Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

About 2 weeks ago there was a report from city touting a 50% reduction of accidents at dangerous intersections in 2020, and that was thanks to Red Light cameras...
Silly we all know its because traffic is also down 50% with pandemic and has nothing to do with the red light cameras... they really think we are stupid

This is an American article, but a similar increase in reckless driving was observed here as well. Just because traffic was down does not mean the roads became automatically safer.

Traffic deaths rose 8% in 2020, even as Americans drove fewer miles during pandemic

DETROIT (AP) — Pandemic lockdowns and stay-at-home orders kept many drivers off U.S. roads and highways last year. But those who did venture out found open lanes that only invited reckless driving, leading to a sharp increase in traffic-crash deaths across the country.

The nonprofit National Safety Council estimates in a report issued Thursday that 42,060 people died in vehicle crashes in 2020, an 8% increase over 2019 and the first jump in four years.

Plus, the fatality rate per 100 million miles driven spiked 24%, the largest annual percentage increase since the council began collecting data in 1923.
...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car...-8-2020-despite-driving-less/4590942001/

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Surprised we don't have stop sign cameras honestly.

Please, oh please, oh please do not mention this potential "revenue tool" to anyone in the city who might be able to make it happen

And doesn't rolling through a stop sign cause less emissions than a full stop and restarting from scratch again? Maybe people are just thinking green..

And all this talk about speed limits, road design, etc should become moot in the next 20-30 years when self driving vehicles start to become ubiquitous. Sitting in a driverless Uber going 100 on the Queensway will lead to a whole new level of frustration

[khabibulin]

There are insurance companies that offer an app on your phone that track your driving behavior. Good driving habits (no speeding, no hard braking or accelerating, no fast cornering) are rewarded with discounts on your vehicle insurance of up to 30%. More like a carrot than a stick.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem with the existing signs is that a sign without any expectation that there will be a consequence for disobeying it, it is useless and mailing someone a ticket weeks after the infraction isn't very effective at reducing speed, which should be the real objective.

The evidence of effectiveness is well established - here's the bottom line from a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review, for example:

A 2010 update to a 2006 Cochrane systematic review on the effectiveness of speed cameras included an additional nine high-quality studies and maintained the qualitative results from the previous review (C. Wilson, Willis, Hendrikz, Le Brocque, and Bellamy, 2010). The studies reported reductions in average speed of between 1 percent and 15 percent and reductions in the proportion of speeding vehicles of between 14 percent and 65 percent, relative to similar controls. Speed cameras also reduced total crashes 8 percent to 49 percent and fatal and serious-injury crashes 11 percent to 44 percent, in studies that compared pre- and postcrash data collected near camera sites.

I agree that a mailed ticket does not stop the driver from speeding at the time they are speeding, only an actual police officer would do that. But again the data shows that it works. You'd expect the driver who receives a ticket at that location will be more careful in future. In any case the photo radar doesn't preclude adding a police officer to catch speeding in real-time as well, or other things like school safety patrols, crossing assistants, etc. Or the ideal: actual design modifications that encourage safe speeds.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Having said that, rather than adding new signs, if they modified the existing signs to clearly state that it is enforced by photo radar, that could be the best of both worlds.

Sure, we could just slap on a photo radar symbol on to every speed limit sign everywhere. Still don't see the point though - we all get that speed limits are enforceable at any time without any warning. I don't see what's special about photo radar enforcement vs an actual police car that warrants advance warning.

Originally Posted by roger1818

EDIT: I think I have said this before, but I feel that speeding fine tiers should be set as a percentage above the speed limit, not at fixed intervals above the speed limit. Going 60 in a 40 zone should have a significantly more serious consequence than going 120 in a 100 zone.

Agree, that makes good sense.

[lrt's friend]

How does constant 'monitoring' make life better for us all? This is the trend. I am all for improving safety but that needs to be the focus. Revenue generation risks making that the priority over safety.

There is a big difference between red light cameras and speed cameras. Idiots generally run red lights for the most part and deserve a fine. I think everybody is guilty of exceeding the speed limit.

We need to keep our focus on improving safety where there is a legitimate problem, not just popping these up everywhere across the city because it is cheap and generates revenue. There are all kinds of ways to slow traffic down, without the aha, we caught you mentality.

When you see that 47,000 tickets have been issued over a short period, you have ask why that is the case? It is a shocking number. And yet, the result, we have to install more. If we get this up 470,000 tickets issued in a year, doesn't this amount to a tax when such a large portion of the population is affected?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When you see that 47,000 tickets have been issued over a short period, you have ask why that is the case? It is a shocking number. And yet, the result, we have to install more. If we get this up 470,000 tickets issued in a year, doesn't this amount to a tax when such a large portion of the population is affected?

Yes it is a large number, but is it really shocking? When I was in my old community association, the #1 complaint from residents were speeding and traffic, and I think the police consistently say those are the #1 concerns of residents as well (eg: see slide 37: speeding and distracted driving are concerns #1 and #2).

Poor behaviour is clearly widespread. As others have pointed out, cameras do tend to reduce speeding so we should expect the number of tickets at each individual location to go down over time, which would mean less revenue but better safety.

What's the alternative to action? Are you suggesting that we just throw up our hands and say, "people gonna speed?" That alternative doesn't sound particularly attractive.

[zzptichka]

I'm fine with signs. As long as they can be placed anywhere where the community wants, whether there is an actual camera there or not.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Yes it is a large number, but is it really shocking? When I was in my old community association, the #1 complaint from residents were speeding and traffic, and I think the police consistently say those are the #1 concerns of residents as well (eg: see slide 37: speeding and distracted driving are concerns #1 and #2).

Poor behaviour is clearly widespread. As others have pointed out, cameras do tend to reduce speeding so we should expect the number of tickets at each individual location to go down over time, which would mean less revenue but better safety.

What's the alternative to action? Are you suggesting that we just throw up our hands and say, "people gonna speed?" That alternative doesn't sound particularly attractive.

I'd say that a combination of encouragement and enforcement is the best approach. Speeding is almost without exception the number one concern of people in our community as well. And this is one instance at least where the perception is not far removed from the risk.

[qprcanada]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Speaking of automated ticketing systems... The number of surveillance cameras in Britain is downright Orwellian, but I would wholeheartedly get behind this use for them:

They have a series of speed cameras setup on the motorway for a set distance, ie 2 miles, and they measure your entry and exit time point using your license plate. If your travel time between the entry and exit points is less than the time than if you had travelled at the legal speed limit you will get a speeding ticket for exceed the average speed limit !

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Studies have shown (including this one) that when a vehicle collides with a pedestrian, the fatality risk at 50 km/h is more than five times higher than the risk at 30 km/h.

Yeah and logic tells you that travelling at 0KMhr is infinitely safer than traveling at 30
Look, we all want safety, but Speed Cameras (and most speed traps) are not there for safety, we all know this - they set in places where the speed limits are artificially slow vs road design, we're all sitting ducks.
The city know where all the problem areas are, they have the accident stats to support that, then why are they still setting up on Innes Bypass for example, the 80km/hr posted speed is too slow there. The flow of traffic dictates the safe speed, if the flow is too fast then engineer something into the road design to slow drivers
I noticed on some very wide 40km/hr residential streets, they paint lines on both sides to make the illusion of a narrower street, this is a simple example of a solution

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Look, we all want safety, but Speed Cameras (and most speed traps) are not there for safety, we all know this - they set in places where the speed limits are artificially slow vs road design, we're all sitting ducks.
...

I noticed on some very wide 40km/hr residential streets, they paint lines on both sides to make the illusion of a narrower street, this is a simple example of a solution

The speed cameras in Ottawa can only be in community safety zones, so they are targeting areas where safety is a concern.

I agree that there are sometimes simple solutions, but real traffic calming on arterials is rarely that simple. Take Bronson Ave for instance, particularly in the south end of the Glebe and near Carleton. You have thousands of pedestrians crossing per day, and cars are regularly hitting 80 kmph+ in that stretch (I've seen the speed board data). There is a real safety issue and road re-design is a major long-term undertaking, so I'm not sure what the issue is with cameras in spots like that. They work.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

The city know where all the problem areas are, they have the accident stats to support that, then why are they still setting up on Innes Bypass for example, the 80km/hr posted speed is too slow there.

Who says that is too slow? This is your opinion but it is an uninformed one. About a decade ago, there was an in-service road safety review of the Innes Bypass that showed that collisions on it were at the same frequency but of a higher severity than comparable MTO highways. So, there's that.

There's been some minor safety improvements implemented since but certainly nothing that would justify increasing the speed limit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Yeah and logic tells you that travelling at 0KMhr is infinitely safer than traveling at 30
Look, we all want safety, but Speed Cameras (and most speed traps) are not there for safety, we all know this - they set in places where the speed limits are artificially slow vs road design, we're all sitting ducks.
The city know where all the problem areas are, they have the accident stats to support that, then why are they still setting up on Innes Bypass for example, the 80km/hr posted speed is too slow there. The flow of traffic dictates the safe speed, if the flow is too fast then engineer something into the road design to slow drivers
I noticed on some very wide 40km/hr residential streets, they paint lines on both sides to make the illusion of a narrower street, this is a simple example of a solution

Maybe this plot from the WHO will paint a clearer picture.



An impact at 30 km/h will have less than a 5% probability of death and reducing speeds below that will have a negligible effect. The probability of death rises sharply above 30 km/h and with any speed at or above 60 km/h, the probability of death is over 90%.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

An impact at 30 km/h will have less than a 5% probability of death and reducing speeds below that will have a negligible effect. The probability of death rises sharply above 30 km/h and with any speed at or above 60 km/h, the probability of death is over 90%.

I'm not quite sure what the point of that is. Yes, fast cars kill people easier than slow cars. Many possible take-aways:

- do we make 30km/h the speed limit on all roads?
- try harder to keep stray pedestrians off roads that are 80km/h?
- Since risk of death to stray pedestrian is 90% above 60km/h, lets make all speed limits 120km/h since stray pedestrian will die anyway.

Not sure how this is an argument for speed cameras ..

[phil235]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm not quite sure what the point of that is. Yes, fast cars kill people easier than slow cars. Many possible take-aways:

- do we make 30km/h the speed limit on all roads?
- try harder to keep stray pedestrians off roads that are 80km/h?
- Since risk of death to stray pedestrian is 90% above 60km/h, lets make all speed limits 120km/h since stray pedestrian will die anyway.

Not sure how this is an argument for speed cameras ..

No, the point is that small decreases in speed make a big difference between 30 and 60 kmph. It's an argument for speed cameras because to the extent we can slow traffic from 60 to 50 on an arterial, it represents a big safety improvement. Same thing for 40 to 30 on a residential street.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I could for sure be wrong about the St-Raymond speed limit. Haven't been in a few years.

But ya, Gatineau's approach seems more tax-grabby than Ottawa, which seems a bit more focused on pedestrian safety. I'll admit though that the one on Innes at Beatrice Desloges is questionable. Very wide street, very few cyclists or pedestrians.

It's definitely a cash-grab here. I've never seen those portable cameras on boulevards where there are high schools, including one near my place.

There is an elementary school in the middle of my neighbourhood and I have never seen a camera there either, though it's not really conducive to that. They do have actual cops standing on the side of the road in the morning and afternoon a few times a year though.

But a spot like this near a high school could easily have a camera:

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x4...i43JzXiZrvAhWvmeAKHXT2D5kQpx8wD3oECCAQCA

[JayBuoy]

They changed the speed limit from 50 to 40 on my residential street, but doesn't matter there's no enforcement anyways and people still drive way over the limit. Its a small street too with children playing and schools nearby, the speed limit should be 30 - if not 20km/h. Its really not that much to ask for you to slow down your car on the very last 200m of your journey home. impulsive behaviour exists, but when you're behind the wheel at speed it is much more dangerous than otherwise.

