Parking in Ottawa/Gatineau

[rocketphish]

Ottawa committee OK's plan to use places of worship to solve downtown parking crunch
On Aug. 26, city council will consider a proposal that also allows six city-owned recreation centres to offer or lease parking spots.

By Ben Andrews, Ottawa Citizen
Published Aug 20, 2026 | Last updated 1 hour ago

For public servants in need of a downtown parking spot, the City of Ottawa hopes a new plan will answer their prayers.

On Aug. 19, the city’s planning committee approved a temporary bylaw change allowing places of worship located downtown or near rapid-transit stations to reserve parking spaces for commuters.

The plan, which is one element of a broader strategy to handle an expected increase in traffic this fall, will also allow six city-owned recreation centres to offer or lease parking spots to the public.

Ottawa’s transit system is typically busiest in the fall, with many workers returning from vacation and students heading back to school. But with the federal government’s latest return-to-office policy added to the mix, OC Transpo is preparing to absorb about 65,000 additional trips each week come September.

Among other measures, city staff have tweaked bus schedules, added express routes and promised to run the O-Train earlier and more often.

Transit boss Rick Leary has said he’s “very comfortable” with the plan, though not every city councillor shares his confidence. Orléans South-Navan Coun. Catherine Kitts, for example, has predicted traffic “hell.”

Ottawa is home to about 150,000 federal public servants, and more than 40 per cent of workspaces are clustered downtown.

Under normal zoning rules, parking lots are treated as an “accessory use” and cannot be operated commercially or leased to off-site users. City staff are hoping an exemption to the bylaw for places of worship in the core can unlock some parking spaces within walking distance of downtown offices for use by commuters.

Parking lots at rec centres, churches and other places of worship in the core “may be underutilized during weekday business hours,” the report said.

Outside downtown, staff hope parking lots at places of worship within 600 metres of select transit stations can function like park-and-rides.

Participation by places of worship is voluntary, and the city stresses that not every eligible property will participate.

At many downtown churches, parking is in short supply.

The rec centres included in the plan are the Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex, Brewer Park Complex, Jim Durrell Recreation Complex, Trillium Recreation Complex, Pinecrest Recreational Complex and Sandy Hill Arena.

The temporary exemption, if passed by council, will expire on March 31, 2027.

The report doesn’t say how many parking spots the zoning changes are expected to free up for commuters, and a city spokesperson told the Ottawa Citizen it was still too soon to provide an estimate.

At rec centres, the city will “assess” how many spaces can be leased to commuters while ensuring enough spots remain for people using the facility.

The report goes to full council at its meeting on Aug. 26.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/ottawa-places-of-worship-parking

[OTSkyline]

I have mixed feelings about this. First, better usage of land that is being underutilized is obviously a plus and there is definitely a need.

With that being said, we're trying to improve transit to make it more reliable, cheaper to convince people to use it, but then will also make decisions to make driving more appealing - we're fighting ourselves.

My other thought is, seems great but how will this be organized? I'm not sure churches are well equipped (and digital enough) to start renting, offering passes, taking payment so easily, etc. Finally aren't places of worship excluded from paying taxes or something? If this new thing goes in effect, I wouldn't think it's fair for them to charge and profit tax-free on this.

[Uhuniau]

Also, we are inducing a lot of private-vehicular traffic on downtown streets, which will have an impact on already-bad bus reliability, while at the same time doing literally NOTHING in the way of transit measures to at least blunt the impact, let alone undo some of the long-standing problems.

But hey, at least the suburbs now each get once-daily "express" buses, right?

Can the parking-lot scheme at least be used to encourage ride-sharing, instead of favouring 1.1-person average vehicle occupancy?

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Also, we are inducing a lot of private-vehicular traffic on downtown streets, which will have an impact on already-bad bus reliability, while at the same time doing literally NOTHING in the way of transit measures to at least blunt the impact, let alone undo some of the long-standing problems.

But hey, at least the suburbs now each get once-daily "express" buses, right?

Can the parking-lot scheme at least be used to encourage ride-sharing, instead of favouring 1.1-person average vehicle occupancy?

I don't know how you would implement that but that would be amazing.. you get a reduced rate per number of heads in the car or something.

Reminds me of this Curb your Enthusiasm episode though....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGpp9Irjsy0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

My other thought is, seems great but how will this be organized? I'm not sure churches are well equipped (and digital enough) to start renting, offering passes, taking payment so easily, etc. Finally aren't places of worship excluded from paying taxes or something? If this new thing goes in effect, I wouldn't think it's fair for them to charge and profit tax-free on this.

Presumably like every other paid lot in the city, a parking company would manage the lot.

[Richard Eade]

It might be that the job is farmed out to professionals – or not.

Take Britannia United Church, as an example. Whether legally or not, it already appears to provide vehicle storage space for some vehicles. I assume that the church gets paid directly for this privilege. I also suspect that the contract is for longer periods of time than daily. I’m not aware of unauthorized people parking trailers there for extended periods of time.

Since that church is within 600 metres of the future Pinecrest LRT Station, it will be able to charge drivers for parking spaces. Again, I assume that the church would ‘sell’ a certain number of monthly (or even longer) passes for parking within a less-used section of the parking lot. These passes would be put into the windshield area of parked vehicles. A church volunteer could walk around and check to see that all parked vehicles have a pass. (Or, at least, claim to do that.) Ones that don’t have a pass displayed could be recorded and towed if the action is repeated very often. Church-goers would be directed to park in a section close to the church door, so as to be exempt from scrutiny.

This doesn’t sound to be too onerous or unworkable. Remember, churches generally believe in honesty and good faith. And most people most often follow rules. For example, most people actually do stop-ish at 4-way stops.

[kwoldtimer]

I wonder whether it might not give rise to insurance issues for the churches?

[Richard Eade]

Good question. I suppose that there could be a waiver signed relieving the church of any liability.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

My other thought is, seems great but how will this be organized? I'm not sure churches are well equipped (and digital enough) to start renting, offering passes, taking payment so easily, etc.

Been to a church bazaar lately? A lot of them have gone high-tech (Square readers).

How any of the eligible locations organize themselves to take advantage of this rule change is up to them, and it's not a problem.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I wonder whether it might not give rise to insurance issues for the churches?

Maybe for some denominations that don’t believe in insurance, but most churches would get expanded insurance for their parking lots. There are no Amish, etc, churches downtown, so I don’t think it is an issue.

[ponyboycurtis]

I don't really see much of a problem with this. The world according to Reddit is certainlly full of people fretting over having to leave at 6am perhaps to try and secure a parking spot. "Just take transit dummy" isn't really a realistic take. If this interim ish solution alleviates stress to our fellow citizens at no costs to the city then so be it.

I can't speak to what the tax implications are with the churches.

Sometimes you just need to take the low hanging fruit. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good or whatever that saying is. If this solution allows people to drop their kids to and from daycare and school and pick up groceries or whatever on the way home then send it baby.

Like.. at the end of the day.. WTF do I care if some random lady from Beaver Lane is parking in a church lot?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

I don't really see much of a problem with this. The world according to Reddit is certainlly full of people fretting over having to leave at 6am perhaps to try and secure a parking spot. "Just take transit dummy" isn't really a realistic take. If this interim ish solution alleviates stress to our fellow citizens at no costs to the city then so be it.

I can't speak to what the tax implications are with the churches.

Sometimes you just need to take the low hanging fruit. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good or whatever that saying is. If this solution allows people to drop their kids to and from daycare and school and pick up groceries or whatever on the way home then send it baby.

Like.. at the end of the day.. WTF do I care if some random lady from Beaver Lane is parking in a church lot?

Well more parking is more traffic and less transit use. This might not be a huge number but it doesn't take too many more cars to add a lot of time. Meanwhile the transit system needs all the revenue it can get.

I support the city rec lots opening if we can route the revenue towards transit but I suspect it will get eaten up by administration as they do it in the most expensive and bureaucratic way possible.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well more parking is more traffic and less transit use. This might not be a huge number but it doesn't take too many more cars to add a lot of time. Meanwhile the transit system needs all the revenue it can get.

I support the city rec lots opening if we can route the revenue towards transit but I suspect it will get eaten up by administration as they do it in the most expensive and bureaucratic way possible.

It seems unlikely that a relatively small new parking spots would be converting transit users to drivers (assuming the churches are charging market rates). It seems more likely that the people using this service would otherwise be parking further away.

[OTownandDown]

I don't understand this 'rule change'. I already see many churches with full parking lots on a weekday. Surely these aren't people attending afternoon sermons on a Monday.

Examples include: St. Theresa, with their large Indigo-operated parking lot next to City Hall. Is this somehow a lot that was 'sold' or other type of business separation previously? Any of the churches around TOH have full parking lots as well, is that because they are 'outside the core'?

Also, how many spots are we talking about? Churches downtown include the cluster on Sparks/Bay (but those have rebuilt with condos, and seems like the Lutheran church has an indigo operated lot as well, or the 20 spots at St. Patrick's basilica? Dominion Chalmers parking? But this is Carleton and they charge for parking already, so it's already a 'public' lot. Notre Dame also has a large public pay lot.

So are we just doing politics now?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I don't understand this 'rule change'. I already see many churches with full parking lots on a weekday. Surely these aren't people attending afternoon sermons on a Monday.

Examples include: St. Theresa, with their large Indigo-operated parking lot next to City Hall. Is this somehow a lot that was 'sold' or other type of business separation previously? Any of the churches around TOH have full parking lots as well, is that because they are 'outside the core'?

Also, how many spots are we talking about? Churches downtown include the cluster on Sparks/Bay (but those have rebuilt with condos, and seems like the Lutheran church has an indigo operated lot as well, or the 20 spots at St. Patrick's basilica? Dominion Chalmers parking? But this is Carleton and they charge for parking already, so it's already a 'public' lot. Notre Dame also has a large public pay lot.

So are we just doing politics now?

In the case of St. Theresa, the church is a on a separate property parcel from the parking lot - so I assume they are treated as separate entities. This is not the case for St. Patricks. And as you note, Dominion Chalmers is no longer operated as a church.

Plus some of the cases (Notre Dame) could be grandfathered from who knows when.

[sclement12]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Plus some of the cases (Notre Dame) could be grandfathered from who knows when.

This has annoyed me for some time, and I've sent numerous emails to the City and my Council member. The Church was granted permission to demolish several heritage homes (where the current lot is) around 1990 in order to develop the land. Once the houses were razed, the Church applied for a temporary parking permit in order to help raise money for the development as they could no longer afford to move forward. Fast forward 30+ years later, and the City keeps granting temporary parking permit extensions, no development has ever began and we lost heritage homes along St Patrick.