Comment 113389

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted August 11, 2015 at 12:10:58 in reply to Comment 113385

IMHO, both of you are leaving details out ("Anon" & "LOL"). While there are valid points, I am adding a HUGE caveat (mandatory additional information supplement for reader educational sake)....

I agree there are beautiful 1-way boulevards, with wide sidewalks, trees, big curb bumpouts for non-traffic parking lanes, fancy intersections with great markings, etc.

Likewise, there's dangerous 2-way streets with no bike curbs, narrow sidewalks, and in some sections, no crosswalk paintings at intersections.

For example, the massive big-radius curb curves on St. Joseph Drive and James Street S, allows cars to turn REALLY FAST, scaring pedestrians who cross at this intersection. That is what James Street South pretty much is. Automobile optimized section, as it's also a mountain access.

And I agree there are ugly/bad 2-way streets, too -- including B-A-R-T-O-N that is people-unfriendly in sections -- though some people like the nitty gritty -- it's a street we both love & hate.

Readers, I again point out the distinction between James Street South versus James Street North versus Upper James Street. Many readers don't realize there's three different names describing the same axis.

Now, James Street South, is not as traffic-tamed as James Street North. There are no curb bumpouts for streetside parking and there's far fewer stores, South was already 2-way in parts, and we've talked about the big corner curves at the hospital above for high speed car-turning (perhaps optimized for ambulances too), plus it's also a mountain access so more speeding traffic occurs here. So, obviously, this section is biased more automobile-optimized.

The South section is intentionally more auto-optimized than the North section, and beyond a point was always a 2-way street so there's no 1-way-convert-to-2-way comparision basis. So damn right, James Street South is far more dangerous. So? It's irrelevant to the discussion precisely because it was intentionally kept auto-optimized, unlike the sections north of Jackson Square.

So yes, a fancy 1-way doesn't destroy a neighborhood if done properly (with wide sidewalks, curb bumpouts, cycle paths, and trees in the middle). But that's tantamount to narrowing Main Street down to a 2-lane 1-way street. (Or even leave out the bike paths, and do 3-lane). BUT Hamilton isn't ready to turn Main Street into a 2-lane street with wide sidewalks, Queens Quay style bike paths, and trees in the middle of street. Automobile owners of Hamilton would yell "Blasphemy" even if some of us Lower City Residents might love to see a tamer Main/King -- and I could, as a carowner, understand to some extent.

A compromise balance (that the Council may eventually manage to accept) is needed when Main gets eventually converted to 2-way, probably out of necessity as a construction detour when the LRT begins to get built. However, the unacceptable current status quo, of 5-lane 1-way Main/King, the way they are designed, have many articles in the 50s paper that it sped up traffic but destroyed Main Street business vitality when these were 2-way converted to 1-way back over half a century ago.

Anyway, at any point, being a pedestrian has a danger factor anywhere in Hamilton. More in some parts and less in other parts. But it was far more dangerous for pedestrians when James St N was 1-way, and now it's far safer there.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-08-11 12:33:15

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds