Victoria - The Sustainable City

LRT back in the news

2012-01-17T13:26:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-05T15:57:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-04T10:23:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-14T11:23:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-08T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-05T11:23:00.001-07:00

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

2011-10-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Issues on the street

2011-10-17T11:03:00.000-07:00

I've started knocking on doors as we approach the municipal election coming up November 19th. I'm running again for a seat on city council here in Victoria and seeking a seat at the CRD board table, both in my ongoing pursuit of building a sustainable city and a sustainable region. Many of the issues I ran on in the last election are still relevant, and some of those I've been talking about on my blog are on people's minds too.

For the next few weeks I plan on getting up into the blogosphere more frequently to talk about what I'm hearing on the street and on the doorsteps of Victoria. My website at www.johnluton.ca will be updated soon, and I've got a couple of videos up on youtube where I have had the chance to highlight a couple of key issues.

Here's one on housing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pay5RMiQthQ

And one on jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb4TrPjRKQY&feature=related

I'll be talking more about other key issues, but here on the blog, I'll scatter some thoughts around about some of the things I've encountered around Victoria. It isn't planned to cover the most important issues first or last, just more of a report on some, sometimes surprising themes that are showing up in the community.

Yesterday in the Oaklands neighbourhood, apart from issues of taxes (always an issue and we get good value for our taxes here), there was a good reception, but I did have a couple of people talking about boulevards and green space. Not top of mind for most perhaps, but there are a couple of good examples in their neighbourhood of residents taking control of city boulevard space in front of their houses to grow food or flowers and make something more aesthetic or more productive of space we haven't always been taking good care of.

We're in the middle of doing a "boulevard review". It's coming none too soon. Numbers of neighbourhoods have decided they want to take care of their own space, though the city still manages acres of grass separating the street from the sidewalk. It's important to me, and to many of our residents, that we protect and enhance our urban forest, and many of our street trees live in the boulevards. We've taken a more forward looking approach, widening out some of the boulevards to give some of those trees a little more room to grow and we're also mixing up species to ensure streets and the urban forest remain as healthy as they can. Too often in the past, single tree species have been planted along our city streets and there have been cases where a disease outbreak has wiped out entire blocks of trees and left neighbourhoods a little barren. It's not only a loss of the trees that are a worry, but also the impact this has on things like stormwater management, traffic calming, habitat integrity or heat island effects. The urban forest is an incredibly important and valuable asset.

The urban forest is also a concern as we try to adapt to the impacts of climate change. I'm always asking our parks department about their choices of species and they are working to ensure that the trees we plant now will adpat to the shifting climate zones we are facing not matter how much we do to slow global warming. The effects will be felt for years to come and the trees we plant now will have to live for the next 100 years with the impacts of industrialization that have happened over the last 100 years.

Another emerging trend in urban boulevard management is all about food security and pride of stewardship. Food security is a big issue for many in our community and Victoria has a growing community market culture, many residents doing their own backyard farming, and more who are looking to use the boulevards in front of their homes to grow something other than the latest golf green.

At the city, we'll be mindful of making sure that where we turn over the boulevards to residents, that we can redeploy our workforce elsewhere in our parks system, or if we can manage within our constrained budgets, using some of those used to just cutting the grass to work with residents on their ornamental or food gardens. It would be a great way to get more from our public spaces and help keep jobs in the city.

We also have to be mindful of what we grow in the boulevards we may turn over to residents. We don't want to plant nut trees if they have the potential to cause problems for children with allergies. We also want to make sure that food grown in boulevards is well tended and harvested to ensure we don't create rodent problems, spread root systems into sidewalks or underground utilities (sewer, water, phone lines etc.) and we should be careful to ensure fruits and vegetables left untended don't spill out and rot on the road where they can turn into a slippery mess that creates a hazard for cyclists, or for pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Never thought there would be so many issues associated with the urban farming movement, but boulevards can be pretty small and the city is not the same as the countryside. There will be issues to deal with. Still, it's an appetizing opportunity that many cities are taking advantage of, and Victoria needs to get on board.

We've got some examples already of people taking on their boulevards and we're leaving many of them alone while we work through the review. One fantastic example is in the Oaklands neighbourhood where we were door knocking (one of my council colleagues got the door where on resident has created her own farm on the boulevard in front of her house), and I heard from a couple of others concerns about managing the boulevards or other small greenspaces in the neighbourhood. They were most concerned that the grass, or the weeds, were often left uncontrolled and looking too tired or creating other problems. An small corner greenspace became a dumping ground for neighbourhood junk when some found it easy to hide their garbage in the tall grasses and dandelions that were taking over the space.

Our boulevard review will take some time and I'm looking forward to "digging in" on the issue. It's important to me that we try and be creative around the management of our greenspaces and our urban forest. Boulevard gardens are a way of partnering with our residents to take care of our city and bring some ideas from other cities into our urban fabric. It's about sustainability and it's just one of the issues I expect to be hearing on the campaign trail.

Today's picture is from Portland, where residents are taking over entire intersections to create not just gardens but attractive community spaces for all to enjoy.

The road back from Vancouver

2011-10-03T11:38:00.000-07:00

Back now in Victoria, and rested from a busy Union of BC Municipalities Convention in Vancouver, where some of the issues we have in common with other municipalities have been covered in last week's blogs already. I've got more to report out on from the conference itself, but sometimes the experience is the journey as much as the destination.

I had a chance, as always, to explore again some of the waystations along the route, where Vancouver's version of rapid transit is transforming another neighbourhood and the journey allowed me some time and some real world models to reflect upon as we work through our own transportation challenges in the Capital Region.

As often as I can, I'll ride to and from events and conferences, easy enough between Victoria and Vancouver where the trip can be shortened using our transit and ferry systems on both sides of the water. (Lucked out traveling on the Spirit of Vancouver Island where two of "my" bike racks sit on the car deck, but that's another story: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5085270056/) It's often a great way to get in a good, refreshing ride, add some training miles to my itinerary, and delivers a variety of other personal and community benefits along the way.

It's so much cheaper to travel by bike and transit, a positive on the expense ledger that conference travel adds to a councillor's public accounts. I probably eat a bit more (chocolate benefits), but it's still far below the cost of traveling by car or by floatplane. The plane might be quicker, a car not much more so, but for a week long conference and the opportunity to explore, there's so much added value to traveling by bicycle.

The most current of those values showed up soon after I left the hotel downtown (I've got a favourite that let's my bike into the room), as I meandered along to Cambie St. after the requisite visit to see how Hornby and Burrard bike lanes are performing (and they are showing good signs of growing bicycle traffic and comfortable enough adaptation for everyone else).

Cambie was turned upside downtown for several years while the Canada Line was constructed and the Olympics came to town. Use of the new rapid transit connection ramped up pretty quickly and has been enthusiastically embraced by residents and visitors alike. A good service creates its own successes and Vancouver's model proves the point so well.

It's not the first time I've taken time to watch the neighbourhood reinvent itself, but this time, instead of heading straight for the ferry, I took more time out to circle around. perhaps the pivotal station along the line, a few blocks west of the southeast False Creek Olympic Village, a few blocks north of city hall and now an anchor for much new and positive development that is adding value to the landscape and opening up the neighbourhood for a more diverse mix of land uses and transportation choices.

Business and commercial space is going up, and not just low value, single story developments, but even some of the bigger retailers that might have fled to the suburbs are there taking advantage of access to rapid transit, and as well the pattern of settlement density better transit is clearly a catalyst for. Residential is piling up on top of some of the commercial developments and nearby, more townhouse and neighbourhood residential scales down from the transit hub. Bike lanes and path connections, bicycle priority treatments and everywhere more space for pedestrians all provide for a more diverse and sustainable menu of transportation options. Still, there is a lot at the transit station for park and ride commuters and on-street parking, though not everywhere on every street, seems adequate to support driver demand.

There's a vibrancy back in this part of the city, no doubt less in evidence while transit was blazing its path through the corridor. Still, over the sequence of trips I've made back and forth, the trasnformation of the hub appears to have been quick and dramatic. It's useful understanding that the introduction of rapid transit, in whatever form, may be disruptive and needs to be well managed during construction, but also that the recovery can be dramatic and immensely positive.

Also worth noting is our own city history here in Victoria, where we have been shaped as much by the streetcar systems of the early 20th century. The neighbourhood villages, not to mention our well to do neighbours in Oak Bay, owe their existince to the LRT of the day. It's a hot topic on some of the chat forums, as it should be. We need so much to be looking at not just the speed and flow of our circulatory systems, but also at the health of the community around it. Current models of transportation and community design that are so thoroughly focused on auto transport are showing signs of ill-health - nobody is coming downtown because we have the best dollar store, the tastiest single slice pizza or the fastest slurpee. What we most need is a better transportation and development model, and it's one where LRT is increasingly, clearly, the right choice.

More from the UBCM

2011-09-30T08:13:00.000-07:00

Conference sessions, cabinet presentations and networking sessions have been going on full tilt here in Vancouver. A few highlights now before heading into resolution sessions to push for full public hearings on oil pipelines and coastal tanker traffic. At this point the federal government is not planning hearings for coastal communities, intending only to hold hearings in the oil patch. Let's hope we can send a strong message on that one.

Yesterday I joined council colleagues from Victoria and elsewhere in the region on a visit to the Dr. Peter Centre where HIV patients get the care they need. We moved on to Insite where that innovative clinic tackles the most difficult of addiction issues at a safe consumption site. They are saving lives and reducing the spread of deadly diseases like HIV and Hepatitis. Good news followed this morning with the Supreme Court decision to protect Insite from closure by the Prime Minister's misguided agenda.

Made connections that will allow me to follow up on issues around our ship repair industry. Stay tuned for more on the jobs agenda we'll be working on. Attended other sessions on transit, on housing, on infrastructure renewal and lots of other issues. I'll be back at the keyboard soon.

Victoria Issues at the UBCM

2011-09-26T16:23:00.000-07:00

Got lucky on sunday and pedaled out to the ferry on my way to the Union of BC Municipalities in Vancouver. Took the bus and Canada Line most of the way on the mainland. I know that's cheating but it was late and I wanted to get downtown to my hotel to be ready for a couple of meetings before the conference really gets going Tuesday.

First up for me was a workshop on creating age friendly communities, an issue I take a keen interest in, not so much for my advancing years (my hair colour is evidence enough of that), but for the challenges we will all have to tackle as we design our cities for the future. I'm a baby boomer and it's a huge demographic bulge that will change the nature of our city in so many ways.

Victoria, by the way, is probably ahead of the curve in many respects. We're already an active community and many of our seniors are no different than the rest of the population. Take a look at the Galloping Goose or the walkers on the Dallas Rd bluffs and you'll see lots of our older citizens out for a walk, a run or cranking the pedals alongside their cycling buddies. Obesity rates are lowest on the west coast, and other health indicators, from heart disease, adult onset diabetes, high blood pressure and other ailments more common in aging populations, show Victoria leading most other cities in Canada. We only trade spots on the rankings back and forth with Vancouver.

Towns and cities across British Columbia, and just about everywhere else in the world too, are looking for ways to adapt to the different needs of their own aging populations, and making their environments more supportive of healthy and active lifestyles is very much a priority for most. It's a necessary response to the demands of their own populations, even if other governments profit a little more directly from our local work. Health care costs are a bigger issue sometimes for provincial and federal governments; I'm sure they are happy to have municipalities fund parks, trails, sidewalks, bike lanes and the like - all the things that help support active lifestyles that innoculate people against some of the health problems of old age and sedentary lifestyles.

Back to the workshop. I was most interested in the presentation by Dr. Larry Frank, a professor at UBC's School of Community and Regional Planning. He's a well known researcher on the health affects of community design and was one of the first to associate suburban sprawl with declining population health indicators attached to sedentary lifesytles and auto dependence.

I wanted to bring back a couple of stories from his slide presentation to talk about current local issues like our own rapid transit initiative. One of the pressure points coming from critics of LRT is the suggestion that we can solve a lot of our transportation problems with HOV lanes that move more cars and perhaps a few more buses through congested corridors like Highway 1 and Douglas St. Apart from the fact that it simply doesn't work on a couple of levels (it will never carry enough people to deal with current, let alone future travel demand and creates a whole new set of problems related to parking for all those vehicles), HOV for buses or cars also creates an insidious health problem that is particularly hard on seniors. Dr. Frank has mapped nitrous oxide and other particulate emissions along transportation corridors in Greater Vancouver. Not surprisingly, the most heavily travelled routes have the highest concentrations of those emissions, and they are of particular concern for the elderly with respiratory problems, or other health issues associated with the air we breathe. The concentrations thin out pretty quickly beyond those corridors and there are pockets of health around the city, often associated with more walkable centres.

He noted too, that a denser, more transit oriented approach to transit actually induces more walking, enough that people who use transit are likely to get their daily prescription of physical acitivity just by walking between home and transit or to their destination at work, shopping etc., making transit a positive choice for healthier lifestyles.

For our own debate, however, the choice between HOV and, for some, the Bus Rapid Transit model, needs also to be assessed on the emissions equation. LRT will run on electrical power, and eliminates point source emissions, a huge benefit to our air quality and, not coincidentally, a positive gain for community health. Score one more win for LRT and more reasons to discount some of the oversold alternatives. It's part of the reason why it has been so important to do a multiple account evaluation that measures benefits as well as costs, and not just the immediate capital expenses of construction. Like the critics say, there is only one taxpayer, and we all know how taxing our health care system is becoming. Why would we want to burden that system any more.

Voodoo Economics. LRT critics numbers don't add up

2011-09-12T14:56:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release

September 12, 2011

Councillor says critics’ plan will wreck transit

Victoria City Councillor John Luton, who sits on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission, is asking the “CRD Business and Residential Taxpayers” group to put their numbers through the same level of scrutiny they are demanding of BC Transit’s LRT proposal.

Luton said that the group’s prediction that the “business as usual” case will cost only $12 million extra over the two decades is not credible. With lifecycles of 20 years or less, every bus in the fleet will disappear without significant investment. Their plan does not account for population growth and will stifle economic development in the region, he said. “Even today passengers are being left behind when buses are full and maintenance facilities can’t do all the work needed to keep our buses on the road.”

Luton says that the latest numbers being touted by the group must be reviewed by credible transportation and economic analysts and that a full accounting of alternatives they are proposing must be subjected to a “triple bottom line” evaluation.

“Their numbers are silent on new road building costs and the land values lost to parking under scenarios they are promoting. Thousands of new car trips could be generated by their HOV plan”, says Luton. “No calculations are made on greenhouse gas emissions or congestion impacts on economic productivity.” Luton says that the group has levelled criticisms of LRT on their website but suggests they need to submit their plans to more rigorous independent analysis. Those plans include HOV strategies that have proven ineffective in other jurisdictions or bus based systems that won’t meet long term transportation needs in the capital region.

“Transit’s plan has gone through extensive public engagement, rigorous multiple account evaluations and years of planning”, Luton says. He said that local commission members met with the provincial Minister several months ago to discuss the project. “He told us he would consider only long term solutions to transportation problems and applauded the good work done so far on the LRT plan”. The province has funding for Victoria in their transit plan and, with federal support, Luton says that the capital can build a sustainable, cost effective system and create a more attractive environment for investment”.

Discussions also covered local governance and funding issues that both the CRD and Transit Commission have been working on.

Luton says that LRT works well in cities around North America and elsewhere in the world, often in cities no bigger than Victoria. “LRT is the best fit to meet our evolving travel demands, support environmental objectives and help spur economic development. Critics are focused only on capital costs but ignore the clear limits of the models BC Transit has already looked at.”

Luton has already brought a motion to Victoria City Council asking decision makers to seek senior government funding and supporting an independent, peer review of Transit’s LRT plan on costs and ridership numbers. He is taking the same concepts to the Commission to ensure staff’s work on the project is supported at the political level.

“Victoria is past the point where expanding capacity for car travel can solve our transportation problems. We have to build solutions for this century, not the last one.”

For more information:

John Luton
johnluton@shaw.ca
250-592-4753
250-886-4166 (cell)

LRT still the best choice for Victoria and the Capital Region

2011-08-17T23:00:00.000-07:00

The media, in all its forms, in and around Victoria, has been buzzing with discussion on the LRT project that BC Transit is planning for Douglas and the Highway. It's something I've supported as a councillor and lately as a transit commissioner. Likewise, councils around the region gave it the thumbs up when Transit asked for their endorsements and it has the support of many of those same elected officials when they sit around the table as CRD board members.  It has the backing of the provincial crown corporation that runs transit operations here in Victoria and across the province, (except for the lower mainland around Vancouver, where they run their own system and get substantially more provincial tax room to do it with).

The endorsement from some local politicians has experienced some erosion as the issue of costs come up and well meaning but unworkable cheap fixes gather traction with individuals and organizations around the region. None should have been surprised that a new transit model would come with costs and certainly all of them know that our current transit system comes with its own price tag. The facts are getting out there, but the debate will continue. Here's some of my perspectives.

Today, Green Party Leader Jane Sterk spoke up, and in the order that I read them, proposed the cheap fix of repairing the E&N and using that to meet our transit needs, then in the same release suggested we do no work without a regional transportation plan. But also, we should save some money to "fix" the Admirals/Mckenzie - Highway intersection, because we know that's a problem.

Both the E&N upgrades and something better at Mckenzie are needed, but it's putting the cart before the horse to exclude those from the transportation plan Jane says is needed before we spend anywhere.

There is, not incidentally, many elements of a regional transportation plan already in place. It's embodied in our regional growth strategy - something that aims to achieve small g "green"objectives in shifting trips to more sustainable modes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and concentrating development to favour walking, cycling and transit. LRT is still the best fit for all of these objectives and the alignments along the Highway and Douglas will always find their way to the top of the priority list for transit improvements in the region.

No argument with the Greens that the E&N is a valuable asset and one not to be dismissed, but it has limited utility for the LRT service Victoria needs. It complements the rest of the transit system, but it's not a substitute. Here are just some of the pros and cons.

The E&N can work for CFB Esquimalt and for their workforce particularly. They have pretty much a set schedule that delivers a pulse of commuters in the morning and sends them home again the afternoon. The base generates very little daytime traffic. There are few other trip generators along the corridor, and the spacing between them is distant enough to allow for a heavy rail passenger service to be effective. That's the foundation for an E&N commuter service, but for the rest of the day, investments in the line will better support more tourist oriented passenger travel and, more importantly for the economic survival of the railway, provide a very useful freight corridor that can help us get heavy loads and dangerous cargo off of the Malahat.

What it can't do is provide the all day, short headway, multi-destination service that will be delivered by LRT. LRT will need a double track system for the length of the corridor, a real challenge along the E&N. Rapid transit along the E&N would create other headaches that nobody is costing in their commentaries.  There are 25 level crossings between Langford and Victoria. Few of them correspond to any existing or potential development opportunities that would make sense for a station location. What you have instead is a series of now expensive, disruptive crossings that would radiate traffic congestion out from more locations along the corridor. Some would be little more than a nuisance, others might be more problematic, but none would be exempt from creating other traffic problems. Federal rail safety regulations demand a higher level of control at crossings than are provided at most of those along the E&N. The trigger for those fixes are traffic volumes and numbers of trains. The introduction of even a few additional trips a day along the railway will require already numbers of those expensive upgrades.

The LRT alignments already match high volume travel patterns in the Capital Region and both the highway and Douglas St. corridors are well suited to accommodate the conversion of right of way into a light rail line. Stops and crossings correspond well with destinations and trip generators that make them sympathetic to traffic operations.  Current land use and opportunities for densification are also quite complementary to LRT, so much more so than the E&N.

Too much has been made of the apparent low cost of upgrading the E&N. It seems like a bargain, but the current ask for $15 million is only a sliver of the costs. Some of the capital and operational costs associated with that project aren't part of that figure. Different stakeholders, including the same federal government we'll be asking for help on our LRT project from are already in for VIA service and some of the rolling stock. Different pots of money are being invested in other pieces of the system, so even the current accounting is incomplete. The Island Corridor Foundation chose, wisely, to save the rail in pieces. They'll work in distinct phases to upgrade a piece here and there, address bridge deficiencies, tackle more distant sections etc. That, by the way, only gets us back, really, to the existing service plus a couple of extra commuter trains. Adding more frequent and more rapid transportation service along the E&N was never contemplated in the business case analysis done by the province and pursued by the ICF. That would cost considerably more than the hefty sum the province calculated was needed to rescue the line, and the full figure is orders of magnitude beyond the $15 million, and still doesn't complete what we need for our transit network.

There are other "green" elements missing from the buy now, plan later projects. The E&N should reduce vehicle traffic by some measure, but still runs on diesel. GHG emissions will come down, but won't make a big enough dent in our our carbon footprint. It also can't meet the transit targets we set for ourselves in our own regional growth strategy, or mandated by the provincial transit plan. LRT is still the only viable, long term solution to meet those objectives. "Fixing" Mckenzie may be a useful, even necessary band-aid for those that suffer that intersection, but it's hardly green, and might not fare so well in a planning process that focused on sustainable transportation.

Housing for people, not cars
One of the other "solutions" driving around looking for a place to park is HOV lanes. It may be a good way to start converting the road space we'll need to allocate soon to LRT. Allowing some of our buses to queue jump heavy traffic and putting some of the significant number of cars already carrying extra passengers into those lanes could relieve some pressure while we assemble resources and do the design work needed to take LRT to the next step. But it won't work for long and it's not something we can plan for beyond a few years.

Buses are good for some of our network, but 60% of our transit capacity is tied up on Douglas St. and our growth centres are headed to the west shore. We can't redeploy until we've got a more efficient and effective people mover to serve that corridor.

Just as an aside, because it's nearly always raised as a show stopper for Victoria, it's not about the population of our city and our region, it's about the concentration of travel demand on our target corridors and our lcoal attraction to transit. By those measures, Victoria is already ahead of other bigger cities in our readiness for rail.  Our concentrated travel demand is well suited to LRT, much more so than larger cities with more diffuse settlement and land-use patterns. And we have a high ridership per capita already, much better than most with bus only systems, and that's a good foundation for the better service and higher capacity only LRT can deliver.

Back to the buses. They will move faster in dedicated lanes, but they still bunch up downtown and there's the capacity issue. There's not a lot of growth to be expected in high-occupancy vehicles - most research runs counter to the overly optimistic projections of its supporters. LRT by the way, can carry several times the number of people any HOV project can deliver. What's more problematic is the long term future. Any success of HOV lanes takes passengers out of buses and puts them into cars and brings those cars downtown (and are we ready to turn every second motorist into a transit driver and scheduling service?) That's the intended consequence of the system in any event. Current plans for LRT would convert about 150 on-street parking stalls into LRT lanes. If HOV lanes generate additional vehicle travel demand in excess of that number, parking will get harder, not easier, for all those new multi-occupant vehicles. That's expensive for developers, steals ever more road space from other users (delivery vehicles, taxis, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc.), Worse, it forces every developer to add more parking, not less, into every commercial or multi-unit residential building. Parking is expensive to provide and it makes housing less affordable and discourages higher value uses on commercial or other land. Economically, HOV provides less value added opportunity for urban land and it means more space and more shelter for cars, fewer for people.

Other issues in the social media etc.

Blanshard St: Doesn't subsitute for Douglas. Destinations and trip generators need to be connected to LRT, not a block or so away. Douglas St. confirmed over several studies and extensive public consultation. Blanshard moves traffic, Douglas moves people.

Goose, the Lochside and Peninsula destinations: Trails are not being compromised by LRT, despite the false alarms raised by some. Peninsula destinations are more distant and can be served well enough by a little extra bus capacity (surplus vehicles from LRT project), and but for some local pressures getting a rough enough ride anyway, not where we have or are going to build density. LRT to the peninsula would create development pressures contrary to our growth strategy, food security needs etc. Even Tswwassen to Richmond is still a bus service, and it has more traffic than we do on this side of the pond. Any additional LRT phases would likely head first towards UVic.

More than the left: I've been talking to developers, not normally associated with the left, anxious to see LRT move forward. They see it as good business - it gives them some certainty for building and developments that take advantage of LRT to reduce the cost of supplying expensive parking spots, while increasing residential and employment density. It's good business sense and doesn't belong to one side of the political spectrum or another. The BC Liberal Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said we had a good plan and didn't want to see us back at the table asking for more money in five years. He told us to plan and deliver transit services for the long term. The federal minister said at FCM earlier this year that he wanted to work with local government to build transit infrastructure. Neither the provinical or federal ministers are closet lefties as far as I know.

"Most will still use their cars" - given options, people do change their habits. Less than half of commute trips in Victoria are by car (but more than 70% do in Langford). Victoria is not so different from other cities. Our transit share is already very good for a smaller city so the potential for growth is good, with good service. Tracks on streets are nothing new and work well enough. Most would be better on the highway and Douglas where crossings would be perpendicular. Too many oblique crossings on the E&N are already a problem for design and safety issues.

Land values: Business case on land value lifts produced for BC Transit were done by professional real estate consultants and used BC Assessment information. The number crunching was based on other systems in North America. All pretty good sources. We're not the first city considering rapid transit; it has been done before.

"Transit isn't taking HOV lanes seriously": Transit's initial analysis found HOV lanes wouldn't noticeably improve transit service (moving people) so a more extensive investigation wasn't pursued. That's different than not doing the work, it's that HOV doesn't offer a solution and that's not what some critics wanted to hear.

An independent review is a good idea and will be needed to secure senior government funding. Don't expect that review to find fatal flaws in the plan. Transit is pretty successful at moving people and managing transit in the province. It has competent staff working on development and analysis of the project, with help from the provincial ministry and outside consultants also with good credentials. In Victoria we have some recent experience with peer reviewed projects and the work of the city and our consultants passed muster on that one. Transit knows that LRT is a significant investment and have done their homework. Writing fairy tales would be a career limiting move for those involved and harmful to Transit's business interests. They compete with other crowns, public agencies and departments of government for budget and they know they are under taxpayer scrutiny. The work is solid and a review will confirm its the right direction for us.

Happy to weigh in now and again. Hope some of you will read beyond the headlines and the easy answers.

Rapid Transit - A Capital Idea

2011-07-06T22:06:00.000-07:00

BC Transit is moving forward with plans for LRT (Light Rail Transit) to service the Capital Region. We've endorsed it at the local level (I sit on the Regional Transit Commission) and the provincial Crown Corporation that governs Transit across the province has now also endorsed the plan. We took the plan to the provincial Minister of Transportation, who is also supportive of longer term solutions rather than the short term fixes favoured by some.

Dissecting the issue, analyzing the plan and countering some of the misinformation promoted by critics should help us move the right decision forward. We need to chase federal funding for the project to match what the province is planning for from their provincial transit plan fund - $14 billion province wide - so we can reduce the burden on local property taxpayers, a fair comment from the critics who are concerned about costs.

The alternatives to LRT - BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), HOV ( High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes or "business as usual" simply don't add up, whatever fantasies some critics want to dream up. I'll turn first, though, to some of the limits of buses to attract the kind of ridership we will need to meet our targets for transit mode share or by any measure, our obligations under provincial legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Richard Layman is a U.S. transportation and urban revitalization consultant and advocate who has put together a nice, brief outline of challenges posed by bus oriented options in North America. I'll add some of my own notes, but Richard's comments are a good counterpoint to some of the fascination particularly with Latin American BRT systems that have proven successful in helping to solve some of their transportation problems, most notably in Curitiba, Brazil. We can learn much from their experience and buses do offer a lot of value as part of a more comprehensive and integrated system of mass public transit, but it won't be enough to meet the challenges we face here.

One scribe in particular noted the need to respond to customer preferences for mobility choices and his best solution is still the car, and the better that options replicate that service, the more likely it will attract those choice customers. Buses won't do that.

Layman's list (and my notes):

1. Much less per capita ownership of cars, far greater transit dependence.

My reading of this says that in Latin America or other Third World countries, people don't have the choice, like they do here, to drive, so they already have to use the bus or whatever public transit is available. It's a no brainer that if you provide a better bus system, it will fill up.

Not necessarily so in North America. You have to provide a level of service that makes transit as comfortable and attractive, at least for some trip purposes, to the car. In most of North America, that solution has been the streetcar, the commuter train or the subway - they are more spacious than our buses, no matter how they are dressed up, and they are more comfortable. "Choice" riders are not getting onto the bus, but they do often, in many cities, take rapid transit. (Cities with true rapid transit have twice the ridership of places like Victoria, even with a good working bus system). Certainly our projections for ridership in the CRD suggest that the "mode share" (the percentage of people who will be riding LRT or getting on the bus), will be much better with LRT.

2. Lower wage structures so operating costs for buses are much lower than in North America.

This may not be well spelled out in the Transit cost analysis, but it is worth noting. LRT vehicles carry about twice as many passengers as do even the most spacious buses, and they will need someome to operate them, (not to mention cleaning, repairs, maintenance etc.). All of these are good, family supporting jobs and though I'm not one to go looking for ways to cut jobs, I am mindful of the cost efficiencies of a system that may grow those jobs more slowly. Operators are on thing, but the lifecycle costs of buses vs LRT should also be cause for concern. Buses are very labour intensive and not nearly as durable. It may be one factor in the Transit analysis that finds the per passenger operating cost of LRT offers us the best return on our investments.

3. Willingness of patrons to stand much closer together, so that buses in Latin America carry 2 times the number of passengers/load compared to the U.S. (crush loads).

Try getting North Americans out of their SUVs to get up close and personal for longer trips - 30 minutes or more, jammed into even a bigger bus. It's not in our DNA and although it may work in places (Tokyo, Mexico City etc.), it's unlikely to attract people here out of their cars. Even during rush hours, Skytrain in Vancouver, for example, feels spacious enough (and I've often not been the only one also bringing a bike on board). It is a much more attractive option for those that more often still have other choices.

4. Inability in the U.S. (maybe a challenge in Canada too) to create the kinds of separated busways and all the other conditions that define true BRT compared to what we might call "rapider transit".

Sure, our BRT option did look at an exclusive, separated right of way (remember how well that was received?). It is essential to providing the time advantage necessary to out-compete the car. It worked so well in Richmond (BC) that everyone ran in the opposite direction and the system was quickly replaced with the Canada Line (and the surplus buses are now your connection to the ferries). Ottawa has had a more durable system, but they too are looking to convert to rail based systems. The busways there are awful, sterile canyons that cut up neighbourhoods far more emphatically than streetcar systems like Portland's for example. Those are good examples too of the shortcomings of BRT - buses can go anywhere, and when the system fails to meet expectations, development may well take them elsewhere, making them a much less effective community planning tool than more fixed systems like rail (even our current urban settlement patterns in many Victoria area neighbourhoods are the result of long gone streetcar systems).

5. General unwillingness of choice riders to ride buses, regardless of the quality of service.

We are still very much attached to our cars, perhaps less so in Canada than in the U.S. where transit ridership is lower, but still a very sticky attachment. We will need to do a lot to encourage people to make the switch from the private automobile to transit. While we are experiencing some shifts in personal transportation choices (bicycling is growing dramatically as a percentage of traffic but the raw numbers are still small compared to European cities, by comparison), but for all the investments in the current model of transit, we are making very few gains in ridership and our transportation problems aren't getting perceptibly better.

Some critics still insist that a few tweaks to the current system can solve all of our transportation challenges with penny wise investments that are too good to be true. That they are, and I'll try and explore some of those issues in future blogs. You can also follow more of the discussion on the LRT4DRD facebook page.

Pedestrians and the Bridge

2011-04-25T09:28:00.000-07:00

There was lots of discussion on strategies for pedestrians and cyclists after the city closed the rail bridge a couple of weeks ago. One of the non-starters was the suggestion that the "two lane" trial proposed last year by critics and repeated at council would somehow improve the situation for pedestrians.

The "two lane solution" doesn't work well for cyclists and will create serious enough problems for traffic management, but one of the things it can't do is provide any space for pedestrians. They are sometimes shortcutting down the ramp access for the Ocean Pointe Hotel (and there's another issue - what happens to their access if that inside lane is closed). Peds are chancing gaps in traffic to run across to the sidewalk on the south side of the bridge.

The limited space that might be used for cyclists on a closed travel lane would create serious safety issues for pedestrians if it was assigned a multi-use status. Without robust physical barriers (a real engineering challenge), pedestrians and cyclists could be wandering in and out of heavily used travel lanes to avoid one another, never ideal on the rail bridge or in congested sections of the Goose, but at least mis-steps there have not been into moving traffic.

More of the discussion and an illustration at my flickr photo page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5650829987/in/photostream

Burrard Bridge comparisons part two

2011-04-20T17:12:00.000-07:00

My last post talked about the traffic management issues that, at one level, illustrate why the Burrard St. Bridge is not a good model for critics promoting a "two lane solution" for our own Blue Bridge. I've added a few more pics and some commentary at my flickr site to illustrate further some of the engineering challenges that should add another nail to that coffin.

Burrard has more width to work with and the separated bike lane has been installed using concrete barriers to provide some distance between cyclists and fast moving traffic. The facility is designed to provide single direction bike lanes, with the east side sidewalk converted to bicycle only use and pedestrians assigned the west side sidewalk on the bridge. This will prevent conflict in the confined space on the bridge, something that would be a serious problem if the bike lane was two-way or worse, multi-use, an idea that has been suggested by critics looking for "solutions" to save the Blue Bridge. Some may profess an interest only in providing a substitute for the loss of acces to the now closed rail bridge for cyclists and pedestrians, but I believe that many are simply looking again to find some way to demonstrate that a "solution" exists that would allow the city to save the bridge while providing improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.

The photos should provide some food for thought on how much more constrained we would be on the Johnson St. Bridge, as compared to Burrard, where we have lanes that are narrower and the functional needs of a movable bridge can't accommodate the significant additional weight of an effective barrier system.

The need for robust separation would be particularly acute if a two-way or multi-use lane were to be contemplated. While daylight is generous through spring and summer and into early fall, commute times across the bridge will be cloaked in darkness for many months of the year and bicycles in particular, riding against the flow of traffic on the bridge, would need some signficant separation from opposing traffic and blinding lights. Engineering standards for multi-use or two way facilities adjacent to roadways demand more space than would be available on the Johnson St. Bridge where a standard dimension "jersey barrier" would rob at least two feet from the separated lane.

It's another example of where the math doesn't work. The city's response so far has been to strengthen the visual cues for drivers to slow down and share the road across the bridge, and to encourage cyclists to "take the lane" to ensure safe passage. It is a safer and more effective way of calming traffic and providing an adequate, if not ideal, level of service for everyone who will be using the bridge over the next 3 1/2 years while we work on our replacement structure.

http://www/flickr.com/photos/luton/

Back to basics on the bridge

2011-04-18T22:43:00.000-07:00

Last week the rail span of the Johnson St. Bridge was closed for safety reasons. The rail stopped using it a few weeks ago and service has been suspended, at least temporarily, while the Island Corridor Foundation that owns the rail line scrambles to find funding for track fixes well beyond the bridge.

While the bridge may have been safe for cyclists and pedestrians to use for awhile longer, perhaps a few weeks or a month, the prudent approach was to accept the advice of the engineers of record and close the bridge. It's a cautious approach and ensures life safety issues are addressed, protecting our citizens (as well as reducing our exposure to liability issues should the bridge fail without warning).

We're ahead of the game here, not so much like Minneapolis where the I-35 bridge collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and injuring dozens more. I've covered that one elsewhere in the blog or on my website.

What's got me back on the bridge is the rise again of what I believed to have been a dead issue. More than one council colleague raised the prospect of closing one lane to provide some separation for cyclists and, I think for some, the idea that it could be shared with pedestrians. More on some of the design challenges in some blogs in the days to come, but first I wanted to address one of the flippant comments made during our discussion of what to do. So far, a lot has been done already, with signage and on-road improvements to remind everyone to slow down and share the road while we wait for the new bridge. Most cyclists I've talked to are very enthusiastic about the rapid response and the effectiveness of the new treatments in making their commute a little more comfortable.

More than once though, I've heard, to my frustration (and expressed in most unparliamentary language), that "they can do it on the Burrard St. Bridge so we can do it here" for one, or "we took a lane away on Fort St. and it works there so it can work on our bridge". Neither comparison stands up, however and you can find some photo links here that illustrate some of the differences. Traffic operations don't lend themselves to simplistic solutions and misplaced comparisons.

The volume, lane capacity and intersection dynamics, particularly on the downtown side of our Blue Bridge will break down if we close a lane, not to mention, yet, all the other design problems of viewing the bridge in isolation from the surrounding road and sidewalk network.

The Burrard St. Bridge, by way of comparison, has six lanes to our three, but more to the point, when the bike lane pilot was introduced, lane capacity was cut by a third (taking one of three outbound lanes is the important factor to understand), while proposals for the Blue Bridge would take away half the capacity available for outbound traffic - and in close proximity to nearby downtown intersections, and those feeding, steadily, five lanes of traffic into the bridge. (The single inbound lane is the opposite - it feeds several lanes so has all the relief it needs from congestion pressures, not to mention a long approach where vehicles can store if traffic is busy or, what is another key to our crossing, when the bridge is up and all traffic is stopped).

Here's what Burrard used to look like - and you can count the lanes. It's just not like our bridge and not a useful comparison. The math doesn't add up.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5633272863/in/photostream

Fort St., another project used for comparison also doesn't add up for our bridge. It's still 3 lanes, allowing for some traffic to be drained off to left turns during peak hours, and carrying about a quarter to a third less traffic than is using the blue bridge. Again, the math doesn't work. Here's a quiet moment on Fort.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/301596464/

And here's where the traffic that uses the bridge fits into the road dynamics on the west side. It's useful in understanding how and why traffic keeps moving over the bridge through Vic West and into Esquimalt in afternoon peak hours. The math should be pretty clear. It's not something that would fit on the bridge itself, let alone the nearby street grid on the downtown side. Intersections are too close, and feeding too much traffic onto the bridge to make it work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4733674188/in/photostream

More to come in blogs yet to be written, but I'll continue to argue, so far successfully enough, that our engineers shouldn't waste their time looking at two lane trials to solve a temporary problem while we wait for a new bridge. For some, it's about clinging to an idea that the best research has already proven unworkable, but still looks like a pot of (fool's) gold at the end of the rainbow.

Latest on the Blue Bridge

2011-03-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

While the chatter coming from various directions, promoted ad nauseum by some, that there are cheap and easy fixes that will save the old Blue Bridge, ongoing work by the city and its consultants continue to find evidence to the contrary.

With the new bridge project underway, though mostly on paper at this stage (design details), keeping the old bridge safe enough to serve for another three years remains a task at hand. Rust never sleeps, of course, nowhere more so than on the wet coast, sitting astride a salt water harbour where the wind blows and the sea wash filter through the old structure. Compromised rivets pop up like measles on a two year old. Fixes will be more robust than band aids and bailing wire but the analogy is not too far from a harsh reality.

City staff and engineering consultants were out on the bridge Sunday, the 27th of March, chipping away at concrete to analyze rivet conditions along the steel members encased by the concrete counterweights - something no one has been able to look at for almost 90 years.

Starker still are unique points of failure that will be repeated throughout the superstructure. Everwhere where there are rivets under stress, allowing salt water mositure to seep in between sandwich plates of cheap steel, the integrity of bridge beams are increasingly being compromised. Close examination of the interconnectedness of every part of the machine should dispel any notion of a complete and durable refurbishment without taking the entire structure apart.

Trying to do it on site would turn the Inner Harbour into a tailings pond. A point of reference for marina opponents is the potential environmental impacts on the harbour from construction and operations, not to mention the disenfrachisement of people powered craft that enjoy the northwest shores of the harbour. Those are very valid concerns. By comparison, even repainting the bridge on site, a logistical nightmare on any movable bridge, and most problematic on bascule structures, would pose untold risks to the marine environment. Look closely at what is already shedding and the concern should become apparent.

One recent letter to the editor promoted the fiction that we didn't do our homework on the bridge. It's still a work in progress, but as the project moves forward we continue to confirm that the original findings of our condtion assessments have been followed by prudent and sustainable decisions.

Fresh pictures of our bridge in decline are newly posted in my flickr gallery at www.flickr.com/photos/luton/

Green and the economy

2011-03-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

No surprise that the federal government is underperforming in the creation of jobs for the future. While we continue to float above some of the rest of western economies on a sea of oil, building a more sustainable future at all levels, doesn't seem to be on the Harper agenda.

See the story in the Vancouver Sun:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canada+green+creation+falling+behind+bureaucrats/4441324/story.html

We have locally taken some of the stimulus funding to create our own green infrastructure, so credit is due to the feds for the investment in our Johnson St. Bridge project. The new bridge will improve conditions for cycling and walking dramatically, inviting people to shift their trips to more sustainable modes.

Still there is more to the green economy that our transportation systems design, and we have other initiatives underway that should help us meet environmental objectives, particularly reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Elements of our sewage treatment options for the Capital Region include, potentially, recovering heat from waste and distributing it through a district energy system - one plant or heat source for many buildings and businesses.

If the energy centre comes to Victoria, we could link the system to yet to be developed brownfield sites at Rock Bay in the Upper Harbour area. One of the directions we have been investigating might be to target the neighbourhood for a hi-tech park that would cluster knowledge and skills in a near downtown location and use the heat and energy from wastewater treatment to help support the industry. The more central location would invite, as well, more sustainable travel choices and support greening of our local, light industrial sector. At this point, it's an idea, not yet a plan, but something worth exploring further as various projects come into focus.

One of the initiatives the city has undertaken of late is to sign on with Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver and Mike McGinn in a "Cascadia" sustainability initiative to try and attract complementary green business and industry to the northwest. Kudos to Victoria Mayor Fortin for leading the charge on behalf of the city.

See:
http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanager/press/110208_mr.pdf

Hi-tech is already our biggest industry locally - it generates more dollars than tourism and other industries usually seen as staples of Victoria's economy. Hi-tech is a fluid, mobile industry, and not just the clean energy supports will be important to attracting business. The things we are doing to support active transportation - cycling and walking, and an active, outdoors lifestyle, are big attractions to businesses that can locate anywhere. Building a better transit system will need to happen too.

The future of our region, economically and environmentally, will depend on how we respond to the climate change challenge and on the social ledger, creating a vibrant place to live, invest and work will also help us to address the other account on our triple bottom line. It's something every level of government needs to tackle with us.

Something for drivers

2011-02-23T20:19:00.000-08:00

Car insurance by the mile (or kilometer) is something that would benefit drivers who use their cars irregularly. It's an idea promoted locally by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (http://www.vtpi.org/). An incentive to use cars in moderation, mileage based insurance may be coming to Washington State in the U.S. A bill introduced in the state legislature aims to remove barriers to introducing a plan.

Distance based insurance could encourage people to think before they drive - asking themselves if they really need a vehicle for any particular trip. I drive my wife's car on occasion, but for most trips I bike. It's habit, and a good one at that. Helping people to make more sustainable decisions is good public policy, and the plan should be embraced by ICBC (the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia), which supplies our public, mandatory auto insurance in B.C.

Read more at: http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2011/02/09/selling-insurance-by-the-mile?utm_source=Sightline&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WeeklyScore

Train in Vain

2011-02-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway is still open for business, but efforts to keep the trains running could be threatened by the competiton for funding aimed at improving transit for Greater Victoria.

BC Transit is focused on the West Shore - Uptown - Downtown axis, desiging an alignment that would run along the Trans Canada Highway between Langford and the Uptown Mall, and then along Douglas St. to downtown Victoria. While the public, (at least those paying attention to the project), strongly supports LRT (Light Rail Transit), provincial managers have favoured BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) in developing plans for the system. The strong community support for LRT has lately brought Transit on board and more detailed work on the rail option is being undertaken.

Public enthusiasm may be tempered by the capital costs of LRT - it will take longer to implement and have a much higher initial cost than a bus system, but the many benefits of a rail based system may yet persuade decision makers to start planning now rather than waiting the 10 years or so when some planners suggest Victoria will be ready for LRT. Why spend extra money on a short lived bus based system when the need for rail is visible on the horizon?

The challenge for the E&N is that its potential is more distant and the costs associated with upgrading the heavy rail system more forbidding. A phased approach and incremental financing to get some useful service improvements have been proposed, but the longer term costs are still daunting.

Still, the rail has the potential to fill some key service gaps that have not been entirely accounted for in transit planning. Hundreds of commuters could take advantage of a commuter rail (not LRT) service that covered the long haul from Nanaimo through the Cowichan Valley and right to the door of the Canadian Forces Base at Esquimalt. It could help relieve some congestion on the Malahat Drive - a 350 metre high climb on the Trans Canada Highway separating Victoria from points north on the Island. The Malahat already suffers heavy commuter traffic and sometimes winter weather clogs up the highway. A well run E&N could offer relief for growing numbers of commuters living out of the transit region and accessible to the railway.

The $500 million calculated several years ago for improvements to the Malahat makes rail and transit alternatives look a lot more affordable; but tight funding and a focus on Vancouver area projects leaves little to invest in Greater Victoria's transportation challenges.

It's an unfortunate state of affairs, as crunch time is here for the little railway. Victoria's Johnson St. Bridge project is a case in point. $12 million is needed to keep rail on the bridge, something that would better commuter rail's chance of success. So far, $15 million in costs have been identified elsewhere for the rail as far as Langford, and that only to achieve minimal standards for a modest commuter service. Anything beyond that, either geographically or in terms of service levels, can be expected to add more to the bill.

It's costly, but is it worth the investment? Certainly many of us in the community think so, but for Victoria in particular, the rail on the bridge might be a bill too big to swallow. We've asked repeatedly for provincial assistance, without success, and have now appealed to the Capital Regional District - our services partnership with other local governments. Apprehension exists around that table so the request for funding, although supported by the Mayors of numbers of affected communities, has met with less enthusiasm around some council tables and may face a rough ride at the regional board.

Victoria cannot, by itself, foot the entire bill. We are already in for $50 million and the clock is ticking. We need to get on with our schedule or face the prospect of losing $21 million in federal funding or missing construction deadlines. We all want to see rail come to town, but clearly it is a regional service that needs regional support. The rail doesn't run from downtown to Vic West, a few hundred metres away - it runs half way up the Island, and most pointedly, through several suburban municipalities who are now being asked to help out. If they aren't now willing to invest in key elements of the rail corridor, what does it say about their commitment to the rest of the line?

Stay tuned. If the money can be found, rail stays in the design. If not, we can preserve the right of way but can't build the rail bridge right away. It's an expensive decision either way - it's too costly for our taxpayers, but for everyone, a separate project will cost much more. If we want the rail to survice, we'll all need to pitch in. Here's hoping.

Guaranteed incomes and social outcomes

2011-01-25T12:38:00.000-08:00

Carol Goar of the Toronto Star writes here about the 1970s "Mincome" experiment in Manitoba under Ed Schreyer's NDP and with the support of the federal government. Guaranteeing incomes in a small community had numbers of positive outcomes for the community. Goar notes, however, that a report on the experiment has never been written but research gleans from hard to get documents in Ottawa point to the program's success.

Thanks to Janine Bandcroft for tracking this one down. Here's Goar's story:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/920145--goar-anti-poverty-success-airbrushed-out

Living wages

2011-01-24T14:05:00.000-08:00

Esquimalt Council recently endorsed a living wage policy that will advance the municipality forward to esnure that city workers and contractors are paid enough to live in Victoria. It's been spearhead by Councillor Randall Garrison. It's slow going but it's a good idea.

We need to find ways to provide more income equity in Canada and market forces are unsufficient to achieve that objective. That said, a very strong supporter of free markets in this country, the Canada West Foundation, has even published recently on the issue of civil servant pay and the performance of governments and economies. Holding onto skilled workers requires paying them a decent living and it is not cost effective to try and suppress wages or salaries in pursuit of illusory tax savings. Governments, like any business in the private sector, are delivering a product or a service, and key to provide value for money is having that skilled, experienced workforce. Losing staff or having to rehire, train up etc. is a costly strategy for any organization.

As living wage discussions take centre stage, some of the other discussions around compensation are worth looking at. Here's the Canada West piece; good reading on the subject: http://cwf.ca/_webapp_1198328/Cutting_Civil_Servants_Pay_a_Bad_Idea

Evolving Douglas Street

2011-01-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

Douglas Street is the right corridor for rapid transit in Victoria and Saanich. It ranked high in evaluations conducted by BC Transit analysts. Certainly those in the community who understand how transit works also support Douglas for the new project.

There is some resistance, however, from those in the community who believe that any project that proposes to diminish capacity for vehicle travel or storage (parking), will ruin downtown.

I expect to work my blog, Facebook updates and my Flickr page to counter some of the myths over the next few weeks as we work towards a decision at the Regional Transit Commission, where I also sit as a member. We need to be mindful of the concerns of our business community but we do need to build a more effective and responsive transit system.

One flaw in the argument about how traffic works on Douglas (or throughout most of the system in fact), is that the demand for vehicle travel and parking is constant and overwhelming. It's not supported by the facts, and for many retailers, their most important market is the 17 shopping days leading up to Christmas. Traffic congestion and the demand for parking is high and it is the formula that drives the design of shopping mall parking lots. Street design can't provide for that small slice of the travel market only to leave streets underutilized and parking spaces empty for the rest of the year.

That's a bit simplistic. Traffic on Douglas does bunch up in morning and afternoon rush hours when workforces are commuting to and fro, but transit improvements would sure help to relieve the pressure and make it easier for those who must or choose to drive to get into or out of downtown. For shoppers, who may not always be traveling at commute times, that congestion is irrelevant - Douglas St. is not overburdened at other hours of the day.

More to come but here's a glimpse of Douglas during the day. There's no lack of space for shoppers coming downtown by car here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5375349509/

Green Buildings and Transportation

2011-01-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

The Chicago Tribune lately posted an article by Julie Wernau on the disconnect between the green building movement and the transportation impacts of development. More and more, however, the development industry, local governments and other public agenicies and private sector players are recognizing that a key element of the carbon footprint of any building is related moreso to how people get to and from their workplace or other destinations than it is to the energy efficiency of the building itself.

A "green building" or neighbourhood in the middle of nowhere, far from services, transit, or in a transportation environment hostile to biking and walking, is no benefit to the environment. It is important to build to new standards that require energy efficiency and minimize emissions from building energy use for heat, light, water use etc. More importantly though, a building houses people or workplaces, and how those people travel is more critical to the carbon footprint of our built environment.

Recently I sent in comments to the latest revisions on green building standards, mostly related to providing a more supportive cycling and walking environment. The Tribune article goes one further to talk about location, location, location - the classic real estate mantra. We need to locate buildings within or near to services and other destinations serving people (recreation, health services, entertainment etc.) so that they can walk or bike more often. We need to connect residential density, commercial and workplace developments with transit services so people don't need to drive everywhere. We also need to stop building on "greenfields" - cheap, undeveloped land distant from urban areas where the services and transportation network are already in place.

Read more at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1227-outlook-energy-index-20101227,0,202383.story

Following Transit

2010-12-19T20:20:00.000-08:00

As debate starts to heat up around Victoria's regional rapid transit plans, looking back at the experience and coverage of transit issues in other cities will be useful to inform the discussion.

The Tyee covered the choices between rail and bus rapid transit systems in Vancouver, noting the performance of streetcars during the Vancouver Winter Olympics last February.

Victoria and Saanich councils have both endorsed rail based, light rapid transit systems as the preferred option, and the story helps to explain some of the reasons why what makes sense elsewhere is a good model for us to follow at home.

You can read the story here:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/01/Streetcars/?utm_source=mondayheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=041010

Green Buildings, Cycling and Transit

2010-12-17T11:07:00.001-08:00

Just finished up making comments to the U.S. Green Building Council LEED for Neighbourhood Design. Sent my ideas for better defining their bicycle parking standards, contributions to cycling networks and quality of transit services serving developments. Hope it adds some value to their public comment process.

Find it at:

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8185

Rapid transit and the evolution of our streets

2010-12-14T13:02:00.000-08:00

Council recently endorsed Douglas St. as the preferred corridor a new rapid transit service connecting downtown with Uptown and the Westshore. Transit will see dramatic improvements while pedestrians and cyclists can also expect some enhancements too. Not so happy are some of those who believe that the reduction in vehicle lanes and on-street parking will destroy downtown business. Some business fear that their customers will disappear and other voices decry the "war on the car".

The development of the transit project has been evolving over the last couple of years, with extensive consultation involving the many stakeholders in the community that will be affected by the change. Public protest notwithstanding, business has been consulted through surveys and the many open house events, all well advertised, and presenting ample opportunity for business owners and the public to get engaged.

Transit planners and city council are well aware of the concerns and have listened to feedback on the issues facing downtown business and the customers they rely on. Highway congestion, growing density downtown and a need for more office and commercial space demands new approaches to transportation in the region and the transit plan is an important and positive step forward.

Future blog entries will share more of the research analyzing transit options and the work that has gone into developing this plan.

If there is a "war on the car", we are still losing - vehicle dependence is still growing in the region. Walking for transportation has been dropping, mostly due to school consolidation. Bicycle trips have jumped significantly, but still account for less than 10% of commuter trips in the region, though the share of traffic in the urban core is still higher than in any other city in North America. Transit use is edging upwards, but more and significant investments are needed to attract people out of their cars. It's not a "war", but we do need to provide people with more and better choices - it's an environmental imperative. We don't have the space to accommodate more and more cars and the threats posed by climate change demand that we shift our choices to more sustainable modes.

The fear that businesses will lose customers is a more substantive issue than the overblown rhetoric about the attack on poor Hummer drivers. We do need to be sure to share the thoughtful analysis that has gone into planning for a more transit oriented corridor into downtown. Space for cars and on-street parking, however, is much less important to consumers than business assumes, and for many of them, the changes coming will be positive, if not profitable.

Let's start with a recent study out of Toronto, where bike lanes have been proposed for Bloor St., one of the city's key commercial arteries. One of the key features of the new Douglas St. will be more robust bicycle lanes, often a target for some who would sacrifice bike facilities to preserve space for parking or vehicle lanes. Transit isn't trying to dislodge people off of their bikes, rather we are trying to get people out of their cars, so disenfranchising cyclists would be counterproductive to the objectives of the project. Besides, cyclists, no less than anyone else, are coming downtown to work, to shop or be entertained, and they are using the same routes and headed for the same destinations that everyone else is. "Complete streets" that accommodate everyone are essential to a balanced and effective transportation system - preserving priority for vehicles is neither equitable nor sustainable.

The Toronto study is useful in at least challenging some of the misconceptions about business, their customers, and the impacts of changing street design on travel and shopping habits. It's an interesting read for anyone looking for more background on what the future of Douglas might look like.

Here's a link to the study, and watch for more blog postings on my site:
http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-lanes-parking.pdf

Failure of credibility

2010-12-07T21:48:00.000-08:00

It's probably safe to assume that more people read Focus Magazine than read my blog, so many of those reading here may be familiar with the endless downplaying of seismic risks for our now condemned bridge (by virtue of the referendum vote of just better than 60% giving us the borrwoing authority we need to build a new one). Their latest issue suggests there is no need to protect our bridge because much of downtown will be rubble anyway.

That's incorrect, since all new construction and many older buildings supported by heritage property tax holidays are being protected to current building code levels, so, as was the case in Chile (Focus must think we are Haiti), damage will be more limited, life safety better protected, and our ability to recover more resilient.

There's lots more fault to find with Focus now, and then (during their long campaign against the new bridge), but for the time being, at least, one interesting read is an article from the Globe and Mail's Report on Business detailing some of the concerns of the insurance industry with respect to how well we are prepared for a major quake, which they also note is likely to hit the west coast sometime in the not too distant future.

An opening note in the article remarks on the need to upgrade critical infrastructure, including bridges, to withstand a major seismic event. My research, reported elsewhere on this blog or at my website, covered the issue from a couple of perspectives - bridges are at the top of the priority list of critical infrastructure and investing in protection or mitigation provides net positive benefits are two topics covered in some detail.

Now that the citizens, well enough informed I think, have endorsed the project, we are working towards covering off that one critical link in our own transportation network that will help protect life safety, ensure emergency response and other critical services have access to intact infrastructure, and provide for recovery in the event of an earthquake.

While Focus now suggests that the process and the decision are tainted by a "failure to inform", the real failure here is one of credibility. There hasn't been much of value there on the issue of what potential threats we face in Victoria from a major earthquake, but just in case you haven't read enough, here's the Globe article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-not-prepared-for-major-earthquake-insurers-warn/article1823164/

More on the sustainable city

2010-12-02T10:46:00.000-08:00

Janette Sadik-Khan, visionary transportation commissioner in New York City, is profiled in this Esquire story. "What's important locally?", you might ask. The details of her transformation of the streets of New York are informative for any city, and the ambitious expansions of bike lanes and pedestrian spaces are models of what we can be too. Some of it is already happening (our new bridge, for example, won't disenfranchise drivers, by the way, but it will provide dramatic improvements for cyclists and pedestrians). More is coming and the change will be welcome.

http://www.esquire.com/features/brightest-2010/janette-sadik-khan-1210

Tax shifting and municipal spending

2010-12-02T10:13:00.000-08:00

Municipalities have been picking up the tab to fight federal and provincial deficits for years. Federal governments have been withdrawing support for affordable housing and the provinces have been dumping mental health and addiction issues out onto the streets of cities across the country.

At council I push back at one colleague often enough. one who consistently votes against municipal investments in housing, steadfastly holding firmly to his principle that this is a job for the province and the federal government. We've been in a housing crisis long enough. I'll continue to argue that our constituents don't care which level of government gets the job done, they just want more action on housing on homelessness.

We've been the catalyst for some innovative programs aimed at increasing the supply of market housing, as well as funding partners in new projects to build affordable housing or, as was the case with our recent acquisition of two hotel properties, taking advantage of immediate opportunities to secure other housing options for some of our more disadvantaged citizens. We have to get beyond petty debates about whose job it is, and just get the job done.

To be fair, both provincial and federal governments in BC have come to our aid. We could not have done this by ourselves. Still, it has been, for Victoria, a much more proactive and responsive agenda we've been pursuing to tackle the scourge of homelessness, a challenge that has been consistently identified by voters as a top of mind issue.

The entry of local and regional governments into the housing field has been sometimes more incremental over the several years that critical analysts are again focused upon in their camapign to promote the fiction that municipal government spending is out of control. It isn't and we've heard the same story before.

The fact that the spending trends are outpacing inflation and population growth across the board, sometimes, ironically, as is the case in the Capital Region, with more right leaning local governments seeming to be growing spending faster than those of us seen to be on the left, suggests that there is more to the spending growth than irresponsible governanance.

None of us likes spending more than we have to in order to deliver the services citizens expect from their municipal governments. Sometimes they are even more than willing to pay the difference. The Capital Region has a parks acquisition levy that passed several years ago with overwhelming voter endorsement.

Those other incremental costs, the shifting responsibilities for housing, and for many local governments, what used to be provincial roads, or any number of other tangible assets we own that now face us as the "infrastructure deficit", are adding costs to municipal budgets. The shell game going on in the background is the tax shift. The province and the feds have been running successfully on a tax cutting agenda - an appealing platform for any beleagured taxapapyer. Most of the responsiblities for public services are still there, it's just who does the work and how is it paid for that has been changing.

Dissecting a pattern of tax shifts and spending reallocations from one level of government to another would be a more honest analysis of your tax burden, who is pinching your harder and who is spending how much and what for. Municipal governments provide a good product at a fair price and its still a bargain, despite what the critics are saying. You aren't paying more for less, you are just "paying Peter, instead of Paul".

Local governments will be spending time over the next few months fine tuning their budgets, and they do so at meetings open to the public. It may not be as entertaining as the latest movie or as important to your day as picking up the groceries or taking the kids to soccer, but it's worth coming down to watch the process at city hall sometime. We'll be at the table early and often in the new year.

And now what . . .

2010-11-23T21:57:00.000-08:00

For most of the last two years the Johnson St. Bridge has drawn the attention of council and the community while we worked, sometimes awkwardly it seems, to reach the point now where the path forward is clear and new tasks will be undertaken.

A strong endorsement of the city's request for our financing plan puts to rest the debate over saving the old or building something new. Last Saturday's referendum generated a turnout, high enough by municipal standards, and clear enough with just over 60% support, to signal that our citizens have trusted that the work done to date on the key issues facing the city has pointed us in the right direction.

A new bridge has always been the most practical and sustainable choice. The cost of restoring, and especially maintaining, the old bridge, have always been unpalatable, and too fraught with uncertainty. The opportunities provided by building new too important to defer for the decades we might have extracted from the Blue bridge.

It will be designed to withstand the most serious of earthquakes, an important consideration in Canada's most seismically vulnerable city. It will incorporate the resilience of newer, more durable, and more sensible mechanics and electronics that will last a century. Perhaps most significantly, it will democratize transportation for generations to come. Nowhere in the capital is it more important to retool our infrastructure to better support cycling and walking. And it will unfold in a manner that protects and supports a vibrant downtown that is the centrepiece of our regional economy.

We have much work to do. Detailed design and the hands on work that will piece together the new bridge will begin in earnest soon. We'll be watching every step, as will those excited by the new bridge and those who feel the loss of the old bridge more acutely. They too, have spoken and we will do well to find ways to celebrate the eventual passing of the old bridge, seek opportunities to repurpose elements of the structure or preserve some of its history in our public art.

There is much else to be done. Sometimes more quietly it seems, we have made much progress on issues of homelessness and housing. We are inching forward on the sewage issue. Building a vision of our future and shoring up the walkable and bike friendly villages across the city is hustling along through our community planning process. Regional transportation, where we play a central role, is getting a makeover with new options for public transit to emerge in the new year. There is so much more on the go.

And all the while, the exciting evolution of our new bridge will unfold before our eyes.

Answers and Questions

2010-11-18T22:28:00.000-08:00

Without rancor, here are some comments on the Vote No op-ed in today's Times Colonist.

The city has pursued the most cost effective option to deal with the Johnson St. Bridge. The $30 million quoted in the article is a Class D estimate, which does not include quantity surveys or project details. Class D estimates are at 30% of design while the more detailed work that goes into a Class C estimate provides typically 70% of design. Class C is a better estimate of costs since it doesn't just identify what work needs to be done, but details more how it will proceed. Critics of the new bridge know this and have thus far refused to acknowledget that they understand the difference.

The one year closure necessary for refurbishment is unrelated to the scope of the project, simply a requirement to protect the waterway from the lead-based paint that will have to be blasted off of the old bridge. This cannot be done in place for this kind of movable bridge that opens and closes several times a day. Imagine the cost escalation associated with mounting and dismantling scaffolding several times a day on the premise that this could preserve the functionality of the crossing during repairs.

Repair does not save money. San Francisco's Third St. Bridge was a different project than ours. It is a single bridge span that required only seismic work on one of two piers. I spoke to the project manager in San Francisco who said that he told the bridge preservation campaign not to use their bridge for comparison; that every bridge is unique and must be assessed individually. Why do the critics continue to hide from this advice and misrepersent the facts?

The LaSalle Causeway Bridge project in Kingston was managed by the same engineers who are developing our project. It was also funded by the same federal government that has committed $21 million to our bridge project. The engineers wrote to johnsonstreetbridge.org detailing differences between the two projects. This is information they don't want you to see. For their investment, the federal government does due diligence on the projects they fund. They've accepted our proposal and support a scope of work that critics suggest are superfluous. "Cutting costs" will end up costing Victoria taxpayers more if we lose that funding.

The old bridge, if preserved, will cost twice as much to maintain, year after year after year. How is that the affordable option? A bridge in Saskatoon that got the "cheap fix" for a 20 year life actually only lasted 4 years. That bridge is now closed. How do we price that risk?

The scope of repairs spelled out in the Class D estimate that the critics are attached to would compromise the heritage of the bridge by cladding the lattice work in plate steel. While preserving elements of heritage, it would be a different bridge than the one we know today.

The new bridge is not an experiment. The design and technology are proven and much more sensible than the current design. A similar design, at least for some of the mechancics of the new bridge, was the bridge Victoria should have chosen in 1922, according to the engineer who did the peer review.

Frills that critics want to cut include a harbour walkway that will be paid for from the city's capital reserves by shifting funding from other phases of the city's harbour greenway - a project developed with extensive public consultation and endorsed by citizens. It makes sense to complete this piece in conjunction with the new bridge project, saving money and minimizing disruptions. Other "frills" that critics now want jettisoned included improvements for cycling, walking and a better level of service for people with mobility challenges. These are essential to shifting our transportation choices to more sustainable modes and are a must do element of the project. Without them, funding from the federal government is at risk and the project cannot qualify for gas tax funding endorsed by the CRD. They also help us meet commitments to action on climate change and a regional growth strategy supported by all municipalities in the capital region. I do not conside those commitments to be dispensable.

The rail right of way will be preserved and the city is seeking regional funding. Is it fair to load the cost of that regional piece onto the taxpayers of Victoria alone? How will a rail link across the bridge serve if the region and the province do not invest in the other upgrades the rest of the line requires?

Seismic upgrading is required to secure federal funding and protect our investment. The $10 million saving notionally attached to a reduced seismic standard will not be enough to retrofit the Bay St. Bridge where a more comprehensive and expensive project would likely have to be mounted. Please explain how we save money by doing two bridges, one of which is in satisfactory condition? Is it ok to spend whatever it takes, as long as the Blue Bridge is saved?

The city's engineering consultants have met with local suppliers to discuss the new bridge and there is local interest and capacity to bid on the project. If the steel for a new bridge is imported, where does the steel for repair come from?

The city has retired debts that provide the borrowing room necessary to fund the replacement project. There is a financial plan for our infrastructure. Over the next 20 years, Victoria will invest $750 million in infrastructure. Refurbishment is risky and costly and we would have to borrow, likely more, to fund that project, especially if we lose funding from the federal government or don't qualify for gas tax funding.

The city has continued to maintain the bridge to the extent possible. Repairs or replacement of obsolete electrical and mechanical features are not feasible without disassembling the bridge and the focus of city engineers was to first complete a condition assessment, provide advice to council and move forward on a clear decision. The peer review confirmed that the existing bridege was not built to be maintained, partly because material design at the time of its construction was predictably not as well advanced as that available today. The seismic vulnerability of the bridge has no relationship whatsoever to maintenance of the bridge.

Council's decision followed a condition assessment that identified the poor shape of the bridge, the challenge of refurbishment, the costs associated with both options before us and the need to act with some urgency to protect the city against the consequences of possible closure. For our taxpayers, it would have been irresponsible of council to ignore the availability of funding partnerships to help support any project. The additional public engagement that has taken place over the last several months has confirmed that, given complete information, our citizens prefer replacement.

The city's advisory committee provides technical advice to staff and would be poorly served by turning it into an arena for a political debate. Process cannot instruct the city to be negligent and does not change the condition of the bridge.

The critic's choice for minimizing closures continues to be a non-starter, information that has been provided both to the public and their organization. Night work would be intolerably disruptive to downtown neighbourhoods and residential and hotel developments in Vic West. The city could face liability costs, especially if that plan affected businesses. How is that cost effective? Night work also entails a significant cost premium to address overtime or shift work, as well as the safety of working in the dark. Early estimates pegged that cost at more than $5 million. How is that more affordable?

The op-ed again proposes that cycling and pedestrian facilities can be improved in a cheaper, reduced scope project. Most cyclists who actually use the bridge understand what is proposed and will be voting for a new bridge. Myself, I've been working with the city for more than a decade on developing improvements that have provided some help to cyclists, but we have reached the service limits the old bridge can provide. Show me what successful cycling or walking projects you have supported, advanced, developed or designed in the Capital Region, if any. I can show you a few that I've been involved in and, with all due respect, I've seen your plans, and they don't work.

An apology to Ross Crockford

2010-11-16T16:56:00.000-08:00

You'll find an apology on my facebook page and some of my recent posts edited. Ross Crockford, who I targeted in some of my comments, suggested it was unbecoming of an elected official, if not more, and I agree. So I've removed references to accusations of fraud, which is over the top. The posts remain, I believe, fair comment.

Just so you know

2010-11-14T22:37:00.000-08:00

Bridge critic Ross Crockford wrote in a recent Monday Magazine article that the Johnson St. Bridge survived an earthquake that hit Victoria in 1946. That quake's epicentre was at Forbidden Plateau, more than 200 km away. Research from the 1989 California quake found that the extent of damage recorded reached only 100 km from the epicenter. More at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1551/

The "No" campaign is lately concerned about the suspected export of jobs that a new bridge might entail if contracts were let to off-shore firms. By the way, local suppliers and fabricators have been contacted by the city's engineering consultants already to see if we have local capacity. Some firms have expressed interest.

No word yet from the critics on the job impacts of the year long bridge closure estimated for a refurbishment project that calculates a $13 million dollar impact on downtown businesses. The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce thinks that figure might be too low. See their news release at: http://www.victoriachamber.ca/news_releases?id=251

Lately saw the "NO" poster that claims to be concerned about "maxing out the city's credit card". We're about $300 million short of what we could borrow (not that we would at the moment), but how about a little concern about the real costs of keeping the old bridge? Maintenance after any refurbishment would be twice the cost of the work we'd need to do on a new bridge. That's about $20 million over the lifespan of the bridge, maybe something less if you don't plan on keeping it for too long.

Kind of inconsistent, though, to talk endlessly about how long these old bridges can be kept in operation forever while calling it unfair to cost out anything that will last more than 30 years.

Just aksing.

More bridge fairy tales

2010-11-10T10:15:00.000-08:00

Last night I took part in a debate about the Blue Bridge, where suspicions were levelled at the city's engineers and our consultations, and confident projections of a fixed price refurbishment contract that has nothing to do with the practical estimates and the complexity of the project.

Those of us who have worked hard on the evolution of our transportation system to better support cycling and walking know that many of the "fixes" proposed by critics will not work. The relationship between infrastructure and growth in participation is well documented, (and you'll find some material over at my Capital Bike and Walk site - http://capitalbikeandwalk.org/)

The critics appealed a few weeks ago to the CRD to delay consideration of Victoria's request for support of an application for gas tax funds available to local governments to assist in the construction of infrastructure projects that help to shift transportation choices to sustainable modes. An appeal was made to consider also a refurbishment project, but one that essentially makes no provision for cyclists or pedestrians - they've found, as both myself and our engineering department have been saying, that the improvements they had proposed for cyclists have proven to be unworkable).

What is lacking on the bridge is space and separation from traffic. Pretty signage and a non-slip surface just won't make any difference. The funding application for the regional facility, by the way, is a continuation of the Galloping Goose and the in-progress E&N rail trail. The new bridge provides an expanded shared use pathway more than double the width of the tight quarters that cyclists and pedestrians struggle to share on the rail bridge and generous on-road bike lanes on the road portion of the bridge for commuter cyclists.

Those on road improvements, it should be noted, are not part of the funding application. The regional commitment and the only eligible project element is the trail piece. No trail = no money. Trail improvements under the refurbishment plan stop at the bridge. We continue to hear that our plans for the bridge are poorly thought out, but the critics campaigned for a "two lane trial" long before they asked any engineers whether it would work or not.

Here's what you get with a refurbished bridge: 30 more years of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4938919498/

The numbers game and the Blue Bridge

2010-11-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Asked about numbers of cyclists on the bridge I responded that I "guessed" an average based on regional counts reported to council on fact sheets prepared by our engineers and communications department. Turns out someone reversed pedestrians and cyclists on one sheet and, because the inquiring journalist was working to a tight deadline, I didn't have time to chase the source of the error.

It's been blown into a bigger isse than it needs to be, so here's some thoughts on what's really happening on the bridge.

First, it's been noted elsewhere often enough that the bridge needs replacement for a number of reasons, including seismic vulnerability, deterioration of the superstructure and its electrical and mechanical systems, a costly and unproductive repair bill and an unacceptable economic penalty for a project of uncertain benefits.

A new bridge addresses all of those issues, but offers as well attractive opportunities to improve traffic safety, and provide much higher levels of service for cyclists, pedestrians and those with mobility challenges. One of the more exciting elements of that service will be an important new link in the city's planned harbour greenway - a piece of the trail that threads through the new bridge and connect to a path that will eventually run from Rock Bay to Ogden point. It delivers some benefits in more rational land use on both sides of the bridge, and how we take advantage of that opportunity will be the subject of a conversation we need to have with the community as we move forward.

The dust up on numbers has been about how many cyclists are on the bridge every day, and how many there might be in the future.

Transportation systems are designed to carry maximum capacity at peak hours, so while averages and daily counts are useful indicators of volumes, a bridge, a road, a bus, a ferry system of a bike path really need to be ready for high tide. On a good day there are 4,000 bike trips back and forth across the bridge, demonstrating the determination of people to get to and from the Galloping Goose by bike despite convoluted routing, an uncomfortable ride on the road or an all to narrow and congested sliver of the rail bridge.

That's probably one of the more important numbers to remember in assessing how well the current bridge performs for cyclists in particular. An incomplete count, off peak hours, in the middle of winter, is not a good metric by which to judge how many cyclists are using the bridge.

The next important numbers will be what the bridge will need to carry. Cycling and pedestrian traffic has been growing steadily on the bridge over the last several years. Completion of key sections of the Galloping Goose along Harbour Rd and the arrival of new developments in Vic West are contributing to that growth. The bridge itself, however, remains a barrier. Cyclists and pedestrians need more space that will be provided on the trail piece of a new bridge, and on road bike lanes will support numbers more commuter cyclists.

Elsewhere in the region and across North America, the addition of supportive infrastructure has been shown to dramtically increase cycling on improved corridors and facilities. There is no reason to doubt that completion of a more friendly crossing at the Blue Bridge will do the same here. The current bridge is not, and cannot, be equipped to absorb that growth. It will be increasingly less safe and more frustrating for all users.

Critics who insist that better approaches or even just better signage will do the trick simply have no concept of how cycling facilities work and how infrastucture connects to participation. What's further missing from their understanding of that relationship is the absence of any acknowledgement of the new growth that will be generated by the new trail under construction alongside the E&N railway. Thousands of new trips are likely to pressure the carrying capacity of the bridge, not to mention the Goose, which already is experiencing user conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians during peak hours.

So while for some, an instance where one set of numbers got turned around is a fatal flaw that must sink the new bridge, it really is just clutching at straws to find something that supports a simple agenda - save the bridge at any cost. That's a legitimate objective to articulate, but wrapping it up in misleading, if not fraudulent, attacks on the project does a disservice to those who have a genuine sentimental attachment to "Big Blue". More importantly, it's a myopic view of a complicated and comprehensive project that is informed by so many other factors that, taken as a whole point clearly to the new bridge as our best option.

Our borrowing referendum needs to pass, and with that we can turn not just to building a new bridge, but perhaps too, to how we can celebrate or preserve something of the old one. It's time for a new landmark and a new era in transportation in Victoria.

The E&N trail is coming:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5120461071/

Can it handle the traffic?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/627317340/

The Blue Bridge and the inconvenient truth

2010-10-30T14:44:00.000-07:00

Just a couple corrections worth noting as new stories swirl around the media about who said what about the Blue Bridge and what it means.

Only the final report presented to the city by Delcan has any relevance when referencing numbers. Some want to take an impossibly optimistic figure as gospel to the bank and will be convinced that work should have stopped there and a project tendered for that amount.

Some of those same people, of course, argue disingenuously that only new engineering projects have been plagued by runaway cost overruns, deceptive politics and a host of other conspiracies that would never happen on a responsible restoration project.

Old bridges, no less than old houses, will present a range of costly challenges that have, and will, require the kind of detailed analysis ironically forced upon the city by the successful counter-petition campaign that demanded we seek approval for the borrowing we need to undertake to finance the replacement project city council has twice voted to proceed with.

There’s always a cheap fix – if you forget, for a moment, that a bridge still has to function as a bridge. But we can’t simply be curators of a museum or protectors of an artefact. The disconnect was probably best summed up in one survey I read among the several thousand returned to the city last summer. Answering the questions about which project they would prefer, this respondent was emphatic that the city not proceed with a new bridge, that restoring the old bridge was a “great idea”. “Any further comments?”, our survey asked. Yes, said the author, “I never use the bridge.”

I was often asked, when I was a bike mechanic, “how much is a tune-up?”, and I would give a price; but as often would follow up with something like “now let’s look at your bike”.

That’s our bridge, and that’s how our consultants approached the project. Here’s what we think your bridge needs to tune it up and extend its life, and this is how much the sort of project would cost. We’ll give you an estimate for a specific project when we finish our review of your bridge, the work it needs to meet operational, safety and lifecycle requirements, and we answer any questions you have.

The only number of value through that process is the $23.6 million estimated for a particular scope of works associated with refurbishment. Anything before that is incomplete guess work. I’ve lost count of the number of times Focus magazine’s fictional Sam Williams has insisted that I know exactly how many bikes are crossing the bridge every day before I decide on any project. They want to know exactly how much a new bridge will cost, to the penny, not that they would believe the numbers anyway.

When it comes to refurbishment though, they’ll pick a number, any number, and not just those notionally attached to our bridge, but to any bridge fix project that looks too good to be true, and mostly, they are.

Restoration of the 4th St. Bridge in San Francisco, for example, went wildly over budget, and the Ashtabula Bridge in Ohio revealed unforeseen problems that kept the bridge closed for 14 months. Saskatoon’s Traffic Bridge, where a cheap fix meant to extend its life for 20 years, is closed, only 4 years into it’s new lease on life. Here’s the CBC story on that one:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/08/25/sk-closure-bridge-1008.html

Like several other examples, the option of turning the bridge into a bike and pedestrian bridge only has been raised in Saskatoon, something that just won’t serve our transportation needs at the Blue Bridge crossing in Victoria. I’ve seen a couple of examples of some nice work saving old bridges for bikes and peds, but they are always at locations where the rest of the traffic has viable alternatives that we just don’t have available to us.

Here’s Walnut St. in Chattanooga:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5073858931/

And here’s a nice old bridge in Missoula:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4938919562/

There’s a good long list of other fibs from the bridge preservation campaign and the seismic issues keep on popping up in one spot or another. The most prominent bridge critic, a journalist and historian with a good body of work to his credit has lately said that Victoria was hit by a major earthquake in 1946 and the bridge didn’t fall down. At only 22 years old the then gun-metal grey bridge enjoyed some of the benefits of a newer concrete foundation somewhat more compromised now by another 65 years of pounding by the traffic above and the wash of seawater below.

What’s galling for a historian however, is that his research will have told him that the quake was centred near Courtenay, more than 200 km north of the bridge. It’s not a minor oversight. It’s deliberate misinformation. Focus insists our exposure is no worse than a 6 and we should plan accordingly, despite the incidence of the 7.3, a 6.9 and a 7.1 along the same fault line going back to that quake of ’46. As a matter of public record, those quakes and the ample information on their impacts should make the Focus proposal impossible to defend, but they continue.

Save the bridge campaigners once pointed to Toronto’s Cherry St. Bridge as a fine example of a cheap and easy fix for our bridge, something they seemed to have dropped since I brought back my own pictures of what they got for their $3.6 million. How would this work for you in a real earthquake zone (Toronto might get a few magnitude 4 or so shakes very now and again, barely enough to wake you up from a deep sleep let alone bring bridges or buildings down around you:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4686622907/

There are a million stories floating around the bridge and many blurring the line between facts and fairy tales. These are just a couple, and maybe already more than you want to read. I’ll try and add a few more to the blog over the coming days and weeks as we approach referendum day. Just like the critics insist, you need all the facts before you go to vote.

City goes to bridge borrowing referendum

2010-10-15T16:21:00.000-07:00

City Council has again endorsed a new bridge as the best option to address the aging Johnson St. Bridge connecting downtown to neighbourhoods to the west. It's a critical crossing and an important link in an integrated and diverse regional transportation network.

I've written extensively on my blog and at http://www.johnluton.ca/ about the research I've done to inform my vote on this important project. We need a bridge to the future, not one that preserves the unsustainable design we've had for the last 86 years. While we work to preserve our heritage, we can't be held hostage to it.

Refurbishing the old bridge would be expensive and disruptive and we'd still have an old bridge that would drain resources for maintenance and operations. The peer review of both the replacement and refurbishment options confirmed what our engineers and our consultants have been telling us about the condition and the costs we face of either choice. The new bridge is the most responsible and sustainable choice.

Beyond all of the seismic and structural deficiencies, providing for the many thousands of cyclists and pedestrians who use the bridge daily can't be built into the old bridge. Those numbers are growing fast and will accelerate when a new trail alongside the E&N is completed. Helping people to make the choice to walk or cycle for many of their transportation needs is critical to the success of many of our regional transportaton objectives and one of our most effective strategies for addressing climate change at the local level.

This is the most critical project in the region, perhaps the most important of any on Vancouver Island. It is the weak link in a busy cycling transportation network serving many neighbourhoods around Greater Victoria and it is the gateway to a rapidly expanding multi-use trail system that is connecting communities from Victoria to Nanaimo and beyond. It's a key support for a growing cycling tourism industry that has so much more potential on the Island.

The next step is to make sure all of the funding is in place. The federal government is kicking in $21 million and the Capital Regional District is endorsing our request for more funding to support the rail and the trail. (Don't buy the fairy tale that gas tax funds can help pay for refurbishment - only projects that help lower greenhouse gas emissions are eligible and, without improvements to the level of service for cycling in particular, saving the old bridge just won't qualify.)

The city's funding will come from borrowing - it saves our reserves for other capital projects and allows us to finance the project without raising taxes. A 25 year mortgage on a 100 year asset is a pretty good deal. The new bridge will serve long after the loan is paid off.

Referendum day is November 20th and I encourage you to get out an vote. It's important to endorse the borrowing so we can get on with the project. You can read more at my pages of course, but you can also click on the posting title and connect with the city's bridge page. There are a numbers of public events where you can find out more about the bridge and the borrowing. I expect to attend some of them and hope to see you there.

Low energy housing

2010-10-08T15:44:00.001-07:00

Here's a tidbit about "passive housing", a concept in building design that takes advantage of solar, super insulation, appliance generated surplus energy and even body heat to warm and cool a house or a building.

Efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and re-orient our energy consumption to sustainable models are generating innovations in technology and design and this is one of the latest examples. Click on the title and check out more through the Sightline linked article.

More info on housing, transportation and other urban issues are coming ahead in my blog. A couple of weeks of conferences in September and a computer meltdown hopefully nearing resolution has put me behind in the news I've been able to share. There's always lots out there.

And, of course, Victoria's bridge project is in the news with a borrowing referendum pending. More on the facts and fairy tales coming soon.

Obsessed with recyling

2010-08-31T14:39:00.000-07:00

One of my obsessions is recycling. Can't throw stuff into the garbage if it can be composted, re-used, pitched into the blue box, taken to my local plastics recycling day, hauled over (by bike trailer of course) to the metal recycler.

The CRD's "Recyclopedia" is a good resource to help you identify what you can recycle with them or help you find other services to responsibly dispose of your waste.

Active transportation and public health

2010-08-31T12:58:00.000-07:00

Should be no suprise that cycling and walking for transportation has a positive benefit on individual and community health. People who walk or bicycle have reduced rates of obesity and a host of other health issues that are increasingly prevalent in our overly sedentary populations.

Victoria, with the highest rates of cycling and walking in Canada, is, not coincidentally, a top tier city for public health - lowest rates of obesity, low prevalaence of heart disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes etc.

While investments are often the responsibility of local governments, the benefits accrue to the province and federal governments who fund most of our health care services. With obesity and other impacts of sedentary lifestyles equalling tobacco use as a threat to individual and community health, and a cost burden on our health care system, the value of investments in promoting active transportation are gold. Those investments earn a high rate of return.

The CBC story linked to this piece focuses on the obesity epidemic, but there are a variety of other health issues related to transportation choices people make every day and the return on investment in infrastructure that supports active transportation is well documented elsewhere.

Prevention is always good medicine, so grab a pair of running shoes or get on your bike. It's a life sustaining choice. Listen to your doctor: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/466280003/

Council Chooses New Bridge, Again

2010-08-14T12:57:00.000-07:00

Victoria city council cleared another hurdle last Thursday when we voted, again, to replace the Johnson St. Bridge.

I think that those of us who voted in support of the new bridge are mindful of our commitment to heritage in the city, but for me I don't want to be held hostage to it. As much as we appreciate our history and the unique character of "Big Blue", this is first and foremost, a bridge, not a museum piece to be preserved in perpetuity.

A bridge has to carry traffic, and ours will serve better if it anticipates what traffic will look like in the future. It won't look like it does today and the old bridge can't adapt.

A consistent theme from our citizens in Victoria and from users of the bridge, has been the need to make the crossing more sustainable. It will carry a growing volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic that the old bridge is ill-equipped to handle. For many, this is a deal breaker that, given similar costs (at least on the surface), makes the new bridge the only choice.

Critics tried to acknowledge this with a variety of schemes floated in an effort to respond to deficiencies identified by cyclists and pedestrians. None of the strategies turned out to be feasible. In the end, the bridge preservation campaign simply fell back on where they have always been - it's too expensive to make improvements for cyclists and pedestrians and they should just suck it up and suffer the old bridge for another 20 or 30 years.

To be sure, the starting point for council's decision did not revolve around the traffic design that will now be fixed by a new bridge. It has always been the deterioration of a bridge that will be almost 90 years old by the time it is decommissioned and, as one engineer commented, "it is more a machine than a bridge", and it has reached the end of its service life.

Electrical and mechanical systems are obsolete and have to be replaced and, despite protestations to the contrary, there are simply no easy solutions to deal with these problems. The superstructure must be disassembled to get at these systems and the suggestion that half-measures or an easy fix are all that is needed is a convenient myth for those who have no agenda other than to save the old bridge. That became clear in surveys and polling where some respondents ignored all other issues to emphasize that heritage was the only issue that mattered (costs were irrlevant), and that giving up $21 million in our federal contribution was acceptable if it meant saving the old bridge.

"Barring a major earthquake, this bridge can be saved" is how one of the engineers brought in by the preservation camp to support their campaign put it. He recognized that the seismic deficiencies of the old bridge were terminal, but spoke to one of the other strategies promoted to hang on to the bridge for another few years. The Johnson St. Bridge was built to no seismic standard whatsoever, and, as recently as today's Times Colonist,(August 14, 2010) an engineer much more intimately familiar with the structure noted how poorly constructed and badly deteriorated the foundation piers are. In Canada's most seismically vulnerable city, ditching an earthquake retrofit is not just irresponsible, but potentially an enormous liability for taxpayers that could dwarf the cost of any project.

The preservation camapign shifts from time to time from the "do nothing" strategy to a "cheaper" seismic upgrade that would imperil either a new bridge or a refurbished structure. Building to a a lower 6.5 magnitude standard would produce some capital savings, but expose the city to tremendous risk. The 2001 earthquake centered in Washington state was a 6.8 magnitude that could bring ours down, even with some signficant upgrades. The 6.5 standard would leave the bridge standing (at that magnitude), but make it unusable pending repairs. With potential economic impacts to downtown amounting to $13 million a year for closures, the insurance premium of the extra protection of an 8.5 standard at $10 million earns a very quick return on investment.

Since day one the bridge preservation folks have ignored function and jumped from one argument to another, most often in isolation, to try and identify flaws in process (as if that changes the condition of the bridge), or some magical, cheap, silver bullet repair that can save the bridge for pennies. It just doesn't add up.

We still have our work cut out for us. A referendum on the borrowing to build the new bridge will go to the voters in November. A no vote potentially costs a 14% tax increase to pay for the project. There is no third option. It's a myth. None of the various deficiencies or challenges of the old bridge can be viewed in isolation, and no responsible council is going to invest millions in minor repairs and leave the major works alone. Nevertheless, expect to hear more of the same story over the next couple of months as critics attempt to derail the project.

When the "tough questions" are asked, the critics' case crumbles pretty quickly. Don't buy the snake oil. When referendum day comes, get out and vote. We are going to need our new bridge and this is our best chance now to do it right.

Bridge Decisions Loom

2010-08-07T08:39:00.000-07:00

Days from now Council will select the replacement or refrubishment option for the Johnson St. Bridge and proceed from that point to a borrowing bylaw and referendum.

A few of my thoughts on what I've been hearing and some responses to some of the comments I'm seeing out there.

Critics of replacement have always emphasized how unique our bridge is. True enough, but every time I open the newspaper or check the web commentary, our "unique" bridge is just like all the others when it comes to repair or refrbishment.  That's not credible.

Lately, comparisons to the LaSalle Causeway Bridge in Kingston have been making the rounds, and some voices insist that if they could refurbish theirs for $3 million and change, we must be able to do the same. It's a nice fairy tale but it doesn't add up. The same Minister of Transportation, along with his staff, reviewed the details of our project and found them convincing enough to offer $21 million for our replacement bridge. Maybe, just maybe, the analysis turned on the individual projects and not on the cookie cutter fixes critics are raising again as "proof" that our project is over-priced.

One of the engineers I spoke to in San Francisco, who managed their bridge rehab projects cautioned me specifically against using their bridges as models for any project. He said that every bridge is unique and needs to be assessed on its specific condition and the scope of work it needs. He also said he told the same to the bridge preservation campaign, something they conveniently ignored during the counter petition campaign when they repeatedly used the 3rd St. Bridge as an example of how to do a cheap and effective refurbishment.

A couple of the differences with the bridge in Kingston should be instructive for those interested in the staging of repair works, or indeed, just what might be the relative condition of elements of either their bridge or ours, and how that might be relevant to costs..

The LaSalle (just one bridge, not two like ours) doesn't have to lift very often. In fact, it is closed to marine traffic for the winter of course, when the lakeshore and channel are freezing up and no boats are going anywhere. This enabled them to "bubble wrap" the bridge to keep stripped paint from dropping into the water without impact on marine traffic. That's a non-starter in Victoria where the Blue Bridge must open several times a day for ships to pass through, so bubble wrapping in place would be logistical nightmare. You'd have to raise and disassemble scaffolding several times a day for work to proceed. It would be very difficult logistically to maintain safety and security of scaffolding on the bridge while it was going up and down.

In all likelihood, the relatively lower demand on the bridge from marine users may have extended the life of mechanical and electrical elements. Suffice to say that the various engineers that have examined our bridge specifically confirm that mechanical and electrical systems are obsolete, face potential failure and should be signficantly upgraded or replaced. That expense, by the way, is totally absent from the bridge project costing in Kingston.

Kingston, of course, is also not in what you would call a particularly vulnerable eathquake zone, so seismic upgrading planned for the Johnson St. Bridge was not part of the plan for the LaSalle bridge. The handful of voices suggesting we dispense with seismic work to save money and preserve their beloved Blue Bridge are, at best, infected by wishful thinking. In truth, that would be irresponsible at one level, and negligent at another.

Even in a low earthquake hazard zone, a bridge did collapse recently in a 5 plus earthqauke centered on the Ontario/Quebec border. The town of Vla de Bois will take two years to recover from the impacts. The condition assessment and subsequent analysis of various scenarios, comparisons with other events in our fault zone and our evaluation of legal precedent recommends a seismic upgrade that will protect life and limb, but also ensure we have emergency services access and the wherewithall to rebuild and restore an economy that would be battered by any earthquake event.  Taking shortcuts could expose the city to civil liabilities that would dwarf the cost of any bridge project.

One of the most predictable fallouts of the various challenges posed by a complex and costly refurbishment estimate is the calls to dispense with the improvements for cyclist and pedestrians integrated into the planning for both options. This is particularly ironic coming from organizations that want the city to "listen" to the people. Improved levels of service for cycling and walking topped the list of needs citizens have a for a replacment or refurbishment project in polling and surveys the city conducted in the aftermath of the counter-petition.  Now that it is clear that those improvements are not as cheap as a "can of paint a bucket of cement" those voices have been discarded as irrelevant.

The prospect of 20 or 30 more years of a woeful level of service for cycling and walking is a non-starter for me. I will not support any project that does not address these needs adequately. Our decision must be focused first on function, less so on form.  Suggestions that we sacrifice the option of reorienting the bridge function to better support sustainable transporation options, not to mention shortchanging the project on safety, trying to patch up electrical and mechanical systems to squeeze another few years of use from the old bridge, or looking for other shortcuts is a little self serving. It says that there are no other values other than preserving the bridge as a museum piece.

When decison time comes, I will take also into consideration the comments I have heard from many dozens of Victoria residents I have met at our open houses, neighbourhood meetings or out in the community at events and other venues who, some critics will be suprised to hear, have little attachment to the old bridge and can't wait for us to get started on the new one. Their voices will also be heard.

New bus plan for China proposes radical solution

2010-08-04T20:32:00.000-07:00

Check out the "straddling bus" technology that China plans for routes in Beijing. 1200 passenger capacity buses are designed to straddle the road and traffic, running on electricity and floating over congestion.

You've never seen anything like it. Thanks to John McBride for the tip.

Houses for people not cars

2010-07-26T17:36:00.000-07:00

A new housing development proposed for Vancouver's downtown eastside will dispense with expensive parking spots (worth $30,000 to $40,000 per space), to reduce the cost of a new condo development, making it more accessible to lower income buyers.

In Victoria we have on a case by case basis allowed some developments to proceed with no or reduced parking requirements, to meet the idiosyncrasies of land use or to help reduce costs at housing developments.

Most parking formulas are geared towards the travel demand generated by land use in an average North American city. We aren't and Vancouver isn't average. We bike more and we walk more and in Vancouver, traffic volumes are dropping in downtown even as population goes up. Why do we need all that extra parking?

With 30 to 40% of urban land dedicated to the movement and storage of private automobiles, finding ways to reduce their impacts and give lower income residents a break on housing is an idea whose time is now.

Here's the Globe and Mail story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/developer-experiments-with-affordable-condos-near-downtown-vancouver/article1651548/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGlobeAndMail-Front+%28The+Globe+and+Mail+-+Latest+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

More housing ideas

2010-07-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

Vancouver is looking at increasing their supply of affordable housing by embracing modular homes and using city properties for numbers of new projects. With homelessness and a lack of housing options still plaguing Canada's cities, especially here on the west coast, new ideas are always worth exploring. Click the title for the Vancouver Sun story.

Visualize the Gulf Spill at home

2010-07-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

Here's a map of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. With one click you can visualize how far reaching the spill is expressed by superimposing the area covered in oil over any location you can type into the tool.

Looking at it with Victoria as the epicentre is a startling sight, enveloping southern Vancouver Island, sailing into Puget Sound and washing up Georgia Strait and out of the mouth of Juan de Fuca. You could imagine its shape here altered, with a further reach than the open space of the Gulf site. Here it would make landfall and be pushed deeper into the Sound, further up the straits and along coastal Vancouver Island and Washington State. Not a pretty picture.

Suddenly, the catastrophic external costs of the fossil fuel economy are again in the news, even if they are fading from the front pages.

Here's another example of the high cost of oil: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4726540344/

Housing Options Moving Forward

2010-07-09T21:26:00.000-07:00

Council has been busy on a number of housing initiatives since we got elected in November of 2009. Hundreds of new units are being built, some are operational already, and new initiatives are moving forward to provide affordable housing, options for people with disabilities or supportive facilities for those with substance abuse problems.

Most recently the Mayor worked behind the scenes to help persuade the province to open up summer shelter beds while we wait for more permanent facilities and services to complete. In the last couple of days we've also completed purchase of a couple of bankrupt Traveler's Inns that will be turned into housing for disadvantaged First Nation's families and another project for low income singles.

Tackling homelessness and growing our supply of diverse and affordable housing for Victorians was probably the biggest issue in the last election and our citizen surveys continue to identify it as a top priority. We're delivering.

The Traveler's Inn purchase has been getting great reviews and we're seeking funding to help carry the mortgage and operate the facilities. But we're not done yet.

Soon a new cottage or garden suite policy will come to council. It's another of the initiatives we've undertaken to grow the supply of affordable housing for a diverse community. Watch the city's website for announcements that will signal the policy is coming to council.

In the meantime, click on the title to read more about backyard cottage housing initiatives south of the border. The USA Today story covers a lot of ground, focusing in particularly on programs in Seattle. It's good background on how other jurisdictions are embracing the cottage house or garden suite concept in their own backyards. It's an old idea whose time has come again.

Johnson St. Bridge by bike

2010-07-09T00:05:00.000-07:00

Check out Raymond Parker's video taken from his bike while riding through the tangled octopus of roads and trails that take you on or off the Johnson St. Bridge. It's not an ideal facility for cyclists, to say the least, and the video helps illustrate some of the challenges.

One of the key issues, and it was emphasized in the city's polling of citizens, is how to make the crossing more bike and pedestrian friendly. It was at the top of the wish list for those surveyed. While many cyclists already cross the bridge every day, encouraging more people to choose cycling means providing more supportive facilities.

Take the virtual ride at Ray's blog.

2 Lane Fairy Tales

2010-07-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

Last week Monday Magazine reported on the proposal by johnsonstreetbridge.org inviting the city to conduct a 2-lane bridge experiment to see if the Johnson Street Bridge would work with a lane reduction.

It's something I've written about before on the blog or posted on my website at johnluton.ca and it has been evaluated extensively by city and consulting engineers. The Monday article covered the proposal without any reference to alternate voices that might question the instant expertise of the bridge preservation campaign. Certainly there is no evidence suggesting that campaign organizers have any experience or any record with respect to designing traffic systems or facilities to support cycling. The proposal is a little more elaborate than the "can of paint and a bucket of cement" idea they had several months ago, but it is no less simplistic and so far, hasn't found any support among traffic engineers (structural engineers aren't the same thing).

I wrote and overly long response, knowing that it would not be published of course, but the issue is a lot more complex than a few paragraphs are likely to cover, so here's my take on the issue (again), along with some illustrations that should help understand some of the challenges of the proposal and the comparisons made to other "road diet" projects.

The Johnson St. Bridge and the Burrard bridge are indeed, both bridges, but after that the similarities between the two are overstated. As a model for the wishful thinking of those who have convinced themselves that a 2 lane scheme is a simple and inexpensive solution in service of saving the Blue Bridge the comparisons just don't add up.

That "solution" has been studied for a decade and has been found wanting by most in the cycling community and every qualified engineer that has examined the structure of traffic carried by the bridge.

The Burrard St. bridge bike lane project took out 1 of 3 lanes, not 1 of 2, a pretty significant capacity differential that is key to the functionality of the transportation network supported by the Johnson St. Bridge. There are also 3 lanes running in the opposing direction on Burrard, though irrelevant to traffic flow, is still critical to the level of service provided to emergency vehicles, an important function of any bridge.

South of Burrard, traffic bottled up on the bridge by the lane reduction has several exiting lanes to relieve congestion and sustain flow. At the north end, there is generous "storage" capacity on Burrard and more on Pacific where queuing traffic can wait for the signal cycle that will channel them through the network. There's also additional capacity available at Granville for vehicles heading into a larger downtown and it too is absorbing some of the traffic diverting from Burrard.

At Johson St. the "goldilocks" point where capacity and demand meet is at Tyee and Esquimalt, not on the downtown side. Traffic volumes of around 25,000 vehicles a day (ADT) are destined to or from Tyee (8,000 ADT), and Esquimalt (18,000 ADT). On the downtown side there is no surplus storage that compares with Burrard. Queues will back up through Pandora at Store and across Yates on Wharf. Intersections further upstream may also experience gridlock, more certainly when the bridge is up (something that doesn't happen, of course, on the Burrard bridge).

Bay St. is not an alternative for Johnson St. Bridge traffic. It's maxed out now and can't provide more capacity. Ad nauseum calls for four laning are stillborn. Where is the road capacity on either side of the bridge to absorb additional traffic on the bridge (Ralmax, Westside Village?), and what would that downtown destined traffic do to gateway streets north of the city centre?

Gains for cyclists are also exaggerated. The physical separation afforded cyclists on the Burrard bridge eat up a lot of space that just isn't available on the Johnson St. bridge. The 1.5 meters that works on a road bike lane is too narrow on a bridge where lateral obstructions reach elbow or shoulder height and there is no room for physical barriers of any sort between the bike lane and traffic that includes frequent bus service and numbers of truck movements. Routing to and from the Goose would remain as convoluted as ever. The better signage proposed by some critics is truly "lipstick on a pig".

The 2 lane fairy tale is a loser for cyclists, as well as for pedestrians and people with mobility challenges. The levels of service can't compete with the purposeful designs that can be incorporated into a new bridge. Along with the real numbers on costs and the challenges posed by the staging of works - rehab means extended closures and serious economic impacts for downtown - citizens of Victoria have a lot to think about as they evaluate the options they would like council to consider.

The campaign to save the old bridge has always clamoured for more information and that's a welcome contribution to the discussion. Every fresh piece of information points to the new bridge as the right choice, and at every step critics clutch at new straws to advance an agenda, which is to preserve the old bridge, not matter how disfunctional or how costly.

For those that are willing to wade through my website or my personal blog, there is lots to read on the bridge from several angles.
Some of the specifics about the bridge and traffic patterns are at: http://www.johnluton.ca/pages/focusanswers.html

Bridge topics are also a frequent theme of my blog at http://johnluton.blogspot.com/

Illustrations of some of the issues can be found at my flickr pages, and a bunch of new pics are up on the page with this one that shows what the bridge is connected to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4733674188/

While this may be too much for publication, the campaign to save the bridge started out more than a year ago clamouring for more information. I do my best to get it out there. People are free to poke holes in it or take it at face value as they choose, but the facts will be very stubborn.

Everything I've put out there seems to be backed up by engineers familiar with our roads and bridges and with traffic systems design. It's nice to hear from structural and heritage engineers, but they can't provide the comprehensive analysis we need to make sound choices on the future of the bridge.

John Luton, Councillor
City of Victoria

Victoria does more affordable housing

2010-06-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month we added to our portfolio of housing projects by investing $600,000 into two projects, partnering with the Greater Victoria Housing Society to create 52 new units of affordable rental accommodation in the heart of the city. It's another step forward in our ongoing efforts to increase and diversify housing options in Victoria.

Find out more about the city's housing sustainability program by clicking on the title.

Connecting with municipal leaders across Canada

2010-06-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

Last month I joined municipal leaders from across Canada to shape policy and share ideas at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Toronto. Some of the research I did shows up in other blogs. The Cherry St. Bridge visit story has real local relevance.

I also spent time exploring an emerging pedestrian commercial destination at the Distillery District, a development model that may have some exciting lessons for Victoria. Toronto's street vendor culture isn't as exciting as what I've seen in Portland and Mexico City (grilled grasshoppers anyone?), but like Victoria and Vancouver, they too are trying on different models to liven up their streetlife and create new opportunities for small entrepreneurs.

Photos of my quick observations of a "scramble" signal where traffic is stopped in all directions to allow pedestrians to criss-cross a busy intersection will soon be posted at my flickr galleries of active transportation studies alongside the other nuggets from my collections.

The key message by local leaders from cities big and small was on partnerships and the challenge of addressing the municipal infrastructure deficit that we are all facing.

It's a pretty current issue in Victoria where the costs of any one of the Blue Bridge project options under consideration are considerable and the complete package serves more than just Victoria's citizens who are footing most of the bill. The federal government is poised to make the biggest investment in Victoria in our history but we have to choose the right project - seismic work included. But where's the province and where's the region on the regional trail or railway elements that serve much more Greater Victoria and much of Vancouver Island?

Good questions. Click on the title to catch up on the issues that got attention at FCM. Mine joins a short list of blogs that FCM member politicians are writing across the country.

Bridge Update

2010-06-15T21:33:00.000-07:00

Council had a detailed presentation on the Johnson Street Bridge options on Monday, technical and cost analysis for replacement in current dollars and the more detailed work demanded by the public for refurbishment of the old bridge. Several hours later those working to save the old bridge began trotting out some of the same misinformation and more bizarre schemes for their preffered project.

A new bridge makes so much more sense both technically and financially, but more discussions with Victoria residents will shape what decisions council makes in August that we will take to referendum in the fall.

I posted some detailed discuss on at "Vincent's Victoria", a blog written by local resident Vincent Gornall. It's a thoughtful and balanced site and Vincent covers a lot of key issues in the city. I'm happy to chip in when the subject draws my attention and I have the time to put some thoughts together. It's well worth a visit.

Following the presentations at Council, Vincent wrote a very short post suggesting that "it looks like we will get a new bridge", a rational if somewhat premature conclusion. As much as I would like to make that choice now, I don't think the critics will go away quietly and the right decision is anything but a sure thing.

Here's my rather longer response on Vincent's blog, covering many of the technical and costing issues emerging in the media. For complete information, the link to this post takes you to the city's site where you will find the many presentations on technical, costing and economic issues presented to council.

New bridge? I don't think it is yet a done deal. Technical and costing reports pretty clearly point to the advantages of a new bridge, but there are still those who would derail any effort to move in that direction.

The city has done what the counter petition process asked for - a detailed analysis and costing of a refurbishment project to compare with the new bridge option. The city and a technical advisory committee (do you want good advice or political advice?) made sure that both options were designed and costed to compare apples with apples so Victorians can weigh in on the choices before us.

A full picture has been presented by our engineers and multiple teams of consultants - professional engineers with both the experience and expertise, and whose reputation for providing sound and unbiased advice is on the line (and the code of ethics governing engineers require that they provide only objective and unbiased information and recommendations).
Both the new bridge and refurbishment options will cost multiples of the figures estimated in the original condition assessment commissioned in 2007. One critic likes to use one number only from that report - the $23 to $25 million estimated for a very basic refurbishment, but conveniently ignores most of the other numbers and recommendations presented by the Delcan team.
The same report said a new bridge would cost around $35 million, which, like the orginal refurbishment assessments, provided a solid foundation for further work but, like any complex engineering project, subject to detailed costing and the budgetary shifts associated with changes in scope for both options.
There will be a campaign to save the old bridge - and that's the only agenda, and however stubborn the facts, expect an effort to question the credibility of both the engineers and council, and new roadblocks thrown in the way of making a timely and responsible decision.
That latest effort, conveniently revolving around accommodations for cyclists and pedestrians, (the top two issues for citizens who will own and use the bridge in the future).
The "newly" proposed 2 to 1 lane road diet won't work. My analysis can be found at my blog and on my website. I keep asking the engineers if the analysis is sound and have always been supported in their responses.
It's just another stall.
Costs have about tripled for a new bridge, and are about 4 times for the refurbishment option. That's easily enough understood - some big ticket items have been added to the scope of that project to meet some practical objectives.
A new bridge to connect the Galloping Goose and the E&N trail (in progress) is the only practical and effective way to provide what cyclists and pedestrians will need. The old bridge can't accommodate the weight and doesn't have the space to provide what was designed into the new bridge at the Class "C" stage of development last year. For that project the cost was estimated at $63 million. Road approaches work added about $11 million to the package on that one too, then a more limited scope change than those elements now woven into a refurbishment concept.
Complete replacement of the electrical and mechancial systems have been added to refurbishment estimates to extend the potential life of the old bridge to another 100 years, again making it comparable to the advantages of a new bridge, but, just as predictably, adding some cost escalation to the project.

Comparable levels of seismic protection and some detailing meant to preserve the heritage features of the bridge are also costly elements never anticipated in the original refurbishment works envisioned in the condition assessment.
The suspicions cast around costs and the rate of inflation are a bit simplistic, if not disingenous. Apart from the many scope variables, the assurances that, when council first chose a new bridge, costs were at historic lows have proven prescient. The delays mean painful if predictable increases in material prices and other costs. The Financial Times reports that steel prices are set to jump by a third in 2010 alone and elsewhere in the construction industry media, analysts are observing some significant upward pressure on concrete prices as well.
The things you and I buy follow the rate of inflation, but large scale municipal infrastructure projects have their own set of financial dynamics and our input costs are quite different from your grocery bill.
Watch for the bridge campaign to push for a couple of "cheap" fixes. Cut out the rail, drop the bike bridge and leave the seismic work out of the project are emerging as the latest do nothing strategies. Paint the house while the foundation is crumbling and save the bridge for cars and trucks for another 50 or 100 years. Now that's sustainable!!??

How and with what we move forward with will still be debated around Victoria. Those that are losing the techical arguments will fall back again on process, but this really still is about the bridge.
What we need is a new one, something that echoes the old and fits into our cityscape, but something too that is purpose built to meet the transportation needs of the future, not the past. The safest and most durable investment and the best value for money has always been the new bridge.
The old bridge is not just a steadily deteriorating liability as is, but perhaps most surprisingly, not a very sound or effective design for the purposes for which it was built.
The bridge engineer who did the peer review (and who has experience in heritage work, bridge design and decades of direct experience with the Blue Bridge), said as much during his presentation. He concluded that, even with a reasonable and prudent project proposed for the refurbishment, he could not be certain that it would work as intended.
The best we can do might still uncover suprises (and costly ones), because there are structural elements that have not been examined or maintained since the bridge was built. Those same features might preclude any effective maintenance or protection against the pack rust steadily eroding the superstructure -rusting out beams and stressing rivets.
How ironic that many of the "charms" of the old structure are hastening its demise. Rust never sleeps.

By August we'll have a decision and November's events will include a by-election and referendum on the choices we make. It's not an easy task but I hope people can see more clearly what must be done. I'm working to help get us there.

A virtual tour of Toronto's Cherry St. Bridge

2010-06-09T21:21:00.000-07:00

Toronto's Cherry St. Bridge has been touted as an example of a cheap and effective refurbishment project that could inform our analysis of Victoria's Johnson St. Bridge. It's a few years younger than ours but was designed by the same engineer and, though a little more graceful in design (note the more sculpted counterweights), is very similar to our bridge.

A 2007 refurbishment project, costing some $2.7 million shows up at johnsonstreetbridge.org as an example of a cheap and effective model of what we should consider here in Victoria. Cherry St. is not in a particularly vulnerable seismic zone - an earthquake is a much bigger threat on the west coast so no doubt none of the work done had to address those issues, but looking at the bridge now, one has to wonder what the money was spent on.

I was in Toronto to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities a couple of weeks ago, a conference, where local government leaders have a chance to meet to share strategies and develop policy to help municipalities speak with a single voice on issues of national concern. The need for ongoing senior government help to repair or replace aging infrastructure was, coincidentally, a major theme running through the conference, as was the need to build more sustainable communities to meet the challenge of climate change.

I made sure I took some extra time to visit the bridge - a long walk from downtown but well worth the exploration (and I'll share some thoughts on outdoor and central food markets, street vendor carts and pedestrian neighbourhoods, as well as transit models I checked out, but I'll do that in another blog.

In the meantime, check out a few of my photos from the Cherry St. Bridge. I wouldn't use it as a model refurbishment project. The sculpted counterweights look like they are in good shape and maybe that's where the money was spent. Everywhere else the bridge is covered in rust and showing serious deterioration. Concrete sidewalks are crumbling and railings tilting over. Can't say that a bridge signed "use at your own risk" inspires a great deal of confidence in its structural integrity.

It's pretty clearly not as critical a link in Toronto's more extensive transportation network but it does carry some traffic, notably cyclists heading for the waterfront east of downtown and routes towards "the Beaches" in the east end. A nice ride with little traffic but like our bridge, not ideally set up for cycling. Given the neighbourhood though, pedestrian traffic is probably pretty light and cyclists have the sidewalks mostly to themselves.

Toronto's councillor for the ward that includes the bridge also thought their bridge, given its age and condition, wasn't likely to be there much longer.

Victoria moves downtown plan forward

2010-05-20T22:23:00.000-07:00

Today's Council meeting advanced our Draft Downtown Plan - a vision for the heart of Victoria over the next few decades. It's an ambitious project that expands the downtown core to recognize that the city is growing and districts around the commericial heart of the city will develop consistent with the city centre moreso than with their immediate neighbourhoods.

For Old Town, it reinforces our commitment to preserving the unique heritage and modest scale of our historic city. In other nearby blocks, renewal, increases in resident populations, growth in office and commercial density is envisioned to keep Victoria as the region's downtown. We'll invite hi-tech and light industry to locate in the city to help keep our economy vibrant and diverse.

For me some of the key and exciting new directions include an emphasis on walking, cycling and transit as our primary transportation choices. We want to lower our carbon footrpint and make our city more sustainable. It doesn't mean we are pushing cars out, more that we are inviting people in. The evolution will take place over time and we'll plan to make walking, cycling and transit the easiest, most appealing and safest choice for our citizens and the people who also work, play or visit here.

It's also refreshing to see an acknowledgement that waterfront parking lots need to be redeveloped - preserving our most desirable land and our best viewscapes for empty cars has long been one of my frustrations. We can do better.

I'll be sharing more of my thoughts on the blog on issues raised by the plan - like the future of Government St.

I'm off to Toronto for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference to help shape policy for local governments in Canada and to network with colleagues from near and far who face similar challenges to those we face at home. I will be doing some local research there too - checking out car free zones in the Distillery District and having a look at their Cherry St. Bridge, built by the same architect who did our Johnson St. Bridge. I'll also be meeting with some of Toronto's leading bike and active transportation activists to see what new ideas I can borrow.

I'm sure the trip will help me reflect on the planning and transportation issues that will be central to our downtown plan, as well as other projects I'm working on.

We're several months away from adopting the plan and we have plenty of public consultation to engage in before Council endorses a final plan. Click on the title and it will connect you to the city's plan page. It's a great read and I hope you'll get involved in helping us to shape the future of downtown Victoria.

U.S. Cap and Trade Analysis

2010-05-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

The cap and trade system being introduced in the U.S. is an important step forward in battling climate change. Here's some details and analysis of the program.

Complete Streets

2010-04-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Department of Transportation under the Obama administration is taking the country's transportation policy in an exciting new direction. Secretary Ray LaHood stood up recently at a gathering of advocates in Washington to talk about bicycling and walking and the move to embrace them as transportation in the eyes of the federal government. (For more click on the post title "Complete Streets")

It's an important policy statement that signals a direction for the nation's local, regional and state governments, but also to engineers and practioners in the private sector who also shape land use and transportation systems design across the continent. (As an advocate I drift across the border and learn from colleagues abroad, and likewise professionals and community activists are increasingly bringing their expertise and ideas to share with us).

It's a short news release but rich in content that expresses where we need to be too. The future of transportation and our future as a species depends upon a mobility revolution that must shift us to more sustainable choices. Obama was a dependable supporter of alternative transportation as he worked through the earlier stages of his career in Chicago, sponsoring bills and initiatives for my friends at the then Chicagoland Bicycle Federation (now the Active Transportation Alliance). It's nice to see the commitment given new expression.

Here at home I'm working on my own initiatives on corridor protection for cycling and pedestrian facilities, a complete streets policy that aims to level the playing (and investment) fields to better support cycling, walking and transit, and, key to our Johnson Street bridge discussion, a policy directive to ensure accommodation on new or rehabilitated bridge projects (at no less the level of service provided to motorists) as a matter of municipal policy and as a requirement of federal and provincial funding and gas tax allocations. I hope to bring it to my council and from there to the Union of BC Municipalities convention in the fall.

In the meantime, check the fresh news section (to your right), where I'll be highlighting the latest on current issues and events in the community that I'm working on or lending my support to. To bring it back to the discussion of sustainable transportation, a threat to the integrity of the Galloping Goose is behind my concern for corridor protectio. The news item on this will lead you to a call to action on this important issue.

Food for thought

2010-04-15T16:58:00.001-07:00

Some of us on council have been pushing to allow for more productive uses on our city boulevards and in some park spaces. Local food is an important emerging issue and we've got our parks department working to be part of the solution.

Read more at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/90762564.html

A glimpse of one of Portland's neighbourhood boulevards where crops and other things are growing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4058955045/

New Bike Parking Initiatives

2010-04-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

With the conversion of the city's parking meters to pay by space, a system that is more convenient for drivers and vandal resistant to protect city revenue sources, old meter heads are disappearing in favour of more compact designs that identify stall numbers. Trouble is that they no longer serve for informal bicycle parking, but the city is now working to meet the need with hundreds of new racks using the increasingly familiar inverted "U" design.

The inverted "U" was introduced to Victoria in the late '90s when Denise Savoie and I lobbied the city to change their standard bike rack from the less ideal "ribbon" rack (a.k.a the "serpentine" or "wave" rack). Denise was then working as our Bike to Work Week coordinator and myself I w as president of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition. The inverted "U" was a design introduced to me by the bicycle coordinator for the city of Denver who presented at the 1998 Pro Bike conference in Santa Barbara. It was a great conference to discover and this is just one of the ideas I've brought back to Victoria (including the whole conference itself in 2004 - and $500,000 in economic benefits), with the biking and walking conference.

Putting a replacement program on the front burner was one of my early efforts as a new councillor. I knew the conversion program was coming and the city wasn't quite ready for the dislocation it would mean for area cyclists working or shopping downtown.

I also initiated a project that converted on-street parking to a now busy weather protected bike shelter in front of our local Mountain Equipment Co-op store on Government St. It spurred a nearby business (Habit Coffee and Culture on Pandora) to ask for their own and we worked together to make it happen.

Fast forward to this year and the nudging I've been doing with the DVBA and with the enthusiasm now of other organizations, the initiatives have taken on a life of their own. Two new "corrals" will be set up for an extended cycling season at another couple of on-street parking locations where bike racks are needed and local business is supportive.

The DVBA did a great job of working with their members to solicit support (as many as 30 locations were identified by businesses downtown where more bike parking is wanted), and with MEC, other members of Capital Bike and Walk, Bike to Work and the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition (kudos also to Bike to Work president Rob Wickson who kicked in from his Discovery Economic Consulting business), and the pilots have been announced to launch for Bike to Work Week - May 31 - June 5, 2010.

See the news release at: http://www.downtownvictoria.ca/images/releases/bikeracks041410.pdf

Bike to Work: www.biketowork.ca

The Good: the inverted "U": http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451023848/

The Bad: the "wave": http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4524119864/

What happens when no bike racks are available:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451047469/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451395956/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/3284478213/

State of the art at MEC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/1398619327/
Low tech in Portland: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/887050032/

Local elections task force

2010-04-15T09:31:00.001-07:00

The province is leading a task force to review local government elections and municipal governance. The key issue is the concept of the corporate vote, a privilege we dispensed with in the 90's when the NDP was in office.

I don't believe property or corporate votes have a place in democratic governance. The rights of citizenship belong to people alone. It's something I often struggle with on the road where many believe a driver's license gives them title to our public rights of way - after all, they argue, they "pay for the roads". They don't, and that's another issue, but attaching a price tag to public office or any other rights of citizenship is offensive to the notion of government by the people.

Corporate voting right are nearly extinct in western democracies, anachronisms of historical privilege and we don't need to bring the system back.

The provincial task force has been hearing a lot of that from local government representatives serving through the Union of BC Municipalities. Still, the Liberal government seems enamoured of the concept and may still try and introduce changes, though the oppositon has been loud and clear.

Several other issues are also being reviewed by the task force, and on those, the province and the task force are doing good work. The Minister has, to his credit, also canvassed the opposition on their views, and that's keeping up a finer tradition of government.

I submitted my own thoughts, which I think closely reflect what I've heard from other, urban based representatives I have the privilege to connect with when I attend regional or provincial gatherings of various other local government leaders. Here's what I submitted to the task force:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on local elections in British Columbia.

With respect to the Task Force issues here are some of my thoughts:

Campaign financing is an issue in our larger municipalities and particularly those where the stakes may be high - valuable land, concentrations of business and commercial properties, and the opportunity for significant and profitable development.

Campaign contribution and spending limits make sense to me. They can level the playing field to ensure that access to office is not limited to those with wealthy backers. Our democratic institutions need representation from those that want to serve and who can earn the confidence of their fellow citizens, not just those who can afford to run for office.

At the same time transparency and accountability must be resilient. Anonymous contributions have no place in elections, or for that matter, in our referenda and counter-petition processes. Citizens and communities have a right to know who is financing the campaigns of those who run for office, or those who take on the role of supporting or opposing initiatives of local governments by way of non-election year campaigns.

Tax credits may also be useful. Public financing has been effective at federal and provincial levels and does provide some support for ordinary citizens to contribute to support the candidates of their choice. This too helps to level the playing field and provide some support for people of modest means to run for office or to support those who do. They have a voice that needs to be heard.

Enforcement of election rules is important. There should be a role for the BC Chief Electoral Officer in supporting the efforts of local government to ensure fair and transparent adherence to election rules. Many small communities may not have the resources to ensure the thorough and professional oversight that could be provided by an office like the Chief Electoral Officer.

Terms of office could be extended to 4 years as has been recommended in some communities. It will provide for more long term planning and less campaigning (and at reduced cost to taxpayers) and can provide for more stable and thoughtful approaches to municipal governance. Election cycles that do not compete with provincial elections would also be useful to focus campaigns on relevant local issues free from the distractions of competing provincial campaigns. With fixed election dates now provided for in provincial legislation, this cycle should be simple to achieve with a 4 year term.

Corporate Vote: I believe the corporate vote was discarded for good reasons and it would be a step backward to re-introduce this anti-democratic initiative. The principle of any democracy is a vote by the people, not attached to property or business rights. It is not available in other jurisdictions, at the federal or provincial levels and it has no place in local elections in British Columbia. The rights of citizenship belong to people, not corporations. Businesses, their owners, directors, shareholders or employees all have rights as individuals that should not be abridged by providing votes assigned to and exercised by corporate leadership.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute my thoughts on these important issues.

John Luton, Councillor
City of Victoria

Central Saanich under siege

2010-04-12T10:22:00.000-07:00

Former Central Saanich Councillor Zeb King keeps me apprised of threats posed to the agricultural lands of this peninsula municipality. New developments proposed are threatening the Agricultural Land Reserve that protects some of our local food sources. Housing and commercial development are the main threats and a Zeb is trying to build community awareness about the issues and challenges.

Here's a couple of sources you can look at to find out more:
http://www.vimeo.com/10495518
http://www.mondaymag.com/articles/entry/the-last-bread-basket/news/

And here's one of my pics on the peninsula:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2700530608/in/set-72157605145411766/

Stormy weather - rain gardens and storm water managment

2010-03-31T12:40:00.001-07:00

I'll be following this one too. Storm water managment is key to an integrated approach to shoreline health and sewage treatment.

We've done some rain gardens in Victoria and other municipalities in the region are doing some too - check out Craigflower Rd in Esquimalt where a project I helped design (for bike lanes, better transit stop connections and an improved walking environment), includes bio-swales for storm water managment along the Gorge Vale Golf Course. It's a nice piece of work and the new look road is a breath of fresh air. I've been working with Esquimalt to extend the design to Admirals Rd and, in Victoria, elements of the design will continue along Craigflower through the Vic West Transportation Plan.

Local residents want more rain gardens in public spaces so I'll be working that into our infrastructure plans where I can.

Here's a story from Portland on the issue: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-03-28-portland-sewers_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Take the virtual tour of projects in Victoria's capital region at: http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/lid/garden.htm

Don't want to say I told you so but . . .

2010-03-31T12:31:00.001-07:00

Global warming - cars and trucks are the biggest problem. Read the NASA report at:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100218a/

Lawyer throws cold water on guerilla sharrows

2010-03-31T11:25:00.000-07:00

Several months ago I criticized anonymous activists for painting guerilla "sharrows" on Hillside Ave. in Victoria. I said that it was irresponsilbe and now a U.S. lawyer is laying out some of the legal rationale that informed my reaction.

I didn't ask, but the opinion piece just came up on the news service of the Sightline Institute, a web news service that covers environmental issues around "Cascadia", the colloquial name for the pacific northwest of Canada and U.S.

"Sharrows" or shared-use arrows are a new road marking treatment that has been appearing on streets around North America; we even have a few legal ones in the Victoria area. They have been implemented by municipal engineers after careful study and consultation with cycling advocates. The projects are endorsed by the respective councils in those municipalities where they are in use, just like those in the many other cities in North America that are test driving the idea.

The "sharrow" looks like a riderless bike with two "chevrons" (or a couple of roof peaks if you like), that suggest a direction of travel. They are typically used in situations where marked bicycle lanes won't fit in a narrow travel lane, or in some spots where a transition or conflict exists. The suggest good road position in situations where they are used, and remind drivers where they should expect to see cyclists in the traffic flow.

Soon they will be approved by the Transporation Association of Canada, an organization responsible for developing guidelines and standards for all manner of road markings and signage for traffic control, management, information etc. Professional engineers and municipal practitioners run the show and they study and test models at home or from abroad (usually the U.S.) to confirm their applicability in Canada.

Sharrows have been accepted by a TAC committee, but we are still waiting for official endorsement or gazetting to give them the stamp of authority needed to make them routinely available for cities and their engineering departments. Once that is done, they will likely start appearing along many roads around the county, and many projects have, at least conceptually, been planned for the capital region.

In the meatime, some of those frustrated with the slow process of evolutionary engineering and public consultation (the guerillas) have gone out to paint their own. *Nearly every municipal bicycle project in Victoria and beyond goes through some thorough and useful engagement with the actual users of all those facilities, (cyclists themselves).

I talked about the design issues at length, and nothing is as simple as it seems. It's not just "slapping some paint on the road" (a familiar, if simplistic solution also proposed by saviours of the Johnson St. bridge), but as complex and technical as any other traffic control device.

Engineering issues aside, the legal framework has always been relevant to the "cause", and "do it yourself" bike facilities are still a bad idea. Check out the short, concise summary of arguments from U.S. attorney Kenny Ching and you'll get at least the legal part of the picture. It couldn't be more clear.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-30-lawyer-no-you-shouldnt-paint-your-own-bike-lane/

See some sharrows at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2741783055/

Housing the homeless

2010-03-28T17:08:00.000-07:00

Portland is working on a project to provide services and support for the homeless with a new centre that seems in many ways like Victoria's "Our Place". There are a lot of good ideas flowing from Portland's efforts and some of those we haven't yet incorporated into our plans to end homelessness in Victoria are worth a look.

More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/realestate/commercial/24portland.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Housing Innovations

2010-03-19T16:56:00.000-07:00

I'm always keeping my eye out for different ways to approach housing - Victoria's tight market has eased a little and at the city we've invested in hundreds of units of affordable or supportive housing options, as well as provided more incentives for smaller private sector options like secondary suites.

Another initiative is Victoria's tax holiday program for downtown residential that has been helping developers rehab heritage buildings to make them habitable (the program makes the necessary seismic work economically viable). Just as an aside, that's also a little something for those critics who complain about other seismic projects on the premise that downtown will collapse in an earthquake anyway - it won't.

Back to housing and this little nugget from south of the border. Co-housing is a growing movement around the continent and something that fits Victoria's culture. For those interested in the concept, here's a story from Seattle's Publicola news site.
http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/18/cohousing-trend-hits-seattle/

Sticking it to the poor

2010-03-17T16:16:00.000-07:00

University of Victoria Political Science Professor Michael Prince wrote a good piece on another of the victims of the provincial budget. For minimal savings but significant impacts, the BC Liberals are again sticking it to the province's most disadvantaged citizens.

It's not enough that we live in some of the most expensive real estate in Canada - but we have the lowest minimum wage and the highest rate of child poverty. Our income assistance programs reveal a big gap between what people get in support and what they need to live on - I'm sure even some of the development industry are frustrated that those programs aimed at providing or subsidizing housing don't cover their real costs, and that's making it harder for them to justify doing business in the rental or affordable housing market.

The choices will be hard for too many. Dental care or food (of any sort)? Shoes you can walk in (if a disability requires special footware), or paying the phone bill?

We need to provide, and at least at the municipal level some councils, including ours, Vancouver and others, are trying to fill some of the gaps in housing, access to health care, and a host of other services that the province should be paying for.

Prince writes eloquently about the impacts of saving nickels and dimes on the backs of the poor. It's worth reading.

http://www.timescolonist.com/health/Supports+income+residents/2660442/story.html

A disaster in slow motion

2010-03-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

Reading some comments in the media about the condition of our Johnson Street Bridge, I thought I would share a couple of lines from the condition assessment that reference the deterioration of the mechanical and electrical systems. This to counter suggestions that I'm just being "alarmist" by pointing out that some of the essential systems are nearing the end of their service life and the need to address those problems is immediate.

While the surprise that left the bridge stuck open for a short period was only a blown fuse, it is indicative of the general condition of various elements of the systems that keep the bridge operating.

The Delcan report said that:

"Corrosion is pervasive and the coating has failed. Pack rust is forming between plates of built up members."

The mechanical system is in relatively good condition but needs specific repairs. Many of the mechanical elements are obsolete and it may be difficult to find replacement parts.

The motor brake system should be replaced; and

The electrical system is obsolete and should be replaced to avoid unscheduled bridge closures."

Last week's incident left the bridge stuck open for only 30 minutes, but traffic quickly backed up around downtown and in Vic West. One of the possible refurbishment strategies would close the bridge for several months, although that may be less likely given how unappealing that would be for our transportation network and our downtown economy. It is, however, the least costly of several refurbishment options (but that too has some potential external liabilities).

Other options include some or partial closures or nightwork (which has been discarded as intolerable for our downtown and Vic West residents). I do have a picture of the traffic headaches of a lane closure on my website (johnluton.ca). Go to the "Blue Bridge and Climate Change" page and have a look.

The "alarming" possibility of "unscheduled" closures is very real given the condition of critical systems. Other, similar bridges, of a similar vintage, have been stuck for months (Ashtabula Bridge and the Charles Berry Bridge, both in Ohio) and those have been accommpanied by serious traffic problems and, perhaps more importantly, significant negative economic impacts in the affected communities. References are provided on my website or elsewhere on this blog. It could happen here.

We don't know what will happen next, but we will need to be prepared for some major headaches if something else, however minor, goes wrong. In the meantime, the city continues to work through more detailed estimates for possible refuribishment projects so that citizens can make a comparison with the replacement project offered before Christmas.

Sticking it to the HST

2010-03-16T11:45:00.001-07:00

Spoke at an anti-HST rally about the unfairness of the new Harmonzied Sales Tax that applies now to bicycles but exempts motor fuels.

It's counter-intuitive to talk about fighting climate change while reducing taxes on the most siginficant source of greenhouse gas emissions - motor fuels - while increasing taxes on one of the solutions - bicycles.

We need more carrots and fewer sticks. Supporting sustainable transportation is important not just for the environment, but also for individual and community health. Getting people active helps reduce the load on our overburdened health care system too.

My speech at the rally is now up on You Tube. Many thanks to Saanich South MLA Lana Popham for organizing the event and keeping the pressure on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqXduJ_Fi2g

Social Economy

2010-03-10T12:06:00.000-08:00

Here's another site worth looking into. There's a wealth of information on key social policy issues in Canada and has hosted some local contributors, notably Ben Isitt, a former candidate for Mayor and a professor at the University of Victoria.

http://www.socialeconomyhub.ca/

Anti-Racism Event

2010-03-10T09:19:00.001-08:00

Local organizers are gathering people in Victoria's Centennial Square to raise awareness of racism that still infects our otherwise civilized society.

It's Sunday March 21 at 12 noon. More info at: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=364125694617

Sorry for the gridlock, but . . .

2010-03-08T18:28:00.000-08:00

Noticed in the press the other day some major roadworks projects underway around the region. Here's a bit about what's in it for bikes and pedestrians and how I helped to make them happen. While there will be some disruptions, expect some significant improvements when all the work is done.

E&N Rail with Trail project is moving forward. It will provide an off-road trail next to the railway between downtown Victoria and Goldstream Park. While it has a long way to go, some trail work has been done and new bridge projects are now underway. See more info on the project at http://capitalbikeandwalk.org As an advocate, I've been working on this project for a decade and had to fight hard to ensure funding for the project was in place. I've also been working as a consultant with the engineers who have designed the trail for the CRD. Rail with trail pictures, with external examples, at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/sets/72157604060901425/

Craigflower Road, Esquimalt. Working with another engineering firm we developed a concept plan for bike lanes, traffic calming and stormwater management designs for this important corridor. Some work has been done between the Victoria border and past Tillicum along the Gorge Vale Golf Course. The new project starting in April will take bike lanes and other elements west to Admirals Road. Lately I've been doing counts to establish some baseline "before" numbers, that are required for funding partners. I also helped Esquimalt develop their successful application for $7 million in federal provinical funding to support the project. Here's more on Esquimalt projects, including others I helped to develop designs for.
http://www.esquimalt.ca/news/news01201001.aspx

Island Highway in View Royal will get a major overhaul that will extend bike lanes up 4 mile hill and work with the new bridge projects for the E&N trail. It's several months of work but will offer benefits for cyclists and pedestrians, and also a safer and more efficient route for drivers. Two way left turns will be part of this project - another one I helped to develop as part of the View Royal Transportation Plan and where I helped develop also their funding applications. $7 million goes into this one. Here's some of the Island Highway: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/299645170/in/set-72157605337721508/

In Victoria work is moving along on Esquimalt Road, a project we developed through our Cycling Advisory Committee, something I pushed to establish 10 years ago and where I sat as chair for numbers of years. This "road diet" will be completed sometime in April. Here's another Victoria project I worked on that will give you an idea of what Esquimalt Rd. will look like.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/301596464/in/set-72157594380481772/

See you on the road.
John

Putting the brakes on the spin cycle

2010-03-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

One of the persistent criticisms of the city's Johnson St. Bridge project has been that the plan was pulled out of thin air when federal and provincial infrastructure funding came calling.

The path to the actual decision is much more routine.

In 2007 the city commissioned a condition assessment, preparing for the day 10 to 15 years after the last round of painting and repairs was done in 1999 when project engineers suggested the day of reckoning for the bridge would come sometime in that time frame.

Municipalities do have a duty of care to maintain their infrastructure to protect public safety and ensure operability. Assessments and subsequent repairs are the regular, routine responsibility that arises from that duty, and failure to do so may expose local governments to liability claims if something goes wrong.

The project reported out only after the 2009 election, and though it was nowhere to be seen in the campaign, the engineers were quitely doing their work in the background while public attention was focused elsewhere.*

(*A sidebar to the election discussion: I can't speak for other candidates, but I did spend some of my 2 or 3 alloted minutes at various all-candidates meetings talking about the need to address our infrastructure deficit - that problem of worn out roads, bridges, pipes and other municipal assets that will pile more costs onto every city in the country. I also spelled out pretty clearly my preference for re-orienting our transportation systems to support more sustainable choices, like cycling, walking and transit.)

The report to council did come and it is up on the city's website for all to see (www.johnsonstreetbridge.com) The need to do something was clear and council chose replacement, not because it was a means to profit from new programs for infrastructure, but because it seemed the most sensible of the two options before us. It was timely to be able to apply for funding, but none of us were looking to add tens of millions to our budget just to secure one or even two thirds of the cost of the project.

That said, it would have been irresponsible not to apply for the funding and staff worked overtime to prepare a submission. That we were succcessful with our federal application indicates that we had a well thought out project to address a genuine and critical need.

We'll be facing a referendum in the fall on a new borrowing for our bridge project. It will be for a "must do" project that should, if we can make the right choices, provide a safe and sustainable transportation facility well into the future. I'm looking forward to that rational discussion.

Fear mongering

2010-02-28T20:30:00.000-08:00

From the Delcan report on the Johnson St. Bridge:

Page 5-9
“Given the potential for significant earthquakes in Victoria (the highest of any Canadian city), the Do Nothing option has considerable risk . . . (t)he risk includes the potential for loss of life”

Sifting through the numbers

2010-02-27T18:33:00.001-08:00

For those that are interested in transportation statistics and how different municipalities stack up in the CRD, check out their Origin and Destination Travel Survey reports. Some things to keep in mind about the numbers:

The information was collected as trip diaries among randomly sampled residents of the region, so it will be a pretty accurate snapshot of how people moved around the region during the survey period.

The survey was done in late October and early November, so for those interested in cycling and walking statistics, the numbers may under-represent traffic share in more hospitable seasons.

The numbers are from 2006 so they are getting pretty dated. Again, for those interested in cycling statistics in particular, growth in all-purpose bike trips grew by an average 8% annually from 2001 to 2006, so current numbers may be significantly higher. Commute trips (to and from work), grew by a little less than 5% per annum, still significant enough but not quite as dramatic as the all trip purpose figures.

Surveys only account for residents, so the considerable traffic numbers generated by visitors are not captured in this data. Only physical counts will provide complete information on actual volumes. Technology used for vehicle counts is also known to be less reliable for bicycle counts and will totally miss pedestrian trips (most commonly used are pressure hoses laid across the road that often may not detect bicycles).

The CRD data is consistent with StatsCan data from the census, although much more detailed.

For those interested in traffic share for cyclists, they are largely concentrated in core municipalities of Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and urban Saanich.

It takes some digging into the reports but the information is very useful and patterns can be extrapolated from the data.

http://www.crd.bc.ca/regionalplanning/transportation/origindestination.htm

Stealing on street parking, in a nice way

2010-02-26T12:15:00.000-08:00

Not that we want to do a wholesale conversion of every parking spot in the city, but here's an idea for repurposing parking to serve other needs. Borrowing spaces or converting them to different uses has been happening across North America. Here's a story from the San Francisco Chronicle on the concept: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/MN1F1C6PHN.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

I found the story through the Sightline Institute, a Seattle organization that is a goldmine of information on Pacific Northwest urban and environmental issues. Find them at: www.sightline.org

Our own parking space conversions in Victoria have been for bicycle parking "corrals", (a concept pioneered in Portland), where some on-street parking spaces have been converted, and with the support of adjacent businesses! Here's one at our Mountain Equipment Co-op store (a project I developed several years ago as an advocate: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/1333220918/in/set-72157594577122134/

That project inspired Habit Coffee owner Shane Devereaux to come to the city and the cycling community to ask for his own. Working with him and our Cycling Advisory Committee, with support from staff, the council of the day and the neighbouring businesses, another permanent facility was built on Pandora near Fantan Alley: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2683169096/

One of the Portland examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4218772197/in/set-72157594577122134/

What we'll try next in Victoria - an temporary solution to test out locations for permanent installations. It's an inexpensive way of testing demand and finding the right location for more and better bike parking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2849520142/in/set-72157594577122134/

Deploying bridge resources sensibly

2010-02-23T11:41:00.000-08:00

Here's another longer post, in response to Ginna, who wrote about the bridge, seismic work, and where to put our money. My response didn't fit the comments section, so here is the full reply.

Here's the short answer - the seismic work on the Johnson St. Bridge needs to be done and the difference between lower and higher levels of protection is incremental. Cost savings won't be significant when you start rebuilding the piers and foundations, whether for a 6.5 or 8.5 earthquake. How much the incremental savings would I'll leave to the engineers and quantity surveyors, but it won't be enough to do a new project to rebuild the Bay St. Bridge to a higher standard. Doing seismic at Bay St. while doing extensive, similar work (even to a lower standard), will be much more expensive than one, comprehensive project at Johnson St. Bridge, where other work that can be integrated into the full seismic package can be done as part of a single project.

Some of the other work on the Johson St. Bridge has to be done now so it makes sense to do the whole package now. The impacts of extended closures required for the one project would be magnified either by doing the two at the same time, or one after the other. Both are a disaster in slow motion, but with the Bay St. bridge thrown in because it's "cheaper" (that's only plausible if you are leaving the Blue Bridge alone), the pain would be extended over a wider area or a longer time frame - neither are appealing scenarios for our transportation network or our economic vitality.

Here's a longer answer, and if you want more info on the Ashtabula Bridge in Ohio, mentioned in previous posts, the links follow the letter.

John

Thanks Ginna,

Seismic vulnerability is just one of the many factors recommending replacement of the Johnson Street Bridge.

The trigger for work is the immediate need to replace mechanical and electrical systems, compounded by our knowledge of its seismic vulnerability. Deterioration of other superstructure elements are also evident and should be repaired or replaced. It makes the most sense to combine all necessary works into a single project. Other things on our decision checklist included road safety improvements and the opportunity for a new structure purpose built to better accommodate alternative modes, particularly cycling and walking.

We have to rebuild the piers in any event, so any potential cost savings of shorting the project from a an 8.5 to a 6.5 earthquake will be incremental at best, not the orders of magnitude critics seem to assume.

Bay St. was upgraded to then current seismic standards and may stand in a significant earthquake, while the Johnson St. Bridge will not. Resilient emergency response systems provide redundancy wherever possible. Providing a Johnson St. bridge crossing at the most current standards will provide for that in a cost effective and efficient manner.

Cost effective because because shifting any incremental savings from the necessary Blue Bridge work scaled down a couple of points on the Richter scale would not provide the full funding necessary to do similar work on Bay St., which is also otherwise functional. It needs no other work at the moment that would necessitate a rebuild.

Our engineers also do not recommend refurbishing only the superstructure while leaving the foundations as they are. The investment for that work alone is extensive and costly and they will want to protect those investments to the extent possible. Why would you paint the house when the foundation is crumbling?

The other issue associated with the seismic vulnerability of the old bridge looks beyond the immediate hazards of an earthquake. The closure or collapse of the bridge will be an economic catastrophe for months, if not years following a seismic event. Once the immediate needs of dealing with death, injury and the damage to or failure of other critical infrastructure is in hand; the longer-term project of reconstruction and economic recovery will require a functional Johnson St. Bridge. After the 1989 California earthquake, studies indicated a net positive benefit for investments in earthquake preparedness and mitigation measures (including seismic upgrading of critical transportation infrastructure).

While many of the consequences may not be a direct liability of the city, our responsibility is to protect the viability and vitality of our downtown businesses and other industry that depends on the bridge (Point Hope Shipyards depends on the bridge going up, for example, and some plausible scenarios could see the channel blocked or the bridge locked shut for a period of time).

Bridges at Ashtabula and in Lorain in Ohio suffered long-term closures (not because they collapsed but because repairs were more extensive and time consuming than anticipated), but it is worth noting that those closures were tied to business failures in those communities.

Those projects are also relevant to the issue of cost escalation. Current estimates for refurbishment are Class "D" and less reliable than those for the Class "C" replacement project. Reasonable contingencies were provided for in that estimate, while the uncertainty associated with refurbishment will be greater both from the lower level at which costs were estimated, and the potential unidentified deficiencies that a bridge of this age and complexity may reveal. (The Ashtabula Bridge is a good example of hidden problems exposed after work began. Gears were found to be worn out and the bridge was closed for more than a year). *

Thus far our preliminary risk assessments suggest that the economic impact costs could exceed those of any capital project for refurbishment or replacement. Business failures that may result from extended closures after an earthquake (or for the necessary refurbishment work) will be expensive for the city as the tax base erodes or is compromised for a period of time.

In short, dividing the considerable funds needed for a primary, comprehensive project, and then over two bridges, is not cost effective nor an efficient deployment of resources.

As further work is done on the more comprehensive planning, design and costing of the refurbishment option, I'm confident it will confirm that replacement is the most fiscally and economically sensible choice. It is already clearly the most sustainable option.

See more about the Ashtabula Bridge:

Ashtabula Bridge “disaster”:

News story notes on business closures:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/11/ashtabula_bridge_closing_separ.html

Notes on legal claims:
http://www.cclcc.com/pdf/oh1d.pdf

Wikipedia says bridge closed for more than a year (March 2008 to May 2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtabula_lift_bridge

Also of interest – another Ohio bascule bridge, the Charles Berry in Lorain, closed overtime for repairs and hit local businesses hard.

See: http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2008/10/18/news/mj135760.txt

Dipping my toes into provincial issues

2010-02-18T16:17:00.000-08:00

Tax policy is a useful tool for rewarding good behaviour and discouraging the bad. We have been doing it for years with tobacco and alcohol taxes and over the last several years, starting to shift some taxes to carbon emissions or providing incentive programs to conserve energy, water etc.

In 1981 in British Columbia, the Social Credit government removed sales taxes on bicycles, the Minister of the day suggesting that "it is consistent with a healthier, quieter and more energy efficient society". Remarkable for the era, as the reputation and composition of the Socred government was one where the cabinet was made up of used car dealers happy to spread suburban sprawl across the province.

The measure was supported by the opposition NDP, whose leader Dave Barrett would have been well acquainted with the advantages of cycling as both a means of transportation and a positive benefit to individual and community health. His government (1972 to 1975) took the first steps towards establishing the Galloping Goose trail when they claimed the abandoned rail corridor for future recreational use. It would be almost 20 years before that visionary project started to physically take shape, but the stage had been set.

Coincidentally, Barrett's son Joe was a pretty fast racing cyclist, no doubt exposing the father to a subculture that may have inspired some support for the sport. Joe went to Europe on Canada's junior national team and burnt up the roads in Belgium before returning home and joining one of the very few sponsored teams on the road in the province. He still kicks my butt when we go for a fast ride together.

Lately, the tax exemption for bicycles has been targeted in the new Harmonized Sales Tax recently introduced by the federal and provincial governments. New bicycles will be hit with a 7% price increase, the full impact of the sales tax on a previously exempt class of products. Elsewhere in the economy, the projected HST impact is a bit below 1%, a big enough inflationary hit, but for bike riders, that impact will be a much sharper sting.

I was in the bike business (in Ottawa) in the 1980s, and being a government town, government policy always had a more amplified affect on our business than perhaps elsewhere. So when wage freezes or public service cuts were implemented, we felt the impacts. I left the business in 1989, but the store survived until another big round of federal civil service cuts put the place out of business in the 90s.

Back at home here in Victoria, the impacts of the HST on bike businesses may be significant. It's a pretty healthy industry, but every dollar counts on the small margins bike stores make, and those in the business are there for the passion more often than the money. It's going to hurt them.

More importantly, at least from a public policy perspective, the tax is counter-intuitive to the government's stated goal of reducing carbon emissions and helping to address climate change. Transportation is a signficant source of our greenhouse gas problems and if we hope to shift people to more sustainable habits, we need to help them along. A punitive tax is not a good way of doing this.

To add insult to injury, motor fuels are exempt from the new tax. It's a great benefit for drivers. How does that help us meet our objectives on climate change?

It may not be too late. The province does have the option of identifying product that they want exempted from the tax and can ask the federal government to allow the exemption. They've done so with motor fuels and some other goods, but if we want to level the playing field on transportation, bikes deserve the same break. It makes no sense to give carrots for driving and beat cyclists with the stick of tax policy.

You can join the protest on Wednesday, March 3rd at the provincial legislature. Lana Popham, MLA for Saanich South is holding a rally on the steps starting at 12 noon. Let's help her send the message to the government that we need sensible tax policies that reward activities we want to promote and help address issues of health living and environmental responsibility.

See more about the issue at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG3Qm_m7HmE

I'll be there. Hope to see you with your bike.

John

Homes or tent cities

2010-02-11T11:10:00.000-08:00

Victoria city council has lately been in the news for our efforts to buy a number of the bankrupt Travellers Inn properties. It's a bold initiative that, if successful, will add to our portfolio of diverse options aimed at housing the homeless and growing the supply of more affordable housing.

Over the last year we have done a lot - projects complete or in progress include a small development to increase and improve secure housing for women in transition, supportive housing for people recovering from alcohol or other substance addictions, non-profit rental housing, a floor of apartments for people with mobility challenges, a secondary suite program, and some below market rental and ownership options. More projects will be on the way.

It's been a deliberate choice and one that might grate on some of those who believe we should be dedicating some of your tax dollars to managing a tent city in one of our parks. I disagree. I think the money is better spent on real housing and I've put up a new piece about the issue on my website at www.johnluton.ca to talk more about it.

Posting replies on the Johnson St. Bridge

2010-02-05T10:13:00.000-08:00

More bridge discussion has been posted in the replies to comments on a previous post. It goes to some of the issues around cost and safety.

We are doing more work on refurbishment options, which should give more pause to those concerned about the costs of any project. While those who are concerned only with preservation, the costs will be largely irrelevant, but for citizens concerned about the costs, the escalating tab for refurbishment will be instructive. Various approaches are being considered, and different changes to the scope of work assessed to address the very real challenges of fixing a bridge that should be retired. Council will be presented with some of those costs soon.

In the meantime, people are taking some issue with my using my wife (Suzan) as an example of for whom I must provide a bridge for. She uses the bridge twice a day and for anyone else who is a regular traveler on the bridge, I am sure that you will want it as safe as possible.

Our duty as councillors is to make sure that, given the condition of the bridge, we do the most complete project to ensure that it is not only functional but that it is built to withstand an earthquake to the extent possible. We are the most seismically vulnerable city in Canada and that dictates a high standard. For me, protecting the life of our citizens is paramount, and we must upgrade to the highest standards.

Drugs and the Law

2010-01-24T17:15:00.000-08:00

One of the priorities of Victoria City Council is focused on harm reduction - treating drug addiction as a disease, and less as a law eforcement issue.

We don't have a lot of tools to advance this agenda, but we can act as advocates for a more sensisble policy approach to drugs and addiction issues.

We have put funding into health services for our street population, many of whom have addiction problems, and we have been working hard to increase the supply of affordable and supportive housing that can help people off of the street, often the first step towards helping people deal with addictions.

I'll write more about housing in another post because I think it's worth noting how much work we've done on the issue, but for now I'd like to direct you to another sensible voice.

I noticed that Victoria police officer David Bratzer signed up to this blog, and whenever I've seen his name in print, it's usually associated with his work on ending prohibition. Drug wars are an expensive policy failure that we need to consign to the dustbin of history. Doing so would leave us with more resources to deal with criminal issues that matter or so many other things that are more valuable than pouring money into the burdens of drug enforcement - like too much police time, too busy court dockets and too many crowbar hotels.

Here's an article David wrote for the Georgia Straight last year. Keep up the good work!
http://www.straight.com/article-206649/cop-calls-legalize-drugs

Going downtown by Rail

2010-01-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

Been a busy week at city hall and I'm just now getting to some of the comments that have come up in the last several days.

First up will be the rail issue, and I'll save some of the other issues raised around Blue Bridge costs in another post.

Bringing rail into downtown across the harbour is critical to the success of commuter rail and other services planned for the E&N. That's the clear message from the new owners of the railway and the operators they are contracting with.

The E&N used to be the property of CP, who had no interest in a successful rail service. They would have been just as happy to let the rail fail so they could take the land and sell it off for development. VIA, the federal operator of our passenger service likewise has had little commitment to service here. Their focus has always been on central Canada where the high volume passenger services connect Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. The further you get from these centres, the less interest they have in maintaining service levels.

A few years back everything changed for our little E&N line when CP, in exchange for a sizable tax writeoff, turned over the line to the Island Corridor Foundation, a partnership of regional districts and First Nations from Victoria to Courtenay and west to Port Alberni. The new foundation, along with new operators Southern Rail, have been working diligently to identify the upgrades needed to support a variety of services that could operate on our railway.

Those services include freight, tourist excursions and commuter rail service. Freight opportunities might include things like gravel hauling, which invariably travels by truck over the Malahat from up island quarries and Texada Island off the Sunshine Coast. Moving the stuff by rail would be safer and more efficient.

Tourism services could include ski trains to Mount Washington, or day trips to various stops up and down the Island. For that service to be successful, a downtown, visible and accessible location is crucial.

Likewise, commuter rail service, and the Island Corridor Foundation is firming up plans right now on some proposals, planned to be a couple of trains running south from Nanaimo in the morning and back again in the afternoon, could appeal to the several thousand commuters traveling to and from the Nanaimo area and more particularly the Cowichan Valley northwest of Victoria. Moving the station to somewhere west of the bridge in Vic West, which has been suggested by numbers of commentators, will make the commuter run much less accessible and much less appealing. It's a recipe for failure.

Commuters are headed downtown to nearby workplaces, and a nice walk for a few hundred metres from a west side station isn't part of their plans. Like most commuters they are headed for a destination that they will want to get to in a timely manner and with the least amount of inconvenience. Regional transit planning that may include a downtown or pedestrian circulator would help disperse more of these commuters to nearby workplaces, but moving that transit or (potentially) a streetcar service out of downtown, becomes much more complex and much less appealing as a viable transportation choice for longer haul commuters.

Critics will continue to argue that people can walk across the bridge or get on a bus at the Roundhouse. But transportation planners need more certainty than what people "can" do. It's more a question of what they "will" do. In that sense, we need to look less at what works for us as individuals, and more at what is effective at attracting the significant numbers of commuters that will be necessary to support a viable commuter rail service.

For the experts who study rail transit and the new operators, who are committed to a successful rail service, making sure the rail comes across the bridge into downtown is essential to their business plans. Our plans for the bridge and our commitment to a diversity of transportation options that provide choice and continue to support a working city and a vibrant economy gives us clear direction - the rail stays downtown.

Answers to your comments

2010-01-16T07:14:00.000-08:00

I've been getting comments back on the bridge discussion and here are some answers to some issues raised.

Seismic work - yes or no?

To the issue of what is important to seismically upgrade, the bridge is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure that is clearly in the city's care. The exposure of people the bridge versus buildings, it has been suggested, makes it less of a priority.

That's simply not a satisfactory response to the city's duty of care when assessing the condition of infrastructure and the consequent obligation to address known deficiencies and hazards. The legal consequences for the city where negligence is demonstrated may be much more expensive than the capital projects contemplated. If that negligence is willful or deliberate, councillors can be held personally responsible.

The bridge is in operation 24 hours a day, so the exposure is more constant than with other buildings. The collapse of the Point Ellice Bridge in 1896 is also instructive. 56 people died because a streetcar was in transit when the tragedy occured. The Johnson St. Bridge carries numbers of bus routes, which may also be full in peak hours.

Other city buildings have had some work done and other work is being planned to mitigate hazards or provide seismic upgrades. City hall, for example, has had several phased projects to reinforce the western addition and doorways, and the third floor has been emptied of heavy archives pending further seismic work. Public buildings that are the responsibility of other levels of government, like schools, are their projects and many have been upgraded.

The city has also foregone millions in tax revenue over numbers of years through heritage tax holidays to support upgrades to buildings downtown. The tax holidays are quite pointedly aimed at making seismic work financially feasible and occupancy is not permitted above a certain floor level on some older buildings until that work is complete.

Bridges are high on the priority list for protection from any hazard threat because the aftermath of disasters requires deployment of resources like emergency services and heavy equipment to address life and safety issues or to facilitate clean up and rebuilding after damage.

The other issue of economic dislocation is also critical. After life and safety issues are addressed, rebuilding and restarting the city's economy will be critical to our viability and vitality. While not all of the potential impacts are necessarily the city's direct responsibility, the failure of downtown or other affected businesses affects us all. Failed businesses don't pay their taxes. The consequence of ignoring the bridge deficiencies exposes the city to possible several years of economic impacts.

The Loma Prieta earthquake in California in 1989 was a case study in earthquake preparedness and mitigation. Post disaster research indicated that investing in seismic upgrades and mitigation had net positive benefits measured in socioeconomic impacts.

Whether refurbishment or replacement, full seismic upgrading is not an optional element for the city.

Cherry picking costs

I did not write that refurbishment (in the Delcan report), was pegged at $35 million. Check back on that section and you will see that this number refers to replacement. That is comparing "apples to apples". This much lower figure, like the Delcan estimate for refurbishment, is a "Class D" estimate" and is valid at a conceptual level, for order of magnitude costs, and is in 2008 dollars. Subsequent work on more detailed replacement costs elevated the price to establish costs at a higher level of confidence. Likewise, a more detailed estimate of costs for refurbishment ups those costs to a more current number of $35 million,.

Replacement costs have a higher level of confidence because there will remain unknowns associated with refurbishment. Research on the Ashtabula Bridge in Ohio, (same vintage Strauss project) should illustrate costly and problematic challenges we may also face from hidden deficiencies.

Talking to engineers

We have asked our engineers and consultants for more information on costs and project details of works associated with either refurbishment or replacement. Our engineers are professional staff and our consultants are chosen by an independent, competitive process. Councillors are not involved in hiring staff or choosing contractors. They are chosen for their competence, and with respect to consulting engineers, it will also be necessary that they have appropriate licenses or credentials to work in Canada.

The choice of a new bridge is council's decision and neither our staff nor our consultants have an agenda for refurbishment or replacement, only recommendations based on their professional assessment and competence. The engineers brought to present the case for refurbishment are no doubt competent, but very clearly were invited to support a specific agenda.

Our consultants have also been asked specifically to assess the feasibility of some of the suggested preservations strategies provided by those engineers and our consultants are competent to do so. Work continues on some of that costing but some information has been provided specifically in letters to the preservation campaign but has thus far been dismissed.

All of the information provided by engineers and consultants is available on the city's website and presentations have been in public. The information is there, but we cannot force people to read it. Clearly some of those whose interest is in refurbishment only continue to question the information provided, but it is both thorough and sound. Engineers are governed by a code of ethics that requires them to provide accurate, unbiased information.

Bridge locked closed? Or open?
The issue of the bridge locking is not a choice of the city, but a potential failure associated with a seismic event.

Bicycle levels of service and the rail bridge
While I haven't suggested a firm figure on the potential latent demand being suppressed by the poor levels of service provided by the current bridge, experience elsewhere in North America indicates that growth in bicycle traffic (a key objective of the regional growth strategy to which we are committed), is signficant where key pinch points can be addressed and safe, separated facilities are provided. Some references to cycling traffic research is on my website at www.johnluton.ca and more will be posted.

We are not welcome to rip up the rails to provide that level of service. The rail connection into downtown is embedded in our Official Community Plan, is essential to the success of the rail, and we will not sacrifice that service to address the deficiencies for traffic management objectives associated with refurbishment.

Road diets and bridge capacity

2010-01-09T19:58:00.000-08:00

A solution has been proposed for the existing Johnson Street Bridge to make it more bike friendly in particular. This is a critical issue driving the design (though only one of several elements of the replacement decision checklist), and supporters of preservation have been claiming that there is an easy fix to provide space for cyclists.

The idea is to close one lane of two for outbound traffic and turn the space over to cyclists. There are numbers of other reasons why this won't work, but firstly, the traffic demand on the bridge is beyond the design capacity that would work with the proposed lane reduction.

I'll put more up on the "tangled octopus" of trails and other design issues that challenge the old bridge, but for now, there's a link at the end of this post to a paper on "road diets", put together by Pete Lagerwey, who recently retired from his position as Seattle's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, and Dan Burden, who runs Walkable Communities from his home in Florida. Keep in mind that they are both advocates for sustainable transportation design and walking and cycling in particular and, given the numbers on our bridge, their work indicates that the proposed lane reduction would be unworkable.

I've made the point with my council colleague who has raised the issue more than once and suggested it to campaigners for saving the old bridge, but thus far none have even acknowledged that this might be a problem. They continue to promote the idea as an easy fix and, notwithstanding their insistence that we employ the expertise of bridge structural engineers, refuse to consider the expertise offered on other serious issues of bridge design and operation as far as it conflicts with their agenda.

The paper is at: http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/roaddiets.pdf

For Bernard

2010-01-09T01:00:00.000-08:00

Thanks Bernard,

If you read the Delcan report, you'll find the "imminent danger" is owing to the seismic vulnerability. In any significant event, the bridge is in danger of failure, potentially catastrophic, and almost certainly with loss of life a real threat.

There isn't imminent danger from the condition, only from historic design deficiences, although deterioration of the foundations of the bridge are of accelerating concern.

The report also says, however, that we need to act within three years, and the report is now a year old. Planning for and completing work, whether replacement or refurbishment, is not an overnight project, so there is a great deal of urgency for council to ensure that steps are taken to address deficiencies in a timely fashion.

The more immediate dangers are not likley life threatening, but potentially have greater economic impacts. Electrical and mechanical systems are obsolete and a failure could leave the bridge stuck open, or closed.

I'll put up some links to information on the Ashtabula bridge in Ohio, another Strauss bascule that was closed for two years, killing businesses on one side of the river. While those are not direct financial consequences for the city, the Cambie St. merchants case provides some guidance for us insofar as project managers in that case chose a "cheaper" project to save themselves costs, but created a nuisance according to the judgement found against them - essentially transferring costs and risks to other stakeholders. That liability may be ours also, more certainly if the bridge is locked closed for any length of time and impacts the business of Point Hope Shipyards.

Any judgement against the city for economic dislocation owing to negligence (failing to meet our duty of care to keep critical infrastructure at least operational, if not safe), will likely incur costs greater than the capital costs of any bridge project.

Our engineers, and our consultants, are competent, have been thorough in their analysis, and have been quite forthcoming about the costs of replacement, which is much more predictable than refurbishment, and have repeatedly expressed confidence in estimates provided for that project.

Cost estimates for refurbishment have been repeatedly, and sometimes deliberately, misrepresented.

Delcan provided an estimate that has been treated as a fixed price contract. More detailed assessment of potential cost escalation risks pegs restoration at a signficantly higher figure, particularly with scope changes proposed by critics to address deficiencies of the current bridge.

For example, the current bridge does not provide an adequate level of service for cyclists and pedestrians on the Galloping Goose. A new trail alongside the E&N will likely add some thousands to the 4,000 bike and 3,000 pedestrian trips across the bridge on an average day.
We are parties to, and committed to, our obligations and objectives under the Regional Growth Strategy, which aims to shift travel choices from vehicles to more sustainable modes. Our succes, or lack thereof, will have region wide implications. With 80% of cycling trips in the region in the core, our key pinch point is the bridge is the most signficant barrier in our regional cycling network.

Notwithstanding comments suggesting there are easy fixes to provide a satisfactory level of service to cyclists in particular, and trail users in general, there are not. The bridge has been examined throughly for exactly this purpose, and the addition of cantilever structures to accommodate a trail facility complicates the balance of the bridge on bearings and gears, and overloads mechanical, electrical and motor systems. It would also require additional counterweight mass and create windload problems (when the bridge is raised). For all of these reasons, that solution is not feasible.

Afixing a more suitable surface to the bridge deck creates similar issues, although more feasible because it doesn't create the imbalance of a cantilever. This, however, would be quite expensive owing to the cost of high-tech, lightweight steel and epoxy surfaces to provide a non-skid surface over the current deck.

It would also be very ineffective at addressing the challenges the treatment is proposed to solve. Cyclists need, more than improved surfaces, addtional space and/or separation from traffic. It is a significant barrier to growing additional bike trips, which is again embedded in our regional growth strategy.

It is ironic that critics continue to insist we consult more extensively with bridge engineers with specific experience in rehabilitating heritage structures (although our consultants have this experience), but they refuse to acknowledge the recommendations of those with expertise on the cycling and walking issues that they claim to have a solution for.

None of the bridges in Portland that have been retrofitted with bicycle facilities are practical equivalents to our bridge. The Hawthorne Bridge, for example, provides facilities on both sides of the bridge, eliminating the problems that would be associated with an unbalanced cantilever fixture. It is, in any event, not a bascule drawbridge, but a lift span, which has quite different characteristics.

The only viable solution is a separate structure for trail users. (The many calls to move the train west of the bridge and convert the rail bridge for trail users will almost certainly kill the railway and is not consistent with our official community plan or our commitments to our regional partners and the Island Corridor Foundation that now owns the railway). A separate bridge in current dollars will cost approximately $12 million. With that kind of additional expens refurbishment makes little sense.

The Delcan estimate for replacement, by the way, was $35 million, far below the current price tag of $63 million, but of course that figure includes more detail work on options for a new bridge and roadworks to take advantage of better alignment opportunities and more efficient and attractive land use, particularly on the west side. It is simply not credible for critics to continue to cherry pick the $23 million refurbishment estimate from the same assessment report to undersell the likely real cost of preservation. Our homework on refurbishment estimates pegs the cost, including a separate bridge to support trail traffic, at $57 million. This figure has simply been dismissed by critics who continue to suggest that the $23 million figure is complete, even as scope changes are promised to address issues that are clear deficiences of any refurbishment scheme.

The interest costs of financing (as are building and material costs), most favourable now and will rise in the future. The counter petition success may already have cost us 1% in additional interest liaiblities because of the time limits of various borrowing opportunities.

One of the other problems of of refurbishment is the need for extensive closures, which again have external costs associated with economic dislocation. This was explicity recognized in construction of the Blue Bridge (which of course you will know used to be black, or gun metal gray). The original alignment is what will be used for a new bridge to keep the old one open while a new one is built. The Blue Bridge flipped original alignments to keep the first bridge open during construction for the same reasons informing our decision. Our responsibilities include maintaining a viable and operational transportation system that supports our downtown economy and extensive closures, which, again, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, are unavoidable with refurbishment (more research on bascule rather than other heritgage designs will be more useful in confirming this problem). And again, the Cambie St. merchants case may be a useful precedent in this respect.

Although we can't obviously guarantee that the courts would find against our choice to sacrifice the interest of our businesses downtown in pursuit of a "cheaper fix", but given the case in Vancouver, we can be relatively confident that claims will be made against the city if we choose that path and business does suffer as a consequence.

I have attended some of the events where outside experts have been brought in and have found them to be interesting, but not always relevant. For those whose primary interest is in saving the bridge at any cost (and they are willing to wrap our transportation system to the point of disfunction around the bridge), no amount of information will be sufficient and all of it has been held to be suspect in any event.

We have absolutely nothing to hide and I'd be very happy if people made the effort to dig into the information we have had presented to us at council or to do more research, as I have done. (And despite what some commentators are swallowing from critics, there is no group think here - no one else on council has seen this blog or my website papers as far as I know; I write my own stuff and draw my own conclusions.)

We will have to make our best efforts at informing the public and letting them draw their own conclusions, but those should be based on facts, not fairy tales. Facts tend to be more stubborn.
We have had numerous check-ins along the long road to this point (I just don't buy that 8 or 9 months of consideration is hasty and given the timeframes suggested by the Delcan report, I believe we are being responsible). At any point along the continuum we could have, on the basis of questions raised (and everything presented so far as questions has been answered), rescinded the original decision.

I don't know who else on council regularly talks to our engineers and asks their own questions about some of the issues, but I have been doing so frequently.

We have a disparate group on council, and only one has shifted to opposing the bridge (he was satisfied, I think, when the original decision was made, that it was the right choice).
It should give some pause for thought that our most stalwart defender of the city's heritage has assessed the information and, despite her attachment to the historic values of the old bridge, decided that a new bridge is the right choice, however painful. Others no doubt have common reasons for their decisions, but no doubt have unique perspectives and rationales for making and sticking with the decision.

With respect to other infrastructure that has seismic issues, everything we own, including the Crystal Pool and City Hall, are or will be undergoing some sort of planning for seismic work. The Crystal will likely be replaced in the not too distant future and space allocation needs for city staff are being analyzed to assist in planning logistics for phased seismic upgrading (you can move people and operations around to allow for work in various parts of most buildings. That is what happened, for example, at Monterey School). I don't know what is currently planned for the firehall.

The bridge is not identified as an emergency route simply because our engineers know only too well its deficiencies and vulnerabilities. A 2006 hazard report spelled this out pretty clearly. Why it is important as a top of list priority is because replacing or rebuilding will be an immediate priority after life and health issues are addressed in the aftermath of any earthquake event. Having a functional transportation system with some redunancy will be critical.(Another reason Portland is rolling the dice with seismic upgrades is that they have 8 bridges crossing into downtown from the southeast side - we have two).

We are in the most vulnerable earthquake zone in Canada so we are compelled to meet the most comprehensive and current standards. We have seen what has happened with other earthquakes along the Pacific Coast and various levels of damage have been evident. Cities have nevertheless recovered and got back to work. It is not an option to be cowered by the work we have to do.

We need to get to work, and will, as we have been obliged, review information and seek to answer any more questions that are raised. It is unfortunate that some stories continue to circulate the suggestion that we haven't done our homework, but in many cases I believe that the same questions are being asked repeatedly not in a quest for information, but as a deliberate strategy to stall.

Wish everyone could be as thoughtful as you. Thanks for the comments.

John

Counter peition and the blue bridge

2010-01-07T21:56:00.000-08:00

Ok, so a citizen counter petition today put a stop to our borrowing bylaw to finance a new bridge. Not what we would have wanted, but a splash of cold water in the face is a good reminder of who the boss is I guess.

Still, it doesn't change the condition of our existing bridge or dull the good reasons to replace it. Guess I'll be hard at work over the next couple of months trying to wrestle with how to move forward.

Part of the problem will be that many Victorians don't want a new bridge and for them the cost and the challenges of refurbishment, and there are many, are not relevant. I'm pretty sure I can't make them happy - there will always be those who do not support decisions that pose a threat to icons of our community that they hold sacrosanct.

It's a tough one. I like the old bridge, though many of those supporting our new bridge project can't wait to get rid of it. It's a funky old piece of industrial architecture. Unfortunately, it is increasingly vulnerable to the frailties of age and serves cars and trucks almost exclusively.

There are no fixes that make the old bridge a net positive contributor to a sustainable transportation system and that has to govern my decisions on how we prepare for a future in which the threat of climate change will increasingly overshadow so many other issues.

I take the challenge of thinking globally and acting locally seriously. I have two children who will grow up to face an increasingly expensive challenge in maintaining or replacing deteriorating infrastructure and, particularly with our transportation systems and structures, design biases that discourages sustainable choices.

With 60% of our GHG emissions in Victoria coming from transportation, it is the most important target for changing behaviour, and without changing the infrastructure, we won't change peoples choices. Carrots work better than sticks.

I want a new bridge that acts as a carrot, so we aren't sticking it to cyclists and pedestrians for another 30 or 40 years. That's where I'll be spending my political capital and I guess, submitting myself for judgement.

The city and rail transit

2010-01-04T14:41:00.001-08:00

A key issue for followers of the bridge debate is the necessity of bringing the E&N rail into downtown. Aboslutely for the viability and vitality of both tourism related rail services and commuter rail, a downtown station is critical. Accessibility and visibility is key to what makes rail appealing. For Victoria, bringing rail across the bridge is our contribution to a valuable regional transportation option and while we are continuing to seek funding from other regional partners and the provincial government, we must commit to ensuring rail comes downtown.

Downtown rail keeps an important service in the city and preserves options to connect with downtown LRT or streetcar lines that the city and our regional municipal partners are considering.

For much more on the value of commuter rail and other rail based transit services, check out the presentation by Charles Hales, who helped establish Portland's LRT networks and who brought his message to Victoria in 2007 courtesy of Island Transformations.

View the presentation at: http://web.me.com/faulks/Charles_Hales/Charles_Hales.html

Liability and a duty of care for cyclists

2009-12-31T13:51:00.001-08:00

An old reminder of how liability and municipal responsiblity works relative to various road users. Critics of a new bridge, for example, suggest that they can design bicycle facilities on the back of a napkin (at least that's the inference of their comments), throwing a couple of buckets of cement and a few cans of paint at the old bridge and then declaring it safe for cycling.

In 2004, the court in Ontario (yes of course that is in Canada), found that this strategy doesn't protect municipalities from a certain duty of care to all road users, to one level or another.

Here's the text of an article from the Globe and Mail reporting on a civil suit launched by a cyclist over the simple signing of a route that was otherwise unappealing, if not unsafe, for cyclists. Just in case you wanted to know.

A hazardous cycle
Globe & Mail editorial
Wednesday, July 7, 2004

It may have been small-claims court, but the claim being made on behalf of Toronto cyclists was large: that cities have an obligation to design roadways so that they are safe for bike riders. The case involved a cycling activistwho received a "door prize" on Queen Street West, a busy east-west artery inToronto's downtown core. A door prize is the sardonic name for a car door that opens in a cyclist's path. Hannah Evans suffered a mild concussion and bruises in the 2002 accident and sued the city for damages.

At its simplest, the case was about basic negligence. The city had once designated the street a bicycle route and put up signs inviting cyclists to use the street; but as safety standards for lane width evolved and it became clear that Queen Street West did not meet them, the city apparently removed the designation without remembering to remove the signs. To compound the problem, the downtown area's most popular designated bicycle lane, which follows Beverley and St. George Streets, leads to Queen Street West, where cyclists are in effect stranded.

But Ms. Evans made a broader claim. Citing common-law principles about the sharing of roadways, dating from the early 19th century when horses stood to win a door prize from careless drivers, she argued through her lawyers that cities have an obligation to adapt the roads to changing uses so that they are safe for all.

On Queen Street West, between 14 and 17 per cent of vehicles are bicycles, according to evidence presented in court. And the city has a stated policy of encouraging people to use bicycles instead of cars for work and school trips, of making all streets safe for cyclists and of expanding bike routes. Roughly 8 per cent of local residents ride bicycles to school or work.

This is a rather literal case of rights colliding. Cars and bicycles have a right to be on the road, but should the city be required, say, to remove Queen Street West's parking lane, as cyclists argue, to make the road safer for cyclists? That would be unfair to merchants.

In the end, Deputy Judge Morris Winer found that the city shouldered 25 per cent of the blame in this case; the car driver bore 50 per cent and Ms. Evans bore 25. (She was not wearing a helmet, which points to the lack of respect some cyclists have for the law.) He ordered the city to pay Ms. Evans $1,125 and a portion of her legal costs, and said the city should make changes to Queen Street West in keeping with the changing use of the street.

Wisely, he did not prescribe these changes, leaving it to the city to balance all the interests involved. Motorists defeated the horse long ago, but cyclists are notgoing to go away. They deserve respect.

Letter to Monday Magazine

2009-12-28T11:46:00.000-08:00

Couple of issues came up in the latest edition of Monday Magazine around the bridge and also around bicycle parking. Here's my letter back, which I'm not expecting to see published (it's too long, but complex issues can't be covered in 50 words or less).

Bikes and the bridge

Rather than a solution, Allan Gallupe's letter on bikes and the bridge emphasizes the point David Cubberley made in his letter.

Gallupe's suggestion to cyclists that they get off an walk reflects an all too common self-centered approach to the provision of bike facilities. "I can manage, so just suck it up and you can too."

That's appealing to very few of those already cycling - most would like something better, but it is also gallingly myopic when it comes to providing for a much larger potential market for cycling among our population who can't or, more to the point, won't, choose to bicycle because either the reality or their perception of traffic and the road environment is that it is at best, unappealing and at worst, unsafe, to do so.

For a good piece of research on cycling populations check out the research done in Portland. I think it is pretty representative of cycling populations across North America, and certainly local research bears this out (the province did some surveys in the '90s and federal research on active transportation confirms as much).
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=158497&c=44671

Victoria is, nevertheless, doing well. A greater proportion of our citizens bike for transportation than in any other city in North America (outside of Davis, California, which is a freak of history). Still, at almost 8% of commuter traffic (you need a primer on statistical analysis to slice and dice the numbers here), the mode share for cycling in Greater Victoria pales in comparison to success rates in numbers of European jurisdictions.

Our objective (Victoria has signed on to the Regional Growth Strategy), is to grow our percentages significantly (measured in terms of all trip purposes) and that is simply not possible while providing a "level of service" that equates to failure under any competent traffic engineering analysis. Imagine that motorists were required to stop their car and push a button to get access to the bridge (suggesting that they get out and push is a little far fetched), or go through the contortions expected of cyclists as the approach or cross the bridge. Most of them would be outraged. Why is it satisfactory that cyclists should accept a level of service that is so appalingly inadequate?

For Gallupe, that may be sufficient, but it lacks any credibility. Anyone who has done any research on cycling populations and the provision of supportive infrastructure will understand that his prescription has zero appeal, and is totally ineffective at growing participation.

I note the irony of Monday's Christmas wish list, which includes "a general increase in the city's overall bicycling infrastructure". There are no solutions using the current bridge that will address the frustratingly inadequate level of service avialble on the Blue Bridge, notwithstanding Ross Crockford's insistence that he can design facilities on the back of a napkin and provide them at no cost. Darren Mar (president of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition) summarized the challenges well enough in a recent op-ed in theTimes Colonist, and certainly I have been aware of these limitations for more than a decade and continue to research issues that are tossed in the way of the new bridge.

The bridge can't be viewed in isolation (a convenient myopia of Crockford's organization). For many cyclists, and particularly for would be cyclists, the bridge is an insurmountable barrier, and its key location at the "delta" of our major off-road cycling facilities (the Goose and Lochside and soon the E&N trail), makes it particularly important. The impacts radiate far beyond the immediate catchment of the bridge. Bicycle trips will not start in Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt etc., for so many people who know that the bridge figures into their journey.

The problem is not unique to Victoria area residents - talk to Jeff Stamp at Capital City Cycles (the former owner of Chain, Chain, Chain still puts in time at the newly named downtown store). Jeff can tell you ad nauseum about the touring cyclists he has sent over to the Galloping Goose over the years. Invariably they love the trail but hate the bridge.

As for the cycling infrastructure in Victoria that you want more of, there is nothing more critical than the bridge. Elsewhere on your wish list is a reminder to critics to redouble their efforts to put the brakes on the city's borrowing bylaw for the new bridge. That, I might suggest, is counterproductive to your desire for more and better bike infrastructure.

I'm not looking necessarily for publication of my comments, as I think the issues are more complex than I can summarize in 50 words or less. I would like, at least, to point you in the direction of some more detailed discussion of the issues for cyclists and the bridge. You can find more on my personal website at www.johnluton.ca and http://johnluton.blogspot.com

So, you may cross off your wish for more ambivalence from the city around the bridge project. You certainly won't get that from this councillor. I have zero interest in preserving the old bridge to favour cars and trucks over all other modes, not for another 30 or 40 years, let alone in perpetuity (as some critics believe we can do).

Bicycle Parking
The other issue that has received some play in the most recent issue and in other editions of Monday is the city's efforts to provide more and better bike parking downtown.

Plans for conversion of our parking meters to the pay by space system were well advanced when I got elected. I had been, as an advocate, pestering engineering and parking services to provide better bike parking hardware as their program displaced the informal opportunities provided by parking meters. That initiative got more traction after the election.

City staff continue to work on adding the city's inverted "U" racks to blocks where the pay by space posts are going in. I think your previous article on this a few months ago suggested that there are only a couple of racks along any block. In the 800 block of Fort, there are, in fact, at least 12 racks - space for 24 bikes. Many other downtown blocks are getting similar numbers. Not every meter post will be replaced. The one for one suggestion made by other letter writers (I think Bob McInnes either wrote or was interviewed) would be a poor use of resources and stunt the growth of other, more creative solutions. There are many locations where meter posts are simply not ideal locations for bike parking.

The inverted "U", by the way, is the most popular and effective design in use across North America and is universally supported by bike advocates and professionals as such. Here's a few illustrations of the inverted "U" and the "staple" rack, which is a variation on the same theme:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2849520794/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/2848688455/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451047461/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451047431/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/451389459/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/452833394/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/966374923/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/1024903616/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/1053357691/

And those are just some of my pictures. You can find many more of the same basic design in use across the continent. It was the subject of a seminar at the Pro Bike conference in Santa Baraba in 1998. After that one, I came back to Victoria to badger the council of the day to adopt the inverted "U" design over the poorly thought out "wave" or "serpentine" rack, many of which are still, unfortunately, in use.

The program to install numbers of new racks is moving ahead, more slowly than I or many other cyclists would like, but there are some challenges - the 150 inverted "U" racks ordered as part of the meter conversion initiative will run up a cost of about $45,000 I think, and we will need more. Other issues include the available sidewalk space and what's underneath the concrete (water, electrical utilities, etc.) that can stymie some installations.

With respect to other facilities, one of the operational plans we have under development is a Bicycle Parking Strategy, which I insisted upon to respond to the parking meter conversion program. It's not just about bike parking, but about the safety of our sidewalks - using poles, posts, or other street furniture can create hazards in the pedestrian right of way, particularly a problem for people with vision problems. So while it might have had a more difficult time moving up Council's priority list, I have been at least able to get a project going to try and address a problem resulting from incomplete planning in the past.

Sheltered bike parking like the one at MEC (which I initiated through discussions with MEC and the Cycling Advisory Committee several years ago), parking conversion (worked with Shane Devereaux at Habit Coffee to ditch a couple of parking spaces in favour of expanded bike parking), will be part of the strategy, along with some other ideas. See for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/896331925/in/set-72157594577122134/ Vancouver, Washington and some other cities are using pay as you go lockers for higher security and it is something I'm pushing for in the strategy, among other ideas.

You may wish, also, to review the challenge of improving bike parking on private property. It took me ten years (as an advocate) to get requirements in zoning bylaws to ensure all new developments include a certain number of bike parking spaces, depending on land use (commercial, retail, multi-unit residential, instutitional etc), and I'm expecting to see more prescriptive guidelines in our strategy (better site planning, acceptable hardware).

For a great example of the worst of bike racks, look outside your front door. There are, unfortunately, also many other examples around town.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4215939631/

I guess we'll make it one of our new year's resolutions to try and fulfill at least the bike parking gifts on your Christmas wish list. I look forward to more coverage on these issues.

John Luton

Parks in the city

2009-12-17T21:13:00.001-08:00

I sit on our Standing Committee on Environment and Infrastructure and today we had our last meeting of 2009. It's myself and a couple of other councillors, Chris Coleman and Philippe Lucas, assessing issues and making recommendations back to Mayor and Council.

Today we heard presentations on Victoria's parks and peppered staff with questions about management of parks, natural areas, boulevards, urban trees, playing fields and a few other issues where they are the lead for the city's work.

They do a lot with never enough resources and Victoria is a city of parks and gardens. Hanging baskets cover downtown through spring and summer; many of our streets are awash in pink snow in March when the flowering cherry blossoms give us a burst of colour. Playgrounds in all neighbourhoods are busy with the sounds of children and playing fields are always alive with soccer, baseball and other sports. Parks and boulevards are green with chestnut, garry oak arbutus and Douglas fir towers overhead in many of our parks.

New and exciting projects will be underway over the coming months and years. My questions revolved around some of the impacts that we will face as climate change impacts local species. Are we planting trees that can adapt (yes we are and more than 400 have been planted since September), and are we planning to deal with the migration of new pest species that will appear here as climate zones shift? Our parks and our urban forest will be ready.

Parks also manage extensive expanses of beachfront and strategies to shore up the bluffs of Dallas Road are in planning and yes, they will anticipate scenarios where sea levels may rise, this too a looming consequence of global warming.

Elsewhere, we are examining traffic loads in our cherished Beacon Hill Park. Too many people are using it as a commuter corridor, with cut through traffic trying to avoid busy streets nearby. We are working on designs to move towards a park that welcomes fewer cars but still provides appealing routes for cyclists and pedestrians.

Our boulevards are sometimes under stress too, and we would like to be able to let residents use some of them for "edible landscapes" and in some areas, like busy Cook St. Village, perhaps we can turn the sad, brown spaces over to bike parking and streetside cafe use.

More work is ongoing with parks to restore natural areas and "daylight" watercourses, too long confined in culverts and drainpipes.

Most exciting is our waterfront greenway that will connect downtown and the James Bay neighbourhood along to Beacon Hill Park. We'll need Parks and our engineering department to look more closely at connecting people to the waterfront with perhaps more or better crosswalks and safer crossing opportunities to get them to the path from the adjacent residential neighbourhoods. It's something I've been hearing from residents and I've spent some of my time exploring with them some key locations where people want better supports for pedestrian travel.

Along the way, the path will also find its way to the Johnson Street Bridge, and our new design will include a connection under the bridge and through the wheel that tilts the drawbridge. You'll be able to walk through on the path while the bridge is in operation, a unique and enticing way to gain a new perspective on this important new feature of the new bridge. Check out the video animation to follow a virtual path through the bridge. There's a link to the video in one of my earlier posts.

And come back again and follow along with more of my work at city hall. There's always something new to report on.

Have a happy holiday!
John

Animation online

2009-12-17T09:43:00.001-08:00

The city has a new video animation - a flythrough that takes you on a birds eye, street and water level views of the new bridge concept. It's very striking and gives a positive impression of the architecture of the bridge and some of the features, including the harbour pathway that will allow people to walk under the bridge and through the wheel while the bridge is opening.

Check it out at http://www.johnsonstreetbridge.com

Jobs and the Bridge

2009-12-16T15:33:00.000-08:00

The Johnson St. Bridge and Victoria's industrial economy

You'll find out more towards the end of the blog, but I wanted to share a little from my day today that talks about neighbourhood transportation and the city and moves on to the bigger transportation issues surround the Johnson St. Bridge debate. It's not always about the traffic on the bridge, sometimes it's the traffic under it.

This morning I had coffee with Bill McKechnie, a former owner of Point Hope Shipyards. We were talking about traffic calming and street design issues in his neighbourhood. He's been developing a great streetscaping plan to beautify a stretch of Grant St. in the city's North Park neighbourhood.

It's well thought out and he's been good at doing his homework to make sure business and residential neighbours on the street support the design and that the associated roadworks are feasible - they don't impact storm and sanitary sewer lines or other underground utilities, access to and from businesses for goods traveling by truck will still work, and residents keep access to their properties along the street.

At the same time the plan envisions more greenspace, discourages outside traffic from cutting through a much beautified residential street and makes it more appealing for the children and families who rightly claim the block as public people space and extensions to their front yard. We'll continue to look for the means to bring this reality forward.

Our discussion turned to the bridge and he reminded me that when he was running the business, promising and job creating contracts had to be turned down because the shipping channel under the Johnson Street bridge is too narrow to accommodate some vessels. Our new bridge will open up the gateway to the upper harbour, the shipyards and other industrial operators. The extra few metres will help support the steady flow of ships and jobs to a site embraced by the community and a good fit for the city.

It's always been a part of our vision for Dockside, the Harbour and Downtown Victoria that we hold onto this industry and maintain the vitality of the working harbour. The new bridge helps us to better realize that vision and helps support an important industry long into the future. Victoria has a strong, dynamic and diverse economy and our interest in long term economic sustainability is a key consideration for how we manage our important infrastructure.

Have a look at some of the ships that have sailed under the bridge into Point Hope. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/sets/72157622890679725/

2009-12-11T15:59:00.000-08:00

Oh, here's the url for my new posting on municipal liability: http://www.johnluton.ca/pages/liabilities-index.html

Blog number one

2009-11-21T07:17:00.000-08:00

This is my entry into the world of blogs. I've posted on a few, but now is the time for me to start my own.

As a Victoria City Councillor, I'll use the blog to share ideas and profile work I am doing down at City Hall. I hope it will be of some value in providing some accountability to the citizens of Victoria and the many thousands of you who lent me their votes last year. I hope I can earn them back again when our term ends in 2011.

Council has worked on a number of our priorities. We've advanced several major affordable housing initiatives; gone to bat for our citizens on issues around the design and management of our beautiful inner harbour, taken steps to refurbish our public engagement tools, and are working at polishing up downtown to ensure we have a safe, welcoming and vibrant city. There have been many other issues and decisions before us over the last year and I'll plan on sharing more about them on my blog in the days and months to come.

Perhaps the most important issue, and the focus of much discussion is our decision to replace the iconic Johnson Street Bridge that connects downtown to Victoria West and neighbourhoods beyond. It's a choice considered over months of discussions and reports and, contrary to some of the more critical comments, anything but rushed.

During the election, I spoke frequently about addressing our critical infrastructure deficit. Like every other city in Canada, Victoria is facing the challenge of aging transportation networks, water and sewer facilities and a host of other municipal assets that are in need of repair and replacement. Our condition assessment of our bridge, for many, including myself, a historical treasure that needed to be assessed carefully, has shown that it is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. Protecting the safety of our citizens and the functionality of an integrated and diverse transportation system demands that we address the liabilities and hazards of the bridge.

Given that it is not just a bridge that we are evaluating in isolation, council decided that the best and most responsible decision was to build a new bridge. While the structure could be restored and continue functioning for many years, its heritage values would be signficiantly compromised by the work we need to do to bring the bridge up to an acceptable seismic standard and, at the end of the day, it is impossible to retrofit the bridge and approaches to reposition this key link to adapt to the transportation system we are evolving for the future.

I'm starting now to update my own website - www.johnluton.ca - to provide more detailed information on this and other important municipal issues. It's there that I will share details of my reasons for voting for the new bridge.

My work over the last several years and one of my interests as a councillor is on transportation issues - particularly active and sustainable transportation. I've worked in Victoria and around the region to promote cycling as a viable and appealing transportation option and been involved in developing and designing many projects around Victoria's Capital Region and a few more off of the Island. My work with engineers has lately also helped to support walking and public transit too. These are the transportation options we need to favour to ensure a sustainable future and a healthy population.

You can find out more by visiting some other websites where my work in the community has been focused. Here's some places you might like to go:
http://capitalbikeandwalk.org
http://www.cyclevancouverisland.ca
http://www.bicycleparkingonline.org
http://www.biketowork.ca

You can also see my growing collection of photo works at: www.flickr.com/photos/luton/ This is where I maintain galleries illustrating cycling, walking and other community design issues.

Thanks for checking in and I hope you'll come back to visit for more discussion.

John Luton