CivicScene is back in the saddle with a holiday diet and a blogging schedule that once again need a steady regimen.

I have returned to the blogging horse, a little more weighty from no less than three holiday dinners within four days – a condition, I might add, that I fully intend to begin working off sometime today.

Today I am struck by two columns by two of Vancouver’s most respected scribes – Rod Mickleburgh of the Globe and Mail and Allen Garr of the Vancouver Courier – that offer assessments on two of Mayor Gregor Robertson’s most prominent and contentious policy directions over the past year.

There can be little argument with the fact that Vision Vancouver’s victory in last year’s civic election was predicated on a strong commitment to tackle homelessness in addition to a stated intention to create dedicated bike lanes on the Burrard Bridge (the former obviously having a far greater impact than the latter).

So if both of these policies were clearly articulated within the context of an election campaign that returned a decisive victory for the party proposing them, then it is safe to say that a majority of Vancouver’s electorate embraced them as something they were willing to see implemented.

This of course didn’t stop certain members of the outgoing regime from doing their damnedest to work up fervour to the contrary.

“…failed bike lane trials making the Burrard Bridge far too narrow for car traffic, thus providing open lanes for about a dozen riders per day…”

“The root of this growing problem was Robertson’s eagerness to score a few political points by opening the shelters quickly…”

“No matter where you turn, the comments keep rolling in on what is surely going to be labeled by Vancouver commuters as Gregor’s Gridlock in time for the June lane closures.”

Well, as 2009 draws to a close, let’s read some excerpts from Garr and Mickleburgh following the implementation of both of these decisions:

“One of the undeniable successes of this past year was the implementation of the five HEAT shelters.”

“Restricting one of the bridge’s six lanes to bicycles worked right off the bat. Five and a half months later, it’s still working.”

“Those shelters took 500 of the city’s most difficult to house folks off the streets. The impact was immediate. The DVBIA, the Downtown Business in Improvement Association, monitored the homeless situation over the next several months and reported several outcomes: The incidents of trespass dropped as fewer people sought refuge sleeping rough out on the streets. The reports of aggressive panhandling dropped while passive panhandling went up arguably because more people were being fed and receiving treatment through shelters and the staff servicing them. They were less desperate to fill their bellies and beginning to find some order in their lives.”

“It’s working,” said the city’s assistant transportation engineer, Jerry Dobrovolny.  Overall, bike traffic on the bridge is 26 per cent higher, Mr. Dobrovolny said, while vehicle crossings are down slightly and pedestrian use is up slightly.  The big thing is, there are no delays on the bridge itself. There have been added delays of perhaps a minute or two elsewhere, but the data shows people are changing their habits.  The success of the experiment is a feather in the cap for the city’s biking mayor, Gregor Robertson.”

“If there was a failure it was in a complete lack of effective consultation with the neighbours, particularly around the two shelters at the north end of the Granville Bridge, by either city staff or Robertson and his council.  But those missteps were just a distraction from the real point of the exercise.”

“The previous, right-of-centre council had bowed to the bleating of the car lobby, opting for a plan to widen the sidewalks for $30-million rather than simply give the bike lane a try.”

Now I agree with the NPA’s Sean Bickerton (something I am beginning to do more regularly these days) when he states that “opening shelters is not a plan to end homelessness.”  I also understand that whereas the promise of two cycling lanes were a part of the Vision platform, only one was feasible enough to execute upon.

Nonetheless, these are bold steps that required political will, capital, and quite frankly bravery.  You don’t take out a lane on a major artery into downtown Vancouver after a complete failure in 1996 without realizing the risks involved.  You also don’t expect not to have to face typical Vancouver NIMBY residents at one corner or another of the city who don’t like people without a home being visible from their windows.

But at the end of the day, with news helicopters and live radio broadcasts just itching for the bridge trial to fail, and angry residents swinging golf clubs at people they deem to be risks, Council still pushed ahead.

The fact is that making the city more conducive to other forms of transportation than the car (particularly with reference to the downtown core and people’s places of employment) and giving the homeless access to shelter until more permanent housing can be introduced in cooperation with the province (screw the feds…they just don’t care) are sound policy decisions.

Politics can be about taking the lowest common denominator and milking it for everything it’s worth.  Thankfully, this City Council isn’t about to rest on that kind of a strategy to get them through to the next civic election in 2011.

An editorial that now falls flat on its face.

With the three-month anniversary of the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial having occurred on Monday, and in consideration of how well it has gone, I thought that I would post this humourous email that was sent out back in July by CKNW’s Jon McComb from The World Today to one of CivicScene’s regular readers:

Hi *********,

The debate over Vancouver Councils decision to set up a bicycle only lane on the Burrard Bridge has now become a battle for the hearts and minds of city residents.

Members of Mayor Gregor Robertson’s Vision Vancouver party have received an e-mail from the communications staff at vision H.Q encouraging them to phone open line talk shows and write letters to the editor in support of the Burrard bike lane.

While you can’t blame vision for attempting to blunt the so-far negative reaction to the plan…calling open line radio to press the bicycle agenda isn’t going to diminish the disaster that awaits commuters next Monday. I predict this 1.4 million dollar three month trial project is going to evoke howls of outrage so loud and angry…you won’t need a radio to hear them.

This is just another example of the social engineering that irritates the hell out of most people. There is no evidence to suggest a dedicated bike lane is backed by a majority of people. Or that it is somehow going to magically transform Vancouver into a two wheeled nirvana. The social manipulation madness is made all the worse with the mayor’s plan to spend tens of millions on a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge over false creek.

So vision members can stack the phone lines all day if they want…it isn’t going to make a bad idea any more palatable come Monday. When the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the vast majority.

Jon McComb
The World Today
Weekdays 3pm – 7pm

So Jon – what’s happened to “the disaster that awaits commuters” or your prediction that the bike lane trial will “evoke howls of outrage so loud and angry…you won’t need a radio to hear them.”?

It has gone be the wayside, just like the rest of your regular and predictable attacks on the Vision administration.

VANOC is hoping that commuting by car is abandoned during the 16 days of the Games. The City of Vancouver will use it as a trial run for its broader transportation objectives.

“Planning and infrastructure investments are paying off as we prioritize walking, biking, transit and goods movement, while attempting to limit single-occupancy vehicle volumes.”

This statement is not a part of VANOC’s Olympic transportation plan, but rather a quote taken directly from the City of Vancouver’s Transportation department website.

Clearly, Vancouver’s car commuters are going to be hard pressed to continue their preferences for getting around during the Games, as exclusive Olympic traffic lanes, severe parking resrictions and closed off streets will make getting behind the wheel a monumental test of patience.  Here are just a few facts and figures:

• No. of vehicles now into and out of downtown:  400,000 per day
• No. of vehicles that will be affected by 2010 security closures: 80,000 per day
• Reduction of vehicles into and out of downtown during the Games: 20 per cent.
• Peak hour capacity in/out of the downtown to/from the east: 13,000 vehicles/hour
• Peak hour capacity on same roads during the security closures: 6,000 vehicles/hour
• Reduction of vehicles on east-west roads downtown roads during Games: 50 per cent.
• No of vehicles per day on Robson: 2,000 (near Cambie), up to 8,000 (near Burrard)
• No. of vehicles per day on Hamiltion: 4,000 (near Robson)

The City of Vancouver, however, will be looking very carefully at the successes and failures of such extreme measures to gauge the next steps towards making sustainability the defining feature of our transportation options.

The “Clean, green and healthy transportation” branding that the City of Vancouver is currently trying to achieve relies heavily on selling the concept of a safe and pleasant experience that relieves stress and hassle.

The voluntary nature of this campaign is unlikely to create real change on a significant level, however, making the Olympics an intriguing test for planning Vancouver’s future transportation endeavours.

Take for example the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial, which has resulted in the number of cyclists crossing the bridge to go up by 25%.  Keep in mind that the intent behind this trial has been less about getting people out of their cars and more about allowing cyclists to feel safe and comfortable riding into the downtown core.  This is evidenced in the fact that nearly the same volume of cars are traveling over the bridge now than before the trial began.

When given options that do not compromise safety or convenience, behaviours change.  There are other ways to get people out of their cars, as in charging drivers to enter the downtown core, but this kind of a measure seems like a stretch for the tolerance levels of Vancouver’s residents.

Nonetheless, the Olympics will give city staff the ability to see how people react when presented with highly restrictive conditions regarding their vehicles.  If, for example, people see that the other transportation options they are directed towards are tolerable and even enjoyable, City Council might consider moving forward with changes that put a price on the convenience of using a car to get to and from downtown Vancouver.

The Olympics are going to be a very difficult time when it comes to getting from point A to point B within the city limits, but the potential for transformational thinking regarding the prominance of cars in our daily commutes will make those 16 days in February a worthwhile social experiment for our future.