Closing gaps: in sidewalks, and in empathy
How inclusive will our city be later this year, after construction season ends? More or less than it is today? What will its tree canopy cover be? Better or worse?
How inclusive will our city be when I’m 70 years old and the sidewalks that are built this year need to be replaced? Will we still have the grey gaps in the sidewalk network or will it finally be continuous? What will our tree canopy cover be? Will we have reached the Urban Forest Strategy city-wide canopy cover target of 32%?
Today (15 March), civic works committee is holding a special meeting to hear from residents on whether some streets that are rebuilt this year should include a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. This may be surprising, since the London Plan policy on sidewalks is that streets should have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and on one side of the street when existing conditions like trees in the city boulevard would be impacted by building two sidewalks (the London Plan was passed unanimously by council in June 2016 and approved by the province in Dec 2016; almost five years later, developers still have many of its policies tied up in appeals, including this one). The city’s award-winning complete streets design manual, approved in 2018, similarly requires at least a 1.5m pedestrian clearway on neighbourhood streets.
So what’s going on?
For some people, the issue is protecting trees, which is a great idea for the many reasons outlined in the Urban Forest Strategy. Having read the many emails and written submissions from residents who are opposed to a sidewalk on their street, I am inspired by their commitment to protecting our urban forest and the city boulevard trees on their streets. I’m sure these residents would be interested to know that we just had a vote on directing a business case for expanding the tree protection bylaw to cover thousands more trees in our city (by lowering the diameter threshold for a protected tree from 50cm to 40cm). That motion lost on a very close 8–7 vote (YAYS: A. Kayabaga, E. Peloza, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, A. Hopkins, and S. Turner; NAYS: S. Lewis, S. Hillier, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Lehman, Mayor E. Holder, M. van Holst, P. Squire, and J. Morgan). Enacting the tree protection bylaw in the first place, which staff estimate has protected 120 hectares of tree canopy, had some opposition as well, passing 9–4 back in 2016.
My first house in Ward 4 was on a street like these ones. Beautiful mature trees lining a street with no sidewalks. I understand the desire to protect those amazing trees. It comes from a very good place.
For the people in favour of sidewalks, the issue is building safe pedestrian infrastructure for people of all ages and abilities. There are many neighbourhoods in our city — those areas in grey in the map above — that were originally built without sidewalks. The design of these streets excludes people who need barrier-free, and car-free, pedestrian infrastructure to move safely around our city. Making these streets safer and more inclusive when they are rebuilt, as well as filling in gaps in the sidewalk network through the new sidewalk program, is how we can fix this historical and ongoing exclusion over time.
So what should we choose? Trees or sidewalks?
We can choose both.
We can protect trees and fill in the gaps in the sidewalk network. In some cases, we can do both at the same time on the same street. How? By narrowing the pavement width and giving up some on-street parking.
Consider Friars Way. Looking at the City Map, the pavement width looks to be 8.3 metres right now. It seems to me that a 6.5 metre wide pavement and a 1.8 metre curb-facing sidewalk could fit within the existing pavement width. That’s an option I’ll be asking about at the committee meeting.
This doesn’t work in all circumstances. Sometimes, the root zones of trees are too close to the road that’s being reconstructed and there’s no good way to avoid destablizing the tree during construction. For example, Linden trees like the ones on Friars Way have relatively shallow roots. But this is the kind of flexibility and adaptability we need to protect as many trees as possible during construction projects. That’s how we can make our city safer and more inclusive and increase our tree canopy over time.
During the 2018 election campaign, I canvassed a fellow who lives in a residential neighbourhood near Oxford St. I asked him what issues he’d like me to focus on. He said making walking safer. He’d been hit three times by cars as a pedestrian.
This fellow is blind. He needs a city council that makes it possible for him to travel safely not just in his own neighbourhood, but all neighbourhoods of our city. Right now, the design of too many streets excludes him and many other Londoners who need barrier-free sidewalks.
Every year, we have opportunities to make our city safer and more inclusive. Over the next 30 years, we can fill in all of the gaps in our sidewalk network as we rebuild streets.
We can do that. Will we? Or will we knowingly perpetuate exclusion?
Last year, we finally improved the sidewalk snow clearing standard so sidewalk plows would start after 5cm of snow rather than 8cm. This was a motion that failed in my first term on council in a close vote. It passed this time in large part due to the advocacy of the late Gerry LaHay, who was posthumously honoured this year for his work to make London more accessible. I’ve been thinking a lot about him in the lead up to this special meeting.
This is what Gerry had to say in response to a Tweet I posted about the need for sidewalks almost exactly a year ago when council was being asked to not build a sidewalk on Runnymede Cres.
Me: Sidewalks are basic infrastructure that should be provided on all streets. They are very important for accessibility and not providing them is a mistake. #ldnont
Gerry: I lobbied for one in Byron on Griffith St…neighbours didn’t want one despite the fact the street was busy with traffic and buses. Over 20 years later, still no sidewalk. Agree fully Councillor!
Over 20 years ago, Gerry pushed for a sidewalk on Griffith St. Neighbours opposed it. Council didn’t build it and today it remains a grey gap in the sidewalk network.
Last year, council voted 13–2 (NAYS: J. Helmer and M. Salih) to allow Runnymede Cres to be rebuilt without a sidewalk.
It was a mistake on Griffith St. It was a mistake on Runnymede Cres.
It’s a mistake I hope we won’t make again.
Update on 26 Mar 2021: we made the same mistake again, voting to rebuild seven streets without sidewalks. Most of the votes were 9–6 to cancel (YAYS (against sidewalks): E. Peloza; S. Lewis, S. Hillier, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Lehman, Mayor E. Holder, M. van Holst, P. Squire, and J. Morgan; NAYS (for sidewalks): A. Kayabaga, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, A. Hopkins, and S. Turner), with the exception of Tarbart Terrace, which was 8–7 (E. Peloza supported building that sidewalk).
