Comment 92599

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 25, 2013 at 12:40:45

Trucks are always allowed to travel by the most direct route to local deliveries. It seems unlikely that this truck was making a delivery to the two block stretch between King and Main, but I suppose it is possible. Nevertheless, the driver should have been able to navigate properly through the turn, or know that it was too tight for his truck.

In Hamilton, most arterial streets are designated "truck routes" by default which allows trucks of any size (including 18 wheelers) to use them for long distance travel, e.g. using Main St as a "shortcut" from the 403 to the QEW Niagara instead of using the freeway ring road (Linc/RHVP or QEW across the skyway bridge). It is the designation of residential and commercial downtown streets as truck routes for long distance transport that bothers many people. The incident of a truck losing a roll of steel on King St is one good example of why this shouldn't be allowed (this truck could have taken Burlington street to the QEW!).

Interestingly, Hamilton does not even seem to be following the guidance from the Ontario Trucking Association in designated so many streets as truck routes: http://www.ontruck.org/imispublic/News_R...

"“The first question municipal planners must ask is whether the existence of a truck route is needed in the municipality,” said Laskowski. “If freight is moving efficiently through a municipality without issue, the development of a truck route is probably not warranted. However, if it is determined that a truck route would be helpful in addressing traffic challenges, there are key issues and stakeholders that must be considered if a truck route is to be successful including clearly defining the problem to be resolved at the outset.”"

With the Burlington St, QEW, Linc/RHVP most of these urban core truck routes are not warranted!

When the RHVP was being proposed one of the arguments in favour was that it would enable the city to take 18 wheelers off downtown streets like King and Main. That hasn't happened.

And the claim that a $75 license fee pays for the full costs of road construction, maintenance, policing, emergency services and the direct and indirect social costs of accidents and pollution is ridiculous (and, of course, most cyclists are also drivers). As pointed out many times on this site, a federal study showed that all income from drivers (directly or indirectly) does not come near to covering the direct building and maintenance costs of roads (let alone the indirect societal costs). Hamilton will spend $100 million this year from property tax revenue on its road system ... paid by drivers and non-drivers alike.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-09-25 12:43:12

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds