Quote:The next generation  is just going to rip it out! So don't bother touching the environment

Quote:Wasting  money trying to force people not to drive their car

Quote:By having rail thru the downtown cores you impeded thousands of cars and raise travel times and exhaust output. Either stick to the very outskirts and industrial areas or cancel the project.

Quote:You can avoid most the issues by having a gondola system, see #3

Quote:Consider a gondola system for the Cambridge portion of the lrt, somewhat the the capital of Boliva (La Paz) has, see video of it here. https://youtu.be/fUL011b7z2s

Quote:Have you considered that with an increase in electric vehicles there actually be an increase in the total number of cars on the road because they are considered environmentally friendly.  Why would I walk to a bus to get to the LRT to get to bus when I can drive in an environmentally friendly vehicle and arrive quickly in nice weather and bad..

(05-02-2021, 06:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "I don't like investing in transit because I would NEVER use it, ....well...maybe it would be convenient to take to the airport, so clearly it makes sense to build a high capacity transit service to an airport with 3 flights on a busy day".

(05-02-2021, 07:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(05-02-2021, 06:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "I don't like investing in transit because I would NEVER use it, ....well...maybe it would be convenient to take to the airport, so clearly it makes sense to build a high capacity transit service to an airport with 3 flights on a busy day".

If you build it they will come! 

Quote:We don't want this in Cambridge

Quote:The whole city does not want this the residents will fight this every step of the way after we watched you destroy the bit of heritage culture waterloo had left and only provided the service to part of the town cutting off most the regular buss service for the half that isn't on its direct route

Quote:I think going against public opinion on this train will be the death of Cambridge

Quote:(Kitchener/Waterloo) ...from either city, you can travel to the Hospital, Cambridge,, lets bypass the people and take you to the mall,,
and no where near the Hospital,,, who ever has come up with this route should find another job,, btw

(05-02-2021, 07:57 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: Was there a station to station travel time estimate given as part of this phase?

Quote:Considering these significant uncertainties and the controversy involving the proposed route, we think a ten year hiatus where no further money is spent on a fixed route LRT would give the planners and elected politicians the opportunity to evaluate the following:

(05-03-2021, 02:49 PM)ac3r Wrote: Honestly...I wouldn't even waste your time reading this junk. Public feedback like this is rarely taken into consideration, but they have to pretend to care. Planners tend to know what they're doing when designing something of this magnitude and unless there was some absolutely massive step they failed to consider (which rarely happens), they don't really care what random people think - especially when they're getting big brain suggestions like building a gondola system or that they're "Wasting  money trying to force people not to drive their car".

(05-03-2021, 02:49 PM)ac3r Wrote: Honestly...I wouldn't even waste your time reading this junk. Public feedback like this is rarely taken into consideration, but they have to pretend to care. Planners tend to know what they're doing when designing something of this magnitude and unless there was some absolutely massive step they failed to consider (which rarely happens), they don't really care what random people think - especially when they're getting big brain suggestions like building a gondola system or that they're "Wasting  money trying to force people not to drive their car".

(05-03-2021, 03:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I can’t help but wonder if this attitude isn’t exactly the problem with planners. Pretending to care and assuming that they know what they are doing when they clearly do not (at least, not all the time) are not the route to optimal projects.

While it is a fact that many of the comments are B.S. (to the extent that something as imprecise as that can be a fact), there are bound to be missed local context or thought provoking ideas in the feedback, sadly mixed in. As an expert in my own domain, this is my experience with client feedback, and I’ve seen enough to be certain that it is the same in the architecture/urban planning realm.

(05-03-2021, 03:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(05-03-2021, 02:49 PM)ac3r Wrote: Honestly...I wouldn't even waste your time reading this junk. Public feedback like this is rarely taken into consideration, but they have to pretend to care. Planners tend to know what they're doing when designing something of this magnitude and unless there was some absolutely massive step they failed to consider (which rarely happens), they don't really care what random people think - especially when they're getting big brain suggestions like building a gondola system or that they're "Wasting  money trying to force people not to drive their car".

I can’t help but wonder if this attitude isn’t exactly the problem with planners. Pretending to care and assuming that they know what they are doing when they clearly do not (at least, not all the time) are not the route to optimal projects.

While it is a fact that many of the comments are B.S. (to the extent that something as imprecise as that can be a fact), there are bound to be missed local context or thought provoking ideas in the feedback, sadly mixed in. As an expert in my own domain, this is my experience with client feedback, and I’ve seen enough to be certain that it is the same in the architecture/urban planning realm.

(05-03-2021, 04:29 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(05-03-2021, 03:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I can’t help but wonder if this attitude isn’t exactly the problem with planners. Pretending to care and assuming that they know what they are doing when they clearly do not (at least, not all the time) are not the route to optimal projects.

While it is a fact that many of the comments are B.S. (to the extent that something as imprecise as that can be a fact), there are bound to be missed local context or thought provoking ideas in the feedback, sadly mixed in. As an expert in my own domain, this is my experience with client feedback, and I’ve seen enough to be certain that it is the same in the architecture/urban planning realm.

I don't think there are many missed ideas here to be honest. Planners are highly educated people, they aren't waiting on some random nobody to point out major problems...that's why they study this. It's all considered before hand, though indeed they may miss some issues (in our case, one big complaint was accessibility of stations or pedestrian access as danbrotherston mentioned). In architecture (which is my field) that's why we do things like shadow, aesthetic, economic or environmental etc studies. We don't need some old man down the street to write an angry email telling us that a modern building doesn't look like something built in 1930 or that we ought to dig up the soil and test it because a gas station was there in 1952. If someone had a truly thought provoking idea, it would have been thought of already or brought to attention in some other fashion, rather than through some shitty website where random NIMBYs can pseudoanonymously air their grievances.

(05-03-2021, 04:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-03-2021, 03:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I can’t help but wonder if this attitude isn’t exactly the problem with planners. Pretending to care and assuming that they know what they are doing when they clearly do not (at least, not all the time) are not the route to optimal projects.

While it is a fact that many of the comments are B.S. (to the extent that something as imprecise as that can be a fact), there are bound to be missed local context or thought provoking ideas in the feedback, sadly mixed in. As an expert in my own domain, this is my experience with client feedback, and I’ve seen enough to be certain that it is the same in the architecture/urban planning realm.

Soliciting useful and relevant feedback is a skillset in itself, not everyone (few even) have it. It is a job which is made much easier (but absolutely still not trivial) when those you are soliciting feedback are working in good faith.

(05-03-2021, 05:00 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-03-2021, 04:29 PM)ac3r Wrote: I don't think there are many missed ideas here to be honest. Planners are highly educated people, they aren't waiting on some random nobody to point out major problems...that's why they study this. It's all considered before hand, though indeed they may miss some issues (in our case, one big complaint was accessibility of stations or pedestrian access as danbrotherston mentioned). In architecture (which is my field) that's why we do things like shadow, aesthetic, economic or environmental etc studies. We don't need some old man down the street to write an angry email telling us that a modern building doesn't look like something built in 1930 or that we ought to dig up the soil and test it because a gas station was there in 1952. If someone had a truly thought provoking idea, it would have been thought of already or brought to attention in some other fashion, rather than through some shitty website where random NIMBYs can pseudoanonymously air their grievances.

I dunno...have you seen Phase 1 ION?

While you might argue that some things weren't "missed"--that only bad choices were made i.e., not providing pedestrian access to transit stations. But other things absolutely were missed (Traynor access).