(UCC) Parking Study - Town of New Tecumseth

Transcription

URBAN COMMERICAL CORE
(UCC) PARKING STUDY
ALLISTON, BEETON &
TOTTENHAM
Town of New Tecumseth
Project No. C0284-R01
September 2005
FINAL
DRAFT
CANSULT LIMITED
60 Renfrew Drive, #300, Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 0E1
Tel: 905.470.2010 Fax: 905.470.2060 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cansult.com
Urban Commercial Core (UCC) Parking Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose .................................................................................................................1
1.2 Study Areas .....................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology & Definitions................................................................................................5
EXISTING PARKING SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Inventory ..........................................................................................................................7
2.2 Parking Fees..................................................................................................................11
2.3 Existing Parking Demands.............................................................................................11
2.4 Assessment of Existing Parking System .......................................................................23
FUTURE PARKING SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 29
3.1 Future Parking Demands...............................................................................................29
3.2 Assessment of Future Parking System..........................................................................30
PARKING REQUIREMENT OPTIONS ................................................................................. 37
4.1 Option 1: Do Nothing .....................................................................................................37
4.2 Option 2: Parking Requirements for New Development ................................................37
4.3 Option 3: Introduce a “Sliding Scale” Parking Requirement ..........................................38
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS .............................................................................................. 39
5.1 Current Parking Practice in New Tecumseth.................................................................39
5.2 Directions in Policy for the Delivery of Public Parking ...................................................40
5.3 Options for Delivery of Public Parking Supply ...............................................................44
STAKEHOLDER INPUT ....................................................................................................... 54
6.1 Alliston Downtown Improvement Association ................................................................54
6.2 Tottenham Chamber of Commerce & Tottenham Parking Committee ..........................55
6.3 Town of New Tecumseth Accessibility Committee ........................................................56
6.4 Public Information Meeting 1 .........................................................................................57
6.5 Public Information Meeting 2 .........................................................................................58
RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 61
7.1 Recommendations for Immediate Implementation/Consideration .................................61
7.2 Recommendations for Long-Term Implementation/Consideration ................................63
APPENDICES (Under separate cover)
Appendix 1: Study Terms of Reference
Appendix 2: Detailed Parking Inventory
Appendix 3: Parking Survey Sheet
Appendix 4: Parking Count Summary By Total Area
Appendix 5: Parking Count Summary By Zones
Appendix 6: Stakeholder Input – Alliston DIA
Appendix 7: Stakeholder Input – Tottenham Chamber of Commerce & Parking Committee
Appendix 8: Stakeholder Input – Accessibility Committee
Appendix 9: Stakeholder Input – Public Information Meeting 1
Appendix 10: Stakeholder Input – Public Information Meeting 2
Cansult Limited, September 2005
i
FIGURES
Figure 1: Alliston Urban Commercial Core ...................................................................................2
Figure 2: Beeton Urban Commercial Core....................................................................................3
Figure 3: Tottenham Urban Commercial Core ..............................................................................4
Figure 4: Downtown Alliston Parking Inventory ............................................................................8
Figure 5: Downtown Beeton Parking Inventory.............................................................................9
Figure 6: Downtown Tottenham Parking Inventory .....................................................................10
Figure 7: Hourly Parking Demands.............................................................................................13
Figure 8: Downtown Alliston Parking Occupancy .......................................................................14
Figure 9: Downtown Beeton Parking Occupancy .......................................................................15
Figure 10: Downtown Tottenham Parking Occupancy................................................................16
Figure 11: Average Parking Durations........................................................................................20
Figure 12: Parking Turnover .......................................................................................................22
Figure 13: Surplus Parking – Existing Conditions.......................................................................28
Figure 14: Alliston – Parking Supply vs Demand........................................................................31
Figure 15: Beeton – Parking Supply vs Demand ........................................................................32
Figure 16: Tottenham – Parking Supply vs Demand ..................................................................33
Figure 17: Existing Parking That Could be Lost to Development ...............................................35
Figure 18: Benefiting Assessment Example ...............................................................................51
TABLES
Table 1: Existing Parking Inventory – Spaces ..............................................................................7
Table 2: Downtown Alliston Parking Demand & Occupancy ......................................................12
Table 3: Downtown Beeton Parking Demand & Occupancy.......................................................12
Table 4: Downtown Tottenham Parking Demand & Occupancy .................................................12
Table 5: Downtown Alliston Parking Durations ...........................................................................18
Table 6: Downtown Beeton Parking Durations ...........................................................................18
Table 7: Downtown Tottenham Parking Durations .....................................................................19
Table 8: Town of New Tecumseth Parking Requirements..........................................................23
Table 9: Parking Requirements for Existing Development “Typical By-Law Parking Rate” ........24
Table 10: Parking Requirements for Existing Development ”Downtown Parking” Rate.............25
Table 11: Downtown Alliston Assessment of Parking Supply.....................................................25
Table 12: Downtown Beeton Assessment of Parking Supply .....................................................26
Table 13: Downtown Tottenham Assessment of Parking Supply ...............................................26
Table 14: Surplus Parking – Existing Conditions ........................................................................27
Table 15: Town of New Tecumseth Residential Growth.............................................................29
Table 16: Future Supply vs Development – Scenario 1..............................................................30
Table 19: “Sliding Scale” Parking Requirements ........................................................................38
Table 20: Current Property Leases for Public Off-Street Parking ...............................................40
Table 21: Estimated Peak Hour Parking Requirements for UCC Land Uses .............................43
Table 22: Summary of Parking Management Structures ............................................................45
Table 23: Cash-in-Lieu Parking Practices...................................................................................48
ii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
STUDY PURPOSE
The Town of New Tecumseth retained Cansult Limited, in conjunction with DSorbara Parking &
Systems Consulting, to undertake the Town of New Tecumseth Urban Commercial Core
Parking Study (the terms of reference for the study area attached as Appendix 1). The purpose
of the study is as follows:
•
to determine the long-term parking requirements of the commercial core areas of Alliston,
Beeton and Tottenham;
•
to develop a comprehensive parking strategy to guide future decision making for each of the
commercial core areas;
•
to evaluate policy alternatives including but not limited to a cash-in-lieu of parking policy;
•
to determine how the long-term parking requirements for the three commercial core areas
are to be addressed; and
•
to review the existing parking standard provisions in the zoning By-law and recommend
amendments as determined appropriate to provide for the long-term parking requirements.
The Town’s objective is to ensure that an adequate parking supply is provided in each of the
urban commercial core areas to encourage healthy and vibrant downtown areas and ensure
their long-term viability.
1.2
STUDY AREAS
The study areas initially adopted for the parking study correspond to the Urban Commercial
Core (UCC) zones defined in the Town of New Tecumseth Comprehensive Zoning By-law 96103 for each of Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham.
The Alliston UCC, as illustrated in Figure 1, is defined as follows:
Wellington Street to the south;
•
CP Rail to the east;
•
Boyne River to the north; and
•
Elizabeth Street to the west.
•
The Beeton UCC, as illustrated in Figure 2, is defined as follows:
Maple Avenue to the south;
•
Patterson Street to the east;
•
Dale Drive to the to the north; and
•
Tecumseth Street to the west.
•
The Tottenham UCC, as illustrated in Figure 3, is defined as follows:
Dillane Street to the south;
•
Forestell Street to the east;
•
Sullivan Drive to the to the north; and
•
Simcoe South Railway to the west.
•
All parking areas within the UCC zones were considered in the parking study, in addition to
those parking areas immediately adjacent to the UCC zone that were otherwise considered to
serve the UCC zones (eg. street parking on both sides of the boundary roads and parking lots
immediately adjacent to the boundary roads).
1
Figure 1: Alliston Urban Commercial Core
2
Figure 2: Beeton Urban Commercial Core
3
Figure 3: Tottenham Urban Commercial Core
4
It is noted that following the first public meeting (as further discussed in Section 6), the study
areas for both Beeton and Tottenham were refined. In Tottenham, some areas, although within
the UCC zone, were not considered appropriate for downtown use in that the parking spaces
provided are too far away from the downtown and thus could not be directly attributed to
downtown uses.
Furthermore, existing development within these “outlying” areas is
predominantly residential. The associated parking therefore should not be considered in the
assessment of the downtown parking availability and usage. These areas include lands
between Sullivan Drive and George Street/Wilson Street and land south of Richmond Street in
Tottenham.
Likewise, there were some parking areas extending beyond the UCC zones that were
considered appropriate for downtown use and hence were considered in the study. This
included the parking area at the Beeton Arena, which extends beyond the UCC zone, but
serves the adjacent downtown.
The refined study areas are denoted as “downtown areas assessed in parking study” in Figure 1
through Figure 3. No changes to the Alliston study area were made given that the UCC is
predominantly commercially developed and is representative of a downtown condition.
1.3
TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS
A number of parking terms are used throughout this report, several of which are defined herein.
Capacity / Practical Capacity
Capacity refers to the number of parking spaces available for use. Where parking lots are not
defined, the corresponding capacity was estimated based on the dimensions of the area and
the observed parking patterns.
While capacity refers to the number of spaces within a parking area, practical capacity refers to
the level at which available spaces become more difficult to find and drivers are required to
drive around in search of spaces. For purposes of this study, and based on experience in
similar downtown environments, the practical capacity is considered to be 90% of the capacity.
Cash in Lieu
Cash in lieu refers to a program whereby developers/property owners are required to provide a
cash payment in lieu of parking areas. This is typically applied where the required number of
parking spaces is not available or cannot be obtained. Currently, the Town does not have a
cash in lieu policy.
Demand
Demand is defined as the number of vehicles seeking a parking space at a particular location
during a specific time period. Demand is typically indicated by counting the number of vehicles
parked at any time. It is recognized, however, that the demand may be greater than the number
of parked vehicles as once all of the spaces are full, vehicles must go elsewhere.
Duration
Duration refers to the length of time that a vehicle is parked within a designated space.
Typically, visitors to the downtown area (eg. for shopping, tourists, etc.) have durations of an
hour or less whereas business employees and related visitors have longer durations (coinciding
with work schedules).
Occupancy / Utilization
5
Occupancy refers to the proportionate number of spaces that are occupied by parked vehicles
at any one time. Occupancy is expressed as a percent of spaces occupied (ie. number of
parked cars ÷ capacity) and is also referred to as utilization. Occupancies in excess of 100%
suggest that the number of vehicles within the parking area exceeds the actual number of
spaces.
Turnover / Effective Turnover
Turnover refers to the number of vehicles utilizing a parking space during a set period. When
durations are low, the turnover will generally be high as numerous vehicles may use the space.
If the duration is high, the space is effectively monopolized by a single vehicle and thus the
turnover will be low. For entire parking areas, the turnover is defined as the number of vehicles
parked in that area over a set period ÷ the capacity of the area.
Effective turnover relates to the turnover for only those spaces that were occupied during the set
period. It is defined as the number of vehicles parked in that area over a set period ÷ maximum
number of spaces occupied at any one time (ie. maximum hourly demand).
6
2 EXISTING PARKING SYSTEM
2.1
INVENTORY
The parking facilities in the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham UCC zones and the downtown
areas consist of a combination of on-street and off-street parking, and municipal and privately
owned parking. A summary of the existing parking inventory is provided in Table 1 whereas a
graphical representation is provided in Figure 4 through Figure 6.
Table 1: Existing Parking Inventory – Spaces
Area
Municipal
OnStreet
OffStreet
Alliston
UCC
2561
342
20%
downtown
2561
Private
Total
Total
OnStreet
OffStreet
Total
OnStreet
OffStreet
Total
598
-
679
679
256
1021
1277
27%
47%
0%
53%
53%
20%
80%
100%
342
598
-
679
679
256
1021
1277
20%
27%
47%
0%
53%
53%
20%
80%
100%
Beeton
UCC
214
62
276
-
164
164
214
226
440
49%
14%
63%
0%
37%
37%
49%
51%
100%
downtown
128
62
190
-
154
154
128
216
344
37%
18%
55%
0%
45%
45%
37%
63%
100%
201
30
231
-
225
225
201
255
456
44%
7%
51%
0%
49%
49%
44%
56%
100%
94
30
124
-
208
208
94
238
332
63%
28%
72%
100%
Tottenham
UCC
downtown
28%
9%
37%
0%
63%
1
includes 3 spaces on Wellington Street East reserved for OPP vehicles
As indicated, all of the private spaces provided are considered off-street, and as a percentage
of the overall parking supply varies from 63% in the Tottenham downtown to 45% in the Beeton
downtown. Reciprocally, the municipal parking supply varies from 55% in the Beeton downtown
to 37% in the Tottenham downtown.
In considering only the municipal off-street lots, this ranges from 18 to 26% in the Beeton and
Alliston downtown areas to a low of 9% in Tottenham (reflective of only 1 municipal off-street
lot).
A more detailed inventory of the existing parking areas by area, including information with
respect to location, number of spaces, type of surface (paved or gravel) and ownership (public
or private) is provided in Appendix 2. For ease of reference, a number of parking zones were
established within each study area, for which the parking characteristics were constant (eg.
each individual parking lot was considered a separate zone, as was street parking between
street blocks). In total, the Alliston downtown area was sub-divided into 60 zones, the Beeton
downtown into 17 zones and the Tottenham downtown into 26 zones. The individual zones are
indicated in Figure 4 through Figure 6 and the corresponding number of spaces noted.
7
Figure 4: Downtown Alliston Parking Inventory
8
Figure 5: Downtown Beeton Parking Inventory
9
Figure 6: Downtown Tottenham Parking Inventory
10
2.2
PARKING FEES
All parking areas with the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham downtown study areas are free of
charge.
2.3
EXISTING PARKING DEMANDS
This section details the collection of parking occupancy, duration and turnover statistics used to
determine the existing parking supply. The findings are briefly discussed whereas a further
assessment of the results is provided in Section 2.4. It is noted that only those spaces within
the “downtown” areas have been considered in the subsequent discussions, to ensure that the
results are truly reflective of the downtown parking patterns.
2.3.1 Methodology
A parking count program was developed for this study to collect data on parking occupancy,
duration and turnover. Recognizing the extent to which parking is consumed by downtown
employees, the count was completed on Wednesday, 13 October 2004, considered
representative of weekday activities. While it is recognized that the retail activity may be slightly
greater on Saturday, the employee contribution is not as significant from the non-retail
establishments (eg. office buildings). The parking count commenced at 08:00 and continued to
18:00 in order to capture variations throughout the day. For each study area and individual
parking zones (as per the breakdown in Appendix 2), the number of vehicles and their licence
plates were recorded at hourly intervals.
A sample parking count survey sheet is included in Appendix 3. The results of the parking
count are discussed in the following sections whereas count summary sheets are provided for
the three study areas in Appendix 4 and for the individual parking zones in Appendix 5.
2.3.2 Demand & Occupancy
Parking demand refers to the number of parked vehicles at a given time whereas occupancy is
the demand divided by the available capacity. While average values provide an indication of the
number of parked vehicles throughout the count period, the maximum values are the more
critical in that they are indicative of the greatest hourly demands. In Alliston and Tottenham, the
maximum hourly demands were typically observed at either 12:00 or 13:00 whereas in Beeton,
they were observed at either 10:00 or 17:00.
Summaries of the parking demands and occupancies are provided in Table 2, Table 3 and
Table 4 for downtown Alliston, downtown Beeton and downtown Tottenham, separated by
municipal versus private parking and on-street versus off-street parking. It is noted that the total
is not the arithmetic total of the individual data, but rather is reflective of the demand for the total
parking system. A graphical representation of the peak demands is provided in Figure 7.
In considering the total parking supply, there does not appear to be a deficiency in the existing
parking supply in any of the three downtown areas as during the peak hour demands, only 35 to
51% of the total spaces were occupied. As many of the private spaces are for the use of
employees and visitors to specific establishments (as opposed to general visitors to the
downtown areas), municipal and private parking have been considered separately. The peak
hour occupancies for the individual parking zones within each downtown area are presented in
Figure 8 through Figure 10.
11
Table 2: Downtown Alliston Parking Demand & Occupancy
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
1
Existing
Inventory
Practical Capacity
Demand
Occupancy
Spaces
Occupancy
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
256
342
230
297
90%
90%
107
212
85
163
42%
62%
33%
49%
679
1277
622
1149
90%
90%
340
655
258
506
50%
51%
37%
40%
figures refer to hourly demand and occupancy
Table 3: Downtown Beeton Parking Demand & Occupancy
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
1
Existing
Inventory
Practical Capacity
Demand
Occupancy
Spaces
Occupancy
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
128
62
115
56
90%
90%
42
22
31
10
33%
35%
24%
16%
154
344
139
310
90%
90%
71
122
54
94
46%
35%
35%
27%
Table 4: Downtown Tottenham Parking Demand & Occupancy
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
1
Existing
Inventory
Practical Capacity
Demand
Occupancy
Spaces
Occupancy
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
94
30
85
27
90%
90%
46
13
33
8
49%
43%
36%
27%
208
332
187
299
90%
90%
98
154
78
120
47%
46%
38%
36%
Municipal On-Street Parking
On-street parking is intended to provide close and convenient parking for patrons visiting the
downtown area. In considering the overall supply of on-street parking, there appears to be an
adequate supply. The average occupancy level observed was less then 33% whereas the
maximum level was less than 50% in all areas.
However, in considering the section of Victoria Street between Paris Street and Centre Street in
downtown Alliston, peak hour occupancies were considerably higher – 73 to 129% (which is
more evident in Figure 8). The latter is indicative of more vehicles parked than available
12
Figure 7: Hourly Parking Demands
13
Figure 8: Downtown Alliston Parking Occupancy
14
Figure 9: Downtown Beeton Parking Occupancy
15
Figure 10: Downtown Tottenham Parking Occupancy
16
spaces (ie. vehicles were parked illegally). These results confirm that visitors to the downtown
want the convenience of parking close to their destination.
In Beeton, while the on-street demands were somewhat greater at/near the intersection of
Centre Street and Main Street, they are not considered excessive. This is reflected in the peak
hour demands for the individual areas in Figure 9.
In Tottenham, on-street parking was greatest along the sections of Queen Street from Mill
Street to Richmond Street (peak hour demands of 75 to 88%); Mill Street from Queen Street to
Forestell Street (75to 86%); and Queen Street from Mill Street to George Street/Wilson Street
(67 to 88%). In total, these areas provide 52 parking spaces, with an aggregate peak demand
of 41 spaces. The focus of parkers within these areas is well presented in Figure 10.
Municipal Off-Street Parking
There are 6 municipally owned or public parking lots within downtown Alliston, the locations of
which are illustrated in Figure 4. Two lots had peak hour demands of 100% (ie. all 81 available
spaces were full) – the lot on the north side of Dominion Street between Church Street and
Centre Street (behind Shoppers Drug Mart) and the lot on the north side of Wellington Street
between Paris Street and Church Street). In order for these lots to operate at their practical
capacity of 90% (assuming the maximum demand stays constant), an additional 9 spaces would
be required between the 2 lots. However, it is most likely that should the capacity of these lots
increase, the demand would increase accordingly, a reflection of “build it and they will come.”
The other municipal lots in downtown Alliston, located on the north side of Victoria Street behind
the street-front commercial (2 lots), and at the corner of Wellington Street and Centre Street had
peak occupancies in the order of 45 to 50% (118 of 249 total spaces were occupied) and thus
can readily accommodate additional demands.
It is noted that there are 3 parking lots on the north side of Wellington Street (between Paris
Street and Church Street and immediately east of the public parking lot) that are under private
ownership, but allow for public parking under lease agreements with the Town of New
Tecumseth. However, these leases expire on August 1, 2005 and have not been renewed to
this date. As such, they have not been considered as public parking for the purposes of
assessing existing and future parking demands.
In downtown Beeton, there is only 1 municipally owned lot, located at the library/arena. During
the peak hour, only 23 of the 62 available spaces were occupied, which translates to a
maximum hour occupancy of 37%. It is recognized however that during arena events, this
demand will increase accordingly.
Likewise in downtown Tottenham, there is only 1 municipal lot - a gravel lot located on the north
side of Mill Street just west of Queen Street. Approximately 30 spaces are provided, with a
maximum hour demand realized of 13 spaces (43%). This lot is privately owned but leased by
the Town for parking purposes.
Private Off-Street Parking
Private off-street parking is provided throughout the study areas, generally adjacent to the
specific downtown business, which they serve. Overall, private parking is underutilized, with
average and maximum hour occupancy levels of 40 to 50%. While there are some individual
lots/areas that have a greater utilization (as indicated in Figure 8 through Figure 10), these are
not considered critical as their available capacity is limited and typically have limited draws
17
given their location (several are located behind specific developments and appropriately
reserved/controlled for employee use).
2.3.3 Duration
The duration refers to the length of time the same vehicle is parked in the same parking space,
determined by licence plate records. Durations of 1 hour or less are considered short-term and
are typically associated with downtown shopping and personal visits. Parked vehicles
associated with downtown employees and those on business trips typically have longer
durations.
Note that consideration has been given to vehicles that enter and exit a parking area repeatedly
throughout the day. For example, many employees will park for the morning period, leave
during the lunch hour, and return during the afternoon period. As such, their parking demand is
effectively for the entire day. However, given that the vehicle was not in the parking area over
the lunch hour it was not included in the parking count. The corresponding data thus reflects
parking demands for two separate periods - one in the morning and one in the afternoon. To
ensure that the effective parking durations are addressed, a 1-hour grace period has been
considered. Should a vehicle leave the parking area only to return after 1 hour, it was
considered as a single parking trip. Returns after an absence of 2 or more hours was
considered a separate parking trip in that the space could otherwise be effectively used during
this time.
A summary of the resulting parking durations is provided in Table 5 through Table 7, whereas
the average durations for each downtown area are presented graphically in Figure 11.
Table 5: Downtown Alliston Parking Durations
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
0-1 hours
Number of Vehicles Parked
1-2 hrs
2-3 hrs
3-4 hrs
4 + hrs
Total
637
395
68
118
19
40
7
27
10
127
741
707
546
1578
214
400
80
139
52
86
196
333
1088
2536
Table 6: Downtown Beeton Parking Durations
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
0-1 hours
1-2 hrs
2-3 hrs
3-4 hrs
4 + hrs
Total
97
22
16
11
8
3
5
2
22
6
148
44
138
257
31
58
14
25
14
21
39
67
236
428
18
Table 7: Downtown Tottenham Parking Durations
Parking
Area
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
2-3 hrs
3-4 hrs
4 + hrs
0-1 hours
1-2 hrs
Total
155
8
29
4
6
0
6
1
17
9
213
22
114
277
55
88
25
31
14
21
69
95
277
512
Overall, in all three of the downtown areas, approximately 55 to 60% of the vehicles parked
within the study areas during the count period had durations of 1 hour or less whereas 13 to
19% had durations in excess of 4 hours. Note that any vehicle remaining at the end of the
count period was assumed to depart within the next hour.
Municipal On-Street Parking
As expected, the majority of the vehicles utilizing the municipal on-street parking had durations
of 1 hour or less:
•
86% in downtown Alliston (637 of 741 vehicles);
•
66% in downtown Beeton (97 of 148 vehicles); and
•
73% in downtown Tottenham (155 of 213 vehicles).
In considering durations of 2 hours or less:
•
•
•
It is noted that the average duration for vehicles parked on Victoria Street in Alliston, where the
allowed parking limit is 2 hours, was less than 1 hour, suggesting that most users comply.
There were several vehicles however, with durations in excess of 4 hours (and some with
durations of 7-8 hours).
With respect to longer duration stays (4+ hours), the numbers were relatively minor in Alliston
and more significant in Beeton and Tottenham:
•
•
•
This suggests that use of the on-street spaces by area employees is not prevalent in Alliston,
but it does appear to be more common in Beeton and Tottenham (within which the number of
on-street parking spaces is less and thus the need to ensure their availability for use by
customers is greater).
The average durations for each of Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham are: 0.8, 1.8 and 1.2 hours
(46, 106 and 74 minutes).
19
Figure 11: Average Parking Durations
20
The municipal off-street parking lots are shared between short-term users (customers) and
longer-term users (employees) and thus the average durations are greater than the on-street
parking with greater longer-duration stays. In considering the latter, the following was observed
for durations of 4 hours or more:
•
•
•
(121, 117 and 213 minutes).
Private Off-Street Parking
Likewise, the private off-street parking is also utilized by customers and employees, as
determined from the study results.
Durations of 1 hour or less:
•
•
•
Durations of 2 hours or less:
•
•
•
Durations of 4 hours or more:
•
•
•
(127, 120 and 157 minutes).
2.3.4 Turnover
Turnover is an indicator of the rate of use of a parking space and the average number of
vehicles using a given space or group of spaces during a specified time period (turnover =
number of cars parked ÷ number of spaces). The turnover is similar to duration in that is
provides an indication of how the space was used. For example, a turnover of 1.0 vehicle per
space indicates the space was used by a long-term parker, probably an employee. A turnover
rate of 2.5 to 3.5 is the expected range for medium-term parking spaces with a parking duration
of one to two hours. Higher turnover rates of 5 to 8 or more are expected where the parking use
is short-term.
Effective turnover considers only those spaces that were occupied, and thus does not consider
those spaces that were not utilized (effective turnover = number of cars parked ÷ peak hour
number of spaces occupied).
Parking turnover rates are illustrated in Figure 12. As evident, there is a significant variation in
the turnover, reflective of the utilization in the various study areas.
21
Figure 12: Parking Turnover
22
2.4
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PARKING SYSTEM
In assessing the existing parking supply, two questions are addressed:
•
Based on the existing level of development within each of the three downtown areas, are the
respective parking supplies adequate?
•
Based on the existing demands for each area, are the parking supplies adequate?
The first relates to the provision of suitable parking based on the level and type of development
in the downtown areas, whereas the second compares the supply to the actual demand.
2.4.1 Existing Development
Existing development levels within each of the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham downtown areas
were based on Municipal Property Appraisal Corporation (MPAC) information, and subsequently
reviewed by the Town for consistency with Town records. The residential unit counts refer to
those units within a mixed-use setting (eg. ground floor commercial for residential on the upper
floors). Overall, the following levels were determined:
•
downtown Alliston: 34 430 m2 (360 601 ft2) gross floor area (GFA) + 156 residential units;
•
downtown Beeton: 10 173 m2 (109 497 ft2) gross floor area (GFA)+ 49 residential units; and
•
downtown Tottenham: 8 046 m2 (86 602 ft2) gross floor area (GFA) + 64 residential units.
Parking requirements within the Town of New Tecumseth are dictated by the land use,
recognizing the varying demands that different land uses have, and are stipulated in the Town’s
Zoning By-law 96-103. The corresponding parking rates are provided in Table 8, for land uses
which are considered typical of downtown development.
Table 8: Town of New Tecumseth Parking Requirements
Land Use
apartment dwelling units
commercial school
eating & drinking
establishment
entertainment
establishment
farmers market
financial institution
funeral home
hotel
laundromat
merchandise service
establishment
personal service
establishment
retail establishment
office
other permitted nonresidential uses
Parking Requirement
1 parking space per dwelling unit
5 parking spaces per classroom
1 parking space per 4 persons maximum design capacity
1 parking space per 4 persons maximum design capacity
1 parking space per 19 m2 of ground area
1 parking space per 17 m2 of gross floor area
1 parking space per guest room + the required parking spaces for
any accessory use
1 parking space per every 2 machines
23
In consideration of multiple/shared uses on one site, the By-law stipulates, “When a building,
structure or lot contains more than one type of use, the parking space requirement for all uses
on the lot shall be the sum of the requirements for each separate use unless otherwise specified
in this By-law.” No consideration is given to shared parking, that is parking used by patrons of
more than one facility, thus resulting in potentially overstated requirements.
The By-law further provides that “Notwithstanding Section 4.14.1 of this By-law, within the
“Urban Commercial Core Zone (UCC)” parking shall only be required for accessory dwelling
units.” In other words, commercial establishments, offices, businesses, etc. are not required to
provide parking should they be located within the UCC zones.
Based on the above noted development levels and in applying an average parking requirement
of 1 space per 19 m2 of gross floor area for commercial use (which corresponds to the
merchandise service, personal service, and retail establishment, and closely corresponds to the
office use) and 1 space per residential unit, the number of parking required spaces to support
the existing development levels within each downtown area was determined. While parking
may not be required of each individual development within the UCC zones, parking is still
required to support the downtown areas and encourage visitors/customers to them (eg. public
parking). The resulting numbers of spaces required are presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Parking Requirements for Existing Development
“Typical By-Law Parking Rate”
Area
1
2
downtown
Alliston
downtown
Beeton
downtown
Tottenham
Commercial
DevelopParking
ment Size Required1
1812
34 430 m2
spaces
Residential
Parking
Units
Required2
156
156
spaces
Total
Required
Total
Available
1968
spaces
1277
spaces
10 173
535
49
49
584
344
8 046
424
64
64
488
332
“typical by-law parking rate”: assumes 1 space per 19m2 GFA commercial and office
residential use: 1 space per unit
As indicated, the number of spaces currently provided in each of the downtown cores falls short
of what is required based on the existing commercial and residential development levels and
applying the typical By-law parking rate of 1 space per 19m2 of GFA to the UCC areas.
However, the parking rates employed in the Town’s By-law are considered to reflect the parking
requirements of “stand alone” development (ie. single pad outlets or units). The rates do not
consider that parking spaces may be shared between several adjacent land uses/units within
the core areas (eg. a customer parks in one space yet visits 2-3 shops). In consideration of
past experience of DSorbara Parking & Systems Consulting in similar downtown areas and
parking guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a parking rate
of 2.5 spaces per 1000 ft2 of GFA (approximately 1 space per 37 m2 of gross floor area) is
considered appropriate for a downtown area. This equates to approximately half of the parking
rates contained in the By-law for retail, office and service uses. Parking provisions for
residential uses would be in addition to this parking rate. The corresponding parking
requirements are presented in Table 10.
24
Table 10: Parking Requirements for Existing Development
”Downtown Parking” Rate
Area
1
2
downtown
Alliston
downtown
Beeton
downtown
Tottenham
Commercial
DevelopParking
ment Size Required1
927
34 430 m2
spaces
Residential
Parking
Units
Required2
Total
Required
Total
Available
156
156
1083
spaces
1277
spaces
10 173
274
49
49
323
344
8 046
217
64
64
281
332
2
“downtown parking rate”: 1 space per 37m GFA commercial and office
residential use: 1 space per unit
In considering a “downtown” parking requirement of 1 space per 37m2 of GFA, coupled with the
residential parking requirements of 1 space per residential unit, the number of existing spaces in
each of the downtown areas exceeds what would be required. Based on this parking rate, the
existing parking supplies are therefore considered satisfactory.
2.4.2 Based on Parking Demand
While the parking supply may satisfy the parking requirements as defined by the existing
development, it is imperative that they satisfy the parking demands, as dictated by employees
and patrons of the downtown areas. Municipal parking requirements are often generalized,
based on global experiences and thus may not necessarily reflect local conditions.
The results of the assessment for the downtown areas, considering the actual and practical
capacity in relation to the peak existing demands, are presented in Table 11 through Table 13.
Again, it is noted that the total figures provided are not an arithmetic total of the demands for the
different parking areas within each downtown area (municipal on-street, municipal off-street and
private off-street), but rather a reflection of the total demand for the overall area.
Table 11: Downtown Alliston Assessment of Parking Supply
Parking
Area
1
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
Existing
Inventory
Maximum
Demand
Required
Capacity1
Parking
Surplus/Deficit
256
342
107
212
119
236
+137
+106
679
1277
340
655
378
728
+301
+544
assumes maximum occupancy of 90%
In all cases, the existing parking supplies exceed the peak hour demands and thus no parking
deficiencies currently exist on a system-wide basis. While it is recognized that there are
individual parking areas (eg. small lots or blocks of on-street parking) that may operate at or
near capacity, there is excess parking available nearby and thus additional spaces within these
“high-use” areas are not warranted. Furthermore, these areas typically have limited capacities
and thus are expected to operate at capacity.
25
Table 12: Downtown Beeton Assessment of Parking Supply
Parking
Area
1
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
Existing
Inventory
Maximum
Demand
Required
Capacity1
Parking
Surplus/Deficit
128
62
42
22
47
25
+81
+37
154
344
71
122
79
136
+75
+208
Table 13: Downtown Tottenham Assessment of Parking Supply
Parking
Area
1
Municipal
on-street
off-street
Private
off-street
TOTAL
Existing
Inventory
Maximum
Demand
Required
Capacity1
Parking
Surplus/Deficit
94
30
46
13
51
15
+43
+15
208
332
98
154
109
171
+99
+161
In addition, many of the private parking areas have restricted use, are limited in size or are not
appropriately located for general use (ie. located behind specific developments). Thus, while
the overall inventory is adequate, further consideration must be given to the municipal spaces,
the purpose of which is to provide convenient and central parking within the downtown areas. A
review of the municipal on-street and off-street data from the above tables, and in considering
the occupancy rates as illustrated in Figure 8 through Figure 10, again indicates that the
existing parking supplies are considered appropriate. Again while it is recognized that the
municipal lot on the north side of Dominion Street (behind Shoppers Drug Mart) in Alliston, and
sections of on-street parking in each downtown area operate at their capacities (which for the
most part are not considerable) there are other municipal spaces available nearby.
As previously discussed in Section 2.3.3, a number of on-street parkers appear to be area
employees, as inferred from the longer durations. In the order of 10 to 22 occurrences were
observed, with the greater numbers observed in Beeton and Tottenham. To ensure the
availability of the on-street parking to visitors and area customers, all downtown employees and
residents should be parking in designated private spaces or in municipal parking areas, which
are within short walking distances to all downtown areas.
Observed Parking Rates vs “Typical By-Law” Rate (1 space per 19m2 GFA) vs
“Downtown” Rates (1 space per 37m2 GFA)
The parking rates corresponding to the peak hour parking demands were determined based on
the demands and the development levels previously presented. In Alliston and Tottenham, the
peak hour demands equate to approximately 1 space per 50-55 m2 of gross floor area (1.8
spaces per 1000 ft2) whereas in Beeton, the rate is much less at 1 space per 85 m2 of gross
2.4.3
26
floor area (1.1 spaces per 1000 ft2). These are considerably less than the parking requirements
stipulated in the Town’s By-law for most commercial uses and also less than the “downtown”
rates considered.
2.4.4 Existing Surplus Parking
To determine the existing surplus parking within each of the three downtown areas,
consideration was given to the following:
•
the peak hour demands for each overall area;
•
the provision of 1 parking space per 37 m2 (based on a “downtown” parking rate of 2.5
spaces per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area); and
•
practical capacity of 90% (beyond which parking areas are considered full).
The results of this are presented in Table 14 and illustrated in Figure 13.
Table 14: Surplus Parking – Existing Conditions
Existing Peak Hour Demand
Area
1
downtown
Alliston
downtown
Beeton
downtown
Tottenham
Based on
Parking
Surveys
655 spaces
122
154
Based on
“Downtown”
Parking Rate
927 spaces
(+272 spaces)
274
(+152)
217
(+63)
Required
Capacity1
Existing
Supply
Surplus/
Deficit
1029
1277 spaces
+248
304
344
+40
241
332
+91
required capacity x 90% = required number of spaces as per the “Downtown” parking rates
The approach outlined above is considered to be conservative in that it provides for a required
parking capacity that exceeds the peak hour demands realized from the parking surveys, and
results in a parking surplus within each downtown area.
27
Figure 13: Surplus Parking – Existing Conditions
28
3
FUTURE PARKING SYSTEM
This chapter will address the parking system in each of the downtown areas for a 20-year
planning horizon. It will outline the derivation of future demand estimates and provide an
assessment of the existing parking in meeting these demands.
3.1
FUTURE PARKING DEMANDS
Future parking demands within each of the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham downtown areas are
expected to increase in relation to the:
•
increases in population in the area; and
•
increases in development levels.
3.1.1 Increases in Population
Population statistics and projections were determined for each of Alliston, Beeton and
Tottenham from a number of sources. These include Statistics Canada, the Town of New
Tecumseth Official Plan, the Town’s Growth Management Study and in consideration of
projections associated with secondary plan areas within Tottenham and Beeton. The compiled
data is provided in Table 15.
Over the next 20 years, the populations of Alliston and Tottenham are expected to
approximately double, whereas Beeton will increase by approximately 80%. Assuming a
constant rate of growth, a 50% increase is expected in Alliston and Tottenham over the next 10
years whereas a 40% increase is expected in Beeton for the same period.
Table 15: Town of New Tecumseth Residential Growth
1
Source
Census
Official Plan
Growth Mgmt Study
Town Projections
Assumed
Projections
% increase
Year
2001
2021
2021
2021
Alliston
9679
18920
17 400
18 920
Beeton
3822
3220
5600
68001
Tottenham
4829
9360
9200
9360
2021
2001 to 2021
18 920
95%
6800
78%
9360
94%
considers additional growth due to secondary plan area
While the population increases are considerable, they are not expected to translate to equal
increases in demands for downtown parking given the level of existing and future commercial
development expected outside of the downtown areas, particularly in Alliston and Tottenham.
As such, a doubling of the population is not expected to result in a doubling of the number of
visitors to the downtown and hence a doubling of the number of parking spaces required.
3.1.2 Increases in Development Levels
Increases in development levels within the downtown areas will also result in an increase in the
parking demands given the increased number of trips. As the new development represents a
new destination, the relationship between increases in development levels and increases in the
parking demands are considered to be more direct and proportional. In other words, it would
not be unreasonable to assume that a doubling of the downtown development levels would
result in a doubling of the number of trips and hence parking spaces required. It is recognized
29
that this will be dictated to some degree by the type of development and the provision of parking
spaces.
At this time, no large-scale commercial developments within the downtown areas have been
submitted to the Town. Minor infilling and redevelopment of sites are underway and are
expected to continue in the future. Significant expansions to the downtown areas are not
expected.
While the precise levels of development expected to occur in the downtown areas are difficult to
predict, it is expected that there will be additional development and redevelopment in each of
the downtowns as the communities grow.
3.2
ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE PARKING SYSTEM
Given the uncertainties with respect to the future parking demand projections, the assessment
of the future parking supply has focused on the amount of new development that can be
supported by the existing parking system, recognizing that surplus parking is provided in each
of the downtown areas. Several scenarios have been developed, which consider varying
parking demands and levels of new development. These are further discussed below, and the
level of development that can be supported determined for each. The intent of this exercise is
to provide an indication of future development levels that can be supported by the existing
parking system and the ultimate need for additional parking, to support additional development.
3.2.1 Scenario 1
Scenario 1 investigates the level of development that can be supported by the existing parking
supply, provided that this supply is maintained (ie. no existing spaces are built-over).
With respect to demand, two options have been investigated:
•
the parking demands for the existing and future development levels remain as per the
existing parking rates observed from the parking surveys, which were determined to be in
the order of 1 space required per 50 m2 of GFA to 1 space per 85 m2 (1.1 to 1.8 spaces per
1000 ft2); and
•
the parking demands for the existing and future development levels are based on the
“downtown” parking rate of 1 space per 37 m2 (2.5 spaces per 1000 ft2) is applied.
The additional levels of development that can be supported under this scenario are summarized
in Table 16 and illustrated in Figure 14 through Figure 16.
Table 16: Future Supply vs Development – Scenario 1
Existing development level
Increase in development level
considering existing parking rates
considering “downtown” parking rates
(1 space per 37m2 GFA)
Alliston
34 430 m2
(370 601 ft2)
+25 984 m2
(279 700 ft2)
+8277 m2
(89 100 ft2)
Beeton
10 173 m2
(109 497 ft2)
+15 644 m2
(168 400 ft2)
+1328 m2
(14 300 ft2)
Tottenham
8046 m2
(86 602 ft2)
+ 7562 m2
(81 400 ft2)
+3056 m2
(32 900 ft2)
Overall, significant increases in the levels of development can be supported by the existing
parking systems in each of the three areas, regardless of which parking rates are applied.
30
Figure 14: Alliston – Parking Supply vs Demand
31
Figure 15: Beeton – Parking Supply vs Demand
32
Figure 16: Tottenham – Parking Supply vs Demand
33
3.2.2 Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is based on the premise that new development within the downtown areas will likely
occur at the expense of existing private parking areas, with the exception of minor infill and
redevelopment. In other words, those areas that currently provide private parking also
represent potential development sites, provided they are of sufficient size. As there are no
requirements for the provision of parking spaces for commercial uses within the UCC, there are
no real impediments to the development of such spaces for commercial development.
As with Scenario 1, both the existing parking rates (observed from the parking surveys) and the
“downtown” parking rates (1 space per 37 m2 GFA) have been considered. With respect to the
new development, the following is assumed:
•
30 parking spaces requires 929 m2 (10 000 ft2);
•
lot coverage of 70% with 2 storeys of development; and
•
30 parking spaces therefore equates to 1300 m2 (14 000 ft2) of development potential.
The additional levels of development that can be supported under this development are
summarized in Table 17 as are the numbers of existing parking spaces that can be eliminated.
In other words, the number of spaces noted can be developed (as per the above assumptions)
and following this development, the remaining parking supply will remain adequate. Any
development beyond those noted levels would require additional parking spaces to be provided.
- loss of parking to development
Alliston
34 430 m2
(370 601 ft2)
+12 420 m2
(133 700 ft2)
287 spaces
+4673 m2
(50 300 ft2)
Beeton
10 173 m2
(109 497 ft2)
+5732 m2
(61 700 ft2)
84 spaces
+752 m2
(8 100 ft2)
Tottenham
8046 m2
(86 602 ft2)
+3632 m2
(39 100 ft2)
132 spaces
+41728 m2
(18 600 ft2)
108 spaces
17 spaces
40 spaces
As indicated, in the order of 108 to 287 parking spaces can be developed in downtown Alliston,
resulting in over 4600 to 12 400 m2 (50 000 to 133 000 ft2) of additional development, and the
existing parking supply will remain adequate. The number of parking spaces that can be lost to
development in Beeton and Tottenham is less given the reduced overall number of parking
spaces available.
Opportunities for the redevelopment of existing private parking areas are illustrated in Figure 17.
As noted, there are a number of such sites available in Alliston, but limited opportunities in both
Beeton and Tottenham. It is understood that a development proposal is being considered,
which encompasses the public parking site in Tottenham (which is under private ownership and
leased to the Town for parking purposes). As such, the associated 30 public parking spaces
may be lost. However, it is understood that parking is being proposed on site as part of the
redevelopment and thus the opportunity for shared private/public parking may exist.
34
Figure 17: Existing Parking That Could be Lost to Development
35
3.2.3 Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2 with the exception that 100% lot coverage is assumed.
Setbacks may not be necessary, or possible, to accommodate yards or landscaping. Rather,
buildings may extend from property line to property line, abutting adjacent development as is
typical of downtown environments. This is a “worst case scenario” as the Zoning By-law
currently provides for a maximum lot coverage of 70% in the UCC zone; variances to the By-law
would be required to permit 100% lot coverage.
Under this scenario, the levels of development that can be supported by the existing parking
supply is greater than those of Scenario 2 and the number of parking spaces to be redeveloped
to accommodated is less. The corresponding figures are summarized in Table 18 and
illustrated in Figure 14 through Figure 16.
Alliston
34 430 m2
(370 601 ft2)
+14 734 m2
(158 600 ft2)
193 spaces
+5379 m2
(57 900 ft2)
Beeton
10 173 m2
(109 497 ft2)
+7070 m2
(76 100 ft2)
73 spaces
+864 m2
(9 300 ft2)
Tottenham
8046 m2
(86 602 ft2)
+4301 m2
(46 300 ft2)
56 spaces
+1988 m2
(21 400 ft2)
87 spaces
14 spaces
32 spaces
Again, considerable new development can be accommodated, the likelihood of which will be
dictated by the availability of suitable development sites (as previously illustrated in Figure 17),
or other sites in the downtowns.
36
4 PARKING REQUIREMENT OPTIONS
In light of the various development scenarios considered in Section 3 and in assuming that the
existing parking rates, as determined from the surveys, remain relatively constant, no
deficiencies are foreseen. In each downtown area, considerable amounts of new development
can be supported by the existing parking systems. However, such increases, which are in the
order of 50 to 150% depending upon the area considered, are not expected to occur given the
existing development levels, availability of vacant lands within the downtown areas and the
overall development potential of these areas. As such, the existing parking systems will be
adequate.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognized that the existing parking rates are somewhat less
than the industry norm with respect to the number of spaces required in relation to the
development levels. Parking rates of 1 space per 52 to 84 m2 GFA (1.1 to 1.8 spaces per 1000
ft2) were observed, whereas the typical rate for downtown areas is 1 space per 37m2 (2.5
spaces per 1000 ft2). In consideration of peak parking periods and seasons that may not have
otherwise been captured in the parking surveys, and in consideration of future increases in
demands resulting from increases in area population, the “downtown” parking rate (1 space
per37 m2) is believed to be more appropriate. To ensure that such spaces are provided,
maintained and protected, requirements for the provision of parking within the downtown areas
needs to be considered by the Town.
A number of options for requiring parking within the UCC have been examined. These are
further discussed below:
4.1
OPTION 1: DO NOTHING
Under this option, conditions as they currently exist would be maintained (ie. status quo).
Commercial development within the Urban Commercial Cores and hence within the downtown
areas considered in this study would not be required to provide parking spaces, with the
exception of residential uses (1 space required per residential unit). Furthermore, there would
be no mechanism in place to ensure that parking would be provided as required and that
parking that is lost to development would be replaced to maintain the current parking supply.
4.2
OPTION 2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Under this option, once the surplus parking in each of the downtown areas is consumed
(whether it be lost to new development or required to support existing and/or new development),
all new development would be required to provide parking, including residential units. The
“downtown” parking rate should be employed to ensure that an adequate parking supply is
provided and maintained. While it is recognized that the “downtown” rate is somewhat greater
than the actual rates realized through the parking surveys, it is recommended to ensure that the
peak parking demands or peak seasons that may not have otherwise been captured in the
survey are adequately accommodated.
Furthermore, the adoption of an increased parking rate will address the future increases in
parking demands that may result from an increase in population. This will ensure that should
development levels remain constant and the parking demands increase due to increases in
population, a suitable parking supply will be provided.
As an alternative to the provision of parking spaces, particularly if such spaces cannot be
accommodated within the development site, cash in lieu can be provided whereby a cash
37
contribution is made to the Town in lieu of providing parking. The intent is that the Town would
subsequently use the funds to provide suitable parking elsewhere within the downtown area.
Further discussion with respect to cash in lieu is provided in Section 5.3.2.
4.3
OPTION 3: INTRODUCE A “SLIDING SCALE” PARKING REQUIREMENT
The intent of this option is to consider the various sizes of developments within the downtown
areas, the parking requirements of each, the ability to provide such parking and the economic
impacts that may result. Parking would not be required of small developments/redevelopments,
as the associated parking needs can be accommodated by the existing parking systems with
minimal impacts. Parking would however, be required of all new medium and large-scale
commercial developments and all new residential developments. In the case of existing parking
areas being developed as commercial use, the requirement for new parking will offset the loss
of spaces to the system (and could in fact result in an increase depending upon the size of
development).
A possible “sliding scale” for the requirement of parking is provided in Table 19, as
recommended by the Alliston Downtown Improvement Association (DIA). Breakpoints of 4000
and 8000 ft2 (372 and 743 m2) were initially proposed but reduced following recommendations
from the Alliston DIA. Unlike Option 2, in which the requirements would be implemented when
the existing surplus parking is consumed, this option should be implemented now to protect
against the loss of existing parking areas to development.
Table 19: “Sliding Scale” Parking Requirements
0
2500 ft2
232 m2
6000 ft2
±
557 m2
±
Development Type & Level
Parking Required
residential development
1 space per unit
< commercial development <
±
< commercial development <
±
2500 ft2
232 m2
6000 ft2
557 m2
< commercial development
no parking required
1.7 space per 1000 ft2 GFA
1 space per 55 m2 GFA
2.5 spaces per 1000 ft2 GFA
It is noted that based on a commercial inventory prepared by the Alliston DIA, the average
commercial development in Alliston is approximately 260 m2 (2800 ft2).
As an alternative to the provision of parking spaces, particularly if such spaces cannot be
accommodated within the development site, cash in lieu can be provided whereby a cash
contribution is made to the Town in lieu of providing parking. The intent is that the Town would
subsequently use the funds to provide suitable parking elsewhere within the downtown area.
Further discussions with respect to cash in lieu are provided in Section 5.3.2.
38
5 PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Prior to considering various parking policy options, the following parking mission statements
have been assumed:
•
To ensure the continued provision of public parking both on and off-street.
•
To continue to serve the parking needs of our urban core commercial owners.
•
Fair and adequate return on any investment made in public parking.
•
To become self-sufficient in the business of public parking.
5.1
CURRENT PARKING PRACTICE IN NEW TECUMSETH
5.1.1 Parking Requirements for Commercial Uses
Commercial development in the Urban Commercial Core sections of Alliston, Beeton and
Tottenham are exempt from the provision of on-site parking. For sites outside of the Urban
Commercial Core, Section 8: Commercial Zones of the By-law governs the supply of parking.
Specifically Section 8.1.2 outlines the general parking requirements for the major land use
categories, as provided in Table 8. It is these same land uses that typically dominate the nature
of downtown development.
The parking requirements stipulated in the By-law are reflective of an urban population that is
predominantly based on private vehicles as the primary means of travel within the municipality.
These requirements, if applied to urban commercial core areas, would result in a significant
over-supply of parking and an extremely inefficient parking supply system.
The By-law addresses the issue of off-street parking in the commercial core areas. Section
7.10.2 of the Official Plan encourages the coordination of existing off-street facilities including
the use and linkage of back lots and lanes. Additionally, the general policy directs Council to
investigate the development of a municipal parking lot(s) in the commercial core by the use of
“cash-in-lieu for parking” pursuant to Section 40 of the Planning Act.
In response to the commercial demand for parking, each Commercial Core has a complement
of site-specific parking space (off-street spaces in lane-ways, or behind commercial
establishments, etc.) as well as collective public parking space facilities (off-street spaces in
surface lots, and on-street spaces along major commercial streets). Each is further discussed
below in the context of satisfying the parking requirements within the Urban Commercial Core
areas.
In Alliston and Tottenham, the provision of off-street parking is partially accomplished through
the lease of privately owned lands within the core areas. Details of such leases are provided in
Table 20. The responsibility for the general maintenance of these off-street facilities lies with
the Municipality. As well, there is currently no charge to the general public for the use of these
properties as public parking.
On-Street Public Parking Space
The on-street parking spaces are also currently free of charge. They do however have a
restricted time limit on their use (some one-hour, two-hour, etc.). Time restrictions permit
turnover of prime parking spaces, which ensures that the parking supply satisfies the demand
for parking generated by the short stay visitors. The accompanying requirement of the delivery
of free parking with time restrictions is enforcement. Enforcement revenue in 2004 was
approximately $40 000, related to parking infractions.
39
Table 20: Current Property Leases for Public Off-Street Parking
Site
Walkem &
Mill Street,
Tottenham
•
•
Wellington
Street north
side,
Alliston
•
•
Parties
Rumbar
Construction
(adjoining property
owner) and 1321334
Ontario Ltd. (owner)
the Town of New
Tecumseth
Kenneth Lightman
and Alex Salzman,
Moon’s 5 to 1.00
Store Limited,
Steven James Wray,
Lawrence John Wray
and Robert George
Wray
the Town of New
Tecumseth
•
•
Spaces Provided
36 spaces
represents the total
municipal off-parking
off –street inventory
•
•
•
•
•
2 lots - 39 & 28
spaces
these spaces were
not considered as
part of the municipal
off-street parking
system as the
agreements expired
August 1, 2005 and
have not been
renewed
•
•
•
Terms of Lease
2-year lease to date
plus option of 1 year
cost of $18,000 per
year
owner builds the lot;
including storm,
fencing, hydro/
lighting connection.
10-year agreements
expire August 2005
can be cancelled at
any time upon 3
months notice
does not limit
property owners
from expanding their
building and thus
reducing the number
of public parking
spaces
5.1.2 Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
As previously indicated, apartment dwelling units within the Urban Commercial Cores are
required to provide one parking space per dwelling unit. It is noted that no parking requirements
for other types of residential units (eg. townhouses, single family homes, etc.) are specifically
provided in the section of the By-law pertaining to the UCC zones as these are not intended
uses.
The current By-law for residential parking requirement is silent on the number of spaces
required for visitors versus tenants or owners. The Municipality does not get directly involved in
the provision of residential parking in the Urban Commercial Core. It is expected that such
parking is provided by the property developer/owner.
5.2
DIRECTIONS IN POLICY FOR THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC PARKING
Much of the study has dealt with the relationship of parking demand and supply; it is the way in
which parking is controlled through legislative mechanisms that is subject for discussion in this
section. This section approaches the issue of the delivery of public parking space in three
steps.
The first is to discuss the role of the municipality in the business of the provision of public
parking. The second is to discuss the range of options that currently guide municipalities in
implementing or carrying out their defined role in the business of public parking. And finally,
through some evaluation of the current and potential future situation in the New Tecumseth
context, what direction in policy should the Town pursue or at least begin to discuss with
stakeholders.
40
5.2.1 The Rationale for Municipal Involvement in Parking
Two major reasons for the municipality’s involvement in parking are:
1. planning; and
2. business.
In order to achieve the goals of a wider transportation and planning strategic effort and to
maintain and promote the commercial viability of the commercial cores, it will be necessary to
modify the public parking organization.
The determination of a mandate for the parking organization will emerge from the rationale for
involvement. This mandate defines the legal bounds of the municipality’s involvement in the
parking business. We will consider mission directives for the parking organization. The mission
statements provide some clarity of what this renewed parking organization seeks to accomplish.
Planning Reasons for Involvement
Over the course of the past 25 to 30 years, municipalities have used the zoning By-law as the
prime mechanism for the control and distribution of parking within commercial cores. In areas
outside of the urban commercial core, the extent of the municipality’s role is limited to building
the legal framework for the provision of public parking.
In a stand-alone commercial site, it is relatively easy to require the developer to provide a
prescribed number of parking spaces to meet the expected parking demand. All parking supply
and demand is confined to the limits of the site. However, in areas such as the downtown, a
new strategy must emerge that considers the highly inter-relatedness of the land use activities
in the downtown. The strategy is one of deploying collective parking facilities that serve parking
demands generated by a number of like-natured land uses. This form of deployment has
several advantages in the urban landscape:
•
collective parking facilities can be a more efficient use of land, since not all of the
commercial properties need to devote any part of their site to its use;
•
collective parking facilities present opportunities to the municipality as an expression of
desirable urban design environments (with lighting standards, setbacks, landscaping, etc.);
•
collective parking facilities are by definition more efficient in their use of parking space since
one space attracts users of many different shops or offices; and
•
collective parking facilities can provide a clearer and controlled pattern of traffic flow in and
out of the commercial core.
Thus the primary planning reasons for municipal involvement in the provision of public parking
are as follows:
1. Parking can be an effective tool that can help shape land use development,
2. Parking is a key component of a strategic transportation planning initiative, and
3. Through municipal involvement, the most efficient public parking supply system can be
provided.
Business Reasons for Involvement in Public Parking
Based on the Canada-wide parking experience of DSorbara Parking & Systems Consulting, onstreet parking operations can achieve a 30 to 40% return on each operating dollar. Off-street
operations, depending on the number and type of parking facilities, can return45 to 55% of each
operating dollar. With a few exceptions, public parking is good business.
Revenues collected from the public parking operations have traditionally been re-invested into
future capital parking projects. In fact, it is common to find that special parking reserve funds
41
are established to hold excess revenue for the expressed purpose of expanding parking
operations.
The operation of public parking space is streamlined and cost-efficient. Through the
appropriate use of the current revenue control technology, it is possible to continue to reduce
operating expenses while maximizing the capture of revenue at parking meters and "pay 'n
display" machines. The following trends in streamlining the operation of public parking have
been found in a number of municipalities:
•
partner the operation of public parking with a private management company that specializes
in parking;
•
contract out the parking enforcement operation; and
•
revenue control technology requires relatively modest expenditures to adjust rates in the
future, and has been shown to reduce annual maintenance costs as well.
Proportionally, the heaviest cost for the municipality involved with public parking is the
acquisition of strategic land parcels suitable for the construction of additional surface or
structured parking. Clearly it is necessary to maintain a sustainable and renewable revenue
source to finance property acquisition.
When municipalities view parking as a business, it begins to see parking operations and its
marketing as a specialized function within the municipal framework. Thus for planning and
business reasons, the provision of public parking within an urban commercial core necessarily
falls within the purview of the municipality.
Having established why the municipality should want to be involved in parking in the urban core,
the focus shifts to how to manage the response to that responsibility. The first area of
involvement is to establish the physical or market target number of public parking spaces in the
urban commercial core. The outcome of this is a technical underpinning for the future parking
strategy in the urban commercial cores.
The second prong of the policy development is to determine the method of delivery of the
parking supply. This element of the policy will discuss the common ways in which financial
support is provided in order to acquire strategic parking property, build public facilities and
maintain and operate public parking facilities.
5.2.2 Technical Underpinning of the Parking Strategy
The technical underpinning of providing parking supply in the downtown core is a computed
parking requirement. That requirement is normally based on the size of the development in
question as well as its type of use (be it office, retail or a combination of many different use
types). As discussed in the first section of this chapter, the application of the general parking
requirements of the Town’s By-law (as provided in Table 8), would yield far too many parking
spaces over and above the actual demand.
To arrive at the “right” parking requirement, several key aspects or influences on the actual
number chosen for a parking requirement need to be considered when applying that
requirement in a downtown context.
Temporal Variation of Parking Demand
The downtown parking requirement should reflect the temporal variation of parking demand
generated by different land uses. The parking characteristics of the downtown are driven by the
42
land use mix and the temporal variation in business activity. This rhythm provides the
opportunity for parking spaces throughout the downtown to be time-shared.
For example, morning parking demand is generated by a number of medical and commercial
offices, personal service and coffee shops throughout the cores. Within the mid-morning to late
afternoon, incoming traffic is related to the attraction of general and specialty retail stores,
financial institutions as well as the lunchtime restaurants. Cinemas and restaurants make up
the evening parking demands. The parking supply as such is constantly used and re-used by
many different clients throughout the day.
The temporal variation of parking demand by land use type is a crucial concept because people
who observe specific developments in an area of the downtown often over-react to their impact
on the balance between parking demand and supply. It is important to understand that different
land uses generate different patterns of demand over the course of the day. Often, these
differing individual patterns complement one another to make efficient use of the same parking
supply. Further, these characteristically different patterns of individual parking demands, come
together to form an overall pattern of parking demand over the course of a weekday or
weekend. It is the resulting peak or set of peak periods on this collective view of parking
demand that becomes the focus of comparison of parking supply to parking demand.
Multiple Destinations
There are usually multiple destinations for a trip to the downtown. The interplay of, for example,
coffee shops with offices, restaurants with retail and office and cinemas with restaurants serve
as a reminder that parking demand based on a specific set of land uses must account for
sharing of a trip to the downtown. In other parking studies conducted by DSorbara Parking &
Systems Consulting, it was found that on average, one parking space served 2.5 to 3
destinations. This is a key factor that serves to reflect the parking demand generated by a
specific land use in a more collective and interactive downtown context.
This is in direct contrast to a parking space that serves an office building or a “big box” store in a
freestanding site. There, a parking space serves only one destination with little interaction or
sharing of that space with any other destination. The parking requirement then needs to reflect
the level of interaction among different land uses in the downtown versus those sites that are
outside the downtown setting.
Market Synergy
The parking requirement should account for the fact that a number of patrons of retail,
restaurants and medical offices located within the urban core may already be in the downtown.
Based on a number of questionnaire-based studies conducted in other urban cores, in the order
of 25 to 55% of patrons in downtown shops are workers already within the core. These are
referred to as internal trips or “market synergy” or walk-in trips. Consideration for such trips
reduces the overall parking requirements.
Estimated Peak Hour Parking Requirements
Based upon the foregoing, the results from a number of customer surveys of parking demand
conducted over the years in a number of downtowns across Ontario have been compiled and
are presented in Table 21.
Table 21: Estimated Peak Hour Parking Requirements for UCC Land Uses
43
bank
•
Employee
Parking Rate
1 space per 120 m2
gross floor area (GFA)
office
•
•
medical
•
•
•
1 space per 290 m2
GFA
•
Land Use
•
retail
restaurant
•
•
Visitor
Parking Rate
1 space per 55 m2
1 space per 200 m2
GFA
•
Total
Parking Rate
1 space per 38 m2
•
•
1 space per 145 m2
GFA
•
•
Based on the above, the approach to the implementation of these requirements to the urban
commercial core can be formulated. In the sections that follow, the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each approach to the provision of public parking space are discussed.
5.3
OPTIONS FOR DELIVERY OF PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY
As collective parking facilities are normally municipally owned and operated, the issue of how
these facilities can be financed is an essential tenant of the parking strategy. Parking
operations are fixated on the notion of self-sufficiency; that is, parking operations do not draw
from general revenue and tax reserves of the municipality. To this end, municipalities have
pursued one or a combination of the following finance mechanisms:
1. Draw required capital monies from the general revenue funds of the municipality.
Essentially this is the no-change option.
2. Require a cash payment from the property owner equal to 50% of the cost of construction of
parking. This is commonly called cash-in-lieu of parking. There are many approaches to
setting of the cost of that space. Some cash-in-lieu policies include the cost of acquisition of
property and the type of parking space (surface, above grade structure or below-grade
space).
3. Draw required capital monies from the parking operation itself. This implies that there is a
parking rate charged for on-street and/or off-street municipal parking. As well, there is a
necessity for an organizational response.
4. Apply a requirement for an annual payment to a “Benefiting Assessment” fund. The
payment is dependent upon location of one’s property to a site that was chosen as a parking
facility.
Each option has its advantages and disadvantages as discussed below.
5.3.1
Policy Option 1: The No-Change Approach
Description of Option
The adoption of the status-quo means that any future commercial development in the urban
cores would continue to be exempt for the provision of on-site parking space. Off-street public
parking would continue to be delivered by the municipality through the lease of strategic land
sites and/or development of municipally owned parking lots. The responsibility for public
44
parking provision would continue to reside within a municipal department.
continue to be available at no charge to consumers.
Parking would
The rationale for maintaining the “as-is” condition stems from a condition of over-supply that
currently exists in each urban commercial core. While the supply of off-street space may in
some cases be subject to lease agreements, the reality is that it has worked in the past and
there is no reason to expect it not to work in the short-term.
As directed by Section 168 of the Municipal Act, Division 45, Council may establish a parking
reserve fund, to which parking revenues should be directed. The reserve fund would then be
allocated to the provision and maintenance of the parking system. Relevant excerpts from the
Municipal Act are provided below:
168(1) A council may by by-law establish reserve funds for any general or specific
purpose.
Expenditure from reserve fund with specific purpose
168(2) A council that establishes a reserve fund for a specific purpose may provide in its
operating budget or capital budget for an expenditure from the fund only for that
purpose unless, before making the expenditure,
(a)
council gives public notice, and holds a public hearing, in respect of the proposed
expenditure; and
(b)
in the case of a reserve fund that is supplemented with the approval of The Public
Utilities Board, the Board approves the proposed expenditure.
This parking reserve fund could potentially accumulate monies derived from parking violations
(or a portion thereof), and could also hold the accumulated annual profits derived from
contributions for payment-in-lieu parking (although none have been collected to date).
A survey of other municipalities across the country demonstrated that there is a wide variation in
the allocation of the responsibilities listed above. The organizational structure varies from an
autonomous Parking Authority to multi-departmental jurisdictions. Table 22 categorizes the
management of parking into three classes. The key point is that city sizes or size of operation
(number of parking spaces) is not a determining factor in the choice of organization model.
Many municipalities still rely on the Planning and/or Transportation Departments to develop
parking policies and review parking requirements and layouts of parking as part of a
development review process. Responsibilities for the planning, selection and acquisition of offstreet parking sites are typically allocated to a very wide spectrum of jurisdictions within a
municipality. In Kitchener and Peterborough, for example, a central Transportation Division
responds to issues related to parking planning. On the other hand, Toronto and Calgary focus
this responsibility primarily on the Parking Authorities that exist, with some assistance from the
respective Planning Departments.
Table 22: Summary of Parking Management Structures
Parking Authority
Belleville, Ont.
City Department(s)
Ottawa, Ont.
45
Joint City & Corporation
Vancouver, BC
Calgary, Alta.
Toronto, Ont.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
North York, Ont.
Saint John, N.B.
York, Ont.
Red Deer, Alta.
Saskatoon, Sask.
Welland, Ont.
Victoria, BC
North Bay, Ont.
Kitchener, Ont.
Windsor, Ont.
Peterborough, Ont.
Barrie, Ont.
Hamilton, Ont.
Kelowna, B.C
Richmond, BC
Edmonton, Alta.
Grande Prairie, Alta.
London, Ont.
Operational responsibilities are found primarily in Engineering/Traffic departments, where no
Parking Authority exists. In some municipalities, however, the collection of parking revenue and
the enforcement of parking regulations represent an anomaly in that these functions tend to be
shared among Traffic/Engineering, Legal, By-law Enforcement, and Finance departments. In
Hamilton in 1994, the Parking Authority was responsible for maintenance and revenue collection
on both off-street and on-street facilities, while the Traffic Department dealt with design,
engineering and enforcement. Today in Hamilton, all responsibilities are now centralized in the
Traffic Department. In Halifax, enforcement is the purview of the Police Department, while
revenue collection (on and off-street) is the responsibility of the Finance Department. The
maintenance of off-street facilities in Halifax is the responsibility of the Real Estate Division of
the Development and Planning Department, while the Engineering and Works Department
maintain the on-street parking facilities.
The management of the business side of municipal parking is unclear in terms of allocation of
responsibility. In jurisdictions where there are no Parking Authorities or Commissions, the
business side is largely an exercise in budget control. In these cases, it was often observed
that there are few proactive programs in place to expand or extend parking space inventory.
Since monies go into a "general" corporate fund, it means that less onus is placed on the
various departments to focus on market analysis, on customer relationships (image), and on
integration of on- and off-street parking programs.
Issues Related to this Option
Over the course of consulting assignments for a number of municipalities across Canada,
DSorbara Parking & Systems Consulting have found that managing the municipality’s response
to the delivery of parking space in the commercial urban cores through a municipal department
has several known advantages:
1. Minimal administrative work is necessary.
2. Functional connection to the other development and transportation objectives will be
assured as the responsibility for the maintenance of the parking system lies in one
department (eg. Engineering, Public Works, Technical Services)
3. Through the consolidation of parking functions into one centre/department a higher degree
of coordination results.
4. Optimum use of municipality's powers, equipment and personnel is achieved.
5. The reality is that as detailed in this parking study, there are no evidenced parking
deficiencies in any of the urban cores. The only concern that emerged from this study is
that the approach to the delivery of some of the public parking – especially off-street parking
– is provided through the lease of surface spaces on private lands. In time, the pressure to
46
re-develop each of these leased properties will grow leaving the municipality with few
options, except to begin to require collective or site specific parking in the urban cores.
Maintaining the status quo in the Town of New Tecumseth has the following potential
disadvantages:
1. If the organizational structure is perceived to be the same as at present, will parking receive
the attention needed or desired? A completely separate organization may be the better way
to show that more importance is attached to the parking function within the City.
2. A municipal department may not readily allow parking policy input from community groups
as readily as a separate agency because a Board of Directors (which likely includes
community representation) would not exist. A municipal department-based parking
organization normally responds to a Division head or Commissioner. However, the
requirement for public input can be accommodated through the creation of an advisory
group but generally speaking these groups do not provide the day-to-day input that we feel
is necessary in the operation of municipal parking system.
3. Financing for new parking facilities will be in competition with other municipal projects unless
substantial changes are made to allow this "Parking Management Office" to operate
independent of the other functions within the municipal organization.
4. To protect and promote the business interests of the parking system in the Town, a truly
independent voice would be more beneficial within the implementation of an Urban Core
Development strategy. Placing the responsibility of public parking within the current
administrative framework does not provide that kind of independence.
5. The planning of a response to future parking demand is limited under this scenario. The
municipality has little in the way of financial reserve to fund new capital public parking
projects. With no revenue stream from its public parking operations, the ability to plan and
implement a longer-term strategy is limited.
Thus, the lack of business autonomy from the municipal structure does not make the
achievement of the proposed mandate and mission of the parking system easy. A variation of
this organizational form could be considered that establishes the "parking section" with the
characteristic (and name) of an enterprise. The form is similar to that used in the City of
Kitchener. The "enterprise" characterization of the parking section enables the achievement of
many of the fiscal and planning objectives of a parking management strategy.
5.3.2
Policy Option 2: Cash-in-Lieu of Parking
Development sites situated in urban cores have to meet the challenges of tight geometry and
limited development space. Unlike building a freestanding commercial development outside of
the urban core, the smaller property size presents challenges to the design of the new
development especially with respect to on-site parking. Thus some municipalities have opted to
relieve developers of the need to provide on-site parking. Rather, instead of providing parking,
the developer makes a payment to the municipality in lieu.
It is common practice that the current parking standard for the land use in question is applied to
the new development to establish the total number of parking spaces. If the development
application is approved, a legal agreement is drafted for signature. The total fee for cash-in-lieu
of parking will then become due and the agreement is registered on title. The fee for cash-inlieu of parking is only required once and the parking rights stay with the property. The monies
collected through this type of application are specifically used to improve or provide municipal
parking facilities.
47
Current Practices Elsewhere
A general overview of cash-in-lieu policies elsewhere in Canada is provided in Table 23, located
on the following page.
Table 23: Cash-in-Lieu Parking Practices
Municipality
Cash-in-Lieu Policy
Ottawa, ON
•
•
Charlottetown, PEI
Town of
Smithers, BC
•
•
$1451 per space
includes $400 Legal
Fee
$2500 per space
$5500 per space
Comments
•
This is an option as the provision of on-site
parking is mandated by the Central Area
parking standards.
•
Starting to entertain ideas of a levy against
businesses that benefit from municipal parking
facilities.
Levy based on land value and distance from
that parking facility.
The land value is added to the equation.
construction costs per stall ($5000) + ($land
value / sq.ft. × 300 SF per stall) × number of
stalls reduction × 0.5 (equity)
Want to include land value in the equation
Commercial developments however are
exempted.
This option is apparently available only to
residential uses.
All commercial development in the downtown
core is exempted from the provision of parking
on-site.
•
Town of Milton, ON
•
varies
•
•
Town of Ajax, ON
Barrie, ON
•
Not yet developed
$2500 per space
•
•
•
•
•
Vancouver, BC
Etobicoke, ON
•
•
$14 500 per space
$2000 per space
•
•
Peachland, BC
Woodstock, ON
•
Former municipality of Etobicoke now
incorporated to the City of Toronto.
Recent effort to harmonize the various rates
and policies related to cash-in-lieu of parking.
$3000 per space
•
•
•
•
Modifications include possibility of payment for
surface stall or space within future parkade.
The formula attempts to acknowledge land
costs involved in the procurement of suitable
sites for future parking facilities.
The formula’s application and amount is
related to the number of spaces that the
development is seeking
Formula is flexible in its application to new
developments and to additions to existing
developments.
Emerging from this overview of best practices, the following set of parameters might be part of
the implementation of a cash-in-lieu program in New Tecumseth:
1. Include the land value in the computation.
A payment in lieu of parking program requires that at some point in the future, land would
have to be acquired through purchase. The inclusion of land value then requires a property
value assessment. Land within 300 to 600 metres of the proposed new development would
48
have to surveyed or researched to arrive at a typical land value. In Alliston for example, the
recent sale of a commercial property was in the order of $15 to $20 per square foot. The
typical size of a surface stall (including aisle space) is in the range of 280 to 325 square feet
and thus the cost of land per stall is in the order of $4200 to $6500 a space.
2. Vary the construction cost by the type of parking space (surface, structured space).
A payment in lieu of parking program needs to reflect the relative cost difference between
building surface space or structured some time in the future. While it may seem beyond
reach in the present, there may be a longer-term need to consolidate existing surface lots
into one or two parking structures. In any case, the program needs to be flexible enough to
accommodate this key difference. Local construction costs for a typical surface parking
space is in the order of $8 to $10 per square foot or $2240 to $3250 per surface parking
space. Typically, a deck parking space (one that does not require any mechanical
ventilation systems) can cost in the order of $35 to $40 per square foot or $10 500 to
$16 000 per parking space (based on 300 to 400 square feet per space).
3. Adjustment for a development that is an addition to an existing development.
4. Base the requirement for the number of spaces on a “blended” parking space requirement
that reflects the “sharing” of space concept in an urban core setting, not on the free standing
zoning parking requirement.
Cash-in-Lieu Example
A new development of 300 square metres is proposed in the Urban Commercial Core.
Approximately 100 square metres of this development is proposed to be general retail in nature,
while the remaining 200 square metres will be general commercial office.
Step 1. Determine the number of stalls required by development by applying the applicable
parking requirements.
office: 200 m2 requiring 1 space per 38 m2 = 5.3 spaces
retail: 100 m2 requiring 1 space per 36 m2 = 3.1 spaces
total: 8.4 spaces = 9 spaces (partial spaces are counted as whole spaces as per the
Town By-law)
Step 2. Determine the average market value of commercially zoned property within 180 – 400
metres of the proposed development. In this example, $15 per ft2 ($160 per m2) is
assumed, based on a recent sale of commercial property in Alliston. The typical size of
a surface stall (including aisle space) is approximately 280 ft2 and thus the cost of land
per stall is in the order of $4 200 a space. The requirement for 9 spaces would thus cost
$37 800.
Step 3. Apply the average construction cost of either a surface or structured parking space,
depending upon whichever is most applicable. In this example, surface construction is
assumed, which is estimated at $2240 per parking space of $20 160 for 9 spaces.
Step 4. A cash-in-lieu is viewed as a joint agreement between the developer and the
municipality, and is typically a 50-50 share. The total amount from Steps 1 through 3
above is determined ($57 960) with 50% the responsibility of the developer, as cash-inlieu ($28 980). This equates to $3220 per space.
This mechanism is not effective in a situation where parking demand currently exceeds supply
as the impact of cash-in-lieu is not immediate. Rather, cash-in-lieu of parking is a better
49
response to a longer term parking deficiency rather than to immediate and short-range goals of
providing more parking. After all, the size of the reserve is directly related to the level of new
development in the affected area.
While the theory of payment in lieu is sound, its application is limited in the downtown areas
considered. Unless there is rapid and consistent development in each urban commercial core
that generates an equally consistent cash-in-lieu stream, the application has to be viewed as
long-term.
5.3.3
Policy Option 3: Benefiting Assessment Fund
The concept of Benefiting Assessment dates back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The
driving force behind this method of developing and financing collective public parking facilities is
the notion that those commercial owners who are likely to benefit from the development of a
public parking facility should pay an annual cost for its development. Here is a short description
of how this would work.
•
Obtain buy-in from local property owners. Local public meetings with the commercial
property owners should result in 75% of all property owners within 600 feet of a chosen
parking site being committed to the scheme. Although this is negotiable, some contracts
stipulate that 75% of property owners need to represent at least 50% of the total
assessment within the 600 feet.
•
Following establishment of a suitable agreement, the area within 600 feet of the parking lot
is subdivided based in the individual developments and their distance to the parking area.
An illustration of this is provided in Figure 18. Sections of the block are designated as being
in the red, blue, and yellow zones. These zones represent those businesses that benefit
from the development of a municipal parking facility in varying degrees. Distance from the
selected parking site is the prime determinant.
•
The cost of the parking facility is allocated 75% to the businesses and 25% to the
municipality. The municipality assumes the annual cost of operation and maintenance of
the parking facility.
•
The resulting cost to the businesses is determined based on the distance from the selected
parking facility. Those closest to the parking lot pay a proportion equal to their store size.
An example of the financial stream/break-down is provided in Figure 18. Under this
example, the cost to establish the parking area is $100 000 and the cost to borrow is 5%
over a 20-year term. Property owners closest to the proposed public parking site (which are
denoted in red) would be asked to pay a proportionally higher amount than those farther
away.
50
Figure 18: Benefiting Assessment Example
51
Benefit Assessment is a framework within which local merchants can – in some ways – take
ownership of the parking supply issue. Local commercial establishments come together to form
entities that help to initiate and promote public parking as a necessary service to their business.
It is a financial mechanism that brings more immediate results. The hardest part is finding
suitable land – as is the problem with any business that relies on strategic location of property.
In addition, there is significant resistance to such an implementation in an environment where
the municipality has not only exempted developers from the provision of parking space for
commercial uses, but also where the municipality is the major provider of off-street public
parking. To now ask the local commercial owners to pay directly for parking would require
compelling arguments.
In times of significant stress on parking supply (chronic high occupancy of space, periods of
saturated parking supply use, etc.), this mechanism is a fair one to offer. While this situation
does not exist in New Tecumseth, Benefit Assessment may have a role to play some time in the
future. It is an option that can be blended with other options.
5.3.4
Policy Option 4: Self Finance the Operation of Public Parking Through a SemiPublic or Private/Public Partnership Organization
Relying on the constant renewal of leases on key properties poses a problem, namely; those
key properties are invariably key commercial or residential development sites as well, forcing
the municipality to look for other sites that can strategically respond to the parking needs of the
entire core constituents. The organizational response has been – in other municipalities – to
delegate this task to a specialized office. Some municipalities have responded – and with good
results – with the start-up of a Public Parking Authority; a Parking Commission; or a
Private/Public Partnership.
The partnership model has grown in popularity in recent years. Private management
companies can provide innovative, comprehensive and cost effective parking management
system that serves its clients with state-of-the-art parking systems, reliable operations and
knowledgeable management and service support for the implementation and operation of pay
parking and permit (residential or commercial) management programs.
The municipality would benefit in becoming a working partner in areas of the development and
deployment of smart card technology for example. Such automated parking management
systems can be smart card enabled, allowing for a single card platform to be integrated across
multiple applications, including parking, transit, retail and customer loyalty programs.
Most private companies that offer such services have come to understand that public parking is
a scarce resource that is costly to acquire, finance, construct, maintain and operate. In order for
a parking program to operate effectively, all components must be integrated and operate in a
seamless manner.
It is not uncommon that the private partner would absorb the capital costs of parking revenue
control equipment. This is a huge benefit in terms of cost savings to the municipality. The
partnership becomes one of a revenue sharing proposition. In general then, the management
consists of four key components:
•
managing revenue opportunities;
52
•
•
•
managing parking controls;
managing parking compliance through enforcement; and
managing parking policies to meet the needs of all stakeholders.
As demand for parking grows in the short term, this option will become more plausible. The
principle philosophic underpinning of this option is that parking is to be viewed as a business in
itself. Thus, parking space use needs to generate revenue. Parking charges need to be
implemented. Such charges serve business purposes but also serve to promote healthy
turnover of valuable parking space. When this time arrives, the issue of pay versus free parking
can be fully debated and discussed within the community.
The benefits from the municipality’s point of view are:
•
management of parking is secure in the hands of professionals in the field;
•
capital costs are often absorbed by the private half of the partnership (we are speaking of
equipment here not building structures);
•
revenue stream is an incentive to maintain efficient parking operations (through state-of-theart technology and consistent enforcement of parking regulations); and
•
planning for new parking facilities or renewal of existing leases is now part of the operations
side of parking management (one would expect that some measure of security would be
derived from a full-time manager of such).
53
6
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
A number of opportunities for stakeholder input were provided throughout the course of the
study, the purpose of which was to solicit input on the study findings presented at each point of
contact and to ensure that public comments/concerns with respect to the parking system were
fully understood such that they could be duly considered.
Formal opportunities for input included:
•
meeting with the Alliston Downtown Improvement Association (DIA);
•
meeting with the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce & the Tottenham Parking Committee;
•
meeting with the Town of New Tecumseth Accessibility Committee;
•
Public Information Meeting 1; and
•
Public Information Meeting 2.
In addition to the above, the Town met on several occasions with various parties on a more
informal basis to further discuss concerns/questions.
Further details with respect to the formal meetings are presented below, and corresponding
materials attached in the noted appendices. It is noted that the meetings were held at various
points throughout the study and following the meetings, works completed to that date were
reviewed and updated as required. As such, the technical findings of the study, as presented in
this report, may differ slightly from the findings presented at the meetings in light of the
stakeholder input.
6.1
ALLISTON DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
On November 11, 2004, the study team and Town staff met with one representative of the
Alliston DIA (while all members were invited, they were unable to attend for various reasons).
The purpose of the meeting was to present the purpose of the parking study, review the findings
from the parking surveys and the assessment of the existing parking conditions within the
Alliston study area, and seek input with respect to future parking needs and issues. Copies of
the meeting agenda, minutes and materials presented are provided in Appendix 6.
Key points of discussion are noted below:
1. Alliston DIA indicated that the requirement of parking for residential uses is seen as an
impediment to residential development in the core, particularly 2nd and 3rd floor residential
units above existing commercial uses. These uses are considered complimentary and the
residential units would help support/strengthen the downtown.
2. It was noted that there might not be enough physical space within the development site to
accommodate a shared commercial/residential use and parking.
3. The Town confirmed that should amendments to the zoning By-law be implemented, they
would relate only to new development. Existing land uses that don’t comply with the new
requirements would be exempt (ie. they would become legal non-conforming).
4. With respect to future development, the Alliston DIA identified several vacant sites upon
which development could be expected. However, for the most part, only minor infilling is
expected and/or redevelopment of existing uses. It was also noted that the trend is
becoming more office/service related as opposed to retail uses given the retail development
in the west end.
54
5. The Focus/Government building on Wellington Street was discussed. Existing parking on
the site was lost to the new building and no new parking on-site was provided. Rather,
parking is provided at the adjacent municipal lot.
6.2
TOTTENHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & TOTTENHAM PARKING COMMITTEE
On November 11, 2004, the study team and Town staff met with 6 Tottenham business
owners/associates who represented the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce and/or the
Tottenham Parking Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to present the purpose of the
parking study, review the findings from the parking surveys and the assessment of the existing
parking conditions within the Tottenham study area, and seek input with respect to future
parking needs and issues. Copies of the meeting agenda and minutes, and materials
presented at the meeting are provided in Appendix 7.
Key points of discussion during the meeting are noted below:
1. A major concern of the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce and Parking Committee relates to
the existing municipal off-street lot. This lot is currently leased and thus could be lost if and
when the area redevelops. The Parking Committee reviewed 3 potential locations for a new
public off-street parking lot, which included:
•
area between the food bank and library (south-west corner of George and Queen)
•
parking areas off McGoey Street (it was noted that McGoey Street is 1-way)
•
area on south-west corner of Mill Street and Queen Street extending to Richmond Street
(this would see the amalgamation of several existing parking areas, including that behind
the post office)
2. It was noted that the new parking areas were previously reviewed with Town staff and an
estimate of $300 000 to construct a new facility at Mill Street/Queen Street (the preferred
location) was provided by the Town, including all engineering studies and design work.
3. The study team confirmed that the 3 options would be considered in the study and a
preferred option identified, should the existing municipal lot be lost. Based on the
preliminary information provided at the meeting, Option 3 would most likely be preferred
given its location, accessibility and number of spaces provided.
4. Some members of the Chamber of Commerce expressed a concern that there is a high
turnover of businesses within the downtown area due to a lack of parking immediately
adjacent to the businesses. However, others suggested that there is not a widespread
parking problem and parking is readily available.
5. Several comments were made with respect to the parking inventory composition and the
amount of public parking that is provided in Alliston in comparison to that provided in
Tottenham. Alliston has a significant amount of public off-street parking as compared to
Tottenham (374 vs 30 spaces).
6. The Town clarified that should any amendments to the By-law be recommended as part of
the study, they would apply to new development only. Legally existing uses which don’t
comply with the new amendment would be considered “legal non-conforming” uses and
exempt from new requirements.
55
7. The Chamber of Commerce suggested that to ensure consistency and fairness, any new
policies must be applied to each of Alliston, Tottenham and Beeton in the same manner.
The Chamber indicated that they would be opposed to a cash-in lieu policy.
8. In relation to the longer durations along the main streets, a 2-hour parking limit was
suggested by the business owners. This would also require sufficient enforcement.
9. As a general comment, it was determined that the UCC area does not accurately reflect the
downtown area in that the majority of the periphery uses are residential. As such, this has
skewed the results of the survey and assessment. The area of the downtown was
discussed and the study team indicated that they would revisit the results in light of the
existing development.
6.3
TOWN OF NEW TECUMSETH ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE
On November 11, 2004, the study team and Town staff met with 2 representatives of the
Accessibility Committee. It was noted that the scope of the parking study does not include a
review of issues related to barrier-free access to parking. However, it was agreed that this is an
important issue and thus comments related to such would be included in the study
documentation for consideration and presentation to Council. The meeting agenda and minutes
are provided in Appendix 8.
Concerns raised by the accessibility committee include:
1. There is a lack of sufficient space at or around handicap parking stalls to accommodate
vehicles with wheelchair lifts (require 8’ clearance on the side of the vehicle)
2. There are a limited number of handicap spaces within Alliston:
•
no spaces at the park
•
no spaces at the library
•
should be a space in front of Scott’s Shoes
•
parking at Zehrs & Zellers is good
•
need 2 spaces at Riverdale Park (Accessibility Park) – 1 near the museum and 1 near
the walkway
•
the space at the Focus building is not appropriate – needs to be relocated to the end of
the parking lane (to ensure ready access & egress)
•
optimum location is at the corner of Victoria and Paris
3. In Tottenham, issues noted include:
•
space should be provided in front of medical centre
•
space should be provided at the post office
•
accessibility is generally limited/restricted by building accessibility
4. Issues regarding signage:
•
signs indicating handicap spaces need to be larger such that they are not obscured or
hidden by trees and boulevard vegetation
•
pavement markings are not visible in the winter
5. General issues to be considered in developing handicap parking:
•
number of spaces
•
location of spaces throughout the Town
56
•
•
location of spaces within the parking lot or area (spaces should be clear from adjacent
obstacles, located at the end of the rows/lanes, sidewalks need to be clear and flat to
ensure good ramp access)
configuration and size of parking stalls (appropriate clearance/access should be
provided)
6. Enforcement of handicap spaces is important.
7. Need to keep in mind that some wheelchair users have assistance, whereas others do not.
As such, access to/from the vehicle and the sidewalk must be easy (sidewalks to be clear &
clean, smooth, with ramped access to the road).
6.4
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1
Public Information Meeting 1 was held on November 11, 2004 from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM at the
Town of New Tecumseth Council Chambers. The purpose of the public meeting was to review
the intent of the parking study and to present the assessment of the existing parking systems.
A short formal presentation was made. In addition, people were welcome to drop in to review
the project materials and ask questions. Representatives from the study team and the Town
were in attendance to answer any questions and provide assistance as necessary.
Various display boards were prepared for viewing by the public, copies of which were available
to take home. Display boards addressed the following:
•
study purpose;
•
tasks to be addressed during the study;
•
parking inventories for each of the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham Urban Commercial Core
zones and the composition of parking (public vs private, on-street vs off-street);
•
the parking surveys undertaken and results, pertaining to each UCC zone;
•
key findings relating to the existing parking systems and usage;
•
the remaining steps to completion; and
•
who to contact for additional information.
A total of 10 people attended Public Information Meeting 1. It is noted that the material
presented was similar to that which was discussed earlier in the day during the meetings with
the Alliston DIA, the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce and the Tottenham Parking Committee
and thus most attendees at the earlier meetings did not attend Public Information Meeting 1.
Those in attendance were asked to complete and submit comment sheets such that public
concerns could be considered in completion of the study. Key comments/questions are
summarized below, as are responses from the study team:
•
Additional parking surveys should have been completed throughout the week and on a
Friday and Saturday. The time of the month will also make a difference.
Response: The surveys were completed on a typical weekday and thus are considered
representative of average conditions. Surveys were not completed on a Saturday in that the
parking requirements of offices and service establishments within the downtown areas, that
may not operate on Saturdays, would not be captured. While it is recognized that there may
be periods of greater parking demands, this has been considered in the recommendations
with respect to the provision of future parking and the protection of such.
57
•
Concerned with the provision of parking at the arena in Alliston and should this change (ie.
parking not be permitted), what impacts will this have on the Alliston downtown area.
Response: Parking at the Alliston arena was not considered in the study in that it is located
outside of the study area. Notwithstanding however, given the availability of excess parking
within the Alliston downtown area, as determined from the parking surveys, adequate
parking opportunities are otherwise provided.
•
Would appear that there is adequate parking in Tottenham, but the 1-hour limit needs to be
enforced consistently and at a level consistent with that in Alliston. Under the current
system, violators must be reported by phone and it takes several hours for the enforcement
officer to arrive.
Response: The study recommendations include the need to increase enforcement of onstreet parking in the downtown areas to ensure that such spaces are available for area
patrons as opposed to longer-term users.
•
Consideration for the entire UCC area in Tottenham does not reflect the true downtown.
People do not park in the peripheral areas to go to the downtown particularly as these areas
are residential. The Town requires one good permanent off-street lot within the area of the
4-corners.
Response: The study areas for both Beeton and Tottenham were revisited and reduced to
better represent the existing limits of the downtown development. The results and
recommendations presented in this study reflect these revised areas.
•
A number of respondents addressed the parking and traffic problems on Richmond Street in
Tottenham, as they relate to the traffic generated by the dance classes. The general
consensus of the comments was that Richmond Street is a residential area (dead end
street) and not suitable for such a use given the parking, traffic and safety problems
associated with picking-up, dropping-off and waiting for dance class participants.
Response: This situation was reviewed with Town staff and it was determined that the
facility in which the dance studio is operating is adequately zoned to allow such activities.
As such, the Town is not in a position to require the relocation of such. In light of the
parking, traffic and safety issues, a number of options were discussed with residents and the
Town, which included restricting on-street parking along Richmond Street or providing
additional parking spaces along the street to accommodate the demands. Given the scope
of this parking study and its purpose to define the long-term requirements of the downtown
core areas and associated parking policies, such localized parking issues are better to be
addressed separately, outside of the study. It is understood that Town staff are considering
these options further and are working with the residents to achieve an amicable solution.
Copies of all materials and correspondence related to Public Information Meeting 1, including
the meeting notice, presentation material, sign-in sheet and comment sheets received, are
provided in Appendix 9.
6.5
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 2
Public Information Meeting 2 held on March 16, 2005 from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM at the Town of
New Tecumseth Council Chambers. The purpose of the public meeting was to continue with
the presentation of the study results, following Public Information Meeting 1. The same format
58
was employed, whereby people were welcome to drop in to review the project materials and ask
questions, and a short formal presentation of the findings to date was provided.
Representatives from the study team and the Town were in attendance to answer any questions
and provide assistance as necessary.
Display boards, which focused on the future parking conditions, addressed the following:
•
study purpose;
•
tasks to be addressed during the study and tasks completed to date;
•
updated key findings relating to the existing parking systems for each downtown areas given
the revisions made to the study areas of Beeton and Tottenham;
•
discussions with respect to future parking demands and increases in development levels;
•
consideration of a number of future scenarios to address levels of new development that
can be supported by the existing parking systems;
•
study recommendations with respect to parking requirements, improvements and parking
policies;
•
the remaining steps to completion; and
•
who to contact for additional information.
A total of 15 people attended Public Information Meeting 2 with 6 comment sheets provided.
Key comments/questions are summarized below, as are responses from the study team:
•
The enforcement of parking durations for the on-street parking needs to be improved and
the 1-hour limits enforced on a more consistent basis. The main streets in Tottenham are
only enforced if the By-law officer is called by area businesses, which often requires in
excess of 4 hours. Is it possible to have regular patrols?
Response: The study recommendations include the need to increase enforcement of onstreet parking in the downtown areas to ensure that such spaces are available for area
patrons as opposed to longer-term users.
•
The study addressed only the daytime parking demands and did not consider 24 hour
demands. Daytime parking is only part of the problem. There is not sufficient parking for
area residents and thus they use spaces otherwise intended for commercial users. The
Town needs to acknowledge the problem and provide safe parking, particularly in light of the
impending loss of the only public parking lot in Tottenham. Otherwise, people will not shop
local if they cannot park in front of the intended shop.
Response: The need for a designated public off-street lot has been recognized in this
study. Based on input provided by the Tottenham Parking Committee, a number of such
possible sites were reviewed. The study recommends that the Town investigate alternative
locations within the downtown core to provide suitable public parking to replace that which
will be lost. The opportunity to maintain public parking at or near the existing parking lot site
will also be considered during the course of the review of the development application. The
study recommendations also include the requirement for new development to provide
parking, the extent of which will be dependent upon the size of development.
•
There is a need for a new, proper public parking lot in Tottenham given the impending
development of the existing public lot.
Response: See previous comments/responses.
59
•
Improved signage is required in Beeton to point out the public parking area, as no such
signs are visible/exist.
Response: The study recommends that improved way-finding signs be considered in each
downtown area to properly direct users to the off-street parking facilities.
•
Parking must be provided for Beeton downtown residents given that they are integral parts
of the downtowns, particularly to accommodate overnight users and parking during the
winter months. Parking should be permitted on-street overnight to accommodate such
users, with restrictions to one side or the other and clear signage indicating such. The area
behind the Muddy Waters restaurant and the OPP station would be an ideal public parking
facility.
Response: Based on the parking survey results, there appears to be excess parking
capacity at the Beeton arena, which serves as the area public parking lot, and within the
overall study area. As such additional public parking areas are not considered necessary at
this time. While it is recognized that this parking area is not immediately adjacent to the
residential uses, it is within a reasonable walking distance for those who are not provided
with parking otherwise. In accordance with the Town By-law, each residential unit is to
provide 1 parking space. Furthermore, this study recommends that new development be
required to provide parking on a site basis, the degree to which will be dependent upon the
development size. Therefore, further increases to the overall parking supply will be
provided.
•
With respect to the “sliding scale” for parking requirements, the Alliston DIA agreed that
parking requirements are necessary and recommended slightly reduced development size
thresholds as compared to those presented at Public Information Meeting 2. As per the DIA
recommendations, for developments < 2500 ft2, no parking would be required; for
development between 2500 and 6000 ft2, 1.7 spaces per 1000 ft2 of GFA should be
provided; and for developments > 6000 ft2, 2.5 spaces per 100 ft2 should be provided.
Response: The thresholds presented at Public Information Meeting 2 were preliminary
figures based on an average development size. The recommendations of the Alliston DIA
have been considered and deemed appropriate and thus have been incorporated into the
study recommendations.
60
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the parking survey information collected and the subsequent analyses as presented
in the preceding chapters, it is concluded that the existing parking systems are considered
appropriate to satisfy the long-term parking requirements of the Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham
downtown areas. While there may be specific areas within which parking spaces are fully
utilized and/or limited, alternative vacant spaces are typically provided within a short distance
and thus are considered as feasible alternatives. It is not the intent of the Town to construct
large parking facilities within the hearts of the downtown areas, but rather ensure that there is
sufficient parking within the overall areas to accommodate the overall demands. In all cases,
the existing parking supply can accommodate significant additional development growth.
7.1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION/CONSIDERATION
1. Implement Parking Requirements
Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that the Town implement parking requirements
for all land uses within the downtown areas to ensure that the existing parking supply is
maintained and that existing parking spaces are not lost in their entirety to new development
(eg. existing parking areas replaced with new development). This represents a significant
deviation from the existing conditions in which only residential uses are required to provide
parking.
However, in recognition of the surplus parking that is currently provided and the parking
demands associated with small scale development, it is considered prudent to implement
parking requirements that don’t discourage small-scale, in-fill development projects. A “sliding
scale” should therefore be considered whereby the parking requirements increase with
development size. A suggested “sliding scale” is as follows:
•
New developments that are less than 232 m2 (2500 ft2) gross floor area should continue to
be exempt from the provision of parking and from the need to replace any displaced public
parking.
•
New developments that are between 232 and 557 m2 (2500 and 6000 ft2) should be required
to provide on-site parking at a rate of 1 space per 55 m2 GFA (1.7 spaces per 1000 ft2 GFA),
which is consistent with the existing parking demands in Tottenham and Alliston.
•
New developments that exceed 557 m2 (6000 ft2) should be required to provide on-site
parking at a rate of 1 space per 37 m2 (2.5 spaces per 1000 ft2), which is consistent with
those rates typical of a downtown environment.
•
Parking requirements of 1 space per residential unit should be maintained.
2. Establish a Policy to Set the Purpose for Downtown Parking
The purposes of and priority for parking in the downtown core areas are to support and enhance
the vitality of the commercial cores. Parking in these areas should be provided to assure
convenient, economical and user-friendly access to customers, clients and visitors to the
downtowns. To this end, priority should be given to the provision of short-term, visitor parking
(both on and off-street) throughout.
61
3. Implement Cash-in-Lieu
Where it is not possible to provide on-site parking in accordance with the recommended parking
requirements, a cash-in-lieu option should be provided. The determination of the required
payment per parking space should take into account the type of construction required (likely
surface space vs elevated or underground), the corresponding construction costs and also land
acquisition costs recognizing that additional lands may be required at some point in the future to
allow the Town to construct additional spaces.
4. Limit On-Street Parking Durations
To further increase the efficiency of use of on-street parking within the downtown areas, parking
durations should be limited to 2 hours maximum (at least along the main sections of road).
While 1 hour has also been suggested by some area businesses, it is questioned whether this
is long enough should patrons visit more than one store or stop for lunch, etc. In conjunction
with the time limits, proper and consistent enforcement is required. The intent of both measures
is to appropriately reserve these spaces for downtown patrons and discourage their use by
employees and residents.
To accommodate over-night parking and longer evening events, and in light of typical business
hours within the downtowns, the time limits need only be implemented during the hours of 08:00
AM to 6:00 PM. Durations and time periods should be discussed further with the Alliston DIA,
the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce and the Beeton business community to ensure they
adequately address the needs of a typical patron.
Appropriate signage should also be erected to indicate the time limits and the periods in which
they are to apply.
5. Provide Improved Way-Finding Signage
Road signs indicating the location of the existing municipal parking lots need to be provided at
key intersections within the downtown. While such signs are apparent in Alliston, they are not
readily apparent in Beeton and Tottenham. All signs should be pole mounted or mounted on
overhead signal mast arms to ensure their visibility. Typically, parking signs are white with
green lettering and indicate a “P” with directional arrow(s) as required. The exact type of sign
should be considered with the downtown groups to ensure acceptable aesthetics and
concurrence with the design guidelines of each, while ensuring its intended function.
In addition to these, the Town should install signs at all municipal lots directing patrons to the
next available lot (if applicable). Furthermore, key maps should also be posted to indicate the
location of the lot in relation to the downtown area and the provision of other available parking
facilities (both on-street and off-street if applicable). For ease of reference, lots should be
appropriately named and reflected in the signage
6. Create a Parking Reserve Fund
It is recommended that the Town place all future cash-in-lieu payments in a parking reserve
fund to help finance the continued development and operations of the Town’s parking system.
In addition, the Town should also consider directing monies related to parking enforcement (or a
portion thereof) into the reserve fund.
7. Establish Permanent Public Off-Street Parking in Tottenham
In response to the potential redevelopment of the only public off-street lot in Tottenham
(currently under lease to the Town), it is recommended that the Town investigate alternative
locations within the downtown core to provide suitable public parking.
62
7.2
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONG-TERM IMPLEMENTATION/CONSIDERATION
1. Consider Establishing a Parking Authority
Parking can be viewed as a utility needed to support downtown land uses that generate parking
demands. The Town has accepted responsibility for building and operating essential parking
facilities. Decisions relating to the type, inventory, location and rates of future parking will be
required. When the level of development warrants, the Town may want to consider the
establishment of a parking authority (or similar structure) to address parking issues, in addition
to providing formal management and monitoring of all aspects of the parking system.
Representation on the Authority needs to be considered as part of its establishment.
63
APPENDIX 1:
STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 2:
DETAILED PARKING INVENTORY
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 3:
PARKING SURVEY SHEET
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 4:
PARKING COUNT SUMMARY BY TOTAL AREA
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 5:
PARKING COUNT SUMMARY BY ZONES
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 6:
STAKEHOLDER INPUT – ALLISTON DIA
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 7:
STAKEHOLDER INPUT – TOTTENHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE &
PARKING COMMITTEE
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 8:
STAKEHOLDER INPUT – ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 9:
STAKEHOLDER INPUT – PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1
Cansult Limited
June 2005
APPENDIX 10:
STAKEHOLDER INPUT – PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 2
Cansult Limited
June 2005

(UCC) Parking Study - Town of New Tecumseth

Transcription

Similar documents

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

BRP Flyer - III_13-ENG.indd

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

Flämingstrasse

AA Map - Mother`s Day 5K

Schottenstein Center