Report to/Rapport au :
Transportation Committee /
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : R.G. Hewitt,
Acting
Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint intérimaire,
Public
Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Michael J.
Flainek, P.Eng., Director/Directeur
Traffic and Parking Operations/Circulation de
stationnement
(613) 580-2424 x 26882, Michael.Flainek@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
SECTEUR DU gLEBE –
PROJET-PILOTE DE STATIONNEMENT sur rue GRATUIT le samedi |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Transportation Committee recommend Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité
des transports recommande que le Conseil reçoive le présent rapport à titre
d’information.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the 16 February 2005 Transportation Committee motion
requesting a six-month trial project to allow free parking on Saturdays at all
on-street parking meters within the Glebe area, the Department of Public Works
and Services has prepared an information report detailing the history and use
of parking meters as well as pertinent on-street parking meter information in
the Glebe.
The role of a
municipality in providing parking is to support the goals of wider
transportation and planning strategies to maintain and support commercial
centres. The primary mandate of a
municipality in the delivery of parking space is to support the short stay
visitor. The steady vehicle turnover of
space during the peak hours of the day is a major factor to the successful
operation of public parking space in supporting the economic viability of commercial
areas.
Parking Managers
maintain the balance between customers with shorter stays and employees with
longer stays through the implementation of on-street user pay parking
facilities. On-street facilities
represent prime parking space for shorter stay customers. It is imperative that turnover should not be
inhibited by those who overstay the time limit. Parking enforcement plays an important role in encouraging
turnover of on-street parking spaces to ensure good availability of parking. As well, parking enforcement keeps
commercial loading zones free of illegally parked vehicles, so that delivery of
goods and services to businesses is not restricted. Metered parking operations provide municipalities with a
compliance approach to parking management and enforcement, allowing consumers (motorists)
a choice in paying a low parking fee relative to the much higher cost of a
parking ticket.
Should Transportation Committee and Council approve the six month trial project, under the Delegation of Authority By-law, Schedule VIII will be amended to permit free parking on Saturdays at on-street parking meters in the Glebe. In addition, during the six-month trial period staff will monitor the effects of the free parking in the Glebe and the reduction of the parking fines in the two municipal parking lots within the Glebe from $50 to $25.
Should Transportation Committee and Council recommend to staff to proceed with a six-month free parking trial on Saturdays in the Glebe, total cost/lost revenue to undertake a Pilot Project is in the range of $93,700 to $148,500.
The following information is provided:
Should Transportation Committee and Council recommend staff to proceed
with a six-month free parking trial on Saturdays in the Glebe, then the
following details the impacts on the 2005 Operating and Capital Budgets.
The Traffic and Parking Operations, Department of Public Works and
Services estimates that the Saturday average on-street parking meter revenue in
the Glebe area is approximately $2,800 to $3,000. Therefore, the loss of Saturday parking meter revenue for the
six-month trial period is estimated at $72,000 and $78,000.
The By-law Services Branch,
Department of Community and Protective Services, estimates that fines no longer
being issued at expired parking meters would equate to between $625 and $2,500
per Saturday. As a result the fine
revenue impact in 2005 is estimated to be in the range of $16,200 to $65,000
during this six-month trial period.
It is also estimated that if the
parking fines were lowered from $50 to $25 in the two municipal lots within the
Glebe, that a fine revenue impact in 2005 is estimated to be $5,500 during the
six- month trial period.
The estimated cost to carry out a Parking Review Study in the Glebe area
for license plate surveys, consumer and business surveys, and to prepare a
concluding report, the Department would have to retain a consultant for the
estimated cost of $40,000.
This project was partially identified in the 2005 Capital Budget
submission as a below the line project under Parking Studies in Project
903491. In order for this work to
proceed, Council would have to defer the Central Area Parking Study, identified
in the 2005 Capital Budget to below the line and then move the Glebe Study
above the line.
Therefore, implementing the Glebe Area – Saturday Free On-Street Parking
Pilot Project would have a potential total impact on the 2005 Operating Budget
ranging from $93,700 to $148,500 of revenue loss. It would also have an impact, as noted above, on the Parking
Studies Capital Budget Work Plan by substituting the Glebe Area Parking Area
Study in place of the Central Area Parking Study.
