Road repairs

[markbarbera]

The opportunity to introduce a north-south dedicated BRT lane for the A-line is practically screaming for attention with this news about the Clairemont Access. A little bit of paint, implementation of Traffic Signal Priority system along Upper James as well as along Main and King between McMaster and Victoria, plus a dozen or so stations in between and Hamilton could have an L-shaped, hybrid A-line/B-line BRT connecting its airport, college, downtown and university as well as three major medical campuses, all for less than $100 million.

We already have a dedicated westbound bus lane being piloted along King between downtown and the 403, make it permanent and effective by adding TSP to it. A dedicated eastbound bus lane can easily be dropped along Main from Cootes Drive to Victoria, and a dedicated lanes with TSP in both directions along Upper James can be accommodated by dropping the under-used left turn lane that runs most of its length and narrowing the remaining lanes. Have the segment south of the Clairemont run along West 5th by Mohawk College, then back to Upper James via Mohawk Road. We have the lane capacity to drop a higher order rapid transit proof of concept in place quickly and cheaply. Then, based on its success, we can build up from that to realize the dream of a LRT-based rapid transit system for the city.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The opportunity to introduce a north-south dedicated BRT lane for the A-line is practically screaming for attention with this news about the Clairemont Access. A little bit of paint, implementation of Traffic Signal Priority system along Upper James as well as along Main and King between McMaster and Victoria, plus a dozen or so stations in between and Hamilton could have an L-shaped, hybrid A-line/B-line BRT connecting its airport, college, downtown and university as well as three major medical campuses, all for less than $100 million.

We already have a dedicated westbound bus lane being piloted along King between downtown and the 403, make it permanent and effective by adding TSP to it. A dedicated eastbound bus lane can easily be dropped along Main from Cootes Drive to Victoria, and a dedicated lanes with TSP in both directions along Upper James can be accommodated by dropping the under-used left turn lane that runs most of its length and narrowing the remaining lanes. Have the segment south of the Clairemont run along West 5th by Mohawk College, then back to Upper James via Mohawk Road. We have the lane capacity to drop a higher order rapid transit proof of concept in place quickly and cheaply. Then, based on its success, we can build up from that to realize the dream of a LRT-based rapid transit system for the city.

Thats not going to happen unless they find a solution to the traffic mess on Upper James during the day first. I was just on Upper James and use it everyday and the traffic from Mohawk to Rymal is bumper to bumper for most of the day. Taking a lane out for empty buses would not sit well with most and local councillors would reject it without thought. It's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

[markbarbera]

Rapid transit is the solution for the traffic mess on Upper James. If you take a lane out for buses, those buses will not be empty. It won't take long for the people driving their single-occupant-vehicles to clue in as they watch bus after bus zip by as they sit in bumper to bumper traffic that there is a favourable alternative available. It is not a difficult choice between sitting in idle traffic wasting gas or taking a more efficient rapid transit.

For those who just cannot give up on their cars, they will find alternate routes to travel other than Upper James. It's not like Upper James is the only available north/south artery on the mountain. I am sure Upper Wellington and West 5th can handle overflow.

[ScreamingViking]

The "L" idea is interesting, but I still think we need rapid transit crisscrossing the city along the two major axes. There is lots of demand for it east of Victoria, and the full N/S line would benefit the new GO station.

I think I'd rather see James Mountain Road given over fully to BRT (and regular buses) that would pass the new hospital and Mohawk College before jogging over to Upper James along Fennel. Some will complain about losing a mountain access, but the reconstruction of Beckett Dr. showed that traffic can adjust, and Beckett, the Jolley Cut, and the Claremont are not very far away at all. This route would avoid the narrowest part of Upper James too.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Rapid transit is the solution for the traffic mess on Upper James. If you take a lane out for buses, those buses will not be empty. It won't take long for the people driving their single-occupant-vehicles to clue in as they watch bus after bus zip by as they sit in bumper to bumper traffic that there is a favourable alternative available. It is not a difficult choice between sitting in idle traffic wasting gas or taking a more efficient rapid transit.

