[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's not the whole story. Subway ridership depends on walk-up traffic, which Sheppard has a lot of, but it also depends on feeder routes (Sheppard has very few compared to Yonge-University and Bloor-Danforth), and it depends on people who need transit. The city's heaviest transit usage is in areas that have lots of lower-income residents - Davisville Village, St. Clair and Yonge (on the east side of Yonge), Parkdale, Jane & Weston, St. Clair and Bathurst, East York and Graydon Hall stand out on this map, while North York Centre and Sheppard East have the same percentage using transit, or a higher percentage, than many other areas immediately next to the subway network.

That has nothing to do with my thesis that transit access alone will not provide an environment where parking is unattractive. Downtown development simply cannot provide sufficient parking space for a large proportion of users simply because of space and affordability issues - transit and other modes simply provides an out to that problem. Most suburban developments simply do not face this issue regardless of the availability of transit.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

Most suburban developments simply do not face this issue regardless of the availability of transit.

They don't face this issue because there isn't a shortage of land. But go to Yonge/Eglinton or Yonge/Sheppard - you have to pay for parking there. Why? First, people don't need a car to get there. That isn't true for a lot of the suburbs - yes, there might be bus service that gets you to/from downtown and some other areas quickly, but it's often useless for many parts of the city. And second, using land for parking is inefficient. You can get more value for the land by selling it to developers than using it as parking. That reduces parking supply to the point where whatever remains is more valuable as a parking revenue source than a lump sum from selling the land.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

They don't face this issue because there isn't a shortage of land. But go to Yonge/Eglinton or Yonge/Sheppard - you have to pay for parking there. Why? First, people don't need a car to get there. That isn't true for a lot of the suburbs - yes, there might be bus service that gets you to/from downtown and some other areas quickly, but it's often useless for many parts of the city. And second, using land for parking is inefficient. You can get more value for the land by selling it to developers than using it as parking. That reduces parking supply to the point where whatever remains is more valuable as a parking revenue source than a lump sum from selling the land.

Which is my point - it's not simply a transit issue, it's an urban structure/density/urban design issue as well. Slap on a transit line doesn't mean it will reduce the attractiveness of parking, nor is redevelopment necessarily going to increase the cost of parking to the level of unaffordability either (e.g. why malls build multi-level garages even when there is transit access as part of redevelopment). We need to to be careful for making these assumptions.

AoD

 

[aquateam]

Downtown development simply cannot provide sufficient parking space for a large proportion of users simply because of space and affordability issues - transit and other modes simply provides an out to that problem.
AoD

And yet they're required by the Planning department to provide it anyways via parking minimums...

 

[amnesiajune]

You said this:

Sheppard subway and the resultant mode split is proof that you can't simply build subway or infrastructure and expect/hope for change by default either.

The mode split within walking distance of Sheppard isn't much worse than the subway system as a whole. Sheppard has low ridership because hardly any bus routes feed into it - the only ones are the 85 and the 25C. If the whole system was re-routed to feed into Sheppard Subway stops - for example, if the 53, 42 and 39 buses were split and everyone west of Don Mills was routed to Don Mills rather than Finch - ridership would be a lot higher.

 

[amnesiajune]

And yet they're required by the Planning department to provide it anyways via parking minimums...

There are both minimums and maximums. It makes sense to have both, otherwise you end up with poorly-planned developments.

The reality, whether you like it or not, is that people will always need some cars, even in major cities. City council will waive these requirements for certain developments - affordable housing developments in particular - but they have to plan responsibly, which means having both a minimum to ensure that Toronto doesn't become a segregated city (segregated on the basis of where people work) and a maximum to ensure that denser areas aren't flooded with cars.

 

[aquateam]

There are both minimums and maximums. It makes sense to have both, otherwise you end up with poorly-planned developments.


The reality, whether you like it or not, is that people will always need some cars, even in major cities. City council will waive these requirements for certain developments - affordable housing developments in particular - but they have to plan responsibly, which means having both a minimum to ensure that Toronto doesn't become a segregated city (segregated on the basis of where people work) and a maximum to ensure that denser areas aren't flooded with cars.

No, there's no basis whatsoever for having parking minimums. The fact that they exist downtown is flabbergasting.

If there is a market need for parking, then developers will provide it because otherwise people wouldn't buy the units. There is no need to subsidize auto-dependency through regulations that drive up the cost of housing in transit-supportive areas. It's also embarrassing how developers need to bribe the city through section 37 funds to let them build more transit-supportive developments.

It's funny how Calgary has our parking minimums as their maximums. The consequence? The highest transit mode share of any city its size in North America.

Edit: For those of you who want further reading, I recommend this paper: "The trouble with minimum parking requirements". Donald Shoup has a lot to say about parking minimums.

 

[afransen]

Not sure where best to post this, but I saw this headline from the Star in today's UT roundup. Does anyone have additional background? It's pay-walled currently.

@Northern Light

Toronto’s cheap and ample parking has been good for business. Here’s why that may be about to change

After decades of underpricing spots for cars in its lots and on its streets, Toronto may be about to undergo a parking revolution

www.thestar.com

 

[Northern Light]

Not sure where best to post this, but I saw this headline from the Star in today's UT roundup. Does anyone have additional background? It's pay-walled currently.

@Northern Light

Toronto’s cheap and ample parking has been good for business. Here’s why that may be about to change

After decades of underpricing spots for cars in its lots and on its streets, Toronto may be about to undergo a parking revolution

www.thestar.com

Its discussing this strategy:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-222862.pdf

Which goes to public consultation quite soon.

In theory, it will examine:

City-wide and/or expanded use of permit parking
Permit parking rates
Reduced on-street parking on major streets in favour of cycle tracks and CafeTO

In reality its being led by some pretty pro-parking people and if we don't collectively intervene, it may result in as few as 500 spaces removed and increases in price that underhwhelm.

I recently discussed that, in this thread:

Parking - Catch All

Not sure that's the tweet you're meaning to embed 😆 Nope, don't think I was meaning to put a tweet there at all; I normally post the report link in such posts. I'm putting that in there now. Thanks. We all make mistakes, I pride myself on not making many; my excuse is that I've been...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[drum118]

Its time to interduce you must have a parking spot before owning a vehicle as well a fee to buy it like it done in many places in Europe. Also, that permit should have a higher cost than it does today.

We have reached the stage that there is no more room on the existing streets to park for new comers let along future ones as well today.

With basement apartments on the rise, where are those residents going to park if the homeowner is using all the existing spots if there is spots on their land. If the homeowner is using the spots on the street, again with do the basement residents park??

Many single homes may have 1-2 parking garage as well in the driveway in front of them, but common to see them parked at the end of the driveway between the sidewalk and the road as the garage is being either used for something else or there more than what should be fore that household. Is is where on street parking starts to take over.

In the older area of Toronto, no garages where built as cars did not exist at the time for the front. In time, they were off the rear alleyway if there was one that held one car or 2. Again, a lot of homes with garages in the rear can hold all the cars for that home to the point they park on the street as well not using the alleyway at all.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Its time to interduce you must have a parking spot before owning a vehicle as well a fee to buy it like it done in many places in Europe. Also, that permit should have a higher cost than it does today.

We have reached the stage that there is no more room on the existing streets to park for new comers let along future ones as well today.

I live in Cabbagetown and have to admit that I almost never have trouble finding a parking spot on the street directly in front of my house. It’s permit parking only until 10am, so that helps, and the city restricts the availability of new permits in order to reduce the demand.

What I’d like to see is the Green P app return to its original design. The new one requires at least three prompts before you’re paid and good to go.

 

[Kitsune]

... I live in the beaches and forget about using my car during a weekend summer as the neighborhood is lined with cars - on both sides of the street. If the city is hurting for cash they really should just come up and down the streets as half the street will be illegal parked.. quick cash.