Hamilton Roads

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by JoeyColeman

The report references the Garden City Skyway.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/towards-...scussion-paper

I believe the Garden City Skyway replacement has been on the books for a year or two now.

Not sure I understand the priority on that one as the existing bridge isn't congested whatsoever, it must be an end-of-life item.

Basically MTO is going to build a new bridge (I believe) to the north of it, shift traffic onto the new bridge, extensively rehabilitate the existing bridge, then shift the eastbound traffic back onto the current bridge. It will result in two 4 lane bridges with large shoulders.

The whole project will probably cost close to a billion dollars.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The 403 really needs beefing up, especially between Hwy 6 and the Freeman Interchange (which will definitely need to be upgraded as well in the near future) and west of the Linc. The gap in between is difficult -- shoehorning more lanes into the trench along Chedoke Creek would not be easy, nor would it be simple to widen the curvy portion next to Cootes Paradise. But the climb up the escarpment is probably the most difficult to engineer and would be costly.

Adding a third bridge to the Skyway will be necessary and expensive, partly because it will probably require re-alignment of Eastport Dr. (I assume that's the side a new span would fit best; there may need to be some fill in the harbour to accommodate that, especially north of the ship channel), widening the approaches and rebuilding interchanges -- at Northshore for sure, and possibly Plains/Fairview; if the widening is taken far enough, you're looking at rebuilding Woodward/Burlington St., Centennial, and RHVP connections as well. Collectors/express may make the most sense, though they could also use the middle span for HOT lanes.

I wonder if they'll take a look at widening the Linc/RHVP as an alternative to doing anything to the 403 in west Hamilton? The Linc especially gets bunged up at certain times of day.

MTO is currently completing the environmental assessment to widen the 403 from Waterdown Road to York Boulevard. This would include a full reconstruction of the 403/hwy 6 interchange to remove the left turn merge lanes there.

http://hwy403hwy6preliminarydesignea.ca/

They also recently completed an Environmental Assessment for the Freeman Interchange in Burlington. That project would extend the HOV lanes on the QEW to the Skyway and add an additional lane to the 403 through the interchange in the short term:

https://qew403freeman.ca/

No word on any other environmental assessments for the Hamilton area. They will need to do one for the Highway 6 twinning near the airport so I would expect to see that soon.

After those projects I expect the next Hamilton area provincial project will be adding HOV lanes to the QEW from Centennial out towards Grimsby.

[ScreamingViking]

I can't recall specifics, but the gas tax funding was originally meant to support transit investment (Ontario's for sure, though the federal amount had more leeway from what I recall)

Full marks to Wilson for her comments, though deaf will be the ears across which they resonate. I wonder where the $2.7M remainder will go...


Hamilton council wants to spend $30 million in federal funds on roads, sidewalks

https://www.thespec.com/news/council...sidewalks.html

Teviah Moro
The Hamilton Spectator
Tue., July 6, 2021

City councillors plan to spread $30 million in expected federal funding equally among Hamilton’s 15 wards to tackle road and sidewalk repairs.

“These one-offs come about every once in a while from the federal government,” Coun. Chad Collins said Monday. “There’s no shortage of road and sidewalk work that needs to be done in every single ward.”

The $30 million is part of an expected $32.7 million in one-time infrastructure funding from the federal gas tax.

A strong majority backed Collins’ call to distribute the $30 million among Hamilton’s 15 wards.

But Coun. Maureen Wilson argued staff should analyze how to use such a large amount of funding through an asset-management lens presented during annual budget deliberations.

“We need to look at the best return on our dollar, and we need to start acting like a single city, rather than 15 independent cities so that we give taxpayers the best rate of return when we do expend those dollars,” she said.

Full story here

[Dr Awesomesauce]

$30m don't go as far as she used to...

[LikeHamilton]

City Councillors plan to spread $30 million in expected federal funding equally among Hamilton’s 15 wards to tackle road and sidewalk repairs.

Gee...I wonder if there is an election coming soon and they have to make it look like they have done something for the people so they will forget the screw ups they have participated in!

[Innsertnamehere]

$2 million a ward sounds like a lot but honestly it’s only enough to repave about 2km of 4 lane arterial road or 4-5km of local streets.

I mean don’t get me wrong, it’s a lot, about double what is spent in the base annual capital budget (which shows how underfunded Hamiltons roads are), but it’s not some unlimited fund.

My ward (ward 10) will be a fun mess of construction next summer. There is already an unusually large amount of capital projects scheduled and now this fund on top of it will be pushed out ASAP.

[ScreamingViking]

A blast from the past. Love the DBA's quote here... and this is based on what exactly?

"Favourable sentiment." Yes, by those looking to travel through the lower city, not to/from locations within it.


Hamilton streets suddenly switch to one way

The Hamilton Spectator
Sat., July 10, 2021

https://www.thespec.com/life/local-h...o-one-way.html



On Sunday, Oct. 28, 1956, 43 kilometres of two-way streets in Hamilton were converted to one way.

The Downtown Business Association said, “One-way streets are highly beneficial to any business interest.” An unofficial Spectator poll of customers in downtown stores on Jan. 26, 1957, showed that they were 3-1 in favour of one-way streets.

Changing a large number of downtown streets to the one-way system created a different transportation dynamic with the stress being on ease of passage rather than on promotion of local businesses. However, as the years went on the favourable sentiment for the one-way system began to change significantly. Eventually the decision was made to revert to two-way traffic on specific streets.


One way timeline

1924: The first one-way streets were implemented.

1951: The creation of a subcommittee on one-way streets.

April 1956: Wilbur Smith’s report “Traffic and Transportation Plan for Hamilton” running 307 pages and advocating three sets of one-way streets was accepted.

June 7, 1956: City Council voted in principle to adopt a one-way system.

July 4, 1956: City council voted to change major downtown streets to a one-way system through the centre of the city — The Delta to the east, Margaret Street to the west, Mountain Boulevard to the south and Burlington Street to the north. Traffic lights were co-ordinated so that a car could travel easily through downtown without stopping.

Late 1990s: Discussions began in earnest about transforming some of downtown’s one-way streets back to two way.

Sept. 30, 2002: At 10 a.m., the one-way street system began to change when James and John went back to being two way.

[ScreamingViking]

And another one...

I can still recall the single 4-lane Skyway Bridge, and got my license soon after the new bridge opened. A couple years later both were in service.


Skyway bridge sends traffic over Burlington Bay

The Hamilton Spectator
Sat., July 10, 2021

https://www.thespec.com/life/local-h...ngton-bay.html





For years, gridlock worsened along the Beach strip with an inadequate road system and an inefficient lift bridge to handle traffic between Toronto and Niagara.

But all that changed with the official opening of the giant Burlington Bay Skyway in October 1958. It was high enough for ships of virtually any size to pass underneath, and the new bridge was wide enough to handle a great deal of traffic.

The bridge eased traffic congestion for a while, but after 14 years usage had doubled. The structure needed to be twinned to create more capacity. In 1988, the new bridge and a refurbished old one went into service together.

From 1958 to 1973, drivers were expected to pay a toll. That was controversial because trucks would often use the Beach strip to avoid paying, angering residents.

In 1984, the Burlington Skyway Bridge was renamed the Burlington Bay James N. Allan Skyway. Allan was minister of highways when construction began on the Skyway in 1954, a project that was touted as the largest ongoing steel construction job in Canada.

[craftbeerdad]

Our own Mr. Ritsma doing some advocacy on behalf of city cyclists, good work sir!

Also wanted to highlight something. There's a sign on the Claremont telling trucks to use King > Victoria > Cannon to get out of the city.

Cannon is a dedicated cycling route and recently there were initial discussions regarding implementing another cycling route on Victoria. Perhaps this sign and truck route needs to be changed so we're not pancakes.




https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2021/...eighbourhoods/

[TheRitsman]

Thanks for the shout-out! It was really interesting, the presenters showed streets that were most favourable for trucks, and all the downtown streets were not highly rated. Truck routes aren't designed to get trucks to local destinations, truck routes are designed to move trucks through the city. They're the extension of the one way road system, designed to get drivers through downtown, rather than to it.

On the subject of one-way roads, I can't imagine James N as a one way. It would be so terrible. Does anyone have pictures of the north section of James being one way? Strangely despite the renaissance of James N, some still argue online that it would be better as a one way still... Smh

[Innsertnamehere]

https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings...umentId=283579

Location of proposed speed cameras for 2022.

Of course one is around the corner from my house in a 40 zone on a street I need to drive on literally every day, at the bottom of a hill. I guess I'm driving the long way around to my place for that month.


While last year was mostly local collector streets with only a handful of arterial roads, the 2022 program as proposed looks to be almost exclusively arterial roads.

[ScreamingViking]

There are going to be a couple near my home as well.

One thing I have noticed is that I pay more attention to my speedometer lately, because of all the "your speed" signs around. I tend to travel within a couple of km/h of the posted limits if not at the limit, at least on most city streets, whereas I commonly went 10 km/h above in the past (which I still do along King and Main)

[bigguy1231]

Looks like a giant money grab coming. Since when is Upper James from the Linc to Stonechurch a community safety zone. They are just making up this shit as they go along to justify this photo radar nonsense. That stretch of road is all commercial other than a couple of houses near where Denninigers is.

[Innsertnamehere]

15 of the 24 locations are not existing community safety zones.

[ScreamingViking]

I wonder how many of them are more prone to street racing? Perhaps that's more the concern re: "community safety."

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Looks like a giant money grab coming. Since when is Upper James from the Linc to Stonechurch a community safety zone. They are just making up this shit as they go along to justify this photo radar nonsense. That stretch of road is all commercial other than a couple of houses near where Denninigers is.

There is a school west of Upper James that children might be crossing Upper James for.

I think the entire community safety zone thing is farsical, meant only to appease idiot speeders. Most places I've driven that heavily use speed cameras see many more people driving the speed limit, and I'd prefer a machine doing it 24h a day rather than an expensive police officer sitting back relaxing and doing it for maybe 3 hours once or twice a month.

My favourite is the people who "are against speeding" but also thing "enforcing it this way is unfair".

Because a sign advising you of a speeding camera is unfair, and actually being caught sucks. Everyone supports community safety until it impacts their driving in car obsessed North America. Speed bumps for thee, but not for me.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

There is a school west of Upper James that children might be crossing Upper James for.

I think the entire community safety zone thing is farsical, meant only to appease idiot speeders. Most places I've driven that heavily use speed cameras see many more people driving the speed limit, and I'd prefer a machine doing it 24h a day rather than an expensive police officer sitting back relaxing and doing it for maybe 3 hours once or twice a month.

My favourite is the people who "are against speeding" but also thing "enforcing it this way is unfair".

Because a sign advising you of a speeding camera is unfair, and actually being caught sucks. Everyone supports community safety until it impacts their driving in car obsessed North America. Speed bumps for thee, but not for me.

What? The closest school west of Upper James is James Macdonald Public School, which is about a 15 minute walk away. By that standard the entire urban area is close to a school.

Quebec has a few speed cameras around, including on freeways, and my experience is that people slow down for the camera then speed right back up again.

I'm not opposed to speed cameras in certain locations like directly in front of schools on local streets, in high pedestrian zones like downtowns, etc., but sticking them on suburban arterials with little to no pedestrian traffic is silly and does absolutely nothing for actual pedestrian safety.

You can tell the province intended for these cameras to largely go in areas that have actual safety concerns by requiring them to be in community safety zones, and not on random arterials. The problem is that municipalities have free reign of designating community safety zones wherever they want, so municipalities are just sticking the cameras wherever and just implementing safety zones to allow it, bypassing the purpose of the legislation.

The worst offender of municipalities "cash grabbing" with these cameras is in York Region if you ask me, on Bloomington Road.

This is a rural arterial road that with very high vehicle volumes. It's built to a 100km/h design speed (typical for a posted 80 road), but is posted for 60km/h. It's directly beside a public school, but is separated by a large fence beside the school yard, and a ditch. There are no sidewalks. The school fronts onto another road where it is accessed.

And York region is going to stick a speed camera here for "vision zero". This will protect no pedestrians. At. All. Ever. All you will get from the camera is cars going 55km/h on a road designed for them to safely do 100km/h.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9848...7i16384!8i8192

I haven't seen an example quite so egregious in Hamilton yet, but the locations for 2022 certainly don't seem focused on pedestrian safety to me. They seem focused on areas with lots of cars so they can get lots of tickets.

Of the locations for 2022, I see two on rural roads with no sidewalks and 10 on 4 lane arterial roads. That's fully half of them. The other half are mostly on two lane minor arterials, with only maybe 4-5 being located directly in front of schools on local roads and in high pedestrian areas.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

What? The closest school west of Upper James is James Macdonald Public School, which is about a 15 minute walk away. By that standard the entire urban area is close to a school.

Quebec has a few speed cameras around, including on freeways, and my experience is that people slow down for the camera then speed right back up again.

I'm not opposed to speed cameras in certain locations like directly in front of schools on local streets, in high pedestrian zones like downtowns, etc., but sticking them on suburban arterials with little to no pedestrian traffic is silly and does absolutely nothing for actual pedestrian safety.

You can tell the province intended for these cameras to largely go in areas that have actual safety concerns by requiring them to be in community safety zones, and not on random arterials. The problem is that municipalities have free reign of designating community safety zones wherever they want, so municipalities are just sticking the cameras wherever and just implementing safety zones to allow it, bypassing the purpose of the legislation.

The worst offender of municipalities "cash grabbing" with these cameras is in York Region if you ask me, on Bloomington Road.

This is a rural arterial road that with very high vehicle volumes. It's built to a 100km/h design speed (typical for a posted 80 road), but is posted for 60km/h. It's directly beside a public school, but is separated by a large fence beside the school yard, and a ditch. There are no sidewalks. The school fronts onto another road where it is accessed.

And York region is going to stick a speed camera here for "vision zero". This will protect no pedestrians. At. All. Ever. All you will get from the camera is cars going 55km/h on a road designed for them to safely do 100km/h.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9848...7i16384!8i8192

I haven't seen an example quite so egregious in Hamilton yet, but the locations for 2022 certainly don't seem focused on pedestrian safety to me. They seem focused on areas with lots of cars so they can get lots of tickets.

I was in Quebec less than a week ago, my experience is the total opposite. 90% of drivers seem to be going the speed limit or within 10km above. Some even drive below the speed limit.

Cash grab would require that the municipality actually makes money on these programs, they don't typically net any money after operating costs and admin costs.

If they make too little money and cost the taxpayer too much, people complain the city is wasting their money. If they make even a small net profit, then it's a cash grab. Municipalities are caught between two rocks.

The reality is this:

1) Speed cameras work in conjunction with better designed streets

2) Drivers hate that fact

3) People are so used to passing a speed trap 1% of their time driving, that speeding has become a societal norm, and the reason drivers hate speed cameras is because they mean your regular route you will pass a speed camera 100% of the time.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/10/...1d9T7sqoVmyoLU

Here is a study from BC on the net benefits: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30162746

Another article discussing the spillover effect outside the enforcement area, and why moving locations is important: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...itish_Columbia

You personally may experience something, but anecdotes are not evidence. If you study 100 drivers and 85% of drivers are effected by a change in road control, and 15% are not, that does not necessarily describe a failed policy. People speed in Amsterdam, I've seen it with my own two eyes, I've also seen a bicycle crash in Amsterdam with my own two eyes. I was in Amsterdam for 4 days. That does not indicate Amsterdam does not have significantly safer roads than most North American studies.

I'm more interested in good policy, and objective realities. Yea, it's annoying to not be able to speed, but that doesn't mean speed cameras aren't good policy.

[Innsertnamehere]

Just for clarity I hardly speed in urban areas anyway, typically I'm doing 55 in a 50.

And yea, I get speed cameras are good for pedestrian safety, I'm not refuting that. Nor am I really saying they are cash grabs per se.

I'm just saying rollout doesn't seem focused on pedestrian safety, moreso it seems focused on maximizing ticket issuing to try to recoup revenue.

That's bad policy to me. The cameras need to be focused where they make a real difference. And they need to be tied with realistic speed limits which generally match the design speed of the road. You can't just slap a 30km/h limit on an arterial and throw up a speed camera and call it a day. All you get from that is drivers watching their speedometer instead of the road. Hamilton is chock full of ridiculously low speed limits even in areas with basically 0 pedestrian traffic.

The cameras are being put on arterials and rural roads, or local streets with lots of speeders but few pedestrians. It should be the opposite, put them where there are lots of pedestrians and not lots of cars.

[Innsertnamehere]

https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings...umentId=295806

Updated proposal for the City's Truck routes. The new plan notably removes the vast majority of truck routes through the core, reducing them primarily to Victoria / Wellington and Cannon, Queen, York, and Main St.