Traffic Calming-Good thing or Bad?
#1
Posted 03 August 2006 - 10:27 AM
Anyway, there has been a rash of traffic calming on Victoria streets. Right now in the area of town that I live in, they're reducing the number of lanes on Fort Street from 2 in each direction to 1 in each direction. The backups are going to be really bad as I have walked Fort around 8 and it being backed up due to it. The other one is on Richmond Avenue around Royal Jubilee. Can someone tell me WHY they did that? I bet it would be a pain in the ass if you needed to get to emergency from some of the side streets.
I know I don't drive, but I can see the stupidity in the matter. What next? Saanich putting in stupid islands and reducing the lanes on Shelbourne or MacKenzie??!
#2
Posted 03 August 2006 - 10:38 AM
I know am I am the at the extreme end of the scale as far as this forum goes and most of you will disagree with me but I am also in favour of closing Government Street to North South Traffic from Wharf to Yates. I think that the East-West Traffic should be kept open though.
I am also in favour of closing a street in each neighbourhood to create small squares for neighbourhood interaction. I also would like to see many smaller streets made narrower and the sidewalks made wider.
#3
Posted 03 August 2006 - 02:13 PM
traffic calming on secondary roads is okay however on main throughfares its just retarded.
#4
Posted 03 August 2006 - 02:15 PM
Narrowing roads and cutting them off in a growing city is lunacy.
#5
Posted 03 August 2006 - 05:36 PM
"People who support higher densities in the core should expect heavier vehicle traffic and congestion."
...but what they don't mention is that municipalities are pro-actively causing congestion through the narrowing of lanes and the creation of obstructions. These projects are launched even though Victoria's streets are already slow thanks to narrow roads and small blocks (lots of intersections slowing down traffic).
But what it ultimately comes down to is local government having to spend money on infrastructure projects in order to sustain expenditures and maintain taxation levels. In several years traffic calming projects in certain areas will be ripped up and the streets returned to normal. So these little pet projects are all done in the name of municipal expenditure sustainability.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#6
Posted 03 August 2006 - 05:55 PM
Cheers Scaper....
VERY VERY BAD THING!
#7
Posted 03 August 2006 - 07:15 PM
I think that traffic calming is great and the fact that you guys get all hostile about it just goes to show you it works. I bet you guys purposely avoid areas with traffic calming right???
Anyways here is what I would like to do to my street in front of my building.
Basically I would take the dead part of the block between the parking lot entrances and turn it into a park. No access would be lost to any building parkade and there would still be fire access in an emergency. The big loser would be the city because they would not be able to hand out tickets to those that overstay the one hour time limit. The only people that would not like it would be the people that use North Park as a through street and well you know what, they can use Caledonia which has lights on it instead.
I bet all of you hate it but if you lived here it would be great.
#8
Posted 03 August 2006 - 11:11 PM
This whole concept of "traffic calming is great, it makes people get out of thier cars, ride a bike, walk or take a bus to shop", is retarded. I own a business, some have a full time jobs with families, 80 percent of the population lives outside Victoria proper. I don't have time to walk downtown, take a bus, or ride a bike, I have employees to pay, bills to pay, work to do, Sorry Brainiacs Planners but it doesn't work for the good of the people.....Could there be a reason why downtown retailers are hurting??? Retailers in Langford aren't....Hmmm Maybe it's because traffic calming doesn't work, won't work, and shouldn't happen. It's a disgusting waste of tax dollars. Especially when in ten years when 10,000 more people are living downtown and it's a traffic nightmare, and people then will be saying who the hell did this, Deb Day will say, well at the time it seemed like the right thing to do, but the city has grown now, and we need to redo what was rightfully down in 2006! Trust me wait ten years this will all be reversed and Victorian's will foot the bill again. And Myself and the 80 percent of suburbians will say.....We told you so!
--- this is my take...and I am sticking with it!!! :wink:
#9
Posted 03 August 2006 - 11:30 PM
Will it happen? Perhaps, but thus far the traffic realities in European cities don't bode well for our efforts. Sure, we'll get more poeple walking and cycling but auto use will continue to increase and will have to be accomodated.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#10
Posted 04 August 2006 - 06:33 AM
#11
Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:13 AM
You car lovers :wink:
I think that traffic calming is great and the fact that you guys get all hostile about it just goes to show you it works. I bet you guys purposely avoid areas with traffic calming right???
Anyways here is what I would like to do to my street in front of my building.
Basically I would take the dead part of the block between the parking lot entrances and turn it into a park. No access would be lost to any building parkade and there would still be fire access in an emergency. The big loser would be the city because they would not be able to hand out tickets to those that overstay the one hour time limit. The only people that would not like it would be the people that use North Park as a through street and well you know what, they can use Caledonia which has lights on it instead.
I bet all of you hate it but if you lived here it would be great.
I agree with G. There are lots of opportuinities to do what he has illustrated here. All the streets in Fernwood, for example, like Belmont, Scott, Shakespeare, they could all be dead-ended. And the City could MAKE some money by selling off the end lots for one more house.
Traffic calming is good.
#12
Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:29 AM
#13
Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:30 AM
Traffic calming refers to any number of street modifications. Calming that produces logjams of idling cars is bad, merely reducing speed while preserving smooth traffic flow is good. I used to live on a quiet residential street that was used as a high-speed thoroughfare until giant concrete planters were placed in the middle of the intersections. The number of high speed collisions dropped.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#14
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:06 AM
Anyway, it is freaking huge, as in wide. You could build a row of homes up the middle and still have two wide lanes left over.
#15
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:11 AM
Besides, thinking of downtown as a place only for downtown residents is pretty extreme. Downtowns bring together people from entire metros and thinking that suburbanites might as well not drive down into downtown is a bit overboard. I'd bet many of the merchants who run businesses downtown aren't from downtown but commute in from the burbs. Same thing for the thousands of office workers that make downtown a thriving place during the day.
I'm not against traffic calming in residential neighbourhoods but squishing together lanes and impeding traffic along major thoroughfares is nothing but a municipal pet project that will be ripped down a decade later under the guise of another project.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#16
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:17 AM
#17
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:19 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#18
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:25 AM
#19
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:37 AM
The beauty of downtown is its spontaneous nature. Once you start controlling downtown "for the residents" it loses its appeal as an "anything goes" district. Already downtown residents are voicing noise concerns about certain concerts and events, and I can only imagine what else will surface as people flock into downtown not knowing that its a wild beast and shouldn't be tamed to the expectations of one group of individuals.
I'm all for downtown residential growth, obviously, but I don't want downtown to become an enclave for a segment of the population. In fact, one of the concerns I have is what I call the Songhees effect. People will move to a district not knowing what and how it really operates, and then those people will try to impose their expectations onto their new hoods or districts. This may end up happening with the residents living across from Monty's/Jungle Room/Hush who will eventually tire of the symphony taking place below their windows. As more residents move into downtown because it's the hip thing to do we'll see more and more rules and regulations imposd over what were historically untamed areas of the city.
I live on the edge of downtown and love everything about the inner city. But the prospect of downtown turning into a neighbourhood that excludes much of the population because it doesn't live by the same rules as downtown residents doesn't sit well with me. That's precisely why I want the auto traffic, the clubs, the pubs, the concerts, the street life and the ambiance.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#20
Posted 04 August 2006 - 09:42 AM
It is the street that ends above "technologies". It is nearly twice the width of the much busier Niagra Street one block north.
Google Earth, brilliant!
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users