Town of Westfield Table of Contents
Table of Contents Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study
Introduction 1.1 Background.. .............................................................................. page 1 - 1 1.2 Purpose...................................................................................... page l- l 1.3 Study Area ................................................................................. page l- 2 1.4 Scope of Services.. ..................................................................... page l- 4 1.5 Methodologies ........................................................................... page l- 4
Section 2 - Data Gathering Techniques and Survey Results
2 .1 2.2 2.3
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
Methodology and Survey Results .............................................. page 2- l 2.1.1 Definitions ................................................................... page 2- l Parking Inventory ...................................................................... page 2- 1 Turnover and Occupancy Study for On- street Parking.. ............ page 2- 4 2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Study Summary .................. page 2- 4 Turnover and Occupancy Study for Off- Street Parking.. ........... page 2- 5 Commuter Parking Occupancies.. .............................................. page 2- 5 Manager Surveys ....................................................................... page 2- 8 Employee Surveys ..................................................................... page 2- 9
Section 3 - Parking Demand and Zone Analysis
3.1 3.2 3.2.1
3.3 3.4
3.5 3.6
Parking Demand and Zone Analysis.. ........................................ page 3- l Methodology.............................................................................. page 3- 1 Parking Demand Parameters...................................................... page 3- 2 Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions .................................... page 3- 3 Comparison of Current and Future Parking Supplies and Demands
..................................................................................... page 3- 5 Importance of the Zone Analysis Technique ............................. page 3- 8 Enhanced Demand Area Analysis.. ............................................ page 3- 9
Rich and Associates - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 (a
I I Town of Westfield Table of Contents
I I I
I
L
. I
Section 4 - Site Recommendations
4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
Site Selection ............................................................................. page 4- l Decision Matrix ......................................................................... page 4- 19 Analysis ..................................................................................... page 4- 2 1 Site Analysis Summary.. ............................................................ page 4- 2 1 Lot 3A and Lot 1 Extended Cost Estimate ................................. page 4- 24 Project and Finance Cost for Lot 3A ......................................... page 4- 24 Parking Reallocation.. ................................................................ page 4- 33 Revenue Projections .................................................................. page 4- 34
Section 5 - Recommendations
5.1 Operational Recommendations.................................................. page 5- 1 A. Meters and Fines .................................................................. page 5- 3
B . Enforcement ......................................................................... page 5- 4 C. Marketing............................................................................. page 5- 5 D. Signage ................................................................................ page 5- 5 E. Space Allocation .................................................................. page 5- 8 F. Management......................................................................... page 5- 8 G. Shuttle System for Employees ............................................. page 5- 10
Rich and Associates -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000
I -
L
i -~
Town of Westfield Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study Section 1
1.1 - Background
This study, prepared by Rich and Associates for Westfield, serves to examine the town’s existing parking system, both from a qualitative and quantitative standpoint. The Town of Westfield contracted Rich and Associates to prepare a study that examined and updated previous studies in order to coordinate the existing parking and make recommendations regarding the sizing and location of the Town’s first parking structure.
For this study, we initiate the process with a field study. Data collected as background material was analyzed using proven methods established by Rich and Associates. Our study drew on standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute, which were modified in accordance with the recommendations of our senior partners to suit the unique circumstances present in Westfield’s CBD. Some considerations prevalent to this study included the presence of the New Jersey Transit Authority (NJT) train station and the parking demands and provisions associated with this facility. Additional, provisions in this study examine the development pressure present in Westfield and the needs and concerns of special interest groups and citizenry.
1.2 - Purpose
The Westfield CBD parking study was undertaken to analyze the parking needs unique to the town and the forces that have created those needs. By examining existing parking operations, current situations and quantifying future needs, we have prepared a set of recommendations that will translate into a successful parking management plan. Overall, this parking planning study answers many vital parking questions about the condition and adequacy of downtown parking in Westfield, such as:
What is the nature and magnitude of the present parking situation in the downtown core area?
Are there parking areas with sufficient capacities to satisfy peak and seasonal parking needs?
Is it possible to manage the existing parking supply in downtown Westfield more effectively?
What affects, if any, would additional privately or publicly developed parking have on the economics of the parking system and the viability of the downtown?
What parking- improvements best suit Westfield’s needs? How can any parking improvements be financed and when should such improvements be implemented?
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 l- l
Town of Westfield Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.3 - Study Area 1
‘
The study area, as determined by the Town of Westfield, is outlined in section 1.1 and illustrated in Map #l , “Town of Westfield - Study Area Map” located on page l- 3. The dashed line represents the boundary of the study areas. Rich and Associates evaluated the parking conditions of the 20- block “primary” study area. Areas outside of the study were examined for supply analysis only. The core downtown area contains a mixture of uses, which includes commercial structures, the NJT rail terminal, parking areas, churches and some residential units. Map #l ,
“Town of Westfield - Study Area Map” located on page l- 3 indicates the block’s number and route boundaries. Map #2, “Town of Westfield - Parking Supply Map on page 2- 2 indicates the locations of major off- street parking areas and the on- street supply for each zone. A complete on and off- street inventory table can be found on page 2- 3.
