Road design, transportation and walkability

[embe]

... Not seeing anything shady here other than some IP being protected by the people that are paying, for said design.

No, that’s BS. We’re talking about public infrastructure that we all have to live with. We’re entitled to understand the decision process that goes into designing it. Also, there is no way that whatever proprietary model (or whatever) they’ve built is enough better than what everybody else is doing that it’s worth giving up transparency for access to the model.

Yeah, I'm not so sure of that.  It's a nice thought, but usually contacts are between two parties, third parties/subcontractors/consultants all covered under a blanket clause in a NDA/CDA and if you're lucky some of it might show up on the public record after the fact (once the tender has been awarded).  Sooo, not sure what part of the design/decision process the general pulbic would be privy to?  Maybe I missed something, like an variance application, that the people in the area would have been invited to attend? 

No disrespect, just trying to understand where the design transparency is warranted in this case

[ijmorlan]

No, that’s BS. We’re talking about public infrastructure that we all have to live with. We’re entitled to understand the decision process that goes into designing it. Also, there is no way that whatever proprietary model (or whatever) they’ve built is enough better than what everybody else is doing that it’s worth giving up transparency for access to the model.

Yeah, I'm not so sure of that.  It's a nice thought, but usually contacts are between two parties, third parties/subcontractors/consultants all covered under a blanket clause in a NDA/CDA and if you're lucky some of it might show up on the public record after the fact (once the tender has been awarded).  Sooo, not sure what part of the design/decision process the general pulbic would be privy to?  Maybe I missed something, like an variance application, that the people in the area would have been invited to attend? 

No disrespect, just trying to understand where the design transparency is warranted in this case

We’re talking about road design, right? So this is the public realm, not the inside of some factory or detailed design of a data centre. We all have to live in the resulting space. So if the engineers claim that 4 lanes are required, or that only so much time can be given to pedestrian crossing, or whatever, we’re entitled to understand why they are saying that, and challenge the model and the assumptions and inputs that go into the model. This is especially true when planning has had so many failures over the last century or so. Remember, all the best places to live, the ones that keep getting more expensive and forcing people of modest means to move out into the auto-dependent suburbs, were built before planning and zoning.

Again, if by using a proprietary model we could get some absolutely amazing result that was impossible without it, it might be a different story: our right to know might be trumped by the amazing result. The cost involved and other alternatives also come into play. Consider if a government website has a Google search link. In an ideal world, I would say that the public has a right to understand how the website works, including the search feature on it. In the real world however, the ability to just throw a Google search link on the website for free provides so much utility that I don’t care that I’m not allowed to know the details of the algorithm.

But with road design, the models keep pushing road widenings, and we’re suspicious of the actual need, for good reasons. So it’s very on-point to want to know what assumptions are being used, and how the model calculates the results. There are many existing roads built with 4 lanes that clearly don’t need that many lanes.

It’s actually a weird situation: if I were in charge, the Region would have few to no 4 lane roads and way more transit. It would be just as prosperous, probably more prosperous, than it is, and much safer. But even if we take it as a given that roads should be widened to take their traffic, we still have many unjustified 4 lane roads. Maybe they’re not doing it any more, because of the models; but it sure looks like the engineers just want to do road widenings, and a proprietary model is a great way of avoiding informed criticism.

[danbrotherston]

No, that’s BS. We’re talking about public infrastructure that we all have to live with. We’re entitled to understand the decision process that goes into designing it. Also, there is no way that whatever proprietary model (or whatever) they’ve built is enough better than what everybody else is doing that it’s worth giving up transparency for access to the model.

Yeah, I'm not so sure of that.  It's a nice thought, but usually contacts are between two parties, third parties/subcontractors/consultants all covered under a blanket clause in a NDA/CDA and if you're lucky some of it might show up on the public record after the fact (once the tender has been awarded).  Sooo, not sure what part of the design/decision process the general pulbic would be privy to?  Maybe I missed something, like an variance application, that the people in the area would have been invited to attend? 

No disrespect, just trying to understand where the design transparency is warranted in this case

Just because it is a contract doesn't mean the terms of the contract MUST involve secrecy. These models were used to plan and justify huge investments in widening roads in our region, I as a citizen who must live with these decisions, AND as a resident of the city who must PAY for them, I should be entitled to know on what basis those decisions were made.

I can go to council and say "I don't think there's justification for widening trussler, for x and y reasons" and staff reply to council "trust us, we know there is justification, but we can't tell the public what it is" that is frankly insulting, yet council generally just does what they say.

Like I said, I think council *could* get access to the data, but they cannot share it, which means they can't really have it independently verified. But I don't think they bother, because most of council just seems to trust staff, which, is fair, it's what they pay them for, but I do not, and as a citizen I should have the right to look at what staff does an verify it for myself.

Side note, how about the Victoria MUT (I heard it was going from from Bruce St. towards Breslau)

I'm not sure what you are saying about this. This project is generally good, to say Victoria is pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly situation is...well, it's not quite as bad as trying walk through no mans land, but...I'm having trouble finding a comparison less than that, which is still explains strongly enough how bad it is. I suspect if you regularly walked that street, you'd have a high chance of being killed...not 100%, but say 2-3% over a few month period.

The fact is has been left like this, well that's absurd, I have avoided businesses because they were located there.

So yeah, trails are good. But I think it highlights how broken regional staff's policies are, and how inflexible they are. I think the proposed paths are actually not that safe, because they have many driveways, now, staff will tell you the driveway density is below what they consider the bar for safety (based on provincial standards), like, they wouldn't build a MUT along a road with houses because there are too many driveways, but here there are fewer so it's okay.

Of course, it only takes a few seconds of thinking to realize this is amazingly stupid. What matters is the number of turning vehicles and the speed of the conflicts that induces. A road with houses has only a few vehicles turn into each house per day, and they generally turn slowly because driveways are short and the turns are sharp. On Victoria, you have commercial driveways that could carry 100s of cars per day, turning in and out of massive driveways with turning radii in the 100s of meters allowing turns to happen at above 50 km/h on a very busy road with high speed traffic and high pressure maneuvers. It's RIPE for danger, but when asked about this staff parrot "oh, it's below the number of driveways for a MUT", when they have literally refused to build one on a road with houses for that reason.

Like I said, I have very little trust in staff's statements for this type of reason, this is hardly the only example, but it's the one you mentioned.

To be clear, I support the new MUTs, only because the current situation is well, lets of with HELL, but the new plan only demonstrates staffs incompetence, not good planning.

To be honest, ATAC asked them for enhanced visual identification of the crossings, they refused, they are implementing a standard MUT...

[plam]

Again, if by using a proprietary model we could get some absolutely amazing result that was impossible without it, it might be a different story: our right to know might be trumped by the amazing result. The cost involved and other alternatives also come into play. Consider if a government website has a Google search link. In an ideal world, I would say that the public has a right to understand how the website works, including the search feature on it. In the real world however, the ability to just throw a Google search link on the website for free provides so much utility that I don’t care that I’m not allowed to know the details of the algorithm.

Presumably one could make a Freedom of Information request which might override the NDA given that this information is in the public interest.

[danbrotherston]

Again, if by using a proprietary model we could get some absolutely amazing result that was impossible without it, it might be a different story: our right to know might be trumped by the amazing result. The cost involved and other alternatives also come into play. Consider if a government website has a Google search link. In an ideal world, I would say that the public has a right to understand how the website works, including the search feature on it. In the real world however, the ability to just throw a Google search link on the website for free provides so much utility that I don’t care that I’m not allowed to know the details of the algorithm.

Presumably one could make a Freedom of Information request which might override the NDA given that this information is in the public interest.

Does it override the NDA? I wouldn't think so. It isn't actually the governments data to give away is the problem. They paid for it but it still is proprietary data of their contractor I believe.

In any case I don't know how to do that

[jamincan]

I wonder as well. I suspect it's the sort of thing that staff would either say they can't release, or the information released would be heavily redacted. It might require multiple requests and legal challenges to get the information we want, and for what purpose at the end of the day? The damage is already done.

As a matter of principle, public policy shouldn't be made on an algorithm that cannot be scrutinized. It's wholly unscientific. If the company wants to protect their process, they should patent it. If they want to keep it hidden and not open for review, they're of no more value than a soothsayer and should be excluded from an RFQ.

[ijmorlan]

As a matter of principle, public policy shouldn't be made on an algorithm that cannot be scrutinized. It's wholly unscientific. If the company wants to protect their process, they should patent it. If they want to keep it hidden and not open for review, they're of no more value than a soothsayer and should be excluded from an RFQ.

Exactly. Anybody who is saying “hey, they signed a contract, they can’t release the data” is missing the point — we’re saying the contract is no good and shouldn’t have been signed.

[plam]

Presumably one could make a Freedom of Information request which might override the NDA given that this information is in the public interest.

Does it override the NDA? I wouldn't think so. It isn't actually the governments data to give away is the problem. They paid for it but it still is proprietary data of their contractor I believe.

In any case I don't know how to do that

I think it is fairly straightfoward:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-make-fre...on-request

[danbrotherston]

A van crashed into a subway today in Cambridge: https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...nt-2396471

Which is the perfect opportunity to plug this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

TL;DW We could live in a country which doesn't routinely have vehicles crashing into buildings if we wanted too, but we choose not too.

[ijmorlan]

A van crashed into a subway today in Cambridge:  https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...nt-2396471

Which is the perfect opportunity to plug this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

TL;DW We could live in a country which doesn't routinely have vehicles crashing into buildings if we wanted too, but we choose not too.

I wonder what the involvement of the arrestee was? From the article it sounds like the minivan was pretty much in charge of the whole operation. Maybe the arrested person overserved it at the (gas) bar?

[jamincan]

A van crashed into a subway today in Cambridge:  https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...nt-2396471

Which is the perfect opportunity to plug this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

TL;DW We could live in a country which doesn't routinely have vehicles crashing into buildings if we wanted too, but we choose not too.

That video is really good and really breaks the misconception that we have to live with the established status quo. We can do better and better is possible. Acknowledging that people make mistakes and then understanding how we can reduce them, and minimize the collateral damage from mistakes is far more productive than just saying that those people are bad and continuing with the status quo.

[boatracer]

The construction bid documents for a new bridge over Schneider Creek for the future Bleams Road extension between Manitou and Wilson is now out. Drawings available in the link below.

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....418edfa8b1

[KevinL]

The bridge itself is curved! Not sure I've seen one to that degree before, not around here.

[KevinT]

The construction bid documents for a new bridge over Schneider Creek for the future Bleams Road extension between Manitou and Wilson is now out.  Drawings available in the link below.

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....418edfa8b1

Thanks!

Highlights include a 3 metre wide MUT on each side of the four lane bridge, each connecting to the existing creekside trail running underneath the bridge, and a fairly attractive parapet wall with a combination of smooth and split faced limestone with the region's logo inset at the ends. The road has a 4% cant over the bridge, with each MUT canted 2% towards the road for drainage. Apparently there's a 1.2 m diameter raw water main connecting Bleams Rd and Goodrich Dr, but on a different S than the new road takes. I'm guessing it's the Mannheim treatment plant's connection to the pumping station on the Grand River. 

Kevin

[danbrotherston]

The construction bid documents for a new bridge over Schneider Creek for the future Bleams Road extension between Manitou and Wilson is now out.  Drawings available in the link below.

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....418edfa8b1

Thanks!

Highlights include a 3 metre wide MUT on each side of the four lane bridge, each connecting to the existing creekside trail running underneath the bridge, and a fairly attractive parapet wall with a combination of smooth and split faced limestone with the region's logo inset at the ends. The road has a 4% cant over the bridge, with each MUT canted 2% towards the road for drainage. Apparently there's a 1.2 m diameter raw water main connecting Bleams Rd and Goodrich Dr, but on a different S than the new road takes. I'm guessing it's the Mannheim treatment plant's connection to the pumping station on the Grand River. 

Kevin

I have to assume this is part of the River Rd. extension?

Isn't this like the type of thing that could be deferred (or cancelled) to fill the 12 million dollar hole i our budget?