Raise the Hammer

Thank you for this. It is often painted as an urban/suburban or left/right split, but that's nonsense. Nobody I know would be willing to sacrifice a young person's life to save 2 minutes a day in traffic. The facts, which you so eloquently present, need to be supported with a strong narrative. Unfortunately the toll of carnage you present tell all too clear a story.

Editor's note: this comment was expanded into an article.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-04-02 12:20:28

Wasn't it Scott Thompson the person who championed a clean sweep at City Hall in the 2010 Election?

Based on the 2010 Election results, I guess we don't have to worry about anyone listening to him. At least not listening seriously.

I thought yesterdays article was an April Fools joke.
Why is our paper even bothering with stuff written by someone from Oakville?? Who cares.

Great article, Ryan. On the issue of safety, I'm game to fight dog-whistle with dog-whistle. As candidates start campaigning, we need to press them hard on their actual commitment to our city's vision, because there's no good justification for wide high speed zones in residential areas.

And not just lower-city candidates. If there isn't a voting majority onside with a progressive vision of the city and a shared willingness to work toward that vision, we will enjoy another four years rehashing the behaviour of the last 60.

Please add King and Dundurn to the map.

I had to run and jump to dodge a car that was turning left and was oblivious to me crossing.

King & Dundurn is controlled by the MTO due to its proximity to a 400 series highway. The city (MacHattie specifically) have been trying to get them to make concessions to traffic calming for years, only to be met with staunch refusal. Write your mpp.

Something needs to be done on that intersection for sure. I've been on both sides of near collisions (as a pedestrian, and a driver). The way that the crosswalk angles South means puts pedestrians right behind many cars' A-pillar.

On topic - great summary Ryan. It's a pity the spec chose such an inflammatory headline (at first). Hopefully the debate will help re-center this issue around public safety.

If you include near-misses the whole map will be a sea of pindrops.

As would anywhere with cars and pedestrians.

As a cyclist, I actually wouldn't mind buying a yearly license as long as I knew that the money was being used for bike infrastructure. However, I DO think that if we're trying to get more people to bike to reduce congestion, that a yearly licensing fee would actually put a barrier up for people to do this.

Scott Thompson's article completely ignores the fact that EVERYONE pays for roads, whether or not they drive. Because the purpose of our roads is to increase economic activity by reducing travel effort, most people don't complain about this. We need to stop thinking of roads as a way to move cars and start thinking of them as a way to move people.

Scott Thompson's article deliberately obscures the fact that EVERYONE pays for roads...

Fixed. ;-)

I too would pay a voluntary registration in order to support the infrastructure.

In fact if we had kickstarter campaigns for individual projects like YesWeCannon that donated whatever they raise toward the cost, I'd support that too.

What I don't want to see is mandatory licenses taking wheels away from youth, or people who are simply strapped for cash, or double charging those who already have a vehicle. For no reason other than vitriolic idiocracy.

It is a waste and a shame for an advanced society to fight a nearly zero footprint way of zipping around. While single occupant vehicles create congestion, while screaming how consideration for other people will create congestion.

The problem with any impediment to cycling - not a cost one, but a tedium one - is that the most significant contributor to cycling safety is the ubiquity of cycling.

That is, the safest place to be a cyclist is any place that has lots of cyclists. Cyclists die when they're a surprise. If drivers expect to see a cyclist around every corner, they deal with them well.

If a casual cyclist must wear a helmet or must pay a licensing fee, he or she won't bother cycling. And that means less cyclists on the road, and that puts less-dissuaded cyclists like you and me at greater risk.

If there was a 10% levy on all new bikes to help pay for cycling infrastructure? Nobody would notice, because it doesn't create any beaurocratic troubles for the cyclist. Well, except for bike salesmen, that might sting for them a bit. But cyclists don't base their decision to buy a new bike based on a 10% difference in cost... it might effect which bike they buy, of course, but not whether they bike. They can happily ignore it. But once you create the tedium of yearly or monthly fees and beaurocracy, nobody will keep a bike for their rare once-a-month excursions that are needed to build a regular cycling habit.

Hardcore cyclists aren't born fully formed, they work their way up to it. Regulations will create a barrier to entry, which creates a problem for everybody.

Even the lights/reflective tape requirements for bikes are a problem. If I buy a car, it's street legal. If I buy a bike, it needs lights/bells/reflective tape, etc. How many casual cyclists do you see with a properly kitted out bike? Not many, right? Is it because they're scofflaws, or just because somebody sold them an incomplete vehicle?

If you focus the fees/regs/etc. at the sales level, then the impediment on trying out a bike is a small amount of money. If you point the fees/regs/etc at consumers, then you've created a large pain-point for a casual cyclist, and that means you won't get a cycling community, and that means the hardcore cyclists are at much greater risk because they're strange unexpected sights on the road.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-04-02 11:30:07

the safest place to be a cyclist is in the city's car-free zone.

There. Fixed it.

You say that everyone already pays for roads through income (provincial) and property taxes (municipal) taxes. But you failed to mention the gas taxes (provincial), which obviously won't be recovered from cyclists. I would be curious to know how much of the gas tax goes directly to roads.

I drove (by car) on Burlington St. the other day, and I saw two sets of side walks - literally side by side - in an industrial neighbourhood. Pedestrian side walks that will likely never be used by pedestrians or cyclists.

Then I took a drive along Rymal - home to one of our busiest library branches, a newly opened Catholic high school, and soon one of the largest Public high schools in the city - and for the most part saw no side walks at all. Students, mothers with baby carriages, those who dare walking along what's left of the gravel on the side. It almost seems as if we gave up on maintaining our Mountain thoroughfares after the great Expressway was born.

I'm not sure who is responsible for allocating our tax dollars to maintain local roads, side walks, or planning our transportation infrastructure, but obviously, there's a major disconnect. Instead of the patch work we have, we deserve a proper master plan for the entire city; whether that means converting existing roads to be more pedestrian friendly, upgrading the existing system, or covering our neighbourhoods in roundabouts - it must include some common sense.

The whole who has or doesn't have what and where in this city is firmly rooted in Area Rating.

You're bang on. It is outrageous that there are roads with no sidewalks on the mountain. This is where the drive for "routine accommodation" comes from - the concept that all road users need to be accommodated as a routine part of the process when roads are designed and built.

The problems on the mountain aren't just on roads that are in more far-flung areas like Rymal. I wrote a blog post about the lack of sidewalks on one side of Fennel, in front of Mohawk, where so many people walk on the sidewalk-less side that there is a well-worn dirt path there (https://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/2035/walkability_fail_on_fennell_avenue_west) Can you imagine drivers being asked to drive down an unmaintained, bumpy dirt road in the middle of the city? I sure can't.

Instead of the patch work we have, we deserve a proper master plan for the entire city

Although I'm pleased that the City is going to look at the problems on Queen, what troubles me is that it takes injuries and deaths before the City moves to act to make streets safe. Essentially, the current approach uses individual people as a kind of expendable barometer - in other words, someone has to sacrifice their life or their health before the City acts to change what we already know is a problem.

So you are absolutely right that we need more than patch work, and we do deserve a proper plan.

"I saw two sets of side walks - literally side by side - in an industrial neighbourhood. Pedestrian side walks that will likely never be used by pedestrians or cyclists"

I'd hope they aren't to be used by cyclists. Riding your bike along the sidewalk is against the rules of the road.

Seriously, though... there was a time, not long ago, when those sidewalks were used by thousands daily, by steelworkers who lived in the area and walked to work. It was long-term infrastructure that is now sadly disused.

I agree that pedestrian infrastructure along Rymal, now a heavily residential area in many parts, is disgraceful! More needs to be done to encourage walkability there.

I'd hope they aren't to be used by cyclists. Riding your bike along the sidewalk is against the rules of the road.

I dunno about this.. In certain areas the only safe place to ride your bike is on the (empty) sidewalk. Never let a rule stand in the way of a better idea, i.e. don't die.

comment from banned user deleted

Ironically, I used to work at Steelcare Plant 19 along Eastport Drive. There are no sidewalks along Eastport, and the nearest bus-stop is at Eastport and Beach.

I was under the impression Burlington St was reduced to 3 lanes (from 4). The sidewalks were installed during construction/resurfacing of the road. Appears this decision was full of common sense. Putting in the sidewalks probably cost on par (or less) than resurfacing the extra lane. It will certainly save money over the life of the road.
I thought it made the drive a little less hostile. Not sure I will ever walk along there, but that is probably what they said about Rymal 10 years ago.

You often hear people say things like "I'm all for bike lanes, but not at the expense of increased congestion". Or "I'm all for pedestrian safety, but not at the expense of increased congestion".

Well, I'm all for folks driving their cars, but not at the expense of the life of a friend / family member / colleague etc.

It all comes down to design. No amount of education, enforcement, evaluation or encouragement can overcome bad engineering.

It's time to get serious.

A well rationed article that actually has the facts.

I'm an engineer and I've done road design. The wear and tear angle is not to be overlooked. If anything the bicycle "license" should be a refund (too hard to administrate, in practicality, but if were really hung up on costs that's what they really "cost").

Yesterday I argued with a man who really seemed upset that cyclists "think they're entitled to a free ride" because "they're saving the world". The truly "entitled" are the ones who make this all about a battle of egos and don't even notice.

"they're saving the world".

I think everybody's feeling a little awkward thanks to the pretty terrifying IPCC report on climate change.

The best argument against adding a further tax by taxing cyclists that as 90% of cyclists drive, they already are taxed multiple times for their road use.

Having said that, that does not justify increasing taxes on drivers otherwise who all pay property and income and HS taxes.

All the more reason why we need to make more efficient and more sustainable use of our roads.

Scott Thompson on air & in the Spectator is a deliberate & professional idiot--that's what he's paid to be & do. His CV brags how he flunked an IQ test and so qualifies for his work. This goes way back to other CHML call-in "hosts".

So to comment on good info being brought forward, one does have to consider that the radio show and the spec are based on profit models, which is opposite to this forum. For profit cannot be taken for granted as having morals,ethics or integrity. How many Hamiltonians listen to his inane comments vs reading this format?

It seems the Spec's nickname should move from Speculator to Speculatroll these days. Hyperbole and angst seem to be a new editorial criteria. Sad what it takes to attract eyeballs these days.

Yep, eyeballs trump respectability in today's media. Mark my words, Rob Ford will get hired as a columnist somewhere after he gets booted out.

I'd like to point out all but one of these incidents occurred on two way streets and have nothing to do with cycling. We have lot's do do to make our streets safe and complete, but lets not lie to folks to advance our "agenda". Two way does nothing to mitigate the issues with Hamilton streets, but bike lanes, wider sidewalks, bump-outs, walk only lights do. Let's pick our battles based on fact and not "one way streets are bad because one way streets are bad, m'kay". Two way streets are in no way safer for drivers or pedestrians than one way streets.

"agenda"

Ok that's enough. Stop insinuating this is some kind of "agenda" or "lobby" or "mantra".

Properly built cities are just that, properly built cities. This site is contains participants from the general public that care about the stressful dirty state of getting around.

If that is a lobby or an agenda, then everybody that takes the other side of the argument is also part of a "lobby, agenda, and matra", to be overly cheap and keep our streets unsafe and selfish at the cost of people, and to troll using populist knee jerk arguments which are exactly what this article and subsequent comments are calling out.

Edit : I realize having a goal you want to accomplish meets the definition of an "agenda" but this word is being misused against people that want a better city. Meanwhile pejorative misinformed counter-arguments like Thompson's don't seem to be called an agenda, or a lobby. That's what makes if frustrating. One sided use of the term pejoratively.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-04-03 07:16:55

I have been nearly hit by a car crossing at a crosswalk more times than I can count. Each time I didn't get hit because I am more aware of my surroundings and other traffic than most cars. I cross every street, not by looking both ways, but looking in every direction. Left, right, over my shoulder and finally towards oncoming traffic. And I repeat this as I continue to cross. I've had to stop (mid-cross) numerous times as an oblivious driver failed to see anything other than the oncoming traffic and nearly hit me.

In the article you said "Converting traffic flow to two-way and slowing traffic is better for business than having traffic blast by at high speed on one-way streets. It attracts new investment, generates new business and raises property values." Well it seems that Councillor Merulla agrees. Yesterday he said that Main and King are 2 way east of the Delta and the sky isn't falling. Everything there works just fine. In fact he said that the tax revenues in the 2 way sections are somewhat greater than the one way.

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the list of accident locations and realized that all of them, yes all of them ocurred on your beloved 2 way streets. You referred to some report from some obscure planning council for how dangerous our streets are but I haven't seen any numbers.

I have posted this link several times but will do so again.

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E8EE...

Pay extra special attention to the end of page 22. This report has all the numbers you could possibly want. The only possible problem could be that so many of our safe and efficient one way streets have been tampered with.

"some obscure planning council" As usual you mock what you don't know when it contradicts your selfish assumptions. The SPRC is an important well respected research group that does a lot of work for the city.

Really, the SPRC is a well respected research group??? Give me a break , they do what they are told, these so called researchers. While they ahve good people working for them, they are suppressed because of funding reasons. LOL@LOL, you are pushing your own agenda, which is not the agenda of the people.

It's adorable that you think you speak for The People, but The People are capable of speaking for themselves and you do not speak for me. If any of the comments here are pushing an agenda, then so are you, just a different one.