This is Part 1 of a two-part series to answer the question of how many parking spots a two-rink arena will require. In this part, we look at a typical executive hockey league evening where both rinks are being used simultaneously.
It’s time for an honest assessment of how many parking spots a two-rink arena complex needs. Isn’t it curious that the City hasn’t come forth with a clear and detailed analysis of the number of parking spots yet?
Let’s first take a look at the parking needs of a single rink on an ordinary executive hockey evening. Here are some assumptions, based on my 30 years of playing beer-league hockey:
| Assumption | Value |
|---|---|
| Cars per team | 12 |
| “Linger” time in dressing room | 30 min |
| Time for game | 60 min |
| Time to clean ice surface | 10 min |
Based on these assumptions, a single game on a single rink would see players arriving about 30 minutes before game time and being showered and out of the dressing rooms 30 minutes after the game. I’ve diagrammed the number of parking spots needed for a single game below:
A single game, played on a single rink will have players arriving about 30 minutes before. The single game will require a maximum of 24 parking spots.
Now let’s add a second game, played on the second rink. The logical scheduling strategy is to stagger the game schedule so as to minimize the traffic flow of players (and cars). So to do this, let’s start the second game 90 minutes after the start of the first.
But now, let’s add the people who are in the dressing rooms, waiting for their game to start, or showering and “lingering”, as happens at most hockey arenas. Here is what happens:
Notice that the total number of spots rises to 80, as players occupy dressing rooms AND ice surfaces. The number of parking spots required, on average, will be about 80 cars. Yes, 80 cars!!! How many laps around the arena are these cars going to make while trying to find parking? What will happen to parking when players linger longer to watch the other games?
What this analysis shows is that we’d all better hope that none of those promised underground parking spots are suddenly moved above-ground, or else it will cause some extremely difficult parking for local residents.
Yet, as bad as the above scenario is, there is worse. In our next installment, we look at what happens when Westmount hosts a hockey tournament — a situation that’s bound to arise. Stay tuned…
It seems to me, from the above, that you’re making a perfect case for the indoor parking as the project will have 86 places, which fits rather well with your calculations. Yet I’ve heard many people complain about the indoor parking – surely your calculations justify the provision that’s being made.
From the official proposal, it states:
“What about traffic? Will there be enough parking?
Our experts have calculated the project could generate an increase of up to 52 cars an hour during rush hour, against a backdrop of 1,600 vehicles an hour on St Catherine and Lansdowne. In fact, their study concludes that the project “will maintain the current traffic conditions in the area.” As for parking, there will be 86 new spots on the site, replacing the current 46.”
I’m saying that, as the planners try to trim the budget, the first thing to go might be the underground parking. It’s not covered by the infrastructure grant, and so represents “real” Westmount municipal dollars. My prediction is that if this project goes ahead, one or both of the following will happen:
1) the number of underground spots will be dramatically reduced from the 40-some-odd spots in the plans
2) the Lansdowne dog-run will be sacrificed in favour of above-ground parking
Other considerations are that the “52 cars per hour” are not evenly distributed. They’ll be arriving and leaving in about the same 15 minute period. There better not be any flow issues at the entrance to the underground garage.
But please stay tuned for part 2, where I’ll go over some tournament scenarios. Those are really fun!
Paul,
Have you ever attended a hockey tournament at Les 4 Glaces on lovely Taschereau Boulevard or at a similar venue?
To say that kids, parents, grandparents and even ,,”disgruntled uncles” tend to gather long before and linger long after games would be an understatement.
And where shall we park those buses from Trois-Rivières and Boston?
- David
So where do all those spectators currently congregate? It must have been a problem for all the time the present Arena has been there? Or are the facilities so dismal that no-one comes to watch?
I’m not a hockey fan so I’m just curious.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Arena, but there must be room for, maybe, 30 people if they squeeze together. Parents generally skate with their children on the little rink. There’s no one sitting off a shift on the little rink, either. On the big rink, there are 12 players on the ice and another 12 or 15 sitting on the bench. And another full game’s worth in the dressing rooms!
The proposed project is far, far larger than what we have. It’s not 2.0/1.5 times what we have. There will be 2 games running at the same time, which is significantly more people. Each game will have 12 players on the ice and another 12 or 15 sitting on the bench. And another *two* full game’s worth in the dressing rooms! The little rink has no one sitting on the bench, and no one in the dressing rooms — no one goes to the little rink to take a shift off from skating. There is a tiny bench along the wall where the occasional new skater comes to tie his/her skates. No need for a lengthy dressing/undressing session because there’s barely any equipment to put on or take off.
Saying that the number of people at the new rink will be 2.0/1.5 times more is a complete lie. I wish you’d see this, Paul, but I’m not holding my breath. Many at the WMA, like you, have swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker. And now that the entirety of the proposed plan is finally exposed to the public, it’s too late, right?
What a way to run a city…
Paul,
I would have to assume that we have few tournaments and the parking problems associated with them, as we have no seating, one rink, no bar or restaurant and an arena that looks as if it was designed to defend the Normandy Coast against the Allied Invasion.
- David
So should the Arena be improved or would it have been better to just close the current dilapidated one down altogether and put something else in its place or perhaps return that corner to being parkland once again?
I don’t play hockey so really don’t care if there’s one, two or zero rinks.
To build a buried Arena, as is planned, means that it’s pretty much impossible not to include the underground parking as they’ll be excavating to dig the arena anyway. The footprint is there to support the number of spots in the current proposal so it’s hard to see how that could be reduced.
This very much remains to be seen. Since the rinks and parking are not on independent levels, the parking space adds to the footprint of the excavation site. This necessarily costs money. If parking was directly above the rinks, I could understand. But it’s not.
From the plans, it looks like there are 34 parking places under the tennis courts (which are effectively at ground level). I guess the other 52 places are outside (about the same as currently). Digging a hole in the ground is not particularly expensive and I think is a good solution. Surely you agree that using the space under the tennis courts for parking is better than forcing cars onto the street? I can’t think of any new buildings that go up these days that don’t have parking under them – land space is too expensive not to do this for the small cost of digging.
The parking requirements fall directly out of having a two-rink-no-pool solution. If you now ask me whether it is better to have all the cars go underground, rather than above-ground, I will tell you yes. Have I stopped beating my wife, in essence?
It was entirely unnecessary to create these parking requirements in the first place.
To get back to the original point, adding underground parking will add to the costs. Of that I’m sure.
So now, where did the underground parking spots go, Paul? Poof — the hand is faster than the eye!
As usual, your prophecies are turning out to be downright wrong. Have a look at this very conversation and how dead sure you were that there would be underground parking.
I’m afraid you’re a little too embedded at this point to notice that you’re being dragged into the City’s clever deception.
Go ahead, Westmount Watch, this is fascinating ! What happens when a league tournament game is underway, there are 300 spectator seats to fill up ? Btw, did we not learn somewhere, that due to the high cost (or is it construction problems?), the underground parking will now be “uncovered” and face Lansdowne!? You are right: under the entente, there is no grant money to pay for this parking facility; the tax payer picks up the tab.
If you look at the plans the parking is under the tennis courts. And it’s the people who live around the park who loudly voiced their opinion that they didn’t want to lose on-street parking that lead to the obvious solution of underground parking in the first place. Impossible to have it both ways I’m afraid (and the pool question is a straw man here since it was clear from the first plan there would not be a pool (not that I agree with that, but it has been known for a long time).
Please don’t get me wrong: once you accept the premise of having 2 rinks, you also accept the premise of needing to supply those rinks with cars. Underground is better than above-ground. But that’s not what my article is about.
I’m questioning the 2-rink premise. And I’m wondering if those 40-some-odd underground spots might not disappear because they’re expensive. They add excavation footprint and they’re not covered by the grant.
Mr Froncioni, you were so right when you wrote that last comment a month ago. we now know that the parking will be uncovered (I assume to cut cost) and we will now be looking at a pit with cars.
Why this council is ploughing ahead with this boggles the mind. Close your collective eyes and imagine our park, you can see how beautiful it is now when you walk eastward on de Maisonneuve. The church, the meandering walking path, the trees, the peace. Replace that with a parking pit.
If this project goes ahead, Mayor Trent will be remembered for destroying Westmount Park, no matter how “beautiful” the arena is.
A Olmstead park is not the place for a hockey bunker.
Anne wrote: “we now know that the parking will be uncovered (I assume to cut cost) and we will now be looking at a pit with cars.”
Where did find this information? The exploded view here: http://www.westmount.org/pdf_files/WRC%20plan_exploded_view_en.pdf clearly shows the parking lot is covered by the tennis courts.
Paul Marriott, have you and your rubber stamping Westmount council WMA friends and associates thought about the effect that is going to happen to the taste of the cakes and other goodies and baked goods that are sold on the front lawn of the church by the contactivity centre when there will be an asphalt parking lot with carbon monoxide fumes spewing from the cars parking directly in front of the church which now has grass, trees, and vines in front it?
Perhaps you could send us some more sketches and 3-D architectural drawings of what will happen and what it will look like.
Please feel free to call me at anytime to discuss unless you prefer the format of leaving messages on Westmountwatch.org.
Larry Klepper
Mr Marriot is obviously falling behind the speed at which the City keeps changing its plans for the hockey-centre.
Were the tennis courts not shifted some distance into the park to create a new uncovered parking lot? Is the gentleman still under the impression that “From the plans, it looks like there are 34 parking places under the tennis courts (which are effectively at ground level). No more, from what we learn. Does he realize that underground stands will accomodate 300 spectators?
Was all this spelled out in the information package sent out with the push-poll of April 2010 ? Have Westmounters been fully apprized of the new plans? Less and less, they resemble the project that was put forward – and on the basis of which the Council claims to have a mandate, however dubious.
Are our municipal officials not getting a little ethically uninhibited ?
Gotham, care to cite where your new information is coming from? I see no changes to the plans that are posted on-line. I’m not doubting you, I just haven’t seen them. The plans on the City website still show the parking under the tennis courts. I’m happy to be corrected, if that’s the case.
Larry, the WMA board voted to support the project. It was not rubber stamping. If you disagree, join the WMA and come to meetings to make your opinions known.
Paul.
Hi Mr Marriott,
The “uncovered” parking lot at the corner of Lansdowne and de Maisonneuve was announced at the last Victoria Hall meeting together with stands for 300 spectators :
http://www.westmount.org/pdf_files/20110602_PLANS_COUPES_WESTMOUNT_ARENA.pdf
Many of are are deeply concerned about pollution, noise and vehicular traffic that will be added to an already congested Lansdowne Ave and a beautiful, serene, park / church area, which is already at “saturation” levels according to the study commissioned by the City.
Gotham,
re-read the plans. The floor of the parking structure is 3.5m below the grade at the end of the park where the Church is. As for the seating, why on earth would anyone build an arena with nowhere to sit? I don’t understand your logic here – surely it would be a negative if there were no seats?
As much as I think there should be an inside pool, it’s hard to see how that option would reduce traffic over the current proposal. Did you read the traffic studies at all? There is already an Arena in the park so it’s really hard to understand how putting another one in its place will radically change things. Of course, it the whole lot were moved somewhere else, then, of course, the park would end up quieter.
Maybe you should all campaign for the removal of the Westmount arena. Huge saving of money (apart from the demo and re-landscaping cost). Restoration of a large area of parkland. The hockey crowd will find somewhere else to play etc. Taxes could be reduced through cuts to sports programs – you’d have a lot of support I’m sure.
Paul, not to be too obtuse. You were initially claiming the parking lot was *under* the tennis courts. Are you still saying that this is what you see on the current plans? I’m seeing the parking lot to be *next to* the tennis courts. That’s not a subtle difference, in my opinion.
From a private communication I had with Patrick Martin, the tennis courts can be anywhere on the roof – over one rink, or the other or over the parking area.
If you read the architectural drawings, the floor of the parking lot is at level 43m (sheet Aa-200) and the roof of the building is at level 46.5m – this is all shown clearly on the plans. The end of the park is at 46.5m, the end of academy road is at 45.2m and the end of landsdown (by St Catherine street) is at 43m. There’s a cross section in the sheet at the end of the PDF called Coupes Generals.
The parking is next to the west-most rink, but the roof could have the tennis courts there or they could be over the other rink.
Paul, you’ve established that the *vertical* level of the parking is 3.5m lower than the tennis courts. However, to satisfy the condition of being *under* (as you claimed when you challenged Gotham’s reply) you would need to match up the horizontal position of the parking with that of the tennis courts, too. I still do not see this.
Furthermore, saying that we are missing some information that you got through a private conversation with Patrick Martin angers me tremendously. I’m not mad at you, btw. I’m mad at a shoddy peekaboo process like this.
And given the amount of planning that wasn’t presented to the community at the time Council asked for “approval”… well, I think the label, rubber stamp, fits the WMA quite well.
Andy, the parking is underground, no matter where on the roof the tennis courts are located.
I asked Patrick Martin for clarification of the posted plans and he confirmed I was reading them correctly. If the floor of the parking is 3.5m below grade, then it is not at ground level. On the exploded view, the option thst’s shown has the tennis courts above the parking lot – but they could be above either rink and still be on the same roof.
You seriously mis-understand why the WMA voted in favour of the proposal BTW. The options were refurbish the existing Arena at a cost (net) of $15M, or build a new one at a cost (net of grants and fundraising) of $12M. Given those two options, it was a no-brainer. As to whether the new project was appropriate or not, that’s a different discussion as we were all told at the time that the grant was only for the project as then proposed. I’m not pleased that this seems to be not the case after the fact. Either way, though, there is going to continue to be an Arena in the park – something which should be no suprise to anyone living in Westmount as it has been on the cards now for more than a decade.
Perhaps it is underground, but the level of the ground is moving up to make sure this happens. I’d like you to go back and read what you said about Gotham’s comment. Now I ask you clearly: is the parking under the tennis courts or not?
And it’s more than just an academic exercise. Are we creating any mounds or hills purely for the sake of burying cars? The landscape of the area currently designated for the parking is already below the level of Academy road. Creating a green covered building to house the parking hardly seems like what you’re describing. We all know this area well enough to know exactly what’s happening here. I’m there twice a day.
Whose options? Who set up this game that it was either a 2-rink arena complex or a straight $15M renovation? The WMA freely chose to engage in the game that the City had set up. Please… let’s not play dumb. The WMA chose to not challenge the City on all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that was disseminated. The “shadow” Council would eat lunch with the real Council to smooth things out. Now it turns out that it was all a scam. But… surprise … it’s too late to change the plans. It’s not appropriate.
When does this “different” discussion actually become relevant? At what time is it appropriate to call foul? After the project is finished, perhaps?
I don’t know anyone who represents this strawman argument of yours. No one is arguing for removing the rink from the park. If you know of anyone, please come up with a name. In the meantime, consider that Council and its mirror PR organisation, the WMA, has been involved in jerking the public around on this project.
I don’t understand why you’re making such a big deal about the parking. It’s underground, that’s it. The green roof of the building is at ground level and covers the rinks and parking. You can stick the tennis courts anywhere on there, it really doesn’t matter.
As for my supposed strawman argument, I was just basing this on some of the naive comments that are on the ipetitions site. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader to find them, but there are many examples.
BTW, there is no shadow council in the WMA. If you were a member, you could suggest creating one if you think it would help.
Paul,
I would love to take up your invitation to serve on the WMA but my doctors would not approve.
Larry Klepper
Come, come gentleman! Are we now agreeing that the City will build a 3.5 metres deep open concrete parking pit with carbon monoxide fumes spewing from the cars parked directly in front of a beautiful 100-year old church which now has grass, trees, vines and a pool in front it. Surely our municipal leaders will not take leave of their senses!?
The WMA may still act as our collective conscience; it’s that second tournament-size rink, which is the root of the problem. Yes, Virginia, Santa Claus will agree to proportionately adjust the grants in line with a scaled-down project (and our tax levy can be simultaneously reduced), not as disingenuously argued in the April 2010 survey cleverly designed to “manufacture consent”.
Paul,
You have defended the stance taken by the WMA, in fact it voted to support the project as presented by the city. Now you claim, and I quote you, “we were told at the time that the grant was only for the project then proposed. I’m not pleased that this seems not to be the case after the fact.” Normally, one might expect that an organization dedicated to municipal affairs, after having voted on an issue and discovering that it had been misled, would have protested quite rigorously to the council which misled it. Please remind me of the details and date on which the WMA made its dissatisfaction known to council. And the date and outcome of the new vote which must have taken place once the discrepancy was made known.
My own experience, as I joined the board following these events, is that any attempt to discuss the arena project at the WMA is immediately shut down by you, on the grounds that it is a done deal, even if a questionable one. In fact, as we all know, you signed the notorious register, yet you are ambivalent about others questioning this project.
Mavis,
I’ll refer you to my comment on the ipetitions blog: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/changewestmountarenaplan/blog/5911#comment2605
I followed the democratic procedure in place and voted on the register. Pity the many who have subsequently signed the petition now were not organized when they had the chance. I don’t control debate at the WMA but it was decided that as all normal processes had been followed, there was really nothing for the WMA to comment on.
Maybe things have changed now with the current petition this summer so you’re free to add that item onto the agenda for September’s board meeting. It would probably make sense to reopen discussion at this point – I’m sure the board would be interested to hear more about the petition and what is being told to people who are asked to sign it.
Paul:
Thank you for the suggestion for placing it on the WMA agenda for discussion. I assume you will support the agenda addition and the need for further discussion, if not necessarily my point of view.
Paul,
You have not replied to Mavis thanking you for your great suggestion to add the subject to the WMA agenda and it has been over two weeks. Did you take care of it?
Larry Klepper
Larry, I prefer to keep WMA-related business to WMA members only, rather than discussing it in a public forum. The agenda will be published before the meeting on the WMA blog and the public is free to attend.
However, I can confirm that I have asked for Mavis’s request to be accepted.
Paul.
Paul,
Can we count on you to make sure it will be accepted?
We are all counting on you.
Larry Klepper
There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be – we have quite a few other pressing issues to discuss, too, but will make time for this one. I’ve already asked for it to be added, but I’m not the compiler of the agenda.
The Westmount Recreation Centre is item #8 on tonight’s WMA meeting agenda: http://www.wma-amw.org/blog/?p=355
Paul.
Paul,
So how did the meeting go? Any news to report to the citizens of Westmount who pay the taxes and the salaries of everyone working for Westmount?
Don’t we get to know what happened regarding #8 on the agenda which you submitted for discussion? Aren’t you anxious to give us the news?
Larry Klepper
Larry, the minutes of the WMA board meeting will be published on the WMA website once they have been compiled. We don’t comment on discussions at our meetings these until the minutes have been written. You are, of course, free to attend any board meeting (don’t even have to be a WMA member).
Paul.
Paul,
It has been two weeks since the meeting. Why is it taking so long?
Larry Klepper
Larry, getting the right people into the right place at the right time to compile and review the minutes always takes longer than many people expect; please bear with us and we’ll get the minutes out ASAP.
Paul.
Paul,
I will bear with you in this bear stock market we seem to be entering. I hope for everyone’s sake that it does not happen.
Too much has already been lost, so many unemployed and the economy is very fragile and showing very few signs of recovery so far.
Money should be used for emergencies and more important things then building another hockey rink for $37 million dollars when people are suffering all around us.
I pray that the WMA will come to its senses and stand up for the people who need to be helped and protected.
This is the WMA I used to know and this is what the people expect from the WMA. It is not too late for the WMA to do the right thing.
Larry Klepper