John Jensen

The City of North Vancouver will be discussing the creation of some affordable housing on East 1st Street at an upcoming Council meeting. After reading the agenda for the meeting I remembered something that I quickly put together in November 2008.  I had just attended one of the all-candidates' meetings, where one of the main topics of discussion was the lack of affordable housing in the City.  I remember leaving the meeting wondering "how much do rental homes cost in North Vancouver?" Knowing that probably the vast majority of rental homes are advertised on Craigslist, I wrote a little script to automatically download all rental advertisements for North Vancouver. I set it to run every four hours, planning to, in a few weeks, put together some summary numbers. Of course, I soon forgot about it and am only getting to it now; here are a few graphs.  Keep in mind that these show all rental homes, be they in apartments, basement suites, or elsewhere, and anywhere in the City or District of North Vancouver. The first shows the number of advertisements per week from November 2008 to today. You'll notice a gap in the late summer/early fall of 2009 -- something stopped working with the script and so there is no data for that period. You can see that while the number varied a bit, there were on average about a hundred advertisements per week. There's a marked increase recently, which may reflect additional inventory being released for the Olympics. The second shows the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for the monthly rents listed for these homes. It's a bit more complicated, but shows that 25% of advertised 1-bedroom homes had a monthly rent of $925 or less.  Since we know that there were usually about 100 homes advertised, that means that in any given week there's about 25 homes being advertised for $925 or less. The median rent -- the number which 50% of homes had a lower rent and 50% had a higher rent, averaged  $1,069. And the value for the 75th percentile was $1,322.  That means that, on average, 75% of 1-bedroom rental homes advertised rented for that amount or less. I have similar data for 2 and 3-bedroom homes and once I get a bit of time I'll post it too.

A few weeks ago there was a mini tempest over the City's proposal to institute pay parking in the Lonsdale corridor. The public was overwhelmingly opposed, with around 5000 petition signatures collected. At the hearing about the issue, one of the questions I asked was whether or not the City had any information as to where the people who parked on Lonsdale lived. A few days later I got an answer from the City Clerk. A survey of people parking on Lonsdale in January 2006 showed that three-quarters of them lived outside of the City. While I don't think this information would have changed the outcome of the debate, it would probably have changed its direction a bit.

The City of North Vancouver is considering implementing paid on-street parking throughout the Lonsdale corridor, from the waterfront up to 21st Street. There are currently no parking meters in the area; instead time limits ranging from 15 minutes to 2 hours are in place. In some blocks residents can apply and pay for a permit that allows them to park for a longer period of time. Open House I attended a public open house meeting on January 7th to learn more about the issue. While the noisy crowd was undoubtedly opposed to the idea, the expert presenter that the City had hired to explain the issue did quite a poor job of explaining the rationale other than revenue generation behind the concept and its pros and cons. Central Lonsdale I decided to look into the issue myself and started by reading the report of the study that the City conducted in 2005. It has a lot of detail (why do so few municipal reports have executive summaries?) but basically finds that there is/was considerable demand for parking in Central Lonsdale, and less so in Lower Lonsdale. That agrees with my own experience -- Central Lonsdale is dominated by Lions Gate Hospital, which, along with City Hall, is the key medical center for a region stretching from Deep Cove to Pemberton. As such it is a "destination" area that draws people in from around the region. The retail stores in the surrounding area concentrate on serving those that work and live in the immediate area. There is also a dearth of off-street parking there. Lower Lonsdale In Lower Lonsdale, it's a little different. The surrounding area, except right at the waterfront (ICBC), has a much smaller surrounding employment base, is much farther away from the wealthiest areas on the North Shore, and is on a much steeper slope. While many bus commuters pass through the area to and from the Seabus, relatively few step out to trudge uphill. Consequently the retail in the area is dominated by "destination" stores that serve niches or restaurants that focus on the lunch trade from employment in the area. The summer tourist trade improves on that a bit, as has recent residential construction, but probably not enough to change that overall pattern. So, to vastly over-simplify, people mostly go to Central Lonsdale because they have to, but people mostly go to Lower Lonsdale because they want to. Academic parking research The key question I was looking for an answer to was "what would be the effect of instituting pay parking in an area that did not usually suffer from congestion (Lower Lonsdale) versus one that did (Central Lonsdale)?" From looking through Google Scholar articles I quickly learned that parking management is a relatively new discipline but that it can be extraordinarily complex. There are, however, a few good articles that clearly and concisely sum up a lot of the existing research. A good one is "The evidence base for parking policies -- a review", by Greg Marsden of the University of Leeds. This summary of dozens of parking studies has many points relevant to this issue but the key ones for me were these, relating to study done in Israel:

Under all scenarios substantial proportions of respondents indicated that they would either change destination or not make the trip at all . . . However, even limited indications of destination change and reduced trip making as responses to parking restrictions is highly politically sensitive. In the UK for example it is explicit that parking restraint policies are introduced 'in ways which support the vitality of town and city centres and do not result in dispersal of development'

Given that the North Shore has natural barriers that make it almost a confined retail economy, that user-pay parking would be introduced in only one area, and not (yet) in Lynn Valley, Ambleside, Edgemont Village, etc, I would be concerned about its effect on Lower Lonsdale if was not introduced without at least the prospect of some ameliorating benefits. Importance of implementation decisions Other reading indicated that while it is difficult to argue with the environmental and economic efficiency benefits of paid parking it is clear that how it is implemented is probably just as important as whether it is implemented. Implementation details can have a significant effect on outcomes:

• Higher minimum rate periods (eg 30 minutes vs 5 minutes) can have unintended effects for some "quick stop" businesses, eg post offices, banks, drug stores.
• If the rate is the same at 8am on Tuesday as it is at 2pm on Saturday, then parking spots may not be optimally allocated throughout the day.
• If the money raised goes into general revenues then the businesses and residents in the area may be worse off than if the money was invested in the immediate area.
• Since parking rule violators often have a low chance of being caught, stepping up enforcement can sometimes be more cost-efficient than installing meters.

Old Pasadena The shining example repeatedly raised by the external consultant during his presentation at the Open House was that of Old Pasadena -- in fact, if you only have time to read one article, read this one.   That area was suffering from a parking problem, but businesses opposed the introduction of metering. The municipal government eventually only won the day by promising to steer a very large portion (100%) of proceeds to initiatives to improve the streetscape in that area.

[Parking meters] paid for street furniture, trees, tree grates, and historic lighting fixtures throughout the area. Dilapidated alleys became safe, functional pedestrian spaces with access to shops and restaurants. To reassure businesses and property owners that the meter revenues stayed in Old Pasadena, the city mounted a marketing campaign to tell shoppers what their meter money was funding. . . . Dedicating the parking meter revenue to Old Pasadena has thus created a "virtuous cycle" of continuing improvements. The meter revenue pays for public improvements, the public improvements attract more visitors who pay for curb parking, and more meter revenue is then available to pay for more public improvements.

Given the locational and slope disadvantages the Lower Lonsdale area faces, the recent loss of the National Maritime Centre project, and its importance in validating the longer-term vision of a flourishing town centre, I would look carefully at the experience of Old Pasadena, as recommended by the City's own parking consultant. 2010 Budget Plan Unfortunately the current budget draft presented to Council takes steps in the exact opposite direction. Even with the introduction of parking meters, the annual street pole flower planter program is to be completely cancelled. Street banners are to hang for a shorter time and be replaced less frequently.  These service reductions, especially when combined with the installation of meters, worsen the streetscape, rather than enhance it. Recommendations This is what I would recommend that Council consider doing should it decide to move forward with the implementation of paid on-street parking.

1. Treat Lower Lonsdale differently than Central Lonsdale in the parking plan. Based on the 2005 parking study the parking issues there are less pressing than in Central Lonsdale. City residents are more likely to park there than Central Lonsdale and are more likely to do so on a discretionary basis.
2. Adjust the 2010 and future budget plans to put a significant portion of the funds raised into improving the streetscape, not taking funds away from it.
3. Recognize that since only one area on the North Shore would be implementing paid on-street parking, one could argue that there is a larger element of risk to local businesses here, particularly in Lower Lonsdale, than one would otherwise might expect.
4. Make the key goal overall welfare, not solely revenue generation -- prices are set just high enough to ensure that people can find a spot when they want one, but low enough that they are not kept away any more than is necessary.
5. As part of this, consider implementing time-variable rates -- adjusted by time and day of the week. Remember that fixed prices in other municipalities are just as much a reflection of the older technology in place there than a need to always keep them fixed.

Civility in public deliberation suffered two blows in the City of North Vancouver last week. At Thursday's Open House to discuss the possible implementation of pay parking in the Lonsdale corridor, members of the public loudly and continually interrupted presenters. It was only after multiple appeals for calm were made that the discussion was able to progress, albeit only roughly. Then on Monday night, in the space of about 30 minutes, the following occurred in the City's Council chambers:

• Mayor Mussatto brusquely interrupted Councillor Bookham's comments twice, saying that she was unfairly casting aspersions on staff or council. After the second interruption Councillor Bookham protested, but she was abruptly dismissed by the mayor, who refused to let her continue.
• Councillor Bookham stormed out of the meeting.
• Councillor Heywood then tried to raise a point of order to express his view that the Mayor had acted inappropriately. The mayor interrupted him and refused to let him continue.
• Councillor Fearnley then moved a motion to challenge the chair, which failed.
• Councillor Fearnley then tried to move that the meeting adjourn early. The motion was not seconded and it failed.
• Councillor Fearnley then excused himself from the meeting due to a perceived conflict of interest. Apparently he did not return even after discussion of the issue was completed, so that some items for the in-camera agenda were left unaddressed.

I was in the chambers during all this and was not impressed. The Council is not dysfunctional but it is going further down that path rather than away from it. It is difficult to argue that members of the public should conduct themselves professionally at public meetings when their elected representatives cannot do so.

• Mayor Mussatto should not have acted the way he did. His role as Chair is to civilly facilitate discussion and defer to the will of the Council.
• Councillor Bookham, although she was right to feel slighted, should not have left the council chambers. A councillor's job is to conduct the people's business, even if it unfortunately becomes uncomfortable.
• Similarly, Councillor Fearnley should not have moved to adjourn the meeting and should not have left early.

If this were a board of directors or a group of employees, I would suggest that they all go have a outside-of-chambers "bonding" session where they can at least develop the minimal relationship necessary to work civilly with each other. All of the above is viewable here, starting at the 3:00 mark. A North Shore Outlook piece on what happened is here.