ADRM
Senior Member
I'm fine agreeing to disagree, but you've raised specific points that I feel the need to refute (and, frankly, you're starting to make unfounded and subjective accusations). Parsing out a few points:
1) The street infrastructure as it pertains to the lack of adequate cycle infrastructure *is* finished, and that's what I'm taking exception to. Frankly, infrastructural elements such as bike rings don't rank highly on my list of priorities because they're not essential safety measures (obviously); protected cycle lanes, on the other hand, are essential safety measures.
2) There's no accurate parallel to the QQ criticism whatsoever for a few key reasons: A) I was from the start, and still am, an avid defender of the complete streets they rolled out there which, of course, feature good cycle infrastructure insofar as protection is enabled by the raising and separating of cycle tracks from the flow of traffic and transit; B) The main streets *are* finished, and it includes none of the essential traffic calming measures central to the concept of a woonerf. I don't think we, as a caring populace, should accept the creation of extensive public infrastructure that we know to be flawed from a design perspective and simply wait and see how things unfold—we know what internationally accepted best practices are in those regards and to make improvements after the fact adds cost, time, and complexity unnecessarily.
Moreover, if you were to look back through my comments about this neighbourhood, you'll see there is ample praise for the work done here and the community it will create, and indeed that I have come to the defense of multiple aspects of it both individually and collectively. Simply, I believe the creation of both this and the QQ communities to be net positives for our city. Pointing out perceived deficiencies in an overall excellent product doesn't make me sour grapes, it makes me an advocate for even greater standards and better final products—in my books, that's the type of voice that, in some small way, positively contributes to progress.
3) If we apply a high standard of critical quality assessment to the provisions for cyclists that currently exist in the neighbourhood, yes, they amount to "no infrastructure"—plainly, a bunch of painted lines on a road do not constitute adequate cycling protection; how could they? It is absolutely beyond refute to suggest that protected cycle lanes greatly enhance the safety of cyclists—there is mountains of data to support that assertion. Similar to my second point, why have we here created a neighbourhood from scratch without best in class design standards for infrastructure that supports all types of movement? That I do not, and I feel we as a community, should not accept.
You seem to imply that the creation of a tunnel and bike ramp should somehow satisfy a desire for a complete network of adequate cycle infrastructure—what a bizarre construct. City-building shouldn't be a box-ticking exercise, where we find ourselves fully content once a certain minimum level of achievement is attained. Imagine applying that same logic to vehicular infrastructure; in 20whatever, when we have a rebuilt Gardiner East, envision a stretch of the road where, say, street signs, streetlights, curbs, and lane markings are all absent; could you reasonably expect folks to be content with such half measures? The same level of completeness of vehicular infrastructure that has come to be accepted as normal should be the insisted upon requirement in our creation of cycle infrastructure.
I suppose this is all for not, though, as your last attempt at a biting comment—"I'd rank it right up there with 'the buildings are too grey'"—illustrates that you're more interested in that sort of thing than in partaking in an objective and measured discussion or debate. Without giving this particular quip more time than it deserves, A) On this very thread, I have defended the "greyness" and the architecture itself; and B) Attempting to reduce my argument in this way amounts to a deliberate attempt to ignore the data-backed facts that form the basis of my points, and it's that which in my opinion reveals your true colours.
Net-net, this is a wonderful neighbourhood and we are all better for its presence both now and in the future, and I'm thankful that, for the most part, the city and WT did this the "right way." I've already enjoyed touring around it on foot, on cycle, and in my car, and I look forward to doing so time and again in the future.
Now, will I ever—in this or any case—cease my advocacy for more complete streets that protect individuals using all modes of transportation? No. On that point, I will never stop fighting. And I know many will thank me for that.
1) The street infrastructure as it pertains to the lack of adequate cycle infrastructure *is* finished, and that's what I'm taking exception to. Frankly, infrastructural elements such as bike rings don't rank highly on my list of priorities because they're not essential safety measures (obviously); protected cycle lanes, on the other hand, are essential safety measures.
2) There's no accurate parallel to the QQ criticism whatsoever for a few key reasons: A) I was from the start, and still am, an avid defender of the complete streets they rolled out there which, of course, feature good cycle infrastructure insofar as protection is enabled by the raising and separating of cycle tracks from the flow of traffic and transit; B) The main streets *are* finished, and it includes none of the essential traffic calming measures central to the concept of a woonerf. I don't think we, as a caring populace, should accept the creation of extensive public infrastructure that we know to be flawed from a design perspective and simply wait and see how things unfold—we know what internationally accepted best practices are in those regards and to make improvements after the fact adds cost, time, and complexity unnecessarily.
Moreover, if you were to look back through my comments about this neighbourhood, you'll see there is ample praise for the work done here and the community it will create, and indeed that I have come to the defense of multiple aspects of it both individually and collectively. Simply, I believe the creation of both this and the QQ communities to be net positives for our city. Pointing out perceived deficiencies in an overall excellent product doesn't make me sour grapes, it makes me an advocate for even greater standards and better final products—in my books, that's the type of voice that, in some small way, positively contributes to progress.
3) If we apply a high standard of critical quality assessment to the provisions for cyclists that currently exist in the neighbourhood, yes, they amount to "no infrastructure"—plainly, a bunch of painted lines on a road do not constitute adequate cycling protection; how could they? It is absolutely beyond refute to suggest that protected cycle lanes greatly enhance the safety of cyclists—there is mountains of data to support that assertion. Similar to my second point, why have we here created a neighbourhood from scratch without best in class design standards for infrastructure that supports all types of movement? That I do not, and I feel we as a community, should not accept.
You seem to imply that the creation of a tunnel and bike ramp should somehow satisfy a desire for a complete network of adequate cycle infrastructure—what a bizarre construct. City-building shouldn't be a box-ticking exercise, where we find ourselves fully content once a certain minimum level of achievement is attained. Imagine applying that same logic to vehicular infrastructure; in 20whatever, when we have a rebuilt Gardiner East, envision a stretch of the road where, say, street signs, streetlights, curbs, and lane markings are all absent; could you reasonably expect folks to be content with such half measures? The same level of completeness of vehicular infrastructure that has come to be accepted as normal should be the insisted upon requirement in our creation of cycle infrastructure.
I suppose this is all for not, though, as your last attempt at a biting comment—"I'd rank it right up there with 'the buildings are too grey'"—illustrates that you're more interested in that sort of thing than in partaking in an objective and measured discussion or debate. Without giving this particular quip more time than it deserves, A) On this very thread, I have defended the "greyness" and the architecture itself; and B) Attempting to reduce my argument in this way amounts to a deliberate attempt to ignore the data-backed facts that form the basis of my points, and it's that which in my opinion reveals your true colours.
Net-net, this is a wonderful neighbourhood and we are all better for its presence both now and in the future, and I'm thankful that, for the most part, the city and WT did this the "right way." I've already enjoyed touring around it on foot, on cycle, and in my car, and I look forward to doing so time and again in the future.
Now, will I ever—in this or any case—cease my advocacy for more complete streets that protect individuals using all modes of transportation? No. On that point, I will never stop fighting. And I know many will thank me for that.
