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.

You do the speed limit on BC highways? Odds are you are a liar.

Over the weekend I drove to and from BC Interior and I'm here to confirm that speed anarchy is alive and well on the Coquihalla Highway. Not that it's a bad thing, but how can the speed limit, which is supposed to represent the UPPER limit of safe travel speed, be so out of touch with reality? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, travels the speed limit of 110 kph on that road...not even the lone police truck that I followed which was responsible for a bottle neck which developed behind him at 20 clicks over.

Admittedly some people are not responsible enough, to see their driving limitations for what they are, and we need laws (and training and testing) to include them. However virtually everybody, that I associate with, feels that speed laws and enforcement in BC, and many places in Canada for that matter, are nothing short of a joke.

Accordingly when you set the law up as an ass, the predicable outcome is large numbers of people simply reject it. I happen to feel that I have more integrity than most, because I admit I am one of those people. In some circumstances, I might even travel faster than the general traffic flow when conditions dictate it's ok to do so... in my opinion (and why wouldn't I rely on MY opinion having logged well over a million miles which included far too many road signs in BC telling me to slow to 30k only to confirm yet again what previous driving experience showed me repeatedly I could safely do at 2 times what the sign told me was safe). So I now do what it appears everybody else does; I ignore signs and drive how I feel it's most safe to do so.

I'd like to see the bar raised so that good drivers are not punished and bad drivers are not on the road. Our definitions of good and bad drivers are are different than your government's definition whose focus is still primarily on demonizing the speeder... which is you and me. Don't tell me you don't speed because if you do, you are either a member of a very small (frequently annoying and dangerous) minority, a liar ... or simply not a driver.

There are many people like me, nearly everybody between Hope and Kamloops last weekend it seems, that will be at complete odds with the government and law enforcement until speed laws are set without politics as the basis, but instead with the idea that the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority are considered legal.

Have you ever pondered the psychology behind the deliberate left lane hogs in BC? Actually, I consider them a metaphor for a unique culture that we have developed in BC where it's considered a good thing to hold back the best people and make them suffer like everybody else. It happens with entrepreneurs, the wealthy, the educated, and all kinds of people .... and it's especially apparent with drivers. In fact, it's likely the underlying reason the NDP stands a good chance of winning the next election. It's called "misery loves company". The 12 rich asian teens, who had their sports cars impounded last year, comes to mind as an excellent example of an ignorant proletariat lynch mob that wanted retribution against those people who had everything they didn't have... and likely never will have. They must have been guilty...look at their cars after all!

It's weird, you can travel all over the planet and see some damn good driving on far worse roads and in worse vehicles than we have in BC. You see people working with each other to ensure traffic flow and safety. How can this be, that it's that way there and not here? Come here and it's adversarial. Shitty driving is not only tolerated, it's encouraged. In my opinion, this is a direct consequence of bad leadership that's been allowed to run roughshod over a public that's just too resigned to their stupidity to fight it. They (spineless politicians) have relied on opinions, with rare exception, from taxpayer funded people with vested interests (such as retired former police working for manufacturers of traffic "safety" or "enforcement" equipment) or concentrated experiences (ie police who view the world from the dashboard of a police cruiser) which have produced a certain mindset which is at odds with people like me who believe they know better. As a result, we've got laws to protect stupid drivers and punish good ones... in many cases.

We've got some of the best roads in the world, some of the most expensive and roadworthy automobiles... and yet some of the lowest speed limits in the industrialized world. How stupid and patronizing is it to hear over and over ... "but there are bad drivers who cannot handle speed or cars"? Are we really expected to believe there is a larger concentration of them here? Really?? Well, get them off the road or get them out of the way, but don't punish those who know better!! Germany absorbed their shitty drivers when the Iron Curtain fell. What sort of drivers do you think they are now that they've had to step up their game? I'll give you one guess.

Why bother to even build the super highways in the first place? One could actually say that transportation in BC with its high speed highways and irrational speed limits could best be described as Dr. Doolittle's "Pushmi-pullyu" ... a sort of paddling upstream, or a form of pissing in the wind. In fact, one might even look at this policy as a proxy for everything one sees wrong with government; spend a fortune on a super highway, then send out the uniformed tax collectors to clobber the drivers for driving as intended... a sort of double whammy. A double "FU", if you will.

Not long ago, I followed a driver who in my opinion was a very good driver; driving consistently in the right lane until he encountered a slower vehicle, signalling to pass on the left and signalling again to pull back in on the right when safe to do so. He left plenty of room between himself and other vehicles. He allowed them to pull in front of him when he anticipated that they would run out of lane space as they approached cars ahead. In short, a courteous and consistent driver. The kind I would feel safe being on the road with; the kind I could trust and anticipate his moves. In fact, my passenger and I were both discussing his driving as model behaviour. One problem, he was travelling about 15 to 20 over the 100 kph limit just west of Hope. What happened to him 10k to the West of Hope on Hwy 1? An RCMP cruiser, waiting on an on-ramp pulled in behind him to pull him over. I was curious so I pulled in behind the two vehicles and waited to ask him why he was being apprehended. The reason? RCMP had tracked him on the Coquihalla at over 40k over. And they'd tracked him by helicopter no less. Big boys and their toys. If you think that 150k on a highway like the Coquihalla in mid summer deserves points and a fine, let alone a vehicle seizure, then we do have a big rift in perception in terms of right and wrong.

Drivers vote with their right feet on that road and guess what? The correct speed limit is NOT 110 kph. A drivers' advocacy group which I am a co-founder of (SENSE www.sense.bc.ca) pressured the Liberals into doing an "independent" speed limit review. Have a look and see what they said about the Coquihalla. This is not rocket science.

I frequently reject road travel in BC because I am far more terrified of law enforcement than I am of encountering irresponsible and dangerous driving. And I say this as a motorcyclist that ended up, in the past, twice in hospital and nearly killed, after being struck by two drivers, on different occasions, that were dangerous for reasons other than their speed.

Yet I am more terrified of law enforcement? There is something wrong with this picture.

Motorcycle Noise: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Who doesn't hate noisy motorcycles? I know I do, especially when they are ridden strictly to get my audio attention.

The Province newspaper recently published a story and an editorial about my Supreme Court appearance for a conviction for unnecessary noise which I received in the fall of 2009 while riding my Harley Davidson V-Rod. By focusing on a cheap exploitation of widespread hatred of motorcyclists and noise, the editorial completely missed the point of my appeal, which is that I am not guilty as charged, believe I did not get a fair trial, and that cops should be held accountable when they provide misleading evidence. Further, demerit points have no place where the offence has nothing to do with risky driving.

But in the court of public opinion, that doesn't matter and the writer took advantage of widespread (and understandable) prejudice about motorcycles. If you see the rubbish that's being debated by the simpletons that are barking back and forth in the comments section under the original The Province article about my case, drawing specious conclusions about the size of my genitals, psychological shortfalls, motives for being an asshole etc.; you should be left with no doubt as to why it was so easy for this cop to pull off what he did to me, and what I know he did to other(s) as well. Shiny motorcycle = noise therefore harass and throw the book at him; and who cares whether he's guilty or not.

First off, I am not going to debate whether or not loud pipes save lives. Ironically, I happen to be one of those people that thinks that even ERTs should not be permitted to raise the racket they do with sirens (except under exceptional circumstances). However, if the perpetrators of ear splitting siren noise say it saves lives perhaps there is a safety argument. I'm not sure, but if you are one of those who back the ERTs when they say sirens are all about safety, then don't have a double standard and say that bikers who use it are full of it when they use it.

No question, noisy motorcyclists and drivers creating a din deserve tickets.

The Province claimed I installed pipes to make my motorcycle "as loud as possible". Actually, the pipes I purchased were some of the quietest aftermarket pipes (if you can call pipes made by the OEM "aftermarket") on the market. That's one of the reasons I chose them. Had I been cited for improper equipment and if they were illegal, I would have sucked it up and paid the fine. But I wasn't; so that is not, and never was the issue.

The issue is that VPD Cst. John Bercic made a vague subjective observation about my driving and arbitrarily pulled me over without cause. In fact, he could not (or would not) tell me why he'd apprehended me until he'd walked around my bike and had a close look at the make of the exhaust. He then created objective evidence himself by ordering me to rev up my bike to an engine speed he never heard prior to my apprehension, he used a non standard personal noise meter to measure it and further, he denied in court that there was VPD testing protocol which existed for the operation of noise meters. He submitted his useless evidence in court to corroborate his flimsy subjective observation in court which was simply "I heard a loud exhaust noise" and "it sounded twice as loud as a stock exhaust". That's it. Problem? I think so.

He wrote me up for MVA s. 7a.01 which is a subjective charge (with demerit points) that refers to noisy operation of a motor vehicle (basically behaving like the asshole that some on bikes can be) and not a charge which deals with noisy equipment. See the difference? The fact that ICBC and the OSMV have created offences in the Motor Vehicle Act which carry points (which should be there to assess at fault crash risk), but which have nothing to do with crash risk producing behaviour is an issue also. Police are constantly claiming they need more legislation (and power) so they can better protect us. Events like this unfortunately say to me they cannot be trusted with discretion.

When I tried to qualify the allegation in court by cross examining Bercic as to what the subjective evidence was that caused me to be pulled over, such as "...did I rev..?" (my engine), the JP (who had both a short attention span and a temper to go with it) shut me down. Judicial Justice Lim told me "those questions aren't relevent". However two trial days later (this little dispute took two years and four court appearances... five if I include Supreme Court... no wonder our justice system is broke), after I had shown Cst. Bercic's objective evidence to be useless (and in the process under normal circumstances shown the crown witness' credibility to be highly suspect), the JP threw most of it out and reverted back to the flimsy evidence that he refused to allow me to qualify. Problem? I think so....

Maybe to put this in a simple analogy so that people can understand: Cop pulls you over without reasonable cause and pulls out a breath tester that he ordered online and tells you to blow. Then he goes to court and submits that evidence to support your conviction for impaired driving. Problem? I think so.

Then he (Bercic) implied that not only was he doing everything to department standards, but that he has many years of experience and knowledge to back up his allegation. So the JP took his word for it. It took a subpoena for another professional VPD witness to prove he was bluffing (to put it politely). Problem? I think so.

Readers might be interested to know that Bercic has received a commendation from the Chief of the VPD for his techniques in gathering evidence "which have become departmental standards." Funny a cop whose techniques have become departmental standards, wouldn't know anything about a published noise testing procedure when asked in court about it. Problem? I'd say so.

The Province owes it to its readers (and themselves) to critique this stuff, which is calling into question whether there should be, or can be, any such thing as police discretion as we now debate appointed adjudicators by the OSMV to be used for traffic ticket disputes.

So I realize there is some validity to the expression "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" however it would benefit all of us if writers and editorialists would make it clear I am not one of those you see on bikes with straight pipes trying to make themselves known. Most importantly, they should let their readers know when unfair behaviour and / or deceit (particularly under oath) are perpetrated by people in uniform.
You can read The Province Blog: Loud pipes are just a blight on others

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?

YVR and the AIF Ripoff

Why does YVR's Larry Berg hate being grilled about the Airport Improvement Fee (AIF) so much? Because it's not an AIF, it shouldn't be called an AIF and he knows it. If it were an AIF, he would not keep justifying part of his addiction to it by saying costs are escalating and YVR needs more money to pay them. However he knows if he rightly calls it a user fee he will face the more difficult question which is, if the money is needed for operating costs then what are they doing with all the revenue and fees they already receive to operate the airport... besides building an opulant palace as a centerpiece for YVR's marketing?

In 1993 YVR unilaterally imposed an "airport improvement fee (AIF)" in which they extorted money from travelers to pay for an airport improvement that they were not yet using. Although they called it an AIF, it wasn't really an AIF, it was a User Fee. In fact, anybody who rightly objected and refused to pay for the airport use (they had already paid for in their tickets and through taxes and fees), was threatened by the then quasi crown corporation. Those who refused to pay were informed they could be removed for trespassing and prevented from boarding their planes.


YVR promised to remove the AIF by 2004, but that year the corporation not only reneged on the promise but increased the fee and then hid it in the cost of tickets to further drive up the price of already expensive air travel to and from Vancouver. What was one of the reasons Larry Berg gave that YVR had to raise the fee? He said it was to pay the Feds more rent which implies that it wasn't really an improvement fee after all, rather it was a user fee. But it wasn't a user fee, it was an airport improvement fee. Wait a second, never mind. Anyway, neat trick... airlines and consumers alike were given the shaft.

It does beg the question; if I have paid through my taxes to build an airport (back in the days when Transport Canada owned and operated Canadian airports) and then pay a fee to use the airport, then why should I pay an AIF? And if it's really a fee to improve the airport, why would YVR not finance a capital expansion on the future revenue flow from the user fees (just like any other business)? What effect do rising costs and rents have to do with the need for an improvement fee? Nothing.

The accounting does not add up... and it's particularly galling when you consider the original $10 fee was promised as "temporary" by YVR's CEO.

YVR was originally built by the taxpayers and we now pay to use the (improved) airport through a series of user fees which are passed on by the airlines. How and why is YVR in a position to continue to impose and increase fees to "improve" an airport? Good question you should ask your MP.

The fact that they keep coming back for more money to finance something yet to be built indicates to me some very bad planning.... not to mention the fact that the CEO seems clueless when it comes to living within ones' means. He's not clueless though. YVR is marketing themselves as airport operators and they are using Vancouver as their showpiece to the detriment of local travelers. Berg doesn't seem to give a damn about local travelers just as David Hahn thought he could ignore them in BC. Now look at BC Ferries.


Admittedly YVR is a nice airport and some might even call it luxurious. However it's not the job of government or "not for profit corporations", as Larry Berg is so fond of calling YVR, to confiscate money for luxury. As a frequent traveller, what I want is cheap, efficient travel and good food. Personally I can do without the stereo chirping birds, Whistler-esque motif and expensive artwork when I arrive at an airport. YVR is expensive, yet the food in the US departure terminal is appalling. One can find better, healthier food at Indianapolis airport which is hosted by a city not known for it's cuisine. Taxi service from YVR domestic arrivals is sometimes very frustrating and they've had years to fix the problem yet seem to still be challenged by it. Parking, sometimes necessary for pick up at arrivals particularly when flights are delayed, is over the top expensive.

Vancouver is an expensive place to get in and out of and it's one of the reasons that cruise companies with razor thin margins take their business elsewhere. There is something wrong when one can travel for a week on a ship, be entertained and dined for the same price as a 5 hour flight in and out of Vancouver. Think the fees YVR charges have no impact on the success of air travel and related tourism? Think again. The BC Ferry Corporation is currently learning the hard way that consumers aren't a bottomless pit when it comes to travel costs. This fee is dishonest. It's bad for travelers, bad for tourism, bad for business and bad for Vancouver.

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.