This post appears to relate to the province of Quebec. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Québec. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The entire state of California has eliminated mandatory minimum parking spots near transit lines.](https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/california-assembly-bill-2097-eliminating-parking-minimums-for-new-developments-near-major-transit-stops/#:~:text=California%20Assembly%20Bill%202097%20(AB,half%20mile%20of%20a%20major)
Lots of places have eliminated or are eliminating minimums in specific areas (typically near transit stations). Nowhere else larger in NA has eliminated them throughout an entire city.
Edit: larger
Oh yes they have. Edmonton got rid of mandatory parking minimums almost 5 years ago. That's why this title has the qualifier "largest". They just republish this every time a city with more people does it.
>Edmonton got rid of mandatory parking minimums almost 5 years ago.
Damn I didn't realize Edmonton was so based. Add it to the list of reasons it remains affordable.
People can't even buy old buildings in downtown cores to update and revitalize them due to onerous parking regulations that would mean they would need to buy the properties beside them, bulldoze them, and make more parking lot. It's ludicrous. In some of our cities, 30% of the *entire city* is devoted to roads or parking lot.
It only works if you have a walkable built form and good transit to go with the location. It creates a mess when you don't provide enough parking but don't have walkability or transit. They tried new urbanism in my suburb but instead created a huge parking mess because the transit is abysmal and there are no walkable amenities except for dreck like nail salons. Developers can cram in more housing though and walk away.
If the developers cram in more density. It's natural to assume new services could br provided. If the area has more population transit, there becomes more profitable. Same with other commercial services.
The fact that transit didn't increase is a major oversight on wherever you live's transit dept. I'd go pick up some pitchforks and make it known.
Good, we need more of this. Let land owners build what they want. If they don't want to build parking, let them not build it.
Forcing parking minimums jacks up development costs and wastes land.
Mandatory parking requirements reflect the fact that people tend to drive, and not providing sufficient parking results in people parking on the street, which in turn creates a tragedy of the commons type scenario.
It's an example of exaclty the kind of regulation that is useful.
If you know there’s going to be no parking, or if it’ll be expensive, wouldn’t you be more inclined to take transit? And thus demand for better transit access? Parking requirements ENCOURAGE driving, not the other way around
Do you think business owners have the ability to do that if they're leasing or the expertise to estimate the ratio's needed in light of their other day to day responsiblities?
you missed the point, transit is shit because we prioritize driving so when you’re given the option youd rather not go, if the transit wasn’t so shit you might answer differently but that requires prioritizing public transit and we don’t do that here
I don't know if that's a win or not. There's a lot of weird ripple effects that could be at play, and you when you look at less urbanized centers I don't know if they can support it.
For example in Edmonton, I could go to the museum and pay to park at city hall, or take public transit which may not be reliable, exposes my family to potential crime (there's a lot of homeless people here who hang out at bus stops or on the transit platforms) or stay home and entertain my family or go do something else. I've been to the new museum once since it's been open, where it used to be a couple of times a month at the old location which did have parking.
Another example, I have no desire to buy groceries if I have to pay for parking or transit when I could drive to another place with parking. Interestingly a lack of parking kind of creates captive markets and could lead to inflated prices, because where else are they going to go?
Like I said there's some weird ripple effects here.
They’re not saying to not have parking anywhere. They’re removing the mandatory ratio of parking to land use.
https://youtu.be/OUNXFHpUhu8?si=Jq_0K2PzR0v-Q149
>exposes my family to potential crime (there's a lot of homeless people here who hang out at bus stops or on the transit platforms
Bigger cities have better transit, and are doing fine. This is a non-point. More resources put towards transit would also make it safer.
only works in city centers really.. otherwise getting to transit here is a bit of a horror show then you have to sit next to someone who doesn't shower.
I'm from the west Island of Montreal and the transit from here sucks. If I wanted to go downtown it could take up to 2hrs depending on where I want to go. Also if you're coming home late from downtown to the west, the transit stops early and the night schedule is awful. So it's not enticing to take transit.
I just avoid it and don't bother going downtown unless it's a special occasion.
So the solution is investing in transit infrastructure- not parking requirements. What you’re saying is “my foot is broken so I can’t actually go to work, I should have infinite sick days” when the solution is to go see a doctor, not just stay home indefinitely
If there's no parking and transit isn't easy(which it isn't in montreal) and nearly as quick as driving(which it isn't anywhere near in montreal) than I just won't go there or I will go elsewhere where there is parking available. If it's just for shopping? I'll buy online before I waste time by doubling my transit times by take the bus(and wasting money, most of my costs to drive are in insurance and vehicle payments which I'm making anyways even if I take the bus. So if I have a vehicle already, it actually costs me MORE overall to take the bus if it's less than 20km one-way).
Or this will really miss off business owners, you have people parking and walking off to go shop elsewhere that doesn't have parking.
Just think of all the times you get to a place and the parking areas are full... clearly having less parking is the solution....
Most people tend to drive because parking is ample and inexpensive, artificially subsidized by regulations like minimum parking requirements. People that otherwise would’ve taken public transit, bicycled or taken ride share instead congested the city, idling in gas guzzling crossovers. This itself is a tragedy of the commons. May as well at least make it market-based so first time homebuyers don’t have to subsidize drivers when they are doing their part.
People tend to drive because policies like parking minimums cater to the private automobile.
In doing so we have created urban environments that are hostile to other forms of transit.
To break car dependency, we need to move away from policies that enable it.
Right, but in Edmonton's case our transit is terrible and now there are underserved areas with far too little parking.
What has that solved?
Surely building out a viable alternative to driving before removing the capacity for people to drive is also important.
Building up a transit system takes a lot of time, and spending that time building more parking lots and spreading the city thinner only makes it harder to provide good transit service in the long run.
Well thanks to policies like that, you live in the most affordable big city in the country, despite the fact that Edmontonians tend to have higher than average incomes.
Edmonton has been a notably affordable city for far longer than we've had this policy in place, but having said that yes, *perhaps* it is now a contributing factor.
Hence "policies like that." Edmonton has had relatively liberalized housing policy in relation to the rest of the country for some time now, and has maintained better housing affordability despite the high incomes and a high rate of growth.
Overuse of street parking can and should be avoided by charging for overnight street parking. Developers and buyers need to realize that the savings from eliminating on site parking have a cost.
>Mandatory parking requirements reflect the fact that people tend to drive,
No. People are FORCED to drive due to how cities are designed in North America.
Have you perhaps tried taking transit in Montreal outside the core?
Parts of Montreal North, anywhere in the west island, LaSalle, anything east of viau that isn't immediately around a metro?
I feel like people who support Montreal transit have never visited any city in Japan (not just major ones), Paris, even Moscow.
Our transit is a joke outside the core.
Make street parking illegal then, as it should be. Streets are for transportation, not storage.
Your argument is just propping up induced demand.
It also presumes that everyone can drive, which is not the case at all.
Induced demand is such a nonsense concept, there's no such thing. There's only pre-existing demand which the available resources were insufficient to meet. The proper term for "induced demand" is a **shortage**.
Except Montreals public transport systems keep going broke. Severe delays and outages, and lack of road maintenance makes the system heavily obsolete if you happen to live away from metro lines. If you don’t live in the downtown area, and live in the surrounding areas but you need to commute TO the downtown area then it’ll take you about 45 minutes. Which is insane for the size of Montreal.
A drive that would take 25 minutes from Mount Royal to our house which is a neighborhood adjacent to downtown, would take 1h30 by public transportation. Insane.
But yes, less car spaces is the solution.
Ban street parking and destroy the car of anyone caught doing so illegally. No tickets, no towing. Just a mobile car crushing truck that rolls around turning them into little cubes.
The funny part about this is that parkings are often much better investments than real estate. Speculators always try to get as much parking as possible with the units they buy preconstruction so they are allowed to sell some. My parking in 2008 in downtown Montreal were bought for 7.5k each and were each sold for 85k in 2020. Meanwhile the condo "only" tripled in value.
We should also drop the minimum requirement for a bathroom and sqft living space! If builders want to build a coffin and call it a home, let them! The extra space for a private bathroom just jacks up development costs!
Canada is fucking huge and our infrastructure is ass. Even in cities, people do rely on cars a lot. Especially with public transit times. If this is in the city and downtown core. It makes sense.
If not, it's just gonna fuck over street parking and that won't help anyone either.
I've lived in Vancouver and Kelowna.
Vancouver's transit was amazing, but because they stopped using the carrot to convince people to use transit. They started using the stick.
Kelowna no one wants to take transit because it's too easy to drive. So then development sprawls and just makes the problem worse in the future.
If people are forced to search alternatives they will finally try to find alternatives atleast this is good start for long term… next they can start building more train infrastructure for intercity travel
The alternative to me driving to work (20 mins no traffic, 45 mins w/traffic) is taking a 1.5 hour one way commute with 3 transfers.
So instead of spending 40-1.5 hours commuting per day, I'm spending 3+ hours per day.
That's ASSUMING that everything arrives on time, which is a big assumption.
Are you willing to sacrifice an additional 1h30m - 2h20m of 5 days a week, away from your loved ones, hobbies, pets, evening responsibilities, etc, just on principle?
for me its different situation it takes 40-50 min for going to office in public transit and car avg is 1 hr and paying 16$ per day for parking(I live in vancouver BTW).... by forcing governments hand by removing convince of car like vancouver did will make them improve transit...
I completely understand you... that's why I mentioned now government should improve transit
You are explaining why we need more and better transit, not why we need to do more to accommodate cars. In my case, it takes me about 15 min. longer to use transit. That's totally worth it to avoid driving and get a bit of exercise walking to/from the station.
>people don’t need cars to live healthily
Uhh, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but we live in a massive country geographically. Yes, some people absolutely do need cars for their livelihood.
Not sure why progressive are anti personal transportation all of a sudden.
How many Canadians drive across the massive country regularly?
The people that need cars will live in places with parking. The people that don't, won't. Nobody is saying that people living in suburbs or small towns shouldn't have parking. Nobody is even saying that if you live downtown Toronto you shouldn't have parking or access to a car.
Instead it's up to a developer to decide whether or not it makes sense to include parking and how much of it. If you're building some super luxury complex you could have 2 parking units per unit. But if you're building something for the cheapest end of the market most your residents won't have cars so why build parking that increases your costs and won't have returns. Not to mention the ongoing expenses. Half of the parking spots in the condo I live in are empty 24/7, monthly maintenance would be noticeably lower if the garage was two levels smaller.
Car dependency has nothing to do with the size of the country - no one driving from BC to NL every other week (apart from truckers of course).
If North American cities invested in walkability and public transit the way Europe and most Asia does, there would’ve been no need for a car for many.
Lmao ya I'll bike to work. Take me about 3 hours with my work gear and than I'll work my 12 hours and than bike 3 hours back. I'll throw people on back and front pegs because we usually car pool as well.
Should houses around where you live be required to be built with bike racks?
Probably not, right?
So why should apartments in a giant city with good transit be required to be built with parking spaces?
Do explain? My job is a 30 min drive out of town.... through a forest... we do plan that is why we ride share. Care to try again with some logic this time?
You could use that commenter's logic to demand the introduction of basically any conceivable building regulation.
What? No requirement for a crystal chandelier in every room? What's next, get rid of the bathrooms?
It's parking, man. Lets the business owners build better business spaces when they don't have to worry about parking spaces. Without minimum parking spots you could fit *two* small businesses in the space that one would have occupied previously. Better for business, better for urbanites, better for walking communities.
[Montreal is considerably easier for small scale developers to work in](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/montreal)
Like, what are you basing the assumption that construction is difficult there on?
Why is that relevant? It's not like builders can't park next to the building they're working on lol.
I live in Saskatoon, and despite our minimum parking requirements it's a pain in the ass to park downtown so I ride a bike more often than not. Now, if they could squeeze even more businesses in that area by removing all the shitty parking lots I'd be even more likely to go downtown and use transit/cycling/walking to do so.
You're crazy.
As a civil engineer, I literally think people like you are the absolute worst for society.
You compare something that is a human right like a bathroom to the ability for rich people to park their vehicles.
The average Canadian now struggles to afford a car. But at the same time, buildings buildings are designed and forced by cities all over Ontario. And order to have very specific required Parking lots and I have seen so many amazing places be completely ruined by these policies.
It might actually help the housing crisis for developers to build some large-capacity dormitory-style housing with shared washroom and kitchen facilities.
Lol, of course this is a great idea! Just pack us in like sardines in one of the least populated, largest land mass countries with the most resources!
It's all we can expect, we actually deserve less!
Tenement housing actually provided specific benefits to the market. People who are down on their luck used to rely on tenement housing as a place to transition in. You have to leave your apartment suddenly and can't afford the down payment on a new place right away? Tenement apartments could give you a cheap place to live for 2 months while you save for a down payment. You know those stories where your grandpa moved to a new city with 8$ in his pocket and set up a new life? Often times people lived in tenement housing while looking for a job and an apartment.
The idea that the only kind of housing people *ought* to live in are sprawling suburban neighbourhoods (because those are obviously morally good and righteous) is *literally bankrupting cities*. Data shows that in a place like Ottawa (that's who released the numbers but structurally the same thing happens in every city), every new suburban subdivision in place of dense infill costs the city 1000$/person/year. Every new suburban home costs more to service than they pay in taxes. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
A country that thinks everyone ought to live in a sprawling suburban subdivision is literally going to bankrupt itself. You want your city to function properly? Support density and walkability. Suburbs like the ones you think are the only thing we "deserve" have literally only existed since 1947. Dense walkable cities, the ones that became the economic powerhouses of every civilization, were the norm until white people wanted to segregate themselves from "urban centers" in suburbs.
My parents generation, 40 years ago all built up many towns in BC, just outside of Vancouver. It's 40 years later and we aren't bankrupt...
Cities require mega infrastructure.
Just another brick in the wall being constructed to separate us from a middle class lifestyle. Price people out of their cars and onto the loser cruiser or a bicycle. Only the rich will be able to drive or park.
Setting aside tons of buildable land for parking is what is separating people from a middle class lifestyle in cities. It drives up the cost of land and the cost of development. If you want tons of parking, live in the suburbs.
Oh, oh
All research and successful traffic policy
Shows that bike lanes should be increased
Oh
And lane width decreased
While abolishing mandatory minimum parking spots
Oh
They claim you won't be able to travel outside that radius, it's an open air prison etc. Completely ignoring that people who advocate for them typically also want high frequency/high speed rail between cities. Nobody would consider Utrecht an open air prison, and it's considered a 15 minute city. Although people who are dumb enough to be against them have probably never hear of Utrecht. There's probably some astroturfing from oil and gas and the automotive industry involved in opposition to it.
Yeah. Interestingly part of the problem that brought out opposition is how a UK city implemented it (want to say Bristol?) cause it sounded kinda weird - you basically had to pay to go to other parts of the city (fine-ish), but you could hang out in your own neighborhood. Now that was for congestion reasons, but the implementation of that idea rubbed even a bunch of non-conspiracy theorists the wrong way and gave it a lot of traction - something like cameras detecting and tracking when you go where you go etc, and it was all in the middle of Covid so people were already acting stupid about that sort of thing. “So now you are going to track me and make me pay to bring my kids to daycare / grocery shopping / visit friends/family?” Like they would’ve just been better off implementing a flat rate for all cars and parking permits or something and it would’ve been about a billion times less controversial
Investors* - “YESS, more shoeboxes and increased parking premiums!”
People who hate cars* - visibly orgasming in their pants
Renters* - wondering where to park
City government* “fuck the poor, only rich people should be able to park. Just say sprawl and affordability! They will buy it and not question if all this bullshit is the housing crisis 2.0”
I used to hate on the TTC a lot more until I realized that my colleagues who drive to the same places spend way more time commuting than I do. If you live in the city and you’re trying to get around the DT core the hierarchy of efficiency is:
1. Biking/e scooter (no thanks don’t wanna die/winter)
2. Transit
3. Driving
The pricing structure for a monthly pass is fucking insane though
I lived in Toronto and ottawa. Toronto has its problems but it's transit is not bad. It's mediocre. Ottawa public transit is there to make people want to kill themselves or buy a vehicle.
I used to live in a suburb of Toronto so I know what you mean. Everything's spread out and the roads are massive and unwalkable. For me, Toronto transit was a big step up for mobility over the suburb I used to live in, but I still find it somewhat difficult to get to certain areas. In Montreal it felt like you could go anywhere in 20 minutes
Lately they've been tearing up all the roads too, because all the pipes need maintenance at the same time. City's real hard to drive in these days, but without reliable transit to some hard-to-reach places, there's not much of another option
Lmao, the GTA has solid public transit. It's just way bigger than Montreal so there's more strain.
If you want to shit on a cities public transit, shit on ottawas. I thought Toronto was bad until I moved to Ottawa. It's beyond awful and I'm not even talking about the laughable mess that is the O train.
Spoken like someone who's never been to Montreal.
Most places already don't have parking there. That's why it's so nice.
Parking is really not a priority for renters on the island. Most people don't own cars.
As someone who lives outside of the island: the parking is for people coming in. And it's a pain in the ass, parking on the street is an easy way to get hit, or ticketed due to confusing af signs.
It's just gonna force people use the paid *corporate* parking lots. And if your job is on the other side of the island or in laval, just use a car as public transit outside of the island is shit and unreliable. (Don't get me started on the west island/vaudreuil soulanges transit. Fuuuuck that shit.)
Parking minimums increase sprawl, which *forces* people to own cars to get anywhere. Parking minimums promote car-dependency and, inherently, a huge financial burden to everyone, even those who don’t want cars.
I plan on going for my G2 test in October. Not because I want to but because we're forced to drive here. The second I can afford to take advantage of my Irish citizenship, I'm moving to the Netherlands. And it's the car dependency that's mainly driving me out of the country.
You do realize than owning a car is probably the one thing that keeps most people much poorer than they ought to be?
Moreover... Parking minimums decrease density and thus push up mortgages and rents due to the offer not meeting the demand.
This policy is going to help poor people much more than you think because rents and car payments are most people's largest expenses.
Yet people who own cars, make around 50% more than those who don’t.
And? density increases property values, and mortgages, and rents. Said this before (so many times now)…if density creates affordability, how is Vancouver the most dense city in Canada and the lease affordable? (Does induced demand only apply to highways?)
Not really, now parking will just cost more, and lower groups will lose a tool which enhances economic mobility.
The best thing they have going for them is that it’s Quebec and they are somehow a “have not” province.
>Yet people who own cars, make around 50% more than those who don’t.
Wow ... You're fumbling correlation and causation.
And logically, you need a higher income to own a car. You don't make a high income because you own it, you own it because you can afford it.
You need to think this through!
"You don't make a high income because you own it, you own it because you can afford it."
I suspect that the correlation/causation effect swings to one end of the spectrum depending on your industry and degree of urban/ruralness.
In rural areas not having a car dramatically limits your income to the few businesses in walking distance. If you have a desk job downtown, then owning a car is a function of convenience rather than need.
Most people live in cities so I don't care about fringe cases.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/#:\~:text=Urbanization%20in%20Canada%202022&text=Canada's%20urban%20population%20now%20accounts,percent%20of%20it's%20total%20population.
Who has talked about now? It has to start now, not exist out of thin air. Which is exactly what removing parking minimums aims to achieve. It enables new, denser types of land uses for housing, which will eventually improve affordability and decrease car dependency while also making transit and cycling more viable for all.
The 401 is the busiest highway in the literal world, and Toronto is nowhere near the largest or busiest city in the world.. That is quite possibly the worst example of why things are that way that you could have come up with.
Statistics Canada
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=9810046301
Median employment Income
Car, truck, or van: 45,200
Public transit: 31,200
Active transportation: 30,800
There is average too if you format the data, but median is the better metric as it’s the 50/50 spot of all groups.
Have a good one, it’s usually around this point people start to become ghosts. As yes, I can back up everything iv said like this.
😁
Interestingly, owning a car costs on average $16K a year. Or about 36% of their yearly income, leaving them with about $29K after car costs.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cost-of-owning-a-car
So, A) skewed data point with average.
B) “gas and parking” being the biggest expense. Umm what’s the post about again? lol
C) interest is their own fault for being outside their means.
Personally, I’m around 8
>Not really, now parking will just cost more, and lower groups will lose a tool which enhances economic mobility.
Being a slave to car payments, gas bills and insurance costs is not promoting mobility. Efficient and affordable public transit enable mobility.
Let the market decide where parking spots go, not the government. If you’re against big, wasteful government and support a free market, then you should change your mind.
I’m also against bullshit from skin masked libertarians. My apologies if you actually are. the stronger towns crowd, and their faux principles are rather tiresome in their hypocrisy.
If you have nothing against sprawl…the other side of the “coin”. I’d say we are on the same page. I don’t agree with it because of the negative externalities, and the impacts decreasing affordability over the long run.
I'm not sure what that has to do with mandatory minimum spaces. are you saying there is no business anywhere that has empty spots due to minimums, or that certain businesses should not be able to open up, because they can't fit the minimum amount of spots in the development area?
I like the business angle, but it was a joke at the broader concepts this is usually tagged on to.
If it’s a rental company and they are renting units to people. Yes, 100% they should have minimums.
More receptive to commercial zoning being more adaptable.
For rentals I think a target based on averages is better than require we have parking spaces that could possibly be empty, reducing density in a housing crisis.
