FAQs
What are some benefits of on-street parking?
Convenient on-street parking is often supported by residents or business owners that rely on it. Some businesses have no off-street parking, and even when off-street parking is available, sometimes customer or delivery service parking on-street is more convenient. Likewise, some residential dwellings have no or an insufficient level of off-street parking for the number of vehicles owned by the resident. Even in some cases where adequate driveway length is provided off-street for all vehicles associated with a residential parking is available, on-street parking is sometimes more convenient; this is particularly the case at a multi-residential property with a single lane driveway where there is a concern a vehicle may block another from access.
On-street parking in certain circumstances can also act as a traffic calming measure. Parked vehicles can act as “tunnelling” affect, providing motorists with perspective if they are driving too fast and acting to reduce the latter safety buffer otherwise available to a motorist that is speeding.
What are some disadvantages of on-street parking?
Additional street width, including asphalt for the City to manage over its lifecycle, is sometimes needed to accommodate on-street parking while permitting space for other uses. Public services, particularly plowing, snow removal, and street sweeping efforts are hampered when on-street parking exists. Either equipment must return when vehicles are no longer parked, creating inefficiencies, or the service is simply not delivered on that section of street at all leading to hard packed snow and icy street sections. Because the timing and progression of winter storms are unpredictable, even time-based parking restrictions can hamper service efficiency and outcomes.
Where street width is limited, space to accommodate on-street parking can come at the expense of space for other uses such as provision of bike lanes. Evidence supports that on-street parking negatively impacts actual and perceived cyclist safety, particularly from the risk of doors of parked cars opening into the path of a cyclists.
Parking in certain circumstances can create safety concerns for other motorists such as when parked vehicles impede access to driveways or block sight lines of on-coming traffic, particularly on knolls or curves of a street. Parking on sidewalks and near crosswalks impede pedestrian safety and prematurely deteriorates infrastructure.
What are some pros and cons of various options?
1. Keep as is (Semi-Monthly Alternate Side Parking 24 Hours Per Day, All Year)
This option would maintain the current alternate side parking program with consistent regulations both inside and outside the SCP. It would not address community concerns received about the current program. However, it maintains City-wide consistency and continues to resolve community concern with previous nightly alternate side parking program. This option would maintain access to one side of these streets 24 hours per day for effective snow clearing in the winter, street sweeping in the spring, and other roadway maintenance activities during the construction season.
2. Keep as is except consider changes on a case-by-case basis
This option would maintain the current alternate side parking program (same as option 1) but allow individual concerns with the current program outside the SCP to be addressed with exceptions on a case-by-case basis. All the benefits of Option 1 would remain with exception of case-by-case solutions on specific streets. Provision of public services, such as snow clearing, may be impacted depending on the exceptions used. The other main drawbacks with this option are the City staff resources required for analysis and potential by-law and on-street signage changes needed, depending on the alternative, the difficulty of distinguishing which situations warrant an alternate solution, and the number of exempted cases that may be requested from the community. Exemptions that were permitted to be considered with the previous Overnight Winter Parking Restriction Program proved to be voluminous, leading in part to the cancellation of that program. Case-specific solutions would also often not address concerns raised from all stakeholders. The alternate side program regulations for streets within the SCP would remain unchanged.
3. Keep as is except limit to December 1 – May 31
This option maintains access to one side of the street for more effective snow clearing and spring street sweeping programs with lost effectiveness for construction season activities such as asphalt maintenance for streets outside the SCP. This option creates a “break” from the alternate side parking program for area residents. Implementation cost for this change would be considered manageable, involving an amendment to the City’s Traffic By-Law, cost of approximately $1200.00 for changes to existing on-street signage, and staff time to visit each sign to make the on-street signage changes. It is possible that spring street sweeping will not be complete on all impacted streets before the May 31 date is reached, prompting the potential need for case-by-case parking restrictions. However, staff notes that extending the parking restrictions until end of May, as suggested, would provide a full month longer for street sweeping compared to the previous program that ended at the end of April. Staff also notes that a section of King Street East contains a similar Alternate Side Parking regulation for select months of the year, although, similar to Option 2, no further changes to the SCP program would be contemplated.
4. Revert to previous nightly alternate side parking program
This option involves reverting back to the previous Overnight Daily Alternate Side Parking Program, November 15 – April 30, for select streets outside the SCP. This option would reintroduce the community concerns expressed about this program and it would prevent access to one side of the street for snow clearing and street sweeping activities during the day time and at any time after April 30, impacting construction season activities. Replacing all on-street signage would be needed at an approximate cost of $5700.00.
How does the City manage on-street parking when streets need to be cleared of snow?
A number of parking regulations are in place and used to support snow clearing. These include the previously mentioned SCP alternate side parking program, the case-by-case SCP overnight parking bans, the case-by-case North-East-West (NEW) overnight parking bans, temporary signed parking bans on individual streets, and the alternative side parking program used in areas outside the SCP (latter being the subject of the current review).
The last major review of the City’s overall approach to regulate parking for snow clearing purposes was in 2015. The review was completed following “Snowmaggedon” of that year, where record snowfalls prompted the need for a State of Local Emergency to prohibit parking 24 hours per day for a full week in the SCP to allow permit a comprehensive snow removal program.
The introduction of the called NEW overnight parking bans was one of the major deliverables of this 2015 review. This called NEW ban replaced a previous regulation that prohibited parking every overnight on most City streets during the winter months outside the SCP. Community concerns with that previous nightly parking restriction and the numerous requests for individual street exemptions that required Council approval prompted the recommendation and approval to switch to the called ban.
City staff notes that coordinated and optimized use of these various regulations can minimize community impacts while providing adequate service levels in variable winter conditions. As an example, in some cases called overnight parking bans, which can be quite disruptive to residents, can be avoided if snow storms occur immediately prior to the semi-monthly changeover periods. Efforts to clear one side of the streets immediately before the change-over, followed by the other side immediately after the change-over can sometimes deliver acceptable service standards, avoiding the need for the bans.