Design streets to mitigate the damage of risky and impulsive behaviour from drivers. I don't think its too much to ask. Streets that are 20 years away from the end of their useful lifecycle can have semi-permanent changes made by using bollards and concrete. Its a big big problem that will only be exacerbated by autonomous vehicles, and is already being made worse by movement away from compacts and towards SUVs.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When you see that 47,000 tickets have been issued over a short period, you have ask why that is the case? It is a shocking number. And yet, the result, we have to install more. If we get this up 470,000 tickets issued in a year, doesn't this amount to a tax when such a large portion of the population is affected?

Honestly we need to get over this. Maintaining free-at-the-point-of-service car infrastructure costs the city big money. Its only fair for people to ay to use it in some way. Now I don't know if a speed camera is the best way to do it. Would you be opposed to tolling or municipal licence fees?

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I'm fine with signs. As long as they can be placed anywhere where the community wants, whether there is an actual camera there or not.

It's not legally permitted in Ontario to have "fake" signs if there's no camera:

Originally Posted by ONTARIO REGULATION 398/19 8.(4)

The sign prescribed in subsection (2) [i.e. the speed camera warning sign] and the additional sign prescribed in subsection (3) [i.e. the French version] shall not be displayed when an automated speed enforcement system is not in use.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Look, we all want safety, but Speed Cameras (and most speed traps) are not there for safety, we all know this - they set in places where the speed limits are artificially slow vs road design, we're all sitting ducks.

Provincial law limits the use of speed cameras to school zones and community safety zones, so they aren't being placed willy-nilly. I suppose it's possible that speed limits are also artificially low in these areas (maybe because residents campaigned for lower speed limits in advance of engineering solutions being funded), but safety is still obviously and legally the underlying issue. I don't think there's anywhere in Ottawa where the speed limit is less than 30 km/h though, which truly would be artificially low regardless of road design, below which the safety benefit declines as shown in the graph roger1818 posted above.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

The city know where all the problem areas are, they have the accident stats to support that, then why are they still setting up on Innes Bypass for example, the 80km/hr posted speed is too slow there. The flow of traffic dictates the safe speed, if the flow is too fast then engineer something into the road design to slow drivers
I noticed on some very wide 40km/hr residential streets, they paint lines on both sides to make the illusion of a narrower street, this is a simple example of a solution

The speed camera on Innes is by a high school and the limit there is 60 km/h, isn't it? In any case agree with you that design changes should be done. But they're not mutually exclusive to having a speed camera. The logical sequence would be to put the camera to address the current issue, pending the design change. Then once the road is redesigned and speeding is eliminated/reduced, move the camera to another problem spot.

Originally Posted by phil235

No, the point is that small decreases in speed make a big difference between 30 and 60 kmph. It's an argument for speed cameras because to the extent we can slow traffic from 60 to 50 on an arterial, it represents a big safety improvement. Same thing for 40 to 30 on a residential street.

Well said, and well quoted with the WHO curve, stating the obvious but bears repeating. As well, the actual time difference on the median commute in Ottawa (9.2 km) going 50 km/h vs 60 km/h is only 2 min (i.e. 11 min vs 9 min), so can't say that such a small speed reduction (with such a big impact on likelihood of fatality) is materially a imposition either.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

No, the point is that small decreases in speed make a big difference between 30 and 60 kmph. It's an argument for speed cameras because to the extent we can slow traffic from 60 to 50 on an arterial, it represents a big safety improvement. Same thing for 40 to 30 on a residential street.

Exactly! I would also like to point out that the WHO plot shows the probability of death when a collision actually occurred. It doesn't indicate the probability of a collision occurring at a given speed (which would also likely increase with speed given the same environment).