Raise the Hammer

Clearly, it's time to to increase our spending on roads!

I occasionally walk across the Frid street intersection. You always need to look as cars travel far too fast and won't slow down enough to stop in time. Not a fun road to cross, not totally surprised someone ended up being hit.

Every time I navigate that crossing I mutter to myself "it's just a matter of time".

With cars coming off of the 403 on a blind corner, it's like a lifesize game of frogger.

And that's just walking along Main (crossing Frid). If you want to cross Main itself from Frid to Dundurn Plaza it's a whole new level!

Sean or Ryan .. please go for office for Mayor im sure yous will be voted in ... you will have my vote hands down !

I feel the pain for the person that was struck by the car, I do. Being an avid city cycler for a number of years - and having been hit by a car twice, and a city bus once (all could have been avoided) - I truly do understand how much it hurts to be a cyclist in the city and how nice it would be to have friendlier roads. My problem with the attitude in this article would be the sense of entitlement. The reality here though is there are more people driving in cars. Cars are bigger and need more space. We need roads for our business in the city. Cars are bigger. Main point, cars are bigger.

The attitude of cyclists (and like I said, I know from experience) is that cars must be made to to yield to cyclists. Sure, I think that we should be able to share the road, but the onus is and should always be on the cyclist to be aware. Just like the onus should be on the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings when a cyclist (and vehicle) is coming.

Our mentality nowadays has shifted to the very entitled which - in my opinion - has led to the lack of use of common sense. If a person knows that they're coming up to an intersection that may have vehicles, that person may want to execute some common sense (and a bit of survival instinct) and may want to look around to make sure the situation is safe to cross. What they may not want to do is to walk in front of said vehicle. No matter if we're right in the situation or think we're right in the situation, the car is still bigger and will always win in that particular instance.

To blame the city or the infrastructure for this particular issue is just another way to shift the blame from the individual to something else. Maybe we should ask why the individual walked out onto the busy road, or didn't see the car coming or wasn't paying attention in the first place.

It's crazy as a driver too. I had to make that turn for the first time recently and given the speed of traffic on Main and the fact that you have to cross the recently-merged offramp to get into it, the speed at which it comes up can be startling.

It's seriously absurd design and the only reason we haven't seen more pedestrians hit there is that there just isn't much reason to cross it - there isn't that much on the south side of Main there.

"My heart bleeds for them when someone gets killed. But it’s their own fault at the end of the day."

-- Rob Ford

I've always maintained that Frid access should be inbound only, with no exit to Main and all outbound traffic routed to Chatham and onward to Dundurn.

Pretty fucking hilarious that the people complaining about "entitlement" are the ones making excuses for highway on-ramps in residential communities. The only people with entitlement issues are the drivers who think everyone and everything on earth needs to get out of their way.

"Our mentality nowadays has shifted to the very entitled"

You must be referring to those who say things such as "the onus should be on the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings" because "cars are bigger". Or those who always assume that the pedestrian "wasn't paying attention" as if there's no way that the road design or diver inattentiveness can cause accidents.

Your words OOZE entitlement.

The road system in this province and especially in Hamilton is grossly unbalanced, tipping waaaaaay over to favour private automobiles.

Calling for better balance is not entitlement.

Roads are for vehicles of any sort, sidewalks are for pedestrians and there are specific places where a pedestrian is allowed to cross the street. And everyone should be careful what they do, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The onus is on the individual to always make the wisest and safest choice in this world.

You must be referring to those who say things such as "the onus should be on the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings" because "cars are bigger".

No, that's just common sense. And his words are more those of a realist than the entitled.

Oh and this article does not call for "balance" it very clearly calls for a change in priorities:

pedestrians first, followed by cyclists, followed by transit followed by cars.

I have to jump in here. I did not pull that priority out of thin air. It is supposedly Hamilton's actual mandate.

It's summarized nicely in this document:

Transportation Master Plan (2007) reflects the nodes and corridors framework and relies on aggressive transit improvements and an urban fabric with a high degree of connectivity. The Transportation Master Plan shifted the transportation hierarchy to focus on pedestrians first, followed by cyclists, transit, goods movement and general purpose traffic.

Our pedestrian infrastructure is dismal. Any improvement is indeed providing better balance.

Do you walk around here?

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-01-25 15:15:50

It's not about blame, it's about design. Certain designs result in greater safety. Other designs result in greater harm. Traffic design in downtown Hamilton is really really bad and encourages harm, so people get hurt. Hence, the traffic designers need to change the design.

All the hand-wringing about how entitled people feel these days, how nobody has any individual responsibility any more, etc. is irrelevant, unhelpful, self-involved, and kind of immature.

I think a stop light is required on the Main St. Bridge just west of the highway on ramps that spill their traffic onto Main St. Perhaps it could be metered with the off ramps. This would be safer for cyclists and pedestrians, who would most naturally be scared at crossing an unsignalled highway off ramp. It would also be safer for motorists trying to change 5 lanes over a 100 meter interval to get to Dundurn St. The only drawback is that cars wouldn't be able to travel from Westdale at 70 km/h over the bridge ;)

I am in complete disagreement regarding the mountain accesses. These are NOT pedestrian areas, and in many cases, not cyclist areas either, nor should they be designed as such. Nearly all of these accesses are over a KM in length and possess steep inclines which are capable of taxing even professional cyclists (which is why the last major cycling race here, we utilized the clairmont). There is no development along them and minimal development near them and are not exactly easy to expand or work on given the constant erosion of the escarpment. They typically lead to clearly marked and serviced major traffic veins, which feed very low density residential area's or institutions that do not lend themselves of high amounts of pedestrian traffic, like say in the city core nor cycling traffic, say at more level streets.

To further iterate these streets as non-pedestrain, sidewalks don't typical run even to them or around them (which I feel is a bit of a problem, espcially along Mountain Brow and West 5th, where their presence could better direct to pedestrain routes). These are streets that should never be "Complete" streets as RtH has often labeled mixed use traffic veins. The safer, more cost effective, alternative to trasversing the mountain is seperate infrastructure. Pedestrain stairs, bridges, trails and better, more frequent public transport options, and in many cases this infrastructure is already in place.

The base of the Kenniworth access is serviced by pedestrian stairs linking to the rail trail (which would be better if it had a linkage to the area around Oakcrest Dr.), the West 5th access is serviced (albiet poorly) by the nearby bruce trail connection (which could use a direct sidewalk path for access and a bridge/stairs to traverse Beckett Dr) the Clairmont is serviced by the Clairmont stairs (which at most could use better pedestrain crossing signage) and nearby trail connection and the Jolley Cut is serviced by a proper pedestrain path further down concession.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-01-25 17:09:42

My map shots are from the tops and bottoms of the accesses, where they carry cars through residential neighbourhoods. I did not comment on the lengths of the accesses themselves. The top of the Sherman cut is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The top of the Jolley is especially miserable, as it sits between one of our finest parks and the Concession shopping district - but to walk that length you have to cross two ramps, one of which has traffic completely unhindered by even a yield sign.

But since you brought the accesses up, I do not agree with your argument that they are "not pedestrian areas" and "not cyclist areas". People do ride and walk up and down these accesses on a regular basis despite their lack of infrastructure.

The Jolley could easily accommodate a two way bike lane and wider sidewalk if we limited the downhill traffic to one lane. John narrows to one lane downtown anyways and there is no need for a downbound passing lane (I can understand the need for an uphill passing lane to get around slower buses and trucks).

Claremont could accommodate two way bike lanes, two sidewalks and a dedicated transit lane with no traffic impact along its entire length. It has a greater lane capacity than the 403.

These accesses are all overbuilt - completed in an era where thousands and thousands of people commuted within the city every day. These patterns have changed greatly. Some people still have to use these accesses, but many use them out of habit. It would be just as fast to take the Linc to 403 or RHVP for many of trips.

It would be great if we could at least convince the traffic department to do counts on these routes and commit to changing the designs in order to match volume. At least we would have the data and a plan.

The Claremont is a great example. It has been down a lane for how long now with no impact. Are we going to spend money repairing that lane even though we don't need it? Or will we save some cash and accept that we do not need that lane capacity on that route? I assume that in order to maintain their budget, the roads department has a plan to fix and reopen that lane. Why?

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-01-25 17:52:52

It is the single most shocking comment I hear from visitors to our city: Why are the roads so unsafe? It isn’t like the ideas haven’t been floated out there before (http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/943/a_jolley_cut_for_everyone). Genius. It really seems simple, especially when talking about the huge amounts of tax dollars being tossed around for this.

Umm yes, that change in priority has take the entire planet by storm - well, at least in cities that care about their future, business districts and urban neighbourhoods. Nobody here is surprised that Hamilton doesn't. It's Walmart or bust for our future.

exactly.

Anyone who can defend this design as acceptable near people's front porches is out to lunch:

http://goo.gl/maps/O2TI3

Here's a couple more examples of crazy freeway ramps that are 100% not needed in Hamilton's neighbourhoods. A normal intersection where cars actually have to GASP stop before turning right would suffice.

http://goo.gl/maps/dH9lI

http://goo.gl/maps/AOX24

• this one is ridiculous. P.S. - Queen should be two-way from the base of the Mountain to the waterfront. Easy access for everyone to Main, King, York, Barton without having to cut through neighbourhoods.

http://goo.gl/maps/pXHEH

Comment edited by jason on 2013-01-25 18:50:23

I think you're confused about who has the 'onus' here. Of course everyone is responsible for their own actions. Of course we all must drive, walk or cycle defensively if we want to avoid accidents. Counting on others to not make mistakes is not effective.

Legally however, a driver is required to be in control of their vehicle at all times. This is why you fail a driving test if a pedestrian steps out into the roadway well ahead of you, and you fail to respond by slowing down. This does not mean that pedestrians are entitled to step into traffic at any time. It is a bad idea, and depending on the context illegal, but that does not change the fact that the driver is responsible.

A cyclist is also legally responsible to be in control of their bike, which is treated as a vehicle. Cyclists must yield to pedestrians, drivers of cars must be aware of bicycles and slower moving vehicles. This is all part of the highway traffic act and it's explained in the drivers handbook that I read when I was 16.

I don't see any pedestrians here exhibiting such a sense of entitlement as to believe they should have human shields and not suffer the inconvenience of having to be aware of traffic. We are simply asking for safe infrastructure, that which has proven to be effective in minimizing accidents.

The intersections along Centennial are not very pedestrian friendly either, particularly at Queenston Road. While it's a very commercial corner (begging for intensified development I'll add, though that's a comment for a different post) we have Eastgate Square which is supposed to serve as a high-level transit node even without LRT/BRT, yet anyone walking there from the east or south has a lot of traffic movements to deal with.

Perhaps some of these intersections should be re-evaluated using a cost-benefit framework that better reflects the new priority of road users? (I should say transportation users instead) And rebuilt, if indeed the free flow of automobiles does not valuate as it once may have?

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2013-01-25 20:18:42

Yeah! What he said!

Yeah! What he said! You're so right on!

Yeah! Preach it!

Yes, please run for mayor. That way the proof will be in the pudding that there is a very small subset of the city who actually things these ideas are a priority over our crumbling infrastructure, massive deficit and anti-suburb agenda.

So are you equating anyone with conservative views with Rob Ford?

Bravo.

It won't work because it would back the traffic up to Hwy 6 or beyond in the morning and evening rush hours. I don't think I've ever seen a metered ramp for getting off the highway, only for getting on.

That whole section needs to be blown up and redone.

Just how many people are you talking to that say that?

I can say right back,

It is the single most comforting comment I hear from visitors to our city: Why are the roads so convenient?

I hope the person is ok and recovering. As someone who lost a family member to a traffic accident many, many years ago, that memory is still with me today.

So maybe we have to look at our society, where the car is number one, at all costs. Maybe this is what needs to change. Given the destruction of the tar sands and other oil related disasters, that we are hurting mother earth, just so we can get somewhere fast.

I know, not an easy subject to talk about but one I feel we should be engaged in.

Not ot lon ago, I watched an older gentleman trying to cross Main Street right where the ram[ is going into the Fortino's. I thought for sure he was going to hit, he made it across but it was nail biting to watch. I, myself would enver attempt to cross at that point, just too many cars. But even if you use the crosswalks, you must always be vigiliant, in watching the traffic.

I have noticed that many cars will block the crosswalk in an effort to turn right, yet as pedestrians we are suppose to have the right away and be able to cross with the light.

Keep pounding away at this issue, as it is the general masses that you need to reach and convince.

I live at dundurn and king. I am regularly stopped by visitors how have lost their way and are frustrated with the inconvenient one way streets. It's kind of amusing and makes me feel like a big deal.

Also I've been run over by a car by the King ramp when I was biking. I got a ticket until the cop was nice enough to throw it out for me.

Every ramp coming off of every other highway in our city terminates at a light. Every exit from the Linc, every exit from the RHVP.

And almost every exit from every 400 series highway terminates at a light at the local road in every other city.

The ramps onto main street from the 403 are anomalies, not the norm. Where else do you exit the highway and then merge onto the city street? Can you name any other place that has that design?

Or more likely equating anyone with that specific view with rob ford.

OK dad, let's get you back to the ward.

My comment was directed at this:

"Perhaps it could be metered with the off ramps."

Not the rest of the post

JASON LIVES!

Which ward? Burt Ward?

Hey, what about the offramp from the 403 London-bound that exits at Fiddler's green? It drops you off right in a subdivision!

The city puts unpainted crosswalks across highway ramps. I would not be surprised if they were sued eventually - either by someone who was injured while crossing, or by a motorist who was charged for injuring someone.

Which ward? The common sense one?

I call BS on your anonymous made-up interweb chestnut.

THAT I want to see

Are you saying that because the stores downtown keep closing because they can't make any money and Walmart is always packed and constantly building and expanding?

And no matter how much it bothers you there are people who bought that house and are living there. I drive by there frequently and I do not see the house constantly up for sale. Seems it bothers you more than the ones living there.

Two way cycling lanes? For what? 5 bicycles a week? Why not just give them free access to HSR buses to get up and down it would be cheaper for the city.

You claim the one lane down had no effect and another article on this site railed against drivers who called city hall and complained about the problem. Doesn't seem like it had no affect.

How do you figure we'll pay for the crumbling infrastructure? You got a plan?

Cities all over the world are trying to figure out how to get traffic moving quicker and more efficiently

Hey spamalot, you need to get out more. Cities all over the world are trying to figure out how to be more safe, hospitable and welcoming to pedestrians and cyclists. It's Hamilton (and you) that are out of step. Pun intended.

That's BS. You can train people to be more careful and safer. I've been doing it effectively for 15+ years now. What you cannot do is make things idiot proof (i.e., engineer away stupidity).

The design of downtown streets is just fine.

We're talking about downtown Hamilton, right?

As in, "OMG it's a Road Warrior-style apocalyptic wasteland, I'm gonna dress my kids in body armor" downtown Hamilton?

I mean, I love living in downtown Hamilton, I do, but if you honestly believe what you just said...well...

Damn.

Cities all over the world are trying to figure out how to get traffic moving quicker and more efficiently

Ha! Really? Which ones? Links please.

Truth: Cities all over the world are trying to calm traffic - slow cars down, implement tolls to discourage driving altogether, and make more accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.

It's happening across Europe and North America, it's happening in Oakville, Markham, Waterloo, Pickering...just not so much here in Hamilton.

There was no rally.

Go to the Claremont at rush hour and use your own eyes to gather evidence rather than relying on an anecdote by a councillor used as a sidenote in a CBC article from 2.5 months ago.

Asking for a stoplight where a highway ramp meets a city street is not a war on the automotive industry.

The automotive industry, and by extension, all motorists (myself included), are some of the biggest social support recipients in the world.

Those of us who drive should be thankful that the car-free citizens exist to help us enjoy this lifestyle.

I have no problem where citizens ask for traffic lights, stop signs etc where it's proven though data that has been gathered that it is unsafe to not have such. My problem lies with people who think that roads should cater to pedestrians first and pedestrians should be allowed to walk across any road anywhere without going to an intersection where pedestrians are allowed to cross legally and safely.

Sure, it's not hard. Do away with frills like bike lanes, grassy medians, and costly renovations, ridiculous increases to police budgets, and general waste (like that in the roads department that has recently come to light...) and we can start tackling our infrastructure. Oh, and getting the burbs to pay their fair share. Maybe sprinkle in a bit of Casino revenue for good measure.

No you really can't. Bad, dangerous design is bad, dangerous design. We used to allow construction workers to work without a harness. We used to let stairs be built without rails. We used to drive without seatbelts for F sake! These all changed because the data showed that "telling people to be careful" wasn't good enough to prevent injuries.

Nobody is asking for idiot proof. We're looking for "not hostile to humans".

Ah, the old 'anonymous professional' routine. I guess we should just ignore concepts presented by people whose impeccable credentials are clearly available to us. We should just believe you 'cause you said so. After all, that engineer/anesthesiologist/pilot/astronaut/mountain rescue instructor guy was probably just trying to forward his anti-malpractise agenda.

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-01-29 08:12:38

I'm going on a flight next week. I'm glad you're not the one responsible for making sure my plane doesn't fall out of the sky.

If a pilot makes a mistake and the plane crashes, he dies in the crash and doesn't get to fly anymore. Therefore it is impossible for him to make the same mistake again. It's a self-correcting system. In other words, we don't need to design for safety. You'll be fine!

