1. Introduction and Context
Queen's University has had various parking studies undertaken over
the last decade. These included the Circulation and Parking Study
- Preliminary Overview Report prepared by BA Consulting Group
Ltd. in 1992. That report presented some initial impressions
and some preliminary ideas related to potential modifications
on the Main Campus.
Although parking was only one element, mention needs to be made
of the 1994 Campus Plan. This was a collaborative effort involving
the Campus Planning and Development Office, the Campus Development
Advisory Committee and Du Toit Allsopp Hillier as the consultants.
The Campus Plan is a comprehensive document which was approved
by the Board of Trustees in October, 1994. It provides the planning
framework for the Campus. The document details the planning foundations,
principles and strategies, a mid-range demonstration plan and
longer range possibilities. Strategy 22 in Section 4 (Movement
and Systems Strategies) deals with parking. "The University
will adopt strategies aimed at meeting demand in ways which limit
"overflow" parking on neighbouring streets while reducing
reliance upon private vehicles for commuting. Most surface lots
will eventually be replaced by underground facilities located
at the campus periphery. Provision will be made for limited special
purpose surface parking and remote commuter parking". Reference
is made in the Campus Plan to the fact that resolution of the
parking supply and demand issue will require continued study and
review in collaboration with both the City and the Hospital.
Two general approaches are presented including reducing the demand
for parking and providing a diverse parking inventory with most
commuter parking accommodated in underground garages. However
special purpose surface parking lots and remote parking such as
use of West Campus are also considered as components of a broader-based
parking supply strategy.
In 1995 Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited completed the Kingston
General Hospital/Queen's University Parking Study. This was a
comprehensive study which included attitudinal surveys, parking
surveys and observations, examination of future plans of the three
institutional uses in the area and assessment of these implications
on parking needs. The experiences of other institutions, particularly
other universities, were examined and various options identified
and assessed. The recommended strategy included the following
- Co-ordination along with the Hospital, City and Cancer Clinic
and the monitoring of demand and supply as new facilities are
built, uses change and surface lots are replaced by buildings.
- Management of demand particularly through the introduction
of a carpool program.
- Minimizing short-term major parking infrastructure investments
until various unknowns are better defined.
- Maintaining a variety of parking options including surface
lots where appropriate and required to meet specific needs.
The study included a specific implementation strategy for the
immediate term, short term (1 to 2 years) and mid-term (3 to 5
years), as well as ongoing requirements.
In 1997 the Surface Infrastructure Study - Parking and Open Space,
was completed by du Toit Allsopp Hillier, in association with
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited. The study developed a strategy
for upgrading the campus landscape in the short-term and providing
building sites in the mid and long term. The report notes that
if and when new buildings are needed, "the University will
have to implement an orchestrated parking accommodation program
consisting of further demand management, remote parking initiatives
and underground parking". (P.1 - Executive Summary) A requirement
for up to 2,200 parking spaces or about 800 in excess of those
in existence at that time, was estimated as being required to
address the campus development capacity estimated in the 1994
The study included ten recommendations:
"1. Reduce existing surface parking in the core of the campus
and rehabilitate the lots as useful and attractive landscapes.
2. Implement comprehensive demand management programs including
improved public transit, car- and van-pooling, as well as an equitable
rate structure geared to location and service.
3. Encourage use of the West Campus parking capacity by means
of an attractive rate structure and a convenient shuttlebus service.
4. Recognize future structured parking as an integral component
of further campus development.
5. Protect opportunities for future academic development and parking
6. Maintain open lines of communication with Kingston General
Hospital and the City of Kingston.
7. Develop a long term financial plan that anticipates a further
building cycle and accounts for all of the costs of providing
and operating parking, including land value.
8. Begin the physical and financial planning necessary for the
construction of a Tindall Field underground parkade.
9. Explore the feasibility and acceptability of a Barrie/Bagot
At that time the expectation was the decisions could be staged
over a period of time. However reality has not borne this out.
Queen's University, similar to other institutions of higher learning
in the province, is now faced with the challenge of dealing with
the double cohort resulting from the elimination of grade 13.
Students who are currently in grade 9 will be graduating from
high school in the spring of 2003, along with those currently
in grade 10. This will place substantial pressures on the resources
of the University for the 2003-2004 academic year.
Secondly, the University's current capital program has advanced
the construction of several new buildings, in part in response
to the above noted needs. Not all of the projects were previously
identified in the Master Plan. Not only will there be a resulting
increase in parking demand related to the increased enrolment
and staffing levels, but existing surface parking will be displaced
by some of these new buildings.
This acceleration in the need to address the demand for parking
precipitated the University to initiate the subject Strategic
Parking Study. Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, in association
with Du Toit Allsopp Hillier, was selected to undertake the study.
As noted, this is a strategic exercise, intended to revisit the
direction which the University should be undertaking with respect
to parking in the short term, related to the double cohort requirements
(2003-2004). The University felt it important to revisit all
potential options on a strategic level. This assessment is presented
Being a strategic parking study, the approach taken herein was
to use the previously noted studies as the basis of the study,
without updated parking utilization and other similar type of
detailed information. However, enrolment and employment data
and forecasts were examined so as to understand the magnitude
of the potential increases in demands, as compared to the existing.
Also, parking inventory was updated, as required. Home postal
code information for existing parkers was examined in order to
provide a basis for assessing the potential effectiveness of various
Being a strategic study it was important to ensure that no potential
option was overlooked. Accordingly, a full range of options was
identified for consideration herein.
Another important component of the study was the involvement of
the university community. A Public Open House which was broadly
advertised to the university community, was held from noon to
7:00 p.m. on Thursday December 16th. This provided
an opportunity for parkers and others to view the options, ask
questions and provide comments. The input reviewed was considered
in the development of the recommended strategy.
3. Existing Parking Demand and Supply
The existing parking supply in or around the University, exclusive
of surface lots owned and operated solely by Kingston General
Hospital, are outlined in Table 1 below:
CURRENT UNIVERSITY OWNED PARKING SUPPLY
|No. of Spaces
|On Main Campus for Exclusive Use by the University
||Most, if not all, spaces will be displaced by the new School of Business
||Will lose at least half related to the new Integrated Learning Centre and about 12 due to relocation of an historical house
|On Main Campus - Shared with Kingston General Hospital
||Owned jointly with the Hospital. Of the approximate 246 monthly permits, 106 are for the Hospital.
Most of the short-term parkers are Hospital/Cancer Centre related.
|About 200 of the permit parkers are from the Hospital.
|Heating Plant Lot||145
||Leased entirely to the Hospital.|
|On West Campus
|West Campus Lots||500
||500*||-||*Combination of monthly permit parkers, free parkers and some limited short-term parkers.
In addition to the University owned and operated parking facilities,
other municipal or Hospital related parking, is also available
in the area. This is outlined in Table 2.
OTHER PARKING IN THE AREA
||No. of Spaces||Comments
|On-street metered spaces
||253||Intended primarily for short-term parkers. It is also being used by all day parkers who are "feeding the meter"
|Not possible to distinguish between University and Hospital related parkers
|Other on-street spaces within walking distance of campus
||409||Not possible to distinguish between University and Hospital related parkers
|Municipally operated parking lots south of King Street
||75||Intended for park users, but largely used by Hospital related parkers
|Parking owned and operated by the Hospital/Cancer Clinic.
||213||Only addresses a small component of the Hospital's parking demand
Thus in total, in the order of 3,050 parking spaces are available,
on-site and in the vicinity of Queen's University and Kingston
General Hospital, for use by both institutions. A further 500
spaces are available on West Campus.
Being a strategic study, parking utilization counts were not undertaken
to update those outlined in the 1994 report. However, experience
indicates that all available parking on and in proximity to the
Campus is fully occupied throughout the majority of the day, on
weekdays. In fact, a waiting list of approximately 150 exists
for those awaiting a parking permit on the Main Campus.
The only location where parking is still available is on West
Campus. Approximately 500 parking spaces are provided. On a
typical day there are about 350 permit parkers who make use of
4. Future Parking Demand
4.1 Related to Increased Enrolment
Although enrolment targets in response to the double cohort have
not been finalized as yet, the expectation is that Queen's University
will need to accommodate in the order of 1,400 to 1,600 additional
students for the 2003/2004 academic year.
Currently a large proportion of students (72.5 percent) are accommodated
either on-campus, or in close proximity to the University. Accordingly,
they are able to walk, cycle, rollerblade, or use public transit.
Discussions have centered on the construction of another residence
on campus accommodating "350 students in total. A survey
undertaken a year ago indicated that based on the vacancy rate
at that time, approximately 300 additional Queen's students could
be accommodated off-campus.
If it is assumed that 350 additional students are accommodated
in a new residence on campus, and a further 350 are accommodated
off campus but within walking/cycling distance, this still leaves
up to 900 who will need to find accommodation elsewhere. Some
will likely be accommodated in the suburban areas such as the
former Townships. Others may commute from outlying communities.
If it is assumed that half of the remaining 900 are able to use
public transit, or are able to get a ride with someone else, this
still leaves 450 who would drive and therefore require parking.
An alternative approach was to examine the proportion of existing
students who drive to/from campus. Based on a limited sampling
of students as part of the 1994 survey, 19 percent of students
were found to own a vehicle. Presumably as students must look
further afield for accommodation, those who own a vehicle are
more likely to use it for travel to and from campus. Applying
19 percent to 1,600 students would result in 304 requiring
parking. Another survey undertaken in the spring of 1999 of students
at various universities, found that at Queen's 28.9 percent park
on campus. Applying this percentage to 1600 students results
in 462 parkers.
Using the differing approaches and parameters results in a potential
increase in parking demand related to students of 305 to 460 spaces.
4.2 Related to Increased Faculty and Staffing Llevels
Increases in enrolment will require corresponding increases in
the number of faculty and support staff, including those who may
not necessarily be employed directly by the University (e.g. related
to food services).
A ratio of faculty/staff to students for 1998/99 was found to
be 23.6 percent. Applying this ratio to a 1,600 increase in enrolment
equates to 378 additional faculty/staff.
In addition, significant numbers of existing faculty members are
expected to retire over the next few years. The argument has
been made that perhaps new faculty and staff can be encouraged
to seek alternative means of transportation rather than driving.
However, recent experience has not borne this out, with Parking
Services receiving increasing requests for parking permits for
As noted, in the order of 378 new faculty/staff can be expected,
related to an increase in enrolment by 1,600 students. If it
is assumed that some of these (10 percent) can be absorbed by
the available housing stock within walking distance of the Main
Campus (i.e. an additional 38 homes in the immediate area which
are currently occupied by others become available for rent or
ownership by University faculty or staff) then 340 need to be
accommodated elsewhere. In all likelihood these would either
drive or be passengers with someone else who is driving, given
the very low transit usage by faculty and staff (2 to 4 percent
only). This equates to an increase in parking demand of 283 spaces
Another approach would be to examine the survey findings from
the 1994 Parking Study. That survey identified that 67 percent
of faculty/staff drive to/from work in summer, with 69 percent
doing so in winter. Thus assuming the same characteristics related
to the 378 additional faculty/staff results in the need for 261
Thus in the order of 261 to 283 additional parking spaces are
required for faculty and staff.
4.3 DISPLACED PARKING
Some of the existing surface parking spaces will be displaced
by the new building construction, or for other reasons. These
- "75 to 150 spaces on the Victoria School site related
to the new School of Business building.
- "125 spaces on the Dupuis lot for the Integrated Learning
- "12 spaces on the Dupuis lot for a relocated heritage
Together this equates to 212 to 287 spaces. Although the Chemistry
Building will not directly displace any parking, indirectly it
will, in that it will displace a service yard that in all likelihood
would be relocated to parking lot. However, the numbers identified
above, particularly related to the School of Business, provide
sufficient latitude to account for this. In addition to the above
noted totals, in the order of 10 on-street spaces will likely
be lost due to the Student Life Facilities Building.
4.4 WAITING LIST
In the order of 190 persons are currently on a waiting list for
The additive parking requirements resulting from each of the components
described above are as follows:
ADDITIONAL PARKING DEMAND (2003/2004)
||No. of Spaces
|Students || 305 ® 460
|Faculty/Staff || 261 ® 283
|Displaced Spaces || 212 ® 287
|Waiting List || 190
|Total || 968 ® 1,220
Although a small component of this increased demand may be accommodated
through private arrangements (i.e., parking in private driveways
in the vicinity of the Campus through arrangements with the homeowners),
likely only a small number of additional parkers can be accommodated
in this manner. Accordingly, the demand numbers outlined in Table
3 would not be altered significantly by this factor.
5. Range of Options
A wide range of options was identified to address the increased
demand for parking which had been identified. The options are
listed below, with further details including the assessment of
options described in Chapter 6.
RANGE OF OPTIONS CONSIDERED
||A(1)||Revised Parking Policy
||Parking Rate Increases
||Differential Parking Rate Structure
|B.||More Effective Use of Existing Parking Supply/Pavement
||B(1)||Additional On-street Parking
||Greater Use of West Campus for Parking, Combined With Better Shuttle Bus Service
||Alternative Arrangements with Kingston General Hospital
||Small Car Parking
|C.||New and/or Expanded Parking Facilities
||C(1)||Underground Parking Below New Buildings
||New Surface Lots on Periphery of Campus
||New Underground Parking Below Playing Fields/Open Space
||New Above Ground Parking Structures on an Infill Basis
||D(1)||Improvements to Public Transit Services
||University Operated Transit Service
||Remote Lots Near the Highway 401 and/or the Highway 2 Corridor to the East/West, Connected by Shuttle Bus
||Car Pool Initiatives
||Selling the Parking Garage to the Hospital
6. Assessment of Options
Brief descriptions of the options, as well as the potential trade-offs
related to each option, were presented at the Queen's Community
Open House held on December 16th. More detailed descriptions
related to each are provided below.
6.1 A - MANAGING DEMAND
By managing demand, the total number of additional spaces which
may be required, can be reduced.
6.1.1 A(1) Revised Parking Policy
Currently those living in the Core Zone, which is generally bounded
by Princess Street to the north (to the east of Victoria Street)
and Yonge Street to the west, have the lowest eligibility for
parking permits. At the moment, only 39 permits are issued to
those in the Core Zone, for medical or unusual circumstances.
The shape and configuration of the Core Zone was determined a
number of years ago by examining walking distance and transit
The options exists to enlarge the Core Zone so as to place a greater
proportion of the parkers in the lowest eligibility class. For
example, one option would be to extend the boundary of the Core
Zone to Concession Street/Stephen Street/Bath Road to the north
and through to Little Cataraqui Creek to the west.
The area covered by the Core Zone extension currently houses in
the order of 140 permit parkers. Some exceptions typically occur
such that the parking demand would not be reduced by the entire
number (i.e. 140 parkers).
It is recognized that the existing parkers in this extended zone
would be "grandfathered", therefore would be phased
out over a period of time (e.g. as faculty and staff retire, or
relocate). Accordingly the extension of the Core Zone would be
of limited value over the shorter term, in helping to reduce the
demand for parking.
Secondly, since the extended area is substantially beyond the
typical walking distance of the Main Campus, reasonable alternatives
would need to be made available. One of the alternatives would
be an upgraded transit service both in terms of routings and frequency.
This is discussed in further detail in Section 6.4.1. Other
options include cycling and carpooling.
6.1.2 A(2) Parking Rate Increases
Currently those parking on the Main Campus pay $36.23 monthly,
with the exception of those parking in the underground garage,
who pay $103.50 per month for their permit. Those parking under
the Physical Educational Centre pay the surface lot price of $36.23
monthly. Parking is also available on West Campus at a cost of
$24.73 per month. Parking free of charge is also available at
the north end of West Campus.
These rates are generally lower that the downtown rates for parking
lots, but higher than the downtown rates for garages. Examples
of parking rates in the downtown area are provided in Appendix C.
The 1994 survey of university faculty and staff indicated that
a 25 percent increase in parking fees would result in a 15 percent
reduction in the number who would continue to drive to and from
work. Thus an increase in parking fees would likely encourage
more drivers to consider carpooling and would likely precipitate
other travel behavioural changes.
An increase in fees will likely be required to construct any new
parking including any new surface parking lots, as detailed in
A legitimate concern exists that any increase in parking fees
would in some cases impact those who can least afford a rate increase
and who for various other reasons, have no other option but to
A low cost parking option must be retained to accommodate such
6.1.3 A(3) Differential Parking Rate Structure
As indicated in Section 6.1.2, all those who park in surface lots,
or below the Physical Educational Centre, are charged the same
rate. Desirably, different rates should be charged for different
lots, based on the attractiveness of specific lots (i.e. market
At some university campuses this can be readily achieved, where
lots closer to the buildings are charged higher rates than those
which are further away.
In the case of Queen's University, where parking lots are integrated
amongst the buildings, desirability is largely determined by proximity
to a particular building, or grouping of buildings. For example,
the north end of the Mac Corry lot would be desirable for
someone based in the Policy Studies Building, but would not be
for someone based at Earl Hall. Similarly, the lot adjacent to
the Faculty Club would be attractive for anyone working at, or
visiting the Faculty Club on a regular basis. However, this lot
would not be as attractive for someone based at, or making regular
use of the Physical Education Centre. As such, it is somewhat
more difficult to differentiate the parking rates between various
surface parking lots. Also a complex system of differentiation
becomes more difficult to administer and can reduce the effectiveness
of the parking lot usage, unless the number of permits issued
(including overselling) is closely matched to the number of spaces
available in that lot, or category of lots.
However, similar to the current situation, there is some basis
for differentiating between parking in a structure, and parking
on a surface lot. Parking in structure can provide various advantages
including climate control in inclement weather, lack of snow clearance
required in winter, and increased security where surveillance
cameras are employed.
Any further differentiation in rates would not necessarily reduce
the demand for parking, but may help to relocate spaces in accordance
with market principles. For example, a new parking garage may
be found to warrant a higher monthly rate than the existing parking
garage, if it perceived to be more desirable.
The one area where increased differentiation in the rates is essential,
is with respect to the West Campus lots. As noted, parking on
surface lots on the Main Campus currently costs $36.23 per month,
whereas on West Campus the rate is $24.73 per month. This rate
differential is not sufficient to make parking on West Campus
an attractive option, particularly when faculty and staff would
also need to pay for the public transit service in addition to
this, unless they choose to walk instead.
The argument can be made that those who park on West Campus and
also work on West Campus have an unfair advantage in that the
parking rates on West Campus are lower. This is a valid statement.
However, the counter argument can be made that market conditions
(demand versus supply) and a cost differential of providing parking
on the Main Campus versus on West Campus, dictate the differences
between the two.
6.1.4 A(4) Daily/Shared Permits
Currently permits are only available on a monthly basis. For
the occasional parker the existing options include finding a metered
space on the street, or a metered space in one of the lots where
such spaces are available (i.e. Mac Corry), or purchasing
hourly or daily parking in the underground garage.
The suggestion has been put forward that some form of daily or
shared permits be available for those who may need to park only
a few days per month.
Daily or shared permits may marginally reduce the demand for parking
if those who are currently purchasing a monthly pass opt for this
arrangement instead, and do not park on campus on a daily basis.
However, there are some potential serious implications associated
with daily or shared permits. The inclination would be to make
the greatest use of those permits on peak days (i.e. in inclement
weather). On these peak days daily parkers could then potentially
displace the monthly parkers, resulting in significant parking
shortages. There would also be additional costs associated with
administering a daily or a shared permit program.
6.2 B - MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY/ PAVEMENT
The existing pavement in and around the University could perhaps
be put to better use so as to accommodate a greater number of
parked vehicles. Several options are described below.
6.2.1 B(1) Additional On-Street Parking
For the most part all available on-street parking spaces in the
vicinity of Queen's University are being used by either the University
or the Hospital. Those in areas of highest demand are metered.
The balance are not.
Converting from non-metered to metered spaces may help to reallocate
some spaces from all day to hourly parkers and result in increased
revenue for the City, but would not result in any additional parking
spaces being created.
Substantially more on-street parking cannot be achieved without
widening the road pavement at the expense of landscaped boulevards
or medians such as those along University Avenue.
On-street parking adds an element of traffic calming whereby drivers
are inclined to slow down their speeds when confronted with slow
moving drivers looking for a parking space, or drivers of parked
vehicles opening their doors.
However, care must be taken in introducing any new on-street parking.
As noted, road widenings are not desirable since they tend to
occur at the expense of landscaping and sidewalks.
Some on-street parking spaces can be added without widening the
pavement. Typically 2.5 metres of pavement width is required
to accommodate on-street parking. The remaining available pavement
width must adequately accommodate traffic flows, without jeopardising
safety or capacity. From a safety perspective, emergency vehicles
such as fire trucks must be able to readily access all of the
buildings. Similarly, in view of the proximity of Kingston General
Hospital, ambulances must be able to readily access the hospital.
Some concerns have been expressed that on-street parking obscures
pedestrians who may be crossing mid-block, between parked vehicles.
It is recognized that additional care must be taken by pedestrians
who choose to run across the street between parked vehicles and
that crosswalk areas must be kept clear of parked vehicles. However,
parked vehicles can also contribute positively to the pedestrian
environment by slowing traffic down.
Two streets have been identified where on-street parking could
potentially be added. No parking is currently permitted along
Queen's Crescent. The existing pavement width is in the order
of 9.45 to 9.76 metres (31 to 32 feet). Approximately 22 parallel
parking spaces can be added along the southerly side of Queen's
Crescent between Albert Street and University Avenue, while maintaining
two-way flows along Queen's Crescent. Consideration can perhaps
be given to converting Queen's Crescent to a one-way street in
order to allow for parking along both sides of the streets. However
a detailed traffic study would need to be undertaken to ensure
that the traffic flows in the area are not detrimentally impacted.
Queen's Crescent is under the jurisdiction of the University such
that the parking could be readily implemented.
The second location is Arch Street between Union Street and Stuart
Street. The pavement width is in the order of 7.62 metres (25
feet). In order to introduce on-street parking, Arch Street would
need to be converted to a one-way operation. Since this is a
short piece of roadway and George Street to the south already
operates one-way southbound, the conversion of Arch Street to
a one-way southbound operation would likely not have a significant
impact on the traffic flows in the area. Either parallel or angled
parking could be considered along the west side of the street.
Up to 40 spaces can be achieved with parallel parking, and up
to 70 spaces with angled parking. Since Arch Street is under
the jurisdiction of the City, the changes would need to be implemented
by the City of Kingston. Similar to all of the other existing
on-street parking in the area, the new spaces would also be under
the jurisdiction of the City.
It is recognized that combined, these new spaces would only address
a small component of the additional parking requirements which
have been identified.
6.2.2 B(2) Greater Use of West Campus for Parking, Combined
with Better Shuttle Bus Service
Currently not all of the available parking spaces on West Campus
are being used; in the order of 150 parking spaces are still vacant
on a typical day. Also, additional lands are available on West
Campus to allow the construction of more surface parking, should
the demand warrant it. Up to 600 additional spaces can be added.
Most existing parkers on West Campus tend to be students, or faculty/staff
who are based on West Campus.
Kingston Transit operates Route 17 which links West Campus with
the Main Campus. A 20 minute headway necessitates a fairly lengthy
wait for an employee who may have missed a bus. Also, employees
would need to purchase a transit pass at a monthly cost of $60,
in addition to the $24.73 monthly charge for parking on West Campus.
Combined, a monthly fee of $84.73 and the additional travel time
involved, particularly if someone has just missed a bus, are strong
deterrents for faculty and staff to park on West Campus.
Having additional faculty and staff park on West Campus is appealing
for a number of reasons including the fact that it makes good
use of existing surplus parking and it keeps any traffic increases
away from the Main Campus.
However, to be a viable option, the frequency of service between
West Campus and the Main Campus would need to be increased.
Also, the rate structure needs to be adjusted to make parking
on West Campus more financially attractive.
6.2.3 B(3) Alternative Arrangements with Kingston General
Currently Kingston General Hospital is dependent upon Queen's
University for much of its parking. This includes in the order
of 145 spaces in the Heating Plant lot, the 570 spaces operated
jointly with the University in the underground garage, and 200
surface lot permits provided by the University to the Hospital
as part of an agreement. Only 140 of the 570 spaces in the underground
garage are occupied by University related parkers.
The option exists to renegotiate the agreements with the Hospital
to take back some, or all, of this parking. In the case of the
parking garage this would mean purchasing the Hospital's portion
of the garage.
Taking back in the order of 775 spaces currently being used by
Kingston General Hospital (i.e. 430 in the garage, plus 200 surface
lot permits, plus 145 spaces in the Heating Plant Lot) would go
a substantial way to addressing the needs which have been identified.
The option also exists to renegotiate a portion of spaces, leaving
the balance for continued use by the Hospital.
However, not all potential benefits may be realized in that some
existing Hospital related parkers may also have an association
with the University and therefore seek parking from the University,
if they are no longer able to get parking through the Hospital.
Any decision to take back some, or all, of the spaces currently
being used by the Hospital cannot be taken lightly, in that it
will have major implications on the operations of the Hospital.
Various options are currently being contemplated by the Hospital
including potential expansion on the existing site, which would
only exacerbate the Hospital's parking shortages. This would
be compounded by any move by the University to have some of the
parking spaces revert once again to usage solely by the University.
Legal agreements, for instance related to the ownership and operation
of the parking garage, would need to be renegotiated, along with
the purchase price. Accordingly, any decision needs to be made
in cooperation with the Hospital.
Taking back the parking garage to accommodate predominantly monthly
parkers would also have a substantial impact on the revenue stream
from short-term (hourly/daily) parkers related to Hospital visitors
and outpatients. The annual loss of revenue to the University
would be in the order of $200,000. (Further details are provided
in Appendix A).
6.2.4 B(4) Valet/Tandem Parking
All parkers currently self park in a parking space accessed by
means of a driving aisle. Driving aisles take up space that could
otherwise be used to park vehicles.
One option would be to have parking attendants stationed at the
Mac Corry lot to park vehicles in tandem and in aisles, so
as to maximize the number of vehicles that can be parked in that
lot. In the order of 175 additional vehicles could be accommodated.
Parkers would need to leave their keys with the attendant when
arriving. When leaving, they would need to wait for the attendant
to retrieve the vehicle. In order to reduce the delay, likely
two attendants would be required during peak periods.
Additional revenues given the current parking rate structure are
estimated to be $76,000 annually, if it is assumed that the parking
space turns over only once, or $80,000 if overselling is taken
into consideration. However, these would be offset by the costs
of staffing the lots which would exceed the potential additional
revenues as outlined in Appendix A. Also there likely will be
other costs associated with liability/insurance in the event that
a vehicle gets damaged while being driven by the attendant.
6.2.5 B(5) Small Car Parking
The City's Zoning By-law requires parking spaces to be 2.7 metres
wide by 6.0 metres in length. (Not all existing parking spaces
necessarily conform to this module size).
It may be possible to gain some additional spaces one of two ways,
both of which would require minor variances to the Zoning By-law
obtained through the Committee of Adjustment at the City.
The first would be to restripe to a slightly smaller module such
as 2.6 metres in width instead of 2.7 metres. Also, a portion
of a larger parking lot such as Mac Corry could be striped
and redesignated for small cars such as subcompacts and compacts.
In this case the parking stall dimension would be in the order
of 2.3 metres in width by 4.6 metres in length.
During the 1970's there was a tremendous surge in the production
and ownership of smaller sizes automobiles. This surge resulted
for a variety of reasons including the energy crisis and more
stringent emission control standards. Over the next decade most
municipalities reduced their parking design standards from 3.05
metres (10 feet) in width and 6.10 metres (20 feet) in length
to typically 2.7 or 2.75 metres (8.86 or 9.02 feet) in width and
5.8 metres (19 feet) in length. Although in some cases aisle
widths have decreased very marginally, generally the norm has
been to maintain 17.68 metres (58 feet) for the entire module
(i.e. two parking spaces with an aisle in-between). This equates
to two spaces having a length of 5.8 metres (19 feet) each and
a 6.0 metre (19.7 foot) wide aisle serving the two.
Over the last decade the trend to small cars has been reversed,
with sport utility types of vehicles comprising an increasingly
larger proportion of the market. This has been at the expense
of small cars. A recent article in Shopping Center Business,
stated that "at the turn of the millennium, the small-car-only
stall is dying, if not dead. The problem with all those SUVS,
pick up trucks and SUWS is that they are at least 3 inches wider
than cars, applying pressure to increase stall widths from the
typical 8-foot, 6-inch stall used in the mid-1970's to 8 feet
by 9 inches or more.
Cities are removing the
provision for small car only stalls (SCOS) in their ordinances.
Parking facility owner/operators are beginning to restripe to
eliminate small car only stalls and/or increase standard stall
There is no reason to believe that Kingston is different from
other cities in Canada or the United States in the popularity
of sport utility types of vehicles.
A slight reduction in module width from 2.7 to 2.6 metres (8.86
to 8.53 feet) would potentially gain one parking space for every
26 spaces in the row, assuming that the existing spaces do indeed
meet the by-law dimensions. For a large lot such as Mac Corry,
potentially up to 20 parking spaces could be gained through restriping.
However, the potential downside is that larger vehicles, such
as sport utility vehicles, would likely extend over the line,
rendering the adjacent space not usable.
Restriping part of a lot for small cars has now virtually disappeared,
with reversal of the trend to smaller vehicles, as indicated in
the article which was quoted. There is nothing to preclude a
driver of a larger vehicle from attempting to park in a small
car parking area if it is closer to his/her destination. The
vehicle simply extends into the aisle and the adjacent parking
spaces. Similarly, there is nothing to force the driver of a
small car to park in a small car parking area, if a regular sized
space is closer to that person's destination.
6.3 C - NEW AND/OR EXPANDED PARKING FACILITIES
Options for expanding the parking supply are discussed in this
6.3.1 C(1) Underground Parking Below New Buildings
One option would be to construct one or two levels of parking
below some or all new buildings which are being proposed.
The 1994 Campus Plan calls for most surface parking lots to be
replaced by underground parking facilities located at the Campus
periphery. Construction of parking below new buildings would
be in accordance with the intent of the Campus Plan.
Underground garages provide convenient, climate controlled parking
for those based in the building. Both vehicles and parkers are
protected from the elements.
By constructing some parking under a number of buildings rather
than constructing it at one location (i.e. under a playing field),
the potential traffic impacts are also spread out. As noted,
it is also more convenient for the users.
However, it is recognized that parking under buildings is usually
the most expensive form of parking, costing in the order of $30,000
per parking space. In addition, maintenance costs are higher
at $726.83 per space annually if an accrual of one percent of
the capital costs is included to reflect major capital maintenance
costs in the future. In order to recoup the costs of constructing
and maintaining an underground parking garage, revenues in the
order of $241.67 per month per space, would be required. Further
details are provided in Appendix A.
It may no longer be feasible to construct parking under all of
the buildings which are being considered in the University's capital
program. For example, the design of the new Chemistry Building
has proceeded to a stage whereby the introduction of underground
parking would require a major redesign.
6.3.2 C(2) New Surface Lots on the Periphery of Campus
One option for the University would be to purchase additional
properties near the periphery of Campus, demolish the houses on
those properties, and create new surface lots.
Although the construction of a surface parking lot is relatively
inexpensive (i.e. in the order of $1,500 to $2,000 per space),
land in the vicinity of the University is not. In order to allow
for a reasonably sized and efficient parking lot, at minimum three
or four contiguous lots, would be required. For example, the
purchase of three lots with dimensions of 15 metres (50 feet)
by 23 metres (75 feet) each could yield in the order of 32 parking
spaces. Four properties could yield in the order of 43 parking
spaces. Land costs would be in the order of $15,000 to $17,000
per space. In order to recoup the capital and operating costs
related to these new spaces, the monthly charge per space would
need to be $87.67, based on the principle of user pay and assuming
25 percent overselling. Without overselling $116.93 per space
would need to be charged. (It is recognised that parkers making
use of those spaces would likely not be charged a higher rate
than those parking in existing surface parking lots, with the
costs averaged out. However, for purposes of illustrating the
cost implications, the assumption has been made that the users
of the new lot, would bear the entire cost.) Further details
are provided in Appendix A.
There are also other issues related to the construction of new
surface parking lots. Construction of new surface lots goes against
the principles outlined in the 1994 Campus Plan whereby the intent
is to eliminate most surface lots over time. There undoubtedly
would also be issues related to the City's Official Plan. Construction
of such lots would also require the demolition of existing housing
which is currently being used primarily by students. Housing
is at a premium today and will become more so in the future, as
enrolment increases. Elimination of housing close to Campus would
increase parking demand as students are forced to move further
6.3.3 C(3) New Underground Parking Below Playing Fields/Open
Parking can also be constructed under one or more playing fields,
for example, under a relocated Tindall Field, as detailed in the
1997 Surface Infrastructure Study. That report identified opportunities
to create a development site where Tindall Field currently exists,
and to relocate Tindall Field to the site of the Mac Corry
parking lot, displacing the existing surface parking with an underground
Parking under playing fields still maintains the open space and
recreational use, while accommodating the required parking.
Larger parking garages are typically more efficient than smaller
garages. However, they tend to concentrate both the parking supply
and traffic impacts in a localized area.
The previous study had identified that in the order of 600 parking
spaces could be constructed below a relocated Tindall Field, while
displacing the existing 404 space Mac Corry Lot, for a net
increase of about 200 spaces.
The decision to proceed with a major expenditure such as this
to create a net increase of 200 parking spaces, should be deferred,
until such time as the Tindall Field site is required for development
Similar to constructing a parking garage below a new building,
constructing parking below a field is nearly as expensive. Construction
costs are in the order of $25,000 per space, with annual operating
costs in the order of $676.83 assuming accrual for large capital
maintenance expenditures. To recoup these costs, parkers would
need to be charged in the order of $207.42 monthly, assuming the
users of the new garage bear the entire cost. Further details
related to the financial analysis are provided in Appendix A.
6.3.4 C(4) New Above Ground Parking Structures on an Infill
With the construction of new buildings as outlined in the Capital
Program, the number of locations where above ground parking structures
could be constructed, is decreasing. Potential options which
remain include an above ground structure combined with the Integrated
Learning Centre. In this case in the order of 200 spaces can
likely be achieved.
Above ground parking structures would contravene the urban design
and land use principles outlined in the Campus Plan. Parking
structures can be made relatively attractive by using materials
and architectural features which are sympathetic to the surrounding
buildings and through use of landscaping and other elements.
However, this takes up extra space and still does not get around
the more fundamental questions of whether this is the most effective
use of the land, and issues related to the potential impacts (e.g.
Small parking structures constructed on an infill basis can also
tend to be inefficient since they are often shoe-horned into awkward
sites, between other buildings.
From a cost perspective, above grade structures cost in the order
of $16,000 per space to construct where a premium is spent to
ensure that the structure is attractive and compatible with the
Operating costs are somewhat lower than those associated with
underground garages since, for example, ventilation is not an
issue, as it is in a below grade facility. In order to recoup
the costs of constructing and operating an above ground garage,
the parkers would need to be charged $135.00 monthly each, assuming
the users of the facility are alone responsible for the costs
(i.e. costs are not spread out across the user group). Further
details are provided in Appendix A.
6.4 D - OTHER
Various other options which do not readily fall into one of the
categories already noted, are discussed in this section.
6.4.1 D(1) Improvements to Public Transit Services
With the exception of the Queen's Residence Shuttle Route (#17),
which links the Main Campus with the West Campus area, the University
is generally not well served by public transit. The 1994 survey
of faculty and staff found that only between 2 and 4 percent of
the University faculty and staff use public transit.
The reasons for not doing so likely include:
- The perceived out-of-pocket costs of riding public transit
versus driving. Currently a monthly adult transit pass costs
$60.00, compared to $36.23 to park on the Main Campus.
- The limited transit routings, focusing on east-west routes,
with no north-south connections in the vicinity of the University.
- The limited frequency of service on the routes.
Improvements in transit can be included as one element of an overall
strategy which reduces the demand for parking.
However, there are a number of factors which potentially could
jeopardise such an initiative:
- Financial limitations by the City to improve transit service
since the Provincial transit subsidies have been eliminated; therefore
increased dependence on the fare box to recover the costs of operating
- Difficulties in fostering public transit usage once people
have become accustomed to driving (The retirement of some existing
faculty/staff and replacement of those by others presents an opportunity
to start anew.)
- Achievability of the route restructuring and service improvements
to the degree required to result in noticeable shifts in transit
6.4.2 D(2) University Operated Transit Service
Currently the University forwards a sizeable amount of money to
Kingston Transit each year in order to provide transit passes
to the students. These allow students to travel "free of
charge" on Kingston Transit. In the order of $550,000 is
provided to the City annually, largely comprised of a special
fee charged to the students at the outset of the school year,
along with a lump sum contribution by the University.
Students make limited use of the available transit services.
For example, even on the Queen's Residence Shuttle Route, presumably
the most heavily used route by Queen's University students, typical
monthly student ridership is only in the order of 2,000 to 3,000
trips. Assuming 22 school days in a typical month, this equates
to only 90 to 135 passenger trips per day, Monday to Friday, or
45 to 68 two-way trips daily. The survey of students as part
of the 1994 Parking Study found that over 86 percent of students
never or rarely use their student transit pass.
If, in the next referendum, it is found that students no longer
wish to pay for a transit pass, it would likely be difficult for
Kingston Transit to continue providing even the current service
to the University, let alone improving the service.
One option would be to initiate a University operated transit
service which would be contracted out to a private firm. Various
operating strategies would be possible including using the majority
of funds which are currently forwarded to Kingston Transit, along
with additional funding from parking revenues, to initiate a University
operated transit service either on a fixed route, or on a demand
basis (i.e. dial-a-bus). In addition to one route connecting
West Campus with the Main Campus, two or three other routes could
also be introduced, for example a north-south route along University
Avenue from King Street through to Princess Street. The University
could continue to cooperate with the City in providing Kinston
Transit passes for those living beyond the area served by the
University operated transit service.
In all likelihood a noticeable improvement in transit service
could be achieved for those living in the Core Zone, as well as
somewhat beyond the Core Zone. It would also make it substantially
more convenient for those parking and/or living on West Campus
to travel to and from the Main Campus.
However, a very good service may detract from those who currently
walk, cycle or rollerblade within the Core Zone.
The three hospitals in the area and Providence Manor currently
provide a shuttle bus service between the four facilities. Two
buses are operated on two fixed routes, at an annual cost of $165,000.
The service which is contracted out to a private operator, is
provided free of cost to the users.
McMaster University also operates (contracts out) a shuttle bus
service between the campus and the remote parking lots. Four
buses operate on three-minute headways, five days per week, at
an annual cost of $240,000 for the academic year.
McCoy Transportation and Tours in Kingston who operates the service
on behalf of the three hospitals and Providence Manor was contacted
in order to obtain some insights as to the potential costs to
operate a service for the University. The quote given was for
a 24 passenger mini-coach with cloth bucket seats and air conditioning.
The rate to operate one bus Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m.
to 9:30 p.m. would be in the order of $1,900 weekly, or about
$25 per hour.
The $550,000 provided currently to Kingston Transit for the student
transit passes would equate to 22,000 hours of privately
operated transit service for students. Those parking on West
Campus would also benefit. Various options would be available
to allocate the hours of service.
The table below outlines some options for operating a service
based on 22,000 hours annually.
SAMPLE OF ALTERNATIVE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE SCENARIOS
||# of Buses
||Balance not Attributed
|Weeks per Year
||Days per Week
||Hours Per day
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||2500 bus hours
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||160 bus hours
|3||Weekday Service School Year Only
(School Year Only)
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||1525 bus hours
|4||Weekly Service |
School Year Only
(School Year Only)
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||1525 bus hours
School Service & Weekday -
Summer Service (Peak Hours Only)
(School Year Only)
(6:30 to 12:30 a.m.)
||160 bus hours
(6:30-9:30 a.m. and 4:30 7:30 p.m.)
|6||Weekly Service -Year Round (Reduced Service In Summer
(School Year Only)
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||160 bus hours
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
School Season Only
Weekly Summer Season Peak Hours Only
(School Year Only)
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
||433 bus hours
(6:30-9:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 7:30 p.m.)
- Based on an annual budget of $550,000 or 22,000 bus hours.
- Bus service costs $25/hour exclusive of GST
This is not to say that the University should spend the equivalent
($550,000) on a privately operated transit service. However,
it does indicate the kind of service which could be provided using
equivalent funding levels. Students could be offered an option
in the referendum to support a privately operated transit service
involving 3 to 5 different routes, including one to link the West
Campus with the Main Campus.
Alternatively, a more basic service between West Campus and the
Main Campus on a 15 minute headway (15 hours per day, 5 days per
week, 52 weeks a year), would cost in the order of $195,000.
6.4.3 D(3) Remote Lots Near the Highway 401 and/or the Highway
2 Corridor to the East/West, Connected by Shuttle Bus
Currently in the order of 320 parkers on the Main Campus live
along the Highway 401 corridor outside of the City. Similarly,
about 65 parkers live along the Highway corridor to the east or
west of the City.
One option would be to purchase or to lease land for parking at
the periphery of the City adjacent to Highway 401 and/or Highway
2. Since the purchase of land for parking can be costly, particularly
adjacent to a major road corridor, the preferred approach would
be to lease the parking. For example, there may be uses such
as shopping centres with parking lots which are not fully utilized
during the day, Monday to Friday. A shuttle bus service would
then need to be provided during peak periods, which would connect
these lots to the University.
A substantial number of parkers could be accommodated (up to 385)
if suitable lots can be located, and if these parkers can be convinced
to make the change. This would also minimise traffic increases
on the Main Campus.
The potential disbenefits include the increase in travel time
for these parkers. There also will be costs associated with purchasing
land/constructing parking lots, or leasing parking lots, as well
as operating the shuttle bus service to these lots. During non-peak
hours a means of getting back to the remote parking lot(s) will
be required for someone who may need to do so when the shuttle
bus is not in service.
6.4.4 D(4) Car Pool Initiatives
In 1994, 37 percent of University faculty and staff indicated
that they could potentially be interested in participating in
a carpool program, if suitable incentives were to be provided.
Suitable incentives included convenience reserved parking, provision
of a carpool program, and free parking. Also as part of that
survey it was found that only 6.5 percent of the faculty and staff
surveyed, were passengers with another Queen's employee or someone
else, or sharing driving with someone else.
The Kingston General Hospital/Queen's University Parking Study
recommended that a joint carpool program involving the University,
Hospital and Cancer Centre, be initiated. To date, this has not
Once again the option exists to initiate a formalized carpool
program including a matching service. This can be undertaken
either solely by the University, or as a joint initiative, as
previously recommended. Appropriate incentives would also need
to be provided.
Such a program can result in a noticeable reduction in the parking
demand. It can also help to reduce traffic congestion and any
traffic increases related to the construction of new parking facilities.
In terms of disbenefits, there are costs associated with organizing
and managing a carpool matching program. If an incentive includes
providing parking to carpoolers at a reduced cost, this could
potentially result in reduced revenues for the University.
One issue which has been identified as a potential deterrent to
carpooling, is that related to problems of getting home or elsewhere,
in an event of an emergency. Similarly, carpoolers may require
a vehicle on a particular day, therefore also needing parking
that day, in addition to the primary carpool vehicle. Appropriate
solutions would need to be provided to these issues.
6.4.5 D(5) Selling the Parking Garage to the Hospital
Currently the University owns and operates the parking garage
jointly on behalf of the University and Hospital on lands owned
by the University. However, most of the usage of the garage is
related to the Hospital.
One option would be to sell the parking garage to the Hospital
and to use the revenue from this sale to finance the construction
of a parking garage elsewhere on Campus.
If the Hospital proceeds with the expansion which is being contemplated,
the garage may be of some benefit to the Hospital. However, since
the majority of the usage of the garage is Hospital related already
today, this would result in only a very modest increase in the
parking supply for the Hospital.
The sale of the garage would reduce the University's parking supply
in an area of campus which currently has limited parking. It
would also reduce the University's revenue associated with the
predominantly daily and hourly parkers making use of the garage.
University related visitor parking would also need to be accommodated
elsewhere on Campus if the Hospital disallowed University related
visitors from parking in the garage.
There would also be legal and other issues to resolve related
to the sale, such as the question of property ownership and usage
above the underground parking garage.
6.4.6 D(6) Facilitate Walking
The 1994 survey conducted as part of the parking study found that
13 percent of faculty and staff walk to work in the summer, with
a further 10.9 percent cycling. In winter, 17.8 percent were
found to walk, with 0.9 percent cycling.
The suggestion has been made that a larger proportion of faculty
and staff may walk to and from the Campus if it is made more comfortable/safer
to do so, for example, through improvements to the street lighting.
With the exception of Queen's Crescent, all other streets are
under the jurisdiction of the City of Kingston. Any improvements
would therefore need to be undertaken by the City. The University
would need to work closely with the City in attempting to improve
the pedestrian environment.
If the University was successful in this endeavour, this would
improve the pedestrian environment for all pedestrians, including
those who currently walk. In view of the already high pedestrian
traffic in and around the University, improvements may be warranted,
irrespective of the Parking Strategy Study. Elements in addition
to lighting could include enhanced level of snow clearance, protection
from the elements through landscaping, canopying and other screening,
widening of sidewalks to allow groups of pedestrians to pass each
other with ease, and other considerations.
However, despite the extent of pedestrian related improvements,
it is unlikely that this would result in any noticeable difference
in the parking demand in that Queen's University already has a
very high proportion of pedestrians and cyclists. Walking distance
would still remain an issue, even if the pedestrian environment
was to be improved.
As noted, co-operation and funding would be required on the part
of the City since virtually all of the streets are owned and maintained
by the City.
7. Response to Open House
As noted, an Open House with an invitation extended to anyone with
an interest in the matter, was held from noon through to 7:00
p.m. on Thursday, December 16th. Despite the fact
that this coincided with the exam period and pre-Christmas festivities,
it was relatively well attended. Those in attendance were generally
passionate about the topic.
In total 89 persons signed the sheet at the entrance. There may
have also been a few others who attended, but did not sign in.
A questionnaire, as indicated in Appendix B, was also provided
at the end of the display material. A total of 58 completed questionnaires,
were returned. Comments were also provided to those manning the
displays and responding to questions.
Two general verbal comments were reported by a number of those
- Gratitude for the opportunity to offer their opinions on parking
matters since they had not been asked to do so since the 1994
survey was undertaken.
- A belief that the University had a sizeable reserve attributed
to parking revenues over the years (and that this reserve should
be applied toward the construction of a new parking garage).
It is clear from those comments that more regular communication
is required with parkers and others who may have an interest in
the matter, inviting their input and providing some insights.
For example, consideration should be given to an annual condensed
financial summary which is distributed to all parkers, so that
the revenue stream, cost of providing parking and status of any
parking surpluses, are understood. Had this been in place, parkers
would have been informed that a sizeable amount of the parking
surplus has already used to help purchase the Victoria School
Three questions were asked on the comment sheet. The first asked
the respondents to note their preferences related to each of the
options presented. Five categories of response were offered:
- strongly prefer
- strongly disagree
In some cases there were no responses to some of the options.
Table 6 below summarises the responses to this question, including
a weighted average whereby the response "strongly prefer"
is given a weight of "1" and the response "strongly
disagree" is given a weight of "5". "No response"
is not included the weightings (i.e. a weighting of "0").
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1 - EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS
||Strongly Prefer (1)
||Strongly Disagree (5)
|A(1) Revised Parking Policy
|A(2) Parking Rate Increases
|A(3) Differential Parking Rate Structure
|A(4) Daily/Shared Permits
|B(1) Additional On-Street Parking
|B(2) Greater Use of West Campus for Parking Combined with Better Shuttle Bus Service
|B(3) Alternative Arrangements with Kingston General Hospital
|B(4) Valet/Tandem Parking
|B(5) Small Car Parking
|C(1) Underground Parking Below New Buildings
|C(2) New Surface Lots on Periphery of Campus
|C(3) New Underground Parking Below Playing Fields/Open Space
|C(4) New Above Ground Parking Structures on an Infill Basis
|D(1) Improvements to Public Transit Services
|D(2) University Operated Transit Services
|D(3) Remote Lots near the Highway 401 and/or the Highway 2 Corridor to the East/West, connected by Shuttle Bus
|D(4) Car Pool Initiatives
|D(5) Selling the Parking Garage to the Hospital
|D(6) Facilitate Walking
Two options, C(1) and C(3), stand out. In total eleven of the
nineteen options presented are "preferred". The respondents
were generally neutral on most of the remaining options, with
the exception of the valet/tandem parking, to which they "disagree".
The second question asked of the respondents was to detail their
grouping of preferred alternatives. Thirty-two of the 58 respondents
completed this question. Table 7 below details the responses:
Combination of Preferred Options Table Under Construction
In this case, the most frequently cited option were found to be
C(3) New Underground Parking Below Playing Fields/Open Space,
followed by C(1) Underground Parking Below New Buildings, C(4)
New Above Ground Parking Structures on an Infill Basis, D(1) Improvement
to Public Transit Services and D(2) University Operated Transit
The third question allowed the respondents to provide any other
comments or suggestions. The primary comments and the frequencies
recorded are summarised below:
- Suggested Changes to Queen's Transportation /Parking Policy
- Examine Queen's transportation/parking policy with a view
to bringing it in line with sustainable practices.
- The University should stop issuing free parking permits.
- University should not park/store University vehicles in prime
- Campus parking seems unfair in some respects; ensure that
the option implemented is fair and equitable.
- Develop an efficient system of obtaining a parking permit.
- Students should be encouraged to use subsidized transit system.
- Remove/limit department vehicles from parking lots.
- Develop Faculty designated spots.
- Establish a "Meeting Only" parking pass or spaces.
- Parking Agreement with KGH - 7
- Concern with parking spaces provided to KGH. Was this an
- Remove parking agreement with KGH.
- KGH should provide its own parking.
- KGH should provide its own parking.
- Current parking arrangement with KGH is unfair for Queen's
- Complaint about KGH parking on Queen's lots.
- KGH expansion should not be Queen's concern; acquire KGH property
if hospital relocates.
- Parking Rate Changes - 7
- Differential parking rates might decrease access for those
who need it most - low income employees.
- Reduce parking rates for students.
- Make parking rate proportional to income; low income employees
should not bear the brunt of rate increases.
- Develop a pay as you go rate, based on annual rate, in combination
with special "pay as you go" lots.
- Increase parking rate.
- Do not extend Core Zone, increase fee for those already in
the Core Zone.
- Parking at Queen's is heavily subsidized; parking is provided
well below cost.
- New Parking Structures/Lots - 6
- What about multilevel above ground parking?
- Build new parking structures above and below ground.
- Build a parking garage and provide parking at a reasonable
- Build multi-level parking garage.
- Build a parking garage on the Louise D. Acton Lot.
- Pave Tindell Field.
- Encourage Alternative Modes - 3
- Encourage alternative modes - walking, cycling, public transit.
- Facilitate alternatives such as walking and cycling.
- Encourage cycling with secure facilities for bicycles.
- Poor Transit Services - 3
- Need for transit improvements.
- Poor transit services.
- Poor transit eliminates any transit alternatives.
- Previous Parking Rate Increase - 2
- If rates are to increase, this generated revenue should be
directed to new parking structures, unlike previous rate increases.
- Previous promises related to parking rate increase have not
- Preservation of Queen's Environment - 2
- Pedestrian environment, open space, and historic nature of
Queen's must be preserved.
- Reducing green space or student housing is an irresponsible
option; efforts should be made to reduce the number of parkers.
- Need for Short-Term Parking - 2
- Short term parking for University visitors is not addressed.
- Provide more short term parking for staff and students.
- Complaints about Current Parking Conditions - 2
- Study does not address visitor parking which is inadequate
- Lack of parking behind Botterell Hall.
- Safety - 2
- Safety and security concerns in terms of underground parking
and lighting at night.
- Underground garages should have security or be monitored for
- Comments Re: Double Cohort - 2
- Need to determine if long term or short term solution is needed
for double cohort.
- Don't let student population grow.
- Other Comments - 17
- Encourage car pooling.
- Encourage parking at the stadium at a cheaper rate, with a
- Lot at Stuart and Lower Albert not at capacity; post sign
to inform of all campus parking lots.
- The Steam Museum lot and the lot behind the Court House are
minimally used. Are these city owned lots? If so, are city parking
- Parking spaces in new lots are too small for a full sized
- Reduce need for parking, and apply revenue to subsidising
- No parking meters on Queen's lots.
- Provide reliable shuttle bus for staff from West Campus.
- Expand the Core Zone.
- Conduct another survey.
- Concerns with regards to valet parking, issue of access to
vehicle, convenience and security.
- Queen's should work with City in terms of ensuring snow removal.
- No options are good.
- Shuttle buses are inconvenient for staff with frequent meetings.
- Heavy pedestrian traffic on Queen's Crescent in conflict with
additional on-street parking.
- Remove old parking signs and no parking between 2 and 3, 10
- Poor enforcement of those vehicles parked without a permit.
8. Summary and Recommended Parking Strategy
Queen's University has been generally quite successful in managing
parking demand and in accommodating that component of the demand
for which there are no other options. This has been possible
for several reasons:
- One of the more restrictive parking policies among universities
in this province.
- Ability to accommodate a large proportion of the students
on Campus, or within walking distance of Campus.
- Availability of relatively inexpensive surface parking to
accommodate this demand.
- Availability of on-street parking on and in proximity to the
However, with the forecast increases in enrolment (1,400 to 1,600
additional students over the next four years) and the associated
increases in faculty and staffing levels, all that is about to
- New buildings identified in the short term Capital Program
will displace in the order of 215 to 290 of the existing surface
- Even with the construction of some new residences on Campus,
a significant proportion of the new students will need to find
- Limitations exist as to how many more students, faculty and
staff can be absorbed into the community located within walking
distance of the Campus.
- Limitations exist as to how many additional on-street parking
spaces can be created.
It was clear from the comments received at the public open house
held just prior to Christmas that parking is a concern to many
of those in attendance, for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps one of the most surprising insights gained from the Open
House and associated comments, was the perception by a number
of those in attendance, that the University has a substantial
reserve of funds accumulated from surplus parking revenues. The
realities need to be better communicated to the parkers, for example
through an annual newsletter which provides some of the details
of the financial statement and that parking charges simply recoup
the costs of providing the parking.
The wide range of strategic options presented at the Open House
were discussed as discrete alternatives, for ease of simplicity
in conveying the trade-offs. However, the comment was made at
the end of the material being presented, that the alternatives
are not mutually exclusive and that a combination of various options
would likely be required.
Indeed, the recommended parking strategy reflects a number of
elements, as detailed below:
- Reacquire Parking Spaces Currently Being Used by Kingston
Currently the parking garage which is owned and operated jointly
with the Hospital, is being used primarily by the Hospital. The
University also leases out the surface lot adjacent to the Heating
Plant to the Hospital for employee parking. A further 200 spaces
are provided to Hospital staff in other surface lots owned and
operated by the University.
If the University was to take back all of this parking (in the
order of 775 parking spaces in total), it would go a long way
to addressing the forecast parking shortfall (968 to 1,220 spaces).
It would also help to address the parking needs of those located
in the southerly part of the Campus where limited parking is currently
available to accommodate the needs of the University.
It is recognized that this action would have a severe impact on
the Hospital and cannot be taken lightly. It will require dialogue
at a very senior level between the University and the Hospital.
In the case of the garage, the Hospital's ownership would need
to be purchased.
Secondly, the University derives substantial revenues from the
short term parkers in the garage (e.g. out-patients, visitors).
These revenues would be lost to the University.
In order not to impact those in greatest need (i.e. patients,
visitors) and to maintain the short term parker revenue, it is
recommended that the University only take back those spaces which
are currently being used by Hospital staff. These include the
Heating Plant Lot (145 spaces), the 200 spaces occupied by Hospital
staff who are parking elsewhere on Campus in surface lots, and
the 106 permit parkers in the garage. Together this would provide
in the order of 451 spaces, or 37 to 47 percent of the total number
of spaces required. It is recognized that the Heating Plant lot
was always intended to be a short-term solution which would eventually
be phased out in order to allow the site to revert to open space
Again as noted, this recommendation will require negotiation at
a very senior level between the University and the Hospital, with
the Hospital needing to accommodate this staff parking elsewhere.
- Construct Parking Below New Buildings
Constructing one or two levels of below-grade parking in conjunction
with new buildings although very costly, merits consideration
for various reasons:
- It helps to achieve the longer term objectives of the University's
Campus Plan with respect to the elimination of surface parking.
Once a new building is put into place, the opportunity to construct
underground parking is precluded until such time as the building
may be torn down over the very long term.
- It helps to distribute parking across the campus thus minimizing
the traffic impact on any particular street.
- It provides very convenient climate controlled parking for
those situated in that building.
In the case of the new School of Business building, a substantial
contribution was made from the parking reserve fund toward the
purchase of the site originally. Currently 150 parking spaces
are available on this site. The new building will displace some
of this parking. At minimum, the displaced spaces should be replaced
with underground spaces.
Although desirably underground parking should also be constructed
below the new Chemistry Building, this option is now precluded
in that the majority of the design of this building has been completed.
Consideration should also be given to constructing underground
parking in conjunction with the Integrated Learning Centre and
Student Life Facilities Building.
Together in the order of 320 to 370 spaces can be provided below-grade
in conjunction with the construction of these new buildings.
Parking below the proposed new residence building can also be
considered, provided that the parking is not used by those in
residence because it would contravene the parking permit policy
(i.e. no parking for those living in the Core Zone).
It is recognized that there will be a lag period between the time
that construction begins and existing surface spaces are displaced,
and when the new underground spaces become available upon the
completion of construction. Displaced parkers will need to be
accommodated through one of the other measures detailed herein.
- In Co-operation with the City, Construct Additional On-Street
In the order of 40 to 70 spaces can be achieved along the west
side of Arch Street between Union Street and Stuart Street (40
spaces in the case of parallel parking and up to 70 spaces in
the case of angled parking). However, since the pavement width
on Arch Street is limited (7.62 metres or 25 feet), Arch Street
would need to be converted to a one-way (southbound) operation,
similar to George Street. Queen's Crescent is under the jurisdiction
of the University. Sufficient pavement width (9.45 to 9.76 metres
or 31 to 32 feet) is available to allow parallel parking
to be introduced along one side (south side). Up to 22 spaces
can be added. (Parking along both sides would necessitate undertaking
a detailed traffic study to assess the implications of a conversion
to a one-way system).
Since these are new spaces, various options are available as to
their use. One option would be to install parking meters. Currently
the City operates and collects the revenues from parking meters
on various streets serving the University and Hospital. The intent
is to have these spaces available primarily for short term parkers.
However, based on the on-street parking turnover survey and employee
response as part of the 1995 Kingston General Hospital/Queen's
University Parking Study, it was found that a substantial number
of employees are using these spaces. This is likely still the
case. Installing meters along Arch Street would likely result
in a combination of University and KGH employees "feeding
the meters", with perhaps some Hospital outpatients and visitors
making use of these spaces also. Since Queen's University owns
Queen's Crescent, the University, not the City, would be responsible
for installing and maintaining any meters on Queen's Crescent.
However, since so few meters would be involved, it would be more
efficient to have the City install and operate the meters on behalf
of the University, with some form of revenue sharing between the
However, the preferred option would be to designate these spaces
for carpoolers. As noted, since these parking spaces do not currently
exist, they would not be taken away from any current users. Secondly,
these are desirable spaces, situated in proximity to buildings
with limited or no parking available. Further details are provided
- Initiate a Carpool Matching Program, with Incentives Provided
for Carpoolers (2+ persons per vehicle)
An effective means of reducing the demand for parking is through
a carpool program. Initiation of a joint carpool program involving
the University, Hospital and Cancer Center was recommended in
the 1995 Kingston General Hospital/Queen's University Parking
Study. Depending on the outcome of the relocation plans for the
Hospital, the initial trial program can be undertaken either exclusively
by the University, or jointly with one or both of these other
institutions. The City would also need to be involved if, as
recommended, some of the on-street parking spaces are designated
The survey of University faculty and staff in the fall of 1994
indicated that just over 13 percent of the parkers would consider
car pooling if convenient reserved parking was to be provided.
Fourteen percent responded favorably to the provision of a carpool
matching program, and 18.7 percent to free parking.
Both a carpool matching program and convenient reserved parking
via the new on-street spaces, can be provided. Subsequent to
that survey being undertaken, additional comments have been provided
related to carpooling, specifically that lack of an alternative
means of transportation in the event of an emergency (e.g. having
to pick up a sick child at school), may be deterrent to participating
in a carpool program. Consideration should be given to guaranteeing
an alternative means of getting a carpooler home in the event
of an emergency such as becoming ill at work or needing to get
home because a child is ill. Options include an arrangement with
a taxi company whereby a ride home is provided at a reduced cost,
or is paid for through the carpool program. Care would need to
be taken to ensure that this service is not abused.
Although free parking is difficult to justify, consideration can
perhaps be given to some minor fee reduction. Even if a fee reduction
is not provided, the financial incentives should be evident in
terms of two or three people sharing in the cost of operating
and parking one vehicle, instead of two or three vehicles.
As noted, it is recommended that the newly created on-street parking
spaces be designated for carpoolers. Carpool spaces can also
be designated in one or more existing lots on an as-needed basis
(e.g. part of Dupuis lot, Mac Corry lot). However, the more locations
which are provided for carpoolers, the more effort is required
in monitoring these spaces. The suggestion has also been made
that the spaces be allocated on the basis of the size of the carpool
(i.e. prime spaces to those with 3+ per vehicle).
This is an option. As the program becomes more popular, it may
be necessary to designate more spaces for carpoolers.
Since the program would involve on-street spaces on municipal
roads, the City of Kingston would need to pass a special by-law
which would allow any illegally parked vehicles to be tagged and/or
towed. There would also need to be some form of revenue sharing
with the city to recover the costs of creating and policing the
proposed carpool spaces on Arch Street and any other municipal
on-street spaces that may be added to a carpool program in the
future. This pilot program if successful, can also be implemented
elsewhere in Kingston.
Examination of postal code data for existing parkers at the University
indicates that there are 'clusters' of parkers. From these clusters,
the next step would be to determine who might be interested in
participating in a carpool program if appropriate matches can
be made (e.g. similar work hours, compatibility re: smoking, etc.).
Criteria for eligibility/operations would be as follows:
- Minimum of two and desirably three persons per carpool.
- At least two are currently parkers on the main campus, or
are on the waiting list for parking (i.e. are eligible for parking).
- Are designated a specific parking space either on Queen's
Crescent, Arch Street or an area of an existing parking lot which
is set aside for carpoolers.
- Must affix a sticker to their vehicles (one sticker per carpooler).
- Are ineligible for any other monthly parking on the Main Campus.
- In the event of an emergency, guaranteed transportation home
will be made available either for the driver or passenger(s).
(e.g. A taxi voucher with a limit, similar to those offered to
library staff who are working after hours.)
- In the event that more than one member of the carpool must
have a car at work on a particular day, daily parking will need
to be purchased at the going rate in the garage, or at on or off-street
meters, for the second vehicle.
- In the event that the carpool disbands, ability to get back
a parking permit without being required to be put on a waiting
Assuming on average 2.5 persons per vehicle, in the order of 100
to 175 persons could be accommodated in total using the proposed
new Arch Street and Queen's Crescent on-street parking spaces.
- Greater Differentiation in Parking Rates
Currently there are only three monthly parking rates:
- $36.23/month for the Main Campus surface lots.
- $24.73/month for the West Campus surface lots.
- $103.50/month for the Main Campus garage.
The parking rate differential for surface lots on the West Campus
versus those on the Main Campus is not significant enough to make
parking on the West Campus an attractive alternative. (There
are also other issues, as described in the next section).
Also, construction of parking below the new buildings being proposed,
will necessitate substantial rate increases to cover the costs
of constructing and maintaining this new parking.
It is recommended that the rate increases only apply to the Main
Campus, not the West Campus for two reasons:
- So as to increase the differential in the parking rates between
- So as to provide a reasonable lower cost option to those of
limited financial means who have no other option but to drive.
It is also recommended that free parking be continued to be provided
at the north end of West Campus.
Although it would also be desirable to further differentiate the
parking rate structure on the Main Campus, this likely will be
difficult to achieve since different spaces are desirable for
different parkers, depending on which building they are based.
Those parkers on West Campus who are not students should also
be provided with 'free' transit on the shuttle route only. Students
already pay an annual fee as part of their other student fees
which provides them with unlimited usage of the bus routes operated
by Kingston Transit. A similar arrangement should be negotiated
between the University and Kingston Transit for Route 17 to allow
faculty or staff parking on West Campus to readily go between
the two. The frequency of service would also need to be increased
during peak periods in order to make this an attractive option.
Alternatively, a University operated transit service can be
initiated, as discussed in the next section. The cost of providing
a shuttle for new parkers on West Campus should be absorbed through
the parking revenues.
The suggestion had also been made that a reduced daily or shared
permits be available for occasional parkers (e.g. a few days per
month). This option is not recommended for two reasons:
- Occasional parkers are most likely to make use of their occasional
permit on peak days (e.g. in inclement weather) resulting in parking
space shortfalls for regular parkers.
- Occasional parkers will have the option of participating in
a carpool program which is not available to them currently.
- Improved Transit Connections Between West Campus and Main
Campus and Other Transit Improvements (if feasible).
The second aspect of making West Campus an attractive parking
option is to make available a convenient means of travelling between
the two campuses.
Currently the Queen's Residence Shuttle (Route 17) is operated
on a 20 minute headway. The service is provided by Kingston Transit.
Twenty minutes is a long time to wait if someone has just missed
a bus. This can add substantially to the commute time of a faculty
or staff member. Desirably during peak periods (e.g. 7:30 to
9:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.) this should be no more than every
10 to 15 minutes. This kind of service is difficult for a public
transit authority to provide due to split shifts, inequalities
related to other routes and other issues.
A question has been raised as to whether students will continue
to support the idea of a transit pass when the next referendum
on this matter is held. If this student funded component is withdrawn,
the loss of revenue for Kingston Transit will make it difficult
to maintain the existing service, let alone enhance the service
If this was to occur, it may be necessary for the University to
consider initiating a University operated shuttle bus service
between West Campus and the Main Campus, to accommodate not only
West Campus parkers, but also others who may need to travel between
the two (e.g. those in residence on West Campus).
Based on the 1994 survey, only between two and four percent of
the Queen's faculty and staff use public transit for travel to
and from work. The current route structure necessitating at least
one transfer in each case and circuitous routing, are undoubtedly
contributing factors to the low transit usage. Also, as long
as the cost of a monthly transit pass is higher than the cost
of surface parking on the Main Campus, there is no incentive to
switch to public transit. If parking rate increases outpace transit
pass increases so as to make transit financially a more attractive
alternative, this can be rectified. Secondly, it is recommended
that discussions be held with Kingston Transit regarding the potential
to restructure and enhance routes to as to better meet the needs
of faculty and staff at the University. The home address information
of parkers is useful in this regard. For example, large groupings
of parkers reside in the former Township of Kingston. Most of
the routes serving the former Township of Kinston area focus on
the Kingston Centre Shopping Center as the transfer point. From
there, Routes 2 (Division/Calvin Park) and 3 (Polson Park) are
circuitous. North-south routes to link into the University are
In the 1995 Kingston General Hospital/Queen's University Parking
Study the recommendation was made that the Public Utilities Commission
be requested to give strategic consideration in the comprehensive
Transportation Study to providing service improvements to the
University/Hospital. The recommendation went on to state that
the potential for introducing a partial grid of "trunk"
bus routes should be examined in this concept. This recommendation
is still valid today in that the comprehensive Transportation
Study has not yet been undertake as yet.
It is recognised however that with the withdrawal of provincial
subsidies for public transit and with increasing dependence on
the fare box, it is becoming exceedingly difficult for municipalities,
including Kingston, to maintain their existing transit services,
let along expand them.
If discussions with Kingston Transit are not found to be fruitful,
it is recommended that consideration be given to initiating a
university operated transit service, similar to that currently
being operated by the three Hospitals and Providence Manor.
Based on a cost of $25 per hour, per bus, a substantially enhanced
service can be provided not only for parkers on West Campus, but
for all other students, faculty and staff on and in the vicinity
of campus, for the equivalent funds currently being forwarded
to Kingston Transit. A basic service involving 15 minute
headways would require two vehicles. Assuming 15 hours of operation,
5 days per week, 52 weeks of the year would cost in the order
of $195,000. For $550,000 three or more alternative transit routes
can be operated to serve the needs of the students.
The recommended parking strategy detailed above includes a mix
of elements reflecting the following:
- Travel demand management (e.g. initiation of a car pool program,
discussions with the City to improve transit services to attract
more University faculty/staff, requiring all new students to park
on West Campus).
- More effective use of existing facilities (e.g. reacquiring
parking spaces back from Kingston General Hospital, increased
usage of available parking on West Campus, new on-street spaces).
- Construction of below-grade parking below new non-residence
buildings (in accordance with the University's Campus Plan intent
to gradually phase out most surface parking lots).
- Greater differentiation in the parking rate structure including
substantial parking rate increases related to new underground
parking and no rate increases on West Campus, as well as subsidized
transit connections between West Campus and the Main Campus for
Together these strategies provide for a balance between accommodating
and managing demand. The recommendation also attempts to more
clearly reflect market conditions by providing the most desirable
spaces at the highest cost to the user, less desirable spaces
at a lower cost and by continuing to offer free parking at the
north end of West Campus for those who cannot or do not wish to
pay for parking.
Thus as indicated in Table 3, in the order of 968 to 1,220 additional
spaces would be required. Table 8 below indicates the manner
in which they can be achieved.
PROPOSED ACCOMMODATION OF INCREASED PARKING DEMAND
||Number of Spaces
|Taken Back From Kingston General Hospital
||451||Spaces currently occupied by Kingston General Hospital parkers.
|Spaces Under New Buildings
||320-370||Total related to New School of Business, Integrated Learning Centre and Student Life Facilities Building.
|New On-Street Spaces
||62-92||Allocated for carpoolers.
|Increased Usage of West Campus
||150+||Existing spaces which are not being used on West Campus. Additional surface spaces can be added if demand warrants them.
Costs related to implementing the above noted improvements including
operating a shuttle bus service between Main Campus and West Campus,
with the costs borne entirely through parking revenues have been
calculated, as detailed in Appendix A. Translating these to cost
per space for the users would equate to:
- $29.19 per surface space including carpoolers on the Main
- $9.73 per surface space on West Campus
- $227.85 per surface space in a parking structure
In addition, the University asked that financial analysis be undertaken
with respect to some other combinations of demand, supply and
revenue options. These are also detailed in Appendix A.
As noted, the projected additional parking demand is 968 to 1220
spaces. The option identified in Table 8 can accommodate 983
to 1063 spaces. If it is assumed that the new on-street spaces
accommodate car poolers at 2.5 persons per vehicle on average,
155 to 230 parkers in total, or 93 to 138 more than would otherwise
be the case, would be accommodated, thus making up the shortfall.
If the University is not successful in obtaining the spaces back
from Kingston General Hospital, then far greater dependence will
need to be placed on parking on West Campus and on car pooling
and any other measures which can reduce the demand for parking.
Also, existing surplus spaces on West Campus along with the new
on-street carpool spaces, can help to address parking shortfalls
during the new building construction. During this period surface
spaces will be displaced by new buildings, however, new underground
spaces will not be available until the construction is complete.