River Access Parking System and Mitigation Plan 2021

I feel many people are going to miss out on their parking permits due to the deadline and the nature of the information required to fill out the forms. The need to have all your vehicles registered to the one pass also seems an unnecessary step. There are comments addressing how "COVID" affects the
number of guests we can have and that we will hear how this changes things regarding our parking situations, and that will be looked at again as things change. Will we get a new notice? Will we have to reapply? Would it not stand to reason the way to simplify the process would be just to give each household involved one pass, good for any vehicle? This way our bylaw officer isnt required to cross reference a database. We wouldnt have to shuffle our cars to the street for our guests. If we get new vehicles or plates we dont have to reapply or risk getting a fine well have to fight. People who have just moved to the area may not have all their documentation changed in time for the deadline. Some older people may have difficulty filling the form online. Some people have personal vehicles registered commercially for insurance reasons if it is a dual purpose vehicle. This system creates many hurdles for resident to address just for parking where they always have. These are just the few I can think of off the top of my head. Could we please simplify this process for residents, if not now, then in the future, as we know this is an inevitable process that will not go away. Please.

Eva, Jane, Chris- great comments and ideas. The GRCA and the outfitter companies should absolutely be part of this discussion and the amount of people they send out NEEDS to be regulated somehow. Perhaps a booking system for the weekend that limits the amount of people allowed on the river by private companies. There definitely needs to be greater oversight regarding how these companies are operating.

One possible way to start to curb the crowds and the type of tourism we do not want here, is to have a concerted concentrated effort of presence and enforcement.
Combine a group of GRCA conservation authority, OPP and Bylaw enforcement to have a constant and continual presence for education and some enforcement at the launch points. Every weekend throughout the summer. This will drive the message home to out of towners that this County cares about its residents and the environment. And, that the County does not tolerate hooligans' and abusers of the river and trails and parking areas. The message will get out to masses. This was done at some abandoned quarry areas in Hamilton and Halton and was successful in lowering the amount of crowds and partiers attending the area.

It is so easy now for people to purchase an inflatable dingy or paddle board or kayak from several big box stores. It needs to be addressed that many more people and families are going to want to be 'on the river' . As much as I dont want to be told when I can and cant be on the river, I do believe in the best interests of the river and the environment and the residents that access needs to be controlled and managed.
Could the County not apply to the province for a grant as many are, for updating outdoor rec spaces? Would not helping make the areas manageable and serviced and monitored not qualify for some federal or provincial grants?
How about student work program grants? Could we not along with GRCA or bylaw have some students there and present to help educate and manage the parks and access points?

Thank you.

Jane and others below, very well said and thank you. I truly hope these elected local council members read your comments and take them to heart and take them seriously.
I am thankful that the county has actually 'engaged' the community and asked for our input, I just hope they really read and study the comments.
I live in the county but do not live near the trails or these launch and exit river points. however, I do use them, I bought a house and set up my life in this county just prior to the crazy explosion, partly because I wished to be close to the trails and the river. I have learned to paddle while here, and am thankful that an outfitter had taken the time to teach me. many outfitters are pumping the tourists in dingy's down the river like an amusement ride, but some are respectful of the river and the ecology.
I learned about sara's island, about the indigenous people of the area, about the eagle's nests, and even the cormorant birds.

Is anyone aware that it appears that the County, GRCA and the Brant Conservation park condones the outfitter who carelessly uses and abuses the river like an amusement ride? Why does Grand River Rafting have a very large, prominent and fully serviced Exit point within Brant conservation Park? why is that company being allowed to abuse the river and destroy habitat?

The County and Tourism dept, and especially the Council need to say 'WE ARE SORRY" to the local residents for letting this problem go on and on unchecked for years. and then say THANK YOU for your patience, we want to speak to you and see what WE Together can come up as a solution. I truly feel sorry for the locals who live near these points.

Whoever in the county staff came up with the absurd idea about charging a parking fee for residents who live near the launch points and have had to Put UP with all the crowds, noise, garbage, drinking and smoking should be Fired! or at the very least, docked 2 weeks of pay for the wasted tax money in time spent devising such an absurd idea.
Tell us please, why are you punishing the residents who live there??
Has the OPP or By-law ever reported or given any statistics about complaints of residents using the parking lot spots or causing any disturbance? Not that I heard from the meeting. No one has made such a report. The residents are Not the problem. Mass Market tourism is.
And its not a problem peculiar to Brant County - its worldwide. Unfortunately local and provincial governments just keep making the same mistakes.
Look at Venice. they are going to count to a certain point and then stop letting tourists in daily. Try to go to San Marco piazza or the Rialto market. Impossible unless its 5am. and they are having the same problem as we are. This mass market tourism who come off a cruise ship, given an bag lunch and bottled water DO NOTHING for the beautiful ancient city but cause crowding and problems for the residents.
Same here - mass tourism does nothing for our beautiful county, except cause traffic and problems and noise and environmental destruction. Irreversible damage.

I moved here to enjoy and appreciate the nature and the river around us. I do not mind having to pay for a shuttle or in some way park away and use an electric shuttle or bus system to get to the launch points if it would help the community,
But Please, Mr Mayor and the Council, be respectful of the comments of the residents below and lets get this solved in a Grand and environmentally conscious and sustainable way.

"Keep the river Grand" This is a sentiment publically posted at the dam almost 40 years ago. Anyone who really knows and treasures our part of the Grand will recognize it. The 'artist' , a life long resident, worked with a pal to leave that message. The motivation was to express respect and appreciation for the privilege of growing up on and around the Grand River. As I think of it now, perhaps it was extraordinary insight that prompted his gesture. More than 80 years ago, his grandparents settled in Paris, built their own modest home, and raised a family that resulted in 5 generations of Paris dwellers. This is the story of many other middle aged.....middle income residents here. The story's not new, but it's important. Longevity counts. We are generations who have participated in, and supported gradual growth. It was natural, reasonable and manageable. Change is expected and required for survival. Conversely, in the relatively recent past, we have been sold out by our local and provincial governments. By their hypocracy, greed and ignorance. Existing generations watch as our town implodes. We are disappointed and frustrated by the apparent lack of respect for its history, preservation of its precious landmarks and natural resources, as well as the legacy...(that being moderate, healthy community living) of its early founders. Our hope of continuing that legacy with our children and grandchildren fades, as we watch similarly inclined families flee. They are leaving beacause of the disproportionate and devastating population explosion in Paris. Electing to stay, we endeavor to live, safely and quietly on our little piece of paradise, on Walnut St. by the dam. Paradise has become noisy, dirty and dangerous. We find ourselves building privacy baracades and noise barriers, often at significant expense. We anxiously restrict the freedom and movement of our children due to wreckless and unmonitored dangerous drivers. We are on the verge of hiding....and not just because of the Virus. Our family works hard to support our local economy ...Toughs, The Green Heron, Halls, The Home Building Centre and occasionally a resteraunt. It is not easy. It has become less stressful and safer, to head out Green Lane and into Brantford, rather than attempting to navigate the traffic and tourists. We managed one sacred trip down the river from The Glen last summer. We planned to do so during the week in order to avoid crowds, both for serenity's sake and safety from expisure to Covid. The mess (garbage ) we saw along the way was unprecidented in our experience over the years! It was an embarrassing disgrace. The disregard, the imposition , and the physical assault on our town's infastructure and resources has found its way to the river AND its access points. Worse, if that is possible, is my next point and question. Why are we even having these persistent negative experiences and this discussion in the time of Covid 19?! Shouldn't we be ashamed rather than proud of the great expansion of tourism (mostly from Ontario's hotspots in and around Toronto) at this point in the pandemic? Ask yourself....please....why it persists unchecked. Greed and hypocracy? Schools, playgrounds and parks, soccer fields, ball diamonds, basketball courts and skate parks are all closed and off limits to our kids. How do we justify to our children and teens that..no you are not allowed to play in your community...but yes, adult tourists are?! I cannot stress strongly enough, as a teacher, mother and grandmother, that our little ones and our youth have sacrificed the most. They will have the most important and difficult recovery to make as they attempt to relearn social skills , catch up on developemental stages missed, and to once again feel joy, wonder and curiousity in the world outside their homes. Their parents struggle to maintain jobs, mental and physical health, while attempting to keep their families safe from the virus. They are following the guidlines given in order to begin the recovery period we are all so desperate for, as quickly as possible. Shouldn't that be the goal for everyone? To conclude, the 3rd, 4th and 5th generations are now locked in and pushed out....at the same time. It is wrong. So NO...we wont be paying for parking at home. That would only accommodate and perpetuate the problems sited. Redeem yourselves and find another solution. And thanks in advance, from our family, who's current Tax payments help to make your job possible. "KEEP THE RIVER GRAND"
Jane Tooke

The parking problem at the boat launch sites in Paris and Glen Morris is a symptom of a much larger problem and that is: there are too many people on the river. The river has become an out of control free for all, and for some, like a ride in an amusement park with no regard for the natural environment, the species living in the Grand River Valley, or the Paris and Glen Morris residents.

Why should residents who live near the boat launches be penalized, and be expected to pay for parking or have limited parking in front of their own homes because the river has been over promoted by the County of Brant tourism, commercial outfitters and out of town developers selling their new houses? Should the residents living near restricted parking areas be expected hold off having parties or guests to their homes during the river boating season due to parking restrictions in their areas?

Bean Park was donated by a local family as a neighbourhood park, so why is this small green space, in a residential area being promoted as a boat launch site and picnic area? Last summer there were so many visitors in the park that the neighbours could'nt enjoy it. A group of approximately 15 people from the GTA area were in the park all day and into the night playing loud music. The OPP showed up and after the OPP left, the group set fire to their garbage, and left the area littered with cigarette butts.

Some suggestions:

-A limited number of parking permits to be purchased by tourists and commercial outfitters.

-Once the parking lots are full, they’re full. First come first serve. And we don’t need to shrink green spaces by enlarging parking lots.

-Hold commercial outfitters responsible for the behaviour of their customers.

-Police or by-law to be present at boat launch sites.

Thank you,
C. Kernaghan

If I did not live in the county this whole mess might be comical. The current problems are authored by the very same people tasked with trying to solve them. County tourism has promoted the river as if it were theirs to do with whatever they please and now sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about. I imagine they feel that judging by the numbers of users they have done a magnificent job. It reminds me of the poor soul standing in the rain and complaining that they are getting wet.
I live in front of Bean park and a few years ago we 'chased' the commercial outfitters out of our little neighborhood park. It took more than a year or two to do so but we finally did. One of the most frustrating parts of that process was how difficult it was trying to get the county to realize that the commercial outfitters had no business being there in the first place. When I first moved here, there was barely a path to the rivers edge. The only people who used it or even knew it was there were locals. And the neighborhood looked after it. As Paris grew the path became became a gravel lane and the county stared to call the site a 'boat launch'. Then came the commercial outfitters and the buses. The fly fishermen who came to practice were among the first to leave and I can only imagine what else has left that would have called the rivers water and bed their home. It truly is a sad story.
In conclusion I would like to point out that sometimes a green space has its own purpose in and of itself. It does not need to be added to. Leave it alone.
In my humble opinion I believe the county has no business promoting any of these sites as tourist destinations or boat launches for that matter.
C Wiley

As the mayor had said " how disturbing" how the problems have grown around the parking and use of the rivers and launch sites. I say How Disturbing that it appears it is New News to the Council. Maybe you should go down the river in a kayak or a canoe and see what the residents are dealing with. Try to park there, drop off your equipment, try to get your kayak up the 35 stairs at Penmans dam and try to find a place to lock your items while you try to hail a taxi back up to Glen Morris.
It is very sad that it is much easier for a tourist from Toronto or Peel to book an outfitter and get a shuttle and equipment to go down the river, that it is for a local resident to park and and go for a walk or launch their canoe for a enjoyable and peaceful paddle down the river.
THe river is being exploited by uncaring tourists. the type that just use the area to play, float down on a dingy, play loud music, drink and smoke. and Unfortunately, it appears that the County Council and the Tourism board is allowing this to happen.
The river and the delicate eco system is being exploited and ruined by outfitters that want to pump out as many yahoos down the river in a dingy raft.
These types of Tourists do Nothing for the benefit of the County and residents. They want an hour long Amusement RIde.
Ive had to save several of them because they have no idea of where they are on the river, they have no idea of which areas to stay away from, what side of the islands to safely paddle down. how far off the exit point is. Most of them are NOT Paddlers.
People who come to paddle and are experienced are very respectful of the parking and the environment they are wishing to enjoy.

I believe that residents would pay a small fee to have access to a shuttle service or the Brant transportation service where they could get picked up with their kayak or canoe and be dropped off at any one of the access points.
But for residents, this is one of the hardest things to do because of the large outfitters and large crowds that they bring at one time.
Hire students and more GRCA staff to help and monitor the area, direct people. Educate people on the sensitive flora and animals who also use the river and forest areas as their homes.
Have REAL PERMANENT washrooms for us who enjoy the trails and the river year round.
Please keep companies like Bingemans and Grand River Rafting from destroying the area. Paris has already become a circus with the large development.
the river is not an Amusement Ride.
I would take any of the council down river to help provide a view of the situation from the rivers edge.
Please remember, its the residents, not the tourists, who vote you in .... or out. Thank you.

Thank you for having the virtual meeting last night.
I would like to however comment on the process of creating the River Access Proposal. At Councils April meeting this proposal was voted on and turned down to get "further local resident feedback". If the virtual meeting, survey etc had been done BEFORE the proposal was created a lot of time would have been saved. You would have known that the charging of a fee for parking permits would go over like a lead balloon. I don't recall our local Councillor ever attempting to reach out to us for our thoughts on the problems and potential solutions. Of course with Covid this would be harder but a simple questionnaire in our mailbox BEFORE the proposal was created would certainly have helped residents concerns be addressed more appropriately. I know the Access proposal was begun because of justified residents complaints, but the participation of affected residents would certainly have helped create a better proposal and would have gained better community support.
I hope in future there is more transparency and community outreach by those Council employees trying to solve problems and by our Councillors who were elected to represent our views.
Thank you.

will there be a recap of this zoom meeting? Unfortunately my poor rural internet bumped me out...

I live just outside of Glen Morris. My family utilizes the Eric Thomlinson river access point frequently throughout the spring-fall months. I feel for the residents/my friends close to this area - last year showed a ridiculous amount of traffic on their quiet dead end street. I have concerns with what is being proposed for the Glen Morris area. We do not live in the parking area so would not be able to obtain a permit from what I understand. Most times we try to drop off instead of park, but sometimes we need to park. We also park at the library and the church which currently will be posted as no parking/stopping. We need to have the availability to park as well. The lack of parking by the school is also an issue as most students are bussed to this school, therefor any event held at the school entails parents driving to and parking at the school. There must be parking available to host the population of the school.


Can Brant county staff come up with an alternate access to the river, not within the residential area? I feel this would be a better option. What about the extension of Scenic Drive? Does Brant County not own the property extending down towards the river? I feel the current proposal will be a nightmare for all coming from out of the resident parking area.
I do agree with waiving any fee proposed for the resident parking permit.
We need more access options proposed please.
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to help to alleviate the stress on our little community.

I urge the county to consider ways to help mitigate the garbage and litter that is being produced by the increased volume of river users. There are endangered and threatened species that live in this stretch of the river, and if we are not going to consider limiting the flow of traffic along the river, then we must reinforce the message that throwing trash into the river and leaving it dumped at the river access points is unacceptable.

I suggest installing more garbage and recycling facilities closer to the access points along the river, specifically at the Bean Park access. While unsightly, they would at least help stem the flow of inflatable tube boxes, dirty diapers, food containers and beer cans that myself and many local residents picked up weekly last summer.

Where is the zoom link?

Putting a financial burden on tax payers that live in these areas seems very unfair. They have to put up with all the craziness that happens at these launches and now you want them to pay for parking permits? This is a ridiculous solution. Issue with tax bills stickers to put on resident's car so they are able to park as usual and second one so if residences travel to one of these to visit they can put it in their windshield. Most people have two cars.
The County can then put in pay parking for visitors using the Grand River for free. Money to cover the cost of this can be paid from monies collected by users and anything above that should go to GRC. That look after the waterways and walking trails in these areas. User pay is a far better solution.
This would solve a lot of problems and not create issues with residences.
PLEASE CONSIDER TO BE FAIR TO ALL RESIDENTS.
Another thought is to expand parking in areas where possible. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM ALL OVER PARIS THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATLY, It is only going to get worse if this is not addressed this year.

https://engagebrant.ca/riveraccess/widgets/89946/key_dates#29030

This should be meeting link.

Removed by moderator.

I'm one of the neighbours whose property directly abuts Bean Park. I have lived here all my life - even before the Bean family donated the land to be used as a park. The past couple of years, we've had considerable challenges with the use of the park, specifically, the outfitters using the space as a launch for canoes, kayaks, rafts, etc. (even after we neighbours banded together to ban them from doing so), Town staff and councilors attempting to turn the green space into a playground, trying to expand the parking lot and add washroom facilities and take up more of the green space, and now, an overwhelming influx of residents and tourists using the park and river access without any regard for the people who call this space home.

While I understand COVID has presented all of us with a number of challenges, including how to occupy ourselves when everything has been shut down, and that has driven many people to use outdoor spaces as they never have before. However, the unprecedented number of visitors to the park this past couple of years (even prior to COVID and its effects on the use of the space), including visitors from larger City's like the GTHA and those utilizing the services of the outfitters who are not supposed to be launching or picking up from Bean Park at all, have been causing immediate residents like us a nightmare.

For example, people have been parking in front of our house on both sides of the street for hours on end (often until the wee hours of the morning when they come to pick up their cars and wake everyone on the street up), essentially preventing us from safely backing out of our driveway or allowing emergency vehicles through access if anyone should need it. They leave garbage everywhere that we end up picking up, specifically discarded masks and water bottles this past summer. They park down at the river, which is supposed to be used as a public launch, also preventing emergency crews to launch there should they need it. They are rude and inconsiderate and quite often, we worry someone's going to get themselves into trouble with drinking or navigating the water when we've had a storm surge and we're going to have to call 911 to come and attempt a rescue. After you've seen a few of those go wrong, you'd be worried too.

Now, not all are bad. It's been lovely to see more families out having picnics or couples walking their dogs this year. We're so glad people can use the space as a place to come and enjoy the quiet and beautiful natural habitat. But when we've got music pumping from cars, people partying before they launch their canoes, leaving cars all over the place and swearing at us when we ask them to move their vehicle so we can get ours out of our very clearly defined driveway - we have a problem that we need to do something about.

And by that, I do not mean charging all of us tax-paying residents, who have been here well before this was even a park, a fee to use our own streets. That is not a solution - that's not even a bandaid. We have a large driveway but still have need on occasion to put our cars on the street sometimes when we are getting work done on the house, taking a delivery, working in our driveway, having visitors when we're allowed to pre and post COVID, etc. Not allowing us to park on the street or charging us for it is creating a larger problem, not a solution. How would you feel if someone did this to you and your home? Has anyone thought about that? Wouldn't you be upset? And not to mention - this report was put together without any consultation from the people who live here. We only found out about it when our neighbour stopped us one day and mentioned it. Then we got the letter in the mail last week when it had already gone to council in April? And I had to google it to figure out what was going on? There was nothing on this platform to let us know there was a recommendation going to council because I checked.

All that aside, a real solution would be controlling the number of people using the access, ensuring they're doing so safely and responsibly and making sure that people are abiding by the rules and not disrupting the people who live here or use the park peacefully for the green space it is.

I'm an avid hiker and have on occasion been to Dundas Peak or Webster's Falls in Hamilton. I know that at that particular site at Webster's Falls, they had a lot of similar issues to those we're facing here - emergency access issues, people navigating the waterfalls without experience, massive parking issues, issues with people respecting the homes of neighbours, etc. Why wouldn't the County take a page from their book and implement a similar strategy? Prior to COVID (not sure what the process is now), Dundas Peak had an attendant at the entrance to their parking lot to ensure that people only parked where they were allowed to. Websters Falls eliminated onsite parking entirely in favour of visitors parking down the road and being bussed to the park and bussed back to their cars. And if you miss the bus, then you call a taxi or rideshare. Seems pretty straightforward. And all parking visitors were charged a fee to use the trails that go into paying for transportation and enforcement staff, along with general upkeep and conservation efforts.

My question is - why not use a hybrid model of what Hamilton Conservation has already successfully implemented instead of a slap-dash attempt that will inevitably cause more frustration and confusion for residents and park-goers? For example: station staff Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays (and holiday Mondays) at the entrance to each parking lot for parking enforcement, to address safety concerns, etc.; charge a fee to use the river access, not general park access, to help offset costs and make improvements/help with conservation efforts; ensure outfitters are also passing along that additional access fee to their clients and abiding by strict access rules (eg. no more sneaking down to Bean Park access in unmarked white trucks with 4 or 5 canoes at a time to use the launch when they're not supposed to like last year); once parking lots are full, close gates and direct overflow to another parking lot where transportation is available to the launch sites and back; close public access after a certain time and close all access during the winter so people stop trying to go down there and getting stuck in the snow, etc. Either that or remove public access from Bean Park and other access points that are also experiencing issues, prevent any public access moving forward to the launch and direct visitors and outfitters to a centralized access location where you can implement paid use, parking staff, transportation back from Brant Park or other termination points, etc. This would allow outfitters to still operate (probably more efficiently), allow better emergency service access should that be necessary, solve issues with neighbours and allow the County to raise funds for upkeep and improvements, including possible additional conservation efforts.

I know the report states you don't want to shuttle people from an offsite location but you've approved so much development lately, surely there's a spot that could work? The arena? The fairgrounds? There's lots of space there and as it's only fully used during the fair (somewhat more now with the vaccine clinic there I guess, but there's TONS of space). That would be an easy solution with a ticket station and controlled access to parking.

Seems like a couple of simple solutions to me. that don't involve charging neighbours for parking to offset costs and instead would allow you to offset the costs in a sensible way - a way that's scalable and allows future growth potential and additional safety measures that will be needed to accommodate that growth.

I look forward to a healthy discussion tomorrow and clear solutions that work for everyone - not a parking pass system that penalizes the residents, is not easily enforceable and will inevitably cause more issues trying to implement it.

With regard to the "One size fits all plan" it may be expedient but it certainly isn't the answer. As a longtime resident of Race Street, I feel that many of the issues experienced at Bean Park were resolved when the County enforced the existing By-Law that prohibited the commercial outfitters from conducting their business in a public park. There is no doubt that a parking problem currently exists but it is in the immediate area of the park. I live a few houses down from the park and have seldom seen a "Day Tripper" park in front of my house. Considering the amount we pay in property tax it is an absolute insult to consider charging the residents for the privilege of parking in front of their own home. If the County officials decide to experiment with permit parking then it should be done at no additional cost to the residents involved. A no cost permit should be issued for each vehicle registered at the residence as well as two no cost guest passes. If a guest drops by for a quick visit and there is no room to park in the driveway do they just keep going or do I move one of my cars onto the street to make room in the driveway (assuming I have been granted a permit). Under the proposed plan, what criteria will the appointed Parking Czar use to decide who gets a permit and who doesn't? From my own observation it would appear that the problems in Glen Morris and at the Penman's Dam are far more severe than at Bean Park and painting us all with the same brush is not the answer. Proper enforcement of the existing parking restrictions at Bean Park would go a long way in improving the current situation. How about that for a low cost experiment? Charging residents to park in front of their own homes would certainly be a talking point in the next election.

I understand that 14 West River Street in Paris was purchased by Grand River Rafting. I'm concerned about the commercial zoning in a purely residential area. Parking overflow and river access will greatly effect the residents in the area. Please advise on the plan to reduce the impacts of the issues stated above.

As a former, long time resident of Paris living near the dam, I find it crazy that having the citizens pay for parking is the solution the town has come up with. The tourism brought in by canoeing is or could be a great asset to many small businesses in town and something the town should look at capitalizing on. Make it easier and more inviting for tourists. The current parking lot in the park could be for the sole use of loading or unloading. Make the parking lot at the former arena a paid lot and further enhance it with an ice cream stand or refreshment stand if the main object is to bring in more money. The payment booths could be left open for times not in high demand for canoeing such as evenings and off season. If this is not workable, much as you hate to lose green space, perhaps that parking lot needs to be extended to accommodate the canoers but they should foot the cost of it and pay parking. In the years that I lived across the road from that park, I once saw another neighbour throwing a ball with a youngster and people rallying for the Santa Clause parade. Otherwise, it is not much of a park. If one goes to an event or tourist attraction anywhere else, you automatically expect to pay parking. Again, make it attractive with a concession booth, perhaps washrooms and water fountain and a line of trees against the road to provide shade and a nicer looking parking lot for both the canoeists and the residents across the street etc.