Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice
You can actually go read the Technical Report yourself to answer these questions. Most of your questions are incredibly leading, and most of your statements are wrong.
Like this part:
There were 1567 completed household survey results from around Metro Vancouver, of which only 368 were in Vancouver (Coquitlam, having about 20% of the population of Vancouver, had 147 responses, so you could argue it was overrepresented, for example). The report gives a good breakdown of vehicles per household; for example, in 1 person households there was an average of 0.88 vehicles per household, 2 persons was 1.36, 3 persons was 1.49, and 4+ persons was also 1.49.
The households to which the surveys were sent were the same ones that were in the buildings being studied, which were selected based on several criteria: representation from across the region, building age, building tenure (rental vs owner), and proximity to the FTN.
If you want to go to the report and come back with some better criticisms, feel free, but as it is your objections look like they're based on some extremely cursory summary presented in a news story instead of being based on the actual report and study methodologies. |
Thanks for including the report. Was definitely better than just grabbing tidbits from news reports (which you are correct, is exactly what I did).
Don't really see how my questions are "leading". They are just questions that should be addressed if you want what you are claiming to be taken at face value. And what statements are wrong? Please clarify and avoid blanket, vague statements.
Concerns right off the bat is the study is being conducted (at least in part) by a group that has a rooting interest in its findings. That's a concern right off the hop. The "partner" in this initiative is is also troubling. Their is no reason why you couldn't use a more non-partisan survey partner, not one who has a potential financial stake in its this sector.
Big no-no.
Secondly, as pointed out previously, the respondents of these types of surveys usually skew in one direction. Just like some of the city surveys regarding development applications, the vast majority that actually take the time to participate, have a negative view of the proposal. This situation only begins to straighten out when you knock on each persons door individually. That way a person almost has to go out of their way
not to participate, and the feedback is usually quite different than what you would find in an opt-in format.
For the question "where do your visitors park," the sub points are silly. Do they park close to the building in a paid spot or not? Seriously? Who keeps accurate parking logs for each person who visits their condo. What do you do when you have a party? Have a sign in sheet where everyone can provide details on where they parked? Secondly, there is no option for "I don't know where my visitors park"
The parking survey also has issues as there is no way to
accurately measure occupancy. Something as simple as working the afternoon shift at a job could potentially trigger an "unoccupied" designation. Conversely, a resident who knows a stall next to them is unoccupied for a long time can use it for visitor parking and it would appear the stall is being used even if it really isn't.
Anyone who has lived in an apartment building will know that stall use can fluctuate wildly from week to week and even day to day.
On the bright side, I do see they accounted for empty suites using sound parameters to identify them, so the criticism of them not accounting for those is unfounded.
Finally, they use one solitary guy from UCLA who wrote a book once saying that street parking utilization was considered ‘high’ when utilization is at least 85 percent.
So less than 85% of usage is considered, "low?" So if 8 out of 10 parking spots are occupied, that is considered underused? Wow. So in other words, unless the area has Manhattanesque street parking occupancy, its low.
Prev
(but then sadly, no place left to park your truck)
Linear Mode
