City charter, prepare for lower speed limits. Implementing April 2021

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Where in your experience has traffic calming been successfully implemented in the city?

1st St SW between 12th and 17th is quite good. Garrison Woods has some good stuff (well, a couple streets that are really good and a bunch of stuff that's not very good). Slim pickings in this city. Too often it's just picking one method of traffic calming in one spot and hoping that does the trick, rather than trying it all along the street, or multiple kinds along a street.

[rage2]

Was it lower Mount Royal where the community begged for traffic calming, city installed traffic circles and the community hated it and wanted them removed? I remember it a few years ago but couldn’t find references to it.

[max_boost]

I dislike stop signs and think everything should be a yield.

I took Toma's advice and treat red lights like a stop sign at night.

Another Beyond OG would just run them and I started doing that too when I see no cars around.

So gangsta. I am glad I haven't killed anyone yet.

[nzwasp]

What annoys me about the current residential limits is that when I drive 50k along my road a neighbour will randomly jump out and tell me to slow down. I’m going 50k and I did slow down to 40 since your kids (teenagers) ball started rolling down the street. This neighbor actually jumped at me when I was going 30 on the way back from where I had been.

[OTown]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Challenge accepted!

I’m sure if I grabbed a smart car car2go I could get it sideways through someone’s yard if I clip the curb juuuust right

or this?

[ercchry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

or this?

Think I would need one of the GLAs to stick the landing like that!

[btimbit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I emailed the Ward 2 Councillor (Magliocca) and he is opposed to this
Assistant got back to me that this is based on zero consultation, massive cost ($5 mm), money could be better spent on items like actual crosswalks, using terrible cities as a comparison and that it wouldn't really improve safety

Could you post the whole reply if you don't mind? I'd love to read it. I wrote my councillor too but haven't had a response yet

[schocker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Could you post the whole reply if you don't mind? I'd love to read it. I wrote my councillor too but haven't had a response yet

Here you go. Looks like this has been moved to tomorrow now.

Thank you for your email to Councillor Magliocca on Councillor Farrell’s Motion to reduce the speed limit in Calgary to 30 km/h on residential roadways. Councillor Magliocca has read through this Motion and is opposed to it for a number of reasons.

First of all, there was zero consultation with Calgarians on this matter. Matters like this, which will impact all Calgarians should have public input. Unfortunately, this Motion is just an attempt to push the anti-car ideology of some Councillors on to all Calgarians, without consultation.

Councillor Magliocca is also very concerned about what passing this Motion will mean to taxpayers. The Motion specifies signage costs in the range of $5 Million, plus more for education and engagement programs. $5 Million could be used to do substantial pedestrian safety enhancements like RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) crosswalks lights, line painting and safety signage. If this Motion passes, property taxes may need to be increased in next year’s budget to pay for new speed limit signs and other implications of this Motion.

Councillor Farrell’s Motion references Brussels and Stockholm as city’s that have went towards lower speed limits. Furthermore, much of the background information in the Motion references European studies. The goal of many of these European studies is to reduce the amount of cars on our streets and increase biking and walking. The fact of the matter is that Calgary is not Brussels or Stockholm. Calgary is a winter city in which most Calgarians drive to work, to shop and to wherever else they choose to go to. Councillor Magliocca believes that it should not be City Councils job to change the behavior of Calgarians.

Councillor Magliocca is also concerned that this motion will cause confusion on Calgary roadways. The Motion specifies that the 30 km/h speed limit would apply to residential roadways and “select minor” collector roadways. Unless there is a sign on every single street, it would be very difficult for Calgarians to know the speed limit on different streets throughout the city. This will also cause significant enforcement challenges. Overall, this Motion will cost taxpayers a lot of money and do very little, if anything, to improve driver and pedestrian safety. For these reasons Councillor Magliocca will not be supporting Councillor Farrell’s Motion.

Councillor Magliocca appreciates your comments on this matter and will keep your comments on file for when this matter is debated on Monday.

[cloud7]

Looks like the same response I got from Magliocca's office... word for word.

Here is what I got from Gondek's Office (Ward 3):

Thank you for your email and comments regarding the Notice of Motion to reduce the residential speed limit to 30 km/h being presented to Council on Monday. This is not a straightforward motion with a single ask and includes traffic calming measures, updates to street design and long-term consistent funding for street safety improvements to also help reduce situations that encourage unsafe driving behavior. Councillor Gondek is interested in seeing which roads will be affected because the term “residential streets” can be confusing. Residential, arterial and collector are just a few of the road categories that need to be defined. The communication around which roads will be impacted has not been well communicated, and is fueling public concern. Councillor Gondek will be basing her decision on the responses to the questions she will raise on behalf of residents, as well as thorough review of the research.

[schocker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Looks like the same response I got from Magliocca's office... word for word.

Here is what I got from Gondek's Office (Ward 3):

I can see them just sending the same thing over and over as they probably got lots of comments about it. I wonder what Giancarlo and Druhs autoreply looked like

[btimbit]

Thanks guys, interesting read. Mine still hasn't replied (ward 14) but if he does I'll share it as well

[94CoRd]

Ward 1 response. Seems slightly opposed.

This weeks’ Notice of Motion: Street Safety and Neighbourhood Speed Limits

Hello everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts on the captioned Notice of Motion. I can appreciate the desire to make our streets safer for pedestrians; however, I do have concerns regarding the approach and recommendations of action in the Notice of Motion itself.

In determining an outcome, it’s important to address both the core issues and the details of the current outcomes. The current number of accidents that occur in non-intersections is extremely low and tends to be consistently distributed throughout the entire day. The data reveals some interesting outcomes, such as 67% of pedestrians injured were impaired while crossing the street without the right of way, compared to 28% for all collisions. 51% of pedestrians who were impaired were struck at non-intersection locations. Drivers under the influence who struck pedestrians was 3.1%. When looking at pedestrians accidents, 24% of them were distracted in some manner. 66% of pedestrian casualty collisions in intersections occurred at locations with traffic signals.

When you take the actual data into consideration, I am not sure how a 30KPH mandated speed limit would resolve the core issues. Secondly, why would we not have public consultation? I cannot dispute that at 30KPH an injury is less traumatic; however, according to the data, this is not the core issue.

Additionally, the criteria for determining which roads should have what speed limit and which should not, is complicated, and I am not sure how we are going to make it simple for Calgarians to know “what road is what speed”?

Lastly, the recommendation of moving forward for traffic calming and infrastructure costs is currently estimated between $200M-$500M. This is an unrealistic fix. Even a temporary infrastructure fix may run $25M-$50M for major locations ($16M is a 1% tax increase).

Personally, I think that 50KPH is too fast in residential areas (not including boulevards, etc.). Whether the speed limit should be 30KPH or 40 KPH is debatable. What I think is more appropriate is to have extensive public consultations that address the core issues and determine long term recommendations that can be phased in over time.

I'm off a main boulevard in Royal Oak. People barely follow the 50km/h limit, so dropping it to 30 is just a waste of money. In saying that, the 30 would (hopefully) mean a few more demerits for some select douchebag trucks and bikes if caught.

[speedog]

Barley...

[btimbit]

Nenshi just said they won't get to discussing it at council today, not enough time. Too many land use proposals to wade though first and then it'll be too late

[94CoRd]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Barley...

That is some mighty fine barley. Thanks for the edit speedog

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nenshi just said they won't get to discussing it at council today, not enough time. Too many land use proposals to wade though first and then it'll be too late

Too many land use proposals to wade though first and then it'll be too late for dinner!.

[firebane]

Enjoy this crock of shit:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=66038

[dirtsniffer]

I hope it fails.

[cloud7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Enjoy this crock of shit:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=66038

There is so much misinformation in the Notice of Motion that it is not even funny... My questions and comments below:
- WHO's 90% survival is for collisions at 30 km/h or below. 'or below' was missing from the City wording.
- According to WHO's graph, the survival percentage for collisions at 50 km/h is about 30% not the 20% quoted.
- Quoting % of casualty collisions involving kids 12 or under on neighbourhood street is dodging the real issue. How many actual collisions occur on these streets per year?
- Time difference to travel 1 km at 20 km/h lower is 3 minutes not less than 1 minute
- Edmonton surveyed its resident support. What is Calgary's support level?
- $120 Million is the societal cost for all pedestrian-involved collisions. What is the costs if only the collisions on residential streets are counted?

[schocker]

Also no mention of course that cars can be purchased for a long time now with collision mitigation technologies which will only become more common but of course the speed limit would only be lowered further. Also, vehicles have brakes with tire technologies and also brake technologies advancing from the last time druh drove a car in 1984.