for cycle tracks and has been proven to be a massive pile of bullshit.

If you're unwilling or incapable of paying attention as a pedestrian you should be banned from walking the streets. End of story! If you're going to advocate to ruin the quality of life of the vast majority then the rest of us are going to do the same to you.

[milomilo]

Did you even read his post? He seems like someone who cares, and he was responded to a personal attack. You should go back and read all of the posts.

You might be right, it’s something that may not be needed badly, but in the end it’s about safety. True a number of suburbanites would have to take a few extra minutes further commute home, but getting hit by a car at 30 km an hour as opposed to 50 km an hour, does make a difference and studies have proven it.

Maybe it could be done by a case by case method, but the easiest thing to do is make a blanket speed limit of 30, and adjust some of the streets up to 50.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. We need to see the numbers related to accidents. Basing policy purely on one number is not a good way to go - it won't achieve the outcome anyone wants, and it will make people angry.

[Tobyoby]

Yeah I read the posts. It was a personal attack.

As for Druh and her dumb idea... whatever. What I want to see is tangible improvements to the roads due to the inevitably increased revenue from photo enforcement.

Except that it looks like you didn't read all the posts. Yes, it was a snarky response, but that's what happens when one makes a snarky comment like the one below. They get a snarky response.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks?

[suburbia]

... it very much seems like a solution looking for a problem. The majority of streets are fine as they are, I don't see why there cannot be analysis on a case-by-case basis of the areas that have heavier pedestrian presence or poor road geometry.

True. Over 99% of all intersections have not had a pedestrian / vehicle accident.

[Corndogger]

Are usually don’t comment on this for him very often, unless I see something that is ridiculous. The statement about skyrocketing healthcare costs due to a lower speed limit is totally retarded. I’m assuming it’s a typo and you meant it in reverse.

My statement isn't ridiculous at all. Surviving an accident doesn't mean the person gets up and walks away. Being hit at 20 or 30 km/h is going to cause major trauma which is going to result in huge medical costs. Those are facts as is the huge increase in distracted pedestrians. Do some research before declaring statements to be "totally retarded." Where do you live anyway that you're not seeing this? If you want injuries and medical costs to go down then the best thing to do is to educate and target pedestrians.

[Corndogger]

Except that it looks like you didn't read all the posts. Yes, it was a snarky response, but that's what happens when one makes a snarky comment like the one below. They get a snarky response.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks?

LOL. Refer to your posts before that and after--those are personal attacks. What I said is based in fact.

[Deepstar]

My statement isn't ridiculous at all. Surviving an accident doesn't mean the person gets up and walks away. Being hit at 20 or 30 km/h is going to cause major trauma which is going to result in huge medical costs. Those are facts as is the huge increase in distracted pedestrians. Do some research before declaring statements to be "totally retarded." Where do you live anyway that you're not seeing this? If you want injuries and medical costs to go down then the best thing to do is to educate and target pedestrians.

Your statement about an increase in health costs due to the speed being lowered is what’s retarded. Whether lowering the speed limits will cause less accidents or not may be up for debate, but it is not going to cause people’s taxes to triple.

[Deepstar]

Here’s your quote from earlier in case you don’t know which one I’m referring to. Skyrocketing health care costs due to lowering the speed limit. Awesome :haha:
How about we triple your taxes so you can help pay for the skyrocketing healthcare costs that will result from this stupid plan that serves no purpose other than to help the anti-car crowd get off and to rob drivers.

As for your "reasoning," are you dumbasses who support this going to recycle every lame reason from past quality of life attacks? "Cars kill people, pedestrians don't" sounds like the gun debate and "lowering speeds will only add a minute or two" is already being used for cycle tracks and has been proven to be a massive pile of bullshit.

If you're unwilling or incapable of paying attention as a pedestrian you should be banned from walking the streets. End of story! If you're going to advocate to ruin the quality of life of the vast majority then the rest of us are going to do the same to you.

[milomilo]

Yeah that's a little silly. And even if it was the case that healthcare costs would go up with lower speed limits (but they won't, I guarantee), I think most people would put up with that if it meant fewer people killed on the roads.

[DoubleK]

My statement isn't ridiculous at all. Surviving an accident doesn't mean the person gets up and walks away. Being hit at 20 or 30 km/h is going to cause major trauma which is going to result in huge medical costs. Those are facts as is the huge increase in distracted pedestrians. Do some research before declaring statements to be "totally retarded." Where do you live anyway that you're not seeing this? If you want injuries and medical costs to go down then the best thing to do is to educate and target pedestrians.

Corn, I generally agree with you on most everything, but you are so far on the wrong side of this.

Power down.

30kph needs to be mandated on roads without a painted centerline. Roads in the inner city need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This isn't about increasing revenues by photo radar or a tax grab or anything like that.

[Corndogger]

Your statement about an increase in health costs due to the speed being lowered is what’s retarded. Whether lowering the speed limits will cause less accidents or not may be up for debate, but it is not going to cause people’s taxes to triple.

Some people start to cross the street now without looking or judging how close vehicles are too them. I hate to imagine the stupidity will see with lower speed limits. There might be less deaths but injury accidents are likely to rise and with it healthcare costs.

I never said anything about taxes tripling. I said the people who support this plan should have their taxes tripled.

[Deepstar]

Power down. I like that expression. :tup:

[Corndogger]

Corn, I generally agree with you on most everything, but you are so far on the wrong side of this.

Power down.

30kph needs to be mandated on roads without a painted centerline. Roads in the inner city need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This isn't about increasing revenues by photo radar or a tax grab or anything like that.

A blanket change that lowers speed limits 40% is not the answer. Speed limits are the maximum you can go under ideal conditions. If you're driving on a narrow road with cars parked on both sides you shouldn't be going 50--that's common sense.

Actually this is a revenue grab. The plan is to use the revenue to pay for redesigning neighborhoods so they can force you not to drive fast or at all. It's being sold as a safety-only plan but that's complete nonsense. Anyway, people can trash me all they want. If this gets implemented I'll be proven to be right--again.

[Rollerstud98]

Side streets in subdivisions being 30 is fine. Main drags in subdivisions probably should remain 50 and most grid areas remain 50. Out here in airdrie we have 2 residential roads that are 50 and most people drive 40 on them. According to police stats.

[milomilo]

I am of the opinion that there are roads that are not inner city that, upon examination, would see no statistically significant benefit from the reduction in speed. Thus, if you do an initial blanket of 30 before the arduous and inevitably decade-long process of reinstatement to 50 begins... that's where it gets cash grabby. The opposite process of reducing limits to 30 where it is actually required seems far less scummy.

I still maintain that this is a solution looking for a problem, or the equivalent of killing an ant with a flamethrower... whatever idiom one wishes to employ.

I agree with this - a very blunt tool for a more nuanced job.

There's been some talk of how this is neccesary because it will allow future road designers to design future roads for lower speeds. Which is the typical lie we get from Councillors and less critical urbanists that sounds believable enough to be accepted as truth. But it doesn't make sense. Designing better, safer roads in our new communities is absolutely a good idea, and designing them such that the natural driving speed is 30 or even 20 km/h can be a big part of that. However there is zero good reason that actually has to be linked to the speed limits of all the roads already built or that the speed limit always has to match the design speed.

Saying we have to 'trick' the roads department into building better roads is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

[X_ting_on]

Yeah you're lying to yourself if you think this is not a cash grab, because enforcement is guaranteed to go up.

Typical suburban line of thinking... I don’t want something safer if it means I might have to pay ticket someday. They could enforce the current limit at any if all they wanted to do was make some money, and by the way all you need to do is drive the speed limit and you won’t get a ticket.

[Tobyoby]

Yeah you're lying to yourself if you think this is not a cash grab, because enforcement is guaranteed to go up.

There's a simple solution to that. Don't speed. It reminds me of the people who freak about public cameras being everywhere. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

[suburbia]

The opposite process of reducing limits to 30 where it is actually required seems far less scummy.

I still maintain that this is a solution looking for a problem, or the equivalent of killing an ant with a flamethrower... whatever idiom one wishes to employ.


Typical suburban line of thinking... I don’t want something safer if it means I might have to pay ticket someday.

There's a simple solution to that. Don't speed. It reminds me of the people who freak about public cameras being everywhere. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


My point is that when speed limits are unnecessarily low (which is what will happen when 30 is applied to the streets that don't need it) then people will speed more... it's LONG been proven that people are more likely to speed when the limit is bullshit.[]

To reiterate my point above since you seem to have completed ignored it, I am not opposed to the reduction of the limit to 30 where it is actually required and will provide a statistically significant improvement in safety.

Acey makes 100% sense above. He is not opposed to adjusting where the adjustment will make an improvement.

The responses from X_ting_on & Tobyoby seem to not be responding to his point, which was made extremely clear, and instead are making it a "vs" argument, arbitrarily making it an inner city / suburb arguement (whereas there is nothing to indicate that is what it is) and are bordering on a direct ad hominem attack.

When people make ad hominem attacks instead of actually responding to the presented point, it does not make them or their view stronger. In fact, it does the opposite.

[Bad Grizzly]

It’s hard trying to tead through some of the posts on this thread without wanting to ram someone’s head through a wall.

I wish Druh’s minions could think for themselves rather than blindly follow her stupid ideas. Lowering the speed limit does nothing but encourage road rage. It amazes me that dipshit of a counsellor keeps getting reelected.

[Bad Grizzly]

Exactly
Acey makes 100% sense above. He is not opposed to adjusting where the adjustment will make an improvement.

The responses from X_ting_on & Tobyoby seem to not be responding to his point, which was made extremely clear, and instead are making it a "vs" argument, arbitrarily making it an inner city / suburb arguement (whereas there is nothing to indicate that is what it is) and are bordering on a direct ad hominem attack.

When people make ad hominem attacks instead of actually responding to the presented point, it does not make them or their view stronger. In fact, it does the opposite.

[Corndogger]

It’s hard trying to tead through some of the posts on this thread without wanting to ram someone’s head through a wall.

I wish Druh’s minions could think for themselves rather than blindly follow her stupid ideas. Lowering the speed limit does nothing but encourage road rage. It amazes me that dipshit of a counsellor keeps getting reelected.

Road rage will go up for sure and so will costs of doing business, etc. but none of that matters to the anti-car crowd.

As for Druh constantly getting reelected, in all of her terms has she ever received the majority of votes cast? I don't think she has--she usually gets in the 30s which hardly gives her a mandate to push this crap on us.

Going back to speed limits, does anyone know approximately how much money the city has spent on traffic calming measures over the past decade? The neighborhood I live in is covered with them and I imagine that's true for most. Didn't the city sell traffic calming as a safety measure? Are they now saying that their research was wrong? Or are they lying to us now and this plan to lower speed limits by 40% really is a huge revenue grab? No matter how you look at it the city is either incapable of analyzing research and/or is outright lying to us to implement policies to obtain more revenue from us.

[Tobyoby]

Anyone with half a brain? lol. Well anyone with half a brain would know that cash grab is something where safety isn't involved. Fines for having lapsed registration, is the classic example. It's even more money than a speeding ticket.

Also in the past you've said that you don't like the blanket approach, you'd rather see the city determine the speed on a case by case situation. That's what they are doing. They'll lower the speed by default but up the speed if it's okay to do so. If the road is a wide road, it probably won't be 30, they've already stated that it won't be reduced on roads with lines or lanes.

Re: cash grab, it should further be stated that everyone with a brain can differentiate between enforcement that is a cash grab and enforcement that has a potentially significant impact on safety. Consider these 3 scenarios.

YEG runs photo radar from every bridge on Henday and tickets people going 106 in a 100 on a freeway built to the highest standard with a design speed of 110.... that is TRASH and does nothing for anybody but generate stupendous revenue.

Running traps in a busy/playground school zone to get people to stick to 30? That has merit.

Running radar on a wide road with no pedestrian presence that has just had its limit reduced to 30? That has no merit and is a trashy cash grab.

[Tobyoby]

Yeah I mean if you lower the limit to 30 on a road that should be at 50, then people will speed. They will. Because the speed limit is too low. Tobyoby's repsonse, "lol don't speed."

Good job, buddy. You'd make a great traffic engineer.

It's a simple concept. You know that the default speed is 30km/h, so you drive at that speed. It's not rocket science. Who's to say that 30km/h is too slow? I'll tell you who...some dumbass driver of a large pickup or one of those young idiots with a pimped out Subaru, Nissan Skyline/etc.. who has no disregard for other people or the law, and feels like he owns the road.

[suburbia]

It's a simple concept.

Serious question Tobyoby. Do you drive? I ask not to be facetious, but I do know your friend Daemon doesn't, and I believe you are about the same age. Your commentary suggests a certain lack of familiarity with driving.

[craner]

With all the work being done on 14th St. for the BRT it's dissappointing 14th won't be expanded for vehicles to 3 lanes each way. And why not build a complete interchange at 90th while it's all torn-up and disrupted ? :shrug::hell:

[Corndogger]

With all the work being done on 14th St. for the BRT it's dissappointing 14th won't be expanded for vehicles to 3 lanes each way. And why not build a complete interchange at 90th while it's all torn-up and disrupted ? :shrug::hell:

Because that would benefit drivers.

As long as we're on the topic of BRT lines and not taking advantage of their construction to add road capacity, I ended up driving through Inglewood this afternoon to get to Deerfoot south bound. I was amazed at how much is dug up in that area for what I believe is only supposed to be a two lane system. Exactly where is the BRT going to go to get from that area to downtown? Hopefully not through Inglewood--it took me forever to go that small distance and that was at 2PM. I'd like to see them expand that part of 17 Avenue to at least add a lane or two to handle traffic exiting on to Deerfoot so the other lanes become core lanes. That stretch of road is over capacity and needs to be dealt with sooner or later. Would be nice if they took advantage of the BRT work but like with 14th that's the last thing they'll do.

Now to tie this back into bullshit speed limits. The 80 km/h construction zone on Deerfoot in the BRT area is 100% a tax grab tactic. It starts way too early and ends way too late. Who sets the range of these zones and what are the ranges based on?

[DoubleK]

The speed zone on Deerfoot probably could stand to be made smaller now.

However, they did have entrances and exits for trucks early on in the project, that were different from the interchange itself. That is what the Traffic Accommodation Study would have been based on (I've personally gotten these approvals from AT). I don't think they would have made provisions for different phases of the project.

[YYCguys]

Wonders if there’s an appetite for the speed limit on Stoney Trail to be bumped up from a 100 kph to 110 kph.

[MalcolmTucker]

With all the work being done on 14th St. for the BRT it's dissappointing 14th won't be expanded for vehicles to 3 lanes each way. And why not build a complete interchange at 90th while it's all torn-up and disrupted ? :shrug::hell:

The same people that opposed the BRT opposed expanding the road in the early 2000s. Plus dumping cars faster onto Glenmore just moves any issues further north.

[milomilo]

Wonders if there’s an appetite for the speed limit on Stoney Trail to be bumped up from a 100 kph to 110 kph.

It doesn't make sense that it ever wasn't 110, so that shows the limits aren't based on any sound reasoning, same as the 90 limit to Lake Louise on a high quality divided freeway (think of the fenced off deers!). You cannot reason people out of a position they were not reasoned into.

[milomilo]

The same people that opposed the BRT opposed expanding the road in the early 2000s. Plus dumping cars faster onto Glenmore just moves any issues further north.

Yeah. BRT acually will benefit all drivers as Glenmore is blatantly at capacity with no easy fix. And since that area contains the worst NIMBYs in the city, then all the more reason to give them the most space efficient solution rather than more lanes which they'll still complain about and make the problem worse.

[Doug]

Yeah. BRT acually will benefit all drivers as Glenmore is blatantly at capacity with no easy fix. And since that area contains the worst NIMBYs in the city, then all the more reason to give them the most space efficient solution rather than more lanes which they'll still complain about and make the problem worse.

Glenmore has an easy fix....expand the causeway to 12 lanes with a proper basket weave at 14th (drivers entering from 14th must decide whether they will be choosing Glenmore west or Crowchild north at the time they exit 14th). Property acquisition would be relatively simple as land could be taken from the two golf courses and the school. The Glenmore-Crowchilld interchange would be the tough part as it needs a three lane ramp with wide turning radius from Crowchild south to Glenmore east.

[milomilo]

You must have a different definition of easy. Completely rebuilding two of the busiest interchanges and rebuilding one of the busiest sections of road will be hellishly disruptive and expensive but doable. However finding the money and political will would be the harder part, especially when the primary beneficiaries have shown themselves to be the worst people in the city.

[ElmerJrG]

Not as much as an appetite as there is for Henday, as Calgary Police run about 10% the enforcement on Stoney that EPS/RCMP/Sheriffs does on Henday.

Yeah, CPS still kinda makes money off Stoney. Man, they love that crest at the bottom of the hill in Stoney at Nose Hill where the speed limit drops down to 80. It's almost a safety issue between cars constantly hitting their brakes and the others swerving to drive at DESIGNED speed. It's not a cash grab, alright. :shrug:

[Mazrim]

Glenmore has an easy fix....expand the causeway to 12 lanes with a proper basket weave at 14th (drivers entering from 14th must decide whether they will be choosing Glenmore west or Crowchild north at the time they exit 14th). Property acquisition would be relatively simple as land could be taken from the two golf courses and the school. The Glenmore-Crowchilld interchange would be the tough part as it needs a three lane ramp with wide turning radius from Crowchild south to Glenmore east.

This wouldn't fix anything. It would be the biggest waste of money this City would have ever spent if it was done.

[Tobyoby]

Serious question Tobyoby. Do you drive? I ask not to be facetious, but I do know your friend Daemon doesn't, and I believe you are about the same age. Your commentary suggests a certain lack of familiarity with driving.

You crack me up :haha:

[Tobyoby]

First off, I wasn't talking about the Henday when I was talking about speeds in general. I couldn't care less if the Henday was 120km/h. It doesn't front onto people's yards. So don't bother posting anything about the Henday, you're wasting you're time.

https://edmontonsun.com/2017/05/11/fears-of-photo-radar-cash-grab-fuels-provincial-government-review/wcm/eb72c9b1-328a-48db-96f0-c5969214c909



https://globalnews.ca/news/3436296/110kmh-speed-limit-on-anthony-henday-drive-edmonton-police-chief-supports-the-idea/



https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/the-85th-percentile-as-a-tool-for-improving-roads-and-streets/

Toby, for the love of all that is holy, go do some reading before you respond again in this thread... though I'm enjoying watching you dig further into a hole of stupidity.

[Tobyoby]

Why did you bother making two posts about the Henday. Did I mention the Henday?

Ticketing people at 106 on Henday with a design speed of 110 has massive safety implications? Give me a fucking break.

Somebody going 40 in a playground is a way bigger safety risk, so why don't they set up there? Oh yeah, cause Henday has 80-100k vehicles per day and makes many orders of magnitude more revenue.

On second thought, the notion of a "design speed" is a foreign concept to you, so you're forgiven if you don't understand what I just said. Our god damn Transportation Minister has already said Henday radar is a cash grab. Does he have a half brain? The engineers who designed Henday, too? Edmonton police chief has said multiple times that upping the limit to 110 would quell tickets and REDUCE speeding. Are you smarter than all these people?

[Tobyoby]

Go back and re-read my posts. This time read all of it. When I mentioned the drivers of Suburus and large trucks it was in reference to the 30km/h limit. It has nothing to do with Crowchild Trail, and you would have known that if you read the post properly.

In case you can't find the post, here is what I posted. See anything about Crowchild Trail and a people driving at 90km/h?

It's a simple concept. You know that the default speed is 30km/h, so you drive at that speed. It's not rocket science. Who's to say that 30km/h is too slow? I'll tell you who...some dumbass driver of a large pickup or one of those young idiots with a pimped out Subaru, Nissan Skyline/etc.. who has no disregard for other people or the law, and feels like he owns the road.

My mother drives Crowchild north of 24 Ave at 90-100 because that's the speed at which traffic moves. My mother is not a dumbass, in fact she has a PHd. She neither owns the road, nor has disregard for the law. Last but not least, she drives a Hyundai Santa Fe and has never gotten a speeding ticket in her entire life.

It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.



The way you talk about speed limits honestly makes me think you're unaware that traffic engineers exist on this planet and things like the 85th percentile are real. The appropriate speed limit for a road can be determined by assessing multiple factors including sight lines, curves, presence of surrounding developments, lane widths, obstructions, et al.

You have again chosen to ignore the proven metric that people speed excessively when they believe the speed limit is too slow, which ultimately results in big deltas of speed because some people are actually abiding by the limit. I realize it's convenient for you to disregard the fact that my argument is merely to reduce speed limits only where it would provide a statistically significant improvement in safety... but your straw man responses are beyond laughable at this point.

[Deepstar]

With all the work being done on 14th St. for the BRT it's dissappointing 14th won't be expanded for vehicles to 3 lanes each way. And why not build a complete interchange at 90th while it's all torn-up and disrupted ? :shrug::hell:
Not disappointing at all actually. What good would expanding 14th do? The whole idea of the BRT in the first place is to help alleviate traffic for the existing lanes. Also all you’re doing is adding a pile of cars into one section of 14th that’s gonna bottleneck at Glenmore or further south.

[Porfiry]

You must have a different definition of easy. Completely rebuilding two of the busiest interchanges and rebuilding one of the busiest sections of road will be hellishly disruptive and expensive but doable.

“Expensive”, well that’s never stopped the city before. This city seems to have no problem spending hundreds of millions on road projects. “Hellishly disruptive”, again, it can’t be any worse than any other road project that’s happened or is happening right now along Glenmore or Crowchild.

I don't think the causeway would need to be widened, I suspect they could get at least 2 more lanes on the current structure, perhaps by narrowing lanes and shoulders or perhaps by building a dedicated pedestrian/cycling bridge and reclaiming that space. Basketweaves would significantly smooth out the flow of traffic and would make a big difference. I know they were planned at some point and I'm sure the city will get to it eventually.

[Deepstar]

Tells us how you really feel lol :haha:

Seriously though, it seems like some people aren’t grasping the whole idea of this speed reduction suggestion. This has nothing to do with the Anthony Henday ring road or Crowchild Trail or any other kind of freeway or artery. It’s for residential streets or streets without centre lines. It’s not like it hasn’t already been mentioned in the media several times.
Go back and re-read my posts. This time read all of it. When I mentioned the drivers of Suburus and large trucks it was in reference to the 30km/h limit. It has nothing to do with Crowchild Trail, and you would have known that if you read the post properly.

In case you can't find the post, here is what I posted. See anything about Crowchild Trail and a people driving at 90km/h?

[milomilo]

“Expensive”, well that’s never stopped the city before. This city seems to have no problem spending hundreds of millions on road projects. “Hellishly disruptive”, again, it can’t be any worse than any other road project that’s happened or is happening right now along Glenmore or Crowchild.

I don't think the causeway would need to be widened, I suspect they could get at least 2 more lanes on the current structure, perhaps by narrowing lanes and shoulders or perhaps by building a dedicated pedestrian/cycling bridge and reclaiming that space. Basketweaves would significantly smooth out the flow of traffic and would make a big difference. I know they were planned at some point and I'm sure the city will get to it eventually.

Name a project the city has done that is similar in scope. It's before my time, but GE5 is the closest I can think of, but that would still be nowhere near the same amount of construction and disruption.

[Corndogger]

“Expensive”, well that’s never stopped the city before. This city seems to have no problem spending hundreds of millions on road projects. “Hellishly disruptive”, again, it can’t be any worse than any other road project that’s happened or is happening right now along Glenmore or Crowchild.

I don't think the causeway would need to be widened, I suspect they could get at least 2 more lanes on the current structure, perhaps by narrowing lanes and shoulders or perhaps by building a dedicated pedestrian/cycling bridge and reclaiming that space. Basketweaves would significantly smooth out the flow of traffic and would make a big difference. I know they were planned at some point and I'm sure the city will get to it eventually.

The lanes are the width they are for a reason. Your comment proves my point that safety is not the issue with the anti-car crowd. And you want no shoulders?!

Where are you getting that the city spends hundreds of millions on road projects? In total they do but I can't think of one CITY road project that cost more than $200 million. The airport tunnel was a special project as far as I'm concerned so I'm not counting it.

[Porfiry]

The lanes are the width they are for a reason. Your comment proves my point that safety is not the issue with the anti-car crowd. And you want no shoulders?!

Uh, they're narrowing the lanes right now from 3.7m to 3.5m as part of the BRT, to do exactly that, add lanes (albeit bus lanes).

Where are you getting that the city spends hundreds of millions on road projects? In total they do but I can't think of one CITY road project that cost more than $200 million. The airport tunnel was a special project as far as I'm concerned so I'm not counting it.

Glenmore/Elbow and the causeway cost $167 million in 2007 dollars (so $200 million inflation adjusted). They're spending $300+ million on BRTs right now. Crowchild upgrades are costing $87 million. Macleod/162 was $77 million. Glenmore/Ogden was $90 million. Point is, the city has no issue spending money at a very high rate.

[milomilo]

But the combined work to 'fix' Crowchild - Glenmore -14th' will be much larger than those you've mentioned, it will be more in line with the plan to improve Crowchild north of the river, which AFAIK was about $1B. There's just no room to move anything, the way it was built is so incredibly bad that everything needs to be torn down and replaced, but the only place to build new stuff is pretty much where the structures already are.

[Corndogger]

But the combined work to 'fix' Crowchild - Glenmore -14th' will be much larger than those you've mentioned, it will be more in line with the plan to improve Crowchild north of the river, which AFAIK was about $1B. There's just no room to move anything, the way it was built is so incredibly bad that everything needs to be torn down and replaced, but the only place to build new stuff is pretty much where the structures already are.

$1 billion over how many decades and is that estimate even accurate? A lot of people claimed that adding lanes over the river would cost hundreds of millions and here we are doing that and more for $87.9 million. There's a lot of misinformation out there.

[Corndogger]

All the fixes with the trench and all that stuff up to 24 Ave is definitely in the 750 to 1B range. That was seriously extensive work. Doubtful we ever do it all. The ghetto fix that we're doing now for less than $100M is not indicative of how much it would it actually cost to fix Crowchild.

I'm not disputing that it would cost $1 billion to do it right but as long as people like Druh are in office we will always get ghetto fixes.

[milomilo]

$1 billion over how many decades and is that estimate even accurate? A lot of people claimed that adding lanes over the river would cost hundreds of millions and here we are doing that and more for $87.9 million. There's a lot of misinformation out there.

Just look at what is there now and what you'd have to change to make it work. Want to add a basketweave and a better ramp from southbound Crowchild to Glenmore and 14th? There's a school in the way, so add the price of demolishing and rebuilding a school to the cost, plus expropriating the golf course and widening the causeway.

Similarly, to add a basketweave in the opposite direction and give 6 through lanes, you have to demolish 3 flyovers, but to demolish them, you need to build new flyovers first, but the best place to put them is where the current flyovers are. So instead you'd probably have to build some gigantic ramps ver everything before starting. It's doable, but there's no way it would be cheap.

The short term improvements to Crowchild are indeed great value for money, however that's basically just adding a lane in each direction to a bridge with no new elevated structures, no expropriation and no diversion routes needed. What exists on Glenmore now is so crappily designed and built that it's made it virtually impossible to improve in the future. I'd gladly be proved wrong, but I bet the existing setup is close to the same one we drive on in 30 years.

[milomilo]

Druh Farrell actually supports the Crowchild improvements, for what it's worth. It does run through her ward after all, and the plans are quite good in that they don't really sever the community any more than it already is and in fact improves connectivity.

[Doug]

But the combined work to 'fix' Crowchild - Glenmore -14th' will be much larger than those you've mentioned, it will be more in line with the plan to improve Crowchild north of the river, which AFAIK was about $1B. There's just no room to move anything, the way it was built is so incredibly bad that everything needs to be torn down and replaced, but the only place to build new stuff is pretty much where the structures already are.

There is lots of room due to the reservoir, golf courses and schools. Land acquisition would likely take about 15 houses on each side of Glenmore. The hardest part would be the Crowchild south to Glenmore east ramp as the turning radius needs to be much wider.

[Doug]

It would horribly fail any kind of cost-benefit analysis, given that it would do literally nothing since Glenmore dumps 45k a day onto a surface street.

All we do in this scenario is pray Stoney SW is far more useful than I think it will be.

Agreed. It won't make sense until 14th is upgraded. The City should have expanded 14th ant the same time as building the BRT. Damned NIMBY's.

Glenmore will always be one of the most if not the most important road in the city. It is one of few east-west routes to traverse the entire city at high capacity. It is also at the geographic center of Calgary's north-south span, and the only road connecting two sides of Stoney with Deerfoot and Crowchild.

[speedog]

Agreed. It won't make sense until 14th is upgraded. The City should have expanded 14th ant the same time as building the BRT. Damned NIMBY's.

Glenmore will always be one of the most if not the most important road in the city. It is one of few east-west routes to traverse the entire city at high capacity. It is also at the geographic center of Calgary's north-south span, and the only road connecting two sides of Stoney with Deerfoot and Crowchild.

16th Avenue north is actually the only east-west route that currently connects the two sides of Stoney with Deerfoot and Crowchild. Country Hills Boulevard almost does this as well.

[Porfiry]

The City should have expanded 14th ant the same time as building the BRT. Damned NIMBY's.

Thank the city planners, not NIMBYs. The city is building exactly what the city wanted on 14th, in spite of any feedback.

[milomilo]

Thank the city planners, not NIMBYs. The city is building exactly what the city wanted on 14th, in spite of any feedback.

And for this we should be glad. The City is building what is good for Calgary rather than what Mercedes man and a bunch of apoplectic seniors think is good for themselves. And actually, you can thank the NIMBYs as they rejected plans to expand the road in the past.

Once the BRT is built, that particular section of the city should be shut off from all infrastructure improvement until everyone involved in Ready2Engage has died. They have expressed they don't want it, and they don't deserve it.

[Porfiry]

The City is building what is good for Calgary rather than what Mercedes man and a bunch of apoplectic seniors think is good for themselves.

Got it. NIMBYs are all rich, spoiled folk who probably have dementia...

you can thank the NIMBYs as they rejected plans to expand the road in the past.

...until their interests align with yours.

[milomilo]

They come in various forms, but those ones did fit your description and I dislike them all. I'm not anti roads, BTW, far from it. But being a driver, I welcome public transit investment as it takes other vehicles off the road and puts people in the most space efficient form of movement.

[ClaytonA]

... I'm not anti roads, BTW, far from it. But being a driver, I welcome public transit investment as it takes other vehicles off the road and puts people in the most space efficient form of movement.

Bolded. This. Space or land is valuable in cities. You want it to be earning tax revenue for you, not costing you money to mow, pave, or fix potholes, etc. Yes we need streets - underground utilities, etc. But as many streets the size of freeways? No. There's better, more efficient ways for mobility and accessibility. If we don't lower the cost of living, use resources wisely, then we become more vulnerable as a city because we have to make higher wages. It's harder to compete with other countries such as those in China investing massively in transit, or Europe which already has it. There are sound business reasons, competitive reasons. For example some business-oriented people get this when it comes to carbon taxes, but not cost of living on labour costs. Canada spends among the highest amount of income on transportation in the world, and it's not because we fly more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistically* of the five vehicles around you only one actually needs to drive. I.e. commercial traffic, trades person with tools, job site location that changes, etc. If you are that person that has to drive, then why the heck wouldn't you want all those other people to get out of your way.

Flip side is, transit is just one choice, it provides choice, where perhaps there wasn't good perceived choice before. Induced demand means the roads will still be congested. I've heard European travelers state they are "amazed that everyone still drives there despite what they hear about rail and urban transit. So there." No kidding instead of 80% car mode share it's more like 50-60%. It's not all one or the other, it's both. Here it's all cars trapped in traffic (even after [un-named] et al get the spaghetti freeways funded because those roads fill up after 10 years and the cycle repeats).

With autonomous cars, I've heard engineers advising clients not to build structured parkades, transit watching the cost structure to see when they can get out of feeder bus routes, etc. but not advice to delay spending on roads because autonomous cars will reduce traffic congestion. Change is always happening.

In any event, the roads will still be congested with good transit choices; it's just that people will have the choice between sitting in a car traffic jam or taking transit. Right now, from the census, most of Calgary has 80+% of people stuck in the car traffic jam and perceive they have no real choice, they have to be stuck.

To link to the income talk above, why does the city (at least in some departments) use vkt as a metric of how "good" things are (i.e. higher is better=Calgary is growing) instead of some broader measure such as trips or, drop the vehicle part, just km traveled that captures all mobility instead of just motorists? It's certainly not commercial vkt or cvkt. Perversely read most sustainability plans and vkt has lower is better... which also doesn't work. Bloody proxies indicator metrics often are.

* http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2004/docs/s15/hunt.pdf
Add a few percent more for commutes to different job sites each day and that 10-15% goes to ~20%. Note this is conservative since even the census capturing commercial traffic too is the same at ~15%. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-012-x2011003_1-eng.cfm

[Corndogger]

They come in various forms, but those ones did fit your description and I dislike them all. I'm not anti roads, BTW, far from it. But being a driver, I welcome public transit investment as it takes other vehicles off the road and puts people in the most space efficient form of movement.

I'm surprised you believe that propaganda. Unless the road space stolen for public transit results in a more efficient movement of vehicles it's not good for drivers and it's definitely not good for the economy. And in Calgary it always results in all transportation users being net losers no matter what mode of transportation they use.

[milomilo]

I'm surprised you believe that propaganda. Unless the road space stolen for public transit results in a more efficient movement of vehicles it's not good for drivers and it's definitely not good for the economy. And in Calgary it always results in all transportation users being net losers no matter what mode of transportation they use.

You don't believe public transit can ever be effective? The road space isn't stolen.

There are road upgrades that make sense, and there are ones that don't. We all agree that there is no point increasing capacity on 14th without increasing upgrading Crowchild and Glenmore, and then what? Those roads get more busy and the problem is worsened. So rather than put in a couple of extra lanes that will only make the problem worse, why not put in bus lanes and get cars off the road, with no decrease in car capacity (other than slightly reduced lane widths)?

Of course, this relies on people actually using the new BRT* - so we'll see how the ridership stacks up. But if you see a bus with 50 people on it at rush hour while the cars are gridlocked, imagine if each of those 50 people were replaced by a car. Even if you did put in a third lane, those extra vehicles are still going to be bottlenecked immediately at Glenmore.

*Right now the 'BRTs' they are building still aren't good enough. It's a good start, but they need much more for them to realize their full potential. If they just put in the lanes on 14th and that's it forever, the investment was fairly poor. But if they keep building on this, working towards full segregation all the way to and through downtown, then it will be worth it.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm surprised you believe that propaganda. Unless the road space stolen for public transit results in a more efficient movement of vehicles it's not good for drivers and it's definitely not good for the economy. And in Calgary it always results in all transportation users being net losers no matter what mode of transportation they use.

Do you believe that if tomorrow all bus and LRT service was no longer offered that the drive to work would be significantly faster?

[Corndogger]

Do you believe that if tomorrow all bus and LRT service was no longer offered that the drive to work would be significantly faster?

You guys need to actually read what I said before you get so triggered. I'm talking about taking away road capacity and making it exclusively for transit (bus) use. Transit usage and frequency in this city is nowhere near high enough for it to result in a net benefit. As for LRT, what does it have to do with this? I've said plenty of times before that if we're going to invest big sums of money into transit I'd prefer LRT over BRT. To me BRT is a complete joke and waste of money.

[MalcolmTucker]

Is there anywhere in the city where BRT is removing capacity, beyond the small time loss due to skip lanes?

[s211]

Do you believe that if tomorrow all bus and LRT service was no longer offered that the drive to work would be significantly faster?

When there was a transit strike roughly 15 years ago, it was absolutely easier to drive to work, because bus lanes were freed up and/or buses weren't stopping to pick up and drop off passengers. It for sure made the news and I recall how much easier it was to get around during rush hour. :shrug:

[MalcolmTucker]

When there was a transit strike roughly 15 years ago, it was absolutely easier to drive to work, because bus lanes were freed up and/or buses weren't stopping to pick up and drop off passengers. It for sure made the news and I recall how much easier it was to get around during rush hour. :shrug:
The LRT was still operated by management during that time IIRC.

[milomilo]

You guys need to actually read what I said before you get so triggered. I'm talking about taking away road capacity and making it exclusively for transit (bus) use. Transit usage and frequency in this city is nowhere near high enough for it to result in a net benefit. As for LRT, what does it have to do with this? I've said plenty of times before that if we're going to invest big sums of money into transit I'd prefer LRT over BRT. To me BRT is a complete joke and waste of money.

The SWBRT did not take away any road capacity, and even if it did that does not make it bad. Even if you instead put in general traffic lanes rather than bus lanes, we all already agreed it would be pointless unless you spend $$$ upgrading the Glenmore/14th/Crowchild mess. And even if you did that, that just moves the problem down to Bow Trail or wherever else!

So we could spend hundreds of millions, probably in the billions to add a couple of traffic lanes to 14th (once you add the cost of the other upgrades necessary), only to make traffic worse. Or we could add a couple bus lanes for much less money that have the potential to make the problem better. It's pretty clear which one is better value for money.

[CTrainDude]

The LRT was still operated by management during that time IIRC.
I'm afraid you aren't quite right on that one - after the prolonged strike, there were some buses driven by management, but no LRT. LRT is too easy to sabotage.

[Tobyoby]

There are dozens of videos like this, but shows how getting hit by a car at slow speeds can be the difference between life and death.

mkiiAOQLJGM

[Tobyoby]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnJZWkJV4AE-4xt.jpg

[Tobyoby]

That road looks like it's suited for 20 kph, which is most certainly not the type of road we've been saying should remain at 50.

At the same time nobody's saying that every road should be 30kph.

[milomilo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnJZWkJV4AE-4xt.jpg

Yeah, we all know this statistic so posting it as if it is a slam dunk argument isn't fooling anyone. There's more to the decision than the singular fact that a person being hit at 30 rather than 50 is more dangerous, like the small matter of whether many people are actually being hit at 50 in 50 zones, among many other questions.

I'll ask the question again - where are the statistics for vehicle/pedestrian accidents in Calgary? Without that, this debate is pointless and based on emotion rather than any facts.

[Corndogger]

There are dozens of videos like this, but shows how getting hit by a car at slow speeds can be the difference between life and death.

mkiiAOQLJGM

Thanks for posting that video as it proves my point perfectly. Why in the hell was that grandma walking out between tightly parked cars with her grandchildren without looking first to ensure it was safe to cross the street? Are you going to tell me that pedestrians bear no responsibility for their own safety? I think you are which just proves that this whole scheme is a huge revenue grab.

[outoftheice]

Yes people will speed but I think a valid question is by how much? On Highway 2 a driver can comfortably do 130 km/h in good road conditions but few do.

Based completely on my own anecdotal experience most who choose to speed typically go about 10 over and I think it's safe to say the same will apply on residential roads. So if the speed limit is set to 30 km/h I'll agree that a number of people will speed but my guess is by speeding most will do 40 km/h because they feel comfortable doing 10 over but far fewer will do 50 km/h because doing 20 over the speed limit is a psychological hurdle.

