Calgary Public Transit II

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

Its not a jobs program. However my point is that some people will be negatively affected unless Calgary Transit continues to have methods for numerous retailers to purchase and reload the Connect card.

IIRC the paper based tickets & passes aren't going anywhere initially. Even in some systems with a Connect like system, you still can buy single use tickets, so I would doubt that they disappear completely just likely decrease. Also note that you have been able to purchase passes and tickets online for a while now and there hasn't been a dramatic drop in sales at customer service, has there?

P.S. sorry for the loss of your wife's part time job

[Cage]

From CTV News a few nights ago, the new Tuscany station is causing a few parking problems. Here is a link to the CTV story. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/community-feels-parking-pinch-from-commuters-1.2021255

Yesterday I took a drive over to Tuscany to check the situation out. The problem appears to be that immediately beside the station is a large townhouse complex. Each unit has space to two cars to park in the driveway and another two cars to park in the garage. The driveways are too close together to allow for any street parking. Across the street is apartment style condo with ample street parking.

It appears as although some townhouse dwellers do not have access to parking on their property. Their situation turned bad when the Tuscany station opened and other Tuscany residents started to park their cars across the street from the station.

So lets open this debate wide open. Should there be parking restrictions for residents near the LRT? Does anyone here have sympathy for the plight of the Tuscany townhouse people? I sure don't.

[SquattingBear]

Originally Posted by Cage

From CTV News a few nights ago, the new Tuscany station is causing a few parking problems. Here is a link to the CTV story. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/community-feels-parking-pinch-from-commuters-1.2021255

Yesterday I took a drive over to Tuscany to check the situation out. The problem appears to be that immediately beside the station is a large townhouse complex. Each unit has space to two cars to park in the driveway and another two cars to park in the garage. The driveways are too close together to allow for any street parking. Across the street is apartment style condo with ample street parking.

It appears as although some townhouse dwellers do not have access to parking on their property. Their situation turned bad when the Tuscany station opened and other Tuscany residents started to park their cars across the street from the station.

So lets open this debate wide open. Should there be parking restrictions for residents near the LRT? Does anyone here have sympathy for the plight of the Tuscany townhouse people? I sure don't.

Sounds like a few people I know, that fill their garage full of crap and then complain about having to park outside.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

P.S. sorry for the loss of your wife's part time job

For clarity she won't lose her job. She is senior enough that others will have to go first (union position). However what could likely happen is that her hours will go down, so four hour shift instead of six hour.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Cage

From CTV News a few nights ago, the new Tuscany station is causing a few parking problems. Here is a link to the CTV story. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/community-feels-parking-pinch-from-commuters-1.2021255

Yesterday I took a drive over to Tuscany to check the situation out. The problem appears to be that immediately beside the station is a large townhouse complex. Each unit has space to two cars to park in the driveway and another two cars to park in the garage. The driveways are too close together to allow for any street parking. Across the street is apartment style condo with ample street parking.

It appears as although some townhouse dwellers do not have access to parking on their property. Their situation turned bad when the Tuscany station opened and other Tuscany residents started to park their cars across the street from the station.

So lets open this debate wide open. Should there be parking restrictions for residents near the LRT? Does anyone here have sympathy for the plight of the Tuscany townhouse people? I sure don't.

I would have sympathy if people actually are blocking driveways. The article doesn't mention that though. The article is about someone complaining that they should be allowed to establish a resident parking zone despite the fact that there is no parking on their side of the street because of a continuous stretch of driveways. That I have no sympathy for.

Really I think we should abolish the resident parking zones. Streets are a public space and the use of that space should not be appropriated by select people without public benefit. Street parking should either be free or paid. Following that, curb cuts for driveways in paid parking zones should cost the owners money to make up for the reduced utility of public property.

[SmokWawelski]

"It appears as although some townhouse dwellers do not have access to parking on their property. Their situation turned bad when the Tuscany station opened and other Tuscany residents started to park their cars across the street from the station."

Could the lack of parking space on the property be the result of too many people living in the property. Rooommates, sub lease roommates and such. Just throwing it out there. In todays tight rental market it is possible.

[SmokWawelski]

Case in point. Wife and I were looking at a townhouse in Royal Oak. Two bedroom one bath. Realtor stated it's occupied by two people. Yet what we saw was a different picture. In one bedroom boyfriend and girlfriend, in the other bedroom... boyfriend and girlfriend. So 4 people. This place had a small developed room in the basement, at the time of our viewing it was an empty room. When we showed up for a second viewing a week later that room was occupied as well. Couldn't tell if it was one or two people. My point is...., this unit was desinged for two single people or a family with kids..... not 5 adults, each one of them probably owning a car.

[Ferreth]

I know this would never fly in this part of the world where people expect their taxes to pay for street parking, but I would prefer if parking that fronts on residential property be all zoned, with corners having 4 hour parking for visitors. People already treat the parking in front of the house like they own it, let's make them pay for it too. The number of spaces you can get would be limited by the number of feet of available parking frontage you have. I would tie this into legalizing secondary suites in that if you want to rent a space out, it either comes with a car spot or not.

The money collected would go into transportation improvements - what ever form is deemed best, be it road, sidewalk or transit. A bit of it would have to be used for signage and bureaucracy. I have no patience for the argument that enforcement would be too expensive - enforcement should pay for itself in fines. A nice side benefit of such a system would be to encourage people to have fewer cars and perhaps use transit a little more.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

I know this would never fly in this part of the world where people expect their taxes to pay for street parking, but I would prefer if parking that fronts on residential property be all zoned, with corners having 4 hour parking for visitors. People already treat the parking in front of the house like they own it, let's make them pay for it too. The number of spaces you can get would be limited by the number of feet of available parking frontage you have. I would tie this into legalizing secondary suites in that if you want to rent a space out, it either comes with a car spot or not.

The money collected would go into transportation improvements - what ever form is deemed best, be it road, sidewalk or transit. A bit of it would have to be used for signage and bureaucracy. I have no patience for the argument that enforcement would be too expensive - enforcement should pay for itself in fines. A nice side benefit of such a system would be to encourage people to have fewer cars and perhaps use transit a little more.

I agree. The treatment of the public roadspace as "owned" by the adjacent property owner is a bizarre one. I regular have conversations with drivers on 5th Street who choose to park in cross-walks. Between 17th and 21st this is a daily occurrence. The big theme between the many residents that do this is that I need to park somewhere and the street infront of my house is mine, I don't care if a cross-walk is there.

Another example is in Mount Royal. I have left my car up there for about 24 hours in a un-restricted parking towards the top of the hill up from 7th Street SW. I returned with a note on my windshield - a very polite note, mind you - explaining to me that this street is for residents only parking and I clearly didn't live there and would I please kindly move elsewhere.

Remember, Mount Royal suffers none of the parking congestion problems described in the article and in other inner city neighbourhoods. The streets are ghost towns, the lots are big enough and the families small enough that no one ever parks on the street.

Not sure what the solution is unless there is a vast expansion of the traditionally pay-for-parking areas with no resident exemptions grandfathered in. This is what causes the chaos in Mission/Cliff Bungalow. I am a young man, but I doubt I will live to see that day in most of Calgary where street parking is considered a public space not a resident right.

[joe498]

“Greenline” Southeast Transitway: Project Facts Sheet & “Quick Wins” - September 26, 2014 by Shane Keating

http://shanekeating.ca/greenline-southeast-transitway-project-facts-sheet-quick-wins/

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I agree. The treatment of the public roadspace as "owned" by the adjacent property owner is a bizarre one. I regular have conversations with drivers on 5th Street who choose to park in cross-walks. Between 17th and 21st this is a daily occurrence. The big theme between the many residents that do this is that I need to park somewhere and the street infront of my house is mine, I don't care if a cross-walk is there.

Another example is in Mount Royal. I have left my car up there for about 24 hours in a un-restricted parking towards the top of the hill up from 7th Street SW. I returned with a note on my windshield - a very polite note, mind you - explaining to me that this street is for residents only parking and I clearly didn't live there and would I please kindly move elsewhere.

Remember, Mount Royal suffers none of the parking congestion problems described in the article and in other inner city neighbourhoods. The streets are ghost towns, the lots are big enough and the families small enough that no one ever parks on the street.

Not sure what the solution is unless there is a vast expansion of the traditionally pay-for-parking areas with no resident exemptions grandfathered in. This is what causes the chaos in Mission/Cliff Bungalow. I am a young man, but I doubt I will live to see that day in most of Calgary where street parking is considered a public space not a resident right.

Once you cross Royal Avenue, you are in a different world. All us Plebes in Lower Mount Royal are not worthy enough to rub shoulders with the upper class on the hill. And yeah, they don't have a parking problem. Lower Mount Royal is probably one of the most congested parking areas in the city, and you can always find a spot within a block of where you want to be.


PS- I have a resident parking pass so I can park right in front of those huge homes and they can't do anything about it. HA!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

Could the lack of parking space on the property be the result of too many people living in the property. Rooommates, sub lease roommates and such. Just throwing it out there. In todays tight rental market it is possible.

Too many cars for the property is a possibility.

Another possibility is that the living space and garage are rented separately. In my own example from 10 years ago, I rented the main floor of a bungalow in Maria loop. The basement was rented separately, the garage was rented to a third individual.


The interesting aspect to this story is that complainants story is that they live in a townhouse with other people going to university, having a c-train line literally right beside your front door and the train will take you directly to the university. But everyone in the townhouse has their own vehicle to drive to university.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

I know this would never fly in this part of the world where people expect their taxes to pay for street parking, but I would prefer if parking that fronts on residential property be all zoned, with corners having 4 hour parking for visitors. People already treat the parking in front of the house like they own it, let's make them pay for it too. The number of spaces you can get would be limited by the number of feet of available parking frontage you have. I would tie this into legalizing secondary suites in that if you want to rent a space out, it either comes with a car spot or not.

The money collected would go into transportation improvements - what ever form is deemed best, be it road, sidewalk or transit. A bit of it would have to be used for signage and bureaucracy. I have no patience for the argument that enforcement would be too expensive - enforcement should pay for itself in fines. A nice side benefit of such a system would be to encourage people to have fewer cars and perhaps use transit a little more.

You are getting into US style home owners association territory. In the HOA example, some communities have enacted either no street parking, no overnight street parking, cars must be parked in the garage. Fines are administered by the HOA And used to fund community initiatives such as park and recreation development.

[MalcolmTucker]

You can create Home Owners Associations in Calgary.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

You are getting into US style home owners association territory. In the HOA example, some communities have enacted either no street parking, no overnight street parking, cars must be parked in the garage. Fines are administered by the HOA And used to fund community initiatives such as park and recreation development.

Whatever HOA can do in Alberta, they sure as hell can't regulate public property.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

Whatever HOA can do in Alberta, they sure as hell can't regulate public property.

Isn't this effectively what is happening now though? Let's pick on Mount Royal (because it is so easy). In the past 15 years, they have received traffic calming measures, turning restrictions, parking restrictions and parking zones simply because they don't like people using the public streets in their neighbourhood. They are not in a TOD zone or LRT area, they were able to do this because they simply didn't like it.

Someone could argue that they are better organized and that every community has this opportunity and tough luck to others. This is true. But not exactly equitable.

Their decisions to allow such measures directly negatively impact other communities. 5th Street got much busier as 8th Street became locked down to local traffic and forced southbound traffic around. So did cut-through traffic on Royal Ave. So did the parking challenges in Lower Mount Royal and Cliff Bungalow as a bunch of street parking was restricted further on the hill. The pedestrian realm of the surrounding communities suffered because Mount Royal likes their public streets empty and silent.

I doubt there is an easy solution to this, but the problem rests with the idea that some residents are entitled to public road space more than others. In might not be as strict and as binding as an American-style HOA, but they managed to do all this to the public realm without the powers of a HOA

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Isn't this effectively what is happening now though? Let's pick on Mount Royal (because it is so easy). In the past 15 years, they have received traffic calming measures, turning restrictions, parking restrictions and parking zones simply because they don't like people using the public streets in their neighbourhood. They are not in a TOD zone or LRT area, they were able to do this because they simply didn't like it.

Someone could argue that they are better organized and that every community has this opportunity and tough luck to others. This is true. But not exactly equitable.

Their decisions to allow such measures directly negatively impact other communities. 5th Street got much busier as 8th Street became locked down to local traffic and forced southbound traffic around. So did cut-through traffic on Royal Ave. So did the parking challenges in Lower Mount Royal and Cliff Bungalow as a bunch of street parking was restricted further on the hill. The pedestrian realm of the surrounding communities suffered because Mount Royal likes their public streets empty and silent.

I doubt there is an easy solution to this, but the problem rests with the idea that some residents are entitled to public road space more than others. In might not be as strict and as binding as an American-style HOA, but they managed to do all this to the public realm without the powers of a HOA

They are not a HOA, and the lobbied the government to undertake those actions. They did not pay for, construct, maintain or design any of the things you are talking about. Lobbying government and having actual control of physical infrastructure are two entirely different things.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

They are not a HOA, and the lobbied the government to undertake those actions. They did not pay for, construct, maintain or design any of the things you are talking about. Lobbying government and having actual control of physical infrastructure are two entirely different things.

Sorry perhaps I didn't explain my distinction, I am aware they lobbied the government through the process and not a HOA. My view is that they largely got the same result without the power of actually controlling physical public infrastructure as if they had the direct control. The result is that a public space - the road network in Mount Royal - acting and being treated as if it is more of a private space, where non-residents are not as welcome to use it.

Mount Royal has gone far enough with this idea that some residents will leave notes on cars in some cases for being not from there, which is what happened to me after a day parked up there.

It is an interesting debate the use of public space for residents versus the community at large. Surely the residents have more at stake if the public realm is better or worse in their immediate vicinity - traffic, crime, parking etc. - but often the controls given to residents in certain neighbourhoods result in closed spaces that are no longer act as public spaces in the same way.

The other issue is that not every neighbourhood has equal access or treatment to address these concerns, so public realm controls - parking restrictions, traffic calming etc. - are applied haphazardly and not equitably, based on who has a bigger voice, not who has the most need.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Sorry perhaps I didn't explain my distinction, I am aware they lobbied the government through the process and not a HOA. My view is that they largely got the same result without the power of actually controlling physical public infrastructure as if they had the direct control. The result is that a public space - the road network in Mount Royal - acting and being treated as if it is more of a private space, where non-residents are not as welcome to use it.

Mount Royal has gone far enough with this idea that some residents will leave notes on cars in some cases for being not from there, which is what happened to me after a day parked up there.

It is an interesting debate the use of public space for residents versus the community at large. Surely the residents have more at stake if the public realm is better or worse in their immediate vicinity - traffic, crime, parking etc. - but often the controls given to residents in certain neighbourhoods result in closed spaces that are no longer act as public spaces in the same way.

The other issue is that not every neighbourhood has equal access or treatment to address these concerns, so public realm controls - parking restrictions, traffic calming etc. - are applied haphazardly and not equitably, based on who has a bigger voice, not who has the most need.

Here's what you do if someone writes a note on your car. Throw it away.

Or do what my brother did. Some lady once gave him grief as he parked a Car2Go in front of her house near the school he was a student teacher at. It was a bit of a walk for him at from particular parking spot, so not very convenient. After she told him not to park there, he decided to park there every single day from then on. Same parking spot. Every day. Maybe she would have gotten her husband or somebody to do something, but my bro is 6'7" .

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

Here's what you do if someone writes a note on your car. Throw it away.

Or do what my brother did. Some lady once gave him grief as he parked a Car2Go in front of her house near the school he was a student teacher at. It was a bit of a walk for him at from particular parking spot, so not very convenient. After she told him not to park there, he decided to park there every single day from then on. Same parking spot. Every day. Maybe she would have gotten her husband or somebody to do something, but my bro is 6'7" .

haha your brother has the right idea. Notes do not concern me at all, but unfortunately I fear my resolve to stick it to NIMBY parking nazi residents by parking in front of their house every single day will crack before they give up on their quest to control the space. The Mount Royal types are in the Premier League of anti-street parkers, mere mortals can't compete