What if the requirement for parking were tied to the vehicle, rather than the driver’s residence? Seriously, doesn’t that make sense? Parking should be attached to the car, not the house. No vehicle? No parking needed.
A Sept. 7 story in the Bloomberg Newsletter called “How Japan won its ‘Traffic War’” describes changes made in Japan that have helped lower road fatalities. I sat up tall at my computer when I read that Japanese drivers must show they have a place to park their vehicle overnight. The effects of this range from encouraging train travel to making streets safer for all pedestrians, but to me it stood out because it means the requirement for parking is attached to the car, not to the house.
Doesn’t that make sense? No car, no parking requirement. We can no longer design our communities around cars, and a change in perspective might help. I wonder what the effects would be if Oak Bay, instead of requiring off-street parking, were to require a parking permit be displayed by vehicles parked on-street? It would encourage off-street parking and/or having no car at all, which is a workable alternative for many people.
Ann Tiplady
Oak Bay
