Park 'n' Ride fee credited for reduction in LRT parking lot crime

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It appears more security patrols in LRT parking lots are helping to combat crime.

According to a city report comparing the numbers between 2008 and 2009, there was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of vehicles that were stolen and/or damaged.

Ya, well no wonder, when I'd say the stations closest to me only have like 150/300 stalls full

[stampsx2]

Definitely not half empty in the south. Be there at 6am or take your car to work.

[WilsonFourTwo]

I think that reduced crime (any type, in any place) is great news. But just out of curiosity and a desire for a little more balanced info, I'm interested to know what the crime rate in the nearby communities has done.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Another thought on this.
Even if crime is only down because the lots are half full, then where exactly are the negatives to the city charging $3 to park at the lots.

Pros:
Lots are less full, which would indicate more people are taking the feeder busses to the stations. Afterall, the majority of people who take the train are going downtown, and it's not likely people will pay $20 to avoid paying $3.

Overall crime rates are down. This is never a bad thing.

People who don't want to wait the extra time to take the bus to the station still have the option to park there, and now have more freedom on where to park because there are more spots available.

City is making some extra cash on the whole thing. Who knows what it's going to, but it's not like they're using the money to kill puppies, so it can't be all bad.

So where is the problem?

[algernon]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

I think this is awesome news.

I am curious how many fewer cars are parked in these lots since they are charging so much to park there?

I saw a sign in Chinatown proclaiming Earlybird price! only $29/day.
Now that's a deal!

You use parking lot, you pay. Walk to the station if $3 is too much, or carpool with 5 others, you can get it down to 50 cent.

I bet for $60 a month you could buy a pretty sweet bicycle, then you could bike to work, paying only the cost of the bike.

I've heard that Transit is already subsidized, with the actual cost around $7/ ride. Are you an entitled suburbanite? Why should I subsidize you further?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by algernon

I saw a sign in Chinatown proclaiming Earlybird price! only $29/day.
Now that's a deal!

You use parking lot, you pay. Walk to the station if $3 is too much, or carpool with 5 others, you can get it down to 50 cent.

I bet for $60 a month you could buy a pretty sweet bicycle, then you could bike to work, paying only the cost of the bike.

I've heard that Transit is already subsidized, with the actual cost around $7/ ride. Are you an entitled suburbanite? Why should I subsidize you further?

Yeah, I kind of doubt that number.
Annual ridership for the last 2 years has been ~ 95million people.
So that means you think it costs the city ~$700 milllion to run the C-train every year. Compared to a VERY liberal estimate of $275 million in revenues (assuming everyone pays at the ticket machine, which we know isn't true). That's a difference of $425 million.

Just to compare the West LRT line is projected to cost ~ $700 Million.
I'm not sure what the cost has been for all the other lines, but there is no way that the capital costs, and operating costs are almost 3/4 of a BILLION dollars a year.

Not to mention that there is no way that the city or province is subsidizing the C-train to the tune of $425 million/year.

After 5 minutes of googling, the 2010 Transit budget is $316 million with revenues of $154 million.
So a total "subsidy" of 162 million. Nowhere near the $425 that your $7/ride theory comes up with.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by puckluck

What a joke. The only security seen around LRT stations is when they are trying to give people who never paid- a ticket.

Well really that is a valid form of security. Authority presence during the day when it would otherwise be a desolate place where hundreds of cars are parked with very few "eyes on the street."

There have also been bike patrols added.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Pros:
Lots are less full, which would indicate more people are taking the feeder busses to the stations. Afterall, the majority of people who take the train are going downtown, and it's not likely people will pay $20 to avoid paying $3.

[...]

All I have to go on is anecdotes, but I've heard from some people that feeder bus use seemed to increase in the weeks after the park and ride fees were implemented.

Another pro to add to your list is that many lots do not fill up at 7:30 AM or earlier, so someone who wants to park there at, say, 9:45 AM on a weekday has that option when they didn't before. This increases the usability of the system.

[Eagle Eye]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Definitely not half empty in the south. Be there at 6am or take your car to work.

Where in the south? Fish creek has tons of parking

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

After 5 minutes of googling, the 2010 Transit budget is $316 million with revenues of $154 million.
So a total "subsidy" of 162 million. Nowhere near the $425 that your $7/ride theory comes up with.

Not only that, since there was musings about the C-Train being privitized a year ago or so, that means that it's only the buses that lose money.

I used to be pissed at the parking fee, but now I think it makes sense for reasons completely outside of the security factor (Which I think it bogus anyway). The parking fee has accomplished 3 things:

1. Reduced demand for parking to the point that anyone arriving into work later than 7:30 AM can reasonably acquire a parking spot at their desired station. (Before the fee I used to never get Dalhousie parking and found myself driving to Brentwood or McMahon). I would suggest that they continue to balance the supply/demand scenario to include hikes if the lots get full earlier.

2. Additional revenues to expand the transit system.

3. Increased use of the bus network. The more utilized the bus network is, the increased routes and frequency of buses will provide better service to citizens.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not only that, since there was musings about the C-Train being privitized a year ago or so, that means that it's only the buses that lose money.

I used to be pissed at the parking fee, but now I think it makes sense for reasons completely outside of the security factor (Which I think it bogus anyway). The parking fee has accomplished 3 things:

1. Reduced demand for parking to the point that anyone arriving into work later than 7:30 AM can reasonably acquire a parking spot at their desired station. (Before the fee I used to never get Dalhousie parking and found myself driving to Brentwood or McMahon). I would suggest that they continue to balance the supply/demand scenario to include hikes if the lots get full earlier.

2. Additional revenues to expand the transit system.

3. Increased use of the bus network. The more utilized the bus network is, the increased routes and frequency of buses will provide better service to citizens.

Good post. That basically sums up my thoughts.

Could you elaborate on the bolded section? I can't say I recall hearing about this.

[Northendzone]

i am assuming that to some extent the "extra security" would also include the Park Plus car with all the cameras.

in some ways i am happy the city implemented the fee as it made it easier for my wife and i to justify driving downtown (my office is on 9th st & 6 av and i found a lot that works out to about $15 per day).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not sure where people are getting this lots are half empty thing.

I made a joke- as indicated by me using the "bag" emoticon. I was saying that seeing as crime was down 50%, perhaps the number of cars parking there was also down by 50%. Kinda like saying "When Calgary was a city of 500K, there were about half the number of murders as there are today."

To quote Homer Simpson- "You can use statistics to prove anything. 43% of people know that."

My issue is putting that correlation in place. Are vehicle thefts down because of the fee, or something else? Is it that more vehicles have better electronic ignition systems now? Taking that one step further; maybe the people who cannot afford to buy a new car are also ones who cannot afford the new fee; so as a result of the fee 50% fewer cars without ignition interlocks are parking at the LRT lots.

Is there greater awareness so more people are using devices like the Club? What about the bait car program- is that making a difference?

I have no doubt that increased security paid for by the fees has had an influence on the number of vehicles stolen. My issue is this article puts these two points together; and "justifies" the fee.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Good post. That basically sums up my thoughts.

Could you elaborate on the bolded section? I can't say I recall hearing about this.

It was a Ric Mcivor musing, but I recall reading it in the paper. He was trying to argue that it should be looked at to monetize more funds for the city. There was even a description about profitability. Just a musing as opposed to serious consideration.

[Jackpot_Smooth]

Dalhousie and Brentwood are far less busy thanks to the opening of crowfoot. Either way, i notice a lot more security driving around.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Definitely not half empty in the south. Be there at 6am or take your car to work.

I pull into the last station every day around 7am and never have I had an issue with parking.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I pull into the last station every day around 7am and never have I had an issue with parking.

People with normal jobs in normal cities don't have to go to work before 8am.

I hate how it's become "normal" in Calgary, LRT parking issues being part of the reason.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Eagle Eye

Where in the south? Fish creek has tons of parking

Shawnessy and especially Somerset. People that start before 8am don't have normal jobs and don't live in a normal city?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It was a Ric Mcivor musing, but I recall reading it in the paper. He was trying to argue that it should be looked at to monetize more funds for the city. There was even a description about profitability. Just a musing as opposed to serious consideration.

The one thing that comes to mind is that P3 options will be looked at for the construction and possibly operation of the SE LRT. McIver made a motion to have City administration prepare a report on alternative funding models for the SE LRT. It is due back to council in July, so we may see the SE LRT become a plank in some mayoral platforms after that. It should be said that this idea isn't really a McIver Original. They are basically looking to follow something like the Canada Line (Vancouver) model.

Unless you're talking about something completely different.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

People with normal jobs in normal cities don't have to go to work before 8am.

I hate how it's become "normal" in Calgary, LRT parking issues being part of the reason.

I work an 8-5 office job (work a little extra each day for 2 flex days month) so I would classify that as normal.

[Byrns]

I think he figures everyone works retail?