Raise the Hammer

What a great contribution to the discussion. Looking forward to hearing more, Sarah.

Great read!!! Your conclusion is right on the money - I just think its the traffic engineers, not the city planners who need to take heed. City planners already know and preach what you just wrote (I know because I am one). The issue is that the message is lost between the planner and the engineer, who implement road improvement projects to "their standards" with the simple goal of avoiding congestion as you note.

York Boulevard is a perfect example (and huge disappointment). Planners prepared a great plan, with public consultation and great visual presentations to the public. But none of what you saw in those presentations was implemented beyond an enhanced curb, sidewalk, and decorative streetlighting project - which the engineers tend to see as "good enough". And of course, the "two-way in name only" design - which is anything but "good enough".

since you work with them JM, can give a rough estimate of the percentage of traffic planners that live in the lower city ? I think its safe to say that ones that don't simply see the lower city as a way to get to work.

sorry i should have been more clear... i am a planner, but not a Hamilton planner. sadly, i have to commute out of the city for work....

BUT, in response to your comment i can confidently put money on the idea that little to no traffic engineers actually live in the lower city!

Well I for one am sorry you have to commute ... hopefully you will find a position closer to home soon.

Thanks for your reply it unfortunately it only confirmed what i had assumed.

Comment edited by rednic on 2012-05-25 00:33:39

I just commented in another article, what can we do to make this happen? It's pretty obvious what we need to do so how do we get the foot dragging councillors and transportation engineers on board??

"I just commented in another article, what can we do to make this happen?"

Not that anyone here wants to hear this, because it's not something that requires a hero (Richard Florida, Jane Jacobs) or a foundation or some saviour to come along...but it comes down to finally putting into play the one element of governance (whereas the developers and 'captains of industry' learned this many, many generations ago at their chair at the table) that has unquestionably not been sufficiently put into play or utilized to anywhere near its potential: residents.

Until this factor has reached the tipping point, attained critical mass, expect more heartbreak.

'Think outside the blog.'

Easy to say but what does that mean? Do I write my councillor, stand in front of city hall with a sign, lie down in the middle of main street - what I'm asking is, WHAT CAN I DO to get involved? Telling me I need to get involved doesn't really answer that.

With apologies to the author of this thread...

First off, I never said 'You need to get involved.' Although addressing those Hamiltonians beyond you, that's pretty much what I believe in.

So, from my perspective, what *I* believe in is that what you can do is see that neighbourhoods are energized, organized and mobilized.

Instead of taking up space here, I'm going to provide links. Sorry if that seems déclassé...

http://townhallshamilton.blogspot.com/2012/04/with-apologies-for-graphical-non.html

And this one deals with what I'm talking about from a fictional, future sense: http://townhallshamilton.blogspot.com/2012/03/regarding-federation-of-hamilton.html

Or, if you'd prefer the notions as framed by the editor of this site, Ryan McGreal:


"I'm inclined to think elections are overrated. If you vote for a candidate
once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn't
really matter much *who* you vote for. Once politicians get inside the
Bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing,
substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding.

As for what makes a good politician, I think it comes down more to
temperament and broad intellectual framework than to a specific set of
political beliefs.

A smart, patient, well-educated, open-minded, intellectually humble
councillor will generally follow a sensible process of getting informed
and land on a sensible policy that does a good job of leveraging the facts
of an issue and bridging the hopes, fears and contradictions of the
electorate and the various interest parties.

Here are some of the pitfalls that render councillors incompetent:

* Ambition - voting to maximize upward political mobility
* Megalomania - refusing to listen to others
* Anger - voting to punish enemies
* Fear - voting to avoid risks
* Partisanship - voting along party lines
* Dogmatism - voting along ideological lines
* Laziness - phoning in votes instead of engaging the issues
* Stubbornness - refusing to cooperate with others or compromise

Left isolated from the outside world, just about anyone will fall prey to
one or more of these pitfalls, which is why it's so important for citizens
to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b)
keep up their end of that engagement between elections."


The most organic, most sensible way to get people organized, energized and mobilized in their own governance, making it far more likely that theyr'e going to get their councillor's work at City Hall reflecting their own needs and intents, is by way of neighbourhood associations.

Does the neighbourhood in which you live have an NA?
Is it active?
Are you a member?
If there's an active NA in place, join. Contribute. Help make great changes happen amongst your neighbours, then help collaborate with your councillor to ensure these changes are put into action.
If there's no NA, consider starting one.
http://hamiltonneighbourhoodassociations.blogspot.com/

The world has changed a ton in the past sixteen years, since 1996 when the Hamilton and Burlington Society of Architects conducted their charrette concentrating on the downtown crisis. In fact, it's changed markedly since facebook and Twitter came on the scene in the past decade. Social media isn't the lone way forward to make possible what I'm talking about, but it's changed mindsets about engaging and networking, provided incredible tools to empower.

We need to begin acknowledging and embracing the fact that *we* are the way foeward, not some Wonder candidate or the notion of 'throwing the bastards out'.

And again, apologies to Ms Wayland for hijacking this thread.

"A smart, patient, well-educated, open-minded, intellectually humble councillor will generally follow a sensible process of getting informed and land on a sensible policy that does a good job of leveraging the facts of an issue and bridging the hopes, fears and contradictions of the electorate and the various interest parties. "

...and I don't believe any of the current council members possess these qualities (with the exception of maybe a few)

all they really care about are votes - and act in the fear of losing them

"all they really care about are votes - and act in the fear of losing them"

Thats what democracy is about, doing what your constituency demands or be defeated in an election. Until the voting community demands the changes you seek don't blame the politician for giving us what the voting community demands

simple.... vote out the entire current council!!! (and vote in a forward thinking one)

further to my above response, i should also note that as much as planners can provide great ideas, they do not (cannot) make decisions.........

only recommendations - which are presented to council

until council makes the right decisions, and provides direction to the engineers/public works nothing will change

"simple.... vote out the entire current council!!! (and vote in a forward thinking one)"

1) Congrats, you sound like Scott Thompson

2) Are voters REALLY that well equipped to discern between 'forward thinking' and 'not-forward thinking'? Considering that in general, almost two-thirds of voters cast ballots according to 'name recognition'?

3) http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/729636--what-if-there-were-no-re-elections

Better yet, re-establish the Board of Control whose main concern is the city as a whole, rather than rely on councilors who tend to have more parochial duties and responsibilities. Having councilors do both creates a conflicting dynamic that I think has hindered the city's progress which results in frustrated citizens parroting the adage about lack of vision and incompetence.

Boards of Control don't exist anywhere anymore in Canada for good reasons. Neither do, in general, 'at large' councillors. (Though where I am visiting right now, Norfolk, VA, have 5 wards and 2 'super-wards'; the councillors for the latter two are 'at-large' for half of the city.)

If councillors are doing their jobs correctly, then you shouldn't have to have 'at large' councillors. The problem ain't with having a ward system.

Simple math:

2010 Election had 353,317 registered voters, of which 141,174 bothered to vote.

Assuming that those trends play out more or less the same in 2014, and that there is a less fragmented ballot, basically a two-way race in every case, all we need to do is get 70,000 or so Hamiltonians to agree on something, and change will follow.

Then it's just down to carving out any systemic rot that is present outside of Council.

But that's not until 2014 (anyway my councilor Jason Farr seems to be in favor of complete streets). What do we do in the meantime??

just had a thought about your "lie down in the middle of main street" comment...

i good idea might be to organize a protest that marches "the wrong way" down main street (and of course, halts traffic)

could we get enough people? would that get councils attention???

@ JM Sounds good to me im in :)

what can we do - good question. Needs a plan. What about attacking the green wave? I think the green wave is at the heart of the one-way madness. As long as the incentive is so clearly there I and everyone else will drive these things. If the green wave could be cut to a reasonable speed, or even below, that would be a start. The purpose should not be that you can speed up to catch it, but that you will always get cut off after a few lights. Right now the system creates a huge incentive for those in the back to go way too fast and those in the middle to go too fast. This would be achievable because it could be an easy incremental change. I also don't think there can be any basis for creating an incentive to drive too fast.

Another angle is to frame the issue around liability. Where the green wave is especially dangerous is at busy intersections. Try timing the lights at Queen or Dundurn - once the flashing hand starts you need to bust a move to get across. This is added to the fact that drivers get a huge head start if there are no cars stopped in front of them. So where on a normal intersection you can count on getting 3-5 seconds of flashing hand before you need to worry, PLUS a second or two of solid hand, at these intersections if you're not across exactly by the time the hand stops, then you're in massive danger - because people are flying in. What needs to happen then is empirical evidence to be amassed of this phenomenon - standards of street crossing, how long people take normally, how long it takes on Queen v Dundurn v James v Wellington - and this to be presented to the city as a sort of business case for the danger they are knowingly putting people in. This will at least make a personal injury lawyer happy but it could also raise the issue to one of greater importance.

Another option might be to demand that the areas around schools be reduced to 30 or 40. This might also be achievable since the issue becomes children's safety and not just these more amorphous concerns raised here.

Inherent to the green wave is the "safety" created by the fact that people are too intimidated by the traffic to bother trying to cross at many of these intersections. Short of putting up signs telling people not to cross we couldn't be doing a better job of discouraging what should be a normal, everyday pedestrian activity.

Try reading http://www.i2i.org/articles/2-2005.pdf
They disagree with a lot of what you say. One way streets have repeatedly been shown to be safer than 2 way.

As I wrote in another thread a few days ago:

I would definitely not call the "No Two Ways about It" article (but link down as I write this) an "objective study". If memory serves me right, it was released by the Independence Institute, formerly called (I am not joking) the Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership. It doesn't seem to be accessible today, maybe due to all the hits from RTH readers!

I believe that paper actually cites an article by Andrew Dreschel against conversion of James and John to two-way, and I think he has since changed his mind on that one.

Here is a link to a blurb about the paper: http://transportation.i2i.org/2005/02/10...

Try reading something other than a thoroughly debunked Libertarian loon.

Comment edited by highwater on 2012-05-25 23:58:13

You may not like Mr. O'Toole. You may certainly not agree with him as is your right. But you can not debunk what he, and many others have to say. You readily and greedily agree with all the experts that agree with your particular point of view. That does not make it right or the only point of view. This province is drowning in debt and you want to spend a $1,000,000,000 on LRT in the city. You want to change our roads which are doing a good job of doing exactly what they are supposed to do, move vehicles to where they need to go. What for? Another John N? Another York? Silly Silly Silly

But you can not debunk what he, and many others have to say.

I don't need to. He's already been debunked by people far more knowledgeable than myself, and him for that matter.

And what others, BTW? Randal O'Toole is the only one I've ever seen trotted out by one-way defenders. If there are any legitimate urban geographers out there supporting one-ways, I'd be interested to see their work.

Comment edited by highwater on 2012-05-28 17:44:41

I agree with this but the Meadowlands is hell on earth.