(10-05-2018, 12:30 PM)Spokes Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 10:17 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'll preface this with saying that this is my opinion, based only on my observations in the past little while, and no comprehensive research.  I think the whole council is pretty weak.  They talk a good talk about some of the issues I care about (with a few exceptions), but generally take little substantial action.  Clarke was on the recent transportation master plan and I found that plan to be pretty devoid of strong actions.  Was pretty much business as usual, build a few mediocre bike lanes and bike paths, consider some more protection, nothing in constrained corridors, no hard choices.  When it comes to decisions like Weber St. they were unwilling to make any compromise to even the impression of speedy vehicle travel, in order to support safer infra. Others on committee have supported sharrows as infrastructure.

Overall, I'm unlikely to vote for any incumbent as a result.

(One exception to the "good talk, no execution" rule I know of would be Sean Strickland who was pretty explicit that cycling/pedestrians were second fiddle to cars.)

I think a lot of councils in a lot of cities can be described this way.  How often do you see a council that in it's four year term makes RADICAL changes.  Even if needed.

Municipal politics seems to play the slow game.  Sadly.

(10-05-2018, 08:42 AM)Spokes Wrote: To focus on the ranked ballot system, the regional election is the PERFECT system to try this out.  They're foolish for not doing it.  With multiple people being elected, why not try.

(10-05-2018, 01:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 12:30 PM)Spokes Wrote: I think a lot of councils in a lot of cities can be described this way.  How often do you see a council that in it's four year term makes RADICAL changes.  Even if needed.

Municipal politics seems to play the slow game.  Sadly.

I mean, it's really hard to say how "radical" these changes are.  Progressive for Waterloo but regressive for Vancouver, is that really radical?

(10-05-2018, 01:29 PM)Spokes Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 01:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, it's really hard to say how "radical" these changes are.  Progressive for Waterloo but regressive for Vancouver, is that really radical?

Very true.  Radical was the wrong word.  But being willing to take risks and push for change. Maybe radical compared to some of what we've seen

(10-05-2018, 01:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 01:29 PM)Spokes Wrote: Very true.  Radical was the wrong word.  But being willing to take risks and push for change. Maybe radical compared to some of what we've seen

Yeah...everything is relative right. Certainly some would call these changes radical.

And if I'm entirely fair, the region is already 'radical' in some ways, the LRT and roundabouts are examples. But in others, it's totally regressive...like in road safety, cycling, and walking. Maybe council just used up all their political will on that one project.

(10-05-2018, 02:12 PM)Spokes Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 01:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah...everything is relative right. Certainly some would call these changes radical.

And if I'm entirely fair, the region is already 'radical' in some ways, the LRT and roundabouts are examples. But in others, it's totally regressive...like in road safety, cycling, and walking. Maybe council just used up all their political will on that one project.

But shouldn't those be kind of important.  I know.  You're the choir, I'm the preacher.

(10-06-2018, 07:20 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Few people will be driving to the LRT.  I think the weak walking connections and missing cycling connections to LRT stations is probably the biggest limiting factor on its future success.

(10-06-2018, 11:57 AM)tomh009 Wrote:

(10-06-2018, 07:20 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Few people will be driving to the LRT.  I think the weak walking connections and missing cycling connections to LRT stations is probably the biggest limiting factor on its future success.

Cycling connections, yes.

But are the walking connections weak in general? I recognize there are a few problem areas but in my mind those are the exception rather than the rule. Between Ottawa/Borden and the universities, I can't really think of any significant issues.

(10-06-2018, 12:55 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: A large number of stations have at least one approach that wasn't thought through for approaching pedestrians.

Off the top of my head:
Willis Way - no way to access the north end of the platform from the east without a significant detour
GRH - no way to access the platform from the north
UW - access to south end of the platform the from the east requires a significant detour (many will simply walk up the tracks or between the tracks)
...

(10-06-2018, 02:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Fair enough, yes, those could be better. But I still don't see them as serious enough to actually deter people from using the LRT.

(10-06-2018, 02:39 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The first two of these are so absurd that I almost think it’s not so much that there is no access, but rather that the access is inaccessible, specifically to people requiring level access. I mean all that’s missing at either location is a curb cut and maybe some paint to indicate a pedestrian crossing; certainly I expect people to access those stations at the ends we’re talking about (I refuse to call them the “wrong” ends, because that would be obviously incorrect).

At UW, if the south end had just been done the same as the north it would be fine — path between the tracks to the next crossing. This would also avoid LRT passengers having to walk down the multi-use trail, which is going to be a mess whenever passengers have just gotten off the LRT.

(10-14-2018, 06:42 AM)Spokes Wrote: What's everyone's take on the four Kitchener seats?  A couple of them are slam dunks for me, but I'm not sure after that.  There's a couple hard No's, but a lot of uncertainty in the middle.