Raise the Hammer

This excellent news. Kudos to Jason Farr and all involved in making it happen. We need more of this type of dialogue between the City and concerned/engaged citizens in Hamilton.

All five of them Jason Leach, Nicholas Kevlahan, Jonathan Dalton, John Neary and Ryan McGreal

In this instance. Your point being?

Population of 505,000 and 5 where at the meeting. No one else cares enough to show?

Population of 520,000 and 5 where invited to the meeting? A great start and hopefully this expands to greater things with more councilors and residents involved.

Fixed it for ya!

It was an informal, private meeting intended to improve communication instead of communicating through councillors, emails and blogs. I'm not sure how Farr decided who to invite, but all those who were invited have been very active in their neighbourhoods, and online, in advocating and working towards for a shift towards complete streets and reporting dangerous or faulty infrastructure. Some of us are the "official" neighbourhood association traffic reps.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-12-05 15:33:17

This is uplifting but the timeline/bureaucracy argument is a little thin. In the fifties we converted every street overnight. It's simply a matter of prioritizing the roads budget and in the end it's up to council to direct staff to make two way and complete streets the priority.

There have been multiple articles here referring to the mass conversion of one way streets downtown, complete with links to an original Spec article from 1956 describing the effect of the network conversion and the Wibur Smith and associates plan.

Here is one: http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1758/down...

and here is another with the plan: http://raisethehammer.org/article/2330

which shows the initial set of converted streets (although the one way conversions of upper James and W5th were never done).

and from the Spec:

"1956: One-way streets introduced downtown to ease traffic congestion." http://www.thespec.com/news-story/224106...

and also from the Spec:

"Swayed by the sweet promises of Wilbur Smith, the pioneering traffic engineer from South Carolina who was busy promoting one-way conversions all across North America, Hamilton’s aldermen went all-in and switched the lower city streets to one-way literally overnight." http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/224...

Last night the traffic engineers also referred to the fact that downtown streets were converted overnight to one-way back in 1956.

Not all the current one way streets were converted initially; the system was later gradually expanded through until the late 60s. But it is true that the downtown core was converted all at once in 1956.

I'm not sure I understand why two-way to one way would be so much cheaper than one-way to two-way. Why the huge difference in price? The only real difference is the need for two way traffic lights at those intersections which are signalized (mostly on arterials), which would add a bit but not a huge amount.

Remember that the two-way conversion of about 12 blocks of Caroline and Hess cost only $72k back in 2003.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-12-05 14:57:00

Well, if you don't believe all the various people who wrote the other articles, will you believe this Spec article, or are you insisting only on primary sources (i.e. a copy of the work order from public works indicating all work was completed in one night):

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/222078...

"This day in history Oct. 29, 1956

Hamilton Spectator This day in 1956 was the official first day of one-way streets in Hamilton, as city workers the evening before moved to make the changeover.

The view at the time was that one-way streets move traffic faster and more safely. Acting on a study by traffic engineers and consultants Wilbur Smith and Associates, the city converted dozens of downtown streets to one-way traffic to try to move traffic more quickly.

The plan was supposed to be a trial for 90 days, but most people liked the idea and it was continued till recent years when some streets, such as James Street, were changed back."

You can also watch this interview between the library's archivist and Mayor Bratina about the en masse conversion and the reasons for it:

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/2579/mayo...

and this IS primary material! The archivist is very clear that the change was made "all at once".

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-12-05 15:24:49

Perhaps the point made is, it wasn't decided on October 28th that it would go into effect on October 29th. I have 0 background on the decision making process as it was over 30 years before I was born, but I doubt that it was just decided a day before to convert everything, then, poof, overnight, it was done.

What is your point? Upfront costs could be viewed as an investment, with a future return on that investment.

• If converting them increases property values, that means more taxes for the city.
• If more businesses open on those barren one way streets then more people are employed.
• If they are safer then money will be saved in terms of health and well being and lower medical bills.

Most intersections have no traffic lights! Signage and line painting would be more or less the same no matter the direction of the conversion.

And I just gave you the price of one conversion pair: about $6k per block. Not exactly exorbitant.

It's impossible to make big overnight changes to a transportation system.

Approved in 1963, implemented 1967. It didn't happen overnight.

Just curious...

Were the people you've named the only residents at the meeting?

Was it a closed affair? Invite-only?

From the 2nd paragraph and comment above it looks like it was an invite by Councilor Farr who organized the meeting.

did each neighbourhood have a rep at this meeting? who repped corktown?

who repped corktown?

Probably nobody, as the neighbourhood doesn't have old cranks in it who demand bike lanes. At least, I never met any when I lived there.

I'll tell you one thing I can guarantee wasn't mentioned, speeding cars flying down Forest Ave trying to squeak by the wave of oncoming traffic along John St South.
When they fly through, they almost never stop at the Stop Sign at Catherine, which is why I have been begging Farr for Speed Humps along that street.
It only look the city 8 years to install Stop Signs at Charlton and Walnut where there's a school!

Hey, I lived at John and Charlton for 5 years. For 3 of them I walked a dog several times a day around the block and never had a problem with people speeding down those streets. They're too narrow as it is, and the horrible job people did at parking on both sides helped keep speed in check. Maybe a handful of times did people not stop or slow down there. I think there was more of an issue with wrong-way driving on the one-ways along the side streets. Speed humps definitely are an unneeded waste there. What they do need is better enforcement and towing of vehicles parked too long, too far away from the curb, or too close to the stop signs to make turning difficult. That, and better police presence to cut down on the obscene number of break-ins to vehicles along there.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2014-12-09 17:45:33

How many years ago was this? I promise you, this happens on a daily occurrence. It is part of my commute, so every day I see this happening.
I agree, wrong-way drivers happen here a lot too, especially on Catherine.

Now I see what happened at this secret meeting. Only the loudest voices get safer streets. Sorry about Corktown's luck!

I moved out end of July. I lived downtown from March 2009 till then. From about 2011 onwards I was regularly walking our dog (3-4 times daily) around the blocks, down the various streets, in the park, and never saw what you're describing. I was out in the morning, just before dinner, after dinner, and once before bed.

Didn't you rage-quit downtown? Why don't you put your energy into wherever you live now instead of still telling people in the place you don't live anymore what they should want?

I didn't "rage quit" but was definitely not impressed with the speed of progress, and the colossal steps backwards with regards to the constant car break-ins, the homeless people sleeping in the parks, the trash, and the decline of the roads.

Why don't you put your energy into wherever you live

Actually, I have. I'm a member of the Neighbourhood Action Plan in my neighbourhood, and am trying to help prioritize what needs fixing, and when, and how to make it a happy, friendly, safe, and healthy place to live. Thanks for your interest! Maybe you should take some of your own advice and rather than troll-trolling or baiting, get involved yourself!

who was there to represent Stinson? Central? Beasley? North End?

I guess you could say that I "represented" Beasley, although the point of this meeting wasn't for neighbourhood reps to ask for infrastructure improvements. Rather, it was to build lines of communication and a mutual understanding between staff in Public Works and some citizens who have been publicly engaged in discussion of (and often criticism of) transportation policy. I can't speak to Councillor Farr's thought process in deciding who to invite, but I suspect that his goal was to bring some of the loudest critics into the room. After all, Jason and Ryan don't even live in Ward 2.

As Nicholas said above, this was an informal meeting. The biggest takeaway for me was that John Mater and his group seem to be genuinely interested in engaging citizens about projects in their neighbourhoods. I don't think that he expects that engagement to come from five people only, and I don't think that the five of us are going to have any privileged access that's not available to anyone else.

I've been beating my head against the Mary St. project since 2012 and the whole time I wished I could speak to someone at City Hall regarding the technical stuff in which I have absolutely no expertise; now I know that Martin White is that guy. I am sure that if someone from Gibson or the East Mountain reaches out to him, they'll get the same response that I will. Or maybe a better one: now that I've pointed the entire RTH community in his direction, he might get a little bit annoyed with me after all ;)

It's refreshing to hear some optimism about urbanism at City Hall, but still - I have trouble believing them while Durand/Kirkendall is still a labyrinth and I've heard zero proposals from the city to change it.

Until I hear that one of the big residential arteries like Queen North, Bay, Charlton, or Herkimer is on the block for 2-way conversion, I'm still going to be skeptical.

Why so few women?

You mean on the staff side, or the citizen side? Probably both, given that there was no woman in the room.

Great question. I'm don't have a good answer.

I certainly wish that Sara Mayo had been there.

. . . or the disabled, or people of colour, or the marginalized, or the criminals . . .

It seems Jason Farr didn't learn his lesson from his secret meetings with Mac.
Even if this is done with good intentions, it doesn't make the process right.
All the time spent on this website about fair and open city council, this seems pretty hypocritical.
That being said, I applaud Staff for being more open and to those who attended the meeting for bringing up real issues, however the process is really, really bad.

So if a councillor attends a neighbourhood association meeting is that "Secret" too? gimme a break.

Nah, those usually have detailed Meeting Minutes! ;)

Lol

So I'm still waiting to hear who was able to bring Corktown, Stinson, and the North End's concerns and ideas to this meeting?
How do the North End Neighbours (Sean? Sherri?) feel about being shut out by the new administration?

I'm not sure that the North End Neighbours are being "shut out by the new administration". Perhaps we should give our Councillor the benefit of the doubt and see what else he does in terms of consultation with Ward 2 NAs and residents.

And to be fair, Councillor Farr is free to arrange meetings and informal discussions between private citizens and city staff. I don't see that any secret decisions were made, or that the meeting was particularly secret.

It was invite only, but let's not muddy the waters.

RTH has published a story about the meeting detailing who was there and the general tenor of the discussion. So, it's public knowledge that it took place and we know the general position of the 5 participants on what they'd like to see happen in Hamilton re: our streets. There will be plenty of opportunities for wider consultation and it was a nice gesture on Councillor Farr's part to link up several prominent advocates for complete streets with relevant city staff. Nothing shocking here. Let's move on.

So, a closed-door, invite-only meeting with the loudest critics of the city's transportation policies?

Sounds like the kids being called into the principal's office. I guess as usual, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Where's Farr's comments on this meeting? Were minutes taken? Was it formal or informal?

So glad that guy doesn't represent me at council any more. Enough of the antics.

I would also like to see Meeting Minutes.
It's quite concerning that those who advocate for Open & Fair Governments most vocally are ones meeting in secret invite-only jam sessions with one councillor.
Again, these meetings are needed but they need to be done properly.

Raise The Hammer is losing credibility quick, and it's for reasons such as this. C'mon Guys!

Well the squeaky wheel get's the grease for a reason: it has a problem that needs attention. If you want to bend your councillor's ear raise important issues and put yourself out there.

I can't fault those invited for their activism, or Councillor Farr for identifying them as the people to attend the meeting. I'm not part of a Jason Farr booster club. He's gotten some stuff wrong, but I think he got this right.

So if I complain enough in my neighbourhood, I will get what I want? I better get on that!

I can answer your question, actually you can answer it yourself "If that's a concern, and it may well be, then the community should be getting involved to make it happen." - DowntownInHamilton

No no, you don't get it! If you complain loud and long enough about issues in OTHER PEOPLE'S wards you can get a secret meeting with their Councillor to make changes in a neighbourhood you don't even live in!

What you do is your prerogative. Nobody's telling you not to call your councillor, start a blog, start a campaign with your neighbours, ...

Jason Farr likes to cut through complicated messes using the shortest possible route. Sometimes this works well, and sometimes maybe it doesn't (secret meeting with Mac??). It seems to me that he wanted to bring people together -- the staff who explain process to him on one side and community activists who yell into his other ear. It's a time-saver to get people into the same room and have them talk to each other instead of through him as a conduit.

I'm glad this meeting took place, but am only cautiously optimistic. We all understand that changes "take time", but if St. Catharines can do it, why are we STILL waiting for conversion of streets and when the conversion happens, they don't change the whole street (e.g. Caroline, Hess, Rebecca). The patchwork is more than a little ridiculous and is making our city a bigger nightmare for residents and visitors (especially visitors).

Dear City of Hamilton: Please convert streets along their whole length. And please do it faster. Thank you.

Don't care if it was closed door. So long as we get the results, more two way streets, ASAP.

That's the problem here! If it were a closed door meeting about increasing One Way Streets or Sabotaging Crosswalks, everyone on this website would be freaking out!
Because it's a secret meeting involving those who run this website, well then it's a-ok I guess. Right?
That's how Raise The Hammer works, right?

Private meetings happen all the time at City Hall, and remain secret, yet an invite-only meeting that is public knowledge bothers you. I'm having a hard time following your logic or sharing in your outrage.

Because defenders of the status quo will stop at no straw man to try to keep their drive-thru downtown open.

there were no votes cast or decisions made at this meeting and a member of the local press was invited and asked to write about it. it's not a transparency issue!

Just wanted to say I think it's incredibly disheartening to see that valid concerns about certain downtown neighborhoods being left out of a crucial meeting that will shape the area are being down-voted.

In what way was this a 'crucial meeting that will shape the area'? You have nothing to base that assumption on other than your own imagination; there is no evidence that any 'area shaping' happened. This meeting was not an integral part of any planning process, you can still go to your ward councillor with your concerns or you could contact one of the staff members mentioned here. This meeting is an example of exactly how representative government works: you have to show up and contribute to the process by raising concerns and being involved in the discussion. No one is going to ask for your input just because you have a strong opinion sitting in your armchair.