News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

potatopizzafan said:
The SW corner of that intersection appears to have a big bump out

View attachment 453998

There's also a large public parking area in the parkade of the odeon. I feel like no one know about it until about a year ago
Click to expand...

That's not the intersection we're discussing. This picture you posted is 33 and 21.

1675444287051.png


We're discussing 33 and 20. Although it looks like one lane, people will likely be passing the bus on the right as it's stopped at the location just east of 20 (you can see a square on the drawing for the bus zone). You can also see the EB lane on 33 is a triple-action lane and will be wide enough for people wanting to go straight while someone is going left to do so.

1675444352719.png
 
potatopizzafan said:
The SW corner of that intersection appears to have a big bump out

View attachment 453998

There's also a large public parking area in the parkade of the odeon. I feel like no one know about it until about a year ago
Click to expand...
That looks like 21 St. I was referring to 20 St.

Again, I expect that the curb extension on the SW corner of 33 Ave and 20 St is less pronounced because the need for a wider turning radius. I don’t think there is a bus route that turns right at this intersection, but maybe in the future, and 20 St might be important for deliveries in the area.

EB 33 Ave at 22 St also does not have a curb extension (and actually maintains a right turning lane) which makes sense for deliveries to the Safeway and other businesses in that area, and keeps traffic moving off of Crowchild.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
People really do think they're entitled to use the street as their private parking space.

I'd say the number one thing people lose their mind about in the Marda Loop Community Association area is parking. Permit/paid parking would go a long way to giving clarity to residents and visitors.

People are losing their minds about a 5 unit townhome each with their own basement nanny/in-laws/student suite. It's proposed for 20th St and 50th Ave. Having 10 units on a corner lot with no street parking because of the odd intersection layout and cycle track/bus stop on 20th, is pushing people to their limits. How many of those 5 basement units will have a car is hard to predict. If each unit has one car that's 10 cars looking for parking, 5 can go in the garages, leaving 5 looking for street parking that's either on 50th or 49th. Not accounting for people visiting the people in those units or any of those units having a second car. People make these arguments and get traction because, like you say, people think they're entitled to use the street as their private parking space. They're not. I've commented on the application, in defense of it. I hope if you're in favour of density and not worried about having to walk 50ft to get to your parked car you too will also comment. Can't have the comments be negative.
View attachment 454001
View attachment 454002
Click to expand...
The City needs to take a more proactive approach to establish Residential Parking Zones (RPZ). I don’t think it’s necessary in all inner city neighborhoods (although it would be a great revenue generator and force people to move vehicles off the street), but the process is reactionary, has too narrow criteria, and generally requires citizens to petition the City.

What will the tipping point be for 33 Ave for example?
 
adamyyc said:
The City needs to take a more proactive approach to establish Residential Parking Zones (RPZ). I don’t think it’s necessary in all inner city neighborhoods (although it would be a great revenue generator and force people to move vehicles off the street), but the process is reactionary, has too narrow criteria, and generally requires citizens to petition the City.

What will the tipping point be for 33 Ave for example?
Click to expand...
Here's the summary from the city website that says when a Residential Parking Zone area makes sense to investigate.

Criteria for Residential Parking Zone creation:
  1. The creation of a new zone is considered by the proximity of the area requested to a major parking generator which would typically see more than 1,500 vehicle trips per day (or per event for locations such as stadiums and arenas). Major parking generators such as hospitals, post-secondary facilities and LRT stations are common examples.
  2. A parking study will be conducted, and a new zone is warranted if occupancy of available on-street space is above 80%.
  3. If warranted, residents can request residential parking restrictions.
I object to all of these on principle, as residents don't own the street and have no greater claim to it than anyone else. There is not active management of parking - just complaint based. Further, it bakes in arbitrary and indefensible assumptions:
  • 1,500 vehicle trips a day - why not 1,501? Why not 200 trips?
  • How frequently do we care about event locations? A once-per-year event with 1,501 cars? 10 times a year? 365 times a year? Does time of day of events matter?
  • When do we consider above 80% full? Why 80% not 95%?
Finally, there is not a criteria on local context - if a neighbourhood has all SFHs with 2-car garages on the alley, that is a vastly different parking supply context than an neighbourhood with no off-street car parking at all.

But to keep this reasonable concise let's just take these criteria at face value and look at the locations boundaries of existing permit areas. The map below is of residential permit zones in the inner SW. Note the absence of Marda Loop in here, but there's far more weirdness going on than that. I didn't bother posting the paid on-street map because it's only visible for a sliver of Mission and 17th Ave near the core.

1675447415858.png


Some examples that make zero sense given the same criteria:
  • Area 0 (Richmond Hill near the old Children's Hospital) - zone was established due to Childrens Hospital demand. They moved over a decade ago and the services in that building are a fraction of what happened before. No way they pass the "major trip generator" test. Streets are always empty and area is largely expensive SFH infills.
  • Area P (Upper Mount Royal) - sure, there's probably a sliver of the community near Western Canada High and Lower Mount Royal that if you squint meets the threshold of demand in the criteria. Why then does the permit area extended 15 blocks to the south? There is no trip generators, no demand - yet a parking permit area exists. Taking a guess here that being a wealthy enclave seems to influence the size, shape and existence of a parking zone or not (or traffic calming in Mount Royal's case).
  • Area GG (South Calgary Park) - in what world has that park ever generated traffic to the level that it meets the criteria? Do the occasion children's soccer tournament count as a major trip generator? If so, give the whole city a parking permit boundary.
  • Area T (Richmond, west of Crowchild) - no clue how this qualifies, again it's the lowest density area of Richmond. No trip generators at all. Maybe that old Vicount Bennett school site was enough at one time to trigger a boundary being created? That school has sat empty for at least a decade I think.
  • Area CFC (Currie) - my favourite example. CFC - Canadian Forces Calgary perhaps? Do we really have a parking boundary for a military base that was decommissioned 25 years ago? Where's the trip generator? Almost everything built in Currie thus far has dual garages off the alley.
  • Area BEW (Brittania/Elboya) - Get real. What is the trip generator here? Britannia Plaza doesn't create spillover parking anywhere close to this scale.

In conclusion, the Residential Permit system is indefensible pseudo-science not fit for purpose at best, total regulatory capture at worst. Probably a bit of both. Most critically and ironically it isn't actually a tool for management of parking supply and demand:
  • Entirely complaint based and dependent on community approval, it's not proactive supply/demand monitoring triggered.
  • It relies on an assumption that residents have ownership of the public street over others.
  • It is inflexible and rarely is updated when context changes - hospital closes, school closes, and the original justification doesn't materialize
  • Boundary conditions are arbitrary and seem pretty likely to be influenced by politics, favouring abuse by communities that have the aptitude, wealth and negotiation ability to create an outcome that is more restrictive than something more based on trying to actually manage parking supply and demand.
So Marda Loop could probably qualify for this program if they could get it together and align their community messaging. But that would do nothing to manage parking issues in the area. Paid parking is the solution here, combined with shifting demand via more intensity within walkable distances, mixed uses and better transit, walking, cycling options.
 
Well said. Here's my two cents, in the form of a question and answer.
What is the ultimate result of providing a free community parking permit? It makes it easier to own and drive more vehicles.
Where have we established this incentive? Here (areas in pink):
1675460175936.png

Hey, aren't those mostly the same places we've spent billions on providing transit? Yes.
What are we doing here? ...
 
I think we’re saying the same thing re: the arbitrariness of the RPZs.

My point is that there are areas within and neighbouring the Marda Loop BIA which make more sense to be RPZs than other areas that have been established as RPZs (GG as an example), but don’t meet the arbitrary criteria to establish them (e.g., a hospital).

I also agree with you about establishing paid parking, but would point out that in an area like Marda Loop (33/34 Aves specifically), the recent changes made to the RPP program actually makes an RPZ “paid parking”, because residents of buildings of 4+ stories or with more than 20 units requires a Market Permit (in GG, the 2023 cost of a Market Permit is $100/month ($1,200/year)). These streets (33 in particular) are transitioning to these types of buildings.

If we only establish paid parking on 33/34, and don’t establish RPZs in those areas, residents of these buildings will just park one or two streets away where paid parking is not established.

It’s easy to say “so what, the residents on those nearby streets don’t own the street in front of their home” (and I agree), but the point of paid parking (and the RPZ) is to promote people to ditch their cars (or one of them) for alternative forms of transportation, or to find off-street parking, not to park them on a different street.

I’ll also note that all those people who live in small multi-residential buildings and ground-oriented buildings within RPZs do now have to pay for their RPPs. Although the cost is low (~$75-$250 per vehicle per year), and I think the cost for street parking for these types of residents should be higher, it is kind of satisfying that residents in those arbitrary (influential) RPZs will now have to pay for street parking).

My personal opinion is that establishment of paid parking (including RPZs) needs to be undertaken by the City, not in response to citizen lobbying, and needs to have redefined,” and defensible criteria.
 
adamyyc said:
The City needs to take a more proactive approach to establish Residential Parking Zones (RPZ). I don’t think it’s necessary in all inner city neighborhoods (although it would be a great revenue generator and force people to move vehicles off the street), but the process is reactionary, has too narrow criteria, and generally requires citizens to petition the City.

What will the tipping point be for 33 Ave for example?
Click to expand...
I think it is time to call in the Shoupistas! If you have never heard of a Shoupistas here is a link to a description. Shoupistas . Donald Shoup one of my favourite urbanists.
 
MichaelS said:
A DP for a smaller scale mixed use project is going to CPC this week, called Glendale Commons. It is a site that fronts 17th Ave SW, close to the 45th Street C-Train station. The DP looks promising for the first significant redevelopment in Glendale, however I do wonder if something more significant, such as a proper 4-6 storey mixed use building, should have been pursued. Bonus for having residential over retail, but the site contains surface parkng and a drive-through. I know the residents in Glendale have been vehemently opposed to density like that in the past, including for the land use for this site if I recall, so maybe this was settled on as a palatable level of intensification for the first significant project in the community. The developer is a resident and sits on the CA, according to the CA letter. Also, 17th Ave SW in this location is not exactly condusive for pedestrian oriented development/lifestyles, despite the proximity of the C-Train station.

For clarity, here is the site location:
View attachment 378855

Report, DP drawings, Renderings, UDRP Commentary, CA Letter, Applicant Submission
View attachment 378854
View attachment 378856
Click to expand...
Anyone remember this one from about a year ago (page 360 of this thread if you want to go back and read about it)? Looks like a different design is being proposed. Not a lot of details, but it sounds like a typical townhouse project, and the commercial component (and drive through) are gone, based on the decription:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top