For those who just cannot give up on their cars, they will find alternate routes to travel other than Upper James. It's not like Upper James is the only available north/south artery on the mountain. I am sure Upper Wellington and West 5th can handle overflow.

I agree. At the very least the A-Line needs a bus lane similar to the one on King Street and to receive some bus stop amenity upgrades until a proper full-BRT construction happens. The length of the route from the brow to Rymal should also receive ladder crosswalks and improved streetscaping to give it the feel of a real commuter corridor. I believe a proper transit terminal at Mohawk College is also in the works.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Rapid transit is the solution for the traffic mess on Upper James. If you take a lane out for buses, those buses will not be empty. It won't take long for the people driving their single-occupant-vehicles to clue in as they watch bus after bus zip by as they sit in bumper to bumper traffic that there is a favourable alternative available. It is not a difficult choice between sitting in idle traffic wasting gas or taking a more efficient rapid transit.

For those who just cannot give up on their cars, they will find alternate routes to travel other than Upper James. It's not like Upper James is the only available north/south artery on the mountain. I am sure Upper Wellington and West 5th can handle overflow.

Upper Wellington and West 5th are for the most part residential streets that are just 2 lanes South of the Linc. Turning them into thoroughfares won't sit too well with those residents.

Trying to force people to use buses to go about their daily activities won't end well for councilors who vote for anything like what you are proposing. It's naive to think that you can force people to bend to the minority's will and this sort of view is a minority view.

There is a reason that LRT and BRT is falling off the rails, councilors are already feeling the heat from constituents.

[thistleclub]

New trees part of Concession Street plan
(Hamilton Mountain News, Mark Newman, May 9 2014)

Some new trees, enhanced boulevards and pedestrian amenities like new crossing signals are part of the $10 million plan to reconstruct Concession Street between Upper Wellington andUpper Sherman next year.

The plan includes water main replacement along the entire length of the reconstruction area and some sewer work.

Gary Moore, director of engineering services in the city’s public works department, noted some traffic calming measures such as bump-outs are also part of the plan.

“We’re trying to do those in areas where there’s no parking,” said Moore, who noted existing on-street parking will be maintained.

The public can see details of the plan at an open house on May 13, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the second floor meeting room of the Concession Street library.

Councillor Scott Duvall and city staff will be on hand to answer questions.

[drpgq]

With regards to the Claremont, wouldn't that lane be useful for making a two way protected bike lane?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by drpgq

With regards to the Claremont, wouldn't that lane be useful for making a two way protected bike lane?

I picture the Claremont as a transitway and a bike route. Seems a no-brainer, as they say.

[flar]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Upper Wellington and West 5th are for the most part residential streets that are just 2 lanes South of the Linc. Turning them into thoroughfares won't sit too well with those residents.

Trying to force people to use buses to go about their daily activities won't end well for councilors who vote for anything like what you are proposing. It's naive to think that you can force people to bend to the minority's will and this sort of view is a minority view.

There is a reason that LRT and BRT is falling off the rails, councilors are already feeling the heat from constituents.

This "can't do" attitude in Hamilton is so annoying.

If you make a good transit service, people will use it. Plenty of people with nice cars and six figure salaries commute by public transit in Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton. Because these cities have made an investment in a useful public service. These cities are all closer in size to Hamilton than they are to Montreal and Toronto. Waterloo is about to join them. No reason Hamilton shouldn't join them as well.

[thistleclub]

‘We just want a sidewalk. Please!’
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 16 2014)

Tom Jackson isn't claiming clairvoyant powers but he's probably earned the right to wear a swami turban the next time the issue of two-way street conversions comes up at council.

Last month, the east Mountain councillor was, to use his own term, "horsewhipped" by downtown advocates for suggesting there's a growing community and political backlash against the pace of change and street conversions in the core.

But at Wednesday's council meeting, that recoil was in full force as Mountain and suburban councillors pushed back against conversions in the lower city while sidewalks and street repairs in their wards go begging.

"I honestly feel that people who neither live or work downtown or need to come downtown are just simply saying, 'Hey, don't forget about the rest of us,'" Jackson said after the meeting.

"They're questioning why different types of initiatives are being attempted when the back-to-basics are being ignored elsewhere — sidewalks that don't exist in urban areas, potholes galore, infrastructure crumbling."

For 90 minutes, councillors passionately debated a motion to speed up the conversion of eight lower city streets to two-way traffic.

The flashpoint was a single word — "accelerated." Some councillors argued its inclusion in the motion meant the projects took priority over neighbourhoods that are clamouring for sidewalks and bus-stop pads.

The irony is, the accelerated action plan was actually a compromise stemming from council's rejection of a staff request to study some 20 potential conversions as part of a transportation master plan.

The double irony is, the price of street conversions is chump change compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to install sidewalks, waterlines, and gutters that are needed to covert rural roads to urban specifications.

But the argument was grounded in frustrations and perceptions. And the perception is priorities are out of whack, that downtown is queue-jumping while hundreds of streets on the Mountain and suburbs need to be urbanized.

West Mountain Councillor Terry Whitehead said it was "deplorable' that downtown conversions should trump sidewalks; that the city needs to treat all residents with fairness and equity.

Central Mountain Councillor Scott Duvall said he's trying to be fair to downtown, but people need to look at other parts of the city as well.

"All we're asking for is the basic needs of sidewalks. God, can't we have that? I keep listening to some of the councillors that they want complete streets, they want wider sidewalks, they want everything. We just want a sidewalk. Please!"

Read it in full here.

[HillStreetBlues]

I read this article this morning and was pretty dismayed. These councillors are arguing that municipal staff does not have the time or wherewithal to make two-way conversions that have been planned for years, while simultaneously performing routine upgrades to infrastructure in areas whose growth should have been predicted long ago.

If city staff need decades to carry out fairly simple work (the conversion of a street from a one-way to a two-way configuration), because the pot holes on other roads are just too demanding for them, we have pretty big problems. I’d say we might have too many roads, and we definitely need new management.

[mattgrande]

In their combined decades at city hall, how many motions have Jackson / Whitehead / Duvall made regarding getting new sidewalks in? How many times have they spoken about it before? I'm having a hard time believing this is about their constituents, when they never bring it up, except as a way to cry poor when compared to other areas.

[flar]

While I do think all streets should have sidewalks, how many people would even use them on the mountain? Why would it be a higher priority than downtown/lower city, where there are orders of magnitude more pedestrians?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by flar

While I do think all streets should have sidewalks, how many people would even use them on the mountain? Why would it be a higher priority than downtown/lower city, where there are orders of magnitude more pedestrians?

There is no reason why we should have to prioritize some sidewalks over others. If we have the resources to build and maintain roads wide and durable enough for motor vehicles, we should certainly have resources enough to put a six-foot-wide sidewalk adjacent to them all.

I agree with you that sometimes it probably makes worlds better sense to widen a sidewalk in the lower city than to install one elsewhere. But these councillors are trying to turn this into a “downtown versus suburb” argument by suggesting that downtown walkability is diverting resources away from basic services elsewhere. That’s not true: if someone on the mountain wants a sidewalk and is not getting it, that person should be asking their councillor how the money can be found for expensive roads but not cheap sidewalks.

[HillStreetBlues]

Double post

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by flar

This "can't do" attitude in Hamilton is so annoying.

If you make a good transit service, people will use it. Plenty of people with nice cars and six figure salaries commute by public transit in Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton. Because these cities have made an investment in a useful public service. These cities are all closer in size to Hamilton than they are to Montreal and Toronto. Waterloo is about to join them. No reason Hamilton shouldn't join them as well.

Originally Posted by flar

While I do think all streets should have sidewalks, how many people would even use them on the mountain? Why would it be a higher priority than downtown/lower city, where there are orders of magnitude more pedestrians?

The same sentiment about transit can be applied to sidewalks. If you have good transit throughout the city, people will use it. Similarly, if you have proper pedestrian sidewalks throughout the city, people will use it. Frankly, you would be much more likely to receive city-wide buy-in for large-scale lower city projects like LRT, two way conversion, and other complete street projects if they were conducted in tandem with improving the extremely basic levels of service in the suburban areas.

The city is too quagmired in the micro-management of the 'sexy' civic issues and tends to ignore the big picture. Everything is intertwined. Successful LRT is dependent on a successful bus transit system feeding its ridership. Suburban sidewalks are a basic requirement to link the suburban resident to the bus stop. If a building does not have a strong foundation, it will fall over if you try to build it too high. The foundation needs to be solid across the entire perimeter in order to support the structure. we need to acknowledge that a solid, reliable city-wide bus network and, yes, even sidewalks, are the foundation upon which the lofty goal of LRT will be built.

Quite frankly, it is embarrassing that some councilors refuse to acknowledge how poorly served the suburban portion of this city is in some regards. Seriously folks, a sidewalk is the cheapest and most basic form of public transit in the city. Exactly why is this basic element missing in such a large swath of the city, and why is the call to improve that condition met with scorn and derision?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Quite frankly, it is embarrassing that some councilors refuse to acknowledge how poorly served the suburban portion of this city is in some regards. Seriously folks, a sidewalk is the cheapest and most basic form of public transit in the city. Exactly why is this basic element missing in such a large swath of the city, and why is the call to improve that condition met with scorn and derision?

No, no, no. Who exactly are you saying is arguing against sidewalks? If you think that some suburbs need sidewalks who don’t have them, call your councillor and ask him why that hasn’t been done. Mattgrande is right to say that Jackson is the one failing if his constituents do not have sidewalks that they need.

This is not him “calling for improvement.” When he says things like “I honestly feel that people who neither live or work downtown or need to come downtown are just simply saying, 'Hey, don't forget about the rest of us,'" that is him introducing a red herring that distracts from the real issues.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up LRT. This has nothing to do with LRT. The debate was about a specific issue- the conversion of eight specific streets to two-way traffic, as planned for a number of years. That this should have anything to do with sidewalks in ward 8 or anywhere else is just silly. For Whitehead to claim that completing a conversion that has been planned for the better part of a decade means that sidewalks are being “trumped” is completely wrong. They are being divisive, and trying to make the debate about something that it absolutely isn’t.

[markbarbera]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. What I was trying to say is that all these components (sidewalks, roads, transit) all need to be treated as important components in the city's overall transportation strategy. If the system is to work properly together, then improvements have to be coordinated. It should not be roads vs sidewalks, or two way vs one way, or roads vs. transit, or buses vs LRT. Every component has an important part to play to ensure a healthy, functioning infrastructure. you cannot talk about improving one without taking all other aspects into consideration.

There needs to be a big picture and a concerted effort to improve everything in tandem. To accelerate one specific infrastructure in one part of the city at the (real or perceived) expense of another will be counter-productive. It is doing nothing more but building up an unnecessary us/them mentality on council. If anything, the long-winded debate last Wednesday proves this point.

What has been lacking on this council far too long is a city-wide perspective to city building. As offended as Councilor Merulla may have been was when it was mentioned, it is quite true that councilors are way too parochial in their approach to council business. The city is spinning its wheels on just about every issue because of this. There is a real need to build a collaborative approach to council business if this city is ever to progress beyond what it currently is.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

There is a real need to build a collaborative approach to council business if this city is ever to progress beyond what it currently is.

Yes, please. Before that happens, however, some new blood is needed on the Mountain.