New Campaign: Make West Mountain One-Way Today

[ryan_mcgreal]

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1060/

Terry Whitehead, councillor for Ward 8 (West Mountain), has come under criticism for voting against the downtown transportation master plan because it includes two-way street conversions.

In his emails justifying his decision, he writes, "To suggest that two way traffic is more pedestrian friendly than a one way is not a position I subscribe too," and adds that "traffic calming measures" can "certainly" make one-way streets "safer for pedestrians than a two-way street."

He also notes that Quebec City has one-way streets and "is vibrant and continues to flourish."

Because we want what's best for the city, Raise the Hammer is launching a new campaign: Make the West Mountain One-Way Today.

We propose the following street conversions for the West Mountain:

* One-way southbound on Upper James (connecting from downtown via Claremont Access)
* One-way northbound on West Fifth (connecting to downtown via James Mtn Rd. Access)
* One-way southbound on Garth (connecting from downtown via Beckett Dr. Access)
* One-way northbound on Upper Paradise (connecting to downtown via Scenic Dr. and Beckett Dr. Access)

Between the major thoroughfares, the residential streets can also be converted to one-way. As Whitehead explains, this is more pedestrian friendly for the residents:

* Northbound on Rice Ave. / Sanatorium Rd.
* Southbound on W. 35th St.
* Northbound on W. 34th St.
* Southbound on W. 33rd St.
* Southbound on W. 32nd St.
* Northbound on W. 31st St.
* Southbound on W. 28th St.
* Northbound on W. 27th St.
* Southbound on W. 26th St.
* Northbound on W. 25th St.
* Southbound on W. 24th St.
* Northbound on W. 23rd St.
* Southbound on W. 22nd St.
* Northbound on W. 21st St.
* Northbound on W. 19th St.
* Southbound on W. 18th St
* Northbound on W. 17th St.
* Southbound on W. 16th St.
* One-way counter-clockwise loop on Branwood Cres.
* Northbound on W. 15th St.
* One-way counter-clockwise on Columbia Dr.
* One-way counter-clockwise on Laurier Ave. / Laurier Cres.
* Southbound on West 4th St.
* Northbound on West 3rd St.
* Southbound on West 2nd St.
* Northbound on West 1st St.

Since one-way streets are safer for pedestrians and don't hurt vibrancy, we also advocate converting the West Mountain's east-west streets to one-way, as follows:

* One-way eastbound on Scenic Dr.
* One-way westbound on Angela Ave.
* One-way westbound on Price Ave.
* One-way eastbound on Leslie Ave.
* One-way westbound on Benamere Ave.
* One-way eastbound on Elmwood Ave.
* One-way westbound on Sanatorium Rd.
* One-way eastbound on Mohawk Rd.
* One-way westbound on Hadeland Ave. / Darlington Dr. / Limeridge Rd.
* One-way eastbound on Upper Horning Rd. / Novoco Dr. / Gemini Dr. / Garrow Dr. / Brigadoon Dr.
* One-way westbound on Stone Church Rd.
* One-way eastbound on Rymal Rd.

The Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway is already a limited access urban expressway, so it does not need to be converted to one-way.

We are very excited at the potential for one-way street conversions on the West Mountain to improve pedestrian safety without harming vibrancy or economic development, and we look forward to hearing an enthusiastic endorsement from Councillor Whitehead on our plan to improve the safety and vibrancy of his ward.

Since Councillor Whitehead is unmoved by the widespread public opposition to one-way streets in downtown neighbourhoods that are already fortunate enough to have them, we fully expect that he will similarly ignore any opposition to one-way street conversions in his own West Mountain Ward.


EDIT: fixed spelling mistakes (thanks, Millstone).

[flar]

This is a pretty interesting exercise.

If you look at it seriously and think about the horrible impact it would have on the mountain it really shows, more than any argument, how bad the one way system is for downtown.

[Millstone]

Couple spelling mistakes but otherwise looks legit.

[DC83]

Great stuff, Ryan!

Have you emailed this to Council? Kinda scared some might think it's a good idea :s haha

[SteelTown]

West 5th has bike lanes now. Went from two lanes each way to a single single each way. I wish they would continue the bike lane along West 5th from Mohawk to Fennell. Currently there's no bike lanes around Mohawk College.

I used to cycle in neighbourhood roads to Mohawk instead of either West 5th or Garth.

[raisethehammer]

awesome Ryan.
Shows how friggin stupid and selfish these politicians really are.

[Jon Dalton]

Interesting that he should bring up Quebec in his defence of the one-way system.


All the one-way streets you see here are residential, one or two lanes, and lined with beautiful old buildings built to the street.

Major east/west corridors - Grande Allee, Rene-Levesque, Boul. Charest - are two way.

Rue St. Jean is one way BUT only 3 lanes and ample sidewalk space, and has become the city's most colourful, diverse, and vibrant strips. Pedestrians outnumber cars on a nice day. As far as one-ways go, it better resembles King William than it does Main or York.

Boulevard Charest, Quebec's answer to York Boulevard, is an expressway outside of the central city and looks like garbage anywhere outside of this map.

In addition to the stark differences in street layout, Quebec is 400 years old and has the architecture to show it - a city where preservation is the norm and if anything does come down, something goes back up and it's usually decent.

I could go on, but Quebec is obviously not a case for crosstown expressways. If anything, it's a good example of how to overbuild highways without ruining the core.

[raisethehammer]

Whitebread doesn't know what he's talking about.
If downtown Hamilton resembled downtown Quebec, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
He's an idiot.

[DC83]

Hey great stuff, Jon_Dalton! You should def email that to Whitehead and see what his response is:

twhitehead@hamilton.ca
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/...Councillor.htm

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

Whitebread doesn't know what he's talking about.
If downtown Hamilton resembled downtown Quebec, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
He's an idiot.

beat me to it.

[Jon Dalton]

I wouldn't even say he's an idiot, in fact his response highlights just how little the understanding of urban dynamics plays a role in decision making. This stuff should be worked out to a science, the same way they calculate traffic capacity. Maybe it is already, but most of us who live downtown understand it innately because we walk the streets every day.

My theory is 3 lanes one way, or 4 lanes two way, is the threshold before a street becomes inhospitable. Any more than that, it should be broken up by a grass median European style. The bigger a streetwall is proportional to the street width the more lanes it can withstand. Paris has huge one way streets, but then again they're chock full of 12 floor streetwalls giving a sense of enclosure.

Does anyone know the source of Whitehead's remarks so I can reference it in a letter? We shouldn't trash these guys so much because we might just be burning bridges. I was actually surprised at Ferguson's response to a letter I sent him earlier.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

We shouldn't trash these guys so much because we might just be burning bridges. I was actually surprised at Ferguson's response to a letter I sent him earlier.

Here, here. And calling someone a disparaging name is a sure way to never reach a solution/compromise.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I don't think it's fair (or constructive) to call Councillor Whitehead insulting names, but his claims about one-way vs. two-way streets are certainly not supported by the evidence. (And I do think it's quite instructive that he doesn't appear to support the one-way treatment for his own ward.)

This stuff should be worked out to a science, the same way they calculate traffic capacity. Maybe it is already, but most of us who live downtown understand it innately because we walk the streets every day.

Network dynamics are actually fairly well understood by mathematicians and systems theorists (i.e. people a lot smarter than me ). Look up Braess' Paradox, Downs-Thomson Paradox and Lewis-Mogridge Position.

In short, networks can be remarkably counterintuitive unless you understand their underlying dynamics. For example, adding another route to a traffic network can often make the system as a whole less rather than more efficient.

Further, the equilibrium between motorists and transit users (and between peak and off-peak drivers) adjusts when you add road capacity. If adding more peak driving capacity draws a corresponding number of people out of transit and into personal vehicles, overall traffic can remain the same or worsen.

