Can someone point me to the Engineering Department report? The only details I have found so far indicate that the report refers only to Bay Street and Gorge Street, not to the majority of the streets where the change in limits is proposed, and the methodology does not appear to include any inputs for increases in residential population. I would have thought that as the demographics of an area changed, taking a fresh look at speed limits would be a reasonable activity. There is a lot of emotion apparent in this debate, but I've yet to hear anyone explain which roads in the downtown core or around Beacon Hill Park need a speed limit faster than 40k.
So far the arguments I've seen are:
- Council has better things to do (agreed)
- The Engineering Department recommended something different (but I don't think that was actually to the full proposal, or addressed all of the issues)
- Roads with transition in speed limits are unsafe (but then this would make the changes to Cook Street, for example, an improvement, as it already has segments in the affected area with lower speeds)
- Some people won't comply (not much of an argument)
- Downtown is full of crackheads and when I need to drive downtown from the Westshore I want it all to be at commuting speeds and Victoria City Council should put my interests ahead of the actual residents living in that neighborhood and paying taxes in that district (ok, my own version of vitriol and hyperbole, but only for effect)
It may be true that people inherently drive at what they perceive to be safe speeds, and the 85th percentile measurement may be a valid way to set a speed limit. But that approach does not specifically capture a rapidly changing neighborhood. And it does not capture the desire (of some) for the neighborhoods to be more resident and pedestrian friendly.
You missed some arguments:
- Slower speed limits (assuming they are actually effective) would decrease efficiency of transportation on those roads.
- Implementing this will cost significant taxpayer money
- Implementing this will put people driving at safe speeds on those roads in violation of the law.
By the way, the onus is on the people wanting the change to make the strong arguments. So what are their arguments so far?
- Slower speeds are safer. Except I haven't seen any stats on how many pedestrian injuries there are on those roads, and how many are specifically caused by someone driving 50km/h.
- Slower speeds reduce road noise. Obvious, but not an argument that carries any weight.
- Slower speeds make neighbourhoods more livable. How exactly? If you want to encourage cycling, build cycling infrastructure. I ride a lot and 40 vs 50 doesn't affect me at all, but a good cycle lane does.
Most of the argument seems to be people living on arterial roads that wished they lived on a quiet residential street. Well that is understandable but you will never turn Quadra into a quiet residential street. The traffic remains, so now you just get rush hour for longer.