Collegetown Parking Study

Ithaca, New York July 18, 2012

Special thanks to the City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development, the City of Ithaca GIS Program, and the Tompkins County Public Library.

Contents ABOUT THE AUTHORS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 SCOPE OF STUDY 7 FINDINGS 9 BEST PRACTICES 15 CONCLUSION 20 FURTHER RESOURCES 21 Appendix 1: METHODOLOGY Appendix 2: SURVEY AND RESULTS Appendix 3: MAPS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

C.J. Randall cjr222@cornell.edu C.J. is a researcher and planner with a focus on energy efficiency, economic development, and local governance in New York. Her recent work includes briefing the Vermont Natural Resources Council and natural gas impact research for the Community and Regional Development Institute. Her work on the potential economic and legal impacts of energy development on New Yorks local roads has been circulated by the New York State Assembly and the Maryland Department of the Environment. She was a Sustainability Consortium Energy Fellow in 2010 and currently serves on the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council. C.J. recently received a research grant from the Clarence S. Stein Institute for Urban and Landscape Studies. She has a Masters in Regional Planning from Cornell University. David J. West, LEED AP djw267@cornell.edu David is a researcher and planner with a focus on sustainable development, Smart Growth, and active transportation. He studied Planning at Cornell University, and now lectures parttime in the Department of City and Regional Planning. While a graduate student at Cornell, David lead Design Connect, a pro bono design and planning collective where students complete research, design, and public outreach programs for community groups to kickstart innovative local initiatives. David previously worked as a planning consultant for national full-service consulting firm Camp, Dresser & McKee. He has authored articles in the Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration, the Journal of Planning Education and Research, Planning Magazine, and New Urban News. David has been a LEED Accredited Professional since 2008 and has consulted on a number projects including co-authoring Los Angeles World Airports groundbreaking Sustainable Design and Planning Guidelines, reviewing pedestrian safety at Portlands TriMet light rail stations, and developing a parcel prioritization study for the Central Indiana Land Trust. He is currently working on a survey project funded by the USDA that involves interviewing farmers, distributors and customers of a regional food hub collecting financial data to perform a statewide economic input-output analysis. RANDALL WEST Ithaca, New York randall-west.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was commissioned to provide the data, analysis, and research necessary to evaluate Collegetown Crossing. The project, located at 307 College Avenue, proposes a transit-oriented, mixed-use development in the core of Ithacas Collegetown neighborhood. The project has garnered significant neighborhood support, yet some questions may remain about the efficacy of allowing development without requiring the provision of parking. The City of Ithaca Planning Board specified four questions that needed to be answered through a survey of residents: What percentage of Collegetown residents have cars in Ithaca? How many of the residents who currently keep a car in Ithaca would continue to do so if they were offered a free TCAT bus Parking Demandin Ithaca Carshare pass and $50 Generation Based on observed parking credits? BROUGHT CAR 16 Given a range of prices, what percentage of students decide not to keep aA car in DID NOT BRING A CAR Ithaca at each price range? 40 60 What is the price range and availability of parking in Collegetown? 84
% % % %

PARKING (53.6%) PARKING (46.4%) In seeking answers to these questions, we have found the following:

NO ON-SITE

ON-SITE

The rate of car ownership among all apartment residents was 26.8%. The rate of car ownership among Collegetown residents who said their building did not offer parking was 16.7%. Based on this survey, not providing parking is the strongest mitigation measure correlated with reduced parking demand. Approximately 39% of Collegetown apartment residents with a car in Ithaca said that they would give up their car in exchange for either a free bus pass, $50 in carshare credits, or both.

Based on resident perception of parking availability

BROUGHT A CAR

Parking Demand Generation,

16.7% 83.3%
PARKING NOT OFFERED (35.8%)

34% 66%

DID NOT BRING A CAR

PARKING OFFERED (61.5%)

DONT KNOW (2.7%)

Figure 1: Residents who believe that parking is offered at their building are much more likely to bring a car.

In exchange for bus pass and/or carshare credit

Car Owners Willing to Give Up Car

38.9% 61.1
%

WOULD GIVE UP CAR WOULD NOT GIVE UP CAR

Approximately 82% of respondents with cars stated that the maximum price they would pay for parking was $240 or less per month. With only 18% of parkers willing to pay over $240 2

Figure 2: 38.9% of residents who brought a car to Ithaca say they would give it up in exchange for a bus pass and/ or $50 in carshare credit.

per month, it is clear that What is the maximum price you would pay for parking? Respondents who keep a car in Ithaca there is very little market for parking priced at the Average cost of developing underground parking $274 theoretical cost of providing $240+ 15.7 it at Collegetown Crossing. $211-$240 30.3 Victoria Transportation $181-$210 41.6 Policy Institute (2012) $151-$180 47.2 estimates a monthly cost of $274 for construction $131-$150 56.2 and maintenance of an $101-$130 74.2 underground parking space $71-$100 91.0 in a non-CBD urban area.1
% % %

Price range (per month)

$41-$70

96.6%

Prices paid for parking varied widely from under $40 per month to over $240. The median range for all respondents was $101 - $130 per month. Ten percent of parkers who said their building offered parking, parked on the street for free; these residents reported paying a median price of $131-$150 per month. All parkers who said their building did not offer parking rented private spaces elsewhere, with a median price range of $101-$130.

$0-$40

100%
Percent of respondents who stated the max. price they would pay was in this range or more.

Figure 3: The cost of building parking at Collegetown Crossing is higher than most current residents are willing to pay.

Respondents who keep a car in Ithaca

Where do you park?

10%

On the street At my building Garage or lot not at my building Dryden Rd. garage On Campus

Residents who said their building o ers parking.

Residents who said their building does not o er parking.

Based on the low percentage of residents who bring cars it is clear there is unmet demand for car-free development in Collegetown. Parking prices are below the market cost of creating new structured spaces, yet above the price that many residents are willing to pay. This oversupply and underpricing distorts the market and encourages residents and commuters to bring cars into the neighborhood. Residents who said their building did not offer parking are not creating parking spillover effects; 83.5% of residents choose not to bring cars. Those that do bring cars pay for parking at other off-street locations, taking advantage of the fact that the required supply is higher than the demand
1. CBD refers to a citys central business district. A non-CBD urban area generally has less business density than the CBD, but is significantly more dense than a suburban area.

Figure 4: The only residents who reported parking on the street also stated that their building offered parking. Graphs are proportional to the number of responses in each group.

from on-site residents. Developments that do include parking have attracted drivers, including a significant number who park on neighborhood streets because they are unwilling to pay to park. It is unclear exactly why providing parking would attract residents who ultimately park on the street, but the statistical correlation is very strong. Based on this evidence, adding additional parking at new residential developments would likely increase rather than decrease spillover problems while also attracting new drivers to the area to fill new off-street parking spaces. In the following pages we explore the results of the survey in greater detail and pull lessons from the most current research with the hope that it may inform and guide Ithacas Planning & Development Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, Common Council, and interested public in assessing the potential for neighborhood parking impacts from Collegetown Crossings development as proposed.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The core of Collegetown is typified by a mix of commercial and residential buildings that are urban in character. Each of the buildings surveyed has a Walk Score between 80 and 88 on a scale of 0-100, indicating a Very Walkable location; Ithacas average Walk Score is 73. Midtown Manhattan, for comparison, has a Walk Score of 89. Recent studies of parking in Collegetown include the Travers Associates (1998) and Greig (2000) reports. Complaints noted in these reports include parking fees, the permit system at the Dryden Road garage, lack of enforcement of parking laws, and spillover. Parking spillover is a catch-all term used to describe the use of parking in one area to meet demand generated somewhere else by customers, visitors, commuters, or residents. Spillover is an inherently problematic term as it assumes that residents of a given block have a greater claim than others to parking on streets that are publicly owned. Despite the perception that there is a parking shortage in Collegetown, we found evidence of substantial vacancies, suggesting that any parking problems are more an issue of parking management than supply. The off-street municipal garage on Dryden Road has 217 spots. Parking is free after 6 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays on the street, and free after 8 p.m. in the garages. But even when free, there are few cars in the parking garages in the evenings and weekends.
Average Occupancy
City owned garages

Municipal and private garage parking data was collected on four weekdays and a weekend day, April 30 through May 5, 2012. On average, the four city parking garages (including Green Street at 400 spaces; Seneca Street at 350 spaces; and 700 spaces at Cayuga Street) sat halfempty during the week and 69% empty on the weekends.

44%

58%

60%

64%

Late Morning

Cayuga

Dryden

Green

Seneca

28%

49%

55%

47%

Evening

While the current zoning requirements in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (City of Figure 5: Average garage occupancy of city owned garages, recorded periodically over a one week timespan. See Ithaca 325-20(3)(C)) require one parking space Appendix for full data. for every two occupants, we can best understand the current state of the neighborhood by determining the Real Parking Ratio. This is an important measure for understanding impacts of change on the neighborhood because it is based on the reality on the ground rather than a theoretical concept of what the neighborhood might be like if fully redeveloped using current zoning. In order to understand the scope of impact on the neighborhoods parking supply, we must first know about the supply. 5

Because the major item in question for Collegetown Crossing is off-street parking, the Real Parking Ratio considers only off-street spaces. Although some Collegetown residents do choose to use free on-street parking for storage purposes, this is expressly forbidden by local codes. Parking for longer than 24 hours on any public street or in public garages (other than the Cayuga Street garage) is illegal. Enforcement of this provision is lacking based on reports looking at Collegetown parking issues over the last two decades. To accurately gauge the current Real Parking Ratio for Collegetown, the number of people per parking space at the neighborhood level, we combined 2010 census data with a boots on the ground parking count.
Neighborhood Real Parking Ratio (residents per space) Neighborhood Parking Ratio w/ 103 additional residents Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents Neighborhood Parking Ratio w/ 103 additional residents and + 57 new parking spaces Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents and + 57 new parking spaces Difference between change with and change without parking 2.603 2.659 2.12% 2.580 -0.91% 3.03%

Adjacent Blocks Real Parking Ratio (residents per space) Adjacent Blocks Parking Ratio w/ 103 additional residents Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents Adjacent Blocks Parking Ratio w/ 103 additional residents + 57 new parking spaces Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents + 57 new parking spaces Difference between change with and change without parking

2.931 3.018 2.94% 2.880 -1.75% 4.69%

From the perspective of the neighborhood as a whole, the addition of the new residents without any additional provision for parking creates a relatively small impact. The total change amounts to about a 2% increase in the parking ratio, compared to the 1% decrease that would result if the theoretical development included parking based on current zoning. Zooming in closer to the projects block and adjacent blocks, the area has an existing ratio of 2.94 residents per parking space, which with the proposed development would rise to 3.069. The current parking ratio on the projects block is currently 3.248, for comparison.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Our focus in this report is on parking preferences and behavior of residents in highdensity apartment buildings, and Collegetowns off-street parking, both public and private. Previous studies of Collegetown residents have shown significant differences in car ownership and driving behavior based on residents building type. Greig (2000) distinguished three building types: single-family homes, multiple dwellings, and apartment buildings. She found distinct parking behaviors in each group. To best predict the behavior of future Collegetown Crossing residents, we focused our survey on residents of apartment buildings, defined as buildings with 20 or more units. While other buildings in the neighborhood could be interpreted as apartments, with the proposed project at over 50 units, adding buildings to the sample with less than 20 units would make the findings less applicable to the proposed project. In addition to the apartment category, our survey found a significant difference in behavior between residents in apartment buildings that provided parking and those that did not. Defining the boundary of our study area, we looked to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, adopted in 2002 (see Appendices for map), which best defines the neighborhood. The boundary was simplified to contain only whole blocks due to data availability (census population data goes down to the block level), allowing an accurate count of residents in the study area rather than rough estimates. This had the added benefit of removing the south side of State Street from Study Area the study area which would have Figure 6: Simplified study area: includes only whole blocks to been problematic since the area was a facilitate use of census data. See appendix for CPOZ map for comparison. large construction zone at the time of the survey, but had been occupied during the 2010 census. This discrepancy could have skewed the numbers. We believe these changes are inconsequential to defining the character of the neighborhood particularly in relation to the project site which is in the core of the neighborhood.
E BUFFALO ST
STEWART AVE

DRY

DEN

RD

EDDY ST

LINDEN AVE

E SENECA ST

BR YA N

COOK ST

BOOL ST

DELAWARE AVE

ELMWOOD AVE

OSMUN PL

OA

KA VE

COLLEGE AVE

ST

BLAIR ST

A review of building records found 13 buildings with 20 or more units in the study area. We determined that the maximum occupancy of these buildings is 2104 residents. In order to complete a statistically significant survey a 95% confidence level with a 5% confidence interval we collected responses from 330 residents. 7

N QUARRY ST

AV E

ST AT E

IN IRV

GP

MITCH

ELL ST

ITHACA

RD

250

500

1,000

The study is focused on the specific site and building characteristics of the proposed Collegetown Crossing development. Future planning for the neighborhood would benefit from a study that includes analysis of single-family homes, multi-family units, and business needs to further support an area parking plan (for example, while beyond the scope of our study, in her comprehensive look at on-street parking Greig found that 4 out of 5 residents parking on the street lived in multiple dwelling units while only 1 in 5 lived in apartments).

Symbol
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Building
717 East Buffalo St. 115 Cascadilla Pl., Cascadilla Hall 111-113 Dryden Rd., Collegetown Plaza 110 Dryden Rd., Eddygate Park Apartments 400 College Ave., College Ave Apartments 420 College Ave., Sheldon Court 405-403 College Ave. 206-208 Dryden Rd., Collegetown Court 114 Summit Ave., High Chaparral 151 Dryden Rd., Collegetown Center 312 College Ave. 301 College Ave. 211-217 Linden Ave. Proposed project: 307 College Ave., Collegetown Crossing

FINDINGS
Worst Case Scenario: Expected increase in parking demand if mitigation efforts have zero effect. In attempting to estimate the impact of a new development on Collegetowns parking supply, it is important to accurately estimate the expected number of cars that residents will bring to the neighborhood. Collegetown Crossing is proposed without incorporating any parking and thus includes various mitigation strategies to ensure that new residents do not bring cars. To determine the impact of this proposal we must first understand how many cars would be expected without any mitigation, then assess the utility of proposed mitigation measures, and finally determine the impact of any cars expected despite these mitigation efforts. In this section we will explore the first of these three questions and describe the methods used to compute a worst case scenario of 19 cars, based on the assumption that mitigation measures have zero effect. In developing a worst case scenario for parking generation, we can start by looking to zoning. Based on the current requirements for zone B-2b, Collegetown Crossing would be required to provide 57 parking spaces. To evaluate the validity of the zoning as a measure of expected demand, it is helpful to understand the metrics used in creating the current minimum requirements. The City of Ithaca commissioned a study (Greig 2000) in response to neighborhood perceptions and complaints that new development in Collegetown had resulted in excessive on-street parking by new residents. The Greig study suggested minimum parking requirements for new development increase from 1 space per 3 residents to 1 space per 2 residents. Greig stated that increased parking ratios in zoning should be based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey (Greig 2000, 88). Accompanying this recommendation, Greig noted that parking is a dynamic entity and therefore should be subject to timely reevaluation. To that end, our survey of Collegetown residents revealed significantly different data compared to the last study of the areas parking issues. In 2000, Greig reported that 49% of apartment residents owned cars. Our study shows that in 2012, less than 27% of apartment residents brought a car to Ithaca. The different statistics may be the product of a variety of factors. The first difference to consider is the way the survey questions were posed and administered. Greigs survey asked residents if they owned a car, while our study asked residents if they keep a car in Ithaca. In a neighborhood where approximately 95% of residents are transient students, with a home somewhere else, this is an important 9

distinction when trying to effectively estimate the demand for parking. Several survey respondents stated that they do not keep a car in Ithaca because it was too difficult to bring their car from wherever they call home (for example: home was either in California, or outside of the country). If these residents had been asked if they own a car, as was done in the Greig study, the answer would have been yes; however, cars owned by Collegetown residents, but left behind in California, Europe, and Asia clearly dont affect parking demand in Collegetown. Greig speculated that the high rate of car ownership found in 2000 was likely a result of the economic boom and she suggested that ownership rates were likely to fall, as they have, when economic growth declined. She also noted that the rate seemed surprisingly high given the fact that 95% of the neighborhoods residents were college students and a variety of amenities, including Cornell (presumably their main destination for daily activities), were within easy walking distance. That college students have reduced their rate of car ownership so substantially over the last 12 years may seem shocking; however, recent research based on the National Household Transportation Survey shows that there was a substantial national decline in car dependence among 16- to 34-year-olds between 2001 and 2009. This group reduced their per capita vehicle miles traveled by 23% over that time period, traveled 40% more miles on public transit, and took 23% more bicycle trips than they had in 2001 (Davis, Dutzik and Baxandall, 2012). Given the intent of the zoning to match existing car ownership rates and the current survey results in addition to the issues with the 2000 studys measure of car ownership and the change in demographics since that time it is reasonable to reduce the worst case scenario of expected parking generation. While the current zoning is based on an expectation of 57 cars, based on current data, we can expect only 26.8% of apartment residents to bring cars, reducing the worst case scenario to a demand for about 30 spaces. Furthermore, the disaggregation our survey results between residents who stated that their buildings offer parking and residents who stated that their buildings do not offer parking reveals that only 16.7% of residents in buildings without parking bring cars to Ithaca. A statistical analysis, using a chi-squared test, shows that the correlation between providing parking and increasing car ownership is very strong. There is only a 1 in 1000 chance of encountering such a significant difference in car ownership rates among our sample if the provision of parking was not similarly correlated with the rate of parking needed in the population. This revelation shows that the worst case scenario for Collegetown Crossing parking generation is just under 19 cars. Ten of the survey respondents did not indicate whether or not their building included parking; none of these residents brought a car to Ithaca. In several cases, respondents within a single building disagreed as to whether or not parking was offered at that building. To further understand the situation we compared the rate of bringing a car in different buildings based on our observation of which 10

buildings included on-site or adjacent parking. We found that 15.6% of respondents in buildings without parking brought cars, while 39.7% of respondents in buildings with parking brought cars. These numbers suggest a slightly greater impact of not providing parking but are in the same ballpark as the survey responses. When evaluating the expected actions of future residents, the perception of parking availability is as useful, if not more useful, of a metric as the actual provision of parking; perception drives the individual choice of whether or not to bring a car. For this reason, and in the interest of applying a conservative approach, we are basing our findings and recommendations on the survey response numbers. Mitigation Strategies The proposal for Collegetown Crossing as a car-free development includes several possible mitigation strategies to further reduce the possibility of new residents imposing a burden on the neighborhoods parking supply. This section will examine various proposed and suggested mitigation measures and their expected effectiveness. The largest, and strongest mitigating factor our survey could verify was simply not including parking. As discussed above, apartment buildings without parking attracted a significantly lower number of drivers than buildings with parking. In addition, the drivers who stated their building did not offer parking imposed less of a burden on the neighborhood: they all rented off-street parking elsewhere, while 10% of drivers who stated their building did offer parking opted to park on the street rather than pay. Our examination of prices that residents paid for parking suggests that drivers who stated that their building did not offer parking paid less on average for their spaces (presumably they found cheaper alternative lots where the required supply exceeds demand from the adjacent building). Approximately 73% of current apartment dwellers in Collegetown do not have a car in Ithaca. The new development needs to capture less than 7% of the 1620 car-free apartment residents to have zero vacancy without attracting a single car. Based on the neighborhoods walkability and premium location in addition to the shortage of housing in Ithaca and general trends in car ownership we expect there will also be a significant market for Collegetown Crossing beyond the current apartment residents. In addition to not providing parking, if Collegetown Crossing uses marketing and branding to clearly state that it is a car-free development, it is unlikely that it will attract residents looking to bring a car. Since many landlords in the area have already unbundled parking from the cost of an apartment, rental rates at Collegetown Crossing are unlikely to be lower than competing options. However, if significant perks are included as mitigation measures, it is possible that they could actually increase the likelihood of attracting drivers who could find parking elsewhere and still benefit from free bus passes, carshare subsidies, bike storage, etc.

11

Our study found that 81% of residents who did not bring a car to Ithaca would prefer renting an apartment that included bus passes and carshare credits. This demonstrates that the target market would likely be attracted to Collegetown Crossing. In hindsight, it would have been better to ask this question of both residents with and without cars. However, it is notable that 19% of residents who did not bring a car to Ithaca said that providing bus passes or carshare credits would not influence their choice of apartment buildings. Approximately 39% of Collegetown apartment residents who do keep a car in Ithaca said that they would give up their car in exchange for either a free bus pass, $50 in carshare credits, or both. Thirty percent of residents who said their building did not provide parking stated that they would give up their car in exchange for a free transit pass or carshare credits. If we again assume that branding and marketing of the building as car-free (and other mitigation strategies) have no effect, providing a bus pass and carshare credits can be expected to reduce the number of cars Collegetown Crossing brings to the neighborhood by 30%, from about 19 to 13. Due to the neighborhoods oversupply of parking compared to resident demand, providing parking and pricing it at an appropriate rate at Collegetown Crossing is unlikely to be an adequate mitigation measure. Our survey shows that students are unwilling to pay the full cost of building parking. Once a landlord has built parking they are unlikely to set the price higher than residents are willing to pay because doing so would result in high vacancy. One nearby apartment building with on-site parking, 312 College Avenue, recently reduced their parking rates to $195 per month from $235 (based on review of previously cached web page and current web page), suggesting that they experienced unacceptable vacancy at the higher rate. Prices paid for parking varied widely with many reports in each price range tested: from under $40 to over $240. The median range for all respondents was between $101 and $130 per month. On-site parking was, on average, more expensive than off-site parking; this is likely because those parking off-site can rent from excess surface lots around the neighborhood. Many on-site spaces are structured to fit required spaces on infill lots, and sit on more valuable land closer to the core of the neighborhood. All parkers who said that their building did not offer parking rented private spaces elsewhere, with a median price range of $101-$130. About 10% of parkers who said that their building did offer parking parked on the street for free, yet the median price paid by residents of buildings with parking (whether or not they parked on-site) was higher at $131-$150 per month. Among parkers who stated that their building offers parking, about 56% use the onsite parking, about 26% rent other off-street parking, about 10% park on the street, and 6% park in the municipal garage on Dryden Road (these dont add up to 100% due to rounding).

12

Many of the buildings in the survey area have unbundled parking from rents a key strategy in parking demand management which provides a benefit to residents who choose not to bring a car. However, since excessive supply has pushed the prices that the market will bear below the true cost, the remainder of the cost of providing parking must be rolled into apartment rental rates, forcing residents without cars to subsidize those who choose to bring cars. Because parking is unbundled and oversupplied, residents of buildings with parking can choose between the convenience of having their car on-site and the benefits of cheaper alternatives. Many landlords charge parking (and apartment) rent by the year rather than the month, which introduced some degree of error into our survey of parking costs. Several respondents were unsure or wrote in their cost per semester or year rather than the monthly cost (in these instances we calculated the monthly cost for use in our analysis). There were also a number of residents who stated that the maximum they would pay for parking was below what they do pay, suggesting that they do not handle the payment arrangements associated with the parking. Paying for parking in large lump sums, or not paying at all, distorts the economics of car ownership by decreasing the incremental cost of car trips. To make truly rational economic decisions about transportation mode choice, drivers would pay separately for each instance of car use. In typical car ownership, however, significant costs are lumped together. Loan and insurance payments, as well as maintenance and parking must be paid in lumps; once paid, there is little economic benefit for car owners who forego trips. Because of this situation, every car that residents bring into Collegetown, regardless of the intended or required use, is likely to be used frequently and for a variety of trips, creating traffic and congestion impacts in addition to taking up land for parking. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (2012) estimates a monthly cost of $274 for construction and maintenance of an underground parking space in a non-CBD urban area. Over 82% of respondents with cars stated that the maximum price they would pay for parking was $240 or less per month; 68% said they wouldnt pay more than $210, 57% wouldnt pay more than $180, 52% wouldnt pay more than $150, 43% wouldnt pay
Respondents who keep a car in Ithaca
Average cost of developing underground parking

What is the maximum price you would pay for parking?

$274 $240+ $211-$240 $181-$210
Price range (per month)

15.7% 30.3% 41.6% 47.2% 56.2% 74.2% 91.0% 96.6% 100%

Percent of respondents who stated the max. price they would pay was in this range or more.

$151-$180 $131-$150 $101-$130 $71-$100 $41-$70

$0-$40

13

more than $130. With a reported median price paid of between $101 and $130 it seems most parkers are able to find parking in the range they are willing to pay. With only 18% of parkers willing to pay over $240 per month, it is clear that there is very little, if any, market for parking priced at its cost to the developer. Our survey asked residents who kept a car in Ithaca why they needed one. The most significant finding from this question was that residents who stated that they needed a car for groceries and other shopping (88% of residents with cars) were willing to pay significantly more for their parking than other residents. This suggests, as did the Greig study in 2000, that development including commercial space especially space that could accommodate a grocery store is likely to reduce the main justification for keeping a car in Collegetown.

14

BEST PRACTICES
Collegetown already has in place most of the strategies recommended for reducing parking demand. The neighborhood has convenient access to Ithacas primary transit routes. There is a carsharing program in place with several car locations in the neighborhood. A residential parking permit system is available in the low-density zones surrounding the core of Collegetown to prevent spillover issues. Many properties have voluntarily unbundled at least some of the price of parking from the price of living. The areas largest employer, Cornell University, is within a short walk and has implemented a successful Transportation Demand Management program. Many streets in the core area have metered parking. There are a number of remote, yet transit accessible, parking areas (Cornell A and B lots; Cayuga, Green, and Seneca garages) with significant capacity. The core area around the proposed project includes a mixeduse center with a high residential density and a variety of shopping and dining options, and design features add to the walkability of the area. Mobility management by Cornell University is significant, explored in the universitys 2008 transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) and Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies report. Most of undergraduate students walk (80%) or take the bus (10%); graduate students take the bus (20%) or walk (31%); most faculty and staff (55%) drive alone, though 80% of employees indicated they would take the bus if routes were more convenient. Unfortunately, not all of these measures are being fully implemented. Metered parking spaces are under-enforced (Greig 2000) and pricing is not demand-sensitive. Paying for parking, even at the low price, is a hassle due to old coin-based technology; collecting these coins imposes an additional expense on the city. Updating the neighborhoods metering system to smart meters that accept credit cards, can sense which spots are full, and can alert enforcement officers as soon as a meter expires would be a major step toward making it easier to pay for parking, to enforce parking, and to implement a demand-based pricing structure. Enforcement of parking regulations should be a top priority in any parking policy and has the potential to significantly reduce demand for on-street parking and bring substantial new funds into the city coffers. Remote parking, although available, is not well-known by residents (Greig 2000). It could be far more effective if it were better advertised to students, if signage and wayfinding were improved and if payment by credit card or smartphone was routinely available. Residential parking permit systems (RPPS) have proven extremely successful at combating spillover parking problems where residents or commuters in areas where parking is priced, or demand is high, park on neighborhood streets where there is less demand and parking is free. There are certainly significant equity issues to consider 15

