No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCollegetown Parking Study - July 2000 k liw < ollegetown RN vwz SO a 3 � .� 3 � SIR - a VIN Ng� sl a r e Collegetown Parking Study City of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York Prepared for: Department of Planning and Economic Development City of Ithaca Prepared by: Jessica Greig Consultant to the City July, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...iii I. INTRODUCTION ...1 II. PARKING SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ...9 Parking Inventory ...9 Residential Survey ...13 Owner/Manager Survey ...23 Employee Survey ...28 Usage Survey ...34 License Plate Survey ...39 Evening Parking Survey ...43 III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...47 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ...55 APPENDICES ...62 07/10/00 DRAFT Collegetown Parking Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Purpose and Frequency of Trips ...20 2-2 Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type ...20 2-3 Distance between Parking Location and Work ...32 2-4 Paid Parking: Daytime Parking Duration ...41 2-5 Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates ...45 2-6 On-Street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates ...45 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 Supply of Public and Private Parking ...12 2-2 Parking Supply by Parking Type ...12 2-3 Average Parking Fees by Location and Building Type ...16 2-4 Parking Location by Building Type ...17 2-5 Frequency of Car Use ...19 2-6 Number of Employees at Work on a Given Weekday ...30 2-7 Modal Split for Employee Work Commute ...30 2-8 Parking Location for Employees ...31 2-9 Interest in Free Public Transportation ...33 2-10 Summary of Results,In-season Parking Usage Surveys ...37 2-11 Continuously Parked Cars(Storage Parking) ...38 LIST OF MAPS Map Page 1 Collegetown Base Map ...2 2 Collegetown Building Moratorium 3 3 Zoning Map 4 4 Off-street Parking 6 5 Survey Boundaries ...36 aR 07/10/00 DRAF'r �s Collegetown Parking Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND In July of 1999,the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a yearlong building moratorium on all new residential construction in the neighborhood known as Collegetown. Recently Collegetown has been the site of rapid redevelopment and growth, in both the commercial and residential sectors. With this growth came a steady influx of cars, and an increasing number of parking problems. The current zoning regulations were the result of an attempt to revitalize Collegetown during a period of stagnation. In light of rising complaints,recent redevelopment, and potentially outdated zoning regulations, Common Council enacted the moratorium as an opportunity to better understand the parking situation in Collegetown. After the moratorium was in place, the Department of Planning and Economic Development began setting the groundwork for studying the situation. This eventually evolved into the Collegetown Parking Study. This report is the culmination of that study. Its goal is to explain the travel characteristics of local residents and employees, detail the performance of the current parking system, and make recommendations for improvements. PARKING STUDY The parking study has four major components, they are 1)an inventory of the parking supply,2) a survey of residents, 3)business surveys (owner and employee), and 4)public parking surveys. Parking Supply An inventory of available parking was completed in the early stages of the moratorium. Aerial photos of the neighborhood coupled with field verification were the primary inventory techniques. This information was used to establish the on street capacity and to classify the different types of parking. The overwhelming focus of the study was on the use(how many spaces were used and for how long)of on street parking spaces. Within the category of on street spaces, there are metered spaces and free spaces. Each was examined separately in the various parking surveys. Inside the moratorium boundary there are approximately 410 free spaces and 149 metered spaces. Currently all meters in Collegetown have 07/10/00 DRAFT iii i Collegetown Parking Study a two hour time limit, charge $.50/hour, and are in effect Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Depending on the location and time of year,most of the free spaces have a 24-hour parking limit or are governed by the City's odd-even parking ordinance. The odd-even ordinance allows parking on only one side of the street overnight. Off street parking represents the largest supply of parking in Collegetown, approximately 2000 spaces. Almost all of it is privately owned and managed. As a result, documentation concerning how the spaces are used was limited. An exception was the 217 spaces in the Dryden Road '$ Garage,which were studied extensively. Other off street parking areas are Cornell's Stewart and William's lot, the garage on Linden Ave, and the sub-grade garage in 312 College Ave. Residential Survey The Residential Survey questioned Collegetown residents about their travel habits, car ownership, and parking behavior. The survey included a census of single family homes (21), and a sample of 200 residences from each of large apartment buildings' and single family homes that have been converted into multiple units2. Sampling in the apartment buildings and multiple dwellings was also stratified by block to account for geographical variation in the data. The survey data about travel habits revealed that walking is the most frequently used mode of travel, followed closely by cars. Buses and bicycles are used with a much lower frequency. Cars were most often used for shopping, traveling in and out of Ithaca, and entertainment. The more surprising result was the level of car ownership. Collegetown businesses and neighboring Cornell University provide a variety of services and entertainment opportunities directed towards the student residents, who compose 95%of the Collegetown population. Despite this, 49%of residents in the large apartment buildings own a car, as do 62%of residents in multiple dwellings. These high ownership rates produce a correspondingly high demand for parking spaces. In the large apartments, 86% of the car owners reported parking in private, off street locations while the remaining 14%park on the street. The corresponding percentages for the multiple dwellings are 72% and 27% on street. Accounting for the ownership rate and parking locations, approximately ' Large apartment buildings are defined as having more than 20 housing units. 2 The converted single family homes are known as multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling units. 07/10/00 DRAFT iv Collegetown Parking Study 2200 resident car-owners park off street and 650 park on the street. Both numbers exceed the existing supply and support the commonly held perception that there is a parking deficit in Collegetown. Business Owner/Manager Survey The Owner/Manager Survey was designed as a personal interview,administered to the owner or manager of every Collegetown business. Survey questions addressed the type of business, number of employees,number of parking spaces, delivery schedule, and response to possible policy changes. Around 75%of the businesses completed surveys. The results showed that approximately 800 employees work in Collegetown, 60%part-time and 40% full-time. The most common classifications of businesses were restaurants and bars (37%), services (30%), and retail stores(15%). Delivery problems were a big issue for most businesses. Over 100 deliveries are made to Collegetown every day, which is significant given its small area. The most common problems cited were tied to the loading zones. They were seen as being too small, inconvenient to the businesses, and inaccessible due to illegal parking of cars. There was little support for proposed policy changes. The majority of owners and managers (68%)were not supportive of restricting delivery times to a particular time of day. When asked if they would contribute funds to a new parking facility, 23% would, 37% would not, and the remaining 39% unsure. When asked if they would be interested in a program to provide tax deductible TCAT(Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit)bus passes to their employees, 18% said yes, 63% said no, and 19%were not sure. The general mood from the owners and managers was that the City should take responsibility for improving conditions in Collegetown for the business community. Desired improvements include: better enforcement of existing loading zones, increasing the number of loading zones, and more parking for customers and employees. Furthermore, many expressed the opinion that Cornell should take responsibility for meeting the parking needs of its students, many of whom live in Collegetown. 07/10/00 DRAFT v i Collegetown Parking Study Employee Survey Employee survey questionnaires were distributed to each business addressing issues such as work schedule, commute, and parking. The response rate was around 40% and most of the respondents were full-time employees. Data about work schedules established when most employees are working. During the week,the highest concentration of employees is around 430 at 2 p.m. On the weekend the overall number is lower but also peaks at 2 p.m. The travel characteristics of these employees vary significantly, according to employment status. A majority of full-time employees drive themselves to work and the remaining 30%use environmentally friendly modes of transportation(walk, carpool, and public transit). Part-time employees on the other hand use an even greater mix of transportation modes. In this case,43% drive themselves, 36%walk, 14% carpool, and 7%take public transit. A major reason for variation between the two groups is that many of the part-time employees are students who live in the Collegetown area. In terms of evaluating parking demand, employees who drive were of the most interest. These employees use a good mix of parking locations. The preferred parking location is at meters, followed by private parking, the Dryden garage, and finally the free spaces. The parking demand varies significantly according to the time of day and part of the week, but can be calculated using the employment densities and parking locations. Examples of these calculations are given in the body of the report. Public Parking Surveys ` Three different parking surveys, the Parking Usage Survey,the License Plate Survey, and the Evening Parking Survey were incorporated to give a comprehensive view of how the current parking system is functioning. Parking Usage Survey The main purpose of the Parking Usage Survey was to establish how many people park overnight and how many leave their cars parked all day. The survey consisted of field counts of the number of cars parked on each block four times during the day, at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m. ` The same survey was completed on three days, once when Cornell was not in session(off- . 07/10/00 DRAFT vi Collegetown Parking Study season), and twice when it was(in-season). For the two in-season surveys, one was administered when odd-even regulations were in effect and the other was after odd-even regulations had been lifted in favor of 24-hour parking. The results of the in-season, odd-even survey reveal a representative picture of parking in Collegetown. In this case, 532 cars parked overnight,using 85% of the free spaces, 62% of the metered spaces, and 41%of the spaces in the garage. As for storing cars,of those parked at 6 a.m., almost 50%were still parked at 6 p.m. Results from the other surveys are available in the body of the report. License Plate Survey The purpose of the License Plate Survey was to quantify how the metered spaces and the Dryden Road Garage are used on a typical weekday. Methodology consisted of writing down the license plate number of all cars parked in metered spaces or at the garage every hour, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. From this survey we learned that 71% of the cars that parked at meters were there for less than two hours, 18% parked from two to six hours, and 11% parked for over six hours. In the garage, 39% of drivers parked for less than 2 hours, 21%parked from two to six hours,and 40% parked for more than six hours. In addition to license plate numbers, data collection also included expired meters and tickets. During the ten-hour survey, 52 tickets were issued and there were over 550 hours when meters were expired. Based on survey data, 170 tickets could have been issued if the two-hour time limit was enforced. If all the expired meters hours were paid for,the City would have had an additional $275 for the day. But more importantly,these numbers show that many people are not following the posted regulations and that the meters aren't being used for short-term parking as intended. Evening Parking Survey The purpose of the Evening Parking Survey was to quantify the availability of public parking for evening activities in Collegetown. The survey was repeated on three evenings: once mid-week, once on a weekend, and once on a weekend with a performance at Cornell's Performing Arts 07/11/00 DRAFT vii i Collegetown Parking Study Center. On each evening, two workers counted the number of available public parking spaces every hour from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. Results illustrate the variation in the use of on street spaces versus the garage and the variation in parking demand at different times of the week. The garage was most heavily used on the performance night when it was filled to capacity for four hours. It was also heavily used on the regular weekend night. On that evening it filled twice, once at 7 p.m. and again at midnight. In W general the garage is underused on weeknights when the number of empty spaces ranges between 60 and 100. In contrast,there was less dramatic variation in the use of on street spaces. There was little difference in how they were used on the two weekend nights; the utilization rates hovered around + 93%and the number of free spaces ranged between 10 and 20. On weekdays around 80% of the spaces are used, leaving 35 to 50 spaces free. RECOMMENDATIONS The preceding information gives a broad impression of how the various segments of the Collegetown community are using its parking resources, and subsequently how well the different types of parking meet the demands. Another way of thinking about these results is in the context of the existing parking system: who is using it and how well does it perform. There are five major components of Ithaca's current parking program. They are: 1) Off street parking requirements (specified in.the zoning ordinance); 2) The number of parking spaces available (on-and off-street); Vic 3) Regulations governing the use of on-street parking; 4) Management of the Dryden Road Garage; and 5) The growth of future parking demand. In reference to the above items, it can be stated that: • the off street parking requirements don't meet the existing residential demand, • the number of actual parking spaces (on and off street)is insufficient to meet the expressed .. needs of residents and businesses, u • the effectiveness of on street regulations are difficult to evaluate due to lack of adequate enforcement, • current management of the Dryden Road Garage hasn't (or can't, due to outdated equipment)adequately addressed the varied needs of its users. 07/10/00 DRAFT' viii ,� Collegetown Parking Study Some of these items are easily changed; others will require ingenuity and persistence. Proper functioning of the system as a whole will require consistent enforcement and compliance. Future increase in parking demand will be closely related to the actions taken in response to this study and the moratorium. The following recommendations are suggested for consideration in the establishment of a coherent parking program for Collegetown. Because specific changes should be considered in the context of an integrated parking system, some of the recommendations are purposefully vague. Four alternative parking programs, based on recommendations listed below can be found in the report. Each program has been designed as a complete parking system and should be treated as an integrated solution. Policy Changes The first recommendation pertains to the management of parking in Ithaca and the following refer to the particulars of Collegetown. • Reorganize the structure of the parking system so that a single person actively oversees all parking decisions(enforcement, personnel, finances, equipment, etc.). • Improve enforcement in Collegetown. Specifically: enforce time limits at the meters, on street parking regulations, and overnight parking by permit only in the Dryden Road Garage. • Increase the off-street parking requirement to 1 space per 2 beds. This requirement should be uniformly applied to all new residential construction. • Allow developers alternatives for meeting the above off-street parking requirements, such as mitigation fees. • Update parking equipment in the Dryden Road Garage and increase parking fees at periods of high demand. • Replace the existing meters on Dryden Rd. (100 block)and College Ave. (400 block)with 30-minute meters targeted for the short-term use of customers and delivery vehicles. • Build a new parking garage to meet existing parking deficiencies and the future demand created by redevelopment. Depending on estimates of redevelopment density, the parking garage might be designed to hold as many as 750-1000 cars. Manage/Lower Parking Demand These suggestions highlight ways to capitalize on the effectiveness of a new parking program, to manage the current parking demand,and to limit its growth in the future. 07/11/00 DRAFT ix i Collegetown Parking Study • Maintain restrictive on street parking regulations to encourage greater use of off street locations for long-term storage parking. • Work with Collegetown businesses to explore ways to decrease employee parking demand, (such as carpooling)and to locate employee parking in areas that won't compete with customer parking. • Introduce a shuttle,with a high level of service,between Collegetown and local grocery stores. • Examine other destinations that would benefit from a similar shuttle service. Incorporating these proposals into a comprehensive parking program is the first step in addressing the parking problems in Collegetown. These parking remedies,however,will require continued monitoring. In the short-term, fine-tuning may be needed to insure that the new parking program behaves as intended. In the long-term, tracking redevelopment and levels of car ownership will be important. PARKING IS DYNAMIC-it will change as Collegetown evolves. Future planning initiatives for redevelopment or use changes should always include a reevaluation of , parking needs. 07/10/00 DRAFT x Collegetown Parking Study I. INTRODUCTION In July of 1999,the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a yearlong building moratorium. It put a halt to all new residential construction in the neighborhood known as Collegetown(refer to Map 1). The moratorium region is bounded by Oak Avenue in the North, East State and Mitchell Streets in the South, Eddy Street in the West, and mid-block between Linden and Delaware Avenues in the East(refer to Map 2). In light of rising complaints,recent redevelopment, and potentially outdated zoning regulations, Common Council enacted the moratorium as an opportunity to better understand the parking situation in Collegetown. Collegetown's parking problems are essentially a byproduct of its success. The mix of residential and commercial development within a small region,and in close proximity to Cornell University, makes it a desirable location for residents and businesses alike. As a result, it has been the site of rapid redevelopment and growth, in both the commercial and residential sectors. Unfortunately,the factors in its success have made parking even more challenging as growth brings a steady influx of cars, and an increasing number of parking problems. With mixed land use come a variety of users for the parking system. The primary users of parking in Collegetown are local residents,employees, and visitors. Residents are by far the largest group,but it is the employees who are the most sensitive to the cost and location of parking. Balancing the needs of these distinct groups into a simple,yet comprehensive parking program is no small feat. BACKGROUND Land Use The Collegetown Moratorium region encompasses sixteen blocks. The majority of Collegetown's commercial activity is in five blocks within the 132b zone(refer to Map 3). The largest segment of Collegetown businesses are restaurants,bars,and other eateries, followed by service industries,retail establishments, and a small number of University buildings and rental agencies. 07/10/00 DRAFT 1 COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA ITHACA, NY 2000 __ � -- � I � ------CENTER-FOR-1 I STE11tlART PARKIiNG - ----THiEATER --1 - ARTS - �- Fri ( O " �K DRY®EN T I- . ;( r 09 GARAGE m .. J In rn STREET _ j - - 312- COLLEGE f I T AVENUE_: Z Ll o _ — -- i E SENECA STREET -i __�_— --- L' RUGS o� J STORE - -1 if 1 L I o F-I - � COOK STREET _7 r 0 \ — 1 T - LL - RO - \ �TE 366 \i p "SCA LE: ALE: 1 " = 250' o" T \ / �x\ \% -x ,y Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000 MAP 1 N c c o a " c Q CZ c C (� N aN �. o = 0) ai r Cn m c (1) 0 Cn J 0 c ♦ a ZJO /� • Q cz V • 00 Z i• 7 O lZ CD CD /� � �``� �-��-F •_•_• Nom-. .-F .-.-� � • : W 0,.: /� V W _ i N 0 I, t\ O o 1 O O AV ♦ ♦ ♦ _VY` CL� ♦ ♦ ♦-♦ ♦-♦-, ♦-♦ -♦-H♦ ♦�-tA ♦ ♦ I♦ ♦—♦Z ENUE ♦ ♦-, ��tF iFt F-�- ��-NH��-•�F♦f f f-�a�����_HH���a F�-•a M 0 0 W W H H W • Q N o 00 c i Q ¢ 00 CD z o t C) C O ♦-♦-♦ ♦ ♦-LL ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦-♦ ♦ 0 o c I � I M ' Cif) 0 Q o / o ` QM I 00 c °J a, G o z o �� N ° o W ••. ♦-♦-• ♦-♦ A ..�-t•�• •�-•-• '''• N 0o Oo E W - o a C o t > J o �• -- �-+ o cz CM U � E m SCHUYL-ER PLACE- m a m CL COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA - ZONING DISTRICTS ITHACA NY 2000 •r•r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r:r.r.r.r. ................ . . .. . r f F r •r.f.r.r•r.f.r}r:ftifti a ................. ...... . r r r r?r r r r r r r r.r. ..... ..... .. ....._.... ., ..................... .... •yyt t•t•t •t•tK•t•t .... ' ... • .......... ........................ r•f.r.r. . . . . .:....:.:: ...:..............,.,.....: ............... ................ ...................... r•J. . ...... ........, ................................ t t t.t.y .t.t.t.y. r r r r• .....,.... ......... ..... . .. •t ,r•r•r•r•r• r•r r•r r .,. y y.t. y ...:..:.... ... .............,.... .?•?r •t•t.t•y.y .y.y.y.y r r. .. ..................... t.t t t t t .r.r.r.r.r. r.r.r.r•r. t.t. .y. :• . .....::::::::•: ;":- � r.r.i.?.?.?.?.r. •t•t•t•y.y .t'y.y.y. r•J r•r•r. . : ;.: t.t t t t t t trtryfyfy •f•f•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r t y, t,y,y,t,t r•r.}.r.r.r.r. +ft•"��+i„ t t t t t t t t t ".` ,,. :;t.t •yyt•t•t.t L •,:;:::: ......... .. ....... ;:::.::::�::.,.;......:..,....,........... .. \... :. ryr�r~ryr�i�i~i~iyiyi~i~i�i.j.r.f. •r•f•J•J•r• r•JY•r• r• fY•rY•r•r• q1' :::;.. •t•yyK•t •L•yK.y '. ,. t t• .t.yyt.t.y?ti?'\t. O ,.. •r.r.r.r.r. r.r.r.r. y'y'y'y •yt•yy t t• t•t•t. ^ :::: •f•rM•r• r•f-r•f• :� - • yyyt•t•t'y •t•yt•t •t•t•t.t .. - r•r r•r•r•r.r.r.+.r.r.r. r :.:. •r•rM•r• •r•fY• y t• •yt•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• ;' •t•t•t•yy. . . :::: .,....., r•r +.?•J•r•r•r.r.J•r•r•J ::: ;. r•r•f•f•.y.yt.y.y.yt. .. � y,y,t,t, r-r•r .?.?. . . . ..... ................. .......... J r r r r•r.r•r•r•J.r•r•r :, ... ...............,......:.:::: :-.-::::::.:::.:::::............. ;_... :;•yt•t•yt t t t t t t t t t t t t•t•t•t r.r.J.J.J.r.r.r.r. r r r r.r.r.r -. yy'yt• ::..::::.::••.• y?{?•+•+' •{.y. y.y.y.y. :::::..::::.:.:._;, �"'"."lt•a i::i.is;:;:�::�:;:::`a:::a:�:::::�;::: ............. .::::::::..,..... ::...:.:.. .. r•r•r r r�i�i�i�i�'~'�'}'}'}':"~ '} •r•r•r •r•r•r•r ••rr•-yy•'rr..yy••rr...• ,•rf..yy••rr..y t••i r•y t.•}r.•• ,r,r•t,J•y,f„yrt,r•t,r•t•J•y,rt,WJ•It L�Ur•yA.•Mft S.•J•St T•JrR•EtY•EJ•T t•�rJ.y.� ..: ........ ........ .. ,;,i, ...., Co r rm) ir,yyt.r r,•,ytiy•ry.'•,r?rttiy•rir,tty•••rir,yy.••rir,yt.••r r'tit•ri.yt•ri•yy•rr,.y t••rr.,ty••rr•.t y..?rr.y t•.?rr•y t••?rr•y y•• r r.yyy•rr r,.,r6'�t.rr,•y i t. ?r+ty•-rr+,.ty••• y•, r.y•r •y.y. .y. ,t.y.y.y.L.y.y.y.t.y.y.y,y,ti.y.y.y G1 rYY•J•r•r.r. r•J•r.r•r.f. r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• O PLACE yt•t•yyt•t•y yt•Nt't.b t•t•yyt•yyyyyyt•t•t• t•t•t•t•t f•fYY•r•r• t't'Y y'y'y.y,y.y ?•r•fYY•r•r•J•r•r•rY•rM•rY•f• i•rY•J•J• ti,y,y,y,y, r•f•r•f•r•J•fY•r•J• D yt•t•t•t•t•t•y y y t•t•t•t•yyy t•t•t•t•t . r•f•r•r•r• t t•yt•t•t•L•t•t•t•t•t < ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r-r•r•r• y,y,y,t,t,y,y, +•+'+•+•+•+'+'+'+'+'+'+' m 1"1"tt't't't•ti"t't't't't•yy t•t•t'y'T ': •?•fY•r•fY• t•yt•yyyyyy y t•t•yK•yL•y hr•r•r•f•rYY•f•r•r•r•r•r•r•JV• r•f•r•f• i'J•r.r.r.J•J•r.r•r•J•f.f.J•J•r•r. Z yyyt•t•t•t•yy.y.y.y.y.t•yt.y .{,y.y.y.y :. •rtirtirLiyrLr:r y't't'yyt•t•y y t•y t•t•t•t•t•t 09 C r•+•f•r•r•r•r•f•r•r•r•f•J•f•r•r• r•r•rM• . t•t•t•t t t ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •ti•t•t•t•yt•yt•t•t•tKK•t•t•t•t• K•t•y,y,y •r•J•JY•+•r• tiyyt•t•L•t•t•t t•yt•t•t•t•Yt `, rYY•rY•J•r•r•r•rY•r•rY•f•f• JYY•r• m t•yt•t•t•t• r•J•r•J•r•J•f•i•r•J-f•r•r•rY• •yt•yyyyt•t•t•t•t•Nt•t•t•t•t• ti.t•t•t• r•r•JYY•?• 'y t•y't'y'y.y't't'y'y yK•yyyy fYY•rYY•r•r•r•r•rY•rY•J•r t r•iY•rY• i ytKK•t y, ?•J•r•r•r•rY•f r•r•r•J•f•f•r•J• q •t•t•yt•yyt•y t•t•t•y yy yt•y t t• r•+Y•r•r•r• •L yyyyt•t.t•L•t•Y yy- O f•?.r•r•r•r•+Y•r•r•r•r•r•J• t•t•t•t -t•t•yyy,t. y.y.y.y. J•r.r?r?.r.r•r• f ?•r•C -r•r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r• •t•t yt•t•t•yyt•y yK•t•t•t• f•r• L yyt•t•y . +• •rYM•+•+,r•r.J•f•r•r•rV•r•f�'t { t•t•t•t•t O fYY•J• •tK•t•yt•t. +'?{' r•rYY•J• O •r•r•?•?r••?JKt.•r••ti f•t t••?r• •L 1•{••rr•ty.•r J•Kt-•JJ••ty••ifKti•if•~?tJ E BFFALO STREET t• i:• : 3.O ::•:: m r•r•r•r• •r•r •i r•r+•r•r• z t•t t .y. y.{•t•y.y.y.y. . r•r r•r• •r•r•r r i• t•ti•t•t t {•{•{•t• •r•i•r•r r•r•r•r•r-=:•::, c yt•t•ti•ti•t•t• 1i•t t t• iY•i•r•J•JY• •i•r;%V7. Y• K•t•ti•t•t•t•L• m YK•rYY•rYY• t•ti•ti yyyt•tK•yy t•t•t t t•t•t � •r•f.r.r•r.J•.:::::::' r•i• •r•r•r•r•i•r•r•J•r•r•r•r• t• •L•t•t•t t•;•..:: t•t•t t•t•t•t• 1i,t•t t•t•t•t•L•t•t•t•t.t.yt '?y?y?y?{?{?L?y J•r. .r•r. •?•r•r•i•r•r•r•r• •?•J• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r-r•r•r•r•r• > Q•y'y.y. yt•t•t•yyt• t•t t•yK•t•t•t•yt•t•t•t•t yyyyyy.y. J•r•rY•f• •r•r•r•r•r r•r•r• r• r•r•r•r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r.r•r•r•r•r• Z ti•t•tK t•yt. yt•t•Yti•t•t•t t t•t•t•yyt•yyL•yt•t yt•t•t•t•t•t -"� f•r•r•iM•rYY •?•r•r•rY•r•JY• i• ?•rY•rYY•f•fY•J•J•J• O r•J•J•f•r•J•J•' y {•t•t•t•t•L•t•t•t•t t•t•t•yyyt•t t t•yyyt•t•yy yyYt yt•t•yt•yy. •?•r•r•f•r•r•J•r•r•J• •?•+'+'+•++'+-+' ?'?' ?•J•J•f•r•r•rM•J•J•rY• s r•r•r•r•rY•hr yyt•t•yt•t•y yyyy. t•yyt•bt•t•t t t• t•t•t•yyyyy t•t•Yt t•t•L•t•t•t•t• m ?•rY•r•r r r J J J J r f fY• r•rYYYV•r•+•J•J•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r Z t•t•t•t•ti•L•ti•S•ti•ti S•1• yt• yyt•yyt•yt•t•t•yt t•t•t•t•t•t•t• C r r•r•r•r•J•r•J•J•r•iY•r +'+• rY•f•r•r•JMMYVYY• ?•f•r•JV•r•r•r m t•L•yK•yyyyy yyy. itii rti'yt•t•yyyt•t•t•t•b yyyyyyy, f•r•r•r•+•+•J•J•r-r•r•f ':•:•:;•:•:•:•:<•:•:•:•:•:: r•r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r r•r•r•r•r•r•r ti•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•yt•t•y t• J~i�i Jyiy.t•t•t.y.y.y.y.y.t.y. L.y.y.y.y.y.y. ?r•f•f•r•J.r.r.r.r.r.r r.r.r. r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r•r•r• r r•r-r•r•r•r r ti t•yyyt•t•t•t•t•t• {•t•t•t•:':':' t.y. ti•yyyYt•t.y.t.t.t.y. t.t.t.t.t.y.y. J.J i•f•r•r•J.J.J.f.r.r .?. .... . r•J•J ?J•r•r•r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r ti•t•t ti yyYt•t•t•t.t•t• t?ti?{ ..�.:. t•t• L•yyt•yyyy t•t•t•t yyYyyya r. i r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•J•r•i•;•••• r•J•r JY•r•r•f•?Y•J•r r•r•i y r•r•J• •t•t• yyyK•t•Y t•L•t• t t•t a�:�i7}};{.;•'•.•;{•}:{•. t•t• •t•�•t�t•�•t ti t•t.ti.ti. -�-���t' ?•f •r.J.r.r.r.f.r.r.r•r .r•r•r _._.y... ' r•r. r•r•r•r. • ti yt t•t•t•t•t•t.t•t t �:�:�:�> t t ' E SENECA STREET tiKK• ti• J-J•rM•r [:;:;:[: : '?•J : J•J•J• r•J•J•J•J•r•i•J : ..... 9E Ery CA STREET �— r•r•r•J•r•r r. }?t?t?t• HAR y.ti. . . L•t•t•t•t• ti•t y y t t{t J•r•r•r PLACE r"!`::�:• r•r•r i•i•r r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•i i i i i i y'y'yt' t•t' tit•t t•t•t yttt t•t• tttitititi lSL rrJJ r•r•r r•r•i•r•r•i•i•i•i•i•r•r• :•:}•:;;::i::is:::,•i:•::::•:::•:^:•:.:.•:.: iir,tytt•rr..•t ytt•i.•• s� ti''r•ytt•r.••yttt•.rr.•••yyL•fr.Kyyy••r•.yyt•r•.tttY•r•K.yttY.r.•.•t yt t•.fr.••,ytt..yf..yy•r..t t• v rryr• Yyrr ryyr• •:: .' f t g yti{.rJ?..•yyt•••rJr..yty•.•irr..ttt.••irr..Kty•.•irr..•tyy•.•irr..•tyy•.•rrir..yty••••rr J'..y•••rrJ.y••r J r.y.rr.y••rr.•.• i5t.irJ•.tiyt•.AJ•'•{yy.rr•'t IL K K tiy••r? •' y •?•r•J t•yt•tK•t•t•t•t•t•t• J•r• r•r•r•J•J•r•J•J•r•r•J•J• y •r•+•+•+•r•f•r•r•r • •ti•t• t•t•t•t•yt•t•t•t•yKK t•t•t•tK•t•t•yt t t r•r• r•r•r'r'r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r' ••.ri.t tt••r?••ytt••fr••ttt•Y r••.tity•rr••t{ti•ri••ttti•rJ•••tyti•Jr••t tt••?r•. •ti{r•Kt{ti-rrr••••t t t••• r??ttty•••rrJ•••yttt-••rrJ•••tttt•••frr••••tttt•••rrf••••yttt•••rrr•••ttty•••rJr•••yttt•••rr r••'y ty t•••rrr•-ttty•••rrJK•.yty•••rrJ••ttty•••rrf•••t t t y••• a mmi ••irryy•••rrJyyy•••rrJ.yy••Yrr.t y••Yir.t y'•Yri.t y•••rir.t y•••r r.y••rr.t••ir.y•ri.t?t rt t•t•rr ryryttJJtKtftJr• t••• t•t•yti•ti•ti• •t.t•t• •?Y•JY•J•f•?.?.? .?•?• f.?.?•?•?•?.?.?•?.?•r•r• J•?-�.?YYY•r•J•J•r•f• •r•r•J•+•+•+•+•J•f•f•r•r•r•J• yyyyyt t t t t t t t y y L y y y t t t t y t t t•t t•t•L•t•t•t•t t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•y i•i i•r•r•r• Y•rYY•r•r•r•r•r •f•f• f•r•f•J•J•r•+•J•f•J•r•r• J•rMY•r•r•r•r•r•r•J•J• •r•r•r• t•t•t•t•ti t t•t•t• .t.yyy.y.y.y.y. y.y.y .y.y,yy,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y, +'+'+•+•+•+•+•+•+•+•J•J•J•i•i•f'r•r Y•rYY•f•r•r•r• YY• J• t•t•t•t•t•yt•t.yt•yt t.t•t•t•y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y.t.yy yt•t•t•t•t• t•t •ti•L•t•yt•t•t•t•t•t•yy t•t•yyyyt•y t•t•t•t L•yyytK•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t t t t t t t •?•+•+•+•r•f•r•r r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r'r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r• r•r'?•r'r•r•?•r•r•r•r•r•r•?'r•r•r'r•r•r•r t•t•t•t•t•t•t• ti•t•t •�•yyyK•t•yyt•yyt• t•t•yyyt•t•t•t•t•t•t 'L•t•t t t t t t t•t t t t•t t t•t•t•5r•t t• '?•+'+•+'+'+•+•+•+• +'+' +'+'+'+'+'+'+•+'+•+'+-+ ?'+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+' J•r•r•f.J.i.r.i.fV•i•i•J•?,t.?.?.?.?.?.? ybt•t•yyyy tK•t yytKK•y-yt•t•bt•t yyyyt•t•t•t•t•yK•L bt•yt•t•t•t•yYt•yyt t t t t t t t t •?'r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •r•r• r•r•f•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r•i r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r• '••t•yyyyt•t• yy t•t•t•y-L•yt•t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•t•t•yy t•yyt {•t•t•t•t•t•t•t, rY•i•iYY•J•r•J•r •r•r•r•r•f•r'r•r•r• •r•r• r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r'r•r•r•r• t•t•t•t•t•yt•t• t•t• yyt•yyt•yy t•t•t•t• yyt•yyt•t•t•yt•yt •r•r•r•r•r•r•J•r•r- •r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r J•r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r• tK•yyyK•t•Yt t t•t•L•L•y.ytK•t•t•Yy t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•yyy COOK STREET .i.y.y •r•r•r•r•r•r•r r•r• r•i r r•r•r•r•r-J•r•r•r•r•r r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r.r•r•r• r• t•t•t•t•t•t•{.t.t t 1.1•t•yyK•yyt•yyy .y.t.y.t.y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y +' •f•r•r•r•r•r•r r•r• r•i•i r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r r• •t•t•t yy.t•t•t•t•{•t•t t•t• t t•y'yyyt•t•t.t•t•t• ,i,r•r•r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r• r•r• i•r•r •i r r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r r~'y'y'y't't't•t.t.t.t t.tC-�r:�..r.t.5�.t.t t.t.t•t.t•ti ti.y.y •. y,ti,y,y,y,y,y,y,y, r•f•r•r•r•JYY•r•r• r•r•r•J•r•r•J.r•r•i•r•?•r•r•r J•r• •f f•f•r•r• t•t• ti•yL•yt•tKK•y yyt yyyt•bt•tK•tK•t tK•t•1. ti•yt• C �:..•. ACE • r•r•r•r•J r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• t•r•ty•r•y•ry•ry• r••tt•r•• tir-y•ry•ft•r•t•r•y•ry•ry•r y•rt•r•t•r•t• rit••rr.••r••r••Jr•t••Jr•t••Jr•t••r r•t••r f•ti•r rti•Jr ti•rrL•Jrti•rrti•Jrti• ti?rti•Jrti• , m OIL P STATE STREET trtrt yyytrt OR p Pl ti•t•yyyyt•t.t•t•t•y t•yK•yt•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t ti•t•t +'+'+'+'+'+'+'+' f•f•J•JY•f•r•r•r•r•f• ?K•rY•r•r•f•f•r•f•r•r•r•J•r• J•r•r•J r,r,r,r, t.t bt•t•t•t• L•L•yyyyyy.y.y.y.y, •?•r•r•r•r•r• •i•f•r•r•r•r• .?.r•r•?•?.?.?.?•r•r•f• rti•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t t•t•t•t ti•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•tK y y t ti•ti•ti•t• yyt•ti•t• y t t y y y y t t t t t• t?5n-r'r•r•J•r•rY•r•?•r•r•r• rV•+•+ •?•r•r•r•r•J•J•r•J•J• rYM•r• •r•J•J JM• K•i•r•r•r•r• t.t.t•t't•yt•t•t yyyy t•yyy t•YL•t•t•t•t•t•t• ti•tK•t't• •t t t t ?S?ti?{?ti t y y y t t t ?ti• f'r'r'r'r'r'J' r'r'r• r'r'r'r •r•r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r• t•t•yt•t•t •{•t•t•t• {•t•t•t. •it•tK•t•t•t•t•t•t' yyyt•yt•t t t L y?ti?'r'r-r-r-r'r'J'J'f'f {'J'f'r'r'r' 'r'r-r• r'r•r'r •r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r•r• •r•r•r• t't•yt•t•t•t•t•t•y t•t•t•t•t•t t•ayt• rt•y.y.t.y.y.t.t.t. y.y.t?{?{?{? '?{?' +'+'r•+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+'+ :'r•r.r•r•r• r.r.r.r r•r•r•r•r'r•r•r•r• i•r•r•r•r•r•r •?. }i}'y'y'y'y't't't't'y'y' t'y'y'y't'y ti'yt' t•yyyt•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•t•t• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r r•r•r•J•r•r• r•r•f o •i r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• i•r•r r•r•r•r }yyyyyt•t•t•t•t•t• L•t•t•t•t•t t•t•t• m -r S yyt•L•t•yyK• 1S•yyL•yt t .t J•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•J•J•f r•J•J•f•f• +'+•+ r- •i•r•f•JY•r•r•fY• •r•r•J•J•?•i•i J• }•y yt•t•t•t•t•t•tK•t• m •ti.ti•ti•�•ti,ti ti•t•t• D t tK•t•yyyyK• yyt•t t•t• f' ?•r•J•J•r•f•f•J•r•JYY g O •r.i•r.r.r.J.r•r•r,r. •r.r•r• r. y'y' y y.y.t.t,y.y.y.y.y.y t•t yLK•yt•yy t t? ?'r•r• .?r•J•J•r•r•J•J•r•r•r•J � D yt•t• t•t yt•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• a •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r• r•i•r•r•r•r•r•r.r•r•r � m t•ti ti.t.y.y.y.t• t•t•t•t•t t tK•t•t•t•t• m ?r•r•r•r•r•r• .r•r•r•r•r •r•r•r•r• t•t•y t.y.y.yyy. y.y.t.t.y. f•f•J•r•r O D YY•r•fY• t t•yKK-t•t•y. m < y,t,t,y, •r•r•r•f•r• •i•r•r•r•r•r•r•J m .r.r•f.r• }j}•ti•yy f y't't't•t't,t• � D z ?Y• 9�p 'J•f•f•J•J•J•r < yeti+ti+' LlL �9T y'}iyiyitiiLf Z m .y. tir q�• }i}j}itii c ryi' '�P tititi m Jt ftii, �'T t tr D i? rtirtirti}tir a y'y'y'y' A r• •r•r• . J r•r• M •t•t•t•t•t• t M rr rJ m •t•t•t•t•t•t•t• •r•J•r•r•r.r• . r t• •t t•t•yt•t•t• r• •i•r•r-J•r.r•r• �� t•t• yt•t•t•t.L•L•t JY• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r J t,t, y,y,y,t,t,t,t,y, O n r•r•r r•r•r•r•r•r•r• Q :•.T t y.y. ''y.y.y.y.y.y.t.y. �y r•r•r• r• •r- •r•J•r•r•r• {•yt t•t•t• yyytK•t •r•r• •r•r• y t•i tt•rr•t t••i t itit• ytrKrr••ttrf•t t• rtr••yt •r • r• '?•J•J•f•f•r•r• t•'L•t. yt•t•tK•t•t•t .rtirti• .?ti?ti?ti?ti?ti?ti?ti?t Et •r•r r r•r•r•r•r•r•r• J{. { '{tiJ�?ti?{?ti?ti?{?ti•t �toN •r• r•r•r-r-J•r•r — t• ti•tK•t•t•t•t•t• •r• r• r r•r•r•r•r•r•r• .y.y y.y.y.y.y.y.y.yy. r• J•J•JYYY•r•rY• . .y. . •t• •t t t t•t•t•t•t•t r.r 'r•r•r'r.r•r•r• •r'r• r •t yK.yyyyyy.y.y.y.y = •J•J• •J•JYY•J•rYM•rYY• D %r•r•r r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•f•r• a •t•t• yyyyyyyyyyyK. r•r•r• r•r•r•r-r•r•r•r•r•r• y x fig . .t t•t•t•t•tK•t•t•t•t• q O •J•J•r•J• YY•r•rYYY•r•r•f• y .y.t.y.y. .y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y.y. 9 O r•f•J•J• •r•r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r• o t•t•tK• t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•y F •r•r•r• r•r•f•r•r•J•r•r•r•r•r . t•t•t• •{•yt•t•t•t•t•tKK•t SK it•t.t•t•t• {t•t•t•t•t•t't•t•t•t•t t•t •r•r•r•r•r r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.i•f•r . t•t•t•tKK•t t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•tK• r r r•r'r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• . iti•tiK•t•t•t•t• t t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•yt•t• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•J•r•r• . t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t t•t t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•yt t• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•i•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•i• . •iyyKKK•tK•t•t t• t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•i•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• . t•t•t•t•t•tK•t•t•t•t• t•tKK•t•t•LK•t•t• ` ti•t • . tirirfK••rKKrr•t••rr•t••rr•t••r r•t••rr•t••rr•t••?r t••r•• .?t•rKY•tYK•JK•fKYKY•t•f V tiJ•t•r t• •t •r•r•r•r•r•r•r i•r•r•r•r . L•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•t t t t t•t r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•J•i r r•i•r•r pAD ti•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t t•t t•t•t•t•t• �V R . r•r•r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •r• •r r•r•r J•r•r•r r• �A�- . ti•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•yt•t•t Yt•t W.•tiiti, • r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r r•r•r• r rr• L.t•ytKK•t•t•t•t't•t•t•tK•t•{•t t•t• t yt•t•yt•ti t• . J•f•r•r•J•f•J•J'f•r•J•JY•rM•?Y• ?•l•r• •i•r•J•r•f•J•i•J• . t•t•t•t•t•t•tK•t•t•t•t•t•t•t tK• t•t•t•t t t•tK•t•t•t•t• J'r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• - t• yt•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• ti•t•t•t•t i-r•r•r•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• . r•r•r•J•r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•J r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• . t•Yt•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•bt•t t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• • J•rY•rY•JYYY•JYY•rYYY rM•rY•r• i•r•r•r•rY•J•f•f•J• .t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•ti•t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•t•t• •t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•L• • r•r'r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• i•r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• {•t•t-t•t•t•tK•t•t•t•t•t•t•t t•t•t•t•t•t• t•t•t•tK•t•t•t•t• . •r•r•r•J.J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•i r•r•r•r.r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• . . t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•L•tK•t•t ti•t•t•t•t•t• t•yt•tK•t•t•t t• •r f•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•J•r•? r•r•?•r•r• r•f•r•r•J•r• . {t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t ti•t•t t•t•t• {•t•tK•t•t• • •�•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r• t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t•t• t•t t•t•t•t•t•t• . •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r •r i•r•r•r•r•r•r . t•yt•t•t•yt• ti•t•y.t•t•t• .?.r.r.r.r.r.rr.r.r•r•r•r•r t•t•t•t•t•t• ti•yt•t•t•t•t R-1a B-1a GP-q ® Scale: 1 250' �� = R-1b B-1b ® G P-B ® N R-2a B-2a ® GP-C • • • •• A R-2b B-2b ® P-1 R-3a �i�r�r r stir B-2c ® Moratoriu R-3b B-2d ® Area R-U B-4 U-1 B-5 MAP 3 Prepared by the Department of Planning&Development July 2000 Collegetown Parking Study Collegetown's residential development, found in each of the sixteen blocks, is a combination of single family homes, multiple dwellings3 (usually converted from large, single-family homes), and large apartment buildings'. The number of single family homes within the moratorium boundary is relatively small and according to many long-time residents, diminishing. The number and size of apartment buildings, on the other hand, is on the rise. Within the past three years, over three hundred fifty beds have been added in just two new buildings. This takes the total number of beds in apartment buildings to almost 2000. There has been little new construction among the multiple dwellings although they house approximately 3000 of the residents within the moratorium boundary. Off street parking The bulk(over 80%)of parking in Collegetown is provided in off street locations(refer to Map 4). Included within this category are the Dryden Road Parking Garage,Cornell's SW(Stewart and Williams)Lot, a garage on Linden Ave., an underground garage beneath 312 College Ave., driveways, and other surface lots. Most of these spaces are found in small lots and increasingly in paved-over backyards or in open spaces between houses. In general, the spaces are owned and controlled by a small group of landowners. Parking facilities that are access-controlled are the most likely to be used by their intended tenants. For example,the magnetic cards that provide access to the underground parking garage at 312 College Ave. are very effective at limiting use of the facility. Locations that don't control parking are extremely susceptible to unauthorized use. Hill Drug Store is a prime example of somewhere that doesn't actively control access to its parking lot. Due to its prime location, adjacent to residences and a convenience store,people regularly park in the parking spaces clearly marked for the use of the drug store's customers. It is the responsibility of the owner of a parking facility or lot to monitor who is parking where. In cases such as Hill Drug, this has been an endless battle. On street parking The remaining supply(-20%)of parking is found on street. These on street spaces are highly sought after by a variety of people. Approximately one third of on street spaces are metered on weekdays. Meter regulations are valid between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and parking is limited to two 3 The converted single family homes are known as multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling units. 4 Large apartment buildings are defined as having more than 20 housing units. 07/10/00 DRAFT 5 COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA OFF-STREET PARKING ITHACA NY 2000 AL OAK AVENUE WILLIAMS STREET O 2 T ! .._..— DR:•DEN`GARAG m )s UN P E r } r,'I O G) � - _ 9y0 mD _ MN ♦ ♦ Fti ti < 1k Lu . *+ m p z Lu ♦._ o STREET F ! 00 E B UFFALO - O N - �/NI► f I r W J 1/N�T C7 I•. . ld1W N W t 312 CO<eGARAGE Z �2 - D v I m H _ m ♦ L E SENECA STREET N♦' # * ♦ c ♦ �2G� \ ♦ ' r -_ k♦� ♦ PLACE ^� ,. m r - : r ,11 R ♦ ♦! k - { ► + ♦ A Z °m / D O NN I LINDEN GARAGE y �y, - v1NN �► �111p1► ♦ * z I -- - < U) ♦ ���� I z / N.. _f1111�. m f m J Z. COOK STREET + + FpRD PLACE ♦I ♦ ' - - o ! 1N i - 0 m ♦N m G) ♦ m t RD PLACE . , O ORCHARD m m D __ N V\NGP , ♦ i C LPCE _ M f \R + m M cn ` D ♦ m +... c + + m # c m ♦ cn r m f • + S ROUTE 366 P M < \ ZOO i ` . 4 opo \ SCALE: 1" = 250' ♦ Off-Street Parking Space N IM Covered Parking Garage A Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000 MAP 4 g Collegetown Parking Study hours. Digital meters have recently replaced the older meters. These meters have digitized displays but haven't been upgraded to accept any non-coin methods of payment such as credit cards or smart cards. The remaining two-thirds of the spaces is the only free parking in the area. Previous Studies Collegetown parking has been the subject of two major reports in the past twenty years. They are: • "Collegetown Parking and Circulation Study,"Travers Associates, Consultants 1982 • "Ithaca/Comell Parking Study: Existing Parking Demand,Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements,"Travers Associates,Consultants 1998 At the time of the first Travers study, significant redevelopment was in progress with more being planned for the immediate future. The report detailed the findings and recommendations of a parking and circulation study that examined the potential impact of redevelopment(including the Performing Arts Center), the existing businesses and adjoining residential areas. Their recommendations included: • changing on-street residential parking to a permit system, • decreasing the time limits on meters from 2 and 10 hours to 1 and 3 hours, • building a municipal parking garage(200 space capacity), • providing additional parking and transportation options on performance nights, • instituting all-day loading zones, • applying parking requirements uniformly throughout the business district,and • revising the parking requirement ratios. Motivation for the second Travers study was the high level of commuter parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to Cornell University. The report detailed the findings and recommendations from a survey of current parking activities and calculations of required parking ratios for different segments of the University population. Their recommendations included: • implementing a resident permit plan encompassing the Collegetown and Belle Sherman neighborhoods, • investigating the feasibility of providing long-term student storage parking(with transportation), and • leaving the parking requirement ratios for the draft Ordinance as is. Copies of these reports are available for review at the City of Ithaca's Department of Planning and Economic Development. 07/10/00 DRAFT 7 Collegetown Parking Study hours. Digital meters have recently replaced the older meters. These meters have digitized displays but haven't been upgraded to accept any non-coin methods of payment such as credit cards or smart cards. The remaining two-thirds of the spaces is the only free parking in the area. Previous Studies Collegetown parking has been the subject of two major reports in the past twenty years. They are: • "Collegetown Parking and Circulation Study,"Travers Associates, Consultants 1982 • "Ithaca/Cornell Parking Study: Existing Parking Demand, Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements,"Travers Associates,Consultants 1998 At the time of the first Travers study, significant redevelopment was in progress with more being planned for the immediate future. The report detailed the findings and recommendations of a parking and circulation study that examined the potential impact of redevelopment(including the Performing Arts Center), the existing businesses and adjoining residential areas. Their recommendations included: • changing on-street residential parking to a permit system, • decreasing the time limits on meters from 2 and 10 hours to 1 and 3 hours, • building a municipal parking garage(200 space capacity), • providing additional parking and transportation options on performance nights, • instituting all-day loading zones, • applying parking requirements uniformly throughout the business district,and • revising the parking requirement ratios. Motivation for the second Travers study was the high level of commuter parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to Cornell University. The report detailed the findings and recommendations from a survey of current parking activities and calculations of required parking ratios for different segments of the University population. Their recommendations included: • implementing a resident permit plan encompassing the Collegetown and Belle Sherman neighborhoods, • investigating the feasibility of providing long-term student storage parking(with transportation), and • leaving the parking requirement ratios for the draft Ordinance as is. Copies of these reports are available for review at the City of Ithaca's Department of Planning and Economic Development. 07/10/00 DRAFT 7 Collegetown Parking Study FORMAT OF THE REPORT Following this introduction,the report details he various components that went into the parking study. The second chapter is split into seven sections that describe the methodology and base results of the different components. The seven sections contain a parking inventory, a residential survey, an owner/manager survey, an employe survey, a parking usage survey, a license plate survey, and an evening parking survey. In Chapter 3 the results from the surveys are combined in a discussion of how the current parking system is performing and how it is being used by the different segments of the population. Then Ch pter 4 outlines general recommendations for improving the parking system based on the dis ussion of results. Finally,the appendix includes samples of surveys, some raw data,charts,and alternative parking programs. Wo i I ii I, I 07/10/00 DRAFT 8 Collegetown Parking Study II. PARKING SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS PMVG INVENTORY 07/10/00 DRAFT 9 Collegetown Parking Study The purpose of doing a parking inventory was to establish a reasonable estimate of the parking supply within the moratorium boundary. SCOPE Information on parking is available from a variety of sources. Some of these sources were used to generate numbers on parking supply and others were used to corroborate them. In the end this gave an indication of the supply of parking in the moratorium area: for both on and off street locations and those with public and private owners. , METHODOLOGY Establishing a database on parking characteristics has been ongoing at the City of Ithaca for over a year. Initially, a City intern did a visual inspection of off-street parking spaces and entered the information into the City's GIS (Geographic Information System). Then, a program developed within MapInfoTM approximated the number of on street parking spaces based on curb length. A cursory review of parking spaces as recorded in the GIS showed significant discrepancies between actual parking spaces and the generated parking spaces. At this point aerial photographs taken in April, 1999 were used to verify the number and location of off-street parking spaces. Overlaying the aerials with a street map,the moratorium boundary,and building information ` facilitated a rapid update of the parking information. In areas where the number of available spaces wasn't clear, someone visited the site for visual verification. Changes were made to the City's GIS, reflecting these reviews. " Using this methodology the number of spaces in surface lots and garages was uncertain because many of these spaces are unmarked. Unless the number of cars parked at the time of the aerials .. or visual inspection represented the maximum utilization, an estimate of how many cars usually park in driveways and garages was made. It is possible that an entire driveway would be filled with cars,that only one car used the space, or something in-between. The number of on street parking spaces was established by walking through the moratorium region and counting the number of parked cars. Due to heavy use in the area,most on street spaces were used, making the count very easy and accurate. When a stretch of curb space wasn't in use,the number of cars that could fit in the space was estimated. This information was 07/10/00 DRAFT 10 Collegetown Parking Study incorporated into the City GIS. Aerial photographs and results from the parking surveys were used to corroborate field results. To understand the results of the parking inventory we must first know where error is introduced. Error in these results is due to a couple of factors. The size of the cars parked on a given stretch of curb influences its recorded capacity, so it is important to remember that the values are not absolute. Using the number of parked cars as an estimate of the capacity is relatively accurate, assuming that car sizes are consistent over any given region and reflect the current mix of cars in use. For most block faces there won't be more than a difference of one or two spaces due to variation in car size. Another source of error is if an individual doesn't park efficiently; for example,the front of their car is ten feet from a driveway instead of three feet. In this case seven feet of parking is lost. This situation happens frequently and can effect the capacity everyday, but there is no obvious way to incorporate this factor into capacity estimates. One way to approach this issue is to label values in the GIS as average, optimal capacities and assume that there is variation in the actual conditions. These variations could be expressed as a percentage(perhaps 90-95%)of the average,optimal capacity if necessary. For the purposes of this report,the observed value was used. RESULTS As mentioned in the methodology there are certain factors(e.g. car size)which can change on street capacity and others that affect off street capacity(e.g. parking in areas not designated for parking). The following results shouldn't be taken as the absolute number of parking spaces in the moratorium boundary, instead they should be seen as an estimate of what is currently available. On street The two primary classifications of on street parking spaces are free and metered. "Free"parking spaces are those on street spaces generally available to the public. There are around 410 of these on street parking spaces and they are governed by a variety of parking regulations. These regulations include"24 Hour Parking,""No Overnight Parking,"and"No Parking 9 a.m.-12 p.m." Some of these regulations are part of the Residential Parking Permit System(RPPS). A residential parking permit requires an annual fee of$20 and entitles the permit holder to park in the zone at any time. 07/10/00 DRAFT 11 i Collegetown Parking Study Although the number of spaces within the jurisdiction,of each parking regulation isn't given here, this information may be obtained using the City's GIS. It is important to note that dedicated loading zones are not included in the number of on street parking spaces. There are only ten loading zones in the area and they are designated as such during the whole day. Metered spaces comprise an additional 149 on street parking spaces. All of the meters within the moratorium boundary have a two hour limit and charge$.50 for each hour of parking between 8 ° a.m. and 6 p.m. Off street Off street parking is slightly more complex in that it can be stratified in more ways than on street parking. The primary levels of stratification are by owner and type of parking. In general we Mt refer to public and private parking spaces as the two primary subcategories of off street parking, but there are some cases when a specific owner is listed. Table 2-1 gives the breakdown of parking with respect to ownership. Table 2-1: Supply of Public and Private Parking Owner Number of Spaces Public 217 Private 1793 Total 2010 Table 2-2 gives more detailed information about the different types of parking available within the moratorium boundary. Table 2-2: Parking Supply by Parking Type Parking Type Number of Spaces , Cornell Lot 121 (at Stewart and Williams) Other Private Surface Lots 1544 (including driveways) Private Parking Garages 128 Dryden Road Garage 217 Total 2010 07/10/00 DRAFT 12 Collegetown Parking Study VEY RESIDENTIAL SUR 07/10/00 DRAFT 13 i Collegetown Parking Study The second step in the study of parking issues, residents in Collegetown were questioned about their travel behavior, car ownership, and parking location and costs. METHODOLOGY A master's student in the Department of City and Regional Planning(CRP)at Cornell University designed the residential survey. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A. A 17.5% sample of the housing units was chosen as the appropriate sampling technique, based on the size of the current population. There are approximately 2500 housing units in the region, giving a sample size of approximately 450. The different housing types include single-family homes, multiple dwellings, and large apartment buildings. The sampling technique for this survey was designed to represent all dwelling types. All addresses were contacted for a census of the single-family homes because a sample wouldn't accurately portray the characteristics of the small number of single-family homes. Originally, it was estimated that there were 50 such locations, but in reality the number was closer to 20. Based on the assumption that travel behavior would be heavily influenced by building type and location,the remaining 400 samples were stratified by building type and block. Half of the 400 samples were accorded to large apartments and the other half to multiple dwellings. The number of samples taken from a block was proportionate to the number of housing units on that block. Using the Tompkins County Assessment data from 1998, a list of addresses was compiled for each type of building within the moratorium boundary. The list provided the number of samples needed for each block along with the addresses eligible for sampling. Three masters' students, and a consultant working for the City of Ithaca collected data. Most of the interviewers had , . previous experience in conducting surveys. Prior to starting the work, all interviewers were instructed on how to conduct the survey including the importance of acquiring accurate data. Data collection began in November and continued through December of 1999. Each interviewer worked at different times of day and different times during the week to limit sampling error. Surveys were not completed during Cornell University holidays or after regular session classes had finished. 07/10/00 DRAFT 14 Collegetown Parking Study Collection technique varied somewhat between building types. For single family homes,the address was visited and an interview conducted if a resident was available. In some instances the survey form was left with the resident and collected at a later date. If no one was home,the address was revisited until a response was obtained or 4 unsuccessful visits were made. At multiple dwellings, the interviewers randomly started at an address and knocked at different apartments until someone was interviewed. If no one was home at that time,or once a survey was completed,the interviewer left the building and continued onto the next address. In large apartment buildings where access is restricted, an interviewer was posted outside the entrance of the building to catch residents as they returned home. In University-owned residences, permission was granted for interviewers to be posted in the lobby area and intercept residents as they returned to the building, or passed through the lobby. Buildings where access wasn't restricted were sampled in the same manner as multiple dwellings. Sampling in each case continued until the requisite number of samples was reached. Non-participation rates varied significantly by building type. Although specific tallies weren't kept on participation rates some general comments may be made. Cooperation was very high (one refusal in 10 successful attempts)for multiple dwellings when someone was at home. In apartment buildings more residents refused participation,on the level of 1 in 3. The initial estimate of owner-occupied single family homes was 41,but after visiting them many had been rented or converted into multiple dwelling units. Of the homes that were still owner-occupied,21 of the 21 addresses completed surveys. RESULTS Demographics Non-students and single family homes are such a small percentage of the Collegetown population,that their behavior doesn't significantly affect or characterize the moratorium region as a whole. Non-students account for 5% of the population and single family homes represent less than I% of Collegetown housing units. Accordingly,the following results deal almost exclusively with the student populations in multiple dwellings and large apartment buildings. Estimates based on assessment data and recent development put 60%of those students in multiple dwellings and 40% in large apartment buildings. 07/10/00 DRAFT 15 Collegetown Parking Study The Collegetown population is very transitory. Over the entire sample population 57%had lived in Collegetown for less than two years and 95% of them for less than five years. Looking at the student population alone, 99%have lived there for less than five years and 60% for less than two. µ At the same time, 34%of non-students have been in Collegetown for less than five years. Car Ownership Car ownership in Collegetown is surprisingly high given that Collegetown is an area of mixed land-use that provides a variety of services and entertainment opportunities to its residents. In addition, Cornell is within walking distance and is serviced by frequent bus service for those who live farther away or prefer to avoid walking the hills of Ithaca. Car ownership varies significantly by building type. In the large apartment buildings 49%of the residents own a car whereas 62%of the residents in multiple dwellings own one. These differences reflect what one would expect when considering geographic and economic factors. Most of the large apartment buildings are in the 132b -none, one of the closest to the heart of Collegetown and Cornell. It houses a myriad of businesses and entertainment opportunities in Collegetown, reducing the need for regular car use. The large apartments also tend to charge higher rents and parking fees. Their average monthly cost of parking is approximately$103 per month(see Table 2-3). Owning a car is more of a financial burden for residents in the apartments and is less of a need given the proximity to Cornell. Table 2-3: Average Parking Fees by Location and Building Type On property Private, Cornell Overall Off-site lot Large Apartment $133 $98 $26 $103 Multiple Dwelling $33 $70 - $54 All building types $55 $87 $26 $61 Residents in multiple dwellings reflect the flip side of those influences. Their parking costs are lower(average of$54 per month)and they have more on street spaces to use if they choose to avoid parking fees. Most of the multiple dwellings are farther from Cornell and residents are more likely to use their cars to drive to campus(see Appendix D). The combination of these factors, and others that will be addressed later, has translated into higher ownership levels for residents in the multiple dwelling housing units. Contrary to what these trends suggest,these housing units are still within walking distance of the attractions of Collegetown and bus access to Cornell and the City in general. 07/10/00 DRAFT 16 Collegetown Parking Study Another interesting trend is the number of cars owned in a unit compared with the number of residents who live in it. Of all the Collegetown housing units, 50%have one car or less. This number of housing units is unlikely to change significantly, nor would we expect it to. But, 26% of the housing units have 3 or more cars and 25%of housing units have a car for each resident. These ownership levels, although consistent with the current economic boom, are unexpected for a small urban environment where most destinations are within walking distance and alternative modes of transportation are readily available. Limiting the number of cars within easy access of a unit could make a large impact on how many cars are parked on street. If on-site parking were the only parking alternative and provided one space for three or four residents,approximately 40%of the housing units would have to store cars elsewhere. This translates to over 1000 cars that could be stored at a remote location. Not only does this vacate parking for other uses, but it creates a demand for a large supply of parking, such as a new municipal garage. Parking Where car owners choose to park gives valuable insight into their behavior and how they might respond to changes in the parking system. Parking location, like ownership levels,varies by building type(see Table 2-4). A large majority (-80%)of apartment dwellers park on their property or in private, off-site locations. For these residents,the convenience and high cost(Table 2-3)of on-site parking is weighed against the cost savings gained by parking farther away. The 14%of residents who park their cars on nearby streets must be drawn to its low cost given that it is very difficult to find convenient spaces. The remaining 6%park in Cornell lots, an inexpensive alternative for off street parking. It's likely that this alternative isn't more popular because the supply is limited,the lots are farther away, and few people know that they have the option to park in campus facilities when living off campus. Table 2-4: Parking Location by Building Type On Private, Nearby Cornell Other property Off site street Lot Large Apartment (without University 42% 39% 14% 6% 0% buildings) Multiple Dwelling 55% 15% 28% 1% 1% 07/10/00 DRAFT 17 i Collegetown Parking Study Most owners in multiple dwellings choose to park on their property;this includes renters who pay an additional parking fee and those who have parking provided as part of their rent. Here, parking fees are lower(Table 2-3)and the car is conveniently located. Compared to parking on- site,the number of residents who choose to park in privately owned,off-site locations drops considerably. The most likely explanations are that those spaces cost more and aren't as convenient to the residence. The percentage of owners that park on street is near 30%. On street parking has the potential to be close by and more importantly, free. Cornell lots were rarely used, most likely because they are less convenient for people living farther away from campus, and the option isn't well known. Almost all car owners expressed frustration with the current parking situation in Collegetown. 4„ When asked how frequently they had difficulty parking on street, over 40%of the respondents p said "often"or"always,"regardless of where they normally park. The group of drivers who noted the biggest problem (95% had frequent problems)with on street parking were those who regularly park on street. Most residents stated that parking in the garage was never a problem. Of drivers who regularly park in the garage,40%never have a problem and another 40% say that they occasionally have trouble. Respondents were also asked when they have trouble parking. The most common response was in the evening(over 60%), followed closely by overnight(approximately 50%). This stands to reason since there is more activity in Collegetown at night and at the time of the survey,odd-even parking regulations were in effect. This regulation results in a decrease in parking capacity ' overnight, making some of the residents that park on street during the day hunt for another space on the other side of the street. In general, parking was perceived to be slightly more difficult during the week than on the weekend. Car Use The frequency and purpose of vehicle trips is another way to understand travel behavior. As in the above sections this behavior is influenced by where the resident lives, either because residents who have certain travel behaviors(prefer to walk)choose to live in a particular building, or because attributes of the building type(such as cost and location)influence travel behavior. Although the survey design doesn't allow us to distinguish between the two, we can still characterize the behavior of residents of the different building types with a reasonable degree of 07/10/00 DRAFT 18 Collegetown Parking Study accuracy. Keep in mind that if the characteristics of the buildings change it could influence the behavior of the residents. For example if a large apartment is built farther away from the campus the travel characteristics could shift to be more like those of residents in multiple dwellings. Now, looking at the frequency of car use,almost half(see Table 2-5)of the residents use their cars on a daily basis and 44%use their car every few days. This is in spite of the proximity to the University and the amenities of Collegetown. Only a small portion of the residents store their car for a week or more at a time. Because these results are contrary to what one would expect given the area characteristics, it is important to examine where trips are being made to better understand their frequency of use. Table 2-5: Frequency of Car Use Everyday 49% Every few days 44% Once a week 6% Once a month 1% One way to examine this relationship is to chart how often an owner says they use their car along with what they do on their trips. Figure 2-1, below, shows what percentage of the respondents cite the frequency of car use and the activity. For example, approximately 70%of those who drive to campus use their car everyday and 70%percent of those who drive to work use their car everyday. These results don't indicate that 70% of the people who use their car everyday drive to campus and to work, but cross tabulating the data allows conclusions to be drawn about different combinations of activities. For instance,when looking at combinations of activities, if"campus" or"work"was one of the activities,the driver was twice as likely to drive everyday as every few days. When looking at"entertainment,""in and out(of Ithaca),"or"shopping,"drivers are equally likely to drive everyday as they are to drive every few days. These observations suggest that driving to work and campus are treated as inelastic activities as compared to other activities. "Elastic"activities are more likely than"inelastic"ones to be done on a weekly basis,but in relatively small numbers. 07/10/00 DRAFT 19 i Collegetown Parking Study Figure 2-1: Purpose and Frequency of Trips 80% 70% 60% Campus 50% — -M— Entertainment 40% j - -- -InandOut 30% Shopping 20% - —CIE—Work 10% - — 0% . Everyday Every few Once a week Once a days month Frequency of Car Trips Frequency and car use also vary by where residents live; this is illustrated in Figure 2-2. A few points are worth noting. First,people in multiple dwellings are more likely to drive to campus than apartment dwellers and twice as many of them drive to work. Second,there is little variation in which types of residents go shopping. Given that Collegetown lacks a full service grocery store and has a limited variety of retail businesses this is expected. Everybody has to leave the area if they want to go shopping. Figure 2-2: Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type 100% — 80% 60% Large Apartment 40% 20% ■Multiple o 0% Dwelling Purpose of Vehicle Use Finally, large apartment dwellers are more likely to use their car for entertainment or to commute in and out of Ithaca. Entertainment and car ownership can be treated as proxies of economic 07/10/00 DRAFT 20 Collegetown Parking Study status. Residents in more expensive apartment buildings are more likely to drive to entertainment than residents who live in the more moderately priced multiple dwellings. The percentages for both building types are relatively high in both categories, indicating a strong financial background for both groups and that apartment residents are even wealthier. Where people are driving influences how often they drive, but it is also important to understand what alternatives to driving someone might have. An examination of all owners that drive"every few days" gives the statistic that 55% of them have a roommate with a car,31%have two or more roommates with cars. These residents account for 25%of the population,44%of car owners,and are prime targets for car storage. The next section examines how Collegetown residents travel. Travel Behavior After all the discussion of high car ownership and use,an examination of all modes of travel by residents gives a more balanced picture of how they get around. Walking was the most frequently used mode of travel. Over 90%of respondents walk everyday. Cars hold the position as the second most used mode with 90%of car owners driving everyday or every few days and over 20%of non-owners carpooling a few times a week. Buses were the next most commonly used mode and then bicycles, both at a relatively small rate. Use of particular modes is heavily influenced by whether or not a resident owns a car. Car owners walk in high numbers, 89%everyday and 6%every few days, but these numbers are marginally lower than the 95% of non-owners who walk everyday. It is not a large difference, but significant. As mentioned above, driving was the next most popular mode,with 49%of owners driving everyday and 44%every few days. Non-owners carpool in lieu of driving. This usually occurs a few times a week, and most likely for shopping and entertainment trips. Non- owners use buses more consistently than owners, but only around 15% of the people use them more often than once a week. Bike use didn't change by car ownership, and they are used more rarely than any other mode. Travel behavior is also dependent upon the type of building where someone lives. The most notable differences for car owners are as follows: • 20%more people in multiple dwellings drive everyday than apartment dwellers, • 5%walk more from apartments than multiple dwellings, 07/10/00 DRAFT 21 i Collegetown Parking Study • residents in multiple dwellings use public transit and carpooling more than those in apartments. For non-owners there is little difference in travel characteristics between apartments and multiple dwellings. They have similar values for walking,biking, and carpooling, but there is a small difference in the use of public transit. People in multiple dwellings use public transit on a semi- regular basis while people in the apartments didn't use transit. W A,b+ 07/10/00 DRAFT 22 Collegetown Parking Study OOEWWAu�R tRVEY 07/10/00 DRAFT 23 i Collegetown Parking Study The third step in the study of parking issues was a survey of Collegetown employers. For each business an owner or manager was questioned about their employees,whether or not they provide parking,their delivery schedule, perceptions of parking problems, and reactions to proposed policy changes. METHODOLOGY Due to the relatively small number of businesses in Collegetown, each business was contacted for a personal interview. A copy of the survey questionnaire may be found in the Appendix. Interviews started in January and continued through late February, 2000. The interviewers visited businesses at different times of day,emphasizing times when a manager would be available to complete the survey. If someone wasn't available, alternative arrangements were made. . A total of 62 surveys were completed from approximately 80 businesses. Establishments that weren't reached included businesses that were closed, unsupervised businesses(laundromats), or ones with non-English speaking owners who were reluctant to participate. At times an inability to communicate was an issue. Bars that are only open at night were also difficult to contact. After excluding closed and non-staffed businesses,the response rate was approximately 80%. Occasionally a survey was left with someone and collected later;the response rate was worse in those cases. RESULTS Employees '" For the businesses interviewed, 60%of their workforce is part-time and 40% is full-time. The total number of employees in Collegetown is around 800, where 480 are part-time employees and 320 are full-time employees. Land Use Based on an inventory of Collegetown businesses,the breakdown of land use is as follows: Restaurant/eatery/bar 37% Service 30% Retail 15% Combination of Retail and Service 7% Apartments 7% University 4% 07/10/00 DRAFT 24 Collegetown Parking Study Supply of private parking Only 36% of the businesses questioned supplied any type of private,off-street parking. Of those that supply parking, full-time employees use most of the spaces(85%). When applied to the whole moratorium zone,these results indicate that approximately 80 spaces are dedicated to the employees and customers of Collegetown businesses. Deliveries The term"delivery"was loosely applied in this study. It refers to trips made by the gamut of vehicles, including UPS trucks, small delivery vans, and full sized trucks. No attempt was made to determine how many stops a given vehicle made within Collegetown. If an UPS truck stops at five businesses each day-it is counted by each business as a delivery and conversely as five deliveries into the area. Most businesses(76%) in Collegetown receive some type of delivery on a regular basis. Although there are a good number of daily deliveries, most deliveries are weekly and there are only a few monthly deliveries. Over a third of deliveries don't come at a specific time of day. Of those delivered at a specific time of day, half arrive before noon and half after. Extrapolating the results to all businesses gives an estimated 130 deliveries each day. Owners and managers cited a wide range of problems with deliveries. The most common response to inquiries about these problems was the lack of space for truck parking. A third of the respondents thought that traffic inhibits deliveries. Almost a quarter of the respondents wrote in an answer to explain the delivery problems and half of those written-in responses had some reference to existing loading zone regulations not being enforced or being used illegally by cars instead of delivery trucks. When asked whether or not they would be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in Collegetown,the majority of people(68%) interviewed said no. Interestingly enough their reasons weren't so much that they needed deliveries at specific times but because they saw regulations as unenforceable or as causing difficulty for their supplier. They predicted that either they will lose suppliers or will have to pay a premium to have deliveries made within the given time period. 07/10/00 DRAFT 25 Collegetown Parking Study If time restrictions were put into effect, almost half want deliveries made on weekday mornings. The other half wants them mid-day during the week. Only a handful of people expressed a preference for having deliveries made on the weekend. Are customer needs being met? In general, owners and managers feel that the parking needs of their customers are not being met. A relatively small number noted that their primary customers were students and local residents who were within walking distance. Many appeared to be thinking about customers coming into Collegetown from other areas when they answered. It:is unknown whether these customers are pre-existing clientele or if they are viewed as potential customers. Contributions for a new parking facility This question was left deliberately vague because at the time of the survey,the City didn't know how a new parking facility would be funded. Only 23%answered that they would help support a new facility while 37% said they wouldn't, and a significant 39% said that they weren't sure. ow Respondents from service or retail industries were more likely to say that they wouldn't help fund a new facility. Respondents from restaurants and bars gave all possible responses in relatively �h equal proportions. Many of the"unsure"responses came from managers who weren't empowered to make that type of decision or from someone reluctant to give an answer before they knew the financial impact. Tax-benefit bus passes The final question of the survey was"Would you be interested in participating in a program to provide a TCAT(Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) bus pass(at$20 per month)to your employees(the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)?" The answers are as follows: 18%said yes, 63% said no, and the remaining 19%were unsure. Discussing the question with employers revealed that many answered no because their current employees wouldn't/couldn't ride the bus. The p imary reasons given were that the employees live close-by and walk or that they drive long distances from areas that aren't adequately served M by transit. 07/10/00 DRAFT 26 Collegetown Parking Study Comments A number of owners and managers elected to add their comments at the end of the survey. Management of the Dryden Road Garage was regularly cited as being a problem. Complaints included parking fees,how the permit system is organized,and the lack of enforcement of parking and traffic laws. Parking requirements were mentioned in a couple of cases as was the poor condition of the roads in Collegetown. A complete list of these comments is available in Appendix D. 07/10/00 DRAFT 27 Collegetown Parking Study EMPLOYEE SURVEY 07/10/00 DRAFT 28 Collegetown Parking Study The fourth step in the study of parking issues was a survey of Collegetown employees. They were questioned about their work schedule,commute mode and distance,parking location and costs,and reasons for not using public transportation. METHODOLOGY Design of the employee survey was loosely based on surveys that had been used for other parking studies in Ithaca. A copy of the survey can be found in the Appendix. Due to the highly variable nature of Collegetown employees,a sampling technique that took each of the variables into account was difficult to establish. As a result, surveys were given to all employees. Survey distribution began in late January and collection continued until mid-March. Two interviewers returned to the businesses to collect completed forms. The initial follow-up occurred after two weeks and continued about once a week. Repeat visits attempted to get as high a return rate as possible. Of the 682 employees cited as working at Collegetown businesses,over 275 completed surveys. This constitutes a response rate of approximately 40%. Accounting for the businesses that weren't contacted in the Owner/Manager survey,the response rate is closer to 35%. Response rates varied significantly by business and employment status. Among full-time employees the response rate was close to 50%while the corresponding number for part-time employees was closer to 25%. RESULTS Self-reporting on employment status showed that 57%of respondents to the Employee Survey were full-time employees. From the Owner/Manager Survey we learned that only 40%of employees work full-time. This discrepancy, in who responded to the survey and the actual proportions that work in Collegetown, biases some of the results. Because the difference is quantifiable some of the anticipated error was corrected. A note is made when this bias appears. Employment Density The number of employees working in Collegetown at a given time varies significantly by time of day and the period of the week. During the week most employees start work between eight and nine o'clock in the morning. Full-time employees are more likely to be working during the week than are part-time employees. The highest percent of weekday employees(76%)work at two 07/10/00 DRAFT 29 Collegetown Parking Study o'clock in the afternoon while 15%work at nigh Most of these night-time workers are employed in restaurants, bars and convenience st res. Table 2-6: Approximate Number of Employees at Work on a Given Weekday Time Number of Employees 6:00 AM 20 10:00 AM 355 2:00 PM 430 6:00 PM 100 10:00 PM 80 Weekend workers tend to start later in the day ankl there are more part-time workers than during the week. Despite the relative increase in part-time employees,there are still a lot of full-time employees working. Many of these full-time employees work 5 days a week, 4 during the week and 1 day on the weekend. Most people start working in the late morning, but again,the highest concentration of weekend employees(58%)occurs at two o'clock in the afternoon. At 6 p.m. 27% of weekend employees are working and at 1p p.m.the corresponding number is 39%. .: Travel behavior One of the most important characteristics of employee travel behavior is the modal split(the proportion of people who use each transportation,mode). Here,the results are biased by the over-representation of full-time employees in the survey responses. In order to compensate for this, one can look at the modal splits for each employment category separately or calculate a composite modal split based on their respective percentages. Table 2-7 gives both sets of information. Table 2-7: Modal Split for Employee Work Commute Mode* Part-time Full-time Composite Drive and park 43% 71% 55% Carpool 14% 8% 11% Public Transit 7% 5% 6% Walk 36% 16% 27% *Bike was omitted because it represented less th 3%of the mode share Within these results there is also variation depending on when someone works. We expect that this is tied to whether or not someone is a student. For example, of part-time employees that work on weekday mornings, 86%drive and park hile only 10%walk. These people probably aren't students. Alternatively, 78%of part-time�mployees working on weekday afternoons walk to work. These employees are probably students for they live in the neighborhood. 07/10/00 DR. FT 30 Collegetown Parking Study Some points worth noting are that almost 80%of full-time employees use a car to get to work, part-time employees walk more frequently,the level of public transit use is consistent between the two groups,and carpooling is more popular amongst part-time employees. Parking characteristics Given that over half of Collegetown employees drive to work,knowing where they park is important in order to understand where they introduce demand. Other important factors are when they are parking(which is tied to the employment density)and how much they pay to park. Table 2-8 gives the breakdown on where employees park. Table 2-8: Parking Location for Employees Location Percentage Private, off street parking 26% Dryden Road Garage 21% Metered, on street parking 29% Free,on street parking 18% Other 5% Combining tables 2-6,2-7, and 2-8 permits the calculation of how many employees park in a given location at a given times. As another example, of the people that park in the Dryden Road Garage, 39%reported owning a monthly permit. Using the above tables, one estimates that 36 passes were sold to employees. Knowing that 100 day-permits(more than 36)were sold in February 2000(see Appendix N)and that there were 48 additional parkers arriving between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m.,we can corroborate that figure. The distance from a parking location to the workplace can be an important factor in job satisfaction and perception of the parking system. Discussions with employees emphasized that many walk long distances in order to reach work. The survey results don't substantiate this 5 The calculation of the number of employee cars parked in metered spaces at 2 p.m.during the week, is demonstrated below: #in metered spaces at 2 p.m._ #people working at 2 p.m.(Table 2-6)x %who drive(Table 2-7)x %who park in metered spaces(Table 2-8) 431 (Table 2-6)x.55(Table 2-7)x .29(Table 2-8) = 69 spaces 07/10/00 DRAFT 31 i Collegetown Parking Study anecdotal information. Figure 2-3 clearly illustrates that the vast majority of employees parks within 3 blocks of their workplace and around half park less than a block away. Figure 2-3: Distance between Parking Location and Work for Collegetown Employees 5% 4% ❑Less than a block 16% ` ❑2 blocks 49% D 3 blocks ®4 blocks ■5 blocks or more 26% Part-time employees are more likely to park farther from their job site than full-time employees, but the overall picture doesn't vary much between the two groups. " Although most employees are within 3 blocks,the 10%that park four or more blocks away shouldn't be overlooked. Given the topography of Collegetown,walking more than four blocks probably means a good hike up a hill on one leg of the trip. Free, on street spaces are the most common parking location that are long distances from the workplace. Whether this is an issue of economics or availability is uncertain-although an economic explanation is more likely. Employees were also asked if parking was provided by or paid for by their employer. Of part- .. time employees 10%had parking provided for them. Almost a quarter of full-time employees were given parking. In cases where the employe paid for parking,the employee normally parks in a private, off street location or in the Dryden oad Parking Garage. The average monthly parking fee for all employees who drive in Collegetown is $19. Most part time employees(70%)pay less than that while 3 %pay more. Conversely, 32%of full time employees pay less and 68%pay more. The median parking fee for part-time employees is between $20 and $40 a month. Full-time emplo ees' median parking fee is between $80 and I . This is a relatively good estimate,some error is introduced because the relative numbers of part-time and full-time employees working at 2 p.m. aren't taken into account. 07/10/00 DRAFT 32 Collegetown Parking Study $100 per month. Comparing these values is difficult without looking at the ratio of how much an employee pays to how many hours they work. Public Transportation The final question of the employee survey asked whether or not the employee would be more inclined to use public transportation to go to work if they got a free TCAT bus pass. The overall response was that 22% said yes, 64% said no, and 14% said that the question didn't apply to them. Although the overall response gives some indication of how well the idea has received, we get more information by looking at the responses by travel mode. Table 2-9 outlines these results. Table 2-9: Interest in Free Public Transportation by Current Mode of Travel* Mode Yes No N/A Drive and Park 14% 72% 14% Carpool 11% 67% 22% Walk 22% 59% 18% * The survey question was: "If your employer gave you a TCAT bus pass at no cost to you,would you be more inclined to use public transportation to come to work?" The most important results are those tied to people who currently drive. Of them, 14% said that they would be more inclined to take public transit if they were given a free bus pass. Although 14% might be less than what one would like to see, it corresponds to 62 people who, if they started to commute by bus,would open up parking spaces for visitors. The remaining people who expressed interest in free bus passes currently use environmentally friendly modes of transportation: carpooling and walking. In general,these people shouldn't be encouraged to change modes as it adds pressure to the transit system without adding any benefits. 07/10/00 DRAFT 33 Collegetown Parking Study VEY PA"G USAGE SUR 07/10/00 DRAFT 34 Collegetown Parking Study The Parking Usage Survey is the first element in the series of parking surveys. The goal of the parking surveys is to determine how the current parking system is being used. They also provide enough information to examine certain aspects of parking in detail. SCOPE The purpose of this particular survey was to determine the impact of overnight and long-term parking in on street parking by area residents. The entire moratorium region and some adjoining blocks were included in the survey(refer to Map 5). Results from the adjoining blocks were for reference purposes only and were not included in the analysis. METHODOLOGY The usage survey was repeated on three different days. The survey dates were January 5, 2000, March 1, 2000, and May 3, 2000. Those dates reflect times when Cornell classes weren't in session,when classes were in session and a second day when classes were in session and the parking regulation had been changed to "24 Hour Parking"from"Odd-Even Parking." The following process was followed on each date: • Walked the designated area at 5:30 a.m., marking the front tire of each parked car at the twelve o'clock position and counting the number of parked cars on each block. Cars in the Dryden Road garage were not chalked. • At 9:30 a.m.,walked the same region(in general following the same path)this time counting how many cars are parked and how many of them have been continuously parked since the first count. If the location of the chalk mark hadn't moved from the twelve o'clock position the car was assumed to have been parked since the early count. • The above step was repeated at 1:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Each circuit started half an hour before the scheduled survey time and took approximately one hour,finishing half an hour after the survey time. Results were recorded for the survey hour. RESULTS The fact that the same survey was completed on three different days allows us to compare them. Comparing results of the"Off-season" survey with those of the"Odd-Even"or"24 Hour" surveys demonstrates what impact Cornell University has on the Collegetown neighborhood in terms of on street parking. Then,quantifying the differences between the"Odd-Even"and"24 Hour" surveys shows how driver behavior changes as a result of parking regulations. 07/10/00 DRAFT 35 COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY SURVEY AREAS ITHACA NY 2000 n._.EDGEMOOR LANE ._" _ m � HIGHLAND PLACE O f y. . �t : . OAK AVENUE m rn v :'VVILLIAMS STREET ti m n F v :O n m 9O m E BUFFALO STREET 9 n z n OAK AVE F z m r m n m O •z m . .. F y O v m z. N DE FwFa yR EAST SENECA STREET _ 9 H D PLACE�` m' yl � ARVAR c a rn �e Ff z :.•::: CATHERINE STREET >.::•:>:. GF m a ti � �f < ,;^':• J J COOK SiR ET S r. ;C .�......,.:,,:• :`:. :. J BOOLSTREET ° P\A J g FORD _.;•...•.,. , Y m ,. - : - a - :•X: ...... m -- c.. :: '••;•:::N - : ORCHARD PLACE� %m v E':.'`'. ..` . `•: o gsrs n \P c _.. n < ST9�Fl Jr'J MIT �x , . B9q CHEILSTgEETr(NYS:RTE366) _ cp l9cF i vo`, p`EROpp Usage Survey Area SCALE: 1" = 500' N Evening Survey Area A Moratorium Area MAP 5 Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000 Collegetown Parking Study Off-season A total of 115 cars were parked in the 410 on street spaces during the early count. These are assumed to belong to area residents and to have been parked overnight. Of those cars parked at 6 a.m., 41 or 36%were still parked at two o'clock in the afternoon. The usage rates for all on street parking spaces within the moratorium boundary were 15%at 6 a.m.,27% at 10 a.m.,27% at 2 p.m., and 23% at 6 p.m. More specific details from the survey are available in Appendix J. In-season For comparison purposes the results of the two surveys done while Cornell was in session will be presented side by side. The two surveys are distinguished by the parking regulation in effect at the time of the survey. More detailed information on the results of these parking surveys are available in Appendices K and L. Table 2-10: Summary of Results,In-season Parking Usage Surveys Odd-Even Parking 24 Hour Parking March 1,2000 May 3,2000 Overnight parking Free,on street 349 416 Meter,on street 93 124 Dryden Garage 90 87 Total 532 627 Usage rates(for all public parking) 6 a.m. 68% 80% 10 a.m. 90% 99% 2 p.m. 93% 96% 6 p.m. 81% 87% Looking first at the overnight parking, almost 100 more cars park in the area when 24-hour parking rules were in effect. This is explained by the increase in overnight street capacity due to the change in parking regulation. With the addition of capacity, it was easier for people to find a parking space,therefore more people chose to park there. There was essentially no change in the number of overnight parkers in the Dryden Road Garage. During the rest of the day the change in parking regulation had no effect on the on street capacity. Despite this,there were changes in the usage rates. The most dramatic difference was at 10 a.m. when the usage rate was at 90%for odd-even regulations but jumped to 99%under the 24-hour regulation. Similarly, usage rates went up at 2 p.m. and at 6 p.m. for no apparent reason. 6 A"usage rate" is the percentage of spaces that are in use at a given time. 07/10/00 DRAFT 37 i Collegetown Parking Study The usage survey also gave information on how many cars didn't move during the day. In the future this will be referred to as storage parking. The results are summarized in Table 2-11. Table 2-11: Continuously Parked Cars (Storage Parking) At 6:00am Until Until Until 10:00am 2:00pm 6:00pm Odd-Even Meter 93 65% 38% 15% iW Free 349 85% 76% 58% Total 442 80% 68% 49% 24 hr. Meter 124 52% 31% 12% Free 416 83% 69% 47% Total 540 76% 60% 39% Examining these results shows that more cars were left for longer periods of time when odd-even parking regulations were in effect. This is true in both metered and un-metered spaces and at every survey time. A possible explanation is that people who use their cars frequently have more trouble finding parking spaces with odd-even regulations and are forced to park outside the moratorium boundary. With 24 hour parking there is more room to accommodate everyone, giving the more active drivers an opportunity to park in the area which used to be inaccessible to them. Although there are higher percentages for storage parking with the odd-even regulations, the absolute number of stored cars is still higher under 24 hour parking because of the jump in W number of cars in the area. i 07/10/00 DRAFT 38 Collegetown Parking Study L Ep E S VEY ICENS LAT UR 07/10/00 DRAFT 39 Collegetown Parking Study SCOPE The purpose of this survey was to understand how the metered spaces and Dryden Road Garage are being used. The only blocks included in this survey were those with metered parking and the Dryden Road Garage. ° METHODOLOGY The license plate survey was completed on March 7, 2000, a Tuesday during the academic year at Cornell. Starting at eight o'clock in the morning,two people walked through the areas with parking meters and copied down the license plate number for each car parked in a metered space or the garage. At the same time a note was made if the meter hld expired and if the car had been ticketed. In the Dryden Road Garage an effort was made to note whether or not each car had a parking permit. This procedure was repeated every hour from eight o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening. Each round took about 4$ minutes. RESULTS Parking Duration How long people park in assorted types parking aces gives insight into who they are and how well the parking system is performing. Approxi ately 70%of the cars that used metered spaces parked for two hours or less. Of the remaining vehicles, 20%parked between two and six hours - and the rest parked for more than six hours. In the parking garage,the parking duration is moi a variable. There, 39% park for two hours or less, 28%park between two and six hours,and 3 % park for more than six hours. This reflects the mix of customers who use the garage on a daily basis. People parking for more than six hours are probably full time employees or residents. Short-term parkers(less than two hours)are likely to be customers. Mid-range parkers could be pa -time employees or visitors to the area. 07/10/00 DRAFT 40 Collegetown Parking Study Figure 2-4 gives more detail about the volume of cars and the parking duration in metered spaces and the parking garage. Figure 2-4 Paid Parking: Daytime Parking Duration 300 276 250 ---- _ MNumber of o Vehicles(in 200 metered '> 150 spaces) 97 97 ■Number of 100 — 57 53 a7 Vehicles(in Z 50 34 Garage) 10 0 <1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Length of Stay(hours) Feeding meters For our purposes,"feeding"a parking meter is defined as adding money to the same parking meter for over four continuous hours. There were 97 instances of meter feeding during the ten- hour span of the license plate survey. Ownership information wasn't gathered for the cars but by looking at when the cars first parked, we can generalize about who they are. People who were parked since 6 a.m. were most likely residents while people who arrived between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. were probably employees. Based on those assumptions, a third of the people feeding meters were residents and the remainder were employees. Average parking demand and usage rates The average daytime(8 a.m.to 6 p.m.)demand for metered, on street parking spaces is 119 out of the total 149 spaces. This represents a ten-hour average usage rate of 80%. The maximum number of spaces used during the survey period was 127. This number was reached four times during the survey, between one o'clock and three o'clock in the afternoon and between five o'clock and seven o'clock at night. The average daytime demand for spaces in the Dryden Road Parking Garage is 173 spaces out of the total 217 (3 handicapped)spaces. The maximum number of spaces used was 204; this number was reached between noon and one o'clock. 07/10/00 DRAFT 41 i Collegetown Parking Study For all paid parking spaces in Collegetown,the average daytime demand is 292 spaces. This accounts for 80%of the available spaces. More detailed information about parking trends over time is available in Appendix M. Parking violations The number of cars in violation of parking regulations was alarming. A variety of violations * ' were noted during the survey. They included two cars parking in a single metered space,not paying meters, parking in front of a fire hydrant,exceeding posted time limits, and parking in areas not designated for parking. A total of 150 cars exceeded the posted two-hour time limit for metered spaces out of the 916 cars that used them during the survey. Of people who didn't pay the meter for all or part of their stay,their cars accumulated a total of 557 expired meter hours ; and over$275 in lost meter revenue for the day. During the ten-hour period of the survey, 52 tickets were issued. In some cases, more than one ticket was issued to a car. Multiple tickets were given to cars that had been ticketed the previous day and had not moved. On the day of the survey, Community Service Officers were not observed in the Collegetown area until noon. Then it was unclear what method was followed in issuing tickets since violating cars on a single block were not all issued tickets. Instead,a couple of cars were ticketed on one pass, a few more were ticketed on the next pass,and so on. Eventually most cars in high use areas were ticketed, but not always. If one ticket per car had been issued for each violation, 170 tickets should have been issued. This constitutes a significant "' loss in revenue, but more importantly it means that there were spaces inaccessible for their intended use: parking for visitors and clients. 07/10/00 DRAFT 42 �mn Collegetown Parking Study E EN s VEY V IN PARK'NG UR 07/10/00 DRAFT 43 i Collegetown Parking Study SCOPE The purpose of this survey was to quantify the availability of on street parking for evening activities in Collegetown(including but not limited to patronage of restaurants, bars, and the Performing Arts Center). METHODOLOGY The evening survey was repeated on three different days. The survey dates were February 29, March 11,and March 31, 2000. Those dates coincide with an evening during the week, one on a weekend, and one on a weekend with a performance scheduled at the Performing Arts Center. The area included in the survey was from the northern border of the moratorium to East Seneca and Catherine Streets in the South and from Osmun Place in the West and Elmwood Avenue in the East. The eastern and western borders extend beyond the moratorium boundary but were included because they are in close proximity to the heart of evening activities(refer to Map 5). The following process was followed on each date: �N • Two people walked the designated area at 6:00 p.m. and counted the number of available public parking spaces(on street and in the Dryden Road Garage). • The above step was repeated every hour through 1:00 a.m. The same route was followed for each count and took about 20 minutes. RESULTS Usage rates The utilization rates for the Dryden Road Garage(varied dramatically with each survey(see Figure 2-5). During the weekday survey, usage rates varied between a low of 54%at eleven p.m. to a high of 71%at six p.m. In general,the usage! decreased slowly over the course of the evening. Rates during the weekend survey ranged between 67%at one o'clock in the morning and 100% at seven o'clock at night. Here activity peaked at seven o'clock and midnight with a lull in between. Finally, for the weekend survey with a performance,the usage rates varied between 86%and 100%. In this case the garage was almost full eight o'clock and stayed that way through midnight. The only exception was a drop in occupancy at ten o'clock. -4 07/10/00 DRAFT 44 Collegetown Parking Study Figure 2-5 Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates IIII'R, 1 111(1'% .__..�._.._......__......___._.._I 00%�.�_._..._.._—._.'2Y"lx..._.._....., �—__.._...._.__.___..._..—._99% 99%99% 91% R91A 1% 89% 90% 9111%, ------- R 11'Y 74Y, 71 70'% fib 64Y 61% u 60% ti 60'Y 6 ❑Weekday 541 ®Weekend 50'9 ■Weekend with Performance 411'% 4 30% 20% 111% 0'Y 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:110 22.00 23:1111 11:00 1:00 Time of Day Results for on street parking weren't as dramatically different as they were for the garage(see Figure 2-6). Figure 2-6 On-street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates 100% r 95% 94% 94% '12%�3% Y2% 92""/nJ2,Y l3/ 'Il 92% 93% 90% ru 82" 84 R3" 849 831 811" 7 81 80 75" 70% v u D Weekday 60% b ®Weekend 'ii O50% ■Weekend with Performance 0 u 40% u `u G 30 20 10% 0% 18:00 1900 2000 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 100 Time of Day 07/10/00 DRAFT 45 Collegetown Parking Study Throughout the weekday survey,use ranged between 75%(at one a.m.)and 84%(at ten p.m.). There were minor peaks at seven and ten o'clock but the variation was minor. During the weekend survey the rates varied from 81%to 94%and the usage rate was essentially constant between six p.m. and midnight. When there was a performance during the survey the usage rates were again constant between six and ten o'clock and then jumped slightly(to 95%)for the rest of the night. So there was little difference between the two weekend surveys despite the added demand introduced by the performance on one night. 07/10/00 DRAFT 46 Collegetown Parking Study III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The following discussion integrates the results from the various different surveys in the context of the elements of the current parking system. These elements include the assorted types of on street(metered and free)and off street(Dryden Road Garage and private)spaces. In addition, a short discussion of business related issues speaks to their unique needs. ON STREET Metered spaces Supply and Demand There is currently a supply of 149 spaces that are metered for two hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. The demand for these spaces varies by time of day and period of the week. The lowest demand is on weeknights and peak demand is on weekend nights. There was no point during the parking study when all metered spaces were used concurrently. Current Use The utilization rates for metered parking spaces as a whole are within the target levels. But, it is important not to overlook the variation in usage rates by block. In general,the blocks closest to the heart of Collegetown are nearly all full while those blocks farthest away have usage rates closer to 50 or 60%. The overall usage rates don't exceed 85%during the weekday when metering is in effect. Conversely, there is a pinch in supply on Friday nights and weekends when the spaces aren't metered. Most of the cars that use metered spaces do so within the posted time limits(2 hours or less)but those that don't significantly limit available parking capacity. As noted in the results for the License Plate Survey,9%of cars parked at meters for more than six hours. These parkers use a third of the supply of metered spaces all day. The 20%who park for an average of four hours use another third of the parking spaces. These parking durations are more consistent with the behavior of employees and residents than with visitors. So realistically, at any time during the day,only a third of the metered spaces are available for visitors. Tied to the issue of parking duration, is"meter feeding." From the Parking Usage Survey we know that approximately 25% of the metered spaces had cars parked in them from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. This means that 85%is generally taken to be the optimum level of utilization by parking professionals. The 15%of unused capacity allow new parkers to find a parking space with relative ease. 07/10/00 DRAFT 47 Collegetown Parking Study rk?• at least a third of the people feeding meters are residents while the remaining two thirds are probably employees(either in Collegetown or at Cornell). Desired Use Metered spaces represent the only guaranteed short-term parking spaces in Collegetown. As such, their use should be dedicated to the needs of customers patronizing the shops,businesses, and restaurants of Collegetown. Although the parking studies showed that there is sufficient capacity in metered spaces during the day,they also show that these spaces are predominately used by residents and employees. If4 employees are displaced from metered spaces they could relocate into the garage, but this would ; exacerbate capacity issues during high-peak periods like the lunch hour. A better alternative would be to find other locations for employee parking that don't displace clientele. Enforcement will be the most crucial component in shifting the mix of users back towards visitors and away from employees and residents. It must be more consistent and there needs to be a method(such as chalking tires)to combat meter feeding. Shortening time limits on high use blocks is also a way to increase turnover and raising meter prices will discourage long-term parking. Free spaces " Supply and Demand The current supply of free spaces is around 410 spaces. Except for overnight parking when usage rates dip to 80%,these spaces are over-utilized. Parking demand jumps to essentially 100% of the supply during the middle part of the day. The demand demonstrated by residents alone exceeds the on street parking supply within the moratorium boundary. Current Use Most of the demand for these spaces comes from local residents who have convenient access to them all day long and more importantly, overnight. Four out of five resident-owned cars that are parked on street belong to owners who live in multiple dwelling units; Depending on what on-street regulations were in effect,the percentage of those cars parked overnight that were still parked at six o'clock the following night varied between 40%and 50%. Some of these Gars probably continue to park for over 24 hours although the surveys can not substantiate this opinion. Residential parking decreases modestly during the ro day when cars are in use and then increases again in the evening when people are returning home. 07/10/00 DRAFT 48 Collegetown Parking Study As residents filter out of the neighborhood during the day, employees for Collegetown businesses and Cornell fill in the gaps. Collegetown employees use approximately 40, or 10%of available spaces. During the week, most full-time employees average an eight-hour workday. In general this means that they monopolize their parking space throughout the day. When on street spaces aren't available, employees are forced to park in metered spaces, in the garage(if there is room)or on streets farther away. Once employees and residents have parked,visitor parking within easy access of apartments or houses in the moratorium area is negligible. Desired Use The sections of on street spaces that aren't metered are far enough from businesses and Cornell to be considered inconvenient by their visitors. These spaces should be used to a certain degree by residents, employees, and residential visitors. Ideally,the level of residential use should decrease to around 65%of the daytime capacity, leaving more room for employees and visitors. Accomplishing these levels will require a high degree of regulation. Dramatically lowering the level of residential parking, without regulating the new supply, could encourage more employees or commuters to drive by making their parking easier. OFF STREET Private Supply and Demand There is an estimated supply of almost 1800 privately owned, off street parking spaces. This number includes a Cornell lot, spaces in apartment buildings,paved lots, and driveways. Parking at residences is, by far,the largest component of this private,off street parking. Specific numbers were not collected on how many of these spaces are in use on a given day. Based on observation and anecdotal information most, if not all, of this capacity is being used. For instance,the Cornell parking lot on Stewart and Williams Streets sold permits for all of its spaces, 312 College Ave. reported that all of their residential spaces were rented, and a resident reported that he was unable to rent a space in the Linden Ave garage. How many people are using paved backyards and driveways is the largest unknown factor,but again, observation would support the conclusion that almost all of the spaces were rented during the school year. 07/10/00 DRAFT 49 i Collegetown Parking Study Current Use Off street spaces are used by residents and employees and to a smaller extent,patrons of Collegetown businesses. Residents use the vast majority of the spaces because they comprise the largest fraction of the population. Desired Use The only point worth making here is that these spaces should be used all of the time. For the most part, this is already happening. In cases where a business has spaces that go unused for a period of time, arrangements should be made to rent it to someone who can use it. On street spaces are naturally shared, and although this isn't as easy to implement in off-street locations, it should be encouraged there as much as possible. Public Supply and Demand The Dryden Road Garage is essentially the only facility that provides public parking off street. It has 217 spaces; among them are 3 handicap spaces. For the majority of the week this size appears to be satisfactory for the demonstrated demand but it fills to capacity on a regular basis. Demand for spaces in the garage is generated from a variety of sources, namely residents, Collegetown employees,visitors, patrons, and people going to performances at Cornell's Performing Arts Center. Current Use ` During the day, 39%of cars are parked for two hours or less,28%for two to six hours, and 32%for more than six hours. This is a good mix for the garage. It accommodates the long-term parking needs of some employees, short-term demand for shoppers, and mid-range needs of visitors and part-time employees. Usage levels in the garage vary by time of day and pp1rt of the week. On weekdays, use steadily increases throughout the morning,peaks at lunchtime, and them decreases until the evening hours. Evening use heavily depends on the part of the week and whether or not special activities are taking place. Weeknights there is a local peak around seven p.m., but utilization stays well below optimal levels. On weekends, utilization rates go from below optimal use to 100%. The garage is even busier on weekend nights with performances,at this time rates are above optimal levels. Obviously the garage is a popular parking location for theatergoers. 07/10/00 DRAFT 50 Collegetown Parking Study Residents account for the majority of overnight parkers in the garage and around a third of the garage capacity during the day. Employees use almost another third of the spaces;the highest levels are when the highest number of employees are working,around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Other garage users include visitors, commuters to Cornell,and patrons. The bulk of the demand from this group comes around lunchtime. They account for the remaining used capacity at noon and on weekend evenings. Overnight parking in the garage introduces some enforcement issues. By posted regulation,only cars with permits may park overnight. In February,64 overnight permits were sold but during one of the usage surveys, 90 cars were parked before 6 a.m. This means that 25%to 30% of the cars were parked in the garage illegally. Not only does this represent a loss of income for the City, but also illustrates where a lack of enforcement is undermining the effectiveness of the current parking system. As detailed by the discussion,there are times when the garage is underused and others when it is over- used. The garage is always underutilized overnight(on weekends after 1:00 a.m.), on weeknights(after 5:00 p.m.)and during the summer(based on low permit sales). The garage is over-utilized around lunchtime during the week(11:30 a.m.to 2:30 p.m.),and on weekend evenings. It is also possible that there are problems on weekend days. Desired Use It should be a goal of this review of the parking situation to optimize the level of utilization for the garage (around 90%)at all times of day,year-round. As noted above there are periods of over and under- utilization of the garage. These dips and peaks should be equalized as much as possible. Overnight parking should be encouraged-there is obviously demand for these spaces, but they are inaccessible to those who choose not to purchase monthly passes. Ideally,more of the capacity would be used overnight by residents, but given that there isn't room for them during the day, it will be a hard sell. Pricing is probably the easiest way to do this. Summer months are particularly difficult given that the population of the area is drastically reduced. Permit prices are already lowered during this period but realistically,there is usually enough on street capacity to accommodate people for free, leaving little reason to use the garage(other than convenience). This could be an opportunity to aid employees and businesses by pricing permits even lower. As for time periods when the garage is over-utilized, pricing is really the only way to address the issue. Increasing fees on weekend evenings and nights with performances will lower the demand for the spaces 07/10/00 DRAFT 51 Collegetown Parking Study and raise the turnover. Raising prices during the lunch hour would have a similar effect. But because the garage is designed to accommodate people for longer periods of time, it is important not to scare long- term parkers away with fees that are too high. BUSINESS ISSUES Deliveries Deliveries have been a problem for a long time and will certainly always be an issue in Collegetown. In a most basic sense the geometry of the roads aren't conducive to large truck deliveries or a high volume of deliveries. Although there is a loading zone on each block,the allotted space isn't always sufficient, more than one truck could be trying to make a delivery, and frequently other cars park illegally in these spaces. W Largely because of the limited space and the volume of deliveries,trying to compress all deliveries into a shorter time period would be very disruptive to the flow of traffic. As it is, many delivery trucks double- . park because there isn't a loading zone available on the block. Unrestricted deliveries allow trucks to be on the road at any time of the day,but mandating that all the trucks arrive within a short period of time could make the roads impassable. Adding restrictions will also place a considerable burden on business owners and could limit their economic viability by forcing them to pay a premium for specific delivery times. This would also add the burden of enforcement onto a municipal agency when enforcement is already a challenge. Customer needs + Given the high density of population in the Collegetown area, it is reasonable to expect that businesses get a majority of their customers from within the Collegetown area. This is not to say that people outside of Collegetown shouldn't be able to patronize these businesses, but that the amount of resources accorded to „ . them is limited. When business owners and managers say that the par king needs of their customers are not being met this could either mean that they are expecting too many people to come from outside of Collegetown,or that the existing parking options for the level of incoming traffic are inadequate. I wouldn't disagree that the resources are inadequate,but actively managing the existing parking is a more effective approach than adding new capacity especially in the short term. High turnover must be encouraged through enforcement in the metered spaces and the parking garage should be used more effectively. �F 07/10/00 DRAFT 52 Collegetown Parking Study Allowing businesses to validate parking is an option to attract more outside customers, but it could aggravate existing parking conditions by bringing more cars into the area. Once decisions have been made about how the parking system will change,this idea should be revisited by the City and Collegetown businesses. Discussion should address how validation could be integrated into the parking system and its relative advantages and disadvantages. Employee needs Addressing the unique needs of employees will probably be the most challenging part of redefining Collegetown's parking system. One advantage is that the population of non-student employees is relatively small, so any special arrangements needn't be too extensive. But conversely, dealing with a small group means that there is little room for economies of scale. An added complication is that a fraction of the population is extremely sensitive to the cost of parking. For employees who pay for their own parking,a parking fee naturally has its largest impact on low- income employees. The cost of parking can influence whether or not they can afford to drive to work and when driving is their only option, it dictates whether they can work there. The 1999 median income in the City of Ithaca was $17,738 (ref 1999 Municipal Reference Guide,Natural Resource Directories). This is moderately higher than national averages for the low-income occupations typically found in Collegetown. The U.S. Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates of median monthly incomes for full-time employees(1998)are between$1000 and $1400 for common Collegetown occupations(such as hairdressers,cooks, and waiters). If an employee always parks in the Dryden Road Garage or in metered spaces,they could easily pay over 5% of their salary for parking. Part-time employees could pay an even higher percentage of their wages to cover parking fees. Currently over half of Collegetown employees drive to work. Whether or not they need to should be the subject of further studies or an issue to be addressed by employers. Because solutions depend on the specifics of where people live and what their needs are, employers are in a better position to identify and meet the unique needs of their employees. The City on the other hand needs to focus its attentions on making sure that the different types of parking are being used appropriately. Full-time employees, especially, should be encouraged to park in areas that aren't appropriate for visitors. This includes locations farther outside the center of Collegetown, either in permit areas or in private lots. Ideally any solution to employee parking would be a combination of reducing demand and improving services to them. 07/10/00 DRAFT 53 i Collegetown Parking Study Policy Issues New Parking Facility There really aren't any clear conclusions to draw from the results of the question about funding a parking facility. If businesses were seriously concerned about having to get more customers into the area then there should have been more support for funding a garage. That almost a quarter of the respondents were willing to help with funding isn't insignificant, but without more support it will be difficult to institute any sort of benefit assessment district. There could be ways of compensating businesses that do contribute(provide employee or visitor parking), but the administration of such a program could be significant. If a new parking facility is used exclusively for residential parking,convincing businesses to help with its financing will be extremely difficult. If the facility accommodates visitors and patrons, more work needs to be done with the businesses-both explaining the philosophy of the project and garnering support for it. Bus Passes The federal government allows businesses to provide a subsidy to help employees pay for their commute to work. This subsidy can come in the form of parking or transit subsidies. These employee benefits are tax-deductible for the employer and tax-free for the employee. Both are considered to be part of the employee's salary and as such wouldn't change the outlay cost for the employer. Without changing bus schedules or routes, subsidized transit will have a limited effect on the number of cars in the area. The traditional workweek is the time of day best served by transit,but the full-time employees who work then are less interested in transit than part-time employees. Longer commute times are less of an imposition for someone working the entire day compared with someone who has a similar commute time but only works for three hours. Selling low-cost bus passes in bulk to Collegetown businesses is a way to introduce bus use to more employees. To get any significant ridership there need to be changes in the system that better meet the needs of employees. Options like expanding bus service to low density areas are probably not economical and in the same respect extending hours of service would be a financial burden. An option worth exploring further is paratransit systems where routes and times are flexible enough to accommodate the variety of needs encompassed by these employees. 07/10/00 DRAFT 54 Collegetown Parking Study IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Parking needs are dynamic. They have a dramatic influence on, and are influenced by,the neighborhoods in which they are generated. They can also be addressed in very different ways, from major construction of new parking spaces to replacing some automobile uses with public transit. Each has its pros and cons and each involves tradeoffs. There is no one solution that will neatly satisfy all the needs and concerns identified in the recent surveys of people who live,work, or invest in Collegetown. This section outlines some general recommendations for the different components of a parking program. Because specific changes must be done in the context of a parking system,these recommendations are purposefully vague. There are five major components that may be changed in the existing parking program. They are: 1) Off street parking requirements(specified in the zoning ordinance); 2) The number of parking spaces available(on-and off-street); 3) Regulations governing the use of on-street parking; 4) Management of the Dryden Road Garage; and 5) The growth of future parking demand. Some of these items are easily changed. Others require ingenuity and persistence to change. All depend on consistent enforcement and compliance if the system as a whole is to function properly. In addition to these general recommendations there are a series of alternative parking programs included in the Appendix. Each of the alternatives is designed as a separate parking program in its own right and the actions recommended under each can be used as a guideline for implementation at the end of the moratorium. The alternatives distinguish themselves by their philosophy on development for Collegetown. Parking is so closely tied to development, growth, and transportation,that it is shortsighted to make decisions about parking without first examining long-term development and mobility goals. Due to the lack of a long-range development plan for Collegetown,or direction by Common Council,recommending a specific parking program is premature. If Collegetown's past development trends are accepted to guide future development,Alternative B, Alternative C, or a combination of the two is the most appropriate parking program. If the City's development philosophy has changed,the appropriate program would likely fall along the lines of Alternative A or Alternative D. Within any alternative, elements may be fine-tuned as circumstances require or parts of alternatives may be combined. It should be remembered, however,that each alternative has been designed as a system,not 07/10/00 DRAFT 55 i Collegetown Parking Study a collection of independent actions. Any changes proposed must be examined carefully because of the potential to shift the equilibrium of the system and make it less effective. As part of each parking program, short-term recommendations are included to address immediate needs. They are meant to reduce the current competition for parking while longer-term improvements are made, Ow but they are inadequate as a complete parking system. Some of the recommendations are temporary fixes while others can be implemented immediately and are intended to remain for the long-term. Policy Changes Unified Organization The need to treat parking as a system of interrelated parts has been a pervasive theme. In order to accomplish this,there needs to be a clear sense among City departments of what the goals for the parking system are, and who is in charge of realizing the goals. Within the current organizational structure there are at least three separate entities that make decisions about parking. The Ithaca Police Department is the primary enforcer of traffic and parking rules. The City Chamberlain's office manages personnel at all City garages,handles their finances, and collects parking fines. And finally the Department of Public Works oversees parking and maintenance issues. It is unclear how much communication goes on between these departments or if there is a designated protocol for it. Too often it appears that decisions are made and communicated to the other groups after ' the fact and without discussion of how the change might impact parking as a whole. For example,this study was initiated by Common Council and has been overseen by the Department of r Planning and Economic Development. During the study, parking fines have been raised and meters in Oq, Collegetown have been replaced. Neither of these actions was necessarily bad, but they ignored the fact that a parking study was in progress and that its results could have implications on the intended changes. Probably the easiest way to avoid these situations is to have a single department, or person,that handles all issues related to parking. Having all parking decisions go through one place will reduce the number of, and potential for, isolated decisions and miscommunication. 07/10/00 DRAFT 56 Collegetown Parking Study Improved Enforcement Enforcement is the single most important factor in any parking program. Without enforcement in areas that have high parking demand, drivers will abuse the parking system. As soon as people start abusing the system, individual components of the system fail,negating the effectiveness of the system as a whole. Whenever someone abuses the system it takes an opportunity away from someone else and shifts the equilibrium of the system. If one thing in Collegetown is changed, it must be enforcement. Specific goals should be to: • enforce time limits at meters, • eliminate illegal parking in the garage(particularly overnight), and • enforce on street regulations. Enforcing time limits is labor intensive,but in the case of Collegetown,very necessary. Without it,the shortage of short-term parking will limit the number of visitors that can patronize businesses. Monitoring illegal parking in the garage is relatively easy. It could simply be going through the garage between 2 a.m. and five a.m., checking that all cars have permits, and ticketing(or towing)those that don't. Doing this intensively at the beginning of each semester and then two or three times randomly during a week for the rest of the semester should be sufficient to deter illegal parking. Finally,the enforcement of on street regulations varies by the type of regulation. At a minimum, enforcement officers should make rounds at irregular intervals, on a regular basis. The combination of these efforts will be the most effective way to manage how and where different members of the community park. Off Street Parking Requirements The current zoning ordinance isn't working effectively in Collegetown. The parking requirement in the ordinance needs to be updated to promote the type of development and environment that the City wants for Collegetown. Parking ratios should be increased to provide for future development and reflect the existing demand. There should also be more flexibility in how the parking requirements are met. The high volume of cars in Collegetown makes an enormous impact on the neighborhood-from noise and air pollution to adverse effects of backyards being paved for parking. It is in the City's best interest to consolidate parking into a single facility. It will limit these adverse effects to a smaller area and decrease the demand for converted backyards. In order to reduce the environmental impact of cars,the City should allow developers to pay a mitigation fee instead of demanding on-site parking. This increased flexibility allows smaller parcels to be redeveloped and parking to be moved outside the core of Collegetown. Mitigation fees give the City 07/10/00 DRAFT 57 Collegetown Parking Study s more opportunity to encourage alternative transportation, lower parking demand, and can be used by the City to help finance a new parking facility. Parking Regulations Due to the fact that on street parking is in such high demand, it needs to be heavily restricted in order to ensure adequate space for different segments of the population. Intense restrictions will also encourage residents to use long-term parking facilities for their cars instead of storing them on the street. The most restrictive regulation would be to eliminate on-street parking,but this would eliminate useful spaces from everyone's use. An alternative is to implement a residential parking system similar to the one currently used in the RI and R2 zones. A permit should only be valid on the block where the resident lives and parking should be by permit all day long. By limiting the sale of permits the City can effectively decide how many cars will be parked on a street. To increase street capacity,remaining spaces could be accessible through the use of in-vehicle meters(whose sale would also be restricted). Combining the two allows for complete control over the supply of on street parking. s> A less restrictive regulation would be to install more metered spaces on residential blocks(with a four- hour limit). The intent would be that only short-term parkers would use them. Assuming regular enforcement,they would be available for residential visitors and part-time employees that need to park for three to four hours. Leaving the metering in effect 24 hours a day would discourage use by residents and more reliably ensure space for visitors. If this approach is chosen it is important to follow up with a turnover study after four to six months to verify that the average parking duration doesn't exceed four hours and that they aren't full all of the time. �n Another recommendation is to turn meters in the most heavily used areas into 30-minute parking. This would accomplish two things: 1)make the spaces available for quick trips to businesses and restaurants, and 2)make more space available for deliveries. Extending the number of loading zones would be an inefficient use of on street capacity, but having high turnover in metered spaces would increase their availability for deliveries. Additional Supply This falls under the category of the number of available parking spaces. As mentioned earlier,the specific details of supply changes are discussed within the proposed solutions, but this is a good place to discuss the basics of parking supply. 07/10/00 DRAFT 58 Collegetown Parking Study Building a new parking garage, like adding a lane of traffic to a highway,temporarily relieves the situation but quickly attracts new cars to fill the added space. By adding capacity parking is easier, which attracts more cars to the area, and eventually fills the new supply. We've seen from the Residential Survey that few people park in the City garage and many elect to park on the street. To make a new garage economically viable and to open up space on street, something will have to encourage residents to use the new garage. Pushing them out of on street spaces is one way. But once these new spaces open up, if they aren't restricted to some degree they will just be filled by people who had been pushed out of them by the high residential use. The end result would be cars filling the existing spaces and then new garages, with no real change in the ease of finding on street parking. So, again, changing the parking supply without complimentary on street regulations and enforcement will do little to improve parking in Collegetown. Adding parking spaces is time consuming and expensive regardless of the builder. Any decision to change the supply should be based on a conscious decision as to whom should have access to parking and in what numbers. After that decision is made, policies must be implemented to enforce them and deal with the cars that don't have spaces(or discouraging cars from coming in the first place). The amount of residential and commercial growth in Collegetown probably warrants additional parking, but to what level is the most important question being faced. There are significantly more residents and employees in the area than were there fifteen years ago when the Dryden Road Garage was built. But, there is also more off-street parking available. Sizing a new garage is not a simple decision and should be thoroughly discussed. To avoid complaints and disagreement, everyone in Collegetown needs to understand what decision is made and why. Management of Dryden Road Garage Recently the number of hours that the garage is manned has been increased. Any management changes that decrease the potential for parkers to exit without paying should be encouraged. However,there are still times when the booth is unstaffed and astute residents can park for extended periods of time without paying. Increasing coverage to 24 hours is worth implementing,to both discourage misuse of the facility and improve revenue. Another issue brought up earlier was that of demand pricing, or charging more when the garage is in most demand and lowering fees when it is in less demand. This is an effective way of managing a limited 07/10/00 DRAFT 59 Collegetown Parking Study supply, but can't be implemented with the current parking equipment. Upgrading the equipment could entirely automate the garage,negating the need for 24-hour personnel, or it could complement the existing workforce. Introducing flexible rates and a better accounting system can improve the revenue stream and provide more information on the parking times and durations that are instrumental in improving management of a parking facility. Manage/lower demand Knowing that building additional spaces won't magically solve the Collegetown parking problem, we turn to managing the demand. As discussed, if more parking is available and people can use it,they will. So instead of allowing the streets to be clogged by an overabundance of cars, policy needs to reflect that parking is limited and then proactively deal with the consequences of this. W Collegetown is in a very unique situation. It has developed into a small, yet dense,urban center. In many ways it is self-supporting but it is still surrounded by a largely rural area. Services that are normally found in urban centers, such as an extensive public transit system, are more limited. The primary explanation is that Collegetown is very small geographically and there is a rapid decline in density outside of the City, making a widespread transit network extremely difficult and expensive. The two populations whose demand can and should be managed are the employees and residents of Collegetown. Employees' demand is the more difficult of the two groups because they have a wide range of characteristics-from work schedules to where they live. Despite these variations,there is potential to build a carpooling program. A successful program would have to be implemented in conjunction with businesses, or the Collegetown Neighborhood Association. Promoting bus use by employees currently *' reached by the TCAT system is another way to lower parking demand. There are other ways to make the buses more desirable. Options include expanding coverage,extending hours, and providing personalized services. Cornell University runs a gamut of programs that encourage transit use; many are applicable in Collegetown and should be considered as part of any upgrade to the parking system. Dealing with employees' cars is another demand management issue. If there is an inelastic quantity of cars that will be brought to Collegetown by employees-where should they be kept? Ideally,they wouldn't impact the already limited parking supply accessible to visitors. Allowing restricted on street spaces to be used by employees or establishing a parking lot farther outside of Collegetown for the express use of employees are both possibilities. Businesses are the most sensitive to employee satisfaction and having a readily available parking supply for patrons;they are also the most knowledgeable about their employees' 07/10/00 DRAFT 60 Collegetown Parking Study needs. As such, it is logical that they play an integral role in developing and providing parking options for their employees. Residents own the majority of cars in Collegetown and should be the primary focus in attempts to lower their parking demand. As demonstrated by the Resident Survey,the purpose of most trips is for shopping. Grocery stores and the Pyramid Shopping mall are serviced by TCAT bus routes- but evidently don't provide a high enough level of service to attract car owners from driving themselves. There are two primary approaches to this issue: 1)bring a full-service grocery store to Collegetown or, 2)provide a transportation option that makes it as easy to get to and from existing grocery stores than it is to drive. A similar approach may be used to examine the other car uses residents have. The City should work with TCAT to improve service within that framework, identify new programs,and advertise them to the Collegetown population. The transient nature of the Collegetown population is likely to significantly effect their behavior, especially when alternative transportation and parking options aren't well publicized. Too many residents perceive a need for a car-they have to be given options, shown alternatives,encouraged to use them, and discouraged from driving in order to reverse the trend towards universal car ownership. Once a comprehensive parking program is adopted,monitoring it will play an integral role in its efficacy. In the context of this report, parking has been treated as a dynamic component in Collegetown. Accepting this means that the parking needs of Collegetown will change as the residential density, car ownership rates,commercial uses, and other factors evolve. Tracking these statistics on a regular basis would only help the City better manage its parking supply. Using that information and adjusting the parking program in an orderly and systematic manner should be encouraged as a proactive approach to meeting the needs of future development and growth in Collegetown. 07/10/00 DRAFT 61 APPENDICES Residential Survey A Base Results from the Residential Survey B Owner/Manager Survey C Additional Responses from the Owner Survey D Base Results from the Owner/Manager Survey E Employee Survey F Additional Responses from the Employee Survey G Base Results from the Employee Survey H Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type I Off Season Usage Survey Results J In Season Usage Survey Results, Odd-Even K In Season Usage Survey Results, 24 hour L Accumulation of Vehicles in Paid Parking Spaces M Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales N Alternative Parking Programs O Aerial Photograph of Collegetown P 07/10/00 DRAFT Collegetown Parking Study Appendix A: Residential Survey A. 1. How many people of driving age are in your unit/family? One Two Three Four Five More than five 2. How many cars are owned within your unit/family? None One Two Three Four Five More than five 3. Do you own a car? Yes No 4. What,if any,are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? (Check all that apply) a. No problems b. Not enough parking at residences c. Not enough parking spaces on the street d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages f. Too many students with cars g. Other 5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown?(Check all that apply) a. Have house/apartment owners provide more parking spaces on site b. Build another parking garage c. Provide incentives to not own a car d. Other B. If you have a vehicle: 1. Where do you park and how much do you pay? a) On property /month or /year No extra charge b) Private lot /month or /year c) City or private garage /month or year d) On a nearby street e) On-street outside Collegetown neighborhood f) Cornell University parking lot /month or /year g) Other 2. How often do you have a problem finding parking? a)On the street: Never Occasionally Often Always N/A b)In the city garage: Never Occasionally Often Always N/A When do you have difficulty nding a parking s ace? Morning Afternoon Evening Overnight Weekday (Mon.-Thurs.) Weekend (Friday-Sunday) 3. How often do you use your vehicle? Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month 07/10/00 DRAFT 63 i Collegetown Parking Study 4. For what purpose do you use your vehicle?(Check all that apply to you.) Go to Campus Shopping Work Entertainment Drive in and out of Ithaca Other 5. How do you get around? a) Bicycle: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other b) Bus: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other c) Carpool: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other d) Walk: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other e) Other: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month C. If you don't have a vehicle: 1. Why don't you have a vehicle? No driver's license Operating vehicle is too expensive More efficient to use local transit Parking fee—too expensive No parking space at the residence Other 2. How do you get around? *" a) Bicycle: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other b) Bus: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other c) Carpool: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other * d) Walk: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other e) Other: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month D. How long have you lived in Collegetown? ' ------Less than 2 years ------2-5 years ------5-10 years ------More than 10 year Occupation: Sex: F M Block-ID Interviewer Thank you for your help !!! 07/10/00 DRAFT 64 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix B: Base Results from Residential Survey A. Frequency of response 1. How many people of driving age are in your unit/family?Total responses: 422 100% One 93 22% Two 99 23% Three 76 18% Four 67 16% Five 19 5% More than five 68 16% 2. How many cars are owned within your unit/family? Total responses: 421 100% None 91 22% One 116 28% Two 99 24% Three 70 17% Four 21 5% Five 14 3% More than five 10 2% 3. Do you own a car? Total responses: 422 100% Yes 238 56% No 184 44% 07/10/00 DRAFT 65 i Collegetown Parking Study Appendix B (continued) h 4. What,if any,are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents: 420 100% a. No problems 25 6% b. Not enough parking at residences 176 42% C. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236 56% ` d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47 11% e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156 37% f. Too many students with cars 105 25% g. Other 97 23% Summary of"Other"responses: #of times ig ven Parking restrictions(odd-even) 50 12% Don't know 9 2% Too many cars/people/demand 7 2% Unenforced parking regulations 5 1% Streets too narrow 5 1% Private lots 4 1% Cornell 3 1% Residents parking on-street 2 0% Confusing parking policies 2 0% bad drivers/parkers 2 0% Trucks/loading zones 2 0% Non-residents parking in res. Zone 2 0% Metered spaces 2 0% Other(a response that was only given once) 11 3% 5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown? a. More parking spaces on site 88 23% b. Build another parking garage 176 46% C. Provide incentives to not own a car 57 15% d. Other 180 47% Summary of"Other"responses: Don't know 51 13% Change odd-even,parking restrictions 46 12% Cheaper parking 33 9% Improve transit service 14 4% Add more parking 11 3% Cornell 6 2% Build more parking spaces 5 1% Clarify parking rules 5 1% Permit system 4 1% Remove meters 4 1% Eliminate parking fees 2 1% Increase price of parking/tickets 2 1% Make Catherine St.one-way 2 1% More lenient parking enforcement 2 1% No more apartment buildings 2 1% Supermarket in Collegetown 2 1% Other 11 3% 07/10/00 DRAFT 66 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix B (continued) 0 a� b tq U N LL y ♦+ Cl 00 'C O O o N in N N N V') O� NO e a e e e e o e o 0 o e o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � M O �D o o o o M �O 00 M M O o �O •-. tf1 M kn .ti W) N �•-i �O .-r �--i N .-+ M N —4 10 .•1 1�0 M M N Vf !A VJ N 0 0 0 0 O O O O �. Q. O., ¢. N N 7 � �D �-•� m aC+ cC N Y I- N N H N M � F"' vl N N N •-+ F-' � � oo r- bq � 0 O N > b0 > b C' CJ w U � c• � G ea a� ea o sue, awN � •°d 3 � c.� °M° M Y > ea w a� 3 x > o ca o b > ao a v=iC7 ° .''. z000 czOOd c °>' b � > 3 i o c o a� w U ca o o 2 3 o a > Y m Ca oOa000U0 c ° a� c +; c �' °�, a�i w > > C a L C � � b �; .: oa° oo ° 33 owwoo 07/10/00 DRAFT 67 I Collegetown Parking Study 4. What,if any,are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents: 420 100% a. No problems 25 6% G b. Not enough parking at residences 176 42% C. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236 56% d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47 11% e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156 37% f. Too many students with cars 105 25% g. Other 97 23% Summary of"Other"responses: #of times given , Parking restrictions(odd-even) 50 12% Don't know 9 2% Too many cars/people/demand 7 2% Unenforced parking regulations 5 1% Streets too narrow 5 1% Private lots 4 1% Cornell 3 1% Residents parking on-street 2 0% Confusing parking policies 2 0% bad drivers/parkers 2 0% Trucks/loading zones 2 0% Non-residents parking in res.Zone 2 0% Metered spaces 2 0% Other(a response that was only given once) 11 3% gin; 5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown? a. More parking spaces on site 88 23% b. Build another parking garage 176 46% C. Provide incentives to not own a car 57 15% d. Other 180 47% Summary of"Other"responses: , . Don't know 51 13% Change odd-even,parking restrictions 46 12% Cheaper parking 33 9% Improve transit service 14 4% Add more parking 11 3% Cornell 6 2% Build more parking spaces 5 1% , Clarify parking rules 5 1% Permit system 4 1% Remove meters 4 1% Eliminate parking fees 2 1% Increase price of parking/tickets 2 1% Make Catherine St. one-way 2 1% More lenient parking enforcement 2 1% No more apartment buildings 2 1% Supermarket in Collegetown 2 1% Other 11 3% 07/10/00 DRAFT 68 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix B (continued) 0 0 0 °� M kn N "0 O o r- e e e e e 0\ N N tn V �z -4 0 N M .� .•r 00 O N W o N c V 0 0 O rig aj O P �O Cr .� �D � O � p.7 CN N �O l� N ¢, U) w N w cd 7; is N C14 00 U O O � O N 3 a� O �O �• OO U G -- N I'D o 1-- •-+ V M O ti N � �• w o w u � U W v •-• N > � o o y0 b v C4 7 Y O W �OMNNO C b O N L o. E ao E O L Cd ao a, Or O pQ, sueA N O N O 5 O W N 3t7 � 3w ❑ o b oaaaU3o L � w x 1n c0 10 6 b N 07/10/00 DRAFT 69 i Collegetown Parking Study `` Appendix B (continued) a o 0 0 fowl o_ O o 0 0 0 0o e e N o e r. M �� N .••� �•-� 0 o e e e o 0 0 e e e N e k e O N tr kn 00 O --� H N O O 00 rq c' i ¢, 00 �O r- N �O N �D �O �n M M O a- Y O f-' 0MOO � O � O cd 0. y U � O O p N 3 3 U C $ O ':: U U _ �' T U N � y .b � r•. � M M � � q c• N k O N >, 4 L. Cj U N U a ct7 O O N 6� u O sU. U cw v S > Qj y '-' N i. cad N C• W v'� O O > «S O w C 0 > CQ > •O .r O 0 0 > L' CO > N O >,•> y •°oZ ZOaOv� v° aaXU � 3 x 07/10/00 DRAFT 70 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix B (continued) D. How long have you lived in Collegetown? Total responses: 416 99% Less than 2 years 239 57% 2-5 years 159 38% 5-10 years 5 1% More than 10 years 13 3% Occupation Total responses: 420 100% Student 399 95% Other 21 5% Sex Total responses: 421 100% Female 199 47% Male 222 53% Block-ID Total responses: 407 063-01 3 1% 063-02 3 1% 063-03 3 1% 063-04 2 0% 063-05 71 17% 063-07 3 1% 063-08 13 3% 063-09 6 1% 063-10 2 0% 063-11 4 1% 064-02 32 8% 064-08 8 2% 064-09 20 5% 067-01 20 5% 067-02 12 3% 068-01 4 1% 068-02 5 1% 068-03 18 4% 068-04 121 30% 068-05 14 3% 068-07 10 2% 068-08 5 1% 068-09 2 0% 083-02 11 3% 083-04 15 4% unknown 8 2% Interviewer Total responses: 422 100% Jessica Greig 234 55% Tika Gurung 90 21% Sarah Goode 64 15% Esther Ashitey 34 8% Building Type Total responses: 422 100% Multi-unit dwelling 201 48% Single family dwelling 21 5% Large Apartment Building 200 47% 07/10/00 DRAFT 71 I Collegetown Parking Study Appendix C: Owner/Manager Survey 1. Address of the establishment 2. Type of business a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar b. Retail c. Service d. Apartment e. University f Other 3. How many people do you employ full-time? part-time? 4. Does the establishment have any private parking spaces associated with it? Yes No If yes,how many for customers? full-time employees? part-time employees? Is there a fee associated with the parking? Yes No If so,how much? /day /week /month /year 5. Do you receive any deliveries? Yes No If so,at what time of day and how often? a. Early Morning(before 8 am) /day /week /month b. Morning(8am-noon) /day /week /month c. Mid-day(noon-4pm) /day /week /month d. Evening(4pm-8pm) /day /week /month e. Night(after 8pm) /day /week /month f. Variable /day /week /month What problems,if any,do you experience with deliveries? a. No space for trucks to park b. Loading zones are too small for the trucks C. Loading zones aren't convenient to the property d. Traffic inhibits deliveries e. Other(specify) 6. Would you be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in Collegetown? Yes No 7. If such restrictions were put into effect,what delivery times would best meet your needs? Weekday: Weekend: NA 8. Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met? Yes No 9. If you feel that there are parking problems in Collegetown,what do you see as their main causes?(Circle all that apply) ry a. Too many residents with cars b. Not enough parking spaces on the street c. Not enough parking spaces in the Dryden Road garage d. Parking is too expensive e. Transit service is inadequate f. Other(specify) ' 10. What solutions would you suggest to improve the parking situation in Collegetown? (Circle all that apply) a. Have more parking spaces at residences b. Build another parking garage c. Discourage car ownership for Collegetown residents d. Improve transit service e. Don't know f. Other(specify) 11. Would you be willing to contribute funds towards anew public parking facility? Yes No Unsure 12. Would you be interested in participating in a program to provide a TCAT bus pass(at$20 per month) to your employees(the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)? Yes No Unsure 07/10/00 DRAFT 72 "' Collegetown Parking Study Appendix D: Additional Responses from the Owner/Manager Survey • Sell too many passes at the garage • Set up a lottery system • Provide day and night permits • Maintain roads in Collegetown • Why isn't there bus service on Eddy St? • 99% of parkers from"outside" • time restrictions for deliveries wouldn't/couldn't be enforced • shouldn't have replace Dryden lot with a garage-lost downtown business 0 parking/circulation laws in Collegetown aren't enforced • start a shuttle bus from remote lots into Collegetown • garage prices are almost 3 times higher than downtown garages • most employees live outside of the ithaca area • As long as the city of Ithaca grants building permits for retail establishments without requiring off- street parking for their employees,this problem will only increase. Without service industries there would be no Collegetown and until the city of Ithaca realizes that"every opportunity has it's responsibilities"and starts to act in a responsible manner,this issue of parking will only get worse. • Due to the stupid manner of the two-permit system with parking at the Dryden Road Parking Garage, I pay my employees' daily charge instead of buying a monthly pass, I save over$50/month per employee. • Incorporate a bus pass fee into the student fee and then give all students access to the buses • Make ticketing and towing easier for property owners • More metered spaces in 300-400 block of College Ave. and down streets • The city makes more at the parking garage in Collegetown than downtown. Use it towards a new parking ramp. • Priority should not be given to construction crews • More students should be able to keep their cars on campus • Would be more supportive of a new parking structure if there were dedicated spaces for employees • Loading zones aren't convenient to the property • 1 used to have a permit and parked in the Dryden Rd. Garage, however I lost the lottery several times and my check was sent back to me and I often would wait in line up to 1 hour when the garage was full(even when I had a permit). • Bad road conditions in Collegetown • Turn Dryden Road into 15/30 min parking • Add parking requirements for large apartment buildings • Equalize parking prices/strategies between Collegetown and Downtown, creates an unfair disadvantage for Collegetown businesses 07/10/00 DRAFT 73 i Collegetown Parking Study Appendix E: Base Results from Owner/Manager Survey Block—id Block-id 1.Address of the establishment 063-05 10 16% 064-02 14 23% 063-08 6 10% 067-01 9 14% 063-10 1 2% 068-04 22 35% 2.Type of business a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar 34 55% b. Retail 8 13% c. Service 19 31% d. Apartment 1 2% e. University 0 0% f. Other 0 0% 3.How many people do you employ? full-time? 272 40% part-time? 410 60% , 4.Does the establishment have any private parking spaces associated with it? Yes 22 36% No 40 64% If yes,how many for customers? 6 10% full-time employees? 53 85% part-time employees? 3 5% Is there a fee associated with the parking? Yes 6 10% A No 56 90% If so,how much? 5. Do you receive any deliveries? Yes 47 76% No 15 24% If so,at what time of day and how often? a. Early Morning(before 8 am) 4/day 6/week 0/month b. Morning(8am-noon) 23 /day 56/week 0/month c. Mid-day(noon-4pm) 22 /day 35 /week 0/month d. Evening(4pm-8pm) 1 /day 4/week 0/month e. Night(after 8pm) 0/day 0/week 0/month f. Variable 26/day 76/week 10/month What problems,if any,do you experience with deliveries? a.No space for trucks to park 27 44% t1 b. Loading zones are too small for the trucks 14 23% c. Loading zones aren't convenient to the property 10 16% d.Traffic inhibits deliveries 18 29% e. Other(specify) 16 26% 6. Would you be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in Collegetown? Yes 20 32% No 42 68% 7.If such restrictions were put into effect,what delivery times would best meet your needs? Morning, weekday 17 27% Morning, weekend 1 2% Mid-day,weekday 13 21% Night,weekday 1 2% Anytime 3 5% N/A 17 27% Nnn_rPCnnncP i(1 1(�% 07/10/00 DRAFT 74 + Collegetown Parking Study Appendix E (continued) 8.Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met? Yes 15 24% No 47 76% 9.If you feel that there are parking problems in Collegetown,what do you see as their main causes? (Circle all that apply) a.Too many residents with cars 24 39% b.Not enough parking spaces on the street 36 58% c.Not enough parking spaces in the Dryden Road garage 28 45% d.Parking is too expensive 34 55% e.Transit service is inadequate 7 11% f. Other(specify) 21 34% 10.What solutions would you suggest to improve the parking situation in Collegetown? (Circle all that apply) a.Have more parking spaces at residences 21 34% b.Build another parking garage 33 53% c.Discourage car ownership for Collegetown residents 8 13% d.Improve transit service 9 14% e.Don't know 3 5% f. Other(specify) 28 45% 11. Would you be willing to contribute funds towards anew public parking facility? Yes 14 23% No 23 37% Unsure 24 39% 12. Would you be interested in participating in a program to provide a TCAT bus pass(at$20 per month) to your employees(the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)? Yes 11 18% No 39 63% Unsure 12 19% 07/10/00 DRAFT 75 I Collegetown Parking Study Appendix F: Employee Survey 1. What is your work address?(fill-in the blank) 2. What is your employment status?(circle answer) Part-time Full-time(35+hrs/week) 3. How do you usually come to work? (circle one or two answers) a. Drive myself b. Get a ride from someone c. Take public transit d. Walk e. Bicycle f. Other(please specify) 4. How long is your commute? (fill-in) minutes and/or miles 5. How many days a week do you work at this location? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. What time do you usually start work?(fill-in or circle) a.m./p.m. or It Varies **' 7. How many hours do you work each day?(fill-in or circle) hours or It Varies 8. When do you usually work? (circle one answer) a. During the week(Monday morning-Friday afternoon) ' b. On the weekend(Friday evening-Sunday night) „ c. It varies IF YOU DRIVE YOURSELF... ' 9. Where do you usually park?(circle one answer) a. Private/Off-street parking b. Metered,on-street parking c. Free,on-street parking d. Dryden Road Garage e. Other(please specify) If you park in the Dryden Road Garage,do you own a pass?(circle answer) Yes No 10. How far from your workplace do you usually park?(circle one answer) a. Less than a block b. 2 blocks c. 3 blocks d. 4 blocks e. 5 blocks or more 11. Does your employer pay for your parking?(circle answer) Yes No If not,how much do you pay for parking?(fill-in) /day or /week or /month IF YOU DO NOT USE PUBLIC TRANSPORATATION... 12. Why not?(circle all that apply) a. Live too far from a route b. Buses are too slow c. Need a car for work , d. Need a car for non-work related trips e. Bus schedule doesn't coincide with my work schedule f. Buses are too infrequent g. Too many transfers h. Other(please specify) 13. If your employer gave you a TCAT bus pass at no cost to you,would you be more inclined to use public transportation to come to work?(circle answer) Yes No N/A 14. If you have any additional comments,suggestions,or particular concerns with parking that you would like us to be made aware of,please write them on the back of this page or on another page attached to this one. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! 07/10/00 DRAFT 76 ` Collegetown Parking Study Appendix G: Additional Responses from the Employee Survey • When residents are at work during the day,let employees purchase parking permits to use empty resident spaces • Live in Cortland county which isn't serviced by TCAT • Need more free on-street parking • Too many people for the number of parking spaces • Make it more convenient for students to park on-campus • A business discount to the city owned garage would go a long way to show that the city is concerned with all business in the city and not just downtown • Because the City of Ithaca has a stupid 2 pass system for the Dryden St. Parking Garage,and just because I work a normal shift(8am to 4:30pm),I would have to purchase 2 passes(totally unfair). It is less expensive to pay the hourly rate than buy 2 parking passes. Until the city of Ithaca wakes up and stops the unfair practice of taking advantage of the college student(unlike other city parking where only one pass is needed for these hours),they will continue to have the mess of parking in the Collegetown area. Le.parking in lawns,clerks taking the meters,trucks parking anywhere they want with NO enforcement by the meter maids, etc. • Why does the meter attendant give out parking tickets,on days when the city does not even plow or salt? • Should be bigger discounts on parking for people/employees that actually keep Collegetown running. • Make garage more employee friendly. Low cost to workforce or do away with meters • Getting to and from work is a great hassle for me. I don't live far from work but due to a physical challenge I am not able to walk up the hill. I do have a car now but have a very hard time finding parking anywhere near my job. I usually work from 12-8. There is no on street parking during this time. To catch a bus I must walk all the way to Green street bus stop. Then I get to work a'/2 hour early,which means I leave my house an hour early. The drive to work is less than 10 minutes! Due to all of this I have been calling a cab to and from work. Sometimes I spend close to$50 a week just for transportation. There is a cab monopoly in Ithaca. You get a ride when they can pick you up and you pay what they say. I have been late to work so many times. If there were parking for full-time employees in Collegetown my customers would see a smile everyday! • Can you please snowplow the roads(where cars normally park)on off days. Instead of making people not park on the side of the street. It's a huge hassle considering people have to park on the street for work,home, etc. Thanks. • TCAT buses are a rip-off especially on the Cornell campus. Cornell should pay for the entire TCAT service at no cost to the students and citizens of Ithaca. Cornell has enough money that this should not be a problem. God knows that they charge enough for tuition. This school year's increase in the price of taking the bus and the new less frequent schedules and old buses is an outrage. Maybe Cornell wouldn't have such a hard time raising money from alumni if while they were in school they didn't feel ripped off all the time. • Construction in the town causes traffic problems that are unnecessary. Give us a break. I pay more money to this community than you know what to do with. Yet,you want to continue to suck me dry while I run in to get a slice of pizza. • First of all, anywhere one parks is unbelievable costly. I live in Boston and parking is not as expensive as in Ithaca. Pertaining to Dryden Rd.Garage,not only does the hourly cost stink,but also the monthly pass rate is mind-boggling. Secondly, for the amount of students driving cars,there is absolutely not enough parking. On this note,it is the general consensus that Cornell Police are here only to ticket students. If someone parks in a fire lane that's one thing,but if someone is 10 minutes over on a meter?C'mon. I am not a naive college student who thinks everyone is out to get college kids(in fact,I'm pretty rational and logical),but I can really say that parking in Ithaca makes my blood boil. Last semester, I did not buy a parking space because it was$900 for the year. At times, I would get up at 2:00 in the morning to move my car so as not to receive a ticket! I ended up accumulating over$300.00 worth of parking tickets anyway. For someone who is community active and genuinely a reasonable person,this is bullshit. Excuse my non-loquacious last statement.Thank you. • Comments on survey design I guess: Many businesses are evening oriented(bars/restaurants),these people usually start work in the late afternoon and work late into the night; Cornell charges their employees for parking; • Downtown workers can park for free in city lots if they leave the lot after 6pm 07/10/00 DRAFT 77 i Collegetown Parking Study • Parking spaces are not cleared of snow in a timely and efficient manner • Parking is expensive,please help! • I liked it this summer when the parking garage was only$.45 an hour! • Reconsidering buying a Dryden Road Permit because of the expense • Bus#10 would be great if it ran after 2pm • There are never any places to park and it's not convenient to put money in the meter while you're working and the lot is full half the time • Longer parking times for the money. $2 all day! ' • Bring back the trolley • Allowing self-interested neighborhood groups to somehow"own"or control the city and tow of Ithaca streets with silly restrictive signs is insulting and ungrateful to Cornell who supports Ithaca • My main concern is that the ramp fills up and then my pass is no good,I have to find parking on street which when the ramp is full so is on-street parking. I'm then late for work!!! When I get to work it is then busy and I get 4 tickets adding up to$20/day!!! If ramp is full couldn't we show pass in window for free meter parking!!! I'm too poor to pay 3 times more than my counter part workers do downtown and still remain a viable employeeA in Collegetown!!!! Do something!! • My issue is that as a Collegetown employee I must pay$85.00 per month for the same parking privileges that employees in the downtown district pay almost less than half of that to use city parking also. And even paying that amount doesn't guarantee that parking will be available when I arrive at work. Then if I have to park at a meter,I must leave work in order to keep the meter going or suffer parking tickets;which makes my parking cost absurd for a single month. • Outlaw Jeep Grand Cherokees-that would eliminate half the cars in Collegetown. • Would be interested in TCAT bus pass but could only use it during the day • People building large apartment buildings must be responsible for providing parking e.g.underground parking lot • We need another garage in Collegetown with parking that costs$547 per day. • For employees of Collegetown,you should issue us car stickers for free parking. Many times we park blocks ' away because there are no spots. • I think that the lack of full-time meter enforcement results in less turnover of parking spaces • By allowing two cars to park in one parking space, it causes cars to park too close to driveways. It also makes turning corners at intersections very difficult for trucks and buses. My observation is that most cars that park at meters during the week are students who drive in from elsewhere and park while at school. Make all new construction provide enough off street parking. No variances. "' Enlarge the Dryden Road parking garage. Remove the wavy curbs on College Ave. They make the street too narrow in good weather and even narrower in the winter. Snowplowing is next to impossible. , • Ithaca needs to become a 21 century community, while it's fine to preserve nature and invest in small eclectic mom and pop business,it needs to zone business district areas around its downtown and Collegetown areas and provide parking for its students,their visitors and employees. This non-accommodating attitude may be why Cornell fell from its top ten spot and regardless of opinion;decreases in enrollment will not help Ithaca,which already doesn't have a tax base. • I have worked in Collegetown for 4 years. Since I started there has been many parking issues,I have seen the ramp fees go up to$.75/hour or$85/month. I purchase a permit every month for$85(day only)and still on , . many occasions have to find alternate parking due to ramp being full. On these many occasions I have gotten tickets 2 times in one day with total amount of$10,not including the$85 1 have already paid to the City of Ithaca. We were told Budget 2000 included a new parking ramp attendant. No sign of that,so ramp is full until attendant leaves,all those all day parkers are paying$0. 24 hour as we were told at meetings in c-town,in January well what happened to that? Where did the money go?? I feel that we are told so many things that you (the City)know we want to hear but is never followed through. Businesses in Collegetown have been set aside as always in c-town. The residents got their special parking,however,businesses are not allowed to park on their streets anymore. Think of what would happen if we all had to close our doors due to lack of employees who have nowhere to park. There goes tax money. I worked on the Commons for many years and changed to c-town because that is where business is now. It's safer and busier for me. We have lost employees due to parking issues and they went to work and live out of the area. That's sad. There are some wonderful businesses 07/10/00 DRAFT 78 Collegetown Parking Study up here and all city residents love to come. But they don't because of the outrageous parking problem. This is the time to make changes and improvements. Lets get some action now instead of promises that aren't kept. We have signed petitions,been to Common Council meetings,we have spoken to everyone, and we haven't had a solution. I feel there should be a special meeting with businesses and employees with(no student residents) due to the same sad story of noise, garbage, etc.that has nothing to lose with the parking in c-town. Would love to hear what's going to happen next,hoping it's not more empty promises. • I park in the garage because it is convenient to work. It is out of the weather,and I think there is some security with people coming in and out but trying to find a parking spot is very hard and seeing that I pay for a monthly permit I feel I should have a secure space. I don't think I should pay twice once with my permit then again with a parking meter or a ticket. Public transportation is not an option for me. I live an hour out of town and work hours that there are no public transportations running. I know many local people that won't even go into Collegetown because parking is so bad. Ithaca College students don't come up for the same reason. • Just to be sure that developers who put up large student housing projects in Collegetown are not allowed to skimp on providing parking for them through parking variances or through overly conservative estimates of how many cars would be added to the neighborhood. I'm not sure if this was adequately addressed when the most recent apartments in Collegetown went up. • Business/commercial occupants of Collegetown and their employees should have 15`priority for spaces,then residents,but fewer cars. College employees/students should be the LAST consideration. Parking is outrageous! As bad as a"big city"...special day rates(low)for employees would help,some reasonable rate for shoppers. • If there's space,have a lot available for residents of Collegetown to park in. Have it at a lower rate maybe around$100/month. Or if residents have to park far away from their homes maybe have a shuttle that would pick them up from the lot and have drop off points at various sections of Collegetown. • At$.50/hr in Collegetown,I pay for at least 5 work-related hours of parking each week. Assuming I take 2 weeks off each year,that's still 250 hrs,or$125. Granted,that's not a lot of money,but for someone trying to make a living at the wages paid in Collegetown, it is. Are they fair wages,I really don't know,I'm not an economist,but there sure are a lot of times when$125 would come in handy. I used to work upwards of sixty hrs/week in Collegetown,and my primary place of employment is still in the neighborhood,but the current parking situation is definitely having the effect of... • I do not feel the price per hour should vary from garage to garage because of the type of people who use it. The price should not be based on the fact that students are going to be using it. Everyone is penalized for that and if the students were not here,there would be a lot of"Out of Business"places. • Parking lanes must be plowed more frequently. • Working evenings we sometimes get ticketed for parking on the wrong side of the street when we parked where we could at 4pm. Why not park on both sides of the street? • I'm a waitress and lots of times I can't get right out there every two hours though I try! I'm tired of getting parking tickets every time I cannot get out there on time. I do pay the meters and try to get out there but in my business sometimes it's NOT possible and the meter people will give you two tickets in a day if not more. I'm sick of it and I don't think it's fair. They also know who tries to pay and what cars are up here to work. • I drive because it takes me 7 min to get here. It takes me 1 hour on the bus to get here and back. The meter maids get off on giving tickets up here,big time!!! They wait by the meter till they run out,what's up with that? • Parking in Collegetown is a complete mess, especially with the useless odd/even rule. Collegetown needs a very large parking garage for functionality,regardless of the eyesore. • I don't think we need more parking for SUV sorority girls! • Bus schedules are too complicated • I'm concerned that more apartments are being built with no additional parking being provided. Employees should have discounted if not free passes to park in the Collegetown area. Some days I have to come in an hour early,drive around for a spot and sometimes have to park in Cayuga Heights. I also have heard many customers complain that the#1 reason they avoid Collegetown and go elsewhere is because of parking hassles. • Sometimes the garage is full and I never have enough change for meters. I want to park free or there should be more busses that go to Collegetown during the day. • I work in Collegetown and it would be nice if employees got a discount or free parking since it is our businesses that bring vehicles to Collegetown. • It costs way too much for parking to come to work 07/10/00 DRAFT 79 I Collegetown Parking Study • Stop the building and create parking! • Stop ticketing • Why is the parking garage in Collegetown so much more expensive than the two downtown? They are all owned by the City of Ithaca,so it makes no sense! • I would gladly take the bus if I lived in the near vicinity of work however I live in Whitney Point and must drive a car. My complaint is that in Collegetown parking per hour is almost double what lot parking is per hour anywhere else in Ithaca. I find that parking on the street at un-metered spots(I can't use a metered spot because I work 9 hours and can't leave to feed the meter)requires several blocks of walking uphill to get to work. Students who live in apartments in Collegetown often park their cars using up space needed for employees, customers,patients, and leave them for weeks at a time. I believe these students and locals need to take advantage of the bus and leave available space for those that need it! • The parking ramp is very expensive for people who have to park for a long time. • Too expensive; landlords take advantage of lack of public spots. . • Make campus buses free. • Parking regulations need to be enforced on a consistent basis,i.e.tow cars which don't have the proper permit(PSHCT),because students park in the(24 hr)permit only lot because they know very rarely does anyone get ticketed much less towed like the sign says will happen. Also much of the"PSHCT"parking is used by"MT"permits in the morning. Sometimes it may be valid for meetings,but often it is abused by people getting coffee or breakfast. There is a designated space(of 4/5 spaces)for MT permits 7:30am-5pm M-F. However there are so many"MT"vehicles sometimes they use 3/4 of , the PSHCT parking,all the MT spaces and the loading zones. Another permit which needs more enforcement is the handicap permit. Many times individual s get these '' permits due to injury and keep them for months even years after the injury has completely healed. This is illustrated by the SUV's w/handicap permits pulling in the lot with a kayak or skis strapped to the top,then the driver bounds out of the car,leaping up the steps 2 or 3 at a time,etc. Also,the handicap parking permit seems to entitle individuals to park in any space on campus regardless of permit for that lot or a handicap space available. • If TCAT came closer to my house(closest stop is around.8 miles)I'd definitely take the bus! Parking at Cornell is bad,but not unique in academia. • I might use a bus if I didn't have to give up my parking permit in order to get it(CU employee). I'm willing to pay the money to have convenient parking but I get very frustrated when so many of the spaces are taken by service/MT vehicles or by cars with no permits. I wish they'd enforce the"tow away"threat. Ticketing cars ,. doesn't do enough. • The lot has 1/4 no sticker cars in it most days. These are seldom ticketed,never towed,though the lot is supposed to have 24 hr towing. Also 3 of 10 spots are usually filled with HS permits. These cars sit there unmoved for days at a time. I pay much too much for parking to have to pay to park in the Dryden Road Lot on days when 6 of 10 spaces are filled with cars which really don't belong there. p.s. for handicapped students they don't seem to have any trouble running up and down the stairs and driving 6-8 friends around. How about if the HS space is filled(usually with the green Explorer)? The other folks find a different HS reserved spot to park in. I often need my vehicle for work so I need it handy. • Cornell Transportation needs to investigate more when giving out handicap permits. Make sure person has a handicap,not using a family member's permit. Parking is so difficult in Collegetown,when every student drives its own vehicle and doesn't care where they park. There should be specific areas for them to park and they too should obey the parking rules like the employees do. • I think it sucks that Cornell does not do more for employees with parking problems. Cornell commuters should not have to pay because they live out of the county! Need more free parking in Collegetown for Cornell employees. • Stop(to Cornell)selling 3 permits for each parking space • Cornell should not charge their employees to park on campus. They also shouldn't sell 3 permits for every one parking space on campus. • I usually walk. Occasionally I use the Dryden lot,occasionally at night I use open CU lots. I use the shuttle bus (#10)during the day. I also use a TCAT pass at other times(free)because I do not pay to park at CU. Very infrequently I use my free CU parking passes in outlying lots. 07/10/00 DRAFT 80 �» Collegetown Parking Study Appendix H: Base Results from Employee Survey 1. What is your work address? 063-05 56 20% 064-02 75 27% 063-08 6 2% 067-01 45 16% 063-10 10 4% 068-04 84 30% 064-01 1 0%1 1 2. What is your employment status? Full-time(35+hrs/week) 156 57% Part-time 119 43% 3. How do you usually come to work? a. Drive myself 189 69% b. Get a ride from someone 33 12% c. Take public transit 19 7% d. Walk 83 30% e. Bicycle 7 2% f. Other(please specify) 0 0% 4. How long is your commute? Time: 12.7 minutes on average Distance: 9.2 miles on average 5. How many days a week do you work at this location? 1 11 3% 5 106 33% 2 28 9% 6 93 29% 3 29 9% 7 27 8% 4 27 8% 6.What time do you usually start work? a.m. 4:00 1 p.m. 12:00 10 8:00 6 5:00 1 1:00 2 9:00 11 6:00 4 2:00 3 10:00 5 7:00 8 3:00 3 It Varies 65 8:00 31 4:00 6 9:00 40 5:00 8 10:00 19 6:00 3 11:00 12 7:00 1 7.How many hours do you work each day? Time: 7.4 hours on average It Varies 76 8.When do you usually work? a. During the week 107 39% b. On the weekend 11 4% c.It varies 155 57% 07/10/00 DRAFT 81 i Collegetown Parking Study Appendix H (continued) IF YOU DRIVE YOURSELF... 9. Where do you usually park? a.Private/Off-street parking 54 26% b. Metered,on-street parking 61 29% c. Free,on-street parking 38 18% d. Dryden Road Garage 44 21% e. Other(please specify) 11 5% If you park in the Dryden Road Garage,do you own a pass? Yes 17 39% No 27 61% 10. How far from your workplace do you usually park? a. Less than a block 97 48% b. 2 blocks 51 25% c. 3 blocks 33 16% d. 4 blocks 11 5% e. 5 blocks or more 9 4% 11. Does your employer pay for your parking? Yes 41 No 161 ' If not,how much do you pay for parking?(fill-in) less than$5 8 $5-10 13 ++ $10-15 11 Average: $19.21 $15-20 9 ` $20-25 19 $25-30 3 $30-35 8 $35-40 7 $40-45 3 more than$45 3 IF YOU DO NOT USE PUBLIC TRANSPORATATION... 12. Why not? a. Live too far from a route 93 33% b.Buses are too slow 46 16% c.Need a car for work 52 19% d.Need a car for non-work related trips 55 20% e.Bus schedule doesn't coincide with my work schedule 85 30% £Buses are too infrequent 49 18% g.Too many transfers 15 5% h.Other(please specify) 60 22% 13. If your employer gave you a TCAT bus pass at no cost to you,would you be more inclined to use public transportation to come to work? Yes 57 22% No 165 64% N/A 36 14% 07/10/00 DRAFT 82 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix I: Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type 100 80% - �> Large 60% Apartment 40% ■Multiple 20% Dwelling 0% 01 .�0 g �{� 4 Purpose of Vehicle Use 07/10/00 DRAFT 83 Collegetown Parking Study ApI oendix J: Off Season U age Survey Results, Odd-Even Parking Regulation Street Block Weekday vehicle count Total 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00 Total Total ]Contin. Total -IContin.lTotal Cont in. Stewart 18 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 Stewart 10 9 8 8 4 4 6 3 Stewart 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Stewart 9 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 E. Seneca 10 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 E. Seneca 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 E. Seneca 8 4 2 1 3 1 1 1 E. Seneca 10 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 N. Quarry 26 7 5 5 3 3 6 2 N. Quarry 13 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 Eddy 35 10 11 6 15 5 7 3 Eddy 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 Eddy 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Eddy 10 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 5 Eddy 11 2 5 1 8 0 1 0 , ,r, 41,_," 4 0 Eddy Eddy. Blair 29 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 Blair 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blair 17 0 3 0 5 0 3 0 Cook 15 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cook 13 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 Orchard 8 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 Highland 19 8 10 6 12 5 11 5 Dryderx m Dryden, 6 Dryden 217 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA College 33 6 18 3 15 0 6 0 College 18 0 4 0 5, 0 1 0 !College, 0, 1 :01 Goltege pol]eg, College 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 4 2 -3'r�`4,'-- ,--Z ege. ", -'�3 6 ' Oak 20 20 5' 9 0 21, " - Oak 21 8 20 8 25 6 14 Linden 18 5 4 3 2 0 3 0 Linden. 14 , 6, 10 6, 5 Linden 13 4 2 0 6 0 6 1 Bryant 14 6 11 6 12 5 7 4 Totals 786 115 216 76 213 41 182 28 Meter 146,:%, 24- 86, 16 76,- Garage 217 na na na na na na na free-on- 423 91 130 60 137 35 97 24 Istreet Date of Survey: January 5,2000 07/10/00 DRAFT 84 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix K: In Season Usage Survey Results, Odd-Even Parking Regulation Street Block Week ay vehicle count Total 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00 Total Total Contin. Total Contin. Total Contin. Stewart 18 15 16 12 14 11 14 11 Stewart 10 10 8 8 10 8 8 6 Stewart 4. 4 4 2 2 0 3 0 Stewart 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 Stewart 3, 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 Stewart 9 8 8 5 91 5 8 5 E.Seneca 10 7 8 5 81 5 9 3 E.Seneca 11 9 10 5 9 3 9 3 E.Seneca 8 8 7 6 8 61 7 3 E.Seneca 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 N.Quarry 26 231 25 22 23 20 23 12 N.Quarry 13 12 11 10 12 10 12 10 Eddy 35 16 33 161 30 12 26 10 Eddy 5 7 7 7 6 5 6 3 Eddy 16 16 15 11 15 10 16 9 Eddy 10 9 9 9 9 8 9 6 Eddy,,,-, `13 11 7 6 16 A9 };."ri,i" I Eddy 11 9 9 7 9 7 8 3 Eddp.. ,. 8 . 5 3" 3 " 8' 0 9 Eddy." 8 o 3 0. 6 0 8 0 Eddy 2 2 2 i 2 0 2 Blair 29 261 29 24 28 23 24 19 Blair 8 4 13 0 13 3 7 2 Blair 17 9 10 8 11 9 9 6 Cook 15 11 12 9 11 8 9 6 Cook 13 13 12 9 13 9 12 4 Orchard 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 Highland 19 23 23 22 21 19 20 17 Dryden 12 13 14 4 14 1 l7 0 Dryden:; 30 13 25 8 311, S 25 Dryden` " "6 i 3 6 1 6` T 7 . Dryden N,6.2i7:` "°:90 188 College 33 251 31 20 29 20 19 10 College 18 16 17 15 16 11 10 8 College 13 8 16 8 18 6 is 3 College 5 i 2 5 1 5 i4 1 College 6 5 6 3 6 2 6 0 College 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 College 3 ': 21 3 2 3 21 3 0 Oak 20 ill 23 9 22 3 20 2 Oak 21 20 20 20 21 19 17 13 Linden 18 18 18 16 18 15 19 11 Linden 14 13 13 11 12 11 10 " 3 Linden 13 7 9 2 12 2 12 7 Bryant 14 13 131 12 141 51 13 6 Total 786 532 708 355 732 301 640 215 Meter 146 93 132 60 154 35 155 14 Garage 217 90 188 " NA 193: NA �' free-on-street 349 388 295 385 266 338 201 07/10/00 DRAFT 85 I Collegetown Parking Study Appendix L: In Season Usage Survey Results, 24 Hr. Parking Regulation Street Block Wee ay vehicle count Total 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00 Total I Total Contin. Total Contin. Total Contin. Stewart 18 171 18 14 16 10 15 7 Stewart 10 10 9 8 9 7 10 7 Stewart 4 1 3 2 4 2 '4 1 Stewart 3 4 3 2 3 1 3 1 Stewart 3 4 1 1 2 0 4 ;0 Stewart 9 7 9 5 7 4 8 4 E.Seneca 10 10 11 7 10 5 8 5 E.Seneca 11 9 9 8 101 7 6 4 E.Seneca 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 3 E.Seneca 10 11 11 11 11 8 11 6 N.Quarry 26 26 27 23 28 20 24 18 N.Quarry 13 14 14 12 14 11 12 7 Eddy 35 36 37 32 33 25 29 13 Eddy 5 6 6 4 7 4 7 3 Eddy 16 16 16 12 14 9 13 9 Eddy 10 10 10 9 10 9 8 6 Eddy` 13 - 12 . 15 7 . `14 2 201 Eddy 11 9 7 7 9 6 8 6 Eddy S. 6 "" . 3 1 6 Q 7 .. Q �. Eddy' `B 5 6 3 . .8 ";� 9 Ir Eddy 2 2 2 2.. 2 %-2 Blair 29 25 26 19 28 15 24 11 Blair 8 11 14 9 13 9 10 6 Blair 17 12 12 11 11 10 11 6 Cook 15 11 13 10 12 9 11 3 Cook 13 14 14 14 14 12 11 5 0 Orchard 8 6 4 1 4 0 5 0 Highland 19 21 21 17 20 16 20 11 Dryden 12 9 13 4 . 13 1' l7 "'t Dryden 30 27- 33 14 34 13 35 Dryden 6 6 7 1 5 U" 7 .."';its Dryden.:_ 217- 87 204 °.`' T5. ,? 193 ,° 66 13 44 2 College 33 32 33 27 28 18 26 14 College 18 181 18 16 181 14 15 8 College 13 9 18 3 14 3 14 I College 5 4 6 3 5 © 7 .Q College 6 4 6 2 6 1 6 3 College 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 3 2 4 2 4 - 0 3 O Oak 20 231 25 <14 241 10 20 4 Oak 21 29 28 23 291 19 28 11 Linden 18 17 15 14 17 14 19 8 Linden 14 10 14 5 12 3 15 0 Linden 13 13 13 11 14 11 13 10 Bryant 14 14 14 11 14 9 13 4 Totals 786 627 780 757 684 Meter 146 124 156 64 153 39 175 15 Garage 217 87 204.. 75' 193- '133 ' 42 free-on-stre 423 416 420 345 411 286 376 196 07/10/00 DRAFT 86 Collegetown Parking Study Appendix M Paid Parking Spaces: Daytime Vehicle Accumulation* At meters 350 A 300 — — — _ _ —a---In garage 250 _, - -- - ---- --- - -- - - - - - > 200 - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - -- --- - - -- -- - - ---- - - -- - �. - _ Total 0 150 -- 100 — --- — 50 -- -- - -Garage z 0 Capacity 8:00- 9:00- 10:00- 11:00- 12:00- 13:00- 14:00- 15:00- 16:00- 17:00- 18:00- 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Time of Day *An accumulation chart depicts how many cars used the available spaces at a given time. Appendix N Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales 140 120 - - , 100 ---- ---- 1998-Day 0 80 - - \ �-1998-Evening A- 1999-Day i �• V A • \ \ - 1999-Evening a60 — - x--2000-Day :• � \ °• � �-2000-Evening % \ /, \ 40 - ------ -- \\ J4 20 ---- - - - / ------- 0 Month 07/10/00 DRAFT 87 I Collegetown Parking Study Appendix O: Alternative Parking Programs The alternatives presented here provide a series of directions that the community can take to address Collegetown's parking needs. The goal is to illustrate these different approaches and to lay out specific actions that would be required under each. The hope is that this will assist the community in understanding the options and selecting the most appropriate approach. Changes recommended under all alternatives A number of changes to the existing parking system should be adopted,regardless of the alternative selected. These universal changes are as follows: 1. Regularly enforce parking regulations: ■ 2 hour limits at meters, • Overnight parking in the garage by permit only, ' ■ On street regulations(ex. odd-even during the winter), 2. Change meters on Dryden between Eddy and College and on the 400 block of College into short aw,. term parking(15-30 minutes), 3. Publicize tax-free transit subsidies'that are available to business owners and their employees, 4. Better publicize the bus routes available to Collegetown residents(31, 51,and 84). Investigate ways to make them more appealing to residents(mandatory stops,extend 84 farther down College, etc.), S. Educate renters about parking in Collegetown. Specifically,produce a"Transportation and Parking Options"brochure. Distribute it to Cornell and landlords for distribution to students and renters. It will outline what transportation services are available and encourages them NOT to bring a car; it also explains municipal parking regulations, fine structure, and different parking options(private parking, City garage, Cornell lots, on street). 6. Convert Catherine Street into a one-way street, with traffic travelling from east to west. 7 Lopez,Jennifer. "Pre-tax parking and transportation benefits," The Tax Advisor. July, 1999,pgs.473-4. 07/10/00 DRAFT 88 " Collegetown Parking Study Alternative Parking Solutions More comprehensive and longer term alternatives for addressing Collegetown's parking needs are discussed below, and consist of the following: Alternative A: Additional Municipal Parking to Meet Existing Needs Alternative B: Meet Present and Future Demand for Housing, Office, and Retail Development, Alternative C: Encourage Multi-modal Transportation, Alternative D: Limit New Parking Demand. Alternative A: ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL PARKING TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS Goal: Satisfy parking needs for existing residential uses through the construction of additional municipal parking. Require developers of new residential units to provide for future parking needs through increased off-street parking requirements. Description: • Construct a large municipal parking facility to meet the current parking deficit in Collegetown. Limit use of the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be determined. The options include the corner of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the block bounded by Eddy,College,Dryden, and Catherine Streets. A lower cost, but less convenient, alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower—either as a parking structure or a surface lot. • Make on-street parking regulations more restrictive. • Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high demand. Price it to be less desirable as a location for residential parking. • Give employees more parking options. Use the existing parking supply or work with employers and employees to develop a park and ride lot. • Provide a shuttle service to popular locations to lower residential demand for a car. • Increase off street parking requirements for new residential development and conversions. The parking ratios should be based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey. The locations of new off-site parking determined by current zoning ordinance. • Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included. Implications: • Providing sufficient parking for current levels of car ownership will make parking easier,but will also make it more attractive to own a car. This could ultimately increase traffic congestion and raise parking demand beyond the new supply,reinventing the parking problem. • There will be a need to encourage the use of storage parking through programs that lessen perceived and actual needs for a car. • Building a municipal garage of this scale within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both to acquire the land and construct the facility. The scale could also adversely affect the character of Collegetown. • Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The newly designated short term parking areas will be available for deliveries, loading and unloading cars, running into restaurants to pick up orders, and other quick trips. 07/11/00 DRAFT 89 i Collegetown Parking Study • Strict enforcement of on street parking regulations will encourage residents to use the municipal parking garage. Currently, only 25%of car owners pay to park in locations not at their residence. That number must be significantly higher to justify the cost of a new facility. • Changing the pricing of the Dryden Road Garage could place it beyond the financial means of some employees. • Stiffer requirements for on-site parking will raise the cost of new residential development. It will also ,• reduce the amount of residential development that is feasible in Collegetown due to the small parcel sizes characteristic there. • Higher costs for new residential development will bias new housing to more affluent residents. • More developable area will be devoted to parking. Without compensating changes in development densities,the higher requirement would lead to a decrease in urban density as land is used for parking instead of commercial or residential uses. Plan A Elements Components Short Term Long Term . Off Street Parking Requirements • Change requirements to 1:2 in B2b and 2:3 in R3a,R3b,and 132a for the Zoning Ordinance • All spaces must be on-site or within the boundaries of the current zoning ordinance Supply • Publicize residential storage • Build a residential storage parking in Cornell's B-lot facility(-600 spaces)*** • Allow employees to park in • Allow employees to park in RPPS**zone with in-vehicle all permit zones w.meters meters Or • Provide satellite parking for employees On-street • Re-establish odd-even • Institute parking by permit restrictions year round only 8am-6pm „•< (Sell 1 per house.) Dryden Road Garage • Allow permit holders to park • Update current parking in RPPS when garage is full equipment • Increase charges on weekend Or nights 0 Automate-Pay and Display with a permit option;change rates to regulate demand Demand • Initiate a shuttle service for • Provide a van service to high demand locations grocery stores Or • Recruit someone to open a grocery store in Collegetown *1:2 gives the number of parking spaces per bed,this ratio requires one parking space for two beds. **RPPS=Residential Parking Permit System ***More calculations need to be done to size the facility. This is only an approximation. The actual size should take into consideration anticipated redevelopment,current under-supply and space for employees. 07/11/00 DRAFT 90 Collegetown Parking Study Alternative B: MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE DEMAND FOR HOUSING, OFFICE,AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Goal: Promote more efficient use of existing parking facilities. Provide some municipal parking to relieve pressure on existing parking facilities. Require developers of new residential units to provide for future parking needs through increased off-street parking requirements. Description: • Increase off street parking requirements for residential development. The parking ratios should be determined from the car ownership rates observed in the residential survey. Mitigation measures may cover a fraction of the required spaces. Such measures could include establishing bike or car share programs,or providing shuttles to popular destinations in town. Mitigation fees paid to the City could be used to fund a new parking facility or demand management program. • Make on street parking regulations more restrictive. • Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high demand. Price it to discourage residential parking. • Give employees more parking options. Use the existing supply or work with employers to develop a park and ride lot. • Provide a shuttle service to popular locations, lowering the demand for a car. • Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Residents will be the primary clients of the facility. Location for the facility needs to be determined; options are the corner of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the block bounded by Eddy, College, Dryden, and Catherine Streets. A lower cost alternative would be to site the building outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower. • Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included. Implications: All of the implications cited for Alternative A are applicable for Alternative B. The primary difference between the two is where parking may be located and the size of the municipal parking facility. The results of these differences are as follows: • Allowing off-site parking should lower the cost of development thus facilitating new development. It could also shift where congestion is located by concentrating cars in different areas of Collegetown. • Even building a smaller municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive,both to acquire the land and construct the facility. The scale could also adversely affect the character of Collegetown. • Expanding the options for parking requirements will facilitate development. Encouraging additional growth will: ➢ increase the City's tax base and conversely raise revenue, ➢ expand the clientele in close proximity to the commercial portion of Collegetown, which should bolster their business and increase sales tax revenue for the City. 07/11/00 DRAFT 91 I Collegetown Parking Study Plan B Elements Components Short Term F Long Term Off Street Parking Requirements • Change requirements to 1:2* in all Collegetown zones(132b,R3a, for the Zoning Ordinance R3b,and 132a) • Require all parking on-site or developer may pay a mitigation fee to the City(to be used for construction of a new facility or to provide transportation services that reduce demand for a car)or provide mitigation measures that offset car use. Supply • Publicize residential storage • Build a residential storage parking in Cornell's B-lot facility with phased • Allow employees to park in construction(300 spaces RPPS**zone with in-vehicle initially with option to add meters 200-300)*** • Satellite parking for employees Or • Allow employees to park in all permit zones with meters On-street • Re-establish odd-even • Institute parking by permit restrictions year round only 8am-6pm Dryden Road Garage 0 Allow permit holders to park • Give price breaks on permits in RPPS when garage is full for car-poolers(3+) • • Increase charges on weekend • Automate-Pay and Display nights with a permit option,change • Establish a business benefit rates to regulate demand zone-allows businesses to Or purchase a limited number of • Update current parking permits for employees to equipment share Demand • Initiate a van service to • Recruit someone to open a grocery stores grocery store in Collegetown *1:2 gives the number of parking spaces per bed,this ratio requires one parking space for two beds. **RPPS=Residential Parking Permit System ***More calculations need to be done to size the facility. This is only an approximation. The actual size should take into consideration anticipated redevelopment,current under-supply and space for employees. •fi 07/11/00 DRAFT 92 Collegetown Parking Study Alternative C. ENCOURAGE MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION Goal: Adopt policies that discourage car ownership and use in Collegetown. Encourage multi-modal transportation. Add some off street parking capacity. Description: • Mitigation measures for off-street parking requirements will promote multi-modal transportation and programs that lower the demand for a car. • Off street parking requirements for residential development increases in the R3a,R3b, and 132a zones but stays the same for 132b. The location of parking is more flexible and mitigation measures can cover the required spaces. Such measures could include establishing bike or car share programs,or providing shuttles to popular destinations in town. Mitigation fees paid to the City could be used to fund a new parking facility or demand management program. • Make on street parking regulations more restrictive. • Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high demand. Price it to be less desirable for residential parking. • Give employees more parking options. Use the existing parking supply or work with employees and employers to develop a park and ride lot. • Expand transportation options for Collegetown employees. • Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Limit use of the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be determined. The options include the corner of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the block bounded by Eddy, College,Dryden, and Catherine Streets. A lower cost,but less convenient, alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower- either as a parking structure or a surface lot. • Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included. Implications: • Revised off street parking requirements encourage mitigation measures, instead of parking,to meet the transportation needs of residents. • Cost of development will be less expensive given the relaxed parking requirements,this could encourage more development than currently exists. • Expanding the options for parking requirements will facilitate development. Encouraging additional growth will: ➢ increase the City's tax base and conversely raise revenue, ➢ expand the clientele in close proximity to the commercial portion of Collegetown, which should bolster their business and increase sales tax revenue for the City. • High demand for parking will put the most pressure on low-income employees and could force them to seek employment elsewhere. Promoting alternative modes that fit employee transportation needs and/or providing alternative parking options will help to prevent employees from abandoning their jobs. • Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The newly designated short term parking areas will be available for deliveries, loading and unloading cars, running into restaurants to pick up orders,and other quick trips. • Strict enforcement of on street parking regulations will encourage residents to use the municipal parking garage. Currently,only 25%of car owners pay to park in locations not at their residence. That number must be significantly higher to justify the cost of a new facility. 07/11/00 DRAFT 93 i W, Collegetown Parking Study , • The financial impact of increasing the parking supply depends on what type and where a facility is built. A municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive,both in land and construction costs. A lower cost,but less convenient, alternative would be to site this parking outside , of Collegetown- either as a parking structure or a surface lot. The cheapest alternative would be to use existing,underutilized parking lots. • Less developable area will be devoted to parking. This could lead to an increase in urban density as land is used for commercial or residential uses instead of parking. • Market price of parking will increase as demand rises. The market is likely to increase the parking supply until equilibrium between car ownership and parking is reached. This could translate into more backyards paved for off-street parking or more surface lots. Plan C Elements Components Short Term Long Term Off Street Parking Requirements • Leave the requirement at IT in 132b and change the requirement for the Zoning Ordinance to 1:2 in R3a,Rib,and 132a • No on-site parking required,all can be off-site or provide < mitigation fees or measures to cover parking demand based on the above ratios Supply • Publicize residential storage • Provide satellite parking for parking in Cornell's B-lot employees • Allow employees to park in • Build a residential storage all permit zones with in- facility with phased vehicle meters construction(300 spaces initially,option to add more)*** Or • Identify underutilized parking lots(Pyramid,East Hill Plaza,etc.)to use for remote storage,with high level of service shuttle On-street • Institute parking by permit-only 8am-6pm Dryden Road Garage • Allow permit holders to park • Automate-Pay and Display in RPPS**when garage is with a permit option,change full rates to regulate demand ` • Give price breaks on permits Or for car-poolers(3+) • Update current parking • Increase charges on weekend equipment nights Demand • Initiate van service to • Recruit someone to open a grocery stores grocery store in Collegetown • Initiate shuttle service to • Expand transit service to high demand locations meet employee needs • Research the feasibility of a • Improve bike services car-sharing program • Start a car-sharing program * 1:3 gives the number of parking spaces per bed,this ratio requires one parking space for three beds. **RPPS=Residential Parking Permit System ***More calculations need to be done to size the facility. This is only an approximation. The actual size should take into consideration anticipated redevelopment,current under-supply and space for employees. 07/11/00 DRAFT 94 Collegetown Parking Study Alternative D: LIMIT NEW PARKING DEMAND Goal: Limit new parking problems by stopping development that increases the residential population. Promote the efficient use of existing parking facilities. Provide limited additional municipal parking to relieve pressure on existing parking facilities. Description: • Down-zone Collegetown such that new development does not increase the net number of beds for redeveloped parcel(s).. • Make on street parking regulations more restrictive. • Expand transit services that address the particular needs of employees. • Provide a shuttle service to popular locations to lower residential demand for a car. • Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high demand. Price it to be less desirable as a location for residential parking. Provide discount permits for people that carpool(2 or more passengers). • Increase off street parking requirements for new residential development. The parking ratios should be based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey. The locations of new off-site parking determined by current zoning ordinance,but half can be supplied through mitigation fees. These fees could help fund a new garage,establish bike or car share programs, or provide shuttles to popular destinations in town. • Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Limit use of the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be determined. The options include the corner of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the block bounded by Eddy, College, Dryden,and Catherine Streets. A lower cost, but less convenient, alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower- either as a parking structure or a surface lot. • Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included. Implications: • Expect less development than in recent years because the number of beds can't be increased and there is an increased cost to provide additional parking. • Providing sufficient parking for current levels of car ownership will make parking easier, but will also make it more attractive to own a car. This could ultimately increase traffic congestion and raise parking demand beyond the new supply,reinventing the parking problem. • Higher costs for new residential development will bias new housing to more affluent residents. • Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The newly designated short term parking areas will be available for deliveries, loading and unloading cars, running into restaurants to pick up orders,and other quick trips. • Changing the pricing of the Dryden Road Garage could place it beyond the financial means of some employees. • Strict enforcement of on street parking regulations will encourage residents to use the municipal parking garage. Currently, only 25%of car owners pay to park in locations not at their residence. That number must be significantly higher to justify the cost of a new facility. 07/11/00 DRAFT 95 I Collegetown Parking Study • Even building a smaller municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both to acquire the land and construct the facility. The scale could also adversely affect the character of Collegetown. Plan D: Limit Parking Demand Components Short Term Long Term Off Street Parking Requirements . Change requirements to 2:3 in all zones for the Zoning Ordinance . Mitigation fees can replace half of the spaces «- • Down-zone Collegetown neighborhood to lower the population density for future development Supply • Publicize residential storage • Build a residential storage parking in Cornell's B-lot facility with phased • Allow employees to park in construction(300 initially RPPS**zone with option to add 200-300 spaces)*** On-street • Re-establish odd-even • Institute parking by permit restrictions year round only 8am-6pm Dryden Road Garage • Allow permit holders to park • Establish a business in RPPS when garage is full assessment district which • Give a price break on permits allows businesses to for car-poolers(3+) purchase a limited number of • Increase charges on weekend permits for employees to nights share • Automate-Pay and Display ' with a permit option,change rates to regulate demand Or • Update current parking equipment Demand • Institute a van service to • Grocery store in Collegetown grocery stores • Expand transit service to • Shuttle service to high meet employee needs demand locations *2:3 gives the number of parking spaces per bed,this ratio requires two parking spaces for three beds. **RPPS=Residential Parking Permit System ***More calculations need to be done to size the facility. This is only an approximation. The actual size should take into consideration anticipated redevelopment,current under-supply and space for employees. u 07/11/00 DRAFT 96 , COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA _ ITHACA, NY 20_00 'Y , x _ i D � Yt a.,� � � � " M 14 16 w pUFFAL b� � sM "`�;+� � �ac'"" ; 'v:" till <�ter✓ ��..r s- �� d � �� "" ;�"" ._ � +.�� EE? ' R*. `:ask, ��4r PA 4.il�� I Y nr� e' l t }x "; ¢ �,rl 6 ,,, alb ii _ _;. r r^ pt ti,:4 x»r._ 1 x �y` era-•"�da CATHERINET„ m a km .. - �,< �ti 9 ' lie �ET , �'. ' � a .� ,Y +�t'1 � 4 ,� $ v �: •� q• ,d�"" t '.4.E t ,f� ,3: Pf� "�® ' a� y��Y � C t `x s -�` yU�^�'� °� r �r� `k�,y � e�i +•� 0! j'�'� � AF3D .�: ... M f �x ti �Y41'\'" 4 1 -'` - • fir �` f k `T 4y f ,6 .,'�� r""f ,�.. ,df3 r �"^-•i.:�-9,,, SSW '�S, �< ��c: ,r�"e'P�+ - '„� � ;,.: r.,kl ,r� 4 �� '7` ➢ °,Y [ 3 4, 4 �ft je� �+f!, 'a � �I�q,\p"s�^�" sa�3' fir, �`` +. 'o, Iv, Ak wro In ^J �� ��1 'A K- $:'�f � 8y5?t Vii`s I��S1+W�' iii � � �T '4+• � '�„ � �. Y:Er„ � y't5�5� �;�.` � ',. ; z� f fis'; `. �- id"` .4i .�+t•`„ � ,�!� s , _ Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000