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.