Note of Support for the Core Zone Citizen Proposal

I won't be able to attend the committee meeting on this, so I wanted to provide a note of support for the consideration of the proposed ‘Core Zone’ approach to speed limits being put forth by citizens in City Council on Wednesday. My arguments here are not be based upon safety impacts as I suspect those are well addressed by City staff and by others. Instead, they focus on the importance of recognizing the need for contextualizing governance in Edmonton.

Edmonton has a history of acontextual governance, something that is pretty common in towns and small cities. However, as cities grow, they begin to develop differences, both in the design of areas as well as the preferences of those who live there. As a start, neighbourhood design has changed over time. Edmonton’s core is filled with grid based neighbourhoods, small schools, and traditional main streets (along former streetcar lines). Suburban areas are located near freeways with quick drives to big box power centres and strip malls, curvilinear roadways, and large schools with great distances between them.

As people ‘sort’ themselves in the city, based upon their financial means and competing location needs (such as work commutes), households factor in their preferences. Research demonstrates that factors such as “proximity to power centres” and “walkable community” are often divergent factors affecting where people prefer to live. Thus, the core tends to have a greater number of people who seek walkability and the suburban areas tend to attract people who value proximity to freeways and power centres.  Data shows that Edmonton’s core already has the greatest proportion of people who walk, bike or use transit to get to and from work. 

Good governance is accepting this and giving the people what they want. In this case, it means allowing for differentiation and focusing on improving active transportation within the core area. This improves the Edmonton market by emphasizing choice in the way we live and commute. It will reduce the vehicle kilometers traveled by Edmonton residents. Perhaps most importantly, it will provide a touchstone area for urban living that will begin to change the perceptions of Edmontonians regarding ways of living and commuting. Once that is established, more neighbourhoods will want to ‘buy in’ to urban living and start to demand a greater focus on active transportation for their neighbourhoods.  

It made sense to put Rogers Place and separated bike lanes in the core. Similarly, it makes sense to lower speeds to 30k/h in the core and implement simple infrastructure changes to promote active transportation and vibrant neighbourhood streets. I think the Core Zone concept is something City Council should take seriously. 

Bob Summers, Phd, RPP, MCIP

Data, Photo Radar and Traffic Safety

This morning as I was reading the Edmonton Journal I came across an article by David Staples criticizing Photo Radar.  I wasn’t really that surprised, these seem to come at about the same pace as trucks wedging themselves under the High Level Bridge.

What was surprising was that David was calling for abandoning photo radar all together as a traffic safety tool.  This was a shift from his earlier critiques where he would argue that the City was misusing Photo Radar for the purposes of revenue generation (Cash Cow) as opposed to solely as a safety tool, but would concede that photo radar has merit when used properly.  Indeed, I have had a few back and forth debates on this with David and he’s been reasonable (indeed we get along well and agree on a lot of topics) 

I have always liked photo radar. I have anecdotal experiences in Edmonton and Germany that have demonstrated its effectiveness.  Here in Edmonton, I used to commute on Whitemud Drive every day.  The average speeds were 100+kms/h.  After photo radar came in with strong enforcement, speeds dropped by about 20km/h.  It was clear to me at that time that photo radar affected behavior.  Similarly, I noticed when I went to Germany how nobody tailgated and speed limits were closely adhered to.  Photo radar was everywhere.  The roads were much much safer because of it.  

Those observations took place long before I was an academic or a planner though.  I now know that if there is clear evidence one way or another that I need to check my own experience and thought and accept the data (provided it is solid).  This is the basis of evidence based decision making.  Now, there is lots of published research on this supporting the use of photo radar for safety purposes, but I won't get into that now because David shared a local case study that has some interesting results.  

David noted that that Strathcona County removed photo radar in 2012 and this had no impact on per capita collisions when before and after data was examined in a new study by the University of Victoria’s School of PublicAdministration.  The study was carried out by a graduate student, Jason Gariepy.

I looked at the study and notwithstanding some criticisms I have about it, the data looks pretty clear and supports the statement regarding accidents per capita (the data was included at the back of the study).  I created my own chart below to show this.  Note, all data is taken from Jason Gariepy’s publication linked here and I have not checked the validity of this data.  I made no changes other than smoothing the population data for years between censuses.  Given that there are 4 years of data since the removal of photo radar, I included the prior 4 years of data from the period when photo radar was last active.  According to the report, this was a period where photo radar was heavily used.

Note, the author provided data for four types of collisions.  Property damage incidents, Minor injury collisions, Major Injury Collisions, and Fatal Collisions.  

As can be seen, the chart that supports both David’s and the report author’s conclusion that removing photo radar did not change accident rates significantly.

After reading through the report though, I came across the data tables at the end. As I looked at those tables and within two minutes, I noticed an apparent trend in accidents where individuals experienced major injuries and fatal accidents.  After some double checking it was a very clear trend.  In the four years prior to removing photo radar, there were 35 Major Injury or Fatal Accidents.  In the four years after removing Photo Radar, there were 69 Major Injury or Fatal Accidents.  This is a hugely significant outcome.  With a 30% increase in population, Sherwood Park saw a 96% increase in the number of Major Injury or Fatal accidents.  The shift is very clear as can be seen in the table below.
 

Whatever the underlying factors are causing this increase in major injury and fatality collisions, it is clear that the data strongly suggests that the removal of photo radar has greatly increased the rate of major injury and fatal accidents.  In other words, the roads are less safe than before photo radar was removed.  This is consistent with accidents occurring at higher rates of speed. Indeed, this data demonstrates a much stronger influence than I have seen in studies elsewhere.  To make really solid claims about this, I would probably dig a little deeper and perhaps request some data on speeds in key intersections or other data that would support my conclusions.  That didn’t happen in the initial study however when it's claims of 'no impact' were made.   

As David points out in his article, Jason Gariepy, who authored the study, is a former Strathcona County Councillor who voted to remove photo radar.  Further, Councillor Brian Botterill, who was the Councillor who introduced the motion to remove photo radar from Strathcona County, contributed funding for the research (something openly disclosed by Gariepy).  The question for the research was framed very specifically and the report did provide information on that.

It also provided great data to help proponents for photo radar.  While more work needs to be done, this data suggests that photo radar reduces serious injuries and saves lives.  

As always, the process of building knowledge is an ongoing process – standing on the shoulders of giants as they say.  I am glad that I could dig a little deeper into the data provided and help to shed some light on some other aspects of this.  I know we all support evidence based, data driven decision making, and as such, I look forward to David’s next article calling for the return of photo radar to Strathcona County.  

Reinventing Edmonton's Approach to Zoning Into a Fine Grained Flexible System.

Introduction

Edmonton has a problem. We are entering a phase in our development and planning where we need a much more nimble and effective approach to zoning. The key problems are the following:

• Our land use bylaw is rooted in the 1950s and is inherently inflexible resulting in a proliferation of ‘DC’ zones and a proliferation of ‘standard’ zones, but still it provides almost no flexibility 
• Changing our land use bylaw is a process would be political minefield that would be fraught with difficulty and it would take years. 

I offer a proposed solution that would move Edmonton to a ‘variable’ type of coding that Toronto uses.

We can change the Land Use Bylaw to be a modern and nimble Land Use bylaw allowing us tremendous flexibility for future planning efforts. We can do it in a way that won’t make (many) people angry because we don’t need to change anyone’s land use zoning through its implementation.

 

Toronto’s Land Use Bylaw

Toronto's land use bylaw uses a ‘variable’ code based system for residential areas. So, for example, a specific area might have a zone that reads as follows.

R (f12, a275, u2, d0.55)

In short, this is Residential zone with three ‘variables’ presented. These are a minimum lot frontage (f) of 12 meters, an allowance of 2 dwelling units (2) and a FAR of 0.55.

Essentially this is a variable based system which allows tremendous flexibility in the use of zoning. Using this system, Toronto essentially can have 1000s of ‘zones’, each of which have subtle differences. Thus it becomes possible with a single zone to alter things like the number of units, the permitted height of buildings, various setbacks, maximum site coverage, etc, in a very fine grained way.  Here is a look at the zoning map using this type of code.

Proposal: Reformulate Edmonton’s LUB into a Variable Code format w/o Making Significant Changes to Existing Development Rights.

My proposal is that instead of overhauling Edmonton's zoning bylaw, we simply reformulate it into a Toronto like code based format. If I were to take the standard RF1 zone (non-MNO), it could be done as follows.

                 RF (U1, SAR1, MH 10.0, SCR1, F6, R7.5)

With the following ‘Variables’

“U” Number of Primary Units Permitted
“SAR” Site Area Ratio - A value that can be multiplied by the minimum site area outlined in section 110.4 of the LUB for RF1.
“MH” Maximum Height in Meters
“SCR” Total Site Coverage Ratio - A value that can be multiplied by the Maximum site coverage table in the current RF1 zone.
“F” Front Setback in meters
“R” Rear Setback in meters

This does not mitigate the need for the text for the RF1 zone as the details and exceptions are laid out in it. For a sample of a RF1 zone employing this ‘code’ approach see an attached PDF by clicking here.

Further, the MNO complicates this a bit. However, I do believe it would be possible to integrate many of the elements of the MNO into this system with some work in such a way that the MNO could be significantly reduced in its content (with most of the specifics transferring to the zoning map and the code) and perhaps eliminated altogether. Note, while this is imperfect and would differ from location to location on the zoning map, a sample of the MNO RF1 code could be as follows:

                    RF (U1, SAR1, MH 8.7, SCR1, F3, R7.5)

Note, to truly maintain the exact MNO impacts, the new zoning map would need to be developed through an area by area review to calculate things such as rear and front setback.

Finally, it is worth noting that Toronto’s code leaves out the ‘variable’ letters whenever the standard situation applies. This cleans up the coding and simplifies the map a bit. For clarity, I have included ALL variables in my samples here.

Combining RF1 through RF5

One benefit is that we could combine the RF1 through RF5 into a single zone with nearly all of the differences dealt with through the use of the new zoning code approach and careful mapping of the new zones. A sample of what RF3 would look like would be as follows (again this is non-MNO).

                RF (U3, SAR1, MH 10.0, SCR1, F6, R7.5)

Click here for a PDF draft of the written text for a combined RF1 and RF3 zone that would differentiate sites based upon the code and the specific mapping of sites.

Again, it is important to note that there would be no (or at least minimal) changes to the development rights of any one site by adopting this new code initially. So, a site zoned RF3 prior would be relabeled and the LUB language would change, but the actual development rights would be unchanged. The reason for this is to avoid combining land use changes with the redevelopment of the LUB into this more flexible version.

 

So, if Nothing Changes, Why Do This?

The key benefit, however, is it introduces flexibility in the future to make changes to specific areas. So, if we wanted to reduce setbacks and allow for higher buildings in a four block area, we could do so. If we wanted to allow houses within one block of arterials to be 1 meter taller, with a reduced setback and greater overall lot coverage, we could do so.

Recently, our Mayor suggested that we should change the zoning in Pre WWII areas, this would allow us to easily do that. In many pre-WWI areas (all in MNO) most of the existing houses are above the 8.6M identified in the MNO. The height variable could quickly be changed to ensure that the heights actually align with the local form. In areas where there are existing short setbacks, this could be reflected in the code and on the zoning map.

At present, whenever we want to do something that doesn’t fit within the standard zones, we either have to create a special area zone or a DC1 or DC2 and as such we have a proliferation of them. This complicates our overall LUB.

Simply put, the new zoning approach would reflect our maturity of our city and would give us flexibility to grow and change in the future. 

 

Some Key Points

I don’t know to what level, it would be possible to do this with the current Alberta legislation, so that would need to be checked.

While I have a good knowledge of zoning, I am not an expert in Land Use Bylaws, so I offer this up as an idea and look forward to any feedback and/or insights from others.

Toronto’s LUB includes an ‘x’ code for exceptions. This is a very powerful addition that allows for a lot of details to be inserted into specific areas regarding development regulations and guidelines, etc. I think this is a good idea, but have left that out of this discussion to avoid confusion.

This proposal is the result of about 3 hours of coffee fueled mania, so I have no doubt that it has some errors and inconsistencies in some of the zoning details. A more careful analysis would be beneficial. If anyone is interested and has some funding, I would be happy to put some students on a project furthering the concept.

Fully incorporating the MNO and many location specific elements (i.e. semi-detached only permitted on corner lots, etc) would require a time intensive process of analysis to develop the new zoneing map, but the actual text of the LUB could be simplified with this being done on the map. Alternatively, the MNO could be retained with only some elements dealt with though the ‘variables’

The flexibility of the system depends upon the number of ‘variables’ uses in the zoning text. I have proposed 6 of them. These could be reduced or increased (for example, I have not included side setbacks as a variable. There are benefits and costs to increasing or reducing the number of ‘variables’

I have proposed an approach that emphasizes no changes or very few changes to existing development rights because I think it could speed the adoption of this. There might be merit to allowing for more actual changes to development rights to simplify the resulting LUB zone(s).

Next Steps

First, any feedback would be appreciated. Maybe this is a crazy idea. Let me know by comments or email (Robert.summers@ualberta.ca) or by twitter (@rjscity).

Second, I think it would be best to take a neighbourhood or two and mock this up. It would also be good to play around with different versions. I truly think a combined RF1 through RF5 approach is possible.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to any feedback.

Edmonton Should Develop Bike Boulevards

The City of Edmonton is rethinking its strategy on bicycle infrastructure and I hope they consider investing in Bicycle Boulevards.   

I’m a marginal cyclist which means that I am easily deterred from cycling if I don’t feel safe or if routes are not convenient enough for me. I like separated bike lanes, particularly when there is physical separation from cars. The problem with these bike lanes is that they tend to be controversial as people lose their parking and they are perceived to contribute to traffic congestion as auto lanes get redeveloped into bike lanes.

Signs remind drivers that bikes have the priority on
'Fietsstraats' in Belgium

High quality bicycle boulevards may be more effective for cyclists an easier sell  to the general public. Bicycle boulevards are standard roads that have been redeveloped so that bikes are a priority and cars are secondary users. This is achieved through unique street signage, lighting, street lines for cyclists, and barriers to cars every few blocks that are permeable for cyclists. These visual and physical symbols make it clear to auto drivers that they are in space where bicycles are the priority. Such streets are common in much of Europe (Search fahrradstrasse or fietsstraat online to see example images from Germany and the Netherlands) and have started to make their way into cities in North America (see video at the end of this thread). The Initiative for Bicycle & Pedestrian Innovation at Portland State University has produced a guidebook for the design of Bicycle Boulevards.

A key benefit of bicycle boulevards is that they tend not to create the same backlash among the auto oriented public. There is no loss of parking and in a grid system like much of the core of Edmonton, there is very little impact on traffic flow as other streets easily absorb the displaced traffic. Residents along the boulevards tend to be supportive as they see traffic calming effects while still being able to park their car on the street.
 

Bicycle Boulevards like this one in Berkeley often have
purple street signs to set them apart from other streets

Through transforming a street like 102Ave in Oliver to a bicycle boulevard, the City would create the equivalent of a cycling arterial, one that is comfortable for a wide range of cyclists including families. In a city like Edmonton, where I suspect that there are many marginal cyclists, this could lead to a proliferation of bikes on the road which would justify further high quality investments in bicycle infrastructure, which would lead to more cyclists, and so on. By prioritizing snow removal on these streets in the winter, they would facilitate year round cycling. Bicycle boulevards would become amenities that bike oriented renters and home buyers seek out, in the same way that auto oriented households seek freeway access and big box stores.

Some argue that building bicycle boulevards relegates cyclists to back streets, I tend to think that they raise the status of cyclists to the same level of motorists, each having arterial style streets where their mode of transport is prioritized. I think we should plan for a series of bicycle boulevards as numerous as auto oriented arterials in the core of Edmonton. Over time, the rest of the urban fabric would adapt so that we would see certain types of commercial shops that prefer a calmer setting, such as coffee shops, bookstores, and so on gravitating towards these quiet boulevards.

I hope Edmonton City council and the administration step up to provide funding and support for top quality bicycle infrastructure in the core. Its an important step to increasing the sustainability and livability of our City.





Bicycle Boulevards for NYC from STREETFILMS on Vimeo.

Portland's Bike Boulevards Become Neighborhood Greenways from STREETFILMS on Vimeo.