Waterloo Region Council Election Discussion

[danbrotherston]

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.

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

[ijmorlan]

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.

Also there isn’t the distraction of potentially making larger changes, such as proportional representation. I think first past the post should be replaced universally with instant runoff; but a lot of people think of current system, ranked ballot, and proportional representation as being 3 alternatives, when in reality ranked ballot is a minor but important tweak to any system that involves voting on alternatives.

[Spokes]

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?

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

[danbrotherston]

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

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.

[Spokes]

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.

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

[danbrotherston]

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.

Indeed.

Although I do agree these things actually should go to together.  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.

[tomh009]

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.

[Pheidippides]

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.

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)
...

[tomh009]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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)
...

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

I did say weak.  Some places are worse.  Courtland is downright scary.  There is no sidewalk on Ottawa up to Mill.

And then the whole thing where sidewalks are not cleared in the winter.

[tomh009]

Sidewalk clearing is an ongoing issue, which our current council was unwilling to pursue, but it's not LRT-specific.

So I will respectfully disagree on this point: yes, there are issues with walking, but I honestly don't believe they will be a significant limiting factor on the success of the LRT.

[Pheidippides]

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.

"it would be fine" is exactly the point. The fact is that it isn't fine as it is currently built. The station was not thought through from the point of view of the end user's experience and as a result a flawed station approach was built.

For the majority, yes those changes are subtle and probably will not make a huge difference in potential ridership, and there will be an impact, but it is more than an accessibility issue (which on its own should be important enough to everyone - we may not all be pushing a stroller one day and we are old enough not to need help crossing a busy street any more like older child testing their independence taking the Ion alone for the first time, but we will all get old and/or end up in wheelchairs and will want a passable, safe, and direct route to the stations). It is the whole snow clearing debate again, just because it is not a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

The impact of urban design and how we interact with our world is much bigger than that.

It isn't just the lack of curb cuts, you could go all the way back to the station placements forcing people to walk further/take a longer bus ride to get to a station and not facilitating easy bus transfers (e.g. RT, UW, and WLU/Waterloo Park not being at major crossroads (i.e. north side of Columbia, north side of University, north side of Erb respectively). It is the lack of signal prioritization near stations like Allen where you need to push a beg button to get the light to change to access the platform or other lights where there are advanced turning phases that force pedestrians to wait (in the elements). It is the poles and utility boxes in the middle of sidewalks for no reason. It is the lack of crossing assistance at Willis Station (no crosswalk paint, no pedestrian light, a constant flow of traffic (albeit at a reasonable speed - only because it is so busy), and the aforementioned lack of curb cuts). It is the lack of cycling lanes near or connecting to stations, and dearth of cycling parking near stations.

Individually they are small, for most people, but taken together they add up and contribute to the inertia that the population has to over come to make Ion successful; and yes, some people will not use Ion because the cost of overcoming that inertia is too high.

[Spokes]

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.

[jgsz]

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.

I will be voting for:

Elizabeth Clark
Tom Galloway
Ted Martin
Fauzia Mazhar 

For me, the first two names were easy.  Ted Martin was just so-so.  However, Fauzia Mazhar was very difficult.  But she has many qualities I admire.  She probably has more courage than all the other candidates put together.  And she's progressive on issues that matter to me.