Quote:
Originally Posted by kylemacmac
Parkades around rapid transit? C'mon. It's pretty simple. Build full service human developments around all rapid transit stations. Watch transit ridership increase. Repeat. When line can not handle more capacity, increase line capacity or build other rapid transit lines. Around those new rapid transit lines build full service human developments. Catering rapid transit to auto drivers takes away the ability for TODs to function and is a poor 'solution' that entrenches vehicle driving and low density single use suburbs. It takes away the ability for TODs to work, as useful and highly prized space around transit hubs is eaten up by parked cars. Well-planned transit and land-use creates vibrant walkable neighborhoods, any movement in the direction of vehicle accommodation on a mass scale is completely counter-productive to this idea.
I have a car, and I drive all the time. Cars take away more than they bring to walkable transit fed developments. The goals is to design systems where a full network of transit is more effective than the personal vehicle, thus taking away the incentive to drive. A parkade, like a drive through lane. is an incentive to drive, and nothing else. It may help people get on transit, but only accommodates people who drive.
Every little bit adds up.
There is a parkade at the corner of Richards and Georgia downtown. Is anyone saying that people drive to this parkade to get on the Canada Line or the Expo line? With the prices charged, it's private-vehicle serving, that's it. An office tower, a condo building, a school, a park, at this location would make a much better use of limited downtown land, and provide a place for people to go, and do something, rather than just park.
Repeat.
Suddenly, there are thousands more transit users, funding the system, and the transit system is able to develop more connectivity and offer everyone a better service.
Sure, some parkades have great purposes, like the ones at airports, or certain strategic points, but Vancouver is FLUSH in parking spaces, both free and paid, above and below ground, and desperately lacking in human scale places and walkable neighborhoods fed by transit.
Cars are an amazingly useful device that enables us to connect far flung dots on the map very quickly and personally, but are the antithesis of good urban design. Good urban design strives for an ideal in walkability and exchange at the small scale, which may not be the most efficient setup for each and every person, but on the whole is vastly more efficient.
|
The more we spread urban build up and convieniece around the lower mainland, the more we spread the urban prices too.
Just look at the price to get into a condo at Joyce, Metrotown or Gilmore. They are well outside the downtown core but cost almost as much.
While I agree with TOD and building up urban centers, it does make it less afordable for average families to live close to rapid transit. Those people are the ones who want to use transit the most to keep their costs down, but they get infrequent service, like ever half hour peak, hour rest of the time. It gets expensive to develop large networks of bus service to bring people to rapid transit.
Offering parking spots in the suburbs is a good way to combat this effect. Most people already have a car, as you need it for errands. There is no way to combat that unless we have a Walmart on every corner (something i would like to avoid more than sprawl) or make hockey equipment and golf clubs that many times smaller and lighter. By providing park and rides, you give people the option of making a very short trip by car on uncongested local streets to the nearest station. From there they can use rapid transit to get where they want to go, and avoid congestion.
Parking spots allow the transit system to attract more riders without investing in low usage buses. Even a $30,000 parking spot is a good investment, similar in cost recovery to providing bus service in low density areas.
Prev
Linear Mode
