Transportation

MacNab to go Two-Way from Cannon to Burlington

By RTH Staff
Published May 30, 2013

The City of Hamilton just issued a news release announcing that MacNab Street North will be permanently converted to two-way between Cannon Street and Burlington Street on between June 3 and June 18.

MacNab Street North is currently two-way between York Boulevard and Cannon, where it switches to one-way northbound. York at MacNab was converted to two-way in December 2010, along with Park Street North between York and Cannon.

MacNab was identified for two-way conversion in the 2001 Downtown Transportation Master Plan, and the conversion was prioritized under the North End Traffic Management Study, which will also establish a 30 km/h speed limit on all North End streets except for James Street North and Burlington Street.

The conversion will entail a new traffic light on Cannon and new stop signs along MacNab. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are advised to use extra caution after the conversion.

27 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted May 30, 2013 at 09:53:15

Finaly there on there wqy to the East end Victoria Wehtworth Sanford Sherman make them all like Gage

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 30, 2013 at 10:04:15

Beautiful. New light at Cannon is long-overdue. This is a great cycling route from downtown to the waterfront that has been begging to go two-way forever. Good news.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted May 30, 2013 at 10:22:23

chip chip chip

Slowly getting there.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By theninjasquad (registered) - website | Posted May 30, 2013 at 12:04:39

Of course there's going to be more stop signs sigh. That route will be great for cycling but a pain with all the stops. I wish we could be a but more creative with traffic calming measures and not have stop signs all over the place.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 30, 2013 at 12:11:52 in reply to Comment 89169

Or we could implement the Idaho stop.

Permalink | Context

By theninjasquad (registered) - website | Posted May 30, 2013 at 12:36:26 in reply to Comment 89170

Yes that would be ideal! But the attempt to do so last year did not go too well so I dont have high hopes for that one.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted May 30, 2013 at 12:18:42 in reply to Comment 89170

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted May 30, 2013 at 13:48:43

This is great. I live on MacNab between Cannon and Barton and ride a bicycle daily, usually heading south from my house. Finally I can do this legally without having to circle a whole block.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted May 30, 2013 at 20:41:43

Great news! Now on to the other 100 streets that need converting...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 10:56:13

For the love of God!

Is this what we pay these people for? This conversion won't make any difference to the dt. Lets focus on things that will have an impact - converting King and Main.

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 13:32:26 in reply to Comment 89188

I see your point, but this will help better connect downtown with the waterfront, even if the effect is minor.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 11:08:08 in reply to Comment 89188

It will make a difference to this street, the many people who live on it, and the drivers and cyclists who will now have a much easier time navigating the area. That's how you make downtown liveable - one street at a time.

While I am in full agreement that converting King and Main is essential, I find your suggestion that we can't proceed with any smaller, cheaper, easier conversions until they're done, strange to say the least. Most of the concern trolls around here suggest the opposite - tip toe around quietly changing the small stuff while trying not to disturb the sleeping giants of King and Main. One might be tempted to conclude that the concern trolls don't want to see any conversions at all!

Comment edited by highwater on 2013-05-31 11:10:10

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 12:31:41 in reply to Comment 89189

At this pace the King and Main will be two-way by 2075. I don't want to wait that long. Maybe you do. Lets get on with the real changes needed already and stop wasting time. And money.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 21:25:49 in reply to Comment 89195

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By U MAD BRO (anonymous) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 13:45:11 in reply to Comment 89195

Baby steps are still better then no steps at all. No need to be a hater.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 11:44:20

I understand the frustration with us only converting small side streets once every gazillion years, but this is still a good news story. This is a fantastic cycling route from the centre of downtown up to the waterfront. And is a family-filled neighbourhood. And adding a stop-light on the 403 extension we call Cannon is very needed.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted June 03, 2013 at 23:29:25 in reply to Comment 89193

There's already a stop-light at MacNab and Cannon, but i agree with the point you are making ... and MacNabb is a great cycling route from the Farmer's Market/Central Library to the Waterfront. I hope the conversion works out well and improves the functionality for cyclists ... it could, but it's not a given the way things seem to work here.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted May 31, 2013 at 21:06:32 in reply to Comment 89193

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 01, 2013 at 17:29:32 in reply to Comment 89212

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted June 01, 2013 at 17:50:07 in reply to Comment 89237

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By clarify pls (anonymous) | Posted June 01, 2013 at 18:26:44 in reply to Comment 89238

Can you point out where anyone on this page called you a concern troll? Seems to me like you're self-identifying.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted June 01, 2013 at 18:31:22 in reply to Comment 89241

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted June 01, 2013 at 18:29:34 in reply to Comment 89241

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rrrandy (registered) - website | Posted June 01, 2013 at 14:08:07

I hope there is a contra flow bike lane at the northern end to connect to Guise Street at the waterfront trail, for southbound cycling journeys

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted June 02, 2013 at 08:55:19 in reply to Comment 89234

there probably will be....after 7 years of studies and pilot projects.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-AlanWhittle (registered) - website | Posted June 02, 2013 at 09:41:19

I live on the mountain. There are very few one-way streets. I don't go downtown because of the confusing maze of one-way streets. After all, all the present streets were two-way when they were originally designed, then switched to one-way over-night. If two-way conversion continues, I might go downtown more, spend some money. Everything you could possibly need is on the mountain and an abundance of free parking. Downtown parking is expensive, many lots are private, closed to the public. The parking meters don't even take swipe cards, like everyone wanders around with a pocket full of Loonies and Toonies. When I go to the Doctors on Young Street, I take the Upper Wellington bus, a minutes walk from my house, there and back. Plus the time to bus downtown and back. Takes more time, but is less costly that driving and trying to find a parking spot close to the doctors office. Being retired, I have more time to waste, so taking public transportation is always an entertaining experience as the bus stops and starts frequently to pick up passengers. Everyone who pays property taxes pays a portion of the costs of public transportation, even if they rarely use it. Plus if they do use it they pay the going rate, no free ride unless you have a real, doctor approved disability. Another problem is the amount and size of good you can physically carry, as opposed to having a car with a trunk or a Van. Another problem is people riding electric scooters, they are like small cars now. Anyone can buy them and drive them around. They should pay the fare, as they take up twice as much room as a person. Personally, everyone should pay the same, no matter as public transportation should not be a charity, like it seems to be now. I also do as much walking as possible as there are many, many retail stores within walking distance of my house. Sometimes the Van sits for days in the driveway. That's the advantage of owning a car, instant transportation on demand, if you can afford it. Hard to beat that with public transportation. That is the dilemma faced by public transportation. Car manufacturing is a big part of our economy, so getting rid of cars is a noble idea that will never happen.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RobF (registered) | Posted June 03, 2013 at 23:18:26

I'm cautiously optimistic about converting the street to two-way. I use it in its present form as a cyclist taking my daughter to and from her daycare behind the big church on James North. I realize that technically i'm breaking the rules riding south each morning up MacNabb from the North End, so the conversion is good in that regard.

But the main reason i ride on MacNabb is because it is quiet and in its present form fairly wide ... i can ride at least a door length away from parked cars. Cycling in this town feels dangerous enough in most places without having a 3 year-old strapped in kids' seat behind you, but i have found this route well within my comfort zone. And she and I enjoy the ride, to be honest.

I haven't seen the plans yet, but i hope they consider dedicating two-way bike-lane space on the opposite side from street parking for cars. Otherwise, i may find this less of an improvement and more of a detriment as a cyclist. I like James North as a pedestrian, but you couldn't pay me to cycle on it.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds