102 Ave letter

Hello Councillor,

I am a student who lives in your ward, and relies on biking and ETS to get around. In fact, I had a car until recently, but sold it because Edmonton's advances in improving bike infrastructure and transit service - as much as there is left to do - have made car-free lifestyles much more realistic in recent years.

Many of these changes have only been made possible due to the evolving opinions of many Edmontonians about the merits of having high-quality cycling infrastructure, but many more of the improvements that are necessary require even more of a shift in attitudes. The climate crisis necessitates changes to infrastructure, travel patterns, and societal attitudes in a far shorter time-frame than we have seen to date.

Pedestrianizing 102 Ave between 97 Street and 103 Street, and ideally along some of the VLW 102 Ave corridor when the time comes, could prove transformative for all of these aims. The vast majority, if not all, of downtown Edmonton's road networks are highly vehicle-centric. Even along corridors where pedestrians and cyclists are supposedly given serious consideration, the outcome is often still a stroad which makes commuting by personal vehicle far easier than by walking, biking, or other modes of transportation; the Jasper Ave New Vision/Imagine Jasper Ave projects are prime examples of this problem.

This proposal could provide us with many potential benefits. First, there are direct benefits, such as improving accessibility, safety, and the overall downtown experience for pedestrians. Further, pedestrianizing 102 Ave would encourage street-oriented developments and public spaces where people can travel without having to mix with deadly vehicles; creating an environment where people can sightsee, travel to nearby destinations and landmarks, window shop, and relax in a way that is not possible in an environment where part of one's mind must always be occupied by trying to avoid serious injury or death while simply out for a stroll (while the Valley Line LRVs will still pose a hazard, low-floor rapid transit can contribute to a healthy pedestrian environment instead of detracting from it).

I believe that the most transformative impact of this pilot could be on our societal attitudes toward traveling and commuting. Despite the ongoing expansion of our bike lane network, small-scale improvements to the pedestrian experience, and temporary lane closures, driving is still seen by most residents as the default mode of travel - and the only "real" option for all but the relatively few who live in the core (even though car-free lifestyles are accessible for many more than most folks realize).

By closing part of 102 Ave to vehicles for a one-year pilot, City Council will be leaders in the fight against climate change by laying the groundwork to showcase a multimodal corridor that can show Edmontonians, Canadians, and people from around the world that cars do not have to be king - even in North America. The city has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to implement improvements that enhance the pedestrian experience, and allow people to enjoy the area, in ways that would not be possible if any vehicles were allowed on the street.

Although it will need to remain available for emergency vehicles, the city can implement a number of small-scale and temporary improvements along the corridor to create a lively atmosphere, encourage people to visit, and demonstrate "what could be" if the pilot led to a permanent ban (perhaps by then, we could have found ways to implement structural improvements, such as pop-up shops or permanent tables and seating, without impacting emergency responses).

An architect who has worked on some local projects outlined a number of potential small-scale improvements that could be made during the pilot, in a series of posts here. If you have a moment, you should take a look through his posts, because they illustrate wonderful ways that the city can create a better atmosphere for pedestrians without making large financial investments (since we do not know what will happen after the pilot), relying on private businesses to change their storefronts in order to improve the pedestrian experience, or blocking emergency vehicles.

If the street opens to vehicles, none of this will likely ever happen. Whether the city is looking at 102 Ave now, or another street twenty years from now, there will not be another opportunity for us to test a permanent, full-scale pedestrianization of an established corridor. This is our only chance to experience what it is like to dedicate a major street entirely for people without the caveat that after 'X' festival ends, or fall turns into winter, the street will go back to its "natural" purpose of facilitating vehicle travel.

Even if something like this eventually did finally occur, it would be far too late for us to take meaningful and bold action against climate change in the little time we have left. When Council is debating the rapid deployment of its bike network plan this fall, reviewing its zoning bylaw to encourage pedestrian-oriented and multi-model developments, or trying to justify projects that improve pedestrian and active transportation in public spaces to achieve the goals listed in the City Plan, the outcome of these key decisions will partly depend on the outcome of Tuesday's vote.

We could gather invaluable data, knowledge and experience, and confidence in our vision of how to make Edmonton more sustainable and accessible for all residents; all of-which Council could point to as proof that there can be a future for Edmonton that is not built around car dependency; one in-which  traveling without a vehicle does not need to be difficult, unpleasant, or unsafe.

When ideas like this are considered in future years, we would be in a position to draw on our experiences of what went well and what did not, rather than solely focusing on the higher-level debate about whether something like this should happen at all. Whether or not the pilot leads to a permanent closure for vehicles, policymakers, administration, and residents would greatly benefit from being able to draw on this knowledge when needed, instead of always having to hesitate because of the intimidating nature of stepping into the unknown, and trying something new for the first time.

City Council would effectively demonstrate that all modes of traveling in Edmonton are valued; just as cyclists trying to access Whyte Ave, Jasper Ave, and other key travel corridors are asked to go an extra block to access bike lanes, drivers trying to access 102 Ave could be asked to go another block north or south instead. It would be an oasis for pedestrians in an absolute ocean of our car-oriented transportation network, but as I said before, that is all the more reason to approve this despite the opposition to it. If Edmonton cannot have — even just for one year —  one street where pedestrians and cyclists can travel without interference from vehicles, if it cannot manage to create one stretch of street that not only survives, but thrives without vehicles being present, then it cannot hope to achieve any of its climate or active transportation goals.

The Valley Line will have the capacity to move thousands of people through downtown every hour, and the cycling and pedestrian improvements — complimented by the low-floor LRT line — could be transformative for the area. If Edmonton believes in the values that it claims to in its City Plan, then it should accept that these are excellent traveling alternatives that most people can take advantage of instead of using a one-lane road that could take over 15 minutes to navigate in peak hours, and that those who need or want to drive can simply go to the next block over.

A rejection of this pilot would be a loss for both supporters and opponents of active transportation and pedestrianization initiatives; instead of gaining the aforementioned data and knowledge from this pilot, we would condemn current and future policymakers to make decisions based on hypothetical scenarios, and suffer from endless questions of "What if...?", because we were not bold enough to discover the answers ourselves; instead cowering behind the comforting familiarity of designing Edmonton around vehicles, instead of people.

In conclusion, pedestrianizing 102 Ave from 97 st to 103 st could provide us with many benefits — ranging from the creation of a safer and more vibrant environment for people, to helping the city achieve its goals in the City Plan. Critics have fiercely contested these arguments leading up to Tuesday's vote, but we will never truly know whether this idea is worth doing unless we try it.

A one year pilot does not bind us to a permanent course of action. Instead, it can give Council the knowledge, evidence, and experience needed to make informed decisions going forward. If Council rejects this pilot out of fear of the unknown, it will prevent a key source of valuable data from becoming available; doing a disservice not only to current residents, but also to future policymakers and residents who would be forced to grapple with the unknown due to our inaction.

I am grateful for your time, thank you for taking the time to read my email.

Regards,

Matthew Boonstra