Edmonton (Alta.) - 1953 - Downtown parking survey, 1952 (1953-03)

SOLBARY

_

1,--••••

TO54 6800 1952 UREY 2829 DOWNTOWN PARKING SV EDMONTON PLANNING D OF

E0, 04,

THE CITY OF )0-, EDMONTON

DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY, 1952

L4 "AWC - - •

4801a .E3 :D7 1952

Printad and Dthographed by

THE HA.MLY PRESS LTD. Edmonton, Alberta

Planning Verxefl1°11

LIBRARY The City 04 ;"

T054 6800 1952

+rya

The City of Edmonton ALBERTA

CANADA

DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY L- 1952

The Town Planning

directed by

CYRIL A. GREENGRASS,

F.I.A.S., M.R. San. I., A.M.T.P.I.

Department

Senior Assistant Planner Research Assistants: BRUCE E. HOWLETT, Student T.P.I. KRISTIAN PARN, Dip. Eng. (Karlsruhe) 'KEITH ALDRDDGE, B.A.

Draughtsmen: MARTHA CONNOR, B. Sc. OIE PALLAS 'Part Field Work

•

,

i

FOREWORD

by NOEL DANT, Town Planner The parking problem is probably one of the most acute problems existing today in modern cities. It is generally recognized that the unavailability of parking space inabusiness area creates certain economic problems which indirectly affect business and being an indirect influence becomes difficult to accurately measure. This is partly because there is usually insufficient data regarding the matter of economic losses due to parking problems, and it is therefore essential, that before any solutions to parking problems can be considered, very careful thought should be given to the compilation and analysis of essential data in order that the problem to be solved is accurately known.

The economic health of a downtown area ,can be threatened through a direct financial loss in two ways: 1. A loss to the vehicular driver due to time loss and delay.

2. Losses to business often becoming direct losses to the City due to decreases in land value within the area.

An open forum of 44 experts including architects, the automotive industry representatives, town planners, department store owners, government officials, transportation officials, parking officials, and traffic officials met in February of this year in America to discuss the question:* "How can cities save their downtown districts from strangling in their own congestion?" After debate, the forum came through with 13 enlightening answers, tabulated below: 1. By clear thinking aimed at realistic goals.

2. By using the price mechanism to ration street use.

3. By constructive decentralization of some activities.

4. By separating car and truck traffic in time and space.

5. By intelligent redevelopment.

6. By encouraging mass transit to carry more people faster.

7. By relating zoning to traffic.

8. By banning curb parking or fitting its price to its cost.

9. By co-operation.

10. By enticing the all-day parker away from the City centre.

11. By encouraging private capital into the parking garage business.

12. By building better roads to and through the downtown area.

13. By reducing the cost of parking garages to $1,200.00 per stall.

'Architectural Forum, Feb. 1953, pp. 110- 141.

PAGE TWO

•1

•

It is surprising how closely the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey-1952 compares to debated subjects of this Forum.

There are many persons who complain about the parking dilemma within the Edmonton downtown shopping area, but there has up to now been a paucity of any worthwhile data upon which to scientifically base the assessment of what the problem really is and to what extent it affects the business carried on within the area. Each person when consulted for his opinion will most invariably give a different answer; that is, the problem as he sees it personally, and not as it affects the overall picture.

In February and March of 1951, the Town Planner presented the Council of the City of Edmonton with three preliminary reports regarding parking.* These three reports endeavoured to show the origin, nature and implications of parking and traffic movement on a citywide basis. They form the background framework within which the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey1952 was conceived. The first of these three reports entitled "A Pattern for Parking" laid down the terms of reference within which the Council of the City of Edmonton authorized the preparation of the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey-1952 by the Town Planning Department.

This Downtown Parking Survey and Report is the first systematic effort that has been made in this City to go after the facts methodically and scientifically by a small staff well trained in this work. It proved to be a mammoth task for such a small field staff but it was carried out diligently and successfully in spite of the many handicaps thrown in their way. In making their recorded observations, the field staff actually walked a distance around the City equivalent to a walk to Calgary and back!

Much research was undertaken by the staff to see how other cities had gone about this problem and there gradually evolved a method of approach which particularly fitted the circumstances as they occur in Edmonton and which has not been tried in any other city to my knowledge. The credit for this goes entirely to Mr. Greengrass and his staff of four persons who have spent hours and hours of overtime making this very important and necessary report a reality.

The Downtown Parking Survey-1952 comprises an extensive and intensive survey to determine On and Off-street parking supply, demand, deficiency and local surplus; to ascertain parking habits, accessibility, time losses and delay, and parking saturation per block. There is interest in this document for the business man, the investor, the financier, the administrator, parking and traffic enforcement officers, the police, designers and for Mr. Public.

In a parking survey it is essential that the public are fully aware of what is being done in order that their full co-operation is obtained.

If the public are told that the information required is being compiled in an effort to help them with their individual parking problem, and not with a view to prying into their private comings and goings, and if the co-operation of business can be obtained by telling them the object of the survey in simple terms of measurement which they can understand, just how the parking problem is affecting their particular businesses, the survey should be a success. *These three reports entitled "The Nature of Parking and Traffic," have been reprinted in their entirety as a supplement to the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey, 1952.

PAGE THREE

It is a pleasing reflection on Edmontonians that their co-operation has since been proven to be of a very high order and the staff are appreciative of this fact.

Although recommendations in the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey-1952 contain certain data useful to the would-be parking 'developer,' such as average cost per stall for parking garages, average prevailing market price of land for such garages, etc., it is outside the terms of reference of the survey to go minutely into the detailed financial operation of such parking garages. It remains for the Council of the City of Edmonton and other interested organizations to consider to what extent they are prepared to commit themselves policywise and fincmciallywise in order to implement the proposals contained in the second part of the report Again, potential parking demand for future new buildings obviously could not be included in the survey as there are far too many unknown factors involved. The only way to arrive at an approximate figure for this future potential demand would be to adopt the British floor-space-index method, which in itself should be the subject of a subsequent report.

The Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey-1952 with its many varied recommendations is not final nor are the recommendations proposed the only possible solutions. I feel, however, that the solutions proposed are realistic and fundamental. The implementation of them if adopted, is obviously a policy matter—a policy matter of finance and a policy matter of adequate zoning.

These two policies must be thrashed out first by the elected representatives of this City and in arriving at a decision it may be that other smaller side-surveys become necessary, if so, they should be carried out immediately. To know that the present conditions of parking congestion are the lack of foresight or neglect in times past will not alter or improve them one bit and this knowledge will only be profitable to evoke determination to provide proper conditions and surroundings for all future building. "Proper conditions" may not only involve adequate street widths and spaces around buildings, but will also involve the height and total floor space of such buildings in view of available street width, clearances around existing buildings and parking accommodation. Herein lies the correlation between adequate town planning design, adequate zoning, adequate parking and adequate regulations in the shape, height and size of buildings.

In conclusion, I wish to place on record that without the personal leadership of Mr. Greengrass and his ever-willing field staff of four people, this survey would have been impossible. To these five people alone goes the full credit for this valuable piece of work which has earned the admiration and appreciation of

Nvt4\-,14NOEL DANT, Town Planner, The City of Edmonton.

PAGE FOUR

EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY 1952

Page

Foreword Acknowledgments Index to Tables Index to Illustrations Introduction

2 7 8 9 10

Contents PART I Survey

CC

Analysis

D

Section 1. Boundaries of Survey Areas 2. Survey of Existing On-street Parking Facilities 3. Survey of Existing Off-street Parking Facilities 4. Speed and Delay Study 5. Parking and Walking Time Loss 6. Study of On-street Parking Habits (a) Turnover Rates (b) Duration of Parking (c) Effects of Overtime Parking (d) Areas of Saturation (e) Violations 7. Study of Off-street Parking Habits 8. Study of Parking Demand 9. Comments by Businessmen 10. Summary of Conclusions

Conclusions 16 17 20 26 27 31 34 39 43 45 50 52 54 64 66 PAGE FIVE

PART II—Recommendations

Contents (continued)

Page

Section 1. General

68

2. Responsibility and Financing

69

3. Legislative Area

72

4. East-Central Area

72

5. Warehouse Area

73

6. West-Central Area

75

7. Civic-Centre

76

8. Central Area

79

9. On-street Parking

82

10. Off-street Parking

84

11. Enforcement

88

12. Parking Regulations

90

13. Parking Authority

95

PAGE SIX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We desire to acknowledge the contributions made to this Survey by many persons and firms, of whom the following are but a few:

The Radio Stations CFRN and CJCA, and The Edmonton Journal who made the purpose of the Survey widely known to the public; Provincial Government Officials; The Highway Traffic Board; The City Assessors Department; The City Land Department; The City Traffic Engineer; The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, Saugatuck, Conn.; The National Retail Dry Goods Association, N.Y.; The Alberta Motor Association.

Especial acknowledgment is made to the co-operation and assistance rendered by the Businessmen of the City and their staffs, without whose help the compilation of data relating to Parking Space Demands would not have been possible in the time available, and also to the Citizens of Edmonton who so cheerfully answered the many questions addressed to them while on the street, in stores, in offices and places of entertainment, etc.

PAGE SEVEN

-

-

Page

I. Approximate Tax Levy, 1952

INDEX TO TABLES

14

II. Acreage of Survey Areas

16

III. Distribution of On-street Parking Stalls

17

IV. Distribution of Off-street Parking Stalls

21

Va. Types of Off-street Parking Facilities (Privately Owned)

22

Vb. Types of Off-street Parking Facilities (City Owned)

23

VI. Turnover Rates by Area and by Type of Curbside Use

36

VII. Turnover Rates for Each Block

37

VIII. Effects of Overtime Parking IX. Percentage of Saturation for Each Block X. Deficiency or Surplus of Parking Stalls Per Block XI. Approximate Operating Costs for a Small Parking Lot XII. Comparison of Parking Requirements for Various Building Types

44 47 60 and 61 85

93 and 94

PAGE EIGHT

-

_ -

-

-

-

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Graph—Motor Vehicle Registrations and Persons per Motor Vehicle

Page

15

2. Graph—Population Increases 3. Basic Map of Survey Area - -

15 -

4. Allocation of Curb Space 5. Curbside Survey—Specimen Field Sheet Form P2 6. Off-street Parking Inventory Specimen Field Sheet

Back Cover 19

19

20

7. Parking and Walking Time Loss Specimen Field Sheet Form P1

29

8. Graph—Average Parking and Walking Time Loss

30

9. Graph—Average Distance Walked after Parking

30

10. Notes for Completing Curb Parking Field Sheet Form P2 11. Completed Specimen Field Sheet Form P2 12. Map—Daily Turnover Rates of On-street Parking

32

33

38

13. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— Central Area

Page

40

14. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— West-Central Area

40

15. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— East-Central Area

41

16. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— Warehouse Area

41

17. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— Legislative Area

42

18. Chart—Duration of On-street Parking— All Five Areas

42

19. Map—Average Degree of Saturation

48

20. General Land Use

49

21. Violations

51

22. Specimen Form P3 Parking Demand

59

23a. Overlay—Number of Additional Stalls Needed

62

23. Deficiency and Surplus of Parking Units Per Block

63

24. City Owned Property Suggested as Potential Parking Sites

78

25. Illustrations of Parking Garages

87 PAGE NINE

-

-

EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY

INTRODUCTION There is not any doubt that a serious parking problem exists in the Edmonton Downtown Business Area at the present time.

It is generally recognized that the lack of adequate parking facilities in business areas create serious economic problems which indirectly have adverse effects upon the businesses themselves, and being indirect influences, are difficult to measure.

Purpose of Survey

Before any intelligent recommendations can be made for remedying the situation, it is first necessary to know the full extent of the problem, and it was for this purpose that the Council of the City of Edmonton, directed the Town Planning Department to undertake this Downtown Parking Survey.

Business Loss

It is apparent that without remedy the parking problem will not solve itself, but can only get progressively worse. In a fast growing city such as Edmonton, the parking problem can worsen to such an extent that the economic health of the Downtown Business Area can be gravely threatened. The irritation and time wastage suffered by potential driver-customers in searching for parking space can only be reflected as a loss to business. Loss to business collectively, invariably becomes losses to the city as a whole.

Decentralization

There is some truth in the contention that "hustle and bustle" and even some congestion is actually required in a business area in order to give it that liveliness that is found so attractive. Most people will agree that nothing looks so depressing as a business street on an early Sunday morning or holiday. However, there is a limit to the inconvenience, irritation and time loss that people are willing to endure, especially when it reaches a state of inaccessability for the motoring public. It has been seen from other cities that congestion can depreciate central area land values, when its influence becomes abnormal. When congestion causes inaccessability, businessmen find the downtown area no longer attractive for their purpose and consider moving out to less congested areas, where adequate parking facilities are more readily available. The cumulative deterioration of the area can then be said to have started, and once started becomes a vicious circle and is difficult if not impossible to stop. There are indications that at least the initial stages of this trend have already started in Edmonton. Partial decentralization is to be encouraged, if only to relieve congestion, but taken to abnormal limits can become a catastrophe to the city's tax base.

PAGE TEN

I

•

•

I • •

•

•

•

1= MIA • NI MINIInss

•

tm irmIN NI

m•rin 91 • VIVI .r. • .r • • - - • • •• a • .

-• • • •••• - -171 • -•• . L pEm L

•

•

•

MME

• • • • • •

•

•

•

I

•

• •

MI • I .1••••

'm

▪ ••

•

Im NIA •

L

•

-•

••••• - • - r %i• I ..-r72.1.1 Li

N'

•

II •

•

LINI

-rr •m

a.

• • •

'•'• • •

• • •

• •

• •

• •

•.•

I

J

•

•

•

Inevitably, the next phase commences with new buildings being erected away from the central business area, buildings which should take their rightful place and add to the grace of the downtown section in accordance with a pre-conceived plan or "framework" of civic design. The result is that the City eventually loses that focal attraction which the downtown business area provides.

Tax Loss

If a firm allowed the parking situation to influence its decision to build outside rather than within the downtown area, a potential loss to the city would result in the fact that they would be utilizing lower tax value land.

It must be borne in mind that approximately 23% of all city taxes (excepting frontage tax) are derived from the downtown area (See Table 1, page 14). This small area provides more taxes than the whole of the South side of the City, and any condition likely to seriously affect it must be regarded with grave concern by those responsible for the City's welfare. It was quite apparent during the survey that most business executives were very much alive to this dangerous trend, and many now consider the parking problem to be their number one headache.

There is a school of thought, though much in the minority, that considers that the Downtown parking situation has not yet reached a sufficient degree of difficulty to affect business in the area to such an appreciable extent as to cause anxiety, and that when it does, economics will force businessmen to do something about it for themselves.

They contend that business is so good now, that if people want to shop in the downtown area they must either put up with the difficult parking situation or fringe park and walk farther.

The disadvantage to this line of thinking is that the percentage of motor-borne customers is on the increase, in that the persons per motor vehicle is falling, indicating that the importance of motor-borne trade is to be expected to gain even more importance. Also, customers shopping by car spend more per person. In any event to wait until a serious situation develops is to court danger, for once motor-borne trade has formed a habit of shopping elswhere it will be too late to try and retrieve it. To expect customers to walk long distances is optomistic, bearing in mind the winter climate here. No doubt business is good today, for the City is enjoying a boom with relatively small building increases in retail areas, but this may not always be so, and competition may become more keen as retail facilities become available elsewhere and probably gain in popularity.

Every year more and more people desire to operate motor vehicles. As the population of Edmonton increases and business and industry expands, the operation of cars and trucking is increased, further aggravating the parking problem.

Industry continues to mass-produce millions of motor vehicles and extensive highway systems are being built to carry the flow of these vehicles, but provisions of adequate terminal facilities have lagged far behind.

PAGE ELEVEN

L

•

briz 7' • ml AM i ml ml I. .' •• I ILIFL • .- . .i - . - -Wer .1L 'rim m ii • • • .1'

•

ei •

•

1 ' i mla

a. 1.1 .. -- . — ..

-• ... . .m 1 . . — me 9 • . • .

I. • 1— • 4 • .•- .

- • I•• ...

— • • • • • —1— 1-Hr • . .• % • • • • • .N.a.m.R.LI IN IL. ••••1....1....

•

•

•

-

•

•

•

.= • • • • •

• •

. •. .

I Vol •

.m

.• 1_ .1. • • • '. — aEd m ma • • • .1 — - I.% % aa sworn - Es i .1 • e 'a• u m • m m m i ,liam la MAMIE •••

•

•

•

• •

. .

=■

IMINI 1.1.

14 gi WIMI=MI MEM Mii I ‘ • M. • Mk MilE .= • • • • • • mall

•

ER I r

•—• ri•Li .A.L! • ••-•

Nor .1 - I • .1 • • - • 90.1. a- lam .

•

I

• M.

-0-.1. • •

•

•

I

Motor Vehicle Registrcrtion Increase

The number of motor vehicles (cars and trucks) licensed with Edmonton addresses up to September, 1952, was estimated at 41,178, giving an increase of 149% during the last six years (See Illustration No. 1, page 15). The population has increased 47.2% over the same period, i.e., from 114,976 to 169,196 (See Illustration No. 2, page 15).

Persons per Motor Vehicle

In 1952 it was estimated that 31.4% of the persons visiting the Downtown Area used the automobile as their mode of transportation. The number of persons per motor vehicle in Edmonton 1946-47 was 6.9 dropping to 4.0 for 1951-52 (See Illustration No. 1, page 15).* This substantial drop indicates that more people are able to own and operate motor vehicles. The number of persons per private passenger car for 1946-47 was 9.3 as compared with 5.2 for 1951-52. Figures for 1952-53 were incomplete at the time of publication, but already indicate a further decrease.

Boom Conditions

The prosperity which has come to Edmonton shows no sign of having reached a peak and the population and number of motor vehicle registrations in the City are likely to increase for some time. These increases are not only responsible for aggravating the parking problem in themselves, but are also a contributing factor working to diminish whatever parking space is already available, in that as traffic increases, so it is necessary to increase prohibitions on curb parking in order to make way for moving the increased volume of traffic.

Variations in Problem

It will be appreciated that the compilation of data for a parking survey and its subsequent analysis is a task which is beset by innumerable unknown factors. For example—the parking habits of drivers are largely dependent on their own individual needs and wishes, creating demands which vary considerably according to the time of the day, the day of the week, and the time of year, etc. Different kinds of land use generate different demands for parking space. For example—Banks, Tobacconists, Candy Stores, etc., generate a short time parking demand, perhaps 10 minutes parking time would suffice for these uses, whereas Doctor's and Dentist's Offices, Motion Picture Theatres, Beauty Parlors, etc., need much longer parking periods, varying from 1 to 3 hours. It may well be, however, that these different business uses are situated side by side in the same block. All these variations must be taken into account if the survey is to reveal the complete picture.

Other Surveys

A study of numerous Parking Surveys which have been undertaken by various authorities in the past has revealed that although a large amount of field work has been undertaken and refined in great detail, information was lacking on the actual methods employed to collect the data and sources of information, thus making comparisons difficult. In some cases it was quite obvious that large staffs must have been employed with access to considerable financial resources.

*NOTE: The projections in Illustration Nos. 1 and 2 are based on a plotting of the annual increases over each previous year for the period 1946!

52. There are many unknown factors which could affect these projections and therefore they must be taken only as probable trends.

PAGE TWELVE

•

•

• •

ME ME •

.=

.1

-•-

••= mrs

•

1

•- - -r .

•

•

m

•m- 1 -

L LI I LEM LL

• II

I.

•

•

•

•

1

• •

ME

• • •

i a ml

• -1Mml • •

• • •M •

• • • •

•

• • ME • •

• • MEM UIMME aMME •

• •

.11 II • ••••

.1 I r

.

1•

• •

.1

I

rI •

• •

I Me MM. 19

•

• ME= 1MM ME • • MEM ME= • ME ME • ME% MM. m ME MIMI

=MEM= • • ME= M1M =EL ME= • • • ME ME= ME

•

•

-= •

•9•1•11 I • I. -II •

I•

1•••••• •• •• •••••I• • •

• • •

:14 • I •• •I• IT I • I • •• • • 90 I •11•A•

••••• •

• •

Mir

+ • •

• • •

•

•

II

Staff Used

In undertaking the Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey the Town Planning Department carried out the work as a routine project with no special financial budget provided. The field work had to be completed during the months of June to October. At no time was there more than four men in the field, and for the major portion of the time only three members of the staff could be made available.

The Edmonton Downtown Parking Survey Report has been broken down into two parts thus:

PART I

Part I deals with the Field Survey, analysis of the data compiled and the conclusions synthesized from this data, in other words the symptoms and diagnosis of the problem.

Details of Survey Methods

Each Study undertaken is dealt with under a separate heading and in each case space has been devoted to describe how the work was carried out, sources of information, etc., in order that a record will be available should it be considered necessary for certain studies to be repeated in the future for comparative purposes. Identical procedure can thus be followed ensuring true comparisons.

PART II

Part II deals with the recommendations made after study of the conclusions reached in Part I. The division of Part I and Part II has been deliberate because it is felt, that whereas the survey work is complete in itself as a section of the report, additional recommendations may be added later after negotiations with Officials, Land Owners and local Business Associations, etc. The recommendations contained in this report are not necessarily the only answers to the problem, or final, and it is hoped that thought will be stimulated so that other recommendations can be brought forward, now that the data in Part I is available.

PAGE THIRTEEN

APPROXIMATE TAX LEVY, 1952 Table I

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL TAXES (excepting frontage tax)

TAXES DERIVED FROM NORTH SIDE

- - $7,132,818.53 = 77.0%

TAXES DERIVED FROM SOUTH SIDE

- -

2,130,582.30 = 23.0% $9,263,400.83 = 100%

Area*

LEGISLATIVE

Amount

Per Cent of City Levy

42,415.08

0.46%

WEST-CENTRAL

249,613.70

2.7 %

WAREHOUSE

233,105.22

2.5 %

1,522,575.64

16.4 %

109,432.11

1.2 %

$2,157,141.75

23.26%

CENTRAL EAST-CENTRAL TOTAL

$

For Boundaries See Basic Map No. 1—Inside Back Cover

PAGE FOURTEEN

•.

.•

• .-II

ILLUSTRATION

N O. 1

....- 00.000 ....-

7. A

...,

MOTOR VEHICLE

-----

---- ...-

.w

REGISTRATIONS

,

P

w

PER MOTOR VEHICLE FOR THE CITY OF EDMONTON

cc 0 1o 2

70,000 o z o 60,000

o

AND PERSONS

..--

5

ta re 4 ....

L:C' '" DECREAS ESTIMATED INCREASE

ta a.

.1 e,'`

cn

E

—. — - —

kc,af•I's

, ‘

0

40,000 w -I 0 _ . _, 30,000 ,,,, x > m 20,000 0 I-

z PC•1‘3N

0

co

(ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL)

I-.

I(0 50,000 ;

2

Z

_10,000

a.

'46

'47

'4 9

'48

'50

'5 I

'52 YEAR

'53 3

54

'5'5

'5'6

'57

'5 8

ILLUSTRATION NO. 2 240,000

240,000 -

220,000_

.14

_220,000

cp,S.

200,000 _

-200,000

POPULATION INCREASES

180,000

-180,000

FOR THE

60,000.

160,000

140,000 _

140,000

47.2% INCREASE

120,000

-120,000

100,000

'46

CITY OF EDMONTON

'47

'48

'49

'50

YEAR'52

'53

'54

'55

'56

'57

100,000 '58

PAGE FIFTEEN

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY, 1952

PART I

THE SURVEY

NM IMO MIN OM NIB

1

JI

,111111 MIN 1E11 RN MI WI 1E1

PART I—Section 1

BOUNDARIES OF SURVEY AREA Survey Boundaries

For the purpose of this Survey, the Downtown Business Area of the City was taken to be an area of approximately 460 acres, within the limits of the lane east of 95th Street on the east to 109th Street on the west, and bounded by 104th Avenue on the north to the top of the river bank on the south.

This area has been divided into five sections thus:

Table II

ACREAGE OF SURVEY AREAS

1. The Central Business Area

188 acres approximately

2. The East-Central Area

92 acres approximately

3. The West-Central Area

69 acres approximately

4. The Warehouse Area

66 acres approximately

5. The Legislative Area

45 acres approximately TOTAL - - 460 acres approximately

Within each of the above five areas, each city block has been alloted a Block number. (See Basic Map. Illustration No. 3 in back pouch.)

PAGE SIXTEEN

•

•

•

• •

•

•1111.1m 1

=IN

•

N:

LE 1 — • -••—

i • • •

•

•••• —

▪ " • • •

•

wim

•

•Im

•

-

m•

•

•

•

%Lim.

•

ra "L. • .

• -

•

▪ALLA • —

•

—•1 • •

•

• • •

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

• %Fr

•

• -

r

• •

• •e • .• • '"'•

•

or • L

• •

%I I•Mml•

•

II

•• •

•

•

•

•

• •

" •

•

PART I—Section 2

SURVEY OF EXISTING ON - STREET PARKING FACILITIES Curb Use

The purpose of this Study was to ascertain the amount of parking space available at the curbside. The total curb footage was measured block by block in each of the five areas and the footage devoted to each particular curbside use duly noted. Where meters had been installed, each metered space was recorded as one parking stall. In cases where no meters were installed and no painted guides lines existed, 21 to 22 feet of curb footage was allowed for a parking stall parallel to the curb, and 11 to 12 feet of curb footage for each stall where angle parking was permitted. For parallel parking the two end stalls were reduced to 18 feet of curb each.

As each block was surveyed the information was recorded in field books and later transferred to Field Sheets (*See Specimen Form P 2, page 19). The footage of the actual curbside use was recorded at the head of each column on Form P 2 and underlined in red colour if parking was prohibited at any particular space. When the whole area had thus been surveyed and field sheets compiled, a complete "written plan" of the curbside uses was available. The sheets were then arranged in block order on a clip board to form a convenient "beat" that could be covered by an observer at 30 minute intervals, so as to be ready for use as required later in the survey for the Study of On-street Parking Habits.

The information in the field books was also transferred to the Basic Map of the five = (See Illustration No. 3 in back pouch.)

The Survey revealed that there are 5896 On-street stalls distributed throughout the five areas as follows: Table III

DISTRIBUTION OF ON-STREET PARKING STALLS Central Business Area East-Central Area West-Central Area Wholesale Area Legislative Area

2478 Stalls 1233 Stalls 802 Stalls 967 Stalls 416 Stalls TOTAL - - 5896 Stalls

*Adaption from Sample Form of Eno Foundation For Highway Traffic Control.

PAGE SEVENTEEN

• •

•

M•M •1 MILIVeM11•1'

• r1-11-. • Im• m••

▪

•

I. I

•

ma op

r a m. --1 •• ▪ M_

'•

I•

n

IN -••-

n

•

•

+I

.1

• LMd Mdid

•

•

• El

MIMN

•

r •

•

•

• •

IM '• • ;

I •

I

•

•

•

.

••

•

••

• • •

di • • • •

• •

•

•

' - r ie.% 4. Wil:•.bh. Lim p • ' F ..i. •-• . . •• . •• m!... .

•••P . I .. • •

• •

• • ••• I.= • • • • '• •• Re •

•

• •

•

• MI• •

•

• •

•

▪I

•

I'M • •Im

41 .' : I ' J .1:17.W. •

..1.1.

• •

•

1.1

•

•

•

Curb Space Breakdown

At the time of the Survey only 68% of the total curb space in the Downtown Area was available for parking purposes. This space is continually being diminished as parking is abandoned to make way for other curbside uses.

For example: the many entrances to driveways take up 8.13% of curb footage in this area, bus stops account for 3.96%, passenger and truck loading zones 2.22%. 6.92% of the curb space is prohibited to parking for reasons of public safety and movement of traffic. 6.28% is required to comply with the City Traffic By-laws which prohibit parking within 15 feet of a Fire Plug or Stop Sign, or within 10 feet of an intersection (corner clearance) etc. It is inevitable, as the City grows and traffic volume increases, so will space for curb parking decrease, as further demands are made on curb space for these purposes. If parking in a street is changed from angle to parallel parking the number of vehicles that can be accommodated is reduced by one-half.

Of the curb space stalls available for parking, 20% are controlled by 1177 parking meters (4 being 2 hour meters.)

0.62% of curb space footage available for parking is restricted during morning and evening rush periods.

There is a general parking prohibition for street cleaning purposes between the hours of 1:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Details of Curb Space Allocations are shown in Illustration No. 4, Page 19.

Summary: Total number of On-street Stalls - - 5896 Total number of Meters

1177

68% of all curb footage only available for parking.

PAGE EIGHTEEN

. I -

• •• 1 1 ' • I. •• II•• • • • I. • • •I •• •I• mai -••—• • • • •

•

e

•

•

•

•

•

Ex

•

•

• •

•

•

• mEN •

• MEMIMM

•

•

•

•

• M3.314

•

I.

•

•

• • •

•

•

ME • MEM

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

'm • • — • - • • • .1-14— I • • •

d .

II

• •

•

•a

1

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

• •

•

•

e.

•

•

• • •

•

om

m

• •• •• . .• • I. • — .1

•

•

•

• • •

•

• •

•

ILLUSTRATION NO. 4

10.06% 2 HOUR METERS 10.06% 5 MINUTE PARKING ZONES 10.07% ENTRANCES 10.09% GAS PUMPS

10.19% LIMITED PARKING (No Parking 8-9A M.,4 -6 PM.) ZONES 10.21% TAXI STAND ZONES

ALLOCATION

1023% LIMITED PARKING (No Parking 1:30 -5:30 P.M.) ZONES 10.35% 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONES 10.42% RAILWAY CROSSINGS

OF

10.52% PASSENGER LOADING ZONES 1.1.34% FIRE HYDRANTS NI 1.70% TRUCK LOADING ZONES

CURB SPACE

1111= 3,43% LANES 1111111113.96% BUS STOPS 4.94% CORNER CLEARANCES 692% NO PARKING ZONES 8.13% DRIVEWAYS 9,20% 1 HOUR PARKING ZONES 13.55% 1 HOUR METERS 44.63% UNLIMITED PARKING

01234 5

10

20

30

40

0

SURV EY FI EL DSHEET. Brf. Frd. from SheetNo. CURBPAR KING

of

/ 0/2/

t 0 -PD.

m w

- Bus Stop—P[2

=

20'

20' 20'

20' 18'

i6, .2. a.,••••e • t o

from

__DAY

F

22'

21'

195_

Weather

Recorder

t

•,, !, .-%.

22' 22'

SHEET No. i 7-5-

,z4Ate••••7

t he __of

22' 22'

/9'

E 20' 22'

22' 20' 23' 23'

23'

29'

11111111.111111111111

/6 , 20 , 8 ,

/9' 22"

,,,,

,1

22 , 22'

11111111

1

11111111

11111111

1

11E11111

1111E1111111111111 11111111

2/ , 2/'

III

1111

III

1111

1

1111111

III

1111

111

1111

1

1111111

1

1111

11

1111

1

1111111

1

1111

11

II

1

1111111

1

1111

11

11

1

111.1111

1

1111

11

II

1

11111

1

1

1111

II

II

1

11111

I

1

1111

II

il

1

11111

1

1

1111

II

fl

1

II

1

1

1111

11

11

1111

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

1111

I

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

1

1

J

I

ILLUSTRATION

11 1

J

NO 5

r

1111

fl

11

11

1111

II

1

III

1111

11

111

1111

II

1

1

1

SURVEY (SPECIMEN SHEET)

1

1111

1

CURB PARKING

I1

111

1

Cd. frd. to SheetNo._1

On West side -0.M.

CITY o f EDMONT ON

0 Thrm P2

% OF TOTAL FOOTAGE

1

PAGE NINETEEN

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY, 1952

PART I—Section 3

SURVEY OF EXISTING OFF - STREET PARKING FACILITIES An inventory taken of Off-street parking in the Downtown Area revealed that there are at present 4115 parking stalls available on 282 lots.

Each Off-street parking lot in the area was visited and details were recorded on the following form.

Illustration No. 6

INVENTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING

LOCATION

LOT(S) AND BLOCK No OWNER AREA NUMBER OF SPACES TYPE OF SURFACE ARE LANES AND STALLS MARKED? CHARGES PER DAY, WEEK OR MONTH USES (CUSTOMER, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, ETC) LANDSCAPED OR IMPROVED COMMENTS

PAGE TWENTY

The information obtained was transferred to the Basic Map in back pouch and tabulated as follows (Tables IV, Va and Vb.) Table IV

DISTRIBUTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS

Privately Owned Lots

Central Area

EastCentral Area

WestCentral Area

Warehouse Area

Legislative Area

Totals

Stalls

Stalls

Stalls

Stalls

Stalls

Stalls

— 63 157 f

827

Rented for private use (monthly)

633

6

93

95

2ustomer and/or Employee use

1089

122

331

155

490

—

Operated as Customer or Semi-public Lots - -

TOTALS - -

2286

490

— —

74

Operated primarily as Public Lots

128

424

1917

74 250

220

3308

City Owned Lots

Public Use (including Off-street Meters) - - -

505**

22

Rented for Private Use

171

—

Employee Use

109

527 171

— —

—

TOTALS - -

785

22

—

GRAND TOTALS - -

3071

150

424

109 807

250

220

4115

**Includes 60 Off-street 1 hour meters and 145 Off-street 5 hour meters Varliament Building PAGE TWENTY-ONE

TYPES OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES-PRIVATELY OWNED Table Va Central Area Stalls

No. of parking stalls

Lots

2286

No. of parking lots Range of stalls per parking lot

East-Central Area Stalls

West-Central Area Stalls

Lots

128 160

1-255

Lots

424 18

1-15

Warehouse Area Stalls

Legislative Area* Stalls

Lots

250 55

1-50

29 1-30

10

196

24

20

7

Gravel Surface

1171

64

31

6

225

30

190

17

29

Paved Surface

503

28

51

2

3

1

40

5

1611

63

57

8

165

15

83

Heater plugs provided

523

34

12

2

94

12

104

Landscaped

161

"2

6

1

Number charging Rentals

630

33

6

1

Range of charges per stall per month - Average charge per stall per month - -

$2.50 -$15.00

$5.00

$8.25

$5.00

9

95

$7.22

268 1-255 874

109

3

1646

120

191

3

788

39

6

192

3

2108

95

7

35

2

768

57

157

1

324

4

826

49

6

$2.00 - $8.00 $1.00 -$15.00 $4.52

Lots

3308

1-157

46

95

Stalls

6

68

Stalls clearly marked out

Lots

220

612

Dirt Surface

TOTALS

$1.00 -$15.00 $7.67

*Includes Parliament Buildings CNR Station. flDoes not take account of low charge concessions made to Members of Club, etc.

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

Table Vb

TYPES OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES-CITY OWNED East-Central Area

Central Area

Stalls

No. of parking stalls

785*

Lots

Stalls

Lots

Warehouse Area

Stalls

Lots

Legislative Area

Stalls

TOTALS

Lots

Stalls

Lots

807

22

14

1

1-209

1-209

48

2

Gravel Surface

620

7

Paved Surface

117

Stalls clearly marked out Heater plugs provided

Dirt Surface

Stalls

13

No. of parking lots Range of stalls per lot

Lots

West-Central Area

48

2

642

8

4

117

4

736

10

736

10

371

7

371

7

3

1

3

1

Number charging rentals (yearly) - -

171

6

171

6

Number of stalls metered

205

Landscaped

22

1

205

Range of charges per stall per year - - $90.00 Average charges per stall per month -

$7.50

t

Includes 205 metered stalls.

Yearly contract.

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

DISTRIBUTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS (See Table IV, Page 21) It will be seen from Table IV that of the 4115 parking stalls available Off-street, the city has provided 807 stalls or 19.6%, 60 of which are controlled by 1 hour meters and 145 by 5 hour meters, both charging 5 cents per hour.

PRIVATELY OWNED OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES (See Table Va, Page 22) Private Enterprise

The 564 privately owned stalls operated for Customer use and Semi-public use on payment are made up as follows: (a) Two lots containing 327 stalls operated by a large store primarily for customer parking where a charge of 15 cents for the first hour and 10 cents for each additional hour is made, unless a voucher is validated in the store at the time of purchase, in which case a free period of 2 hours is allowed before charges commence. Lots open only during store hours. (b) Two lots containing 163 stalls operated by a large store primarily for customer parking—a charge of 15 cents for the first hour and 10 cents for each additional hour is made after expiration of a free two-hour period— validation of voucher not required. Lots open from 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., but are at times of evening demand operated by another firm as a public parking lot at a charge of 25 cents flat rate. (c) One lot containing 74 stalls operated entirely for Public Parking on payment of an hourly charge — 15 cents for the first hour and 10 cents for each additional hour during daytime, and 25 cents flat rate for the evening period of 6- 10 p.m. The lot is open daily (except Sundays and Wednesday afternoons) from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. (a), (b) and (c) are controlled by attendants who collect the fees, but drivers park their own cars.

It is significant to note that Off-street parking which has been initiated by private enterprise has been primarily for customer or employee use or for rent on a monthly or weekly basis. There is only 1 lot operated by private enterprise for public parking as a full time business venture at hourly rates. It is apparent that private capital has hitherto been hesitant to invest money in Public Off-street Parking.

It can be seen from Table Va on page 22 that with the exception of the previously mentioned lots, the majority of Off-street parking lots are of the smaller variety having 10-15 stalls per lot. It can be said in favour of the smaller lots that they provide a bigger distribution of parking facilities and less congestion at the points of ingress and egress on the street.

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

There are in all 268 privately owned Off-street parking lots in the Downtown Area of which 24% of stalls have paved surfaces, 50% have gravelled surface, and 26% dirt surface. 70% of stalls are clearly marked and 23% have heater plugs provided.

Landscaping has only been attempted in four cases, and then only because it existed before the parking lots were installed.

Lcmdscaping Charges

Regarding charges, it is evident that motorists are willing to pay a considerable sum of money in order to rent private parking near their places of business. In the Central Area the average rent is 68.25 per stall per month, and the average for all areas is $7.67. Some rents go as high as $15.00 per stall per month and there are indications that some owners are contemplating an increase to $20.00 per month. The City rents stalls in the Central Area with heater plugs on a yearly contract for $90,00, which for comparative purposes, can be taken as $7.50 per month.

All Off-street lots in the area are of the self-park type.

CITY OWNED OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES (Table Vb, Page 23) The 807 Off-street stalls provided by the City are distributed in 14 lots, 13 lots being in the Central Area.

They are mostly of the larger size—the number of stalls varying from 50-100 and in one case 200. 15% of stalls have paved surface, 80% are gravel surface and 5% have dirt surface. 91% of stalls are clearly marked out and 46% have heater plugs provided. 21% are rented by yearly contract at 690.00 per year. 7% are controlled by 1 hour meters and 18% controlled by 5 hour meters, both types being at the rate of 5 cents per hour. 54% of stalls are free. During 1952 the City installed 255 Off-street parking stalls of various types.

Lack of Permcmcey

One of the most important factors affecting private Off-street parking is its lack of permanency, in that, at present there is nothing to prevent an owner of an Off-street lot from deciding to discontinue its use for parking in favour of some other business use. The impact of decisions such as these can have serious effect on the parking problem of the particular area concerned, and make themselves felt over a much wider area as cars are forced to disperse and find alternative parking elsewhere.

Summary:_ Privately owned Off-street stalls - - - 3308 807 City owned Off-street stalls 4115 Number of Off-street stalls Most private lots of smaller type.

City provides nearly 20% of Off-street parking.

Lack of shopper parking at hourly rates.

Motorists willing to pay for Off-street parking.

Very little landscaping of lots.

Lack of permanency of private lots.

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

PART I—Section 4

SPEED AND DELAY STUDY This Study was undertaken with the object of ascertaining the average time required for traffic to reach the centre of the Downtown Area from various points 3 miles distant. This then formed a basis of comparison to the distance that could be covered in the time a driver would waste finding parking space.

Test runs with two vehicles were made for a complete week in May on each week-day, at various times of the day, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and checked by stopwatch.

It was found that by "floating" with the normal traffic an average of 9 minutes 34 seconds was required to cover the 3 miles from the outer points selected to the downtown focal point. This time took account of delays at traffic lights, etc., and gave an average speed of 18.8 m.p.h.

Summary: Average speed of traffic into Downtown Area is 18.8 m.p.h.

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

I I

I I I i ii I I

I I I I

PART I—Section 5

PARKING AND WALKING TIME LOSS The object of this Study was to ascertain the amount of time likely to be wasted by a driver in finding a parking space and walking to his point of destination in the Downtown Area.

Twenty premises in the Downtown Area were selected as being representative of various business uses and taken as potential destination points. Twelve of the selected premises were of a type that generated daytime parking demand and eight evening parking demand.

Observations were taken from 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. each week-day for one complete week during the month of May. The daytime period was taken as being from 8 a.m. -6 p.m., and the evening period 6 p.m. - 10 p.m. Each destination point was allocated a separate form (See Specimen Form P1, page 29).

Using two vehicles, the method of survey was for the drivers to take a list of destination points each day and work through them consecutively, with one starting at the top of the list and the other vice versa, thus obtaining samples for the same premises at different times of the day.

Upon arrival at the destination point, the driver would start a stopwatch and proceed to the nearest vacant curbside parking stall, park the vehicle, and record the elapsed time, place of parking and time of day, on the form relating to the premises. He would then alight and walk back to the door of the premises selected, recording the approximate distance walked and the time taken in walking.

At this time it was only possible to take observations for one week, and for this reason the figures must be regarded with the same degree of caution as is accorded every "sample" form of measure. Because of this factor, the average figures obtained are to be considered, if anything, somewhat on the low side.

An analysis of the information gathered on the Forms PI was recorded on two graphs—Illustrations No. 8, Page 30, which shows the Average Parking and Walking Time Loss, and Illustration No. 9, page 30, which shows the Average Distance Walked After Parking.

Parking Peaks

In considering these graphs it will be noted that parking space demands have three distinct peaks throughout the day, occurring at 11 - 11:30 a.m., 2:30 - 3:30 p.m. and 8:30 - 9:30 p.m., at which times the average time losses recorded were 7 minutes, 61/2 and 63/4 minutes respectively, and the distances walked from the parked vehicle to PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

the destination point were 450 feet, 480 and 580 feet at these times. No account has been taken of the distance and time loss involved in walking back to the parked vehicle. Generally the longer a motorist spends finding vacant curb space, the greater the distance he parks from his destination point.

The highest recorded time loss for the week was 24 minutes, recorded at 9:30 p.m. A 21 minute time loss was recorded at 3:30 p.m. and a 19 minute time loss at 11:00 a.m.

Time Loss

On the basis of the Speed and Delay Study, a motorist who wasted FA minutes could in this time travel 2.1 miles in city traffic. If he had been unfortunate enough to lose 21 minutes, he could have utilized this time to travel 61/2 miles at the speed of average City traffic.

Should alternative shopping facilities with adequate parking space be provided away from the downtown area, and motorists realize how far they can travel in the time they would ordinarily waste, there is every likelihood that business in the Downtown Area may decline.

Value of Off-street Facilities

Although this particular study concerned On-street parking tests, the opportunity was taken to observe that where certain stores had provided Off-street parking for customer use, the time losses would have been almost negligible in most cases. In other words, it is to the advantage of the store to provide some Off-street parking to obtain happy customer patronage.

Summary: Parking peaks occur at 11 - 11:30 a.m., 2:30 - 3:30 p.m., and 8:30 - 9:30 p.m.

Highest recorded time losses were 24, 21, and 19 minutes at 9:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m. and 11 a.m.

A driver can travel approximately 61/2 miles in 21 minutes in city traffic—or almost from one side of the City to the other.

PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT

SPECIMEN FIELD SHEET—FORM P1

Illustration No. 7

CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY PARKING AND WALKING TIME LOSS X/. -A?

Recorder —

1 Day

2 Date

MPH.

4 Place of Parking

3 Time

A.M.

Weather —

Oear afid grV

Destination —

5 Time Lost Parking (mins.)

6 Time Lost Walking (mins.)

7 Walking Distance (feet)

9-2

2 /-45#

0 '-68 *

309'

2/- /3"

9:00

Refer

f,

/7:30

if

F- /05-

6' - 37"

r,

ft

7:30

ff

0-738

// '- 08 '

0 '-50'

270'

f,

I,

3:oo

f,

F -/go

2/-301/

3'-/o"

/000'

q

e- 55

/3' -#5*

2/- 09"

54e/

/4 1- 06 "

3&45*

//co '

if

ft

8 Remarks

P.M.

5/5 /5Z

rim. 6/ 52 9:3o

57412re

Al. side /az/ewe.

3:00 00'w. of 99 5-treet-

Total Time lost Average time loss per journey Average speed for 3 miles journey to point of destination - Reduced average speed due to time losses 5 and 6

PAGE TWENTY-NINE

ILLUSTRATION NO. 8 7

6

AVERAGE PARKING AND WALKING TIME LOSS

a Al

5

M 4 _

a o

3

2

A.M. 8.00 1 9.00 1 10.00 1 11.00 1 12.00 1 1.00 1 200 1 3.00 1 400 1 5.00 1 6.00 1 700 1 8.60 1 9:00 I io 0 0 P.M. 8.30 9.30 10.30 11.30 12.30 130 2.30 3.30 430 5.30 6.30 7.30 8.30 930 TIME OF DAY

NO. 9

.600

600

500

500

AVERAGE

400

-400

DISTANCE

300

.300

200

200

100

[100

WA LKED DI STA NC E

D IS TA NCE

WA LK ED

ILLUSTRATION

WALKED AFTER PARKING

A.M. 8.00 1 9.00 1 10.00 1 11.00 I 12.00 1 1.00 I 2.00 I 3.00 1 4.00 1 5.00 1 6.00 I 7.00 I 8.00 1 9.00 1 1000 P.M. 030 9.30 10.30 11.30 12.30 1.30 2.30 3.30 4.30 5.30 6.30 7.30 8.30 9.30 TIME OF DAY

PAGE THIRTY

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY. 1952

PART I—Section 6

STUDY OF ON -STREET PARKING HABITS The object of this study was to ascertain the use motorists made of the curbside parking space available in the Downtown Area.

Using the Forms P2 (described in Part I ,section 2, page 17, Survey of Existing On-street Parking Facilities) each curbside unit was visited at 30 minute intervals throughout the business day-9 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Method of Survey

Each vertical column on Form P2 represents 1 curbside unit and each horizontal line represents one 1/2 hour period. The latter is sub-divided into three spaces per unit, the top space was used for recording the last 3 figures of the license number of the vehicle found to be occupying the particular curbside unit at each 1/2 hour period, purely as a means of identifying the vehicle in question. The lower left hand space was used for recording a code letter representing various violations, and the right hand space for recording a code number representing types of vehicles.

Each observer carried a set of instructions, a specimen of which is shown an page 32. (Illustration No. 10)

Violations

An example of a completed Form P2, which was actually recorded September 12, 1952, for the West side of 101st St. from 102 Avenue to Jasper Avenue is shown on page 33. Violations and Overtime Parking are ringed in colour. Particular note should be taken of the codes shown on this form, "0" denoting overtime violations shown on meters, and "X" denoting overtime paid on meters (feeding meters).

In carrying out this Study 121,846 separate observations were taken, and the observers walked a total of over 500 miles to cover the beats.

Wednesdays and Saturdays were avoided as not being representative of a normal day. The information recorded on these forms was analysed under five headings: (a) Turnover Rate. (b) Duration of Parking. (c) Effects of Overtime Parking.

(d) Areas of Saturation. (e) Violations

PAGE THIRTY-ONE

•

Illustration No. 10

THE CITY OF EDMONTON PARKING SURVEY Notes for completing Curb Parking Field Sheet Form P 2 GENERAL

A careful survey has previously been made of all curb space uses in each block to be covered by the survey. This information has been transferred to the top spaces on Form P 2. For example—the first left hand space will generally represent the first ten feet from the intersection in which parking is prohibited by By-law. Where the space is controlled by a Meter the Meter number is shown. Units of curb space have also been allocated on the form for Bus Stop Zones, Driveways, Fire Hydrants and so on.

(Normally these columns should remain blank on the form unless observing a parking violation which of course should be recorded.)

The top line of spaces, in effect, represents a "written plan" of the types of curb space to be found in each block, and the form, when completed, is intended to show how these units of curb space have been used for parking at one-half hourly periods, and to what extent so used. Daytime period 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

PROCEDURE

The Survey Form P2 is designed to cover each street or avenue in each block at intervals of one-half hour throughout the survey period and the recorders route will be allocated so as to allow for a one-half hourly tour of a particular area.

Against each one-half hour in time, there are three spaces in each unit column which are used for recording thus: (a) Top Space. License Numbers.

Record the last three digits (or letters) of the license number of the vehicle occupying the curb space unit in each one-half hour period. (b) Lower Left hand square Record type of violation as per code: No 0 X

A

Mark Legally parked.

Meter shows overtime disc.

Overtime paid on meter.

Parked more than eighteen inches from curb.

Improperly parked in marked stall.

Angle parked in parallel stall.

Parallel parked in angle stall.

Double parked.

(c) Lower Right hand square Record type of vehicle as per code: No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Mark Passenger vehicle with Alberta license.

Passenger vehicle with other license.

Taxi Light truck (4 wheel).

Heavy truck (6-10 wheel).

Truck-trailer combination.

Miscellaneous vehicle.

PAGE THIRTY-TWO

•

CURB PARKING SURVEY FIELD SHEET (This is an Actual Field Sheet - One of 522 in all)

"

/0/ .571 side of Fri t 0 41. 30 cm.

I 9.30 10.00 /0.30 11.00

11.30 0 CITY of EDMONTON ELDS HEET. V CURB PAR KINGS UR EY FI

A0

I

I .00

/. 30 .2.0u

1.30

'i:

0

•

.1

I I

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

XI

1

.-1-.1,

13 ,--i-N 'R(1.,)-

1

4%

j : , Z

er (Pt' 1

F.5 6.74 6 11.1_1q 1? E 1-L.:F 741. Pal F70

I

Z

1 11;2'4 / gU

Recorder -.4j

ct-

6 ' II •

0.,

N-

Z

I

3 XI I 'x >Q ' 01 0,25 611. 2-'73 .57 1 F 7 F67 44A J

0 134) 6(2.1' 31/ 5i Fig (77

0 1 1179 1.6130 if53 j

XI 0 1 I

,--1--, 13

670 'l(;

C2

, 16,3 -127 1

fl

.3.00

G(/

ii ° 7; 01

73 f i 1 d

7 13

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

i y i 1

1

I

I

1

N OTE

ii

1

1

1

1

1

'ffo C Ls , C&:,t1 6$

f 1 C.;.,

01 , 1

F/1:

01

I-3

1

Y•1

1

1

,631 8Z

C654 J85" F ,16

<•.(15'. J'

c )(L, X JI:S" ol71th cif xig

A,,,,, ) , 1

xl

1

13 XI j 13

1

1,14/3- 59771.

XI Pc1 I

FIS,St S,7 .54

1

XI ,9 1,,

I

'XI ' I od 1

, INS' F75 .5,f7 X1 1 Oc.I 1 HY.5 KY2, y 7

I

01i ,

1

8E z. Ti 01 i 01_

I

I ..:;1

I

1 / >ci

I

I

I1 I

I

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

i

i

i

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 77 17

I

5 99 .. S 5' Z 59 1 / (1 i 599 .J15 Z57

1

XI 1 43 I !1'1$5'15 5il 5'17 C!' c)(-1 I /Pis St. .73 5 47 X1 I °c1 I 111/5 D 73 H13

A

1 I

111 i

xi

I

1

ti _ I

1

1

1

1

II

I

'HS'S F78 ?CI 1 J. Jigs, trz9 5e/T

1

01 A , c11011 I 1 3t .,17S LI 55,,' reZ z 97 I

,1/,,4 ,,,,,,,, x, ,

079

'1";•;\ /12. ) 8(16z 1 ..ci'?

#11-,,SKI) 01 ><1 7 s .J35,379 171

•1/Y51.5‘17.1;1 f2. C9-6' < ?nil/ ti? 0 1 s

1

st4r6i3lk

E G9

1 i icil. rtm Ng "17 I:112_512 xl ,L ei , xt 1

1

4

1 / 13 .sEz 079

CG4- Jr.s" ES

..

1.---

rd

77.177 ( q EZ. Ifik.?

I

I \el) I -& 13 I

I

I I

.1-0-...ATC) V NS AND OVETATINI EbRICI N 6

11 -1 1-C- 1 1

01

1

I

,,.11

1

P1 xi

e G, I ,L Xitsg17 G ,•Ig.si k!#4,

F

l'afeT7) 111730 'C.: -17110 F1 4

1 7.5 /773 Y9.3 fF'39' 5 47 / 6I A 0591 ',

.00

,

I

y70'‘Vifit) 96-57' F r i i, FS 4173 1

PS I(.

C64 !_115 C17

F/6

PI I ?YR CC8

1 ,XI „XI

I r;( ) I

I Jel) 13 ow I

15,k CG5 D-77 947 571i. Fed

)A5

1

\--

',.'C 24 P

1

); 1 i 31.5 11160 0177 17 9 ithil,• /11 -4, 1 01 XI 011 I 1 7 i.i 1, Z347k.

G;. _315 CG5Z 96

KI

.

H!! , Jsg C17

IP

--'K' j

1 X13 1 I i XI AL 13 .245152i, Oil f 77' 180 1/53

I fN

TC 0119.?

1

XI .1 k A ' I ><1 )'il g 15 6 210 ..1"41 571 Fri P6?1,1 1;2

2,73 e I X1

1 CiTh J3 1

.3. 30

Weather 2' 1' 611'44ea.

•tZ., -••• cr% .-i `f -... 0

-., 1%)' •(' ‘a Z ,'AI k;! . /9- Az' 2 * 22; .12: AV AV 1•.' Al' WIC 2.-1' IA' 20 23' 13' A3' -E9' 2/ 4 1/ 4 /64 ".0 E 28I F7't '066 1 4.25 T5-3 1 /5" 5'17 J1.1 J15 eg7 ,P1 IS CC.: 72.

I I I 1 ( L I 10 I 1 I 1-- 1 1 1 °1 l I 1 i pi °di , 0i _ 13,C21 , Nqt eg ‘ svv.1^5.q7 vi C85 6 42 755 ./4-9 z YI F7'I. P'41 'er2..

C35 J11 J S5 c r7 el` 44G1 / 7i 1 11101 x,1-...-1-, 1 41111 , ....._, y 1 ' ts, 13 L s..T ; 6Y3. -141C SV PL1 F 7 II.P/S)6 17 e 35 i(S.S...1185 0:7 I 0

I

1

,C1

e-oss."1 Z

Z

2.Y ;. 0 .7.0 . 1$ .

12.66 /2.30

;t.

SHEET No. /7

/114 of 5 01,é, 1951 ' tr. ,7, ;° rt‘,,-

the

Z-", z; L5.7L4V)-

LAI i:-..

•;"".

.24/, e4

/02 ih,-,. to

from DAY

I

On We5/ 9. 00 c m

N Rrf Frrl frnm Shawl. No

0

Thrm P2

Illustration No. 11

111111111111 1

1

1

IRlr 11'.4 N 111111111 i 1

E. D 1

11

1.- 1 c1 -

Tiius 1 1 1 1 1

1

1

1

1

ii 1 1 PAGE THIRTY-THREE

PART I—Section 6a

TURNOVER RATE OF ON-STREET PARKING The object of this Study was to ascertain the average number of times stalls were used throughout the period of observation.

Method of Computation

For the purpose of this section of the Study, the Turnover Rates were arrived at by taking the total length of time the curbside stalls were used (in 1/2 hour periods), and dividing this into the total number of vehicles found in each block thus: Total Number of Vehicles.

Total Time Used in Parking in 30 min. Units.

When the figure obtained from this ratio is multiplied by the number of 1/2 hour units in the period of observation, the daily turnover rate is found.

It is pointed out that this ratio only takes account of the Turnover Rates of vehicles actually parked, and has no relation to the number of stalls available, which is dealt with under Section 6b. (Areas of Saturation) This is considered to be the more accurate method of computation because vacant stalls are excluded, for the reason that vacant space has no bearing on turnover rate. Turnover Rate is based solely on the parking stalls actually in use during the period of observation for the day. Vehicles parked illegally in Truck Loading Zones, Bus Stops, etc., are excluded from this analysis as they are dealt with in Part I, Section 6e, page 50. In this Study the day was taken as being from 9 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. and equals fifteen 30 minute periods.

An analysis of this Study is shown in Illustration No. 12, page 38—Map showing Daily Turnover Rates of On-street Parking in each block, and the following tables: Table VI, page 36—Turnover Rates by Area and by Type of Curbside Use. Table VII, page 37—Turnover Rates for Each Block.

5-min. and 20-min. Zones

Because observations were made at each parking stall at 30 minute intervals, it necessarily follows that the minimum parking time has to be assumed to be 30 minutes, therefore the figures for the 20 minute parking zone gives the benefit to the motorist who may have remained parked 10 minutes over his time limit. Data has been PAGE THIRTY FOUR

omitted for 26 cars which were parked in the 5 minute zone of the Central Area, as at the time of the survey.it was found that 3 cars had been parked there for 2, 21/2 and 3V2 hours respectively. This gross overtime parking would create an entirely false picture of a turnover rate for this zone. This zone is reserved as tourist's parking and it is significant to note that the three motorists who parked overtime therein deprived 96 potential tourist parkers of this facility.

Overtime Parking

Perusal of Table VI, page 36, indicates that generally the turnover rate of vehicles is much lower than it should be, due to the number of motorists who persist in parking overtime in the various zones. For example, in 20 minute zones in the Central Area, the average motorist parks for 1 hour, 17 minutes and 46.4% of the motorists who were observed violated the time limit. The turnover rate for this zone was 5.87 vehicles per stall during the observed period (9 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.), whereas it could have been a minimum of 22 vehicles per stall if the time limits had been adhered to.

In the one-hour metered zones in the Central Area the average stay was 59 minutes. 20.9% of motorists stayed more than one hour, either "feeding" the meter or violating. The turnover rate was 7.63 vehicles per stall during the observed period, but if those motorists who parked overtime had each stayed one hour only, the turnover rate would have been 10.5 vehicles per stall.

Taking the average figures relating to one-hour zones for all the five areas, the average stay in each curbside parking unit was 1 hour and 25 minutes. 30.9% violated the one hour time limit. The turnover rate per stall was 5.31 during the period observed, but if those motorists who violated the time limit had only stayed 1 hour, the turnover rate would have almost doubled to 10.2 vehicles per stall.

It would appear from the observations that the motorist is prepared to pay a 50c or $1 parking violation tag to be able to use the space long after its maximum permissible period, which would indicate either a much stiffer penalty to the violator to make the facility more useful for a greater number of parkers, or a consideration that stalls with longer permissable periods be installed to cater for a proven demand for a long term parking facility.

Where no time limit has been imposed on curbside parking, the lowest turnover rate was found to be 2.40 in the Central Area, the average stay of motorists being 3 hours 8 minutes. The average turnover rate in this zone for all five areas was 3.04, being an average stay of 2 hours 28 minutes.

Summary: Turnover rates too low because of overtime parking.

Average stay in 20-minute zones is 1 hr., 17 mins.

Average stay in meter zone is 58 mins.

Average stay in one-hour zones is 1 hr., 25 mins.

46.4% parked overtime 20.1% parked overtime 30.9% parked overtime PAGE THIRTY-FIVE

.

TURNOVER RATES BY AREA AND BY TYPE OF CURBSIDE USE One day is based on the 71/2 hour period from 9:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. Table W Area

Type of Curb Space

No. of Vehicles Recorded

Vehicles Per Stall Per Day

The Average Vehicle Parks for

No. of Vehicles Parked Under Time Limit

• No. of Vehicles Parked Over Time Limit

One hour zones No time limit zones

591 1663

5.19 3.63

1 hr., 27 mins.

2 hrs., 4 mins.

411 (69.5%)

180 (30.5%)

CENTRAL

One hour metered zones One hour zones No time limit zones

592 207 1486

9.70 9.92 2.90

0 hrs., 46 mins.

0 hrs., 45 mins.

2 hrs., 35 mins.

530 (89.5%) 184 (88.9%)

62 (10.5%) 23 (11.1%)

One hour zones No time limit zones

70 486

9.55 3.79

0 hrs., 47 mins.

1 hr., 59 mins.

61(87.1%)

9 (12.9%)

LEGISLATIVE

One hour zones No time limit zones

147 1891

4.85 3.38

1 hr., 33 mins.

2 hrs., 13 mins.

100 (68.0%)

47 (32.0%)

WAREHOUSE

CENTRAL

20 minute zones One hour metered zones One hour zones No time limit zones

153 6760 1762 1845

5.87 7.63 5.04 2.40

1 hr., 17 mins.

0 hrs., 59 mins.

1 hr., 29 mins.

3 hrs., 8 mins.

82 (53.6%) 5344 (79.1%) 1163 (66.0%)

71 (46.4%) 1416 (20.9%) 599 (34.0%)

ALL FIVE AREAS

20 minute zones One hour metered zones One hour zones No time limit zones

153 7352 2777 7371

5.87 7.81 5.31 3.04

1 hr., 17 mins.

0 hrs., 58 mins.

1 hr., 25 mins.

2 hrs., 28 mins.

82 (53.6%) 5874 (79.9%) 1919 (69.1%)

71 (46.4%) 1478 (20.1%) 858 (30.9%)

EAST— CENTRAL

WEST —

Observations were made at 1/2-hour intervals throughout the 71/2-hour period and it is taken that the minimum parking time is 1/2-hour.

Data is omitted for 26 cars parked in the 5-minute zone of the Central Area as 3 cars parked for 2, 21/2 and 31/2 hours respectively and would create an entirely false picture. *Information taken from Table VIII, Section 6c page 44 PAGE THIRTY-SIX

TURNOVER RATES FOR EACH BLOCK One day = 71/2-hour period 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Table VII Block No.

Vehicles Per Day

Central Area

Block No.

Vehicles Per Day

(Central Area Cont'd)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1.59 5.92 9.30 2.73 2.78 1.43 5.11 6.32 5.71 7.30 5.92 7.62 7.81 1.93 4.88

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.07 7.80 6.74 5.83 6.95 7.65 6.95 7.62 6.28 4.70 3.59 2.57 2.03

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

4.26 6.47 6.75 3.65 2.32 2.55 6.49 6.22 4.96 6.86 1.90 2.59 2.92 6.44 3.85 5.31 4.52

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

5.84 2.97 5.72 6.54 6.71 5.10 5.44 4.45 4.50

Block No.

Vehicles Per Day

Legislcreve Area

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15.0 4.92 7.14 3.68 3.98 4.92 2.07 3.22 3.60

Block No.

Vehicles Per Day

(East-Central Area Coned)

16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27a

3.60 6.10 5.46 1.71 2.73 3.66 4.63 5.36 5.45 3.77 2.40

East-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

4.24 5.85 4.21 3.70 5.01 5.28 3.55 3.89 2.52 4.35 1.98 3.08 4.71 3.09 3.35

Warehouse Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2.53 3.75 5.42 3.14 2.70 5.10 3.97 3.52 3.59 3.70 3.72 2.72

Block No.

Vehicles Per Day

(Warehouse Area Cont'd)

13 14 15 16

3.83 2:29 3.23 3.82

West-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

8.86 4.20 7.88 3.35 4.43 3.77 2.99 3.63 3.81 2.23 3.98 4.35 1.76 1.78 3.10 4.23

PAGE THIRTY-SEVEN

Illustration No. 12

MAP SHOWING DAILY TURNOVER RATES OF ON-STREET PARKING

0•

•

a

11

6

II

1

II

II

II

ocsa

L=a

11 1

LA

• WE

NOTATION Day Taken as 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

AVE

100

fi

1 - 2 Vehicles per Day

II (ID

ID

2 - 4 Vehicles per Day AL

4 - 6 Vehicles per Day 6 -8 Vehicles per Day • VE

62

8 and over Vehicles per Day

a

100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 200 600 1100 1000 5C61.12 OF FEET

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY SURVEYED JUNE/OCT., 1952.

TOWN PLANNING DEPT.

PAGE THIRTY-EIGHT

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 6b

DURATION OF PARKING The field sheets (Form P2) were analyzed to obtain data relating to the duration of parking in the particular zones in each of the five areas. This information, which is closely linked with Turnover Rates, is presented in Chart form (See Illustrations Nos. 13 - 18 inclusive, page 40 to page 42). In this Study, vehicles parked illegally in Truck Loading Zones, Bus Stops, etc., are excluded as they will be dealt with in Part I, Section 6e, page 50. Perusal of these illustrations reveal the parking habits of 17,679 vehicles observed during a day period of 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Particular note should be taken of overtime parking.

Curb Space Abuses

During the course of this Survey it was noticed that in certain cases On-street parking space was being used for purposes for which it was not intended. For exampleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;certain service stations were executing repairs to vehicles at the curbside. It was noticed that some garages had wrecked cars parked outside their premises, in some cases for several days. Other cases were noticed where vehicles waiting to be repaired or serviced had been parked On-street, presumably waiting for space to become available on the premises. Adjacent businessmen complained about such practices. In one case violations of several different types could be observed at the same time, such as vehicles parked on sidewalk obstructing pedestrians, carrying out repairs on double parked vehicles, changing tires on large trucks while vehicles straddled two parking stalls, etc. In short, the firm concerned was carrying out part of its business on-street to the detriment of traffic movement. In the East-Central Area it was observed that large trailers had been left at the curbside for extended periods, each taking up 2 or more parking units. In this area some businessmen also complained that cars were being parked at the curbside early in the morning and remaining all day. They alleged that many of the drivers of these vehicles were workers, who after parking their cars. used other transportation to workplaces outside the city.

Numerous businessmen condemned the practice of persons who occupied curb space outside their premises for long periods, on the grounds that it was detrimental to their business, in that it acted as a deterrent to their potential customers. On the other hand some managers readily admitted to parking their own cars outside their main entrances all day, and even detailing members of their staff to attend to the "feeding" of the meter. They fully realized that their actions deprived potential customers of curb space, but argued that they might as well use the space for their own convenience because if they did not do so, the staff of the store opposite would.

Summary: Most of the On-street parking is from one-half to three and one-half hours duration.

Curbside parking space is being abused in certain respects.

PAGE THIRTY-NINE

35

690

ILLUSTRATION NO. 13

3163

DURATION OF

20%

PARKED (9 00Am - 4.50PM) =10546

vEtticLE, pARKED IN

VEHIcLES PARKED

VEHICLES PARKED IN ONE

VEHICLES PARKED IN

vENICLES PARKED IN

FivE MINUTE ZONES

TWENTy MINUTE ZONES

HOUR METERED ZONES

aNE HOUR ZONES

No TIME LimiT ZONES

2630

26 VEHIcLES pARKED

tS3 VEHICLES PARKED

67. vENICLES ',RAU

1762 VEHICLES PARKED

1045 VENtcLES pARKED

• .24% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 1.5% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 54.1% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 16.7% oF DAILY TOTAL

• 17.5 % OF DAILY TOTAL

" 21

ON-STREET PARKING

1562

METER "FEEDING"

06 z

44

CENTRAL AREA

OVERTIME

OVERTIME

06

OVERTIME

_

144

q5av!4444 1.. . .

4406

_pFaaaFea, ette 11E11

...eeetf

0

NU III3ERO F VEHICL ESPARKED O H- STR EE T

DAILY TOTAL VEHICLES

CC :25X _

_316 -211 105 53

1111111;f=.7'''; ' •: ". ;',' ' 7 ': g -g ' •'•'" ^. . t ' '7

NUMBER OF HOURS PARKED

ILLUSTRATION NO. 14.

DAILY TOTAL VEHICLES/ PARKED

DURATION

(9.00AM- 4.30 PM) 2285

VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

vEtticLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

vENIDLEs p•RNED ON-STREE

ONE HOUR METERED ZONES

ONE HOUR ZONES

NO TIME LIM, ZONES

592 vEHIcLEs P•RKE0

2 07 VEHILLES PARKED

1406 VEHICLES PARKED

• 25.9% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 0.1% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 46.05, OF DAILY TOTAL

OF 456

ON-STREET PARKING

DAIL Y

90

OVERTIME

METER "FEEDING"

44

:$

44

WEST-CENTRAL AREA

00

4; ae

aa IAFADBDAY

m

t22

e

e

aa

i as.

— NUMBER OF HOURS PARKED

PAGE FORTY

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY. 1952

30%

_7•11

ILLUSTRATION NO. 15.

_ 675

DAILY TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED

DURATION

(

9.00AM-4.SOPMI

2254

VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

ONE HOUR 20NES

No TIME LIAIIT ZONES

501 vEH1CLES PARKED

OF

1663 VEHICLES PARKED • 73.6% OF DAILY TOTAL

00.2% OF DAILY TOTAL

ON-STREET PARKING OVERTIME

3

62

EAST-CENTRAL AREA ae

62 62 ae6262

I

I!

NUMBER OF HOURS PARKED 022

ILLUSTRATION NO.16

705

(9.00 AM —•.30 PM ) • 2345 VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

ONE HOUR ZONES

NO TIME LIMIT 200E5

147 VEHICLES PARKED

1091 VEHICLES PARKED

.7.21% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 92.76% OF DAILY TOTAL

537

470

352

62 oP

2 235

I at

OVERTIME

62 oN

• e e eat -.1

ae ae

ae

117

T., I

•

' NUMBER OF

HOURS

I

NUMBER OF VEHICLE SPA RK ED ON- STREET

DAILY TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED

VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET

DURATION OF ON-STREET PARKING

WAREHOUSE AREA

93 et 46 23 12

g • g

PARKED

PAGE FORTY-ONE

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY, 1952

55%-

ILLUSTRATION

NO. 17.

IIV

-1911

CC

DAILY

DURATION

'S 25%-

VEHICLES

0

ONE

PARKED

HOUR

73

OF

IN

VEHICLES

ON-STREET

ZONES

VEHICLES

PARKED

(9.00AM - 4.30PM) • 556 VEHICLES PARKED IN ON-STREET NO TIME LIMIT ZONIS

PARKED

• 12, % OF DAILY

;, 20%

ON-STREET PARKING

TOTAL

• 6111

TOTAL

VEHICLES

07 % OF DAILY TOTAL

15 %-

A7 .D1

LEGISLATIVE

AREA

OVERTIME V. I% a:

AK

3%

A0

.5%

se

t t

2%

at at 7

se

I —

ae :

• NUMBER OF HOURS PARKED

ILLUSTRATION NO. IS. AREA

NO.

EAST CENTRAL 2254 12.75% WEST CENTRAL 2295 12.92% CENTRAL 10546 59.60% WAREHOUSE 2038 II . 53% LEGISLATIVE 558 3. 1• %

DAILY VEHICLES

PARKED

( 9.00AM- 4.30PM I

TOTALS

17679 • 100%

DURATION 4420

86 .

IVEHICLES PARKED IN

VEHICLES PARKED IN

FIVE MINUTE ZONES

TWENTY MINUTE ZONE

VEHICLES PARKED IN ONE

VEHICLES PARKED IN

VEHICLES EARNED IN

ONE HOUR ZONES

NO TIME LIMIT ZONE

HOUR METERED ZONE

2. VEHICLES PARKED

153 VEHICLES ••RKED

7352 VEHICLES PARKED

2777 VENICLES PARKED 387371 VEHICLES PARKED

• .15% OF DAILY TOTAL

• .97% OF DAILY TOTAL

• 41.50% OF DAILY TOTAL

•15.70 % Or DAILY TOTAL r,...41.69% Or DAILY TOTAL

OF

S ODS

ON-STREET PARKING 2650

TOTAL OF

METER "FEEDING

et .; 10%

OVERTIME OVERTIME

X

OVERT/ME

ALL FIVE AREAS

AK

t 4%-

3 ,c— tt 2 54—

=

t:LYttf°11

NUMBER OF HOURS PARKED

PAGE FORTY-TWO

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY. 1952

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 6c

EFFECTS OF OVERTIME PARKING In numbers, the motorists who park overtime in the various zones appear relatively small, but the number of potential parkers eliminated by these motorists is far out of proportion. For example: In a one hour zone, if one motorist parks for five hours he eliminates at least four potential parkers.

The number of motorists parked overtime and their effects in eliminating other potential parkers in the 5 areas are listed in Table VIII, page 44.

It will be seen from Table VIII that if the motorists who overstayed the time limit had restricted their stay even to the maximum time limits, 4,252 more vehicles (or 24%)* could have been accommodated in the Downtown Area for short-term On-street parking during the period of observation. (9 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.)

"Sleeper" Parkers

Overtime parking also decreases turnover rates, and because of low turnover rates, motorists having found parking space are reluctant to move. A vicious circle is thus caused. For example, take the motorist who wishes to visit several stores: after finding parking space, the motorist will leave his car at that stall (parking overtime) and walk from store to store rather than move his car closer to another destination point and risk not finding another vacant stall. The motorist therefore has to walk considerable distances, and the time thus spent is added to his actual parking time requirements.

Summary: Overtime parking decreases turnover rates.

4252 more vehicles on one typical 71/2 hour day could have parked On-street if time limits had been adhered to.

`Based 'on 17,679 vehicles parked in legal parking zones.

PAGE FORTY-THREE

.

11

EFFECTS OF OVERTIME PARKING Table VIII No. of Vehicles Parked Overtime

No. of Potential Parkers Eliminated

Area

Type of Curbspace

Central Area

5 mm. zones 20 mm. zones 1 hour meters 1 hour zones

3 71 1416 599

93 380 1835 1297

West-Central Area

1 hour meters 1 hour zones

62 23

67 25

Legislative Area

1 hour zones

9

11

Warehouse Area

1 hour zones

47

125

East-Central Area

1 hour zones

180

419

5 mm. zones 20 mm. zones 1 hour meters 1 hour zones

3 71 1478 858

93 380 1902 1877

2410

4252

All Five Areas

TOTALS

PAGE FORTY-FOUR

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 6d

AREAS OF SATURATION The information on Forms P2 was analyzed to ascertain the degree of parking saturation or congestion for each block within the five survey areas.

Computation Method

The method employed was as follows: (a) The number of curbside parking stalls were totalled for each block. (b) The number of stalls in use in each 1/2 hour in each block were totalled. (c) From (a) and (b) the % of saturation (i.e. % of stalls in use) was obtained for each 1/2 hourly period. (d) The 1/2 hourly percentages were totalled and averaged block by block for the period of observation.

(9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.) (e) The percentages were tabled (See Table IX, page 47, then grouped into 20% intervals and transferred to a map. See Illustration No. 19, page 48.

Study of Illustration No. 19 reveals that the greater proportion of the Central Area has now reached 80-100% saturation and this condition has spread to about 1/2 of the West-Central Area and to the fringe blocks of the Wholesale Area. This roughly follows the existing retail and office land use (See Illustration No. 20, page 49) with a certain amount of overflow. In general the 60 - 80% saturation forms a secondary ring around this area with off-shoots into the Warehouse and East-Central industrial sections.

Saturation Constant

One significant fact found in this study was that the deviations from the average saturation at any time throughout the day was relatively small, i.e., if a block is shown as having an average of 80-100% saturation for the day, there will be very little fluctuation outside this range, thus if a block shows a high saturation it remains high all day.

It will be seen that the residential Blocks 11, 13, 14 and 15 in the West-Central Area and Blocks 1 and 6 in the Central Area are taking the overflow parking from the business areas, as evidenced by the 80- 100% saturation.

PAGE FORTY-FIVE

=

The turnover for these blocks is quite low, indicating that they are being used by all-day parkers. The same conditions apply to a lesser extent to the remainder of the residential blocks in the West-Central and Warehouse Areas.

Degree of Saturation

80 - 100% saturation is considered to produce conditions of extreme difficulty, especially where aggravated by low turnover rates. 60 - 80% saturation is considered to be difficult, but not so as to deter the majority of motorists from visiting these blocks. Blocks having below 60% saturation are not considered to have an unreasonable problem, but unfortunately all such blocks are located at considerable distances from the retail area.

Summary: Greater proportion of Central Area has extreme saturation.

Low saturation areas too far distant from central business area to ease problem.

PAGE FORTY-SIX

I I I I I I I

PERCENTAGE OF SATURATION FOR EACH BLOCK Table IX Block No.

Highest % Saturation

Average % Saturation

93.6 100.0 97.5 100.0 77.3 100.0 98.1 100.0 97.8 85.8 100.0 97.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 83.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5 100.0 100.0 98.9 95.0 85.7 100.0 100.0 96.1 98.2 87.5 80.9

Highest % Saturation

Average % Saturation

88.8 89.3 85.6 93.8 67.3 96.8 82.3 88.2 82.2 69.6 85.0 86.2 78.2 97.9 95.3 94.2 86.7 67.5 94.6 98.7 93.4 95.2 86.4 95.6 95.0 92.3 88.3 70.4 95.2 87.6 87.3 92.0 79.4 78.1

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

90.0 97.4 93.3 94.4 95.8 85.0 70.0 91.4 88.0 89.1 75.6 69.3 67.8 92.3 61.9 47.0 80.9 85.0 90.9 66.6

81.7 86.4 83.5 73.5 83.8 74.1 63.1 80.0 77.4 64.0 62.8 61.0 47.6 77.9 42.2 33.3 67.0 75.0 77.6 44.4

West-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

63.6 55.9 93.7 73.6 87.9 84.2 91.4 63.6 50.0 75.0 91.8

Block No.

Highest % Saturation

Average % Saturation

41.8 44.5 69.5 64.6 76.6 78.8 85.7 40.9 31.9 67.2 82.5

12 13 14 15 16

88.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Block No.

Highest % Saturation

Average % Saturation

(Legislative Area con 'd)

(West-Central Area cont'd)

(Central Area cont'd)

Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Block No.

82.6 88.6 96.2 93.8 81.4

9 10 11

29.0 46.4 14.3

23.4 34.6 8.1

Warehouse Area East-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

78.9 85.7 56.5 64.4 75.3 60.3 59.5 57.1 72.8 52.4 71.7 89.2 74.0 100.0 80.0 81.5

51.8 70.7 44.9 57.6 67.3 45.6 51.9 47.1 63.4 43.3 63.6 81.0 61.6 90.6 67.6 67.6

Legislative Area

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16.7 65.0 82.4 21.4 61.8 67.3 28.3

1.1 43.4 56.2 12.5 51.0 56.9 26.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27a& b

72.5 79.6 75.4 78.4 63.6 56.9 68.8 91.0 80.5 17.4 41.9 68.4 55.9 75.0 65.1 31.9 24.1 37.3 50.0 53.4 62.5 26.1 25.0 30.0 50.0

61.2 55.3 59.7 69.1 50.2 43.0 60.5 66.4 58.2 9.0 36.0 59.1 49.1 67.7 56.4 27.3 19.3 32.3 31.7 39.6 48.7 19.7 12.5 22.0 38.9

PAGE FORTY-SEVEN

Illustration No. 19 -.!At

MAP SHOWING AVERAGE DEGREE OF SATURATION

11.1 tt .. ..--iit 4010 10 firjr0 a 04

tor

•V

a

II

-

a

II

NOTATION Average from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

tD

II

0% - 20% of Stalls in Use

OD

20% - 40% of Stalls in Use 40% - 60% of Stalls in Use 60% - 80% of Stalls in Use 80% - 100% of Stalls in Use

100 0 100 100 .0 VO SOO 000 100 000 000 1000 SC•LE OF FEET

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY TOWN PLANNING DEPT.

SURVEYED JUNE/OCT., 1952.

PAGE FORTY-EIGHT

,

Illustration No. 20

MAP SHOWING GENERAL LAND USE

ol i joVt• Atg, t

„,

10 00 IA IC

z

11 41

3

1 1 111

.3

a

II It NOTATION Residential, Hotels and Apartments

II (ID

Shops, Retail Business Offices, Banks, Places of Assembly

99

Wholesale and Industrial

• VE

Parkland and Open Space

100 0 100 200 BOO 400 !CO WO Mk MOO 900 1000 SCALE OF FEET

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY TOWN PLANNING DEPT. SURVEYED JUNE/OCT., 1952.

PAGE FORTY-NINE

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 6e

VIOLATIONS When carrying out the study of On-street parking habits, it was necessary to obtain data regarding overtime parking, and the opportunity was taken at the same time to observe all other violations which occurred at the curbside. This information was recorded on Form P2, an actual Illustration of which is shown on page 33, all the violations being ringed in colour. It is pointed out that one vehicle can cause more than one violation to occur at one timeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; i.e. a vehicle can be parked over 18 inches from the curb and at the same time can be over the time limit in a 1 hour zone, etc.

Meter "Feeding"

Although "meter feeding" (denoting paying and parking over 1 hour in metered zones) is not enforced as a violation, the number of cases observed is included for comparative purposes.

A study of Illustration No. 21, page 5e indicates that the majority of violations occur in the Central Area with the East-Central, West-Central and Warehouse Areas following in that order. The Legislative Area has relatively few violations mainly for the reasons that there are fewer restricted zones in that area and the saturation is comparatively low.

Overtime Parking

Traffic Tags

Overtime parking can be seen to be the major violation, there being more cases in this group than all others combined, 3543 cases against 1895 for all others observed, giving a total of 5438 violations of all types. Vehicles parking on driveway crossings form the second group of violators, and those parked in "No Parking" zones the third, accounting for 496 and 243 cases respectively. The figures given in Illustration 21 were compiled from the oneday checks on each block and represent an average day-9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. On a typical day, during the period of survey, meter inspectors issued a daily average of 440 traffic tags in the metered zones for meter and other parking violations, irrespective of those issued by the Police Department.

Violations in themselves do not give a true indication of parking conditions, and it is not suggested that motorists as a group deliberately violate, but it is inevitable that when serious parking deficiencies exist, the number of violations will be found to be correspondingly high.

Summary: Overtime parking is major violation followed by violations in Driveway Crossings and "No Parking

Zones.

Majority of violations occur in Central Area with East-Central, West-Central, Warehouse and Legislative Areas following.

PAGE FIFTY

"FEEDING" METER METER VIOLATION PARKED IN I HOUR ZONES PARKED IN 20 MIN.ZONES

1063 1446 512 71 3

PARKED IN SHIN. ZONES PKD.OVER I 8" FROM CURB 96 79 IMPROPERLY PARKED 10 ANGLE IN PARALLEL ZONE 30 ZONE PARALLEL IN ANGLE 80 DOUBLE PARKED PKD. IN TRUCK LOADING ZONE 40 PKD. 1 N PAS S. LOADING ZONE 27 PKD.IN LANES a SETBACKS 91 226 PKD.IN CROSSINGS 46 PKD.IN BUS STOPS 192 PKD.IN NO PARKING ZONES

CENTRAL

AREA.

OVERTIME . 3095 z 5 7.00 % OTHER VIOLATIONS. 1069 . I 9.60 % SUBTOTAL 4164 7 6.60 %

PKD.IN CORNER CLEARANCE 128 5 PKD.IN TAXI STANDS PKD.IN FIRE HYDRANT ZONE 20 SUB TOTAL 4164

"FEEDING" METER METER VIOLATION PARKED IN 1 HOUR ZONES

8.20%

WEST CENTRAL AREA. OVERTIME . 212 3.90% OTHER VIOLATIONS. 201 . 369% SUBTOTAL 413

7.59%

1 3

PKD.IN FIRE HYDRANT ZONE 3 SUBTOTAL 413 PARKED IN IHOUR ZONES PKD. OVER 18" FROM CURB IMPROPERLY PARKED ANGLE IN PARALLEL ZONE PARALLEL IN ANGLE ZONE DOUBLE PARKED

47 17 8 21 27 67

PKD.IN TRUCK LOADING ZONE 16 PKD.IN LANES B SETBACKS 11 120 PKD.IN CROSSINGS 4 PKD.IN NO PARKING ZONES PKD.IN CORNER CLEARANCE 32 10 PKD.IN RAILWAY CROSS. PKD. IN FIRE HYDRANT ZONE 7 SUBTOTAL 387

3N0-1,1,11.1 20Vd

THECITYOF EDMONTON DOWNTOWNPARKING SURVEY, 1—• CD Cf. ts)

OVERTIME = 180. 3.30% OTHER VIOLATIONS: 267. 4.90% SUBTOTAL 447

43 146 23 24 7 22

PM:LOVER 18" FROM CURB IMPROPERLY PARKED DOUBLE PARKED PK0.11,1 TRUCK LOADING ZONE 12 PKD IN PASS. LOADING ZONE 5 24 PKD.IN LANES a SETBACKS 71 PKD.IN CROSSINGS 4 PKD IN BUS STOPS 25 PKD.IN NO PARKING ZONES PKD.IN CORNER CLEARANCE PKD.IN TAXI STANDS

EAST CENTRAL AREA.

Nouvais nil I

180 PARKED IN I HOUR ZONES 42 PKD. OVER 18"FROM CURB IMPROPERLY PARKED 1 10 ANGLE IN PARALLEL ZONE 23 PARALLEL IN ANGLE ZONE 21 DOUBLE PARKED PKD.IN TRUCK LOADING ZONE 7 8 PKD.IN LANES a SETB ACKS 73 PKD.IN CROSSINGS 19 PKD IN BUS STOPS PKD.IN NO PARKING ZONES 19 PKD.IN CORNER CLEARANCE 39 5 PKD.IN FIRE HYDRANT ZONE SUBTOTAL 447

PARKED IN 1 HOUR ZONES DOUBLE PARKED 5 PKD.IN LANES a SETBACKS 6 PKD.IN CROSSINGS 3 PKD.IN BUS STOPS 3 PKD.IN NO PARKING ZONES SUBTOTAL 27 TOTAL 54 38

WAREHOUSE AREA. OVERTIME = 47 0.80% OTHER VIOLATIONS. 340: 6. 30 % SUBTOTAL 387.

LEGISLATIVE

7.10%

AREA.

OVERTIME 9= 0.17 % OTHER VIOLATIONS. IS: 0.34 % SUBTOTAL 27

0.51%

10 0.0 0%

I

PART I—Section 7

STUDY OF OFF-STREET PARKING HABITS Types of Parkers

Generally speaking Off-street parkers are long-term parkers and can be roughly divided into two main groups—The Businessman and the Shopper. The Businessman can be further sub-divided into two categories—(a) Those who use their cars mainly for transportation to and from workplace and (b) Those who use cars during business hours—such as Doctors, Salesmen, Real Estate men, etc.

Those in category (a) usually arrive Downtown before office hours, park all day and leave after the Offices are closed. They appear to be satisfied if parking facilities are available within their general locality—say 2 blocks or so from their workplace.

Those in category (b) require their vehicle to be parked much closer to their places of business, so as to be readily available at short notice. These people seem to favour parking facilities that can be rented on a contract basis, thus ensuring themselves of reserved space at all times.

Importance of Siting

Parkers' Purchasing Power

Information obtained from various sources indicates that shopper's parking time varies very considerably from under 1 hour to all day, the latter being predominately shoppers in from the rural areas. The average shopper, who parks for 2 - 21/2 hours will use Off-street facilities where available for such period, for which he is willing to pay, provided that the parking space is situated well within the boundaries of the shopping area. Various other surveys indicate a shopper using curb parking space usually stays about one hour. Shoppers visiting premises having a quick customer turnover do not favour Off-street facilities unless free and almost adjoining the premises which they wish to visit. For example: it has been observed that where a parking demand was only 5- 10 minutes, motorists have double-parked and risked a 'tag,' while Off-street parking (charging a fee) almost just across the street remained empty. It is obvious therefore, that very careful thought must be given to the siting of Off-street parking and the type of demand it is to satisfy if it is to pay its way.

It is interesting to note that in a Shopping Survey in 1951 conducted by the City Plan Commission, Spokane, Washington, it was found that shoppers coming by automobile spent almost twice as much as those coming by bus ($6.28 - $3.40), shoppers who did come by car and who parked Off-street spent an average of $7.50, as against $5.44 spent by those parked On-street. The Survey also gives the average purchase at a Department Store by a curb parker as $6.86.

PAGE FIFTY-TWO

Based on the above figures of $6.86, if one curb space accommodated 8 cars during the business day for 278 shopping days a year, the amount of retail trade coming from that one parking space would be over $15,000 per annum.* Benefit to Business

These comparisons may not apply to Edmonton in exactly the same ratio, but the trends will most likely be similar.

There is little doubt that provision of Shopper Parking at hourly rates results in a direct benefit to most businesses in the vicinity.

Summary: Persons parking Off-street usually wish to park for longer periods and are likely to spend more when shopping.

Trade derived from a parking stall has very high value to nearby stores.

The Eno Foundation For Highway Traffic Control publication "Zoning and Traffic" states on page 41 . . . "Investigation of the parking areas provided around a number of exisiting stores and shopping centres disclosed that the average sales volume per car space required varied from $15,000 to $60,000 per year, depending on the average unit sale."

PAGE FIFTY-THREE

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 8

STUDY OF PARKING DEMAND The object of this Study was to ascertain the demand in parking units generated by each place of business in each block of the downtown area. The demand figure obtained, when totalled for each block and compared with the total stalls available, reveals the "Deficiency" or "Surplus" of parking stalls in that block.

Method of Survey

The method of survey was to contact the management of firms in each block and list them. The management was asked to make a return for one day of the persons visiting their particular premises on a normal business day (Wednesdays and Saturdays were avoided as not being representative of a normal day). Each firm that agreed to co-operate was issued with copies of Form P.3. (See Illustration No. 22, page 59) upon which to record the tally for the day chosen for survey. The form is designed to divide the business day into 1/2 hour periods and the management was requested to ask each person who visited the premises (both customer and employee) the following questions: 1. How they had arrived at the premises (walked, bus, taxi, truck, car, or obtained a ride). 2. Those who came by truck or car were asked how long they expected to stay at the premisesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;i.e. how long they wanted to park. 3. Those who came by the four other methods (walked, bus, taxi, or obtained a ride) were asked if they owned a vehicle and if so, whether they would have used it to visit the premises that day if adequate parking had been available. 4. Those in (3) who signified that they would have used their cars, were asked how long they would have required parking space in order to conduct their business in the particular premises that day.

Response by Business

Altogether 1833 firms were contacted of which 1313 (71.6%) made a return, 176 (9.6%) were unable to make a return because of too fast a customer turnover and various other reasons. 160 (8.7%) stated they had no parking problem, and 150 (8.2%) were contacted but not asked to make a return because comparative figures were already available. Only 34 (1.9%) refused to make a return. As the survey proceeded it was found unnecessary to contact 108 firms because comparative figures became available. In many cases of fast customer turnover such as banks, motion picture theatres, coffee shops, etc., the Town Planning field staff carried out the survey themselves for such premises.

During this Study 74,944 persons were interviewed and of this number it was revealed that 26% walked, 29% used the City Transit System, 2% used a taxi, 6% came by truck, 31% came by car and 6% obtained a ride, into the downtown area.

PAGE FIFTY-FOUR

NI

Potential Car Increase

A number of persons stated that because of anticipated parking difficulties, they had left their cars at home, but would have used them that day if adequate parking facilities had been available. The returns indicate that as soon as more facilities are provided, the 31% who did in fact come by car will be increased to 40%.

The forms, when completed, were collected from the business premises and the management was asked whether the tally did in fact represent a normal day, and if not, by what percentage the numbers required adjustment. In some cases, where for some unforseen circumstance the tally had been abnormal on the survey day, the survey was repeated. The importance of these returns was made clear to the managements when the forms were issued to them, and it has been assumed that the staffs who completed the forms made as accurate a return as possible. The overall sample was extensive (74,944 persons interviewed), and taken on different days over a 3 month period. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any inaccuracies which may have crept in to the returns would be likely to balance out, and not affect the final result too any noticeable extent. In point of fact as stated earlier, parking demands vary from day to day and it is impossible to obtain an exact demand, but it is considered that the method adopted was successful in obtaining a fair working average, which was the intention of the Survey.

Where no return had been forthcoming, a form had to be made up from figures received from a business of comparable nature and size in the same locality. The returns, together with the returns compiled by the Town Planning field staff, were then analyzed to obtain an average estimated demand which is generated by each block throughout a normal dayâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;i.e., the average number of stalls in demand at any one time from 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., plus the potential demand which would be created by those persons who reported that they had not used their cars on the day of survey because of anticipated parking difficulty. These latter must be included as actual demand, because, as soon as parking facilities are improved these additional cars will be attracted to the area. Single and two family residential property has been omitted from the figures of the demand survey, for the reason that provision of Off-street facilities has been found to be adequate in most cases, and a balance is thereby obtained between supply and demand.

The information was tabulated (See Table X, page 60) to show the average estimated demand for each block, broken down into "up to 1 hour," and "over 1 hour," and compared with the existing parking spaces now available both On and Off-street. The total estimated demand actual and potential for each block, was deducted from the total existing spaces available in the block and the deficiency or surplus of stalls was thereby obtained.

Deficiency Map

The Deficiency or Surplus found in each block is shown in map form (See Illustration No. 23, page 63). Blocks showing a deficiency are shown in red colour and those having a surplus are shown in blue. The number of stalls surplus or deficient is also indicated for each block. It is considered that it would be of little value to produce a map PAGE FIFTY FIVE

which would indicate only present day demand, for the reason that as soon as facilities are made available the potential parker will become an actual parker, and solutions based on actual demand only, would be nullified. Only by showing the existing and potential demand as it exists now, can a proper idea of the parking problem be gained.

In totalling all the blocks in the five survey areas shown in Illustration No. 23, page 63, and balancing the surpluses and deficiencies a net deficit of 65 stalls results, which is the true demand picture. However, the average overall existing demand in the whole survey area is approximately 2000 stalls less than is shown on this map because of the fact that the load is lightened by cars being left at home. This important factor is considered to provide the leeway that allows the existing parking system to function, even if unsatisfactorly.

In considering the net deficiency of parking stalls in the whole area, it must be remembered that the removal of parking space can occur at almost an instant's notice. In the congested areas, where Off-street parking is removed, the usual intention is to develop the property to some new business use. By this procedure the parking that was accommodated on the site is forced to go elsewhere and the new structure itself generates a parking demand, sometimes in excess of that which existed on the site previously. This causes a double loss to the parking system. Examples of this procedure can be seen almost every day throughout the downtown area. For example: if a 50 feet by 150 feet lot (which today is being used to park 30 cars Off-street) is developed as a new business establishment, not only is there a loss of 30 parking stalls, but a further demand is created by the new structure which could quite easily double this figure, giving a net loss of 60 stalls.

In interpreting the "Deficiency and Surplus Map" (Page 63) an explanation is necessary: Overflow from Central Area

It will be seen that in general the heavy concentration of parking deficiency is in the Central Area, with minor deficiencies in the other areas. In the case of the Central Area it is not feasible to assume that the deficiencies in the heart of the area can be wholly made up by utilizing the surpluses in the East-Central, West-Central and Warehouse Areas. For example, it is not reasonable to assume that the 97 surplus stalls in Block 17 of the East-Central Area will help in easing the 272 stall deficiency in Block 23 of the Central Area, for the reason that parkers will not walk that distance. A certain amount of overflow from the red areas into the blue areas does take place, especially on the perimeter of the Central red area. Reference to the Saturation Map Illustration No. 19, page 48, shows this condition to be true as far as existing On-street facilities are concerned, and shows in general the existing sphere of influence that the Central Area has.

Sphere of Influence

Again referring to Illustration No. 23, in considering potential parking sites, there are many combinations which can be made by grouping blocks together, and the influence that one block can have upon another is an important factor to be taken into account when choosing possible new locations for parking facilities. However, the PAGE FIFTY-SIX

choice of new sites based on a block combination method is not considered to be adequate. The sphere of influence method is far superior. In this method a circle of given radius is described with its centre at a point of possible site location, and the demand found within this circle is computed. By this means a more accurate conception of the needed capacity of the proposed facility can be obtained, because the sphere of influence created by a parking facility exhibits a radial pattern emanating from itself ouiward over a given area. A number of sites can be chosen and their influence upon one another can be examined. Where circles of influence overlap each other, the necessary apportionments of demand can easily be made. The advantage of this method is that vacant sites wherever possible and feasible can be selected as a starting point, making the implementation of such a proposal more probable financially than if sites were chosen which include demolition of certain buildings on them.

The rule governing the radii of the circles is the distance the parker is willing to walk to his destination point after parking. Observations and enquiries made during the survey indicate that the maximum distance a shopperparker can be expected to walk is about 800 feet, and a worker or all-day parker 1000 - 1500 feet depending on whether the parking is free and the termperature.

Bearing in mind that if parking charges are made, the motorist will expect close-in parking, and taking account of low winter temperatures which reduce inclination to walking, it is considered advisable to base all computations within a radius of not more than 800 feet for the shopper (i.e. short and medium term parking) and a maximum of 1200 feet for the worker (i.e. long term parking).

Assessment of Demand

By the judicial use of the data now available, it is possible to calculate the quantity and type of new parking stalls required to satisfy the demands in any given area, and assess the turnover and load that any proposed parking facility is likely to carry. A group interested in the promotion of parking facilities thus has essential data at its disposal.

The problem can be approached by two methods: 1. Selection of suitable locations and calculation of probable potentialities as regards the number and turnover of vehicles likely to use the facilities.

This will indicate likely revenue to be derived therefrom.

2. Selection of an area and computation of the number and type of additional stalls needed to satisfy the deficiency of parking space therein.

In the case of Method No. 1, the procedure would be as follows: The sites to be examined would each be circumscribed by a circle of 800 feet radius, representing the area which would be influenced by the proposed parking locations (based on a minimum walking distance of PAGE FIFTY-SEVEN

800 feet). Using Map 23, the deficiency of spaces within the area is computed. Table X gives the type of space in most demand (long or short term parking). Where the areas of influence overlap, apportionments are made.

Reference to Map 19 and Table IX will give the existing degree of saturation of the area and Map 12 and Table VII the turnover rates which obtain at the curbside. These latter have a close relationship to the number of cars which may be expected to use each space per day.

Likewise for Method No. 2 the procedure is similar: By placing a series of circles of 800 feet radius over the red areas on Map 23 (Areas of Deficiency) and making apportionments where they overlap, it is possible to ascertain the number of extra stalls required in the particular area under examination.

Reference to Table X gives an appreciation of the type of parking needed i.e. "up to 1 hour" or "over 1 hour."

The advantage of describing the circles on the map is that it immediately reveals just where the sphere of influences ceases, and indicates the limits within which new locations would be of value in satisfying the demand in the area under examination. The search for locations is therefore narrowed down to clearly defined limits.

Additional Stalls Needed

Until the position as to responsibility of parking has been clarified, it is not intended for obvious reasons, to mention in the Report specific sites in the Central Area which could be utilized for parking, but it is felt that the Council of the City of Edmonton and others will expect to know how many additional spaces are needed. Therefore an example of the Method No. 2 described above has been worked out and is illustrated by a map (See Illustration No. 23a, on page 62). In this example the circles infer that locations are required to be found in the general area covered by them, and it will be readily seen that in order to absorb the deficiencies in the Central retail area, 3671 additional Off-street parking spaces will have to be provided.

Summary: Demand based on extensive sample from 1833 firms contacted.

74,944 persons were interviewed on Demand Survey.

31% of persons visiting downtown area came by car.

Greatest deficiency of parking space found in Central retail area.

Areas of Surplus are too far removed to benefit Central retail area deficiency.

A parking facility is likely to make its influence felt over a distance of 800 ft.

3,671 new parking stalls needed in Central Area to offset deficiency.

PAGE FIFTY-EIGHT

CENSUS OF METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION (SPECIMEN SHEET)

FORM P.3.

PARKING SURVEY

City of Edmonton

Census oi Methods of Transportation used by persons visiting

" Y'

NAME "X"

METHOD

TIME A.M.

P.M. WALKED

9:3o

BUS

III

1/:oo /P30 ..V3o /!ao 1:30 2.,'.00 ,230 1' Oa 3 3i) 11'00 ' ?0 -1-100 530

/G III 1/ / /

/ I/ II

/ / /// /11 111/ 1 /

/ //

OF

T

TAXI

hour intervals

Sheet No.

TYPE OF BUSINESS Opt en 711- /

Kt/,

Date of Census

WOULD HAVE PERIOD OF PARKING REQUIRED OWN USED IT A OBTAINED IF ADE- i HOUR 1 HOUR 2 HOURS 3 HOUR A RTDE VEHICLE QUATE ec OVER PARKING WAS AVAlLAH,E4 USED

CAR

////

/

/

/ 1

/ /11

//

/

/ /

/ / / /// // // /

.2„2

Downtown Area.

Sti-eet

1= one person

RANSPORT TRUCK

Cenb-al

—

ADDRESS

NOTE: P2 P1 ease fill in time of day at

Block No.

/

/

/

/

1

/ / /

/11

/

/ /

/ /1 I /

/

1/

1 1/ / /

ILLUSTRATION NO.22

t

PAGE FIFTY-NINE

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY, 1952

DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS OF PARKING STALLS PER BLOCK

Table X Block

Existing Spaces

On No. St. Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

31 30 40 15 22 46 61 122 92 41 57 76 75 102 34 53 63 65 61 51 55 51 58 35 57 86 59 7 14 35 76 57 80 63 20 39

Off St.

6 42 70 5 — — 56 86 23 24 155 197 152 255 74 187 7 34 161 20 25 — 22 12 115 188 53 161 — 90 348 196 21 4 22 24

Demand for Spaces

Total

Up to 1 hr.

Over 1 hr.

37 72 110 20 22 46 117 208 115 65 212 273 227 357 108 240 70 99 222 71 80 51 80 47 172 274 112 168 14 125 424 253 101 67 42 63

— 21 15 12 — — 68 154 49 7 59 275 51 — 98 235 247 26 119 187 137 238 147 560 23 35 15 46 — 93 10 17 — — 31 12

— 23 105 61 — — 121 212 240 7 218 270 114 — 120 276 187 33 280 152 413 184 205 494 76 47 18

80 240 73 9 24

— — 78 28

Total

— 44 120 73 — — 189 366 289 14 277 545 165 — 218 511 434 59 399 339 550 422 352 1054 99 82 33 126 240 166 19 41 — — 109 40

Existing Spaces

Block Defic.

— — 10 53 — — 72 158 174 — 65 272 — — 110 271 364 — 177 268 470 371 272 1007 — — — — 226 41 — — — — 67 —

Surplus

37 28 — — 22 46 — — — 51 — — 62 357 — — — 40 — — — — — — 73 192 79 42 — — 405 212 101 67 — 23

Off On No. St. St. (Central Area Cont'd)

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Demand for Spaces Defic.

Surplus

Total

Up to 1 hr.

Over 1 hr.

Total

19 19 — 4 1 4 3 13 2 10 1 6 1 1 1 6 4 —

34 87 — 3 30 15 1 64 2 3 — 7 4 6 5 8 14 4

53 106 — 7 31 19 4 77 4 13 1 13 5 7 6 14 18 4

— 7 —

9 12 48 66 — 64 38 1 38 47 27 5 16 15 15 7 — 3

7757

4456

2248

154 — — 55 — 176

— — —

3 18 20

38

— 56 — — 46

45 36 48 43 30 35 42 46 41 49 28 13 21 17 21 20 11 3

17 82 — 30 — 48 — 32 1 11 — 5 — 5 — 1 — 4

62 118 48 73 30 83 42 78 42 60 28 18 21 22 21 21 11 7

2478

3071

5549

— 18 20 17 56 68 52 46 69 56 14

157 — — — — 59 2 — 1 1 —

157 18 20 17 56 127 54 46 70 57 14

416

220

636

— — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — —

Legislative Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

— — — 18 — 8 8 — — — —

154 — — 37 — 168 71 — — — —

—

79

49 25

— — — —

— — — —

464

112

70 57 14

284

PAGE SIXTY

DEFICIENCY AND SURPLUS OF PARKING STALLS PER BLOCK

Table X (Cont.)

Block No.

Exis trig Spaces On St.

Off St.

Total

Demand for Spaces Up to 1 hr.

Over 1 1 hr.

Defic.

Surplus

Total

Warehouse Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

19 21 23 59 73 73 47 84 59 101 78 102 104 32 60 32

— — 18 7 26 13 3 27 24 — 30 52 5 34 11

19 21 41 66 99 73 60 87 86 125 78 132 156 37 94 43

967

250

1217

44 67 — 62 41 29 19 — — 5 39 44 — — 42

66 126 16 138 124 105 124 22 14 57 113 169 7 7 69

22 59 16 76 83 76 105 22 14 52 74 125 7 7 27

Existing Spaces On St.

Off St.

Demand for Spaces Defic.

Surplus

Total

Up to 1 hr.

Over 1 hr.

Total

23

42

65

—

4

839

64

451

15 25 37 20 2 13 35 — 5 — 6 12 21 32 22 16 2 25 _

18 34 52 31 2 17 40 — 5 — 7 12 32 38 24 17 4 27 ..._

— — —

22 30 16 65 75 47 40 22 31 23 131 27 39 46 59 74 97 48

5 — — 5 — — 8 9

6 —

(West-Central Area Cont'd)

3 3 18 2 11 11

4 21 25 11 64 18

4 14 3 9 5 17 1 19 2

54 50 12 47 28 55 24 68 20

7 24 43 13 75 29 — 58 64 15 56 33 72 25 87 22

— 3 2 — — — — — — — — — — — —

12 — — 53 24 44 60 29 22 110 22 99 84 12 7 21

623

5

599

51 44 14 49 78 66 182 — — 7 100 108 — — 75

— — — — — — 58 — — — — — — — 6

15 92 2 89 46 39 — 22 14 50 13 61 7 7

West-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Block No.

13 9 9 11 38 18 38 — — 1 36 40 — — 4

38 35 5 38 40 48 144 — — 6 64 68 — — 71

16

37

32

69

802

424

1226

— 15 3 31

40 64 68 96 77 64 80 22 36 23 138 39 71 84 83 91 101 75 _

East-Central Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27a & b

40 49 65 65 77 58 64 22 36 23 93 38 68 84 83 91 79 67 _ 5 4 15 24 23 16 20 24 1233

6 16 — — — 45 1 3 — — — 22 8 — — — — — — — — 150

5 4 15 24 23 16 20 24 1383

3 9 15 11 — 4 5 — — — 1 — 11 6 2 1 2 2 _ 1 — — — — 3 — 2

— — — — — — — — — — — — — _ 1 — —

5 — 3 8 11

— — — —

— 4 15 19 23 13 12 13

393

1

991

PAGE SIXTY-ONE

Mustration No. 23a Example of method of calculation for ascertaining the number of additional stalls needed to make up deficiency in given areas based on 800 feet walking distance.

NOTATION Sphere of influence of parking facility

Apportionment lines Additional stalls needed

NO.

NOTE: Circles 800 radius.

PAGE SIXTY-TWO

....

•• .

.••••• •••

:•••••;!''

.

•

; •

• •-•

••

Illustration No. 23

MAP SHOWING DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS OF PARKING STALLS PER BLOCK

NOTATION

Surplus Deficiency Number of Stalls - Surplus or Deficient - Thus: _4-6

.100 0 100 200 1.00 .0 500 600 MO SOO WO 1000

,CALC 0, FM'

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY TOWN PLANNING DEPT. SURVEYED JUNE/OCT., 1952.

PAGE SIXTY-THREE

.

PART I—Section 9

SOME COMMENTS ON PARKING MADE BY BUSINESSMEN The Survey Report would be incomplete unless due consideration was given to the views of the businessmen trading in the area. Their general reactions to the parking problem and the likelihood of their future co-operation may be judged by some typical comments made during Survey interviews and which are given briefly below.

"It takes longer to find parking space than shop."

"Terrible situation—Can't find space for employees."

"Take the long term parkers out of the meters."

"Had to park five blocks away."

"Each week parking problem is noticeably worse."

"Customers have to double-park to get in."

"Cars block our driveway and lane access."

"My customers are fairly long term—have to walk 5 - 6 blocks."

"Private enterprise will not invest in Off-street car storage unless On-street parking restrictions are rigidly enforced."

"Inconsiderate parking on our driveways causes inaccessability to our business."

"If I don't park in the meters in front of my store the fellow opposite will!"

PAGE SIXTY-FOUR

"Stop all-day parking in 1 hour zones."

"Planning to move from Central Area because parking difficulty is resulting in loss of business."

(Several comments made thus) "Raise parking fines to $2.00 and solve problem."

"Customers say they would call more often if parking was easier."

"Customer had to cruise around block for 15 minutes—finally parked over 1000 feet away."

"Have to return to office frequently—waste half my time finding parking space."

"Have to return to office frequently—need monthly parking facilities."

"Callers took 3/4 hour to find parking space."

"Caller took 1 hour to find parking space—then parked 1500 feet away."

"More enforcement of Parking Regulations needed."

"Although I rent private parking space—lack of short term parking prevents me using my car for business calls in the downtown area."

"Persons who work elsewhere park outside my premises all day and keep my customers out."

"Installation of meters in adjacent block has caused all-day parkers to move into our area. They arrive at 7 a.m. and by 9 a.m. we have to locate parking in Warehouse Area and often get hemmed in by double-parking trucks—sometimes for as long as 45 minutes."

PAGE SIXTY-FIVE

â&#x20AC;¢

PART Iâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 10

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Total number of existing parking spaces in Edmonton Downtown Area: On-street - - - 5896 Off-street - - â&#x20AC;˘ 4115 Total

-

- - 10,011

2. No solution to the parking problem in the business area can be found at the curb. Curb space has long since reached saturation point. Existing curb space will decrease due to increase in traffic volume, necessitating that a number of persons who now park On-street must find parking accommodation Off-street, or alternatively they must be prepared to walk further after parking.

3. There is a lack of Off-street facilities for the shopper parkers in the Central Retail Area particularly, and a shortage of longer term parking facilities in the whole survey area generally.

4. Private enterprise has hitherto shown little desire to enter the parking business purely as such. The element of risk due to the previous lack of information as to demand and the competition of low-cost or free On-street parking have been contributing factors.

5. In the past, the provision of parking to service buildings has been on a piecemeal day to day basis. Little or no thought has been given to parking until after buildings have been erected and the demand created, by which time the most suitable sites for parking have been earmarked or used for other purposes.

6. Lack of Permanency of parking facilities is a serious threat to the success of any parking system. If the existing lots are removed to make way for business premises, the loss is twofold. A solution to an area may be obtained, only to be nullified almost overnight.

7. The mere fact of vacant parking space being available in a general area is no guarantee whatsoever that no parking problem will exist in the area. Parking space must be located correctly and be of the right type so as to satisfy the specific demand, otherwise it will remain empty.

PAGE SIXTY-SIX

8. Different parking facilities can conflict and operate to one another's detriment. All parking facilities must be carefully considered as one "Parking System" for the whole area irrespective of whether publicly or privately operated or whether they are short, medium or long term. The piecemeal planning of new parking facilities without due regard to nearby locations is doomed to failure from the start. (A case has been observed in the city where Off-street parking is only being used to about 1/10th capacity for the reason that unlimited free curb parking is allowed at the curb frontage and in the immediate vicinity, and the period of parking is not geared correctly to the period of demand.)

9. Because motorists park overtime On-street and "feed" meters, turnover rates are lower than. they should be. If time limits were adhered to and the practice of meter "feeding" prohibited, 4252 extra cars could participate in the existing curb facilities per typical day.

10. General comment by businessmen contacted during survey indicate loss to business due to parking difficulties more important than generally believed.

11. There is every indication that, if properly handled, businessmen generally are likely to give their wholehearted co-operation to a "Comprehensive Parking Program."

12. The premise that persons should be made to walk considerable distances from parking facilities should be viewed with extreme caution. The longer persons wish to park, the farther they are willing to walk after parking, but within limits. Having regard to the low winter temperatures it is considered that shoppers will not walk more than a maximum of 800 feet to their destinations and workers a maximum of 1000 - 1500 feet.

13. It is apparent that very little thought has been given to the landscaping and surfacing of parking lots. There is, however, no reason for parking lots to be an eyesore. The more attractive they are, the more they will be patronized, and the less likely there will be depreciation of adjacent properties.

14. It is vitally essential that the economic health of the Downtown Area be maintained in order to prevent loss of tax revenue through excessive decentralization of business.

15. The premise that parking must be paid for in areas of high demand will have to be generally accepted.

16. 3671 additional parking stalls are needed in the Central Area, subject to no removal of exisiting facilities.

PAGE SIXTY-SEVEN

PART 11â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 1

GENERAL Part I of the report has dealt with the Survey, how it was carried out, sources of information, etc. It shows what causes the parking problem, its likely effect on the area if allowed to continue, how serious the problem is, where and what the demand is and where deficiencies in parking space exist. A method of calculation has been arrived at whereby the demand for any particular area can now be ascertained, as also can the load likely to be taken by any new facilities. It must be made perfectly clear that the solutions recommended for solving the existing parking problem are based on an average daily demand, and do not take peak periods into consideration. If provision were to be made for peak periods much of the extra parking space would remain vacant during most of the time.

Nighttime Demand

It will be noticed that the survey has dealt mainly with daytime demands, but the importance of evening demand has not been overlooked. Nighttime demand is made up for the most part by long term parkers, and although some survey work has been carried out to ascertain nighttime demand, it is considered that if the daytime demand is met, no difficulty will be found with evening parking.

Future Demands

Little has been said regarding future demands, because of the many unknown factors which can effect predictions. The public can be just as fickle in some habits as they can be obstinate in others, and it is recommended that any program of parking should be carried out with caution. It is strongly recommended that as each new facility is developed, sections of the survey be repeated to ascertain the influence created by the new location. It is for this reason that the methods of survey have been explained in detail, in order that it may be kept up-to-date.

Fringe Parking

It will be seen from Part I, Section 8, 3671 additional stalls will be needed in the Central Area. These stalls cannot be found in the area On-street. Fringe parking with a commuter service to the Downtown Area has been unsuccessfully tried in Edmonton as well as in much larger centres in Canada. Very low winter temperatures are no doubt one of the reasons for its failure. (This system has been found practicable in larger cities with less severe climatic conditions to contend with.) Therefore its use must be regarded as only a last resort and is not recommended in this Report.

PAGE SIXTY-EIGHT

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;

PART II—Section 2

RESPONSIBILITY AND FINANCING It is of paramount importance that one of the first major decisions to be made before the needs of Off-street parking can be met, is the settlement of the question of who is to be responsible for its provision. The decision will be the key to the policy ultimately followed to implement accepted proposals.

Responsibility can vary from complete city ownership and operation to complete private enterprise ownership/operation or any degree of combination of the two. Examples taken from 27 American cities illustrate the different ways in which financing parking proposals may be implemented. *A selection of these methods are briefly listed below: Private Enterprise 1. Competitors co-operate--Two department stores pooled resources, obtained Insurance Company loan, built a parking garage.

2. Lease Facilities from Insurance Company—Business built parking structure, structure sold to Insurance Company and leased back.

3. Mortgage Property—Business owned land, built parking structure with Bank mortgage loan.

4. Self financing—Business built parking structure with own finances, recovery through parking charge and revenue from ground floor shop leases.

5. Sell stock—Business men formed corporation, sold stock to members to finance parking structure.

Joint Action 1. Pay Annual Rental in lieu of Taxes—Business built structure on city land, structure reverts to city upon completion, city leased structure to business on annual rental.

2. Loan Money to City without Interest—Businessmen purchased interest-free city bonds, revenue used for construction of parking facilities.

•"Parking—How It Is Financed"—National Retail Dry Goods Association, N.Y. PAGE SIXTY-NINE

3. Lease Purchase Agreement—City leased facility from private enterprise with purchase option, rent paid with combined meter revenues from structure and On-street.

4. Built Automatic Garage on Speculation—Private group agrees with City to erect structure on trial, if successful, city will purchase.

Municipal 1. Benefit District (Local Improvement Tax)—City provides parking through bond issue, costs recovered by assessment on benefited property.

2. City Improvement Program—Using funds raised for General Improvement Program, City develops parking, shares revenues with private operator.

3. Owners Lease Land to City—City develops, owner receives percentage of revenue tax-free. Taxes paid from city's share of gross.

4. Pay-As-You-Go—City carries out parking program with earnings from curb meters and lots.

5. Revenue Bonds—City finances program with sale of Revenue Bonds backed by revenue from curb meters and lot takings.

City Responsibility

If the Council of the City of Edmonton decides to assume the full responsibility for the provision of Offstreet parking facilities necessary to solve the problem, it would appear that Section 579, Subsection (n n) of the City Act could be invoked to provide the facilities by way of local improvement, the cost being distributed by a district benefit tax. This would mean that the City would assemble land in the heart of the Downtown Area, install parking facilities and either operate the facilities themselves or lease them to a private operator. If further powers are needed they should be applied for.

The advantages of this method are: 1. The parking system for the whole area can be considered as a unit.

2. A better overall service to the public can be obtained because elements of risk can be eliminated in an overall scheme as profits from one facility can subsidize losses on another.

3. The businessman would benefit by keeping and increasing his patronage by automobile users.

4. The City would benefit by maintaining its Central Area tax revenue.

5. The motorist would benefit by obtaining parking at reasonable rates.

PAGE SEVENTY

â&#x20AC;¢

The method of financing such a scheme would be for the City to sell bonds backed by the local improvement tax obtained from the benefited businesses. Bonds could be sold to the benefiting businessmen or on the open market. The City would contribute by paying the interest on the bonds and the motorist by paying a reasonable rate for the parking provided.

Private Responsibility

On the other hand the affected business people in the Central Area could provide parking themselves by grouping together and financing parking to their own benefit without City participation, except perhaps in assistance of assembly of land. The City could contribute by selling or leasing the land at a lower figure than would ordinarily obtain. Such land would, of necessity, be bound by strict agreement as to type and size of structure to be built, correct location of each structure, parking charges and dates of starting and completion of structure with penalty clauses for non-compliance. All such land would be permanently zoned for parking purposes. In the majority of cases it is unfortunately impossible now for existing businesses to provide individual solutions to their problem, when their property ownership amounts to no more than a single typical lot, but judging from their comments there is an untapped source of co-operation for group action which should not be disregarded.

Whatever course is decided upon for responsibility and financing, action will have to be taken without delay if the Downtown Area is to maintain its economic health.

Recommendations: Decisions must be made regarding who is to assume responsibility for the provision of Off-street parking. Action should not be delayed.

PAGE SEVENTY-ONE

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 3

LEGISLATIVE AREA It is considered that the parking problem in the Legislative Area has not yet reached a point to cause concern. Although the Deficiency and Surplus Map (Illustration No. 23, page 63) indicates that there is a small deficiency in the area, by observing the Saturation Map, page 48, the indication is that some of this deficiency is being made up by overflow into the adjacent residential blocks. The Provincial Government has undertaken the development of the whole of the east half of Block 3 of the Legislative Area for parking (parking approximately 100 cars) and it is expected that the provision of this parking site will suffice for the demands of the Administration Buildings and reduce the parking load throughout the area.

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 4

EAST-CENTRAL AREA The East-Central Area does not exhibit an extensive parking problem at the moment. However, there are blocks where the saturation is tending to higher rates and in order to forestall any further increase the following recommendations are made: City land consisting of one vacant lot in Block 3 on the corner of 101A Ave. and 96 St. and one vacant lot in Block 4, on the south side of 102A Ave., which could provide space for 29 cars should be opened to monthly parking on a trial basis (See Illustration No. 24, page 78). Time limit zones should be strictly enforced in order to increase turnover rates in blocks of high saturation. In an effort to reduce the saturation in Blocks 7 and 8, business in this area should be encouraged to have their employees park on the city owned lot in Block 17 on the lane east of 96 St. These recommendations should keep parking congestion within reasonable limits and should help to keep all-day employee parkers from overflowing into adjacent residential blocks.

Recommendations: Time limit zones to be enforced.

Two parking lots be developed in Blocks 3 and 4 on trial.

PAGE SEVENTY-TWO

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 5

WAREHOUSE AREA The problem of parking in the Warehouse Area has not reached a point of extreme difficulty at the present, although there is a substantial infiltration from adjoining areas. However, as more and more development takes place within the area and residential lots are replaced by industrial and wholesale concerns, the problem can be expected to worsen.

In order to guard against further difficulties in the Warehouse Area the following recommendations are made: The City is fortunate in owning 17 lots in this area and a development of some of these lots is advised. (See Illustration No. 24, page 78.)

W est

One lot in Block 5 on the E, side of 108 St. should be developed to offset the higher saturations in Blocks 2 and 5. One lot in Block 9 on the East side of 108 St. should be developed to offset the higher saturations of Blocks 9 and 11. One lot in Block 13 on the West side of 105 St., and 2 lots in Block 15 on the West side of 104 St. should be developed to offset the higher saturations of Block 13, 15, and 16 of the Warehouse Area and Block 10 of the Central Area, and should provide a measure of relief to the very high saturations of Blocks 12 and 14 of the Warehouse Area and Blocks 4 and 9 of the Central Area.

150 New Stalls

On the basis of 30 stalls per lot, this program would provide 150 new Off-street stalls in the Warehouse Area and their combined effect will lessen any further congestion which might arise. If in the future it is found that these new spaces are insufficient, it would then be possible to develop further lots in the Warehouse Area if the City is still in possession of the properties at that time. This may prove to be expedient in the case of the two extra lots remaining in Block 15 of the Warehouse Area.

The provision of these lots together with the application of more On-street restrictions in the area, rigidly enforced, should keep congestion at a low point. The area will also benefit when overflow conditions resulting from Central Area congestion is relieved.

PAGE SEVENTY-THREE

Employee Parking

The Off-street parking to be provided is mainly designed for the use of employee-drivers. Business places in the area should be circularized explaining the benefits of encouraging Off-street employee parking so that Onstreet space can be made available to customers. This policy, without putting any hardship on the employee, is very beneficial in maintaining driver-customer trade. Any firm in the area could rent a stall (or stalls) and mark it with the firm's name for customer parking if desired. Heater plugs should be provided on the new parking lots so that they can be used on a year-round basis and charges should be kept within the range of $3 - $5 per month as a further inducement to their use.

Recommendations: Five city owned lots in Blocks 5, 9, 13 and 15 should be developed as Off-street parking lots to provide 150 stalls for employee parkers.

Twelve city owned lots should be held in reserve for potential parking load.

PAGE SEVENTY.FOUR

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 6

WEST-CENTRAL AREA Parking congestion in the West-Central Area is today becoming a more difficult situation partly because of overflow from the Central Area and partly because of the increase in business use within the area.

The City is fortunate in owning three lots within this area and it is recommended that they be developed for monthly parking for employee parkers within their vicinity. One lot in Block 7 on the East side of 107 St. and two lots in Block 12 on the East side of 106 St. could be developed. These lots, providing 90 new stalls, would help to offset the high saturation of Blocks 7, 12 and 16 and reduce the deficiency of Block 7 of the West-Central Area.

Charges should be in the order of $5.00 - $7.50 per month per stall for these facilities. Parking time limit restrictions should be applied on both sides of 106 St. from Jasper to 102 Ave. and on the East side of 107 St. from Jasper to 102 Ave. as well as on 108 St. from Jasper to the lane north, and on 106 St., 107 St. and 108 St. from Jasper to the lane south. There is very reason to believe that once Off-street parking is provided in the Central Area, overflow of long term porkers into the West-Central Area will be reduced.

Overflow Parking

It will be noted that overflow parkers from the West-Central and Central Areas are using the predominately residential Blocks 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the West-Central Area as evidenced by the Saturation Map page 48. If this condition is found to persist after provision of Off-street parking in the Central and West-Central Areas, a program of parking limit restrictions in these blocks should be applied and rigidly enforced for a short period. This would upset the habit of long term parking in residential areas, depriving the property owners of On-street facilities, and return these streets to a residential function instead of serving as On-street parking lots. The opening of further lots which are being held in reserve in the Warehouse Area may be required by this policy, and it is felt that this would be a beneficial move.

Recommendations: Three city owned lots in Blocks 7 and 12 should be developed to provide 90 new Off-street stalls.

Time limit restrictions to be applied on 106 St. and 107 St. from Jasper to 102 Ave., and on 106 St., 107 St. and 108 St. from Jasper Avenue to the lane South.

Temporary time limit prohibitions to be established in Blocks 11, 13, 14 and 15 when new Offstreet facilities are provided if overflow parking persists.

PAGE SEVENTY-FIVE

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 7

CIVIC CENTRE Any development of the Civic Centre Area either as a unit or in piecemeal fashion, should be accompanied by the development of above ground and underground parking. The location and size of this site presents a unique opportunity for solution of part of the existing downtown parking problem which cannot be overlooked, and for this reason any agreement that the City may enter into in regard to this property should provide for development of parking to the fullest possible extent, based on similar suggestions as that contained in the First New Amsterdam proposals. The development of such parking should be sufficiently adequate not only for the customers and employees of such facilities that may be erected, but should also help to provide parking for the many new nearby business places that will inevitably result from the provision of a Civic Centre.

Had the First New Amsterdam Corporation proposal been adopted by the burgesses with its 1800 parking units, it is doubtful that an extensive parking problem would exist in the Downtown Area today. Not only would the scheme have provided parking, but by the very means of providing this parking it would have helped maintain the cumulative downtown property values which are presently threatened by the lack of such parking. It must then be recognized that in any new proposal for Civic Centre development, provision of maximum parking is essential if property values and tax revenues are to be maintained, i.e., not more than one-third of the Civic Centre property should be built on and two-thirds left for planting and parking.

Develop Park Area

Until such time as the Civic Centre area is developed, it is recommended that Blocks 33 and 34 of the Central Area (See Illustration No. 24, page 78) be devoted to parking on a monthly rental basis. Both of these Blocks are presently devoted partly to park purposes and partly to residential and business purposes. By removing all buildings and by maintaining all trees, shrubs and grass bordering the sides of each block and by providing heater plugs, it is expected that two pleasant parking lots can be obtained, with a net gain of 481 stalls. As both of these blocks are approximately 1000 feet or more away from the congested areas they are not considered to be suitable for shopper parking and should therefore be used for parking on a monthly rental. Suggested charges for parking in Block 33 should be equal to the prevailing city rate ($90.00 per annum). Charges in Block 34 should be less than the prevailing rate because of its greater distance from the business area.

PAGE SEVENTY-SIX

A charge of $60.00 to $75.00 per annum is suggested for Block 34. These rates may be adjusted according to demand. In order to encourage the use of these facilities and to provide easier access to business in the area surrounding these blocks, On-street parking should be limited to 2 hours with a strict program of enforcement.

Recommendations: In any development of this Area, only 1/3 of area should be built on, leaving 2/3rds for landscaping and parking.

Prior to development of this Area, Blocks 33 and 34 should be developed for parking on monthly rental basis maintaining landscaping to provide 481 new stalls.

PAGE SEVENTY-SEVEN

Illustration No. 24

CITY-OWNED PROPERTY SUGGESTED AS POTENTIAL PARKING SITES

II

II fl

11

NOTATION tfl

II

ID

c=3

CITY-OWNED PROPERTY RECOMMENDED TO BE HELD IN RESERVE

AVIC

L:=1

0 pig

V

CITY-OWNED PROPERTY RECOMMENDED FOR OFF—STREET PARKING DEVELOPMENT

AYE

11

100 0 100 200 100 00 000•00 700100 000 MOO

'WA Of fft,

THE CITY OF EDMONTON DOWNTOWN PARKING SURVEY TOWN PLANNING DEPT. SURVEYED JUNE/OCT., 1952.

PAGE SEVENTY-EIGHT

I

I

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 8

CENTRAL AREA Need for Multi-storey Parking

It will be seen from Part I, Section 8, Study of Parking Demand, that 3,671 additional Off-street parking spaces are needed in the Central Area. It is obvious that these additional spaces cannot be found at the curb side and to provide them Off-street entirely on ground level lots would mean the acquisition and demolition of property equal to the clearing of about 23 acres, or 41/2 full size city blocks. This would obviously be impracticable. The only alternative appears to be in the provision of multi-storey parking structures well within the area of high demand. As recommended under the heading of "Civic Centre," the provision of surface parking for an additional 481 stalls for long term monthly rental parking can be made as a temporary measure in Blocks 33 and 34. It is also recommended that one city owned lot in Block 8 on the East side of 104 Street be developed to long term parking to provide 30 stalls on a monthly rental. Potential locations for parking structures within the area of high demand can be suggested, but have not been included in this Report as they are not city owned. The negotiations for their acquisition and development can only take place after a policy decision has been made as to the responsibility of providing such parking. Negotiations for such property will take time, and should properly came under the jurisdiction of a Parking Authority or similar body, the formation of which is recommended in another section of this Report.

On-street Changes

In order to increase the use of On-street facilities the following changes are recommended. Parking not already metered in Block 26 should be immediately changed to meters or one-hour zone to encourage use of the existing city lot on the south side of 103 Ave. All parking in Block 27 should be changed to 2 hour parking shortly.

As new Off-street facilities become available it will be necessary to institute the following: one-hour zones in Blocks 1, 5 and 6 for a period of one or two months so as to break the habit of all day parking in residential areas. Block 4 should be metered to encourage use of the parking lot recommended for installation in Block 15 of the Warehouse Area. Metered 1 hour parking on the inside ring of the Library Loop should be allowed. Parking not already regulated in Blocks 25 and 32 should be metered or a one-hour zone established. Parking in Block 38 that is not already devoted to 1 hour parking should be changed to this time limit. Parking in Block 39 should be changed to a twohour limit as well as the no-time limit zones in Block 45. Parking in Block 49, on 97 Street only, should be changed to a one-hour limit.

Periodic Review Necessary

Because of the very difficult parking problem in the Central Area it will be necessary to review On-street changes in the future as new Off-street facilities become available.

PAGE SEVENTY-NINE

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;

a.

15 Minute Parking

A recommendation was recently made by the Edmonton Clearing House Association that all curb parking in the area surrounding main offices of the Banks be restricted to a limit of 15 minutes only. The blocks affected in the Central Area would be Nos. 19, 20, 21 (wholly) and Blocks Nos. 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30 (partly).

In the main this is a good suggestion and could be extended for the use of other premises such as the Post Office, Telephone Buildings (Accounts), Finance Companies and building uses of simlar nature where large numbers of customers require merely to pay accounts or make deposits, and therefore the customer turnover rate is high.

Reference to Illustration No. 12, page 38, shows that the turnover rate in Block No. 3 in the Central Area is high, and it is thought that the reason for this is probably due to the Offices of the Northwestern Utilities, Ltd. being situated in this block, with customers paying accounts there creating a short term demand. Similar provisions of 12 or 15 minute time limit parking would also seem to be appropriate here.

The suggestion, however, has a disadvantage, in that to introduce it at the present time would be to discriminate against other premises in the blocks who create a parking demand of more than 15 minutes, thus causing them to complain of unfair treatment and hardship. As a point of fact, some banks have Offices situated directly above them, which have parking demands of 1 hour or more.

The suggestion is therefore not recommended for introduction at the present time, but that it be further investigated when adequate Off-street facilities in the area become available.

Recommendations: 3671 additional Off-street stalls should be provided in the area.

Recommend multi-storey parking garages for high demand area.

Potential locations for multi-storey parking can only be made available by acquisition.

Negotiations must await policy decisions regarding responsibility and financing.

Blocks 33 and 34 to be developed for monthly rental parking providing 481 stalls as a temporary measure prior to Civic Centre development.

One city-owned lot in Block 8 should be developed for monthly rental parking providing 30 stalls.

PAGE EIGHTY

Meters or one-hour zones to be installed in Block 26 immediately.

Two-hour zones to be established in Block 27 shortly.

As Off-street facilities become available: Institute one-hour zones in Blocks 1, 5 and 6 for temporary period.

Block 4 to be metered after Off-street lot is installed in Block 15 of the Warehouse Area.

Parking on inside ring of Library Loop to be allowed.

Parking time limit zones to be extended in Blocks 25 and 32.

One-hour zone in Block 38 to be extended.

Two-hour parking to be established in Block 39 and extended in Block 45.

Parking in Block 49 on 97 St. to be changed to one-hour limit.

Periodic revue of On-street parking zones is necessary.

Fifteen minute parking in vicinity of main branch Banks is not recommended at present time.

PAGE EIGHTY-ONE

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 9

ON-STREET PARKING On-street Parking Rates

The amount of On-street parking space is limited by the amount of curb space available. No increase can be made except by minor rearrangements and increase of turnover rates. The only forseeable future of On-street parking is a steady decline as more and more parking space is removed for traffic movement, Truck Loading Zones, Bus Stops, etc. The only forseeable replacement of, and addition to, curb space must be found Off-street. This necessity to look Off-street for our parking requirements results in an interesting paradox which has to be resolved if Offstreet facilities are to function satisfactorily. The paradox can be stated thusly: The choicest parking space in areas of high demand, which is On-street, is available at a lower charge than Off-street facilities. This can only mean that On-street parking rates do not reflect the true value of the convenience of the parking space.

Under existing circumstances On-street facilities are controlled by the City and in some cases regulated by meters, the function of which is to increase turnover rates of vehicles and make On-street parking available to the maximum number of parkers. The rates charged are purely a token so that the meters can function in their duty of increasing turnover and act as silent policemen.

On-street versus Off-street Parking

Although the installation of parking meters is purely designed as a regulation on parking times, it has given the curb space the aspect of being a service which must be paid for. This was not the intention of meter installation, but this fact has come to be accepted by the motoring public. The City in providing parking is actually unwittingly supplying a service such as any other type of business is doing. This service has a demand, made up of people who wish to acquire parking for varying lengths of time at reasonable rates and within reasonable distances of their destination. In this respect the City has a monopoly of choice parking in allocating space at the curb side. This has then forced any competitive concerns who could offer parking for a fee, into an undesirable situation, in that any private operator can only offer parking. Off-street, and because of costs of land, etc., the rates to be charged are not competitive with the choice On-street facilities. The Off-street operator can then only make a success of his business if the low charge On-street facilities become over-saturated and force the parker Off-street to higher priced parking. One can easily see, from the standpoint of pricing in a supply and demand picture, that On-street charges are very much below their actual market value and do not reflect what would result if people paid for parking in the same way as they would pay for goods and services in open retail markets.

PAGE EIGHTY-TWO

..

Ii

Taxi Stands

The premise must be accepted that On-street space is primarily intended for reasonable access to buildings and must therefore be strictly reserved for the short term parker, and that the long term parker must park Off-street.

It is therefore recommended that On-street parking should be limited to one hour or less in areas of high demand.

The existing low curbside charge is an inducement to motorists to park On-street rather than Off-street, and this is a factor which must be considered as a deterrent to the success of Off-street facilities. If the stricter enforcements and the prohibition of meter "feeding" recommended elsewhere in this Report, does not have the desired effect of satisfactorily removing the long term parker from the curb, it may be necessary to increase the curbside charge in these areas of high demand, however distasteful this may be, in order that they may find it more economical to go to Offstreet facilities.

Considerable difference of opinion exists upon the question of allocating curb space for the exclusive use of taxicabs in the Downtown Area. On the one hand it is maintained the taxicab provides a subsiduary transportation service and the taxicab stands are in the nature of a public service. On the other hand it is argued that taxicab companies have no more right to privilege of curbspace than other business and professional men who might also claim they are providing essential public services.

It cannot be denied that the provision of taxi stands at or near the entrances to hotels, theatres, etc., is very desirable, but it is felt that in order to provide a continuous service the stands should be in duplicate. In order to give access to the building for other vehicles unloading passengers, these stands would be in addition to the ordinary Passenger Loading Zone.

It is considered that the present practice of telephoning for a taxi provides a good service especially as more taxis become equipped with radio-control, and further direct telephone lines are installed. Curb space in the Central Area is in such high demand that no further inroads should be made into it unless for exceptional cases.

It is therefore recommended that the present policy of the Taxicab Board be maintained and that taxi stands generally be provided Off-street and taxis garaged likewise. It is, however, further recommended that a program of Passenger Loading Zones be fostered for public buildings in order to avoid the practice of double-parking when picking up or discharging passengers and to allow adequate access for taxicabs and other vehicles.

Recommendations: On-street parking should generally be limited to one hour or less in areas of high demand.

It may be necessary to increase On-street meter charges in areas of high demand.

More Passenger loading zones should be established.

As far as practicable, taxi stands should be located Off-street.

PAGE EIGHTY-THREE

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 10

OFF-STREET PARKING Types of Demand

The location, size and type of Off-street parking facilities have a vital bearing on the successful solution to the downtown parking problem. Not withstanding what is decided regarding whose responsibility it is to provide this parking, it is felt pertinent to include in this Report some idea of the costs of various types of facilities.

Different areas in the downtown section demand different solutions to their problem. Some areas generate a demand sufficient only to support small surface Off-street lots, other areas generate a demand for Off-street lots of the larger type, and again other areas have a demand sufficient to support multi-storey parking structures. The two most common types of parking accommodations are, as mentioned, the surface lot and the parking garage.

Surface Lots

In providing solutions for the East-Central, West-Central, and Warehouse Areas it has been recommended that certain city owned surface lots be developed for parking. The costs of developing such facilities vary according to location. Such sites are only economically feasible where land costs are not excessive, if charges are to be competitive with existing rates. The costs for sites recommended in the East-Central, West-Central and Warehouse Areas (See Illustration No. 24.), vary from $2,000.00 per lot to $12,500.00 per lot approximately. The costs of installing a parking lot 50 feet by 150 feet, graded, gravelled, stalls laid out with heater plugs provided, excluding any demolition cost and land costs is approximately $2,000.00. Such a lot will accommodate 30 cars giving an average cost of $67.00 per stall for installation only. Expected rates of revenue will vary according to location and demand and will be the deciding factor in ascertaining the period of write-off. The most important factor from a City revenue standpoint is not so much the amount of money made from parking lot charges, as the stabilizing influence they exert on property values surrounding them, by maintaining and even increasing assessments. The consequent benefit to the City will, therefore, be mainly indirect. A breakdown of approximate costs for a typical proposed surface lot is shown in Table XI on the following page.

PAGE EIGHTY-FOUR

=

• •

•

Table XI

APPROXIMATE INSTALLATION AND OPERATING COSTS FOR A PARKING LOT 50 FEET x 150 FEET FOR 30 CARS IN THE WAREHOUSE AREA

INITIAL COSTS: Capital Cost

$10,000

Construction Cost

2,000

Total Cost

$12,000

Land grading, gravelling, layout and heater plugs

ANNUAL COSTS: Taxes Electricity for heater plugs -

$300.00 250.00

Depreciation and Maintenance - - 200.00 5% on Investment TOTAL Annual Costs

600.00 $1,350.00

MONTHLY RENTAL CHARGE PER CAR â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

$1,350 30 x 12

Parking Structures

= $3.75 per stall per month.

In the case of providing Off-street multi-storey parking structures, different factors apply regardless of what is decided as to who is to install such facilities. Land costs for such a structure are inevitably high because of the necessary location within the high demand area. These land costs are in the order of $1,000 per front foot or more.

The costs of installing the structure itself would take the major part of the total outlay. Comparisons of prices of such structures in other cities indicated that present day Edmonton costs for multi-storey garages would vary within the PAGE EIGHTY-FIVE

range of $1,000- $1,300 or more per stall, excluding land costs. However, in areas of high demand it is necessary to develop parking in such a way so that it will accommodate three or four times as many cars on a site as could be accommodated if surface parking were allowed. This policy also makes room for more intense development of surrounding business property with their potential parking load being put on the multi-storey parking structure.

Reproductions of such structures are shown in Illustration No. 25, page 87.

Ground Floor Values

Advertising Parking Locations

In considering the value of land, it is from the ground floor that the greater portion of the value is derived.

In using land for the erection of parking structures, the utilization of the ground floor for retail stores as a means of defraying land rental for the rest of the building should not be overlooked. From experience in some other centres, indications are that this choice space used for retail purposes has supported the whole rental burden for the stores and the parking structure above. Another factor is the importance of the continuity of shop fronts in a retail street which is not always generally realized. Even if the ground floor does not allow sufficient space to provide for very small shops, the ground floor frontage could be utilized for dummy shop windows to be rented by adjoining or opposite retail firms. An example of this type of shop window development in an English city was found to be extremely successful in achieving a continuity of shop fronts in a main retail shopping street which had hitherto been broken by a blank stone wall. As an inducement to the use of Off-street parking facilities, once they come into greater supply, it is advised that business places should be encouraged to advertise the location of parking lots near their premises, for the convenience of their customers. A standard map could be used showing the location of all parking lots in the area. The particular business could show its location in red on a map hung on a wall in a conspicuous place. Any customer could then easily locate a parking lot convenient to the business place for future use when next visiting the downtown area.

Recommendations: Recommend ground floor of parking structure be utilized as retail stores to subsidize remainder

of structure.

Parking lot locations should be advertised by business premises.

PAGE EIGHTY-SIX

I

I LI

Illustration No. 25

RAMP-TYPE PARKING PARKING GARAGE (Containing 5 stores on ground)— PITTSBURGH, PA. Capacity is 699 cars.

Structure Cost—$2,136,000 with land cost of of $532,000.

Rates are comparable to present rates charged by private operators in Pittsburgh.

DEMOUNTABLE, PREFABRICATED PARKING GARAGE— BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Capacity is 400 cars.

Structure Cost—$385,000 or $962.00 per space excluding land.

Rates: 35c 1st hour, 10c each additional hour, with $1.00 per day maximum.

Some monthly parking © $7.50 on Roof and $10.00 Under-cover.

Photos and statistics courtesy National Retail Dry Goods Association, New York.

CONTINUOUS SPIRAL RAMP TYPE PARKING GARAGE—

SPLIT LEVEL OPEN DECK PARKING GARAGE—MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN

Capacity is 819 cars.

Structure Cost—$841,220 or $1,120 per space excluding land. Land cost— $160,000 for 167 ft x 180 ft. lot.

Rates: 25c 1st hour, 15e each additional hour with maximum of $1.50 for 24 hours.

Monthly rates vary from $12.00 on Roof to $23.00 in Basement

Capacity is 320 cars.

Structure Cost—$365,000 or $1,140 per space excluding land. Land Cost— $170,000.

Rates: 25c 1st hour, 35c 1 to 2 hours, 45c 2 to 3 hours, etc., up to $1.25 for 24 hours. Night parking is 40c and monthly rate is $12.00.

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 11

ENFORCEMENT Street Function

The primary function of the total highway (carriageway and sidewalk combined) is for the movement of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, and the reasonable access to property, but not the storage of vehicles. Such parking as must be allowed for the enjoyment of the proper functions of the property must be reasonable and must not unduly inconvenience primary road uses. Curb parking must be regarded more in the light of a concession rather than a right, and to park for long periods in places of high demand, and so inconvenience other people who have need to park there also, is to say the least being inconsiderate to fellow parkers.

Although the number of parking tickets issued for various violations during the period of the survey was very high, the results found by the survey indicate that their effect was not of sufficient weight to obtain the results desired. Turnover rates are far below what is considered adequate and cases of overtime parking remain too high (See Illustrations 12 to 18 inclusive and Table VI, pages 36 to 42).

Every effort must be made to increase the turnover rate of cars using curb space, and it is suggested that the general situation would be considerably eased if the parkers could be made to feel that in vacating curb space as quickly as possible they would not lose anything, but rather they would be making room for other motorists, who in turn would be vacating space in other parts of the area to which they themselves may next wish to visit. Because of this speed-up of turnover there will be more chance of finding space there.

Increasing Turnover Rates

by Stricter Enforcement

Overtime parking is perhaps the greatest factor tending to reduce the availability of On-street parking facilities. As was pointed out in Part I, Section 6c, page 43 and Table VIII, page 44, the vehicles that parked overtime in all five areas eliminated 4252 potential parkers per 7½ hour day period who could have used this space if it had been vacated at the expiration of the time limit. It is vitally essential therefore that the practice of meter "feeding" be stopped and a one-hour limit on meters be imposed, together with a strict enforcement of all parking time limit zones if the available On-street accommodation is to be used to its most useful capacity. The provision of higher turnover rates with its consequent increase in On-street capacity obtained by the means of strict enforcement will in itself encourage the movement of vehicles from one stall to another. It is suggested that such a program of strict enforcement could be obtained by a method which is outlined below.

PAGE EIGHTY-EIGHT

Method of Enforcement

The procedure used in this Survey to obtain data relating to On-street parking habits could be adopted for enforcement purposes. Each member of the enforcement personnel would be issued with forms similar in nature to the one shown in Illustration No. 5, page 19, indicating the make-up of On-street parking in one city block. The enforcement officer would take this sheet on a clip board and make a round of his block or "beat" once every hour or half hour, recording the license numbers of vehicles parked in the block. On every subsequent tour of the block it will become evident which vehicles have overstayed the time limit and a parking tag of heavy fine value can then be issued. Close perusal of Illustration No. 11, page 33, gives an indication of what might be found in a half-hourly tour of part of one block in the Central Area. Rather than attempt to police all of the downtown area at once, a system of random choice should be employed wherein the blocks to be checked are to be "drawn from a hat" at the outset of the day, ensuring the fact that no one will know when or where this strict enforcement will take place on that day. In order to further the scope of coverage, one block could be covered in the morning and another in the afternoon if it is deemed advisable. This-system has been employed elsewhere and indications are that it has had excellent results with the benefit of only a small enforcement staff. It is believed that this excellent method could achieve the desired results and if adopted should be given full warning publicly.

Gradual Policy

Although the enforcement of parking time limit violations cannot be too strongly stressed, it is not recommended that this procedure be employed until such time as adequate Off-street facilities are provided. Premature enforcement strictly carried out without provision of alternate Off-street facilities cannot but result in driving away motor-borne trade to other areas. It is for this reason that the program be carried out gradually as Off-street facilities are provided.

It is a necessary condition in the provision of Off-street parking that On-street parking be strictly enforced.

Neither the City nor private enterprise can be expected to invest large sums of money in providing Off-street parking if On-street parking is to be left free-of-charge or if time limits are not enforced. Only by a combination of providing Off-street parking, coupled with strict enforcement of On-street parking can a comprehensive and satisfactory solution to the problem be obtained.

Recommendations: Stricter enforcement of time limits at curb.

Meter "feeding" should be prohibited by By-law. stregt Program of enforcement to be co-ordinated with provision of new Off-se# facilities.

PAGE EIGHTY-NINE

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 12

PARKING REGULATIONS Provision for Future Needs

It is not possible to assess with any degree of certainty, what new buildings will be erected or enlargements made to existing buildings in the future in the downtown or any other area, or what their location, size and traffic generation will be. There is little doubt that on the basis of present day trends new buildings will be erected, and the future parking needs of the area must be taken care of. It would be futile to remedy the present-day parking demand and allow new structures to be erected without the provision of parking to adequately cover their needs. In the case of the downtown area it would mean that the demands assessed in the Parking Survey, 1952, would be upset and would gradually lose significance as demands increased. Such a procedure would make all parking surveys useless and all parking solutions inadequate. For these reasons provision must be made for the demands of new buildings so that the parking system as a whole is not upset. Once the back log of parking deficiency has been made up, the least that could be done is that provision of parking space is kept abreast of, or even slightly ahead of, the demand. It is therefore recommended that a Parking Zoning Ordinance be adopted to apply to all new buildings on a scale of demand found by research.

Parking Zoning By-law

It is not within the scope of this Survey to draft a By-law, for it must be remembered that such regulations would have to be applied throughout the whole city, and may even require a sliding scale if applied in certain districts. Further research work is necessary because the survey work that has been undertaken applies only to the downtown area, and data is only available in regard to the uses found therein. Some uses to which the By-law would have to apply are not to be found in the downtown area, and in some cases the samples available are insufficient to form a basis for standards to be applied to the city as a whole.

Further Research Before Adopting Standards

It should be clearly understood that such a By-law could not operate retroactively to deprive property owners of their previously vested rights.

Appeals

Any By-law should have provision for a degree of elasticity in order that cases may be properly judged on their respective merit and there must be adequate right of appeal for aggrieved parties.

City's Present Policy

Under Interim Development powers the City at present requires certain standards of Off-street parking to be provided when new buildings are erected. These standards were reluctantly drawn up by the Town Planner, on resolution and direction from City Council, after study of similar zoning ordinances in force in United States PAGE NINETY

cities. The average of standards in force in 185 American cities of all sizes were considerably reduced for application to Edmonton. It was evidently felt at the time that it was necessary to have some guide upon which to work, but in point of fact the scale of standards was never completed to include many uses, partly because the Town Planner was reluctant to proceed too far without the aid of more research, and partly because he felt that although this system of control had been widely adopted in the United States, it was not a completely satisfactory answer to the problem. A hard and fast rule that each new building should provide for its own individual parking needs "on site" is in. some way tantamount to requiring that each might provide its utilities individually also.

The standards required, so far as they have been drawn up, have not been favourably received by vanour organizations in the City, but it is felt that to a certain extent, this may have been due to certain misunderstandings, notably that it does not seem to have been fully realized that in the event of a permit refusal due to non-compliance with these standards, the applicant has the right to appeal. Another point which does not seem to have been considered sufficiently in that whereas for example there is one standard set, for offices, another standard is set for apartment houses and another for theatres, etc., etc.

Present Standards too Lenient

Criticism has been made to the effect that the standards are not reasonable, and are too severe, wasteful and discriminatory. The survey work carried out in the downtown area has revealed the reverse to be the caseâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; in fact the standards are far too lenient to take care of anything like the actual parking load generated.

As stated in Part I, Section 8, the various business premises in the downtown area have made a return of their individual normal daily parking requirements. From these returns it has been possible to compute a scale of actual demand created for certain uses, and these figures are compared in Table XII with the standards at present required by the City. In every case where data has become available the standard required by the City has been far below the actual demand.

Actual Demands Found by Survey

For example. For new office buildings the city now requires 1 stall per 1000 square feet of net office space.

A sample of 11 office buildings in the downtown area revealed an average demand of 1 stall per 340 sq. ft. netâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; that is, the city has only been requiring approximately one third the actual demand. The instance above should suffice to invalidate any suggestion that the standards used hitherto have been unreasonable.

As stated earlier, more research is necessary before a complete scale of requirements can be properly drawn up. For the purpose of information Table XII has been drawn up to compare the present City requirements against the actual average demands as found in Edmonton by the Survey so far, and a summary of standards given on page 70 of the publication "Zoning and Traffic" 1952, issued by the Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control.

The latter being a summary of regulations found after an extensive survey of American cities.

PAGE NINETY-ONE

Parking Within Sphere of Influence of Building Use

There is little doubt that a new building which has parking facilities provided for its needs "on-site" or adjacent thereto has an advantage over the building which has to rely on parking facilities provided at some distance from it. In cases where it is found to be impracticable to provide the former, it is suggested that regulations be so drafted that the requirements can be met if parking is provided for new buildings within a maximum walking distance of 800 feet of the subject building. The By-law must contain a scale of expected demand found by research, based on the parking requirements of existing structures. Should a major change be made in the use class of a building, a reassessment must be made of the parking demand.

It is most desirable that provision should be made to allow several business firms to combine with each other to form a "group" parking facility, so long as its location is within the 800 feet radius of each subject building.

Any firm or firms required to provide parking in compliance with the parking By-law should be allowed to lease such facilities provided the agreement has a degree of permanency satisfactory to the Parking Authority.

The premise that carefully located group parking will give a better service to the public than a number of small "on-site" lots is generally accepted. In the case of new buildings it is felt that such "on-site" space as is available could in most cases, be more beneficially allocated for Off-street loading, but once this function is satisfied, if additional Off-street space is still available, then its use for the parking of cars pending its use for future loading space expansion is to be encouraged. The present policy of requiring Off-street loading space should be continued.

To allow buildings to be erected without the proper provision of parking is to court trouble, for it must be borne in mind that bad though the parking situation may be, it will only increase unless a measure of control is introduced.

Recommendations: That a Parking Zoning Ordinance be adopted to apply to new buildings requiring provision of Off-street parking on a scale of demand found by research for each use class.

Group parking by firms combining with each other should be allowed.

Present policy of requiring Off-street loading space for new buildings to be continued.

PAGE NINETY-TWO

COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS BUILDING TYPES AND RECOMMENDED BASIC UNITS Table XII ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH Building Types

Recommended Basic Unit

No. of Cities Represented

*Modal Values

Single-family dwelling Family unit

94

1 unit

Two-family dwelling

Family unit

_

Multi-family dwelling

Family unit

176

Rooming Houses

—

Theatre

Seat

104

Current Edmonton Requirement

Actual Requirement Ascertained

By Survey

1 unit

_

—

_

1 unit

_

1 unit

1 unit

1 unit

_

(2 spaces per house)

_

Guest room should be used as basic unit.

6 seats

Present requirement too low

10 seats

_

5-10 seats

10 seats •

Hotels

88

Guest room

Places of Public

3 guest

2-6 guest

10 guest

MOMS

rooms

MOMS

Seat

93

10 seats

5-10 seats

Sq. ft. gross floor area

56

200 sq. ft.

200-1000 sq. ft.

Not fixed

Assembly

Retail Stores

* Source of Information--Zoning and Traffic (1952).

The Eno Foundation for Traffic Control.

1

1

1

Remarks

_

_

_

•Range of Middle 2/3 Values

1000 sq. ft. net sales space=1250 sq. ft. gross floor area

Insufficient data available Insufficient data available 430 sq. ft. gross floor area 330 sq. ft. gross floor area

up to 20,000 sq. ft. gross floor area over 20,000 sq. ft. gross floor area PAGE NINETY-THREE

Table

xic

(Cont.)

COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS BUILDING TYPES AND RECOMMENDED BASIC UNITS ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH Current Edmonton Requirement

Actual Requirement Ascertained

By Survey

Remarks

200-1000 sq. ft.

1000 sq. ft. net office space=1250 sq. ft. gross floor area

340 sq. ft. net or 450 sq. ft. gross floor area

Present requirements nearly 1/3 below demand

4 beds

2-5 beds

Not fixed

No data available

37

5 employees

Not fixed 2-5 employees

Insufficient data available

Employees

16

3 and 5 employees

2-5 employees

Not fixed

21/2 employees

Restaurants

Seat

13

4 and 5 seats

3-10 seats

1000 sq. ft. net eating space

11 seats

Bowling Alley

Alley

_

_

_

Not fixed

1.5 stalls per alley

Bank— Main Branch

Sq. ft. gross floor area

..._

_

_

5:70 sq. ft.

1000 sq. ft. net bank floor gross floor area area=1250 470 sq. ft. sq. ft. gross gross floor foor l area area

Building Types

Recommended Basic Unit

•No. of Cities Represented

Office Buildings

Sq. ft. gross floor area

49

200 sq. ft.

Hospitals

Bed

38

Industrial Plants

Employees

Wholesale Establishments

*Modal Values

• Source of Information—Zoning and Traffic (1952).

The Eno Foundation for Traffic Control.

1

1

1

•Range of Middle Vs Values

Based on one available sample Allows 12 mm. parking Allows 15 mm. parking

PAGE NINETY-FOUR

PART IIâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Section 13

PARKING AUTHORITY The parking of automobiles has now reached a degree of such importance in the daily life of the community that the careful planning and co-ordination of all matters relating to it can no longer be approached on a piecemeal day-to-day basis. A perusal of Part I of this Report immediately gives an appreciation of the significance and complications of this problem. The city-wide problem now demands a scientific approach and much research work has to be carried out by competent personnelâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;hit-and-miss methods are not acceptable. High policy decisions must be made and considerable financial commitments are likely to be involved, especially in the initial stages. As a stone, which when thrown in the centre of a pond, causes ripples which spread over a large area, so will the provision or disappearance of parking space similarily affect the whole surrounding area, and any parking system which is not based upon a co-ordination of the overall demands cannot be expected to be successful.

As the result of this Survey information is available for the first time (for the downtown area at least) which indicates where more parking space is needed (Demand Study and Degree of Saturation) and to what extent new facilities are likely to be used (Turnover Rates). If parking space sufficient to satisfy the present needs were to be found tomorrow, the balance of supply and demand could be upset to a greater or lesser degree the next day if a large parking lot went out of business in favour of another use. The threat of non-permanency is always there, and although every car parked Off-street is one less and is to be encouraged, nothing less than a comprehensive parking system, designed to take into account all parking resources, both private and public, will really suffice.

Recommendation: It is therefore respectfully recommended that serious consideration be given to the establishment by the City of a Parking Authority who's duty it will be, to plan, direct and co-ordinate all matters relating to parking within the City.

Should the establishment of such an Authority receive approval of the Council of the City of Edmonton, it is of course a matter of Council's policy to decide what form it should take, whether a Council Committee or separate board, or commission or even a separate city department, and the constitution of same. It is thought pertinent, however, to suggest here, that both the businessmen and the motorists should be well represented, not only for the reason that their particular problems can be thoroughly investigated, but also in order that by such means information and such resources which they may have to offer may be brought into the pool to form a co-related whole.

PAGE NINETY-FIVE

I I I I

Such authority would be responsible for the administration and enforcement of all parking regulations, including parking zoning By-laws. All parking lots, either public or private should come under its jurisdiction in regard to safety of design, access features, landscaping, surface treatment, etc. All research dealing with preparation of parking By-laws, parking needs, traffic studies, etc., should be its responsibility. All Boards dealing with traffic and parking matters could be consolidated under the one Authority. The Authority could be under the City's administration, with a governing body made up of city representatives, business people, interested organizations and officials of the Authority. The Authority should be intimately related to the Town Planning of the City because of the function of research, design and planning and its responsibility of zoning, location of facilities, and enforcement of regulations. Although the scope of the Authority may seem to be wide, it is considered that the only successful way to co-ordinate these vitally inter-related matters is through one organization.

PAGE NINETY-SIX