RÉSUMÉ
Le Comité des transports a demandé
le 16 février 2005 un projet de mise à l’essai de six mois éliminant les
frais des parcomètres le samedi à tous les stationnements des rues du Glebe.
Services et Travaux publics a préparé en réponse un rapport d’information
détaillant les antécédents et l’utilisation des parcomètres, ainsi que de
l’information pertinente sur les parcomètres des rues du Glebe.
La municipalité aménage
des stationnements pour soutenir les buts des plus grandes stratégies
d’aménagement et de transport à l’avantage des centres commerciaux. Le premier
mandat d’une municipalité qui aménage des stationnements est de rendre service
à ceux qui visitent brièvement les lieux. Le changement constant de véhicules à
ces endroits pendant les heures de pointe en journée est un élément majeur de
l’exploitation positive des stationnements publics, afin de soutenir la
viabilité économique des secteurs commerciaux.
Les gestionnaires de
stationnement maintiennent l’équilibre entre les clients qui visitent
brièvement les lieux et les employés plus longtemps sur place par
l’intermédiaire de l’aménagement de stationnements payants dans la rue. Les
aménagements dans la rue sont le principal stationnement pour les clients qui
visitent brièvement les lieux. Il est impératif que ceux qui dépassent la
période limite n’empêchent pas le mouvement des véhicules. L’application du
règlement municipal sur le stationnement est important si nous voulons
maintenir les déplacements réguliers aux stationnements dans la rue pour en
avoir un bon nombre disponibles. L’application du règlement municipal sur le
stationnement empêche aussi les véhicules immobilisés illégalement d’obstruer
les zones de chargement commercial et de restreindre la prestation des biens et
services. L’exploitation des parcomètres donne aux municipalités une approche
de la conformité aux fins de la gestion des stationnements et à l’application
du règlement municipal sur le stationnement. Les consommateurs (automobilistes)
ont donc le choix de payer des frais de stationnement minimes au lieu des
contraventions de stationnement qui coûtent beaucoup plus.
Si le Comité des transports et au Conseil approuve le projet de mise à l’essai de six
mois, l’Annexe VIII sera modifiée, conformément au règlement municipal sur
la délégation de pouvoir, pour permettre le stationnement sans frais le samedi
devant les parcomètres des rues du Glebe. Au cours de la période de mise à
l’essai de six mois, le personnel surveillera aussi les répercussions du
stationnement gratuit, considérera l’enlèvement éventuel des parcomètres dans
le Glebe et la diminution des contraventions de stationnement) dans les deux
stationnements municipaux du Glebe de 50,00 $ à 25,00 $.
Si le Comité des transports et le Conseil
recommandent au personnel de procéder à une mise à l’essai des stationnements
sans frais pendant six mois le samedi dans le Glebe, le coût total/la perte de
revenu de l’application du projet pilote se chiffre entre 93 700 $ et 148
500 $.
Information
supplémentaire :
Si le Comité des transports et le Conseil
recommandent au personnel de procéder à une mise à l’essai des stationnements
sans frais pendant six mois le samedi dans le Glebe, les paragraphes suivants
expliquent en détail les répercussions sur les budgets de fonctionnement et
d’immobilisations de 2005.
Circulation et stationnement,
Services et Travaux publics, estime que le revenu moyen des parcomètres des
rues du Glebe le samedi est de 2 800 $ à 3 000 $ environ. La perte de
revenu des parcomètres le samedi pendant la période de mise à l’essai de six
mois est donc estimée à 72 000 $ et à 78 000 $.
La Direction
des services d’application des règlements municipaux, Services communautaires
et de protection, estime que les amendes qui ne seront plus perçues pour
permission échue sont de l’ordre de 625 $ à 2 500 $ le samedi. Les
répercussions des revenus tirés des amendes en 2005 sont donc de l’ordre de
16 250 $ à 65 000 $ pendant cette période de mise à l’essai de
six mois.
Il est aussi
estimé que la diminution des amendes de stationnement de 50 $ à 25 $
en 2005 dans les deux stationnements municipaux du Glebe aura des répercussions
de 5 500 $, pendant la période de mise à l’essai de six mois.
Le coût estimé de l’étude des
stationnements dans le secteur du Glebe pour les enquêtes sur les plaques
d’immatriculation, les enquêtes auprès des consommateurs et des entreprises, et
pour préparer un rapport concluant, les Services devant retenir un consultant à
cette fin, est de l’ordre de 40 000 $.
