Council overrules staff, asks for humps on Purdy

Etobicoke York Community Council overruled the recommendation of city staff and has asked the city to look into speed humps on Purdy Crescent. Residents had asked for them, but staff found that the traffic does not regularly exceed the speed limit, and so they recommended against installing the bumps.

Purdy is a short, narrow street with a stop sign and cars parked on both sides. The limit, however, is 40 km/h. During a traffic survey, staff found that relatively few cars went over the limit (though one managed to reach 64 km/h). Your humble correspondent can see why residents are concerned, however: 40 is a high limit for such a short and difficult street. Among my many skills is the gift of excellent driving; I found 40 to be plenty zippy there.

Council has asked Transportation Services to survey street residents to see if they approve of the humps. This is a requirement before they can be installed, and it is a tough hurdle to cross: half of residents must respond, and 60% must be in favour.

If residents approve, two humps will be installed along the street and the limit will be lowered to 30.

Author: Adam Norman

I am raising my two children in Weston.

8 thoughts on “Council overrules staff, asks for humps on Purdy”

  1. Speed humps are useless. They don’t slow cars down and they actually slow down EMS and fire trucks when trying to reach emergencies.

  2. Reducing the speed limit to 30 has helped on Church between Pine & Elm; speed humps seem to slow down most drivers.

  3. Lower speed limits, speed traps (they’ve done this plenty of times on Church). Speed bumps aren’t going to limit people speeding. Take Wendall, for example: watch how vehicles approach bumps at a quick pace and then find a way to avoid slowing down, or they do slow down and then move on by pressing their foot to the ground. Another example is in Di Giorgio’s ward. Speed bumps are everywhere, have they stopped people from speeding? No.

    As I said, if you want people to stop speeding, have police patrol the area. Another idea is to create “community safety zones” where fines are increased and see how quickly people stop. I’d bet this takes a bit more work, but your lovely councillor (who shall remain nameless) would like to go down the easiest route.

  4. I agree that speed traps are what’s worked on Church, and the idea of increased fines is also good because that certainly has an impact.

    I’ve seen that evasive action with speed humps too, and it’s a real danger because those drivers are so concentrated on picking up any speed they’ve lost that they’re going even faster.

  5. I certainly hope they keep our humble correspondence experiences of driving on Purdy and his comments in mind when they re-examine this issue.

  6. Speed humps are a waste of taxpayer money. Its simply used by Nunziata as a means of saying, oh look I got you speed humps. Please vote for me. The so-called experts have indicated the humps are not required, and in this case I agree with the experts. If Rob Ford is looking for gravey, this is it.

  7. Speed humps do nothing and actually cause more harm. Limiting the speed, setting up speed traps, would achieve greater results. But hey, I guess the local councillor knows more…..I hope Purdy doesn’t fall for this trap.

Comments are closed.