Raise the Hammer

Outside of rush hour, that photo is pretty representative of traffic levels on Main St.: small bunches of fast moving cars (i.e. platoons) interspersed with empty blocks.

When you're actually in a car it feels like there's a reasonable amount of traffic (because you're in the platoon) but when you're walking you really notice the big gaps.

City data also shows that traffic has actually declined significantly on Main and King. And the traffic levels certainly do not justify 5 lanes (and the narrow unprotected sidewalks).

The escarpment is not a valid reason not make changes ... it is just one of a long list of excuses Hamiltonians like to give (escarpment, lake, winter, industrial, near Toronto, not dense, too dense, not historic, residents like to drive etc etc) for not making changes.

You might imagine that making it easier and more attractive to walk, and less easy to drive, would drive people away, but the whole point of the article is that the opposite actually happens. If you want people to spend time in a place, you need to make it a people place.

Of course, you could still argue that "No one goes there anymore because it is so crowded." ;)

All you need to do is think of other cities with equally (or more) constraining geography that have made big changes:

Vancouver: (downtown is a a peninsula surrounded by ocean on three sides), and the metro area is constrained by ocean, mountains and the US border.

Lyon: constrained by two rivers and a large hill.

San Francisco: again, constrained by the ocean.

New York: again, a peninsula

etc, etc.

In fact, if you look at these examples, strong geographical constraints are actually incentives to build denser "people" places well served by transit. If you're out on a plain in the middle of nowhere there is lots of space for roads!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-05-01 12:55:11