Welcome Guest!
WIn 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
Parking in Waterloo Region
It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare very short-term parking rates with two-way transit fares. The minimum (first 30 minutes) parking rate should be at least equal to a one-way fare (which gives you 90 minutes' total service on GRT), but you should be parking for a longer period before it exceeds the level of a two-way fare.
Reply
I guess...? But how do you factor in travel time?

If it takes someone 8 minutes to drive downtown vs. 45 on a bus, just making the price of parking match the bus ticket doesn't work.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(01-05-2017, 10:17 AM)Canard Wrote: I guess...? But how do you factor in travel time?

If it takes someone 8 minutes to drive downtown vs. 45 on a bus, just making the price of parking match the bus ticket doesn't work.

It depends on how you define work, yes, not everyone will choose to take the bus, our parking lots won't be empty, but I don't think that means it's not working...If you want to drive, then you should drive, but you should be paying as much as bus passengers do.  At least then, driving and busing will be on an equal financial footing.  I frequently hear the excuse from people who have an immediately convenient bus to get to their destination that they drive because why would they want to pay again.
Reply
It's not so much about travel time, it's about access. If I take the iXpress downtown from Grand River Hospital or from Ainslie St. Terminal, it's the same fare in both cases, so by transit, wherever your origin point, it's a single cash fare "entry fee" for downtown.
Reply
I don’t want to be the killjoy here, but all this discussion of what the parking rate “should be” ignores the right solution: SFPark. Adjust the parking rates to maintain a certain fraction of open spaces. The only change I would make is that rates should go to zero where and when appropriate. Anywhere that parking rates rise high enough to make it feasible to purchase land and construct a garage, such a project should be considered. Instead of arguing over what the rates should be based on different ideologies for how people ought to behave, let people decide how much parking is worth for them and park accordingly.
Reply
(01-05-2017, 11:02 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I don’t want to be the killjoy here, but all this discussion of what the parking rate “should be” ignores the right solution: SFPark. Adjust the parking rates to maintain a certain fraction of open spaces. The only change I would make is that rates should go to zero where and when appropriate. Anywhere that parking rates rise high enough to make it feasible to purchase land and construct a garage, such a project should be considered. Instead of arguing over what the rates should be based on different ideologies for how people ought to behave, let people decide how much parking is worth for them and park accordingly.

I like this approach although I'm sure we totally disagree on the actual amount of parking that should exist.

As for the "Make parking cost the same as transit so that people take transit" argument, I'm going to go out on a limb and say a good chunk of the people that were parking for free will just drive somewhere else where they can park for free instead of taking the bus.  That's one of the reasons I like an approach like ijmorlan's.
Reply
With respect to the subletting of the condo parking spots, I can imagine that it's a matter of knowing who is parked there. When I bought my condo, I had to list the cars that would be parking in my spots. Presumably, this would allow the property manager to to any cars that were not supposed to be there. I can imagine that an ungated surface lot downtown would be a tempting spot to park a car if word gets around that it's never enforced.

Looking at it another way, should something happen to a vehicle in that lot, who is responsible for the damage?
Reply
(01-05-2017, 12:09 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote:
(01-05-2017, 11:02 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I don’t want to be the killjoy here, but all this discussion of what the parking rate “should be” ignores the right solution: SFPark. Adjust the parking rates to maintain a certain fraction of open spaces. The only change I would make is that rates should go to zero where and when appropriate. Anywhere that parking rates rise high enough to make it feasible to purchase land and construct a garage, such a project should be considered. Instead of arguing over what the rates should be based on different ideologies for how people ought to behave, let people decide how much parking is worth for them and park accordingly.

I like this approach although I'm sure we totally disagree on the actual amount of parking that should exist.

I’m curious how much parking you think should exist. I will say I’m not sure — a lot has to do with whether it is economically viable, subject to a real-world understanding that the market for transportation is hopelessly intertwined with the political process and previous decisions, some clearly bad and others more ambiguous. But I would say that any discussion of transportation and parking that doesn’t talk about why there is no political discussion of how much bread bakers bake (for example), is incomplete.

One thing I am certain of is that parking minima should not be permitted. That is, the zoning code should not be allowed to specify the minimum amount of parking that must be provided by a property owner or occupier. I’m almost as certain that maxima also should not be permitted.
Reply
New technology to enforce parking is coming to city streets in Waterloo

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/new-t...-1.3243902
Reply
ALPR?! Oh no.

Quote:“The policy is focusing on protecting personal information and making sure that any information that's not required to be kept by the city is purged immediately,” said Shayne Turner, Director of Municipal Enforcement Services.

Turner says the policy ensures staff has guidelines in place to make sure information is removed from the system when it isn’t needed by the city, and information that is needed is safeguarded and protected electronically.

The city says the LPR system will only be used to capture parking violations and will not be used to collect information for other law enforcement purposes.

Could be worse, I suppose. I'm a little worried about "when it isn't needed by the city". Does this mean the city can persist the data perpetually if it just says it "needs" it?

If they follow their stated policies it ought to be fine. Probably.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



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