Raise the Hammer

Hamilton fails at educating it's public.

The reasonings are logical and a correct step for Downtown, but not everyone is a Civic Engineering graduate.

Hamilton is a corporation and it's product is the City. It's important that Hamilton go beyond it's council meetings and Cable 14 telecasts and get the community aware.

Obviously we don't want people flying through Downtown, but no one has taken the REAL effort to logically explain the benefits of 2-way streets.

Most logical-minded individuals will get it if they have it explained to them. Right now these changes are being brushed off as "ignorant change" instead of progressive thinking.

I've been thinking about the whole two way thing a lot recently because I've had to drive downtown a lot recently. I worked downtown a few years ago and I liked the one way streets because they got me to work quickly. Driving up and down James Street a couple of times this weekend I was actually glad to be able to drive slow and have time to look around. If I wasn't doing renovations and not able to stop, I would've stopped in at a couple of places ot check them out. Instead I made a list of places I want to check out with my friends. Then...I drove down Main Street on my way home. What a difference. It reminded me of those dead corridors in TO that I had to march down while in the Teen Tour Band. Hardly any ped traffic - just cars on their way somewhere other than downtown. As a civil engineering technologist, I understand the need for proper traffic flow and levels of service at intersections but at some point there's got to be a change. Of course, LOS and traffic flow will be disrupted at first, that's a given but, it'll adapt. I believe that changing downtown's streets to two way will generate new economic opportunities and if people will just take an opportunity to drive downtown, get out of their cars and spend an afternoon walking into shops, I think that you'd find a lot of people with less stress than they have now. While we're at it, can we fix the misaligned stripes between King and Main? I almost got hit twice by ppl not paying attention. Let's do it...and let's do it right!

Ryan Wrote: "To be honest, my experience with trying to discuss two-way conversion suggests otherwise."

People who do not understand the benefits after being shown logical proof--not opinion--will naturally thread themselves out of the City and more progressively thinking individuals will replace them through the laws of natural order.

On the other hand, there are those who read RTH articles and essays and get a little tickled about the idea. They just need to see it in action, or imagine it (in my case).

It would be great to show Hamilton in this way to those who are not completely convinced.

It would be nice if a video could be rendered using the current Downtown architecture as a backdrop, showing maybe LRT slowing down, picking up some passengers and then traveling off. Behind the tram would be cobblestone roads with people walking everywhere; people playing in Gore park. In the distance you would see patios full of people and an energy that Hamilton so desperately requires.

I wonder how many people would change their perspective if they could see it in action. They might even become proud of the idea.

I sent this letter to the Spec.

Naturally, as it does not promote putting automobiles over people, it didn't get published...

In the Feb 22: rebuttal to Terry Cooke's Feb 16 column, Patrick Keller makes a very clear argument for the conversion of downtown streets to two-way, despite his personal opposition to the idea.

"Since the conversion of one-way streets to two ways on John and James a couple of years ago, I avoid the downtown area completely when not driving to work, and I don't think I'm alone in this."

That's exactly the point. The downtown area's function is not to support the needs of those who are "just passing through" on their way to somewhere else. It is meant to support those who live, work and do business in the centre of the city. Fewer cars and more efficient transit options downtown makes the area more livable, and attracts more development and greater variety of businesses, which attracts more people, spending more money.

By choosing a different route and avoiding driving through the downtown area, Patrick and those like him are contributing to a cleaner, safer and more vibrant downtown. One only need look at the activity that's started to develop on James North to see the benefits this has to businesses and to people in the lower city. On the other hand, Main St. is a ghost town fronted by 5 lanes of traffic.

tomkinite...I love the idea of video presentations with our own streets as a backdrop...show the LRT working 2-ways on Main, new tree canopy, new storefront shops, patios and a general feeling of vibrancy and vitality....most Hamiltonians probably think it can never happen. Because the average person isn't an engineer it can be tough to imagine how Main St could look....a well-done video presentation would be fabulous.

It's certainly worth giving a voice to the outsider; they often provide the most perspicacious view of any situation. That being said, the Spec's decision to give voice to a guy who's been in the downtown once in the last ten years does seem a bit ridiculous, I have to admit.

The fact that the Spec printed only negative responses likely indicates that the reaction to Cooke's piece was in fact overwhelmingly non-supportive. This would not surprise me in the least. I do quite firmly believe that Hamiltonians en masse are quite staunchly opposed to a reversion to two-way streets. While it is almost assuredly the more enlightened decision, I don't think it would be a very popular one (at least initially).

