https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1o_L_HdORWy3DC4n8BNrabET5eahodzO8?usp=sharing

Models include (now approved) Case 20761 (Rouvalis) two ~30-storey towers + penthouses near the corner of Spring Garden and Robie (the Carlton Block.) and Case 22927 (Westwood) a 23-storey building at Robie near Quinpool where HRM staff recommended 6-storeys. 

An additional proposal, Case 2021 (Dexel), for two more towers of similar height on that same block, was NOT be on the agenda on Sept 7. DOH has illustrated how taken together with the Rouvalis the four towers have greater height, scale and mass than the Nova Centre. These will destroy ~110 affordable housing/commercial units and add 31,000t CO2e of greenhouse gas emissions from construction alone-a conservative estimate.

Unfortunately councillors took almost no interest in the actual renderings or modelling or to understand what could be learned by viewing available empty space and a proposed 9-storey option that would require the demolition of a single building instead of 12-14. This scale would be 40% less carbon intensive per square measure than the proposed towers because of less carbon intensive materials used per square measure.

3-D Models should be available to community, HRM staff and council before such failed decisions are made. Sadly HRM Council has changed regulations to accommodate these developments through Development Agreements and the Centre Plan with nothing in return. It now claims nothing can stop them. 

Please view and share these important models, with those interested and keep the discussion alive! HRM needs to provide such models prior to consideration of any development. It is imperative that the Centre Plan should be modelled – citizens have a right to know.

-30-

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS HALIFAX

https://www.developmentoptionshfx.com/; developmentoptionshfx@gmail.com;

(see attached renderings below)

Note: Some of the files are large and require time to load. 

The post Media advisory: Seeing is Believing — Development Options Halifax 3-D Models and Images appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – How many times have you heard someone say, “There was nothing I could do. I was just following the rules”? 

If you think back on some of the great travesties of history, they didn’t happen because of one act or decision—or even one individual. They were made possible by many acts and many people, including those who had some power to influence the course of events but chose to abdicate their responsibility rather than rock the boat.

So why am I talking about this?

Last Wednesday evening, the Halifax and West Community Council held two virtual public hearings prior to approving three new highrises on the Halifax Peninsula. You may recall the #SizeMatters e-newsletter and video I sent you last week, explaining why it’s a bad idea to build highrises when municipalities are supposed to be reducing carbon emissions (the embodied carbon footprint of highrises is huge). It’s also a really bad idea to force people out of affordable housing units in order to make way for luxury highrises at a time when the affordable housing crisis is so severe that some people see no other option than to pitch a tent in the city’s parks.

But you already know all this. Which brings me to the word “excuse.”

noun: excuse; plural noun: excuses
“a reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.”

It’s important to understand how excuses are used in the context of decision-making that impacts our lives. Let’s take the example of a municipal decision to approve building highrises—though I encourage you to extrapolate the steps below to see if they ring true for an issue you’re grappling with.

Municipal Decision-Making Process to Maintain the Status Quo

Step 1: Create regulations that will serve the outcome you want (Halifax Regional Municipality Centre Plan) 

• First, hold a public consultation process that will allow decision makers to say they heard from LOTS of people
• Then cherry-pick from the public’s feedback to serve the outcome you want; be sure to blur any information that suggests more people were opposed to the new regulation(s) than in favour

Step 2: Make the approval process as complicated as possible

• Place the most obscure and uninspired ad possible in the local newspaper to satisfy the requirement to notify the public about an upcoming hearing or approval process
• Use lots of case numbers to refer to the plan or amendment going before the Council; delete any wording that might clarify what’s being discussed and how it might impact local communities
• Direct people to your website, where they will be bounced from page to page in a vain search for answers; throw in several links to PDF docs with lots of legal mumbo jumboStep 

Step 3: Make the public feel stupid and uninformed when speaking on the matter

• Insist that the concerns community members are raising aren’t relevant; for example, if someone raises a concern about the carbon footprint of a highrise development, point out that the municipality doesn’t have jurisdiction over building codes (DO NOT let the conversation veer to anything the municipality does have jurisdiction over, such as building heights or approving building developments)
• If members of the public persist, clarify that the issue at hand is the approval of a pre-approved plan, which has met the regulations that were previously enacted to approve it

Step 4: Play your EXCUSE card

• Using a sympathetic, authoritative, or patronizing tone (or a combination of all three), explain that you’re limited in what you can do in this situation—i.e., Council can only vote on whether or not the proposal meets the regulations (the ones these same councillors voted in or perhaps inherited)
• The vote then passes swiftly; efforts to lay blame at anyone’s feet are successfully mitigated

It’s a pretty simple, tried-and-true playbook. It’s particularly effective at giving the impression that some sort of democratic process took place; even though some might not agree with the outcome, how can anyone fault “democracy”?

I don’t know at what point our democracy was hijacked, but it has been—just like our economy, which our grandparents probably wouldn’t recognize today.

Once upon a time, it was possible to support a family on one income, and buying a home was within reach. Now young people find themselves living in their parents’ basements, paying down their student debt, and trying to save enough money to move out on their own.

I’m sorry to say there’s no payoff message here, only a question:

How do we go forward at this moment in history when the future of humanity will be determined in our lifetime?

I know it’s heavy, but as the scientists keep reiterating, it’s not about whether the Earth will survive—it will. The only question is whether humans will too. More importantly, perhaps, is whether it’ll be a world we will want to be alive in and will want for our children and grandchildren.

History doesn’t care much about excuses. Those who wield them at the expense of humanity are never judged kindly in the end.

Those who do muster the courage to speak out may not be celebrated at the time, but their integrity is not forgotten. 

Thank you, Councillor Patty Cuttell, for voting NO on the proposal pertaining to the two highrises at Robie, College, and Carlton Streets. It’s telling that even though you’re an urban planner by profession, the concerns you raised as a planner still couldn’t save the day.

Tynette Deveaux is the communications coordinator of the Sierra Club Atlantic. As the Atlantic Activist she writes regular essays which are published as Sierra Club mail outs., This article is republished here with the author’s kind permission. You can sign up for the Atlantic Activist mail outs.

The post Halifax City Hall: How to get a rubber stamp approval appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Citizens’ Group will appear at Sept 7 HRM Council Public Hearing

(Ki’jupuk/Halifax) A Halifax citizens’ group dedicated to better public engagement on urban development intends to appear at the upcoming Sept 7 public hearing before HRM Council to oppose two developments that it calls “monstrous.” Development Options Halifax (DOH) says these projects have been subject to an “upward creep” process hidden from citizens and even many HRM Council members. A letter from DOH to Council accompanies this media advisory.

Case 20761 (Rouvalis) now calls for two towers, respectively 28 and 29 storeys + penthouses near the corner of Spring Garden and Robie (the Carlton Block.) An additional proposal, Case 2021 (Dexel), for two more towers of similar height on that same block, will NOT be on the agenda on Sept 7. How is it possible for HRM Council to meaningfully consider the development of the Carlton Block and the cumulative impact of four towers – greater  in square footage than the  Nova Centre – in this partitioned way? The fact these two developers won’t collaborate shouldn’t force citizens to only see half the picture. The two developments should be considered together.

There are good reasons to reject BOTH proposals. The developments are just too massive for any rational development purpose in Halifax. They will worsen both the current affordable housing crisis by permanently removing 110 affordable units and their high embodied carbon will deepen the current climate crisis. Developers have exploited the term “densification” and have bypassed the problem of affordability to sell us on height as if there is no better option. But Development Options Halifax has better options.

Having for years avoided the onslaught of a full-blown housing crisis, is HRM now using the crisis to stampede approval of poor proposals?

Another proposal coming to Council at the same Sept 7 meeting, Case 22927 (Westwood) suffers from similar problems. The 23-storey building at Robie near Quinpool began as a low- to medium-rise with HRM staff recommending 6-storeys but that has been allowed to creep upward. It merely adds to a horrific massing problem at this corner which resulted from politics, not planners.

Development Options Halifax is a group of citizens in Halifax, NS who want better balance between the interests of citizens with those of developers. We advocate for using technology such as 3-D models to present facts and smaller scale in-fill options to the public and to open an informed and transparent public discussion on development that better addresses housing needs and mitigates the climate crisis.

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS HALIFAX

https://www.developmentoptionshfx.com/; developmentoptionshfx@gmail.com;

The post Media Advisory: At Sept 7 HRM council meeting, citizens’ group will oppose four towers on single block appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Dear staff and Councillors,

Road Safety in Halifax remains a significant concern for everyone following the recent deaths of a five year old child and an elderly woman. Doctor Gass died and a woman lost two babies she was carrying this year following severe incidents on dangerous crosswalks, in all cases lacking crucial pedestrian safety infrastructure. 

The municipality is not experiencing a traffic flow or congestion crisis. It is experiencing a road safety crisis that is disproportionately affecting people who are most vulnerable.

The annual information report is an opportunity to reflect, review and consider if the clear approach and action requirements set out in the Road Safety Framework are being met.

Per capita fatality rate: Is Halifax progressing towards zero traffic fatalities? 

The overall number of road fatalities per 100,000 population during recent years with usual levels of traffic is very high (average of 17.5 fatalities over 2018 and 2019 or 4.02 per 100,000) – almost double the per capita fatalities for Toronto and Vancouver assessed from 2013 to 2015.

The critical objectives of Vision Zero are to achieve lower numbers of serious injuries and deaths through strategic interventions on the statistically most dangerous streets and intersections, and through a continuous commitment to equity. This requires focus on road users who are disproportionately harmed and killed by traffic crashes.

The number, location and causes of recent fatalities warrants a review of efforts to date against the remit of the road safety framework and what effective Vision Zero strategy requires.

Senior road users (over 55 years old) comprise all pedestrian fatality victims

The senior age of all ten recent pedestrian fatalities in Halifax since 2018 flags the significant safety crisis for seniors, requiring special consideration and focus.

Assessment of safety is required from the perspective of the assessed abilities and capacity of vulnerable road users who are disadvantaged due to age, disability, or both. 

This assessment cannot be completed by traffic staff alone as the process would require input from the skills and experience of someone with expertise in how the aging process affects human behaviour and physical ability. 

Road safety decision-making has not changed

The road safety framework related actions and interventions rely on traffic staff decision-making and control, exactly as it did prior to the approval of the framework. 

There remains lack of clarity and scrutiny due to the absence of the action plans and efforts driven by public and agency/stakeholder involvement, both of which were identified as crucial development requirements within the road safety framework itself.

Key locations where there are concentrations of vulnerable road user incidents, such as intersections along artery roads (such as Robie, Joseph Howe,  Mumford, Quinpool) are not being adapted appropriately to eliminate dangerous conflicts between vehicles and vulnerable road users. 

Both staff and leadership should review Edmonton’s current Safe Mobility Strategy to understand better how Vision Zero planning and action could work:

• Equity as a core and ongoing component of decision-making and actions,
• Clear identification of who is most affected by unsafe streets and how the safety needs of those users will lead priority actions;
• Mapping of High Injury Network(s);
• Key short term actions including proactive safety reviews to understand why incidents are occurring more in specific areas to specific categories of persons, and how that impacts lives.

Key unmet action requirements in the Road Safety Framework

1. Develop the required action plans specific to pedestrians (and intersections)

Due to the lack of collision data analysis at the time, the Road Safety Framework was not intended to be a stand-alone complete plan:

“The development of action plans will be an ongoing process to ensure the effectiveness of specific actions in collision reduction in HRM.” (page 14)

As confirmed recently by staff, the critical pedestrian safety action plan has not yet been developed:

“Develop action plan for worst 10 types of (pedestrian) collisions. Consider rates/frequencies, consistency of collision patterns and crosswalk specific assessments.” – Attachment D, Future Countermeasures, page 6 of 8.

This plan must be developed in conjunction with people who rely upon walking or disability mobility aids for practical mobility, especially those who have physical and learning disabilities or are disadvantaged through age: “Working with different communities, understanding their needs and facilitating open communications is critical to inclusive outreach programs.” (page 14) 

2. The Road Safety Team must include all stakeholders. 

The road safety framework (Attachment D, page 1 of 8) provides for the immediate creation of a Road Safety Team, comprised of  “All participating agencies…and all other stakeholders primarily committed to greater safety for all road users” (own emphasis added) which should “more effectively deliver current programs, develop safety branding and develop safety culture. Team will then be in place and ready to take on action items of SRSP when data becomes available.”

This team should; “develop  actions, lead and ensure implementation, secure funds, measure effectiveness (output and outcomes) at pre‐established timelines, modify and adapt  action plan to meet the goal and objectives, be responsive and responsible, collaborate with all partners,  be the voice of the vision and traffic safety culture in the Region ‐ a role model to others. Need to appoint Chair, Secretary, Coordinator, and person responsible for ambassadors.”

Key stakeholders, especially non-government groups representing active mobility users have not been involved in the strategic development of actions and are not included within the Road Safety Steering Committee. “Advocates” are mentioned in Steering Committee minutes but are not directly involved. 

Since the road safety strategy consultation process in 2018, key community groups and disabled road users have remained sidelined and have relied on uninvited written or oral representations for input on their safety requirements. This is very far from ideal due to time limits for public presentations and the absence of two-way dialogue. The lack of involvement ends in acrimony and severe disadvantage for people who should be the Municipality’s focus for change. 

B. Specific feedback and recommendations on the annual road safety report

3. Early conclusions on the effectiveness of action to date should not be made on 2020 incident data.

“We have seen a drop in the total number of fatal and injury collisions occurring in the region” (road safety update, page 3)

The data available indicates significant drops are likely related to lockdowns and working from home trends. Toronto for example has seen pedestrian fatalities almost halved from the average number of fatalities over the three previous years from 39 to 21. Traffic deaths across Canada dropped by 34 per cent during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Urgent adaptations at intersections remain critical 

“Nearly 75% of the collisions involving pedestrians occurred at intersections. Most fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians occur within the Regional Centre where there are increased volumes of both pedestrians and motorists” (update, page 4)

The very high proportion of incidents at intersections is alarming yet not at all surprising given historical data and the fact many intersections are wide and have no safety infrastructure or adaptations that enable a safe crossing for vulnerable road users, for example by preventing vehicle/pedestrian conflicts with appropriate traffic signals.

Currently the use of signalized intersections by pedestrians is a dangerous stunt requiring careful sighting of moving traffic from multiple directions, as depicted in Nova Scotia safety literature.

A pedestrian safety action plan should identify simple and inexpensive adaptations that can be deployed widely, such as the use of poles/bollards for uncontrolled intersections and protected signal phasing for controlled intersections. 

Intersection adaptations should jointly consider and address both pedestrian and cyclist safety such as bump-out bollard positions that allow cyclists to filter through and not around bump-outs, and traffic signal phasing that provides a protected phase for both cyclists and pedestrians at the same time. 

As for previous pedestrian safety reports prior to the road safety framework, staff should ascertain which location/control types are responsible for most incidents and which turning movements result in most endangerment. 

The absence of strategic efforts led by High Injury network mapping is concerning in the context of the municipality’s clear endorsement of Vision Zero methodology. For example, incident data shows Robie Street intersections are very dangerous for pedestrians (a recent incident occurred last night) therefore focused effort on Robie is required to achieve protected signal phases and safer intersections for vulnerable road users. 

Have councillors seen high injury network mapping from staff, like this one presented to the Transportation Standing Committee in May? 

.

Combining vehicle and pedestrian movements within a wide multiple lane intersection is extraordinarily dangerous for pedestrians, hence why many jurisdictions especially outside North America (and some within Canada) prevent this through appropriate traffic signal controls.

The wider signalized intersection locations are where recent fatalities and serious injuries are mainly occurring, not at two lane signalized intersections.

Two fatalities and a life threatening injury have occured due to turning drivers striking pedestrians crossing legally at wide signalized intersections within a recent 12 month period. 

This requires special consideration and urgent action.

The currently legal in Nova Scotia straight-on only directional lights, standard choice for suburban signalized intersections in other jurisdictions including the UK, can be used to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflicts yet still achieve traffic flow through the intersection while pedestrians cross and within the “concurrent phasing” methodology used. 

Given recent fatalities and clear guidance from the Institute of Transportation Engineers that “Vulnerable road user safety must be prioritized over vehicle movement in the selection of traffic control devices”, immediate implementation of directional traffic controls that prevent vehicle/pedestrian conflicts is required to prevent further serious injury or death.

Please also refer to this report for information and research on how protected signal phasing does not prevent transportation efficacy, also extensive guidance on the absolute safety requirement to separate vehicle and pedestrian movements at wider signalized intersections.

5. Planned Engineering Countermeasures for 2021/2022 (Table 5)

It is not clear how the countermeasures were chosen and by whom, and what specific data has been used to select those countermeasures, their deployment and their deemed effectiveness. 

To what extent was the collaborative all-stakeholder approach to decision-making set out in the Road Safety Framework used to choose these interventions?

Extensive recent US-wide city data analysis by the US Federal Highways Agency concluded Leading Pedestrian Intervals result in a 13% reduction in pedestrian incidents. How is this deemed to be sufficient, given the alarming extent of incidents caused by vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections throughout the Municipality, as set out in this analysis from several years of local incident data?

Incident data reveals that intersections where Leading Pedestrian Intervals have been installed continue to experience pedestrian incidents. Has this data and the causes of incidents been reviewed? If incidents due to drivers turning into the path of pedestrians crossing legally have continued, how and why has this particular countermeasure deemed to be effective versus other signal options, including a pedestrian-initiated all-way red phase, or directional signals? 

6. Restricting right on red permissions

Despite clear guidance from multiple agencies responsible for issuing traffic safety guidance that right on reds are extremely dangerous, the development of far wider and very necessary restriction of right on reds is not mentioned. 

7. Lower speed limits where there is most need.

Cities are moving towards adopting 30 km/h speed limits on all urban roads where traffic and people mix, in accordance with the research-based recommendations from the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. This reduces emissions, increases safety and does not (as commonly understood) substantially increase car journey time.

The priority for lower speeds is where data demonstrates incidents are most frequent and severe. In Halifax, that would be in Downtown areas and along artery roads and intersections.

8. Community Engagement

“Community engagement was not undertaken as part of this report as there are ongoing engagement initiatives with the public through education campaigns and enforcement programs” (page 13)

The current approach reflects the historical “Heads Up Halifax” approach of one-directional instructions from staff to road users instead of the two way involvement, participation and equity approach set out within the Road Safety Framework and Vision Zero. 

The report does not mention the involvement and contribution of key stakeholders and road safety providers including the Crosswalk Safety Society of Nova Scotia, Walk n Roll, Ecology Action and Halifax Cycling Coalition. What are these critical stakeholders doing? How are their efforts assessed to be contributing towards the joint aims identified in the strategy?

9. Education

Current campaigns sometimes support common road user misunderstandings on key legal requirements, for example relating to yielding requirements at signalized intersections and are not effective, using website links with a long list of instructions listed as bullet points.

On the change from “Shared Responsibility” to “Everyone’s Responsibility”: Which non-government stakeholders representing road users were consulted on this? 

How is this message deemed to consider seniors, people with disabilities and children, all of whom are least able to avoid and survive inattentive and dangerous driving? What aspects of their “responsibility” are they assessed to be not exercising adequately, based on police incident data and their known cognitive and physical abilities? 

Did staff develop this message with local police, who target driver offences and behaviour in their vulnerable road user safety messaging?

The primary responsibility for road safety rests upon categories of road users who cause most harm to others and commit most offences that result in injury and death to road users. Specifically relating to vulnerable road user safety those offences are distracted driving, driving under the influence, speeding, aggressive and dangerous driving, and failure to yield to pedestrians lawfully using crosswalks.

Without clear messaging targeting specific behaviours and road users that cause incidents, “Everyone’s Responsibility” will not change drivers’ opinion that pedestrians are mainly struck due to poor pedestrian choices and behaviour. 

Many also consider pedestrians have the “most to lose”, therefore the onus of safety is on them. These opinions are harmful and factually inaccurate, as demonstrated by analysis from years of local incident data.

Road safety messaging and development of any campaigns must focus on those most affected by dangerous driving choices, such as senior pedestrians, and target behaviour that is factually ascertained to be a significant problem for those road users.

The message of “Everyone’s responsibility” could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of any campaign, and will simply end up in finger-pointing between road users. 

A proven result-based approach should be adopted in conjunction with enforcement campaigns, as for previous successful local efforts that specifically target known offences and which clearly states the responsibility for this behaviour is with the perpetrators, not the victims. .

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation set out in detail here their suggested research-based effective approach to developing a road safety campaign. This is worth considering carefully with all stakeholders per the required approach in the road safety strategy, before finalising any campaign and messaging.

10. Enforcement

Failure to yield by drivers and crosswalk safety remains a very significant and daily concern for many, as evidenced by the incident data. 

Why are no enforcement actions identified specifically relating to crosswalk yielding, given the very many recent fatalities and severe injuries caused by drivers who failed to yield to pedestrians lawfully using a crosswalk? 

11.  Key Recommendations

1. Propose the pedestrian safety action plan is developed immediately. 
2. Develop High Injury Network mapping to orientate priority safety interventions.
3. Assess lack of safety at wider signalized intersections where vulnerable road user safety infrastructure does not currently exist.
4. Create a Road Safety Team that includes all stakeholders with decision making.
5. Ensure the Road Safety Team develop key priorities for engineering, enforcement and education, orientated by the High Injury Mapping and pedestrian safety action plan.
6. Propose the development of written policy on Right on Red permission removals and on signalized intersection traffic controls which enable vulnerable road user safety.
7. The Transportation Association of Canada has no rigid “warrant” process or fixed criteria for establishing crosswalks, therefore recommend the development of local policy on crosswalk placement that prioritises all age and ability pedestrian mobility requirements.
8. Ensure disabled and senior road users benefit from a user ability/disability based safety assessment/audit, which should be developed with cognitive experts.
9. Review current policies and decision-making against safety assessments for key road users including people with learning and physical disabilities, seniors and children. How is current policy and decision making processes meeting specific requirements for those users, for example relating to the approval of sidewalk detours? 
10. Ensure lower speed limit applications made to the Province reflect where incident data identifies there is most need – in particular downtown areas, also artery and collector roads.  Take the lead from Lockeport, Nova Scotia, and work towards a 30 km/h speed limit on all streets.
11. Review persistent issues, for example the dangerous but common placement of signage on or over sidewalks or crosswalks, which is always extremely hazardous for people with sight disabilities. Can fines for offenders be introduced in bylaws?

If you walk, cycle or use a wheelchair and are affected by road safety issues, please join HRM Safe Streets for Everyone. If your local crosswalk needs a crosswalk flag, please contact the Crosswalk Safety Society. Please remember to report issues affecting your safety to our municipal authorities using the 311 service.

The post Martyn Williams: Response to Road Safety Framework annual report appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – A sidewalk closure on Young Street requires pedestrians, wheelchair and mobility scooter users to take a detour of more than 500 metres to access essential services. 

The serious accessibility issue is flagged in a post on twitter by Jeff Blair with the accompanying above map showing the detour, and photos. It is caused by the construction at 6189 Young Street of a mixed use tower. 

Walk n Roll Halifax reported:@hfxplanning was told of the disruption this created, in particular for blind and partially sighted persons, over a week ago. Apparently no corrective action yet.

The Halifax Municipality website provides only the following briefest of information about the closure, with nothing additional on any suggested detour or how long it will remain closed:

“Sidewalk encroachment to facilitate construction at 6189 Young Street.”

The Municipality often posts information on social media about road closures affecting motorists, but no information was provided on this significant sidewalk closure along a route used extensively by pedestrians, cyclists and disabled vulnerable road users. The Halifax planning team provided a response today today on twitter stating that their team are “working with the developer to remedy the issue”.

Twitter users commented how in other cities a detour is provided along the road itself, using simple safety barriers. Given the significant detour and dangerous width of this road, that would certainly be the required option here.

Regional Council recently approved an Accessibility Strategy which included this welcome Vision:

“Making Halifax a truly accessible and welcoming community to persons with disabilities requires changes in key areas, such as the representation of individuals with disabilities within our organization. This may also take the form of adapting our current transportation, infrastructure, and recreational facilities to be open and inclusive to all persons regardless of ability.” 

The goals include the undertaking of an infrastructure audit (Goal 1, page 27). This is a significant and urgently needed undertaking which must be led by feedback from those most compromised by unsafe and unrealistic sidewalk detours, also by crosswalks that in no way accommodate all age and ability safety requirements.

It has been interesting to see the Municipality act almost immediately following a fire in a crisis shelter used by homeless persons to remove the shelters, citing liability concerns. 

This situation is no different – an impossibly lengthy detour for the elderly and disabled detours can only result in endangerment and significant risk to users. This kind of issue is not an aspirational long term aim. It is a short term and essential requirement needing immediate redress, within hours.

A lack of consideration to anyone outside of a vehicle does not belong in a city where a very significant number of road users may at any time be either rolling or on foot, and a proportion of those will be physically unable to undertake a detour of half a kilometre to access shops and services, therefore being required to cross the road at a very dangerous location.

The Municipality claims to be evolving by accommodating the needs of all road users. However that process must take place in far more than specific “flagship” road redesign projects: Vulnerable road users in urban and suburban communities need to access all areas, at all times.

Staff and leadership must dig deeper and look further to ensure their policies and approach to access and infrastructure includes everyone and prioritizes the least able in much more than words and aspirations.

Furthermore, they should not rely on social media users volunteering their time to warn vulnerable road users on issues caused by dangerous sidewalk closures and crosswalks, nor assume they do it for the public reaction.  

If the Municipality considers approving a very significant detour to be reasonable and within the remit of any policy that requires them to consider disability and age related disadvantages, then post details of it publicly. Explain how they have considered the unique requirements of seniors, children and disabled people. Then both acknowledge and address any issues flagged by users. 

Simply, the Municipality must assess and consider the full range of road user requirements and abilities. It is time to significantly step up the efforts to address the age-old and embedded attitude that vehicular traffic flow is a more important priority than vulnerable road user safety and accessibility, and review the infrastructure requirements and policies that are essential for their mobility.

See also: Sidewalk closures must address the needs and abilities of all pedestrians.

If you walk, cycle or use a wheelchair and are affected by road safety issues, please join HRM Safe Streets for Everyone. If your local crosswalk needs a crosswalk flag, please contact the Crosswalk Safety Society. Please remember to report issues affecting your safety to our municipal authorities using the 311 service.

The post Dangerous sidewalk closure on Young Street: Halifax hostility to sidewalk users must end appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

For immediate release

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) HRM’s response to significant public concerns over two massive Spring Garden Road high-rises that will overwhelm and negatively impact the entire historic Carlton Street neighbourhood has been to give the developers even more height.

On June 23, the HRM Heritage Advisory Committee moved the Rouvails proposal-Case 20761, at Robie Street, College Street and Carlton Street a step closer to approval, with the new heights now increased to 28 and 29 storeys plus penthouses from the original proposal of 20 and 26 storeys. This development will be adjacent to Dexel’s proposal- Case 20218, for two towers originally proposed as 16 and 30 storeys but now also approved for up to 90m or 29 storeys plus penthouses. 

Together these four towers, each close to 30 storeys in less than a single block, will be next to Carlton Street, a municipally-, provincially-, and federally-designated heritage area— “a rare, early Victorian streetscape”. 

But these proposals clearly contravene the following five Policy Considerations under the Regional Plan Policy CH-16 for development abutting heritage properties.

• The proposals’ siting and footprint do not respect the existing development.
• The proposals do not respect the existing front and side yard setbacks of the street.
• The proposals will unreasonably create shadow effects on public spaces and heritage resources as they dominate the southern and western sky. (Not to mention the effect of wind.)
• The proposals do not complement the historic fabric and open space qualities of the existing streetscape.
• And the proposals do nothing to minimize the loss of landscaped open space.

Development Options Halifax (DOH), has been working to improve public process by better informing citizens and Council about such proposals. The two proposals in question have been proceeding separately through the approval process. Only though our work to show the four towers together did citizens become informed that the four towers are on the same block. 

DOH also created a 3-D-printed model of the proposed towers which were 16-, 30- and 20-, 26-storeys at that time, and an alternative in-fill design that would in-fill conserve all but one of the existing buildings. This model showed the harm from too much density, mass, wind, shadow, traffic and parking (now estimated at approximately 891 cars). We also highlighted the loss of 12-14 small scale, 87 affordable housing and 22 commercial units that will be demolished-equivalent to a 12-storey apartment building. 

DOH continues to advocate for consultation with more extensive 3-D modelling to examine the cumulative impact of these four new towers. In addition to 6-8 towers already in the area another 4-5 towers that are proposed or approved for this direct area, the corner of Spring Garden Road and Robie Streets will become a planning disaster.

Development Options Halifax (DOH), a citizens group championing transparency in urban development, is challenging the city’s faulty processes. DOH asks: why would Halifax Regional Municipality spend money to develop plans, and host public consultations only to proceed without any regard or respect for either?

The developments are unnecessary. Distributed density with in-fill and low-rise buildings can achieve better out-comes than towers that contribute to sprawl by demolishing affordable units and inflating rental prices. 

These proposals should not be approved. In the future, among other things, they will be named climate crimes.

June 23, Heritage Advisory Committee meeting approving the latest Rouvalis proposal video begins at 1:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pb5TbPYCas)

The post Carlton block’s “upward creep” proposals ignore both public concerns and HRM Regional Plan policy considerations appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – Ian MacIntosh, father of three, grandfather, husband, Dalhousie Graduate and resident of Cape Breton since 1982 had recently retired from the Cape Breton library after 37 years of service. He was struck on May 15 while crossing legally on a signalized intersection crosswalk outside the Cape Breton Regional hospital on George Street by a driver turning left. He died one week later, aged 66.

Within a period of just over one year, Ian is the third senior aged over 65 struck and killed in Nova Scotia due to the flawed, unproven and unnecessary traffic signal system of combining a green light for drivers turning left or right with pedestrians crossing, creating extraordinary danger and an alarming consistent number of very serious incidents. 

Doctor David Gass, aged 75 and Kathleen Warren, aged 68 were both killed recently while crossing legally by drivers turning right on green and left on green at signalized intersections on Young Street, Halifax and Portland Street, Dartmouth. In a recent survey, the vast majority of local pedestrians stated they found signalized intersection crosswalks to be “very unsafe”. 

There is no known legal or policy justification for traffic signals that are inherently dangerous for those most vulnerable including seniors, children and people with disabilities. The Institute of Transportation Engineers say: “Vulnerable road user safety must be prioritized over vehicle movement in the selection of traffic control devices”.

The means of preventing this vehicle/pedestrian conflict through the use of directional signals or “protected” signal phasing when pedestrians need to cross is both widely known and implemented successfully in many other jurisdictions worldwide, including Quebec City and Montreal. Research concludes safe traffic signals that prevent conflict between vehicles and pedestrians have no impact on transportation efficacy.

I contacted Ian’s widow Kathryn (Kathy) MacIntosh to ask if she would be willing to share more about Ian. The following is Kathy’s written response to questions I sent to her by email, which I have left unaltered with minor edits:

Ian had a back injury when he was about 20 years old. After that, he found if he gained weight that his back would start giving him trouble. Because of that he walked faithfully to help keep his weight in check and also for the health benefits it provides. He always said it helped him sort out any issues at work or in other aspects of life. It helped him think – as he walked he’d mull things over in his mind.

When we moved back to Cape Breton in 1982, we were expecting our first child and we were planning to buy a house. Ian’s job as Regional Librarian was based in downtown Sydney. We took a compass and drew a circle with the library headquarters at the centre and a radius of 1.25 miles. Ian figured if we could buy within that radius, he’d be able to walk to and from work each day and still be able to walk to and fro at lunchtime. It meant we would only need one car. He did that walk for 42 years. I would pick him up or meet him along the way on particularly nasty days but he walked 99% of the time.

He retired in June, 2019 and, since walking was such a routine for him, he continued to take long walks about 5 days a week. 

He had several different routes that he’d take. One was through an urban forest trail system that is not far from our house. Others were different routes through the city. The route he took on the day of the accident was a relatively short one. When he was leaving that Saturday afternoon, I asked him what route he was going to take and he replied that he’d just go up around the hospital. His last words to us were that he’d be back in 45 minutes to an hour.

He was crossing George Street in a crosswalk with the walk signal. He was going from the side of the street where Canada Bread Shop is located to the sidewalk that runs along Hospital Boulevard. The car that hit him was exiting the Hospital Boulevard and turning left on to George Street. The car hit his hip, causing a severe break and his head hit the windshield of the car.  Evidence of this was the damage done to the vehicle and the likely scenario as described by the emergency room physician. Ian’s head injuries were severe and he never regained consciousness. I am including this detail to illustrate that a vehicle does not need to be travelling at a high rate of speed to inflict serious damage or death to a pedestrian.

He was rushed to Cape Breton Regional Hospital and was treated in Emergency until he was taken by Life Flight to the ICU at the QEII in Halifax. He succumbed to his injuries a week later, a short time after being removed from life support. The driver has been charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ian definitely was a regular pedestrian and walked far more than the average person in Sydney. So many people have commented on that both before and since his death. Yet he found walking some routes particularly challenging. The site where the accident occurred was a particularly troublesome one. One day after going on that route he declared that he had almost been run over by two vehicles that were rushing to beat the light before it changed. There were also a couple of intersections downtown where he had close calls on several occasions. One was the crosswalk where Argyle Street meets George and the other was on Townsend Street. Sadly, he did not avoid the intersections where he had close calls in the past. I certainly wish he had.

This accident should never have happened. The driver must have neglected to look to his left before proceeding. No eyewitnesses came forward, as far as I know. The CBRM Police and the medical examiner have been in touch with me, which I appreciate. We, as a family, are heart broken and our community mourns his loss. He was a wonderful husband, a much-loved father to our three children, adored grandfather to our two granddaughters, a great brother to his own sister and brother, and a generous member of the community. Really, everyone who met Ian has only the nicest things to say about him. He was a kind, intelligent and gentle man who had a dry sense of humour and he was interested in everyone and everything. The outpouring of sympathy from the community has been overwhelming.

See also: Martyn Williams: There’s a mobility crisis for vulnerable road users, and Halifax must change its approach

If you walk, cycle or use a wheelchair and are affected by road safety issues, please join HRM Safe Streets for Everyone. If your local crosswalk needs a crosswalk flag, please contact the Crosswalk Safety Society. Please remember to report issues affecting your safety to our municipal authorities using the 311 service.

The post Crosswalk safety in Sydney, Cape Breton: ‘This accident should never have happened’ appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Tick Tock

It was thirty seconds to midnight in the life of a bill becoming a law, when Catherine Frazee – in Nova Scotia – contacted me – in British Columbia – with what she called a rough idea. Frazee’s rough ideas are most people’s keynotes.

She laid out a plan for a round the clock zoom protest in the final hours leading up to the House vote on Bill C-7. We would call it the Disability Filibuster and it would consist of whatever disabled people wanted it to, whatever they showed up with.

See also: Media release: Disabled people are working around the clock to stop Bill C-7

We all knew that if it wasn’t a pandemic we would be putting our bodies on the line and potentially our hands into handcuffs but that wasn’t feasible because we are among the most at risk of dying if we were to contract the virus, the more so because we are front of the line for being denied a ventilator under triage protocols. But we could at least make sure the country knew there was no consensus of support for Bill C-7 as the Liberals were claiming.

I thought it was brilliant and more importantly necessary. The rest, as they say, is history, which it was going to be anyway. We just decided to make it more difficult to erase disabled people from this moment in history.

Bill C-7

Earlier this year the Canadian government passed Bill C-7, amending the Criminal Code of Canada to make it legal for certain agents of the state to cause the death of certain members of the public with their ‘consent.’ It expanded the already legalized MAiD – Medical Assistance in Dying – to those who were not dying but are disabled.

The fact that agents of the state are health care professionals and the members of the public are disabled people seemed to confuse many on the left about what constitutes autonomous consent and the circumstances necessary for it to truly exist.

The same people who can explain in detail the various circumstances that might lead someone to confess to a crime they did not commit – without the use of outright threats or physical violence – were unable to conceive a single scenario in which a disabled person might feel coerced to death inside the institutional setting of a hospital or ‘care’ facility.

The exact same people who map out the connecting path between poverty and prisons could not fathom a connection between poverty and conceding to a doctor’s advice to die rather than fight for the supports necessary to live – supports that you might not even know exist or are difficult if not impossible to access due to lack of funding and/or discrimination. They saw no potential for harm even when a person’s only access to any of these supports or to housing or funding is via the doctor who is suggesting they’d be better off dead.

Nor did these people consider the way disabled people are disproportionately represented in prisons where they may select the ‘choice’ between a lengthy sentence without the proper care and supports they need for their condition or a doctor giving them a lethal injection, to be anything other than progressive freedom.

They did not think of another creation of the Canadian carceral state, the horrors of which were long known and spoken about by disabled people but were only now hitting the news enough to register with non-disabled people – long term care, nursing homes and other congregate care settings.

It is unfortunately not surprising. The Canadian left progressives and social justice movements fail to demonstrate even the most minuscule solidarity with disabled people’s struggle. Instead they actively exclude us from their own activism and advocate against our interests far too often.

Disabled women were ignored in #MeToo activism despite being two to four times more likely (depending on disability) to be victims of sexual assault than non-disabled women and significantly higher rates of experiencing domestic violence.

But none of these things, let alone the fact that healthcare is designed for and around the needs of non-disabled people or that every province has chosen to keep disabled people trapped in a state of barely subsistence, below the poverty line and that most housing is not accessible or…mattered.

The vast majority of disabled people however were not confused by the existential threat Bill C-7 posed. Many worked together to try to prevent the passing of the bill, while well aware that the other side had a slick and sophisticated politically connected machine behind its blend of homespun ‘merciful to shoot a suffering animal’ common sense, appeals to ableists’ fears about becoming the very people they’ve spent their entire lives regarding as subhuman, branding of dignity as independent toileting and minimalist packaging of easily consumed utilitarian ethics.

“It doesn’t have to be this way”

Karen Ward is a historian, veteran harm reduction activist, advocate against prohibition and for safe supply, Vancouver downtown eastside resident, policy analyst and advisor to City of Vancouver. Ward reminds people regularly that ‘it doesn’t have to be this way’ as we head into the sixth year of the other public health crisis, a striking example of leadership and policy failure that has left thousands dead and countless others in mourning.

It is an important reminder that is more demanding than it is hopeful. It means we, and especially our political leaders, are making a choice to keep things as they are. It is an assertive entreaty that leaves claims of ignorance and helplessness shattered. When I was asked by the Broadbent Institute to write their submission about the proposed BC Accessibility legislation, I asked Ward to be part of it and we included harm reduction as a component of accessibility.  

The Disability Filibuster was/is a protest of  ‘it doesn’t have to be this way’ as well as a window into what another way could be.  

Our attempts at lobbying, public education and advocacy against Bill C-7 had tried to cross the moat between non-disabled people and disabled people. We live very different lives and our oppression is simultaneously visible and invisible. The evidence is our absence. But even when present we are rendered invisible in reality by the tropes and prejudice that fills and fuels the space we should occupy.

Our attempts to inject ourselves were hampered by the fact that even non-disabled people politically inclined to be supportive were distracted by their own fearful imaginings of themselves as us. The abled gaze objectifies and dehumanizes. The abled imagination is worse.

Hate and pity share the same origin story and the latter turns into the former when the reward points aren’t sufficient.

The Filibuster’s side benefit for those who decided to watch, was a glimpse into the world of crip culture and politics. We were in no way motivated by the abled gaze but if it looked it wasn’t going to have any influence or control. The Filibuster was crip space. In order for this to happen it had to be accessible; accessibility was necessary because we are. The Filibuster was necessary because we are.

Accessibility is “it doesn’t have to be this way” writ large. It says that what you think of as ‘natural’ or ‘the right way’ or, too often, ‘the only way’ is in fact a reflection and source of discrimination. Ableism built the cities. Ableism designed housing. Ableism decided how people learn and at what speed and in what setting. All the things that can’t be questioned not only can be questioned through the lens and analysis of accessibility, but they must be.

I hadn’t read his book yet at the time I was working on the submission but much of my own approach to accessibility is expressed in AJ Withers description of Radical Access,  “Access needs to be addressed collectively, across bodies, boundaries and borders. Radical access means acknowledging systemic barriers that exclude people, particularly certain kinds of people with certain kinds of minds and/or bodies, and working to ensure not only the presence of those who have been left out, but also their comfort, participation and leadership.”

I would add that accessibility also means acknowledging that the thing people are participating in or aspiring to be in leadership of, may also be something that is fundamentally inaccessible. For me accessibility is less about trying to renovate and more about creating. As I’ve said before, accessibility is what happens when dreamers pick up tools to carve justice.

In a similar way that neoliberals have laid claim on the words dignity, choice and autonomy and trademarked and branded them to align with their own political views and goals, accessibility was deprived of its fullness of meaning and transformative potential.

In a blog called, Stims, Stammers and Winks: A Catalogue of Awkward Gestures, Queer Writer defines what they call ableliberalism, a neologism that captures the “purely aesthetic nature of neoliberal commitments to accessibility and universal design.” The blogger argues that in the context of ableliberalism, accessibility’s “function is not actually to support disabled people but often either to make money from disabled people and…to make it look like the government is supporting disabled people or to normalize disabled people. Proof of this is everywhere. In many places one can see ramps that do not actually lead directly to the ground but leave space between the street and the sidewalk, effectively negating the actual use of a ramp for wheelchair users, but making it look to the unaware privileged abled citizen as if access has been achieved.”

The aesthetic of accessibility is unconcerned with carving justice and therefore ignores the barriers created by poverty, racism, colonialism, trauma, gender and other axes of oppression. It sets whiteness (a word with very particular meaning) as the ideal and assumes disability to be the only variation from ideal ‘norm’ identity – such a white, middle class man with a spinal cord injury, which just so happens to be most people’s image of disability.

A simple example of this is the placement of elevators at some of Vancouver’s older SkyTrain stations. Located away from the main public area and down dead end hallways this accessibility is not something I would want to use as a non-disabled or disabled woman.

Ableliberalism’s accessibility is often unpleasant to look at and difficult to use and only considers a very limited range of accessibility needs in the most minimal and unimaginative way – intentionally or otherwise designed to stick out and be noticed and noted. The effect of this is, in addition to the above noted appearance of providing accessibility, that it serves to reinforce non-disabled people’s perspective that accessibility is an intrusion into “their” space and that it is ugly and not meant to be there. Tolerance – which is not inclusion – leads to resentment. A quota is reached early and the gate is slammed shut.

‘Inclusion’ in a society with whiteness and abledness set as criteria for full humanness is both limited and conditional.

It is inclusion at the expense of what Robert McRuer calls “compulsory able-bodiedness which assumes that the “able-bodied identities, able-bodied perspectives are preferable and what we all, collectively, are aiming for.” Thus you hear of the disabled people who have successfully “overcome” or who “don’t allow their disability to define them.” 

David Mitchell with Sharon Snyder call the “tactic of integrating a privileged minority at the expense of the further abjection of the many” ablenationalism in The Biopolitics of Disability: Neoliberalism, Ablenationalism and Peripheral Embodiment: “Within neoliberalism’s inclusionism those occupying peripheral embodiments cannot be adequately accommodated even under the most liberal, fluid, and flexible diversity doctrine given the in-built limits of community infrastructure, reasonable tolerance, limited economic resources, and traditional historical expectations about who will share the rapidly dwindling commonwealth represented by public and private spaces.”

You may notice accessibility is so often located at places of wealth. In my city, Vancouver, BC, a former mayor is a wheelchair user. Access to and around City Hall is terrible. I asked a City Hall security guard about it one day when I was attending a meeting there. Surely the former mayor would have attended to the accessibility of the building and site while he was in office. The security guard laughed and explained that the mayor would never have used that entrance. His car was parked underground in his VIP spot and from there he took the elevator right up to his office. I always thought this was a good metaphor for accessibility. I heard the former mayor once on a radio show with our country’s most famous “inspirational” disabled person (rich, white, athletic supercrip) saying he didn’t think there were six restaurants in all of Vancouver that were not accessible. I am a wheelchair user and there are six restaurants within six blocks of where I live that I cannot get into. But I suspect the former mayor and I wouldn’t hang at the same spots. I live on disability benefits, which means I live in poverty. I don’t have a VIP parking spot. I don’t own a car. I used to skip a day or two of meals in order to pay for my transportation to volunteer on one of the City’s advisory councils. My poverty was a consequence of disability rates being frozen for a decade by the provincial government he was part of at the time. His accessibility and mine have precious little in common. Last year his reelection campaign centred around his campaign against the homeless (often/mostly disabled) people in his neighbourhood. Thankfully he lost. The defeat of this disabled man was actually more of a victory for inclusion than his reelection would have been.

Mitchell argues “a neoliberal bait-and-switch with disabled lives is at stake. The paradox of support for living in the community while simultaneously gutting the very social service systems needed to accomplish this kind of integration sits at the heart of the weakened strain of inclusionism extant in neoliberalism.”

The Lower Mainland is also home to the Rick Hansen Foundation and yet when I sat as a volunteer on the City’s Active Transportation Advisory Council I discovered 8,000 of 27,000 corners were not ramped and they were installing new curb cuts where none existed at a rate of 40 per year making the projected date of completion two centuries away. Curb cuts are among the most basic of accessibility and in this city of the country’s most famous disabled person they still either don’t exist or are installed improperly or not maintained. The City continues to install curb cuts that put wheelchair users outside of the crossing lines and into traffic. For comparison other smaller Canadian cities I contacted were installing up to 350 a year at the time.

Our cities are inaccessible, not just a building or a sidewalk, the very nature of how we conceive cities as places of ‘commerce’ and design them for ‘commuting’ to and from work. Our sidewalks are designed like car lanes only smaller. Room for one (slender non-disabled person with no pets, children or bags) going in one direction and room for one going in the other. There are precious few parking spots near sidewalk lanes though.

Who is the public in public space defines how we design public space. Containing and controlling the public use of public space extends the tentacles of exclusion further.

The majority of people killed by police are living with mental illness or are people who use drugs. Some are killed during wellness checks because of a mental health crisis. The victims are disproportionately Black and Indigenous. I have friends who live with mental illness. They are a danger to no one including themselves but they tell me they are often hesitant to go out in public for fear of behaving in a way that causes someone to call the police. One homeless man in my neighbourhood would give me the change he managed to accumulate and ask me to buy him food at the store. He didn’t want to go in because he was afraid of the people inside and how they would respond to him being “in their space.”

In his chapter about Toronto’s Queen West in Madness, Violence and Power,  Ben Losman analyzed the exclusion and inaccessibility created by gentrification. “In their interviews with the tenant population, Mazer and Rankin discovered that, “in relation to new commercial establishments, most rooming-house tenants experienced this subtle form of exclusion rooted in the dynamics of shaming.” 

Inaccessibility is fundamentally about causing, enforcing and providing justification for exclusion. Capitalism is a system of exclusion and ableism is the rebar it pours ‘reason’ on.

Marta Russell wrote in Capitalism and Disability, “exclusion was rationalized by Social Darwinists…Just as the inferior weren’t meant to survive in nature, they weren’t meant to survive in a competitive society. For nineteenth-century tycoons, Social Darwinism proved a marvelous rationale for leaving the surplus population to die in poverty.“  

I don’t care how dog-eared your Das Kapital is, you don’t understand capitalism if you don’t understand ableism and you don’t understand ableism if you don’t understand capitalism. And yet the two are so rarely discussed together.

Ableism is the never satisfied efficiency and productivity in capitalism and ready on standby ‘rational, scientific’ cover for exclusion and oppression. Period. Not just of disabled people.    

None of this is accidental, natural or rational. Fortunately it doesn’t have to be this way.

An injury (inaccessibility) to one is an injury (inaccessibility) to all!

“You wanna know how you’ll know if you’re doing disability justice? You’ll know you’re doing it because people will show up late, someone will vomit, someone will have a panic attack, and nothing will happen on time because the ramp is broken on the supposedly “accessible” building.”

Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, Care Work

The Disability Filibuster was inspired by crip rage – that would soon become grief – but it was built by crip love, run with crip care and fueled by crip power.

It was intentional. The topics were serious and silly, the age range was young adult to elder, it was racially diverse, there was a range of disabilities represented – not just the usual suspects – it was educational, it was protest, it was pleasure, it was art, it was academic, it was music and memories and discussions. It was our space and nothing was polished or hidden from view.

Was it accessible? To a degree, yes. It had accessibility built in – which is different than saying it is accessible.

We had captions, ASL, people stopped and did periodic visual descriptions of themselves and their surroundings which turned out to be among my favourite moments even though I don’t require them for accessibility reasons. We were on crip time. If someone cancelled at the last minute no explanation was necessary – we all know of hundreds of possibilities without prying into someone’s privacy. Catherine moved her chair into different positions and her partner moved around behind her periodically doing whatever it was she was doing. Some people reclined. Some had echoes. None of it is remarkable to us but us being us in public is always remarkable.

But I will not call it accessible. You required a computer and Internet to participate or watch. That was the first barrier.

Hate is always a barrier to accessibility.

On the first day we were zoom bombed. We came back. There was a repeat. The images and sounds were disturbing and while we resolved to not stop we also knew harm had occurred and we needed to take measures to deserve the trust of our community to provide them with safety. We took a break and regrouped and determined that unfortunately we would have to sacrifice the closeness and solidarity we had felt in that virtual room together. We had wanted to make it possible for everyone to actively participate and chat together but we had to set it up as a webinar.

Sometimes there are competing accessibility needs between disabled people but in this case the competing need was within accessibility itself. Creating safe space is part of accessibility and in this case so was openness and ability to communicate without a sense of hierarchy of audience and presenter. We had to pick and we picked safety. It was one of the few tradeoffs we had to make.

We would not have moved forward with the Filibuster if we could not have arranged what we regard as basic accessibility. This was not something any of us even needed to articulate. It is just a given.

I have worked to create accessibility and inclusion at professional events in the past. I did a lot of the same things we did with the Filibuster – arrange for ASL, captions, ask speakers to give visual descriptions…At one professional event I toyed with the idea of calling my position an accessibility concierge because it better describes my approach than manager. For example, I called the hotel where disabled people were staying, the week before, day before and day of to make sure they had put unscented products and used scent-free detergent and cleaning supplies. I stocked the accessibility room with juice boxes, maxi pads, tampons, Depends, heating pads, cushions, blankets, chargers…I ran orange tape along edges of glass shelves, moved containers to the base of diagonal pillars, put toilet risers on some of the toilets, printed off larger font signage, similar in braille, wrote scripts for announcements to let people know they could move, stand, sit in chairs, recline on the floor however they wished…My goal was to create the conditions for the disabled people who were coming to have their needs predicted and planned for as much as possible- the way non-disabled people’s generally are (though capitalism doesn’t ever embrace the full humanity of non-disabled people either). My models were good hostesses and exceptional neighbours more than any philosophers or theorists I studied in university.

But I realized that while I was a concierge to disabled people I had to maintain a title of authority (though not one that is highly respected) with the non-disabled organizers. Though the title did little to offset the lack of value placed on accessibility and therefore me.

For this reason the most accessible thing about the Disability Filibuster for me was not fighting for and about accessibility.  There were frustrations and venting but just about usual things – like tech. It is remarkable how different those frustrations feel than arguments that fundamentally question your claim to be human. Tired is not stomped on. In fact I often felt replenished and tired at the same time.

At one point when I was communicating with someone on the Disability Filibuster team and when I finished I felt as if I must have missed something. The exchange was over far too quickly. It seemed incomplete. I realized what was missing were the hours of arguing about why something was necessary, why an inaccessible alternative wouldn’t work, why it didn’t matter how many people require it and why yes it was worth the cost and no it would not be understandable if that part of the event wasn’t accessible to everyone and on it goes.

Accessibility is/accessibility should be…

James I. Charlton said of accessibility “It is the likelihood of receiving the support, services, and devices necessary for a reasonable quality of life. It involves the totality of life for people with disabilities. Access is then a social construct, not simply an architectural one.”

Accessibility as a concept does not get the respect it deserves. Part of the reason for that is it was kettled by capitalism into products and brands. The economic or market model of disability has done at least as much damage as the medical and charity model ever has. Believing that the source and cause of your exclusion can be the source of your liberation is a hell of spin.

Capitalism is an intrinsically inaccessible system. Inaccessibility is as much a part of capitalism as profit. As we work to build accessibility within it so that we can exist, we must also not have illusions about the limitations of what we can achieve without being seen as a threat to the system itself. We must survive to fight and fight to survive but with the view that full accessibility is necessarily anti-capitalist.

Accessibility is about time and space and the humanity that fills it.

As a fat wheelchair user I am scorned by design for not being smaller. I am frequently told to be quieter. Giving me a shower took too long for hospital staff to bother.

If I don’t feel fully human and especially if I am made to feel less human then the place or space or thing or policy or system or attitude is not accessible to me. At a very core and fundamental level it means I fall outside your definition of human.

Accessibility is about the ability to be. Without explanation.

Accessibility is about belonging without earning. You belong because you are.

Accessibility is about connection to others, to life and to our own selves.

Accessibility is acceptance.

This is what we worked towards with the Disability Filibuster. To occupy space and time in ways that honoured our humanity individually and collectively.

Accessibility is many things but above all else it is precious and profound. It is necessarily a community and collective creation and to truly do it properly demands mutual communication and respect.

Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha has suggested accessibility is an act of love and the difference is tangible. “When disabled people get free, everyone gets free. More access makes everything more accessible for everybody. And once you’ve tasted that freedom space, it makes inaccessible spaces just seem very lacking that kind of life-saving, life-affirming love.”

The line between others and me is not as strong or solid as the one that binds us. Exclusion cannot be contained in one person or one moment. There are ripples. Accessibility also creates ripples and the more accessibility we create the more ripples it causes. We make waves and in the process we are not only making changes now but we are shaping the dreams and plans for the future.

I asked the disability community to share what they think accessibility is. I love my crip community and so I would just like to end this with their words and challenge the left to realize what they are missing. Please read the replies.

This article was first published on Gabrielle Peters’ blog. Republished with her kind permission.

See also: Catherine Frazee: ‘Bill C-7 begs the question, why us? Why only us?’

See also: 3 men talking and now I have 3 minutes, a poem by Gabrielle Peters

The post The disability filibuster and what accessibility is and is not appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – On Wednesday, a 58 year-old man using a marked crosswalk at the Forest Hills Parkway/Main Street signalized intersection in Dartmouth was struck by a 19 year-old female driver heading south-bound on Forest Hills Parkway and turning right onto Main Street.

The driver was issued a Summary Offence ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian on a crosswalk, say the RCMP. The pedestrian was taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries. A number of firetrucks and ambulances attended the scene, as shown in the incident video footage from CTV’s Carl Pomeroy.

Local pedestrians commenting on twitter have some observations about this intersection.The language used absolutely reflects the level of danger, anger and difficulty resulting from any dangerous location that wholly lacks pedestrian safety infrastructure. 

I used to live in the housing co-op there. To get groceries I used to have to cross that intersection with two toddlers in tow. It’s a fucking nightmare. And the drivers are terrible all along the parkway. I get a pain in my chest just remembering leaving that house for anything

There are right turning lanes so at least you only have to worry about one direction of attacks at once there.

But left turning cars are a problem for the same reason the whole intersection is: everybody is in the biggest hurry and it’s just big wide fast highway all four ways. – @neluunaa

It connects 4 major arteries. FH Pkwy, FH extension, HWY 107 and Main St.  Once traffic starts flowing it’s a festival of blowing/turning left on reds. Even slow flow, you can easily do  60. 

Also rush hour lasts 2 hours at most. The rest of the day it’s basically a race track.– @brunobersano

I sometimes go from corner to corner (Tims to Sobeys) would never walk it. Fucking deathtrap. It’s basically an intersection of two highways. – @LandOfSticks

As we all know, pedestrians struck on crosswalks is a weekly, often daily occurrence. In the Fall without the infrastructure they require to be safe from moving vehicles, pedestrian incidents on crosswalks will inevitably increase, as they always do.

Forest Hills Parkway/Main Street intersection is a perfect example of an intersection wholly built for vehicular traffic flow. The slip lane where I understand the 58 year-old man was struck has no pedestrian safety infrastructure, just painted lines and a yield sign.  

Slip lanes from high speed artery roads are dangerous for pedestrians because they are designed for unimpeded vehicular movement, say the United States Federal Highways Agency. 

Similar to right turns on a green or red light at signalized intersections, drivers are not thinking about pedestrians when they use slip lanes – they are looking to their left for oncoming traffic so they can merge with traffic, often with the aim of not coming to a full stop. They could and do entirely miss a pedestrian crossing right in front of them.

Despite the well known and national transportation agency affirmed dangers of slip lanes, they are not being adapted for safe use by pedestrians. In other jurisdictions including Seattle they are being adapted or closed off by varied methodologies.

City authorities in Adelaide, Australia, simply decided by policy to remove slip lanes after ascertaining they are unsafe for pedestrians. 

Traffic staff recently said they likely receive more complaints about Forest Hills Parkway/Main Street  than any other intersection. They say it is operating at maximum capacity, and there are very few pedestrians. Staff specifically pointed to excessive congestion leading to road safety issues for vulnerable road users, which they said they see time and time again.

It is true that pedestrians are often struck at peak hours on wide signalized intersections. 

But this is not down to excessive congestion per se. It is due to illegal or dangerous driving, vehicle/pedestrian conflicts due to current traffic light programming and right on red laws, and unsafe wide crosswalks which lack any pedestrian safety infrastructure whatsoever. 

Often those safety problems for pedestrians are more severe when there is lighter traffic because drivers move faster and consequently see less around them. In the United States, another increase in pedestrian fatalities during 2020 has been linked specifically to less traffic and congestion.

Although the fumes are unpleasant, I don’t feel unsafe walking by and through slower moving or standstill traffic. In the United Kingdom where I have walked for 40 years, congestion is notably far worse. Car use is rendered completely impractical and virtually impossible at peak hours as a means of getting to and from an urban core. However, pedestrians are not regularly struck while legally using crosswalks, as they are in Halifax. 

The extraordinary and unacceptable danger experienced by pedestrians at signalized intersections is not due to congestion. It is due to multiple lanes, traffic-light programmed vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, right turn on reds, dangerous wide slip lanes and crosswalks, and drivers moving at unsafe speeds or focusing wholly on their own movement and avoiding conflict with other vehicles. 

Pedestrians who use unsafe crosswalks at intersections do not need an engineering qualification to understand what is dangerous for them and why. Recently when I asked regular pedestrians on the HRM Safe Streets for Everyone Facebook group about the level of safety at signalized intersections, they identified the level of danger and specific safety issues for them accurately:

Their observations and experiences match recent pedestrian and cyclist incident data:

Signalized intersections connecting artery roads are not a suitable location for prioritizing traffic flow and ignoring obvious and essential pedestrian safety infrastructure requirements. 

Maximizing vehicle flow optimization at all times does not result in safety for pedestrians. Neither are the yield laws adequate alone at multiple lane crosswalks with no pedestrian safety infrastructure.

In many cases, especially on wide slip lanes and traffic lights and law which invite conflict between vehicles and vulnerable road users, optimisation for vehicular traffic flow results in pedestrian safety considerably worsening. 

Halifax decision-makers must wake up to a very obvious reality – vulnerable road user safety infrastructure at the most dangerous locations is essential, not optional.

Pedestrians require completely different but very necessary infrastructure to the current choices associated with vehicular traffic flow optimization. Yield rates by drivers at signalized intersections must be ascertained, and resulting interventions prioritized accordingly.

Pedestrian safety infrastructure is not a suitable long term aim, nor does it require the conversion of intersections to roundabouts. Other jurisdictions have implemented  traffic signals that prevent drivers from turning over the crosswalk when pedestrians are crossing legally, and adapting wide slip lanes with inexpensive interventions. 

A pedestrian safety action plan identifying suitable infrastructure interventions and a timescale for completing them is long overdue. Please ask your councillor about the lack of progress with the pedestrian safety related action requirements clearly set out in our road safety framework, explained  in my previous and recent article here. I’d be glad to hear any response – please use the comment facility or post to HRM Safe Streets for Everyone.

If you walk, cycle or use a wheelchair and are affected by road safety issues, please join HRM Safe Streets for Everyone. If your local crosswalk needs a crosswalk flag, please contact the Crosswalk Safety Society. Please remember to report issues affecting your safety to our municipal authorities using the 311 service.

The post “Basically a race track” – Recent incident highlights ongoing danger for pedestrians at signalized intersections appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

The template email below using United Nations promotional materials is for you to adapt and use. It has been developed by me (Martyn Williams) with some kind direction from the United Nations (North America) office of the FIA Foundation.

For decades, vulnerable road users have been a secondary priority to moving vehicles, often an afterthought. That must change, says the World Health Organisation. 

Vulnerable road users are the catalyst that enable urban and suburban residents to move efficiently – maximizing best use of limited resources, space and time. Cities that prioritize the movement of people over cars truly benefit in all respects. 

Please make best use of this template by adding your own experiences and concerns. Explain where your safety is compromised and how, and what additional action you would like taken to make your journeys safer.  You can also access this email template from this Google Document.

Then please send your completed email to your councillor, requesting a response.

Dear Councillor,

Please act to support this year’s “Streets for Life” United Nations Road Safety Week

I am writing to request you act to improve safety for vulnerable road users where it is required the most. 

From the World Health Organisation’s press release:

“The 6^th UN Global Road Safety Week is calling on policymakers to act for low speed streets worldwide, limiting speeds to 30 km/h where people walk, live and play. Join the #Love30 campaign to call for 30 km/h speed limits to be the norm for cities, towns and villages worldwide.”

This has been achieved by Lockeport, Nova Scotia and by international cities.

There are many myths and prejudices relating to this essential requirement for a liveable, safe and sustainable city. I hope these misconceptions about lowering speeds do not prevent you from openly supporting this year’s United Nations campaign. 

I understand lower speed limits must be approved by the Province, who would examine if any current or planned adaptations make the roads suited to lower speed limits. Achieving this will require reconsideration as to how we most effectively use road space, utilising inexpensive toolkit road diet alterations, collaborating constructively with the Province and implementing strategic action plans. 

I agree with this United Nations campaign to provide safe streets that support people and the planet. I urge you to propose a strategy for 30 km/h speeds on all roads where people and traffic mix. 

As my councillor I also call upon you to publicly support the following essential requirements to progress safety where it matters the most; in particular at crosswalks, which from the most recent annual statistics available accounted for almost two-thirds of pedestrian incidents over 2018 and 2019. Over 2020 and 2021, I understand crosswalks were the location of all pedestrian fatalities. 

Some of these requests relate to actions within the councillor approved Road Safety Framework. Relevant page numbers are referenced below.

1. Request the immediate development of the pedestrian safety action plan.

The Road Safety Framework was never intended as a stand-alone complete plan:

“The development of action plans will be an ongoing process to ensure the effectiveness of specific actions in collision reduction in HRM.” (page 14)

This critical pedestrian safety action plan has not yet been developed, as confirmed recently by staff:

“Develop action plan for worst 10 types of (pedestrian) collisions. Consider rates/frequencies, consistency of collision patterns and crosswalk specific assessments.” – Attachment D, Future Countermeasures, page 6 of 8

This plan must be developed in conjunction with people who rely upon walking or disability mobility aids as a primary means of transport, especially those who have physical and learning disabilities: 

“Working with different communities, understanding their needs and facilitating open communications is critical to inclusive outreach programs.” (page 14) 

It must consider and prioritise the safety needs of our most vulnerable road users, including children – not just around schools but along routes they use to get to and from schools and outdoor parks:

A pedestrian safety action plan could identify key safety issues and urgent intervention priorities – including:

1. Assessing safety at multiple-lane crosswalks with overhead amber flashing lights (RA-5) and signalized intersection crosswalks with no pedestrian safety infrastructure;
   1. are they safe to use for people of all ages and abilities?
   2. how could safety be improved?
   3. how can public safety concerns be addressed through known engineering interventions and/or road space reallocation?
2. Reducing the number of traffic lanes that a pedestrian can realistically cross safely without a break in traffic lanes by way of a refuge island, 
3. Ensuring essential, not optional, infrastructure is in place that; 
   1. slows down drivers as they approach crosswalks to speeds compatible with vulnerable road user safety.
   2. ensures drivers can see pedestrians crossing or about to cross, using advance yield signage and markings. 

2. Acknowledge staff must work with community stakeholders (not just inform or impart information provided on request) when developing the action plans mentioned in the road safety framework strategy.

Action and collaboration through working with stakeholders in the community, as identified in the road safety framework:

“Facilitating collaboration with other road safety stakeholders is the most important function of this Plan. Working together achieves better outcomes, uses resources efficiently and builds upon different organizational strengths. This collaborative effort is more effective than stand-alone initiatives, because it focuses resources towards common objectives and avoids redundant, duplicate or inefficient programs.” (page 6, own emphasis added)

3. Propose an independent safety audit.

Severe and fatal incidents have recently occured on crosswalks which lack pedestrian safety infrastructure at Young/Kempt and on Herring Cove Road. I request an independent audit assessing the adequacy of HRM’s pedestrian infrastructure, per this recommendation by the Federal Highways Agency. 

Given the cost to human lives, action on crosswalk safety must be pre-emptive and led by safety assessments.

4. Propose a policy for traffic controls that prioritize pedestrian safety.

The prioritisation of pedestrian safety through road-class appropriate infrastructure at crosswalks is the priority, not traffic flow:

“Vulnerable road user safety must be prioritized over vehicle movement in the selection of traffic control devices” – the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5 May 2021.

“if you’re asking whether TAC guidance suggests “prioritizing vulnerable road users” — then the answer to that would be yes. Clearly, a pedestrian is inherently less well protected than an automobile occupant, and warrants special treatments to compensate for risk.” – Transportation Association of Canada, 23 February 2021.

Two fatalities and a life threatening injury have occurred in a recent twelve month period due to traffic controls that invite conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and prioritise the movement of vehicles over pedestrian safety. 

This follows an alarming long-term trend of disproportionately high numbers of pedestrian incidents at signalized intersections. Recent incident data analysis shows intersections continue to account for 72% of pedestrian and cyclist incidents:

To prevent the statistically evidenced likelihood of numerous pedestrian incidents over the next 12 months caused by turning drivers at signalized intersections, I request changes to traffic lights by developing a municipal policy that requires vulnerable road user safety to be the priority for traffic controls at signalized intersections.

5. Propose policy requiring the removal of right on red permissions.

Right turns on reds are dangerous for me and are not compatible with vulnerable road user safety. 

I request the development of Municipal policy on right-on-red permissions that meets clear guidance from national transportation agencies including Transport Canada, the Canadian Council for Motor Transport Administrators and the United States Federal Highway Agency. 

“Streets for Life” requires your public support!

The eleven recent pedestrian fatalities within the Municipality were all senior in age. 

Local resident and mother Sarah Richardson miscarried her twins after being struck while using a dangerous crosswalk on Herring Cove Road. 

Prioritising vehicular traffic flow over vulnerable road user safety at crosswalks means seniors, children, pregnant women and people with injuries or disabilities will continue to be those most likely to be killed or injured. 

Fatalities and incidents will also continue in the most dangerous locations where safety infrastructure for vulnerable road users is lacking or even (as for signalized intersections) often non-existent. These are not “accidents”, they are results:

I ask for action prioritised and focused upon vulnerable road-user experience, involvement and incident data. 

Identifying the above high injury network and the interventions required to prevent harm within the network, particularly at intersections, is critical to start the process of prioritizing safety where it is needed the most.

Moving large volumes of vehicular traffic through communities on multiple lane wider roads and intersections requires infrastructure which prioritises safety for vulnerable road users at all crosswalks and cycle routes, due to the increased danger presented by wider roads and higher traffic speeds.

I do not volunteer to endanger myself at locations where there is a desire to prioritise traffic flow and speed, nor do I accept that danger when using facilities specifically for pedestrians and cyclists is inevitable, essential for transportation efficacy or requires decades of expensive redesigns.

Infrastructure that adequately protects our most vulnerable road users at locations dedicated for their use is both my right and an immediate priority, not a long term ambition.

Please speak up during Road Safety Week

Please do not be silent during this United Nations Road Safety Week.

Speak out for vulnerable road user safety where it matters the most: 

1. On our fast and dangerous urban arterial roads and intersections. 
2. On community and downtown streets. 
3. For children making their way to school and back on foot or by bicycle.

Accompany children on their walk or cycle to school, or seniors on their walk or bus ride. Document the everyday dangers they face and share them. Explain how you will support action on safety for those most compromised by danger, and how. 

Safe and traffic-calmed residential class streets are important, but please do not restrict your message to this issue.

Transportation efficacy and sustainability in communities relies upon and requires safe infrastructure for people who do not drive. Our local ferries and transit require a complementary safe walk, cycle or roll to and from transit stops and terminals.

Please acknowledge that the Municipality must do more and change its approach to protect those who most rely on safe infrastructure with urgent interventions like this, changing the outcome from predictable everyday incidents to safe travel for all:

Everyone gains from infrastructure that adequately supports mobility for all irrespective of their chosen travel mode, disability and age.

Thank you for considering my Road Safety Week plea for action. I look forward to receiving confirmation of your support.

Best wishes

If you walk, cycle or use a wheelchair and are affected by road safety issues, please join HRM Safe Streets for Everyone. If your local crosswalk needs a crosswalk flag, please contact the Crosswalk Safety Society. Please remember to report issues affecting your safety to our municipal authorities using the 311 service.

The post United Nations Road Safety Week: My plea for urgent action appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.