Coming before tonights council is an important document that I really hope our elected leadership reads front-to-back.You see, by administration's own admission, the Essex-Windsor Regional Transportation Master Plan "establishes an important base from which the City, County and local area municipalities can coordinate efforts to achieve a sustainable, efficient and effective regional transportation system."
That's quite the goal, and believe it or not, there's some good stuff in there! The staff that assembled these recommendations clearly know that there are certain roads the city must take in order for us to head in a more sustainable direction when it comes to our urban land use and transportation planning. Yes, I said land use, as it also acknowledges that there is a clear tie between how we develop our land and the resulting transportation infrastructure needed to access it.
I'll stop here, because SDW's Josh Biggley has written a very concise letter to be included in tonights council package addressing our concerns as well as voicing our support for certain aspects of this proposed regional transportation policy.
"Sustainability needs to become the measure for economic achievement and public investment"
- Clive Doucet, City Counselor, Ottawa
We are writing today to express praise and concern for Item 5, the Essex-Windsor Regional Transportation Master Plan (EWRTMP), as representatives of Scaledown.ca. Scaledown.ca is a local advocacy group and media outlet focused on establishing sustainable social and economic development in Windsor.
We applaud the conclusion of the EWRTMP that states "in order for the County, City and Towns to plan for an acceptable level of transportation service to year 2021, the focus will have to be on a combination of selected roadway capacity enhancements, and changes to development forms in urban settings that offer alternative transportation choices and reduced transportation needs." (emphasis added)
We draw your attention to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy which includes providing financial incentives, and disincentives, for single occupant vehicle usage, an integrated planning approach combining land use and built form to impact travel patterns, and the use of "hard urban edges to control urban sprawl". Modifying demand through creative and sustainable land use will prepare Windsor to service the aging Baby Boomers and their long-term independence, retain the socially conscious Generation X and generate a growing tax base for future civic needs.
We support the Demand-Side Options including funding and advocacy for non-motorized modes of transit, ride-sharing, urban design techniques to reduce trip length and, of critical importance, "providing for more transit, cycling and walking-friendly neighbourhood design." We enthusiastically sustain the findings of the study that demonstrate "intensified and mixed use urban development forms would have the greatest long-term benefits to the regional transportation system."
We caution against the premature approval of roadway expansion without exploring the opportunities that exist "through the application of ‘Smart Growth’ land use … to minimize or avoid the need for physical capacity improvements." We support the findings of both the EWRTMP and the 2005 Brownfield Redevelopment Study that show a 380% ROI on brownfield rehabilitation, not including a projected annual transportation cost savings of $66,000/hectare and a 10% increase in tax revenues for the surrounding 2.5 kilometers.
We express dire concerns with a regional transportation approach that facilitates the continued fall in urban population density in favour of the bedroom communities of Lasalle, Lakeshore and Tecumseh. We object to policies and plans that support the perception of Windsor as an obstacle to be navigated through and around as opposed to a residential, entertainment and employment destination. We oppose plans to improve commuter routes that facilitate the relocation of Windsor residents to outlying communities, especially at the expense of our urban neighbourhoods.
We strenuously object to the inflammatory language contained within the EWRTMP regarding the importance of the proposed roadway infrastructure expansion. By stating that "further delay will result in oppressive traffic delays crippling local industry and discouraging local investment and job growth" it suggests that it is impossible for Windsor to achieve economic prosperity without road expansion. To suggest that the proposed roadway expansions will, alone, "achieve a sustainable, efficient and effective regional transportation system" makes misleading correlations between economic sustainability and an increase in road capacity.
We ask council to directly allocate funds to address "the availability of alternative transportation modes … making transit, cycling and walking more attractive to regional residents." We ask that council resolve to fund and implement "more compact built forms, mixed-use neighbourhoods and developments, and [adopt] transit, cycling and pedestrian-supportive land use planning and urban design policies" in support a sustainable city. In addition, we ask that council consider these options before allocating funds for roadway expansion to support objective 4 of the EWRTMP which is "to provide transportation systems that enhance physical mobility and better [serve] the economic and social needs of the community."
Signed,
Joshua BiggleyChris Holt
Mark Boscariol
We urge you to not only read the document for yourselves and reach your own conclusions as to how this plan, if fully implemented, will affect our regions quality of life, but to also contact your councillors and let them know those feelings.
It is through exercises such as these that we will have our biggest impact as concerned citizens
11 comments:
This blows my mind. All that road widening at a price tag of close to 300 million, I think, and probably more. All while windsor Transit limps along from year to year. And these bedroom communities have zero transit. 300 million would go a long way to help fund some decent transit and get people off the roads.
Plus it would only take a few hundred thousand to complete the recommended housing market studies and finalize every community improvement plan.
This would also bring potentially millions if we apply for Tax incentive financing bringing in money from the provincial portion of those breaks.
We could add another 30,000 residents to the core, none of which would require using the expressway on a regular basis.
How come we don't have regional two tiered development rates? This is a prime example of the infrastructure savings from developing the core.
Mark I have asked that question (two tiered system) numerous times without getting a response from the city...go figure.
I asked the same thing as to why developer fees for outlying areas do not include additional costs for fire stations or police stations without getting a response.
Great speech. I hope it goes well but I think the councillors have already made up their minds. Let's hope you guys can change them.
Sporto et al,
There's still plenty of time to get ahold of your councillors right now. Nothing changes elected representatives minds like a bunch of people calling them on items like this one.
They've all heard from me already today.
I think we have a repreive in that they won't support widening the roads until after Greenlink is approved.
In the meantime we have to propose changes to the city's 10 year plan this year
I think its always about money. The city's not going to turn down 300 million of provincial funding for any project, regardless of the necessity of it. We can make as good as a case as we want but this is a makework program for Windsor and its going to be difficult to fight that.
Maybe we have to work on the province to fund items the city needs more such as core development.
Dave's comments are right on, there are so many issues regarding the costs of developing outside your core.
Whats odd is that when it comes to Toronto, the province gets it, with their greenbelt legislation.
Waterloo region gets it
Why can't Windsor-Essex even try to get it. This problem is due to the lack of true regionalism when forming policy. The Province is the creator of that situation
"Plus it would only take a few hundred thousand to complete the recommended housing market studies and finalize every community improvement plan.
This would also bring potentially millions if we apply for Tax incentive financing bringing in money from the provincial portion of those breaks."
The BIF funds are for corridor improvements. Are you not suggesting that BIF funds shouldn't be used for border/corridor improvements? Is spending BIF funds inappropriately not the same thing as spending WUC levies inappropriately? However, I wouldn't be surprised if Sandra and Dwight attempted to loosen the restrictions on the BIF funds. Realistically, this "master plan" is designed to help Mayor Francis pressure the senior levels of government into giving municipalities more money; the city/county relationship is exactly like the provincial/federal relationship.
It's hard to get a full picture on this. Then the rail rationalization plan is also at play. Then there's the dream of an aerotropolis that will promise new business. And, the 401/trucks/bridge of course. Anything else?
It almost calls for a plan for all the plans.
But, in simpler terms, the writing is on the wall - Cheap oil is over - Gas prices are going up. Planes won't take to the sky as easily, Trucks won't travel the roads as cheaply, subdivisions won't exist as affordibally. As a result, people will live closer to the core, outlying sub-divisions will be the new ghettos, and Goods and people will travel by rail-once again.
Where in all these plans does it say that? Is it too hard to imagine? If a polluted planet isn't the tipping point, what is?
Deferred. In fact, the deferrals were flying around more than coherant thought. OK, cheap shot.
One interesting part of the evening was during the discussion around Item 4 - the widening of Manning Road. Councillor Valentinis was just RIPPING the town of Tecumseh for their lack of regional cooperation, commenting on how their desired changes would impose menacing traffic congestion on the city of Windsor.
Hello councillor! You just did the same thing to LaSalle when you approved that Big-Box store on the far west end! But at least you got those pretty shade trees in the Wal-Mart parking lot!
In fact, he even brought it up himself! But, he said you couldn't compare the two - that they were apples and oranges.
Like that will just negate any further comment on the subject, councillor?
The sheer lack of regional cooperation was evident tonight. We are each operating in a bubble and I doubt this council will be able to get past it. I just hope that the new 2010 council has some experienced facilitators and moderators so we can move past this childish behavior towards a truly regional approach towards transportation and environmental planning.
Anyone note the mayor's repeated use of the phrase "extracting money from the province" to pay for development costs the township didn't account for in its development charges.
This is the crux of the matter and the mayor's words will end up being repeated back to him when it comes to city policy.
Basically he's acknowledged what the true issue is, extracting money from the province for failures in local munipal planning.
The city/county problem will get worse before it gets better. If we're successful in getting the city to concentrate its resources on the core then that will simply exacerbate problems with the county.
All the more reason why we're going to need provincial arbitration to get city/county working together
It didn't suprise me that they deferred it. They,the council and mayor defer anything that takes thought. When they don't have answers or want to answer tought questions they defer it. Typical waste of time and money. It is no wonder business doesn't want to touch Windsor.
Mark, I agree with you 100%. The city wants the province to pay for horrible municiapl planning.
Poor Mr. Yanchula, if his position wasn't so politicized he could actually do some good along with his job. And if it wasn't as politicized before it surely is now!
I also agree that the city/county divide is goig to get worse. I couldn't believe that shots being fired over the tourism dollars. My God! You would think these fools would have learned what NOT to do from Detroit and its suburbs. But then again look how the 'burbs fare against Detroit. Maybe that is what the 'burbs are trying to do? The issue these fools (sorry I can't think of a better term to refer to)don't see is that the same hate relationship is also killing the southeast Michigan region with regards to jobs and new business...the same thing happening here.
I guess ego's and agenda's are much more important than co-operation and people. But the electorate votes for these peope time and again and we expect something different. Geez, I should run for council someday at least I know I couldn't do worse than what we have now!
That's why Scale Down has posted that ticker counting down the days 'til the next election, Dave. They're letting you know how much time you have to prepare.
Honestly, do you remember anyone worth voting for over these people we have in there now? Ward two voters made the mistake of not voting in Chris Schnurr, but other than that - nothing. Dr. David Wonham for mayor? Puhleez! Francis knew he had a cakewalk election so he didn't even make any unmoderated public appearances during the campaign. Must've went to the Stephen Harper school of media dodging and avoidance.
I pray that we will have worthy candidates in 2010. Dave - if that is you PLEASE START PLANNING NOW! We need people to vote FOR, not just AGAINST.
Post a Comment