Raise the Hammer

Downtown Hamilton doesn't have the pedestrian volumes to warrent a scramble intersection. What are we going to do, let cars idle (and pollute) waiting for all the people in downtown Hamilton to cross the road diagonally with their pathetic scooters?

Comments like the one above make a good case for a moderated forum. God forbid you ever have an accident or brain injury and need a "pathetic" scooter. That's disgusting.

I'm sorry, but this line from Solomon is too much: "traffic would back up as far as Queen Street". I mean, seriously. York is a wide-open freeway with zero congestion. I can't feel that our intelligence has been insulted with that response.
Maybe they should rename the Downtown Secondary Plan, "Putting People 2nd or 3rd".

Jason,

by "moderated" you mean censure any views that are not similar to your own. This is the road that the left is now taking when they are on the losing side of an argument. Look at university campuses.

This is pointless in this location anyway. People would only use it to get from the parking garage to the market. King/James and King/John should be scramble intersections. That would fit in nicely with the upcoming Gore Park project.

Comments from people who have obviously not looked at the project plans are useless. Once the redevelopment is complete, there would be a guaranteed increase in pedestrian traffic. And no Capitalist, it's not that you're opinion differs, it's that your comment is derogatory.

I say give it a shot, try one there and one near Gore and see how they work. I'm sick of them using "models" as an excuse for not developing the downtown in a way that moves it forwards rather than back into the 60s.

I like the way they do it in Rome - pedestrians always have the right of way (at least in certain intersections). Want to stop traffic? Step out into the street. It's a pedestrian scramble all of the time, with no need for signals.

Of course, on our urban freeways, it'd probably be a recipe for suicide.

I can answer Ryan's question: the model the City of Hamilton uses for traffic calculation (called ME2) would assume a fixed volume of traffic. It would not take into a account changes in traffic levels due to changes in congestion, signal timing, number of lanes etc. Traffic volumes would be inputted based on current measurements.

To account for changes in total traffic levels (e.g. motorists choosing alternate routes, travelling at different times or switching to other modes) would require either an agent-based system (which models transportation decisions by individual agents), or a manual reduction of traffic flow based on the expert knowledge of the user.

One other limitation of these systems is that they don't include cyclists or pedestrians as part of the traffic model.

Eric Miller's UTRAC group at the UofT is working on a fine grain agent-based system called TASHA (travel activity for household agents) that could actually predict changes in behaviour (like avoiding a particular street because of its higher traffic volumes, or switching to public transit), but it is still in the 'research' stage.

The bottom line: the traffic models currently used by Hamilton (and all other cities) are good at optimizing traffic flow given a fixed layout (e.g. by changing traffic light timing, adding turn lines), but they can't predict what will happen if the layout changes significantly (one-way to two-way conversion, lane removal, population growth).

I say add it to King & James first, re-do the York Blvd without the scramble yet. Then if the Scramble at K&J is a hit with Pedestrians & Drivers, and the pedestrian numbers increase in the 'Market District', then go ahead and add it here. I don't think it's needed at the Market just yet.

Why when you can easily jaywalk the ramp between the market and city centre/hall. K&J makes sense because it would get rid of the current james southbound right turn mayhem with its three second green light.

I agree that a scramble would be well suited to king/james... but "mayhem"? Come on...

Lol...this is too funny and too typical of Hamilton. Other cities look for ways to slow urban traffic and make life more attractive for cyclists, pedestrians etc..... here, we keep looking for ways to keep the cars bombing along. I haven't heard anything regarding removing transport trucks off York during this process. So, those market stalls that can be set up on the York sidewalk right next to live traffic lanes will have transport trucks flying by still??? This actually could be a recipe for "mayhem". But at least it's "efficient".

the odd thing about this is that there really isn't that much vehicular traffic related to this intersection heading north/south. if you look at a map and think about it, very few cars or trucks emerge from the jackson square or city centre ramp, ie. north bound. very few cars or trucks head south bound on mcnab, because you are either heading into the loading docks if you continue straight or you are turning left onto york, but why would you unless you are coming out of a parking lot and there are equally as accessible ways to go, vine being one of them. regardless there is no through traffic and the amount of through traffic should decrease along york after the two way conversion. it happened on james north.

this really is a very specific intersection in terms of pedestrian use because so many people use it to get to the library and market where it is most efficient to cross. it is not however,in any similar significant way specific for cars or trucks except those who need to enter the market loading area or the jackson square loading area. if this intersection was indeed turned into a scramble by say having the vehicles heading north or south wait twice as long or even three times as long, vehicular traffic that could would find another equally opportune way of reaching their goal.

slowing down the maybe 50 or so vehicles a day who must use this intersection is immeasurably more economical than slowing down the hundreds or thousands of people using the intersection each day. i'm thinking specifically of the pedestrian zoo the intersection is on a saturday when there is almost no north south vehicle traffic during market or library hours.

keep in mind as well that i am one of those people driving into the loading docks, and i would rather wait an extra 20 or 30 seconds in exchange for a more friendly pedestrian crossing. i have never had to wait, in 17 years of using that intersection more than one light cycle. in fact i can't think the last time i have waited at that light heading north or south with more than two other vehicles. compare this to many other intersections in the city where two or three light cycles are needed to make it through an intersection. this is not a hub of vehicular congestion that we need to be worrying about efficiencies.

i do think that it is remarkable that the city is making this stretch two way. i applaud the efforts of all involved and urge them to keep up the good work. it is the single most important thing the city can do to encourage the type of revival that is starting on james noth, converting all inner city one way streets, including cannon and main into two way streets.

traffic TO the city, not THROUGH the city!

There is an interesting concept being tried out in London, England which originated in Holland. Because of copyright requirements I cannot quote by copying and pasting from the site here but if you go to: www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-nak1.htm you will find an interesting article about the removal of ALL traffic control systems!! It's called "the naked street".
This site - it's called World Wide Words - is one of my favourite sites and I encourage you to sign up while you're there for the weekly newsletter which arrives every Saturday morning.
Anyway, what do you think of the "naked street" concept?

I have a hunch that the "naked street" concept is somewhat culturally mediated. It's worth a try, but I don't know if it would work in North America right now. Maybe a small university town with a high proportion of divergent thinkers would be open to it - say, Eugene Oregon, Boulder Colorado, or even Guelph. Speaking of those types of towns, Davis California has had a lot of success with separated bike lanes. I think that's the way to go.

I was in New Zealand in 1989 and first experienced a scramble intersection in Auckland. I thought it was the coolest thing ever and couldn't imagine why we didn't use them in Canada. They also had decided to get rid of the penny. If the cash register said 42 cents, you rounded down, if it was 43, we rounded up.

Very very very simple little things to make life easier and nicer are too complicated for Canada, I despair.

1989 eh? Well, hang in there. I'm sure we'll be doing some of those things here by 2074.

The idea of a scramble intersection is great.

Except MacNab and York is silly. I was just stopped there at a red light, and the scramble idea occurred to me. It was Monday at 11:57 (noon), and the entire time not one pedestrian crossed, not one pedestrian was even in sight for the duration of the red light. And the Farmers' Market was open and it was lunch time for all the workers. where was everyone?

Put a scramble at King and James and that would make sense.

this is an interesting point Trey. If the pedestrian activity doesn't warrant a scramble, I'd agree with you to not do it there. I'd hate for us to have our first scramble be a failure, making it harder to get them in the future.

I could see scrambles working great at King/James, King/John, James/Main etc....

Plus, I'd prefer our first scramble to be at an intersection with more amenities and destinations nearby, not a parking garage. Seems like this scramble idea is in keeping with Hamilton's priorities - get people from their cars into the market and back to their cars as quickly as possible.