Beaconsfield wants province to cut highway speed

[jesseps]

With the hopes of easing noise levels, Beaconsfield is asking Quebec to reduce the speed limit on Highway 20 and is also requesting that rail track users cut the speed of trains passing through the municipality.Council voted 4-2 in favour of asking Transport Québec to reduce the speed on Highway 20 to 70 km/h from 100 km/h and to install photo radar.

The city is also requesting that Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, VIA and the AMT reduce train speeds to 70 km/h.

Passenger trains can pass through as fast as 160 km/h while freight trains can go as fast as 100 km/h, said city manager Patrice Boileau.

As for the chances train operators will agree to the measures, Mayor David Pollock told The Gazette he is hopeful. "We'll see."

Regarding highway speeds, councillor Wade Staddon weighed in that although noise might only drop a few decibels it could be enough to bring levels at a number of homes near the highway below 65 decibels, a standard set by the province.

 

He admits the city faces an uphill battle to persuade Transport Québec to reduce the highway speed in Beaconsfield. The criteria used by the ministry to determine speed limits take safety issues and highway traffic lights, such as in the Île-Perrot area, into consideration, but they don't include noise pollution, he added.

Greg Stienstra, head of the Beaconsfield Citizens Association, pointed out that large trucks deploying compression braking would negate any potential noise reduction from lowering the speed limit.

"You are voting for a 43 per cent increase in commute time," he said. "You are voting for an increase in the cost of transporting goods - and a longer rush hour. I don't think the (transport ministry) would ever approve this."

Responded Councillor Rhonda Massad: "We need to at least try and help these people out. We can make it work."

However, councillor Karin Essen, who voted against reducing highway speed, said the only viable solution to cutting noise levels is a sound barrier.

 

Read more: http://westislandgazette.com/news/32511#comment-17239

 

All I can say is, these people should just buy some earplugs. It will cost the city of Beaconsfield nothing, instead of building a sound barrier or costing people of Montreal and Quebec, to slow down cars / trains. They are the morons for buying a home, that should have never been built so close to the highway / railway. The city is to blame for zoning those areas as residential.

 

I am so going to town hall meetings from now on. Time to put these senior NIMBYs in their place.

 

Sort of on topic, but not really, the highway speed should be increased to a maximum of 140 and a minimum of 100. Boulevards / Service roads should be 70, instead of 50. The whole transport rules/regulations in this province have to be worked on.

Edited September 1, 2012 by jesseps

[Cataclaw]

Minimums: Having a minimum speed of 100km/h on highways is not possible. You just can't do that. Nevermind the possibility of congestion or having a flat and doing 70km/h.. What if you simply want to save gasoline? (Most sedans achieve peak energy efficiency around 90km/h. From 90km/h to 105km/h, the energy-to-kilometers loss is approximately 20%). Honestly, at a time when we should be conserving energy and working to protect the environment, mandating that people drive faster such that they burn more gasoline overall is just stupid.

 

Maximums:

Due to the laws of physics and the design of the internal combustion engine, higher speeds are accompanied by exponentially increasing energy demands. Driving at 140km/h burns roughly 70-80% more fuel per kilometer than 90km/h.The problem with highway speed limits is the lack of enforcement. 100km/h limit actuall means roughly 120km/h before cops will stop you or give you a ticket. So the "real" limit is 120km/h.

I have no problem with increasing the speed limit to 110km/h or maybe even 120km/h *if* we enforce the speed limit properly. I think speed cameras should be installed on all highways at regular 5km intervals, and if you so much as go 1km/h above that 120km/h limit, you'll get fined.

 

Service roads:

I do agree with you regarding service roads. Service roads have lower speed limits due to lane merging. However, in many circumstances, there are no lanes merging over long stretches. In some places the service road is 50km/h over a kilometer before you merge onto a highway at 100km/h. How can you expect to go from 50km/h to a safe merging speed of 100km/h over almost no distance? So yes, I do agree with you regarding service lanes. Some portions should definitely be increased from 50km/h to 70km/h!

 

Beaconsfield issue:

On one hand, the residents should have known better before moving next to a highway. This is like residents of Longueuil (arr. Saint-Hubert) complaining about airplane noise from the Saint-Hubert airport. There's an airport.. if you don't want to hear airplanes, don't go live next to an airport. I have little sympathy for those folks. However, if increased traffic is causing an increase in noise beyond the initial conditions of the neighborhood, then there might be grounds for mandating a reduction. 70km/h is a little much. A reduction to 90km/h might be appropriate. People will still speed to 110km/h obviously, but it might reduce sound a decibel or two. There's also an energy efficiency argument. At 90km/h, a car is generally more energy efficient than at 70km/h.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Cataclaw

[ToxiK]

On one hand, the residents should have known better before moving next to a highway. .

 

Exactly!

 

If you move next to a nuisance, you pay less for your house. If then you ask the government to pay to reduce or remove the nuisance, even thought that nuisance is essential to other people, then you asking to government to pay to improve the value of your property at the expense of others. Then you just have to sell your property for a nice profit...