General cycling issues (Is Toronto bike friendly?)

[rbt]

My thinking is that if we have fewer and fewer cars, how do we replace the car-specific tax revenue? That's all.

Does Toronto have any car-specific revenue aside from parking? And the general answer for parking is to sell the land to someone putting up a building that'll pay property tax and turn roadway stalls into transit lanes (big operations/capital savings for TTC; even if buses/trams are self driving as fewer will be needed).

 

[steveintoronto]

Does Toronto have any car-specific revenue aside from parking? And the general answer for parking is to sell the land to someone putting up a building that'll pay property tax and turn roadway stalls into transit lanes (big operations/capital savings for TTC; even if buses/trams are self driving as fewer will be needed).

Yeah! I read a discussion on this, can't remember where exactly, I'll attempt to reference later, but the math of the argument is that *as it is*...all we taxpayers are subsidizing parking for vehicles, and could be receiving *multiples*...*magnitudes!* more revenue income doing as you state: Sell the land and claw back revenue from rates and taxes. TO Parking Authority is evidently one of the largest, if not the largest, parking providers in North Am.

Toronto has a serious addiction issue, and the first step to addressing that is to admit it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd be okay with scrapping Green P lots, provided the alternative public transit is there first. Intice, not coerce transit and bike use is the name of the game.

 

[steveintoronto]

You had me scared for a bit there, Admiral. I thought perhaps you'd lost the fleet.

Absolutely agreed, especially since we'd be cutting a loss, not a gain. In the interim though, they should be used as a lever to get parking off of Bloor. I can't see any other way to make Bloor work. For cars or bikes. And again, the carrot there is increased width of sidewalks, as has been done on the no-parking strip Avenue to Sherbourne. That also allows turning lanes cut into that extra sidewalk to keep the flow moving through intersections. Even with a reduced speed limit, throughput and driving/cycling experience will be far more relaxed and smooth.

 

[muller877]

You had me scared for a bit there, Admiral. I thought perhaps you'd lost the fleet.

Absolutely agreed, especially since we'd be cutting a loss, not a gain. In the interim though, they should be used as a lever to get parking off of Bloor. I can't see any other way to make Bloor work. For cars or bikes. And again, the carrot there is increased width of sidewalks, as has been done on the no-parking strip Avenue to Sherbourne. That also allows turning lanes cut into that extra sidewalk to keep the flow moving through intersections. Even with a reduced speed limit, throughput and driving/cycling experience will be far more relaxed and smooth.

Why doesn't the City use Section 37 for the new developments on Bloor (and other avenues) to add more public parking spaces (owned by the Parking Authority)? And then remove the parking from the street. Net no change in the number of spots in the neighbourhood but a removal of street parking. Then convert this to either transit lanes, cycle lanes, wider sidewalks or patios (or combo thereof).

(perm parking only...not off-peak parking)

May require a change in the bylaws regarding Section 37 but I can see the direct benefit to the development and the neighbourhood as a whole.

 

[Tuscani01]

My thinking is that if we have fewer and fewer cars, how do we replace the car-specific tax revenue? That's all.

Why does it have to be car specific revenue? Transfer the burden onto property tax. It will benefit the city way more than car specific revenue, as most of that goes to the Fed's and Province anyway.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've noticed that some trucks have bright red polls sticking out from their rear corners, presumably to warn drivers and cyclists to stay out of his blind spots. This made me think of how to prevent dooring of cyclists, by ensuring the cyclists can never get close enough to the car. Just wacky musings..... now back to work.

 

[Tuscani01]

Why doesn't the City use Section 37 for the new developments on Bloor (and other avenues) to add more public parking spaces (owned by the Parking Authority)? And then remove the parking from the street. Net no change in the number of spots in the neighbourhood but a removal of street parking. Then convert this to either transit lanes, cycle lanes, wider sidewalks or patios (or combo thereof).

(perm parking only...not off-peak parking)

May require a change in the bylaws regarding Section 37 but I can see the direct benefit to the development and the neighbourhood as a whole.

There already is an abundance of parking along Bloor. There is no need for more lots when the existing ones sit pretty empty. The problem is retailers and drivers want on-street parking because they view it as 'convenient'.

 

[ADRM]

There already is an abundance of parking along Bloor. There is no need for more lots when the existing ones sit pretty empty. The problem is retailers and drivers want on-street parking because they view it as 'convenient'.

It's even more complicated and problematic - many of them view it either as "essential" or even a "right."

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's even more complicated and problematic - many of them view it either as "essential" or even a "right."

That includes the ones who only go in for a minute... becomes 15 minutes very slowly.

 

[steveintoronto]

Why doesn't the City use Section 37 for the new developments on Bloor (and other avenues) to add more public parking spaces (owned by the Parking Authority)? And then remove the parking from the street. Net no change in the number of spots in the neighbourhood but a removal of street parking. Then convert this to either transit lanes, cycle lanes, wider sidewalks or patios (or combo thereof).

(perm parking only...not off-peak parking)

May require a change in the bylaws regarding Section 37 but I can see the direct benefit to the development and the neighbourhood as a whole.

It's Provincial, the Planning Act, and it's an offset to new development going overdensity, for a municipality to demand parkland, in fact or value in lieu of. The City has other ways it could act if it really wanted to, one of them being tolls on the roads! (Under the City of Toronto Act) (as well as levies)

Be aware though:
Most Ontarians would hit brakes on car tax: Poll - Toronto Sun
www.torontosun.com/2016/05/26/most-ontarians-would-hit-brakes-on-car-tax-poll
May 26, 2016 - Most Ontarians want their governments to steer clear of a municipal vehicle tax, a new poll shows.
Toronto council urged to reinstate vehicle registration tax | Toronto Star
www.thestar.com › News › GTA
Jan 6, 2016 - Social justice organizations and think tank calling on council to reinstate vehicle registration tax to help end poverty.

I've noticed that some trucks have bright red polls sticking out from their rear corners, presumably to warn drivers and cyclists to stay out of his blind spots. This made me think of how to prevent dooring of cyclists, by ensuring the cyclists can never get close enough to the car. Just wacky musings..... now back to work.

Have they been serving mushroom soup again down at the dockyard? lol...In all fairness, that truck, unless operating under the stipulations of the HTA for an over-sized load, would be pulled over and ticketed. I see some cyclists doing same (albeit not as many now I think about it) but it would have next to zero difference for people who don't look to begin with.

It's a bit like those "Baby On Board" signs in (mostly) SUV back windows. If anyone cares, they're already doing so, and the inconsiderate jerks couldn't give a %^$.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Best fix for bike lanes is that they should never be alongside parked cars. Either allow parked cars, or bike lanes, never both. Then you'll never get doored.

 

[steveintoronto]

Best fix for bike lanes is that they should never be alongside parked cars. Either allow parked cars, or bike lanes, never both. Then you'll never get doored.

With very few exceptions, I agree. Albeit you can still get doored from vehicles that stop, but of course, your gist is predicated on traffic moving and no curbside entering or exiting of passengers.

What's really frightening is the number of cyclists interviewed who think parking offers them a buffer of safety. WTF? If that isn't indicative of cycling while mentally oblivious, there always Pedalling Pokemon.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What's really frightening is the number of cyclists interviewed who think parking offers them a buffer of safety. WTF?

I think that comes from our experience as pedestrians, where it is safer on narrow, busy streets to walk on the side with the cars parked, since you have buffer should someone otherwise jump the curb. But that doesn't work at ALL for cyclists.

 

[MisterF]

It's Provincial, the Planning Act, and it's an offset to new development going overdensity, for a municipality to demand parkland, in fact or value in lieu of.

This seems to be a common misconception here. Although it can be easy to conflate the two, community benefits in exchange for higher height/density are completely separate from cash in lieu of parkland. The overdensity benefit is through Section 37 and doesn't necessarily have to go to parks. It can also go to community centres, libraries, public art, streetscape improvements, etc.

Parkland dedication (or cash in lieu) is through Section 42 or 51.1 of the Act and applies to all new buildings and subdivisions, whether they have higher densities or not. A new condo could comply with all of the existing zoning provisions and it would still be subject to a parkland contribution. The money collected for this fund must be used for parks. Unlike Section 37, there's not much room for negotiation with the developer - the Planning Act contains specific formulas to calculate how much land or money must be contributed.