HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 10:34 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
The entire stretch from 401 to 403 was colloquially known as the "killer highway" back when I was a kid--a name it earned over the years, owing to the numerous fatal accidents--anything that reduces the interaction of traffic travelling in different directions on Highway 6 is a good thing. Fair to say, this isn't merely about 'serving' sprawl--but also saving lives
If this is the case, why would Flamborough residents fight the highway 6 reconfig so vigorously? You would think they would whole-heartedly support improvements that would make this intersection safer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:07 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
great question mark--i don't speak for everyone that lives in Flamborough. Part of the problem is generalization--just because there was an active opposition to Highway 6 expansion hardly means the majority of people were in opposition. At various times in the past there have been groups opposed to everything from a racetrack, to the existing Flamboro Speedway to quarry expansion, etc etc. As such, I am sure there are plenty of residents who whole-heartedly support the investment in the infrastructure and welcome the safer intersection configuration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:09 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Fair to say, this isn't merely about 'serving' sprawl--but also saving lives.
If this is your main argument for the widening, and the interchange, then I have a much simpler, safer, cheaper solution that could actually make money instead of costing money: Speed and traffic enforcement.

Building more capacity to improve road safety seems like a pretty backward plan...

edit to add... anyway, this plan is already going ahead so there's no point in arguing about it. I just wish when it came to road expenditures, we'd pick it apart with a fine toothed comb the same way we do when transit expenditures come onto the table...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:31 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
It's not merely about capacity, but also about engineering and eliminating/reducing the interaction of opposing traffic. The York Road intersection was always dangerous--even more so when the Texaco and Shell where operating. Clappison's itself saw many vicious accidents over the years as well.

Speed reduction is a nice idea in theory, but in it's current configuration this would likely worsen the congestion problems in this corridor. Nonetheless, enforcement is a wonderful idea--and I encourage you to support politicians at all levels of government who are committed to funding and proactively supporting law enforcement. I can assure you through my own career experiences, that there is a massive disconnect between the public's expectations of the law enforcement community and what can be feasibly provided given the constraints and demands placed on the police community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:37 PM
JT Jacobs JT Jacobs is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Quote
Flambasterdas

Quote
self-righteous indignation for perceived wrongs

Quote
knee-jerk confrontational style

Quote
They realy do seem to have a chip on their shoulder

How silly of me to think that there was an anti-Flamborough sentiment in this thread--I really don't know what I was thinking.

Quote
Fastcars - please don't insult my intelligence

Are you serious? How did I insult your intelligence? I am railing against people who use their passion as an excuse to make unfounded claims merely to support their own viewpoints. This interchange construction is in no way being built to "service" big box retail--that is a baseless and irresponsible claim.

Lastly, for the final time, BOTH Hwy 6 and Hwy 5 are provincially significant on their current alignments through Clappison's Corner--otherwise one, or both, would've been downloaded to the municipality. While Highway 6 carries the bulk of the traffic through this intersection, Highway 5 also carries non-local traffic through the area--one of the reasons the Peters Corners to Clappison's Corners section was not downloaded in 1998. The entire stretch from 401 to 403 was colloquially known as the "killer highway" back when I was a kid--a name it earned over the years, owing to the numerous fatal accidents--anything that reduces the interaction of traffic travelling in different directions on Highway 6 is a good thing. Fair to say, this isn't merely about 'serving' sprawl--but also saving lives.
In all fairness, FCF, I'm finding you a bit touchy and too easily offended in this instance. Flamborough is, largely, knee-jerk in its (yes, general) reactions. Let's not quote out of context here: the poster merely (yes, generally) compared Flamborough to the other burbs and noted that Flamborough is a bit over the top in its reactions. I'd have to agree with this point and hardly find it offensive to Flamborough any more than I would find it offensive for them to call Hamiltonians a great many things.

Of course, there's going to be some, as you say, anti-Flam sentiment, just as, no doubt, there is some anti-Hammer sentiment coming the other way. So what? This board is largely populated by urbanists of various stripes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:50 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Quote
Flambasterdas

Quote
self-righteous indignation for perceived wrongs

Quote
knee-jerk confrontational style

Quote
They realy do seem to have a chip on their shoulder

How silly of me to think that there was an anti-Flamborough sentiment in this thread--I really don't know what I was thinking.

Quote
Fastcars - please don't insult my intelligence

Are you serious? How did I insult your intelligence? I am railing against people who use their passion as an excuse to make unfounded claims merely to support their own viewpoints. This interchange construction is in no way being built to "service" big box retail--that is a baseless and irresponsible claim.

Lastly, for the final time, BOTH Hwy 6 and Hwy 5 are provincially significant on their current alignments through Clappison's Corner--otherwise one, or both, would've been downloaded to the municipality. While Highway 6 carries the bulk of the traffic through this intersection, Highway 5 also carries non-local traffic through the area--one of the reasons the Peters Corners to Clappison's Corners section was not downloaded in 1998. The entire stretch from 401 to 403 was colloquially known as the "killer highway" back when I was a kid--a name it earned over the years, owing to the numerous fatal accidents--anything that reduces the interaction of traffic travelling in different directions on Highway 6 is a good thing. Fair to say, this isn't merely about 'serving' sprawl--but also saving lives.

I found it insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest that the new highways/interchanges were on the books for years, yet sprawl/big box crap was not.
It's all been on the books for years...it all sucks....it's NOT all being paid for by residents of Flamborough...not even close.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 12:16 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I can assure you that the "big box" development was not on the books for years, as you suggest. There have been various proposals over the years to build out the corner commercially--many proposals which never came to fruition and others which were rejected by the former Town's council.

Secondly, I have never suggested that the highway upgrade was being paid for by the residents of Flamborough, so please do not attribute statements to me that were made by others. The bottom line is that this highway upgrade is not related to the retail developments at the intersection--the highway interchange design was finalized before any of the other development could go forward. It remains inaccurate and misleading to state that the interchange was planned to serve those commercial properties when it was not.

There is no "Flamborough" anyway--and as a resident of the new City of Hamilton your taxes will continue to support infrastructure THROUGHOUT the entire city, that is a reality that you ought to accept. There would seem to be a disconnect when someone argues that rural residents ought not complain about increased taxation, but at the same time launch protestations when infrastructure projects go forward in areas that you arbitrarily deem to be "unacceptable"...or, to quote it all sucks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 1:49 AM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
There is no "Flamborough" anyway--and as a resident of the new City of Hamilton your taxes will continue to support infrastructure THROUGHOUT the entire city, that is a reality that you ought to accept.
So, by the same token, paying your full share of taxes towards this new city of Hamilton is a reality that Flamborough residents ought to accept as well. Will they, or is the "exploration of legal options" against city hall continuing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 3:06 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
quote fastcars - The bottom line is that this highway upgrade is not related to the retail developments at the intersection

Wow....I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 5:03 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
RTH--no need to respond--the interchange isn't going in to service those retailers--that was the statement that was made by another poster--all other arguments aside--in fact the retail would be more easily accessed if it remained a regular, signalized intersection. There certainly have been instances in the past where infrastructure improvements were made solely for the purpose of easing access to retail (the area surrounding Lime Ridge--the ramp/overpass leading to Mapleview)...but this isn't one of them.

As for markbarbera--that is exactly what I'm suggesting. My own feelings aside, the consensus here is that Flamborough should pay it's magic "fair share" including paying for services it doesn't receive. Therefore, I'm suggesting, assuming that to be the case, there is no argument from anyone in the "old" City, or any of the other former municipalities, if the "new" City invests in infrastructure in Flamborough, or anywhere else. Regardless, I believe the funding formula is 50/50 with the MTO...am I correct? If so, I'm technically paying for it too, even though it's no where near my current residence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 10:42 AM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
quote fastcars - The bottom line is that this highway upgrade is not related to the retail developments at the intersection

Wow....I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Good; fastcarsfreedom has explained all that is necessary and no need to comment further.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 1:15 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
There is no "Flamborough" anyway--and as a resident of the new City of Hamilton your taxes will continue to support infrastructure THROUGHOUT the entire city, that is a reality that you ought to accept. There would seem to be a disconnect when someone argues that rural residents ought not complain about increased taxation, but at the same time launch protestations when infrastructure projects go forward in areas that you arbitrarily deem to be "unacceptable"...or, to quote it all sucks.
fastcars - please step back for a second and look at this conversation. The entire point of the thread has revolved around the fact that, despite paying (on average) less tax than the rest of the city, Flamborough's residents (through the councillor they voted in and presumably support) are aggressively fighting a tax increase which still won't get them "up to par" when it comes to the averages in other wards.

Their main argument is that they shouldn't pay for services they don't receive and that they feel like they are propping up the rest of the city with their tax money.

So some of us commented on here to point out some of the financial burdens that the entire city must bear in order to service Flamborough (using their ward as an example, but applicable to other lower density areas as well).

Our argument all along has been that the entire city has to share the burden equally. We brought up these infrastructure projects in Flamborough as examples to show that they are not as self sufficient as they think.

You are asking us to accept the very point we have been trying to make all along....!?

Meanwhile, we derailed a bit on the clappisons project. Personally, my fundamental objections to that project are completely beside the point of which ward it's in. It just happens to be in waterdown which is why it got brought up here.

