I’m surprised no one has picked up on this, but amid the raft of reports about closing down streets, rapid-bus lanes and you name it, there’s also this report from crazy busy report-writing crew over in engineering. It recommends reducing the minimum and maximum required parking spaces to be built in for new commercial and residential downtown. (There are also some changes in the Broadway/Mount Pleasant area.)
The reductions recommended are up to 65 per cent in some cases. It’s not as drastic as it might seem on the face, since apparently the city has reduced parking requirements on many sites as part of the renegotiation over rezonings. But there is a general move to reduce the amount of parking for commuter employees. At the moment, the general standard is one space for every 2.5-3.5 workers, which engineering has maintained through a combination of private, street and public parking. Now it’s going to be geared more to one space for every 3.5 to 5 employees.
I don’t know if there will be howls of dismay over this or not. (Apparently EasyPark, the city’s parking arm, is not happy about this, as they see this meaning a gradual reduction of demand for their spaces.) I know that there are people who won’t come downtown already because they think it’s too hard to park.
Personally, I find Vancouver an incredibly easy city to park in downtown. In the last week, we got a parking space a block from the Hyatt on a Friday night when we went to partner’s daughter’s high-school grad dance. I can almost always get one in front of the Y when I go downtown. And so on. I acknowledge that I have a naive belief in my own “parking karma,” which has me convinced that, no matter how terrible the rest of my life may be going at that point, I can always find a parking spot.
Yes, even my karma doesn’t work sometimes and, yes, there are certain spots of the downtown and certain events that make parking impossible. But, generally, it’s still a snap compared to other cities I’ve parked in like London (horrifying), Amsterdam (not too bad, if you’re willing to walk a little from more obscure places), Paris (quite reasonable in August and surprisingly easy in non-touristed areas) and San Francisco (the absolute worst).
We’ll see the results of the city’s reduction in, oh, about five years, when the first signs begin to show. But I’d be interested to hear from others whether they think Vancouver is a parking nightmare or not.
89 responses so far ↓
1 LP // Jun 5, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Engineering may be recommending the numbers you suggest, however so far this year that has meant little to this council.
Time and again this elected group of officials have decided that they know better than the skilled professionals who have been in their jobs for years or decades.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if mayor/council decide to change the numbers based on their own beliefs however misguided and misinformed they are.
Lastly, Frances didn’t you write some time ago that since the economic conditions have worsened, that the city was looking at ways to improve on the conditions thrown at developers to kickstart some construction? Part of those recommendations was the reduction of parking space due to the cost involved.
So then why should this be a surprise to anyone, you had already mentioned it was being discussed? Or is this an entirely different matter that I’m missing?
2 Geof // Jun 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Parking dowtown is not hard. The problem is the driving. A lively downtown is bound to have herds of pedestrians, cyclists weaving in traffic, taxis and buses pulling over, street repairs, jaywalkers, traffic jams, one way streets, no turn signs, and all the other things that make driving there stressful. So I usually either know ahead of time where I’m going to park (e.g. a particular parkade), or I take transit. Then I walk. Driving downtown is no fun, but walking can be.
3 MB // Jun 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm
There should be a portion of parking spaces (public + private) reserved for Rideshare and car co-ops, as well as employer-issued transit passes, and bicycle “hubs” (which contain showers) to help with this policy change.
At up to $55,000 per stall to construct, a tremendous amount of resources are devoted to the single (and often temporary) use of underground dead storage space for cars that could instead go into reductions in lease / rent / purchase costs.
And thanks, LP, for recognizing the professionalism of municipal staff.
4 rf // Jun 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Going rate for a spot downtown in the office district is $300-350 month. It was $153 five years ago.
Left wing and Right wing councils have feasted at this troff raising taxes several times.
So be it, it’s a taxpayers choice to cough up these dollars to fill the city’s coffers.
If I could ride the bus without having to sit/stand next to a garbage bag full of dripping cans or hearing an anti-semetic rant….I might consider taking it. 0 for 3 in the last 3 years.
It’s a choice. I’m sure I could find a better value for $3,700 after-tax dollars per year. I choose not to……but I pay for it.
5 Joe Just Joe // Jun 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I see numbers as high as $60K tossed around quie a bit for a parking spot, the truth is even at the height of the building boom a parking stall never cost more then $35K to build with most acutally costly $20K, don’t get me wrong it’s still a sizeable amount but not nearly as bad as some made it out to be.
The industry has been calling for this for a while and I’m not surprised by the figures at all, pretty well the old min become the new max under the proposed changes. There are a couple of items which bother me about the new proposal though, the biggest is the ride share policy. Under currents regulations for each stall a developer provides for a rideshare program, that spot counts as 3 parking stalls. That is already exteremly generous, they are now proposing that ration be 5:1.
That cap of 34K stalls in the core remains a good one though and I’m glad they aren’t adding to it, the fact it’s remaining there should only help easyparks bottomline as it will create inflationary pressure on those stalls.
6 Chris Keam // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Hey RF:
Not sure where you live, etc, but $3700 would buy a lot of cab rides. Any chance it might be just as cheap to catch a cab to and from work? You could even go one step further and get a folding bike for even more mobility when weather and schedule cooperate.
Not trying to push an ideology here, just throwing out out a possible solution for you to consider….
7 Wayne // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm
If Easy Park and others think they are going to end up with a surplus of stalls or less demand to use them maybe it’s time to start eliminating street parking downtown. I subscribe to the generally unpopular view that roads are for moving vehicles not for parking them.
8 fbula // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:27 pm
LP,
To tell you the truth — even though I hate to be seen as not omniscient — I’m not quite sure whether this parking-stall reduction is part of the plan to boost development by reducing parking or something that those busy folks in engineering had planned all along. I’m thinking it’s the latter, since I don’t see any references in the report to the STIR (Short Term Incentive for Rental) program. I think that the parking reduction everyone’s been busy promoting in the last couple of months to help developers reduce their costs is going to be on a site by site basis, depending on other factors, i.e. if it’s a really low-rent building, they can probably make the argument based on statistics that some low per cent of the tenants will have cars.
I highlighted this report because it looks to me like this is a separate, engineering-driven blanket policy for all sites, which speaks to a different no-parking effort at the hall.
9 jesse // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Does anyone know why San Francisco has developed “the worst” parking? Was it by design by city planners or did it just happen that way? My parents complain about what the cost of San Francisco parking was in the ’60s.
Oh and by the way, what are transit fares in San Francisco and London, and what sort of coverage do their rapid/LRT systems get compared to Vancouver? Not even close.
10 LP // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Thanks for clarifying that Frances.
The only time I ever have trouble finding parking downtown is when an event is on at GM or BC Place, etc…
I try and arrange my trips to avoid the area altogether when I’m not attending any of the events.
I’m surprised with Chris’s comment on cab use though. It’s still an automobile and I’m not used to him being in favour of any vehicular use at all.
Must be a blue moon, pigs are flying etc…..Good on ya though for being a little open minded Chris.
11 jimmy olson // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Engineering is busy installing more and more parking meters all OVER the city. This and zealous parking meter enforcers is what is keeping more and more people from coming downtown. Parking is easy outside the times these meter nazis are roaming the streets itching to give tickets. F*#$k’em
12 Don Buchanan // Jun 5, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Joe just Joe not sure where you got your numbers from ($20k per spot) but what I’ve heard is that new “underwater” spots (below the water table like the Erickson building at Concord or the proposed False Creek VAG site) are in the neighbourhood of $80-90k per stall. Maybe someone like Michael Geller could weigh in with a more informed number.
Michael?
13 gmgw // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:50 am
I don’t regard parking in Vancouver as “nightmare”, though it certainly depends where and when we’re talking about. Normally there are only three destinations that I drive to downtown, and on an irregular basis– meaning every couple of months or less– and I’ve learned over the years when and where to look for parking nearby. For instance, one of those destinations is in the area of Richards and Pender, and when I’m driving to that destination it’s usually because I need to deliver some heavyish boxes, so I’ll make a point of going there around midday on a Sunday and can usually find a place to park no more than half a block away. I would not care to attempt this at midday on a weekday. If I drive downtown at all, in fact, I’ll usually only do so on a Sunday, and then only because I have to transport something it would be difficult to carry in a backpack.
I’m not one of those people like Frances who are endowed with “parking karma”. Quite the opposite, in fact. (Don’t you love scenes in movies or TV shows, which depict the protagonist instantly finding a place to park in front of their destination– say an office building on a busy street in lower Manhattan?) But in the past couple of years I’ve actually found places to park in Chinatown on Saturday afternoons, so maybe my luck is changing– or maybe Chinatown has (West 4th Avenue on a Saturday evening, however, has become a near- impossible mission,and I never try to park on or near Denman in the West End).
All this banter is prepatory to letting my inner crank off his leash. Here goes: I am really tired of this city’s ongoing campaign of punishment of drivers of cars. Much to the probable surprise of our two resident bicycle fanatics, I actually agree with them that there are too many cars on the planet, that they are detrimental to the environment, that practical, effective and affordable alternative forms of transportation must be found. But until they are, I think that the passenger car will have to continue to be regarded as a viable solution for certain individual transportation needs.
I also agree with peak-oil theorists who argue that falling oil reserves and a concurrent steady increase in the price of oil will ultimately put an end to the viability of the automobile. But we’re not there yet, especially in Vancouver, with its dreadfully inadequate public transit system. Until great strides are made toward achieving that Utopian vision, a great many of us are going to continue to drive.
I guess if I have a point to make, and to stay with my invocation of Utopia for a moment, it’s that you can’t force a city or a country or a planet into Utopia by ramming it down peoples’ throats. And yet those little green gremlins at City Hall keep moving to make things ever more difficult for ordinary people who drive cars– people whose lives are demanding or difficult enough that at the end of the day they’re just too damn burned out to make plans for a car-free life and therefore help to save the planet (try and get that concept across to the average suburban hockey mom). People with cars are easy targets for lazy bureaucrats, for “green” mayors, or hard-bodied 28-year-old planners who bike to work every day and think that if they can do it, anyone can. It doesn’t require a lot of brainpower to come up with new ways of punishing car owners. Like I said, they’re easy targets, and they’ve been so demonized in recent years that even if they squawk at first they will meekly acquiesce in the end, out of guilt if for no other reason– kind of like smokers. Certainly beating up on such an obvious target requires a lot less brain power than coming up with genuinely innovative, long-term solutions to some very real and very serious challenges– at least that’s perennially the case here in Snafuver*, it seems.
(*Thank you, Len Norris…)
gmgw
14 Len B // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:26 am
gmgw,
I have posted this quote in the past and I’ll post it again in support of your comment.
Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured, as upon the result itself. Jane Addams.
If some of you don’t get it, or agree with it - send your complaints to Jane Addams and spare everyone the fanatical diatribe.
15 Stacy // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:17 am
I don’t find parking dowtown easy and I prefer to avoid it. That said, it’s usually cheaper to park the car downtown when taking the kids to see a movie than to take the bus. That is the real shame. Not that parking should be more expensive but that the bus should be a hell of a lot cheaper - especially when your just coming from Kits.
16 shepsil // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:05 am
I drive downtown from Ladner once or twice a week and rarely have a problem finding parking, nor do we ever find it expensive. My only other city to compare fairly is Montreal and it is definitely tighter parking than here.
Being one of those in favour of more transit and less roads, I was thrilled to hear last month an official with ICBC, admitting on CBC radio that car registrations are down this past year. He agreed it was a result of higher fuel costs.
Less cars on the road require less parking spots, so looks like Vancouver city hall is on the money.
Now, if they could only fix TransLink!
17 Richard // Jun 6, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Don’t forget the Canada Line is starting up soon and there are 48 new SkyTrain cars starting up soon. This should mean thousands of fewer people driving and parking downtown.
As well, using the Internet and cell phones to find and reserve parking spaces could help use the existing inventory much more efficiently.
18 jimmy olson // Jun 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm
more cyclists equals better safety:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/05/safety-in-numbers-its-happening-in-nyc/
19 jesse // Jun 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm
gmgw: “I am really tired of this city’s ongoing campaign of punishment of drivers of cars.”
If the dogma of city council requires “anti-car” initiatives, there is another group of councilors waiting in the wings in case public sentiment is not in line with the actions of council. There still needs to be a practical balance. My worry is that the current council has not made that clear.
I have no problem with the city encouraging less car traffic in the city but it MUST come with funding for improved public transit, making it more cost-effective and convenient for users. Despite recent improvements to the rapid transit situation, there is still a long ways to go to practically move the city away from its dependency on cars.
I am doubtful taxpayers are going to want to foot the bill for the transit improvements that are required to make Vancouver into a London, Paris, New York, or San Francisco. Reducing parking spaces without tax $ to back up the corollary is foolish and sure to rile opposition when the neighbourhoods without parking become unvisitable.
20 Darcy McGee // Jun 6, 2009 at 4:39 pm
> I have no problem with the city encouraging less car traffic in the city but it
> MUST come with funding for improved public transit
First of all, no it “musn’t.” Perhaps it should, but it is not a must.
The system has capacity to pick up the left over from the removal of single occupancy vehicles from the road for some time. These single occupancy vehicles are the biggest problem.
Secondly, the problem is that the city manages parking within city limits but the city does not manage TransLink. It has input at the TransLink level, but Vancouver’s public transit system is not managed by the City of Vancouver. The City doesn’t have the power to implement what you say it “must” implement.
This is a problem in defining rational transportation strategies, and also one of the reasons that I’d like to see some regional merging of municipalities happening.
21 VanRamblings // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:05 pm
In Saturday’s Globe and Mail, from a column by Margaret Wente, at that …
Life without a car was once inconceivable. Not any more - the love affair is over …
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/object-of-desire-or-necessary-evil/article1171520/
22 Otis Krayola // Jun 6, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Darcy,
First, how would you go about ‘removal’ of SOVs? Sharpshooters?
Second, I’ll grant that part of the problem is that the city doesn’t manage TransLink. But only part.
The real scandal is that the ‘regional’ transportation authority is entirely a creature of a provincial government. A government reliant upon and beholden to commuters from up the valley. Who like their cars.
The ‘input’ the city has could be more likened to body english.
Where once we had elected civic politicians making regional decisions , we now have an appointed board that’s accountable to not one voter. And with the ability to tax. And change the lives of countless helpless citizens.
These are the folks who brought you Gateway and the RAV line. And not enough local transit to make getting out of the car a consideration.
All stick. No carrot.
23 gmgw // Jun 7, 2009 at 2:42 am
I find it useful to read Margaret Wente if I want to know what the Rosedale crowd she runs with is thinking about an issue. Having said that, she does make some good points in this column, as she does once in a while. I just wish she was wrong on this topic…
gmgw
24 Colin // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:18 am
I definitely don’t find parking downtown here difficult…granted I live downtown, but at times to have to drive. Additionally, any time I’ve had friends or family come visit they have no trouble. And the biggest thing they notice - how cheap it is to park here compared to other cities!
25 julia // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:50 am
another way to look at it - if I can’t park, I will find somewhere else to find what I am needing. That means no trip downtown and no customers for the businesses that operate in the area.
Bus? sure but for those with walking challenges, or families trying to get somewhere, the bus is not always the greatest solution.
26 Chris Keam // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:03 am
“I’m surprised with Chris’s comment on cab use though. It’s still an automobile and I’m not used to him being in favour of any vehicular use at all.”
Please indicate where I’ve ever said we should ban vehicles, esp. ones like cabs. Please don’t misrepresent my opinions. If you want to find out more, I’m happy to comment here or in a private email exchange.
regards,
CK
27 Darcy McGee // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:07 am
> another way to look at it - if I can’t park, I will find somewhere else to find
> what I am needing
Cities are aware of this: it’s one of the reasons North Vancouver’s Lonsdale Street has very few parking meters on it, and a lot of 1 hour parking restrictions.
The question cities face is whether or not the attractions of the area (retail stores etc.) are enough to entice people to the area without parking.
In the case of Downtown Vancouver, the city has certainly decided that’s the case and traffic bears it out. In the case of North Vancouver, the city clearly feels that free parking is still a requirement.
Basic supply and demand kicks in here too: if there’s too much demand for a product, incredibly simple economics says you should charge more for that product. Since downtown parking demand generally exceeds supply from early morning until about midnight, the city /should/ be charging for parking.
If you choose to go elsewhere over the parking issue, perhaps that’s not a bad thing. Of course you’ll increase demand for parking there, which may eventually result in that area charging more.
> First, how would you go about ‘removal’ of SOVs? Sharpshooters?
That’s so insulting it doesn’t bear responding too.
28 Chris Keam // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:07 am
” Much to the probable surprise of our two resident bicycle fanatics,”
If your argument requires calling your opponents fanatics, then you need to rework it.
Funny (to me) that you don’t tag the poor suburban soccer moms as ‘car fanatics’.
29 fbula // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:27 am
DESMOND BLIEK is having trouble posting here and so I’m putting up his comments, which he sent to me by email.
Why does the City require minimum parking from developers?
By forcing developers to provide parking with their projects (at substantial cost), the City is effectively taxing development to subsidize driving. Given our concern over urban quality of life, climate change, a lack of affordable housing and increasing difficulties in profitably developing office space downtown, it’s hard to believe that the City imposes the cost of supplying parking on downtown developers, whether they wish to include parking in their projects or not. To boot, these costs are passed on to all of us - in higher housing prices and more expensive goods and services, and make downtown a comparatively less attractive place to build, compared with further flung suburban locations, where the costs of providing all of that mandatory parking are less.
For a City that wishes to become the ‘greenest’ in the world, forcing the provision of parking downtown seems like a very counterproductive strategy. If we properly price and regulate street parking to avoid inconveniencing residents (as is already done through the permit system), then we can probably let the market take care of providing however much off street parking prospective home buyers/renters, shop owners/leasers, and office tenants end up demanding, rather than an arbitrary amount chosen by staff, no matter how well-meaning.
Think about it - a City with a major homelessness crisis doesn’t have any kind of effective ‘minimum housing requirement’, but manages to have a ‘minimum parking requirement’, even as vehicle trips into Downtown are on the decline.
See http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ for a fresh perspective on the trouble with minimum parking requirements.
The following papers are a good place to start:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,Cities.pdf
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCostFreeParking.pdf
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Chapter1.pdf
30 Otis Krayola // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Darcy,
My intent was to ask a serious question, not to insult. Don’t be so thin-skinned - not every response is an attack.
I’ll cop to being facetious with my ’sharpshooters’ remark, but it underscores my question. You said, “The system has the capacity to pick up the left over from the removal of single occupancy vehicles from the road for some time”. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I err, but I take it you mean that the city’s street network wouldn’t be as stressed if every car held two or more persons. And it would remain relatively uncrowded into (at least) the near future.
Here’s where I resist the temptation to comment, lest you take offence.
My question remains: how will we achieve this state of non-SOV bliss?
Economic inducement? This’ll appeal to the Fraserites among us. The problem I see with taxing the hell out of SOV drivers is that it’ll never achieve universal compliance. Worse, driving alone will become some perverse status symbol. A new industry will be born - removing the dark film from the windows of an endless stream of Humvees and tricked-out Escalades, the better to lord it over the sweating masses riding the Coast Mountain loser-cruiser.
How about an outright ban? I’m pretty sure prohibition strikes a chord with some in this forum (not pointing any fingers here). But … see my comments above about compliance. News Flash: many (if not most) motorists ignore the posted speed limit. I’ve also noted more than a few cyclists riding through stop signs, failing to signal turns or lane changes, riding on crowded sidewalks, and not wearing helmets. All contrary to legal stricture.
So maybe a two-pronged approach. Steeply increased parking fees coupled with draconian fines for SOV scofflaws. This revenue would be channeled directly into the Police budget so as to fund necessary SOV enforcement. Of course, we’d need to fill both seats in the Parking Enforcement Smarts. And no more lone-cop squad cars, either.
It goes without saying that ALL carpools would have to start with two people - no more ‘just going to pick up the rest’ nonsense. Same for taxis. A driver and an attendant.
The BC Liberals will take the credit: Increased Employment while Reducing Congestion.
If all this sounds a little over the top (guilty!) it’s because I can’t get past the notion that, by ‘removal’, you mean ‘removal’. The ‘how’ part must be inferred, and I clearly lack the imagination. Hence, How?
Shunning? Shaming? We’re not socially cohesive enough for these to work.
Reason? Um, you could try, I guess.
Wheedling? Whining? Prolly not.
I just can’t help myself: Summary execution. That’ll fix ‘em!
31 Chris Keam // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“Shunning? Shaming? We’re not socially cohesive enough for these to work.”
Have you seen how many people show up at the grocery store with cloth bags these days? It wasn’t an extra five cents per bag for plastic bags that brought that about. It was people being given good reasons for the alternative. Same with SOVs. Of course, if those who never actually ride transit or a bike would stop assuring us that alternatives are both undoable and unpalatable, it would make the work of helping people find solutions for their particular circumstances easier.
Further, the ongoing attempts to paint sust-trans advocates as zealots or fanatics who can’t fathom incremental changes and flexible approaches to choosing how to get somewhere is both inaccurate and a repudiation of values and practices such as honesty, dialogue, and respect for those who you may not necessarily agree with. Further, it actually impedes any of the progress we supposedly all want to see.
The reality is, if you actually listen to what advocates for transportation alternatives are suggesting, their ideas are neither unreasonable, un-doable, or particularly inconvenient.
All we are left with is one question. Why would people ridicule, name-call, and attempt to isolate anyone who offers some reasonable ideas and is willing to defend those ideas with science and real-world examples?
32 foo // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Chris, you’ve obviously never shopped at Superstore. 2c/bag was plenty to drive most working-class people to bring their own bags. And that’s been going on for years. Of course, now it’s trendy, so even in the socially conscious parts of town people do it.
Maybe you do have some reasonable ideas. However, I’d never heard of you until I encountered your postings on this blog, and I would say that very few reasonable people in the world would have characterized your initial postings as “reasonable”. To say nothing of Darcy, who I’d never heard of either.
I’ll put the question back to you - if you really are trying to find some reasonable middle ground, why do you come out insulting the very people who should be trying to persuade?
As an example, telling someone whose personal circumstance you know nothing about that they are “ethically challenged” because they don’t subscribe to your exact philosophy is not exactly a way to win friends and convert people.
33 LP // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I actually took a few minutes to click the link on Chris’s name and read that he “strives for consensus” as one of his skills.
Seriously now, Chris the only consensus you have shown yourself capable of striving for is with people who hold similar beliefs…….and then isn’t that just preaching to the choir?
34 Mark A // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Foo,
Your mention of “ethically challenged” appears to be a reference to this thread (http://francesbula.com/?p=1583) - in which the term “ethical laziness” is bandied about by three commenters.
None of them are Chris. One of them is you. So something that started out as a claim about Chris’ position by an opponent has now been turned by you into something that he is alleged to have said.
I think there is a word for that, but I don’t think it is “ethical”. Or “reasonable”, for that matter. I think you owe Chris an apology.
35 Otis Krayola // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:06 pm
CK,
You make a pretty good case for Reason having to do with fewer plastic bags being used. As opposed to Shame. And, you’re right - same with SOVs.
Let me appreciate here the measured, thoughtful way you have answered my posts to Darcy. I’d much rather Darcy had taken the trouble - especially since it was his choice of words I took issue with. Language that had nothing to do with ‘incremental changes and flexible approaches’.
(For the record, a couple of months ago when the Burrard lane closures were resurrected, Len B waded in with the term ‘impossible’, which I promptly took issue with. A lively discussion followed.)
I didn’t ‘ridicule’ Darcy. I pointed out how ridiculously absolutist a term like ‘removal’ is in this discussion. Maybe if he’d vetted his remarks through you, he’d have said something like, ‘gradual, but sustained reduction’.
I never called Darcy names.
Finally, I don’t need to try and isolate Darcy. He does that quite well enough on his own. He’ll gain a much more willing ear from this quarter when he learns to dial down the hyperbole.
36 Mark A // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Otis,
I think Darcy’s statement could only be considered “ridiculously absolutist” if they had said “removal of *all* SOVs”. Given that they did not, the statement is ambiguous and I think the absolutism is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
37 Todd Sieling // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:53 am
I don’t drive often (I rent a zipcar occasionally) so I don’t trust my perception of downtown parking ease. But people I know who visit from elsewhere often comment on how good we have it with parking availability downtown. These people are typically from San Francisco, Toronto, Seattle and notably Kitchener-Waterloo which is a pretty car-loving area.
Otis, I wonder if you’re putting more weight than is useful on the single word ‘remove’. The point that total removal would require totalitarian methods is taken, so what if we think of it as reducing SUVs downtown? If we just hang out here to pick apart the form of each other’s words instead of the substance, then we’re just a bunch of wannabe-lawyers.
As for SUVs, I’d applaud a congestion tax like the one that’s proven popular in London based on vehicle size and with leniency towards commercial vehicles. And I’ll admit that a part of that applause would be for the fireworks show from the anachronistic comedy troupe, the Vancouver Board of Trade over the idea. They nearly invoked the apocalypse over the Burrard lane reconfig, imagine what a congestion levy would do.
38 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:23 am
Otis:
My comment about names was regarding GMGW’s reference to sustainable transportation advocates as fanatics. That’s a classic technique for separating a group of like-minded people from the majority. It’s effective in fostering an us vs them mentality and makes it easier to discount the fanatics’ ideas. The reality is that most proponents of transportation alternatives are just ordinary people who face the exact same challenges as any other - such as getting to work, dropping off kids at school or daycare, getting groceries, and so forth. So, my apologies for lumping you into that milieu
39 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:39 am
LP:
You’re going to have to be more specific I think. I fail to see how a quick look at my website (www.chriskeam.com - need a writer?
or my attempts to defend cycling advocates from unwarranted characterizations and accusations of various failings of intellect and extremism could provide much insight into how I work with people when we have goals in common. I really don’t think I’m the one bringing divisiveness to the debate (rather than responding to character attacks), but if you can give me a specific example then I’ll apologize for it.
40 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:43 am
Foo:
Which initial postings are you referring to?
Where am I unreasonable? Please be specific if you are going to question people’s motives or behaviour. Otherwise, I think we should debate the ideas and their validity, leave the mud-slinging behind, and get on with fashioning solutions.
41 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:53 am
“So, my apologies for lumping you into that milieu”
reads like I apologize for lumping you into the majority. I meant those who try to paint their opponents as fanatics.
For those keeping score, I think in my first post on this blog I talked about passing up yet another opportunity to argue about car-hate and cycle-smugness and hoping for a productive debate. I’m still hoping that can be achieved.
42 foo // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:08 am
Ok, I’ll apologize, it was Darcy not Chris who accused those who didn’t agree with him of being “ethically lazy”.
43 rf // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:22 am
Chris, I’ve considered taking cabs and have done the math. $10-$12/day for the morning commute. It’s the after work that’s a killer. Traffic is much slower and a cab can run $20+.
With all the other costs of a car, certainly it would be cheaper….but not that much cheaper…and of course the car get used for lots of other things. For me, the car makes it much easier to visit an elderly family member who need some extra care and attention. Some of us need a car for meetings with clients outside of the office. Guess how well it goes over if you tell a corporate client that you are running late because a bus was full?
Not every office has efficient access to showers and if you think bankers and lawyers (at least the ones expected to dress very very professionally) are going to wear a suit on a bike….
Time is the other major consideration. 10 min commute by car. For cycling, it’s probably 15-20min + another 30 min to shower up and get changed (and it’s not like you throw a suit in a backpack. You need to have facilities to keep work clothes clean, secure, and looking sharp.)
I’m just not prepared to spend an extra 1-2 hours a day ‘commuting’ when I only have 4-5 waking hours away from the office.
It’s a choice, but I pay my way and have to make financial sacrifices in other ways because of it.
From what I read, you a are a freelance writer. You are not expected to be in a suit and tie.
You have some flexibility on when and where you work.
For some of us, it’s very different.
Like I said, it’s a choice. If I made a different choice I completely agree some choices would be cheaper, but I’d have to sacrifice time. “Time is money” too, especially when I’d rather spend that time with family or doing other activities (golf, hockey, hiking, running, softball etc..).
44 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:29 am
“Chris, you’ve obviously never shopped at Superstore. 2c/bag was plenty to drive most working-class people to bring their own bags. And that’s been going on for years. Of course, now it’s trendy, so even in the socially conscious parts of town people do it.”
Armed with factual information, reasonable goals and community support, individuals tend to make the ‘right’ decision, regardless of income, in my experience.
45 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:36 am
RF:
One quibble. Do you count showering into your time when you car commute? I’m assuming you have to shower either way?
“From what I read, you a are a freelance writer. You are not expected to be in a suit and tie.”
I’m expected to be presentable when I meet with clients too. Which is what I have to do right now, so can’t comment further.
46 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:40 am
“Like I said, it’s a choice. If I made a different choice I completely agree some choices would be cheaper, but I’d have to sacrifice time. “Time is money” ”
I understand completely. But let’s be clear. When you drive, you’re buying that saved time from somewhere or someone. My contention is that the sellers aren’t born yet and don’t have the luxury of saying no to the deal. Don’t take that as me sitting in judgement of you, it’s just an unpleasant fact. At this point, based upon what we know, every liter of fuel burned now will represent a hardship for those who won’t have the luxury of easy access to a potent power source. I think it’s hard to say this generation is more entitled to fossil fuel reserves than the next, but with our current profligacy with regard to that resource, that’s exactly what we are (collectively) saying.
47 Otis Krayola // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:16 am
Ah.. A new day dawns, the birds sing and sweet reason prevails. What more could a person want?
Mark A,
Did we do Philosophy 101 together? I’ll admit to making the inference you’ve pointed out. Maybe Darcy didn’t mean that utterly every single instance of single occupancy was to be condemned. Maybe the reason for his continued silence is that he’s busy concocting some sort of catch-and-release for those who meet his criteria. I wish he’d taken the time, though. I could have replied, “Oh. OK, then” and gone about my day.
Todd S.,
First, I apologise for my laziness - I’ve been using the term SOV instead of typing single-occupancy vehicle. You and I do agree on the need to reduce both SOVs and SUVs. We also agree (I hope) that total removal of SOVs would require totalitarian methods. I’m much more optimistic, by the way, of ‘removal’ of SUVs since we now own the auto companies.
Chris K.,
Thanks for clarifying. I wasn’t feeling particularly lumped. BTW, are you and Darcy one person doing Good Cop/Bad Cop?
OK, OK. Just kidding!
48 jesse // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:46 am
Darcy: “The system has capacity to pick up the left over from the removal of single occupancy vehicles from the road for some time. These single occupancy vehicles are the biggest problem.”
Well we are talking about different intents of transportation. If it is filling demand at peak usage, say during office hours, parking is currently very restrictive. Downtown parking rates during weekdays are quite onerous, save a select few spaces for the early birds. The majority commute out of economy. Those who drive don’t necessarily do it 5 days per week and often have a reason for doing so for which they will pay significantly for parking, even above current rates (they need to run errands after work or whatever) and not all end up in the city centre with their car. Restrictions on parking would need to envelop the entire city. There are some studies out of UBC urban planning on commuter patterns that are an interesting read.
What we should be talking about is the “casual” visitor to downtown and how their needs can be met. Here, as others have alluded, transit is sometimes useful but still financially prohibitive for a family of four (except on a transit pass on Sundays). Ultimately if there is nowhere for them to park for a reasonable rate they will not come. While this endgame may be the goal for some, given the density of retail downtown it will never fly, unless transit can be made cheaper and more convenient.
Instead the endgame will morph to where retail will spread outside the city centre to where parking is more convenient. This does not reduce aggregate traffic but perhaps reduces congestion. I still see convenient affordable transit as a barrier to making parking restrictions a net benefit for the city. Tackling parking without a commitment for improved and affordable transit merely spreads the peas on the plate.
49 jesse // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:53 am
“I still see convenient affordable transit as a barrier to making parking restrictions a net benefit for the city.”
I mean I still see the lack of convenient affordable transit as a barrier to making parking restrictions a net benefit for the city.
50 Mark Allerton // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:55 am
“Downtown parking rates during weekdays are quite onerous, save a select few spaces for the early birds”
Is it really? I work in Yaletown, and I do drive in a couple of times a month (usually because we’re going somewhere afterwards) and I can park for $8.50/day quite easily, even if I turn up well after 9am. That price is pretty competitive with the bus fare with two of us in the car. Just my anecdotal $0.02.
51 gmgw // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:03 am
Chris: I suppose I could have chosen a more diplomatic term than “fanatics”. But I’ve never cared for being lectured, even (sometimes especially) when I know that the lecturer is right. And no, I don’t tag hypothetical suburban soccer moms as “fanatics”, at least within the parameters of this ongoing discussion, for good reason: On the subject of cars and their validity as a form of transportation, they don’t proselytize and they don’t get sanctimonious. Driving a car for them is not an ideology or something they choose out of conviction. They merely live their small suburban lives, lives they probably can’t imagine living without a car, regardless of whether they should be contemplating a post-peak-oil future or not.
And I’ll just keep on doggedly making one of my points: To advance your cause– and frankly, I agree with what you and the Peak Oilers and the other doomsayers are saying (how can I not? I’ve been reading “the environmental apocalypse is imminent” articles since the late 60s)– we are on the brink of social change so massive and far-reaching as to be literally inconceivable. For the last century human civilization has been rebuilt around oil-powered technologies, and now that may be coming to an end. And that point hasn’t really sunk in for the soccer moms, for the rancher in the Nazko Valley who has to drive 60 miles into Quesnel every week for supplies, tools or to see the dentist, or for people who buy strawberries trucked in from California, or for the innumerable other folks whose livelihoods and lives depend on the internal-combustion engine. What do you have to offer these people that won’t either cause them to merely tune you out or angrily dismiss you as a crank? There’s a line from old blues/gospel song: “If they’s a hell below, we all gonna go”. I’ve said it before: Your work and Darcy’s lies beyond the narrow confines of Vancouver. As a wise person once said in a similar context (and it would take too much time to explain that context): “Nebraska (and again, China and India) needs you more”.
gmgw
52 jesse // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:15 am
“I can park for $8.50/day quite easily”
You need to include fuel and wear-tear as well into total costs. Also there is still a hike to where the jobs are. Still, you’re right that we aren’t talking $40/day like in some cities.
53 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“I’ve said it before: Your work and Darcy’s lies beyond the narrow confines of Vancouver.”
I could devote more time to other places if people here didn’t proclaim a 9km bike ride was beyond the capabilities of all but a few young fit city planner. If you are serious about getting soccer moms out of their minivans, then one of the first steps might be reviewing some of the misinformation you’ve shared that only reinforce fallacies.
Choosing to drive a car is very much a part of an ideology. It just happens to be the dominant one.
54 Chris Keam // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Otis:
I’m just me but the good cop/bad cop idea is a sound one. In my experience it takes radicals and unreasonable people to set the agenda so that moderates can step in and sound like the voice of reason. If it wasn’t for radicals, women wouldn’t be able to vote, slavery would still be an unfortunate but necessary part of agriculture, and above-ground nuclear tests would be as common as dirt.
55 gmgw // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm
CK:
You left a few key words & phrases out of that bit of sarcasm about people who “…proclaim a 9km bike ride (is) beyond the capabilities of all but a few young city planners”. Those words would be: “every day”, “year-round” “through city traffic”, and “in all kinds of weather”. And why are you limiting it to 9km? Do you think that all Vancouver city planners actually live in Vancouver?
As for dragging those pesky soccer moms, kicking and screaming, out of their minivans in front of their terrified kids and packing them off to reeducation camp, hey, it’s not something I’m about to take on. I haven’t got a cause to promote, and I’m not about to start picketing car dealerships with a sign reading “Repent” just yet. I think that sort of behaviour is better left to people who haven’t a clue what it’s like to be someone who feels they haven’t a choice about certain things in life, and who are too busy trying to hold down a job (or two) and pay a mortgage to think much about ideologies. Maybe someday, when they find the time, and the kids are grown…
Got a nice shoe here, Chris. Care to try it on?
gmgw
56 Darcy McGee // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:01 am
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/06/08/the-war-on-the-car-as-seen-from-the-bicycle-seat.aspx
> “through city traffic”, and “in all kinds of weather”
1) The first is readily addressed by offering more and dedicated bike routes
2) The second is *not* the reason people don’t ride. I’m not saying it’s not an issue…I’m saying surveys consistently show safety as the top concern. Weather is less important.
Yesterday at 7th & Laurel and single occupancy BMW SUV slowed down but didn’t stop at a stop sign and turned a corner rapidly in front of me (as well as another car which had right of way) with his tires chirping. He clearly *knew* what he was doing was wrong, as he jammed so far into the curb before popping out into traffic….where was the cop to issue him a ticket for almost killing me?
On Saturday night the driver of Maclure’s cab #59 cut me off, then proceeded to go straight through a “right turn only” intersection on the street immediate north of Davie. I (of course) caught up to him at Burrard and told him what he’d done. He proceeded to follow me on the Burrard Bridge, hurl racial and sexual epithets at me and threaten to run me off the road. At the end of the bridge he parked his car and when I came off the bridge he backed into me to try to cut me off (didn’t work) then followed me on the bike route continuing to hurl threats.
Where’s the cop to arrest him?
Safety’s the issue, not weather. 9km is nothing (unless it’s predominantly uphill.) I’ve a friend who’s 67 years old who went for his first bike ride in years on Sunday and probably did 30km. What he enjoyed was the bike paths, what he didn’t enjoy was crossing the Burrard and Granville Bridge.
> Choosing to drive a car is very much a part of an ideology. It just happens
> to be the dominant one.
+1
and it’s one that’s killing people:
http://tinyurl.com/kwfg45
57 michael geller // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:45 am
Greetings! Just spent a long weekend in Victoria without turning on my computer once, so I missed this discussion until now. But I would like to acknowledge Don Buchanan’s request and start this entry by repeating the message I posted on June 1 at 6:21 am:
“What would Fabula readers think of a COMPREHENSIVE review of the city’s parking policies, with a view to rationalizing the cost of permit parking with the cost of underground parking; the introduction of pay parking on some residential streets where there is inadequate visitor parking; extension of the hours during which pay parking is in effect…why not start at 7 am instead of 9 am and keep meters in effect until 10, or in some instances for 24 HOURS…on the understanding that all additional net revenues would be used to support public transit improvements and ‘car free days’ initiatives, etc?
I personally think our current policies ignore the new technologies associated with parking meters ( automated machines…you should see the new units in Calgary where you print a ticket and stick it on your window); credit cards, payment by phone…and so on.
While I appreciate this is a different topic… car-free days, bike lanes, public transit, parking….these things are all related. I do worry a bit about changing some, without starting to look at related consequences…..
In this regard on Tuesday, the City is moving forward with some SERIOUS REDUCTIONS IN PARKING requirements for downtown residential buildings. While this is something I have been advocating, even I am a bit shocked at the proposed changes. They include not just reduced minimums, but maximums….often 1 space per unit with no special provision for visitor parking.
I hadn’t heard about this discussion, nor read very much about this….have any of you?”
As you may be aware, the Parking Report was deferred until June 11th, and all being well, I will attend the Transportation and Traffic committee meeting at 9:30 to speak in favour of reduced standards and a more comprehensive approach. However, as I noted, what is being put forward is even more restrictive than I would have recommended, as a first step.
In terms of this discussion, it is very important to distinguish between parking provided for retail and office space and residential developments. When it comes to residential, I think it is important to distinguish between resident and visitor parking.
As for the cost of providing underground parking, it varies depending on the number of levels; the ‘efficiency’ of the layout…ie the number of spaces in relation to the amount of ramping, driving lanes, etc.; the proximity to water; the adjacent conditions, etc. Another key consideration is the cost of concrete and labour which has dropped quite considerably in the past 6 months. Having said that, an underground space can easily cost between $35,000 and $55,000 or more, which is why a reduction in standards could help increase housing affordability.
So I am in favour of reduced standards. If a developer wants to build an apartment development with no resident parking, I think he should be allowed to, if he thinks the market can take it, provided he creates spaces for visitors. This is an extreme position, but it hopefully makes the point.
HOWEVER, I do not support parking reductions in one particular case…LANEWAY HOUSING! In this case, I am advocating for a second parking space on a lot with a laneway unit, since I believe it may well be required, and more importantly, will help secure neighbourhood buy-in. But that’s another discussion for another month….July 21 to be precise.
Hopefully, some Fabula readers will show up on the 11th to address the staff report. I’ll be the very bald guy in the back row!
58 fbula // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:14 am
Michael — Nice to see you back. I thought perhaps you had abandoned us.
59 Darcy McGee // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:38 am
> you should see the new units in Calgary where
> you print a ticket and stick it on your window
They’ve had these in Seattle for years. They work well, but there’s a fairly common problem of people parking motorcycles and having the stickers stolen. (You’re supposed to stick it to the inside of your car window, and they recommend sticking it to the headlight of your bike.)
60 Darcy McGee // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:39 am
Incidentally, the notion of developers building parking free residences is a _great_ one, but _not_ if those residents then expect the city to provide heavily subsidized parking through on street permit use (as was discussed before the rates the city is selling permits at are ridiculously low.)
61 Robert Renger // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:03 am
Michael Geller is right — we need “a COMPREHENSIVE review of the city’s parking policies” rather than piecemeal tinkering.
He also makes a good point regarding the need for residential visitor parking. Changes to the City’s parking requirements in 2005 eliminated the need for developers to provide visitor parking (great for them because visitor parking provides no return — it can’t be sold like resident parking). And the proliferation of permit parking (i.e. the privatisation of street parking to subsidize residents who own cars but not parking spaces) means visitor parking is increasingly difficult to find on-street. I’d prefer to see a lot of that on-street permit parking replaced by ticket-spitter pay parking, which could be fine-tuned to provide an overnight rate for residents (or for that matter visitors).
62 Robert Renger // Jun 9, 2009 at 11:04 am
Back in 2005, when the City was considering the elimination of visitor parking requirements, I sent the Engineering Department the following comments:
“- in many areas, given the prevalence of resident only parking, it will be hard for visitors to find on-street parking
- it is very unlikely that developers will voluntarily provide visitor parking spaces which they cannot sell, instead of resident parking spaces which can be sold with units
- better design requirements (e.g. two security gate system, clear permanent signage), and legal requirements and documentation (e.g. covenant) should be pursued to address the issue of maintaining visitor parking, instead of just giving up on it because it has been converted to resident parking in some cases.
- visitor parking should include provision for parking for disabled visitors”
In its final report to Council recommending the elimination of visitor parking, the Engineering Department did not quote or address these comments. It simply stated:
“one consulting engineer and a planner from the City of Burnaby cautioned against removing a visitor parking component from parking requirements as there would be spillover impacts on local streets”.
63 gmgw // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Darcy,
In 1984, as you will recall if you were living here then and were old enough to notice, there was a transit strike in Vancouver that lasted for some time– can’t remember how long, but I know it was well over a month. My then-girlfriend, who is now my wife, worked at UBC and lived in the West End. She didn’t own a car and none of her immediate co-workers lived anywhere near her, so car pooling wasn’t really an option. Her best friend at the time lived near her and also worked at UBC, and they both owned bikes (though neither was a serious biker), so they decided to try biking it, together. I should mention that in those days my GF was in her early 30s, went to a gym four times a week, and ran several times a week as well. The first day nearly killed her. She was OK until she reached the West 10th Avenue hill, and that’s where she met her Waterloo. She had to walk most of the way up it. Oddly, her friend neither worked out nor ran and, while, it wasn’t easy for her, she had no major problems. Go figure.
I suggested she try the 4th Avenue hill instead, but that was no better; and the Spanish Banks route was just too long for her. She would arrive at work exhausted, barely able to walk. Anyway, after a week of worsening torture– she was genuinely afraid that she might do herself permanent injury of some kind if she kept it up– my GF gave up, and borrowed her mother’s car for the duration of the strike. Eight years later she developed major back problems and was eventually diagnosed with fibromyalgia. I don’t know if that could have been one reason whey she had had so much diffculty with biking, but it makes me wonder.
My point is that I don’t care how many 67-year-old happy bicyclists you can point to. (Frankly, your example reminds me of the apocryphal 60-(?)-years-old-and-still-super-fit Swede that Fitness Canada (or whoever it was) used to feature in ads back in the 70s(?); ads meant to shame us lazy Canucks into getting up from the groaning dinner table and heading for the gym.) I can cite just as many examples of people for whom commuting by bicycle is just not a practical option– for a wide variety of reasons. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but this is *not* a situation in which you can display a general garment and expect it to fit everybody. And when I see in the paper today that city planners are working hard to make it even more diffciult for people to get around by car in this city, that they want to force– excuse me, “encourage”– people to walk, bike, or take transit– I have to wonder just what they’ve been smoking to make them think that this semi-magical transition is just going to somehow *happen*.
You know, Darcy, I go on a lot about how much walking I do; but a couple of months ago I started getting serious pain in both feet. Went to a podiatrist who said I have an inflamed tibialis posterior tendon. $500 worth of orthotics later, it’s still happening. Next stop is an oprthpedic surgeon. I walk to and from work every day and spend about 80% of my workday on my feet. My GP tells me I have degenerative arthritis in both knees, so biking is out. I am worried and rather frightened. I am in my late 50s and have a tendecy to gain weight. Walking plays a significant role in maintaining my barely inadequate level of fitness (I won’t go into my back and shoulder problems that limit what I can do with weights). Where this is going to go for me, I have no idea. But I can tell you that this experience has given me considerable insight into the challenges faced by people who just can’t– not *won’t*, often would like to, but *can’t*– step boldly into the brave new world of health and fitness– epitomized by the daily riding of bikes, not for recreation, but to work and back, that you find so easy yourself and therefore makes you think that everyone can.
You will find your anti-car crusade will meet with considerably more success if you develop some compassion and understanding for those who do not possess your physical gifts (or even those of your 67-year-old friend). As it is, you remind me of my bullet-headed, buzz-cut, ex-college-football-star high school PE teacher, who showed nothing but withering contempt for an overweight asthmatic, deeply embarassed kid who could barely struggle through a two-mile cross-country run. And that’s not a pleasant memory to have evoked.
gmgw
64 Darcy McGee // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm
> My then-girlfriend, who is now my wife, worked
> at UBC and lived in the West End.
1) That’s farther than 9km (which is the only distance I discussed.)
2) That route would definitely be “predominantly uphill”
So what’s your point?
65 Richard // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm
gmgw
Electric bikes, trikes scooters etc. are always an option for people that can’t or don’t want to pedal hard.
People need to use their creativity thinking of solutions rather than excuses.
66 Darcy McGee // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Incidentally, when I say I’d consider that ride “predominantly uphill” the problem with riding out to UBC is that there is a single, LONG stretch of uphill distance. The Spanish Banks hill is 1.8km long and I can only do about 14km/h on it on my fast bike (working from memory…) It’s both long and steep.
Contrast this with rides such as my daily to work which includes quite a few hills, but none of them so long that they’re killers and there are just as many downhills. There’s very little overall gain.
The ride home has the crazy Queen Elizabeth Park hill, but that’s short enough that frankly if I didn’t want to ride it, I could walk it…and many people seem to choose to do so.
Walking 1.8km up a single hill isn’t a really great option. It’s long.
So yes, I’d consider that to UBC “predominantly hilly” but there are many many others that are not.
Of course UBC also offers excellent facilities for showering and changing, a luxury that many others don’t have. (No doubt you’ll say “Mrs. gmgw didn’t want to shower at work” which is all fine and dandy…some people just like looking for reasons that things are impossible without even considering options.)
67 gmgw // Jun 9, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Darcy, old sod, you really can be a self-righteous, sanctimonious, selective-hearing, world-class prick sometimes, you know? I’ve always wanted to tell you that.
This angry comment was inspired by you having the gall to cast aspersions on my wife’s “considering of options”, or lack thereof, re her ultimately doomed attempts to bike to UBC. The availability of showers at her place of work was completely irrelevant to what I was trying to say. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge her; you don’t know her and you weren’t *there* to see what she went through, dammit. Anyway, it’s obvious everything I said in that post bounced right off your shield of the (self-) righteous. I think it’s time to write you off as a lost cause.
Now, having got all that off my chest, if you genuinely didn’t get my point, I would suggest you refer to paragraph #3 in my post– the one that begins
“My point is…”. You never know, it just might contain the point I was trying to make. Get the point?
Love,
gmgw
68 not running for mayor // Jun 9, 2009 at 4:57 pm
While arguing on the internet I’m always reminded of an old adage.
Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Take from that what you will. Cheers.
69 Chris // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:29 pm
gmgw - if you wrote shorter comments, maybe we’d read them.
70 Richard // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Weren’t we talking about parking at some point?
71 MB // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:55 am
Note to gmgw: We really don’t need your droning epistles of life history, especially when puncutated with words like “prick”. Your often valid main points are continually drowned out, and you parrot the dribbling sarcasm of one or two other posters so well when they have run out of points and denigrate to immature name calling. Well, sticks and stones. Many of us now just continue scrolling to the next comment.
Agree with him or not, Chris Keam in my mind stands out amongst a few other reasoned and professional responses in this string, even when attacked from several directions, markedly by people in dire need of an editor. His opponents could learn from his professional debating skills.
Keep up the good work, Chris K.
Back to the issue at hand. Robert has a good point re: ticket-spitters. I think the idea of overnight metering for residents has some potential, especially in the West End. But in fairness I think you’d have to differentiate the rates between residents (lower) and visitors (higher). Is there some kind of meter technology that could do this?
I read somewhere that 40% of West Enders do not own cars, which is one of the good things about density and urbanism. However, the majority of older apartment buildings in the WE predate the flood of car-centric development that cascaded over six decades starting in the 50s, and therein have fewer parking stalls than apartments, hence the on-street “subsidy” of resident-only parking.
There are also early 20th Century neighbourhoods where small lots and an absense of lanes prevail, resulting in a dearth of parking and a daily fight with non-residents over parking spaces reasonably close to their homes, especially near arterials with attractive retail.
Calling resident-only parking in these neighbourhoods a “subsidy” — when they can get it — really doesn’t help them.
72 Darcy McGee // Jun 10, 2009 at 11:30 am
Nonetheless, it is a subsidy at the current rates. The annual cost of a parking permit in the West End is currently $65. I know people who have them /even though they have a parking spot/ because it allows them to lend their spots to friends when they come visit.
That’s ridiculously low.
I sympathize with a “dearth of parking” inasmuch as I can, but that’s a choice you make when you locate your rental suite (or purchase a place to live.) I lived in Toronto’s Beaches district when I had a much more car-centric life and this was one of the factors in that apartment decision.
I’m not suggesting council should increase the cost of parking to $65/month overnight either. It needs to be gradually phased in…but a doubling of the annual fee for each of the next two years would be doable. At $260/year the cost would be $21.66/month…or less than the cost of a tank of gas for a week for anybody who drives regularly. $20/month is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of car ownership.
West Enders do have many many other options for those who don’t use their cars regularly: The Car CoOp or Zip Car most notably. These options aren’t as viable in farther flung, less dense neighbourhoods.
73 Darcy McGee // Jun 10, 2009 at 11:56 am
> $20/month is a drop in the bucket in the grand
> scheme of car ownership.
…and still well below the market rate for that area.
(I should have added that.)
74 MB // Jun 10, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Ideally, one wouldn’t need a parking space on the street or anywhere else, and would have the transit / walking opportunities of the West End.
But we ain’t there yet in all of the city.
75 Richard // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm
MB
Note that the staff report recommends using some of the funds saved by reduced parking to fund cycling and walking improvements. This will provide more people with real transportation choices and should reduce the impact the reduction in parking.
Anyway, we have to start making changes at some point. Oil is no longer cheap and is not going to be around forever.
We might also want to not be so self-centred and save a few drops of such a useful substance for our children and their children.
76 gmgw // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm
MB:
Mea culpa, mea culpa. I became angry and used intemperate language when Darcy completely ignored some mitigating details in my admittedly overlong anecdote meant to convey to him my wife’s great difficulty in commuting by bicycle (and also convey the point that not everyone is able to, despite what he may think), and implacably refused to concede one millimeter in his absolutist position (what, and I’m surprised?) while slagging her for, essentially, being lazy (when I showed her his response, incidentally, she became even angrier than I was). I lost sight of a cardinal rule: It’s pointless to argue with a fanatic– and I think anyone who describes himself at being at “war” with car drivers and brags of using dangerous bullying tactics against pedestrians while riding his bike qualifies for that sobriquet.
Kazantzakis, in “Zorba the Greek”, cites an old Macedonian folk saying: “You can knock forever on a deaf man’s door”. Chris, at least, seems willing to engage in a bit of give-and-take, but my knuckles are raw and bleeding from knocking on Darcy’s door. Time to give up and walk away, I think.
Sorry for the offense(s). I know I do have a tendency to loggorhea sometimes.
gmgw
77 Darcy McGee // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I didn’t slag your wife for being lazy. I pointed out that that commute would be considered long (longer than 9km) and “predominantly uphill” which would make it difficult.
Note my earlier comment
> 9km is nothing (unless it’s predominantly uphill.
On another note, I said hi to the four senior citizens I pass each day (3 on the way to work, one on my way to the pool after work) on your behalf. They were all happy for you!!!
In any case, keep finding reasons to justify driving your car if you need too.
200,000 Canadians have been killed in automobile accidents in the past 50 years…more than the combined toll for WWI and WWII.
Imagine how bright our society would be if those 200,000 people were still alive? Of course, it would make it THAT much harder to find a parking spot when you need one…
78 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The Historic Area is an example of a part of the downtown where both severe parking restrictions are in place and street closures are very frequent due to marches, festivals, night markets, etc. Many residential heritage buildings don’t have ANY underground parking, and the city refuses to allow on-street permits despite some past lobbying by locals with cars (and anyway car break-ins are frequent). Everyone seems to survive just fine. So maybe any future studies like the one suggested by MG should look closely at this area for both these issues (parking and street closures). It also helps that this is a very tolerant neighbourhood.
79 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jun 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm
By the way, the only parking alternative in the area is Easy Park, owned by CoV. I had a stall for many years and cost per month was about $148 tax included, or almost $1800 per year. The rates were raised every year for the last 3, despite a total lack of security in this “secure” City lot that Sheriffs and crown prosecutors use (the garage stairwell is a rather horrific microcosm of the surrounding social milieu). Besides the environmental effects of cars and the stress of city driving, it always gave me a sick feeling to know that nearby SROs rent rooms for around $350 per month – housing my car cost almost half what some people in the area house themselves in!
Then my car got totaled by some jerk who ran a stop sign (nearly became a statistic) and I haven’t had a car for six months now. Relying on transit, bike, feet, skateboard, scooter, or carpooling saves me about $400 per month in car-related costs. Not for everyone, sure, but it’s amazing how quickly we can adapt in the face of necessity.
80 gmgw // Jun 11, 2009 at 1:59 am
Sigh.
Darcy, in post #77:
“I didn’t slag your wife for being lazy. I pointed out that that commute would be considered long (longer than 9km) and “predominantly uphill” which would make it difficult.”
Not directly… perhaps:
Darcy, in post #66:
“Of course UBC also offers excellent facilities for showering and changing, a luxury that many others don’t have. (No doubt you’ll say “Mrs. gmgw didn’t want to shower at work” which is all fine and dandy…some people just like looking for reasons that things are impossible without even considering options.)”
Make up your mind, willya?
Lastly:
“In any case, keep finding reasons to justify driving your car if you need too.”
What part of “I haven’t owned a car in 16 years” (somewhere back there) did you find difficult to understand, D.? Or am I attaching too much significance to your choice of the personal pronoun?
gmgw
81 michael geller // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:08 am
For those of you interested in PARKING, the meeting is today (june 11) at 2pm in the Council Chamber.
Now, for those of you interested in CYCLING, especially NUDE CYCLING, you can check some photos sent to me from San Francisco. They can be found on my blog at http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com
82 MB // Jun 11, 2009 at 11:19 am
Urban wildlife abounds. Careful, you web page may overload with your invitation.
83 gmgw // Jun 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Just reassure me that there’s no photos of you in there, Michael, before I go to your site.
gmgw
84 michael geller // Jun 11, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Well, Council ignored a number of speakers, including me, who argued in favour of eliminating any minimum parking requirements for downtown residential buildings. However, it did agree to eliminate the maximum parking requirements when development industry representatives suggested this could deter the development of family housing in the downtown. (In fact, this concern could have easily been addressed with some fine tuning….)
What was particularly disturbing was the fact that Council showed no interest in some very thoughtful arguments put forward by a John Petrie who pointed out, amongst other things, that the current resident permit parking fees represent a significant subsidy for car owners…
I just don’t get it. On one hand, Council wants Vancouver to be the greenest city in the world, and yet there wasn’t even an interest in considering suggestions that might result in fewer cars in the road.
Fortunately, a reporter for Radio station 1130 did watch the deliberations, and was also surprised by Council’s decisions. She reported on the absurdity of this council’s decision to not consider further reductions to the minimum requirement, while quickly agreeing to eliminate the maximum parking requirements.
As for a COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW of resident and visitor parking in the city…I’m not holding my breath after Geoff Meggs took great delight in mocking my suggestion that maybe the time has come to re-consider some pay parking along residential streets.
I was accused of channelling Fred Bass!
That’s the same Fred Bass who warned people about the dangers of tobacco and promoted cycling and public transit. Politics can sure be confusing at times!
85 Chris Keam // Jun 12, 2009 at 7:16 am
Jumping back in to offer some route advice. For anyone cycling to UBC, take 16th Ave from anywhere west of MacDonald for the easiest route up the hill. The hill at 16th is the steepest, but also the shortest. Having tried several different routes, I found this to be the easiest way to get to the campus area (by bike).
86 Darcy McGee // Jun 12, 2009 at 7:42 am
Chris, you’ve seen this?
http://www.cyclevancouver.ubc.ca/
route planner, and you can specify a maximum slope.
I was mucking about with it and anything less than 7% seems to say “go to Marine Drive” which is long, but not steep.
At 7% it says take 8th Ave., even if I include major roads.
It’s a slick tool. I’d like to see the city actually adopt the project (I fear it will disappear.)
A 7% slope is not insubstantial.
(According to the map I only burn 212 calories on the way to work each day.)
87 Chris Keam // Jun 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
I’ve seen the UBC cycling map and think it’s great. I don’t really use it much personally, but see how it can help people find good routes to unfamiliar locales.
I just find short steep hills, less taxing than long, no-so-steep ones. Plus, for those who hate hills, it’s easier to walk up a short one IMO.
88 Darcy McGee // Jun 12, 2009 at 8:49 am
> Plus, for those who hate hills, it’s easier to walk
> up a short one IMO.
Yes.
89 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jun 12, 2009 at 11:34 am
That is a bizarre decision by council. They should AT LEAST be cranking up the street permit costs and considering more pay parking on residential streets, because the status quo is not a fair system applied across the whole downtown. Compare the $1800 that many folks in Gastown and Chinatown are forced to pay in EasyPark (due to no parking in buildings and no street permits allowed + all streets are metered – the harshest system being proposed is already in place here) to the mere $65 a YEAR for a residential street permit in the West End. Street permits are a huge subsidy for car owners who qualify. It is almost equal to the amount of property tax I pay!
So on what possible grounds would a responsible council member mock these suggestions? Let’s see: create new disincentives to owning cars downtown (environmental), make downtown parking rates more equitable for those who do own cars AND reduce the costs of building affordable housing (social/economic), increase an important revenue stream for a city strapped for cash (economic). Triple bottom line accountable with immediate, measurable results. That’s called taking action.
I can probably guess the answer, but it’s worth asking:
Did anyone from the Greenest City Action Team appear before council?
Leave a Comment