Special Report: Cycling

Follow Engineering Standards to Make Durand Streets Safe

With numerous grocery stores, banks, libraries, churches, GO station and other destinations within close proximity, Durand should be a healthy neighbourhood with a high walking, cycling and public transit mode share.

By Kevin Love
Published November 18, 2014

"In New York, everybody considers himself a traffic engineer." —Janette Sadik-Khan, Former New York City Transportation Commissioner

On November 11, I and six other Duranders met with our newly re-elected Ward 2 Councillor, Jason Farr. The purpose of this meeting was to express our concerns with the recent street designs proposed by City staff for cycling infrastructure in the Durand neighbourhood.

Bike lanes on Charlton and Herkimer
Bike lanes on Charlton and Herkimer

You can view the current design here [PDF].

The purpose of this article is not to provide a detailed report on this meeting. Rather, it is my intent to provide some background information on the issues involved, how they personally affect myself and my family, and how we can move forward together.

Background

The Hamilton staff proposals contain serious violations of the CROW design engineering standards for bicycle traffic.

The Janette Sadik-Khan quote also seems to apply to City of Hamilton staff. Instead of following the established engineering design standards, City staff chose to "wing it" and make up their own designs.

When this happens, the best outcome is that they merely waste a lot of time re-inventing the wheel. Worst case is that they come up with very dangerous designs. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.

Several particularly horrific examples in the staff proposal placed bike lanes in the door zone of adjacent parked cars. That results in the bike lane being the most dangerous place on the entire road to ride a bicycle!

Eliminating Cut-Through Traffic

For residential neighbourhoods such as Durand, one of the design engineering standards for bicycle traffic requires the elimination of rat-running "cut-through" car traffic. There are several examples of permeable filters that allow walking, cycling and public transit to go straight through but stop cut-through car drivers. Here is one example in Toronto:

We already have one example in Durand on the east end of Aberdeen Avenue. See:

This is, of course, in the ultra-wealthy part of Durand with its multi-million dollar mansions.

Now I certainly do not begrudge mega-rich people using their clout to eliminate cut-through car driving around their mansions. I am sure that they love their children and want to live in safe neighbourhoods. But me and my neighbours, we also love our children and want the same safety for ourselves and other not-quite-so-rich people.

Safer Streets

Where the CROW standards have been systematically implemented such as in The Netherlands, cut-through car driving has been progressively eliminated from virtually every residential neighbourhood in the entire country.

This is one of the key reasons why The Netherlands has the world's safest roads.

So what is the solution? How are we going to get City staff to follow recognized traffic design engineering standards and stop "winging it" by making up their own stuff?

Bicycle Traffic Design Engineer

One solution is to bring in an actual bicycle traffic design engineer. Someone with the necessary education, training, professional certification and experience. The City of Burlington did just that.

They brought in Wim Mulder, a bicycle traffic design engineer from Burlington's twin city of Apeldoorn in The Netherlands. You can read a description of his recommendations [PDF].

Needless to say, as a competent professional, Mr. Mulder's recommendations are based upon the CROW traffic design engineering standard.

Trial Projects

Another solution is to follow the example of Janette Sadik-Khan and push for trial projects. I strongly recommend viewing her TED talk, "New York's Streets? Not So Mean Any More".

Her descriptions and photographs of what she was able to do with paint, temporary barriers and lawn chairs are quite remarkable. Since the materials could be quickly installed they could be just as quickly removed if the sky were to fall. Needless to say, it did not.

Great Potential

Durand Neighbourhood has excellent potential. At a standard urban bicycle design speed of 20 km/hr, a nine-minute commute of 3 km includes St Joseph's Hospital and the entire downtown Hamilton employment zone.

With numerous grocery stores, banks, libraries, churches, GO station and other destinations within this nine-minute 3 km zone, Durand should be a healthy neighbourhood with a high walking, cycling and public transit mode share.

And yet... it is not. Why?

I know many people who live in Durand and have commute-to-work distances of between 2 km (downtown) and 6 blocks (St. Joseph's Hospital). Even the nurse who works at St. Joe's drives a car six blocks to work.

Why? If you ask her, she will say, "It takes me longer to walk to work from the St. Joe's parking garage than it would to ride a bike straight to work from home. But I don't do that because car drivers scare the $#!%&!! out of me."

I get the same answer from everyone else. Car drivers have effectively terrorized almost everyone else off of the road.

The Herkimer Racetrack

My own family is an excellent example of the profoundly dysfunctional streets in Durand. Four of the people that car drivers have effectively terrorized off the road are my wife and three teen-age children.

My family lives on Park Street just south of Herkimer. Cut through car drivers travelling east on Herkimer can see the traffic light at James Street turn green as far back as Durand Park.

These cut-through car drivers know that if they are going to "beat the light" they have to blast through at speeds of 70-90 km/hr. So they do!

Needless to say, this does a rather effective job of terrorizing everyone else off of the road. Even during peak hours, the cycling mode share is very low and definitely does not include my wife and children.

Are the Hamilton staff proposals going to fix this? Are they going to shut down the Herkimer Racetrack? Are cut-through car drivers going to be prevented from terrorizing everyone else off of the road? The answers are no, no and definitely not.

My Proposal

The Hamilton city staff proposals violate the CROW standards by failing to eliminate cut-through car traffic in Durand, except in the ultra-wealthy area around Aberdeen.

It is easy to predict that any proposal that fails to eliminate cut-through car driving will be a failure. Any such proposal will never move us out of our current very low mode share of walking, cycling and public transit.

One of the jokes that I tell on myself is that I really don't have any original ideas. What I mean by that is that I do not consider myself to be a traffic engineer. So my approach is to simply read the CROW manual and implement established traffic design engineering standards.

So here is my proposal: Let's do it right on a temporary basis in the spring and summer of 2015. Eliminate all cut-through car driving in Durand with cheap, temporary materials such as paint, signs, Jersey barriers and knock-down sticks.

These can be quickly and easily installed and just as easily removed if the sky should fall.

My prediction is that the sky will not fall but Durand will transform itself into a safe, liveable residential neighbourhood.

Kevin is a professional accountant and a retired infantry officer with the Canadian Forces. Kevin keeps encountering people who were students of his father, Dr. Robert Love, who was a professor at MacMaster University from 1977-2008. He lives near Durand Park in Hamilton and is currently Vice-Chair of the Hamilton Cycling Committee.

64 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By UrbanMom (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 14:40:47

I, too, am a parent living in the Durand. We're at Robinson and Bay. Both streets are awful. Bay street is full of people racing off the Charlton light to get to Hunter as fast as possible. Even when the school warning lights are flashing and I am walking my 7yo to school every day, the traffic is frighteningly fast with the added factor of having the cars in the western-most lane driving alarmingly close to the curb.

There are accidents at our corner and at Duke and Bay weekly. A young man died two weeks ago - he was speeding on a motorcycle, a cab was speeding around the corner. My son and I witnessed an accident a few feet in front of us at Duke a few months ago. Just this morning new bits of car littered the road there from an accident that must have happened since yesterday at 3pm. There is a very clear problem in our neighbourhood that involved traffic, speed and crossings.

I started a small group on Facebook to discuss turning the entire Durand into a 30km zone, the way the North End neighbourhood did. There currently isn't much happening there as I'm not quite sure what to do but I definitely support all efforts to eliminate cut through traffic and slow local traffic. If anyone wants to come be a part of my little group and perhaps use that to get support for existing initiatives or a gathering place to create an initiative they can find it here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/72251872...

Comment edited by UrbanMom on 2014-11-18 14:45:35

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 18:53:22 in reply to Comment 106273

so glad to see your initiative. Great work Yet, so sad that you (and all of us) need to do this in our own neighbourhoods because city hall only values our neighbourhoods as dangerous raceways to their monster surface parking lot.

Someday I hope we'll see civic leadership that actually values urban neighbourhoods and wants to see families enjoying life downtown.

In the meantime, keep up the battle.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 14:59:37

The 1-way grid of Durand/Kirkendall is utterly ludicrous, and serves no purpose other than cutting 30 seconds off of the commute of folks going from Ward 8 into St. Joe's or City Hall. Just bite the bullet and convert everything south of Hunter over 22 feet wide into 2-way (30 feet if it has both-side parking).

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 23:02:04 in reply to Comment 106274

Providing that suitable barriers are used to filter out cut-through car driving, the 1-way grid in Durand would actually be quite useful. It would mean that for car drivers, there is only one way into, through and out of Durand. But pedestrians, cyclists and public transit vehicles (with suitable gates) could travel through.

This is a key part of making walking, cycling or public transit the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of travelling from A to B. A good example is in Groningen. Note particularly the section from 2:12 - 3:50 in the video that explains how eliminating cut-through car driving was a key part of transforming Groningen.

Provided that there is a counter-flow lane for cycling, there are legitimate uses for one-way streets.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-11-18 23:16:22

Permalink | Context

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 07:15:00 in reply to Comment 106287

Herkimer and Charlton are not "cut through" traffic. They're intended as east/west secondary arterials that service the south part of the lower city. There is no other route for traffic. That's not to suggest they couldn't be calmed (Herkimer especially) but traffic between James and Dundurn on those streets is by design and there is no other choice.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 18:54:19 in reply to Comment 106274

"serves no purpose".

That IS the purpose. Can't have precious Ward Eighters or Ancasterites ever hitting a red light.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Herkimer (anonymous) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 15:15:19

Not to mention the available roadspace is optimized for fastest possible cut through during rush hour.

There is no justifiable reason for prohibiting northside curb parking during the morning rush hour on Herkimer. It only provides the opportunity for cars to pass each other, which they do at jaw dropping speeds. Enforcement is non existent. On those days when cars are parked illegally; there is no effect on traffic (except it slows it down).

It has only been since 2002 (the latest traffic study) that parking has been allowed northside during evening rush hour.............much to the delight of St. Joe's staff that take almost all of the neighbourhood parking all day every weekday......but that's a topic for another day.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JWilbur (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 17:16:37

Great article, thank you!

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 18:30:32 in reply to Comment 106277

You are very welcome!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanMom (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 17:33:16

How have the speedbumps on the Charlton between Queen and Locke been working? I still see a fair bit of traffic through there but I'm not there all that often. That's definitely an effort to curb cut-through traffic and slow the traffic way down.

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 17:45:04 in reply to Comment 106278

That's Kirkendall not Durand.

Permalink | Context

By UrbanMom (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 11:08:23 in reply to Comment 106279

I don't see that just because they aren't in the Durand, that the Durand neighbourhood couldn't learn from that experience. THey have the same issues as we do, to an extent.

Permalink | Context

By jackle (anonymous) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 21:58:42 in reply to Comment 106279

what's your point?

Permalink | Context

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 12:48:00 in reply to Comment 106284

What's yours?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 22:17:44

Nice article, Kevin. Thanks.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 23:17:52 in reply to Comment 106286

You're welcome. This is where I live. So I care!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 01:03:36

What route would you prefer serviced the south end of the lower city? How would you like cars to get from John to Dundurn? Charlton has been calmed as much as possible between Queen and Dundurn, Herkimer could still use some work in this neighbourhood, but Herkimer and Charlton are arterial roads between Queen and James. I'm not sure there's any other choice to move traffic in this area.

Permalink | Context

By Herkimer (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 09:35:50 in reply to Comment 106289

Start by removing the slip turns from Queen on to Herkimer and then make Queen two-way since most people are trying to get to Main/King anyway.

Then calm everything else. If the speed limit were reduced and enforced it would literally add SECONDS to the commute.

Stick to the arterials. In new neighbourhoods you have no choice by design. Why does the lower city deserve less?

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 11:54:48 in reply to Comment 106293

Ancaster added roundabouts and narrower, winding lanes on Rousseaux St. They also narrowed Wilson to 1-lane each way with nice bike lanes, wide sidewalks, benches, trees and even flower garden medians in some spots. Both are very busy 'arterials'.

And their councillor is one of the most vocal opponent of doing the same downtown. Classism anyone?

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 08:46:45 in reply to Comment 106289

People travelling from John to Dundurn should not be travelling by car. The infrastructure needs to be improved so that cycling or public transit is the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of safely travelling from John to Dundurn.

Depending upon where on John and where on Dundurn one is travelling, the distance is a bit over 2 km. That's 6-7 minutes cycling at the standard urban design speed of 20 km/hr.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 24, 2014 at 17:15:40 in reply to Comment 106291

People travelling from John to Dundurn should not be travelling by car.

Why not? I lived at John and Charlton, and would drive down Charlton to the liquor store, to Murphy's subs, to Zarky's, to the dog groomer, and to our realtor's office. Not driving was not an option in those cases. Please don't lecture to me about how to use my city's streets. I don't lecture to you about how you can't use the Jolley Cut, or Charlton, or Herkimer.

