Parking Space vs. Development at Commuter Stations dilemma - Denver

[M II A II R II K]

Denver Rethinks the Modern Commuter


July 24, 2012

By KRIS HUDSON

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article_email...AyMDIwNTAyODU3Wj.html?mod=wsj_valetleft_email


As Denver moves forward with a $7.4 billion expansion of its rail system, the city is looking to rectify what some see as a flaw in the original concept. The dilemma is how to encourage the development of dense, walkable villages around stations so people don't have to drive to use the system.

- After the system opened in 1994, planners built parking lots and garages around many of its stations to cater to commuters. That strategy put parking on land that would have been ideal for stores, apartment buildings and squares catering to riders living adjacent to the stops. As a result, there has been little of that kind of development around the stations to change the area's car-dependent culture, and riders commute to the stations from up to 20 miles away.

- Denver-transit planners now are becoming more flexible when it comes to how much parking they require near rail stops and where they put it. In the continuing expansion of the Denver rail system—which will add up to 122 miles of light rail and commuter rail lines to the existing 35 miles within the next 10 years—land adjacent to stations will be earmarked in some cases for village-type developments. Parking lots can be as far as half a mile away from stations in this these types of projects.

- "Maybe you lose some [riders] on the front end by taking some spaces away," says Mr. Sirois. "But you enable something else to happen with…development." Whether to cater primarily to commuters or to residents near rail stops is a pivotal question for mass-transit planners in some cities. Many western cities expanding relatively young rail systems don't have the density or "walkability" that has allowed residents in older, Eastern cities such as New York to eschew cars in favor of mass transit.

- Still, some of Denver's peer cities already have embraced this approach. San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, and the TriMet mass-transit system in Portland, Ore., long have favored relegating park-and-ride service to their farthest flung stations in the suburbs. Meanwhile, they encourage dense clusters of apartments, condominiums and offices adjacent to their urban rail stops. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., have taken a similar approach recently. "Cities and transit agencies are getting a lot more sophisticated about the use of parking," said Marilee Utter, a Denver-based executive vice president at the Urban Land Institute, the research-and-education group focused on urban planning and land use.

- Yet cutting back on parking spaces isn't always practical. For that approach to work, basic services such as grocery stores and parks must be within walking distance of the system's rail stops. And other transit options, like bus service, must be available. That isn't always the case in fast-growing cities. "You can't just eliminate the parking [spaces] unless there is an alternative for people to get there," said Jeff Ordway, property-development manager for San Francisco's BART district. Critics ask whether Denver's change in approach on parking will chase some riders away rather than attract them. "So, they're going to make it more difficult to use transit in hopes that the real-estate speculators who use public money to build these things can flourish?" asks Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a think tank in Denver.

.....

 

[unimaginative2]

I think their goal is laudable, but it's only going to work to a very limited extent. Successful transit in the suburbs will almost never rely on either parking or walk-up traffic. It relies on feeder buses. That's why Toronto's subway is so successful. For that, you need frequent suburban buses and connecting rapid transit that is fast enough to justify the transfer. Light rail in the middle of a street stopping at every traffic light is not going to cut it.

And if you are going to develop around stations, you've got to get away from the "village" idea. A few quaint townhouses and village shops will add all of about a hundred riders a day to a station, if that. You need serious development, and that might not be so pretty but it will mean a lot of people: stuff like office parks and shopping malls. I'd much rather see the big regional mall at a transit station than a quaint "transit village."

 

[doady]

When ridership and service are low, relying on parking lots might be possible. But for a frequent light rail or rapid transit service, relying on parking to fill so many trains it is just unrealistic. Plus the parking lots and the traffic they generate get in the way of pedestrians and local transit. Consider the lack of expansion for GO. There is no more parking space left at GO stations, so GO doesn't care to increase service.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I am of the persuasion that the park and ride system is the way to go, and development around Commuter stations isn't necessary for that function.

Instead of transit competing with cars it's a complimentary system where drivers don't have to get stuck in rush hour traffic and pay ridiculous parking costs.

However for it to work they have to be able to transfer to local transit services with convenient physical transfers that costs no extra. Also provide a premium metropass that covers the parking at any given GO station as well.

 

[sixrings]

I am of the persuasion that the park and ride system is the way to go, and development around Commuter stations isn't necessary for that function.

Instead of transit competing with cars it's a complimentary system where drivers don't have to get stuck in rush hour traffic and pay ridiculous parking costs.

However for it to work they have to be able to transfer to local transit services with convenient physical transfers that costs no extra. Also provide a premium metropass that covers the parking at any given GO station as well.

There are two spots in toronto which have transit parking lots that could be substantially developed. Kipling/islington ttc lots and Wilson/downsview ttc lots. The other day I was at yonge and sheppard and for the first time noticed how wide yonge was in that area. Then immediately afterwards I was at sheppard and allen. For years I thought that the allen/dufferin was too wide to build a pedestrian environment around. However maybe that is exact ly what could happen. As for Kipling and islington. That whole area is starting to see major development. I can't help but think that condos over these lots would provide at least the same amount of ridership. If each building has 400 units and about 800 people and 4 buildings could fit on the parking lot. That's 3200 people who could use transit. If just 400 people take transit I am sure that's about the same amount of parking spaces.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And better that they use the Milton Line instead of BD to travel any kind of long distance on transit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The problem with parking lots is that the parking slots closes to the entrance are filled first. The furthest from the entrance generally are avoided and get filled when there is no more empty slots available closer. Usually, one will see drivers drive up to the entrance first, already knowing there would not be any, and only then reluctantly held for the far reaches of the lot.

The other problem is that there is a limit on how much the lot can hold. Once they fill up, the drivers will either try to drive to their destination, park somewhere illegally, or head home.

It would be better if they lived in the area or used public transit in the first place to get to the station.

 

[Momin]

GO Transit's Parking Problem: Are Garages The Answer?

Maple and Rutherford GO Transit stations on the Barrie line will be the next on the Toronto regional rail system to get multi-level parking garages, holding 1,200 more cars each, doubling their parking capacities at a likely cost of over $80m. Construction of the above-grade structures will commence in 2018.

 

[aquateam]

GO Transit's Parking Problem: Are Garages The Answer?

2 400 spaces at $80 million is $33 000 / rider. That's cheap by the standard of parking garages, which is normally $35 000 - $40 000/spot, but it's still not sustainable. Metrolinx is already North America's largest parking supplier.

What Metrolinx needs to do is:
1) charge for parking in order to reduce demand for parking as an incentive for people to access the stations differently
2) use the additional parking revenue to drop fares
3) Develop the area around the more central stations with offices, retail, and apartments so that they can attract riders sustainably (and at a profit!)
4) Integrate better with local transit so that there are better alternatives to driving (to make up for the loss of parking)
5) Make stations more amenable to cycling (bike parking, separated bike lanes at the approach to station) so that commuters who are able can bike for the last mile problem

 

[amnesiajune]

What Metrolinx needs to do is:

1) charge for parking in order to reduce demand for parking as an incentive for people to access the stations differently

Sure, but that would create an incentive for people to drive all the way downtown. The same thing happened when the TTC stopped giving free parking to metropass holders. People who used to park for free decided to stop using metropasses, and then they stopped taking transit as often.

2) use the additional parking revenue to drop fares

That makes sense, but people will still see the parking as a new expense, not as something that's being recouped by lower fares

3) Develop the area around the more central stations with offices, retail, and apartments so that they can attract riders sustainably (and at a profit!)

How is a transit agency supposed to do this?

4) Integrate better with local transit so that there are better alternatives to driving (to make up for the loss of parking)

First of all, most local transit agencies already co-ordinate and negotiate a co-fare with Go Transit. The TTC is the only one that doesn't.

Second, a better solution here would just be to get rid of the ridiculous two-tiered transit system. Just like in any other major city (see London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and many others), there should be one agency responsible for public transit across the entire region, not several agencies that are only accountable to people who live within this city or that city.

5) Make stations more amenable to cycling (bike parking, separated bike lanes at the approach to station) so that commuters who are able can bike for the last mile problem

Again, Metrolinx already does this as much as they can. Almost every Go Train station has sheltered bike racks, and some have bike lockers or reserved bike parking. Metrolinx doesn't have jurisdiction over roads.

 

[flyinggoats]

How is a transit agency supposed to do this?

Use the land they own that is currently used for parking.

First of all, most local transit agencies already co-ordinate and negotiate a co-fare with Go Transit. The TTC is the only one that doesn't.

I believe it's the other way around: GO doesn't coordinate and negotiate with the TTC. With 905 and 705, GO subsidizes the local transit agency. They have refused to do that with the TTC.

Again, Metrolinx already does this as much as they can. Almost every Go Train station has sheltered bike racks, and some have bike lockers or reserved bike parking. Metrolinx doesn't have jurisdiction over roads.

The existing parking lots are unfriendly to bikes. They should build dedicated bike paths from road to the bike parking. Design the driveways so that it's easy for bikes to turn in and out.

 

[crs1026]

The existing parking lots are unfriendly to bikes. They should build dedicated bike paths from road to the bike parking. Design the driveways so that it's easy for bikes to turn in and out.

Don't stop the dedicated bike path at the end of the GO station lot. Plan it all the way into the community. If you are biking to say Bramalea station, the path thru the station lot to the bike parking isn't your problem..... it's the five lanes of traffic on Derry Road that you have to cross to get there.

As great as cycling may be, I don't believe that riding a bike to the GO station is a viable alternative to offer people who drive to the GO today. With better bike paths, it may be viable for a small percentage, and that's worthwhile.... but we need to worry about what to do about the other 80%.

- Paul

 

[Megaton327]

The existing parking lots are unfriendly to bikes. They should build dedicated bike paths from road to the bike parking. Design the driveways so that it's easy for bikes to turn in and out.

I don't know if maybe the stations in your area are different, but at Aurora GO I have absolutely no problem with the station's bike infrastructure. There is very little bike parking, but it's extremely underutilized, so if demand rose they'd need to increase it, but I have no issue with in-station/near-station bike infrastructure, such as the nearby roads and in-station bike pathways.

The reason I don't bike to GO is that my route to the station is extremely hilly--both in number and steepness. I'm not an avid cycler, I simply can't bike up multiple, extraordinarily steep hills. Even if I pushed myself, I'd then arrive to the station drenched in sweat and out of breath, which is not a very courteous way to ride the train, and very unprofessional when I arrive downtown--sure, I could pack a change of clothes and buy a gym membership, but at that point why on Earth bike and take GO when I could drive for much less money and in less than 1 hour instead of over 2 hours?

The other issue is that at least 3 months of the year, I wouldn't be willing to cycle in the winter. Yes, I appreciate that there are many cycling enthusiasts who do, however I am not a cycling enthusiast, I just want to be able to get to and from the GO station with a bare minimum level of comfort and safety. I am not comfortable cycling in deep snow and severe ice. Similarly, any days that it's over 25 with the humidex or it's raining, I'm not cycling. So cycling wouldn't be a solution for me even if they built a perfectly flat bike expressway directly from my house to the station, because I'd only be able to do it sometimes.

I have a family member who is an avid cyclist (great shape, goes on almost-daily 10s-to-100s of km bike rides), and even they won't bike from my home to the go station because the terrain will make them sweat a ton by the time they're at the station, and even as a cycling enthusiast they don't even think about it in rain/snow/ice or extreme heat/cold. They've never once biked to the station and prefer to take a long walk to get there--personally, with the round trip downtown including walking to+from my station being about twice as long as my round trip drive downtown, I prefer drive if I can't park at the station.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

What I'd like to see is a market study to see where the cars are coming from. If people are coming from a ~2km radius (roughly the length of a concession line) from the station that those should be easily served by a handful of bus routes. However I suspect that many are coming from upwards of 15 km from the station and so that would more difficult to serve with transit.

With the places to grow act and pressure to intensify urban nodes, what I have been thinking about is having stations in urban centres built with more urban standards (less parking, parking garages if needed, integration with local transit, etc) paired with a 'commuter station' a few km down the line, one that has all the parking etc. The main station would be served by regular all day service (when it comes) while the commuter station is served during peak periods.

 

[dowlingm]

I think there is a basic fairness issue with providing free parking, especially in the GTA where there is a charge for transferring to/from local transit, but also once you move away from basic "pave over nearby land" into massive concrete structures and consider the impacts on communities adjacent to the parking who have significant traffic volumes associated with it.

I also note that we don't worry that people won't use hospitals if we permit their carparks to charge significant fees - and for many patients asking them to ride public transport themselves is a risk either to themselves or to others, and walking/cycling not possible.