HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 9:05 PM
idunno idunno is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 745
In many (that I've been in) West End buildings, over 50% of the parking spaces are unused. IMHO, this means two things:

a) People who live in the West End are less likely to own cars due to its great walkability
b) People who rent in the West End usually have to pay a monthly fee for parking. Since this fee is much higher than the monthly cost of a street parking permit, they opt for the street parking permit instead.

Result: (Too) many cars parked on the street, and many half empty parkades.

Solution for this massive inefficiency? Raise the prices of parking permits! Worried about the old granny who won't be able to afford one next year? Don't you worry - existing permit holders are grandfathered in - the new, higher prices will only affect new permit applicants.

---I think it's a great plan!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 9:41 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Is anybody really surprised? Parking (and road space in general) downtown is at a premium - I'm surprised City Council hasn't openly considered road pricing yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 9:43 PM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Joshua B.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 961
I remember always driving to English Bay during my late teens and early 20's because it was usually easy to find free parking. My mindset has shifted though and I don't mind walking from Granville or Burrard if it's a nice sunny day. Who wants to put up with the stress of traffic and finding parking anyways?

I can see why people would drive though. You are either limited to boarding a packed and slow #5 or #6 which comes every 10 minutes or so on weekends and takes forever to get to the Denman. Transit service absolutely sucks in the evening and you are better off walking to Burrard if you miss your bus.

For $50 annually (in 2009), one could just use their friends or relatives address (register it through ICBC) and obtain a parking pass. A good buddy of mine did that because he worked nearby and a monthly parking pass at a nearby garage would cost triple that.

Even the proposed increase would see parking rates go to $50 per month. Still not bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 10:56 PM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
LOL!!! Newsflash!! You don't own the street in front of your residence. You never have, and never will.
Try being a little less literal and at least address the guy's point. In concept he is correct, which goes back to one of my points (that you didn't address either) that permit parking was instituted to protect street parking for resident's use and give them as close an approximation to what residents in your typical neighborhood have. The West End is unique in the competition for parking, but permits are used in the same way to protect 'parking rights' near transit stations, hospitals, etc.

Also, it is not true that (and the numbers do not reflect a proper study) that parking within buildings is significantly underutilized. I could give you reams of anecdotal evidence to the contrary - including my own: 4 different buildings over 15 years and I secured a spot just once, after a10 month wait.

WarrenC12: you say "the problem is that there are so many parking permits and not enough street spaces." That is simply a near useless statement. The issue is not nearly so simplistic. And then you say "people can't find parking and end up driving around the neighbourhood wasting energy, time, and causing congestion." This has been the case from the get go. Coming home after about 7pm left me driving all over looking for a space. Yes it is wasteful. But, those that will be priced out of the market will become a more serious case of "people [who] can't find parking." How about addressing their needs as well, instead of ignoring their right to equally access the city in an affordable manner.

Why is it better to make parking too expensive for some; that in itself is a version of their being not enough parking, except that the lack of supply is applied to a single group of users, those who can't afford it. Its bullshit to think that would solve the problem. That only frees up space for the better off while not addressing the supply issue at all. Supply and demand is not the best solution to everything.

Also, as to why off street parking might be vacant, there is no real information at all. So, WarrenC12, stop asserting things as obvious facts when they are just your best guesses.

Also, parking, like driving, actually lies somewhere between a right and a good. We have long lived in a culture that acknowledges that, if you follow the rules and regulations, you may exercise a social right to access to many things. Parking is on the same conceptual level as parks. The City has a formula for its ideal amount of park space per resident. This sets a right of expectation for the individual citizen. A lack of park space is not solved by fencing and a user pay system.

Also, in the last 10 or so posts, something new is coming to the fore: that the disjointed thinking about this (from the City) is beginning to make it clear that their rationale contradicts other positions of theirs. It starts to become clear that it is just a simplistic application of the no cars agenda without any deep understanding of how all the components fit together.

Sad thing: eventually a different government will be elected and may dismantle a lot of what the current one thinks it has achieved. Then, all this effort, time, and expense goes straight into the garbage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 3:43 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
Try being a little less literal and at least address the guy's point. In concept he is correct, which goes back to one of my points (that you didn't address either) that permit parking was instituted to protect street parking for resident's use and give them as close an approximation to what residents in your typical neighborhood have. The West End is unique in the competition for parking, but permits are used in the same way to protect 'parking rights' near transit stations, hospitals, etc.

Also, it is not true that (and the numbers do not reflect a proper study) that parking within buildings is significantly underutilized. I could give you reams of anecdotal evidence to the contrary - including my own: 4 different buildings over 15 years and I secured a spot just once, after a10 month wait.

WarrenC12: you say "the problem is that there are so many parking permits and not enough street spaces." That is simply a near useless statement. The issue is not nearly so simplistic. And then you say "people can't find parking and end up driving around the neighbourhood wasting energy, time, and causing congestion." This has been the case from the get go. Coming home after about 7pm left me driving all over looking for a space. Yes it is wasteful. But, those that will be priced out of the market will become a more serious case of "people [who] can't find parking." How about addressing their needs as well, instead of ignoring their right to equally access the city in an affordable manner.

Why is it better to make parking too expensive for some; that in itself is a version of their being not enough parking, except that the lack of supply is applied to a single group of users, those who can't afford it. Its bullshit to think that would solve the problem. That only frees up space for the better off while not addressing the supply issue at all. Supply and demand is not the best solution to everything.

Also, as to why off street parking might be vacant, there is no real information at all. So, WarrenC12, stop asserting things as obvious facts when they are just your best guesses.

Also, parking, like driving, actually lies somewhere between a right and a good. We have long lived in a culture that acknowledges that, if you follow the rules and regulations, you may exercise a social right to access to many things. Parking is on the same conceptual level as parks. The City has a formula for its ideal amount of park space per resident. This sets a right of expectation for the individual citizen. A lack of park space is not solved by fencing and a user pay system.

Also, in the last 10 or so posts, something new is coming to the fore: that the disjointed thinking about this (from the City) is beginning to make it clear that their rationale contradicts other positions of theirs. It starts to become clear that it is just a simplistic application of the no cars agenda without any deep understanding of how all the components fit together.

Sad thing: eventually a different government will be elected and may dismantle a lot of what the current one thinks it has achieved. Then, all this effort, time, and expense goes straight into the garbage.
Did you even read the article?

Quote:
"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.
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transpor...-strategy.aspx

Quote:
As a result, many people currently choose to park in the street, even if they can park in their building. Some buildings have over 100 empty spaces.
Overall, there are about 1.5 residential spaces for every car registered in the neighbourhood.
By all means, read the questions people were asked and their responses. This plan is broadly supported, despite anecdotal complaining on this forum and others.

You can choose not to believe the results, along with the other conspiracy theorists who are convinced Vision is out to ruin us all.

As for another government changing the rules back, good luck on that one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 3:54 AM
WBC WBC is offline
Transit User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Metrotown/Downtown
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
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
I think the "hike" is a more of a middle finger to the residents of West End who have long opposed city ideas of further increases in local density. About the last thing anybody in the city administration cares is how long it takes an average citizen to find parking.

If the city wanted to address most of the things from the quoted list above it could simply eliminate most of the city parking in West End and force everybody underground into the underutilized garages. That would open up road surface for other uses such as walking and biking and improve traffic. But hey, why do that when you can increase taxes which is the one and only way government knows how to address every problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 7:40 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
[QUOTE=WarrenC12;7502973]

Two last things for you: 1) are you enslaved to the article? and 2) if not try looking up "discussion" in the OED.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 1:40 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,616
[QUOTE=Marshal;7503068]
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post

Two last things for you: 1) are you enslaved to the article? and 2) if not try looking up "discussion" in the OED.
I pointed out stats in the study, which you argued against with your own anecdotal evidence. Why argue with somebody who has religious level beliefs?

I think road space, and any on road parking space is hugely undervalued. The price to park on the road isn't high enough in many areas of town.

If we are building condos that sell for more than $1000/sf, the economics should be there to support multilevel parking structures, with relevant costs to users to park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 2:18 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Was not the original parking scheme introduced to assist those who live in the venerable older buildings that have little to no parking?

Certainly, I'd agree that the city shouldn't be handing out street passes to people that have available parking underground.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 3:00 PM
connect2source's Avatar
connect2source connect2source is offline
life in the present
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
Was not the original parking scheme introduced to assist those who live in the venerable older buildings that have little to no parking?

Certainly, I'd agree that the city shouldn't be handing out street passes to people that have available parking underground.
Exactly! A more strict screening process would be worth a try before a 700% increase in permit fees and the removal of free 2 hour parking, not to mention littering the landscape with unsightly parking meters and concrete pads on which to place them.

From what I've heard, the average rental building charges about $100 - $125 / month for secured parking. When applying for a a permit a resident should have to verify whether or not they have been provided with parking in their respective rental or condo. If they have a space, no permit.

If the city chooses to increase fees they should match what the market rate is for rental spaces. If they're about $125 / month then that's what the permits should be increased to, then tied to increased market rates of say 3% / year. Thereby removing the incentive to ditch the parking in the building in favour of cheaper street parking. I have no doubt that this would free up hundreds of spaces.
__________________
source | energy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 3:06 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by connect2source View Post
Exactly! A more strict screening process would be worth a try before a 700% increase in permit fees and the removal of free 2 hour parking, not to mention littering the landscape with unsightly parking meters and concrete pads on which to place them.

From what I've heard, the average rental building charges about $100 - $125 / month for secured parking. When applying for a a permit a resident should have to verify whether or not they have been provided with parking in their respective rental or condo. If they have a space, no permit.

If the city chooses to increase fees they should match what the market rate is for rental spaces. If they're about $125 / month then that's what the permits should be increased to, then tied to increased market rates of say 3% / year. Thereby removing the incentive to ditch the parking in the building in favour of cheaper street parking. I have no doubt that this would free up hundreds of spaces.
A great plan, but probably a nightmare to enforce and administer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 3:50 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by connect2source View Post
Exactly! A more strict screening process would be worth a try before a 700% increase in permit fees and the removal of free 2 hour parking, not to mention littering the landscape with unsightly parking meters and concrete pads on which to place them.

From what I've heard, the average rental building charges about $100 - $125 / month for secured parking. When applying for a a permit a resident should have to verify whether or not they have been provided with parking in their respective rental or condo. If they have a space, no permit.

If the city chooses to increase fees they should match what the market rate is for rental spaces. If they're about $125 / month then that's what the permits should be increased to, then tied to increased market rates of say 3% / year. Thereby removing the incentive to ditch the parking in the building in favour of cheaper street parking. I have no doubt that this would free up hundreds of spaces.
All the city needs is a database of buildings to determine which ones have parking and which do not. Street parking passes should be prioritized to those who's address is in a building that has no parking on-site. If there's any passes left after that, then first-come first serve, or lottery for that matter.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 5:38 PM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by WBC View Post
I think the "hike" is a more of a middle finger to the residents of West End who have long opposed city ideas of further increases in local density. About the last thing anybody in the city administration cares is how long it takes an average citizen to find parking.

If the city wanted to address most of the things from the quoted list above it could simply eliminate most of the city parking in West End and force everybody underground into the underutilized garages. That would open up road surface for other uses such as walking and biking and improve traffic. But hey, why do that when you can increase taxes which is the one and only way government knows how to address every problem.
Like I mentioned before, I'm a West End resident. If you are a West End resident and opposed to density, you shouldn't live in the West End.

Look I'm not going to try and figure out what the city's intentions here. What I do know from learning city planning and transportation economics is that this policy makes sense, whether you view it as a cash grab or not. The city could forcibly eliminate all street marketing, but that would be a very blunt approach and would likely be much less popular than increasing street parking prices for people who choose to own a vehicle and choose to park on the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 6:43 PM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 618
I recommend you guys all check out the on this. I'm impressed with the level of detail and data they use for explaining the new policy.

Some interesting tidbits:
  • Almost 50% of West End residents (46%) do not own a car
  • Only 20% of West End residents have parking permits
  • Parking Permit Turnover is high. Over 5 years, less than 20% still had their permit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 6:54 PM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
All the city needs is a database of buildings to determine which ones have parking and which do not. Street parking passes should be prioritized to those who's address is in a building that has no parking on-site. If there's any passes left after that, then first-come first serve, or lottery for that matter.
But it would not be so simple. Most West End buildings do not have enough spaces for all their tenants. You would have to monitor every building in terms of availability, wait list . . . Also, how would the city compel building owners/managers to do the work of keeping track of it all and supplying the data. And then, you would have to verify and police it on an ongoing basis. Managing this data would be unreasonably cumbersome and expensive.

Sadly, I must agree with WarrenC12 on this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 7:07 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by connect2source View Post
Exactly! A more strict screening process would be worth a try before a 700% increase in permit fees and the removal of free 2 hour parking, not to mention littering the landscape with unsightly parking meters and concrete pads on which to place them.

From what I've heard, the average rental building charges about $100 - $125 / month for secured parking. When applying for a a permit a resident should have to verify whether or not they have been provided with parking in their respective rental or condo. If they have a space, no permit.

If the city chooses to increase fees they should match what the market rate is for rental spaces. If they're about $125 / month then that's what the permits should be increased to, then tied to increased market rates of say 3% / year. Thereby removing the incentive to ditch the parking in the building in favour of cheaper street parking. I have no doubt that this would free up hundreds of spaces.
I find it interesting that the market lesson most of you seem to take away from this is that the city rate is too low, rather than the building rate is too high. Built in bias?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 8:38 PM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
I find it interesting that the market lesson most of you seem to take away from this is that the city rate is too low, rather than the building rate is too high. Built in bias?
Even that $100-$150 per month for underground spaces is probably subsidized. According to VTPI, the monthly cost should be in the $250-$400 per month range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 8:50 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
I find it interesting that the market lesson most of you seem to take away from this is that the city rate is too low, rather than the building rate is too high. Built in bias?
One would assume that the building rate is at least close to the free-floating market rate, and so it more representative of supply and demand at work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 11:05 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
Even that $100-$150 per month for underground spaces is probably subsidized. According to VTPI, the monthly cost should be in the $250-$400 per month range.
That's not particularly applicable to the West End where most of the buildings and their attendant parking were built at least 30 years ago. Those structures were paid for long ago (as were the roads).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2016, 12:08 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Note sure why some think the price of parking should be 250-400/month. The cost for a new parking stall is between $20-40K per spot, using the high figure of $40K and financing that at 3% would still only cost you $100/month.
Given the present councils previous decisions it's hard not to think there is social engineering at work here yet again. I just fail to accept they've all of a sudden taken a market price philosophy. Lets see what happens with the SEFC land lease rates and if they see a similar 700% jump.
That all said I'm okay with the purposed increase... just feel it's madness to do it at once and instead should be done over several years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.