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 I do. Furthermore, it would be nice if the Navius Team contracted for most climate plans in Canada, including the 2019 CleanBC, using CIMS model, was upgraded to the CIMS-Urban model from the Jaccard research lab at SFU, in order to internalise the induced behavioral carbon(GHG) abatement curves that any regional planner in North America knows occurs when you incentivise transit ridership through complete community planning, TOD and smartgrowth along urban corridors and centres.
2. Do you support making the default speed limit 30 km/h for streets without centrelines, as Saanich has already committed to doing?
Yes. In fact it was a small Working Group of us on the Active Transportation Advisory Committee that initiated this discussion, and I give credit as well to both ATAC Chairs during this time: Karen Harper (a competitor) and Rebecca Mersereau (an endorser of mine).
3. Do you commit to budgeting sufficient funds to accelerate the Saanich 2018 Active Transportation Plan?
I am. Obviously. But also, I am very very keen to explore alternative avenues for funding, beyond the property tax base, and even beyond CACs and DCCs. For example, Mobility Management in Municipal Operations should include traffic and parking demand management (including at public buildings). But also, the first 50 or so parking sessions per year should be free, per resident (non transferable freemium service) and support accessibility. See www.Trevor4saanich.ca/PLATFORM for detailed policy approach on this. Moreover, I am a big supporter of “operational funding” for e.g. bike lanes on Tillicum (where the community association has been requesting this for years). It’s cheaper, easier, and can be studied first, then “cemented” later during routine Capital asset management investment budgeting.
4. Do you support using neighbourhood-wide traffic calming to create low traffic neighbourhoods with much lower traffic volume with quick build materials?9
Yes I do. Again: I’ll cite the fact that I moved this motion at ATACommittee, that was adopted unanimously by both ATAC and Council. However, I want to be clear about something as well. There were problems with the execution of this funding envelope in Saanich this year. The mandate provided through my motion included Terms of reference to engage meaningfully with Community Associations in the design [consultation] phase. And this did not happen. Which led to surprise, outrage, and successful petitioning by some neighbourhoods against certain projects. As a result, the baby was thrown out with the bath water, or perhaps more adroitly: a couple bad apples (designs) ruined the whole barrel (Council kiboshed the quick build bollard/pedestrian projects at the final council meeting of the term – silly season and all that). There are two lessons to learn here:
1. “Bring people along”. It’s not intuitive to all residents that narrower driving road widths is academically proven to produce better road safety outcomes; in fact Systems Thinking (vis-a-vis #VisionZero) is not intuitive to the vast number of people. It requires taking the time to “get it right” and not send people into flummox and frustration. Covid gave governments excuses not to consult. That’s gotta end now. And consultation doesn’t have to lead to stagnation, either. But staff need to be properly resourced, and nobody should be taking the easy way out, in either direction.
2. Infrastructure isn’t always the answer. I’ll make this note a quick one: (A) Fernwood is great, Oaklands Rise is greater. “Woonerf” Sidewalks are expensive. Traffic calming, and speed reduction inducement, and properly signaled shared space, is a much cheaper ticket. More people can be served at 70% good (lets say 7 blocks) than the more expensive 90% good (lets say 3 blocks). Last time I did the math, 49 > 27 by a long shot.
5. How would you support making walking safer and more enjoyable in Saanich?
WALKSCORE. …or another walkability index, should be adopted and made pervasive across design and planning documents. No report to Council should ever be provided without WalkScore of the location. We can’t “fund our way out” of poor walkability in a legacy-suburban landscape. But how we decide to make decisions around development and land-use planning going forward; can make walking (and other forms of active mobility) more central to design, amenity, and marketability.
6. Do you support building a network of all ages and abilities (“AAA”) bike and roll routes throughout Saanich?
Yes. With a caveat: not at unnecessary expense trade-off to roadspace, vis-a-vis transit corridor right-of-way. At the end of the day, while rolling is the healthiest option for the individual, transit is still by far and away the most economically efficient, equitable, and low-carbon mode of transportation for the collective (and often the individual as well – in spite of the diesel [due to pairwise modal choice selection compatibility]).
7. Do you support welcoming people who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters to use all ages and abilities (AAA) bike and roll routes?
Yes. Again, caveat: “welcome” is a nebulous word. I wouldn’t not encourage them on the Goose/Lochside during peak periods. (Well, we wouldn’t encourage anybody during peaks I suppose, haha, a little DSM economic humour there for ya) What I mean is – “road capacity” issues on our “cycling highways” is becoming more and more acutely noticed as an issue. Velocity differentials; noise/distraction; size/weight/momentum… I’m not a fan of road-widening (no intelligent planner is) but in this case, we may need to sort out micromobility routing and RoW allocation a bit more before “welcoming i.e. encouraging”. Having said that – YES I cam in favour of it from a legal perspective, and with respect to nascent overdue updates to the Motor Vehicle Act, its regulations, and associated Legislation and Bylaw.
8. Do you support rapidly completing 24/7 bus lanes along McKenzie to UVic for BC Transit’s proposed RapidBus route, as well as similar measures along all proposed RapidBus routes in Saanich?
Yes, we must steward this process. But not “rush it” either. (See consultation woes, in earlier responses). And my approach does more to support your notion of “pressure” (toward Prov). The other consideration here, is the funding, and economies of scale with respect to redevelopment at University Heights, and also latent rezoning demand across the major centre.
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?
I am of two minds on this. The one is that we do not want to exacerbate exurban sprawl (imagine Shawnigan turning into Langford- yuck). But on the other hand, rail for intercity and logistics is a very important tenet of sustainable transportation and regional economic growth. I tend to be most persuaded by the arguments of land lift as the approach for TOD to fund stations and passenger infrastructure- provided notably by the Island Transformations Organization and Eric Diller (independent non-incumbent running for Sidney town council)
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?
Yes I do, but as always with caveats. While above I said transit has to be supreme, even above active mobility. Yet, any form of induced demand for transportation services, is something to be avoided. Sustainable goals require Pigovian price signals for economic efficiency (and I am not willing to discuss market vs socialist theories, because the market ain’t going away, and it is well understood and easy to leverage by policy makers). So, free fares? Yes… to a point. Now lets talk about fares. The Fare model of BC Transit in Greater Victoria is currently Stupid. Yes, “stupid” is the only word for it. A Langford resident gets an 18km ride for $2.50. But a Saanich resident trying to get 2km to Uptown from #NorthQuadra needs to pay double, because of a TRANSFER. This is rediculous. Every serious transit agency in North America has moved away from the Transfer Fare Model, and in our region, we have regressed. Paying by distance is fine. By “fare zone” is less good, but still fine. Paying more for inconvenience ain’t just wrong, it’s stupid. So, (a) fix the fare model. (b) introduce FREE FARES to the most needing – starting with youth students, and vulnerable econometric demographics, makes sense. © – and I encourage you again to read my www.Trevor4saanich.ca/PLATFORM – we need to move toward non transferable “smart card/app” based FREEMIUM SERVICES, in this case I would suggest – 50 day passes per year (or equivalent, perhaps 200 trips) FREE – after that, you pay. And faregate revenue cannot be shortfalled in the process, so the non-resident / overage. Charge is higher than currently. Available to every resident. Non-transferable. Annual Credit. You use it or lose it. It will induce ridership (not a good thing according to my DSM comments above, but the pros outweigh the cons) – giving folks a chance to discover “hey this ain’t so bad, and I can play CandyCrush the whole time!” And if the demand for transit service will rise as demand for autocentric travel will wane in the process. And as folks spend less on parking (including costs of owning a home with a garage/driveway) and fuel (including electricity) and maintenance and insurance… the more money in their pocket for when they go into “extra trips” in November-December or whatever. #SmartSaanich
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 micromobility parking, as well as expanding accessible parking?
Yes I do. And add to that “resident only parking’ available only to legacy residents, who can prove a direct (ICBC) relationship between the primary residency address and the insurance address/ownership. In fact, citing back to my FREEMIUM comments above: add to it: street parking. FURTHERMORE – decouple parking access from tenancy in the building, at least on a unit basis, if not a landlord/strata basis.
12. How would you activate and bring more people into public spaces within Saanich, including sidewalks, public squares, streets and parks?
More street food and vendors, e.g. expanding on the Food Truck pilots in parks, and removing the unnecessarily onerous TUP (temporary use permit) process, which is creates barriers to small businesses. Furthermore, I stand firmly with the Staff Report Recommendations (that were defeated WITHOUT DEBATE at 1st reading due to a completely unorthodox and hitherto unexplained legislative procedure mistake by the Mayor) – the recommended plan for Summer season > daytime hours > 12 specific parks > only certain picnic areas > bylaw defining where its okay to have a glass of wine or a beer with a meal > as nearly half the population of BC now will enjoy.
13. Do you support adding substantively more accessible public bathrooms across Saanich?
Yes yes and yes… because when the kids need to pee, they need to pee.