January 14, 2013 City of Winnipeg Public Works 101-1155 Pacific Ave Winnipeg, Man R3E 3P1 Dear

Public Works,

RE: SPEED LIMIT SIGN REPLACEMENT

Please consider this letter and attached petition as a request to reinstall the speed limit signs removed from Springfield Road and McLeod Ave during the last week of November 2012. Speed limit signs serve as a visual reminder to drivers to slow down and are especially effective on streets that intersect higher speed roads. Springfield and McLeod previously had speed limit signs but they were removed in response to a request to have signs put on Hespeler which referenced the signs on Springfield and McLeod. The city website states that posting Maximum 50 km/h signing outside of speed reductions will erode the 50 unless otherwise posted rule which is why these signs were removed. Despite this claim, the city posted 6 of these signs in 2010 with driver feedback signs. The mayor claimed that these signs were "begging people to just slow down." These six signs didn't erode the 50 unless otherwise posted rule and neither would having speed signs on Springfield. In addition, the city is still installing 50 km/h signing on other roads with five being added during the summer of 2012. Also, every city across the country uses Maximum 50 signing to serve as a visual reminder to drivers to slow down and to reinforce the speed limit without eroding the 50 unless otherwise posted rule. As you are aware, similar to the 50 unless otherwise posted rule, no road in Winnipeg is a truck route unless signed as. This positive marking system means that the, "Not A Truck Route" sign is not required. With, "Not A Truck Route" signs outnumbering Maximum 50 signs by 3:1, it appears that the city places a much higher priority on reminding truckers to stay on truck routes than to remind all road users to "Just Slow Down." In fact, this prioritization is most evident on McLeod with the city leaving the, "Not A Truck Route" signs while removing the Maximum 50 km/h signs. The city doesn't claim to erode the positive marking system for truck routes by posted extra signing and therefore should have no problem posting extra signing for speed limits. According to Manitoba Public Insurance, speeding is a contributing factor in 25% of fatal collisions and costs millions of dollars in claims. There is no indication of how many crashes are caused by trucks going off truck routes which further indicates that speed control should be the bigger priority. The city repeatedly claims that they want drivers to, "Just Slow Down." This campaign can only be truly seen as a safety initiative when signing is present on our roads. Speed signs are much more effective than enforcement because unlike police and photo radar, they are there 24/365. Speed signing also prevents the problem rather than enforcing a problem that first has to exist. It is much safer to not have a driver speed than to ticket them once they have already sped. The city website states that speed humps cannot be installed along snow routes, transit routes or collector roads. Springfield carries all three of those designations meaning that even if residents supported it, speed humps could never be installed. Due to this, Springfield should qualify for speed limit signs since normal traffic calming measures cannot be used. Roads that carry these designations typically carry much higher traffic volumes than the average street and have many more speeding problems. It is unreasonable that small streets can receive speed humps while these larger roads currently do not qualify for any type of traffic calming including speed limit signs. In addition, the negative effects of speed humps on snow removal activities, emergency response times and other traffic are not present with signs. The only effects of these signs are positive. Speed limit signs are also much more cost effective to install than speed humps and should be the traffic calming alternative for larger roads.

When it was stated that the signs would be removed from Springfield, a petition was started to gather support from local residents. All residences along Springfield were visited with 208 out of 279 or 75% agreeing to sign the petition. This shows that the public overwhelmingly supports having speed signing on their road. Since speed humps are installed with 70% support on a qualifying street, it is my request that this value be respected for speed signs as well. With such high support and because Springfield doesn't qualify for any other forms of traffic calming, there is no reason to not reinstall these signs. Springfield is very much prone to having drivers speed due to it intersecting Henderson, Raleigh and Gateway which are all 60 km/h zones. It is also an open road with regional status and has no stop signs, curves or other barriers to slow traffic. The five signs that have been removed and are requested to be reinstalled are on Springfield eastbound east of Henderson, eastbound east of Rothesay, eastbound east of Gateway, westbound west of Raleigh and westbound west of Rothesay. I am also requesting that considering the high amount of support shown for signing to remain on Springfield, that the signs removed from McLeod can also be replaced without the need for a petition. Please contact me after review of this letter as I would like to know what the city's decision is regarding this petition. I look forward to your response and can be reached at csweryda@hotmail.com. Sincerely,

Chris Sweryda Enclosures (2): List of all Springfield addresses with signing status, signed petition cc: cc: cc: cc: Jeff Browaty, Councillor for North Kildonan Bonnie Mitchelson, MLA for North Kildonan Thomas Steen, Councillor for Elmwood Mayor's Office