Speed management: safe streets for all

Opposed to this decision. 30 kmh I can see the arguments for safety. The 40/50 kmh reductions are silly and unnecessary. We can’t bike everywhere in Waterloo.

This is simply a bad idea that will solve nothing. It takes a special kind of arrogance by council members to gain a consensus amongst the citizen and then ignore it. We already have traffic calming measures such as four way stops, narrowed streets, speed bumps, street flappers. May be we should ask the question what problem are we trying to solve and is the remedy effectifve and achieving the desired results. What I see happening in my neighbourhood in up town Waterloo is people running four stops and there is no enforcement. So lowering the limit, my prediction will be it will be absolute planning failure again and these limits will be ignored. This is just another attempt by the active transportation crowd to get their own way and waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

Keep the speed limit the same,why people will speed any how unless you use speed camera. Too costly to switch signs. What is the reason for this are a lot of people injured on the streets per capacity; need to teach common sense brenda

I am opposed to this speed reduction. Waterloo is far too large with too many residents to be a walking city. It is necessary for many residents to drive to get to work, etc. Our traffic is too heavy to reduce the speed any lower. The traffic is already slow enough with the LRT and loss of lanes due to bike lanes. If pedestrians and drivers pay attention and follow speed limits, I believe it is a safe environment for drivers and pedestrians. The roundabouts are somewhat of an issue for pedestrians, and City should concentrate their efforts on correcting that issue. Thank you.

I am opposed to a speed reduction.

Council’s decision must be informed by the view of residents, city staff with expertise in this area and expert/independent views. All of which suggest that reducing the speed limit to 30 is unwise and unnecessary at this time.

Instead, enforcement of existing speed limits in high risk areas using photo radar (in place but could be expanded) and cracking down in distracted driving would be a prudent, practical snd effective approach with broad support.

Being ‘bold’ for the sake of it shouldn’t be a primary motivator.

This is likely to fail, roads need to be narrower to prevent really high speeds. Road designed like highways will have people driving like they're highways regardless of what sign you put on the side. Seems like a non-solution to a really big problem (i.e, stop designing the roads so poorly).

DO NOT CHANGE SPEED TO 30 KPH

To be totally honest I don't see how Option B with its 30 km/h is going to work if implemented on al Class 4 roads that for the most part now have a 50 km/h speed limit. I predict that if implemented it will be disrespected, and if an attempt made to heavily enforce it through the WRPS, the City of Waterloo will lose the support of the community on many issues of far greater importance. It will be faced with a serious increase in civil disobedience. Don't do it!

Lowering speed limits is a good initiative, but more importantly roads should be redesigned to encourage drivers to pay more attention and drive slower. You can change the number on a sign, but drivers will still be reckless if the road is large with wide lanes.

Instead of simply changing the speed limit, we should consider making our roads narrower and have more trees on the median between the road and sidewalk, as this slows average speeds by psychologically making drivers more focused and vary of their surroundings.

I feel strongly that there are so many better ways to spend the $700,000 that it would cost to change the speed limit signs. For example, the money could be put towards the St Mary's MRI machine that private individuals are fundraising for, or free mental health resources for people who need it. This would serve our community much better.

Interesting that the choices are 40 or 30, no option given to make no changes. So it's a foregone conclusion that limits will be lowered.

40 increases survivability to 70%, 30 to 90%, why not just make it zero and achieve 100%? Oh, right, people DO want to drive to get where they're going, especially since our transit system isn't really sufficient given how cities have been built.

This would be less aggravating if other speed limits were reviewed and made more realistic. For example, University Ave from Lexington to BlackBerry is (by your count) a seven lane road (four car lanes, two bike lanes, and left-turn lanes), with wide medians, sidewalks set well back, and limited access points, yet the speed limit is 50. It should be 70. Almost no one pays attention to the limit because it's ridiculous, which reflects studies that show that drivers mostly drive whatever speed feels safe and comfortable, with the speed limit mostly be a guideline.

This is a reaction to try to deter the small minority of people who race like maniacs around the subdivisions. But thing is that enforcing the existing limits would do more for safety than changing the limits to a ridiculous number and not enforcing. People ignoring the current limits will continue to ignore lower ones.

Rather than penalize everyone, work on solving the real problem.

Brian Wilson, I shouldn’t have to feel or be guilty driving 40 to 50 in my subdivision because it’s only 10 or 15km over a ridiculously posted limit.

Enforcement doesn’t have to be human - cameras are fine. I’m just saying, that before just willy nilly setting a 30km limit - enforce the existing one and deter the offenders who are driving at excessive speed (and who will continue to do so if you just put up different signs).

Calls for speed bumps mean even more ongoing maintenance (road and plow) - money that could be better spent on issues like homelessness, affordable housing, and a few dozen other things.

I believe that a slower speed limit is okay, but the main issue is the people who are aggressive and already disregard speed limits. Implementing a law doesn't work unless there is a way to ensure people who disregard it are punished. I would suggest more speed bumps, smaller streets, and more roundabouts in residential areas to ensure people are not speeding. On my street in particular there are people who go crazy speeds that must be close to 100km/h because there is no enforcement of our 50km/h limit. These drivers are reckless, loud, and shake our house when they pass. As an adult, I am afraid to cross the street so I can not imagine how people with children feel.

I do NOT support a speed limit of 30kph. The problem is not the drivers who observe the current speed limits but those who disregard them and exceed them recklessly. 30 is too slow. It will just result in the majority of drivers disregarding a ridiculously low limit. A law is useless without the cooperation of citizens and enforcement measures for those not willing to cooperate. For this speed limit, there is little hope of either. Please turn your attention elsewhere.

I like the idea of speed limits of 30 km/h in a school zones only. What do Region of Waterloo politicians main goal, it is to waster money on their pet projects, lecture their constituents, and do whatever they want. I think Royce B. should not run again and take the hint and see what is coming as did Tenille B, J. Henry and Dave Jaworsky. We have narrowed streets, lowered speed limits to 40km/h, put up four way stops and other traffic calming measures. In spite of this, we have wasted taxpayer money on road flappers, calling them covid streets, then whatever... We have councilors who make stuff up and push their own agendas citing studies that are not peer reviewed and who implement plans that do not achieve results. I lived in a community that lowered the limit to 40k and this was generally ignored, This is another inane, absurd and risible nonsense being pushed by a few councilors and planning department who only have proven one thing, they can waste money.

There is a lot of good feedback here that I agree with. Just arbitrarily changing the speed limit isn't as effective as changing the road design to encourage lower speeds. If it's *just* a speed limit change on a road that "feels" comfortable to drive 50 km/h on, the few cars doing that can increase the danger by going so much slower than everyone else.

Have you given any thought to the increasingly popular ebikes? And the fact that they can go up to 50 km/h? Will riders of these be ticketed if they go too fast on a residential street? Will that discourage their use when, from a climate and health perspective, we should be encouraging it?

I support lowering speed limits around school zones and parks to 30 km/h. As far as active transportation goes and studies, I believe when councilors like Royce or any advocate communicates the results of a study, the author of the study, who sponsored the study, the conflicts of interest interests of the researchers and where it is published should be identified. I also, believe that statements should be based on fact. I live near Roslin, Dunbar and William, there is not a great deal of traffic that justifies a lowering to 30 km/h. What is needed is the return of school crossing guards. There are already 4 way stops all over the place. The hysteria has got to stop. I am favour of better enforcement. The Jay walking of parents dropping off their kids at Our Lady of Lourdes school is dangerous with kids running across the street. As for active transportation, I believe the public has spoken on this one with realization of the mayor and two councilors not running for office. In the Waterloo Chronicle, and Waterloo Region Record, we saw how statistics were abused to justify the uptown bike lanes and nonsense. Thousands of people were supposed to use this and only 100 people were to use it. It is time that City of Waterloo politicians and public servants realize that they do not rule us they serve us.

On Roslin, Dunbar, Avondale, John and Alexandra, there are already four way stops, speed bumps and narrowing of streets that during a heavy snow year only one car can safely navigate. The COVID street flappers were a complete waste of money due to one councilors vision which met the ire of the neighbourhood. It is time to stop the on-line surverys, the comment sections on social media and to hold a neighbourhood meeting like they was done in the past, where people can come and express their opinion, Royce take the hint and follow the lead of your other councilors.

It appears that Royce Bodaly is picking and choosing what research he wishes to base his opinion on. In the past the city has trusted the expert opinion of the Transportation Association. This Association's findings, based on field tests and actual research, does not advise speed limits to be reduced to 30 km. As this doesn't agree with Mr. Bodaly's agenda suddenly the data is not relevant. Will they be ticketing the bicycles that fly by cars because many cyclists can certainly exceed this speed limit? A reasonable speed limit is more likely to be adhered to. I can see a lot of road rage and frustrated drivers in dealing with this radical change. I think we need to learn from Guelph's experience.

It's easy to say that it will "likely" reduce injury or death by reducing the speed from 50 to 30. It's kind of like saying that you're likely to lose weight if you eat less food. What I don't see is any research that states actual numbers from existing areas/sites where speed has been changed from 50 to 30 (outside of school zones). If there's no research then this is only opinion. And a bad one at that. Like Guelph, it's an idea not worthy of wasting tax dollars on.

I'm on the side of better enforcement like a number of people here and thing reducing speed limits is a lazy way of appearing to try and solve a problem but not really putting too much effort into it. I'm sure for the salary Royce Bodaly earns he could come up with a proposal that includes a grain of thought and common sense. I think distracted driving is being overlooked as a determining factor in neighbourhood collisions. I also feel pedestrian and bicycle education programs could do some good as well along with enforcing bike riders who feel the rules of the road do not apply to them. Hand signals please. Why put the onus always on drivers to be safe? Because we pay insurance premiums of course. Look at the state of King Street, we are being punished enough already.