Two-way vs One-way: Wouldn't it make more sense...?

The hot topic at Raise the Hammer is 'Walkable Streets'. The 'two-way vs one-way' battle.

Hats off to Ryan & Gang...

But I can't help but feel that just like with other 'causes' that have been adopted over the years, Leo's Message is being lost:

"Sometimes it's not enough to be right."

Even understanding that it feels necessary at times to draw a line in the sand, to hunker down, to draw on all the other frustrations and disappointments that Life in Hamilton is capable of providing, I can't help but believe that this endeavour isn't quite being attempted as it might be in order to gain traction and get the result that its proponents crave: a more livable Hamilton, streets-wise.

I'm not in the opposite camp as them. I have long railed against 'The Main West Esplanade'. I can't stand Cannon. King and Main...? Well...

'Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.'

Not all one-way streets are 'bad'. I've walked some wonderful one-ways in my time, on two different continents and in three different countries. But the stridency against one-ways...'You're either with us, or against us!'...sets up a dynamic that most residents of the city...you know, the other 99% who aren't writing these articles, aren't commenting on them, and who may be reading them with only cursory interest if at all...likely find unpalatable. And this is the salient point that 'some' in the vanguard are missing. Not whether or not the statement is correct, but more how this tack is received.

I saw it with 'health foods' going back to the 60s and 70s; adherents were seen as 'unusual'. (I'm being kind.) As well as jogging. Any 'divergent' notion is considered with a fair amount of cynicism. If it's being proselytized, such as, for instance, abstinence on the part of the Christian Right in the US, then people get their hackles up, their dander up, and um... Draw lines in the sand, hunker down...

Hmm...

The message I'm reading...and this includes Terry Cooke's essay from the June edition of urbanicity that Raise the Hammer was able to re-publish yesterday...is that a) we made a mistake back in '56 when we converted our primary two-ways to one-way, b) they do not, in 2012, promote the city's vision of 'To be the best place to raise a child', and c) therefore, we must rid the city of one-way streets.

Oh, there's a ton of back-and-forths as to how that might be achieved, but some sound, cogent counter-points are being drowned out by the fervour...what I have previously labelled 'fomenting'...reducing the 'dialogue' to something less than a discussion, something more reminiscent of how the Tea Party in the US tends to handle things. 

Yeah, I know; 'How inflammatory of you!' Here's my wrist, give it a nice slap. 

That doesn't change the thrust of what I'm saying here: If you're going to try to get something as massive as converting one-ways across the city, I think a well-considered strategy as well as some reasonableness, some humility and some graciousness is probably a good idea. 

Again, 'Sometimes it's not enough to be right.'

I am an op-eds machine. I'm an observer, a commentaryist, all that. But I haven't crossed over into The Activists' camp, more attached to an issue and its successful remedying than actually wanting to create dialogue, incorporating previously-unvoiced voices. I may never do that, I don't think that's what I want to be doing. I'm a writer, I'm geared to produce and promote communication, so being a 'publisher' is in fact my 'calling' within this arena. So because I'm not so much 'issue-oriented', I like to believe I've retained some of my 'regular people' take on issues. Sometimes. 

Most people don't see this 'two-way vs one-way' as the seminal issue that its proponents do. (At the same time acknowledging that this 'proponents' list is getting longer amongst the energized intelligentsia of the city, from RTH out to urbanicity, from Graham Crawford and the 'Dissidents' (Hamilton Chapter) crowd to those impassioned about the HWDSB imbroglio, to City movers and shakers, to various NAs...) It's simply not on their radar. Either their lives aren't being affected by the realities of one-way life (or aren't aware of these), or they genuinely don't care. (The same can be applied regarding The Downtown Core; many, many people 'out there' don't give a flying- They just don't care about the Downtown. And maybe they don't have to. But...and here's the rub...they're voters. And rightly or wrongly, councillors don't want to risk ruffling the feathers of those who might re-install them in 2014...or be seen as getting involved in something gigantic that appears to be frivolous. (Again, 'Sometimes it's not enough to be right.') 

And to me, this point seems to be missed by many within the clamour of the evangelizing. 

The other aspect of this that I find a little disturbing is that emphasis is being placed on congruency of conversion with the installation of LRT. 

Right. If there's funding. 

If two-way streets are that important, then I believe that the argument for them should not be so connected to -or predicated on- getting LRT as it's been imagined into Hamilton. 

So here's my suggestion to 'The Cause': 

Declare a vision. 

What you would like to see happen. 

You know, an independent, not-regurgitated-version of a previous City planning paper but something simple and all your own. There are more than enough good minds in The Cause to make this a pretty simple task. 

Yes, there have been endless articles on RTH, but I'm not talking about directing people to "read 'em, they're all there, they'll tell you everything you need to know!" I'm talking about a straightforward, pithy vision statement. Period. 

Then come up with a plan. Again, not just a re-telling of what some other City effort that you believe should have been implemented by now, but something that the average Hamiltonian can see relates to what's being discussed right now, with current references, and is independent of some consultant's report or City initiative, no matter how thorough or well-intentioned these exterior references are. (That in itself would be a major challenge to 'some'. "But Jane Jacobs said...", they'll begin to insist. News flash: The average person doesn't care what Jane Jacobs said, even if they knew who Jane Jacobs was, and frankly, most people who are not engaged in this discussion as-of-yet find it insulting to have this approach taken. What the Hell is wrong with framing this 'sales job' as a 'personal' one rather than an academic one, anyway?!?)

Have an ultimate goal...but again, be very, very careful about how much attachment you apply to what you'd really, really like...without it being contingent on LRT...which is another thorny discussion unto itself...and find ways to show the average resident why going back to two-ways would be so beneficial to Hamiltonians as to warrant the effort and the cost. 

Penultimate in importance to me is focusing on one or two 'pilot' areas...as was done with James Street North...instead of going for the entire enchilada. It shouldn't be an 'all or nothing' proposition, regardless of what happened more than a half-century ago. Remember, that was a City-based initiative. We're talking about a community-driven initiative that the City should be acting on. 

But most importantly...and this is where I guess there's a vast difference of opinion between myself and many/most/all of the contributors at RTH, is the fact that this stuff has to be sold in the communities. 

This is not an effort that should be sold to councillors or Council as a whole. 

Again: In order for any degree of success in reversing the one-way conversions of '56 to unfold, I believe that the impetus must come from the communities, that it's only going to be a broad-based groundswell, a 'sea change' in how the average resident sees their city that will enable The Cause towards getting some semblance of what it's so impassioned about attaining. 

Otherwise, I fear we're going down a road that's only going to result in the psychic core of Hamilton once more being gutted, and our 'legacy malaise' will be all the more entrenched, making it all the more difficult to muster what's required for the next battle. Such as the 'schooling in Hamilton' fight, the one over AEGD, ward boundary reform, etc. 

You only get so many kicks at the can before the kick's been disappointed right out of you, because...

'Sometimes it's not enough to be right.'

M Adrian Brassington