This panel on page 18 of the DRAFT - Phase I: Traffic and Parking Viability Assessment Study (April, 2005)
It says there are 2113 available parking spaces within 600m of the LVEC, thus satisfying the demand for 2,015 vehicles.
If you measure distances accurately, nevermind correctly, and account for parking lots we know are closing soon, we conclude that
- If CastleGlenn's single-data-point car tally can be trusted (Ha!) then there are only 1253 stalls available within a 600m crow-flies radius.
- If CastleGlenn's single-data-point car tally can be trusted, there are about 2000 stalls within a 960m walking distance.
- Within a true, measured 600m walking distance there are only between 836 and 890 available stalls. It depends whether you count Kincore (Bagot), which the linked document clearly says is a sold-out private lot with a waiting list. Note that this is still an optimistic tally since we should to further reduce the on-street stall inventory which, in the table below, is based on a 600m radius (about 720m-800m walking distance). See the difference between a 600m walking distance and a 600m radius on figure 2 here.
Note that you can download this table in MS Excel 2000 format. 
TOTAL PARKING DEMAND FROM LVEC: 2,015 vehicles.
|
Lot No. |
Ownership |
Parking Facilities |
No of Spaces | CastleGlenn's Distance (Crow Flies) | Actual Dist (Crow flies) (3) (5) |
KCAL Measured Walking Dist | CastleGlenn's Available Stalls |
90% | CastleGlenn's 90% Cumulative Stalls |
Adjust- ment |
Adjusted 90% Cumulative Stalls |
|
| N/A | Public | On-site parking lot | 100 | On-site | On-site | . | 100 | N/A | 100 | . | 100 | |
| N/A | Public | On-Street Non-Metered | 780 | - | - | . | 560 | 504 | 604 | -202 | (1) | 402 |
| 12 | Public | Anglin Lot [To be confirmed upon design] | 228 | 60m | 100m | 185m | 214 | 193 | 797 | . | . | 595 |
| 2 | Private | OHIP | 195 | 140m | 150m | 255m | 178 | 160 | 957 | .. | . | 755 |
| N/A | Public | On-Street Metered | 210 | - | - | . | 140 | 126 | 1083 | -51 | (1) | 830 |
| 23 | Public | Rideaucrest | 167 | 230m | . | 154 | 139 | 1222 | 969 | |||
| 5 | Public | Barrack St. Lot (Closing -- North Block) |
104 | 250m | 335m | 431m | 28 | 25 | 1247 | -101 | (2) | 893 |
| 21 | Public | Frontenac Lots (Closing -- North Block) |
243 | 280m | 367m | 536m | 216 | 194 | 1441 | -221 | (2) | 866 |
| 10 | Public | Drury Lot (Closing -- North Block) |
114 | 390m | 470m | 540m | 84 | 76 | 1517 | -106 | (2) | 836 |
| 4 | Private | Kincore Lot (Bagot) (Currently full -- waiting list) |
76 | 450m | 450m | 615m (Mappoint) |
60 | 54 | 1571 | . | . | 890 (615m walk) |
| 9 | Public | Angrove Lot | 66 | 460m | 460m | 737m | 58 | 52 | 1623 | . | . | 942 |
| 14 | Public | King & Queen Lot | 43 | 480m | 550m | 682m | 14 | 13 | 1636 | . | . | 955 |
| 14 | Private | Kincore Lot (Ontario) | 77 | 500m | 570m | . | 47 | 42 | 1678 | . | . | 997 |
| 11 | Public | Springer Lot | 62 | 510m | 540m | 745m | 28 | 25 | 1703 | . | . | 1022 |
| 1 | Public | Byron Lot | 73 | 520m | 540m | 889m | 43 | 39 | 1742 | . | . | 1061 |
| 13 | Public | Ordnance Lot | 32 | 530m | 530m | 804m | 21 | 19 | 1761 | . | . | 1080 |
| 24 | Private | The Mill | 259 | 600m | 600m | 192 | 173 | 1934 | . | . | 1253 (600m fly) |
|
| 1 | Private | Holiday Inn | 210 | 550m | 610m | 833m | 105 | 95 | 2029 | . | 1348 | |
| 5 | Private | Sugarman/Gilad Lot | 160 | 580m | 645m | . | 94 | 85 | 2114 (4) (600m fly) |
. | 1433 | |
| 8 | Public | Hanson Lot | 268 | 610m | 675m | . | 221 | 199 | 2313 | . | . | 1632 |
| 2 | Public | Robert Bruce Lot (Upper and Lower) | 100 | 630m | 685m | . | 42 | 38 | 2351 | . | . | 1670 |
| 7 | Public | Chown Lot | 438 | 680m | 720m | 960m (Mappoint) |
364 | 328 | 2679 | . | . | 1998 |
| -681 |
Notes to the table:
| (1) | CastleGlenn Consultants overstate the area of their study by 40%. We proportionally adjust the "90%" number of on-street stalls that CastleGlenn provides under the assumption that the on-street parking capacity is strongly correlated with the total area being considered. These adjustments to "on-street metered" and "on-street non-metered" categories apply to to correcting to the 600m radius. As the radius increases, these adjustments become smaller, tending to zero at the 710m radius, i.e. what CastleGlenn Consultants defines as "600m". For tallies involving true radii above 600m and below 710m, the adjustments would be positive up to (202+51)=253 stalls at 710m, but these adjustments are not shown here given the closing of Market Square and Block D lots, whose potential 200+ cars scattered elsewhere in the system would cancel-out a good proportion of these adjustments. |
| (2) | CastleGlenn Consultants failed to account that these lots will soon be closed, and the cars CastleGlenn tallied therein are assumed to move to adjacent lots. Note, though, that CastleGlenn admits using only one data point, which makes this whole column of data worth essentially nothing, and the whole parking assessment is thus without much value from a statistical perspective.
Example: Barrack St Lot adjustment: 25 stalls no longer available, plus the (104-28)=76 cars therein displaced nearby, makes a total 101 stall overstatement. |
| (3) | CastleGlenn Consultants made serious measurement errors, averaging 13%, on simple crow-flies measurements from the LVEC site. The distances we provide here are the correct absolute minimum possible crow-flies distances to the closest edge of the lot. For distance to the center of the lot, add 20-40m, depending on the lot. For a quick estimate of actual walking distance, multiply the actual distances here by a factor between 1.2 and 1.4. |
| (4) | CastleGlenn Consultants have a minor math error the original table. Their correct number should be 2114, not 2113. |
| (5) | This table is sorted by actual crow-flies distance, not by CastleGlenn's erroneous crow-flies distances. |
Note as well as there are other qualitative problems with the CastleGlenn study.
Finally, don't forget: a 600m walking distance, nevermind a 960m walking distance, is far in excess of the recommended park and walk distance for just about everything except airport parking applications. Can an LVEC be successful under these circumstances? If so, how much risk does this absolutely dreadful parking situation gratuitously add to the project? This must be factored into the Anglin Bay Premium which includes other things like land costs (unknown), site finish costs (unknown, but more than say Market Square), foundation construction difficulties, water table difficulties, neighboring infrastructure improvements (sidewalks, lighting) etc, etc.
Remind us, again, what's so great about the Anglin Bay site? Proximate businesses?
Last updated April 30 2005 at 6:00 PM.