posting
03-31-2008, 08:36 PM
Bill Glover: Residential streets and parking March 2008
Residential streets and parking. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/)
March 28 lunch. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/march-28-lunch)
SWTRA meeting. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/swtra-meeting)
Transit policy needs emphasis (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/transit-policy-needs-emphasis)
Road reconstruction, renewal. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/infrastructure-renewal-public-meeting-january-23)
Getting Homecoming under control (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/Earl_Street_update)
Snow removal concerns. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/snow-removal-concerns)
Determining snow removal priorities. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/keynote_address_at_mmglk_annual_meeting)
Glover's new transit motion. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/glover-s-new-transit-motion)
Citizens can make a difference. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/citizens-can-make-a-difference)
Sydenham notes (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/sydenham_district_notes)
Biography (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/biography)
http://www.billglover.org/cms/uploads/images/Swearing-in.JPG
Glover calls “parking spillover” the wrong strategy; better transit services will help downtown businesses.
Who should park on residential streets? Various city-sponsored studies and reports going back as far as 2003 have identified most of Sydenham District as a parking spillover area for the downtown business core, KGH, Queen’s or St. Mary’s. Adopted by previous councils, these reports provide the direction for current staff initiatives. I think that course of action is mistaken.
It may be helpful to begin with first principles. What are the city’s responsibilities for parking? The Official Plan is explicit that "each institution shall provide for on-site parking within its institutional designation" and "parking shall be provided on-site for each new building, redevelopment or infilling." Institutions do not have a claim on the city’s residential streets for the parking requirements they have otherwise failed to meet.
The city’s first responsibility must be to provide the services that make a city work. Within that, we are frequently told that a successful downtown must have people living downtown. Both the importance and the truth of that statement are borne home every time we visit a city that has been hollowed out and only has a non-residential business core. Further, we are looking very seriously at an urban growth boundary here in Kingston that will promote infilling and increasing residential density in the downtown area. Not only is that more economical for the taxpayer paying for roads, garbage and other services, but, as we become more environmentally-conscious, the downside of urban sprawl becomes more apparent.
If we want to encourage people to live downtown, and we want to promote intensification by facilitating the conversion of large, single-family Victorian homes to multiple residences, we have to consider the parking needs of the future residents. A large home built for one family when car ownership may not have been common, if even contemplated, cannot be easily reconfigured to provide several parking places.
Residential permit parking.
I believe it is reasonable to permit residents to park on their streets. In the downtown residential areas we should be implementing a residential permit parking system, as is common in many large cities. Others should be permitted to park for a maximum of two hours. This should be enforced with fines rather than charging people to park with pay and display machines or meters. As most of the downtown residential area is under consideration for a heritage conservation district designation, we must be careful about "planting parking meters" on those same streets.
Enhanced, effective and reliable bus service an alternative.
What about the people who work and shop downtown? The city has a responsibility to facilitate their needs, but that could be either with parking or with public transit. Before the city moves to adjust its parking supply, either by restricting the current uses or by increasing costs, we must be seen to be providing an alternative. That is an enhanced, effective and reliable bus service.
No one should have to spend an hour and a half to get from their home near the urban growth boundary to the downtown core by bus, as it the case now. That does not mean the city should never build a new parking garage. There is general acceptance that the city should be building another parking garage around the sports centre in the near future. However, if we want to retain a downtown that is attractive to residents and tourists alike, it must be pedestrian friendly; it cannot be given over to increasing demands of cars.
Someone working downtown, who has little need to leave the office in the course of the day, is the person whom we should be targeting with an efficient, reliable bus service. Someone who uses their car in the course of the day should have a monthly parking pass available at a price that offers a modest discount on the daily maximum rate for a working month.
Parking and transit are related, and they are both intertwined with good land use and development. They must be considered together. The needs of all people must be addressed within the framework of what makes a city work.
Residential streets and parking. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/)
March 28 lunch. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/march-28-lunch)
SWTRA meeting. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/swtra-meeting)
Transit policy needs emphasis (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/transit-policy-needs-emphasis)
Road reconstruction, renewal. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/infrastructure-renewal-public-meeting-january-23)
Getting Homecoming under control (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/Earl_Street_update)
Snow removal concerns. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/snow-removal-concerns)
Determining snow removal priorities. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/keynote_address_at_mmglk_annual_meeting)
Glover's new transit motion. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/glover-s-new-transit-motion)
Citizens can make a difference. (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/citizens-can-make-a-difference)
Sydenham notes (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/sydenham_district_notes)
Biography (http://www.billglover.org/cms/index.php/biography)
http://www.billglover.org/cms/uploads/images/Swearing-in.JPG
Glover calls “parking spillover” the wrong strategy; better transit services will help downtown businesses.
Who should park on residential streets? Various city-sponsored studies and reports going back as far as 2003 have identified most of Sydenham District as a parking spillover area for the downtown business core, KGH, Queen’s or St. Mary’s. Adopted by previous councils, these reports provide the direction for current staff initiatives. I think that course of action is mistaken.
It may be helpful to begin with first principles. What are the city’s responsibilities for parking? The Official Plan is explicit that "each institution shall provide for on-site parking within its institutional designation" and "parking shall be provided on-site for each new building, redevelopment or infilling." Institutions do not have a claim on the city’s residential streets for the parking requirements they have otherwise failed to meet.
The city’s first responsibility must be to provide the services that make a city work. Within that, we are frequently told that a successful downtown must have people living downtown. Both the importance and the truth of that statement are borne home every time we visit a city that has been hollowed out and only has a non-residential business core. Further, we are looking very seriously at an urban growth boundary here in Kingston that will promote infilling and increasing residential density in the downtown area. Not only is that more economical for the taxpayer paying for roads, garbage and other services, but, as we become more environmentally-conscious, the downside of urban sprawl becomes more apparent.
If we want to encourage people to live downtown, and we want to promote intensification by facilitating the conversion of large, single-family Victorian homes to multiple residences, we have to consider the parking needs of the future residents. A large home built for one family when car ownership may not have been common, if even contemplated, cannot be easily reconfigured to provide several parking places.
Residential permit parking.
I believe it is reasonable to permit residents to park on their streets. In the downtown residential areas we should be implementing a residential permit parking system, as is common in many large cities. Others should be permitted to park for a maximum of two hours. This should be enforced with fines rather than charging people to park with pay and display machines or meters. As most of the downtown residential area is under consideration for a heritage conservation district designation, we must be careful about "planting parking meters" on those same streets.
Enhanced, effective and reliable bus service an alternative.
What about the people who work and shop downtown? The city has a responsibility to facilitate their needs, but that could be either with parking or with public transit. Before the city moves to adjust its parking supply, either by restricting the current uses or by increasing costs, we must be seen to be providing an alternative. That is an enhanced, effective and reliable bus service.
No one should have to spend an hour and a half to get from their home near the urban growth boundary to the downtown core by bus, as it the case now. That does not mean the city should never build a new parking garage. There is general acceptance that the city should be building another parking garage around the sports centre in the near future. However, if we want to retain a downtown that is attractive to residents and tourists alike, it must be pedestrian friendly; it cannot be given over to increasing demands of cars.
Someone working downtown, who has little need to leave the office in the course of the day, is the person whom we should be targeting with an efficient, reliable bus service. Someone who uses their car in the course of the day should have a monthly parking pass available at a price that offers a modest discount on the daily maximum rate for a working month.
Parking and transit are related, and they are both intertwined with good land use and development. They must be considered together. The needs of all people must be addressed within the framework of what makes a city work.