The City of Vancouver has information here on their proposed bikeway plan for Tenth Avenue between Oak and Cambie Streets which will take out one hundred parking spaces and which will install east and west bike lanes on this well-travelled street. The City calls this section of street the “Health” instead of the “Hospital” precinct, as one astute observer noted. While cyclists see this as a street to bike through, for many health consumers in the Province this location is close to their last stop.
Of course everyone should walk, take transit or bike to services. Yes there is off-street parking, but many of the institutions do not allow “general” parking unless you are going to that specific centre, which is often full. Most out of towners do need to come by car. Most are also health compromised and cannot walk too far. Most are ill, infirm, and will have perceptual conflicts crossing the street with bikes travelling on the new lanes. Those encumbered folks will not be able to respond quickly.
In many ways the current situation on Tenth Avenue makes vehicles, bikes and pedestrians slow down and take notice of everything happening in their surroundings. The street is heavily used by pedestrians. It has wonderful street trees. And that on-street parking provides a buffer for pedestrians from the travelled portion of the street. The impacts of losing one hundred on street parking spaces is not only challenging for hospital clients-its a big loss to the city too.
Tenth Avenue in this “Hospital” precinct has some of the highest parking meter turnover in the city-this is a metered “cash cow”. The current parking meter rate of $3.00 an hour for each meter makes approximately $9,000 a year for each meter or a total of $900,000 a year for all one hundred meters that are being taken out. (This does not include any revenue from parking enforcement).
Over a 20 year period, if parking meter rates rose at current annual interest rates (3% – 5%), the present value of the parking meter revenue would be $18 Million. If the current parking meter rates were to increase annually by just 2% more the present value of the revenue would be $27 Million. The City’s new meter policy approved this week is likely to increase the rates in this area by at least a dollar an hour, so you may have to add 33 per cent to these numbers.
The financial incentive is there to continue the use of these parking spaces. Is it worth $900,000 a year annual municipal revenue to come up with an inclusive design that includes these metered parking spaces in this hospital precinct?
More numbers to consider:
“When adjusted for inflation, the average societal cost (in 2014 dollars) per fatal collision would be $6,683,900 and $162,300 per injury collision and $13,100 for a property damage only collision, says Tony Churchill, Calgary’s senior traffic engineer and leader of traffic safety. ”
http://calgaryherald.com/news/traffic/pedestrian-injuries-fatalities-in-calgary-cost-society-120-million-each-year-says-city
LOL, who down votes a link to more info? SMH. Is this what we’ve come to, when sharing relevant information is bad thing?
Holy smokes we talk about silly bike lanes a lot.
Sandy
– what is the cost to the city of auto infrastructure if auto mode share starts to rise?
– what is the cost to the city when the property values of properties adjacent to roads drops due to high auto use?
– what is the cost to city when cheap plentiful parking entices people to live in one municipality, shop in another and work in yet another?
The idea that at $3/hr, parking is a net profit to the city is absurd. It implies that the highest and best use of the land is to rent it out to motorists for $45/sqft per year ($9000/200 sqft)
If we are going to put a price on the space between the building and use that price to help us decide what to do with it, then we have to price all of it, not just the places were we might consider bike lanes.
I find the tone of the articles or subtext here on Price tags relating to the 10th Avenue PUBLIC REALM to be less measured than usual. The issue of the less mobile of all ages has been not only incorporated into the updated plan but feedback from the various groups has been specifically incorporated. Instead of discussing how this plan showcases best practice and should be celebrated as balancing the needs of diverse interests and publics, we are obsessing over parking spaces. Last post was over emphasizing the loss to seniors for bikes. A false dichotomy. Today it is parking revenue and turn over rates. I respect that a lot of work goes into blogging and do not criticize the author for their efforts to highlight the needs of the less able. However, I see the city taking ever effort to accommodate the less mobile in their proposed solution.
What do we achieve by defeating this proposal?
How do you suggest we make the area safer while protecting on street parking?
And finally, the city can never win with the proposals to remove metered parking. They are removing scarce parking and dear revenues or they or giving more users/uses of the space. What do we value more?
If this is about lost parking money then Thomas has a solution that will make up for it 1000 times over. It is one thing I agree with him on. Charge for all street parking everywhere. Problem solved Sandy.
Sandra – Kudos to you for the most articulate expression of the kinds of concerns those of us who, unfortunately, have had too much experience as a chauffeur, partner and visitor to loved ones using the hospital precinct. Not to mention the many many patients themselves.
You’ve outlined the benefits of curbside parking in this area extremely well – for proximity and convenience and as a welcome buffer for pedestrians. Further, as you note, the presence of parking does help to slow all road users down, yes, including those on bikes. You’ve also underscored the fact that this is a Province-serving precinct, and not just for locals who may have options for mobility.
Presently, a passenger exiting a parked car has only to deal with negotiating the sidewalk, often in need of assistance. One can imagine no end of issues when a mobility-impaired person has to cross a bike track to get to the entrance.
Thank you again for keeping this issue alive. I truly hope that the Mayor and Council are listening.
Hi Frank, I think you’re making an assumption that “if curb parking exists, everyone gets a spot at the door” In reality there is only one spot by the door and most people who need it will not get it. Loading zones work better by guaranteeing that those who need the spot will get it. Without loading zones, nearby employees and shoppers are far more likely to be taking advantage of curb parking than the sympathetic elderly and the sick.
“Sandra – Kudos to you for the most articulate expression of the kinds of concerns those of us who, unfortunately, have had too much experience as a chauffeur, partner and visitor to loved ones using the hospital precinct.” – I and others have concerns who also belong to this group. Parking on street is precarious with cyclists zooming by and cars trying to go around you. Walking especially crossing to VGH or the Pattison building is not safe even in the cross walks with cyclists and cars speeding. Cycling is frantic with car doors flying open cars speeding by you or the worst, drivers moving right up behind you.
“Not to mention the many many patients themselves.” There is no where to be picked up. I have had to wait at the ER ramp and seen others do the same so that your ride can stop and you leap in while others honk.
“You’ve outlined the benefits of curbside parking in this area extremely well – for proximity and convenience and as a welcome buffer for pedestrians.” – yes, but surely we can do better.
“Further, as you note, the presence of parking does help to slow all road users down, yes, including those on bikes.” -speed bumps would do a better job and in my experience traffic affects speed more than parking in this context.
“You’ve also underscored the fact that this is a Province-serving precinct, and not just for locals who may have options for mobility.” – false assumption. Yes it is a provincial serving area, but the current situation does not separate Broadway shoppers and health visitors. New signage – as proposed – to parking facilities would be more in line with how other jurisdictions handle institutional parking.
“Presently, a passenger exiting a parked car has only to deal with negotiating the sidewalk, often in need of assistance. One can imagine no end of issues when a mobility-impaired person has to cross a bike track to get to the entrance.”-the proposal addresses this. Look at the plan dimensions for parking, curb/buffer zone,bike track, and sidewalk. They have added extra buffer for dropout zones. If you zoom in on the plan you can see the detail.
“Thank you again for keeping this issue alive. I truly hope that the Mayor and Council are listening.” -I take no issue you support this political stance. Different opinions add richness to the conversation. I am concerned that the NPA for what ever reason has abdicated their leading role as an advocate for cycling in Vancouver. They are currently courting the constituents of “no bicycle stuff”. If enough ” save-the-parking-spot-that-may-never-be-available” rally against this project, and it goes forward, the NPA will use this as another “they never listen” example. Which in this case at least, is not accurate.
TWIMC – please don’t construe my views on this matter as capital P political. On the contrary, they are only intended to provide insight from a certain kind of frequent user’s point of view. Bike advocates and City staff have been extremely dominant in this discussion, almost to the point of intimidation of those who may disagree. As a result, I have no doubt that their concerted efforts will succeed.
I was unaware of the unbalanced discussion. If that was/is the case, the updated proposal does reflect the other voices. My main point is that feedback directly relating to your and Sandy”s concerns is reflected in the latest proposal.
As for Political vs political, I was highlighting that your advocacy (political) could be hijacked for Political purposes. I don’t believe you were being partisan only concerned.
In this little sphere, a certain P.O.V is more pronounced. Yet differing views are also here and in no small measure. Outside this bubble however, I would wager a completely different viewpoint predominates. Listen to this anchor introduce a story on the 10th ave project, with ‘yet another bike lane’ positioning the report on something ‘even more controversial than usual’. On balance I don’t think bike advocates or City staff are dominating the discussion on the topic in our city. Go to some other website (City Caucus we barely miss thee) and it’s an entirely different framing of the conversation.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/separated-bike-lane-plan-raises-concerns-about-hospital-access-1.2878028
“You’ve outlined the benefits of curbside parking in this area extremely well – for proximity and convenience and as a welcome buffer for pedestrians.”
The current parking provides a buffer for pedestrians on only one side of the street. The proposed bike lanes will provide that buffer on both sides, double the benefit,
“Presently, a passenger exiting a parked car has only to deal with negotiating the sidewalk, often in need of assistance. One can imagine no end of issues when a mobility-impaired person has to cross a bike track to get to the entrance.”
Presently, passengers are exiting in the street as often as not. They are dodging other vehicles, trucks, emergency vehicles, and people on bikes. While the passenger loading zones address the first three, the separated bike lanes also help, because we gain predictability. We know where the bikes will be. That is a significant safety enhancement. Especially with physical separation, and crosswalks across the bike lanes.
If cars/car parking were a cash cow and now bike ridership is increasing, then it’s obviously time to start milking that new cow.
Bike licences, bike safety/training classes, bike parking metres, cyclist insurance…
“Cyclists: The Next Great Source Of Tax Revenue?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/01/03/cyclists-the-next-great-source-of-tax-revenue/#288ab163686e
Drivers license fees cover the costs of… administering drivers licenses. Not a penny goes to infrastructure or the city.
Drivers education/training fees cover the costs of… administering classes. Not a penny goes to infrastructure or the city.
Car parking is a net loss compared to other uses the land could be put to.
Car insurance fees cover… the death, injuries and property damage caused by the insured cars. Not a penny goes to infrastructure or the city.
Auto infrastructure is drastically under priced and subsidized. You certainly could decide to charge for bicycle infrastructure but odds are the taxes paid by bicycle users are already covering the costs quite handily. If they aren’t, the costs would be extremely nominal and likely dwarfed by the costs of administering the programs.
Some research on who pays for what currently:
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
From your Forbes article: “The real problem is that they don’t raise any revenue. Dowell’s suggestion that a bike registration fee would raise some $10 million for the city of Chicago is a pipe dream. Almost every cent would be used simply to administer the program.”
If we want to start milking the cash cow that is represented by increased cycling, then we should recognize the health benefits and reduced costs to our health system that comes from increased cycling. We wouldn’t milk this cow by taxing it, but rather investing in promoting cycling as a net societal gain.
From a cash-generating point of view you are forgetting that parking prices would have to at least double to start to compete with residential land values. More concretely, plopping down two-story containers with micro-apartments and renting them out will be much more lucrative for the city. Arguing for preserving on-street parking because of the revenue it generates is a losing argument in our highly subsidized parking environment.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
Why does it always have to do with safe cycling vs whatever. First it is safe cycling vs people with disabilities. This argument is not valid due to the fact that the plans call for improvements for these people. Now it is safe cycling vs parking revenue. We even have some people argue that it is safe cycling vs convenient parking for everyone. Why does it have to be safe cycling vs anything?
I have never heard any discussion about loss of parking revenue due to rush hour restrictions – even for Broadway which is a mere block away. Loss of parking revenue due to rush hour restrictions must be in the $10s of millions per year. Why is this? I suspect that this is due to people understanding that there is sometimes a better use of street parking – in this case improved traffic flow. So might it not be conceivable that there is a better use for this section of 10th Ave than the storage of cars?
Why can’t we look at the benefits of improved cycling on 10th Ave. I could provide many reasons but here are a few to consider:
– More people cycling implies a healthier, happier, and more productive society as well as a more vibrant and livable city.
– Less noise, air pollution and ghg emissions.
– Improved mobility options. There are several MOBI stations in the area. Everyone using a Mobi bike is potentially one less person driving and parking.
– More people cycling means less people driving which means more room on the streets and more parking availability for those who must drive as well as less crowding on transit.
– Safe cycling in the hospital district means that up to 1000 people per day do not drive there.
– A safer street for all means less injuries and deaths which are almost entirely caused by motor vehicle operators.
– People who are already cycling in BC are generating health benefits in the $billions per year. More people cycling will only make this better.
– Each km cycled in Metro Vancouver benefits society by $0.15 while each km driven costs society $0.56.
More people cycling provides society with enormous benefits while highly subsidized driving burdens society with huge costs. How can we even begin to compare this to a few dollars generated by renting space for car storage I thought we were finally getting over the negativity that some people have toward cycling improvements given the general level of acceptance for the downtown bike lanes – especially by the business community. I don’t see how any rational person can argue against safer cycling – especially in a sector of our city which is dedicated to keeping people healthy.
“I don’t see how any rational person can argue against safer cycling – especially in a sector of our city which is dedicated to keeping people healthy.”
I don’t either, but that’s not the argument. People argue against the impact to them personally. That’s always the argument. No one questions the benefits of cycling, they are angry about the impacts cycling has on their life.
The approach the cycling community takes in advocating for cycling by illustrating all these big picture benefits and long term positives will never gain traction. All those things are true, but that doesn’t matter. Stop telling me how cycling is saving the planet and talk to me about my daily issues. That’s what people want to talk about. You start telling them about how cycling will reduce their risk of disease x, y or z, you’re just some elitist who doesn’t get it.
My two cents, but a rethink on this approach is needed. Same with the approach to transit, climate change, etc.
Interesting thought. However what about the fact that more people cycling means less people driving and therefore more room on the streets for those who must drive? Also a higher availability of street parking. Already 10% of commutes by city residents are by bike while only about 50% are made by car. Surely this is a huge benefit for drivers. Surely everyone appreciates less noise and pollution. Employers must like more productive and happier employees. Businesses must like to see more big spending bike riders. These are all benefits enjoyed by everyone which are freely given by those that ride bikes. The least we should get is a wee thank-you instead of all this discrimination, hatred and abuse.
“The least we should get is a wee thank-you instead of all this discrimination, hatred and abuse.”
People eventually come to hate their benefactors. Sometimes there’s no lag time at all.
The fact that more people cycling equals fewer cars on the road doesn’t matter. Yes everyone appreciates less noise and less pollution but again, that doesn’t matter. This approach about how great cycling is because of all these reasons doesn’t work. Seems obvious to me at this point. Yes, all those things are true, but you tell that to the guy driving his car who sees the odd cyclist and is angry that space on the road is taken away from them doesn’t care about reduced pollution or that over time there will be fewer cars and more space for him. In that moment, in the here and now, he’s pissed and fights back.
There’s a lot to think about in your comment Don. And yet, what are the truly motivational successes from history we remember? Churchill offered nothing but blood, sweat, and tears. Vince Lombardi says ‘winners never quit’. The big religions are essentially delayed gratification writ large. Probably there’s others, but none come to mind right away (which is part of my point). Those examples aren’t outlining the personal benefits in the immediate time frame, and in fact they say straight up, ‘it’s gonna suck for a while, and then it gets better.’ My examples are from eras past. Is there a clue within that piece of the puzzle?
Yeah, interesting–and what those things have in common is a leader, a singular voice with an immediate issue. Advocacy for cycling (or transit or climate change or any other long term, big picture issue) doesn’t have that singular voice nor does it have that immediate issue.
People will respond to ‘it’s gonna suck but then it gets better’ when the thing that sucks is really bad or really in their face and they can see the better, they know what better is going to look like. You fight a war cause the threat is immediate and you know what the payoff is gonna be. You play sports and you know you’re gonna get hit but you do it anyway cause you know winning is a bigger payoff.
The benefits of cycling, at least the majority of them are not immediate, they are not in your face nor is the payoff really understood or appreciable. So, I don’t know, I don’t have the answer, I just think the discussion is losing/has lost its way.
deleted as per editorial policy
Thankfully we actually can reason with people – even motorists. Motorists are still a majority – yet the majority of Vancouverites support protected bike lanes. No need for you to defend the intolerant.
It is really time to end the myth that street parking makes streets safer for pedestrians. The reality is that it does not. While motor vehicles speeds are reduced, parked cars block sightlines making streets more dangerous because people walking and driving can’t see each other. Plus cruising for parking increases the amount of driving putting everyone at greater risk. Plus it increases congestion and pollution. http://www.bccc.bc.ca/street_parking_dangerous
Why must there be a 10th Ave bike path at all? Why not have it on 9th or 11th Ave ?
This area around the hospital would need redesigning even if it wasn’t a bike route.
Bike lanes on Broadway are a great idea. Maybe it can happen after there’s a subway under it.
Thomas – Cars have free reign on all the east west avenues with the exception of a few streets which are designated as bike routes. In spite of this, for residents of Vancouver 10% of commute trips are by bike while only 50% are by car. Surely we can reserve a tiny bit of space on a small section of 10th Ave. to make cycling safer. The benefits of this to society will be huge in that more people will cycle which leads to benefits like improved health and mobility. I don’t see how anyone could oppose this – especially since we are talking about the health sector.
Thomas – 9th is Broadway and 11th does not go through, so both are no gos.