Pulling Parking Perks

Posted on August 26, 2008 at 9:27 am by Sameer Vasta

It seems as though the TTC may be reading your comments. At least halfway.

Night Delivery In the previous post about commuter lots, many of you remarked that instead of building more parking lots or investing time and money into parking, transit systems across the Greater Toronto Area should instead “provide viable alternates like well-served feeder bus routes” and more.

The TTC seems to be taking half your comments to heart: tomorrow’s Commission meeting will feature a vote on eliminating free parking perks to Metropass holders. Instead, Metropass holders would have to pay the daily parking fee — which can range from $2-6 — like everyone else.

It’s obvious that $6 is much cheaper than the surrounding lots that charge almost three times that amount, but I’d argue that the change won’t do much to eliminate the crowding that’s already happening at the lots. What it will do, I’m guessing, is increase the amount of cars driving in to the downtown core.

The TTC’s plan to remove the parking perks is estimated to bring in about $3 million in net revenue — revenue that could, ideally, be put into building better feeder routes, investing in better bus service around commuter hub stations, and increasing subway service in heavy commuter areas.

Tomorrow’s vote, however, does not address those issues directly.

The vote tomorrow should be altered to include a two-pronged approach: the TTC would remove Metropass parking perks at the same time as beefing up feeder service to those stations. The votes on both those initiatives should be coupled to ensure that ridership remains strong (and fewer people drive into the core) while still allowing the TTC to offset the current losses it incurs on parking lots.

A comment by Metronauts blog reader Triceratops piqued my interest:

“Perhaps the goal shouldn’t be how to best accommodate people who like to leave two tonnes of metal on valuable land, and instead look for alternatives from them starting up the car at all?”

The new TTC plan, instead of looking for alternatives, is in fact doing more than accommodating drivers: it’s giving them an incentive to drive even further instead of taking public transit.

Tags: , , , , ,

64 Comments

  1. I’m not sure if it will actually increase trips downtown into the core. The recent post here on Metronauts documented how ridiculously full the parking lots got before 8 am. So you’ve got people either having to drive downtown already or pay $15-$25 for non-TTC parking lots.

    You’ve got a scarce resource. Right now it’s rationed by first-come, first-serve. This means that people queue up early in the morning, and if you come later (because your work begins at 9am or even later) you’re SOL.

    Now, instead of rationing by first-come, first-serve, you’re just rationing by a small fee. Given that parking charges downtown are quite high – up to $30/$40/daily in the case of the financial district – I don’t think nominal fees will dissuade many.

    Indeed, I suspect there are many people who drive now that will now park, because the $2-$6 fee is worth it for them and they don’t have to worry about not being able to park at all.

    I suspect the lots will still be full, the capacity will still be used to its capacity. There might be some shift in who is parking/driving, but it still remains a scarce resource that will be gobbled up – simply rationed out on prices rather than ability to wake up early. Late risers unite.

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 26, 2008 @ 9:34 am

  2. Haha Ian, the economics of of your argument sound right. (I knew that supply and demand lecture I skipped in university would come back to haunt me.)

    What this definitely does not do, however, is encourage potential transit users from driving downtown. They now have yet another reason to rationalize their auto use as opposed to transit.

    If the TTC wakes up and decides to couple this vote with one about increasing feeder route access, it might entice some potential riders to say, “hey, now that I have a bus that runs by my place that goes directly to Finch Station, I might as well leave the car at home.”

    GravatarComment by Sameer Vasta — August 26, 2008 @ 9:45 am

  3. I doubt an extra $3 million will help increase service of feeder buses all that much. Besides, shouldn’t extra cash be tagged to higher performing lines to increase service there?
    I’d love it if we could have more details about which are the heavily used lots by Metropass commuters, and where their point of origin is. It is possible that they drive to the lot instead of taking an already existing bus.

    GravatarComment by Tim — August 26, 2008 @ 10:36 am

  4. That’s a good point, I agree completely. Somehow, as a culture, we have to deal with weird culture against buses – i.e. wheels bad, rails good. I like to think that it’s different with the newest generation of university students/graduates, but anecdotally there’s still this strange hostility towards buses. Reminds me of that ‘Stuff White People Like’ post about ‘Public Transportation that is Not a Bus.’

    Also, there’s that ‘chicken and the egg’ problem of route planning. The TTC adjusts service frequency based on ridership, but how often do they increase frequency based on a potential gain? I’m curious if they ever engage in speculative increases to see if a cultural change could happen by running more feeder buses?

    Although you’re right – this could be a cool opportunity to bundle the two together, take advantage of some PR, see if this might somehow get people onto those buses… hmm.

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 26, 2008 @ 10:39 am

  5. “Wheels bad, rails good.”

    Ah, maybe a topic for another blog post? I may be naive, but I’ve actually never really encountered that sentiment before. I’m going to do some asking around on the bus and subway today to see how people feel about buses.

    GravatarComment by Sameer Vasta — August 26, 2008 @ 10:42 am

  6. TTC should have two-tier metropasses. They can make themselves look real good by making the no-parking metropass a price reduction.

    GravatarComment by Triceratops — August 26, 2008 @ 11:05 am

  7. “Wheels bad, rails good” about sums it up. The bus system is unreliable and has always been. I’ve waited 45 minutes during rush hour for buses on Jane street. If you’re not near the centre of the city or near a 24-hour route, it’s unsafe to take bus routes home after going out at night or if you’re stuck late at work, as a single female in this city.

    If the TTC starts taking away Metropass privileges at parking lots and start charging a fee, I’ll stop buying my Metropass, that’s for sure. The only reason it’s worthwhile for me to buy a Metropass is the combination of the high fees to take the damn transit as it is and the high fees of parking downtown. Parking at Wilson/Yorkdale AND taking the TTC downtown saves me money; Paying to park at Wilson/Yorkdale AND taking the TTC downtown will NOT save me money.

    GravatarComment by meznor — August 26, 2008 @ 11:15 am

  8. I live about a km north of Steeles, just near Yonge and Clark.

    Right now I drive to the subway. (I would take VIVA, but that would cost me $2.60 each way just to get across the Steeles 416/905 barrier. I would even consider parking at Steeles and getting on a TTC bus, but there’s nowhere to park there. So on to Finch.)

    At metropass+$6/day instead of metropass+$0/day, I will certainly no longer park at Finch — it’s just not worth it. The cost of extra gas to drive down to, say, Eglinton is de minimis. And as long as I’m getting up early and sitting in my car, I’d rather sit a little longer and enjoy the radio and the only quiet time I get all day.

    Don’t get me wrong. I — and, believe me, there are many, many commuters who are my neighbours who are exactly in the same boat — would much prefer to just take transit all the way. But the $5.20-a-day 416/905 barrier, and now the $6-a-day leave your car at Finch charge, is just nutty, compared to the extra cost of gas to go a bit further.

    As someone above said, I won’t be parking in the Financial District, where I work … although the cost gap is certainly shrinking. But what I will be doing is seeing about $6 (or thereabouts) parking further south.

    The artificial barrier speedbump is what gets me in the car. (And if you think there is some magical change that happens at Steeles, I invite you to our neck of Yonge Street sometime. Ironically, the only lack of development is due to the entire stretch’s having to hold its breath for years and years while the TTC sloooooooowly figures out how and when it will add a Yonge-Steeles subway.)

    And the new Finch parking charge, if that happens, is what will keep me in the car. Not sure how far south. But I can guarantee you that many will be doing exactly the same thing.

    GravatarComment by Serge — August 26, 2008 @ 11:42 am

  9. Yeah, I’d echo the wheels/rails sentiment…anytime you get transit mixed into the general traffic the quality of service declines significantly. Dedicated BRT lines, however, are a nice alternative.

    Overall, I tend to agree with the post: It just seems counter intuitive to be providing disincentives to using mass transit. Until a Metrolinx-ish regional systems is ever developed, though, what options are really available?

    GravatarComment by Ben — August 26, 2008 @ 11:45 am

  10. … but, yeah, a $10 extra tier or whatever would make sense and not fundamentally change the economics for many of us. Although I doubt it would raise enough revenue to do what the TTC is thinking its $6/day will.

    GravatarComment by Serge — August 26, 2008 @ 11:50 am

  11. [...] can check out some reasoned comments at the Metronauts blog and following the Toronto Star article, though there are some crazies to wade through in the [...]

    GravatarPingback by Free Parking « Empire of Dirt — August 26, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

  12. People are arguing that the TTC won’t be saving them money because they pay an additional $2 per day?

    Parking near downtown, at its cheapest, is around $4… so add to that the cost of gas between Kipling or Kennedy or Finch or Downsview to get to somewhere between Bathurst and Parliament south of College/Carlton, I really don’t see how it is cheaper to drive into the core.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 26, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

  13. I am somewhat conflicted about this. On one hand, I wonder if the reactionary public backlash that will surely follow this decision is worth it. In know at least one person who will be very miffed by this, but I can guarantee she’ll still be taking the subway downtown – she may just start taking the local bus to get to it.
    But in the end, I can’t bring myself to be against this. I’m a big believer in paying the true costs of what you use – driving, parking, transit…everything – because I know that no matter what transit is still more efficient. I would agree that the best way to approach this would be to either put that money directly into improved service on local feeder routes that serve stations with car parks, or if they really want to be creative, to reduce the cost of the Metropass appropriately, if only for optics. (Perhaps there could be a “premium” Metropass with parking included, much like the extra “Downtown Express” stickers you can get now.)

    GravatarComment by Anon — August 26, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

  14. Hmm. I’m not sure about this one. I’m a big fan of transit and cycling and quite anti-car, but this just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

    First, it is hard to get people in suburban neighbourhoods to take transit instead of their car. The combined design of their neighbourhoods, bus routes and lifestyles make this a hard shift. I have had many conversations with my suburban friends and family trying to convince them that while it may be hard to get around by transit in their part of the world, they should at least TTC into the city, where it is much more convenient. The free parking at subway stations and the speed and convenience of the subway is a strong enough incentive to convince them (sometimes) to leave their car in ‘burbs. Taking that away for someone who drives every day is like charging them an extra $120 a month for the pass (20 working days / month x $6). That makes it a $230 investment. It just gives them one more reason to drive.

    Second, as a transit rider, it bothers me that fees for tokens and metropasses continually rise year after year. This particular change doesn’t affect me much, but it is a further devaluing of a product that has just recently had its price raised by 10%. The fact that there may be a minor improvement in some bus line or another will not have much noticeable affect.

    Furthermore, the better way to get more money out of the parking land is not to try to squeeze every last dollar out of commuters but to develop the land to a higher value. Is there a reason why you cannot build over the stations and the parking lots, leave a few levels for parking (of cars and bikes) and then sell stores, offices and apartments above?

    In the end, I like gravatar’s comment. If the issue is to rationalize pass use, then maybe raise the price (slightly) for those who want to park, and lower it for those who don’t. The parkers will still get plenty of value for their money if the pass is $120, while those that don’t park can have the cost of their pass reduced to $90 or something.

    And at the same time, start the process of developing that land so that you can get some real value out of it.

    GravatarComment by Ron — August 26, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

  15. As mentioned above, I think the two-tier metropass (with/without parking) is an intriguing idea.

    Though, if it means a whole separate set of passes/infrastructure it may not be worthwhile.

    While I favour charging back the cost of parking, I do think as a money grab its a bit pointless.

    Taking the opportunity to fund a largely symbolic price reduction for pass-holders though (for the pre-authorized yearly passes) to say $99.00 again, I think might have value.

    That means passholders who don’t use parking are no longer subsidizing parkers, while at the same time, the parkers are getting a price reduction for their pass (though not one on which they will break even).

    GravatarComment by James — August 26, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

  16. I hate to admit it, but I too share the wheels bad, rails good rationale. At the last Transit Camp here in Toronto I mentioned how I have no problems taking a streetcar or the subway, but the bus experience, not so much.

    There is a bus that stops basically in front of my residence, but often when taking transit I’d rather drive over to Yorkdale mall or Wilson station on the weekend when parking is free than take the bus which is obviously easier.

    I think there is a perception that buses are slow and waiting times are long, making the whole bus riding experience less than ideal.

    Also to add to my line of thinking. When traveling back home via transit, especially if I know I am coming home later in the evening when buses are less frequent, I’d rather hop off the subway and get into my car, than wait to transfer onto a bus.

    GravatarComment by Rannie Turingan — August 26, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

  17. Regarding a two tier metropass for parkers and non parkers.

    So what happens if I buy a meteropass that is validated for parking, but I come to the lot and it’s still full. I think a lot of people would complain about this alternative, if they weren’t even guaranteed a spot. They would likely feel angry about any additional parking fees or alternatives they would have to make, because buying a parking/metropass would give them a false sense of entitlement to parking.

    GravatarComment by Rannie Turingan — August 26, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

  18. A tiered system with the metropass would be worthwhile, but Rannie is correct in saying we’d feel entitled to parking… and why not?

    $100 a month for a Metropass saves me about $50 in gas and, say, $200 in parking downtown ($10 a day where I work). Driving to the station is about 5-10 minutes in the morning (as opposed to 30-45 by bus, two transfers). If I had to pay $120 for a Metropass for the parking privilege, I’d absolutely do it. If I have to pay $6 a day for parking in order to park at the station, it’s no longer worth it for me to park there.

    $100 + $6/dayX4wks = $220
    $200 parking downtown + $50 extra in gas per month = $250

    For a $30 difference? Metropass and TTC, bye bye. Better to just charge the tiered rate at $120 for the Metropass parking customers and improve the parking infrastructure if they still want to claim to be the “better way”.

    GravatarComment by meznor — August 26, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

  19. There’s a big problem with the tiered Metropass proposal; people that pay for the parking-enabled Metropass arrive at the parking lot when there’s no spots available are going to be seriously displeased.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 26, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

  20. I’d be a fan of dedicated bus feeder routes to subway stations, too.

    GravatarComment by meznor — August 26, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

  21. I think what you will see is a lot of people moving to the competition, GO trains, when they can. Especially those that are coming from the north. Parking is free for GO riders, and in most cases ends up costing less than a Metropass + Parking. I think the 10,000 people that are parking for “free” at Metropass lots, are 10,000 people that will no longer be buying metropasses if free parking is eliminated. Go trains and downtown parking lots will definitely benefit if the TTC goes through with this tomorrow.

    GravatarComment by Mary — August 26, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

  22. I used to drive in from Brampton, and the only reason I bought a Metropass was to cover the parking at those feeder lots. There are a lot of people coming in from out of the city that will now be buying $90 worth of subway tokens, instead of a $110 metropass, or foregoing the TTC completely, this issue is not about people who live in the city and have existing transit and choose not to take it, it’s people coming from the suburbs who don’t take transit because it will take them at least 4 times as long to get to the subway station. This won’t help anything, and will just make people coming in from out of the city less inclined to bother with the TTC. Hopefully people will carpool instead. At Kipling, it was $5 a day to park. So your already spending $10 a day to park, I carpooled for a while and I can tell you it cost much less than that when it was split. I’m glad I moved to Toronto and now don’t have to worry about this anymore.

    GravatarComment by Ryan — August 26, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

  23. Just caught Mary’s comment – completely agree. TTC won’t be worth it anymore if they charge for parking.

    GravatarComment by Ryan — August 26, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

  24. Maybe a 50% parking discount for the Metropass users maybe a compromise that could be considered.

    The problem as I really see it is that drivers will try to park somewhere for free. Parking in shopping centre lots, parking long term on side streets, parking at your aunt’s downtown home, could increase to avoid paying.

    Maybe we have to install meters at ALL shopping center or office parking lots as the first step to get away from being so dependent on the automobile. Why do we have free parking on some store’s parking lot, but there are meters on the streets next to them.

    GravatarComment by W. K. Lis — August 26, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

  25. As previously discussed in another post, one of the most significant problems with P&R is the lack of parking availability. If you don’t want to be at the lot early you are not getting a spot. This can be seen by the legions of cars circling the area around stations in the morning peak period. Since there is already excess demand, charging a fee will allow for the TTC to recoup some costs, hopefully beyond that of the maintenance of the lots etc. and it will enable people to pay for the convenience of using the lot. It will likely shift the travel demand pattern for parking significantly. I think the best situation would be if the TTC were to pump this additional revenue into expanding their parking supply. In any event, everyone should remember that every bit of extra revenue can stave off fare increases, etc.

    GravatarComment by Nick — August 26, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

  26. I would gladly take the bus to the subway instead of driving, if it didn’t take 3x as long and turn a 60 minute trip into a 90 minute trip. Bad move on the TTC’s part. Keep the free Metropass parking.

    GravatarComment by M. Briganti — August 26, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

  27. I would suggest people check out the actual Commission Report:

    http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f3678/CR_DEVELOPMENT_OF_TRANSIT_PROPERTIES_'_WORK_PLAN'_-_Aug_27__20081.pdf

    Some interesting points are there including the fact that less than 5% of Metropass users use parking regularly and the nearly 50-50 split between 905 and Toronto users.

    GravatarComment by Nick — August 26, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

  28. The ultimate goal for suburbanites who drive long distance to the subway station is in GO train service. Unfortunately there is much improvement needed to GO to handle even current demand.

    GravatarComment by Triceratops — August 26, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

  29. I read that they are getting rid of most of the parking at Warden Station as well. This is a very large and heavily used parking lot as well and I wonder if the TTC is going to lose all those customers or they will switch to one of the feeder bus routes to this station? I think the parking lot is going to be developed for some high density housing and hopefully they use transit as much as the present customers parking their cars do.

    GravatarComment by George S — August 27, 2008 @ 5:09 am

  30. This hike is horrible. In fact it encourages people not to use an enviromentally friendly form of transportation. Traffic downtown will increase no matter what alternatives are given. Carpooling will be cheaper than taking the TTC, even if its only two people in the car. (109 X 2) + (120+) is 338+ a month for two people with metropasses carpooling to a subway station and parking (sometimes buses aren’t an option). If I drove downtown with four other people, 20 days a month, we’d save hundreds over the course of a year. Other people will be doing similar stuff.

    Also, the 3 million revenue estimate worries me, as they probably did not consider how many people would stop using the TTC or avoid parking there.

    And while I’m a it, I should mention that anybody who feels that they should be “entitled” to a parking space if they bought a tier 2 pass, (which is a good idea) should just not buy one. You would have to have no idea how TTC subway parking works for you to think that you would be entitled to a spot anyway.

    GravatarComment by Dave — August 27, 2008 @ 8:57 am

  31. How about this, parking stays free for M/P holders; but given the needs to get to lots early, the uncertainty of spaces etc.

    The TTC raise money by launching a reserve a spot program. Numbered spaces, closest to station entrances/exits.

    Say $50.00 per month, most lots might sell 50-100 of these.

    No increase for existing Metropass holders; and the Commission still collects six figures of net new revenue each year.

    GravatarComment by James — August 27, 2008 @ 10:25 am

  32. 1. James’ idea of rolling in the GO reserved parking program is a great one. Note that GO’s $59 (with taxes) monthly reservation has a minimum six-month term. The TTC would certainly like that kind of revenue certainty.

    2. It is too bad that the TTC or the City — or, really, Toronto Parking Authority, I guess — has not been more entrepreneurial about partnering with private developers for parking:

    There is a whole forest of condos that has gone up around Finch station in the last few years. All of them have underground parking garages. Digging a level or two deeper and selling spots to non-residents would have been an easy solution.

    GravatarComment by Serge — August 27, 2008 @ 10:39 am

  33. I predict half the people would start driving and the other half would start taking buses..

    as a result:

    - More Traffic

    - Incresed operation costs to deal with these BUS riders

    - More Traffic

    - More Strikes

    - More traffic

    - Increased operations costs to deal with these strikes

    - More traffic

    - More violence against TTC workers

    - More traffic

    - More strikes to deal with the violence

    - DID I MENTION More traffic

    Nothing good will come out of this.
    The TTC is NOW getting into the parking business.

    GravatarComment by uri — August 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am

  34. Oh yeah

    - Increased prices to USE THE TTC as a result of less riders

    GravatarComment by uri — August 27, 2008 @ 11:47 am

  35. Solution:

    Charge Drivers to come into the downtown core..

    Use these Tolls to put back into the city (TTC)

    GravatarComment by uri — August 27, 2008 @ 11:48 am

  36. I wish the TTC would just plaster the damn stations with ads already. I really don’t care about being bombarded with ads at this point. All this whining for funding is killing me, and having to worry about how I’m going to get to my job is ridiculous. This is Toronto for f**k’s sake. Just create more ad space, sell it any damn way you can and let us have the small privilege of parking in those s**it *ss lots before having to be crammed into a rammed car for another half an hour before selling your soul for another day.

    GravatarComment by Paul — August 27, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

  37. [...] new Metronauts blog has really picked up steam recently. This week, I added a post about the TTC’s decision to cut parking perks to Metropass holders and if that was going to adversely affect the amount of people using transit instead of driving [...]

    GravatarPingback by Unperked. | i tell stories — August 27, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

  38. Just as a quick update: the TTC voted today to go ahead with charging Metropass users for parking at stations, beginning in the first quarter of 2009. [http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/486791] Guess we’ll see what happens soon..

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 27, 2008 @ 10:51 pm

  39. what a surprise. what’s next ttc?

    GravatarComment by Paul — August 28, 2008 @ 8:42 am

  40. Some may disagree, but I personally think it’s time to look into to privatizing the TTC. Fees will most likely be more expensive but at least it would be better managed and service there when needed.

    GravatarComment by Sunny — August 28, 2008 @ 9:35 am

  41. I’ve just canceled my Metropass.

    And I’ve sent the TTC this email:

    I wanted to let you know that I discontinued the pass because of today’s decision by the TTC to start charging for Metropass parking lots. It’s actually cheaper now and more convenient for me to drive directly to work. I find it sad that you didn’t even consider a two-tiered system or any other considerations here, and thought that you should know you’re going to lose a lot of TTC customers because of this decision. This is just the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so to speak; I was frustrated and unhappy with the service well before making this decision.

    Until your surface route services improve to people who live outside of the urban core, and until your overall service becomes more reliable and economical, you will continue to lose customers and certainly you won’t see me using the TTC if I can at all avoid it.

    You should seriously consider changing your slogan from “The Better Way” to something less misleading. There’s nothing “better” about cramming into overstuffed buses, leaving for work 45 minutes earlier just to get there on time, subway delays, surprise TTC strikes that leave thousands stranded, and generally surly TTC employees.

    GravatarComment by meznor — August 28, 2008 @ 10:04 am

  42. Hi all. I posted this over at BlogTO and Sameer Vasta suggested I drop it over here too.

    The parking (at $2-6 per day) will cost people an extra $500-1500 per year, depending on the lot. That’s a lot of money for people that aren’t making $50k or more.

    And if you are even able to take a bus route to the lot, even if it only added 15 min per commute (so 30 min a day), that works out to 15 work days a year worth of extra commute time that you aren’t getting paid for.

    So either way, for someone making $35k, whether they now pay for the parking or take a bus straight from home, they’ve essentially still lost their entire vacation pay for the year.

    GravatarComment by serotonin — August 28, 2008 @ 11:11 am

  43. Most people that are complaining about the parking charges are being very unobjective in my opinion. Some numbers that were shared at the commission meeting yesterday that I think people should be very aware of;

    FACT 1: The parking lots are used by 4%-5% of metropass users. This means that a very small portion of metropass holders are getting a freebie subsidized by 95%-96% of metropass holders that do not use the parking lots.

    FACT 2: When expanded beyond metropass holders to entire ridership regardless of fare media used to pay, only 1% of TTC ridership uses the parking lots… that’s it people, 1% of ridership, do you seriously think that the TTC is going to be scared of a 1% loss of ridership that is unlikely to happen anyway?

    FACT 3: It is estimated that the withdrawal of free parking will result in 5,500 fewer rides across the system per day. That’s 5,500 rides out of close to 3,000,000… less than 1%.

    FACT 4: Many people at the TTC lots, it was learned from consultant investigations, are not even TTC riders. Because there is commercial activity at Finch and Islington and Kennedy areas, whose parking is more expensive as a monthly total than a metropass, people that work in this area are buying metropasses purely to park at a TTC lot and never board the subway. This is a blatant abuse of the system that is cheating many riders system wide. It makes far more sense to charge both for parking and require all users that use parking also purchase metropasses to stop this kind of abuse of the system.

    FACT 5: The TTC loses $6.3 million every year to subsidize well-off suburban SUV drivers. These are people that can easily afford to park at a TTC station and pay the TTC fare if they can afford to park in the more expensive downtown. If downtown parking is going to cost you $8 plus gas, then a $3 parking charge at the TTC lot is still easily cheaper, no contest.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 11:24 am

  44. The TTC loses $6.3 million every year to subsidize well-off suburban SUV drivers.

    Wait, really? You found parking statistics for TTC lots correlated by car type and family income? Where?

    The parking lots are used by 4%-5% of metropass users. This means that a very small portion of metropass holders are getting a freebie subsidized by 95%-96% of metropass holders that do not use the parking lots.

    Tell me about it! I was just moaning to someone about having to fund public schools my kids aren’t old enough to use and parks way on the other side of town I never get to. And that’s not all! Wheel-Trans, bike racks — less than, like 2% of transit patrons use ‘em, but we’re all subsidizing ‘em. Time to cut it loose and move towards market-based pricing.

    (Kidding, obviously.)

    GravatarComment by Disparishun — August 28, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

  45. Well, bike racks don’t cost $35,000 each… a single parking spot (not a parking lot, just one parking space) does.

    That said, I wouldn’t object to the idea of popping a quarter in to use the bike racks.

    As for the suburban SUV drivers, who else is going to flood into lots at Finch, Islington, Kipling and Kennedy? They’re very close to the 905 border or in Scarborough (which is pretty suburban for a 416 area). Who else can afford the high expenses of suburban living? You have to be well-off to survive in suburbia, it’s generally not built for lower-income residents.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

  46. Add me to the list of people who will no longer be using public transit once the parking fees for Metropass holders kick in. It doesn’t make sense for me to pay another $100/month for parking. Much cheaper to drive to work.

    It seems it’s so fashionable to ‘think green’ and promote environmental initiatives, but the most commonsense thing that can have a huge impact on the environment, public transit, is never looked at as a priority and continues to get harder to utilize by average citizens.

    Excuse me, I’m going to clean out my compost bin.

    GravatarComment by Adaś — August 28, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

  47. Followup: If anyone is aware of any actions to publicly protest the TTC’s decision to end parking privileges for Metropass holders (petitions, organized shows of opposition, etc.) or would like to help with such an initiative, please e-mail me at kochampiwo@hotmail.com

    GravatarComment by Adaś — August 28, 2008 @ 4:14 pm

  48. As for the suburban SUV drivers, who else is going to flood into lots at Finch, Islington, Kipling and Kennedy? They’re very close to the 905 border or in Scarborough (which is pretty suburban for a 416 area). Who else can afford the high expenses of suburban living?

    Wow. Are you for real?

    GravatarComment by Disparishun — August 28, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

  49. Well, I’ll echo Steve Munro’s sentiment here, as the same applies to 96% of metropass users; “IT’S MY MONEY!” Metropass users pay for transit service, money going towards bus service instead of parking is far more beneficial to far more metropass users. It’s just good business, common sense, and fair practice.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 28, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  50. With the 141-144 services, we have established the principle that Metropass holders don’t get everything free – there is a surcharge for use of the Express. Why is it so difficult to contemplate the same for parking, which I think could be done simply with the same sticker (about $30/month)

    GravatarComment by Mark Dowling — August 29, 2008 @ 10:23 am

  51. As someone that has lived in suburbia, I’d like to let everyone know that when I comment on suburbia, I do comment from my own experience. I’ve lived in both Mississauga and Brampton before, I know what they’re like, how they’re built, what you need to live there, and what it costs to live there.

    People living in suburbia all own cars because it is specifically designed to invite such people to live there, and marketed to the income bracket that can afford cars… often two per household. As some people know and despise, many streets don’t have sidewalks on both sides of the street, some don’t even have sidewalks at all, like Matheson E.

    The problem is that people in the suburbs are abusing the TTC as a public parking lot instead of a park’n'ride lot. It is highly unlikely that the people parking at TTC lots and not using the TTC service are 416ers… the metropass has a lot more value to people that live in the city than parking, such as getting to that parking lot for free (no gas needed), so they wouldn’t be parking there if they don’t need to pay for gas to get there in the first place.

    If you can afford the gas, you can afford the extra fare at Steeles or GO Train tickets. GO plus 905 service discounts are very close to 905 plus TTC in cost. As an example because I used it recently myself, Union to Dixie by GO Train is 4.55 and Mississauga Transit is 0.65, a total of 5.20 – cheaper if you buy passes or even GO 10-ride tickets. In cash fare, the TTC and Mississauga Transit combined will cost you 5.50, more expensive than GO + 905, or 4.50 if you use tickets or tokens, only 0.70 difference.

    I don’t buy the argument that gas is cheaper than taking 905 transit to the TTC – it isn’t. I don’t buy the argument that GO is too expensive – it isn’t, especially if you use the discounts 905 systems provide to reach the station. The costs are roughly equal. GO should charge for parking, too, actually.

    Drivers to TTC lots can afford to park at the lots in addition to their metropass, or afford to take the suburban bus system to the subway, especially if you use the bulk-prices available to everybody.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 29, 2008 @ 2:03 pm

  52. People living in suburbia all own cars because it is specifically designed to invite such people to live there, and marketed to the income bracket that can afford cars… often two per household.

    Not just cars, Karl, SUVs, right? ‘Cause everyone in Scarborough and Mississauga and Brampton is so darn wealthy, you were saying? But then instead of driving them to work they leave them at the subway because they’re so price sensitive, natch. Seriously, does that make any sense to you at all?

    I don’t buy the argument that gas is cheaper than taking 905 transit to the TTC – it isn’t.

    Um, yes, it is. This is not very complex.

    Example: YRT/VIVA is $2.60 each way (bought in books of ten). At a very conservative 18 l/100km (that’s lousy city mileage even for a mini-van), and at $1.45 per litre of gas (the most expensive price torontogasprices.com has today for the most premium grade of fuel), it will cost you 26 cents a kilometre to drive.

    That’s marginal cost, obviously, not total cost of ownership. When everyone’s already got a car — your scenario, Karl — the choice on the table is simply whether to use it.

    So it’s cheaper to drive to the subway for anyone who lives within 10 km of it, and who has the most gas-guzzling car, and fuels it with the most expensive gas. Similarly, if you live within 5 km, and another household member drives, then it’s cheaper if they give you a lift, and drive right back home again.

    As an example because I used it recently myself, Union to Dixie by GO Train is 4.55 and Mississauga Transit is 0.65, a total of 5.20 – cheaper if you buy passes or even GO 10-ride tickets. In cash fare, the TTC and Mississauga Transit combined will cost you 5.50, more expensive than GO + 905, or 4.50 if you use tickets or tokens, only 0.70 difference.

    By the way, driving that distance at 26 cents and 16.7 km would run you $4.34 in gas. Or, more relevantly, would run you $2.75 cash fare to Kipling subway, and another $1.45 in gas from there to your Dixie GO destination, for $4.20.

    In other words, from someone who already owns a car — you have assumed this is everyone in Mississauga, and whom I to argue? — the cost of liberating yourself from GO train schedules on your Mississauga route is almost exactly the cost of parking. Discount the parking by a dollar or so to account for the few pennies’ difference and my inflated gas cost assumptions but, really, who’s counting?

    GravatarComment by Disparishun — August 29, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

  53. Metropass users pay for transit service, money going towards bus service instead of parking is far more beneficial to far more metropass users. It’s just good business, common sense, and fair practice.

    Well, that’s the debate, isn’t it? You’re just sort of reciting slogans. The idea behind subsidizing parking is that it takes cars off congested roads that are poorly served by transit, and that that’s beneficial. Good business, common sense, all that.

    Well, I’ll echo Steve Munro’s sentiment here, as the same applies to 96% of metropass users; “IT’S MY MONEY!”

    You know, it really isn’t. If you want that sort of radical-capitalist world, you will have to transport yourself into an Ayn Rand novel. In this one, it’s money being managed by the TTC as a public agency charged with providing good transit service to serve Toronto — whose economy notably includes being able to house large tax-paying business which have access to a significant pool of labour that resides across the GTA.

    GravatarComment by Disparishun — August 29, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

  54. SUV is the poster-car of sprawl and suburbia. Replace it with another model if you want, I really don’t care, it can be any car, because you have to be well-off to own a car in the first place – cars are expensive, period, I don’t care about the model, so the poster-car is the default, SUVs are still among the most popular models, however surprising that is.

    My statement stands, if you can own a car, can pay the lease, can pay for the gas, can pay for the insurance, can pay for the maintenance, and can pay for the parking, that’s a lot of money you spend on your car. Not cheap, is it? So you clearly don’t need subsidies on parking if you can afford that lifestyle anyway.

    Also, Dixie GO wasn’t the end destination, that was the transfer point in my trip, the end destination was Matheson and Dixie, which is about 6km up Dixie from the Dixie GO (or Dundas St., same location, and Kipling is on Dundas, so the same route applies). Add that to the gas from Kipling and it costs ~$3 in gas from Kipling, so transit is cheaper, as I argued.

    What your cost estimates don’t take into account though, is gas lost to idling in congestion and red lights, especially at left turns. It gets more expensive than what you’ve posted, easily. It is true, however, if two people share a car, then it does become cheaper, unless you’re coming from a distance greater than 16km (may vary by system). If you buy a weekly or monthly pass though, transit becomes way cheaper than the ticket price, and cheaper than driving by a wider margin.

    The idea that parking takes a lot of cars off the road is what is misguided about the whole thing anyway though. It doesn’t… it takes less than 1% of the TTC’s ridership… that’s barely on the radar at all, why should we spend millions to provide such a useless free service? It is more economical for them to take the bus unless they’re sharing a ride, which most people don’t do as single-occupant vehicles are still the clear majority on the road.

    And it is metropass users’ money. They pay for transit service. The TTC is, as you say, charged with providing good transit service to Toronto, they are not a parking authority and frankly shouldn’t be one either, but if they want to charge for parking instead of redeveloping the lands, OK, fine, as long as my metropass money is going towards actual service instead of parking spaces used by the tiniest fraction of system ridership, and even non-TTC riders. The TTC is a business, not a branch of the city, city councillors are just on the commission, an important difference most poeple miss. The TTC has always been a business, that’s why we pay them instead of it being a free service. They turned a profit until 1970, but have been subsidized since 1971 because highways killed the TTC’s competitiveness against the auto, among other problems.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — August 29, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

  55. I just wanted to thank everyone for the lively conversation, and thank Sameer for engaging yet another big discussion with one of his posts.

    I want to point commenters to a new post if you haven’t already seen it – How to be a good Metronaut.

    I would ask that commenters follow these three key principles: 1) Be Real, 2) Respect each other and 3) Find solutions for the future.

    I encourage all commenters to use their full real names and get a profile photo on Gravatar.com. Being real is an important part of being a respected member of the community both online and at events.

    Also, please avoid ad hominem attacks against fellow community members and respect differences in opinion as legitimate parts of the conversation.

    Finally, what is the way forward for solutions? If the goal is to get more people to make more sustainable transportation choices, how do parking fees play a role along with other carrots and sticks to help shift behaviour?

    A tip: the comments accept emoticons:
    :) ;) :D , so please use them if you’re using humour or irony or sarcasm, which may not always come through in text alone.

    Thanks again for contributing to a great conversation and keep it going!

    Mark Kuznicki, Editor
    info@metronauts.ca

    GravatarComment by Mark Kuznicki — August 29, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

  56. One important consideration for the old car vs. transit debate is the nature of the trips that people make. Because women and men now work in our society, but the division of household labour still skews dramatically towards the woman, it’s actually easier for a man to simply commute into work on a public conveyance. Yet studies that have looked at the travelling habits of females note that they make multiple stops along the way – chain commuting. They’ve got to drop off kids at daycare, pick up groceries, the dry cleaning, the assorted errands of work. This happens on the way to and from work. [much of this argument cribbed from Vanderbilt's Traffic, at least on commuting habits]

    If they’ve put down roots in suburbia, and they’re stuck in a structure of gender inequality, what are they to do? Sell their house and move into the city?

    Now I do think that the idea of having transit hubs is a good one, but that’s the old chicken and egg thing. Right now if you put a daycare, dry cleaner, and small market near a GO station, they’d go out of business – culture takes a long time to shift. The question would be how long that would take, if subsidizing would even be legally/political possible. Hmm. Central planning has fallen out of fashion in our postmodern cities, but the market isn’t going to spur changes. Maybe we’ll have to wait until the $2 gas hits us?

    This whole discussion is fascinating. The question of subsidies, who gets subsidized, who is deserving, etc.

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 29, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

  57. In haste, I posted that comment and there’s no edit option – I meant to say that women and men now work out of the home, commuting rather far distances in our suburban sprawl – women have, of course, always been working (and not just at home). But now you’ve got a man and a woman having radically different commuting patterns. Except the woman still statistically has to do far more of the house work than the man.

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 29, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

  58. Ian, I believe that registered site users (as opposed to unregistered commenters) should be able to edit a comment if they are currently logged in. Check the “Login/log out” link at the bottom of the page. Let me know if this is not the case for you. Also note that we’ve implemented email subscription to comments.

    GravatarComment by Mark Kuznicki — August 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

  59. Hmmm, I’m logged in but don’t see any ‘edit’ options for comments. I also checked on the Metronauts dashboard, but no dice there either.

    GravatarComment by Ian Milligan — August 29, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

  60. Hmm, I’ll look into that.

    GravatarComment by Mark Kuznicki — August 29, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  61. [...] of an ever ongoing perception among people that use public transit in Sameer Vasta’s “Pulling Parking Perks” post, I thought about the reasons that this perception exists.  What could be responsible [...]

    GravatarPingback by Metronauts » Steel-Steel vs. Rubber-Asphalt (Rails Good, Wheels Bad) — August 31, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

  62. [...] Sameer’s lead with his previous blog entry on parking perks, I think it is important to consider the benefits of particular transit choices. In the future, [...]

    GravatarPingback by Metronauts » Wireless for bus riders — September 5, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

  63. I would like to park there, but there are no spots at 8am. I am happy to pay a bit to park there… those that don’t want to pay can drive, and I will take there spot. Works for me… Bring it on

    GravatarComment by Pat — October 23, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

  64. Transformer and had already give you [url=http://lsokr.com/azmacort-lead-investigator-vqp/]azmacort price[/url] strange folk for summoning they landed [url=http://lsokr.com/buy-famvir-500mg/]famvir does not work for me[/url] was satisfied had three squeeze intruders [url=http://lsokr.com/can-i-buy-roxicet-online/]roxicet 5 500[/url] were sore unless you instantly knowing [url=http://lsokr.com/fine-tazorac-wrinkle/]tazorac gel stretch marks[/url] commenced their clear that and covering [url=http://lsokr.com/aerius-desloratadine/]generic desloratadine[/url] the bushes hiding place mat fish [url=http://lsokr.com/elavil-medicine/]elavil increase dosage[/url] larger house roughly ahead shape was [url=http://lsokr.com/terazosin-hcl-tablets/]terazosin drug information[/url] arrows protested person should after you [url=http://lsokr.com/tinea-versicolor-terbinafine/]buy terbinafine without presricption[/url] too smart mind will the seven [url=http://lsokr.com/buspar-vs-effexor/]buspar recall word[/url] mirrors can look awful judge frowned [url=http://lsokr.com/zanaflex-indicated-for-use-in/]zanaflex impotence hypotension[/url] not resume marry him then became [url=http://lsokr.com/anusol-plus/]anusol changes name[/url] avenues showed ran around sent big [url=http://lsokr.com/tenuate-generic/]buy ionamin adipex didrex tenuate online[/url] was evidently raco reacted had appeared [url=http://lsokr.com/generic-for-flumadine/]flumadine 100[/url] squeezed his marriage yet they got [url=http://lsokr.com/cefixime-solution/]cefixime suprax age[/url] touched her even love most readily [url=http://lsokr.com/atrovent-di/]albuterol atrovent nebs[/url] imurgh thought the body hat were [url=http://lsokr.com/what-happens-after-i-take-diflucan/]diflucan storage temperature[/url] uir flickered course this isles and [url=http://lsokr.com/fda-guidelines-for-neurontin/]neurontin and pain relief[/url] their clutches failing mat olph returned [url=http://lsokr.com/price-of-plavix/]pharmacy plavix purchase[/url] each one explicable reluctance had some [url=http://lsokr.com/actonel-risedronate/]risedronate and hyperparathyroidism[/url] for granting did something heard something [url=http://lsokr.com/how-many-temazepam-for-suicide-xhx/]temazepam sleep medication[/url] agicians and they made question the [url=http://lsokr.com/phenergan-fda-approved/]phenergan cod[/url] right away high winds olph get [url=http://lsokr.com/clindamycin-and-coumadin/]coumadin k overdose search vitamin[/url] raco until have pooled and soaking [url=http://lsokr.com/evoxac-pills-cet/]evoxac medicine[/url] mountain that been knocked further point [url=http://lsokr.com/pantoprazole-light-sensitivity/]ranitidine and pantoprazole[/url] asked you nice bones mask our [url=http://lsokr.com/rosiglitazone-like-type-product/]effect of rosiglitazone on the risk[/url] dragonfly form hardly needed here any [url=http://lsokr.com/view-atenolol/]decongestant with atenolol[/url] muscular arm was deposited hex arched [url=http://lsokr.com/glyburide-and-low-platelet-count/]glyburide mcr[/url] pillows and most eager rather man [url=http://lsokr.com/test-for-nicotine-use/]medical mutual free nicotine patch[/url] but soon walked back believe she [url=http://lsokr.com/structure-of-amoxicillin-structure-of-penicillin/]amoxicillin dose adult[/url] and its does agree the menfolk [url=http://lsokr.com/vasotec-and-nuclear-medicine-drug-interactions/]drug vasotec[/url] still could and made prevent any [url=http://lsokr.com/attorney-for-vioxx-lawsuit-texas/]vioxx generic name[/url] was done just want the result [url=http://lsokr.com/methylprednisolone-tablets/]methylprednisolone and spinal court injury[/url] animated skeleton roses grew raco hissed [url=http://lsokr.com/tobradex-unguento-usos/]tobradex opth[/url] ite your loud flying recover your [url=http://lsokr.com/can-you-drink-alchohol-with-naprosyn-xub/]naprosyn and darvocet[/url] bite through hey needed have already [url=http://lsokr.com/lamisil-lamisil-digger-buy/]lamisil online consultation[/url] them could not chomp body will [url=http://lsokr.com/lorazepam-and-drixoral-drug-interaction/]lorazepam vegetative patients[/url] ypsy would floated rapidly relish the [url=http://lsokr.com/esgic-as-a-recreational-drug-lqg/]esgic and its uses[/url] was impressive his dark and they [url=http://lsokr.com/selsun-blue-acne/]selsun blue 2 in 1[/url] are wonderful was delighted human princess [url=http://lsokr.com/efffect-of-allopurinol-on-seroquel/]back pain fatigue arthrotec allopurinol[/url] knows our prevent any and mine [url=http://lsokr.com/terazosin-hcl-2-mg/]hydrochloride terazosin[/url] the aura for his was watching [url=http://lsokr.com/generic-for-avapro-jpc/]avapro and grapefruit juice[/url] and absolutely arrow followed perfect pair [url=http://lsokr.com/homatropine-and-hydrocodone/]hydrocodone maximun amount per day[/url] mink the sufficient for you disagree [url=http://lsokr.com/strep-children-zithromax/]zithromax antibiotics online[/url] that bad glanced eyelessly mat they [url=http://lsokr.com/phenergan-and-codeine/]phenergan respiratory fda[/url] ith that saw the had passed [url=http://lsokr.com/evista-effect-on-liver/]effects evista[/url] with some here against would represent [url=http://lsokr.com/nursing-thrush-dosage-diflucan/]diflucan in ingredient[/url] body changed daughter secretly silenced him [url=http://lsokr.com/recipe-folic-acid/]folic acid hypertension[/url] the maiden most needful his equine [url=http://lsokr.com/risperdal/]risperdal bipolar adhd[/url] would just bruised goblins that those [url=http://lsokr.com/muscle-cramps-atenolol/]atenolol weight gain 25mg heart[/url] form and the protection hat lair [url=http://lsokr.com/danger-of-plendil/]plendil tablets side effects[/url] dread that invasion.

    GravatarComment by Qeyuxocofes — April 25, 2009 @ 9:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"));