Comment 13074

By Jon Dalton (anonymous) | Posted October 19, 2007 at 13:26:52

Frank: I don't think anyone here is suggesting to take the freedom away from people to drive on roads or force people onto public transit, but rather to shift the massive spending away from more road capacity and towards better options. Then the transit option becomes more attractive. It's always hard to reduce capacity once people get used to it - for example, going back to 2 way streets. If that was done at the same time as the rapid transit line, it may be interpreted as forcing people out of their cars, when it's more like correcting a decades old imbalance that makes our bus system inefficient for the many people who do use it. If however we keep the capacity of a road the same while making transit better along the same route, the only complaint will be that we should have spent it on roads instead. Considering Hamilton has more roads and less congestion than just about anywhere else, that would be a difficult argument to make. This isn't about imposing our will on anyone else. It is about a large group of citizens wanting better public transit and safer streets.

I agree with you on improving Centennial for walking and biking and that they could not do this because of its status a main artery, which will be relieved with the opening of the Red Hill. Hopefully the city takes this opportunity to reduce it to one lane and add bike lanes and wider sidewalks. The traffic isn't the only impediment to walkability though, it's also the atrocious crudscape that lines both sides of it from Queenston through to the QE. Phase 2 of its redevelopment should involve taking a wrecking ball to every single building on the street, then lining it with trees and mixed use buildings with parking in the back. Then you could have a decent ride to the waterfront.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools