Parking in Waterloo Region

[Canard]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[Viewfromthe42]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

[SammyOES2]

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.

[nms]

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?

[ijmorlan]

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.

[Elmira Guy]

New technology to enforce parking is coming to city streets in Waterloo

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/new-t...-1.3243902

[chutten]

ALPR?! Oh no.

“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.

[MidTowner]

I have no issue with ALPR, based on the fact that driving is a privilege and not a right. But it's true that "not required to be kept by the city" is not a very rigorous standard.

[timio]

In England, and likely other places as well, some public parking lots are pay on exit based on ALPR. There's a kiosk you go to, find your car/plate, and pay the appropriate amount. Non payment means penalties sent to you by mail at a later date.

The lot we were in had a 15 minute grace period, so we went to the washroom quickly and got out before we would be charged.

[Canard]

I have no issue with ALPR, based on the fact that driving is a privilege and not a right. But it's true that "not required to be kept by the city" is not a very rigorous standard.

Hmm, that's a curious wording.  I think we'd find that even cycling and walking are privileges, too - I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford a bicycle, and was lucky enough to be born with two functioning legs, enabling me to walk.

On the topic of ALPR, there are some situations where it doesn't work.  A few weeks ago I watched this interesting article on Marketplace:



I do hope, however, that they'll integrate this into bylaw in such a way that any vehicle on the LRT rapidway (no matter the reason) is immediately issued a ticket - and of course, I'd also hope that the SUV stops and yells at them to get out of there right away!

[MidTowner]

That's a very grateful attitude to take towards your ability to walk. Perhaps walking should be considered both a right and a privilege. But driving a car is not a right in the same way, and so ALPR is more acceptable than, say, subjecting people walking around a city to facial recognition software.

[SammyOES2]

The civil liberty issue has more to do with tracking/retaining data about you than just driving, imo.  So I don't think its enough to say that just because it effects people that drive means its automatically ok.  If the data retention policy is that it never leaves the local device and is never retained longer than is needed to enforce parking - it would obviously (again, imo) be ok.  As you get further and further from that it becomes less ok to me.

I also don't agree with the idea that "driving is a privilege and not a right".  For many people (and we may disagree on the exact makeup of this group of people, but I think everyone agrees it exists) driving is a necessity.   You can look at it similar to basic freedom.  It's a right that you have, but it can be taken away from you for the greater good of society when you do something 'wrong'.

Edit: I suppose one difference is that you need to 'earn' the ability to drive.  So maybe I should rephrase it as something like an "opportunity to drive" is a right.  But my fundamental point remains, that I don't think the Government should be able to do a bunch of things to drivers that we wouldn't accept in other situations.

[danbrotherston]

The civil liberty issue has more to do with tracking/retaining data about you than just driving, imo.  So I don't think its enough to say that just because it effects people that drive means its automatically ok.  If the data retention policy is that it never leaves the local device and is never retained longer than is needed to enforce parking - it would obviously (again, imo) be ok.  As you get further and further from that it becomes less ok to me.

I also don't agree with the idea that "driving is a privilege and not a right".  For many people (and we may disagree on the exact makeup of this group of people, but I think everyone agrees it exists) driving is a necessity.   You can look at it similar to basic freedom.  It's a right that you have, but it can be taken away from you for the greater good of society when you do something 'wrong'.

Edit: I suppose one difference is that you need to 'earn' the ability to drive.  So maybe I should rephrase it as something like an "opportunity to drive" is a right.  But my fundamental point remains, that I don't think the Government should be able to do a bunch of things to drivers that we wouldn't accept in other situations.

If we have made driving a necessity in some places, that is our bad move as a society.  It should not make driving a right.  In fact, it should be our shameful failure that we've failed to accommodate other means.

This is of course and idealistic view, and in reality losing the ability to drive would be a substantial hardship for some in today's world.  However, far too many drivers have an entitlement view about driving.  As a result, people fight for, and the judicial system acquiesces to dangerous drivers continuing to be allowed to drive, people being allowed to park wherever, ticketing of those parked cars being demonized, etc..