Comment 115435

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted December 06, 2015 at 16:24:50

Many of the questions do not provide as options a lot of common-sense alternatives. Which, I presume, leads to the high percentages of "Other" for those questions.

The top two for "Other" were tied at 35% each.

The first one was "Which of the following major transportation corridor improvements best address your future long-term travel requirements?" Not one single one of the alternatives presented was about cycling infrastructure. Three of the four were about improvements for car drivers only and the fourth was improved transit. I also would have picked "Other."

The second question at 35% "Other" was, "Which of the following bicycle network and pedestrian network improvements would you consider the best benefit to the overall system?" The four alternatives presented were all fairly lame and would have provided only incremental benefits.

For this question, there are a whole lot of much better improvements, ranging from eliminating "cut-through" rat-running motor vehicle traffic from every residential neighbourhood to a permanently car-free downtown like virtually every Dutch city has.

The second highest "Other," at 31%, was "Which of following (sic) opportunities mitigate the impacts of goods movement on travel within Hamilton?" Again, three lame alternatives, one half-way sensible one (which was picked the most) and totally ignoring what is probably the best alternative, moving goods by rail.

In short, I am not impressed by the quality of the consultation.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-12-06 16:40:33

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools