Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

Now I have no doubt this would be incredibly hurtful and unfair to some regional engineers, but this is my perception after visiting numerous PICs and having this experience. Yes, they may feel differently, and some may even act differently, but this is my experience broadly.

I have to admit that when I hear some of the things I’ve heard people suggest at PICs, I would be pretty jaded as an engineer. I’ve heard some pretty lunatic ideas. For example, I don’t remember if I noticed this at a meeting or only in the letters to the editor, but the idea of building the entire LRT as an elevated system (because it would be so much cheaper, or some such) is in this category. Note: the general concept of elevated sections is not lunatic, but pretending that it would be cheaper is.

On the other hand, any job that involves meeting with the public comes with a broad spectrum of experiences. Customer service people at every retail store are required to cheerfully handle returns and take complaints even though some of the people who come through the door need refresher courses in basic logic, courtesy, and fairness. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask engineers to actually engage with the ideas presented and use some creativity and actual critical thinking to evaluate them, rather than just smiling and nodding and ultimately ignoring them.

There is support for this view from examples like the Traynor crossing, where it is indisputable (because it’s been built finally) that a mistake was made; and furthermore it’s equally indisputable (due to the existence of Google Maps) that a proper study would have determined the need for the crossing before construction began. In other words, at least some necessary public input has in fact been ignored by those whose job it is to take it into serious account.

Yup, I generally agree. I still take exception to the Traynor crossing being found in a "proper study"...but that originates from the idea of what "proper" study is.  I think most here that a proper study should include the needs of all users of any infrastructure, but in the region, it generally does not. You are assuming that the region would have considered a significant number of people walking somewhere as justification to implement infrastructure for walking.

That being said, I agree with the rest, we should expect better, but I do acknowledge that it would be extremely difficult to get the Traynor viewpoint visible in a PIC, again, the people it impacts the most are the least likely to be at a PIC...some individuals/organizations are better at getting input from these groups, but it isn't trivial, it takes both will and skill.