THE IMPORTANCE OF ON-STREET PARKING TO BUSINESS VITALITY

THE IMPORTANCE OF ON-STREET PARKING

TO BUSINESS VITALITY

A Study of Agricola Street,

Halifax NS

Joshua de Jong

Plan 6000 Independent Project

Supervisor: Dr. Eric Rapaport

Dalhousie University School of Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PURPOSE STATEMENT 3

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3

4. OBJECTIVES 4

5. LITERATURE REVIEW 5

5.1 Parking to Promote Economic Growth 5

5.2 Parking as a Land-use 6

5.3 Parking and Travel Behaviour 7

5.4 Employee Parking 8

6. POLICY CONTEXT 10

6.1 HRM Regional Parking Strategy Functional Plan 10

6.2 Transportation Demand Management Functional Plan 12

7. BACKGROUND 14

7.1 On-Street Parking Usage 16

8. METHODOLOGY 18

8.1 Business Survey 18

8.2 Customer Survey 20

9. BUSINESS RESULTS 21

9.1 Business Estimates of Customers Served 21

9.2 Business Perception of Customer Mode Choice 22

9.3 Business Perceived Impacts of the Removal of On-Street Parking 23

9.4 Employee Parking 24

10. CUSTOMER RESULTS 25

10.1 Customer Primary Mode Choice 25

10.2 Frequency of Customer Visits 26

10.3 Customer Spending Habits 27

10.4 Impact of the Removal of Parking on Customer Travel Behaviour 27

11. DISCUSSION 29

11.1 Study Limitations 33

12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

12.1 Future Studies 35

REFERENCES 36

APPENDICIES 1

Appendix 1 : Informed Letter of Consent 2

Appendix 2 : Business Survey 3

Appendix 3 : Customer Survey 5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Street Map of Halifax Peninsula

Figure 2 Documents included in HRM Transportation Master Plan

Figure 3 Map of Agricola Street Study Area

Figure 4 Area proposed of change by HRM by Design’s Centre Plan

Figure 5 Hourly Occupancy on Agricola from Cunard to Young

Figure 6 Response Rate by Type of Business

Figure 7 Types of Business on Agricola

Figure 8 Types of Business the Responded to the Survey

Figure 9 Business Perceptions of Customer Mode Choice

Figure 10 Business perceived customer visit frequency change with removal of

on-street parking

Figure 11 Customer Mode Share

Figure 12 Customer Visit Frequency Change if Parking Was Removed

Figure 13 Parking Occupancy Per Hour and Estimate Employee Occupancy

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Parking Capacity in Study Area

Table 2 Business Estimated Average Daily Customers

Table 3 Estimated Number of Customers that Drive and Use On-Street Parking

Table 4 Number of Employees Per Business

Table 5 Estimated % of Employees that Use On-Street Parking on Agricola Street

Table 6 Frequency of Customer Visits

Table 7 Frequency of Customer Visits by Mode Choice When Shopping

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Parking is an important component of transportation policy and management in any

city. “The policies and management practices affecting parking lead to outcomes

that, in turn, can affect land-‐use, air quality, traffic congestion, travel behaviour,

safety, and economic development”(de Cerreno 2002, 2) not to mention someone’s

decision of where to live and work. Changes to these policies and/or management

practices need to take into consideration any stakeholders who could be affected.

The purpose of this research is to explore and understand the relationship between

business vitality and on-‐street parking on Agricola Street, Halifax Nova Scotia. This

study focuses on the area of Agricola Street between Cunard and Young and is

intended to increase HRM’s ability to understand the importance of street parking

as a public land-‐use and also contribute to the academic literature available on the

topic. The literature suggests that businesses often overestimate the impact of the

removal of parking and HRM policies support further studies of on-‐street parking.

This study refines and implements a method adapted from a 2009 Toronto study

which intended to understand and estimate the importance of on-‐street parking to

businesses (Sztabinski 2009). Surveys were disseminated during October 2012 to

investigate the opinions and perceptions of 36 merchants and 96 customers on

Agricola Street.

Findings include:

44% of businesses anticipate a similar number of customers if parking was

removed

Businesses overestimate the percentage of their customers who drive and

underestimate those who walk and cycle;

ii

70% of customers walk to Agricola Street when shopping;

Customers who arrive by foot or bicycle on average visit more frequently and

spend more money than those who drive on a monthly basis;

Approximately 29.8% of all on-‐street parking spaces are being occupied by

employees of businesses;

Parking occupancy is high but turnover is low

Findings suggest that the misconception of customer travel behavior has resulted in

too much parking capacity on Agricola, which is vulnerable to abuse by non-‐

customers. The current demand, 51% occupancy during peak hours, could still be

accommodated if the number of spaces were reduced. The addition of parking

meters or shorter time restrictions will help encourage turnover and discourage

abuse from non-‐customers. These interventions support the goals and objectives of

the HRM Functional Parking Strategy and TDM plan. Future studies involving other

stakeholders, including residents, are recommended.

iii

1. INTRODUCTION

Parking is an important component of transportation policy and management in any

city. “The policies and management practices affecting parking lead to outcomes

that, in turn, can affect land-‐use, air quality, traffic congestion, travel behaviour,

safety, and economic development”(de Cerreno 2002, 2) not to mention someone’s

decision of where to live and work. Changes to these policies and/or management

practices need to take into consideration any stakeholders that could be affected.

Agricola Street in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has recently been the focus of some proposed

projects that could affect the availability and price of parking. Some of these changes

may require more street space then others but all must consider the potential

impact of the availability of parking on businesses. “Parking influences particular

aspects of travel patterns, the location of activities, attitudes to places and the

development process”(Still and Simmonds 2010, 292). The provision of parking is

far more complex than the traditional ‘predict and provide’ approach and

management practices should be up to date with the current trends and policies.

Figure 1 Street map of Halifax peninsula (Source: Bing Maps 2012)

Parking and Business Vitality 1

“Given the current dominance of the private car except among those with limited

disposable income, or who choose not to own a car, it is not surprising that most

retailers are preoccupied with ensuring that their stores are easily accessed by car”

(Still and Simmonds 2010, 297). Many of the interventions that would limit the

availability of street parking are met with opposition even before they are

implemented. This opposition, especially by businesses, is often based on the

perceived impacts of traffic calming schemes or the addition of bike lanes and

highlights the importance of the need for a better understanding of the conflicting

viewpoints.

Business attitudes naturally reflect both their preferences and assumed reactions of

shoppers to changing conditions. In auto-‐dependent economies it is important that

businesses are easily accessibly by car and that parking is readily available to

customers. This is based on the assumption that most customers’ primary mode of

transportation is a car. Recent studies have shown that customers may be switching

to alternative modes of transportation and that road space reallocation of parking to

cycling or pedestrian infrastructure may benefit business (Schaller Consulting 2006,

Sztabinsky 2009, Forkes & Smith 2010, Johnston 2010). Although studies on impact

of the removal of parking exist, literature on the subject is still scarce (de Cerreno

2002, 10).

There are best practices for parking and parking management but it is important to

address these issues on a case-‐by-‐case basis. A study by the Clean Air Partnership of

Bloor Street in Toronto, Ontario, found that merchants in the study area are unlikely

to be negatively affected by reallocating on-‐street parking space to a bike lane

(Sztabinsky 2009, 1). Although it did not look specifically at bike lanes as a limiting

factor of on-‐street parking the Bloor Street study is used as a model for this paper.

The Clear Air Partnership intended that their study be replicated on other

commercial streets where there is a concern about reducing parking (Sztabinksy

2009, 1).


2. PURPOSE STATEMENT

The purpose of this research is to explore and understand the relationship between

business vitality and on-‐street parking on Agricola Street, Halifax Nova Scotia. This

study focuses on the area of Agricola Street between Cunard and Young and is

intended to increase HRM’s ability to understand the importance of street parking

as a public land-‐use and also contribute to the academic literature available on the

topic.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary research question of this study asks:

1. What are the potential impacts of the removal of on-‐street parking on

Agricola Street between Cunard St. and Young?

a) What are the perceived impacts of the loss of on-‐street to

businesses?

b) How would customers react to the loss of on-‐street parking?

a. Would the removal of on-‐street parking affect customer

travel behaviour?

c) What percentage of street parking is being occupied by employees?


4. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are three-‐fold. Firstly, to measure business operators’

perceptions of customer travel behaviour and opinions on how the removal of on-‐

street parking may impact their business. Secondly, to quantify customer behavior

including mode choice, frequency of visits, how much they spend per month, where

they park and how the removal of parking would change their shopping behavior.

Thirdly, analysis of the surveys will inform recommendations for the HRM when

faced with issues related to on-‐street parking. The achievement of these objectives

will assist in the understanding of the relationship between on-‐street parking and

business vitality and ex the economic impact that might be associated with the

removal of on-‐street parking.


5. LITERATURE REVIEW

The relationship between on-‐street parking and business vitality is complex. For

this paper, academic literature, planning documents, and consulting studies were

reviewed to gain a range of perspectives. Although the literature covers a variety of

theories related to on-‐street parking and business vitality, this review will focus on

four major themes which repeatedly emerged in the literature and respond to the

objective of this study. These themes are: parking to promote economic growth,

parking as a land-‐use, parking and its impact on travel mode choice, and employee

parking. Although the literature demonstrates these themes in a variety of contexts

this paper will primarily focus on their application to on-‐street parking and business

vitality.

5.1 Parking to Promote Economic Growth

Historically parking was used as a means of economic development by increasing

the parking provision (de Cerreno 2002). As people moved away from urban

centres and businesses followed some cities began using publically financed parking

to encourage economic development downtown and their parking management

strategies reflected this (Meyer and McShane 1983). A study by Walters (1996)

found that “Retailers’ comments show a clear and strong presumption that the

provision of parking for shoppers is positively related to retail vitality”(20). It is

believed that shoppers (implicitly, shoppers arriving by car) consider their ability to

park equally as important as the location of the shopping centre (Walters 1996, 20).

Still and Simmonds (2010) examined the connection between parking and economic

development further in their study of the impacts of parking restraint policies on

the economic vitality in urban centres. Parking restraint policies are designed to

limit the amount of available parking to reduce car use. In their study two different

methods of examining impacts were used and each fielded very different results.


“Attitudinal evidence suggests that there is a high level of sensitivity to parking

provision, where as aggregate statistical studies tend to find only a weak

relationship”(291). Based on the inconclusiveness of these results Still and

Simmonds recommended future research.

5.2 Parking as a Land-use

Streets must fulfill a wide variety of functions for diverse groups at different times,

and designing streets for all users can be difficult (Hawkes and Sheridan 2002).

“Parking occupies urban space, and hence changes in parking provision can affect

the amount and quality of space available for other activities” (Still and Simmonds

2010, 292). The competition for the use of roadways includes additional lanes for

traffic flow, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. Traditionally street design and

management has been the job of a traffic engineer whose primary goal is to move

traffic through streets efficiently, but as the competition for space grows so will the

need for better management of on-‐street parking with more municipal stakeholders

at the table.

Oppenheim (1991) argues that future studies must also consider the level of service

that a business provides and identifies parking as a quality of service. In areas with

limited availability of street parking, protecting it as a land-‐use is an important

aspect to this service. A study of locational choice behaviour of entrepreneurs

concluded, “a retailer’s locational decision making seems primarily to be influenced

by the accessibility and size of the shopping centre” (Timmermans 1986, 235). An

important characteristic of perceived accessibility in auto dependent economies is

the availability of parking can often influence a businesses’ decision as where to

locate.

Newby (1992) reviewed a number of pedestrianization projects, which often

compete with on-‐street parking for road space. He concluded that far more projects

had a positive effect on business than a negative one. Newby also discovered that


usinesses may oppose the changes initially but warm up to the idea once the

benefits become evident. In another study May et. al. (1982) investigated customer

attitudes to town centre pedestrian streets and the perception was that access had

improved, despite the removal of cars and buses from the street. In some cases,

understanding people’s perceptions of accessibility is as important as accessibility

itself.

5.3 Parking and Travel Behaviour

Local retailers have strong grounds for opposing the elimination of street parking

because they fear the loss of passing customers and because the nature of their

business makes them not as accessible by other modes of transportation. Unlike

large shopping centres that usually have their own off street lots, local retailers are

often dependent on street parking. “As a type of shared parking, on-‐street parking is

an efficient means for allowing multiple users to reach multiple destinations” (de

Cerreno 2002). “Changes in the provision of parking and its price will affect the cost

and convenience of travel, and influence transport choices such as mode choice and

time of day of travel” (Still and Simmonds 2010 292). If a location becomes less

convenient or accessible it could influence customer travel behaviour.

As mentioned by Still and Simmonds (2010) a change to the price of parking may

also influence travel behaviour. Merriman (1997) suggests parking “metres help get

the most efficient use of the parking spaces by discouraging long-‐term parking and

perhaps reducing the number of spillover parkers because they lower the potential

benefit from finding a subsidized space”. Businesses often want to provide free

convenient parking as an incentive to shop. However, the problem with free parking

is that it discourages turnover which can be just as bad for business. Policies that

provide free parking encourage customers to drive and stay as long as they want.

Still and Simmonds (2010) acknowledge the relationship between parking and


travel behaviour because “parking policies important enough to influence mode

choice may also influence destination choice” (Still and Simmonds 2010, 311).

5.4 Employee Parking

Most businesses that require parking for customers also require parking for their

employees. Free parking for employees is often considered an unquestioned benefit

of employment. “Any move to charge workers for workplace parking, which had

previously been provided free of charge, will tend to be met with resistance,

especially if the charges are set high in a deliberate attempt to modify commuters’

travel behaviour” (Still and Simmonds 295 2010). But, the problem with providing

free employee parking, especially in locations with limited capacity, is that a worker

is often occupying a space that should be reserved for a customer, creating an

opportunity cost for the business. “A key factor in attitudes to [employee] parking

should be the fact that the provision for workers involves considerable expense,

especially where land values are high, on something which makes no direct

contribution to the firm’s business” (Still and Simmonds 2010 296).

Encouraging employees to use public parking that is not properly managed or

priced is vulnerable to abuse. “Current thinking is that the imposition of parking

charges on workers will only be politically acceptable if it can be shown that those

who pay will get some benefit (less congested road conditions), while those who

switch to other modes will get a different benefit (better public transport or better

cycle facilities) financed out of the revenue from parking charges”(Still and

Simmonds 2010, 296).

For example, in Kelowna BC all city owned parking is a minimum of 10% higher

than a monthly transit pass (HRM 2010). By not subsidizing parking this policy

encourages employees to use other modes of transportation including Public

Transit. “Commuting by private car is common among those who are provided with

such a space” (Still and Simmonds 2010, 295) but when this provision is removed or

is no longer subsidized it changes employee travel behaviour.


In California a law requires some employers to offer commuters the option to

choose cash in lieu of any parking subsidy offered (Shoup 1997). This program was

well received by employees because it benefitted those who chose alternative

modes of transportation. Donald Shoup (1997) studied the successes of this

program and found “one firm saved $70 per employee per month” (Shoup 1997

209) in commuter subsidizes because they no longer needed to pay the cost of

parking as employees were switching to other methods of transportation. “All the

benefits derive from subsidizing people not parking”(Shoup 1997 207). The end

goal of this policy is to decrease the demand parking making the space available for

other uses.


6. POLICY CONTEXT

The Halifax Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS) acknowledges the

importance of balancing the parking needs of “business, tourism and other uses

throughout HRM, while at the same time promoting the use of alternative modes of

transportation” (HRM RMPS 2006, 76). It continues to say “parking is vital to

businesses as it allows them to be accessible to their employees, customers and

visitors who travel to these destinations by private automobile” (HRM RMPS 2006,

76). In response to the importance of parking the RMPS outlines considerations for

Regional Parking Strategy Functional Plan. Also outlined in the RMPS the

Transportation Demand Management Functional Plan “is a set of strategic initiatives

geared at improving the efficiency of the transportation network, encouraging

alternatives to the single occupant vehicle trip and encouraging behavioural change”

(HRM 2006, 74).

6.1 HRM Regional Parking Strategy Functional Plan

The Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Parking Strategy Functional Plan (2008)

is a 25 year plan written to ensure that parking in the HRM will be designed,

supplied and managed to:

1. Support a choice of integrated travel modes

2. Encourage alternatives to the single occupant vehicle trip

3. Help mitigate traffic congestion

4. Promote efficient land us

5. Operate efficiently and equitably

6. Support local business, tourism and service sectors

7. Protect the environment

8. Link with other ongoing studies


“Decisions on parking affect all aspects of development in Halifax Regional

Municipality including land use, built form, economic development, travel behaviour

and financial health” (HRM 2008, ES1). The HRM Regional Parking Functional Plan

is based on the conviction that a balanced approach must be adopted for all facets of

parking (HRM 2008, ES1). This reflects current trends in parking management that

are moving away from the ‘predict and provide’ strategy in recognition that too

much parking may be as harmful as too little.

However, it is also recognized that having adequate parking supply is essential to

the function of both commercial development and to daily lives of HRM residents.

HRM is a large and diverse region with many different transportation and parking

needs. The regional parking strategy is part of the Halifax Regional Transportation

Master Plan(TMP). The TMP is outlined in the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy

(RMPS) and “will guide management and development of the transportation system

over the next 25 years”(HRM 2008, 7). The RMPS intends to shape settlement in an

efficient way such that public transit and other alternatives to commuting become

more viable. Other plans that are part of the Transportation Master Plan include

Road Network Functional Plan (Pending), Public Transit Five Year Strategic

Plan(2009), Active Transportation Plan (in review) and the Transportation Demand

Management Plan(HRM 2008 7).

Road and Road

Network Plan

Transportation Master Plan

Public Transit Plan

Regional Parking

Strategy

Functional Plan

Figure 2 Documents included in HRM Transportation Master Plan

Active

Transportation Plan

Transportation

Demand

Management

Functional Plan


The parking strategy functional plan outlines recommendations which seek to

increase the efficiency of the existing parking system and reduce parking demand.

Key recommended strategies related to on-‐street parking include(HRM 2008):

1. Introducing parking pricing on selected streets on weekends to discourage

long-‐term parking and to ensure availability for visitors.

2. Improving user information to better explain parking regulations along with

policies to reduce parking fines for first time offenders.

3. Modifying the existing residential parking exemption program to allow

implementation over a multi-‐block zone.

4. Increasing the use of the Parking By Permit Only program in residential areas

that have a high occurrence of employees using on-‐street parking, if desired

by residents.

The regional parking strategy is meant to be a guiding document and has no policy

implications.

6.2 Transportation Demand Management Functional Plan

The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Functional Plan “contributes to

establishing an efficient, sustainable transportation network through the

development of policy, programs, and services which intend to reduce single

occupant vehicles (SOVs) and the negative impacts associated with automobile

use”(HRM 2010). With regard to parking, one of the objectives of this plan is to

create parking management strategies that influence individual travel behaviour

and encourage sustainable transportation modes (HRM 2010,9). The plan admits

that a policy that increases parking supply and/or lowers parking price creates an

environment where people will travel more frequently, travel further, and increase

the number of vehicles owned per household (HRM 2010,10).

TDM states “parking is one of the most effective management tools that influence

travel patterns and behaviour” (HRM 2010 12). In conjunction with promoting


more sustainable modes of transportation “reducing parking supply and increasing

parking price can be effective in applying TDM strategies and reducing peak

automobile traffic” (HRM 2010,10). A related attitudinal study of automobile

commuters in Halifax found that 40% say that they park for free and 29% say they

would change their travel behaviour if parking was priced higher (HRM 2010,11).


7. BACKGROUND

In Halifax Regional Municipality roads are traditionally thought of as “conduits for

motor vehicle movement” (HRM 2006,68). As municipal planning and policy trends

move to accommodate other modes of transportation, including public transit and

cycling, the function of roads will change to be more hospitable to other users.

Accommodating other modes of transportation may require changes to the

streetscape and not everyone is in favor of proposed changes with business owners

often some of the most vocal opponents.

Figure 3 Map of study area (Bing Maps 2012)

Agricola Street is a unique and vibrant neighbourhood with a variety of local

retailers and services. This study area, highlighted in figure 3, was selected because

Agricola has recently been the focus of proposed streetscape changes that may

affect the availability and price of parking. Agricola is an area being considered by

HRM by Design’s Centre Plan and is a candidate route for the north/south bicycle

corridor. Most retailers do not have private off-‐street lots and rely on on-‐street

parking.


HRM’s Centre Plan is a

“25 year strategy for a

dense, livable, and

prosperous regional

centre that will create

sustainable economic

and environmental

benefits across HRM”

(HRM 2011). Agricola

Street is one of the

areas of proposed

change, as shown in

figure 4. The “current

Figure 4 Proposed site of HRM by Design’s Centre Plan (HRM 2011)

land use by-‐law for this area focuses mainly on separating land uses, requirements,

distances between buildings and maximum heights”(HRM 2011) which does not

follow the Centre Plan’s long term vision for the area. The proposed changes seek to

create an Agricola that is more complete and walkable and to ensure that patterns of

land-‐use and multi-‐modal transportation are mutually supportive (HRM 2011).

The Halifax Regional Municpality North-‐South Peninsula Bicycle Corridor proposal

was suggested by city council in response to a petition filed by the Halifax Cycling

Coalition in 2010. The petition gathered 1,418 signatures and requested that the

municipality investigate a north/south bicycle corridor connecting the Halifax

peninsula from one end to the other expanding the city’s cycling network (HRM

2012a). Agricola St. is a candidate route for the proposed corridor. The goal of the

corridor is to create a route where cyclists are encouraged to travel and where HRM

has implemented facilities to promote safety and connectivity (HRM 2012a). If

Agricola Street is chosen, 44 parking spaces on Agricola would need to be removed

to accommodate the painted bicycle lanes (HRM 2012a).

In the HRM Regional Municipal Planning Strategy Agricola is classified as a Minor

Collector Street, which permits bike lanes and on-‐street parking (HRM 2006). A


minor collector street is important for traffic movement between arterial streets

and providing access to land-‐uses (HRM 2009). Minor Collector streets are designed

to accommodate an average daily traffic volume of up to 12,000 vehicles and an

average running speed of 30-‐50km/h (HRM 2009). The design guidelines are

intended to reinforce the multiple functions of the street and its connections to

other traffic arteries.

7.1 On-Street Parking Usage

There are a total of 191(HRM 2012b) on-‐street parking spaces on Agricola Street.

The on-‐street parking controls vary depending on location and the spaces are not

priced nor do they require permits. See table 1.

In August 2012 HRM conducted a parking

utilization study of on-‐street parking on Agricola.

This study investigated the occupancy of on-‐

street parking on Agricola Street. Parking

occupancy is the inverse of parking availability or

the percent of parking spaces occupied in an area

at a given time. The purpose of the parking

utilization study was to investigate parking as a

public resource and to see if, based on current

Table 1 Parking capacity of study area

Parking

Control

HRM policies and management, available parking meets the public’s needs.

Number of

Spaces

No Control 47

2 Hour 52

1 Hour 63

30 Minute 19

15 Minute 10

Total 191

The preliminary results found (see figure 5) that peak utilization was between 12

and 1 PM with 51% of all on-‐street parking spaces on Agricola Street occupied.

Some blocks experience higher occupancy than others, this percentage is the mean.


Figure 5 Hourly parking occupancy of study area (HRM 2012b)

Occupancy (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:00

AM

11:00

AM

12:00

PM

Time of Day

Rate of turnover is a good indication of whether a parking space is being efficiently

used and supports the adjacent uses. Parking turnover is the number of vehicles

that occupy a parking space over a specified period of time. If parking has high

occupancy but low turnover it generally means that it is poorly managed. Placing

time restrictions on street parking spaces can help stimulate turnover by controlling

the duration a vehicle can remained parked. These restrictions are encouraged in

areas with high parking demand and should be strictly enforced. If not properly

policed there is no reason to discourage offenders. In commercial areas, like

Agricola, it has been suggested “2 hour spaces will meet the needs of the majority of

customers and encourage a reasonable turnover” (Parksville 2011 20).

When time limits are placed on street parking they should represent the turnover

desired for that space. For example, a 15-‐minute time limit encourages a high

turnover by restricting use to a short period of time. A parking space with no

controls, on the contrary, suggests that the space does not experience much demand

thus requires no need to encourage turnover. On Agricola many of the on-‐street

parking spaces that are not time restricted have a rate of turnover near 1 (HRM

2012b), which suggests high occupancy but only one vehicle holding a space.


1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

8. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this research is to understand the importance of on-‐street parking to

businesses and customers on Agricola St. This study adapts methodology from a

2009 study of Bloor Street in Toronto, Ontario this research intended to understand

and estimate the importance of on-‐street parking to businesses (Sztabinski 2009).

The Bloor Street study was based on 2006 research that quantified the relative

importance of the various modes of transportation to business activity on Prince

Street, in New York City, as well as projecting the impacts on business activity of a

road reallocation from on-‐street parking to wider sidewalks (Schaller Consulting

2006).

Surveys for businesses and customers were chosen for this study as the preferred

method of data collection for this research because they provide a quantitative

description of trends of the sample population. The self-‐administered

questionnaires allowed for a short survey time and easy comparison of the results

(Creswell 2009). The Clean Air Partnership (2009) intended for their project to

increase the ability of Canadian Municipalities to determine the acceptability and

economic impacts of re-‐allocating street space.

8.1 Business Survey

This study defines a business as an establishment that exchanges goods and/or

services for profit. All qualifying businesses currently operating on Agricola Street

between Cunard Street and Young Street were asked to participate. A few

establishments were not asked to participate because they did not meet this

criterion. To capture as many participants as possible the surveys were

disseminated in person and respondents were asked to participate immediately.

Respondents were asked questions regarding hours of operation, estimated

customers served per day, estimated customer mode of transportation, employee


parking and anticipated changes if on-‐street parking was removed. A copy of the

survey is included in Appendix A.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

n=15

N=30

Figure 6 Response rate by type of business

Fifty-‐six Businesses were approached to participate and 64.3% (36) responded to

the survey. Business owners/operators who were unavailable were asked to

participate through a mail-‐in survey at their earliest convenience. The mail-‐in

method of dissemination had a poorer response rate with 50% (4/8) of merchants

participating. These surveys were administered during the month of October 2012.

Retail

42%

Figure 7 Types of businesses on Agricola

n=18

N=24

n=2

N=3

Service Retail Restaurant/Bar

Restau-

rant/

Bar

5%

Service

53%

Retail

51%

Restau-

rant/

Bar

6%

Service

43%

Figure 8 Types of businesses that responded to

the survey


8.2 Customer Survey

The customer survey targeted pedestrians walking in the study area. The

pedestrians may have arrived by car, transit, bicycle or foot but at the time the

survey was conducted were walking. Customer intercept locations were diffused to

avoid any bias at a particular location. For example, intercepting customers outside

of a bicycle shop may capture a large proportion of customers who cycle. These

surveys were administered at various times during the month of October.

Pedestrians were asked a screening question to determine if they were included in

the target sample. This question determined whether or not they have shopped on

Agricola in the past month and are indeed a customer. Pedestrians who had not

shopped on Agricola Street in the past month were not included in the study. In total

there were 96 respondents to the survey.

Survey participants were asked how much they spend in a typically month, how

often they visit Agricola Street, frequency of visits, primary mode choice when

shopping, and anticipated behavioural changes if parking was removed. A copy of

the customer survey is included in Appendix B of this report.


9. BUSINESS RESULTS

9.1 Business Estimates of Customers Served

Table 2. Estimated Average Daily Customers

Estimate number of

customers served

Weekday Weekend Day

< 25 47.2% (17) 11.1% (4)

25 – 49 11.1% (4) 13.9 % (5)

50 – 99 11.1% (4) 11.1% (4)

100 – 200 5.6% (2) 5.6 % (2)

> 200 5.6% (2) 11.1% (4)

Unknown 19.4% (7) 13.9% (5)

Closed 0% 33.3% (12)

Agricola is not a very busy commercial street. As Table 2 shows 47.2% of businesses

estimate serving less than 25 customers on average per week day, and only 11.2%

serving greater than 100. On an average weekend day 11.1% of businesses estimate

serving less than 25 customers, while 33.3% of businesses are closed. The type of

business could influence the average number of daily customers as some may rely

on unique visits. A unique customer visit is common for businesses that offer goods

or services that experience a low rate of return visitors, for example a furniture

store. A restaurant, conversely, is expected to have a high volume of traffic and see

many return customers.

For many of the businesses the number of customers served per day is variable and

thus hard to estimate. Several business operators did not know the number of

customers served; 19.4% for weekday and 13.9% for weekend day. Once again this

may be a result of the type of business.


9.2 Business Perception of Customer Mode Choice

Table 3. Estimated Number of Customers that Drive and Use On-Street Parking

% of customers that drive

and use on-street

parking

The results of the survey indicate that 17 (47%) businesses estimate between 76 –

100 percent of customers drive to Agricola Street and use on-‐street parking.

Conversely, it is believed by 19 (52.8%) businesses that less than 25% of their

customers walk or bicycle. Three (8.3%) businesses surveyed did not know the

primary mode of transportation of their clientele or do not serve customers at the

location of the business. These numbers are shown in Table 3. Figure 9, below,

explores business perceptions of customer mode choice further.

Drive and Use On-Street

Parking

Don't know

76% - 100%

51% - 75%

26% - 50%

0 - 25%

2

3

3

11

17

Frequency

Don't know

76% - 100%

51% - 75%

26% - 50%

0 - 25%

Walk or Bicycle


3

3

Percentage share of

responses

0 – 25 % 11 30.6%

26% - 50% 2 5.6%

51% - 75% 3 8.3%

76% - 100% 17 46.7%

Don’t know 3 8.3%

Figure 9 Business perceptions of customer mode choice

5

6

19

9.3 Business Perceived Impacts of the Removal of On-Street Parking

Businesses were asked how the removal of on-‐street parking on Agricola Street

would impact their business. To estimate the effects, respondents were asked

whether the removal of street parking would bring fewer or the same number of

daily customers. Nineteen (54%) participants anticipate the removal of on-‐street

parking would result in fewer customers. Seventeen (44%) businesses surveyed

predict that the removal of parking would not change the frequency of customer

visits and one (3%) respondent did not know how the removal of street parking

would impact their business.

Same

amount of

customers

44%

Unknown

3%

Fewer

customers

53%

Figure 10 Business perceived customer visit frequency

change with removal of on-street parking


9.4 Employee Parking

Table 4. Number of Employees Per Business

# of Employees # Responses % of Sample

1 – 5 23 63.9%

6 – 10 8 22.2%

11 – 15 2 5.6%

16 – 20 0 0%

21 – 25 1 2.8%

26 – 30 1 2.8%

31 – 35 0 0%

36 – 40 0 0%

41 – 45 1 2.8%

Businesses on Agricola Street are primarily small enterprises with 63.9% (23) of

respondents employing less then six people. Of those 23 businesses, 43%(10)

employ two or less. There are only three (8.3%) respondents who employ more

than 20 people. Based on the results of the surveys the largest employer, with 44

employees, employs 18% of the total number of workers.

Similar to customers, employees that drive to Agricola Street require vehicle

storage. When workers aren’t provided a parking space they also rely on street

parking. If an on-‐street parking space does not have a time restriction it will often

be used by employees.

61.1%(22) of

businesses surveyed

estimated that less

than 25% of their

employees used on-‐

street parking. Based

on respondents’

Table 6. Estimated Percentage of Employees that use

On-Street Parking on Agricola Street

evaluations of the percentage of their employees that use on-‐street parking, it is

estimated that workers occupy 57(29.8%) of the 191 available on-‐street parking

spaces on Agricola Street between Cunard and Young.

% of employees # Responses % of sample

0 – 25% 22 61.1%

26% - 50% 7 19.4%

51% - 75% 4 11.1%

76% - 100% 3 8.3%


10. CUSTOMER RESULTS

A total of 96 customers responded to the survey. For this sample a ‘customer’ is

defined as a person who has purchased goods and/or services on Agricola Street in

the previous 30 days. Anyone who met this criterion was invited to participate. Of

the 96 respondents 39 said they live or work in the area surrounding Agricola

Street. The ‘area’ was not defined for the customer but if asked, was described as the

neighbourhoods between Gottigen (East) and Robie (West) of Agricola Street.

Participant’s primary place of residence was also solicited to provide further clarity.

In total, 57 customers live or work outside of the study area.

10.1 Customer Primary Mode Choice

To understand the importance of on-‐street parking to customer travel and spending

behavior respondents were asked their primary mode of transportation when

shopping on Agricola Street. Since potential participants were intercepted on foot it

was important to determine their primary transportation mode. This could have

resulted in more responses from customers who primarily travel by walking and is

listed as a limiting factor for this paper.

bicycle

14%

car

16%

walk

70%

Figure 11 Customer Mode Share

As shown in figure 11, for 70%(67) of

the total 96 respondents their primary

mode of transportation when shopping

is walking . This is higher than

anticipated. Fifteen(16%) respondents

drive to Agricola and 14 (14%) use a

bicycle.


10.2 Frequency of Customer Visits

49% of customers surveyed shop on Agricola Street five or fewer days per month.

For this research a month is defined as having 30 days. The second greatest

proportion for range of visit frequency is 6 – 10 days per month with 19.8%. Only

Table 6. Frequency of

Customer Visits

Number of days

% of

Sample

(96)

0 – 1 16.7%

2 9.4%

3 6.2%

4 7.3%

5 9.4%

6 – 10 19.8%

11 – 15 10.4%

16 – 20 7.3%

21 – 25 2.1%

26 – 30 11.5%

49%

13 customers said they shop more than

20 days a month. See Table 6.

Visit frequency compared to customer’s

primary mode of transportation when

shopping, shown in table 7, helps

further explain their travel behaviour.

These findings are highlighted in Table

8. Based on this comparison it was

discovered that 66.7% of car users visit

only between one to five times

monthly. In contrast, 43% of

pedestrians and 21.4% of cyclists

answered within the same range.

Conversely, 0% of drivers, 14.3% of

cyclists, and 13.4% of pedestrians shop

between 26 – 30 days a month.

Table 7. Frequency of Customer Visits Based on Mode Choice When Shopping

Mode 0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30

Walk (67) 43.3%(29) 19.4%(13) 13.4%(9) 4.5%(3) 3%(2) 13.4%(9)

Bicycle (14) 21.4%(3) 35.7%(5) 7.1%(1) 21.4%(3) 0% 14.3%(2)

Car (15) 66.7%(10) 6.7%(1) 0% 6.7%(1) 0% 0%


Also important to explore is the relationship between customers who live and/or

work in the area and the frequency of visits. Over 57.9% of respondents who do not

live or work in the area visit between 0 – 5 days per month. This proportion is

similar to the representation of customers who drive (66.7%). For respondents who

live and/or work in the area the majority of visitors, 9(23%), visit between 0 – 5

days a month.

10.3 Customer Spending Habits

Respondents were asked to estimate monthly spending on Agricola. Customers

were provided with five ranges of spending. Overall, the largest percentage of the

sample report spending between $25 and $99 dollars per month. For those who live

and/or work in the area 43.6% of participants report spending between $100 -‐ $499

per month while 45.6% of respondents living outside of the area spend $25 -‐ $99.

People who live and/or work locally on average spend more, and have a higher

frequency of visits.

Investigating the relationship between spending habits and customer mode choice,

cyclists appear to spend the most with 42.8% spending more than $100 per month.

Pedestrians were second with 37.3% of respondents spending $100 or greater per

month and automobile users were third with 36.4 percent. Since there isn’t a

significant discrepancy between the three modes the results are deemed

inconclusive. The size of the sample population for each mode varied, and in future

studies more cyclists and drivers should be sampled.

10.4 Impact of the Removal of Parking on Customer Travel Behaviour


The availability of on-‐street parking influences customer perceptions of

accessibility. Respondents were asked how the removal of on-‐street parking would

impact the frequency of their visits and the largest proportion of visitors said if on-‐

street parking was removed they would visit a similar number of times a month.

don't

know

3%

same

67%

less

20%

Shown in Figure 12, 67% admitted that

if availability were decreased they

would not change their shopping

behavior. The most significant result for

business is the customers who say they

would visit less. 20% of participants in

the customer survey said that if parking

were removed it would decrease the

number of days they would shop on the

street per month. For some businesses

even the smallest decrease in customers could have a huge impact on the vitality of

their business. As mentioned, some businesses rely on small number of unique

customer visits, for example a furniture store, and the loss of 20% of customers per

month could be catastrophic.

more

10%

Figure 12 Customer visit frequency change if

parking was removed


11. DISCUSSION

The objective of this study is to understand the importance of on-‐street parking to

business vitality and the potential impacts of its removal. The Halifax Regional

Municipality Regional Planning Strategy emphasizes the significance of on-‐street

parking to merchants. Agricola Street has a unique variety of businesses including

services, restaurants, bars, and retailers and each has their own parking demands.

The example of a furniture store has been used many times throughout this paper

because it is a good representation of the type of business that needs to have

parking available for its customers. Conversely, a neighbourhood coffee shop may

serve more walk-‐up traffic.

The results of the business survey show that 53% of businesses on Agricola

anticipate fewer customers if on-‐street parking was removed. While the literature

suggests that the removal of parking for other uses, such as bike lanes and/or traffic

calming measures, could be good for business vitality many merchants on Agricola

still believe that it would have a negative impact (Drennan 2003, Schaller Consulting

2006, Sztabinsky 2009, Forkes & Smith 2010, Johnston 2010).

The common anecdotal argument among businesses is that most customers drive

and the availability of parking plays a role in their decision of where to shop (Jaffe

2012). The results of the customer survey do not validate this belief. The survey of

96 customers found that the majority walk (70%) when shopping on Agricola Street.

The result of the survey also shows that people who walk not only spend more than

people who drive but also visit more frequently; 33.3% of pedestrians and 42% of

cyclists visit more than 10 days a month compared to 6.7 percent of drivers.

For businesses it is not just about the frequency of visits but also customer spending

habits. There is a common tendency for businesses to overestimate how much car

customers spend compared to pedestrians and cyclists (Jaffe 2012). Of the


participants of this study, cyclists spend the most with 42.8% spending more than

100 dollars per month. Pedestrians were second with 37.3% spending greater than

$100 every thirty days and drivers third with 36.4%.

Unlike similar surveys that have been conducted on Bloor St. (Sztabinski 2009) and

Quinpool Rd. (Johnston 2010) businesses participating in this study were not given

a context for the removal of on-‐street parking or how they may benefit from

changes to the streetscape. The statistic that only 53% of businesses on Agricola

predict that the removal of parking would decrease the amount of customers was

surprising. This result could have been lower or higher if scenarios for the removal

of parking were provided. For example, the Bloor Street Study by The Clean Air

Partnership asked participants, if the street had a bike lane and on-‐street parking

was removed would they expect to experience a decline in customers (Sztabinski

2010).

Overall the results of the business surveys are consistent with the findings in the

literature. It is generally understood that businesses consider parking availability

for customers integral to vitality and that the removal of this parking would be bad

for business. Businesses on Agricola are not wrong in this assumption because even

the loss of one customer represents a loss of revenue. It is important, however, to

note that if the provision of parking is not managed properly it could negatively

impact business vitality and have a significant influence on customer travel patterns

and behaviour. Poor management can lead to abuse by non-‐customers and perhaps

give the illusion that the available space is in higher demand by drivers than what is

actually true.

It is not surprising then that businesses often over estimate how many of their

customers arrive by car (Sztabinski 2009, Johnston 2010). Changes in the provision

of parking, its availability or its price, has the potential to influence customer

transportation choices such as mode of travel and time of day. This study found that

46.7% of businesses estimate that more than 76% of their customers drive to

Agricola. According to the results of the customer survey this number is 16%.


Seventy percent of customer respondents walk and 14% cycle when shopping. The

perception that the majority of customers drive does not correspond with the

sample surveyed with a difference of 60%.

There is a common belief among businesses that if customers were given the choice

between a store with free parking and one without they will without a doubt chose

the one with (Jaffe 2012). Parking that is free, with no controls, and poorly managed

is being subsidized by tax dollars and can be harmful for retail activity. By

subsidizing what parking is available it is susceptible to abuse by people who are

not in fact customers. It also is an incentive for people to drive, which contradicts

the Transportation Demand Management policies that encourage more sustainable

forms of transportation.

When asked if the removal of parking would impact the frequency of their visits the

majority of customers surveyed said they would shop a similar number of days.

67% of customers surveyed admitted that changes to the availability of on-‐street

parking would not impact their travel behavior when shopping on Agricola. The

concern for merchants is the total number of customers who would visit less. 20%

of customer surveyed reported that the removal of parking would negatively impact

the frequency of their visits. This percentage corresponds to the number of

customers whose primary mode of transportation when shopping is car (16%). The

results of this study suggest that there is a positive relationship between customer

mode choice and behavioural reactions to changes in the availability of parking

although the strength of this relationship was not tested.


Figure 13 Parking occupancy per hour and estimated employee occupancy

Occupancy (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:00

AM

11:00

AM

12:00

PM

Time of Day

One of the groups that often occupies parking intended for customers are

employees. Like customers, workers who drive also need a place to park and if given

the option would like to do so as cheaply as possible. If uncontrolled, not priced, and

poorly managed free on-‐street parking is vulnerable to abuse. Based on business

evaluations of the percent of employees who drive and use on-‐street parking it is

estimated that workers occupy 29.8% of the available parking in the study area.

When compared to occupancy statistics, as seen in Figure 13, employees are

occupying more than half of the occupied spaces. Currently there is nothing to

discourage them from doing so as there are no controls and no meters on Agricola.


1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

29.8%

11.1 Study Limitations

Due to limited time and resources the dissemination of customer surveys was

conducted on October 11, 18, and 24, 2012 when the weather was sunny/partly

cloudy +/-‐ 6 to 11 degrees Celsius. The temperate climatic conditions could have

contributed to variations in customer travel behavior. For example, if the survey

was conducted during winter there would be an expectation that more people drive

and in the summer more people walk or cycle.

There is also a potential bias because when surveyed participants were on foot

which may have resulted in more respondents whose primary mode of

transportation when shopping is walking. It was difficult to intercept potential

respondents who had driven and parked directly in front of a business.

In regards to the business survey, the ranges provided for the number of customers

served per average week/week end day were too large and do not accurately

represent small businesses that may serve less than 25 customers per day. Also, the

question asking businesses to estimate the customer mode choice and parking

location should have been further clarified to clearly identify Agricola in both

instances.

In general, it is noted that the surveys did not incorporate a statistically random

sample, in that the researchers were not able to control for demographic

variables(Sztabinski 2009). To keep surveys as simple as possible and survey times

short demographic questions were not asked.


12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Parking is an influential component of municipal transportation policy. Decisions

concerning parking availability and management have larger implications on land-‐

use, travel behavior, and economic development and this study demonstrates the

complexities of the subject. These issues need to be investigated comprehensively so

that “decisions are based on the best possible information, reflect the greatest public

good, and achieve the goals most stakeholders can support”(Sztabinski 2009 25).

The objective of this study was to understand the importance of on-‐street parking to

businesses and the potential impacts of its removal. The availability of parking can

influence a person’s decision of where to live, work, and shop. Street interventions

that may limit parking capacity are often met with opposition even before they are

implemented.

The general finding is that businesses over estimate the percentage of their

customers that drive and use on-‐street parking. Evidence suggests that people who

drive not only spend less but also visit less frequently than people who walk or

cycle. This misconception of customer travel behavior has resulted in too much

parking capacity and is vulnerable to abuse by non-‐customers. On Agricola, the

current parking demand from customers could still be accommodated by reducing

the number of spaces.

On-‐Street parking that is available and in high demand should be managed

efficiently. Parking occupancy is not the best representation of demand and can

often be misunderstood by businesses. To encourage parking rate of turnover, time

restrictions should represent the demands of adjacent land-‐uses. In commercial

areas, like Agricola, it is suggested that “2 hour spaces [would] meet the needs of the

majority of customers and encourage a reasonable turnover” (Parksville 2011 20).

Eliminating unrestricted parking will help discourage employees from long term

occupation of spaces intended for customers.


Another method of encouraging parking turnover is the addition of parking meters.

Charging users for the use of parking spaces discourages long term parking. Meters

also shift the cost of parking maintenance and policing from the public to the user.

Public subsidies of on-‐street parking can result in everyone sharing the cost even if

they do not ever use the space (Shoup 2005).

Charging for parking would also help accomplish an objective of the HRM

Transportation Demand Management Functional Plan to create parking

management strategies which would influence individual travel behavior and

encourage sustainable transportation modes(HRM 2010). By pricing parking it

helps people to walk, cycle, take transit, or carpool while at the same time

accommodating the automobile.

Being considered by HRM’s by Design’s Centre Plan and The Halifax North South

Bicycle corridor Agricola is positioning itself to become more of a neighbourhood

centre in the future. Neighbourhood centres are characterized by their inclusive

mobility, mixture of land uses, and appropriate built scale (HRM 2011). Because of

these projects the importance of parking is being questioned.

12.1 Future Studies

This study was completed with limited time and resources. A more comprehensive

study should consider the parking capacity on adjacent street and off-‐street lots that

may help mitigate the loss of on-‐street parking on Agricola. There are also many

non-‐commercial properties that were not taken into consideration and may have

different parking needs. In addition the needs of residents with regard to parking

should also be considered.


REFERENCES

Cresswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Sage Publications.

de Cerreno, Allison L. C..(December 2002). The Dynamics of On-‐Street Parking in

Large Central Cities. Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management, NYU

Wagner. Accessed November 28,2012 from www.michaelwalker.ca/files/rudin.pdf

Drennen, E. (December 2003). Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Small

Businesses. Department of Public Administration, San Francisco State University.

Accessed on November 28, 2012 from

www.emilydrennen.org/trafficcalming_full.pdf

Forkes, J. and Smith Lea,N. (2010). Bike Lanes, On-‐Street Parking and Business Year

2 Report: A Study of Bloor Street in Toronto’s Bloor West Village. The Clean Air

Partnership. Accessed on November 28, 2012 from

http://tcat.ca/sites/all/files/BikeLanes_Parking_Business_BloorWestVillage.pdf

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2006). Regional Municipal Planning Strategy.

Accessed on November 28, 2012 from

http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/FinalRegPlan.html

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2008). Regional Parking Strategy Functional

Plan. IBI Group. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2009). Municipal Design Guidelines. Halifax,

Nova, Scotia.

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2010). Transportation Demand Management

Functional Plan. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2011). HRM by Design The Centre Plan.

Accessed November 28, 2012 from

http://www.halifax.ca/planhrm/centreplan.html

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2012a). North South Bicycle Corridor Public

Engagement. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). (2012b). Agricola Street Parking Utilization

Study: Preliminary Findings. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Hawkes, A. and Sheridan, G. (July 23, 2009). Rethinking the Street Space: Why Street

Design Matters. Accessed November 28, 2012 from

http://www.planetizen.com/node/39815

Jaffe, E. (November 26,2012). 4 Reasons Retailers Don’t Need Free Parking to

Thrive. The Atlantic. Accessed on November 28, 2012 from


http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-‐and-‐economy/2012/11/4-‐reasons-‐

retailers-‐dont-‐need-‐free-‐parking-‐thrive/3978/

Johnston, A. (2010). Not in My Public Right-‐of-‐Way: Bike Lanes, On-‐Street Parking

and Business on Quinpool Road. Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

May, A. D. , Case, S. J., Jones, S. and Woodside, J. R.. (1982). Attitudes to Town Centre

Pedestrian Streets and Buses: A Case Study in Barnsley. Traffic Engineering and

Control. 23, 532 – 353.

Merriman, D. (1997). Subsidize Parking and Neighbourhood Nuisances. Journal of

Urban Economics. 41, 198 – 201.

Meyer, M.D. and McShane, M. (1983). Parking Policy and Downtown Economic

Development. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 109, 27 – 43.

Newby, J. (1992). Paved with Gold: A Study of the Economic Impact of

Pedestrianization and its Relevance to Leicester. Report no. 7 (Leichester:

Environment Trust).

Oppenheim, N. (1991). Retail Activity Allocation Modelling and Endogenous Retail

Prices and Shopping Travel Costs. Environment and Planning A, 23, 731 – 744.

City of Parksville. (December 2011). Parksville Downtown Parking Study. Boulevard

Transportation Group. Accessed November 29, 2012 from

www.parksville.ca/cms/wpattachments/wpID437atID5307.pdf

Schaller Consulting. (2006). Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space

in Soho. Prepared for Transportation Alternatives. Accessed November

28,2012from http://transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/soho_curbing_cars.pdf

Shoup, D. (1997). Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out: Eight Case Studies. Accessed

November 28, 2012 from www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf

Shoup, D. (2006). The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association,

Chicago

Still, B., and Simmonds, D. (2000). Parking Restraint Policy and Urban Vitality.

Transport Reviews 20, (3) (JUL-‐SEP): 291-‐316.

Sztabinski, F. (February 2009). Bike Lanes, On-‐Street Parking and Business: A Study

of Bloor Street in Toronto’s Annex Neighbourhood. Clean Air Partnership Accessed

November 28, 2012 from www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-‐lanes-‐parking.pdf

Timmermans, H.. (1986). Locational Choice Behaviour of Entrepeneurs: An

Experimental Analysis. Urban Studies, 23, 231 – 240.

Walters, D. (1996). Stores Shape Up for New Planning Agenda for Retail Parking.

Parking Review, March, p. 20.


APPENDICIES

Appendix 1 : Informed Letter of Consent

School of Planning, Dalhousie University

5410 Spring Garden Road

P.O. Box 15000

Halifax, NS B3H 4R2

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The objective of this study is to

gain a better understanding of parking on and around Agricola Street. Agricola Street

experiences a high volume of traffic and demand for on-‐street parking by residents,

commuters and customers. This research is part of a major project by a student at

Dalhousie University and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. The results of this

survey will help understand resident, business and customer parking needs and is not

intended to impact any immediate changes.

This research relies on information I am collecting from business associates and visitors

to the area. I am seeking your permission to use the information provided by you when I

report the results of my work in the project report or presentations.

I am collecting this information using surveys of the Agricola Street business community,

and visitors to the street. I will be asking a series of questions, which should take

approximately 5 minutes. The information you provide is for uses pertaining to this

particular project only. If you are willing, please sign the attached form, authorizing me

to record and use the information you provide.

Again, thank you for your help with my project. If at any time during the research period

you have any questions, concerns or require additional information regarding this study,

please feel free to contact myself or my supervisor, Dr. Eric Rapaport. I can be contacted

via email at josh.dejong@dal.ca or by phone at (902) 403-‐6207 and Dr. Rapaport is

available at Eric.Rapaport@dal.ca.

Sincerely,

Joshua de Jong

Master of Planning Candidate

School of Planning

Dalhousie University

Appendix 2 : Business Survey

The Importance of On-Street Parking to Business On Agricola

Street: Business Survey

1. What are your hours of operation on weekdays?

_________________________________________

2. On average, about how many customers do you serve per day?

Weekday:

_____Less than 25

_____25 – 49

_____50 – 99

_____100 – 199

_____200 or more

3. What are your hours of operation on weekends?

__________________________________________

4. On average, about how many customers do you serve per day?

Weekend:

_____Less than 25

_____25 – 49

_____50 – 99

_____100 – 199

_____200 or more

5. What percentage of your customers do you estimate drive to Agricola Street and

use on-‐street parking?

________%

6. What percentage of your customers do you estimate walk or cycle to Agricola

Street?

_________%

7. What percentage of your employees do you estimate drive to Agricola Street and

use on-‐street parking?

________%

8. How many people are currently employed by this business?

_________

9. If on-‐street parking was removed on Agricola Street would you expect to have:

(choose one)

_____Fewer customers/clients daily

_____More customers/clients daily

_____A similar number of customers/clients daily

Additional comments regarding on-‐street parking on Agricola Street:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Date: _____________________________________

Time: ______ : _______ AM/PM

Business Type (optional) : eg. Bakery

____________________________________________

Appendix 3 : Customer Survey

The Importance of On-Street Parking to Businesses on Agricola Street: Customer

Survey

1. In a typical month, how many days

do you shop on Agricola Street?

___________________________________

2. About how much money do you

spend on Agricola Street in a typical

month?

____Less than $25

____$25 – 99

____$100 – 499

____$500 – 999

____$1,000 or more

3. In general when you do shop on an

Agricola street, which commercial

establishment do you use? (CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY)

____Clothing

____Restaurant and Cafes

____Bank and Legal Services

____Food and Liquor

____Automotive Repair / Rental

____Bike Repair

____Home Furnishing

____Haircuts, Nails, Massage

Other:______________________________

____________________________________

4. When you shop, what modes of

trans-portation do you use? (CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY)

____Walk ____Bicycle

____Public Transit ____Taxi

____Car

Other:_______________________

5. When you shop, which is your

primary mode of transportation?

(CHECK ONE)



____Car

Other:_______________________

6. Do you visit commercial

establishments on? (CHECK ALL THAT

APPLY)

____weekdays ____weekends

7. Do you visit commercial

establishment more frequently on the

(CHECK ONE)

___weekdays ____weekends OR

____equally

6. What is the purpose of your trip to

Agricola Street today ? (Check ALL

THAT APPLY)

____Visit a commercial establishment

____Visit a friend

____I live here

____I work here

____I am passing through

Other:________________________

7. What is your primary mode of

transportation to Agricola Street today?

(CHECK ONE)



____Car

Other:_______________________

8. If answered Car for question 7,

Where did you park?

(intersection/block)

___________________________________

9. If parking was removed would it

affect the frequency of your visits to

Agricola St?

_____I would visit less

_____I would visit more

_____I would visit the same

_____I don’t know

10. Where is your primary place of

residence?

Nearest intersection:

_____________________________

THE IMPORTANCE OF ON-STREET PARKING TO BUSINESS VITALITY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?