the importance of on-street parking to business vitality - Halifax ...

THE IMPORTANCE OF ON-STREET PARKING 

TO BUSINESS VITALITY 

A Study <strong>of</strong> Agricola Street, 

Halifax NS 

Joshua de Jong 

Plan 6000 Independent Project 

Supervisor: Dr. Eric Rapaport 

Dalhousie University School <strong>of</strong> Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES 

LIST OF TABLES 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

iv 

iv 

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 <strong>of</strong> Customers Served 21 

9.2 Business Perception <strong>of</strong> Customer Mode Choice 22 

9.3 Business Perceived Impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Removal <strong>of</strong> On-Street Parking 23 

9.4 Employee Parking 24

10. CUSTOMER RESULTS 25 

10.1 Customer Primary Mode Choice 25 

10.2 Frequency <strong>of</strong> Customer Visits 26 

10.3 Customer Spending Habits 27 

10.4 Impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Removal <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Consent 2 

Appendix 2 : Business Survey 3 

Appendix 3 : Customer Survey 5

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Street Map <strong>of</strong> Halifax Peninsula 

Figure 2 Documents included in HRM Transportation Master Plan 

Figure 3 Map <strong>of</strong> Agricola Street Study Area 

Figure 4 Area proposed <strong>of</strong> change by HRM by Design’s Centre Plan 

Figure 5 Hourly Occupancy on Agricola from Cunard to Young 

Figure 6 Response Rate by Type <strong>of</strong> Business 

Figure 7 Types <strong>of</strong> Business on Agricola 

Figure 8 Types <strong>of</strong> Business <strong>the</strong> Responded to <strong>the</strong> Survey 

Figure 9 Business Perceptions <strong>of</strong> Customer Mode Choice 

Figure 10 Business perceived customer visit frequency change with removal <strong>of</strong> 

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 <strong>of</strong> Customers that Drive and Use On-Street Parking 

Table 4 Number <strong>of</strong> Employees Per Business 

Table 5 Estimated % <strong>of</strong> Employees that Use On-Street Parking on Agricola Street 

Table 6 Frequency <strong>of</strong> Customer Visits 

Table 7 Frequency <strong>of</strong> Customer Visits by Mode Choice When Shopping

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Parking is an important component <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> where to live and work. Changes to <strong>the</strong>se policies and/or management 

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

The purpose <strong>of</strong> this research is to explore and understand <strong>the</strong> relationship between 

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

study focuses on <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> Agricola Street between Cunard and Young and is 

intended to increase HRM’s ability to understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> street parking 

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

topic. The literature suggests that businesses <strong>of</strong>ten overestimate <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 

removal <strong>of</strong> parking and HRM policies support fur<strong>the</strong>r studies <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking. 

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

which intended to understand and estimate <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking to 

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

investigate <strong>the</strong> opinions and perceptions <strong>of</strong> 36 merchants and 96 customers on 

Agricola Street. 

Findings include: 

 

 

44% <strong>of</strong> businesses anticipate a similar number <strong>of</strong> customers if parking was 

removed 

Businesses overestimate <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir customers who drive and 

underestimate those who walk and cycle; 

 

ii

70% <strong>of</strong> 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% <strong>of</strong> all on-‐street parking spaces are being occupied by 

employees <strong>of</strong> businesses; 

Parking occupancy is high but turnover is low 

Findings suggest that <strong>the</strong> misconception <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> spaces were reduced. The addition <strong>of</strong> parking 

meters or shorter time restrictions will help encourage turnover and discourage 

abuse from non-‐customers. These interventions support <strong>the</strong> goals and objectives <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>the</strong> HRM Functional Parking Strategy and TDM plan. Future studies involving o<strong>the</strong>r 

stakeholders, including residents, are recommended. 

 

iii

1. INTRODUCTION 

Parking is an important component <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> where to live and work. Changes to <strong>the</strong>se 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 <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> some proposed 

projects that could affect <strong>the</strong> availability and price <strong>of</strong> parking. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se changes 

may require more street space <strong>the</strong>n o<strong>the</strong>rs but all must consider <strong>the</strong> potential 

impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> parking on businesses. “Parking influences particular 

aspects <strong>of</strong> travel patterns, <strong>the</strong> location <strong>of</strong> activities, attitudes to places and <strong>the</strong> 

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

far more complex than <strong>the</strong> traditional ‘predict and provide’ approach and 

management practices should be up to date with <strong>the</strong> current trends and policies. 

Figure 1 Street map <strong>of</strong> Halifax peninsula (Source: Bing Maps 2012) 

Parking and Business Vitality 

1

“Given <strong>the</strong> current dominance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong>ir stores are easily accessed by car” 

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

availability <strong>of</strong> street parking are met with opposition even before <strong>the</strong>y are 

implemented. This opposition, especially by businesses, is <strong>of</strong>ten based on <strong>the</strong> 

perceived impacts <strong>of</strong> traffic calming schemes or <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> bike lanes and 

highlights <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need for a better understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conflicting 

viewpoints. 

Business attitudes naturally reflect both <strong>the</strong>ir preferences and assumed reactions <strong>of</strong> 

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 <strong>the</strong> assumption that most customers’ primary mode <strong>of</strong> 

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

to alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transportation and that road space reallocation <strong>of</strong> parking to 

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

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

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking exist, literature on <strong>the</strong> subject is still scarce (de Cerreno 

2002, 10). 

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

address <strong>the</strong>se issues on a case-‐by-‐case basis. A study by <strong>the</strong> Clean Air Partnership <strong>of</strong> 

Bloor Street in Toronto, Ontario, found that merchants in <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking <strong>the</strong> Bloor Street study is used as a model for this paper. 

The Clear Air Partnership intended that <strong>the</strong>ir study be replicated on o<strong>the</strong>r 

commercial streets where <strong>the</strong>re is a concern about reducing parking (Sztabinksy 

2009, 1). 


2

2. PURPOSE STATEMENT 

The purpose <strong>of</strong> this research is to explore and understand <strong>the</strong> relationship between 

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

study focuses on <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> Agricola Street between Cunard and Young and is 

intended to increase HRM’s ability to understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> street parking 

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

topic. 

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The primary research question <strong>of</strong> this study asks: 

1. What are <strong>the</strong> potential impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking on 

Agricola Street between Cunard St. and Young? 

a) What are <strong>the</strong> perceived impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> on-‐street to 

businesses? 

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

a. Would <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking affect customer 

travel behaviour? 

c) What percentage <strong>of</strong> street parking is being occupied by employees? 


3

4. OBJECTIVES 

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

perceptions <strong>of</strong> customer travel behaviour and opinions on how <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-street 

parking may impact <strong>the</strong>ir business. Secondly, to quantify customer behavior 

including mode choice, frequency <strong>of</strong> visits, how much <strong>the</strong>y spend per month, where 

<strong>the</strong>y park and how <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking would change <strong>the</strong>ir shopping behavior. 

Thirdly, analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> surveys will inform recommendations for <strong>the</strong> HRM when 

faced with issues related to on-‐street parking. The achievement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se objectives 

will assist in <strong>the</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relationship between on-‐street parking and 

business vitality and ex <strong>the</strong> economic impact that might be associated with <strong>the</strong> 

removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking. 


4

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 <strong>of</strong> perspectives. Although <strong>the</strong> literature covers a variety <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>the</strong>ories related to on-‐street parking and business vitality, this review will focus on 

four major <strong>the</strong>mes which repeatedly emerged in <strong>the</strong> literature and respond to <strong>the</strong> 

objective <strong>of</strong> this study. These <strong>the</strong>mes are: parking to promote economic growth, 

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

parking. Although <strong>the</strong> literature demonstrates <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>mes in a variety <strong>of</strong> contexts 

this paper will primarily focus on <strong>the</strong>ir application to on-‐street parking and business 

vitality. 

5.1 Parking to Promote Economic Growth 

Historically parking was used as a means <strong>of</strong> economic development by increasing 

<strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong>ir 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 <strong>the</strong> 

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

believed that shoppers (implicitly, shoppers arriving by car) consider <strong>the</strong>ir ability to 

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

Still and Simmonds (2010) examined <strong>the</strong> connection between parking and economic 

development fur<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong>ir study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> parking restraint policies on 

<strong>the</strong> economic vitality in urban centres. Parking restraint policies are designed to 

limit <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> available parking to reduce car use. In <strong>the</strong>ir study two different 

methods <strong>of</strong> examining impacts were used and each fielded very different results. 


5

“Attitudinal evidence suggests that <strong>the</strong>re is a high level <strong>of</strong> sensitivity to parking 

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

relationship”(291). Based on <strong>the</strong> inconclusiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se results Still and 

Simmonds recommended future research. 

5.2 Parking as a Land-use 

Streets must fulfill a wide variety <strong>of</strong> 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 

<strong>the</strong> amount and quality <strong>of</strong> space available for o<strong>the</strong>r activities” (Still and Simmonds 

2010, 292). The competition for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> roadways includes additional lanes for 

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

management has been <strong>the</strong> job <strong>of</strong> a traffic engineer whose primary goal is to move 

traffic through streets efficiently, but as <strong>the</strong> competition for space grows so will <strong>the</strong> 

need for better management <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking with more municipal stakeholders 

at <strong>the</strong> table. 

Oppenheim (1991) argues that future studies must also consider <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> service 

that a business provides and identifies parking as a quality <strong>of</strong> service. In areas with 

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

aspect to this service. A study <strong>of</strong> locational choice behaviour <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurs 

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

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

important characteristic <strong>of</strong> perceived accessibility in auto dependent economies is 

<strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> parking can <strong>of</strong>ten influence a businesses’ decision as where to 

locate. 

Newby (1992) reviewed a number <strong>of</strong> pedestrianization projects, which <strong>of</strong>ten 

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 


6

usinesses may oppose <strong>the</strong> changes initially but warm up to <strong>the</strong> idea once <strong>the</strong> 

benefits become evident. In ano<strong>the</strong>r study May et. al. (1982) investigated customer 

attitudes to town centre pedestrian streets and <strong>the</strong> perception was that access had 

improved, despite <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> cars and buses from <strong>the</strong> street. In some cases, 

understanding people’s perceptions <strong>of</strong> accessibility is as important as accessibility 

itself. 

5.3 Parking and Travel Behaviour 

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

because <strong>the</strong>y fear <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> passing customers and because <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 

business makes <strong>the</strong>m not as accessible by o<strong>the</strong>r modes <strong>of</strong> transportation. Unlike 

large shopping centres that usually have <strong>the</strong>ir own <strong>of</strong>f street lots, local retailers are 

<strong>of</strong>ten dependent on street parking. “As a type <strong>of</strong> shared parking, on-‐street parking is 

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

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

and convenience <strong>of</strong> travel, and influence transport choices such as mode choice and 

time <strong>of</strong> day <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> price <strong>of</strong> parking may 

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

<strong>the</strong> most efficient use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parking spaces by discouraging long-‐term parking and 

perhaps reducing <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> spillover parkers because <strong>the</strong>y lower <strong>the</strong> potential 

benefit from finding a subsidized space”. Businesses <strong>of</strong>ten want to provide free 

convenient parking as an incentive to shop. However, <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong>y want. 

Still and Simmonds (2010) acknowledge <strong>the</strong> relationship between parking and 


7

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 <strong>the</strong>ir 

employees. Free parking for employees is <strong>of</strong>ten considered an unquestioned benefit 

<strong>of</strong> employment. “Any move to charge workers for workplace parking, which had 

previously been provided free <strong>of</strong> charge, will tend to be met with resistance, 

especially if <strong>the</strong> charges are set high in a deliberate attempt to modify commuters’ 

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

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

is <strong>of</strong>ten occupying a space that should be reserved for a customer, creating an 

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

should be <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> provision for workers involves considerable expense, 

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

contribution to <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> imposition <strong>of</strong> 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 o<strong>the</strong>r modes will get a different benefit (better public transport or better 

cycle facilities) financed out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> revenue from parking charges”(Still and 

Simmonds 2010, 296). 

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

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

encourages employees to use o<strong>the</strong>r modes <strong>of</strong> 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. 


8

In California a law requires some employers to <strong>of</strong>fer commuters <strong>the</strong> option to 

choose cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> any parking subsidy <strong>of</strong>fered (Shoup 1997). This program was 

well received by employees because it benefitted those who chose alternative 

modes <strong>of</strong> transportation. Donald Shoup (1997) studied <strong>the</strong> successes <strong>of</strong> this 

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

209) in commuter subsidizes because <strong>the</strong>y no longer needed to pay <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> 

parking as employees were switching to o<strong>the</strong>r methods <strong>of</strong> transportation. “All <strong>the</strong> 

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

goal <strong>of</strong> this policy is to decrease <strong>the</strong> demand parking making <strong>the</strong> space available for 

o<strong>the</strong>r uses. 


9

6. POLICY CONTEXT 

The Halifax Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS) acknowledges <strong>the</strong> 

<strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> balancing <strong>the</strong> parking needs <strong>of</strong> “business, tourism and o<strong>the</strong>r uses 

throughout HRM, while at <strong>the</strong> same time promoting <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes <strong>of</strong> 

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

businesses as it allows <strong>the</strong>m to be accessible to <strong>the</strong>ir employees, customers and 

visitors who travel to <strong>the</strong>se destinations by private automobile” (HRM RMPS 2006, 

76). In response to <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> parking <strong>the</strong> RMPS outlines considerations for 

Regional Parking Strategy Functional Plan. Also outlined in <strong>the</strong> RMPS <strong>the</strong> 

Transportation Demand Management Functional Plan “is a set <strong>of</strong> strategic initiatives 

geared at improving <strong>the</strong> efficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> transportation network, encouraging 

alternatives to <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> HRM will be designed, 

supplied and managed to: 

1. Support a choice <strong>of</strong> integrated travel modes 

2. Encourage alternatives to <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> environment 

8. Link with o<strong>the</strong>r ongoing studies 


10

“Decisions on parking affect all aspects <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> conviction that a balanced approach must be adopted for all facets <strong>of</strong> 

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

are moving away from <strong>the</strong> ‘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 

<strong>the</strong> function <strong>of</strong> both commercial development and to daily lives <strong>of</strong> HRM residents. 

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

needs. The regional parking strategy is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Halifax Regional Transportation 

Master Plan(TMP). The TMP is outlined in <strong>the</strong> Regional Municipal Planning Strategy 

(RMPS) and “will guide management and development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> transportation system 

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

efficient way such that public transit and o<strong>the</strong>r alternatives to commuting become 

more viable. O<strong>the</strong>r plans that are part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Transportation Master Plan include 

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

Plan(2009), Active Transportation Plan (in review) and <strong>the</strong> Transportation Demand 

Management Plan(HRM 2008 7). 

Transportation Master Plan 

Road and Road 

Network Plan 

Public Transit Plan 

Regional Parking 

Strategy 

Functional Plan 

Active 

Transportation Plan 

Transportation 

Demand 

Management 

Functional Plan 

Figure 2 Documents included in HRM Transportation Master Plan 


11

The parking strategy functional plan outlines recommendations which seek to 

increase <strong>the</strong> efficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fenders. 

3. Modifying <strong>the</strong> existing residential parking exemption program to allow 

implementation over a multi-‐block zone. 

4. Increasing <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Parking By Permit Only program in residential areas 

that have a high occurrence <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> 

development <strong>of</strong> policy, programs, and services which intend to reduce single 

occupant vehicles (SOVs) and <strong>the</strong> negative impacts associated with automobile 

use”(HRM 2010). With regard to parking, one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> 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 fur<strong>the</strong>r, and increase 

<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> vehicles owned per household (HRM 2010,10). 

