Raise the Hammer

Execution is everything. I'm kind of worried that the City will manage to find the worst possible compromise, and spend a long time getting there.

Funny how the city can react immediately to the wishes of WalMart, closing down a lane of traffic on Centennial Parkway underneath the train overpass to create a make shift sidewalk for pedestrians, narrowing down the busy traffic corridor to the QEW down to one single lane.

Cars, mine included, have no trouble getting through there. Surely it can serve as some sort of example, just as can the lane closure at King and Hess and at the Main st bridge over the 403.

Why not look at the other articles on this site that address these topics? Many of them cite evidence on precisely the two points you raise.

I have, but unfortunately I have not seen any study looking into the thins I mentioned or other cities world-wide and their own experience with the problem. This could be my own over sight. I am certain we are not the only city who ever faced that and knowing what happened elsewhere is important. I'd appreciate if you could point me to the relevant study, I'd be much obliged.

I smell a big, fat rat.

This is the argument we always hear against two-way conversion: Manhattan is full of one-way streets and everything's fine there...it's the best city in the world, etc etc. I call BS on that one as I really couldn't care less what's happening in NYC. All I know is that Main, King and Cannon [in particular] are killing downtown and the health of our city will not improve until we address the traffic situation.

BTW, I wonder how many people - in history - have moved from Manhattan to Hamilton ON? Very interesting...

I am not quite sure I understand the need for all the abusive language, but to each his own. My point was not that NYC is the best in the world, I very much don't think so. My point is different: the proposed transition is a major overhaul of the system that will affect many many people and it is important to look at other examples around the world. You, for one, are certain the problem is King and Cannon. But, is this certainty backed by knowledge and experience from other cities with similar problems, or is it just that it "sounds right"? Many things sound right, but turns out to be false.

Sometimes one just has to follow one's intuition. But, in this case, where so much is at stake it seems prudent to consult the experience and knowledge acquired in other metropolitans around the world. Otherwise we may end up destroying a part of the system that is functioning well and get nothing positive in return.

drop millions more people here, millions of tourists and Manhattan's economy and I'll support our one-way system. I mean, Brooklyn is more dense than Toronto. It's not reasonable to even try to compare us to Manhattan.

Comment edited by jason on 2012-05-29 08:48:56

OK, I visited Montreal last year, and it has to be said: there is no reason one-way streets cannot be pleasant and walkable.

Don't believe me? Go walk along any main street in Montreal.

Yes, you're right...they can be pleasant and walkable. But again there's the size issue - Montreal is much bigger than us. We have King through the IV down to 2 lanes and it still flies like a freeway. We're not big enough to need these one-way streets.
Plus, our downtown's main east/west retail street has always been King. Yes, one street. Not several blocks like Montreal or other big cities. Unless we want a whole bunch of 1-way streets that are 1 lane wide, one ways will be too fast for us.

I'm all for narrowing the streets, adding wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and parking. (This is all part of the lively Montreal one-way streets).

I don't drive and don't even care if the street is one-way or two-way, I'm just sick of the orthodoxy that making it two-way is the only answer.

Sure, we could narrow our one-way streets, add bump-outs, plants trees, add bike lanes, etc. But why not make them two-way while we're at it? Afterall, they're better for business, safer for pedestrians and cyclists, better for navigating the city and so on.

Oh wait, nay-sayers are only interested in their ability to blast through downtown as quickly as possible...I forgot.

Drop the tired rhetoric.

I was on Stanley St yesterday and noticed they have added speed humps there. That's a one- way street. I think that's going to help over there since drivers didn't seem to notice that it's a residential street and while walking along there to go to the Locke St library we would see cars blow through the stop signs there.

Maybe doing something like that as a calming measure on some of our one-ways would help. Maybe dropping 1 lane to put in a designated bike lane (with barriers, I think that would be manditory) and widening the sidewalks out there would help some of those who are anti-one-way.

If you support dedicated bicycle lanes, the removal of car lanes to build them, wider sidewalks (which also generally mean fewer lanes), speed humps, and other traffic calming measures, then clearly you agree that motorists ought to sacrifice some of their convenience and ability to blast through downtown in the interest of improving neighbourhoods and making them better for pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that, what is your problem with two-way streets? Is there something morally repugnant about cars going both ways on the same street? (Perhaps a touch of bidirectional-phobia?) The idea that two-way traffic causes more pollution is a red herring (in walkable neighbourhoods, more people walk and cycle, which is better for the environment), and so is the false claim that one-ways are safer.

Or, given that creating wider sidewalks and dedicated, separated bicycle lanes would likely be more expensive than simply painting a yellow line down the middle of the road and adding some stoplights, is your support of those measures just a delay tactic?

I think there is general agreement among city planners and urban enthusiasts that two-way streets are only one aspect of any plan to make neighbourhoods more livable. Conversion to two-way should ideally be accompanied by street calming that includes (as noted above) bump-outs, plantings, widened sidewalks, speed bumps, and bike lanes. The most successful one-way to two-way conversions did not occur in isolation but were rather part of a bigger plan.

No on all counts.

I can't speak to the price of barriers between bike lanes since I've never looked into it. However, there must be compromise between 2-way, 1-way, walkability and safe cycling. I think that it's a fair compromise to do something like what I said above. But, I also think it's fair to say that we should be able to travel conveniently through our city. Never once have I been out in my car on a 2-way street and said 'oh, I should stop at shop X' and impulsively go in. I haven't done that on a one-way either.

I live downtown but work in Missisauga. It takes me about 10 minutes to get from my house to the 403 (John-King-King St exit; or sometimes Charlton-James-Wilson/York-403, or also John-King-Dundurn, depending on what traffic is like). Adding in 2-way would, in my estimation anyway, double that trip due to stopping more due to the same traffic in half as much space. I would move out of the core if that were the case, to somewhere where I can get on the highway quickly.

Likewise, my extended family lives in Dundas, in Burlington, and out beyond. I need to be able to get to their homes quickly and efficiently.

There MUST be compromise in this discussion. Simply saying 'we must go to 2-way' is not a discussion, it's trying to impose your will on mine.

Two-way is the compromise. It is far less costly, and will get you out of town to your work and family, and around town, far more quickly and efficiently than the speed bumps and lane reductions that you are suggesting.

One-ways are good for one thing and one thing only: processing through traffic as quickly as possible. If you're going to hamper their ability to do that by narrowing them, de-syncing the lights, etc, you have to ask yourself what it is about one-ways, other than familiarity, that you're clinging to so desperately that you are actually willing to create a slower, less efficient system than two-ways?

"There MUST be compromise in this discussion. Simply saying 'we must go to 2-way' is not a discussion"

Good idea. Let's compromise and switch our streets to 1.5-way!

It is about so much more than stopping at a store in your car on an impulse. It's about making the core of the city a pleasant place to live, and to attract new citizens who will live here - and to be especially attractive to new citizens who don't have cars (or who will drive less) since their tax dollars are more efficient as they'll have a lower impact on the infrastructure.

The only way we will be able to afford the costs of maintaining this city in the future is if we increase the number of people who live here without increasing the area which we have to service with roads, sewers, water, etc. This means higher density. This density has to happen in the core. And we will never achieve this density if we continue to pander to through traffic.

The end result of fast through traffic is high taxes. And I'm sure we can all agree they are too high already.

Council needs to sit down and take a really good look at how we are going to increase our tax base in the moderately near future. The longer we put this off, the deeper we will spiral and it's going to get to the point where we won't be able to climb out.

"Council needs to sit down and take a really good look at how we are going to increase our tax base in the moderately near future. The longer we put this off, the deeper we will spiral and it's going to get to the point where we won't be able to climb out."

While there's no question that Council by needs alone must be aware of how we're going to increase our tax base in the moderately near future, the problem is that a) they're locked-in to habts that are hard to break, b) they're influenced by people wanting to keep the status quo rolling (that is, developers by way of City Staff), and c) they're not going to learn a new language unless forced to.

We charge them with looking after things in the best ways possible. But this assumes that their skill sets and those resources at their disposal (City Staff) will get them to effect policy that provides progress towards what you're suggesting.

Um... Clearly that's not working, Those At The Controls are either unaware of how else to do things, are being wilfull in not doing things in those ways, or the forces being exerted on them to continue on this path are great enough to sustain the status quo. (That is, there's no resistance.)

So nothing will happen until there's another force exerting an obverse pressure that hasn't previously been seen all that often. (Save for when an incumbent gets turfed.)

This isn't rocket science. Actually, it's the science of leverage.

not everything has to be converted to 2-way... its not the fact that traffic only moves in one direction that is hurting downtown - its the SPEED at which it is doing so

for those who like to use MTL and NYC as examples, how quickly do you see those cars moving??? i can assure you not as quickly and dangerously as they do on Main Street and Cannon Street in Hamilton!

Ummm, actually the fact that traffic moves in one direction is actually a bigger deal than we realize. I won't share which business owner told me this for fear that some take it the wrong way, but a downtown business owner told me recently that one of the big concerns back in the 50's when the switch was made was the sudden inability of the more prosperous west end residents to come along King St to their shops. Reading old newspapers from back then, it is certainly a major topic of discussion. This person said that it is still true today....due to a variety of factors, there is a much higher disposable income west of James, than east. With Main and King functioning as they do, folks from the west end only ever come along King on their way home now.

I'd never thought of this before, but reading those old Spec articles from the 50's, he's right...this was a major concern among shop owners. In bigger cities with 2, 3 or 4 parallel blocks of street retail (Montreal, Portland, NYC etc...) this wouldn't matter as much, but here our downtown strip is one long skinny street - King...and James, north/south.

also consider the widths of the sidewalks.....

1.5m wide on Cannon Street 4+ m wide on Ste. Catherine in MTL

Never considered the similarities before, but yes, aside from sidewalk girth, it's uncanny! :)

Last time I was in NYC I waited 50 minutes to go 3 blocks...on a one-way street with 4 lanes.

Clearly they need to sync their lights!

I'll gladly link the 2011 stats when they become available. In the meantime the 2006 stats are the only reliable stats available. I'm not attacking straw men but rather pointing out correctly that in spite of all protestations to the contrary the number of autos continues to rise as our population increases. It is not I who is not debating honestly

Just heard this on Scott Thompson and you know what, I actually like our oneway streets but it's pretty damn obvious what affect they've had on the downtown. I'm not--quite--old enough to remember the glory days of this city but I used to go down town as a kid and I'd love for my kids or maybe grandkids to have a downtown they can be proud of like I was. I think commuters can survive a couple extra minutes to get across town if it means kick starting the core again. I was against the James and John switch,especially the south side near the Mountain access but you know what, I drive down and up everyday and it's fine, I oftentimes hit worse traffic on Mohawk trying to get to my street. What are we afraid of, it's just a twoway street like we have all over the Mountain.

What are we afraid of, it's just a twoway street like we have all over the Mountain.

Well said.