So in summary a bunch of people will do the new speed limit (9/10 odds of survival) a bunch will do 10 over the speed limit (6/10 odds of survival) and a few will do 20 over the speed limit (2/10 odds of survival). Even with all that speeding, the new 30 km/h speed limit would dramatically increase pedestrian safety. It's why I'm supportive of the change to 30 but I don't feel there's any point in Council approving the compromise change to 40 since at 40 km/h the majority of drivers will still be doing 50+ and pedestrian safety won't really be increased.

[milomilo]

Yes people will speed but I think a valid question is by how much? On Highway 2 a driver can comfortably do 130 km/h in good road conditions but few do.

Based completely on my own anecdotal experience most who choose to speed typically go about 10 over and I think it's safe to say the same will apply on residential roads. So if the speed limit is set to 30 km/h I'll agree that a number of people will speed but my guess is by speeding most will do 40 km/h because they feel comfortable doing 10 over but far fewer will do 50 km/h because doing 20 over the speed limit is a psychological hurdle.

So in summary a bunch of people will do the new speed limit (9/10 odds of survival) a bunch will do 10 over the speed limit (6/10 odds of survival) and a few will do 20 over the speed limit (2/10 odds of survival). Even with all that speeding, the new 30 km/h speed limit would dramatically increase pedestrian safety. It's why I'm supportive of the change to 30 but I don't feel there's any point in Council approving the compromise change to 40 since at 40 km/h the majority of drivers will still be doing 50+ and pedestrian safety won't really be increased.

And to that I'd reply:

I'll ask the question again - where are the statistics for vehicle/pedestrian accidents in Calgary? Without that, this debate is pointless and based on emotion rather than any facts.

Right now all we are basing this on is opinion, anecdotes and speculation with almost zero statistical data. Until we get that, everyone is wrong (including me).

[accord1999]

So in summary a bunch of people will do the new speed limit (9/10 odds of survival) a bunch will do 10 over the speed limit (6/10 odds of survival) and a few will do 20 over the speed limit (2/10 odds of survival). Even with all that speeding, the new 30 km/h speed limit would dramatically increase pedestrian safety.
I've seen a number of postings, even from government organizations, talking about how fatal 50 kph is but a review of newer studies with recent data sets (with undoubtedly safer cars) doesn't support that figure.

https://i.imgur.com/RgC2Y4L.png

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/pedestrian_fatality_risk_function_car_impact_speed_rosen.pdf

[Porfiry]

What Toby refuses to understand is that people won't be going 30 if the road doesn't warrant it, so that statistic is meaningless.

Most people in this world respect the rule of law. Policy should be crafted around these people, not the few who who think they're above the law regardless.

[milomilo]

Most people in this world respect the rule of law. Policy should be crafted around these people, not the few who who think they're above the law regardless.

Not really. If a law is correct then I'll follow it - I don't murder people not because it's the law, but because I believe it to be immoral. But if a law is pointless then I won't obey it, unless I'm going to get caught. Anyone who doesn't act like this is a muppet - there's plenty of laws that deserved to be broken, like jaywalking, drinking in public, bicycles having to be ridden with the same rules as a car etc. If you can truly claim you obey all rules and laws, you're the strangest person on earth.

Similarly, just because the limit is 50 doesn't mean I'm going to drive that fast in all situations - there's far more times I will drive slower than the limit around the city than the times where the 30 limit in school zones is actually valid.

[Porfiry]

Not really. If a law is correct then I'll follow it - I don't murder people not because it's the law, but because I believe it to be immoral. But if a law is pointless then I won't obey it, unless I'm going to get caught. Anyone who doesn't act like this is a muppet - there's plenty of laws that deserved to be broken, like jaywalking, drinking in public, bicycles having to be ridden with the same rules as a car etc. If you can truly claim you obey all rules and laws, you're the strangest person on earth.

That's a profoundly immature view of the world.

[Corndogger]

That's a profoundly immature view of the world.

No, it's a very realistic view of the world especially in this case. Agenda-driven activists armed with very questionable data should not be allowed to change laws that are based on solid science.

[milomilo]

That's a profoundly immature view of the world.

So you're saying you've never knowingly broken a law? You stop and put your foot down at every stop sign when you're riding a bike, and never ride on the sidewalk, never jaywalked, or broken any other of our pointless laws? Unless you are a robot, then I'm sure you have and will continue to act like a normal human. You can't say 'oh that's different', because it isn't, it's a person deciding a law is stupid and ignoring it.

It's not an immature view of the world, it's a grown up, realistic one. It's fine to codify rules, but our laws must be based on what the people think sensible and moral, or people won't respect them and will break them. Making criminals of people who drive 50km/h on a street with wide open visibility is an example of that.

And I'll ask, yet again. Where are the statistics? We need to be able to see where the problems are and focus on them. If it turns out that over the last five years a significant number of pedestrians were injured in residential streets by cars doing 50km/h, then I'd gladly support this proposal. But we don't have any data showing that, which is why I'm cynical of this baseless proposal.

[Bad Grizzly]

FFS. Really? How many times do these accidents actually happen? The video is probably from some place half way across the world 5 years ago. Duh Farrell showed a video on twitter just like this. Think for yourself before copying everything Duh says.

There are dozens of videos like this, but shows how getting hit by a car at slow speeds can be the difference between life and death.

mkiiAOQLJGM

[Bad Grizzly]

So here's a question. What's the survival rate of people getting hit at 20km/h? I bet it's 9.9 out of 10. Maybe we should lower the speed limit to 20km/h

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnJZWkJV4AE-4xt.jpg

[Bad Grizzly]

Thanks for posting that video as it proves my point perfectly. Why in the hell was that grandma walking out between tightly parked cars with her grandchildren without looking first to ensure it was safe to cross the street? Are you going to tell me that pedestrians bear no responsibility for their own safety? I think you are which just proves that this whole scheme is a huge revenue grab.

Exactly. Nobody has been mentioning the fact that pedestrians need to be aware just the same as drivers. Every day I see people crossing the street without waiting for cars to fully stop, or they cross without looking in both directions. If they get hit, it's their fault as much as the driver if not more.

[Bad Grizzly]

There's no need to answer your own question, which you have asked about 10 times already. If nobody answered your question by now it's because the it might not have any merit. People here are adults, and they don't a stat for everything to make a judgement. This is just common sense.

And to that I'd reply:

Right now all we are basing this on is opinion, anecdotes and speculation with almost zero statistical data. Until we get that, everyone is wrong (including me).

[milomilo]

There's no need to answer your own question, which you have asked about 10 times already. If nobody answered your question by now it's because the it might not have any merit. People here are adults, and they don't a stat for everything to make a judgement. This is just common sense.

I keep asking the question because no one on either side has acknowledged it, and if you were acting like a grown up you'd also be asking the same question. Actually, no, my point is we can't make a judgement right now because we are lacking any useful data, so it is impossible for any of us to say whether 30km/h in residential zones is a good or bad idea, and anyone claiming otherwise is talking out their ass.

[Porfiry]

So you're saying you've never knowingly broken a law? You stop and put your foot down at every stop sign when you're riding a bike, and never ride on the sidewalk, never jaywalked, or broken any other of our pointless laws? Unless you are a robot, then I'm sure you have and will continue to act like a normal human. You can't say 'oh that's different', because it isn't, it's a person deciding a law is stupid and ignoring it.

It's not an immature view of the world, it's a grown up, realistic one. It's fine to codify rules, but our laws must be based on what the people think sensible and moral, or people won't respect them and will break them. Making criminals of people who drive 50km/h on a street with wide open visibility is an example of that.

The fact that a law will be broken does not invalidate the need for the law to exist. Jaywalking is dangerous. Speeding is dangerous. Riding a bike on the sidewalk should generally be discouraged. You do not need 100% compliance for the law to have a meaningful effect on overall behaviour. Any level of compliance above the baseline is still a win.

As noted, people do happily obey school zones even though they're going slower than the road design would otherwise allow. If the democratically elected government decides to set a limit to whatever it wants, for whatever reason it wants, so be it. Generally speaking, people will abide. You might think rules don't apply to you, but that's why there are enforcement mechanisms in place.

[Corndogger]

I keep asking the question because no one on either side has acknowledged it, and if you were acting like a grown up you'd also be asking the same question. Actually, no, my point is we can't make a judgement right now because we are lacking any useful data, so it is impossible for any of us to say whether 30km/h in residential zones is a good or bad idea, and anyone claiming otherwise is talking out their ass.

A few weeks ago when this proposal entered the news again one of the media outlets reported that the areas that would be impacted account for just 7% of accidents. I think it might have been CTV but not positive. When little changes Druh and her anti-car gang will claim it needs to be expanded--common theme with them--to be effective. If they listened to people like me and cracked down on distracted pedestrians as well as drivers and implemented an education program the number of deaths and injuries would go down significantly.

[milomilo]

The fact that a law will be broken does not invalidate the need for the law to exist. Jaywalking is dangerous. Speeding is dangerous. Riding a bike on the sidewalk should generally be discouraged. You do not need 100% compliance for the law to have a meaningful effect on overall behaviour. Any level of compliance above the baseline is still a win.

As noted, people do happily obey school zones even though they're going slower than the road design would otherwise allow. If the democratically elected government decides to set a limit to whatever it wants, for whatever reason it wants, so be it. Generally speaking, people will abide. You might think rules don't apply to you, but that's why there are enforcement mechanisms in place.

I agree with this, but it doesn't change that rules and laws need to be based on good data that people will agree with. Otherwise people won't respect the law, making it harder to create good policy later. We see that in the debate today, as the current enforcement is seen for what it is, a cash grab, as the majority of the time the police are stationed not in places where they will improve safety, but where they are most likely to catch people speeding, like at the bottom of hills, outside empty playgrounds in the winter and in construction zones where the workers packed up weeks ago.

And jay walking isn't unsafe at all, I've got two eyes, ears and a brain between them so I'm quite capable of deciding for myself when it is safe to cross the road, and since it is very often extremely inconvenient to cross at a designated crossing, I will continue to do so. And I'm sure you do it at least sometimes too, proving my point that pointless laws will be broken if people don't think they make sense. Also, there is no such thing as jaywalking in the country I grew up in and many others in Europe, yet their roads are safer - I'm sure at least partially because the thinking there is 'stop, look and listen' rather than 'blindly and brainlessly cross at the government sanctioned point whether a car is coming or not'.

[BlaineN]

I agree here on these points. A law is one thing, morally correct or a law that is the right thing to do is different for sure. One only has to look at the recent legalization of marijuana. It was against the law and now it isn't, yet nothing from the moral right or wrong side has changed.
Same goes for alcohol. 80 years ago it was illegal, yet people still drank it. People won't respect a law if it doesn't make sense.

So you're saying you've never knowingly broken a law? You stop and put your foot down at every stop sign when you're riding a bike, and never ride on the sidewalk, never jaywalked, or broken any other of our pointless laws? Unless you are a robot, then I'm sure you have and will continue to act like a normal human. You can't say 'oh that's different', because it isn't, it's a person deciding a law is stupid and ignoring it.

It's not an immature view of the world, it's a grown up, realistic one. It's fine to codify rules, but our laws must be based on what the people think sensible and moral, or people won't respect them and will break them. Making criminals of people who drive 50km/h on a street with wide open visibility is an example of that.

And I'll ask, yet again. Where are the statistics? We need to be able to see where the problems are and focus on them. If it turns out that over the last five years a significant number of pedestrians were injured in residential streets by cars doing 50km/h, then I'd gladly support this proposal. But we don't have any data showing that, which is why I'm cynical of this baseless proposal.

[Northern]

Not a good argument on your part. Jaywalking is dangerous? Give me a break. Listen, everything is dangerous to some degree. Climbing a ladder is more dangerous than j-walking, should we make a law against that? Calgary is one of the few places in NA that actually cares about it. It's a completely useless cash grab.

People constantly breaking a law doesn't necessarily invalidate it, but it's a sign for those smart enough to make a decision based on common sense, that the law is flawed.
The fact that a law will be broken does not invalidate the need for the law to exist. Jaywalking is dangerous. Speeding is dangerous. Riding a bike on the sidewalk should generally be discouraged. You do not need 100% compliance for the law to have a meaningful effect on overall behaviour. Any level of compliance above the baseline is still a win.

As noted, people do happily obey school zones even though they're going slower than the road design would otherwise allow. If the democratically elected government decides to set a limit to whatever it wants, for whatever reason it wants, so be it. Generally speaking, people will abide. You might think rules don't apply to you, but that's why there are enforcement mechanisms in place.

[Northern]

A few weeks ago when this proposal entered the news again one of the media outlets reported that the areas that would be impacted account for just 7% of accidents. I think it might have been CTV but not positive. When little changes Druh and her anti-car gang will claim it needs to be expanded--common theme with them--to be effective. If they listened to people like me and cracked down on distracted pedestrians as well as drivers and implemented an education program the number of deaths and injuries would go down significantly.

Don't get me started on Druh and any of the idiots who voted for her. The reason she's not listening to you is because it's based on common sense, and not trendy or artsy fartsy enough. Anyone remember her hair brained scheme for the Bow Flow? Stuff like that shows how clueless she is...and that's the kind of person we are supposed to listen to? :koko:

[Porfiry]

I agree with this, but it doesn't change that rules and laws need to be based on good data that people will agree with. Otherwise people won't respect the law, making it harder to create good policy later.

No one wants bad policy.

And jay walking isn't unsafe at all

Of course it is.