when the city grants a virtually free and exclusive right to park on city property to residents of low-density streets with a high percentage of homeowners while charging significantly more on high-density streets where higher percentages of residents are renters. As a tool for preventing spillover, however, RPPS has an astonishing track record. Despite the known effectiveness of RPPS, less than half of the eligible blocks in Ithaca have opted to implement the system (see Appendix 3). If there are further concerns about residents using on street parking for storage, the first course of action should be full implementation of the system that is already in place. The urban design of the area has been hampered by the imposition of required parking in the neighborhoods most dense areas, making streets that should be the most walkable, less attractive. Parking lot entries on Dryden Road and College Avenue and the accompanying lighting dwarfs pedestrians and creates giant holes in the streets urban fabric. The semi-surface parking lot just north of 312 College Avenue breaks up the pleasant and consistent flow of buildings built to the lot line on the preceding block. The combination of these factors, and the below-grade and setback commercial space (in addition to the far setback residential entryway at 312 College Avenue), have made the street front immediately surrounding the proposed Collegetown Crossing unsafe and uninviting for pedestrians. There are also a few parking demand control measures that have not been implemented, most notably zoning that includes parking maximums rather than minimums. Making this change would simultaneously reduce demand while increasing city and private revenue generation from the provision of parking. These strategies would support the city, county and state planning objectives in support of public transit, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enabling nodal, transit-oriented smart growth. The most effective overarching strategy is an area parking plan coupled with a system of continuous evaluation and improvement that allows the city flexibility while encouraging land use, housing, and transportation innovations. As recommended by both Greig (2000) and Novak (2012) and endorsed by Planning Director JoAnn Cornish, a reorganization of the citys parking system to clarify and consolidate under a Parking Manager would increase parking revenue and customer satisfaction. Effective management of parking has also been shown to reduce demand. As it stands now, residential parking permits are obtained through the City Chamberlain; maintenance, payment collection, and enforcement in garages is done by Public Works; the Police enforce on-street parking. This setup is a source of confusion for the public and city employees. Informed parking and travel choices are possible through clear information and flexible, strategic use of parking quality and management efforts. Parking Management Best Practices (Litman 2006), published by the American 16

Planning Association, recommends starting with parking requirements based on actual car ownership levels (as we described in our Worst Case Scenario for Collegetown Crossing), and then reducing parking requirements based on proximity to a variety of best practices shown to reduce parking demand. (See tables on following pages.) In addition to the availability of amenities, parking demand is impacted by parking supply. In locations like Collegetown, where many amenities are available and many best practices are in place, parking demand management recommends reducing parking below the current rate of car ownership to account for the reductions in parking demand that are possible based on coupling reduced supply with the existing neighborhood conditions. Using these guidelines and the current conditions at the project site, we can calculate a recommended reduction in requirements for Collegetown Crossing. Requirements can be reduced by 10% for developments within a quarter-mile of frequent bus service. Residential density accounts for a 1% reduction per resident per acre, resulting in a 60% reduction based on the study areas average density.1 Carsharing service located within a quarter-mile reduces the demand another 5-10% or 5-10 spaces for every carshare space on-site. High walkability calculated through a pedestrian level of service evaluation metric such as a Walk Score can reduce demand from 5-15% (more if improvements to the walking environmental allow shared and off-site parking). Mixed-use areas can reduce requirements by 5-10%. The presence of a large percentage of young people can reduce requirements by 20-40%. Rental, rather than owned, housing can reduce requirements by 20-40%. Pricing parking is recommended to reduce requirements by 10-30% and unbundling the cost of parking from residential rental costs can reduce requirements by 10-30%. These recommended reductions are multiplicative, rather than additive, with each measure only applying to the spaces remaining after the previous reduction was applied. Using the most conservative reductions in each category, the best practices guide recommends that parking requirements at Collegetown Crossing be reduced by 84% below the average rate of expected car ownership for the building.2 Based on our worst case scenario estimate of 19 cars, the best practices guide would recommend a parking requirement reduction to about 3 spaces. A strong argument can be made for going beyond the most conservative reduction in several of the categories; for instance, the project site scores exceptionally high in walkability (which would be further increased by the projects proposed amenities) but given the results with the minimum reduction additional reductions would be inconsequential. This projection does not include the increase in neighborhood walkability and amenities that the project may bring. This recommendation of a requirement for 3 spaces, assumes, as we have earlier in this document, that the mitigation measures proposed have no effect.
1 study area has 59.7 residents per acre total area = 3,551,333 square ft. [calculated from study area boundary map] population = 4865 2010 [census by block] 2 100%-(90%*40%*95%*95%*95%*80*80*90%*90%)

17

1817

Table 3-7, Litman, 2006.

18

CONCLUSION
Based on our survey of Collegetown apartment residents and off-street parking facilities, statistical analysis of the survey results and demographic changes, as well as a review of the best practices, previous area specific studies, interviews with key stakeholders, and professional judgment we believe that the Collegetown Crossing project will not impose any negative impact on the area, either in generating additional parking issues or congestion. Our evidence suggests, with a high degree of confidence, that it is unlikely that residents of an apartment building that does not provide parking will choose to bring cars and park on the street. The full implementation of the Residential Parking Permit System and adequate pricing and enforcement of on-street parking regulations should fully protect the character of the neighborhood if, in the future, other factors influencing parking demand shift dramatically, invalidating our observations. The evidence suggests that there is demand for car-free housing development in Collegetown, and that with the right marketing and branding Collegetown Crossing should have no difficulty filling 113 beds with residents who do not have cars. Our analysis of the site and surrounding area lead us to conclude that the building as proposed will bring a significant benefit to the neighborhood. Replacing one of the least architecturally interesting buildings in the area and an under-used surface parking lot with a building that fills the lot and creates a more consistent streetfront will make the area more pedestrian friendly. Providing a dedicated through block crossing adds to the permeability of the street grid, making the area more walkable. Including additional commercial space that is appropriately provisioned for a grocery store in a neighborhood where groceries are one of the only amenities not within easy walking distance is a benefit and is also likely to further decrease residential parking demand. Increasing residential density will help support neighborhood businesses while further increasing the efficiency of the transportation system and land use in general.

20

FURTHER RESOURCES
Ithaca Carshare, Inc. 2011. Carsharing in a Small City: Ithaca Carshares First Two Years. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-drepository/C-06-33%20Ithaca%20Carshare%20Final%20Report%20NYSERDA%20 Agreement%209821.pdf Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). City of Ithaca. City of Ithaca Phone Survey Results. 2012. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/ Minutes_of_Meetings/Government_Performance_and_Accountability_Committee/ City%20of%20Ithaca%20Phone%20Survey%20Results%20-%20final%20report.pdf Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee (CVIC). 2007. The Collegetown Vision Statement. http://ithaca.govoffice.com/vertical/Sites/%7B5DCEB23D-5BF8-4AFF-806D68E7C14DEB0D%7D/uploads/%7B1574B692-9A12-40FF-93A5-16E0FBC36CF8%7D. PDF Cornell University. 2008. FINAL transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS). http://www.tgeisproject.org/TGEIS_Documents/t-FGEIS_FINAL%20 ACCEPTED-121508.pdf Cornell University. 2008. TIMS: Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (Draft Report). http://www.tgeisproject.org/TGEIS_Documents/Final-Draft-TIMS-060308.pdf Davis, Dutzik, and Baxandall. 2012. Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy. Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund. http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/transportation-and-new-generation Duncan, Dustin T.; Aldstadt, Jared; Whalen, John; Melly, Steven J.; Gortmaker, Steven L. 2011. Validation of Walk Score for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, no. 11: 4160-4179. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8114160 Frank L.D., Sallis J.F., Cain L., Conway T.L., et al. 2010. The development of a walkability index: Application to the neighborhood quality of life study. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 44 (13): 924-933. 21

Greig, Jessica. 2000. Collegetown Parking Study. Prepared for the Collegetown Moratorium Subcommittee to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96771368 Litman, Todd. 2012. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf Litman, Todd. 2006. Parking management best practices. Chicago, lll: American Planning Association. Authors book summary at http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf. Maley, Donald and Rachel Weinberger. 2010. Food Shopping in the Urban Environment: Parking Supply, Destination Choice, and Mode Choice. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 23-27, 2011. http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP_US_Parking_Report.pdf Manville, Michael, and Shoup, Donald C. 2010. Parking requirements as a barrier to housing development: regulation and reform in Los Angeles. eScholarship, University of California. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1qr84990 Manville, M., and D. Shoup. 2005. Parking, People, and Cities. Journal Of Urban Planning And Development. 131 (4): 233-245. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,CitiesJUPD.pdf Novak Consulting Group. 2011. City of Ithaca Performance Measures Framework and Organizational Analysis Report. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/Clerks_ Office/Novak%20Ithaca%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf Report on city governance commissioned by the City of Ithaca. Travers Associates Consultants. 1998. Cornell/Ithaca Parking Study: Existing Parking Demand, Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96771284 Rick Williams Consulting. 2007. University District Parking Study, Spokane, WA. 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines. Prepared by Goody Clancy Consultants. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/Planning_ and_Economic_Development/Collegetown/Collegetown-Urban-Plan-and-ConceptualDesign-Guidelines-Final-Web-Version.pdf Plan for Collegetown endorsed by the City of Ithaca Common Council, August 5, 2009. 22

Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2012 revision. [U.S.] Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II Parking Costs (Sec 5.4). http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf Walk Score Methodology. 2011. http://www2.walkscore.com/pdf/WalkScoreMethodology.pdf The method behind the algorithms that define Walk Score rankings. Weinberger, Rachel, John Kaehny, and Matthew Rufo. 2010. U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies. New York, NY: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP_US_Parking_Report.pdf

23

Appendix 1: METHODOLOGY
In any neighborhood level study, defining the neighborhood is a difficult task. For this study we started with the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone based on the similarity to the proposed project in location, amenities, and urban form. The boundary was simplified to contain only whole blocks due to data availability (census population data goes down to the block level), allowing an accurate count of residents in the study area rather than rough estimates. This had the added benefit of removing the south side of State Street from the study area which would have been problematic since the area was a large construction zone at the time of the survey, but had been occupied during the 2010 census. This discrepancy could have skewed the numbers. We believe these changes are inconsequential to defining the character of the neighborhood particularly in relation to the project site which is in the core of the neighborhood. Based on the 2000 Greig study it is clear that parking demand is significantly different for different types of buildings in Collegetown. Greig found that apartment buildings differ significantly from buildings with fewer units, identified as multiple dwelling units. Since this study looks at the impacts of a proposed apartment building, the survey is limited to other apartment buildings (defined as buildings with 20 or more units). Based on these selection criteria Randall West identified 13 buildings where residents would be surveyed.
Address 717 115 301 312 400 405-07 420 110 111-113 151 206-208 211-217 114 Total Street Buffalo St E Cascadilla Pl College Ave College Ave College Ave College Ave College Ave Dryden Rd Dryden Rd Dryden Rd Dryden Rd Linden Ave Summit Ave Max Occupancy 23 498 119 199 44 88 237 240 223 180 112 76 65 2104 Units Survey Response Quota 22 4 206 77 26 18 121 31 20 7 20 14 96 37 58 37 23 34 154 28 50 17 20 12 30 10 846 326

To guarantee the statistical validity of the survey we calculated the number of responses necessary to achieve a 95% confidence level with 5% confidence interval. For this calculation we used the maximum occupancy allowed for each building based on City of Ithaca Certificates of Compliance to estimate the population (N) for these buildings. Given an N of 2104 we needed 325 survey responses. A survey response quota was allocated for each building based on the buildings share of the total max occupancy, as seen in the table above. Rounding to the nearest whole person for each building resulted in a total sample size of 326.

Survey collectors were chosen for knowledge of urban planning and community engagement; most were graduate students or recent graduates from Cornells Department of City and Regional Planning. Survey collectors were trained and given a basic script to ensure that no bias was interjected and to ensure consistency. The survey collectors worked in groups of two and were closely supervised by the consultants. Survey respondents were asked to complete a paper survey, a copy of which is included with the report. Surveyors were provided a randomized list of unit numbers for each building that they used to choose the order of units to survey, this measure ensures that responses would not be subject to any selection bias. In addition to unit randomization, surveys were collected over the course of a week May 1 through 7, 2012 at different times of the day to minimize any selection bias. Surveys were collected during the last week of instruction before the start of Cornell University finals; this time period was chosen because a very high proportion of students were likely to be present. Although many of the selected buildings had controlled access entries, surveyors were able to enter most of the buildings and the survey had a response rate well over 90%. In a few cases where surveyors were asked to leave a building or where they were not able to enter a building they petitioned residents coming from or going to the building from the sidewalk. While this method provides somewhat less randomization in a few cases, these instances comprise a relatively small part of the sample and were still reasonably random to avoid sample bias. We conducted a physical inventory of each off-street parking space in Collegetown on foot, counting each space. When spaces were not clearly delineated, we erred on the side of conservatism by only counting spaces that a car could independently access (assuming that cars could double park in long driveways, for example, was not considered reasonable). In addition, we conducted occupancy counts at all four city parking garages Cayuga Street, Dryden Road, Seneca Street, and Green Street at random times during typical (i.e., in-semester) weekday and weekend days.

Appendix 2: SURVEY AND RESULTS

Collegetown Crossing Parking Survey, May 2012

Location (building and unit number) and time survey was conducted: ___________________________________

This survey is restricted to residents living in apartment buildings of the Collegetown core neighborhood. 1. Does your building offer car parking? q Yes q No 2. Do you keep a car in Ithaca? q Yes q No If you responded NO to #2 above, please continue. If you responded YES to #2 above, please skip to question #5. 3. Why do you not have a car in Ithaca? (Please check all that apply) q I do not own a car q I do not need a car q High price of parking q Difficulty in finding free or inexpensive parking q Traffic and hassle of driving q Good bus service q Availability of Carshare q Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ 4. Would you be more likely to rent an apartment that provided free TCAT passes, Carshare usage credits and free, secure indoor bike parking? q Yes q No If you responded YES to #2 above, please continue. Those who responded NO to #2 above, please skip to the end of the survey. 5. Why do you have vehicle in Ithaca? (Please check all that apply) q So I dont have to take a bus or plane to get back home to family. q I have an off-campus job and use my car to get there. q To get to get to grocery stores outside of Collegetown. q To do other shopping outside of Collegetown. q My family lives close to Ithaca, and I go home frequently. q For recreational purposes (going hiking, to parks, nightclubs, etc) q To get back and forth to Campus q Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ 6. Where do you park your car? q In a parking space provided at my building q In a private parking lot or garage away from my building. (please specify location)____________________________________ q On Campus q In the Dryden Road parking garage q In a Downtown parking garage q On the street

7. How much do you currently pay for parking? q between $0 and $40 per month q between $41 and $70 per month q between $71 and $100 per month q between $101 and $130 per month q between $131 and $150 per month q between $151 and $180 per month q between $181 and $210 per month q between $211 and $240 per month q over $240/month 8. What is the maximum price you would pay for parking? q between $0 and $40 per month q between $41 and $70 per month q between $71 and $100 per month q between $101 and $130 per month q between $131 and $150 per month q between $151 and $180 per month q between $181 and $210 per month q between $211 and $240 per month q over $240/month 9. Would you cease keeping a car in Ithaca if: (Please check all that apply) q You were offered free unlimited bus rides during ALL TCAT service hours, on all routes? q You were offered $50 in Carshare credits for trips you may need to take after TCAT service hours? q You had free, secure bike parking inside your building q Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ 10. If you could not afford parking in Collegetown, but were given a free TCAT bus pass, would you park at a cheaper location, such as Downtown or on campus? q Yes q No q I currently park outside Collegetown, but pay for my own bus pass (or fare). 11. If you could not afford parking in Collegetown, or at some less expensive location, what would you do? (Please rank in order of preference, with 1 being your top choice) #______ Leave my car at home. I would instead bike, walk, ride with a friend, use bus transit, or use carsharing service while in Ithaca. #______ Try to find free overnight parking on the streets nearby, even if I have to drive around for a while. #______ Other (please specify) ________________________________________________ Thank you for participating in our survey! If you would like to provide your name and contact information below, we will enter you in a drawing for $100 in cash. (Drawing to be held during finals week. Contact information will be kept strictly confidential.) Name:__________________________________________________________________________ Local Address:___________________________________________________________________ Phone:________________________ Email:_________________________

337

responses

Summary
Question 1 Yes No 206 120 61% 36%

Question 2

Yes No

90 246

27% 73%

Question 3

I do not own a car I do not need a car High price of parking Di culty in nding free or inexpensive parking Tra c and hassle of driving Good bus service Availability of Carsher Other

123 76 90 67 32 23 11 24

51% 31% 37% 28% 13% 10% 5% 10%

People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Question 4

Yes No

198 46

59% 14%

Question 5

So I don't have to take a bus or plane to get back home to family. I have an o -campus job and use my car to get there. To get to grocery stores outside of Collegetown. To do other shopping outside of Collegetown. My family lives close to Ithaca, and I go home frequently. For recreational purposes (going hiking, to parks, nightclubs, etc.) To get back and forth to Campus. Other People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

58 11 76 61 6 45 21 3

66% 13% 86% 69% 7% 51% 24% 3%

Question 6

In a parking space provided at my building In a private parking lot or garage away from my building. (please list location in Other) On Campus In the Dryden Road parking garage In a Downtown parking garage On the street. Other

40 31 5 7 0 7 247

12% 9% 1% 2% 0% 2% 73%

Question 7

between $0 and $40 per month between $41 and $70 per month between $71 and $100 per month between $101 and $130 per month between $131 and $150 between $151 and $180 between $181 and $210 between $211 and $240 over $240/month

11 11 14 9 8 2 6 17 8

3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 5% 2%

Ques tion 9

You were o er ed free unlimited bus ri de s during ALL TCAT service hou rs, on a ll routes? You were o er ed $50 in Cars ha re cr ed its for trips y ou may need to take a er TCA T service hou rs? You had free , secure bike parking inside your building Othe r

22 17 2 2

Ques tion 10

Yes No I curren tly pa rk outside Coll ege town, but pa y for my own bus pa ss (or fare).

37 49 0

11 % 15 % 0%

Ques tion 11 - Leave my car at home...

1 2 3

37 31 5

11 % 9% 1%

Ques tion 11

1 2 3

49 23 1

15 % 7% 0%

Question 11 - Other

1 2 3

1 7 13

0% 2% 4%

Building

Linden 312 College 717 Bu alo Cascadilla Hall 301 College Ave 400 College Ave Apartments 405-407 College Ave Sheldon Court Eddygate Park Apartments Collegetown Plaza Collegetown Center Collegetown Court 211-217 Linden Ave High Chaparall

9 35 4 73 18 4 13 48 37 36 28 17 1 10

3% 10% 1% 22% 5% 1% 4% 14% 11% 11% 8% 5% 0% 3%

4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 TIME 10:30a noon 10:15:00 Cayuga 413 387 381 Dryden 109 82 95 Green 185 133 180 Seneca 158 92 129 AVERAGE

average highest unoccupied average highest percentage 5/3/2012 spots CAPACITY occupancyoccupancyoccupancy 11a 394 393.75 700 43.75% 319 45.57% 78 91 217 58.06% 172 79.26% 139 159.25 400 60.19% 267 66.75% 123 125.5 350 64.14% 258 73.71% 56.54% 66.32%

4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 TIME 6:30p 6p 4:45p Cayuga 567 532 458 Dryden 129 115 113 Green 256 177 142 Seneca 230 224 144 AVERAGE

average highest unoccupied average highest percentage 5/3/2012 spots CAPACITY occupancyoccupancyoccupancy 4:30p 458 503.75 700 28.04% 242 34.57% 89 111.5 217 48.62% 128 58.99% 142 179.25 400 55.19% 258 64.50% 144 185.5 350 47.00% 206 58.86% 44.71% 54.23% weekend 5/5/2012 unoccupied Cayuga Dryden Green Seneca 582 110 266 265 average CAPACITY occupancy 700 217 400 350 16.86% 49.31% 33.50% 24.29% 30.99%

Appendix 3: MAPS

Residential Parking Permit Zone

ROS E M AR

Y LA

NE ED
KLIN
KLINE RD

WY C K OF RD F

ND

D LO IC A D K SO IN N GD OC

SO

E RD

AV E

F PL L IF EDGE C EDGECLIFF PL

HI GH

RD

LA

WAIT AVE

S IS

HEIGH TS CT

ON H P LO O

AL L

NP

L EX

HA

MP

URN E

LA

P RD SSU PL JE RBORN DE A TRIPHAMMER KELVIN RD PL

OK L A

ROBERT PURCELL COMMUNITY CENTER DRIVEWAY PL RPCC LOADING ON N DOCK SISS L

DO

Legend
RPPS Streets RPPS Boundary

BRO

WEST B

THE KN

BA RTON PL

RIDG E OO D W

WYCKOFF AVE

D LO GE Y WA

ZONE
CRADIT FARM DR

OL

TH U R

S TO N AVE

LINN ST

S T ON

E FALLS ST N AURORA ST E LINCOLN ST

QUEEN ST
E JAY ST E LEWIS ST

AV E

HIGHLAND AVE RO B E RT S P L FALL CREEK D R

LE

YDR

BAL

CH

DR

R-1a; R-1b R-2a; R-2b; R-2c Roads Parcels

R IS

WILLARD LOOP

AR D

KING ST

WAY

ALPHA DELTA PHI R DRIVEWAY AW PL CAMPUS HILL APARTMENTS DRIVEWAY

CH I DR IV PSI EW AY

RESERVOIR AVE

W ILL

EAS T

E AV

TH

UR

WEST AVE

E TOMPK INS ST

STEWART AVE

GARDEN AVE

TOWER RD

E YATES ST

AVE CITY OF ITHACA CITY OF ITHACA CEMETARY

KL A

FARM ST
OF

CAMPUS R D

STATLER DR

E MARSHALL ST

Y ANN

S VE T

HO PLZ

COLLEG E AV

CA CASCADILLAAVE S CA D IL LA AVE

CITY M E TA TP CE CITY OF WIT A CA DE ITHACA I TH CEMETARY

EDGEMOOR LA

HILL

CASCADILLA PARK RD

HIGH

TERRACE PL

CA

A AV E

FOUNTAIN PL

DRYDEN CT

GLEN WILLETS PL PL SPRING LA

EDGEWOOD PL
OSMUN PL

WILLIAMS ST

SUMMIT AVE

PARKER ST

SCHUYL ER PL

400

E BUFFAL O ST

400

EDDY ST

LINDEN AVE

SE NE

E SENECA ST N QUARRY ST

CATHERINE ST COOK S T

100

SENECA WAY
ELSTON PL

FROSH ALLEY

BLAIR ST

E GRE E N

ST

ORCHARD PL

DELAWARE AVE

S TIOGA ST

100

PL IRVIN G 100

I TH

A AC

100 100 100

WORTH ST

SPECT ST PRO

PL

ST

HUDS O N S T

E CLINTON ST

STATE ROUT E 366

MIT CH EL

L ST
100

CE R

PLEASANT ST

ES PE N

TURNER PL

COLUMBIA ST

CH
AGE COT T PL

K ST

E STATE ST / M.L.K. JR ST

100

R ID
100

A LE GE D

RD

100 DUNMORE PL

AR

L VA L

EY

RD

FOUN TA IN ST

ST

GI L

ES

R WAT E
ST

TREVA AVE

HOM E

S TE

AD

RD

ST

RO

ST

HUD SO N

SA U

GRANDVIEW CT

GRANDVIEW AVE
GRANDVIEW PL

HAWTHORNE PL PEA RSA LL PL

2,000 Feet

For More Information Visit: http://www.cityofithaca.org/departments/clerk/resparking.cfm

BR

ID GE

RA

NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum Map Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2012 Data Source: City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, 2012 Map Prepared by: GIS Program, City of Ithaca, NY, July, 2012

ST

TO M

PK

T AVE R ES EASTWOOD ODC ST WO WO TER INS WOODCREST TER OD CO AV E UN TY AL LE Y

EA

HOMEST EAD TER

SOUTH HILL TER

IN E P L
WATER TREATMENT PLANT DRIVEWAY

HILLVIEW PL

COTTAGE REN ZE T PL TI P L

RN CO

EL

WA L

VA

LEN T

CORNELL ST

MITCHELL ST

COBB ST

RD

PEARL ST

E COURT ST

LAN

DP

DILLA SCA PL

100

300

HARVARD PL

100

OAK AVE ONEIDA 500 PL DRYDEN RD 400 MAPLE GROVE PL

100 300 200

MAPLE AVE
FAIRVIEW SQ

300

200

AV E

200

BOOL ST

ORD PL OXF

ELMWOOD AVE

MILLER ST

DR YD EN

HOLLISTER DR

PA R
RD

H OY RD

KI N

RY

S OUTH

AVE WEST AVE

AG SCHOOL DRIVEWAY
LOT

LAKE ST
WILLARD WAY
LLENROC C
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEST W ES CAMPUS TC DRIVEWAY A

FOREST HOME DR

MCG

VE GARDEN A

WES T AV E

RESERVOIR RESER V O IR AVE

AVE

RAL AVE C EN T

EAST AVE

LOT PUS PARKING

LINN ST

CORN EL L

WE

N TIOGA ST

M AR

FORES T

N AURORA ST

T
SAGE PL

E SAGE AV

WO

R PA

OD

CE M

DR

ETARY

KITE

DEWIT T PL

COLLEGE AVE

FAIRMO U

N YA BR

CA

Y WA

AV NT E
IRVI

NG P

T S QUAR RY S

FERR IS

A BR

S AURORA ST

ND

JAM E S ST
SS LE T
CR ES
RNE HAWTHO CIR

W D OO CO
C

ON PL

CE NT PL