30 for Sunnyside?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by MasterG

God forbid putting 30km/hour on streets with 5,000x the pedestrians in the inner city where it would statistically make a difference on lives saved and collisions avoided. And my comment is not referring to Sunnyside which doesn't need a speed reduction. just everywhere else where people have been killed by traffic this year (Centre, 5 Street etc.)

I am 100% for street safety and lower speed is crucial to that safety and ability to respond to road conditions and other users. But this is another Lakeview-Exceptionalism case where loud mouths go before actual need or data.

The hatred for traffic in this statement is laughable... the same person that doesn't want even the slightest bit of traffic on their street in the middle of nowhere will more than happily speed on Crowchild, 17th Ave and the inner city actually risking 100x more people than any 50 km/hr traffic in their own community ever will. NIMBYism at its finest.

Why didn't they just buy the neighbourhood and plow the ring-road through there and be done with it ? And this is coming from a SW Ring Road hater.

Because North Glenmore Park community is no where near where the ring road will be going?

And for the record, I believe a blanket 30kph speed limit in a community is crap - there are other solutions which should be used.

[93JC]

Our own Radley77's pedestrian collision map shows that not a single pedestrian collision was reported in that part of North Glenmore Park from 1996 to 2012.


Oh and here's another letter in the newsletter from the "Chairman of the Garrison Green Traffic Committee":

The recent extension of Forand Street SW has been a long anticipated addition to Garrison Green. The street now extends to 50th Ave/Mount Royal Gate and provides our community with quick and easy access to major arteries of the City, such as Crowchild Trial, [sic] while also reducing traffic volume from the Richard Road/Peace Keepers Way entrance to Garrison Green.

However, while we were all anticipating a new street into our community, we were not anticipating a highway!! [bolding is not mine]

On a daily basis, many residents drive in and out of Garrison Green on Forand Street at speeds far higher than the posted limit of 50 km/h. This level of speed represents a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists passing through, along with our own residents that are walking about our beautiful community.

In response to this traffic hazard, and as chairman of the Garrison Green Traffic Committee (under the auspices of the North Glenmore Park Community Association), I have requested that the City consider traffic calming measures for the entrance/exit of Garrison Green at the residential section of Forand Street SW including a reduction in the speed limit to 30 km/h, a speed bump, a stop sign, and any other measures necessary to reduce vehicular speed and reduce the likelihood of foreseeable traffic accidents at this location.

As part of this initiative, and based on the interest of Garrison Green residents, we can also request a reduction in the speed limit to 30 km/h for the entire community of Garrison Green making our whole community a safer place to walk, run, bike, drive and live.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by speedog

Because North Glenmore Park community is no where near where the ring road will be going?

And for the record, I believe a blanket 30kph speed limit in a community is crap - there are other solutions which should be used.

I wouldn't have minded a spur to destroy that neighbourhood. It could connect to Crowchild even for the drivers out there!

Seriously though, I do agree: I am against blanket bans. I would support 40km/hr on most roads though, unless they have the capacity for 50km/h. The difference in survivability rates of a pedestrian strike between 40 and 50 is enough that all high-traffic pedestrian areas should never be more than 40 unless extraordinary alternative safety measures and design are used.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Having realized that there was far more traffic and noise of hte streets of the South-East quadrant of the North Glenmore Park Community, the Traffic Committee went out to determine the cause. The alderman's office was contacted for help and support. Roads Calgary was dispatched but was unable to determine an accurate count with it's [sic] automated road counters. The city was unable to place road strips at strategic points to get a proper count. An actual manual count had to be done and accurate numbers were then calculated.

In addition to the regular and daily count of Resident's cars coming and going, the following locations use were counted: The Calgary Girls School, North Glenmore Park Community Hall, Earl Grey Golf and Country Club and the Professional Centre at the entrance to the community. Per calendar year, the combined totals of the mentioned were added up. It was assessed that there were an additional 245,000 vehicles entering the community at the entrance on Longridge Drive off Crowchild Trail. An absolute staggering number when you consider that all of the vehicles that enter the community have to egress as well.

...

At the Annual General Meeting of the NGPCA on September 23rd, 2013, a motion to reduce the speed to 30 KMS/HR was made, seconded and unanimously passed. A full quorum as well as both the MLA and Councilman for the area were in attendance.

It is now time to advise Roads Calgary to put up new street signs in the entire community advising that the new speed limit is 30 KMS/HR as by the democratic choice of the residents. We will soon start advertising and alerting residents and visitors to NGP of the change.

This is quite unbelievable. "It is now time to advise Roads Calgary... that the new speed limit is 30 KMS/HR as by the democratic choice of the residents."

The author either: is ignorant of how laws in this City/Province are implemented, has over-estimated the authority of the Community Association, or is arrogant enough to know they lack authority but are still willing to try to 'bully' (or whatever) the City into doing what they say. I have never subscribed to the idea that you can get what you want by bullying the one entity that ACTUALLY has the power to make the changes you want.

In my community of 5500 residents, perhaps no more than about 100-120 people came to our association's AGM. Hardly a democratic representation with enough mandate to change law, even if that was how it worked.

Originally Posted by MasterG

...But this is another Lakeview-Exceptionalism case...

Why didn't they just buy the neighbourhood and plow the ring-road through there and be done with it ? And this is coming from a SW Ring Road hater.

I'm amazed by your ability to be just as ignorant, ill-informed and small-minded as the article you are commenting on, if not more. Is this SkyscraperPage or the Sun?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I'm amazed by your ability to be just as ignorant, ill-informed and small-minded as the article you are commenting on, if not more. Is this SkyscraperPage or the Sun?

Just a little harmless internet rhetoric, but I thank you for your thorough character analysis of my contribution to this forum.

I hope that we see more useful slow-speed zones come out of the new Pedestrian strategy. When a community like this one, Lakeview or (for the most part) Sunnyside proposes such a step I find it insulting to all of the real dangerous areas on our roads, that actually would benefit from a speed reduction or improved focus on safety.

When focus is given to these neighbourhoods it ignores all the data on pedestrian, auto and bicycle accident rates that should drive these decisions. There are real speed and traffic issues in this city that can be solved with reduced speed or other safety measures that will save lives.

To hide behind "in the name of safety" banner just so you want your dead quiet street to be quieter is both selfish and insulting to people with real safety concerns.

[DizzyEdge]

""It is now time to advise Roads Calgary... that the new speed limit is 30 KMS/HR as by the democratic choice of the residents." "

I bet a lot of community associations would like to have that power about a whole lot of things. (And I don't necessarily think they shouldn't have it)

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

Because North Glenmore Park community is no where near where the ring road will be going?

And for the record, I believe a blanket 30kph speed limit in a community is crap - there are other solutions which should be used.

If you're going to do the 30km/h limit you would have to do it at a city level not a community by community special case.

But really I agree 30km/h isn't the answer, better street design is. Narrower streets discourage speed, on-street parking also helps with this.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

But really I agree 30km/h isn't the answer, better street design is. Narrower streets discourage speed, on-street parking also helps with this.

Agreed. Different design treatments might need to be considered given the context of the neighbourhood. A place like Sunnyside already has those passive safety features and largely doesn't require more. Safety through passive design should be the approach used in all area.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Just a little harmless internet rhetoric, but I thank you for your thorough character analysis of my contribution to this forum.

I hope that we see more useful slow-speed zones come out of the new Pedestrian strategy. When a community like this one, Lakeview or (for the most part) Sunnyside proposes such a step I find it insulting to all of the real dangerous areas on our roads, that actually would benefit from a speed reduction or improved focus on safety.

When focus is given to these neighbourhoods it ignores all the data on pedestrian, auto and bicycle accident rates that should drive these decisions. There are real speed and traffic issues in this city that can be solved with reduced speed or other safety measures that will save lives.

To hide behind "in the name of safety" banner just so you want your dead quiet street to be quieter is both selfish and insulting to people with real safety concerns.

I commented on your post, not your entire contribution to this forum.

You have now mentioned Lakeview several times. I am curious how a single author in a neighbouring community relates to Lakeview? I have only heard NGP, Sunnyside and Garrison Green suggesting a speed reduction, and even then, it would appear to be a few louder voices.

I agree that ignoring real data to placate a few loud voices is bad policy. I also think that berating an entire community based on those same loud voices in deference to the thousands of rational residents in a community is just as ignorant.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I commented on your post, not your entire contribution to this forum.

You have now mentioned Lakeview several times. I am curious how a single author in a neighbouring community relates to Lakeview? I have only heard NGP, Sunnyside and Garrison Green suggesting a speed reduction, and even then, it would appear to be a few louder voices.

I agree that ignoring real data to placate a few loud voices is bad policy. I also think that berating an entire community based on those same loud voices in deference to the thousands of rational residents in a community is just as ignorant.

I guess it is unfair for me to lump Lakeview in with NGP. I consider all areas south of Glenmore and North of the reservoir as "Lakeview" which is not correct. Point ceded. While, my issues with Lakeview and its community association are not entirely unrelated elements of traffic (the ring road saga, crowchild trail cycle infrastructure etc.) they are outside of the scope of this sub-forum.

What I am really against blatant Nimby behaviour by communities. This is an auto dependent, single use suburb that requires all members to drive outside of the community. Some, not all, of those members would be vehemently opposed to another community having the same treatment. Particularly the inner city.

Either all communities are able to get the same treatment and ability to influence the traffic rules in their neighbourhood or the use of statistics, projections and incident rates to plan and design by need is the only way to go.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I guess it is unfair for me to lump Lakeview in with NGP. I consider all areas south of Glenmore and North of the reservoir as "Lakeview" which is not correct. Point ceded. While, my issues with Lakeview and its community association are not entirely unrelated elements of traffic (the ring road saga, crowchild trail cycle infrastructure etc.) they are outside of the scope of this sub-forum.

I think that is the root of my sensitivity. The Crowchild cycle lane issue was not reflective of either the community as a whole, nor really even the association either. That was driven by a few very vocal members and was deeply unpleasant for many in the community, including association members. It is unfair to lump an entire community (much less an adjacent one) with the actions of a few. (I'm always happy to talk ring road! But maybe that isn't for this subforum)

Originally Posted by MasterG

What I am really against blatant Nimby behaviour by communities. This is an auto dependent, single use suburb that requires all members to drive outside of the community. Some, not all, of those members would be vehemently opposed to another community having the same treatment. Particularly the inner city.

Either all communities are able to get the same treatment and ability to influence the traffic rules in their neighbourhood or the use of statistics, projections and incident rates to plan and design by need is the only way to go.

Pretty much all of this I can agree with!

[DizzyEdge]

I think 40 km/hr for residential is fine, because I assuming most will drive 50 in a 40

[forrested]

Originally Posted by freeweed

That's the most passive-aggressive, hall monitor bullshit I've heard yet.

I'm still trying to figure out where all of these kids are dying in playground zones in Calgary.

Ironically, the very same parents that bitch about speeding are the prime causes of traffic danger in Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak. I live close to the school, and it's unbelievable how much traffic the area sees thrice daily. You'd think it was a shopping mall with tens of thousands of shoppers on hand. Or a major freeway. Constant traffic for 30-45 minutes each time.

Did all of these people grow up on farms, or what? As a kid I had to deal with 50 km/h zones daily, and often 60-70. As a pedestrian and cyclist. I managed to be on and cross the road safely every time. In fact, out of all the kids killed on the roads throughout my entire childhood, they all died from their own (or their friends') drinking and driving. I can't think of a single kid killed by someone speeding through a playground zone. And I mean ever.

ditto

What I see all the time in where I live, in Mount Pleasant along 20th Ave is pedestrians stepping out right in front of cars when it's obvious that the car will not have enough space to stop. Cars and people need to both be aware.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by forrested

ditto

What I see all the time in where I live, in Mount Pleasant along 20th Ave is pedestrians stepping out right in front of cars when it's obvious that the car will not have enough space to stop. Cars and people need to both be aware.

20th Ave has to be the worst through street in the city, it's straight with only a few traffic control devices (5 lights in over 20 blocks - 4km), and a relative perception of safety for drivers.

I can't count the number of times people have gotten frustrated by me driving below the limit down 20th.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

20th Ave has to be the worst through street in the city, it's straight with only a few traffic control devices (5 lights in over 20 blocks - 4km), and a relative perception of safety for drivers.

I can't count the number of times people have gotten frustrated by me driving below the limit down 20th.

20th Avenue is hardly what one could consider a through street and especially so if one compares it to McKnight or 16th Ave which pretty much go through the city. 20th Avenue is at best a poor choice for those not well schooled on how to get across the central north part of the city as there are other options that will get you to places faster than 20th Avenue will - think 40th/Northmount, 30th Ave, 24th Ave or 26th Ave. This I know because I've lived in the Central north part of Calgary (south of McKnight and north of 16th Ave) for over 28 years and 20th Avenue is just something the regulars just avoid.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

20th Avenue is hardly what one could consider a through street and especially so if one compares it to McKnight or 16th Ave which pretty much go through the city. 20th Avenue is at best a poor choice for those not well schooled on how to get across the central north part of the city as there are other options that will get you to places faster than 20th Avenue will - think 40th/Northmount, 30th Ave, 24th Ave or 26th Ave. This I know because I've lived in the Central north part of Calgary (south of McKnight and north of 16th Ave) for over 28 years and 20th Avenue is just something the regulars just avoid.

True it tends to be intra NC community traffic than straight cross city traffic, especially now that Stoney has taken a lot of the trucks off 16th.

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah I'd say 20th is used to move between the NC communities, and for NC residents who are heading to the east or west end of the city via 16th ave, but want to stay off 16th until the last minute.