Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkey
Why is the city implementing this same 1960's policy in the suburban outreaches in 2013? Don't you agree that it makes sense to provide an adequate supply of accessible parking in the burbs so that chimps like me only drive 5 minutes and jump on public transit vs. driving closer in or even biting the bullet and parking downtown?
I get that the city wants to squeeze people into taking the feeder buses to the ctrain stations but the reality is that the bulk of the morning commuters will never bother with the buses. It's an extra 15-30 minutes each way, that's 30-60 minutes of family or leisure time lost.
I think most would agree that if you provide adequate parking on the perimeter the rest of the city's infrastructure will benefit. It is myopic to look at each parking lot's operating costs in isolation. The city should be overbuilding suburb parking lot infrastructure to make huge gains in the core and outer core's fluidity. This is an opportunity that is hampered by the 'cars are bad' perception held by so many in planning and policy roles. Cars are actually an excellent compliment to the city's transportation strategy if leveraged properly and used sparingly (2-5 minute commutes to the train hubs).
|
The bolded isn't really correct (if referring to LRT users - not all commuters).
50+% of LRT users access it via feeder bus and only 10-15% access it using park and rides (and of course many of those are from exurban communities which feeder buses do not operate). This leaves the remaining 35% which is made up of those who walk, cycle, or are dropped off at the station.
I do think feeder bus service should be improved though. Most of the time the route itself can't be made much better (in some cases they can be though). The big thing is frequency. Adding frequency is one of the most expensive things you can do but it would be huge. Transferring as well as the wait and timing of the first part of the trip is what makes or breaks things in transit.