Continuing the West LRT Discussion

June 3, 2010 City Issues, Transportation 2 comments

On June 3rd, 2010, a report was brought forward to the Transportation and Public Works Committee discussing the possibility of maintaining two lanes of traffic in each direction on Stony Plain Road from 142nd Street to 149th Street. The report was initiated as there was concern that West End residents who are travelling downtown will experience significant traffic congestion and there is no other Southern option from the West End.

As a person who has lived in the Meadowlark area for the past 8 years, I found the notion that west end residents lack an efficient Southern option a bit surprising as I regularly drove along 87th Avenue heading east and then traveled along 142nd Street before reaching Stony Plain Road or 102 Avenue. For me, this route has always been quicker so I decided to use Google Maps to find out the current recommended routes for most West End communities as well as Spruce Grove/Stony Plain residents to travel downtown.

Using City Hall as the central location downtown, I have separated the communities into four groups and based off Google Maps, I have documented the recommended route.

Group 1
The following is the list of communities that do not have another recommended route to reach downtown by vehicle. Having one lane each way between 149th and 142nd Street would create a longer commute for these residents.

West Jasper Place
Glenwood
Crestwood (146th Street West)
Terra Losa (Everything North of 98A Avenue)

Group 2:
These communities currently have 100th Avenue/Stony Plain Road as the best choice with at least one another choice that is at most, 3 minutes longer to reach downtown. The recommended alternatives would use 95th Avenue/142nd Street, 87th Avenue/142 Street, 170th Street/Yellowhead and 107th Avenue/97th Street. If one lane is removed, the drivers in these communities would have very accessible alternatives that would get them downtown at almost the same speed as the original route.

West Meadowlark Park
Summerlea
Belmead
Aldergrove
Throncliff
Canora
Britannia Youngstown

Group 3:
The recommended route for Spruce Grove and Stony Plain residents is the same for everyone – travel along Highway 16 and Yellowhead and take the 97th Street exit into our downtown.

Group 4:
The current recommended route in order to go downtown is listed beside each community. It should be noted that many of these routes will connect to Stony Plain Road/102nd Avenue at 142nd Street which means that taking away a lane between 149th and 142nd Street would not alter drivers from these communities with regards to travel time.

Meadowlark (95th Avenue/142nd Street)
Jasper Park (91st Avenue/142nd Street)
Crestwood – Everything East of 146th Street (96th Avenue/ 142nd Street)
Parkview/Valleyview (87th Avenue or 91st Avenue/142nd Street)
Laurier Heights (142nd Street)
Lynwood (87th Avenue/142nd Street)
Elmwood (87th Avenue/142nd Street)
Lewis Estates (Whitemud/109th Street)
Winterburn Area (Westview Village) (Yellowhead/97th Street)
Sheffield (111th Avenue/97th Street)
Sherwood (95th Avenue/142nd Street)

My Analysis:
I understand the need obtain as much information as possible so that we can feel confident about the recommendation but based off the above information, there does not appear to be a need to widen Stony Plain Road from 142nd Street to 149th Street. The only communities that would experience increased travel time are West Jasper Place, Glenwood and parts of Crestwood and Terra Losa. Therefore expanding Stony Plain Road between 149th and 142nd to four lanes of vehicles and two lanes of LRT should not drastically change the commute and it goes against many of the communities who saw this route as an opportunity to bring more families into their neighbourhoods. Members of the Grovenor who spoke to the Transportation and Public Works Committee expressed their concern with the possibility of dividing the various central communities. The Glenora Community also spoke out at the meeting about expanding lanes of traffic as they were under the impression that there would not be large amounts of land acquisitions. Communities need to be able to trust the representatives from the city or else it devalues the public consultation process and creates apathy.

This is an important issue and we cannot forget that a majority of people drive and will likely continue to drive into the near future. The objective of the city should not be to make driving more challenging, but to provide those who do drive with an even better alternative in public transit. We have citizens that need to drive and they should be treated as equals to transit users. One way to help alleviate the potential traffic congestion for those select communities is to consider having the Lewis Estates to Downtown LRT travel along 100th Avenue and have the Downtown to Lewis Estates LRT travel along Stony Plain Road. This will allow the city to maintain two lanes of vehicular traffic travelling east along 100th Avenue to our downtown and two lanes travelling west along Stony Plain Road. The result of this idea would be minimized impact on travel time for those that still have to drive in Group 1. The other benefit would be that Stony Plain Road businesses would still have their parking in front of their businesses and they would also have new customers from the increased density in the adjacent communities as well as the new transit riders. Splitting the LRT line would create a more vibrant community that has a healthy mix of vehicle, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Density: One Solution to Solve It All

April 18, 2010 City Issues, Density, Education, Politics, School Closures, Sprawl No comments

For those of you who did not get to watch or read the news over Easter weekend, there was a letter written to the St. Albert Gazette by Chris and Karleena Perry that upset many people. There are many who have taken the time to write insightful pieces about that letter, therefore, I do not want to spend time addressing what is written in that letter or the actual Habitat for Humanity proposal in question. What I want to focus on is the attitude in the apology that I heard on CTV and read in the Edmonton Journal and how it affects our everyday life.

The specific comment that concerned me was a variation of what is in the Edmonton Journal article where Chris Perry said that the “proposed Habitat site was too small.” When on the phone with CTV, he expanded on that comment and said how a home that is 800 square feet is not big enough for a family. The problem is that people do not seem to understand the concept of density, the benefits of increased density to their community/city or that there are many people who are excited about the idea of living in a “small” home. As I was growing up, I assumed I would live in a large house because I already lived in large house and never considered any alternatives. After moving into a condo with my family when we moved from Spruce Grove to Edmonton, I still planned on getting a big house out in the suburbs. Even after purchasing my own condo a few years ago, I assumed that it would be a temporary solution because there was no way that I could live in such a “small” home (825 square feet including balcony) for a long period of time. Fast forward to the present day, there are now two people living in this condo and I can say with ease that our home could easily house 3 or 4 people and not feel cramped. I have no desire or need to move into a large home as there is more than enough space for everything we own. The other part I love about living here is the community that has formed within our building. I know at least half of the people who live in our complex and we are all willing to help one another out which makes this home an even better place to live in.

Not everyone can or will want to live in a home like this. The point is that there are people who currently live in our city or who would like to move to the city that do want to live in that type of environment and our city has never really given this group the opportunity to achieve this lifestyle. This past week, five of our public schools closed due to lack of enrolment. We will never know if all of the closures could have been avoided if density had been a focus of our city 20 years ago but I am fairly certain that at least a few would not have been closed. I found the comments in the Edmonton Journal school closure article to be very interesting. Many people affected by the closure are blaming those who live in the suburbs because there are new schools being built while old ones are closing because the young families are buying homes in new areas of Edmonton. What many of these people are forgetting is that most of the new people who have moved to the city have not had a choice in where they live. Housing in more mature neighbourhoods is usually more expensive than the new homes being construction on the edge of our city because over 95% of all new developments are for the outskirts of Edmonton. It’s basic supply and demand, there is very little selection within existing communities and many new families do not have the money to pay the high price for these homes. By the time these families have the money to buy and move into these homes, their children have grown up and are getting ready/have already moved out. As you can see, this is a cycle that has played out for too long and is the reason Edmonton is having difficulty with spending our tax dollars effectively and providing services for our increasing population.

I hear you commenting, “But Andrew, the city is likely going to approve the new MDP (Municipal Development Plan) that addresses those concerns.” It is true that the new MDP which is to be presented to City Council in May or June for third reading addresses some important elements that are city has needed. The new plan acknowledges that Edmonton is a winter city and we need to use that knowledge when we plan. The biggest shift is in amendment 3.1.1.2 that is now updated to read,

“Encourage a minimum of 25 percent of city-wide housing unit growth to locate in the Downtown and mature neighbourhoods and around LRT stations and transit centres where infrastructure capacity supports redevelopment.”

That is quite a shift from the approximately 95% New Developments/5% Infill that our city has had, but is it enough to actually get Edmontonians to realize that our city cannot afford continued excessive sprawl? I do not believe the best solution is to reverse the existing ratio to 95% Infill/5% New Developments because as mentioned above, not everyone wants to live in a condo/duplex/etc. With that said, when the average person sees 25% infill, do they understand that our city is living beyond its means? If we encouraged 55% Infill/45% New Developments that would send a message to our residents that the city recognizes the need to change the way we develop our city while not restricting options for our growing population. In fact, a close split like 55%/45% provides the most choice to new and existing residents and makes our city more sustainable in both a fiscal and environmental sense. The city has a responsibility to inform everyone about the benefits of increased density above just the environmental impacts. I believe people have grown accustomed to relate the word “sustainable” just to the environmental side instead of a complete package. To those people who expect every pothole is filled and road is plowed with minimal tax increases, increasing our density will address their wants/needs. The cost to build a new neighbourhood is much higher than having the same group live in a more mature neighbourhood. With all of that money saved, we could have better road conditions, more police officers on the streets and still not increase taxes as much as previous years. For those people who like the idea of spending money on the arts and want to see a more efficient transit system that gets people out of their cars, increasing our density will address their wants/needs as well. Again, that money saved from people moving in existing neighbourhoods will allow us the ability to contribute to the betterment of the city through arts and community programs, increase transit funding and still have money left over to save for future projects or expected costs instead of borrowing money when funding is not available.

Density is not a scary word. It does not mean 20 storey buildings everywhere you look or in the middle of a neighbourhood of single family homes. Ideally, density strengthens a community by adding more new families, young couples and seniors to areas that have remained stagnant over the years. It ensures our schools will continue to have steady enrolment and our community leagues will have new volunteers with new ideas to get everyone involved. Density will provide the greatest benefit (financial/environmental/safety) to the majority of residents. Living in a city that encourages density may not solve all of our problems, but it can be the catalyst to finding the solution for any issues that do arise.

Too Apathetic to Care

January 7, 2010 Elections, Politics, Reboot Alberta No comments

There have been many people writing insightful posts about Rebooting Alberta and what needs to be done to help citizens become engaged in the political process once again. Most notably, Sue Huff has created an excellent site http://inspired2vote.blogspot.com and is asking the question “What will it take to inspire 1.32 million Albertans to become voters?” This is an extremely important question because once the answer is discovered, we will be able to go back to a time when the majority of politicians worked for their constituents and would not participate in the petty bickering which has absorbed the Canadian political system. I do not have all the answers but I hope to provide some additional insight into the minds of those who choose apathy.

To begin, I found it surprising when people said that the biggest takeaway from Paul Hinman’s win in the Calgary Glenmore by-election was it sent a clear message to Ed Stelmach that Albertans wanted change. The only message I took away from Hinman’s victory was that same 59% (the majority) of voters who did not vote in 2008, still felt there was no one worth voting for a year later. Even in the most recent Federal election, less than 60% voted for someone to represent them. I’m sure there will always people who choose not to vote, but I doubt that all of the 40% federally, 60% provincially or over 70% municipally who did not vote did so because they were never going to vote in the first place. I did not vote for any party in the last Provincial election because I have lost faith in their ability to lead. I decided to cast my vote for a specific individual who happened to be part of a party. This is not the best reason to vote, although I could not see any other reasonable alternative. I have a feeling those who have not voted recently are of a similar opinion that our system is broken and chose not to bother voting for anyone as it would be a waste of their time since nothing would change.

Three years ago, I reached a point where I was tired of everything related to politics and was ready to join with the side of apathy. Instead, I decided that I will try and make a difference which is why I have been involved in my community league and city and why I am running for City Council in the October 2010 election. That being said, in three years, not a lot has changed and we shouldn’t be expecting it to change overnight. The Federal & Provincial parties can barely make it through the day without criticizing another party while forgetting to offer up a positive alternative.

A recent example was the Alberta Liberals reaction to the H1N1 situation. There is no denying that the situation was poorly handled by our government and one would hope that something positive comes out of this. The issue I have is that instead of meeting with the press to discuss what should have been done/what could be done in the upcoming days to help make things better, the Alberta Liberals chose to spend all their available time calling for Ron Liepert to be fired. They have gone as far to create a website titled liepertmustgo.com rather than using their existing website to explain how their party would have handled the situation differently and offer their expertise to help make the situation better.

To put it in a different way, a party that has members elected by the people of Alberta would rather watch the party in power crash and burn than work together to ensure Albertans get the best possible representation and services. That is not only depressing when you are watching this as an Albertan, it is frightening.

Unfortunately this is not a one way street; the disregard for the majority is shared by the other parties. The Federal PC government has had some difficulty getting legislation passed by the unelected Senate (which is another issue entirely) and instead of sitting down at the same table with those that have different viewpoints, our government feels the best course of action is to prorogue Parliament and hope that everything will work out in two months. Avoiding the problem will not solve the problem. We have become unwilling to listen, and most importantly understand, opinions that do not match our own and that is what has scared the majority away from being involved. Even people within a city have shown their inability to have a civil debate on important topics that will shape the future of our city. People believe that the louder they yell, the more likely they will get their way and this has somewhat become the truth.

The solution to this problem is not easy and will take a lot longer than one election cycle to change. For the apathetic to become involved, they will need to see that things have truly changed which means it starts with the very engaged. Reboot Alberta is a step in the right direction as it shows that people are able to come together and have a civil discussion. Simply holding a conference a couple of times a year is not enough to win that crowd over. If a politician believes the best course of action is to criticize others and not offer solutions, the engaged community must send that person a message by voting for someone else next time. I recognize this is much easier said than done as I do not see a viable alternative to vote for provincially or federally. Hopefully Renew Alberta can begin the trend of parties that are ‘for something’ more than they are against otherwise I do not know who I will vote for in the next Provincial and Federal elections. If there is one bright spot from the many apathetic people I have talked with, it is that they do want to see this change actually happen and will be willing to become involved again when this change has taken place. People may be quick to call them lazy for not getting involved to help this change come about, but when there are still people who do not acknowledge the existence of another opinion that is different from their own, it is hard to blame them – so I won’t and I hope you won’t either. The next time you see a low voter turnout in an election, before you say, “How dare someone not vote when people have died for this right?” ask yourself, “What do we need to do over the election cycle to try and increase the turnout?”

To the non-voters reading this, here is an opportunity for you to provide some insight. Comment below on this blog, visit http://inspired2vote.blogspot.com and provide a few quick comments that others will be able to learn from.

City Council Speech for November 9th, 2009 Public Hearing

November 10, 2009 Uncategorized No comments

On Friday November 13th, 2009, Council will likely be voting to approve a West and Southeast LRT line. On November 9th (yesterday), I spoke to City Council to start something positive as any proposed West LRT route will not be supported by the majority. I challenged them to stand up for what they believe in and make a decision so the West End communities can set aside their differences and work together to build something we can all support. For those of you who aren’t aware, I believe the proposed route will have the greatest potential to begin transforming our city into one where vehicles are not seen as a necessity, rather as something you may use from time to time. I also believe the other two routes that were considered – 87th Avenue/156th Street and 107th Avenue would benefit our city in different ways. They would be practical and likely cost a little less than the Stony Plain Road route. Regardless of each individual’s belief, City Council needs to make a decision to let Edmonton move forward. I believe most people are reasonable and although they are passionate about what they believe in now, they will be willing to accept another point of view if presented in a logical fashion. If you have yet to contact Council, you still have a few days left before they vote. Encourage them to make a decision as years of new studies will bring us to the same point we are today. I have copied my speech below and I hope you take the time to comment, both on my blog and to City Council on your positive vision for Edmonton.

Andrew Knack

November 9th, 2009 Public Hearing

Good morning/afternoon/evening Mayor Mandel and City Councillors. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me yet again as I know you have received many emails from me in the past few weeks. I want to be clear with everyone here today, I am here representing myself and I am NOT speaking on behalf of the Meadowlark Community League or any other group that I am a part of although I will be referencing some of the results gathered from their surveys.

I’m here today to tell you the obvious regarding the West LRT route – no matter which route you chose, there will never be a majority of interested people in support of it. All you need to do is look at the responses that I have sent and you will understand just how different people’s opinions can be. There were people in Meadowlark who support the proposed route along Stony Plain Road, 87th Avenue, 163rd Street and 107th Avenue and 170th Street and 107th Avenue. Not one of those viewpoints received over 50% of support. Looking at the results from the condo building that I live in: over 90% of the responses were in favour of the proposed route but I’m pretty certain there will be people here who tell you the exact opposite is true for their community or building.

Since we can’t reach a consensus, let’s not build a West LRT line at all. We should only build it when a majority of people will support one specific route option. I would imagine that almost everyone here realizes that this is not a realistic point of view. The City of Edmonton needs to have an LRT line that travels to the West End of Edmonton to provide residents with an efficient transit option. So what do we do if we all can’t agree? We rely on our City Council to make the very challenging decision based off what you believe is the best for Edmonton. This decision will be extremely difficult because no matter what you decide, you will likely upset the majority of interested people by either selecting the proposed route or by sending it back to Administration and proposing another route that the majority of interested West End residents will oppose.

So what things do you need to consider before voting for or against this proposed route?

For most of you, it should start when you voted in favour of the new evaluation criteria. This criteria was determined with public input and needs to be a key reference point when deciding what the best LRT route is. Do you believe in the criteria and how it may help shape our city in the future? Is there something that was not considered before, that should have been when discussing a West LRT route?

Personally, I believe the three routes that were considered are by far the best options available. In fact, if you choose not to build the proposed route but select one of the other two options today, I will be almost as happy. I do not believe the other two routes would have the same positive impact on the city as the route along Stony Plain Road would but at least they would provide West End residents with some benefits. I am supporting this proposed route because I want to see the communities flourish and businesses succeed; I disagree with the notion that an LRT line will cause less people to come to Stony Plain Road. Over the past year, I have spoken with many people who have never taken a walk, let alone shopped, along Stony Plain Road. Continuing the status quo is not going to bring in new residents or customers.

Assuming the city works together with the communities and businesses, Stony Plain Road has the opportunity to become a landmark destination. It could be one of the few areas not located downtown where residents can live, work and play. I recognize that placing an LRT along Stony Plain Road is not the only step needed to revitalize this area, but with a bold vision and more importantly, outstanding execution, it can be an anchor in redevelopment.

If Council chooses any route today, I will be more than willing to organize and participate in community meetings with the city and help develop a plan that will make a successful West LRT network. To all the people in attendance, no matter if you support the proposed route, 87th Avenue, 163rd Street and 107th Avenue or any other route, I hope that you recognize that no individual’s vision for this city is wrong. We may not agree in that vision, but know thatwe all want what is best for the city. More than half of you will probably not agree with whatever route is selected today, but we can all agree that the only way to move forward after the selection is made will be to get as many communities together to understand the needs of one another and create something that the majority can support.

Thank you again for taking the time to listen to my view on this important issue and I hope that Council will make their decision based off what it best for all of Edmonton.

The Great LRT Debate

September 30, 2009 City Issues, Transportation 3 comments

For those that know me, I’m going to start with an obvious statement – LRT travelling to the West End of Edmonton is very exciting.  It is at least a decade late and the earliest that we will have LRT running to the West is 10 years.  I’m not going to dwell on the fact that it has taken so long as that doesn’t help the city move forward.  What does need to be discussed is why the city needs to approve the proposed route so that we can begin planning and construction of this route.  If you were to search my previous postings on the site www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum you would discover that I was a big supporter of the 87th Ave route because I felt, and still feel, that this is the quickest route to the University (speed to Downtown is debatable depending on where you live).  Since that time, the city along with input from the residents of Edmonton have changed their criteria used to select a recommended LRT route.  Speed is no longer the primary factor in choosing the best route; land use (ex: redevelopment opportunity) is now the main factor used to select the route.  To emphasize the last sentence, this decision to change the criteria was not done solely by the city, there were many opportunities for interested citizens to offer their opinion and ensure their voices were heard.  Therefore it is important for everyone to approach the proposed route with the new criteria and not using speed as the one of the only deciding factors.  In case you do not know the proposed route, click on the following link http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/west-lrt.aspx and read a bit about it before you continue reading this entry.

Understanding what the city hopes to accomplish with LRT in our city, I am definitely in support of the proposed route along Stony Plain Road (SPR) and 104th Ave to Grant MacEwan.  Of course I still have some concerns as I’m sure I would if one of the other two routes were recommended.  Even with some concerns, I believe that this route has the greatest potential to transform our city into a place that provides a great balance of urban and suburban living.  There is no way for us to change the current amount of sprawl and instead of shunning it and pretending like it doesn’t exist, we need to embrace it and work to minimize future sprawl.  Take a look at the areas that this LRT will travel along, there are many opportunities to rezone some not so great places into some fantastic low to mid-rise condos/apartments that are family-oriented.  The condo I live in is a perfect example of the right way to improve an area.  Three years ago, the place where our three storey sixty-three unit condo now sits was home to seven houses that were not of the greatest quality.  We have helped change the density of this neighbourhood while not taking away from its identity and in fact, I have seen many examples of how this complex has improved the community.  Density doesn’t have to be a frightening word to those who live in the more mature neighbourhoods.  If approached with an open mind, LRT can change communities for the better which of course will have an overall positive impact on everyone in the city.

The next reason we should be supporting this route is because Stony Plain Road needs it.  It should be noted that members of the Glenwood Community League and others are working hard to transform this area and we should not discount all the work they have completed to this point.  I have a lot of respect for them as they do want what is best for their community and city.  At this particular moment in time, I feel the greatest benefit would be achieved if the LRT ran right along the middle of Stony Plain Road.  Many businesses on SPR have said that they would support the LRT travelling along 100th Ave instead of SPR as they feel they would go out of business due to lack of customers.  I can sympathize with this point and if they are able to produce a solid business case that proves that they will lose business, in the long run, I would be willing to support the 100th Ave approach.  Currently, I feel many of these businesses do not have a firm grasp as to what SPR could look like in 30 years and that is why they feel the LRT would harm their businesses.  My view of future SPR is much more of a European feel that has reputable businesses on the first and second floors, followed by many floors of mixed density condos.  The hard part is being the person that tells these business owners that you will have to sacrifice your livelihood in order to make it better for the future generations.  With all of that being said, I will remain open to the idea of 100th Ave instead of SPR if a proper business case can be put forward to prove that Stony Plain Road will be more successful in redeveloping without LRT than with.  Customers will not suddenly stop visiting your business as long as you have been providing them with exceptional product or services.  I couldn’t imagine suddenly abandoning a business that I’ve used for years just because of a bit of construction and I do not feel the majority would do that either.  With just over a month left, I hope the businesses will provide us with concrete numbers rather than trying to say that the city doesn’t care about them.  I think the only way to overcome years of a negative view of SPR is to introduce something that will drastically change the structure of that road.  This road could have the potential to become as successful, if not more than Whyte Ave but we need to put our full support behind it as a city to create the results.

One other point I want to discuss are the Central communities like Grovenor.  I have been fortunate enough to have contact with an active member of this community who has been fighting to keep their school open for years.  Their community lost many of the young families to the suburbs and it resulted in a significant decline in enrollment to their school.  Over the past three years, they have been threatened with closure and only finally have they started to see an increase in students attending their school.  I am not speaking for the community but I have been told that they would be very supportive of the proposed route assuming they rezone some areas in their neighbourhoods to higher density family units.  By making family units available in their community, they would see an ever greater increase in enrollment and their school would be there to stay.  LRT should be viewed as a catalyst to creating a stronger community.

Now let us talk about the financial benefit of this LRT route.  Although Public Transit will not directly provide the city with money, a well designed system that maximizes new ridership will save us money in other areas.  Unlike the 87th Ave route, which would ultimately shift the bus ridership to LRT ridership, the SPR route has the opportunity to generate new ridership in many different areas along this route.  The result is less strain on our roads which will reduce the cost of road maintenance over the long-run.  A LRT system that encourages higher density will also bring new money into existing and new business that can open nearby or on the main floor of a new multi-unit complex.  Increased density also means that the city does not need to build new fire halls or police stations; they can use the money to hire new police officers that will be able to patrol the neighbourhoods.  Obviously we can never be certain, but it seems to me that the SPR/104th Ave route will provide the greatest financial benefit to both the residents of the city and business owners.

LRT will not solve the density problem overnight nor will it be able to change our city on its own.  It is part of a network which if properly implemented, can help us become the city we asked for in the Municipal Development Plan.  Our population will be increasing by hundreds of thousands over the next 40 years and there will still be a large amount of those people who choose to drive.  We have to work to change the perception of driving in Edmonton from a need to an option.  There probably will be congestion on Stony Plain Road and many other major roadways in the beginning, but as the generations change, instead of people feeling that being a driver makes then a second class citizen getting the short end of the stick, the next generations will know that driving is not the primary mode of transportation.

I do not want to suggest that we all blindly support the planning department and City Council, it is very important that we do question those making the final decision to ensure that they consider everything.  I do believe the city has thought of most things during this phase of LRT planning.  They were able to address many of the points discussed in the information sessions and have put a lot of work into this plan.  Although, there is even more information available than what has been presented at the information sessions which is frustrating because I think that this knowledge would help address many, if not all of the issues for people.  When the city was recommending the 87th Ave route, they did a poor job of alleviating concerns and convincing Edmontonians that it was the best choice for the city.  Personally, based off the evaluation criteria, the only route that achieves the necessary goals is the proposed route that will be going before City Council on November 9th.  Now it is our responsibility as the citizens who helped determine the criteria to work together and ensure that all our voices are heard.  This cannot be about any specific community as this LRT system is for the entire city.  The entire city benefits from efficient transit that increases density and helps business flourish.  The entire city benefits when we allow communities to keep their schools open and bring in new families to mature neighbourhoods.  Most importantly, we can work together as a group of communities to ensure that we become the city that so many of us desire.  When it comes to this LRT route, make sure you look further than your front door or your community boundaries and think farther than the current or next generation because we need to make the choice that maximizes the benefits for Edmonton, both now and in the future.

Andrew Knack

12 Wards are better than 6

July 17, 2009 Elections, Politics One comment

On July 22nd, 2009 City Council will be voting to create 12 wards with one councillor per ward or maintain the status quo which is 6 wards with two councillors per ward.  This issue has not garnered the same attention as the recent City Centre Airport debate but it could as important because this will have a significant impact on the quality of our representation in City Hall.  As you may know, I ran for City Council in Ward 1 in October 2007 and unfortunately was not successful.  I will also be running for Council in 2010 and expect a more positive result.  On a personal (aka: selfish) level, having 12 wards will make it harder for me to get elected but it is the right decision for the City of Edmonton to allow the best quality candidates to rise to the top.  I’ll be addressing some specific points over the next few paragraphs to explain to you why it is in our best interests to have 12 wards.

Accountability - This is easily the most important reason to support having 1 councillor per ward.  Our existing system has two councillors representing over 100,000 people and certain communities may not be heard if there are some very vocal/powerful communities.  Even though there are two people to contact, both may be too focused on the same issue and might not be able to dedicate the time necessary to address every concern.  One councillor representing a smaller ward ensures that they have to listen to every voice or else they might not have a job 3 years later.  This also guarantees that one councillor doesn’t have the opportunity to take credit for anything they weren’t a part of.

Accessibility to Run – Running a campaign is not cheap and in order to get your message out to the masses, you need to fund-raise quite a bit of money.  A person should not need to spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to have a chance at getting noticed.  Running in a ward half the size of the existing wards allows the candidates with a smaller budget to get their message out to voters which will encourage people to vote for the best candidate and not the person who has the most signs along the road.  It is unlikely that the election finance rules will drastically change overnight which adds another reason to support 12 smaller wards.

Quality of Candidates – This would be the other very important argument to support 12 wards.  Since voters will no longer have two choices each election, they need to be certain their vote is well researched.  With two councillors representing each ward, people could use one vote for a more experienced candidate and then be willing to take a chance on one of the new people running to try and get some ‘fresh blood’ in Council.  At first look, this may appear to be a positive but there is a great deal of risk associated with this plan.  Voters may have not taken the time necessary to properly examine the small details of the new person’s platform which could result in some very inexperienced people in charge of our city.  With the new ward system in place, newcomers will have to be at their best in order to knock off an incumbent as voters will be not be as willing to take a chance on a new face.  Competition will help create better quality public servants.

This concept is not without flaws.  One concern I have with this plan is that councillors may become so focused on their ward that they forget about the rest of the city.  There will be times that a bylaw put forward to City Council may not benefit a particular ward, but has a proven benefit to the majority of the city.  Since councillors will now be representing a smaller area, they may not want to work towards making Edmonton better if it could be seen as a negative in the short term.  Hopefully, the citizens of Edmonton will recognize that working without a long-term vision will ultimately harm this city and will vote with that long-term thought process in mind.  Candidates will also need to work harder in communicating long-term strategy during a campaign which should alleviate any possible concerns among the voting population.

Moving to a 12 ward system has many benefits to offer our city with little risk involved.  No matter where you sit in the political spectrum, this is a plan that everyone should get behind so why not send a quick email to all the City Councillors to let them know you are in favour of more accountability in our local government and having 12 wards instead of 6 will accomplish this goal.  Plus, make sure to add your owns reasons for supporting a 12 ward city.  On the other hand, you may not agree that this is such a great idea and if that is the case, add your comments to this post and tell me something that I may not have thought of.

Andrew Knack

City Centre Airport Debate

June 28, 2009 Uncategorized No comments

As you may know, City Councillors will be voting on July 8th to close the City Centre Airport or keep it open.  This has been quite a heated debate with both sides presenting strong points.  I have read many of the reports and talked to people on both sides of the issue and with the information I have read, I feel it is time to close this airport.  Instead of writing out my points, I’m going to post my speech that I gave to City Council at the public hearing on Friday June 26th.  This issue will have a huge impact on the direction of our city in the future and therefore you should take some time to learn about this issue if you haven’t started already and make sure you email the councillors or call 311 to give your opinion on this issue.  Plus, I hope you will add your comments with your thoughts.

Andrew Knack

“Good morning Mayor Mandel and Councillors,

Thank you for giving me a chance to come this morning and express my opinion. I was only able to listen to the debates on the City of Edmonton website and was very pleased to hear that I would have one last chance to speak to you. I come to you as a 25 year old retail manager who has a business degree from the University of Alberta. I live in the City of Edmonton and am very interested in the future of our city. I am not a member of a group on either side and do not have a vested interest in this debate other than wanting to do everything possible to help our city succeed.

You have heard numerous speakers on both sides of the debate provide you with numbers and facts that I will not argue either way. I have read reports on both sides but due to my lack of expertise in many of these fields, I cannot give an educated reply to those points. It’s because of this fact that I have realized that – as silly as it sounds – this debate is not about the facts, as both sides can prove each other’s information as inaccurate. This debate needs to be about your vision for the City of Edmonton and how keeping this airport open or closing it will help you achieve that vision.

I cannot take credit for that last sentence, as that was a challenge put forward by Mayor Mandel to those who want to keep the airport open. Now that you have heard a number of the people speak you have to ask yourself, did the pro-City Centre Airport group give me the answers I need to achieve my vision? Personally, from the people I heard, I did not get that answer. The same arguments that have been discussed time and time again, were brought up one more time, and yet, not one person explained how the keeping this airport open will help Edmonton become something more.

This vision which was put forward to you in the Municipal Development Plan was one of a very different city than we currently have. Redeveloping the lands can help us begin a new chapter in our future.

Some people were concerned about the potential loss of life due to a possible increase in travel time but I feel there is another way of looking at this. If our vision of redeveloped lands includes NAIT expansion, maybe one of their future students will be the one to create a new, safer and more efficient way of transporting patients to hospitals. To assume that we will still be using the same methods of transporting patients that we currently use is unrealistic, if we increase the investment in our future generations; we are likely to grow at a faster rate.

Some were concerned about the costs associated with redevelopment and the potential loss of businesses but again, I feel there is another way of looking at this. If our vision of redeveloped lands includes a home for 20-30,000 people where each person can work, live and play and our goal is to create a denser city where we experience a more efficient use of our resources, then maybe this development will be just the beginning. In fact, it could become our model for any future redevelopment for areas such as Stony Plain Road and Downtown. By increasing density, businesses will spend less on overhead costs as they won’t have to build a new building to reach their customers on the far ends of our city, instead they can spend that extra money on hiring additional people within their existing establishments to provide services to their increased traffic.

These are only some of the benefits of closing the City Centre Airport and how it allows the city to achieve its vision put forth in the Municipal Development Plan. I would like to put forward a challenge not to the businesses and stakeholders as they had their opportunity and chose only to try and use scare tactics rather than present an original argument, but instead my challenge goes out to those Councillors who are determined to keep the airport open: instead of telling the citizens of Edmonton what might go wrong if we close the City Centre Airport, educate us as to how keeping the airport open will allow us to become a better city. Give your colleagues in Council and the people of Edmonton your vision of our city in the future and why the City Centre Airport needs to be a part of that. And if you can’t provide us with that vision, maybe it’s time to look at the other ideas brought forth by those who support the closure of this airport and realize that the pro-closure people want what’s best for this city and would rather create opportunity for the majority of Edmontonians than allow something to stay open that only benefits a small percentage.

Thank you for your time.”

Thoughts From My Trip to Italy

June 3, 2009 Uncategorized No comments

It’s been far too long since my last blog post but over the past few months I have gotten married, gone on about a month long honeymoon and combined two households.  Now that things have started to settle down, I can finally get back into my blog.  Today’s post will be a little different than my normal ones as I’m going to take a lot of what I wrote on the www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum website and post it on my blog.

Just over two months ago I was lucky enough to get married. For our honeymoon, my wife Jamie and I took a three week trip to Italy. Now I’m the type of person who travels to more of the “touristy” spots, I love Disney and have been there an unhealthy amount of times in my 25 years alive.  With that said, getting to experience a different culture for three weeks was quite eye opening and I feel there are a lot of great ideas from Italy that could be brought over to Edmonton to help our city grow.  There are also a few things that Edmonton does really well but doesn’t get the recognition it deserves.  In this thread, I’m going to talk about the good and the not so good on a broad scale.   If you have been to another European city and have some thoughts of your own, add them to the list.  This list won’t contain the small details as I realize that some of the points that I mention might never work in Edmonton but I would still like to see them here in my ideal world.  To give a quick background of our trip, we spent 3 days just outside Palermo (a city of about 1 million people), 3 days in Catania, 7 days in Naples and finally 7 days in Rome.

1. Positive for Edmonton – The zero tolerance policy for graffiti.  All the cities we visited during our trip are beautiful, from far away.  When you get up close, the city really loses a lot of it charm as it is covered in graffiti.  Now Edmonton’s policy isn’t perfect, but I believe all of these cities could learn a bit from Edmonton when it comes to dealing with graffiti.  It doesn’t always seem fair when a homeowner or business has to pay for something that they didn’t do, but I have a feeling that those who do act quickly once they notice graffiti on their property will benefit in the long run.  I have always thought that if graffiti was cleaned off on a daily basis without acknowledging the existence of it, the problem would stop very quickly.  If the ‘artists’ don’t get any recognition, they will have no reason to continue.

2. Opportunity for Edmonton – Lack of public transit from the airport.  This has been talked about in previous threads so I won’t discuss it for too long but why can’t I take a bus to and from my airport!!!  As mentioned above, Palermo has a population of almost 1 million and is served by both bus and train.  I could have taken a cab approximately 25km and paid 140 Euros, but instead we paid 6 Euros to take the train to a station nearby our hotel and we were then picked up by our hotel shuttle and arrived at our hotel within minutes.  We are a city of close to 1 million people and all I’m asking for is a bus that will take people to and from the airport.  A train would be nice, but I don’t think we have enough people visiting our airport on a yearly basis to justify the train.  The bus should have been servicing our airport quite some time ago – this needs to start immediately.

3. Positive for Edmonton – Bus service.  Now before you think I’ve lost my mind, I’m not saying that Edmonton Transit Service is efficient.  In fact, I think ETS needs a complete overhaul so that people will actually consider using it.  But there is one thing that I appreciate having after having been to Italy, listing the approximate times of the bus arriving.  Again, I know that the listed times in Edmonton for the bus to arrive at the major destination points is plus or minus 5 minutes, but at least I have an idea when they were going to show up.  In Italy, specifically Rome, there were listed times, but the only one you could be certain about showing up within a reasonable amount of the listed time was the first bus.  The bus we took was supposed to come every 15 minutes but there were many times that 2 from the same route would show up within minutes of each other.  In my years of taking ETS, I never remember it being that bad.  We do need to fix quite a bit about our transit system, but having the listed times and showing up within a reasonable amount of that time is greatly appreciated.

4. Opportunity for Edmonton – Bus/LRT frequency.  The Marriott hotel we stayed at in Rome could be compared to the Marriott at River Cree in terms of distance from the centre of the city.  I never expected to be so far away from the centre of the city (I have to do more research when choosing hotels) but considering the distance, we had a bus running every 15 minutes from about 5:00am – 12:00am from the hotel to Line B of their subway system.  It made it extremely easy to hop on a bus and go wherever we wanted in Rome.  Even I felt the frequency to our hotel was a little excessive considering the lack of population around the area but what it did show is that transit is a priority in Rome.  This is another topic that has had a number of threads but it is important for Edmonton to make public transit the primary choice for people who are going to work/school/shop.  This means that we have to have greater frequency for buses later in the evening instead of reducing service at 5 or 6 in the evening.  Their subway system runs in 3 – 6 minutes intervals from morning until night.  That’s fantastic!

5. Positive for Edmonton – Great Italian food in our city.  I don’t recall a point in our trip when I left a meal still hungry.  The food was incredible and we fortunately have a restaurant in Edmonton that makes the food as well as what we experienced in Italy.  The Italian Kitchen in Callingwood manages to mimic the best food we had during our trip on a daily basis.  The food is cheap but the quality is unmatched in my opinion.  The bruschetta is by far my favourite food.

6. Positive for Edmonton – Consumer choice.  I’m not a fan of how spread out this city is and since we can’t make our city shrink in size, we can only increase the density (which I will be discussing in the next point).  The one positive we should take from all of this is the amount of choice – both brands and stores – we have as consumers.  If you needed sunscreen in Italy, which I do because I only take about 5 minutes to burn when standing outside, the only spot you could get it was their Farmacia (Pharmacy) and they only had a few options for brands.  I personally like having the option of selecting from many different brands and I hope I will continue to have that choice.  How we develop these future stores is what this city needs to work on which brings me to…

7. Opportunity for Edmonton – Lack of density in Edmonton.  According to Wikipedia which should be everyone’s first stop for accurate news (end sarcasm), we cover more area than Chicago, Toronto and Montreal yet have a much lower population.  I believe most people know that European cities are far denser but that they are scared of being so close together and losing their ability to get away from the world or whatever the reason is for people wanting to live in the suburbs.  I came across a fantastic area that I need to post pictures of (once I figure out how to post pictures properly) that could be a perfect middle ground for those that want their own space versus those who want high rise buildings everywhere possible.  On our second last day in Italy we took the train to a spot that was more along the outside of the city while offering all the amenities of being downtown.  I’m not very good at judging space but from what I could tell, the area would have been the size of West Edmonton Mall but within that space it contained approximately 12 seven or eight story condo buildings, a 24 screen movie theatre, a bowling alley and casino was also in the same building, a 2 story mall that had the Italian version of a Wal-Mart Supercentre and the Italian version of Best Buy, clothing stores galore, at least one major bank and a number of great spots to each (coffee spots and full restaurants).  The distance between each building was about the distance separating the businesses on either side of Whyte Ave.  There were no parking spots above ground, they built a 3 level parkade underneath and the area was served by the city train and their bus system.  To walk from corner to corner of this area it would probably only take you 5 or so minutes but one person could actually live in the area without ever having to leave if they didn’t want to. On the first floor of each condo were more businesses and the second floor had more office-like businesses (insurance and such).  This area felt quite spread out due to the wide distance between buildings but housed more people that probably our most dense area in the city of similar size.  This is what I picture when I look at what I want Edmonton to become.  I think this is the best of both worlds and it would actually make both sides happy while benefiting the city as a whole.

What do you think?  Do you feel we need to increase the density of our city?  If not, how do you propose we pay for the costs necessary to increase our infrastructure?  This is by far one of the most important issues that our city needs to address in the near future and therefore your comments are needed to help shape our future.

Andrew Knack

How Do We Grow?

February 17, 2009 City Issues No comments

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses and I will be adding to those points in the future.  The topic today was formed from the comments on my last post as they bring up a larger issue that should be addressed.  Let me start with what I learned a few years ago as I was finishing my business degree at the University of Alberta.  I am not the centre of the world and neither is any one individual.  Now before you groan and click on the “back” button, I’m not suggesting that we turn into a society where you trade a chicken to get your car repaired and we sit around a campfire every night singing songs but I am suggesting that each person should be conscious of how their actions can impact others.  The idea has been talked about many times by many different people but it doesn’t seem like people actually understand that in order to have the greatest positive impact on their own lives, one must be socially responsible.  It may seem odd that it took me 23 of my 25 years that I have been alive to learn this but I am fairly certain that many people still haven’t learned this.

You may be asking, “Why should I care about society?  No one is looking after me so I need to look after myself first.”  Now think about that for a moment, if everyone is looking after themselves without any concern about the impact on the rest of the world, how great will your life really be?  Your actions may have a negative impact on another group, which may result in the other group acting in their best interests which could have a potential negative impact on you (continue the spiral downwards).  But since the decisions being made are reactive, you don’t care about the results.  Let’s use idling as an example: You choose to idle your car for an extended period of time because it allows you to get into a warm vehicle – positive result on the individual.  The emissions from your vehicle idling harm the environment – negative impact on society, the degree of damage can be debated but I’m just using idling as an example to the overall point.  I am asking everyone why are these actions still acceptable in people’s eyes?  The positive is only on a personal level and is not required to complete the task and there is a proven negative impact for the majority of the people.  Is it a case of people thinking that no one else is being socially responsible and until the rest of the people start acting socially responsible, that is when they will start acting in the best interests of everyone instead of just themselves.  Or is it that people have just never taken the time to actually consider how their actions impact others?  In my case, it was both reasons that caused me to forget about how the rest of the world was affected.  I never used to recycle as it was inconvenient to make a special trip just to drop off paper and cardboard.  I understand now that my reason for not recycling really isn’t acceptable and I believe that it shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.  What gave me the right to ignore the benefits to society just so I could have an extra 10 minutes of time for myself?  After reflecting on how I used to act, almost every decision I made was based off a me-first mentality.  Now I’m still not perfect and I can’t imagine ever being perfect when making decisions, but I do try and make a conscious effort to understand how most of my decisions will affect the majority and then I make my choice.  Maybe surprising to most people, I still have a good life and there have been very few lifestyle changes.  One can actually balance personal needs and social responsibility and in fact, I feel better about the daily choices I make.

The point of this post is that it is not difficult to take an moment and reflect on how your lifestyle choice can impact others and that if everyone took that extra moment, maybe our city/province/country/world would be a more enjoyable place to live.  Now this brings me to the next question that you may be asking, “Why does it matter if the city/province/country/world is a better place to live in?”  I believe that a lot of people may believe that opinion to a certain degree.  Look at the voter turnout we had in Edmonton last time (28.6%), that number is quite embarrasing because when you think about it, no level of government affects your day-to-day life more than municipal.  They are the ones who maintain our basic services like roads and transit as well our emergency services like police.  The people running for office have a responsibility to the people to ensure they make their platform available to as many people as possible and to show everyone why it is important to be involved.  After those two things have been completed, the responsibility falls solely on the voter to take even 30 minutes out of a 45 day span to learn about their candidates.  When I was knocking on doors last campaign, the majority of people who didn’t vote in the previous election said either that their vote wouldn’t really make a difference or that they didn’t know enough about the people running.  So when someone said that they didn’t know enough about the people running, it makes me wonder what their life plans are.  I will also pose this thought to those reading, think about where you will be living in the next 5 years or beyond.  Now some of you may have plans to travel from place to place not wanting to settle down in one area for an extended period of time, but if you are the person who is planning on being in the same city/etc. over the next few years, why haven’t you taken the time to vote in the elections, recycle or attempt to make your place of residence a better place to live with the smallest of actions?  The success of the place you live in is just as important to your quality of life.

When you actually say that question out loud and take even one minute to think about it, you begin to realize how silly it sounds to say that you don’t care about the consequences of your actions on others.  In fact, it even sounds quite selfish – at least it did to me.  It was two years ago that I had this internal dialogue and when I started to realize that the selfish attitude I had, was actually making the world a less desirable place to live.  As I mentioned at the beginning, I’m not suggesting that people sell all of their possessions and dedicate their lives to improving the world with no regard for your own satisfaction.  I still like earning money, buying material goods, relaxing at home and just having an enjoyable life.  But now I realize that I can still have these things while not making it harder for others to achieve this same goal.  I want to make this city a better and more desirable place to live because it will improve both my own and society’s quality of life.

This is the point where you get to respond.  Think about what you do on a regular basis.  Do you drive a few blocks when you could have walked?  Do you throw out the bottle of water you drank instead of waiting an extra 5 minutes when you pass by the recycling bin?  Do you let your car warm up for 10-20 minutes in the morning because you want to get in a warm car instead of only running it the 2 or 3 minutes actually needed?  (I realize that some cars do need longer start up times.  This is a general comment that is trying to get you to think about the bigger picture.  I’m am not revisiting the idling debate on this blog post).  If you find yourself saying yes to these type of questions, like I did, ask yourself why.  I’m not proposing we have bylaws on every action that only has a positive impact on the individual and a negative impact on society as telling people how to live their lives would not solve the problem.  We need to change the attitude that got us to this point by getting people to understand that their actions impact the rest of society.  Please leave your thoughts on this topic in the comments section and introduce some new ideas.  The more we share our ideas, the better the chance we bring about a positive change.

Andrew Knack

Idling in Edmonton

January 28, 2009 City Issues One comment

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion regarding a potential anti-idling bylaw in the city of Edmonton which would fine individuals $250 if they left their car running for more than 3 minutes at -10 Celsius or above.  This bylaw seemed to have public opinion against it, but when people had their chance to speak, approximately only 20 people showed up to City Hall and every person who showed up was in favour of the bylaw.  Now I must admit that until Wednesday night (January 21st) I was completely against this bylaw.  After taking some time to research this a bit more as well as attending a City Council meeting on Wednesday where they happened to be discussing this exact issue, I have had a change of heart.

First, let me explain what I witnessed the night before when my fiancé and I were out on a stroll to Meadowlark Mall. As we approached the Shoppers Drug Mart a vehicle pulled into a handicap stall and a family of three got out to go do some shopping. The problem is that this family did not have handicapped people with them and there was no sign on their window or sticker on their license plate, plus they left their vehicle running.  Now we also had shopping to do so I decided to note the time just to see how long they might be. After a 3 or 4 minute trip into Shoppers and about a 7 minute trip to Zellers, we came out and saw that the family of three was just getting into their vehicle after making their purchases.  As we were walking back home, another vehicle pulled into a handicap stall and almost did the exact same thing.  The difference is that the passenger got out of the car and the driver sat in her seat with the car running.  After about 7 minutes of waiting to see how long they might be, we finally left.  We started to talk and I would like to know what others think too, what should we have done? It was later in the evening and I believe that if I approached this woman’s vehicle to speak with her, she might not have opened her window or even if she did, she might have got defensive at the suggestion that she shouldn’t be parked in a handicap stall and leave her car idling for such a long time. There is also a chance that she would react positively to the feedback and immediately move her vehicle and turn off her car. I just didn’t feel comfortable saying anything at that time because I didn’t really know how to best handle that situation.  On an aside, I recognize that the idling wasn’t the only thing that they were doing wrong but for the sake of this particular blog entry, I am going to focus on this point only.

It was at this point that we were trying to understand why people would idle for such a long period of time and the only real reasons we could think of is that people feel that idling doesn’t have a major impact on the world, that it’s ‘better’ for their vehicle and it is just more convenient to idle instead of turning off and on their car. Even after witnessing what we did, we didn’t feel that a bylaw would have the desired impact because I believe that a lot of people react negatively if someone else tries to “tell them what to do” and misunderstand the purpose of the bylaw. Now we were trying to decide what a marketing campaign would consist of in order to bring about the desired change.  The idea that my fiancé thought of is that we need to teach these people that although idling might seem more convenient at that moment, it will ultimately use up more time in the long run because you will have to fill up your gas tank more often or take your vehicle in for a tune up sooner than someone who doesn’t idle.  As much as I like this idea, I don’t know how much people would listen because there was a city campaign that they did last year which “failed” according to Mayor Mandel (he said this at the Council meeting on Wednesday).

During the Council meeting on Wednesday is where my opinion really began to shift from only education to a combined approach of education followed by implementation of a bylaw – which is what Council decided on to a degree.  The first criticism that this bylaw has received is that it will pit people against one another as neighbours will be calling the bylaw officer on one another.  This is an unfair point because currently, any person can call bylaw enforcement about any existing bylaw and we haven’t seen everyone walking around the city with a phone and camera recording and calling in every infraction. Why would this bylaw suddenly change what has been happening for years?  The next point of contention has been that people say they need to warm up their car because it’s bad to drive off without warming it up for 10 or 20 minutes. Now I am not a car person at all (I don’t even know how to check my oil) but from what I have learned from those who do seem to know, it has been proven that it harms a vehicle when idling for a long period of time. Even in very cold conditions such as -20 or below, it still doesn’t benefit the vehicle to be running for more than about 1 or 2 minutes.  It seems to me that people haven’t been educated enough on this topic to know any better. The final concern, which was the reason I was originally against a bylaw, was that we would be wasting money trying to enforce this new bylaw.  It was a great day to go to the Council meeting because my assumption was false. In fact, the suggestion was brought forward that the parking officers would be given the authority to also write tickets for idling which would mean that there would be no new money spent in the enforcement of this bylaw.

With all of this information and speaking with some other people who were attending the meeting, both for and against the bylaw, I have changed my opinion. I think that the city is right to start with an educational campaign, if marketed properly, and then bring in a bylaw to ensure compliance.  Ideally, there should be no need for a bylaw with proper education, but sometimes it is necessary that the city set a standard so that everyone knows what is an acceptable level of idling.  The main issue I have with the proposed bylaw is that there are too many exceptions to the rule.  There really can’t be an in-between on this because then you get into the silly thought of bylaw officers carrying around a thermometer to be certain that the temperature is above -10.  I actually think if the city is to bring in a bylaw, we should be more strict by not allowing idling for more than 3 minutes at all.  From the information that is available, it seems that idling more than 3 minutes at temperature less than -10 is unnecessary and actually damages your vehicle.  I realize that we live in a winter city, but if there is no good reason for idling your car other than having a warm car to get into, then I feel that we should set a standard for the city of Edmonton. But as mentioned, this bylaw should not be implemented before a proper campaign otherwise people may just get defensive because people are taking away their right to do whatever they want and then the education would fall on deaf ears.

After my experience Tuesday night, I know that I can’t sit back and accept the status quo because if this happened twice in less than 20 minutes, it must be a widespread problem.    I realize that the degree to which idling impacts the world can be debated, but I don’t think there is anyone who actually thinks that idling has a positive impact on the world.  Therefore, my thought is that if an action only has a positive impact on the individual and has a negative impact on the majority of people, we should ensure as a community, that we have a set standard.  Now if you are really against this bylaw, what ways can we change the attitude of these people and how do we communicate the message so that people will listen?  Or maybe you think that these people shouldn’t have to change their attitude, in which case, do you think people should stop concerning themselves with a topic that really doesn’t have a drastic impact on the world and why?

Andrew Knack

 

On an unrelated note, I have already received my first question and I will be responding to it in the near future.  As I mentioned in my introduction post, I rely on the interaction of everyone reading this blog to keep it active and growing.  I hope that the majority of you comment on this post and send me questions to aknack@telus.net.  Thanks again for taking the time to read this blog and offering your own thoughts.

« Older Entries