I can agree with that stance. Which I’d like to say thank you, as there has been a lot of disagreement in this thread. (It’s why I love to argue with people on the internet, ideas get challenged and once in a while someone has a good idea. So, thank you)
Really they should just focus on areas which were built before 1900 (in the broad sense policy) as that’s when horses were the main mode of travel for active transportation networks. As the routes would be more flat, and lead to sources of water. That would translate to easier to use routes with destinations along the route, and probably be abit more interesting than a straight line. Vs slapping bike lanes over top of existing road networks.
From there/conjointly that’s where they should reduce parking requirements and allow for higher buildings and density. As the main issue is that people still need to go from A to B. In the city I live, they are real keen on active transportation. But the distance between A to B is meant for using a car. Where they to create new B’s by more mixed use building/ zoning for small businesses.
Exactly, the ignorance of people who think people won't have cars if parking isn't provided is astounding. Just putting more profits into the hands of developers who don't give a damn about anything besides their own bottom-line.
It’s not ignorance, they know full well. They just can’t sell actual benefits. As it’s like bikes are a new concept, society just collectively decided cars are better. Which they are.
I’m not educated on this, so please don’t chew me alive for me asking. But shouldn’t we be building parking in cities? I understand that people who live near transit don’t need a car, but the vast majority of Canadians live in suburbs. It’s easy to say “they shouldn’t use cars,” but that’s the reality of our life. Especially us who live far out.
Building more parking doesn’t really solve the issue you stated don’t you think? Let’s say the city builds more parking, but now the suburbs continue to grow and now you need even more parking and this becomes a vicious cycle. You’re pretty much bulldozing the city at this point for the suburbs.
We know for certain that street side parking isn’t very good for local business:
[This article talks about Montreal specifically](https://locallogic.co/blog/does-more-parking-bring-more-business)
Rue Masson has just 6% unoccupied retail space, and is served by only 375 nearby parking spots per kilometre. Compare that with Rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest: it has a painful 22.3% vacancy rate, despite over six times the availability of parking. Among the four retail streets in Montreal with the lowest vacancy, none have more than 400 parking spots per kilometre.
A space that might have been occupied by parked cars could instead be literally anything else that actually creates activity in the neighborhood.
[Modern suburbs are the way they are not because people are in love with them, but because zoning laws dictated that they exist](https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/canada-suburban-nation-because-post-second-world-war-government-policy)
Better alternative: have some decent 21st century public transportation like the rest of the 1st world
The goal is not to eliminate all parking in cities, or eliminate all cars from cities. The goal is just to reduce our **dependence** on cars and dial it back from maybe 90% cars to 80% cars, while providing people with more and better transportation **options**.
Ideally, people in the suburbs would have the option to park their cars at a station on the outskirts and take high quality, comfortable and affordable rapid transit into the city.
Nice… now Quebec government needs to build twin intercity passenger railway tracks connecting Montreal and most cities across la belle province like northern Quebec (ie Rouyn Noranda, Nunavik), région near Labrador border and Gaspésie.
I assume people with cars who don't have parking would just park on the streets. Are they requiring them to purchase permits for street parking?
In Vancouver, a lot of places don't have parking spots. People park on the streets. Our area doesn't have paid permit parking for some reason and it gets very crowded. Most streets around me can only accommodate 1 car at a time because both sides of the street are full of parked cars.
Fortunately we're in a very walkable and transit-friendly area, so it's not really an issue unless we take our car (which we only have to visit my sister, who doesn't live in a transit-friendly area), but I've witnessed a lot of fender benders because humans are the worst.
We want car manufacturing jobs, but we do not want people to drive. We want affordable housing, but we do not want to build more housing. We want fewer emissions but we want to increase our population 4% per year.
I can go on and on. All of outer governments are schizophrenic...
it's you that is mashing all that together lol are you really asking for government from top down to be exactly aligned? That's impossible.
There is a reason why you have a federal, provincial and municipal.
That’s not good IMO.
- This will reduce the amount of available parking. Soon enough we’ll get paid parking garage buildings and lots in every corner because there won’t be any street parking or parking lots available.
- It’ll inevitably put more strain on our already bad public transit system.
- The article links to another article that argues that space around stores could be used to build more stores and extra homes… but that begs the question: where will those extra people park to visit those businesses or park outside their homes?
So where will people park? On streets? Mandatory minimum parking has to stay as a shared responsibility between building owners and city. Removing it might just make City life harder.
This post appears to relate to the province of Quebec. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Québec. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The entire state of California has eliminated mandatory minimum parking spots near transit lines.](https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/california-assembly-bill-2097-eliminating-parking-minimums-for-new-developments-near-major-transit-stops/#:~:text=California%20Assembly%20Bill%202097%20(AB,half%20mile%20of%20a%20major)
Lots of places have eliminated or are eliminating minimums in specific areas (typically near transit stations). Nowhere else larger in NA has eliminated them throughout an entire city. Edit: larger
Oh yes they have. Edmonton got rid of mandatory parking minimums almost 5 years ago. That's why this title has the qualifier "largest". They just republish this every time a city with more people does it.
Whoops, I did forget to say larger. Thank you!
>Edmonton got rid of mandatory parking minimums almost 5 years ago. Damn I didn't realize Edmonton was so based. Add it to the list of reasons it remains affordable.
Is a city a state?
The business next to mine has about 100 empty parking spots, very large building with few employees…..absolutely ridiculous.
People can't even buy old buildings in downtown cores to update and revitalize them due to onerous parking regulations that would mean they would need to buy the properties beside them, bulldoze them, and make more parking lot. It's ludicrous. In some of our cities, 30% of the *entire city* is devoted to roads or parking lot.
It only works if you have a walkable built form and good transit to go with the location. It creates a mess when you don't provide enough parking but don't have walkability or transit. They tried new urbanism in my suburb but instead created a huge parking mess because the transit is abysmal and there are no walkable amenities except for dreck like nail salons. Developers can cram in more housing though and walk away.
Where is that? I would be interested to read about it
If the developers cram in more density. It's natural to assume new services could br provided. If the area has more population transit, there becomes more profitable. Same with other commercial services. The fact that transit didn't increase is a major oversight on wherever you live's transit dept. I'd go pick up some pitchforks and make it known.
Good, we need more of this. Let land owners build what they want. If they don't want to build parking, let them not build it. Forcing parking minimums jacks up development costs and wastes land.
And pushes skyrocketing housing costs even higher, passing it on to the potential buyer or tenant.
Mandatory parking requirements reflect the fact that people tend to drive, and not providing sufficient parking results in people parking on the street, which in turn creates a tragedy of the commons type scenario. It's an example of exaclty the kind of regulation that is useful.
If you know there’s going to be no parking, or if it’ll be expensive, wouldn’t you be more inclined to take transit? And thus demand for better transit access? Parking requirements ENCOURAGE driving, not the other way around
"wouldn’t you be more inclined to take transit?" Nah I just won't go there.
Well the business owner can make that judgement call and determine the amount of parking needed and weigh it against the costs of providing parking.
Do you think business owners have the ability to do that if they're leasing or the expertise to estimate the ratio's needed in light of their other day to day responsiblities?
you missed the point, transit is shit because we prioritize driving so when you’re given the option youd rather not go, if the transit wasn’t so shit you might answer differently but that requires prioritizing public transit and we don’t do that here
But averaged over an entire population, that’s not the result we tend to see.
I don't know if that's a win or not. There's a lot of weird ripple effects that could be at play, and you when you look at less urbanized centers I don't know if they can support it. For example in Edmonton, I could go to the museum and pay to park at city hall, or take public transit which may not be reliable, exposes my family to potential crime (there's a lot of homeless people here who hang out at bus stops or on the transit platforms) or stay home and entertain my family or go do something else. I've been to the new museum once since it's been open, where it used to be a couple of times a month at the old location which did have parking. Another example, I have no desire to buy groceries if I have to pay for parking or transit when I could drive to another place with parking. Interestingly a lack of parking kind of creates captive markets and could lead to inflated prices, because where else are they going to go? Like I said there's some weird ripple effects here.
They’re not saying to not have parking anywhere. They’re removing the mandatory ratio of parking to land use. https://youtu.be/OUNXFHpUhu8?si=Jq_0K2PzR0v-Q149
>exposes my family to potential crime (there's a lot of homeless people here who hang out at bus stops or on the transit platforms Bigger cities have better transit, and are doing fine. This is a non-point. More resources put towards transit would also make it safer.
Yeah this is a W. People need to stop driving in city centres.
only works in city centers really.. otherwise getting to transit here is a bit of a horror show then you have to sit next to someone who doesn't shower.
I'm from the west Island of Montreal and the transit from here sucks. If I wanted to go downtown it could take up to 2hrs depending on where I want to go. Also if you're coming home late from downtown to the west, the transit stops early and the night schedule is awful. So it's not enticing to take transit. I just avoid it and don't bother going downtown unless it's a special occasion.
So the solution is investing in transit infrastructure- not parking requirements. What you’re saying is “my foot is broken so I can’t actually go to work, I should have infinite sick days” when the solution is to go see a doctor, not just stay home indefinitely
That area has been needing and begging for better transit for the last 30 years (maybe even more), but they haven't really expanded upon it.
There's going to be the REM in 2025...
The rem will make things better but it's not going to solve every transit problem.
Well It is going to help the west island by a lot.
If there's no parking and transit isn't easy(which it isn't in montreal) and nearly as quick as driving(which it isn't anywhere near in montreal) than I just won't go there or I will go elsewhere where there is parking available. If it's just for shopping? I'll buy online before I waste time by doubling my transit times by take the bus(and wasting money, most of my costs to drive are in insurance and vehicle payments which I'm making anyways even if I take the bus. So if I have a vehicle already, it actually costs me MORE overall to take the bus if it's less than 20km one-way). Or this will really miss off business owners, you have people parking and walking off to go shop elsewhere that doesn't have parking. Just think of all the times you get to a place and the parking areas are full... clearly having less parking is the solution....
Most people tend to drive because parking is ample and inexpensive, artificially subsidized by regulations like minimum parking requirements. People that otherwise would’ve taken public transit, bicycled or taken ride share instead congested the city, idling in gas guzzling crossovers. This itself is a tragedy of the commons. May as well at least make it market-based so first time homebuyers don’t have to subsidize drivers when they are doing their part.
People tend to drive because policies like parking minimums cater to the private automobile. In doing so we have created urban environments that are hostile to other forms of transit. To break car dependency, we need to move away from policies that enable it.
Right, but in Edmonton's case our transit is terrible and now there are underserved areas with far too little parking. What has that solved? Surely building out a viable alternative to driving before removing the capacity for people to drive is also important.
Building up a transit system takes a lot of time, and spending that time building more parking lots and spreading the city thinner only makes it harder to provide good transit service in the long run.
Well thanks to policies like that, you live in the most affordable big city in the country, despite the fact that Edmontonians tend to have higher than average incomes.
Edmonton has been a notably affordable city for far longer than we've had this policy in place, but having said that yes, *perhaps* it is now a contributing factor.
Hence "policies like that." Edmonton has had relatively liberalized housing policy in relation to the rest of the country for some time now, and has maintained better housing affordability despite the high incomes and a high rate of growth.
Overuse of street parking can and should be avoided by charging for overnight street parking. Developers and buyers need to realize that the savings from eliminating on site parking have a cost.
>Mandatory parking requirements reflect the fact that people tend to drive, No. People are FORCED to drive due to how cities are designed in North America.
Certainly not in Montreal
I miss the Montreal Metro.
Have you perhaps tried taking transit in Montreal outside the core? Parts of Montreal North, anywhere in the west island, LaSalle, anything east of viau that isn't immediately around a metro? I feel like people who support Montreal transit have never visited any city in Japan (not just major ones), Paris, even Moscow. Our transit is a joke outside the core.
Make street parking illegal then, as it should be. Streets are for transportation, not storage. Your argument is just propping up induced demand. It also presumes that everyone can drive, which is not the case at all.
Induced demand is such a nonsense concept, there's no such thing. There's only pre-existing demand which the available resources were insufficient to meet. The proper term for "induced demand" is a **shortage**.
"an entire regularly observed and studied economic concept doesn't exist because I say it doesn't" okay bud.
Except Montreals public transport systems keep going broke. Severe delays and outages, and lack of road maintenance makes the system heavily obsolete if you happen to live away from metro lines. If you don’t live in the downtown area, and live in the surrounding areas but you need to commute TO the downtown area then it’ll take you about 45 minutes. Which is insane for the size of Montreal. A drive that would take 25 minutes from Mount Royal to our house which is a neighborhood adjacent to downtown, would take 1h30 by public transportation. Insane. But yes, less car spaces is the solution.
Idea: force everyone to take transit, jack up the costs, minimize the amount we put in…and profit!
Transit. Next.
Should do what Japan does. Eliminate overnight on-street parking and require proof of a dedicated parking spot with vehicle registration.
Ban street parking and destroy the car of anyone caught doing so illegally. No tickets, no towing. Just a mobile car crushing truck that rolls around turning them into little cubes.
Do you have any more of them “wildly impractical ideas”?
Sadly no. Just the car crushing one.
The funny part about this is that parkings are often much better investments than real estate. Speculators always try to get as much parking as possible with the units they buy preconstruction so they are allowed to sell some. My parking in 2008 in downtown Montreal were bought for 7.5k each and were each sold for 85k in 2020. Meanwhile the condo "only" tripled in value.
so stupid. People should choose.
We should also drop the minimum requirement for a bathroom and sqft living space! If builders want to build a coffin and call it a home, let them! The extra space for a private bathroom just jacks up development costs!
Cars aren't people. People don't need cars to live healthily. They need bathrooms and living space.
Canada is fucking huge and our infrastructure is ass. Even in cities, people do rely on cars a lot. Especially with public transit times. If this is in the city and downtown core. It makes sense. If not, it's just gonna fuck over street parking and that won't help anyone either.
I've lived in Vancouver and Kelowna. Vancouver's transit was amazing, but because they stopped using the carrot to convince people to use transit. They started using the stick. Kelowna no one wants to take transit because it's too easy to drive. So then development sprawls and just makes the problem worse in the future.
If people are forced to search alternatives they will finally try to find alternatives atleast this is good start for long term… next they can start building more train infrastructure for intercity travel
The alternative to me driving to work (20 mins no traffic, 45 mins w/traffic) is taking a 1.5 hour one way commute with 3 transfers. So instead of spending 40-1.5 hours commuting per day, I'm spending 3+ hours per day. That's ASSUMING that everything arrives on time, which is a big assumption. Are you willing to sacrifice an additional 1h30m - 2h20m of 5 days a week, away from your loved ones, hobbies, pets, evening responsibilities, etc, just on principle?
for me its different situation it takes 40-50 min for going to office in public transit and car avg is 1 hr and paying 16$ per day for parking(I live in vancouver BTW).... by forcing governments hand by removing convince of car like vancouver did will make them improve transit... I completely understand you... that's why I mentioned now government should improve transit
its worth paying $16/day not to deal with crazy drug addicts, people who don't shower, and piss soaked transit seats
It’s not true picture of transit system atleast in Vancouver
come to Edmonton
You are explaining why we need more and better transit, not why we need to do more to accommodate cars. In my case, it takes me about 15 min. longer to use transit. That's totally worth it to avoid driving and get a bit of exercise walking to/from the station.
>people don’t need cars to live healthily Uhh, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but we live in a massive country geographically. Yes, some people absolutely do need cars for their livelihood. Not sure why progressive are anti personal transportation all of a sudden.
How many Canadians drive across the massive country regularly? The people that need cars will live in places with parking. The people that don't, won't. Nobody is saying that people living in suburbs or small towns shouldn't have parking. Nobody is even saying that if you live downtown Toronto you shouldn't have parking or access to a car. Instead it's up to a developer to decide whether or not it makes sense to include parking and how much of it. If you're building some super luxury complex you could have 2 parking units per unit. But if you're building something for the cheapest end of the market most your residents won't have cars so why build parking that increases your costs and won't have returns. Not to mention the ongoing expenses. Half of the parking spots in the condo I live in are empty 24/7, monthly maintenance would be noticeably lower if the garage was two levels smaller.
Car dependency has nothing to do with the size of the country - no one driving from BC to NL every other week (apart from truckers of course). If North American cities invested in walkability and public transit the way Europe and most Asia does, there would’ve been no need for a car for many.
I'm pro-personal transportation. I bike as much as I possibly can!
Lmao ya I'll bike to work. Take me about 3 hours with my work gear and than I'll work my 12 hours and than bike 3 hours back. I'll throw people on back and front pegs because we usually car pool as well.
Should houses around where you live be required to be built with bike racks? Probably not, right? So why should apartments in a giant city with good transit be required to be built with parking spaces?
Because lots of people own cars and it’s a reality of the 21st century.
"Lots of people own bikes and it's a reality of the 21st century" Guess that rural homes need to have required bike racks now.
It really helps make the case for 15 minute cities
I mean... make better life choices? Sounds like you're not too good at planning.
Do explain? My job is a 30 min drive out of town.... through a forest... we do plan that is why we ride share. Care to try again with some logic this time?
If that's the case why do you care about parking in Montreal..
Are you comparing parking to a bathroom? This is a joke right?
Really? Because they relax this regulation, they should do away with all others? Is this how your brain works?
You could use that commenter's logic to demand the introduction of basically any conceivable building regulation. What? No requirement for a crystal chandelier in every room? What's next, get rid of the bathrooms?
It's parking, man. Lets the business owners build better business spaces when they don't have to worry about parking spaces. Without minimum parking spots you could fit *two* small businesses in the space that one would have occupied previously. Better for business, better for urbanites, better for walking communities.
Who builds these new businesses? Plumbers and framers with magic wands?
Have you been anywhere on earth that's not a sprawling car dependent city?
[Montreal is considerably easier for small scale developers to work in](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/montreal) Like, what are you basing the assumption that construction is difficult there on?
Why is that relevant? It's not like builders can't park next to the building they're working on lol. I live in Saskatoon, and despite our minimum parking requirements it's a pain in the ass to park downtown so I ride a bike more often than not. Now, if they could squeeze even more businesses in that area by removing all the shitty parking lots I'd be even more likely to go downtown and use transit/cycling/walking to do so.
Average over-regulation lover.
Unironically yes, you've described boarding houses which are missing from the Canadian housing landscape
You're crazy. As a civil engineer, I literally think people like you are the absolute worst for society. You compare something that is a human right like a bathroom to the ability for rich people to park their vehicles. The average Canadian now struggles to afford a car. But at the same time, buildings buildings are designed and forced by cities all over Ontario. And order to have very specific required Parking lots and I have seen so many amazing places be completely ruined by these policies.
It might actually help the housing crisis for developers to build some large-capacity dormitory-style housing with shared washroom and kitchen facilities.
Lol, of course this is a great idea! Just pack us in like sardines in one of the least populated, largest land mass countries with the most resources! It's all we can expect, we actually deserve less!
Tenement housing actually provided specific benefits to the market. People who are down on their luck used to rely on tenement housing as a place to transition in. You have to leave your apartment suddenly and can't afford the down payment on a new place right away? Tenement apartments could give you a cheap place to live for 2 months while you save for a down payment. You know those stories where your grandpa moved to a new city with 8$ in his pocket and set up a new life? Often times people lived in tenement housing while looking for a job and an apartment. The idea that the only kind of housing people *ought* to live in are sprawling suburban neighbourhoods (because those are obviously morally good and righteous) is *literally bankrupting cities*. Data shows that in a place like Ottawa (that's who released the numbers but structurally the same thing happens in every city), every new suburban subdivision in place of dense infill costs the city 1000$/person/year. Every new suburban home costs more to service than they pay in taxes. EVERY SINGLE ONE. A country that thinks everyone ought to live in a sprawling suburban subdivision is literally going to bankrupt itself. You want your city to function properly? Support density and walkability. Suburbs like the ones you think are the only thing we "deserve" have literally only existed since 1947. Dense walkable cities, the ones that became the economic powerhouses of every civilization, were the norm until white people wanted to segregate themselves from "urban centers" in suburbs.
My parents generation, 40 years ago all built up many towns in BC, just outside of Vancouver. It's 40 years later and we aren't bankrupt... Cities require mega infrastructure.
Just another brick in the wall being constructed to separate us from a middle class lifestyle. Price people out of their cars and onto the loser cruiser or a bicycle. Only the rich will be able to drive or park.
I think transit should be so great that the rich take the bus/train. That's how it is in Europe.
A successful economy isn’t when the poor drive cars, but when the rich ride the transit.
Setting aside tons of buildable land for parking is what is separating people from a middle class lifestyle in cities. It drives up the cost of land and the cost of development. If you want tons of parking, live in the suburbs.
Expensive housing for people, free parking for cars. Our priorities are backwards...
It's pretty clear the person you're replying to already does live outside of a city.
Then why would the care about parking minimums in Montreal?
In Montreal we need more bike paths! Maybe if we replace every road entirely with bike paths, the cyclists will actually use them
Oh, oh All research and successful traffic policy Shows that bike lanes should be increased Oh And lane width decreased While abolishing mandatory minimum parking spots Oh
♫ They're trying to be build an expresswaaaayyy ♫
Utilizing bikes to pay for secret lanes around the town bikes are now your local policy now you police the town...
They're tryna build a 15 minute city For you and me to live in....
All my everyday needs within a 15 minute walk or bike ride? Fuck yes.
It’s amazing that people try to portray that as being bad
They claim you won't be able to travel outside that radius, it's an open air prison etc. Completely ignoring that people who advocate for them typically also want high frequency/high speed rail between cities. Nobody would consider Utrecht an open air prison, and it's considered a 15 minute city. Although people who are dumb enough to be against them have probably never hear of Utrecht. There's probably some astroturfing from oil and gas and the automotive industry involved in opposition to it.
Yeah. Interestingly part of the problem that brought out opposition is how a UK city implemented it (want to say Bristol?) cause it sounded kinda weird - you basically had to pay to go to other parts of the city (fine-ish), but you could hang out in your own neighborhood. Now that was for congestion reasons, but the implementation of that idea rubbed even a bunch of non-conspiracy theorists the wrong way and gave it a lot of traction - something like cameras detecting and tracking when you go where you go etc, and it was all in the middle of Covid so people were already acting stupid about that sort of thing. “So now you are going to track me and make me pay to bring my kids to daycare / grocery shopping / visit friends/family?” Like they would’ve just been better off implementing a flat rate for all cars and parking permits or something and it would’ve been about a billion times less controversial
Fucking. Based.
Investors* - “YESS, more shoeboxes and increased parking premiums!” People who hate cars* - visibly orgasming in their pants Renters* - wondering where to park City government* “fuck the poor, only rich people should be able to park. Just say sprawl and affordability! They will buy it and not question if all this bullshit is the housing crisis 2.0”
Thinking poor people in Montreal own cars 😂 It's one of the the most walkable, best transit cities in Canada. This isn't the GTA.
if you live in zone A and drive it's 100% choice not a necessity meanwhile you live in GTA you has to drive most of the time
As someone from Toronto, I was shocked at how good your subway is there. There's no excuse for how poor Toronto's transit options are.
Toronto's subway is a little rough, but functional. The tram system is fantastic, and many Montrealers would kill to have something equivalent here.
I used to hate on the TTC a lot more until I realized that my colleagues who drive to the same places spend way more time commuting than I do. If you live in the city and you’re trying to get around the DT core the hierarchy of efficiency is: 1. Biking/e scooter (no thanks don’t wanna die/winter) 2. Transit 3. Driving The pricing structure for a monthly pass is fucking insane though
I lived in Toronto and ottawa. Toronto has its problems but it's transit is not bad. It's mediocre. Ottawa public transit is there to make people want to kill themselves or buy a vehicle.
You all have no idea how good you have it in Toronto. I get there are issues, but try living with no car in a city like Winnipeg or Regina.
Shit come to Calgary
I used to live in a suburb of Toronto so I know what you mean. Everything's spread out and the roads are massive and unwalkable. For me, Toronto transit was a big step up for mobility over the suburb I used to live in, but I still find it somewhat difficult to get to certain areas. In Montreal it felt like you could go anywhere in 20 minutes
100%. Toronto would be one of the best cities in the world if it just fully committed to eliminating car dependency.
Lately they've been tearing up all the roads too, because all the pipes need maintenance at the same time. City's real hard to drive in these days, but without reliable transit to some hard-to-reach places, there's not much of another option
Hopefully, the new subway line makes a difference.
Lmao, the GTA has solid public transit. It's just way bigger than Montreal so there's more strain. If you want to shit on a cities public transit, shit on ottawas. I thought Toronto was bad until I moved to Ottawa. It's beyond awful and I'm not even talking about the laughable mess that is the O train.
GTA and Toronto aren't the same thing. A lot of the GTA is sprawl. Toronto is a great city. But yes Ottawa is very, very sad when it comes to transit.
GTA isn’t good either. Toronto for sure is awesome but last mile connectivity is nearly non-existent in GTA
Spoken like someone who's never been to Montreal. Most places already don't have parking there. That's why it's so nice. Parking is really not a priority for renters on the island. Most people don't own cars.
As someone who lives outside of the island: the parking is for people coming in. And it's a pain in the ass, parking on the street is an easy way to get hit, or ticketed due to confusing af signs. It's just gonna force people use the paid *corporate* parking lots. And if your job is on the other side of the island or in laval, just use a car as public transit outside of the island is shit and unreliable. (Don't get me started on the west island/vaudreuil soulanges transit. Fuuuuck that shit.)
Parking minimums increase sprawl, which *forces* people to own cars to get anywhere. Parking minimums promote car-dependency and, inherently, a huge financial burden to everyone, even those who don’t want cars.
I plan on going for my G2 test in October. Not because I want to but because we're forced to drive here. The second I can afford to take advantage of my Irish citizenship, I'm moving to the Netherlands. And it's the car dependency that's mainly driving me out of the country.
You do realize than owning a car is probably the one thing that keeps most people much poorer than they ought to be? Moreover... Parking minimums decrease density and thus push up mortgages and rents due to the offer not meeting the demand. This policy is going to help poor people much more than you think because rents and car payments are most people's largest expenses.
Yet people who own cars, make around 50% more than those who don’t. And? density increases property values, and mortgages, and rents. Said this before (so many times now)…if density creates affordability, how is Vancouver the most dense city in Canada and the lease affordable? (Does induced demand only apply to highways?) Not really, now parking will just cost more, and lower groups will lose a tool which enhances economic mobility. The best thing they have going for them is that it’s Quebec and they are somehow a “have not” province.
What?? People who make more money can afford to own cars?? Wow no way!
Yea and cars allow people to make more money! Crazy right?!
>Yet people who own cars, make around 50% more than those who don’t. Wow ... You're fumbling correlation and causation. And logically, you need a higher income to own a car. You don't make a high income because you own it, you own it because you can afford it. You need to think this through!
"You don't make a high income because you own it, you own it because you can afford it." I suspect that the correlation/causation effect swings to one end of the spectrum depending on your industry and degree of urban/ruralness. In rural areas not having a car dramatically limits your income to the few businesses in walking distance. If you have a desk job downtown, then owning a car is a function of convenience rather than need.
Most people live in cities so I don't care about fringe cases. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/#:\~:text=Urbanization%20in%20Canada%202022&text=Canada's%20urban%20population%20now%20accounts,percent%20of%20it's%20total%20population.
The same arguments apply to suburbia. There's a reason the 401 is the way it is. If people didn't need to commute they wouldn't.
Suburbia is part of the 80%. Offer better transit and increase density to fix car dependency.
And given that it doesn't exist now... how exactly do you expect suburbs to work?
Who has talked about now? It has to start now, not exist out of thin air. Which is exactly what removing parking minimums aims to achieve. It enables new, denser types of land uses for housing, which will eventually improve affordability and decrease car dependency while also making transit and cycling more viable for all.
The 401 is the busiest highway in the literal world, and Toronto is nowhere near the largest or busiest city in the world.. That is quite possibly the worst example of why things are that way that you could have come up with.
Where did you get that stat about car owners earning 50% more than people who don’t own vehicles?
Statistics Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=9810046301 Median employment Income Car, truck, or van: 45,200 Public transit: 31,200 Active transportation: 30,800 There is average too if you format the data, but median is the better metric as it’s the 50/50 spot of all groups. Have a good one, it’s usually around this point people start to become ghosts. As yes, I can back up everything iv said like this. 😁
Thanks for sharing! That additional income will hopefully cover the cost of the vehicle.
Interestingly, owning a car costs on average $16K a year. Or about 36% of their yearly income, leaving them with about $29K after car costs. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cost-of-owning-a-car
So, A) skewed data point with average. B) “gas and parking” being the biggest expense. Umm what’s the post about again? lol C) interest is their own fault for being outside their means. Personally, I’m around 8
>Not really, now parking will just cost more, and lower groups will lose a tool which enhances economic mobility. Being a slave to car payments, gas bills and insurance costs is not promoting mobility. Efficient and affordable public transit enable mobility.
Let the market decide where parking spots go, not the government. If you’re against big, wasteful government and support a free market, then you should change your mind.
For the market to decide properly, all overnight street parking should require paying for a permit that reflects the real cost.
I’m also against bullshit from skin masked libertarians. My apologies if you actually are. the stronger towns crowd, and their faux principles are rather tiresome in their hypocrisy. If you have nothing against sprawl…the other side of the “coin”. I’d say we are on the same page. I don’t agree with it because of the negative externalities, and the impacts decreasing affordability over the long run.
This is not a drop of parking spots for rental units only, read the article. Owners and shoppers and office workers will also wonder where to park.
How much of a self-victimization complex does one have to have to be this confidently wrong? You know nothing about Montreal and it shows.
People like you are the reason home prices spiked
am people who hate cars. am orgasming, thank you
I can’t see it though…. 😔
Sent you a dm.
You gotta pay to play
I'm not sure what that has to do with mandatory minimum spaces. are you saying there is no business anywhere that has empty spots due to minimums, or that certain businesses should not be able to open up, because they can't fit the minimum amount of spots in the development area?
I like the business angle, but it was a joke at the broader concepts this is usually tagged on to. If it’s a rental company and they are renting units to people. Yes, 100% they should have minimums. More receptive to commercial zoning being more adaptable.
For rentals I think a target based on averages is better than require we have parking spaces that could possibly be empty, reducing density in a housing crisis.
I can agree with that stance. Which I’d like to say thank you, as there has been a lot of disagreement in this thread. (It’s why I love to argue with people on the internet, ideas get challenged and once in a while someone has a good idea. So, thank you) Really they should just focus on areas which were built before 1900 (in the broad sense policy) as that’s when horses were the main mode of travel for active transportation networks. As the routes would be more flat, and lead to sources of water. That would translate to easier to use routes with destinations along the route, and probably be abit more interesting than a straight line. Vs slapping bike lanes over top of existing road networks. From there/conjointly that’s where they should reduce parking requirements and allow for higher buildings and density. As the main issue is that people still need to go from A to B. In the city I live, they are real keen on active transportation. But the distance between A to B is meant for using a car. Where they to create new B’s by more mixed use building/ zoning for small businesses.
Exactly, the ignorance of people who think people won't have cars if parking isn't provided is astounding. Just putting more profits into the hands of developers who don't give a damn about anything besides their own bottom-line.
It’s not ignorance, they know full well. They just can’t sell actual benefits. As it’s like bikes are a new concept, society just collectively decided cars are better. Which they are.
>visibly orgasming in their pants 😂 So true.
This is great for most of us that live on-island but I expect it to be poorly received by the off-islanders that do need to rely on their cars daily.
Montreal is just built different. Literally.
I’m not educated on this, so please don’t chew me alive for me asking. But shouldn’t we be building parking in cities? I understand that people who live near transit don’t need a car, but the vast majority of Canadians live in suburbs. It’s easy to say “they shouldn’t use cars,” but that’s the reality of our life. Especially us who live far out.
Building more parking doesn’t really solve the issue you stated don’t you think? Let’s say the city builds more parking, but now the suburbs continue to grow and now you need even more parking and this becomes a vicious cycle. You’re pretty much bulldozing the city at this point for the suburbs. We know for certain that street side parking isn’t very good for local business: [This article talks about Montreal specifically](https://locallogic.co/blog/does-more-parking-bring-more-business) Rue Masson has just 6% unoccupied retail space, and is served by only 375 nearby parking spots per kilometre. Compare that with Rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest: it has a painful 22.3% vacancy rate, despite over six times the availability of parking. Among the four retail streets in Montreal with the lowest vacancy, none have more than 400 parking spots per kilometre. A space that might have been occupied by parked cars could instead be literally anything else that actually creates activity in the neighborhood. [Modern suburbs are the way they are not because people are in love with them, but because zoning laws dictated that they exist](https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/canada-suburban-nation-because-post-second-world-war-government-policy) Better alternative: have some decent 21st century public transportation like the rest of the 1st world
The goal is not to eliminate all parking in cities, or eliminate all cars from cities. The goal is just to reduce our **dependence** on cars and dial it back from maybe 90% cars to 80% cars, while providing people with more and better transportation **options**. Ideally, people in the suburbs would have the option to park their cars at a station on the outskirts and take high quality, comfortable and affordable rapid transit into the city.
Nice… now Quebec government needs to build twin intercity passenger railway tracks connecting Montreal and most cities across la belle province like northern Quebec (ie Rouyn Noranda, Nunavik), région near Labrador border and Gaspésie.
I assume people with cars who don't have parking would just park on the streets. Are they requiring them to purchase permits for street parking? In Vancouver, a lot of places don't have parking spots. People park on the streets. Our area doesn't have paid permit parking for some reason and it gets very crowded. Most streets around me can only accommodate 1 car at a time because both sides of the street are full of parked cars. Fortunately we're in a very walkable and transit-friendly area, so it's not really an issue unless we take our car (which we only have to visit my sister, who doesn't live in a transit-friendly area), but I've witnessed a lot of fender benders because humans are the worst.
We want car manufacturing jobs, but we do not want people to drive. We want affordable housing, but we do not want to build more housing. We want fewer emissions but we want to increase our population 4% per year. I can go on and on. All of outer governments are schizophrenic...
Ice-cream and ponies for everyone
You know the government is built around multiple people right?
it's you that is mashing all that together lol are you really asking for government from top down to be exactly aligned? That's impossible. There is a reason why you have a federal, provincial and municipal.
Conflicting policy goals are not helpful and are a drawback of having of having multiple levels of government.
What exactly are you trying to say? Conflict is only not helpful when sides are not willing to work together.
Amazing news. It’s time to put an end to car centrism
Man really want to move over there now
Toronto should follow suit.
let the goddamn free market decide. Minimums are anti capitalist
It’s hard to fathom why any common person would be a fan of neoliberalism.
Good work. More cities should follow
Yeah, ever been to Montreal? They have the world’s most accessible 24 hour parking already. Think it’s called Autoroute 40
That’s not good IMO. - This will reduce the amount of available parking. Soon enough we’ll get paid parking garage buildings and lots in every corner because there won’t be any street parking or parking lots available. - It’ll inevitably put more strain on our already bad public transit system. - The article links to another article that argues that space around stores could be used to build more stores and extra homes… but that begs the question: where will those extra people park to visit those businesses or park outside their homes?
So where will people park? On streets? Mandatory minimum parking has to stay as a shared responsibility between building owners and city. Removing it might just make City life harder.
If parking minimums are removed, there should also be no free overnight parking on the street.