VISION Council ideology trumps logic regarding parking in Vancouver



Tow trucks respond to Vision council's orders for parking enforcement targeting motorcycles.

This is the unedited version of an oped piece I wrote for The Province which was published

May 22, 2012.

 

Vancouver’s VISION dominated council dealt a regressive blow to Vancouver motorcyclists on May 16th. They ignored staff recommendations and the needs of motorcyclists when they, led by City Councillor Heather Deal, produced and approved a motion instructing city staff to retain high and discriminatory pricing for motorcycle parking in Vancouver, and to immediately step up parking enforcement against motorcyclists.

It is apparent to anybody familiar with the issue, that some councillors are not only ignorant of the plight of motorcycle riders, but their motions are guided by a rigid ideology, one that is fixated on only supporting pedestrians and bicycles at all costs, preventing them from seeing the forest for the trees. In the case of VISION, the need to pursue the ideology resulted in dismissive and undemocratic behaviour on that day; and the shame of it is that it does nothing to help the pursuit of their green agenda.

The movement of all mass requires energy and the heavier the mass to move, the more energy is required.  Therefore the key to reducing energy consumption, and emissions, is to reduce the weight and size of mass; that is if you’re serious about your commitment to becoming “the world’s greenest city”. The logical extension of that thinking then, would mean that a reduction in vehicle size would reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

Six to ten scooters / motorcycles can fit in the space of an automobile and they generally weigh between one tenth and one half the weight of the ubiquitous ultra light Smart Car. Many more people can be carried, using less road space than cars on motorized two wheelers.  The latter was seemingly lost on, or of no interest to Councillor Deal, on that May afternoon, when she showed up to the meeting with a new motion to say that two-wheeled commuters should pay the same as automobiles, and they should be happy to receive a 50% “deep discount” when using pay by phone. Further, she commented that often it’s difficult to find parking for bicycles, with the implication being that it too should be difficult for motorcycles. In fact, Deal implied she knew a lot about an issue that she has refused to engage in any dialogue about for three years. She then went on the offensive, suggesting that motorcyclists are parking in bicycle parking to avoid pay parking, instead of acknowledging there is not enough motorcycle parking downtown and offering a solution.

Councillor Raymond Louie makes no secret of his priorities being for pedestrians and cyclists (presumably none of his constituents use motor vehicles), and referred to his experience as a former owner of a 30 year old two stroke motorcycle as his proof of expertise as to why he believes scooters and motorcycles are no more environmentally friendly than automobiles. He asked engineering staff how many bicycles there are, and how many bike racks there are in Vancouver, as if the answers had anything to do motorized two-wheeler parking. Then they all voted lock step for Deal’s motion, with Clrs Carr, Affleck and Ball opposing. It would have been almost funny if the consequences of their behaviour were not so unfair.

So stuck in their ideology, that they were determined to ignore what they were told as to why participation at meters was so low (because the present pricing is too high, unfair, complicated, discriminatory and punitive), and why more parking was both necessary and desirable for Vancouver; instead they issued instructions to staff that they had better ramp up their enforcement. In the absence of available parking in the downtown core, the edict seemed ignorant, divisive and mean spirited to those observing and will certainly be to those on the receiving end of her (Deal’s) instructions. Is it any wonder ordinary citizens are so cynical about civic politics?

There are cities all over the world that recognize the value of encouraging transit with smaller, lighter forms of transport and they are wise to and do provide low cost and free parking for commuter motorcycles. Vancouver’s got plenty of unused space, it’s ideally suited to accommodate motorcycle parking and it’s got the geography and climate to encourage people to lighten their mode of transit for much of the year.

Nobody is trying to reinvent the wheel with respect to motorcycle parking in Vancouver. Riders want parking where available, and pricing that is fair, competitive and reflects space required. Motorized two wheelers are a realistic immediate answer to cleaner low footprint, low impact and efficient transportation. Vancouver would do well to embrace them.

Second Scooter / Motorcycle Parking Rally Set For Saturday May 5th

Initial program is successful (with some glitches). Riders want price adjustment and more free parking.

Newly designated scooter parking goes empty now
 there is a meter there where the current charge 
for metered space is the same as that for the SUV
in the next space (50% off if one uses pay
by phone).

Vancouver Scooter / Motorcycle Parking advocates will hold their second parking rally in Vancouver on the morning of Saturday May 5, 2012 as a follow up on a similar rally held in May 2010 which helped create parking for motorized two-wheelers on city streets. Supporters will descend on downtown, to park as they’ve been obligated, prior to recently, with one bike per vehicle parking space thereby displacing cars and trucks for approximately 2 hours.

The purpose of the rally is to inform and illustrate to citizens and city council, some of the challenges faced by riders of motorized cycles and to press for more available and free parking. While substantial progress has been achieved since 2010, previous city legislation generally mandated that powered two wheeled commuters occupy single vehicle metered parking spaces if riders wished to park on-street. In the past, riders have been reluctant to occupy entire vehicle parking spaces, considering it expensive, a poor use of space and discourteous to other motorists. Then, the alternative was to poach space, from automobiles, by parking between them. This could result in increased insurance costs for all motorists, due to damage as motorized cycles were knocked over, as well as punitive arbitrary ticketing and towing by Vancouver City.

Up to 8 motorized two wheelers will fit in a passenger vehicle
space.

Motorized cycle use in BC grew dramatically more than passenger vehicle use in BC (35% vs. 7.5% for the 5 yrs ending in 2007) and continues to grow as fuel costs rise and commuters seek alternative forms of transportation. Vancouver has 27,000 licensed scooters and motorcycles.

I told council in April 2010 the following: “City officials are doing a marvelous job with green initiatives in many ways including bicycle lanes. However there is a vacuum with respect to motorized cycles and if virtually everywhere else in the world can encourage alternative transport with scooters and motorcycles, then Vancouver can do it too. Motorized cycles are a necessary and integral component of any comprehensive transportation plan worldwide. It is because they are fuel efficient, produce less carbon, use less space, reduce congestion, transport more people and have low impact on infrastructure (because they are light) that many cities, including those close to Vancouver, have encouraged their use. Toronto offers free (and on sidewalk), San Francisco offers free and low cost ($.40 per hr) parking. Motorized scooters and cycles are part of the global transportation solution.

Hornby Street bicycle parking is well used....by motorcycles.

Whereas bicyclists tend to be users of transit, powered cycles divert commuters from automobiles. Therefore, powered cycle use should be encouraged if city officials wish to reduce auto use and promote more efficient movement of traffic in Vancouver. Further, unlike other modes of transit proposed by the city, since motorcycles are capable of speed, they do not slow the movement of traffic and they provide safety for commuters who are capable of maintaining traffic flow and range.”

Simple, right? Not by a long shot...

On October 6^th, 2009, and over five years after the BC Coalition of Motorcyclists (BCCOM) requested it, COPE Councilor David Cadman introduced a motion (drafted by me but with the exclusion of the paragraph for free parking) to designate low cost on-street parking for scooters and motorcycles at the far side of intersections (immediately after crosswalks) in space previously unused (and illegal to use at the time). However, the motion was diverted from discussion as the subject was instead referred to City Staff for review and recommendations. However, following the May 1, 2010 rally, motorcycle parking was once again on council’s agenda.

Unbelievably, at the council meeting held May 8, 2010, representatives from VEVA showed up to argue that gas powered motorcycles should be excluded from the motion and that free designated parking should only be granted to zero emission scooters. Stupid on their part, as I explained to council (and VEVA) that future riders of electric scooters and motorcycles would be the riders of today's gas powered vehicles and that first they should worry about the conversion to two wheels from four. We further extended that logic by explaining that as performance and range improved with electric two wheelers, riders would naturally convert as it made sense to do so. How did those zero emission dealers feel about screwing their future customers?

Several councillors refused to endorse the motion. Councillor Raymond Louie feels that it's his obligation to look after pedestrians and cyclists. I guess nobody that voted for him has any use for a car or a motorcycle? Councillor Jang really couldn't articulate what he thought, other than he likes cars and that one day everybody will be zero emission. The two meetings on May 6th, 2010 and May 18, 2010 where motorcycle parking was discussed, were like Monty Python skits and if you are bored, you can watch them on the council video archives. I suggest for a local and concentrated example of everything that is wrong with governments both big and small, that you sit back with a cocktail and watch this crew discuss motorcycle parking in Vancouver on May 18th and listen carefully to who said what before they took a vote. Council Agenda for Thursday May 18, 2010 

In an attempt to appease VEVA and satisfy some of their own ideology, council instructed engineering staff to create a complicated two tiered pricing system for motorcycle parking in the space I originally suggested; it was to be free for zero emission, full price metered for all others ( with a 50% discount offered for pay by phone). Bizarre pricing structure; uncompetitive, inconsistent, discriminatory, unfair, illogical, complicated, erroneous, difficult to enforce... blah blah blah.

However to give them credit, they considered it and they did something...which was considerably more than any previous council had done. For that, riders and commuters must be eternally grateful.


On May 19^th, 2010 I wrote to council to thank them for passing the motion while passing on to them the following comment that I had posted to motorcycle parking supporters:

“The good news is we have parking and Council has committed to a pricing review in a year. We will hold them to it. If nobody is utilizing their idea, or if single bikes are utilizing their metered stalls (utilizing the 50% discount thus losing the City revenue), perhaps they (Council) will be forced to behave like business people and adjust their pricing to align with reality.”

At the time of writing, Vancouver has designated approximately 200 spaces around the city that can each accommodate four to eight motorcycles. In discussions with engineering staff, there is agreement that the program is a success while pricing has not worked.

MCPARKING is suggesting more parking spaces to be allocated to encourage two wheeled transportation and that the spaces be designated free wherever possible on the basis that the space being designated does not now and never has produced revenue, and that progressive cities around the world promoting two wheeled transport offer free parking. In cases where free parking is not possible and demand regulation is necessary, then the city should offer pro-rated pricing. For example, if a vehicle space costing $4 per hour can accommodate up to eight motorcycles, then the parking should be metered at $.50 cents per hour. Further, we request that no other vehicles be displaced to accommodate motorcycles; in addition to the far side of intersections, that ample parking exist at the near side of intersections  which can now be designated for motorcycle parking. 

Summary:

Two wheeled transportation consumes less fuel, produces less carbon and reduces congestion and is therefore to be encouraged.

More parking is needed and to be accomplished while not displacing automobiles.

Motorcycle parking should be competitive and fairly priced.

We will hold a rally on May 5^th 2012 beginning at 7:45 am at the east parking lot of the Vancouver Aquatic Center to garner support for our cause. We would like to present our concerns to City Council shortly afterward.

www.mcparking.ca

Face book “Vancouver Scooter / Motorcycle Parking Initiative”

Twitter: @MCPARKING

 

It's not racist to be concerned about Vancouver's real estate

When I see two people write similar opinion columns in a week, I have to ask what prompted the articles? Both The Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Courier published opinion pieces asserting that race or racism is behind the concern about offshore buyers driving up the price of Vancouver real estate.

As I wrote to both Pete McMartin and Alan Garr last week, I think trotting out the racism line is a cheap shot on both their parts and on the part of people like former Vancouver city planner Larry Beasley. No denying racism exists but Larry's assertion that peoples' concern about Chinese foreign buyers being "bullshit", is bullshit itself. People have a right to be concerned when the playing field is not level. My own concern is that people coming from countries where they pay no tax or low tax (or hide their incomes), and as a result are capable of saving much larger amounts of net income compounded at higher rates, are competing with people like me who have to earn much higher incomes to compete on a level field. Do I support market controls? Not really. Do I have a solution? Actually no I don't. Former councillor Peter Ladner was on CKNW Monday morning and I liked his approach a lot better. He said the issue is a concern and needs to be looked at without calling people names or accusing them of racism. He also cited a number of examples of regulations in countries like Austria and Switzerland which are designed to curb speculation and keep affordability. I think we can see what concerns the spin doctors within the R/E lobby.

