LRT back in the news

Last Friday Saanich News columnist Kyle Slavin wrote a piece on regional transportation issues.  Here's a piece I submitted for an op-ed.  Hope it gets published.

During the last election I visited a senior’s home where one gentleman asked, with a stern look, “What about this LRT?”  I suggested that Victoria was ready for it, but it was not a project we could pay for ourselves.  I’d been doing my homework, chasing funding sources and making the case with provincial and federal politicians where I could.

With many voters, the LRT question was an admonishment to be more frugal and let transit users make do with what we have.  I was a little surprised with his response – “we’ve been talking about this for years; it’s time to get on with it.”

It brings me back to Kyle’s column (January 13), headlined “Patience key to solving traffic woes”.  It’s a good piece about behaviour, but I want to make the case that on the planning side, we’ve been patient long enough.

LRT makes sense and is more compelling every day.  We’ve identified many choices we will need to make for a sustainable future.  Our Regional Growth Strategy, now more than a decade old, enjoys broad political support and it emphasizes walking, cycling and transit. 

 
As far back as the ‘90s LRT was proposed as an alternative to highway expansion.  The province decided we weren’t ready for it then but the choice of corridors and the shape of an ideal system were well thought out. 

BC Transit, a regional body, went through an exhaustive process of community consultation and planning work and confirmed the alignment and proposed technologies last year.  The plan was supported by municipal governments and the CRD, as good a proxy as any for a more formal regional endorsement. 

The need to regain some momentum on LRT is critical.  As Slavin’s column noted, it will take several years to build.  All the more reason to complete the business case review and get moving on the “Team CRD” concept I proposed last year to chase the senior government funding necessary to pay for the project.

LRT is not the only solution to our transportation challenges, but it is perhaps the most important.  We know that LRT is our best choice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – and we are all committed to a provincial climate action program.  We know that the highway and Douglas St. alignment best connect people between home and workplace, as well as many other important destinations.  We know that the E&N is not a good fit for LRT (though it can work for other commuter services).  And we know that we can’t keep expanding road capacity – it’s just not sustainable.

A regional transportation authority still makes good sense, but we’ve done a lot of homework on the planning side already.  What we need is funding commitments, completion of business plans and a new political commitment to “get on with it”.  We’ve been patient long enough.

Northern Junk goes sideways

The Northern Junk proposal hit the news again lately.  Northern Jun k is a pair of buildings that are perched on Victoria’s waterfront just south of the Johnson Street Bridge, with a parking lot and a struggling patch of park bookending the site.  The buildings have been derelict for decades and only recently sold off to a Vancouver development company.   The company has been working with an architect with plenty of Victoria experience to plan a restoration of the heritage buildings and a new development embracing them on land the city has been ready to divest as surplus.

 

Parking lots are disposable and the land isn’t needed for the new bridge, so our last council was ready to work with the new owners to secure the heritage restoration project as well as find a development and land use design that would support a planned harbour pathway piece connecting to the bridge and a more sympathetic environment for foot traffic through the property and along the adjacent road network.

The new council has thus far found the proposal less than compelling, though with widely divergent views on where the plan failed to measure up.   Certainly the first iterations of proposed massing and density on the site were cause for concern, but many of the more negative impacts of that unfortunate proposal have been reworked and there remain many elements of the updated plan that make sense.

The project figures prominently in plans for Victoria’s new bridge.  The more site specific elements of transportation design for traffic and the pedestrian environment were well thought out and worked through by the last council.  Now, with new faces at the table, some new uncertainties about how those designs will work are being used as one of several points of departure to force another reworking of the project, along with some of the road works associated with the bridge connections to downtown.

 
Our council (I was on the last one) found early on in the development of the new bridge that the city parking lot (leased to the CRD) adjacent to Northern Junk would be surplus to our transportation needs and gave staff the green light to consider its sale to the new owners of the buildings.  It made good sense to assemble the land for sale (not a giveaway), and allow a more comprehensive development to help finance the heritage project.  It also made sense to provide for more of the density we are embracing through the various plans applicable to the site.  Victoria will need nearly 100 new buildings the size of the Juliet (a recent condo development sitting at the northwest corner of Blanshard and Johnson), in order to meet our growth strategy and population absorption targets over the next few decades.  They have to go somewhere, and many of those new buildings will fit in downtown.  An amenity package that included funding of harbour pathway projects and linking pedestrians through the site made good financial sense as well as enhance the connectivity, continuity and consistency of the walking experience between the bridge, the pathway and the pedestrian corridors through the site.

Notwithstanding discussions recently at council, the transportation design elements feeding traffic into downtown are well thought out and reflective of both the alignments associated with the new bridge and some of the other pedestrian improvements and traffic calming elements council was searching for as part of the bridge project.   Discussion, now with the new council having taken their seats, raised fresh objections to the curve feeding Johnson St. from the bridge and the apparent surfeit of travel lanes butting up against Wharf St.  Transportation concepts had been thoroughly worked through at council and actually it is pretty straightforward – the new bridge migrates northward and will have to find some way to connect to downtown.  It simply means that it will need the curve around towards Johnson St., (Pandora gets a little straighter in the exchange); and that just responds to the placement of the bridge relative to the downtown road network.

 
There is the issue of some apparent additional “storage” for vehicles on the approaches to Johnson, another necessary element that raised new objections.  It needs to be understood that the “free right” turn for traffic heading south onto Wharf is lost in the new design and turning traffic will be slowed, sometimes stopped, before they can make that right turn movement, and that will require some extra storage to absorb the impacts of the traffic calming benefits of this change.  It’s a lot better for pedestrians, but it does require a different kind of capacity at the intersection.

I don’t have any ideological resistance to selling off unneeded public land, and it is something that municipalities do frequently enough.  The sale of this particular parcel and the associated partnership with the developers on public amenities and other enhancements to the pedestrian realm are a good fit.  The city doesn’t have the resources to go it alone on the harbour pathway.  Those projects may be costly and will work best if designs for the pathway, as well as those threaded through the new development are complementary rather than isolated from one another.   Council will do a disservice to citizens and taxpayers if it doesn’t take advantage of a good opportunity here.

Restoring heritage buildings is never easy and every building and every project will be unique.  The costs and challenges require some creativity and often enough some support from the city to seal the deal.  Many of our recent heritage projects have benefitted from creative thinking and all of them take advantage of a 10 year property tax holiday Victoria provides to help developers finance the important seismic upgrading older buildings require before occupancy can be granted. 

But that is not always enough.   The last council understood that the Northern Junk heritage rescue would need to be financed in partnership with the developers and we were working towards some consensus to push forward in this direction.  Bringing the right design to the table will be essential to the project’s success, but the city needs to be a willing partner in making it happen, not present unnecessary barriers or discard some of the good work done to date.

We do need density and fresh commercial space downtown, and this development helps to add to that inventory.  While it might not yet be ideal, and the step back an opportunity to ensure the important issues of community design are treated carefully, there is a good foundation for moving forward.  Protecting the commercial elements while still allowing for residential density onsite is important.  The geometry of the site and the new buildings may need the careful review of the city’s advisory committees, though they could use a stronger link to and better directions from council.   The city and the public also need to be mindful of a commitment to preserving the rail right of way and the need, potentially, for a downtown station.  It’s not clear that the proposal embraces this opportunity well enough yet.

 
The new council is still getting their feet wet and it’s been a revelation, as a new spectator, to see how the last election have changed the tenor and directions of discussion, even among longer serving members.  Evidence again that council moves forward making decisions as a team, and not just as a collection of individuals.  On this proposal, I guess there’s much work still to be done, though I think that at least most of the transportation elements are already where they should be.  Here’s hoping they get it right on the rest of the project.

Back to the Future

A few weeks have gone by since my last post, straddling my unfortunate election defeat in city elections.  I was overtaken by some new voices on Victoria's City Council and I wish them good luck.  You are on probation for the next three years! 

