07-29-2019, 05:01 PM
(07-29-2019, 04:51 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(07-29-2019, 04:20 PM)creative Wrote: This turned out really nice considering how the complainers jumped all over this before it was complete.
To be fair, that looks nothing like the original proposal, which didn't include the asphalt component and was therefore terrible cycling infra.
Also to be fair, the “complainers” are well justified in being skeptical of anything the City or Region does around cycling infrastructure. When is the last time the final result was significantly better than what people feared halfway through construction?
Indeed, even in this particular case, the very fact that the trail has been moved is because active transportation infrastructure is not thought of as important. The development could have been done as two triangular buildings on either side of the pre-existing trail, possibly with its exact route slightly adjusted (e.g., to straighten out the original railway curve). But instead, Council saw fit to agree to the developer’s request to detour a transportation route around their development. Would they have agreed to do that if the route in question was King St. instead of the Iron Horse Trail?