City looks to jack up parking prices in the West End

[Sheba]

Parking in Vancouver's West End could get a lot pricier.

The city is sending out feelers to West End residents in the form of an online survey to find out just how many people support a potential 700 per cent increase to annual on-street parking permits.

With enough support, the city would increase the annual permit rate from $80 to $600 and eliminate free 2-hour parking spaces in favour of meters as part of the West End Parking Strategy, pending approval from council.

According to Vancouver transportation director Lon LaClaire, the price hikes will encourage current permit holders to look for alternatives and free up parking space.

"The target is that we want to have 15 per cent of the spaces of available so you don't spend a bunch of time driving around looking for parking, adding to congestion and to the traffic problem," said LaClaire.

The changes would reduce the maddening hunt for parking that many West End drivers endure by five minutes and one kilometer, according to a study conducted by the City.

"We've had general support from across the community, with exception of the current permit holders — and that's understandable," he added.

The new rate would be grandfathered in, meaning only new applicants would incur the updated costs.

A 'market-based' price

But not everyone is satisfied with the city's approach.

"Parking's not that bad in the West End," said Paul Juzkow, a 25-year resident of the neighbourhood. "And you shouldn't need a 700 per cent price increase to fix it."

Juzkow has had his parking permit for the nearly 20 years, which he uses when he goes out to get groceries or visit friends on the other side of the West End.

"You should be able to park in your own neighbourhood for a reasonable price," he said.

Juzkow​ believes the new permits will only add to the already high costs of living in the West End and will unfairly target residents who rely on vehicles.

"Some people need their cars. Not everyone can ride a bike," he said.

The survey closes on August 15. The proposal will be introduced to council in the fall.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-end-1.3674302

[csbvan]

Parking prices can't stagnate forever, especially with more people. No brainer

[whatnext]

Oh yeah, everyone will go for a 700% tax increase. Keep digging your own grave Gregor.

[Large Cat]

The city is doing the right thing here.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh yeah, everyone will go for a 700% tax increase. Keep digging your own grave Gregor.

This is supply and demand at work. It appears many spots within apartment buildings are not being used. They should push residents off the street and back into buildings.

More car sharing in the area would probably help residents too.

[Aroundtheworld]

I live in the West End and I am totally in favour of this. Parking is ridiculously cheap considering the location and it means it's very difficult to find parking. I don't have a car, but I know that a 7-day visitor pass costs only $10.50.

I read a study that cheap parking causes pollution and congestion as people end up driving a lot looking for a free parking space. Increasing the price, though certainly unpopular, is good on many levels.

[connect2source]

If they refuse parking permits to any West End resident who already has a parking space in their building it will likely free up of 50% or more of the spaces. Problem solved. Almost everyone I know or do business with in the West End has parking in their buildings and also has a permit.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by connect2source

If they refuse parking permits to any West End resident who already has a parking space in their building it will likely free up of 50% or more of the spaces. Problem solved. Almost everyone I know or do business with in the West End has parking in their buildings and also has a permit.

I think increasing the price will do the trick. With these changes, the monthly price will go up to $50/month. The underground parking in my building is $90/month. Even though the underground parking is more expensive, I think a lot more people will choose it now as it's more reliable and secure.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think increasing the price will do the trick. With these changes, the monthly price will go up to $50/month. The underground parking in my building is $90/month. Even though the underground parking is more expensive, I think a lot more people will choose it now as it's more reliable and secure.

Exactly this. Underground parking prices float around with supply and demand. I noticed more demand and higher prices once meters were installed in my area, and a local parking lot was replaced with a building. The city's permits should do the same.

[jollyburger]

So people with the $80 rate get to keep it for the rest of the time they live at their current place?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Parking prices can't stagnate forever..

Why not, incomes have.

[cornholio]

This is pretty much a 700% tax raise and a money grab. The residents pay the administrative charges of a service that is in place to reserve parking spaces for local residents.

The reason they are not doing this for current residents is because they would face a very large back lash and lawsuits.

[Marshal]

Now that I don't live there, I am not concerned much about west ender's parking costs.

BUT, I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO ENGINEER EVERY DETAIL OF OUR URBAN LIVES, ENDLESSLY OVERSTEPPING THE REASONABLY ESTABLISHED LIMITS OF THEIR GOVERNANCE!

The original point of these kinds of parking permits was to free up local parking for local users. The point was to remove that parking from the paid supply and demand system. There is no justification for turning it into a means to generate revenue or to push people around so they do what Gregor and the others want: park in their buildings, sell their cars, ride bikes, take transit . . .

The only acceptable change to my mind would be to simply end the permit system and revert all parking back to being metered.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Now that I don't live there, I am not concerned much about west ender's parking costs.

BUT, I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO ENGINEER EVERY DETAIL OF OUR URBAN LIVES, ENDLESSLY OVERSTEPPING THE REASONABLY ESTABLISHED LIMITS OF THEIR GOVERNANCE!

The original point of these kinds of parking permits was to free up local parking for local users. The point was to remove that parking from the paid supply and demand system. There is no justification for turning it into a means to generate revenue or to push people around so they do what Gregor and the others want: park in their buildings, sell their cars, ride bikes, take transit . . .

The only acceptable change to my mind would be to simply end the permit system and revert all parking back to being metered.

Did you even read the article? The problem is that there are so many parking permits and not enough street spaces. People can't find parking and end up driving around the neighbourhood wasting energy, time, and causing congestion.

This is the single obvious way to deal with a scarce resource: increase price.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Did you even read the article? The problem is that there are so many parking permits and not enough street spaces. People can't find parking and end up driving around the neighbourhood wasting energy, time, and causing congestion.

This is the single obvious way to deal with a scarce resource: increase price.

Interesting. That does not seem to fit the city story about how everybody is driving less and how travel mode is shifting towards walking, biking and transit every year. If that story was true should there not be plenty of parking in West End, which is after all one part of town where you need car the least.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Did you even read the article? The problem is that there are so many parking permits and not enough street spaces. People can't find parking and end up driving around the neighbourhood wasting energy, time, and causing congestion.

This is the single obvious way to deal with a scarce resource: increase price.

And yet we have urbanists arguing new developments should reduce the amount of parking required. Maybe we should acknowledge that all the new development planned is going to vastly increase traffic and congestion. Gregor and Co seem to think everyone is going to ride to work on a unicorn powered by pixie dust.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WBC

Interesting. That does not seem to fit the city story about how everybody is driving less and how travel mode is shifting towards walking, biking and transit every year. If that story was true should there not be plenty of parking in West End, which is after all one part of town where you need car the least.

The issue is that there is parking under buildings and other private residences in that part of town that is not getting used, since the "going rate" for that is far higher than the street parking fee.

[Aroundtheworld]

I think people need to understand that parking is a good and not a god-given right. (Though I can see why they get so defensive ant territorial - that's just human nature). Like another good, it should follow the rules of supply and demand.

The fact is that it has been underpriced for so long and there are consequences for that:

• Difficulty to finding free parking leading to increased congestion and pollution
• Encouraging private ownership over car share
• Encouraging car ownership over other modes of transportation
• Underutilization of underground parking spaces
• Consumption of land surface that could be put to more productive uses

This 'hike' is really a correction of prices that have been egregiously low for so long

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think people need to understand that parking is a good and not a god-given right. (Though I can see why they get so defensive ant territorial - that's just human nature). Like another good, it should follow the rules of supply and demand.

The fact is that it has been underpriced for so long and there are consequences for that:

• Difficulty to finding free parking leading to increased congestion and pollution
• Encouraging private ownership over car share
• Encouraging car ownership over other modes of transportation
• Underutilization of underground parking spaces
• Consumption of land surface that could be put to more productive uses

This 'hike' is really a correction of prices that have been egregiously low for so long

Residential streets in residential zoned areas belong to the local residents. If the local residents that use those streets vote to give up their rights or use their residential streets for funding local initiatives so be it.

Obviously the city hopes that by applying this to only new applications they can keep it under the radar long enough to avoid lawsuits and a backlash. Obviously I hope that doesn't happen because it sets a horrible precedent if the people don't protect their rights to their residential streets.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Residential streets in residential zoned areas belong to the local residents. If the local residents that use those streets vote to give up their rights or use their residential streets for funding local initiatives so be it.

Obviously the city hopes that by applying this to only new applications they can keep it under the radar long enough to avoid lawsuits and a backlash. Obviously I hope that doesn't happen because it sets a horrible precedent if the people don't protect their rights to their residential streets.

LOL!!! Newsflash!! You don't own the street in front of your residence. You never have, and never will.