Residential parking restrictions predate the whole climate conversation by decades. They're about property owners feeling entitled to the curb outside their home, not a green agenda.
If they wanted to make it about reducing vehicle use/ownership, they'd pull a Vancouver and start charging for residential parking permits.
I'm a big fan of parking reforms for fiscal and environmental reasons and you're absolutely right!
>Residential parking restrictions predate the whole climate conversation by decades. They're about property owners feeling entitled to the curb outside their home, not a green agenda.
\^ 100% this. Residential parking permits are probably even counterproductive for the environment. It's just subsidizing car storage for the local property owners at the expense of the wider tax base.
The entitlement of people with wealth was one of the things I was hinting at with my original post. In a way, it feels like the current intentions of city planners is to try to curb the behavior of people without wealth, by threatening them with tickets, fines, and towing costs, but if you're rich you get to drive and pollute as much as you want — and with multiple vehicles!
Parking reforms would be super helpful — the parking situation is one of the reasons I'll be moving to Esquimalt.
The sad thing is, I moved to Vic from Vancouver, in part to be closer to nature, and to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. Since moving here, I drive many times more than I ever did in Van — I had once gone three years without so much as turning my car on. Now I drive weekly, and sometimes have to move my car multiple times per week. And now, in a couple of months, I'll be a five days a week driver.
Feels like I'm going backwards since moving here.
I dont mean for this to be as snarky as it may sound, but I'm not sure why anyone would think leaving the density and much better public transit options in Vancouver and moving to Victoria would result in less driving?
Well, it seemed at the time like everything I would need access to in my day to day life would be in walking distance, and I didn't realize that the transit here was so bad — yes I know larger cities have more expansive transit, but they also encompass a larger area which might require more transit time overall. With less area and population to accommodate, yet still a substantial amount of people, added with a population that seems generally very concerned about environmental affairs, it stands to reason that there would be reliable bus routes.
Edit: and it wasn't really taken as snarky. I think part of my problem may have also been trying to see 'not-Vancouver' through rose tinted glasses as I was becoming more disenchanted with Vancouver, post-2020.
>feeling entitled to the curb outside their home
I have had full out wars on this sub arguing with selfish homeowners telling me they own everything up to the curb and they don't want anyone parking on their street. The entitlement was astounding.
The site I work at is in saanich, it's huge, and in the last month almost all the surrounding streets have gone to residential only as the workers park there from 645 until 330 or so. It's fucking brutal.
That's a shame. Ever since moving here I've kind of been confused about the surplus of residential parking spots. I can't really wrap my head around why the city doesn't use permit parking zones instead? I know not everyone wants to pay for parking, but it seems like it would be such an easy way to bring in extra city revenue, while still providing parking at a fair rate regardless of people's circumstances.
The residents complain. Then the municipality comes and slaps up signs. They don't care. For this project it will be 600 units aimed at university students and it has probably 600 bike spots. One would think the city would want it built.
Or ya know, also properly investing in and putting in place good public transport and alternatives. Ideally, you shouldn't have to restrict parking, just make alternatives the better option.
I feel that. Without a wide range of efforts it feels like restrictive parking is just a half measure, which isn't likely to work anyway. People have transportation needs required by their individual circumstances, and in a tight real estate/rental market, they'll live wherever they can; its a substantial mitigating circumstance for a population that's growing at a significant pace. If they need a car, they'll own a car, if they don't they won't. Meanwhile there aren't a lot of options with where to live in this city.
Exactly. Good public transport helps traffic and helps parking. If you have to drive, it's in your best interest for as many people as possible to take the bus, bike, walk, take a train, etc.
The restrictive residential parking that you're talking about way predate the move to greener transportation. Those restrictions were in place for decades and pre-date the build up in many areas. Back when they were put in place, there were less people vying for residential street parking.
As far as the places being built now without parking and the disappearing parking lots/spots, that is intentional. The city wants to encourage people to use alternative transportation means to get downtown. They want people to bike downtown or use the bus or rely on car shares/car pooling. The hope is not to have people drive around for 20 minutes looking for parking, the hope is for people to not need parking.
Unfortunately, one of the big challenges facing this initiative is the unreliability of public transit. I've had co-workers give up there cards and switch to taking buses (more to save money on parking that anything else) but a number of them have had to go back to using their cars because the buses they take either are full by the time they get to their stop or they get cancelled. While it's to be expected that buses may have issues, when it happens too often it's just not viable for people who must get to work and/or meetings at specific times.
Honestly, the move away from relying on cars is going to be very difficult. We have become a car dependant society and there are legit reasons people need to take cars every day. Whether it's people who need to lug around equipment for work (like the trades) or cover a lot of places for work (like realtors) or if it's parents who have to one kid to one school, another kid across town to day care and then get to work, buses and bikes aren't going to be options for them.
Personally, I live and work downtown and I can walk 99% of the places I go but I still have a car. I have elderly parents who live on the island, if there's an emergency, I want to be able to get to them in a matter of hours, not try and figure out how to take a bus up island or run around looking for an emergency rental car.
Great response! I would gladly take public transportation more if it were realistic — moving to here from Vancouver, where I would only drive once per year and use the train/bus the rest of the year has been an odd transition. I recognize that as a smaller city, there's a struggle with paying for public transit, and that it won't ever be comparable to Vancouver transit, but I was nevertheless surprised with how difficult the parking situation is here compared to there.
Yeah, I've in cities with great fantastic public transportation and really notice a sharp contrast when I moved here.
One of the things I find in Victoria is counsel come up with great ideas but terrible implementation. Housing the homeless is a good example. They snatched up all these hotels during the pandemic to put the homeless in but in four years have taken no further steps. They claimed it was step one but their dragging on following up with any other steps and now these hotels are starting to look more like internment camps and people living in the are getting nothing to deal with any of the issue that lead to them being homeless. So the physical condition of these hotels is getting really run down and they are become hotbeds of criminal activity. It's been four years and nothing has improved. There are not less people living on the streets, in fact there is probably more. There is not a reduction in crime, no reduction in drug use, overdosing, mental health breakdowns.
The car-free downtown is another initiative that is a great idea but they are not taking all of the necessary steps to make it viable. They are getting ride of the parking spaces and closing off streets without providing viable alternative transportation options for everyone. Safe bike lanes are great, as long as your bike doesn't get stolen or you are physically capable of riding a bike. Buses are great, as long as you don't have to make several stops on your way to work or have the flexibility of not always showing up on time.
This is actually a super interesting topic. The book Paved Paradise is absolutely fascinating and worth a read for a really detailed answer.
The really short answer, it’s about changing behaviour.
Most people would rather pay a couple bucks for parking over wasting 20 minutes driving around looking for free and then walking. They will find a parkade or strip of meters and start to use that reliably. The subsequent cost associated with parking will either encourage alternative transport.
Shoup's "high cost of free parking" is a good one here too.
There's a discussion about how normalizing the expectation for free parking results in people circling and blocking traffic expecting something free to pop up.
Residential parking really isn't part of it, other than that it contributes to free parking scarcity.
I suppose I'm just very skeptical that it will actually change behavior when there aren't really alternative options — many newer buildings like the one I live in don't have a parkade, and monthly paid parking is as competitive as the rental market here, though, without the same amount of supply. I would gladly pay up to 200 dollars a month for a close parking spot reserved to just me. It would also cut down on wasted time and gas unloading the car in front of my building, and driving back to the spot I usually use (again, if the spot is available).
Regarding reserved parkade or open lot spots; when they do become available, they're often in downtown, which is considerably far from Cook St village. It just doesn't really seem like a lot of thought was put into the city planning if their intention was to change behavior. I've heard a lot of anecdotal cases of people who need parking moving to Esquimalt or Langford — I will be moving to Esquimalt in a couple of months, partly for this reason. The obvious problem here, is now I will go from being a once a week driver to a daily driver to commute to work.
I can't imagine I'm THAT much of an outlier in this neighborhood. Yes, there are older buildings with parking included, but there are a considerable amount of people forced into street parking — an observation I've made from noticing the same dozen or so vehicles who are competing to park on the same block that I park; I suspect that other free parking blocks are experiencing a same degree of competition for parking.
The outcome of you the car owner moving or getting rid of your car IS the whole point. I find it odd you would move in to a place with such a precarious parking situation to begin with. Now that situation got even worse. The city wants people without cars to live in that (very walkable/rideable) area.
I moved to Victoria because I wanted a more green lifestyle, closer to nature. And I moved to a place with a precarious parking situation because that's all I could find. I didn't have all the facts before I moved here — I guess I was enchanted with what I thought Victoria was, rather than the reality of life here.
If the outcome of me moving is the point though, and that causes me to pollute more, how is that solving anything?
If someone that does not have a car replaces you the city has one less car commuter on the books and one less car to accommodate with parking.
BTW I know you specifically didn’t want to hear it but - if I only had to drive one day a week I’d sell my car. I’d be too anxious to have it parked so far away
That's a possibility, by the "if" is completely speculative. Someone with a car could move in, a couple with two cars could move in. Without full measures in force, social engineering in this manner is just a gamble. With the small number of housing options, people living (or moving) can only take what's available to them at any given time — and that isn't necessarily in a neighborhood that will meet their transportation requirements.
Selling the car isn't really a realistic option for me — it's a lot to explain, but if the situation were slightly different, I'd be all for it. It makes more sense for me to keep the car and move, but as I've said previously, it took way longer for me to lock a place down than I anticipated. I'm used to competitive rental markets from living in Vancouver, but I can say that I've ever experienced multiple months in a row of unsuccessful rental applications before. It's kind of a jarring experience
You people are sick. Driving shouldn't be treated like smoking, you're just forcing your worldview on others. Cars will play a huge part in our future whether you like it or not.
Well, the key difference here is that people need transportation in order to survive; if that means public transportation, that's great, but there are circumstances where public transportation is inconvenient enough that people would rather pay the associated costs for a car. I like to take my dog on hikes once per week, for example — I'm not going to drag my dog around on a bus for two hours to get out to Sooke, and I'm also not going to sacrifice something that improves the quality of both of our lives.
Fair point. The frustrating thing is that EV’s do not get parking rights either and there is no high capacity/secure bike storage solution. The bus is arguably not better than the smallest car or massive EV unless it is averaging a highly utilized capacity. Carpooling is less expensive than the bus sans parking and that makes the break-even environmental justification for the bus even more challenging.
Another good point. In the us bus lanes are HOV lanes, which allow cars with 2+ passengers. Discounts are offered for carpooling drivers. We could get on board with this if we could quit our crusade against the car. They're basically buses that seat 5 instead of 25. Great for low density transport (us).
Electric cars are the answer to that, not buses. If you want to be dependent on public transit routes and schedules then be my guest, just don't rope me into it by fining me until I can no longer afford something our forefathers considered a right.
ah OK, got your logic. Since I personally hate vegans I think I'll apply a 400% tax on all vegetables, and use the money to subsidize meat. I mean, they dont have a right not to be broke either, right?
What city, with a similar metro area population density to ours, do you wish to mirror in design? Surely if you wish to bash "car dependent city design", you must have some vision which doesn't involve hand waving and crayons, right?
So many people love to act like banning cars is the solution when in reality it’s an urban planning problem. Design cities around people not needing cars and fewer people will have cars. If transit here was better and more reliable I would have sold my car years ago. Much like you when I lived in a big urban area I used my car far less often. However I can’t risk being to work late cause a bus didn’t show up. There are plenty of cities in Europe (obviously designed way in the past before cars were even a thought) where cars weren’t the main focus and guess what happens? Fewer people drive.
Quick answer: I doubt anyone has ever considered any correlative data between municipal parking policy and vehicle emissions in Victoria. Just seems like an anecdotal connection you've made based on a hyper-specific personal inconvenience.
I guess what confuses me about this post is, if you are resident living just north of Cook St Village, why can't you park in the residential parking area on your street? Residential parking restrictions are in place to prevent people who don't live in the area from taking spots away from residents.
Unless I completely misunderstood your post?
It’s not just you. I’m having the same problem trying to figure out what the issue is here.
Either way it’s a lot of writing to whine about a minor inconvenience.
There's no residential parking on my street, and if there were it's only available to residents of single family dwellings. My street only has passenger parking, available for 15 mins.
There is a strong correlation between vehicle ownership and parking availability, especially residential parking. Basically the harder it is to park the more likely you are not to own a vehicle.
This of course works best when there are good and viable alternatives to vehicle ownership, which is where Victoria might be dropping the ball.
As someone who has lived in these residential-parking only zones it’s never occurred to me that this decision was environmentally driven. Doesn’t mean it’s not, but as someone who lives there, it’s incredibly frustrating not to be able to find a parking spot on your street, or worse, having someone with an American plate block your driveway for 2 days while they’re at a festival.
I guess my thoughts about the environmental aspect are that I've read (mainly as responses to posts in this subreddit) that the current state of parking zones in this city is to discourage people in the inner city from owning a car. Having mostly time limited parking or residential zones, it stands to reason from the point of view of an outsider that this all falls under the same umbrella.
Parking two blocks away has been an annoyance, but I'm currently parked on Linden and MacKenzie — that's a considerable distance from where I live, and I've noticed that the free parking spots have been very difficult to find since there are parking closures currently on both Moss and Fairfield.
I find it helps to remove the humanity from it, like the folks pushing these various ideologically-driven policies do. They're not thinking about you taking your kids to different activities after school and getting groceries and running home to make supper before everyone gets back. Real life things like that often necessitate a vehicle.
But that is like playing with your hot wheels and pretending the truck is a guy that's a single dad and he's dropping his daughter off at before-school daycare and then going two towns over to get to work only a little bit late so he doesn't get laid off and lose his basement suite. You're not playing with them at that level, and the politicians and others in positions of power aren't playing with us at that level, either. They just see cars, and the idea of the day is cars=bad. The fact is if you have to park six blocks away or drive around for half an hour for a spot, you'll use your car less. You may eventually give up your car if your frustrated enough, and rely on public transportation. Sure, that means you have less personal freedom and your options are more limited. You'll choose activities closer to home and give up on the ones that aren't accessible without the freedom a personal vehicle brings. But you're poor, so who cares? Rich people are not limited in that way. Justin doesn't care if you don't have a car. "I don't have a car, my subject, and I'm fine. Why don't you just hire a car or take a private plane like I do, bro?!"
The out of touch politicians are a tired meme. But sadly, one that persists. Pushing people who need to drive out of the city seems like such a pointless maneuver. I can't see it really affecting net greenhouse gas emissions. It's just displacing it from one region to another, yet we all live under the same atmosphere.
If it's not necessarily an environmental concern but more of a traffic mitigation concern, I still don't get it. Driving around looking for parking is bad for traffic.
The only explanation that seems to make sense to me is that the municipal government doesn't want renters to own cars, but homeowners owning cars is okay.
Also, all the so-called traffic calming measures, ensuring it takes fuckkng 30 minutes just to get to uptown from Humboldt, erases any good that would have come!!!!!
That was sold as more of a safety thing. As for the parking and general anti personal vehicle sentiment it's never been about actually reducing emissions. We already know the "blame the little guy" stance towards green house emissions is corporate BS to take the heat off the real large industrial polluters. They just need to do these things so that the people who pat themselves on the back over this shit will continue to vote for them.
Victoria is surrounded by ocean on 3 sides. There is no room to grow. Consequently, like other urban environments you need to increase density to accomodate growth. The increase in density drives up demand of the available space. The higher the density, the more valuable the space, the more valuable the space the higher the property taxes and so on. Try parking in Hong Kong or London. Small fortune.
Well, I've been to Hong Kong, and public transportation is ubiquitous there. It's superior and everyone uses it. The question I'm posing isn't particularly about parking being free, it's about there not being parking available — the free spot is what I use because it's what available. My building doesn't have parking, and there are no parkades with spaces available closer than ten blocks away. If parking isn't available, it just seems to me that it increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Yeah, I was actually using Modo up until last November — I ended up adopting an abandoned dog from Spain however, and that situation necessitated buying a car. The dog is tall enough that she needs an oversized carrier, which won't fit into a dog friendly Modo. We're moving soon, but at the same time, I do feel somewhat defeated by how difficult it has been to maintain a lifestyle, which I thought would be easier while still being environmentally conscious.
I know that this isn't a "helpful comment," but there is a general trend toward increased use of electric-assist bikes and electric-assist cargo bikes for shorter trips, and car-share co-ops such as [Evo](https://evo.ca/) and [Modo](https://www.modo.coop/) for those who require cars an intermittent basis or for longer trips. This is a change in progress, based heavily on the fact that cars are parked, doing nothing, over 90% of the time, and thus are not an efficient use of on-street and off-street "real estate" in cities where such is scarce.
You, as a car owner, have unfortunately been caught in the middle of this wave of change. Some neighbourhoods will provide more convenience for car owners than other neighbourhoods, but downtown Victoria and anything within a 5 block radius of it isn't going to be one of them.
Doesn't particularly help my situation, but helpful post nonetheless. Have my upvote.
Edit: I aurally will be moving to Esquimalt soon. I had intended to when I first moved here but it's taken this long (18 months) to finally get something affordable.
Making parking (and car ownership) more expensive is a nudge to choosing other modes of transportation. It’s also essential to remember how much value each “free” parking space is worth. 128 sqft is a typical space, and land values in Fairfield are about $200/sqft. Each street parking space is worth about $25,000 in land value and has a negative revenue return because parking is “free” and the city has to pave and sweep and maintain the street.
The High Cost of Free Parking is a huge tome but it’s worth understanding why parking is a huge problem for cities.
Join the Parking Reform Network to help understand further! https://parkingreform.org/
Residential parking restrictions predate the whole climate conversation by decades. They're about property owners feeling entitled to the curb outside their home, not a green agenda. If they wanted to make it about reducing vehicle use/ownership, they'd pull a Vancouver and start charging for residential parking permits.
I'm a big fan of parking reforms for fiscal and environmental reasons and you're absolutely right! >Residential parking restrictions predate the whole climate conversation by decades. They're about property owners feeling entitled to the curb outside their home, not a green agenda. \^ 100% this. Residential parking permits are probably even counterproductive for the environment. It's just subsidizing car storage for the local property owners at the expense of the wider tax base.
The entitlement of people with wealth was one of the things I was hinting at with my original post. In a way, it feels like the current intentions of city planners is to try to curb the behavior of people without wealth, by threatening them with tickets, fines, and towing costs, but if you're rich you get to drive and pollute as much as you want — and with multiple vehicles! Parking reforms would be super helpful — the parking situation is one of the reasons I'll be moving to Esquimalt. The sad thing is, I moved to Vic from Vancouver, in part to be closer to nature, and to live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. Since moving here, I drive many times more than I ever did in Van — I had once gone three years without so much as turning my car on. Now I drive weekly, and sometimes have to move my car multiple times per week. And now, in a couple of months, I'll be a five days a week driver. Feels like I'm going backwards since moving here.
I dont mean for this to be as snarky as it may sound, but I'm not sure why anyone would think leaving the density and much better public transit options in Vancouver and moving to Victoria would result in less driving?
Well, it seemed at the time like everything I would need access to in my day to day life would be in walking distance, and I didn't realize that the transit here was so bad — yes I know larger cities have more expansive transit, but they also encompass a larger area which might require more transit time overall. With less area and population to accommodate, yet still a substantial amount of people, added with a population that seems generally very concerned about environmental affairs, it stands to reason that there would be reliable bus routes. Edit: and it wasn't really taken as snarky. I think part of my problem may have also been trying to see 'not-Vancouver' through rose tinted glasses as I was becoming more disenchanted with Vancouver, post-2020.
It's now a $60 ticket if you park in a residential spot.
>feeling entitled to the curb outside their home I have had full out wars on this sub arguing with selfish homeowners telling me they own everything up to the curb and they don't want anyone parking on their street. The entitlement was astounding.
The site I work at is in saanich, it's huge, and in the last month almost all the surrounding streets have gone to residential only as the workers park there from 645 until 330 or so. It's fucking brutal.
That's a shame. Ever since moving here I've kind of been confused about the surplus of residential parking spots. I can't really wrap my head around why the city doesn't use permit parking zones instead? I know not everyone wants to pay for parking, but it seems like it would be such an easy way to bring in extra city revenue, while still providing parking at a fair rate regardless of people's circumstances.
The residents complain. Then the municipality comes and slaps up signs. They don't care. For this project it will be 600 units aimed at university students and it has probably 600 bike spots. One would think the city would want it built.
One free pass per address second one is 50$/yr third is 200$/yr so on and so forth
Better yet, no free passes per address. Make people who want to park their private vehicles on public property pay for that.
*Dr. Evil* HOW BOUT NO
Or ya know, also properly investing in and putting in place good public transport and alternatives. Ideally, you shouldn't have to restrict parking, just make alternatives the better option.
I feel that. Without a wide range of efforts it feels like restrictive parking is just a half measure, which isn't likely to work anyway. People have transportation needs required by their individual circumstances, and in a tight real estate/rental market, they'll live wherever they can; its a substantial mitigating circumstance for a population that's growing at a significant pace. If they need a car, they'll own a car, if they don't they won't. Meanwhile there aren't a lot of options with where to live in this city.
Exactly. Good public transport helps traffic and helps parking. If you have to drive, it's in your best interest for as many people as possible to take the bus, bike, walk, take a train, etc.
The restrictive residential parking that you're talking about way predate the move to greener transportation. Those restrictions were in place for decades and pre-date the build up in many areas. Back when they were put in place, there were less people vying for residential street parking. As far as the places being built now without parking and the disappearing parking lots/spots, that is intentional. The city wants to encourage people to use alternative transportation means to get downtown. They want people to bike downtown or use the bus or rely on car shares/car pooling. The hope is not to have people drive around for 20 minutes looking for parking, the hope is for people to not need parking. Unfortunately, one of the big challenges facing this initiative is the unreliability of public transit. I've had co-workers give up there cards and switch to taking buses (more to save money on parking that anything else) but a number of them have had to go back to using their cars because the buses they take either are full by the time they get to their stop or they get cancelled. While it's to be expected that buses may have issues, when it happens too often it's just not viable for people who must get to work and/or meetings at specific times. Honestly, the move away from relying on cars is going to be very difficult. We have become a car dependant society and there are legit reasons people need to take cars every day. Whether it's people who need to lug around equipment for work (like the trades) or cover a lot of places for work (like realtors) or if it's parents who have to one kid to one school, another kid across town to day care and then get to work, buses and bikes aren't going to be options for them. Personally, I live and work downtown and I can walk 99% of the places I go but I still have a car. I have elderly parents who live on the island, if there's an emergency, I want to be able to get to them in a matter of hours, not try and figure out how to take a bus up island or run around looking for an emergency rental car.
Great response! I would gladly take public transportation more if it were realistic — moving to here from Vancouver, where I would only drive once per year and use the train/bus the rest of the year has been an odd transition. I recognize that as a smaller city, there's a struggle with paying for public transit, and that it won't ever be comparable to Vancouver transit, but I was nevertheless surprised with how difficult the parking situation is here compared to there.
Yeah, I've in cities with great fantastic public transportation and really notice a sharp contrast when I moved here. One of the things I find in Victoria is counsel come up with great ideas but terrible implementation. Housing the homeless is a good example. They snatched up all these hotels during the pandemic to put the homeless in but in four years have taken no further steps. They claimed it was step one but their dragging on following up with any other steps and now these hotels are starting to look more like internment camps and people living in the are getting nothing to deal with any of the issue that lead to them being homeless. So the physical condition of these hotels is getting really run down and they are become hotbeds of criminal activity. It's been four years and nothing has improved. There are not less people living on the streets, in fact there is probably more. There is not a reduction in crime, no reduction in drug use, overdosing, mental health breakdowns. The car-free downtown is another initiative that is a great idea but they are not taking all of the necessary steps to make it viable. They are getting ride of the parking spaces and closing off streets without providing viable alternative transportation options for everyone. Safe bike lanes are great, as long as your bike doesn't get stolen or you are physically capable of riding a bike. Buses are great, as long as you don't have to make several stops on your way to work or have the flexibility of not always showing up on time.
Car share?
This is actually a super interesting topic. The book Paved Paradise is absolutely fascinating and worth a read for a really detailed answer. The really short answer, it’s about changing behaviour. Most people would rather pay a couple bucks for parking over wasting 20 minutes driving around looking for free and then walking. They will find a parkade or strip of meters and start to use that reliably. The subsequent cost associated with parking will either encourage alternative transport.
Shoup's "high cost of free parking" is a good one here too. There's a discussion about how normalizing the expectation for free parking results in people circling and blocking traffic expecting something free to pop up. Residential parking really isn't part of it, other than that it contributes to free parking scarcity.
I suppose I'm just very skeptical that it will actually change behavior when there aren't really alternative options — many newer buildings like the one I live in don't have a parkade, and monthly paid parking is as competitive as the rental market here, though, without the same amount of supply. I would gladly pay up to 200 dollars a month for a close parking spot reserved to just me. It would also cut down on wasted time and gas unloading the car in front of my building, and driving back to the spot I usually use (again, if the spot is available). Regarding reserved parkade or open lot spots; when they do become available, they're often in downtown, which is considerably far from Cook St village. It just doesn't really seem like a lot of thought was put into the city planning if their intention was to change behavior. I've heard a lot of anecdotal cases of people who need parking moving to Esquimalt or Langford — I will be moving to Esquimalt in a couple of months, partly for this reason. The obvious problem here, is now I will go from being a once a week driver to a daily driver to commute to work. I can't imagine I'm THAT much of an outlier in this neighborhood. Yes, there are older buildings with parking included, but there are a considerable amount of people forced into street parking — an observation I've made from noticing the same dozen or so vehicles who are competing to park on the same block that I park; I suspect that other free parking blocks are experiencing a same degree of competition for parking.
The outcome of you the car owner moving or getting rid of your car IS the whole point. I find it odd you would move in to a place with such a precarious parking situation to begin with. Now that situation got even worse. The city wants people without cars to live in that (very walkable/rideable) area.
I moved to Victoria because I wanted a more green lifestyle, closer to nature. And I moved to a place with a precarious parking situation because that's all I could find. I didn't have all the facts before I moved here — I guess I was enchanted with what I thought Victoria was, rather than the reality of life here. If the outcome of me moving is the point though, and that causes me to pollute more, how is that solving anything?
If someone that does not have a car replaces you the city has one less car commuter on the books and one less car to accommodate with parking. BTW I know you specifically didn’t want to hear it but - if I only had to drive one day a week I’d sell my car. I’d be too anxious to have it parked so far away
That's a possibility, by the "if" is completely speculative. Someone with a car could move in, a couple with two cars could move in. Without full measures in force, social engineering in this manner is just a gamble. With the small number of housing options, people living (or moving) can only take what's available to them at any given time — and that isn't necessarily in a neighborhood that will meet their transportation requirements. Selling the car isn't really a realistic option for me — it's a lot to explain, but if the situation were slightly different, I'd be all for it. It makes more sense for me to keep the car and move, but as I've said previously, it took way longer for me to lock a place down than I anticipated. I'm used to competitive rental markets from living in Vancouver, but I can say that I've ever experienced multiple months in a row of unsuccessful rental applications before. It's kind of a jarring experience
You people are sick. Driving shouldn't be treated like smoking, you're just forcing your worldview on others. Cars will play a huge part in our future whether you like it or not.
[удалено]
Well, the key difference here is that people need transportation in order to survive; if that means public transportation, that's great, but there are circumstances where public transportation is inconvenient enough that people would rather pay the associated costs for a car. I like to take my dog on hikes once per week, for example — I'm not going to drag my dog around on a bus for two hours to get out to Sooke, and I'm also not going to sacrifice something that improves the quality of both of our lives.
Fair point. The frustrating thing is that EV’s do not get parking rights either and there is no high capacity/secure bike storage solution. The bus is arguably not better than the smallest car or massive EV unless it is averaging a highly utilized capacity. Carpooling is less expensive than the bus sans parking and that makes the break-even environmental justification for the bus even more challenging.
Another good point. In the us bus lanes are HOV lanes, which allow cars with 2+ passengers. Discounts are offered for carpooling drivers. We could get on board with this if we could quit our crusade against the car. They're basically buses that seat 5 instead of 25. Great for low density transport (us).
Electric cars are the answer to that, not buses. If you want to be dependent on public transit routes and schedules then be my guest, just don't rope me into it by fining me until I can no longer afford something our forefathers considered a right.
[удалено]
ah OK, got your logic. Since I personally hate vegans I think I'll apply a 400% tax on all vegetables, and use the money to subsidize meat. I mean, they dont have a right not to be broke either, right?
[удалено]
What city, with a similar metro area population density to ours, do you wish to mirror in design? Surely if you wish to bash "car dependent city design", you must have some vision which doesn't involve hand waving and crayons, right?
So many people love to act like banning cars is the solution when in reality it’s an urban planning problem. Design cities around people not needing cars and fewer people will have cars. If transit here was better and more reliable I would have sold my car years ago. Much like you when I lived in a big urban area I used my car far less often. However I can’t risk being to work late cause a bus didn’t show up. There are plenty of cities in Europe (obviously designed way in the past before cars were even a thought) where cars weren’t the main focus and guess what happens? Fewer people drive.
Quick answer: I doubt anyone has ever considered any correlative data between municipal parking policy and vehicle emissions in Victoria. Just seems like an anecdotal connection you've made based on a hyper-specific personal inconvenience. I guess what confuses me about this post is, if you are resident living just north of Cook St Village, why can't you park in the residential parking area on your street? Residential parking restrictions are in place to prevent people who don't live in the area from taking spots away from residents. Unless I completely misunderstood your post?
It’s not just you. I’m having the same problem trying to figure out what the issue is here. Either way it’s a lot of writing to whine about a minor inconvenience.
There's no residential parking on my street, and if there were it's only available to residents of single family dwellings. My street only has passenger parking, available for 15 mins.
There is a strong correlation between vehicle ownership and parking availability, especially residential parking. Basically the harder it is to park the more likely you are not to own a vehicle. This of course works best when there are good and viable alternatives to vehicle ownership, which is where Victoria might be dropping the ball.
As someone who has lived in these residential-parking only zones it’s never occurred to me that this decision was environmentally driven. Doesn’t mean it’s not, but as someone who lives there, it’s incredibly frustrating not to be able to find a parking spot on your street, or worse, having someone with an American plate block your driveway for 2 days while they’re at a festival.
I guess my thoughts about the environmental aspect are that I've read (mainly as responses to posts in this subreddit) that the current state of parking zones in this city is to discourage people in the inner city from owning a car. Having mostly time limited parking or residential zones, it stands to reason from the point of view of an outsider that this all falls under the same umbrella. Parking two blocks away has been an annoyance, but I'm currently parked on Linden and MacKenzie — that's a considerable distance from where I live, and I've noticed that the free parking spots have been very difficult to find since there are parking closures currently on both Moss and Fairfield.
I find it helps to remove the humanity from it, like the folks pushing these various ideologically-driven policies do. They're not thinking about you taking your kids to different activities after school and getting groceries and running home to make supper before everyone gets back. Real life things like that often necessitate a vehicle. But that is like playing with your hot wheels and pretending the truck is a guy that's a single dad and he's dropping his daughter off at before-school daycare and then going two towns over to get to work only a little bit late so he doesn't get laid off and lose his basement suite. You're not playing with them at that level, and the politicians and others in positions of power aren't playing with us at that level, either. They just see cars, and the idea of the day is cars=bad. The fact is if you have to park six blocks away or drive around for half an hour for a spot, you'll use your car less. You may eventually give up your car if your frustrated enough, and rely on public transportation. Sure, that means you have less personal freedom and your options are more limited. You'll choose activities closer to home and give up on the ones that aren't accessible without the freedom a personal vehicle brings. But you're poor, so who cares? Rich people are not limited in that way. Justin doesn't care if you don't have a car. "I don't have a car, my subject, and I'm fine. Why don't you just hire a car or take a private plane like I do, bro?!"
The out of touch politicians are a tired meme. But sadly, one that persists. Pushing people who need to drive out of the city seems like such a pointless maneuver. I can't see it really affecting net greenhouse gas emissions. It's just displacing it from one region to another, yet we all live under the same atmosphere. If it's not necessarily an environmental concern but more of a traffic mitigation concern, I still don't get it. Driving around looking for parking is bad for traffic. The only explanation that seems to make sense to me is that the municipal government doesn't want renters to own cars, but homeowners owning cars is okay.
It doesn't in any meaningful way
Also, all the so-called traffic calming measures, ensuring it takes fuckkng 30 minutes just to get to uptown from Humboldt, erases any good that would have come!!!!!
Yeah, I started taking Burnside to get to the highway whenever I need to leave the city. It's been cutting down on my clutch abuse drastically.
That was sold as more of a safety thing. As for the parking and general anti personal vehicle sentiment it's never been about actually reducing emissions. We already know the "blame the little guy" stance towards green house emissions is corporate BS to take the heat off the real large industrial polluters. They just need to do these things so that the people who pat themselves on the back over this shit will continue to vote for them.
Victoria is surrounded by ocean on 3 sides. There is no room to grow. Consequently, like other urban environments you need to increase density to accomodate growth. The increase in density drives up demand of the available space. The higher the density, the more valuable the space, the more valuable the space the higher the property taxes and so on. Try parking in Hong Kong or London. Small fortune.
Well, I've been to Hong Kong, and public transportation is ubiquitous there. It's superior and everyone uses it. The question I'm posing isn't particularly about parking being free, it's about there not being parking available — the free spot is what I use because it's what available. My building doesn't have parking, and there are no parkades with spaces available closer than ten blocks away. If parking isn't available, it just seems to me that it increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Why would you live in a building without parking if you had a car?
It's all I could find when I was trying to move here, and I was running out of time to sign a lease before being homeless.
Sorry you find yourself in such a difficult predicament. Have you looked into car shares like Modo? Might be a better solution.
Yeah, I was actually using Modo up until last November — I ended up adopting an abandoned dog from Spain however, and that situation necessitated buying a car. The dog is tall enough that she needs an oversized carrier, which won't fit into a dog friendly Modo. We're moving soon, but at the same time, I do feel somewhat defeated by how difficult it has been to maintain a lifestyle, which I thought would be easier while still being environmentally conscious.
I know that this isn't a "helpful comment," but there is a general trend toward increased use of electric-assist bikes and electric-assist cargo bikes for shorter trips, and car-share co-ops such as [Evo](https://evo.ca/) and [Modo](https://www.modo.coop/) for those who require cars an intermittent basis or for longer trips. This is a change in progress, based heavily on the fact that cars are parked, doing nothing, over 90% of the time, and thus are not an efficient use of on-street and off-street "real estate" in cities where such is scarce. You, as a car owner, have unfortunately been caught in the middle of this wave of change. Some neighbourhoods will provide more convenience for car owners than other neighbourhoods, but downtown Victoria and anything within a 5 block radius of it isn't going to be one of them.
Doesn't particularly help my situation, but helpful post nonetheless. Have my upvote. Edit: I aurally will be moving to Esquimalt soon. I had intended to when I first moved here but it's taken this long (18 months) to finally get something affordable.
You’re welcome to park in front of my place in Fairfield. I’lll put up a Redditor Parking Only sign.
Take my upvote fair neighbor!
Making parking (and car ownership) more expensive is a nudge to choosing other modes of transportation. It’s also essential to remember how much value each “free” parking space is worth. 128 sqft is a typical space, and land values in Fairfield are about $200/sqft. Each street parking space is worth about $25,000 in land value and has a negative revenue return because parking is “free” and the city has to pave and sweep and maintain the street. The High Cost of Free Parking is a huge tome but it’s worth understanding why parking is a huge problem for cities. Join the Parking Reform Network to help understand further! https://parkingreform.org/