The recent city council discussion on the composition of the bicycleadvisory committee illustrates important and interesting issues.First, from listening to comments made by senior city staff and council members at the Feb 3rd council meeting, I think its a fair bet that bicycle transportation and other forms of non private motorized vehicle transportation have taken a new prominence in the strategic plan for the city over the next three years.
Undoubtedly, many Kamloopsians will rejoice, but we also must not underestimate how central "car culture" has become, and how challenging a really meaningful shift is likely to be. One way to find some middle ground perhaps is to find a way to encourage the purchase and use of electric cars.Second, the proposed membership of the bicycle advisory committee sparked some animated questions and debate.
Long time committee member Anne Grube questioned the composition of the committee, and some of it's goals. One of Anne's concerns was that the committee seemed weighted towards people who don't really cycle all that much. David Trawin, city hall's director of development services and engineering, responded that he was trying to create a seat for all stakeholders, members of the public and city staff included.He argued that one needed to look at the big picture on this issue, and to have people at the table who could provide expert advice.
The larger issues here: whether a committee weighted toward paid experts meets the mandate of an "advisory committee". Also, whether it is more important to have a committee that represent the interests of cyclists or to have a committee that looks at how cycling fits into the larger picture.In the end, after a good council discussion, the committee was approved with a larger picture type mandate and with a healthy complement of paid city staff as members.
Comments