Raise the Hammer

dang. I sent that exact cross-section as an idea to the city several years ago for Cannon Street... works beautifully and would fit perfectly on Cannon. One problem - the cars aren't flying by at 70km/hr. No wonder we don't do things like this in Hamilton.

Call them 'bike highways' in order to speak the vernacular common to most folks at city hall. Now imagine one on Cannon St across the entire city, connecting to bike lanes both ways on York Blvd past Bay. Now, take one lane on Queen Street from the waterfront to the escarpment and put a 2-way bike-lane there. Ditto for Wellington and Wentworth Street from water to escarpment. Same on Bay from Hunter to Cannon where we have a glut of one-way lanes....connect into normal bike lanes north of Cannon and south of Hunter. And the most radical of all - take away a lane (gasp!) on Main Street for a two-way bike lane, AND add 24-7 street parking on the other curb lane of Main, leaving 2-3 car lanes open.

Hamilton would be safer, more business friendly, more kid friendly and more livable simply by doing this. And of course, doing it properly with flower beds at intersections where possible and green bike boxes at intersections etc......

Or we can maintain 5 lane truck freeways everywhere.

Umm, have you seen Hess Street in the Village? How about St Catharine in downtown Montreal??
One-ways can be safe and ped-friendly with SLOW traffic, wide sidewalks, bike lanes, trees etc......

montreal has great examples of separated bike lanes too!

Montreal has both separated bike lanes and one-way streets. In fact, it has separated bike lanes on one-way streets.

What's different about the one-way streets in downtown Montreal - say, Maisonneuve - is that they are not the main commercial streets nor are they five-lane expressways.

What's the same about one-way streets in Montreal is that pedestrians seem to avoid them; certainly I'll usually go one block up to lively Sherbrooke or one block down to lively-if-seedy St. Catherine rather than walk along the relatively uninviting stretches of Maisonneuve.

One-way, high-speed, multilane expressways on our main business and social streets are what so many of us here decry; to sarcastically moan "but but but ... one-streets are evil" is either naive or just plain trollish.

Comment edited by moylek on 2011-08-31 08:20:14

yes they can be safe.... as long as they are not 5 lanes wide!!!! 3 lanes should be a max, with an additional lane for on street parking if necessary

just imagine the transformation along Main Street. it could have room for street trees!

The great one way street debate has been raging on these silly pages forever. I have always liked one way streets I think they bring lots to the table. I keep hearing the same old rubbish about how we need to change them all to two way to save our downtown. Our downtown was a thriving booming place with one way streets, 40 years ago. The one way streets did nothing to create the collapse of out downtown. Changes in society did. I just get this great chuckle when ever some one posts anything to show how nice life can be with one way streets. Then of course all the apologists have to get on and it is always "but this", "and only when" or "not like we do it Hamilton."

Apologize away, I understand. Oh and while your here apologizing downvote as well. Make the comments grey out and then you can pretend they do not exist and keep living in your little pretend world.

One way streets are not a bad thing in and of themselves, but it's the manner in which they are operated and engineered which is the issue. Synchronized traffic lights which create de facto freeways through the heart of the city is the issue. Building roads which provide far more capacity than is required is the issue (too many lanes).

Can you explain and/or provide evidence as to how/why 3 lanes are safer than 5 lanes?

If a street is carrying a given number of cars at any one time, as a cyclist, I'd like that street to have as many lanes as possible. The more lanes there are, the less likely it is that any given number of cars will be in the lane adjacent to me and my bike.

If Main st., as an example, was 15 lanes wide, the chances of a car being in the lane next to the bike lane is very small, if it is 2 lanes wide, there is an extremely high chance of a car being next to the bike lane every minute of the day.

Jason, why do you insist on consistently over exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth. 70km/hr... I'm sure cars have driven that fast on Cannnon just as they have/do on the streets in Vancouver from time to time. However, everyone knows that suggesting that 70km/hr is an average or even common speed on Cannon street is a lie. Just say the truth.. cars drive around 57km/hr on Cannon. If that is too fast for you then say so, but at least tell the truth.

Yup, exactly.. which is why if bike lanes are to be put in Hamilton, they should be on non busy streets for everyone's safety.

What are your thoughts on synchronized lights which create de facto 50km/hr max traffic flow?

go be a pedestrian or patio-sitter for a month on Main St, and tell us your thoughts (good luck finding a patio)

Are you still talking about bike lanes? Let's not get distracted.

