Let's talk about one-way streets

[interr0bangr]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

We focus, for good reason, on the east-west corridor but there are so many n-s candidates that are just as deserving. After Wentworth, Victoria and Wellington should be flipped next...

Yes please. I'm sick of fearing for my life when I walk out my front door (I live on Victoria).

[coalminecanary]

Every single N/S should be reverted - like now.

Problem is anything that connects to a mountain access is subject to whitehead's hot air

[Dr Awesomesauce]

'The Mad King' Terry of Whiteheadland's hot, feculent air...

[HillStreetBlues]

Good news about Wentworth. But where's all that southbound traffic going to go?

But seriously: Wentworth doesn't have a twin, but maybe somebody can correct me in thinking that Victoria is wider than its twin, Wellington. If we're taking away southbound capacity on Wentworth without replacing it by converting a northbound street to two-way, that to me seems like an admission that there's too much north-south capacity.

I rarely have reason to travel on those streets (Wellington, Victoria, Wentworth), but when I do it's abundantly obvious that they do need the traffic lanes they have. Victoria up near the hospital is almost pleasant with bump-out curbs and street parking. Why does it have to be four lanes one-way further south? We could convert it and widen the sidewalks or put in a boulevard with trees, and I bet there would be plenty of capacity for the car traffic that does take it.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Good news about Wentworth. But where's all that southbound traffic going to go?

But seriously: Wentworth doesn't have a twin, but maybe somebody can correct me in thinking that Victoria is wider than its twin, Wellington. If we're taking away southbound capacity on Wentworth without replacing it by converting a northbound street to two-way, that to me seems like an admission that there's too much north-south capacity.

I guess that Sanford could sort of be considered Wentworth's twin, even though it doesn't travel as far North. Sherman is two way the entire length between Barton and the escarpment so the Southbound traffic can switch to there or Wellington, I'd imagine.

[realcity]

I think Sherman is a 4-lane hiway from King to Barton northbound. They could make Sherman two-way all the way to help Wentworth traffic.

[realcity]

I agree Sanford should be two-way. It's ridiculous being one way for the same 5 cars stuck at every cross road... waiting for the synch lights.

[matt602]

I agree with both of those, especially converting Sherman's ridiculous one way section between Barton and Burlington Street. Completely unnecessary these days with Stelco dead. Basically just 4 lanes of deadness all day and night.

[coalminecanary]

Every N/S could become two way overnight - none of them are necessary to keep nor are they complicated to change.

...With the possible exception of Victoria and Wellington which might take a few months of planning first (but even those are not that bad - Victoria becomes a two way direct link to claremont and the ramp from wellington to claremont gets removed)

Even if the E/W stay one way, changing the N/S would be an ENORMOUS wayfinding benefit

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

...With the possible exception of Victoria and Wellington which might take a few months of planning first (but even those are not that bad - Victoria becomes a two way direct link to claremont and the ramp from wellington to claremont gets removed)

I think that will likely be expensive to do and politically probably very difficult, but cost-effective in the long run. If this access is not being used to its capacity (and it seems like it's not), removing it, eliminating that ongoing maintenance cost, and selling that land is better for our municipal finances. Not too mention that ramp is a blight: my family used to live in that neighbourhood, and it is a huge barrier. Walking under it on Stinton to the park or rec centre feels like you must be living in a ghetto.

If it were gone, Hunter could be a normal street, and big parcels at both Hunter and Victoria and Hunter and Wellington could be sold for a pretty penny for redevelopment.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^The Mad King would NEVER let that happen. NEVER!!!

[coalminecanary]

Sure. thousands of lives would be improved... but DOZENS will be LATE!

[ScreamingViking]

All this might be enough to shock Whitehead's hair into fitting his surname.

And Tom Jackson... so exhausted, he succumbs to narcolepsy.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Sure. thousands of lives would be improved... but DOZENS will be LATE!

Dozens of elderly people will be late for...whatever the hell it is elderly do. No offense, old folks.

[Bubba9000]

Ending the wasteful funding of these overbuilt one-ways is surely the best argument to win city wide support for change. Forget about improving the lives and fortunes of the lower city. Help them learn how their money is being wasted.

A focused, fact-based, targeted campaign reaching out to their constituents could force the Whiteheads on council to change their position.

[drpgq]

Birch could be made two way as well and likely reduced. So many lanes. So little traffic.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

All this might be enough to shock Whitehead's hair into fitting his surname.

And Tom Jackson... so exhausted, he succumbs to narcolepsy.

Well played.

And have we decided that that is actually hair on his head? Dubious...

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Bubba9000

Ending the wasteful funding of these overbuilt one-ways is surely the best argument to win city wide support for change. Forget about improving the lives and fortunes of the lower city. Help them learn how their money is being wasted.

A focused, fact-based, targeted campaign reaching out to their constituents could force the Whiteheads on council to change their position.

I happen to be a fiscal conservative- a real one. At the provincial and federal levels, I can't vote for the type of tax-and-spend profligacy that define a lot of our parties. But our "conservative" offerings (note the quotation marks), especially here in Hamilton at the municipal level, seem at best to be innumerate. Many of our councillors talk out of both sides of their mouths, claiming to want to be stewards of the public purse while advocating for what are clearly subsidies of their constituents' lifestyles, and resisting the types of changes that would save the city money in the long term, while making it a better place to live.

Hamilton property taxes are out of this world. Under the watch of people like Whitehead, we've racked up an enormous infrastructure debt. Just because they can't or won't understand that that liability is the same as any other debt doesn't mean someone won't have to pay the bill when it comes due. And we've got more roads per capita than almost any other city in this province. Real leadership would recognize that superfluous roadways cost us by making our neighbourhoods less livable and desirable, and reduce tax revenue, and also cost us in huge ongoing maintenance. Fiscally responsible leaders don't push for other people pay for their unaffordable infrastructure.

All this to say, I think you're right that cost will be what changes people's minds. But I also fear that the costs can be successfully hidden from taxpayers for a long time to come.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

And have we decided that that is actually hair on his head? Dubious...

No, but in this case I think the impact would be powerful enough to do it no matter what that is.

[ScreamingViking]

For some Hamilton councilors, the disappointing thing is that an issue like "preserving traffic free-flow" is one of the few causes they know to argue about. And so they do. Otherwise, how would they show their constituents they bring any value to the table?

Some of them have a very limited perspective, and a stubbornness to avoid looking at the bigger picture. They could be more creative if they only tried. They're issues managers, not visionaries. Certainly the job does call for the former, but the fact the latter is so de-emphasized is just sad. It does not have to be that way.