5619 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

As I also said above: “The City is responsible for this allocation, but it has increasingly begun blessing the under-supply of parking contrary to its own regulations.”

The City is the custodian of parking. It has the unique authority to fix and create problems, and in recent years it has willfully pursued an under-supply of parking which is creating the “we are seeing more and more vehicles simply stored on City right of way.” It’s by your own municipality’s design, by the book.

[spanky123]

It's not about a failure it's more about saving money for individuals who all believe they need their single occupancy vehicle when they commute.

 

I think this is the rub. It is a philosophical argument as much as it is a practical one. If we were to compare the % of the population in Amsterdam living within 200m of public transit access that could get them to their destination within 25% of the time it took by car I suspect it would be very high. In the CRD on the other hand I doubt it would top 20%.

 

Personally I don't think it is up to the City to create public parking, supply and demand will take care of that. What I object to is the City forcing removal of parking and allowing new construction to proceed without sufficient parking knowing that the goal is not a practical one for the City but instead a philosophical one for a few elites who all live close to downtown or on a bike/transit route.

Edited by spanky123, 06 July 2022 - 09:22 AM.

[Mike K.]

Personally I don't think it is up to the City to create public parking, supply and demand will take care of that. What I object to is the City forcing removal of parking and allowing new construction to proceed without sufficient parking knowing that the goal is not a practical one for the City but instead a philosophical one for a few elites who all live close to downtown or on a bike/transit route.

It’s exactly this.

Leave residential parking alone. People have enough on their minds and enough expenses to not need another hand in their pocket for something they paid to build and already pay to maintain.

[Ismo07]

Do parks staff still get that “free” parking at the bottom of Cook?

 

The bottom of Cook remains unrestricted.  No one reserves it so anyone parking there would park unrestricted.

[Mike K.]

I mean, for gosh sake, Ismo is complaining too many people are parking on public roads, while his municipality is trying to push through 1:6 parking ratios city-wide and is already permitting high density buildings with zero on-site parking.

[Mike K.]

The bottom of Cook remains unrestricted. No one reserves it so anyone parking there would park unrestricted.

Yes, predominantly City of Victoria parks staff.

[Victoria Watcher]

The bottom of Cook remains unrestricted. No one reserves it so anyone parking there would park unrestricted.

But especially those that work very nearby with an early shift starting time, right?

Is there another area of the city that’s unrestricted where most cars spend the better part of an 8-hour work shift?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 July 2022 - 09:35 AM.

[Ismo07]

I think this is the rub. It is a philosophical argument as much as it is a practical one. If we were to compare the % of the population in Amsterdam living within 200m of public transit access that could get them to their destination within 25% of the time it took by car I suspect it would be very high. In the CRD on the other hand I doubt it would top 20%.

 

Personally I don't think it is up to the City to create public parking, supply and demand will take care of that. What I object to is the City forcing removal of parking and allowing new construction to proceed without sufficient parking knowing that the goal is not a practical one for the City but instead a philosophical one for a few elites who all live close to downtown or on a bike/transit route.

 

You want to compare Victoria to Amsterdam?   Supply/Demand is not taking care of it.  Developers are not forced to have less parking, they are asking for it directly.  They are coming forward with traffic plans suggesting they don't need to have as much parking.  Then they sell or rent their building and charge huge rates that their clients won't pay and decide they will try to park on the street.  Then those spaces are rented out to commuters..  Sure the City could say no build more parking but that's a tough stance as the argument for less parking seems sound when presented.  

 

It’s exactly this.

Leave residential parking alone. People have enough on their minds and enough expenses to not need another hand in their pocket for something they paid to build and already pay to maintain.

 

Residential parking is not paid for directly.  Parking will always be a user paid system when capacity occurs.  You really think someone with 5 cars should be able to store them on the street? I mean of course you do.

[Ismo07]

But especially those that work nearby with an early shift starting time, right?

 

Is that section of the street at capacity?  I've only heard complaints about overnight commercial vehicles there.  Did you answer the parkade questions I asked?  Did I miss that.

[Victoria Watcher]

Did you answer the parkade questions I asked? Did I miss that.

I will. I’m just trying to attack on three or four fronts first.

[Mike K.]

You want to compare Victoria to Amsterdam? Supply/Demand is not taking care of it. Developers are not forced to have less parking, they are asking for it directly. They are coming forward with traffic plans suggesting they don't need to have as much parking. Then they sell or rent their building and charge huge rates that their clients won't pay and decide they will try to park on the street. Then those spaces are rented out to commuters.. Sure the City could say no build more parking but that's a tough stance as the argument for less parking seems sound when presented.

That is unfathomable to me, that level of ignorance.

The City blesses and encourages less supply. Nobody is fooling anyone here.

[Mike K.]

Residential parking is not paid for directly. Parking will always be a user paid system when capacity occurs. You really think someone with 5 cars should be able to store them on the street? I mean of course you do.

Then the City should clamp down on illegal suites, which are responsible for the influx of vehicles parked on streets.

The City can’t have it every single way, the way you’re describing the situation. They are the sole authority responsible for this situation, and all problems/solutions ultimately land in the City’s hands.

You say yourself, that too many cars are parking on City streets. But the City is permitting an under-supply of parking among new developments, blessing illegal secondary suites, and it controls street level parking access, meaning City-blessed changes to one street pushes vehicles onto others.

It’s all, 100%, in your hands as the city.

[Victoria Watcher]

Is that section of the street at capacity? I've only heard complaints about overnight commercial vehicles there. .

All I have to do is check nearby areas, further away, that have restrictions, to ascertain this area is left unrestricted specifically in order to allow City parks workers to park here all shift for free.

The pattern generally follows that the area closest to town has meter parking, then various restrictions as you move outward.

This strip is a serious anomaly.

For example when compared to all other sides of the park that are not immediately adjacent to City staff employment centres.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 July 2022 - 09:54 AM.

[Ismo07]

I mean, for gosh sake, Ismo is complaining too many people are parking on public roads, while his municipality is trying to push through 1:6 parking ratios city-wide and is already permitting high density buildings with zero on-site parking.

 

I have not at all complained, I am just discussing and showing you where your interpretation is too simple.  Your developer friends want the same restriction so they can pay less but sell for the same price...  They sell the ideas...  Planners recommend them and then council agrees....  End of the day the City gets blamed and you trumpet that..  Then when it's discussed you try to single me out as complaining?  LOL..  I won't bother discussing anymore then...

 

That is unfathomable to me, that level of ignorance.

The City blesses and encourages less supply. Nobody is fooling anyone here.

 

You are barking up one tree in a forest...

 

Then the City should clamp down on illegal suites, which are responsible for the influx of vehicles parked on streets.

The City can’t have it every single way, the way you’re describing the situation. They are the sole authority responsible for this situation, and all problems/solutions ultimately land in the City’s hands.

You say yourself, that too many cars are parking on City streets. But the City is permitting an under-supply of parking among new developments, blessing illegal secondary suites, and it controls street level parking access, meaning City-blessed changes to one street pushes vehicles onto others.

It’s all, 100%, in your hands as the city.

 

Again incorrect and annoyingly simple...  Seems like you have it all figured out...  

 

All I have to do is check nearby areas, further away, that have restrictions, to ascertain this area is left unrestricted specifically in order to allow City parks workers to park here all shift for free.

The pattern generally follows that the area closest to town has meter parking, then various restrictions as you move outward.

This strip is a serious anomaly.

For example when compared to all other sides of the park that are not immediately adjacent to City staff employment centres.

 

Have you looked down Douglas ever?  Have you looked down Dallas from Cook?  And is Cook at capacity every day?  Do you answer questions or just ask them?

Edited by Ismo07, 06 July 2022 - 10:04 AM.

[Mike K.]

I have not at all complained, I am just discussing and showing you where your interpretation is too simple. Your developer friends want the same restriction so they can pay less but sell for the same price... They sell the ideas... Planners recommend them and then council agrees.... End of the day the City gets blamed and you trumpet that…

That is not how it works. Developers don’t strong arm the municipality, the municipality exerts full control.

The municipality sets the parking requirements, and they are pursuing creating even lower parking requirements as a matter of principle (missing Middle is designed by planners for a 1:6 ratio).

[Ismo07]

That is not how it works. Developers don’t strong arm the municipality, the municipality exerts full control.

The municipality sets the parking requirements, and they are pursuing creating even lower parking requirements as a matter of principle (missing Middle is designed by planners for a 1:6 ratio).

 

Mike, I'm not saying developer strong arm, but they are the ones who ask for all the variances, supported by planning.  They also have a lot to do with policy and even parking requirements.  There were developers on that committee...    Are you serious that you think it all comes from Council?  You are lost my friend.  "Missing middle" is new and not done and I love how this is your new chew toy and if you don't think there is developer influence you're mistaken... 

[Mike K.]

I never said it comes from council.

And don’t skirt the issue. The City is responsible for overseeing the balance of parking supply. It has a monopoly in that regard.

[Ismo07]

I never said it comes from council.

And don’t skirt the issue. The City is responsible for overseeing the balance of parking supply. It has a monopoly in that regard.

 

Any developer is able to build parking, there is more private parking than public even still.  It's just not worth it however...  Streets are a monopoly certainly...  Yes the City is responsible but also is easily swayed by development.  On one hand you like to trumpet that parking lots are disappearing but on the other you love developers...  Talk to them, ask them to build more parking..  Tell me what they say.  They will not say, I wanted to build more but the City said no....

Edited by Ismo07, 06 July 2022 - 10:50 AM.

[Mike K.]

I’ll repeat myself again: It’s precedent.

Langford doesn’t have your problems, because they mandate sufficient parking, and developers supply sufficient parking. No place outside of the CoV has your parking ‘struggles,’ which leads us to believe they’re self-induced.

Colwood doesn’t have them, Saanich doesn’t have them, Esquimalt doesn’t have them, Oak Bay certainly doesn’t. Victoria does. What’s different there?

[Ismo07]

I’ll repeat myself again: It’s precedent.

Langford doesn’t have your problems, because they mandate sufficient parking, and developers supply sufficient parking. No place outside of the CoV has your parking ‘struggles,’ which leads us to believe they’re self-induced.

Colwood doesn’t have them, Saanich doesn’t have them, Esquimalt doesn’t have them, Oak Bay certainly doesn’t. Victoria does. What’s different there?

 

Langford absolutely is having parking issues and I hear about them all the time.  No place outside Victoria has the amount of cars in an 8 block radius at the same time, coming and going.  There is no room for parking lot over parking lot in that area as some munis maybe have..  There you go comparing apples to oranges again...  If you can't tell the difference between the municipalities you've mentioned then I really can't discuss this with you.  You should build some sort of site where you can keep bashing a specific municipality and also entice comments to do the same...  Oh right you have done that...