Our downtown was a thriving booming place with one way streets, 40 years ago.

I wish that if you're going to throw out references like this, you actually knew what you were talking about. This, unfortunately is the kind of stuff I hear at Council meetings. (Until someone steps up and delivers a smack-down.)

The one way streets did nothing to create the collapse of out downtown. Changes in society did.

I'll pay you to write an article on this. Because I'm very, very curious as to your viewpoint. (Regardless of how much verité it might possess.)

cars do 70 from time to time on Locke. They do 70 multiple times an hour, all day, everyday on Cannon and Main.

You could achieve the same effect by taking a 5 lane street, dedicating one lane to bikes, and putting a parking lane between the bikes and the 3 remaining traffic lanes. Now there's no traffic next to the bikes and as a bonus you don't have to have 10 minute red lights necessary to allow a pedestrian with a walker to cross 15 lanes.

Wider streets crate an illusion of space that encourages fast driving.

Meister,

I think you've made it clear that there is at least one person NOT reading the articles here. Or at least not comprehending them...

Comment edited by seancb on 2011-08-31 17:21:17

I was there 40 years ago. The Black Forest Inn used to have lines down the block every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. Because this was about as ethnic as you could get. Then things changed, more and more different restaurants opened up giving us choices. People came downtown to shop at places like Righthouse and that amazing china shop that used to be on King Street. Malls opened Eastgate Square and then later Limeridge Mall. Between less money being downtown and more shopping in the burbs the core suffered. Hamilton was not alone it was mirrored in just about every city in North America. One way streets two way streets it did not matter. Come on this is nothing new everyone has heard my rants before. Hamilton is not unique in this. What Hamilton is unique in is how it is situated geographically.

The fact it is a city divided in two has some affect. The fact it is so close to Toronto has a huge affect. Toronto is the destination city for miles and miles around. This is going to make it difficult for Hamilton to become that kind of destination city. As Toronto forces commerce out of the city because of high prices there are so many smaller cities looking to adopt those enterprises. Mississauga, Brampton and Vaughn have attracted a goodly share of corporate head offices and Canadian head offices because they are less expensive and yet so close to Toronto. Hamilton will find it very difficult to compete. Not only with them but Scarborough, Oakville and Markham just to mention a few that spring to mind.

One way streets did not cause this problem and two way streets will not fix this problem.

The synchronized lights are one of the good things about one way streets. Driving down King and Main the lights are synchronized to for about a 51 or 52 KPH traffic flow. That is a far cry from the 70 KPH I keep hearing. You get a wave of traffic for 45 seconds or so and then you get nothing, calm. You can cross the street at your leisure. Compare that to James Street South. Two way traffic, cars racing trying to make the next green light. Pedestrians never having a lull in the traffic to cross, so they feel forced to try and get across the street in between the cars. It is a much more dangerous place now then it was a few years ago when it was one way. Not only is it more dangerous for pedestrians it is also slower for exasperated drivers who feel forced to drive more aggressively to get to where they are going.

This is impossible to achieve. I believe you have asked about this in the past and I posted a mathematical proof that synchronized lights always allow speeding. Without enforcement, people will speed. Even if the majority only go 10 over it is still an inappropriate speed for many neighbourhoods that these streets pass through.

The only way to guarantee speeds using synced lights is to sync them really slow - like 35-40 - which no one would tolerate.

Many writers here advocate for changing our street design as one of many angles from which to attack the problem. It is you who projects the opinion of two way conversions being a single magic bullet onto the other writers!

Comment edited by seancb on 2011-08-31 18:30:14

false!

What you write is true, but they don't seem to be interested in the truth here.

Laughable. It seems to be an ongoing theme that some posters assume the person reading their post is too stupid to see that what they're saying isn't true.

who the heck up votes this stuff? To those who up vote comments like this, do you actually think about what the person has written and whether it's true or not?

If it's true, why are there so many more pedestrians on James North than there are on Main and Cannon? Why are there so many more pedestrians on James North than there were when it was still a one way street? Why are there so many more businesses on James North than there are on Main and Cannon? Why are there so many more businesses on James North than there were when it was still a one way street? Why do I prefer to walk along James North and cross the street than along Main and Cannon, where I feel like I'm walking beside a highway?

What? Really? You have numbers/evidence to prove the truths of your questions right?

It really is impossible to have an intelligent 'argument' or conversation aimed at discussing the benefits of one way or two way when you bring up ridiculous logic (what a misnomer) like the stuff mentioned above.

more signalized intersections are safer for pedestrians. It is FAR safer crossing James St than Main St. Period. 52kph would be nice compared to what really happens on Main and Cannon. 35 would be more suitable for streets in the heart of downtown (like every other normal city). The fact that we have such long lulls without a single car shows that we don't need wide freeways downtown. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't Manhattan.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopi...

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/A...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3277...

apparently you and I (and business owners and loft purchasers and studio renters and gallery owners and patio sitters and cafe operators and festival organizers and everyone else) are weird.

Comment edited by jason on 2011-08-31 23:20:12

how about the de facto 70km/hr guy speeding to catch up to the green wave....every green wave....every day.

I am sure there are a variety of reasons. If however you are trying to pin the increase business on two way streets then why is John North in just about the same state it was in pre two way conversion? There is little if any evidence to show the changes on James North are anything other than co-incidental to the two way conversion. The two streets were converted at the same time, one experienced change the other did not. How can you attribute the change on the one to the conversion?

Think High School. You know they are the "cool kids" the "in crowd."

What is written, or even how it is written has little or no significance compared to the author's name.

Ryan, as is his right as the site's owner, has decreed the voting process to be a part of his site. I find it almost endlessly amusing and insightful.

okay.. I get it. 3 lanes = slow, 5 lanes = fast

Pretty sure at this point you're just trolling, but.....how about too many lanes = fast, less lanes = less fast.

Think about that. Really... think about it. How long does that "guy" have to speed to catch the green wave? Perhaps 1 or 2 blocks?

If you want to talk about hypothetical people speeding to catch a green light, why not sight the "de facto guy" who speeds up to EVERY SINGLE intersection on two way streets. If you want to talk about the potential to speed, there is more of an argument to be made for two way than there is for one way. There is much more potential reward for speeding at non synched two ways than there is for synched one ways.

I'm not sure how much driving you do Jason, I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess not much. For those that drive a lot, I encourage you to watch your speedometer (briefly) while you are on the one way part vs two way parts of Main and other two way or one way streets. I'm not talking Main compared to some tiny two way... I'm talking Main or Cannon compared to streets like Barton or Main through Stoney Creek. I'm not proud of it, but I know that I (and those in cars around me) speed a lot more frequently and at higher speeds on two way streets than I do on one way streets.

I find it sad, frustrating, and disheartening.

Why in the world would you make an inane comment like that? I fully understand and comprehend the article, probably better than you do. I have no problems with the article. All my annoyances lie with the silliness posted on this site. Your post above being a prime example. My opinions obviously do not agree with yours and I am more than O.K. with that. My arguments are fact based and you cannot refute them so you resort to the above banality which adds absolutely nothing of consequence to the debate. If that is all you have to add we would all be better served if you kept it to yourself. However I know that will not happen, it is a free country and this is a free blog so keep up the good work, but at least try to add something of significance to the debate, at least a little bit.

mystoneycreek I do not know you nor anything about you. Just as a point of reference are you old enough to remember what downtown was like in the late 60's and early 70's?

Is that a 4 or 5 lane one way street in Manhattan? What we need to do is build our core up. The streets will take care of themselves.

That is only because you actually care. Stop caring and start thinking how much of a reaction you are getting. Unless the post is in poor taste or a personal attack consider a down vote as "we got no answer" or "we don't want him in our cliche." Really you need to think High School.

Whenever I write a post that gets downvoted a lot I know that it is because "they" just do not have an answer for the arguments. Sort of like trying to tell me that St. Louis is about the same size as Hamilton.

Yes of course there are examples of 1-way streets in other cities that seem to work fine, and often work fine in conjunction with bike lanes and pedestrian activity. I think what gets lost in the 1-way vs 2-way debate is that Hamilton's one way's are quite unique:

They have timed lights.

This I've never seen before in other cities and I think is the number one reason for everything debated above. The timed lights promotes speeding as one races to 'catch up' to the green lights. This is why our streets are fast, seem dangerous, and scare away bicyclists and business's. 3-lanes vs. 5-lanes?.. Who cares, just untime those lights! 1-way vs. 2-way?.. I'd rather untime the lights, THEN argue about this.

Mr. Meister I think its clear from these kind of statements that you don't actually walk downtown very much. "You can cross at your leisure"? Really? Crossing 5 lanes of highway on Main (during one of those 'calm' non-traffic periods) as a J-walker or even at one of the intersections is one of the scariest things to do as a pedestrian in this city. It's like walking onto a racetrack just before horse comes charging out of the gates.

Now picture doing the same thing while having to worry about traffic coming from two directions and the lulls in traffic becoming next to non-existent.

do you actually drive Mrs Meister? I drive a lot in Hamilton and I don't think what you're saying is true.

The phenomenon of people speeding in order to "catch" a light is MUCH more common when lights are not synched.

Timed lights do not promote speeding. In fact, they promote the opposite. They promote doing the speed limit (or close to it). Using your logic/argument in a factual way (not an imaginary way), you are arguing against yourself.

After doing some reading, I've come to learn that what we have on our streets like Main and King is actually called Coordinated traffic lights. Synchronized traffic lights would be if 10(for example) lights all turned red or green simultaneously. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about coordinated traffic lights.

Speed is self-regulated in coordinated signal systems; drivers traveling too fast will arrive on a red indication and end up stopping, drivers traveling too slowly will not arrive at the next signal in time to utilize the green indication. In synchronized [ie not what we have here in Hamilton, but could be compared to intersections that are not coordinated] systems, however, drivers will often use excessive speed in order to "make" as many lights as possible.

Benefits include: * Increasing the traffic handling capacity of roads.

* Reduce accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian. 

* Encourages travel within the speed limit to meet green lights.

* Reduce unnecessary stopping and starting of traffic - this in turn reduces fuel

consumption, air pollution, noise and vehicle wear and tear. * Improve journey time.

* Reduce driver frustration and 'road rage'.

Comment edited by SpaceMonkey on 2011-09-01 20:29:05

This I've never seen before in other cities

Have you traveled outside of Canada?

If you don't believe the math then you can try it for yourself empirically: Catch a yellow on main, then settle in at 70km and count how many lights you can go through and how long you can drive 70 before you catch up with the front of the pack. It's in the neighbourhood of 8-12 lights depending on where you do it.

Timing the lights at 50 km/hr only forces the front of the green wave to go 50. The further back you are the faster you can go.

To say that people don't (or won't) go too fast even when the opportunity is presented is totally naive.

IF the lights are going to be timed, they should be timed for average cycling speed instead. - this would solve two problems: 1. livability along main and 2. creating a main street that's more bike friendly.

Wow. It's still 1970 in some parts of Hamilton....

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4C3D...

That might be true at 3 A.M. with no traffic. At a reasonable time of day there just is not enough room for a rogue car to sustain speeds much above the pack. The pack typically uses all the lanes so there simply is not enough room for any one random car to speed for very far. As it is not all the cars get through the green light and some have to wait for the next wave. So much for the pack maintaining speeds above the limit.

It worked in 1970 and in 1990 it works in 2011 and will continue to work in 2041. In fact it will work as long as we use cars. The fact you do not like it is totally irrelevant to whether or not it works.

When I was in Germany there were a number of roads with electronic signs that kept drivers informed of the speed necessary to catch the next green light. The sign might read 70KPH and if you drove a little faster than that the next one would read 60KPH to slow you down to catch the light. Since they were not one way streets the lights could not be timed for both directions to get green lights at any particular speed. So different directions were encouraged to do different speed. They actually changed the speed limits on streets to keep traffic moving. How is that for a civilized way to keep traffic moving?

The timed lights do not promote speeding. If anything they encourage cars to not speed. The resulting pack from timed lights almost eliminates speeding for any significant stretch since the pack and turning vehicles typically occupy all the lanes, there simply is no place to speed.

The lack of cycling lanes makes the streets seem dangerous for bikes. A comprehensive network of cycling lanes is a necessity for the city. The existing hodge podge of lanes is mind boggling. Lanes start and stop without warning or reason.

These are two very distinct issues at play and one does not impact the other. Timed lights and cycling lanes are not in any way related.

Pardon me? My response was to your throwaway joke comment which in no way reflects the reality of the articles posted here:

One way streets are pure evil have you not been paying attention?

So if you want serious responses, don't start with jokes yourself. You deserve another mirror for this post too!

You keep saying this but it's simply not true, even during peak times. If you catch a yellow it is easy to drive 70 for quite some time, until you catch up with the pack. You can pretend that it doesn't happen all you want but it does. We all live it - maybe some of us just turn a blind eye?