Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grand River Transit
I would take the bus every day if it were 4/3 the speed of my commute. In other words, I’m willing to add a little bit of time (and spend more money, since Bus is more expensive than my car) for the luxury of sitting and not driving. But it’s such a huge difference in time that I can’t make it work.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply


(Yesterday, 02:51 PM)jamincan Wrote:
(Yesterday, 02:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: We need to start by eliminating all parking minima. You can make anything free if you just require somebody to supply enough of it. If grocery stores were required to bake 10 loaves of bread per square foot every day they would probably be free. Of course everything else at the grocery store would be more expensive. Actually, given how expensive parking is to construct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that my “must bake bread” mandate would be cheaper and less destructive than the “must supply parking” mandate currently in place.

My prediction is that in some places, developers would continue to build enough parking for it to be free; e.g., suburban strip malls. In other locations, they would build more stores or housing and less parking, and then charge for the parking. Regardless of what happened, though, it would be an economic calculation based on local conditions, not a broad-based rule laid down by people who cannot possibly know enough to make the right rule.

Or simply reducing parking minima for residential construction. I don't think it's desirable to have residential construction rely on on-street parking for its residents.

Then don't provide on street parking, or enforce restrictions against indefinite street parking, or even better, simply charge for on street parking.  And besides, plenty of developers would still provide parking for those who wanted it.

And downtown, charge a price in line with the value of the space, determine the value using market economics...very simple....

Basically, go read "The High Cost of Free Parking"...that's step 1, step 2 is congestion pricing in dense areas.

I'm a full on fiscal conservative, free market capitalist here....
Reply
(Yesterday, 04:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm a full on fiscal conservative, free market capitalist here....

I think I probably agree about 95% with you on this whole area.

Talking about political segments, it’s weird how libertarians suddenly turn socialist when it comes to road pricing. Tongue
Reply
(Yesterday, 02:51 PM)jamincan Wrote: Or simply reducing parking minima for residential construction. I don't think it's desirable to have residential construction rely on on-street parking for its residents.

Nope, eliminate. But be clear as to what the street parking policies are. Where city street parking is provided (not everywhere, most likely), price it, SFPark-style.

The reason I am so certain about parking minima is because they are a zoning policy that is known to have a bad outcome. It’s not like advocating for businesses to charge for parking, for example, which is more complicated and has multiple responsibilities: am I hoping to convince businesses to charge, or one or another level of government to require charging, or something else? With parking minima, it’s clear: just stop doing that bad thing. If some developers build some no-parking developments and then can’t sell them because they screwed up the parking, that’s on them, just like any other decision made in the course of business.

I do agree that it might be more politically realistic to start by only reducing parking minima, especially for residential properties. But really they should be eliminated entirely.
Reply
(11 hours ago)ijmorlan Wrote: If some developers build some no-parking developments and then can’t sell them because they screwed up the parking, that’s on them, just like any other decision made in the course of business.

It's not really. Once something is built, we generally have to live with the consequences of it for a long time afterward.
Reply
(8 hours ago)jamincan Wrote:
(11 hours ago)ijmorlan Wrote: If some developers build some no-parking developments and then can’t sell them because they screwed up the parking, that’s on them, just like any other decision made in the course of business.

It's not really. Once something is built, we generally have to live with the consequences of it for a long time afterward.

The owners of the property have to live with it. Maybe they fix it by buying a nearby vacant lot for parking, maybe they knock down the last store in the strip mall for parking, maybe they change the use of the property to something with less parking demand. Regardless, it’s their problem to fix, just as it would be Zehr’s problem to fix if they didn’t install enough refrigeration capacity and needed to have a renovation to put it in later. In a free society, people will make mistakes, and sometimes they just need to figure it out for themselves. Right now we require everybody to make the opposite mistake. Much better to have some people screw up than everybody. We can’t prevent some properties from being poorly designed anyhow. What’s so special about parking that we think we can tell the owners the right amount?
Reply
(8 hours ago)ijmorlan Wrote:
(8 hours ago)jamincan Wrote: It's not really. Once something is built, we generally have to live with the consequences of it for a long time afterward.

The owners of the property have to live with it. Maybe they fix it by buying a nearby vacant lot for parking, maybe they knock down the last store in the strip mall for parking, maybe they change the use of the property to something with less parking demand. Regardless, it’s their problem to fix, just as it would be Zehr’s problem to fix if they didn’t install enough refrigeration capacity and needed to have a renovation to put it in later. In a free society, people will make mistakes, and sometimes they just need to figure it out for themselves. Right now we require everybody to make the opposite mistake. Much better to have some people screw up than everybody. We can’t prevent some properties from being poorly designed anyhow. What’s so special about parking that we think we can tell the owners the right amount?

It is really ironic how our country fears this idea.

We're a capitalist country in most ways.  We trust the invisible hand of the market for many things, hell, even our last mile internet service, which probably shouldn't be entirely free market.  Of course, some things we trust to central planning, and sometimes they have positive outcomes, or at least the outcomes we're aiming for (i.e., staying on the transport trend, we centrally plan what safety features must be required on cars, and that has reduced fatalities on our roads)...yet for parking, we centrally plan it, it has enormous negative consequences that we are well aware of, yet we are terrified of considering another option.
Reply
??? Have I come across as having some sort of free-market libertarian leaning on here? I find it ironic that people who believe the government can positively influencing the form and structure of our communities would so easily have them relinquish such an important planning tool to the free market.

I'm well aware of how important parking availability is in influencing the form of our communities and it's for that reason that I think any changes to policies around it have to be carefully considered and cautious. Like it or not, people have to live with the consequences of neighbours' decisions all the time; it's one of the primary reasons we have land-use planning in the first place.
Reply
We don't insulate businesses from other poor decisions. As said above, it's not easy to fix inadequate freezer capacity in a Zehrs, but we don't try to regulate it. I should be like houses near the landfill or airport, write the notices into the title. "This house has one parking spot, and no more are available. You should not purchase if you require more parking". That way people can't claim ignorance.
Reply
(7 hours ago)jamincan Wrote: ??? Have I come across as having some sort of free-market libertarian leaning on here? I find it ironic that people who believe the government can positively influencing the form and structure of our communities would so easily have them relinquish such an important planning tool to the free market.

I'm well aware of how important parking availability is in influencing the form of our communities and it's for that reason that I think any changes to policies around it have to be carefully considered and cautious.

I definitely take a pragmatic approach to government planning, but that's exactly why I oppose parking minimums.  They (along with single use suburban zoning) have proven to be one of the word planning decisions we've ever made.  They're a great example of epic unintended consequences.

So yeah, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to continuing to centrally plan things like parking, with say, a maximum, or requirements on sharing between uses, but, man, parking minimums have to go...they are truly terrible, letting it be marked planned is a good start, from which you can apply government regulations as needed to solve the problems that market might naturally have, that cannot otherwise be solved with pricing.
Reply
I think that for the average person that drives, the only thing that will make them use transit is when it's cheaper and faster than driving/parking. Right now it's neither.

I remember working downtown Ottawa when I was a student. The first two days of work I drove 55 minutes to get to the office for 9am (which was normally a 20 minute drive, max) and paid $15 for parking. The third day I took the bus. $3 or whatever it was and 35 minutes. You can guess what I did from that point forward.
Reply
(Yesterday, 03:51 PM)Canard Wrote: I would take the bus every day if it were 4/3 the speed of my commute. In other words, I’m willing to add a little bit of time (and spend more money, since Bus is more expensive than my car) for the luxury of sitting and not driving. But it’s such a huge difference in time that I can’t make it work.

For me personally, this is exactly where I'm at.
Reply
Typically transit will be cheaper than driving but peoples' cost accounting is different because car costs are pretty hidden (until they're not, eg car repair bills).

Transit is also typically slower in most cases, except when trying to get to heavily contended destinations as in Spokes' example. I don't think we have a lot of such destinations in the region. The universities might be closest to that.

I was reading about, I think, Seattle. Employees who have to pay $12/day to park will shift their modal share to transit. It has to be billed on a per day basis though. Apparently we don't account for monthly bills. Maybe that would work at the universities too.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Grand River Transit Fantasy westwardloo 35 20,080 07-17-2017, 04:22 PM
Last Post: Coke6pk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links