So, clearly we are all on the same page when it comes to the idea of every ward pulling its weight since we are all in the same city. But maybe there is disagreement about who pays more than their fair share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
RTH--no need to respond--the interchange isn't going in to service those retailers--that was the statement that was made by another poster--all other arguments aside--in fact the retail would be more easily accessed if it remained a regular, signalized intersection.
Did you read my post about this? I'm not claiming that the interchange will make it easier for any individual to access any given retailer. I'm saying that the main driver of traffic on hwy 5 in the near future is going to be big box retail. There's no denying it. And there's no denying that the flow through clappison's intersection was and is sufficient now. And the true 5/6 bottlenecks are downtown waterdown and morriston respectively.

So, while the ramps won't plop into a parking lot like in burlington, they are definitely being built due to traffic increases which are greatly due to car-centric, non-walkable retail development.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
As for markbarbera--that is exactly what I'm suggesting. My own feelings aside, the consensus here is that Flamborough should pay it's magic "fair share" including paying for services it doesn't receive. Therefore, I'm suggesting, assuming that to be the case, there is no argument from anyone in the "old" City, or any of the other former municipalities, if the "new" City invests in infrastructure in Flamborough, or anywhere else.
Again I just want to reiterate that we only brought up these infrastructure projects to make a point about how ridiculous flamborough's general idea of "pay for what you use" is.

That being said, I'd support pay-for-what-you-use any day because I'd save a hell of a lot on my taxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom View Post
Regardless, I believe the funding formula is 50/50 with the MTO...am I correct? If so, I'm technically paying for it too, even though it's no where near my current residence.
hehe but you are ok with it because clappison's interchange is a provincially significant project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 3:32 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,655
I'm a bit leery of jumping back into this thread, but I want to make a comment about the increased traffic on Highway 6. Indeed one can say some of it is sprawl, but I think a portion just comes from the fact that Hamilton, KW, Cambridge and Guelph are all growing communities and that 6 is one of the main connections between them. I live in a apartment downtown and a couple of times a month I'll drive to Cambridge or Guelph, mostly to visit friends, occasionally for work. Is that sprawl related, or the fact that even if these communities got rid of sprawl and everyone moved into an apartment building, there would still be a lot of traffic between them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 3:42 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,002
Hwy 6 is insanely busy, and eventually it will be controlled access freeway all the way from the 403 to 401. There is also a bypass for Morriston in the works that will connect to the Hanlon Parkway section instead of interlining 6 with the 401.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 1:14 AM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
5 is important because in combination with 8 it's supposed to be a route to KW.
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 4:11 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamiltonguy View Post
5 is important because in combination with 8 it's supposed to be a route to KW.
In its heyday yeah, before the 401 and 403.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 6:10 PM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millstone View Post
In its heyday yeah, before the 401 and 403.
I'm afraid you're wrong on that count. Since there is no North South Freeway between the 403 and 401 (and the cities along their routes) west of the 403 in Peel, Highway 5/8 remains an important route.

In fact when many other single digit highways were downloaded Highway (albeit only between 6 and 8) and Highway 8 (from K-W to highway 5) were kept as provincial highways.
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 7:05 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamiltonguy View Post
I'm afraid you're wrong on that count. Since there is no North South Freeway between the 403 and 401 (and the cities along their routes) west of the 403 in Peel, Highway 5/8 remains an important route.

In fact when many other single digit highways were downloaded Highway (albeit only between 6 and 8) and Highway 8 (from K-W to highway 5) were kept as provincial highways.
Most of hwy 5 was downloaded. The section you're talking about isnt really a highway anymore--busy as hell, yes--but it functions more like an urban arterial route now, ie: a city street. You're crazy to travel any distance on 5 now, it's heavily used for local traffic though. Hwy 6 & 8, however, are primarily used for intercity travel, though 8 is not really that busy.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 8:12 PM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Most of hwy 5 was downloaded. The section you're talking about isnt really a highway anymore--busy as hell, yes--but it functions more like an urban arterial route now, ie: a city street. You're crazy to travel any distance on 5 now, it's heavily used for local traffic though. Hwy 6 & 8, however, are primarily used for intercity travel, though 8 is not really that busy.
Urban arterial? You're talking about the road east from Highway 6 right?

Because west from highway 6 (the non downloaded part) highway 5 is decidedly not urban. I'd like to point out that it doesn't even go to any intra-city destinations from Waterdown. So its pretty imposible for all the traffic to be intra-city traffic.

Unless the 424 is built, Highway 5 will still be a significant provincial highway (albeit neither 5 nor 8 will be as busy as 6)
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 8:35 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,002
I am talking about west of hwy 6 too. Not too many people doing long hauls on that road, I would wager most of the traffic is made up of workers and trucks going to the quarries, people going to Flamboro downs, Flambourough residents heading into Dundas and Waterdown to run errands, etc..
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.