HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2013, 7:03 PM
rkannegi rkannegi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 86
CFB Halifax Parking & Transportation

I have heard, officially, that CFB Halifax Base Command has announced that, as of 21 December 2013 at 0001 hours (12:00 AM), all seniority requirements for General Parking within all seniority-restricted parts of CFB Halifax (Stadacona and Dockyard) will be ABOLISHED. The only requirement for General Parking after that time will be that anyone parking in a General Parking spot must be working for the Department of National Defence. Those who have paid Reserved Parking spots will continue to have their paid Reserved Parking spots.

General Parking continues to be free of charge at this time, although the Base is investigating the feasibility of a paid parking system, on sections of the Base where it may be applicable, and what type of paid parking system would be used if paid General Parking is found to be feasible in applicable areas of CFB Halifax.

For myself, I have no problem for paying a fee for parking infrastructure expansion if I require parking in any expanded parking infrastructure within Stadacona and Dockyard, since there's no such thing as a "Free Lunch" (aside from any operationally required parking for those who have a daily operational requirement for parking, which would and should still be free of charge).

Also, I have heard that CFB Halifax is in discussions with Metro Transit on improving Metro Transit service to and from CFB Halifax for DND commuters.

From what I see, there is a very good chance that Dockyard and Stadacona parking in the New Year of 2014 will be filled to capacity, with overflow spilling onto nearby sections of city streets that do not have parking limitations or restrictions (like the overflow that already happens).

Either way, I'm glad that the feudalistic parking seniority restrictions in the Stadacona and Dockyard sections of CFB Halifax are being abolished.

The current Parking Seniority requirements for CFB Halifax are as follows (to be abolished on 21 December 2013):

12 years of service required for Lots A,B and C of HMC Dockyard;
14 years of service for the rest of HMC Dockyard;
13 years of service for Stadacona;
No seniority requirements for the rest of CFB Halifax outside of HMC Dockyard and Stadacona, where the only requirement for areas outside of Stadacona and Dockyard is that parking is for doing business with or working for DND.

Car pools and personnel with operational requirements for daily commuter parking, such as working partially or completely outside of normal daytime hours of about 6AM to 6PM, including those with temporary parking passes for duty watches, were always exempted from the seniority restrictions mentioned above.

Visitor Parking time limits and NO PARKING/NO STOPPING zones will be strictly enforced to ensure parking turnover and fire/emergency lane clearance respectively.

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

Last edited by rkannegi; Dec 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2014, 2:27 AM
rkannegi rkannegi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 86
As some of you heard on the news just before Christmas, CFB Halifax took a more gradual approach to getting rid of seniority restrictions for General Parking in Dockyard and Stadacona by going down to 8 years seniority.

Halifax DND employees prepare to engage in parking wars

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/halifax-d...wars-1.1596182

CFB Halifax struggles with parking lot scramble

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...mble-1.2471297

Now, as of 1 May 2014, CFB Halifax will now be reducing it further to 5 years seniority for General Parking in Dockyard and Stadacona. The ultimate, seniority-free parking system has to be implemented by 1 September 2014 (the end of the grace period that the CFB Halifax has to get its ultimate parking system in place in accordance with Treasury Board Policy). Also, on 1 September 2014, paid reserved parking in Dockyard, Stadacona and Halifax Armoury will rise to $75/month, while RA Park's parking will rise to $110/month for all parking pass holders that have parking passes for RA Park.

Meanwhile all parking in NAD, Willow Park and the fenced portion of Windsor Park must become paid parking by 1 September 2014 due to the existence of extra parking space relative to the demand that those areas normally get on a daily basis. NAD parking will cost $25/month while Windsor Park and Willow Park parking will cost $40/month.

CFAD, Damage Control Division and the Bedford Rifle Range will remain at $0 (no requirment to have paid parking).

The new DAOD's for parking on National Defence Establishments are located here:

DAOD 1004-0 Parking:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao...1004-0-eng.asp

DAOAD 1004-1 Parking Administration:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao...1004-1-eng.asp

It may sound ironic that Stadacona and Dockyard may still have free General Parking, but it's because that, according to Government of Canada Treasury Board Policy that's cited in the above DAOD's, there's no Fair Market Value (FMV) for parking that's open to a parking demand that routinely exceeds the parking supply on a daily basis. NAD, Willow Park and Windsor Park have assessed FMV's while having General Parking demand that only partially fills their General Parking lots, thereby forcing CFB Halifax to invoke the FMV on all parking in those areas, regardless if it's Reserved (assigned parking) or General (unassigned parking).

There is a hitch though. There are many residential side streets that currently have free, unrestricted parking near NAD, Willow Park and Windsor Park. The new paid parking requirements that are coming for NAD, Willow Park and the fenced in part of Windsor Park may lead to many DND personnel diverting their parking onto these city streets near those areas in order to boycott paid parking without having to switch to another mode of transport, until such time that HRM ever implements time-restricted parking or paid-permit parking during normal working hours to dissuade parking tie-ups on the affected city streets.

If DND decided to have "free" parking for parking spots that have FMV's, it would be considered a taxable benefit. The issue with that is if people who don't need a parking pass are taxed, which, in my opinion would be grossly unfair, unless they have it such that only those who have applied for a parking pass are taxed (parking pass control would still be required for this). The advantage of having parking done as a taxable benefit ("free" parking) is that an employee who has a parking pass would only really pay for the income tax on the FMV that's "effectively" added to the employee's income, which, for example, would translate into an income tax payment of about $15-20 a month for a parking spot that has an FMV of $40/month (assuming Nova Scotia's grossly high income taxes). So, a taxable parking benefit would be effectively cheaper for the users of the FMV parking than having to pay the monthly FMV parking fee outright. However, DND considers having FMV parking as a taxable benefit instead of as paid parking to be cumbersome, especially for a base like CFB Halifax that's fragmented across multiple campuses that have different FMV's.

The last that I have also heard from the news before Christmas is that the civilian union in DND is opposed to having to pay for parking. (I suspect the comparison in true costs to users of parking spots with assessed non-zero FMV's of the expected monthly income tax payment, compared to the monthly parking fee payment the would otherwise be charged, is a large reason behind the civilian union in DND being opposed to paid parking.) I took note of how the President of the Nova Scotia National Defence Employees Union talked on CTV News in December 2013 about how the Treasury Board is dictating the running of the entire Government of Canada as part of its much-dreaded DRAP (Deficit Reduction Action Plan)

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

Last edited by rkannegi; Apr 16, 2014 at 2:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 7:42 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
I wish they'd condense the parking onto a parking structure and eliminate that large and unsightly surface lot at the dockyard. It's really an eyesore and a blight on the view when crossing the bridge.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 12:23 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Surface parking lots don't really bother me, other than the fact that it means there isn't a good enough reason to build a building there.

I think the payback on surface parking is not that great, so that tells me it just isn't viable to build there yet and the owner is subsidizing his costs by allowing people to park there. At least the land is being used.

What really irks me are empty lots, or partially developed lots. I've seen a few cases locally where the developer takes a decent-looking area that was treed or had a home on the location, rips it apart and then leaves it like that for years, becoming an eyesore. Get rid of those and then let's talk about surface parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 5:49 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Surface parking lots don't really bother me, other than the fact that it means there isn't a good enough reason to build a building there.

I think the payback on surface parking is not that great, so that tells me it just isn't viable to build there yet and the owner is subsidizing his costs by allowing people to park there. At least the land is being used.
That's making the assumption that those in charge of the land always make the best decisions. People are only human and can make mistakes. A person may think that it isn't financially viable to build something when in fact it is. Or they may have a bias that puts a value premium on automobile convenience. Similar to how it's much less expensive for a family with two cars to sell one of them and for one or both spouses to walk, bike, or take public transit to work. Even if doing so costs 1/20 what it costs to buy, fuel, maintain, and park the car, some people put such a high value on convenience or not having to "slum it" that they're willing to pay.

And the assumptions are even bigger when you're not talking about private enterprise. Public entities lack the powerful profit incentive, so I have even less faith in them when it comes to sound asset management without tough external accountability. An organization like the military might be wasting a lot of taxpayer money by having that surface parking lot undeveloped. Maybe the topic has never come up and simply isn't a priority, or maybe they cite some little logistical challenge that could easily be overcome given real incentive to do so. They may have spent millions of dollars on acquiring a new site elsewhere for a function that could have been accommodated there and we wouldn't have a way to know.

But regardless of the economics, I just find their barren, wind-swept austerity very off-putting. Seeing a supposedly vital urban area has large areas of land that have no higher purpose than this is very disheartening.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 5:59 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
That's making the assumption that those in charge of the land always make the best decisions. People are only human and can make mistakes. A person may think that it isn't financially viable to build something when in fact it is. Or they may have a bias that puts a value premium on automobile convenience. Similar to how it's much less expensive for a family with two cars to sell one of them and for one or both spouses to walk, bike, or take public transit to work. Even if doing so costs 1/20 what it costs to buy, fuel, maintain, and park the car, some people put such a high value on convenience or not having to "slum it" that they're willing to pay.

And the assumptions are even bigger when you're not talking about private enterprise. Public entities lack the powerful profit incentive, so I have even less faith in them when it comes to sound asset management without tough external accountability. An organization like the military might be wasting a lot of taxpayer money by having that surface parking lot undeveloped. Maybe the topic has never come up and simply isn't a priority, or maybe they cite some little logistical challenge that could easily be overcome given real incentive to do so. They may have spent millions of dollars on acquiring a new site elsewhere for a function that could have been accommodated there and we wouldn't have a way to know.

But regardless of the economics, I just find their barren, wind-swept austerity very off-putting. Seeing a supposedly vital urban area has large areas of land that have no higher purpose than this is very disheartening.
There's a lot of maybes there, and in my post as well.

Then there's personal opinions. While one person may see it as barren, wind-swept austerity, another might see it as a lot full of sleek, gleaming, colouful automobiles to break up the mass of buildings. Regardless of your viewpoint, neither one of them is right or wrong IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 6:36 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
^ I don't think it's so much an issue of seeing it as being one or the other, as much as when it's being one or the other. Most of the times I go over the bridge the lot is mostly or entirely empty. I guess I often come into town too late in the day or too often on weekends to get to enjoy all the cars. So in fact it objectively *is* barren, wind-swept and austere.

So I'm kind of out of luck. Not that it's really that difficult to see parked cars in the HRM of course lol.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 6:56 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
^ I don't think it's so much an issue of seeing it as being one or the other, as much as when it's being one or the other. Most of the times I go over the bridge the lot is mostly or entirely empty. I guess I often come into town too late in the day or too often on weekends to get to enjoy all the cars. So in fact it objectively *is* barren, wind-swept and austere.

So I'm kind of out of luck. Not that it's really that difficult to see parked cars in the HRM of course lol.
FWIW, I agree that an empty parking lot is a terrible waste of space, and would prefer to see more parkades or even better large buildings with provisions for underground paid public parking.

There must be a point where the value of the land downtown will rise to a price where it makes no sense to not build on it (or to not sell to somebody who wants to build on it), and when/if it reaches that level then the surface lots will go away. Until that happens, I still prefer to see a utilized lot rather than an empty, unkempt one. Just my preference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 9:43 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Just maybe the military has some future use in mind for the parking lot, so they don't want to sell it.

Secondly, just maybe the average couple raising 3 kids and both going to work in different directions and at different times area quite happy to pay for the convenience of not using public transit. Maybe it provides more family time or one another time rather than bus time.
Great that we don't all think alike.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2015, 10:06 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
No one was criticising the family for their decision. I was simply stating that people often let themselves makes decisions based on values or preferences even when they aren't the best in a purely financial sense. I don't "agree" with the hypothetical family's decision, but it's none of my business.

But there's a difference between individuals making decisions in a private capacity, and the decisions of a public entity using public money involving large areas of land in the central parts of cities.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 3:50 PM
essaysmith's Avatar
essaysmith essaysmith is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: HRM
Posts: 50
DND has long maintained that a parking structure would be a "security threat". Snipers maybe, who knows? I had heard that at one time Irving offered to build a parking structure for free provided they could put a service station in on the ground floor of it, but they were denied. Due to the proximately to the Dockyard, a parking structure would just open up the remainder of the area for grass, I don't think they would allow any development that close.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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