Special Report: Walkable Streets

Downtown Neighbourhoods Unite Against Dangerous Streets

We, the residents of downtown Hamilton, have had enough. We demand safe streets. We don't want studies, we don't want excuses. We want safe streets now.

By Jonathan Dalton
Published June 04, 2012

this article has been updated

The following letter represents the efforts of downtown Neighbourhood Associations to establish a consensus on the issue of one-way streets in the downtown core.

Representatives from the Ward 2 Neighbourhood Associations of Durand, Central, Beasley, Corktown, North End Neighbours and Stinson have been meeting to discuss issues that are common to downtown neighbourhoods, and one of the most universally aggravating issues is the safety of our roads.

While Most favour the conversion of main arteries from one-way to two-way, all agree that our streets in their current configuration are unacceptable.

History of One-Way Streets

Downtown Hamilton began as a thriving business centre surrounded by diverse residential neighbourhoods home to people and families from all walks of life. A broad transportation system consisting of streetcars and later automobiles and buses carried people where they could not walk. Shopping, work and leisure were within reach of residents, whether by foot, car or public transit.

As Hamilton expanded in both population and industry, and our industrial wealth afforded more people the privilege of car ownership, there was great pressure to provide the infrastructure to move more cars throughout the city.

While cities throughout the world were building urban expressways and rapid transit systems, Hamilton investigated many such options and decided instead to use its existing network of roads more efficiently.

In 1956, Hamilton converted its entire lower city network of arterial roads to one-way traffic flow with synchronized traffic lights, achieving traffic flows similar to those of a divided highway.

While Hamilton's one-way street network was considered an engineering marvel, it cut through what were at the time prosperous business areas and broad tree - lined residential boulevards. Street side parking was taken away and local retailers felt the difference immediately, at times flooding City Hall meeting in protest.

Neighbourhoods that once enjoyed large front yards and safe roadways, found themselves divided by walls of high speed traffic. Heavy transport trucks traveled at high speeds through what used to be front yards.

Although the consequences of our one-way street system were immediate, little has changed in the decades that followed. Business declined, residents moved elsewhere, and millions of dollars of large scale renewal projects could not reverse the exodus of wealth from downtown Hamilton.

Even the industry that was originally served by our transportation system has long since declined. Steel mills that once employed tens of thousands now employ a few thousand. Yet the traffic continues, only now it mostly comes from elsewhere, and is destined elsewhere. Downtown Hamilton has become a traffic conduit from one suburb to the other.

Only Downtown Suffers From Fast One-Ways

Transportation is important, and every area of the city has street that move traffic. However, there is no reason downtown residents must be treated with specific contempt when it comes to balancing traffic flow with safety. Here are a few simple facts about the transportation network outside of downtown:

There are only synchronized one-way streets downtown. They run primarily through wards 2 and 3, which are also home to a high proportion of Hamiltonians that don't even own or drive cars. Home to some of the most economically disadvantaged residents, and most of our recent immigrants for whom English is a second language and therefore face difficulty getting their voices heard. Home to a lot of people who don't choose to raise their children here.

Streets More Dangerous Than Guns

Crime is often cited as a reason to avoid downtown, yet more people are killed annually by motor vehicles than guns or knives. Millions are spent each year to increase the police budget, yet our roads remain as dangerous thoroughfares, engineered to move traffic faster than the legal speed limit.

Solutions For Safe Streets

Cities all over the world have learned from our mistakes and their own, and have improved their safety, desirability and economies by engineering streets that are friendly to pedestrians while moving vehicular traffic safely. The answers are already there, and have proven themselves the world over.

We propose the following be adopted as best practices for the layout of arterial roads in downtown Hamilton:

  1. No more than two active traffic lanes in the same direction should occupy the same roadway.

    1. If a street is to be one-way, it should have no more than two active traffic lanes.
    2. If a street is to be two-way, it should have no more than four active traffic lanes, two in each direction.
  2. Sidewalks should be at least two metres wide where possible.

  3. Traffic signals should be timed to discourage speeds of above 50 km/h.

  4. Curbside parking should be present wherever storefront businesses or homes front onto the street. This provides parking for homes and businesses and forms a buffer between traffic and pedestrians.

  5. Curb cuts for vehicle access (driveways and entrances) should be minimized. Where necessary or preexisting, they should be narrow enough that drivers must enter slowly.

These design principles have been agreed to by a majority of residents in the neighbourhoods represented by our associations, and as such, we expect our elected officials to implement them.

Downtown Demands Respect

Downtown residents refuse to be treated with the contempt that is clearly evident in the inhospitable and lethal design of our main streets. This city has turned the corner and people are moving back downtown. We value the character of old houses, the diversity of many cultures and the ability to walk where we're going.

We, the residents of downtown Hamilton, have had enough. We demand safe streets. We don't want studies, we don't want excuses. We want safe streets now.

Update: The list of neighbourhood associations was updated to include North End Neighbours. You can jump to the changed paragraph.


Editor's note: This essay is part of a series on the future role and design of our downtown streets. We encourage Hamiltonians to submit well-written, thoughtful and evidence-based essays that move the discussion forward. Please send submissions to editor@raisethehammer.org.

Jonathan Dalton runs a small music shop on a two way street in downtown Hamilton. He is a board member of the Durand Neighbourhood Association, and volunteers with Transportation for Livable Communities.

49 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 09:21:15

Well said!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DavisClarke (registered) | Posted August 24, 2012 at 04:51:32 in reply to Comment 77922

Millions are spent each year to increase the police budget, yet our roads remain as dangerous thoroughfares, engineered to move traffic faster than the legal speed limit.

http://www.wholesalepowertrain.com/

Comment edited by DavisClarke on 2012-08-24 04:53:24

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 10:15:47 in reply to Comment 77922

Ditto! Great article, Jonathan.

The BNA has been encouraged by recent efforts (Wilson semi-conversion), and wants to work with the City to keep moving forward so we can ensure that downtown residents, especially children, can safely go to and fro on downtown's streets, just like residents in other parts of the city.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By JM (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 10:56:40

here here!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Core-b (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 11:49:09

Bravo, Fantastic essay. Glad to see that Ward 2 associations are taking a stand. Even though ward 3 is affected, it would be nice to see them as part of the growing movement. I keep forwarding essays like this to the Councillors but I almost never get a reply or comment so I wonder if they are hearing the ground swell. Keep up the great work.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted June 04, 2012 at 12:39:14

Jonathan - kudos to you and to all of the Ward 2 Neighbourhood Associations for your coordinated efforts. I know the NA's in Ward 2 have been meeting together for quite a few years now, in spite of what others may think. This is just the latest example of community engagement by the boards of those associations, and the people they represent. Well done.

I think this is a hugely important step toward livability in downtown Hamilton. I know Councillor Farr is working with Councillor McHattie, and I trust others too, to finally get something done about conversion to two way. I'd like to believe that those Councillors who do not have any one-way streets to deal with will listen to their downtown colleagues with a very open mind, just as I would expect my own Councillor, Jason Farr, to listen with a very open mind when a Councillor is raising issues that affect rural residents and farmers. We don't have farms downtown. They don't have one way streets in the country. As a result, it is incumbent on our Councillors to listen very carefully to each others unique situations and needs.

Comment edited by H+H on 2012-06-04 13:31:39

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DollHouse (anonymous) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 20:09:40 in reply to Comment 77930

Also, we’ve seen in a recent interview from Ryan to Bernie Morelli that it is tops on his priority list. Wards 1 2 and 3 all can benefit from this.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 13:16:09

Well said if only ward 1 3,4,5,can get the same thing il be ready to got and tell my view on as well . c,on Bernie from ward 3 thats the ward i live in Cumberland area

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By CouldaWouldaShoulda (anonymous) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 16:19:37 in reply to Comment 77932

If you could see me right now, you'd be witnessing a pretty sizeable smile. Not of the 'I told you so!' variety, but more one rooted in wanting things to change in Hamilton, and believing that the most profound aspect of this change must from from the residents' side of the 'Great Governance Formula'.

This morning I sent Ryan off an op-ed piece that was clearly on the same wavelength as Jonathan's. It has to do with the effects of increased engagement, specifally the cause-and-effect that results at City Hall. It's called 'A Proposition Towards a More Livable City', and I'm still hopeful Ryan decides to publish it.

I've yammered on about increased engagment, it's why I began the Town Halls Hamilton effort. And as an organic extension of this, I began the Hamilton Neighbourhood Associations site. Here's what I posted earlier this year:

"Mostly because it's our belief that the most profound changes towards better local governance can occur as a result of Hamilton's citizenry changing its role. Because we believe the most potent aspect of the 'great governance formula' is the untapped energies of community and neighbourhood associations. As it's clear that so many situations unfold where a lack of communication with, transparency to and consideration for the very people whose lives are being affected by decisions made by others, we imagine a better way, where people are heard, where dialogue is mandated, where local residents are not ignored, where bad decisions can be avoided.

'There's strength in numbers.'

There's much to be hopeful for in this city's future. Banding together, generating better understanding, deeper cohesion and a unified voice will surely help those hopes be realized."


So to read Jonathan's article was a real shot in the arm. Yes, those five NAs *should* be commiserating, getting everything lined-up, working towards a consensus. And the other NAs in the downtown should certainly be there, too. Kirkendall, Strathcona, Landsdale...as should *all* neighbourhoods in the Lower City.

I first began talking about a 'congress' of NAs last year. With some very well known –and well respected– community activists. The idea was to (eventually) get NAs in one place to network, to workshop, to get more accustomed to the idea of creating a mechanism by which major issues can be championed at City Hall. Maybe this 'walkable streets' issue in combination with the HWDSB imbroglio will help kick-start the much needed change.

http://mystoneycreek.blogspot.com/
http://townhallshamilton.blogspot.com/
http://hamiltonneighbourhoodassociations.blogspot.com/

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By HoldOnThere (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 01:31:41 in reply to Comment 77945

CouldaWouldaShoulda
I thought this was about the real work done by Jonathan and the Ward 2 NA's. Apparently, it's all about you and the work you haven't done. No wonder you're smiling. At least to yourself.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By AJ (anonymous) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 13:48:59

Downtowners need to get a lawyer who is willing to saddle up and start fighting. I think that would be the only way that this issue could get traction. Anyone want to do some pro bono?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By lol (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:04:40 in reply to Comment 77937

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Sarah Matthews (anonymous) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 17:42:34

Excellent job, as usual, Jon!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 18:04:40

I accidentally left out North End (http://northendneighbours.blogspot.ca/) in the list of neighbourhood associations involved. This was entirely unintentional, especially as their president is a good friend of mine and has hosted these ward 2 meetings.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted June 04, 2012 at 19:57:39

Jonathan, could you elaborate on something?

You said,

"Representatives from the Ward 2 Neighbourhood Associations of Durand, Central, Beasley, Corktown and Stinson have been meeting to discuss issues that are common to downtown neighbourhoods, and one of the most universally aggravating issues is the safety of our roads.

While Most favour the conversion of main arteries from one-way to two-way, all agree that our streets in their current configuration are unacceptable."

My questions are this:

  • Who did you speak to from the respective associations?

  • Were they speaking on behalf of their association or based on personal opinion?

  • Which ones were for 2-way conversion, and which ones were not?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:07:38 in reply to Comment 77950

I can answer the first two questions, at least from the Stinson point of view.

Our association sent a couple representatives on the behalf of our neighbourhood to meet with the other Downtown NAs. The idea was to be a unified voice to city hall on issues common to the whole downtown.

To be honest, I'm not sure if this specific proposal got back to the rest of our association (I've missed the last couple meetings), but one of the things that keeps coming up in Stinson is traffic calming and making streets more walkable, so this isn't surprising at all.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 08:09:11

"Even the industry that was originally served by our transportation system has long since declined. Steel mills that once employed tens of thousands now employ a few thousand."

Yet drivers still are not allowed to make a left turn from Barton on to Ottawa St North, at any time of day, because out here, even without the one-way streets, traffic engineering is still all about moving drivers through neighbourhoods and not in them. A hold-over, as you say, from steel industry boom days.

Comment edited by Michelle Martin on 2012-06-05 08:09:27

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:37:33

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 10:04:58 in reply to Comment 77971

We can continue treating our downtown as a place to get through instead of a place to live in.

The result will be ever increasing taxes, as our infrastructure costs continue to escalate yet no new residents will move in.

If it truly makes you happy, you can keep clinging to the 15 minute drive through experience. Are you willing to pay for it though?

If you want our cost of living here to be more reasonable, the only solution is to make lower Hamilton more livable so that more taxpayers move here and share the infrastructure costs.

Making our streets slower and safer isn't the only thing we need to do but it should be at the top of our list as it is an extremely cost effective "easy win" project.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 13:34:44 in reply to Comment 77976

Well said sean

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 10:48:24 in reply to Comment 77976

Thanks for your comments Sean.

Can you please explain how infrastructure costs would differ between the existing model and the proposed model?

Also, I'd like to understand why you think that more taxpayers means lower cost of living.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 15:54:47 in reply to Comment 77979

Our infrastructure costs are going to rise. This is a non-negotiable reality no matter what our population numbers look like.

If we can get more people living within our current urban boundary (i.e. higher density residential areas) we will have more taxpayers covering the costs of our infrastructure upkeep.

If we only grow our tax base by building new developments on the fringes of the city, we will be increasing the amount of infrastructure we need to pay for, and these new taxpayers will not have an economic benefit to the city.

The easiest place to increase density is in the lower city. And in order to do so, the lower city has to be a nice place to live - not just a nice place to drive through.

Hopefully this clears up the concept a bit...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By trollesque (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 13:46:16 in reply to Comment 77979

Why do I think you're just playing dumb? More people using the same physical plant means each person has to pay less for it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 13:33:37 in reply to Comment 77979

Propose a Model? make main and King and Cannon 2 ways alot less road repares alot more pls moving and that leads to more taxs for the city .. do you see were this is going ALOT less roads repares and More living space and taxs comming in .... have you fighuerd it out yet ?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:45:14 in reply to Comment 77971

The lights are actually timed to move traffic at EXACTLY the speed limit.

Start at a yellow light, and you can drive at 10 or 20 km over the speed limit for several intersections until you catch up to the front of the "green wave".

I enjoy the fact that I can get from the East side of downtown to the West side of downtown in less than 15 minutes.

Do you think the physical danger, economic decline and community harm are fair prices to pay for a bit of convenience?

downtown becomes a massive gridlock of buses and cars and trucks and angry motorists

That is a commonsense assumption, but the evidence does not support your prediction.

Many cities, either not provided with dissuasive modelling forecasts, or disbelieving them [emphasis added], have introduced measures to reallocate road space away from cars.

In general, they reported that there has often (but not always) been a fairly short period of traffic disruption, but that 'gridlock' or 'traffic chaos' are rare, and never last longer than a few days, as traffic adjusts relatively quickly to new conditions. Sometimes there has not even been a short-term problem.

Two characteristic comments from local transport planners are: 'it'll be all right by Friday', and the ubiquitous 'the traffic has disappeared and we simply don't know where it has gone to'.

That's what is actually observed to happen when cities reduce lane capacity. It's what actually happened in Hamilton on James North, John North, James South and John South when they were converted to two-way - despite the widespread predictions of doom.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-05 10:20:52

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:00:13 in reply to Comment 77973

Thank you for your comments Ryan.


Your comment: "Do you think the physical danger, economic decline and community harm are fair prices to pay for a bit of convenience?"

I do not feel in physical danger due to the state of the roads downtown. I feel in danger when my path crosses that of someone who is not obeying the rules of the road. That happens anywhere. I do however find that your comment is a straw man argument, and I would hope that the editor of a website would push to have both sides of an opinion represented, rather than attempt to tarnish and dissuade anyone opposition.



As for the reduction of lane capacity, that in itself will not cause a massive traffic disruption; having cars constantly slowing down to stop and idle puts them on the road for a longer period of time. This is what causes the disruption. One needs only to travel to the mountain, or to Burlington where you'll see that a constant stream of traffic is created by two-way lights.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:17:18 in reply to Comment 77980

I do not feel in physical danger due to the state of the roads downtown.

I'm referring to the physical danger to pedestrians, which is significantly greater on a one-way street than on a two-way street.

I would hope that the editor of a website would push to have both sides of an opinion represented

If the evidence supports one side of an argument more than the other, I will follow the evidence.

This is what causes the disruption.

Regardless of what you believe will cause "massive traffic disruption", the evidence from 60 cities that reduced lane capacity is that "massive traffic disruption" will not occur at all.

However, two-way traffic and reduced lane capacity will result in slower-moving traffic, which is essential to create a safe, welcoming environment for pedestrians.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By LOL (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:38:09

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 19:46:46 in reply to Comment 77972

Among those who discussed the issue in the Ward 2 NA's meetings, not one disagreed with the position that our current system of 4 and 5 lane synchronized one way streets is destructive to our neighbourhoods. I am aware that less than 100% of ward 2 citizens agree, but it is our job as Neighbourhood associations to advance the issues that most feel are important.

The fact that some prefer the benefits of one way streets has influenced this letter. It does not call for the complete elimination of one way streets, but rather sets out a design criteria that if implemented would greatly reduce the harm of through traffic in our community. For example, a street could remain one way but add street parking and wider sidewalks and reduce the live traffic lanes to two. The intent was to produce a position that would win broad acceptance within the membership of our associations and All of ward 2.

I can personally speak for Durand and say that our board of directors is unanimous in opposition to one way streets and I have not spoken to one resident who supports them.

As for what we want, I'm not sure I can make that any more clear. We want streets that are safe, walkable and good for business. There is no such thing as a street that is walkable but unsafe. The concept of walkability is derived from safety as well as aesthetic considerations.

I can understand how a one way street may be safer in some instances, for example cars only come from one direction. However this argument is not simply one way versus two way. It is specifically critical of our current system of wide, multiple lane roadways designed to maximize traffic throughput at the expense of all other street functions. If you can't understand how these are dangerous, try walking down one. You are on a narrow sidewalk 3 feet away from fast moving cars and transport trucks. The price of an accident here, whether driver or pedestrian, is high. There is a greater likelihood of a collision, and if a collision does occur a greater likelihood of death, than a street with slower traffic, wider sidewalks, street parking, and any of the features I suggested at the end of my letter.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Well Said (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 10:45:35 in reply to Comment 77972

Well written.

It's too bad you were downvoted by people who disagree with you.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:53:28 in reply to Comment 77972

now they decide that they do not like it and it should change.

People downtown started complaining about the harm caused by our one-way streets just months after they were converted.

Reports out of Oregon tell us that one way streets are safer than 2 way streets.

The study you're referring to was published in 1959. Numerous studies since then have improved on the methodology used in previous studies and drawn the opposite conclusion.

Toronto is looking at making good choices to help their traffic and city by making some of their streets downtown one way

Exactly one Toronto councillor, Denzil Minnan-Wong, who has a long history of advocating for increased driving lane capacity is advocating for one-way street conversions on two streets. I would be extremely surprised to see Toronto actually adopt his proposal.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By lol (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:13:42 in reply to Comment 77974

I believe it was actually 1988. Have things actually changed in the meantime? Why would a study in 1958 or 1955 or 1988 be different?

Have you been to Sacramento? Mecca of one way streets works wonderfully

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:04:02 in reply to Comment 77974

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:23:29 in reply to Comment 77981

You're being disingenuous here.

The article from 1957 was a response to the GP's claim that only people who have recently moved downtown support two-way conversion. It's not an academic study of one-way streets but a newspaper report of business owners complaining to the traffic department. The only claim it supports is the claim that downtown business owners already opposed two-way conversion within months after the streets were converted.

The paper that was published in 1959 was an engineering study of the comparative safety of one-way and two-way streets, and subsequent studies have pointed out that its methodology was poor. Remember that traffic engineering as a discipline was literally invented in the 1950s, so a study from 1959 comes from the infancy of the profession.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 09:53:51

You just want a cause and you decided to pick one way streets cause that is the flavour de jour with your friends and this site.

And every single urban expert who sets foot in our city.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:10:34 in reply to Comment 77975

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 12:05:06 in reply to Comment 77983

Here's a partial list of experts who have told Hamilton in the past several years to focus on urban revitalization and complete, walkable streets:

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By jason (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 13:04:04 in reply to Comment 77995

but why should we listen to these guys when some letter-writer from Winona knows better...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By lol (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:11:23

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 20:03:49 in reply to Comment 77984

I think there's been an accident - you seem to think you are posting on a New York City blog. This is Hamilton (Ontario, Canada).

Just clarifying for you...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 19:49:09 in reply to Comment 77984

Could you please quantify horrible?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:40:01 in reply to Comment 77984

obviously you do not drive on James sth

I drove James South to get to Concession weekly at 5:15 pm through most of last year. It got choked up at times; I had to be patient. But it was never so bad that I bothered to take another route.

And that's at rush hour. When streets should be expected to be busy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By DBC (registered) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:36:39 in reply to Comment 77984

It's comments like these that are beyond the pale.

I live in Durand and walk, bike and drive James S. on a regular basis at all hours of the day. Traffic is never "horrible"; unless by horrible you mean it has to slow down and stop for a red light occasionally. (Also known as gridlock to squelchers).

I never have a problem navigating the area and finding parking when I have to.

Why should this street be built solely for the expressed use of through traffic? It happens to be part of a vibrant urban neighbourhood.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Not So Fast (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:16:11 in reply to Comment 77984

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Pedro (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 13:50:41 in reply to Comment 77986

I walk down/across James South several times a week. As a pedestrian I have never had trouble crossing James at any light, which are comfortably close together.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted June 05, 2012 at 11:36:00 in reply to Comment 77986

"Worse to cycle on?" in what way? I rarely cycled on James St. North before the conversion as the traffic felt too fast and making left-hand turns sometimes meant stopping on the far right and waiting for the wall of traffic to pass before I could cross several lanes.

I cycle up and down James North several times a week now. Sometimes cars pass me, sometimes I pass cars. It's busy and one has to stay alert, but it's perfectly fine for the most part.

Comment edited by moylek on 2012-06-05 11:40:50

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Probono (anonymous) | Posted June 05, 2012 at 14:38:53

What sort of legal work are you contemplating?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By TOM LEAVING DOWNTOWN (anonymous) | Posted June 06, 2012 at 21:19:59

Bunch of lefty crap. Sick of these dumbass protests thru the core like the one this evening (June 6th) where a bunch of socialists walked down the street I live on banging pots and pans shouting,"Who's Streets? Our Streets!" WRONG. I lived here before Skydragon and whatever "indie" bullshit you goofs are have installed, I'm annoyed and will be leaving in the next 6 months after a decade of living here peacefully. I hope blogging and organizing facebook protests pulls enough taxmoney for the type of socialist non-sense you douches are advocating. Free education and then pay for university staff at double the rate of inflation?? How the hell is that going to work without robbing people like me who make less than $40K a year. Go **** yourselves you marxist trendwhore hipsters.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By shabooga (registered) | Posted June 07, 2012 at 17:49:26

TOM LEAVING DOWNTOWN... You can certainly leave downtown quite easily with the current street configuration. You may not even have to stop for a red light if you get the right timing with the green wave! You may want to do so before we tranform the downtown into a more liveable place because it may end up taking you an extra 5 or so minutes if all or our evil plans come true! And yes we are aware that those extra 5 minutes will bring on the apocolypse! Don't worry we'll still let you enjoy our marxist trendwhore hipster festivals and such if you ever change your mind. You'll still be invited to the party as long as you leave your negative attitude where ever you decide to move!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds