Link to Website

1. Do you support re-aligning municipal and regional transportation plans and investments to meet the provincial government’s CleanBC target to “reduce distances travelled in light-duty vehicles by 2030 compared to 2020?

Yes, and the CRD is already taking steps to do this; I was the Sidney Council appointee to the Intermunicipal Climate Action Task Force, and representatives from the BC CleanBC rollout team were invited in to speak to the specific transportation objectives, and those were incorporated into the CRD’s Climate Action Strategy released in 2021. The 2014 Transportation Plan has not yet been updated, to my knowledge, but the measures from the CAS are certainly already being implemented. Municipal staff from many (if not all, though I cannot speak for them all – Sidney certainly does) participate in meetings with the CRD staff to ensure that our Climate Action Strategy (2022 update for Sidney) and upcoming Active Transportation Plan (2022-2023) will be in sync. This is, to my knowledge, also in alignment with the BC Transit 2020-2025 strategic plan which builds out queue jumping and RapidBus routes to reduce travel times and increase commuter use on main routes.

2. Do you support making the default speed limit 30 km/h for streets without centrelines?

In general; Sidney was going to participate in a pilot project with Saanich on this, but we had very few streets that applied, and in fact have 30 km/h already everywhere in our small downtown and 3 or so blocks adjacent to the north. Many of the streets that have been identified by the public as those they would like to see lowered speed limits are actually those with centrelines. I think in municipalities with more potential to implement this broadly, and so it would be predictable for drivers, this is a good idea.

3. Do you commit to budgeting sufficient funds to accelerate the draft Sidney Active Transportation Network Plan once completed?

Depends what you mean by accelerate. There are many projects that may need to be aligned with all of the rest of the capital plans for the area, and trying to do them first (e.g. building a bike lane before the roundabout it is part of is built) would be physically impossible to expedite, or would be a waste of money (e.g. for roads that we know are about to be dug up for below ground infrastructure replacement). I am supportive of being opportunistic about things that can be bumped up if a good grant opportunity arises, or approving moving something forward (or creating something better than initially planned) if it can be paired with another development project. I think staff would be quite proactive about identifying the ability to do this, as well.

4. Do you support using neighbourhood-wide traffic calming to create low traffic neighbourhoods with much lower traffic volume with quick build materials?

We discussed this during the very early days of the 2020 covid shutdowns, as a Council, to promote the ability for people to gather publicly again with “social distancing” by making streetspaces safer; we saw it as an opportunity to trial out of the box things. We found that there were again, few opportunities for this in Sidney that don’t already exist because of the 1970’s cul-de-sac design in many of our larger neighbourhoods. There is one road that would probably benefit from this tremendously, however – the one that also wished to have its speed limit lowered. It is a very high traffic route to the elementary school for kids on bikes and walking, and this is an idea to definitely bring forward to the Active Transportation Plan.

5. How would you support making walking safer and more enjoyable in Sidney?

Continue with the sidewalk build out plans – we are focusing on infilling where there are gaps to expand it outward from well serviced areas to least, and meet the synchronistic goals of the Urban Forest Strategy, Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan to prioritize planting boulevard trees on those walking routes to provide shade. They are hot in the summer outside of the core, and that is discouraging. We have also discussed, and should include in the Active Transportation Plan, better identifying (with plantings, signs, markers, etc.) the cut-through walking routes through pocket parks that create faster travel for pedestrians in neighbourhoods (pleasanter, too) than those using cars.

6. Do you support building a network of all ages and abilities (“AAA”) bike and roll routes throughout Sidney?


7. Do you support welcoming people who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters to use all ages and abilities (AAA) bike and roll routes?

Yes, I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by the number of people I wouldn’t have expected being supportive of this, because they see the potential for mobility scooter users to be served, as well, which would improve safety for them, pedestrians, and car traffic, if they are allowed in the travel lanes instead of on the sidewalk or veering into traffic because sidewalks are too narrow or occupied. This I think can really be good for Sidney, which due to age demographics may not otherwise be terribly fond of bike lanes.

8. Do you support rapidly completing bus lanes at key locations on the Pat Bay Highway for BC Transit’s proposed RapidBus route, as well as effective transit priority measures along all of BC Transit’s proposed RapidBus routes across the CRD?

Yes, see first response.

9. With the court-imposed deadline of March 14, 2023 to keep the Island Rail Corridor intact, how would you support modern rail service for Vancouver Island?10

Oh, from Sidney, which doesn’t directly connect to it, it is difficult to do much directly, but certainly I would support an endorsement letter and bring it up at council if it appeared on the agenda.

10. Do you support making transit fares more affordable, both by reducing the cost of passes and individual fares and free or discounted passes for youth, seniors, and people living on low incomes?

No. The cost of the upgrades to the transit system will require that BC Transit be solvent. Bus fares are already extremely cheap and competitive relative to car transportation, and there are already reduced fares for seniors and student passes available from educational institutions. The huge cost penalty to bus users actually comes from the amount of time that riding the bus can take – it is time out of work, time away from other life commitments, inability to make appointments on time, and child care costs. These are the actual huge factors that affect low income people. When I would bus into the CRD meetings from Sidney instead of taking the car, it cost me $5 bus fare. I saved $2, as it was $7 of gas (probably more now) – and that doesn’t include parking, which government got for free, but other people don’t; however, I also had to pay an extra $20 for an additional hour of child care, for the additional time. If I wanted to go to see my mom in Langford, it’s 4 HOURS by bus with the transfer. If you wanted to actually save bus users money in any municipality outside the very direct core of Victoria, save them time. I advocated against Victoria implementing their lowered bus fare for precisely this reason – it took money away from helping any of the rest of us get good transit – but was ignored for very obviously purely ideological faddish bandwagon reasons and I think urban chauvinism from the central municipalities. There was a video that did the rounds, of a talk given by an Ontario municipality, the name of which I can’t remember right now, but it was all the rage as the place that had tried this free transit idea, and it worked for them, so that’s why we all should too. So I actually watched the video, and the guy in it very explicitly, at the end during questions, explained that the reasons their program worked was emphatically not something that would happen everywhere, and that it was in fact a complete money loser for 7 years. He listed the things that would make it a bad idea to do anywhere else, all of which applied in the CRD.

11. Do you support removing the requirements for off-street vehicle parking from new and infill developments while adding requirements for car share, EV charging, bike and other micromobilty parking, as well as expanding accessible parking?

Not EV charging. That is a costly and environmentally damaging (mining and materials, waste from the batteries and unreparable cars) public fund subsidy to rich people to have their toys. But yes to all the rest.

12. How would you activate and bring more people into public spaces within Sidney, including sidewalks, public squares, streets and parks?

Just keep doing what we’re doing with our existing OCP and plans – Sidney has wonderfully active public spaces.

13. Do you support adding substantively more accessible public bathrooms across Sidney?

We already plan to – we are adding in a Changing Spaces washroom as our new bathroom. We have requested that some strategic proposed developments near existing bike trails add public washrooms to their plans (though we are not the final approvers on that project, it is VAA).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.