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

I
I
I ,
I .
I
I '
!
I .
I
I
I .
I
I .
I
I
I
! '
I
REFERENCE
1
Do Not Remove or Circulate
: Planning & Development Library
.. Collegetown
1-
I
I I
Collegetown Parking Study
City of Ithaca
Tompkins County, New York
Prepared for:
Collegetown Moratorium Subcommittee to the
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Committee Members:
Susan Blumenthal, Chair, 3'd Ward
Chris Anagnost
Josh Glasstetter, 4
1
h Ward
Jane Marcham
Joannie Spielholz, 4
1
h Ward
MaryTomlan
Pat Vaughan, 3'd Ward
Carl Cohen, Advisor from Cornell Transportation Services
Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development
Prepared by:
Jessica Greig, Consultant
July, 2000
r--,
t-
I
I ,
'--j
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PARKING SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Parking Inventory
Residential Survey
Owner/Manager Survey
Employee Survey
Usage Survey
License Plate Survey
Evening Parking Survey
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDICES
.. . ii
.. . iii
... 1
... 9
... 9
... 13
... 23
... 27
... 33
... 38
.. .42
... 46
... 54
... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Purpose and Frequency of Trips ... 20
2-2 Purpose of Vehicle Use by Building Type ... 21
2-3 Distance between Parking Location and Work ... 31
2-4 Paid Parking: Daytime Parking Duration .. .40
2-5 Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates .. .44
2-6 On-Street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates .. .44
I .
LIST OF TABLES
/_
Table Page
~
2-1 Supply of Public and Private Parking ... 12
J
2-2 Parking Supply by Parking Type ... 12
B
2-3 Average Parking Fees by Location and Building Type ... 16
2-4 Parking Location by Building Type ... 17
2-5 Parking Demand by Building Type ... 18
I
2-6 Frequency of Car Use ... 19
2-7 Number of Employees at Work on a Given Weekday ... 29
2-8 Modal Split for Employee Work Commute ... 29
2-9 Parking Location for Employees ... 30
2-10 Interest in Free Public Transportation ... 32
2-11 Summary of Results, In-season Parking Usage Surveys .. .36
2-12 Continuously Parked Cars (Storage Parking) ... 37
LIST OF MAPS
Map Page
1 Collegetown Base Map ... 2
2 Collegetown Building Moratorium ... 3
3 Zoning Map ... 5
4 Off-street Parking ... 6
5 Survey Boundaries ... 35
i :
! .
i
!
I '
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
I
COLLEGETOWN PARKING STUDY
Prepared by:
Jessica Greig, Consultant
July, 2000
I
n
I \
:
I \
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
In September of 1999, the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a building moratorium on
all new residential construction in the neighborhood known as Collegetown. Recently
Collegetown has been the site of rapid redevelopment and growth, in both the commercial and
residential sectors. With this growth came a steady influx of cars, and an increasing number of
parking problems.
The current zoning regulations were the result of an attempt to revitalize College town during a
period of stagnation. In light of rising complaints, recent redevelopment, and potentially outdated
zoning regulations, Common Council enacted the moratorium as an opportunity to better
understand the parking situation. After the moratorium was in place, the Department of Planning
and Development began setting the groundwork for studying the situation. This eventually
evolved into the Collegetown Parking Study.
This report is the culmination of that study. Its goal is to explain the travel characteristics of local
residents and employees, detail the performance of the current parking system, and make
recommendations for improvements.
PARKING STUDY
The parking study has four major components. They are I) an inventory of the parking supply, 2)
a survey of residents, 3) business surveys (owner and employee), and 4) public parking surveys.
Parking Supply
An inventory of available parking was completed in the early stages of the moratorium. Aerial
photos of the neighborhood coupled with field verification were the primary inventory
techniques. This information was used to establish the on-street capacity and to classify the
different types of parking. The overwhelming focus of the study was on the use (how many
spaces were used and for how long) of on-street parking spaces.
Within the category of on-street spaces, there are metered spaces and free spaces. Each was
examined separately in the various parking surveys. Inside the moratorium boundary there are
iii
approximately 410 free spaces and 149 metered spaces. Currently all meters in Collegetown have
a two hour time limit, charge $.50/hour, and are in effect Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. Depending on the location and time of year, most of the free spaces have a 24-hour parking
limit or are governed by the City's odd-even parking ordinance. The odd-even ordinance allows
parking on only one side of the street overnight during winter months and allows 24 hour parking
at other times of the year.
Off-street parking represents the largest supply of parking in Collegetown, approximately 2000
spaces. Almost all of it is privately owned and managed. As a result, documentation concerning
how the spaces are used was limited. An exception was the 217 spaces in the Dryden Road
Garage, which were studied extensively. Other off-street parking areas are Cornell's Stewart
Avenue and Williams' Street lot, the private garage on Linden Ave, and the sub-grade garage in
312 College Ave.
Residential Survey
The Residential Survey questioned Collegetown residents about their travel habits, car ownership,
and parking behavior. The survey included a census of single family homes (21), and a sample of
200 residences from each of large apartment buildings
1
and multiple dwelling units
2
. Sampling in
the apartment buildings and multiple dwellings was also stratified by block to account for
geographical variation in the data.
The survey data about travel habits revealed that walking is the most frequently used mode of
travel, followed closely by cars. Buses and bicycles are used with a much lower frequency. Cars
were most often used for shopping, traveling in and out of Ithaca, and entertainment.
The more surprising result was the level of car ownership. Collegetown businesses and
neighboring Cornell University provide a variety of services and entertainment opportunities
directed towards the student residents, who compose 95% of the Collegetown population. These
are readily accessible by walking or by bus. Despite this, 49% of residents in the large apartment
buildings own a car, as do 62% of residents in multiple dwellings.
1
Large apartment buildings are defined as having more than 20 housing units.
2
The multiple dwelling units have frequently been converted from single family homes. They are also
referred to as multiple dwellings.
iv
p
I
I
I
I
u
These high ownership rates produce a correspondingly high demand for parking spaces. In the
large apartments, 86% of the car owners reported parking in private, off-street locations while the
remaining 14% park on the street. The corresponding percentages for the multiple dwellings are
72% and 27%. Accounting for the ownership rate and parking locations, approximately 2200
resident car-owners park off-street and 650 park on the street. Both numbers exceed the existing
supply and support the commonly held perception that there is a parking deficit in Collegetown.
Business
Owner/Manager Survey
The Owner/Manager Survey was designed as a personal interview, administered to the owner or
manager of every Collegetown business. Survey questions addressed the type of business,
number of employees, number of parking spaces, delivery schedule, and response to possible
policy changes. Roughly 75% of the businesses completed surveys.
The results showed that approximately 800 employees work in Collegetown, 60% part -time and
40% full-time. The most common classifications of businesses were restaurants and bars,
services, and retail stores. Delivery problems were a big issue for most businesses. More than
100 deliveries are made to Collegetown every day, which is significant given its small area. The
most common problems cited were tied to the loading zones. They were seen as being too small,
inconvenient to the businesses, and inaccessible due to illegal parking of cars.
There was little support for proposed policy changes. The majority of owners and managers
(68%) were not supportive of restricting delivery times to a particular time of day. When asked if
they would contribute funds to a new parking facility, 23% would, 37% would not, and the
remaining 39% were unsure. When asked if they would be interested in a program to provide tax
deductible TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) bus passes to their employees, 18% said
yes, 63% said no, and 19% were not sure.
The general mood from the owners and managers was that the City should take responsibility for
improving conditions for the business community. Desired improvements include: better
enforcement of existing loading zones, increasing the number of loading zones, and more parking
for customers and employees. Furthermore, many owners felt that Cornell should be responsible
for meeting the parking needs of students who live in Collegetown.
v
Employee Survey
Employee survey questionnaires were distributed to each business addressing issues such as work
schedule, commute patterns, and parking. Approximately 40% of Collegetown employees
completed the survey, 60% of the responses were from full time employees and 40% were from
part time employees.
Data about work schedules established when most employees work. During the week, the highest
concentration of employees is roughly 430 at 2 p.m. On the weekend the overall number is lower
but also peaks at 2 p.m.
The travel characteristics of these employees vary significantly, according to employment status.
A majority (70%) of full-time employees drive themselves to work and the remaining 30% use
environmentally friendly modes of transportation (walk, carpool, and public transit). Part-time
employees, on the other hand, use an even greater mix of transportation modes. In this case, 43%
drive themselves, 36% walk, 14% carpool, and 7% take public transit. A major reason for
variation between the two groups is that many of the part-time employees are students who live in
the Collegetown area.
Employees who drive are of the most interest for evaluating parking demand. These employees
use a mix of parking locations. The preferred parking location is at meters, followed by private
parking, the Dryden garage, and finally the free spaces. The parking demand varies significantly
according to the time of day and part of the week, but can be calculated using the employment
densities and parking locations. Examples of these calculations are given in the body of the
report.
Public Parking Surveys
Three different parking surveys, the Parking Usage Survey, the License Plate Survey, and the
Evening Parking Survey were incorporated to give a comprehensive view of how the current
public parking system is functioning.
Parking Usage Survey
The main purpose of the Parking Usage Survey was to establish how many people park overnight
in publicly available spaces and how many leave their cars parked all day. The survey consisted
of field counts of the number of cars parked on each block four times during the day, at 6 a.m., 10
vi
I
A
r
I
I
I
'
I .
I
.. - _,
a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m. The same survey was completed on three days, once when Cornell was
not in session (off-season), and twice when it was (in-season). For the two in-season surveys, one
was administered when odd-even regulations were in effect and the other was after odd-even
regulations had been modified to allow 24-hour parking during non-winter months.
The results of the in-season, odd-even survey reveal a representative picture of public parking in
Collegetown. In this case, 532 cars parked overnight, using 85% of the free spaces, 62% of the
metered spaces, and 41% of the spaces in the garage. Of those parked at 6 a.m., almost 50% were
still parked at 6 p.m. reflecting the substantial storage of vehicles. Results from the other surveys
can be found in the body of the report.
License Plate Survey
The purpose of the License Plate Survey was to quantify how the metered spaces aud the Dryden
Road Garage are used on a typical weekday. Methodology consisted of writing down the license
plate number of each car parked in a metered space or at the garage every hour, from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m.
From this survey we learned that 71% of the cars that parked at meters were there for less than
two hours, 18% parked for two to six hours, and 11% parked for over six hours. 1n the garage,
39% of drivers parked for less than 2 hours, 21% parked from two to six hours, and 40% parked
for more than six hours.
In addition to license plate numbers, data collection also included expired meters and tickets.
During the ten-hour survey, 52 tickets were issued and there were more than 550 hours of parking
where meters were expired. Based on survey data, 170 tickets could have been issued if the two-
hour time limit was enforced. If all the expired meters' hours were paid for, the City would have
had an additional $275 of revenue for the day. But more importantly, these numbers show that
many people are not following the posted regulations and that the meters aren't being used for
short -term parking as intended.
Evening Parking Survey
The purpose of the Evening Parking Survey was to quantify the availability of public parking for
evening activities in Collegetown. The survey was repeated on three evenings: once mid-week,
once on a weekend, and once on a weekend with a performance at Cornell's Center for Theatre
vii
Arts. On each evening, two workers counted the number of available public parking spaces every
hour from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m.
Results illustrate the variation in the use of on-street spaces versus the garage and the variation in
parking demand at different times of the week. The garage was most heavily used on the
performance night when it was filled to capacity for four hours. It was also heavily used on the
regular weekend night. On the non-performance evening it filled twice, once at 7 p.m. and again
at midnight. In general, the garage is underused on weeknights when the number of empty spaces
ranges between 60 and 100 or the 217 available.
In contrast, there was less dramatic variation in the use of on-street spaces. There was little
difference in how they were used on the two weekend nights; the utilization rates hovered around
93% and the number of free spaces ranged between 10 and 20. On weekdays around 80% of the
spaces were used, leaving 35 to 50 spaces free.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The preceding information gives a broad impression of how the various segments of the
Collegetown community are using its public and private parking resources, and subsequently how
well the different types of parking meet their demands. Another way of thinking about these
results is in the context of the existing parking system: who is using it and how well does it
perform. There are five major components of Ithaca's current parking program. They are:
1) Off-street parking requirements (specified in the zoning ordinance);
2) The number of parking spaces available (on- and off-street);
3) Regulations governiug the use of on-street parking;
4) Management of the Dryden Road Garage; and
5) The growth of future parking demand.
In reference to the above items, it can be stated that:
the off-street parkiug requirements don't meet the existing residential demand,
the number of actual parking spaces (ou and off-street) is insufficieut to meet the expressed
needs of residents and businesses,
the effectiveuess of au-street regulations is difficult to evaluate due to lack of adequate
enforcement,
current management of the Dryden Road Garage hasn't adequately addressed the varied
needs of its users, or can't do so due to outdated equipment.
viii
I
t
CoUegetown Parking Study
Some of these items are easily changed; others will require ingenuity and persistence. Proper
functioning of the system as a whole will require consistent enforcement and compliance. Future
increase in parking demand will be closely related to the actions taken, or not taken, in response
to this study and the moratorium.
The following recommendations are suggested for consideration in the establishment of a
coherent parking program for Collegetown. Because specific changes should he considered in the
context of an integrated parking system, some of the recommendations are purposely vague. Four
alternative parking programs, based on recommendations listed below, can be found in the report.
Each program has been designed as a complete parking system and should be treated as an
integrated solution.
Policy Changes
The first recommendation pertains to the management of parking in Ithaca generally and those
following refer to the particulars of Collegetown.
o Reorganize the structure of the parking system so that a single person actively oversees all
parking decisions (enforcement, personnel, finances, equipment, etc.).
o Update parking equipment in the Dryden Road Garage and increase parking fees at periods of
high demand.
o Replace the existing meters on Dryden Rd. (100 block) and College Ave. (400 block) with
30-minute meters targeted for the short-term use of customers and delivery vehicles.
o Improve enforcement in Collegetown. For example: enforce time limits at the meters, on-
street parking regulations, and overnight parking by permit only in the Dryden Road Garage.
o Increase the off-street parking requirement to l space per 2 beds. This requirement should be
uniformly applied to all new residential construction.
o Allow developers alternatives for meeting the above off-street parking requirements. This
could include mitigation measures to decrease automobile dependence and improve public
transit or mitigation fees paid to the City that could be used in a similar manner or to help
finance a new public parking facility.
o Build a new parking garage to offset existing parking deficiencies and the future demand
created by redevelopment. Depending on estimates of redevelopment density, the parking
garage could be designed to hold as many as 750-1000 cars.
ix
Manage/Lower Parking Demand
These suggestions highlight ways to capitalize on the effectiveness of a new parking program, to
manage the current parking demand, and to limit its growth in the future.
Maintain restrictive on-street parking regulations to encourage greater use of off-street
locations for long-term storage parking.
Work with Collegetown businesses to explore ways to decrease employee parking demand,
(such as carpooling) and to identify employee parking in locations that won't compete with
customer parking.
Introduce a shuttle, with a high level of service, between Collegetown and local grocery
stores. Examine other destinations that would benefit from a similar shuttle service.
Convert existing parking demand into longer-term storage demand.
Incorporating these proposals into a comprehensive parking program is the first step in addressing
the parking problems in Collegetown. These parking remedies, however, will require continued
monitoring. In the short-term, fine-tuning may be needed to insure that the new parking program
behaves as intended. In the long-term, tracking redevelopment and levels of car ownership will
be important. PARKING IS DYNAMIC: it will change as Col!egetown evolves. Future
planning initiatives for redevelopment or use changes should always include a reevaluation of
parking needs.
X
i
\-
I
I
r .
R
I
CHAPTER!
INTRODUCTION
I '
u
S
l
_,
- ~
1
..
~ . .
\
I '
INTRODUCTION
In September of 1999, the City of Ithaca's Common Council enacted a yearlong building
moratorium. The moratorium started retroactively on July 5 and put a halt to all new residential
construction in the neighborhood known as Collegetown (refer to Map 1). The moratorium
region is bounded by Oak Avenue in the North, East State and Mitchell Streets in the South, Eddy
Street in the West, and mid-block between Linden and Delaware Avenues in the East (refer to
Map 2). These boundaries were finalized by the Planning and Economic Development
Committee and approved by Common Council.
In light of rising complaints, recent redevelopment, and potentially outdated zoning regulations,
Common Council enacted the moratorium as an opportunity to better understand the parking
situation in Collegetown. After the moratorium was in place the Planning and Economic
Development Committee created a subcommittee to examine the parking situation and make
recommendations for improvements. Members of the subcommittee included Common Council
members, residents, a real estate agent, the director of Ithaca's Planning and Development
Department, and an advisor from Cornell's Transportation and Mail Services. Committee
members met regularly throughout the moratorium, helping develop surveys and establish their
boundaries, discussing survey results, and making recommendations for improvements.
Collegetown' s parking problems are essentially a byproduct of its success. The mix of residential
and commercial development within a small region, and in close proximity to Cornell University,
makes it a desirable location for residents and businesses alike. As a result, it has been the site of
rapid redevelopment and growth, in both the commercial and residential sectors. Unfortunately,
the factors in its success have made parking even more challenging as growth brings a steady
influx of cars, and an increasing number of parking problems.
With mixed land use come a variety of users for the parking system. The primary users of
parking in Collegetown are local residents, employees, and visitors. Residents are by far the
largest group, but it is the employees who are the most sensitive to the cost and location of
parking. Balancing the needs of these distinct groups into a simple, yet comprehensive parking
program is no small feat.
COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA
ITHACA, NY 2000
\'-....'-..
\ ..
~ :''
-
'
\
"---

I
"
'- 7
/'
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development July 2000
MAPI
I -,
~
__ ;
COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA ON-STREET PARKING
ITHACA NY 2000
Regulated On-Street Parking
.. ----- Metered Parking
Loading Zone
On Street Parking
MAP2
I I
I
BACKGROUND
Land Use
The Collegetown Moratorium region encompasses sixteen blocks. The majority of
Collegetown's commercial activity is in five blocks within the B-2b zone (refer to Map 3). The
largest segment of Collegetown businesses are restaurants, bars, and other eateries, followed by
service industries, retail establishments, and a small number of University buildings and rental
agencies.
Collegetown' s residential development, found in each of the sixteen blocks, is a combination of
single family homes, multiple dwellings
3
(usually converted from large, single-family homes),
and large apartment buildings
4
The number of single family homes within the moratorium
boundary is relatively small and according to many long-time residents, diminishing. The
number and size of apartment buildings, on the other hand, is on the rise. Within the past three
years, over three hundred fifty beds have been added in just two new buildings. This takes the
total number of beds in large apartment buildings to almost 2000. There has been little new
construction among the multiple dwellings although they house approximately 3000 of the
residents within the moratorium boundary.
Off-street parking
The bulk (over 80%) of parking in Collegetown is provided in off-street locations (refer to Map
4). Included within this category are the Dryden Road Parking Garage, Cornell's SW (Stewart
Avenue and Williams Street) Lot, a private garage on Linden Ave., an underground garage
beneath 312 College Ave., driveways, and other surface lots. Most of these spaces are found in
small1ots and increasingly in paved-over backyards or in open spaces between houses. In
general, the spaces are owned and controlled by private landowners.
Parking facilities that are access-controlled are the most likely to be used by their intended
tenants. For example, the magnetic cards that provide access to the underground parking garage
at 312 College Ave. are very effective at limiting use ofthe facility. Locations that don't control
parking are extremely susceptible to unauthorized use. Hill Drug Store is a prime example of
somewhere that doesn't actively control access to its parking lot. Due to its prime location,
adjacent to residences and a convenience store, people regularly park in the spaces
3
The converted single family homes are known as multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling units.
4
Large apartment buildings are defined as having more than 20 housing units.
4
' )
I .
I '
I :
~
I
!
-. ~
j
I
I
i
i
i
i' -
.
a
"I.!)
. : C\1
. : : II
z ~
COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM AREA
OFF-STREET PARKING ITHACA NY 2000
EDGEMOOR LANE
0
0
0
0
+ Off-Street Parking Space
Covered Parking Garage
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development
SCALE: 1" = 250'
MAP4
r-'
IJ
. -;
! I
clearly marked for the use of the drug store's customers. It is the responsibility of the owner of a
parking facility or lot to monitor who is parking where. In cases such as Hill Drug, this has been
an endless battle.
On-street parking
The remaining supply ( -20%) of parking is found on-street. These on-street spaces are highly
sought after by a variety of people. Approximately one third of on-street spaces are metered on
weekdays. Meter regulations are valid between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and parking is limited to two
hours. Digital meters have recently replaced the older, mechanical meters. These meters have
digitized displays but haven't been upgraded to accept any non-coin methods of payment such as
credit cards or smart cards. The remaining two-thirds of the spaces is the only free parking in the
area .
Previous Studies
Collegetown parking has been the subject of two major reports in the past twenty years. They
are:
"Collegetown Parking and Circulation Study," Travers Associates, Consultants 1982
"Ithaca/Cornell Parking Study: Existing Parking Demand, Zoning Ordinance Parking
Requirements," Travers Associates, Consultants 1998
At the time of the first Travers study, significant redevelopment was in progress with more being
planned for the immediate future. The report detailed the findings and recommendations of a
parking and circulation study that examined the potential impact of redevelopment (including the
Center for Theatre Arts), the existing businesses and adjoining residential areas. Their
recommendations included:
changing on-street residential parking to a permit system,
decreasing the time limits on meters from 2 and 10 hours to 1 and 3 hours,
building a municipal parking garage (200 space capacity),
providing additional parking and transportation options on performance nights,
instituting all-day loading zones,
applying parking requirements unifonnly throughout the business district, and
revising the off-street parking requirements.
Motivation for the second Travers study was the high level of commuter parking in residential
neighborhoods adjacent to Cornell University. The report detailed the findings and
recommendations from a survey of current parking activities and calculations of required parking
ratios for different segments of the University population. Their recommendations included:
7
implementing a resident permit plan encompassing the Collegetown and Belle
Sherman neighborhoods,
investigating the feasibility of providing long-term student storage parking (with
transportation), and
leaving the parking requirement ratios for the draft Ordinance as is.
Copies of these reports are available for review at the City of Ithaca's Department of Planning
and Development.
FORMAT OF THE REPORT
Following this introduction, the report details the various components that went into the parking
study. The second chapter is split into seven sections that describe the methodology and base
results of the study's different components. They are: a parking inventory, a residential survey,
an owner/manager survey, an employee survey, a parking usage survey, a license plate survey,
and an evening parking survey. In the third chapter the results from the surveys are combined in
a discussion of how the current parking system is performing and how it is being used by the
various segments of the population. Then, the fourth chapter outlines general recommendations
for improving the parking system. Finally, the appendix includes samples of surveys, raw data
from the surveys, charts, and alternative parking programs.
8
i
\
'
i :
'
CHAPTER2
PARKING SURVEYS:
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
1-
I
I i
i -
H
I '
i l
I !
I
I -
PARKING INVENTORY
9
lJ
FC"J
PARKING INVENTORY
The purpose of doing a parking inventory was to establish a reasonable estimate of the parking
supply within the moratorium boundary.
SCOPE
Information on parking is available from a variety of sources. Some of these sources were used
to generate numbers on parking supply and others were used to corroborate them. In the end this
gave an indication of the supply of parking in the moratorium area: for both on and off-street
locations and those with public and private owners.
METHODOLOGY
Establishing a database on parking resources has been ongoing at the City of Ithaca for over a
year. Initially, a City intern did a field inspection of off-street parking spaces and entered the
information into the City's GIS (Geographic Information System). Then, a program developed
within Maplnfo ProfessionaiTM approximated the number of on-street parking spaces based on
curb length.
A cursory review of parking spaces as recorded in the GIS showed significant discrepancies
between actual parking spaces and the generated parking spaces. At this point aerial photographs,
taken in April of 1999, were used to verify the number and location of off-street parking spaces.
Overlaying the aerials with a street map, the moratorium boundary, and building information
facilitated a rapid update of the parking information. In areas where the number of available
spaces wasn't clear, someone visited the site for field verification. Changes were made to the
City's GIS, reflecting these reviews.
Using this methodology the number of spaces in surface lots and garages was uncertain. In many
of these locations parking spaces are unmarked. Unless the number of cars parked at the time of
the aerial photographs or field inspection represented the maximum utilization, the number of
cars usually parked in the driveways and garages was estimated. It is possible that an entire
driveway would be filled with cars, that only one car used the space, or something in-between.
The number of on-street parking spaces was established by walking through the moratorium
region and counting the number of parked cars. Due to heavy use in the area, most on-street
10
spaces were used, making the count easy and accurate. When a stretch of curb space wasn't in
use, the number of cars that could fit in the space was estimated. This information was
incorporated into the City GIS. Aerial photographs and results from the parking surveys were
used to corroborate field results.
To understand the results of the parking inventory we must first kuow where error is introduced.
Error in these results is due to a couple of factors. The size of the cars parked on a given stretch
of curb influences its recorded capacity, so it is important to remember that the values are not
absolute. Using the number of parked cars as an estimate of the capacity is relatively accurate,
assuming that car sizes are consistent over any given region and reflect the current mix of cars in
use. For most block faces there won't be more than a difference of one or two spaces due to
variation in car size. Another source of error is if an individual doesn't park efficiently; for
example, the front of their car is ten feet from a driveway instead of three feet. In this case seven
feet of parking is lost. This situation happens frequently and can effect the capacity everyday, but
there is no obvious way to incorporate this factor into capacity estimates. One way to approach
this issue is to label values in the GIS as average, optimal capacities and acknowledge that there
is variation in the actual conditions. These variations could be expressed as a percentage (perhaps
90-95%) of the average, optimal capacity if necessary. For the purposes of this report, the
observed value was used.
RESULTS
As mentioned in the methodology there are certain factors (e.g. car size) which can change on-
street capacity and others that affect off-street capacity (e.g. parking in areas not designated for
parking). The following results shouldn't be taken as the absolute number of parking spaces in
the moratorium boundary, but instead as an estimate of what is currently available.
On-street
The two primary classifications of on-street parking spaces are free and metered. "Free" parking
spaces are those on-street spaces generally available to the public. There are around 410 on-street
parking spaces and they are governed by a variety of parking regulations. These regulations
include "24 Hour Parking," "Odd-Even Parking," "No Overnight Parking," and "No Parking 9
a.m.-12 p.m." Odd-even parking restricts overnight parking to one side of the road during winter
months (November-May). Some of the other regulations are part of the Residential Parking
Permit System(RPPS). A residential parking permit requires an annual fee of $20 and entitles the
permit holder to park in the zone at any time.
II
I
I
--.-
~
Although the number of spaces within the jurisdiction of each parking regulation isn't given here,
this information may be obtained using the City's GIS. It is important to note that dedicated
loading zones are not included in the number of on-street parking spaces. There are only ten
loading zones in the area and they are designated as such during the traditional workday.
Metered spaces comprise an additional 149 on-street parking spaces. All of the meters within the
moratorium boundary have a two hour limit and charge $.50 for each hour of parking between 8
a.m. and 6 p.m.
Off-street
Off-street parking is slightly more complex in that it can be stratified in more ways than on-street
parking. The primary levels of stratification are by owner and type of parking. In general we
refer to public and private parking spaces as the two primary subcategories of off-street parking,
but there are some cases when a specific owner is listed. Table 2-1 gives the breakdown of
parking with respect to ownership.
Table 2-1: Supply of Public and Private Parking
Owner Number of Spaces
Public
Private
Total
217
1793
2010
Table 2-2 gives more detailed information about the different types of parking available within
the moratorium boundary.
Table 2-2: Parking Supply by Parking Type
Parking Type
Cornell Lot
(at Stewart and Williams)
Other Private Surface Lots
(including driveways)
Private Parking Garages
Dryden Road Garage
Total
12
Number of Spaces
121
1544
128
217
2010
I
I
u
H
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
13
w
H
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
The second step in the study of parking issues was to question residents in Collegetown about
their travel behavior, car ownership, and parking location and costs.
METHODOLOGY
A master's student in the Department of City and Regional Planning (CRP) at Cornell University
designed the residential survey. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.
There are approximately 2500 housing units in the region and the current population is around
5000. Based on these numbers, the sample size for the survey was 450. The different housing
types in the survey were single-family homes, multiple dwellings, and large apartment buildings.
The sampling technique for this survey was designed to represent all dwelling types. All
addresses were contacted for a census of the single-family homes. Because they constitute such a
small population, a sample wouldn't accurately portray their characteristics. Originally, it was
estimated that there were 50 such locations, but in reality the number was closer to 20.
Based on the assumption that travel behavior would be heavily influenced by building type and
location, the remaining 400 samples were stratified by building type and block. Half of the 400
samples were accorded to large apartments and the other half to multiple dwellings. The number
of samples taken from a block was proportionate to the number of housing units on that block.
Using the Tompkins County Assessment data from 1998, a list of addresses was compiled for
each type of building within the moratorium boundary. The list provided the number of samples
needed for each block along with the addresses eligible for sampling. Three masters' students,
and a consultant working for the City of Ithaca collected data. Most of the interviewers had
previous experience in conducting surveys. Prior to starting the work, all interviewers were
instructed on how to conduct the survey including the importance of acquiring accurate data.
Data collection began in November and continued through December of 1999. Each interviewer
worked at different times of day and different times during the week to limit sampling error.
Surveys were not completed during Cornell holidays or after regular session classes had finished.
14
Collection technique varied somewhat between building types. For single family homes, the
address was visited and an interview conducted if a resident was available. In some instances the
survey form was left with the resident and collected at a later date. If no one was home, the
address was revisited until a response was obtained or 4 unsuccessful visits were made.
At multiple dwellings, the interviewers randomly started at an address and knocked at different
apartments until someone was interviewed. If no one was home at that time, or once a survey
was completed, the interviewer left the building and continued onto the next address. In large
apartment buildings where access is restricted, an interviewer was posted outside the entrance of
the building to catch residents as they returned home. In University-owned residences,
permission was granted for interviewers to be posted in the lobby area and intercept residents as
they returned to the building, or passed through the lobby. Buildings where access wasn't
restricted were sampled in the same manner as multiple dwellings. Sampling in each case
continued until the requisite number of samples was reached.
Non-participation rates varied significantly by building type. Although specific tallies weren't
kept on participation rates some general comments may be made. Cooperation was very high
(one refusal in ten successful attempts) for multiple dwellings when someone was at home. In
apartment buildings more residents refused participation, on the level of 1 in 3. The initial
estimate of owner-occupied single family homes was 41, but after visiting them many had been
rented or converted into multiple dwelling units. Of the homes that were still owner-occupied, 21
surveys were completed for the 21 addresses.
RESULTS
Demographics
Non-students and single family homes are such a small percentage of the Collegetown
population, that their behavior doesn't significantly affect or characterize the moratorium region
as a whole. Non-students account for 5% of the population and single family homes represent
less than 1% of Collegetown housing units. Accordingly, the following results deal almost
exclusively with the student populations in multiple dwellings and large apartment buildings.
Estimates based on assessment data and recent development put 60% of those students in multiple
dwellings and 40% in large apartment buildings.
15
I
11
The Collegetown population is very transitory. Over the entire sample population 57% have
lived in Collegetown for less than two years and 95% of them for less than five years. Looking at
the student population alone, 99% have lived there for less than five years and 60% for less than
two. At the same time, 34% of non-students have been in Collegetown for less than five years.
Car Ownership
Car ownership in Collegetown is surprisingly high given that Collegetown is an area of mixed
land use that provides a variety of services and entertainment opportunities to its residents. In
addition, Cornell is within walking distance and is serviced by frequent bus service for those who
live farther away or prefer to avoid walking the hills of Ithaca.
Car ownership varies significantly by building type. In the large apartment buildings 49% of the
residents own a car whereas 62% of the residents in multiple dwellings own one. These
differences reflect what one would expect when considering geographic and economic factors.
Most of the large apartment buildings are in the B-2b zone, one of the closest to the heart of
Collegetown and Cornell. It houses a myriad of businesses and entertainment opportunities in
Collegetown, reducing the need for regular car use. The large apartments also tend to charge
higher rents and parking fees. Their average monthly cost of parking is approximately $103 per
month (see Table 2-3). Owning a car is more of a financial burden for residents in the apartments
and is less of a need given the proximity to Cornell.
Table 2-3: Average Parking Fees by Location and Building Type
On property Private, Cornell Overall
Off-site lot
Large Apartment $133 $98 $26 $103
Multiple Dwelling $48 $70 NA $54
All building types $55 $87 $26 $61
Residents in multiple dwellings reflect the flip side of those influences. Their parking costs are
lower (average of $54 per month) and they have more on-street spaces to use if they choose to
avoid parking fees. Most of the multiple dwellings are farther from Cornell and residents are
more likely to use their cars to drive to campus (see Figure 2-2). The combination of these
factors, and others that will be addressed later, has translated into higher ownership levels for
residents in the multiple dwelling housing units. Contrary to what these trends suggest, these
housing units are still within walking distance of the attractions of Collegetown and bus access to
Cornell and the City in general.
16
Another interesting trend is the number of cars owned in a unit compared with the number of
residents who live in it. Of all the Collegetown housing units, 50% have one car or less.
Ownership in this group is unlikely to change significantly, nor would we expect it to. But, 26%
of the housing units have 3 or more cars and 25% of housing units have a car for each resident.
These ownership levels, although consistent with the current economic boom, are unexpected for
a small urban environment where most destinations are within walking distance and alternative
modes of transportation are readily available.
Limiting the number of parking spaces within easy access of a unit could make a large impact on
how many cars are parked on-street. If on-site parking were the only parking alternative and
provided one space for three or four residents, approximately 40% of the housing units would
have to store cars elsewhere. This translates to over 1000 cars that could be stored at a remote
location. Not only does this vacate parking for other uses, but it creates a demand for a large
supply of parking, such as a new municipal garage.
Parking
Where car owners choose to park gives valuable insight into their behavior and how they might
respond to changes in the parking system.
Parking location, like ownership levels, varies by building type (see Table 2-4). A large majority
( -80%) of apartment dwellers park on their property or in private, off-site locations. For these
residents, the convenience and high cost (Table 2-3) of on-site parking is weighed against the cost
savings gained by parking farther away. The 14% of residents who park their cars on nearby
streets must be drawn to its low cost given that it is very difficult to find convenient spaces. The
remaining 6% park in Cornell lots, an inexpensive alternative for off-street parking. This option
would be more popular if the supply were greater, it were closer to housing, and more people
knew of the alternative.
Table 2-4: Parking Location by Building Type
On Private, Nearby Cornell Other
property Off site street Lot
Large Apartment
42% 39% 14% 6% 0%
(without University
buildings)
Multiple Dwelling
55% 15% 28% I% 1%
17
I
I
I
r :
1-i
~
H
Most car owners in multiple dwellings choose to park on their property; this includes renters who
pay an additional parking fee and those who have parking provided as part of their rent. Here,
parking fees are lower (Table 2-3) and the car is conveniently located. Compared to parking on-
site, the number of residents who choose to park in privately owned, off-site locations drops
considerably. The most likely explanations are that those spaces cost more and aren't as
convenient to the residence. The percentage of owners that park on-street is near 30%. On-street
parking has the potential to be close by and, more importantly, free. Cornell lots were rarely
used, most likely because they are less convenient for people living farther away from campus,
and the option isn't well known.
Results on where residents park give an indication of the magnitude of the demand placed on
parking resources. Aggregating the off-street parking locations shows that 72% of car-owners
from multiple dwelling units park off-street, while the remaining 28% park on-street. For owners
who live in apartments, the comparable numbers are 86% off-street and 14% on-street. Assuming
a population of 5000 in Collegetown, we can estimate how many cars park in each location and
how many are attributable to each type of residence. This information is outlined in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5: Parking Demand by Building Type
Large Apartment
Multiple Dwelling
Total
On-Street
140
520
680
Off-street
840
1340
2180
Almost all car owners expressed frustration with the current parking situation in Collegetown.
When asked how frequently they had difficulty parking on-street, over 40% of the respondents
said "often" or "always," regardless of where they normally park. The group of drivers who
noted the biggest problem (95% had frequent problems) with on-street parking were those who
regularly park on-street. Most residents stated that parking in the garage was never a problem.
Of drivers who regularly park in the garage, 40% never have a problem and another 40% say that
they occasionally have trouble.
Respondents were also asked wheu they have trouble parking. The most common response was
in the evening (over 60%), followed closely by overnight (approximately 50%). This stands to
reason since there is more activity in Collegetown at night, and, at the time of the survey, odd-
even parking regulations were in effect. This regulation results in a decrease in parking capacity
18
overnight, making some of the residents that park on-street during the day hunt for another space
on the other side of the street. In general, parking was perceived to be slightly more difficult
during the week than on the weekend.
Car Use
The frequency and purpose of vehicle trips is another way to understand travel behavior. As in
the above sections, this behavior is influenced by where a resident lives. This could be due to
residents who have certain travel behaviors (prefer to walk) choose to live in a particular building,
or because attributes of the building type (such as cost and location) influence travel behavior.
Although the survey design doesn't allow us to distinguish between the two, we can still
characterize the behavior of residents of the different building types with a reasonable degree of
accuracy. But, keep in mind that if the characteristics of the buildings change it could influence
the behavior of the residents. For example, if a large apartment is built farther away from the
campus the travel characteristics could shift to be more like those of residents in multiple
dwellings.
Now, looking at the frequency of car use, almost half (see Table 2-6) of the residents use their
cars on a daily basis and 44% use their car every few days. This is in spite of the proximity to the
University and the amenities of Collegetown. Only a small portion of the residents store their car
for a week or more at a time. Because these results are contrary to what one would expect given
the area characteristics, it is important to examine where trips are being made to better understand
their frequency of use.
Table 2-6: Frequency of Car Use
Everyday 49%
Every few days 44%
Once a week 6%
Once a month I%
One way to examine this relationship is to chart how often an owner says they use their car along
with what they do on their trips. Figure 2-1, below, shows how often residents use their cars and
what they use them for. For instance, approximately 70% of those who drive to campus use their
car everyday and 70% percent of those who drive to work use their car everyday. Conclusions
can be drawn about combinations of activities using data cross-tabulations. In this case if
"campus" or "work" was one of the activities, the driver was twice as likely to drive everyday as
19
I
I
11
every few days. When looking at "Entertainment," "In and Out (ofithaca)," or "Shopping,"
drivers are equally likely to drive everyday as they are to drive every few days. These
observations suggest that driving to work and campus are treated as inelastic activities as
compared to other activities. "Elastic" activities are more likely than "inelastic" ones to be done
on a weekly basis, but in relatively small numbers.
Figure 2-1: Purpose and Frequmcy of Trips
80%.---------------------------------------,
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Evezyday Evezy few days Once a week Once a m:mth
Frequency of Car Trips
Entertainment
llJnandOut
IJShopping
w01k
ccampus
Frequency and car use also vary by where residents live; this is illustrated in Figure 2-2. A few
points are worth noting. First, people in multiple dwellings are more likely to drive to campus
than apartment dwellers and twice as many of them drive to work. Second, there is little variation
in which types of residents go shopping. Given that College town lacks a full service grocery
store and has a limited variety of retail businesses this is expected. Everybody has io leave the
area if they want to go shopping.
20
Figure 2-2: Purpose ofV ehicle Use by Building Type
1 0 0 % - - - - - - - - - ~ = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Prnpose of Vehicle Use
DLarge
Apartment
Multiple
Dwelling
Finally, large apartment dwellers are more likely to nse their car for entertainment or to travel in
and ant of Ithaca. Entertainment and car ownership can be treated as proxies of economic status.
Residents in more expensive apartment buildings are more likely to drive to entertainment than
residents who live in the more moderately priced multiple dwellings. The percentages for both
building types are relatively high in both categories, indicating a strong financial background for
both groups but that apartment residents are even wealthier.
Where people are driving influences how often they drive, bnt it is also important to understand
what alternatives to driving someone might have. An examination of all owners that drive "every
few days" gives the statistic that 55% of them have a roommate with a car, 31% have two or more
roommates with cars. These residents account for 25% of the population, 44% of car owners, and
are prime targets for car storage. The next section examines how Collegetown residents travel.
Travel Behavior
After all the discussion of high car ownership and use, an examination of all modes of travel by
residents gives a more balanced picture of how they get around. Walking was the most
frequently used mode of travel. Over 90% of respondents walk everyday. Cars hold the position
as the second most used mode with 90% of car owners driving everyday or every few days and
over 20% of non-owners carpooling a few times a week. Buses were the next most commonly
used mode and then bicycles, both at a relatively low rate.
21
1-
I
'
J
-,
Use of particular modes is heavily influenced by whether or not a resident owns a car. Car
owners walk in high numbers, 89% everyday and 6% every few days, but these numbers are
marginally lower than the 95% of non-owners who walk everyday. It is not a large difference,
but significant. As mentioned above, driving was the next most popular mode, with 49% of
owners driving everyday and 44% every few days. Non-owners carpool in lieu of driving. This
usually occurs a few times a week, and most likely for shopping and entertainment trips. Non-
owners use buses more consistently than owners, but only around 15% of the people use them
more often than once a week. Bicycles are used less frequently than any other mode and their use
didn't vary by car ownership.
Travel behavior is also dependent upon the type of building where someone lives. The most
notable differences for car owners are as follows:
20% more people in multiple dwellings drive everyday than apartment dwellers,
5% walk more from apartments than multiple dwellings,
residents in multiple dwellings use public transit and carpooling more than those in
apartments.
For non-owners there is little difference in travel characteristics between apartments and multiple
dwellings. They walk, bike, and carpool at comparable levels. But, there is a small difference in
their use of public transit. People in multiple dwellings use public transit on a semi-regular basis
while people in the apartments didn't report using transit.
22
I

I
I
\_ ;

I!
I
I
I
I .

23
I
11
I
I
OWNER/MANAGER SURVEY
The third step in the study of parking issues was a survey of Collegetown employers. For each
business an owner or manager was questioned about their employees, whether or not they provide
parking, their delivery schedule, perceptions of parking problems, and reactions to proposed
policy changes.
METHODOLOGY
Due to the relatively small number of businesses in Collegetown, each business was contacted in
a personal interview for the Owner/Manager Survey. A copy of the survey questionnaire may be
found in Appendix C. Interviews started in January and continued through late February, 2000.
The interviewers visited businesses at different times of day, emphasizing times when a manager
would be available to complete the survey. If someone wasn't available at the time of the visit,
alternative arrangements were made to complete a survey at a later date.
A total of 62 surveys were completed from approximately 80 businesses. Establishments that
weren't reached included businesses that were closed, unsupervised businesses (laundromats), or
ones with non-English speaking owners who were reluctant to participate. At times an inability
to communicate was an issue. Bars that are only open at night were also difficult to contact.
After excluding closed and non-staffed businesses, the response rate was approximately 80%.
Occasionally a survey was left with someone and collected later; the response rate was worse in
those cases.
RESULTS
Employees
The total number of employees in Collegetown is around 800. For the businesses interviewed,
60% of their workforce is part-time and 40% is full-time which translates into 480 part-time
employees and 320 full-time employees.
Land Use
Based on an inventory of Collegetown businesses, the breakdown of land use is as follows:
Restaurant/eatery/bar
Service
Retail
Combination of Retail and Service
Apartments
University
24
37%
30%
15%
7%
7%
4%
Supply of private parking
Only 36% of the businesses questioned supplied any type of private, off-street parking. Of those
that supply parking, full-time employees use most of the spaces (85% ). When applied to the
whole moratorium zone, these results indicate that approximately 80 spaces are exclusively
dedicated to the employees and customers of Collegetown businesses.
Deliveries
The term "delivery" was loosely applied in this study. It refers to trips made by the gamut of
vehicles, including UPS trucks, small delivery vans, and full sized trucks. No attempt was made
to determine how many stops a given vehicle made within Collegetown; if a truck stopped at five
businesses it was counted by each business as a delivery and as five deliveries into the area.
Most businesses (76%) in Collegetown receive some type of delivery on a regular basis.
Although there are a good number of daily deliveries, most are weekly and only a few are
monthly. Over a third of deliveries don't come at a specific time of day. Of those delivered at a
specific time of day, half arrive before noon and half after. Extrapolating the results to all
businesses gives an estimated 130 deliveries each day.
Owners and managers cited a wide range of problems with deliveries. The most common
response to inquiries about these problems was the lack of space for truck parking. A third of the
respondents thought that traffic inhibits deliveries. Almost a quarter of the respondents wrote in
answers, half of those written-in responses had some reference to existing loading zone
regulations not being enforced or being used illegally by cars instead of delivery trucks.
When asked whether or not they would be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in
Collegetown, the majority of people (68%) interviewed said no. Interestingly enough their
reasons weren't so much that they needed deliveries at specific times but that they saw
regulations as unenforceable or as causing difficulty for their supplier. They predicted that they
would lose suppliers or would have to pay a premium to have deliveries at a given time.
If time restrictions were put into effect, almost half of the respondents want deliveries made on
weekday mornings and the other half wants them mid-day during the week. Only a handful of
people expressed a preference for having deliveries made on the weekend.
25
~
I
J
J
IJ
Are customer needs being met?
In general, owners and managers felt that the parking needs of their customers were not being
met. A relatively small number of managers noted that their primary customers were students
and local residents who were within walking distance of their business. Many managers appeared
to be thinking about customers coming into Collegetown from other areas when they answered
the question; it is unknown whether these customers are pre-existing clientele or if they are
viewed as potential customers.
Contributions for a new parking facility
This question was left deliberately vague because, at the time of the survey, the City didn't know
how a new parking facility would be funded. Only 23% answered that they would help support a
new facility while 37% said they wouldn't, and a significant 39% said that they weren't sure.
Many of the "unsure" responses came from managers who weren't empowered to make that type
of decision or from someone reluctant to give an answer before they knew the financial impact to
be placed on businesses.
Tax-benefit bus passes
The final question of the survey was "Would you be interested in participating in a program to
provide a TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) bus pass (at $20 per month) to your
employees (the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)?" The
answers are as follows: 18% said yes, 63% said no, and the remaining 19% were unsure.
Discussing the question with employers revealed that many answered no because their current
employees wouldn't/couldn't ride the bus. The primary reasons given were that the employees
live close-by and walk or that they drive long distances from areas that aren't adequately served
by transit.
Comments
A number of owners and managers elected to add their comments at the end of the survey.
Management of the Dryden Road Garage was regularly cited as being a problem. Complaints
included parking fees, how the garage's permit system is organized, and the general lack of
enforcement of parking and traffic laws. Parking requirements were mentioned in a couple of
cases as was the poor condition of the roads in Collegetown. A complete list of these comments
is in Appendix D.
26
I
f-,
[I
I .
l
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EMPLOYEE SURVEY
27
I
i
\
~
-'
I ,
[_
EMPLOYEE SURVEY
The fourth step in the study of parking issues was a survey of Collegetown employees. They
were questioned about their work schedule, commute mode and distance, parking location and
costs, and reasons for not using public transportation.
METHODOLOGY
Design of the Employee Survey was loosely based on surveys that had been used for other
parking studies in Ithaca. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix F.
Due to the highly variable nature of Collegetown employees, a sampling technique that took each
variable into account was difficult to establish. As a result, surveys were given to all employees.
Survey distribution began in late January and collection continued until mid-March. Two
interviewers returned to the businesses to collect completed forms. The initial follow-up occurred
after two weeks and continued about once a week to collect completed surveys. Repeat visits
attempted to get as high a return rate as possible.
Of the 682 employees cited as working at Collegetown businesses, over 275 completed surveys.
This constitutes a response rate of approximately 40%. Accounting for the businesses that
weren't contacted in the Owner/Manager survey, the response rate is closer to 35%. Response
rates varied significantly by employment status. Among full-time employees the response rate
was close to 50% while the corresponding number for part-time employees was closer to 25%.
RESULTS
Self-reporting on employment status showed that 57% of respondents to the Employee Survey
were full-time employees. From the Owner/Manager Survey we learned that only 40% of
employees work full-time. This discrepancy, in who responded to the survey and the actual
proportions that work in College town, biases some of the results. Because the difference is
quantifiable some of the anticipated error was corrected. A note is made when this bias appears.
Employment Density
The number of employees working in Collegetown at a given time varies significantly by time of
day and the period of the week. During the week most employees start work between eight and
nine o'clock in the morning. Full-time employees are more likely to be working during the week
28
than are part-time employees. The highest percent of weekday employees (74%) work at two
o'clock in the afternoon. The corresponding values at other times of the day are 61% at 10 a.m.,
17% at 6 p.m. and 13% at 10 p.m. Most of these night-time workers are employed in restaurants,
bars and convenience stores.
Table 2-7: Number of Employees Working on a Typical Weekday
Time Number of Employees
6:00AM 20
!O:OOAM
2:00PM
6:00PM
!O:OOPM
355
430
100
80
Weekend workers tend to start later in the day, and there are more part-time workers than during
the week. Despite the relative increase in part-time employees, many full-time employees also
work on the weekend. Many of these full-time employees work 5 days a week, 4 during the week
and 1 day on the weekend. Most people start working in the late morning, but again, the highest
concentration of weekend employees (58%) occurs at two o'clock in the afternoon. At 6 p.m.
27% of weekend employees are working and at 10 p.m. the corresponding number is 39%.
Travel behavior
One of the most important characteristics of employee travel behavior is the modal split (the
proportion of people who use each transportation mode). Here, the results are biased by the
over-representation of full-time employees in the survey responses. In order to compensate for
this, one can look at the modal splits for each employment category separately or calculate a
composite modal split based on the relative proportions of full and part-time employees. Table 2-
8 gives both sets of information.
Table 2-8: Modal Split for Employee Work Commute
Mode* Part-time Full-time Composite
Drive and park 43% 71% 55%
Carpool 14% 8% 11%
Public Transit 7% 5% 6%
Walk 36% 16% 27%
*Bike was omitted because it represented less than 3% of the mode share
Within these results there is also variation tied to when someone works. This is likely a
consequence of whether or not someone is a student. For example, of part-time employees that
work on weekday mornings, 86% drive and park while only 10% walk. These people probably
29
I
\
'i..c;.
)
Ci
\ ~
I
,\
I
aren't students. Alternatively, 78% of part-time employees working on weekday afternoons walk
to work. These employees are probably students or they live in the neighborhood.
Some points worth noting are that: almost 80% of full-time employees use a car to get to work,
part-time employees walk more frequently than full-time employees, the level of public transit
use is comparable between the two groups, and carpooling is more popular amongst part -time
employees.
Parking characteristics
Given that over half of Collegetown employees drive to work, knowing where they park is
important in order to understand where they introduce demand. Other important factors are how
many employees park at different times and how much they pay to park. Table 2-9 outlines
where employees park.
Table 2-9: Parking Location for Employees
Location
Private, off-street parking
Dryden Road Garage
Metered, on-street parking
Free, on-street parking
Other
Percentage
26%
21%
29%
18%
5%
Combining tables 2-7,2-8, and 2-9 permits the calculation of how many employees park in a
given location at a given time
5
. Using these tables, we calculate that employees use 69 metered
spaces at 2 p.m. on a typical weekday. As another example: of the people that park in the Dryden
Road Garage, 39% reported owning a monthly permit. Using the tables, we estimate that 36
passes were sold to employees. One hundred day-permits were sold in February 2000 (see
Appendix M) and 48 additional parkers arrived between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. Both of these numbers
reasonably encompass the estimate of employees who own passes to the garage.
5
The calculation of the number of employee cars parked in metered spaces at 2 p.m. during the week, is
demonstrated below:
#in metered spaces at 2 p.m. = #people working at 2 p.m. (Table 2-7) x
% who drive (Table 2-8) x
% who park in metered spaces (Table 2-9)
= 431 (Table 2-7) x .55 (Table 2-8) x .29 (Table 2-9)
= 69 spaces
This is a relatively good estimate, some error is introduced because the relative numbers of part-time and
full-time employees working at 2 p.m. aren't taken into account.
30
Where an employee parks is closely related to how far they park from their place of work. The
distance from a parking location to the workplace can be an important factor in job satisfaction
and perception of the parking system. Discussions with employees stressed that many walk long
distances in order to reach work. The survey results don't substantiate this anecdotal information.
Figure 2-3 clearly illustrates that the vast majority of employees parks within 3 blocks of their
workplace and around half park less than a block away. Part-time employees are more likely to
park farther from their job site than full-time employees, but the overall pattern doesn't vary
much between the two groups.
Figure2-3: Distancebet\wenParking
Location and Work for Collegetown
49%
D Less 1han a block
i'll2 blocks
!13 blocks
4blocks
5 blocks or rmre
Although most employees are within 3 blocks, the 10% that park four or more blocks away
shouldn't be overlooked. Given the topography of Collegetown, walking more than four blocks
probably means a good hike up a hill on one leg of the trip. Free, on-street spaces are the most
common parking location that is a long distance from the workplace. Whether this is an issue of
economics or availability is uncertain, although both are plausible.
Employees were also asked if parking was provided by, or paid for, by their employer. Of part-
time employees 10% had parking provided for them. Almost a quarter of full-time employees
were given parking. In cases where the employer paid for parking, the employee normally parks
in a private, off-street location or in the Dryden Road Parking Garage.
31
I
'
I
il
I
I
I
The average monthly parking fee for all employees who drive to Collegetown is $19. Most part
time employees (70%) pay less than that while 30% pay more. Conversely, 32% of full time
employees pay less and 68% pay more. The median parking fee for part-time employees is
between $20 and $40 a month. Full-time employees' median parking fee is between $80 and
$100 per month. Comparing these values is difficult because they depend on how much an
employee pays versus how many hours they work. The information to perform this comparison
was provided by the survey; but, at this time the calculation isn't warranted.
Public Transportation
The final question of the employee survey asked whether or not the employee would be more
inclined to use public transportation to go to work if they got a free TCAT bus pass. In response,
22% said yes, 64% said no, and 14% said that the question didn't apply to them. Although the
overall response gives some indication of how well the idea was received, we get more
information by looking at the responses by current travel mode. Table 2-10 outlines these results.
Table 2-10: Interest in Free Public Transportation by Current Mode of Travel*
Mode Yes No N/A
Drive and Park 14% 72% 14%
Carpool 11% 67% 22%
Walk 22% 59% 18%
* The survey questton was: "If your employer gave you a TCAT bus
pass at no cost to you, would you be more inclined to use public
transportation to come to work?"
The most important results are those tied to people who currently drive. Of them, 14% said that
they would be more inclined to take public transit if they were given a free bus pass. Although
this might be less than what one would like to see, it corresponds to 62 people who, if they started
to commute by bus, would open up parking spaces for visitors. The remaining people who
expressed interest in free bus passes currently use environmentally friendly modes of
transportation: carpooling and walking. In general, these people shouldn't be encouraged to
change modes as it adds pressure to the transit system without adding any benefits.
32
f
I
1-
I
I
! \
f .
I \
I .
I .
I
I ,
I '
PARKING USAGE SURVEY
33
i
I '
PARKING USAGE SURVEY
The Parking Usage Survey is the first element in the series of parking surveys. The goal of the
parking surveys was to determine how the current parking system is being used and to examine
certain aspects of parking in detail.
SCOPE
The purpose of the Parking Usage Survey was to determine the impact of overnight and long-
term parking in on-street parking by area residents. The entire moratorium region and some
adjoining blocks were included in the survey (refer to Map 5). The moratorium committee
established this survey area. Results from the adjoining blocks were for reference purposes only
and were not included in the analysis.
METHODOLOGY
The usage survey was repeated on three different days. The survey dates were January 5, 2000,
March 1, 2000, and May 3, 2000. Those dates reflect times when Cornell classes weren't in
session, when classes were in session and a second day when classes were in session and the
parking regulation had been changed to "24 Hour Parking" from "Odd-Even Parking."
The following process was followed on each date:
Walked the designated area at 5:30a.m., marked the front tire of each parked car at the
twelve o'clock position and counted the number of parked cars on each block. Cars in
the Dryden Road garage were counted but not chalked.
At 9:30a.m., walked the same region (following the same path), this time counting how
many cars were parked and how many of them had been continuously parked since the
first count. If the location of the chalk mark hadn't moved from the twelve o'clock
position the car was assumed to have been parked since the early count.
The above step was repeated at 1:30 p.m. and 5:30p.m.
Each circuit started half an hour before the scheduled survey time and took approximately one
hour, finishing half an hour after the survey time. Results were recorded for the survey hour.
RESULTS
The fact that the same survey was completed on three different days allows us to compare their
results. Assessing the differences between the "Off-season" survey and the "Odd-Even" or "24
Hour" surveys demonstrates the impact Cornell University has on the Collegetown neighborhood
34
COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY SURVEY AREAS
ITHACA NY 2000
[J}\\1 Usage Survey Area
~ Evening Survey Area
Moratorium Area
SCALE: 1" = 500'
A
MAPS
.)
I
I
,I
'
( i
bi
i
I '
in terms of on-street parking. Then, quantifying the differences between the "Odd-Even" and "24
Hour" surveys shows how driver behavior changed as a result of parking regulations.
Off-season
A total of 115 cars were parked in the 410 on-street spaces during the early count. These are
assumed to belong to area residents and to have been parked overnight. Of those cars parked at 6
a.m, 41 or 36% were still parked at two o'clock in the afternoon. The usage rates
6
for all on-
street parking spaces within the moratorium boundary were 15% at 6 a.m., 27% at 10 a.m., 27%
at 2 p.m., and 23% at 6 p.m. More specific details from the survey are available in Appendix I.
In-season
For comparison purposes the results of the two surveys done while Cornell was in session will be
presented side by side. The two surveys are distinguished by the parking regulation in effect at
the time of the survey. More detailed information on the results of these parking surveys are
available in Appendices K and L.
Table 2-11: Summary of Results, In-season Parking Usage Surveys
Odd-Even Parking 24 Hour Parking
March 1, 2000 May 3,2000
Overnight ~ a r k i n g
Free, on-street 349 416
Meter, on-street 93 124
Dryden Garage 90 87
Total 532 627
Usage rates (for all public parking)
6a.m. 68% 80%
10 a.m. 90% 99%
2p.m. 93% 96%
6p.m. 81% 87%
Looking first at the overnight parking, almost 100 more cars park in the area when 24-hour
parking rules were in effect. This is explained by the increase in overnight street capacity due to
the change in parking regulation. With the addition of capacity, it was easier for people to find a
parking space, therefore more people chose to park there. There was essentially no change in the
number of overnight parkers in the Dryden Road Garage.
6
A "usage rate" is the percentage of spaces that are in use at a given time.
36
During the rest of the day the change in parking regulation had no effect on the on-street capacity.
Despite this, there were changes in the usage rates. The most dramatic difference was at 10 a.m.
when the usage rate was at 90% for odd-even regulations but jumped to 99% under the 24-hour
regulation. Similarly, usage rates went up at 2 p.m. and at 6 p.m.
The usage survey also gave information on how many cars didn't move during the day. In the
future this will be referred to as storage parking. The results are summarized in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12: Continuously Parked Cars (Storage Parking)
At 6:00am Until Until Until
!O:OOam 2:00pm 6:00pm
Meter 93 65% 38% 15%
Odd-Even Free 349 85% 76% 58%
Total 442 80% 68% 49%
Meter 124 52% 31% 12%
24 hr. Free 416 83% 69% 47%
Total 540 76% 60% 39%
Examining these results shows that more cars were left for longer periods of time when odd-even
parking regulations were in effect. This is true in both metered and un-metered spaces and at
every survey time. A possible explanation is that people who use their cars frequently have more
trouble finding parking spaces with odd-even regulations and are forced to park outside the
moratorium boundary. With 24 hour parking there is more room to accommodate everyone,
giving the more active drivers an opportunity to park in the area which used to be inaccessible to
them. Although there are higher percentages for storage parking with the odd-even regulations,
the absolute number of stored cars is still higher under 24 hour parking because of the larger
population of cars.
37
t
. '
i
I
I ,
I
i
.- I
LICENSE PLATE SURVEY
38
I.
\
LICENSE PLATE SURVEY
SCOPE
The purpose of the License Plate Survey was to understand how the metered spaces and spaces in
the Dryden Road Garage are being used. The only blocks included in this survey were those with
metered parking and the Dryden Road Garage.
METHODOLOGY
The survey was completed on March 7, 2000, a Tuesday during the academic year at Cornell.
Starting at eight o'clock in the morning, two people walked through the study area and copied
down the license plate number for each car parked in a metered space or in the garage. At the
same time a note was made if the meter had expired and if the car had been ticketed. In the
Dryden Road Garage an effort was made to note whether or not each car had a parking permit.
This procedure was repeated every hour from eight o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the
evening. Each round took about 45 minutes.
RESULTS
Parking Duration
How long people park in assorted types of parking spaces gives insight into who they are and
how well the parking system is performing. Approximately 70% of the cars that used metered
spaces parked for two hours or less. Of the remaining vehicles, 20% parked between two and six
hours and the rest parked for more than six hours.
In the parking garage, the parking duration was more variable. There, 39% parked for two hours
or less, 28% parked between two and six hours, and 32% parked for more than six hours. This
reflects the mix of customers who use the garage on a daily basis. People parking for more than
six hours are probably full time employees or residents. Short-term parkers (less than two hours)
are likely to be customers. Mid-range parkers could be part-time employees or visitors to the
area. Figure 2-4 gives more detail about the volume of cars and the parking duration in metered
spaces and the parking garage.
39
300
~
250
" u
:a
200
"
>
"-'
150 0
"
" .0
100
s
p
z 50
0
<1
Feeding meters
Figure2-4
Paid Parking! Daytime Parking Duration
2 3 4 5
Length of Stay(ho11113)
6 7+
I'JNumberof
Vehicles( in
metered
spaces)
Number of
V ehicles(in
Garage)
For our purposes, "feeding" a parking meter is defined as adding money to the same parking
meter for over four continuous hours. There were 97 instances of meter feeding during the ten-
hour span of the license plate survey. Ownership information wasn't gathered for the cars but by
looking at when the cars first parked, we can generalize about who they are. People who were
parked since 6 a.m. were most likely residents while people who arrived between 8 a.m. and 10
a.m. were probably employees. Based on those assumptions, a third of the people feeding meters
were residents and the remainder were employees.
Average parking demand and usage rates
The average daytime (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) demand for metered, on-street parking spaces was 119 out
of the total 149 spaces. This represents a ten-hour average usage rate of 80%. The maximum
number of spaces used during the survey period was 127. This number was reached four times
during the survey, between one o'clock and three o'clock in the afternoon and between five
o'clock and seven o'clock at night.
The average daytime demand for spaces in the Dryden Road Parking Garage was 173 spaces out
of the total 217 (3 handicapped) spaces. The maximum number of spaces used was 204; this
number was reached between noon and one o'clock.
40
.L
'
I
I
riJ
'
I
\---
1
I
I
!
! '
/ -,
\
={. __
----
'
For all paid, public parking spaces in Collegetown, the average daytime demand was 292 spaces.
This accounts for 80% of the available spaces. More detailed information about parking trends
over time is available in Appendix L.
Parking violations
The number of cars in violation of parking regulations was alarming. A variety of violations
were noted during the survey. They included two cars parking in a single metered space, not
paying meters, parking in front of a fire hydrant, exceeding posted time limits, and parking in
areas not designated for parking. A total of 150 cars exceeded the posted two-hour time limit for
metered spaces out of the 523 cars that used them during the survey. Of people who didn't pay
the meter for all or part of their stay, their cars accumulated a total of 557 expired meter hours
and over $275 in lost meter revenue for the day.
During the ten-hour period of the survey, 52 tickets were issued. In some cases, more than one
ticket was issued to a car. Multiple tickets were given to cars that had been ticketed the previous
day and had not moved. On the day of the survey, Community Service Officers were not
observed in the Collegetown area until noon. Then it was unclear what method was followed in
issuing tickets since violating cars on a single block were not all issued tickets. Instead, a couple
of cars were ticketed on one pass, a few more were ticketed on the next pass, and so on.
Eventually most cars in high use areas were ticketed, but not always. If one ticket per car had
been issued for each violation, 170 tickets should have been issued. This constitutes a significant
loss in revenue, but more importantly it means that there were spaces inaccessible for their
intended use: parking for visitors and clients.
41
1
, i
I ,
( \
~
I ,
I
Col!egetown Parking Study
EVENING PARKING SURVEY
42
EVENING PARKING SURVEY
SCOPE
The purpose of the Evening Parking Survey was to quantify the availability of on-street parking
for evening activities in Collegetown (including, but not limited to, patronage of restaurants, bars,
and the Center for Theatre Arts).
METHODOLOGY
The evening survey was repeated on three different days. The survey dates were February 29,
March 11, and March 31, 2000. Those dates coincide with an evening during the week, one on a
weekend, and one on a weekend with a performance scheduled at the Center for Theatre Arts.
The area included in the survey was from the northern border of the moratorium to East Seneca
and Catherine Streets in the South and from Osmun Place in the West and Elmwood Avenue in
the East. The eastern and western borders extend beyond the moratorium boundary but were
included because they are in close proximity to the heatt of evening activities (refer to Map 5).
Again, the moratorium committee helped establish this survey area.
The following process was followed on each date:
Two people walked the designated area at 6:00p.m. and counted the number of available
public parking spaces (on-street and in the Dryden Road Garage).
The above step was repeated every hour through 1:00 a.m. The same route was followed for
each count and took about 20 minutes.
RESULTS
Usage rates
The utilization rates for the Dryden Road Garage varied dramatically with each survey (see
Figure 2-6). During the weekday survey, usage rates varied between a low of 54% at eleven p.m.
to a high of 71% at six p.m. In general, the usage rate decreased slowly over the course of the
evening. Rates during the weekend survey ranged between 67% at one o'clock in the morning
and 100% at seven o'clock at night. Here activity peaked at seven o'clock and midnight with a
lull in between. Finally, for the weekend survey with a performance, the usage rates varied
between 86% and 100%. In this case the garage was almost full eight o'clock and stayed that
way through midnight. The only exception was a drop in occupancy at ten o'clock.
43
Figure 2-5
Dryden Road Garage: Evening Utilization Rates
100%
90%
80%
70%
l
60%
a weekday
l 50%
IJWeekend
~
Weekend with
J
40%
30%
20%
,,.
0%
18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00
Time of Day
Results for on-street parking weren't as dramatically different as they were for the garage (see
Figure 2-6). Throughout the weekday survey, use ranged between 75% (at one a.m.) and 84% (at
ten p.m.). There were minor peaks at seven and ten o'clock but the variation was minimal.
Figure2-6
On-street Parking: Evening Utilization Rates
" ~
aweekrllzy

w
!
Cweekend
~
weekem. with
~
PerfoiTJlal:e
"

18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00
Time of Day
44
t
i
During the weekend survey the rates varied from 81% to 94% and the usage rate was essentially
constant between six p.m. and midnight. When there was a performance during the survey the
usage rates were again constant between six and ten o'clock and then jumped slightly (to 95%)
for the rest of the night. So, there was little difference between the two weekend surveys despite
the added demand introduced by the performance.
45
I
I '
~
CHAPTER3
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
! i
'
I .
( 1.
I
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The following discussion integrates the results from the various surveys in the context of the elements of
the current parking system These elements include the assorted types of on-street (metered and free) and
off-street (Dryden Road Garage and private) spaces. In addition, a short discussion of business related
issues speaks to their unique needs.
ON-STREET
Metered spaces
Supply and Demand
There is currently a supply of 149 spaces that are metered for two hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. The
demand for these spaces varies by time of day and period of the week. The lowest demand is on
weeknights and peak demand is on weekend nights. There was no point during the parking study when
all metered spaces were used concurrently.
Current Use
The utilization rates for metered parking spaces as a whole are within the target levels. But, it is
important not to overlook the variation in usage rates by block. In general, the blocks closest to the heart
of Collegetown are nearly all full while those blocks farthest away have usage rates closer to 50 or 60%.
Hourly utilization rates for all metered spaces reach 85%
7
between noon and 3 p.m. and again from 5 p.m.
to 7 p.m. Usage rates exceed 85% on Friday and Saturday nights when the spaces aren't metered.
Most of the cars that use metered spaces do so within the posted time limits (2 hours or less); but those
that don't significantly limit available parking capacity. As noted in the results for the License Plate
Survey, 9% of cars parked at meters for more than six hours. These parkers use a third of the supply of
metered spaces all day. The 20% who park for an average of four hours use another third of the parking
spaces. These parking durations are more consistent with the behavior of employees and residents than
with visitors. So realistically, at any time during the day, only a third of the metered spaces are available
for visitors.
Tied to the issue of parking duration, is "meter feeding." From the Parking Usage Survey we know that
approximately 25% of the metered spaces had cars parked in them from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. This means that
7
85% is generally taken to be the optimum level of utilization by parking professionals. The 15% of unused
capacity allow new parkers to find a parking space with relative ease.
46
at least a third of the people feeding meters are residents while the remaining two thirds are probably
employees (either in Collegetown or at Cornell).
Desired Use
Metered spaces represent the only guaranteed short-term parking spaces in Collegetown. As such, their
use should be dedicated to the needs of customers patronizing the shops, businesses, and restaurants of
Collegetown. Although the parking studies showed that there is sufficient capacity in metered spaces
during the day, they also show that these spaces are predominately used by residents and employees. If
employees are displaced from met,ered spaces they could relocate into the garage, but this would
exacerbate capacity issues during high-peak periods like the lunch hour. A better alternative would be to
find other locations for employee parking that don't displace clientele.
Enforcement will be the most crucial component in shifting the mix of users back towards visitors and
away from employees and residents. It must be more consistent and there needs to be a method (such as
chalking tires) to combat meter feeding. Shortening time limits on high use blocks is also a way to
increase turnover and raising meter prices will discourage long-term parking.
Free spaces
Supply and Demand
The current supply of free spaces is around 410 spaces. Except during overnight hours when usage rates
dip to 80%, these spaces are over-utilized. Parking demand jumps to essentially 100% of the supply
during the middle part of the day. The demand demonstrated by residents alone exceeds the on-street
parking supply within the moratorium boundary.
Current Use
Most of the demand for these spaces comes from local residents who have convenient access to them all
day long and more importantly, overnight. Four out of five resident-owned cars that are parked on-street
belong to owners who live in multiple dwelling units. Depending on which on-street regulations were in
effect, the percentage of those cars parked overnight that were still parked at six o'clock the following
night varied between 40% and 50%. Some of these cars probably continue to park for over 24 hours
although the surveys can not substantiate this opinion. Residential parking decreases modestly during the
day when some cars are in use and then increases again in the evening when people are returning home.
47
As residents filter out of the neighborhood during the day, employees for Collegetown businesses and
Cornell fill in the gaps. Collegetown employees use approximately 40, or I 0% of available spaces.
During the week, most full-time employees average an eight-hour workday, which means that they
monopolize their parking space throughout the day. When free on-street spaces aren't available,
e,mployees are forced to park in metered spaces, in the garage (if there is room) or on-streets farther away.
Once employees and residents have parked, visitor parking within easy access of apartments or houses in
the moratorium area is negligible.
Desired Use
The sections of on-street spaces that aren't metered are far enough from businesses and Cornell to be
considered inconvenient by their visitors. These spaces should be used to a certain degree by residents,
employees, and residential visitors. Ideally, the level of residential use should decrease to around 65% of
the daytime capacity, leaving more room for employees and visitors. Accomplishing these levels will
require a high degree of regulation. Although dramatically lowering the level of residential parking,
without regulating the new supply, could encourage more employees or commuters to drive.
OFF-STREET
Private
Supply and Demand
There is an estimated supply of almost 1800 privately owned, off-street parking spaces. This number
includes a Comelllot, spaces in apartment buildings, paved lots, and driveways. Parking at residences is,
by far, the largest component of this private, off-street parking. Specific numbers were not collected on
how many of these spaces are in use on a given day.
Based on observation and anecdotal information most, if not all, of this capacity is being used. For
instance, the Cornell parking lot on Stewart and Williams Streets sold permits for all of its spaces, 312
College Ave. reported that all of their residential spaces were rented, and a resident reported that he was
unable to rent a space in the Linden Ave garage. How many people are using paved backyards and
driveways is the largest unknown factor, but again, observation would support the conclusion that almost
all of the spaces were rented during the school year.
48
Current Use
Off-street spaces are used by residents and employees and to a smaller extent, patrons of Collegetown
businesses. Residents use the vast majority of the spaces because they comprise the largest fraction of the
population.
Desired Use
The only point worth making here is that these spaces should be used all of the time. For the most part,
this is already happening. In cases where a business has spaces that go unused for a period of time,
arrangements should be made to rent it to someone who can use it. On-street spaces are naturally shared,
and although this isn't as easy to implement in off-street locations, it should be encouraged there as much
as possible.
Public
Supply and Demand
The Dryden Road Garage is essentially the only facility that provides public parking off-street. It has 217
spaces; among them are 3 handicap spaces. For the majority of the week this size appears to be
satisfactory for the demonstrated demand but it fills to capacity on a regular basis. Demand for spaces in
the garage is generated from a variety of sources, namely residents, Collegetown employees, visitors,
patrons, and people going to performances at Cornell's Center for Theatre Arts.
Current Use
During the day, 39% of cars are parked for two hours or less, 28% for two to six hours, and 32% for more
than six hours. This is a good mix for the garage. It accommodates the long-term parking needs of some
employees, short-term demand for shoppers, and mid-range needs of visitors and part-time employees.
Usage levels in the garage vary by time of day and part of the week. On weekdays, use steadily increases
throughout the morning, peaks at lunchtime, and then decreases until the evening hours. Evening use
heavily depends on the part of the week and whether or not special activities are taking place.
Weeknights there is a local peak around seven p.m., but utilization stays well below optimal levels. On
weekends, utilization rates go from below optimal use to 100%. The garage is even busier on weekend
nights with performances, at this time rates are above optimal levels. Obviously, the garage is a popular
parking location for theatergoers.
49
r
'
)
'
1-
Residents account for the majority of overnight parkers in the garage and around a third of the garage
capacity during the day. Employees use almost another third of the spaces; the highest levels are when
the highest number of employees are working, around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Other garage users
include visitors, commuters to Cornell, and patrons. The bulk of the demand from this group comes
around lunchtime. They account for the remaining used capacity at noon and on weekend evenings.
Overnight parking in the garage introduces some enforcement issues. By posted regulation, only cars
with permits may park overnight. In February, 64 overnight permits were sold but during one of the
usage surveys, 90 cars were parked before 6 a.m. This means that 25% to 30% of the cars were parked in
the garage illegally. Not only does this represent a loss of income for the City, but also illustrates where a
lack of enforcement is undermining the effectiveness of the current parking system.
As detailed by the discussion, there are times when the garage is underused and others when it is over-
used. The garage is underutilized overnight (on weekends after 1:00 a.m.), on weeknights (after 5:00
p.m.) and during the summer (based on low permit sales). The garage is over-utilized around lunchtime
during the week (11:30 a.m. to 2:30p.m.), and on weekend evenings. It is also possible that there are
problems on weekend days.
Desired Use
It should be a goal of this review of the parking situation to optimize the level of utilization for the garage
(around 90%) at all times of day, year-round. As noted above there are periods of over and under-
utilization of the garage. These dips and peaks should be equalized as much as possible.
Overnight parking should be encouraged. There is obviously demand for these spaces, but they are
inaccessible to those who choose not to purchase monthly passes. Ideally, more of the capacity would be
used overnight by residents, but given that there isn't room for them during the day, it will be a hard sell.
Pricing is probably the easiest way to do this. Summer months are particularly difficult given that the
population of the area is drastically reduced. Permit prices are already lowered during this period but
realistically, there is usually enough on-street capacity to accommodate people for free leaving little
reason, other than convenience, to use the garage. This could be an opportunity to aid employees and
businesses by pricing permits even lower.
As for time periods when the garage is over-utilized, pricing is really the only way to address the issue.
Increasing fees on weekend evenings and nights with performances will lower the demand for the spaces
50
and raise the turnover. Raising prices during the lunch hour would have a similar effect. But because the
garage is designed to accommodate people for longer periods of time, it is important not to scare long-
term parkers away with fees that are too high.
BUSINESS ISSUES
Deliveries
Deliveries have been a problem for a long time and might always be an issue in Collegetown. In a most
basic sense the geometry of the roads aren't conducive to large trucks or a high volume of deliveries.
Although there is a loading zone on each block, the allotted space isn't always sufficient, more than one
truck could be trying to make a delivery, and frequently other cars park illegally in these spaces.
Largely because of the limited space and the volume of deliveries, trying to compress all deliveries into a
shorter time period would be very disruptive to the flow of traffic. As it is, many delivery trucks double-
park because a loading zone isn't available. Unrestricted deliveries allow trucks to be on the road at any
time of the day, but mandating that all the trucks arrive within a short period of time could make the roads
impassable. Adding restrictions will also place a considerable burden on business owners and could limit
their economic viability by forcing them to pay a premium for specific delivery times. This would also
add the burden of enforcement onto a municipal agency when enforcement is already a challenge.
Customer needs
Given the high density of population in the Collegetown area, it is reasonable to expect that businesses get
a majority of their customers from within the Collegetown area. This is not to say that people outside of
Collegetown shouldn't be able to patronize these businesses, but that the amount of parking resources
accorded to them is limited.
When business owners and managers say that the parking needs of their customers are not being met this
could either mean that they are expecting too many people to come from outside of Collegetown, or that
the existing parking options for the level of incoming traffic are inadequate. I wouldn't disagree that the
resources are inadequate, but actively managing the existing parking is a more effective approach than
adding new capacity especially in the short term. High turnover must be encouraged through enforcement
in the metered spaces and the parking garage should be used more effectively.
Allowing businesses to validate parking is an option to attract more outside customers, but it could
aggravate existing parking conditions by bringing more cars into the area. Once decisions have been
51
I
f-
I :
I I
made about how the parking system will change, this idea should be revisited by the City and
Col!egetown businesses. Discussion should address how validation could be integrated into the parking
system and its relative advantages and disadvantages.
Employee needs
Addressing the unique needs of employees will probably be the most challenging part of redefining
Collegetown's parking system. One advantage is that the population of non-student employees is
relatively small, so any special arrangements needn't be too extensive. But conversely, dealing with a
small group means that there is little room for economies of scale. An added complication is that a
fraction of the population is extremely sensitive to the cost of parking.
For employees who pay for their own parking, a parking fee naturally has its largest impact on low-
income employees. The cost of parking can influence whether or not they can afford to drive to work and
when driving is their only option, it dictates whether they can work there. The 1999 median income in
the City of Ithaca was $17,738 (ref 1999 Municipal Reference Guide, Natural Resource Directories).
This is moderately higher than national averages for the low-income occupations typically found in
Collegetown. The U.S. Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates of median monthly
incomes for full-time employees (1998) are between $1000 and $1400 for common Collegetown
occupations (such as hairdressers, cooks, and waiters). If an employee always parks in the Dryden Road
Garage or in metered spaces, they could easily pay over 5% of their salary for parking. Part-time
employees could pay an even higher percentage of their wages to cover parking fees.
Currently over half of Co!legetown employees drive to work. Whether or not they need to should be the
subject of further studies or an issue to be addressed by employers. Because solutions depend on the
specifics of where people live and what their needs are, employers are in a better position to identify and
meet the unique needs of their employees. The City on the other hand needs to focus its attentions on
making sure that the different types of parking are being used appropriately.
Employees should be encouraged to park in areas that aren't appropriate for visitors. This includes
locations farther outside the center of Collegetown, either in permit areas or in private lots. A relatively
straightforward solution would be to purchase or rent (either the City or the Collegetown Business
Association) a parking lot in Collegetown for the express use of employees. A lot, or combination of lots,
which holds 100 cars would accommodate almost all employees who currently park on-street. Ideally,
any solution for employees will be a combination of reducing demand and improving services.
52
Policy Issues
New Parking Facility
There really aren't any clear conclusions to draw from the results of the question about funding a parking
facility. If businesses were seriously concerned about having to get more customers into the area then
there should have been more support for funding a garage. That almost a quarter of the respondents were
willing to help with funding isn't insignificant, but without more support it will be difficult to institute
any sort of benefit assessment district. There could be ways of compensating businesses that do
contribute (provide employee or visitor parking), but the administration of such a program could be
complex and time consuming.
If a new parking facility is used exclusively for residential parking, convincing businesses to help with its
financing will be extremely difficult. If the facility accommodates visitors and patrons, more work needs
to be done with the businesses, both explaining the philosophy of the project and garnering support for it.
Bus Passes
The federal government allows businesses to provide a subsidy to help employees pay for their commute
to work. This subsidy can come in the form of parking or transit subsidies. These employee benefits are
tax-deductible for the employer and tax-free for the employee. Both are considered to be part of the
employee's salary and as such wouldn't change the outlay cost for the employer.
Without changing bus schedules or routes, subsidized transit would have a limited effect on the number of
cars in the area. The traditional workweek is the time of day best served by transit, but the full-time
employees who work then are less interested in transit than part -time employees. Longer commute times
are less of an imposition for someone working the entire day compared with someone who has a similar
commute time but only works for three hours.
Selling low-cost bus passes in bulk to Collegetown businesses is a way to introduce bus use to more
employees. To get any significant ridership there need to be changes in the system that better meet the
needs of employees. Options like expanding bus service to low density areas are probably not
economical, and in the same respect extending hours of service would be a financial burden. An option
worth exploring further is paratransit systems where routes and times are flexible enough to accommodate
the variety of needs encompassed by these employees.
53
i
1-
I
I_
CHAPTER4
RECOMMENDATIONS
~ ~
\- J
College town Parking Study
RECOMMENDATIONS
Parking needs are dynamic. They have a dramatic influence on, and are influenced by, the neighborhoods
in which they are generated. They can also be addressed in very different ways, from major construction
of new parking spaces to replacing some automobile uses with public transit. Each has its pros and cons
and each involves tradeoffs. There is no one solution that will neatly satisfy all the needs and concerns
identified in the recent surveys of people who live, work, or invest in Collegetown.
This section outlines some general recommendations for the different components of a parking program.
Because specific changes must be done in the context of a parking system, these recommendations are
purposely vague. There are five major components that may be changed in the existing parking program.
They are:
1) Off-street parking requirements (specified in the zoning ordinance);
2) The number of parking spaces available (on- and off-street);
3) Regulations governing the use of on-street parking;
4) Management of the Dryden Road Garage; and
5) The growth of future parking demand.
Some of these items are easily changed. Others require ingenuity and persistence to change. All depend
on consistent enforcement and compliance if the system as a whole is to function properly.
In addition to these general recommendations, a series of alternative parking programs is included in the
appendix. Each of the alternatives is designed as a separate parking program in its own right, and the
actions recommended under each can be used as a guideline for implementation at the end of the
moratorium. The alternatives differ by their philosophy concerning development for Collegetown.
Parking is so closely tied to development, growth, and transportation that it is shortsighted to make
decisions about parking without first examining long-term development and mobility goals. Due to the
lack of a long-range development plan for Collegetown, or direction by Common Council, recommending
a specific parking program is premature. If Collegetown' s past development trends are accepted to guide
future development, Alternative B, Alternative C, or a combination of the two is the most appropriate
parking program. If the City's development philosophy has changed, the appropriate program would
likely fall along the lines of Alternative A or Alternative D.
Within any alternative, elements may be fine-tuned as circumstances require or parts of alternatives may
be combined. It should be remembered, however, that each alternative has been designed as a system, not
54
a collection of independent actions. Any changes proposed must be examined carefully because of the
potential to shift the equilibrium of the system and make it less effective.
As part of each parking program, short -term recommendations are included to address immediate needs.
They are meant to reduce the current competition for parking while longer-term improvements are made,
but they are inadequate as a complete parking system. Some of the recommendations are temporary fixes
while others can be implemented immediately and are intended to remain for the long-term.
Policy Changes
Unified Organization
The need to treat parking as a system of interrelated parts has been a pervasive theme. In order to
accomplish this, there needs to be a clear sense among City departments of what the goals for the parking
system are, and who is in charge of realizing the goals.
Within the current organizational structure there are at least three primary entities that make decisions
about parking. The Department of Public Works manages personnel and maintenance at all city garages,
and the City Chamberlain's office sells the garages' monthly permits, assembles their financial records,
and collects the city's parking fines. The Ithaca Police Department is the primary enforcer of traffic and
parking rules. In addition to those offices, the Building Department issues zoning variances for things
like lot coverage which are frequently requested in order to provide additional parking.
It is unclear how much communication goes on between these departments or if there is a designated
protocol for it. Too often it appears that decisions are made and communicated to the other groups after
the fact and without discussion of how the change might impact parking as a whole.
For example, this study was initiated by Common Council and has been overseen by the Department of
Planning and Development. During the study, parking fines have been raised and meters in Collegetown
have been replaced. Neither of these actions was necessarily wrong, but the decisions would have been
better informed had they been made after this study. These decisions overlooked the fact that a parking
study was in progress, and that its results could have implications on the intended changes.
Probably the easiest way to avoid these situations is to have a single person, or department, that handles
all issues related to parking. Having all parking decisions go through one place will reduce the number
of, and potential for, isolated decisions and miscommunication.
55
I
l-
/!
Improved Enforcement
Enforcement is the single most important factor in any parking program. Without enforcement in areas
that have high parking demand, drivers will abuse the parking system. As soon as people start abusing
the system, individual components of the system fail, negating the effectiveness of the system as a whole.
Whenever someone abuses the system, it takes an opportunity away from someone else and shifts the
equilibrium of the system.
If one thing in CoUegetown is changed, it must be enforcement. Specific goals should be to:
enforce time limits at meters,
eliminate illegal parking in the garage (particularly overnight), and
enforce on-street regulations.
Enforcing time limits is labor intensive, but in the case of CoUegetown, very necessary. Without it, the
shortage of short -term parking will limit the number of visitors that can patronize businesses. Monitoring
illegal parking in the garage is relatively easy. It could simply be going through the garage between two
a.m. and five a.m., checking that all cars have permits, and ticketing (or towing) those that don't. Doing
this intensively at the beginning of each semester and then two or three times randomly during a week for
the rest of the semester should be sufficient to deter iUegal parking. Finally, the enforcement of on-street
regulations varies by the type of regulation. At a minimum, enforcement officers should make rounds at
irregular intervals, on a regular basis. The combination of these efforts will be the most effective way to
manage how and where different members of the community park.
Off-street Parking Requirements
The current zoning ordinance isn't working effectively in CoUegetown. The parking requirement in the
ordinance needs to be updated to promote the type of development and environment that the City wants
for CoUegetown. Parking ratios should be increased to provide for future development and reflect the
existing demand. There should also be more flexibility in how the parking requirements are met. The
high volume of cars in Collegetown makes an enormous impact on the neighborhood, from noise and air
poUution to adverse effects of backyards being paved for parking. It may be in the City's best interest to
consolidate parking into a few facilities. This would limit these adverse effects to a smaller area and
decrease the demand for converted backyards.
In order to reduce the environmental impact of cars, the City should aUow developers to pay a mitigation
fee instead of demanding on-site parking. This increased flexibility aUows smaller parcels to be
redeveloped and parking to be moved outside the core of CoUegetown. Mitigation fees give the City
56
more opportunity to encourage alternative transportation, lower parking demand, and help finance a new
parking facility.
Parking Regulations
Due to the fact that on-street parking is in such high demand, it needs to be heavily restricted in order to
ensure adequate space for different segments of the population. Intense restrictions will also encourage
residents to use long-term parking facilities for their cars instead of storing them on the street. The most
restrictive regulation would be to eliminate on-street parking, but this would reduce the number of usable
spaces from everyone's use. An alternative is to implement a residential parking system similar to the
one currently used in the Rl and R2 zones. A penni! should only be valid on the block where the resident
lives and parking should be by permit all day long. By limiting the sale of permits the City can
effectively decide how many cars will be parked on a street. To increase street capacity, remaining
spaces could be accessible through the use of in-vehicle meters (whose sale would also be restricted).
Combining the two allows for complete control over the supply of on-street parking.
A less restrictive regulation would be to install more metered spaces on residential blocks (with a four-
hour limit). The intent would be that only short-term parkers would use them. Assuming regular
enforcement, they would be available for residential visitors and part-time employees who need to park
for three to four hours. Leaving the metering in effect 24 hours a day would discourage use by residents
and more reliably ensure space for visitors. If this approach is chosen it is important to follow up with a
turnover study after four to six months to verify that the average parking duration doesn't exceed four
hours and that they aren't full all of the time.
Another recommendation is to tum meters in the most heavily used areas into 30-minute parking. This
would accomplish two things: 1) make the spaces available for quick trips to businesses and restaurants,
and 2) make more space available for deliveries. Extending the number of loading zones would be an
inefficient use of on-street capacity, but having high turnover in metered spaces would increase their
availability for deliveries.
Additional Supply
This falls under the category of the number of available parking spaces. As mentioned earlier, the
specific details of supply changes are discussed within the proposed solutions, but this is a good place to
discuss the basics of parking supply.
57
Building a new parking garage, like adding a lane of traffic to a highway, temporarily relieves the
situation but may attract new cars to fill the added space. By adding capacity, parking is easier, which
may attract more cars to the area, eventually filling the new supply. We've seen from the Residential
Survey that few people park in the City garage and many elect to park on the street. To make a new
garage economically viable and to open up space on-street, something will have to encourage residents to
use the new garage. Pushing them out of on-street spaces is one way. But once these new spaces open
up, if they aren't restricted to some degree they will just be filled by people who had been pushed out of
them by the high residential use. The end result would be cars filling the existing spaces and then new
garages, with no real change in the ease of finding on-street parking. So, again, changing the parking
supply without complementary on-street regulations and enforcement will do little to improve parking in
Collegetown.
Adding parking spaces is time consuming and expensive regardless of the builder. Any decision to
change the supply should be based on a conscious decision as to who should have access to parking and
in what numbers. After that decision is made, policies must be implemented to enforce them and deal
with the cars that don't have spaces (or to discourage cars from coming in the first place).
The amount of residential and commercial growth in Collegetown probably warrants additional parking,
but to what level is the most important question being faced. There are significantly more residents and
employees in the area than were there fifteen years ago when the Dryden Road Garage was built. But,
there is also more off-street parking available. Sizing a new garage is not a simple decision and should be
thoroughly discussed. To avoid complaints and disagreement, everyone in Collegetown needs to
understand what decision is made and why.
Management of Dryden Road Garage
Recently the number of hours that the garage is manned has been increased. Any management changes
that decrease the potential for parkers to exit without paying should be encouraged. However, there are
still times when the booth is unstaffed and astute residents can park for extended periods of time without
paying. Increasing coverage to 24 hours is worth implementing, to both discourage misuse of the facility
and improve revenue.
Another issue brought up earlier was that of demand pricing, or charging more when the garage is in most
demand and lowering fees when it is in less demand. This is an effective way of managing a limited
supply, but can't be implemented with the current parking equipment. Upgrading the equipment could
58
entirely automate the garage, negating the need for 24-hour personnel, or it could complement the
existing workforce. Introducing flexible rates and a better accounting system can improve the revenue
stream and provide more information on the parking times and durations that are instrumental in
improving management of a parking facility.
Manage/lower demand
Knowing that building additional spaces won't magically solve the College town parking problem, we
tum to managing the demand. As discussed, if more parking is available and people can use it, they will.
So instead of allowing the streets to be clogged by an overabundance of cars, policy needs to reflect that
parking is limited and then proactively deal with the consequences of this.
Collegetown is in a very unique situation. It has developed into a small, yet dense, urban center. In many
ways it is self-supporting, but it is still surrounded by low-density development. Services that are
normally found in urban centers, such as an extensive public transit system, are more limited. The
primary explanation is that Collegetown is very small geographically, and there is a rapid decline in
density outside of the City, making a widespread transit network extremely difficult and expensive.
The two populations whose demand can and should be managed are the employees and residents of
Collegetown. Employees' demand is the more difficult of the two groups because they have a wide range
of characteristics, from work schedules to where they live. Despite these variations, there is potential to
build a carpooling program. A successful program would have to be implemented in conjunction with
businesses, or the Collegetown Neighborhood Association. Promoting bus use by employees currently
reached by the TCA T system is another way to lower parking demand. There are other ways to make the
buses more desirable. Options include expanding coverage, extending hours, and providing personalized
services. Cornell University runs a gamut of programs that encourage transit use; many are applicable in
Collegetown and should be considered as part of any upgrade to the parking system.
Dealing with employees' cars is another demand management issue. If there is an inelastic quantity of
cars that will be brought to Collegetown by employees, where should they be kept? Ideally, they
wouldn't reduce the already limited parking supply accessible to visitors. Allowing restricted on-street
spaces to be used by employees or establishing a parking lot farther outside of Collegetown for the
express use of employees are both possibilities. Businesses are the most sensitive to employee
satisfaction and having a readily available parking supply for patrons; they are also the most
59
L
/J
\ '
knowledgeable about their employees' needs. As such, it is logical that they play an integral role in
developing and providing parking options for their employees.
Residents own the majority of cars in Collegetown and should be the primary focus in attempts to lower
their parking demand. As demonstrated by the Resident Survey, the purpose of most trips is for
shopping. TCAT bus routes serve grocery stores and the Pyramid Shopping mall, but evidently they don't
provide a high enough level of service to attract car owners from driving themselves. There are two
primary approaches to this issue: 1) bring a full-service grocery store to Collegetown or, 2) provide a
transportation option that makes it as easy to get to and from existing grocery stores as it is to drive. A
similar approach may be used to examine the other car uses residents have. The City should work with
TCAT to improve service within that framework, identify new programs, and advertise them to the
Collegetown population.
The transient nature of the Collegetown population is likely to significantly affect their behavior,
especially when alternative transportation and parking options aren't well publicized. Too many residents
perceive a need for a car; they have to be given options, shown alternatives, encouraged to use them, and
discouraged from driving in order to reverse the trend towards universal car ownership.
Once a comprehensive parking program is adopted, monitoring it will play an integral role in its efficacy.
In the context of this report, parking has been treated as a dynamic component in Collegetown.
Accepting this means that the parking needs of Collegetown will change as the residential density, car
ownership rates, commercial uses, and other factors evolve. Tracking these statistics on a regular basis
would only help the City better manage its parking supply. Using that information and adjusting the
parking program in an orderly and systematic manner should be encouraged as a proactive approach to
meeting the needs of future development and growth in Collegetown.
60
APPENDICES
I
f--i
I
1.
I
~
APPENDICES
Residential Survey A
Results from the Residential Survey B
Owner/Manager Survey c
Additional Responses from the Owner Survey D
Results from the Owner/Manager Survey E
Employee Survey F
Additional Responses from the Employee Survey G
Results from the Employee Survey H
Off-Season Usage Survey Results I
In-Season Usage Survey Results, Odd-Even J
In-Season Usage Survey Results, 24-Hour K
Accumulation of Vehicles in Paid Parking Spaces L
Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales M
Alternative Parking Programs N
Aerial Photograph of Collegetown 0
Appendix A (continued)
4. For what purpose do you use your vehicle? (Check all that apply to you.)
Go to Campus Shopping Work Entertainment
Drive in and out of Ithaca Other
5. How do you get around?
a) Bicycle: Everyday
b) Bus: Everyday
c) Carpool: Everyday
d) Walk: Everyday
e) Other: Everyday
C. If you don't have a vehicle:
1. Why don't you have a vehicle?
No driver's license
More efficient to use local transit
No parking space at the residence
a) Bicycle: Everyday
b) Bus: Everyday
c) Carpool: Everyday
d) Walk: Everyday
e) Other: Everyday
D.
Every few days Once a week Once a month
Operating vehicle is too expensive
Parking fee- too expensive
Other _________ _
How long have you lived in Collegetown?
------Less than 2 years
------2-5 years
------5-10 years
------More than 10 year
Occupation:
Sex: F M
B1ock-ID
Interviewer
Thank you for your help!!!
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
63
Appendix B: Results from Residential Survey
I
A.
Frequency
'
r
ofresgonse
1. How many people of driving age are in your nnit/family? Total responses: 422 100%
One 93
22%
Two 99
23%
Three 76
18%
Four 67
16%
Five 19
5%
More than five 68
16%
2. How many cars are owned within your unit/family? Total responses: 421 100%
None 91
22%
One 116
28%
Two 99
24%
Three 70
17%
lJ
Four 21 5%
~ Five 14 3%
More than five 10
2%
I I
3. Do you own a car? Total responses: 422 100%
Yes 238 56%
r
No 184
44%
64
Appendix B (continued)
4. What, if any, are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents:
a. No problems 25
b. Not enough parking at residences 176
c. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236
d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47
e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156
f. Too many students with cars 105
~ ~ N ~
Summary of "Other" responses:
Parking restrictions( odd-even)
Don't know
Too many cars/people/demand
Unenforced parking regulations
Streets too narrow
Private lots
Cornell
Residents parking on-street
Confusing parking policies
bad drivers/parkers
Trucks/loading zones
Non-residents parking in res. Zone
Metered spaces
Other( a response that was only given once)
5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown?
a. More parking spaces on site
b. Build another parking garage
c. Provide incentives to not own a car
d. Other
Don1 know
Change odd-even, parking restrictions
Cheaper parking
Improve transit service
Add more parking
Cornell
Build more parking spaces
Clarify parking rules
Permit system
Remove meters
Eliminate parking fees
Increase price of parking/tickets
Make Catherine St. one-way
More lenient parking enforcement
No more apartment buildings
Supermarket in Collegetown
Other
#of times given
50
9
7
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
88
176
57
180
51
46
33
14
11
6
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
420 100%
6%
42%
56%
11%
37%
25%
23%
[
12%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3% I
23%
46%
I
15%
47%
13%
12%
9%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
65
"'
"'
B. If you have a vehicle:
1. Where do you park aud how much do you pay?
a. On property
b. Private lot
c. City or private garage
d. On a nearby street
e. On-street outside Collegetown neighborhood
f. Cornell University parking lot
g. Otber
"Other" responses:
Share with brother
Gunn Hill
2. How often do you have a problem finding parking?
a. On tbe street
Never
Occasionally
Often
Always
n/a
b. In the City garage
Never
Occasionally
Often
Always
n/a
Total responses:
119 50%
39 16%
11 5%
49 21%
2 1%
15 6%
2 1%
Total responses:
20 9%
35 15%
61 26%
41 18%
76 33%
Total responses:
53 23%
22 10%
2 1%
2 1%
152 66%
Wben do you have difficulty finding a parking space? Total responses*: 130
Morn. After. Evening Overnight
Weekday Thursday) 38 45 90 80
34 46 83 72
3. How often do you nse your vehicle?
Everyday
Every few days
Once a week
Once a month
Total responses:
114
104
14
3
29%
26%
49%
44%
6%
1%
35%
35%
235
llll
237
233
231
55%
69%
64%
99%
100%
98%
97%
*No. tbat specified at least one
%'s
62%
55%
--r--
>
'0
'0
[

..:
1;1:1

="
s
;
()
!2.
f
" "
.,
"'

15-:
"
00
C/l
!
4. What, if any, are the main causes of parking problems in Collegetown? Total respondents:
L ~ ~ - ~
b. Not enough parking at residences 176
c. Not enough parking spaces on the street 236
d. Not enough parking spaces in the garages 47
e. Parking is too expensive at residences/garages 156
f. Too many students with cars 105
g. Other 97
Parking restrictions( odd-even)
Don\ know
Too many cars/people/demand
Unenforced parking regulations
Streets too narrow
Private lots
Cornell
Residents parking on-street
Confusing parking policies
bad drivers/parkers
Trucks/loading zones
Non-residents parking in res. Zone
Metered spaces
Other( a response that was only given once)
5. How would you fix the parking problems in Collegetown?
a. More parking spaces on site
c. Provide incentives to not own a car
d. Other
Don\know
Change odd-even, parking restrictions
Cheaper parking
Improve transit service
Add more parking
Cornell
Build more parking spaces
Clarify parking rules
Permit system
Remove meters
Eliminate parking fees
Increase price of parking/tickets
Make Catherine St. one-way
More lenient parking enforcement
No more apartment buildings
Supermarket in Collegetown
Other
#of times given
50
9
7
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
88
176
57
180
51
46
33
14
11
6
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
420 100%
6%
42%
56%
11%
37%
25%
23%
12%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
23%
46%
15%
I '
I
47%
13%
12%
9%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
67
"'
00
4. For what purpose do you use your vehicle?
Go to campus
Shopping
Work
Entertainment
Drive in and out of Ithaca
Other
"Other" responses:
To see boyfriend
Taking kids to activities
Going to fraternity house
Going to church
Everyday Every few days
a. Bicycle 6 4
b. Bus 3 11
c. Carpool 2 10
d. Walk 202 14
e. Other 0 2
Total responses:
110 47%
226 96%
68 29%
144 61%
178 76%
4 2%
Total respondents:
Once a week Once a month Other
7 6 2
12 16 2
4 3 0
3 1 0
0 0 0
'J ... LIJ liii ...... .J
235 99%
227 95%
3% 2% 3% 3%
1% 5% 5% 7%
1% 4% 2% 1%
89% 6% 1% 0%
0% 1% 0% 0%
T--:
1%
1%
0%
0
0%
>
"0
'::::1
[
~
~
=
""'
0
&.
~
~
n
0
f
~
~
8:
"
""
"'
2
0.
'<
$
C. If you don't have a vehicle:
1. Why don't you have a vehicle?
No Driver's license
More efficient to use local transit
No parking space at the residence
Operating vehicle is too expensive
Parking fee-too expensive
Other
Don't need a car
Live too far from Cornell
Inconvenient to have one in C-town
Parents
Don1 own a car
Insurance is too expensive
Other
Total responses:
Total responses: 185
184
101%
10%
4%
3%
39%
11%
33%
18
8
6
72
20
61
25 14%
13 7%
6 3%
6 3%
5 3%
3 2%
3 2%
Total responses:
Everyday Every few days Once a week Once a month Other
a. Bicycle 5 5 5 3 2 3% 3%
b. Bus 10 11 9 8 3 5% 6%
c. Carpool 10 45 40 12 1 5% 24%
d. Walk 177 3 1 0 0 95% 2%
e. Other 1 3 1 4 0 1% 2%
r r = ~ ILl
186 101%
3% 2% 1%
5% 4% 2%
22% 6% 1%
1% 0% 0%
1% 2% 0%
~
---,
Tl
>
'0
'0
"'
=
Po
>!'
= ~
..,
0
=
=-
2
"'
Po
~
(l
0
~
0
" "
""
~
"
{JQ
(/.l
~
D.
How long have ;rou lived in Collegetown? Total res12onses: 416 99%
Less than 2 years 239 57%
2-5 years 159 38%
5-10 years 5 1%
More than 10 years 13 3%
OccuP:ation Total resEonses: 420 100%
Student 399 95%
Other 21 5%
Sex Total resEonses: 421 100%
Female 199 47%
Male 222 53%
Block-ID Total resEonses: 407
063-01 3 1%
063-02 3 1%
063-03 3 1%
063-04 2 0%
R
.
.
'
063-05 71 17%
063-07 3 1%
063-08 13 3%
063-09 6 1%
063-10 2 0%
063-11 4 1%
064-02 32 8%
064-08 8 2%
064-09 20 5%
067-01 20 5%
067-02 12 3%
068-01 4 1%
068-02 5 1%
068-03 18 4%
068-04 121 30%
068-05 14 3%
068-07 10 2%
068-08 5 1%
068-09 2 0%
083-02 11 3%
083-04 15 4%
unknown 8 2%
Interviewer Total resEonses: 422 100%
Jessica Greig 234 55%
Tika Gurung 90 21%
Sarah Goode 64 15%
Esther Ashitey 34 8%
Building T n ~ e Total resEonses: 422 100%
Multiple dwelling unit 201 48%
Single family dwelling 21 5%
Large Apartment Building 200 47%
70
Appendix C: Owner/Manager Survey
1. Address of the establishment
2. Type of business
a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar
d. Apartment
b. Retail
e. University
c. Service
f. Other _____ _
3. How many people do you employ full-time?
4. Does the establishment have any private parking spaces associated with it? Yes No
If yes, how many for customers?
full-time employees?
part-time employees?
Is there a fee associated with the parking? Yes No
If so, how much? __ __}/day __ /week __ /month, ___ _,_/year
5. Do you receive any deliveries? Yes No
If so, at what time of day and how often?
a. Early Morning (before 8 am) /day ___ ./week
b. Morning (Sam-noon) /day ___ ./week
c. Mid-day (noon-4pm) /day __ __}/week
d. Evening (4pm-8pm) /day ___ ,/week
e. Night (after 8pm) /day __ __}/week
f. Variable /day __ __}/week
What problems, if any, do you experience with deliveries?
a. No space for trucks to park
b. Loading zones are too small for the trucks
c. Loading zones aren't convenient to the property
d. Traffic inhibits deliveries
e. Other( specify)

___ ./month

___ ./month
6. Would you be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in Collegetown? Yes No
7. If such restrictions were put into effect, what delivery times would best meet your needs?
Weekday: Weekend: NA
Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met? Yes No 8.
9. If you feel that there are parking problems in Collegetown, what do you see as their main causes? (Circle
all that apply)
10.
a. Too many residents with cars
b. Not enough parking spaces on the street
c. Not enough parking spaces in the Dryden Road garage
d. Parking is too expensive
e. Transit service is inadequate
f. Other(specify) _____________ c--
What solutions would you suggest to improve the parking situation in Collegetown?
(Circle all that apply)
a. Have more parking spaces at residences
c. Discourage car ownership for Collegetown residents
d. Improve transit service
e. Don't know
f. Other(specify). _____________ _
11. Would you be willing to contribute funds towards a new public parking facility?
Yes No Unsure
12. Would you be interested in participating in a program to provide a TCAT bus pass (at $20 per month)
to your employees (the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)?
Yes No Unsure
71
I
i
_:::.:_]
I
I
I
I .
I
! ~
I ,
Appendix D: Additional Responses from the Owner/Manager Survey
Sell too many passes at the garage
Set up a lottery system
Provide day and night pennits
Maintain roads in Collegetown
Why isn't there bus service on Eddy St?
99% of parkers from "outside"
time restrictions for deliveries wouldn't/couldn't be enforced
shouldn't have replace Dryden lot with a garage-lost downtown business
parking/circulation laws in Collegetown aren't enforced
start a shuttle bus from remote lots into Collegetown
garage prices are almost 3 times higher than downtown garages
most employees live outside of the ithaca area
As long as the city of Ithaca grants building pennits for retail establishments without requiring off-
street parking for their employees, this problem will only increase. Without service industries there
would be no Collegetown and until the city oflthaca realizes that "every opportunity has it's
responsibilities" and starts to act in a responsible manner, this issue of parking will only get worse.
Due to the stupid manner of the two-permit system with parking at the Dryden Road Parking Garage,
I pay my employees' daily charge instead of buying a monthly pass, I save over $50/month per
employee.
Incorporate a bus pass fee into the student fee and then give all students access to the buses
Make ticketing and towing easier for property owners
More metered spaces in 300-400 block of College Ave. and down streets
The city makes more at the parking garage in Collegetown than downtown. Use it towards a new
parking ramp.
Priority should not be given to construction crews
More students should be able to keep their cars on campus
Would be more supportive of a new parking structure if there were dedicated spaces for employees
Loading zones aren't convenient to the property
I used to have a pennit and parked in the Dryden Rd. Garage, however I lost the lottery several times
and my check was sent back to me and I often would wait in line up to 1 hour when the garage was
full( even when I had a permit).
Bad road conditions in Collegetown
Turn Dryden Road into 15/30 min parking
Add parking requirements for large apartment buildings
Equalize parking prices/strategies between Collegetown and Downtown, creates an unfair
disadvantage for Col!egetown businesses
72
Appendix E: Results from Owner/Manager Survey
Block-id
1. Address of the establishment
063-05 10
063-08 6
063-10 1
2. Type of business
a. Restaurant/Eatery/Bar 34
b. Retail 8
c. Service 19
d. Apartment 1
e. University 0
f ~ 0
3. How many people do you employ? full-time? 272
part-time? 410
4. Does the establishment have any private parking spaces associated with it?
If yes, how many for customers?
full-time employees?
part-time employees?
Is there a fee associated with the parking?
If so, how much?
5. Do you receive any deliveries?
If so, at what time of day and how often?
Yes 22
No 40
Yes
No
Yes
No
6
53
3
6
56
47
15
16%
10%
2%
Block-id
064-02
067-01
068-04
55%
13%
31%
2%
0%
0%
40%
60%
36%
64%
10%
85%
5%
10%
90%
76%
24%
14
9
22
a. Early Morning (before 8 am)
4 /day 6 /week 0 /month
b. Morning (Sam-noon)
c. Mid-day (noon-4pm)
d. Evening ( 4pm-8pm)
e. Night (after 8pm)
f. Variable
What problems, if any, do you experience with deliveries?
a. No space for trucks to park 27 44%
b. Loading zones are too small for the trucks 14 23%
c. Loading zones aren't convenient to the property 10 16%
d. Traffic inhibits deliveries 18 29%
e. Other( specify) 16 26%
6. Would you be supportive of time restrictions on deliveries in Collegetown?
Yes 20 32%
No 42 68%
7. If such restrictions were put into effect, what delivery times would best meet your needs?
Morning, weekday 17 27%
Morning, weekend 1 2%
Mid-day, weekday 13 21%
Night, weekday 1 2%
Anytime 3 5%
N!A 17 27%
Non-response 10 16%
23%
~ -
14%
35%
73
f--J
El
~
'
Appendix E (continued)
8. Do you feel that the parking needs of your customers are being met?
Yes
No
15
47
24%
76%
9. If you feel that there are parking problems in College town, what do you see as their main causes?
a. Too many residents with cars 24 39%
b. Not enough parking spaces on the street 36 58%
c. Not enough parking spaces in the Dryden Road garage 28 45%
d. Parking is too expensive 34 55%
e. Transit service is inadequate 7 11%
f. Other(specify) 21 34%
10. What solutions would you suggest to improve the parking situation in Collegetown?
a. Have more parking spaces at residences 21 34%
b. Build another parking garage 33 53%
c. DiScourage car ownership for Collegetown residents 8 13%
d. Improve transit service 9 14%
e. Don't know 3 5%
f. Other(specify) 28 45%
11. Would you he willing to contribute funds towards a new public parking facility?
Yes 14 23%
No 23 37%
Unsure 24 39%
12. Would you be interested in participating in a program to provide a TCA T bus pass (at $20 per month)
to your employees (the cost of which is tax deductible to you and tax free to the employee)?
Yes 11 18%
No 39 63%
Unsure 12 19%
74
Appendix F: Employee Snrvey
1. What is your work address? (fill-in the blank)
2. What is your employment status?( circle answer) Part-time Full-time(35+ hrs/week)
3. How do you usually come to work? (circle one or two answers)
a. Drive myself b. Get a ride from someone c. Take public transit
d. Walk e. Bicycle
f. Other(please specify). _________ _
4. How long is your commute? (fill-in) ___ minutes and/or ___ miles
5. How many days a week do you work at this location? I 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. What time do you usually start work? (fill-in or circle) ___ a.m./p.m. or It Varies
7. How many hours do you work each day?(fill-in or circle)
- - ~ h o u r s
or It Varies
8. When do yon usually work? (circle one answer)
a. During the week (Monday morning-Friday afternoon)
b. On the weekend (Friday evening-Sunday night)
c. It varies
IF YOU DRIVE YOURSELF ...
9. Where do you usually park? (circle one answer)
a. Private/Off-street parking b. Metered, on-street parking
c. Free, on-street parking d. Dryden Road Garage
e. Other(please specify) _________ _
If you park in the Dryden Road Garage, do you own a pass?( circle answer) Yes No
10. How far from your workplace do you usually park? (circle one answer)
a. Less than a block b. 2 blocks
c. 3 blocks d. 4 blocks
e. 5 blocks or more
11. Does your employer pay for your parking? (circle answer) Yes No
If not, how much do you pay for parking? (fill-in) /day or }week or ___ ./month
IF YOU DO NOT USE PUBLIC TRANSPORATATION ...
12. Why not? (circle all that apply)
a. Live too far from a route
b. Buses are too slow
c. Need a car for work
d. Need a car for non-work related trips
e. Bus schedule doesn't coincide with my work schedule
f. Buses are too infrequent
g. Too many transfers
h. Other(please specify) __________ _
13. If your employer gave you a TCAT bus pass at no cost to you, would you be more inclined to use
public transportation to come to work?( circle answer) Yes No N/A
14. If you have any additional comments, suggestions, or particular concerns with parking that you would
like ns to be made aware of, please write them on the back of this page or on another page attached to
this one.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
75
c
[j
~
f;j
I '
Appendix G: Additional Responses from the Employee Survey
When residents are at work during the day, let employees purchase parking permits to use empty resident spaces
Live in Cortland county which isn't serviced by TCAT
Need more free on-street parking
Too many people for the number of parking spaces
Make it more convenient for students to park on-campus
A business discount to the city owned garage would go a long way to show that the city is concerned with all
business in the city and not just downtown
Because the City of Ithaca has a stupid 2 pass system for the Dryden St. Parking Garage, and just because I
work a normal shift (Sam to 4:30pm), I would have to purchase 2 passes (totally unfair). It is less expensive to
pay the hourly rate than buy 2 parking passes. Until the city of Ithaca wakes up and stops the unfair practice of
taking advantage of the college student (unlike other city parking where only one pass is needed for these
hours), they will continue to have the mess of parking in the Collegetown area. I.e. parking in lawns, clerks
taking the meters, trucks parking anywhere they want with NO enforcement by the meter maids, etc.

Why does the meter attendant give out parking tickets, on days when the city does not even plow or salt?
Should be bigger discounts on parking for people/employees that actually keep Collegetown running .
Make garage more employee friendly. Low cost to workforce or do away with meters
Getting to and from work is a great hassle for me. I don't live far from work but due to a physical challenge I
am not able to walk up the hill. I do have a car now but have a very hard time finding parking anywhere near
my job. I usually work from 12-9. There is no on-street parking during this time.
To catch a bus I must walk all the way to Green street bus stop. Then I get to work a Y, hour early, which
means I leave my house an hour early. The drive to work is less than 10 minutes!
Due to all of this I have been calling a cab to and from work. Sometimes I spend close to $50 a week just for
transportation. There is a cab monopoly in Ithaca. You get a ride when they can pick you up and you pay what
they say. I have been late to work so many times. If there were parking for full-time employees in Collegetown
my customers would see a smile everyday!
Can you please snowplow the roads (where cars normally park) on off days. Instead of making people not park
on the side of the street. It's a huge hassle considering people have to park on the street for work, home, etc.
Thanks.
TCAT buses are a rip-off especially on the Cornell campus. Cornell should pay for the entire TCAT service at
no cost to the students and citizens of Ithaca. Cornell has enough money that this should not be a problem. God
knows that they charge enough for tuition. This school year's increase in the price of taking the bus and the
new less frequent schedules and old buses is an outrage. Maybe Cornell wouldn't have such a hard time raising
money from alumni if while they were in school they didn't feel ripped off all the time.
Construction in the town causes traffic problems that are unnecessary. Give us a break. I pay more money to
this community than you know what to do with. Yet, you want to continue to suck me dry while I run in to get
a slice of pizza.
First of all, anywhere one parks is unbelievable costly. I live in Boston and parking is not as expensive as in
Ithaca. Pertaining to Dryden Rd. Garage, not only does the hourly cost stink, but also the monthly pass rate is
mind-boggling.
Secondly, for the amount of students driving cars, there is absolutely not enough parking. On this note, it is
the general consensus that Cornell Police are here only to ticket students. If someone parks in a fire lane that's
one thing, but if someone is 10 minutes over on a meter? C'mon. I am not a naive college student who thinks
everyone is out to get college kids (in fact, I'm pretty rational and logical), but I can really say that parking in
Ithaca makes my blood boil. Last semester, I did not buy a parking space because it was $900 for the year. At
times, I would get up at 2:00 in the morning to move my car so as not to receive a ticket!
I ended up accumulating over $300.00 worth of parking tickets anyway. For someone who is community
active and genuinely a reasonable person. this is bullshit. Excuse my non-loquacious last statement. Thank you.
Comments on survey design I guess: Many businesses are evening oriented(bars/restaurants), these people
usually start work in the late afternoon and work late into the night; Cornell charges their employees for
parking;
Downtown workers can park for free in city lots if they leave the lot after 6pm
76
Appendix G (continued)
Parking spaces are not cleared of snow in a timely and efficient manner
Parking is expensive, please help!
I liked it this summer when the parking garage was only $.45 an hour!
Reconsidering buying a Dryden Road Permit because of the expense
Bus #10 would be great if it ran after 2pm
There are never any places to park and it's not convenient to put money in the meter while you're working and
the lot is full half the time
Longer parking times for the money. $2 all day!
Bring back the trolley
Allowing self-interested neighborhood groups to somehow "own" or control the city and tow of Ithaca streets
with silly restrictive signs is insulting and ungrateful to Cornell who supports Ithaca
My main concern is that the ramp fills up and then my pass is no good, I have to find parking on-street which
when the ramp is full so is on-street parking. I'm then late for work!!! When I get to work it is then busy and I
get 4 tickets adding up to $20/day!!! If ramp is full couldn't we show pass in window for free meter parking!!!
I'm too poor to pay 3 times more than my counter part workers do downtown and still remain a viable employee
in Collegetown!!!! Do something!!
My issue is that as a Collegetown employee I must pay $85.00 per month for the same parking privileges that
employees in the downtown district pay almost less than half of that to use city parking also. And even paying
that amount doesn't guarantee that parking will be available when I arrive at work. Then if I have to park at a
meter, I must leave work in order to keep the meter going or suffer parking tickets; which makes my parking
cost absurd for a single month.
Outlaw Jeep Grand Cherokees-that would eliminate half the cars in Collegetown.
Would be interested in TCAT bus pass but could only use it during the day
People building large apartment buildings must be responsible for providing parking e.g. underground parking
lot
We need another garage in Collegetown with parking that costs $5-$7 per day.
For employees of Collegetown, you should issue us car stickers for free parking. Many times we park blocks
away because there are no spots.
I think that the lack of full-time meter enforcement results in less turnover of parking spaces
By allowing two cars to park in one parking space, it causes cars to park too close to driveways. It also makes
turning corners at intersections very difficult for trucks and buses.
My observation is that most cars that park at meters during the week are students who drive in from elsewhere
and park while at school.
Make all new construction provide enough off-street parking. No variances.
Enlarge the Dryden Road parking garage.
Remove the wavy curbs on College Ave. They make the street too narrow in good weather and even narrower
in the winter. Snowplowing is next to impossible.
Ithaca needs to become a 21 century community, while it's fine to preserve nature and invest in small eclectic
mom and pop business, it needs to zone business district areas around its downtown and Collegetown areas and
provide parking for its students, their visitors and employees. This non-accommodating attitude may be why
Cornell fell from its top ten spot and regardless of opinion; decreases in enrollment will not help Ithaca, which
already doesn't have a tax base.
I have worked in Collegetown for 4 years. Since I started there has been many parking issues, I have seen the
ramp fees go up to $.75 /hour or $85/month. I purchase a permit every month for $85(day only) and still on
many occasions have to find alternate parking due to ramp being full. On these many occasions I have gotten
tickets 2 times in one day with total amount of $10, not including the $85 I have already paid to the City of
Ithaca. We were told Budget 2000 included a new parking ramp attendant. No sign of that, so ramp is full until
attendant leaves, all those all day parkers are paying $0. 24 hour as we were told at meetings inc-town, in
January well what happened to that? Where did the money go?? I feel that we are told so many things that you
(the City) know we want to hear but is never followed through. Businesses in Collegetown have been set aside
as always inc-town. The residents got their special parking, however, businesses are not allowed to park on
their streets anymore. Think of what would happen if we all had to close our doors due to lack of employees
77
1-
p
FT
[J
~
~
who have nowhere to park. There goes tax money. I worked on the Commons for many years and changed to
c-town because that is where business is now. It's safer and busier for me. We have lost employees due to
parking issues and they went to work and live out of the area. That's sad. There are some wonderful businesses
up here and all city residents love to come. But they don't because of the outrageous parking problem. This is
the time to make changes and improvements. Lets get some action now instead of promises that aren't kept.
We have signed petitions, been to Common Council meetings, we have spoken to everyone, and we haven't had
a solution. I feel there should be a special meeting with businesses and employees with (no student residents)
due to the same sad story of noise, garbage, etc. that has nothing to lose with the parking inc-town. Would love
to hear what's going to happen next, hoping it's not more empty promises.
I park in the garage because it is convenient to work. It is out of the weather, and I think there is some security
with people coming in and out but trying to find a parking spot is very hard and seeing that I pay for a monthly
permit I feel I should have a secure space. I don't think I should pay twice once with my permit then again with
a parking meter or a ticket. Public transportation is not an option for me. I live an hour out of town and work
hours that there are no public transportations running. I know many local people that won't even go into
Collegetown because parking is so bad. Ithaca College students don't come up for the same reason.

Just to be sure that developers who put up large student housing projects in Collegetown are not allowed to
skimp on providing parking for them through parking variances or through overly conservative estimates of
how many cars would be added to the neighborhood. I'm not sure if this was adequately addressed when the
most recent apartments in Collegetown went up.

Business/commercial occupants of Collegetown and their employees should have 1" priority for spaces, then
residents, but fewer cars. College employees/students should be the LAST consideration. Parking is
outrageous! As bad as a "big city" ... special day rates (low) for employees would help, some reasonable rate for
shoppers.

If there's space, have a lot available for residents of Collegetown to park in. Have it at a lower rate maybe
around $100/month. Or if residents have to park far away from their homes maybe have a shuttle that would
pick them up from the lot and have drop off points at various sections of Collegetown.
At $.50/hr in Collegetown, I pay for at least 5 work-related hours of parking each week. Assuming I take 2
weeks off each year, that's still 250 hrs, or $125. Granted, that's not a lot of money, but for someone trying to
make a living at the wages paid in Collegetown, it is. Are they fair wages, I really don't know, I'm not an
economist, but there sure are a lot of times when $125 would come in handy. I used to work upwards of sixty
hrs/week in Collegetown, and my primary place of employment is still in the neighborhood, but the current
parking situation is definitely having the effect of ...
I do not feel the price per hour should vary from garage to garage because of the type of people who use it. The
price should not be based on the fact that students are going to be using it. Everyone is penalized for that and if
the students were not here, there would be a lot of "Out of Business" places.
Parking lanes must be plowed more frequently.
Working evenings we sometimes get ticketed for parking on the wrong side of the street when we parked where
we could at 4pm.
Why not park on both sides of the street?
I'm a waitress and lots of times I can't get right out there every two hours though I try! I'm tired of getting
parking tickets every time I cannot get out there on time. I do pay the meters and try to get out there but in my
business sometimes it's NOT possible and the meter people will give you two tickets in a day if not more. I'm
sick of it and I don't think it's fair. They also know who tries to pay and what cars are up here to work.
I drive because it takes me 7 min to get here. It takes me I hour on the bus to get here and back. The meter
maids get off on giving tickets up here, big time!!! They wait by the meter till they run out, what's up with that?
Parking in Collegetown is a complete mess, especially with the useless odd/even rule. Collegetown needs a
very large parking garage for functionality, regardless of the eyesore.
I don't think we need more parking for SUV sorority girls!
Bus schedules are too complicated
I'm concerned that more apartments are being built with no additional parking being provided. Employees
should have discounted if not free passes to park in the Collegetown area. Some days I have to come in an hour
early, drive around for a spot and sometimes have to park in Cayuga Heights. I also have heard many
customers complain that the #l reason they avoid Collegetown and go elsewhere is because of parking hassles.
78
Sometimes the garage is full and I never have enough change for meters. I want to park free or there should be
more busses that go to Collegetown during the day.
I work in Collegetown and it would be nice if employees got a discount or free parking since it is our businesses
that bring vehicles to Collegetown.
It costs way too much for parking to come to work
Stop the building and create parking!
Stop ticketing
Why is the parking garage in Collegetown so much more expensive than the two downtown? They are all
owned by the City of Ithaca, so it makes no sense!
I would gladly take the bus if I lived in the near vicinity of work however I live in Whitney Point and must
drive a car. My complaint is that in Collegetown parking per hour is almost double what lot parking is per hour
anywhere else in Ithaca. I find that parking on the street at un-metered spots(! can't use a metered spot because
I work 9 hours and can't leave to feed the meter) requires several blocks of walking uphill to get to work.
Students who live in apartments in Collegetown often park their cars using up space needed for employees,
customers, patients, and leave them for weeks at a time. I believe these students and locals need to take
advantage of the bus and leave available space for those that need it!
The parking ramp is very expensive for people who have to park for a long time.
Too expensive; landlords take advantage of lack of public spots.
Make campus buses free.
Parking regulations need to be enforced on a consistent basis, i.e. tow cars which don't have the proper
permit(PSHCT), because students park in the (24 hr) permit only lot because they know very rarely does anyone
get ticketed much less towed like the sign says will happen.
Also much of the "PSHCT" parking is used by "MT" permits in the morning. Sometimes it may be valid
for meetings, but often it is abused by people getting coffee or breakfast. There is a designated space (of 4/5
spaces) for MT permits 7:30am-5pm M-F. However there are so many. "MT" vehicles sometimes they use% of
the PSHCT parking, all the MT spaces and the loading zones.
Another permit which needs more enforcement is the handicap permit. Many times individuals get these
permits due to injury and keep them for months even years after the injury has completely healed. This is
illustrated by the SUV's w/ handicap permits pulling in the lot with a kayak or skis strapped to the top, then the
driver bounds out of the car, leaping up the steps 2 or 3 at a time, etc. Also, the handicap parking permit seems
to entitle individuals to park in any space on campus regardless of permit for that lot or a handicap space
available.
IfTCAT came closer to my house( closest stop is around .8 miles) I'd definitely take the bus! Parking at
Cornell is bad, but not unique in academia.
I might use a bus if I didn't have to give up my parking permit in order to get it(CU employee). I'm willing to
pay the money to have convenient parking but I get very frustrated when so many of the spaces are taken by
service/MT vehicles or by cars with no permits. I wish they'd enforce the "tow away" threat. Ticketing cars
doesn't do enough.
The lot has% no sticker cars in it most days. These are seldom ticketed, never towed, though the lot is
supposed to have 24 hr towing. Also 3 of 10 spots are usually filled with HS permits. These cars sit there
unmoved for days at a time. I pay much too much for parking to have to pay to park in the Dryden Road Lot on
days when 6 of 10 spaces are filled with cars which really don't belong there.
p.s. for handicapped students they don't seem to have any trouble running up and down the stairs and
driving 6-8 friends around. How about if the HS space is filled (usually with the green Explorer)? The
other folks find a different HS reserved spot to park in. I often need my vehicle for work so I need it
handy.
Cornell Transportation needs to investigate more when giving out handicap permits. Make sure person has a
handicap, not using a family member's permit. Parking is so difficult in Collegetown, when every student
drives its own vehicle and doesn't care where they park. There should be specific areas for them to park and
they too should obey the parking rules like the employees do.
I think it sucks that Cornell does not do more for employees with parking problems. Cornell commuters should
not have to pay because they live out of the county! Need more free parking in Collegetown for Cornell
employees.
Stop (to Cornell) selling 3 permits for each parking space
79
l
j
i
_,
L
I .
Cornell should not charge their employees to park on campus. They also shouldn't sell3 permits for every one
parking space on campus.
I usually walk. Occasionally I use the Dryden lot, occasionally at night I use open CU lots. I use the shuttle bus
(#10) during the day. I also use a TCAT pass at other times (free) because I do not pay to park at CU. Very
infrequently I use my free CU parking passes in outlying lots.
80
Appendix H: Results from Employee Survey
1. What is your work address? 063-05 56 20% 064-02 75
063-08 6 2% 067-01 45
063-10 10 4% 068-04 84
064-01 I 0%
2. What is your employment status?
Full-time(35+ hrs/week)
!56 57%
Part-time 119 43%
3. How do you usually come to work?
a. Drive myself 189 69%
b. Get a ride from someone 33 12%
c. Take public transit 19 7%
d. Walk
83 30%
e. Bicycle 7 2%
f. Other(please specify) 0 0%
4. How long is your commute?
Time:
12.7 minutes on average
Distance:
9.2 miles on average
5. How many days a week do you work at this location?
I II 3% 5 106 33%
2 28 9% 6 93 29%
3 29 9% 7 27 8%
4 27 8%
6. What time do you usually start work?
a.m. 4:00 I p.m. 12:00 10 8:00 6
5:00 I 1:00 2 9:00 II
6:00 4 2:00 3 10:00 5
7:00 8 3:00 3 It Varies 65
8:00 31 4:00 6
9:00 40 5:00 8
10:00 19 6:00 3
11:00 12 7:00 I
7. How many hours do you work each day?
Time: 7.4 hours on average
It Varies 76
8. When do you usually work?
a. During the week 107 39%
b. On the weekend II 4%
c. It varies !55 57%
27%
16%
30%
81
I
1-
I
~
[
: __ ,
Appendix H (continued)
IF YOU DRIVE YOURSELF ...
9. Where do you usually park?
a. Private/Off-street parking
b. Metered, on-street parking
c. Free, on-street parking
d. Dryden Road Garage
e. Other(please specify)
If you park in the Dryden Road Garage, do you own a pass?
Yes 17 39%
~ n 61%
10. How far from your workplace do you usually park?
a. Less than a block 97
b. 2 blocks 51
c. 3 blocks 33
d. 4 blocks 11
e. 5 blocks or more 9
11. Does your employer pay for your parking?
Yes 41
No 161
If not, how much do you pay for parking? (fill-in)
less than $5 8
~ - 1 0 13
$10-15 11 Average: $'19.21
$15-20 9
$20-25 19
$25-30 3
$30-35 8
$35-40 7
$40-45 3
more than $45 3
IF YOU DO NOT USE PUBLIC TRANSPORATATION ...
12. Why not?
54
61
38
44
11
48%
25%
16%
5%
4%
26%
29%
18%
21%
5%
a. Live too far from a route 93 33%
b. Buses are too slow 46 16%
c. Need a car for work 52 19%
d. Need a car for non-work related trips 55 20%
e. Bus schedule doesn't coincide with my work schedule 85 30%
f. Buses are too infrequent 49 18%
g. Too many transfers 15 5%
h. Other(please specify) 60 22%
13. If your employer gave you a TCA T bus pass at no cost to you, would you be
more inclined to use public transportation to come to work?
Yes 57 22%
No 165 64%
N/A 36 14%
82
0
Date of Survey: January 5, 2000
83
I
I
Appendix J: In-Season Usage Survey Results (Odd-Even Parking Regulation)
Street Block 1 vehicle count
Total 6:00 10 00 1 :00 H 00
Total Total Contin. Total Contin. Total Conlin.
18 15 16 12 14 1 1 11
10 10 8 8 10 8 6
o.j. ,, 4 ':' !<i..A ;'.C'<'2 , i< ;o .;: ''' ;.; ;
. >1"'''2o . I' ;,o, \'. ":22 "Yi3 .,,.. L ., .. ,
Oru 21 2C 20 20 21 19 1' 13
Linden 18 1E 18 1E 18 15 19 1
I ; .1.4. +:c 13 , ; . . 131. ' 1 . '12 :: .. ; .1. I'. .. lbi: ; ' .'3
84
Appendix K: In-Season Usage Survey Results (24-Hr Parking Regulation)
!Street Block i 'count
Total 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00
Total Total Contin. Total Contin. !Total Contin.
18 1 18 14 16 10 15 7
10 11 g 8 9 7 10 7
.>:4':'' .:.:::::1 :,:,.0' 3 ,::; 1. :._,:C,2I'".:o,.\'a -'''''.c'i'-2
3 4 3 2 3 1 3 1
;' :.'.':;.J:4 ;,:,_;.:. l.t:o:'i2l\' ,; .. .. 1"'::_:.:',;()
7 9 5 7 4 8 4
E. Seneca 10 10 1 7 .1Cl 5 8 5
E. Seneca 11 g g 8 10 6 4
E. Seneca 8 8 8 8 8 4 8
E. Seneca 10 11 11 1 11 8 11 6
N. 26 26 27 23 20 24 18
N. 13 14 14 12 14 1 12 7
Eddy 35 36 37 32 33 25 29 13
Eddy 5 6 6 4 4 7 3
Eddy 16 16 12 14 g 13 g
Eddy 10 10 10 9 10 9 8 6
'IC.\.1: : .121:;:. :;,.{15!::: < ::: . '':: 1
11 9 7 7 g 6 8 6
"""'' .. '"'=' ' .. 6 .;,_ .:; :;;:::-:(';:::rt:''c'' .. ,.,.,,., b
Eddy<T'' . 1'0:5'::':; : :, ..:.,;3 i'.. >< .
I'Y:,;.g:,, I ;.;;:c.;;. ::;::: ':': :},2 1
I Blair 29 25 26 19 15 24 1
I Blair 8 1 14 g 13 9 10 6
I Blair 17 1: 12 1 1 10 1 6
I Cook 15 1 1: 10 12 9 1 3
Cook 13 1 14 14 14 12 11 5
urcnara 8 4 4 o 5 a
19 21 21 1 20 16 20 1
13"' ::\0'' -=",y.,;::13;:: '":,:; 1'-.::''::017I'cc,;::':\ .,
1/ 33 ;}.3'1''':i'.'ti_.;:\< ,-,,,,a
::;: .a :: :_,;: :: .cr: ;: ,.-,_. " :o
04 i'C :;;, lB.: ;;;:
33 32 33 27 28 18 26 14
18 18 18 15 8
, . :, ::,'130- ;. .,,._., i\ jc.;:;: . -: 1.::; - .,:; -:1
;, >' :.:c:::,,';: '' ,,,,,, '::: ','" '.' 1: .\ ,.o
'";(.,.a,,::: '''''''':C:'i 1::;:,.-61'':.'';;,::'" 1:>!:.' . r::,, ,,,, ::, '_,,c:e :.. '-"'
College 2 0 0 0 C 0 0 C
:::, "':;';_ .. 2l,''i-':C'4'/.'.2i',;,,,,4,'ii<'_',''o _,,,,,,;:c
OaJt.''''''''- I'' ')!i'-' :, : '.',' '23 1 , :;: Y.; '141'': ' r: :>:1o > :\--'''="l!a :: ''- ' '4
Oak 21 29 28 23 29 19 28 11
Unden 18 1< 1< 14 17 14 19 8
Liliden> I' .14. -li' ''14. ---';5 :><:. 3: >. 1_5 :;. c
Linden 13 13 11 14 11 13 1C
!Bryant 14 14 14 11 _1_4 9 13
Totals 786 627 780 684
85
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UJ
"'
-
"

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

:z;
1
--,

AppendixL
Paid Parking Spaces: Daytime Vehicle Accumulation*
350
300

--:ccilc" -- -- ""'"-- -- _--
---.----
250-
---
__ _
200
150
100
50
0

00

e

8:00- 9:00- 10:00- 11:00- 12:00- 13:00- 14:00- 15:00- 16:00- 17:00- 18:00-
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
TimeofDay
*An accumulation chart depicts how many cars used the available spaces at a given time.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
AppendixM
Dryden Road Parking Garage: Monthly Permit Sales
I
\
J
I
,' . . I
./b--..:.',, '
;-
/ \.

1:
i:
\
'
\
\

Month
-+--At meters
-In garage
Total
Garage
Capacity
- -+- 1998-Day
------1998-Evening
- 1999-Day
><-- 1999-Evening
* 2000-Day
---+--- 2000-Evening
86
Appendix N: Alternative Parking Programs
The alternatives presented here provide a series of directions that the community can take to address
Collegetown's parking needs. The goal is to illustrate these different approaches and to lay out specific
actions that would be required under each. The hope is that this will assist the community in
understanding the options and selecting the most appropriate approach.
Changes recommended under all alternatives
A number of changes to the existing parking system should be adopted, regardless of the alternative
selected. These universal changes are as follows:
1. Regularly enforce parking regulations:
2 hour limits at meters,
Overnight parking in the garage by permit only,
On-street regulations (ex. odd-even during the winter),
2. Change meters on Dryden between Eddy and College and on the 400 block of College into short
term parking (15-30 minutes),
3. Publicize tax-free transit subsidies
8
that are available to business owners and their employees,
4. Better publicize the bus routes available to Collegetown residents (31, 51, and 84). Investigate
ways to make them more appealing to residents (mandatory stops, extend 84 farther down
College, etc.),
5. Educate renters about parking in Collegetown. Specifically, produce a "Transportation and
Parking Options" brochure. Distribute it to Cornell and landlords for distribution to students and
renters. It will outline what transportation services are available and encourages them NOT to
bring a car; it also explains municipal parking regulations, fine structure, and different parking
options (private parking, City garage, Cornell lots, on-street).
6. Convert Catherine Street into a one-way street, with traffic travelling from east to west.
8
Lopez, Jennifer. "Pre-tax parking and transportation benefits," The Tax Advisor. July, 1999, pgs. 473-4.
87
I
j
- - ~
h
1
- ..
-
Appendix N (continued)
Alternative Parking Solutions
More comprehensive and longer term alternatives for addressing Collegetown's parking needs are
discussed below, and consist of the following:
Alternative A: Additional Municipal Parking to Meet Existing Needs
Alternative B: Meet Present and Future Demand for Housing, Office, and Retail Development,
Alternative C: Encourage Multi-modal Transportation,
Alternative D: Limit New Parking Demand.
Alternative A:
ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL PARKING TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS
Goal:
Satisfy parking needs for existing residential uses through the construction of additional municipal
parking. Require developers of new residential units to provide for future parking needs through
increased off-street parking requirements.
Description:
o Construct a large municipal parking facility to meet the current parking deficit in Collegetown. Limit
use of the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be
determined. The options include the comer of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the
block bounded by Eddy, College, Dryden, and Catherine Streets. A lower cost, but less convenient,
alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower--either
as a parking structure or a surface lot.
o Make on-street parking regulations more restrictive.
o Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high
demand. Price it to be less desirable as a location for residential parking.
o Give employees more parking options. Use the existing parking supply or work with employers and
employees to develop a park and ride lot.
o Provide a shuttle service to popular locations to lower residential demand for a car.
o Increase off-street parking requirements for new residential development and conversions. The
parking ratios should be based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey. The
locations of new off-site parking determined by current zoning ordinance.
o Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included.
Implications:
o Providing sufficient parking for current levels of car ownership will make parking easier, but will also
make it more attractive to own a car. This could ultimately increase traffic congestion and raise
parking demand beyond the new supply, reinventing the parking problem.
o There will be a need to encourage the use of storage parking through programs that lessen perceived
and actual needs for a car.
o Building a municipal garage of this scale within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both
to acquire the land and construct the facility. The scale could also adversely affect the character of
Collegetown.
o Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The
newly designated short term parking areas will be available for deliveries, loading and unloading cars,
running into restaurants to pick up orders, and other quick trips.
88
Strict enforcement of on-street parking regulations will encourage residents to use the municipal
parking garage. Currently, only 25% of car owners pay to park in locations not at their residence.
That number must be significantly higher to justify the cost of a new facility.
Changing the pricing of the Dryden Road Garage could place it beyond the financial means of some
employees.
Stiffer requirements for on-site parking will raise the cost of new residential development. It will also
reduce the amount of residential development that is feasible in Collegetown due to the small parcel
sizes characteristic there.
Higher costs for new residential development will bias new housing to more affluent residents.
More developable area will be devoted to parking. Without compensating changes in development
densities, the higher requirement would lead to a decrease in urban density as land is used for parking
instead of commercial or residential uses.
Plan A Elements
Components Short Term Long Term

Change requirements to 1:2' in B-2b and 2:3 in R-3a, R-3b, and
for the Zoning Ordinance
B-2a

All spaces must be on-site or within the boundaries of the current
zoning ordinance
Supply

Publicize residential storage

Build a residential storage
parking in Cornell's B-lot facility (-600 spaces)***

Allow employees to park in

RPrs** zone with in-vehicle all permit zones w. meters
meters Or

Provide satellite parking for
employees
On-street

Re-establish oddeven

Institute parking by permit
restrictions year round only 8am-6pm
(Sell! per house.)
Dryden Road Garage

Allow permit holders to park

Update current parking
in RPPS when garage is full equipment

Increase charges on weekend Or
nights

Automate-Pay and Display
with a permit option; change
rates to regulate demand
Demand

Initiate a shuttle service for

Provide a van service to
high demand locations grocery stores
Or

Recruit someone to open a
grocery store in Collegetown
* 1:2 gtves the number of parkmg spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres one parkmg space for two beds.
** RPPS =Residential Parking Permit System
***More calculations need to be done to size the facility. This is only an approximation. The actual size
should take into consideration anticipated redevelopment, current under-supply and space for employees.
89
I ~
I_
I
I
F
H
El
Alternative B:
MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE DEMAND FOR HOUSING, OFFICE, AND RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT
Goal:
Promote more efficient nse of existing parking facilities. Provide some municipal parking to relieve
pressure on existing parking facilities. Require developers of new residential units to provide for future
parking needs through increased off-street parking requirements.
Description:
Increase off-street parking requirements for residential development. The parking ratios should be
determined from the car ownership rates observed in the residential survey. Mitigation measures may
cover a fraction of the required spaces. Such measures could include establishing bike or car share
programs, or providing shuttles to popular destinations in town. Mitigation fees paid to the City
could be used to fund a new parking facility or demand management program.
Make on-street parking regulations more restrictive.
Make the rate schedule at the Dryden Road Garage more flexible, increasing fees at times of high
demand. Price it to discourage residential parking.
Give employees more parking options. Use the existing supply or work with employers to develop a
park and ride lot.
Provide a shuttle service to popular locations, lowering the demand for a car.
Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Residents
will be the primary clients of the facility. Location for the facility needs to be determined; options are
the comer of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the block bounded by Eddy, College,
Dryden, and Catherine Streets. A lower cost alternative would be to site the building outside of
Collegetown where land prices are lower.
Universal changes, listed earlier, are also included.
Implications:
All of the implications cited for Alternative A are applicable for Alternative B. The primary difference
between the two is where parking may be located and the size of the municipal parking facility. The
results of these differences are as follows:
Allowing off-site parking should lower the cost of development thus facilitating new development. It
could also shift where congestion is located by concentrating cars in different areas of Collegetown.
Even building a smaller municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both
Collegetown.
Expanding the options for parking requirements will facilitate development. Encouraging additional
growth will:
)> increase the City's tax base and conversely raise revenue,
> expand the clientele in close proximity to the commercial portion of Collegetown, which should
bolster their business and increase sales tax revenue for the City.
90
Plan B Elements

Change requirements to I :2* in all Collegetown zones (B-2b, R-
3a, R-3b, and B-2a)

Require all parking on-site or developer may pay a mitigation fee
to the City (to be used for construction of a new facility or to
provide transportation services that reduce demand for a car) or
provide mitigation measures that offset car use.
Supply


parking in Cornell's B-lot facility with phased

Allow employees to park in construction (300 spaces
RPPS" zone with in-vehicle initially with option to add
meters 200-300) ***

Satellite parking for
employees
Or

all permit zones with meters
On-street

Re-establish odd-even

Dryden Road Garage


Give price breaks on permits
in RPPS when garage is full for car -poolers (3+)

Increase charges on weekend

nights with a permit option, change

Establish a business benefit rates to regulate demand
zone-allows businesses to Or
purchase a limited number of

permits for employees to equipment
share
Demand

Initiate a van service to

grocery stores grocery store in Collegetown
*1 :2 gtves the number of parking spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres one parkmg space for two beds.
** RPPS =Residential Parking Pennit System
I ~
91
I
Alternative C:
ENCOURAGE MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION
Goal:
Adopt policies that discourage car ownership and use in Collegetown. Encourage multi-modal
transportation. Add some off-street parking capacity.
Description:
Mitigation measures for off-street parking requirements will promote multi-modal transportation and
programs that lower the demand for a car.
Off-street parking requirements for residential development increase in the R-3a, R-3b, and B-2a
zones but stay the same for B-2b. The location of parking is more flexible and mitigation measures
can cover the required spaces. Such measures could include establishing bike or car share programs,
or providing shuttles to popular destinations in town. Mitigation fees paid to the City could be used
to fund a new parking facility or demand management program.
demand. Price it to be less desirable for residential parking.
Give employees more parking options. Use the existing parking supply or work with employees and
employers to develop a park and ride lot.
Expand transportation options for Collegetown employees.
Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Limit use of
the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be
determined. The options include the comer of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the
alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower- either as
a parking structure or a surface lot.
Implications:
Revised off-street parking requirements encourage mitigation measures, instead of parking, to meet
the transportation needs of residents.
Cost of development will be less expensive given the relaxed parking requirements, this could
encourage more development than currently exists.
Expanding the options for parking requirements will facilitate development. Encouraging additional
growth will:
~ increase the City's tax base and conversely raise revenue,
~ expand the clientele in close proximity to the commercial portion of College town, which should
bolster their business and increase sales tax revenue for the City.
High demand for parking will put the most pressure on low-income employees and could force them
to seek employment elsewhere. Promoting alternative modes that fit employee transportation needs
and/or providing alternative parking options will help to prevent employees from abandoning their
jobs.
Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The
92
The financial impact of increasing the parking supply depends on what type and where a facility is
built. A municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both in land and
construction costs. A lower cost, but less convenient, alternative would be to site this parking outside
of Collegetown- either as a parking structure or a surface lot. The cheapest alternative would be to
use existing, underutilized parking lots.
Less developable area will be devoted to parking. This could lead to an increase in urban density as
land is used for commercial or residential uses instead of parking.
Market price of parking will increase as demand rises. The market is likely to increase the parking
supply until equilibrium between car ownership and parking is reached. This could translate into
more backyards paved for off-street parking or more surface lots.
Plan C Elements

Leave the requirement at 1:3' in B-2b and change the requirement
to 1:2 in R-3a, R-3b, and B-2a

No on-site parking required, all can be off-site or provide
mitigation fees or measures to cover parking demand based on the
above ratios
Supply


Provide satellite parking for
parking in Cornell's B-lot employees


all permit zones with in- facility with phased
vehicle meters construction (300 spaces
initially, option to add
more)***
Or

Identify underutilized
parking lots(Pyramid, East
Hill Plaza, etc.) to use for
remote storage, with high
level of service shuttle
On-street

Institute parking b permit-only 8am-6pm
Dryden Road Garage


in RPPS** when garage is with a permit option, change
full rates to regulate demand

Give price breaks on permits Or
for car-poolers (3+)


Increase charges on weekend equipment
nights
Demand

Initiate van service to

grocery stores grocery store in Collegetown

Initiate shuttle service to

Expand transit service to
high demand locations meet employee needs

Research the feasibility of a

Improve bike services
car-sharing program

Start a car -sharing program
'i'1:3 g1ves the number of parkmg spaces per bed, th1s ratio reqmrcs one parking space for three beds.
** RPPS =Residential Parking Permit System
93
I
I
I
8
.
.
I
Alternative D:
LIMIT NEW PARKING DEMAND
Goal:
Limit new parking problems by stopping development that increases the residential population. Promote
the efficient use of existing parking facilities. Provide limited additional municipal parking to relieve
pressure on existing parking facilities.
Description:
Down-zone Collegetown such that new development does not increase the net number of beds for
redeveloped parcel(s).
Expand transit services that address the particular needs of employees .
Provide a shuttle service to popular locations to lower residential demand for a car.
demand. Price it to be less desirable as a location for residential parking. Provide discount permits
for people that carpool (2 or more passengers).
Increase off-street parking requirements for new residential development. The parking ratios should
be based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey. The locations of new off-site
parking determined by current zoning ordinance, but half can be supplied through mitigation fees.
These fees could help fund a new garage, establish bike or car share programs, or provide shuttles to
popular destinations in town.
Construct a medium sized municipal parking facility to lower the current parking deficit. Limit use of
the facility primarily to Collegetown residents. The best location for the facility is still to be
determined. The options include the corner of Stewart and Williams Streets or the interior of the
alternative would be to site this parking outside of Collegetown where land prices are lower- either as
a parking structure or a surface lot.
Implications:
Expect less development than in recent years because the number of beds can't be increased and there
is an increased cost to provide additional parking.
Providing sufficient parking for current levels of car ownership will make parking easier, but will also
make it more attractive to own a car. This could ultimately increase traffic congestion and raise
parking demand beyond the new supply, reinventing the parking problem.
Higher costs for new residential development will bias new housing to more affluent residents.
Proposed changes to parking regulations will result in higher turnover of on-street parking. The
Changing the pricing of the Dryden Road Garage could place it beyond the financial means of some
employees.
94
Even building a smaller municipal garage within easy access of Collegetown will be expensive, both
Collegetown.
Plan D: Limit Parking Demand
Components Short Term
I
Long Term

Change requirements to 2:3"" in all zones

Mitigation fees can replace half of the spaces

Down-zone Collegetown neighborhood to lower the population
density for future development
Supply


parking in Cornell's B-lot facility with phased

Allow employees to park in construction (300 initially
RPPs** zone with option to add 200-300
spaces)***
On-street

Re-establish odd-even

Dryden Road Garage


Establish a business
in RPPS when garage is full assessment district which

Give a price break on permits
allows businesses to
for car-poolers (3+)
purchase a limited number of

Increase charges on weekend
permits for employees to
nights
share

with a permit option, change
rates to regulate demand
Or

equipment
Demand

Institute a van service to

Grocery store in Collegetown
grocery stores

Expand transit service to

Shuttle service to high meet employee needs
demand locations
*2.3 gtves the number of parking spaces per bed, thts ratio reqmres two parkmg spaces for three beds.
** RPPS =Residential Parking Pennit System
95
El
I
I ,
COLLEGETOWN MORATORIUM STUDY AREA
ITHACA, NY 2000
5 . . ~ .. . , . ~ . ' ........,
>
J"ij
""0
't'rj
z
u
-
><
0

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

You might also like