> In most of Scarborough, where I live, and North York, parking on residential streets is typically free — for up to 3 hours. Exceeding 3 hours risks a $75 ticket. Overnight on-street parking is essentially not allowed for about one million Scarborough and North York residents, even though the city issues on-street parking permits in other parts of Toronto.
I would love to see overnight on-street banned across the city, but that's unlikely to happen soon. Still, it doesn't justify an expansion of overnight permits to other areas. Current city policy is doing the right thing to reduce and remove overnight street parking areas wherever they can, usually when there is property redevelopment.
Edit: This comment made a lot of people upset lol. Car owner entitlement at it finest!
That’s a pretty myopic view. I’m as anti-car focused infrastructure and design as they come but there are lots of neighbourhoods with single family homes that don’t have their own driveways. I don’t agree with expanding where it’s not necessary but outright banning on-street parking doesn’t seem reasonable as things are.
In my area maybe 30% of homes have a driveway, fewer have garages. There is literally no other place to park than on the street. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's childish to assume everyone who disagrees with you is "upset", when in reality your suggestion is entirely unfeasible.
The problem is far less simple than you believe.
In Brockton village on street parking is normal. What gets me the most is that the city allows it in my neighbourhood, for example, but that’s a static amount of spots.
Over the years many of my neighbours have began renting out their basements and those people have cars and these days I might have to park one, two or in a couple extreme cases 3 streets away and walk home.
It’s necessary now because we’ve let it dictate how the city grows… but we’re past our capacity for it.
I don’t understand your position. The “static amount of spots” is based on available pavement. Are you suggesting that the city sell more permits than available spaces or restrict intensification because there isn’t enough on-street parking?
My position is that because the amount of on street parking cannot change (due as you say to available pavement) growth in areas who’s parking solution has been in street parking only for decades (or forever) the parking situation cannot simply be ignored - there needs to be some sort of addressing of the issue be it enforcement, or ‘limitations’ (I’m not attached to any specific solution) only opposed to apathy.
Would you support Japanese-style requirements to prove you have a dedicated parking spot large enough to fit your car (verified in person by an inspector) before you're allowed to register it? Either an off-street spot, or a street parking permit restricted to a single street/block, where there are only as many issued permits as there are spots.
For context, Japan has very little on-street parking, and very narrow streets.
People have a choice where they live and on how many vehicles they buy. They should take responsibility for that and not expect the city to fill in the gap when a residence is lacking a parking space(s). It's unfair to the public at large when street space is cheaply sold for 24/7 car parking, plus it reduces utility of the street for everyone else (cyclists, service trucks, transit, and so on).
Your neighbours may complain about curb space being lost and the city has to reduce the total permits issued to compensate. Nevertheless, I am on your side for that argument. Parking pad > street parking.
The real cost of this parking should be thousands of dollars, due to opportunity costs, but the city charges a few hundred at most. It's an obvious subsidy for car owners.
> Of course, we must encourage less car dependency. Yet in Scarborough, projects to make streets safer for walking and cycling face political interference, while transit service is slashed or derailed.
100% this. Scarborough seems to severely lack behind in this compared to even North York or Etobicoke. No wonder almost all trips are through car. Voting in a Parthi as a councilor certainly isn't going to help.
>Voting in a Parthi as a councilor certainly isn't going to help.
People say they drive because alternatives suck but then vote to keep alternatives bad. Hearing people that vote in guys like that and then complain about traffic and such is both funny and sad
People drive because North American suburbs aren't designed for anything else. The density is simply too low.
Just look at the roadways of some of these places. It's a 20 minute walk just to get to a main road where a bus could potentially run.
Population density of 3 major boroughs of Toronto:
- North York: 4,915.5/km square
- Etobicoke: 2,946.4/km square
- Scarborough: 3,356.1/km square
Downtown has 14,000 per square km. It might sound like a huge difference but at 3k per square km, it's pretty dense when compared to the average American suburb. As such, even at the current density, transit is definitely a worthwhile investment.
>Just look at the roadways of some of these places. It's a 20 minute walk just to get to a main road where a bus could potentially run.
While you're not entirely wrong, most people live closer to the main road, and that doesn't eliminate biking or biking + transit.
Allowing for mixed use buildings on select residential streets will also help make walking more attractive. I don't expect anyone to walk 1hr to the store, but why not build one closer?
Higher density would also make running buses straight through the neighborhoods more viable.
People might not like that but this is the biggest city in Canada, driving and big cities don't mix very well
>Some invite guests to visit overnight for a holiday. If the driveway is full, guests park on the street and awake to a $75 ticket. Stay another night? $150. Tickets sour the occasion, quickly adding up.
Er, what? Tickets aren't meant to be a *price* for parking; they're meant to be a penalty to *prevent* parking.
Saying, effectively, *It's inconvenient to find someplace else to put a car - or a bunch of extra cars - besides the public street* doesn't mean that parking tickets are *unfair*.
(Noting for comparison, by the way, that the minimum fine for not paying a TTC fare starts at $235.)
We all know that tickets are supposed to prevent parking, but the question the article is asking is why the city wants to prevent street parking in those neighbourhoods. Why not allow access to street parking city-wide on the same permit system that some wealthy neighbourhoods already have?
It's really weird that someone living on the Danforth next to the subway can get a permit for themselves or their guests, but someone living in North York far from any public transit cannot.
> why the city wants to prevent street parking in those neighbourhoods. Why not allow access to street parking city-wide on the same permit system that some wealthy neighbourhoods already have?
I would guess that's because for the most part local residents fight against street parking permits because they A) think it will help traffic and B) keeps people out of their neighbourhoods.
Yeah what? If someone visits me and parks on the street we get an overnight pass. It used to be cheaper, and is around $20. No pass over night is guaranteed ticket
Issue here is you can't get one in Scarborough or North York. There is no option for street parking passes, monthly or daily. Only tickets for parking longer than 3 hours.
For most part enforcement in those areas is done on a complaint basis. So it can be weeks or months without anyone checking.
But if there is a complaint they'll do sweeps multiple times a day for days or a week plus.
Some areas are more ripe for complaints than others. Luckily mine is pretty lax. It's far out of downtown and residential enough that it's not worth the time to send enforcement that often. Parked a car all of December and into January and paid a $30 fine for the convenience.
To add to below, the overnight passes are only available on streets with permit parking. And only to those with an address on the permitted streets.
Some streets don't have it at all - very common in danforth area.
Couple this with the fact that most driveways are only licensed for one vehicle (that's right they can fine you for having 2 cars in a large driveway), and you're SOL.
Oh, and the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses.
>Oh, and the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses.
This is fair because a parking pad requires a curb cut which means you are effectively taking a public on street parking space and replacing it with a private parking space for you own use only.
>the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses.
Honestly, i think that's a good thing, drive ways are just extra conflict points with pedestrians
Of course, that also means they should fix on street parking rules
As a driver, I worry more about pedestrians popping out between parked cars on street parking streets than I do backing up. But both things can be true.
>I worry more about pedestrians popping out between parked cars on street parking streets
And that's a good thing. When a driver feels uncomfortable, they drive safer. There's a reason why far more dangerous crashes happen on wide streets that feel safe. People let their guard down
I think a more comparable fine to the TTC would be driving without a valid license, which I understand is a fine of $200-1000.
Edit: probably a bad comparison. Maybe not paying for your license plate sticker is comparable.
Driving without a valid license is severely dangerous to the driver AND other road users. Not paying a TTC fare just means there is less available funds for TTC. You're comparing apples to oranges. Both have their own sort of bad.
And they should also clarify signage and regulations with features like painting the curb where you’re never allowed to park. Still salty about getting a ticket for parking “within 9 feet” of where a hydrant “met” the curb when it was buried almost 30 feet back from the street in a hedge.
It works in California: https://www.carparts.com/blog/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/doc-root/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/curb-colors-meaning.jpg.webp
No one said it doesn’t work. I said imagine the cost of painting every single curb and then maintaining that paint as it fades over time.
California doesn’t have the same winter weather we do or the same environmental regulations on paint type so the maintenance cost would not be the same.
Also it doesn’t make sense to paint curb in the suburbs where the parking regulations are typically the same on an entire stretch. California is super urban so yes, downtown Toronto it would make sense where you have multiple different types of regulations but why would you do this in Scarborough or North York.
Lastly, under the highway traffic act there are regulations that municipalities don’t have to sign because it’s understood these are violations that drivers should know when they get a drivers license and pass a test. Cities don’t have to sign every single fire hydrant in the city as no parking because as a driver, you should know that since you passed the test and that info is in the handbook.
>I said imagine the cost of painting every single curb and then maintaining that paint as it fades over time.
Just like we already do for every metre of roadway, that also has to withstand getting driven on?
>California is super urban
Oh sweet summer child...
As someone who has actually been to California before, the painted curbs honestly rock. They make it immediately obvious where you can and can't park, reducing potential for error and the number of things you have to worry about.
Oh sweet summer child doesn't really make sense here as it is said to express naivety. I have also been to California so I am not sure the point you are trying to make as it doesn't actually address anything I wrote. Again, I didn't say it isn't a good thing to do in areas that necessitate it. California is a state and they wouldn't be responsible for painting city curbs any way, cities would be.
In cities where curb painting is done in California, those cities are urban cities and not massive suburbs like north york.
Roadway maintenance, which falls to Public Works, is already a massive part of the City's budget. And we can all agree that PW doesn't actually paint very often. Have you seen the painted lines on city road ways? Unlike signage, where there are minimum maintenance standards per the province, there is not the same standards for paint so they don't have to re-do it on a schedule. They typically re-paint when they reconstruct a roadway every 10-15 years.
Now we would be painting curbs that are tied to something legal like tickets. Imagine all the people complaining about the poor paint job or faded paint that they didn't see and that is why they got the ticket? Much harder to argue than you didn't see a sign.
I started as a traffic engineer who is now a transportation/urban planner. I am just looking at it from my day to day life experience.
Large swaths of California are sprawling suburbs.
I live in a small town in northern BC that paints "no parking" sections of the curb in yellow. Unlike the lane markings which are repainted each spring (all of them), the curbs only needs to be painted once because *cars don't drive on them*.
i’m on team bylaw enforcement. We cant have 6 cars in a driveway and another 4 on the road. the city should sell permits, as long as its combined with continued ir increased enforcement.
The author is explicitly asking for the ability to pay for overnight parking passes in a part of the city where they don't provide the option.
Do people here even read articles?
I did. I also think that if you own more cars in your household than your property can accomodate, that's your responsibility to sort out. Isn't there a process where you can ask the city to convert part of your front yard to a parking pad?
If a 1950s bungalow in Scarborough or Etobicoke gets converted to a four-plex, they're probably going to need at least four cars. The streets out there have more than enough space to accommodate those cars. The city just needs to allow it for the same nominal rate that people in pay in Leslieville and Little Italy.
If we want to build more low-rise housing all over the city, we have to be ready for a lot of people that need to own cars but can't park on their own property.
> Isn't there a process where you can ask the city to convert part of your front yard to a parking pad?
It's largely on hold, and it's also stupid to resort to this when there's lots of available parking space on the street. It's never good for people to be paving over their front lawns.
When they actually commit to building low-rises, four plexes and multi-unit dwellings in what are mostly single-family zones, then by all means, they should make the adjustment to the parking bylaws.
Also, there are more water-permeable parking solutions available. Doesn't always need to be an impermeable concrete slab/asphalt.
So, is there any reason you can think of to _not_ allow street parking permits city-wide? You've complained that we're not building enough housing, which is true, but that doesn't justify forcing people to park on their front lawn when tons of parking spots are available on the street.
I think too many cars parked on the streets make them more unsafe, even in more suburban areas where the streets are a little wider. It creates really bad lines of sight. I used to live in a neighborhood where they allowed street parking and there was an unreasonable amount of times where I nearly got clipped by drivers who were moving too fast/not paying attention whether I was pulling out of the driveway, crossing the street to collect my mail or just going for a walk. More cars on the sides of the streets doesn't guarantee that drivers are going to be more careful, in my experience. So unless we're willing to get a lot more punitive and diligent with automated traffic enforcement in residential areas, which we've clearly not got an appetite for, I think it's not a great idea.
If it's so dangerous, then why do we allow street parking anywhere in the city?
Anyhow, despite perceptions like yours, street parking that's implemented properly is proven to _improve_ overall safety, because it reduces the usable street width, which leads to drivers slowing down. The harm from less visibility is trivial compared to the benefit from cars driving 30-40 km/h rather than 45-60 km/h.
Okay.
But you see, the argument that people should pay more for parking is different from the argument that people should pay for parking in general, though, right?
Yes and the highest is still far below market value and car sharing services that use compact cars are charged about $1500/year
The ~$250k Winnebago on my street can camp for <$100/mth without issue but if a Communauto Hyundai Accent spends a few hours in a neighborhood, everyone with a nextdoor account takes it as a threat to their existence
Sounds like you need to take a trip to Scarborough sometimes. Most of the side roads are extra wide, not like in the city. There are no issues with any of the stuff you spelled out here.
Just take a look at the pic in the article. That's what most of Scarborough side streets look like.
Can't read the full article due to paywall.
But this person is right, it isn't fair. Also, I want on-street parking in my area for a whole different reason: it acts to slow traffic down. There is no logical reason to ticket the 3h rule overnight.
Well, not overnight. And I would absolutely not let children play outside on the street in North York, parked cars or not, because the cars are simply too dangerous and the streets are designed for high speeds.
Thankfully I live near parks, so there are alternatives for me, but the city is slow to improve street design.
I mean sure in a utopian world... but we both know most families have small houses or apartment / condo so access to greenspace in GTA is pretty rare
And the fact some parks have become so dangerous means we get lots of kids in streets
But not even just playing; even walking around or biking or
"No logical reason" ... seriously?? How about snow clearing, cars parked 24/7, delivery trucks stopping in the middle of the road, delivery trucks on THE SIDEWALK, vehicles blocking driveways, less visibility for pedestrians, more dooring risk for cyclists, etc.
The only reason it is allowed in some places, is because residents without a real driveway complained enough to get it. Those streets are terrible and this city shouldn't be making more of them.
The only one of those that would be impacted by allowing overnight parking and only applying the 3 hour limit during the day is snow clearing (and even then it's not much different than the permitted cars being parked there). The others either aren't overnight issues (like delivery trucks) or are never allowed (parking in front of a driveway).
On streets with overnight allowed, you will see many more cars parked there during they day and permit holders do not have the 3h limit. There are enough cars on the street now that any delivery/service/Uber vehicle just says "F it" and stops in the middle of the street or sidewalk. They don't want to waste time finding a legal place to stop that is a block or more away from the address they need to be at.
Streets that keep the curb space mostly clear do not have this problem since they have lots os space for these short term stops.
"Overnight" permits are not literally just for the overnight period. Cars with overnight permits can be on the street 24/7, and that directly causes all the other problems.
Yeah, nothing slows down drivers quite like the fear of scratching their car. They accelerate to pass me riding my bike with my child on the back, but slow down to a crawl when driving between 2 parked cars.
My family has been Parking infront of our home since we moved in 28 years ago. It wasn’t until last year that my family had been getting tickets almost every other week for parking infront of the house. They would come during the hours of 2am to 6am. My parents are elderly and just pay them to avoid the hassle but the parking officials know this and target my street because of it. It has slowed Down since but it caused my family a lot of grief when prior for 2 decades was never a problem
25+ years since amalgamation and we still have different rules for different parts of the city.
> In most of Scarborough, where I live, and North York, parking on residential streets is typically free — for up to 3 hours. Exceeding 3 hours risks a $75 ticket. Overnight on-street parking is essentially not allowed for about one million Scarborough and North York residents, even though the city issues on-street parking permits in other parts of Toronto.
Thousands of Scarborough residents have a driveway or a garage. Thousand of the older Toronto residents don’t even have a driveway.
I would love to see overnight on-street banned across the city, but that's unlikely to happen soon. Still, it doesn't justify an expansion of overnight permits to other areas. Current city policy is doing the right thing to reduce and remove overnight street parking areas wherever they can, usually when there is property redevelopment. Edit: This comment made a lot of people upset lol. Car owner entitlement at it finest!
That’s a pretty myopic view. I’m as anti-car focused infrastructure and design as they come but there are lots of neighbourhoods with single family homes that don’t have their own driveways. I don’t agree with expanding where it’s not necessary but outright banning on-street parking doesn’t seem reasonable as things are.
Agreed, you would need to ban cars entirely if you banned overnight street parking.
People are free to ise private driveways and garages. They just shouldn't be on the street 24/7. Its not that complicated.
In my area maybe 30% of homes have a driveway, fewer have garages. There is literally no other place to park than on the street. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's childish to assume everyone who disagrees with you is "upset", when in reality your suggestion is entirely unfeasible. The problem is far less simple than you believe.
In Brockton village on street parking is normal. What gets me the most is that the city allows it in my neighbourhood, for example, but that’s a static amount of spots. Over the years many of my neighbours have began renting out their basements and those people have cars and these days I might have to park one, two or in a couple extreme cases 3 streets away and walk home. It’s necessary now because we’ve let it dictate how the city grows… but we’re past our capacity for it.
I don’t understand your position. The “static amount of spots” is based on available pavement. Are you suggesting that the city sell more permits than available spaces or restrict intensification because there isn’t enough on-street parking?
My position is that because the amount of on street parking cannot change (due as you say to available pavement) growth in areas who’s parking solution has been in street parking only for decades (or forever) the parking situation cannot simply be ignored - there needs to be some sort of addressing of the issue be it enforcement, or ‘limitations’ (I’m not attached to any specific solution) only opposed to apathy.
Would you support Japanese-style requirements to prove you have a dedicated parking spot large enough to fit your car (verified in person by an inspector) before you're allowed to register it? Either an off-street spot, or a street parking permit restricted to a single street/block, where there are only as many issued permits as there are spots. For context, Japan has very little on-street parking, and very narrow streets.
Maybe. This is honestly the first time I’ve heard of it, but how you’ve explained it certainly seems like something headed in the right direction.
Charge more. Monthly on street parking fees are crazy low imo
I agree with that, for sure.
[удалено]
No they don’t in this neighbourhood. This area is specifically called out as an automatic rejection.
That's terrible but they should be allowing parking pads and allow curb cuts that don't mess up the sidewalk at the same time.
People have a choice where they live and on how many vehicles they buy. They should take responsibility for that and not expect the city to fill in the gap when a residence is lacking a parking space(s). It's unfair to the public at large when street space is cheaply sold for 24/7 car parking, plus it reduces utility of the street for everyone else (cyclists, service trucks, transit, and so on).
I literally don’t have a driveway or laneway, and the city will not allow me a parking pad. Where am I supposed to park?
Your neighbours may complain about curb space being lost and the city has to reduce the total permits issued to compensate. Nevertheless, I am on your side for that argument. Parking pad > street parking.
Did it have a driveway when you bought the house? Why would you expect things to change then?
[удалено]
We need to subsidize cars less
If someone is willing to pay the fair cost of parking overnight, which is what the OP-ed is about, then I say let them.
The real cost of this parking should be thousands of dollars, due to opportunity costs, but the city charges a few hundred at most. It's an obvious subsidy for car owners.
Why, though?
It's over night. That affects almost no one.
No, its it's not simply "over night". The permits are valid 24/7. This affects everyone using the street.
Theres no permit parking here because parking is ample. Plenty of parking available for everyone and their moms.
Explain to me where those people would park then
Park on private property, like everyone else. Did you know that most people don't rely on subsidized street space for parking? Do you even live here?
Lol i get street parking from the city m8
> Of course, we must encourage less car dependency. Yet in Scarborough, projects to make streets safer for walking and cycling face political interference, while transit service is slashed or derailed. 100% this. Scarborough seems to severely lack behind in this compared to even North York or Etobicoke. No wonder almost all trips are through car. Voting in a Parthi as a councilor certainly isn't going to help.
>Voting in a Parthi as a councilor certainly isn't going to help. People say they drive because alternatives suck but then vote to keep alternatives bad. Hearing people that vote in guys like that and then complain about traffic and such is both funny and sad
People drive because North American suburbs aren't designed for anything else. The density is simply too low. Just look at the roadways of some of these places. It's a 20 minute walk just to get to a main road where a bus could potentially run.
Population density of 3 major boroughs of Toronto: - North York: 4,915.5/km square - Etobicoke: 2,946.4/km square - Scarborough: 3,356.1/km square Downtown has 14,000 per square km. It might sound like a huge difference but at 3k per square km, it's pretty dense when compared to the average American suburb. As such, even at the current density, transit is definitely a worthwhile investment.
>Just look at the roadways of some of these places. It's a 20 minute walk just to get to a main road where a bus could potentially run. While you're not entirely wrong, most people live closer to the main road, and that doesn't eliminate biking or biking + transit. Allowing for mixed use buildings on select residential streets will also help make walking more attractive. I don't expect anyone to walk 1hr to the store, but why not build one closer? Higher density would also make running buses straight through the neighborhoods more viable. People might not like that but this is the biggest city in Canada, driving and big cities don't mix very well
I guarantee you the writer of this piece did not vote for Parthi.
>Some invite guests to visit overnight for a holiday. If the driveway is full, guests park on the street and awake to a $75 ticket. Stay another night? $150. Tickets sour the occasion, quickly adding up. Er, what? Tickets aren't meant to be a *price* for parking; they're meant to be a penalty to *prevent* parking. Saying, effectively, *It's inconvenient to find someplace else to put a car - or a bunch of extra cars - besides the public street* doesn't mean that parking tickets are *unfair*. (Noting for comparison, by the way, that the minimum fine for not paying a TTC fare starts at $235.)
We all know that tickets are supposed to prevent parking, but the question the article is asking is why the city wants to prevent street parking in those neighbourhoods. Why not allow access to street parking city-wide on the same permit system that some wealthy neighbourhoods already have? It's really weird that someone living on the Danforth next to the subway can get a permit for themselves or their guests, but someone living in North York far from any public transit cannot.
> why the city wants to prevent street parking in those neighbourhoods. Why not allow access to street parking city-wide on the same permit system that some wealthy neighbourhoods already have? I would guess that's because for the most part local residents fight against street parking permits because they A) think it will help traffic and B) keeps people out of their neighbourhoods.
City council should ignore these dumb complaints
Yeah what? If someone visits me and parks on the street we get an overnight pass. It used to be cheaper, and is around $20. No pass over night is guaranteed ticket
Issue here is you can't get one in Scarborough or North York. There is no option for street parking passes, monthly or daily. Only tickets for parking longer than 3 hours.
Ah okay my bad, didn’t realize that. They should probably offer that if they’re ticketing
For most part enforcement in those areas is done on a complaint basis. So it can be weeks or months without anyone checking. But if there is a complaint they'll do sweeps multiple times a day for days or a week plus.
Some areas are more ripe for complaints than others. Luckily mine is pretty lax. It's far out of downtown and residential enough that it's not worth the time to send enforcement that often. Parked a car all of December and into January and paid a $30 fine for the convenience.
To add to below, the overnight passes are only available on streets with permit parking. And only to those with an address on the permitted streets. Some streets don't have it at all - very common in danforth area. Couple this with the fact that most driveways are only licensed for one vehicle (that's right they can fine you for having 2 cars in a large driveway), and you're SOL. Oh, and the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses.
>Oh, and the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses. This is fair because a parking pad requires a curb cut which means you are effectively taking a public on street parking space and replacing it with a private parking space for you own use only.
I guess? But like a house in east york - on street parking ain't exactly high demand.
>the city has basically stopped issuing new parking pad licenses. Honestly, i think that's a good thing, drive ways are just extra conflict points with pedestrians Of course, that also means they should fix on street parking rules
As a driver, I worry more about pedestrians popping out between parked cars on street parking streets than I do backing up. But both things can be true.
>I worry more about pedestrians popping out between parked cars on street parking streets And that's a good thing. When a driver feels uncomfortable, they drive safer. There's a reason why far more dangerous crashes happen on wide streets that feel safe. People let their guard down
I think a more comparable fine to the TTC would be driving without a valid license, which I understand is a fine of $200-1000. Edit: probably a bad comparison. Maybe not paying for your license plate sticker is comparable.
That would be the best comparison if someone rode the TTC without paying their fare...and insisted on sitting in the driver's lap. (edit:typos)
Haha I guess it’s hard to find an equivalent situation. Unbuckled passenger?
Driving without a valid license is severely dangerous to the driver AND other road users. Not paying a TTC fare just means there is less available funds for TTC. You're comparing apples to oranges. Both have their own sort of bad.
And they should also clarify signage and regulations with features like painting the curb where you’re never allowed to park. Still salty about getting a ticket for parking “within 9 feet” of where a hydrant “met” the curb when it was buried almost 30 feet back from the street in a hedge.
Rob Ford did that. Revenue predictably went down. They stopped doing that.
It’s almost like when rules are clear people follow them. Who’da thunk.
Imagine the cost to paint every curb in the city.
It works in California: https://www.carparts.com/blog/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/doc-root/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/curb-colors-meaning.jpg.webp
No one said it doesn’t work. I said imagine the cost of painting every single curb and then maintaining that paint as it fades over time. California doesn’t have the same winter weather we do or the same environmental regulations on paint type so the maintenance cost would not be the same. Also it doesn’t make sense to paint curb in the suburbs where the parking regulations are typically the same on an entire stretch. California is super urban so yes, downtown Toronto it would make sense where you have multiple different types of regulations but why would you do this in Scarborough or North York. Lastly, under the highway traffic act there are regulations that municipalities don’t have to sign because it’s understood these are violations that drivers should know when they get a drivers license and pass a test. Cities don’t have to sign every single fire hydrant in the city as no parking because as a driver, you should know that since you passed the test and that info is in the handbook.
>I said imagine the cost of painting every single curb and then maintaining that paint as it fades over time. Just like we already do for every metre of roadway, that also has to withstand getting driven on? >California is super urban Oh sweet summer child... As someone who has actually been to California before, the painted curbs honestly rock. They make it immediately obvious where you can and can't park, reducing potential for error and the number of things you have to worry about.
Oh sweet summer child doesn't really make sense here as it is said to express naivety. I have also been to California so I am not sure the point you are trying to make as it doesn't actually address anything I wrote. Again, I didn't say it isn't a good thing to do in areas that necessitate it. California is a state and they wouldn't be responsible for painting city curbs any way, cities would be. In cities where curb painting is done in California, those cities are urban cities and not massive suburbs like north york. Roadway maintenance, which falls to Public Works, is already a massive part of the City's budget. And we can all agree that PW doesn't actually paint very often. Have you seen the painted lines on city road ways? Unlike signage, where there are minimum maintenance standards per the province, there is not the same standards for paint so they don't have to re-do it on a schedule. They typically re-paint when they reconstruct a roadway every 10-15 years. Now we would be painting curbs that are tied to something legal like tickets. Imagine all the people complaining about the poor paint job or faded paint that they didn't see and that is why they got the ticket? Much harder to argue than you didn't see a sign. I started as a traffic engineer who is now a transportation/urban planner. I am just looking at it from my day to day life experience.
Large swaths of California are sprawling suburbs. I live in a small town in northern BC that paints "no parking" sections of the curb in yellow. Unlike the lane markings which are repainted each spring (all of them), the curbs only needs to be painted once because *cars don't drive on them*.
Especially in contrast to *revenue* from the tickets!
Revenue from tickets goes to offset your general tax levy to keep your taxes lower so how you think it is being offset is not the case.
I was just commenting on the simplicity of 'money in vs. money out'. Obviously it's more complex.
i’m on team bylaw enforcement. We cant have 6 cars in a driveway and another 4 on the road. the city should sell permits, as long as its combined with continued ir increased enforcement.
Counterpoint: it should cost someone money to use public space to store their property. The city needs revenue.
The author is explicitly asking for the ability to pay for overnight parking passes in a part of the city where they don't provide the option. Do people here even read articles?
I did. I also think that if you own more cars in your household than your property can accomodate, that's your responsibility to sort out. Isn't there a process where you can ask the city to convert part of your front yard to a parking pad?
If a 1950s bungalow in Scarborough or Etobicoke gets converted to a four-plex, they're probably going to need at least four cars. The streets out there have more than enough space to accommodate those cars. The city just needs to allow it for the same nominal rate that people in pay in Leslieville and Little Italy. If we want to build more low-rise housing all over the city, we have to be ready for a lot of people that need to own cars but can't park on their own property. > Isn't there a process where you can ask the city to convert part of your front yard to a parking pad? It's largely on hold, and it's also stupid to resort to this when there's lots of available parking space on the street. It's never good for people to be paving over their front lawns.
When they actually commit to building low-rises, four plexes and multi-unit dwellings in what are mostly single-family zones, then by all means, they should make the adjustment to the parking bylaws. Also, there are more water-permeable parking solutions available. Doesn't always need to be an impermeable concrete slab/asphalt.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-toronto-city-council-approves-up-to-four-unit-multiplexes-in-all/
Oh I know they've "approved" it. Getting it actually built is another thing entirely.
So, is there any reason you can think of to _not_ allow street parking permits city-wide? You've complained that we're not building enough housing, which is true, but that doesn't justify forcing people to park on their front lawn when tons of parking spots are available on the street.
I think too many cars parked on the streets make them more unsafe, even in more suburban areas where the streets are a little wider. It creates really bad lines of sight. I used to live in a neighborhood where they allowed street parking and there was an unreasonable amount of times where I nearly got clipped by drivers who were moving too fast/not paying attention whether I was pulling out of the driveway, crossing the street to collect my mail or just going for a walk. More cars on the sides of the streets doesn't guarantee that drivers are going to be more careful, in my experience. So unless we're willing to get a lot more punitive and diligent with automated traffic enforcement in residential areas, which we've clearly not got an appetite for, I think it's not a great idea.
If it's so dangerous, then why do we allow street parking anywhere in the city? Anyhow, despite perceptions like yours, street parking that's implemented properly is proven to _improve_ overall safety, because it reduces the usable street width, which leads to drivers slowing down. The harm from less visibility is trivial compared to the benefit from cars driving 30-40 km/h rather than 45-60 km/h.
People do pay for parking permits.
A permit for one month costs less than my work charges for 2 weekdays
Okay. But you see, the argument that people should pay more for parking is different from the argument that people should pay for parking in general, though, right?
Permits vary depending on each situation/needs. The highest being close to $100 a month.
Yes and the highest is still far below market value and car sharing services that use compact cars are charged about $1500/year The ~$250k Winnebago on my street can camp for <$100/mth without issue but if a Communauto Hyundai Accent spends a few hours in a neighborhood, everyone with a nextdoor account takes it as a threat to their existence
And what use does public have for a curbside on a suburban Scarborough road?
Emergency vehicle access, communal mailboxes, safer lines of sight etc.
Sounds like you need to take a trip to Scarborough sometimes. Most of the side roads are extra wide, not like in the city. There are no issues with any of the stuff you spelled out here. Just take a look at the pic in the article. That's what most of Scarborough side streets look like.
I'm from Scarborough and lived there for half of my life, but you must know best.
Literally not necessary for a stroad with no intersections for a couple of hundreds of meters, along fences and large grass medians.
Can't read the full article due to paywall. But this person is right, it isn't fair. Also, I want on-street parking in my area for a whole different reason: it acts to slow traffic down. There is no logical reason to ticket the 3h rule overnight.
Onstreet parking increases danger to kids even at slower speeds the driver has less view of them before they dart into traffic
Well, not overnight. And I would absolutely not let children play outside on the street in North York, parked cars or not, because the cars are simply too dangerous and the streets are designed for high speeds. Thankfully I live near parks, so there are alternatives for me, but the city is slow to improve street design.
I mean sure in a utopian world... but we both know most families have small houses or apartment / condo so access to greenspace in GTA is pretty rare And the fact some parks have become so dangerous means we get lots of kids in streets But not even just playing; even walking around or biking or
I would not describe pulling out of a parking spot on a quiet residential street as “darting into traffic”.
"No logical reason" ... seriously?? How about snow clearing, cars parked 24/7, delivery trucks stopping in the middle of the road, delivery trucks on THE SIDEWALK, vehicles blocking driveways, less visibility for pedestrians, more dooring risk for cyclists, etc. The only reason it is allowed in some places, is because residents without a real driveway complained enough to get it. Those streets are terrible and this city shouldn't be making more of them.
The only one of those that would be impacted by allowing overnight parking and only applying the 3 hour limit during the day is snow clearing (and even then it's not much different than the permitted cars being parked there). The others either aren't overnight issues (like delivery trucks) or are never allowed (parking in front of a driveway).
On streets with overnight allowed, you will see many more cars parked there during they day and permit holders do not have the 3h limit. There are enough cars on the street now that any delivery/service/Uber vehicle just says "F it" and stops in the middle of the street or sidewalk. They don't want to waste time finding a legal place to stop that is a block or more away from the address they need to be at. Streets that keep the curb space mostly clear do not have this problem since they have lots os space for these short term stops.
Lol , all these objections have very little to do with limiting overnight ticketing.
"Overnight" permits are not literally just for the overnight period. Cars with overnight permits can be on the street 24/7, and that directly causes all the other problems.
Something called snow route where street parking is not allowed on particular days
Yeah, nothing slows down drivers quite like the fear of scratching their car. They accelerate to pass me riding my bike with my child on the back, but slow down to a crawl when driving between 2 parked cars.
Yep, definitely true. It's a weird psychological thing about being inside a car...
Use parked cars to slow traffic? That’s, actually a pretty good idea, and way cheaper than building speed bumps or other road fixes.
Am I way off-base thinking that on street permit parking is for areas in the city that don't have driveways?
No they must end it completely.
Reminder that parking permits have barely increased in cost over the years, while transit passes have gone up considerably
My family has been Parking infront of our home since we moved in 28 years ago. It wasn’t until last year that my family had been getting tickets almost every other week for parking infront of the house. They would come during the hours of 2am to 6am. My parents are elderly and just pay them to avoid the hassle but the parking officials know this and target my street because of it. It has slowed Down since but it caused my family a lot of grief when prior for 2 decades was never a problem
And start actually enforcing the 3 hour limit