What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
Every now and then somebody comes forward and proposes an urban gondola. The most recent one that I have heard about here in Toronto was this one from 2016 called the "Don Valley Cable Car." But like many gondola proposals, it sort of just disappeared. Probably because it wasn't entirely necessary. (I just checked their website and it is now down.)
However, there are rare instances where a gondola makes a lot of sense. Medellin, for example, has a very successful urban gondola system that my friend Alex Feldman wrote about, here on the blog, after a visit to the city back in 2014. In this case, the gondola was instrumental in connecting hill-side communities that were previously disconnected from the rest of the city.
Another less urbanized example is the one that Utah (Salt Lake County) is planning to build in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I wrote about this project back in March when I was there and, today, the Utah Department of Transportation announced their preferred mobility option. It is called Gondola Alternative B and, as far as I can tell, it is still
The Eglinton Crosstown line is going to open, here in Toronto, sometime next year -- I think. And I'm sure that it is going to be a massively beneficial addition to Toronto's transit network. But at the same time, we should be talking about this:
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
Every now and then somebody comes forward and proposes an urban gondola. The most recent one that I have heard about here in Toronto was this one from 2016 called the "Don Valley Cable Car." But like many gondola proposals, it sort of just disappeared. Probably because it wasn't entirely necessary. (I just checked their website and it is now down.)
However, there are rare instances where a gondola makes a lot of sense. Medellin, for example, has a very successful urban gondola system that my friend Alex Feldman wrote about, here on the blog, after a visit to the city back in 2014. In this case, the gondola was instrumental in connecting hill-side communities that were previously disconnected from the rest of the city.
Another less urbanized example is the one that Utah (Salt Lake County) is planning to build in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I wrote about this project back in March when I was there and, today, the Utah Department of Transportation announced their preferred mobility option. It is called Gondola Alternative B and, as far as I can tell, it is still
The Eglinton Crosstown line is going to open, here in Toronto, sometime next year -- I think. And I'm sure that it is going to be a massively beneficial addition to Toronto's transit network. But at the same time, we should be talking about this:
the longest and most expensive urban gondola ever proposed
.
Here are the details in graphic form:
To summarize, though:
The system is being designed to carry 1,050 passengers per hour, with cabins departing every 2 minutes.
The gondola itself is expected to cost $370 million, but when you add in a new parking garage for 2,500 cars, tolling infrastructure on the existing State Route, and other improvements, the total all-in capital cost is projected to be $729 million. The route itself is somewhere around 10 miles, so let's call it $73 million per mile.
At the same time, the projected operating costs are relatively low at $8 million per year, so this option actually has the lowest 30-year lifecycle cost out of all the ones that were studied. The other alternatives included widening the existing roadway, enhancing the bus service, and adding rail. There was also one other gondola option, which was presumably called Gondola Alternative A.
Urban transit stations shouldn't look like this. It's a missed opportunity, both in terms of the foregone housing (and other uses) that could be on top of these stations and the additional value that could have been captured from these air rights. Transit is a crucial lever for land values and development overall, and so it's no wonder that many of the best transit authorities around the world think in terms of "rail + property".
So what happened here?
I don't know exactly. But I do know that nearly a decade ago I called up Metrolinx and said, "Hey, so I'm a developer who can build things. I see that you're building a number of exciting transit stations along Eglinton. Want me to build on top of them for you?" Now obviously Metrolinx wasn't going to be able to sole-source to Brandon, but regardless, I thought it should happen and I just hoped to be in the mix.
In 2015, things did start to happen. Avison Young, on behalf of Metrolinx, issued a request for proposal to developers for 4 sites/stations along the line. There were two at Keele Street, one at Weston Road, and one at Bathurst Street. And at the time, it was thought that these sites could generate somewhere between $14-22 million (speaking of reasonable).
I think it was also being viewed as a bit of a pilot. If things went well with these 4 initial sites, then this same approach was going to be rolled out across all suitable sites on the line. I'm not sure what happened with the RFP or the broader intent -- maybe some of you know -- but it clearly didn't pan out as planned.
That's too bad. But I suppose done is better than perfect. Plus, now we're building the Ontario Line and so we have another opportunity to get it right. And right means lots of density on top of stations -- both directly on top and all around it.
the longest and most expensive urban gondola ever proposed
.
Here are the details in graphic form:
To summarize, though:
The system is being designed to carry 1,050 passengers per hour, with cabins departing every 2 minutes.
The gondola itself is expected to cost $370 million, but when you add in a new parking garage for 2,500 cars, tolling infrastructure on the existing State Route, and other improvements, the total all-in capital cost is projected to be $729 million. The route itself is somewhere around 10 miles, so let's call it $73 million per mile.
At the same time, the projected operating costs are relatively low at $8 million per year, so this option actually has the lowest 30-year lifecycle cost out of all the ones that were studied. The other alternatives included widening the existing roadway, enhancing the bus service, and adding rail. There was also one other gondola option, which was presumably called Gondola Alternative A.
Urban transit stations shouldn't look like this. It's a missed opportunity, both in terms of the foregone housing (and other uses) that could be on top of these stations and the additional value that could have been captured from these air rights. Transit is a crucial lever for land values and development overall, and so it's no wonder that many of the best transit authorities around the world think in terms of "rail + property".
So what happened here?
I don't know exactly. But I do know that nearly a decade ago I called up Metrolinx and said, "Hey, so I'm a developer who can build things. I see that you're building a number of exciting transit stations along Eglinton. Want me to build on top of them for you?" Now obviously Metrolinx wasn't going to be able to sole-source to Brandon, but regardless, I thought it should happen and I just hoped to be in the mix.
In 2015, things did start to happen. Avison Young, on behalf of Metrolinx, issued a request for proposal to developers for 4 sites/stations along the line. There were two at Keele Street, one at Weston Road, and one at Bathurst Street. And at the time, it was thought that these sites could generate somewhere between $14-22 million (speaking of reasonable).
I think it was also being viewed as a bit of a pilot. If things went well with these 4 initial sites, then this same approach was going to be rolled out across all suitable sites on the line. I'm not sure what happened with the RFP or the broader intent -- maybe some of you know -- but it clearly didn't pan out as planned.
That's too bad. But I suppose done is better than perfect. Plus, now we're building the Ontario Line and so we have another opportunity to get it right. And right means lots of density on top of stations -- both directly on top and all around it.
