PDA

View Full Version : Parking at Bars



freemanfive
11-03-2006, 09:15 PM
We have now heard from our Mayor regarding parking at bars. Removing parking lots from bars ranks right up with flooding street and skating to work as far as I'm concerned. Drinking and driving is a terrible problem but eliminating parking is simply going to send the cars out into the neighbourhood around the establishments. Enforcement, education and punishment are the way to deal with drunk drivers. Instead of floating these ideas the Mayor should consider asking the industry to come up with solutions. Perhaps controlled parking where patrons surrender their keys content in the knowledge that their vehicles will be kept secure. The industry could consider discounted "transport passes" that would be purchased at the start of the evening. Along the lines of a "gift card" this would be purchased by the patron for a flat fee to go anywhere in the city. The establishment could cover the cost of the cards and the City cover the cost to bring the program into existence.

RichardS
12-03-2006, 12:18 AM
Removing parking is so not the solution. Bars need to understand that their high profits are directly the result of the consumption of an intoxicant, and they need to take a greater responsibility in ensuring the public's safety. I like the "transport pass" idea. However, in the end, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual. Stiffer penalties for DWI are a solution, but for the habitual driver...what's next?

IanO
12-03-2006, 01:41 PM
ridiculous

ShermanT
12-03-2006, 02:05 PM
Wow.. who's brilliant idea is this?

Let's say that theorectically 95% of all drunk drivers came from bars I don't know how making people unable to park at the bar solves anything. It will just make it harder to go to a bar or else spread the parking over a larger area. I mean lets take all of the bars around Whyte Ave... as far as I know none of those bars have actual "parking lots" so does that mean they have proof of a lower drunk driving rate coming out of there?

MylesC
12-03-2006, 09:14 PM
There's another way to attack this. Just funnel money into improving the LRT and transit system. Then people won't HAVE to drive :D

On the flip side, a bar, or any business for that matter, shouldn't necessarily have to have a certain number of spots. We're having issues with the city demanding parking for places such as Starbucks in the downtown area, which is ridiculous.

ChrisD
13-03-2006, 11:52 AM
There's another way to attack this. Just funnel money into improving the LRT and transit system. Then people won't HAVE to drive :D

On the flip side, a bar, or any business for that matter, shouldn't necessarily have to have a certain number of spots. We're having issues with the city demanding parking for places such as Starbucks in the downtown area, which is ridiculous.
Well, parking rules are rules that must be adehered to. In the Starbucks situation, the Development Officer granted a variance on the reduced number of stalls as requested by the applicant. It was the adjacent property owners that appealed the Development Officers decision to grant the variance.

Back to the issue under discussion, I don't agree that reducing / removing parking from bars will help reduce the number of people who chose to drive under the influence. Enforcement is key along with cooperation between the police, citizens / patrons and bar owners.

RyanS
13-03-2006, 05:11 PM
I think a key issue in ppl deciding to drive impaired is the lack of taxis at peak times of the night. If you have ever tried to get a cab at 3am on Whyte on the weekends it can be near immpossible. And moreso then ever cabs are not willing to goto/pick up on Whyte for various reasons.

I wonder if a night bus service would actually be viable in Edmonton? While I never take the bus, if I could get home in a semi reasonable time on the bus at 2-4amish, Id likely consider it.

Fell
22-03-2006, 06:16 PM
Oddly, the law dictates that it is actually illegal for any establishment to serve liquor to those innebriated. So really, if they wanted to crack down, you could fine every single pub, club, bar, and restaurant in this city of being guilty.

Why do politicians think they can solve a problem by stamping a law on it? Do they not think they can take some initiative to domething to aid the cause at a more grassroots level, or is their four-year term not enough time to make it worthwhile for them in the end?

TroyD
23-03-2006, 10:06 AM
As a resident of Whyte ave (just east of the tracks), I have noticed more and more people parking in my area. I would HATE to see the parking lots removed to help prevent drinknig & driving. It's bad enoguh on Canada Day in my neighbour hood where I ran off vandals with a baseball bat last year.

A solution could be more money spent on check stops by the EPD. Harsher fines by provincial agencies, By removign parking ltos, you're not solving the problem, you are sweeping it under the carpet into a new area.

Titanium48
31-03-2006, 03:03 PM
There's another way to attack this. Just funnel money into improving the LRT and transit system. Then people won't HAVE to drive :D

I agree. I call it the Cinderella Syndrome - If you go to go to a bar without a car you better leave by midnight or getting home will be a real problem. Extending bus service to 3 am thursday through saturday would be a much better approach.

IanO
31-03-2006, 03:52 PM
There's another way to attack this. Just funnel money into improving the LRT and transit system. Then people won't HAVE to drive :D

I agree. I call it the Cinderella Syndrome - If you go to go to a bar without a car you better leave by midnight or getting home will be a real problem. Extending bus service to 3 am thursday through saturday would be a much better approach.

its called a cab

RichardS
31-03-2006, 04:04 PM
planning ahead?? Nooooooooooooooooooo :?

Titanium48
31-03-2006, 05:57 PM
its called a cab


I think a key issue in ppl deciding to drive impaired is the lack of taxis at peak times of the night. If you have ever tried to get a cab at 3am on Whyte on the weekends it can be near immpossible. And moreso then ever cabs are not willing to goto/pick up on Whyte for various reasons.

Hmm...not enough cabs, lots of people in the same place, sounds like a job for busses to me.


planning ahead?? Nooooooooooooooooooo
Exactly, make it easier to plan to leave the car at home. Use a carrot in addition to a stick.

sean
31-03-2006, 07:30 PM
I don't really drink all that often but when I do go out, I'm usually the designated driver, or if I do drink, i'll leave my ride there and usually walk over to friends places. I like the fact I can leave it there and be able to get home the next day.
Titanium is right, they should extend the bus hours on the weekend to about 3:30ish, so that people can take the bus. Obviously due to recent crimes, they should be more security minded, but it would be an alternative to the drunk drivers and their passengers.

We really need to lose the stigma attached to our LRT. It could have much better use if people got over their fears of the thing.

MikeK
06-04-2006, 11:12 AM
It's not so much the LRT as much as the BUSES which need to have the stigma lremoved.

But still, I think the ETS should extend its bus/LRT service hours into the wee hours along certain routes. I'm sure the police and MADD would really approve, because that'll help to get more drunk drivers off the roads.

PrairieBoyinExile
26-04-2006, 03:36 PM
I don't see how anyone could argue against the night bus idea. This is something that should have happened a long time ago. All that's really needed are a few routes, along Jasper and along Whyte, and then maybe one connecting the two. Vancouver has them along Davie and Granville, and Toronto and Montreal have tons of night buses.

Mock
27-04-2006, 03:10 PM
All we need are the LRT, 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 to run all night. A large chunk of the population would be within a drunken stumble of their homes.
Until the sLRT is completed, we run a new route from Southgate to Heritage.
For those unfamiliar with ETS routes, here is what the coverage would look like: (click to enlarge)
http://members.shaw.ca/kurtbt/latenighta.gif (http://members.shaw.ca/kurtbt/latenight.gif)

CSR
27-04-2006, 06:32 PM
Yo! Mods! I think this whole night transit bit should be it's own thread under transportation or, after the last post, great ideas. :D

PrairieBoyinExile
28-04-2006, 09:22 PM
It's not realistic for the LRT to run all night. It's too expensive and there is just not enough ridership to justify it. Even the subway/metro in much bigger cities like TO/Mtl does not run all night. I still think one bus route down Whyte and another down Jasper, maybe both continuing to end at WEM...not sure where they would end in the east. Then a North-South line could be set up to connect the two...it could maybe run from Southgate up to Northgate or something (just throwing out ideas).

Titanium48
28-04-2006, 10:29 PM
It's not realistic for the LRT to run all night. It's too expensive and there is just not enough ridership to justify it. Even the subway/metro in much bigger cities like TO/Mtl does not run all night. I still think one bus route down Whyte and another down Jasper, maybe both continuing to end at WEM...not sure where they would end in the east. Then a North-South line could be set up to connect the two...it could maybe run from Southgate up to Northgate or something (just throwing out ideas).

In other words, routes 1,4 and 9. I'd suggest adding route 8 for Millwoods. Routes 5 and 6 wouldn't really improve coverage all that much, although the 5 is one of the busier routes at night. I think the LRT should also run, and it shouldn't really be more expensive than a bus. It is a relatively short route (50 minute round trip) so half hourly service would only require two drivers. By comparison, the main bus routes have round trip times 2-3 times as long and would require proportionally more drivers for a similar level of service.

CSR
28-04-2006, 10:32 PM
I think the LRT should also run, and it shouldn't really be more expensive than a bus. It is a relatively short route (50 minute round trip) so half hourly service would only require two drivers. By comparison, the main bus routes have round trip times 2-3 times as long and would require proportionally more drivers for a similar level of service.

I suspect the cost will be in keeping the stations open and secure.

I'd like to think it would be worth the cost, but I'd have to see the figures before I could say for sure.

Mock
30-04-2006, 04:36 AM
It's not realistic for the LRT to run all night. It's too expensive and there is just not enough ridership to justify it. Even the subway/metro in much bigger cities like TO/Mtl does not run all night. I still think one bus route down Whyte and another down Jasper, maybe both continuing to end at WEM...not sure where they would end in the east. Then a North-South line could be set up to connect the two...it could maybe run from Southgate up to Northgate or something (just throwing out ideas).

In other words, routes 1,4 and 9. I'd suggest adding route 8 for Millwoods. Routes 5 and 6 wouldn't really improve coverage all that much, although the 5 is one of the busier routes at night. I think the LRT should also run, and it shouldn't really be more expensive than a bus. It is a relatively short route (50 minute round trip) so half hourly service would only require two drivers. By comparison, the main bus routes have round trip times 2-3 times as long and would require proportionally more drivers for a similar level of service.
I agree with you about 6, once LRT is out to Southgate, the 6 will be probably be scrapped. The busiest part of that route is from Southgate to the University, following the sLRT ROW.