--Eliminate highly subsidized suburban transit, and the result would be freeways criss-crossing the entire city..--
Freeways generally have not, (or atleast should not), be built to deal with traffic congestion. The Liberal plans to crisscross the GTA with 'economic corridors' have to do with developing land for those land owners who are big political doners and to fill industrial parks. (When you have those 5,000 a plate fundraisers to run for office you need the support of the sprawl industry- land owners, developers, auto industry)
The suburban mayors all want their share of growth and can most quickly achieve it with conveniently placed highway extensions. Freeways, (like GO except Union station) spread growth outwards.
Likewise within the city. The Front street extension is essentially a 2 kilometre arm of the Gardiner, is not being built for any essential transportation purposes. Pantelone the main proponent of the project is publicly articulating the need to extend the grid, and that it's been on the books for decades and that any plan to take down the Gardiner requires the building of Front street.
I've previously explained how the above agruments make no sense and have uncovered the motivation said to be behind Pantalone's irrational goal. IBI who controlled developments in the Liberty Village area has always wanted the Front street extension (IBI in fact authored the latest Front Street extension study- designing the current route).
Pantelone agreed to work for the extension in order to get the developer to change their site plan more towards the city's liking. Pantelone, the area councillor, is currently the most influential person in the city next to Miller, and was able to change both Miller and Giambrone's positions from opposed to in favour of the extension. Freeways generally lead to pressure for more freeways as they make vehicle travel more attractive and other modes less attractive.
Back to parking requirements..
CLM Dr. Gridlock
SE Column
HD Parking standards driving force behind sprawl
BY JEFF GRAY
WC 651 words
PD 20 February 2006
SN The Globe and Mail
CY All material copyright Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved.
Every North American city has them. But Donald Shoup, an American urban planning expert, compares city planners' “minimum parking standards†to 19th-century medicine's use of poisonous lead as a cure for disease.
For decades, planners have dictated to developers how many off-street parking spaces they needed to provide for new office buildings, restaurants, apartments and stores. Originally, they wanted to avoid the chaos of scores of automobiles with nowhere to park.
But Prof. Shoup, who teaches urban planning at the University of California in Los Angeles, argues in his book, The High Cost of Free Parking, that minimum parking standards turned out to be a cure worse than the disease, and a driving force of suburban sprawl.
Rigid rules on how many parking spaces new buildings required were based on “pseudo-science,†he argues. Urban planners imposed them arbitrarily, forcing developers to construct massive parking lots designed to accommodate the maximum possible demand.
Even if drivers don't pay for them each time they use them, parking spots at the mall or in a condo garage are never really free. Building a “structured†spot in an underground garage can cost more than $25,000. So minimum parking standards mean that city planners essentially force developers to subsidize drivers' parking needs, Prof. Shoup argues, and that means the costs are foisted onto non-driving customers.
The resulting glut of free parking has created seas of asphalt. And it has imposed a spread-out urban form that discourages pedestrians and makes public transit impractical. This, Prof. Shoup observes, simply forces more people into their cars.
“Cities would look and work much better if prices rather than planners govern most decisions about the quantity of parking,†Prof. Shoup writes. “Like the automobile itself, parking is a good servant, but a bad master.â€
Toronto's chief planner, Ted Tyndorf, says the city has realized that parking standards are part of the problem, and a massive review of the city's complex rules, as part of the rewriting of its zoning bylaws, should be completed this year.
Leaving aside the rules for businesses, Toronto's various zoning bylaws for residential buildings vary from demanding one space per unit up to two spaces per unit in parts of the city's former suburbs, depending on the type and size of the building in question.
However, the city already routinely lowers parking requirements for developments close to subway stations, Mr. Tyndorf said. And planners have persuaded developers in some cases to further reduce the amount of parking they plan to build, especially downtown.
“There's a bit of a push-pull going on,†Mr. Tyndorf said, as condo marketing departments remain “leery†of not having at least one parking space per unit.
But in some cases, condo developers are “unbundling†parking spaces from residential units, making customers pay extra for a space if they want one.
In one such case, a developer sold only about 70 per cent of the available spots, Mr. Tyndorf said. “That tells you that the market really doesn't call for as much parking as the marketing department thinks is necessary.â€
Still, outside the downtown, the old higher parking ratios largely remain. But even in those suburbs, attitudes are starting to change, says Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker (Scarborough Centre).
The bike-riding environmentalist says one of his top accomplishments on council this term was successfully pushing a developer, and the city's planners, to allow 90 “car-free†affordable condo units, designed for seniors, in a 1,005-unit development approved last year at Scarborough Town Centre, right near the Scarborough RT.
“Certainly, for condos along subway lines and major bus routes,†Mr. De Baeremaeker says, “you should be required to build some car-free units.â€
Dr. Gridlock appears Mondays. Send comments or questions to
jgray@globeandmail.com.
