King-Victoria Transit Hub

[BuildingScout]

I agree that there is space to do other things, in particular I think it would be nice if we allowed a cafe to set up shop there.

However given the large number of available empty and underdeveloped lots all around downtown is there really any logical reason why to put an office space in a location that is uniquely suited for a park extension yet offers nothing exceptional in terms of office space?

We could certainly allow mid high-residential on the Ottawa end, which given the premium for overlooking a park would pay for the entire redevelopment and then some.

[BuildingScout]

I think it wouldn't be bad to see a real full-size grocery store there with a residential and office-type building on top of it. They would have to get creative with parking and discourage people driving there but it might work.

Again, we shouldn't be trying to "discourage" people from driving. This is a war-on-cars mentality which is counterproductive.

We want to encourage people to take transit because it is the faster, cheaper, smarter choice. One way for this to happen is to run the LRT at a somewhat higher average speed than presently planned, say 10km/h faster. If the LRT takes five minutes less point to point and I can read a book/watch a youtube video/text friends on my way to work, I'm taking the LRT on my own accord.

[plam]

I think it wouldn't be bad to see a real full-size grocery store there with a residential and office-type building on top of it. They would have to get creative with parking and discourage people driving there but it might work.

Again, we shouldn't be trying to "discourage" people from driving. This is a war-on-cars mentality which is counterproductive.

We want to encourage people to take transit because it is the faster, cheaper, smarter choice. One way for this to happen is to run the LRT at a somewhat higher average speed than presently planned, say 10km/h faster. If the LRT takes five minutes less point to point and I can read a book/watch a youtube video/text friends on my way to work, I'm taking the LRT on my own accord.

That sounds inclusive but I'm not sure the empirical evidence is conclusive. My belief is essentially that parking needs to cost money. One of the reasons for that is that taking transit isn't free.

At first I wrote "more difficult to park" but actually I think "more expensive to park" is the right thing. Also, as you say, antagonizing people isn't the right thing, but setting prices probably is. It's neutral and non-antagonistic. Why should parking be free?

from: http://www.internationaltransportforum.o...oodwin.pdf

"The most successful applications of multi-element packages in practice have probably been the large-scale pedestrianisation of town centres accompanied by parking restriction and enhanced public transport, where successful cases have been good for mobility, commerce and public enthusiasm with few or no undesirable side effects."

I also missed the statements that are more on-point, e.g. "In general the experience is that both sticks and carrots are effective in changing behaviour of the individuals concerned." [p17] Must have both carrots and sticks.

[BuildingScout]

That sounds inclusive but I'm not sure the empirical evidence is conclusive. My belief is essentially that parking needs to cost money. One of the reasons for that is that taking transit isn't free.

At first I wrote "more difficult to park" but actually I think "more expensive to park" is the right thing. Also, as you say, antagonizing people isn't the right thing, but setting prices probably is. It's neutral and non-antagonistic. Why should parking be free?

I agree about charging for parking, but having lived in places where parking is outrageously expensive, it has never stopped me from driving. Most people who drive don't do so as a luxury, but as a necessity for work, so they will raise up and meet any price point (within reason) you put in front of them.

Give them reasonable public transit and they will leave the car home, particularly that famous second car that so many households in NorthAmerica seem to have. With proper transit infrastructure we could get rid of those which is about half the total fleet.

[BuildingScout]

I also missed the statements that are more on-point, e.g. "In  general the experience is that both sticks and carrots are effective in changing behaviour of the individuals concerned." [p17] Must have both carrots and sticks.

As I said, the incredible success of the iXpress shows that sticks are not really necessary. Neither are carrots. Just have public transit worth of the name and people will naturally use it. The reason is that, as heavily subsidized as the car is today, it is still incredibly expensive. $1-2K in depreciation a year (assuming a mid-size Japanese car), $1K-2K in insurance a year (depending on age of driver) and $600-3000 in gas a year, depending on length of commute plus $1K-3K in cost of driving. That is a built in disincentive of$3.6-10K a year for people not  to drive and the main reason why young people nowadays avoid a car like the plague, parking costs or not.

[white_brian]

All the points made above in reference to car dependency are great but we are not so much focusing on our generation but that of our children.
My son at the age of 17 worked his butt off (full time student/athlete and full time job) to buy his own new to him car before he could even drive it on his own. He is not the norm amongst his peers, most have been handed the keys to the 2nd car and or have been given a car of their own while a larger portion rely public transit. A lot of students now are helping to pay for post secondary schooling or are fully going it on their own and cannot afford a car, these people are the group to focus on and the ones we need to provide effective and reliable transit for. Going forward into adulthood if there is little need for a vehicle (for work, shopping and entertainment) they themselves will likely continue to use transit and in turn their family would grow up using transit helping to break the car dependency cycle.
That's not to say they would never need to use a car but with car sharing programs and car rental companies being more creative it provides a simple solution to long distance runs to the in-laws or vacations etc...

[clasher]

I think it wouldn't be bad to see a real full-size grocery store there with a residential and office-type building on top of it. They would have to get creative with parking and discourage people driving there but it might work.

Again, we shouldn't be trying to "discourage" people from driving. This is a war-on-cars mentality which is counterproductive.

There's been a 60+ year war on pedestrians, transit users and cyclists. Transit users are often told they should be paying for more (or all) of the costs at the farebox. The city doesn't even bother to plow the sidewalks or paths and cyclists are usually just an afterthought most of the time. Meanwhile the gov't keeps paving roads everywhere and every little cul-de-sac in the city gets plowed. But the moment anyone suggests that drivers start paying more for their infrastructure all of a sudden there's a war on the car and well that's just not fair because insurance and gas are expensive... surprise surprise moving a giant metal box around is gonna cost money! Drivers take a bigger slice of the pie and they should start paying more for that pie. Stuff like parking spot levies and congestion charges should be used more often in this province, especially as gas tax revenue drops with fuel-efficiency increases.

I'm not really buying the idea that we can't discourage automobile use. Society tries to discourage all sorts of other behaviours that have negative costs for everyone and driving is definitely something that costs non-drivers money and affects their health in many ways. I agree with you that such approaches should be tempered and that the primary focus should be on providing better alternatives but those cost money and given the choice between user fees for drivers and a general tax increase, I think it's fair that drivers start paying more for their choices, just like transit users are paying more of their costs.

[ookpik]

All the points made above in reference to car dependency are great but we are not so much focusing on our generation but that of our children...

The auto industry confirms your point. They're very concerned about this trend because it will severely impact their business. See e.g. The End of Car Culture and Young Americans ditch the car.

[mpd618]

I agree about charging for parking, but having lived in places where parking is outrageously expensive, it has never stopped me from driving. Most people who drive don't do so as a luxury, but as a necessity for work, so they will raise up and meet any price point (within reason) you put in front of them.

It's fine if most people will not change their behaviour as a direct result of charging for parking. If even 10% of those who are driving, to, say, downtown Kitchener switch to using transit, that will give a huge boost to transit ridership. In turn, higher ridership supports more frequent service, which makes transit more appealing.

The fact that parking fees don't compel you to change your behaviour don't mean they don't work for others. I, for one, can afford to pay for parking, but the price and hassle of parking makes me think twice about how I get to somewhere like the University of Waterloo.

[BuildingScout]

I'm not really buying the idea that we can't discourage automobile use. Society tries to discourage all sorts of other behaviours that have negative costs for everyone and driving is definitely something that costs non-drivers money and affects their health in many ways.

Again a "discouraging" program only works if there is an alternative. If we have an alternative I don't mind programs encouraging drivers to take public transit. But lacking those this just creates enemies without reducing car use at all.

For example Toronto has had a minimum $10 downtown parking fee since the early 90s and since people cannot take non-existing subways or live in non-existing high rises downtown (back then there were none) traffic commutes into Toronto pretty much remained unchanged. The high rises next to the Skydome have done more for getting people into public transit that twenty years of previous disincentives ever did.

[MidTowner]

I just realized that there are two similar discussions happening in both the Grand River Transit thread, and here. What I think the conversation is about is how to increase transit ridership. It also seems to have to do a lot with parking...or maybe the so-called "war on the car." Where's best to discuss?

Re: parking charges. It's not entirely about "discouraging" anything. Why shouldn't someone pay for what he uses? Again, if you walk or take transit to a business that offers "free" parking, you are paying for parking that someone else uses. That's inequitable, and doesn't help the parking users make efficient choices.

[BuildingScout]

Re: parking charges. It's not entirely about "discouraging" anything. Why shouldn't someone pay for what he uses? Again, if you walk or take transit to a business that offers "free" parking, you are paying for parking that someone else uses. That's inequitable, and doesn't help the parking users make efficient choices.

If you want to raise parking fees because it is the fair thing to do, fine. No issue with that.

If you want to discourage driving, then you have to give a viable alternative. It's just common sense.

[Canard]

Clasher, your post and attitude displayed above outlines perfectly the exact reason why "people who drive cars" resent "people who walk" and "people who ride bicycles."

[plam]

Clasher, your post and attitude displayed above outlines perfectly the exact reason why "people who drive cars" resent "people who walk" and "people who ride bicycles."

clasher's attitude is not so helpful in winning over friends, but on the facts I think the argument is spot on.

[BuildingScout]

clasher's attitude is not so helpful in winning over friends, but on the facts I think the argument is spot on.

Except for the fact that people cannot be discouraged into taking a non-existent alternative. But, yeah, aside from that his proposal makes perfect sense.