Raise the Hammer

Enough already. We've known this for years. What can we do to accelerate the change? We need to apply real pressure as clearly creating awareness via dozens of articles like this is not enough. Can we mobilize/ demonstrate/ do a sit-in or something???

The justification was a desire not to confuse Hamilton motorists who are not used to stopping for pedestrians or at "unexpected" red lights.

According to the previous piece, part of the justification Public Works used was pedestrian safety, which I take on its face. The issue, as you argue, is it's clearly not enough and not part of a holistic approach to making our streets safer.

It's ironic and a bit absurd that the city is claiming safety concerns to not do something, yet the idea of doing something for safety concerns is antithetical.

I see people all the time – seniors, kids, parents with strollers - darting across city streets with drivers going well above posted speed limits (without a cop anywhere to be found) because there aren't enough crosswalks or other traffic-calming measures. Unsafe.

Zero pedestrian deaths??? I'd be happy for Hamilton to stop designing streets with provisions made for everyone to safely run red lights.

The one that constantly astonishes me is the complete inaction on the Durand/Kirkendall 1-way grid. Nobody wants this, and it would not be unreasonably expensive to change it. And yet the city does nothing about it.

Converting King, Main, and Cannon would be a hard political battle, but Herkimer? Who the heck is begging for Herkimer to stay 1-way?

thirtytozero.ca ... Still keeping this warm in case any such initiative here materializes. Nobody can start such a campaign alone though ... and I don't even know where to begin. Asking people to slow down and drive carefully inside a city feels analogous to trying to introducing human rights concepts to medieval era warlords.

People who live on the West Mountain and work at St. Joe's. The complaining I heard at work when the Queen St Mountain access was shut down...

Those folks would be driving on Herkimer for all of six blocks. I mean yeah, they'd complain anyways because that's just what people do, but it's ludicrous to make a one-way-grid in the area for six blocks.

Other West Mountain residents use the Queen Street hill and either Aberdeen or Charlton as an alternative to driving south from their homes to the Linc, and around the city. They take Charlton extremely quickly all the way west, then north to the 403, or to King to continue across to McMaster or other jobs. I’m sure that it’s these people who want to maintain Herkimer and Charlton as one-ways.

Would making Herkimer two-way result in a loss of street parking? In that case, I would expect some people to oppose it for that reason.

Just in case it's not clear: this was a statement of "is", not "ought"

Assume we would only convert regions of Durand/Kirkendall where the conversion would require no loss of street-side parking. That would still include most of the neighborhood, especially wide streets like Herkimer and Charlton.

"they'd complain anyways because that's just what people do" Well everyone complains here full time, don't they?

Why stop at thirty - why not 20 or 10. Or better yet no cars.

In medieval times, the few ruled and harmed the masses. Here, the masses rule and harm the few. I highly doubt that vast majority of people who drive would ever agree to a lower limit and, besides, there are ample studies that show that traffic flows at the speed of comfort.

So, as Ryan has repeatedly said, the answer is in road design - not law.

And those would be the people who are employees of the hospital that expect residents to give up all of their on street parking so they can park for free......for their entire 12 hour shift.........

It's a through street - the residents have an property parking.

Why stop at thirty - why not 20 or 10. Or better yet no cars.

Because dichotomous absolutist hyperbole is neither the purpose nor the goal. Implementing good modern standards of calming and multi-modal road building inside inner cities, with a view to reducing/mitigating injuries and improving comfort and quality of life, is the goal. That said, if an entire car free neighborhood came into existence, I think it'd be so popular, I'd quickly be priced out.

doubt that vast majority of people who drive would ever agree to a lower limit

I agree completely.

the answer is in road design

I agree completely, I think everyone here realizes that is where the best results will come from.

In medieval times, the few ruled and harmed the masses.

The analogy was quick and off the top of my head. It is a bit imprecise, you're right. Perhaps the analogy would be closer to trying to teach medieval masses modern science. That would probably go very well, you definitely wouldn't be burned in the town square. :p

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-09-30 17:09:22

Not to say that some streets shouldn't be made two-way even if it does mean street parking spots are lost. Through much of Kirkendall, Herkimer has street parking on both sides, so it seems that some would be lost.

How many pedestrians were killed by cars in Hamilton in 2013 compared to 2014? Better to know the Hamilton stats, than using someone elses.

Only in Kirkendall, it's plenty wide-enough for 2-way traffic with two parking lanes in Durand. Even then, there are parts of Westdale North with similarly narrow streets and both-side-parking that aren't one-way.

I have referenced the city's traffic safety report in this comment:

http://raisethehammer.org/comment/94375

and this article:

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/2805/hami...

"Hamilton pedestrians are as much as 42 per cent more likely to be injured compared to the Ontario rate. The risk to cyclists can be as much as 81 per cent higher than the provincial average."

"There were an average of 269 pedestrian injuries and fatalities per year from 1991-2010 and an average of about 6 pedestrian fatalities per year."

and a summary data from the SPRC report is given here:

http://infogr.am/sprc-hamiltons-risky-ro...

I don't have the data for 2013, but the trend has not dropped since the early 1990s.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-09-30 17:53:55

"...if an entire car free neighborhood came into existence, I think it'd be so popular, I'd quickly be priced out."

The car-free Toronto Islands neighbourhood is so popular that there are over 10 applicants for every spot that opens up on the 30-year-long waiting list. Yes, that's thirty (30) years!

It is truly scandalous the way that people are being denied the right to live in a neighbourhood of their choice.

In my opinion, an excellent candidate for a car-free neighbourhood in Hamilton is the residential neighbourhood south of Studholme Road.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-09-30 19:11:25

This is due to evolutionary biology. The maximum speed that a typical fit person can obtain in a sprint is about 30 km/hr. So we are not going to run into a tree faster than that.

Which is why the human body can withstand a 30 km/hr impact.

I feel like its going to take none other than Chuck Norris himself to change our one way streets to two-way, and that says A LOT.

Call Chuck Norris. End of story.

Where is this the case, Mr. FUD?

If that's your answer, you better call Saul.

Arterial roads like Guelph Line, Appleby, Walkers have 4-6 lanes of steady 80km/h traffic through neighbourhoods with substantial property values.

A couple of observations, at least south of the highway.

• Commercial and industrial lines these arterials along the wide and fast portions.

• Residential is in the minority or non existant along the wide "arterial" portions.

• South of New Street, where residential begins to exist directly along these arterials, they narrow and have bike lanes.

• The inside of residential blocks are laid out non-linear in order to stop shortcuts. Speed humps included. Big difference right there alone.

• Plains/Fairview have residential increasing along them - and, now that the King Road underpass is complete - Plains is to get redone as a complete street, with through traffic on the highway where it belongs.

In other words, yes there are some very wide and scary arterials in Burlington. But those tend to be where people shop and bike lanes are plentiful at least. Where people actually live they are miles ahead in calming residential areas. The "expensive" houses are definitely NOT along the wide arterials. Residential and street-facing mixed use intensification is occurring along streets that will not stay this way for much longer.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-10-01 08:39:34

Last year there were 15 persons killed in traffic related collisions of which 6 were pedestrians. To August 31 there were 6 persons killed in traffic related collisions of which 2 were pedestrians. Over a 50% reduction in pedestrian and motorist deaths. The streets are getting safer.

The streets are getting safer.

That may be true, based on comparing one year to the next (or at least half year), but is it still not a laudable goal to achieve zero fatalaties? I realize that seems pie in the sky. And of course people are people and do dumb things. I think one of the more reasonable points being made here is that safety doesn't seem to come first on Hamilton's streets.

Those streets cut through a number of residential neighbourhoods that have property values substantially higher than Hamiltons. Sure they're configured as subdivisions, but then you could make the same argument that people don't live along King or Main here in Hamilton.

And bike lanes? In Burlington? On roadways? Residential starts at New Street? You could have just said you weren't familiar with Burlington. My point is that arterial roads of this size and speed exist in other cities that have outpaced Hamilton's growth.

The city look different from behind a windshield? I know what I said.

The city look different from behind a windshield?

I guess you just get to see more of it. Not sure what your Google links are trying to prove, a few clicks and you see four lanes of traffic cutting though a residential neighbourhood where a two bedroom house lists for $614,000.

Very expensive lawsuits. Really, nothing else achieves change.

Actually, lawsuits under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act seem to be especially good at grabbing people's attention.

http://raisethehammer.org/article/2313/c...

"""

When this progressive flow is not provided the appearance of the green displays is completely random and sporadic and can create situations where approaching drivers are suddenly faced with an unexpected red display. When this occurs some drivers may brake, others may elect to run-the-red which would endanger pedestrians who are crossing the roadway.

"""

This is literally what city staff said. They seriously said "we don't want to turn that light red or else people will drive right through it".