Living Car Free - City councillor gets it!

Here's a great quote, from Ottawa Councillor Maria McRae. Maria says, "It underscores the need for us to move as fast as possible on creating a better transit system and getting people out of cars. These are existing roads that need repaving, and we aren't doing it because we can't afford to -- and this is just one area of city operations."

Maria goes on to say that the city needs to consider "cutting the number of new roads it builds to support growth in the suburbs."


_____

City to repave fewer roads in effort to salvage budget hit by fuel hikes

Ottawa Citizen, July 11, 2008
Jake Rupert

If the high cost of fuel is putting a damper on your plans this summer, you are not alone: the city is feeling the pain, too.

Yesterday, Ottawa's infrastructure director Wayne Newell said for the first time in as long as anyone can remember, several planned and approved repaving projects are being cancelled due to rising fuel costs.

Mr. Newell said to stay within the $20 million allocated for repaving this year, 10 out of 50 planned projects need to be cancelled because costs have risen 25 to 35 per cent over last year.

He said it's a "double dip" when it comes to repaving, because it requires machines that suck up a lot of fuel to transport the asphalt and lay it -- and the asphalt itself is made out of oil.

Because the projects are of different sizes, Mr. Newell said he couldn't pinpoint how much of the repaving program is being cancelled; but about 20 per cent was a fair guess, he said.

"Fuel has just shot up," he said. "We have a budget, and if we want to stay within it, this is what we have to do."

Mr. Newell said when the repaving budget estimate was made, city staff looked at last year's price and market trends for asphalt and fuel, and put forward what they thought would be a big enough budget request, just as they do every year. He said the estimate normally covers the planned projects and there's enough left over to do one or two more.

"Not this year," he said. "Not even close."

Ottawa is not alone. Across North America, road projects are being cancelled due to the high cost of fuel, and this is just one area of city operations being affected.

Ottawa police are putting some plans on hold and are trying to limit driving. OC Transpo is dealing with an increase in diesel prices that is outpacing that of gasoline, and myriad other city departments are facing blown fuel budgets. City staff are also looking at the idea of developing a citywide policy aimed at using municipal vehicles more efficiently, including carpooling and limiting speeds.

The situation has not escaped the city's financial officials. Earlier this year, in their first-quarter report, they warned that fuel costs had the potential to play havoc with the 2008 budget.

River Councillor Maria McRae said the situation cries out for a rethinking of city spending and focus.

"It's a very serious issue, and it's going to present financial difficulties," she said.

"It underscores the need for us to move as fast as possible on creating a better transit system and getting people out of cars. These are existing roads that need repaving, and we aren't doing it because we can't afford to -- and this is just one area of city operations."

Ms. McRae said it's time for the city to look seriously at all ways of cutting fuel consumption, including cutting the number of new roads it builds to support growth in the suburbs, because it's starting to look as though the city can't afford them anymore.

Mr. Newell said the cancelled projects were the lowest on the priority list of all planned repaving, and if somehow money becomes available to do them, they might be completed. Short of this, however, he said the roads not done this year will become the infrastructure department's top priorities next year.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=129f8f7c-1e7d-4215-8a19-7e593543c614

While this is a great quote, the article highlights something that is presently happening all over... a lot of tactical thinking in dealing with a situation that has been brewing for a long while. What I don't see a whole bunch of in the article is the strategic thinking that says... hey, where are we going to be in 3-5 years.

I used to live in the Ottawa area, actually on the Quebec side in Aylmer, and remarked that even 20 years ago it had a lot of the transport infrastructure that does exist in the US Midwest even today. I got the bus from Aylmer every morning, not because I was committed to being carfree or anything... but it just made total sense to take the bus and avoid the hassle of driving and parking.

However, a large percentage of Ottawa citizens still paid huge dollars to take the Queensway (freeway) to work and paid even more to park. I could never figure out why.

What I'm not seeing in this article is exactly how Ottawa will undertake a strategy to get those remaining car drivers off the roads. For Ottawa, I suspect it's a different solution than what would be needed in Des Moines (my town...).

