Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

7/31/2019 Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

1/83

City of Cambridge

CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

FINAL REPORT

MARCH 2009


2/83


3/83

I B I G R O U P F I N A L R E P O R T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

March 2009 Page i.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................i

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Study Overview and Objectives........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Outline of Report ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Overview of Study Area and Scope..................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Study Process ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .................................................................4

2.1 Stakeholder Advisory Group................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Technical Agencies Group................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Public Information Centres .................................................................................................................. 5

2.4 On-line Survey....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Intercept Survey.................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 Council Meetings................................................................................................................................... 6

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................6

3.1 Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Parking Management and Operations................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Parking Supply and Utilization............................................................................................................. 7

3.4 Parking System Revenues and Expenses .......................................................................................... 8

4. FUTURE NEEDS......................................................................................................................9

4.1 Projected Population and Employment............................................................................................... 9

4.2 Future Development Potential.............................................................................................................. 9

4 .2 .1 Ga l t C ity Centre . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 9

4 .2 .2 Pres ton Towne Centre . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 11

4 .2 .3 Hespe ler V i l l age . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 12

5. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES....................................................................................14


4/83


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

March 2009 Page ii.

5.1 System-wide Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................................ 14

5 .1 .1 User -Friendl iness of Park ing System . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 145 .1 .2 Ut i l i zat ion and D is t r ibut ion of O f f -S t reet Publ ic Park ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 15

5 .1 .3 Iso la ted Shor tages of On-S t ree t Park ing . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 16

5 .1 .4 Capac ity for In tens if ica t ion . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 17

5 .1 .5 F inanc ial Susta inabi l ity . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 18

5.2 Core Area Specific Issues .................................................................................................................. 19

6. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES...............................................20

6.1 Guiding Principles............................................................................................................................... 20

6.2 Evaluation Approach .......................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions................................................................................................... 23

6 .4 .1 Al te rnat ives to Improve User-Fr iendliness of Park ing System . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 23

6 .4 .2 Al te rnat ives to Improve Ut i l i za t ion and D is t r ibut ion of O f f -S t ree t

Publ ic Park ing . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 24

6 .4 .3 Al te rnat ives to Reduce Iso la ted Shor tages of On-S t ree t Park ing . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 25

6 .4 .4 Al te rnat ives to Increase Capaci ty for In tens if ica t ion . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 26

6 .4 .5 Al te rnat ives to Improve F inanc ia l Susta inabi l i ty . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 27

7. RECOMMENDED PARKING MASTER PLAN......................................................................29

7.1 Parking Management and Operations............................................................................................... 29

7 .1 .1 Implement Comprehens ive Wayf ind ing and S ignage program. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 29

7 .1 .2 Deve lop Marke t ing and In format ion Mater ia ls on the Park ing

System . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 30

7 .1 .3 Implement On-S t ree t Parking Pr ic ing to Opt imize Use . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 31

7 .1 .4 E l iminate 2 hour Free Park ing in Of f -S t ree t Lots . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 33

7 .1 .5 Promote Free Per ipheral Park ing Lots . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 33

7 .1 .6 Increase Month ly Park ing Ava i lab i l i ty and Permi t Rates . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 35

7 .1 .7 Proposed Rate S t ruc ture . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 37

7.2 Parking Supply.................................................................................................................................... 41

7 .2 .1 P lan for Future Park ing S t ruc ture . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 41

7 .2 .2 Expand Access ib le Park ing . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 43


5/83



March 2009 Page iii.

7.3 Supporting Strategies......................................................................................................................... 43

7 .3 .1 Amend Zoning By- law . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 437 .3 .2 Transporta t ion Demand Management . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 45

7 .3 .3 Promote Act ive Transpor ta t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 46

7 .3 .4 Park ing Des ign S tandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 47

7.4 Funding and Financial Strategy......................................................................................................... 48

7 .4 .1 Funding Opt ions .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 48

7 .4 .2 F inanc ia l Ana lys is . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 51

7.5 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 55

7.6 Monitoring and Measurement ............................................................................................................ 56


6/83



March 2009 Page iv.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1: Core Areas Study Area ....................................................................................................2Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas of Change Galt City Centre ..............................................................10Exhibit 4.2: Potential Areas of Change Preston Towne Centre.....................................................12Exhibit 4.3: Potential Areas of Change Hespeler Village...............................................................13Exhibit 5.1: Issues and Opportunities Related to the User Friendliness of the Parking System ......15Exhibit 5.2: Issues and Opportunities Related to Off-Street Parking Utilization ...............................16Exhibit 5.3: Issues and Opportunities Related to Isolated Shortages of On-Street Parking.............17Exhibit 5.4: Issues and Opportunities Related to Capacity for Intensification ..................................18Exhibit 5.5: Issues and Opportunities Related to Financial Sustainability ........................................18Exhibit 6.1: Detailed Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................22Exhibit 6.2: Evaluation of Options for Improving User Friendliness of Parking System ...................24Exhibit 6.3: Evaluation of Options for Improving Distribution of Off-street Parking ..........................24Exhibit 6.4: Evaluation of Options for Reducing Shortages of On-Street Parking............................26Exhibit 6.5: Evaluation of Options Accommodating Intensification...................................................27Exhibit 6.6: Evaluation of Options to Address Financial Sustainability.............................................28Exhibit 7.1: Examples of Wayfinding Signage ..................................................................................30Exhibit 7.2: Walking Distances in Galt Core Area vs. Cambridge Mall.............................................35Exhibit 7.3: True Cost of Parking Supply ($/space) ..........................................................................36Exhibit 7.4: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Galt City Centre.....................................................38Exhibit 7.5: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Preston Towne Centre ..........................................39Exhibit 7.6: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Hespeler Village....................................................40Exhibit 7.7: Potential Locations for a New Parking Structure Galt City Centre..............................41Exhibit 7.8: Financial Analysis for a New Parking Structure.............................................................42Exhibit 7.9: Dimensions and Function of Disabled Parking Spaces (in millimetres).........................43Exhibit 7.10: Potential Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements for Cambridge Core

Areas ............................................................................................................................45Exhibit 7.11: Examples of Parking Structure Designs ......................................................................47Exhibit 7.12: Comparative Analysis of Paid Parking (comparison of 2009 values) ..........................49Exhibit 7.13: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Do Nothing .........................52Exhibit 7.14: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Moderate approach............53Exhibit 7.15: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Recommended

approach.......................................................................................................................54Exhibit 7.16: Preliminary Implementation Plan .................................................................................55

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Public Consultation Summary Report

Appendix B: Background Report

Appendix C: Off-Street and On-Street Parking Surveys: Methodology and Results

Appendix D: Detailed Evaluation Tables


7/83

City of Cambridge


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MARCH 2009


8/83


9/83

I B I G R O U P E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

TABLE OF CONTENTS

March 2009 Page i.

STUDY OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................ES-1

STUDY PROCESS .......................................................................................................................ES-1

KEY FINDINGS OF STUDY .........................................................................................................ES-2

GUIDING PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................ES-2

STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................ES-3

1 . I m p le m en t C o m pr e he n si v e W a yf i n di n g a n d S i gn a g e p r o gr a m .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . E S - 3

2 . D ev el op M ar ke ti ng a nd I nf o rm a ti on M at e ri a ls o n t h e P ar ki ng

System . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ES-4

3 . I m p le m en t O n - St r e et Pa r ki n g P r ic i n g t o O p t im i ze Us e . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . E S - 4

4 . E l im i n at e 2 h o u r F r ee P a rk i ng i n O f f -S t r ee t L o t s . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . E S -4

5 . P r om o t e F r ee P e ri p h er a l P a rk i ng L o t s . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. E S -4

6 . I n cr e as e M o n th l y P a rk i ng Av a il a b il i t y a n d P e rm i t R a t es . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . E S - 5

7 . P r op o s ed R a t e St r u ct u re . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . E S -5

8 . P l an f or F ut u r e P a rk i ng S tr u ct u re . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . E S - 9

9 . E x pa n d A c ce s si b le Pa r ki n g . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. E S -9

1 0 . A m en d Z o n in g B y -l a w . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . E S - 91 1 . T r an s p or t at i o n D e ma n d M a na g em e nt . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. E S - 10

12 . Promote Act ive Transpor ta t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .ES-10

13 . Implement Park ing Des ign S tandards . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .ES-10

FUNDING AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY..................................................................................ES-11

Financ ial Ana lys is . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .ES-11

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.........................................................................................................ES-11

MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT.......................................................................................ES-13


10/83


City of CambridgeCORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

March 2009

STUDY OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES

The City of Cambridge is at a critical point in its ongoing development. Provincial legislationrequires a significant proportion of new population and employment to be accommodated through

intensification of the Citys Core Areas. Additionally, the Galt Core has been designated as anurban growth node under the Places to Grow Act. This, in conjunction with a number of largedevelopments either in the planning stages or with the potential to redevelop, will place pressure onCambridges parking resources over the next 20 years.

In March 2008, the City of Cambridge initiated the Core Areas Parking Master Plan for the threeCore Areas of Galt, Hespeler and Preston. A key objective of this Master plan is to assess existingand future parking needs and develop a forward-looking and sustainable parking plan for the next15 - 20 years. The Master Plan will assess existing parking needs and policies, develop futureforecasts of parking demand, and identify alternative methods of providing and managing parking.

The proposed direction for the Core Areas Parking Strategy is based on the principle that abalanced approach must be adopted for all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift inNorth American parking management, away from the notion that a parking problem is automaticallyassociated with inadequate supply. Rather, a parking problem can mean a multitude of issuesincluding inadequate supply, inefficient management of facilities and inadequate information.

The primary objective of this study is to quantify existing parking needs and issues and to proposestrategies to deal with existing and future parking requirements. It is intended that therecommendations of the study be strategic in nature and provide a blueprint for all future planningdecisions related to parking. The recommendations of the study also address factors that influenceparking demand, including the role of transit, carpooling and active transportation. Policies thataffect the creation and management of parking supply, including the specification of by-lawsgoverning parking requirements, are also reviewed.

STUDY PROCESS

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan represents the efforts of a large number of people. In order tofacilitate and guide the development of the Plan, the City established a Project Team comprised ofrepresentatives from City Council and staff from the Transportation and Public Works and PlanningServices Departments. A Stakeholders Group was also convened to steer the study, whichincluded Core Area Business Improvement Area representatives, other City Departments, and theOn-Road Cycling Advisory Group. The Stakeholders Group met three times during the study andhad an opportunity to comment on the proposed study recommendations. A Technical AgenciesGroup was also formed, representing Waterloo Region, Grand River Transit and emergencyservices, and met twice during the study to comment on issues and review alternatives.

To communicate the progress and findings of the study to the general public, two Public InformationCentres were held in June 2008 and January 2009. The events were advertised through localnewspapers, and through BIA representatives on the Stakeholders Group. The second PublicInformation Centre was held in each of the three Core Areas, on consecutive nights. An interceptsurvey was carried out to directly measure peoples perceptions of the parking system. A web-based survey was also made available throughout the study to collect data on parking issues fromthe public.


11/83


CITY OF CAMBRIDGECORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

March 2009 Page ES-2

KEY FINDINGS OF STUDY

The study found a number of issues related to:

Very poor user comprehension of the parking system: There is considerable confusionregarding the 5-hour no re-park policy, frustration expressed by people getting tickets because ofmisunderstanding the system, and complaints about the ease of use of drive-up pay and displayticket machines;

Utilization and distribution of off-street public parking: There is considerable off-street surfaceparking in each Core Area that goes underutilized on a regular basis, a public preference to parkclose to destination, and demand for permit parking that is higher than the available supply;

Isolated shortages of on-street parking: While there is sufficient on-street parking toaccommodate most of the needs for businesses in the Core Areas, some street segments operateat 100% of capacity during peak times;

Capacity of the parking system for intensification: There is a lack of land capacity to supportintensification and parking for major development proposals, and there are numerous constraintscreated by existing built form and environmental/geological constraints. Overall, this suggests thatthere may be difficulty in meeting future parking needs in some areas.

Financial sustainability of parking system: This study found that the current parking systemoperation does not generate enough income to cover expenses, and requires a taxpayer subsidy ofapproximately $440,000 per annum. The parking system does not generate enough revenue tofund improvements to the parking system, or for funding other core area improvements.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This parking strategy is based on the conviction that a balanced approach must be adopted for allfacets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management awayfrom the more parking is better approach. Some examples of the main differences in thetraditional and new approaches to parking management are summarized as follows:1

Traditional Parking Approach New Parking Approach

A parking problem means inadequatesupply.

Parking problems can mean a multitude of issuesincluding inadequate supply, inefficientmanagement and inadequate information.

More parking is better. Too much parking supply is as harmful as too little.

Parking requirements should be appliedconsistently without exception or variation.

Parking requirements should reflect each particularsituation and should be applied flexibly.

Parking should be provided free or at a lowcost, especially in downtowns to competewith suburban malls with free parking.

As much as possible, users should pay directly forparking facilities.

1 Adapted from Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006


12/83


13/83




2 . D E VE L OP M AR KE T IN G AN D IN FO RM AT I ON M AT ER IA L S ON T HE P A RK I NG S YS T EM

The following are recommended to improve user information:

x An updated central municipal parking website portal with the following information, orlinks to information:

a map of publically accessible parking in the downtown; parking prices and related regulations; information on paying fines; information on monthly parking permits and availability; key contact information; a link to parking by-laws; future parking expansion plans (results of this study);

x A new parking brochure and map for the downtown;

x Materials for distribution at major events, trade-shows, etc. on downtown parking andCambridge Parking in general; and

x Web-links to sites on alternative transportation options (e.g. Cycling routes, GrandRiver Transit, Carpool and CarShare sites).

The updating and dissemination of information on the parking system should be an on-goingprocess.

3 . I M PL E ME NT ON -S T RE E T P A RK IN G P R IC IN G T O O PT IM I ZE US E

Elimination of two hour free on-street parking and implementation of on-street parking pricing using

pay and display technology is recommended to ensure the efficient use of on-street parking as eachof the Core Areas develops. The maximum time limit will also be increased from two hours to threehours.

Paid parking would be in force from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with rates tied to measured parkingdemand. During evenings and weekends, payment would not be required, but the three hour limitwould remain in effect. Overnight parking would not be provided at on-street locations, and shouldbe provided at off-street parking lots, with the appropriate permit.

4 . E LI MI NA TE 2 HO UR FR EE P AR KI NG I N O FF -S TR EE T LO TS

To ensure a parking system where the requirements are consistent and clear, it is recommended

that the hybrid scheme of two hour free parking in paid parking lots be eliminated. Two hourmaximum restrictions will also be removed from off-street lots. Pay and display technology will beimplemented at most off-street lots to allow persons to park for as long as they require, to amaximum of all day.

5 . P RO MO TE F RE E P ER IP HE RA L P AR KI NG LO TS

Unpaid or free daytime parking should be provided at one peripheral parking lot within each CoreArea to provide an alternative for downtown employees who do not wish (or cannot afford) to payfor parking every day.


14/83


15/83


16/83


17/83




Exhibit ES.3: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Hespeler Village


18/83




The proposed zone-based rate structure will replace the current parking section in the Citys RateReview that is currently very specific. The introduction of a zone-based system will allow flexibilityto change future parking rates based on measured demand, subject to Council approval.

8 . P LA N F OR FU TU RE PA RK IN G S TR UC TU RE

It is clear that additional parking supply will be required to support growth in the Core Areas. TheGalt Core will probably require a parking structure in the short to medium term to meet theProvincial Growth Policies, however, ongoing demand and the potential for a structure in the futurein Preston and Hespeler should also continue to be monitored. Based on current needs and areview of land availability, several locations are considered appropriate for new public parkingstructure. These could be constructed as part of future development proposals, or as stand-alonemunicipal parking facilities.

The following actions are recommended to address the future needs to construct additional parkingsupply:

x Identify a short list of locations for possible parking structure(s);

x Develop a structure design that contributes to the urban fabric;

x Review and select the appropriate financial model for the construction and operation ofthe structure;

x Implement supporting financial strategies to generate the required revenue; and

x Design the structure to be expandable based on future increases in demand.

Planning for location and design of a parking structure for the Galt Core should start in 2011 or

earlier, subject to revenue being available to finance the planning and design components.

9 . E XP AND ACCES SIBL E P ARKING

Accessible spaces should be provided at a rate of one space for every 25 parking spaces. Thedimensions of the parking spaces should comply with the dimensions set out by the CanadianStandards Association (CSA), as updated by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act(AODA). The City will undertake a review of all parking lots to determine whether additionalaccessible spaces are required to meet these standards.

1 0. AM END ZONING BY- LAW

A balanced strategy is recommended to change the Zoning By-law within the Core Areas to:

x Eliminate the current parking exemption for specific areas;

x Reduce minimum parking standards and implement parking maximums for newdevelopment;

x Implement design standards for parking; and

x Implement policies to prohibit the creation of new surface parking.


19/83




It is understood that the City of Cambridge will be preparing urban design guidelines in 2011. It isrecommended that guidelines for the design of new parking facilities be carried out as part of thatprocess.

1 1. T RA NS PO RT AT IO N D EM AN D M AN AG EM EN T

Working with the Region of Waterloo, it is recommended that the City of Cambridge investigate andimplement, where appropriate:

x Promote carpooling initiate measures to help promote carpooling, starting withdesignating preferential spaces for registered carpoolers (as currently done at theCambridge Administration Building).

x Pool vehicles/car sharing continue to support CarShare and similar programs thatprovide vehicles for people to utilize on an occasional basis, thus reducing the need fora personal vehicle.

x Transit Usage continue to support the Regions initiative to introduce improved transitservices.

x Cash-Out Programs review opportunities to introduce cash-out employee programs,as an alternative to directly funding parking permits for City staff.

1 2. P RO MO TE AC TI VE T RA NS PO RT AT IO N

In order to continue to foster the use of active transportation modes as alternatives to drivingdowntown, the following initiatives are recommended as part of the parking strategy:

x Amend zoning by-law to include provisions for shower and change facilities for newdowntown office developments;

x Install additional secure bike parking facilities in City-owned parking lots and in keyareas, building on the lessons learned from the enclosed bike storage lockers andshowers located at New City Hall;

x Continue to install bike racks on streets throughout the downtown;

x Improve pedestrian connections between the Grand River trail system and thedowntown.

1 3 . I M PL E ME N T P AR KI NG D E SI G N S T AN DA RD S

Implement parking design standards that include:

x Provision of adequate pedestrian connections through parking areas;

x Provision of improved lighting of parking facilities;

x Consolidated vehicle entry points to minimize pedestrian conflicts;

x Consideration of amenities within or near vehicle parking lots for cyclists (e.g. bikeracks, bike lockers, and water stations).


20/83




FUNDING AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY

In general, the City has four broad options for eliminating the current taxpayer subsidy of

approximately $440,000 per annum that is required to cover the costs of the parking system. Thefour broad categories are i) user pricing, ii) cash in lieu, iii) parking tax reform, and iv) capital funds.Based on the findings of this study, the preferred strategy for the Core Areas parking system is tomove towards a full cost recovery approach whereby the operation and expansion of parking is atleast revenue neutral. Implementing user fees (i.e. priced parking) is the most direct way ofensuring the financial sustainability of the parking system, and it provides the ability to directrevenues towards improvements in the Core Areas.

Many municipalities direct a portion of parking revenues to a dedicated capital reserve fund.Cambridge has not had the ability to do this as the parking system operates with an annual deficit.

A key advantage of a capital reserve fund is that it would allow the City to invest in parkinginfrastructure (e.g. pay and display machines) or other Core Area improvements such as accessibleparking, provision of bike facilities, improved lighting and streetscaping, without going into deficit.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Analyses of the revenues and expenses were carried out over the full 20 year time horizon of thisstudy for a range of scenarios, from the do-nothing to an aggressive approach where parking pricesare raised to generate revenue to be used for a parking structure.

The analysis indicates that continuing the current regime will result in increasing deficits each yearas the costs of expenses rise faster than the increase in revenues. A continued and increasingdeficit will require the Citys taxpayers to subsidize the parking system by $500,000 per year byapproximately 2016. A continued deficit of this scale will have a net cost to the taxpayer of $10million over the next 20 years, and will hamper the ability to carry out improvements to the parking

system, such as improving accessibility and landscaping at City parking lots.

The analysis indicates that implementing paid parking at $1.00 and 50 cents per hour andincreasing the cost of daytime parking permits to $60 and $40 per month will result in revenuesbecoming greater than expenses by approximately 2013. A surplus would then be generated andplaced in a reserve fund. The annual surplus will give the City the ability to carry out theimprovements to the parking system mentioned above.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

A preliminary implementation plan for the strategies contained in this Master Plan is contained inExhibit ES.4 below.


21/83




Exhibit ES.4: Preliminary Implementation Plan

A key component of the Master Plan is monitoring and measurement, and updates to the MasterPlan to ensure that it remains a living document that is adjusted as parking needs in the Core Areaschange over time. The monitoring and measurement components of the plan are discussed infurther detail in the following section.

Strategy Action Timing Capital Cost Core Area

Parking Management and Operations

Develop marketing and informationmaterials

Establish central municipal parking website for allparking-related information 2009-2010 $5,000 AllCreate new parking system brochure 2009-2010 $5,000 All

Implement wayfinding and signageimprovements Improve signage to municipal lots 2010 $20,000 All

Improve Parking Permit Managementand Enforcement Practices

Phase out existing multiple permits with reducedpayment 2010 Nil AllImplement monthly parking permits tied to holder 2010 Nil AllIncrease monthly permit availability and rates 2010 Nil All

Remove ability of City's Department Heads to cancelparking tickets 2010 Nil All

Optimize Parking Supply Promote free parking in peripheral lots 2010 $5,000 AllRemove no-reparking policy 2009 Nil AllRemove two hour free parking policy 2010-2011 Nil AllChange existing drive-up pay and display

configuration to walk-up operation 2010 $20,000 AllImplement pay and display in off-street lots, withmaximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand lots 2010 $196,000 AllImplement pay and display for on-street parking, withmaximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand locations -Galt implementation first year, Preston and Hespelernext year 2011-2012 $994,000 AllAdd one full-time position to the parking program 2010 $60,000 All

Operational improvements Remove parking spaces from one side of QueenStreet, east of Guelph Avenue 2010 $5,000 Hespeler

Parking SupplyImprove Parking Supply Expand Accessible Parking to all off-street lots 2010-2011 $30,000 All

Planning and design of future parking structure in Galt- alternatives for location and size 2011-2012 $200,000 Galt

Supporting StrategiesAmend Zoning By-law Amend by-law to include parking maximums and

minimums in Core Areas 2010-2012 $20,000 AllAmend by-law to reduce parking requirements inclose proximity to planned Rapid Transit stations 2010-2012 Incl. in above AllReview Cash-in-lieu of parking program 2010-2012 Nil All

Travel Demand Management Work with Region to promote transit usage 2010-2012 Nil AllPromote Active Transportation Amend Zoning By-law to require bicycle

parking/storage and shower and locker faclities fornew developments 2012 Nil AllInstall additional bicycle parking in core areas 2009-2014 $10,000 All

Implement Parking Design Standards Incorporate parking design standards in City's UrbanDesign Guidelines 2011 Nil All

Funding Establish reserve fund to manage revenues for use fornew parking and Core Area streetscaping projects 2010 Nil All

Monitoring and MeasurementUpdates Update to Master Plan Every 5 years $150,000 All

Set and measure performance indicators e.g.violations, parking occupancy, revenues Annual Nil AllParking occupancy surveys for all Core Area parking Annual $10,000 All


22/83




MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT

Performance measurement is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of the recommendationsoutlined in this Parking Master Plan, as well as the overall progress towards meeting the GuidingPrinciples for this study. A structured performance measurement program also provides aframework for the City to track changes in the pace of development and major changes to publicand private parking supply, so that potential deviations from the assumptions used to develop thisPlan may be identified early on, and refinements to the Plan may be made.

A recommended performance measurement framework is outlined in the table below. It isrecommended that these performance indicators be presented in the form of an Annual Report forthe Core Areas Parking system, and that this report be made available to the general public. Sucha report, when presented in a way that effectively communicates successes and ongoingchallenges, may also help to continue to foster the relationship with the BIAs and the media, helpingto raise public awareness of results achieved and the need for continued action. A report cardcould also be developed based on the performance measurement framework providing simple

ratings of progress towards each objective.


23/83




Exhibit ES.5: Performance Measurement Framework

Guiding Principle Performance Measure(s) Frequency

1. The municipal parking system in the CoreAreas will be planned, designed andoperated in a transparent manner and allcomponents of the system will be easilyunderstood and well-regarded by thepublic, businesses, City Council and staff,and visitors to the City.

Number of tickets Number of recorded

complaints about parking in theCore Areas

Number of permits by type andby lot

Opinion surveys (interceptsurveys)

Annually Annually

On-going

Every 2-3 years

2. An appropriate supply of convenient publicparking will be maintained to supportbusiness needs and alternatives for futureparking supply will be identified inadvance of actual needs so as to attract

development and avoid potential issueswith inadequate supply and/orinappropriately designed parking.

Number of off-street publicparking spaces

Number of on-street parkingspaces

Percent utilization of on-street

and off-street parking

On-going

On-going

Annually

3. The City will pursue opportunities to workwith private developers to ensureadequate on-site parking is provided forall new developments and thatopportunities for shared parking and jointuse facilities are considered.

Cash-in-lieu account balance Number of development

applications in core areas andassociated parking supply

On-going Annually

4. The parking system will be financiallysustainable, with all costs/benefits beingaccounted for.

Detailed Parking systemrevenues and expenses

Parking reserve fund

Annually

Annually

5. Public parking will not detract from thepedestrian environment and over timesurface parking will be minimized.

Total surface area in eachCore Area dedicated to surfaceparking

Every 5 years

6. Green design will be pursued for all newparking facilities and to the extentpossible existing parking areas will bereconfigured to include features toimprove their environmental sustainability.

Capital expenditures on greenparking improvements

Annually

7. Facilities and programs to encouragetransit, walking, cycling, car sharing andride sharing will be incorporated whereverpossible in recognition of the potential formore sustainable transportation modes to

reduce the demand on the parkingsystem.

Number of public bicycleparking spaces (on-street/off-street)

Number of commuters usingsustainable modes to travel to

core areas (based on Censusor other data)

Annually

Every 5 years

8. On-going consultation with the businesscommunity, residents and otherstakeholders will ensure continualimprovement of the parking system.

Informal reporting On-going

J:\19184_Cambrdg_park\10.0 Reports\Final Report\Exec summary\Executive summary2009-03-12.doc\2009-04-09\GT


24/83


25/83

City of Cambridge


FINAL REPORT

MARCH 2009


26/83


27/83


28/83



March 2009 Page 2

The general location of these areas are shown on Exhibit 1.1.

Exhibit 1.1: Core Areas Study Area

The study is also intended to address all types of parking including:

x Public Parking (On-street and Off-street);

x Private Parking (Publicly accessible parking and Use-specific parking);

x

Residential On-Street Parking; and

x Accessible Parking.

1.4 Study Process

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan is being conducted in compliance with Section A.2.7 MasterPlans, as defined in the Municipal Engineers Association "Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment (October 2000, as Amended in 2007), which will address Phases 1 and 2 of the ClassEnvironmental Assessment Process. While an Environmental Assessment (EA) is not required formany aspects of the parking system, the Municipal Engineers Association does require a Class EA


29/83



March 2009 Page 3

for parking structures costing more than $8.7 million. In addition, there are many other benefits offollowing the EA Master Plan process.

The Master Plan approach supports the development of a comprehensive and integrated plan. As

outlined in the Municipal Class EA document, the key features of a Master Plan include:

x addresses the key principles of successful environmental planning;

x addresses at least the first two phases of the Municipal Class EA and may also includeother phases;

x allows for an integrated process with other planning initiatives;

x provides a strategic level assessment of various options to better address overallsystem needs, and potential impacts and associated mitigation for each alternative;

x is generally long term;

x incorporates extensive stakeholder consultation;

x takes a system-wide approach to planning which considers related infrastructure eithergeographically or by a particular function;

x recommends an infrastructure master plan that can be implemented through theimplementation of separate projects; and

x includes a description and cost of the specific projects.


30/83



March 2009 Page 4

2. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Public and stakeholder consultation has been a key component of this study. The sections below

summarize the consultation activities conducted during this study. Details of the consultationactivities conducted for this study are contained in Appendix A.

2.1 Stakeholder Advisory Group

A Stakeholder Advisory Group was formed at the outset of the study, with members invited from thefollowing groups:

x The three Core Area Business Improvement Districts (BIAs);

x Chambers of Commerce;

x

Libraries;

x Senior Centres;

x Cambridge Centre for the Arts;

x Mayor and Councillors;

x Economic advisory committee;

x Municipal heritage advisory committee;

x Farmers Market; and

x On-road cycling group.

The stakeholders group met with the project team on three occasions. The first meeting was heldon April 16, 2008 to introduce the study and receive information on parking issues and experiencesin the three Core Areas. The second meeting was held on September 15, 2008 to review dataobtained from the parking surveys, to review the findings from Public Information Centre #1, and todiscuss potential alternatives and improvement options. The third meeting was held on December9, 2008 to review the draft recommendations of the study.

To further supplement the consultation and improve the study teams understanding of the issues, awalkabout was carried out in each of the Core Areas on October 7, 2008.

A key finding from consultation with stakeholders is that the existing parking system is not wellunderstood by the public and the experience of customers of Core Area businesses can often be anegative one. The general consensus of the stakeholders group was that the parking systemneeds to be more intuitive and transparent.

Prior to presentation of the study report to Council on March 23, 2009, a special presentation wasmade to the Hespeler BIA at the request of the BIA chair.


31/83



March 2009 Page 5

2.2 Technical Agencies Group

A Technical Agencies Group was also formed at the outset of the study to identify issues, andprovide feedback on proposed alternatives, with members invited from the following groups:

x City of Cambridge Public Works Division;

x Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation Planning;

x Regional Municipality of Waterloo Urban Planning;

x Regional Municipality of Waterloo Traffic Operations;

x Ontario Ministry of Transportation;

x Emergency Services;

x Ontario Ministry of the Environment;

x First Nations;

x Grand River Transit;

x Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Rail;

x City of Cambridge Economic Development Division;

x City of Cambridge Community Services Department.

The Technical Agencies Group met with the project team on two occasions. The first meeting washeld on May 13, 2008 to introduce the study and receive input on regional parking and planningissues, as well as identify local operational issues. The second meeting was held on December 9,2008 to discuss potential alternatives and improvement options, and to review the draftrecommendations of the study.

2.3 Public Information Centres

Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were included in the public consultation component of thisstudy. The first PIC was held on June 18, 2008 at the Cambridge Centre Mall. The PIC wasadvertised in the Cambridge Times and notification letters were sent to members of thestakeholders and technical agencies groups.

The purpose of the first PIC was to present the purpose and scope of the study, review parkingconditions in the three Cambridge Core Areas, review potential alternatives and how alternativeswould be evaluated, and provide an opportunity for the public to discuss issues and ask questions.

A total of 13 people signed in at the first PIC. However, significantly more people stopped by todiscuss the boards but chose not to sign in. It is estimated that approximately 40 contacts weremade.

The second series of PICs was held on January 27, 28 and 29, 2009, with a PIC being held in eachCore Area. The second PICs presented the evaluation of alternative solutions, and the


32/83



March 2009 Page 6

recommended alternative. Despite advertising in the newspaper, and coverage of the meetings bylocal newspapers and radio, attendance was relatively low, with approximately four members of thePublic attending in Preston, approximately 10 in Galt, and approximately 5 in Hespeler. Commentsreceived at the PICs were generally in favour of the proposed alternative.

Full details of the PICs are included in Appendix A.

2.4 On-line Survey

In conjunction with the first PIC, an on-line parking survey was developed. A notice for this surveywas published in conjunction with the PIC notice. A notice was also included in communication tothe Technical Advisory Group and was published in the Citys internal newsletter. As of the end ofNovember, there were 96 responses to the web survey. A summary of the responses is containedin Appendix A.

2.5 Intercept Survey

To supplement the data received from the PIC and the on-line survey, an intercept survey wascarried out on the streets of each Core Area in August 2008. The survey involved a two minutesurvey by questionnaire, and was conducted from August 22 to August 27, 2008 on-street and atmunicipal parking lots. A total of 227 persons were surveyed.

Key findings included:

x Majority made regular trips to Core Areas, and planned to park for less than 2 hours (79%);

x 30% have had trouble with parking (e.g. parking lot full, infraction, etc.); and

x

50% didnt know about the No Reparking policy.

The findings appeared to be in line with comments that had been made by stakeholders, andobservations of the study team.

2.6 Council Meetings

The findings and recommendations of the Parking Master Plan were presented to the GeneralCommittee on March 23, 2009, and to Council on March 30, 2009. At General Committee, the staffreport was approved with an amendment to exclude the recommendation to implement on-streetpaid parking. At the Council meeting of March 30, 2009, the project was approved with the full setof recommendations including paid on-street parking. An additional recommendation to investigatediscontinuing the current practice of offering free parking in December was included for the GaltCore Area.

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Policy Context

Official Plans, Zoning By-laws and Traffic and Parking By-laws from the City of Cambridge andRegion of Waterloo were reviewed. The findings of the review are contained in the BackgroundData Report included in Appendix B of this report. The Background Data report also summarized


33/83



March 2009 Page 7

the findings of previous and on-going studies related to transportation and parking in the City ofCambridge, and summarized the projected changes in population and employment expected foreach of the Core Areas.

3.2 Parking Management and Operations

Parking in the Core Areas, including on roads within the jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo, ismanaged by the Transportation and Public Works Department of the City of Cambridge. The Citycontracts the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires to carry out parking enforcement.

A significant portion of off-street parking, and all on-street parking within the Core Areas is madeavailable by the City of Cambridge on a two hour free basis. Paid parking for longer durations isavailable at some lots equipped with pay and display machines located in the Galt and PrestonCore Areas. Parking permits are also available at most lots, with 24 hour permits that allowovernight parking available in selected lots. The Citys policy is to issue permits up to a limit of 50%of the capacity of a given lot. The review of operational practices has found that the City has in the

past issued some permits on an ad-hoc basis where the number of permits issued has exceededthe number of permits paid for, which has created an impression that some permit applicants havereceived preferential treatment.

A number of the parking lots are leased by the City of Cambridge from private land owners. Inmany cases, conditions of the lease require that parking permits be issued to the owner of the land.

It is the practice of the City to reduce tickets by 50% for first offences with a reasonable explanation.In addition, tickets can be cancelled on the authority of City of Cambridge Department heads wherea ticket is given to a visitor attending a City facility for a meeting or otherwise on City business. Atotal of 143 parking tickets were voided by City Departments during the year of 2007.

Further details on parking management and operations are contained in the Background Data

Report included in Appendix B of this report.

3.3 Parking Supply and Utilization

Parking occupancy studies were carried out for all off-street municipal parking facilities and for on-street parking in each Core Area. Utilization surveys (vehicular counts) were conducted every hournon-stop during the weekday from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (18-hour day) and during Saturday from10:00 AM to 7:00 PM (9-hour day).

Parking turnover studies were carried out for all off-street municipal parking facilities and on-streetparking in each Core Area. License plate surveys were conducted every hour non-stop during theweekday period from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (18-hour day) and on Saturday from 10:00 AM to 7:00

PM (9-hour day). These surveys involved recording a partial licence plate of each parked vehicleby location (i.e. by parking lot or block) to allow determination of how long individual vehicles wereparked.

Automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) were also placed at the access point(s) to each municipalparking facility to collect a minimum of seven day, 24 hour traffic data, to allow determination of thebusiest times for each parking lot.

A follow-up survey was carried out in September 2008, with a detailed focus on the areas affectedby the opening of the Citys new Civic Administration Building on Dickson Street, but also checkingall other areas in Galt, Preston and Hespeler.


34/83



March 2009 Page 8

The surveys generally found similar results in each of the Core Areas:

During the weekday and Saturday peak periods, there are sufficient total off-street and on-street parking spaces to meet parking demands in each Core Area. During the highest demand

hour on a typical weekday, the parking system is operating at about half of its total capacity;

A small number of off-street parking lots and some on-street parking areas experience aweekday peak hour utilization that is at or close to capacity;

Peripheral off-street parking lots have very low weekday and Saturday utilization rates,compared with more centrally located parking lots;

Parking durations are generally lower for on-street parking spaces compared with off-streetparking spaces; and

Parking durations are generally longer during the weekday compared with Saturday.

The full findings of the parking utilization surveys are contained in the Parking Surveys Reportincluded in Appendix C of this report.

3.4 Parking System Revenues and Expenses

Since payment for parking is not currently required for on-street parking, and most off-street parkinglots allow two hour free parking, the revenues generated by the Citys parking system are duealmost exclusively to parking permits.

Excluding parking enforcement, operating the parking system resulted in a net expenditure of$523,100 based on the 2008 budget figures. Considering all the elements of the parking system,the City budgeted for a net expense of $437,200 for 2008.

The practice of reducing tickets by 50% for first offences with a reasonable explanation, and ofcancelling tickets, results in a loss of revenue to the City. The findings of the review are containedin the Background Data Report included in Appendix B of this report.


35/83


36/83



March 2009 Page 10

Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas of Change Galt City Centre


37/83



March 2009 Page 11

3. School of Architecture: The University of Waterloo School of Architecture officially opened inOctober 2004 in the renovated Riverside Silk Mill on Melville Street. It is expected that over time,the School of Architecture may expand on the current site, or adjacent sites, generating additionalparking needs.

4. Library: The Galt Public Library is located on the edge of the Galt Core Area adjacent toresidential uses. The current surface lot (G3) is generally sufficient to meet current needs and thereare no plans for major expansion of the library at this time. The most likely changes in this area willcome in the form of gradual renewal and potential intensification of the nearby residential areas,which should not generate significant additional parking demands.

5. Water Street North: This area is currently under construction and will include large residentialtowers. It has also been considered for a major new restaurant/banquet facility - Ancaster Mills.Parking for the residential towers will be included, however, additional parking for the restaurantmay be required.

6. 73 Water Street: This building formerly accommodated City Hall functions prior to the

construction of the new Civic Administration Building. It is currently being used for office uses andwill likely remain as such for the future. There is sufficient parking on this site to support uses withinthe building.

7. New City Hall/Market Square: The New City Hall, referred to as the Civic AdministrationBuilding (CAB), is located in the centre of activity in Downtown Galt and is surrounded by theFarmers Market, Seniors Centre and other institutional uses. No major development proposals arecurrently planned for this area, but it can be expected that use of the CAB, Farmers Market andDickson Street will intensify over time as more people move into the Core.

8. Main Street: Main Street currently consists of a mix of retail stores and second story residentialuses. Many of the buildings on Main Street are underutilized and will no doubt be renewed andintensified over time. Main Street is one of the few areas in Galt where there are on-street parkingshortages, so it is important that parking supply options are identified to accommodateredevelopment in this area.

9. Water Street South: This area currently includes the bus terminal as well as two of Galts mostutilized surface parking lots (G11 and G12). As the Region moves to develop its rapid transitsystem, pedestrian activity around the transit terminal is likely to intensify. The two surface lots alsorepresent one of the few opportunities for infill development, and most certainly will be eyed for newdevelopment in the medium to long term. As with the Grand Avenue lot, if these surface parkinglots are developed, this will create a shortage of parking. Accordingly, the parking strategy mustprovide direction on alternative parking supply options in this area, as discussed in the next chapter.

10. South End: Continued residential development will occur in the South end and it is important

that this development is integrated into the urban fabric of Downtown Galt, and parking andpedestrian connections are designed accordingly.

11. Northeast: Similar to the South End, this area has the potential to include additional residentialor mixed-use development, with parking supply integrated into new development.

4 . 2 .2 P R E ST O N T O W NE CE N T RE

Areas of potential interest or change in Preston are highlighted on Exhibit 4.2 and discussed below.


38/83



March 2009 Page 12

1. King Street Commercial: King Street is the primary commercial corridor in Preston TowneCentre and is generally in good economic health. It can be expected that over time, businesses willchange, but the general functioning of the Core Area will be stable. There is potential for moreresidential development, for example, in the form of second storey apartments.

2. South End: Similar to King Street, there are no major new developments currently planned forthe South End of Preston.

3. North Side: The future of the north end of Preston is somewhat uncertain. There has been talkof a possible conference centre at the site of the former hotel. Lands along the Grand River aredesignated as flood plain lands, which will restrict development to some extent. From a parkingperspective, the North Side is fairly self-contained, and therefore parking needs would need to beaccommodated as part of any redevelopment.

Exhibit 4.2: Potential Areas of Change Preston Towne Centre

4 . 2. 3 H E SP E LE R V I LL AG E

Areas of potential interest or change in Hespeler Village are highlighted on Exhibit 4.3 anddiscussed below.

1. North side of Queen Street: With the completion of the new Queen Street parking lot, the Northside of Queen Street is now well served from a public parking perspective. Significant growth is not


39/83



March 2009 Page 13

expected in Hespeler, but the North Side of Queen Street would be one location whereintensification may occur.

2. Queen Street Corridor: The Queen Street corridor includes a number of vibrant retail and

personal service uses, which should remain over time. The most significant issue in this area is notgrowth related, but has to do with the width of Queen Street and its inaccessibility for Grand RiverTransit (GRT) buses and other large vehicles. Options to address this are discussed later in thisreport.

3. Former American Standard: The former American Standard site will soon be converted toresidential development consisting primarily of condominiums. This is sure to bring additionalactivity to the Queen Street retail corridor, which highlights the importance of improving pedestrianconnections between this new development and the rest of the commercial core.

Exhibit 4.3: Potential Areas of Change Hespeler Village

3. Former American Standard

2. Queen Street Corridor1. North side of Queen Street


40/83


41/83



March 2009 Page 15

In summary, there are several problems related to the publics understanding of the parking system,but these problems also present opportunities for improving the overall image of the Core Areasand the parking system in general as summarized in Exhibit 5.1.

Exhibit 5.1: Issues and Opportunities Related to the User Friendliness of the Parking System

Issue Opportunity

Leads people to take advantage of loopholes inparking system (e.g. people driving in and out oflots to take repeated tickets for two hours freeparking).

Opportunity to re-brand Cambridge Parkingas quality service for the public, inassociation with marketing, to dispelnegative perceptions of parking.

Unfriendly system increases enforcement issuesand staff time to address complaints (grace periodfor on-street parking established to reducecomplaints).

Potential to reduce ticket disputes and savestaff time.

Core Area businesses need to field complaintsabout parking problems.

Businesses can become ambassadors for amore intuitive parking system.

May deter future redevelopment because ofperceived parking problems.

Opportunity to help encourage downtownredevelopment.

5 . 1 . 2 U T I L I ZA T I ON A N D D ISTR I B U TI O N O F O FF-STR EET PU B LI C PA R K IN G

Despite perceptions among the business community and general public about a lack of parking,

there is a considerable amount of off-street surface parking in each of the Core Areas that goesunderutilized on a regular basis. Parking surveys found that, even in the Galt City Centre, 50% ofthe public off-street parking spaces were vacant at peak times. Part of the problem is that utilizationvaries by location, with spaces towards the edges of the Core Area being less desirable.

Irrespective of the location of underutilized parking, issues that result include environmental impacts(e.g. surface water run-off), urban design and walkability issues, and security issues. Manybusiness owners are also bothered by the fact that their employees cannot obtain permit parking,yet there appears to be excess parking available.

Fortunately, there are many opportunities to better allocate public parking to ensure more optimalutilization. One of the challenges is that the cost of permit parking is so low (approximately$30/month), and does not vary much by location, so there is little incentive for people to utilize moreperipheral parking. Another challenge is that pedestrian connections between some of the outlyinglots and the centre of the each Core Area are perceived by some people as inconvenient, andwalking alone at night between some lots and the centre of the core is seen as a safety concern forsome people.

In addition to the above, the allocation and tracking of parking permits needs to be addressed.There is a demand for parking permits at some lots where the maximum number of permits hasbeen sold (based on selling permits until 50% of the parking lot capacity is reached). There is anopportunity to provide additional parking permits at some lots and to introduce pricing incentives byincreasing permit costs at high-demand locations. Rationalization of existing permits should also becarried out, so that the system is transparent and treats all applicants equally.


42/83



March 2009 Page 16

Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the issues and opportunities related to off-street parking.

Exhibit 5.2: Issues and Opportunities Related to Off-Street Parking Utilization

Issue Opportunity

People are unwilling to park further from theirdestination and walk.

Promote more active lifestyle.

Improve lighting and security to makepeople more comfortable walking toperipheral lots.

Increased surface runoff and water quality issuesfrom paved parking areas.

Opportunity to consolidate surface parkingand gain best and highest use for lands.

Large parking areas detract from pedestrianenvironment.

Use excess parking for peripheral long stayparking.

Costs may outweigh benefits for some leasedparking lots.

Potential for City to reduce leasing andmaintenance costs by reducing parkingareas.

Demand for permit parking is higher than allocatedsupply.

Improving transparency of the permitprocess and potentially adjusting allocationof permits to reflect actual usage.

Implement pricing by location to shiftdemands.

5 . 1 . 3 I SO LA TED SH O R TA GES OF O N-STR EET PA R K I NG

Similar to off-street parking, there is generally sufficient on-street parking to accommodate most ofthe needs for businesses in the Core Areas. However, there are some blocks that are fullyoccupied during some parts of the day. Again, this is partially due to pricing free on-street parkingis somewhat akin to free gas in that people will use it until it is gone.

Most experts suggest that the best practice for parking pricing is to establish price differentiationbetween areas of high demand and limited supply and areas of low demand but greater supply.Specifically, parking pricing should help encourage an individual to choose to park away from highdemand areas for less money (or free) than would be required to park in the highest demand areas.This approach is not currently possible for Cambridge as all on-street parking is free. The only toolthat the City currently has is to restrict parking to a given time limit (currently 2 hrs).

Some of the key issues related to on-street parking are summarized below.


43/83



March 2009 Page 17

Exhibit 5.3: Issues and Opportunities Related to Isolated Shortages of On-Street Parking

Issue Opportunity

Perceived parking shortages. Parking shortages can be a sign of asuccessful business area.

Unpaid (free) on-street parking may contribute tohigh on-street parking occupancy.

Since on-street parking is currently free,there may be an opportunity to eliminatenon-essential on-street parkers.

Limited ability to add new on-street parking. If parking is priced, generated revenues cango back into the system to fund otherprojects.

On-street parking can conflict with cycling andtransit objectives.

Some situations may be addressed throughsignage.

5 . 1 .4 C A PA C I TY F O R I N T EN S I FI C A TI O N

As mentioned previously, significant population and employment growth will need to beaccommodated in the Cambridge Urban Growth Centre of Galt to conform to provincial policies.The approved target for Cambridge under Places to Grow is 150 persons plus jobs per hectare,which is significantly higher than the current density of the Galt Core Area. One of the challengesthat Cambridge has in meeting these targets is that much of the urban fabric is already built andhas heritage value. As a result, it is likely that some of the existing surface parking lots will comeunder pressure to be developed in the medium term and public parking on these lots will need to be

accommodated elsewhere, or in more efficient forms. Official Plan Policies of the Region ofWaterloo will also require that development within 800 metres of rapid transit must have a parkingprovision that supports the use of transit.

Other constraints on where and how development can occur include the flood plain and the locationof bedrock, which makes it difficult to construct below grade parking in a cost-efficient manner.

All of these issues point to the need to plan for structured parking, at a minimum in Galt City Centre.In addition to being more efficient in terms of land consumption, structured parking has manyadvantages from an urban development perspective over surface parking provided that it isdesigned to minimize impacts on the pedestrian environment. Recommendations for this areprovided in Section 7.

In addition to consolidating parking to make way for planned development, there are many otheropportunities to make better use of the existing parking supply to allow for future growth asdiscussed in the following chapters.


44/83



March 2009 Page 18

Exhibit 5.4: Issues and Opportunities Related to Capacity for Intensification

Issue Opportunity

Lack of land for surface parking to supportredevelopment and intensification of surfaceparking.

Opportunity to plan central parking facilityshared by all users.

Increased surface parking areas detrimental topedestrian environment and connected retailfrontages.

Central parking facility can simplifywayfinding.

Redevelopment of existing parking lots maydecrease public parking supply.

Redeveloped lots could provide for someparking needs.

5 . 1 .5 F I N AN C IA L S U S TA I NA B IL I T Y

The final major issue to be addressed by this parking Master Plan relates to the financialsustainability of the parking system. Currently, the operation of the parking system in Cambridgeresults in net expenditure of approximately $400,000 per annum, comprising of (approximately)$168,900 cost per annum for administration,$229,000 cost per annum for lot operations and net$25,000 revenue per annum for enforcement. As most parking is free, the parking systemgenerates very little revenues other than enforcement. The parking enforcement activity generatesrevenues that cover the expenses of enforcement, and is therefore financially self-sustaining whenconsidered apart from the rest of the parking system.

One of the challenges of running the parking system at a loss is that it makes it very difficult to

invest in upgrades to pedestrian amenities within parking lots, invest in technology enhancements(on-site or for administration), carry out marketing programs, or fund any other improvements. Italso makes it very difficult to put away reserves to cover potential future parking garages.

The City of Cambridge has been quite good at allocating sufficient funds to maintain the existingparking system, but in general, the public and business community has not been made aware thatparking is being subsidized. As highlighted below, there are many potential advantages that mayresults from moving towards a more financially sustainable parking system.

Exhibit 5.5: Issues and Opportunities Related to Financial Sustainability

Issue Opportunity

Current parking system operation does notgenerate enough income to cover expenses.

Increased revenues could be used fordowntown renewal projects or supportingother transportation modes.

City is effectively subsidizing parking by providingfree parking and low monthly permit rates.

Moving towards market pricing mayencourage shift to transit, cycling andwalking.

Increased parking fees may be perceived ascounter to downtown development.

Potential to offer other improvements in theform of streetscaping, marketing materials,etc.


45/83



March 2009 Page 19

5.2 Core Area Specific Issues

In addition to the above issues, this study revealed several other issues specific to each of the CoreAreas as follows:

x Galt City Centre:

High parking demands in the centre of the Core Area, but opportunity forincreased use of other lots;

Frequent event-related parking demands associated with Farmers Market andfestivals;

High demand for long-stay commuter parking;

Demand for residential parking in Core Area; and

Demand for permits exceeds supply at some lots.

x Preston Towne Centre:

High demand for short-stay parking on King Street;

Small lots on King Street have limited spare capacity;

Demand for long-stay commuter parking; and

Perception that some store owners are using on-street parking.

x Hespeler Village

2 hour time limit in the new Queen Street lot may not be sufficient;

Limited locations for additional parking along Queen Street corridor;

Queen Street corridor with on-street parking on both sides restricts traffic flow, inparticular transit operations; and

Opportunity for increased use of St. James Church parking lot.


46/83



March 2009 Page 20

6. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.1 Guiding Principles

This parking strategy is based on the conviction that a balanced approach must be adopted for allfacets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management awayfrom the more parking is better approach. Some examples of the main differences in thetraditional and new approaches to parking management are summarized as follows:1

Traditional Parking Approach New Parking Approach

A parking problem means inadequatesupply.

Parking problems can mean a multitude of issuesincluding inadequate supply, inefficientmanagement and inadequate information.

More parking is better. Too much parking supply is as harmful as too little.

Parking requirements should be appliedconsistently without exception or variation.

Parking requirements should reflect each particularsituation and should be applied flexibly.

Parking should be provided free or at a lowcost, especially in downtowns to competewith suburban malls with free parking.

As much as possible, users should pay directly forparking facilities.

Based on this general philosophy, and recognizing what was heard from key stakeholders, thepublic, staff and members of the Steering Committee, eight guiding principles were developed toguide the Core Areas Parking Master Plan:

1. The municipal parking system in the Core Areas will be planned, designed and operated in a

transparent manner and all components of the system will be easily understood and well-regarded by the public, businesses, City Council and staff, and visitors to the City.

2. An appropriate supply of convenient public parking will be maintained to support business

needs and alternatives for future parking supply will be identified in advance of actual needs so

as to attract development and avoid potential issues with inadequate supply and/or

inappropriately designed parking.

3. The City will pursue opportunities to work with private developers to ensure adequate on-site

parking is provided for all new developments and that opportunities for shared parking and joint

use facilities are considered.

4. The parking system will be financially sustainable, with all costs/benefits being accounted for.

5. Public parking will not detract from the pedestrian environment and over time surface parking

will be minimized.

6. Green design will be pursued for all new parking facilities and, to the extent possible, existing

parking areas will be reconfigured to include features to improve their environmental

sustainability.

1 Adapted from Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006


47/83



March 2009 Page 21

7. Facilities and programs to encourage transit, walking, cycling, car sharing and ride sharing

will be incorporated wherever possible in recognition of the potential for more sustainable

transportation modes to reduce the demand on the parking system.

8. On-going consultation with the business community, residents and other stakeholders willensure continual improvement of the parking system.

6.2 Evaluation Approach

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan has followed a planning process that recognizes the EAPlanning Process and addresses the requirements of the Municipal Class EA. Although thisprocess was not designed specifically for high level parking studies, the process does translatereasonable well. The approach consists of five steps, of which the first two must be addressed inthe Master Plan. Components of the third step are addressed to some extent, in order to explorethe potential feasibility of some components of the alternative solutions.

Step Description Consultation

Required for Schedule B Master Plan

Step 1: Problem orOpportunity

Identify problem or opportunity Optional

Step 2: AlternativeSolutions

Identify alternative solutions to theproblem or opportunity

Inventory natural, social andeconomic environment

Identify impact of alternativesolutions on the environment, andmitigating measures

Evaluate alternatives and identify a

preliminary preference Determine preferred solution

(projects)

Mandatory consultationwith review agencies andthe public

Optional (beyond requirement for Master Plan)

Step 3: AlternativeDesign Conceptsfor PreferredSolution

Identify alternative designconcepts for preferred solution

Undertake detailed inventory ofnatural, social and economicenvironment, and mitigatingmeasures

Evaluate alternative designs andidentify recommended design

Mandatory consultationwith review agencies andthe public

Step 4:Documentation

Document the problem oropportunity, alternative solutions,alternative design concepts,preferred solution, consultationand decision making process in apublic document

Mandatory notification

Step 5:Implementation

Proceed to implementation Notify relevant agencies


48/83



March 2009 Page 22

6.3 Evaluation Criteria

During the initial stages of the study, multiple criteria were identified and presented for publiccomment (Exhibit 6.1). These criteria are drawn from in order to assist with the evaluation ofalternatives, although not all criteria are relevant to each issue/alternative. In the following sections,the evaluation of alternatives is summarized by presenting advantages and disadvantages of eachalternative. More detailed evaluation tables, using the criteria below, are presented in Appendix D.

Exhibit 6.1: Detailed Evaluation Criteria

Category Factor Measure

Natural Effect on natural environment Change in impermeable surfacearea

Estimated change in emissions ofair contaminants from motorized

vehiclesEffect on pedestrian and cyclingenvironment

Qualitative assessment of safetyimpacts

Qualitative assessment of securityimpacts

Qualitative assessment ofwalkability impacts

Qualitative assessment of cyclingimpacts

Effect on residential properties Potential for traffic infiltration

Ability to meet residential parkingneeds

Effect on archaeological resourcesand heritage or cultural features

Number of properties affected

Social

Impact on urban planning designobjectives

Consistency with urban designobjectives

Compatibility with rapid transitobjectives/transit-orienteddevelopment

Effect on businesses On-street parking demand tosupply ratio

Off-street parking demand tosupply ratio

Cost of public parking

User friendliness of parkingsystem for Co

Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

Documents

Transcript of Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary