Let's talk about one-way streets

[HAMRetrofit]

All of these locations could be accessed without ever driving on James Street. I guess it begs the question of what the disconnect is? Seems like carpet bombing to me.

[highwater]

Oy. I drive up and/or down James at least once or twice a week and it's a piece of cake. If this woman is denying herself the library, the market, and Head-of-the-Lake meetings because of some perceived difficulty she is either a) grossly over-stating her case, or b) completely irrational. Either way, she shouldn't have been given a quarter of the Spec opinion page.

[flar]

James and John were hell to drive on for a few weeks after the conversion. Maybe that's what she remembers. Everyone changed their driving patterns and it's fine now. Apparently the pattern change some people chose was to stay away from the area

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by highwater

Oy. I drive up and/or down James at least once or twice a week and it's a piece of cake. If this woman is denying herself the library, the market, and Head-of-the-Lake meetings because of some perceived difficulty she is either a) grossly over-stating her case, or b) completely irrational. Either way, she shouldn't have been given a quarter of the Spec opinion page.

Nail. Hit. Head.

[flar]

The Spec printed a letter to the editor today critical of last week's Dorothy Turcotte article.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by flar

The Spec printed a letter to the editor today critical of last week's Dorothy Turcotte article.

And 2 letters today, one being mine

[JT Jacobs]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

And 2 letters today, one being mine

I was glad to see those letters. We can't let uninformed, illogical opinion like Dorothy's opinion piece stand. It's too important in shaping the collective opinion.

Goon on ya!

[ryan_mcgreal]

The Spectator makes a point of publishing provocative op-eds in the hopes that they will generate commentary on the letters page. To the extent that this gets people a) thinking rigorously about the issue and b) engaged enough to write a letter, it's arguably a net positive for the level of public debate.

Look at the front page article a couple of weeks ago quoting Councillor Ferguson's opposition to running rapid transit on dedicated lanes. It probably did more to galvanize public support for light rail than a positive lead-off would have done.

[beanmedic]

Ryan,

That's fine as long as they intend to achieve that result.

Publishing nonsensical opinion pieces or quotes from the likes of Ferguson, et al. in the hope that it will stir up debate and galvanize public support for LRT is fine.

Publishing nonsensical opinion pieces or quotes from the likes of Ferguson, et al. because the editor thinks they are legitimate positions to be taken seriously, with the unintended result of galvanizing public support for LRT is like playing Russian roulette. It may have worked this time, but any day now that kind of reporting is going to backfire (hmm...I haven't seen galvanized public support for the Lister Block despite the number of articles calling it an eyesore and decrepit)

Seems like a bad idea to me. What kind of ragtag newspaper is this? How about reporting the news for a change and leaving the opinions to the bloggers?

[ryan_mcgreal]

I'm inclined to agree with you, beanmedic. I think the first priority for the newspapers should be to report the facts, not play he said-she said with opposing factions. As I like to say, if a group was claiming that the earth is flat, the newspaper article would be titled, 'Opinions differ over shape of earth'.

When someone makes a claim, it's not enough just to report what the person said. The newspaper also has a responsibility to investigate whether the claim is factual and accurate. Unfortunately, that's not the way the newspapers see things.

In the case of Councillor Ferguson's "rebellion" comment, it happened to work out well. Instead of galvanizing opposition to urban revitalization, Ferguson seems instead to have jumped the shark, revealing himself as someone completely out of touch with growing public awareness of climate change, rising energy prices, and auto-dependence.

However, I'm with you in the general case. I'd rather see the newspaper do its job of investigating and reporting the facts.

[the dude]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

As I like to say, if a group was claiming that the earth is flat, the newspaper article would be titled, 'Opinions differ over shape of earth'.

haha so true. in an effort to promote fairness, the mainstream media decided that all points of view were valid and should be shared. we've battled with this logic here on ssp as well. in the end, it just creates confusion among its readers and viewers. shocking though it may be, not everyone deserves to be heard!

[highwater]

I imagine this faux fairness is driven by the desire to appeal to as broad a base as possible in order to sell more papers. Ironically, all they've done is devalue themselves as a credible source of objective information, make people cynical about the profession of journalism in general, and force their more demanding readers (who would otherwise be their strongest supporters) to look elsewhere for information. Afterall, when all statements and ideas are treated as equal, and no one dares to give us any guide posts, the info barrage just becomes so much white noise and you tune out.

I realize there are market forces at work, but sometimes I wonder if alot of this crap doesn't come down to intellectual laziness on the part of journalists (and editors) themselves. Or maybe there aren't enough editors anymore to nip this type of BS in the bud. Either way, I think our journalism schools have alot to answer for.

[highwater]

Oops. Guess I've strayed off topic. Unless the subtext of this thread is "Let's talk about dopey opinion pieces about one-way streets", then I'm still good.

[highwater]

Also guilty of overuse of the rhetorical tic "either way..."

Please don't delete me mods , I'm shutting up now.

[coalminecanary]

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!

[omro]

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?

[highwater]

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.

[omro]

Originally Posted by highwater

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.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Converting Main and King to two-way is verboten on account of they carry so many cars!

[omro]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

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.