Originally Posted by Richard Eade
The city was spending about $15M on ‘Cycling Infrastructure’ each year. Apparently, about a third of that was completely devoted to stand-alone work. This would be adding lines/sharrows, greenfield paths, repair and maintenance of existing paths/lanes, etc.. These facilities require no substantive changes to the physical surrounding to be added.
The other two-thirds of the cycling budget was used in conjunction with other work. An example would be Rideau Street. The road was being completely rebuilt, but instead of simply building a ‘road’, money from the cycling budget was used to design a way to add cycling infrastructure. Additional money (again, from the cycling budget) was used to cover the cost of adding that bike infrastructure. If an intersection is being modified to allow for transit priority, and there is sufficient room, then funds from the cycling budget can be used to design and implement bicycle lanes through the intersection as well. Piggy-backing the addition of bike infrastructure on other projects can reduce the total price of the project because the area is only disturbed once.
However, this approach results in a piece-meal implementation of bike corridors. The intersections might be done, but it could take years before the connecting section of the road needs to be rebuilt. Having short sections built, with no safe path between them, does not encourage many cyclers. This, in turn, supports the common complaint; “We spent $15M on cycling infrastructure but the number of people cycling is still very low. Building cycling infrastructure is a waste of money because ‘no-one’ uses it.”
The candidate’s idea is, as I understand it, to borrow and use $250M now and build a bunch of the missing pieces of the bike network. In this way, there would be a number of complete corridors for safe cycling. This will encourage more people to cycle. Since that $250M will be borrowed, it must be paid back, with interest. The assumption is that the cycling budget would remain at $15M per year for the next 25 years. This money would ALL go into paying back the loan. In all, $15M X 25 years = $375M would be used to pay back the $250M ‘Green Bond’. (Would anyone know if a 50% premium is a valid assumption for a 25-year loan? For example, if someone bought a $1M home, would they actually wind up paying $1.5M over their 25-year mortgage?)
Of course, building a whole lot of stand-alone bike infrastructure, all at once, is probably the most expensive way to buy those kilometres of bike lanes. And, to do it during the height of the labour and equipment demand (due to all the other big projects that are currently happening – remember, the LRT builders are complaining that they are falling behind schedule because of their inability to find resources) will add a lot to the cost for little benefit. (Although, after the planning period, it might be that most of the actual building of the bike lanes will not happen for a few years, which might be when the LRT building is winding down.)
And, with all of the increased kilometres of bike lanes, once the building is finished, which budget will be used to maintain them – especially during the winter? If there will be NO additional money for bike facilities for the next 25 years – since it is ALL going into paying back the debt – what about places where bike infrastructure is found to be lacking?
Over all, this election pledge does not seem to be well thought out. But that is common for election promises. I am all for spending additional money to better cycling facilities, but this plan just doesn’t pass the ‘reality’ sniff-test. I suspect that the collective wisdom of the new Council will rein in the new Mayor’s enthusiasm.
|