Some recent letters (primarily from two residents) complaining about the city's management and design decisions appear to focus on two main issues: congestion, leading to a shortage of parking and the features of the not-yet-complete Coronation Protected Bike Lane project. I'd like to offer some counterbalance to the remarks of these readers.
Congestion in the city's core is an issue we may never solve. Why? Because tens of thousands of us come to the city for all kinds of reasons as mentioned by the above-noted letter writers. The downtown space is finite with features that are nearly immovable. A couple of one-way streets, several “no left turn” intersections and a number of side-streets that are challenging to also exit to the left add up to CONGESTION! It simply can't be helped. And let's be clear as to the source. In addition to our private vehicles, delivery trucks, transit buses AND pedestrians and cyclists contribute to this situation! It is important to note that the Municipality of North Cowichan is right there at the Service BC building. Therefore, James Street and half of Alderlea and Garden Streets are included in this scenario. My point? The congestion issue is not limited to the city.
The Coronation Protected Bike Lane project was a bold move by city council. In spite of our proximity to Victoria, the new bike lanes are something we have not encountered in the Valley. They are intended to offer a safe and accessible space for the “Interested But Concerned” (60 per cent of our residents) who would consider cycling as noted in the 2014 Duncan Area Active Transportation Plan. Uptake by this demographic may take time but “build it and they will come” is the vision.
Speaking to Ms. Jackson's concerns of the “twinned sidewalk”: think multi-lane highway, slower traffic in the right lane, faster in the left. Add to this, two different modes of travel. The sidewalk furthest from the street is for pedestrians (both directions) and the one nearer the street is for all the 'rolling stock' in its various forms including bicycles, kick-scooters, skate boarders, etc. (one way). Mobility power chairs are the one exception; they are in the pedestrian category. And why is this happening? In order to not take away any vehicle lanes. The first block westward from the TCH still has its four lanes!
The removal of some of the trees was unfortunate. I have it from a reliable source that most of them were relocated to elsewhere in the city. As with the downtown core, the space is finite. The utility poles could not be relocated (without considerable expense) leading to a less than ideal space for cyclists. Don't be surprised if some committed, utilitarian cyclists still use the roadway. Again, the number of car lanes was not compromised.
Mr. Williams may not like being told how to move about the city and perhaps many of us feel the same way. The intention of the editorial, as I heard it, was to make clear that alternatives do exist. Bike lanes and improved walking spaces let people make choices. Choices, however small they may seem, that allow folks feel they have made a contribution to enhancing the livability of our urban spaces.
And, Sharon, I certainly hear your concern about disabilities. How often do we hear it reported that we are an aging society? A good number of us are not 35 anymore, n'est-ce pas? And thanks for your letters. In spite of their tone, I know your intentions are good. A thriving downtown core serves everyone.
Alex Haddad
East Glenora
