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:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Boulevard Parking (Kitchener)
#16
(12-21-2018, 11:25 AM)timc Wrote: I thought it would be because enforcement is mostly based on complaints, and people aren't going to know who is allowed to park and who isn't. But maybe that's not really a problem.

That's the case today really.
Reply


#17
(12-21-2018, 11:02 AM)SammyOES Wrote: I find it funny this is seriously an issue with people.  Aesthetics seems like a poor reason to not allow it - at least in the winter months.  Enforcement of parking over sidewalks needs to be improved anyway and should be enforced here as well.  It seems like a funny thing to require a fee for when its an area that the homeowner is required to maintain anyway - but if there are costs here that I don't see (like enforcement of bylaws) then by all means it seems worth charging for.

These are the types of issues that I feel like people just object to because on principle they don't like cars.  The legitimate problems (which seem minor) can be dealt with effectively.  And this isn't a rant about "anti-car people", the same things happens in reverse all the time.  Improvements for bikes or pedestrians get objected to for really dumb reasons.

I don't know about others here, but I kind of care about the place I live not looking like shit.

This is both untrue, and unrelated, I never cleared my boulevard, which isn't a problem because I never had a car, but plenty of my neighbours also didn't clear their boulevards and just drove over the snow.  But like I said, still unrelated, homeowners are required to clear the sidewalk, but still need special permission to store a car on it (i.e., a construction permit), maintaining something does not grant you exclusive rights to it (no matter what people wrongly think about parking spaces in other cities).

As for the problems being minor, that could be true (although I'll point out, this neighbourhood in California was MISERABLE--hardly minor, but not something that would happen tomorrow in our city, but it could trend there eventually, and it's incredibly hard to reverse).

On the flip side, the advantages are similarly minor, and of questionable value. We're allowing some people (because not everyone has a boulevard, and mostly wealthier homeowners) to have free access to public property for more parking.  What is the advantage?...they can store more cars. Why don't we fight as hard to give me free access to public property to store other things?

I think is equally indicative of a society obsessed with and addicted to cars to a level that we don't even realize what we're doing.
Reply
#18
It would be a bit hilarious if we could block developments because they didn't conform to the aesthetic of a century-old neighbourhood from the time of streetcars and horse-drawn carriages, but we couldn't have any aesthetic say over bending over backwards to decorate the front of a house with six SUVs.

I think that even a nominal fee and permitting system has some advantages, being that it forces people to expect rules and regulations more, and it is easier to remove something that is being permitted than something that is free, so that if you wanted to remove half the street parking on a given street, it wasn't that one side was losing "their" parking and the other wasn't, it was that half as many permits were going to be sold, and you had to deal with prices going up, but could buy the permits nonetheless. That also makes it easier to stop selling permits on one side in the event you need to widen a road for more cars or bikes or whatever, because you are reminding people that the property line doesn't start at the curb.
Reply
#19
(12-21-2018, 11:37 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: On the flip side, the advantages are similarly minor, and of questionable value. We're allowing some people (because not everyone has a boulevard, and mostly wealthier homeowners) to have free access to public property for more parking.  What is the advantage?...they can store more cars. Why don't we fight as hard to give me free access to public property to store other things?

One advantage I see is that it allows for a moderate increase in density in residential neighbourhoods. While there are certainly homes that have more cars than drivers, I think it's reasonable to assume that most households with multiple cars have drivers who use them on a regular basis. Roommate situations, families with adult children living with their parents, multiple families in a single house are examples of places that might have more cars than driveway.

There's a lot of precedent for using public property for storage of cars. I agree that's not a great thing, but it's the answer to "why?". They're in a different category of property. I do think it's worth fighting that distinction, but it does exist at present.
Reply
#20
(12-21-2018, 11:53 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I think that even a nominal fee and permitting system has some advantages, being that it forces people to expect rules and regulations more, and it is easier to remove something that is being permitted than something that is free, so that if you wanted to remove half the street parking on a given street, it wasn't that one side was losing "their" parking and the other wasn't, it was that half as many permits were going to be sold, and you had to deal with prices going up, but could buy the permits nonetheless. That also makes it easier to stop selling permits on one side in the event you need to widen a road for more cars or bikes or whatever, because you are reminding people that the property line doesn't start at the curb.

There are advantages. I'm always concerned with fees and permit systems though, because it's explicitly granting privileges to people with money. That being said, part of car ownership needs to be responsibility for storage so I'm all good with increasing the burden of ownership. Especially if the revenues from such fees are committed to improving active transportation. I'd be 100% in favour of using revenue from street/boulevard permits being applied to clearing sidewalks.
Reply
#21
(12-21-2018, 11:56 AM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 11:53 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I think that even a nominal fee and permitting system has some advantages, being that it forces people to expect rules and regulations more, and it is easier to remove something that is being permitted than something that is free, so that if you wanted to remove half the street parking on a given street, it wasn't that one side was losing "their" parking and the other wasn't, it was that half as many permits were going to be sold, and you had to deal with prices going up, but could buy the permits nonetheless. That also makes it easier to stop selling permits on one side in the event you need to widen a road for more cars or bikes or whatever, because you are reminding people that the property line doesn't start at the curb.

There are advantages. I'm always concerned with fees and permit systems though, because it's explicitly granting privileges to people with money. That being said, part of car ownership needs to be responsibility for storage so I'm all good with increasing the burden of ownership. Especially if the revenues from such fees are committed to improving active transportation. I'd be 100% in favour of using revenue from street/boulevard permits being applied to clearing sidewalks.

This is already granting privileges to people with money, people with money can afford houses with big boulevards.  In fact, having fees decreases that concentration of value, because the fees can be spent on people who can't afford big boulevards, as you point out.
Reply
#22
(12-21-2018, 10:44 AM)panamaniac Wrote: It is trashy, but should be permitted for an annual fee.  Otherwise the city is losing a good revenue opportunity.

In all reality it's mostly a winter issue as I'd think most people would park on the road in the spring/summer/fall
Reply
#23
(12-21-2018, 11:05 AM)dtkmelissa Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 10:06 AM)Spokes Wrote: What's typically the biggest objection?

I would think general appearance of it might be one objection. Personally I just think if we are serious about walkability, we want to create streets that are comfortable, easy to walk, and attractive (as well as safe and clear but that's for another thread [Image: wink.gif]) Adding more spaces for cars to park doesn't seem to do any of those things.

I would think the same.  Sends a conflicting message
Reply
#24
(12-21-2018, 12:09 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is already granting privileges to people with money, people with money can afford houses with big boulevards.  In fact, having fees decreases that concentration of value, because the fees can be spent on people who can't afford big boulevards, as you point out.

That's a great point!
Reply
#25
(12-21-2018, 12:24 PM)Spokes Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 10:44 AM)panamaniac Wrote: It is trashy, but should be permitted for an annual fee.  Otherwise the city is losing a good revenue opportunity.

In all reality it's mostly a winter issue as I'd think most people would park on the road in the spring/summer/fall

The motion originally put forth did specify it would only be in place from Dec 1st to Mar 31st each winter. I think the idea is to address concerns around the potential lack of on-street parking during snow events. Though, I'm not sure I would want to park there with plows going by!
Reply
#26
(12-21-2018, 11:05 AM)dtkmelissa Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 10:06 AM)Spokes Wrote: What's typically the biggest objection?

I would think general appearance of it might be one objection. Personally I just think if we are serious about walkability, we want to create streets that are comfortable, easy to walk, and attractive (as well as safe and clear but that's for another thread [Image: wink.gif]) Adding more spaces for cars to park doesn't seem to do any of those things.

I think you are hitting on a point here. If you are a pedestrian walking at night, having cars on both sides of you can feel uncomfortable. Depending on the angles, it may also make the sidewalk significantly less visible.
Reply
#27
My boulevard is too narrow to park a car on without it sticking into the street or over the sidewalk... the driveway is pretty narrow too. I imagine a lot of the older neighbourhoods are like this. I know up in Waterloo people do this in the Lakeshore neighbourhood often, all year round it seems, I guess since they can't park on the road overnight there... that neighbourhood also has roll curbs in a lot of places so it's easy to just drive over the grass to get into your spot. I'd prefer people just park on their lawns instead of on the boulevard.
Reply
#28
Boulevard might be their logical reaction to street parking issues in winter, not just during snow events, but as snowplows start to leave snow by the curb, which eventually narrows the roadway. I've definitely experienced situations where parked cars on snow-narrowed streets made me doubt my ability to get by; if the boulevard parking overlapped with seasonal on-street parking bans, I could understand their logic.
Reply
#29
(12-21-2018, 11:56 AM)robdrimmie Wrote: There are advantages. I'm always concerned with fees and permit systems though, because it's explicitly granting privileges to people with money.

Something to think about: the privileges are granted to people with money, if they are willing to part with some of the money in order to obtain the privilege.

Depending on the price level and what the money is used for by the organization selling the permits, this can be a pretty important point I think.
Reply
#30
(12-21-2018, 10:43 AM)timio Wrote: If you have 2 vehicles, and the allotted space allows one in the driveway and one in the garage, plus boulevard, it assumes you have a clear garage with enough space for the car.

If the garage is a dumping ground, the boulevard option becomes attractive.

Maybe those people should clean out their garage. We wouldn’t consider letting people store their garage junk on the boulevard.

Note: this is not meant to be a considered opinion. It’s just a thought that occurred to me.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Parking in Waterloo Region Spokes 664 457,002 03-20-2019, 09:55 PM
Last Post: tomh009
  Franklin Boulevard Roundabouts Spokes 70 50,930 09-06-2016, 10:38 PM
Last Post: danbrotherston
  Ira Needles Boulevard Widening JoeKW 10 6,615 08-04-2016, 11:01 AM
Last Post: Markster

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 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