Downtown Update

[davidcappi]

I think strategically placed parking garages would be a huge bonus to downtown. Use lots that don't require retail, and that are still in the core. The structures can be made to be visually appealing. I've seen a parking structure covered in green walls that looked excellent. I don't think the issue is that we need more parking, we just need to consolidate our lots.

If we build a 6 storey parking lot on a surface lot right now, that adds several spots to the core while making mixed developments on parking lots easier because we won't have to worry about the loss. Other cities use these, and I don't understand the fear.

[Beedok]

Plus they wouldn't be wanting to build these unless they thought they could make a profit. Either they expect massive booms in people parking or think they can price lower than surrounding parking lots. The latter would make sitting on the lots less profitable and encourage development.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Hamilton just hasn't hit the point of the roads hitting the limit yet. The city's still got a lot of growth yet. It's definitely better to have too much road than not enough, otherwise you get ambulances and fire trucks sitting in traffic while people are dying because of congestion. (Ottawa's not quite that bad, but seems to be pushing it at certain times of day.) So you can over build, but underbuilding is usually worse. A parkade is still more urban than a parking lot, so is an improvement to the urban environment in and of itself. More jobs downtown with construction is also a decent idea.

It’s definitely better to have too little road than too much. Otherwise you spend too much on road maintenance, and you have buildings burning down because you couldn’t afford to properly fund the fire department; and people are dying prematurely because of the air quality of their cities, and their neighbourhoods don’t give them any opportunity to walk anywhere and get a little exercise.

Hamilton has too much road capacity, and too much parking downtown. Growth does not necessarily mean more vehicle traffic and, anyway, Hamilton has not been growing at a rapid pace since it built all these roads. The six or eight or ten lanes of east-west capacity on King and Main are no longer needed; massively wide north-south roads in the east end are no longer needed to transport thousands of people to jobs in the industrial zone, because those jobs are gone.

We should be tearing up these roads and replacing them with some other productive use. We’ll go bankrupt trying to maintain them, let alone building for “future growth” like the practice has been in the past.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

A parkade is still more urban than a parking lot, so is an improvement to the urban environment in and of itself. More jobs downtown with construction is also a decent idea.

It's only an improvement if it helps improve/support the case for economically or socially beneficial development on other lots.

And while the effect on the construction industry is good, construction is the "cost" side of the equation - projects do support that industry, but unless there's a long-term building boom the jobs are shuffled from existing supply (though there are indirect effects on the supply chain too)

It's the longer-term economic activity that's much more important. A new parking garage may support that, but I think there's little sense building one while the demand for parking is well served by what's downtown now.

[davidcappi]

Parking structures located north of Jackson Square would probably do wonders for the mall. Imagine all of the people parked in the lots at John/Wilson area, stacked into a multi-storey parking structure, all having to walk through the mall to get to work. I don't see how placing them strategically would be adding unnecessary parking to downtown.

As stated earlier, this would also create a market that makes many vast lots downtown less valuable due to more condensed and urban parking available in the core.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

It’s definitely better to have too little road than too much. Otherwise you spend too much on road maintenance, and you have buildings burning down because you couldn’t afford to properly fund the fire department; and people are dying prematurely because of the air quality of their cities, and their neighbourhoods don’t give them any opportunity to walk anywhere and get a little exercise.

Hamilton has too much road capacity, and too much parking downtown. Growth does not necessarily mean more vehicle traffic and, anyway, Hamilton has not been growing at a rapid pace since it built all these roads. The six or eight or ten lanes of east-west capacity on King and Main are no longer needed; massively wide north-south roads in the east end are no longer needed to transport thousands of people to jobs in the industrial zone, because those jobs are gone.

We should be tearing up these roads and replacing them with some other productive use. We’ll go bankrupt trying to maintain them, let alone building for “future growth” like the practice has been in the past.

So, yo can have your buildings burn down because the fire department can't reach them or because it's under funded. That's an even point. (Except congestion will hurt your economy so you'll probably be looking at funding issues anyway.)

An excess of roads is actually good for your lungs. It means that the cars aren't filling the roads around your home for 2-3 hours of backed up rush hour traffic, instead they drive past and you get only the slightest wiff.

For walking, I'll admit that some of Hamilton's roads are a little wide, but by using one way that means there's only a ~5 lane street to cross at the widest. In Ottawa (which is only moderately bigger and much much much more congested) instead you have one 10 lane two way street that's roughly twice as pedestrian unfriendly, plus two way leads to much longer traffic light cycles which are discouraging. Now speed limits, those Hamilton could work on.

Growth does mean more traffic. Even if you're very efficient at getting people on buses (like Ottawa has managed by spending huge amounts of money on transit ways and whatnot) you'll still have extra vehicles. Hamilton has no where to build transit ways, so you'll be left with bus lanes at best, and you'll have many streets where that just isn't practical so the buses are just a segment of congestion.

I will agree that Hamilton has too much road space, but the price of removing it, rebuilding infrastructure, reassessing lots, and everything will probably lead to negligible savings. Plus even if the city were to be highly efficient by the time you remove the excess capacity the city will have grown and commuter patterns will have changed to the degree that you might well lack needed capacity when you're finished. Taking into account actual municipal politics anywhere and you'll be looking at serious problems.

Almost every established city in Canada is short on cash, but unlike the others desperately trying to build capacity on no money Hamilton is instead sitting on excess. I'd rather my city be bankrupt but built for tomorrow than effectively bankrupt and not built for yesterday.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'd rather my city be bankrupt but built for tomorrow than effectively bankrupt and not built for yesterday.

You'll get your wish soon enough.

Though I'm not sure parking garages, highways and greenfield development qualify as building for tomorrow. It seems very much like a blast from the past to me.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

You'll get your wish soon enough.

Though I'm not sure parking garages, highways and greenfield development qualify as building for tomorrow. It seems very much like a blast from the past to me.

Parking Garages in the downtown are moving towards intensification and densification in the core. People will drive. Maybe once Hamilton reaches Toronto's size parkades will be anti-urban, but at it's current size they'll encourage development by making surface lots less profitable.

The existing 'overbuilt' street network gives Hamilton to option to set up bus lanes and other transit options when things actually happen. Congestion really limits transit options. Hamilton can't build anything else, so longterm we don't want to rip up the roads.

Greenfield development isn't great, but it's reality. I don't support most of it though. My point is that Hamilton is built for the intensification of tomorrow.

[king10]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Parking structures located north of Jackson Square would probably do wonders for the mall. Imagine all of the people parked in the lots at John/Wilson area, stacked into a multi-storey parking structure, all having to walk through the mall to get to work. I don't see how placing them strategically would be adding unnecessary parking to downtown.

As stated earlier, this would also create a market that makes many vast lots downtown less valuable due to more condensed and urban parking available in the core.

Isnt the largest parking structure downtown located just north of jackson sq and the eatons centre?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Beedok

So, yo can have your buildings burn down because the fire department can't reach them or because it's under funded. That's an even point. (Except congestion will hurt your economy so you'll probably be looking at funding issues anyway.)

An excess of roads is actually good for your lungs. It means that the cars aren't filling the roads around your home for 2-3 hours of backed up rush hour traffic, instead they drive past and you get only the slightest wiff.

For walking, I'll admit that some of Hamilton's roads are a little wide, but by using one way that means there's only a ~5 lane street to cross at the widest. In Ottawa (which is only moderately bigger and much much much more congested) instead you have one 10 lane two way street that's roughly twice as pedestrian unfriendly, plus two way leads to much longer traffic light cycles which are discouraging. Now speed limits, those Hamilton could work on.

Growth does mean more traffic. Even if you're very efficient at getting people on buses (like Ottawa has managed by spending huge amounts of money on transit ways and whatnot) you'll still have extra vehicles. Hamilton has no where to build transit ways, so you'll be left with bus lanes at best, and you'll have many streets where that just isn't practical so the buses are just a segment of congestion.

I will agree that Hamilton has too much road space, but the price of removing it, rebuilding infrastructure, reassessing lots, and everything will probably lead to negligible savings. Plus even if the city were to be highly efficient by the time you remove the excess capacity the city will have grown and commuter patterns will have changed to the degree that you might well lack needed capacity when you're finished. Taking into account actual municipal politics anywhere and you'll be looking at serious problems.

Almost every established city in Canada is short on cash, but unlike the others desperately trying to build capacity on no money Hamilton is instead sitting on excess. I'd rather my city be bankrupt but built for tomorrow than effectively bankrupt and not built for yesterday.

Only in Hamilton would anyone suggest that converting our over-built five-lane one-way highway-streets to two-way traffic would mean a “10 lane two way street.” King and Main have excess capacity, and could both easily be reconfigured to two lanes each way or less, and still have excess capacity for the traffic. Similarly for streets like Wentworth, Victoria, and Wellington.

The operating cost of one kilometre of one lane is $1,400. Every year, year in and year out. That doesn’t include the opportunity cost of maybe having something in that space that contributes to municipal revenue.

It’s kind of strange to think that congestion is bad for the economy, or the environment. Cities like New York and Paris have plenty of congestion, but their per capita economic output is higher than ours, and their per capita impact on the environment lower. Your arguments are mostly predicated on the notion that driving in cars is going to be the only game in town (anyway, this town) for the majority of people, forever. There’s a lot of evidence that this is changing in a big way, and people are starting to desire alternatives. It may wind up being that our city is built for yesterday and, to boot, bankrupt.

[The Gore]

Agree,
A colleague of mine, from out of town, was looking at buying a unit at 100 Main Street West. A primary reason for him not buying was due the one-way fast moving traffic along Main Street.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Only in Hamilton would anyone suggest that converting our over-built five-lane one-way highway-streets to two-way traffic would mean a “10 lane two way street.” King and Main have excess capacity, and could both easily be reconfigured to two lanes each way or less, and still have excess capacity for the traffic. Similarly for streets like Wentworth, Victoria, and Wellington.

I'm saying that having been one way has given Hamilton a more walkable environment. Apart from a few awkward areas at mountain accesses the only areas in Hamilton that aren't walkable are far flung suburbs and industrial park areas that aren't walkable in any Canadian city. Of all the cities I've ever visited Hamilton is the nicest for walking.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

The operating cost of one kilometre of one lane is $1,400. Every year, year in and year out. That doesn’t include the opportunity cost of maybe having something in that space that contributes to municipal revenue.

How much would it cost to eliminate one kilometre of one lane? Sidewalks aren't free to maintain or construct. It might save money in the long term, but I suspect we're talking a few decades, by which point with intensification there will be demand for more lanes.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

It’s kind of strange to think that congestion is bad for the economy, or the environment. Cities like New York and Paris have plenty of congestion, but their per capita economic output is higher than ours, and their per capita impact on the environment lower.

Well, both are major financial centres with numerous billionaires, high end industries, goverment institutes, etc. which come with being cities of 10 million plus and are totally different from an industrial city of under a million, but I suppose we'll ignore that there's loads and loads of other variables that utterly erase the impact of traffic.

Cars produce an amount of pollution per unit of time they're running, not the distance they travel. Try having a basement apartment with someone idling outside your window for 5 minutes and you'll realise that cars sitting around in traffic are worse for air quality than cars driving past. As for economic impact, if there wasn't one then Metrolinx wouldn't be planning a multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment project to counter lost productivity.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Your arguments are mostly predicated on the notion that driving in cars is going to be the only game in town (anyway, this town) for the majority of people, forever. There’s a lot of evidence that this is changing in a big way, and people are starting to desire alternatives. It may wind up being that our city is built for yesterday and, to boot, bankrupt.

My argument is not based on forever. My argument is vehicle traffic will remain a major force for a long time. I have doubts that cars will cease to be the majority in the next 30 years, and with that there will still be buses, transport vehicles, taxis, bikes, etc. Go somewhere with heavy bus usage and you'll see that downtowns can become very congested from buses alone. Add in dedicated LRT lanes and you'll be needing all the road space available in the downtown and other employment centres.

This is getting wildly off topic from the parking garages that will stimulate downtown development by forcing surface lots our of business. It's like the Walmart effect, but against surface lots rather than local shops.

[interr0bangr]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm saying that having been one way has given Hamilton a more walkable environment. Apart from a few awkward areas at mountain accesses the only areas in Hamilton that aren't walkable are far flung suburbs and industrial park areas that aren't walkable in any Canadian city. Of all the cities I've ever visited Hamilton is the nicest for walking.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[flar]

Originally Posted by The Gore

Agree,
A colleague of mine, from out of town, was looking at buying a unit at 100 Main Street West. A primary reason for him not buying was due the one-way fast moving traffic along Main Street.

Of course, it's extremely unpleasant for a pedestrian.

[flar]

Hamilton is a great city for walking, it could be one of the most walkable in Canada if common sense prevailed. Just certain streets are a total nightmare.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by interr0bangr

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

As an obligate pedestrian who's never lived with a car I have a lot of experience walking around places. Plenty of other cities have nice areas to walk than Hamilton, but those areas are very limited as a percentage of the over all city, and the rest of the city is typically iffy and often lacks sidewalks. Excluding a few geography/geology induced issues Hamilton is the most consistently walkable city in my experience. I think an issue is lots of people drive to a neighbourhood that's walkable and then walk around there. I typically walk from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, and have always found Hamilton consistently decent.

The biggest and simplest fix I would do would be to add stricter speed limits on some major streets.

[interr0bangr]

Originally Posted by flar

Hamilton is a great city for walking, it could be one of the most walkable in Canada if common sense prevailed. Just certain streets are a total nightmare.

You mean every major one way street in the city besides King in International Village. The two way streets are fine and dandy.

Main, most of King, Queen, John, Wellington, Victoria, Wentworth, etc, etc all completely suck unless you like vehicles going 75k/h wizzing by you mere inches away.

[interr0bangr]

Originally Posted by Beedok

As an obligate pedestrian who's never lived with a car I have a lot of experience walking around places. Plenty of other cities have nice areas to walk than Hamilton, but those areas are very limited as a percentage of the over all city, and the rest of the city is typically iffy and often lacks sidewalks. Excluding a few geography/geology induced issues Hamilton is the most consistently walkable city in my experience. I think an issue is lots of people drive to a neighbourhood that's walkable and then walk around there. I typically walk from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, and have always found Hamilton consistently decent.

The biggest and simplest fix I would do would be to add stricter speed limits on some major streets.

I walk everywhere too, welcome to the club. Please visit any other major city in the entire world (other than maybe Detroit) and tell me with a straight face that Hamilton is not at the bottom of the pile in terms of a pleasant and safe walking experience. The one way streets are the primary reason it sucks.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by interr0bangr

I walk everywhere too, welcome to the club. Please visit any other major city in the entire world (other than maybe Detroit) and tell me with a straight face that Hamilton is not at the bottom of the pile in terms of a pleasant and safe walking experience. The one way streets are the primary reason it sucks.

I'm living in Ottawa right now. Hamilton is leagues better as soon as you leave a handful of areas. Bronson in terrible to walk along. Carling is pushing 12 lanes with the median island and turning lanes, you have to run at a few intersections to get across in the time they a lot pedestrians. Gatineau is even worse. Ottawa and Gatineau both have some nice areas, but where they go bad they go much worse, and they go bad in a lot more areas than Hamilton. There's inner city residential streets without sidewalks.

[The Gore]

Take a look at Bloor St - Danforth. Very heavy auto traffic yet i feel quite comfortable walking on sidewalk and on the Bloor Viaduct Bridge. In Hamilton, I avoid walking in the same direction as traffic on Main Street.