"This is a city where people make things happen."

Displaying posts from

Bike Lanes And The Big Picture posted February 22nd, 2013 in 2010-2013 Term, Community Consultation, Road Maintenance, Smarter Planning

[Update - March 7, 2013: The report scheduled for discussion on March 13th has been posted here including some very interesting fall 2012 survey data here in Attachment 2 pf the report showing that more than half of Edmontonians already cycle, and that many would ride more with better facilities, including bike lanes.]

Last week the effort to increase cycling opportunities in Edmonton hit some bumps.

First, a consultation session designed to share information and get feedback about routes planned for implementation this season degenerated into a shouting match, which hindered the City from getting precisely the input they were there to hear. (The details of the proposed routes are here.)

The next morning the Mayor added fuel to the fire with a sharply worded inquiry that garnered a lot of media attention at the Transportation committee (you can watch the comments here by clicking on item 2.1 and waiting about 30 seconds).

The route network from the Bicycle Transportation Plan - major routes shown in blue, connector routes shown in green. Click to zoom in.

The inquiry will result in a report for discussion at the March 13th Transportation Committee. I won’t be at all surprised at that point if the whole program is put on hiatus for ‘study’, rather than having a real debate about whether Council actually supports making some tough decisions to enhance transportation choice. (Some of the city-building benefits making these tough choices are well articulated in this blog post from Executive Director of the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society.)

One of the more constructive suggestions I heard last week was from Paula Simons, which was to focus our efforts on high quality cycling facilities in the core (such as Downtown and Oliver, Strathcona and University areas).

This makes sense. I’d like to see those routes prioritized too. That’s where existing demand is highest, and where the greatest short-term potential is to attract new riders.

However, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan still calls for a citywide network of bike lanes to provide enhanced choices for all Edmontonians, and better facilities for those who already choose to ride.

Council has an overall vision and numerous policies and plans that explicitly champion more transportation choices for citizens.

More travel options are crucial to dealing with worsening traffic congestion. Those options can also lead to a healthier city, cleaner air, and savings for individuals and the City.

Yes, most Edmontonians drive, but if we aren’t willing to endure some changes to make way for new choices, then traffic congestion will only get worse. That’s the real inconvenience to everyone, including present and future drivers. That’s the big picture.

Getting into the details, some people wonder why certain roads have been selected as cycling routes, but there is logic to it in the plan. The routes generally have two characteristics: 1) they are through roads, and 2) they are less busy. 106 Street instead of 109 Street, for example. People have suggested the city use local roads, and where they run through this makes great sense (like 83 Avenue between Mill Creek and 112 Street).

In any case, I don’t think the routes are the real issue.

The fact is there is simply no way to make space for bike lanes without making some changes to the roads they would share – and the same tensions that have come up (mainly around lost parking) will come up anywhere. This happens in every city that has tried to make this shift.

More engagement with residents and businesses is good; the City can always learn from the public when making changes to an area. I know the implementation of bike lanes in my ward benefitted from local knowledge – in many cases protecting parking for schools, businesses and churches based on feedback.

But I don’t think this is really about consultation either.

To me, this is about comfort zone: is Council willing to work through the discomforts of change to deliver on the vision for more transportation choice in our city?

All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change. They clear out their garages. They park around the corner. Sometimes they even chose to walk or bike more. If we move ahead it will work out; after all, the sky hasn’t fallen anywhere in my ward where the lanes have already gone in.

Edmonton Transportation Plan in Lego posted December 24th, 2010 in 2010-2013 Term, Smarter Planning, Transit, Urban Sprawl

[I wrote the piece below for the Edmonton Examiner last month but am just now finally getting around to posting it here. It follows up from a previous post on Lego urban design from last year and a video on transportation choice illustrated with Lego that we did during the last campaign. The City's blog post on all this can be found here. And yes, those are my Mr. Data-like hands assembling the attractive brownstone in the city's promotional video above. The whole display is up for another week and a half so go check it out if you have a chance.]

What influence do our development plans have on our transportation patterns, and what influence do our transportation plans have on our development pattern? These are some of the questions Edmontonians of all ages are asked by a City Display which depicts Council’s vision for development and transportation using Lego.

The large display is set up at the Telus World of Science as part of “Wheels, Wings and Waves: a Lego World of Transportation” exhibit running until January 2.

Engineers and planners from the city have been hard at work (on volunteer time) designing and assembling this sixteen foot by five foot display containing more than 20,000 pieces. It was an incredible feat, as I can attest having helped them build for just a couple of hours.

The layout depicts three distinct areas in the city: downtown, a mature neighbourhood undergoing redevelopment, and a new suburban area. Each of them is linked together by roads, LRT, bike paths and good sidewalks. There is special emphasis on space to move goods, especially by truck, to reflect the needs of commerce.

Of particular note were the intricate rendering of City Hall and Churchill Square, and the lovely medium-density brownstone townhouses and duplexes in the mature neighbourhood, where people can afford to invest in more expensive land and housing because they save money by relying more on transit and walking instead of that second or third car.

To illustrate the point that this is an interactive and ongoing process, ‘lots’ were left vacant within the layout for the public to ‘develop’ through a building contest that was held [in November].

This family-oriented brownstone on the corner in the mature neighbourhood was my contribution.

I had the privilege of judging the winners with Councillors Karen Leibovici and Ben Henderson. We struggled to select from among dozens of very creative entries, but we particularly liked the very colourful multicultural centre and museum for downtown. We also chose the multi-purpose mixed-use library, day care, bike parkade and seasonal lemonade/hot-chocolate stand for the mature neighbourhood. In the suburban area we liked the high-efficiency solar-powered home with the garden and apple tree for food production.

It was encouraging to see that most of the entries reflected Council’s vision for our city’s future.

This is what it looked like all put together.

Station Around 40th Avenue Should be Revisited posted October 12th, 2010 in 2010 Campaign, Transit

The dark blue circle is 400m and a 5 minute walk; the light blue is 800m or a 10 minute walk. This is the generally accepted practical walking radius for LRT. Notice that it reaches from Petrolia mall to 106 Street. It covers both high schools and a good number of older walkup apartments that could be redeveloped over time. I've centred it on the intersection but exact location would require further study.

[Updated Feb 7, 2012: Formal Inquiry submitted looking into this - the text of which can be accessed here.]

Council’s Transportation and Public Works committee mulled the question of adding a station between Southgate and Century Park at a meeting in 2007. The discussion focused on a station for Harry Ainlay High School and Louis St. Laurent Jr./Sr. High as well as Confederation Leisure Centre. Councillor Bryan Anderson had made an inquiry which yielded this report here, which was the basis of the discussion.

As a citizen, I marvelled and scratched my head at the lost opportunity. Knocking on doors later that same year as part of my campaign, I heard a lot of disappointment in the communities of Royal Gardens, Greenfield, Duggan and Rideau Park which make up the four corners of 111 Street and 40th Avenue.

After the election I made some inquiries about the feasibility of adding a station during construction of South LRT and while it is technically feasible, and would have been easier to do before opening, the policy of the day was to run LRT fast and far out to the suburbs and region. It was almost more of a commuter rail approach than an urban transit philosophy.

Two things have convinced me that the question of adding a station is worth revisiting:

First, the city’s philosophy on LRT has shifted considerably in the last 18 months. I wrote previously about the new ‘urban vision’ for LRT, but in essence it means stopping a bit more frequently to serve more communities it runs through, and making sure to connect major institutional centres (like, say, high schools and rec centres) and areas with redevelopment potential (like, say, Petrolia Mall at 40 Avenue and 114 Street).

The other thing that’s convinced me to look at this again is the number of people who live in these neighbourhoods that stll bring it up, knocking on doors three years later. I’ve asked people and I’d say 10 to 1 the people in these neighbourhoods would love a chance to more conveniently access the LRT.

With bus service to connect it would improve access for adjacent neighbourhoods like Aspen Gardens as well.

So, if re-elected I will push for the question of a station somewhere around 40th Avenue to be re-evaluated.

The Way we Grow Up: Remarks on the MDP posted February 23rd, 2010 in 2007-2010 Term, Smarter Planning, Urban Sprawl

Tonight Council gave second reading approval to our Municipal Development Plan. After considerable debate it’s more or less finished, subject to approval from the Capital Region Board, followed by third reading in May or June.

We debated the restriction on gravel mining in the river valley, which was upheld in a close vote. The Kanata Metis gravel put proposal is still free to come forward on its own merits and will get its day in front of Council.

We also debated growth allocation between suburban and established areas, and density targets, which picks up on a conversation I blogged about previously concerning development trajectory in our city. On this, I proposed a small but significant shift in language that the 25% target for infill vs. suburban growth is now a minimum, not an aspiration, which was approved unanimously.

It came time to speak to the main document and this is more or less what I said tonight:

I sought this seat to be part of this work and I am proud of most of this plan.

I am proud of the entrenchment of the link between planning and transportation; that most crucial link between what we build and where, and how we move about our city.

I am proud that we are so clearly committed to providing meaningful alternatives to car reliance with transit – especially LRT – and with better facilities for active transportation.

I am proud that we’ve (hopefully) put to rest the question of mining and land speculation in our river valley.

I am proud that we’ve joined cities around the world in acknowledging food and urban agriculture as key considerations in our planning.

I’m most proud of the policies we added designed to make medium-density living actually work for families with children. City council has already moved in this direction with the approval of Strathearn Heights rezoning and a smaller development in Pleasantview, each with a significant proportion of units on the ground level with sufficient space and amenities to support families with children. However, I believe that until projects like these, and other smaller land-efficient infill projects like brownstones and stacked townhouses are actually built, most Edmontonians will continue to choose detached homes, large yards and the automobile-dependant lifestyle that accompanies the business-as-usual pattern of development.

So the question is whether this shift toward walkable, mixed-use, medium density, transit-enabled development will occur and, if so, when? In other words: will a market shift occur any time soon? The city, the region, the province, the industry and – ultimately – homebuyers will all shape the answer to these questions.

The trajectory of development may not be entirely within Council’s control, but our challenge for the 10 year life of this plan is to adhere to the best principles embedded within it, such that these next 10 years mark the /transition/ to our vision for that compact city, that efficient city, that vibrant city and that less unsustainable, and hopefully – one day – that sustainable community we envision.

My concern with this plan has always been with the business-as-usual assumptions about growth over the next 30 years.

However, I have a great deal of hope that the shift can occur within the next 10 years – that shift can come with LRT; it can come with a change in our values around the ecological impacts of our lifestyle; it can come with a change in the cost of hydrocarbons and/or the cost of emissions resulting from burning those same hydrocarbons. I just don’t see the business-as-usual assumptions lasting for the 30 years.

Three months ago I called this plan “The Way we Sprawl” but it honestly contains the potential for two outcomes: sprawl is one outcome, yes, but the other possible outcome is a maturity beyond that.

The difference is a question of will.

With diligence in implementation on the part of the city, with innovation from industry, and with the will and cooperation of citizens and homebuyers, this plan can live up to its potential and become known more optimistically as “The Way we Grow Up.”

This attitude does require a measure of faith that our will will be strong, and a measure of faith that change pressures from citizens, from homebuyers, and economic shifts will make change we can respond to resiliently – and not timidly – under this plan, which I will support.

West LRT Follow Up posted December 16th, 2009 in 2007-2010 Term, Smarter Planning, Transit

I had indicated the other day on this blog that I was hesitant about the proposed Stoney Plain Road LRT alignment, at least the part between 156 St and 121 Street. I had a number of questions, most of which were addressed in one of the most cogent presentations I’ve ever seen from city staff.

The video recording is not posted yet on the city website, but the PDF of their presentation is downloadable at this link.

Some of the potential upsides of 107 Ave that I had been interested in exploring were discussed, and the main one was the cost difference. On closer examination, the spread between SPR and 107 Ave was not $200-300 million, it’s more like $30 million cheaper to build 107 Ave, but it would be more expensive to operate because it’s further and would require more Light Rail Vehicles.

WLRT alternative route cost comparison

Admittedly, there is an interpretation of the slide above that would lead one right back to 87 Ave route, but the slide below is the best visual representation of what’s wrong with 87 Ave from an urban point of view.

WLRT existing land use intensity

I do think there’s still a lot at risk with this choice, but I think that Council is aware of those risks and will work to mitigate them. I was reminded of an earlier amendment I proposed to our Transportation Master Plan that established a policy of ‘precursor’ premium bus service on planned LRT routes, which if followed through on will be positive for SPR.

So after yesterday’s debate, I felt able to support the bylaw. Much of the concerns citizens and councillors still have will be dealt with at the next phases of more detailed design and engineering (like snow removal, managing the construction disruption, etc.). Many people would like to see that level of detail before a route is settled on by council, but it’s very expensive and, therefore, impractical to do this for all the alternatives. So now we can study SPR and if a fatal flaw emerges in that analysis Council and the public will know about it.

Incidentally, the bylaw also included the plan for Downtown to Millwoods and a small change to the NAIT line to shift the tracks onto the airport lands instead of running up 106 Street, which is a big step toward airport redevelopment.

My main message yesterday is speaking to the bylaw: now we have a plan to show Ottawa and the province, and we can press the question of whether they will invest in Edmonton or not. Our citizens want LRT, but it won’t get built without at least one more order of government in the mix.

So who’s in?