Raise the Hammer Newsfeed - Articles

Public Works Committee Rejects Bus Lane Pilot Project

2013-05-16T12:00:00-05:00

this article has been updated

Hamilton's Public Works Committee just rejected a proposal to establish a King Street Bus Only Lane [PDF] pilot project.

Under the one-year pilot project, the City would establish a bus-only lane on the north side of King Street from Mary Street to one block east of Dundurn Street. Where curbside parking is currently on the north side of King, it would move to the south side.

This initiative would help to improve bus service on the busy B-Line express route by reducing travel times and boosting ridership. It would also help Hamilton to get ready for the B-Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) line that the City has been planning since 2008.

The money to pay for it would come from the Metrolinx Quick Wins reserve, and Council already approved the pilot in principle when Councillors unanimously accepted the Rapid Ready report in February.

According to the recommendation:

On February 27, 2013 Council approved recommendations related to Rapid Ready – Expanding Mobility Choices in Hamilton (PW 13014). The Rapid Ready report sets out actions and investments Hamilton will have to make if it is going to realize its approved transportation strategy. The Quick Wins projects are included in the Rapid Ready 2013 Work Plan and are an integral component to the Rapid Ready strategy. Furthermore, the Quick Wins projects capitalize on funding received by the Provincial government, which is to be spent by 2013.

Further, it has been clear for some time based on the City's own traffic volume data that Hamilton's lower city streets - including Main, King and Cannon - have significant excess lane capacity. Extended lane closures on Main, King and Cannon over the past two years have had negligible impacts on traffic.

In other words, there is no good reason for the Public Works Committee not to approve this. Nevertheless, according to Councillor Brian McHattie, members of the Committee raised objections over potential loss of leading areas for local businesses and worry about taxis not being able to drop riders off on the north side of King.

If those sound like limp excuses rather than insurmountable obstacles, it's because they are. A distressing number of Hamilton Councillors fundamentally do not value transit, multi-modal transportation or livable urban neighbourhoods, despite having endorsed these principles at a broad policy level since the 1990s.

The problem is that they refuse to put those values into practice in any meaningful way. As a result, the Public Works Committee remains the place where progressive transportation initiatives - even cost-free, low-risk no-brainer pilot projects that are subject to review - go to die.

The committee voted to sever the original motion into two parts - one to establish the bus-only lane and one to establish A- and B-Line passenger amenities: shelters, benches, waste receptacles, bike locking facilities, location maps and transit information at key strategic locations.

The sub-motion to establish rapid transit amenities was carried with five members of the Public Works Committee voting in favour (Ferguson, Duvall, Merulla, Collins and McHattie) and no one voting against. (Powers, Pasuta, Whitehead and Jackson were absent.)

The sub-motion to establish the bus-only lane was defeated, with only McHattie and Merulla voting in favour, and Collins, Duvall and Ferguson voting against.

Councillors will have a chance to overturn the Committee decision and approve the pilot at the next Council meeting on Wednesday, May 22. Please contact Council and let them know you support this initiative.

Update: updated to add the recorded votes from the draft minutes, provided courtesy of the City Clerks' office. You can jump to the added section.

Focus on Cycling Infrastructure Before Enforcement

2013-05-16T12:00:00-05:00

An article published this week in The Atlantic Cities tries to stake out a compromise between people who advocate for urban cycling and people who are annoyed by cyclists.

At issue is a double-edged policy by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel that increases both the fine for motorists opening their doors into the path of cyclists and for cyclists breaking the law. Under the ordinance, "dooring" will now carry a fine of $1,000 and cyclist infractions will range from $50 to $200.

The author of the Atlantic piece praises the move, arguing that cycling is becoming mainstream and that cyclists should therefore be brought into the fold of legal norms.

I am truly sick, at this late date, of people wanting to have it both ways: calling for protected bike lanes and a bike-share system, demanding that cops step up enforcement when it comes to cars, and then blithely salmoning up a major thoroughfare and expecting everyone look the other way.

She concludes:

There is a price to be paid for trying to move beyond the life-threatening rodeo days of cycling in major American cities. It's called civic responsibility. Playing by the rules. Making nice. Whatever you want to call it, it may mean that you're going to have to give up your identity as a special person who does some special activity known as cycling.

The argument rests on two premises: that cycling infrastructure has evolved to the point that it meets the needs of cyclists and that cycling itself has increased to the point that it has become normalized.

Ambitious Chicago Cycling Plan

First of all, it must be said that Chicago has been doing some impressive things to promote cycling. Its Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020 [PDF] is big, ambitious and fast in its implementation: 1,040 km (645 miles) of on-street bikeways, up from the current 320 km (200 miles); 160 km (100 miles) of physically protected bike lanes by 2015; safe, accommodating neighbourhood bike routes on residential streets like Portland's Greenways; a new bike share this summer with 4,000 bikes at 400 stations; and dedicated bike infrastructure within 800 m (0.5 miles) of every resident.

Kinzie Street Protected Bike Lane, installed in 2011 (Image Credit: Chicago Cycling Program)

Chicago has been slowly developing its bike network since the early 1990s. In 2001, Chicago was considered one of the best cycling cities in the United States, which isn't saying much, but at the time any commitment to cycling was pretty progressive.

Those early plans produced measurable results: from 2000 to 2010, Cycling more than doubled as a percentage of commuting trips in Chicago, from 0.5% to 1.3%. This compares with 0.8% in New York, 0.9% in Los Angeles, 3.5% in San Francisco and 6% in Portland.

(It is clear that higher rates of cycling have led to lower rates of cycling injuries, and this pattern has held true in Chicago as well, as the number of injuries has increased much more slowly than the number of cyclists. For comparison, in New York the number of injuries fell by three quarters during the time the number of cyclists quadrupled.)

Infrastructure Not Built

Today, Chicago has 320 km of bike lanes, about 30% of the network it hopes to have completed by 2020. That compares to approximately 15,000 lane-km in its automobile street network. So even at buildout, Chicago's bike lane network will be only 6% of the size of its vehicle lane network. Today, Chicago's bike lane network is a piddling 2% of its vehicle lane network.

If the cycling modal share of commuting continues to grow at roughly the same rate as the network share, cycling will reach approximately 6% of total commuting trips by 2020, similar to the share Portland enjoys today.

Compare the City of Amsterdam, which increased its cycling modal share from 33% in 1990 to 47% in 2008 (and from 39% to 62% in the downtown core). Amsterdam's 800,000 residents now cycle an amazing 2 million km a day.

The City of Copenhagen has also made impressive gains in cycling share, rising to 37% city-wide and 55% in the downtown core - and also through continuous improvement rather than merely a legacy of past decisions.

In fact, a large number of European cities boast cycling shares of more than 10%, from Avignon and Bordeaux in France through Dresden, Tubingen, Munich and Munster in Germany to Basel and Bern in Switzerland and, of course, the legendary cities of the Netherlands and Denmark.

Now those are cities where cycling has been entirely normalized, yet policy continues to drive cycling rates upward through more and better infrastructure.

Chicago may be among the most bicycle-friendly cities in the United States, but it doesn't come anywhere close.

Cycling Not Normalized

Research from Portland into why people do or don't ride bicycles suggests that there are four broad categories of cyclist:

Fearless, risk-taking young men who are willing to ride in mixed traffic: <1%
Enthusiasts who will ride if bike lanes are available: 7%
People who are interested in cycling but afraid of perceived danger: 60%
People who can't or won't ride at all: 33%

Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland (Image Credit: City of Portland)

By this measure, Chicago has made modest inroads into attracting the second category of potential cyclist: enthusiasts who will ride on bike lanes. However, it still has a long way to go before it even begins to attract the third category.

In other words, the cyclists on Chicago streets today are still made up of the hard core of "road warrior" cyclists and a small fraction of those people who are enthusiastic about cycling but want dedicated bike lanes before they try it.

Cycling cannot be reasonably considered to be normalized when its two principle constituencies are not broadly represented, let alone the more fearful majority.

Outstanding Barriers

So we know infrastructure and mode share are way behind more progressive cycling cities, but naysayers continue to drift into moralism over whether cyclists "deserve" bicycle infrastructure when they don't obey the law.

The most obvious response, of course, it to point out the double standard that motorists also routinely break the law, but no one's saying we should stop building roads until drivers begin stopping at stop signs, signalling turns and obeying the speed limit.

It seems clear that most of the people pointing out cyclists flouting the law are doing so because they consider cycling a nuisance and an obstacle to obstruction-free driving.

There are still several tangible reasons why the best approach to cycling does not entail a false middle ground of tit-for-tat punitive enforcement in North American cities (this applies even more to Hamilton than it does to Chicago):

We're still nowhere near having a network of cycling infrastructure that is adequate to encourage lawful cycling. With a better, more continuous bike lane network, a) it will be much easier and safer to cycle lawfully, b) many more people will ride bikes, and c) the presence of more cyclists on the road will itself help to normalize lawful cycling for everyone.
Today, the laws governing cyclist activity are slightly different than for drivers, but there should be additional changes to more accurately reflect the balance of risks and benefits of riding a bike, e.g. the Idaho stop. Rules for cyclists should take into account both the physics of getting a human-powered vehicle moving from a full stop and the actual measured risk of a cyclist rolling through a stop sign.
The risk of harm from cyclists violating laws is orders of magnitude lower than the risk from drivers violating laws. Allocating police budgets to targeting cyclists for enforcement is not an effective use of scarce policing resources.

Overall, the balance of regulatory subsidies and disincentives still overwhelmingly favours driving over cycling. Any measure that further disincentivizes cycling should be avoided without very good reason.

For now, and for the foreseeable future, there are no good reasons for us to focus our limited energy on enforcement rather than the more pressing job of filling in the gaping holes in our cycling infrastructure, which will actually do a better job of improving cyclist conformance.

Think of it this way: as long as cycling remains the purview of a tiny segment of risk-seeking outliers, risky behaviour will continue to predominate. The most effective way to make cycling more norm-based is to dramatically increase the size and breadth of the cycling population.

So let's stop moralizing and commit to doing what is actually proven to work instead of what feels good and plays well with drivers.

Baranga's On the Beach: This Ain't No Beach-Side Hut

2013-05-16T12:00:00-05:00

Baranga's on the Beach, Confederation Park, Hamilton

Twenty years ago, Margarita Tsangarakis and her family bought a run-down school and converted it into what has rightfully become a 'lakefront establishment' in Hamilton - Baranaga's on the Beach at 380 Van Wagner's Beach Road, near Confederation Park.

Last weekend I went, incognito, with a friend to assess the state of this aging 'grand dame'. It easily based the initial sniff test: sections were freshly painted, the floor had been meticulously swept by a gray-haired family member, clean bathrooms were fully stocked with paper towels and toilet paper, and the tables and chairs were freshly wiped down. All was clean and presentable at midday on May 11th, 2013.

One might think that with an indoor seating capacity for 150, and an outdoor capacity for more than that, that a place this large might have a bit of a over-extended 'commercial' junky vib. But, to its credit, it does not. It felt 'open' and welcoming.

The young serving staff were attentive and pleasant. Our teenage waitress, who was on her first day, somewhat touchingly 'blushed' when she admitted she didn't know, yet, what was on-tap. - Ah, we all remember well those teenage years at our first job.

We braved the overcast cool spring day to try out the patio. Plus, we had brought the dog - a Great Dane. (Huh? A Great Dane in a restaurant? - I know, don't ask, long story...) Anyway, when we arrived we were told that there was a 'doggie section' on the patio, but since there was no one else out there at that time, we were allowed to sit wherever we wanted. That was very gracious of the restaurant.

We seated ourselves front and centre on the second level of the patio. The dog quickly and quietly settled down.

Our view was fantastic.

Baranga's on the Beach with impressive lake views - from the patio or the adjacent Hamilton Trail boardwalk.

The menu is admittedly pricey on some items, but we concluded that lake view was the irreplaceable 'add on'. I can think of no other waterfront establishment from Port Hope to Niagara Falls that offers quite the same 'open-to-the-elements' large patio ambience.

With expansive vistas, and situated directly on the Hamilton Trail boardwalk, Baranga's on the Beach manages to combine a formal, yet informal, funky euro-dining experience, (shirts and shoes required), that tantalizes with other festive attractions that most certainly ensure a 'return visit'.

We were told, as example, that the previous night, Friday night, was 'Salsa Night' and that the outdoor taverna Sand Bar was packed. I don't doubt it. It felt like we were being initiated to a well-known - yet oddly well-kept 'secret' - a Hamilton Beach phenomenon.

The high-walled open-air 'disco' section of Barangas has been tacked onto the south end of the restaurant, (with the two outdoor volley ball courts tacked on to that...) This open-air nightclub did remind me of a few Spanish, Greek and Italian places that I have visited over the years in Europe. For sure, it's not like any 'Canadian bar' that I know of on the Great Lakes.

The open-air nightclub is accessible from the beach, has a handy bike rack at the boardwalk entrance, and offers clean bathrooms below the restaurant.

The elevated mechanized fire-pit pods in the patio section added additional sizzle, though they weren't 'turned on' when we were there. I could see though how these would add more warmth, figuratively and literally.

One couldn't help but get the sense that this place becomes very popular during the summer. My guess is that this place is also frequented by regulars of both sexes during the high season.

Baranga's works hard at off-season events too. Weddings, Christmas, catering, and corporate functions are all offered as 'packages' on their website, where you can also review their ongoing menu.

As for the food, we both had a full pint of draft (Canadian was finally chosen on-tap), split a spanokapita appetizer (3 large spinach stuffed baked phillo pastries were hot, ample and delicious), and we both had the chicken souvlaki with 'original' Greek side salad. ($2 extra).

The chicken was marinated and grilled perfectly, arrived hot to the table on fresh warm pita bread with a side dish of 'house' tzatziki.

The salad (onions, tomatoes, cucumbers and black olives with crumbling feta cheese on top) was a tad larger than both of us could manage, but, when doused in fresh olive oil with a splash of vinegar - no complaints.

We skipped dessert and had a strong cup of coffee. If anything, that was the one area where we were a bit disappointed. The coffee choices seemed rather limited. Still, it is a restaurant and not a coffee shop.

Total bill: $84 ($42 per head) inc tax with a 15% tip to the 'new girl'. We thought that a fair price for the unparalleled lake side views.

Ample good food in a euro-style patio setting requests a certain dress code.

There is ample free parking across from the restaurant's front door, or free parking is also available just down the road in the public parkland beach area. It's a nice short walk along the boardwalk up to the restaurant.

Baranga's on the Beach is accessible as well by boat: N. 43" 16.386 W079"454.40 with 6-7 foot drop anchor depth out-front.

By the way, Baranga means 'hut on the beach' according to Margarita, who is Greek. But when I googled the word 'baranga', the definition came back as Portuguese slang for 'ugly woman'. No matter. There's nothing 'ugly' about this maturing 'grand dame'.

If anything, this 'hut' gives the whole area a shot in the arm as a fun place to enjoy a cold glass, leisurely meal, soak in the summer sun (when it's shining) and watch the ever-changing lake. I'd say it is well worth a visit, or two, by land, lake, bike or foot.

Baranga's on the Beach Facebook header photo.

Ever keeping up with the times, Baranga's on the Beach has now joined Facebook. After your visit, why not 'like' their Facebook page, and then go for a second meal and/or a midnight wiggle? It's a Hamilton institution.

Hours of operation: Sunday to Thursday, 11:30am - 11:00pm (12:00am Victoria Day weekend to Labour Day Weekend), Friday and Saturday 11:30am - 12:00pm (2:00am Victoria weekend to Labour Day weekend).

Reservations are not necessary, but are recommended. Phone 905-544-7122 or email bonthebeach@barangas.ca.

NYC Redesigns its Streets for Safety, Vitality and Diverse Use

2013-05-13T12:00:00-05:00

While Hamilton streets remain firmly entrenched in the mid-20th century values of separation and automobile flow, the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has released a groundbreaking report called Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets (PDF).

As the saying goes, you can't manage it if you don't measure it, and NYCDOT measures its street designs based on the outcomes it hopes to produce: safety for all users, traffic volumes for all users, optimum speed (not too slow or too fast), economic vitality, user satisfaction and environmental/public health benefits.

The report states:

Cities need to set new goals for their streets if they are to meet the needs of a dynamic and growing city and address the problems of vehicle crashes, traffic congestion, poor-performing bus and bike networks, and environments that are inhospitable for pedestrians.

What NYCDOT has learned is that complete streets perform better on a variety of measures than automobile-centric streets.

Protected bicycle lane on 8th and 8th Avenues, NYC (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

After protected bike lanes were installed on 8th and 8th Avenues, the city observed the following:

35% decrease in injuries to all street users (including drivers) on 8th Avenue
58% decrease in injuries to all street users (including drivers) on 8th Avenue
49% increase in retail sales on 9th Avenue (compared to average 3% increase across Manhattan)

This pattern is pretty consistent: protected bike lanes are great for local streetfront business - assuming the city leadership cares enough about local streetfront businesses to invest in economic infrastructure that supports them.

Pedestrian plaza, protected bike lanes at Union Square North (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

After a new pedestrian plaza and a protected bike path were installed in Union Square North, Manhattan, the city observed the following:

16% reduction in speeding
14% increase in median speed
26% drop in injury crashes
49% reduction in commercial vacancies (compared to 5% reduction across Manhattan)
74% of users prefer new design

NYCDOT does a lot of pilot projects. This allows them to try and iterate innovative ideas at a relatively low risk. It also allows people to experience those ideas before reflexively opposing them.

Parking to Plazas in Brooklyn and Manhattan (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

Projects to turn parking into plaza seating on Pearl Street in Brooklyn and Manhattan yielded the following:

172% increase in retail sales (compared to 18% increase across Brooklyn)
77% increase in seated pedestrians
14% increase in sales at adjacent businesses

Can you imagine Hamilton measuring the number of pedestrians sitting on our public streets, let alone removing parking to make room for them?

It took several years of planning, budget cuts and delays before the City tried a pilot project to turn the south leg of the Gore into a pedestrian plaza last summer. It was a great success at attracting people to take or buy their lunch in Gore Park, but as soon as the pilot was over the bollards were removed and the south leg was turned back into curbside parking.

Traffic calming on East 180th Street, Bronx (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

After traffic calming on East 180th Street in the Bronx, the city observed the following:

67% decrease in pedestrian crashes
29% decrease in eastbound speeding
32% decrease in westbound speeding

Of course, Hamilton focuses on speeding traffic and pedestrian injuries from time to time, but only in the context of police enforcement. We don't measure safety in terms of designing our streets to accommodate a variety of legitimate users.

Dedicated bus and bike lanes on First and Second Avenues (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

After installing dedicated bus and bike lanes on First and Second Avenues in Manhattan, the city observed:

18% increase in bus speeds
12% increase in bus ridership
A whopping 177% increase in bicycle volumes
47% reduction in commercial vacancies (compared to 2% borough-wide)
37% reduction in injury crashes

Hamilton has a goal of doubling transit ridership by 2020 but we've done just about nothing to achieve that goal in the past several years. Council is considering dedicated transit lanes for the east-west B-Line, but we can expect lots of hand-wringing and agonizing, despite the fact that these streets have significant excess lane capacity.

Bike lanes on Main and King are off the table entirely, even though the whole point of bike lanes is to make it viable to use a bike for transportation. (Several councillors seem to think off-street trails are good enough, which is like saying drivers who want more lane capacity should go to Cayuga Speedway and drive around the track.)

Variable parking rates in Park Slope, Brooklyn (Image Credit: NYCDOT)

Back in 2005, UCLA economist Donald Shoup demonstrated in his landmark book The High Cost of Free Parking that the most effective way to provide parking is with variable pricing based on time of day, optimized to maintain around 15% vacancy.

NYC tried this in Park Slope and observed the following:

20% decrease in average parking duration
18% more unique visitors found parking
7% reduction in traffic volumes (due to reduced "cruising" for a parking spot)

Meanwhile, in Hamilton we're actually busy ripping out parking meters in response to the outcry from drivers who expect "free" parking (i.e. someone else has to pay for it).

Measure What You Value

These are just a few examples from the report of how New York City is redesigning its streets to reflect a more inclusive concept of what a street is for and whose needs it should serve. They measure what they want to improve: more pedestrians, more cyclists, fewer injuries, less speeding, better business.

In Hamilton, we continue to measure our street designs almost exclusively on service level for motorists. If a driver has to wait behind a red light, that's a big problem, and it's enough to disqualify any measure that might reduce lane capacity or vehicle speed.

But if a pedestrian has to detour half a kilometre or more out of the way just to cross the street, we don't measure that so it doesn't trigger any policy actions.

Indeed, the de facto policy of the traffic department has consistently been to oppose any change to the street design that might interfere with the smooth, fast, unimpeded flow of automobile traffic.

We don't value the volume of pedestrians or cyclists, so we don't measure how our street designs affect those volumes and we certainly don't aim for policy targets of increasing those numbers.

Likewise, we don't value the vitality of streetfront retail, despite over five decades of continuous evidence that car-dependent streets kill those businesses. We don't care that business owners on our fast, one-way thoroughfares have been complaining since the 1950s that the streets scare customers away.

We care about the vitality of big box stores on suburban greenfields with vast asphalt lots of "free" parking around them, but we don't care about walkable neighbourhood businesses. Indeed, we punish those businesses by imposing ludicrous parking requirements on them that make no sense in an urban built environment.

Our Values on Display

Our master plans theoretically aim to reduce overall traffic volumes and get more people walking and cycling, but we refuse to do anything that will actually work toward achieving that goal.

Change is a football our traffic engineers, senior managers and Councillors perpetually kick down the field so someone else can deal with them. Yet when someone else does try to deal with them, the same people who refuse to follow their own plans react with belligerence and threats.

City workers remove guerilla bumpouts at Locke and Herkimer (Image Credit: Jeffrey Neven)

It turns out that the tactical urbanists making incremental, iterative changes to their built environment are doing exactly what successful cities do to improve their public space - and what Hamilton would be doing if it was really committed to fulfilling the words-on-paper that are supposed to be its guiding principles.

If the only thing we bother to measure is service level for motorists, we will never be able to achieve real improvements in how our streets serve our residents.

Ghost Crosswalks Haunt Hamilton Intersections

2013-05-12T12:00:00-05:00

The better part of a year ago, I promised RTH editor Ryan McGreal a photo-essay on Hamilton's "Ghost Crosswalks". Though I took plenty of pictures, I got caught up in other projects and never got around to it, something that's been bugging me ever since.

When, this past week, the issue of crosswalks came up in a big way, it seemed like time to make these pictures public.

"Ghost crosswalks" are the last remains of old painted crosswalks which have been left to fade by the city. It's an ironic term with particular meaning in Hamilton after they became de-facto city policy.

It has been said that Hamilton's longstanding head of traffic engineering, Hart Solomon (now retired), felt crossings without signals were a liability.

Signs were removed and lines were allowed to fade. Even last summer I had trouble finding remaining examples which would still show up in photographs.

Solomon's reign has a lot to do with why we have such an overbuilt road network today. He's long been criticized for prioritizing automobile traffic above all else, leaving us with "urban highways" like Main and Cannon and treating bikes and pedestrians as an afterthought.

These five-lane roads carve the city into blocks, making travel on foot an arduous, toxic and dangerous affair, especially for those with strollers or mobility issues.

There have been some recent successful efforts to reverse this process, like the battle for a pedestrian crossing at Aberdeen and Kent, where the first requests only gained a sign telling pedestrians to "cross at the lights" (a 400m detour to Queen or Locke).

The downside is that it took a long and sustained effort from some of the most affluent and influential neighbourhoods in the lower city.

With hundreds more crossings, often in very poor neighbourhoods who're only now seeing our lead pipes replaced, it's hard to imagine more than a hand-full seeing lights installed before the end of the decade, especially where they're needed most.

Long-standing frustration boiled over last week, when a group of residents who were inspired by a recent speech on "Tactical Urbanism" decided to take a little initiative of their own.

At Locke and Herkimer they used a few traffic pylons (their adopted symbol) to create "bump-outs" in an attempt to calm traffic and give kids from the nearby school more space to stand.

Guerilla bumpouts at Herkimer and Locke before they were removed (RTH file photo)

In an even more daring act of guerilla civic planning, somebody installed a crosswalk at Cannon and Mary (I'm told they "painted" it with cornstarch). Cheeky and poignant, it was direct action at its finest, albeit pretty tame by even the standards of teenage pranks.

Then the city found out.

Public Works General Manager Gerry Davis freaked out. They contacted the police, sent a memo to council and declared the work of Tactical Urbanism supporters to be "illegal, potentially unsafe and adding to the city's cost of maintenance and repair".

The ad-hoc crosswalk was painted over with black and the cones vanished.

After years of letting crosswalks fade, they're now seeking to criminalize the very act of painting crosswalks. Not surprising, I suppose, after their crackdown on jaywalking, it's pretty clear that they're more interested in punishment and blame than addressing their own shortcomings as traffic engineers.

Beyond that, there's the matter of control. Authority never likes being challenged and can often be prone to 'overreact' when it feels that's happening. City bureaucracies operate on the premise of total control over their domain.

Residents taking this kind of initiative can be a terrifying prospect for staffers, threatening their already tenuous hold on chaotic city life.

The Public Works department, of course, was already having a rough week. The ongoing "time-theft" scandal, which saw 29 front-line workers fired for severe slacking last January, has now focused its attention a little further up the ladder.

Of 28 supervisors, 16 found themselves under investigation. Of those, four have now taken early retirement and a fifth quit outright. Others may be facing suspensions.

This only confirms a longstanding image of the department's work-ethic (or lack thereof), provoking another firestorm of public criticism, which I have no doubt is contributing to a bit of a siege mentality down at 77 James North.

In the face of years of this embarrassing inaction, it isn't surprising that a few vigilantes have taken it upon themselves. Gerry Davis may feel this is dangerous, but letting crosswalks fade has consequences of its own.

In 2007, an elderly couple was struck and killed at a notorious "ghost crosswalk" in Stoney Creek. As one neighbour complained, it had been a school crossing before the city removed the signs and crossing guard then left the painted lines to fade.

One has to wonder how many more people have been hurt or killed over the years at these crossings, or if it has even been studied.

In this case, as in too many others, bad traffic engineering can kill. Focusing on the free and easy flow of automobile traffic to the exclusion of all other road users has not produced a safer or more prosperous city.

The neglect shown for pedestrians revels a whole host of prejudices: classism, sexism, ageism and ableism, which suggest that some road users just aren't as "important" as others.

In spite of this, people still need to travel the city, even those with walkers, wheelchairs, strollers or scooters. They will cross streets wherever they can, because the only other option is turning around and going back home.

If this means a regular risk of injury or death, that's just something we've come to accept as part of modern urban life.

It doesn't have to be this way. Making a trip to the doctor, day care or convenience store doesn't need to mean a pulse-pounding, real-life game of Frogger.

Neighbourhood planning must first reflect those who live and spend time along those streets, and only then give though to matters like the efficient flow of traffic to and from suburban bedroom communities.

Through acts like Intersection Repair, which helped inspire Tactical Urbanism, neighbourhoods have had amazing success redesigning and repainting their own streets, going so far as to install benches and bookshelves along the sides of elaborate road-murals.

Most inspiring of all, city departments learned to live with it.

Let's hope that recent actions mark the beginning, not the end, of 'autonomous civic engineering' around our city, or at least spark a little serious soul-searching among those who do it for a living.

After all, there's little point making a city an easy place to drive at the price of making it a safe place to walk.

First published on Undustrialism

Public Meeting with New Horizon Regarding City Square Phase 3

2013-05-12T12:00:00-05:00

this article has been updated

Durand residents packed a room in the Ryerson Community Center last week to attend a meeting on the proposed zoning amendment for New Horizon's City Square development at the corner of Park and Bay Street.

City Square building 1 under construction (RTH file photo)

While Jeff Paikin, President of New Horizon Homes, was in attendance, he stood at the back of the room for most of the meeting, allowing GSP Groups, his hired planning consultants, to host it.

They explained that New Horizon has applied for a zoning amendment for the third and smallest remaining block. This block is currently permitted to host a four-storey building with twelve units. New Horizon wants approval for 17 storeys with 159 units.

The entire site is currently approved for 188 units. Thus, they are asking to almost double the number of units on this site.

In addition, most of the space between the buildings that was previously allotted as green space will now be replaced with surface parking. Between these parking spots and the underground parking lot, over 340 parking spaces will be part of this plan.

While these amendments are shocking, perhaps most shocking of all was the disregard and disrespect for the Durand community and the Durand Neighborhood Association (DNA).

The planning consultants from GSP Groups were clearly unprepared for the meeting. They seemed to have no knowledge of the history of the project and when asked simple questions like 'how many parking spaces will there be' were unable to answer and gave 'rough guesses'.

They also presented incorrect information, claiming that DNA had met with previous owners but never New Horizon, which is completely untrue.

They told the current DNA president, Janice Brown, she could leave her contact information with them and they could try and address her concerns. This was quite insulting, considering the DNA has worked closely with New Horizon for years.

Through all of this, Paikin stood at the back and let these consultants muddle their way through meeting. Finally, when asked by a resident, he came to the front and stated that while he had met with the DNA, he had never made any 'promises' about the third block.

Several board members were surprised to hear this, given that we had met many times. In fact, the DNA supported New Horizon's past zoning amendment to the second tower to allow for two more storeys (nine to eleven).

Paikin met with the DNA board in April 2012 to discuss this amendment. At the time, he explained very clearly his intentions to build either townhouses or no units at all at the third site. He also explained how important it was to him to maintain an open dialogue with the community.

Yet in the Fall of 2012, he applied for the zoning amendment for the third site without informing the DNA, or any owners of the other two towers.

It was deeply troubling to see him state so clearly that none of the previous conversations and commitments had transpired. He was also quite clear that he fully intended and expected this amendment to pass and that there would be little we could do.

Naturally, the residents in attendance were quite upset. Many brought documents illustrating previous plans presented by New Horizon, which never depicted a 17-storey tower.

At least three owners of units in Tower 1 were in attendance. They expressed their dismay and disappointment at these changes. However, they were unable to voice much opposition because they had signed a clause in their contract forbidding them from opposing any zoning amendments.

Many residents felt betrayed, and at times the meeting became quite heated. Only one resident seemed to voice approval for the project, but his approval seemed to focus mostly on the success of tower one. It was not clear if he supported the amendment.

So where do we go from here?

It was clear to those in attendance last night that Jeff Paikin and New Horizon are not as 'committed to the community at large' as they claim, and as is stated on their website.

Based on the high demand for Tower 1 and 2, they have decided to try and build the largest possible tower on the third site. They apparently want to maximize their profits and don't care about the community at all or the residents that have bought units in the other towers.

At this stage, the application will go to city staff. They will present their recommendations to the planning committee, which will then either approve or disapprove the application. From there it will go to council, which will vote on the amendment.

Duranders and the DNA will continue to oppose this amendment and could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) if it is required. It is imperative that the community mobilize to express their disappointment with this developer.

The decision will most likely be made at council, and it is not clear how councillors in other wards will react, given that this new development will mean more tax revenue for Hamilton.

One can only hope that they will want to send a clear message to developers that they need to work with the community to develop projects that will balance density with neighbourhood needs, something Paikin once promised us he would do.

with files from Nicholas Kevlahan

Update: the article originally stated that the DNA "fully indends" to appeal this rezoning to the OMB. This is incorrect: the DNA is considering an OMB appeal but has not made a formal decision. RTH regrets the error. You can jump to the changed paragraph.

Yes We Cannon - Bike Lanes 2015

2013-05-10T12:00:00-05:00

A lot of digital ink has been dedicated on this website to the various dysfunctions of Cannon Street, yet precious little has been done to try to ease the situation.

Cannon Street at James (Image Credit: Mike Goodwin)

Unless the citizens of our great city stand up and demand better, Cannon Street will remain terribly over-built, only existing to transport car and truck traffic as fast as possible.

This is what Yes We Cannon is all about - giving the people a voice to demand that Hamilton City Council take dramatic steps to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety in the lower city and to make sure we have safe, functional streets for everyone.

The mission: create a bi-directional bike lane, running the full length of Cannon Street, by 2015.

If this happened, Cannon Street would become the centrepiece of our active transportation network, and a focal point of our city to be showcased to the hundreds of thousands of visitors we will host for the 2015 Pan Am games.

There are a number of important reasons why Cannon Street is prime to be converted into a street with bike lanes. They can be summed up by answering three important questions: Why Bike Lanes, Why Cannon, and Why Now?

Spare lane capacity on Cannon (Image Credit: Mike Goodwin)

Why Bike Lanes?

First, Cannon Street is identified as a priority for Bike Lanes in the City of Hamilton's Shifting Gears - Cycling Master Plan (2009).

Bike Lanes on Cannon Street are identified as Priorities numbers 20, 30, 45 and 55 in the Plan, so City Council have already committed to installing Bike Lanes on Cannon Street. It's time that we hold Council accountable for these promises to make the lower city safer for all road users.

Second, a cycling trip is only as safe as the least safe part of the journey. Currently there is no safe cycling infrastructure to get from east to west in the North End.

More to the point, there is no possible way to get from the Pan Am Stadium to the site of the new James Street North GO Station without riding on King Street, Cannon Street, Barton Street or Burlington Street.

Riding on King, Cannon and Burlington right now is a very frightening exercise, with vehicles whizzing by you at speeds upwards of 70 km/hour, and riding on Barton subjects you to very heavy traffic, tight lanes and many car doors opening in your path.

Finally, the North end of Hamilton is tremendously under-served by active transportation infrastructure. While Hamilton has made some tremendous strides in improving the bikeability of areas in the west end of the city and on the mountain, there exists a significant gap in the cycling network in wards 2, 3 and 4.

In fact, from Watson in the East to Victoria Street in the West (a distance of nearly 5 km) and from Lawrence Ave all the way to Burlington Street (a distance of almost 3 km), there is not a single piece of safe cycling infrastructure.

Working with the population map produced by Raise ihe Hammer, we see that in this area of over 16 square kilometers, there are 50,000 residents without access to safe active transportation infrastructure.

Considering that these residents are all contained within the Code Red neighbourhoods, the impetus for action becomes even stronger.

Not all people can drive. For children, the elderly and persons with disabilities, the option to hop in a car and drive to their destination does not exist. For others, the costs of owning a car may simply be too high.

We need to ensure that these populations have access to safe, effective transportation infrastructure, and that means making the streets work for them as well.

Clusters of high-speed traffic on Cannon (Image Credit: Mike Goodwin)

Why Cannon Street?

One of the most compelling arguments to be made for adding bike lanes onto Cannon Street is the lack of alternate routes to move East to West across the lower city via active transportation. Because of the way the roads in the North and East end of Hamilton are constructed, there are no continuous side streets taking you from East to West or vice-versa.

In fact, if you were to try to ride from Ottawa and Main to James and Barton, there is no route you could take that would keep you off of King, Cannon, Barton or Burlington.

These streets are clearly not designed for cyclists, and unless you are a very confident and experienced cyclist, those road conditions are likely to deter you from even attempting the trip.

Furthermore, by giving bikers few safe options we are also putting drivers at risk, creating a dangerous situation for both bike and car. Cannon is centrally located between two large, fast moving streets (the King/Main pairing and Burlington Street), making it an ideal candidate for conversion since the nearby streets would easily be able to accommodate the excess traffic generated by calming Cannon.

Equally important to the "Why Cannon?" question is the fact that Cannon has already been identified in Hamilton's Shifting Gears Cycling Master Plan as a route destined for bike lanes. Cannon street can serve as a central spine to the city's cycling network in the North end of the city, and should be prioritized to give access to the hundreds of new cyclists, young and old, that are getting on the road in this area every year.

Finally, Cannon street is ideally located to connect people to the places that they will want to go within Hamilton via active transportation.

By installing bike lanes along Cannon, the city has a unique opportunity to connect two thriving business and arts communities (Ottawa and James Streets), a major sporting destination (the Pan Am Stadium), a major transit hub (The James Street North Go Station) and four active, engaged neighbourhoods via a safe, effective active transportation route.

This opportunity is too valuable to our city to miss, and we must urge our politicians to make this a priority.

Why Now?

This is where the rubber really hits the road. With the construction of the Pan Am Stadium and the construction of the James Street North GO station, Hamilton has really never been in a better position to showcase itself to the region and the world.

Making Cannon Street a cycling destination route would speak volumes to our dedication to provide safe space for all road users. Here are the reasons why we must not wait any longer to make these important changes.

First, construction crews will already be on the ground redoing sections of Cannon Street in advance of the Pan Am games in 2015. With these crews on the ground, we have the opportunity to do the work that the city has already identified as a priority by installing bike lanes.

Second, our city is going to play host to thirty-two soccer games during the Pan Am Games. This is going to bring hundreds of thousands of visitors into our city over the span of ten days. We need a way to get those people from the James Street North GO Station to the Pan Am stadium, and providing them with a safe, direct cycling route along Cannon Street would be an excellent way to showcase our city to all these visitors.

Third, Hamilton City Council has approved a Bike Share program to be deployed in Hamilton. By installing bike lanes along Cannon Street, we can develop an amazing network for these Bike Share bikes to get from the downtown and the James Street North GO station to the Pan Am Stadium, to Ottawa Street and to other areas in the East end of our city.

Perhaps most important, the costs of inaction are growing every single year. People are no longer choosing where to locate their family based on how fast they can get away from their homes in their cars. People are looking for walkable, bikeable, connected neighbourhoods to locate their families, open new businesses and spend their time and money.

There are great strides being made in many parts of Hamilton to make them more connected and more accommodating to active transportation, but the lower city, and especially the North and East ends, have been neglected on this front, with our council continuing to prioritize rapid automobile movement over the development of safe, connected communities.

The time to reverse this trend is now. We can keep traffic moving through the lower city without Cannon street being a freeway. We can create a safe space for cyclists and pedestrians along Cannon Street. We can connect our neighbourhoods, our shopping destinations and our transit hubs. Most importantly, we can leave a legacy of health, safety and community vibrancy for decades to come. The time is now!

Yes We Cannon!

Join the movement at yeswecannon.ca, and spread the word on Facebook and Twitter @BikeCannon2015 and hashtag #YesWeCannon.

City Crackdown on Tactical Urbanism

2013-05-09T12:00:00-05:00

this article has been updated

Public Works General Manager Gerry Davis sent a memo on May 7, 2013 to Council warning about "unauthorized activities on our city streets" related to the recent workshop and public lecture on tactical urbanism.

According to Mike Lydon, a principal at The Street Plans Collaborative and author of the Tactical Urbanism e-book, tactical urbanism is the principle that citizens can undertake direct low-cost, high-reward actions that immediately improve some aspect of a community's public life and demonstrate to city leaders that there are opportunities for easy, successful changes to the status quo.

Lydon emphasized that the essence of tactical urbanism is to take short-term action that precipitates long-term change and are informed by vision, local context, agility, value, and community engagement. He noted that most cities welcome tactical urbanism and are inspired by demonstrations of change to invest in more permanent transformations informed by the lessons learned.

'Illegal, Potentially Unsafe'

However, the City of Hamilton does not appear to see it that way. In Davis' memo, he warns:

These changes to City streets are illegal, potentially unsafe and adding to the City's costs of maintenance and repair. The City can consider this as vandalism, with the potential for serious health and safety consequences for citizens, particularly pedestrians. There is potential liability and risk management claims to both the City and the individuals involved.

Of course, left unmentioned is the ongoing danger to individuals and liability to the city from Hamilton's status quo of pedestrian- and cyclist-unfriendly automobile oriented streets, a shameful legacy that has continued unimpeded for decades despite the overwhelming weight of evidence, expert testimonial, and even official policy.

If citizens are taking street design into their own hands, it is out of extreme frustration with the failure, year after year after year, of city leaders on Council and in senior management, to make the necessary changes themselves.

City workers have already removed the painted crosswalk at Cannon and Mary and the bumpout pylons that were installed at the corner of Herkimer and Locke to make pedestrian crossings there safer and more comfortable.

Guerilla Bumpouts at Herkimer and Locke before they were removed (RTH file photo)

On Friday I asked the long-time crossing guard what she thought of the project. With immediate enthusiasm, she said, "I like it!" The guard did not know who had installed the cones or why, but she was highly supportive, saying it makes the corner a lot safer.

The traffic calming "really controls the traffic. It was getting scary," she said, noting that the bumpouts forced the cars to slow down instead of racing aggressively through the intersection.

Institutional Obstruction

If Davis is serious about being "willing to work cooperatively with citizens and citizen groups to address their traffic concerns and suggested improvements," he can start by directing his staff to replace the bumpouts at Herkimer and Locke.

Of course, this is the same traffic department that delayed the installation of a crosswalk at the nearby intersection of Aberdeen and Kent for years because, as they argued, it was simultaneously too dangerous for pedestrians to cross and safe enough that it did not warrant a crosswalk.

When the crosswalk was finally installed after years of advocacy, a petition with hundreds of signatures, a presentation to the Public Works Committee and another delay of more than a year before it was installed over a period of three months, it was programmed to provide "minimum service level to pedestrians".

The button-activated crosswalk routinely waited between 40 seconds and nearly two minutes before changing the traffic signals, and another city traffic engineer eventually acknowledged that the crosswalk had been designed explicitly to be as non-useful to pedestrians as possible.

To his credit, he had the crosswalk reprogrammed to that it now works properly, but there is no reason why the traffic department should have been so persistently hostile to a crosswalk in an urban residential neighbourhood in the first place.

This was in an affluent neighbourhood in which several highly educated volunteers were willing and able to undertake an extended campaign of organizing and advocacy. How many other simple, basic features of civic infrastructure have not been built and will not be built because the community resources to force the City to act are missing?

The Symptom, Not the Problem

Tactical urbanism is not the problem here. It is the symptom of a deeper problem in which the city's stated commitment to citizen engagement, innovation, diverse economic opportunities and being "the best place to raise a child" are not really governing principles but are only words on paper.

In an essay I published earlier today, I included the following graphic of the circle of tactical urbanism from Lydon's talk with the cheeky subtext, "in Hamilton, this is a U-shape".

The circle tactical urbanism

Little did I know just how quickly my cheeky remark would be proven correct.

Despite two decades of plans and policies dating back to Vision 2020, despite mountains of evidence from other cities, despite being told by literally dozens of urban planning experts what we need to do, our leaders remain implacably opposed to the most basic transformations that would make our streets tamer, safer, more equitable and more successful for everyone.

Text of the Memo

Here is the full text of the memo:

Hamilton Information Update
TO: Mayor R. Bratina, Members of City Council
WARD(S) AFFECTED: CITY WIDE
DATE: May 7, 2013
SUBJECT: Tactical Urbanism
SUBMITTED BY: Gerry Davis, CMA
General Manager
Public Works Department

Since yesterday, Traffic Operations staff has noticed the following unauthorized activities on our city streets:

Traffic signage posted at Upper James and Mohawk Road

Crosswalk painted at Mary and Cannon Streets

Applied tape to mark a crosswalk at Cannon and Elgin Streets

Screwed down pylons to simulate a corner bump out at Herkimer and Locke Streets.

These changes to City streets are illegal, potentially unsafe and adding to the City's costs of maintenance and repair. The City can consider this as vandalism, with the potential for serious health and safety consequences for citizens, particularly pedestrians.

There is potential liability and risk management claims to both the City and the individuals involved. Examples of potential liability to the City could include claims from individuals who may be negatively affected by one of these installations. (i.e. trip and fall claims, paint damage claims etc.)

Traffic Operations staff are immediately repairing and/or removing the work that has been noted and are tracking the costs of these activities. Staff has also filed a report on this issue with the Hamilton Police Department.

Public Works staff is willing to work cooperatively with citizens and citizen groups to address their traffic concerns and suggested improvements, but these unauthorized activities present serious health, safety and liability concerns for the Corporation.

As some members of Council are aware, staff are currently preparing a report updating the status of the Transportation Master Plan and are also working on a report that will review policies related to traffic calming and pedestrian crossing treatments.

We are also actively working with the North End Traffic Management Implementation team to implement a five year pilot program for the North End Neighborhood, which will model opportunities for the use of innovative traffic calming measures, pedestrian crossing improvements and speed limit reductions.

You may have also noticed this article in the Hamilton Spectator last week about various City's experiences with 'Tactical Urbanism", which appears to be an activity similar to what Hamilton is now experiencing.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2 550515-mahoney-how-active-imaginations-are-reinventing-hamilton/

If you have any questions about this issue, please feel free to contact Geoff Lupton at [...].

Copy to:

Chris Murray, City Manager and Members of Senior Management Team
Janice Atwood-Petkovski, City Solicitor
Ron Sabo, Assistant City Solicitor
Rose Caterini, City Clerk
Andy Grozelle, Legislative Coordinator
John McLennan, Manager of Risk Management
John Mater, Director of Corporate Assets & Strategic Planning
Gary Moore, Director of Engineering Services
Craig Murdoch, Director of Environmental Services
Dan McKinnon, Director of Hamilton Water
Bryan Shynal, Director of Operations
Don Hull, Director of Transportation
Kelly Anderson, Public Affairs Coordinator, Public Works

Bonus feature: the footer for each page includes the following:

OUR Vision: To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.

OUR Mission: WE provide quality public service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.

OUR Values: Accountability, Cost Consciousness, Equity, Excellence, Honesty, Innovation, Leadership, Respect and Teamwork.

Update: The Hamilton-Burlington Society of Architects (HBSA), who organized the tactical urbanism workshop and public lecture, have sent a response to Council to try and explain what tactical urbanism is and why the City should not be afraid of it.

The letter argues that tactical urbanism "holds great promise" and "need not be seen as an adversarial relationship between the City and the citizens."

Specifically, Tactical Urbanism takes the approach that short term action can lead to long term change while building social capital between neighbours, neighbourhoods, local associations, organizations, and City staff and Councillors.

It also notes that the traffic plans Davis mentioned in his memo date have been on the books for several years but have no implementation details. In contrast, tactical urbanism is "about doing."

Here is the text of the HBSA letter:

May 8, 2013

Dear Council -

We, the Hamilton Burlington Society of Architects Architecture, organizers of the Tactical Urbanism lecture that occurred on May 2nd to kick off Doors Open Hamilton, we would like to respond to the Information Update Memo prepared by City staff in regard to the recent Tactical Urbanism events around the City.

Our event, which was very well attended, presented Mike Lydon of the Street Plans Collaborative in Brooklyn, New York. His publication about Tactical Urbanism is available free on his website - streetplans.org. We are excited that citizens of our city have taken it upon themselves to try to make the city a better place.

Tactical Urbanism holds great promise in the City and need not be seen as an adversarial relationship between the City and the citizens.

What these actions have made clear is that a concentrated effort by a few people can bring positive change to the City.

The memo regarding Tactical Urbanism prepared by City staff notes a few items that are currently in progress in the City, namely “the North End Traffic Management Implementation team” and the “Transportation Master Plan”. We would like to point out that the North End Traffic initiative has been in the works since 2006.

Also, while the Transportation Master Plan contains hundreds of pages, we have so far been unable to find those sections that deal with how the City will physically achieve the goal of improving the pedestrian experience.

In stark contrast to these programs, a few concern citizens have made significant improvements to their city in just a few days.

A crossing guard at the Herkimer and Locke intersection was quoted on Raise the Hammer today.

On Friday [RTH] asked the long-time crossing guard what she thought of the project. With immediate enthusiasm, she said, "I like it!" The guard did not know who had installed the cones or why, but she was highly supportive, saying it makes the corner a lot safer.

The traffic calming "really controls the traffic. It was getting scary," she said, noting that the bumpouts force the cars to slow down instead of racing aggressively through the intersection.

The ideas around Tactical Urbanism are not only about spontaneous actions on the streets. The ideas and methods are part of a philosophy that can be incorporated into the way that the City does business. Specifically, Tactical Urbanism takes the approach that short term action can lead to long term change while building social capital between neighbours, neighbourhoods, local associations, organizations, and City staff and Councillors.

Perhaps the most important part of Tactical Urbanism, however, is that it is about doing. We would welcome any opportunity to sit down with interested Councilors and staff to discuss how Tactical Urbanism can improve our City.

A hard copy of this letter along with a copy of Tactical Urbanism Volume 2 by the Street Plans Collaborative will be delivered to the offices of all council members tomorrow.

Best regards,

The Hamilton Burlington Society of Architects