Raise the Hammer Newsfeed - Blogs

A Trip Down Highway 6

2013-05-21T12:00:00-05:00

There are lots of interesting discussions we can have about what policy goals the City of Hamilton should pursue and how we should go about pursuing them. Those discussions are most productive when the people participating commit to an honest, good-faith treatment of the evidence and arguments.

Unfortunately, every open discussion attracts a few trolls who refuse to let mere facts, or indeed basic principles of discourse, get in the way of squelching and stonewalling any idea that might move our city forward.

One of the more common excuses for why we can't have nice things is because the municipality spans an area of 1,100 square kilometres. The argument is that if you divide the city's population by its area, our density is too low for walkable neighbourhoods, effective transit, functional bike lanes or anything else aside from single-family suburban houses, wide, multi-lane streets and mandatory free off-street parking.

There's a quick and easy answer to this claim, but I want to put this meme to bed, so I hope to indulge you for a few minutes by taking you on a trip. Or rather, by bringing you back from a trip north of the city.

Maybe you were enjoying a recursive experience on an island on a lake on Manitoulin Island. Maybe you were SCUBA diving for shipwrecks in Fathom Five. Maybe you were hiking the northern stretches of the Bruce Trail. Maybe you were cottaging in Lion's Head or Wiarton. Maybe you were getting high, happy and healthy in Mount Forest. Maybe you were camping in Elora Gorge. Maybe you were visiting a friend or family member at U of Guelph. Maybe you were enjoying an entertaining murder-mystery dinner theatre at the Aberfoyle Mill.

But you're on your way home now, and you're coming south toward Hamilton on Hwy 6. You're on a rural roadway, one lane in each direction, 80 km/h dropping to 50 km/h when it passes through a village. You're surrounded by farmers' fields, stables, livestock pastures, copses of northern carolinian trees, a cheerful red barn, a stately rough-hewn stone house.

Just south of Puslinch you pass a blue sign welcoming you to Hamilton. It's just outside the gravel shoulder in front of an evergreen thicket. You're in Hamilton now, but you're still in farm country, surrounded by rolling fields and distant farm-houses.

After several minutes, you pass the turn to go to Valens, a relaxing campground operated by the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Keep driving, you're still in the country.

After several more minutes, you pass the turn to go to African Lion Safari, the bizarre drive-thru zoo where the monkeys have fun tearing off your wiper blades. Keep driving, you're still in the country.

Several minutes later, you pass the turn to go to Flamborough Downs, which an investigative report by Steve Buist in today's Spectator tells us is one of the few parts of OLG's casino operations that is actually making money, unlike its resort casinos. Keep driving, you're still in the country.

All in all, it's a 15-20 minute drive through the rurals before you finally reach Clappison's Corners and the top of the Escarpment, with a highway design that looks like something you find in a city.

It's fully 21 kilometres from the northern border of Hamilton to the downtown - a 21 kilometre wide band of farmland that happens to be inside the official borders of the city thanks to amalgamation.

So remember: the next time someone tries to say Hamilton can't have a functional mixed-use, mixed-mode, mixed-density because of its area, what they're really trying to get you to believe is that we can't have livable streets in downtown Hamilton because there are farmers in Flamborough and Glanbrook.

83-Year-Old Pedestrian Struck at Upper Gage and Mohawk

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

Hamilton Police were called to a collision at Upper Gage Avenue and Mohawk Road East yesterday just after 5:00 PM.

View Larger Map

According to a police report, the motorist was in the southbound curb lane on Upper Gage waiting to turn right (westbound) onto Mohawk. She was looking left for vehicles and drove into a pedestrian.

The pedestrian, an 83-year-old woman whose name has been withheld at the request of her family, was knocked over and struck her head. She is in hospital with serious injuries. Police have ruled out alcohol and speeding, but are still investigating.

Witnesses are asked to contact detective-constable Matt Hewko of the Collision Reconstruction Unit at (905) 546-4755.

The corner of Upper Gage and Mohawk is very pedestrian-unfriendly, with heavy vehicular traffic, long pedestrian crossings across 4-5 lanes and off-street surface parking lots in front of adjacent buildings.

Last year, the Ontario Coroner released a report on pedestrian deaths that observed senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to injury due to inadequate pedestrian infrastructure.

The Coroner recommended a complete streets policy to make walking safer, including reduced vehicle speed limits, more crosswalks and mid-block crossings, bumpouts to make pedestrian crossings shorter, traffic calming measures to slow vehicle speeds and leading pedestrian signal intervals.

Still Struggling to Make Sense of City Policy on Crosswalks

2013-05-14T12:00:00-05:00

In a recent blog post, I wrote about the long struggle - more than a decade - to get decent pedestrian amenities built in Hamilton. In particular, I wrote about former traffic manager Hart Solomon's determination that painted crosswalks did not qualify as legal crossovers and would expose the city to liability risk.

Button-Activated Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) in Halton Hills (Image Credit: haltonhills.ca)

It seems that Solomon somehow decided the pushbutton-activated Pedestrian Crossovers (PXO) used in Toronto, with overhead flashing amber lights, were the only solution at intersections as well (apart from stop signs or traffic lights), even though pedestrians always have a de facto right to cross at intersections under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA). (Note: PXOs are very rare outside of Toronto, although they are described in the HTA regulations.)

Years later, I even sent city alternative transportation manager Daryl Bender some photos of sign-and-painted-lines crossings from other towns in Ontario to convince him that such crossings are legal, but the engineers claimed that these signs in other Ontario towns were all illegal.

More recently, Hamilton traffic engineers have also determined that PXOs are not as safe as crosswalks with full traffic signals, which cost $80,000 to install and must be approved by the Public Works Committee and Council.

This raises the bar even higher for any street infrastructure to indicate that pedestrians are actually allowed to cross the street at intersections!

Ghost Crosswalk at the corner of Hunter and Park (Image Credit: Undustrial)

The fact is that most of Hamilton's ghost crosswalks actually are at intersections, so Hamilton's policy has effectively been to deny pedestrians their existing rights by making those rights invisible to drivers - and eventually to pedestrians as well, after the lines faded.

Why don't the police and government publicize to drivers the fact that pedestrians have the right of way when crossing legally at an intersection? This is certainly the understanding of everyone in western Canada, where I used to live and where motorists routinely yield to pedestrians at crosswalks.

Solomon's attitude may also have been mixed up with the fact that in practice it is very difficult to convict a motorist who hits a pedestrian, even when the pedestrian is crossing legally at a crosswalk. The standard penalty for killing a pedestrian legally crossing in crosswalk is a $500 fine.

However, that would argue against Solomon's 'liability' argument. This may have been what he meant by claiming drivers don't have to yield to pedestrians: that given the way the law is actually enforced, drivers effectively can run over pedestrians with impunity, so pedestrians should simply never cross the road!

This has indeed been a 'solution' proposed by the City for intersections with high pedestrian casualty rates: simply ban pedestrians!

"Pedestrian Crossings Prohibited" sign on King at Dundurn. That intersection connects a residential neighbourhood with local commercial amenities including a grocery store. (RTH file photo)

"Pedestrians Cross Other Side" sign on the east side of Hughson at Charlton. Signalized intersections all around St. Joseph's Hospital restrict pedestrian crossings to one side or the other. (RTH file photo)

Eleven years later, I am still trying to understand how the City could think it was appropriate to remove all signs and let the lines slowly fade, without providing any alternative.

Tactical Urbanism and the Judgment of Hart Solomon

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

The recent RTH article on ghost crosswalks reminded me of the frustration I've had over such a long time trying to get pedestrian improvements.

Ghost crosswalk on Hunter near City Hall (Image Credit: Undustrial)

Perhaps Public Works general manager Gerry Davis would understand why people have given up and are trying playful ways of getting actual improvements at street level if he acknowledged this frustration.

I am reminded of an email I wrote in April 2002 - over 11 years ago - to Andrea Horwath, then our Ward 2 councillor, and the Durand Neighbourhood Association (DNA) about the lack of safe crosswalks.

Despite more than a decade of advocacy, none of these crosswalks has been repaired or restored - but the ghost crosswalks have taken over a decade to fade while Davis refers us to "plans and studies" that he thinks should pacify us.

Back in 2002, the FAQ on the Traffic Department website stated erroneously:

"7. How do I get a crosswalk painted on a street?*

The Highway Traffic Act provides no protection for pedestrians crossing without signal or stop sign protection. Painting lines at locations other than at signals and stop signs, except under very special controlled circumstances, is to be discouraged as it may actually mislead the pedestrian into thinking they have some right of way over traffic. The City currently paints intersections controlled by a traffic signal, a limited number of stop controlled locations, intersections in designated school areas, and locations controlled by an adult crossing guard.

This is simply false. According to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act:

"crosswalk" means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface;

In other words, any intersection of two streets, whether marked or not, is a legal crosswalk unless crossing is explicitly prohibited.

Nevertheless, it has been the City's practice to allow painted crosswalks to fade away while removing the associated signage.

Here it the text of my email, sent on April 10, 2002:

Dear Andrea and Durand Neighbourhood Association,

I am writing today because I would like your help in encouraging the Traffic Department to designate more pedestrian crossovers (the technical term for pedestrian crosswalks) in the City of Hamilton, and especially in the Durand neighbourhood.

As noted by the Professor from Ottawa during a Fall meeting on traffic in Durand, Hamilton has very few pedestrian crossovers (apart from those located at traffic lights or stop signs, where motorists must stop anyway). Many major streets in Durand (Hess, Charlton, Queen, Herkimer, Bay) do not have a designated crosswalk for four or five blocks. In fact, I noticed the other day that a crosswalk was actually removed from the corner of Herkimer and Hess!

Furthermore, the very few crossovers that do exist are often only indicated by painted lines, without traffic signs. This makes them extremely dangerous as they are largely invisible to motorists, especially in bad weather. Examples of such non-signposted crossings include the one near the YWCA downtown and on Upper James just South of the escarpment.

At the Durand Traffic study meeting in February I asked Mr Hart Solomon (chief traffic engineer for the City of Hamilton) about the lack of crosswalks, and he said they would like to put more in, but that under the Ontario Highway Act motorists are not required to stop at them!

This seemed ridiculous to me, so I simply looked up the relevant act online and discovered (surprise!) that motorists are indeed required to yield to pedestrians at a crossover. I wrote a message to Mr Solomon back on 25 February citing the relevant sections of the Ontario Highway Act, and asked him to explain why he refuses to designate pedestrian crossovers (please see the email at the end of this message). I still have not received a response.

The Durand Traffic Study is an excellent initiative, but if the Traffic Department is planning to block any additional crosswalks its impact will be limited. I would be very grateful for your help in determing why the Traffic Department refuses to designate crossovers, and in encouraging them to change their policy. It may also be appropriate to contact the consultants involved in the Durand Traffic Study regarding this issue.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Kevlahan

I did eventually get a response from Hart Solomon, written three months after my original February 2002 email to him. He wrote:

Sir,

As per our discussion, I have reviewed the Highway Traffic Act requirements for a Pedestrian Crossover.

As I suggested, Sections 20.1 through 20.6 of Regulation 615 describe the signs and pavement markings mandated, which include ground-mounted signs, overhead internally-illuminated signs and flashing amber beacons actuated by a pushbutton. The same information is repeated in sections A6.01 through A6.13 of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control. It is not sufficient just to paint lines across the road, and this understanding has been confirmed by the City's legal counsel.

Hope this helps.

Hart Solomon, P.Eng
Manager of Traffic Engineering and Operations

Solomon, who has since retired, later told me personally about removing the signs and letting the painted lines fade as a way of avoiding liability for the city.

What his letter makes clear is that the City's main concern is not actually safety for pedestrians, but perceived liability. For over ten years, the City has been willing to put pedestrians at risk as the crosswalk markings have faded, and has abdicated any responsibility to respond to the needs of pedestrians.

The infamous yellow warning signs in Kirkendall were an inevitable result of this way of thinking:

Former sign at Aberdeen and Kent: 'PEDESTRIANS PLEASE CROSS AT LOCKE OR QUEEN'

In light of this long, frustrating history, the actions of tactical urbanism start to make a lot more sense.

A Poem in July

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

This poem is dedicated to all mothers. My Mother passed away in July 1989.

Vacation in Provincial Park!
Yes, in Pancake Bay.
Away from the hustle and bustle
to breathe fresh air.
Evenings, fire.
Look across, blue water.
Look above, blue sky
Waves in ripple, hear
roaring calmness.
Placidity,
No telephone
No television.
Isn't quietness.
Emotion running high.
Loved one long gone
Is this escape?
No!
Serenity.

July 16, 1989

Tactical Urbanism Crackdown in Spacing

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

Spacing Magazine, Canada's monthly journal of the urban experience, has run a guest post by your humble editor on the recent crackdown against tactical urbanism by Hamilton City Hall.

It's both frustrating and encouraging that a national magazine like Spacing is paying attention to Hamilton's urban growing pains. On the one hand, this is not what we want to be known for in the rest of Canada: a city whose regressive, risk-averse managers react to an inspiring citizen initiative with threats and bullying.

On the other hand, we have at least progressed to the point where our halting, controversy-laden steps toward becoming a healthy city are garnering attention.

I've been advised that Gerry Davis, the general manager of Public Works who wrote the memo warning Council about citizen efforts to create safe pedestrian spaces, has agreed to meet with representatives of the Hamilton-Burlington Society of Architects (HBSA), who organized the tactical urbanism workshop and talk that inspired these campaigns.

This is a good sign, and I hope Davis can find a way to step back from the hyperbolic language he used in his memo. Public Works needs to get better at understanding that complete streets, walkability and cycling aren't going away.

It's no longer good enough for the City to go through the motions of making a progressive-sounding plan without any intention of going through with it. It's no longer good enough to say that complete streets are nice to have but cannot interfere with "traffic flow".

We have two decades of Council-approved plans on the books calling for wider sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees, two-way traffic, bumpouts and other traffic calming measures that are proven to increase safety, improve neighbourhood equity and support local business development.

We have a long parade of urban planning experts - most recently Gil Penalosa of 8-80 Cities at yesterday's Economic Summit - telling us what we already know we need to do.

We have countless case studies from other cities all across North America and the world - cities like Hamilton, cities smaller than Hamilton, cities bigger than Hamilton, cities denser than Hamilton, cities sparser than Hamilton - proving that healthy streets are a necessary part of healthy neighbourhoods.

What we don't have is City leadership with the understanding or courage to put these lessons into action: to actually do what successive Councils have endorsed in principle if not in practice.

That's why citizens are taking the future into their own hands and making the changes they've gotten tired of waiting for. The City can choose to panic and suppress that passionate, hopeful activity, or it can choose to embrace and adopt it.

Ultimately, the City's future depends on whether we can harness and apply the energy of our residents. Does threatening to arrest active citizens really help Hamilton to achieve its Vision of being "the best place to engage citizens"?

Hamilton Sustainability Professionals Network Launch Event

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

Here in Hamilton, there are a great many things taking place just underneath the surface that might surprise you.

People from outside our City don't often think of software design, creative industries or sustainability when you ask them what they think about when they think about Hamilton - but the reality is that our City is becoming a leader in all of these areas thanks to our wealth of talented, passionate individuals.

It was with the goal of finding, celebrating and, most importantly, connecting those passionate, driven individuals in the Sustainability field that I first joined the organizing committee for Hamilton's Inaugural Sustainability Professionals Network (SPN) Event.

Since moving to Hamilton, I've been amazed to discover how many people in this City work to integrate sustainability into every aspect of their organization's daily activities.

From the great work being done by local NGOs like Environment Hamilton and Green Venture to the ways that our colleges and universities are integrating sustainability to seeing our local utilities try to minimize their environmental footprint, I've been consistently impressed by the scope, scale and volume of sustainability projects that are taking place.

And yet, even though there was all this amazing work going on all around me, done by all these passionate individuals, I found that even those that I knew in the sustainability field weren't really that aware of all the other work going on around them.

I know from experience that sometimes, when your work involves sustainability, it's hard just to keep on top of all of your projects, much less follow what is going on all around you.

So when I heard about the SPN, I was extremely excited to be a part of a group whose goal was to start bringing more of these engaged professionals together to find out more about what is going on in the City that we all call home.

On Wednesday, May 15, we will gather for the first time at The Pheasant Plucker on Augusta from 6 pm until 9 pm to hear inspirational stories of how various professionals in Hamilton got into the sustainability field, and what they are doing to make the City a sustainability hub.

We'll trade stories, discuss projects, and hopefully find new connections and new projects that interest us. Importantly, we'll also be discussing what the next steps for this group could be - and deciding what kinds of actions we can initiate as a group to help move our mutual goals forward.

So we're inviting all people interested in sustainability to join us for a great night of meeting, greeting, discussing, connecting and inspiration!

If you plan to attend, please register online. Also, be sure to follow us on Twitter for updates @HamiltonSPN. Engage in the discussion through Twitter on May 15 using the hashtag #hamspn.

I hope to see you there!

20 Jackson Demolition Rumour is Just a Rumour - For Now

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

this blog entry has been updated

For months I've been hearing a rumour that the owner of 20 Jackon Street West plans to demolish it to make room for a parking lot. The rumour surfaced again last week, and I asked Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr if he would look into it.

View Larger Map

He had heard the rumour as well, and he contacted the City's Planning and Building departments to inquire. As of right now, no demolition permit has been applied for or issued.

Farr also quoted the response from Steve Robichaud, the manager from Planning: "Correct, under the zoning bylaw the use of the property for a commercial parking lot is not permitted."

Farr added:

They would never be able to put a surface parking spot there. As you know, we have a moratorium. I would never endorse a surface lot if they asked for an exemption. We will likely require a parking structure when the [Downtown] Parking review come back, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. That will likely be in July.

Farr clarified that the city has hired a consultant to review the parking situation in downtown Hamilton, and it will be presented to councillors in a few months. He also stated, "[The parking review] will not affect the moratorium on surface lots."

It almost sounds from Farr's comments as though the building at 20 Jackson may be considered as a site for a multi-level parking structure once the parking review is complete.

However, in a follow-up email, Farr clarified, "I didn't mean to confuse the issue with the parkade. The fact is, the owners of the building have not applied for a demo, nor have they called me back yet with their intentions."

It seems possible that the parking review will indicate we need a multi-level parking garage downtown, and that approval will consequently be given to demolish 20 Jackson to make room for it.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but given the painfully regressive decisions coming out of City Hall of late, it would not surprise me in the least to see the city approve the demolition of 20 Jackson to make room for a multi-level parking lot.

We definitely need to keep a close watch on this. It would be insane to demolish a perfectly serviceable, occupied multi-floor office with retail on the main floor right next to the City Hall parking lot in order to build a parking garage.

Update: Due to a misunderstanding, this blog entry originally attributed Councillor Farr's first extended quotation to Steve Robichaud. You can jump to the updated attribution. RTH regrets the error. The blog entry was also updated to add follow-up comments from Farr clarifying what he meant by his earlier comment. You can jump to the added paragraph.