HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2008, 9:33 PM
BrianE's Avatar
BrianE BrianE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 352
From the Spec

Quote:
July 05, 2008
Steve Buist
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 5, 2008)
Residents of a central Hamilton neighbourhood want to put a stop to things that go vroom in the night.

The Stipley Neighbourhood Association and Ward 3 councillor Bernie Morelli are trying to address the problem of street racing and excessive traffic speed on King Street East between Gage and Sherman avenues.

In the past six years, there have been at least two fatalities on the stretch of road, including 21-year-old Matthew Power, a pedestrian who was struck and killed in November 2006 by one of two cars that appeared to be racing down King Street at Gage Avenue. Both deaths occurred in the early hours of the morning.

Karen Elliott, president of the Stipley Neighbourhood Association, said the main problem is that there is only one stoplight, at Melrose Avenue, on King Street between Gage and Sherman.

"If people happen to get the green at Melrose, they just take off," said Elliott. "We have motorcycles going by at 100 or 130 klicks (km/h), popping wheelies, the whole nine yards.

"It's hard for everyone to cross the street."

Michael Hooper has lived on King Street East near Spadina Avenue for the past six years. He remembers the night in December 2002 when a horrific crash a block away took the life of a 19-year-old driver.

The speeding car took out three hydro poles, a light standard, a bus shelter, several parking meters and two trees, damaged a storefront and ultimately left 1,800 people without power.

"It's a 50 (km/h) zone," Hooper said. "People shouldn't be dying in a 50 zone.

"I've literally seen tow trucks race, if you can believe that. These guys are getting up to 110 or 120 clicks right out in front of our house."

Weekend nights are the worst, Hooper said, but he also noted that morning rush hour is "insane."

"I don't know if people just leave their good sense behind when they're trying to get to work in the morning or what," said Hooper.

"From 7 to 9 in the morning, I don't even like walking out in front of my house.

"It's like they're starting off the Indy 500 or something -- you hear them roaring and here they come."

Hooper said one possible solution would be the addition of a stoplight at Barnesdale Avenue and King Street East.

Morelli said excessive speed on that stretch of road is an ongoing problem and he has sought increased law enforcement in the area with radar and unmarked police cars.

"Eventually, we've got to find better solutions," Morelli said.

He favours the adoption of photo radar to nab speeders.

"I think technology has to be part of the answer," said Morelli. "We could put a police officer on every corner and I'm afraid to say that wouldn't necessarily solve the problem."

sbuist@thespec.com

905-526-3226
No mention of the idea that if you build a 4 - 5 lane highway through city streets, people will drive like it's a 4 - 5 lane highway and no amount of 50km/hr speed limit signs will fix that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2008, 12:44 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,404
I am in favour of photo radar. It's cost effective and it works. There is no reason to be going over the speed limit within the city. Give em 10 km/h grace and make it a public fanfare so everyone knows... 61 in a 50 gets you nabbed. People will learn pretty fast how to read speed limit signs then!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 1:25 PM
omro's Avatar
omro omro is offline
Is now in Hamilton, eh
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,127
This is a purely hypothetical question. I was going to post this in the other thread New Campaign: Make West Mountain One-Way Today , but thought it might be more relevant in this one.

IF LRT goes ahead and initially eats into either:

1 lane on King and 1 lane on Main
or
0 lanes on King and 2 lanes on Main

Would there still be a need or desire to make either street two-way?

If the answer to this is no, then surely the money that would be spent turning the roads two-way would best be spent on the LRT system instead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 1:53 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Main and King aren't on the radar yet. The plan that was voted down only dealt with the conversions of York Boulevard and Wilson, Park and MacNab, Hughson and Hess, and King William and Rebecca. Although I see no reason why we couldn't have LRT on a two-way street. That's what they do in normal cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:14 PM
omro's Avatar
omro omro is offline
Is now in Hamilton, eh
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by highwater View Post
Main and King aren't on the radar yet. The plan that was voted down only dealt with the conversions of York Boulevard and Wilson, Park and MacNab, Hughson and Hess, and King William and Rebecca. Although I see no reason why we couldn't have LRT on a two-way street. That's what they do in normal cities.
Oh, I didn't realise that this didn't involve Main and King. I also wan't implying that LRT shouldn't go on a two-way street, more that in the short term they'd be better off spending their money on the LRT rather than changing the traffic flow on those two streets. However, since neither of these are involved, the idea is somewhat moot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:17 PM
ryan_mcgreal's Avatar
ryan_mcgreal ryan_mcgreal is offline
Raising the Hammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 527
Converting Main and King to two-way is verboten on account of they carry so many cars!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:38 PM
omro's Avatar
omro omro is offline
Is now in Hamilton, eh
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal View Post
Converting Main and King to two-way is verboten on account of they carry so many cars!
Shame, because the fact that they carry so many cars is the reason why they're so horrid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 2:58 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal View Post
Converting Main and King to two-way is verboten on account of they carry so many cars!
I know that that is soooo disappointing, but one day, one day.......

IMO, the city and pro two-way conversion people should work on baby steps. Drop the others and work on Rebecca & King William which are minor enough streets there shouldn't be too much opposition. Or trade off converting some of the others for something else those opposed want. It's called compromising.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 3:07 PM
ryan_mcgreal's Avatar
ryan_mcgreal ryan_mcgreal is offline
Raising the Hammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
IMO, the city and pro two-way conversion people should work on baby steps.
You mean baby steps like converting a couple of streets (James and John) to two-way first to see how it works out, and then waiting several years before proceeding with more two-way conversions? Because that's exactly what the city already did.

As Terry Cooke wrote in a Spectator column earlier this year:

Quote:
Hamilton council should summon the political courage to simply eliminate our anachronistic system of one-way streets. No more public-policy baby steps and enough already with pilot projects like the now three-year-old conversions of James and John streets.

It's time to simply abandon an idea of the 1950s that serves only as a deterrent to restoring livable neighbourhoods in the heart of Hamilton.
http://thespec.com/article/325869

It seems to me that anyone who is willing to be swayed by evidence has already come around to support for two-way streets (e.g. Terry Cooke, Fred Eisenberger, John Dolbec). Since the remainder oppose two-way conversions dogmatically, there can be no "compromising" with them. They will oppose the revitalization of the downtown core relentlessly and implacably no matter how willing you are to "compromise".

The only recourse is to find ways to circumvent their obstructionism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 3:24 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal View Post
You mean baby steps like converting a couple of streets (James and John) to two-way first to see how it works out, and then waiting several years before proceeding with more two-way conversions? Because that's exactly what the city already did.

As Terry Cooke wrote in a Spectator column earlier this year:



http://thespec.com/article/325869

It seems to me that anyone who is willing to be swayed by evidence has already come around to support for two-way streets (e.g. Terry Cooke, Fred Eisenberger, John Dolbec). Since the remainder oppose two-way conversions dogmatically, there can be no "compromising" with them. They will oppose the revitalization of the downtown core relentlessly and implacably no matter how willing you are to "compromise".

The only recourse is to find ways to circumvent their obstructionism.
Just a suggestion, which perhaps would get 2 more converted.

What you've outlined is a stalemate scenario. If that's the case one-way streets it is. Live with it and let's move on to something that can be accomplished............

Sorry, to sound flippant but something is better than nothing. And nothing is what the current proposal is destined to acheive.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 3:25 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
I still shake my head in disbelief that Terry Cooke wrote that.
Wow!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 6:37 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
I live on Rebecca and would love to see it converted all the way to James.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 6:57 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
What you've outlined is a stalemate scenario. If that's the case one-way streets it is. Live with it and let's move on to something that can be accomplished............

Sorry, to sound flippant but something is better than nothing. And nothing is what the current proposal is destined to acheive.
I disagree, Fairhamilton. They initially voted down the transportation master plan, but then reversed themselves and agreed to defer it. If there's enough public outcry between now and when the vote comes up again, we may see some changed votes. This is no time to roll over.

Last edited by highwater; Jul 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM. Reason: grammatical error
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 7:16 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by highwater View Post
I disagree, Fairhamilton. They initially voted down the transportation master plan, but then reversed themselves and agreed to defer it. If there's enough public outcry between now and when the vote comes up again, we may see some changed votes. This is no time to roll over.
I was merely trying to make a point, as my suggestion for baby steps and compromise was summarily shot down in a subsequent post.

I don't think any of the suburban councillors care about outcry from the lower city, as it doesn't translate into votes in their ridings.

My position is that perhaps it needs to be determined what streets the opposing councillors would be open to converting, and work on just those ones. That was my primary reason for asking if anyone had found the list of 'nays'. If we could have Rebecca and King William converted that would be a success, and we could then begin working on the next 2. IMO, that's better than none being converted.

Honestly, I don't care if John and James were baby steps from years ago. If there is opposition to future conversion based on the perception that things are not better on those streets, its the pro two-way conversion supporters who are to blame. Blame, because they didn't properly educate/sell the realized benefits to those suburban councillors opposed. Remember, you don't need all of them to agree, only a few to carry the vote.

Please keep in mind I'm ferverently behind two-way conversion.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 5:32 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
apparently a pedestrian was just killed by a truck on Main St, near James.
Anyone down there to confirm??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 5:37 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 5:42 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
I wonder who was at fault?
By the sounds of that report, probably the driver. Whenever it's the pedestrian, they ALWAYS make a point of stating that they were 'jaywalking' or 'crossing on a stop light' or heaven forbid 'wearing an ipod' etc.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 9:17 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,040
The spec has a witness account that the pedestrian was hit as she stepped out on James near Main.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/453609
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 10:07 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
I wonder who was at fault?
By the sounds of that report, probably the driver. Whenever it's the pedestrian, they ALWAYS make a point of stating that they were 'jaywalking' or 'crossing on a stop light' or heaven forbid 'wearing an ipod' etc.....
Uh, yeah, all stupid things to do while crossing a major arterial street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2008, 10:13 PM
adam adam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Downtown Hamilton
Posts: 1,231
In an urban area, pedestrians should always have the right of way. The driver probably wasn't looking or going to fast as per usual.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.