I called in

I would live tweet it but most of the comments are just the same-old:
- trees
- DEVELOPERS
- must protect uplands

Can't remember what the source is for this, but - supposedly - the dueling rationales for housing are that for the left, non-profit owned housing is harder to privatize, and for the right, it keeps debt off of government books

We do! (Also called MUTCD)

SFU students, still waiting for their gondola: yes please

I use it when talking about the climate and that's it I think?

When was the fight to get the old implementation for e.g. Fort St - was protected facilities really on the table back then?

Or do you mean the current implementation on these corridors is mediocre

wait what's the definition of "mediocre" in this case, like painted bike lanes? My impression of these projects is that these are all cases of building good infrastructure where basically nothing existed before, not upgrading mediocre-but-adequate infra after original implementation

Which bike corridor required a giant fight to upgrade it from a mediocre implementation?

Yes and no, the downtown bike lanes and the rest of the CoV bike network would likely not exist without the Goose, and the Goose is still firmly at the top when you look at counter data

data.eco-counter.com/ParcPublic/?...

Canada*

*East of Abbotsford

This speaker disclosed that they themselves live in a $2M home. And yet they came to Council to say that a laneway home for someone else is a "monstrosity."

Burnaby had allowed up to four storey "multiplexes," with up to 50% lot coverage. They are rolling that back to appease this opposition.

other thoughts:

crazy Paris is further up on this list than Rotterdam

why is ghent on this list

Their bikeshare system also blew everything else I've experienced out of the water: almost 100% reliability (no broken bikes)

as someone who thinks north shore skytrain is a pretty marginal priority, I'm in favour of a Downtown-PNE-Metrotown project