TDM states “parking is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most effective management tools that influence 

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


12

more sustainable modes <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> automobile 

commuters in Halifax found that 40% say that <strong>the</strong>y park for free and 29% say <strong>the</strong>y 

would change <strong>the</strong>ir travel behaviour if parking was priced higher (HRM 2010,11). 


13

7. BACKGROUND 

In Halifax Regional Municipality roads are traditionally thought <strong>of</strong> as “conduits for 

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

move to accommodate o<strong>the</strong>r modes <strong>of</strong> transportation, including public transit and 

cycling, <strong>the</strong> function <strong>of</strong> roads will change to be more hospitable to o<strong>the</strong>r users. 

Accommodating o<strong>the</strong>r modes <strong>of</strong> transportation may require changes to <strong>the</strong> 

streetscape and not everyone is in favor <strong>of</strong> proposed changes with business owners 

<strong>of</strong>ten some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most vocal opponents. 

Figure 3 Map <strong>of</strong> study area (Bing Maps 2012) 

Agricola Street is a unique and vibrant neighbourhood with a variety <strong>of</strong> local 

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

Agricola has recently been <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> proposed streetscape changes that may 

affect <strong>the</strong> availability and price <strong>of</strong> parking. Agricola is an area being considered by 

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

corridor. Most retailers do not have private <strong>of</strong>f-‐street lots and rely on on-‐street 

parking. 


14

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 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 

areas <strong>of</strong> proposed 

change, as shown in 

figure 4. The “current 

Figure 4 Proposed site <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> Centre Plan’s long term vision for <strong>the</strong> area. The proposed changes seek to 

create an Agricola that is more complete and walkable and to ensure that patterns <strong>of</strong> 

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 <strong>the</strong> Halifax Cycling 

Coalition in 2010. The petition ga<strong>the</strong>red 1,418 signatures and requested that <strong>the</strong> 

municipality investigate a north/south bicycle corridor connecting <strong>the</strong> Halifax 

peninsula from one end to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r expanding <strong>the</strong> city’s cycling network (HRM 

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

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 <strong>the</strong> painted bicycle lanes (HRM 2012a). 

In <strong>the</strong> HRM Regional Municipal Planning Strategy Agricola is classified as a Minor 

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


15

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 <strong>of</strong> up to 12,000 vehicles and an 

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

intended to reinforce <strong>the</strong> multiple functions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> street and its connections to 

o<strong>the</strong>r traffic arteries. 

7.1 On-Street Parking Usage 

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

The on-‐street parking controls vary depending on location and <strong>the</strong> spaces are not 

priced nor do <strong>the</strong>y require permits. See table 1. 

In August 2012 HRM conducted a parking 

utilization study <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking on Agricola. 

This study investigated <strong>the</strong> occupancy <strong>of</strong> on-‐ 

street parking on Agricola Street. Parking 

occupancy is <strong>the</strong> inverse <strong>of</strong> parking availability or 

<strong>the</strong> percent <strong>of</strong> parking spaces occupied in an area 

at a given time. The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parking 

utilization study was to investigate parking as a 

public resource and to see if, based on current 

Table 1 Parking capacity <strong>of</strong> study area 

Parking 

Control 

HRM policies and management, available parking meets <strong>the</strong> public’s needs. 

Number <strong>of</strong> 

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% <strong>of</strong> all on-‐street parking spaces on Agricola Street occupied. 

Some blocks experience higher occupancy than o<strong>the</strong>rs, this percentage is <strong>the</strong> mean. 


16

Figure 5 Hourly parking occupancy <strong>of</strong> study area (HRM 2012b) 

60 

50 

Occupancy (%) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

7:00 

AM 

8:00 

AM 

9:00 

AM 

10:00 

AM 

11:00 

AM 

12:00 

PM 

1:00 

PM 

2:00 

PM 

3:00 

PM 

4:00 

PM 

5:00 

PM 

Time <strong>of</strong> Day 

Rate <strong>of</strong> turnover is a good indication <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r a parking space is being efficiently 

used and supports <strong>the</strong> adjacent uses. Parking turnover is <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> vehicles 

that occupy a parking space over a specified period <strong>of</strong> 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 

<strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to discourage <strong>of</strong>fenders. In commercial areas, like 

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

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

When time limits are placed on street parking <strong>the</strong>y should represent <strong>the</strong> turnover 

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

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

controls, on <strong>the</strong> contrary, suggests that <strong>the</strong> space does not experience much demand 

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

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

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


17

8. METHODOLOGY 

The purpose <strong>of</strong> this research is to understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking to 

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

2009 study <strong>of</strong> Bloor Street in Toronto, Ontario this research intended to understand 

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

The Bloor Street study was based on 2006 research that quantified <strong>the</strong> relative 

<strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various modes <strong>of</strong> transportation to business activity on Prince 

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

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

2006). 

Surveys for businesses and customers were chosen for this study as <strong>the</strong> preferred 

method <strong>of</strong> data collection for this research because <strong>the</strong>y provide a quantitative 

description <strong>of</strong> trends <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample population. The self-‐administered 

questionnaires allowed for a short survey time and easy comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> results 

(Creswell 2009). The Clean Air Partnership (2009) intended for <strong>the</strong>ir project to 

increase <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> Canadian Municipalities to determine <strong>the</strong> acceptability and 

economic impacts <strong>of</strong> re-‐allocating street space. 

8.1 Business Survey 

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

services for pr<strong>of</strong>it. 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 <strong>the</strong>y did not meet this 

criterion. To capture as many participants as possible <strong>the</strong> surveys were 

disseminated in person and respondents were asked to participate immediately. 

Respondents were asked questions regarding hours <strong>of</strong> operation, estimated 

customers served per day, estimated customer mode <strong>of</strong> transportation, employee 


18

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

survey is included in Appendix A. 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

n=15 

N=30 

n=18 

N=24 

n=2 

N=3 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Service Retail Restaurant/Bar 

Figure 6 Response rate by type <strong>of</strong> business 

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

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

participate through a mail-‐in survey at <strong>the</strong>ir earliest convenience. The mail-‐in 

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

participating. These surveys were administered during <strong>the</strong> month <strong>of</strong> October 2012. 

Restaurant/ 

Bar 

5% 

Restaurant/ 

Bar 

6% 

Retail 

42% 

Service 

53% 

Retail 

51% 

Service 

43% 

Figure 7 Types <strong>of</strong> businesses on Agricola 


Figure 8 Types <strong>of</strong> businesses that responded to 

<strong>the</strong> survey 

19

8.2 Customer Survey 

The customer survey targeted pedestrians walking in <strong>the</strong> study area. The 

pedestrians may have arrived by car, transit, bicycle or foot but at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> 

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

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

<strong>of</strong> a bicycle shop may capture a large proportion <strong>of</strong> customers who cycle. These 

surveys were administered at various times during <strong>the</strong> month <strong>of</strong> October. 

Pedestrians were asked a screening question to determine if <strong>the</strong>y were included in 

<strong>the</strong> target sample. This question determined whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y have shopped on 

Agricola in <strong>the</strong> past month and are indeed a customer. Pedestrians who had not 

shopped on Agricola Street in <strong>the</strong> past month were not included in <strong>the</strong> study. In total 

<strong>the</strong>re were 96 respondents to <strong>the</strong> survey. 

Survey participants were asked how much <strong>the</strong>y spend in a typically month, how 

<strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>y visit Agricola Street, frequency <strong>of</strong> visits, primary mode choice when 

shopping, and anticipated behavioural changes if parking was removed. A copy <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>the</strong> customer survey is included in Appendix B <strong>of</strong> this report. 


20

9. BUSINESS RESULTS 

9.1 Business Estimates <strong>of</strong> Customers Served 

Table 2. Estimated Average Daily Customers 

Estimate number <strong>of</strong> 

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% <strong>of</strong> 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% <strong>of</strong> businesses estimate 

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

business could influence <strong>the</strong> average number <strong>of</strong> daily customers as some may rely 

on unique visits. A unique customer visit is common for businesses that <strong>of</strong>fer goods 

or services that experience a low rate <strong>of</strong> return visitors, for example a furniture 

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

many return customers. 

For many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> businesses <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> customers served per day is variable and 

thus hard to estimate. Several business operators did not know <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> 

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

may be a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> business. 


21

9.2 Business Perception <strong>of</strong> Customer Mode Choice 

Table 3. Estimated Number <strong>of</strong> Customers that Drive and Use On-Street Parking 

% <strong>of</strong> customers that drive 

Percentage share <strong>of</strong> 

and use on-street 

Frequency 

responses 

parking 

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% 

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

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

Conversely, it is believed by 19 (52.8%) businesses that less than 25% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 

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

primary mode <strong>of</strong> transportation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir clientele or do not serve customers at <strong>the</strong> 

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

explores business perceptions <strong>of</strong> customer mode choice fur<strong>the</strong>r. 

Drive and Use On-Street 

Parking 

Don't know 

76% - 100% 

51% - 75% 

26% - 50% 

2 

3 

3 

17 

Walk or Bicycle 

Don't know 3 

76% - 100% 

6 

51% - 75% 3 

26% - 50% 5 

0 - 25% 

11 

0 - 25% 

19 

Figure 9 Business perceptions <strong>of</strong> customer mode choice 


22

9.3 Business Perceived Impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Removal <strong>of</strong> On-Street Parking 

Unknown 

3% 

Same 

amount <strong>of</strong> 

customers 

44% 

Fewer 

customers 

53% 

Figure 10 Business perceived customer visit frequency 

change with removal <strong>of</strong> on-street parking 

Businesses were asked how <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking on Agricola Street 

would impact <strong>the</strong>ir business. To estimate <strong>the</strong> effects, respondents were asked 

whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> street parking would bring fewer or <strong>the</strong> same number <strong>of</strong> 

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

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

predict that <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking would not change <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> customer 

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

would impact <strong>the</strong>ir business. 


23

9.4 Employee Parking 

Table 4. Number <strong>of</strong> Employees Per Business 

# <strong>of</strong> Employees # Responses % <strong>of</strong> 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) <strong>of</strong> 

respondents employing less <strong>the</strong>n 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 <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> surveys <strong>the</strong> largest employer, with 44 

employees, employs 18% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> workers. 

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

storage. When workers aren’t provided a parking space <strong>the</strong>y also rely on street 

parking. If an on-‐street parking space does not have a time restriction it will <strong>of</strong>ten 

be used by employees. 

61.1%(22) <strong>of</strong> 

businesses surveyed 

Table 6. Estimated Percentage <strong>of</strong> Employees that use 

On-Street Parking on Agricola Street 

estimated that less % <strong>of</strong> employees # Responses % <strong>of</strong> sample 

than 25% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 

0 – 25% 22 61.1% 

employees used on-‐ 

26% - 50% 7 19.4% 

street parking. Based 

51% - 75% 4 11.1% 

on respondents’ 

76% - 100% 3 8.3% 

evaluations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir employees that use on-‐street parking, it is 

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

spaces on Agricola Street between Cunard and Young. 


24

10. CUSTOMER RESULTS 

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

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

<strong>the</strong> previous 30 days. Anyone who met this criterion was invited to participate. Of 

<strong>the</strong> 96 respondents 39 said <strong>the</strong>y live or work in <strong>the</strong> area surrounding Agricola 

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

neighbourhoods between Gottigen (East) and Robie (West) <strong>of</strong> Agricola Street. 

Participant’s primary place <strong>of</strong> residence was also solicited to provide fur<strong>the</strong>r clarity. 

In total, 57 customers live or work outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study area. 

10.1 Customer Primary Mode Choice 

To understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking to customer travel and spending 

behavior respondents were asked <strong>the</strong>ir primary mode <strong>of</strong> transportation when 

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

was important to determine <strong>the</strong>ir 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% 

As shown in figure 11, for 70%(67) <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>the</strong> total 96 respondents <strong>the</strong>ir primary 

mode <strong>of</strong> transportation when shopping 

is walking . This is higher than 

anticipated. Fifteen(16%) respondents 

drive to Agricola and 14 (14%) use a 

bicycle. 

Figure 11 Customer Mode Share 


25

10.2 Frequency <strong>of</strong> Customer Visits 

49% <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> visit frequency is 6 – 10 days per month with 19.8%. Only 

Table 6. Frequency <strong>of</strong> 

Customer Visits 

Number <strong>of</strong> days 

% <strong>of</strong> 

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 <strong>the</strong>y shop more than 

20 days a month. See Table 6. 

Visit frequency compared to customer’s 

primary mode <strong>of</strong> transportation when 

shopping, shown in table 7, helps 

fur<strong>the</strong>r explain <strong>the</strong>ir travel behaviour. 

These findings are highlighted in Table 

8. Based on this comparison it was 

discovered that 66.7% <strong>of</strong> car users visit 

only between one to five times 

monthly. In contrast, 43% <strong>of</strong> 

pedestrians and 21.4% <strong>of</strong> cyclists 

answered within <strong>the</strong> same range. 

Conversely, 0% <strong>of</strong> drivers, 14.3% <strong>of</strong> 

cyclists, and 13.4% <strong>of</strong> pedestrians shop 

between 26 – 30 days a month. 

Table 7. Frequency <strong>of</strong> 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% 


26

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

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

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

similar to <strong>the</strong> representation <strong>of</strong> customers who drive (66.7%). For respondents who 

live and/or work in <strong>the</strong> area <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> spending. Overall, <strong>the</strong> largest percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 

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

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

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

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

frequency <strong>of</strong> visits. 

Investigating <strong>the</strong> relationship between spending habits and customer mode choice, 

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

Pedestrians were second with 37.3% <strong>of</strong> respondents spending $100 or greater per 

month and automobile users were third with 36.4 percent. Since <strong>the</strong>re isn’t a 

significant discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> three modes <strong>the</strong> results are deemed 

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

studies more cyclists and drivers should be sampled. 

10.4 Impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Removal <strong>of</strong> Parking on Customer Travel Behaviour 


27

The availability <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking influences customer perceptions <strong>of</strong> 

accessibility. Respondents were asked how <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking would 

impact <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir visits and <strong>the</strong> largest proportion <strong>of</strong> visitors said if on-‐ 

street parking was removed <strong>the</strong>y would visit a similar number <strong>of</strong> times a month. 

don't 

know 

3% 

same 

67% 

less 

20% 

Shown in Figure 12, 67% admitted that 

if availability were decreased <strong>the</strong>y 

would not change <strong>the</strong>ir shopping 

behavior. The most significant result for 

business is <strong>the</strong> customers who say <strong>the</strong>y 

would visit less. 20% <strong>of</strong> participants in 

<strong>the</strong> customer survey said that if parking 

were removed it would decrease <strong>the</strong> 

number <strong>of</strong> days <strong>the</strong>y would shop on <strong>the</strong> 

street per month. For some businesses 

even <strong>the</strong> smallest decrease in customers could have a huge impact on <strong>the</strong> vitality <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>the</strong>ir business. As mentioned, some businesses rely on small number <strong>of</strong> unique 

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

month could be catastrophic. 

more 

10% 

Figure 12 Customer visit frequency change if 

parking was removed 


28

11. DISCUSSION 

The objective <strong>of</strong> this study is to understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking to 

business vitality and <strong>the</strong> potential impacts <strong>of</strong> its removal. The Halifax Regional 

Municipality Regional Planning Strategy emphasizes <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> on-‐street 

parking to merchants. Agricola Street has a unique variety <strong>of</strong> businesses including 

services, restaurants, bars, and retailers and each has <strong>the</strong>ir own parking demands. 

The example <strong>of</strong> a furniture store has been used many times throughout this paper 

because it is a good representation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> business that needs to have 

parking available for its customers. Conversely, a neighbourhood c<strong>of</strong>fee shop may 

serve more walk-‐up traffic. 

The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> business survey show that 53% <strong>of</strong> businesses on Agricola 

anticipate fewer customers if on-‐street parking was removed. While <strong>the</strong> literature 

suggests that <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking for o<strong>the</strong>r 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 <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> parking plays a role in <strong>the</strong>ir decision <strong>of</strong> where to shop (Jaffe 

2012). The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> customer survey do not validate this belief. The survey <strong>of</strong> 

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

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

people who drive but also visit more frequently; 33.3% <strong>of</strong> pedestrians and 42% <strong>of</strong> 

cyclists visit more than 10 days a month compared to 6.7 percent <strong>of</strong> drivers. 

For businesses it is not just about <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> 


29

participants <strong>of</strong> this study, cyclists spend <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking or how <strong>the</strong>y may benefit from 

changes to <strong>the</strong> streetscape. The statistic that only 53% <strong>of</strong> businesses on Agricola 

predict that <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking would decrease <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> customers was 

surprising. This result could have been lower or higher if scenarios for <strong>the</strong> removal 

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

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

was removed would <strong>the</strong>y expect to experience a decline in customers (Sztabinski 

2010). 

Overall <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> business surveys are consistent with <strong>the</strong> findings in <strong>the</strong> 

literature. It is generally understood that businesses consider parking availability 

for customers integral to vitality and that <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> this parking would be bad 

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

<strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> one customer represents a loss <strong>of</strong> revenue. It is important, however, to 

note that if <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> illusion that <strong>the</strong> available space is in higher demand by drivers than what is 

actually true. 

It is not surprising <strong>the</strong>n that businesses <strong>of</strong>ten over estimate how many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 

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

<strong>of</strong> parking, its availability or its price, has <strong>the</strong> potential to influence customer 

transportation choices such as mode <strong>of</strong> travel and time <strong>of</strong> day. This study found that 

46.7% <strong>of</strong> businesses estimate that more than 76% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir customers drive to 

Agricola. According to <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> customer survey this number is 16%. 


30

Seventy percent <strong>of</strong> customer respondents walk and 14% cycle when shopping. The 

perception that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> customers drive does not correspond with <strong>the</strong> 

sample surveyed with a difference <strong>of</strong> 60%. 

There is a common belief among businesses that if customers were given <strong>the</strong> choice 

between a store with free parking and one without <strong>the</strong>y will without a doubt chose 

<strong>the</strong> 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 

<strong>the</strong> Transportation Demand Management policies that encourage more sustainable 

forms <strong>of</strong> transportation. 

When asked if <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking would impact <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir visits <strong>the</strong> 

majority <strong>of</strong> customers surveyed said <strong>the</strong>y would shop a similar number <strong>of</strong> days. 

67% <strong>of</strong> customers surveyed admitted that changes to <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> on-‐street 

parking would not impact <strong>the</strong>ir travel behavior when shopping on Agricola. The 

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

<strong>of</strong> customer surveyed reported that <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> parking would negatively impact 

<strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir visits. This percentage corresponds to <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> 

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

results <strong>of</strong> this study suggest that <strong>the</strong>re is a positive relationship between customer 

mode choice and behavioural reactions to changes in <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> parking 

although <strong>the</strong> strength <strong>of</strong> this relationship was not tested. 


31

Figure 13 Parking occupancy per hour and estimated employee occupancy 

60 

50 

Occupancy (%) 

40 

30 

20 

29.8% 

10 

0 

7:00 

AM 

8:00 

AM 

9:00 

AM 

10:00 

AM 

11:00 

AM 

12:00 

PM 

1:00 

PM 

2:00 

PM 

3:00 

PM 

4:00 

PM 

5:00 

PM 

Time <strong>of</strong> Day 

One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> groups that <strong>of</strong>ten occupies parking intended for customers are 

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

<strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> percent <strong>of</strong> employees who drive and use on-‐street parking it is 

estimated that workers occupy 29.8% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> available parking in <strong>the</strong> study area. 

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

occupying more than half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> occupied spaces. Currently <strong>the</strong>re is nothing to 

discourage <strong>the</strong>m from doing so as <strong>the</strong>re are no controls and no meters on Agricola. 


32

11.1 Study Limitations 

Due to limited time and resources <strong>the</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> customer surveys was 

conducted on October 11, 18, and 24, 2012 when <strong>the</strong> wea<strong>the</strong>r 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 <strong>the</strong> survey 

was conducted during winter <strong>the</strong>re would be an expectation that more people drive 

and in <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 

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

respondents who had driven and parked directly in front <strong>of</strong> a business. 

In regards to <strong>the</strong> business survey, <strong>the</strong> ranges provided for <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> 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, <strong>the</strong> 

question asking businesses to estimate <strong>the</strong> customer mode choice and parking 

location should have been fur<strong>the</strong>r clarified to clearly identify Agricola in both 

instances. 

In general, it is noted that <strong>the</strong> surveys did not incorporate a statistically random 

sample, in that <strong>the</strong> 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. 


33

12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Parking is an influential component <strong>of</strong> municipal transportation policy. Decisions 

concerning parking availability and management have larger implications on land-use, 

travel behavior, and economic development and this study demonstrates <strong>the</strong> 

complexities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject. These issues need to be investigated comprehensively so 

that “decisions are based on <strong>the</strong> best possible information, reflect <strong>the</strong> greatest public 

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

The objective <strong>of</strong> this study was to understand <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> on-‐street parking to 

businesses and <strong>the</strong> potential impacts <strong>of</strong> its removal. The availability <strong>of</strong> parking can 

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

that may limit parking capacity are <strong>of</strong>ten met with opposition even before <strong>the</strong>y are 

implemented. 

The general finding is that businesses over estimate <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir 

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 <strong>of</strong> customer travel behavior has resulted in too much 

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

current parking demand from customers could still be accommodated by reducing 

<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> spaces. 

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

efficiently. Parking occupancy is not <strong>the</strong> best representation <strong>of</strong> demand and can 

<strong>of</strong>ten be misunderstood by businesses. To encourage parking rate <strong>of</strong> turnover, time 

restrictions should represent <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> adjacent land-‐uses. In commercial 

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

majority <strong>of</strong> customers and encourage a reasonable turnover” (Parksville 2011 20). 

Eliminating unrestricted parking will help discourage employees from long term 

occupation <strong>of</strong> spaces intended for customers. 


34

Ano<strong>the</strong>r method <strong>of</strong> encouraging parking turnover is <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> parking meters. 

Charging users for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> parking spaces discourages long term parking. Meters 

also shift <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> parking maintenance and policing from <strong>the</strong> public to <strong>the</strong> user. 

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

<strong>the</strong>y do not ever use <strong>the</strong> space (Shoup 2005). 

Charging for parking would also help accomplish an objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> same time 

accommodating <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a neighbourhood 

centre in <strong>the</strong> future. Neighbourhood centres are characterized by <strong>the</strong>ir inclusive 

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

<strong>the</strong>se projects <strong>the</strong> <strong>importance</strong> <strong>of</strong> parking is being questioned. 

12.1 Future Studies 

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

study should consider <strong>the</strong> parking capacity on adjacent street and <strong>of</strong>f-‐street lots that 

may help mitigate <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> residents with regard to parking 

should also be considered. 


35

REFERENCES 

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

Approaches. Sage Publications. 

de Cerreno, Allison L. C..(December 2002). The Dynamics <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Traffic Calming on Small 

Businesses. Department <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> 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 


36

http://www.<strong>the</strong>atlanticcities.com/jobs-‐and-‐economy/2012/11/4-‐reasons-retailers-‐dont-‐need-‐free-‐parking-‐thrive/3978/ 

 

Johnston, A. (2010). Not in My Public Right-‐<strong>of</strong>-‐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 <strong>of</strong> 

Urban Economics. 41, 198 – 201. 

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

Development. Journal <strong>of</strong> Urban Planning and Development, 109, 27 – 43. 

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

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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> Effects <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 

<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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. 


37

APPENDICIES

Appendix 1 : Informed Letter <strong>of</strong> Consent 

School <strong>of</strong> Planning, Dalhousie University 

5410 Spring Garden Road 

P.O. Box 15000 

Halifax, NS B3H 4R2 

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

gain a better understanding <strong>of</strong> parking on and around Agricola Street. Agricola Street 

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

commuters and customers. This research is part <strong>of</strong> a major project by a student at 

Dalhousie University and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. The results <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> area. I am seeking your permission to use <strong>the</strong> information provided by you when I 

report <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> my work in <strong>the</strong> project report or presentations. 

I am collecting this information using surveys <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agricola Street business community, 

and visitors to <strong>the</strong> street. I will be asking a series <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>the</strong> attached form, authorizing me 

to record and use <strong>the</strong> information you provide. 

Again, thank you for your help with my project. If at any time during <strong>the</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Planning Candidate 

School <strong>of</strong> Planning 

Dalhousie University

Appendix 2 : Business Survey 

The Importance <strong>of</strong> On-Street Parking to Business On Agricola 

Street: Business Survey 

1. What are your hours <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> your customers do you estimate drive to Agricola Street and 

use on-‐street parking? 

________% 

6. What percentage <strong>of</strong> your customers do you estimate walk or cycle to Agricola 

Street? 

_________%

7. What percentage <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 

O<strong>the</strong>r:______________________________ 

____________________________________ 

4. When you shop, what modes <strong>of</strong> 

trans-portation do you use? (CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY) 

____Walk ____Bicycle 

____Public Transit ____Taxi 

____Car 

O<strong>the</strong>r:_______________________ 

5. When you shop, which is your 

primary mode <strong>of</strong> transportation? 

(CHECK ONE) 

____Walk ____Bicycle 

____Public Transit ____Taxi 

____Car 


6. Do you visit commercial 

establishments on? (CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY) 

____weekdays ____weekends 

7. Do you visit commercial 

establishment more frequently on <strong>the</strong> 

(CHECK ONE) 

___weekdays ____weekends OR 

____equally 

6. What is <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> 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 

O<strong>the</strong>r:________________________ 

7. What is your primary mode <strong>of</strong> 

transportation to Agricola Street today? 

(CHECK ONE) 

____Walk 

____Public Transit 

____Car 


____Bicycle 

____Taxi

8. If answered Car for question 7, 

Where did you park? 

(intersection/block) 

___________________________________ 

9. If parking was removed would it 

affect <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> your visits to 

Agricola St? 

_____I would visit less 

_____I would visit more 

_____I would visit <strong>the</strong> same 

_____I don’t know 

10. Where is your primary place <strong>of</strong> 

residence? 

Nearest intersection: 

_____________________________

the importance of on-street parking to business vitality - Halifax ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?