Short answer is - yest it is an offence to provide vehicle for hire services in the City of Calgary without a valid subsisting licence to do so. If the vehicles is indeed a "Handi Bus" by definition of a bus then Livery Transport Services would not have any jurisdiction in terms of licensing.
The City has a service agreement in place with Cochrane, Strathmore and Okotoks that has been working within the restriction imposed - unlike the City of Airdrie who does have a bylaw and provisions preventing any other vehicle for hire coming into their city to provide services. Calgary's bylaw prohibits these service providers because of service standards (ie - is the driver qualified? is police clearance in place? does the vehicle meet the mechanical requirements of the bylaw? is the vehicle properly insured? etc).
I think you need to read the actual livery transport by law because it says something different.
Calgary Handibus association vehicles are specifically exempted but Access Calgary's other special needs contractor (Southland) is not mentioned. A taxi inspector told me that it didn't matter that we had a provincial operation authority, he'd still write the ticket. Alberta Transportation says The Calgary bylaw attempts to over-rule their provincial operating authority. There are exemptions for vehicles of 15 passengers or greater but a para transit or handibuse seat 4 to 12 people (depending on size).
I do appreciate your effort to get an answer. I got a phone call this afternoon from Calgary transit asking me if I knew anything about this bylaw. (What I told Calgary Transit is not what you have written- it may not be what they told you.)
Here's a different question.
Access Calgary now has a policy that they will not provide service unless the resident's house was within 1km of a transit route.
Groups homes for disabled Calgarians were recently built in the communities of evenston and New Brighton. Unfortunately no-one informed the group home builders (alberta Health services) that transportation would not be available once the residents. Access Calgary directed them to contact the rural handibus provider that previously provided service to the area before annexation (the same provider who would be subject to the livery transport bylaw).
Similarly, other homeowners in the annex areas have also been told that Access Calgary will now longer transport them
Trouble is, during annexation, there was a discussion that there would be no loss of services to the annexed area. With this CT policy change Calgarians in recently annexed area are losing access to transportation ( it was available - although sparce- prior to annexation) despite a promise of "no Loss of services" at the town hall and public meetings with local residents.
Why does the City of Calgary feel it is the responsibility to of a rural group to provide such service to residents in the newly annexed areas? (service that would conflict with previously discussed livery transport bylaw).
1) Can he drive a standard?
2) What animal would he use to murder someone?
3) What really grinds his gears?
4) Is he a scotch drinker?
5) What really makes him happy?
6) Is CP represented by the world?
7) Would EST binders fit this Burton snowboard?
Spoiler!
8) What kind of savings account would you put aside money in that is to be used to pay off debt in a little over a year?
9) What's the best place online to create Photobooks?
10) Is there a place in Honolulu to watch the WJHC?
11) Are all 50 states represented by CP posters?
12) Where can you buy Matcha Green Tea powder?
13) Does he know any good hikes in the Calgary/Banff area that he would recommend?
Thanks!
The Following User Says Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
In the 1960s Calgary implemented a parking policy downtown that restricted the amount of parking that could be built with new commercial development - to limit supply and therefore increase price. The intent was so that they would not have to build massive amounts of road infrastructure in and out of the downtown core to accommodate traffic demand as well as to drive transit ridership on new Blue Arrow bus system they wanted to implement.
Why is the city implementing this same 1960's policy in the suburban outreaches in 2013? Don't you agree that it makes sense to provide an adequate supply of accessible parking in the burbs so that chimps like me only drive 5 minutes and jump on public transit vs. driving closer in or even biting the bullet and parking downtown?
I get that the city wants to squeeze people into taking the feeder buses to the ctrain stations but the reality is that the bulk of the morning commuters will never bother with the buses. It's an extra 15-30 minutes each way, that's 30-60 minutes of family or leisure time lost.
I think most would agree that if you provide adequate parking on the perimeter the rest of the city's infrastructure will benefit. It is myopic to look at each parking lot's operating costs in isolation. The city should be overbuilding suburb parking lot infrastructure to make huge gains in the core and outer core's fluidity. This is an opportunity that is hampered by the 'cars are bad' perception held by so many in planning and policy roles. Cars are actually an excellent compliment to the city's transportation strategy if leveraged properly and used sparingly (2-5 minute commutes to the train hubs).
Is a parking lot really the best thing to build at stations though? Or would high-density, walkable developments be more valuable on that kind of land?
Is a parking lot really the best thing to build at stations though? Or would high-density, walkable developments be more valuable on that kind of land?
Suburbanite mentality.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
Is a parking lot really the best thing to build at stations though? Or would high-density, walkable developments be more valuable on that kind of land?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Put more parking and more high density close to the c-train stations (which they are starting to do). Both are under built.
If you get past the morality of whether people should own cars and drive instead of walk it makes sense to have people commuting 5 minutes through neighbourhoods to the train rather than have them on the major thoroughfares.
The Following User Says Thank You to Clarkey For This Useful Post:
Why did council vote to allow developers to subsidize ASP applications, especially for the SE, and not determine that this is a conflict of interest? Developers paying for the resources to review and approve their plans? Come on.
Also, why does transit infrastructure suck so much for the inner city? I had a Route 17 go out of service at 5:50 on Thursday while still in downtown with no replacement. Transit is such a bloody mess.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Put more parking and more high density close to the c-train stations (which they are starting to do). Both are under built.
I suspect that having parking lots and transited-oriented development occupy the same space violates some kind of law of physics.
Now I say this as a big supporter of a more progressive and urban Calgary and someone who went without a car for 7 years and only bought his first car at 29.
My primary beef with high Calgary parking prices is not necessarily that they are high, it's that there's not much of a realistic alternative to driving in most instances, but you still pay for parking like there is. It's one thing to discourage driving by providing a viable alternative, but it's another when that alternative is not really there yet, and you're still asking citizens to pay a "mega city" price.
In a place like NY, you don't need to drive, because there are plenty of ways to get around. You can take a fantastic subway, a (less fantastic but still common) bus network, ride your bike in numerous bike lanes, chose from a wide array of taxis (as well as community car services were people basically just drive around in their wife's van), or just walk to a lot of places. Driving is often the worst option, both in terms of convenience and time. I can see why prices are high…you have to be a real lazy or privileged ass to drive.
In Calgary on the other hand, unless you're going back and forth from a few select suburbs to downtown, you pretty much drive. Sure, you can wait 30 minutes to take a bus for an hour to get somewhere, but who amongst us goes shopping regularly via bus? Part of the reason of course its Calgary's sprawling footprint, but it's not realistic to expect someone to do that.
Now sure, Calgary is not NY. But we seem to have NY-level parking prices while providing a fraction of their public transportation network. And I know Calgary is slowly and surely working on these alternatives, but can you really justify those rates? Higher than San Francisco? Toronto? Boston? Come on now….
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Agreed... if the city wants to continue suppressing parking supply downtown, it needs to ensure that transit is a viable alternative or it will simply be causing decentralization. That's where the 8th Ave Subway comes in.
I think if inner city or downtown living were more affordable some traffic issues would be resolved. If you want to reduce traffic and parking issues, how about encouraging the building of 3 bedroom condominiums around downtown that are viable options for families to be able to live and work downtown.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Table 5 is right on the money. CT and the parking authority never really try to improve things, they just strive to be the lesser of two evils.
I think one thing that Calgary could do is tax private parking lots more. The restricted supply is what makes them valuable, this supply is effectively limited by our road capacity and policy both things that the cities control. Therefore the city should be making the profit of the parking resource rather than a private company who owns valuable land. So the city should tax parking excessively say 50% of the value of the spot.
Essentially this is a user fee for using roads when they are busiest. This money can then be allocated to other forms of transit which don't intensify road use. Some sort of density based pricing of resources should be applied to subsidize transit.
Now sure, Calgary is not NY. But we seem to have NY-level parking prices while providing a fraction of their public transportation network. And I know Calgary is slowly and surely working on these alternatives, but can you really justify those rates? Higher than San Francisco? Toronto? Boston? Come on now….
Considering that the CTrain is basically a commuter rail system focused on getting people from the suburbs into the core and vice versa, yes the City can justify those prices. Although Calgary does not have an expansive public transport and cycle network as NYC outside of the core, it also does not have a restrictive parking fee schedule in these areas forcing people to take substandard transit to and from these areas.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
Now I say this as a big supporter of a more progressive and urban Calgary and someone who went without a car for 7 years and only bought his first car at 29.
My primary beef with high Calgary parking prices is not necessarily that they are high, it's that there's not much of a realistic alternative to driving in most instances, but you still pay for parking like there is. It's one thing to discourage driving by providing a viable alternative, but it's another when that alternative is not really there yet, and you're still asking citizens to pay a "mega city" price.
In a place like NY, you don't need to drive, because there are plenty of ways to get around. You can take a fantastic subway, a (less fantastic but still common) bus network, ride your bike in numerous bike lanes, chose from a wide array of taxis (as well as community car services were people basically just drive around in their wife's van), or just walk to a lot of places. Driving is often the worst option, both in terms of convenience and time. I can see why prices are high…you have to be a real lazy or privileged ass to drive.
In Calgary on the other hand, unless you're going back and forth from a few select suburbs to downtown, you pretty much drive. Sure, you can wait 30 minutes to take a bus for an hour to get somewhere, but who amongst us goes shopping regularly via bus? Part of the reason of course its Calgary's sprawling footprint, but it's not realistic to expect someone to do that.
Now sure, Calgary is not NY. But we seem to have NY-level parking prices while providing a fraction of their public transportation network. And I know Calgary is slowly and surely working on these alternatives, but can you really justify those rates? Higher than San Francisco? Toronto? Boston? Come on now….
Wait a sec - but where are we talking about? Parking is only expensive in the downtown core - during the day, during the week. Our whole transit system today is based on accessibility to the core. And it is relatively easy to get to the core from most parts of the city by transit. The LRT, all the BRT lines and dozens of bus routes go to downtown. 50% of commuters to downtown find their way to work via transit. 39% by car. Our system serves downtown weekday commuters very well.
The problem we have with transit is that other kinds of trips - non-peak times, points from outside the core to other places outside the core. However, parking in those instances is not expensive.
The RouteAhead plan's primary goal is to expand the primary transit network, including a bevy of new Rapid Transit lines that form a grid throughout the city, rather than just the spoke and wheel of today. The Primary Transit Network will be frequent all day service 10 min or so minimum frequency.
