Cycling Master Plan - Final Review

Great report >> On page 30 - What is the line between Ingersoll and Woodstock and Woodstock and Blandford Blenheim represent - On page 38 - A cycling coordinator should be 50% resource - 50% advocate - and attached to the planning department - Development proposals should go thru a looksie for opportunities or concerns - just like the other agencies - Fire - Utilities - Conservation Authorities - with the decision to proceed resting with councils of course. And looking at the plan it seems to focus on County roads more than off road opportunities - Industry and significant landholders should be included going forward - Something that I did not see in the study is the interaction with railroads that dissect our County and have large linear pathways through the county and to our neighbours. Bicycling and trains at the crossroads have held up projects in the past. It would be proactive to have a reasonable approach in advance of planning a trail - simple things like warning signs and angled crossings are less expensive than guarded automated crossing systems which can exceed a million dollars - I like the pooling of funds with $20,000 to each municipality or however the pile gets split that they can use to leverage their projects. I also believe that since planning is of the purview of County Staff that connectivity within each lower tier for subdivision and commercial/industrial/institutional plans include active transportation as a first thought - not as a public meeting afterthought. Another thing that may be missing given the scope is the increased use of mobility scooters - e-bikes and E-Skateboards/scooters - We also need to leverage the use of volunteers or atleast acknowledge the potential in the final report. It is not hard to spend $50,000 on a contractor but you won't go as far or wide when partnered with volunteers or staff - And if by chance we have plans for paved trails, would it be cost effective to have suitably sized equipment that could be shared amongst municipalities but owned by the County. Two other things under the legal/risk angle - Do we as a County become brave enough to enact an Idaho Stop for cyclists where statistically it reduces severity of collisions. And more at the lower tier (Never liked that term) do we allow bicycles and the like on sidewalks in residential areas and ban them from being ridden on the main downtown core roads - shuffling them off to the side streets instead with adequate racking on the main streets. Off Street is always best for active transportation (CAMI - Ingersoll Road as an example) - We need to be creative in adapting current infrastructure and proactive when designing new infrastructure - Even the placement of a hydro pole or light standard can mean thousands of dollars in extra costs if a future pathway is decided. Again I will stress as I did before - subdivision planning needs to consider the connectivity and every road allowance needs to be looked at as a potential pathway rather than a few extra dollars in municipal coffers. The pathway from Whiting Street to Ingersoll Road/CAMI was well worn through the Harrisfield school and the road allowance from Witty to Ingersoll but that was sold by the Town and forced active transportation folks to traverse Whiting to King St - Over the tracks twice and back up again Ingersoll Rd - And we are going to have 700+ units being added off Whiting and they will have to access the industrial area the same way. In the public meeting the Town owned pathway from Whiting to the recreational land was suppose to be paved and graded by the contractor but that fell away in site planning. I am sure there are other examples that unless there is significant public push back will always be missed opportunities that happen after planning instead of before the public meeting - If every plan - road - capital investment just had the stakeholders say - Have we done enough to enhance active transportation? I think we will have the culture that embraces active transportation rather than just another study