Climate Change Demands Action
Here's my response to a recent editorial in the Times Colonist urging us to remember how important the challenge of climate change remains. My submission didn't get published, but I think it is an important isssue for us and must inform our consideration of options for the Johnson St. Bridge project.
Thanks for the reminder.
60% of emissions in the Capital Region come from mobile sources – cars and trucks for the most part. More than 70% of trips in the CRD are accounted for by people driving to and from their destinations. We need to help people choose more sustainable modes of transportation – walking, cycling and transit – to provide the carrot for those being hit with the stick of carbon taxes lauded in your editorial.
Climate change and the role of transportation design in addressing the challenge are key to my support of a new Johnson St. Bridge. While other values are important, the primary purpose of any bridge is to carry traffic and “Big Blue” is incapable of adapting to our future transportation needs.
Facilities like the “blue bike box” which sorts out bridge bound bike traffic on Wharf, access to the rail span for pedestrians and cyclists; and the recently completed (almost) Galloping Goose regional trail, are funneling more and more bike and pedestrian traffic towards the bridge. For many more who would like to walk or cycle, the current bridge remains a significant barrier. When Portland fixed their bridges to accommodate bike traffic, crossings increased by anywhere from 20 to 50%.
Work has begun on the new E&N trail, which will feed thousands of new walking and cycling trips onto the bridge daily. Bike lanes and traffic calming on Esquimalt Road will draw more commuter cyclists into the city.
Our bridge has already been assessed for bike and pedestrian retrofits and it is clear that adding a cantilevered pathway onto the existing span is not possible. Taking away a travel lane doesn’t work either. The suggestion that traffic simply be pushed over to Bay Street is not supportable. It would be expensive, blow up long standing, community supported transportation planning, and still leave commuters with nowhere to go.
The estimated cost of fixing the old bridge appears to be appealing, but it is not a fixed price contract. The changes to project schedules, traffic flow design and other ideas promoted by those supporting preservation of the old bridge come with extensive and significant cost implications. A full accounting of costs, not just to the city, but also to our downtown economy, makes restoration a bad investment.
Seismic issues, economic impacts and other factors all have to be considered in choosing a way forward, but it is worth repeating that the primary purpose of any bridge is as an essential link in an integrated and diverse transportation network. When deciding on the best option at this critical crossroads, we need to anticipate our future transportation needs and ensure that our bridge is designed to accommodate the change we want to encourage.
There are many issues we have considered in deciding to replace the bridge and they provide a solid foundation for our decision. On the critical issue of addressing climate change, however, the choice could not be more clear.
For the latest postings, please visit: John's Council Blog
Or, send an E-mail.