Chernushenko’s “YIMBY”
Seems like Councillor David Chernushenko is making some waves outside of council too. After having moving an on the fly motion at the first council meeting to compensate cyclists and walkers for their “transportation” costs which raised the eyebrows of many people, he has now made another statement that have worried some business people in his ward.
Mr. Chernushenko recently was given five minutes at the Glebe BIA to say a few words. During the seventeen minutes he took for his five minute speech, he suggested that he would like to see bike lanes incorporated onto Bank Street through the Glebe. Would that displace street parking a few Glebe business owners were left wondering? The councillor did not elaborate.
His theme was YIMBY, Yes In My Back Yard, a play on the popular acronym (NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard). Many business owners are fearful that Mr. Chernushenko is so focused on his green ideas that he is not taking into account what is already in his backyard and he is ruffling some feathers.
It’s important that the Glebe councillor remember that many businesses in his ward rely on COMBY, Clients Outside My Back Yard
No, I don’t think so Blake. David is a business guy and he understands that you need buy-in from all stakeholders in order to come up with the right answer for everyone. But he also knows that his constituents want modem solutions to their problems. Providing better access for consumers to businesses on Bank street is an innovative way of addressing the ‘too much traffic’ issue that Bank street suffers from now in the Glebe. A problem that will only get worse with the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.
If businesses on Bank Street are concerned about a cylcing lane then they should also seek the advice of the Glebe BIA’s new Executive Director Christine Leadman. Between the two of them, I’m sure they can find a positive solution because both are open, consultative people.
Blake,
I am not sure who your sources are, but here is my version:
1. I was invited to be the guest speaker at the AGM. I was not given a time limit. Yah, I spoke too long.
2. More importantly, on the subject of cycling, what I did was announce to the BIA members exactly what I said throughout my election campaign — I am a big believer in working with the community and local businesses to find ways that will improve cycling infrastructure AND increasing business for them. In my own words, “what we need is more clients, not necessarily more cars.” I invited BIA members to start an open dialogue about if and how this might work. I am not about to try and ram this down anyone’s throat. It has to be a partnership. But I put forward the challenge to everyone to start thinking outside the box, because “more cars and more parking” is not working now, and is not going to get better.
Here, from my speaking notes are my key points. Thanks for giving me the chance to get my messages across, twice:-)
- We know that cycling and walking are good for citizens’ health, the infrastructure costs way less to maintain than for motorized vehicles, and less traffic can lead to a better quality of life in the region
- traffic is getting so bad along Bank St that customers can’t get to their business destinations in a timely manner on many days, and often can’t find parking, so they are looking elsewhere — not good!
- the street can’t get any wider, so that option is out
- the solution to all of this will therefore lie in having Bank St evolve to become a “destination”, where people come more by bus and bike, or by a car that is happily parked in a good spot on the periphery.
- we need customers to come into the shopping district and stay a while
- those precious few on-street parking spots are often not being used by patrons of the business in front of which they are located, so perhaps there is no need to preserve them so jealously, if other approaches will actually bring in more business — let’s explore this
- cyclists and pedestrians have wallets every bit as fat as drivers
- other cities have found that putting in a good bike lane does not lead to lost business, but to increased attractiveness as a “destination”
- lost parking along the street – IF we went that way — would have to be replaced with parking elsewhere
Many people do come to the Glebe section of Bank Street to shop and eat. But it’s getting very hard to do. Lansdowne Park redevelopment will make it even harder: more cars, fewer parking spots. Do we wait, or start planning and seeking innovative solutions now? I let it be known where I am coming from.Westboro and Wellington Street West find themselves in the same pickle now, and there are groups there mobilizing to do something about it.
Since I am at risk of having my response run on as long as my speech, I’ll call it quits here and hope this opens up some discussion. Dialogue, and lateral thinking are what we need, not “same old, same old, only more of it.” Citizens voted for change, and I am proposing some. It would be a shame if we kept jumping on anyone who offers new ideas and try to shut them up, no? We’ll have even fewer innovative thinkers running next time.
While the motion may have been on-the-fly, it was not from nowhere. It was mentioned in at least one Advisory Committee report in the governance package (which I hope all councillors read before approving it).
Had Council allowed public input to the governance decisions (including a new petitions policy seemingly from nowhere, and a new transit commission with zero public input on its structure or mandate), perhaps there would have been earlier opportunities for people to point out that this recommendation was left behind while so many others were carried forward.
Given that, it’s nice to see that David has an open dialogue with his constituents, and that he isn’t just going to let the mayor’s proposals fly through Council unquestioned just for the sake of shorter meetings.
- RG>
Councilor. There is a fact of life you simply must come to grips with. That is that the vast majority of people in this city, province and country, do not ride bicycles a a primary means of transportation, as much as you might wish otherwise. That job resides with the automobile and has for over a century, and that will likely be the case for a very long time yet. The facts are that Canada is a cold country and bicycles do not work well in the snow. We simply can’t use them during anything but reasonably fair weather. We are far to different a city from a climate point of view, to be compared to European or Asian cities where bicycles predominate as a means of transportation. Truth be told, the large majority of people in those cities, Beijing for example, would gladly trade in their two wheeled peddle powered people movers and all the downsides that come with them, for the enclosed, climate controlled, multi people carrying with space for groceries four wheeled model. Bikes are great exercise. They are wonderful recreation and have a place in our culture as such, but to try to get people to use them to replace the car, borders on delusion unless you enjoy mixing it up with vehicles ten times your size in weather like we had last week. Personally, I’ll pass on that option. So rather than continue to try to promote bikes as people movers, I would suggest that you should switch your focus and concentrate on making driving as easy as possible for the residents of this city and the thousands of tourists who frequent Ottawa from south of the border. This can be done in a a variety of ways. To begin with, make sure that parking meters are priced reasonably, [ which means cut the rates in half ] ensure there is plenty of parking in and around business sections and call off the green hornets. Look at our one way streets and consider changing certain ones [ Lyons and Kent are examples ] into one ways that alternate at different times of the day One way downtown in the morning and one way out of town in the evening. The benefits of the increasedd ease of access to the down town core would far outweigh the negative impacts such a move might bring.
David, it is not your job to promote one lifestyle choice over another. It is not your job to worry about the fitness level or lack thereof, of your constituents. It is your job, to fix the roads, pick up the trash, provide for the EMS services and keep taxes low. The rest is for John Q public to figure out for himself.
To Councilor David Chernushenko:
Yes, there should be bike lanes but using the canal pathway or using Queen Elizabeth Drive meets the demand in this area.
I have never seen a list of people supporting this idea and would use a bike to get around. A fiscal representative should be able to substantiate their findings thus acknowledging you are meeting the needs of the majority of your constituents.
You want bike lanes then put them on the Transit Way where there is no chance of a car hitting them. Remember the March Road accident of several cyclists in a bike lane?
Fact people miss; there is a winter! When on two wheels this ride becomes very dangerous because there is high probability of the cyclist slipping under wheels of a car, bus or truck. This is just one case but not all the dangers.
I must assume Councilor David Chernushenko you have been biking to city hall? How many people bike in the winter, fall, and early spring but is it not the majority of Canadians over-weight?
If the Transit Way is out of the question then let’s put more financial support in recreational sports programs for example; hockey, soccer, swimming, baseball, etc, as well as sport facilities because we should be putting the short supply money where the demand is, not trying to create the demand.
Sincerely
Taxpayer
Now we have some interesting discussion going! Some of the contributors might be surprised to hear that the number one issue raised by voters in Capital Ward during the recent election campaign — apart from Lansdowne Park — was cycling. And every single one of those voters wanted less car traffic in their neighbourhoods, better public transit and better cycling infrastructure on main streets, not just “recreational paths” along the canals.
This is not about me pushing some ideology. This is about wise use of tax dollars, based on decades of evidence from cities around the world. Gridlock is expensive. It amounts to lost productivity, polluted air and a reduced quality of life. Providing the means so that more people can choose to walk or cycle safely, while also providing great public transit and well-functioning roads [yes, I also drive] is the platform on which I ran, so you can expect to see me working hard to keep a lid on taxes, to make communities safer and to encourage people to choose the ultimate in freedom of movement — our own two feet, and two wheels. Not always, just more often. I know many people will still drive. And many others have no choice but to drive. I am doing what I can to offer more choice. The great thing for drivers is: the more cyclists on a dedicated lane, the fewer cars on YOUR road. Remember, that cyclist just left his/her car at home.
For those with a real interest, you should see what is happening in New York City, Portland, Oregon and Melbourne, Australia. Cycling as a way of getting around (not just a sport) is no longer just some “Euro-weenie” thing.
On some of the points raised by Nick:
1. I like your suggestions about looking at lanes that could change direction during morning rush hours.
2. I don’t see how lowering parking rates or easing off on enforcement, will make it easier to drive. Let’s take Bank Street. It is full. Reducing parking rates will do nothing to improve driving. There is nowhere to go, and almost nowhere to park. That is the crux. Our streets are increasingly jammed. If we want to make it possible for people to drive when they need to, then we must find ways to actually reduce the volume of cars. By encouraging more efficient modes of transport (more people moved per square metre, per minute). That is where bicycles, buses, rail and walking come in. On busy streets, in a car-filled city, these are all more efficient than a car. You could even say that my “campaign” for cycling and transit is PRO CAR, not anti-car. It will free up some space for driving.
I’ve enjoyed the chat, but it’s time to spend some time with my family.
I am not sure if the “on the fly motion ” was meant to imply that David was making things up as he goes, but I think it is pretty consistent with what his campaign has always been. It is no secret that David is a Green candidate who represents the values of the majority of Ottawa voters.
To say that he is raising the eyebrows of business owners is definitely untrue. I personally raised the issue with David at the premiere of his documentary film Powerful Energy that we should consider banning all cars from the down town core especially Bank street, and he clearly was not in favour of anything “radical” as that. He clearly stated all stakeholders have to be involved in the decision making.
There definitely needs to be a bike lane on Bank street as it is a not very road to be on with a bike as is. Currently this is just a giant parking lot for business owners rather than shoppers.
If David raised eyebrows at City Hall, that is because with him it will not be business as usual. We have an honest man here who cares about his city, that in it self should definitely raise eye brows. Why should only the car drivers and polluters be rewarded? What David is suggesting is that those that are environmentally friendly be also be rewarded for their effort.
David. I have no doubt that a large per centage of voters talked about cycling, and bike paths and reduced traffic. But the reality is, that these don’t generate any revenue for the city, and discriminate unfairly against those who can’t or choose not to cycle. I would suggest to the residents who want “less traffic”, that they move to a place where there is less traffic. Cities and traffic go hand in hand. If you don’t like that, then live somewhere else.
I also disagree that it is about an ideology. Of course it is. There is an implication in yoru response that makes it very clear. when you say :
“… If we want to make it possible for people to drive when they need to…”
you becomne the arbiter of when people should drive. A subtle point nodoubt and perhaps so subtle you don’t recognize it for what it is. Everything that people do is built around their world view, or ideology. Another point. YOu compare us to cities like Melbourne, Portland and NYC. All of these cities, although not quite as much in New York, are far warmer and have much more moderate climates than we do, so the comparison is not valid.
The reason for gridlock are poorly designed roads and infrastructure. Fix that, and gridlock falls off dramatically. More to the point, Ottawa doesn’t have the foggiest idea what gridlock really is. Even when traffic is at it’s worst, unless weather interferes, you can get from downtown to out of town in an hour, tops.
The reason you lower parking rates and ease off on enforcement, is to encourage people to travel downtown to shop and engage in commerce. If we spent less on bike paths and more on multi story parking gararages, there would be somewhere to go.
Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not just spoiling for a fight and being argumentative. I simply think that for the vast numnber of tax payers in this country, there is a weariness with spending on the nice to have stuff, while the basics are overlooked or outright neglected. Bike paths fall into the “nice to have catagory”.
As I said in my original post. Pick up the trash, fill in the pot holes, makes sure EMS services have what they need, and leave the rest to us. When people are free to make their own choices, you would be surprised how often they actually get it right.
David Chernushenko is a very wise man indeed. Everyone driving their own car to every single destination all the time is very much not the future. Increased public transit, cycling, walkable communities and shared carpools is. The age when we built our communities for cars rather than people is coming to an end.
You did not clarify any my concerns in my previous comments but you are becoming a true seasoned political representative.
Since you are so called green, do you bicycle to work now and in the past, all year round?
You mention cities around the world but did not susbstantiate it with facts, websites, etc. For example; area cover, amount of people on bicycles, climate, area of implementation of bike lanes, fitness level of the population,etc.
Applying green is not always feasible but you state the canal path is not good or Queen Elizabeth Drive therefore your majority of ward residents must have stated why Bank Street is better?
I am sure all councilors will be very happy to push and provide the bicycle testing area to Bank street.
Anders. To suggest that the car is not part of our future, denies reality. Why would you inflict 6 months of miserable transit experiences on a population just to suit your panaceac ideas? The real reality is that most of us drive. Most of us will continue to drive, and not because we are selfish or greedy, but because it allows a flexibility in our lifestyles that no other form of transit provides. Just as importantly, it is up to the individual, not the state, to determine how we get around.
I would suggest that the focus on Bank Street to the exclusion of other neighbouring roadways is misplaced: despite the best wishes of some in the Glebe to consider Bank Street as a local Avenue or idyllic Boulevard, it is a major artery and will remain so for the foreseeable future – unless and until city planners can find a viable alternate route for traffic from south of the Glebe to reach the city core.
But that doesn’t mean that Bank Street is the only viable alternative for cyclists. As mentioned above, there are nearby roads such as Percy, OConnor, Metcalfe, and paths along the canal which should be given serious consideration for designated cycling routes. Diverting vehicular traffic to these alternate routes doesn’t appear practical, but recommending these routes to cyclists in the name of safety would seem worthy of further consideration. Encouraging cyclists to intermix with the heavy traffic loads on Bank Street seems problematic and unnecessarily dangerous to me.
I hesitate to wade into this debate, but nonetheless, I wanted to make a brief comment on Paul Obeda’s statement.
Can we all agree that if one is to make a “corridor” for cyclists to commute upon, that it should be one that is as direct a route as possible? This way, the route would have the greatest impact upon the commute times for cyclists, giving it the greatest opportunity for success – and success should be measured by adoption, in my opinion, just as the Corkstown Bridge is considered a success for this reason.
The reason the city’s waterway pathways (Rideau Canal, Ottawa River, Rideau River) are not acceptable means of commuting pathways is that they are meandering. They make a 3km ride into 7km, or require a significant diversion from an individual’s destination. They are inconvenient to the commuter and can make someone’s commute twice as long, thus lessening their effectiveness and adoption.
Because of our natural boundaries in this city, we must make sure bridges are a part of any commuter corridor, and if adoption is the goal, it is not logical to make a corridor meander through neighbourhoods in order to eventually find its way to a bridge. The bridge must be a part of the direct corridor – a straight line.
Again, adoption is the goal. It is the goal for other, larger goals to be achieved. To have mass adoption, bridges must be part of the direct corridor, that means locating cycling corridors along arterial roads that have direct bridge access.
Did I say this was going to be a brief comment?
And one other thing, I don’t buy that cycling lanes can’t be part of the equation on our existing city streets. Here’s an image of a Greenway cycling lane in New York City that allows traffic, parked cars, and cyclists all to happily coexist:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=new+york+city&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.374125,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=40.721323,-74.001653&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.721412,-74.001832&panoid=Mqb-EoTuI86nlCvixTKw0A&cbp=12,280.28,,0,-4.1
Corry
Please note (the facts):
“Cyclists, pedestrians and transit users shop more and spend more money than those who drive”
http://biketoworkmetrovan.ca/marketing
Dramaturge. IF that is true, it is because it is so damn difficult to get downtown by car that those who would shop in the city center, are discouraged from doing so by not being able to find a parking spot, and then get stung by the green hornets when they do. More importantly, auto owners pay far more in taxes by a country mile than those who peddle around. Unless they’ve imposed some kind of “fee” on bike owners to tip the balance in this regard that I am not aware of?
I don’t expect everyone to switch, as I have, from SUV to all-year cycling, but as gas prices rise, more and more will. Drivers pay a huge premium for driving, $8k+/year, which could pay for a nice bike, vrtuCar membership, transit tickets, and the odd car rental, and still leave a nice chunk of change for your RRSP, canoe trips, or flat screen TV. Cyclists usually can also park closer as well as being healthier and living longer. How much time do you save driving in Centretown or the Glebe anyway?
@Nick @Michael – winter cycling is very practical on 90 out of 100 winter days. Look at our roads – the arterials and collectors are ice-free so at worst you might walk a block or two to a destination house if you didn’t want to brave the snow and ice on quiet streets. As it is, people in Finland, Denmark, Holland, and many more countries bike all winter while being many hundreds of miles more northerly than Ottawa. Get some studded tires and you will be safer on a bike than walking. Check the statistics – bike fatalities and injuries don’t happen in the winter. Partly it’s less cycling, part more cautious biking, part all the layers of clothing we wear in winter. Read http://icebike.org/Articles/Ottawa.htm for tips.
As for taxes, our roads get cleaned by our city taxes, which are taxes on real estate, not cars. So cyclists pay just as much to keep our roads clear as drivers do. It would cost the city much less just to clear room for bikes and buses rather than serve all the motorists. Cyclists effectively subsidise motorists.
As for China, Shanghai and Beijing are expanding their bike lanes (after contracting them earlier) because cars take up way more room and slow traffic terribly (as well as having worse accidents). Why is traffic speeding up in NYC now (after slowing for the last century)? Because more people are cycling on the network of bike lanes they are building.
Reimbursement for cycling expenses is not outrageous – it is designed to encourage a healthier travel mode. If extended to city staff and advisory committee members, it can reduce costs by displacing car, parking, and taxi expenses. Even George Bush and Tony Blair introduced measures to encourage more employees to bike. The UK allows 20p/mile (51¢/km) for bicycle mileage expenses on their income tax for the first 10k miles.
Full Disclosure: I was the one who asked the RCAC chair to raise the issue of reimbursing cycling staff and advisory committee members and would personally benefit since I am CfSC’s RCAC representative – and I bike. In fact, the current AC policy states:
“Mileage for members using a personal vehicle to attend official meetings will be eligible at the rate of $0.35/km.”
However, when I claimed for my vehicle, a bike, my claims were disallowed, despite Ontario rules defining my bike as a vehicle.
(BTW, bike expenses are rather more than minimal when riding thru the salty winter)
tOM
It appears to me that a number of commentators who are disconcerted by the idea of investing in bike infrastructure are under the impression that driving a car is some sort of inalienable human right, and the default choice for any sensible person. The fact is that postwar urban development has encouraged this point of view, with disastrous consequences for our cities, our health, and the environment. The status quo is a subsidy for this dysfunctional system, and as much a top-down exercise in social engineering as any “lefty” environmental program.
As for the practicality of accomplishing this in Ottawa, we only need to look at Montreal, which has similar climatic challenges but has a very successful and expanding network of bike paths on urban streets.
I am very encouraged by David’s initiative, and also appreciate his consultative approach.
Leave your response!
Tags
Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff Rob Snow Maria McRae Ottawa Citizen Alex Cullen Randall Denley Ottawa OC Transpo CFRA Peter Hume Tim Hudak Mathieu Fleury Ottawa Sun Jim Watson Tim Tierney City Hall Larry O'Brien HST Dalton McGuintyGuest Bloggers
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Ottawa Web Design and Development By Mediavanta