Calgary Public Transit II

[srperrycgy]

There is precedent for this idea though. There have been a number of paid, reserved parking spots at Fish Creek-Lacombe for a few years now. I don't think putting half of the spots at any given station would work. 25-30% sounds more reasonable.

[frinkprof]

^Yeah. I think up to 50% would work at a few stations, but not all. If it's going to be the same percentage (more or less) across the board for all stations, then the NE line will probably set that precedent with their lower demand for the service. Ald. Jones' comments reflect this a bit.

[mersar]

Agreed. I'd think 25-30% would be more reasonable if it has to be a consistent number across the board but it shouldn't just be council picking a random number out of thin air. It should be supported by current usage levels at a minimum.

That said, I was quite surprised to notice on Thursday that Brentwood was 100% full. I circled around the lot twice looking for a stall before I decided to go park at the University and jump on the train from there instead.

[freeweed]

Any bets on how much of a gong show the PnR lots will be in the first weeks of going free? I occasionally take a car to the station and as it stands, Crowfoot is often filled by 7:30 or so. Dalhousie is "next in line", and doesn't have much free space. If Brentwood is even occasionally filling up these days... ouch.

Will people be leaving their houses at 6am just to get a free parking space?

[fusili]

Hey everyone, check out the first TransitCamp blog about transit in Calgary. I am sure many of you would be interested:

Long Range Transit Planning in Calgary

[srperrycgy]

City approves park-and-ride reserved spots

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...s.html?ref=rss

omg........how elite is that? lol This will cause some unrest. Well probably just intangible unrest.....

First of all, give me a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 break with the "elite" BS. A class war over parking spots? Whatever. Many of the P-n-R lots are decaying and those that use them should pay for the upgrades. There is no such thing as "free" parking; there are costs to build and maintain. I do disagree with the number of paid spots approved. It should have been 25-30% instead of 50%. If someone wants to pay for a spot, let them!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

City approves park-and-ride reserved spots

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...s.html?ref=rss



First of all, give me a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 break with the "elite" BS. A class war over parking spots? Whatever. Many of the P-n-R lots are decaying and those that use them should pay for the upgrades. There is no such thing as "free" parking; there are costs to build and maintain. I do disagree with the number of paid spots approved. It should have been 25-30% instead of 50%. If someone wants to pay for a spot, let them!

These two bolded sentences seem contradictory to me. What if enough people wanted to pay for 75% of the spots, should we let them? I say allow people to reserve spots, but don't put any cap on it. If only 15% of the spots in one lot get reserved, that is all you need to reserve. But if 90% of the spots in another lot get reserved, all the better (in terms of revenue for the city). If people don't like it, they don't have to pay.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

City approves park-and-ride reserved spots

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...s.html?ref=rss



First of all, give me a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 break with the "elite" BS. A class war over parking spots? Whatever. Many of the P-n-R lots are decaying and those that use them should pay for the upgrades. There is no such thing as "free" parking; there are costs to build and maintain. I do disagree with the number of paid spots approved. It should have been 25-30% instead of 50%. If someone wants to pay for a spot, let them!

Simma down-a. If there are reserved spots......please tell me they are at the back! So all of those people whose used to arrive early and get up fornt get booted to the back because they dont want to shell out 70.00 dollars a month? It just seems kind of weird because it is a public system for eveyone. This is just another way for people to be secretly pissed off at eachother.

I guess in one way, it makes people, that just couldn't be bothered with the hastle of public transit, consider it a viable option.

In the end.....whatever. I dont live in the burbs anyway.

[sim]

Why would the ones at the back be the pay-for-reservation lots? That would semi-defeat the purpose of paying for them.

I agree that it is a public system - so good thing there are feeder busses that can be taken that are already included in the ticket price.


I personally think that they should have kept the P n R fees for all of it, however, I see this as a potential strategy where after a few years they bump up the reserved lots slowly back toward 100%.

Does anyone know what the actual effect was on ridership once the P n R fee was initiated? Unless this was somehow how drastic I don't see what the problem behind under-utilized P n R lots is. That is a good thing in an urban area, not bad.

I do rather doubt that it had such high elasticity, and I would guess that we have high paying jobs in the core to thank for that. And if it had been found that there was a shift back to more downtown parking, then those rates should have gone up correspondingly again as well. Thirdly, spill-over effects should be and/or should have been dealt with more aggressively.

Since, again, I doubt too many people would be looking at giving up a high paying jobs downtown, it leaves them with one of three options. Pay for parking, use the public transport system that is currently in place (feeder buses,) or move closer.

And before we dredge up the old arguement about people changing workplaces often and thus, not feasible to always change their place of residence - I don't mean it in such a way. I mean it as a long long term process, where if everyone were to do so, it would make the city smaller in general and thus, everyone would be closer to everything. But of course, that would require the general population to have a greater understanding of how inextricably linked land-use and transportation really are.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by mersar

Agreed. I'd think 25-30% would be more reasonable if it has to be a consistent number across the board but it shouldn't just be council picking a random number out of thin air. It should be supported by current usage levels at a minimum.

Originally Posted by MichaelS

These two bolded sentences seem contradictory to me. What if enough people wanted to pay for 75% of the spots, should we let them? I say allow people to reserve spots, but don't put any cap on it. If only 15% of the spots in one lot get reserved, that is all you need to reserve. But if 90% of the spots in another lot get reserved, all the better (in terms of revenue for the city). If people don't like it, they don't have to pay.

I agree, it would be better to see the demand for reserved spots and then supply them based on that demand. I don't think we should ever go to 90%, since that seems ridiculously high, because we aren't only catering to people with 8-5 weekday downtown jobs even if they generate a lot of the ridership, but we would get a more realistic number between the 23% from the surveys and the 50% that council wants to do.

That said, I don't drive, so the feeder bus network, and especially the BRT network, are more useful to me. I've felt the urge to draw out ideas for future transit recently...

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by sim

Why would the ones at the back be the pay-for-reservation lots? That would semi-defeat the purpose of paying for them.

Whatever, I think that "reserved" parking is kind of elitist. Sue me. I would not pay the 70.00 so it would be a rat race for me to park in the morning.

But I dont need to use the lots so I dont really care. And yes, it is probably smarter to use a feeder bus than to drive every morning........I totally agree. That is what most people do anyway I think.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Whatever, I think that "reserved" parking is kind of elitist. Sue me. I would not pay the 70.00 so it would be a rat race for me to park in the morning.

But I dont need to use the lots so I dont really care. And yes, it is probably smarter to use a feeder bus than to drive every morning........I totally agree. That is what most people do anyway I think.

Transit is both a vital portion of our transportation system and a public service for those unable to drive (whether by age, disability, or poverty). The park and ride lots are clearly part of the former purpose as opposed to the latter. It does make sense to use valuable land adjacent to stations for parking because it reduces congestion. That said, the land is valuable and charging for its use makes sense. In any case, how is a willingness to pay really any more unfair than first come first serve? It does not improve the system to have the lots full by 7:00 AM. If three dollars will convince some people to take feeder buses, so that there are spots that can be used throughout the day, that is a good thing.

[fusili]

I only have a problem with reserved parking is that it has the possibility of reducing usage, b/c people will pay and not use them everyday. So while revenue increases b/c of pay, ridership can be decreased. I guess nothing comes for free.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

I do disagree with the number of paid spots approved. It should have been 25-30% instead of 50%. If someone wants to pay for a spot, let them!

Fortunately, the motion that passed was to allow a maximum of 50% at each station, so CT could have less at some and should be able to adjust downwards. I can envision the NE lots ending up with less over time if they started with 50% and discovered that of those 50%, half were never used.

The one thing that I did notice one alderman bring up, albeit tangently, was that not every 'park and ride' lot will have this. There are a couple of the former lots that used to be part of the system that were tossed out when the fee came in (Grace Baptist Church, McMahon, etc) that likely will stay as they are. Though I am curious to see what the University's approach with McMahon will be, if they still charge I can see the number of people parking there dropping quite a bit. Wouldn't be surprised to see them move to a similar reserved stall system come May 1 (which is traditionally when all UofC parking changes take effect)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Fortunately, the motion that passed was to allow a maximum of 50% at each station, so CT could have less at some and should be able to adjust downwards. I can envision the NE lots ending up with less over time if they started with 50% and discovered that of those 50%, half were never used.

the number of paid parleys at Whitehorn will almost certainly be zero. Why would anyone pay when the lot will never even be half full when it becomes free again to park

[suburb]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

the number of paid parleys at Whitehorn will almost certainly be zero. Why would anyone pay when the lot will never even be half full when it becomes free again to park

Wow! Whitehorn is not expected to even get half full? I recall that lot being filled to the brim in years past - but I don't know what effect the westwinds station has had. If Westwinds gets full, it may push some people down the line to Whitehorn.

I'd expect the NE to get more park and ride types, simply because the train goes along the edge of the residential area (36th street) instead of through it (52nd street) - and so those people on the East of 52nd are often left with longer than ideal feed route rides.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by suburb

Wow! Whitehorn is not expected to even get half full? I recall that lot being filled to the brim in years past - but I don't know what effect the westwinds station has had. If Westwinds gets full, it may push some people down the line to Whitehorn.

I could see this happening, the question is to what degree. Of course, the picture changes again in a year and a bit when the two new stations open up closer to where a lot of the current park and ride users are coming from.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I could see this happening, the question is to what degree. Of course, the picture changes again in a year and a bit when the two new stations open up closer to where a lot of the current park and ride users are coming from.

and......maybe some new condo/retail develoments should take place near some of these underutilized stations. There is so much opportunity along the tracks!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I could see this happening, the question is to what degree. Of course, the picture changes again in a year and a bit when the two new stations open up closer to where a lot of the current park and ride users are coming from.

There only a total of 120 or so new P&R stalls between the two new stations.

Whitehorn never got full after MKWW opened. With the fee in place, I think it only ever gets 15-20% full now.

EDIT: sorry for the typos in my last post, was typing on my iPhone.

[reflexzero]

Soo.. just thinking about McKnight Westwinds.. Which spaces would they reserve then? Just the ones with power outlets? Those seem to be further away from the station, and there doesn't seem to be many of them.

Seems odd that they would try to rip you off for $70.00 and then not have power.