For Des Moines, an obvious solution would be to improve bus transit to and from the suburbs... even at a modest level. With that, some nifty foresight in terms of strategic urban planning, might even see the occasional grocery store in some of these remote 'burbs... maybe just a few items like that.

But overall, we need to rise above dealing with the situtation on a day-to-day basis and think about the future.

I think we'll be seeing more of this in the future. Glad to hear you've got some wisdom in your local government, Pat.

While this is a great quote, the article highlights something that is presently happening all over... a lot of tactical thinking in dealing with a situation that has been brewing for a long while. What I don't see a whole bunch of in the article is the strategic thinking that says... hey, where are we going to be in 3-5 years.

I agree... we have a great many long-term plans, the Ottawa 20/20 plan, for example - but we are short on REAL long-term planning and the implementation of any of these goals. We "plan" to more than double transit use, to triple bicycle commuting, we plan but we don't do.

Despite how "down" I am generally on our municipal planning, it is nice to see that some elected officials are willing to speak up, at last. We also passed the city's cycling plan, with two amendments to implement the plan faster than proposed. So maybe there is hope after all!

I think we'll be seeing more of this in the future. Glad to hear you've got some wisdom in your local government, Pat.

Not sure I would go so far as to use the word "wisdom" :p but they are learning. I guess we used the "small words, repeat many times" approach long enough!

I concur with not building new roads to new suburbs.

But we still need to keep up the roads to existing suburbs, and especially roads within the cities. Buses need good pavement, and bikes above everything love smooth asphalt. I'm tabling my purchase of a new skinny-tire bike because of the shoddy roads in my city. For now, I need to stick to fat tires on one portion of road near my house.

By the way, local politicians should consider using sewers rather than roads as limiters to new construction. Very few new developments can afford the capital expenses of new sewers and waste treatment facilities. They rely on the older city extending sewer lines to the new area. The core city may be able to use this as a bargaining chip when faced with new developments that would compete with the central business district.

I agree... we have a great many long-term plans, the Ottawa 20/20 plan, for example - but we are short on REAL long-term planning and the implementation of any of these goals. We "plan" to more than double transit use, to triple bicycle commuting, we plan but we don't do.


One thing that I do remember about Ottawa is that bicycle commuting was at a stage 20 years ago (when I lived there...) that my city hasn't yet reached. In fact, for most cities the size of Ottawa, US planners could get knowledge from the planning that has already occurred. I suppose it is difficult to extrapolate from the experience of a city in another country, a city that is, to my recollection, laid out quite differently that most in the US.

But, I'm certain there are lessons to be learned.

Even though the planning is a bit ethereal, I'd be interested to know how the city thinks it could triple bicycle commuting. How would that happen?

Even though the planning is a bit ethereal, I'd be interested to know how the city thinks it could triple bicycle commuting. How would that happen?

I don't know about Ottawa, but I'm sure that bike commutes have at least tripled in my city, for one reason only--high gas prices. No new infrastructure, no feel-good ads from the city government, just high gas prices.

Won't it be funny if the answer is just as simple as that?

Even though the planning is a bit ethereal, I'd be interested to know how the city thinks it could triple bicycle commuting. How would that happen?

Going from memory (I don't have the cycling plan handy) - the proposal includes public advertising, increasing funding to the CAN-Bike program, and completing the cycling network.

The idea behind the network is that it should be possible, comfortable, and convenient to get from any one place to any other place in the city. That is generally the case, but not always - geography, freeways, buildings, etc. sometimes require long detours. Some main arterials are very unfriendly to cyclists. Some areas of the city have few if any places to safely lock a bike.

I'm sure implementation will be neither perfect nor free from controversy - but the plan includes a serious effort to remove many of the "I would bike if..." obstacles.

I concur with not building new roads to new suburbs.

But we still need to keep up the roads to existing suburbs, and especially roads within the cities.

Yes and no - some roads are needed, but not all. Once the missing Transitway links are complete, we will be exclusively using bus-only roadways for transitl from suburbs to the core (or other suburbs), so roads would not be needed for public transit between 'burbs.

Roads are designed to handle peak-hour commute traffic with most people commuting by private motor vehicle. Eliminate a significant portion of that traffic, and you can remove a heck of a lot of pavement!


By the way, local politicians should consider using sewers rather than roads as limiters to new construction.

Actually we now have a "no more infrastucture will be built" policy. In-build or don't build, exceptions are few and costly.

I concur with not building new roads to new suburbs.



By the way, local politicians should consider using sewers rather than roads as limiters to new construction. Very few new developments can afford the capital expenses of new sewers and waste treatment facilities. They rely on the older city extending sewer lines to the new area. The core city may be able to use this as a bargaining chip when faced with new developments that would compete with the central business district.

Not being Canadian, I don't know about sewer development in that country, but in the three states I've resided, developers form what are called municipal utility districts (MUDs). The districts build, operate, and maintain sewer plants, as well as water treatment facilities, no hook up to the core city lines being necessary. Usually, the state is the governing body controlling where and how utilities operate and are built, sometimes the county or parish may have input.

I don't know about Ottawa, but I'm sure that bike commutes have at least tripled in my city, for one reason only--high gas prices. No new infrastructure, no feel-good ads from the city government, just high gas prices.

Won't it be funny if the answer is just as simple as that?

Of course, it's the individuals who have to get out and start biking. And the price of gasoline is likely to make a major contribution to any tripling of bike commuting rates. But, a well-planned infrastructure could help facilitate that event. It's one thing for a large number of individuals to get out on bikes; it's another to do so easily and safely in the city core. It would be especially difficult for Ottawa to triple bike traffic since there are already a large number of bike commuters. Tripling that number could really make significant changes.

Ottawa has in the pst done a number of pretty interesting things to help foster cycling and walking in the downtown. The best example is turning a large swath of the downtown -- Sparkes Street -- into a no-car area.

Of course, it's the individuals who have to get out and start biking. And the price of gasoline is likely to make a major contribution to any tripling of bike commuting rates. But, a well-planned infrastructure could help facilitate that event. It's one thing for a large number of individuals to get out on bikes; it's another to do so easily and safely in the city core. It would be especially difficult for Ottawa to triple bike traffic since there are already a large number of bike commuters. Tripling that number could really make significant changes.

Ottawa has in the pst done a number of pretty interesting things to help foster cycling and walking in the downtown. The best example is turning a large swath of the downtown -- Sparkes Street -- into a no-car area.

I have not seen one bit of evidence that shows that building bike facilities increases commuting or utility riding. Most of the utility riders here ride on the sidewalk, even if it's adjacent to a decent bike lane. However, bike facilities might (or might not) make cycling more convenient for those who have already decided to take it up.

Carfree downtowns: Following pioneering efforts by Kalamazoo, just about every city in southern Michigan had carfree downtowns in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Of course this coincided with the largest increases in car use and the biggest downturn in other modes. The carfree areas were all removed in the last part of the century because merchants blamed them for loss of business to shopping malls.

Not being Canadian, I don't know about sewer development in that country, but in the three states I've resided, developers form what are called municipal utility districts (MUDs). The districts build, operate, and maintain sewer plants, as well as water treatment facilities, no hook up to the core city lines being necessary. Usually, the state is the governing body controlling where and how utilities operate and are built, sometimes the county or parish may have input.

Here the city is required to build and maintain all infrastructure within municipal limits. There are ways of making developers pay for it (e.g. a condition for the building permit) but it is still the city's job. Given the public health concerns, I shudder at the idea of letting private companies (like developers) have any direct control over sewer, water, power, etc. Very un-canadian!

I have not seen one bit of evidence that shows that building bike facilities increases commuting or utility riding. Most of the utility riders here ride on the sidewalk, even if it's adjacent to a decent bike lane. However, bike facilities might (or might not) make cycling more convenient for those who have already decided to take it up.


My local subway stop was designed with NO bike parking. Some people hitched to signs and trees. When metro put in covered bike parking it was immediately full and now even more people hitch to the surrounding trees and signs when they arrive too late for a covered spot. I've seen this at other subway stops where they decide to put in bike stuff. Maybe coincidental evidence but it is evidence. This happened when gas was cheaper, this year many bike racks are overflowing where last year they weren't.

I have not seen one bit of evidence that shows that building bike facilities increases commuting or utility riding. Most of the utility riders here ride on the sidewalk, even if it's adjacent to a decent bike lane. However, bike facilities might (or might not) make cycling more convenient for those who have already decided to take it up.

Carfree downtowns: Following pioneering efforts by Kalamazoo, just about every city in southern Michigan had carfree downtowns in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Of course this coincided with the largest increases in car use and the biggest downturn in other modes. The carfree areas were all removed in the last part of the century because merchants blamed them for loss of business to shopping malls.
A reasonable infrastructure to support cycling is what I'm getting at. The very fact that most beginning cyclists are on the sidewalk tells me that part of that infrastructure is a good safety course and probably a good marketing campaign aimed at cyclists and car drivers.

There are other things that may be needed to support a large increase in cycling. And that varies by city I would think. For example here, the city would need to modify those damned red lights that won't trip unless you are wearing 5000 lbs of steel. Another thing I've noticed is that new cyclists tend to stick to MUPs. If the cycling population increases, MUPs just won't cut it. You need to get those cyclists out on the street.

As for car free city blocks: I think Sparks Street is still like it was 20 years ago. Banning cars from certain streets won't work in every city, but it apparently does in this one. You really need to have a lot of population in the vicinity and a great load of bus riders also helps.

This said in a city of about a million that relies 100% on diesel buses for its transit system (except for some image-saving effort to use biofuels in a few of them), a city which seems to be happy about planning a light rail system that it hopes to complete in 2031, but which won't be serving anyone who lives in the suburbs. Luckily, there is a pretty nice network of paved bicycle routes, although most of them are more scenic and recreational than actual commuting options.

Funniest of all, it's a city that until the recent administration, actually had at least a start to a real transit system, with the contractor ready to start digging... but then tore up the contract and abandoned it, right smack before the price of gasoline started rising. Right now, had they not done this, that line would be nearing completion, and they would already be working on getting an east-west line. Instead, we'll be taking diesel buses for a couple more generations.

This said in a city of about a million that relies 100% on diesel buses for its transit system (except for some image-saving effort to use biofuels in a few of them)

The O-Train is running at full capacity, so its not all buses! Unfortunately the train is a diesel/electric hybrid.


a city which seems to be happy about planning a light rail system that it hopes to complete in 2031, but which won't be serving anyone who lives in the suburbs.

Yeah, so what? The 'burbs don't have the population density to require light rail, BRT will continue to serve them just fine. We don't need to be moving more people across town, we need to create more jobs in the 'burbs. That being said, a future phase of LRT could include expansion outside the urban core, and there are talks about a commuter rail system (think GO Train) for the entire valley.

If you look at most large cities, the LRT/subway only serves the core.



Luckily, there is a pretty nice network of paved bicycle routes, although most of them are more scenic and recreational than actual commuting options.

And most belong to the NCC, and are completely out of our city's control.


Funniest of all, it's a city that until the recent administration, actually had at least a start to a real transit system, with the contractor ready to start digging... but then tore up the contract and abandoned it, right smack before the price of gasoline started rising. Right now, had they not done this, that line would be nearing completion, and they would already be working on getting an east-west line. Instead, we'll be taking diesel buses for a couple more generations.

Don't get me started on that mess! And don't forget the lawsuit against us by Seimes/PCL, the million $ we paid them as a "thanks for bidding" fee, or the money wasted on the N-S environmental assessment - since that ass. will likely expire long before we start work on the new plan! Good luck getting the province or the feds to pay for the new LRT plan - I doubt they'll give us much to replace a functional BRT system with an LRT that adds little capacity and no expansion of service.

I honestly feel we have a pretty good city council, I have met several of them and they really care about the community. Unfortunately we have a bad mayor, and part of his flaw is making our council increasingly dis-functional.

(For all the non-locals reading, DO NOT elect a mayor who has only business experience and knows nothing about running a city. And if he claims a "zero means zero" tax increase, RUN!)