The Toronto Parking Authority exists solely to subsidize drivers of private automobiles

>but when it comes to the Toronto Public Authority I waver. The TPA,

shouldn't that read: Toronto Parking Authority ??

I hope that there is no public authority, they should just leave US alone!

Car drivers say they pay for the roads via gas taxes. False since the Downloading that money only goes to the 400 series. All the money for most roads comes from the local taxpayers.
Toronto and Canada to the most part has the highest transit fares in North America. In the US they are about half what we pay. 407 should be free and 401 through Toronto toll as well as all others south ot the city limits. Them add a local car tax like Florida has/had with the money split between area of home and work. Transit passes rather than free parking for workers.
As a note from what I've seen it is cheaper to park in Toronto on a monthly basis than in Ottawa.

Good analysis, Herb. You may know that many cities in the U.S. (California in particular) are experimenting with demand-based on-street parking meter rates, instead of the subsidized flat fee we have here. This allows the local government to keep the most parking revenue while free market forces determine the price. It's almost embarrassing that Toronto isn't already moving forward with this. Here's a link to a good discussion.

Private parking lots will operate as long as they're profitable. When it becomes more profitable to develop the lot as a condo or office building, they will. The TPA provides competition, discouraging price gouging. Why shouldn't we gouge drivers for wanting to park in our city? Well, there are lots and lots of legitimate reasons for driving a car downtown. and if a parking lot is able to remain profitable by charging $50 and hour that lot will remain a parking lot for a lot longer. The TPA helps encourage development of vacant lots and provides revenue for the city. It should be more expensive, but should undercut the private lots as often as possible.

My husband and I live downtown. We don't own a car, but have and Autoshare membership, and we ride, walk and TTC it pretty much everywhere but I'm still very aware that the way the market values land and the way our current governments allow that to put pressure on some public institutions and infrastructure, I don't believe is in the best interest of our economy or our civic environment.

Would you eliminate subsidized housing downtown because the market would say that living downtown is very expensive so maybe we shouldn't be subsidizing that land use either? St. Michael's college is building highrise condos on their property to get more money. Is that right? That's a multifaceted problem that also has to do with government funding of universities. So what does that have to do with parking? I don't think most of us could pay market value for all the downtown roads we have.

It is a question of understanding that all kinds of people live in and use the downtown and need parking. Not everyone can live like us, carless. I absolutely think we should be providing better alternatives to getting around but the reality is that affordable parking is still really important for downtown residents and businesses, especially small businesses and the city parking lots are part of our transportation infrastructure.

@Kristin

Subsidies from government are a part of any complex society, but I would hardly compare subsidized housing to subsidized parking. I wouldn't cut subsidies to low-income housing for two reasons: one, in my opinion, a roof over your head in a society that has the abundance to provide it is a moral right. I admit that's a moral/political view on my part. What is less opinionated is the other reason; that if you turf out low-income residents from subsidized housing, society will suffer more problems than the money saved from subsidies. Subsidized housing is efficient.

Subsidized parking is anything but efficient. It artificially inflates the demand to drive and causes congestion. Meanwhile, the people who are willing to pay market rates for parking can't find a spot. Studies cited in Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking estimate anywhere from 10%-30% of drivers are cruising for parking in some neighbourhoods. While they do so they drive slow, don't pay attention to cyclists and pedestrians, and turn right at every block.

The city provides free posts and locks for bicyclists..what's wrong with some degree of assistance for drivers? While I hardly ever drive in the city, my wife does often to take our son to doctor's appointments. The free market leads to abuse particularly when no other parking options exist in a given area. I am glad green P exists.

I was tempted by herb's argument, but there is a key detail that makes supporting TPA privatization a strategic failure: any TPA sale would almost certainly include contractual provisions governing the supply of metered on-street parking spaces for decades to come. Any potential private purchaser (and their financial backers) for the TPA would want assurances that the Authority's mandate and revenues would be protected as a privately-owned body, necessitating contractual language enjoining the city from reducing said Authority or revenue-base. Not only is this the same kind of terrible profit-privatizing scam at work in so many of these boondoggles, but of more concern in the I Bike TO context is that this would tie the city's hands in any future attempts to adjust the division of pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle space in the public right-of-way, crippling bike network and sidewalk expansions.

The challenges of negotiating with local business owners who believe their economic security is tied to on-street parking spaces would be fondly remembered compared with what would follow almost any conceivable TPA privatization: contractual obligations that would legally prevent the city from reducing parking space numbers.

The problem is that, if you look at the GTA as a whole, the public transportation infrastructure is completely inadequate. By world standards, the fact that Toronto's subway does not even go to the airport makes us the laughingnstock of the world. I am not big on cars and car subsidies but the real problem is the lack of political will to develop a ubiquitous transit system. It'sneasy to blame the drivers, but I am more inclined to blame the politicians. We need world class politicians with an urban vision for 21st century canada. Unfortunately neither our prime minister nor the mayor of canada's largest city have a forward-looking urban vision. THAT is the real tragedy.

Green P's rates on garages are marginally too low, but the least important of the rate structures where public parking is concerned.

On-Street Parking is the most obvious, by way of comparison to Toronto's top rate of $3.50 per hour:

Vancouver: $5.00 p/h
Calgary: $5.00 p/h
Chicago: $5.00 p/h (going to $6.50 by 2013

Its important though to frame this not as anti-driver (you'll never get a hike through that way; but rather by first deriding a subsidized or artificially low rate which costs the City at least 5M per year, possibly more than double that.

But secondly, note that on-street parking is typically short-term, and so not really that costly; what it is (where available) is super convenient; but only if you can find a space. The best argument for free-market pricing is, you're more likely to find a space when you need one.

Having said all that, there is no bigger fiasco in this area that PERMIT Parking.

Permits range from $15 per month to $45 or . 50c to $1.50 PER DAY.

That's completely unjustifiable.

I went looking on parking.com to see what it would cost to rent a space in various city neighbourhoods from a private business/home.

The range was $60 per month in a few select areas; $100 in most; and over $220 per month downtown.

Surely City rates should be in-line with or at least close to those rates.

I think a reasonable start would be doubling current rates to $30 per month for those w/no space on their own property; and those who either have a space or want a second permit should immediately be bumped to no less than $60 per month.

We're literally talking millions and millions of dollars in revenue; which depending on your political disposition could go to bettter public services, lower debts or lower taxes or some combination of the above.

I think its again important to say, to those with whom we may disagree, let's leave what to do with the money to a separate fight, so we don't fail to get the money due to ideological differences.

Simply subsidizing cars less will create the climate for fairer treatment of other transportation choices.

I agree, the TPA is a good example of how the government continues to subsidize automobile travel. If the TPA was privately owned, parking costs would be much higher, and more parking spaces would either be sold to developers or converted to taller parking garages which is a more efficient use of land.

If you look at how the city was planned, especially the suburbs, it is the city that forces developers to put X amount of parking spots when the are constructing a building. A lot of the times the city even forces the parking to be in front of the building, so that the streetscape becomes a long field of parking lots. The city also sets limits how tall a building can be, which makes neighbourhoods more spread out, further encouraging people use cars since we know have to drive long distances.

I'm not saying the solution to everything is the private market, but if the city didn't interfere with developers, we would actually have fewer fields of parking lots, and taller buildings which are more environmentally friendly and convenient for commuting since everything is closer together.