Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillage of Mamaroneck Parking Study Committee Final Report Central Business District 10/28/1986 1 1 Village Of Mamaroneck 1 PARKING STUDY COMMITTEE Final Report I Central Business District 1 1 1 I 1 OCTOBER 28, 1986 1 PARKING STUDY COMMITTEE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REPORT TO MAYOR PAUL J. NOTO AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OCTOBER 1986 INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND For a number of years, residents and merchants have been pressing successive Mayors and members of the Board of Trustees for action on the chronic parking shortage and traffic congestion which increasingly curtailed their enjoyment and use of the Village shopping district. Merchants have also expressed the view that inadequate parking has, to some degree, contributed to the decline in the economic condition and character of the Central Business District. Phase I of the problem, availability of off-street parking, was addressed when the Village Board approved the construction of a tier parking structure at the Hunter Parking Lot. With this in place, the Board of Trustees felt that Phase II, review of existing parking facilities, along with the tier structure as to how to best allocate all the spaces, the method of doing so, and future policy was the next important issue. To accomplish this end, a Parking Study Committee was formed on February 10, 1986, which would report back to the Village Board an appropriate resolution of the matter. 1 B. FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE In making appointments to the Study Committee, consideration was given to: (1) Balanced representation of Village interests; (2) Knowledge and experience in Village affairs; Members of the Parking Study Committee who were appointed are: Walter F. Rogers, Chairman Peg Riley, resident Doug Dunaway, resident Merwin Webster, resident William Starr, later replaced by Joseph Novotny, Traffic Commission Mary Reed, Chamber of Commerce Maryann Frigon, resident Joan Flynn, Parking Enforcement Officer Joanne Marsella, resident Trustee Peter Agliardo, Jr. , liaison Village Manager Joseph P. Fraioli 2 In addition, the Study Committee sought and benefitted greatly from the following: Jacquemart, Inc. George Jacquemart Buckhurst, Fish, Hutton & Katz Frank Fish Clarke & Rapuano Peter Martecchini 1983 Parking Study County of Westchester Central Business District Study Starch Inra Hooper 1978 TOPIC 1979 Brown & Associates Engineering Francis W. Thiede Legal James J. Nolletti Enforcement Joseph DelBianco Accounting and Taxes Leonard M. Verrastro Village Administration Joseph P. Fraioli C. CHARTER GIVEN THE STUDY COMMITTEE In his briefing of the Study Committee, the Mayor made it clear that the focus must be on making sure that the best interests of the residents and merchants of the Village of Mamaroneck were represented, addressed and satisfied. The specific instructions were to: (1) Determine cause of parking problem; (2) Determine which solutions were most appropriate to the Village as a whole; (3) Develop and recommend plans for implementing the solutions, including funding. 3 STUDY COMMITTEE WORK A. The Parking Study Committee gathered all the information that was available to them, analyzed same and shared their findings as developed through open meetings of the Committee and shared with the public through the newspapers. Special meetings were held with interested groups including the Chamber of Commerce and separate merchants' groups. The Committee reviewed the existing parking facilities, taking into consideration the construction of the tier parking structure. Because the decision to build the tier was made prior to the formation of this Committee, we will not reiterate the reasons for the choice of the Hunter Parking Lot because the decision and the public hearings, preceding the decision are all a matter of public record. In addition, a member of the Committee visited each merchant on Mamaroneck Avenue to ascertain their parking needs. 4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The consensus of the Committee was that the existing parking situation in the Central Business District is not conducive to encouraging people to enter our Central Business District for shopping. The problem has existed for many years and if not addressed now, the Central Business District will be seriously affected. We believe this in turn will affect the well-being of the entire Village. The 1983 Parking Study that was undertaken through Urban County funding estimated a parking deficit of 200 spaces. The Committee feels very strongly that any comprehensive parking policy be simple and direct so those who park in the Central Business District will know what is best for their parking needs. It must provide the Village with a means for effective management of parking. More importantly, the policy must accomplish these critical objectives: (1) it must ensure the best use of the space available for both the short-term and long-term users; (2) it must not place an undue burden on the taxpayers of the community. 5 TOE LOTS The Central Business District has three main parking lots available for public use. The Committee reviewed the capacity and convenience of each lot and recommend the following: allocating parking spaces for merchants and business people based on their location in the Central Business District: SPENCER LOT The Spencer Lot, located on Spencer Place, has 46 parking spaces (see attached diagram) . We recommend the Spencer Lot be exclusively decal parking, primarily for merchants and employees. We anticipate those merchants and employees who work in #407 - #451 and #448 - #350 Mamaroneck Avenue to utilize this lot. We recommend a yearly decal fee of $ 80.00 per space which entitles the holder to park in the Spencer Lot from Monday thru Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. With approximately 300 working days per year that amounts to .26 cents per day. 6 PHILLIPS PARK ROAD The Phillips Park Road Lot is located on Phillips Park Road behind Mamaroneck Playhouse. It has 141 parking spaces (see attached diagram) . We recommend that ninety-seven (97) spaces be set aside for decal parking at $ 80.00 a year for merchants, employees and long-term parkers. These spaces are located along side the Mamaroneck River. The remaining forty-four (44) spaces which are located closer to Mamaroneck Avenue, behind the Leo Heithaus Walkway, should be metered parking. The meters should be two-hour meters at 25 cents per hour. We anticipate that the merchants and employees who work on the east side of Mamaroneck Avenue between Spencer Place and East Prospect Avenue will utilize this lot. We recommend that those who wish to spend more than one-hour, to park in this lot and walk to the shopping district, via the Leo Heithaus Walkway. 7 BUNTER LOT The Hunter Lot is located on Prospect Avenue across from Village Hall . With the tier it will have 213 parking spaces, 101 parking spaces on the lower level and 112 on the upper level (see attached diagrams) . We recommend that 122 spaces be set aside for decal parking at $ 80.00 per year for merchants, employees and residents. The remaining 91 spaces located on the lower level should be for metered parking. The meter should be eight-hour meters at 25 cents per hour. We anticipate that merchants, employees who work on the west side of Mamaroneck Avenue and elsewhere in the Central Business District will utilize this lot. As with the Phillips Park Road lot, the meter parking is available for those who wish to spend more than one hour in the Village, i.e. the Library, Village Hall, church and shoppers. Those who wish to shop can use the walkway next to Mamaro Firehouse to Palmer Avenue which will take them to the middle of the Avenue. This walkway should be improved. We recommend 40 decal spaces be reserved for over-night parking on the lower level at $ 40.00 per year, with signed designation. To ease the traffic flow at Phillips Park Road, the Committee recommends that parking on East Prospect Avenue, from Mamaroneck Avenue to the Mamaroneck River, be prohibited. 8 OTHER LOTS (1) The East Prospect Avenue Lot Seventeen (17) spaces. We recommend all decal parking at $ 80.00 per year. (2) Entrance to Harbor Island Twenty-five (25) spaces. We recommend all decal parking at $ 80.00 per year. (3) Library Lane Eleven (11) spaces. We recommend five decal and six (6) two-hour meters 25 cents per hour. (4) Johnson Avenue and Library Lane Sixteen (16) spaces. We recommend all decal parking at $ 80.00 per year. To better encourage the use of the lots as noted, we recommend that for the Spencer and Phillips Park Road lots, the spaces be reserved for those who work at the addresses designated for the first two weeks of sale. There will be no more GP parking decals. All decals should be for specific or group lots and be color coded. 9 MI ARONECK AVENUE Certainly it would be impossible to encourage the use of the lots if there were not some financial incentive to use them. That incentive is parking meters on Mamaroneck Avenue are not to exceed one-hour parking, at increments of 5 cents, 10 cents and 25 cents. We further recommend that to prevent meter feeding, the Village continue its parking enforcement by marking tires and issuing tickets to those cars that park in excess of 60 minutes. This has proved successful in other communities and will be discussed later in the enforcement section. We are aware of the opposition to meters on the part of a majority of the merchants. Nevertheless, no responsible parking policy that wishes to increase short-term availability, better utilization of off-street lots, with no impact on the taxpayers, could work without parking meters. Meters have been recommended by the Jacquemart Report, the Village of Mamaroneck Traffic Commission, the County/Village Study and now this Committee (see Exhibits) . Parking meters will play an important role in making the policy work by encouraging a higher turnover of short-term spaces, and assisting parking enforcement, and generating revenue for the municipality. Each function is equally important since without meters on the Avenue, people will naturally look for parking where it is free and ignore the lots which will create additional traffic congestion and underutilization of the lots. Without meters, those merchants who park all day on the Avenue (approximately 30 percent of the available spaces) will have no incentive to use the lots and will continue to occupy those spaces that are reserved for short-term shoppers. We believe that meters will enhance the economic viability of the Central Business District. 10 Without the revenue from the meters, the cost of the new tier will have to be borne by the taxpayers which will be a substantial financial burden. Additionally, meters are consistent with the existing Village policy that when possible, Village services should be partially offset by revenue generated by the users. This is already done with the beach, tennis, boat fees and parking decals. Philosophically and intellectually, it is unjustifiable to expect the taxpayers to subsidize free parking. Of course, that is not to say that the taxpayer does not have some responsibility. At the beginning, the taxpayer will be absorbing some of the cost. The more a community grows economically, the value of the assets increase. In essence a taxpayers property increases in value. In retrospect the entire community benefits. We appreciate the concerns of the merchants yet the overwhelming evidence indicates that their fears are unfounded. The attached exhibits and reports indicate that the experts contend that meters increase turnover, generate revenue and actually increase business because people will soon realize that they no longer need to be discouraged from shopping in Mamaroneck due to a lack of available parking. Other municipalities with parking meters have not encountered any reduction in business activity as a result of the meters. There is simply no objective evidence to support the contention of the merchants that meters discourage shoppers. There are approximately 219 parking spaces on Mamaroneck Avenue from the Boston Post Road to Halstead Avenue. 11 THE REMAINDER OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT There are other areas of the Central Business District which we feel should be metered at increments up to 25 cents per hour. Again we expect the meters to serve the dual purpose of encouraging turnover of short-term spaces and generating revenue. Many of these areas which provide free parking all day are used by out of towners for railroad parking. Meters will discourage them. These areas are as follows: (1) East Boston Post Road, from Mamaroneck Avenue to Spruce Street, approximately twenty-eight (28) spaces. (2) Halstead Avenue, from Mamaroneck Avenue to Jefferson Avenue, approximately fifty-seven (57) spaces. • (3) Mount Pleasant Avenue, from Palmer to Halstead Avenue, not including Post Office spaces, approximately twenty (20) spaces. (4) West Boston Post Road, from Mamaroneck Avenue to Mount Pleasant Avenue, approximately fifteen (15) spaces. (5) Ward Avenue, approximately twelve (12) spaces (two hour meters) . (6) Spencer Avenue, approximately eight (8) spaces (two hour meters) . (7) Prospect Avenue, in front of Village Hall, approximately twenty-nine (29) spaces. (8) Johnson Avenue behind Village Hall is currently free parking all day. We recommend eight-hour meters at 25 cents per hour, approximately thirty-six (36) spaces. 12 PARKING COMMISSION The Committee recommends that the Village Board of Trustees create a permanent Parking Commission which will serve a similar function as that of other advisory Boards and Commissions. Specifically, this Parking Commission, which should consist of no more than five (5) people, plus four (4) non-voting members, including a liaison from the Board of Trustees, the Village Manager, a liaison from the Traffic Commission and a liaison from the Police Department. Specifically, the Parking Commission should do the following: (1) monitor the use of the lots and recommend to the Board of Trustees any modifications in the number of meters or decals; (2) monitor overall parking and parking funds in the Village and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees with regards to the need of additional facilities or the redesign of existing lots; (3) make recommendations to the Board of Trustees with regard to parking fees and any future increases. 13 ENFORCEMENT The Committee feels that strict enforcement of parking ordinances is an important element in the overall success of a parking policy. We recommend the Board of Trustees consider the following: (1) An additional Parking Enforcement Officer for the Central Business District/Mamaroneck Avenue, Halstead, Post Road, Palmer and Mt. Pleasant Avenue to issue tickets and mark cars. With the addition of parking meters, enforcement should be more efficient. (2) Progressive parking fines for repeat offenders within a certain period of time, i.e. 3 tickets within 14 days. (3) Ensure an on-going meter repair and servicing program. (4) Installation of appropriate signs that will effectively deliver the information needed to park. 14 COSTS AND EXPENSES The Committee has recommended the Village install 565 meters at various areas of the Central Business District. We further recommend that the Hunter Lot and Phillips Park Road lot utilize a parking ticket machine in lieu of meters, which brings the recommended number of actual meters to 430. The cost of purchase and installation of the meters is approximately $ 103,976 .00 . The cost of a parking ticket machine is approximately $ 9,000.00. Total initial investment is $ 121,976.00 (see attached Exhibit B) . Based on our inquiries to other municipalities, the cost of maintenance and collection is approximately $ 30,000.00 to $ 35,000.00 per year which is factered into the annual budget for parking (see attached Exhibit A) . Meters represent an initial investment but they pay for themselves within a very short period of time. PROJECTED REVENUE The anticipated revenue from meters and parking decals is approximately $ 280,490.00 per year. Projection of revenue by lots is detailed on Exhibit C. The projection of revenue from parking meters is based upon a six hour per day utilization which we believe is a conservative figure. 15 REVENUE The Committee recommends that for the first two years, all revenues generated by parking meters and fees be returned to the general fund. The third year and each year thereafter, we recommend that 33 percent of the net profit generated by parking meters and fees be returned to the general fund and 67 percent of the net profit be set aside in a separate fund designated for future parking needs. Net profit shall be defined as income less amortization, expenses for maintenance, cost of tier, and existing parking revenues reflected in the current budget. • 16 S IGNAG E To assist the shoppers in the Central Business District, clear and simple signs should be installed so the parker knows where long and short term parking is available. The walkway from the Hunter lot to Palmer Avenue should be improved, illuminated and well marked so shoppers will be made aware of the alternative route to Mamaroneck Avenue. 17 CONCLUSION The Committee strongly believes that the recommendations contained in this report represent a comprehensive policy that, if implemented by the Village Board, will substantially improve the parking situation in the Central Business District. Partial implementation will not benefit the Village. The alternative to these recommendations would be a continuation of the status quo which is clearly unacceptable to the community. We understand that some of our recommendations represent a change for Mamaroneck and that some segments of the community may resist that change. Since we are making recommendations that we expect to lead the community into the 21st century, such change we believe is in the best long-term interest of the entire community. RECOMMENDATIONS We request that the Village Board give this report their immediate attention with approval for implementation. A decision to delay action or take no action would merely aggravate the situation resulting in deterioration of the Central Business District and increased difficulties in parking and traffic. 18 CLOSING COMMENTS Like many other suburban communities, the Village of Mamaroneck' s Business District depends on good access and traffic operations and an adequate supply of parking. Conveniently located parking facilities are an important criteria used by drivers when deciding where to shop. Chronic short term parking shortages encourage shoppers to seek other retail areas with more ample parking. Sound parking management and a good parking supply are important services to a community's retail business district and its residents. Phase I, construction of the tier parking structure and the implementation of this report, Phase II, accomplishes these objectives. Thorough study of the problem and review of the alternatives has led the Parking Study Committee to a firm consensus that the recommendations herein are clearly in the best interests of the residents and merchants of the Village of Mamaroneck. Thus, the Parking Study Committee urges their adoption and implementation by the Board of Trustees. With this report, we conclude the Central Business District phase of our work as an agency of the Village. The Parking Study Committee joins me in thanking the Mayor and Board of Trustees for providing us with this opportunity to serve our community. It has been a privilege. Respectfully submitted, Walter F. Rogers, Chairman Parking Study Committee PROJECTED ANNUAL BUDGET (Exhibit A) Indebtedness: Tier Parking Structure $ 183,417 Meters, Etc. (includes interest) 30,325 $ 213,742 Maintenance (rep. & repl.) 20,000 Collections 15,000 Parking Enforcement Officer 25,000 (includes fringes) Sweeping, Snow Removal, Painting (lines, repairs) 20,000 Total Expenses $ 293 ,742 Revenues Revenues (exhibit C) $ 280,490 Less: Revenues - Current 48,520 231,970 To be included in Tax Levy $ 61,772 PROJECTED ESTIMATED COSTS AND EXPENSES OF PARKING METERS AND TICKET MACHINES (Exhibit B) Parking Meters (unit cost) Double head $ 418 Single head 292 Posts 20 Installation (meters & posts) 25 Meters to be Installed 565 less meters in lots that will be serviced by a ticket machine Hunter Lot 91 Phillips Park Road 44 135 Total Meters to be Intalled 430 Projected Cost of Meters & Installation 194 double head meters x $418. $ 81,092 42 single head meters x $292. 12,264 236 posts x $20. 4,720 installation x $25. 5,900 Total Cost of Meters $ 103,976 Two ticket machines 2 @ $9,000. each 18,000 Total Cost - Meters and Machines $ 121,976 ESTIMATED PROJECTION OF REVENUES BY DECALS AND METERS (Exhibit C) NUMBER NUMBER PROJECTED PROJECTED TOTAL OF OF TOTAL REVENUES REVENUES ANNUAL LOCATION DECALS METERS SPACES DECALS METERS REVENUES Spencer Lot 46 46 $ 3 ,680 $ $3,680 Spencer Place 8 8 3,600 3 ,600 Ward Avenue 12 12 5,400 5,400 Halstead Avenue-from Mamaroneck to Jefferson 57 57 25,650 25,650 Phillips Park Road 97 44 141 7 ,760 19,800 27 ,560 Mamaroneck Avenue 219 219 98,550 98,550 E. Boston Post Road 28 28 12,600 12,600 W. Boston Post Road 15 15 6 ,750 6 ,750 Johnson Avenue 36 36 16 ,200 16,200 Mt. Pleasant - from Palmer to Halstead 20 20 9,000 9,000 Prospect Avenue (Village Hall) 29 29 13,050 13,050 Hunter Lot 122 91 213 9,760 40 ,950 50 ,710 Library Lane & Johnsen Avenue Lot 16 16 1,280 1,280 Library Lane (Emelin) 5 6 11 400 2,700 3 ,100 E. Prospect Avenue 17 17 1,360 1,360 Harbor Island-Entrance 25 25 2,000 2,000 TOTALS 328 565 893 $ 26 ,240 $254,250 $280 ,490 • r II MAMARO ; FIRE ..HOUSE , ./ , !! , , ,./ 4 [ . iij U i rl Z STONE 8 BOWLING ALLEY -- —• -- ',.. 650 i ! 1, : . 1101REE;' I SSS I GRASS f f. 1 I H le 1 IC ' • ! , • (��n:__._, I / - L-tY • 74 o • ii • ; i _ f 1 3— Ii- • —Q� : til . °C • i —� 1 /6 1:Q A Ie •t . . • "I r....., . , • , ,_, i ' r N LTI la .s - . t c.,z,7/1 1 it.,—, —,..—..7-1: __, c„, . �\ _, i —v—1 —rn c 11 t \\ _ - p ..gyp—, _, t�. 1 _Is w il c.D Z -J D Q "6:_y_1] i • it 1 l `. / Y.'_ I ; r il. . - i N 10 .[. ... .-./b-• ••1 _. . . : _-_--_,... ,, . . . . , TRI=F GRASS - :: _ . l `��,`//CONC. SIDEWALK . • .. . — , 7 , ii. PROSPECT AVE. NOTE= THIS SURVEY IS A COMPOSITE. FROM. AVAILABLE SOURCES AND IS . . ' . . - . • .• .� APPROXIMATE ONLY. SEPT 1985 T HUNTER- PATI Irl& LOT LEGEND' EXISTI N& CONDITIOtJS _ 60— "CONTOUR ELEVATIONFt PROPERTY LINE SGALE : IN,� .:� DATE 185 ;Y. _•• 7 V-1..,7 . -fir____.,„ : ,.,... .11 .• _ - 1 Clarke_+. Rapuano Inc . _. • . . • Consulting Engineers _Lendscepe'MCAiteets: 1 11 • n- '216 Lexington-Avenue••Slew York NY 10016 .. H-I I I Fin.,-1,7,....E.. .41 I. 1 , Y 11 g I ~4 "f bvW L-l.-- & ALL e-{ '' It; • 1• ,• 3 • 1 \ 1(O�)— -'L,Ni IT OF WPP- Y • '. • WI1I... .......1a) 11111111111111111111�.l 1 1 I I: i . I r .-.. i . a I 1A .1-. :1 ji G4.4 i . 'L_ 'j_-_ --w — — _—=1__ _,-_-- =r --1——kms ',i t1 I'• GOM 7AG? GA? I.! 1-11... • -- _�==#=i==-=4-__=1— 7 1::•.• j 4. I_i &- --:(_-17.- • C I i 3 1 !- % :::-.,--i------7. 14. GOMPP GT Cr',4-4 . 7m i a. & R 30 t, 1 I_ 6, Ili t S2 ,l' — —1 =/I— --r= _•— -••__ .- moi.;" . ". i li �� +GoI - LIMITI;OF.LOWP-- l- VEL , // gs I -3 i . I �/ (oO.S rk I 1 a w ; 10 w t_it Gnr. / i =`-s`=' I 14 : / & .$) LIMIT OF1NoP-i-(ProP Mfr LINE • E , L—ENT�ANC,E 1-0 PfzO PE -T AVE. LOWED- LEVEL TOTAL L,.JO. OF GAS - La _ - - HUNTER— PAI2—ILIO& LOT L G0MPA,GT - 700 FULL - 41 .LOWEIP- LE-VEL- 5GALE : I"=4o' DATE : 5EPT. 1985 ;- -Clarke + Rapuano Inc >] - Consulting Engineers Landscape Architects .215 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10016 _ 111 • H-7. I af [1 FIFE rtes),SF- I i 111 1 ilir.r17r7ylkews., ' :1 I I 11 I • 1 Dow Li..-Ic. AL-L-e•-r .4 1 li II 1 i e 1.,........ ...iii •se...,..I.1.0 '..6...,......:-.1.6.L,/:-;,:44.0fterad..41upuighaaajwitsj .1.0 asimi .... .•a• anmml=.. ....m... ill I \1 *-•1.+7i...! IT OF 1"..t›,-K- -__ . . 12- FULA- C..-ks?- IL• 1,1i;. ST^1 p-‘,r• Ii ..... •. 2 I- + _ LIMIT OF U PPE-12- VSC-6- .:, 74'-.I. '..:...- 11 -31,-.." e 14- C.-OMP ACT C-A.P-S - I- •-•- 0- .-: i . • ..•.' T - ... v 14- C.OMP•Cir cAP5 . 6 '.. . • - 111 t J, 4 —tc—:-•-. _ ! 3 .4.;—• I- *-.., .... - ; . . ...,...• ,13 ,: .• •-•, ft , • [ . ....., •. i . . . ..„ '2 1 1-;=•-.. ,. 12- F U1.--L- CAC - ' T_ Z. US N ft. • LA MIT OP U PP —-1:- pe-cy-- 4 : -.•.14.4 •-r-' FULA; 11 I , '1" : -• ., V ........----•:•:."- "..`":---- - , ii -fi -1-1-- -- 4r-IC::'- . 1 t•. • '• j ((. .5--) i.--IMI 7 of' Wori-g---CpPoMP-T"(LINE)A cl=r'". 1 1 '',.............. .. „,... I___ Ef--1-1 P-- TD P12-0 5Pt--Cr P\V E-. - . . • I..-0 WE-P- 1-EvEL- _ 1 . I TOTAL- k.10. OF C-Afa-5 - I 12. 1-11JNTEI2- PA12-14-1k1 1.—OT 1 c.omp,kc.....-r- 7 - PULL- - ef, U PPE-12- L- VEL- GPL-E. : 1".40' Dpci : S .21-.. 1955 1 . : Clarke + Rapuano Inc - 1 . ,.Consulting Engineers Landscape Architects 215 Lexiggton Avenue" New York NY 10016 H-5 • _ , _ 1 •_.. - t - -.. . . .. , -. - . iimi.'. ,.: ma -iim ` �mio 1111. OM ME a 11=117 - XARD`' G) i ' _-_ /\ i� Bq!�.o /// �,� CAS' \ I ti,� F / �\d`' ??• .�- ROAD - -- I / / I: • 011111 / --"egiiiit- \' (13 / 4.3 0 100P /A 110 \\ i// / /`SlO. • �/•, 2� I 1NV.5.3 145 �. • >, / �, �, "\-" ,..---11 -� A __-- -EASE MENI 1_¢W —. /�/ .�`�` % ,yo ./ ?t' SEAR � ' - ;/ . rW/ ,// gXl�Jfl /� � GA!'h/iIJI ,fie' 7O BLDG. PMS �� ' rjAr rman tNM , / /,/ ' • / ./ .' if-- V . % \ off, , i� 'ir;-f' Q- - to ,.��. BLDG. //' .Q J \ . � �/ V V • ` , iii ,\/s,‘ >' i - O PLAYHOUSE '� '� —� • THEATRE i //4, ® I ti _..„„ :_ ;/i2 rG�� �1�CARS`L i _ �.�-1 /.,k.45 / IMES -.- I .. iiii. • ' , ��� I `II `I /�i * 0 / BLDG. CA-s. -- PLAYHOUSc PAR--K-IN LO #9-; 5 FULL� 1' �XISTINIv CON DI'TIONS �, - . - 5 -ALE. 1-=4G' DATa..-=5-.- i. I'85 PRIVATE NG GTE /' PARKING THIS SURVEY IS A LEGEND COMPOSITE FROM Clarke + Rapuano Inc MANHOLE r\.\..\\\` ', r AVAILABLE SOURCES '. '� Consulting Engineers Landscape Architects PROPERTY LINE AND 15 APPROXIMATE ` ` ' 215 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10016 I � FIOF AOURTIOBLDG. �, ONLY. SEPT 1985 ;I; • PA-I >R - N. - - '- — - - - - -- . -.- - �.••.�.s+...,> if . h / , f ,, . I HOUSEI [ �., HOUSE 1 i ��ao- r__ — Ji HOUSE /,(1`-J6� ii cSTONE WALL .........i. � i ' 4 n EDGE OF ROCK LctCE ,A X34 34--. 34-----'‘. • l j v) g2�1 C— -(/') Z 'Q . i x r C Y v ! -u , ') v I (' i cl ! . J V J � Q -?-, _ 1 —n 1iT11 -y� 3 ; L.- ! h- I; E1-1 [-°°__ _ T'30-----'j I SIDEWALK; `'6uARD RAIL I C$ !I 1 l - m SPENCER 0 PLACE • Feu I / //29 I t1 H I 1 j NOTE: THIS SURVEY IS A COMPOSITE FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES AND 15 APPROXIMATE ONLY. SEPT. 1985 • a LEGEND e MANHOLE • m CATCH BASIN • 0 20— CONTOUR ELEVATION • -• . FENCE •I . . .. _ - IP r FAK--I NCS LOT g EXISTING GON2ITIONS . • 5GALE : I"=4O' DATE : 5aPT. 1985 Clarke--1 Rapuano Inc Consulting Engineers Landscape Architects .215 Lexington Avenue 7 New York NY•10016 ' -I / O / / 1 / / / JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC MAMARONECK CBD PARKING REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR A:PARKING IMPROVIIMENT PROGRAM 1. Introduction The purpose of this work effort is to provide an independant review of past studies and work efforts and to provide some guidelines for the ongoing parking improvement program. Our assessment and conclusions are based on a site visit and conversations with representatives of the Parking Task Force, with the Village Manager and with the planning consultant for the Village. The following documents were reviewed: -Parking Task Force Report, November 1985 -Parking Inventory by Board of Traffic Commissioners -Mamaroneck Village Parking Study, November 14, 1983 (DRAFT) by Westchester County Department of Planning -Village of Mamaroneck, N.Y. Master Plan, 1986 by Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz -Report on Tier Parking Structures in the Village of Mamaroneck, September 23 , 1985 , by Clarke + Rapuano Inc. This assessment is a cursory review of the parking conditions and studies. Its conclusions should therefore be viewed as preliminary and possibly subject to more detailed studies. The Village and the Parking Task Force are on the right track. The perception of the problem seems correct and the general direction of the improvement program appears to be correct, too. The following sections will organize the parking elements into a logical program and will emphasize or prioritize the key elements. Some specific -- and preliminary -- recommendations will be made regarding the implementation, management and control strategies. 2. Short-Term Core The first priority of a parking improvement program for the Village CBD has to be for short-term parking. Parking availability and convenience are important factors influencing the attractiveness of a shopping area from the shoppers ' point of view. If short-term parking conditions in the CBD become 1 Air Air J , , / / / JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC difficult, the shoppers will tend to go somewhere else, thus hurting the business community. If parking conditions become difficult for long-term parkers, the employees or merchants are more likely to find another solution, rather than moving out or finding another job. The Westchester County Planning Department surveyed roughly 300 short-term cars parked during the peak times of their study ( i.e. the vehicles parked on their Thursday or Saturday in the short-term parking spaces along Mamaroneck Avenue, and in the lots of Philips Park, Prospect Avenue and Spencer/Ward, minus those vehicles found to park illegally beyond the permitted duration, in September/October of 1982 ) . The first priority of the parking improvement program is thus to provide for this short-term parking and to manage it. The location of these short-term spaces and the maximum parking duration should be the following: -Mamaroneck Avenue: 1-hour meters ( $0. 25/hour) -Side streets: 1-hour or 2-hour meters ( $0 . 25/hour) -Philips Park, Hunter Lot and Spencer/Ward area: 2-hour parking The installation of meters is recommended. They bring in revenue and they are helpful in controlling the parking duration. Parking meters could also be installed in the other lots. The parking fee should be $0 . 25 per hour. There does not seem to be a significant need for 3-hour parking. The County' s surveys showed that a substantial proportion of parkers in the 3-hour spaces stay much less than 3 hours ( 66% to 69% stay 2 hours or less , and 55% to 58% stay 1 hour or less) and that one quarter stay illegally beyond 3 hours. Clear and simple to read signs should be installed in the short-term core. The illustrations attached to the Parking Task Force Report are not good examples of clear and simple to read signs. On Mamaroneck Avenue the signs should say "MAXIMUM 1-HOUR PARKING ON THIS STREET, 9 am to 6 pm, Mon thru Sat" . The addition of "ON THIS STREET" will prevent long-term parkers from moving their car from one spot to the other, as has been shown by the County' s survey, and it permits the parking officers to ticket these vehicles. On the side-streets and in the parking lots , the signs should read "MAXIMUM 2-HOUR PARKING, 9 am to 6 pm, Mon thru Sat" . The limitation to the parking duration should be in effect only from 9 am to 6 pm, since those are the hours when they would be enforced. These regulations make it also easier for residential parkers to overlap and use the same parking spaces. 2 JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC Enforcing the parking duration in the short-term core is the most crucial element of a successful parking management program. The parking officers have to check at least once a week the parking duration. Different methods should be used: marking the tires, writing down the license plate numbers or dictating them into a tape recorder. Writing down the license plate numbers will also prevent parkers from moving their car from one spot to another. An effective and fair fine system has to be established. The attached table prepared for the Huntington Village Parking Study indicates commonly used fine structures. It should be kept in mind that the objective of these policies and regulations is to manage a valuable and limited resource - - close-by-parking - - and to make it available to the shoppers. For the economic benefits of the Village businesses, it is important that shoppers can find a convenient parking space ( and that they know this) at almost any time. 3. Long-Term Parking Long-term parking should be located beyond the short-term core, in the less convenient locations, yet within acceptable walking distances for the employees and merchants. In the case of the Mamaroneck Village CBD there are two reasons for a long- term parking permit system: 1 . Because of the proximity of the railroad station to the CBD area there is a need to prevent the railroad commuters (whether they are Village residents or not) from taking away spaces from long-term CBD parkers. 2. The Village needs some revenues to help pay for the Hunter parking deck. There are different ways to institute a parking permit system, none of which is perfect or easy. Three main criteria should be observed: 1 . Fairness: The system has to be perceived as fair by the different users or groups of users. 2 . Effectiveness: The system has to make the best use of a limited resource. 3 . Simple: It has to remain simple and understandable to the user and simple to be administered. Two permit options are under consideration for the Village CBD. One of the systems would assign the long-term parkers to a particular lot depending on the address of their place of work. Different parking permits would thus be issued for each parking facility: Philips Park or Playhouse area, Spencer/Ward area and Hunter lot/deck. The name of the parking lot would appear on the decal and they would also be color coded. 3 M 1 NM OM a c-) ,o = m m a COMPARISION OF PARKING FINES y N O PARKING METER OVERTIME PARKING DOUBLE PARKING HANDICAP SPACE TOWN NAME VIOLATION WHERE POSTED VIOLATION VIOLATION m N Huntington, NY 1.00 5.00 5.00 35.00 2 Port Chester, NY 5.00 5.00 10.00 25.00 White Plains, NY 3.00 3.00 15.00 25.00 Yonkers, NY 10.00 10.00/30.00 3 30.00 40.00 Greenwich, CT 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 (minimum) 1 Darien, CT 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 New Canaan, CT 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Westport, CT 5.00 5.00/10.00/25.00 2 • 10.00 25.00 Wilton, CT 5.00 5.00 .5.00 5.00 Weston, CT None None None 5.00 Norwalk, CT 5.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 Fairfield, CT None 5.00 5.00 20.00 Bridgeport, CT 3.00 3.00 10.00 25.00 New Haven, CT 5.00 5.00 15.00 25.00 Hartford, CT 5.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 Danbury, CT 5.00 5.00 5.00 25.00 NOTES: (I) Parking Fine may be increased at the discretion of the issuing officer. i (2) Parking Fine increases upon second and third notice, if issued the same day. (3) Parking Fine of $10.00 at meter/$30.00 at all other locations SOURCE: City of Stamford, Dept. of Traffic & Parking, January 21, 1986 and Jaquemart Associates, Inc. Air ,r i i JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC The second option would consist of setting different prices for each lot, according to their attractiveness, and let the parker decide on where he or she wants to park. In December of 1985 the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mamaroneck unanimously agreed to construct a parking deck at the Hunter lot. Decking this lot was preferred over the Spencer or Phillips Park lots because of the following reasons : 1. It was less expensive: 1.4 million dollars for 104 new spaces, as opposed to 2. 4 million dollars for 100 spaces at Phillips Park Road. 2. The Hunter lot would serve a broader variety of parking needs, i.e. : Residents in the neighborhood, patrons of Emelin Theatre and Mamaroneck Library, Village Hall, and shoppers and merchants. Thus, the Hunter lot would be used both day and night, as opposed to the Phillips Park Road lot, which is primarily a day time facility. 3 . The Hunter lot would be easier to build and would be an open structure that would be much safer. Studies in other communities have shown that women are uncomfortable parking in an enclosed structure that may serve as a hang out for undesirables. The Hunter lot, because it is flat and open, will be easier to construct as open tier. The Phillips Park Road lot has very poor topography and has water and sewer lines that run underneath the lot. Because of the poor topography, it would have been necessary to have part of the structure fully enclosed, which was felt to be potentially unsafe and undesirable for shoppers. The disadvantage of the Hunter lot is that for most persons shopping or working along Mamaroneck Avenue the Phillips Park and Spencer lots are slightly more convenient, since the average walking distances to these lots are shorter and because of the uphill grade between Mamaroneck Avenue and the Hunter lot. Some mechanism has to be used to either force long-term parkers onto the Hunter deck or to attract them to the Hunter deck -- a stick or a carrot. The goal is to encourage the use of the Hunter parking facility and to relieve the shortage along Mamaroneck Avenue and in the parking area east of Mamaroneck Avenue. The success of this program will also be judged by how this has been achieved. 4 JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC The following describes a permit system based on pricing with suggested cost ranges : Permit Annual Parking Limitation Type Cost Range Railroad $100 - $120 Can park only in designated Lots railroad commuter lots Village CBD $120 - $140 None. Can park in Railroad commuter lot, in Spencer/Ward lot, Philips Park area and on Hunter Deck Hunter Deck $60 - $80 Can park only on Hunter Deck Who can apply for permits? For the railroad lot permits, a person has to live in the Village (more expensive permits could be sold to outsiders) , or a person has to work in the CBD (a business card or a letter from employer has to be provided) . Any CBD employee or merchant who wants to park in a railroad lot should be encouraged to do so, because they would free up a valuable space in the CBD and use up underutilized parking along Bishop Avenue. For a Village CBD parking permit, the applicant needs to live or work in the CBD. People who live in the CBD should be able to buy a permit since, to some degree, they will not overlap with the commuters. (If they never overlap with the commuters they would not need a parking permit) . For the Hunter Deck permit the application conditions would be the same. The pricing system has certain advantages: Obviously, it lets the user make the decision. And in doing so, this option lets the users take into consideration all the criteria that enter into this decision according to their own judgement. For instance, some persons may prefer to park on the Hunter Deck because they drive from that direction, some people see the uphill walk as a healthy exercise and others perceive it as a major problem. And for some the savings is substantial and for others the added convenience is worth the additional cost. The cost difference between the Hunter Deck permit and the Village CBD permit has to 'be significant enough so that it makes a difference to the person writing the check. This difference should be at least $60 per year. Another advantage of the pricing system in comparison to the allocation system is that it allows a flexibility in the useage. Since the Spencer/Ward lot and Philips Park lot are treated the 5 JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC same, and since the Village CBD permit holders can park in any of the permit areas , the users have a choice depending on their particular driving pattern or needs, and if a lot happens to be full during a certain peak period the driver can park at an adjacent lot. A better utilization can also be achieved with a larger pool of spaces, because more spaces can be "overbooked" . Parking "overbooking" is a standard practice and has not the negative connotations that airline overbooking has. Because there are always some employees or merchants out on vacation, sick or out of the office, it is logical to sell more permits than there are spaces (anywhere between 5% and 20% more) . With a larger pool of parking spaces the statistics are such that more overbooking can take place. The actual number of vehicles parked during the peak periods should be monitored so that the best "overbooking" ratio can be determined. The parking permit restrictions should be in effect from 9 am to 6 pm, Mondays through Saturdays. At all other times the spaces could be used by vehicles not holding a permit. 4. Design Guidelines The generally accepted proportion of compact car spaces to total spaces is 25% to 40%. Even if the actual proportion of compact cars is higher, it is recommended that the proportion of compact spaces be lower. We recommend that it should not exceed 40%. It is also very important that the compact spaces be at the most convenient locations of the lot. If the standard spaces are more conveniently located, compact cars will park in them, thus forcing standard cars arriving later to park in compact spaces. One way to improve the efficiency of parking layouts is to adopt more stringent standards for long-term parkers. Since long-term parkers know the parking lots fairly well and since there are fewer movements in and out of long-term spaces, these parking spaces do not need to be as "luxurious" as the spaces for shoppers. The following dimensions are suggested for consideration for 908 parking (similar guidelines can be developed for 458 or 608 parking) : Long-Term Parking Short-Term Parking Standard Compact Standard Compact Stall Width 8. 5 ' 7 . 5' 9 . 0 ' 8 . 0 ' Stall Length 17. 5 ' 15 .0 ' 18 . 0 ' 15 . 5 ' Aisle Width 23 . 0 ' 21 .0 ' 24 . 0 ' 21 . 0 ' Module Width 58 . 0 ' 51 .0 ' 60 . 0 ' 52 . 0 ' 6 lii / i i i JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC 5. Zoning Requirements for Off-Street Parking In an urban activity center such as the Village CBD, there are significant advantages to municipal parking lots or garages, as opposed to each use providing its own parking. First, from a visual and urban design point of view a municipal parking facility is more positive than a series of small lots adjacent to each use. Second, in any urban activity center a municipal parking facility is significantly more efficient than individual lots, because of the multiple uses that are satisfied by a municipal facility. Very often the uses served by a municipal facility do not peak at the same time, or in other words one single space can serve more than one use. It is therefore recommended that the possibility of in-lieu payments to satisfy parking requirements in the Village CBD be maintained and even encouraged. It is important, however, that the Village expands the parking supply in parallel with the increased demand. 6. A few National Statistics on Municipal Parkingl The Institutional and Municipal Parking Congress has performed a nation-wide survey of municipalities regarding their parking programs. The answers were provided by the municipal departments in charge of parking or by the parking authorities. The following summarizes some relevant statistics: Among municipalities , more than 77 percent derive operating budgets from parking revenues. These budgets come on average from the following sources: Garage revenues 24% Parking fines 23% Meter revenues 17. 5% Penalties 11% Lot revenues 9 . 5% Lease revenues 6% Permit revenues 6% Interest 3% 1 Public Parking 1986 . A Statistical Guide to Parking in North America, published by Institutional & Municipal Parking Congress. ' 7 7/ 1" / / / / / JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC As can be seen from the above the revenues from parking fines and parking meters are substantial. The following shows a breakdown of where the revenues from parking operations go to (on average) : Returned to Government 47% Debt Service 17.4% Personnel 14% Contract Services 7% Capital Expenditures 5. 4% Maintenance 3. 4% Collection/Enforcement 3% Utilities/Insurance 2.7% In summary, the operating costs including overhead and debt service represent an average 53% of revenues. In other words , the average municipal parking department has a profit margin of almost 90% ( 47/53 ) . Among all cities surveyed (without regard to geographical location or population) , the average hourly downtown parking rate is just over 45 cents. In fringe areas it is slightly more than 20 cents. The average monthly rate in facilities owned by municipalities is $32. When compared by population size, those cities under 100 ,000 reported hourly rates of about 25 cents. The largest cities averaged more than $1. 00 per hour. Average monthly rates followed the same pattern, with the smallest cities charging about $25 per month and the largest running more than twice that amount. On-street parking meters are most often collected weekly. More than half ( 54.9 percent) of all responding cities say that is their most frequent schedule. About 20 percent of respondents collect twice a week. More than 78 percent of municipal parking operations track their meter revenue by zone and more than 82 percent allow free parking in municipal spaces during weekends, at night, and on holidays. While more and more cities are adopting residential parking permit programs, still only slightly more than a third ( 36. 2 percent) actually have one in current operation. Parking enforcement is handled most often by a combination of police and parking personnel ( 50.7 percent) . Almost 90 percent of responding cities say they tow vehicles for some violations. The most frequent reasons are parking in a prohibited area ( 46. 6 percent) and repeated violations ( 32.9 8 JACQUEMART ASSOCIATES INC percent) . Towing in more than half the cities is authorized by the police and, in a third of the responses , by a combination of police and parking personnel. More than 81 percent say the actual towing is done by contracted services with fewer than 10 percent saying they own the towing vehicles. Immobilization, or "booting" , is regularly used by a third of those cities responding to the questionnaire. Those cities most often immobilize vehicles for repeated ( "scofflaw" ) violations. Almost 85 percent of cities say they actually collect more than 60 percent of their parking fines. Almost 14 percent say they collect more than 90 percent of fines. In six out of ten cases a parking violation is considered a civil, rather than criminal offense and three-fourths of the cities collect fines directly. Traffic courts are used for collection in only 16.7 percent of the cities surveyed. 9 9 WESTCHESTER COUNTY 1983 PARKING STUDY - P. 1 I areas that were included in the survey. ae Mamaroneck Avenue fl Mamaroneck Avenue, of all the areas studied, presents the least opportunity for increased parking. Full utilization with rapid and high turnover signals the al- l! most constant use of the available spaces for short term parking. While decrees- !' the allowable length of stay can increase the turnover rate thereby allowing additional parkers, this is discouraged, for increased turnover would only agara- vate the already difficult traffic situation. Instead of increased utilization of the available parkins the Village should consider capitalizing on the almost constant use of these spaces by linstallinq metered_rkinn with one hour duration. This is reasonable for gOn4 of those whn park on Mamaroneck Avenue remain so for one hour or less. The income produced through this measure is substantive and can be used to offset the cost of future oarkinn facilities. For example, assumino an average occupancy rate of 3D° , or V11 spaces occupied throughout the day, an hourly fee of $ . 75 for an eight hour period can generate g '352 dollars per day. This translates to an income in excess of/c110f,Orin per g year. In addition to the obvious financial benefits, the metering of parking along Mamaroneck Avenue while maintaining the free short term parking in the off-street . 11 facilities would encourage fuller utilization of these off-street spaces. Furthermore, metered parking along Mamaroneck Avenue may help to discourage those that park on the Avenue throughout the shopping day as there will no longer be • WESTCHESTER COUNTY 1983 PARKING STUDY - P. 2 i the opportunity for free long term parking as an alternative to the purchase of permits. !I Philips Park Road Q The Philips Park Road parking area,; the largest of the off-street facilities Qstudied, provides the greatest opportunity for increased customer parking. QFirstly, this area must h.• thought of as the primary alternative to on-street parkins along Mamaroneck Avenue as it is centrally located and conveniently 11 adjacent to the retail shops that front on the Avenue. The following recommendations are made to achieve this objective: 1 1. Increase capacity by allowing vehicles tQ perk along both sides of the ar- cess road. This was enacted temnorarily during the Christmas shopping per- Qiod in December, 19:12 and provided an additional 28 short term spaces The permanent use of both sides of the access road for parking immediately in- Qcreases' the capacity of this facility by 20% with little more than the re- 11 striping of the roadway. 2. The transfering of permit spaces to the more peripheral Spencer/Ward ani YY Prospect Avenue lots, 'for the short term spaces that exist there would re ►i provide en additional 40 spaces for customer parking This, when added to !i the 28 spaces along the access road increases short term parking by 94::, or U 68 spaces U to 4y irr VILLAGE OF (* : J *) MAMARONECK '+��1�1•N N'1.t�t� Village Hall BOARD o F Mamaroneck,N. Y. 10543 TELEPHONE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS OWENs 8-7400 March 5 , 1985 Memo To: Hon. Mayor and Board of Trustees Subject: Parking Meters on Mamaroneck Avenue The Board of Traffic Commissioners recommend the instal- lation of parking meters on Mamaroneck Avenue from the Boston Post Road to Halstead/Mt. Pleasant Avenues with one hour dur- ation. It is suggested that the meters be of an hourly fee of 25 for a nine hour period. ( 9 : 00 A.M. to 6 : 00 P.M. ) Monday thru Saturday. A total of 219 meters would be installed. An hourly of 25 would generate a substantial income over a period of a year. The annual income produced by the meters can be used to offset the cost of future parking facilities such as ground and tier parking. In addition to financial benefits , meterd parking , while decreasing the allowable length of stay ( anywhere from 90 minutes to two hours) will increase the turnover rate thereby allowing additional short term parking spaces. Metered parking will also encourage the use of off-street parking lots for those who are in need of more than one hour. Metered parking will also discourage free all day parking by merchants and/or employees who erase chaulk line from car tires and those who move their cars from parking space to park- ing space to avoid chaulk marks by Parking Enforcement Officers. The merchants and/or employees will be compelled to give up the parking spaces and as an alternative they will purchase parking permits. Respectfully submitted, William V. Paonessa Chairman THE FRIENDLY VILLAGE n n IA Editoria 1i iA L ,c f78c . /) 4'46 fl 8sm. . Gannett Westchester Newspapers/ i1 the workforce and those trying to find work Ii This day[ • 's is not gone. Organized labor could play a big _ role if it would reorganize, retrain and w for you change direction itself. sa . When the old Knights of Labor pressed So the paradeless Labor Day 1986 bt for giving workers a day off with pay, they should not be taken as a bleak sign that life til i% went right out and organized a parade. And is over for the working classes. Let it signal R, for years, organized labor has marched on a new beginning—tomorrow. IN Labor Day. Was that any way to spend a For today,just enjoy the holiday. tt1 : : holiday? Sure, if you love a parade. al -- Old story, new chapter ! al • But, as the McLaughlin column on this page points out, New York will have no Why do downtown merchants worry so 11 Labor Day parade this year — not because much about attracting customers and then a ' nobody would march, but because the unions park their own cars in front of their stores S ' knew if they gave the parade nobody would all day, keeping shoppers away? a come. Organized labor does not have the They fight against parking meters, saying power to excite these days. Unions represent they will discourage customers. Then, after t4 • only a small percentage of the work force in the meters are installed, they feed the me- V a working place that has changed dramati- ters all day, even if the practice is illegal. fl cally over the years. The latest incidence of this comes from t • � Tuckahoe, where the Tuckahoe Business is Ironically, the unions themselves are t •II . largely responsible for that, both to their Association and village officials are trying to C credit and to their blame. To their everlast- persuade merchants and their employees to f ing credit, the unions gave a lot of dignity park their cars in less used areas of the and material benefits to working people. village. t t They won rights and advantages for their It must be frustrating to village officials e own members and'eventually pro-labor leg- to read the statement from Robert Esposito, 1 1i • islators extended such benefits by law to owner of a downtown appliance repair store:. workers generally. So, working people fig- "As long as owners and employees deposit ! ured, why join a union when their employer money in those meters and pay tickets when . • was already providing paid vacations, health they go into overtime, then I believe they insurance, pensions plans and the rest? should be allowed to park anywhere they 1 On the down side, unions began to lose want. They are entitled to parking space a . their attraction when they became as con- just like everyone else." servative as their big business adversaries. True enough, but to what end? It's Too often, unions wanted to preserve the enough to make you shake your head, but status quo. Notably in the crafts, the unions such an attitude should not discourage mu- i il sought only to protect jobs, not to create nicipalities from providing as much down- opportunities for newcomers to the labor town parking for shoppers as 'possible, and force. Too often in the old manufacturing to help find alternate parking places for the centers, they fought automation, instead of merchants viay from their stores.In Tucka-4 cooperating in a retraining effort. The en- hoe; village officials are planning to provide, lightened thinking that had characterized additiona,,,Permit parking spaces for the; David Dubinsky of the Ladies Garment merchants"aiid offer them a discount on the a Workers and Walter Reuther of the Auto annual fee. Workers, and the bullheaded courage of ; But wouldn't you think the store owners John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers would gladly walk a short way from a park- "' - . were gone. itheir own to help improve the But the need to help people already in business climate?of