Comment 41782

By Anders (registered) | Posted June 09, 2010 at 15:33:04

Dan, good response, you made me disagree with Ryan's byline that we don't need new studies on this. When I read your Spec piece I too got the impression you were an industry voice trying to suppress those very weak modifications a few citizens were able to get on the plan. Mostly there you write about goods movement and the need for empirical research, which to me sounded like a championing of the narrow concerns of transportation engineers over the wider concerns of citizens.

Then you wrote your response above, which made me re-read your Spec piece and find the following paragraph:

"To further assist in arriving at a sound Truck Route Network, expansion or re-evaluation of the truck route definitions would encompass some of the concerns raised by residents on the risks involved for those mixed use/populated streets. The current recommendations were developed on existing parameters, which hold risks of impacting developing solutions that other communities incorporate into their truck route solutions (like small-vehicle freight deliveries for core areas, or designated "through" routes versus "local" routes)."

Now that you've clarified this it makes a bit more sense, but it's still hazy. Who are the 'other communities' here, what are the "existing parameters"? Will the MITL include the concerns of citizens in a new Truck Route plan, and if so how?

I certainly hope Council does table this, and in future I hope to see the points you brought up above (truck definitions, through vs local routes, and overnight deliveries) as central components of a new plan.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds