0
Parking cost increases proposed
19 September 2009
[indent]Our parking committee has made several suggestions that will both affect the downtown and future development throughout the town, and I think many are bad for Collingwood.
On page 136 of Monday's agenda, the committee laid out nine recommendations for council to consider (and which council approved putting into a new draft bylaw for consideration):
I've written in the past about the damaging effect on downtown development that our parking requirements already have, and the destruction any increase would have on future development.
We must take off the blinders and look at the reality: there is no more room in the downtown for parking. If developers want to build or rebuild there, they end up paying enormous costs for the parking spaces they can't provide: a clear deterrent to downtown development. In essence, they're paying for nothing. And those costs will be passed on to their tenants, who will in turn pass them along to the consumer. The net result is a more expensive, more elitist, less consumer-friendly downtown. Which in turn means more people will shop at the big box stores or go out of town.
I've suggested we simply remove any requirements for commercial parking downtown. We should look at ways to encourage growth and redevelopment downtown, not find new ways to drive them to the outskirts and mall zone.
Instead, the committee has recommended an increase in the parking-in-lieu costs, from the current $3,100 per space to $6,000. If that happens, kiss future growth in the downtown goodbye. Developers don't want to spend money and get nothing in return. Collingwood already has the sorry reputation of being "closed for business" - thanks in great part to council repealling the heritage approvals that killed the downtown Admiral Collingwood development, but also in our hefty increases in development charges. This will seal that reputation for good.
At the same time, the committee has recommended dropping the free downtown parking the BIA says is essential to its survival, and then to rub salt into the wound by increasing parking costs. So while we're killing development opportunities downtown, let's assault the businesses and their customers, as well.
Keep in mind that the mayor is the council representative on this committee, ensuring his voice and his ideas are heard, but council doesn't get a say in anything until the reports come to the table. The mayor is, by law, ex officio on every committee and can sit in on them at any time. But taking a seat on it prevents any other councillor from sitting on it and offering opinions that might run counter to the mayor's agenda. All of which means I expect the mayor's supporters at the table to approve these recommendations.
Some members of council - and the committee, apparently - see parking as a big financial issue, not a service. They want parking fees and fines to pay for the bylaw costs to enforce the rules, plus pay for any future expansion of parking lots and to top up the parking reserve funds. But that's the old-school mentality; the user-fee, user-pay, charge-them-as-much-as-we-can-get attitude that has caused our development charges to skyrocket, user fees to soar, the cost of filing a complaint over in-camera meetings to be outrageously expensive - all under this council's control.
The most recent parking study clearly states that there is no need to expand parking downtown and that on average, lots are seldom more than three-quarters full (the report starts on page 137 of the agenda)*. So what's the justification for making parking more expensive? Aside, that is, from dampening downtown growth and hurting downtown business...
Sustainable finances? Maybe we have to rethink the entire paradigm of parking, instead of continuing this tired, old model. Maybe parking downtown can never be "sustainable" in financial terms because it's not a separate, measurable entity. I see it as an integral, inseparable component of the health and wellbeing of our downtown. To try and deal with it outside of the downtown's financial stability is like a doctor trying to treat a rash without looking at what you eat, where you walked, what you smoked, what allergies you have and where you work. It's a synergistic system, not an isolated one.
Enforcement? I thought parking was already monitored five days a week. If parking downtown is free, bylaw can focus on property, noise, dogs at large, bicycle riders on downtown sidewalks, and other more pressing issues. All they need to do is watch for vehicles parking over the two-hour limit, and those parking long-time in downtown lots. The rest of the time they can be roaming the community dealing with other issues.
And who pays for this? You, the residents, you the visitors. Any increase in costs falls on the shoulders of the users. To me, in a recession, it's counterproductive to increase fees and costs.
After all, would you rather shop downtown where you have to pay for the "privilege" of parking and risk getting a ticket for being five minutes late, or at a mall - even one out of town - where parking is free and you never have to worry about tickets or meters? The cost of driving to Barrie is less than the cost of a parking ticket, after all.
As a developer, would you rather build in a mall zone where the money you pay actually buys you a parking lot, or downtown where you pay money and getting nothing back?
We need resh, new ideas to deal with issues like parking, not just repetitions of the old ones. The old idea of just making services like parking more expensive are not sustainable, and are not in the best interests of the downtown.
Don't forget: we're spending $10 million to revitalize the downtown. Why spend the money if we plan to make it unfriendly and consumer-hostile to visit and shop there?
The simple reality is: we don't need to make downtown parking more expensive and more inhospitable. We DO need to figure our how we can encourage downtown growth, development and business. And an increase in parking costs won't accomplish that.
~~~~~
* The report notes: Generally speaking, the total occupancy level of the municipal parking system during a weekday is approximately 73% or 520 out of 716 stalls, leaving some 177 vacant stalls mainly in the under-utilized lots – about the same as it was in 2002.4 The off- street parking lots are approximately 63% occupied (i.e. 160 stalls), while the on-street parking stalls are approximately 77% occupied (i.e. 355 stalls). There appears to have been a 50 stall shift in use from the off street lots to the on-street stalls since the Town initiated the free on street parking trial in 2006.
The occupancy for the private parking supply appears to be about 580 stalls or 55%. The total average demand for parking is approximately 1100 stalls or 62%. This equates to a demand ratio of approximately 2.25 stalls per thousand square feet of commercial floor space. The typical weekday peak demand rate in most traditional downtown areas ranges from 1.8 to 2.75, depending upon the mix of commercial uses. Therefore, the observed parking demand in Collingwood is representative of that found in most successful downtown areas. The overall public and private supply provided is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the area when viewed on a collective basis. This conclusion was generally echoed by various stakeholders.
[/indent]
On page 136 of Monday's agenda, the committee laid out nine recommendations for council to consider (and which council approved putting into a new draft bylaw for consideration):
- Monthly Parking Pass - Maintain the current fee of the monthly pass of $42.00 and review it in the spring of 2010 to determine if an increase of 10% is viable.
- Parking at the Library - Committee agreed to defer the decision to Council.
- Parking at the Shipyards - Implementation of Pay & Display meters for the Shipyards at the same rate as the other Pay and Display meters.
- Parking Lot Acquisition / Partnership - Direct staff investigate a reciprocal use agreement with the current owner. The Committee does not support the acquisition of the property at this time.
- Robinson’s Parking Lot - Direct staff to meet with the property owners to discuss possible acquisition for future expansion of the Arena Parking Lot.
- Reinstate On-Street Paid Parking - Reinstate the paid parking on Hurontario Street and side streets, and increase the rates to 1.00 dollar per hour on Hurontario Street and to .75 cents per hour on the side streets.
- Sustainable Parking System Finances - Increase the Cash-In-Lieu component to a more accurate amount of $6000.00 per parking space from $3,100.00 as recommended by the consultant. (Understanding that a community improvement plan or parking exemption can be utilized, if deemed expedient by Council.)
- Enforcement - Parking Enforcement be monitored and enforced 5 days per week, Monday and Friday, excluding holidays.
- Municipal Parking Lots - The rate for the municipal parking lots be 75 cents per hour, and further that the pay and display meters in the municipal parking lots be programmed to provide one free hour of parking when the minimum amount is paid.
I've written in the past about the damaging effect on downtown development that our parking requirements already have, and the destruction any increase would have on future development.
We must take off the blinders and look at the reality: there is no more room in the downtown for parking. If developers want to build or rebuild there, they end up paying enormous costs for the parking spaces they can't provide: a clear deterrent to downtown development. In essence, they're paying for nothing. And those costs will be passed on to their tenants, who will in turn pass them along to the consumer. The net result is a more expensive, more elitist, less consumer-friendly downtown. Which in turn means more people will shop at the big box stores or go out of town.
I've suggested we simply remove any requirements for commercial parking downtown. We should look at ways to encourage growth and redevelopment downtown, not find new ways to drive them to the outskirts and mall zone.
Instead, the committee has recommended an increase in the parking-in-lieu costs, from the current $3,100 per space to $6,000. If that happens, kiss future growth in the downtown goodbye. Developers don't want to spend money and get nothing in return. Collingwood already has the sorry reputation of being "closed for business" - thanks in great part to council repealling the heritage approvals that killed the downtown Admiral Collingwood development, but also in our hefty increases in development charges. This will seal that reputation for good.
At the same time, the committee has recommended dropping the free downtown parking the BIA says is essential to its survival, and then to rub salt into the wound by increasing parking costs. So while we're killing development opportunities downtown, let's assault the businesses and their customers, as well.
Keep in mind that the mayor is the council representative on this committee, ensuring his voice and his ideas are heard, but council doesn't get a say in anything until the reports come to the table. The mayor is, by law, ex officio on every committee and can sit in on them at any time. But taking a seat on it prevents any other councillor from sitting on it and offering opinions that might run counter to the mayor's agenda. All of which means I expect the mayor's supporters at the table to approve these recommendations.
Some members of council - and the committee, apparently - see parking as a big financial issue, not a service. They want parking fees and fines to pay for the bylaw costs to enforce the rules, plus pay for any future expansion of parking lots and to top up the parking reserve funds. But that's the old-school mentality; the user-fee, user-pay, charge-them-as-much-as-we-can-get attitude that has caused our development charges to skyrocket, user fees to soar, the cost of filing a complaint over in-camera meetings to be outrageously expensive - all under this council's control.
The most recent parking study clearly states that there is no need to expand parking downtown and that on average, lots are seldom more than three-quarters full (the report starts on page 137 of the agenda)*. So what's the justification for making parking more expensive? Aside, that is, from dampening downtown growth and hurting downtown business...
Sustainable finances? Maybe we have to rethink the entire paradigm of parking, instead of continuing this tired, old model. Maybe parking downtown can never be "sustainable" in financial terms because it's not a separate, measurable entity. I see it as an integral, inseparable component of the health and wellbeing of our downtown. To try and deal with it outside of the downtown's financial stability is like a doctor trying to treat a rash without looking at what you eat, where you walked, what you smoked, what allergies you have and where you work. It's a synergistic system, not an isolated one.
Enforcement? I thought parking was already monitored five days a week. If parking downtown is free, bylaw can focus on property, noise, dogs at large, bicycle riders on downtown sidewalks, and other more pressing issues. All they need to do is watch for vehicles parking over the two-hour limit, and those parking long-time in downtown lots. The rest of the time they can be roaming the community dealing with other issues.
And who pays for this? You, the residents, you the visitors. Any increase in costs falls on the shoulders of the users. To me, in a recession, it's counterproductive to increase fees and costs.
After all, would you rather shop downtown where you have to pay for the "privilege" of parking and risk getting a ticket for being five minutes late, or at a mall - even one out of town - where parking is free and you never have to worry about tickets or meters? The cost of driving to Barrie is less than the cost of a parking ticket, after all.
As a developer, would you rather build in a mall zone where the money you pay actually buys you a parking lot, or downtown where you pay money and getting nothing back?
We need resh, new ideas to deal with issues like parking, not just repetitions of the old ones. The old idea of just making services like parking more expensive are not sustainable, and are not in the best interests of the downtown.
Don't forget: we're spending $10 million to revitalize the downtown. Why spend the money if we plan to make it unfriendly and consumer-hostile to visit and shop there?
The simple reality is: we don't need to make downtown parking more expensive and more inhospitable. We DO need to figure our how we can encourage downtown growth, development and business. And an increase in parking costs won't accomplish that.
~~~~~
* The report notes: Generally speaking, the total occupancy level of the municipal parking system during a weekday is approximately 73% or 520 out of 716 stalls, leaving some 177 vacant stalls mainly in the under-utilized lots – about the same as it was in 2002.4 The off- street parking lots are approximately 63% occupied (i.e. 160 stalls), while the on-street parking stalls are approximately 77% occupied (i.e. 355 stalls). There appears to have been a 50 stall shift in use from the off street lots to the on-street stalls since the Town initiated the free on street parking trial in 2006.
The occupancy for the private parking supply appears to be about 580 stalls or 55%. The total average demand for parking is approximately 1100 stalls or 62%. This equates to a demand ratio of approximately 2.25 stalls per thousand square feet of commercial floor space. The typical weekday peak demand rate in most traditional downtown areas ranges from 1.8 to 2.75, depending upon the mix of commercial uses. Therefore, the observed parking demand in Collingwood is representative of that found in most successful downtown areas. The overall public and private supply provided is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the area when viewed on a collective basis. This conclusion was generally echoed by various stakeholders.
[/indent]
This ultimately comes down to a matter of philosophy and opinion. Do we want to tap downtown parking as a source of revenue or not? Thats why I'm a so sceptical of consultants and committees when it comes to questions like this. I have the same feeling about the issue of how many councillors the town should have. I believe staff have been asked to prepare a report on that issue, but whatever they say, it doesn't mean squat, because anyone can disagree (and their opinions are 100% valid). Staff shouldn't be put in the position of looking at a question like that. And council should not be allowed to mess with an existing electoral system (it should be done by referendum or not at all).
By the way, how many years would it take to recoup the money we are wasting on a single unneccesary roundabout?