Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 336

Thread: 30 km/h Playground Speed Limits Approved, Entire Residential Areas in Crosshairs Next

  1. #201
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    ... take such human factors into account and produce designs that reduce or eliminate confrontation. ...
    For example.

    Consider the pedestrian bridge that crosses Belgravia Rd at 116th St. Built during Jan Reimer's terms in office and when traffic volumes were vastly lower than today. I recall neo-cons who hated anything Reimer was connected with taking issue with the construction of this bridge, despite the alternative being a cross-walk or a traffic light. Who on foot, bike or in a vehicle can imagine navigating that intersection today in the absence of this bridge?

    Consider the pedestrian underpass at 76th Ave & 114th St. Pedestrians and cyclists enjoy free movement across 114th in total safety. When vehicular traffic is able to move, it does so unimpeded by careless, distracted and impatient pedestrians/cyclists. Is there anything like this project elsewhere in Edmonton, besides the pedway system downtown?

    Edit: Come of think of it, the pedway system isn't a suitable comparison.
    Last edited by mseaver; 25-09-2017 at 03:03 PM.

  2. #202

    Default

    I would love to see more grade separations for pedestrians, but they have to make sense if they're going to work. 76& 114 gets it close. The pedestrian bridges over Whitemud, and the one over Belgravia Road are the right idea, they just need to connect better.

    Others, like the monolith over 97st at 115? ave are poorly designed and compatible with the surrounding streetscapes.

    But they aren't an appropriate solution within neighbourhoods or along older main streets.
    There can only be one.

  3. #203
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    What has changed is the mindset.

    Today, I truly believe the wonks would propose a crosswalk for Belgravia & 116th and the nuts would supports them, imagining that the bubble they live in would protect them and when it didn't, insisting that cars be banned from travelling along Belgravia.

  4. #204

    Default

    We are talking about lowering the speed on residential streets. Not major thoroughfares. Not Arteries, not collectors roads, but local community roads, and roads that pass playgrounds and school zones. The solutions mseaver talks about are for major roadways, and have little to no point to being discussed about residential road speed limits.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    What has changed is the mindset.

    Today, I truly believe the wonks would propose a crosswalk for Belgravia & 116th and the nuts would supports them, imagining that the bubble they live in would protect them and when it didn't, insisting that cars be banned from travelling along Belgravia.
    Kinda like how you keep putting up signs that are unsanctioned by the city, trying to ban bikes from going up a bike path to Grandview heights?

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I would love to see more grade separations for pedestrians, but they have to make sense if they're going to work. 76& 114 gets it close. The pedestrian bridges over Whitemud, and the one over Belgravia Road are the right idea, they just need to connect better.

    Others, like the monolith over 97st at 115? ave are poorly designed and compatible with the surrounding streetscapes.

    But they aren't an appropriate solution within neighbourhoods or along older main streets.
    Agree the one on 115 Ave. and 97 th. Street is about as much use as a fish tank in the ocean. I don't think any walk over bridges over busy roads are particularly useful. To many stairs, to steep, to off putting. Not to mention the elderly, kids and their short legs and disabled people, well no thought whatsoever put into them bridges for disabilities.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  7. #207

    Default

    Why must the city try and reinvent the wheel on almost everything? Nearly every US city has 30mph speed limit in residential zones. That is 48Km/h, call it 50 - done. I'm fine with the 30km/h in school zones though.

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meo View Post
    The question shouldn't be if a lower speed will save lives, cause it will. The question should be would people adhere to the new speed limit. Unless you are putting speed cameras at all those new playground/school zone, I think this move won't decrease any traffic accidents. I personally think the opposite might happen. I ride the bus and I go by 1 playground, 3 school zones. I can tell you at around 8 AM, no one is driving at 30 km/hr or slower. Not the bus driver, not the other drivers either.

    You need something to motiviate people to slow down or else all you're doing is DESENSITIZE people. It's like if you lived in an apartment where the fire alarm is wacky and goes off once every two weeks v. never having a fire alarm go off. Which is more likely to get you out of your apartment? The City wants to set off fire alarms 14 hrs 30 minutes per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
    God forbid that the City should take such human factors into account and produce designs that reduce or eliminate confrontation. As opposed to increasing, if not GUARANTEEING pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle confrontation will occur and then seeking to profit from it, physical/emotional carnage be damned.
    Fines double when kids are present (8-9am, 3-4pm), halve when they are not (the other times).

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    We are talking about lowering the speed on residential streets. Not major thoroughfares. Not Arteries, not collectors roads, but local community roads, and roads that pass playgrounds and school zones. The solutions mseaver talks about are for major roadways, and have little to no point to being discussed about residential road speed limits.
    As covered earlier in the thread some neighborhoods, through either poor, or different design, and including for instance almost all of Millwoods and Castledowns have schools and parks adjacent to main roads. For Instance Millwoods road, 66st, 50st, 23avenue etc. Nearly every school in Millwoods ARE on AT LEAST collector roads. Virtually all of them are directly on main bus routes for instance.

    For some reason, in many of these suburban areas the thinking at the time was to put schools on arterial and collector routes and I can only surmise for viability of transit, transportation to and from them.

    Compounding the issue all of these schools have drop off, collection, school busses, regular busses, taking place on the main roads. Regardless of speed limit its bumper to bumper in these areas. So that you're moving 10km/hr, not 30, not 40. Nearly all of them border side roads but those are not being utilized, even though they are arguably safer collection points. They use the bordering main roads. With helicopter parents blocking roadway with parking and sometimes double parking on both sides of the road. For the two contiguous blocks. In effect parents actually making the areas more hazardous, and less visible by parking in those areas and many illegally.
    Last edited by Replacement; 26-09-2017 at 05:09 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Injury Statistics on Traffic Injuries to Children

    In the last five years, there have been 176 injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector and local roadways (non-arterial).

    • 37% (65) of those collisions occurred in areas that will be covered by the proposed playground zones (even though, playground zones would constitute only 7% of the entire collector and local road network)
    • 20% of those injured in those 65 collisions required hospitalization
    • 99% of the 65 injury collisions happened between 7:30am-9pm (the proposed hours of playground zones)
    How fast were the cars going in those 65 collisions? That seems to be the most important detail when attempting to justify a blanket speed reduction, yet it's not included. In my experience as a bit of an analytics junkie, when details like that are not present, it's usually intentional.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #211

    Default

    So, they have started putting these playground zones in many areas of the city and I don't know if it is just me but does anybody else notice that they seem to not make sense as to where they put them? It seems like they didn't think things through on some of these places and just plopped them down and called it a day rather than taking some time and studying where they are actually needed.

    For example, one stretch is by Wagner High School on 86 Street. Why? It is a high school. If you can't get high school kids to properly cross a road then what are we doing giving them a drivers license at that age? To add, it is a fenced in area located in an industrial zone not a residential one. To top it off, there are no kids there after school unless it is for soccer or football so why a playground zone when if need be a school zone would have been sufficient.

    I thought when they made this bylaw it would actually apply to playground areas that actually have a high number of kid traffic but nope, swing and a miss on that one. Hazeldean Park on 66 Ave. A playground. A busy one at that with cars parked on both sides of street making it hard to see kids if they dart between them. No playground zone sign. Whaaaat?

    Fenced in soccer field with no kids on a regular basis to be found on 76 street and Millbourne Road. Playground zone. Whaaaat?

    Just down the street from there at St. Hilda School. Kids regularly playing basketball late into the night on the courts there. No playground zone.

    Like who decides this stuff?

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood View Post
    So, they have started putting these playground zones in many areas of the city and I don't know if it is just me but does anybody else notice that they seem to not make sense as to where they put them? It seems like they didn't think things through on some of these places and just plopped them down and called it a day rather than taking some time and studying where they are actually needed.

    For example, one stretch is by Wagner High School on 86 Street. Why? It is a high school. If you can't get high school kids to properly cross a road then what are we doing giving them a drivers license at that age? To add, it is a fenced in area located in an industrial zone not a residential one. To top it off, there are no kids there after school unless it is for soccer or football so why a playground zone when if need be a school zone would have been sufficient.

    I thought when they made this bylaw it would actually apply to playground areas that actually have a high number of kid traffic but nope, swing and a miss on that one. Hazeldean Park on 66 Ave. A playground. A busy one at that with cars parked on both sides of street making it hard to see kids if they dart between them. No playground zone sign. Whaaaat?

    Fenced in soccer field with no kids on a regular basis to be found on 76 street and Millbourne Road. Playground zone. Whaaaat?

    Just down the street from there at St. Hilda School. Kids regularly playing basketball late into the night on the courts there. No playground zone.

    Like who decides this stuff?
    Its not about safety. It never was about safety. Its purposely sneaked into some areas so people can be ticketed doing 40 through photo radar.

    Just east of 76 Street, Millbourne Road has a huge stretch thats under a playground zone, where more than 50% of the stretch has houses on both sides and no playground. Saw a photo radar truck there conveniently sitting there ticketing people going 40. No playground in sight.

  13. #213

    Default

    ya, no playground in sight... but google maps shows a park with a playground area. https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.48009.../data=!3m1!1e3

    Yes, its about safety. You don't need to be doing 50 or more on residential roads. The time it costs you is a few seconds. Big deal. It took you much longer to write that post that it would take to travel through these zones over a year.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ya, no playground in sight... but google maps shows a park with a playground area. https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.48009.../data=!3m1!1e3

    Yes, its about safety. You don't need to be doing 50 or more on residential roads. The time it costs you is a few seconds. Big deal. It took you much longer to write that post that it would take to travel through these zones over a year.
    Funny because I actually live there. The bend in the road has no playground. There are townhouses through the entire bend.

    There is no data to suggest that doing 50 in these areas is somehow gonna hurt these kids. How many fatalities are you aware of that are resulted with drivers doing 50? Why are the playgrounds they pick so ridiculous? Why is WP Wagner high school part of the playground zone. 86 street is not a residential road by wagner. Why are we slowing down to 30 for fenced playgrounds, which the playground you linked on your post has on 76 street.

    This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with kids safety. ABSOLUTELY nothing. No data backs up going 30 km/h for long random stretches is somehow safer. Do a study, back it up, then enforce sane laws.

    No, doing 40 in that bend or on 86 street on wagner road or 76 street is not in any way dangering a child's life. But people are getting ticketed nonetheless. My friend got a ticket for going 36 in a schoolzone. I am sure they are ticketing people in the same way for playground zones. I live in this very neighbourhood, there are only kids certain evenings in the summer. The entire park is barren in the winter.

  15. #215

    Default

    Also, not that I care about the time loss here, because there are certain sections closer to whyte ave where going 30 makes sense, specially in developed neighborhoods where the roads are quite narrow and people park on the road.

    But, the playground zone on millbourne road stretches from 41 ave to 76 street. Thats 800 meters. Which I take twice a day (I take more than one playground zone to work, but lets just look at this one). So 1.6 km, going 50, it would take me 1 min and 55 seconds, and going 30 takes me 3 mins and 12 seconds. Take that to an entire year, its 8 hours of extra time a year. So it isn't "just a few seconds over a year". This doesnt include any time lost due to missed traffic lights, slower traffic that leads to buildup and phantom traffic jams, etc.

    And that is just on ONE STREET from ONE playground zone. I am not taking into account going 30 on 76 Street due to this playground zone even though that side of the playground is fenced. The last time I saw a bloody kid in this park was in september.

    Multiply this by other playground zones.

    Take into account the number of people it effects. Thats millions of hours lost of efficiency. For Nothing. I guess not nothing, for Medwards to go "THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!!!"
    Last edited by bhaskar21; 23-10-2017 at 11:54 AM.

  16. #216

    Default

    I can't speak for any particular zone, maybe there is a fence that makes the zone less than urgent.

    But if you really cared about your extra minute a day you wouldn't have moved to where you have to drive past multiple school and playground zones.

    Really. You don't even notice an extra 35 seconds a trip, that's less than one red light, one ad on TV. if you hit snooze once every two weeks you've wasted more time than this playground zone.
    There can only be one.

  17. #217

    Default

    Once again, as I said earlier. The time loss isn't something I am majorly inconvenienced by. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when there are kids around.

    But I talked about time because the argument that we waste "a few seconds a year" is ridiculous. I waste 8 hours due to being on one street on one playground zone. Lets assume I miss 15 hours a year due to playground zones. Its found that an average commuter in the US wastes 42 hours a year commuting. (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/comm...each-year.html).

    We are adding 15 hours on top of that to Edmontonians each year. If I hit the snooze button once every two weeks, thats time that I sleep. Its not the same as time I spend on the road. You can't equate the two. One is good for me, the other is needlessly thrown on me because people can't stop yelling out "Think of the children" as loud as possible.

    Now this is an exaggeration but what if I said "hey Highlander, let me torture you 15 hours a year. Its the same as you pressing snooze on your alarm once a week, so its not a big deal".

    Commuting leads to general unhappiness (https://www.economist.com/blogs/gull...rils-commuting) so we are exposing commuters to our city to higher probabilities of depression and stress.

    Do a study, find what playgrounds and/or roads require lower speeds. Find out what that low speed should be and then find when are those lower speeds required and then enforce it.

    Claiming that this is for the safety of children is ridiculous. Neither you or Medwards are going to talk about examples that have been pointed out for playground zones been placed randomly for nothing but to catch commuters doing 35 and ticketing them.

    If the goal is to prevent any kid from getting any scratches then stop using vehicles altogether and start subsidizing self driving cars.

    Child-related pedestrian collisions in my opinion don't happen with people doing 50km/hr. It happens with distracted or aggressive drivers: things we already have laws against.
    Last edited by bhaskar21; 23-10-2017 at 01:10 PM.

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post


    Take into account the number of people it effects. Thats millions of hours lost of efficiency. For Nothing. I guess not nothing, for Medwards to go "THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!!!"
    Millions of lost hours? I see that from the rest of your post that you just want to lash out and rant without any real regards to facts, or numbers, but I thought this part was funny, and warranted a reply. How did you come to this exact number?



    and if you don't mind responding in kind...

    if all the world only cared about lost hours in your commute, why bother with speed limits at all? just go as fast as your frucking car can go. Who cares about anything else in the world!!! GOT TO MAKE MUH KILLLER COMMUTE TIME RECORD AGAIN!!!! I COULD LIVE CLOSER TO WORK, BUT DAMN IVESON WANTS TO PHOTO RADAR MY *** CAUSE I WANT TO DRIVE AS FAST AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE UP FOR MY BAD CHOICE TO LIVE SO FAR AWAY!!!!
    Last edited by Medwards; 23-10-2017 at 01:57 PM.

  19. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post


    Take into account the number of people it effects. Thats millions of hours lost of efficiency. For Nothing. I guess not nothing, for Medwards to go "THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!!!"
    Millions of lost hours? I see that from the rest of your post that you just want to lash out and rant without any real regards to facts, or numbers, but I thought this part was funny, and warranted a reply. How did you come to this exact number?



    and if you don't mind responding in kind...

    if all the world only cared about lost hours in your commute, why bother with speed limits at all? just go as fast as your frucking car can go. Who cares about anything else in the world!!! GOT TO MAKE MUH KILLLER COMMUTE TIME RECORD AGAIN!!!! I COULD LIVE CLOSER TO WORK, BUT DAMN IVESON WANTS TO PHOTO RADAR MY *** CAUSE I WANT TO DRIVE AS FAST AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE UP FOR MY BAD CHOICE TO LIVE SO FAR AWAY!!!!
    There are million of lost hours. I just showed you how I lose 8 hours a year from one side of one playground. Edmonton is a city of more than a million. Its easy to say that its millions of hours of productivity lost in a year.

    And seeing how you're having a meltdown because you actually have nothing to back up your arguments except with "think of children". I have already said we need a study done to see what speeds are safe for what neighborhoods. I am a civil engineer and I know there are design speeds which are ~10 kms less than the posted speeds (i do county roads, not sure if city roads are the same). And then we have speeds which are posted for public safety (such as all residential areas being 50km/hr).

    Do a study, find whats safe, what are the cost/benefit. where is the 30km/hr speed limit coming from? Why isn't it 40 or 50 or 20 or 10? Who is being effective? What is causing child-pedestrian collisions? How often are they at playgrounds? Whats the effectiveness of fences?

    If you're going to just put down random signs for 30 km/hr around the city, then don't go around claiming its for child safety. Its just for generating photo radar revenue and lowers the overall quality of living.

    Also, its very rude to assume people made a "bad choice" to live far away. The housing industry is extremely expensive, most people can't afford to live two blocks away from their job and go on the internet and ramble on at people who point out reckless and idiotic reduction in posted speeds. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8f675804fd05)

    Next time you post, come back with facts instead of having another meltdown.
    Last edited by bhaskar21; 23-10-2017 at 02:09 PM.

  20. #220

    Default

    meltdown? I was responding to you in kind. Echo'ing your meltdown. (I guess not nothing, for Medwards to go "THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!!!")

    I've posted facts here, on this discussion, and many of the speeding threads on c2e. Most of them get ignored, or dismissed. Go find them.

  21. #221

  22. #222

  23. #223

    Default

    Just about every other municipality in Alberta, or even Canada has 30km/h playground and school zones. Edmonton was anomaly.

  24. #224

  25. #225

  26. #226

  27. #227

  28. #228

  29. #229

  30. #230

    Default

    do you need some more ?

  31. #231

  32. #232

  33. #233

  34. #234

    Default

    While I see you're continuing to have another meltdown while you spam this post. None of your links say anything about the questions I am asking for. Yes, higher speeds lead to a higher risk of injury. We clearly have agreed to take on some of that risk because we are all still driving vehicles. With every link you have posted, I can make an argument of driving 10km/hr EVERYWHERE. Kids live everywhere, and speed is dangerous, why aren't we slowing down 10? Its just a few minutes of your time everyday.

    I can also google "speed and injury to risk" as well.
    Last edited by bhaskar21; 23-10-2017 at 02:19 PM.

  35. #235

    Default

    Actually yes, all my links do.

    It furthers my point that you just want to sit up on pedestal and complain.

    You didn't read a single one of my links. Whats the point of continuing with you? You haven't provided any facts your self, besides:

    "I'm a civil engineer"

  36. #236

    Default

    The burden of proof isn't on me. I have already said I would like an actual study done. I did skim through your links. The only relevant one was the last one. And thats why earlier in the post I said that the speed limits should be reduced in playgrounds in developed neighborhoods because the roads are narrower and cars park on either sides giving a driver little time to stop. This is not the case with millbourne Road Or 76 street or 86 street by wagner. The roads are very wide and cars arent parked next to the park giving drivers far more visibility and time to stop.

  37. #237
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,899

    Default

    I do very much feel that depending on the area, there should be lower speed limits. School zones are very important and definitely useful. The concept of the playground zone is also good in theory, but in practice I question some of the locations and feel that some zones should be reviewed. The primary example I can think of is the playground zone on 76 street that stretches from 41 Ave to Millbourne Road East that was mentioned a bit earlier. For those who are not familiar with this stretch, 76st is a major road, major bus route into mill woods. The playground in question is an empty field that is typically only used during the summer months for youth minor soccer on makeshift soccer pitches. The rest of the time there is little to no children playing in this empty field, as it is just an empty field with grass, and nothing to attract kids to this field unless it is for organized play. This has been like this for the past 30 years at least. If this field were to be used more often I'm all for a limit change but as it is now I find it pretty useless to slow down for a normally empty field.

    One other location that I have issue with is further north along 86st along the Wagner Sports field. First of all the entire field is separated from the road with a fence along road. Second, other than High School students using the field, Chargers football using the field and soccer teams using the field, that area is anything but a playground.

    I feel the city has to go back and properly asses if limit change is actually necessary.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I do very much feel that depending on the area, there should be lower speed limits. School zones are very important and definitely useful. The concept of the playground zone is also good in theory, but in practice I question some of the locations and feel that some zones should be reviewed. The primary example I can think of is the playground zone on 76 street that stretches from 41 Ave to Millbourne Road East that was mentioned a bit earlier. For those who are not familiar with this stretch, 76st is a major road, major bus route into mill woods. The playground in question is an empty field that is typically only used during the summer months for youth minor soccer on makeshift soccer pitches. The rest of the time there is little to no children playing in this empty field, as it is just an empty field with grass, and nothing to attract kids to this field unless it is for organized play. This has been like this for the past 30 years at least. If this field were to be used more often I'm all for a limit change but as it is now I find it pretty useless to slow down for a normally empty field.

    One other location that I have issue with is further north along 86st along the Wagner Sports field. First of all the entire field is separated from the road with a fence along road. Second, other than High School students using the field, Chargers football using the field and soccer teams using the field, that area is anything but a playground.

    I feel the city has to go back and properly asses if limit change is actually necessary.
    Also adding that there is a fence between the playground and 76 street.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Once again, as I said earlier. The time loss isn't something I am majorly inconvenienced by. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when there are kids around.

    But I talked about time because the argument that we waste "a few seconds a year" is ridiculous. I waste 8 hours due to being on one street on one playground zone. Lets assume I miss 15 hours a year due to playground zones. Its found that an average commuter in the US wastes 42 hours a year commuting. (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/comm...each-year.html).

    We are adding 15 hours on top of that to Edmontonians each year. If I hit the snooze button once every two weeks, thats time that I sleep. Its not the same as time I spend on the road. You can't equate the two. One is good for me, the other is needlessly thrown on me because people can't stop yelling out "Think of the children" as loud as possible.

    Now this is an exaggeration but what if I said "hey Highlander, let me torture you 15 hours a year. Its the same as you pressing snooze on your alarm once a week, so its not a big deal".

    Commuting leads to general unhappiness (https://www.economist.com/blogs/gull...rils-commuting) so we are exposing commuters to our city to higher probabilities of depression and stress.

    Do a study, find what playgrounds and/or roads require lower speeds. Find out what that low speed should be and then find when are those lower speeds required and then enforce it.

    Claiming that this is for the safety of children is ridiculous. Neither you or Medwards are going to talk about examples that have been pointed out for playground zones been placed randomly for nothing but to catch commuters doing 35 and ticketing them.

    If the goal is to prevent any kid from getting any scratches then stop using vehicles altogether and start subsidizing self driving cars.

    Child-related pedestrian collisions in my opinion don't happen with people doing 50km/hr. It happens with distracted or aggressive drivers: things we already have laws against.
    You don't lie in bed for even a couple minutes between waking up and getting up, sometimes after the first alarm? You're a rare one.

    Sure you can torture me 15 hours a year. We'll do Chinese water torture. In 30 second chunks 4 times a day, and a water drop will fall on my face maybe once every week or two. the other episodes of water torture literally nothing will happen. and guess what? It won't be torture. Same with solitary confinement in "the hole". It only becomes worthwhile punishment or torture when it's all in a row. Split your solitary confinement into short episodes and it's a nice relaxing time away from responsibilities.

    Just like your horrible experience with losing time in amounts that disappear into the rounding error of your regular daily commute. Use it to practice deep breathing.

    while I understand that some locations are more urgent than others, I don't see how having all those cars that pass by my neighbourhood go slower could possibly be a bad thing.
    There can only be one.

  40. #240

    Default

    Ahh, the classic a couple minutes everyday argument. Atleast you're being a bit more realistic finally than "a few seconds a year".

    And no, as I said earlier, you can't equate the two. Even if a person takes two minutes between getting up and my alarm going off, he won't stop doing that just because of stupidly located playground zones. So it is lost time. And as I have said its not an inconvenience for me. I just want to get rid of the argument when people like you claim "its a few seconds a year". It adds up.

    And I like to torture through the means of slapping people's faces. If you have ever seen How I met your mother, its one of the worst ways to torture, haha. So I will take you up on that offer of doling them out 30 seconds at a time 4 times a day. Please provide more details as I am very interested in this.

  41. #241

    Default

    I have said its not an inconvenience for me
    but yet, you need to dwell on this thread over the loss of less than 30 seconds a day. You've probably lost more time dickering on this thread than you will lose in playground zones over a the course of a decade.

  42. #242

    Default

    I'm not sure I've heard of a falser equivalency than between physical assault and waiting.
    But whatever. To illustrate the difference between time "wasted" in tiny bits versus 5 hours a year, I assume you'll take me up on this offer:

    You can place my head underwater for 30 seconds twice a day.
    You will have your face submerged once annually.



    That you willingly waste time in small chunks throughout your day, including by hitting snooze, means only this:

    You don't actually care about your time in small amounts. You don't even notice.
    There can only be one.

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I have said its not an inconvenience for me
    but yet, you need to dwell on this thread over the loss of less than 30 seconds a day. You've probably lost more time dickering on this thread than you will lose in playground zones over a the course of a decade.
    A year costs more than 8 hours. And it isn't 30 seconds a day. Just saying. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when required. I am happy to see this being implemented. I used to rent by 108 st and 73 ave right next to Queen victoria park (i think). The roads were narrow there and only one car could drive through the road at a time because cars were parked on either sides of the road. So doing 30km/hr is something I am all for. I actually support that neighbourhood being 40km/hr throughout.

    But thats not the case for the two examples I have talked about above. They already placed photo radar trucks at millbourne road. There are no kids in this park, the road is insanely wide and there are fences and they are ticketing people doing 40 here. The city is using this for revenue. Not for public safety. If they cared about public safety, then they would actually ticket people at a playground where there are kids around.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I'm not sure I've heard of a falser equivalency than between physical assault and waiting.
    But whatever. To illustrate the difference between time "wasted" in tiny bits versus 5 hours a year, I assume you'll take me up on this offer:

    You can place my head underwater for 30 seconds twice a day.
    You will have your face submerged once annually.



    That you willingly waste time in small chunks throughout your day, including by hitting snooze, means only this:

    You don't actually care about your time in small amounts. You don't even notice.
    Oh its an insane exaggeration and not in any way equivalent whatsoever.

    That said, I appreciate your offer and I will take you up on something. But not torture or anything ridiculous like we are talking. I am being serious this time. And I can do it with you as I said already, it isn't a huge inconvenience for me. Maybe before you drive/bike/walk to your work. Take 2 minutes, close your eyes and take deep breaths. everyday, even if you're running late!

  45. #245

    Default

    Two minutes now, that's starting to get somewhere.....

    Maybe I'm overstating my case too, my point is only that you can't count those hours up over a year and have a number that has any real value in determining what those delays might cost.

    In the grand scheme of things, I generally agree with what you're saying here. I would also far rather have blanket neighbourhood 40km/hr limits than indiscriminately placed 30 zones. While I conditionally support a blanket 30 limit on neighbourhood streets, I don't think it would be wise to do so without taking time to look at collectors as well as specific parts of neighbourhood street network that may behave more like a collector.

    Most arterials should be 50, but some should be 60 in industrial areas and suburban areas.
    Most collectors should be 40, but a few could be 50, and some should be 30
    Most neighbourhood streets should be 30, but there may be locations where what are currently neighbourhood streets should be re-classified as collectors.

    It won't be an easy process if they really intend to get it right.
    There can only be one.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I have said its not an inconvenience for me
    but yet, you need to dwell on this thread over the loss of less than 30 seconds a day. You've probably lost more time dickering on this thread than you will lose in playground zones over a the course of a decade.
    A year costs more than 8 hours. And it isn't 30 seconds a day. Just saying. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when required. I am happy to see this being implemented. I used to rent by 108 st and 73 ave right next to Queen victoria park (i think). The roads were narrow there and only one car could drive through the road at a time because cars were parked on either sides of the road. So doing 30km/hr is something I am all for. I actually support that neighbourhood being 40km/hr throughout.

    But thats not the case for the two examples I have talked about above. They already placed photo radar trucks at millbourne road. There are no kids in this park, the road is insanely wide and there are fences and they are ticketing people doing 40 here. The city is using this for revenue. Not for public safety. If they cared about public safety, then they would actually ticket people at a playground where there are kids around.
    I dont live in the area, but familiar with the road you are talking about. I haven't been around since they started doing this, but will check it out next time I'm around.

    However, I'm sure you are already aware, photo radar money doesn't go into general city revenue at all. It goes straight into other traffic safety initiatives. But since you are a 'civil engineer' and speak so freely on these issues and pretend to be quite knowledgeable and informed on these issues, I'm sure you already knew that, and you were testing the rest of us.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I have said its not an inconvenience for me
    but yet, you need to dwell on this thread over the loss of less than 30 seconds a day. You've probably lost more time dickering on this thread than you will lose in playground zones over a the course of a decade.
    A year costs more than 8 hours. And it isn't 30 seconds a day. Just saying. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when required. I am happy to see this being implemented. I used to rent by 108 st and 73 ave right next to Queen victoria park (i think). The roads were narrow there and only one car could drive through the road at a time because cars were parked on either sides of the road. So doing 30km/hr is something I am all for. I actually support that neighbourhood being 40km/hr throughout.

    But thats not the case for the two examples I have talked about above. They already placed photo radar trucks at millbourne road. There are no kids in this park, the road is insanely wide and there are fences and they are ticketing people doing 40 here. The city is using this for revenue. Not for public safety. If they cared about public safety, then they would actually ticket people at a playground where there are kids around.
    I dont live in the area, but familiar with the road you are talking about. I haven't been around since they started doing this, but will check it out next time I'm around.

    However, I'm sure you are already aware, photo radar money doesn't go into general city revenue at all. It goes straight into other traffic safety initiatives. But since you are a 'civil engineer' and speak so freely on these issues and pretend to be quite knowledgeable and informed on these issues, I'm sure you already knew that, and you were testing the rest of us.
    You should take a drive there and see. In fact, give Millwoods a go and see how it is because it is designed in such a weird way that busy road ways for some reason have playground zones. I thought when they were doing this that any place that was fenced in would be exempt.

    Like I said, I am not against playground zones as long as they are in areas where it makes sense and not just randomly plopped down on streets cause some guy in the city opened up google maps and saw a large green space and decided that kids must be all over this location cause how can they not? Put up the signs he says!

