Transportation Choices: A Video Using Lego
This video builds on a blog post from last year where I used Lego to illustrate some principles of urban design. I’ve since turned that into a popular slideshow that I’ve presented to several different audiences. It seems people enjoy seeing concepts illustrated using Lego, so we thought why not do the same for one of the campaign videos? Needless to say we had some fun:
The main theme is that I’ve worked and will continue to work on improving transportation choices by making walking and cycling safer and easier and by supporting further expansion of LRT and improvements to bus services. In my mind, dealing with the growth of our city can be accomodated with more freeways or more LRT – both are costly, but the long term savings to our economy of a strong LRT system are clear.
In the Edmonton region households spend more on transportation than any other Canadian city, according to the 2008 Statistics Canada Survey of Household Spending. $13,903 per year compared with $12,216 in Calgary, the next highest. We spend correspondingly less on shelter. It seems evident to me that one way to help with the rising cost of shelter is to make it easier for people to chose less costly transportation options to meet some of their mobility needs.
Look at where the money goes if we can pull that off: if people spend it on shelter, that’s an investment in our community since real estate isn’t really portable. If they spend some of their savings at businesses that are along their walking or transit route, that creates a different kind of local wealth. In contrast, household spending on private automobile transportation represents a leakage from our local economy since we don’t build cars here and of course cars tend to diminish in value over time; there is a local economy around retail and service but most of the expenditure on initial purchase, insurance and parts leaves our city.
Of course private automobiles will remain essential for most Edmonton households, but I believe there’s more we can do to improve transportation choice and help ease pressure on household budgets. There are environmental and public health benefits too, of course, which just improve the case.
This is awesome!
On increasing the reach of LRT:
“Without a rapid transformation of our building patterns and a push to make existing communities denser, high-speed rail could be a conduit of sprawl, not a deterrent. If stations include vast parking lots, or they’re built in remote areas away from urban cores instead of being made a part of the community, it will all but guarantee people drive to the stations and create a system that is only accessible by car. Drivers already comfortable with a commute of an hour or more could move further away from urban centers, drive to a station and ride to work and still enjoy a shorter overall commute time.
“HIgh-speed rail will simply add another layer of access to the far-flung suburbs/exurbs and Central Valley, resulting in more mass-produced subdivisions,” warns Robert Cervero, director of the University of California Transportation Center and author of Development Around Transit.
Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/high-speed-rail-and-sprawl/#ixzz12GIQQ3dp”
Adding LRT or transit to farther flung communities can actually increase sprawl and the attractiveness of suburbs by making it easier to access auto-centric communities. Transit also lessens congestion, which has the unintended effect of encouraging people to drive from those areas served by transit.
To get people off the roads we need to make driving and parking more difficult (raise prices, reduce COE provided on street parking) and increase taxes on unimproved surface lots (especially Downtown) to either encourage development on those lots or a rise in parking prices.
Building LRT to Eaux Claires or Heritage Valley or St Albert only allows people to continue a an auto-centric lifestyle in auto-centric suburbs while subsidizing their two daily trips to work. It might make sense to run several peak hour buses there, but LRT needs to go to the more mature, more dense neighborhoods in the city (Millwoods, West Edmonton, Whyte Avenue) and skip the Muttart, and the other areas I mentioned.
“In my mind, dealing with the growth of our city can be accommodated with more freeways or more LRT – both are costly, but the long term savings to our economy of a strong LRT system are clear.”
What about limiting the growth of our City with a “Development Exclusion Zone” whereby more roads / transit need not be implemented and the City could focus on maximizing service for the existing geographic area?
Has there been discussion regarding offering lower day rates for families (including two adults and up to 2 children) for using transportation services, (particularily to special events)? It is very expensive to take public transportation for an entire family to a special event and it is often cheaper to drive and park at the event.
Love the Lego, but love the carshare mention even more! Since the mid 90s, the CarSharing Cooperative of Edmonton (www.CarShareEdmonton.ca) has operated on the cooperative model of ownership. With one car in Garneau and one in Oliver, we are still a very small cooperative, but have organized to get another vehicle in the Norwood/Alberta Ave neighbourhood in the near future. I completely agree that reducing car dependence must be the goal for City Council and each household, and I’m glad to know that you’ve seen the successful carshare programs in Vancouver (www.cooperativeauto.net) and across Canada (www.carsharing.ca). The U of A also recently acquired a commercial carshare program (www.sustainability.ualberta.ca/news.cfm?story=100678).
Glad to see your ever strengthening commitment to improving walking, cycling, skateboarding, and public transit in Edmonton.
For all those who care about a balanced thoughtful and economically-literate development, it is vital that the citizens of Ward 10 defeat the next-to-adolescent Ivenson in the civic election. Certainly, the citizens of Ward 10 would much prefer to be represented by a fellow neighbor who genuinely shares their concerns than by a non-resident engaged in destructive grandstanding with policy prescriptions to the left of almost everybody else.
Dr. Swaters,
What exactly do you consider economically literate development? More cars, more pollution, longer commutes, reduced quality of life? Why didn’t you elaborate in your post, rather than just making an ad hominem attack (“next-to-adolescent”)?
I’d rather be represented by an adolescent who works thoughtfully for a sustainable future for my kids than join forces with the Dr. No of the conservative status-quo.
[Note from the moderator: this comment has been edited to change seven instances of “dummy-don” to simply “Don.” Although our commenting policy welcomes /thoughtful/ disagreement, we do not permit juvenile name-calling.]
Hi Jeff and Rita,
Thanks for your response. My “beef” with [Don] is straightfoward. He is a not a thoughtful person and has an narrow ideological axe to grind.
Once (and only once) in the past, I emailed him as my Councillor (on Transportation Policy) and, true to his dead-certain narrow bias, he did not respond to my query.
His fellow Councillor Andersen did.
Iveson is a next-to-adolescent who if he doesn’t “like” what his constituents say, just petulantly ignores them.
He is not democratically engaged with those that pay his “uber” salary in any sense of the term that I understand.
Rita and Jeff, I do not know if you actually pay property taxes or not. But I do (and for many, many years). [Don] is on record as saying that he is “tired” of Edmonton doing infrastructure “on the cheap”. Fine. Since 2008 my property taxes (expressed as a fraction of my assessed value so as to fliter out the absolute increase in property values – can you follow me?) has increased 34%. This is way beyond anything remotely connected to inflation and population growth (not to mention my increase in salary over the same period).
Now [Don] would argue that this increase was necessary to pay for infrastructure that has been neglected. Again, fine. But what the economic-theory challenged do not understand (such as [Don]) is that it is entirely fair to spread the costs of such development over more than one generation since the benefits that will be accrued will be over many generations. This is public-economics 100 and [Don] just doesn’t get it. Clearly, he doesn’t understand inappropriate intergenerational transfers of wealth. [Don]’s understanding of financing public works betrays his immature understanding of the basics of public policy. This is sufficident reason for him to be defeated and replaced with some else.
That is probably enough for now. When, as I expect, you will return with a more-or-less thoughtout re-tort, I will comment more completely on his silly transportation policy or his blame-the-victim and pander-to-the-criminal so-called crime policy and his hostility to us folks that actually pay the freight in this city.
[Don] need to get a real job (besides working for students whose parents are likely paying a substantial fraction of their way in any event) and suffer the consequencies of silly half-baked thoughts in a genuine annual performance review.
Dr. Swaters: I have had a moment to dig through my records and I have evidence of one email from you from February of 2009 concerning the configuration of Fox Drive during work on the Quesnell Bridge. I trust that’s the one you’re referring to. It is written to city staff while Cllr. Anderson and I are cc’d on it. I generally do not reply to emails I am cc’d to unless they require my specific attention. In the future if you are specifically expecting a response from a public official I would suggest you write to them directly.
Thanks, Les. That’s why I supported the shift toward an Urban Style system and why I proposed the motion to make NAIT the next priority, followed by SE and West rather than pushing further South or NE.
Your point about land value taxation is well taken and it’s actually been suggested as part of the Environmental Strategic Planning process for the city.
‘Limiting growth’ is easier said than done, after three years working on and learning about the challenges; I’ve written more about these issues here.
Mr. Iveson,
Thanks for your response to my comment.
In my opinion, it underscores one of the reasons why I feel so strongly that you should not be elected for another term. Since I pay your salary, when I send or cc you an email on an important matter that is specifically occuring within your Ward and is, moreover, focused on an important policy issue upon which you have made numerous comments on, it is necessary for you to respond directly to the person and try to understand their concerns and not to ignore them just because their views do not agree with yours.
Your remark that “I generally do not reply to emails I am cc’d to unless they require my specific attention” betrays, in my opinion, an unwarranted arrogance and inappropriate ignorance about what exactly is (and hopefully was) your role as a Councillor. My email did “require” your specific attention.
You were not at liberty to ignore my email. And the smart political response to this situation would simply have been to offer an apology, suggest that in the futue you might do things differently, and remain open to futher dialogue. Instead, young man, you presume to lecture me on how to engage with public officials.
That attitude is sufficient for you to be rejected by the voters.
And just so that you know that I know what I am talking about, it is a matter of public record that I have acted as the “Official Agent” and “CFO” for more than one provincial election campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s for the Strathcona NDP and was a candidate for in the 1989 provincial General Election for the NDP. I know what I am talking about. Too bad you don’t.
Dr. Swaters: I’m sorry, I misread the tone of your comments. I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss transportation policy in the city. After all, this video was designed to provoke discussion. I’ll buy the coffee.
And I’m sorry for the confusion about email protocol and, in turn, for not replying to your email last year. I had simply figured that the engineers responsible for the construction detour configuration, to whom the email was addressed, would provide you the most useful reply. I did not interpret your email as a request to have a broader discussion about transportation policy in the city.
I hope it’s not too late to do that constructively.
Mr. Iveson, many thanks for the three years of excellent service you’ve provided Ward 5. I particularly appreciate the position you’ve taken on transit, active transportation and city growth and development. All the best to you on Monday.
Peter Adamski
Thanks Don for your hard work in bringing edmonton out of the 60s. Even just mentioning the words ‘urban planning’ and making playful jabs at the hummer and navigator culture we have created is a real breath of fresh air at city hall. As for the good Dr. Swaters it’s sdeahtraf like these that keep us on our toes and strong for our fight against the larger clowns like envision edmonton.
Hey Don!
I’m delighted that you’re still representing Ward 5. I really appreciate your support of LRT expansion and your thoughts on how to do this most constructively.
I really appreciate your support of a 40th avenue stop for the LRT. As someone who lives in the area, I think this would be a great idea for the people in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Lots of people work downtown, but don’t want to take multiple buses or try to grab a spot at the park-and-ride before it fills up. There are lots of U of A students around as well, and 2,000-some students at Harry Ainley. A stop at 40th ave would really reduce traffic congestion and help lots of people drive less.
Anyway, thanks for all of your good work! We need more people like you in positions of leadership.
Cait
Whoops! I mean Ward 10! :S