Special Report: Truck Routes

Truck Route Master Plan Study Fails Neighbourhoods

Once again, the goal of reclaiming urban communities from the din, pollution and peril of through truck traffic takes a back seat to narrow business imperatives.

By Ryan McGreal
Published April 26, 2010

Last Friday, Jason Leach reported that the City's Public Works Department released the Truck Route Master Plan Study [PDF], the culmination of two years' work studying how best to meet the logistical needs of local businesses while at the same time considering social and environmental factors and bringing consistency to the city's existing truck route network.

The Study tells us the city's response to this challenge: once again, the social and environmental factors have taken a back seat to narrow business imperatives.

The survivorship bias of a local business community wedded to easy motoring has again moved forcefully to preserve the status quo of urban expressways tearing neighbourhoods apart to optimize through traffic at the expense of community.

It's abundantly clear from the study that the passing references to environmental and social issues are obligatory and perfunctory rather than substantive. The heart of the study is the at-all-costs goal of ensuring that the truck route network is:

The other goal - reclaiming urban communities from the din, pollution and peril of through truck traffic - was dismissed as unrealistic on the reasoning that removing truck routes would relocate truck traffic to other routes.

It was found that removing links from the truck route system will often not decrease truck travel but merely relocate it to other nearby routes, and may increase overall travel distance and time, thereby decreasing overall road safety and contributing to an increase in air pollution.

This static model of traffic assumes the number of trucks is fixed and their operators' choice of routes is unaffected by road capacity. It's the same reasoning the city has used for decades to build out our road capacity much faster than our population growth rate.

Induced Demand

The model fails in real-world use because it ignores the well-understood network phenomena of induced demand, Braess's Paradox and Downs-Thomson Paradox. In a general sense, these phenomena show that traffic tends to increase or decrease to meet the available supply of road space.

In Hamilton, the fact that you can drive through the city in ten or 15 minutes is a major incentive for through truck drivers to pass through the city rather than around it. So much for the main justification of the Red Hill / Lincoln Alexander Parkway system, which established a continuous highway ring around the city.

If it took, say, 45 minutes to an hour to drive through the city in narrower, two-way streets with wide sidewalks and street trees amid local residents actually spending time on their own streets, those truck drivers might decide it makes more sense to take the ring highway.

At the same time, businesses would have an economic incentive to innovate so as to minimize the number of truck trips their businesses require - you know, like every other city on the planet. Somehow, businesses in those dense urban markets with people-friendly streets manage to survive without having five-lane highway access to their front doors.

Trucks Get First Priority

Traffic engineers learn all this stuff in school, but they seem to forget it very quickly when developing their static models for city traffic - especially in cities like Hamilton, where local businesses get first dibs on policy considerations.

Yet reading the public feedback on the Truck Route Study, the great uneducated public seems to understand it better than the engineers.

Watch how the debate plays out on Dundurn St between York Blvd and King St. The Public Stakeholder feedback notes that "the adjacent land uses are almost exclusively residential, with direct access" along this stretch, but the Chamber of Commerce wants this residential street to "remain in the truck route ... due to large volumes and lack of alternative routes."

Back up and play that again more slowly. The residents want this street taken off due to the large volumes of trucks and the residential nature of the street - complete with lots of children trying to cross Dundurn to get to the public school next to Victoria Park.

The Chamber, in contrast, wants the street left on the route because of that large volume of trucks.

Let's see what the study concludes:

Recommended for retention based on expected impact to adjacent truck routes and lack of viable alternatives.

Imagine if the logic of the imperatives in this situation was reversed - if the Chamber was asking to have Dundurn established as a truck route but was told: "Sorry, but we need to retain Dundurn as a safe residential street due to the lack of viable alternatives for pedestrians."

Now that would be an encouraging sign of a city interested in fostering healthy, safe neighbourhoods.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Several of his essays have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. Ryan also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on twitter.

33 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Cal (anonymous) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 09:17:46

At the risk of cross posting...

The Mayor's notion of Clean and Green, is betrayed by the support for transport trucks trumping the quality of life of every day people. I live on Fruitland Rd; a road that is residential and yet, is riddled by THOUSANDS of transport trucks, on a daily basis, thundering down the road 24/7. This, despite the fact that the city previously told people who bought properties on this road, or chose to remain on Fruitland, that the road would become a cul de sac and that a by-pass would be built to stream truck traffic away from the daily lives of people.

The truck study, is shameful, devoid of any sensitivity to enviromental and human concerns, and makes a mockery of Mayor Eisenberger's "clean and green" vision. It's impossible to believe in "clean and green" when you're choking on transport truck fumes all day in your "residential neighbourhood", where property frontages are assailed by truck traffic. Councillors Pearson and Mitchell, have made it clear by their actions, inactions, resistance and conduct, that they are not sympathetic to everyday people on this issue, tipping their hands as to where their loyalties lie.

Hamilton will never be a progressive city if it it allows Transport Trucks to run through residential areas. Mayor Eisenberger needs to show some leadership and not leave people to languish. This will be a defining moment for The Mayor.

Ryan- thank-you for hosting this topic. It's a critical one.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 09:37:34

lack of viable alternatives???

Where did my billion+ dollars go then during construction of all these 'world class' alternatives that now ring the city.

People might think I'm nuts (although I don't think it's crazy to be concerned for the life of your loved ones) but I've followed transport trucks over the years to see where they're going and then timed their 'through the city' route with a freeway-only route and the timelines are identical. In many cases, it was quicker to use the highway system. I've yet to follow one truck that stopped anywhere near the west end of the city or the 403. They all head to the NE industrial district which sits on Burlington St and the QEW.

Goes to show how unimportant the lower city is to city hall.
I can't wait for the follow up to Code Red in 10 years when things suck even more than they do now.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:24:32

Even LA has caught the clue train. Urban expressways make for unhealthy neighbourhoods.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:27:27

The problem is that, even with King/Main corridor providing a highway through the city, the red hill/QEW-403/Linc ring is hopelessly snarled. The GTA has an embarrassing traffic problem similar to much larger cities like NYC and LA. We get crap traffic because we're stuck trying to serve commuters and trucks bound for the Mississauga sprawl that can't be served by any other means. Hamilton's much-vaunted "ring road" is useless to Hamilton drivers.

The King/Main corridor is a sad necessity, but until the rest of the 905 gets their traffic problem together it's going to be just that - a necessity.

I agree that there is no good reason for Queen street or Herkimer or dozens of other residential routes to be one-way... but I still think the East-West corridor through the city needs to be preserved.

Plus, we want to get light rail and bike-lanes added to those roads. That takes up space, lanes that might not be able to spare on a 2-lane road (but on the current one-lane road they are arguably free).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:39:17

That was a major incentive for the Big Dig in Boston. I realize the project went billions of dollars over budget and suffered serious quality control issues, but it's now possible to walk from downtown Boston into the North End again.

Frankly, Portland OR had a much better idea: instead of burying the highway underground, just remove it and put in a light rail line instead. One predictable consequence of the Big Dig in Boston is that it has actually exacerbated the congestion it was supposed to relieve.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Modesty Blahs (anonymous) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:42:32

I agree with these observations. Disrupted by change, people tend to turn to familiar experiences for comfort. When that change produces decline there's a tendency to grasp at every aspect of the familiar that was deemed to have worked in the past. Simply put, more trucks on the streets mean there is economic activity nearby. Limiting that traffic, or the potential for that traffic means there might mean economic activity has been chased away. It hasn't and doesn't. It might mean that truck traffic has been chased to the edges of town where the expressways and airports are, and where industry moved some time ago (before it moved to Asia.) And the big box stores are out there too, close to the highways for truck access and for people to foray out from the city to buy & bring the stuff home. This actually should support the notion of urban centres as places where people live rather than Shop (with a capital "S") and work in the type of industries that generate truck traffic.


This doesn't help the small business person, however, who has scratched out a living in the now-wrong location, and sees herself competing with the big box stores' transportation convenience and lower costs. It also tends to conflict with most notions of "restoring" Hamilton's downtown to an idealized version of what we remember it was back in the '50s or '60s.

But don't you think we need a new political approach, a different way of dealing with the politicians other than ridicule and lobbying, to get the city to respond to current economic and social conditions? I'm not saying this is easy. I haven't any suggestions. I just read these sorts of articles and recognize that however obvious the conclusions, however right the arguments, current efforts to move things in these directions do not seem to be working. Or maybe we just need more faith in what has been tried. Maybe these set-backs are temporary?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 11:48:37

The King/Main corridor is a sad necessity

That's no different from what the Chamber is saying. Gosh, livable neighborhoods would be nice and all but it's more important for folks to easily drive through the city. In other words, drivers are more important than residents.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

I live downtown and I've suffered enough. I almost got run over last week just trying to cross my own street to get to the store by some jerk gunning it to get through the next light and get back on the Green Wave of timed lights.

Does making our streets two way, breaking the Green Wave and widening sidewalks mean its harder to drive through the city. TOO BAD. Damn it, it SHOULD be hard to drive through the city. I live and work in Hamilton and I'm tired of paying the price for a region that told people it's okay to buy a house in the middle of nowhere and drive.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I'm tired of living and working here, paying my taxes and being a second class citizen in my own neighborhood!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 12:18:32

^ Huh looks like one of the RTH haters swooped in and bulk-downvoted everyone...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 12:20:59

Kinda makes me wonder if the Mayor's support for the stadium location was just a fluke, or an attempt to distract from a future poor choice.

As I've said a few times before, I've sat through my introductory transportation classes (I'm not continuing on to be a transportation engineer lest I gain the wrath of you lovely people) and the attitude even in such a basic class is a tone that kinda makes me sad.

It is really very simple. The question was asked "how many people have ridden the bus in the last year?", and, in a room of about 150+ there was maybe six hands (mine included). Then, the professor asked, "how many people drive on a daily basis to anywhere they're going?" and nearly the rest raised their hands.

(this was in the middle of a public transportation module)

What would have been a good opportunity to teach people a different option, or at least explain how to make things better, it was glossed over and became an HSR bashing session.

I've spoken with that teacher. Argued with that teacher. Argued with people in the class. It's clear that it's not just the transportation engineers that want traffic moving fast. There is a large majority of people who think being able to move through this city without having to stop is a good thing. In fact, the notion of changing it is sacrilege to them.

There's a lie out there that a lot of people believe, or don't know they believe. They've bought into a system of convenience (in more ways than just transportation) rather than investing and understanding a variety of concepts. The people (omit yourself from "the people" ...preaching to the choir here) are happily ignorant regarding issues that might affect them, for any number of reasons. And, unfortunately, unwilling to learn if it means adapting to change or that comfort (even if only temporarily) might be sacrificed. There's little image of long term.

If ignorance were bliss, shouldn't this city and its officials be elated?

Comment edited by Jarod on 2010-04-26 11:22:37

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 12:23:44

I'm not continuing on to be a transportation engineer

Too bad. Unlike a lot of transportation engineers, you seem to get it. :(

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 12:30:45

I'm becoming a Civil Engineer. I find transportation engineering interesting. And there's something in me, that when we got into these arguments that made me feel like I could take on a room full of people (on logic alone...mainly because of you kind people who have helped me to understand some or many of the underlying issues). The problem is, I know that it would drain my soul. There are transportation engineers out there that are just like me, maybe better and more informed than I am.

There are large forces at work in regards to this topic (especially in Hamilton) and I know that reports are one thing, but if the city doesn't like what you present, they'll find another source do do the work that they DO want to see. It would be heart wrenching to go through years of work knowing what SHOULD and COULD be done, but for lack of a strong political backbone and other forces (including city dwellers who haven't had the opportunity to learn and grow)would never actually come to fruition. And that's depressing, knowing that before you even start.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 14:35:34

While it may be difficult to eliminate trucks from all city streets, we can eliminate more truck routes and better control the flow of trucks through downtown.

It just seems like they don't really want to... that is one mighty long list of roads.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-04-26 13:36:45

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted April 26, 2010 at 22:48:56

Can someone explain the concept of truck routes a little better? Are trucks allowed on other streets say, to make a delivery? Or does a street need to be a "truck route" in order for trucks to be able to drive on it at all?

To me a truck route suggests some kind of major arterial route, suggesting that trucks are then free to branch out along minor routes to make their deliveries, but that if a truck is simply "passing through" the city, they should use one of the designated routes.

Is this correct?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By canbyte (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 00:23:12

I like an article that I should avoid commenting on until i've read something that illuminates the matter - thanks for those links Ryan. So many of these types of issues are complex and so benefit from such studies - but opinions often depend on "whose ox is being gored", as exemplified by several comments above.

My guess for Robert D is that deliveries are generally made by smaller trucks not subject to no-truck bans - say up to a 25? foot cube van, or under a certain weight, while the bans apply to transport trailers. Moving transports, even large ones, I've seen on residential streets for obvious reasons. Please correct me if this is incorrect or you can fill in the details.

Jarod: Since you are studying for Civil Engineering, I'm sure you will soon learn all about Edmund W. Burke, designer of the Bloor Viaduct (& RC Harris), as well as the Tacoma Bridge which fell down. The story of Burke gives answer to your worry about losing your soul. I don't want to ruin a good story but suffice it to say that many people honestly/ seriously thought he was crazy and should be committed for wanting to spend a lot of extra money for something so farfetched as a subway in a town still in the horse age. If you take his story into your heart, you will not only not lose your soul, you will find your soul - though you may lose a bid/job or three in the process! Your sensitivity will add a lot to your practice. Good luck.

Comment edited by canbyte on 2010-04-26 23:26:34

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 10:50:23

Why don't they just do away with truck routes altogether. There really is no need to designate certain roads as truck routes. As it is now trucks can use any street in the city to get to where they have to go within the city for deliveries etc. The only trucks that are governed by the designation are ones passing through the city.

Any trucker who uses city streets to pass through the city is a fool when faster more efficient routes are available.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By canbyte (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 12:38:25

Hi bigguy. The reason truck routes exist is that it is also a load design issue. Truck routes must have much stronger/ thicker and therefore more expensive pavements.

Comment edited by canbyte on 2010-04-27 11:39:15

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 13:35:01

Maybe I missed something (as obvious as it may have been) but I didn't see the Traffic Impact Analysis. At least not in plain English. Can someone direct me to it?

Thanks

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 14:04:59

Not so much as "traffic impact analysis" as a "let's see where the trucks are going today and we'll decide they're going that way because they need to go that way so they should still be allowed to go that way analysis".

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 15:12:24

While the list of all truck routes does remain staggering, it is important ot note there is a significant reduction in truck routes buried in this proposal. There are 25 routes being removed, which will reduce the overall mileage of Hamilton truck routes by roughly 85 km.

While it is glaringly obvious of a missed opportunity to remove Main Street from the truck route list, in the silver lining department, a significant stretch of Barton in the core has been removed.

It now becomes clear why Main Street has never been considered for the LRT route, seeing as the city intends to reserve it indefinitely as a truck route. It is unfortunate there was no concerted effort to give Main fair consideration for the LRT route as that would have also achieved in ridding Main of trucks and making it a pedestrian friendly street. Unfortunately this city is riddled with missed opportunities and Main is destined to remain a throughway.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 27, 2010 at 15:49:18

My guess for Robert D is that deliveries are generally made by smaller trucks not subject to no-truck bans - canbyte

Not all delivery trucks. My father-in-law delivers home heating oil and has been pulled over and ticketed more than once in Hamilton for driving his oil truck on residential streets he is required to deliver oil to.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 12:46:21

http://thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/art...

I just love fresh diesel in the morning don't you? ;)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 12:58:50

Not all delivery trucks. My father-in-law delivers home heating oil and has been pulled over and ticketed more than once in Hamilton for driving his oil truck on residential streets he is required to deliver oil to.

This is another example of trademark Hamilton incompetence. A truck delivering heating oil, that actually has a purpose for where it is, gets ticketed. In that case there is some useful and necessary purpose to the truck being there. Was he over the size maximum or something?

But if you're transporting tanks and roaring through town with no business here, just on a shortcut, you are welcome and encouraged. We have many fine residential neighborhoods for you to speed through.

In light of studies like this I wish there was more accountability. Who in the city is going to reimburse medication costs when your health is damaged by pollution? Who to complain to? Against whom do you file suit? We just have to slowly die while these people make one stupid decision after another?

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2010-04-28 12:00:53

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 13:15:11

@mikeonthemountain Thanks for sharing. Also, this is NOT breaking news, we've known about the link between vehicle (esp. truck) exhaust and heart/respiratory disease for DECADES now. I'm sure the "facts don't matter" camp will be happy to ignore this but "reality based" citizens should rightly be outraged that the city is bending over so trucks can drive through more easily.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 13:57:29

This is another example of trademark Hamilton incompetence. A truck delivering heating oil, that actually has a purpose for where it is, gets ticketed. In that case there is some useful and necessary purpose to the truck being there. Was he over the size maximum or something? - mikeonthemountain

I've seen it, it's a standard size oil delivery truck Mike.

I think your first point is right on. It is incompetence. Rules have been made so an oil truck (which isn't small but is certainly not a tractor trailer) can no longer legally perform its function. But larger trucks are not prevented from using downtown as some sort of shortcut (to where I'm not sure).

It seems we have useless laws where they're not needed and no laws where they are??? At least that's my impression.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 14:12:15

In light of studies like this I wish there was more accountability. Who in the city is going to reimburse medication costs when your health is damaged by pollution? Who to complain to? Against whom do you file suit? We just have to slowly die while these people make one stupid decision after another? - mikeonthemnountain

The EPA Tier Standards and new technologies will probably solve this issue before the city does Mike.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 14:18:24

can no longer legally perform its function

Very bizarre. What is the legal way to deliver the oil to the home then? Jerry cans? :)

The EPA Tier Standards and new technologies will probably solve this issue before the city does

A realistic assessment :) Hope I live long enough to see it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 15:32:22

Very bizarre. What is the legal way to deliver the oil to the home then? Jerry cans? :) - mikeonthemountain

Convert to gas I guess???

A realistic assessment :) Hope I live long enough to see it. - mikeonthemountain

Engine companies are having a very hard time meeting Tier 4. Anything beyond that may very well kill the diesel engine in highway trucks and other large machines, (dozers, excavators, etc...). Even at tier 4 though the harmful exhaust gases and particulates from a diesel engine are significantly reduced... Ironically, fuel consumption is increased however.

I work in an industry on the front line of this issue and I see reason to be optimistic.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-04-28 14:33:28

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted April 28, 2010 at 21:39:46

I believe that truck restrictions apply to any commercial vehicle over 8.5 meters in length. A truck is allowed on any street if it needs to be there for a delivery. They are supposed to take the truck routes to the closest point possible and then leave the truck route, make the delivery and return to the truck route. James N. is a non truck route so from the west the closest point would be York and James. From there a truck is free to drive to there destination. If from there they needed to go to John S. the correct procedure is to go south to Cannon west to Queen South to Main and then east to John since James is not truck route from Cannon to Main.

As far as loading all roadways unless specifically signed are safe for trucks to drive on. Most commonly seen are bridge restrictions. This will also sometimes be seen on rural roads where they impose a weight limit per axle or a total weight restrictions. Within the city it is a lot less common. I believe Bay north or maybe Queen north is restricted to trucks under 10 tonnes.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted April 29, 2010 at 08:18:55

Thanks for that info Kiely. I did a bit of reading last night about emissions standards to find out what Tier 4 means; the requirements are indeed quite aggressive. I hope the technology does continue to improve, concurrently with, but also independently of, policy.

The link I put in above about the pollution study was elaborated on in today's spec:

http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/76...

But as zjones said it's not exactly breaking news; it's obvious. I'm one of the affected individuals per this study (great I'm a statistic now :). Have had the privilege of always being extremely healthy, now I am starting to develop breathing problems. I ride my bike everywhere and am becoming insanely sensitive to bad air to the point where I'm on asthma medication now. Some days I wear a respirator while commuting, to help with some of the diesel exhaust. I'm trying to be part of the solution by using bike and GO, and am being murdered slowly. Mind you, years before this onset, I'd be walking down Main street, literally gagging and gasping on a summer day. Even recently, crossing the street at Harvester and Appleby, I had to jaywalk, the reason: winds were calm and at the street corner there was a buildup of diesel exhaust and I was standing in a pocket of bad air so thick I literally could not draw a breath of air. Got scared and had to run across the street trying to take a breath through my sleeve. I promise I am not exaggerating.

It scares me to actually witness firsthand what this does to people. At least we don't live in Hong Kong ... if it's this bad here imagine living under the Asian brown cloud!! Still no excuse to let it get to this point when so much that can be done is not being done. In my opinion it is corrupt and criminal, and like it or not it is an act of murder, to stall or derail sensible improvements that can be made. With more power comes more responsibility. So the highways are congested with cars and the trucks are on our city streets /scratches head in confusion

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Dave Kuruc (anonymous) | Posted April 29, 2010 at 10:50:21

It sure is touch looking at my screen here at the corner of Cannon and James with all the rumbling and jumbling of 18-wheelers going past my front door. Sorry I can't hear you - I got the door open to get some fresh air and ITS REALLY LOUD. COUGH COUGH - guess I should close the door. Glad to know the truckers have an easy route to their fresh air country homes in the middle of nowhere. AS long as they and their bosses (Foxy!) are happy and well fed - who cares about the people of inner-city Hamilton. Hopefully my lungs adapt to the particulate.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 30, 2010 at 15:44:14

Thanks for that info Kiely. I did a bit of reading last night about emissions standards to find out what Tier 4 means; the requirements are indeed quite aggressive. I hope the technology does continue to improve, concurrently with, but also independently of, policy. - mikeonthemountain

No problem Mike. It is interesting to follow. I meet with some engine manufacturers and it is always interesting to hear what they have to say about the Tier standards. They do worry about them and voice concern about their abilities to meet them. Current standards are very aggressive but what needs to happen now is (as you mention) a policy from government to eliminate the old "black smoke" fleets. A particulate/ exhaust gas emissions screening program similar to Drive Clean, only stricter, would be a good start.

I am a believer in technology and its abilities to change our lives (for both better and worse unfortunately). In this context, I think we can affect positive change by changing the technologies we support and invest in, this is often easier than the "lifestyle" changes that would be required to see equal positive impact because the lifestyle changes can be highly contentious and harder to implement. The new technologies are there, sure some are more flushed out than others, but they need to be supported in their infancy in order to make it.

The way things are going, eliminating fossil fuels from the bulk of our transportation needs may come easier than public transit for the masses.

It scares me to actually witness firsthand what this does to people. At least we don't live in Hong Kong ... if it's this bad here imagine living under the Asian brown cloud!! - mikeonthemountain

Yep, I've been to a few Chinese industrial cities where you could almost chew and certainly taste the air.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Donald J. Lester (anonymous) | Posted May 07, 2010 at 20:38:52

With regards to the trucks, perhaps there should be designated warehouses by which tractor-trailers unload and have smaller distributing trucks for internal stops. This would eliminate these tractor-trailers form the city. One could make exceptions for malls. On the other hand this would add to the cost to smaller buisness and because they purchase in smaller quantities than large malls or large resales such may prohibit their ability to compete in the market place.

With designated truck lanes these lanes are usually designed for allowing trucks the quickest and most direct access in or out of the city. One of the issues is that no one checks at whether trucks are adhering to this concept, or perhaps they are not sufficiently posted. In some cities, Us, they will check to see if you have a delivery off a truck rout and if you don't you will pay a heavy fine.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By bentoverbythehammer (anonymous) | Posted May 15, 2011 at 22:16:37

Well i got a ticket for off a truck route on king street in a tow truck after making a delivery on king street. Thanks a lot to the city of hamilton for not posting the stupidly low weight limit on the sign. I guess it only makes sense to take advantage of an out of towner, afterall where else would you get the money to build the redhell expway and equip all city vehicles with pontoons and paddles so they can drive on it. I know all trucks are driven by smokey and the bandit and would rather run cars over then pass them, so i guess thats why the public feels that trucks are unsafe, also trucks are so hard to see because they are so small. get your heads out of your asses. i would rather drive in vietnam then your city. trucks are driven by professionals who make crap wages and constantly have to compansate for your crap driving to avoid killing you. and p.s. hamilton is kinda like torontos helmeted little brother :)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you divide 12 by 3?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds