crs1026
Superstar
Unfortunately I can't offer a winning argument based on logic and fact, because the vision is sound.....but I will fall back on the premise that city government decisions are made only in part through logic and careful thought.
My observation is that this issue may affect residents (rightly or wrongly) more deeply than may be obvious to safety advocates - and where city staff perceive a mandate to proceed "as of right", they may be making things worse.
When I was researching one such neighbourhood objection, I did a walking tour where I collected photos where parents had erected basketball hoops at the ends of driveways, facing the street. If there had been only one or two of these, I might have simply concluded that parenthood has no skill requirements. But in fact there was dozens of them.... to the point where there was clearly a consensus in the neighbourhood that their streets were safe enough for their children to play on. That kind of ratepayer consensus is something our citybuilding has to live with, and respond to constructively.
I also had first hand involvement in a project where a different Councillor, who was unabashedly pro-Vision Zero, told angry residents that on principle, they would not support a motion to exclude, and the sidewalks would go in. But what the Councillor did do was force staff into a consultative process with the residents to find a most acceptable design. The result was a reasonable compromise, and the sidewalks went in....but the staff effort clearly exceeded the norm for such projects, and the end design was much reworked from the original staff proposal. So while the effort likely grated to busy and underfunded city managers, maybe that's what it takes.
Lastly, I experienced a sidewalk-exempted road reconstruction that had one city department positioned against another, over removal of trees....In that case, when the motion went to Council, the staff member presenting admitted that the project was "low priority". In that case, staff were consistently obtuse or unavailable to residents, both during the design and during execution. Residents were only able to find out the design through their Councillor.... (creating an opportunity for the Councillor to "save the day") and end execution was so bad that some residents were wondering aloud if the City was retaliating for their exemption campaign (There may have been aggravating factors.....mumbleSansconmumble.....)
So my point would be, if this program is as compelling as claimed, the City isn't acting like it, and maybe overplays its hand where resistance does emerge.
And actually, the data isn't showing local roads as the places where pedestrians are being harmed most often .... so maybe letting sleeping dogs lie by not pushing the really backwater cases is acceptable to risk and the wiser option, for now anyways.
- Paul
Last edited:
