The Bureaucratic Oath starts with the words “Always Look Busy…” and nothing makes that clearer than the City of Vancouver’s traffic calming program. If you want to understand more about the program, there’s an interesting memo on the Vancouver.ca website entitled: “Neighbourhood Collector Streets Traffic Calming Toolkit and Priority Guidelines” dated January 26th 2007.
This document leaves no room for dissent about the benefits of “traffic calming”. It’s clear that calming is a good thing because it’s a priority and that it’s a priority because it’s a good thing. Once you succumb to the tautology, you’ve accepted the City’s laundry list of strategies:
i. Corner and Mid-block Bulges
ii. Medians
iii. Intersection Re-alignments
iv. Roundabouts
v. Narrow Travel Lanes
vi. Curved Streets
vii. 30 km/h Speed Limits in School and Playground Zones
So, what does this list really represent? Well, with the exception of the last item, which has been the practice for decades; it’s all about creating an endless supply of construction work for city workers. It’s “Always Look Busy…” made real on the roads of our city.
And how’s this working out for those of us paying for it? Well, living near Blenheim Street in the newly calmed zone, I’m not seeing any positive outcomes. It did provide some amusement, though. When the first big rainstorm hit in October 2009, the newly installed “decorative gravel” shoulder and parking areas washed down the hill turning the stretch from 18th north to 16th into a creek bed. While City Engineering places a premium on planning for traffic calming, basic storm sewer design seems to have migrated beyond their grasp. The result was two more weeks of construction while the City cleaned up the mess, paved the shoulders and fixed the drains.
Other than the ability of the Blenheim calming strategy to create civic busy-work, it hasn’t made much difference. Now, it is true that there have been fewer emergency vehicle sirens recently. “Calming” has basically rendered the only north-south corridor west of Oak Street unavailable for public safety use. Oh, and it’s made parking on Blenheim much harder to find, pushing it off onto side streets. From a “look busy” standpoint, traffic calming on Blenheim was a roaring success.
From a community point of view, the benefits are hard to discern. After all, Blenheim served its community well for the previous eighty years as a plain old street; suddenly according to the City’s new “calming” religion, it wasn’t good enough. Millions of dollars and more than a year of construction work converted a road strewn with potholes into a road strewn with cement obstacles. A simple, six-week repaving job was all anybody living here actually wanted.
So, the next time you see a Vancouver City work crew digging up old sidewalks to build corner bulges or a roundabout, remember the first three words of the Bureaucratic Oath “Always Look Busy…”. And try to smile. Wave, maybe.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Our driver's licensing system needs an update
From the dawn of the automotive age, driver's licenses have been a very routine and comfortable part of life. You get to your late teens, take lessons, and you get your license.
Well, I'm sad to report, this old system was just not designed for the new age of diverse road use. Today's buses, motorcycles and cars are controlled by people properly licensed to operate them on the roads. Bicycles? Not so much.
The concept of the "drivers license" sounds simpler than it actually is. When issued, it gives you the authority to use a motor vehicle on the public roads. What's hard about that? Well, it's really two licenses: one says that you've been trained and tested on the operation of a motor vehicle and the second says you've been trained and tested on the use of public roads. Cyclists may well not need the first qualification, but a solid dose of the second would be a huge step to improving road safety.
The acrimony between cyclists and the motorists has become epic. Both sides, with considerable justification, cite examples of wanton bad behavior on the part of the other. Most of the bad behaviour stems from very different ways that each community uses the roads. It's exacerbated because cyclists act as though they're exempt from the Motor Vehicle Act. They're not, and updating the licensing and insurance regime to reflect that fact needs to be done soon.
It should come as no surprise that to use the road, a road user needs to understand the "rules of the road". Stopping at stop signs and lights, staying in their lane, signaling, looking before proceding, and so on. This is the stuff that motoristst do pretty well most of the time, and that many cyclists seem to consider unnecessary because, after all, they're not driving cars.
The solution is obvious. Lets add a new license to the current system, say a "Class 9 road-use-only" license category that's required if you want to be in control of a moving conveyance on the public roads regardless of whether it has a motor or not.
Combined with existing Class 1 through Class 6 licenses for cars, motorcycles and trucks, the new "9"would extend coverage for cyclists and other non-traditional road users. It levels the playing field. If you break the rules of the road you'll get a ticket and a fine. Have an accident, you've got insurance coverage. Don't know the rules or can't afford insurance? You shouldn't be out there.
It's time for the legislators to take action on unqualified and uninsured road users and make "road use" licensing a reality. It's time to make all road users accountable, whether they're rolling around on two, four, or eighteen wheels.
Well, I'm sad to report, this old system was just not designed for the new age of diverse road use. Today's buses, motorcycles and cars are controlled by people properly licensed to operate them on the roads. Bicycles? Not so much.
The concept of the "drivers license" sounds simpler than it actually is. When issued, it gives you the authority to use a motor vehicle on the public roads. What's hard about that? Well, it's really two licenses: one says that you've been trained and tested on the operation of a motor vehicle and the second says you've been trained and tested on the use of public roads. Cyclists may well not need the first qualification, but a solid dose of the second would be a huge step to improving road safety.
The acrimony between cyclists and the motorists has become epic. Both sides, with considerable justification, cite examples of wanton bad behavior on the part of the other. Most of the bad behaviour stems from very different ways that each community uses the roads. It's exacerbated because cyclists act as though they're exempt from the Motor Vehicle Act. They're not, and updating the licensing and insurance regime to reflect that fact needs to be done soon.
It should come as no surprise that to use the road, a road user needs to understand the "rules of the road". Stopping at stop signs and lights, staying in their lane, signaling, looking before proceding, and so on. This is the stuff that motoristst do pretty well most of the time, and that many cyclists seem to consider unnecessary because, after all, they're not driving cars.
The solution is obvious. Lets add a new license to the current system, say a "Class 9 road-use-only" license category that's required if you want to be in control of a moving conveyance on the public roads regardless of whether it has a motor or not.
Combined with existing Class 1 through Class 6 licenses for cars, motorcycles and trucks, the new "9"would extend coverage for cyclists and other non-traditional road users. It levels the playing field. If you break the rules of the road you'll get a ticket and a fine. Have an accident, you've got insurance coverage. Don't know the rules or can't afford insurance? You shouldn't be out there.
It's time for the legislators to take action on unqualified and uninsured road users and make "road use" licensing a reality. It's time to make all road users accountable, whether they're rolling around on two, four, or eighteen wheels.
It's not a road, it's a loading dock
So, have you been downtown lately? Tried driving in the morning rush? Had to go along Seymour or Homer? How about Hastings? Cordova? Richards? Dunsmuir? It really doesn't matter. Likely, regardless of which street you've been on, you've been stopped for five, maybe ten minutes trying to get by a construction site that's spilled out into the street and is blocking two or maybe three lanes.
As much as we travelers might believe that major downtown thoroughfares are dedicated to the smooth flow of bus, bike and automobile traffic, the Vancouver City works department believes that their true calling is to grow up to be loading docks. If you're a user of the road system, it seems your time at home and at work has been sacrificed on the altar of ... well I'm not sure, actually.
It's not sure because it's not clear what blocking of the traffic lane adjacent to a construction site is supposed to accomplish. It seems that the curb lane beside every building site is automatically handed over to the construction project. From the moment the permit is issued, the curb lane is permanently occupied by the site's dumpster and a collection of shiny pickup trucks. I suppose it's supposed to be used as a place to handle the site's deliveries, but in reality it's just the first lane in a multi-lane road-block circus that goes on for years. It might save the builders money, but the public's time is not free.
And that's why the practice is so extraordinarily wasteful. When it became common practice isn't clear, but it's been overused and taken to ridiculous extremes (remember the chaos on Cordova at the Woodwards' site?). It's just got to stop.
Building construction for new buildings is not a public priority that stands ahead of the needs of people that need to get to work, to get home, or to just get around during the day. Twenty years ago, construction sites handled all of their loading and unloading, except for a few critical moments, by having a loading area on the site. City Hall treats road user's time as a limitless and free asset. The truth however is that every minute wasted by waiting increases environmental damage and is time and money that could be better spent.
Now, I agree that sites will occasionally need to use the roads for loading and unloading. A "usage fee" of, say $50,000 per lane per day would certainly focus their thinking very precisely on only blocking traffic on days they really need to block it. Until then, having a blocked curb lane is a perquisite for the builders that's granted by city hall, paid for by the public, and managed by absolutely no-one.
It's time to end the practice.
As much as we travelers might believe that major downtown thoroughfares are dedicated to the smooth flow of bus, bike and automobile traffic, the Vancouver City works department believes that their true calling is to grow up to be loading docks. If you're a user of the road system, it seems your time at home and at work has been sacrificed on the altar of ... well I'm not sure, actually.
It's not sure because it's not clear what blocking of the traffic lane adjacent to a construction site is supposed to accomplish. It seems that the curb lane beside every building site is automatically handed over to the construction project. From the moment the permit is issued, the curb lane is permanently occupied by the site's dumpster and a collection of shiny pickup trucks. I suppose it's supposed to be used as a place to handle the site's deliveries, but in reality it's just the first lane in a multi-lane road-block circus that goes on for years. It might save the builders money, but the public's time is not free.
And that's why the practice is so extraordinarily wasteful. When it became common practice isn't clear, but it's been overused and taken to ridiculous extremes (remember the chaos on Cordova at the Woodwards' site?). It's just got to stop.
Building construction for new buildings is not a public priority that stands ahead of the needs of people that need to get to work, to get home, or to just get around during the day. Twenty years ago, construction sites handled all of their loading and unloading, except for a few critical moments, by having a loading area on the site. City Hall treats road user's time as a limitless and free asset. The truth however is that every minute wasted by waiting increases environmental damage and is time and money that could be better spent.
Now, I agree that sites will occasionally need to use the roads for loading and unloading. A "usage fee" of, say $50,000 per lane per day would certainly focus their thinking very precisely on only blocking traffic on days they really need to block it. Until then, having a blocked curb lane is a perquisite for the builders that's granted by city hall, paid for by the public, and managed by absolutely no-one.
It's time to end the practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)