Collegetown Parking Study, Ithaca, New York by Jessica Greig, July 2000

I I

I , I . I

I ' !

I .

I

I

I .

I

I . I I

I

! '

I

REFERENCE 1 Do Not Remove or Circulate : Planning & Development Library

.·. Collegetown

1-

I I I

Collegetown Parking Study

City of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York

Prepared for: Collegetown Moratorium Subcommittee to the

Planning and Economic Development Committee

Committee Members: Susan Blumenthal, Chair, 3'd Ward

Chris Anagnost Josh Glasstetter, 41

h Ward Jane Marcham

Joannie Spielholz, 41h Ward

MaryTomlan Pat Vaughan, 3'd Ward

Carl Cohen, Advisor from Cornell Transportation Services Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development

Prepared by: Jessica Greig, Consultant

July, 2000

r--,

t-

I

I , '--j

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PARKING SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Parking Inventory

Residential Survey

Owner/Manager Survey

Employee Survey

Usage Survey

License Plate Survey

Evening Parking Survey

III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

.. . ii .. . iii

... 1

... 9

... 9

... 13

... 23

... 27

... 33

... 38

.. .42

... 46

... 54

... 61


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2-1 Purpose and Frequency of Trips ... 20

2-2 Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type ... 21

2-3 Distance between Parking Location and Work ... 31

2-4 Paid Parking: Daytime Parking Duration .. .40

2-5 Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates .. .44

2-6 On-Street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates .. .44

I .

LIST OF TABLES /_

Table Page

~ 2-1 Supply of Public and Private Parking ... 12 J

2-2 Parking Supply by Parking Type ... 12

B 2-3 Average Parking Fees by Location and Building Type ... 16

2-4 Parking Location by Building Type ... 17

2-5 Parking Demand by Building Type ... 18 I 2-6 Frequency of Car Use ... 19

2-7 Number of Employees at Work on a Given Weekday ... 29

2-8 Modal Split for Employee Work Commute ... 29

2-9 Parking Location for Employees ... 30

2-10 Interest in Free Public Transportation ... 32

2-11 Summary of Results, In-season Parking Usage Surveys .. .36

2-12 Continuously Parked Cars (Storage Parking) ... 37

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page

1 Collegetown Base Map ... 2

2 Collegetown Building Moratorium ... 3

3 Zoning Map ... 5

4 Off-street Parking ... 6

5 Survey Boundaries ... 35

i :

! .

i

!

I ' I

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I • COLLEGETOWN PARKING STUDY

Prepared by: Jessica Greig, Consultant

July, 2000

I

n I \

: I \


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In September of 1999, the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a 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 College town 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. After the moratorium was in place, the Department of Planning

and 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 I) 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

iii


approximately 410 free spaces and 149 metered spaces. Currently all meters in Collegetown have

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 during winter months and allows 24 hour parking

at other times of the year.

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

Avenue and Williams' Street lot, the private 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 buildings1 and multiple dwelling 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. These

are readily accessible by walking or by bus. Despite this, 49% of residents in the large apartment

buildings own a car, as do 62% of residents in multiple dwellings.

1 Large apartment buildings are defined as having more than 20 housing units. 2 The multiple dwelling units have frequently been converted from single family homes. They are also referred to as multiple dwellings.

iv

p I •

I

I

I

u


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%. Accounting for the ownership rate and parking locations, approximately 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. Roughly 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,

services, and retail stores. Delivery problems were a big issue for most businesses. More than

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% were 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 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 owners felt that Cornell should be responsible

for meeting the parking needs of students who live in Collegetown.

v


Employee Survey

Employee survey questionnaires were distributed to each business addressing issues such as work

schedule, commute patterns, and parking. Approximately 40% of Collegetown employees

completed the survey, 60% of the responses were from full time employees and 40% were from

part time employees.

Data about work schedules established when most employees work. During the week, the highest

concentration of employees is roughly 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 (70%) 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.

Employees who drive are of the most interest for evaluating parking demand. These employees

use a 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

public parking system is functioning.

Parking Usage Survey

The main purpose of the Parking Usage Survey was to establish how many people park overnight

in publicly available spaces 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

vi

I

A r I

I

I

' I .

I

.. - _,


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-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 modified to allow 24-hour parking during non-winter months.

The results of the in-season, odd-even survey reveal a representative picture of public 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. Of those parked at 6 a.m., almost 50% were

still parked at 6 p.m. reflecting the substantial storage of vehicles. Results from the other surveys

can be found in the body of the report.

License Plate Survey

The purpose of the License Plate Survey was to quantify how the metered spaces aud the Dryden

Road Garage are used on a typical weekday. Methodology consisted of writing down the license

plate number of each car parked in a metered space 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 for two to six hours, and 11% parked for over six hours. 1n 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 more than 550 hours of parking

where 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 of revenue 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 Center for Theatre

vii


Arts. 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 the non-performance evening it filled twice, once at 7 p.m. and again

at midnight. In general, the garage is underused on weeknights when the number of empty spaces

ranges between 60 and 100 or the 217 available.

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 were 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 public and private parking resources, and subsequently how

well the different types of parking meet their 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); 3) Regulations governiug 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 parkiug requirements don't meet the existing residential demand,

• the number of actual parking spaces (ou and off-street) is insufficieut to meet the expressed

needs of residents and businesses,

• the effectiveuess of au-street regulations is difficult to evaluate due to lack of adequate

enforcement,

• current management of the Dryden Road Garage hasn't adequately addressed the varied

needs of its users, or can't do so due to outdated equipment.

viii

I t

CoUegetown 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, or not 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 he considered in the

context of an integrated parking system, some of the recommendations are purposely 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 generally and those

following refer to the particulars of Collegetown.

o Reorganize the structure of the parking system so that a single person actively oversees all

parking decisions (enforcement, personnel, finances, equipment, etc.).

o Update parking equipment in the Dryden Road Garage and increase parking fees at periods of

high demand.

o 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.

o Improve enforcement in Collegetown. For example: enforce time limits at the meters, on

street parking regulations, and overnight parking by permit only in the Dryden Road Garage.

o Increase the off-street parking requirement to l space per 2 beds. This requirement should be

uniformly applied to all new residential construction.

o Allow developers alternatives for meeting the above off-street parking requirements. This

could include mitigation measures to decrease automobile dependence and improve public

transit or mitigation fees paid to the City that could be used in a similar manner or to help

finance a new public parking facility.

o Build a new parking garage to offset existing parking deficiencies and the future demand

created by redevelopment. Depending on estimates of redevelopment density, the parking

garage could be designed to hold as many as 750-1000 cars.

ix


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.

• 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 identify employee parking in locations 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.

• Convert existing parking demand into longer-term storage demand.

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 Col!egetown evolves. Future

planning initiatives for redevelopment or use changes should always include a reevaluation of

parking needs.

X

i \-

I I

r .

R

I

CHAPTER!

INTRODUCTION

I ' u

Sl _, -~

1 .. ~.·.

\

I '


INTRODUCTION

In September of 1999, the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a yearlong building

moratorium. The moratorium started retroactively on July 5 and 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). These boundaries were finalized by the Planning and Economic Development

Committee and approved by Common Council.

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 Planning and Economic

Development Committee created a subcommittee to examine the parking situation and make

recommendations for improvements. Members of the subcommittee included Common Council

members, residents, a real estate agent, the director of Ithaca's Planning and Development

Department, and an advisor from Cornell's Transportation and Mail Services. Committee

members met regularly throughout the moratorium, helping develop surveys and establish their

boundaries, discussing survey results, and making recommendations for improvements.

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.

COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA ITHACA, NY 2000

\'-.... ··'·-.·. \ · .. ~ :'' ··-' \ ·"---

•

I

" '·- 7 /·'

Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000

MAPI

I -,

~ __ ;

COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA ON-STREET PARKING ITHACA NY 2000


Regulated On-Street Parking

.. -·---·- Metered Parking • • • • • • Loading Zone • • • • • • On Street Parking

MAP2

I I I


BACKGROUND

Land Use

The Collegetown Moratorium region encompasses sixteen blocks. The majority of

Collegetown's commercial activity is in five blocks within the B-2b 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.

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 buildings4• 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 large 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

Avenue and Williams Street) Lot, a private garage on Linden Ave., an underground garage

beneath 312 College Ave., driveways, and other surface lots. Most of these spaces are found in

small1ots and increasingly in paved-over backyards or in open spaces between houses. In

general, the spaces are owned and controlled by private 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 ofthe 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 spaces

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.

4

' )

I . I '

I :

~

I ! -. ~ j

I

I

i

i

i

i' -.

·a "I.!)

. : C\1 . : : II

z~

COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA OFF-STREET PARKING ITHACA NY 2000

EDGEMOOR LANE

0 0

0

0

+ Off-Street Parking Space

• Covered Parking Garage

Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development

SCALE: 1" = 250'

MAP4

r-'

IJ . -;

! I


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

hours. Digital meters have recently replaced the older, mechanical 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

Center for Theatre Arts), 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 unifonnly throughout the business district, and • revising the off-street parking requirements.

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:

7


• 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 Development.

FORMAT OF THE REPORT

Following this introduction, the report details the 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 study's different components. They are: a parking inventory, a residential survey,

an owner/manager survey, an employee survey, a parking usage survey, a license plate survey,

and an evening parking survey. In the third chapter 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

various segments of the population. Then, the fourth chapter outlines general recommendations

for improving the parking system. Finally, the appendix includes samples of surveys, raw data

from the surveys, charts, and alternative parking programs.

8

i \

' i : '

CHAPTER2

PARKING SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

1-

I I i i -

H I ' i l

I !

I I -


PARKING INVENTORY

9

lJ FC"J


PARKING INVENTORY

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 resources has been ongoing at the City of Ithaca for over a

year. Initially, a City intern did a field inspection of off-street parking spaces and entered the

information into the City's GIS (Geographic Information System). Then, a program developed

within Maplnfo ProfessionaiTM 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 of 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 field 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. In many

of these locations parking spaces are unmarked. Unless the number of cars parked at the time of

the aerial photographs or field inspection represented the maximum utilization, the number of

cars usually parked in the driveways and garages was estimated. 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

10


spaces were used, making the count 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

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 kuow 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 acknowledge 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, but instead 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 on-street

parking spaces and they are governed by a variety of parking regulations. These regulations

include "24 Hour Parking," "Odd-Even Parking," "No Overnight Parking," and "No Parking 9

a.m.-12 p.m." Odd-even parking restricts overnight parking to one side of the road during winter

months (November-May). Some of the other 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.

II

I I

--.-

~


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 traditional workday.

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

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 Private Total

217 1793 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 Cornell Lot

(at Stewart and Williams) Other Private Surface Lots

(including driveways) Private Parking Garages Dryden Road Garage Total

12

Number of Spaces 121

1544

128 217

2010

I I

u H


RESIDENTIAL SURVEY

13

w

H


RESIDENTIAL SURVEY

The second step in the study of parking issues was to question residents in Collegetown 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.

There are approximately 2500 housing units in the region and the current population is around

5000. Based on these numbers, the sample size for the survey was 450. The different housing

types in the survey were 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 they constitute such a

small population, a sample wouldn't accurately portray their characteristics. 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 holidays or after regular session classes had finished.

14


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 ten 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

surveys were completed for the 21 addresses.

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 1% 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.

15

I

11


The Collegetown population is very transitory. Over the entire sample population 57% have

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. 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 B-2b zone, 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 $48 $70 NA $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 Figure 2-2). 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.

16


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.

Ownership in this group 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 parking spaces 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. This option

would be more popular if the supply were greater, it were closer to housing, and more people

knew of the alternative.

Table 2-4: Parking Location by Building Type

On Private, Nearby Cornell Other property Off site street Lot

Large Apartment 42% 39% 14% 6% 0% (without University

buildings)

Multiple Dwelling 55% 15% 28% I% 1%

17

I I

I

r :

1-i ~

H


Most car 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.

Results on where residents park give an indication of the magnitude of the demand placed on

parking resources. Aggregating the off-street parking locations shows that 72% of car-owners

from multiple dwelling units park off-street, while the remaining 28% park on-street. For owners

who live in apartments, the comparable numbers are 86% off-street and 14% on-street. Assuming

a population of 5000 in Collegetown, we can estimate how many cars park in each location and

how many are attributable to each type of residence. This information is outlined in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Parking Demand by Building Type

Large Apartment

Multiple Dwelling

Total

On-Street

140

520

680

Off-street

840

1340

2180

Almost all car owners expressed frustration with the current parking situation in Collegetown.

When asked how frequently they had difficulty parking on-street, over 40% of the respondents

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 wheu 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

18


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 a resident lives. This could be due to

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

accuracy. But, 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 2-6) 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 2-6: Frequency of Car Use

Everyday 49% Every few days 44% Once a week 6% Once a month I%

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 how often residents use their cars and

what they use them for. For instance, 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. Conclusions

can be drawn about combinations of activities using data cross-tabulations. In this case if

"campus" or "work" was one of the activities, the driver was twice as likely to drive everyday as

19

I

I

11


every few days. When looking at "Entertainment," "In and Out (ofithaca)," 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.

Figure 2-1: Purpose and Frequmcy of Trips

80%.---------------------------------------,

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Evezyday Evezy few days Once a week Once a m:mth

Frequency of Car Trips

• Entertainment

llJnandOut

IJShopping

•w01k ccampus

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 College town lacks a full service grocery

store and has a limited variety of retail businesses this is expected. Everybody has io leave the

area if they want to go shopping.

20


Figure 2-2: Purpose ofV ehicle Use by Building Type

100%---------~==-------------------------.

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Prnpose of Vehicle Use

DLarge Apartment

•Multiple Dwelling

Finally, large apartment dwellers are more likely to nse their car for entertainment or to travel in

and ant of Ithaca. Entertainment and car ownership can be treated as proxies of economic 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 but that apartment residents are even wealthier.

Where people are driving influences how often they drive, bnt 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 low rate.

21

1-

I ' J -,


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. Bicycles are used less frequently than any other mode and their use

didn't vary by car ownership.

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,

• 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 walk, bike, and carpool at comparable levels. But, there is a small difference in

their use of public transit. People in multiple dwellings use public transit on a semi-regular basis

while people in the apartments didn't report using transit.

22

davidwest

Highlight

I

~··

I

I \_ ;

~

I! I I

I I .


OWNE~ANAGERSURVEY

23

I

11

I I


OWNER/MANAGER SURVEY

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 in

a personal interview for the Owner/Manager Survey. A copy of the survey questionnaire may be

found in Appendix C. 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 at the time of the visit,

alternative arrangements were made to complete a survey at a later date.

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

The total number of employees in Collegetown is around 800. For the businesses interviewed,

60% of their workforce is part-time and 40% is full-time which translates into 480 part-time

employees and 320 full-time employees.

Land Use

Based on an inventory of Collegetown businesses, the breakdown of land use is as follows:

Restaurant/eatery/bar Service Retail Combination of Retail and Service Apartments University

24

37% 30% 15% 7% 7% 4%


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 exclusively

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 a truck stopped at five

businesses it was counted by each business as a delivery and 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 are weekly and only a few are

monthly. 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

answers, 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 that they saw

regulations as unenforceable or as causing difficulty for their supplier. They predicted that they

would lose suppliers or would have to pay a premium to have deliveries at a given time.

If time restrictions were put into effect, almost half of the respondents want deliveries made on

weekday mornings and 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.

25

~···

IJ J

IJ


Are customer needs being met?

In general, owners and managers felt that the parking needs of their customers were not being

met. A relatively small number of managers noted that their primary customers were students

and local residents who were within walking distance of their business. Many managers appeared

to be thinking about customers coming into Collegetown from other areas when they answered

the question; 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.

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 to

be placed on businesses.

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 primary reasons given were that the employees

live close-by and walk or that they drive long distances from areas that aren't adequately served

by transit.

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 garage's permit system is organized, and the general 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 in Appendix D.

26

I

f-,

[I I .

l I .

I

I I

I I

I

I


EMPLOYEE SURVEY

27

I

i

\~ -'

I ,

[_


EMPLOYEE SURVEY

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 Appendix F.

Due to the highly variable nature of Collegetown employees, a sampling technique that took each

variable 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 to collect completed surveys. 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 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 College town, 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

28


than are part-time employees. The highest percent of weekday employees (74%) work at two

o'clock in the afternoon. The corresponding values at other times of the day are 61% at 10 a.m.,

17% at 6 p.m. and 13% at 10 p.m. Most of these night-time workers are employed in restaurants,

bars and convenience stores.

Table 2-7: Number of Employees Working on a Typical Weekday Time Number of Employees

6:00AM 20 !O:OOAM

2:00PM 6:00PM !O:OOPM

355

430 100 80

Weekend workers tend to start later in the day, and there are more part-time workers than during

the week. Despite the relative increase in part-time employees, many full-time employees also

work on the weekend. 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 10 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 the relative proportions of full and part-time employees. Table 2-

8 gives both sets of information.

Table 2-8: 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 than 3% of the mode share

Within these results there is also variation tied to when someone works. This is likely a

consequence of whether or not someone is a student. For example, of part-time employees that

work on weekday mornings, 86% drive and park while only 10% walk. These people probably

29

I \

'i·.·.··c·;. ) Ci

\~ I

,\ I


aren't students. Alternatively, 78% of part-time employees working on weekday afternoons walk

to work. These employees are probably students or they live in the neighborhood.

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 than full-time employees, the level of public transit

use is comparable 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 how

many employees park at different times and how much they pay to park. Table 2-9 outlines

where employees park.

Table 2-9: Parking Location for Employees

Location

Private, off-street parking

Dryden Road Garage

Metered, on-street parking

Free, on-street parking

Other

Percentage

26%

21%

29%

18%

5%

Combining tables 2-7,2-8, and 2-9 permits the calculation of how many employees park in a

given location at a given time5. Using these tables, we calculate that employees use 69 metered

spaces at 2 p.m. on a typical weekday. As another example: of the people that park in the Dryden

Road Garage, 39% reported owning a monthly permit. Using the tables, we estimate that 36

passes were sold to employees. One hundred day-permits were sold in February 2000 (see

Appendix M) and 48 additional parkers arrived between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. Both of these numbers

reasonably encompass the estimate of employees who own passes to the garage.

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 2-7) x % who drive (Table 2-8) x % who park in metered spaces (Table 2-9)

= 431 (Table 2-7) x .55 (Table 2-8) x .29 (Table 2-9) = 69 spaces

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.

30


Where an employee parks is closely related to how far they park from their place of work. 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 stressed that many walk long

distances in order to reach work. The survey results don't substantiate this 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. Part-time employees are more likely to

park farther from their job site than full-time employees, but the overall pattern doesn't vary

much between the two groups.

Figure2-3: Distancebet\wenParking Location and Work for Collegetown Employre<~

49%

D Less 1han a block

i'll2 blocks

!13 blocks

•4blocks

• 5 blocks or rmre

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 is a long distance from the workplace. Whether this is an issue of

economics or availability is uncertain, although both are plausible.

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 employer paid for parking, the employee normally parks

in a private, off-street location or in the Dryden Road Parking Garage.

31

I '

I

il I

I I


The average monthly parking fee for all employees who drive to Collegetown is $19. Most part

time employees (70%) pay less than that while 30% 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 employees' median parking fee is between $80 and

$100 per month. Comparing these values is difficult because they depend on how much an

employee pays versus how many hours they work. The information to perform this comparison

was provided by the survey; but, at this time the calculation isn't warranted.

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. In response,

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 was received, we get more

information by looking at the responses by current travel mode. Table 2-10 outlines these results.

Table 2-10: 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 questton 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

this 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.

32

f

I

1-

I I ! \

f .

I \

I . I .

I

I ,

I '


PARKING USAGE SURVEY

33

i I '


PARKING USAGE SURVEY

The Parking Usage Survey is the first element in the series of parking surveys. The goal of the

parking surveys was to determine how the current parking system is being used and to examine

certain aspects of parking in detail.

SCOPE

The purpose of the Parking Usage 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). The moratorium committee

established this survey area. 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 5:30a.m., marked the front tire of each parked car at the

twelve o'clock position and counted the number of parked cars on each block. Cars in

the Dryden Road garage were counted but not chalked.

• At 9:30a.m., walked the same region (following the same path), this time counting how

many cars were parked and how many of them had 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 5:30p.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 their

results. Assessing the differences between the "Off-season" survey and the "Odd-Even" or "24

Hour" surveys demonstrates the impact Cornell University has on the Collegetown neighborhood

34

COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY SURVEY AREAS ITHACA NY 2000

[J}\\1 Usage Survey Area

~ Evening Survey Area

Moratorium Area


SCALE: 1" = 500'

A

MAPS

.)

I I

,I '

( i

bi

i I '


in terms of on-street parking. Then, quantifying the differences between the "Odd-Even" and "24

Hour" surveys shows how driver behavior changed as a result of parking regulations.

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 rates6 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 I.

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 2-11: Summary of Results, In-season Parking Usage Surveys

Odd-Even Parking 24 Hour Parking March 1, 2000 May 3,2000

Overnight ~arking Free, on-street 349 416 Meter, on-street 93 124 Dryden Garage 90 87 Total 532 627

Usage rates (for all public parking) 6a.m. 68% 80% 10 a.m. 90% 99% 2p.m. 93% 96% 6p.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.

6 A "usage rate" is the percentage of spaces that are in use at a given time.

36


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.

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 2-12.

Table 2-12: Continuously Parked Cars (Storage Parking)

At 6:00am Until Until Until !O:OOam 2:00pm 6:00pm

Meter 93 65% 38% 15% Odd-Even Free 349 85% 76% 58%

Total 442 80% 68% 49% Meter 124 52% 31% 12%

24 hr. 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 larger

population of cars.

37

t . '

i I


I ,

I i

.- I

LICENSE PLATE SURVEY

38

I.

\


LICENSE PLATE SURVEY

SCOPE

The purpose of the License Plate Survey was to understand how the metered spaces and spaces in

the 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 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 study area and copied

down the license plate number for each car parked in a metered space or in the garage. At the

same time a note was made if the meter had 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 45 minutes.

RESULTS

Parking Duration

How long people park in assorted types of parking spaces gives insight into who they are and

how well the parking system is performing. Approximately 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 was more variable. There, 39% parked for two hours

or less, 28% parked between two and six hours, and 32% parked 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 part-time employees or visitors to the

area. Figure 2-4 gives more detail about the volume of cars and the parking duration in metered

spaces and the parking garage.

39

300 ~

250 " u :a 200 " > "-' 150 0

" " .0 100 s p z 50

0

<1

Feeding meters


Figure2-4 Paid Parking! Daytime Parking Duration

2 3 4 5

Length of Stay(ho11113)

6 7+

I'JNumberof Vehicles( in metered spaces)

•Number of V ehicles(in Garage)

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 was 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 was 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.

40

.L

' I

I

riJ '

I

\---

1 I

I ! ! '

/ -,

\·={. __ ----

'


For all paid, public parking spaces in Collegetown, the average daytime demand was 292 spaces.

This accounts for 80% of the available spaces. More detailed information about parking trends

over time is available in Appendix L.

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 523 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.

41

1, i

I , ( \ ~

I ,

I

Col!egetown Parking Study

EVENING PARKING SURVEY

42


EVENING PARKING SURVEY

SCOPE

The purpose of the Evening Parking 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 Center for Theatre Arts).

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 Center for Theatre Arts.

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 heatt of evening activities (refer to Map 5).

Again, the moratorium committee helped establish this survey area.

The following process was followed on each date:

• Two people walked the designated area at 6:00p.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 2-6). 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 rate 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.

43


Figure 2-5 Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates

100%

90%

80%

70%

l 60% a weekday

l 50% IJWeekend

~ • Weekend with

J 40%

30%

20%

,,.

0%

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 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). 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 minimal.

Figure2-6 On-street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates

" ~ aweekrllzy • w

! Cweekend

~ •weekem. with

~ PerfoiTJlal¥:e

" • £

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00

Time of Day

44

t

i


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.

45

I I '

~

CHAPTER3

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

! i

' I . ( 1.

I


DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The following discussion integrates the results from the various 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%.

Hourly utilization rates for all metered spaces reach 85%7 between noon and 3 p.m. and again from 5 p.m.

to 7 p.m. Usage rates exceed 85% on Friday and Saturday nights 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

7 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.

46


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. If

employees are displaced from met,ered 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 during overnight hours 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 which 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 cars probably continue to park for over 24 hours

although the surveys can not substantiate this opinion. Residential parking decreases modestly during the

day when some cars are in use and then increases again in the evening when people are returning home.

47


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 I 0% of available spaces.

During the week, most full-time employees average an eight-hour workday, which means that they

monopolize their parking space throughout the day. When free on-street spaces aren't available,

e,mployees 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. Although dramatically lowering the level of residential parking,

without regulating the new supply, could encourage more employees or commuters to drive.

OFF-STREET

Private

Supply and Demand

There is an estimated supply of almost 1800 privately owned, off-street parking spaces. This number

includes a Comelllot, 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.

48


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 Center for Theatre Arts.

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 part of the week. On weekdays, use steadily increases

throughout the morning, peaks at lunchtime, and then 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.

49

r

' )

' 1-


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 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 2:30p.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, other than convenience, to use the garage. 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

50


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 might always be an issue in Collegetown. In a most

basic sense the geometry of the roads aren't conducive to large trucks 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.

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 a loading zone isn't available. 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 parking resources

accorded to them is limited.

When business owners and managers say that the parking 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.

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

51

I f-

I :

I I


made about how the parking system will change, this idea should be revisited by the City and

Col!egetown 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 Co!legetown 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.

Employees 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. A relatively

straightforward solution would be to purchase or rent (either the City or the Collegetown Business

Association) a parking lot in Collegetown for the express use of employees. A lot, or combination of lots,

which holds 100 cars would accommodate almost all employees who currently park on-street. Ideally,

any solution for employees will be a combination of reducing demand and improving services.

52


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

complex and time consuming.

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 would 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.

53

i 1-

I I_

CHAPTER4

RECOMMENDATIONS

~~ \- J

College town Parking Study

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

purposely 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, a series of alternative parking programs is 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 differ by their philosophy concerning 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

54


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,

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 primary entities that make decisions

about parking. The Department of Public Works manages personnel and maintenance at all city garages,

and the City Chamberlain's office sells the garages' monthly permits, assembles their financial records,

and collects the city's parking fines. The Ithaca Police Department is the primary enforcer of traffic and

parking rules. In addition to those offices, the Building Department issues zoning variances for things

like lot coverage which are frequently requested in order to provide additional parking.

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

Planning and Development. During the study, parking fines have been raised and meters in Collegetown

have been replaced. Neither of these actions was necessarily wrong, but the decisions would have been

better informed had they been made after this study. These decisions overlooked 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 person, or department, 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.

55

I l-

/!


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 CoUegetown 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 CoUegetown, 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 two

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 iUegal 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 CoUegetown. The parking requirement in the

ordinance needs to be updated to promote the type of development and environment that the City wants

for CoUegetown. 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

poUution to adverse effects of backyards being paved for parking. It may be in the City's best interest to

consolidate parking into a few facilities. This would 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 aUow developers to pay a mitigation

fee instead of demanding on-site parking. This increased flexibility aUows smaller parcels to be

redeveloped and parking to be moved outside the core of CoUegetown. Mitigation fees give the City

56


more opportunity to encourage alternative transportation, lower parking demand, and 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 reduce the number of usable

spaces from everyone's use. An alternative is to implement a residential parking system similar to the

one currently used in the Rl and R2 zones. A penni! 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.

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 who 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.

Another recommendation is to tum 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.

57


Building a new parking garage, like adding a lane of traffic to a highway, temporarily relieves the

situation but may attract new cars to fill the added space. By adding capacity, parking is easier, which

may attract more cars to the area, eventually filling 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 complementary 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 who 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 to discourage 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

supply, but can't be implemented with the current parking equipment. Upgrading the equipment could

58


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 College town parking problem, we

tum 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.

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 low-density development. 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 TCA T 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 reduce 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

59

L

/J

\ '


knowledgeable about their employees' 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. TCAT bus routes serve grocery stores and the Pyramid Shopping mall, but evidently they 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 as 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 affect 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.

60

APPENDICES

I f--i

I 1.

I

~

APPENDICES

Residential Survey A

Results from the Residential Survey B

Owner/Manager Survey c

Additional Responses from the Owner Survey D

Results from the Owner/Manager Survey E

Employee Survey F

Additional Responses from the Employee Survey G

Results from the Employee Survey H

Off-Season Usage Survey Results I

In-Season Usage Survey Results, Odd-Even J

In-Season Usage Survey Results, 24-Hour K

Accumulation of Vehicles in Paid Parking Spaces L

Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales M

Alternative Parking Programs N

Aerial Photograph of Collegetown 0


Appendix A (continued)

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 b) Bus: Everyday c) Carpool: Everyday d) Walk: Everyday e) Other: Everyday

C. If you don't have a vehicle: 1. Why don't you have a vehicle?

No driver's license More efficient to use local transit No parking space at the residence


a) Bicycle: Everyday b) Bus: Everyday c) Carpool: Everyday d) Walk: Everyday e) Other: Everyday

D.

Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month

Operating vehicle is too expensive Parking fee- too expensive Other _________ _

Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month Every few days Once a week Once a month

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

B1ock-ID

Interviewer

Thank you for your help!!!

Other Other Other Other

Other Other Other Other

63


Appendix B: Results from Residential Survey

I A. Frequency ' r ofresgonse 1. How many people of driving age are in your nnit/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%

lJ Four 21 5% ~ Five 14 3%

More than five 10 2%

I I 3. Do you own a car? Total responses: 422 100% Yes 238 56% r No 184 44%

64


Appendix B (continued)

4. What, if any, are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents: a. No problems 25 b. Not enough parking at residences 176 c. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236 d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47 e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156 f. Too many students with cars 105 ~ ~N ~

Summary of "Other" responses: Parking restrictions( odd-even) Don't know Too many cars/people/demand Unenforced parking regulations Streets too narrow Private lots Cornell Residents parking on-street Confusing parking policies bad drivers/parkers Trucks/loading zones Non-residents parking in res. Zone Metered spaces Other( a response that was only given once)

5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown? a. More parking spaces on site b. Build another parking garage c. Provide incentives to not own a car d. Other

Summary of "Other" responses: Don1 know Change odd-even, parking restrictions Cheaper parking Improve transit service Add more parking Cornell Build more parking spaces Clarify parking rules Permit system Remove meters Eliminate parking fees Increase price of parking/tickets Make Catherine St. one-way More lenient parking enforcement No more apartment buildings Supermarket in Collegetown Other

#of times given 50 9 7 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 11

88 176 57 180

51 46 33 14 11 6 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 11

420 100% 6% 42% 56% 11% 37% 25% 23% [ 12% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% I 23% 46% I 15% 47%

13% 12% 9% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%

65

"' "'

B. If you have a vehicle:

1. Where do you park aud how much do you pay? a. On property b. Private lot c. City or private garage d. On a nearby street e. On-street outside Collegetown neighborhood f. Cornell University parking lot g. Otber "Other" responses:

Share with brother Gunn Hill

2. How often do you have a problem finding parking? a. On tbe street

Never Occasionally Often Always n/a

b. In the City garage Never Occasionally Often Always n/a

Total responses: 119 50% 39 16% 11 5% 49 21% 2 1% 15 6% 2 1%

Total responses: 20 9% 35 15% 61 26% 41 18% 76 33% Total responses: 53 23% 22 10% 2 1% 2 1% 152 66%

Wben do you have difficulty finding a parking space? Total responses*: 130 Morn. After. Evening Overnight

Weekday (Monday~ Thursday) 38 45 90 80 Weekend(Friday~Sunday) 34 46 83 72

3. How often do you nse your vehicle? Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month

Total responses: 114 104 14 3

29% 26%

49% 44% 6% 1%

35% 35%

235

llll ~

237

233

231

55%

69% 64%

99%

100%

98%

97%

*No. tbat specified at least one %'s 62% 55%

--r--

> '0 '0

[ ~· ..: 1;1:1

§ =" s ;

() !2.

f " " ., "' ~ 15-: " 00 C/l

!



4. What, if any, are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents:

L ~~- ~ b. Not enough parking at residences 176 c. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236 d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47 e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156 f. Too many students with cars 105 g. Other 97

Summary of "Other" responses: Parking restrictions( odd-even) Don\ know Too many cars/people/demand Unenforced parking regulations Streets too narrow Private lots Cornell Residents parking on-street Confusing parking policies bad drivers/parkers Trucks/loading zones Non-residents parking in res. Zone Metered spaces Other( a response that was only given once)

5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown? a. More parking spaces on site b. Build another parking garage c. Provide incentives to not own a car d. Other

Summary of "Other" responses: Don\know Change odd-even, parking restrictions Cheaper parking Improve transit service Add more parking Cornell Build more parking spaces Clarify parking rules Permit system Remove meters Eliminate parking fees Increase price of parking/tickets Make Catherine St. one-way More lenient parking enforcement No more apartment buildings Supermarket in Collegetown Other

#of times given 50 9 7 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 11

88 176 57 180

51 46 33 14 11 6 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 11

420 100% 6% 42% 56% 11% 37% 25% 23%

12% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

23% 46% 15%

I ' I

47%

13% 12% 9% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%

67

"' 00

4. For what purpose do you use your vehicle? Go to campus Shopping Work Entertainment Drive in and out of Ithaca Other

"Other" responses: To see boyfriend Taking kids to activities Going to fraternity house Going to church

5. How do you get around? Everyday Every few days

a. Bicycle 6 4 b. Bus 3 11 c. Carpool 2 10 d. Walk 202 14 e. Other 0 2

Total responses: 110 47% 226 96% 68 29% 144 61% 178 76% 4 2%

Total respondents: Once a week Once a month Other 7 6 2 12 16 2 4 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

'J ... LIJ liii ...... .J

235 99%

227 95%

3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 5% 5% 7% 1% 4% 2% 1% 89% 6% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

T--:

1% 1% 0% 0 0%

> "0 '::::1

[ ~· ~

= ""' 0

&.

~ ~

n 0

f ~ ~ 8: " "" "' 2 0. '<

$

C. If you don't have a vehicle: 1. Why don't you have a vehicle?

No Driver's license More efficient to use local transit No parking space at the residence Operating vehicle is too expensive Parking fee-too expensive Other Summary of "Other" responses:

Don't need a car Live too far from Cornell Inconvenient to have one in C-town Parents Don1 own a car Insurance is too expensive Other


Total responses: Total responses: 185

184 101% 10% 4% 3% 39% 11% 33%

18 8 6 72 20 61

25 14% 13 7% 6 3% 6 3% 5 3% 3 2% 3 2%

Total responses: Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other

a. Bicycle 5 5 5 3 2 3% 3% b. Bus 10 11 9 8 3 5% 6% c. Carpool 10 45 40 12 1 5% 24% d. Walk 177 3 1 0 0 95% 2% e. Other 1 3 1 4 0 1% 2%

rr=~ ILl

186 101%

3% 2% 1% 5% 4% 2% 22% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0%

~ ---, Tl

> '0 '0

"' = Po >!'

= ~ .., 0 = =-2 "' Po ~

(l 0

~ 0

" " "" ~ " {JQ

(/.l

~



D. How long have ;rou lived in Collegetown? Total res12onses: 416 99%

Less than 2 years 239 57% 2-5 years 159 38% 5-10 years 5 1% More than 10 years 13 3%

OccuP:ation Total resEonses: 420 100% Student 399 95% Other 21 5%

Sex Total resEonses: 421 100% Female 199 47% Male 222 53%

Block-ID Total resEonses: 407 063-01 3 1% 063-02 3 1% 063-03 3 1% 063-04 2 0%

R.

.

'

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 resEonses: 422 100% Jessica Greig 234 55% Tika Gurung 90 21% Sarah Goode 64 15% Esther Ashitey 34 8%

Building Tn~e Total resEonses: 422 100% Multiple dwelling unit 201 48% Single family dwelling 21 5% Large Apartment Building 200 47%

70


Appendix C: Owner/Manager Survey

1. Address of the establishment

2. Type of business a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar d. Apartment

b. Retail e. University

c. Service 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 b. Morning (Sam-noon) /day ___ ./week c. Mid-day (noon-4pm) /day __ __}/week d. Evening (4pm-8pm) /day ___ ,/week e. Night (after 8pm) /day __ __}/week f. Variable /day __ __}/week

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)

--~/month --~/month --~/month ___ ./month --~/month ___ ./month

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

Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met? Yes No 8.

9. If you feel that there are parking problems in Collegetown, what do you see as their main causes? (Circle all that apply)

10.

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) _____________ c--

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 a new 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

71

I i _:::.:_]

I I I

I .

I !~

I ,


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 pennits • 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 • 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 pennits 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 oflthaca 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 • I used to have a pennit 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 Col!egetown businesses

72


Appendix E: Results from Owner/Manager Survey

Block-id

1. Address of the establishment 063-05 10 063-08 6 063-10 1

2. Type of business a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar 34 b. Retail 8 c. Service 19 d. Apartment 1 e. University 0 f~ 0 3. How many people do you employ? full-time? 272

part-time? 410 4. Does the establishment have any private parking spaces associated with it?

If yes, how many for customers? full-time employees? part-time employees? Is there a fee associated with the parking?

If so, how much? 5. Do you receive any deliveries?

If so, at what time of day and how often?

Yes 22 No 40

Yes No

Yes No

6 53

3 6

56

47 15

16% 10% 2%

Block-id

064-02 067-01 068-04

55% 13% 31% 2% 0% 0%

40% 60%

36% 64% 10% 85% 5%

10% 90%

76% 24%

14 9

22

a. Early Morning (before 8 am) 4 /day 6 /week 0 /month

b. Morning (Sam-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% 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% Non-response 10 16%

23% ~-·· 14% 35%

73

f--J El

~ '


Appendix E (continued)

8. Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met? Yes No

15 47

24% 76%

9. If you feel that there are parking problems in College town, 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 he willing to contribute funds towards a new 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 TCA T 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%

74


Appendix F: Employee Snrvey

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? I 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 yon 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 ns 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!

75

c [j

~ f;j I '


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 (Sam 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. I.e. 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 12-9. 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 Y, 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

76


Appendix G (continued) • 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 employee 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 $5-$7 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 I 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 inc-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 inc-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

77

1-

p FT

[J

~

~


Appendix G (continued) • 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 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 inc-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 1" 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 I 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 #l reason they avoid Collegetown and go elsewhere is because of parking hassles.

78


Appendix G (continued) • 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 • 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(! 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% of the PSHCT parking, all the MT spaces and the loading zones.

Another permit which needs more enforcement is the handicap permit. Many times individuals 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.

• IfTCAT 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% 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

79

lj i _,

L I .


Appendix G (continued) • Cornell should not charge their employees to park on campus. They also shouldn't sell3 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.

80


Appendix H: Results from Employee Survey

1. What is your work address? 063-05 56 20% 064-02 75

063-08 6 2% 067-01 45

063-10 10 4% 068-04 84

064-01 I 0%

2. What is your employment status?

Full-time(35+ hrs/week) !56 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?

I II 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 I p.m. 12:00 10 8:00 6

5:00 I 1:00 2 9:00 II

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 I

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 II 4%

c. It varies !55 57%

27%

16%

30%

81

I 1-

I

~

[ : __ ,

Appendix H (continued)

IF YOU DRIVE YOURSELF ... 9. Where do you usually park?

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? Yes 17 39% ~ n 61%

10. How far from your workplace do you usually park? a. Less than a block 97 b. 2 blocks 51 c. 3 blocks 33 d. 4 blocks 11 e. 5 blocks or more 9

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 ~-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?


54 61 38 44 11

48% 25% 16% 5% 4%

26% 29% 18% 21%

5%

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% f. 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 TCA T 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%

82


0

Date of Survey: January 5, 2000

83

I

I


Appendix J: In-Season Usage Survey Results (Odd-Even Parking Regulation)

Street Block 1 vehicle count

Total 6:00 10 00 1 :00 H 00 Total Total Contin. Total Contin. Total Conlin.

18 15 16 12 14 1 1 11

10 10 8 8 10 8 6

o.j.•· ,, ·4 ':' ••.~L.(J."AI"' !<i.•.A ;'.•C'<'·2 .occ'.fc~ , i< ;•o .;:· ''•' •;.; ;••

. •>1"'''·2o·· •·. I' •;,·o, \'•·. ":22 ····"Yi3 .,·,.. ·L ., .. , Oru 21 2C 20 20 21 19 1' 13

Linden 18 1E 18 1E 18 15 19 1

I ; .1.4.• •+:c··· 13 , ; . . 131. ' 1· ·· . · '•12 · :·:· .. ; .1. I·'·.· .. lbi: ; •' .'3

84


Appendix K: In-Season Usage Survey Results (24-Hr Parking Regulation)

!Street Block i 'count Total 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00

Total Total Contin. Total Contin. !Total Contin.

18 1 18 14 16 10 15 7 10 11 g 8 9 7 10 7

.>:4':·'·'· .:.:::·::1 :·,·:,·.0' 3 ,::·; 1.···· :._,:C,2I'".·:·o,.\'a -'''''.c'i'-2 3 4 3 2 3 1 3 1

;' ::3·;~'.' :.'.':;·.J:4 ;,:,_;.·:·. l.t·:o:'·i•2l•\' ,; .. ·.·. 1"'::•_:.:',;() ~. 7 9 5 7 4 8 4

E. Seneca 10 10 1 7 .1Cl 5 8 5 E. Seneca 11 g g 8 10 6 4

E. Seneca 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 E. Seneca 10 11 11 1 11 8 11 6 N. ~uany 26 26 27 23 ~ 20 24 18 N. ~uany 13 14 14 12 14 1 12 7 Eddy 35 36 37 32 33 25 29 13 Eddy 5 6 6 4 4 7 3

Eddy 16 16 ~ 12 14 g 13 g

Eddy 10 10 10 9 10 9 8 6

'IC.\.1: : .121:;:. :·;,.{15!::: ··< ::: . '':: 1 ~ 11 9 7 7 g 6 8 6

"""'' .. '·''i'"··~:;c::•' '"'·=' '· .. 6 .;·,_· •. :; :;;:::-:(';::•:rt:··''c''···· ·.. ,.,.,,., b Eddy<T'' . 1'0:·5'::':•; ·: :•, .·.:.,;3 i·•'.. ><· ·.•

I'•Y:,·;.g:,, I ;.;;:c.;;. ::·;:::· ':': :},2 1 I Blair 29 25 26 19 ~ 15 24 1 I Blair 8 1 14 g 13 9 10 6 I Blair 17 1: 12 1 1 10 1 6 I Cook 15 1 1: 10 12 9 1 3 Cook 13 1· 14 14 14 12 11 5 urcnara 8 4 4 o 5 a

19 21 21 1 20 16 20 1

13"' ·::\0'' -=",y.,;::13;:•:· '":,:;· 1'-·.·::''•::017I'c·c,;::':\ ., 1/ 33 ·;}.3'1''':i'.'ti·_.;:\< ,-,,,,a ::;: ·.a :: :_,;:· ·:: .cr: ;·: ,.-,_. " :o

04 i'C :;;, lB.: ;;;: •·• ~· 33 32 33 27 28 18 26 14 18 18 18 15 8

, •. :, :•:,'130·- ;. -~ .,,._., i\ jc.;•:;: •. -: 1.::; - .,•:; -•:1

;·, >' ·:.:c:::,·,·';: '' ,,,,,, '::: ','" '··.'· 1:· .\ ,.o '";(.·,.a,,·::: ''•'''''':C:'i 1::;·:·,.-61'':.'';;,::'" 1:>!:.' . r·::,,• ,,,, ::·,· '_,,·c·:e :.. '-"'

College 2 0 0 0 C 0 0 C

:::, "':;';_ .. 2l,''i-':C'4'/.'.2i',;,,·,,4,'ii<'_',''o '.:.;c:~ _,,,,,,;:c OaJt.'''''''·'- I'' ')!i'-' :, : '.•',' '23 1 , :;: Y·.; · '141'': '· r·: :>:1o > :\-·-·'''="l!a :: ''- ' '4 Oak 21 29 28 23 29 19 28 11 Unden 18 1< 1< 14 17 14 19 8 Liliden> I' .14·. -li' · '·'14. ····---';5 :><:. 3: >. 1_5 :;···. · c Linden 13 13 1~ 11 14 11 13 1C

!Bryant 14 14 14 11 _1_4 9 13 -~ Totals 786 627 780 7~7_ 684

85

I

I

~

I

I

I

I

I

I I

UJ

"' -" ~ '> .... -o iJ.-4

"' ..c

·~ :z;

1

--,

I~


AppendixL

Paid Parking Spaces: Daytime Vehicle Accumulation*

350 300

-~A ~~~~~ --:ccilc" -- -- ""'"-- -- _--~~--_.&_---_--_ ···~~·~·------.----250- --- --~~-------------~~-----------A_-_-_---_-~A, __ _

200 150 100

50 0

~ 00 ~ ~

·e ~ ~

~-----~--~·: ·:··:·····:·····:·····:;;·;····-~

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

TimeofDay

*An accumulation chart depicts how many cars used the available spaces at a given time.

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

AppendixM

Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales

I \

J

I

,' . •. I ./b--..:.',, ' ;- ~-f---~

/ \. t------J"'·.-~--

1: i:

\

' \ \

o+--~-~--~-~-~--~-~-~---~-~-~-~

Month

-+--At meters

-In garage

--.~ Total

· · · · ··Garage Capacity

- -+- 1998-Day

------1998-Evening

- -~ · 1999-Day

· ><-·- 1999-Evening

· · * · · 2000-Day

---+--- 2000-Evening

86


Appendix N: 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 term parking (15-30 minutes),

3. Publicize tax-free transit subsidies8 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.),

5. 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.

8 Lopez, Jennifer. "Pre-tax parking and transportation benefits," The Tax Advisor. July, 1999, pgs. 473-4.

87

I j --~

h

1

-· ..

-


Appendix N (continued)

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: o 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 comer 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.

o Make on-street parking regulations more restrictive. o 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. o Give employees more parking options. Use the existing parking supply or work with employers and

employees to develop a park and ride lot. o Provide a shuttle service to popular locations to lower residential demand for a car. o 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.

o Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included.

Implications: o 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.

o There will be a need to encourage the use of storage parking through programs that lessen perceived and actual needs for a car.

o 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.

o 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.

88



• 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 B-2b and 2:3 in R-3a, R-3b, and for the Zoning Ordinance B-2a

• 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 RPrs** 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! 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 • 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 gtves the number of parkmg spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres one parkmg 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.

89

I~

I_

I

I

F

H El



Alternative B: MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE DEMAND FOR HOUSING, OFFICE, AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Goal: Promote more efficient nse 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 comer 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.

90



Plan B Elements

Components Short Term Long Term Off-street Parking Requirements • Change requirements to I :2* in all Collegetown zones (B-2b, R-for the Zoning Ordinance 3a, R-3b, and B-2a)

• 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 • 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 gtves the number of parking spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres one parkmg space for two beds. ** RPPS =Residential Parking Pennit System


I~

91

I



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 increase in the R-3a, R-3b, and B-2a

zones but stay the same for B-2b. 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 comer 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.


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 College town, 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.

92




• 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 1:3' in B-2b and change the requirement for the Zoning Ordinance to 1:2 in R-3a, R-3b, and B-2a

• 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 b ·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

'i'1:3 g1ves the number of parkmg spaces per bed, th1s ratio reqmrcs one parking space for three beds. ** RPPS =Residential Parking Permit System


93

I

I

I

8 . .

I



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.


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.


94



• 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 I 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 gtves the number of parking spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres two parkmg spaces for three beds. ** RPPS =Residential Parking Pennit 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.

95

El

I

I ,

COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA ITHACA, NY 2000 5..~ .. .,.~•.' ....... .,


> J"ij ""0

't'rj

z u ->< 0

Collegetown Parking Study, Ithaca, New York by Jessica Greig, July 2000

Documents

day week

common council

environmentally

license plate

conversely

dryden road

multiple dwelling

large apartment