When do they finally Axe Park N Ride?

[Dion]

Should have kept the park and ride fees. As a pararsite I didn't mind paying the fee on the few occassions I had to go downtown.

[Boblobla]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...commentSection

The Park and Ride fee was projected to bring in more than $6-million in revenue. Part of that lost revenue will be made up by council's decision to slash $5-million from the parks budget.

So parks is slashed so people can park for free? Pfft, who needs green space anyway? I say we just pave it all and we will have WAYYY more parking.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Madman

Or Langdonese

Or Balsacs?

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...commentSection



So parks is slashed so people can park for free? Pfft, who needs green space anyway? I say we just pave it all and we will have WAYYY more parking.

I know hey? Calgary is such a barren wasteland!
Oh wait, there's Bowness Park, Edworthy Park, Nose Hill, Fish Creek Park, the Bow and Elbow river valleys, Prairie Winds Park, Elliston Park, Ralph Klein Park, Prince's Island Park, North Glenmore Park, Confederation Park, etc

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...commentSection

So parks is slashed so people can park for free? Pfft, who needs green space anyway? I say we just pave it all and we will have WAYYY more parking.

The two are not linked. The newspaper just likes to frame it that way.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The two are not linked. The newspaper just likes to frame it that way.

How do you figure they aren't linked? 6 million is revenue is lost due to the park and ride fee and 5 million in spending is cut from parks?

Regardless, that 6 million dollars that was for "Security and Cleaning" now needs to come from somewhere else, and that somewhere else probably involves transit and non-transit riders. I wish they would have kept the fee, that is all I am saying.

[stevinder]

I'd rather have my fares go toward service than subsidizing someone's free suburban parking spot. But the decision has been made. So be it.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Me too. Actually, it was this thread that completely changed my mind. The fee should stay.

my problem with the fee isn't the fee itself because i have no problem with paying 3 dollars to park there. I think the system sucks for collecting the cash and how they deal with fines.

For example, I'm heading down to the Flames game tonight with a friend, park at Dalhourise and we have a few herion beers down there, meet up with a couple girls and we all go out for a few more(read a lot more) drinks. As the responsible alcoholic I leave my truck in the lot overnight. So i wake up around say 11 the next morning walk outside and am like where the hell is my truck? Then I remember I couldn't drive it home because I was drunk last night, thank you for not driving it home drunk, here's your fine for not paying the 3$ parking fee for today, booyah for being responsible.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the way they have it now encourages drunk driving but it certainly makes some of the options less attractive.

I should say this has only happened to me twice and somehow i was fortunate enough that I didn't end up with a ticket either time.

I you wanna have it pay to park then charge people on exit and you don't need to fine people who may have accidently forgot to pay one day in the rush to make the train or had to leave their car there for whatever unexpected reason.

ohhh and another stupid thing, can't back into a stall or you get a fine, yeah that's awesome too.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This is very encouraging for future votes as well. It seems like enough of the idiots were removed from office during the election. Jim and Druh can sit there voting against all of Nenshi's motions and it won't have any effect. Thank god.

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Same with Pinhead

When it comes to making new developments self-funding, they will be much needed allies.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Dan02

my problem with the fee isn't the fee itself because i have no problem with paying 3 dollars to park there. I think the system sucks for collecting the cash and how they deal with fines.

How is it any different for your scenario than other pay lots?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How is it any different for your scenario than other pay lots?

Other pay lots aren't there specifically to service mass transit?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

How do you figure they aren't linked? 6 million is revenue is lost due to the park and ride fee and 5 million in spending is cut from parks?

It's faulty logic. They are not linked in a one-for-one relationship. During the budget debate, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases where a budget item is either cut, has funding increased, added or deleted altogether. You can't say that "this particular one was cut so the other particular one could be increased."

It's not a case of sacrificing A so B can happen. A1, B1, C1, D1, ..., XYZ1 are cut or deleted so that A2, B2, C2, D2, ..., XYZ2 can be increased or created.

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Regardless, that 6 million dollars that was for "Security and Cleaning" now needs to come from somewhere else, and that somewhere else probably involves transit and non-transit riders. I wish they would have kept the fee, that is all I am saying.

This is correct. There are currently three funding sources for transit operations.

1. Park N' Ride Fee payers

2. Transit fare payers

3. City of Calgary taxpayers

The loss of one means that, if costs stay the same, there will be increased burden on the remaining two groups.

[puckluck]

I don't use Transit, but I'm happy they decided to finally get rid of this fee.

$8 a day to use transit doesn't seem logical.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Dan02

my problem with the fee isn't the fee itself because i have no problem with paying 3 dollars to park there. I think the system sucks for collecting the cash and how they deal with fines.

For example, I'm heading down to the Flames game tonight with a friend, park at Dalhourise and we have a few herion beers down there, meet up with a couple girls and we all go out for a few more(read a lot more) drinks. As the responsible alcoholic I leave my truck in the lot overnight. So i wake up around say 11 the next morning walk outside and am like where the hell is my truck? Then I remember I couldn't drive it home because I was drunk last night, thank you for not driving it home drunk, here's your fine for not paying the 3$ parking fee for today, booyah for being responsible.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the way they have it now encourages drunk driving but it certainly makes some of the options less attractive.

I should say this has only happened to me twice and somehow i was fortunate enough that I didn't end up with a ticket either time.

I you wanna have it pay to park then charge people on exit and you don't need to fine people who may have accidently forgot to pay one day in the rush to make the train or had to leave their car there for whatever unexpected reason.

ohhh and another stupid thing, can't back into a stall or you get a fine, yeah that's awesome too.

Part of being responsible means that you assume the responsibility for following the rules (they are posted) of the lot that you choose to park your vehicle in. This includes orientation of the vehicle and method of payment.

If you set up a Park Plus account on your phone, you can throw an all-out bender including a last-minute 5 day trip to Vegas into your scenario after the game and still pay for your car sitting in the C-Train lot.

They do need to fine people who may have accidentally forgot to pay one day or had to leave their car. What good is a fee if it isn't enforced?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I don't use Transit, but I'm happy they decided to finally get rid of this fee.

$8 a day to use transit doesn't seem logical.

Based on what? If so, what is logical? Of course, before you answer, can you confirm that by "use transit" you are speaking of the following scenario:

Non-monthly-pass-holder paying once for a trip somewhere, once for a trip back, and once for choosing to park their vehicle in a Park N' Ride lot, all prior to January 1st, 2010 (when fares were increased from $2.50 a ride to $2.75)?

[corporatejay]

I live in the deep south. Right now WITH the parking fee somerset/bridlewood is full by 7:15 a.m. on Mondays. Shawnessy, also full.

Why would you get rid of that revenue, it makes no sense. Before the fee if you weren't there by 6:30, too bad, no spot for you.

The demand for a lot like that is too high, so they need to either increase supply or decrease demand. By charging a fee, they decreased some demand. So now if I want to take the train I'll have to make sure I'm at work for 4.am. Great.

[Dion]

Some aldermen were resistant to the idea of giving up the cash generated by the fee, but on Wednesday it was agreed in a 10-5 vote that the fee would be scrapped. Aldermen Mar, Lowe, Farrell, Pincott, and MacLeod voted against getting rid of the $3 fee.

"There still may be some fees in there to help us mitigate demand. For example, reserved parking stalls for people who want to pay for them," says Nenshi.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I live in the deep south. Right now WITH the parking fee somerset/bridlewood is full by 7:15 a.m. on Mondays. Shawnessy, also full.

Why would you get rid of that revenue, it makes no sense. Before the fee if you weren't there by 6:30, too bad, no spot for you.

The demand for a lot like that is too high, so they need to either increase supply or decrease demand. By charging a fee, they decreased some demand. So now if I want to take the train I'll have to make sure I'm at work for 4.am. Great.

What revenue? Not as many people are taking transit. Transit has lost a $85 bus pass because of $3. Downtown parking places like ImPark aren't dumb. They have reduced their prices... one of my coworkers parks in an outdoor parking lot for just $240. If Bus pass is $85 and increasing plus $3 parking everyday, driving to work and parking downtown isn't that much more expensive and you can come and go anytime and not have to sit on the bus.

You are correct that there needs to be some kind of balance.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Based on what? If so, what is logical? Of course, before you answer, can you confirm that by "use transit" you are speaking of the following scenario:

Non-monthly-pass-holder paying once for a trip somewhere, once for a trip back, and once for choosing to park their vehicle in a Park N' Ride lot, all prior to January 1st, 2010 (when fares were increased from $2.50 a ride to $2.75)?

Yep that is his logic. I have a contract where I go into the office 2-3 times a week. So that is my scenerio. $3 + 2.75 + 2.75 = $8.50.

But then I found a parking spot in the beltline that was $10. So it was a no brainer to drive.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

What revenue? Not as many people are taking transit. Transit has lost a $85 bus pass because of $3. Downtown parking places like ImPark aren't dumb. They have reduced their prices... one of my coworkers parks in an outdoor parking lot for just $240. If Bus pass is $85 and increasing plus $3 parking everyday, driving to work and parking downtown isn't that much more expensive and you can come and go anytime and not have to sit on the bus.

You are correct that there needs to be some kind of balance.

You are forgetting the maintinence and wear and tear on ones vehicle. If I was working downtown taking transit would be a no brainer.