Cycling versus parking on Dundas West

(Photo: Dundas West BIA)

Dundas West merchants really want their rush-hour parking, even as the new businesses readily admit they don't really need it. Their "NOPE" posters villifying Councillor Giambrone are still hanging in the windows of shops along Dundas West. Their campaign "Our Neighbourhoods are Destinations not Highways!" got a bit of press this last spring, and some renewed interest now. A few weeks ago I wanted to find out why the BIA is fighting to keep rush hour parking despite the needs of cyclists and transit users. What I found was a bunch of self-described progressive merchants, some of them even calling themselves cyclists. They are definitely a bunch of nice people, even if their rhetoric is disproportionate to the issue at hand. Lula Lounge's recent fundraiser, "Save the Dundas 71", is a case in point given that Lula isn't open until long after rush hour.

I bike this stretch all the time. I agree that cars drive fast on Dundas, particularly when there is no parking. That doesn't mean, however, that they're driving fast during rush hour when the traffic is backed up. It also doesn't mean that combining parked cars and cyclists is safer than moving cars and cyclists. In fact, being doored by a driver was the third highest collision type in 2008. Yet, cyclist safety continues to be one of the claims of the Dundas West BIA. One can be forgiven for thinking that cyclist safety is just a buffer in their argument for keeping parking. Given that the safety claim holds little water, let's see if their other claims hold up. They are claiming that Dundas West is being unfairly targeted, and that taking away parking hurts their business.

I sat down at the Brasil Bakery with Sylvia Fernandez, chair of the Dundas West BIA and owner of Progressive Accounting. She brought along a few other Dundas West merchants from Zoot's Cafe, Lula Lounge and West Side Stories. I was overwhelmed by the show for a lowly blogger. They're a surprisingly progressive, well-spoken bunch. The old Portuguese merchants probably wouldn't have made such a strong case to me.

So does the lack of rush hour parking hurt their business? Under 50% of people in the neighbourhood drive to work. In Trinity Spadina only 29% commute by car; while in Davenport (which stretches all the way to St. Clair) has only 47%. The neighbourhood is not all that different from the Annex where a recent study found that only a minority of customers arrived by car. Who should we prioritize? As Marcus Gee points out, this isn't Bellville, this is the big city. A business isn't going to stand or fall based solely on the existence of front door parking.

When confronted with their claim that they had proof that decreased store vacancy in the area was a result of the City's pilot off-side rush hour parking, Fernandez promptly withdrew her claim. No, there's no clear connection between the two: anything could have resulted in better business, including gentrification and even BIA promotion.

Not every business is affected the same way by parking. The irony was that the merchants that Fernandez invited are almost all newer businesses that have moved in as a result of gentrification. The merchants admitted that their own businesses relied little on car parking, let alone rush hour parking. Zoot's Cafe or West Side Stories Video have few customers who arrive by car. And Lula Lounge, whose owner, Jose Ortega designed the infamous poster spoofing the Obama posters but with Giambrone's with "NOPE" written below, doesn't even open until 7pm, long after rush hour. Jose told me that the lack of rush hour parking won't affect his business (yet they still make the claim to G&M that it could bankrupt their business).

So who needs the parking? The BIA claims that the traditional Portuguese merchants have many customers who travel great distances by car for their baked goods, morning coffee, or hardware. So long as there are cars there'll be a need for businesses to have some amount of parking. But just how much? And does this parking need to be directly in front of the store? The BIA didn't have a clear idea, but given that less than 50% of locals drive to work, it's probably less than they're willing to admit.

The BIA seemed open to doing the customer research when I asked, but need funds from the city to do that work. I can only agree that the City hasn't done it's job of showing the facts to merchants and making the case for making the street accessible and safer for all road users. They were quite insistent that they didn't have near enough bike parking. They also said they would be happy to get infrastructure similar to that planned for Roncesvalles, with their "bump outs" slowing down car traffic, making it safer for pedestrians to cross and still allowing for car parking and enough room for cyclists. But if it meant taking out parking for bike lanes they were much less keen.

Their claim that they're being unfairly targeted doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Giambrone is trying to take out rush hour city-wide (or so they claim). So, how is Dundas West unfairly targeted? Everyone is getting the same deal. Perhaps they should admit they've got an automobile bias.

If safety was indeed their first concern I'd expect a more positive response to bike lanes, that they'd be willing to sacrifice some parking to improve cyclist safety. Instead it seems that they're using cyclist safety as a ruse to keep all their parking.

You can't have it both ways. Which of your customers are you going to piss off?