Raise the Hammer

Best answer is no cut off all Vehicular traffic (except deliveries at specified hours) from Wellington to James. Underpass at John. No other N/S traffic, Make it an Island. Then build some more condos.

Calgary tried this with 8th Avenue SW and it didn't work very well. The street became a ghost-town and people actively avoided the street, with the exception of during lunch hour. They eventually opened up the street to a very small amount of one-way traffic during select hours and that helped bring people back to the street, as cabs and purposeful traffic could access the businesses there.

I'm not saying the pedestrian only idea couldn't work, but for it to be the 'best answer' you'd have to build an awful lot of condos.

With all due respect, if you're unhappy with the design of International Village and think those two lanes are "life sucking", perhaps an urban environment is not for you and you'd be happier in a small retirement village somewhere where everyone drives golf carts. I'm not sure what you think King and Queen St in Toronto have that we "used to have", or when we use to have it just as I'm confused how a steady stream of cars provides a better "pedestrian experience" than clumps of cars followed by empty streets. It's the most "complete" street in Hamilton so I'm not sure what fantasy you expect to have happen with Main. What ever it is, I'd suggest you move now because you're going to be disappointed with that as well.

The most complete street in Hamilton? Hilarious! It's so complete that cyclists are told to dismount and take an alternate route.

Before the BIA wasted their time with that press release, someone should have told them that ScreenCarp has already decided how King and Main should function.

I would be happy if the rest of council just let those wards that want to start making changes (e.g. 1 and 2) get on with it, for example by using the area weighting money, instead of debating the changes to death and worrying about how their residents will react to changes in other wards.

Council doesn't tend to micro-manage urban design changes in Stoney Creek, Winona or Ancaster. They should give local residents and businesses the benefit of the doubt that they might actually know what will work in their own neighbourhoods!

Besides, "carping on" is part of building change: look at the restart of heritage designations by council and Cannon street bike lane. And many of the people contributing to this site are also working on the ground through neighbourhood associations, with their councillor and with participatory budgeting to drive changes at street level.

What are you doing?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-05-29 10:29:35

Wait a minute, I've felt that tingle of condescension before. Oh God, is mytownstoneyhallscreek back with a new nickname?

One small quibble: A better use for back alleys may be for deliveries only, with the street on which the businesses front being car-free. That was the highly successful formula for making Yonge Street in Toronto car-free in the 1970's. As well as, of course, a gazillion highly successful car-free streets in Japan and Europe today.

Allowing cut-through "rat-running" car traffic through downtown is profoundly disfunctional and highly dangerous.

As we have seen from the Medical Officer of Health data recently posted on RTH, 93 people are killed in Hamilton every year because they are poisoned by the lethal air pollution put out by car drivers. An additional 395 people in Hamilton are poisoned by car drivers every year and injured so seriously they have to be hospitalized.

Children, the elderly and hospital patients are particularly vulnerable to being poisoned by car drivers. Every year in Hamilton children suffer 15,510 asthma symptom days and an additional 279 children suffer acute bronchitis attacks due to being poisoned by car drivers. Health care costs due to people being poisoned by car drivers are $511 million every year in Hamilton.

Mode shift away from car driving by making walking, cycling and public transit the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of travelling from A to B eliminates these lethal poisons and saves lives, injuries, the suffering of sick children and serious health-care costs.

Due to its high concentration of people, downtown Hamilton should be a high priority area for eliminating cancer poisoning of its population by effective mode shift policies.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-05-29 13:07:54

Should that same person tell them that you've probably already decided as well?

The IV BIA thinks King Street is "soul sucking"? That's funny! I thought it was "an urban eclectic village complete with destination food retailers and food services as well as businesses that appeal to the growing local residential population nearby." You'll have to tell Denninger's and the Black Forest Inn that they're not viable businesses. I'm sure they'll be disappointed. I've only just discovered Stax Chicken and Waffles! I'm going to be so sad when they close because the cars only go one way and that makes the area "hostile to any form of vibrant urban life."

I think the quoted release is pretty nervy considering how much money has been poured into their area in the past 15 years and how much it has uplifted the area. Common sense is to count your blessings and don't get greedy. Or perhaps they're jealous of the so much more successful two way BIA's such as Ottawa Street or Concession.

I stand behind my statement. If you think International Village is "hostile to any form of vibrant urban life" and "soul sucking" you should ask yourself why you're still living in a city that you hate.

nope. They don't need to hear a word from me. Every world-renowned urban development expert who has visited Hamilton the past 2 decades has said it loud and clear. The same consultant firm who worked on our one-way freeway plan in the 50's is still in business, and consults on bringing life back to downtowns with safe, pedestrian oriented streets, LRT, balanced transpo options etc. But you already know all this....

Hamilton is the way it is because too many people only care about themselves and nothing else. They are happy to pay sky-high taxes instead of urging city hall to foster a business friendly climate, and revitalization of the lower city. There's no shortage of selfishness, entitlement and zero vision in this town.

nope. I didn't. That's why I rely on the braintrust that is the regular contributors here to inform me of things.

No probs...here you go. This should help:

https://www.raisethehammer.org/articles/...

Thanks! You're the best! Lots of boring reading material to help me get to sleep at night. Actually, not that it's boring...just mostly a repeat of previous articles...so gets a bit monotonous.

Aren't you the same guy who recently claimed to be a traffic engineer? For everyone's sake I sure hope you're close to retirement.

Naw, I'll be around for a while...trying to find the right balance for all road users.

Just to reiterate....I'm not against complete streets, better cycling facilities, pedestrian crossing improvements, etc... I'm just saying that it's about striking the right balance. What we have isn't perfect...don't kid yourself into thinking that I think that way...but also a 180 shift might be a bit far...at least for now. Changing the modal split would be great, but it takes time...and unfortunately it's not a "if you build it, they will come" type of situation (at least in my opinion). There will always be cars...like it or not...and it's incumbent that those road users have efficient movements through corridors as well.

You're not against complete streets, you just speak out against every step taken to make our streets a bit more complete. I'm starting to understand why nothing ever changes in this city.

So you're reiterating that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't a clue what "striking the right balance" means because if you did you'd realize that advocating for these modest changes (as many do on RTH) is nowhere near a 180° shift, it's barely a 15° one. You're just another concern troll that doesn't want to give an inch.

Who said anything about eliminating cars durand(not likely)er?

I don't get it, you want users of this site to help you with information, and then when it's provided you reject it because it's too boring?

And how can things simultaneously be repetitive to you, if you claim not to know them and want someone to explain it all to you?

I hope you're not really a traffic engineer. A little skeptical on that one.

Do you ever link to anything outside of this site? "Here are some more things I've said that prove my point". Umm...no, it doesn't work that way.

Each of those articles has links to original sources. The articles provide the context. A long list of original sources is not helpful by itself, as you surely understand.

It DOES work that way, at least in science and the evidence-based research world if not in yours. Your first duty is to read the articles, and the original sources. If you don't feel like it, don't expect others to re-do the work for you each time the topic is raised again.

It does get extremely tedious to have to repeat the same arguments and provide the same evidence over and over to those who can't bother to read what has already been written and archived. That's why journals provide access to back issues, and that is what is done here on RTH!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-05-30 11:53:53

Oh no...I assure you I live in Durand.

Really? Some people want to close Herkimer Steet and place bollards in the middle of it? That's not a 180º shift?

AMEN!

Why don't you reveal yourself? You might be my neighbour? Have you thought about helping out with DNA?

A 180 degree shift might imply banning cars or something. That's not what we're asking for. Just slightly smarter road design. Any change at all is seen as way too drastic, and treated way overblown.

I love the term troll..it's so endearing. Just because I don't agree with everything that is stated here doesn't mean i'm a troll that doesn't want to give an inch. It means I'd like to have a discussion about these items. But every article on here in posted in a "holier than though" tone, and everyone that disagrees is treated like an outcast. Be reasonable people!

Don't be obtuse: we're talking about this article, not the suggestions of one commenter.

Are you actually a qualified (and possibly even employed) traffic engineer as you have claimed? The DNA could use your advice, since you clearly disagree with everything they've done for the past 40 years regarding the streets!

Especially as you seem so keen on criticizing and giving advice.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-05-30 12:07:51

It is possible that we will soon know just how many people who actually live there favour opening up Herkimer Street by eliminating rat-running. This is because they may be voting for it on the Participatory Budget ballot.

I write this because I am a Budget Delegate for Ward 2, and this proposal is one of the proposals that has gone through the community consultation process and is now (sigh...) in the hands of City staff.

There is a difference between a run of the mill "troll" and a "concern troll", which you obviously are. You mask (rather poorly) the fact that you don't want any progress made in moving away from the status quo (even a tiny amount) under a guise of reasoned debate, but you offer anything but. The 180° comment is proof positive of that.

You've just described so many articles on this site.

Entitled -> Bikes

Sky high taxes -> Massive road changes

Business friendly climate -> No Trucks

Revitalize the Lower City -> Already well under way despite it all

Vision -> We need to do what other city's are doing

I agree there's no shortage of selfishness, entitlement and zero vision around here.

Comment edited by ScreenCarp on 2014-05-30 14:31:51

Wow you must be a serious masochist to even sustain the muscle power in your hands to manage to type what you do.

Yes, I'm a member. I sat near you at the AGM last fall at City Hall as you complained about everything.

Where's the proof that I disagree with everything they've done in the past 40 years?!?!?!

Comment edited by durander on 2014-05-30 14:57:02

What other arterial should people use to to James Mountain Road? You bought your house on an arterial road...get over it!

Yeah, the folks in International Village are just drowning in blessings.

For the amount of public money invested in the area, yes they are. International Village today looks completely different than it did in the '90's when it was four lanes and few stop lights. Traffic has been calmed, lights slowed to the point traffic does not "roar" through the area anymore. No one is driving through International Village at high speeds, it's impossible even in light traffic because the lights won't let you. Since you like history, a lot of folks who poured their hearts into their small businesses lost everything because the endless street improvements disrupted things so much they could never recover. You would happily throw them back into that mess simply because you want half of the cars to travel the other direction.

you should ask yourself why you're still living in a city that you hate.

Stop doing this. Just stop.

Sorry but no. I'm tired of the Hamilton bashing that goes on on this site. Civic engagement is one thing, but seeing IV as "soul sucking" and "hostile to any form of vibrant urban life" simply because the cars only go one way is obviously looking at it through a cracked lens. The only "civic engagement" you seem want is that which agrees with your ideology.

If you hate Hamilton so much, move. Stop bringing those of us who love it down. Stop calling us "trolls" because we like it here. Stop disparaging the great strides we've made in the core because it doesn't fit into your narrow view.

Arterials can be two way. They've tried that someplace called "everywhere else". Besides, we have King/Main/Cannon to carry huge bulk amounts of traffic, we don't need to screw up local residential neighbourhood streets too.

Wont have huge King and Main if LRT comes in

People should use Herkimer. There are plenty of ways to do so. These include walking, cycling and public transportation.

It is just simply not necessary to launch a lethal poison attack upon a residential neighbourhood. Lethal poisons to which children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-05-30 18:10:46

LRT does not affect Main, only King. And we will still have 3 live lanes of Cannon, which is why they put it on King - so there's still one massive eastbound corridor and one massive westbound corridor.

King is 5 lanes west of Locke. LRT takes two lanes. That means the Eastbound Cannon->Queen->King corridor will still be 3 lanes for most of its length, with the 2-lane break from Cannon/Queen to King/Locke. That's still solid 1-way throughput.

And besides, an arterial does not cease to be an arterial when it becomes two-way. Herkimer and Charlton would function just fine as two-way. That would slightly calm down traffic and make it more human-friendly, and would still allow drivers plenty of freedom there... more even. There may be some super-narrow areas of Charlton that are worth keeping 1-way for street-side parking, but 1-way should be the exception and not the rule.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-05-30 18:12:17

Take a virtual tour down this street in St. Remy, France.

International Village could look something like that! I don't see one-way streets as being synonymous with fast and dangerous streets. I see one-way streets with synchronized lights that force drivers to go at high speeds to avoid a red light as the problem.

Is the problem with one-way streets really the fact that all cars are moving in the same direction, or is the push for two-way streets based on the observation that two-way streets are less efficient for cars, and therefore speeds are lowered due to gridlock? If it's calmer traffic we want, can't we have efficient, one-way streets with low speed limits? As an occasional driver, I'd rather cruise slowly and avoid red lights altogether than have to deal with stop-and-go, two-way traffic. As an occasional pedestrian, I find it convenient to cross a street mid-block when there's regular breaks in traffic and I don't have to worry about cars coming from two directions.

I had dinner at a restaurant on King St between Caroline and Hess yesterday during rush hour. We had a window seat. The lull in traffic between red lights was a nice, peaceful break from the roar of speeding cars that was there the rest of the time. I'm glad the bus lane added a buffer. If the synchronization of the lights was slowed down to only allow a speed of 30 or 40km/h, the roar would be diminished, there would not be the same frustrating gridlock that you get with two-way traffic (ie James and John near St. Joe's), and there would still be the peaceful lull which is a safe time to Jaywalk. If cars are riding a wave of green lights, they're not idling much which is better for fuel efficiency and air quality too.

Am I missing something here? Maybe someone could write an article (or point me to one already written) that explains how, if at all, the benefit of two-way streets goes beyond just slower traffic (which one-way streets can accomplish along with other benefits that can't be had with two-way streets).

Comment edited by Jeremy_S on 2014-05-30 20:15:56

I have NO doubt he/she is a traffic engineer. Zero doubt.

great observations. I've written about this before in reference to Portland and Montreal. Fantastic, complete one-way streets in those cities.

Our problems are absolutely the timed lights and crazy restrictions at city hall on sidewalk patios. I suspect that wonderful neighbourhood in France sees a lot more consistent traffic than King in the IV, making it easier to keep traffic slow. I've always felt the International Village, and King West where you ate yesterday could be like this:

http://goo.gl/Wj7k3C

And this: https://www.activetrans.org/sites/defaul...

Plants tons of large street trees, and get rid of the metal grates that keep them small and withered. Deprogram the lights and encourage (not restrict) businesses from bringing patios right to the sidewalk edge along with other displays, bike racks etc.....

One way streets don't have to be horrible, but we do them 100% wrong because we're addicted to high speed traffic.

One of the great benefits of two-way King however is ease of access for west end/Dundas customers heading downtown. Shop-keepers brought this up decades ago when the conversion first happened. All of the customer base west of the core is now whisked past the core on Main and can't come east on King to shop.

One only needs to look at King/Queen/College in TO to see how versatile and excellent retail streets like this function as two-way with slower traffic and curb parking. If they can do it with their millions of people, surely we can.

The patio idea is great, and these are great examples of one way streets. I think when LRT arrives, we should just block it off to car traffic and make it a pedestrian/bike/LRT mall. I think the slower traffic has already made the IV a gateway to downtown and really breaks the 20 minutes across the city mold. It often takes me 20 minutes to get from Victoria to James alone, so already it's not for through traffic. Through traffic can bypass north on Cannon, South along Hunter and King will open up again at James and then Bay.

The best part about shoppers coming East from West/Dundas is the parking that's easily accessible from Main Street. Main and King are only a block apart, as is King William (which is due to become two way). One of the "two way is better for retail" arguments stems from the expectation that folks will "cruise" the strip at slow enough speed to look in the windows and that they'll be able to access the stores easily. I think in these days of GPS folks know where they're going, so it's really convenient to drive down Main, park in a lot off of Main and walk the downtown. King and Main don't have to be two way in the core because they're so close.

One correction: I certainly didn't "complain about everything" (maybe you are confusing me with someone else). In response to the policeman's suggestion that the DNA could look into a 30km/h pilot in the Durand, I reminded him that Council had imposed a 5-year moratorium on other 30km/h zones when they approved the one in the North End.

Why don't you just tell me who you are instead of hiding behind a pseudonym? If you are really interested in contributing to the discussion (at least 142 comments on RTH alone), you should consider participating more actively in the DNA. Especially if you actually are a traffic engineer and are opposed to the DNA's traffic policies and projects which have been consistent for 40 years! If you are shy about doing this publicly, you can email me or the DNA president.

It would also help you understand that the vast majority of Duranders, if not yourself, want complete streets and lower traffic speeds. Talking to people in person, rather than commenting anonymously, might be more illuminating. You could see if you can convince them in person that if they don't like high speed, dangerous traffic you should just live somewhere else. (Or maybe you would find this a bit too rude to say face to face.)

I didn't say "everything" I said everything regarding the streets.

Because the DNA has consistently supported traffic calming and two-way conversion, and now complete streets for its whole existence. Have a look at the 2002 Traffic Study. Traffic calming has always been a defining theme of the DNA, along with heritage preservation and promoting good urban design and public involvement in urban planning decisions.

Perhaps you have not fully represented your views, but the proof is in every comment you make opposed to these sorts of changes, certainly on minor arterials in the Durand (Bay, Herkimer, Charlton). In particular, you support the current high speeds on these roads, which the DNA does not. Your views are completely opposed to those of the DNA, and I've never heard anyone publicly make this case at any of the dozens of traffic meetings the DNA has hosted or attended in the last 14 years.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-06-01 10:52:17

From Chapter 10 of 'Durand: a neighbourhood reclaimed' which details the efforts of the DNA, starting in 1976 to calm traffic, convert the streets to two-way and reduce the speed limit to 20mph!

In 1976 residents of the Durand and adjacent Kirkendall neighbourhoods made a joint plea to the City: "We are all feeling the increasing pressure of heavy unremitting through traffic with the noise, pollution and safety problems that come with it ... We would like the City to assist us in carrying out a careful review of the traffic and transportation policies in our neighbourhoods". The request was ignored.

[Colin Vaughn, a Toronto alderman] provided the Association's annual meeting with a list of deterrents to excessive traffic: narrowing the roadway, installing stop signs at most intersections, diverting traffic by turning most of the residential streets into a maze and positioning obstacles such as speed bumps. His most radical suggestion was for removal of one-way streets.

The Durand Neighbourhood Association proposed interrupting one particularly favoured morning rush hour route by prohibiting motorists descending the Escarpment from filtering through the neighbourhood's residential streets. This request was repeatedly rejected, as was a suggestion to impose a 20-miles-an-hour speed limit on most streets within Durand.

The Traffic Department's obstinate defence of the status quo bred increasing resentment. Nearly every change recommended by citizens, however, minor seemed to spawn an avalanche of reasons why they could not be implemented.

And so it continues: a forty year fight for safe streets in Durand.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-06-01 12:52:02

- jason sez: "great observations. I've written about this before in reference to Portland and Montreal. Fantastic, complete one-way streets in those cities."
-- We get it. You love Portland. You're free to move back any time. You seem to want us to be followers, not leaders.

- jason sez: "Our problems are absolutely the timed lights and crazy restrictions at city hall on sidewalk patios. I suspect that wonderful neighbourhood in France sees a lot more consistent traffic than King in the IV, making it easier to keep traffic slow. I've always felt the International Village, and King West where you ate yesterday could be like this:"
--I thought the problem was one-ways and all the lanes? Now it's the timed lights and inability to impede the sidewalks?

- jason sez: "Plants tons of large street trees, and get rid of the metal grates that keep them small and withered. Deprogram the lights and encourage (not restrict) businesses from bringing patios right to the sidewalk edge along with other displays, bike racks etc....."
-- Now the problem is metal grates? Maybe it's the abuse the trees get from passers-by, and/or lack of care from city arborists? Again, the issue isn't synchronized lights or lack of patio space.

- jason sez: "One way streets don't have to be horrible, but we do them 100% wrong because we're addicted to high speed traffic."
-- I thought they were horrible which is why you want them converted? Now it's that they move too quickly? Make up your mind, man!

- jason sez: "One of the great benefits of two-way King however is ease of access for west end/Dundas customers heading downtown. Shop-keepers brought this up decades ago when the conversion first happened. All of the customer base west of the core is now whisked past the core on Main and can't come east on King to shop."
-- Are there a lot of people heading from the west end and Dundas coming downtown? My family is from the west end and haven't been downtown in years. A number of friends also live in Dundas, and they don't come downtown unless they're visiting me. Their families don't come downtown. Who is coming from the suburbs to visit the core?

- jason sez: "One only needs to look at King/Queen/College in TO to see how versatile and excellent retail streets like this function as two-way with slower traffic and curb parking. If they can do it with their millions of people, surely we can."
-- Again, let's be followers, not leaders. I've been to those streets, and recently, too. There's lots of traffic zipping around, including streetcars. What's your point? Millions of people don't live on those streets, and those in your "millions" don't visit those streets daily, weekly, or even monthly. A coworker lives right downtown on College st. She doesn't visit any of these shops as they don't carry clothing, food, or items she'd purchase. Is she the minority?

So we're somehow leaders because we have freeways running through our urban centre? Please go back to your troll-hole.

Just had my first experience traveling downtown on King.

I live in Westdale and rarely travel downtown past John Street. Had to go to the Catholic Children's Aid Society today.

It took me 25 minutes to get from Wellington and King to Dundurn and King. Google Maps says that is 2.5 kms. Average speed was just over walking speed, but then I hit every light until Queen. Literally just happened. Left the CCAS at 1:30. Traffic seemed normal until Wellington(ish)

Two right lanes empty from John to Bay.

South (left) lane on King full of buses from John to the Convention Centre effectively reducing the traffic for cars on King to one lane.

Will not do that again.

(Water through a pipe man. Narrow the pipe down at one spot and water can't get through.)

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2014-06-02 14:24:19

How many children have been killed in Hamilton due to one way streets?

I don't mean to be snide but I was taught that a million times zero is zero.

"Will someone please think of the children?" Helen Lovejoy

You're driving through the centre of downtown to go somewhere. Name any successful city anywhere where you do that. Where you take a shortcut through the centre of town.

Anyhow, next time take Cannon for westbound traffic.

"It took me 25 minutes to get from Wellington and King to Dundurn and King" dont believe you.

Will do, for sure. And I don't lie.

(Never considered it a shortcut though before. Sanford and King is hardly cross town from Dundurn - its only about 3.5 kms. However I certainly now consider it a long cut ; ) )

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2014-06-02 15:16:23

Hey red mike, you Irish, Nordic or just a commie? Sorry, shouldn't bait the troll.

One post a troll does not make.

Well traditionally speaking, "Main Street" has always been the main street through town. I mean King Street is Highway 8. But as it was pointed out, this trip was from Sanford to Dundurn, not really through town.

Your link is not relevant. In fact, it's a link to your own article. Just provide the direct link next time. It is:

journal.cpha. ca/index.php/cjph/ article/view/185/185

Not to mention the link is only related to injuries, not deaths.

Next time, please answer the question, it'd be appreciated.

I can believe it. Try going downtown in rush hour sometime! I have had to go through the core a lot lately thanks to the KEnilworth access being closed, and it's a nightmare. So, maybe this is just due to the closed mountain access, but it certainly hasn't made me think that I should stop and run into a store to shop, eat, etc.

Oh because that makes it better! We should only care about how disgustingly unsafe our roads are only if children are actually dying.

From another part of this blog:

According to the New York City Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan, major two-way streets account for 47% of pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan but only make up 12% of the road network.

Those numbers are useless without context. What percentage of the fatalities occurred on all major streets, and what portion of the road network do those streets represent? Do major two-way and one-way streets have the same density of pedestrian activity?

The report in the link doesn't address these questions directly, but here is an interesting hint:

Arterial streets account for ~60% of pedestrian fatalities but only 15% of the road network

Which is to say that most of the arterial streets are two-way, not one-way. So it's no surprise that 78% of the fatalities occurred on the 80% of the major arteries which are two-way, no?

Comment edited by moylek on 2014-06-03 07:32:40

Sorry to have inserted death but that usually is the most serious issue.

Pedestrians are involved in between 200-260 accidents a year in Hamilton. I would guess that a large number of these would be adults.

Of those incidents, 40-60 result in serious injuries.

Divide that by age, then figure out what number occurred on non arterial one way streets and then ask what number were "caused" by one way streets and you will end up with a miniscule number.

The point being that you lose power in your arguments to eliminate one why streets by using the Lovejoy approach.

I would stick with the "its better for business" approach because money talks.

Oh good, now the concern troll is advising us on how to make the case for something he opposes.

Sorry to keep posting on the troll issue, but how is that a concern troll. I see it as almost sarcasm. As in, "I don't agree with you but if I were you I would say ...." I see nothing in Charlesball's posts that suggests fake support just as in when he claimed Redmikes' only comment was a troll comment. Some people here are pretty quick to label people trolls.

Maybe if Ballsup had the ... he could address the more salient point of the post as in how a minimal statistical figure leads to a significant financial and practical change. Ok ballsup - away you go.

Comment edited by notlloyd on 2014-06-03 21:48:21

I found this elsewhere in the blog. Maybe Ballsup can comment.

Good points. A study of traffic statistics in Hamilton from 1978-1994 concluded a child was 2.5 times more likely to be hit by a car on a one-way street. Of course, those numbers are useless without context. What percentage of the fatalities occurred on all major streets, and what portion of the road network do those streets represent? Do major two-way and one-way streets have the same density of pedestrian activity? Anybody can cherry pick a vague study that supports their view.

However, I also cited a very specific before/after analysis of Park Avenue Tunnel and 33rd Street. When the tunnel had two-way flow, the intersection was one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, averaging 12 pedestrian crashes per year. After the conversion to one-way, the pedestrian accidents dropped to zero, and total injury accidents dropped by 74%. NYC fully understands the safety benefits of one-way streets.

One-way streets are safer for pedestrians. Every before/after safety analysis that I've read on this topic would support that claim. I challenge you to find a before/after safety analysis that concludes two-way streets are actually safer for pedestrians.

Correlation is not causation.

From the study "Children who spend time downtown therefore are exposed to more multi-laned one-way street thoroughfares. Also, poorer kids are more likely to walk to school and play on the streets and so they are exposed to more street crossings and vehicles. Finally there is higher volume of traffic on one-way streets in Hamilton (documented as a 10 to 50% increase after the change), a variable associated with up to a 13-fold increase in injury risk...Unfortunately, our inability to adjust for many of these variables limits our ability to isolate the responsible factor which increases the risk on Hamilton's one-way streets."

I have a theory. We have live lanes of traffic inches away from narrow sidewalks. If a child, senior or an inebriated person falls down or stumbles off the curb, they're in live traffic. I often see folks use the outside lanes as passing lanes, I expect because they're used to passing on the right. This is the issue with our streets, how close pedestrians are to live traffic. If council converts Main to two way, we're going to get something that looks like Guelph line, or Upper James with two lanes and a centre turning lane. We're going to be even worse off.

It's much cheaper, easier and faster to protect the sidewalk on our current one way streets with protected bike lanes and 24 hour street parking, and still have the flexibility for future growth. Hopefully, Cannon will be a model for future bike lanes. That being said, I'm not against two way conversions. I'm ok with all of the current planned conversions, and think Wentworth and North Wellington should be moved ahead. I'd also like to see my local streets converted to one way with bike lanes, trees and 24 hour parking, simply because they're two narrow to function as two way, but too wide for one way. For what ever reason, these conversations seem to always end up including every street and focusing on King and Main Downtown.

By IRC22 (registered) | Posted June 04, 2014 at 00:00:34

Listed are some before/after safety studies indicating one-way streets are safer for pedestrians than two-way streets.

PORTLAND, OR (1949): Portland converted most of their downtown two-way streets to one-way streets in the late 1940’s. After conversion, vehicle accidents decreased from 6,127 to 3,361 (-45.1%). The number of pedestrian accidents decreased from 237 to 126 (-46.8%). Volume of traffic in downtown increased from 12,734 to 16,708 vehicles (+31.2%) and average speeds increased from 7.9 mph to 14.2 mph (+79.7%).

CINCINNATI, OH (1975): Cincinatti converted Vine Street between Central Parkway and Mc Micken Ave. from two-way operation to one-way in 1975. After conversion, vehicle accidents decreased from 212 to 128 (-39.6%). The number of pedestrian accidents decreased from 16.6 to 13 (-21.7%). Volume of traffic increased from 24,520 to 28,025 (+14.3%).

NEW YORK CITY, NY (2008): The Park Avenue Tunnel at 33rd Street was one of the top pedestrian crash locations in the city from 1996-2007, averaging 12 pedestrian crashes per year. The city converted the tunnel to one-way operation in 2008 and the intersection saw a dramatic drop in both pedestrian injury crashes (100%) and all injury crashes (74%).

Cities that have converted one-way streets to two-way streets have seen a dramatic rise in pedestrian related crashes:

DENVER, CO (1986): Denver converted several one-way couplets to two-way streets in 1986. After conversion, the vehicle accident rates at intersections increased 37.6% while the mid-block accident rate increased 80.5%.

LUBBOCK, TX (1995): Lubbock converted a couple of downtown one-way streets to two-way in 1995. After conversion, total accidents increased by 41.6%

CINCINNATI, OH (1999): Cincinatti converted Vine Street to two-way operation in 1999. After conversion, vehicle accidents increased from 75.9 to 164 (+116%). Pedestrian accidents increased from 5.9 to 12 (+103%). Volume of traffic increased from 30,900 to 35,600 (+15.2%) and the average speed decreased from 18.0 to 12.4 (-31.1%).

ALBEQUERQUE, NM (1999-2003): Albequerque converted most of their downtown one-way streets to two-way streets between 1999-2003 (62 blocks total). After conversion, vehicle accidents increased from 778 to 824 (+5.9%). Pedestrian accidents increased from 14 to 26 (+85.7%). Bicycle accidents increased from 5 to 12 (+148%). Volume of traffic decreased from 359,430 to 284,180 (-20.9%).

Sources: City of Denver, One-Way Street Monitoring Study, Phase 1 Conversion Report, January 1990.

City of Lubbock, Main and 10th Street Accident Analysis, Before/After Study, 1998

City of Cincinnati, Over-the-Rhine/Vine Street Circulation Study, February 2003.

NYC DOT, The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan, August 2010.