There is constant debate, among those who care about traffic flow, about whether parking should be allowed on streets that share bus and streetcar routes. Some argue that the removal of on-street parking will make streetcars and buses move much more efficiently and create less stop-and-go driving (thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Others argue that the removal will allow cars to move faster, which will make the street more hostile to cyclists and less pleasurable for pedestrians.
Should parking be removed from roads that share public transit routes?
photo by Lex
32 comments
It really needs to be answered on a case-by-case basis. I didn’t vote.
Most importantly, it depends on *what you do* with that extra road space that no longer has parking.
Do you turn it into a faster-moving arterial?
Narrow it with more sidewalk, trees, etc?
Use the middle lanes for a streetcar ROW and outside lanes for general traffic? Streetcar lane and bike lane?
Replace parking with bike lanes?
Create a landscaped boulevard down the middle?
Keep some spaces only for delivery vehicles, or taxi stands?
But overall, it seems like a waste of public space to have so much on-street parking. If it helps calm traffic to have parked cars, then there must be other/better ways to reach the same goal.
On street parking is fine, although it should cost more. What should be removed are the boring expanses of off-street parking lots.
Parked cars are one of the biggest worries for cyclists. At any moment, a door might be flung open into your path. I don’t agree that removing parked cars would make the streets more hostile to cyclists.
Now, can we do something about those cyclists who are hostile to pedestrians?
This would be a great idea if it were coupled with the construction of many new parking decks like the kind they have in Detroit.
I hate to say it because I like green roofs, but the best place for a car (besides a junkyard) is on top of a building or underground.
I think removing parking would only shift around the cars that are already using the road so that they were in both lanes, and ultimately increase the number of cars on the road.
Steps should really be taken to decrease the overall number of cars on the road. My plan of waiting for gas to hit $4 / L is not going so well.
Keep it. Giving an extra lane to traffic only encourages more traffic, like adding extra lanes to an expressway. It would only be encouraging more people to drive if we help traffic move faster.
It’s unfortunate about the streetcars getting caught up in traffic, but the only way they’d move faster is if given streetcar-only lanes.
I agree with Vic – if they space is given to things like bikelanes and trees it’s a good idea.
Alternatively, the parking could be taken out and the curblanes used by cars with the center lane being streetcar/bus only – that would solve the slow transit issue.
Eliminating all parking turns streets like Queen, Bloor, etc., into thruways instead of destinations.
Setting aside the fact that drivers who have parked their cars on such streets should be included in our count of people who are interacting with and bringing life to a neighbourhood, the parked cars also form a sort of protective buffer between pedestrians and the rest of traffic. It will actually decrease our pleasure in being there when all lanes are filled with moving cars.
Yes, there might be other ways to acheive the same ends… but nothing like that was proposed in the question here.
Wrong poll question. The question is: how will City Council ever persuade Chief Blair to take traffic enforcement seriously.
Choice (a): sacking him if he won’t
Choice (b): lynching (oops, can’t say that one) – um, a waterboard/tasering combo.
Much of our congestion is not legal parking, it’s illegal doubleparking, parking in no-stopping zones and so on. Imposing further bans is fine but then you’re thinning out the already inadequate enforcement, and the enforcers are likely to keep their existing beats like neighbourhood streets because they are less likely to have confrontations with the guy struggling with his dry cleaning.
I’ve seen the club district with platoons of towtrucks ready to go – why doesn’t that happen at King and Bay at 5pm?
Take a look at either King street, Adelaide or Richmond between 8:30 am and 8 pm on a weekday…..there is usually nothing but cabs on both sides.
This is what really cause big holdups along the streetcar route on King as all traffic is forced into one lane each way.
At rush hour in the afternoon there are so many cabs that they line up on Bay and York too because there is no more room for them on King.
Obviously there are too many cabs here so why is there never any enforcement of the no stopping/no standing laws. I can get a parking ticket on my tiny residential street 5 minutes after midnight but these hordes of cabs can cause the same congestion day after day just so that Bay street types don’t have to either wait or walk?
There’s a great book that should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in urban planning, called the High Cost of Free Parking, written by Prof. Donald Shoup. It really changed my outlook on parking, cars, and the urban landscape.
Municipally provided parking is a huge boondoggle subsidy with very little justification. Does it make any sense that the streets we build are 1/3 to 1/2 larger than need be, simply to accommodate parked cars (either the streets are built too big, or we needlessly forego valuable space for drivers to parking)? In addition, Prof. Shoup’s studies show that up to 1/3 of inner city congestion is created by drivers circling while looking for curbside parking.
By providing parking – and massively undercharging for it – we encourage (by hidden subsidy) driving, which I think most readers of this site would agree is not something we should be doing.
My view is we should eliminate parking on main thoroughfares, regardless of what we do with the freed up space. But of course, any discussion of eliminating parking will have to consider the alternatives – given the concerns voiced above. Naturally, the most obvious option is to massively expand the use of bike lanes; given the difficulty the city is having meeting its goals of expanding bike lanes, this seems like the best way to do it.
Not only do I think that we should remove on-street parking from most major roads, but I think that we should not appease drivers any further with the addition of green P lots, as was done on St. Clair following the S.O.S. debacle.
On-street parking chokes traffic, slows transit vehicles, and gives bike riders the option of getting squeezed into traffic or winning the inevitable “door prize”. Furthermore, it is a bitch to plow the snow out of, and in the dead of January we get treacherous mini-mountains of black ice where cars usually sit.
Merchants fight tooth and nail for it, but less than a quarter of all retail trips on streets like Bloor or Queen are generated from on street parking. Having somebody take up 12 square meters of prime roadway space for half an hour to buy a 2 dollar coffee is an extreme example of waste and inefficiency, whether you are a pedestrian, bike rider, transit user, motorist, or even a merchant.
Congestion is a good thing. who likes walking on Richmond or adelaide? they are no mans lands. keep the cars, enforce the rules on turns so the street cars can move, but who cares if the cars cannot?
the sydney herald recently wrote: “Cities are designed to concentrate – or congest – human energy. They are less about moving through than being there; they thrive on bustle, busy-ness and friction, creative and otherwise.”
link to article in website box
Lots of good points made. Removing on-street parking would likely improve traffic, although it would also increase demand for parking garages, something I know most people here don’t like.
Whenever I go into the city I don’t drive, mostly because I hate the stop-and-go, and paying for parking (I’m spoiled since I have a driveway at home and a free parking garage at work). TTC is better anyway, since for me downtown means drinking, and drinking means not driving.
Either option wouldn’t change my habits (unless the price of parking plummets, unlikely) but better traffic would also mean faster TTC.
Get rid of one car parking lane on each major street and replace it with a raised two-way bikeway.
I have had conversations with councillors on this subject — the greenest ones want to keep on-street parking, which I just don’t understand.
On-street parking means horrible air quality. I would rather have efficient traffic than poor air quality. They see that cars moving effectively as an encouragement to driving. But it doesn’t have to be: Lots of cyclists would still be riding, lots of stops for transit would keep the cars slow too. Also, improved urban design to keep the cars at a reasonable rate would be better than what we have now — which is congestion and gridlock and smog days and unsafe streets for cyclists.
When I drive occasionally I hate parked cars cuz I can’t pass a streetcar and I stop and start all the time. On the streetcar, i hate parked cars since they keep traffic moving so slowly that my streetcar is only as fast as a walker at times.
Get rid of on-street parking; build underground lots (or green-eco lots) and begin to allow everyone to move efficiently, and not have everyone at a standstill.
I think the most important point is the preservation of density of use. If we replace on-street parking with wasteland parking in-between buildings, we will have lost. The status quo is better than that.
Ideally, we’d replace on-street parking with dedicated transit and bike lanes, but I am enough of a cynic to realize that that is not the likeliest outcome right now.
Complete elimination of on-street parking will be neither practical (local business will cry bloody murder), nor a popular measure. What I found most traffic disruptions on busy streetcar lines are left turning cars!! That’s the real culprit. That’s true even when there’s no streetcar.
So my vote goes to no parking during rush hours (my definition of rush hour is 6-10am and 4-8pm. But most importantly, no left turn at all time on some major intersections (e.g. on King and Queen from Sherborune to Bathurst, on Dundas from University to Bathurst) and no-left turn on those street car lines for majority of the line during rush hour. I think even drivers will appreciate it. The impact to side street should be minimal.
thanks for the post and comments, and remember some of the lesser lights too, please.
as a carmudgeon, the red rumbles/rackets are imperfect, but should we kill the cars before they kill us?
How can we change what is with just paint and political will?
I say eliminate all parking on main streets in Toronto, and don’t build any new off-street lots. Perhaps some limited parking should be allowed for deliveries only at night, but no parking should be allowed at all during the day. What we should do with the freed up space depends on the location. If the street would be at least four lanes wide if the parking were removed, and there is frequent transit service but no transit lane, the freed space should be used to create a transit lane. If a transit lane already exists, or no transit lane is needed, then the space should be converted into bike lanes or sidewalk space (sidewalk in busy pedestrian districts like Spadina/Dundas, bike lanes where the sidewalk is less crowded).
This would have no effect or even a positive effect on local businesses because it is clearly obvious that in downtown areas few customers come by car anyway, so improving transit service and foot access will increase the number of customers more than removing parking and roads decreases it. I don’t understand why businesses are so opposed to removing or reducing on-street parking. Pure short-sightedness.
As a cyclist, I lie parked cars. When they’re sparsely parked every 100m or so, you tend to have the lane to yourself for some reason.
But there are certainly streets that should lose the parking. King Street comes to mind.
An additional point I meant to make about the absurdity of municipally provided parking (ie. curbside parking) is how it values *prospective* vehicles over *actual* people.
I lined up at City Hall yesterday to renew my parking permit (for the last time – I’ve resolved to sell my car to be truer to the values I’ve been espousing). What a great deal: for $65 I get to occupy about 60 sq. feet of space for 6 months. Check that – my car gets to occupy that space for 6 months.
If, OTH, *I* was to set up a tent in that same space, it would be summarily dismantled. So a real person, who could afford nothing else by way of shelter except a tent spot for which he/she would pay $65 for 6 months would be unwelcome – but if they had a car in the same spot unused it would be acceptable. That, friends, is a bit fucked up.
McKingford >> I’ve been on a similar train of thought lately (sorry for the unintentional pun). I was trying to think of what else, besides the car, does the city subsidize so heavily? There is no other piece of private property that we can own that is accommodated by the City in such great lengths.
And on the cost front: a parking spot, which costs $1.50 for an hour on main streets, seems more important than the $2.75 spent by transit riders trying to get somewhere quickly and efficiently. Think of a row of parked cars: 10 of them generate $15 for an hour of parking on Queen, yet the streetcar full of people, say 70 x $2.75 = $192, gets stuck in traffic becuz of on-street parking. Now, multilpy that $192 x 12 sreetcars an hour passing that same spot = $2,300. This means the 10 cars empty cars, generating $15, means more to the city (and cranky store owners) than moving thousands of people who are paying decent money to get somewhere with some speed.
Now that’s just some little formula I came up with while lying in bed one night and can probably been proven to have lots of flaws. But the point is, on-street parked car gets so much more value than a transit rider and that seems so wrong: an empty car can back-up traffic, but a full streetcar should be expected to go 5km/hr along Queen, King, College just to create a buffer for pedestrians and to accommodate store owners?
Micky, that’s a great point.
The book I cited above by Prof. Shoup (which I really commend to everyone) has as one of its main propositions that – to the extent curbside parking is to be provided at all – its price needs to be dramatically higher to reflect its true cost (both economic and social). Your example rather brilliantly confirms this hypothesis.
By vastly undercharging for curbside parking, we are encouraging congestion and crawl: as a driver, surely it’s worthwhile to circle for 5 or 10 minutes to find curbside parking at $1.50/hr than to pay $5-20 in a lot more distant than the curb…as a result, up to 1/3 of the cars in a downtown area are doing nothing more than circling looking for curbside parking. And that, friends, is also fucked up.
Given the practical benefit of parking curbside over a lot, curbside parking should be much *more*, not much *less* than the lot. So if we raised curbside parking to, say $7-10/hr, drivers would be less likely to park curbside: they’d either head straight for a lot (and thus avoid the congestion-causing circling), or they’d take transit – which would correspondingly be able to flow faster. In essence, high parking rates would substitute for congestion tolls (as imposed in London): the same (or better) result, but imposed much more simply.
There are a number of good points here by various writers, and I won’t repeat them.
I concur with the scheme (part of a proposal actually before Council) to extend the definition of “rush hour” so that parking is banned for a longer period on major streets.
Also, enforcement including aggressive towing, commercial vehicles included, is a must.
Case-by-case micro-planning is required. A wholesale ban everywhere and at every time will piss off a lot of people needlessly in areas where it cannot be justified, and would even create a backlash against transit.
Steve
Council approves million dollar parking lot on Danforth
If this was in order to remove the existing TPA lot and redevelop Coxwell Station with medium rise and street frontage on Danforth, I’d be right behind this (as a local) but it’s not – just another pave-over job like they tried with the Matador.
Please forgive me if you’ve already heard me whining about this issue over the past decade, but I still view abandoned cars and trucks parked on our local thoroughfares, as nothing more than large pieces of shiny litter.
Why do we continue to dedicate huge swaths of the most congested and valuable urban real estate, to the storage of dormant motor vehicles?
Again, why should the convenience of motorists hold sway over the health and safety of our most responsible yet vulnerable, urban travellers – pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users?
In conjunction with heightened traffic law enforcement, and an across-the-board reduction in local motor vehicle speed limits, change transportation policy to remove all on-street parking on all arterial roads within the City of Toronto.
Take two thirds of the reclaimed space and install separated, passing-width active transport (bike) lanes on all main streets.
The remaining third of such a liberated parking lane could be used to widen our overburdened sidewalks wherever deemed beneficial (eg. unconvinced merchants could use some extra space for expanded sidewalk cafes or goods displays, to more easily facilitate the transitional loss of accustomed curbside, ‘customer’ parking privilege).
It will happen eventually, eh? Why not benefit now?
And if, on the chance that specific on-street parking locations could be shown to serve the common good, let our community councils debate the merits of any such dispensation from a position of inclusivity, and not be carried along blindly by the narrow selfish nimbyism so prevalent in the recent past.
Happy December, all,
scunny
Citizen June MacDonald in a bludget dep a few years ago, went through the bludget and guesstimated that there was about $400M in avoided cost/subsidy to the private car. They are very useful sometimes etc. etc. but transport inequity spreads from beyond mere space issues to the costs of providing that space.
Charge the cartillery, instead of them charging at us!
Interesting discussion from all–I am of two or more minds and thus didn’t vote. I could definitely see the case for scrapping parking on major streets in exchange for a nicely-executed streetcar ROW, but in the absence of plans for those I would rather keep the parked cars, for the traffic-calming reasons discussed above. The again, as a cyclist I’d rather have bike lanes….and so on. Hard to decide.
Sure, I understand the logic behind many of the arguments for and against the removal of the dedicated parking lane in favour of dedcated transit and bike lanes. However, there is a wrinkle in all of this which no one has yet to mention: the TTC must make all of their transit vehicles wheelchair accessible in the near future. The lowest any low floor light rail vehicle (LRV) in the world can go is 13 inches above the roadway. This will either require building an on street platform like those found on Bathurst at Queenn and parts of College (which would be a problem on Queen, King, and any other street within the historic downtown grid), extend the curb and transit stop to the tracks (which would eliminate the notion of dedicated transit lanes, seperate through traffic lanes, and uniterrupted dedicated bike lanes), or remove lrvs altogether and replace with buses which can move to the curb.
There’s one comment above that says get rid of all on-street and not allow anymore off-street. Moron. Wanna see everyone REALLY start shopping at big boxes…just do that. You’ll KILL every small retailer.
And are the only people that contribute here cyclists??? Gimmee a break. 99.9% of all residents in this city haven’t been on a bike since they were 12. It’s about time we get off this bike lane crap. What a waste of resources, time, money and emotional heft. Let’s build some subways people. The ONLY (ok, ok, I’ll include GO in here too) reason this city works well is becuase of the subways that took some gonads to build 50 years ago.
While I do think that there are many streets where removing street parking during rush hour makes sense, I’d be happier if the police would actually start enforcing the current no stopping and no parking regulations. They could station an officer at Yonge and St Clair or on St Clair at Bathhurst/Vaughan and make a killing.
And yes reading the comment on ditching on and off street parking surprised me. Living on the St Clair ROW, I support replacing some of the street parking with off-street parking. Otherwise many people would just drive over to the parking lots of Keele and St Clair’s big box stores.
i don,t want to vote for this poll…, because there are so many shopping malls beside the roads only, so where the customers had to park their vehicles?