Perspectives Virtual Panel- On Two Way Conversion/Reversion

We asked our Perspectives Virtual Panel the following question with respect to one way vs. two way reversions/conversions. 

The notion of converting or reverting one way streets to two way streets, particularly in and around the core, has been a hot topic as of late. Proponents argue that conversions (reversions) will invigorate the downtown and serve as a boost to businesses. 

Pros and cons for conversions(reversions) have been bantered about and it appears as though consensus is hard to come by.

Are you in favour of conversions (reversions)? To what extent and are there areas that make more sense to do them in? If so, where are those> areas? How significant of an impact do you believe such> conversions(reversions) will make? Should conversions (reversions), be
a city wide focus? Are they worth the costs or are there other ways of achieving similar results?
(Please note: Many of our panelists wrote lengthy replies. We would suggest you read through each reply, as they are all worthy of consideration). 

There is more than one issue at play. The first issue is the design of Hamilton`s downtown expressway system which effectively puts highways through the core because of topography. The escarpment creates a
longnarrow lower city. The expressway system (King, Main, Cannon, Wilson) move large volumes of traffic from Dundurn Street to Ottawa Street. That nicely lets a vehicle get from Dundurn to Ottawa at a designed speed of 60kpm. Hamilton`s public works has installed so many physical components of that system (on ramps from 401 for example) that thinking about changing it is a total waste of time. The downtown expressway has an impact. In addition to providing a free flow of traffic, it has changed the character of the adjoining land uses. I cannot find a child living on Main between Dundurn and Ottawa. The Cannon-Wilson expressway has substantially reduced the livability of adjacent housing, was largely built on front yards leaving tiny front yards and narrow sidewalks. For all practical purposes the downtown expressway system
has forever changed, in some cases ruined, adjacent neighbourhoods. The only thing that can be done to make it less inhumane would be to significantly reduce the speed limit, largely controlled by the timing of the traffic lights and perhaps take back a lane and reduce the width of the expressway lanes.

The second issue is who is making the decisions. Modifying the downtown expressways will never happen because the people who use the downtown expressway like the speed. My hunch is that the majority who use it for car travel do not live in the lower city. So we are heading for a conflict with the mountain and suburban councillors who, as Lloyd Ferguson once said, are allergic to their consituents getting traffic tickets in the lower city. It will take a revolution to fix.

The third issue is the Wellington/Victoria arterials. These are designed to bring residents of the mountain and the suburbs to what used to pass for an industrial belt on Burlington Street. They too have permanently changed the adjacent land uses. More houses turned into rental properties, fewer families with children, lower property values, absentee ownership, conversion of homes to rooming houses, and all the things that happen when you run 10,000 cars and trucks a day past a house at 60k and the drivers have no personal connection to the route. Its simply part of getting from A to B. Both the King/Main and Wilson/Cannon expressways and the Wellington Victoria arterials were designed with one impact in mind: Speed of getting from A to B. There is no hope of changing the Wellington Victoria route until cars and trucks are low on our priority rather than at the top.

The fourth issue are the one way streets that were designed to increase the speed and flow of cars and trucks through residential neighbourhoods and strip commercial areas like James Street and John and Ottawa and Concession. My theory is that this one way system started at City Hall and in its original format, permitted the Director of Traffic to leave the City Hall parking lot on Hunter and Park, and drive to his home on the Mountain exclusively on one way streets, and then to return via John and Hunter the next morning. Everything else, in this theory, flows from that starting point. There is more hope for fixing this. It will,
however, not change until there is a paradigm shift at City Hall. Today, streets are considered pathways for cars and trucks. If we think of them as organic parts of neighbourhoods that have impacts on how children get to school, how people walk and cycle, what they sound like, what they look like, what type of driving behaviour they encourage and consciously set about balancing those impacts, most one way streets will disappear. A ground breaking study in the United States showed that the volume of cars on a road impacted how people saw their homes, who they became friends with, the frequency of social interactions with
neighbours, and the health of people living in those homes. The conversion of James Street North from one way to two way showed how the character of a street can change the character of a local business
community.

It is the one way streets left running through residential neighbourhoods that are potential candidates for a complete reassessment of what job we want them to do. There is no evidence, anywhere, that one way streets, or any other form of high speed traffic, makes neighbourhoods safer, better places to live, or maintain property values. All the evidence is the other way. The goal of moving cars and trucks quicker has to take second place to preserving our urban neighbourhoods as good places to live. With the provincial government
telling cities, including Hamilton, that future growth will come through intensification and not from running subdivisions through farms, the need to focus on urban streets as organic parts of urban neighbourhoods is critical. And as Toronto`s Medical Officer of Health said, the speed impacts health. So, progressive municipalities like Airdee, Alberta, went to the heart of the matter - speed. And set the limit at 30K. Like the rich folks in Forest Hill. Its not just two way - its speed, design, impact analysis, local citizen input, and most importantly, a paradigm shift in how we look at streets in neighbourhoods. Hamilton had a magnificent chance to be a leader in that area with the community proposal for a Child and Family Friendly neighbourhood traffic plan in Hamilton`s North End. After 10 years, the idea is still on the table, actually on the OMB`s table. But the principle is clear. Streets do more than move cars. One-way street conversion is only one part of that challenge.

Herman Turkstra

I am in favour of converting our one-way streets into complete, walkable two-way streets. Hamilton's one-way thoroughfares do one thing extremely well: they funnel large volumes of automobile traffic through the city at high speed. Unfortunately, the cost of that narrow efficiency includes higher risk of injury, lower levels of personal interactions, lower levels of retail business and overall lower quality of life.

Two-way streets are safer for pedestrians and particularly for children.

This conclusion may seem counter-intuitive, but the evidence supports it. One-way streets encourage faster driving by reducing obstacles and visual distractions. This increases the risk to pedestrians in two ways.

First, the kinetic energy of a car is related to the square of its velocity. That means a car going twice as fast has four times the energy. At 32 km/h, a collision with a pedestrian has a 5 percent chance of death, but that increases to 50 percent at 48 km/h and 85 percent at 64 km/h.

Second, a vehicle’s stopping distance also increases geometrically with speed. A car going 30 km/h on a dry road can come to a dead stop in about 20 m (65 feet), but a car going twice as fast at 60 km/h needs 70 m (230 feet) to stop.

The most effective way to reduce both the incidence and severity of vehicle/pedestrian collisions it to reduce vehicle speeds, but one-way streets optimize for fast driving – that’s their raison d'être.

One-way streets also increase the number of turns drivers need to make to reach a destination, since each destination can only be approached from one direction. This increases the number of potential collisions between turning motorists and pedestrians, and this is borne out by the evidence from several recent studies finding that pedestrians are at greater risk on one-way streets.

A 1999 transportation engineering study found, “there are 30-40 percent more vehicle conflicts within a one-way street network than in a comparable two-way system.” Similarly, a 2004 report published in the Journal of the Institute of Engineers found that pedestrians have more points of conflict with motorists crossing one-way streets than crossing two-way streets, due mainly to the increased number of turns drivers have to make. Using Hamilton collision data, a peer reviewed public health study published in 2000 determined that children are 2.5 times more likely to be injured on a one-way street than on a two-way street.

And if you are wondering whether you should personally care about pedestrian safety, bear in mind that everyone, including every motorist, is a pedestrian at some point, even if it means a short walk from your parked car to your destination.

Two-way streets are better for retail business.
On a two-way street, motorists can approach a destination from either direction, making it more accessible. Two-way streets are also more comfortable and pleasant for pedestrians, since traffic moves more slowly and it feels safer to be on the sidewalk.

Just months after Hamilton's streets were converted to one-way in 1956, business owners on King Street were already begging the transportation and traffic committee to revert the changes, saying things like, "Business has taken quite a drop," and "Our windows are no good nowadays, people have no time to stop and look. Nobody comes from the west end of the city any more. We would like to see King Street two-way once more."

More recently, Aaron Newman, the owner of Newman's Menswear on King Street East, wrote, "Try telling someone to find our store from the west end. It's a complex set of directions, wastes both time and gas, creates more travel and really thwarts our accessibility to customers. For a retailer, making it hard for a customer is never a good thing!"

Numerous studies from cities all across North America have demonstrated that converting one-way downtown streets back to two-way results in a significant boost to business revenues, investment and property values. Converting Hamilton's one-way streets to two-way would allow downtown properties to increase in value and contribute more to the tax base, benefitting every municipal ratepayer.

Complete two-way streets will NOT result in "gridlock".

Hamilton's one-way thoroughfares have significant excess lane capacity. Over the past year, extended multiple lane closures on Main Street, King Street and Cannon Street have resulted in only modest slowdowns during rush hour and free-flowing traffic at all other hours. We can easily use some of that surplus lane capacity for bike lanes, curbside parking and wider sidewalks, all of which improve the pedestrian experience and help local business.

Beyond that, traffic volumes are not static. Much of the traffic on Hamilton streets is "induced traffic" - trips that people take by automobile only because it is so easy to drive. The evidence unambiguously demonstrates that when lane capacity is reduced, some of the traffic simply "disappears" due to a combination of route choice, time-shifting and modal shift (from driving to walking/cycling/transit). This is called "reduced demand" and it reflects the economic principle that demand for a good goes up when the cost goes down, and goes down when the cost goes up.

Note also that when Hamilton converts its streets to two-way, it will be possible for drivers to take any of several routes to a given destination. If eastbound traffic on Main Street is slow, you will be able to drive east on King. If westbound traffic on Cannon is slow, you will be able to drive west on Wilson/York. That will make the transportation network more flexible and more usable for drivers as well as for pedestrians and cyclists.

Hamilton is not exceptional.

Literally dozens of cities across North America have already converted one-way downtown thoroughfares to two-way, and the consensus is that the change is good for business, good for local neighbourhoods, good for safety and good for urban revitalization. All of the arguments brought to bear against conversion in Hamilton were also brought forward in those cities - and they were wrong.

We heard the same arguments when James and John North went two-way, and the predictions of traffic chaos and failure were proven wrong. We heard them again when James and John South were converted to two-way, and once again the sky did not fall as predicted. Instead, both streets have improved significantly in the past decade with new businesses, new investments and increased foot traffic. The Downtown BIA surveyed its members after James and John North were converted and learned that most businesses saw their sales increase.

Since 2002, we have converted sections of James North, John North, James South, John South, Charlton, Herkimer, Hess, Caroline, York, Wilson, and Park, and not one of those conversions has resulted in "gridlock" or any other scary adjective. How many more examples do we need that the sky does not fall when cars are allowed to drive in either direction on a city street?

Council approved a program of two-way conversions in 2001 and reaffirmed its support in 2008, but the pace of conversions has been extremely slow. Lower city Hamilton still has more than 100 one-way streets, and we need to get serious about converting them into complete, liveable two-way streets in a timely fashion.

Ryan McGreal

There are so many red herrings being offered up in the community at the moment by elected officials, talk show hosts, newspaper columnists, even professors, about the doom facing all Hamiltonians should we dare convert some of our well-known streets to two-way. In fact, there are so many little red ones, Hamilton could open up a cannery and become the red herring capital of the world. Quick, somebody get EcDev on the phone.

The common caution? Go slow. This is really complex. The implications of making the wrong decisions could be disastrous. Really? Let’s look at what decisions are being asked for as compared to what is being offered up as the rationale for going slow.

Decision #1: Converting residential streets in neighbourhoods in Wards 1, 2, and 3 to two-way.
Decision #2: Converting Queen to two-way from the foot of the Queen Street Hill to where it ends/begins at Stuart Street in the West Harbour.
Decision #3: Converting the parts of Cannon Street that are currently one-way to two-way.
Decision #4: Yes, there are those of us who can imagine Main and King being two-way along their entire lengths, instead of just on either side of the bit in the middle all of us call downtown Hamilton, and that some of us also call home. Many of us can also imagine LRT along King, or Main, or both King and Main moving in opposite directions. The fact is, we all agree more study is required on LRT, not to mention more funding. That doesn’t mean we should slow down. In my opinion, it means we should get on with it and stop messing about. Research takes time. Delayed research takes even longer.

Let’s get a grip. No one is recommending the overnight reversion to two-way of all streets in Wards 1, 2, and 3, despite what the fear mongering crowd would have you believe. As if we’re a bunch of ideological urbanists who are incapable of considering implications, who don’t care about the needs of other citizens, and who aren’t interested in a made in Hamilton-solution, but rather a made-in-Portland solution no matter how what we learn from looking at Portland and other places fits with what we need in Hamilton.

So if you feel we need to slow down, I suggest we use any pause we take to evaluate what is actually being said by our elected officials and others in their opposition to two-way conversion so that we might try to understand the root cause of their cautions, and their wringing of hands, and their fear mongering. Here are a few direct, and very current, quotations worth reviewing.

“Office CEO’s don’t like two-way streets.” Brad Clark at GIC, September 6

“Every time I support one-way to two-way conversions, I have people in my ward asking me if I’ve lost my marbles.” Tom Jackson at GIC, September 6

“We’re investing $145 million in a new stadium on Cannon Street...and now we’re going to make a decision to make it hard to get to.” Lloyd Ferguson at GIC, September 6

“You do not want to choke off commerce. You do not want to choke off your emergency services. The lower city is blessed with three hospitals, a university, and that’s all part of the makeup of the city. If you start choking off the staffing and you’re impacting on their quality of life because now you’re reducing (he meant increasing) the time to get to work and home, and it makes it less attractive for those individuals.” Terry Whitehead at GIC, September 6

“I have the right in this city to be able to say, Look it, I’m in the west end of the city right now, it happened to me on Tuesday, I had business in Stoney Creek, I had to go pick something up I purchased, I want to be able to go across town and not take and hour and half to do it, and that’s what those streets are for.” Bill Kelly on the Bill Kelly Show, September 7. 2012

“I’m not going to spend taxpayers money to go to Portland or Grenoble France to see how they do things. We’re a completely different city. We’re two thirds rural/agricultural. We’ve got old parts of the city, new parts of the city. And we can solve our own problems.”
Bob Bratina on the Bill Kelly Show, September 7, 2012

“If there’s a group that’s trying to make Hamilton the car-free city, then why do we make steel, why do we have a research group out at MIT (McMaster Innovation Park) where we’re studying new transmissions? I saw a nine-speed Chrysler transmission block in one of my recent tours at MIT, so it would be ludicrous for us to say, of all cities, let’s get rid to the car. And you’re never gonna get rid of the car anyway because the fact is, in China it’s the biggest market for automobiles.”
Bob Bratina on the Bill Kelly Show, September 7, 2012

And some wonder why people such as I are frustrated.

People who live in residential areas, on residential streets, no matter in what Ward they have chosen to call home, should be entitled to a safe, walkable, livable environment. I happen to live in a residential neighbourhood on a residential street where there is no commercial or retail for blocks and blocks and that is almost entirely one-way. Why? One of the reasons is so it can be used as a thoroughfare for those who come down the Queen Street hill and turn right and often race along Aberdeen to Bay Street on their way to Main or King. There are many examples of this situation in other neighbourhoods such as Kirkendal, Beasley, and Central, to name a few. Why would we resist changing these residential streets so that they are more livable, walkable, healthy? I can’t think of a single reason. Bob Bratina says that if Herkimer and Charlton go two-way, we would have to give up street parking. Why? The really fast part of both streets run from John Street to Queen Street, and all of that length has 3 lanes. One for parking. One for westbound. One for eastbound. Using the examples of Charlton in front of the HAAA grounds is another red herring. In this case, we may indeed choose to stay one-way in order to permit street parking, but to use this section of the street as an example of why it’s such a complex matter is insulting, to say the least. How long do we actually think it would take for a group of traffic professionals to sit in a room with Councillors and the heads of the neighbourhood associations and identify how this might work? The real question would become what they should do after lunch?

The actual request made by Councillors McHattie and Farr, was for Queen Street to be made two-way along its entire length. At the moment it is two-way at the bottom of the Queen Street hill, then one-way south between Herkimer and York, then two-way between York and Barton. Why? Wouldn’t it make more sense for people coming down the Queen Street Hill to be able to go straight north to their destination? They also asked that Cannon, currently a four-lane highway, be converted to two way. Just last week, as a result of a water main break at the corner of James and Cannon, the street was narrowed to a single lane for two entire days. The world did not come to an end. In fact, I suspect people driving on King and on other westbound one-way streets didn’t even notice. Much as they have not noticed the lane closures on King at Hess and at Main and Caroline, both of which have been in place for a year and which will remain so for the foreseeable future. King and Main both still carry traffic, even though people are forced to merge. Amazing.

So, I say enough of the nonsense. Enough of the red herrings. Enough of the ill-informed and ill-willed constituent pandering and public fear mongering. Enough of treating the citizens of Hamilton with such disdain. I expect, in fact I demand, a whole lot more intelligent and more informed dialogue. Dialogue that’s research-based. That takes a global perspective so we learn from the best and from the worst examples around the world. That we steal, and that we adapt, and that we invent wherever we need to in order to ensure Hamilton is the place we want it to be.

For those officials who say they don’t need to visit or to look at what others have done in other parts of the world, I say to them stay home, get out of the way, and let others who have both open minds and a thirst for knowledge do some research so that we may make informed decisions and get on with the job of becoming the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens, and provide diverse economic opportunities.

Graham Crawford

One of the reasons I don't go downtown much is the maze of one-way streets. Quiet neighborhoods should all have two-way streets. The real problem is costs. Until we find out some specifics, we are shooting in the dark. Now that a Committee has be struck to sift through the information and come up with a plan going forward, those that support it can submit their views, and staff can put some numbers together respecting the costs, and infrastructure necessary to convert one way streets to two way streets. Two-way streets are the norm on the Mountain, except for a few exceptions. Most side-streets are at least three lanes wide, allowing free on street parking. Streets like this that are one-way can easily be converted, as these streets don't have lines painted on them to indicate a two-way street. So the only that might have to be removed are the one-way arrow signs. City Hall should convert these quiet one way streets strategically, so that any improvements can be documented.
Mark-Alan Whittle

I was pleased to be on the first amalgamated council that actually converted some streets to two-way from one way, notably James. I supported the move and I think James north has been assisted by the conversion. There are some safety issues with James south, mostly because of the grade as you go any of three possible ways travelling south. It is confusing and I know there have been accidents, fatalities and near-misses at that intersection, not necessarily attributable to the conversion, but complicated by it.

John Street seems to be working just fine. As well, Wilson, York also seem to be doing fine. So, the conversion analysis and implementation should continue. The only thing I have against the process is the rhetoric of some who claim that NOT converting is 'holding Hamilton back' and creating speeding and fatalities. There is no proof of this at all. In fact traffic specialists with the city are the ones who are putting the brakes on the process and recommending caution and due diligence.

I support a gradual, street by street examination and, if it makes sense, implementation. If it doesn't, don't do it.

Larry DiIanni


1) "Proponents argue that conversions (reversions) will invigorate the downtown and serve as a boost to businesses."

Nope. What invigourates a downtown are draws for consumers. If the draws are there, people will come. If they're not...and worse, if the area has been left to flounder and most draws are absent and have been replaced by instant-cash shops, employment agencies and bingo halls...people will stay away in droves. Two examples I've used before are Toronto-based: The Beaches and the original Sporting Life location. Both had 'parking problems' attached to them...and yet they've flourished. Why? Because the draws were worth the hassle and expense. 

One-way streets didn't harm downtown Hamilton in the 60's or during its next iteration of vibrancy, during the two decades after Lloyd D. Jackson Square opened. Why not? Because there were retail draws enticing enough to get people there. Resurrecting the downtown is contingent on some identifiable major factors, of which reversion ain't one.

2) "Pros and cons for conversions(reversions) have been bantered about and it appears as though consensus is hard to come by." 

That's an understatement. The 'con' factions tend to be resistent to even considering change (reminding me a lot of The Tea Party in the US) and are obsessed with losing convenience in getting where they want to go, namely across town, zipping through a draw-less core. The 'pro' factions, while well-intentioned, at their worst resemble zealots. And we know what tends to happen to zealots. More genuine dialogue and debate, please.

3) "Are you in favour of conversions (reversions)? To what extent and are there areas that make more sense to do them in? If so, where are those areas?"

I'm in favour of 'thoughtful reversion'. That is, one that's not arbitrary, dogmatic or 'all or nothing'. Some one-ways are tremendous candidates for reversion...some simply are not. Despite what is being claimed by the chief evangelists, one-ways aren't inherently wrong. I recently came up with a notion that could be seen as a 'pilot-project' for testing acceptance of reversion. Taking the (south of) Main-(north of) Aberdeen-(east of) Dundurn-(west of) James area (home of Kirkendall and Durand neighbourhoods), it proposed that these neighbourhoods decide for themselves which one-ways should be reverted. (This area contains the bulk of one-ways. Not the total kilometers, just the number of streets.) Focus on addressing these one-ways, which are not arterial roads. I suspect that many of these streets would not be chosen to be reverted to two-way. I think that Main and King being reverted is too intertwined with the possibility of LRT being initiated in Hamilton, so they're not viable options. However, I do believe that Cannon is probably the best example of a neighbourhood's quality of Life being deleteriously affected by a one-way running through it. Bottom-line, the neighbourhood in question should have a large say in what happens...or doesn't happen. 

4) "How significant of an impact do you believe such conversions(reversions) will make?"

In the case of the 'red-box' proposal above, 'not much'. Cannon? 'Huge'. King and Main, as I've said, are problematic and should not be considered until we're sure that LRT is moving ahead. Many of the 'complete streets'/'livable streets' arguments don't have so much to do with one-way as they do with speed and design considerations.

5) "Should conversions (reversions), be a city wide focus?"

No. Conversion to one-way wasn't. (And for the record, the efforts took place over fourteen years, beginning in 1956.) We need to be able to discuss all this as adults, and not allow all the contributions to the discourse to be made by councillors. We, the people need to speak up.

6) "Are they worth the costs or are there other ways of achieving similar results?"

This depends on the particular street being considered...as well as how the goals of reversion are being defined. This last point in itself is a tremendously contentious aspect of the discussion.
M Adrian Brassington

Converting one-way streets to two-way streets downtown makes sense for those who see Hamilton's future as having a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly downtown. Two-way streets slow traffic, promote pedestrian safety and give our businesses the visibility and access they need.

Opponents see the slowing of traffic as a problem and it is - if your vision of downtown is as a quick way to get across the city.

Which streets are priorities for conversion is a discussion best left to the planning experts.

Conversion is a broader discussion about competing visions for our downtown and two-way streets are simply better for our future.

Laura Babcock

I am in favour of conversions/reversions when and where they make sense...
Prior to just jumping off the wagon to touch any street, I believe that we have to look long and hard at our entire VISION

Do we want LRT? Will any of the roads be used for that 'conversion'?
Do we want cycle friendly roads? Do we want cycle/pedestrian safe roads?
I am so frustrated that the downtown of Dundas was recently re-paved with sidewalks...NO EXTRA SPACE FOR BIKES...

Why can we not make our sidewalks bike and pedestrian friendly? A gradual slope (as what is done where there is a driveway) ~ instead of curbs...
Have that area be the bike zone...a sort of share mode from the sidewalk to the road.
Instead we get thousands of dollars of the EXACT SAME THING...

Certainly, when it comes to the SAFETY OF EVERYONE ON THE ROAD ~ One has to keep in mind children and seniors...again, for the time being ~ Until we have a plan for LRT AND IMPLEMENTED 'SAFE' BIKE LANES ~ I would leave everything alone...People that are complaining did not buy their house with the intent that "soon, it will be two way streets" ~ did they? You purchased what and where you chose to and in IMHO have no right to expect anything different. Over time, if everyone puts their heads together and properly plans our roads, some conversions/reversions may make sense.~ In the interim, stop complaining and start ensuring that no decision is made until every possible solution to INCLUDE everyone that uses the roads are explored!

I do not believe that it will make any change when it comes to businesses and encouraging people to come and shop/eat in Hamilton ~ that is an entirely different subject~
If simply having two way streets everywhere were the answer, I wonder how Montreal has lasted with so many one ways through out its' City?

Considering the costs, why would we spend this money now and then realize (which will happen) that oops, we need to rip up that area for waterman repairs or oops, that is where a portion of the LRT should be built or that we FINALLY GET IT and WANT TO RESTRUCTURE OUR SIDEWALKS AND ROADS to have a safe bikelane/pedestrian sidewalk/ BIKEPED lane instead of the curbs and such that are just soooo outdated.
Danya Scime