And thanks to all those in Victoria who invested their confidence in me over the last three.  Got more votes this time than last, but the shifting fortunes of electoral math put me a few hundred votes and one spot out of the running.

Back to business, however, or so to speak.  I've always got projects on the go on cycling, walking or other transportation initiatives and now, as an outsider, I'll be back in the gallery at city hall where I hope to keep an eye on projects I began or helped to move forward.  I see some of those losing momentum and other priorities popping up.  I won't be shy about sharing my views and critiques of the city's performance. 

I hope also to be launching a "Municipal Watch" element to my johnluton.ca web page and invite comments in on local issues, not just in Victoria, but around the Capital Region.

First up, though, is the seemingly endless debate on what to do with our new Johnson St. Bridge.  Shovels have only just been put into the ground to start work moving utility lines and setting up new intersection treatments for cyclists and pedestrians connecting between downtown and the Galloping Goose trail.  Still, carping critics have come back with some "new ideas" about how we can design rail into the road bridge, certainly a service we want to see remain in Victoria, but no "solutions" are as simple as those critics would have us believe.  Sent some notes back to the local paper after a recent story on bridge plans.  Not sure it will get published, so here is what I wrote:

The new bridge debate:

Several weeks ago Ross Crockford raised concerns about the delay imposed by the need to move Telus services from the bridge site, expressing concerns about timelines and budgets.  Now he wants to impose more delay and add new costs to consider new design issues not contemplated during the successful referendum on the new bridge.

Our council proposed a full service bridge that included rail.  Mr. Crockford’s efforts made sure that rail was discarded, time lines were extended a year and costs for the project were driven upwards.

When his organization was courting the cycling community, many of his dot org colleagues were making the case that bringing rail into downtown really wasn’t necessary – it could serve just as well by moving the station to the Roundhouse and dedicating the existing rail bridge to bicycle and pedestrian traffic.  That was a necessary strategy when it became clear that the other proposed fix – the “two lane solution” – was found to be untenable, something that even Crockford admitted after working through the modelling with professional traffic engineers.

The push for more delay and more cost abandons one of his other constituencies – those who have always been certain that cheaper fixes were available with the old bridge (they don’t add up).  Asking for more design work will generate more expense – there is always more to assessing capacity on the bridge than finding out whether or not it will carry a semi-trailer or two, or an equivalent weight in an light rail vehicle.  The AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) guidelines for bridges are easy enough to find out, even if the specific manual referenced is too expensive for Ross.  A little web sleuthing will find easily enough the specifications for design vehicles for most general purpose bridges and our bridge will carry that weight.  But that’s not the issue for a lift bridge.  What will be the issue are the demands imposed when the bridge is lifting – the weight and capacity of the structure itself and the mechanical and electrical tolerances to lift and close, when the weight of the vehicles it will carry are irrelevant.  That’s a clear scope change, a cost driver and a another straw to clutch at.

A responsible analysis would also require a more detailed traffic analysis to determine what the impact would be on traffic system performance at peak hours.  The interruption would conceivably be a minor inconvenience at times of the day when traffic is light, but vehicle, cycling and pedestrian demand is concentrated during morning and afternoon rush hours when any LRT service would also be on the bridge.

The city needs to focus on the practical challenges of completing the new bridge to provide the service design, timelines and budget approved by referendum.  

Coming back with some new blogs soon I hope.  Already have some critiques aimed at new councillors and they haven't yet taken office! 

Campaign notebook

Less than a week to go until Election Day in Victoria on Saturday, November 19th.  Spend much of my afternoons and early evenings knocking on doors and stretching the campaigning into the all-candidates events sprinkled around Victoria's neighbourhoods.  Last night it was Fairfield, tonight we head for the Burnside Gorge Community Centre and Tuesday we'll be over in Oaklands.

On the doorstep and at our "trade fair" tables (a much better approach than standing up to read from your campaign brochure for 2 minutes), I've spent time talking in depth with voters about key issues.  Here's more of what I am hearing and where I stand on some of those key issues.

The bridge debate has been raised again by our local tabloid, but there is really no news.  You'll have to go back into my older posts to get some details on the issues dealt with during the referendum campaign, but suffice to say that the project has been well informed by the advice of several teams of competent engineers, bound by professional codes of conduct and some with decades of direct experience with our bridge (a key point after some critics ignored the advice of one U.S. engineer whose experience they relied upon to promote a local fiction.  They conveniently neglected to mention his advice not to use his projects as models to inform our own bridge assessment, since he had found even similar designs to be unique for every structure and every location and that we would be best served by focusing on our own bridge).

All sorts of numbers have been picked out of emails or pulled out of thin air, but again, only the reports signed off by consulting engineers should inform the discussion, and care needs to be taken to understand where those figures fit into classification systems that provide various levels of confidence and cost certainty for any major engineering project.  Along with the detailed engineering analysis of some of the specific challenges of refurbishment, the costs and logistical issues pretty clearly pointed to the choice we made and the community endorsed in referendum, to go with a new bridge.

Discussion on seismic issues havebecome almost incoherent, with some scribes suggesting that we need to be more vigilant about adhering to the most rigourous building code standards for important infrastructure, however with the exception of the bridge, since that would conflict with the personal  agenda of the publisher.  Never mind that bridges and key transportation links are critical for the delivery of emergency services and essential to recovery efforts post disaster.  Never mind that bridges are consistently at the top of priority lists for seismic upgrading and protection across the world for the purposes of emergency planning.

Earlier today I heard "greenwashing" tagged on the bridge project, exposing again a deliberate lack of understanding of how transportation systems work and the critical relationships between supportive infrastructure and the attraction to cycling and walking, important strategies for shifting transportation choices to sustainable modes.

This just scratches the surface of the issue.  More detail, as noted, can still be found in the older posts on my blog.  Next steps on the bridge project start this week: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/6345016100/in/photostream

Rapid transit is also showing up on voters' radar.  Costly projects always do and need to be approached with caution.  LRT has been endorsed as the right solution by every level of government involved in the project and, while solid funding commitments have not yet been made, our provincial minister has said consistently that we need to plan for the long term and he's confident that we've made the right choice.  The federal minister has also indicated support for cities who want to invest in forward looking transit solutions to deal with transportation challenges and to help build more resilient local economies.  Going through the next steps of a thorough business case analysis will be essential, but I don't expect that study to derail the project.  Good work has been done to date and public consultation has been open and ongoing. 

Critics on one side are targetting the project on costs and numbers, but have very little of substance to offer.  It mostly boils down to fear of costs, (ignoring that business as usual will cost at least the same, if not more, and provide few solutions to our transportation challenges in the region.  Recent comments attack the "multiple account evaluation" used to assess environmental and social impacts alongside costs and economic issues, relying again on sources from the National Post (not known for progressive thinking) and the author whose broadcast comments included an admission that he knew nothing about Victoria's transportation system design or dynamics but who is also leading a campaign against rapid transit in Waterloo, where both federal and provincial analysts have found the project to be sufficiently sound to warrant several hundred millions in senior government investments.

I've seen some other chatter about the concerns expressed on the doorstep about LRT and the need therefore to step back from the project.  Certainly it is important to listen, but there is a also a responsibility to lead.  The steps necessary to confirm the business case are embedded in the project and any thoughtful analysis should provide sufficient endorsement of the project on environmental and economic grounds to warrant continued efforts to secure the federal and provincial funding necessary to get the project on track.

Off for more mainstreeting, doorknocking and another all candidates meeting.  Hope to be back on the blog soon with more to report.  There's so much more to talk about and so much more to do.

There's more at the door

On the campaign trail the issues echo from door to door.

Many who are sympathetic to the premise of the "Occupy" message have lost patience with the occupiers and want to take the city's Centennial Square back from what most see now as a squat.  The square belongs to the rest of us too.

The toilets have been trashed; a tree squatter apparently threw a jar or jug of urine at a city worker and drug use and addiction issues have overtaken any semblance of protest.  "Occupiers" are asking the police to enforce the laws, but only those that deal with the people they don't like, forgetting that they too are running afoul of the law.

Impatience is bubbling over in the media and across the community.  The city's response has always been measured and respectful of the rights of free speech.  "Occupy", however, are clearly not the only inhabitants of the square, and no longer in control of what is happening there.  To be fair, it belongs to everyone, not just those who have laid claim and planted their flag.  The city now has to apply the laws as they stand, fairly and with equal application to all.  That is why the notice to vacate and the application for an injunction as been made.  It would be nice to have the legitimate protests find a better means of expression than an implied declaration of independence within the square where no laws with which the occupiers do not agree apply.

We have always made it clear that the square will be needed for community events and expect those with whom we have communicated understand and respect the rights of others.  Their choice now is to demonstrate that respect and can expect that the police and the courts will follow through with their respective authorities, to apply the laws that exist to ensure that the rights of broader public access to the public realm are supported in principle and in practice.

A few other issues are showing up at the doorstep, including a few comments on the bridge.  Most are supportive and understand that it is a significant and necessary project to ensure that we have a functional, safe and durable transportation system.  More still want it to be more supportive of alternatives like cycling and walking and can hardly wait for the new project to begin. 

Our work at council, and mine in particular, will be to watch both the budget and the details of planning and design that ensure a calm traffic environment and the preservation of much needed greenspace are incorporated into the project.  Both objectives have been a theme in Vic West where many residents feel a sense of ownership over the bridge and the approaches.  It is close to home for them, but the bridge will also need to serve the rest of the community and most pointedly the users of the bridge.  Many of them will be the growing numbers of people, who choose cycling or walking for transportation. 

Many concerns have been expressed about details of access and connectivity of cycling and walking facilities.  My attention on those issues has always been pointed and focused and, notwithstanding the skepticism of some commentators, the completion of a more expansive trail piece on the bridge, on-road bike lanes, and the added traffic that can be expected from the E&N trail can be expected to noticeably increase cycling and walking on the bridge.

A few comments have been levelled at the city's finances, which are easily available and truth be told in good shape.  Parks and recreation budgets are well funded and the evidence is clearly on the ground.  Check out Fisherman's Wharf Park, Cridge Park, a new tot lot in Burnside and a bike skills park alongside Cecilia Ravine to get a sense of what has so far been accomplished during our last term.  There are no disappearing budgets in community centres and the investments in Pandora are as likely to be recovered, and then some, by the associated lifts in property values and assessments that will come with the rescue of the green.

Safe routes to school is an issue in any neighbourhood with children and schools.  The ongoing investments in traffic calming and pedestrian safety is something I expect to carry beyond current successes and apply to underserved neighbourhoods.  Kids and families across the city need a safe and appealing environment to support walking and cycling to school.  I plan on working with interested residents to audit neighbourhoods and school communities to help shape ideas that can give somefocus and detail to our ongoing work on pedestrian and cycling plans unfolding across Victoria.

 

On the doorsteps of democracy

Elections are won or lost on the doorsteps, both literally and figuratively.

Connecting with constituents in the comfort of their home, rather than downtown at city hall, is often the best way to spend time talking about issues and finding out what they like, or what irks them about how their city is governed (and the same holds true on provincial and federal issues).

I've been involved in dozens of elections, most often as an organizer or volunteer in support of other candidates, only more recently as one myself. I love the connection you can make with people on their doorstep, or at the grocery store, coffee shop, or community event.  There is so much more diversity to be found than clustering within one's own community of interest that, by design, is more exclusive and less broadly democratic than the deeper pool of citizenry that is at least eligible to cast a vote in our elections for various levels of government.

It's frustrating, of course, to watch as participation declines - only 27% voted in the last municipal election in Victoria; higher, but eroding, percentages vote provincially and federally.   At the municipal level, candidates need to reach out to a shade over 6,000 residents.  That’s a lot of doors to knock on.  I can assure you that  there are so many diverse issues that people want to discuss.  One issue that has been raised lately at the doorstep in this campaign is the “Occupy” movements in Victoria and around the world.  What started out with so much energy, vitality and community support has started to become a debate over tactics and the evolving nature of the occupations themselves.   Of course some people would never find common cause with the protest.  However, it is also fair to note that even among would-be supporters, there is concern over the movement’s strategy and tactics.

The grievances are real and legitimate and the right of protest fundamental.  Unfortunately, for many, this has become a different debate – not about the “occupy” movement so much as the “occupiers”.  There is a disconnect between the ‘occupiers’ and their original support base that can be seen in the use of public space for protest.  At a certain point, one has to ask the questions about how to affect change and get beyond the simple act of protest.  It seems improbable that the path to reforming global corporatism requires the indefinite loss of public spaces for the broader community. 

On the doorsteps, I've encountered some surprisingly positive support for the city's careful and considered approach to accommodations with legitimate protests, and elsewhere, some frustrations with the apparent expansion of an occupation that is less protest than pretext.   The questions have to be raised about how to disengage so that the protest can evolve to find more productive and sustainable expression that has, at least, the hope of recruiting the real 99%. If it doesn't, the message will be lost and "Occupy" will be just another "rebel without a cause", and to the exclusion of the broader community who have an equal claim to our public spaces. How democratic is that?

Housing and the profit motive

Lately we've been pilloried in the press or at council meetings by a property owner and some other local voices frustrated by the city's unwillingness to approve a motel conversion to "affordable" housing.

On the surface, it's an attractive proposal; sprucing up an older hotel that the new owner bought in a bankruptcy sale to improve conditions for dozens of long term residents and securing a supply of housing for an underserved demographic - single men.

The reality is never so simple and council turned down the project for a number of good reasons.

When the bankrupt Traveler's Inn chain was being offered for sale, the city itself looked at a number of properties, a bold move on its own.  We hadn't before bought property to provide affordable housing and, given our caution with taxpayers money, we pursued only those that we thought we could secure at a reasonable price and could be easily converted to housing for some of our target demographics.  One is now filled with the very hard to house and another is a more challenging project to convert single units into more spacious family housing for our first nations community.

When we first entered the market, the economy seemed to be on the rebound and, apart from the city, private investors were looking to pick up properties in hopes of easy conversions to other uses.  Some of those bidding on properties may have over-reached and paid more than the true value, or failed to recognize the challenges of rezoning to fit their ambitions. 

The Douglas St. site lacks some necessary elements to support good housing and the property is not currently zoned for residential uses.  A real problem with the proposal was that the costs of improvements would have been pased onto existing residents in higher rents, arguably no better and prehaps worse than what they might get elsewhere in the private housing market. That's the difference between affordable housing and profitable housing.

While some may assume that the zoning is a minor challenge, the city's purchases met existing local zoning and avoided the costs and issues that rezoning may raise in the community.  Of particular concern for our city's future would be freezing the land use at the Douglas St. location; preventing a more thoughtful, appropriate conversion of the property to commercial and upper story residential and compromising plans for more transit oriented development along the corridor. 

At council, we often have to look at these longer term land use issues and weigh them against seemingly attractive short term fixes or favours for individual development to detour the threat of conversion to less attractive uses.

Victoria has done a lot of good work and has been partnering with numbers of players to create affordable housing and other options to help ensure that people who work in Victoria can also live in Victoria.  Nearly 800 units have been built or are in progress; a significant contribution to the fight against homelessness.  It doesn't mean though, that we are going to approve every proposal that comes through the door, and this one had more negatives than positives.

Progress on this key issue is steady and measurable.  Somewhere between the tent cities supported by some and the substandard or overpriced market housing proposed by others are the real solutions.  Those are the options we have to pursue and keeping up the momentum on that agenda is where council will be going over the next three years.