Special Report: Walkable Streets

OMB Rejects North End Speed Limit Appeal on James, Burlington

The Ontario Municipal Board rejected a proposal to impose a 30 km/h speed limit on every North End street including James and Burlington, arguing that the City's transportation plan will increase pedestrian safety without sacrificing flexibility.

By Ryan McGreal
Published January 02, 2013

this article has been updated

The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has rejected an appeal from the North End Neighbourhood Association (NEN) requesting a 30 km/h speed limit on all north end streets, including James Street North and Burlington Street.

30 km/h speed limit in Toronto's Beaches neighbourhood (RTH file photo)
30 km/h speed limit in Toronto's Beaches neighbourhood (RTH file photo)

The OMB just issued its final decision on the West Harbour Secondary Plan (Setting Sail) to establish a formal land use plan for the City of Hamilton's North End Neighbourhood. NEN filed the appeal after Council rejected its request to have all speed limits in the neighbourhood reduced to 30 km/h as part of the Setting Sail plan.

The OMB concluded that the City's plan to introduce traffic calming measures without a neighbourhood-wide speed limit or significant traffic calming on James North or Burlington Street "will increase pedestrian safety in a reasonable manner" while giving the city "the flexibility to make changes when needed".

Speed limits on most streets will be reduced to 30 km/h, but James North and Burlington Street will remain at 50 km/h.

Neighbourhood Speed Limit

The Setting Sail public consultation raised serious concerns about high-speed automobile through traffic heading east/west to Hamilton's industrial area and north/south to the waterfront.

The NEN argues that the reduced speed limit, combined with other traffic calming street design measures, is necessary to protect and enhance the mixed residential character of the neighbourhood. As the OMB summarized:

The guiding principle of NEN's position is the requirement for the City to adopt an approach that determines as a priority what works for maintaining and improving the Neighbourhood as a family-friendly, residential neighbourhood. Under this approach, the streets become more than traffic conduits and become part of the community's outdoor amenity area for recreation and social interaction. This involves a severe reduction or removal of cut-through traffic by the closure of roads and reduction of vehicular speeds to a maximum of 30 km/h.

NEN argued that the traffic calming policy should be included in the Secondary Plan, because it gives the policy greater protection from subsequent change than the City's preferred approach of addressing it separately through the North End Traffic Management Master Plan.

The City maintains that it requires the flexibility to make changes to traffic calming and management measures in an efficient and timely manner if and when changes and adjustments are necessary, and including its Plan in Setting Sail will result in unwarranted expense and delay in making changes.

More specifically, the City "strenuously opposes" the imposition of a 30 km/h speed limit in the neighbourood, on the grounds that it would "penalize traffic" and harm commercial vitality in the neighbourhood by deterring drivers.

The OMB heard from traffic engineer Ted Gill and transportation consultant Brian Hollingworth who defended the city's preferred strategy, as well as from land use planner Brenda Khes, who argued that Setting Sail also entails improving automobile access to the waterfront.

Ms. Khes acknowledged that most people in the Neighbourhood want a blanket speed of 30 km/h, but advised that as a planner she does not recommend this reduced speed on James Street North and Burlington Street East since traffic moves more efficiently at 50 km/h on these streets.

Disputing this hypothesis, NEN wanted the North End to serve as a pilot project for a 30 km/h zone to determine whether the "slow city" movement that has had great success in other North American and European cities would also work in Hamilton.

NEN representatives complained that the City's Public Works Department effectively prioritizes the fast, efficient flow of automobile traffic over all other uses of the street, particularly pedestrians. Leaving the transportation strategy in the Master Plan rather than Setting Sail would allow that automobile-centric bias to dominate the transportation plan for the neighbourhood and leave automobile traffic flow the deciding factor when balancing street uses.

Dan Burden

The OMB heard from Dan Burden, executive director of the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute and "a recognized authority on street design, traffic calming and their effect on the community." Burden argued that the City needs to lower speed limits to bring "civility" back to the streets and "heal" the neighbourhood.

He explained that it is necessary to use traffic calming tools that connote to drivers that they are entering a different place where moderate speed and deference to pedestrians is required. He advised that James Street North and Burlington Street East are principal streets that require the most attention with regard to creating a civil street environment.

These are the streets that the City is most opposed to calming, since they are regarded as "Primary Mobility Streets" for through traffic.

Burden noted that significant research has found a negative correlation between traffic speeds and neighbourhood vitality, and that other cities, including Portland Oregon, have established 30 km/h speed limits in urban neighbourhoods - including principal streets - to great success.

Burden was the keynote speaker at a 2006 Pedestrian Workshop [PDF] organized by the City of Hamilton. Turning the idea of "efficiency" on its head, he told the Workshop that walkability is "the cornerstone and key to an urban area's efficient ground transportation".

Richard Gilbert

The OMB also heard from Richard Gilbert, the Toronto-based transportation consultant who is "recognized for his expertise on child- friendly transportation needs and guidelines".

Gilbert endorsed the 30 km/h speed limit, arguing that it would make the neighbourhood streets safer for walking and cycling and would particularly benefit children. He extended this to James North and Burlington, as they are also primarily residential within the North End and "should be subject to the same standards as other residential streets," as the OMB report summarized.

He noted that the lower speed limit is supported by research from UNICEF and the World Health Organization, and that Austria and Germany have 20 km/h speed limits in urban areas.

Gilbert prepared a report on the implications of peak oil for the City of Hamilton in 2006 and is the co-author of a 2004 report on creating child-friendly cities.

Further reading:


Update: Updated to note that most North End streets will be reduced to 30 km/h, but James and Burlington will remain at 50 km/h. You can jump to the added paragraph.

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 articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal.

60 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 02, 2013 at 13:30:26

40kph on Trafalgar going into downtown Oakville, winding traffic calming structures on Mohawk/Rousseaux (a critical artery connecting Wilson to the Meadowlands and the Linc).

But no, the North End can't have that.

Now, I wonder what the difference between downtown Oakville, downtown Ancaster... and the North End is? Hmmm... I wonder.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted January 02, 2013 at 18:08:15 in reply to Comment 84629

North End has people driving through it who must get to Stoney Creek or Westdale as fast as possible

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By jason (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 13:38:18

Meanwhile, in cities that actually care about safety, quality of life, street retail, vibrant neighbourhoods and actually working to become the best place to raise a child, as opposed to just talking about it, we have this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 08:46:52 in reply to Comment 84630

and this is relevant because Hamilton is just like London. Hard to tell the difference when you are actually there.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 09:26:30 in reply to Comment 84658

last time I checked, the results of a person getting hit by a fast moving car were the same in London as Hamilton.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 21:30:46 in reply to Comment 84664

How many incidents were there in the area last year? Last 5 years? Of the incidents that did occur how many did vehicle speed play a detrimental role?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Dane (registered) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 17:32:25 in reply to Comment 84681

Does it really matter how many? If the speed is less that speed will never play a role.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 21:37:37 in reply to Comment 84714

It might not play a role in your eyes but to cripple all traffic with an unrealistic speed limit plays a role in a lot of peoples lives.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 22:55:37 in reply to Comment 84722

cripple?? unrealistic?? These speed limits are common in thousands of neighbourhoods around the world. Have you seen the quality of life in Toronto's Beaches or Annex?? Apparently those neighbourhoods and their 30k limit on every street aren't being 'crippled'. They're some of the most desirable, family-friendly places to live in Canada.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:14:19 in reply to Comment 84630

No need to gaze longingly across the pond when you can simply look across the Harbour.

http://cms.burlington.ca/Page8457.aspx

http://www.moneysense.ca/2012/03/20/best-places-to-raise-kids/kids_burlington_cc-daniellescott/

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:20:28 in reply to Comment 84631

To be fair, neither of those articles mention a single word about safe traffic. They fixate on street crime, as if children are more likely to die from a gunshot than a car accident.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:38:49 in reply to Comment 84632

If nothing else, they're at least putting on a better show.

The City of Burlington continues to invite public comment as it reviews its speed limit policy to improve road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists..."In Burlington, we focus on safety in our neighbourhoods and on our roadways," said Director of Transportation Bruce Zvaniga. "We look carefully at how we are setting speed limits to make sure all road users can travel safely and feel confident in moving throughout the city."

http://cms.burlington.ca/Page7910.aspx

"A resident of Hidden Valley Road requested a review of the existing 50km/hr speed limit on Hidden Valley Road as they feel that the road conditions north of Hidden Valley Park require vehicles to travel at a lower rate of speed. It should be noted that the speed limit within Hidden Valley Park, immediately south of this area, is posted at 20 km/h, which is the applicable speed limit for municipal roadways within municipal parks as regulated in Traffic By-law 86-2007."

http://cms.burlington.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=9633

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By splack (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:32:06

Hamilton, where it's always the middle of the 70's.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By TreyS (registered) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 11:01:12 in reply to Comment 84633

Actually Hamilton was at its peak in the mid 70s.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 04, 2013 at 12:11:19 in reply to Comment 84699

By the 1970s, Hamilton was already past its postwar peak and doing this: ↘

That's why the Council of the time was so willing to undertake the "renewal" of huge swaths of downtown, by which they meant demolishing the Victorian streetwall and replacing it with modern buildings for modern people. Their shiny future, as I wrote back in 2004, is our grim present.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 21:39:36 in reply to Comment 84706

Hamilton and virtually every other city in North America was seeing hard times. People were fleeing the core and heading to suburbia. New big homes. What is not to like?

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:47:16

Hamilton is supposed to be adopting a traffic planning hierarchy that officially places pedestrians at the top (Vancouver adopted this approach years ago). This is part of the proposed new official plan.

That is why it is so mystifying to hear Hamilton's traffic engineers complain that a 30 km/h limit would "penalize traffic" (i.e. motor vehicle traffic).

Once the new official plan is adopted, the traffic engineers will actually be obliged to "penalize" motor vehicle traffic, since it will be near the bottom of a hierarchy that places pedestrians, cyclists and transit at the top.

That is what having a hierarchy means: you favour some forms of traffic, which means effectively penalizing the others. Otherwise, what is the practical impact of placing pedestrians well above motorists in the hierarchy?

Of course, we currently have an implicit hierarchy that is the inverse of the proposed one, and I'm having difficulty imagining how the City is going to suddenly change their decisions and mindset to favour pedestrians over motorists. Which, if it means anything, means things like lowering speed limits and building more pedestrian crossings.

But then, why are they proposing this new hierarchy in the first place? I hope it is not just because it sounds nice.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-01-02 14:48:14

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted January 09, 2013 at 17:11:30 in reply to Comment 84635

Occupying the pinnacle of the hierarchy does not mean that other elements of that structure are not considered. Why not celebrate the fact that all but two areas will be at 30Kph? Does it really have to be all or nothing? It is a mixed use area and has been so for a very long time. I am sure that will not stop some from demanding that all must bend to the god of one flavor of urban renewal. That is OK though as it is the best vantage point to see if the feet are of clay.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By jason (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 14:54:54

Vision 2020, Putting People First, Shifting Gears and a whole myriad of 'nice-sounding' planning documents have already answered your question. We talk the talk, but never take a single meaningful step.

Comment edited by jason on 2013-01-02 14:55:30

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 15:21:52

30K All the Way. We DO have 30K. Just not on James and Burlington!

I have read the OMB decision and attended the OMB hearing on behalf of North End Neighbours. NEN welcomes the findings of the OMB that we are a vital family oriented neighbourhood and that traffic can have a major impact on the health and safety of our families and particularly on the lives of our children.

The City's version of the Traffic Management plan DOES put 30K in our neighbourhood but did not include Burlington E. and James Street N. Page 55 of the City of Hamilton North End Traffic Management Plan states "Implementation of a 30k speed limit on all neighbourhood streets in the study area, supported by physical traffic calming measures."

So we WILL get 30K on the residential side streets in a 5 year pilot project. Our goal was never 30K by "enforcement" but slow streets by DESIGN.

The safety and vitality of our entire neighbourhood is paramount, and the exclusion of Burlington Street and James Street from the 30K plan will have a real impact on our community.

But, there are some positive points in the decision.

The OMB decision states efforts should be made to improve streetscaping and signage AS SOON AS POSSIBLE “to create the atmosphere of a child and family-friendly community.”

The OMB decision also states in its conclusion that “It is appropriate that traffic calming and management measures be implemented in the Neighbourhood as a pilot project for a period of five years. This will provide time for these measures to have their full effect, for analysis and modifications. However, it is important to START AT ONCE to implement selected measures in order to convey to drivers that they are entering into a different environment where slower speeds and deference to pedestrians is required. Drivers must be given the message that they are potentially in conflict with children and that they must drive in a slower and more cautious manner. Drivers should be induced to feel they are participating in protecting the safety of pedestrians, especially children.”

Hamilton has a great opportunity to move ahead in the vanguard of Canadian communities that understand how streets impact our daily lives. We look forward to working with the City to begin implementing the traffic calming measures that will ensure the safety of everyone in the neighbourhood.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 09:03:09 in reply to Comment 84637

This is great to hear. Given Hamilton's track record I find myself not believing that we will actually design streets for 30k. But I'll save judgement until the project is done. Would be a great model for other neighbourhoods to follow if it's done right.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 15:53:41 in reply to Comment 84637

I'm glad that the streets other than Burlington and James N will be reduced to 30km/h. This was not clear from the article, which made it sound as if 30 km/h was rejected for all streets.

I entirely agree that the 30km/h limit should be implemented by design, not enforcement. This means making the streets uncomfortable or difficult to drive at speeds greater than 30 km/h by using techniques such as lane narrowing, chicanes, speed humps and pedestrian crossings. It also means focusing motorist attention on their (non-automobile) surroundings and making it clear that this is an area where one needs to slow down and pay attention (and maybe even say hello to a friend or neighbour!)

The North End has the potential to be an example for how to make our neighbourhoods safe and comfortable for 8-80 pedestrians, both residents and visitors. And this does not mean excluding motor vehicles, just changing the balance and priorities.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-01-02 15:55:31

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:26:58 in reply to Comment 84638

The disagreement in a nutshell (via Joey Coleman):

http://news.hamont.ca/en/153/Hamilton_Local_News/181/North-End-Neighbours-Lose-OMB-Appeal-on-Traffic-Plan.htm

"[150] NEN wants a blanket speed limit of 30 km/h on all roads in the Neighbourhood. It relies on the evidence of its expert witnesses who testified that this lower speed will bring civility to the streets in the Neighbourhood, especially James Street North and Burlington Street East and will help to protect and enhance the Neighbourhood as a family-friendly neighbourhood. The City‟s North End Traffic Management Plan also recommends this lower speed limit for all streets except for James Street North and Burlington Street East, where it recommends the retention of the 50 km/h speed limit. James Street North and Burlington Street East and West are major streets in the Neighbourhood and carry public transit. Under the City‟s Plan, on-street parking will be permitted on these streets to narrow the traffic lanes and separate sidewalk pedestrians from traffic. These features will create a more pedestrian friendly environment in the neighbourhood, including along James Street North and Burlington Street East."

I'm sure that there's wiggle room, but it looks as if NEN has won 30 km/h speed limit on all but two two-way streets, and those streets will feature on-street parking "to narrow the traffic lanes and separate sidewalk pedestrians from traffic". Not a home run, but I've seen far worse.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:55:20 in reply to Comment 84647

And, our one-way streets are planned to be two-way: John N. and MacNab N.

Calming measures include bump-outs, lane narrowings, curb extensions, enhanced pedestrian crossings, partial road closures, and a round-about at James and Strachan.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By unrecognized (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 16:06:25

Interesting that in the article, the individuals who spoke at the OMB hearing in favour of the city's position are introduced by name only, whereas the individuals who spoke on behalf of the author's preferred position are given glowing, lengthy intros and are "recognized" as "recognized" experts. I would suggest that Mr Hollingworth and Ms Khes are likely very well known and respected in their field as well.

Kudos to the NEN for accepting the decision in a positive manner and looking forward to the next stage of the process.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 22:02:11 in reply to Comment 84640

Thank you.

I would like to add that we had MANY people testify that we called "resident experts". Some testified AT the OMB hearing and we had one hearing night at Bennetto School auditorium where many residents came and testified one after the other for over 2 hours.

NONE of our "resident expert" testimony was mentioned in the decision except in passing, where the Member acknowledges that a lot of residents spoke and attended.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 02, 2013 at 19:07:17 in reply to Comment 84640

Fair enough. I will suggest, however, that the OMB decision took the credibility of the City's representatives for granted (as I noted in the piece, they're traffic engineers, planners and so on), but made an explicit point of acknowledging the credibility of the NEN's independent representatives, who might otherwise not be taken as seriously.

In the case of both Mr. Burden and Mr. Gilbert, they also have professional histories that intertwine with Hamilton, and that seemed worth pointing out.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 16:47:15 in reply to Comment 84640

Well, Brian Hollingworth is just a consultant with IBI group in Hamilton (based at Liuna station).

IBI has done an enormous amount of work for the City of Hamilton (notably the HSR plan), but there is not much one can say about Hollingworth other than he is a transportation consultant with IBI and definitely has a vested interest in backing up the City's position.

A search of the RTH site shows ten pages of hits referring to IBI's various plans, workshops and reports for the city, mostly backing up conventional motor vehicle priority planning principles!

Brenda Khes is a planner at the Hamilton office of Kitchener based GSP Group. Again, she is a consultant who presumably does work for the city of Hamilton. The GSP group seems to be a very conventional planning consultant group, and their website doesn't mention anything about pedestrian-friendly communities or traffic design. In fact, they are a member of the Hamilton-Halton Homebuilders Association, which promotes urban sprawl and low development charges (and the opposite of pedestrian-friendly communities).

It's true that that Burden and Gilbert were given lengthy intros, but it is warranted by their much more disinterested and broad expertise on the specific issue of pedestrian-friendly planning.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-01-02 16:59:06

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:23:26 in reply to Comment 84641

I may be mistaken but I think Tim McCabe worked for the GSP group before coming to Hamilton. This explains a lot.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 20:40:45

I think this is great news! 50k exemptions on James and Burlington I think we can live with. Is Wellington is also exempt? Or does it not count as the modern North End?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By D. Stephens (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 09:03:00 in reply to Comment 84644

if you take a look at the North End Traffic Managment plan part 6.3.1. shows a 40kph speed limit for James and Burlington decided in 2008. and wellington is the border of the North End and Kieth so wasn't included.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By John Neary (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:21:20

I might be missing something here, but why on earth would anyone use James and Burlington Streets to drive to any destination except for one in the North End? The prevailing speeds on those streets are already slower than on other routes (e.g. Wellington-Cannon, Wilson-Victoria). There are already some design elements (desynchronized lights, two-way traffic, a 4-way stop at James and Burlington, street parking on Burlington) that encourage slower traffic on those streets, many of which are absent elsewhere in the lower city.

To put it differently, for motorists to use James/Burlington as a way to drive across the city, they don't just have to be selfish; they have to be selfish AND stupid. Are they?

Congrats to the NEN for their (partial) success with the OMB.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted January 09, 2013 at 17:39:03 in reply to Comment 84645

Exactly John. Though I live in the lower city sometimes I want to get cross town as quickly as possible.

To do so I do not speed or endanger myself or anyone else. I avoid James & John Streets totally unless I have business there. The same goes for as any section of Wilson or Cannon now two way.

If a person nows this city at all they will do like wise. Any idiots violating the speed limit or driving recklessly may well be local area idiots.

I would think anyone who used James St or Burlington St west of Victoria as a "quick route" to Westdale or Stoney Creek is so profoundly mentally challenged that natural selection will soon run its course.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By g (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 01:59:37 in reply to Comment 84645

i drive down james north to burlington street from cannon to go to the east end all the time. i did so today. i drive at a reasonable speed and try to be as careful and courteous as i can. i don't speed and i am respectful of other members of the community using the street, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

am i really being selfish?
am i really being stupid?

hyperbole is dangerous.

i fully understand and support the aim of making streets livable, but casting a net that entangles all drivers as being speed crazy dangerous imbeciles hell bent on turning every road into a highway will not help things.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 21:35:37 in reply to Comment 84654

Obviously you are a car driver and on this site that makes you the enemy. The attack is relentless and non discriminatory. Irregardless of common sense or proof.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Kiely (registered) | Posted January 07, 2013 at 09:51:46 in reply to Comment 84682

Irregardless

Psst, your stupidity is showing.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By proof (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 10:07:27 in reply to Comment 84682

hahhaahahahahahah

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By rrrandy (registered) - website | Posted January 03, 2013 at 19:14:27 in reply to Comment 84654

Agreed. I've driven that route (more or less) to get the the QEW - I like it for the exposure to the industrial landscape, and tell my daughter about how much of the landscape is built on the bay. It's a good drive, at reasonable speeds, and an alternative to taking the 403 to the QEW from the west end. Anytime we are name-calling is probably a sign that someone is being unreasonable. Nothing against John Neary, who I met once and would be happy to meet again.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By g. (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 02:10:56 in reply to Comment 84654

and for the record i do think that james north from murray to burlington, especially at the bridge crossing the tracks, is horribly over built and needs at the very least narrower lanes, a dedicated physically separate bike lane, and perhaps round a-bouts at the intersections of cross streets.
and yes, with all these traffic calming measures i will in all likelihood still take james street to burlington street.
does that make me a monster?
(and for fug sake, someone please take down the prison fence over the bridge while they are at it. so unnecessary and detrimental to the feel of the community)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted January 09, 2013 at 17:58:28 in reply to Comment 84655

Do we really need some silly roundabout on James N?

Anyone who's head is not up their arse does not waste their time deeking down James and Burlington St E or W looking for a quick route anywhere except locally.

If a person did do it once they would not do it a second time. So much concern about so little.

Totally agree about the fence at the tracks on James. Funny it always struck me as a left over section from the Barton Big House too.

An ornamental iron one would look great. Let people slow to look in awe at that fine piece of metal work instead of wasting land and money on a dumb ass round about. They are idiotic enough on Wilson St in Ancaster, no need to emulate stupidity locally or from Britain.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 11:51:28 in reply to Comment 84655

I agree totally that something needs to be done with that UGLY bridge. Or does it just say "Welcome to Hamilton"? ha ha

Beasley, Central, and North End should get a project together! We could have a NOT so ugly bridge!

John North is slated for a lane narrowing just South of the bridge, 4 curb extensions, and enhanced crossings in 2 location- Wood Street and Simcoe. And it will become 2-way.

On street bike lanes are recommended on Ferguson to connect to off street bike paths at Strachan and north of Burlington. Ferguson south of the tracks is already a marked bike route and connects to King Street and I can make my way to the Rail Trail pretty easily. Main Street needs a better way to cross, in my opinion.

There is a proposed signal at Ferguson and Burlington with crossing enhancements.

Comment edited by sselway on 2013-01-03 12:09:54

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted January 07, 2013 at 20:23:04 in reply to Comment 84669

is there an online document with all of the proposed changes in the neighbourhood?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By D.Stephens (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 09:21:13 in reply to Comment 84655

The fence is there to stop illegal dumping aling the tracks. Garbage bags thrown from the bridge land on censors that control the R.R. Crossings at well and at victoria. When garbage blocks them the barriers go down until cleared backing traffic up. The fence on the mary st bridge protects the crossing at wentworth

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 04, 2013 at 17:48:08 in reply to Comment 84662

I think there's too much censorship, personally

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Dane (registered) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 17:37:04 in reply to Comment 84662

no fence on McNab or Bay...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By D.Stephens (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 21:12:39 in reply to Comment 84715

Currently there are no R.R. crossing censors at those locations. But fences are in the plans for the new GO station they where reffered to as suicide fences at the meeting lol

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Suicide's Not Funny (anonymous) | Posted January 06, 2013 at 08:03:42 in reply to Comment 84721

You know why they are called that, right? So that people don't jump off the bridge, killing themselves. Do you know how often that's happened on that bridge? Suicide's not funny, not ever.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By sselway (registered) | Posted January 02, 2013 at 21:49:06 in reply to Comment 84645

Partial success? Thanks, but our appeal was dismissed. However, one of the reasons we appealed was for James N. and Burlington E. to be included.

One of the problems with the City's traffic hierarchy, is that once a street is "arterial" it is then developed, maintained, and forever an arterial. Burlington E. particularly is residential in character, with a park and 2 variety stores. Does it really need to be an arterial? James is more mixed use, with a large residential component.

In addition, we have a lot of "cut-through traffic" using Burlington, James, and Bay, although probably not comparable to Beasley's Cannon Street Hiway!

We want to encourage "destination traffic" (to the west harbour attractions, events etc.) to drive slowly as those streets are primarily residential. Yes, we have to have parking passes and we do get gridlock.

Another intent was to protect our neighbourhood as the west harbour is developed and Piers 7 & 8 are intensified. Looking to the future.

I think there are many positive aspects that can be taken from the North End Traffic Management Plan (City Version) that other ward 2 neighbourhoods would find attractive. Interesting - it is not online that I can find! I will make you a copy!

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 07:46:40

IMHO, given OMB precedents, this outcome was nothing of of the ordinary, and entirely consistent with the "decide and defend" model of consultation that seems to be the norm.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Mauvais (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 07:48:27 in reply to Comment 84656

The lesson here; if a group of residents goes up against the government, the OMB is gonna side with the government.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 08:49:59

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL@LOL (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 09:24:39 in reply to Comment 84659

Yeah because nothing says "insane" like slower traffic on a residential street. :P

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 21:39:35 in reply to Comment 84663

No because nothing says insane like designating an area that large as a 30 KPH zone. Thank goodness they didn't use some common sense in their approach and won their fight for a smaller more reasonable area.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By Today (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 11:39:47

Lowering speed limits on residential streets is recommended in the report "Pedestrian Death Review" and for good reason.

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PedestrianDeathReview/DI_Pedestrian_Death_Review.html

http://news.ontario.ca/mcscs/en/2012/09/chief-coroner-releases-pedestrian-death-review.html

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By Lets Raise Taxes (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 15:14:13

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 03, 2013 at 21:40:47 in reply to Comment 84672

Now there is a petition I would love to see RTH get behind. Count on me to sign.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 12:47:41

For those naysayers on this issue, I guess you have never had a child die in a traffic accident? I remember to this day after 46 years, the day my brother died and the effect it had on the entire family.

I lived near John and Burlington when my child was a youngster and after a child was either killed or seriously injuried, did action take place, restricting the cars turnng left from John onto Burlington.

I always worried back then about the cars and the actions children do at times, when they are not thinking, as they are children.

Too many drivers, think they own the road and that no other vehicles, such as bikes, people walking etc, etc, have a right to be anywhere near the road. How amny times, have I tried to cross at a crosswalk, yet a car turning right is blocking the path, of which I have the right of way, as a pedestrian.



Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted January 10, 2013 at 02:58:21 in reply to Comment 84709

I am so sorry about your brother it must have been a day beyond description of grief followed by many more. Everyone by a certain point in life looses someone they love. No human being would wish that on another.

I hope you are a motorist on occasion and that you can see the world from that perspective too. For example where I live; just a few doors away there is a T intersection. Street parking close to the intersection means I have to creep through the pedestrian walk because I can't see traffic in either direction due to the parked cars. It would be dangerous NOT to do so. Yes I have had some dirty looks from pedestrians on occasion who expect to use the crossing immediately regardless of my safe driving habits. I understand that. What I do not understand is this. Bylaw hands out some really shitty tickets. I have had one for an expired meter that still had a few minutes left on it. Just lazy sleazy crap really; where some lard ass bylaw creep thought they would take a short cut instead of looking for a real infraction. I can also show you bylaw traps in the city. My personal favorite is one outside of a medical building located at the corner of Parkdale Ave & Central Ave. There is not a valid reason in the universe (I have a list of laughable ones provided by bylaw)where you will get a $50 ticket literally in minutes. As astounding or outrageous as this sounds this site is haunted like no other. Keep in mind this is a multi story medical building. There are sick people in and out of that building in droves all day. It is able to operate despite having 3 public parking spaces. The smell of weakness was sensed and it has been a gold mine for our fair city ever since. You have to see the stretch of Central Ave yourself to see that this was engineered it was no mere "lucky" immoral accident which has the city exploiting the ill, no this was planned. Not only does the building lack sufficient parking the area especially Central Avenue has restricted (permit) parking. Clearly bylaw is not here to enforce and fine on a tough but fair and rational basis. Obviously they are there to provide a revenue stream even if they have to assist in arranging the infraction. The reason I mention all this is that Hamilton has always had a bylaw prohibiting not just parking but even stopping "Within an intersection or crosswalk, or within six (6) metres [20 ft.] of a crosswalk, whether said crosswalk is marked or not." It is never enforced, I have even made complaints and it is still not enforced. So here we have an enforcement issue which affects the safety of both pedestrians and motorists disregarded in favor of fraudulent behavior and manufactured set ups. Think about it; it is not even difficult to enforce, it is so easy to find violations. If our esteemed parking bylaw enforcement department ever gets bored and wants to actually work instead of falsely ticket vehicles and engage in corrupt practices it could be a force in reducing needless tragedy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2013 at 21:47:40 in reply to Comment 84709

You are right I have never had a child killed in an accident. I was struck by a car when I was quite young so I can speak to this with some measure of knowledge. Most pedestrian vehicle accidents happen at the intersection. Seldom is the car speeding through the intersection and someone steps in front of the car (though Lord knows that does happen) mostly it is a car turning or a pedestrian ignoring the light. These are usually low speed accidents and reducing the limit will have little if any affect.

Reply | Permalink | Context

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

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted January 05, 2013 at 01:31:37

Sorry to hear, you have been hit by a car, but i am sure your Ma views and feelings of that day, may be a little different then your own, just saying. You know, having the complete feeling of dread, until you hear, the injury is not too serious.

Can we get some reality into this conversation, since most vehicles are travelling faster then the posted speed limit, not unless, the man in blue hankering around.

Yes children make mistakes, as they are children and sometimes forget that they are not indestructible, as do adults.

There is a difference between 50 and 30 KM per hour, that is basic physics.

I get it, you never budge a millimeter, in any of your views.



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

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds