Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[lrt's friend]

I just checked, by the end of this year, Ottawa will have far more cameras than either Calgary or Edmonton, which are about 50% bigger cities when we exclude Gatineau. By 2025, will we reach 500,000 tickets? And we are spending millions on a new ticket processing centre. Not exactly money going towards street improvements.

It is great that we have achieved a 4% reduction in injuries, but have other measures also contributed to that improvement?

Also remember, all this ticket money is being taken out of the economy, that would be spent at local businesses.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

By 2025, will we reach 500,000 tickets?

Hopefully.

And we are spending millions on a new ticket processing centre. Not exactly money going towards street improvements.

Yet another disingenuous comment ignoring the fact that this is new revenue going towards the ticket processing centre which will enable faster processing and improve capacity to issue more tickets (further increasing revenue). You really think they would build it at a loss just to spite the carbrains? And to act like a fraction of the revenues being spent for administrative purposes instead of road safety isn’t commonplace in programs like this is again troll-ish.

Also remember, all this ticket money is being taken out of the economy, that would be spent at local businesses.

Wait, didn’t you say speed cameras unfairly target poor drivers and force them off the road? Are you sure that money would’ve been spent at local businesses to begin with?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also remember, all this ticket money is being taken out of the economy, that would be spent at local businesses.

Does the city burn the money?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Does the city burn the money?

No, the city uses it for travel to make sure that it doesn’t get spent in Ottawa.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Hopefully.



Yet another disingenuous comment ignoring the fact that this is new revenue going towards the ticket processing centre which will enable faster processing and improve capacity to issue more tickets (further increasing revenue). You really think they would build it at a loss just to spite the carbrains? And to act like a fraction of the revenues being spent for administrative purposes instead of road safety isn’t commonplace in programs like this is again troll-ish.



Wait, didn’t you say speed cameras unfairly target poor drivers and force them off the road? Are you sure that money would’ve been spent at local businesses to begin with?

Wouldn't building a couple of speed humps and maybe a flashing caution light in appropriate hours be just as effective in improving road safety?

This ticketing system requires additional municipal infrastructure and bureaucracy to function. I question if this is an effective and efficient way to deliver road safety improvements. So much money is going to administration of the system. This is all in the name of keeping property taxes down. But, in the long run, we spend more, likely much more to accomplish the same desired end result.

You should reflect on your 'screw the driver' viewpoint. Drivers will continue to be the vast majority in this city. And we continue to not offer viable alternatives.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wouldn't building a couple of speed humps and maybe a flashing caution light in appropriate hours be just as effective in improving road safety?

The great thing is that speed camera revenues pay for both those things, and more. What do you mean by "appropriate hours"? Should cyclists/peds only be allotted certain hours of the day where drivers may grace them with the convenience of not being run over? And be real about flashing caution lights - you're willing to make a whole detour via residential streets to avoid slowing down, what the hell is a flashing light gonna do?

This ticketing system requires additional municipal infrastructure and bureaucracy to function. I question if this is an effective and efficient way to deliver road safety improvements. So much money is going to administration of the system. This is all in the name of keeping property taxes down. But, in the long run, we spend more, likely much more to accomplish the same desired end result.

How can you be so confident that the ASE program is more burdensome than installing speed humps and flashing lights? Especially when ASE is the only solution that brings in revenues to offset administrative costs. The $2.4M startup costs of the new processing centre will come from the Road Safety Budget, which, again, is where ASE revenues go. And that $2.4M pales in comparison to the $66M in projected ASE revenues for 2024. [source]. You're going to need to provide some proof that the ASE program is much costlier to run than other measures, especially when you compare efficacy, because I highly doubt that. To act like the city would implement the ASE program if it were equally or more financially burdensome than other measures is silly. Unless you're sticking with the "disgruntled driver purposefully being spited by the city" narrative.

You should reflect on your 'screw the driver' viewpoint. Drivers will continue to be the vast majority in this city. And we continue to not offer viable alternatives.

Feel free to point out where I've displayed a "screw the driver" viewpoint. I drive a car too, but the difference is that I'm able to understand the need for a Balanced Approach™ and that my convenience while driving shouldn't trump everything else, especially the safety & comfort of others. At the end of the day, you're arguing against a completely voluntary fine that's only applied if you're speeding well above the limit, which is indisputably illegal. The fact that lots of people speed or that many people dislike the cameras doesn't change anything, and if anything, it just demonstrates how dire the need for behavioural change is. And that's exactly it - behavioural change. The reason there's so much backlash over ASE is because it's actually forcing drivers to face the discomfort of changing their ways to a degree that other measures could never achieve. It'll be uncomfortable, for some a lot more than others, but it's damn effective.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Drivers will continue to be the vast majority in this city.

I'd just point out that drivers being the majority is not really a justification for letting them drive speeds that jeopardize the safety of a "minority". If the debate is convenience vs. safety, I think that the balance should definitely tilt towards safety. And either way, I've yet to hear any convincing argument that the enforcement of 30 and 40 kmph speed limits in urban areas significantly inconveniences either drivers or transit users.

As for drivers being the "vast" majority, I'd be careful about that statement. Remember that no one under 16 is a driver and the share of people over 80 who drive goes down pretty fast. That is maybe 25% of the population. Then there are the people who can't afford cars (most students, lots of lower income households) and the people who choose not to have cars for financial reasons. And then there are the people who can afford a car but choose to walk or bike or take transit.

In my household we are 4 people and one car. At most points in the day, 3-4 of us are not driving to go about our regular business, so even though we are recorded as a household with a car, but we really should count as a majority non-car. I think that applies to another significant chunk of the population. Drivers may not have the numbers you think they have.

[J.OT13]

CBC Ottawa Mornign interview with Moran:

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio...-snow-clearing

So certain sidewalks are no longer plowed in Hull (and other places). And this isn't just random side streets in quiet areas of the Island, it's right in Le Vieux.
For a City trying to revitalize it's Downtown, that is quite ridiculous.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

At the end of the day, you're arguing against a completely voluntary fine that's only applied if you're speeding well above the limit, which is indisputably illegal. The fact that lots of people speed or that many people dislike the cameras doesn't change anything, and if anything, it just demonstrates how dire the need for behavioural change is. And that's exactly it - behavioural change. The reason there's so much backlash over ASE is because it's actually forcing drivers to face the discomfort of changing their ways to a degree that other measures could never achieve. It'll be uncomfortable, for some a lot more than others, but it's damn effective.

One of the most observable and ridiculous behaviour differences between Europe and North America is how much people speed over here and how it's completely normalized. Car's friend here would probably rack up a hundred euros or pounds in speed camera fines the first day in Europe. And this mentality is entirely because of car brain. They can't entertain any ideas beyond saving a few minutes. Even the risk to others is not important.

I drive. And I for one, think there should be more cameras and higher fines. So that people finally learn that road rules aren't optional and we finally end this normalization of deviance that we've made culture. But then I care more about lives than saving 2 mins.

[rocketphish]

Street in front of Vanier school closes to traffic as pilot project begins
Alice Street in Vanier will turn pedestrian-only for about 30 minutes each Tuesday

CBC News
Posted: Feb 06, 2024 11:40 AM EST | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

This morning and every Tuesday morning for the next three months, the road in front of an elementary school in Vanier will be closed entirely to traffic while officials gauge the impact of the pedestrian-only pilot project.

Alice Street in front of école élémentaire publique Trille des Bois, a school of about 620 students located a few blocks south of Beechwood Avenue, will be closed to motorists from about 8:15 to 8:45 a.m. every Tuesday for the next three months.

This Tuesday morning, Ottawa police were on hand to close nearby intersections with their cruisers.

School and community officials say speeding is a problem on the street, as is congestion during the busy morning drop-off period when some motorists make U-turns and sudden stops.

"There are lots of pedestrians and parents who take their kids there in a vehicle, which causes a lot of traffic to the point it causes a lot of concerns for parents," vice-principal Yolaine Brassard said in a French-language interview with Radio-Canada.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...nier-1.7106128

[rocketphish]

"A parent came to me and said, 'I'm scared because kids will play in the street,' and I said 'Yes, that's exactly it: we want young people to play in the street before school,'" said Rideau-Vanier Coun. Stéphanie Plante.

And why are kids playing in the street and not the school's playground? Mightn't this lead to tragedy when a kid unwittingly darts out into traffic outside of the 30 minute closure, because they've been conditioned to that area being safe?

I also have to wonder what the adjacent homeowners are going to do when they need to commute at that time?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I also have to wonder what the adjacent homeowners are going to do when they need to commute at that time?

There seem to only be 3 driveways on the 2 blocks on Alice St. between Vachon Ave and St Ambroise Ave, so I'm sure those residents would be allowed in or out if needed.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/throvDassMYYjwEX6

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

And why are kids playing in the street and not the school's playground? Mightn't this lead to tragedy when a kid unwittingly darts out into traffic outside of the 30 minute closure, because they've been conditioned to that area being safe?

I also have to wonder what the adjacent homeowners are going to do when they need to commute at that time?

You never played street hockey growing up?

And we wonder why it's so much harder to be a kid these days.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You never played street hockey growing up?

And we wonder why it's so much harder to be a kid these days.

Certainly not in a school drop-off zone, nor when I was supposed to be making my way to class. That's neither safe, nor appropriate.

If speeding is a problem in front of the school, as mentioned, maybe this is a logical spot for a camera, to deal with the actual problem?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Certainly not in a school drop-off zone, nor when I was supposed to be making my way to class. That's neither safe, nor appropriate.

If speeding is a problem in front of the school, as mentioned, maybe this is a logical spot for a camera, to deal with the actual problem?

It’s more than speeding, it’s all of the congestion caused by parents driving up to the school and dropping off kids. We actually had a kid clipped on the sidewalk by a mom in an SUV doing a u-turn.

This makes the area in front of the school a safe zone while kids are walking and riding bikes to school. It’s actually a really good idea.

[DTcrawler]

In certain parts of Barrhaven (perhaps elsewhere too) I've noticed signs attached to lamp posts saying "X school is only an X minute walk from here". I'd imagine these signs were put up to encourage more parents to have their kids walk and avoid having the entire school population be driven to/from school, leading to the chaotic and downright dangerous traffic situations we're seeing.

Ironically, I bet many parents feel more comfortable driving their kids to school because they're worried about letting them walk with all the aggressive and dangerous drivers these days.

Hate to be all "back in my day" but it was a simple 10-15 min (accounting for child-sized legs), 800m walk to elementary school for me growing up. Now whenever I visit my parents, I notice the neighbours loading up the kids into the SUV presumably to drive them to the same school. And whenever I've had the misfortune of driving by my old school during the start/finish of school hours, I can't believe the mess of cars parked in every which way, pulling all kinds of boneheaded maneuvers.

Maybe the school in the article didn't close the street specifically for kids to play on it (I wouldn't put too much weight into what Councillor Plante says, politicians say the darnedest things) but rather to force parents to consider alternate means for their kids to get to and from school, now that the "convenience" of dropping them off at the front door has been axed.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

In certain parts of Barrhaven (perhaps elsewhere too) I've noticed signs attached to lamp posts saying "X school is only an X minute walk from here". I'd imagine these signs were put up to encourage more parents to have their kids walk and avoid having the entire school population be driven to/from school, leading to the chaotic and downright dangerous traffic situations we're seeing.

Ironically, I bet many parents feel more comfortable driving their kids to school because they're worried about letting them walk with all the aggressive and dangerous drivers these days.

Hate to be all "back in my day" but it was a simple 10-15 min (accounting for child-sized legs), 800m walk to elementary school for me growing up. Now whenever I visit my parents, I notice the neighbours loading up the kids into the SUV presumably to drive them to the same school. And whenever I've had the misfortune of driving by my old school during the start/finish of school hours, I can't believe the mess of cars parked in every which way, pulling all kinds of boneheaded maneuvers.

Maybe the school in the article didn't close the street specifically for kids to play on it (I wouldn't put too much weight into what Councillor Plante says, politicians say the darnedest things) but rather to force parents to consider alternate means for their kids to get to and from school, now that the "convenience" of dropping them off at the front door has been axed.

Yes, the article didn't do a great job of explaining it, but this is exactly what it is. School drop-offs are a complete mess now, and while the main idea is to increase safety directly in front of the school (to encourage more kids to walk and or bike to school), one of the secondary ideas is that maybe it will force parents to walk with their kids (or let their kids walk if they're old enough), if they are close enough to do so and haven't been.

It's really shocking to see the driving behaviour of parents who will drop their child off one minute, and then speed out of the parking lot / drop off area the next. Just a complete lack of awareness for those around them once their child is out of the vehicle.

[Acajack]

I agree that car drop-offs at elementary schools are a mess but am doubtful that that many kids who go to Trille des Bois are really within walking distance (1-1.5 km) of the school.

It shares a fairly large catchment area with another school from the same board closer to the river, encompassing all of Vanier, New Edinburgh, Overbrook, Rockcliffe Park, Cyrville, St Laurent, etc.

Ontario's school set-up with 4 distinct systems isn't very conducive to having all or most of the kids walk to the neighbourhood school closest to them.

It doesn't even happen that much in the newer suburbs where most houses have school-aged kids.

So I am sure there aren't a couple hundred school-aged francophone public schoolkids in the immediate vicinity of Trille des Bois since the inner city has more retirees and childless households.

It also offers the specialized Steiner-Waldorf program so there are likely quite a few kids from outside its zone as parents shop around for school these days.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree that car drop-offs at elementary schools are a mess but am doubtful that that many kids who go to Trille des Bois are really within walking distance (1-1.5 km) of the school.

It shares a fairly large catchment area with another school from the same board closer to the river, encompassing all of Vanier, New Edinburgh, Overbrook, Rockcliffe Park, Cyrville, St Laurent, etc.

Ontario's school set-up with 4 distinct systems isn't very conducive to having all or most of the kids walk to the neighbourhood school closest to them.

It doesn't even happen that much in the newer suburbs where most houses have school-aged kids.

So I am sure there aren't a couple hundred school-aged francophone public schoolkids in the immediate vicinity of Trille des Bois since the inner city has more retirees and childless households.

Maybe there are less walkers for a school like this (which is quite huge for an elementary school), but I don't think that holds for most elementary schools in Ontario, which generally have a large walking population. We have 3 neighbourhood elementary schools and a large majority of kids walk. Where kids aren't walking, its less that they can't walk and more that parents are conditioned to drive them.

Even if it is 30 or 40% walking, this still makes sense. These school streets are also beneficial to kids who drive or bus. The idea is that parents drop them off a little ways away and they have a safe route to walk the last couple of blocks, free from cars doing all sorts of stupid things.

[Acajack]

I don't disagree that walking needs to be maximized no matter what.