Comment 117420

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted April 01, 2016 at 14:08:16 in reply to Comment 117418

Vision zero is about safety for all road users (not just pedestrians). Hamilton has 20-30 traffic deaths per year and 2500-3500 injuries.

The ultimate goal is zero deaths (and many fewer injuries) and as Ryan says, we have a long way to go before the cost of making our streets safer becomes even a significant proportion of the $100 million we spend annually on roads. Right now we are talking about about the low hanging fruit ... there is no evidence that "major changes" will even be required (if you mean completely rebuilding every street).

The opposition to changes has not been on cost, but on inconvenience to drivers.

The total cost could actually be negative if the changes reduce the amount of driving and need to build and maintain the amount of lane kilometres we currently do.

Asking how much we are willing to spend is not helpful if we have no idea what the likely costs are. What's the point?

It might be a useful debate when we have a better understanding of what the costs (and benefits) are and what it might cost to get to zero.

Sweden has halved its death rate, is happy with what it has spent, and still believes zero is achievable.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-04-01 14:09:24

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds