downtown moncton strategic parking...

in association with and PGB Parking Solutions

City of Moncton

DOWNTOWN MONCTON STRATEGIC PARKING STUDY

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

SEPTEMBER, 2006

I B I G R O U P T E C H N I C A L A P P E N D I X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

September, 2006 Page i.

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

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

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

1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.........................................................................................3

2.1 Stakeholder Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 .1 Overa l l Impressions of the Park ing Si tuat ion in Downtown Moncton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 .2 Speci f ic Park ing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 .3 Speci f ic Park ing Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 .4 Role of C i ty in Provid ing park ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 .5 Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 .6 Potent ia l for Reducing Park ing Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 .7 Potent ia l Short Term Solut ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 .8 Cost of Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 .9 Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Downtown Development Vision Symposium...................................................................................... 7

3. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.................................................................................7

3.1 Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Management of Parking........................................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Existing Parking Supply ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Existing Parking Demand ................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 .1 On-Street Park ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4 .2 Off -St reet Park ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4 .3 Park ing Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.5 Future Needs ....................................................................................................................................... 14

4. STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................................16

4.1 Strategies That Increase Parking Capacity and Efficiency.............................................................. 16


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

September, 2006 Page ii.

4.1 .1 Strategy A.1: Expand Park ing Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1 .2 Strategy A.2: Make Bet ter Use of Ex is t ing parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1 .3 Strategy A.3: Opt imize On-st reet Park ing Supply and Pr ic ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1 .4 Strategy A.4: Develop Guidel ines Min imum and Maximum Park ing

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1 .5 Strategy A.5: Improve User In format ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.2 Strategies that Reduce Commuter Parking Demand ....................................................................... 22

4.2 .1 Strategy B.1 Promote Act ive Transportat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2 .2 Strategy B.2: Improve Transi t Opt ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2 .3 Strategy B.3: Encourage Rideshar ing and TDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2 .4 Strategy B.4 Parking Pr ic ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.3 Supporting Strategies......................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 .1 Strategy C.1: Enforce Design STandards for Park ing Faci l i t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3 .2 Strategy C.2: Parking Payment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.3 .3 Strategy C.3: Consider Changes to Management of Park ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5. RECOMMENDED PLAN ........................................................................................................32

5.1 Guiding Philosophy ............................................................................................................................ 32

5.2 Summary of Strategies and Related Actions.................................................................................... 32

5.3 Financial Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 35

5.3 .1 Potent ia l Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.4 Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................................................. 36


LIST OF EXHIBITS

September, 2006 Page i.

Exhibit 1.1: Study Area........................................................................................................................2 Exhibit 3.1: Summary of Downtown Parking Supply...........................................................................9 Exhibit 3.2: Off-street Parking Supply ...............................................................................................10 Exhibit 3.3: On-Street Parking Supply and Characteristics ..............................................................11 Exhibit 3.4: On-Street Parking Demand Characteristics...................................................................12 Exhibit 3.5: Off-Street Parking Occupancy .......................................................................................13 Exhibit 3.6: Distribution of Users of Public Parking Facilities............................................................13 Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas for New Publically Accessible Parking Supply .....................................17 Exhibit 4.2: Suggested Downtown Parking Ratio Guidelines ...........................................................21 Exhibit 4.3: Existing Transit Routes and Proposed Future Shuttle Service......................................24 Exhibit 4.4: Cost of Parking Supply ($/space)...................................................................................27 Exhibit 4.5: Examples of Parking Structure Designs ........................................................................28 Exhibit 5.1: Summary of Strategies and Related Actions .................................................................33


City of MonctonDOWNTOWN MONCTON STRATEGIC PARKING STUDY

September, 2006

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Overview and Objectives Downtown Moncton is currently going through a period of change with a number of significant developments about to start construction. The City is also in the process of finalizing a Development Vision for Downtown Moncton following a series of consultation events. Both of these will result in changes to parking demand and to the existing parking supply. Accordingly, the City of Moncton, in conjunction with Downtown Moncton Inc., has identified the need for a comprehensive strategic parking plan to accommodate future development in the downtown over the next 20 years. This need is also driven by a long-standing perception that there is a lack of parking options in the downtown for commuters, business visitors, retail patrons and tourists.

The primary objective of this study is to quantify existing parking needs and issues and to propose strategies to deal with existing and future parking requirements. It is intended that the recommendations of the study be strategic in nature and provide a blueprint for all future planning decisions related to parking. The recommendations of the study also addresses factors that influence parking demand, including the role of transit, carpooling and active transportation. Policies that affect the creation and management of parking supply, including the specification of by-laws governing parking requirements, are also reviewed.

1.2 Outline of Report This report presents a draft set of recommended strategies addressing all aspects of parking supply, parking demand and parking management in Downtown Moncton. The report includes five sections as follows:

• The remainder of Section 1 provides a description of the study area and definition of Downtown Moncton.

• Section 2 summaries the list of issues related to parking in Downtown Moncton that were identified through a series of stakeholder interviews which were undertaken by IBI Group in May 2006. The results of these stakeholder interviews were influential in shaping the recommended strategies.

• Section 3 summarizes data and observations on existing parking supply in the Downtown and potential future parking needs.

• Section 4 describes and evaluates a comprehensive set of strategies for parking.

• Section 5 presents the proposed plan and implementation strategy.



September, 2006 Page 2

1.3 Study Area The focus of this study is on parking in Downtown Moncton, an area that is generally bounded by Vaughan Harvey Boulevard to the west, Queen and Gordon Streets to the north, King Street to the east and the waterfront to the south. Reflecting the potential for redevelopment along St. George Street, the northerly study area was considered to be somewhat flexible. Exhibit 1.1 illustrates the boundaries of the study area. Within the study area, there are several districts with unique characteristics including:

• Main Street downtown, generally considered to be the area of Main Street between the Subway Block and Assomption Blvd/Lewis Street

• West downtown, which includes the Highfield Square and VIA Station area;

• “North of Main” commercial area, which includes retail establishments, offices and institutional uses north of Main along Queen Street and Victoria Street;

• The downtown core, centred on Assomption Place and the Blue Cross Centre;

• The residential area north of Queen/Gordon and south of St. George Street;

• The riverfront.

In developing a long term parking strategy, it is important to consider the existing and potential future characteristics of these different areas.

Exhibit 1.1: Study Area

Primary Study Area Extended Study Area




2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

2.1 Stakeholder Interviews To assist this study, Downtown Moncton Inc identified a cross-section of stakeholders representing various interests in the downtown. Over the course of two days, twelve individuals from various organizations were interviewed1. Each stakeholder was asked to answer a series of questions including:

1. What is your overall impression of the parking situation in Downtown Moncton?

2. What are your specific parking needs for (employees, customers, visitors, etc.)?

3. What problems do you currently experience with respect to parking in the downtown?

4. What do you think the role of the City should be in providing public parking? Who should be responsible for ensuring the right amount of parking is provided for new developments?

5. Looking forward, where do you see a need for additional parking supply? What are the key developments that will drive these needs?

6. What opportunities do you see for reducing single occupant vehicle trips to the downtown by improving options for transit, walking, cycling and other Travel Demand Management Measures?

7. Are there any “quick-fix” solutions that you would like to see examined?

8. Do you have any views on parking fees?

The following is a synopsis of the input received on each of the above questions. In the interest of maintaining confidentiality, input is not attributed to any specific stakeholder. Where there were differing opinions, these are noted.

2 .1 .1 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF THE PARKING S ITUATION IN DOWNTOWN MONCTON

In general, most stakeholders indicated that the downtown parking system operates fairly well overall. In most areas, supply is just meeting demands. One exception is the area south of Main Street between Westmorland Street and Mechanic Street where demand for monthly parking exceeds the number of spaces that can be provided by several hundred. It is unclear whether this unmet demand means that employees cannot find parking at all or just want to park closer to their place of work.

Most of the problems raised by stakeholders, as discussed in more detail in the sections below, are primarily related to parking for tenants and their employees (e.g. commuter parking), as opposed to parking for retail customers and other transient users. This may be a result of the fact that most of the daytime retail in the downtown is ancillary to the office development while restaurants and other entertainment uses are more tailored to evening usage when parking supply is not an issue.




Most stakeholders recognized that there is a fine balance between providing enough parking to meet demands, but not providing so much parking that the presence of parking starts to impact the form and character of the downtown. Several stakeholders acknowledge that the amount of land currently devoted to surface parking is undesirable.

2 .1 .2 SPECIF IC PARKING NEEDS

Employees

For buildings that have sufficient dedicated parking, there are few problems that exist for employees working in the downtown. Issues arise when there is limited or no on-site parking and employees must seek off-site parking. In some cases, such as the TD Bank and the Subway Block buildings, options are limited. From a building owners perspective, if employees cannot find adequate parking, there is a risk that they will convince their employer (i.e. tenant) to move elsewhere. Similarly, it is difficult to lease a building where there is not sufficient parking for employees. The cost of parking is also an issue since many jobs in the downtown Moncton are lower paying jobs.

Retail Customers

Retail customers require parking that is easily accessed and close to the business they are going to. Since there is limited on-street parking on Main Street, most customers utilize the on-street parking on cross-streets to the north of Main, or the public lots and garage. For locations such as Highfield Square, free parking is essential.

Visitors

Visitors have similar parking needs as retail customers. Visitors may have a slightly higher tolerance for searching out parking options than retail visitors, but it is essential to have clear signage directing them to public parking lots. Stakeholders did not raise any specific needs for visitors.

2 .1 .3 SPECIF IC PARKING PROBLEMS

Specific parking issues or concerns raised by stakeholders included the following:

• Lack of parking options for employees: Both the Blue Cross Complex and Assomption Place have waiting lists of employees who want monthly parking (260 and 50 people respectively). It is not clear whether these people are already parking downtown in other lots and want to park closer to their work, or whether they take other modes and want to drive.

• Lack of parking close to Main Street: There are currently only a handful of parking spaces on Main Street. People wanting to access Main Street must park in the garage or the Capitol Theatre lot, or on one of the side streets. While it is recognized that it would be counter-productive to remove the landscaping on Main Street to provide on-street parking, it is generally felt that more opportunities very close to Main Street should be provided.

• Security concerns: Although not directly related to parking, the issue of security was raised as a concern since it affects where people park and why they drive. Security is a perceived concern north of the downtown and late in the evening. Restaurant




employees tend to avoid parking on some of the side streets and in the garage as they typically work until early morning.

• Abuse of Free Parking: Employees from nearby offices often park in Highfield Square to take advantage of the free parking. It takes constant enforcement to minimize this practice.

• Clarity of Information on Parking: It was noted by stakeholders that it is sometimes difficult to know when payment is required at parking meters. It was also suggested that there could be more signage telling visitors where parking is located, as well as improved information on the internet on parking policies and parking options. These were noted more as areas for improvement as opposed to significant concerns.

2 .1 .4 ROLE OF C ITY IN PROVIDING PARKING

Stakeholders were asked to provide their thoughts on the role of the City in providing public parking. All stakeholders suggested that the City has an obligation to provide adequate parking supply for short term retail needs. Some interviewees also suggested the City has a role to play in ensuring there are sufficient parking options. This can be accomplished by supplying publically owned spaces, as well as ensuring that new developments provide sufficient parking to meet their needs. Some suggested that it is acceptable for the City to subsidize parking in recognition that there will be offsetting benefits in terms of increased development activity.

For some time, there have been no requirements for new commercial developments to provide on-site parking in the downtown (See Section 3.1). There were varying opinions on the desirability of re-instituting a parking by-law for new development in the downtown. Some stakeholders felt that the by-law should require some on-site parking, just as it does greenspace while others felt that developers will provide a reasonable amount of parking for marketing reasons.

2 .1 .5 FUTURE NEEDS

There was an overwhelming sense from the stakeholder interviews that downtown Moncton has reached a turning point and significant development is on the horizon. The proposed courthouse, proposed convention centre and a potential redevelopment of Highfield Square are all signs of impending change. Development is also expected to spread to the east along Main Street. A major concern is that adequate parking supply be provided for these new developments so as not to place additional pressures on existing parking supply. Another concern is that development and parking need to be planned to avoid creating a “super-block” in the downtown which then becomes a barrier to pedestrian movement. This is a legitimate concern since there is no formal street and block structure south of Main Street between Robinson and Mechanic Street, the former railway lands.

Several stakeholders felt that a properly planned and located parking structure could be used as a catalyst for development.

2 .1 .6 POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING PARKING DEMAND

Stakeholders were asked to provide their opinions on whether or not it was feasible to reduce or moderate growth in parking demand by improving options for transit, walking, cycling and other Travel Demand Management Measures. Most stakeholders felt that promoting more sustainable transportation options is important, but should not be relied on as the only solution. It was noted that most Monctonians are very much car-oriented and that cold winters discourage people from using active transportation on a year round basis. However, some of the insights provided by




stakeholders indicate that there is some potential to reduce parking demand from employees. For example, it was indicated that people need their car to “run errands at lunch”. While this may be the case, such behaviour places considerable demand on the parking system since people take up a space for commuting as well as for short term parking somewhere else.

Stakeholders suggested there is some potential for transit to play a greater role for commuter travel, but the services need to be direct and fast. One suggestion was to provide express services from three or four major nodes throughout Greater Moncton to/from the downtown.

2 .1 .7 POTENTIAL SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS

Most stakeholders were of the opinion that short term actions should focus on advancing options that increase parking supply, namely a new public parking facility. Other suggestions related to improving the efficiency of the existing parking system, for example, providing a parking guidance system to help people find empty parking lots. There does not appear to be a need or desire for “quick fix” type solutions.

2 .1 .8 COST OF PARKING

Discussions around the cost of parking focused on the cost of monthly parking for employees. Currently, monthly parking costs (where not provided free of charge) range from $25 - $85 (garage and Capitol Theatre lot). It is generally felt that $85 is approaching the upper level of what employees would be able to tolerate, though it was noted that rates in Halifax are considerably higher ($125/month). A key issue related to the cost of parking is the fact that monthly rates of at least $115 are required to fully cover the costs of structured parking (See Section 4.2.1). Therefore, if the City or a developer were to construct structured parking for primarily employee parking, they would either have to raise monthly rates or accept the fact that a subsidy would be necessary. This issue is fundamental to the development of a parking strategy for Downtown Moncton and is discussed again throughout this report.

There did not appear to be significant concerns around the cost of short term (retail) parking, although it was suggested that the city foster a program that would allow retailers to provide free parking passes or coupons as a gesture to encourage more retail activity. This is already done by some retailers.

2 .1 .9 OTHER ISSUES

One issue that was prevalent in all stakeholder interviews was the issue of transparency and consistency in all decisions related to parking. Building owners, employers and retailers depend on public parking and the impacts of any change to parking on these stakeholders needs to be discussed and understood. This includes changes to parking rates as well as changes to parking supply. It also related to decisions about new development and potential related impacts on parking supply. The development of a long term strategic parking plan, the focus of this study, will help to improve transparency and predictability on parking.

Other issues raised included the need to be concerned about competition from smaller centres (Dieppe, Riverview and others) which are being very aggressive at attracting new development. Any actions that would increase the cost of parking or make it more difficult for people to park need to be cognizant of competition for development.




2.2 Downtown Development Vision Symposium On May 8, 9 and 10th, the City of Moncton and Downtown Moncton hosted a Symposium to help create a development Vision for Downtown Moncton. The Symposium was organized and hosted by the Office for Urbanism, the consultant for the Development Vision project. While the primary purpose of the Symposium was to outline a vision to direct built form and urban design, issues related to parking were also central to the discussions. Some of the issues and suggestions that were raised through the symposium included:

• The recognition that surface parking is not an efficient or desirable use of valuable downtown space, and that ultimately this surface parking will be replaced by structured parking to make way for new development.

• That the design of parking facilities has a direct impact on the pedestrian environment; large, visually unattractive parking structures can discourage walking while structures buffered by street level retail can enhance the pedestrian environment.

• Some residential development will likely occur in the downtown in the near future.

• St. George Street represents a prime opportunity for redevelopment and on-street parking needs to be a part of this.

Several people also raised the idea of closing Main Street to vehicles; however, this does not appear to be part of the final recommendations from the Symposium. Such a closure would need to be considered carefully.

3. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.1 Policy Context Parking requirements for new development are governed by Zoning By-law (Z-202). The Zoning by-law regulates both the amount of parking to be supplied as well as the requirements for parking spaces (e.g. dimensions, location, access, etc.). A key feature of the Zoning by-law is that developments within the downtown core are not required to provide off-street parking. This exemption has been in place for a least a decade and was instituted as a means of encouraging new downtown development. In actual fact, most recent developments (e.g. Rogers) have not exercised the option of providing zero on-site parking. Similarly, pending developments including the Marriott, the courthouse, and the convention centre are all planning to include some on-site parking.

The practice of exempting developments in downtown areas from providing parking, or at least lowering parking requirements, is typical of many Cities across Canada. For example, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, and Kingston all have lower parking requirements for their downtown commercial areas. Of these cities, however, only Kingston and Hamilton have total exemptions for specific uses, whereas the other cities still employ parking minimums, albeit to reduced standards. The applicability of Moncton’s by-law requirements for off-street parking will be reviewed later in this study.

In addition to regulating parking for regular vehicles, the zoning by-law also includes recommendations for disabled parking spaces, both in terms of supply and dimensions. The




recommendations are in line with typical guidelines including those from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

On-street parking in Moncton is regulated under By-law #T-102 - A By-law Relating to the Regulation of Traffic, Parking and the Use of Streets in the City of Moncton. This by-law includes general and street-specific regulations for on-street parking including time durations, fines, parking permits, signage and other items.

3.2 Management of Parking The City Engineering Department has the primary responsibility for parking in Moncton. Specifically, the Transportation and Parking Coordinator oversees all activities related to parking operations, enforcement, facilities maintenance, inventory management and reporting. Revenue collection and enforcement is carried out by the Commissionaires who essentially act as a contractor to the City. There is currently one summons officer employed by the City who is responsible for managing fines and distributing monthly passes. The City also employs an Operations Supervisor, who reports to the Parking Coordinator. The Commissionaires employ eight enforcement officers and staff the three attended lots (three shifts per day). The Commissionaires are entirely responsible for their employees.

Under the present system, all net revenues from parking operations are directed back into general city accounts and there is no provision for keeping these revenues separate. By the same token, any capital improvements for parking lots or structures are allocated through the annual budget process, in the same manner as general transportation expenditures. Similarly, administrative requirements for parking operations are not distinguished from other departmental requirements. The advantages and disadvantages of this in-house approach, and other potential models, are discussed in later in Section 4.3.3.

One of the drawbacks of the existing parking management approach is that, given the limited staff resources and multiple responsibilities of the Parking Coordinator, there is little opportunity for long term planning for the parking system.

3.3 Existing Parking Supply Parking supply in Downtown Moncton can be classified according to three general categories:

• Municipally controlled public parking (on-street metered, off-street metered and off-street controlled);

• Privately owned publically accessible parking;

• Private (dedicated) parking (customer parking, employee parking).

Exhibit 3.1 provides a summary of the total parking supply and related

A large portion of the Downtown Parking Supply is located in privately-controlled surface lots.




characteristics. Exhibit 3.2 shows the location of public and private lots while Exhibit 3.3 shows the location and characteristics of the on-street parking supply.

In total, there are approximately 8,750 parking spaces in the downtown (south of St. George Street). Approximately 1,260 spaces (15%) are controlled by the City, which represents a relatively low portion of the total supply and places constraints on the extent to which the City can influence factors such as pricing. The majority of the parking supply in the downtown is contained in privately owned but publically accessible lots. These include major lots at Highfield Square (1200 spaces), Heritage Court (1200 spaces), Assomption Place (450 spaces ) and Blue Cross (409 spaces).

It is somewhat difficult to compare Moncton’s downtown parking supply with that of other cities. However, one measure that is tracked by the Transportation Association of Canada’s Urban Transportation Indicators Survey1 is parking spaces per employee in the CBD. For the cities that monitor parking, most reported between 0.2 and 0.6 spaces per employee. For example, Halifax reported 0.4 spaces per employee while Sherbrooke reported 0.3 spaces per employee. In comparison, Moncton’s parking supply ratio works out to 0.75 spaces per employee based on 11,500 employees. Differences may be due to the fact that Moncton has a higher proportion of employment in the downtown compared to retail (i.e. most retail activity is ancillary to employment) or it could be due to the fact that other cities have undercounted their private parking supply. Notwithstanding these cautions, the data appear to suggest that Moncton has more than sufficient parking compared to other cities.

Exhibit 3.1: Summary of Downtown Parking Supply

Type of Parking Supply Spaces Hourly rate Monthly Rate

Municipally Controlled

Off-street attended

546 $0.75-$1.25 $50- $85

Off-street metered/pass

383 $0.50-$0.75 $50

On-street metered 401 $0.25-$1.25 N/a

Total Municipal 1,265

Privately owned (publically accessible)

4,155 $0.75-$1.5

Privately owned (dedicated)

Tenant/Visitor 1,237 - $0-$70

Customer/Tennant 2,025 - -

Total Parking Spaces 8,747

1 Transportation Association of Canada, Urban Transportation Indicators Survey, Third Survey, April 2001.




The average monthly parking rate for public parking in Downtown Moncton ranges from $50 to $85, excluding lots where parking is free. Hourly rates for long term off-street parking are typically $0.75 – $1.50 per hour. On-street parking rates range from $0.25-$1.25 per hour

Moncton’s public parking rates compare fairly well with other cities in Atlantic Canada. For example, one hour parking rates in downtown Saint John are $1.25 per hour. Monthly rates vary from $45.00 to $87.50. Halifax, with a population of 360,000 and two central located Universities, has several lots that charge as much as $125 for monthly parking.

One of the challenges often cited in trying to reduce auto dependency is that differential cost between driving and parking vs. taking transit is not significant enough to induce a behaviour change. Currently, a one-way adult cash fare for Codiac Transit is $2 while the monthly pass rate is $56, which is in the same range as parking fees. Considering that people tend to underestimate the cost of owning and driving a car, the current parking and transit fee differential favours auto travel.

Exhibit 3.2: Off-street Parking Supply




Exhibit 3.3: On-Street Parking Supply and Characteristics

3.4 Existing Parking Demand

3.4 .1 ON-STREET PARKING

Parking demand surveys were undertaken by Terrain Group on Thursday June 22, 2006 following some initial pilot surveys. Surveys were undertaken for a full day starting at 9 AM and ending at 6 PM. The surveys concentrated on the main area of on-street parking activity, generally north of Main Street between the Subway Block and Lester Street. Within this area, surveyors visited each parking space at least once every 30 minutes and recorded the licence plate of the vehicle

Existing on-street parking is well utilized (Alma St North of Queen)




that was parked in the space, or if the space was blank. This allowed for the calculation of occupancy, length of stay and turnover.

As shown on Exhibit 3.4, the on-street parking system is both well utilized and functioning as it should based on the present time limits. Several segments were at full capacity for most of the day. Average length of stay for the 2 hr spaces was between 1.0 and 1.9 hrs. On-street parking on Victoria Street is tailored to commuter parking, and hence the longer stay and lower turnover rate.

Exhibit 3.4: On-Street Parking Demand Characteristics

Street Name From ToTotalSpots

Time Limit

MaximumOccupancy

% (9AM - 12PM)

MaximumOccupancy

% (12PM - 6PM)

AverageLength(Hours)

Turn-Over* (veh/day)

Alma Main St. George 33 2 hrs 91% 100% 1.5 4.9Botsford Main St. George 27 2 hrs 89% 85% 1.4 4.7Church Main St. George 21 2 hrs 71% 86% 1.9 3.0Lester Main Queen 11 12 hrs 82% 91% 1.8 3.2Orange Main Queen 14 2 hrs 100% 93% 1.0 6.4Victoria Robinson Lewis 38 12 hrs 100% 95% 5.4 1.4

* Turn-Over: Total Different Cars Parked / Number of Spaces

3 .4 .2 OFF-STREET PARKING

Off-street parking surveys were also undertaken by Terrain Group in late June, early August and mid-September. Due to the fact that most off-street parking is commuter-oriented, a spot survey approach was adopted whereby selected lots were visited once or twice per day during the peak demand periods and parking occupancy was observed. The results of the surveys are shown on Exhibit 3.5.

In general, off-street parking lots are fairly well utilized. Typically 85% occupancy is considered to be the operational capacity of an off-street parking facility and several lots were approaching this threshold during the late June Survey. Demand appears to drop off in the summer, which is again supportive of the fact that most of the downtown parking supply is used by commuters. Exceptions to this are the Capitol Theatre Lot and the Parking garage, which had higher occupancies in August, but were well utilized during both survey periods. Overall parking occupancy in June was 70% while the August survey observed an overall occupancy of about 60%.

An interesting observation is that during August, when the most lots were surveyed, there were over 1,100 parking spaces that were not being utilized during the day, out of a total of 2,800 spaces. This suggests that there may be some capacity for the system to absorb more demand before new parking is required. However, this is a very generalized conclusion and would require a comprehensive approach to parking management and significant cooperation by the various lot owners. Of note is the fact that there were over 200 empty parking spaces in the Rogers lot on the

Off-street public parking is well utilized (Capitol Theatre Lot)




August survey date. Obviously some of these will be used up with the convention centre development, but in the short term this represents an inefficient use of surface parking.

Exhibit 3.5: Off-Street Parking Occupancy

JUNE 27 AUGUST 3 SEPTEMBER 15

Location/LotTOTAL SPACES

Empty Spaces % Occupied





Assomption Place 450 86 81% 104 77% 175 61% 160 64% 187 58%Blue Cross (staff) 145 60 59% 35 76%Blue Cross (Main Building) 86 56 35% 34 60%Heritage Court (Foundry) 845 176 79% 196 77%Heritage Court (East - UPS) 52 8 85% 10 81%Heritage Court (Lutz) 254 64 75% 119 53%Parking Garage 228 64 72% 19 92% 38 83%Capitol Theatre 173 63 64% 56 68% 24 86% 4 98% 15 91%Moncton Market 48 26 46% 27 44% 18 63%Lewis St. 26 7 73% 20 23%Moncton Place 145 33 77% 18 88% 17 88% 8 94%Lutz/Robinson 160 28 83% 132 18% 130 19%Lutz/Robinson 87 32 63% 35 60% 36 59%VIA Rail/Customer Centre 146 68 53% 104 29% 85 42% 109 25% 101 31%1255 Main St. 55 24 56% 24 56% 33 40%23 High St. 35 22 37% 23 34% 20 43%1199 Main St. 34 25 26% 29 15%77 Vaughan Harvey 130 33 75% 35 73% 30 77%51 Highfield St. 58 19 67% 17 71% 19 67%Sounds Fantastic 36 13 64% 25 31% 16 56%910 Main St. 20 6 70% 12 40% 9 55% 5 75%859-865 Main St. 19 14 26% 16 16% 17 11%869 Main St. 17 2 88% 11 35% 5 71% 6 65% 13 24%123 Lutz St. 44 17 61% 21 52%Boomerangs Westmorlad St. 33 7 79% 20 39% 16 52%Andal Place 860 Main St. 25 13 48% 3 88% 9 64% 3 88%Lester/Queen 97 26 73% 37 62% 45 54% 6 94%713 Main St. 23 7 70% 8 65% 4 83%814 Main St. 12 3 75% 3 75% 6 50% 2 83%Rogers /City (Large lot) 474 288 39% 207 56%

Weighted Average 3957 543 70% 1190 58% 1106 61% 553 74% 669 70%

Spaces included in sample survey 1809 2806 2806 2102 2259

PMAM AM PM AM

3 .4 .3 PARKING USERS

Data collected for municipal parking lots provides an insight into who is using public parking in the downtown. As shown on Exhibit 3.6, much of the demand for municipal parking during the peak times of occupancy is due to commuters, assuming most monthly pass-holders are commuters Based on data for the three primary municipal lots, 68% of the spaces between 2PM and 3 PM (the highest usage time) were occupied by monthly parkers. It is expected that monthly parking demand in private lots is even higher.

Exhibit 3.6: Distribution of Users of Public Parking Facilities

Facility Total Transactions Occupancy During PeakTransient Monthly Transient Monthly

Parking Garage 46% 54% 17% 83%

Capitol Theatre 84% 16% 54% 46%

Moncton Place 70% 30% 33% 67%

Total 70% 30% 32% 68%

Based on Data for month of May 2006.




3.5 Future Needs Based on the analysis of existing demand described above, it can be concluded that the municipal parking supply, both on-street and off-street, is effectively at capacity. Similarly, the private parking supply is approaching capacity and many individual lots cannot accommodate any additional demand. Based on the stakeholder interviews, there are at least 500 people on the waiting list for commuter parking in lots south of the downtown. Any land that could easily be converted to low cost surface parking (a practice that should be discouraged) has either been used up or is slated for development.

Future parking needs in Downtown Moncton will be influenced by several factors:

• Intensification of existing uses – i.e. unused offices being leased, conversion of storage space to office/retail uses;

• Increased retail and tourist related activities;

• Increased desire for personal mobility, a phenomenon that may have reached its peak and may be constrained by fuel prices;

• Construction of major new developments.

Of the four factors, construction of new development is likely to have the most significant impact on future downtown parking requirements, depending on the nature of the development and the amount of on-site parking that is provided. Currently, there are several new developments planned for the downtown:

Provincial Court House: The new provincial courthouse is to be constructed in the northeast quadrant of Westmorland and Assomption Boulevard. Preliminary plans allow for 120 underground parking spaces (primarily for officials and employees) plus 90 at grade spaces.

Convention Centre/Hotel Complex: This complex has been proposed for the lands fronting onto Assomption Boulevard between Westmorland and Robinson. Preliminary plans call for a 60,000 sq. ft. convention centre plus a 150-160 room hotel. The site will include up to 600 parking spaces, most of which will be accommodated underground. Reflecting existing agreements, the site may need to accommodate 300 parking spaces to replace those lost by construction of buildings on the existing Rogers surface lot. Since peak demands for the convention centre may not directly coincide with peak demand for Rogers employees, there is an opportunity for sharing some of the parking spaces. There may also be opportunities for accommodating some of the parking demand for this facility, or for Rogers, in nearby off-site lots, for example in a new parking structure south of Main Street and east of Westmorland.

Marriott Hotel: Marriott is planning to construct a new 130 room hotel at Main Street and Mechanic Street. Preliminary plans show an on-site parking supply of one space per room, which is consistent with most hotel parking space requirements.

Additional developments may stem from the Development Vision for Downtown Moncton. For example, the Vision identifies the possibility of residential development in the downtown as well as the establishment of new and expanded post secondary education facilities and related student housing. Similarly, some developers have indicated that there is a market for additional office development in the downtown provided reasonable options for parking can be found.




Given the cost of constructing parking, it can be expected that any new development in the downtown will provide a minimum level of parking to serve its basic needs. At the same time, the need for transient parking due to general retail activities, tourist activities and general business visitors will increase. Some developments, such as the Court House, will displace existing surface parking. At the same time, many of the strategies proposed in this study will off-set some of these potential demand increases.

For the purpose of this strategic plan, it is assumed that there will be a need for approximately 500-1000 new parking spaces in the downtown over the next 5-10 years. This represents a 10-20% increase in the total downtown off-street parking supply. Currently there a approximately 5000 spaces open to the public in municipal or private lots (See Exhibit 3.1 shown previously). The timing and number of spaces required may be accelerated, or delayed, depending on the pace of development. The majority of this parking would be needed south of Main Street in the central core area, although other locations are discussed later in this report.




4. STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES Addressing existing and future parking needs within downtown Moncton will require a comprehensive set of strategic initiatives aimed at both increasing parking supply options as well as managing the demand for parking, specifically commuter parking which requires extensive amounts of parking while generating limited net revenues. The remainder of this chapter identifies and describes a series of potential recommendations under the following categories:

• strategies that increase the efficiency of the existing “parking system”;

• strategies that reduce parking demand; and,

• supporting strategies.

4.1 Strategies That Increase Parking Capacity and Efficiency

4.1 .1 STRATEGY A.1 : EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY

It is clear, based on the preceding discussion of future parking needs in Section 3.5, that additional parking supply will be required to stimulate and support growth in the downtown. The exact location and size of parking supply options is partially dependent how the various development proposals play out. However, based on the current needs and preliminary development Vision, several locations considered priority areas for new public parking as discussed below and shown on Exhibit 4.1. These could be constructed as part of future development proposals, or as stand-alone municipal parking facilities. Priorities for implementation of new parking are discussed in Section 4.4.

One of the considerations in identifying these locations is that it is generally considered more desirable from an urban design perspective to construct smaller more strategically located parking structures as opposed to one large facility that could potentially sterilize the surrounding pedestrian environment due to its scale and vehicular access requirements. Retail customers and tourists are also reluctant to walk significant distances from parking lots, and more strategically located lots are likely to serve the downtown retail area better. One advantage of a single large facility, however, is that there would be capital cost savings due to economies of scale.

1. South of Main Street

Largely a result of lands freed up following the closure of Beaver Lumber, there is a significant amount of surface parking south of Main Street between Robinson Street and Mechanic Street. The Concept Plan for the Downtown Vision calls for these lands to be developed and that a new link for pedestrians be established between the Blue Cross Building and the Market. Given that the existing surface lots are fully occupied in this area and there is a waiting list for monthly parking, if this significant redevelopment is to occur, the existing surface parking will need to be replaced by structured parking. Any parking structure that is constructed in this location should be an integral part of the existing and future built form. Ideally, the structure would have weather-protected walkways to the Delta Hotel/Assomption Place, and be surrounded by retail or other uses to ensure that it does not detract from the downtown environment (See strategy C.1).

A parking structure in this location would serve existing demand generated by Assomption Place and Blue Cross as well as the Market, potential transient parking from the courthouse and overflow parking from the hotel/convention centre development. A parking structure in this location would also serve uses along Main Street, provided adequate signage and pedestrian connections are




provided. It is estimated that current unmet monthly parking demand in this location is approximately 500 spaces and future expansion of nearby uses and yet to be identified development proposals could result in demand for another 250-500 spaces, for a total of up to 1000 spaces in the longer term. Taking into account that other strategies such as optimizing existing parking supply and reducing monthly (commuter) parking in the downtown, future planning efforts should assume a structure capable of providing at least 500 spaces with the possibility for expansion, if required. One of the key challenges with constructing such a structure in this location is that it is primarily intended to accommodate parking from privately owned office developments and thus far the private sector has been unwilling to finance structured parking. However, there are significant opportunities for public-private partnerships in this strategic location. For financial planning purposes, it is assumed that the municipal portion of this structure would be approximately 250 spaces, with the private sector contributing to the remainder as justified by new development.

Another potential opportunity in this area would be to use a new parking structure in this location to serve as a secondary parking facility for the proposed convention centre/hotel development, perhaps providing up to 300 spaces. The advantage of this is that the a structure in location #1 would be closer to Main Street, yet still adjacent to the convention centre, thus serving a dual purpose. The cost recovery of this facility would be improved by serving as a commuter facility in the daytime and a transient parking facility in the evening with hotel and convention centre patrons. Obviously, a complex partnership between the various players would need to be established.

Exhibit 4.1: Potential Areas for New Publically Accessible Parking Supply

1

2

3

4




2. Queen/Lewis Lots

The City presently operates three lots in the east end of the downtown east and west of Lewis Street and north of Main Street. These lots are currently well utilized, particularly the Lewis at Main Street which supports nearby retail activities. Two of the lots are primarily gravel. With the development of the new Marriott Hotel and potential intensification/expansion of development in the east end, these lots are strategically located. As a result, there may be justification in the longer term to construct a small structure on one of these lots, perhaps in conjunction with a future development. At a minimum, all of these lots should be secured for long term public parking and upgrade to reasonable standards (i.e. asphalt paving).

3. Existing Parking Garage

The existing parking garage on Church Street currently has about 228 parking spaces on three levels. The garage is located in close proximity to Main Street and the central downtown core. With two access points (Church Street and Alma Street), the garage does not have any significant access constraints. Based on surveys undertaken as part of this study and on information provided by the City, the garage is heavily utilized throughout the day, though a large portion of this demand is due to monthly parking. One option to expand downtown parking capacity is to add one or two levels of parking onto the existing garage. This has been identified as an option in the past, and is considered to be technically feasible. Adding two levels of parking could provide approximately 150 additional parking spaces. Savings would be realized over constructing a new facility as parking payment infrastructure (e.g. card readers, cashiers, access gates) would require little or no changes.

4. West of Subway

There is currently no municipal parking west of the subway on Main Street, with the exception of on-street parking. This is largely due to the fact that the most dominant use, Highfield Square, provides ample parking for its customer needs. Most of the institutional buildings north of Main Street also provide some on-site parking. As identified in the Downtown Development Vision Concept, the Highfield Square area is poised for significant change. The concept plan calls for the reorientation of Highfield Square to Main Street in conjunction with the establishment of a grid network for internal streets. Although the future of this area remains uncertain, it would be prudent to protect for a new public parking facility that could support existing and future retail development, as well as add to parking options for employees in the nearby Federal Building. A parking facility in this location could also support a potential intermodal transit hub, being located near the bus station and train station. As with all new parking, the challenge is in setting parking rates high enough that they off-set the cost of constructing new parking, but low enough that they do not discourage retail patrons. This is a challenge given that parking at Highfield Square is currently free, and likely to remain so for some time.

Existing Lewis Street East Lot




4 .1 .2 STRATEGY A.2 : MAKE BETTER USE OF EXISTING PARKING

As noted previously, there is a large number of spaces in private parking lots that are not being utilized fully on a given day. These spaces tend to be on the periphery of the downtown, for example the lower Rogers lot and some of the lots surrounding Heritage Court. There are also a large number of spaces on the Highfield Square lot near the east end that go unused throughout most of the day. One of the reasons why these spaces are not fully utilized is that they are a fair walk from the downtown core, and in the case of Highfield Square and the Lutz Robinson Lot, are not available for commuter parking. However, it is noted that there are also vacant space closer to the downtown on a regular basis.

While it is not expected that private property owners simply make these spaces available, there may be opportunities for the City to act as a “broker” to help individuals looking for parking find these underutilized spaces. For example, the City (or Downtown Moncton Inc.) could set up a website for private property owners to advertise available monthly parking.

This strategy will be important if the City is to attempt to reduce the percentage of monthly parkers in its prime downtown lots to create space for transient (retail and tourist) parkers.

4 .1 .3 STRATEGY A.3 : OPTIMIZE ON-STREET PARKING SUPPLY AND PRICING

Overall, the City of Moncton has done a commendable job of maximizing available road space for on-street parking. There are few opportunities left for adding on-street parking without resorting to lane closures. For example, at 7.0 m in many places, Queen Street is not wide enough to provide on-street parking and still maintain two-way traffic flow. Adding on-street parking would require taking property from adjacent land owners, which is not considered feasible, or reverting to one-way traffic flow. A change of such significance would require careful consideration, considering many cities that have one-way streets are looking to convert them back to two-way given their impacts on traffic speeds and way-finding2.

Despite the challenges, the City should continue to look for opportunities to provide additional on-street parking. Opportunities include:

• Assomption Boulevard – the approved plan for this street includes on-street parking on both sides for its full length.

• South side of Main Street West – this would require closing a lane of traffic in the eastbound direction, which may be possible following the completion of Assomption Boulevard to Vaughan Harvey.

• Steadman Street and other streets – most north-south streets north of Main Street are typically 8.0 m wide (26 feet), which allows for two-way traffic and one side parking. Additional parking could be provided by making these streets one-way (usually done in pairs) or simply accepting that traffic flow will be restricted. With an 8.0 m width and two-sided parking, on-coming cars would need to slow down to walking speed to pass, or jockey into empty parking spaces.

• Church Street north of Main Street – there are potentially two spaces on the west side just north of Main Street that could be designated for short term on-street parking;

2 Hollingworth, B., Solomon, H., Before-After Study of a One-way to Two-way Street Conversion in Downtown Hamilton, Paper and presentation for the May 2004 ITE Meeting, Moncton, New Brunswick




As an overall policy, any new street created in the downtown, or any major redevelopment that will significantly change a street (e.g. Court house, convention centre) should provide for on-street parking.

In addition to adding on-street parking, there is also a need to continually review both pricing and time limits for on-street parking to ensure that spaces are used efficiently and equitably. A key priority area should be to increase rates for the space on Victoria Street from $0.25 to $0.50 per hour. Currently these spaces have a 12 hr time limit, which means that commuters can park in these spaces for $2 per day. Previously, the City raised rates for these space to $0.75 cents per hour in conjunction with reduced time limits, but the spaces were not being utilized. Clearly there is a fine balance in setting on-street parking rates.

Another proposed change is to extend the hours of operation of meters in high demand areas from 6 PM to 7 PM, and potentially to 9 PM. This could be done in conjunction with a flat rate for the evening (6 PM to 9 PM) period. The impacts on adjacent businesses would need to be considered carefully; however, it is noted that charging for parking often tends to promote a higher turnover, which is positive for business.

4 .1 .4 STRATEGY A.4 : DEVELOP GUIDELINES MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARKING STANDARDS

The current zoning by-law does not require new developments in the downtown to provide any on-site parking. This exemption was implemented may years ago to stimulate development. The lack of any minimum parking standards in the downtown has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage is that small development can be constructed on infill sites without parking in a manner that is consistent with the historic nature of the downtown while at the same time promoting reduced reliance on auto travel. However, the lack of a formal off-street parking by-law is a disadvantage in that the City has less control over how much parking is provided. This is a disadvantage in that a development constructed without parking could place additional demand on the parking system which the City would then need to make up, a difficult task given the lack of available land for public parking and the fact that cash-in-lieu is not applicable in the CBD given zero parking requirements. It is also a disadvantage in that a development could provide too much parking, which detracts from the urban environment.

There were various opinions among the stakeholders regarding the desirability of regulating parking ratios. For the most part, the current practice of exempting new developments (or changes in use) from parking has been positive. Retail stores such as the Candy Chameleon, Café Croissant Soleil and the Comic Hunter would have been required to provide on-site parking (or pay for off-site alternatives) if they had been developed outside the CBD and would not likely have located in the downtown if burdened with the cost of providing on-site parking. On the other hand, the new Rogers site was developed with excessive on-site parking which, in the opinion of some, is not consistent with downtown urban design objectives.

Recognizing that Downtown Moncton is evolving and will likely see the introduction of a wide variety of new developments in locations with differing needs, it may be premature to formally regulate parking through the zoning by-law for the CBD. Instead, it is recommended that the City start with the development of a set of guidelines for parking requirements. The guidelines would include recommendations for both parking minimums as well as parking maximums for the downtown zone. The maximum parking standard is a policy-based parking management tool that is receiving increased attention as a means of discouraging the development of excessive commuter parking facilities, reducing traffic congestion, and improving street amenity for pedestrians and cyclists, while providing reasonable parking levels to facilitate business activities and site development where desired. In the case of downtown Moncton, guidelines on parking maximums could help to ensure that Downtown Moncton maintains and increases its pedestrian-oriented feel. While not




enforceable, the guidelines could be referred to by City staff at the site planning stage and used as a negotiation tool. If shown to work effectively, the parking guidelines could be formalized through the zoning by-law in the longer term.

Exhibit 4.2 provides some suggested parking ratios for general land use categories. These are based on a review of standards in other cities across Canada conducted by IBI Group for other studies. The standards would need to be refined in future stages of this study based on discussions with stakeholders, and further consultation and refinement would be required prior to their adoption as guidelines or future inclusion in the zoning by-law.

Exhibit 4.2: Suggested Downtown Parking Ratio Guidelines

Suggested Parking Ratios

General Land Use Category Minimum Maximum

General Office (spaces/100 m2) 1.0 2.0

Retail (spaces/100 m2) 1.0* 3.5

Restaurant (spaces/100 m2) - 5.0

Residential (spaces per unit)** 0.5 1.5

* Retail uses less than 1,200 m2 would be exempt from providing parking ** Includes visitor parking

4 .1 .5 STRATEGY A.5 : IMPROVE USER INFORMATION

One of the areas where the City of Moncton Parking System is lacking is in user information. There is currently no dedicated web page that describes the public parking system and the parking pamphlet is not up to date. Even the Explore Downtown Moncton Map is lacking in that it does not identify the parking garage or several other municipal parking lots. The City is aware of these deficiencies and is currently developing materials for several mediums, including the internet.

Improving user information is a critical piece of the downtown parking strategy. User information can help to ensure transparency, by outlining who is responsible for different aspects of the parking system and how decisions are made. User information can also help make it easier for people who are unfamiliar with available parking options to determine which one’s best meet there needs. This includes tourists, retail customers and even commuters. User information can also be used to provide clarity to developers.

The following are recommended to improve user information:

• A central municipal parking website portal the following information, or links to information

− a map of publically accessible parking in the downtown; − parking prices and related regulations; − information on paying fines; − information on monthly parking policies and availability; − key contact information;




− a link to parking by-laws; − future parking expansion plans (results of this study);

• A new parking brochure and map for the downtown;

• Materials that could be made available at major events, trade-shows, etc. on downtown parking and Moncton Parking in general;

• A website for private owners to advertise available parking (See Strategy A.2);

• More visible parking guidance for drivers, including signage to municipal lots/garage;

• Updated and improved information on transit routes and services.

The provision of user information is somewhat constrained in that the management of the municipal parking system is not a separate distinguishable City department, but rather combined with traffic engineering. This makes it more difficult to separate out responsibilities for parking, and to convey these in a meaningful manner to the public. Alternatives related to the management of parking are discussed in Strategy C.2.

4.2 Strategies that Reduce Commuter Parking Demand Reducing the number of commuters travelling by auto into the downtown each day can reduce the overall need for parking while promoting more environmentally sustainable forms of transportation. Monthly parking should be viewed as a benefit, with associated social costs. Reflecting the need for a balanced and comprehensive parking strategy, this section identifies several recommended strategies for reducing parking demand.

4 .2 .1 STRATEGY B.1 PROMOTE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

In December 2002, the City of Moncton Active Transportation Committee released a high level plan for active transportation in the City. The plan included a Vision, a basic plan for the primary AT network and an implementation strategy. One of the recommendations was that the city should install bike racks at important civic destinations and work with businesses to provide and install bike racks and signage for workers and/or shoppers.

Since the 2002 Active Transportation Plan, several advancements have been made. Most significantly, the parking by-law now includes requirements for on-site bicycle parking, typically one bicycle parking space for every 20 vehicle parking spaces. Codiac Transit has also installed bike racks on buses, which have proven to be popular with university students as well as people living just outside of the transit service area.

Example of a bike locker in Ottawa




Overall the level of active transportation in Moncton is quite high. In 2001, 8% of people reported they walked to work and 1% reported they biked, or a total of 9%. This compares to 7% in Saint John, 9% in Fredericton and 11% in Halifax. One of the advantages of Moncton is that there are many people living within walking distance of the downtown.

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

• Amend zoning by-law to include provisions for shower and change facilities for new downtown office developments;

• Install additional secure bike parking facilities in City-owned parking lots and in key areas, starting with a pilot project to demonstrate the potential for fully enclosed bike lockers located at City Hall;

• Continue to install bike racks throughout the downtown;

• Improve pedestrian connections between the riverfront trail and the downtown.

4 .2 .2 STRATEGY B.2 : IMPROVE TRANSIT OPTIONS

Over the past 5 years, Codiac Transit has made significant enhancements to transit services and this has paid off in ridership growth rates of 2% per year. Major changes include adding Sunday service and extending service hours later into the evening. Many of the improvements are in response to people who work at the many call centres throughout the Moncton area, which operate 24/7 and have non-traditional shift times.

Significant changes to transit that are on the horizon include:

• An upgraded transit terminal at Highfield Square/1111 Main Street consisting of lengthened and partially enclosed shelters and other amenities;

• A new shuttle service between Champlain Place and Trinity Drive Power Centre via Main Street and Highfield Square (See Exhibit 4.3);

There are currently no plans for major route changes; however, it is recognized that it has been over five years since a comprehensive route review/market assessment study was undertaken, and many things have changed since. Proposed developments in the downtown (i.e. Court House, Convention Centre) may necessitate the need for service modifications.

Detailed information on transit riders and modal shares to and from the downtown are not collected; however, on a city-wide basis, Codiac Transit is handling about 2% of all work trips3. This compares to 2.7% in Fredericton and 4% in Saint John. It is expected that Codiac Transit’s share of non-work trips may be higher as much of the ridership is generated by students, seniors and people accessing health-care facilities, who are dependent on transit. Overall, these statistics indicate that there is some potential for Codiac Transit to increase its share of work trips, particularly those destined to the CBD where parking costs are a disincentive to driving. One of the current limitations of the transit system is that many of the routes (e.g. Riverview Routes) terminate at Highfield Square, requiring people to transfer to another bus or walk to get to the downtown core. Another limiting factor is that most of the routes operate on hourly or 45-minute headways, which means that

3 2001 Census of Canada, Place of Work Survey, Statistics Canada




people must time their journeys well in advance. Codiac Transit hopes to improve service levels over time, but this is constrained by available funding.

Exhibit 4.3: Existing Transit Routes and Proposed Future Shuttle Service

Source: Greater Moncton, Looking Beyond the Immediate, An Urban Transportation Showcase Proposal, 2003

According to the marketing department at Codiac Transit, it is felt that many younger professionals in Moncton are starting to make environmentally conscious lifestyle choices, one of which is to use transit rather than driving. Other people are turning to transit as a result of the high costs of gasoline, insurance, and in some cases parking. With modest changes in service levels and continued refinement of routes/services to match employee needs, it is not unreasonable to expect that transit modal shares to the downtown could be doubled or even tripled.

Some of the changes that could be considered to increase transit modal shares to/from the downtown include the following:

• Provide Transit service on Assomption Boulevard- this could be achieved by diverting some of the transit routes that use Main Street, by extending existing services, or providing new services. The design of the new convention centre should anticipate this future service and make provisions for transit lay-bys and shelters.

• Expand Highfield Square Terminal – In addition to the above noted short term improvements to shelters, there may be an opportunity to provide a much expanded off-street multi-modal transportation hub in this area, given its proximity to the bus terminal, downtown core and the VIA Station. Pedestrian connections would need to be enhanced to reduce the perceived distance from this terminal to downtown Main Street.




• Implement the TransCab Pilot Project to connect outlying areas – This initiative was identified in the Showcase Proposal to Transport Canada4. Providing access to the transit system from outer areas may allow people to then take transit downtown, reducing the need for parking.

• Employer-Provided Transit Pass Program – Codiac Transit could offer a discount on bulk purchases of transit passes and work with employers to offer reduced cost passes to employees. Combined with the new 16% tax savings offered by the Federal Government, this would reduce the cost of transit significantly while promoting higher use. The City of Moncton should also lead by example by offering employees a free transit pass in exchange for a parking pass.

• Involve Codiac Transit in Site Design Decisions – Codiac Transit should be consulted early in the design process on all new developments in the downtown (and City-wide) to ensure that provisions for transit are made in the site design. This may also allow Codiac to make service adjustments in advance of major new developments.

4 .2 .3 STRATEGY B.3 : ENCOURAGE R IDESHARING AND TDM

Within the Greater Moncton Area, about 10% of people travelling to work do so as a car passenger. This is typical of most cities across Canada. One of the most direct ways of reducing commuter parking needs in the downtown is to encourage people to carpool. For each person that carpools, one less commuter parking space is required. If the choice is for the City to construct new structured parking at a cost of $115 per space per month and lease this to commuters at $85 month, there is a strong economic case for encouraging more efficient forms of travel.

Unfortunately, progress on significantly changing people’s travel behaviour has been slow, largely due to the fact that few alternatives can compete with the convenience provided by a car. In Moncton, as in most other urban areas, people working downtown rely on their cars to run errands before or after work, drive home at lunch or pick up the kids after school. These needs are often use as a reason not to share a ride to work.

Changing current travel behaviour and attitudes towards ridesharing will require incentives that foster a completely new travel regime. Incentives could be monetary or organizational. Some options for consideration in Moncton include:

• Employer shuttles or vanpools – Due to a lack of on-site parking, Moncton Hospital operates a parking shuttle to remote parking lots. This concept could be adopted by some large downtown employers, though it is recognized that operational costs and inconveniences to employees are significant barriers. Alternatively employees could be encouraged to start vanpools. These can be employer operated or owner operated. In either case, a group of employees pay for the right to use a van for commuting. See www.carpool.ca. This concept is especially applicable for Moncton give the number of call centres that operate outside of transit service hours.

• Pool vehicles – To address the fact that people need to runs errands or occasionally use their car for work, employers can purchase a small number of vehicles that can be booked on short notice by employees. Many municipalities maintain a fleet of pool cars. Recently, IBI Group signed up with Autoshare.com to provide this service in

4 Greater Moncton, Looking Beyond the Immediate, An Urban Transportation Showcase Proposal, May 16, 2003




Toronto. The uptake was so positive we now have a dedicated fleet vehicle provided by Autoshare.

• Promote carpooling – There are several measures that the City could initiate to help promote car-pooling starting with designating preferential spaces at City Hall for registered carpoolers and reducing the cost of monthly parking for these vehicles. There are also off-the-shelf tool kits on how to foster carpooling that could be distributed to downtown employers. More extensive programs exist in larger Canadian cities that help commuters find ride-matching partners via the internet, though such a program may be some time away in Moncton.

At the broader level, encouraging residential development in the downtown can also help to reduce travel demand because people can live and work and play within a walkable area.

4 .2 .4 STRATEGY B.4 PARKING PRIC ING

To date, the City of Moncton and downtown land owners have been able to keep the costs of parking relatively affordable with monthly parking costs ranging from about $50 - $85, or free in some cases. This is due to the fact that most parking is located in surface lots, many of which were created by demolishing vacant or underutilized buildings. Continuation of surface parking expansion is no longer possible, or desirable, in Downtown Moncton. In fact, the Concept Plan for the Downtown Development Vision shows virtually all surface parking being re-developed. It is reasonable to expect that most new parking will need to be provided in structured forms, either above grade or below grade. Such is the case with the Court House and Convention Centre.

The differences in the cost of providing structured parking vs. surface parking are significant. As shown on Exhibit 4.4, an owner would need to charge about $40 per month or $0.50/hr to recover the construction costs and on-going maintenance costs for a surface parking space. This increases to $120/month or $1.50/hr for above grade structures and up to $200/month or $2.50/hr for below grade parking5.

As a result of the inevitably higher costs of constructing structured parking, there will be a need for both the City and private developers to increase the cost of parking, particularly monthly parking which generates a lower revenue per space than higher turn-over transient parking. As noted previously, the cost of monthly parking in Halifax is up to $125 month, which is reflective of the extent of structured parking in that City.

The question for the City of Moncton, as a parking operator, is whether or not it is willing to subsidize the cost of monthly parking for employees working in the downtown in order to maintain and grow the office development market. As a general policy, if a decision to subsidize parking is made, then the benefits to others should be explicitly be made known.

5 Costs are based on internal estimates by IBI Group and may vary by location and geotechnical conditions




Exhibit 4.4: Cost of Parking Supply ($/space)

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

Surface Above Grade Structure Underground Structure

Mon

thly

Rat

e

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

Ave

rage

Hou

rly

Rat

e*

The recommended approach for parking pricing in the downtown is to implement gradual increases in the cost of monthly parking in conjunction with the implementation of other incentives and options discussed in previous sections. These increases should be predictable and made known well in advance of their implementation. The City should also continue the practice of pricing the more desirable downtown lots higher (i.e. garage and Capitol Theatre), and encouraging commuters and monthly parkers to use the less desirable lots on the periphery of the downtown.

As previously discussed in Strategy A.4, there is also a need to continue to refine on-street parking prices in relation to demand and supply.

4.3 Supporting Strategies

4.3 .1 STRATEGY C.1 : ENFORCE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING FACIL IT IES

At the broad scale, parking has a significant impact on urban design. In particular, the need to supply parking can impact the shape of buildings resulting in conditions that are neither transit-supportive nor pedestrian friendly. Similarly, the appearance and scale of large surface parking lots can detract from the pedestrian environment.

There will be a need for one or more new parking structures in the Downtown Moncton in the near future and it is essential that any new structure that is constructed, either by the City or by a private developer, does not detract from the urban character of the downtown. Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s many cities constructed large parking structures in their downtowns with little attention to urban design.

Exhibit 4.5 illustrates the range of urban design treatments that could be considered for future parking structures as alternatives to the traditional “concrete block” design illustrated in Photo 1 on Exhibit 4.5.




Exhibit 4.5: Examples of Parking Structure Designs

1. Parking garage with no urban design considerations (poor design)

2. Parking garage with pedestrian amenities (good design)

3. Parking garage with integrated residential development (good design)

4. Parking garage with integrated retail (good design)

The new City of Moncton Zoning By-law was recently updated to include provisions regarding the design of parking lots and structures including regulations for screening, regulations that restrict parking between buildings and the streetline and a requirement for ground-floor retail or office along streetlines in parking structures.

At a more general level, some of the principles that should be encouraged with respect to the design of parking facilities also include:

• Provision of adequate pedestrian connections through parking areas;




• Development of smaller parking modules in surface lots as opposed to large open lots;

• Consolidated vehicle entry points to minimize pedestrian conflicts;

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

As a first step, the City could implement a program to upgrade some of the existing public lots, for example the Capitol Theatre lot.

4 .3 .2 STRATEGY C.2 : PARKING PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES

As part of this study, IBI Group and PGB Parking (subconsultant to IBI Group) reviewed the state of existing parking equipment an payment technologies. Most on-street parking is controlled by meters, which are very modern and offer the options of coins or parkcards. There were few observed or reported problems with these meters and it is estimated that these meters will easily serve the City for at least another 5-10 years. Although some cities are moving towards pay and display on-street parking technologies, which offer credit card payment, these are not considered necessary for downtown Moncton as there is not a lot of on-street parking and on-street rates are still fairly low. In addition, a completely new generation of parking technologies that offer features such as payment by cell phone and photo enforcement are coming on-stream. It would be appropriate for the City to wait for the infiltration of these technologies in the market prior to replacing the current parking meters.

With regard to off-site parking, there are several payment and control technologies that are available. Some of these, such as proximity card readers, are already in place in the garage. One technology that could be considered for some municipal parking facilities in the future is pay-on-foot. These are closed systems whereby drivers take a ticket on entry and pay at a machine prior to exit. Given the current enforcement approach that utilizes private attendants (I.e. commissionaires), the payback period for pay on foot technologies would be fairly long. Attendants also enhance security in the City-owned lots, which is an important consideration.

Based on the above, it is recommended that the City maintain the current parking control and payment systems for both on-street and off-street parking. When a new parking structure is constructed, pay-on-foot technologies should be evaluated.

4 .3 .3 STRATEGY C.3 : CONSIDER CHANGES TO MANAGEMENT OF PARKING

As discussed in Section 3.2, the municipal parking system is managed by the City Engineering Department along with traffic and other functions. This is fairly typical, of most small-medium sized cities. A review of other cities in the Atlantic provinces revealed the following:

• Saint John –Parking Commission is responsible for all municipal parking.

• Halifax – responsibilities for parking are somewhat fragmented within City departments. A large portion of the parking in the downtown is controlled by Impark. The city recently partnered with a private company to build and manage a large parking structure.

• Fredericton – Parking Services is a Division under the Development Services Department.




• Charlottetown – On-street meters are maintained by the Public Works Department. The Charlottetown Area Development Corporation (CADC) operates over 2,000 spaces in surface lots and parkades. CADC is a non-profit partnership between the City and Province.

With the exception of Saint John, parking in most other cities is managed by a separate department or as a part of a department. Even in Saint John, the Commission is not at arms length from the City.

There are several options that could be considered for the management of parking in Moncton, or Downtown Moncton, including:

• Maintaining the status quo;

• Maintaining the status quo, in conjunction with a parking advisory committee;

• Establishing a parking corporation or parking authority;

• Establishing a distinct parking department;

• Increasing the role of private parking operators.

A review of parking management options was undertaken in 1996 by UMA6. While the report did not make any firm conclusions or recommendations, it did recommended the following elements be incorporated into the management structure:

• private sector involvement;

• consistent and strict enforcement;

• proper maintenance of the parking system;

• effective promotion;

• budget to support above activities.

Essentially, the first four elements are currently incorporated, or could be incorporated, into the existing management system. Where the current system is lacking is in the ability to direct parking revenue surpluses into a separate fund for the construction of new parking facilities. Under the current system, the primary focus is on year-to-year operations, as opposed to strategic parking system development.

To address these current limitations, the following is recommended:

• Create a separate Parking Services Division under the Engineering and Environmental Services Department, or a possible new Transportation Group.

• Establish a permanent Downtown Parking Advisory Committee that would include representatives from other City departments, Downtown Moncton Inc. and GMPDC. The advisory committee would be tasked with guiding the implementation of recommendations from this study.

6 City of Moncton Downtown Parking Management Review, UMA Engineering Ltd, 1996.




• Establish a mechanism to direct surplus parking revenues into a dedicated capital reserve to fund new parking facilities.

In conjunction with changes to parking management, changes are also required to the City Hall offices, including the “Parking” office function. It is evident that the parking operation is presently squeezed and will also grow. It will need more space in the future to accommodate the proposed Parking Division. Although designs for these areas would be handled by the City Hall space planners, it is nevertheless important to lay out some basic recommendations for the new areas. For example, the Parking Office space should include: offices for the coordinator, his assistant, and the summons officer. Also attached should be an interview area (for ticket complaints) controlled by the summons officer (currently this occurs along side staff). Further, another improved area is needed for the coin-counting operation. This is presently located in a convenient area on the ground floor (rear) and includes space for the supervisor and for the collection/ticketing function.




5. RECOMMENDED PLAN

5.1 Guiding Philosophy The City of Moncton is fortunate to have an attractive and vibrant downtown centred on Main Street. One of the attractions of Main Street is that buildings are closely spaced, uninterrupted and generally of a pedestrian scale. Conversely, some of the less attractive areas of the downtown are those that are dominated by large surface parking lots, which include most of the lands south of Main Street. The contrasting environments are illustrative of the effects of parking on urban design and the quality of downtown areas. By the same token, parking is an essential requirement for the success of a downtown, facilitating access for employees, shoppers and tourists.

This parking strategy is based on the conviction that a balanced approach must be adopted for all facets of parking. It reflects a new paradigm shift in North American parking management away from the “more parking is better” approach. Some examples of the main differences in the traditional and new approaches to parking management area summarized as follows:7

Traditional Parking Approach New Parking Approach

A parking problem means inadequate supply.

Parking problem can mean a multitude of issues including inadequate supply, inefficient management and inadequate information.

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

Parking requirements should be applied consistently without exception or variation.

Parking requirements should reflect each particular situation, and should be applied flexibly.

Parking should be provided free or at a low cost, especially in downtowns to compete with suburban malls with free parking.

As much as possible, users should pay directly for parking facilities.

5.2 Summary of Strategies and Related Actions Based on the existing parking conditions within the downtown, together with identified stakeholder issues and future needs associated with the parking system, this Parking Strategy recommends a series of comprehensive actions to improve parking conditions in the downtown for consideration by the City and other stakeholders. This program of strategies and actions would be carried out over both the short, medium and longer terms through further planning and budgeting processes. Exhibit 5.1 provides a summary of the proposed strategies, actions and timing.

For the purposes of assigning timing, the following time periods were assumed:

• Short term: 2007-2009

• Medium term – 2009 – 2012

• Long term – beyond 2012

Information on the costs of the major actions as well as roles and responsibilities are provided in the Sections 5.3 and 5.4 respectively.

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




Exhibit 5.1: Summary of Strategies and Related Actions

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS TIMING INITIAL

CAPITAL COST

Strategies That Increase Parking Capacity and Efficiency

A.1 Expand Parking Supply Initiate planning for a new 250 space municipal parking facility south of Main Street, with opportunities for further expansion by private sector

Short $3,750,000*

Upgrade Main/Lewis Lots to City Standards and consider joint development opportunities

Medium $130,000

Construct two new levels on existing downtown parking garage

Medium $2,000,000*

Plan for new parking facility and expanded intermodal terminal west of the Subway at/near Highfield Square

Long TBD

A.2 Make Better Use of Existing Parking

Together with private partner(s), set up website to facilitate exchange of information on available private parking

Short $20,000

Work with private land owners to look for available parking supply that could be used by current monthly parkers in premium lots.

Medium Nil

A.3 Optimize On-Street Parking Supply and Pricing

Investigate feasibility of adding on-street parking on Church St, Steadman St, Main St W. (pending review of traffic diversions to Assumption Blvd) and other minor streets

Short-Medium

Nil

Increase lowest on-street rates from $0.25/hr to $.50/hr Short Nil

Consider extending hours of paid operation of on-street parking in selected areas

Medium Nil

A.4 Develop Guidelines for Parking Minimums and Maximums

Develop recommendations for minimum and maximum parking ratios for CBD and consider need/desirability for amending zoning by-law

Short $20,000

A.5 Improve User Information Establish central municipal parking website Short $20,000

Create new parking brochure Short $5,000

Promote parking services at trade-shows Short Nil

Improve signage to municipal lots Short $25,000

Improve information on transit routes/schedules Short TDB

*Excludes off-setting revenues from parking fees/user fees TBD – To be Determined based on further review by appropriate City Departments




STRATEGY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS TIMING INITIAL

CAPITAL COST

Strategies That Reduce Commuter Parking Demand

B.1 Promote Active Transportation

Amend Zoning By-law to require shower and locker facilities in new developments

Medium Nil

Initiate pilot project for bike lockers Short $20,000*

Install additional bike parking throughout downtown Short $10,000

Improve pedestrian connections between downtown and riverfront

Medium TBD

Implement Active Transportation Plan Short TBD

B.2 Improve Transit Options Provide new transit service on Assomption Medium TBD

Expand Highfield Square Terminal (in addition to planned expansion)

Long TBD

Implement TransCab Pilot Project Medium TBD

Offer Bulk Discount Transit Passes to Employers Short TBD

Involve Codiac Transit in Site Design Decisions Always Nil

B.3 Encourage Ridesharing and TDM

Pursue pilot project to demonstrate use of vanpools Short TBD

Provide 3-4 shared vehicles at City Hall for employees Short $60,000

Work with employers to promote carpooling Short Nil

B.4 Parking Pricing Establish policies for annual parking rate increases Short Nil

Supporting Strategies

C.1 Expand Design Standards for Parking Facilities

Create Site Design Guidelines Document, including guidelines for parking facilities

Short $20,000

C.2 Parking Payment Technologies

Pursue Pay-on-foot technologies for new parking facilities Medium - Long

Nil

C.3 Changes to Parking Management

Create separate Parking Services Division under Engineering Department

Short TBD

Establish Permanent Downtown Parking Advisory Committee Short Nil

Establish Reserve Fund for New Parking Medium Nil




5.3 Financial Impacts Most of the above actions are either revenue neutral or can be implemented within existing or expanded City programs. For example:

• Implementing increases in parking rates should produce a small increase in revenue.

• Developing urban design guidelines, changing parking regulations, and developing information on parking are part of regular City responsibilities, or are already underway.

• A bike locker pilot program would cost approximately $2,000 per locker, but the net annual revenues would be about $120 per year assume a $10/month fee.

• A pilot program to demonstrate vanpools could be done as a promotion with a local car dealership and using federal green infrastructure funds.

• Programs related to improving transit and active transportation are in the planning stages and funding needs will be identified as the plan roles out.

The most significant funding need resulting from this parking strategy is related to the construction of new parking supply and/or upgrading of existing facilities. To illustrate the potential financial impacts of constructing new parking, a simple financial model has been developed for a 250 space above-grade parking structure. The following assumptions were made in developing the financial model based industry values and a review of costs and revenues for existing facilities:

• Capital cost per space - $15,000

• Operating cost per space - $400/year

• Discount rate – 6%

• Amortization period – 25 years

• Annual Revenue per space – $1,100

Annual revenues are based on actual values for the existing parking garage and therefore assume the same levels of usage, rate structure and mix of monthly vs. transient parking. Operating costs are assumed to be lower than the existing garage ($700/space) due to reduced maintenance requirements for a new facility and potential savings from pay-on-foot technologies.

Based on the above, the financial impacts of a new 250 space facility would be as follows:

• Total Capital Cost $3,750,000

• Annual Capital Cost $293,350

• Annual Operating Cost $100,000

• Total Annual Cost $393,350

• Annual Revenue $275,000

• Net annual subsidy $118,350




In comparison, the existing parking system generates approximately $900,000 in net revenues per year, excluding major maintenance. However, this year alone, approximately $1 million is being spent to rehabilitate the existing parking garage.

5 .3 .1 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

There are various options that could be considered to fund the construction of new parking supply including:

• Continuing the practice of one-time funding through the capital budgeting process

• Establishing a parking reserve fund whereby existing revenues from the parking system are directed to a dedicated fund

• Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a program that estimates the net increases in property taxes that would result from new developed stimulated by a capital investment (e.g. new parking structure) and borrows against this expected future revenue

• Tax on new development, a simple and direct way of generate funds for common infrastructure.

• Cash-in-lieu, which allows developers the option of contributing a set amount for each space that is not provided according to the parking by-law. This measure would only work if there were parking minimums set for the CBD. Since cash in-lieu rates are typically well below the cost of a new parking space (e.g. rates range from $400 – $4,000 for jurisdictions across Canada), it is difficult to generate enough funds for a new parking structure. Cash in lieu is current available for bicycle parking under the new zoning by-law.

5.4 Roles and Responsibilities Implementation of this parking strategy will require the input and cooperation of a number of individuals, departments and agencies. Rather than assigning each action to one specific party, this study identifies the roles and responsibilities of each major player.

Council:

• Approve overall parking strategy

• Approve funding to implementing required actions as justified through subsequent staff reports

• Support City in creation of separate parking services division

• Support the use of parking revenues for funding projects to enhance parking system

City of Moncton:

• Create a separate Parking Services Division under the Engineering and Environmental Services Department, or a possible new Transportation Group.

• Identify mechanism to track parking reserves

• Provide administrative support for program implementation




• Provide administrative support for permanent Downtown Parking Advisory Committee

• Investigate opportunities for pool vehicles

• Finalize location of new parking structure South of Main Street and commission planning, design, funding and approvals documents

• Monitor new developments and opportunities for joint parking proposals

• Implement changes to on-street parking rates and parking regulations

• Oversee the development of a parking website and information materials

• Continue to oversee all aspects of municipal parking system

Downtown Moncton Inc:

• Provide information and advise on parking website and information materials

• Develop plan for improved signage for parking

• Provide communications link between City and development industry

Codiac Transit:

• Implement proposed changes to transit system

• Advise on site design issues to ensure transit’s needs are considered

• Improve information on transit system, including development of a new ride guide and web-based schedules

Greater Moncton Planning District Commission:

• Prepare guidelines for parking ratios for new development and use changes

• Prepare urban design guidelines for parking facilities

• Amend municipal by-laws as appropriate over time

Private Developers and Businesses:

• Identify potential opportunities for joint parking proposals

• Keep City informed of potential development opportunities and parking needs

• Respect parking guidelines, including minimum and maximum parking ratios

• Participate in initiatives to optimize use of available parking

General Public:

• Show tolerance for the implementation of programs to promote active transportation and transit, and make an effort to try out alternative modes of transportation, carpool, etc.




ENDNOTES:

1 Tim Dorety, Fortis Properties Andre Pelletier, Assomption Vie Terry Young, Crombie Properties Bobbi Steves, owner of Subway Block Ryan Carpenter, Heritage Resources Derek Hale, TD Bank Pierre Gallant, Architects Four Ltd Patrick Gillespie, Ashord Investments Denis Arsenault, building owner Steve Gallant, Galco Development Valerie Roy, Moncton Chamber of Commerce Kolin Barley, Restaurant owner

J:\11397\10.0 Reports\TTR_Draft Final2006-08-23.doc\2006-10-04\CL

downtown moncton strategic parking...

Documents