Comment 111029

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted April 23, 2015 at 11:39:37 in reply to Comment 111027

It comes down to what you value more: the ability to drive through Hamilton quickly and comfortably with a minimum of disruption (which is what some Hamiltonians brag about).

Or, to have a street network that makes it easy and intuitive to reach local destinations, helps local businesses thrive and enhances liveability for local residents (by reducing car speeds and volumes through their neighbourhoods and making the streets more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists).

That is basically the argument. No one disputes that multi-lane one way streets with timed lights do indeed move traffic very efficiently at high speeds right through the lower city. But an increasing number of Hamiltonians have come to believe that sacrificing everything else to this goal has been and continues to be very detrimental to the rest of what is needed to make a city attractive and successful.

And Hamilton is not unique in this shift: many other North American cities have reverted to two-way in their downtown with positive results (e.g. Louisville which was described in a recent Spec article).

And, of course, Hamiltonians who love the ease and convenience of speeding through the lower city do not advocate for multi-lane one-ways in their own neighbourhoods. So there is a strong aspect of hypocrisy and inequality in the discussion.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-04-23 11:41:31

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds