More Misdirection: The Mayor responds to DRIC

I stumbled across the city’s official response to the DRIC’s critique of Greenlink.

And honestly - I’m not being sarcastic - I am honestly confused with the statements made in it, which came from the Mayor’s office.  The Mayor’s Office is basically claiming that the DRIC provided no costing information beyond a simple statement that the parkway would cost $1.5 billion.

Yet - all the information the Mayor claims the city was not provided has been on the DRIC website since August 2007.  Cost estimates.  Road design.  Tunnel schematics.

Now some of the statements I really can’t address without some major explanations of the jumble of technical data on the Greenlink website - such as the 100-year versus 20-year storm - so who do I believe? 

But I have some serious objections over many of the other statements from the Mayor’s Office,   which I’ll go through one by one.

GreenLink is based on a 7.3 km highway and in fact mirrors the limits of the DRIC Parkway.  In the material distributed in August 2007 at the DRIC open houses there are the following comments in the DRIC material…

Basically, the Mayor states that the DRIC cost-estimate is really based upon the segment of roadway from the 401 to EC-ROW.

But this is false.  On pages 69-72 the cost breakdown of the segment from Malden Road to Plaza Alternative’s B and C are estimated to be between $80 - $100 million.

Furthermore, page 6 states:

The Access Road alternatives will connect to the Inspection Plaza practical alternatives.

Several requests were made to DRIC to release their costing data. This would have allowed a direct comparison. Unfortunately DRIC would not expand on their one statement of cost in the August 2007 material - “The Parkway is estimated to cost $1.5 Billion.” The GreenLink team prepared a cost estimate for the GreenLink and has always indicated that the estimate was in 2007 dollars, despite the fact that DRIC has not provided details for their estimate.

Again false.

Pages 22 - 89 contain estimated cost breakdowns for all practical alternatives and plaza construction. 

Does not include engineering and contract administration.  Both the GreenLink and DRIC Parkway contain contingency percentages. The initial GreenLink contingency was 35%, which was refined to 30% upon a more detailed analysis.  DRIC indicated that their contingency was in the order of 30%.

The Mayor does not even address the issue - using instead the contingency fund to respond to the charge.  The DRIC proposal includes engineering and contract administration in addition to a 30% contingency.

…many other tunnel design standards worldwide permit the construction of modified shoulder widths in tunnels, because they create traffic hazards and instead use other techniques, such as lay-by areas for distressed vehicles where the tunnel length exceeds a certain value. In any event, the shoulder width issue is a design matter and the design would be adjusted as required. In fact, the GreenLink team did work through a cost estimate for a full shoulder cross-section, but preferred modified shoulders for the reasons stated above. DRIC was aware that the GreenLink team investigated the use of full shoulders as well as the reasons for the modified shoulder approach.

So while the city admits the shoulder width issue is a design matter - they would include full shoulders if required.   Therefore, the Mayor’s press release basically affirms the DRIC’s critique in this matter.

Furthermore, the DRIC proposal, available since August 2007, cited the use of 3m shoulders in their document several times:

• The Access Road will be a six-lane divided urban freeway with a 6.8m wide median. The median will include a Tall Wall concrete barrier and 3.0m wide shoulders.   The outside shoulders are proposed to be 3.0m wide. (Page 6).
• Two shoulders (inside and outside) need to be widened approximately 3m to accommodate lateral clearance. The cost difference between the section which accommodates and the one which does not accommodate lateral clearance would be approximately $26 million. Again, this has not been included at this time. (Page 16).

Finally, page 175 outlines a rough blueprint of what a proposed cut and cover tunnel in the DRIC proposal would look like:  Two tunnels comprised of three 3.75 meter lanes each with an inside and outside shoulder of 3 metres in both tunnels.

So while the Mayor can claim there are no tunnel standards in Ontario, it is quite evident in the DRIC documents that the DRIC believes there ought to be 3 meter wide shoulders.  Had the Mayor looked at this document, he could have ensured that Greenlink met the standards as set forth by the DRIC.

The GreenLink team has included in the cost estimate the equipment necessary for a control centre - closed circuit tv’s etc. - in the cost estimate. Regardless, it is envisioned that an international border crossing including a new bridge would include a control centre, which would act as a control centre for both the crossing and the approach road.

Where exactly?  I could not find this in the Greenlink cost-estimates.  But regardless, DRIC estimates the cost of the control centre to be about $5-million (Page 65) and as such, represents less than 1% of the total cost of the project. 

Ongoing operating and maintenance costs.  Reiterating the above, an international border crossing including a new bridge location would include an operating and maintenance plan. Regardless, a capital cost estimate does not normally include yearly operating and maintenance costs.

While this is true, maintenance and operating costs are higher for tunnelled sections - a consideration for the province since they would be footing the bill presumably for this.  DRIC also acknowledges this in their report (Page 19).  But I will agree with the Mayor on this one - capital costs should only be compared.

Now in fairness to the city, the DRIC does acknowledge that their costing is an estimate and will most likely increase but so too will Greenlink’s.  But the overriding reality is that the province of Ontario cannot afford a Taj Mahal highway.  Heck - economists are predicting Ontario will become a have-not province within two years. 

I’m not sure exactly how they can afford the DRIC’s proposal frankly.

But the issue of precedent is very real.  It is easy for the Mayor to dismiss this since he doesn’t have to face the provincial electorate when they are told that literally, billions of dollars have to be diverted to highway infrastructure because of Windsor’s Mayor.

In particular,  with all the competing interests across the province such as health care, rising social assistance costs, the distressed manufacturing sector - precedence could be a very real threat.  Explain that to Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Fort Erie and the suburbs of Toronto who also deal, in varying degrees, with traffic congestion and traffic related to cross border travel.

Yes - Greenlink is a fantastic concept and the Mayor and council should be proud of that accomplishment.  But as I stated yesterday, council has succeeded in raising the bar and getting a better solution - and we don’t even know yet what the final proposal is.

However, the Mayor and council owe it to all residents to state exactly what a prolonged lawsuit could mean for the Windsor-Essex region; and its impact on the local economy.

Perhaps someone tomorrow could ask the Mayor after DRIC’s announcement.

Be careful what you wish for: Greenlink the new standard

If a tunnel can’t be built for technical reasons, Windsor deserves, at the very least, the below grade cantilevered road proposed by “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz.“

Mayor Francis, January 19, 2006

_____________________________________

Who knew that the city’s new branding campaign included drawing attention to soot and air quality issues in Windsor, when instead they could be promoting, GreenROW.

Mayor Francis this morning lashed out again at the DRIC’s critique of Greenlink on AM800.

“Our kids go to school here and they’re wearing backpacks with air-monitoring.  Where else in the province does that happen?   And they sit there and talk afraid of setting a precedent for residents.  Where else do residents have soot lined across their homes?  Soot that their children are inhaling?  Soot that people in school yards and playgrounds are inhaling…”

To answer the first question - people in Ottawa wore air monitoring backpacks.

Closer to home, Health Canada has been conducting a study in the Great Lakes Basin to monitor air quality and its effects on children and adults.

Insofar as soot is concerned, children in Sarnia are exposed to this as they are in Fort Erie and in Toronto where air quality is a major problem as well.

Now obviously, our Mayor has a right to be concerned; but providing misleading information to residents only furthers that negative perception of Windsor both those living here and those abroad apparently have.   But yet again those thinking of calling Windsor home are told, this time by its mayor (last year it was MP Brian Masse) that Windsor is the ONLY place in Ontario where soot is a problem; where they are wearing air monitoring backpacks.

What the Mayor doesn’t tell people is that  Canada and the US are making major inroads to air quality issues which will result in major improvements to our air quality across the country by 2015 - about the same time Greenlink would be completed. 

The bottom line -  Windsor is not the only city dealing with these issues - contrary to what Mayor Francis,  would like us and apparently the world to believe.

But if Greenlink represents a new standard that the province must follow in highway construction, does this mean that the Mayor is proposing the same for the city owned EC ROW?  

After all, local diesel belching trucks use that roadway and it has reached capacity according to Mayor Francis.  Rather than expand it, let’s not be cheap - construct GreenRow.  

Think about it.  What’s a couple of billion dollars?  Cost isn’t an issue, is it Mayor Francis?   We deserve only the best for Windsor’s future - think big!  We CAN!  Connecting East and West Windsor with a system of trails and parkland…

But in reality, the Mayor Francis of 2006 apparently shared the DRIC’s vision:

“And if the “solution” is merely an at-grade, six-lane urban freeway with a service road and sound barriers, an “80-metre swath” as Mayor Eddie Francis put it, Windsor will co-habit with an infrastructure monster. If a tunnel can’t be built for technical reasons, Windsor deserves, at the very least, the below grade cantilevered road proposed by “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz.” (January 19, 2006).

What is really perplexing is that the Mayor and council could really look like heros rather than like the kid caught raiding the cookie jar.  

They’ve succeeded - it may not be exactly what they wanted, but given the political and economic realities both provincially and nationally - it’s pretty darn good.  Council has raised the bar; demanded better and got better - especially compared to those poor saps (comparatively) in St. Catharines (and elsewhere in Canada) that got stuck with an at-grade highway expansion.

But if Greenlink is truly the new standard in highway design, I would expect that both the Mayor and council would whole heartedly embrace GreenRow as a solution to our at-capacity, diesel belching expressway.

Is Greenlink the “cheap” solution?

Mayor Francis doesn’t have a problem criticizing the DRIC proposal as “cheap” or “inferior,” and for some time his statements had the appearance of credibility.  After all, how could the city have designed, in conjunction with Sam Schwartz and Parsons Brinckerhoff, a solution of nearly equal value, but far superior aesthetically?

Easy - claim there are no Ontario safety standards for tunnels and ignore other international ones.

Yes - sure, the Windsor Star reported on Saturday that Nasri Munfah of Parsons-Brinckerhoff - those folks who brought you the Boston Big Dig - defended PB’s position by stating, “There are no Ontario standards to cover tunnels.” 

Except that is not what I was told at the community forum late last year in response to a series of questions I had.  I was told that safety features within Greenlink’s tunnel’s would be according to government standards.  Except now we’re told - after the fact - there are no such standards.

So much for being provided all the facts at those information sessions.

And Mayor Francis stated, “You don’t need full shoulders on tunnels,” added Francis, saying designers don’t want motorists pulling over in tunnels.”

Is that so? 

Mayor Francis would be wise to recall Sam Schwartz’s statement back on January 22, 2005, when Mr. Schwartz offered the following criticism of DRTP’s proposed rail to truck tunnel conversion:

“The biggest issue was the rail tunnel itself being used for trucks given that if a truck is perfectly centred it would only have 0.7 metre on either side,” he said. “There is an unforgiving wall on either side.”

He described it as a “cattle-chute design.”

“I hate that for the crash potential,” Schwartz said. “Then the only way to get a truck out is to approach from head on. It may start up again and be approaching you at 80 km/h.”

He said any accident or disabled vehicle in the rail tunnel would take 15 to 30 minutes to clear. In that time, 200 to 400 trucks could back up behind a stalled rig and “you never could recover the rest of the day from that.”

Mayor Francis should also ask Parsons-Brinckerhoff why they recommended shoulders in the proposed tunnel for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.  The project team there includes the Washington Department of Transportation (DOT), the Seattle Department of Transportation and about 30 private firms, led by engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff, which cited shoulders inside the tunnel as a “safety advantage”:

The shoulder would be available for emergency use when most crashes occur, which is at night and off-peak times, the team said.

Gord Henderson should really know better too.  Back on June 21, 2007, he was praising the Swiss for their tunnel designs.

Apparently, those Europeans are learning their lessons in tunnel construction as well, after a series of tragic tunnel explosions and fires that killed dozens and dozens of people since the early 1990’s.  A well known fact not mentioned by our Swiss-born councillor, Bill Marra - an advocate for a tunnelled solution to our border:

“They’re so progressive. There’s a lot of long-term thinking over there,” said Marra

Yes - progressive indeed.  So progressive in fact, the European Union passed in 2004 some of those tunnel standards that Parsons-Brinckerhoff stated do not exist in Ontario.

In Annex 1 of the following linked document - you can see that emergency lanes are required in all new European Tunnels.  The rationale:

Safety measures should enable people involved in incidents to rescue themselves, allow road users to act immediately so as to prevent more serious consequences, ensure that emergency services can act effectively and protect the environment as well as limit material damage.

Parsons-Brinckerhoff should also carefully consider the words of Professor Arnold Dix who recently stated in Munich, that the responsibility for tunnel safety falls “squarely on the shoulders of the tunnel industry and consultants.”

In other words - blaming the Ontario government for not having standards for tunnels is an excuse to do nothing.  Although, I won’t rule out the possibility that perhaps they were told to do so.

And it’s somewhat disturbing too, considering that Charlie Rountree, health and safety manager for Bechtel/Parsons-Brinckerhoff stated:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to count the savings from injuries that did not happen. However, as Rountree said, “We should always consider safety and health, constructibility, and cost, in that order.”

Cost isn’t an issue for our Mayor, nor for Parson’s Brinckerhoff - but cost really does seem to be a factor for omitting shoulders and not addressing some other major issues - according the latest DRIC press release claiming that Greenlink really costs (shock of all shocks) $2.3 - 2.5 billion.

Wherever did we hear this number before, Gord Henderson? 

If you recall, Mr. Henderson retracted the two statements he made regarding the cost of Greenlink being $2.6-billion.  Doesn’t look like this was an error (but we knew that anyway).

While it is convenient for the Mayor and some members of council to rail against the DRIC as the “cheap” solution, it seems the city “cheaped” out on Greenlink to deliberately low-ball the costs so as to embarrass the Province and the Federal Government into supporting it.

And if that is the case - our Mayor and councillors should be ashamed of themselves.

All I have ever asked in this blog is that residents be provided with all the facts so that they may come to their own conclusions.

Sadly it’s becoming clear that this was not the case.

Blog Delay

Blogging will resume on Tuesday. 

The Gloves Are Off: DRIC Responds to Greenlink

I’ve always said I needed a life - and really I do, who else reads the DRIC website (which is a horrible mess of documents by the way) regularly.  But I discovered something on there today - an assessment of the city’s Greenlink proposal.

Citing safety concerns and access for emergency vehicles, the vertical walls of Greenlink and inadequate storm water drainage in Greenlink, DRIC outlines their concerns with the city’s proposal. 

And upon reading it - you would think our legal begal team of Mayor Francis and David Estrin would have at least checked out what the highway construction standards were in the Province of Ontario. 

However, as I stated several times before, the devil’s in the details - those details the Mayor and Council could not provide at the public information sessions.

Which leads me to believe that Greenlink was never a serious proposal, but more a political tool given this glaring oversight on the part of the city’s expert consultants:

1. The GreenLink concept proposes 1.2 m (4 ft) wide shoulders running along the right side of the roadway and left side shoulders ranging from 0.6 m to 1.9 m (2 ft to 6 ft). These shoulder widths are insufficient.   The Ontario standard for construction of shoulders on new 6 lane freeways is 3 m (10 ft) shoulders on both sides.
2. As part of the consultation process, the DRIC study team has met with local and provincial emergency services organizations to discuss how best to design a roadway that improves the movement of traffic while also being safe for road users and accessible for emergency services workers. Emergency services vehicles (police, fire and ambulance) need to get to those in need quickly and safely. In heavy traffic, emergency vehicles can use wide shoulders to get to an accident scene.  Emergency personnel can also use the wider shoulders to remove disabled vehicles and attend to people in need while allowing drivers to resume travelling at close to normal speeds with fewer disruptions to traffic flow.
3. The GreenLink proposal has suggested extensive use of vertical retaining walls. This design aspect in conjunction with narrow shoulders could affect response capabilities of emergency services. In a below-grade access road, flatter slopes would provide improved access for emergency personnel and evacuation for injured or stranded drivers if access points are compromised.
4. The GreenLink cost analysis allows for a drainage system designed for a 20-year storm. The DRIC study team has concluded that this is not sufficient. In order for the access road to be a safe, reliable and sustainable transportation corridor it must include a more robust and durable drainage system designed to adequately handle the minor and major flows without impeding the passage of vehicles under severe weather conditions. This is in line with the Ontario standards for such a highway…GreenLink’s 20 year storm allowance generates, on average, a five times greater risk of flooding than the 100-year storm drainage capability for the same flow spread criteria.

 And then, was this a shot at Parsons-Brinckerhoff (Who designed Boston’s Big Dig) after all the “mandarin” and “cheap” insults lobbed by Gord Henderson and Mayor Francis:

The DRIC study team will rely on Ontario’s successful approach to highway design and construction. This means using best practices and standards to ensure road safety is the number one priority. It is no accident that year-in year-out Ontario has among the safest road systems in North America.

Not only is Greenlink coming in at well over $2-billion in 2011 dollars, it looks as if the City attempted to circumvent highway standards to save costs - thus lending more credibility to my claim that Greenlink as a concept was only a political tool for political purposes unknown.

One thing is for certain - the gloves are off and I can already hear the Mayor dismissing this report and Gord Henderson furiously writing his next column about inapplicable tunnel construction through mountains or under oceans.

Here we go again - audit delayed

“The recommendations remove the auditor and the committee from all reporting contact with administration and that’s essential if we want to establish an independent system free from potential interference or appearances of interference,” said Francis.

Mayor Eddie Francis, April 12, 2004

_________________________________

It’s amazing really.

An audit of the Windsor Utilities Commission - a utility valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars warrants a scant 3 month, limited scope audit and yet an audit of a $27-million building takes over 2 years to complete.

Something isn’t right.

Back on March 5, 2008 Councillor Marra stated that the draft of the audit was in front of administration for a long time:

“It’s been in front of administration and legal for a long time now,” [Bill Marra] said. “We don’t have a good explanation for the delay.”

We learn in today’s Windsor Star that administration has had a draft of the audit since December 2006.  Back in March, the Star reported that the audit’s release would be delayed:

On Tuesday, the audit committee decided behind closed doors to delay the release of the audit for at least another month. City administrators had called for more time to respond to the audit and for city lawyers to go over it to determine what names and details should remain confidential and what details should be made public.

Then lo and behold, the audit is delayed again - because this time, Administrators suddenly had new information to provide to the audit committee: 

Skorobohacz said the ongoing delays in the audit’s release are linked to the audit committee members having concerns that need to be investigated.

What is the real story - in March the reasoning was that city administrators had called for more time to respond to the audit as well as seek legal opinion.

Now the story has changed to audit committee members having concerns. 

But Maxwell Zalev, Chair of the Audit Committee as well as acting general manager of the Windsor Utilities Commission said, “The types of information (provided by administration) are significant in terms of depth and scope.   As a result, the normal audit practice is all information must be dealt with, in order to present a full and complete audit report.”

Except of course when residents demand a thorough investigation of the Windsor Utilities Commission, right Mr. Zalev?

What exactly is this new information?  Why at the last minute did administration provide more information that is “significant” in depth and scope?  Shouldn’t that have been provided over a year ago?  Mr. Skorobohacz oversees administration and ultimately the responsibility is his to ensure the audit committee receives everything that they ask for.

Mr. Zalev refused to answer these questions:

Zalev said he didn’t feel the presentation of this new information was an attempt by administration to derail or delay release of the report. But he also could not answer why the new information only came forward last week.

Since Mr. Zalev cannot or refuses to answer these questions - our CAO who enjoys blasting councillors on A-Channel news, must.

It looks like councillor Halberstadt was correct when he said back in March:

“There has been issues with regards to responses from administration and why the delays. But what I heard today is we are moving ahead with finalization, with or without input from administration.”

Gee whiz - this sure sounds a lot like what the audit found with Fleet Operations:

“Fleet management initially restricted the information it supplied to the auditor,” the report said. “In all stages we were required to request information multiple times before obtaining adequate documentation from fleet management.”

Why can’t residents get straight answers on anything that this city does? 

 

Finally, whatever happened to Angela Berry’s promise of the audit being released:

Release of the 400 City Hall Square review will occur at the next audit committee meeting on April 23, regardless if the feedback from administration or legal department is completed by that date or not, said Angela Berry, the city’s lead internal auditor.

 

Councillor Halberstadt took comfort in this statement in March - except now he’s been “muzzled.”

Unfortunately, I take no comfort in the Mayor’s nor the CAO’s assurances, because frankly, this has all the appearances of interference that could ultimately keep residents in the dark - again.

 

 

 

New Urbanism as a necessity and Building it doesn’t mean they will come

New Urbanism as a necessity

I’ve been reading some articles on the concept of ‘new urbanism,’ but it was an article that I read today by Peter D. Schiff  that really got me thinking - we may not have really have a choice.

Schiff writes that years of living beyond their means are finally catching up to Americans.  The great suburban life of 3 cars cars, a television in every room and a home mortgaged up to its owners eye-balls maybe coming to an end - out of necessity.

In addition, as defaults on both credit cards and store-charge cards continue to increase, the market for such debt soon will disappear. As a result, the credit crunch will spread from sub-prime mortgages to all forms of consumer credit. 

The bottom line: Not only will Americans be staring at higher prices; they will have to pay in cash. 

Cash - a retailer’s worst nightmare - particularly in an era of endless credit and Don’t Pay for a Year gimmicks.

Schiff predicts that with a continuing decline of the US dollar, imports will continue to become more expensive - the days of cheap consumer goods at Walmart are numbered (And thus, I will predict, big box stores as we know it).   

Corporations will either consolidate or disappear affecting consumer choice and of course raising prices.  He writes that, “It is all part of the process of an unprecedented decline in America’s standard of living.”

But take this one step forward.  Should this occur as Schiff predicts, what becomes of the urban landscape whereby current urban policy has favoured the development of the more expensive suburbia?

As the price of oil continues to rise and with biofuels unable to really meet our long-term energy needs at this point in time, people will be forced to live closer to amenities and employment - not because they really want to, but because they have to.

Schiff continues:

The massive borrowing that has financed the American economy for generations - combined with an evaporating industrial base and a lack of domestic savings - have all combined to reduce America’s wealth in comparison to the rest of the world.  Consequently, as more materials, technicians and jet fuel go to service the burgeoning Asian air travel industry, the higher the costs will become for American travelers.  As with other hallmarks of a diminished standard of living, Americans now have to confront the reality of staying closer to home.

Something for our Mayor to consider as the city attempts to attract more air travel here.

And this would affect municipal planning as well - cities will begin to contract.  It will, out of necessity, become more affordable to intensify development within the existing urban-scape - by utilising existing infrastructure rather than creating new, massive savings will be realised.  As resources become stretched thinner, people will seek more efficient ways to live - but for purely selfish reasons - their wallet.

As wages fall and consumer goods become more scarce and expensive to satisfy exploding markets overseas, we will, facing no other choice, seek a much more simple way of living.

Which is to say living within our means.  Something our mother’s always told us to do, but we forgot somewhere along the way.

Building it doesn’t mean they will come

I’ve been criticized by those I term as radical new urbanites for saying this, however, I feel somewhat vindicated by Western University professor, Jason Gilliland.

On this blog, I raised the issue of whether or not development follows people, or people follow development with regards to the urban village.

Gilliland writes, “the best incentive the city can offer is planning policies that boost the population of the downtown core. It’s not a matter of ‘build it and they will come’. It’s more like ‘if they come, they will build it’,” he said.

I’ve also been criticized for stating that no improvement to our core will be successful if we don’t create the wealth (jobs) to sustain it.  However, I found an article in Illinois Municipal Review that states:

This “Field of Dreams Approach” to downtown enhancement centers on the belief that a community only needs to undertake physical improvements for customers and investors to flock to downtown.

Many communities have proven this to be a myth by implementing massive physical improvement projects  including new sidewalks, landscaping, street trees, planters, benches, facade, improvements, etc.  and, thinking that their revitalization work was “done,” waited for customers and investors to return.

Unfortunately, these communities discovered that physical improvements, made in isolation, do not result in renewed downtown vitality. Instead, the lesson learned is that physical improvements must be undertaken in conjunction with economic improvements for revitalization efforts to succeed. And, in fact, the entire enhancement effort must be market-driven, rather than physically driven.

I would also echo the good professors statement above - good urban planning that supports downtown revitalization.

Another oft-repeated message as of late by politicians is the “silver bullet approach” to downtown redevelopment.  But this too, based upon the US experience has failed:

It holds that if a community identifies and implements one key major project, then “everything else will take care of itself.”  Examples of communities that pursued the Silver Bullet Approach are those that build downtown convention centers, festival marketplaces, parking structures, or pedestrian malls in isolation. Unfortunately, these communities learned the hard way that there is no silver bullet. Instead, successful downtown revitalization requires a multi-faceted effort that addresses all of a downtown’s key issues and problems.

Okay - so I feel vindicated somewhat - but WHAT does work? 

Well, this may come as a surprise to some, but Windsor is laying the foundation - albeit at a snail’s pace.  But the most important, in my view is the development of a broad overall strategy.  What we appear to have for downtown Windsor is a patchwork of ideas and reactionary economic policies:

Blueprints for improving downtown areas must address several areas at once. A 1999 census of programs by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, which has partially funded community development programs for twenty-one years, finds that “supporting community development in the next ten years needs to mean supporting the whole community development agenda-the human, social, and economic dimensions as well as the physical” (LISC, 3*). Downtown revitalization should include not only new housing and commercial businesses, but also after-school programs, anti-crime initiatives, youth development and employment services, arts, recreational opportunities, and public transit.

The strategy must address several areas at once.  And there is that reference again to “economic” dimensions (wealth creation - jobs).

 Another good read is by the Brookings Institute - a 12-step program to downtown revitalization which further affirm the above points.  However, perhaps the most profound statement I found in the document was this, something our current city council should take to heart:

Successful downtown revitalisation’s are generally private/public partnerships, not the other way around. The public sector, usually lead by the mayor or some other public official, may convene the strategy process but it must quickly be led by the private entities whose time and money will ultimately determine the effort’s success. A healthy, sustained partnership is crucial to getting the revitalization process off the ground and building the critical mass needed to spur a cycle of sustainable development.

To me that is what is seriously lacking in our current downtown revitalization “strategy” if we have one.  Name one single privately funded major development in the core area in the last 10 years. 

Can’t think of any?  Neither can I. 

And that ties in with what I wrote about, referencing Glen Murray, and connective fibers.  Murray argues that every building, every amenity attracts a certain person and has an intricate relationship with other buildings - whether architecturally or functionally.   That is oversimplifying it - but hey, space is limited and I’m sure by now your eyes are glazing over.

I sense in Windsor, considering the great hubba-ba-loo over attracting an engineering warehouse into the core (along with it increased truck traffic and noise levels), is that there is little to no understanding of that connective fiber to truly make our core successful - by and large it has been artificially created through public dollars with little to no private buy-in.

It’s almost as if someone read that by building an educational insitution - any educational insitution downtown will lead to rejuvination without considering what type would best serve the existing fabric.

What we really need is an overall strategy that supports downtown which includes resident input; and taking that input seriously. 

And then the politicians need to back away and allow the planners and private enterprise make it happen.

To repeat the good professor, “the best incentive the city can offer is planning policies that boost the population of the downtown core. It’s not a matter of ‘build it and they will come’. It’s more like ‘if they come, they will build it.”

Quotation Winner, Meaningful Discussions and Addicted to Tobacco

Today’s Quotation Winner

Goes to the library board member, Ray Guillet:

“At a joint meeting all the participants are equal,” Guillet told councillors at the end of the session. “I did not feel like a joint participant. I feel I have been reprimanded, lectured and talked at.”

What is this?   Give this man $50,000 a year and call him a councillor.  Amazing really, only in the most infrequent of times do some of our councillors, with one exception, show any life in standing their ground with Mayor Francis - but at one meeting with the Library Board, Mr. Guillet sums up my feelings over how councillors and residents are treated by the Mayor at council meetings.

But what I’m truly baffled about with this whole library issue are the obvious facts - the city has systematically financially strangled the Library and yet demands at the same time increases in services and no branch closings.

If only councillors showed this much fortitude with other city departments, such as Police Services or other departments consistently running deficits - we’d be rolling in the cash.

And the city’s interest in controlling the library board even amounts to liberally interpreting the Public Libraries Act. 

The library does not wish to renew its lease at the South Walkerville branch which expires on July 31.   Mayor Francis maintains that the Library Board must consult with the city over this citing the Public Libraries Act.

However, the Act does not state this.  The pertinent section reads:

19.  (1)  A board may, with the consent of the appointing council or, where it is a union board, the consent of a majority of the councils of the municipalities for which it was established,

(a) acquire land required for its purposes by purchase, lease, expropriation or otherwise;

(b) erect, add to or alter buildings;

(c) acquire or erect a building larger than is required for library purposes, and lease any surplus part of the building; and

(d) sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land or building that is no longer required for the board’s purposes.

In short - the Library Board must seek the consent of council only to acquire land, erect or add to buildings, lease part of a building, sell, lease or dispose of any land or building.

But I believe this is just more intimidation tactics by the Mayor.

However, Councillor Brister and Mayor Francis’ preoccupation with the ongoings of a board that has been audited more times than Enron is tiresome already.

An operational audit was conducted by KPMG on the Library in April 2006 and found that the Library was operating well and made some suggestions for further improvement.

However Mayor Francis says the “board is having problems with how it handles its authority, or governance.” 

While I agree the Library Board should be accountable to ratepayers, the Public Libraries Act is pretty clear regarding what authority city council has over them.

City council can make its recommendations, but let’s move on to some more pressing issues such disclosing the details of the $75-million transaction with Detroit for starters or conducting a full operational and financial audit of Enwin and Windsor Utilities Commission.

Mayor demands “meaningful discussion”

If residents think construction on the 401/Dougall interchange is noisy, I wonder what residents will say when construction begins on the new access route to the border - whatever form that will take.

Residents are complaining of the noise and fumes from trucks and the constant banging of construction as work proceeds in South Windsor.

But I wonder if city council’s response to defer the noise exemption request by the Ministry of Transportation is foreshadowing for the DRIC access road.

According to the Star:

What the lack of an exemption will mean in terms of added costs or delays to the project has not yet been determined, he said.

Better get those calculators out again folks - it looks like DRIC or Greenlink could cost even more should residents complain about the noise, dust and fumes. 

Worry not however, Mayor Eddie Francis is on top it:

“The province should engage us soon to have meaningful discussions, otherwise there will be significant (neighbourhood) issues,” added Mayor Eddie Francis.

Meaningful discussions regarding what exactly?  When construction begins, the city’s noise bylaw would apply - no construction between 8:01 p.m. and 5:59 a.m. 

Has the Mayor had “meaningful” discussions regarding the construction impact of the proposed Greenlink project with residents?  Did the Mayor have “meaningful” discussions with Sandwich Towne residents regarding the impact of the interim-control bylaw?  Or how about those “meaningful” discussions about the proposed tunnel deal with councillors and residents?  Water rates? 

The list is endless.

If the Mayor engaged residents and was open, upfront and transparent with issues important to residents - I could buy into his demands.

But considering how business is conducted within the city, his demand for “meaningful discussion” is meaningless.

Addicted to Tobacco:  Governments rake in the green

Although all levels of government experienced a decrease on average of 6.6% in tax revenues from tobacco, federal and provincial governments raked in a cool $7.1 billion in tobacco taxes in 2006 according to a report from Physicians for a smoke-free Canada.

The anti-smoking lobby maintains that these tax dollars are required to fund soaring health care costs of smokers and education campaigns.

But according to the Canadian Institute of Health Research, treating all forms of cancer in Canada costs $14-billion in direct and indirect costs.  Direct costs include hospitalization and medication amounting to $2.5 billion of the total.  Indirect costs include the cost of early death and disability making up the difference.

Smoking is believed to be the leading cause of lung cancer and lung cancer accounts for about 14% of all cancer diagnoses and about 27% of all cancer-related deaths.

Even if 100% of all lung cancers diagnosed were attributed to smoking, which they are not, the argument that smokers cost the health care system is a fallacy given the above statistics.

It seems all levels of government collect nearly 3 times more than is needed from tobacco taxes to treat all forms of cancer.

The irony is that without smokers and the truck loads of cash they provide to government coffers, health care in Canada would be underfunded. 

And this is the most sickening aspect of it all.  As government curbs smoking in public places ranging from indoors, to inside cars and homes and more and more in public parks and other outdoor spaces, they don’t seem in a particular hurry to find sustainable funding for health care in Canada - they are addicted to the revenues smoking generates.

They aren’t even spending the extra cash on anti-smoking campaigns.  Canada in 2000 spent just $20-million on anti-smoking campaigns while collecting  $4.4 billion in tax revenue.  Ironic isn’t it?  The government spends all this money on treating disease and a pittance on prevention.

The message is clear from government - smoking kills, but we sure do like the money it provides.

If government was truly serious about eliminating the threat of smoking, they certainly would not profit from it.  They’d use the revenue from tobacco sales to provide cessation products for free to all smokers - and at the same time completely ban the product.

However it is clear that it isn’t only Canadians addicted to tobacco - the government is too.

 

Comparing New York Apples to Oranges

I’m beginning to believe politicians expect this. 

Do you honestly believe the majority of the population pores through hundreds of pages of details - I bet some politicians are banking that you don’t - we depend upon the media to report details to us, and in the case of Greenlink versus DRIC our media have failed us.

Except in this case they failed, attempted to inform us and then retracted the statement.

In going over DRIC’s proposed access road and the City of Windsor’s Greenlink proposal - I stumbled upon something which says to me the City of Windsor has not been very forthcoming with some pertinent information regarding their Greenlink proposal.

The Mayor and council have consistently been asking that residents compare the two plans.  Well, considering our consultant friends from Parsons-Brinkerhoff and Sam Schwartz are from New York, let’s compare New York Apples to New York Apples, shall we?

First, the City of Windsor, with much fanfare, has publicly stated on numerous occasions that the DRIC proposal is comparable in cost (The file is 174 MB) to Greenlink.  Even the city’s Greenlink website compares them on an equal basis. 

But not so.

What the city conveniently does not state is that the DRIC cost estimate encompasses nearly 9 KM of roadway, whereas Greenlink roughly 6 KM.

So the DRIC proposal for about 9 KM of roadway is about $1.5 billion.  Greenlink, which only extends to the EC ROW Expressway is 6 KM of roadway for $1.7 billion.

Greenlink does not include the cost of the roadway from EC ROW to the new plaza. 

Second of all, Greenlink is priced in 2007 dollars - as per the city’s website.  The DRIC, on the other hand is priced in 2011 dollars (See PDF page 65 of the above linked file) but you don’t see this very relevant piece of information in the city’s comparison.

Mayor Francis is deliberately comparing New York Apples to oranges.

So what does Greenlink really cost?

Using DRIC’s cost escalator of 3% per annum you get roughly $2-billion.

And then you must factor in the remaining 2-3 KM of roadway from Malden Road to the plaza.  DRIC estimates this could cost between $80-$100 million in 2011 dollars - and this is for the roadway only.  Add in mitigation measures, lighting, signs etc. and we come very close to what Gord Henderson stated the cost of Greenlink would be on two occasions.

Remember when I wrote that Gord Henderson not once (December 29, 2007) but twice (January 5, 2008) stated, under the watchful eye of Windsor Star editors, that the Greenlink proposal would cost $2.6 billion or more?  And then for a third time he stated that number in his retraction on January 13th, 2008.

It looks as if Mr. Henderson was correct.

This raises alarm bells for me on a pet peeve of mine:  Media independence.  

As I stated in a previous blog, I highly doubt that Windsor Star editors “missed” this error.  I also have a feeling that revealing the true cost of the Greenlink proposal in 2011 dollars would harm the City’s Greenlink campaign.  After all if it’s in the Star it has credibility.

I wrote in Manufacturing Consent advertisers can potentially influence what gets reported and what does not, and the City of Windsor is a very big advertiser with the Windsor Star - to the tune of nearly $500,000 annually in addition to the cost of all those Greenlink ads. 

I’m certain now Gord Henderson was trying to tell us something before it was “retracted.”

The proof is in the numbers outlined above.

If this is true, are residents being played for a fool?  Is this the real reason why our MPPs are not endorsing Greenlink?  Is this whole Greenlink campaign nothing more than a political tool to save political hide - a $4 million political hide of mounting legal fees and consultants bills?

What is more angering is if this is true, the Mayor and perhaps even councillors (who knows exactly what they have been told) has/have known all along and yet continue this expensive charade of a “battle” with the province, who should have known all along the costs were not comparable.

And all along it has been phony. 

For IF the costs were comparable (forgetting the unique security risks of long tunnelled sections for a moment) the province would have no problem whatsoever funding such a proposal.  They probably would have endorsed it whole-heartily.

But as I warned when the Greenlink concept was rolled out - the devil’s in the details.

If we’re going to compare New York Apples - we had better be comparing New York Apples; otherwise any campaign based on the City’s $1.7 billion price-tag is misleading.

Oops - too late for that.

Garage-guy Wilson and what Greenlink really means

Administration recommends denying garage

The interim control bylaw has turned into such a farce.  And Administration’s report to council for consideration on April 28th proves it.

But Administration’s report really comes as no surprise.

As they said last September, Administration states:

The site at 3839 Sandwich Street is currently zoned MD1.4 under Zoning By-law 8600.  The existing homes along this block of Sandwich Street are legal non-conforming uses.  There was an existing garage on this site which has been demolished.  According to the owner, it was in an unsafe condition.  This Department cannot verify this claim as the garage has now been demolished.  The owner wishes to construct a larger garage on the property.  Any new buildings, either a main building or an accessory building such as the one proposed, will require an amendment to the Zoning By-law.  If Council wishes to exempt this property from the provisions of the Interim Control Bylaw, further approvals will still be required unless the owner constructs a building for a use a permitted in the MD1.4 zoning district.

Incredible!  This is almost verbatim to what they said in September 2007.  And the lack of verifiable proof that Mr. Wilson’s crumbling garage, pictured on this blog and A-Channel News, was not safe would be hilarious if not so ludicrous.

When Councillor Postma stated at last council that “nothing has changed,” she really meant it!

I have met with Mr. Wilson on a few occasions in following this story, and frankly, he has been given nothing but a run-around by city administrators. First he had approval to tear down the garage, then he didn’t.  Then, after a storm the garage collapsed and his councillor gave him permission to tear the rest of it down - as stated by Mr. Wilson when questioned by Councillor Hatfield in February.

If council grants him his exemption - they will look like heroes but knowing since September 2007 that Mr. Wilson would require re-zoning unless he builds of course, a warehouse - but who knows what impact that would have on his property taxes.

As well, if council does grant the exemption - they are now setting a precedent - but better councillors than administrator’s I suppose, reading in between the lines. 

Quite the conumdrum councillors have been placed in.  I can almost hear someone say now, if only Councillor Marra had asked for “criteria” as opposed to “process.”  This despite the obvious fact that Mayor Francis routinely “clarifies” motions and didn’t this time around and that the Mayor himself called administration’s last report “criteria.” 

But will council grant Mr. Wilson an exemption?  We know that at least 5 councillors may - unless one of them changes their vote.  Councillor Jones on February 25, 2008, was busy assuring everyone who would listen (or could hear) that Mr. Wilson would be getting his exemption.  Councillor Jones cast the deciding vote in September with his now infamous “5-5 you lose” statement, that did not grant Mr. Wilson his exemption.

Chances are they will, if only to to try and put this issue to rest and out of the public eye.  After all, the interim control bylaw, should they decide to exempt him, isn’t stopping him - the zoning bylaw is.  Councillor’s are now free of this festering issue.

Too bad, though, that Mr. Wilson’s councillors didn’t help him out with the zoning bylaw.

But gee whiz - this interim control bylaw is so flexible.  When Maryvale sought an exemption they received it (and rightfully so), because at that time the bylaw included a reference to non-profits.  This time around, the “non-profit” statement has disappeared from the “criteria.”

Obviously,  adminstration could make such a move for accessory buildings on the outer boundaries of the Community Improvement Area, couldn’t they?

A farce.  An absolute farce. 

And here the Mayor and council want to plant some flowers and trees,  yet residents like Mr. Wilson, can’t make a simple improvement to their home.

What we do know for sure is that ALL applicants must now be denied demolition - Mr. Bushmann, Mr. Flood, Mr. Moroun - unless their homes meet the “criteria” set forth by Administration at last council and/or you have proof that your building is a safety concern.

Surely the city jests when they say that the Community Improvement Plan objectives are:

• to provide for the safety and protection of all residents, visitors and property;
• to enable the development of strong, cohesive and attractive neighbourhoods…

Because what we have now is a tragedy and sends the wrong kind of message to those looking to call Windsor home.

The best branding campaign this city could take on, frankly is an election.

Support Greenlink; support lawsuit

When you receive your Greenlink postcard in the mail, you won’t only be supporting Greenlink as the preferred option to the DRIC proposal, you’ll also be supporting any legal action taken by the City of Windsor should you return it to the City.

That’s according to Mayor Francis on AM800 last Tuesday (Clip below):

 

When asked by the host if it wasn’t too late to change the province’s mind, if it needed changing to begin with, Mayor Francis stated that, “Just because their mind is made up, doesn’t mean they can do what they want to do.”

The Mayor added, “This is a process that is legislated under Ontario law.  And the law dictates that this process must consider public input.”

So let’s add up the totals so far:

• $75-million for Detroit’s budget
• $65-million plus for east-end arena (when the Mayor promised a P3 with a $15-million city contribution).
• ~$5-million for consultants and legal opinion on border file

$145-million - enough for 145km of watermain replacement - or about 14% of our watermain infrastructure.

But know this - by supporting Greenlink you are now granting the authority to the City of Windsor to continue to spend millions of dollars on legal opinion and possible court battles fighting the province.

Remember I wrote back in February of the Mayor’s not-so-secret legal strategy?  Also recall the Windsor Star article from back in 2005:

Estrin argued two years ago the Ministry of Transportation’s terms of reference for the Niagara project were illegal because they did not consider use of other transportation modes and failed to adequately review the proposed roadway’s environmental impact.

Estrin also argued that the terms of reference ignored input from councils and residents who opposed the project.

I wonder if Mr. Estrin will be as successful as he was with the Red Hill Valley lawsuit?  Last I read, the city had decided to drop their claim against the government and instead seek cost recovery for the city’s legal bills.  Is that what this is really about?

The Mayor and council know full well that the DRIC has responded to input from residents and council.  In fact, Schwartz I called for tunnelled sections and/or cantilevered roadways.  DRIC responded with their current proposal of some short tunnelled sections which is far better than what Schwartz I had proposed in my opinion.

Then at the last minute the city comes up with Greenlink and now they threaten lawsuits? 

Please, no matter how good of a “concept” Greenlink is, I cannot support anymore scarce tax dollars being used on legal fees.