  48. #248
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I have said its not an inconvenience for me
    but yet, you need to dwell on this thread over the loss of less than 30 seconds a day. You've probably lost more time dickering on this thread than you will lose in playground zones over a the course of a decade.
    A year costs more than 8 hours. And it isn't 30 seconds a day. Just saying. I have no problems slowing down to 30 when required. I am happy to see this being implemented. I used to rent by 108 st and 73 ave right next to Queen victoria park (i think). The roads were narrow there and only one car could drive through the road at a time because cars were parked on either sides of the road. So doing 30km/hr is something I am all for. I actually support that neighbourhood being 40km/hr throughout.

    But thats not the case for the two examples I have talked about above. They already placed photo radar trucks at millbourne road. There are no kids in this park, the road is insanely wide and there are fences and they are ticketing people doing 40 here. The city is using this for revenue. Not for public safety. If they cared about public safety, then they would actually ticket people at a playground where there are kids around.
    I dont live in the area, but familiar with the road you are talking about. I haven't been around since they started doing this, but will check it out next time I'm around.

    However, I'm sure you are already aware, photo radar money doesn't go into general city revenue at all. It goes straight into other traffic safety initiatives. But since you are a 'civil engineer' and speak so freely on these issues and pretend to be quite knowledgeable and informed on these issues, I'm sure you already knew that, and you were testing the rest of us.
    I'm glad to see some evidence of improvements being done - hopefully with the cash that was 'donated' to the traffic safety initiative. I do not drive DT too often, but did notice the pedestrian lights on Sask Drive, between 99st and 100 st. I'm all for this.

  49. #249
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Two minutes now, that's starting to get somewhere.....

    Maybe I'm overstating my case too, my point is only that you can't count those hours up over a year and have a number that has any real value in determining what those delays might cost.

    In the grand scheme of things, I generally agree with what you're saying here. I would also far rather have blanket neighbourhood 40km/hr limits than indiscriminately placed 30 zones. While I conditionally support a blanket 30 limit on neighbourhood streets, I don't think it would be wise to do so without taking time to look at collectors as well as specific parts of neighbourhood street network that may behave more like a collector.

    Most arterials should be 50, but some should be 60 in industrial areas and suburban areas.
    Most collectors should be 40, but a few could be 50, and some should be 30
    Most neighbourhood streets should be 30, but there may be locations where what are currently neighbourhood streets should be re-classified as collectors.

    It won't be an easy process if they really intend to get it right.
    I think you proposed limits are generally 10 km/h too slow. Speed limits are supposed to feel a little too fast to most drivers. I would suggest:

    Arterials should generally be 60 km/h. 70 or 80 km/h limits would make sense in some areas where rights of way are wider and there are barriers separating the road from the nearest houses, and 50 km/h in some older areas where there is street parking and/or houses right next to the street without a barrier.
    Collectors should generally be 50 km/h, except possibly in a few locations in older areas where narrow roads that may not have originally been intended as collectors have become collectors (those could be 40 km/h).
    Neighborhood streets should be generally be 40 km/h. 30 km/h would be appropriate in neighborhoods where oncoming traffic is not able to pass without someone pulling over (conditions typically found on roads less than 9 m wide where parking is allowed on both sides) Wider neighborhood streets (where oncoming traffic can pass easily even when there are parked vehicles on either side) should be narrowed so that the 40 km/h limit does not feel too slow.

    I do not support playground zones. All playgrounds should be fenced wherever they face arterial or collector roads, and pedestrian lights installed if needed.

  50. #250

    Default

    I completely agree with the 30km/h limit through residential areas! Honestly, it only takes 1-2 minutes to get to any major road/artery anyways, so dropping the limit isn't going to be a big deal.

    I live on a corner in a residential area where the speed limit is 50. In the last 3 years I've seen at least 10 accidents on my corner, and someone slid out and took out a fire hydrant, someone else slid into a bus stop area and took the bus stop sign down. My corner is a 2-way stop, not 4-way, and the road has cars parked on both sides. It's very hard to see someone coming down the road as you creep out to see if it's safe to turn when they're doing 50. Unfortunately many people are doing 60 or higher! Especially in the mornings when they're heading to work, and in the evening. Hell, I've seen several people in the late evening doing AT LEAST 80!

    Not only would this help for safety, but also noise pollution from all the jackarses with loud motorcycles, pickup trucks and little cars with fart cans speeding by.

    As for the playground limits, they should all be 30, definitely, but there are a few new ones that I've noticed which I do question. Their posted hours are 6AM to 9PM! The 9PM is a little excessive and I have a feeling that the only reason they do it is to catch people off guard and hand out speeding tickets because they used to all be until 4:30PM. Your young child probably shouldn't be playing at the playground by themselves at 8PM if they're too young to be able to walk around the neighborhood alone safely. The only reason I have a complaint about that 9PM is because it seems sneaky. Just make all neighborhoods 30 and be done with it. This is how it is in Europe and it works just fine there. I never complained about it and found it quite nice.
    Last edited by alkeli; 16-11-2017 at 09:17 AM.

  51. #251

    Default

    In my neighborhood we now have the 30km/h speed limit sign in 2 spots about 3 blocks apart.

    One is the schoolzone, which is now the playground 30 km/h 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. rule and the other is the regulated playground.

    Unfortunately, the majority of the drivers who pass these roads are not complying with the signs.

    Either they can't read, or ignoring the signs or just refuse to drive that slow and are taking their chances.

  52. #252

    Default

    Similar in my neighbourhood. Some dude in a BroRam actually passed me because I was doing the speed limit of 30km/h, using the opposite side of the road, while keeping his horn pressed and the middle finger extended towards me. All that rage, and I still ended up right behind him at the next red light, and the next one, and then the next one, before he went off another direction than me.

  53. #253
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    (2017.09.13 #05)And next year, council willing, entire residential areas will be cut back to 30 km/h.
    (2017.09.13 #09) Do you have any hard evidence of that? Seeing that you're calling for hard evidence yourself?
    (2017.09.25 #194) Something the rest of you more right-minded folk might turn your attention to is the strong prospect of Edmonton Council adopting 30 km/h as a default residential speed limit across the city, once elements of the City Charter Framework Agreement begin to be enacted later this year.
    Here we go, folks.

    Now that the City Charter Framework Agreement has come into effect, Edmonton has full power to set speed limits. The Community Services Committee meet next week to set plans in motion to take the city back to the horse & buggy days.

    "OooOoo, they're a little Amish just for kicks, yeah !"
    Agenda

    COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE
    Members: S. McKeen, B. Henderson, T. Cartmell, T. Caterina

    April 18, 2018

    6.3 Public and Internal Engagement on Residential Speed Limits

    Time specific: First item at 1:30 p.m

  54. #254

    Default

    I'm curious what the reduction in injuries and fatalities has been since the implementation of school zones a few year ago.


    This is well over a year old now:


    October 13, 2016 12:08 pm Updated: October 13, 2016 6:19 pm
    Big drop in Edmonton school zone injury collisions since 2014 reintroduction
    By Karen Bartko

    The City of Edmonton says the decision to reintroduce 30 km/h school zones in 2014 is paying off, as statistics show collisions causing injuries to pedestrians and cyclists has dropped significantly.

    The city said in the three years before reintroduction there were 50 injury collisions in school zones – 20 of which involved cyclists or pedestrians. But between September 2014 – when the zones were reinstated – and June 2016, the city said there were only 10 collisions, two of which involved cyclists and pedestrians.

    “We’ve seen a significant reduction in the number of injuries. We’re down to two — that’s still too many,” Ward 2 councillor Bev Esslinger said.

    ..."The city said it will do safety analyses and upgrades on 24 schools in 2017 and another 24 in 2018."



    https://globalnews.ca/news/3001076/b...eintroduction/
    So if I calculated it correctly here’s the pre & post numbers:

    Pre limit reduction - 36 months (Three prior years in school zones):
    50 total over 36 months (1.4/mo)
    20 involved cyclists or pedestrians (0.6/mo)
    30 other (0.8/mo)

    Post limit reduction - 20 months (between 09/14-06/16):
    10 total over 20 months (0.5/mo)
    2 involved cyclists or pedestrians (0.1/mo)
    8 other (0.4/mo)

    The post reduction period includes one summer and two winters if seasonality matters. My guess is that the pre may include 3 of each.
    Last edited by KC; 22-04-2018 at 10:08 AM.

  55. #255
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Listening to CBC's "Alberta at Noon" program today (2018.04.19) with host Judy Aldous and her guest, David Staples, was unsatisfying.

    Mr Staples (hack columnist for more than 30 yrs at Edmonton Journal, convicted speeder and vocal opponent of photo-radar) appeared on the show - ostensibly to make a case for retaining the default value of 50 kph for speeds on city streets.

    With friends like Mr Staples, the movement to oppose city council's speed-limit-reduction agenda certainly needs no enemies. Likewise for the show's first call-in guest who announced that his half-ton truck wouldn't travel slowly enough to maintain speeds below 50 kph without the guest pressing on the brake.

    If this is the best you can come up with, people of Edmonton, then you deserve to be hobbled down to a walking pace as you move about the city for employment, commerce and pleasure.

    Then there was guest Peter Brown, mayor of the City of Airdrie. The speed limit in Airdrie (pop. 62K) has been 30 kph since the early 80's (back when the town's population was just 10K.) Mayor Brown said that although the limit is 30 kph, most locals drive well over the posted limit along boulevards in the community they feel are suited to higher speeds. Host Aldous didn't think to question Mayor Brown about why the city doesn't either raise limits or enforce them in the locations where limits are presently ignored.
    Last edited by mseaver; 19-04-2018 at 04:13 PM.

  56. #256

    Default

    ^ I've heard that Airdrie's limits and similar ones in other towns including Barrhead aren't legally enforceable unless there' a sign every block. I don't know.

    Seems proponents of maintaining 50 in the neighbourhoods don't understand what's proposed. Arterials would stay 50 or 60, Freeways would stay what they are, and all the lower limit proponents that I've heard would make the limit on Collectors 40, not 30.

    Your actual travel time would change less than a minute on any trip.
    There can only be one.

  57. #257
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Has there been any outcry about City tactics regarding the report?

    Delayed last year, promised for January, ultimately released to the public just three working days before the issue of speed limit reduction goes to Community Services for consideration.

    Supposedly held back at January to obtain further public input. As I recall, the finally sample size is under 700 responses.

    Well, we just had an election.

  58. #258
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Your actual travel time would change less than a minute on any trip.
    Nonsense.

    You and your ilk keep trotting out absurdly small numbers, claiming there is little impact.

  59. #259
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^ I've heard that Airdrie's limits and similar ones in other towns including Barrhead aren't legally enforceable unless there' a sign every block. I don't know.
    I observed tickets being issued in Airdrie in 2017. Ditto in Okotoks (also 30 kph limit) in past years.

    (Full disclosure - I received a ticket for speeding while southbound approaching Okotoks, outside the town/city limits. It was night, it was my first time in the area and there was a speed change in the middle of nowhere along the highway. I went back the next day and photographed the scene - classic revenue grab. Too far to travel back to fight the ticket in court. My only speeding conviction in 20+ yrs)

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Your actual travel time would change less than a minute on any trip.
    Nonsense.

    You and your ilk keep trotting out absurdly small numbers, claiming there is little impact.
    There IS little impact.

    Is there anywhere in this city where arterials are more than a mile apart?
    From the middle of that 1mile block you'll have about a 1km trip to the arterial. 1km at 50=1.2 minutes, or 72 seconds, but you'll have stops and corners in that KM so you wouldn't actually be travelling at 50km/hr the whole time anyway.
    [email protected] =1.5 minutes, or 90s.

    1km at 30 = 2 minutes, or 120s.

    Worst case time lost? 48s. That's one light cycle. You'll live.
    There can only be one.

  61. #261

    Default

    Any reduction isn’t a big deal. Most people will still exceed it where it makes sense to ignore a low limit. Hopefully where there is risk people will slow down.

    Hardly anyone walks or bikes anymore anyways. Everyone drives and drives their kids everywhere.

    And once self driving vehicles take over well all have our faces stuck to a screen and welcome another minute or two in our vehicles, pods, drones or whatever.

  62. #262
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,535

    Default

    That's pretty much it, KC. What a looming cash cow for city coffers, though.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  63. #263
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,399

    Default

    Guess they gotta reduce the limit in more places, so they have more places to put photo radar at to try an nab the "bad guy" doing 35 in a 30 zone. What a ******* joke this city is becoming.

  64. #264
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,802
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...well, we do have a huge slush fund that we need to replenish so we can spend it on whatever, whenever...with no accountability..
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,308

    Default

    It's too bad that everyone jumps on "the city just wants to fine everyone" instead of "slower speeds may save lives." The reality is that slowing the side roads down by 20 km won't have much of an impact on people's drives. For me to get of a main road and onto a side road, I drive for 1-2 blocks. I'm already driving at 30 km/h on that road, because that's what feels like a safe speed. The roads in Strathcona aren't wide, and with parking on one side of the road, 50 km/h is too fast. Yes, this will feel different in the suburbs with the wider roads, and maybe it's not worth implementing there. I would have no problem with there being different speeds based on the community; we've already seen that with the trials around the city.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  66. #266
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,535

    Default

    ^ I'm like you, Gord, 'driving to suit'. We don't need a blanket 30k/mh.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  67. #267

    Default

    Even out in the suburbs 50 or 40 is too fast on residential streets, whether it feels that way to sound-insulated climate controlled drivers or not.

    In addition to slowing at least a portion of drivers (though mostly the already safe ones) lower speed limits will allow the city to redesign those streets come renewal time, with narrower lanes, tighter radii and closer trees.

    And will allow the blame to be properly allocated when the rare crash or injury does occur.
    There can only be one.

  68. #268
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    It's too bad that everyone jumps on "the city just wants to fine everyone" instead of "slower speeds may save lives." I would have no problem with there being different speeds based on the community; we've already seen that with the trials around the city.
    The problem is, the city is addicted to the revenue from photo radar. I've driven the same way for 20 years, and I've never had more photo radar tickets than when the city took over the program. Since then the types of tickets I have received were where the speed limit goes down, and they are setup right there to pick you off if you aren't at that speed, exactly when the sign changes, even though there is clear sight lines, no pedestrians at all, let alone kids, and wide roads. There is no common sense applied to the situation. I've driven the same way near police officers, and never had a problem, but photo radar is right there to make sure I get a ticket, even though logic suggests there is/was no danger to anyone or anything. I'm tired of getting treated like an outlaw, for driving like a civilized human being. When coming up to any pedestrian, narrower road, etc, speed goes down, and alert level goes up.A blanket drop in speed everywhere isn't necessary, and just leads for more opportunity to try and setup photo radar stings.

  69. #269

    Default

    No, a blanket drop leaves fewer places where there's potential for an unfair "sting".

    Incidentally, photo radar has paid for more and more of those speed display signs in the same places that photo radar often set up. If they don't have those signs at all the speed limit transitions on arterials then they should. Once they're in place there will be nowhere that should be considered an unfair "sting" location for photo radar.
    There can only be one.

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I completely agree with the 30km/h limit through residential areas! Honestly, it only takes 1-2 minutes to get to any major road/artery anyways, so dropping the limit isn't going to be a big deal.

    I live on a corner in a residential area where the speed limit is 50. In the last 3 years I've seen at least 10 accidents on my corner, and someone slid out and took out a fire hydrant, someone else slid into a bus stop area and took the bus stop sign down. My corner is a 2-way stop, not 4-way, and the road has cars parked on both sides. It's very hard to see someone coming down the road as you creep out to see if it's safe to turn when they're doing 50. Unfortunately many people are doing 60 or higher! Especially in the mornings when they're heading to work, and in the evening. Hell, I've seen several people in the late evening doing AT LEAST 80!

    Not only would this help for safety, but also noise pollution from all the jackarses with loud motorcycles, pickup trucks and little cars with fart cans speeding by.

    As for the playground limits, they should all be 30, definitely, but there are a few new ones that I've noticed which I do question. Their posted hours are 6AM to 9PM! The 9PM is a little excessive and I have a feeling that the only reason they do it is to catch people off guard and hand out speeding tickets because they used to all be until 4:30PM. Your young child probably shouldn't be playing at the playground by themselves at 8PM if they're too young to be able to walk around the neighborhood alone safely. The only reason I have a complaint about that 9PM is because it seems sneaky. Just make all neighborhoods 30 and be done with it. This is how it is in Europe and it works just fine there. I never complained about it and found it quite nice.
    The people that speed so fast that they slide into fences and knock down poles and signs are not going to slow down for a lower speed limit. In my neighbourhood people drive at 20kph when there are kids around but we should be able to drive faster when there is nobody around (especially when sight lines are excellent). The serious incidents occur on busy roads like Jasper Ave in Oliver. The City doesn't want to pay for walk over passes. Calgary builds lots of them. I could live with 40kph in all residential streets except when children are present although children are rarely the problem. It's usually adults staring down at their phones that end up in these accidents or close calls.

  71. #271

    Default

    "Speed Limit" not "suggested minimum speed to choose to drive at for your convenience".

    Agreed though that cities everywhere need to implement more road design changes to reduce speeds / pedestrian safety.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  72. #272

    Default

    That's one thing that I don't like about the new school zones/playground zones - that they place a "50" sign at the end.

    And whether intentional or not there are a lot of people who see that as a recommended speed sign and speed up, even if they weren't going much faster than 30 before the school zone. A couple spots I know the 50 sign is maybe 50m before a stop sign at an arterial. Just useless clutter.
    There can only be one.

  73. #273

    Default

    So what are the stats? Detailed stats not just aggregated meaningless stats.

    Pedestrians by age
    Pedestrians in crosswalks, in school zones
    Pedestrians in summer, in winter

    Bicycle collisions

    Cars hitting cars backing out of driveways...

    Drunks crashing? The only thing I’ve seen in my neighbourhood ( several times now: the damage the next day), accidents where the drivers had to be impaired, hitting cars houses fences...

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,535

    Default

    ^ You might add 'pedestrians blindly stepping off the kerb' into those, KC.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  75. #275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So what are the stats? Detailed stats not just aggregated meaningless stats.

    Pedestrians by age
    Pedestrians in crosswalks, in school zones
    Pedestrians in summer, in winter

    Bicycle collisions

    Cars hitting cars backing out of driveways...

    Drunks crashing? The only thing Iíve seen in my neighbourhood ( several times now: the damage the next day), accidents where the drivers had to be impaired, hitting cars houses fences...
    It's not all about crashes, of course.
    You can't measure the people that aren't there, and tamer streets should lead to more people out walking and biking because they feel safer.

    I've experienced unsafe passes on residential streets when I'm cycling at ~25, because the driver feels entitled to go 50. With lower limits hopefully those incidents would go away.

    App-induced shortcutting through residential streets should also be reduced. SO should street noise, so there's lots of quality of life benefits.
    There can only be one.

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    ^ You might add 'pedestrians blindly stepping off the kerb' into those, KC.
    Which they should honestly be able to do in residential streets. I shouldn't have to stop and look both ways when I'm crossing the street from my house to my car parked on the other side.

    People have no problem driving 20 in parking lots, and they expect people to just walk wherever.
    Residential streets should be no different.
    There can only be one.

  77. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    ^ You might add 'pedestrians blindly stepping off the kerb' into those, KC.
    Which they should honestly be able to do in residential streets. I shouldn't have to stop and look both ways when I'm crossing the street from my house to my car parked on the other side.

    People have no problem driving 20 in parking lots, and they expect people to just walk wherever.
    Residential streets should be no different.
    huh every single pedestrian NEEDS to look both ways, regardless of the speed limit or where they are crossing.

  78. #278

    Default

    Only because streets are full of inattentive drivers going too fast.

    edit: I'm being an idealist here. I don't expect that we'll ever make streets as safe as they should be (maybe once all cars are self-driving??) and I do look before I cross and teach my children to do the same.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 20-04-2018 at 11:19 AM.
    There can only be one.

  79. #279
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Only because streets are full of inattentive drivers going too fast.

    edit: I'm being an idealist here. I don't expect that we'll ever make streets as safe as they should be (maybe once all cars are self-driving??) and I do look before I cross and teach my children to do the same.
    This is the bigger problem, not the speed.

  80. #280

    Default

    No, it's not.

    As long as we have cars & trucks parked on the street - and we always will, thanks to deliveries and service vehicles - there will always be situations where even at 30 you can't possibly react in time if someone takes a step out from behind a vehicle without checking their periscope first.

    Even a perfect autonomous automobile cant drive safely down a street lined with parked cars at 50.

    Being attentive enough to eliminate the danger that driving causes would mean slowing to walking speed every time you closely pass a parked or stopped car. You're expected to slow to 50 when you pass trained professionals wearing reflective gear on the highway, It's not at all reasonable to think that the same speed might be appropriate anywhere children and pets are around.
    There can only be one.

  81. #281

    Default

    It is rare that I agree with Lorne Gunter but seeing some of the gibberish here the fact that between 2012 and 2016 there were an average of 11 pedestrian accidents requiring hospitalization and the so-called City Administration (oxymoron that that is) thinks that 30 kph will reduce that possibly all the way to maybe 7 astonishes me that City Council would even consider caving into this stupidity....

    http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colum...its-to-30-km-h

  82. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    It is rare that I agree with Lorne Gunter but seeing some of the gibberish here the fact that between 2012 and 2016 there were an average of 11 pedestrian accidents requiring hospitalization and the so-called City Administration (oxymoron that that is) thinks that 30 kph will reduce that possibly all the way to maybe 7 astonishes me that City Council would even consider caving into this stupidity....

    http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colum...its-to-30-km-h
    That is my whole issue with this playground zone and now residential nonsense. It doesn't follow common sense. Initially, I thought they would be placed where actual playgrounds are, places where kids actually hang out. But nope, in the city's infinite wisdom, they google maps things and see, oh, there is an empty field there, speed limit sign goes there. I honestly don't think they actually drove through some of these areas and did any assessments as to what is there and how much it gets used. They just pushed it through cause think of the children. Oooooohhhh! Argument over in that sense.

    The signs are by empty fields that are fenced. The only use they usually get is if kids are having a soccer game, which guess what? It has tons of parents there, so what is the issue here? 76 Street and Millbourne Road is the example here. The only reason I think a sign is there because it is a well known location for photo radar and thus already perfect to catch unsuspecting drivers going either north or south.

    People who are careless will be careless no matter how many signs and bylaws you make up. People are people and you can't protect the world from a-holes. All this does is punish your responsible drivers who adjust their driving to the situation. I don't need to be told to slow down at a school area, I can pay attention and assess the situation on my own cause I'm not dicking around on my phone and am actually paying attention to the road. The guy who doesn't will speed through and not care either way.

    The LRT has hit pedestrians. Maybe city council should come up with a bylaw and reduce it's speed to 30 km/h as well. Safety first. Forget common sense and personal responsibility.

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Even out in the suburbs 50 or 40 is too fast on residential streets, whether it feels that way to sound-insulated climate controlled drivers or not.

    In addition to slowing at least a portion of drivers (though mostly the already safe ones) lower speed limits will allow the city to redesign those streets come renewal time, with narrower lanes, tighter radii and closer trees.

    And will allow the blame to be properly allocated when the rare crash or injury does occur.
    I fully agree, but the way in which neighbourhood roads in the suburbs are designed (curvilinear with a parking lane and a driving lane) I feel leads to people feeling the need to drive way too fast on them. In my neighbourhood, there seems to be an instance every year in which a fence or light post gets driven into, presumably by someone driving way too fast (these roads are perfect for speeding when there are no parked cars on the sides). I even get overtaken in the playground zones on my bike rides, whilst riding at 30km/hr or slightly over.
    Last edited by Nunymare; 21-04-2018 at 08:12 PM.

  84. #284
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    In all truth who goes 50 km/h in Strathcona or the older streets with parking both sides? I'm travelling about 40 km/h perhaps less because you have to predict if you need to pull over to pass (or let someone pass) where there is a spot where nobody is parked.

    I'm not sure why the city went with wider streets in residential neighborhoods (not collector or arterials) to begin with.

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    It is rare that I agree with Lorne Gunter but seeing some of the gibberish here the fact that between 2012 and 2016 there were an average of 11 pedestrian accidents requiring hospitalization and the so-called City Administration (oxymoron that that is) thinks that 30 kph will reduce that possibly all the way to maybe 7 astonishes me that City Council would even consider caving into this stupidity....

    http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colum...its-to-30-km-h
    I say give it a try.

    It might be successful beyond their wildest dreams. If not then they need to abandon any stupid dogma and reverse course and try something else. The problem is that they rarely admit to stupidity. For instance Iím certain some of our roads could use higher speed limits but that goes against the speed kills dogma and thereís no way many people will actually use their minds vs their blind indoctrinated beliefs.

  86. #286

    Default

    I came across an article from a UK town that spent 1 m pounds to change speed signs to 20 mph. They found that deaths and major injuries increased significantly.

    To save lives they need to put the speed limits back but their too poor and cant afford to do so.

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    I came across an article from a UK town that spent 1 m pounds to change speed signs to 20 mph. They found that deaths and major injuries increased significantly.

    To save lives they need to put the speed limits back but their too poor and cant afford to do so.
    However we can afford it. As individuals, as a City and on up, we waste a lot of money and think nothing of it.

  88. #288

    Default

    you missed the point that the accidents, deaths and injuries increased drastically to the point they realized it was a mistake.

  89. #289

    Default

    Where was that? The closest that I can find (portsmouth) had a small increase in serious injuries and a larger decrease in minor ones.

    While looking for it I found lots of articles and cases saying that signs alone without enforcement or design changes won’t have a big impact.
    There can only be one.

  90. #290

  91. #291

    Default

    .@Cartmell_Ward9 motion passes. More study and proposed bylaw amendments come back March 2019. No change now. #yegcc


    https://twitter.com/estolte/status/988910948474736640

  92. #292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    you missed the point that the accidents, deaths and injuries increased drastically to the point they realized it was a mistake.
    Link please.


    I know when I go really slow it’s easier to get distracted from actually driving. So I wouldn’t be surprised by such unintended consequences. Plus pedestrians and bikers might jaywalk more thinking that the cars will just stop. (Lessening of the perceived danger.)

    Nonetheless, all I’ve heard is that the roads will be safer so try it and if more people start getting killed then study it. And, of course, publicly shame those that pushed for it.

  93. #293

    Default

    ^3 posts up is the link

  94. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    ^3 posts up is the link
    Thanks. Missed that.



    Here’s a must read.

    Ample fuel for my public shaming suggestion.



    David Staples: City officials relying on flawed data in push for 30 km/h speed limit | Edmonton Journal

    “...

    “Without exceptions, papers written before 2000 were based on direct analyses of data that had a large bias towards severe and fatal injuries,” write a Danish researcher in a 2011 survey of such studies. “The consequence was to overestimate the fatality risks. We also found more recent research based on less biased data or adjusted for bias. While still showing a steep increase of risk with impact speed, these later papers provided substantially lower risk estimates than had been previously reported.”

    For example, the city says the survivability rate of a collision between a pedestrian and a car going 40 km/h is six in 10. But a 2011 study by the American Automobile Association’s Foundation for Traffic Safety found the survivability rate for such a 40 km/h collision is nine in 10.

    When it comes to pedestrians and collisions, there’s a dividing line at 40 km/h, a French study from 2017 found: “For speeds less than 40 km/h, because data representative of all crashes resulting in injury were used, the estimated risk of death was fairly low.”...”


    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...-h-speed-limit
    Last edited by KC; 24-04-2018 at 07:40 PM.

  95. #295

    Default

    Council backs away from 30 km/h speed limits on local roads | Edmonton Journal

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...mit-to-30-km-h

  96. #296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    you missed the point that the accidents, deaths and injuries increased drastically to the point they realized it was a mistake.
    We sure don't know that from the article.

    We do know that all injuries, including minor injuries wend down overall, but that serious injuries and deaths went up in 7/13 districts. That's just over half, if you're counting. The overall increase in serious injuries/deaths seems to be in the same range that we can see year over year with no change in speed limits or enforcement so it's pretty much statistical noise being amplified by (probably) the same people who were against the change in the first place - the article doesn't say that their whole council actually wants to change limits back up.
    There can only be one.

  97. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Council backs away from 30 km/h speed limits on local roads | Edmonton Journal

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...mit-to-30-km-h
    Unfortunate. They do intend to do more research and public outreach before addressing the issue again next spring.
    I hope that if they can't get 30 passed at that time they can compromise at 40.
    There can only be one.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Council backs away from 30 km/h speed limits on local roads | Edmonton Journal

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...mit-to-30-km-h
    Unfortunate. They do intend to do more research and public outreach before addressing the issue again next spring.
    I hope that if they can't get 30 passed at that time they can compromise at 40.
    Yeah or figure what actually will work vs just accepting some stupid dogma about speed killing.


    Some stats below. 2/3 of pedestrians were hit in intersections, 1/3 midblock.

    On the intersection issue, I’ve never ever seen police simply sitting and monitoring any residential non-school zone area and ticketing cars that fail to stop for pedestrians. (1/3 are possibly jaywalking or something. Police have been known to ticket jaywalkers.)




    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...alReportsm.pdf








    Information Bulletin - Pedestrian Safety
    Excerpt:
    “Use caution when approaching intersections or mid-block crosswalks. ... The fine for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk or passing a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk is $776 and four demerit points.Aug 1, 2017”
    https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3275.htm
    Last edited by KC; 25-04-2018 at 09:21 AM.

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Council backs away from 30 km/h speed limits on local roads | Edmonton Journal

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...mit-to-30-km-h
    Unfortunate. They do intend to do more research and public outreach before addressing the issue again next spring.
    I hope that if they can't get 30 passed at that time they can compromise at 40.
    No compromise. I will continue to voice my opinion to Council that this is a huge waste of time and energy.

  100. #300

    Default

    I think the 30km/h speed limit within neighbourhoods is ridiculous. There is no reason to drive a car if the speed is that low.
    People die, get over it; if you want to live, stay off the road!
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •