Cycling in Waterloo Region

[Acitta]

Luisa D'Amato @DamatoRecord Posted this on Twitter.

Waterloo Region people -- What was good about those temporary cycling lanes? What was bad? What have we learned from the whole exercise? For a column in Waterloo Region Record @WR_Record
  Send me a message or reply below; I'll publish a selection. Deadline Thurs 3 pm. Thanks!

https://twitter.com/DamatoRecord/status/...0264761347

[danbrotherston]

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...-them.html

Her article is unsurprisingly very negative and divisive.

She quoted only angry petty pols who voted against it.

[tomh009]

I personally didn't find it very negative. She quoted four people in favour, five against (given the 96% feedback against the lanes, that's a reasonable split) and closed with this quote:

Even people who hated the temporary lanes said they support more properly designed cycling infrastructure like multi-use trails set away from the road. That’s something we all agree on.

[danbrotherston]

I personally didn't find it very negative. She quoted four people in favour, five against (given the 96% feedback against the lanes, that's a reasonable split) and closed with this quote:

Even people who hated the temporary lanes said they support more properly designed cycling infrastructure like multi-use trails set away from the road. That’s something we all agree on.

Lol, that's the equivalent of "I always support cycling infra, but let me explain why I oppose it now..." Everyone says that because it's like "not being racist".....to say otherwise would be wrong, but I guarantee you those supporters would immediately oppose any reasonable cycling proposal on Westmount or Bridgeport.

As for the article, the two issues I have with it are it is biased:

• She quoted 3 regional councillors, all 3 voted against it, the motion passed and she didn't quote a single supporter on council.
  
• The "96% feedback against it" could should have been balanced by the "2000 people (~70%) supported it during consultation.
  
• The continued reptition of the "we didn't consult" lie that certain (quoted) regional councillors like to bullshit about.
  

and it was divisive:

• Referring to people who bike as "cyclists" and pidgeonholing them to the nth degree (she complains about them being "adept online"...she literally asked online, and using twitter is hardly "adept"), this is despite later explaining in the article that there are many groups other than cyclists which supported the lanes (residents on the street, parents with children, pedestrians).
  
• She stated people who supported this were a tiny minority, again, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
  
• She used quotes which normalize "motorists" as the norm, and people who bike as an "outside group".
  

These are all common tactics for D'Amato, and very harmful to our community. They entirely ignore the equity features of cycling, and pretends that driving actually supports equity (it doesn't, it REALLY doesn't).

It wasn't entirely negative, but the biases and unnecessary division are clear when you read carefully.

EDIT:

In fairness of both sides, she does make some positive points. She talks with many people who are happy about the lanes, calls out the good parts, and does suggest that there is support for permanent infra (which I find dubious, it's the same old "of course I support cycling", but it nonetheless has been the response we've seen). But I find the whole "two sides"rhetoric really harmful. We won't see cycling be successful, or indeed, our communities, if we constantly put people into exlusionary groups.

When I wrote a letter to the editor, long before I even had a bicycle in the region, I talked about transit, and I talked about all the different people I saw on transit. I did so because I always felt the rhetoric around "oh, only x groups" (usually students or "poors") used transit to be very harmful, given that when I rode transit, I saw a multitude of people riding the bus. We need more of that for cycling and less of this.

[danbrotherston]

Here's what I wrote about the COVID lanes:

https://danbrotherston.medium.com/covid-...47fa6a24b2

[plam]

Here's what I wrote about the COVID lanes:

https://danbrotherston.medium.com/covid-...47fa6a24b2

Thanks, good points.

[plam]

I did not know about the 70s bike boom in the US:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid...story/amp/

[Bytor]

So all those people who complained about the temporary bike lanes but claimed that they would support proper bike lanes? Yeah, well, see how that support vanishes in a puff of smoke as Kitchener puts out it's cycling master plan for extending the bike lane network in the city.

[plam]

So all those people who complained about the temporary bike lanes but claimed that they would support proper bike lanes? Yeah, well, see how that support vanishes in a puff of smoke as Kitchener puts out it's cycling master plan for extending the bike lane network in the city.

Not surprising...

[danbrotherston]

Does anyone here live in or know someone in the market condos?

[plam]

Pushback in the UK to emergency bicycle infrastructure:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...lture-wars

[tomh009]

The renovations to the small parking lot at Queen and Charles are now complete -- and it now only has bicycle parking.

   

[danbrotherston]

[tomh009]

Ugh. Yeah.

But that no-parking sign really should have arrows pointing in both directions to take away any possible excuse of misinterpretation.

[taylortbb]

Ugh. Yeah.

But that no-parking sign really should have arrows pointing in both directions to take away any possible excuse of misinterpretation.

I really think the core problem isn't the sign, but the roll curbs. The vast majority of drivers believe that the point of roll curbs is to allow them to drive to the other side of the curb. I can't even really say I blame them, as I have yet to figure out what other purpose they serve.

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".