News   May 30, 2024
 339     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 30, 2024
 545     0 

Parking - Catch All

This is a funny thread, imo. It’s about parking in a forum that mostly wants parking to be curtailed through higher prices and limiting supply.

And the bolded is exactly why I made the thread.

So we can track movement on proper market pricing of parking, on-street, permitted and lots; redevelopment of green P lots into housing and parks; elimination of curbside spaces for Cycle Tracks, widened sidewalks and CafeTO space.
 
And the bolded is exactly why I made the thread.

So we can track movement on proper market pricing of parking, on-street, permitted and lots; redevelopment of green P lots into housing and parks; elimination of curbside spaces for Cycle Tracks, widened sidewalks and CafeTO space.
I'd like to see the end of on-street parking on main streets entirely, and instead build more Green P or private lots to support retail shoppers and visitors who drive, but the lots should go underground. That's what they do in Manhattan, where we find driving as easy as Toronto. The family and I have driven down to NYC several times and we normally stay near West 57th and between 5th and 8th Avenue, just south of Central Park, and there is tons of parking for cars everywhere, but all underground, with valet parking with elevators taking your car into some dungeon. Mind you, for short term parking this might be tricky - as we park the car for the week and never see it again until it's time to go home.

1000s.jpg
 
Last edited:
Good to see two reports coming to the next meeting of TEYCC which will shift a lot of on-street parking from free to paid.


The report above will convert 187 spaces from free to paid as per the below:

1707403282143.png


While this report: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-242851.pdf will result in a further 267 paid spaces.

In total 454 spaces will shift from free to paid.

The spaces in the above report are as follows:

1707403509359.png

1707403540868.png
 
A report to the next meeting of the Infrastructure and Environment Ctte will recommend very substantial increases in penalties for illegal parking.

Estimates have the City netting no less than 40M per year in new revenue (less this year, as the new fines would be effective August 1st, 2024, if approved by Council) ; revenue could be as high as 60M per year if the number of offenses did not decline.


In general, the minimum parking ticket will rise to $75

But there are some higher fines proposed as well.

Standing in rush hour, where prohibited ($125)

Parking w/i 3M of a Fire Hydrant ($125)

Stopping in rush hour, where prohibited ($175)

Standing your vehicle in a Transit Zone ($200)

Stop on/over sidewalk ($200)

Park on Sidewalk or Bikepath ($200)

And a bunch more.

The proposal would raise penalties for 123 listed offenses.
 
Becky Robertson over at BlogTO quoting info on the least used/lowest revenue parking lots on the City from Matt Elliot publishes a list that's not exactly revelatory:

There's nothing wrong w/Matt's Chart, its fine, but the interpretation that these lots are the most likely to become housing is more than a bit suspect:

1711559570829.png


Lets review shall we:

2225 Lakeshore Blvd West is actually the parking lot for Humber Bay Park West. LOL. Zero chance of housing here. If the lot is under utilized overall, it will shrink in favour of more greenspace. However, I suspect the problem is that the parking lot is fully subscribed on summer weekends, empty much of the winter, and maybe 1/4 full on an average weekday in the summer/shoulder season.

The Princes Blvd and British Columbia sites are both on the Ex grounds. (as are the Nunavet, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island and Manitoba sites); worth saying, these are all CNE-owned sites, not Green P owned. Yes, they could be repurposed, but they are a long way from being housing.

720 Lakeshore Blvd W is destined to become park space.

800 Fleet may have possibilities..........but, for reasons I can't share just yet, that site is stasis.

2450 Lawrence East is the parking for the Lawrence East SRT Station. I wonder why it might be mostly empty, LOL Its located under the Lawrence Avenue underpass and will not be housing.

Grangeway is the first of these sites actually destined for housing under the Housing Now program, 2700 Eglinton W and 705 Warden (Warden Station) are destined for same)

Not sure about Keele

Shuter is the Moss Park TCHC site, and that parking directly at that address is not buildable w/o tearing down the adjacent TCHC building.

The Steeles West site is in York Region. (beside Pioneer Village Station)

115 Unwin is a Parks site (existing) serving the Cherry Beach Sports Fields. (no housing going here)

****

All in all, a pretty laughably bad piece even by BlogTO standards.
 
Long time Cycling Advocate Kevin Rupasinghe with a piece in The Star today advocating for permit parking across Scarborough.


He's clear that he's not really a parking advocate and would prefer less reliance on cars; but he also notes that people who lack on-site parking elsewhere in the City often have access to permit parking, not so in most of Scarborough, and the result for some, including some lower income tenants in houses can be piles of parking tickets for illegally parking overnight on the road.

***

I have absolutely no problem w/this; with the asterisk that I think permit parking needs to increase in price substantially.
 

Fines for some parking violations were increased. Unfortunately the increases were watered down, and it seems like the number of violations targeted were cut as well (though the article didn’t have details).

At least it’s a small step forward.
 

Fines for some parking violations were increased. Unfortunately the increases were watered down, and it seems like the number of violations targeted were cut as well (though the article didn’t have details).

At least it’s a small step forward.
Fines matter little if enforcement is unreliable. I drive St. Clair between Dufferin and Yonge and every day I see someone parked or stopped in the curb lane, often it’s some Uber waiting to pickup, or a commercial truck delivering or shredding, or someone loitering with their four ways on, waiting 15-30 min until rush hour restrictions are over. And never do I see parking enforcement taking action.

I’d like to see a citizen reporting system like they have in some US cities, https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/03...bill-moves-forward-but-in-a-watered-down-form
I think permit parking needs to increase in price substantially.
I think there’s a ceiling to this though. My onstreet parking permit is paid by my employer, so to me it’s no difference, but several of my neighbours are renters or lower income families who presumably must have a car, and would then be paying a greater share of their limited income to park. Do we really want to make living in this city even more expensive through government fees, so that only the wealthy can have nice things?
 
Fines matter little if enforcement is unreliable.
That’s very true. Anecdotally, enforcement of all kinds appears to be dropping, and on top of that, it appears (again, anecdotally) that people are less invested in following rules for the public good.

The latter is a big problem, because we’re never going to be able to enforce everything, so we do rely on the honour system to keep things functioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Fines matter little if enforcement is unreliable.

I agree. Enforcement is too light and too unpredictable.

I think there’s a ceiling to this though. My onstreet parking permit is paid by my employer, so to me it’s no difference, but several of my neighbours are renters or lower income families who presumably must have a car, and would then be paying a greater share of their limited income to park. Do we really want to make living in this city even more expensive through government fees, so that only the wealthy can have nice things?

Here's my problem w/current pricing. The entry level permit (you have no place to park a car on your property, and first permit) is $21.34 per month this year or 71 cents per day.

Meanwhile, tenants in my apartment building pay $70 a month for parking (many people pay more, some a bit less depending on the building) or $2.33 a day.

Tenants (through their landlords) already pay significantly higher property taxes and then pay fair market for parking on top of that; while those in single-family homes get parking for almost free.

Additionally, we know that many streets have waiting lists for people to get permits, in part because many families have more than 1 permit. A second permit for a household is a more reasonable $61.96 per month, while a permit for those that
have a parking spot on their property is $86.29 per month.

I would argue for the entry level permit being priced the same as what the majority of tenants pay in the City - $70 per month. While I would merge the remaining 2 class of permit at the current, higher price point, or thereabouts.

The vast majority of permits are the entry level variety, so that's the key pricing signal to discourage unnecessary car ownership.

In conjunction with this, I would argue for massively lowering the cost of permits issued to carsharing companies to the same price as the upper tier regular permit; and substantially increasing their cap on permits, by at least double, if not triple.

This would make carsharing widely available in most neighbourhoods in Toronto as an alternative to car ownership for many, and certainly to second car ownership.

I'd also like to see pay-and-display (permit holders exempt) extended to any street within 500M of a subway station, and the entire downtown. Residents who need to park on their streets often complain of people who drive in and park who own or work in nearby retail businesses or people commuting by subway taking all the spots. If everyone had to pay, it would be easier to find parking when you need it.
 
Last edited:
….because we’re never going to be able to enforce everything, so we do rely on the honour system to keep things functioning.
I prefer a bounty system. For example, there’s no reason whatsoever to be parked in a bike lane. The law doesn’t care if you’ve got a disability permit, or if you’re a quick Uber drop, or running an emergency insulin pickup. No one GAF, you can no more stop your vehicle in a bike lane than you could hope up on the sidewalk. So, enact a bounty system, where after signup and vetting by the city, the public can photograph the scofflaw and the city issues a ticket, with 25% of the fine going to the photographer.

This is the system they used in Manhattan to fine idling trucks, and something Winnipeg and SF considered years ago.



 
Last edited:
I prefer a bounty system. For example, there’s no reason whatsoever to be parked in a bike lane. The law doesn’t care if you’ve got a disability permit, or if you’re a quick Uber drop, or running an emergency insulin pickup. No one GAF, you can no more stop your vehicle in a bike lane than you could hope up on the sidewalk. So, enact a bounty system, where after signup and vetting by the city, the public can photograph the scofflaw and the city issues a ticket, with 25% of the fine going to the photographer.

This is the system they used in Manhattan to fine idling trucks, and something Winnipeg and SF considered years ago.



Come visit Mississauga, I often see people parked in front of community housing on the multi use bike trail. Often 2-3 cars
 
For those interested, Hamilton passed it's minimum parking removal by-law on April 10th. Available here:


It removes minimum parking provisions for most of the lower city and along James North on the mountian, and introduces reduced minimums for most inner suburban areas. Only outer suburban areas retain the existing rates.

It also introduces some extremely stringent EV charging provisions which honestly don't make a whole lot of sense:

ill note that council annoyingly passed the by-law requiring all parking spaces for residential uses be EV charging spaces, including level-2 chargers, and that 50% of all commercial spaces be level-2 EV chargers. This means a commercial plaza with 100 parking spaces would have to provide 50 level-2 EV charging stations, which is frankly kind of absurd as that means you need a massive electrical supply to support such a huge number of level-2 outlets.

To make it worse, the by-law requires that the chargers be the SAE International J1772 standard, which basically every north american auto manufacturer is currently phasing out in favor of Tesla's NACS standard. So installing chargers which 90-95% of EVs on the market in 2-3 years use will require a variance.

It's stupid and there is a reason it'll be appealed. There is a reasonable expectation on this front for EV chargers I think, but it's far lower than 100% and 50%. Probably 100% rough-ins for residential (maybe 10% provided and 90% rough-in) and 5-10% chargers in non-residential contexts is more appropriate, and remove the requirement for them to be a dead-standard outlet.

Requiring such a huge percentage of parking spaces to have EV chargers is just total overkill as EV owners don't need that level of access to charging infrastructure. Even in a world with 100% EV adoption, nowhere close to 50% of commercial parking users are going to need EV chargers at any given time, especially if all residential spaces have EV chargers as well.
 
Technology............but will it be utilized effectively, or the way the TTC uses its massive data collection system?

1716396897681.png
 

Back
Top