Loading...
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