Recommendations

SECTION OUTLINE

1. Actionables a. Accessible Stall Management and Design b. Parking Session Management Interfaces c. Opportunities for Additional Payment Methods 2. Evaluation of Parking Gratuity Options 3. Potential for Future Province Wide Solutions 4. Communications Plan

Actionables Regardless of what is determined regarding the Gratuity Program, there are benefits to taking steps to improve the accessibility of curbside parking. For example, improving the accessibility of curbside parking would also benefit seniors without Parking Placards, people with temporary disabilities (e.g. those using crutches for a broken bone), Parking Placard holders who are unaware of the gratuity, and those with accessibility challenges who do not identify as having a disability.

The project team has identified tangible changes that can be made at the operational level to improve equity and safety for parking for Parking Placard holders. Recommended changes have been grouped into three sections: (1) improvements to accessible stall management “ Paying isn’t the largest issue - physically and design, (2) improvements to parking session getting to and being able to use the pay management interfaces, and (3) opportunities for boxes is.” the addition of payment methods. BRYNN, EDMONTON CITIZEN

ACCESSIBLE STALL MANAGEMENT & DESIGN

MOVE PAYMENT TERMINALS CLOSER TO CURB CUTS EPark payment terminals are not always beside curb cuts, making it more onerous for some Parking Placard holders to access them.

ADD IN ‘MID BLOCK’ CURB CUTS Currently curb cuts are located most often on sidewalk corners (i.e. ‘end of block’). Additional curb cuts could be added to provide access to sidewalks ‘mid block’ or wherever a designated accessible stall is located.

INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE STALLS Placard holders reported being frequently unable to find an available designated stall at their desired location, therefore preventing them from parking, or requiring them to park in an EPark zone. The number of designated stalls could be increased, particularly in high volume areas.

PAINT DESIGNATED STALLS IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR CLEARER INDICATION Design research revealed some Placard holders have difficulty identifying which stalls are designated. The entire designated stall could be painted to make identification easier.

CONDUCT A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE CURBSIDE STALL FEATURES AND PLACEMENT Design research revealed several features of existing stalls that made them inaccessible to some Placard holders. A thorough assessment of curbside stall accessibility could be conducted to determine (1) possible changes to stalls to make them more accessible and (2) financial feasibility of these changes.

UTILIZE MODERNIZED CURB AND CURB CUT DESIGNS THAT ARE EASIER TO NAVIGATE WITH AN ASSISTIVE DEVICE Current curbs and curb cuts are challenging to navigate when using an assistive device (e.g. wheelchair, crutches, walker) due to their height and steep grade. Accessible curb designs such as those that are sloped or lowered could be used in areas where renewals are taking place, or in areas of new development.

INCREASE SIZE AND LEGIBILITY OF PARKING SIGNAGE Design research revealed existing parking signage is difficult to read and understand. In consultation with the Accessibility Advisory Committee, alternative designs for parking signage with larger print, higher contrast, and clearer instructions could be created.

IMPROVE PARKING SESSION MANAGEMENT INTERFACES

PAY TERMINALS As discussed in the Project Findings section of the report, accessibility challenges related to the EPark payment terminals interface were identified in the research. If an effort is made to evaluate the accessibility of pay terminals, the following questions should be considered:

How can the interface be made more accessible to all prospective users?

Is the current user flow appropriate for the task required?

Can tap functionality be added to simplify the credit card or debit card payment process?

MYEPARK APP. Similar to challenges identified with the EPark payment terminals, the research has also revealed that the MyEPark App. is inaccessible to some Parking Placard holders. A full user experience review and redesign of the application would be a worthwhile exercise, not only to provide better accessibility for individuals with disabilities, but for all application users. We’ve put together some early recommendations that could likely be implemented in advance of a full user experience review of the MyEpark App. (see Appendix D).

EPARK WEBSITE A user experience review and redesign of the EPark website, accompanied by clearer communication to the community regarding its use, could make this platform much more useful for all City of Edmonton EPark customers. This platform could be used not only for managing payments, but also tied into systems for license plate registration for placard holders.

PHONE For users who already have an EPark account through the MyEpark App. or online website, paying by phone or text message is an option. This is a non-monitored service which does not provide a live operator, but instead utilizes automated systems to process payment from a user’s account associated with a phone number.

While this system is potentially useful for some users, the limitation of needing to establish an account through other channels which are currently not optimized for user experience presents a challenge. It’s also somewhat problematic that reloading of credits cannot be completed via a phone system, so for a user who is not tech savvy, the ability to establish an account and manage payment is less viable.

