Name of Presentation
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards
Joshua Engel-Yan, Senior Advisor, Metrolinx
Dylan Passmore, Transportation Planner, IBI Group
November 17, 2009
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 2
Outline
1. The Toronto Context
2. Car sharing and parking demand
3. Options: What are other municipalities doing?
4. Options: What is the perspective of car share operators?
5. Options: Is there empirical evidence?
6. Recommendations
7. Implementation Considerations
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 3
The Toronto Context – Nearly 900 car share vehicles
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 4
The Toronto Context
Successful car sharing operating in central Toronto (Autoshare and Zipcar)
City of Toronto zoning bylaw consolidation Interest in parking requirements that
respond better to local context Current ad hoc approach to parking
adjustments for car sharing
•Is a reduction in the parking requirement justified for developments that provide dedicated car share parking spaces?
•What is an appropriate parking reduction ratio and implementation approach?
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 5
Car Sharing and Parking Demand
VehiclesReduced
% members who give up car
Members per car share vehicle
- 1)( x=
Linking Car Sharing and Parking Demand
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 6
Car Sharing and Parking Demand (cont’d)
Auto Ownership
Vancouver: 28% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle
reduction ratio of 4.0 vehicles per car share vehicle* 57% deferred purchasing a vehicle
San Francisco: 24% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle
reduction ratio of 5.0 vehicles per car share vehicle* 4% deferred purchasing a vehicle
* These ratios do not factor those who defer from purchasing another vehicle.
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 7
Car Sharing and Parking Demand (cont’d)
Auto Ownership
Toronto [based on AutoShare survey]: 15% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle
reduction ratio of 1.3 vehicles per car share vehicle* 25% deferred purchasing a vehicle
North American average: 20% give up a vehicle after joining a car share organization
reduction ratio of 3.8 vehicles per car share vehicle* 41% deferred purchasing a vehicle
* These ratios do not factor those who defer from purchasing another vehicle.
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 8
What are other municipalities doing?
Some Cities Have Already Instituted Reductions to Residential Requirements
Vancouver:3:1 reductionLimit 1 space per 60 units
Seattle:1:1 reductionLesser of 3:1 or 15% for large
developments
San Francisco:Require 1 space / 200 units Require 1 space where ≥ 50 unitsMin reductions case-by-case
Toronto:Case by case… from 0 to 10:1
reduction
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 9
What is the perspective of car share operators?
Developers focus on short-term benefits (e.g. construction costs or LEED certification)
Developers prefer to limit access to residents only, thus compromising long-term financial viability of vehicle
Marketing critical to success of building vehicle, but harder with a retrofit
Securing dedicated parking a perpetual challenge Very interested in reserved on-street spaces Developers now approaching them – speculation it is
due to parking maximums More potential with apartment buildings
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 10
Is there empirical evidence?
Compare auto ownership in buildings with dedicated car share vehicles against buildings without.
5 condo sites chosen Have had a car share
vehicle for at least 1 year Equal Zipcar and
Autoshare buildings No co-op or mixed use
buildings (since no unit listings)
Where possible, nearby control sites with similar assessed value per unit
Mail out survey conducted, with option to complete online
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 11
Is there empirical evidence?
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 12
Is there empirical evidence? (cont’d)
Survey Responses
248 surveys completed (25% response rate)
37 car share members responded Results consistent with North
American averages:• 29% of members gave up owning a vehicle
after joining• 55% of members deferred purchasing 1st or
2nd vehicle Expected lower ownership rate at
surveyed sites:
Control condo sites: 1.07/unit (N=834)vs.
Surveyed condo sites: 0.53/unit (N=167)
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 13
Is there empirical evidence? (cont’d)
Linear Regression Model
2 stable models:• Assessed value per unit• Walkscore• Presence of dedicated
car share vehicles (model 1)
• # of dedicated car share vehicles (model 2)
Presence of dedicated car share vehicles within building does appear to have a small but significant impact on
auto ownership.
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 14
Recommendations
For apartments and condos, reduce the minimum parking requirement by up to 4 parking spaces for each dedicated car share stall.
Limit at the greater of:■ 4 * (Total # of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole
number; or
■ 1 space.
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 15
Recommendations (cont’d)
SIZE OFDEVELOPMENT (# OF UNITS)= REQUIRED PARKING
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLEREDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING
CAR SHARE SPACESREQUIRED TOACHIEVE THISREDUCTION
Less than 30 1 1
30 – 44 2 1
45 – 59 3 1
60 – 74 4 1
75 – 89 5 2
90 – 104 6 2
105 - 119 7 2
375 25 7
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 16
Recommendations (cont’d)
Why this 4:1 ratio?■ Consistent with typical effects of car sharing on ownership
■ Consistent with existing practice
■ Supported by regression
Why this limit on the ratio?■ Tied to # of units
■ Limit tied to 60 unit increments, matching Vancouver experience
Why don’t nearby car share vehicles count?■ Regression suggests insignificant
■ Car share provision ubiquitous in urban area
■ Hard to enforce off-site conditions over long-term
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 17
Implementation Considerations
Securing the agreement Apartments an issue
Location and design Visible & public access locations critical, verify at site plan approval
stage
Marketing Secure pool of memberships, at least 1 for each unit
Conversion of spaces over time Ensure spaces can’t be sold off Zoning could specify ratio for conversion to visitor and occupant parking
By-law conformance over time No reason to suspect all car sharing services will flop, but specific sites
may not work Only way to absolutely guarantee conformance of all sites in the long
run is to take San Francisco approach
Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking StandardsApril 10, 2023
IBI GroupACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 18
Thank you!
Joshua Engel-Yan
Senior Advisor, Policy and Planning
Metrolinx
20 Bay St, Suite 901
Toronto, ON M5J 2N8
416.874.5940
Dylan Passmore
Transportation Planner
IBI Group
5th Floor- 230 Richmond St W
Toronto, ON M5V 1V6
416.596.1930 ext. 407
Full Report:www.toronto.ca/zoning/parking1.htm