Garr asserts people concerned about realtors catering to wealthy Chinese are living in a fictional world and quotes Beasley suggesting it's racism. McMartin suggests the issue driving it is race also. He (Martin) does make a good point though, in that governments should track the numbers and have the facts in order to act. Anecdotal, fantasy... call it what you want... offshore money (Chinese and otherwise) has had, and does have, a significant impact on RE prices in Vancouver. What do I base my assertion on? Talk to any realtor in town and ask them who's showing up with the big money. I've got a number of friends in the business who will talk candidly about it and they have no reason to lie to me. In fact, one of my friends (a West Side realtor) asked me for referrals a few months ago. My response to him was that I found it rather odd, that in a white hot R/E market, he would bother asking. Afterall, wasn't business for him better than ever? He told me business on the West Side was dead if you did not speak Mandarin or Cantonese.

Notwithstanding the fact that money has been made cheap, and this (nosebleed priced real estate) is essentially an interest rate driven phenomenon, exacerbated in Vancouver by good old fashioned lack of supply, and whether the number is 1.2 % or 3% that are offshore buyers; the price of real estate is ultimately determined by one thing, and that is how much the last house in the neighborhood sold for... period. If one guy, from China or elsewhere, shows up at 888 Whatever St. and bids $200k over asking, that becomes the baseline and he could be .00001% of the market for all I care.  Canada Line, Maple Ridge.... Parksville, for that matter, mostly rise in relative terms following that. The ripples begin in the middle of the pond when you throw the rock in it. And by the way, when the price trend reverses, it starts from the outside and moves back in.

By the way, on a related note, when the issue is clearly lack of supply and too much demand, what is the wisdom of a provincial government creating tax incentives for first time home buyers which can only enhance demand? Just sayin'.

Having said all this, I question the 3% number that Garr quotes coming from the Vancouver Real Estate Board President Eugene Klein (actually I question just about anything that comes from them) . What does that 3% cover? Does it include recent immigrants, people that live here part time,  people that have a spouse or other relative living here (with house in his or her name) while they continue to live overseas and commute, students? Hopefully you get the picture.

And again, I have to ask what prompted the article? We know where Larry's coming from and we know where the Vancouver R/E Board's bread is buttered... so who's pushing the racism theme?

Vancouver Parking Rates "Progressive"?

Today Jeff Lee wrote in The Vancouver Sun newspaper that Vancouver City is eyeing high-tech pilot projects in San Francisco and Los Angeles where on-street parking rates are varied and change according to demand. Vancouver's Director of Transportation, Jerry Dobrovolny is said to have admitted that Vancouver has the highest peak on-street parking rates in North America but he calls the policies "progressive".

Question: Do you think that nosebleed parking rates create more places for people to park? I don't. Two things happen: 1. People stop going downtown and they go somewhere else to conduct their business, and / or 2) They go downtown anyway and make do. If the space is too expensive, which some may argue it is at this point, some drivers simply drive around without parking and exacerbate the situation. This is neither solving congestion nor saving energy and curbing pollution. It's the Vancouver parking equivalent of solving the landfill problem by shipping garbage elsewhere.

In the most extreme situation (like NYC and London), people hire drivers who simply keep driving the car around in circles until a meeting is finished... and then on to the next meeting to do the same. I know this because I've done it.

The $60m generated in fees and fines is telling about the real motivation. It's mean, uncivilized... and in the case where people are living on a shoe string or simply down on their luck, it's just downright cruel.

I think there is something very immoral about relying on fines (of any kind) as part of a city budget. It's despicable actually.