Wednesday’s headlines

9 comments

1. I know this would not solve the removal of street parking or deter use of cars in general, but it might address the aesthetic and permeable concerns:

   http://snurl.com/9l0rd

   Also, it is disappointing to yet again read articles about an urban matter in the Toronto papers with absolutely no reference as to how other cities have handled the same issue. Get your head out of the sand, Toronto – you’re not the only city in North America. Learn from your peers, who have wrestled with similar problems. Whether they succeeded or failed, there are valuable lessons to be learned:

   http://snurl.com/9l0yv
   http://tinyurl.com/9s72hh
   http://snurl.com/9l1en

2. One possible solution to the pad parking dilemma is for the City to either persuade or compel homeowners with pads to convert to permeable paving materials. This could be done through an incentive system — e.g., the city could forgive part of the annual fee as an offset towards the cost of replacing the asphalt — or, with new pads, it could be simply a requirement for approval.

   As for the issue of the integrity of the tree cover, the City should set a policy of not allowing the removal of city trees to create pads, and then follow up with genuinely punitive fines for those who do — e.g., $5,000.

3. Where are the Toronto Sun headlines?

4. I’m a bit surprised at the lack of creative thinking by councillors on this issue.

   I would suggest the following simple compromise solution:

   New parking pads only be permitted where:
   (a) a tree is also planted on the front yard;
   (b) 100sqft surrounding the tree (or more if experts think more is reasonably required) be soil, garden or lawn in order to permit the tree to grow; and
   (c) any curb cut required for the parking bad does not eliminate an existing on-street parking space.

   This would encourage tree planting (thereby reducing runoff), while allowing parking pads in the many front yards where there is space.

   A permeable surface would also be helpful.

   Thanks uSkyscraper for the article cross references.

5. Taxing parking would be a lot simpler than road tolls and would have the benefit of “disincentivizing” current land use patterns of vast asphalt paving.

   Currently parking lots at malls and whatnot are given a tax break as they are taxed as undeveloped land. Then there’s all the people who enjoy a free parking spot at their workplace without paying any tax on it as an employment perk. You and I are paying for those freebies.

   *******

   Btw, mediamonitor, maybe there are no Sun headlines because it is more of a comic book than a newspaper.

6. I am glad you raised that point Boris. It is another example in which neighbourhood stores get treated poorly.

7. There are quite a few restrictions in place even if you do get a pad permit including what kind of surface and the planting or purchasing of a tree.

   The blanket ward wide ban approach does not work very well and I think they need to be more open to fact that that circumstances can be different street to street.

   1. Enforce the existing rules such as the one that states you have to display your pad license. This would help reduce the tons of illegal pads (mostly concrete) by making it easier to spot violators. Currently a citizen cannot call number, give an address, and find out if the pad is legal or not. I know, I tried. Removing these illegal pads would make a big contribution to helping with run off.

   2. How about reducing the amount of free parking in malls and changing zoning to allow for more reduced or zero parking buildings. That would greatly increase density which has many happy side effects.

   3. How about the fact that I have no alley or garage and cannot get a pad permit but on my street the City gave out pad permits to houses the same size as mine plus on street permits as well. I have a few neighbors that park 4 cars on the street in addition to what they park in the back. Maybe there should be a 2 car per house limit before the cost of street parking goes way up….then those who have one car and no parking might be able to get a space and not clamor for a pad.

   4. Overall parking in every form is way too cheap but how about making it cost more to park large SUVs that take up twice the amount of space that my 98 civic does?

   There is a real need for an overall parking vision and I as a car owner (but not regular driver) would be happy to pay towards it.

8. The upside of having a parking pad is knowing where you’re going to park every night. Holders of parking permits have a notional right to park on the street where they can find a spot, which might be a long way from their house, especially before the beginning of permit enforcement at 11pm by which time visitors have to leave.

   Personally (my house came with a pad and I pay the annual pad tax) I’d rather have the extra green space in front of my house to pile snow in the winter – but given the lottery I see my neighbours without pads go through, I can’t trust that the City wouldn’t find a reason not to assign me a permit on my own street, offering instead one “nearby”.

9. Mark> They do it by zone, not be street though. Sometimes out front, sometimes a street over. There are a certain number of spots in a zone, and they sell a particular amount of permits.

   Don’t know of any proper major urban centre where anybody can reasonably expect to park in front of their house all the time.