People in Hamilton really need take a trip to Detroit for a crash lesson on the implications of prioritizing traffic flow over everything else.

Perhaps city counsel should organize a bus tour to teach the little speeders a good lesson.

they can take a road trip to Detroit to see a lot more than bad transportation planning....

If they want to see the effects of prioritizing traffic flow everything else they should all take a road trip to Main Street, Downtown Hamilton Ontario.

I like the idea of a Gore Park video presentation. RTH toyed with the idea, a while back, of doing a, 'Can You Imagine...?' series with photo mock ups of how the downtown could look. Video would be even better. Perhaps some RTH readers have the technology...?

As for Arienc's letter - spot on: Downtown is a neighbourhood first and foremost. What would happen if you put a freeway through YOUR neighbourhood? What would happen if you took it away? Neighbourhoods florish when people are invited and encouraged to hit the streets and mingle. When neighbourhoods are split in two, (or three or four), by highways and poor planning, they become empty shells. Furthermore, as a retail and tourist district, downtown is a destination not a thoroughfare. If you want to go around then go around. Hamilton should follow the lead of Leeds and Nottingham and towns all over Europe and pedestrianize the core (it'll never appen :) )

I have a few friends in the business of rendering. 3D (Lightwave, Maya, etc) and Adobe After Effects would mostly be the prime applications. They could be too busy, that is the only caveat.

I like the "What would happen if?" scenario. I think it would be neat to show them the current Downtown. Maybe have a "speed reader" to record the speeds of traffic. Show footage of Downtown and the traffic while on-screen the speeds that people are going while they rip through the core are displayed.

Then sink into a more pedestrian-friendly City scene. Show that the speeds are lower but the streets aren't empty. Something along those lines.

I think it's important to highlight the concerns of those who oppose the idea. The reasoning behind this is that you want to educate to the audience that the idea isn't on bias and ignorance, but from carefully skilled and planned strategies. For example, while showing the footage of people speeding down King. St. you could also display on screen the various pros and cons to the one-way traffic scenario. Why it works, why it doesn't.

When showing the 2-way pedestrian friendly streets, you could also display the pros and cons to that strategy as well.

The audience will on their own grasp the variation and with understanding grasp that it is more important to have an active community over a 80km/h speedway.

There is much planning to do if this strategy was executed, although I feel it's work would prove sincerity and weight in the facts.

Great idea! The vast majority of people are visual learners and aside from what the media feeds them they wouldn't be able to imagine something unless it was presented to them in a format like others have mentioned. (Thanks tv for ruining imaginations!!!)

That's right Jason, god forbid the Spec print an opinion different than your own. Cooke's column must have slipped by those evil editors who are conspiring to kill the downtown. Now they are trying to make up for it by running negatives letters. Oh wait, there's a couple letters in today's paper that support going to two-way streets...
Maybe instead of blaming the Spec you could accept there is divided opinion on this issue. I'm just happy it's finally being debated by the public, it's about time.

Enough said "god forbid the Spec print an opinion different than your own"...

I don't think you understand the problem, enough. The Spec doesn't show a balance in posting letters or opinions on it's pages. It has always leaned towards printing articles and opinions that reflect a lack of inspiration for the growth in downtown...usually ideas entrenched in ages of backwards thinking. I also believe that the divided opinion you say there is is much less in favour of keeping the roads as one way streets. I've yet to talk to a person who lives downtown and is directly affected by the monster highways we've made who enjoys them.

If you ask most business/educated people living and/or working in the lower city, they don't read the Spectator. Instead, they read the Globe, Star, etc...blue-hair type old ladies living on the mountain read the Spec and that is why there are such silly, ignorant letters to the editor...case solved. :o

hey...spoke too soon...my letter actually made it into the Spec today, along with another supporter of two-way streets downtown.

While the Spectator has traditionally been on the side of those who benefit from the status quo and spend a good chunk of their budget on advertising, but I do sense occasionally some good insight finding its way onto their pages, both from the community and some writers. Let the debate continue.

"...but I do sense occasionally some good insight finding its way onto their pages, both from the community and some writers." which is then immediately undercut by a finger-wagging editorial. And I just renewed my subscription, fool that I am. Well I am an old lady, even if I live in the lower city, so I guess I'm in their demo.

Arienc,

I was heartened to see someone else wrote into the Spec. If only someone here would run for Mayor...

Having travelled to a few places, a great City has in my estimation never been associated with great and fast moving traffic through the urban core.

I can't see why the City does not just make the change.

The only reason, is that a portion of the electorate and some politicians can't make the mental swith to do so, because of some ill-conceived plan to keep the streets one-way.