Comment 19275

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 25, 2008 at 15:46:08

TOMKINITE wrote: "Most logical-minded individuals will get it if they have it explained to them."

To be honest, my experience with trying to discuss two-way conversion suggests otherwise. Here are some articles and blog entries RTH has published concerning two way conversion:

No Two Ways About It (Nov. 10, 2005) http://raisethehammer.org/article/196

Designing Livable Cities: An Interview with Donald Schmitt (Nov. 28, 2005) http://raisethehammer.org/article/201

Make Hamilton's Streets Two-Way Today (Nov. 7, 2006) http://raisethehammer.org/blog/371

Convert Main and King to Two-Way (Nov. 23, 2006) http://raisethehammer.org/article/441

Trying to Kick the Car Habit (Nov. 23, 2006) http://raisethehammer.org/article/445

Two-Way Streets Part of a Conceptual Shift (Nov. 24, 2006) http://raisethehammer.org/blog/402

Look at the comments on these pieces - again and again, people simply reject outright the idea that making the streets two-way could produce positive effects on street life.

In this city, opposition to anything that might slow traffic, no matter the benefits, is runs deeply and dogmatically. Opponents maintain that converting streets to two-way will be a disaster, no matter how abundant the evidence to the contrary.

By the way: in the Hamilton Spectator's defence, in late 2005 they published an op-ed I wrote that was a version of "No Two Ways About It", linked above.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds