Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The bold statement is not quite correct, IMO. The road is not originally designed for a higher speed, then the speed limit lowered. The road is designed to 10 km/h higher than the posted speed limit is/will be, to allow for driver error. In both speed and direction.

Say for railway design, design speed is track speed. There is very little human involvement in controlling train direction. Ie: they are stuck on the track. Train speed is monitored and controlled much easier than a passenger vehicle. So for that application design and posted speed are the same due to the reduction of allowable error.

But the thing is TAC's code already take into account driver error when they make their 60km/h design speed codes and standards.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Also just to add, the City is currently in the midst a study to provide a new roadway south of Wilkes. A Sterling Lyon west extension if you will. It's part of the William Clement Parkway extension preliminary design.

The city spent 5 years expropriating land on Wilkes. They're just going to ignore those new rights of way? How far South of Wilkes are we talking here?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

What I think Riverman and others are alluding to here is the Steveo has no idea what the 10 km per hour difference in design speed is, or what it means for land use in the area, or land requirements. What does that 10 km/hour difference mean in terms of lane width? In terms of slope? In terms of grade? Does Steveo have any idea? No, he doesn't.

Is that 10 km/hour less of design speed going to make the "pedestrian realm" in this area better? If it's designed to 60 vs. 70, is it going to be safer for walkers in front of the car wash? Is there going to be a lot more taxable land because the grade is 0.01% (or whatever it is) steeper with a lower design speed?

In all honest the cost thing was just to grab the attention of the councillor -- I am far more worried about the variable speed of vehicles along Taylor more than anything. It's lined with housing on the East and West and has a school yard along it. Honestly, if Waverley is built to 80 and has a speed limit of 80 south of the underpass I could care less.

What I want is: for the engineers to pick a speed limit that aligns with the design speed. If that's 70, so be it, if that's 60, so be it. I don't care.

[rypinion]

So the city designs roads for 10km/hr over the posted limit. It's considered a general truth that pretty much everyone goes 8 - 10km/hr over on major street. Is that just a wild coincidence?

When do people actually tend to do the speed limit and not over? I would hazard a guess that it's on older, narrower streets.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by biguc

Since there are still some grown ups here, let's look at some pictures.

Here's is an underpass from a very suburban area near Liverpool. You may recall that Liverpool is the hometown of Riverman's engineer friend who provided the non-anecdote he's basing his entire argument on.

Anyway, as you can see, it's not that different from Waverley. The posted speed limit is 40 stones per hour. That's about the speed limit of Waverley near Taylor and the speed limit we're asking the underpass be designed to.




Here's a view from the ground:



"THAT'S SO BLOODY UNSAFE IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT," says Riverman's Liverpudlian friend. "Classic!," says Bdog, "part of it looks like it's 100 years old!"


Here's what Riverman thinks is the bare necessity for this underpass, lest we all perish in motorcar accidents.





Here's a link to a list of traffic fatalities by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Per 100 000 vehicles, Canada has 9.3
The States, where they love to overbuild road infrastructure for safety, has 13.6
The UK, where they've built this clearly dangerous and inadequate underpass that people on a 60km/h road should only drive through at 60km/h clocks in with a lowly 6.2 road deaths per 100 000 vehicles.


Moldova has 77.5 deaths per 100 000, since rskylar was bound to ask.

This is funny. When biguc's arguements start to sink, his brain goes in the refrigerator.

This trestle looks to be about 50 - 75 years old. Remember the part about standards changing?

This is an elevated railway, not an underpass.

This is in England where land actually has some value, not here where land is all we have.

Try another, something current.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

In all honest the cost thing was just to grab the attention of the councillor -- I am far more worried about the variable speed of vehicles along Taylor more than anything. It's lined with housing on the East and West and has a school yard along it. Honestly, if Waverley is built to 80 and has a speed limit of 80 south of the underpass I could care less.

What I want is: for the engineers to pick a speed limit that aligns with the design speed. If that's 70, so be it, if that's 60, so be it. I don't care.

So, did bringing in the "cost thing" accomplish your intended goal of getting the councillor's attention?

What do you mean by "variable speeds" along Taylor? The speed limit is 60 along that entire stretch, and I didn't see any indication that this is going to change. Or, are you just assuming that Taylor east of Waverley was not also designed to a higher design speed?

Since you seem to be an expert on the subject (by your own admission, you've read several publications on the topic, and have at least a cursory knowledge of TAC guidelines), are you able to tell us what the actual differences would be in terms building the road to a 10km/h higher design speed? In terms of widths, grades, etc.? I'm curious.

To me it seems like common-sense that a factor of safety is incorporated into any design, whether it be road, building, or other. But that's just me.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

So, did bringing in the "cost thing" accomplish your intended goal of getting the councillor's attention?

What do you mean by "variable speeds" along Taylor? The speed limit is 60 along that entire stretch, and I didn't see any indication that this is going to change. Or, are you just assuming that Taylor east of Waverley was not also designed to a higher design speed?

Since you seem to be an expert on the subject (by your own admission, you've read several publications on the topic, and have at least a cursory knowledge of TAC guidelines), are you able to tell us what the actual differences would be in terms building the road to a 10km/h higher design speed? In terms of widths, grades, etc.? I'm curious.

To me it seems like common-sense that a factor of safety is incorporated into any design, whether it be road, building, or other. But that's just me.

I have cited 3 different publications, 2 directly from the Transportation Association of Canada, that all state: design speed, and not posted speed limit, typically dictate how fast someone will travel; that a major contributing factor for increased probability of accidents is a different design speed from the posted speed limit. Taylor is designed to 70 km/h (as requested via City Bid-Op), but is posted to 60 km/h. EDIT: Here... Just in case you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by Bid Op 66-2014, D5.2 (c)

The desired design speed on Waverley Street is 80 km/h south of Taylor Avenue and 60 km/h north of Taylor Avenue. The desired design speed on Taylor Avenue is 70 km/h. Reductions in the design speed may need to be considered, rationalized, and assessed in the development of design alternatives. Posted speeds are considered to be 10 km/h less than design speeds.

Show me 1, just 1, peer reviewed publication that has results where a higher design speed than the posted speed limit actually equated to safer operation of that road segment in an urban context. The difference between the design is of a 60km/h and a 70km/h road segment is irrelevant. Whether I am an engineer or not is nothing but an ad hominem -- who cares if proof is on my side. Presuming that a P.Eng from the City is unbiased (when his job depends on wider/more streets) is an appeal to authority... I know a few climate denying scientists, what's your point.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I have cited 3 different publications, 2 directly from the Transportation Association of Canada, that all state: design speed, and not posted speed limit, typically dictate how fast someone will travel; that a major contributing factor for increased probability of accidents is a different design speed from the posted speed limit. Taylor is designed to 70 km/h (as requested via City Bid-Op), but is posted to 60 km/h. EDIT: Here... Just in case you don't believe me.

Show me 1, just 1, peer reviewed publication that has results where a higher design speed than the posted speed limit actually equated to safer operation of that road segment in an urban context. The difference between the design is of a 60km/h and a 70km/h road segment is irrelevant. Whether I am an engineer or not is nothing but an ad hominem -- who cares if proof is on my side. Presuming that a P.Eng from the City is unbiased (when his job depends on wider/more streets) is an appeal to authority... I know a few climate denying scientists, what's your point.

Sounds good Steve-o. It's tough to argue when the argument keeps changing. One minute the underpass is taking up prime, taxable frontage and preventing boulevard trees (oh, nm, that was just a ploy to get the councillor's attention ). The next, it's a concern because even though the speed limits are not proposed to change, there is multi-family housing fronting (not sure where) and fenced-in school yards on these streets. And then yet still, it's because the design speed is different than the posted limit.

Well, whatever your reasons, good luck with the quest.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Sounds good Steve-o. It's tough to argue when the argument keeps changing. One minute the underpass is taking up prime, taxable frontage and preventing boulevard trees (oh, nm, that was just a ploy to get the councillor's attention ). The next, it's a concern because even though the speed limits are not proposed to change, there is multi-family housing fronting (not sure where) and fenced-in school yards on these streets. And then yet still, it's because the design speed is different than the posted limit.

Well, whatever your reasons, good luck with the quest.

Have a re-read of my original email to the city councillor and the traffic engineer...

I believe I made your office already aware of my concerns regarding the design of the Waverley Underpass -- the proposed design speed is higher than the posted legal speed limit.

Right there, first statement. It has never changed. It is always my concern when I think a City traffic/infrastructure engineer is doing something that I believe to be dangerous.

EDIT: How about instead of attacking me you try attacking the validity of my premise... I'll post it again, as I'll just ignore your ad hominums. Show me 1, just 1, peer reviewed publication that has results where a higher design speed than the posted speed limit actually equated to safer operation of that road segment in an urban context. In all honesty, I would like to read one.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

1) Let's not kid ourselves about the costs of expropriating a couple feet of 'taxable' land because a) most of that land is already a ditch in the city's right of way, and b) it's almost completely valueless as it is. So this part of the discussion is getting a little far-fetched.

That is not entirely accurate. If the property is developed in any form the taxation on the land at the front of the property is the same as the area where the building is. This has a real and valuable property tax contribution to the city on an on-going basis. Further, to expropriate privately held land there is an acquisition cost that needs to be paid to the private land owner. This means the cost of adding undeveloped land is not "valueless" but rather based more around this: cost of expropriation payment to private land owner + loss of property tax * 20 years.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

That is not entirely accurate. If the property is developed in any form the taxation on the land at the front of the property is the same as the area where the building is. This has a real and valuable property tax contribution to the city on an on-going basis. Further, to expropriate privately held land there is an acquisition cost that needs to be paid to the private land owner. This means the cost of adding undeveloped land is not "valueless" but rather based more around this: cost of expropriation payment to private land owner + loss of property tax * 20 years.

99.9% of the land this project will be using land already owned by the City as part of the ROW. Almost no expropriation, they are only leasing some for part of the alternative route that will be open during construction.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is funny. When biguc's arguements start to sink, his brain goes in the refrigerator.

You lost this argument pages ago and you know it. You spent all afternoon yesterday posting nothing but strawmen and appeals to authority. I'm glad you had a laugh at the view of your clownshoes in the mirror.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Have a re-read of my original email to the city councillor and the traffic engineer...



Right there, first statement. It has never changed. It is always my concern when I think a City traffic/infrastructure engineer is doing something that I believe to be dangerous.

EDIT: How about instead of attacking me you try attacking the validity of my premise... I'll post it again, as I'll just ignore your ad hominums. Show me 1, just 1, peer reviewed publication that has results where a higher design speed than the posted speed limit actually equated to safer operation of that road segment in an urban context. In all honesty, I would like to read one.

Sorry if you feel I'm attacking you personally, so I'll leave it at this. The way I interpret what you're saying is that people who want to speed are going to speed - the speed limit will not deter them. If people speed regardless of design speed, I personally feel that a higher design speed makes it safer. If people around me are going to speed, I would prefer that the road be slightly wider, slightly less steep, etc.

Back to my original point about your argument. You mention you are concerned about safety and feel like the project will be dangerous due to the design speed being higher than the posted speed. I asked you if you know what the different in road construction actually would be in this case, by designing for 70 and posting at 60. Is it a 20 cm increase in lane width? Is it a 10 cm increase in lane width? Is it a .05% reduction in grade? Without knowing the specifics, can we say it is more dangerous? Are the quotes from TAC referring to urban areas and 10km/h differences?

If you want to cherry-pick quotes from TAC (or 40 year old articles) without the larger context, that's fine. Don't be surprised though when others use those same tactics in justifying road projects in other areas of the City that you don't support...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

That is not entirely accurate. If the property is developed in any form the taxation on the land at the front of the property is the same as the area where the building is. This has a real and valuable property tax contribution to the city on an on-going basis. Further, to expropriate privately held land there is an acquisition cost that needs to be paid to the private land owner. This means the cost of adding undeveloped land is not "valueless" but rather based more around this: cost of expropriation payment to private land owner + loss of property tax * 20 years.

But this will all still apply if it's ever developed. Like I had noted, a few feet of land on either side of Waverley isn't going to matter given both the unlikelihood it's ever actually developed and that most of it is already held by the city as an existing right of way.

The only part that would need to be expropriated at the moment would be a couple hundred feet where the church's baseball diamond/playground backs onto Waverley. Up to Sterling Lyon, the rest of the east and west sides are owned by the city.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

But this will all still apply if it's ever developed. Like I had noted, a few feet of land on either side of Waverley isn't going to matter given both the unlikelihood it's ever actually developed and that most of it is already held by the city as an existing right of way.

The only part that would need to be expropriated at the moment would be a couple hundred feet where the church's baseball diamond/playground backs onto Waverley. Up to Sterling Lyon, the rest of the east and west sides are owned by the city.

You may want to go do a google map drive or drive by for real. There is a lot of private land. People in this argument are ONLY looking to the south of the tracks. What you are not looking at is the north side of the tracks where almost every portion is private and one office building which is new. And then you have the old shooting range. Not sure if the city bought that our or it is still owned by the club. And then you have a small condo development. And then the one that really gets affected is Casa Loma ( May have spelled this wrong ) their parking lot and building is right at the north / east corner of the tracks.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

You may want to go do a google map drive or drive by for real. There is a lot of private land. People in this argument are ONLY looking to the south of the tracks. What you are not looking at is the north side of the tracks where almost every portion is private and one office building which is new. And then you have the old shooting range. Not sure if the city bought that our or it is still owned by the club. And then you have a small condo development. And then the one that really gets affected is Casa Loma ( May have spelled this wrong ) their parking lot and building is right at the north / east corner of the tracks.

Based on the boards we've been given, any widenings north of the tracks will fall within the city's existing right of way or CN's. Those are the boulevards down Waverley. What may require some expropriation are the AT paths. But even that's unlikely given that the city can widen the sidewalks into it's right of way and not onto private land. And everything to the South side of Taylor has about a 50' right of way before the private property starts.

[mattpa]

reading these posts what engingeer designs exactly for the speed limit none you make it for higher speed limits increasing safety for what the current limit is and if the speed limit gets changed higher it will still be ahead my god its like arguing about highway 400 401 407 those highways have sections designed for speed limit of 150 yet its 100 so stfu just my late rant

[plrh]

It looks like there is already enough land already set aside. I can only assume that the city owns it.

[bomberjet]

The City owns the properties in green to the north of the tracks. That Italian place is leasing the land for their sign and parking. That's why he's pissed off. But he still supports the project and is much friendly when not on camera.

[bomberjet]

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/M...RP/default.asp

There's a cool video Of the Waverley West roads projects posted above.