CCEM 106 – Question 1

[Carly Johansson]

If you had to implement one of the approaches discussed in Module 2 (land use planning, road pricing, increased parking fees, reduced parking opportunities) in the community you live and/or work in, which might be the easiest sell and why?

[Carly Johansson]

In Victoria, there is an interesting situation happening where people have been complaining for years about parking prices downtown and so the city implemented a situation where they increase parking rates for on street parking if there is a parkade nearby and dropped rates for street parking if no parkade is close by – they also dropped rates in parkades. In Greater Victoria we have many municipalities that are all vying for commerce and have no control over building malls with plenty of parking etc. there have been landuse planning efforts by some municipalities but not all, creating a situation where more green muni’s cant make great strides in eliminating car use without greatly impacting their internal commerce in significant ways. Generally I think landuse planning and reduced parking opportunities would be the only options that would work but only if there was consistent transit options for key hubs.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Must be why I look for parkades when I come over to Victoria…

Price is a factor in where I park.

[Carly Johansson]

Land-use planning approaches are probably the most likely of the four suggest toolkits to be readily accepted in Yukon. At this time we don’t have the density to support reduced parking opportunities and road pricing schemes and increasing parking fees would likely be contested. Building reduced vehicle kilometers into land use planning would set the stage for benefits to accrue as our communities grow. For example, Whitehorse is currently improving its active transportation system with strong support from parts of the community, while attempts to raise parking fees in the limited areas where the City actually enforces parking have been met with significant opposition.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I can echo what Ryan is saying. For a rural area, like Salt Spring Island, land use planning would likely be the most effective and acceptable approach. because traffic numbers is relatively limited, road pricing would not likely pay for itself. (Though a few bucks to get through town on a sunny Saturday afternoon would be well worth it!). Some consider the ferry ticket prices as a toll. Concentrating development in the downtown area has been researched, it would reduce the VKT. The planners and leaders have had some difficulty accepting reduced parking requests, they should be looking at the literature…

[Jen Grebeldinger]

In Nanaimo, I would say land use planning has been the easiest approach to take for the public, followed by reduced parking availability (within major traffic corridors). I think it is because one is a longer term approach, which has less immediate impact and can be eased into with the public. I know there has been a long struggle to revitalize the downtown and make it appealing for residents and visitor’s to visit and shop. Often Parking availability comes up as an issue. But often the concern is centred around access to convenient parking in front of shops as opposed to walking from nearby parking lots.Parking fees have increased, but only marginally, and parking bylaw staff act more leaniently then the previous contracted firm that managed it for the City.

Due to land use direction laid out in the OCP and Transportation Master Plan,reduced parking requirements are beginning to appear along major corridors (such as Bowen Road), where transit is more available. The response has been mixed but it has generally been well received. In one development, staff were able to secure a vehicle and dedicated parking space toward the Nanaimo car-share co-op, in exchange as part of a density amenity bonus.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Here in Ft. Simpson & the majority of the small, rural, remote communities, LAND USE PLANNING is the only strategy that could likely work or have a chance of being considered. As Ryan & Kjell have identified, plans to reduce the distances people are traveling in town or between communities would have the most/only hope for implementation.

I’ve been wondering what it would take for a decent “shuttle run” to exist between Ft. Simpson & Hay River and/or Yellowknife … to help people get to meetings in either of those places, or do their supply runs (although space would be needed for cargo for return trips). But then you’d be asking a bunch of people to “hole up” in one vehicle for 4 & 7 hour driving times to get where there are going & then with minimal ability to get around town once they are there. Somehow, it would have to be promoted as a very fun bus, with perhaps a few amenities & perks for riding the shuttle.

People are quite tied to their big trucks in most of the NWT communities & the gravel/rough roads necessitate a more durable vehicle, so I think the greater merit will be in figuring out ways to decrease the carbon footprint of the vehicles folks are driving & reinforcing the inefficiencies of idling your vehicle.

[Author]

Posts