My Thoughts about Parking on Campus
This is a blog post I've been meaning to write for quite a while!
Every year, there's a video on Tiktok that goes somewhat viral where a college student questions why their parking isn't free on campus when they pay tuition. At base level, this seems like a valid question. However, when you expand the conversation to include equity, and what is constituted a good use of space, free parking on campus is very difficult to justify. In this blog post, I make four arguments that, when combined together, make a good case for why parking on campus should remain unchanged. Particular focus will be given to my school, York University, as well a quick look at a particular project at the University of Toronto.
Lots and lots of parking at York University.
Laying out some facts
I think before making my arguments, I have to lay out some important facts about driving and parking that will make my case more clear.
The first of these facts answers the question of who drives more. As can be seen in the 'Average VMT (vehicle miles travelled)' columns, the higher the household income, the more these people drive, whether or not they are close to a major transit station (TOD) or not (non-TOD).
While there are obviously poorer individuals who must drive, and must be accounted for, pro-car policies tend to benefit those of higher incomes more than those of lower incomes. If we want equitability in our transportation systems, public transit (and other modes like cycling and walking), must take a precedence.
The second related to York University specifically. It is well-known that York University is a commuter school, is more diverse, and has students from a lower socio-economic status than other universities in the province. This must be front-and-center when planning transportation to York, as students frankly have less resources than other universities.
Argument 1: Free parking isn't free
Donald Shoup's 'The High Cost of Free Parking' is a great book explaining how 'free parking' is a very expensive thing to provide, on multiple scales. In terms of operations, the weight of vehicles takes a toll on the quality of the lot, so re-paving and re-lining is a requirement. Additionally, infrastructure is required to reach a parking lot. Think about Kennedy subway station: would Transway Crescent need to exist if there was no parking lot? There are external costs, including health impacts from pollution, traffic, and the like. I also argue that induced demand is present here: ample parking encourages more driving, in turn requiring more parking, repeating this sequence and increasing congestion every step along the way.
All these costs have to come from somewhere. If the expectation is that they come from tuition, how is this fair for the majority of students who don't drive to campus? They pay for a service that many are totally unable to use.
Argument 2: If we want to encourage transit over driving, driving is too cheap
I always find it funny when people talk about how driving is so expensive when it is much cheaper than it should be. This isn't the piece for it, but automobility doesn't may for any external costs, and siphons huge amounts of money from general public funds for relatively minor infrastructure improvements (i.e. the Gardiner rebuilding).
There is obviously a want to turn to more transit for a number of reasons, but if the cost to use transit is not competitive to driving, why would anyone besides those who have no other choice choose it?
Let's compare the cost of a parking pass at York University versus a TTC Metropass, both for the eight-month school year (yes, I know this doesn't add in gas and insurance for the driver but to be honest I'm not doing math here, and I want to keep it simple). The eight-month Metropass costs $1,026, whereas the parking pass at York's Founders East lot would set you back $832. This doesn't even consider the large number of students at York who must pay a GO and a TTC fare. As you can see, there is little here incentive to drop your car at home, as driving is made to be cheap.
Compare this with the University of Guelph. Students at this school pay $302 a year for unlimited travel on Guelph Transit, which is included as a part of their tuition (all students pay). Considering the last referendum on the topic saw nearly 89% of students vote in favour of it, the program is popular, and since UC is a major transit hub, the vast majority of students use transit to reach campus, and why wouldn't they? The university as a whole benefits as there is no cost to the school for this, whereas the free parking as a part of tuition would still require significant expenditures for maintenance.
Obviously, considering that York students use four different agencies to access campus, instituting a U-Pass would be more difficult, but this discussion is closely linked to broader fare integration throughout the GTHA.
Argument 3: University locations are transit-oriented
Our universities in Ontario are not new. They have been around for many years, and as such, have turned into major transit hubs. The schools would not have been able to maintain themselves at the sizes they are today if they were car-centric. As such, why would we even want to squander places that are deeply situated within our transit networks, even in very suburban locales? To want to embed automobility into places that can't sustain it is an insane proposition, and fails to see universities as destinations.
York University may be in Toronto, but it is a regional transit center.
Argument 4: Parking is just not a good use of space, and it is land use that excludes
In this argument, I am going to look at two case studies, York University, and the University of Toronto, and how their usage of parking reflects bad planning practices, and aims to exclude non-drivers from the campus.
York might have a subway line connecting it to the more urban parts of the city, but it is still very isolated to the areas around it. Walking from York to Keele, Steeles, Jane, or Finch, is unattractive even for the most avid walkers (I tend to use Bikeshare to get from campus to Keele and Finch). There are many reasons as to why there is an 'invisible fence' around York, but the one I am focussing on is specific to physical infrastructure. As the vast majority of York's 7700 parking spaces (!) are peripheral, and so to leave campus on foot requires crossing at least one, which is never a fun experience. It keeps York separate from places close-by, for the benefit of a select few. Additionally, think about the concept of a 'public' university. I can go into buildings all around York, and even at other schools (super helpful when you need a washroom or water fountain). What does private vehicle storage on public lands say about access in our schools? A large amount of York's land is unusable for me. Last note here, a common complaint is the lack of study space at York, which would be open for everyone. If we had the option of a new study hall, or maintaining a parking lot, which would make more sense? The answer is pretty obvious (or at least I would like to think).
UofT is located at a major subway crossing, and it is also a commuter school, like York. The main common on campus, out front of King's College, has been torn apart, for a project that the university suggests will make the school "greener, [and] more pedestrian friendly". While these are laudable goals, the first stage of the project is to construct an underground parking garage with 60 spots. I'm not sure how having more vehicles on campus encourages pedestrianization, at least in the short term. The construction right now is awful: there's no sidewalks, construction vehicles are strewn everywhere, and a layer of dust and mud covers the King's College area, and it will be like this for quite a while longer, and many current students will never get to visit the pedestrianized central campus. We have a huge campus upheaval with impacts on the vast majority of students, all for a very minute amount of parking. UofT was clearly unable to detach good goals of pedestrianization from automobility, and sees short-term exclusion of non-drivers as acceptable.
Gross!
Conclusion
I'm not saying that there should be no parking on campus, but what I am saying is that the approach to parking on campuses in Toronto right now is way more liberal than it needs to be. If we want universities that actually account for student need, reinforce public spaces, and act equitably, we can't even be thinking about making parking free on campus.
Comments
Post a Comment