Calgary Roads

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

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]

Originally Posted by Acey

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]

Originally Posted by Acey

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]

Originally Posted by Acey

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]

Originally Posted by Acey

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.

Originally Posted by Acey

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

Originally Posted by suburbia

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Acey

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]

Originally Posted by Acey

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]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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 ?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.