A staffed telephone service where customers can initiate parking payment with an operator could provide an option that is more friendly to those less comfortable with the use of technology, including smartphones or desktop computers. “ If you are on a limited income, it can be difficult to get phone access - data plans are not always affordable.”

GEORGE, EDMONTON CITIZEN

EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADDITION OF PAYMENT METHODS

In addition to improving existing payment methods, it would also be possible to explore opportunities for creating additional payment methods. This would increase the overall accessibility of the parking payment system, particularly for those Placard holders that are unable to use either the MyEpark App. or payment terminals.

MONTHLY OR ANNUAL PASS For Parking Placard holders who require parking on a regular basis in EPark zones, a monthly or annual pass could be considered. At the time of registering their license plate(s), users could sign up for a pass which would allow them to park in EPark zones as required throughout the month.

If this option were to be pursued, the following are some key considerations:

How would limits on the number and duration of parking sessions be set to avoid having users treat EPark zones as an unlimited parking option in busy areas?

Would it be possible to establish ‘tiers’ for pricing based on the number of expected sessions a user requires?

What would be the administrative costs associated with running a monthly parking program?

What would it take to establish regular invoicing (monthly or annually) or other payment methods for users?

What would a system for monitoring abuse of the program look like?

MONTHLY CALCULATED BILLING An option that was generally well received by research participants was the concept of monthly billing. In this option, each time a registered Placard holder’s license plate is captured in an EPark zone by the APEP camera, a base charge would be applied to the Placard holder’s account. At the end of each month, the city would send out an invoice to the Placard holder with the accrued total of their usage charges, to be paid in the same methods that other City of Edmonton invoices are paid.

There are several questions that would need to be addressed in order to implement a system like this, including:

What is the frequency in which each EPark zone will be monitored by APEP vehicles in order to capture license plates?

What is the right amount to charge for each parking instance captured?

How does the system determine the amount of time that a vehicle has been parked in a zone so as not to either undercharge for long sessions, or overcharge for short sessions?

How does the system recognize that the plate belongs to a registered Parking Placard holder?

Evaluation of Parking Gratuity Options In addition to exploring the operational level actionables outlined above that would deliver benefits to all users, the project findings suggest that a policy-level decision regarding the continuation of the existing Gratuity Program is required in order to meet the objective of launching APEP and effectively managing curbside parking supply while delivering equitable curbside accessible parking for Parking Placard holders. Each of these options have unique considerations and require different actions. See a quick overview followed by an in depth look at each option below:

1.

2.

The existing Gratuity Program is removed and Parking Placard holders pay at the

same rate as other drivers. If this option is selected, it is recommended that the above listed operational-level actionables are considered and implemented where possible, including a strong focus on the enhancement of current payment options to make them more accessible.

A revised accessible parking accommodation plan is implemented: In this scenario, Parking Placard holders benefit from one of the following two forms of accommodation:

a. The existing 2 hour curbside EPark gratuity is maintained: In order to enable the deployment of APEP while ensuring Parking Placard holders aren’t ticketed, Parking Placard holders must proceed through an administrative program to ensure the vehicle they are travelling in has its licence plate registered in the EPark system. If this option is selected the following actions are recommended:

i.

ii. continued consideration and implementation of the above listed actionables to resolve the physical accessibility challenges identified in the research, and a strong focus on developing and implementing multiple (including nontechnology based) accessible methods for Parking Placard holders to register a license plate.

b. A revised parking gratuity or variable fee structure is developed: Placard holders pay for parking in some form, but are provided an alternative fee structure or additional benefits such as increased maximum time allowance. If this option is selected the following actions are recommended:

i.

ii. continued consideration and implementation of the above listed actionables to resolve the physical accessibility challenges identified in the research and, design and implementation of an administrative program to identify Parking Placard holders and manage a variable fee structure or additional accommodations such as increased maximum time allowance.

HIGH LEVEL DECISION TREE FOR GRATUITY OPTIONS

Option 1: Parking Gratuity Removed

Placard Holders register their plates the same way as other drivers Option 2A: Parking Gratuity Maintained

Placard Holders register their plates using a secondary license plate registration process Option 2B: Parking Gratuity Revised

Placard Holders register their plates using a secondary license plate registration process

EXPLORING THE COMPLEXITY OF ACCESSIBLE CURBSIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT

In tackling a complex challenge such as improving the accessibility of curbside parking within existing City infrastructure, there are many paradoxes and tensions to be navigated. When a challenge is complex, simplistic or rigid approaches are unlikely to work. Effective approaches need to allow space for tensions to surface and for decision makers to reflect on their implications. Below are some of the tensions surfaced by the project team.

TENSION

Free parking for all persons with disabilities as a perceived right vs Free parking only for persons with limited income

On the One Hand Some people with lived experience believe that persons with disabilities should be entitled to free parking regardless of their income status, because of the additional hardships they face related to their disability. On the Other Hand Others with lived experience believe that offering free parking to persons with disabilities inappropriately assumes they are low income by default, and is insulting to those with disabilities who don’t require income supports.

Resulting Considerations • Pathways and solutions will likely not please everyone because there are a diversity of perspectives on the issue.

Strategic Communications will be essential to conveying messages to the public about this issue.

TENSION

Unique user needs vs System’s need for standardization and efficient operations

On the One Hand Each user has a unique experience and requires specific and nuanced accommodations to enhance their parking experience. On the Other Hand The system cannot realistically effectively cater to every person’s unique needs

Resulting Considerations • A balanced approach is required - one that considers the unique needs of users and creates equity, while also recognizing the financial, operational, and technical limitations.

Ensuring that human-centric design approaches are employed and including people with a diversity of experiences in the designing of solutions is critical.

TENSION

The perception of the challenge by those without lived experience vs People with lived experience’s perception of the challenge

On the One Hand Those without lived experience of the challenge (e.g. City of Edmonton employees, non disabled citizens) commonly assume accessing payment is the primary barrier to parking for persons with disabilities, and that a simple technology solution will resolve the challenge On the Other Hand Design research uncovered that many people can’t even get to the payment stage of parking due to the physical inaccessibility of stalls, and that where additional technology solutions could come into play, that those technologies would remain inaccessible to some users

Resulting Considerations • In addition to solving for barriers to payment, ph ` ysical features of the stalls and surrounding built environment must also be addressed to solve systemic barriers to parking for persons with disabilities.

Accessibility vs. Affordability Decisions-makers should be aware of complexities related to the provision of gratuities for Parking Placard holders in curbside zones. Design research conducted as part of this project surfaced that there is a subset of Parking Placard holders that not only experience physical accessibility barriers to parking, but also affordability barriers to parking - and that these barriers and their solutions have historically been conflated.

Placard holders often face physical barriers to parking in their journey from planning through to completion of their parking stay. The act of planning, travelling, parking, and processing payment often takes longer for Placard holders due to the nature of their impairment but also due to barriers in the environment (e.g. lack of curb cuts on the sidewalk, distance of an EPark machine from a curb cut). Additionally, for the subset of Parking Placard holders living on a fixed or low income (seniors, AISH recipients), the cost of curbside parking is a barrier. It is important, however, to be mindful that not all Parking Placard holders are low income, and that the eligibility requirement for obtaining the provincially-issued Parking Placard is a demonstration that the individual is unable to walk more than 50 meters unassisted.

A gratuity has been used in some jurisdictions to help compensate for the additional hardship “ It’s not just individuals who are placard holders. Services such as ‘Care for a ride’ - Placard holders experience as a result of inaccessible ride providers for persons with disability environments, but should not be taken as an ideal - need placards in order to be able to get alternative to physical improvements to the parking people to the places they need to go.” system. The provision of a parking gratuity to Parking Placard holders could be used by the City of HARVEY, EDMONTON CITIZEN Edmonton to address affordability barriers to curbside parking for those Placard holders that could verify low-income status. However, research reviewed in this project suggests that the subsidization of parking costs via Parking Placards is not the most effective means of addressing accessibility issues or income inequality (see Grey & Academic Literature Review and sources). Any consideration of a gratuity for placard holders on the basis of affordability opens up questions as to why Placard holders living on a low income are eligible for a parking gratuity whilst other citizens living on a low income are not.

Key Considerations • Regardless of whether Placard holders are required to pay or not, it is necessary to take steps to increase the accessibility of all aspects of the parking process (i.e. planning through to departure after a parking session is complete).

What is the intent behind offering a parking gratuity: Is it being offered to address the physical accessibility or the affordability barrier?

Is a gratuity the most effective means of addressing affordability and/or accessibility barriers for Parking Placard holders?

In Depth Exploration of Gratuity Options

OPTION 1: THE EXISTING GRATUITY PROGRAM IS REMOVED AND PARKING PLACARD HOLDERS PAY AT THE SAME RATE AS OTHER DRIVERS

This Option Involves: • Discontinuing the existing 2 hour parking gratuity for Placard holders

Placard holders beginning to pay for parking at the same rates as other drivers

Making improvements to accessible stall management and design

Making improvements to parking session management interfaces

Exploring opportunities for the addition of payment methods

Considerations On the one hand, charging Parking Placard holders the same rate for parking as all other motorists is perhaps technologically the simplest solution in the move towards implementation of the APEP system for enforcement. However, on the other hand, past experience has shown this to be a highly unpopular path, and given public reaction and awareness surrounding this issue since summer of 2018, it is likely to be equally unpopular at this time. If decision-makers choose to explore this option, the following should be considered:

Is the proportion and design of designated accessible stalls (located outside of EPark zones, and provided free of charge) adequate for the provision of safe and equitable access to curbside parking for Parking Placard holders?

What actions will be taken to improve the physical accessibility of parking session management tools and payment methods?

Curbside Management

Public Relations/ Reputational Risk

Affordability vs. Accessibility PROS

As Parking Placard holders would now be registering their license plates like every other customer, parking occupancy data is more accurate and supply/demand-based pricing programs are more effective. Movement forward with the implementation of the APEP program, and the net positive impacts on other parking user groups. Addresses the accessibility and affordability barriers to parking separately. Avoids operation of a program that adds an income subsidy at the municipal level to the physical accessibility policy mandated at the provincial level.

CONS

Likely to be unpopular with low or fixed income Parking Placard holders and their supports.

Does not address the affordability barrier to parking that some Parking Placard holders face.

Resourcing/ Financial PROS

Parking revenue would be gained from Parking Placard holders who were previously not paying for parking sessions.

Implementation of APEP program could proceed immediately, allowing for efficiency gains of the program to be realised sooner and ceasing project management costs.

Anticipated revenue increases from launch of APEP, and additional revenue realised by Parking Placard holders paying into EPark could be mobilized for infrastructure projects to improve physical accessibility gaps identified in the design research.

No need to develop additional administrative program and corresponding technology that would be required in alternate scenarios where Parking Placard holders would be required to register their licence plates with The City in order to receive some type of accommodation.

CONS

OPTION 2: A REVISED ACCESSIBLE PARKING ACCOMMODATION PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED

OPTION 2A: THE EXISTING 2 HOUR CURBSIDE EPARK GRATUITY IS MAINTAINED

This Pathway Involves: • Maintaining the 2 hour parking gratuity for Placard holders

Introducing a secondary license plate registration process for Placard holders

Making improvements to accessible stall management and design

Making improvements to parking session management interfaces

Exploring opportunities for the addition of payment methods

Considerations In this option the existing 2 hour parking gratuity is maintained and therefore, Parking Placard holders are not required to pay for parking unless they exceed 2 hours within a designated EPark zone. In order to enable the use of APEP, a secondary process for Placard holders to register their license plates is required. This will enable the APEP to recognize that the vehicle is registered and avoid giving tickets incorrectly. See the section titled “Additional Considerations for the Development of an Alternative License Plate Registration System” for a discussion of possible license plate registration options.

Curbside Management

Public Relations/ Reputational Risk PROS

Though the gratuity will continue to exist, Parking Placard holders will be required to register their plates in order to take advantage of that gratuity. Data related to the volume of Parking Placard holder parking can be collected for the first time.

The majority of Parking Placard holders and their supports are unlikely to take issue with the continuance of some type of gratuity or accommodations plan.

CONS

As license plates of Placard Holders are not registered at the time of payment, the EPark system is not able to determine the true start and stop time of the parking session - resulting in inaccurate occupancy data for EPark zones and gaps in efficacy of supply/ demand-based pricing programs. • Design research has identified that some Parking Placard holders take offence to the suggestion that they are low income individuals and require a subsidy.

Parking user groups who have been negatively impacted by the delay in APEP launch, or are awaiting efficiencies to be gained through the APEP program are likely to perceive further delays as a negative outcome.

Affordability vs. Accessibility

Resourcing/ Financial PROS

Addresses the affordability barrier for Parking Placard holders in the low or fixed-income group.

CONS

Does not address affordability and accessibility barriers to parking separately. Under this option, affordability and accessibility barriers remain conflated and primary focus is on gratuity as opposed to physical accessibility. • Development and implementation of an administrative program and corresponding technology would be required in order to facilitate

Parking Placard holders’ license plate registration. This option would also require additional consultation and co-design work with placard holders in order to ensure intake process is accessible.

Loss of revenue opportunity into the EPark system that could have been used for accessibility infrastructure improvements. Research suggests that significant percentage of Parking Placard holders are financially able to pay, but would still be eligible for free parking under this option.

APEP launch continues to be delayed until administrative program could be set up to facilitate intake of Parking Placard license plates.

OPTION 2B: A REVISED PARKING GRATUITY OR VARIABLE FEE STRUCTURE IS DEVELOPED

This Pathway Involves: • Developing a revised parking gratuity or variable fee structure for Parking Placard holders

Enhancing the accessibility of curbside stalls, EPark Website, MyEPark App., and payment methods (based on recommendations outlined in the “Actionables” section of this report)

While there are many possible variations of a revised parking gratuity, below is an example of a revised parking gratuity that could be provided by the City of Edmonton:

Parking Placard holders with a license plate registered with the City of Edmonton receive double the number of minutes per dollar paid as compared to other motorists. This takes into account that many Parking Placard holders have mobility and dexterity issues which cause the parking process to take substantially longer than other motorists.

Considerations In order to enable a revised accommodation program such as providing additional time or modifying the hourly rate for Parking Placard holders, the APEP system will require license plate information of those Parking Placard holders in order to provide those accommodations and avoid Parking Placard holders receiving violation tickets while parking in EPark zones. This option would involve the most complexity as it would require not only the development of an administration program and technology solution for license plate registration (as described in option 2a), but additional technology development surrounding modification of hourly rates, maximum time allotments etc. that would apply specifically to the parking sessions of those Parking Placard holders.

Is providing extra time for the same dollar amount the right way to provide additional time for Parking Placard holders to complete their curbside parking needs?

How will payment systems recognize that a user is a Parking Placard holder and therefore can access different rates or maximum time allowances?

What measures need to be in place to avoid further abuse of the program by those without Parking Placards, or for those whose Parking Placards have expired?

Curbside Management PROS

Though the gratuity will continue to exist, Parking Placard holders will be required to register their plates in order to take advantage of that gratuity. Data related to the volume of Parking Placard holder parking can be collected for the first time.

CONS

As license plates of Placard Holders are not registered at the time of payment, the EPark system is not able to determine the true start and stop time of the parking session - resulting in inaccurate occupancy data for EPark zones and gaps in efficacy of supply/ demand-based pricing programs.

Public Relations/ Reputational Risk

Affordability vs. Accessibility

Resourcing/ Financial PROS

This option suggests a ‘middle ground/compromise’ that would provide some type of accommodation for Parking Placard holders outside curbside designated accessible stalls.

• Parking Placard holders who previously had to take no action to receive accommodation & gratuity in EPark zones may respond negatively to an added administrative step that they would need to interact with. Addresses the affordability barrier for Parking Placard holders in the low or fixed-income group.

This option sees some added EPark revenue from Parking Placard holders who previously qualified for the gratuity but under the new system no longer do

CONS

Design research has identified that some Parking Placard holders take offence to the suggestion that they are low income individuals and require a subsidy.

Parking user groups who have been negatively impacted by the delay in APEP launch, or are awaiting efficiencies to be gained through the APEP program are likely to perceive further delays as a negative outcome.

Does not address affordability and accessibility barriers to parking separately. Under this option, affordability and accessibility barriers remain conflated and primary focus is on gratuity as opposed to physical accessibility • As with option 2a, development and implementation of an administrative program and corresponding technology would be required in order to facilitate

Parking Placard holders’ license plate registration. In addition to the intake program, this option would also involve additional technical development surrounding modification of hourly rates, maximum time allotments etc. that would apply specifically to the parking sessions of those Parking Placard holders.

This option would also require additional consultation and co-design work with placard holders in order to ensure intake process is accessible. Loss of revenue opportunity into the EPark system that could have been used for accessibility infrastructure improvements. Research suggests that significant percentage of Parking Placard holders are financially able to pay, but would still be eligible for free parking under this option.

APEP launch continues to be delayed until administrative program could be set up to facilitate intake of Parking Placard license plates.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE LICENSE PLATE REGISTRATION SYSTEM

If scenario 2a or 2b are selected as future directions consideration surrounding the development of an alternative license plate registration system will need to be explored. In order to be able to implement and effectively manage the APEP solution that includes an exemption or alternative payment structure for Parking Placard holders, The City must have a method of knowing whether a particular vehicle is associated with the Parking Placard holder. As provincial policy dictates that Parking Placards are registered to persons, and not to vehicles, and the use of one placard among many vehicles is relatively common - there is no current mechanism for the automation of the collection of license plate information from Parking Placard holders. As such, an administrative system, including business rules around use and the inclusion of intake methods by which Parking Placard holders can register, would need to be developed in order to proceed.

Importantly, the EPark system does have a module which allows for a database of license plate numbers to be utilized for the application of specific parking rules. It is thought this could be adapted to manage a list of registered license plates associated with placard holders.

In addition to recognizing Parking Placard holder license plates registered directly with the City of Edmonton, if a no-charge parking option is provided, it should be extended automatically to any license plate that is issued by the province with the international symbol of accessibility on it.

HOW MANY LICENSE PLATES OR VEHICLES SHOULD EACH PLACARD BE ALLOWED? Placards are issued to individuals and not to vehicles, and are allowed to be used in any vehicle in which the registered placard holder is traveling, either as a driver or passenger. As such, in order to implement an APEP, parameters would have to be established for how many vehicles each placard holder may register within the parking program. In our interviews, workshops and discussions with stakeholders, most felt that the ability to associate 2 license plates for each placard holder would be sufficient.

PLACARD TYPES AND RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS Each placard issued has an expiry date, typically expiring on the last day of a specified month and year. Any registration system should take into account the expiry of the placard and if not renewed prior to expiry, remove associated license plates from the system. Beyond this most basic level of including an expiry, other considerations for a registration program include:

Should temporary placard holders be given the opportunity to participate in the program?

For long-term and permanent placards, should renewal of registration be required more frequently than every 5 years?

VERIFICATION OF PLACARDS Each placard issued has a unique number and is registered to an individual. At the time of registration, the system should be ensuring that:

The ID of the person registering matches that of the placard holder

The ID number on the placard matches the provincial registration document

The expiration date of the placard is not in the past

For the verification of the validity of a given plard ID, it may be possible to work with Service Alberta to confirm against their database of placard holders.

OUT OF TOWN PLACARD HOLDERS Because the provincial placard system does not include registration of license plate numbers users who do not register their license plates with the City of Edmonton will be required to pay for parking in EPark zones. This may include placard holders who live outside of Edmonton area (or outside of the province) that are not familiar with the program, but may also include residents in Edmonton who have not been well informed. For those that are outside of the Edmonton area, or are new to the City, they may also be coming from a jurisdiction with different parking options for placard holders.

It will be critical that communication efforts provide clarity with regards to how the parking enforcement system works and what placard holders should expect. This may include a need for signage in EPark zones that speaks to the specifics of the various options available for placard holders.

REGISTRATION METHODS / OPTIONS In order to accommodate the variety of accessibility challenges placard holders deal with, a variety of registration options should be considered:

In person registration with a City of Edmonton representative and paper forms

Online registration that does not necessitate logging into system

Online registration within the EPark website

In App registration inside of the EPark app

Registration by phone

All registrations should ultimately end up in the same database once they have been verified, but a workflow will need to be determined for each.

Potential for Future Province Wide Solutions As identified through the jurisdictional scan, there are some locations where parking regulations for Placard holders are managed at a state level. This provides an opportunity to include consideration of the impacts of specific accessibility challenges on a driver’s physical ability to utilize payment methods available to pay for parking. By assessing the type of disability and the corresponding limitations to ability to make payment, distinct placard options can be provided, including the potential for a distinct provincially issued license plate (see Appendix C).

Communications Plan Public awareness surrounding the existing gratuity for Parking Placard holders in EPark zones varies. The design research revealed a great deal of uncertainty amongst Parking Placard holders related to the following:

when payment is required and when it is not

how long the gratuity allows a placard holder to park for

what types of parking the gratuity extends to (i.e. surface lots or parkades versus curbside parking)

Regardless of the structure of a modernized curbside accessible parking program, strategic communication and public education with Parking Placard holders, their supports, and local stakeholders will be paramount to ensure that as many Parking Placard holders as possible are aware of the change. Communication will be required throughout the cycle of a Parking Placard holder’s experience to ensure consistency in awareness and understanding of the program. Further assessment of available communication channels and techniques should be conducted, but the following are identified as ways in which Parking Placard holders can be reached:

Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC)

Information provided through Service Alberta at the time of placard application

Signage in EPark Zones and in designated accessible parking spots

Direct outreach via mail based on placard holder list available from Service Alberta

Ongoing communication directly with placard holders who have registered with the City

Online information provided on City of Edmonton website and EPark website

Information included within the EPark mobile application