Red Hill Creek Expressway - Page 5

the dude · #81 Posted **Nov 12, 2007, 4:33 PM**

perhaps, but i believe that mcquesten was the minister of transport when the qew was built, so who knows what he was thinking. that sort of schitzophrenic behaviour might have been easier to understand then than it is now.

flar · #82 Posted **Nov 12, 2007, 5:25 PM**

I think McQuesten was also involved in the Bluewater bridge in Sarnia and one of the bridges over the Niagara. He liked infrastructure apparently.

raisethehammer · #83 Posted **Nov 12, 2007, 5:47 PM**

I think he had a good balance, at least what I've picked up in learning about him....nature areas were important and infrastructure was important.
the strip along the QEW was already being developed...brides into the USA are obviously important.
He's responsible for the mountain brow being preserved as parkland, the RBG, high level bridge....I'm guessing he would never have dreamt of building a highway through the valley.

fastcarsfreedom · #84 Posted **Nov 13, 2007, 7:16 PM**

If the "5 Freeways" had been built you wouldn't have your dreaded one-way street system.

McQuesten was a genius in many ways who saw the balance between infrastructure and aesthetics and he was a great admirer of Frederick Law Olmstead. To say McQuesten would've railed against constructing a highway through the valley is nothing short of a cross between fantasy and revisionist history. McQuesten was about BUILDING first and foremost--he just saw the benefit of beautification in the process. High Level Bridge is a great example of this, as is the Niagara Parkway and the original QEW design work. I'm an infrastructure fanatic (surprise)...and I am willing to confess that the loss of the "style and design" element in infrastructure projects is unfortunate.

raisethehammer · #85 Posted **Nov 13, 2007, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

If the "5 Freeways" had been built you wouldn't have your dreaded one-way street system.

McQuesten was a genius in many ways who saw the balance between infrastructure and aesthetics and he was a great admirer of Frederick Law Olmstead. To say McQuesten would've railed against constructing a highway through the valley is nothing short of a cross between fantasy and revisionist history. McQuesten was about BUILDING first and foremost--he just saw the benefit of beautification in the process. High Level Bridge is a great example of this, as is the Niagara Parkway and the original QEW design work. I'm an infrastructure fanatic (surprise)...and I am willing to confess that the loss of the "style and design" element in infrastructure projects is unfortunate.

o great..instead of the one-way system we would have had freeways tearing through the lower city. great tradeoff.
I happen to believe that there were more than those 2 options for Hamilton to choose from - proper city streets with proper transit was a great option. Toronto chose this path, and gee whiz, they seem to have survived - granted, their downtown core and neighbourhoods aren't nearly as healthy as Hamiltons. We simply blew it here.

I'm a big fan of Olmstead too...great design work.
Today's park systems and infrastructure is a load of crap. Slabs of ugly concrete. scrawny little trees tossed in as an afterthought. no public space. no beauty. just utilitarian all the way.

matt602 · #86 Posted **Nov 13, 2007, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

granted, their downtown core and neighbourhoods aren't nearly as healthy as Hamiltons.

Whoa, whoa... what? Am I reading this wrong or are you saying Toronto's downtown and neighbourhoods are not as "healthy" as Hamilton's?

raisethehammer · #87 Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt602

Whoa, whoa... what? Am I reading this wrong or are you saying Toronto's downtown and neighbourhoods are not as "healthy" as Hamilton's?

haha...no sir. I was being sarcastic. It's so much harder to write sarcastically as opposed to speaking.

The Spec has a video up now about Red Hill. Kind of long, but worth the watch.
I think Don MacLean read my mind with his final statement - this is embarassing.

www.thespec.com

DC83 · #88 Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 7:14 PM**

Wow, Don Mclean makes SO much sense...
Too bad the city looks upon him as a joke!

Mike Marini - Community Relations Manager RHVP, "...environmentally, it's a showcase!"
Ummm... didn't the building of this hwy kill off the Flying Squirrell population in the Valley??

LikeHamilton · #89 Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 7:20 PM**

Latest info on the opening copied from a memo to emergency services personnel (Police, Fire, EMS).

The Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP) is scheduled to open to vehicular traffic on Saturday November 17, 2007. The northbound direction will open at approximately 8:00 a.m. and the southbound direction will follow thereafter.

Please note that the RHVP will be opened from the LINC to the QEW; however, the ramp from QEW Toronto to RHVP southbound will not be opened until the fall of 2008. As you may be aware, the Ministry of Transportation is responsible for the construction of the RHVP interchange with the QEW as well as the QEW reconstruction between the Burlington Street interchange and the Centennial Parkway interchange.

The new alignment of Mount Albion Road between Hixon Road and Lawrence Road will be opened on Monday November 19, 2007 at 5:00 a.m. Concurrently, Mount Albion Road will be closed to vehicular traffic between the bus turnaround south of Glen Castle Drive and the intersection of Old Mud Street/Cornerstone Drive.

raisethehammer · #90 Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 7:54 PM**

I'll have to head over to that part of town and see what's happening with Mt Albion. Sounds pretty good...turning to a bike/pedestrian street all the way up the escarpment.

DC83 · #91 Posted **Nov 14, 2007, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Mount Albion Road will be closed to vehicular traffic between the bus turnaround south of Glen Castle Drive and the intersection of Old Mud Street/Cornerstone Drive.

A pedestrian trail/stairs would be very welcome in this area. There is currently no stairs going up the escarpment in this area, and most ppl climb up the hill in Felker's Falls Park (I know I used to when I was a teenager). It's the only access to/from the Stoney Creek Mountain if you don't have a car.

fastcarsfreedom · #92 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 4:52 AM**

With all due respect RTH, Toronto built several major freeways across it's urban area--namely the Gardiner and the DVP, as well as the 427 to the west. Granted the full freeway plan (Eastern Gardiner, Spadina, Allen) was never completed--but the city built major north/south and east/west arteries. Montreal, a city often praised here for it's walkability and urban character is lacerated every which way by MULTIPLE east/west and north/south freeways.

"Proper" urban streets and "proper" transit are great--but they don't solve the reality of needing to move cars (I know you hate them). Like it or not, the one-way street system was the alternative to more freeways...end of story. I would argue that the lack of gridlock and lack of long, frustrating drives and waits at red lights actually contribute to quality of life...but that is a matter of opinion we are unlikely to agree on. That being said, the current set-up of QEW/403/LINC/RHVP does provide multiple NS and EW routes around the area--which has the potential to greatly reduce "in transit" traffic in the downtown core--and that may well allow "two-way-ing" of King and Main to be viable in the future. Personally I like the effect two-way traffic has had on John and James--all I ever asked for were alternatives before any traffic calming on those streets.

coalminecanary · #93 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 2:46 PM**

"two-waying" main and king should have been part of the rhvp plan then. The two way switch should be thrown at the same time as the parkway opens up.

Every day that we wait is another day of increased traffic on the parkway, and another argument by car lovers AGAINST two-waying those streets because "we need to move cars through the city". Highways have a magnetic attraction to traffic. That parkway WILL fill up. We need to act now to make it impossible for main and king to once again become the overflow routes for through traffic.

SteelTown · #94 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 2:52 PM**

You'll have to wait until 2010 when King St West goes two way. After that Hamilton will have a planned out and likely construction for rapid transit along Main St, meaning a new streetscape and a plan for Main St will arise.

coalminecanary · #95 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 2:55 PM**

fingers crossed... i'm willing to wait. However the pessimist in me thinks 2010 is too optimistic ;-)

raisethehammer · #96 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 4:36 PM**

I'd be thrilled if we did that by 2010. I'd be thrilled if we did it by 3010. City hall loves the one-ways, and fast traffic. It'll be a big uphill battle to convert them regardless of how many new highways we build.

SteelTown · #97 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 4:58 PM**

King St W is going two ways, that was determined like 5 years ago but we have to wait until 2010. There's even a website towards the plan.

Main St well I don't know. But by 2010 Hamilton will likely have developed a blueprint for the rapid transit. The first wave of MoveOntario 2020 cash comes in 2013, though I think Dalton bumped it to 2012 now. Also it appears on the news the federal government will make a funding commitment of 1/3 funding of MoveOntario 2020 by the end of November, part of the $33 billion Infrastructure fund.

So by having a blueprint it means Main St will have to be configured to add a transit lane and the city always like to lump everything together at the same time so Main St will likely get a new streetscape at the same time as well. This will force councilors to reevaluate Main St.

raisethehammer · #98 Posted **Nov 15, 2007, 7:56 PM**

I think you might be right Steeltown...man, that would be great to start addressing Main St sooner, rather than later.

matt602 · #99 Posted **Nov 16, 2007, 4:52 AM**

Just got back from a walk down to the Expressway at Barton. Everything is pretty much ready, the traffic lights are even working now. Looks pretty good.

raisethehammer · #**100** Posted **Nov 17, 2007, 5:36 PM**

well, today the highway is supposed to open.
Never again will anyone be able to enjoy a peaceful walk in the valley.
East Hamilton residents would be advised to pick up a copy of the hiking trail guides from the tourism office downtown if you ever have the itch to get outdoors. The west end and Dundas Valley have just been bumped up another few notches as Hamilton's most desirable areas....you can hike until your heart's content with no overhead traffic.