Defining Progress?

How does our city define progress?

Is it a quantifiable measure of the increase in our standard of living? Our quality of life? Our cost of living? This is a definition that must be nailed down.

Today, after four months of heavy investment, the section of Wyandotte, between Walker Road east to Drouillard is scheduled to open to vehicular traffic. Watch the "progress" of this investment here.

This is where we need to decide our most appropriate definition of the term "progress". This infrastructure investment will (much like Riverside Drive's Peabody Bridge, which for the life of me I could not find a picture of!) no doubt increase the speed and safety for the cars, yet it doesn't provide for the safe passage of cyclists. The backfilled road cut has provided the abutting property owners with Wyandotte frontage - no doubt drastically increasing the value of their property.

Yet, one must keep in mind that the road renovation removed much esthetic interest in the neighbourhood, as well as an historic structure that was excavated and built by hand by the town of Walkerville in the early 1930's. Anyone who has ever travelled along Wyandotte will remember this bridge.

How do you define the term "progress" and when, in the evolution of our city, do we stop "progressing" before we establish our version of that definition?

Driving Sustainability

The recent report from the Conference Board of Canada did not bring good news for Windsor. Our city received a C grade, ranking 23 of 27 cities on the list. Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Victoria were the top 5 cities, with Windsor, St. Catherines-Niagara, Saguenay, Saint John and Thunder Bay bringing up the rear.

One of the areas that Windsor scored poorly on was public transit. Anyone who has attempted to make use of our public transit system knows that we are in terrible shape, without some sort of 3rd party think-tank to tell us. With a decreasing tax base, and lacking a visionary council (aside from Alan Halberstadt), our infrastructure, from sewers and roads to sidewalks and bikepaths, has suffered. As council has permitted, through sins of omission, the sprawling residential, and now commercial, landscape, costs of providing a usable transit system have spiralled. Instead of increasing service and decreasing costs, Windsor is doing exactly the opposite.

A couple of months ago I read an article by Dave Olsen of The Tyee entitled Fare-Free Public Transit Could Be Heading to a City Near You. Olsen suggests that municipal transit systems are self-castrating, effectively stopping any possibility of growth because they insist on doing exactly what Caroline Postma and the rest of the transit board have done -- raise rates while restricting service. After reading the article, high on hope and delusions of grandeur, I emailed Alan Halberstadt and suggested that Windsor adopt policies similar to those of Chapel Hill (NC), Vail (CO), Logan (UT), and a myriad of European cities. Halberstadt's response was disheartening, 'great idea, but you couldn't sell that in Windsor'.

It seems that the blogsphere may be right, and council is the impedence to the growth of Windsor. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC was quoted in the New York Daily news saying "I would have mass transit be given away for nothing and charge an awful lot for bringing an automobile into the city." A massive population density has both allowed and compelled NYC residents to become dependent on public transit, even their billionaire mayor uses the subway to get around. With a visionary mayor at the helm of that city, the future looks bright for NYC public transit. Windsor city council plays it safe, opting to build an arena (hey, everyone loves a good hockey game right!?!) instead of leading out. When council tells us that there is no more money for transit, after spending $65 million (without ancilliary property developments), I find it hard to believe that they really have the best interests of the city in mind. I believe that the problem with council is that they don't often feel the impact of their decisions. It is easy to cut the library budgets, transit budgets, etc. because, I hypothesize, council does not frequent these public institutions. If they did, they might find public transit and library books a priority.

Fear not, I have a plan! I suggest that councilors be required to use public transit to travel TO and FROM all city meetings. That means council on Mondays, board meetings, and especially those all-to-frequent "closed" meetings. I think that, after a week or two of riding our buses, council might find their purse-strings loosened.

It really is a travesty when it takes 1.5 hours to travel from the University of Windsor to Forest Glade Arena, each way! The irony of the situation, as pointed out by Olsen, is that the more we fund transit, the more ridership increases, the less we spend on infrastructure development and maintenance. If you listen to Mayor Francis, we can't afford the infrastructure costs we have despite multi-million increases in funding over the 2006 levels. Investing in public transit would increase the mobility of all of the citizenry of Windsor, decrease traffic levels on all commuter routes (the Mayor said that EC Row is at capacity already!) and provide benefits to our air quality. This does not mean that the automobile will become outmoded, rather people will be able to decide to take the public or private transit as they discover all that Windsor has to offer. When we decide to invest in our built environment and learn to be good stewards of all that we have in this city, only then will our perception of ourselves, and perception of our city by others, experience a positive change.