The knuckle-drag trolling on RTH has been so bad lately that I still can't tell if this is tongue in cheek after reading it a few times!

Yep I was being sarcastic!

What you are talking about is neither train and blame nor design safety. What you are talking about is increasing or installing safety devices. The design of the actual stairs has not changed simply safety devices were installed. Just like wearing a helmet when cycling will increase you safety. Cars were not redesigned (actually they were but has nothing to do with seat belts) but a stellar safety device was added, namely seatbelts. In the years since those seatbelts have been improved upon several times. Similarly construction procedure has really not changed a lot except again safety devices the ubiquitous safety harness was mandated. It is still all train and blame just with added safety features to minimize the damage.

Didn't your glorious leader just right an article about how some Scandinavian city has implemented tolls on cars to alleviate congestion and increase traffic flow? Is that a good example?

Try looking at Hamilton's collision report

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E8EE9F6D-95BE-483C-A055-517F1B7EE933/76133/2010CollisionReportFinal.pdf


Try reading the last paragraph on page 22. Oh hell here it is

"Comparison of Hamilton with selected Canadian Cities

On the basis of total collisions per 1,000 population, Hamilton has very close to the lowest rate in Canada (Exhibit 2.2). On the basis of injury collisions per 1,000 population, the City also has very close to the best performance in Canada when compared to cities with similar road operation responsibilities."

So if you really think your kids need body armour here what will they need in places less safe like Oakville Markham Waterloo or Pickering? A parent with common sense I suspect.

Look I realize you have some kind of phobia about one way streets but they really are the best way to go.

Didn't your glorious leader just have his application for Canadian permanent resident status denied?

(I'm assuming, based on absolutely nothing, that you're a devoted follower of Randy Quaid.)

Ever heard the saying that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?

The lowest form of wit is better than the highest form of cynicism.

Just trying to keep things at your level.

I've been biking in Hamilton for 12 years now, and the only time I got hit was by another cyclist, speeding through a stop sign. (Not an "Idaho stop", but blazing on through.)

I hate to say it but over the years I've learned to keep an eye on cars and stay out of their way as much as possible, but as a cyclist, other cyclists often scare the crap out of me. Not all of them of course, but the aggressive ones that force cars to do unpredictable things. A car's path and momentum can be predicted easily, but a bike not so much. No car is going to hop on the sidewalk, run a red light, completely ignore a stop sign, drive on the wrong side of the road, or generally ignore major traffic rules.

We do need infrastructure changes, and yeah, some streets are designed poorly for walkability, but it's not SimCity, the whole city wasn't planned in one phase with a particular vision in mind, and no one's going to be able to raise enough money to change every bad road in the city. For now we should just make sure that enforcement is happening, and that cyclists always assume that every car is a potential bad drive who doesn't see you. It's way safer that way.

I'm not defending it, but in response to your question, the first one that came to mind was the Gardiner merging onto York and Lakeshore.

Any others? We must be able to push this to at least 0.01% of all other 400 Series Highway off ramps that enter live traffic vs. the only one in Hamilton that does'nt (Main W.)

if you find it that difficult then you really should give up your drivers license.

who will be held accountable? the dummy that ran across a very busy 5 lane roadway is accountable for his stupid actions. Cross in the walkway.

Try driving the highways that you claim exits terminate in traffic lights. Most if not all of the exits from the Linc terminate in a right turn yield onto the destination street. This is the basic standard for highway offramps and can be found all over the continent. Jurisdictions everywhere are trying to keep traffic moving. Only in Hamilton do we have a site dedicated to slowing it down. Since the 403 exit for Main East terminates at a one way street and each exit becomes a new lane it really is not a problem. I would love to see the accident rate for that stretch of road. I drive there a lot and there does not seem to be a lot of accidents.

Before you whine about the way exits are constructed try driving them.

Again the nonsense. Main West terminates like the overwhelming majority of off ramps do. A right turn yield and a traffic light for left turns.

The silliness never stops here does it.

Notwithstanding the fact you are an obvious troll; an underwhelmingly intelligent at that,there is no right turn yield on the Main West ramp.

Keep going stupid. Don't let facts get in the way of your skewed view of reality.

Hamilton's lower city street design is so awesome that it is not found anywhere else in Southern Ontario; not even in upper Hamilton.

When the off ramp meets a one way street and forms a new lane there is absolutely no need for a traffic light.

Yes there is.

Oh, burn, I guess...?

Hardly.

Damn. We thought you left.