Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

City of Cambridge
CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN
FINAL REPORT
MARCH 2009
IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2.
Study Overview and Objectives........................................................................................................... 1 Outline of Report ................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Study Area and Scope ..................................................................................................... 1 Study Process ....................................................................................................................................... 2
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .................................................................4
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

3.
Stakeholder Advisory Group................................................................................................................ 4 Technical Agencies Group ................................................................................................................... 5 Public Information Centres .................................................................................................................. 5 On-line Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Intercept Survey .................................................................................................................................... 6 Council Meetings................................................................................................................................... 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................6
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4.
Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Parking Management and Operations ................................................................................................. 7 Parking Supply and Utilization............................................................................................................. 7 Parking System Revenues and Expenses .......................................................................................... 8
FUTURE NEEDS ......................................................................................................................9
4.1 4.2
Projected Population and Employment............................................................................................... 9 Future Development Potential.............................................................................................................. 9

4 . 2 .1 G al t C it y C en t r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 . 2 .2 P r e st o n T o w n e C e n t re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 4 . 2 .3 H e spe l e r V ill a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
5.
March 2009
PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................14

Page i.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

5.1 System-wide Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................................ 14
5 . 1 .1 U s er - F ri end li n es s o f P a rk i n g S ys t em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 5 . 1 .2 Utilization and Distribution of O f f - St re e t Pub l i c Pa r k i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5 . 1 .3 I s o l at ed Sh o r t ag e s o f O n - St r eet P ar k ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5 . 1 .4 C ap ac it y f o r In t en s if ic ati o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5 . 1 .5 F in an c i a l Sus t ain ab il it y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
5.2
6.
Core Area Specific Issues .................................................................................................................. 19

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...............................................20
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Guiding Principles............................................................................................................................... 20 Evaluation Approach .......................................................................................................................... 21 Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................................................... 22 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................... 23
6 . 4 .1 A lt e rna t i v es t o Im p r o v e U s er - F ri end li n es s o f P a rk i n g S ys t em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 6 . 4 .2 Alt e rnatives to Improve Ut ilizat ion and Dist rib ution of Off- St reet P u b li c Pa r king . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 6 . 4 .3 A lt e rna t i v es t o R ed u ce Is o lat ed Sh o r t ag e s o f O n - St r eet P ar k ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 6 . 4 .4 A lt e rna t i v es t o In c r ea s e C ap ac it y f o r In t en s if ic ati o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 6 . 4 .5 A lt e rna t i v es t o Im p r o v e F in an c i a l Sus t ain ab il it y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
7.
RECOMMENDED PARKING MASTER PLAN ......................................................................29
7.1
Parking Management and Operations ............................................................................................... 29

7 . 1 .1 I m p lem ent C o m p r eh en siv e Wa yf ind in g and S ig n a g e p ro g r am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 7 . 1 .2 D e ve lop M a rk e ting and Info rm at ion M at e ri a l s on th e Pa rk ing S y st em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 7 . 1 .3 I m p lem ent O n - St r ee t P a rk i n g P r ic in g t o O p t im i z e U se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 7 . 1 .4 E l im in at e 2 h o u r F r ee Pa r k ing i n O f f - St r eet L o t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 7 . 1 .5 P r o m o t e F ree P e rip h e r al P a r kin g L o t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 7 . 1 .6 I n cr e as e Mo n t h l y P a rk ing A va i la b i l it y and Pe rm it R at e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 7 . 1 .7 P r o p o se d R a t e St ru ctu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
7.2
Parking Supply .................................................................................................................................... 41

7 . 2 .1 P l an f o r F u t u r e P a rk ing S t ru ctu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 7 . 2 .2 E x p an d A c ce s s ib le Pa r ki n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
March 2009
Page ii.

7.3 Supporting Strategies......................................................................................................................... 43
7 . 3 .1 A m end Z o n in g B y- law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 7 . 3 .2 T r ans p o rt a t io n D em an d M an ag em en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 7 . 3 .3 P r o m o t e A ct i v e T ran spo rt at io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 7 . 3 .4 P a r k ing D esi g n S t an d a rd s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
7.4
Funding and Financial Strategy ......................................................................................................... 48

7 . 4 .1 F u n d in g O p t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 7 . 4 .2 F in an c i a l A n a l y si s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
7.5 7.6
Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 55 Monitoring and Measurement ............................................................................................................ 56
March 2009
Page iii.

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1: Core Areas Study Area ....................................................................................................2 Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas of Change Galt City Centre ..............................................................10 Exhibit 4.2: Potential Areas of Change Preston Towne Centre .....................................................12 Exhibit 4.3: Potential Areas of Change Hespeler Village...............................................................13 Exhibit 5.1: Issues and Opportunities Related to the User Friendliness of the Parking System ......15 Exhibit 5.2: Issues and Opportunities Related to Off-Street Parking Utilization ...............................16 Exhibit 5.3: Issues and Opportunities Related to Isolated Shortages of On-Street Parking.............17 Exhibit 5.4: Issues and Opportunities Related to Capacity for Intensification ..................................18 Exhibit 5.5: Issues and Opportunities Related to Financial Sustainability ........................................18 Exhibit 6.1: Detailed Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................22 Exhibit 6.2: Evaluation of Options for Improving User Friendliness of Parking System ...................24 Exhibit 6.3: Evaluation of Options for Improving Distribution of Off-street Parking ..........................24 Exhibit 6.4: Evaluation of Options for Reducing Shortages of On-Street Parking ............................26 Exhibit 6.5: Evaluation of Options Accommodating Intensification ...................................................27 Exhibit 6.6: Evaluation of Options to Address Financial Sustainability.............................................28 Exhibit 7.1: Examples of Wayfinding Signage ..................................................................................30 Exhibit 7.2: Walking Distances in Galt Core Area vs. Cambridge Mall.............................................35 Exhibit 7.3: True Cost of Parking Supply ($/space) ..........................................................................36 Exhibit 7.4: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Galt City Centre.....................................................38 Exhibit 7.5: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Preston Towne Centre ..........................................39 Exhibit 7.6: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Hespeler Village ....................................................40 Exhibit 7.7: Potential Locations for a New Parking Structure Galt City Centre..............................41 Exhibit 7.8: Financial Analysis for a New Parking Structure .............................................................42 Exhibit 7.9: Dimensions and Function of Disabled Parking Spaces (in millimetres).........................43 Exhibit 7.10: Potential Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements for Cambridge Core Areas ............................................................................................................................45 Exhibit 7.11: Examples of Parking Structure Designs ......................................................................47 Exhibit 7.12: Comparative Analysis of Paid Parking (comparison of 2009 values) ..........................49 Exhibit 7.13: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Do Nothing .........................52 Exhibit 7.14: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Moderate approach............53 Exhibit 7.15: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Recommended approach.......................................................................................................................54 Exhibit 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
March 2009
Page iv.
City of Cambridge
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARCH 2009
IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I m p lem ent C o m p r eh en siv e Wa yf ind in g and S ig n a g e p ro g r am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 3 D e ve lop M a rk e ting and Info rm at ion M at e ri a l s on th e Pa rk ing S y st em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 4 I m p lem ent O n - St r ee t P a rk i n g P r ic in g t o O p t im i z e U se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 4 E l im in at e 2 h o u r F r ee Pa r k ing i n O f f - St r eet L o t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 4 P r o m o t e F ree P e rip h e ral Parkin g L o t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 4 I n cr e as e Mo n t h l y P a rk ing A va i la b i l it y and Pe rm it R at e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 5 P r o p o se d R a t e St ru ctu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 5 P l an f o r F u t u r e P a rk ing S t ru ctu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 9 E x p an d A c ce s s ib le Pa r ki n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 9 A m end Z o n in g B y- law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 9 T r ans p o rt a t io n D em an d M an ag em en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 1 0 P r o m o t e A ct i v e T ran spo rt at io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 1 0 I m p lem ent Pa r k ing D es ig n Sta n d a rd s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 1 0
FUNDING AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY..................................................................................ES-11 F in an c i a l A n a l y si s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E S - 1 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .........................................................................................................ES-11 MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT.......................................................................................ES-13
March 2009
Page i.
City of Cambridge CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN
STUDY OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES

The City of Cambridge is at a critical point in its ongoing development. Provincial legislation requires 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 an urban growth node under the Places to Grow Act. This, in conjunction with a number of large developments either in the planning stages or with the potential to redevelop, will place pressure on Cambridges parking resources over the next 20 years. In March 2008, the City of Cambridge initiated the Core Areas Parking Master Plan for the three Core Areas of Galt, Hespeler and Preston. A key objective of this Master plan is to assess existing and future parking needs and develop a forward-looking and sustainable parking plan for the next 15 - 20 years. The Master Plan will assess existing parking needs and policies, develop future forecasts 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 a balanced approach must be adopted for all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management, away from the notion that a parking problem is automatically associated with inadequate supply. Rather, a parking problem can mean a multitude of issues including 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 propose strategies to deal with existing and future parking requirements. It is intended that the recommendations of the study be strategic in nature and provide a blueprint for all future planning decisions related to parking. The recommendations of the study also address factors that influence parking demand, including the role of transit, carpooling and active transportation. Policies that affect the creation and management of parking supply, including the specification of by-laws governing parking requirements, are also reviewed.
STUDY PROCESS
The Core Areas Parking Master Plan represents the efforts of a large number of people. In order to facilitate and guide the development of the Plan, the City established a Project Team comprised of representatives from City Council and staff from the Transportation and Public Works and Planning Services Departments. A Stakeholders Group was also convened to steer the study, which included Core Area Business Improvement Area representatives, other City Departments, and the On-Road Cycling Advisory Group. The Stakeholders Group met three times during the study and had an opportunity to comment on the proposed study recommendations. A Technical Agencies Group was also formed, representing Waterloo Region, Grand River Transit and emergency services, 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 Information Centres were held in June 2008 and January 2009. The events were advertised through local newspapers, and through BIA representatives on the Stakeholders Group. The second Public Information Centre was held in each of the three Core Areas, on consecutive nights. An intercept survey was carried out to directly measure peoples perceptions of the parking system. A webbased survey was also made available throughout the study to collect data on parking issues from the public.
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN
KEY FINDINGS OF STUDY

The study found a number of issues related to: Very poor user comprehension of the parking system: There is considerable confusion regarding the 5-hour no re-park policy, frustration expressed by people getting tickets because of misunderstanding the system, and complaints about the ease of use of drive-up pay and display ticket machines; Utilization and distribution of off-street public parking: There is considerable off-street surface parking in each Core Area that goes underutilized on a regular basis, a public preference to park close 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 to accommodate most of the needs for businesses in the Core Areas, some street segments operate at 100% of capacity during peak times; Capacity of the parking system for intensification: There is a lack of land capacity to support intensification and parking for major development proposals, and there are numerous constraints created by existing built form and environmental/geological constraints. Overall, this suggests that there may be difficulty in meeting future parking needs in some areas. Financial sustainability of parking system: This study found that the current parking system operation does not generate enough income to cover expenses, and requires a taxpayer subsidy of approximately $440,000 per annum. The parking system does not generate enough revenue to fund 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 all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management away from the more parking is better approach. Some examples of the main differences in the traditional and new approaches to parking management are summarized as follows:1 Traditional Parking Approach A parking problem means inadequate supply. More parking is better. Parking requirements should be applied consistently without exception or variation. Parking should be provided free or at a low cost, especially in downtowns to compete with suburban malls with free parking. New Parking Approach Parking problems can mean a multitude of issues including inadequate supply, inefficient management and inadequate information. Too much parking supply is as harmful as too little. Parking requirements should reflect each particular situation and should be applied flexibly. As much as possible, users should pay directly for parking facilities.
Adapted from Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006
Page ES-2
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Based on this general philosophy, and recognizing what was heard from key stakeholders, the public, staff and members of the Project Team, eight guiding principles were developed to guide 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 wellregarded 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. 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 will ensure continual improvement of the parking system.
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations of the Core Areas Parking Master Plan are as follows:
1. I M P L E M E N T C O M P R EH E N S I V E W A Y F I N D I N G A N D S I G N A G E P R O G R A M
A comprehensive signage system for both drivers and pedestrians would serve to make people aware of parking options, and should meet the following criteria: x x x x x x
March 2009
Be attractive; Direct motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to smaller destinations; Be part of an overall city identity; Provide direction over very small distances at lower speeds; Compete with street, regulatory and storefront signs for the attention of the motorist/pedestrian; and Be planned and designed with a consistent set of standards.
Page ES-3

2. D E V E L O P M A R K E T I N G A N D I N F O R M A T I O N M A T ER I A L S O N T H E P A R K I N G SY S T E M
The following are recommended to improve user information: x An updated central municipal parking website portal with the following information, or links to information: x x 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);
A new parking brochure and map for the downtown; Materials for distribution at major events, trade-shows, etc. on downtown parking and Cambridge Parking in general; and Web-links to sites on alternative transportation options (e.g. Cycling routes, Grand River Transit, Carpool and CarShare sites).
The updating and dissemination of information on the parking system should be an on-going process.
3. I M P L E M E N T O N - S T R E E T P A R K I N G P R I C I N G T O O PT I M I Z E U S 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 each of the Core Areas develops. The maximum time limit will also be increased from two hours to three hours. Paid parking would be in force from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with rates tied to measured parking demand. During evenings and weekends, payment would not be required, but the three hour limit would remain in effect. Overnight parking would not be provided at on-street locations, and should be provided at off-street parking lots, with the appropriate permit.
4. ELIMINATE 2 HOUR FREE PARKING IN OFF-STREET LOTS
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 hour maximum restrictions will also be removed from off-street lots. Pay and display technology will be implemented at most off-street lots to allow persons to park for as long as they require, to a maximum of all day.
5. P R O M O T E F R E E P E R I P H E R A L PA R K I N G L O T S
Unpaid or free daytime parking should be provided at one peripheral parking lot within each Core Area to provide an alternative for downtown employees who do not wish (or cannot afford) to pay for parking every day.
March 2009
Page ES-4

6. INCREASE MONTHLY PARKING AVAILABILITY AND PERMIT RATES
The following are recommended to improve parking permit availability and increase parking permit rates: x x Increase number of available permits in lower demand lots; Change the way permits are issued so that they are tied to a person rather than a specific vehicle (a unique ID on each parking permit will be required to allow enforcement); Charge higher permit rates in higher demand lots; Allow current permit holders to transfer to cheaper lots; and City to pay equivalent monthly rate for City employees with parking permits.
x x x
The current rate review during the 2009 budget process lists rates that will come into effect on January 2010. These rates will be amended through a separate rate review, to be considered by Council on March 30, 2009.
7. PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE
The proposed rate structure is based on a two zone system that will be tied to measured parking occupancy as described below: x Zone 1 including all on-street areas and off-street lots with measured average daily occupancy of 50% or greater; Zone 2 including all on-street areas and off-street lots with measured average daily occupancy of below 50%, with the exception of one designated free daytime parking lot in each Core Area.
The resulting parking zone structure for each Core Area is shown on the following Exhibits ES.1, ES.2 and ES.3. Payment for on and off-street parking is recommended at $1.00 per hour for Zone 1, and $0.50 per hour for Zone 2, with a daily maximum rates at off-street lots of $5.00 for Zone 1 and $2.50 for Zone 2. The proposed rate for a daytime monthly parking permit is recommended at $60 for Zone 1 and $40 for Zone 2. Twenty-four hour permits are recommended at $70 for Zone 1 and $50 for Zone 2. Overnight permits will also be available in the three lots offering free parking during the day, at a rate of $30 per month.
March 2009
Page ES-5
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit ES.1: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Galt City Centre
March 2009
Page ES-6
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit ES.2: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Preston Towne Centre
March 2009
Page ES-7
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit ES.3: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Hespeler Village
March 2009
Page ES-8
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN The proposed zone-based rate structure will replace the current parking section in the Citys Rate Review that is currently very specific. The introduction of a zone-based system will allow flexibility to change future parking rates based on measured demand, subject to Council approval.
8. PLAN FOR FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE
It is clear that additional parking supply will be required to support growth in the Core Areas. The Galt Core will probably require a parking structure in the short to medium term to meet the Provincial Growth Policies, however, ongoing demand and the potential for a structure in the future in Preston and Hespeler should also continue to be monitored. Based on current needs and a review of land availability, several locations are considered appropriate for new public parking structure. These could be constructed as part of future development proposals, or as stand-alone municipal parking facilities. The following actions are recommended to address the future needs to construct additional parking supply: x x x Identify a short list of locations for possible parking structure(s); Develop a structure design that contributes to the urban fabric; Review and select the appropriate financial model for the construction and operation of the structure; Implement supporting financial strategies to generate the required revenue; and Design the structure to be expandable based on future increases in demand.
x x
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. EXPAND ACCESSIBLE PARKING
Accessible spaces should be provided at a rate of one space for every 25 parking spaces. The dimensions of the parking spaces should comply with the dimensions set out by the Canadian Standards 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 additional accessible spaces are required to meet these standards.
10. AMEND ZONING BY-LAW
A balanced strategy is recommended to change the Zoning By-law within the Core Areas to: x x Eliminate the current parking exemption for specific areas; Reduce minimum parking standards and implement parking maximums for new development; Implement design standards for parking; and Implement policies to prohibit the creation of new surface parking.
x x
March 2009
Page ES-9
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN It is understood that the City of Cambridge will be preparing urban design guidelines in 2011. It is recommended that guidelines for the design of new parking facilities be carried out as part of that process.
11. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N D E M A N D M A N A G EM E N T
Working with the Region of Waterloo, it is recommended that the City of Cambridge investigate and implement, where appropriate: x Promote carpooling initiate measures to help promote carpooling, starting with designating preferential spaces for registered carpoolers (as currently done at the Cambridge Administration Building). Pool vehicles/car sharing continue to support CarShare and similar programs that provide vehicles for people to utilize on an occasional basis, thus reducing the need for a personal vehicle. Transit Usage continue to support the Regions initiative to introduce improved transit services. Cash-Out Programs review opportunities to introduce cash-out employee programs, as an alternative to directly funding parking permits for City staff.
PROMOTE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
12.
In order to continue to foster the use of active transportation modes as alternatives to driving downtown, 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 new downtown office developments; Install additional secure bike parking facilities in City-owned parking lots and in key areas, building on the lessons learned from the enclosed bike storage lockers and showers located at New City Hall; Continue to install bike racks on streets throughout the downtown; Improve pedestrian connections between the Grand River trail system and the downtown.
IMPLEMENT PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
x x
13.
Implement parking design standards that include: x x x x Provision of adequate pedestrian connections through parking areas; Provision of improved lighting of parking facilities; Consolidated vehicle entry points to minimize pedestrian conflicts; Consideration of amenities within or near vehicle parking lots for cyclists (e.g. bike racks, bike lockers, and water stations).
Page ES-10
March 2009
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. The four 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 to move towards a full cost recovery approach whereby the operation and expansion of parking is at least revenue neutral. Implementing user fees (i.e. priced parking) is the most direct way of ensuring the financial sustainability of the parking system, and it provides the ability to direct revenues 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 parking infrastructure (e.g. pay and display machines) or other Core Area improvements such as accessible parking, 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 this study for a range of scenarios, from the do-nothing to an aggressive approach where parking prices are 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 year as the costs of expenses rise faster than the increase in revenues. A continued and increasing deficit will require the Citys taxpayers to subsidize the parking system by $500,000 per year by approximately 2016. A continued deficit of this scale will have a net cost to the taxpayer of $10 million 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 and increasing the cost of daytime parking permits to $60 and $40 per month will result in revenues becoming greater than expenses by approximately 2013. A surplus would then be generated and placed in a reserve fund. The annual surplus will give the City the ability to carry out the improvements to the parking system mentioned above.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A preliminary implementation plan for the strategies contained in this Master Plan is contained in Exhibit ES.4 below.
March 2009
Page ES-11
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit ES.4: Preliminary Implementation Plan
Strategy Action Timing Capital Cost Core Area
Parking Management and Operations Establish central municipal parking website for all Develop marketing and information parking-related information 2009-2010 $5,000 All materials Create new parking system brochure 2009-2010 $5,000 All Implement wayfinding and signage Improve signage to municipal lots 2010 $20,000 All improvements Phase out existing multiple permits with reduced Improve Parking Permit Management payment 2010 Nil All and Enforcement Practices Implement monthly parking permits tied to holder 2010 Nil All Increase monthly permit availability and rates 2010 Nil All Remove ability of City's Department Heads to cancel parking tickets 2010 Nil All Promote free parking in peripheral lots 2010 $5,000 All Optimize Parking Supply Remove no-reparking policy 2009 Nil All Remove two hour free parking policy 2010-2011 Nil All Change existing drive-up pay and display configuration to walk-up operation 2010 $20,000 All Implement pay and display in off-street lots, with maximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand lots 2010 $196,000 All Implement pay and display for on-street parking, with maximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand locations Galt implementation first year, Preston and Hespeler next year 2011-2012 $994,000 All Add one full-time position to the parking program 2010 $60,000 All Remove parking spaces from one side of Queen Operational improvements Street, east of Guelph Avenue 2010 $5,000 Hespeler Parking Supply Expand Accessible Parking to all off-street lots 2010-2011 $30,000 All Improve Parking Supply Planning and design of future parking structure in Galt - alternatives for location and size 2011-2012 $200,000 Galt Supporting Strategies Amend by-law to include parking maximums and Amend Zoning By-law minimums in Core Areas 2010-2012 $20,000 All Amend by-law to reduce parking requirements in close proximity to planned Rapid Transit stations 2010-2012 Incl. in above All Review Cash-in-lieu of parking program 2010-2012 Nil All Work with Region to promote transit usage 2010-2012 Nil All Travel Demand Management Amend Zoning By-law to require bicycle Promote Active Transportation parking/storage and shower and locker faclities for new developments 2012 Nil All Install additional bicycle parking in core areas 2009-2014 $10,000 All Incorporate parking design standards in City's Urban Implement Parking Design Standards Design Guidelines 2011 Nil All Establish reserve fund to manage revenues for use for Funding new parking and Core Area streetscaping projects 2010 Nil All Monitoring and Measurement Update to Master Plan Every 5 years $150,000 All Updates Set and measure performance indicators e.g. violations, parking occupancy, revenues Annual Nil All Parking occupancy surveys for all Core Area parking Annual $10,000 All
A key component of the Master Plan is monitoring and measurement, and updates to the Master Plan to ensure that it remains a living document that is adjusted as parking needs in the Core Areas change over time. The monitoring and measurement components of the plan are discussed in further detail in the following section.
March 2009
Page ES-12
MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT

Performance measurement is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of the recommendations outlined in this Parking Master Plan, as well as the overall progress towards meeting the Guiding Principles for this study. A structured performance measurement program also provides a framework for the City to track changes in the pace of development and major changes to public and private parking supply, so that potential deviations from the assumptions used to develop this Plan 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 is recommended that these performance indicators be presented in the form of an Annual Report for the Core Areas Parking system, and that this report be made available to the general public. Such a report, when presented in a way that effectively communicates successes and ongoing challenges, may also help to continue to foster the relationship with the BIAs and the media, helping to raise public awareness of results achieved and the need for continued action. A report card could also be developed based on the performance measurement framework providing simple ratings of progress towards each objective.
March 2009
Page ES-13
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit ES.5: Performance Measurement Framework Guiding Principle 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. 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 will ensure continual improvement of the parking system. Performance Measure(s) Number of tickets Number of recorded complaints about parking in the Core Areas Number of permits by type and by lot Opinion surveys (intercept surveys) Number of off-street public parking spaces Number of on-street parking spaces Percent utilization of on-street and off-street parking Frequency Annually Annually On-going Every 2-3 years On-going On-going Annually
Cash-in-lieu account balance Number of development applications in core areas and associated parking supply
On-going Annually
Detailed Parking system revenues and expenses Parking reserve fund Total surface area in each Core Area dedicated to surface parking Capital expenditures on green parking improvements
Annually Annually Every 5 years
Annually
Number of public bicycle parking spaces (on-street/offstreet) Number of commuters using sustainable modes to travel to core areas (based on Census or other data) Informal reporting
Annually Every 5 years
On-going
J:\19184_Cambrdg_park\10.0 Reports\Final Report\Exec summary\Executive summary2009-03-12.doc\2009-04-09\GT
March 2009
Page ES-14
City of Cambridge
FINAL REPORT
MARCH 2009
City of Cambridge CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Overview and Objectives

In March 2008, the City of Cambridge initiated the Core Areas Parking Master Plan for the three Core Areas of Galt, Hespeler and Preston. A key objective of this Master plan is to assess existing and future parking needs and develop a forward-looking and sustainable parking plan for the next 15-20 years. The Master Plan will assess existing parking needs and policies, develop future forecasts 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 a balanced approach must be adopted for all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management, away from the notion that a parking problem is automatically associated with inadequate supply. Rather, a parking problem can mean a multitude of issues including inadequate supply, inefficient management of facilities and inadequate information.
1.2 Outline of Report

Following this introduction, this report contains six chapters: x Chapter 2 provides a summary of the numerous public and stakeholder consultation activities conducted throughout the study and the key findings; Chapter 3 describes the existing environment for parking in the Core Areas, including current management and operations practices, existing parking demand and supply, and the financial performance of the existing system; Chapter 4 provides an overview of potential future development in the City of Cambridge as a whole and in the Core Areas; Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the current and future issues and opportunities for the parking system; Chapter 6 presents the evaluation of alternatives to address the problems and opportunities statements and the preferred directions for the parking system; and, Chapter 7 summarizes the recommended Core Areas Parking Master Plan, together with a financial plan and implementation plan.
1.3 Overview of Study Area and Scope

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan is intended to address parking issues in the three Core Areas: x x x Galt City Centre; Preston Towne Centre; and, Hespeler Village.
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 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 x x x Public Parking (On-street and Off-street); Private Parking (Publicly accessible parking and Use-specific parking); Residential On-Street Parking; and Accessible Parking.
1.4 Study Process

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan is being conducted in compliance with Section A.2.7 Master Plans, 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 Class Environmental Assessment Process. While an Environmental Assessment (EA) is not required for many aspects of the parking system, the Municipal Engineers Association does require a Class EA
March 2009 Page 2
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN for parking structures costing more than $8.7 million. In addition, there are many other benefits of following 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 x addresses the key principles of successful environmental planning; addresses at least the first two phases of the Municipal Class EA and may also include other phases; allows for an integrated process with other planning initiatives; provides a strategic level assessment of various options to better address overall system needs, and potential impacts and associated mitigation for each alternative; is generally long term; incorporates extensive stakeholder consultation; takes a system-wide approach to planning which considers related infrastructure either geographically or by a particular function; recommends an infrastructure master plan that can be implemented through the implementation of separate projects; and includes a description and cost of the specific projects.
x x
x x x
March 2009
Page 3
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 consultation activities 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 the following groups: x x x x x x x x x x The three Core Area Business Improvement Districts (BIAs); Chambers of Commerce; Libraries; Senior Centres; Cambridge Centre for the Arts; Mayor and Councillors; Economic advisory committee; Municipal heritage advisory committee; Farmers Market; and On-road cycling group.
The stakeholders group met with the project team on three occasions. The first meeting was held on April 16, 2008 to introduce the study and receive information on parking issues and experiences in the three Core Areas. The second meeting was held on September 15, 2008 to review data obtained from the parking surveys, to review the findings from Public Information Centre #1, and to discuss potential alternatives and improvement options. The third meeting was held on December 9, 2008 to review the draft recommendations of the study. To further supplement the consultation and improve the study teams understanding of the issues, a walkabout 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 well understood by the public and the experience of customers of Core Area businesses can often be a negative one. The general consensus of the stakeholders group was that the parking system needs to be more intuitive and transparent. Prior to presentation of the study report to Council on March 23, 2009, a special presentation was made to the Hespeler BIA at the request of the BIA chair.
March 2009
Page 4
2.2 Technical Agencies Group

A Technical Agencies Group was also formed at the outset of the study to identify issues, and provide feedback on proposed alternatives, with members invited from the following groups: x x x x x x x x x x x x City of Cambridge Public Works Division; Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation Planning; Regional Municipality of Waterloo Urban Planning; Regional Municipality of Waterloo Traffic Operations; Ontario Ministry of Transportation; Emergency Services; Ontario Ministry of the Environment; First Nations; Grand River Transit; Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Rail; City of Cambridge Economic Development Division; City of Cambridge Community Services Department.
The Technical Agencies Group met with the project team on two occasions. The first meeting was held on May 13, 2008 to introduce the study and receive input on regional parking and planning issues, 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 draft recommendations of the study.
2.3 Public Information Centres

Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were included in the public consultation component of this study. The first PIC was held on June 18, 2008 at the Cambridge Centre Mall. The PIC was advertised in the Cambridge Times and notification letters were sent to members of the stakeholders and technical agencies groups. The purpose of the first PIC was to present the purpose and scope of the study, review parking conditions in the three Cambridge Core Areas, review potential alternatives and how alternatives would 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 to discuss the boards but chose not to sign in. It is estimated that approximately 40 contacts were made. The second series of PICs was held on January 27, 28 and 29, 2009, with a PIC being held in each Core Area. The second PICs presented the evaluation of alternative solutions, and the
March 2009 Page 5
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN recommended alternative. Despite advertising in the newspaper, and coverage of the meetings by local newspapers and radio, attendance was relatively low, with approximately four members of the Public attending in Preston, approximately 10 in Galt, and approximately 5 in Hespeler. Comments received 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 survey was published in conjunction with the PIC notice. A notice was also included in communication to the Technical Advisory Group and was published in the Citys internal newsletter. As of the end of November, there were 96 responses to the web survey. A summary of the responses is contained in Appendix A.
2.5 Intercept Survey

To supplement the data received from the PIC and the on-line survey, an intercept survey was carried out on the streets of each Core Area in August 2008. The survey involved a two minute survey by questionnaire, and was conducted from August 22 to August 27, 2008 on-street and at municipal parking lots. A total of 227 persons were surveyed. Key findings included: x x x Majority made regular trips to Core Areas, and planned to park for less than 2 hours (79%); 30% have had trouble with parking (e.g. parking lot full, infraction, etc.); and 50% didnt know about the No Reparking policy.
The findings appeared to be in line with comments that had been made by stakeholders, and observations of the study team.
2.6 Council Meetings

The findings and recommendations of the Parking Master Plan were presented to the General Committee on March 23, 2009, and to Council on March 30, 2009. At General Committee, the staff report was approved with an amendment to exclude the recommendation to implement on-street paid parking. At the Council meeting of March 30, 2009, the project was approved with the full set of recommendations including paid on-street parking. An additional recommendation to investigate discontinuing the current practice of offering free parking in December was included for the Galt Core Area.
3.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Policy Context

Official Plans, Zoning By-laws and Traffic and Parking By-laws from the City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo were reviewed. The findings of the review are contained in the Background Data Report included in Appendix B of this report. The Background Data report also summarized
March 2009 Page 6
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN the findings of previous and on-going studies related to transportation and parking in the City of Cambridge, and summarized the projected changes in population and employment expected for each 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, is managed by the Transportation and Public Works Department of the City of Cambridge. The City contracts 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 made available by the City of Cambridge on a two hour free basis. Paid parking for longer durations is available at some lots equipped with pay and display machines located in the Galt and Preston Core Areas. Parking permits are also available at most lots, with 24 hour permits that allow overnight 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 exceeded the number of permits paid for, which has created an impression that some permit applicants have received preferential treatment. A number of the parking lots are leased by the City of Cambridge from private land owners. In many 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 where a ticket is given to a visitor attending a City facility for a meeting or otherwise on City business. A total 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 onstreet parking in each Core Area. Utilization surveys (vehicular counts) were conducted every hour non-stop during the weekday from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (18-hour day) and during Saturday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM (9-hour day). Parking turnover studies were carried out for all off-street municipal parking facilities and on-street parking in each Core Area. License plate surveys were conducted every hour non-stop during the weekday 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 vehicle by location (i.e. by parking lot or block) to allow determination of how long individual vehicles were parked. Automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) were also placed at the access point(s) to each municipal parking facility to collect a minimum of seven day, 24 hour traffic data, to allow determination of the busiest times for each parking lot. A follow-up survey was carried out in September 2008, with a detailed focus on the areas affected by the opening of the Citys new Civic Administration Building on Dickson Street, but also checking all other areas in Galt, Preston and Hespeler.
March 2009
Page 7
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 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 onstreet 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 a weekday 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-street parking 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 Report included 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 parking lots allow two hour free parking, the revenues generated by the Citys parking system are due almost 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 of cancelling tickets, results in a loss of revenue to the City. The findings of the review are contained in the Background Data Report included in Appendix B of this report.
March 2009
Page 8
4.
FUTURE NEEDS
4.1 Projected Population and Employment

By 2031, the City of Cambridge as a whole is expected to grow from its current population of 120,000 to 180,000, an increase of some 60,000 people. In addition to the population growth, the City forecasts indicate approximately 25,000 new jobs citywide by 2031. While the City is still in the process of determining where this growth will occur, it is expected that a large portion will be allocated to the Urban Growth Centre of Galt, as directed by Provincial Policies. Additional areas of intensification, which are also undergoing review, will likely encompass most of the three Core Areas. Current projections obtained from the Region of Waterloo show that the strongest growth in population and employment is in Galt City Centre, although Preston Towne Centre and Hespeler Village are also expected to undergo residential intensification.
4.2 Future Development Potential

To a large extent, future parking needs depend on how different areas within each of the Core Areas are developed, and for what uses. It is also recognized that the impacts of future development on parking needs can be two-fold. For example, if development occurs on an existing surface parking lot, this has the impact of creating additional parking demands, and it also has the impact of reducing parking supply. Furthermore, if the use is one that generates a high public parking demand (e.g. retail, entertainment, institutional uses), the parking impacts will be greater than if it is a self-contained private development (e.g. residential or office uses). Due to the complexities of development within established urban areas such as the Cambridge Core Areas, it is important to have an understanding of the most likely areas of development activity and their potential uses, as discussed below.
4.2.1 GALT CITY CENTRE
Exhibit 4.1 provides a map of the Galt City Centre and the areas of potential development activity. A commentary on potential changes in these areas is provided below: 1. South of Fraser Street: This area is part of the Southworks site and is being developed primarily for residential uses (seniors homes). It is likely that most parking needs can be met on-site. 2. Southworks: This area includes twenty-eight outlet stores plus a 30,000 square foot Antique Mall. It is likely that these uses will continue for the foreseeable future and there is currently more than sufficient parking on the Southworks site to accommodate most needs. Next to Southworks is the Grand Avenue lot, which is being considered for a potential new theatre, though no decisions have been made at this time. Should this lot be developed for a theatre, parking needs in this area, and the entire Galt Core Area, could change considerably.
March 2009
Page 9
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas of Change Galt City Centre
March 2009
Page 10
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 3. School of Architecture: The University of Waterloo School of Architecture officially opened in October 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 additional parking needs. 4. Library: The Galt Public Library is located on the edge of the Galt Core Area adjacent to residential uses. The current surface lot (G3) is generally sufficient to meet current needs and there are no plans for major expansion of the library at this time. The most likely changes in this area will come 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 residential towers. 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 restaurant may 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 and will likely remain as such for the future. There is sufficient parking on this site to support uses within the building. 7. New City Hall/Market Square: The New City Hall, referred to as the Civic Administration Building (CAB), is located in the centre of activity in Downtown Galt and is surrounded by the Farmers Market, Seniors Centre and other institutional uses. No major development proposals are currently planned for this area, but it can be expected that use of the CAB, Farmers Market and Dickson 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 residential uses. Many of the buildings on Main Street are underutilized and will no doubt be renewed and intensified over time. Main Street is one of the few areas in Galt where there are on-street parking shortages, so it is important that parking supply options are identified to accommodate redevelopment in this area. 9. Water Street South: This area currently includes the bus terminal as well as two of Galts most utilized surface parking lots (G11 and G12). As the Region moves to develop its rapid transit system, pedestrian activity around the transit terminal is likely to intensify. The two surface lots also represent one of the few opportunities for infill development, and most certainly will be eyed for new development in the medium to long term. As with the Grand Avenue lot, if these surface parking lots are developed, this will create a shortage of parking. Accordingly, the parking strategy must provide 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 and pedestrian connections are designed accordingly. 11. Northeast: Similar to the South End, this area has the potential to include additional residential or mixed-use development, with parking supply integrated into new development.
4.2.2 PRESTON TOWNE CENTRE
Areas of potential interest or change in Preston are highlighted on Exhibit 4.2 and discussed below.
March 2009
Page 11
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 1. King Street Commercial: King Street is the primary commercial corridor in Preston Towne Centre and is generally in good economic health. It can be expected that over time, businesses will change, but the general functioning of the Core Area will be stable. There is potential for more residential 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 for the South End of Preston. 3. North Side: The future of the north end of Preston is somewhat uncertain. There has been talk of a possible conference centre at the site of the former hotel. Lands along the Grand River are designated as flood plain lands, which will restrict development to some extent. From a parking perspective, the North Side is fairly self-contained, and therefore parking needs would need to be accommodated as part of any redevelopment. Exhibit 4.2: Potential Areas of Change Preston Towne Centre
4.2.3 HESPELER VILLAGE
Areas of potential interest or change in Hespeler Village are highlighted on Exhibit 4.3 and discussed below. 1. North side of Queen Street: With the completion of the new Queen Street parking lot, the North side of Queen Street is now well served from a public parking perspective. Significant growth is not
March 2009
Page 12
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN expected in Hespeler, but the North Side of Queen Street would be one location where intensification 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 not growth related, but has to do with the width of Queen Street and its inaccessibility for Grand River Transit (GRT) buses and other large vehicles. Options to address this are discussed later in this report. 3. Former American Standard: The former American Standard site will soon be converted to residential development consisting primarily of condominiums. This is sure to bring additional activity to the Queen Street retail corridor, which highlights the importance of improving pedestrian connections between this new development and the rest of the commercial core. Exhibit 4.3: Potential Areas of Change Hespeler Village
3. Former American Standard
1. North side of Queen Street
2. Queen Street Corridor
March 2009
Page 13
5.
PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
As with any downtown, parking issues in Cambridges Core Areas vary significantly by specific location, time of day and the particular user or benefactor of the parking system. Input from the public and key stakeholders, as well as the results of the parking surveys suggest that it is not possible to identify one specific parking problem or opportunity, nor would this be consistent with the overall study approach of looking at a broad range of solutions to address current and future parking issues. The remainder of this chapter provides a summary of the key parking issues and opportunities that will need to be addressed over the short, medium and longer term.
5.1 System-wide Issues and Opportunities

5.1.1 USER-FRIENDLINESS OF PARKING SYSTEM
As a result of the 2002 Core Areas Parking Study and subsequent review, the City of Cambridge implemented a system which provides 2 hours free parking in off-street lots, in conjunction with a 5hour no-repark policy for on-street parking in selected areas. This system was intended to support businesses by providing additional free short term parking while retaining key on-street parking spaces for customers; however, the results have been mixed. Based on intercept surveys conducted for this study, there appears to be confusion about the 5-hr no-repark policies. 50% of those people surveyed were not aware of the no-repark policy. Others were aware, but thought that the no-repark zones were much larger than they actually are. Some people appear to have the perception that if they come to a Core Area once, they cannot return to any part of the Core Area at all for 5 hours; in actual fact they could simply park in areas outside the designated no-repark zone. Another challenge with the parking system is that out of necessity, signage at the lots where pay and display parking is provided needs to convey the logic of the 2 hr free parking, which leads to a misunderstanding of the parking system.
March 2009
Page 14
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 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 Areas and 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 Leads people to take advantage of loopholes in parking system (e.g. people driving in and out of lots to take repeated tickets for two hours free parking). Unfriendly system increases enforcement issues and staff time to address complaints (grace period for on-street parking established to reduce complaints). Core Area businesses need to field complaints about parking problems. May deter future redevelopment because of perceived parking problems. Opportunity Opportunity to re-brand Cambridge Parking as quality service for the public, in association with marketing, to dispel negative perceptions of parking. Potential to reduce ticket disputes and save staff time.
Businesses can become ambassadors for a more intuitive parking system. Opportunity to help encourage downtown redevelopment.
5 . 1 . 2 U T I L I Z A T I O N A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N O F O F F - S T R E E T P U B L I C PA R K I N 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 goes underutilized on a regular basis. Parking surveys found that, even in the Galt City Centre, 50% of the public off-street parking spaces were vacant at peak times. Part of the problem is that utilization varies 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. Many business 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 optimal utilization. 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 more peripheral parking. Another challenge is that pedestrian connections between some of the outlying lots and the centre of the each Core Area are perceived by some people as inconvenient, and walking alone at night between some lots and the centre of the core is seen as a safety concern for some 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 has been sold (based on selling permits until 50% of the parking lot capacity is reached). There is an opportunity to provide additional parking permits at some lots and to introduce pricing incentives by increasing permit costs at high-demand locations. Rationalization of existing permits should also be carried out, so that the system is transparent and treats all applicants equally.
March 2009 Page 15
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 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 People are unwilling to park further from their destination and walk. Opportunity Promote more active lifestyle. Improve lighting and security to make people more comfortable walking to peripheral lots. Opportunity to consolidate surface parking and gain best and highest use for lands. Use excess parking for peripheral long stay parking. Potential for City to reduce leasing and maintenance costs by reducing parking areas. Improving transparency of the permit process and potentially adjusting allocation of permits to reflect actual usage. Implement pricing by location to shift demands.
Increased surface runoff and water quality issues from paved parking areas. Large parking areas detract from pedestrian environment. Costs may outweigh benefits for some leased parking lots.
Demand for permit parking is higher than allocated supply.
5 . 1 . 3 I S O L A T E D S H O R T A G E S O F O N - S T R EE T P A R K I N G
Similar to off-street parking, there is generally sufficient on-street parking to accommodate most of the needs for businesses in the Core Areas. However, there are some blocks that are fully occupied during some parts of the day. Again, this is partially due to pricing free on-street parking is 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 differentiation between 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 high demand 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 tool that 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.
March 2009
Page 16
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 5.3: Issues and Opportunities Related to Isolated Shortages of On-Street Parking Issue Perceived parking shortages. Opportunity Parking shortages can be a sign of a successful business area. Since on-street parking is currently free, there may be an opportunity to eliminate non-essential on-street parkers. If parking is priced, generated revenues can go back into the system to fund other projects. Some situations may be addressed through signage.
Unpaid (free) on-street parking may contribute to high on-street parking occupancy.
Limited ability to add new on-street parking.
On-street parking can conflict with cycling and transit objectives.
5 . 1 . 4 C A PA C I T Y F O R I N T E N S I F I C A T I O N
As mentioned previously, significant population and employment growth will need to be accommodated 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 challenges that Cambridge has in meeting these targets is that much of the urban fabric is already built and has heritage value. As a result, it is likely that some of the existing surface parking lots will come under 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 of Waterloo will also require that development within 800 metres of rapid transit must have a parking provision that supports the use of transit. Other constraints on where and how development can occur include the flood plain and the location of 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 many advantages from an urban development perspective over surface parking provided that it is designed to minimize impacts on the pedestrian environment. Recommendations for this are provided in Section 7. In addition to consolidating parking to make way for planned development, there are many other opportunities to make better use of the existing parking supply to allow for future growth as discussed in the following chapters.
March 2009
Page 17
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 5.4: Issues and Opportunities Related to Capacity for Intensification Issue Lack of land for surface parking to support redevelopment and intensification of surface parking. Increased surface parking areas detrimental to pedestrian environment and connected retail frontages. Redevelopment of existing parking lots may decrease public parking supply. Opportunity Opportunity to plan central parking facility shared by all users.
Central parking facility can simplify wayfinding.
Redeveloped lots could provide for some parking needs.
5 . 1 . 5 F I N A N C I A L SU S T A I N A B I L I T Y
The final major issue to be addressed by this parking Master Plan relates to the financial sustainability of the parking system. Currently, the operation of the parking system in Cambridge results 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 system generates very little revenues other than enforcement. The parking enforcement activity generates revenues that cover the expenses of enforcement, and is therefore financially self-sustaining when considered 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. It also 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 existing parking system, but in general, the public and business community has not been made aware that parking is being subsidized. As highlighted below, there are many potential advantages that may results from moving towards a more financially sustainable parking system. Exhibit 5.5: Issues and Opportunities Related to Financial Sustainability Issue Current parking system operation does not generate enough income to cover expenses. Opportunity Increased revenues could be used for downtown renewal projects or supporting other transportation modes. Moving towards market pricing may encourage shift to transit, cycling and walking. Potential to offer other improvements in the form of streetscaping, marketing materials, etc.
Page 18
City is effectively subsidizing parking by providing free parking and low monthly permit rates.
Increased parking fees may be perceived as counter to downtown development.
March 2009
5.2 Core Area Specific Issues

In addition to the above issues, this study revealed several other issues specific to each of the Core Areas as follows: x Galt City Centre: High parking demands in the centre of the Core Area, but opportunity for increased use of other lots; Frequent event-related parking demands associated with Farmers Market and festivals; 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.
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, in particular transit operations; and Opportunity for increased use of St. James Church parking lot.
March 2009
Page 19
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 all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management away from the more parking is better approach. Some examples of the main differences in the traditional and new approaches to parking management are summarized as follows:1 Traditional Parking Approach A parking problem means inadequate supply. More parking is better. Parking requirements should be applied consistently without exception or variation. Parking should be provided free or at a low cost, especially in downtowns to compete with suburban malls with free parking. New Parking Approach Parking problems can mean a multitude of issues including inadequate supply, inefficient management and inadequate information. Too much parking supply is as harmful as too little. Parking requirements should reflect each particular situation and should be applied flexibly. As much as possible, users should pay directly for parking facilities.
Based on this general philosophy, and recognizing what was heard from key stakeholders, the public, staff and members of the Steering Committee, eight guiding principles were developed to guide 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 wellregarded 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.
Adapted from Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006
Page 20
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN 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 will ensure continual improvement of the parking system.
6.2 Evaluation Approach

The Core Areas Parking Master Plan has followed a planning process that recognizes the EA Planning Process and addresses the requirements of the Municipal Class EA. Although this process was not designed specifically for high level parking studies, the process does translate reasonable well. The approach consists of five steps, of which the first two must be addressed in the Master Plan. Components of the third step are addressed to some extent, in order to explore the potential feasibility of some components of the alternative solutions. Step Description Consultation
Required for Schedule B Master Plan Step 1: Problem or Identify problem or opportunity Opportunity Identify alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity Inventory natural, social and economic environment Identify impact of alternative Step 2: Alternative solutions on the environment, and Solutions mitigating measures Evaluate alternatives and identify a preliminary preference Determine preferred solution (projects) Optional (beyond requirement for Master Plan) Identify alternative design concepts for preferred solution Step 3: Alternative Undertake detailed inventory of Design Concepts natural, social and economic for Preferred environment, and mitigating Solution measures Evaluate alternative designs and identify recommended design Document the problem or opportunity, alternative solutions, Step 4: alternative design concepts, Documentation preferred solution, consultation and decision making process in a public document Step 5: Proceed to implementation Implementation
Optional Mandatory consultation with review agencies and the public
Mandatory consultation with review agencies and the public
Mandatory notification
Notify relevant agencies
March 2009
Page 21
6.3 Evaluation Criteria

During the initial stages of the study, multiple criteria were identified and presented for public comment (Exhibit 6.1). These criteria are drawn from in order to assist with the evaluation of alternatives, 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 each alternative. More detailed evaluation tables, using the criteria below, are presented in Appendix D. Exhibit 6.1: Detailed Evaluation Criteria Category Natural Factor Effect on natural environment Measure Change in impermeable surface area Estimated change in emissions of air contaminants from motorized vehicles Qualitative assessment of safety impacts Qualitative assessment of security impacts Qualitative assessment of walkability impacts Qualitative assessment of cycling impacts Potential for traffic infiltration Ability to meet residential parking needs Number of properties affected Consistency with urban design objectives Compatibility with rapid transit objectives/transit-oriented development On-street parking demand to supply ratio Off-street parking demand to supply ratio Cost of public parking User friendliness of parking system for Core Area visitors Compatibility of parking requirements with developer expectations Cost
Social
Effect on pedestrian and cycling environment
Effect on residential properties
Effect on archaeological resources and heritage or cultural features Impact on urban planning design objectives
Economic
Effect on businesses
Effect on development
March 2009
Page 22
Category
Factor Capital and operating cost
Measure Capital cost Operating cost Net annual lifecycle cost to City of Cambridge Ability for innovative financing options (i.e. public-private partnerships) Public parking demand/supply and utilization (by time horizon) Efficiency of on-street parking (target of 85% utilization) Degree to which option increases or decreases travel options for commuters Length of time to achieve desired results Risk and liability Relationship to other projects Jurisdictional responsibility Impact on road maintenance operations Impact on emergency response times
Technical
Ability to meet transportation accessibility needs
Ease of implementation
Impact on operations
6.4 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

6 . 4 . 1 A L T E R N A T I VE S T O I M P R O V E U S E R - F R I E N D L I N E S S O F P A R K I N G S Y S T E M
Key guidelines for improving the user friendliness of the parking system include: x x x Reducing ambiguity in parking payment policies and time restrictions; Ensuring parking system and payment technology is easy to use; and Providing adequate and consistent signage for all stages of the parking experience (i.e. wayfinding in advance of parking facilities, notification of parking facilities, payment policies and pedestrian routes to/from parking areas).
Several alternatives were examined for the Core Areas and the advantages and disadvantages are summarized for each in the table below.
March 2009
Page 23
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 6.2: Evaluation of Options for Improving User Friendliness of Parking System Alternative Do Nothing. Advantages No capital costs. Disadvantages Confusion related to unique "noreparking" policy. Confusion related to hybrid 2 hour free/payment/ no reparking. Improve signage, education and enforcement. Adopt innovative payment technologies. Change parking policies (e.g. eliminate 5 hour no reparking). Implement parking pricing to create one consistent system (could still allow for 1 or two hours free at off-street lots with change in technology). Minimal capital costs. Hybrid 2 hour free/payment/ no reparking may remain confusing. May be limited to market penetration for pay by cellphone. Without enforcement of time limits, long-stay parking may fill up prime parking spaces. Capital costs for parking payment equipment. Increased costs could be perceived as counter to downtown development.
Can reduce capital costs for parking payment equipment. Minimal capital costs. Reduced confusion with simplified policies. Intuitive system in line with most downtowns in comparable cities. Effective way to discourage long-stay parking in prime parking locations. Ability to generate revenue that could be directed for use in improvements in Core Areas.
Based on the above, the preferred direction is to improve signage and wayfinding, along with eliminating the 5 hour no reparking policy, and implementing parking pricing to control long-stay parking demands.
6 . 4 . 2 A L T E R N A T I VE S T O I M P R O V E U T I L I Z A T I O N A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N O F O F F - S T R E E T P U B L I C PARKING
A number of options are available that could result in more efficient use of parking across the entire system. The advantages and disadvantages are summarized for each in the table below. Exhibit 6.3: Evaluation of Options for Improving Distribution of Off-street Parking Alternative Do Nothing. Advantages No capital costs. Disadvantages High demands for short-stay and long-stay/permit parking close to key destinations.
March 2009
Page 24
Alternative Sell or terminate lease on underutilized lots.
Advantages Reduced operating costs. Potential to redirect expenditures for other uses. Most central parking spaces available for use by customers. Provides more balanced use of parking resources. Improved appearance. Reduced stormwater runoff. May help to reduce perceived security concerns
Disadvantages Reduction in parking supply may not suit long-term goals.
Designate peripheral lots for long-stay parking to free up prime spaces. Green lots by landscaping.
Some lots require allocation of parking permits as a condition of lease that cannot be changed.
Capital costs. Reduction of parking capacity in some lots.
Based on the above, the preferred direction is to provide permits at peripheral lots, using a cost differential to encourage permit holders to relocate from prime parking locations, as well as improving landscaping at all off-street parking lots where conditions allow.
6 . 4 . 3 A L T E R N A T I VE S T O R E D U C E I S O L A T E D S H O R T A G E S O F O N - S T R E E T P A R K I N G
Overall, the City of Cambridge has done a commendable job of maximizing available road space for on-street parking. There are few opportunities left for adding on-street parking without resorting to lane closures. With the introduction of Rapid Transit in the future, on-street parking may in fact be reduced. Accordingly, there is a need to ensure that the existing on-street parking supply is utilized efficiently and equitably. General guiding principles to ensure the management of on-street parking, based on industry best practices, include the following: x On-street parking should be managed as a public resource with pricing and supply management attempting to balance equity and ensure full-cost pricing. No employee (i.e. long-stay parking) should receive free on-street parking where parking is in high demand. On-street parking regulations should be strictly and consistently enforced to prevent abuse and to reduce the number of tickets issued over the longer term.
At the present, these principles are being adhered to in varying degrees in the Core Areas. The fact that on-street parking is free in the Downtown is a major limitation to the achievement of the first two principles. There are essentially two distinct approaches for managing on-street parking: continuing with the restrictive approach, or implementing priced parking to encourage responsible use. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages as summarized below.
March 2009
Page 25
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 6.4: Evaluation of Options for Reducing Shortages of On-Street Parking Alternative Do Nothing. Advantages No capital costs. Minimizes risk and uncertainty for businesses. Disadvantages Continued pressure for parking in prime areas will increase as Core Areas grow. Businesses will continue to receive complaints about parking tickets. Modify parking time restrictions and enforcement to achieve more turnover. Implement parking pricing in high-demand areas to reduce use as long-stay parking. Low cost approach. Increases turnover and probability of getting a space. Ensures efficient use of parking. Generates revenues that could be used for other Core Area improvements (e.g. signage, streetscaping, parking structure). Tends to improve user understanding of regulations. Requires additional enforcement. Reduces attractiveness of onstreet parking. Initial capital cost for equipment. Perception by BIA about loss of customers. May shift parkers to residential streets.
Based on the above, the preferred direction is to implement parking pricing at high-demand locations for on-street parking, using a cost differential to encourage use of off-street parking for longer durations.
6 . 4 . 4 A L T E R N A T I VE S T O I N C R EA S E C A P A C I T Y F O R I N T EN S I F I C A T I O N
As noted previously, there are constraints imposed in each Core Area by the existing built form, floodplain, topography and presence of bedrock, which may have impacts on the ability for developments to provide for their own parking needs, and hence may limit intensification. Key guidelines for increasing the capacity for intensification in the Core Areas include: x Ensuring that non-provision of parking does not become a limiting factor in redevelopment in the Core Areas. Avoiding excessive supply of parking that would conflict with the City and Regions goals for supporting rapid transit and reducing travel demand by single-occupant vehicles. Provision of any new parking should be in a manner where the parking resource can ideally be shared between different users.
Several alternatives were examined for the Core Areas and the advantages and disadvantages are summarized for each in the table below.
March 2009
Page 26
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 6.5: Evaluation of Options Accommodating Intensification Alternative Do Nothing. Rely on nonautomobile modes to mitigate increased parking needs. Optimize existing parking supply using peripheral long stay parking lots. Advantages Minimizes direct costs to City. Minimizes direct costs to City. Encourages sustainable transportation. Minimizes direct costs to City. Maximizes revenue potential per space. Disadvantages City is at risk of not achieving growth targets. Requires aggressive promotion of transit and TDM. Will take time for behaviour changes to take effect. Reduces potential for redevelopment on peripheral lots. Would not attract new development. Requires off-setting revenue source. Risk in that structure may be underutilized in near term.
Parking supply expansion through strategically located parking structures.
Allows for other lots to potentially be redeveloped. Can be integrated into the urban fabric. Potential to attract new development. Allows for shared use parking. Takes burden off City.
Rely entirely on private sector for parking provision.
Many developments are not viable with stand-alone parking.
Based on the above, the preferred direction is to use a combination of the above alternatives to reduce parking demands with TDM, optimize the use of the existing parking resources by spreading demands for long-stay parking, and to plan for strategically located parking structures over the 20 year planning horizon for this study.
6 . 4 . 5 A L T E R N A T I VE S T O I M P R O V E F I N A N C I A L S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
Given that the majority of parking spaces in the Core Areas are designated for two hours of free parking, the existing potential for revenue generation from parking is very low. Since the current expenses of the parking system result in a net cost to the taxpayer of over $400,000 per year, it is apparent that the users of the parking system are not paying for the true costs of parking. General guiding principles to improve the financial sustainability of the parking system, based on industry best practices, include the following: x On and off-street parking should be managed as a public resource with pricing reflecting the demand for parking. If parking pricing is introduced and results in net revenues, the revenues should be directed towards initiatives in the Core Areas.
March 2009
Page 27
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN x Parking permit prices should not significantly favour automobile travel over travel by public transit. Recognition that big city values of parking pricing may not be suitable for the Core Areas of Cambridge.
Addressing the issue of financial sustainability will require either acceptance of the current situation, or finding ways to reduce costs and/or increase revenues. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages as summarized below. Exhibit 6.6: Evaluation of Options to Address Financial Sustainability Alternative Do Nothing. Advantages Minimizes risk and uncertainty for businesses. Disadvantages Continued cost to taxpayers of over $400,000 per year for parking system. Continued cost to taxpayers of over $400,000 per year for parking system. No change in parking habits. Reduced parking supply and capacity to accommodate future parking demands.
Decide to continue to subsidize parking costs in Core Areas.
Makes explicit the continuation of status quo.
Reduce municipal parking supply to lower maintenance and leasing costs. Adopt full cost recovery approach to set hourly and monthly parking rates.
Reductions in expenditure from leasing costs and property taxes.
Increased revenue able to cover costs of parking system and provide funds for other uses. Levels playing field for transit users.
Initial capital cost for equipment. Perception by BIA about loss of customers. May shift parkers to residential streets.
Based on the above, the preferred direction is to move towards a full cost recovery approach for the parking system.
March 2009
Page 28
7.
RECOMMENDED PARKING MASTER PLAN
Based on the evaluation outlined in Section 6, the recommended Parking Master Plan is discussed in the following sections. The elements of the recommended plan are grouped under the following categories: x x x x Parking Management and Operations; Parking Supply; Supporting Strategies; and Funding and Financial Strategy.
An implementation plan, and a plan for monitoring and measurement is also included.
7.1 Parking Management and Operations

7 . 1 . 1 I M P L E M E N T C O M P R EH E N S I V E W A Y F I N D I N G A N D S I G N A G E P R O G R A M
It is generally regarded that a comprehensive information system that includes vehicle, parking and pedestrian wayfinding systems can help to maximize the efficiency of the parking system while reducing confusion and frustration for drivers, which can in turn benefit retailers. Within the Core Areas, there is generally good signage at each lot, but limited signage or wayfinding to direct drivers to the more peripheral lots. A comprehensive signage system for both drivers and pedestrians would serve to make people aware of parking options. Parking wayfinding should not be implemented in isolation. Rather, the look of and approach to parking wayfinding should be coordinated with other signage, such as gateways signs and other destination signs. In general, urban wayfinding signs must: x x x x x Be attractive; Direct motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to smaller destinations; Be part of an overall city identity; Provide direction over very small distances at lower speeds; Compete with street, regulatory and storefront signs for the attention of the motorist/pedestrian; and Be planned and designed with a consistent set of standards.
Examples of different levels of signage are provided below. The City of Cambridge has a unique opportunity to develop a comprehensive signage and wayfinding program for each Core Area in conjunction with the implementation of this Master Plan.
March 2009
Page 29
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.1: Examples of Wayfinding Signage
District Level Parking Signage
Destination specific parking signage
Standardized parking lot/space signage
Pedestrian-oriented signage
7 . 1 . 2 D E V E L O P M A R K E T I N G A N D I N F O R M A T I O N M A T ER I A L S O N T H E P A R K I N G SY S T E M
One of the areas where the Cambridge Core Areas Parking System is lacking is in user information. There is currently very little information on the Citys webpage that describes the public parking system and the parking pamphlet describing the 5 hour no-repark policy is several years old and limited to a specific issue. Information on residential parking is also confusing and difficult to locate. The City is aware of these deficiencies and is currently developing updated materials for several mediums, including the internet and radio.
March 2009
Page 30
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Improving user information is a critical piece of the Core Areas Parking Strategy. User information can help to ensure transparency, by outlining who is responsible for different aspects of the parking system and how decisions are made. User information can also help make it easier for people who are unfamiliar with available parking options to determine which ones best meets their needs. This includes tourists, retail customers and even commuters. User information can also be used to provide clarity to developers. The following are recommended to improve user information: x An updated central municipal parking website portal with the following information, or links to information x x a map of publically accessible parking in the downtown; parking prices and related regulations; information on paying fines; information on monthly parking policies and availability; key contact information; a link to parking by-laws; future parking expansion plans (results of this study);
A new parking brochure and map for the downtown; Materials that could be made available at major events, trade-shows, etc. on downtown parking and Cambridge Parking in general; and Web-links to sites on alternative transportation options (e.g. GRT, AT Plan, Carpool sites).
The updating and dissemination of information on the parking system should be an on-going process.
7 . 1 . 3 I M P L E M E N T O N - S T R E E T P A R K I N G P R I C I N G T O O PT I M I Z E U S E
Implementation of on-street parking pricing is essential for ensuring the efficient use of on-street parking as each of the Core Areas develops. It is to be expected that some Downtown businesses will not be in favour of paid parking, due to the fact that most of the shopping options in the rest of Cambridge offer free parking. However, most downtowns in Ontario have realized that the benefits of charging for parking in terms of increased turnover greatly outweighs the potential for lost customers. An added benefit is that revenues from on-street parking can be used to support other downtown initiatives such as improved signage and streetscaping. There are also options to off-set the potential impacts of paid on-street parking including: x Providing free parking on weekends and evenings, to support activities at Market Square; and Advertising free off-street parking in peripheral lots.
March 2009
Page 31
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Parking Payment Technology The preferred technology for on-street parking is pay and display meters. Pay and display machines are common in Ontario and have many operational advantages over on-street meters: x Payment is flexible, allowing customers to insert payment for as much time as desired, and can be set to allow as little as 5-10 minutes of parking; Solar powered units do not require AC power, which simplifies installation and lowers operating costs; Only one unit is generally required per City block, which results in fewer obstructions in the boulevard compared with traditional parking meters; Machines can transmit real time maintenance alarms and financial and operational statistical data by radio frequency, from each machine to a central monitoring station; Based on communication from the machines, maintenance and revenue collection needs can be identified immediately, reducing the time during which machines may be out of service; Pay and Display machines accept credit cards, which has been found to result in a significant improvement in on-street payment compliance compared with coin operated meters; and Individual parking stalls no longer need to be painted on the street since each machine controls a parking zone rather than a single space which can result in more parking spaces, and reduced pavement marking costs.
Price of Parking It is recommended that parking pricing be tied to utilization of parking so that high demand areas are charged a higher rate, and areas with little or no demand for parking be charged a lower rate. Parking utilization surveys should be carried out periodically to review changes in parking demand that should result in changing the payment rate. It is noted that changing the payment rate does not require extensive costs to install new signs. The change would be made by changing the decals applied to the pay and display machines. It is recommended that parking rates for the high demand areas be initially set at $1.00 per hour (or 25 cents for 15 minutes). Parking in areas of lower demand should be priced initially at 50 cents per hour. The maximum time limit for parking should be set at three hours to allow people parking in the Core Areas to stay for longer periods, as long as payment is made.
March 2009
Page 32
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN The recommended parking rates compare favourably with rates charged in similarly sized cities and in adjacent areas. On-street parking rates in Kitchener range from $1.25 per hour up to $1.75 per hour in high demand locations. In Guelph, parking rates for high demand on-street parking are set at $1.50 per hour. Setting the highest rate in the Cambridge Core Areas at $1.00 per hour recognizes the concerns of stakeholders that Cambridge not be treated as a big city where high parking rates can be justified. Paid parking would be in force from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. During evenings and weekends, payment would not be required, but the three hour limit would remain in effect. Overnight parking would not be provided at on-street locations, and should be provided for at off-street parking lots, with the appropriate permit.
7.1.4 ELIMINATE 2 HOUR FREE PARKING IN OFF-STREET LOTS
Based on comments from stakeholders, the confusion surrounding the two hour free parking at offstreet lots is a major cause of concern, and the system also creates the opportunity for abuse by long-term parkers. 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. It is considered that the change will reduce enforcement tickets and disputes by ensuring use of the parking system is intuitive. With this recommendation in place, paid parking would be in effect at all off-street parking lots, but with free parking provided at one or more peripheral parking lots in each Core Area to provide an alternative for downtown employees who do not wish (or cannot afford) to pay for parking every day. As with on-street parking, it is recommended that the rates charged for off-street parking be tied to utilization of parking so that high demand areas are charged a higher rate, and areas with little or no demand for parking be charged a lower rate. It is recommended that parking rates for the high demand areas be initially set at $1.00 per hour (or 25 cents for 15 minutes). Parking in areas of lower demand should be priced initially at 50 cents per hour. In addition, it is recommended that a daily maximum rate be used at off-street lots, initially set at five times the hourly rate, to encourage long stay parking to occur in off-street lots rather than on-street . For $1.00 per hour lots, the maximum charge would be $5.00 per day, while at 50 cent lots, the maximum charge would be $2.50 per day. At existing paid lots, the current maximum rate is $5.00 per day, so the changed rate structure recommended in this report would result in either the same or a reduced maximum daily rate. The changed parking rates would be effective on January 1, 2010.
7 . 1 . 5 P R O M O T E F R E E P E R I P H E R A L PA R K I N G L O T S
As noted previously, there are a large number of spaces in peripheral public parking lots that are not being utilized fully on a given day. This strategy will be important if the City is to attempt to reduce the percentage of monthly parkers in its prime downtown lots to create space for transient (retail and tourist) parking. One of the reasons why these spaces are not fully utilized is that people perceive them to be far away, and are concerned about safety and security. In fact, getting more people to use these lots may help alleviate these concerns by creating more pedestrian traffic. This strategy may also increase the number of people passing by some Core Area businesses.
March 2009
Page 33
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN It is interesting to note that although the lots are perceived as being far away from the downtown core, there is not much difference between the distance to the Grand Avenue Lot and the central downtown versus the walking distances experienced at some larger malls (see Exhibit 7.2). The primary methods for shifting long term parkers to peripheral lots are the introduction of differential pricing for monthly permits and eliminating the 2-hr free policy, as discussed previously. In addition, the City should continue to make improvements to the pedestrian realm to/from peripheral lots and security measures within lots. It is possible that revenues generated from paid parking could be used to support improvements in the pedestrian realm.
March 2009
Page 34
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.2: Walking Distances in Galt Core Area vs. Cambridge Mall
7.1.6 INCREASE MONTHLY PARKING AVAILABILITY AND PERMIT RATES
The cost of providing parking is typically undervalued by those who use it. As shown on Exhibit 7.3, an owner would need to charge about $40 per month or $0.50/hr to recover the construction costs
March 2009
Page 35
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN and on-going maintenance costs for a surface parking space. This increases to $120/month or $1.50/hr for above grade structures and up to $200/month or $2.50/hr for below grade parking2. Exhibit 7.3: True Cost of Parking Supply ($/space)
$200 $180 $160 $140 Monthly Rate $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Surface Above Grade Structure Underground Structure $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 Average Hourly Rate* $2.50
As a result of the inevitably higher costs of constructing structured parking, there will be a need for both the City and private developers to increase the cost of parking, particularly monthly parking which generates a lower revenue per space than higher turn-over transient parking. As noted previously, the cost of monthly parking permits in Cambridge is artificially low due to ongoing subsidy by taxpayers, and is lower than many local peer cities. The question for the City of Cambridge, as a parking operator, is whether or not it is willing to subsidize the cost of monthly parking for employees working in the downtown in order to maintain and grow the office development market and to support lower income retail employees. As a general policy, if a decision to subsidize parking is made, then the benefits to others should be explicitly made known. The recommended approach for parking pricing in the Core Areas is to implement gradual increases in the cost of monthly parking in conjunction with the implementation of other incentives and options discussed in previous sections. These increases should be predictable and made known well in advance of their implementation to allow people to adjust their habits accordingly. Past practice of the City had allowed some permit applicants to obtain more permits than they had paid for, based on the understanding that the multiple permits were for users who did not require parking every day, and based on agreements that the permits would not be used at the same time. Provision of a parking permit that is portable between different vehicles will address the issue of some permit holders wishing to have permits to share between employees. For example, an employer could purchase one portable permit that could be shared between two staff members one who works on Mondays and Tuesdays, and one who works Wednesday through Friday.
Costs are based on internal estimates by IBI Group and may vary by location and geotechnical conditions
Page 36
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Permits for overnight parking in off-street lots will continue to be required for residents of the Core Areas who do not have parking spaces available at their building. To ensure flexibility for landlords and tenants, a 24 hour parking permit should be made available in addition to the overnight parking permit. The different permits could be differentiated by colour for ease of recognition by parking enforcement staff. The following are recommended to improve parking permit availability and increase parking permit rates: x x Increase number of available permits in lower demand lots; Change the way permits are issued to be tied to holder, not to a specific vehicle (a unique ID on each parking permit will be required to allow enforcement); Charge higher permit rates in high demand lots; Allow current permit holders to transfer to cheaper lots; and City to pay equivalent monthly rate for employees with permits for the Beverly Street Lot.
x x x
The current rate review during the 2009 budget process lists rates that will come into effect on January 2010. These rates may be amended but will require a separate rate review. It is recommended that new permit rates be in effect in January 2010.
7.1.7 PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE
The proposed rate structure is based on a zone system as described below: x Zone 1 including all on-street areas and off-street lots with measured average daily occupancy of over 50%; Zone 2 including all on-street areas and off-street lots with measured average daily occupancy of over 25% but below 50%; and All other on-street and off-street parking areas with measured average daily occupancy of less than 25%.
Some modifications were made to ensure consistency within each Core Area. The resulting parking zone structure for each Core Area is shown on the following exhibits. The proposed parking rates for a monthly parking permit is raised to $60 for Zone 1, and $40 for Zone 2. Twenty-four hour permits would be set at $70 for Zone 1, $50 for Zone 2, and a rate of $30 per month in lots not covered by Zones 1 and 2 (i.e. those lots with free daytime parking). Payment for on and off-street parking is assumed at $1.00 per hour for Zone 1, and $0.50 per hour for Zone 2, with a daily maximum at off-street lots of $5.00 for Zone 1 and $2.50 for Zone 2. The current parking rates at existing paid parking lots are $1.00 per hour, with two hours free parking and a maximum charge of $5.00 per day. The proposed rates would result in the same daily maximum for existing paid off-street lots in Zone 1, and a reduced parking rate for existing paid lots in Zone 2.
March 2009
Page 37
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.4: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Galt City Centre
Cambridge Core Areas Parking Master Plan: Proposed Zone Structure - Galt
Monthly Daytime Permit Costs: Zone 1 - $60 per month Zone 2 - $40 per month Cost of Daytime Parking for Off-street and On-street:
March 2009
Page 38
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.5: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Preston Towne Centre
Cambridge Core Areas Parking Master Plan: Proposed Zone Structure - Preston
Cost of Daytime Parking for Off-street and On-street:
Monthly Daytime Permit Costs: Zone 1 - $60 per month Zone 2 - $40 per month
March 2009
Page 39
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.6: Proposed Parking Rate Structure Hespeler Village
Cambridge Core Areas Parking Master Plan: Proposed Zone Structure - Hespeler
Cost of Daytime Parking for Off-street and On-street:
Monthly Daytime Permit Costs: Zone 1 - $60 per month Zone 2 - $40 per month
March 2009
Page 40
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN The proposed zone-based rate structure will replace the current parking section in the Citys Rate Review that is currently very specific. The introduction of a zone-based system will allow flexibility to change parking rates based on measured demand, with parking lots/street sections listed in a schedule, and any changes in the zone rates presented to Council for consideration each year during the budget process.
7.2 Parking Supply

7.2.1 PLAN FOR FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE
It is clear, based on the preceding discussion of future parking needs in Section 5.1.4, that additional parking supply will be required to support growth in the Core Areas. The exact location and size of parking supply options is partially dependent on how the various development proposals play out. However, based on the current needs and a review of land availability, several locations are considered desirable for new public parking as discussed below and shown on Exhibit 7.7. These could be constructed as part of future development proposals, or as stand-alone municipal parking facilities. One of the considerations in identifying these locations is that it is generally considered more desirable from an urban design perspective to construct smaller, more strategically located parking structures, as opposed to one large facility that could potentially sterilize the surrounding pedestrian environment due to its scale and vehicular access requirements. Retail customers and tourists are also reluctant to walk significant distances from parking lots, and more strategically located lots are likely to serve the downtown business area better. One advantage of a single large facility, however, is that there would be capital cost savings due to economies of scale. Exhibit 7.7: Potential Locations for a New Parking Structure Galt City Centre
March 2009
Page 41
Preliminary financial analysis for construction of a parking structure indicates that, unless permit parking and hourly parking rates are increased significantly from existing levels, a parking structure would not generate sufficient revenues to cover the annualized costs of construction and operation. This suggests a need for additional financing by other methods (e.g. cash-in-lieu or development partnerships). Exhibit 7.8 below shows the results of the preliminary financial analysis for the construction of a parking structure of 200, 300 or 400 parking spaces, with the following key assumptions: x x Capital costs of $25,000 per stall; 70% occupancy of parking spaces, with a 50:50 split of permit spaces and hourly spaces; and Parking permit rates of $50 per month, with hourly rate of $2.00/hour. Exhibit 7.8: Financial Analysis for a New Parking Structure
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000 Total Annualized Cost $600,000 Estimated Total Annual Revenue
$400,000
$200,000
$200 space garage 300 space garage 400 space garage
The following actions are recommended to address the future needs to construct additional parking supply: x x x x Identify short list of locations for possible structure; Develop structure design that contributes to the urban fabric; Implement supporting financial strategies to generate the required revenue; and Design the structure to be expandable based on future increases in demand.
March 2009
Page 42
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Timelines for possible implementation of the planning and construction of additional parking are discussed in Section 7.5 of this report. In general, planning for location and design of a parking structure for the Galt Core could start in 2011, subject to revenue being generated to pay for the planning and design components.
7.2.2 EXPAND ACCESSIBLE PARKING
Accessible spaces should be provided at a rate of one space for every 25 parking spaces. The dimensions of the parking spaces should comply with the dimensions set out by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as updated by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Exhibit 7.9 illustrates the CSA recommended dimensions of a disabled parking stall and aisle, as well as how they function. Exhibit 7.9: Dimensions and Function of Disabled Parking Spaces (in millimetres)
Source: Canadian Standards Association. Barrier-Free Design, 1995. It is considered that on-street accessible parking need not be provided if accessible parking spaces are provided at off-street lots. This recommendation is primarily due to the difficulty in providing the full desirable width of 3.9 m for an-on-street parking space. For example, a typical on-street parking space is 2.0 2.5 m in width. In order to gain the additional width, the disabled parking space would need to protrude into the travelled lane (which is not feasible) or a bay would need to be constructed by moving or narrowing the sidewalk. This is not always possible in older downtown areas such as Cambridge where space for pedestrians and cyclists is already constrained.
7.3 Supporting Strategies

7.3.1 AMEND ZONING BY-LAW
Under the current zoning by-law, new developments in certain parts of the Core Areas are permitted reductions from the regular off-street minimum parking requirements. These exceptions range from a 25% reduction for non-residential to a 100% reduction for residential. It is understood that this exemption was implemented several years ago to stimulate development. The reduced minimum parking standards for designated areas in the downtown has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage is that small developments can be constructed on infill sites without parking, in a manner that is consistent with the historic nature of the downtown, while at the same time promoting reduced reliance on auto travel. However, the reduced standards are a
March 2009 Page 43
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN disadvantage in that a development constructed without parking (or with too little parking) could place additional demand on the parking system which the City would then need to make up, a difficult task given the lack of available land for public parking and the fact that cash-in-lieu is not applicable when no parking is required in the first place. It is also a disadvantage in that a development could provide too much parking, which detracts from the urban environment. There are various opinions among the stakeholders regarding minimum parking standards in the Downtown. For example, some of the lofts in Galt have been constructed with very minimal amounts of parking. This has been positive in that it has reduced the cost of development, which may otherwise not have been financially viable, while avoiding the possibility that extensive parking detracts from the downtown environment. However, there are also issues emerging with residents who require a car for work or other purposes not being able to find parking. With no options, some of these residents choose to park on the street overnight, or take advantages of the Citys overnight permit program in off-street lots. This reduces the amount of space for restaurants and other businesses, which rely on parking in the evening. Overnight parking can also create maintenance and snow removal problems for the City. Accordingly, a balanced strategy is recommended to ensure parking standards in the Downtown are supportive of the Vision including: x Reducing minimum parking standards, but maintaining the provision for a reasonable amount of parking; Adjusting the zoning by-law to ensure that developers share the burden of providing parking; Implementing maximum parking standards to prevent over-supply of parking; and Implementing design standards for new parking facilities.
x x x
The maximum parking standard is a policy-based parking management tool that is receiving increased attention as a means of discouraging the development of excessive long stay parking facilities, reducing traffic congestion, and improving street amenity for pedestrians and cyclists, while providing reasonable parking levels to facilitate business activities and site development where desired. In the case of downtown Galt, parking maximums could help to ensure that the Downtown maintains and increases its pedestrian-oriented feel. Parking maximums are not likely required in the two other Core Areas at this time. Preliminary proposed parking standards for the major land use categories are provided in the table below. These standards are based on a review of best practices and standards in other cities conducted by IBI Group and adjusted to the Cambridge Core Areas context. These are proposed for discussion purposes and would need to be finalized in conjunction with the City and development community prior to adoption in the zoning by-law.
March 2009
Page 44
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.10: Potential Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements for Cambridge Core Areas
Multi-Unit Residential Bachelor Urban Structure Category Minimum (Spaces/unit) Downtown Core Downtown Secondary Area
(1) (2)
1 Bedroom Minimum (Spaces/unit) 0.6 0.6
2+ Bedroom Minimum (Spaces/unit) 0.8 0.8
Senior Citizen Residence Minimum (Spaces/unit) 0.3 0.33 Minimum (Spaces/ 100m2)
Office
Retail
Maximum (Spaces/ 100m2) 1.5 2.5
Minimum (Spaces/ 100m2) 1.0 (1,2,3) 1.5(1,2,3)
Maximum (Spaces/ 100m2) 3.0 4.0
0.3 0.3
0.5(1,3) 1.0(1,3)
2
Developments smaller than a certain size (e.g. GFA<200-300m ) exempted from minimum requirement Ground floor retail below a certain size (e.g. GFA<150m ) in a mixed-use building exempted from minimum parking Within the Downtown Core, a minimum of 50% of required parking must be provided as short-term public parking
2
requirement
(3)
The following actions are recommended to change the Zoning By-law within the Core Areas: x x x x x Eliminate current parking exemption for specific areas; Reduce minimum parking standards; Implement parking maximums; Implement design standards for parking; and Implement policies to prohibit creation of new surface parking.
It is understood that the City of Cambridge will be preparing urban design guidelines in 2011. It is recommended that guidelines for the design of new parking facilities be carried out as part of that process.
7 . 3 . 2 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N D E M A N D M A N A G EM E N T
Within the City of Cambridge, about 10% of people travelling to work do so as a car passenger. This is typical of most cities across Canada. One of the most direct ways of reducing long stay parking needs in the downtown is to encourage people to carpool. For each person that carpools, one less long stay parking space is required. If the choice is for the City to construct new structured parking at a cost of $200 or more per space per month and lease this to commuters at $30 month, there is a strong economic case for encouraging more efficient forms of travel. Unfortunately, progress on significantly changing peoples travel behaviour has been slow, largely due to the fact that few alternatives can compete with the convenience provided by a car. Changing current travel behaviour and attitudes towards ridesharing will require incentives that foster a completely new travel regime. Incentives could be monetary or organizational. Some options for consideration in Cambridge include:
March 2009
Page 45
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN x Pool vehicles/car sharing To address the fact that people need to runs errands or occasionally use their car for work, employers can purchase a small number of vehicles that can be booked on short notice by employees. Many municipalities maintain a fleet of pool cars for this purpose. Recently, IBI Group signed up with Autoshare.com to provide this service in Toronto. The uptake was so positive we now have a dedicated fleet vehicle provided by Autoshare. A similar service is provided in Waterloo Region by Grand River CarShare, including a vehicle located at the University of Waterloo's School of Architecture in Cambridge. Promote carpooling Together with the Region, there are several measures that the City could initiate to help promote car-pooling starting with designating preferential spaces for registered carpoolers (as currently done at the Cambridge Administration Building) and reducing the cost of monthly parking for these vehicles. There are also off-the-shelf tool kits on how to foster carpooling that could be distributed to downtown employers. More extensive programs exist in the GTA that help commuters find ridematching partners via the internet; and these are also available to Cambridge residents. Consider providing transit passes for City employees as an alternative to a parking permit, or consider a cash-out scheme whereby the employees receives a certain dollar amount that they can use to buy a parking permit, or use for transit passes, or simply keep the money and commute by cycling or walking.
At the broader level, encouraging residential development in the downtown can also help to reduce travel demand because people can live, work and play within a walkable area.
7.3.3 PROMOTE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
In Spring 2008, the City of Cambridge Active Transportation Committee released a high level plan for active transportation in the City. The plan included a Vision, a basic plan for the primary AT network and an implementation strategy. One of the recommendations was that the city should consider changes to the Citys land-use policy and regulations to require developers and owners to provide bicycle end-of-trip facilities and create sites that are bicycle-friendly. Example of a bike locker In order to continue to foster the use of active transportation modes as alternatives to driving downtown, 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 new downtown office developments; Install additional secure bike parking facilities in City-owned parking lots and in key areas, building on the lessons learned from the enclosed bike storage lockers and showers located at New City Hall;
Page 46
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN x x Continue to install bike racks on streets throughout the downtown; and Improve pedestrian connections between the Grand River trail system and the downtown.
7.3.4 PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
At the broad scale, parking has a significant impact on urban design. In particular, the need to supply parking can impact the shape of buildings resulting in conditions that are neither transitsupportive nor pedestrian friendly. Similarly, the appearance and scale of large surface parking lots can detract from the pedestrian environment. There will be a need for one or more new parking structures in the Core Areas in the future and it is essential that any new structure that is constructed, either by the City or by a private developer, does not detract from the urban character of the downtown. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s many cities constructed large parking structures in their downtowns with little attention to urban design. Exhibit 7.11 illustrates the range of urban design treatments that could be considered for future parking structures as alternatives to the traditional concrete block design illustrated in Photo 1 on Exhibit 7.11. Exhibit 7.11: Examples of Parking Structure Designs
1. Parking garage with no urban design considerations (poor design)
2. Parking garage with pedestrian amenities (good design)
March 2009
Page 47
4. Parking garage with integrated retail (good design) 3. Parking garage with integrated residential development (good design)
The new City of Cambridge Zoning By-law could be updated to include provisions regarding the design of parking lots and structures, including regulations for screening, regulations that restrict parking between buildings and the street line, and a requirement for ground-floor retail or office uses along street lines in parking structures. Alternatively, these principles could be articulated through urban design guidelines. At a more general level, some of the principles that should be encouraged with respect to the design of parking facilities also include: x x x Provision of adequate pedestrian connections through parking areas; Consolidated vehicle entry points to minimize pedestrian conflicts; and Consideration of amenities within or near vehicle parking lots for cyclists (e.g. bike racks, bike lockers, and water stations).
7.4 Funding and Financial Strategy

7.4.1 FUNDING OPTIONS
Most, if not all of the recommendations outlined above will require additional funding sources. Specifically, if a new parking garage is pursued, it will require significantly greater funding than the current parking system revenues can provide. A major constraint in Cambridge is that debt financing is not generally an acceptable practice. Accordingly, several options for funding parking system improvements are explored below. These can generally be grouped under four categories i) user pricing, ii) cash in lieu, iii) parking tax reform, and iv) capital funds, as discussed below.
User Fees
As outlined in Section 6.4.5, the preferred strategy for the Core Areas parking system is to move towards a full cost recovery approach whereby the operation and expansion of parking is at least
March 2009
Page 48
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN revenue neutral. Implementing user fees (i.e. priced parking) is the most direct way of ensuring the financial sustainability of the parking system. An assessment was carried out on the impacts of charging for the use of on and off-street parking in the Core Areas. Key assumptions in the analysis include the following: x x Revenue assumed for five days per week and nine hours per day; Annual revenue calculated by assuming five unpaid weeks per year to account for the Citys current practice of allowing free parking in December, and for statutory holidays during the year, during which it is assumed that payment for parking would not be required; Parking occupancy assumed at the measured average rate during a weekday as determined from parking surveys carried out in May 2008; and Parking occupancy reduced with increased cost of parking to approximate the effects of the elasticity of demand to parking price.
A summary of the impacts of charging different rates for paid parking is contained in Exhibit 7.12 below. Although it is recognized that parking payment could not be implemented and operational immediately, the numbers are presented on the basis of 2009 budget values for ease of comparison. Exhibit 7.12: Comparative Analysis of Paid Parking (comparison of 2009 values)
$3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $Existing 50c/hr $1.00/hr Rate Scenario $1.50/hr $2.00/hr Cost of Parking Operations Revenue from Parking Operations
Looking at the relative expenses and revenues for the various hourly rate scenarios, it appears that the system may become sustainable if the rate selected is 50 cents per hour, but there is no ability to generate surplus revenues that could finance other improvements. A payment rate of $1.00 per
March 2009 Page 49
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN hour should be sufficient to cover all expenses and generate enough revenue for such end uses as contributing to a reserve fund for a future parking structure, or for improvements to streetscaping. Higher rates will generate revenue streams for improvements sooner. A more detailed analysis of the impacts of increased user fees in comparison to parking system costs is provided in Section 7.4.2.
Cash in Lieu
The City of Cambridge already has a cash-in-lieu policy, but its ability to generate funds has been limited due to the current exemption of parking requirements in parts of the Core Areas. The current base rate for cash-in-lieu of parking is $7,667 for Downtown Cambridge and $ 3,253 for Hespeler Village and Preston Towne Centre. These values are sufficient to cover the cost of providing surface parking, but not structured parking. One option to fund parking system improvements is to significantly increase the cash-in-lieu values. For example, some municipalities charge as much as $30,000 per space. The challenge with providing these amounts is that the uptake of cash-in-lieu is limited, and it takes very long periods of time to generate sufficient revenues to provide even a modest amount of new parking. One of the restrictions is that cash-in-lieu funds can only be used to fund new parking, as opposed to general parking system improvements. Irrespective of the challenges with cash-in-lieu, it is recommended that current practices be maintained, and that funds be reserved to help off-set the cost of constructing a parking structure.
Parking Taxes
As discussed previously, the costs of constructing and maintaining parking are often not passed on to its users. Similarly, the true costs of parking on the environment (e.g., increased stormwater runoff, urban heat island effect, and increased auto use) and need for supporting transportation facilities are seldom quantified. One approach to better internalize these costs is through parking tax reforms. While parking tax reforms are more complex and controversial, funds raised from such reforms could potentially be used to support parking management activities, as well as the development of more strategic and environmentally responsible parking facilities. Potential approaches include: x Commercial parking taxes taxes on paid parking transactions. Such an approach has been adopted in many cities, including San Francisco, California and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Parking space levies generally applied as an annual tax on all non-residential parking spaces. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink), for example, used to charge an annual non-residential parking tax of $0.78 per square metre, or approximately $30 per stall, which raises approximately $25 million per year in support of transportation projects across the region. A variation on this approach is to assess the levy on unpriced parking only. Stormwater management fees which reflect the large amount of stormwater runoff generated by parking facilities, particularly surface lots, and associated environmental impacts to water resources and costs for treatment of this runoff. Such a fee could be based on parking area or alternatively on the total impermeable land cover on a site. This would favour parking structures over surface parking lots, and more compact downtown sites over sprawling suburban sites. In addition, fees could be reduced if
March 2009
Page 50
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN operators adopt measures to capture and treat stormwater runoff onsite (e.g., increased landscaping, bio-swale, permeable pavement, etc.). None of these approaches are really applicable for the Core Areas since a large majority of parking is already under the control of the City. These approaches would also need to be implemented at a City-wide level so as not to deter development in the Core Areas.
Capital (Reserve) Fund
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 parking infrastructure (e.g. pay and display machines) without going into deficit. This fund could in turn be used to help finance the capital costs of one or more new parking structures, as recommended in this plan. A potential variation on this approach would be to enact a directed tax reserve for the Core Areas. This approach, similar to Tax Increment Financing (TIF), would use the estimated net increases in property taxes that would result from new development stimulated by a capital investment (e.g. new parking structure) and borrow against this expected future revenue. The funds from the tax uplift could be used to finance a variety of infrastructure projects required to support increased density in the area, including parking structures. Such an approach would require considerably more analysis in conjunction with other City departments. At a minimum, it is recommended that a basic capital fund be established to enable the City to reserve a portion of parking revenues for future parking system improvements.
7.4.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
To assist with determination of phasing of implementation, analysis was carried out of the revenues and expenses over the full 20 year time horizon of this study for a range of scenarios from the donothing to an aggressive approach where parking prices are raised to generate revenue to be used for a parking structure. The analysis is based on full implementation of on-street and off-street parking pricing (except for the Do Nothing Option), increasing permit parking rates and full-cost recovery of all parking system improvements, as discussed below. Major costs included in the analysis of alternatives are: x Parking system components (e.g. signage, user information, Pay and Display machines, and administration); and Parking structure planning and design;
March 2009
Page 51
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.13: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Do Nothing
$2,500,000 Annual Revenue Annual Expenses Annual deficit
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$20 21 20 20 20 13 20 10 20 09 20 08 20 11 20 17 20 12 20 18 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 19 20 25 20 24 20 26 20 22 20 23 20 27 20 28 20 29
Page 52
$(500,000)
$(1,000,000)
Assumptions inherent in the above exhibit are that the costs and management of the parking system are unchanged from the current situation, except that the costs of monthly parking permits are increased with inflation (assuming 2.5% per annum), and parking operation expenses are increased at 3.0% per annum to reflect increases in the cost of wages and employee benefits. The analysis indicates that continuing the current regime will result in increasing deficits each year as the costs of expenses rise faster than the increase in revenues. A continued and increasing deficit will require the Citys taxpayers to subsidize the parking system by $500,000 per year by approximately 2016. A continued deficit of this scale will have a net cost to the taxpayer of $10 million 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.
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.14: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Moderate approach
$3,000,000 Annual Revenue Annual Expenses Annual reserve fund contribution
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 22 20 21 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29
Page 53
$(500,000)
$(1,000,000)
Assumptions inherent in the above exhibit are that the costs of monthly parking permits are increased with inflation (assuming 2.5% per annum), and parking operation expenses are increased at 3.0% per annum to reflect increases in the cost of wages and employee benefits. Payment for on and off-street parking is assumed at 50 cents per hour, and the costs of pay and display equipment spread over two years for the off-street lots, and spread over two years for on-street parking. To administer the parking payment system, one additional parking operations employee would be required, and the cost has been added to the parking administration expenses starting in 2010. The analysis indicates that implementing paid parking at 50 cents per hour will result in revenues becoming greater than expenses by approximately 2015. A small surplus would be generated that would allow an average of approximately $100,000 per year between 2015 and 2029 to be placed in a reserve fund. An annual surplus of this scale will give the City the ability to carry out minor improvements to the parking system such as improving accessibility and landscaping at City parking lots, but will not be sufficient to fund major expenditures such as construction of a parking structure. Overall, the analysis indicates that charging a rate of 50 cents per hour and increasing the cost of parking permits by inflation generates sufficient revenue to offset the costs of the system within the 20 year time frame, but does not allow for significant contributions to a reserve fund.
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.15: Financial Analysis of Paid Parking for 20 year Horizon Recommended approach
$4,000,000 Annual Revenue Annual Expenses Annual reserve fund contribution
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$20 09 20 08 20 11 20 10 20 13 20 12 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 21 20 20 20 22 20 23 20 25 20 24 20 27 20 26 20 28 20 29
Page 54
$(500,000)
Assumptions inherent in the above exhibit are that the costs of monthly parking permits are changed in 2010, when the cost of a monthly parking permit is raised to $60 for Zone 1, and $40 for Zone 2. Payment for on and off-street parking is assumed at $1.00 per hour for Zone 1, and $0.50 for Zone 2, with a daily maximum at off-street lots of $5.00 for Zone 1 and $2.50 for Zone 2. Implementation of pay and display equipment is assumed to be spread over two years in 2011 and 2012. To administer the parking payment system, one additional parking operations employee would be required, and the cost has been added to the parking administration expenses starting in 2010. Parking operation expenses are increased at 3.0% per annum to reflect increases in the cost of wages and employee benefits. A cost for planning and design of a parking garage is included in this scenario, with $200,000 allowed for in 2011 and 2012. The analysis indicates that implementing paid parking at $1.00 and 50 cents per hour and increasing the cost of parking permits to $60 and $40 per month will result in revenues becoming greater than expenses by approximately 2013. A surplus would be generated that would allow an average of approximately $750,000 per year between 2015 and 2029 to be placed in a reserve fund. An annual surplus of this scale will give the City the ability to carry out improvements to the parking system such as improving accessibility and landscaping at City parking lots, as well as
March 2009
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN funding other improvement projects in the Core Areas such as streetscaping, and will be sufficient to fund major expenditures such as construction of a parking structure. Overall, the analysis indicates that charging a rate of $1.00 and 50 cents per hour and increasing the cost of parking permits to $60 and $40 per month generate sufficient revenue to offset the costs of the system, and allows for contributions to a reserve fund.
7.5 Implementation Plan

A preliminary implementation plan for the strategies contained in this Master Plan is contained in Exhibit 7.16 below. Exhibit 7.16: Preliminary Implementation Plan
Strategy Action Timing Capital Cost Core Area
Parking Management and Operations Establish central municipal parking website for all Develop marketing and information parking-related information materials Create new parking system brochure Implement wayfinding and signage Improve signage to municipal lots improvements Phase out existing multiple permits with reduced Improve Parking Permit Management payment and Enforcement Practices Implement monthly parking permits tied to holder Increase monthly permit availability and rates Remove ability of City's Department Heads to cancel parking tickets Promote free parking in peripheral lots Optimize Parking Supply Remove no-reparking policy Remove two hour free parking policy Change existingdrive-up pay and display configuration to walk-up operation Implement pay and display in off-street lots, with maximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand lots - Galt implementation first year, Preston and Hespeler next year Implement pay and display for on-street parking, with maximum of $1.00 per hour at high demand locations Galt implementation first year, Preston and Hespeler next year Add one full-time position to the parking program Remove parking spaces from one side of Queen Operational improvements Street, east of Guelph Avenue Parking Supply Expand Accessible Parking to all off-street lots Improve Parking Supply Planning and design of future parking structure in Galt - alternatives for location and size
2009-2010 2009-2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010-2011 2010
$5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Nil Nil Nil Nil $5,000 Nil Nil $20,000
All All All All All All All All All All All
2010
$196,000
All
2011-2012 2010 2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
$994,000 $60,000 $5,000 $30,000 $200,000
All All Hespeler All Galt
March 2009
Page 55

Strategy Supporting Strategies Amend Zoning By-law Action Timing Capital Cost Core Area
Travel Demand Management Promote Active Transportation
Implement Parking Design Standards Funding Monitoring and Measurement Updates
Amend by-law to include parking maximums and minimums in Core Areas Amend by-law to reduce parking requirements in close proximity to planned Rapid Transit stations Review Cash-in-lieu of parking program Work with Region to promote transit usage Amend Zoning By-law to require bicycle parking/storage and shower and locker faclities for new developments Install additional bicycle parking in core areas Incorporate parking design standards in City's Urban Design Guidelines Establish reserve fund to manage revenues for use for new parking and Core Area streetscaping projects Update to Master Plan Set and measure performance indicators e.g. violations, parking occupancy, revenues Parking occupancy surveys for all Core Area parking
2010-2012
$20,000
All All All All
2010-2012 Incl. in above 2010-2012 Nil 2010-2012 Nil
2012 2009-2014 2011 2010 Every 5 years Annual Annual
Nil $10,000 Nil Nil $150,000 Nil $10,000
All All All All All All All
A key component of the Master Plan is monitoring and measurement, and updates to the Master Plan to ensure that it remains a living document that is adjusted as parking needs in the Core Areas change over time. The monitoring and measurement components of the plan are discussed in further detail in the following section.
7.6 Monitoring and Measurement

Performance measurement is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of the recommendations outlined in this Parking Master Plan, as well as the overall progress towards meeting the Guiding Principles set out in Section 6 of this report. A structured performance measurement program also provides a framework for the City to track changes in the pace of development and major changes to public and private parking supply, so that potential deviations from the assumptions used to develop this plan may be identified early on, and refinements to the plan may be made. A recommended performance measurement framework is outlined in the table below, structured according to the eight guiding principles. It is recommended that these performance indicators be presented in the form of an Annual Report for the Core Areas Parking system, and that this report be made available to the general public. Such a report, when presented in a way that effectively communicates successes and ongoing challenges, may also help to capture the attention of BIAs and the media, helping to raise public awareness of results achieved and the need for continued action. A report card could also be developed based on the performance measurement framework providing simple rating for progress towards each objective.
March 2009
Page 56
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN Exhibit 7.17: Performance Measurement Framework Guiding Principle 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 and 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. 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 will ensure continual improvement of the parking system. Performance Measure(s) Number of tickets Number of recorded complaints about parking in the Core Areas Number of permits by type and by lot Opinion surveys (intercept surveys) Number of off-street public parking spaces Number of on-street parking spaces Percent utilization of on-street and off-street parking Frequency Annually Annually
On-going Every 2-3 years
On-going On-going Annually
Cash-in-lieu account balance Number of development applications in Core Areas and associated parking supply
On-going Annually
Detailed Parking system revenues and expenses Parking reserve fund Total surface area in each Core Area dedicated to surface parking Capital expenditures on green parking improvements
Annually Annually Every 5 years
Annually
Number of public bicycle parking spaces (on-street/offstreet) Number of commuters using sustainable modes to travel to Core Areas (based on Census or other data) Informal reporting
Annually Every 5 years
On-going
J:\19184_Cambrdg_park\10.0 Reports\Final Report\TTR_Final2009-04-02.doc\2009-04-09\SA
March 2009
Page 57

Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cambridge Core Areas Parking Study 2009 Summary

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

City of Cambridge

CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Projected Population and Employment............................................................................................... 9 Future Development Potential.............................................................................................................. 9

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

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

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

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

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

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

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

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

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

Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 55 Monitoring and Measurement ............................................................................................................ 56

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)

CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of Cambridge CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

STUDY OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

KEY FINDINGS OF STUDY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

FUNDING AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Annually Annually Every 5 years

Annually Every 5 years

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

CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

City of Cambridge CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

1.1 Study Overview and Objectives

1.2 Outline of Report

1.3 Overview of Study Area and Scope

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

1.4 Study Process

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE CORE AREAS PARKING MASTER PLAN

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

2.1 Stakeholder Advisory Group