Permalink | Context

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 07:22:03 in reply to Comment 106291

That's just crazy talk. If I am coming from Brantford to St. Joe's this is the most reasonable route to take. I appreciate your belief, but the reality is that we need to be able to move cars along these routes. It's NIMBY'ism in the worst way to want to block these streets like you suggest. Extra miles and circuitous routes are terrible for the environment and simply reshuffle traffic to less suitable routes.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted November 22, 2014 at 15:55:06 in reply to Comment 106413

What? No, if I were going from Brantford to St Joes, I'd take the QEW, and then take Main to John. I go to Brantford often so I'm familiar with the various ways too and from, and I honestly don't understand the folks that insist on coming down through the minor highways and the mountain - the 403 to Brantford is always incredibly fast, Main/Dundurn is very close to downtown Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 09:55:57 in reply to Comment 106413

ah yes, the old 'more people driving everywhere is good for the environment' argument. That's always a beauty.

are you really expecting us to plan our city around the odd time someone comes in from Brantford? No thanks. The most logical route would be to the Henderson hospital, or down the 403 to Main St to St Joes or General.

Or perhaps someone from Brantford could consider using the Brantford General Hospital.

Permalink | Context

By FanofU (anonymous) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 13:42:36 in reply to Comment 106414

LOL. Have you ever been the the Brantford General. Do you have any understanding of How medicine is triaged in Ontario. Do you think people in Brantford want to come to Hamilton. I think you are talking out of your lower orifice.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 23:33:08 in reply to Comment 106415

All are welcome to come to our hospitals. They can take Main St to either St Joes or the General. What sane person from Brantford is going to find a weaving route through Herkimer and Charlton to get to the hospital?? They're going to take the normal, direct route.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-11-22 23:34:09

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 13:52:02 in reply to Comment 106291

I don't think he meant "just" John to Dundurn but East of John to Dundurn "and beyond" ( i,e to the 403 or to Ancaster, or to the East Mountain) by using that route. Say from Wentworth South to Chedoke, or Sherman and Stinson to the great new innovation park on Longwood?

You can go up to Cannon and through to Dundurn. You can't use King because it is a parking lot from Wellington to Bay.

"That's 6-7 minutes cycling at the standard urban design speed of 20 km/hr" if you don't hit a light, it's not snowing or raining and you are under 60 in good health.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2014-11-19 13:52:31

Permalink | Context

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:38:35 in reply to Comment 106306

Hunter, Cannon, and even Wilson do just fine getting you past the International Village. You don't need to take them all the way to Dundurn, just until Bay/Queen when you can return to the un-congested section of King.

Is it too much to ask that our urban highways be limited to *major* roads as much as possible instead of random residential areas like Herkimer?

Permalink | Context

By John Neary (registered) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 16:50:08 in reply to Comment 106310

Actually, as a Beasley resident I would say that it is totally inappropriate to ask Cannon and Wilson (which cut through my neighborhood just as Herkimer and Charlton cut through yours) to take even more of the burden of automobile traffic than they already do.

Permalink | Context

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted November 24, 2014 at 13:18:24 in reply to Comment 106375

Fine, just Hunter then. Hunter is, after all, the Cannon of the South side. I suppose Wilson could be the Herkimer/Caroline of the south side... and hey, Wilson got converted to 2-way!

So yeah, convert Herkimer/Caroline.

Permalink | Context

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted November 24, 2014 at 12:43:56 in reply to Comment 106375

I'll concede Wilson, but Cannon at least usually has enough traffic that the cars are generally constrained to the speed limit, at least now with the cycle track.

Herkimer/Caroline are sparse streets - when somebody cuts through them, they're frequently hitting highway speeds. Much of Cannon is lined with parking lots - Herkimer and Caroline are almost 100% residential.

At this point the more traffic on Cannon the better, since traffic is what keeps it moving at a sane speed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JasonAAllen (registered) - website | Posted November 19, 2014 at 09:50:56

At the doors in October, I had one neighbour who was adamant that slowing traffic on Herkimer would cost lives. She insisted that because it is a route ambulances use when Main is backed up, that it's irresponsible to those who need urgent care to slow down the cars on that street.

I thought about asking about the number of pedestrians and cyclists who are likely to die as a result of the speeds on the road, or those who will be crippled by diabetes and obesity as we continue to reinforce a car-dependant culture...about a million thoughts went through my head, but it was a) an election, and b) a fight I wasn't going to win, so I walked away. We have our work cut out for us, folks.

Great article Kevin. Well done.

Permalink | Context

By charlesball (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 13:36:28 in reply to Comment 106294

How many pedestrian fatalities has there been on Herkimer in the last 50 years?

Is this really a safety issue?

Do we keep stats on delay/time/death rates for in transit patients by ambulance or otherwise? Is there any way to really know if someone dies stuck in traffic?

When you use safety an death as the primary argument to reduce traffic on Herkimer, are you not inviting the question about comparative safety?

If no one has died on Herkimer because of speed or traffic related issues, and one person has died because of a traffic jam, who wins the argument? If one pedestrian has been killed an no one has died for failure to get to the hospital who wins?

"We will all die if we don't lower the speed limit" is known as an in terrorem argument. It is the same argument as "we will all die if we can't get to the hospital in time." If you eliminate that argument, what is the argument to reduce traffic on Herkimer?

Is it property value?

Is it quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of property?

If my child was killed by a speedster I would be pissed. If my wife dies because of a traffic jam I would be pissed. That would be anectodal. As a planner I would want to know exactly how much time would be reduced by reducing traffic flow on Herkimer.

(As an aside question, who bought property in "Durand" or on Herkimer in particular in the last 50 years who did not know that a major hospital existed at the end of the street and that Herkimer was a through street?)

Permalink | Context

By Herkimer (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:40:47 in reply to Comment 106304

"who bought property in "Durand" or on Herkimer in particular in the last 50 years who did not know that a major hospital existed at the end of the street and that Herkimer was a through street?"

Which has exactly what to do with speeding traffic?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 19, 2014 at 13:56:15 in reply to Comment 106304

If we're throwing around university freshman logical fallacy terms, you are attacking a straw man. No one, as far as I can tell, is saying, "We will all die if we don't lower the speed limit".

Speeding car on Herkimer Street at Durand Park

We do know that moving to complete streets produces a number of real, measureable benefits that reinforce each other, including:

  • The street becomes safer for all users, including drivers. Safer streets mean fewer 9-1-1 calls.

  • The modal share of walking, cycling and transit use all increase, which improves public health and reduces obesity, diabetes and heart disease, while also reducing air pollution and related hospitalizations/deaths.

  • The street becomes more comfortable and welcoming to its residents, which increases social interaction and reduces stress, both of which also improve public health.

This is not anecdote. It is strong, clear evidence from a wide variety of public health, transportation engineering and land use studies.

Also:

who bought property in "Durand" or on Herkimer in particular in the last 50 years who did not know that a major hospital existed at the end of the street and that Herkimer was a through street?

Don't do this. Just don't. People are allowed to advocate to make their neighbourhood safer, especially in the face of new information. 50 years ago, almost no one understood just how corrosive and pernicious it would be to transform urban city streets into one-way multi-lane thoroughfares. Now we know better, and it would be profoundly irresponsible not to act on our improved knowledge.

In any case, just because something is a legacy does not mean people are not allowed to change it. There are hospitals all over the world in dense urban centres that don't have multi-lane one-way arterials running into them, and they work just fine. The people living on and around Charlton and Herkimer have every right to organize and advocate to make their neighbourhood safer, more accessible, more inclusive and more enjoyable.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-11-19 14:00:21

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 14:37:20 in reply to Comment 106307

"No one, as far as I can tell, is saying, "We will all die if we don't lower the speed limit"."

But they are, right here on this page and elsewhere.

By UrbanMom (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 14:40:47

I, too, am a parent living in the Durand. We're at Robinson and Bay. Both streets are awful. Bay street is full of people racing off the Charlton light to get to Hunter as fast as possible. Even when the school warning lights are flashing and I am walking my 7yo to school every day, the traffic is frighteningly fast with the added factor of having the cars in the western-most lane driving alarmingly close to the curb.

There are accidents at our corner and at Duke and Bay weekly. A young man died two weeks ago - he was speeding on a motorcycle, a cab was speeding around the corner. My son and I witnessed an accident a few feet in front of us at Duke a few months ago. Just this morning new bits of car littered the road there from an accident that must have happened since yesterday at 3pm. There is a very clear problem in our neighbourhood that involved traffic, speed and crossings.

I started a small group on Facebook to discuss turning the entire Durand into a 30km zone, the way the North End neighbourhood did. There currently isn't much happening there as I'm not quite sure what to do but I definitely support all efforts to eliminate cut through traffic and slow local traffic. If anyone wants to come be a part of my little group and perhaps use that to get support for existing initiatives or a gathering place to create an initiative they can find it here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/72251872...

Comment edited by UrbanMom on 2014-11-18 14:45:35

Reply | Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 18, 2014 at 18:53:22 in reply to Comment 106273

so glad to see your initiative. Great work Yet, so sad that you (and all of us) need to do this in our own neighbourhoods because city hall only values our neighbourhoods as dangerous raceways to their monster surface parking lot.

Someday I hope we'll see civic leadership that actually values urban neighbourhoods and wants to see families enjoying life downtown.

In the meantime, keep up the battle.

"People are allowed to advocate to make their neighbourhood safer, especially in the face of new information."

Just like the lady who was at Doors who doesn't want the change.

People who live in the neighborhood and are more than happy with the status quo are either dismissed at best or villianized at worst.

Using words like "university freshman logical fallacy terms", " straw man" and troll are demeaning tripe.

I posed questions, not statements.

Permalink | Context

By UrbanMom (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 18:06:28 in reply to Comment 106308

I've lived in my present home for 13 years but I've lived in the Durand for over 20 years. I've seen traffic get worse in this neighbourhood and the speeding and cut-through increase. Someone was literally killed two weeks ago. THere are collisions weekly on Bay between Charlton and Bold. I have a friend who lost his leg, as a pedestrian, because of speeding traffic on Herkimer last year. Someone else can dig up the most recent deaths and serious accidents. I'm not going to bother but when I say the traffic on Bay, Charlton, Herkimer and others is dangerous, it's not just because ONE terrible thing happened. Terrible things happen constantly. THe only thing I can think to make it safer and reduce the number car-on-car collisions, bike and pedestrian strikes, is to dramatically reduce speed. If people have other, better ideas I am totally open to hearing them. I think now is the time to take action on this.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 19, 2014 at 20:08:04 in reply to Comment 106320

Queen is another deadly arterial. Earlier this year, there were two separate collisions involving pedestrians in the same month.

Permalink | Context

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 06:39:00 in reply to Comment 106325

One of those was a high speed police chase. The location was inconsequential. Stop blaming the street for driver stupidity. We didn't hear about the bicyclist who was hit making a left from John to Charlton, an accident that occurred because John was two way.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:41:24 in reply to Comment 106308

As in any neighbourhood, there are a wide variety of opinions held by residents, and these opinions evolve over time. I don't think any neighbourhood agrees 100% on any issue, especially one as diverse as Durand.

However, the desire to calm our streets is as close to a consensus as you're likely to see on any issue.

I've lived in Durand for over 16 years, and have been actively involved with the DNA for nine years. Before that I participated in the public meetings for the 2002 Traffic plan and attended numerous PIC on traffic and urban design issues.

During this time I've seen that the number one concern expressed by residents in many different ways and in many different forums has been the need to calm traffic and make conditions better for pedestrians (and cyclists). If you read the Durand chronicle, you'll see that traffic calming has been a priority of the DNA since its founding, and they were especially concerned about this problem and tried (unsuccessfully) to push for change in the mid 1970s.

You may disagree, but it is clear that the majority of resident who take the time to get involved in their neighbourhood or express an opinion really would like traffic to move more safely and slowly through the neighbourhood and for the streets to be safer and more convenient for pedestrians.

And this really shouldn't be a surprise given the density, number of pedestrians and the hostile nature of so many of the streets.

If you want even more evidence, look at the popularity of traffic calming measures in the recent participatory budgeting votes. Or look at the successful campaign of our local councillor, who has prioritized traffic calming!

p.s. "Through street" is a not a term used in Hamilton. Herkimer and Charlton are currently classified as "minor arterials", and this classification could be changed to residential local if appropriate, as has been done for other streets in Durand as a result of the 2002 study. In any case, a "minor arterial" does not mean fast traffic movement trumps all other concerns!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-19 15:47:40

Permalink | Context

By no (registered) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 17:00:29 in reply to Comment 106312

Herkimer and Charlton are NOT residential local roads...they connect other roads. Local roads are roads that feed to arterials. If I live on Bay south and need to get to James Street, I go on Herkimer. So, let's says for example we lose these terms and make it simpler. Should Herkimer be a main street or a minor street? Given that there's be no main streets south of Main Street, it's a defacto main street. Not saying it's right, or the best planned thing, but it is what it is.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 17:50:59 in reply to Comment 106376

"Main" and "minor" are not street classifications (neither are "residential" or "through street") in Hamilton.

And the classification of all streets in a neighbourhood, which apparently started in Hamilton in Durand in 1987 has no obvious justification:

"In the 1987 Durand Neighbourhood Plan, streets were classified into Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, Locals, Pedestrian Oriented Streets, Major Alley Links and Minor Alley Links. Research conducted for the 2002 Durand Neighbourhood Traffic Study did not reveal any background on how this classification system was developed nor could any official definition of “pedestrian oriented links” be found."

and

"In 2001/2002, the City of Hamilton also produced a Draft Specifications for Road Classifications. These Draft Specifications are reproduced as Exhibit 2.2 and Exhibit 2.3. These have not been adopted as official policy, but have been used on some recent studies as guidelines."

https://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/8B2...

This document suggests the main reason for adopting systematic street classifications was to determine minimum right of way widths.

In other words, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with streets "connecting".

The point I was trying to make is that the current classification of Herkimer and Charlton is not set in stone, and could be changed, if it is going to be used as an excuse not to introduce traffic calming measures or add pedestrian crossings.

And, remember, these streets would still be usable to get to destinations ... they would just move at safer speeds for everyone (there are also a lot of vehicle accidents!)

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-20 17:51:29

Permalink | Context

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 17:33:40 in reply to Comment 106376

You need a highway to go 3 blocks?

Seriously, think about your example. Three blocks. You don't need a minor artery to go *three blocks*. For any longer trips, Hunter and Main are not that freaking far away, and if they *are* too far to drive to, then your destination was probably so close to your starting point that you can deal with driving a bit slower.

I mean, you're literally advocating for keeping streets like Herkimer and Charlton screwed up for trips that at most 1.5 km (Dundurn to James).

Let's figure out an "average" trip. Say it's about 1km. Assume that your average travel speed drops from 50 to 35 if we clean up these roads. 1km / 50 = 72 seconds. 1 km / 35 = 102 seconds.

Congratulations, we're destroying the livability of a neighborhood to save commuters 30 seconds. This has financial implications as well - it depresses property values. It's costing the city real money.

For 30 freaking seconds.

Permalink | Context

By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 06:44:14 in reply to Comment 106380

Highway? It's two freaking lanes. It's a minor arterial, it's 10 blocks and if you think a two lane road destroys the livability of the neighbourhood, perhaps you don't really want to live in an urban environment.

I'm all for complete streets, but this type of hyperbole weakens the argument.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:54:36 in reply to Comment 106312

This is a good post.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:07:52 in reply to Comment 106308

But they are, right here on this page and elsewhere.

Um, no. Nowhere do the comments you quoted even suggest anything to the effect of "We will all die if we don't lower the speed limit" - not that exact quote and not any reasonable paraphrase of that quote.

Your false, hyperbolic distortion of what people are saying about these streets is the very definition of a straw man attack.

I posed questions, not statements.

You posed rhetorical questions which advance an agenda and fool no one.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:46:40 in reply to Comment 106309

Um, yes. The exact comments no but if I amend my post to "People will die if we don't lower the speed limit" and "people will die if we don't get them to the hospital in time." People have essentially said those two things.

The comments still vilify the poor lady who does not want access to the hospital bunged up with traffic "calming."

The questions are not rhetorical. So at least one person was fooled. They should be addressed.

And I will stop posting on this thread. Save and except to say that I live in the neighborhood and have for 25 years after moving from the East end. (When I lived in the east end I dated a girl in Westdale for 3 years and rode to her house on my bike day and night without fear or incident.) I raised 5 children in my neighborhood without incident. I am more worried about the criminals and mental health patients living in the halfway houses than traffic by a factor of 100 to 1. I see no need to reduce the traffic flow on Herkimer any more than it has been. I like living near the hospital in spite of the sirens at night. I don't mind people using the Jolley Cut, the James Access or the Queen Street Hill and I accept that Herkimer and Charleton are major components of those routes. I don't view the streets as "raceways" or "monster parking lots." I think that if you bung up the through streets people will be more likely to use the side streets which will be counter productive. And in spite of all that, I have thoroughly enjoyed my life living downtown although that enjoyment is decreasing not increasing. While I no longer walk young children down the street, my perception is that a lot of the changes, bike lanes and unintelligible road markings and signage are more dangerous than less. I bought my home there knowing full well what was going on in my neighborhood to be. I think Markland is far more dangerous with the bike lane than it was before. I have been stalled many nights trying to get home down Herkimer after the traffic calming and I have personally witnessed ambulances with flashing lights stuck in traffic. In a way it is fortuitous that the traffic volumes have been dropping because otherwise the roads WOULD BE parking lots during rush hour. Those are statements and not questions.

I guess it is time for me to stop ignoring the neighborhood association, get my friends together and join it.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2014-11-19 15:52:31

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 21, 2014 at 20:51:39 in reply to Comment 106313

Thank you for this post.

I lived for 5 years at John and Charlton. I echo all of the above comments. I never once felt unsafe walking along or across any of the streets. I was more worried with the drug addicts and drug deals in Woolverton Park, Corktown Park, the chronic break-ins of cars on Catherine, Young, Walnut, Forest, and the like. I think that in 5 years of living downtown, I only once saw a car coming that clearly was not watching and would've hit me if I hadn't been watching.

Neither did we have any problems with racing, aside from the odd Saturday night where you'd hear something at 2 or 3 am of someone coming down the Jolley Cut way too fast.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2014-11-21 20:52:45

Permalink | Context

By good post (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 17:01:49 in reply to Comment 106313

Congrats! You make TONNES of sense!

Permalink | Context

By Herkimer (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 16:25:52 in reply to Comment 106313

"I have been stalled many nights trying to get home down Herkimer after the traffic calming and I have personally witnessed ambulances with flashing lights stuck in traffic."

Unless there is an issue with the Queen Street Hill the only time the potential for the above exists is during evening rush hour...........and even then traffic is "stalled" from the light at Charlton to maybe Hess.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 18:13:02 in reply to Comment 106316

Lol. Stalled in Hamilton means someone hit a red light. Once.

Permalink | Context

By Herkimer (anonymous) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 16:27:28 in reply to Comment 106316

Strike Charlton............meant Caroline.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 15:49:47 in reply to Comment 106313

Yes: please get involved!

It is a good way to find out what has already been done, what other people's concerns are and understand better why the DNA has taken a very consistent stand for the past 40 years.

p.s. there is a huge difference between "People will die..." and "We will all die ..." the first statement is backed up by a lot of evidence on the connection between speed and pedestrian injuries and death. The second is plainly ridiculous, as you surely intended.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-19 15:53:39

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 19, 2014 at 12:30:17 in reply to Comment 106294

Similar dire warnings arose about the two-way conversion of James and John. People would die en route to the hospital due to gridlock and so on. I can't find it now but there was a report a few years ago that the conversions had no net impact on ambulance arrival times. For one thing, it became possible to approach St Joe's from either direction on either street. For another, ambulances are pretty good at getting cars to move out of their way, what with the sirens and flashing lights and whatnot.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 22:19:41 in reply to Comment 106300

That issue has a solution. Equip ambulances with the same electronic gate opening devices that public transit vehicles will use.

Then ambulances and public transit vehicles are the only cut-through motor vehicle traffic allowed in Durand.

Problem solved.

Once again, this is not an original idea of mine.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 23, 2014 at 08:56:50 in reply to Comment 106328

That suggestion is absolutely ridiculous. To say that you own the street because you live there is preposterous. If I choose to take a road that my taxes have paid for, I will. I would never even think to restrict access to other vehicles on my street. How would anyone ever come to visit you? How would any sort of delivery be made? Why do you deserve a gated community but no other community does? Thanks for the laugh though.

Permalink | Context

By Ugh (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 17:02:56 in reply to Comment 106328

Not original, but still ridiculous! :)
You've been talking about this for well over a year now. You brought it up at the DNA GM last year...it's not a good idea. Get over it!

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted November 20, 2014 at 09:52:30 in reply to Comment 106328

Is the goal to keep all motorized traffic except essential services out of Durand?

Is the plan to eliminate the connection between the Queen Access and the James access except on the major arterial roads?

If so, then we would need to reconfigure James and John south of Main up to the accesses (eliminate any parking for one) and we might eliminate any hope of making Main two way.

If the LRT comes in and the Main King corridor traffic is significantly reduced, then Herkimer, Charleton and Queen will become more important - not less important to over all traffic flow.

Permalink | Context

By sockpuppetry (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 10:20:02 in reply to Comment 106334

First CharlesBall then his alter ego notlloyd, big surprise.

Permalink | Context

By BlackKettle (anonymous) | Posted November 22, 2014 at 16:14:49 in reply to Comment 106336

Hey Sockey! How many alter egos to you have. LOL

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 20, 2014 at 10:44:47 in reply to Comment 106336

I agree. Move along.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 11:56:32 in reply to Comment 106294

She's onto the secret plan.

This is the real reason cities around the world are going to 30k speed limits, with streets designed to match...trying to kill people by slowing down ambulances.
Good thing Hamilton knows better than the rest of the world......

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 19, 2014 at 12:18:54 in reply to Comment 106297

There were similar objections by emergency services back in the 1970s when Vancouver made diagonal sidewalks and pedestrianized some short blocks in the grid system of the West End. Guess what, 40 years later they are still there in on of the densest neighbourhoods in North America and no one wants to remove them.

http://raisethehammer.org/comment/102331

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-19 12:19:32

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 26, 2014 at 16:27:34

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.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds