The 'R' stands for Reliable

If you haven't checked your mailbox since Friday, make sure you do so before the weekend finishes. You will find a pamphlet outlining some open houses coming up over the next week to learn more about the options being considered for London's bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

Back of the brochure delivered to households this past Friday.

On a personal note, I had the pleasant surprise to discover comments that I had made at a public information meeting in December about the need for rapid transit appear on the back of the pamphlet! Seeing this inspired me to further explain the importance of implementing this method of mass transit, and I'll use our household as an example.

Our family has one car for two working adults, and we have a child in daycare. My wife takes London Transit to and from work most of the time and drops our daughter off in the morning, and I drive to and from work most of the time and pick our daughter up in the afternoon. While both of our workplaces are near a bus route, transfers downtown create long waits and only worsens during rush-hour traffic.  

It normally takes my wife 50 to 60 minutes to get home on a roughly 10 km journey, when it shouldn't be more than a 30-minute bus trip; however, heavier traffic and a meandering bus route through neighbourhoods double her commute home. She finishes work at five o'clock, but would have to leave work a few minutes early to catch a bus and get home by quarter to six, and typically has to wait 20 minutes after work to catch her bus to get home shortly after six. My commute of about 6.5 km would take 30 minutes by bus (it's typically 12 to 15 minutes by car), but I would either arrive at work 20 minutes early or 5 minutes late; on the way home (I finish at four o'clock), I would leave 5 minutes early or have to wait 20 minutes for a bus, getting home at about ten to five.

Map of where people reported to live, work, and go to school at the December 2017 public information centre for Shift.

We both have the goal of getting to and from work without the use of a single-occupied vehicle, and having dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (therefore making the system "rapid") will ensure that schedules remain punctual and reliable. People who want to take public transit only really ask for comfort and reliability: the major problem that has plagued London's transit system for decades has been unreliable schedules -- a bus that arrives early and leaves early at transfer points, for example, so in essence doesn't arrive at all -- and is a deciding factor for people to drive their car instead of using public transit, myself included. Not being assured that I would be home in time to pick up our daughter from daycare is a huge reason why I still drive to and from work.

Having the backbone of the system in rapid/reliable transit will speed up commute times and increase the efficiency of the feeder routes that cover the rest of the city.  Since the rapid lines will be every 5 minutes (during peak hours) or 10 minutes and feeders being no more than double the rapid line, people will be able to get around much quicker and with minimal transfer times.

Getting home earlier from work would allow us to spend more quality time as a family, and in my wife's case would give her about three more hours at home in a normal week. A more reliable transit system will allow us to continue as a single-vehicle family; otherwise, we would have to explore adding to London's congestion with a second vehicle, while also greatly increasing our household expenditures. We are only one family: multiply our situation by thousands, and the impact of having better transit will easily help young families reduce their need for a second vehicle -- not to mention empty-nesters who want to downsize, single folks who would rather not own (or perhaps can't afford) a vehicle, and a multitude of other family situations where reducing vehicle use is beneficial for them both financially and socially.

When we consider moving forward with the BRT, we already know that it will:

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

It's a sustainable solution that we can't pass up.

It's not how dense you make it...

All right, everyone, now say it with me!  "It's not how dense you make it; it's how you make it dense."

Good.  Now with that out of the way, let's explore how we can have exciting new buildings in our city that have a positive effect on existing architecture, and more specifically heritage buildings.

By integrating heritage buildings into the design of new builds from the get-go as a foundation for the new construction, a city keeps its character while allowing for higher density.  Responsible and forward-thinking land owners will maintain the buildings on their properties right up until the time of construction, and throughout, in order to preserve the integrity of the existing structures.

Camden Terrace in 1988.  Photo courtesy of the estate of Lois Marshall. 

Lately in London, we have had quite the opposite, from the demolition of 505/507/511 Talbot Street to make way for another uninspired concrete monolith (think of the hideous Renaissance towers on Ridout Street North between King Street and York Street) to the pending destruction of 175/179/181 King Street (although thankfully 183 King Street will remain) for another 30-storey tower.

Now don't get me wrong: we need a proper mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and low-rises in the downtown.  New buildings are always going to be required to regenerate and grow a city.  Making them the right density in the right locations builds a city inwards and upwards, which is what is needed instead of outwards and sprawling.  Urban infill is a good thing and a necessity; however, it has to be done with consideration for the existing built environment and adaptive reuse in the forefront, not as an afterthought.

Camden Terrace (479 to 489 Talbot Street) is under threat of complete demolition.
These row houses have a significant and rare form and style, designed by the renowned London architect Samuel Peters (click for short video on Peters and Camden Terrace).  This brilliant gem in our downtown core tells the story of how our city grew and evolved, and warrants a respectful integration with this infill development.  Instead, the developer prefers to tear the building down to make way for a 9-storey mixed commercial/residential building as the first phase, with plans for two towers (also mixed use) on the north (29 storeys) and south (38 storeys) as the second phase.  Plans also show a three-storey parking garage in the back.

I am a fan of the mixed use: it is ideal for a city where we want people to work and play all within walking distance of their home, which has huge benefits economically, socially, and environmentally.  The design of the nine-storey first phase can easily integrate the entirety of the original row houses, with appropriate modifications to permit the desired entranceway as proposed in the designs.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  Photo courtesy the City of London planning department.

The London Plan aspires for no more aboveground parking, and rightly so:  parking in the inner core start to disappear with driverless cars and rapid transit, and therefore the people who are living and working downtown are less likely to own a vehicle.  The proposal has four levels of underground parking and three levels of aboveground.  In reality, the aboveground parking will become obsolete in the very near future and would be better use of space to expand the nine-storey construction: this keeps the nine-storey portion virtually unchanged (or potentially larger) and allows room for Camden Terrace to remain. Talk about win-win! The investment for the developer and the city will be huge if all phases are built: don't we want this done right for ourselves and for future generations?

Adaptive reuse has become prominent recently with the Cornerstone Building, the London Roundhouse, The Cube, and many more.  Not only does it maintain a city's character, it is also easier on the environment by not sending tonnes upon tonnes of building materials into an already-strained landfill site.  

Camden Terrace must be given designation and maintained in situ, as any needed changes to the buildings can be considered through a heritage alteration permit.  In fact, the London Roundhouse remains in place and will have a tower built behind it: why can't we do the same here?

Heritage needs to have a voice at the table, and be included from the beginning of projects impacting our shared historical buildings.  A mature city values its heritage.  Other mid-sized cities in Ontario have been willing and able to push the creative inclusion of heritage buildings into new developments of various size:  isn't London good enough to have the same?  Shouldn't we demand better for ourselves?

Do worry, bee not happy

Most people know intuitively the importance of pollinators to the food chain. Pollinators include bats, birds, and primarily a variety of insects such as bees and butterflies: without them, about one third of our food would disappear. Bees in particular play a very important role, ensuring pollination of food crops and plants in the wild.

The past few weeks have highlighted the importance of pollinators. On November 24th, Plight of the Pollinators: making London pollinator friendly took place at the Central Library and attendees packed the Wolf Performance Hall. Experts in the field told the audience how bee populations are suffering, mostly from the advent of the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on food crops and even in plants at garden centres.

The next day, the provincial government released a discussion paper entitled Pollinator Health: a proposal for enhancing pollinator health and reducing the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in Ontario.  It calls for a reduction in over-winter the mortality rate of honey bees to 15% by 2020, and reducing the number of acres of corn and soybean treated by neonicotinoids by 80% by 2017.  

On December 9 (last Tuesday), two Ontario ministries held a public forum to have input on the discussion paper.  I sat at a rather insightful table with three farmers and three local-food activists. 

The representative from the agriculture ministry told us that in 2014, honey bees experienced a 58% mortality rate.  In 2012 and 2013, 70% and 75% (respectively) of the dead honey bees had neonicotinoid residue.

One of the farmers at the table tends to just under 100 acres, and she claimed that reducing the use of neonicotinoids would just mean farmers would have to find other pesticides, possibly reverting to older products that potentially pose more harm.  While she doesn't use neonicotinoids on all of her crops, she believed in the necessity for her sweet corn and snap peas.  Luckily for her, sweet corn currently falls under the exception list for the proposed ban.

The other two farmers had a larger operation, planting soybean for many seasons. They claimed that they saw very little difference in pest control between the untreated seeds and the seeds treated with neonicotinoids, and in fact that the treated seeds grew with more difficulty.  The only problem now: they can't purchase untreated seeds.

Applying neonicotinoids has the goal of killing insects that eat the plants; however, it has a detrimental effect on the good insects doing the pollinating.  The substances are derived from nicotine and gets used on almost 100% of corn crops and about 60% of soybeans - which, according to the representative from the environment ministry, gives little to no benefit for the latter.

In all, the proposed ban focusses on where the pesticides are needed and eliminate needless application. The way the neonicotinoids attack the nervous system of bees leads to the question of the effects on human health: we eat the very food treated with these pesticides.

Pollinator garden at Church of the Transfiguration

I have had the great opportunity to visit some pollinator gardens in London, three of them located at churches in the city (Church of the Transfiguration, St. John the Evangelist, and St. Andrew Memorial).  I encourage you to visit them and learn more.

There are some easy ways to help your local pollinators, including planting a pollinator-friendly garden (check out the University of Guelph's Honey Bee Research Centre), ensuring that the plants you purchase at the garden centre are free of neonicotinoids, and pull those weeds instead of using any chemical pesticides.  Make sure those plants are native species, too!

If we take good care of the bees, the bees will take good care of us.

Keeping PACE with our energy use

During this term of council, I have been proud to serve on London’s Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE). The committee provides input, advice, and makes recommendations to City Council on environmental matters affecting London.

Aside from firsthand experience with how thing get done at City Hall, serving on the committee has given me a chance to discuss exciting new ideas for improving our city’s environmental performance with smart and committed fellow citizens. One of these proposals I think is so promising that I have included it in my platform: a Property Assessment for Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Here’s how it works: property owners make energy improvements to their homes or buildings. This may include installing high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters, new windows and doors or other air sealing measures, renewable heat sources such as solar and geothermal, and more. Rather than paying the cost of these improvements up front, property owners would pay for them over several years in instalments added to their property tax assessment.

There are several benefits. By making our homes more energy efficient, we reduce carbon emissions that are contributing to climate change. Property owners who participate save money on utility bills, since they are using less energy.  They money they save goes toward paying the loan back, and what remains left over can be spent in the local economy.

Energy improvements are beneficial, but they can have high upfront costs. A PACE program will put these kinds of improvements within reach for families with a wider range of incomes, allowing them to save money and lower their carbon footprint as well.

Another upside to PACE is that even if a family plans to sell their home within a few years, energy improvements still make sense. The new furnace, windows, or other improvements stay with the home and continue generating savings for the new owner. The cost also stays with the property, and the new owners who are seeing the benefits of a more energy efficient home continue to pay for the improvements on their property tax assessment until they are paid for.

The other part of this win-win-win situation is economic stimulus.  There will be many local jobs created for the vendors and installers of qualifying equipment, which means the money being spent by property owners will go to companies in London to employ workers living in the city.

The City of London is currently investigating the benefits of such a program and how it could be implemented here. An ACE proposal in 2013 was passed by City Council, with staff investigating in 2014 for a planned pilot project in 2015. Several US states have made this kind of program available already. Toronto also approved a pilot program in 2013, which they call the Home Energy Loan Program, or HELP.

I have championed a PACE program at the Advisory Committee on the Environment and will continue to do so on City Council. It makes sense to provide Londoners with easier ways to improve energy efficiency at their homes and businesses, and to create a stable environment for employment in this sector. We can help people save money, create jobs, and make London an environmental leader at all at the same time.

What a waste

Garbage collection is one of the city’s most basic and necessary services. It is also a service with enormous room for innovation and improvement.

On the pickup end, garbage service helps people keep their home safe and clean. On the other end, how we dispose of that material makes a big difference to our city’s future and our planet’s future.

Containers ascend the conveyor system at the city Material Recovery Facility (MRF).

The provincial target for waste diversion is 60%. That refers to the percentage of garbage that ends up somewhere other than the landfill. Anything that is recycled, composted, or re-purposed fits into this category.

How is London doing on waste diversion? Not great. Our current rate is 44%. Why is that a problem? London’s landfill site, W12A, is only expected to meet the city’s needs for another 15 years. It’s already the size of 190 football fields. Improving waste diversion will help that space to last longer, which would cost over $100 million to expand. It’s time to lay out a plan to meet or exceed the provincial waste diversion target in a cost-effective way.

That plan must include a strategy for organic waste. We do well with recycling, for the most part, and the new items being collected in blue boxes will help. London’s progress on organic waste has stalled in recent years. A Green Bin pilot project was completed in 2012, but we haven’t seen any move since then to roll the program out to all Londoners.

Many festivals (including Sunfest) did not have an organics composting stream this year.

City festivals also began separating organic waste at EcoStations in 2007. It was a great way to make our festivals greener while getting Londoners ready to sort food waste at home. Unfortunately, that step forward disappeared this year as well. London no longer requires big festivals to separate compost at EcoStations, and Home County was the only festival to do it in 2014.

Door-to-door green-bin collection isn't the only possible way for the city to deal with food waste. The city could also look at providing people who live in houses with composters and educate residents on how to use them. Of course, that wouldn't be a solution for people who live in apartments, but it would be a start. 

We can also look at the causes of food waste in the first place, and work to reduce it: the average Canadian throws away one pound (0.45 kg) of food each and every day.  That adds up to nearly 6 million tonnes of waste nationwide that could otherwise feed the hungry or be diverted from the dump. The bottom line is that we can't divert more of our waste away from the landfill unless we deal with compostable food waste.

I've been asked at the door and at all-candidates meetings whether I would support moving London to same-day, once-a-week garbage pickup. Some are passionate about making this change, while others see our rotating system as an innovative way to cut costs and still provide efficient service. I think our system works well for the most part. In addition to the collection calendars delivered each Fall, there are electronic tools available for those who have trouble keeping track of garbage day: the My Waste app and LondonTrash.ca.

If we were to go to same-day pickup, I would prefer to see a waste collection system where recyclable and compostable material is picked up the same day every week, while garbage is collected every other week. Most of the complaints I hear about the rotating schedule are about garbage getting messy and stinky after eight days, especially in the summer. Food waste is the messy and stinky part of garbage. With that removed every week, what remains for bi-weekly pickup should not present those issues.

Along with organics, we can do a better job of dealing with the household waste left behind when people move out. A drive through Ward 6 at the end of Western’s term makes that obvious. There are some great ideas out there to improve this situation, but it needs to be a co-ordinated effort, included in London’s waste strategy.

On council, I will push for a comprehensive waste program that deals with organics and household waste, and increases out diversion rate.

On a final note, some of these subjects are covered in Road Map 2.0, a report city staff have prepared on waste diversion. It recommends that a decision on green bins be deferred until a new review is completed this year. It doesn't propose a strategy for move-out waste.

You can viewthe report and provide your feedback on the city’s Web site. If you are sending in comments to city staff, I’d love to hear your thoughts as well. Comment below, or e-mail me any time at mike@bloxam.ca.

My platform for a better London

The ideas a potential councillor proposes and the values he or she represents will be the most important information for citizens as they cast their ballots this Fall. To make sure my ideas and values are clear, I posted my platform at Bloxam.ca/platform.

Since the Spring, I have been visiting Ward 6 residents at their homes to introduce myself. I've also been listening to them about what is important to them in their neighbourhoods and for the city of London as a whole. I’ve also attended community meetings and events, and met with many of the decision makers in the area. All of this has helped me to refine and focus the priorities I already had when I entered the race to be the next councillor for Ward 6.

I chose to organize my platform based on three key themes that I believe Londoners are looking for from their next council – Integrity, Prosperity, and Sustainability. Of course, there’s a lot more to the platform than just a few key words. I’ll expand on some of the individual ideas here on this blog over the next few weeks. For now, let me tell you a bit about what I mean by each of these words. 

Integrity 

If there's one thing I've heard above all else when speaking with Londoners, it's that the citizens of our city have lost faith in their elected officials.  I promise to be open, accountable, and accessible to my constituents.  I will work with my council colleagues to come to a consensus when making decisions, instead of continuing the "us vs. them" mentality of the past.

Prosperity

Our city has had a tough time during the recent economic downturn.  We need to get more folks into fulfilling careers and encourage business growth in London.  There is no easy answer and there are many pieces to the puzzle, but working together we can achieve our goals to make London a place to live, work, play, and stay.

Sustainability 

Sustainability means ensuring that decisions take into account economy, community, and environment without placing higher priority for one over the others. It also means ensuring that the prosperity we build together lasts over the long term. In my business career and volunteer commitments, I have always striven to make sustainable decisions. This is a practice that I will continue as your councillor.


I hope you’ll take some time to read through the platform on my Web site, and to get in touch with any questions and comments, good or bad. One of the things integrity means is that I keep listening, even if I think I have the answer.

Please also continue to visit the blog as I expand on some of these points and talk about what the next council’s job will be when it comes to making them a reality.

Throwing the hat in the ring

This afternoon, I declared officially my candidacy in the Ward 6 council race.  You can read the press release below, and please share it widely!

-------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Mike Bloxam declares candidacy in Ward 6 council race

Business owner and active community volunteer, Mike Bloxam, declared his candidacy for London’s Ward 6 council seat on Tuesday.

Already familiar with City Hall by serving on council’s Advisory Committee on the Environment, Bloxam feels he has more to contribute. He is passionate about London, his hometown, and believes strongly that living in a community means giving back – a belief and practice that he will continue through civic duty.

Bloxam wants to see community-focused urban planning and will apply his own experience to the office.

“My vision is a sustainable London where people want to live, work, play, and stay,” Bloxam said. “Striking the right balance between economics, community life, and the environment is critical to a successful city. My experience as a business owner and volunteer in London has helped me find that balance, showing me first-hand it is absolutely achievable.”

Bloxam owns and operates SunTap Technologies, a company specializing in renewable energy. Launching and sustaining a small business has given him crucial skills to represent Ward 6 on council. Mentoring co-op students through his local company has helped to convince Bloxam of the need to create opportunities for young people in our city.

“Instead of always looking outside our city for business investment, we need to encourage home-grown small businesses – not only to survive, but to thrive. These local companies will create jobs here and help London prosper,” he explained. “Mentoring and financial support are two ways to keep our highly-educated graduates in London.  We can foster their sense of entrepreneurship by giving them what they need.”

Serving for 15 years as a volunteer at the London Food Bank, where demand continues to rise, also strengthened his resolve to seek a council seat. He donates his time to various other community organizations, such as ReForest London and All-Breed Canine Rescue. Given the level of need in our city, Bloxam feels he can have even more impact, and improve quality of life for Londoners, as part of a more focused council.

“London can be better because council can do better,” Bloxam said. “My commitment to represent the citizens and businesses of Ward 6 is to ensure that all views have the chance to be heard. I will listen to Londoners' ideas and issues – as I have in my career and community life – to help me make the right decisions for Ward 6 and our city as a whole.”   

Bloxam will celebrate his candidacy with a launch party in March, to be announced at bloxam.ca.

- 30 -

Mike Bloxam is running to be your next councillor for Ward 6 in London, Ontario. He aspires for a better London that is an ideal place to live, work, play, and stay.

Campaign hotline: 519-518-2273 | E-mail: mike@bloxam.ca | Web site: www.bloxam.ca | Twitter: @Mike_Bloxam

Changing how London moves

In a couple of months, a significant change to the way Londoners get around the city will arrive.  While the first choice for people to move from point A to point B should be "active" transportation (walking, cycling, etc.), followed closely by public transit (the city bus in London's case), most elect to hop into their personal vehicle and drive to their destination.  Starting in April, drivers will have a new option when it comes to automobiles:  Community CarShare has announced they will open in London.  (Read their announcement)

Haven't heard of Community CarShare?  Ontario's first non-profit co-operative car-share service started in Kitchener-Waterloo in 1998, and essentially enhances the traditional car rental with the flexibility of using (and therefore paying for) the use of a vehicle only when you need it.

At the December meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), we received a presentation from one of the co-op's representatives.  He told us that a car-share vehicle removes 5 to 15 cars from the road.  This means less traffic congestion and lower pollution levels as a city adopts the concept.  In addition, he informed us that the average car-share member drives 50% less with a shared vehicle versus owning one (they will choose to walk or take other transportation for close trips), translating into more exercise and improved health.

Many families will debate how "big" they should go:  purchasing the "largest" vehicle possible to suit all needs means having to take a mini-van or SUV everywhere, while its main purpose in size serves to deliver children to their activities (such as hockey, with all the equipment that needs transporting along with the player!), yet proves overkill for most other tasks.  A car-share program allows a family to choose the best vehicle to fit the needs of the day:  perhaps a sedan for groceries on Tuesday, a mini-van to transport to the arena or the performance venue on the weekends, or an extended-cab pick-up truck to move furniture for the university-bound student twice a year.

The average annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle in Ontario sits at about $10 500, while the average CarShare member will spend $1200 per year, including gasoline, insurance, and other incidentals.  Instead of purchasing that "second vehicle" that rarely gets used or exceeds the majority of a family's needs, a household can spend a tenth of the yearly costs for the same service and convenience with a shared vehicle.

The Community CarShare representative informed those of us at ACE that they only ask from the City of London a $150 000 line of credit for the next five to ten years (as a fallback: there is no plan to use the money unless necessary), and some subsidized or in-kind public parking spots.

Think your neighbourhood could use a shared vehicle?  Get in contact and flood them with requests:  you will put your street on their radar and may get your very own community-owned vehicle.

De-Greening of the festivals

Remember in 2007 when "EcoStations" started popping up at the festivals in Victoria Park?  The initiative—dubbed "Greening of the festivals"—aimed to reduce waste by diverting recyclable and compostable materials from the garbage dump, and it came in endorsed by organizers of some of the heavy hitters such as Sunfest, Home County Folk Festival, and RibFest.  Championed by the City of London thanks to the efforts of Waste-Free World and Thames Region Ecological Association (TREA), the initiative targeted reducing the environmental impact of the festivals.

Greening of the festivals encouraged folks to bring their own dishes and drink containers or use the on-site reusable dishes, while also keeping in mind the three streams of waste disposal:  recycling, composting, and garbage.  The EcoStations provide an enormous number of volunteer hours, allowing citizens (particularly high-school students) to help out by instructing festival attendees how to properly dispose of their waste.  These volunteers  keep down the cost of running the EcoStations.

Photo courtesy of TREA

On Tuesday evening, the Special Events Public Consultation Meeting took place at the Civic Garden Complex.  Scott Stafford and Krista Kearns of the Community Services Department did an excellent job of going over the policies and procedures that will change in the 2013 manual for the 2014 season (with Ms. Kearns's assistant taking minutes).  Unfortunately, the ratio of staff members to audience participants was one to one:  for those who don't like mathematics, that means three staff at the front of the room and three of us in attendance.

Regardless of the turnout, the meeting proved very informative.  When Ms. Kearns began describing changes to "Section 9: Procedures for the use of Victoria Park", she started by noting that mechanical rides can no longer sit on the grass (instead they need to situate on the road), and trailers and vehicles must also locate on the road or another paved surface.    This all provides relief for the much-trampled grass in the park.

The bombshell followed:  EcoStations will henceforth only have two streams – garbage and recycling.  Unless the event organizer requests the third stream (composting), the City of London will only provide EcoStations with two types of containers for garbage and recycling, and event organizers no longer need to provide staffing.  The standard garbage cans already situated in the park will have blue bins twinned during the festival, with emptying of both a duty of the City.  Emptying the (two or three) bins at the EcoStations remain the responsibility of the event organizer.

When I asked for the reasoning behind removing the compost stream, Mr. Stafford explained that the original idea of having the EcoStations—with three streams and volunteers—came with anticipation of a green-bin program forthcoming by the City.  Volunteers in the EcoStations instruct festival-goers how to dispose of waste properly into three streams so that residents can repeat the same process at home:  garbage can, blue box, and green bin.  London citizens become more aware of the three-stream process and don't have to think as much about it when bringing in the green-bin program.  Pure and simple, no?

Now with no green-bin program on the horizon (the pilot project in Pond Mills concluded nearly a year ago and the current council appears to have no plans to implement a city-wide program), the staff conclusion aligns with not implementing green bins rather than continuing to make a progressive step toward waste diversion at these festivals.  The policy will continue to require one EcoStation for every four food vendors.  The City provides everything included in the EcoStations, while the event operator used to staff them (no longer a requirement).

Mr. Stafford also noted too much cross-contamination of materials for reaching the decision, with the efforts and costs going into the three-stream system not giving desired results.  They have decided to not look at re-introducing the third stream for composting until the City implements green bins (i.e. following the City's garbage-collection policy).

My final question to the staff members asked about where the compost went after collection.  Mr. Stafford didn't know for certain, but knew that the compostables went to an appropriate collection site (not Jay Stanford's backyard!), and promised to get the information to me.

I encourage the festival organizers to request the three-stream EcoStations going forward, while also continuing to recruit volunteers to run them.  The learning process must continue, lest the lessons of the past seven festival seasons become for naught.  This important initiative must not die because of inaction at City council to implement green bins.

Other topics included noise levels in Victoria and Harris Parks, which I shall cover in a future post.