If Vancouver cabs were sitting idle on Friday and Saturday nights for this, I could understand. But this isn't the reason for them being off the road.

This morning, representatives from all four Vancouver taxi companies are speaking to a motion forwarded by lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton for new taxi licenses.

These licenses would be specifically targeted to the peak periods of 3-5 in the morning on Saturday and Sunday mornings when hundreds of partyers exit the bars intent on getting home.

Now as I wrote last week, at the moment, City Council doesn’t seem to be inclined towards the option of adding new temporary licenses.

But CivicScene has just found out another reason why temporary licenses are completely unnecessary in spite of the rationale listed in Anton’s motion text.

This morning I was sent the text that Gurpal Nagra from MacLure’s Cabs and the Association of Pacific Taxi Owners is going to be reading in Council chambers.

Of particular interest are the following few lines:

• I want to let you know that every Friday and Saturday night, there are between 60-70 cabs that are sitting idle in all of our lots during these early morning rushes when people leave the bars and clubs

• You may ask how that can be permitted by our companies when the city is struggling through these peak periods

• Well, the answer is that drivers are independent, and our Boards of Directors have very little that we can do if someone is determined to sit during these hours

• The reasons that drivers sit idle at these times is primarily due to the fact that the shift changeover

• Drivers change shifts between 3-4 am, and some drivers towards the end of their shift like to wait for the next driver and head home instead of continuing to pick up fares

• There is also the need to fill up the tank and clean out the car before handing it over to the next shift, making that final hour between 3-4 am like dead time

Nagra goes on to say that in spite of the fact that these cabs are sitting there amidst huge need for them to be on the road, his company’s executive as well as other have very little power to propel these drivers – who operate as independent operators – to drive at specific times.

Thus, the Association of Pacific Taxi Owners, representing 3 of the 4 Vancouver companies, is asking for the following:

“…that the city puts in a new regulation that will force all of the companies to have every car in their fleets on the road between 5pm and 5am, Friday and Saturday evenings.”

Nagra states in his statement that if this requirement was put into effect, the bottleneck that occurs on Friday and Saturday nights would cease to exist.

As per usual, Yellow Cab is going completely against the will of all the other companies and pushing for new temporary licenses that operate on every weekend throughout the year and throughout the month of December.

The insurance and other costs for such an endeavour make no sense, and the weekends outside of those peak hours are normal days that do not provide significant waits for passengers.  Furthermore, after the first two weeks of December, the latter half of the month is a dead zone for the taxi industry.

But, Yellow Cab has executive elections coming up in March, and the current slate is desperate to get something productive under their belt to launch their bid for re-election.

The funny thing is, the majority of the fleet are not aware of this push for new licenses, nor are they supportive due to the state of business, which is extremely slow at the moment.

More details on these developments will be posted after the Council meeting.

This is the way the NPA's membership is being treated by the party with regards to choosing candidates.

For many months, November 20th was heralded as a rebirth for the NPA – the day that the party would collectively choose candidates for the next election.

But due to a lack of interest, the nomination day was only promoted as the first round of the process, with “a second set of nominations to be held in the spring of 2011.”

Eventually, what was supposed to be a day for hope turned into a very limited screening of what the party was about to offer to the public – two candidates for City Council, one candidate for Park Board, and one candidate for School Board.

And now we know that the NPA board has decided that appointments/acclamations, rather than democratic elections via the will of the membership, is the way to go.

The NPA board has received interest for five candidates for the four spots that are available at this time.  The only race that will be decided upon by the NPA’s members will be Casey Crawford vs. Melissa De Genova.

Jesse Johl, who is a personal friend, as well as Bill McCreery, who is a former TEAM Park Board commissioner, will be officially acclaimed as City Council candidates, while Sophia Woo will be anointed a candidate for the Park Board.

Already I have heard people who are NPA supporters saying that this wasn’t the board pulling interference, but rather just the circumstances that they are having to deal with based on those who put their names forward.

On both fronts, the NPA needs to consider the dire signals that are coming their way.

First, the fact that only five candidates put their names forward is very telling of the lack of interest in being a nominated candidate for the moribund organization.  There is no money in the coffers, no Mayoral candidate to base one’s hopes on, and absolutely no interest from the general public in the NPA.

McCreery is just itching to get back into the spotlight, apparently using his superstar blogging commenter status to “propel” him back into the spotlight.  His name being put forward is really not a surprise, and if recycling someone who was elected over 30 years ago is representative of the NPA’s next generation, then the party’s look to the future is confusing to say the least.

Now as someone who knows Jesse, I am not sure why he is doing this.  He is young, articulate, politically aware, and knowledgeable about public policy, so why he has attached himself to such a Titanic of a political entity is beyond me.  Furthermore, as someone who has run the campaigns of Park Board Commissioner Raj Hundal and City Council candidate Kashmir Dhaliwal in the last election, I am still of the opinion that municipal politics in this city continues not to be kind nor fair to South Asian candidates relative to others.  I think that momentum is a huge factor in any chance at victory, and the NPA presents none to speak of such that Johl could reasonably justify his decision.

Secondly, if this was the hand that the NPA board was dealt, why wouldn’t they delay until there was more interest and more competition in which to engage their membership?  Right now, they have boxed themselves into a scenario where they are in essence appointing candidates, not for their appeal or star power, but rather because there are no other options in which to fill the vacant spots.

So, in this situation, why not just wait?  Why not garner a little more interest by getting a viable Mayoral candidate, or going out and doing a better job of recruiting?  As someone who went through a few civic nomination battles, I can confidently say that races are what ensures that the very best representatives become the party’s flag bearers.

If I was an NPA member this morning, I’d be pretty pissed off and asking the following questions of my board:

1. Why are these the only people who are showing interest in running?  Have you not gone out and aggressively recruited?
2. Why can’t we have the opportunity to vote at a later time when ALL of the candidates that are interested in ALL of the slots that need to filled come forward?
3. What are you going to do so that our spring nominations don’t turn into a joke like the November 20th meeting has become?

Suffice to say, Vision Vancouver and their supporters are beaming today after this weekend’s news.

To the newly appointed/acclaimed candidates, good luck and Godspeed…you are going to need it in the year ahead.

• I obviously ruffled one former mayoral Cheif of Staff’s feathers with Friday’s post, inspiring this lacklustre rebuttal.  Notice how Daniel conveniently ignores my points about EcoDensity being prepared for IN ADVANCE of a Council vote in much the same way as the Hornby bike lane was, and provides no explanation except for this:  “He even goes back in time and tries to redesign history by incorrectly alleging that EcoDensity was handled by staff in the same manner as the separated bike lanes.”  I anxiously await the promised future post on the subject for Fontaine to feverishly spin the virtues his former boss’ baby.  Oh yeah, and one more thing, Daniel: your allusions to future revelations are always humourous…so let’s clear something up about your constant accusations about my relationship to the Mayor’s office.  I do indeed talk to people in the Mayor’s office, Vision Vancouver offices, and electeds on the Park Board and City Council…this is something I have never tried to hide.  Why?  Well, because a) this is a political blog where my political loyalties are very obvious and b) they are in the thick of things and I like to try to pry information out of them.  On that front I am not always successful, but for the sake of this website, from time to time I have inquiries.

• I have definitely graduated from my former fandom of professional wrestling to MMA.  Nonetheless, the WWE didn’t just pull out of a scheduled event in Vancouver for nothing.  The City of Vancouver says it is not anti-combat sports, but it is putting up barriers that make it a) a bureaucratic nightmare b) a costly affair for any promoter and c) a process that directs organizations like the UFC and WWE to look at other options (in the case of WWE, they headed to Washington, where UFC is not adverse to moving into a city like Edmonton or Calgary for a third annual PPV Canadian event, according to my conversations with UFC Director of Operations Tom Wright).  I understand there is a liability issue that the City needs to insulate itself from when it comes to protecting taxpayers.  But after a successful UFC 115, you’d think they’d be willing to negotiate with a little more flexibility.  Based on recent meetings that happened with UFC officials over the past few weeks, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

• Seriously, with the way that Minister Rich Coleman has played games with the City of Vancouver in recent months on the social housing component of the Millennium Water development, I can’t see why the City wouldn’t use the time frame of the casino being built as a bigger bargaining chip.  If non-profit groups can benefit, or at the very least if the City can get some better cooperation on a range of issues with the Province, then it might very well be worth it, particularly with the state of the government these days.

• Once again, I think that the NDP caucus Carole James detractors are utter idiots, and handing the BC Liberals a free pass to get back into the game.  This article seems to suggest that Gordon Campbell might be invigourated to stay to fight a fourth mandate as a result of the NDP’s ever-emerging implosion.  But if I am one of the people that actually has a measure of influence with Campbell and who is still interested in the fate of the entire party (and I know of at least a few of those types who stop in to read this site), I would be saying “Look, they are giving us an opportunity to change everything.  So let’s allow a few more disgruntled NDP MLAs to publicly resign, go through these recall campaigns, and then let a new leader emerge as a person of the people by initiating an immediate referendum on the HST.”  Gordon’s ego is unlikely to allow him to arrive at the same conclusion without a little (or a lot of) cajoling.  But I do think it will happen nonetheless.

• I have a feeling that this public consultation process over the budget, which is currently forecast to have a deficit of $20.6 million, is going to be very political.  The City would be well advised to look at their Metro Vancouver partners and find out what kind of deficits they are encountering, because rest assured, most municipalities are in this financial position.  I am interested to see if the NPA can attract more than 200 people to their fundraising dinner on Wednesday (an event, by the way, that no one should be fooled about when it comes to that $185 ticket price – because they are just giving away tons of free tickets for, including many politically active youth), which will indicate to what extent they can organize.  Then again, with the way their candidate selection meeting is shaping up, maybe the crowds that are attracted to come out really will be concerned public members instead of…naw, I won’t go down that road again.

• The kind of political gridlock the Mayor of Toronto will encounter after winning is why I prefer the party systems that are in place in Vancouver and Montreal.  Locally, Gregor Robertson et al. were elected on a platform, and now they are implementing that platform that garnered them a mandate.  That is the way it should be…and the reason why I absolutely abhor minority governments.

• Speaking of the Toronto Mayoral race, it looks like a dead heat.  Unlike what people like my friend Warren Kinsella was saying, I think that Rocco Rossi’s exit from the race really gave George Smitherman the lift that he needed to pull even with Rob Ford.  Joe Pantalone currently looks like Toronto’s version of Ralph Nader, however, which should be very concerning in the Smitherman camp.  The bright side of the eqaution is that less than half of Pantalone’s backers (47.5%) declare their support as firm, which means that Smitherman will benefit from those scared enough of Ford’s potential victory to change their vote.  The next week is going to be very interesting.

OK, off to meetings folks.  Have a great day.

The proposed Hornby Bike Lane route has produced some surprising and thought provoking responses from local businesses when contrasted to a similar exercise within the Bloor West Village and its proposed bike lane in Toronto.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is set to speak to City Council this morning armed with their just released survey results comprised of responses from 73 Hornby business owners regarding the impact of the proposed Hornby bike lane trial.

According to the CFIB data, “92 per cent of business owners fear a negative impact on their business, and of those providing a projection, the sales loss averages 23 per cent if the proposed bike lane project goes forward” (as you can see, how many of those 73 business owners actually offered a guess as to what their potential losses could be is ambiguous, making this figure hard to pin down in terms of accuracy or consensus).

Regardless, a recent report about the impact of a proposed bike lane that would eliminate 50 per cent of parking in the Bloor West Village in Toronto shows results that are very different than those offered by the CFIB.

For those that are not familliar with Toronto, Bloor West Village is a shopping district in located along Bloor Street, encompassing all businesses between Jane Street and Ellis Park Road.  This contingent consists of more than 400 shops, restaurants and services including specialty clothing stores, book stores, restaurants and cafes.  In fact, so organized is this group of businesses that in 1970, they organized into Toront’s first ’business improvement association’, an idea that served as a catalyst for other commercial streets in Toronto.

For the record, the proposed bike lane for Bloor Street West is to be between “Resurrection Road (west of Islinton Avenue) t0 Kingston Road” – approximately 6 kilometres in length.

Contrast this with the Hornby bike lane, which will cover about 2 kilometres, and will follow a street that isn’t exactly known for its shopping in terms of being a destination for consumers.

So, noting those differences, here are the results from the Toronto survey of Bloor Street West, which spoke to 96 merchants and 510 visitors to the area.  

Among the findings:

1. 4 out of 5 people surveyed do not usually drive to the area
2. Merchants overestimated the percentage of people who drive to Bloor West Village and yet more than half of merchants surveyed believed that reducing on-street parking by 50% and adding a bike lane or widening sidewalks would either increase or have no impact on their daily number of customers
3. People who arrive by transit, foot, and bicycle visit more often and report spending more money than those who drive
4. People who preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane were significantly more likely to spend more than $100 per month than those who preferred no change.
5. The majority of people surveyed (58%) preferred to see street use reallocated for widened sidewalks or a bike lane, even if on-street parking were reduced by 50%

In this neighbourhood, the majority of merchants predicted that reducing on street parking in favour of widened sidewalks or a bike lane would either not impact or increase their daily customer numbers, and therefore do not believe it will negatively affect commercial activity. The large percentage of visitors arriving by transit, bicycle or foot, combined with their spending habits and preference for widened sidewalks or a bike lane, suggests that changes in the use of street space may not necessarily have a negative impact on commercial activity. Both results contrast the common perception that removing on-street parking is “bad for business”.

Now, in consideration of Hornby’s character and location (the court house, many office towers, etc.), it is hard to put the retail aspect of the street in the same category of a designated shopping area like Bloor West Village.  Were people ever parking on Hornby simply to shop along the corridor?  Highly, highly doubtful.

So, how can the CFIB results and the Bloor West Village results have such a different result when it comes to the answers given by business owners impacted by a bike lane?

Simply put, it is due to those that are collecting the data.  The CFIB in Vancouver conducting the survey is vehemently against the idea, while the Clean Air Partnership in Toronto is clearly in favour of the idea.

In both cases, the intent, mission, purpose, motivations and approach of each group have a huge impact on the kinds of answers given to each survey taker.

Finally, I want to take issue with the CFIB finding that 86 per cent of respondents feel that they weren’t consulted on this issue.

Having read over the staff administrative report that is being forwarded to Council this morning, I note that this statistic is placed in serious question by the following facts:

1. A mail-out survey was delivered to approximately 4000 businesses and residents along and near Hornby Street
2. Over 2300 responses were received as part of this consultation initiative
3. The online discussion forum had approximately 200 comments as of September 27, 2010
4. Over 1700 responses were received through the online survey
5. Staff also held individual stakeholder meetings between July and September 2010, with the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA), the Board of Trade, the Downtown Vancouver Association (DVA), the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), and properties that may have affected loading or passenger zones along Hornby Street

So what does this all add up to?  It gives me a lot of suspicion about the results of the CFIB survey, and the spin of commentators and opponents who falsely claim that there was absolutely no consultation performed with businesses along Hornby.

I wish this was a more honest debate when it comes to the findings from the City when compared to data collected by the CFIB, and also in terms of what the City has or hasn’t done before arriving at today when a decision will be finalized.

But in the climate that we currently sit in, the notion of “honest debate” seems like a oxymoron, particularly when it comes to Vancouver City Hall.