Comment 51686

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted November 16, 2010 at 21:18:39

Sean, I'm going to try and respond to your post as politely as I can. Just so that you have some background on me, know that I drive in Hamilton for a living between Bay and Fruitland and between Burlington Street and the escarpment. I try to plan each day so that I'm only in one area of the city each day.

You said...

"We have surrounded the city with highways - spent billions under the guise of removing traffic (especially trucks) from the core, and spurring development in faraway business parks - and it hasn't happened yet".

It is unclear what you are referring to when you say 'it' hasn't happened yet. I'm going to guess that you mean there is still traffic (especially trucks) in the core? If that is the case, you are supporting Pxtl's point that the "road ring" is not effective or useful for a lot of traffic. As Pxtly effectively (to me anyway) points out there are many barriers to our cities roadways and there are no highways close to the core to help move traffic from one end to another. Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Toronto all have the QEW (and other hwys). We have Burlington Street.

You say that traffic which originates and has a destination outside the core should not be driving through the core. I agree with you on this point. I'm not sure that anyway was disagreeing with you on this. I can't remember anyone suggesting otherwise earlier. Who are you arguing with on this point?

Who said anything about driving around the city being an impossible chore? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. No one, anywhere that I can remember even hinted at it being difficult to drive around the city.

Okay, so it's not a one way street that you think is killing the city. You think that moving cars through the city is killing the city? My response hasn't changed. REALLY!? Do you really believe that? I'm not the only one that will tell you that there are much bigger problems. In fact most cities do exactly what Hamilton does. It tries to move traffic as efficiently (within reason) as possible. New York of all places is made up almost exclusively of one way streets and has lights which are synced to move traffic as quickly as possible. Sure, cars can't speed because of the volume of cars on the road, but let's be honest. Whether lights are synched or not and whether or not streets are one way or two way, in Hamilton, the idiots on the road who drive unsafely are going to speed regardless.

You said... "Ask anyone who lives or works near (or worse, on) these urban freeways. It is absolute crap". Weren't you getting on Pixtl's case about hyperbole? Urban Freeway? It's a street where most cars drive between 55 and 60 km/h. Should it be slowed to an average of 50-55 probably, but don't exagerate and pretend there is some crazy 'urban freeway' slicing through Hamilton. The people who live and work on these one way streets who think it's crap should be reminded that they live/work in a city. Cities are busy and loud places. There is room to make certain areas of the city quieter and less busy, but in order for a city to be a city, there will always be areas which will be busy and loud. I dislike loud and busy so I'd be really happy if that wasn't so which is why I choose not to live in the core.

"Sorry that I don't think it's appropriate for residents of the core to sacrifice quality of life for the convenience of through traffic".

What do you mean by "through traffic". What about non-through traffic? You're distorting the facts. Residents of the core don't have to live or play on the streets in question. The vast majority of the core is not on a "urban freeway".

You said "We have built our entire traffic management system to encourage one thing - getting through the city as fast as possible in a car. Not into the city. Not from place to place within the city. But clean across it from one end to the other with no regard for what's in between".

We obviously have very different views on Hamilton's traffic management system. You've somehow decided that it is possible to move a car quickly across the city, but not within the city. This last statement of yours proves how you are distorting facts in an attempt to bolster your argument.

As I mentioned earlier, I drive WITHIN the city every day, all day, and being able to get from PLACE TO PLACE within the city is one of the things that is unique to Hamilton that I LOVE. I absolutely dread having to drive in Burlington or Oakville. Besides housing prices, Hamilton's traffic and lack of congestion was THE biggest factor in why I chose to move here and it remains the biggest factor in why I choose to work here and why I choose to shop here. If Hamilton decides to make driving here less efficient, I have no reason to want to work here, am just as likely to shop elsewhere and am more likely to move away.

You said "Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make your point valid". You are making things up again. I never pretended that it doesn't happen. In fact, I stated that it COULD and does happen. I don't need to pretend it doesn't happen for my point to be valid. You saying that I'm pretending something (which I'm not) doesn't make my point UNvalid! I'm trying hard to be polite here.

"Your point about slowing traffic down causing more gasoline usage is factually incorrect". At this point of your post, I was honestly (this isn't meant as a rude insult) starting to question your reading comprehension skills. Again, you're making stuff up. My point was the OPPOSITE of what you are saying. My point is that making traffic move less efficiently uses more gas which is factually correct.

"You made a point about removing trees and removing parking and widening lanes having a result in fewer fatal collisions. This is demonstrably false despite the fact that it goes against what you consider to be common sense". Demonstrably false? Okay.. it is ALSO demonstrably TRUE. See http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/98133/ch02/c... where it says..

"Generally it has been found that accident rates decrease when lane and shoulder widths increase. The report by Zegeer et al. (1986) on the effect of cross-section for two-lane rural roads indicated that a paved shoulder widening of 2 feet per side reduces accidents by 16%, while reports of Miaou et al. (1993) and Zegeer et al. (1986) found reductions of 8% and 6.6%, respectively". Yes, that is for "two lane rural" roads and not for multi lane urban roads. Statistics are statistics and they all need to be analyzed carefully. If I had a pedestrian or car jump in front of me unexpectedly, personally I'd prefer a wider lane so I had a better chance of avoiding them regardless of what the statistics say.

If you're sick of hearing people crank up their tunes and hearing the sounds of cars and trucks, you are living in the worst place I can think of. You made an unwise choice in where you chose to live.

I have a better idea than standing on Cannon street to talk about stuff. How about I use Cannon street to get to your place quickly and efficiently so that we can have a drink at Hess? Come on, use your brain.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds