By Ryan McGreal
Published July 13, 2008
Terry Whitehead, councillor for Ward 8 (West Mountain), has come under criticism for voting against the downtown transportation master plan because it includes two-way street conversions.
In his emails justifying his decision, he writes, "To suggest that two way traffic is more pedestrian friendly than a one way is not a position I subscribe too," and adds that "traffic calming measures" can "certainly" make one-way streets "safer for pedestrians than a two-way street."
He also notes that Quebec City has one-way streets and "is vibrant and continues to flourish."
Because we want what's best for the city, Raise the Hammer is launching a new campaign: Make the West Mountain One-Way Today.
We propose the following street conversions for the West Mountain:
Between the major thoroughfares, the residential streets can also be converted to one-way. As Whitehead explains, this is more pedestrian friendly for the residents:
Since one-way streets are safer for pedestrians and don't hurt vibrancy, we also advocate converting the West Mountain's east-west streets to one-way, as follows:
The Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway is already a limited access urban expressway, so it does not need to be converted to one-way.
We are very excited at the potential for one-way street conversions on the West Mountain to improve pedestrian safety without harming vibrancy or economic development, and we look forward to hearing an enthusiastic endorsement from Councillor Whitehead on our plan to improve the safety and vibrancy of his ward.
Since Councillor Whitehead is unmoved by the widespread public opposition to one-way streets in downtown neighbourhoods that are already fortunate enough to have them, we fully expect that he will similarly ignore any opposition to one-way street conversions in his own West Mountain Ward.
By Neville (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 01:29:54
( Permalink )
By Garth Garrow (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 07:54:45
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted July 14, 2008 08:44:18
before anyone else comes on here and agrees with Whitehead's position that this is a waste of money, here is Bob Bratina's response I've copied here from another blog on the site:
The numbers say values have increased, and several renovation projects such as 14 Forest Avenue, 74 Hughson (at James..shown as vacant, but soon to become a renovated, expanded professional office), 155 John South (vacant building renovated into upscale restaurant/bar) 61 Young St. at John (vacant premises just purchased for restaurant) 180 James South (taxes increased $10 thousand dollars from 2006 to 2007), the adjacent neighbourhoods all showing significant property value increases of 25 to 60 per cent, and very large projects now in the planning stage for vacant or under-utilized properties. I could go on, but you didn't listen the first time so what's the point. We got $180 million dollar return on $1.3 million invested in the loans program. 31-35 John South just went from vacant to new $3.5 million restaurant/bar, likely a $70 thousand dollar increase in annual assessment. Staybridge Suites moved from $40 thousand to $340 thousand in taxes. We're pushing 2,000 new jobs over the past 2 years downtown. How are you doing up there? You finish with "respectfully" but I don't sense true respect for the hard work and tangible results of our staff in cleaning up the mess that was downtown and bringing it back to respectability. I believe you were the one who asked why we should support the market if there are private supermarket operators providing the same service.
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted July 14, 2008 08:49:17
my thoughts:
I probably shouldn't be, but I can't help but be stunned that we have an elected official in 2008 who still doesn't see the value of a revitalized downtown. Financially, economically, image-wise etc..... It's a no-brainer. As downtown goes, so goes the city. I guess Whitehead likes the fact that homes cost about $100,000 less on his side of Scenic Drive/Golf Links Rd. A renewed downtown brings in a ton of investment city wide. Our business parks would fill up, real estate values go up. As Bratina points out, tax assessment goes up (this is municipal politics 101 and apparently Whitehead doesn't even understand that - how the heck do we elect these guys??).
This is wrong-headed no matter how you slice it.
If anyone doesn't like Ryan's above blog, please take it out on your elected officials who are paid to do what's best for this city.
As another topic, it might be time to look at a Board of Control or commissioner board to make decisions at council. Leave the councillors to get cats out of trees and return phone calls about potholes.
The future of our city is too important to have selfish politicians throw it away.
( Permalink )
By RickRoll (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 09:18:30
( Permalink )
By Frogger (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 09:28:32
( Permalink )
By SammyV (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 09:57:15
( Permalink )
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted July 14, 2008 09:58:50
Frogger, who should be ashamed? You realize the above blog post is a joke designed to point out the absurdity of our one way streets, right?
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted July 14, 2008 10:01:32
SammyV. Obviously you don't live in Hamilton or you'd be very interested in Bratina's stats showing great increase in tax assessment and property values downtown along two-way streets. In Hamilton we've had a group of squelchers bemoan the downtown for years. Now James North is filling up along with King East and now John/James South so the squelchers have moved onto the next idea - kill the momentum so they can keep downtown in it's whipping boy state. The squelchers are getting scared that downtown might completely rebound if all this momentum keeps up. Then they'll have nothing to complain about (and hopefully will leave town).
( Permalink )
By Frogger (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 10:02:37
( Permalink )
By Tweeter (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 12:21:43
( Permalink )
By adam1 (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 16:09:00
( Permalink )
By adam1 (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 16:20:14
( Permalink )
By ventrems (registered)
Posted July 14, 2008 18:30:06
Observation:
One-way streets, as they stand, are not conducive to pedestrian traffic and negatively affect the surrounding neighbourhoods. Main and King Streets are expressways that cut through the heart of the downtown.
Possible Solutions: 1) Introduce traffic calming measures, reduce the # of traffic lanes, etc. (As advocated by some Councillors).
2) Convert the one-way streets to two-way (as advocated by other Councillors, and most downtown residents).
Analysis: Let's say we convert both Main St and King St to one way, but narrowed with traffic calming measures. Perhaps three lanes total (like Rue St-Jean, the only major artery in Quebec City which is one-way). This leaves three lanes for eastbound vehicles, and three lanes for westbound vehicles. Traffic will be slowed indeed... to a standstill.
However, if both Main and King Streets are converted to two-way, there will be two lanes of traffic in each direction on each street, thus providing four lanes in total for eastbound and westbound traffic. This would also slow traffic, but not as significantly as a one-way road narrowing solution would.
Seems the logical choice, for both drivers and pedestrians, is a conversion to two-way streets.
( Permalink )
By Baystreeter (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 21:29:58
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted July 14, 2008 22:15:15
^great response. So you're a downtown resident who doesn't care about the increased tax assessment or proprty value. Congrats. If two-way streets have nothing to do with it, then please explain Locke South right around the corner from dead Main West. Explain James and John coming back to life around the corner from Cannon and Main - both dead and brutal. Life is pretty simple. So are properly functioning cities. I'm certainly not the one who's babbling.
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted July 15, 2008 09:51:51
For those who live downtown and walk around with eyes shut, one way street conversion was most definitely the catalyst for the revitalizing of James and John as well as Locke. You'd have to be dumb as a stump not to realize that. Investors don't invest when there's no guaranteed return on investments. Get real!
Terry Whitehead standing up for his convictions? Ha, that's a joke! How about Terry Whitehead not giving a rat's behind about a creating liveable downtown core while knowing that it's the right thing to do. As I've said before "Fix the heart and the rest will follow". I don't live anywhere near downtown now, but I did for 2 years before and I still would love to see the streets changing to two way. Why? Have you driven down James Street lately? Previously, you'd be lucky if you noticed any of the architecture, cool shops or saw a pedestrian as you blasted past in a mad dash to the escarpment or work. Now, as you drive it's a much more pleasant experience. Even if you're not stopping to do any shopping it's a much more pleasant experience. I love it as does anyone with a vision and desire to see this city grow.
As for the Mayor not doing anything...I'm sure he's not up to snuff in some areas but he has proposed some ideas that are very radical and even if they don't come to fruitiion, it's at least nice to have someone who looks FORWARD rather than someone who's interested in helping out his cronies!
( Permalink )
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted July 15, 2008 11:39:55
Baystreeter, please feel free to share with us your proposed solutions to the "real issues" that you'd like public money to be spent on in lieu of the "hobby horse" of two-way conversions.
Until you provide some ideas of your own, your bashing of others' ideas will probably not be taken too seriously.
Conversion to two-way is not the only thing that needs to be done - no one here is claiming that. But it is one (obvious) piece of the puzzle. And most who post here believe it is a corner piece, mainly because we are able to look at the hard evidence (in Hamilton and elsewhere) in order to make educated deductions.
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted July 15, 2008 13:07:47
Baystreeter, I'd like to know what you think the "real issues" are. Please elaborate!
( Permalink )
By Vic (anonymous)
Posted July 15, 2008 14:15:50
( Permalink )
By councilwatch (anonymous)
Posted July 17, 2008 22:42:35
( Permalink )
By Councillor Terry Whitehead (anonymous)
Posted July 30, 2008 11:53:17
( Permalink )
By SammyV (anonymous)
Posted July 14, 2008 00:15:41
( Permalink )