Parking versus transit

Council may have finally accepted the LRT but actually increasing transit ridership doesn’t seem to be on their radar in the just approved long-term parking plans. For the foreseeable future, parking your car downtown will be much cheaper than going there by HSR.

The parking policy approved for the next decade acknowledges that “setting parking fees below the cost of transit fares, especially for monthly passes targeted at commuters, incentivizes driving and disincentivizes transit.” More specifically it notes that some monthly downtown parking fees are currently half the cost of transit passes.

But the recommendations approved by council call for only “modest increases” to parking rates of about four percent a year between now and 2030. That would raise metre rates by a dollar an hour to 50 percent more than they are at present. And it will still leave them less than HSR even with no fare hikes in the next ten years.

Current transit policy calls for annual increases in the price of riding the bus. HSR fares went up again on September 1 by an average of 5 cents per ride.

While the principles laid out for parking policy include “environmental sustainability” defined as reducing climate impacts by “supporting sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation choices” that appears to mainly mean shifting gradually to permeable pavement in city owned lots to reduce stormwater runoff and its resulting costs. Maureen Wilson supported this initiative but when she asked when it will start, staff replied that will depend on finding the monies.

“We have the knowledge of how to do it,” observed Brian Hollingsworth, the director of transportation planning and parking, “but not the resources and opportunities”. He said staff will look at these changes when repaving is required. The report notes that “parking facilities themselves, which typically result in large areas of paved, impermeable surfaces and/or concrete structures with high levels of embodied carbon, have a high carbon footprint and direct environmental impact.”

All suburban councillors who spoke on the parking policy at planning committee emphasized maintaining the status quo. Each of Judi Partridge, Maria Pearson, Lloyd Ferguson and Arlene Vanderbeek sought assurances that existing parking rules in their wards will not be changing. Partridge trumpeted her successful battle in “having the meters removed” in Waterdown.

The long term policy review only dealt with paid parking. The tens of thousands of unmetered spots across the city are not referenced. The city spends about $100 million a year on road construction and maintenance which includes many lanes set aside for free on-street spaces but those expenditures are not considered as parking-related although the review does acknowledge there is no such thing as free parking.

“If fees are not charged and the system instead relied on tax supported revenue, these costs would be borne by all Hamilton residents, including those that choose other more sustainable modes of transportation,” it states. “That is to say, someone is always paying for these costs, whether actively through the meter or passively through taxes and higher costs of goods and services.”