Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
As the number of communities gets greater and greater, would it be useful to give the community association some powers to plan for and spend monies allotted to their community? offloading some of that responsibility off of administration?
More specifically, planning transportation and other urban infrastructure requires skill and experience; as the number of people needing health care goes up, you can't just hand out "E-Z surgery" guides, you need to actually hire more doctors. Community associations are focussed on their very narrow local goals, which is what they're there for, but doesn't make sense in terms of broader planning.
Let's use Tuscany as an example, since that's where we started. There is already a small shopping centre in the middle of the community well connected by bike paths. The next nearby major shopping area is Crowfoot. But Crowfoot is in Arbour Lake, and presumably Arbour Lake wants to spend it's community-bike-access-to-node money on things that will help Arbour Lake residents, like building a trail connecting Arbour Lake Way to John Laurie via Crowfoot Park (NW of Crowfoot), or adding a pathway to Arbour Lake Dr. Those would help Arbour Lake residents north of Crowfoot, but it won't help Tuscany residents. What will most help Tuscany residents bike to Crowfoot would be to build a path through the utility corridor running due E-W from the ped bridge over Stoney Trail, connecting around to the bus-only bridge at the Crowfoot LRT. But that is in Scenic Acres, and I'm not sure Scenic Acres would necessarily be happy about that.
Or what if Westgate and Rosscarrock both want improved east-west access to Westbrook, but Rosscarrock wants to improve 13th Ave and Westgate wants to improve 8th Ave?
And that's not mentioning that Tuscany's share of the city bike budget is around... what is it exactly? Should it be prorated by population? By the area to cover with pathways? What about communities with through trips; an improvement in Hillhurst will be used by the residents of Capitol Hill more than an improvement in Capitol Hill will be used by the citizens of Hillhurst. What about the amount of pathways already present? Tuscany has 12.5 km of pathway (in fact, as it happens, it has 1.8% of the city's population, and 1.8% of the pathway length), and Bowness which is a similar size and 2/3 the population has basically nothing. Should they get the same amount still? When Bowness gets a check the first year with enough money to build 500 feet of pathway, what are they supposed to do with that?
It's almost like there needs to be an agency of some sort, with a mandate to take a broad look at this stuff. I think there might be some room for the initial idea phase of bike projects to be crowdsourced a little, but you will quickly wind up with the crazies, NIMBYs and YIMBYs running the show.