HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Study - 1969 7/28/1969 �>
-0-a
jX
ml �
a
w ,
r y
410`� w
lv
Ty
f _
Ayr. ��w�' ,qy _ ��t+w��^ • —x�•�♦ Y
k
• r
+M
r r
ff
r
4 � ,
a
�
� r `fit� -� •fip« a •,�,,.
3 '�f
26 Garretson Road
White Plains, New York
July 28, 1969
Hon. Christine K. Helwig
Town Supervisor, Town of Mamaroneck
158 Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York
Dear Mrs. Helwig:
Submitted herewith are fifty copies of the
completed Parking Study as per our agreement dated
April 4, 1969.
The study contains the analysis and recom-
mendations relating to the several areas included in
the agreement. After your review of the final report
we shall be happy to meet with you to discuss any
points or questions that may arise.
We are pleased to have had the opportunity of
providing this study.
Sincerely yours,
Roy A. Flynt, Jr.
Traffic Consultant
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We very much appreciate the cooperation received
from Mrs. Helwig, Supervisor, and the Town officials in
developing the parking study. The excellent cooperation
of Chief O'Brien in furnishing information and men for
the field parking surveys was particularly helpful.
INTRODUCTION
There were several locations and types of parking
characteristics and needs to be studied in this report.
The large metered lot located on the south side of
Myrtle Boulevard around Wood Street and adjacent to Vine
Street, known as Lot Number One is on County of West-
chester land leased by the Town and is bordered by private
homes on one side and the New Haven Railroad on the other.
Lot #1 contains 257 metered spaces with 12-hour time
limits and is operated at a rate of 25 cents for the 12
hours. The questions of controls, fees, capacity, and
use relate to overnight parkers, local workers , but pre-
dominantly to commuter needs in this lot. At certain times,
especially during the winter months, the volume of commuters
exceeds the lot capacity, and, in order to develop local
controls of the lot and its usage, the Town is considering
purchasing the land from Westchester County.
The small metered lot located on the south side of
Myrtle Boulevard between North Chatsworth Avenue and
Madison Avenue, known as Lot Number Three contains 83
metered spaces. This lot has 66 12-hour spaces at a rate
of 25 cents for the 12 hours and 17 2-hour spaces at a
rate of 5 cents per hour. The use of this lot is a com-
bination of overnight parkers, local workers in the area,
some commuters, and short-time shoppers and persons con-
ducting business in the area.
- 2 -
Street parking in the area furnishes an additional
parking supply which is regulated, but no fees are charged
(no street meters) . The streets considered in the survey
are parts of Myrtle Boulevard, Madison Avenue, Thruway
Access and North Chatsworth Avenue.
A recent increase of workers caused by the location
of a business in an existing building at Madison Avenue
and Myrtle Boulevard has developed an increase in all-day
parking demand in the area. The questions of controls ,
fees, capacity and use relate to a mixture of needs in
Lot #3 and nearby streets .
There were three apartment areas studied in the report.
The principal question considered was the use, control, and
capacity for overnight parking in and around the apartment
areas.
The area in the vicinity of Palmer Avenue, Richbell
Road and Burton Road produces a parking need primarily by
Larchmont Acres apartment houses. This area is immediately
adjacent to the Village of Larchmont, which allows unres-
tricted parking overnight on its streets, further compli-
cating the problem.
The area in the vicinity of Alden Road and Boston Post
Road consists of a rather small number of apartment units.
This area is adjacent to the Village of Larchmont, which
3 -
has a village-wide restriction against overnight street
parking.
The area in the vicinity of Dillon Road and Boston
Post Road also consists of relatively few apartment units.
This area is in a narrow strip of Town land between the
Village of Larchmont and the City of New Rochelle.
Purpose of Study:
The purpose of this study is to determine the parking
characteristics and needs in the several areas and recom-
mend controls, fees, additional capacity and measures that
the Town could apply in the areas to help improve the
parking and traffic situation.
Scope of Work:
To achieve the purpose and intent of this study, the
work included, but was not limited to, the following:
Determination of a parking inventory for each area,
including number of spaces by location, type of controls -
time limits, restrictions, fees, number of spaces accept-
able for overnight parking by location.
Determination of parking space use for each area.
Commuter off-street use; number of spaces used, user
origin, length of stay.
- 4 -
Off-street use by others; number of spaces used, user
origin and destination, trip purpose, length of stay.
Street space; space turnover, space hours used, space
hours available.
Apartment dwellers area; overnight parking needs .
Evaluation of data for the purpose of recommending
controls, fees, operation, use and general parking improve-
ments for each area. Discussion of overall study with
appropriate Town officials prior to submittal of final
report.
5 -
STUDY RESULTS
LOT NUMBER ONE is located south of Myrtle Avenue around
Wood Street and adjacent to Vine Street. (See Exhibit C. )
Collection of Data:
An interview type survey was conducted during commuter
hours - from 6 : 30 AM to 9: 00 AM on a Wednesday in April.
Motorists were asked the following questions:
1. Origin.
2. Commuter or other.
If other, trip purpose and destination.
3. Use of this lot - normally, occasionally, or seldom.
4. Length of intended stay.
All-day or short-time.
If an interview was impossible, (usually caused by either
motorist' s refusal to cooperate or too great a surge of
traffic) the motorist' s license plate was recorded and
later checked by the police department for origin (resi-
dence) .
Entering traffic was recorded by 15-minute intervals ,
whether by interview or license check. This was done in
order to develop the peak AM traffic load on the lot's
access points.
6 -
All entering motorists were either interviewed or
licenses were checked. The number interviewed represented
nearly 80% of total lot capacity. This percentage,
together with the check of the overnight parkers and car
rentals prior to the commuter interviews, helped develop
a high degree of accuracy in the survey results. The lot
did not completely fill by the end of the survey period -
there were 27 spaces vacant - however, by observation the
lot fills and overflows to adjacent streets on numerous
occasions, particularly during the winter months. As a
consequence of these observations, the results of the sur-
vey were factored to full capacity conditions.
General observations were made on the day of the
survey and during varying periods, including a rainy day,
to ascertain typical nature of data collected. The traffic
and parking characteristics, peak use periods, directions
of access, relation of this lot to other commuter lots
in the area, effect of street traffic in the area, were
noted.
The Comprehensive Master Plan submitted by Raymond
and May Associates dated 1966 was reviewed for population
trends and growth and development potential to further
evaluate the area in regard to present and future char-
acteristics.
7 -
Analysis of Data:
The overall evaluation of lot operation indicates
that it is operating at or near its capacity the majority
of the time. During the winter months and occasionally
during other periods of the year, the lot' s capacity is
exceeded and commuters spill over onto adjacent streets,
creating an inconvenience and an enforcement problem.
The overcapacity condition can be expected to worsen due
to the anticipated population growth for the Town as indi-
cated in the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. As long as the lot
is open to the general public, the increase growth in
surrounding communities can be expected to add additional
volumes to the lot. Exhibit A indicates the areas served
by Lot 1- and demonstrates the effect that may be felt by
regional growth.
Lot #1 operates in conjunction with the parking facil-
ities in the Village of Larchmont. Generally, the Larch-
mont deck (over the Thruway) fills first, then Lot #1
absorbs the remaining commuters. The shorter walking
distance from the deck appears to be the principal reason
governing this action. The result is that late-coming
commuters travel directly to Lot #1; therefore, if there
are no spaces remaining, the nearby streets in the Town
receive the bulk of the overflow parkers.
8 -
In evaluating the origin-destination interview survey,
it is significant that a relatively high percentage of the
lot is used by other than Town commuters. (See Table #1)
Of the total lot capacity, 36% were non-resident commuters;
10% were other than commuters; and 54% were Town resident
commuters. In determining the reason for the high percent-
age of non-resident commuters, several factors were found
influential:
1. Convenience of location:
Residents of some nearby communities, notably
New Rochelle and Larchmont, can travel as
easily or in some instances more easily to the
Town of Mamaroneck facilities than to those in
their own communities.
2. Adequacy of parking:
The capacity of commuter parking facilities in
some nearby communities is more severely defi-
cient than that of the Town of Mamaroneck.
3 . Prevailing commuter parking rates :
Comparative rates of several nearby communities
are listed below:
Spaces Reserved Rate
Community for Residents Resident Non-Resident
1. Town of Mamaroneck No $ .25/12 hr. $ .25/12 hr.
2 . Village of Larchmont Yes $10. 00/yr. $ . 25/12 hr.
3 . Scarsdale Yes $ .50/10 hr. $ .50/10 hr.
4. New Rochelle No $ .50/12 hr. $ . 50/12 hr.
(Various rates in differ- $ . 75/day $ . 75/day
ent facilities as shown) $ 1.20/12 hr. $ 1. 20/12 hr.
5 . Village of Mamaroneck Yes $ 6. 00/yr. $ . 50/day
6 . Rye Yes $15. 00/yr. $50. 00/yr.
i
(Also meters at) $ . 50/day $ . 50/day
7. Port Chester Yes $15 . 00/yr. $50 . 00/yr.
8 . Mt. Vernon Yes $ 7. 50/mo. ---
(for residents only)
9 . Harrison Yes $ 6 . 00/yr. $24. 00/yr.
10 -
TABLE NUMBER 1
TYPE OF PARKER NUMBER PERCENTAGE
of Lot Capacity
Commuters--by Origin
Town of Mamaroneck 138 54
* Village of Larchmont 21 8
City of New Rochelle 51 20
Village of Scarsdale 12 5
Others--outside Town 9 3
Other Users (non-commuters)
by type
Local Workers (includes 10 4
customer cars)
Overnight Parkers 12 4
Car Rentals 4 2
TOTALS 257 100%
* Due to the question relative to a Larchmont mailing
address within the Town limits, one half of those
responding "Larchmont" for their origin were assigned
as Mamaroneck residents .
- 11 -
Other (non-commuter) use of Lot #1 consists of:
1. Local workers, which included customer cars,
principally for the adjacent car repair and
rental shop.
2. Rental cars.
3 . Overnight parkers.
Although the percentage of use by this group
was relatively low (10% of total lot capacity) ,
it is evident, through evaluation and observa-
tions, that the percentage is higher during
other periods.
Included in this category are:
1. Overnight parkers who do not remove their cars
promptly, especially during winter months when
the lot capacity is more critical.
2. Rental car number is sometimes higher, par-
ticularly during winter months.
3 . Repair shop customer cars vary as to work load
and are frequently greater than during the field
interview period.
Additional information gained from the survey indicated
that 79% of those responding normally used the lot, 17% used
the lot occasionally, and 4% seldom, indicating that the
- 12 -
survey was representative. It was also found that only
one short-time parker entered the lot during the interview;
thus, short-time parking in this lot was discounted. In
addition, it was found that the highest 15-minute period
for traffic entering the lot was from 8: 15 to 8 : 30 when
70 cars entered.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
As indicated previously, Lot #1 demand has reached and
exceeded the facility' s capacity, producing inconvenience
to commuters and surrounding Town areas in general because
of the overflow parking that occurs on surrounding streets.
Even though these streets are restricted, results through
enforcement are difficult, since commuters rushing for a
train will "take a change" when parking is not readily
available.
There are a number of alternatives available to the
Town to help alleviate commuter parking needs. Rates can
be raised to a level more in line with other communities
in the area, thus discouraging heavy use by non-residents.
Parking facilities could be restricted to local residents
only. A parking expansion program could be initiated and
undertaken. A combination of all or portions of these
alternatives could be sought.
- 13 -
Raising rates:
Since the 25 cents per 12 hour rate is relatively low
compared with other communities in the area (see page 9) ,
there is reason to believe that the relatively high use by
non-residents could be decreased by raising rates. This
would be especially true if rates were coordinated with
the Village of Larchmont. In addition to the discourage-
ment of non-residents, a higher rate would reflect the
growing costs of all municipal services . For the Town
either to restrict parking to residents or expand the
facilities, it would be necessary to purchase the land
from the County of Westchester. An increase of income
could make this economically feasible.
If physical improvements to the lot are to be con-
sidered for expansion of the lot' s capacity, additional
monies would be needed for this purpose.
Restriction of parking to residents:
Purchase of the land from the County could be a method
of firmly curtailing non-resident commuter use either with
or without a rate increase. Since there are car rentals ,
customer cars, and workers in the area now using the lot,
only part of the lot should be so restricted; otherwise,
the parking of these other cars could pose a problem on
the surrounding streets. Although the scope of this study
did not include the Larchmont deck, and we were unable to
- 14 -
determine the exact number, it was readily apparent that
residents of the Town were heavy users of the deck facility
(see page 7) . Since Town residents use the deck structure,
the problem of capacity could become more serious for Town
residents if Larchmont also restricted a large percentage
of its capacity to Village residents.
The acquisition of land:
For the town to take positive action on restrictions
or parking expansion, the land must be purchased from the
County. Since the land is needed for parking both cur-
rently and in the future, there is no apparent reason that
the property should not be sold to the Town for the purpose
of parking.
The expansion of parking:
Evaluating factors cited in the foregoing, it is ap-
parent that additional parking should be considered either
now or in the near future for this area.
Lot # 1 lends itself well to decking as a readily
apparent method of expanding parking for the general area.
A structure should be set back from adjacent homes and
developed with an attractive facade. (See Exhibit J)
With an attractive structure, the view from the homes could
be enhanced and, at the same time, needed additional park-
ing could be provided.
15 -
The entering traffic load, as detailed in the pre-
vious section, is moderate enough that additional trips
produced by an increase in parking supply could be ade-
quately served both by the present entrance facilities and
by the adjacent street system.
The following recommendations are made for carrying
out the various alternatives open to the Town of Mamaroneck:
1. The land for Lot #1 should be acquired by the
Town for parking use.
2 . The rates should be increased and the additional
revenue should be earmarked for land purchase
and expansion of parking facilities. It is
suggested that a rate of 50 cents be estab-
lished for the 12-hour period.
3 . The lot should ultimately be expanded by deck-
ing.
4. The restriction of portions of the lot to resi-
dents could be used as an interim measure and
should be carefully explored with the policy
of the Village of Larchmont and characteristics
of their facility prior to enactment. Careful
consideration should also be given to the needs
of the other users (non-commuters) of the lot.
- 16 -
5. Enforcement of overnight users, who leave their
cars through commuter hours, should be imple-
mented.
- 17 -
STUDY RESULTS
LOT NUMBER THREE is located south of Myrtle Boulevard be-
tween North Chatsworth Avenue and Madison Avenue and is
augmented by surrounding street parking.
Collection of Data:
An inverview type survey was conducted in Lot #3 from
6:30 AM to 9: 00 AM on a Thursday in April. Motorists were
asked the following questions:
1. Origin.
2. Commuter or other.
If other, trip purpose and destination.
3 . Use of this lot - normally, occasionally, or
seldom.
4. Length of stay.
All-day or short-time.
Entering traffic was recorded by 15-minute intervals
in order to develop the peak AM traffic load on the lot' s
access points .
All entering motorists were interviewed with the
resulting sampling representing over 80% of the total lot
capacity. This percentage, together with an inventory of
remaining overnight parking, developed a high degree of
accuracy in the survey results.
- 18 -
At the end of the survey period, there were 4 vacan-
cies. Observations indicate, however, that the lot
frequently fills by 9: 00 AM, including all of the short-
time spaces . The results of the survey, therefore, were
factored to full capacity conditions.
General observations were made during varying periods
to ascertain the typical nature of the data collected.
The general traffic and parking characteristics, peak use
periods, relation of this lot to the general area, and
effect of street traffic in the area were noted as well.
Street parking on the surrounding streets was also
surveyed. The streets included were:
(1) Myrtle Boulevard from North Chatsworth
Avenue to Madison Avenue (both sides) ,
(2) Madison Avenue from Myrtle Boulevard to
the Thruway Access (both sides) ,
(3) Thruway Access from Madison Avenue to
North Chatsworth Avenue (both sides) ,
(4) North Chatsworth Avenue from the Thruway
Access to Myrtle Boulevard (both sides) .
An inventory of all posted regulations was taken.
(See Exhibit B)
19 -
A turnover and space use survey was conducted on a
Thursday in June from 9: 00 AM to 5: 00 PM. The short-time
(2 hour) meters in Lot #3 were included in this survey.
The turnover survey was conducted by recording the
last three digits of auto license plates, the parking
space location, and the time of day. Each space was
checked once every half hour throughout the survey period.
From these data it was possible to determine the total
space hours each parking space was utilized and also the
frequency of use (turnover) which has been shown as a
turnover ratio.
Space utilization has also been shown as a percentage
calculated by dividing the number of space hours used by
the number of space hours available. The turnover ratio
was found by dividing the number of vehicles using the
spaces by the number of spaces.
The results of the turnover survey have been summar-
ized by block fronts and by the 2-hour spaces in Lot #3
to indicate the pattern of parking currently prevailing.
The Comprehensive Master Plan of 1966 submitted by
Raymond and May Associates was reviewed for population
trends and growth and development potential to further
evaluate the area in regard to present and future char-
acteristics.
20 -
The appropriate sections of the Town zoning ordinance
were reviewed for parking requirements for new develop-
ments.
Analysis of Data:
An overall evaluation of Lot #3 indicates that it is
operating at or near its capacity some of the time. A
review of the turnover survey reveals that the 2-hour
spaces are operating at a 66% utilization level with a
2 . 6 turnover ratio. Thirteen cars remained past the two-
hour limit during the survey. The all-day spaces are
generally fully occupied throughout the day.
An appreciable amount of "meter feeding" by all-day
or long-term parkers in the 2-hour section was observed
and appears in the turnover survey, indicating a defi-
ciency in all-day parking. The recent increase of employees
in the area produced by the opening of a business in the
building at the corner of Myrtle Boulevard and Madison
Avenue serves to explain the deficit of all-day spaces in
the area.
An evaluation of the origin-destination interview
survey (See Table #2) indicated that 65% of the parkers
were workers in the area and 21% were commuters, for a
total of 71 all-day parkers. Since there were 6 overnight
parkers remaining in the lot during the interview period,
- 21 -
all-day parkers began to use the available short-time
spaces . The remaining 6 spaces were used by shoppers in
the area.
In reviewing the turnover survey for Lot #3 , only one
car remained for over six hours at any one space. Since
there were all-day parkers using the short-time spaces,
this discrepancy can be explained by the actions of the
"meter feeders" . If an all-day space becomes available,
they are likely to move their car into it. It was also
noted during the turnover survey that the "meter feeders"
occasionally move their cars within the two-hour section
to avoid detection. As a result, the number of all-day
parkers using the 2-hour section is somewhat greater than
the turnover survey indicates.
Commuters used 21% of the lot' s capacity, indicating
the capacity problem for commuters as discussed in the
section on Lot #1.
Additional information gained from the survey indicated
that 76% of those responding normally use this lot, 10% used
the lot occasionally, and 14% seldom, indicating that the
survey sample was representative. Of the total lot capa-
city, 85% were all-day parkers and 15% short-time, whereas
80% of the lot is designated for all-day parkers and 20%
for short-time.
22 -
TABLE NUMBER 2
TYPE OF PARKER NUMBER PERCENTAGE
of Lot Capacity
Commuters by Origin
Mamaroneck 4 5
New Rochelle 10 12
Other 3 4
Others by Type
Work in Area 54 65
Shopping 6 7
Overnight 6 7
TOTALS 83 100%
- 23 -
The regulations on the streets surveyed (see Exhibit
B) indicate some inconsistencies and some regulations that
may be questionable. An evaluation of the regulations
produced the following results:
1. The overnight parking restriction is sometimes
posted as NO PARKING 2 AM to 6 AM and sometimes
NO PARKING 3 AM to 6 AM.
2. The regulation that is apparently intended to
prohibit all-day workers or commuters is posted
as ONE HOUR PARKING 8 AM to 3 PM, as ONE HOUR
PARKING 8 AM to 11 AM and as ONE HOUR PARKING
8 AM to 1 PM. Exceptions are made for Saturday,
Sunday, and Holidays in some cases and not in
others.
3. Sign legends for posting limits vary, such as:
ONE HOUR PARKING, PARKING LIMIT 20 minutes,
1 HOUR PARKING, PARKING 1 HOUR, PARKING LIMIT
BETWEEN SIGNS 5 MIN.
4. Sign legends for posting restricted parking also
vary, such as: NO PARKING THIS SIDE, NO PARKING
ANY TIME, NO PARKING FROM (Hrs. ) , and NO PARKING
(Hrs. ) .
24 -
Signs posting these regulations do not comply with the
mandatory provisions of the New York State Manual of Uni-
form Traffic Control Devices, making enforcement somewhat
difficult.
An evaluation of the turnover survey indicates a
variety of patterns on the streets surveyed. (See Tables
#3 and #4) . As might be expected, the highest turnover
ratio of 6. 8 occurred on the north side of Myrtle Avenue
where there is a 20-minute parking restriction and where
there are several retail outlets. Conversely, the lowest
turnover ratio of 1. 3 and the highest space utilization
of 90% occurred on the Thruway Access where static all-day
parking occurs.
The turnover ratios varied in the one-hour parking
zones from a high of 4.2 on the east side of Madison Avenue
to a low of 1.5 on the west side of Madison Avenue. A
relatively high proportion of cars stayed beyond the one-
hour limit in every location (see Table #4) .
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The "meter feeding" and overnight parking remaining
past 9: 00 AM in Lot #3; the high utilization of the Thru-
way Access by all-day parkers; the number of cars remain-
ing beyond the one-hour limit on the streets: all combine
to indicate a shortage of all-day parking in the area.
25 -
The high turnover ratio in the Myrtle Avenue block, toget-
her with the relatively high utilization for such a turn-
over, indicates that there is no over-capacity of space
for short-time parkers and that there will be occasions
when few, if any, spaces are available.
Based on anticipated growth for the Town, the restric-
tive parking situation found in the area will certainly
become worse. Any additional expansion of workers in the
area will add to the problem unless additional parking
is provided in the area. The parking requirements in the
Town Zoning Ordinance, for new buildings , are adequate;
therefore, it is the general population growth, and more
intensive use of existing buildings that can intensify
the restrictive parking in the area.
In view of restrictive parking conditions and the
likelihood of these becoming worse, additional parking in
the area should be the long-range goal. An all-day park-
ing lot to provide the additional parking could be located
some distance away - two or three blocks - and Lot #3
could be converted to primarily a short-time facility.
In the interim, there are several techniques that
could be applied to enhance the parking availability in
the area. Among these are: (1) Changing the mix of short-
time and all-day meters in Lot #3; (2) Raising rates for
26 -
TABLE NUMBER 3
No. of
Vehicles Space Space Space Turn-
Location No. of Using Hrs. Hrs. Utili- over
of Spaces Spaces Spaces Used Avail zation Ratio
2 hr sec of 17 44 80 119 66 2 . 6
Lot 3
S side of 24 91 108. 5 168 65 3 .8
Myrtle
N side of 13 89 61.5 91 68 6 . 8
Myrtle
W side of 11 17 18. 5 77 24 1. 5
Madison
E side of 6 25 22 42 52 4 .2
Madison
S side of 26 35 163 . 5 182 90 1. 3
Thruway
Access
N side of 26 34 155. 5 182 85 1. 3
Thruway
Access
W side of 9 24 46. 5 63 73 2 . 7
Chatsworth
Thruway Ac
to Wash Sq
W side of 9 31 53 63 84 3 . 4
Chatsworth
Wash Sq to
Myrtle
E side of 9 15 53. 5 63 85 1. 7
Chatsworth
Wash Sq to
Myrtle
LOCATION TYPE OF USE TIME OF OCCUPANCY (To the half hour shown or less)
1 12 2 22 3 32 4 42 5 52 6 62 7
2 Hr Sec of Lot #3 Space Hr Used 5 8 12 10 72 15 7 4 5 62
No. of Vehicles 10 8 8 5 3 5 2 1 1 1
S Side Myrtle Space Hr Used 242 16 132 14 72 3 7 9 14
No. of Vehicles 49 16 9 7 3 1 2 2 2
N Side Myrtle Space Hr Used 372 4 72 4 22 6
No. of Vehicles 75 4 5 2 1 2
W Side Madison Space Hr Used 42 2 42 2 22 3
No. of Vehicles 9 2 3 1 1 1
i
E Side Madison Space Hr Used 62 9 12 5 N
No. of Vehicles 13 9 1 2
i
S Side Thruway Space Hr Used 1z 2 3 2 72 32 4 9 15 52 192 91
Access No. of Vehicles 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 13
N Side Thruway Space Hr Used 2 42 4 22 6 14 4 62 112
Access No. of Vehicles 4 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 16
W Side Chatsworth Space Hr Used 41,2 4 42 21,2 3 32 4 4 2 10 6
(Tway Ac to Wash No. of Vehicles 9 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Sq)
W Side Chatsworth Space Hr Used 5 7 72 4 -22 3 7 4 6 7
(Wash Sq to Myrtle) No. of Vehicles 10 7 5 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
E Side Chatsworth Space Hr Used 2 1 12 22 4 42 24 14
(Wash Sq to Myrtle)No. of Vehicles 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 2
28 -
future parking (see Section on Lot #1 for explanation) ;
(3) Charging for premium street spaces with meters; (4)
Varying the time limits on the streets; (5) Enforcing over-
night parking and parking beyond time limits.
Recommendations :
1. Raise the meter rates in the all-day section and ear-
mark the revenue for additional parking. This is con-
sistent with the recommendations for Lot #1, and, if
not done here, there may be difficulties created be-
tween the operation of the two lots. (Suggested rate
$. 50/day. )
2. Change some of the two-hour meters to all-day meters
in Lot #3. It is suggested that initially 7 meters
should be converted, with a re-evaluation made after
an acceptable trial period.
3. Consider certain modifications of the street parking
regulations as follows:
a. Change the west side of Madison Avenue from one-
hour parking to two-hour parking.
b. Change Chatsworth Avenue from Washington Square
to the Thruway Access from one-hour parking to
two-hour parking.
- 29 -
4. Enforce the parking regulations more strictly, par-
ticularly the short-time parking on Myrtle Boulevard,
the overnight parking beyond the morning limit, and
the one and two-hour parking on Chatsworth and Madi-
son. Some consideration could be given to utilizing
a school crossing guard to enforce parking regulations
during the time available between crossing duties, as
a supplement to the existing police force.
5. Consider the installation of meters, particularly in
the high demand areas of premium street parking along
both sides of Myrtle Boulevard and on the east side of
Madison Avenue. Meters are helpful in enforcement and
the highest cost parking (streets) can bring in addi-
tional revenue to help create additional parking.
6. Refurbish existing regulatory signs and use more uni-
form legends. Example: the standard arrows used on
parking signs can eliminate messages such as THIS SIDE,
BETWEEN SIGNS , etc. The time of restrictions should
be consistent: Example: overnight parking should be
2 AM to 6 AM or some other hours uniformly throughout
Town. * It is suggested that the New York State Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices be used as the best
source for final determination.
*Not only will this serve to simplify legends but will de-
crease the inventory of a multiplicity of signs, make
enforcement easier, and achieve better motorist compliance.
- 30 -
STUDY RESULTS
APARTMENT AREAS included within the scope of this study are
in the following locations:
1. The apartments generally known as Larchmont Acres
in the area bounded by Richbell Road, Boston Post
Road, Palmer Avenue and Burton Road, and the
apartments on the east of Richbell Road within
the Town known as Palmrich Gardens, all of which
are referred to in this report as the Richbell
Road area.
2. The apartments on both sides of Alden Road at its
intersection with Boston Post Road, referred to
in this report as the Alden Road area.
3 . The apartments on Dillon Road at its intersection
with Boston Post Road, referred to in this report
as the Dillon Road area.
Collection of Data:
A detailed inventory of all posted street regulations
was gathered for each study area (see Exhibits D, F , and G) .
A late night parking survey was taken on a Monday in
May from 2 AM to 4 AM. The purpose of conducting the late
night survey was to determine the characteristics of street
parking, and off-street parking where applicable, found
- 31 -
under average conditions after most people would be home
for the night.
The parking characteristics found are shown on Exhibits
E, H, and I . The number of vehicles parked on their res-
pective streets was :
1. Richbell Road Area
41 on Palmer Avenue
17 on Burton Road
5 on Town section of Richbell Road
63 Total
2. Alden Road Area
2 on Harmony Drive (South)
1 on Copley Road (South)
1 on Alden Road
4 Total
3 . Dillon Road Area
3 on Locust Terrace
6 on Dillon Road south of Parkland Avenue
9 Total
In the Richbell Road area, the open parking lot at the
end of Burton Road was surveyed. It was found that there
were 158 cars parked and 43 marked spaces vacant. The two
cul-de-sacs leading from Richbell Road were found to be
fully occupied in the legal parking spaces:
1. Northerly cul-de-sac within the Town, 10 cars;
2 . Southerly cul-de-sac within the village, 6 cars plus
the apartment bus. Within the Village section of
- 32 -
Richbell Road, the street was fully occupied with
20 cars on the east and 18 cars on the west.
The superintendents for each of the two sections of
the Larchmont Acres Apartments (Richbell Road area) were
contacted with regard to the parking situation in the area.
Each section approximates one-half the total apartments.
The following information was obtained:
1. The total number of apartment units - 384.
2. The total number of enclosed garage units - 102 .
During the discussion the superintendent for one half indi-
cated that there were no tenants with cars waiting for a
space; the superintendent for the other half did not know,
but was in the process of making a check on that subject.
The superintendent for the Palmrich Garden Apartments
was contacted with the following results:
1. Total number of apartment units - 268, with
approximately 67 units within the Town.
2 . Total open parking spaces - 123
Total garage spaces - 85
Grand Total 208
During the discussion, the superintendent indicated that
to his knowledge there were no tenants without a parking
33 -
space and there was no waiting list for parking.
It was also noted during the late night survey that
apartment dwellers use the parking lots of some nearby
businesses for overnight parking. It was unclear whether
this was by arrangement with the lot owner in each case.
In the Richbell Area there were cars in the lot on
the northwest corner of Richbell Road and Boston Post Road.
In the Alden Road Area cars were parked in the Ford Agency
lot dig ctly across Boston Post Road. This lot is also
used at night by restaurant patrons of a facility on Boston
Post Road. In the Dillon Road Area cars were parked in the
lot around the Bowling Lanes building.
Analysis of Data:
There was a total of 63 cars parked overnight on the
streets within the Town in the Richbell Road area. Of
these, 17 were on Burton Road, which might be considered
as acceptable for overnight parking, leaving a total of
46 on Palmer Avenue and Richbell Road. Of these, 10 were
east of Richbell Road and were likely to have consisted at
least partly of tenants of apartments in the Village of
Mamaroneck.
There were 43 vacancies in the Burton Road lot. Some
of these vacancies may have been due to tenants being away
on vacation, etc. , but it is very unlikely that all of the
- 34 -
vacancies would be caused for these reasons due to the time
of the year the survey was taken.
Where the "no parking" restrictions and overnight park-
ing restrictions existed, there was generally good compli-
ance.
In the Alden Road area, only four overnight cars were
found, indicating a reasonable compliance with the over-
night parking restrictions.
There were nine overnight cars in the Dillon Road
area, but none of these was parked directly in front of the
apartment between Parkland Avenue and Boston Post Road.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The problem of overnight parking in apartment areas
where past parking provisions are insufficient for current
automobile usage and ownership, is one that faces most
older communities. The ideal solution is to provide addi-
tional off-street parking in the area adequate to meet
current demand. This solution is often difficult to
achieve due to availability of land in an area which is
usually heavily built up, unwillingness of the owner to
provide the facilities and/or unwillingness on the part
of the tenants to pay extra for the additional parking.
The municipality is often faced with the difficulty of
handling the resultant overnight street parking.
- 35 -
The Town zoning ordinance has adequate parking require-
ments for new buildings; therefore, this report is concerned
only with the existing buildings in the various areas.
The alternatives open to the Town in the apartment
areas include urging businesses in the areas to allow ar-
rangements with tenants for overnight parking, causing
improvements to existing facilities, setting firm policy on
the street parking regulations, and building additional
parking facilities if essential.
The Case for Restricting Overnight Street Parking:
Health and safety are the primary reasons for restrict-
ing overnight street parking. With the streets throughout
the Town clear of allowed parking, patrolling police are
quickly alerted to a strange car in the area since it will
stand out so prominently. Citizens noticing a car late at
night parked in the area can report to the police a sus-
picious situation. Fire equipment can be impeded by parked
vehicles which frequently occupy both sides of a narrow
residential street.
Street cleaning and snow removal can be readily ac-
complished with the streets clear of automobiles . Snow
plowing is particularly difficult when cars are "snowed in"
along the curb, especially on main traffic streets and
narrow streets. Certain maintenance operations, such as
- 36 -
street light relamping are made more efficient and less
costly when not impeded by parked vehicles.
Many of the accidents reported on the main arteries
involve vehicles striking parked cars late at night. Traf-
fic flow can be seriously impeded when overnight parking
remains during the peak hours . An unsafe condition can
result, including sight hazards for children walking to
school, sight distance at driveways and sight distance at
intersections.
A restriction of overnight parking encourages residents
to seek or construct off-street spaces that usually can also
be used during the day. This makes day time restriction of
parking when found necessary more palatable. The encourage-
ment of off-street parking enhances the aesthetic appear-
ance of the community as well.
The Case Against Restricting Overnight Street Parking:
The principal reasons for allowing overnight parking
are insufficient offstreet parking in the area and conven-
ience to the parkers.
Recommendations:
1. Due to the health and safety features involved, it is
recommended that overnight parking be prohibited in the
study areas. A uniform town-wide overnight parking
prohibition should be considered. This would comply
- 37 -
with the health and safety issues, and it would be far
simpler to post and enforce the regulation. Signs
could be posted on each road entering the Town and
would not normally have to be posted in individual
areas.
2 . Tenants and nearby business establishments with parking
lots should be encouraged to make arrangements for
overnight parking.
3 . A more efficient utilization of the off-street facili-
ties should be sought in the Richbell Road area.
4. An exception to the overnight restriction could be
considered on certain streets that serve more as ac-
cess roads than as public streets. Burton Road could
be considered in this category. Likewise, the Thruway
Access discussed in the section on Lot #3 could be in
this category. If exceptions are made, the exceptions
should be well defined and enforced such that the
excepted streets are clearly limited and specific.
5. Improvements to the Burton Road lot should be pressed.
The lot is inadequately lighted, the pavement is in
disrepair in many areas, particularly on the approach
drives, and the access from Burton Road is narrow and
lacks adequate sight distance.
- 38 -
6. The street signs in all the areas should be made more
uniform as discussed in the section on Lot U.
7. Alternate side of the street parking, while utilized
in some communities as a compromise, should be used
only as a last resort. Enforcement is difficult, the
regulations are usually confusing, and the health and
safety features of overnight parking restrictions are
not adequately met.
TOWN p
• ••i's-_-��� II •° \/I OF HARRISON
VILLAGE �'''•� •� p ��--�.��,� F
e OF
SCARSDALE
E .e SAXON W,)OI)s C\ J•'` ..
PARk (.
I'41
�,...,.. -1 TOWN OF • b / i �'. 'a 1 i
•� "
MAMARONECK t F' ,,,r•'
s,.,. f � �., ..�•• �
+ •u..• 1 I• \ ` / OTHERS \ �3
Z „ (OUTSIDE AREA SHOW
it
VILLAGE OF
� •� � � •••.• II �� � �� \ MAMAR ONECK
{� CITYOF
l } �� \ °O/� r •'�k
f�•• NEW ROCHELLE 1 r�,c •' \ F 1 1 �\
20•,.
EXHIBIT A 1
'� �� r fir•• LARCHMONT , s; \\` PARKER ORIGIN-LOT-1
ROY A.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS,New lt
Ya
^VILLAGE
o � �
P
J
6--J Parking Arca
Q � N
gYR PL. pAYRTL4�5 j 3
Parking Area
S
Parking Arca _.._.._--
R
NEW ENGLAND THRUNWY Parking Deck
EXHIBIT B KEY
R��t�s posting building entrances,driveways,or corners are
POSTED PARKING REGULATIONS
1- ONE HOUR PARKING 8AM-11AM EXC. SAT. SUN.&HOL.
ROYA.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS,NewYork 2-PARKING LIMIT BETWEEN SIGNS 5 MIN.
3-PARKING LIMIT 20 MINUTE 9AMM TO 9PM NO PARKING 2AM TO 6AM
4-NO PARKING FROM •
5-.1 HOUR PARKING BMA - 8P
6-NO PARKING THIS SIDE
7-PARKING 1 HWR 8AM-3PM EX.SUN.&HOL. NO PARKING 3 AM-6AM
8-0NE HOUR NARKING 8AM - 1 PM
9-NO PARKING ANY TIME
c
2Y
• o+ P
S
257 12-hr
1
$0,2 F�
QQ i P ork i ng Arca V)
N
BYRE 13 w
p1- M,YRTLE WD' > 3
66 124r.met Parking Arca
Parking Area 30.25/12hrs.
17 2-bcD5/ hr. —• ---• _.._ _
Parking Deck
NEW ENGLAND THRUW4Y
EXHIBIT C
PARKING CHARACTERISTICS FIGURES INDICATE NUMEROF PARKING SPACES AWLABLE
ROY A.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS,New York
110,
�p, L
0 NANCY LANE
-o
ON
KEY O GARI T
1-NO PARKING THIS SIDE 4
2-NO PARKINGCET
3-NO PARKING 2 A TO 9AM d a
4- NO PARKING 2AM TO CAM "'L7
5-BUS STOP OP: W
ELK AN � � Q
a= w ❑
031b QQ
Parking Area Q
BURTON R04D D
1 BLOSSOM TER.
�• M
o D �
0
� d 3
RICHBELL ROAD 45
t[3
•\ 4
•\ T
v
EXHIBIT D of
POSTED PARKING REGULATIONS co
ROY A.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS,NewYork
.d -
3 NANCY LANE
GARI T
� �
Wo
ELKMA
�Sl � w D
W
dao
a
158 vehicles 43&Tp co Q 4
Parking Area GZP
201 total BURTON Q
BLOSSOM TER.
39
in . �, kvi 0
shoppn
en
T1
RICHBELL ROAD[)
0 in
O
EXHIBIT E �� ofd ` 13
PARKING CHARACTERISTICS
� �
ROY A.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS,NewYork t
r
/ J �
1
i 4 oQ
o
�.F F•r d O
p 1 Q N
��/0 �� Z ROF,D
U X10 X/OOi i N POS
/ � 1 � 00S.�o
I ;
o
Q
i D '
ao (T N POST ROAD
� O �
1-NO PARKING 2 AM TO 6 AM
^ O 2-NO PARKING THIS SIDE
\ EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G
POSTED PARKING REGULATIONS POSTED PARKING REGULATIONS
ROY A.FLYNT WHITE PLAINS.No-wvnr4
1
j � I
i
/ ! j
/ j I
i % !
j � 1
I
Ol/
Y a � d
Z Rory
� � e
% w %
J 1
Q
i D '
505-TCN POST ROAD
Paticing a
- t� Ford agency
6/1 <�O
o � Gk,�
� 9
�• EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I
KING CHARACTERISTICS PARKING CHAR.ACTEMS TICS
�_ ROY A. FLYNT WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.
Y
iY 1/
W IZ? 4MIPA ,�(•(7, 7Y
RKINO
7�
FIGURE J
ILLUSTRATION OF POSSIBLE PARKING
STRUCTURE FOR LOT No. 1
ROY A. FLYNT WHITE PLAINS , NEW YORK
C
C
I
C
it
1 � 1
C
e
��
�__.
1