Ce projet était déterminé en partie
au‑dessous du seuil de priorité dans la présentation du budget
d’immobilisations 2005 à la rubrique études du stationnement,
projet 903491. Si nous voulons donner suite à ce travail, le Conseil
devrait reporter l’étude du stationnement dans le secteur centre déterminée au‑dessous
du seuil de priorité au budget d’immobilisations 2005 et attribuer ensuite la
cote au‑dessus du seuil de priorité à l’étude d’immobilisations 2005 et
attribuer ensuite la cote au‑dessus du seuil de priorité à l’étude sur le
Glebe.
Par conséquent, la mise en place du
projet-pilote de stationnement sans frais dans la rue le samedi, secteur Glebe,
pourrait entraîner sur le budget de fonctionnement de 2005 une perte de revenu
totale de l’ordre de 93 700 $ à 148 000 $. Elle aurait également des
incidences, comme il est indiqué ci-dessus, sur le plan de travail du budget d’immobilisations
concernant les études des stationnements en substituant l’étude du
stationnement dans le secteur Glebe à l’étude du stationnement dans le secteur
centre.
WHEREAS the following inquiry was deposited at Transportation Committee on 16 February 2005 by Councillor Doucet:
I’ve received a petition from the Glebe business Group with 1,772
signatures in support of the removal of parking meters on Bank and the
first-block side streets in the Glebe, the harmonization of a two-hour parking
limit for Bank and the first-block side streets in the Glebe, and the reduction
of parking tickets in the neighbourhood’s two municipal lots from $50 to $25.
While staff studies and reports back on these petition requests,
could they please implement an interim measure of free parking at meters in the
Glebe on Saturdays, as is already the case on Sundays?
AND WHEREAS in subsequent discussions with staff I have been
informed that Committee and Council direction would be required to implement
free metered parking in the Glebe on Saturdays;
AND WHEREAS the original purpose of the City installing meters on
this part of Bank Street was to improve the viability of small businesses in
the area;
AND WHEREAS small businesses in the area are united in calling for
free metered parking on Saturdays, as it is on Sundays, and are willing to live
with the results of this change while the City assesses the impact;
AND WHEREAS time is of the essence in implementing the free metered
parking on Saturdays pilot while the larger issue of parking meter removal is
studied by staff, given the ongoing impact of expired meter parking fines on
small business viability in the area;
BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct City staff to implement free metered parking in the Glebe for a six month pilot period, and then report back to Transportation Committee on the impacts to small businesses in the area.
At the City Council Meeting of 13 April 2005, the following Motion was approved:
“That Councillor Doucet’s Motion, including a staff report, be
referred to a Transportation Committee (meeting to be widely advertised in the
areas), and Council”.
Over the years, on-street parking problems experienced in commercial
areas have been commonly related to the degree of turnover. When no parking controls exist, long-term
parking frequently occurs, to the detriment of adjacent businesses. Interestingly, for various reasons, some of
those that occupy the most convenient spaces are employers/employees of
adjacent businesses.
To mitigate the long-term parking problem and to ensure the turnover
of parking spaces, the majority of major cities, in co-operation with business
owner associations throughout North America, began to introduce parking meters
in the 1940's and 1950's. Parking
meters then became, and continue to be, the most effective way of controlling
parking in commercial areas.
Parking meters ensure an adequate turnover in parking by providing a
limit of time which a vehicle may be parked in a parking space, dependent on
the amount of time purchased by the motorist.
On expiration of the allotted time, the meter provides a visual aid for
simple parking enforcement, which is unlike a standard time limit regulation,
whereby the Parking Control Officer must assure that the vehicle has been
parked beyond the permitted time, usually by means of a chalk mark on one of
the parked vehicle's tires and then return after sufficient time.
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
The following strategic objectives are taken from the Transportation
Master Plan:
• To provide short-term parking that supports the vital interests of local businesses,
institutions and tourism destinations;
• To limit the supply of long-term parking to levels that balance the needs of automobile users with the
City’s transit ridership objectives, while minimizing spill-over parking in
residential areas;
• To
minimize the amount of land devoted to parking uses through shared
parking arrangements and the use of parking structures; and,
▪
Ensure that sufficient short-term
parking is available for
business, service and tourism
destinations,
particularly those in the Central Area, by:
a) Providing on-street parking that does
not compromise the achievement of targeted service levels for all modes;
b) Placing a priority on short-term
parking space provisions in City-controlled parking facilities, in addition
to short-term spaces provided in private facilities;
c) Providing short-term parking to be
owned or operated by the City within mixed use developments, wherever possible,
and;
d) Encouraging the Province of Ontario to
enact legislation enabling the City to regulate the amount, location, rates,
hours of operation, signage, and other operating features of parking in new
development.
It is clear then that the provision of short-term parking is a
priority in the municipality's involvement with public parking.
DISCUSSION
The Delivery of Parking Space to Support Commercial Business
One of the fundamental technical and philosophic underpinnings of
the management and operation of public parking space has been the key role that
turnover, duration of stay and occupancy play.
Turnover value relates the volume of cars to a parking space. The intensity of use of parking facilities
over the course of the day is expressed in terms of the turnover of space. Turnover is the diagnostic tool that
synthesizes the individual and cumulative effects of demand (volume of
parkers), available space (capacity), and the nature of that demand (duration
of stay).
Turnover is impacted by the type of parking space. Studies over the years have shown that
on-street parking spaces tend to have turnover values that are two to three times
higher than the surveyed off-street stall.
This is not only a reflection of availability and/or convenience of the
on-street parking space compared to the off-street space, but also the
distinction in the type of market that each parking facility type tends to
attract.
The average duration of stay is roughly two times longer at
off-street stalls than on the on-street parking facilities. It follows then that enabling higher
turnover of space is important to the support of commercial businesses that
rely on the service of customers.
Further, customers of shops, personal services and visitors to office
uses on a commercial area are primarily short duration of stay in nature.
There is a strong relationship between duration of stay and
turnover. In short, that
relationship is: The longer the
duration of stay, the lower the turnover.
This relationship serves to point out areas in a commercial area
where there are anomalies – areas that perhaps have prime parking space taken
out of the inventory by parkers who are over-staying. When a customer stays over the permitted time limits, this results
in a reduction of the number of customers visiting a commercial area.
A high turnover ratio (say 6.5) may indicate that:
• Parking
demand is very high; and,
• The
duration of stay is relatively short.
A relatively lower turnover ratio (say 2.5) in an area where you
are expecting high parking demand, may be indicative that:
• Spaces are
not available when they are required; and/or,
• The
duration of stay is longer than expected (in lay terms, they may be people
parked over the time limit, thus not permitting the space to turnover).
Longer parking duration of over three hours is classified as
“commuter” or employer/employee parking demand. Typically, visits to personal services and customers of retail
take two hours or less. Each type of
customer exhibits a different pattern of where they park. The shorter stay customer seeks a parking
space that is closest to their destination.
Longer stay parkers tend to seek space that is further away from their
destination.
Employees, on the other hand, who choose to park in the most
convenient spaces for the better part of the day have no justification for
doing so. Studies have shown that 15
to 30% of on-street parking can be taken out of the inventory by employees
parking on-street. The only
justification for parking in front of your own business premises is that the
employee requires the use of the vehicle throughout the day as part of the
business. The impact of this loss is
felt in many ways, one of which is to force customers to look elsewhere for
parking. This in turn can impact the
economic viability of the commercial area.
The impact of overstaying from the parking operation viewpoint is
that prime parking space (on-street) is in essence taken out of the inventory
for a better part of the day and is essentially not available to shorter stay
visitors.
Overstaying could have the following effects on the businesses:
▪
Customers are turned away from the commercial area;
▪ Customers develop the perception that the commercial area is deficient in convenient parking space and may decide not to return to it;
▪
Customers who need to visit a business in the area begin to
re-circulate the commercial area through neighbouring non-commercial streets to
try and find a parking space; and,
▪
Merchants in the commercial area equate the lack of parking to the
drop in business sales.
People do not visit the downtown or commercial areas of the City
with the expressed trip purpose of parking their vehicle. People visit such areas for purposes such
as: shopping, meeting a medical appointment, to dine, to entertain and be
entertained, and to work.
The decision to visit one commercial area over another is based on
a number of non-parking reasons.
Surveys conducted in two cities in Ontario came to two interesting
conclusions. First, parking
availability or affordability never came up, and second it is the type
of store – the range of goods and services – that seems to be more of a
draw than parking. The response of
loyalty is a prime example of the special relationship that customers have with
a particular commercial area that is again not related to parking.
Studies by David Stoph, Dr. John Morel of the University of
Calgary, and by DSorbara Parking
& Systems Consulting, have shown that 45 to 55 percent of the
traffic seen in a commercial zone is due to people who are searching around for
parking space.
This type of traffic impacts:
▪ Local residential neighbourhood infiltration (congestion, safety hazards, opportunity to park illegally on side streets;
▪
The environment (circulating, idling emissions); and,
▪
Adds to the existing traffic congestion on the primary commercial
street system (friction with parked vehicles, queues forming to get into a
parking space that becomes available.
Recently, Stuttgart, Germany embarked on a test to see what
impact 30 minutes of free parking would have on parking use in designated areas
of the downtown. Several interesting
details emerged from the experiment:
▪
The designated 30 minute free parking attracted fifty-one to
seventy-five percent of the total customers who had duration of stay less than
30 minutes. Parking planners there
noted that customers appeared to go out of their way to find such parking
space.
▪
Twenty-seven to forty-four percent of those who parked in
the designated 30 minute free parking space did not pay for subsequent
time. Additionally, those who did pay
for additional time between four to seven percent still went over the time
limit.
▪
The revenue lost from this experiment ranged from thirty to fifty
percent.
▪ And finally, the Parking Planner makes the point that the success of the pilot project starts to fade after about two months. Thereafter, customers appear to not go out of their way to find the designated 30-minute free parking space. It seems that location is the most important criteria in the choice of parking space, not the cost.
Importance of Parking Enforcement
Historically, prior to the invention of the parking meter in the
early 1930s, time limits were established by many cities to create vehicle
turnover. However, time limits alone
did not create turnover as motorists would ignore the time limits. As a result,
parking enforcement was added to obtain compliance of motorists for exceeding the
posted time limits through the issuance of fines by officers on foot patrol.
Combined with a growing national economy, expansion of retail
business and the corresponding increased use of the automobile in the 1940s and
1950s, both on-street parking demand and supply dramatically increased in many
commercial areas of North American cities.
Time limit zones became costly to enforce, as more patrol officers were
required to enforce time limit based areas.
Cities then began to widely deploy parking meters as a tool to
create vehicle turnover, meet parking demand and keep enforcement costs at
reasonable levels.
Streets in commercial areas of cities serve many competing
interests. They are primarily designed
for moving traffic, however, the general public, delivery trucks, taxis and
buses all vie for space making the urban street one of the most sought-after
resources a city controls. Parking
enforcement plays a vital role to ensure that the street is used in the best
interests of the community. In addition
to encouraging compliance of the municipality’s parking regulations, parking
enforcement:
▪
Promotes traffic and pedestrian safety;
▪
Maximizes the capacity of the existing parking supply through
increased vehicle turnover;
▪
Protects access needed for public convenience and commerce (i.e.
clears freight loading zones of all day commuters to allow adequate delivery
space for commercial businesses and provides for a more efficient delivery of
goods and services); and,
▪
Enhances the quality of life in residential neighbourhoods by
keeping residential areas free of downtown commuters and visitor parking.
The following describes the existing
conditions for on-street meter parking in the Glebe:
§
All
on-street parking meters along Bank Street and side streets are two-hour
meters; and,
§
There
are 216 two-hour meters in the Glebe (from Isabella Street on the north to
Holmwood Avenue to the south).
The parking meters are in operation from:
§
east
side of Bank Street: 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM (Monday to Friday)
(this
accommodates AM peak hour restrictions)
§
west
side of Bank Street: 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM (Monday to Friday)
(this accommodates PM peak hour
restrictions)
§
side
streets: where there are no peak hour restrictions, the meter times are 8:00 AM
to 5:30 PM (Monday to Saturday)
§
on
Saturday: 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM
2005 License Plate Survey
To provide up-to-date information, License Plate Surveys were carried out at all parking meters in the Glebe area on the weekends of 16 and 17 April, and 23 and 24 April, to determine parking meter usage. The limits of these surveys were Holmwood Avenue to the south and Pretoria Avenue to the north.
The results of the two weekend surveys revealed the following:
|
TABLE ONE |
||||
|
PARKING METER SPACE USAGE 09:00 TO 17:30 - HOLMWOOD AVENUE TO PRETORIA
AVENUE |
||||
|
|
Sat 16 April |
Sun 17 April |
Sat 23 April |
Sun 24 April |
|
Avg. Occupancy of Metered
Space |
62.6% |
74.4% |
62.6% |
70.4% |
|
Avg. Available Metered
Spaces |
76 |
52 |
76 |
60 |
|
Total Vehicle Hours Parked |
1,089 |
1,273.5 |
1,137 |
1,210 |
|
Total Number of Vehicles
Parked |
1,266 (40% More vehicles than
Sunday 17 April) |
890 |
1,402 (30% more vehicles than
Sunday 24 April) |
1,083 |
|
Avg. Parking Duration
(Hours) |
0.86 hrs/veh |
1.43 hrs/veh |
0.81 hrs/veh |
1.12 hrs/veh |
|
Avg.Turnover per Metered
Space |
6.2 vehs/day |
4.4 vehs/day |
6.9 vehs/day |
5.3 vehs/day |
Table One draws a direct comparison of when the meters are in effect on Saturdays, to when there is free parking on Sundays. The following information can be interpreted from Table One with respect to the behaviour of motorists on Sunday:
▪ They utilize the metered parking spaces more (Average Occupancy);
▪ There are fewer vacant metered parking spaces available (Average Available Metered Spaces);
▪ Vehicles are parked longer (Total Vehicle Hours Parked);
▪ There is less turnover at the meters (Total Number of Vehicles Parked);
▪ Time spent at the metered parking space increases (Average Parking Duration); and,
▪ Turnover per parking space is lower (Average Turnover per Metered Space);
▪ The License Plate Survey also concluded that there were 30% to 40% more vehicles that park on a Saturday than on a Sunday;
▪ Considering that the daily available spaces are generally located north of Glebe Avenue and south of Strathcona Avenue, the functional parking capacity (90%) at parking meters in the heart of the Glebe is reached each Saturday and Sunday between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Those spaces remain in use until late in the afternoon; and,
▪ If more parking spaces were made available, or the time limits were reduced/controlled in the Glebe, between Glebe Avenue and Holmwood Avenue, more vehicle trips would be attracted to the Glebe.
Although the above provides a recent picture of the parking meter space usage over a two- weekend period, there were extensive parking studies conducted in 1995 and in 1999, which provide in-depth findings of parking characteristics in the Glebe that are still relevant today and are worth presenting again.
This Study identified current parking characteristics, the nature and extent of deficiencies, and the recommendation of measures to address those deficiencies. Parking shortfalls in the commercial area associated with special events at Lansdowne Park were also reviewed.
An in-depth questionnaire was distributed to all businesses within the Study area. The survey provided information on the parking requirements most frequently used by employees and customers, and general comments on parking concerns for the Study area.
Business owners and managers were also asked to comment on both the level of enforcement and the existing parking restrictions in the Glebe. Of the 25 responses returned, 13 were from business owners and 12 were from business managers/supervisors. The findings of the business survey are below:
Business Survey:
|
Level of Enforcement in the Glebe |
||
|
Excessive |
Adequate |
Insufficient |
|
68% |
24% |
4% |
|
Level of Parking Restrictions in the
Glebe |
||
|
Excessive |
Adequate |
Insufficient |
|
60% |
28% |
8% |
A three-page consumer survey was completed for each consumer interview which identified the respondent's trip purpose; typical parking habits; type and location of parking used during their particular trip; and comments and general impressions of the parking restrictions.
A total of 176 people were surveyed on Saturday 15 October 1995 to provide an indication of travel and parking for the Glebe area.
1. What was your mode of travel to the Glebe?
|
Walked |
Private Vehicle |
Public Transit |
Other |
|
42% |
37% |
14% |
7% |
2. What is your purpose of visiting the Glebe?
|
Shopping |
Work |
|
66% |
17% |
3. How long will your length of stay be in the Glebe?
|
One Hour or Less |
1 to 3 Hours |
3 Hours or More |
|
36% |
35% |
29% |
4. Where did you park in the Glebe?
|
On-street - Meter |
On-street – No Meter |
|
42% |
24% |
5. 11% of respondents reported difficulty in finding a parking space within a distance they considered a reasonable distance to their destination.
6. Of the 37% of respondents that arrived in the Glebe by private vehicle, they were asked how they view both the level of parking restrictions and enforcement?
Customer Survey:
|
Level of Enforcement in the Glebe |
||
|
Excessive |
Adequate |
Insufficient |
|
25% |
57% |
18% |
For Comparison - business Owner Responses |
||
|
68% |
28% |
4% |
|
Level of Parking Restrictions in the
Glebe |
||
|
Too Excessive |
Adequate |
Insufficient |
|
27% |
50% |
12% |
For Comparison - Business Owner Responses |
||
|
60% |
28% |
8% |
The Glebe Parking Surveys (1999)
There were 87 respondents to the Business Survey. The results are summarized below:
1. Have you received a parking ticket?
|
Yes |
No |
|
70% |
30% |
2. Is the level of enforcement adequate?
|
Not Enough |
Never a Problem |
Fairly Consistent |
Too Aggressive |
Firm but Fair |
|
4% |
2% |
4% |
84% |
6% |
3. Availability of parking in the Glebe.
|
Awful |
Not Enough |
Sometimes
a Problem |
About Right |
Plentiful, Never a Problem |
|
15% |
48% |
17% |
19% |
1% |
4. Do you require longer term parking?
|
Yes |
No |
|
69% |
31% |
Consumer surveys were conducted on Friday 27 November (150 respondents) and Saturday 28 November (139 respondents). The report does not differentiate between the responses received on a Friday as opposed to a Saturday, therefore, the responses for both days are grouped together and summarized below:
1. How long did it take you to find a parking space?
|
1 Minute |
1 to 5 Minutes |
5 to 8 Minutes |
|
42% |
20% |
38% |
2. How many stores did you visit in the Glebe?
|
No Stores Visited |
1 Store Visited |
2 Stores Visited |
3 Stores Visited |
4 Stores Visited |
5 Stores Visited |
6 or More Stores Visited |
|
2% |
11% |
18% |
20% |
14% |
10% |
25% |
3. Have you ever received a parking ticket?
|
Yes |
No |
|
39% |
61% |
|
For Comparison - Business Owners |
|
|
70% |
30% |
4. How do you see the level of enforcement in the Glebe?
|
Not Enough |
Never a Problem |
Fairly Consistent |
Too Aggressive |
Firm but Fair |
|
3% |
34% |
7% |
39% |
17% |
|
For Comparison - Business Owners |
||||
|
4% |
2% |
4% |
88% |
6% |
5. How do you see the availability of parking?
|
Awful |
Not Enough |
Sometimes a Problem |
About Right |
Plentiful – Not a Problem |
|
7% |
27% |
34% |
27% |
5% |
|
For Comparison - Business Owners |
||||
|
15% |
48% |
17% |
19% |
1% |
6. Why do you shop in the Glebe instead of at a suburban shopping mall?
|
Love the Glebe / Loyalty |
Merchant / Service Not Available in Mall |
Better Stores |
Closer to Home / Work |
Shop at Both |
Shop at Mall Only |
|
28% |
3% |
32% |
30% |
2% |
3% |
7. What was the amount of money spent in the Glebe on the day they were surveyed?
|
$10 to $100 |
Average Amount Spent per Respondent |
|
70% |
$50 |
8. What would you consider the adequacy of the time limits?
|
Adequate |
|
72% |
The Summary of Findings for the Glebe Parking Survey (1999) include:
▪ Public has affinity for the area;
▪ Many are repeat customers;
▪ 75 to 90 minutes average time spent in the Glebe;
▪ 70 percent of consumer respondents spent between $10 and $100
▪ Average of $50 per trip spent in the Glebe;
▪ 75 to 90 minutes parking duration - some spaces not turning over;
▪ Important to stay within time limits (more customers for the area);
▪ Potential of $800 to $1,000 per hour lost (customers can't find space);
▪ Recommend changing the 2-hour time limit to one hour south of First Avenue to encourage higher turnover; and,
▪ City and Business community work together on providing long term parking for merchants/employees.
This report began with a discussion as to the role of the
municipality in the delivery of parking space that supports the mandate to
service the short stay visitor. We
presented the technical underpinning of the relationship of the turnover of
space, duration of stay and the occupancy of space. We demonstrated the importance of maintaining a steady turnover
of prime parking spaces during the peak hours of the day. We explained that if time restrictions were
not complied with, that is, if people overstayed on the street without penalty,
that:
▪
Customers would be either forced to re-circulate the area to find
space thus impacting local neighbourhoods (studies showed that 45 to 55 percent
of traffic is related to this recirculating);
▪
Park illegally on side streets; and,
▪
Fuel the perception that parking is scarce and thus would in the
future impact customer’s decision to not visit the commercial area again be
turned away from the area altogether thus becoming a real economic loss
(studies measured a loss of up to $1,000 on a peak weekday).
Parking Managers maintain the balance between customers with
shorter stays and employees with longer stays through the implementation of
user pay parking on the street facilities.
As the on-street facilities represent the prime space for shorter stay
customers, duration of stay impacts how far people are willing to park from
their prime destination. It is
imperative that turnover should not be inhibited by those who overstay the time
limit. We also detailed the role of
enforcement plays in keeping this balance as well. It is clear that enforcement of the time restriction serves to
encourage the turnover of space, which in turn enables other customers to find
prime space at critical times of the day.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The following information is provided:
Should Transportation Committee and Council recommend staff proceed with the six-month free parking trial on Saturdays in the Glebe, then the following details the impacts on the 2005 Operating and Capital Budgets.
The Traffic and Parking Operations Branch of the Department of Public Works and Services estimates that the Saturday average on-street parking meter revenue in the Glebe area is approximately $2,800 to $3,000. Therefore, the loss of Saturday parking meter revenue for the six-month trial period is estimated at $72,000 and $78,000.
The By-law Services Branch, Department of Community and Protective Services, estimates that fines no longer being issued at expired parking meters would equate to between $625 and $2,500 per Saturday. As a result the fine revenue impact in 2005 is estimated to be in the range of $16,200 to $65,000 during this six-month trial period.
It is also estimated that if the parking fines were lowered from $50 to $25 in the two municipal lots within the Glebe, that a fine revenue impact in 2005 is estimated to be $5,500 during the six- month trial period.
The estimated cost to carry out a Parking Review Study in the Glebe area for license plate surveys, consumer and business surveys, and to prepare a concluding report, the Department would have to retain a consultant for the estimated cost of $40,000.
This project was partially identified in the 2005 Capital Budget submission as a below the line project under Parking Studies in Project 903491. In order for this work to proceed, Council would have to defer the Central Area Parking Study, identified in the 2005 Capital Budget to below the line and then move the Glebe Study above the line.
Therefore, implementing the Glebe Area – Saturday Free On-Street Parking Pilot Project would have a potential total impact on the 2005 Operating Budget ranging from $93,700 to $148,500 of revenue loss. It would also have an impact, as noted above, on the Parking Studies Capital Budget Work Plan by substituting the Glebe Area Parking Area Study in place of the Central Area Parking Study.
DISPOSITION
The 2005 Capital Budget did not include the staff workload or Budget to undertake this Glebe Area Pilot Project. Should Transportation Committee approve the implementation of a six-month trial period of Saturday free parking in the Glebe, with a follow-up review and report back to Transportation Committee, Council must then approve the removal of the Central Area Parking Study from above the line in the 2005 Capital Budget submission and replace it with the Glebe Area – Saturday Free On-Street Pilot Parking Review, which presently resides below the line.
By-law Services Branch, Department of Community and Protective Services, is currently in discussions with Legal Services to amend the Traffic and Parking By-law to reduce the fines on the two municipal parking lots in the Glebe from $50 to $25.
The Department has consulted with Legal Services with respect to the possibility of amending Schedule VIII of the Traffic and Parking By-law to temporarily suspend paid on-street parking on Saturdays in the Glebe area. Legal Services has advised that the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (and the Director of the Traffic and Parking Operations Branch) has the delegated authority to implement changes to the metered parking zone regulations found in the schedules of the Traffic and Parking By-law by way of proceeding directly to Council and presenting such amendments to the By-Law on the Orders of the Day.
With respect to the enforcement side of this Pilot Project, the impact will be of a financial nature depending on the degree of enforcement that Transportation Committee recommends for overtime violations. The two hour time limit indicated on signage will still be in place, but there will be no charge on Saturdays at the meters. Parking Enforcement Officers will still patrol the area for offences such as: no parking; no stopping; bus zones; fire hydrants; etc.