In a more general sense, traffic tends to increase to meet the available supply of road space (i.e. induced demand). It explains how those cities that expend the most resources to accommodate traffic paradoxically suffer the most traffic, highest overall levels of air pollution, etc. It explains how in a city like Hamilton, more than half the total air pollution comes from vehicles despite a traffic system designed to minimize idling at any given intersection.

Optimizing the efficiency of a given road (a subsystem) can pessimize the traffic system as a whole because more people drive longer distances more frequently. That's why it's wrongheaded to try and maximize traffic flow-through (through timed lights, one-way streets, etc.) in the name of environmental concern.

The principle of induced demand is true in reverse, as well. Removing road capacity can leave traffic unchanged or even improve it by triggering shifts in how people choose to get around and where they choose to go. Certainly the traffic on James and John is not significantly worse than it was when they were one-way, though individual vehicles move more slowly.

Here's another counterintuitive property of traffic networks: the law of diminishing returns applies to added lanes on a given street. That is, doubling the lane capacity of a single road produces less than double the traffic carrying capacity. As you add more lanes, the marginal vehicle capacity per additional lane declines incrementally.

In other words, the downtown traffic network might well work more efficiently overall if all the streets were converted to straightforward two-way, for the simple reason that two streets with two lanes each can carry more cars than one street with four lanes.

[adam]

Here is Whitehead's canned response to any email you send him about 2 way conversion of streets:


Recently I visited and noted that a lot of roads in down town Quebec city are one way and it is vibrant and continues to flourish.

James south conversion to two way a number of years ago was. at a cost of over one million dollars to the taxpayers of this community and has resulted in zero tax growth or assessment. The city of Hamilton does not have deep financial pockets. It is my opinion that any significant expenditures should result in a financial return. This is not to suggest if we where flush in our finances I would not support such concepts.
There is no business case today and it is clear that staff cannot produce one.

To suggest that two way traffic is more pedestrian friendly than a one way is not a position I subscribe too.

One way can be designed to slow traffic with road calming measures and certainly be safer for pedestrians than a two way street. We can also reduce lanes on one ways and bump out the pedestrian sidewalk which would be a great approach.

If we are concerned about the environment, certainly congestion of traffic that may be created by the two way concept with more idling cars is a step backwards.

Some of the conversions have very little commercial zoned land and there fore the growth in assessment is very limited if it is to happen at all.

It is important if we are to alleviate the tax burden on residential taxpayers that we spent our money where the taxpayers of this community will see most benefit.

Terry

[Millstone]

Why did he single out James South?

[adam]

His argument states that only commercially zoned land should get any tax dollars. Of course the major exception is the redhill expressway that benefited residential almost exclusively. Of course, I am sure there were kickbacks from builders, etc. The system is corrupt.. the best we can do is keep voicing our opinions to the mayor and his council until they do something about it.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by Millstone

Why did he single out James South?

Because James South was already a somewhat successful stretch before two-way conversion (partly thanks to the vast amounts of Hospital staff). So not many 'new' businesses opened along this stretch since the conversion.

Had he used James North as an example, I'm sure his 'zero tax growth' claim would be false.

Hence why he took the easy way out... he wants to get his point across, and Avg Joe's will be like "Oh ya... Whitehead's right about James South... two-way streets don't work!"

[Jon Dalton]

Never mind that James South is almost as bad after the conversion. The sidewalks are insufficient and there's no buffer zone between you and the traffic. Unless you count the steel bars one one side of the street. They changed the technicality of the street but not the principle.

[raisethehammer]

right on Dalton.
Also, new shops have opened - EcoDeli, Simply Devine, Spotted Pig, Boo's Bistro.

[SteelTown]

What about that building on James South with new restaurant (or do it close?) and residential units? Think it's called the Foster building.

Powerpoint Communications moved to James South after the conversion and did renovation to the building, a new salon opened up at the same time. There was a big party for the opening. After the conversion the area named James South as "The District", I don't think its BIA though.

But you get the point, a lot of progress happened after the conversion of James South.