May 12, 2017

More Power to the Transpo Engineers?

need-more-power-fig-1
As reported in Metro News, by   there’s a report going to Vancouver City Council next Tuesday with the title “Complete Streets Policy Framework and Related By-law Changes”. What that really means is that the City Engineer is asking for changes in the Streets By-law to undertake work under the guise of the Complete Streets Policy as outlined in the Transportation 2040 Plan without having to schlep to Council for approval of things like lane changes or the making of public spaces that generally follow the plan.
The challenge with the lack of reporting back to Council is establishing what Council should know about-or not. My years working as the City’s greenways planner showed that even something that would be seemingly a public good and not contentious-like closing the street for a small greenway at 11th Avenue and Maple Street in Arbutus-brought over twenty delegations to Council. While Council approved the greenway, the final design that was built incorporated the existing street instead of the specialized surface promised to the residents, and was not to the design approved by Council. At some time when redevelopment occurs on that section of street, I am sure that the residents will remind Council of this lapsed undertaking and request a greenway reboot.

There’s been some contention over the City’s move towards walking and biking priority as per the 2040 Plan, especially  in recent events with the Point Grey Road, Commercial Drive, and the Kitsilano Beach bike lane and the Tenth Avenue Hospital improvements that will take out all but two metered parking spots on Tenth Avenue west of  Ash Street. These big “events” would still be going to Council.
One councillor, George Affleck wants to maintain council oversight on road use changes.  “It’s a great way for Vision Vancouver to avoid having to talk about bike lanes ever again. It would make me very uncomfortable,” said Affleck. “In my mind, the buck stops at council. Decisions on major developments, how we build our city, streets … those kind of decisions should be discussed in public with council oversight. That’s our job and when we start skipping that process, we’re in big trouble.”
 
[The bylaw revisions] go against what I believe was the intention of that plan and why I supported it,” he said. “Changing a speed bump is one thing. But if you’re changing and getting rid of a lane or parking for bike lanes, making change that has significant impact not only on the neighbourhood but the city at large, city council should be making a decision on it.”
It’s an interesting point, as when changes do go to Council there is the opportunity for public debate and learnings for Council and the public. Do we need to have that discussion? Or should the engineer use delegated authority for changing modes and uses on public right of ways and do diversions and rerouting traffic routes? Are we at a place where the public good is recognized and  served by less Council oversight and public debate?
img-0-6492714-jpg

 
 
 
 
 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to Jeff LeighCancel Reply

  1. The current traffic bylaw gives the City Engineer authority to make certain changes to road use, but it is very outdated. It reportedly comes from the 1940s. The Engineer can take away parking for car lanes, or take away car lanes for parking, but can do no space reallocation if there is a sidewalk or bike lane involved. If Council wants to oversee all road lane space allocation decisions, then perhaps it should be consistent and they should make those decisions for all vehicle lanes as well. I suspect that would quickly grind decision making to a halt.
    One reason bike lanes and sidewalk improvement projects become politicized (see Point Grey Road) is because it takes a politician getting involved to widen a sidewalk. It doesn’t take a politician to narrow a sidewalk, as the Engineer could have done that, if it was in favour of more space for vehicles.
    Since we have an agreed stated hierarchy of transportation (and have had one for quite some time) then IMO the Engineer should be able to make decisions within that framework. This doesn’t mean that significant changes should be made without Council oversight, but look at 10th Ave. The engineers led the discussion with stakeholders over two years of consultation to get to a recommended design for street improvements that has now been endorsed by all of the Health authorities along that stretch. This is how it is supposed to work. What happened during the process is that some councillors tried to block this project by dictating what the engineers should do. That would have led to a worse outcome.
    Should be an interesting discussion at Council on Tuesday.

  2. Post
    Author
  3. There is a good example of how this change could improve efficiency and reduce taxpayer costs. At the Ontario Greenway and 16th there is a problematic intersection. It was identified years ago as a high collision location. Ontario has a slight offset at 16th, which likely contributes. Also, vehicle traffic counts are high on Ontario, too high for AAA, so the route is not as safe as it should be. The proposed solution (with 3 or so options for local residents to comment on) was designed in 2015. It involves eliminating rat running on Ontario and letting vehicles enter or exit at 16th, but not both. The public open house was in 2015. We are coming up on two years since then, without progress. Under the current bylaw, this has to go to Council, for a decision on what is essentially restricted right or left turns. The City Engineer could decide it, if it was about changing space allocation for vehicles only. Why not let him/her decide when it involves multiple modes? Why do all councillors need to debate curb bulges? Can’t we get them focused on bigger issues?
    Think how many tax dollars we could save. And potentially lives and serious injuries as well.

  4. What Affleck doesn’t get (or gets but is fighting against) is that the future will be multimodal. That short bit of history when everything was designed for a single travel mode is over and it will never be back again.
    How things should work is that everywhere should be accessible multimodally. All arterials should be “complete”. It should just be a normal accepted standard. If by chance there were to be a good reason to not have that in a certain area then that exception would be what would go to Council to get discussed and would need justification to have an exception.

  5. Anybody who thinks this is a good idea should ask themselves if they would have recommended the same powers be given to transportation engineers in the 1950s or 1960s.

    1. That justification sounds a lot like the phrase “but this is the way we’ve always done it!”
      That is not a good basis for evaluating potential process improvements. It is the opposite of Kaizen.

  6. Anybody know what is to be administratively approved vs. the kinds of actions which must go to Council? In the planning world, the parallel would be development permits under existing zoning vs. rezonings. However, anybody can look up the relevant zoning bylaw and inform themselves accordingly. This doesn’t sound like there will be a similar statutory bylaw where the public can understand the matter in advance. If so, I’d rather err on the side of caution.

    1. Since we don’t have road zoning, I would think the hurdle would be either based on an impact metric, or project cost. What is more important IMO is that the recommended Complete Streets policy framework establishes norms that are in line with existing Transportation 2040 priorities and hierarchies.

  7. Might this initiative also help implement long overdue priority for transit, without space-by-space combat in front of Council? Or help allow bike facilities to be implemented without harm to transit? Either would be a progressive step forward, and both would be near miraculous.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles