Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
The argument seems very logical - as people zip across/around the city on one-way streets, they fail to stop and shop, and they make neighbourhoods less livable. Convert to two-way and people will shop more, and car traffic will slow improving the quality of life. The "flaw" is the assumption that people will still take the same routes. Suppose I live in West Hamilton and needed to get to Ottawa or Kenilworth Street. Further suppose that King and Main Streets are no longer quick routes to get from one side of the city to the other. Will I still use them for my journey?
ReplyDeleteThere are two answers to this. The first is no. I will find an alternate quick route. The second is that I may change my patronage habit altogether. Rather than travel to Centre Mall or Eastgate, I might find Burlington Mall or Mapleview to be more accessible for me. Today, most consumers measure distance by travel time. While it might not be closer in miles or kilometres, if it takes less time to get to a store, it then becomes the "closest."
In short, some conversion of one-way to two-way streets is unlikely to affect traffic patterns - especially if these are the north-south streets. Conversion of an east-west street, especially if it is King or Main, will have many unanticipated (and possibly negative) consequences. This happened when traffic calming actions were instituted on Barton Street. This happened in London, Ontario when a more pedestrian shopping district was created in the east end. The City is well advised to move slowly on conversions.
I don't think it's a flaw, Marvin, it's exactly what those of us that live in the dense forest of one-ways want.
ReplyDeleteWe *don't* want you zipping through our neighbourhood on the way to another location--use an expensive and publicly-funded highway if you're looking for a quick route--and we certainly would prefer it if you chose another road to get to one of the suburban malls you frequent.
Why? Because really it isn't about you or other drivers. It's about us. Downtown residents. We live here, and shop here, and many of us don't have cars or jobs 75kms away. A lot of us live, shop and work here, and doing all of those things in between a series of highways does not contribute to our quality of life.
Which is why we're so happy to see Councilor McHattie's motion. For the first time in recent memory, we're finally approaching the issue of one-way streets from point of view of residents living with them, instead of from the viewpoint of suburbanites who just like tearing through our neighbourhoods as quickly as possible.
As to moving slowly on conversions, that sounds very much like the recommendation of someone who gets to use one-way streets for driving, without having to live nearby. If there was a one-way thoroughfare that channelled thousands of cars at near-highway speeds through Ancaster or Dundas, how long do you think residents would allow it?
Downtown is a real place, and Hamiltonians live here. It's not a place to skip through on the way to Ikea, or a place to throw a casino that suburbanites don't want.
The sooner we get (back to) two-way streets, the better!
As with most people, it's a matter of "what's best for me". Admittedly, converting all city streets to two way would be "best for me". In reality, I think we should be thinking about what's best for the city in the long term.
ReplyDeleteUsing James St. as an example (as everyone wants to do), it is painfully clear that two way is an improvement. I'm not a business person but I ask; are Main and King Streets a good place to setup shop? Apparently not.
If you must go to the other side of the city to get what you need, you will do either (a) go there, (b) go somewhere that is "quicker" (c) try and find it in your neighbourhood and save the travel time and associated vehicle costs, (d) take an efficient transit system (LRT) to get what you need. In the two way future, maybe what you need will come to you, not vice versa.
One way streets are good for one thing only; expediency. Everything else about them is a detriment.
I agree
DeleteWhy is it only wards 1-2?
ReplyDeleteWard 3(the forgotten and never mentioned ward) has just as many one way streets. Two that run right past schools! (Wentworth and Sanford).
I wonder if the ward 10 couliler is paying attenmtion. Its is an important discussion and the problems exists in ward 10 in spades.
ReplyDelete@ Marvin Ryder:
ReplyDeleteThe number of people from West Hamilton who shop in the east end is negligible. It doesn't make any sense to destroy the liveability of our inner city neighbourhoods, and destroy the commercial potential of our one-way expressways to accommodate such a small minority.
We simply can't continue stifling the revitalization of our downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods for the convenience of people who have no interest in going there and merely want to get through it as fast as possible. We will never be able to compete at the national, let alone global level, if we continue to have such a narrow view of what our city streets are for.
As a business expert, who has doubtless attended many Economic Summits, I am shocked that you don't see this, and continue to cling to a failed urban paradigm.
My apologies for lumping two issues into one comment. I was trying to address the "business" side of the argument rather than the "quality of life" side of the argument. There is no doubt - converting to two-way streets will improve quality of life for the residents of the various wards in question. I think one could also address quality of life by simultaneously looking at lower speed limits on the two-way streets. My memory is that some people in Wards 1 and 2 were looking to a 30 kmh limit.
ReplyDeleteMy comments were more to the retail business community. In their eyes, they see cars moving past them on the street rather than stopping and visiting their stores. I have witnessed other attempts to make areas less car-friendly. Rather than the desired outcome - people parking their cars and coming to shop - the people with cars stay away entirely.
My admonition to move slowly comes from years of working with systems. These tend to be large, complicated things and a change in one place can have profound and unintended consequences in other parts of the system. Rather than encouraging people (from outside the core) to shop downtown, making the grid too unfriendly to cars could keep these shoppers away altogether. Downtown Toronto works because it has found a balance - getting people in to and out of the core relatively efficiently while also creating quality of life in neighbourhoods.
Finally, I want to add that my opinion does not reflect a suburbanite who only shops at malls. When I came to Hamilton in 1982, I chose to live on the corner of Market and Hess Street. Though I now live in Dundas, I have made the personal commitment to come downtown and shop at least once a week. I enjoy the Hamilton Farmer's Market. I bank with a credit union attached to Jackson Square. I visit coffeehouses on King William Street and the waterfront. I don't visit Ikea and, generally, only visit malls when Christmas shopping season rolls around. Just because someone lives in a suburb, do not assume they are not an ally for a healthy downtown core.
I think that two way streets make the most sense. They will not , by the very existence, solve the problem of attracting people to the core, but it will help. I say One way?- No way!
ReplyDeleteMr. Ryder, I cannot believe someone with your knowledge and experience thinks there is a dichotomy between business and quality of life. Maybe in the outdated paradigm of single-use planning, but not today. Quality of life is one of the most important, if not *the* most important factors in attracting investment.
ReplyDeletePeople who care about the downtown want to improve the quality of life there not just for the residents, but for the sake of the local economy as well.
And no one is talking about making downtown less car-friendly, so let's put that strawman to bed, shall we? The only type of traffic that two-way streets will discourage is the through traffic that was never going to stop and patronize local businesses anyway. Two-way streets are easier to navigate and more efficient for *local* drivers - the ones who want to get to a destination downtown, who are currently discouraged by our single-purpose traffic system.
Another dollar waster for the city to make a few urbanists happy. Focus on real change!
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has written about this extensively (including within The Spec op-ed section) I'm fascinated by how the 'discussion' is progressing. On the one hand, the people who are resistent to reversion (which is the proper term, not 'conversion') generally have little or no sense of context or history regarding one-ways. To them, it is 'my way or the highway', and their 'way' is one-way. On the other hand, the people who are most vociferous about the reversion- Well, they actually possess the same intractability: 'my way or the highway'; ALL one-ways MUST be reverted.
ReplyDeleteOn top of this, the lackadaisical injection of not-particularly-germane elements is common...on both sides. As are the comparisons, the warnings, etc. The most bizarre leaps of logic and strained connections have been offered up since this issue went 'mainstream'. So again, even in the faction's differences, there are similarities.
For me, the bottom-line is that unless this discussion goes offline ('Think outside the blog'), not much will result. In fact, I'd be inclined to refer to 'King Lear': '...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' What is required to get reversion is more than letters, more than emails from those who are 'aware-and-energized'. As I've explained at length elsewhere.
Hamilton has a crappy history of dealing with change. (Rooted in never having been able to reconcile the change that was demanded in us as a city when steelmaking left town) Further, we have no faith in change, nor in those who seemingly attempt to deliver it. 'Snatching failure from the jaws of victory' and all that. So something as basic as an examination of streets becomes this sadly overblown débacle-in-the-making.
Very much looking forward to witnessing everything progressing; it's a compelling experiment in governance, regardless of the eventual outcome. I just hope we learn solid ancillary lessons during the challenges ahead.
I truly have no idea what your stance is on this. It seems like you'd written a lot but didn't state your position.
DeleteThat's just what he does- he enjoys the feeling of superiority in telling others how they ought to be expressing their opinions, pretending he's high above the fray.
DeleteThanks for the votes of confidence, Anonymousers. And the criticism, too. 'Every little bit helps.'
DeleteYes, I am going to point out the low level of discussion in this city. If you choose to see that as me telling people how they 'ought to be expressing their opinions', that's your stuff to deal with. The same goes for the 'high above the fray' bit.
As for my 'stance'? I'm all for thoughtful reversion of some one-way streets. Not the kind of arbitrary, Tea Party mindset of 'We're right, there's no need or room for compromise'. Nor the kneejerk, 'I don't care how much more sense it makes to consider a different way, I want what I want!' mindset, either. But my primary 'stance' in all these issues...be it one-way/two-way, HWT, ward boundary review, AEGD, yadda, yadda, yadda...is to see a higher level of debate with well-considered opinions pushing things forward. If you think that desire smacks of 'superiority' on my part...then I think you've just reinforced the need for what I'm talking about.
Prediction: Implementation Team is tasked with implementing remaining seven street conversions along with 2-3 new streets such as Queen and Cannon -- 10 streets in all -- by 2017-2018. Twice the conversions in half the time.
ReplyDeleteSubject to fiscal capacity, of course.
"Do you believable?" Yes.
ReplyDelete"Do you expectant?" Given time and money, yes.
Hmmm.Lets listen closely,so you moved into downtown knowing full well there were one way streets in place that would implement the efficient flow of people and commerce. Now you are not happy with your chosen place to live so everyone currently travelling and shopping downtown must face gridlock.If you made a poor housing choice,dont make it everyone elses problem-grow up!
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Let's listen closely: So you use one-way streets every day to get to/from work, and now you hear that the people who live and work near the one-ways--the blurs in your rearview mirror--are tired of these relics of poor planning that benefit you (visitor to our 'hood) over people who actually live here.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you made a poor choice to live one place and work way across town in another. Don't make it our problem though, we've got enough problems cross the dangerous streets. Take Larry's RHVP if you need to get somewhere faster.
Hahaha.... that was pretty funny.
DeleteI agree
DeleteIn fairness to Marvin Ryder, he has rightfully suggested -caution- in matters related to the conversion/reversion of road directions in wards 1 & 2.
ReplyDeleteHe has also very rightfully pointed to 'unintended consequences' in solving 'complex problems'.
Barton Village's -road calming- stands as proof that such actions do not necessarily produce intended results.
If social outcomes were indeed dependent on such simple solutions as sidewalk bump outs, plantings, themed signage, and two-way traffic, we would have seen a thriving Barton Village by now, and for that matter a vibrant International Village too, which has similar traffic calming devices.
Barton Village is two-way, and Intnl Village is one-way -- both suffer from poor retail and social conditions, one more than the other. This hardly has anything to do with traffic direction or themed landscaping of the street.
Locke and James are two-way with no traffic calming bump-outs or quaint street lamps or patterned sidewalks, yet parts of these street are thriving economically and socially. There are many such examples in our city, if we are open to looking at them.
We need to look deeper into the problems facing the core. High speed is one of them. Manufactured poverty is another.
It also appears that the present one-way/two-way conversion is a manufactured crisis - whose intended or unintended consequence is the diversion of public attention from more important issues such as the AEGD and the HWT.
"If social outcomes were indeed dependent on such simple solutions as sidewalk bump outs, plantings, themed signage, and two-way traffic, we would have seen a thriving Barton Village by now"
DeleteAbsolutely right. We need to get a new city council in order to work our way to success. The common denominator to our woes are a number of councilors who are wanna be mayors and hold the city back through . HWT is a good example of why we need a wholesale replacement of council. The Mayor's "censure", is another
Sorce
So what are you doing about AEGD, Mahesh? Don't distract yourself with this issue- maybe you should put down the keyboard and help some of the folks doing all the heavy lifting.
DeleteAgain with the tired strawman. No one is suggesting that two-way reversion is the only solution to our problems. I realize you would rather blather on, declaring that no one can take any concrete steps to improve our city until we have all seen the light and start hanging on your every word, but there is no reason why we can't proceed with two-way reversions while simultaneously looking at the other facets of the poverty issue.
DeleteNor does it divert attention from the AEGD. Believe it or not, Hamiltonians are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. The only thing it is diverting attention away from is you, because you are not leading it. Oh, and your suggestion that the HWT is "more important" than liveable streets has got to be the silliest thing you've ever said, and that's saying something.
Get off the sidelines. Stop being a knee-jerk contrarian and wagging your finger at the people who are actually doing the hard work of trying to affect transformational change just because they aren't hanging on your every word. Get to work on that 'manufactured' poverty and the AEGD. Hell, get to work 'fixing' the HWT since it's so vitally important. When you've done something more than just talk, maybe more people will listen.
The biggest barrier to two-way conversions is money. It will take tons of it. City-hall has no idea of the costs involved. Cars are here to stay. Downtown is such a needy place, everyone wanting a miracle to happen. Like some grand Utopia. The easiest thing would be to lower the speed limit to 40 KPH on all downtown streets, like school zones are.
ReplyDeleteYou think it would be 'easy' to lower the speed limit to 40kph? These are people who foam at the mouth and scream 'gridlock' at the prospect of stopping at a redlight. Speeds are determined by engineering, and right now our downtown expressways are engineered for 60k. Arbitrarily lowering the speed to 40k would be completely ineffective unless it was accompanied by costly redesign and enforcement. If you're going to go to that kind of trouble and expense, why not just go all the way and revert to two-way? At least that way the cost would be offset by the increase in assessments and business that has accompanied the previous two-way reversions.
DeleteIn response to Mark-Allan Whittle,how dare you speak of a solution that will work and not require pouring loads of cement.Simply lowering the speed limit as you suggest does not allow for the continuance of debt funded tax payer plunder..
ReplyDeletehaving been retired from real estate in Hamilton for several years and now living in Burlington,let me say to the downtown residents,after you saw the stadium mess,the Lister mess,the market disaster,and the many more,you drank the koolaid of the downtown loans program conversions.Have fun trying to sell your "investment".Two way conversions will follow the law of unintended consequences.Good luck with that one.
ReplyDelete