1. Name of Presentation Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards Joshua Engel-Yan, Senior Advisor, Metrolinx Dylan Passmore, Transportation Planner, IBI Group November 17, 2009

2. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 2 Outline 1.The Toronto Context 2.Car sharing and parking demand 3.Options: What are other municipalities doing? 4.Options: What is the perspective of car share operators? 5.Options: Is there empirical evidence? 6.Recommendations 7.Implementation Considerations

3. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 3 The Toronto Context – Nearly 900 car share vehicles

4. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 4 The Toronto Context Successful car sharing operating in central Toronto (Autoshare and Zipcar) City of Toronto zoning bylaw consolidation Interest in parking requirements that respond better to local context Current ad hoc approach to parking adjustments for car sharing Is a reduction in the parking requirement justified for developments that provide dedicated car share parking spaces? What is an appropriate parking reduction ratio and implementation approach?

5. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 5 Car Sharing and Parking Demand Vehicles Reduced % members who give up car Members per car share vehicle - 1 )( x= Linking Car Sharing and Parking Demand

6. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 6 Car Sharing and Parking Demand (contd) Auto Ownership Vancouver: 28% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle reduction ratio of 4.0 vehicles per car share vehicle* 57% deferred purchasing a vehicle San Francisco: 24% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle reduction ratio of 5.0 vehicles per car share vehicle* 4% deferred purchasing a vehicle * These ratios do not factor those who defer from purchasing another vehicle.

7. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 7 Car Sharing and Parking Demand (contd) Auto Ownership Toronto [based on AutoShare survey]: 15% of its members gave up a primary or secondary vehicle reduction ratio of 1.3 vehicles per car share vehicle* 25% deferred purchasing a vehicle North American average: 20% give up a vehicle after joining a car share organization reduction ratio of 3.8 vehicles per car share vehicle* 41% deferred purchasing a vehicle * These ratios do not factor those who defer from purchasing another vehicle.

8. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 8 What are other municipalities doing? Some Cities Have Already Instituted Reductions to Residential Requirements Vancouver: 3:1 reduction Limit 1 space per 60 units Seattle: 1:1 reduction Lesser of 3:1 or 15% for large developments San Francisco: Require 1 space / 200 units Require 1 space where 50 units Min reductions case-by-case Toronto: Case by case… from 0 to 10:1 reduction

9. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 9 What is the perspective of car share operators? Developers focus on short-term benefits (e.g. construction costs or LEED certification) Developers prefer to limit access to residents only, thus compromising long-term financial viability of vehicle Marketing critical to success of building vehicle, but harder with a retrofit Securing dedicated parking a perpetual challenge Very interested in reserved on-street spaces Developers now approaching them – speculation it is due to parking maximums More potential with apartment buildings

10. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 10 Is there empirical evidence? Compare auto ownership in buildings with dedicated car share vehicles against buildings without. 5 condo sites chosen Have had a car share vehicle for at least 1 year Equal Zipcar and Autoshare buildings No co-op or mixed use buildings (since no unit listings) Where possible, nearby control sites with similar assessed value per unit Mail out survey conducted, with option to complete online

11. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 11 Is there empirical evidence?

12. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 12 Is there empirical evidence? (contd) Survey Responses 248 surveys completed (25% response rate) 37 car share members responded Results consistent with North American averages: 29% of members gave up owning a vehicle after joining 55% of members deferred purchasing 1 st or 2 nd vehicle Expected lower ownership rate at surveyed sites: Control condo sites: 1.07/unit (N=834) vs. Surveyed condo sites: 0.53/unit (N=167)

13. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 13 Is there empirical evidence? (contd) Linear Regression Model 2 stable models: Assessed value per unit Walkscore Presence of dedicated car share vehicles (model 1) # of dedicated car share vehicles (model 2) Presence of dedicated car share vehicles within building does appear to have a small but significant impact on auto ownership.

14. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 14 Recommendations For apartments and condos, reduce the minimum parking requirement by up to 4 parking spaces for each dedicated car share stall. Limit at the greater of: 4 * (Total # of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole number; or 1 space.

15. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 15 Recommendations (contd) SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT (# OF UNITS) = REQUIRED PARKING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING CAR SHARE SPACES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THIS REDUCTION Less than 3011 30 – 4421 45 – 5931 60 – 7441 75 – 8952 90 – 10462 105 - 11972 375257

16. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 16 Recommendations (contd) Why this 4:1 ratio? Consistent with typical effects of car sharing on ownership Consistent with existing practice Supported by regression Why this limit on the ratio? Tied to # of units Limit tied to 60 unit increments, matching Vancouver experience Why dont nearby car share vehicles count? Regression suggests insignificant Car share provision ubiquitous in urban area Hard to enforce off-site conditions over long-term

17. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 17 Implementation Considerations Securing the agreement Apartments an issue Location and design Visible & public access locations critical, verify at site plan approval stage Marketing Secure pool of memberships, at least 1 for each unit Conversion of spaces over time Ensure spaces cant be sold off Zoning could specify ratio for conversion to visitor and occupant parking By-law conformance over time No reason to suspect all car sharing services will flop, but specific sites may not work Only way to absolutely guarantee conformance of all sites in the long run is to take San Francisco approach

18. Options to Account for Car Share Programs in Parking Standards January 7, 2014 IBI Group ACT Conference – 2009, Toronto 18 Thank you! Joshua Engel-Yan Senior Advisor, Policy and Planning Metrolinx 20 Bay St, Suite 901 Toronto, ON M5J 2N8 416.874.5940 Joshua.Engel-Yan@Metrolinx.com Dylan Passmore Transportation Planner IBI Group 5 th Floor- 230 Richmond St W Toronto, ON M5V 1V6 416.596.1930 ext. 407 Dylan.Passmore@IBIGroup.com Full Report: www.toronto.ca/zoning/parking1.htm