The types of land uses contained in the study area included retail, commercial, service, restaurant, office, special use (institutions, community oriented, etc.), residential, light industrial and mixed use. The demand analysis combines uses with similar parking characteristics or needs into general categories. These categories, while appearing relatively general in scope, encompass the essential downtown uses when considering parking demand generators. By subdividing the downtown uses into these categories, we are able to develop a computer generated spatial parking demand model. The parking demand model for downtown Westfield can be found on page 3- 4. This model breaks down the CBD uses by block, according to gross square footages. Considerations in developing the model included the impact of the NJT terminal on the downtown, redevelopment opportunities and newly created parking demand from redevelopment.
Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 1- 2
._ -
Town of Westfield Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.4 - Scope of Services
L
The scope of services performed by Rich and Associates for the Town of Westfield is listed below. Services included studies and analyses that were conducted in order to develop answers and solutions to the parking questions and issues listed previously in the purpose section.
l Turnover and occupancy studies were performed to evaluate the utilization of the on- street and off- street parking areas of the downtown core area.
. A block by block evaluation of the parking characteristics, by land use type, for the downtown core area was completed. Much of the information, in terms of square footage and usage of existing downtown structures was based on data provided by the Downtown Westfield Corporation. This information was used to calculate parking demand.
l Existing enforcement policies and procedures were reviewed, along with the staffing and routing of enforcement personnel.
l Site analysis and conceptual designs for parking solutions are currently underway.
1.5 - Methodologies
The parking study methodologies developed by Rich and Associates are effective and accurate tools for quantifying current and future parking characteristics exclusive to Westfield’s CBD. Our methodology involves computer modeling of parking demand based on land- use. Specifically, an inventory of buildings and their uses is compiled and a demand factor is assigned to each use category. The demand factors are based on research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute. Modifications to the demand factors are based on experience with past projects of similar scope and scale to that of Westfield. Additional moditications are made in accordance with the recommendations of Rich and Associates’ senior partners, who take into consideration the unique characteristics and situations specific to the Central Business District. It has been the firms’ experience that parking characteristics unique to a town can be best determined by collecting and analyzing data specific to the study area.
Once the block by block demand has been calculated, for both current and future circumstances, a comparison with the existing supply of parking is made. The resultant figures are parking surplus and demand estimates for each block. The methodologies applied by the firm include an analysis and examination of the previously mentioned parking space and land use inventories, as well as a parking utilization analysis, The parking utilization analysis and study results are explained in Section 2. The data for the analysis were collected during the month of October 1999.
On page 1- 5, the figure entitled “Figure 1: Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies” graphically illustrates the interrelationships among the various parking methodologies employed to evaluate Westfield’s parking system.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 l- 4
Town of Westfield Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study
I I Figure
1: Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies
I I
PARKING SUPPLY
I -
- - Data Gathering Techniques & Survey Results - - -. - - - - - - - Parking Demand Analysis - - - I
‘I
Rich
and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 l- 5
Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results
I I I I I
Section 2 ,
2.1 - Methodology and Survey Results
The Methodology and Survey results section of this report offers an assessment of the results of the on- street and off- street parking space inventories and the on- street and off- street turnover and occupancy studies. The results of the studies, surveys and inventories are important to the determination of the town’s current and future parking needs.
2.1.1 - Definitions
I L
I i I I I
. . . I
I I
I
Turnover - Turnover is the number of cars that occupied a parking space in a particular period. For example, if a parking lot has 100 spaces and during the course of the day 250 different vehicles occupied the lot, then the turnover is two and a half times (2.5).
Occupancy - the length of time a parking space is occupied by a vehicle.
Circuit - A circuit refers to the two- hour time period between observances of any one particular parking space. For the turnover and occupancy study, a defined route was developed for each survey vehicle. One circuit of the route took approximately 2 hours to complete and each space was observed once during that circuit.
Block Face - A number was assigned to each block within the study area. Each block is then referenced by its block number and by a letter (A, B, C or D). The letter refers to the cardinal face of the block; with A being the north face, B the east face, C the south face and D the west face. Therefore, a block designated as 1A would refer to the north face of block 1.
2.2 - Parking Inventory
In the study area, there are 362 regular parking spaces on street. Off street, there are 2,959 regular spaces and 61 barrier free stalls. The total inventory for the study area amounted to 3,382 spaces, which includes all of the commuter lots, as well as Lord and Taylor’s lots. The on- street spaces consist of four types, which include two hour metered, one hour metered, ten- minute and barrier free. In most cases, the parking spaces were marked with stall lines. In cases where the parking stalls were not marked, the numbers of spaces were estimated.
The off- street lots are identified on the parking supply map and consisted of two and eight- hour meters and permit only stalls. These lots, as well the on- street parking stalls are inventoried in the Parking Supply Summary on page 2- 3 and referred to in the turnover and occupancy table found on pages 2- 6.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 1
Table 2A: Parking Supply Summary
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 3
Table 2A: Parking Supply Summary
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 3
Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results
2.3 - Turnover and Occupancy Study for On- street Parking
A turnover and occupancy study was undertaken for the entire “primary” study area during the October fieldwork. The intent of this analysis was to determine the number of times on- street spaces were “turning over”, or being used by different vehicles, and the occupancy of on and offstreet spaces by time of day. The turnover and occupancy count that was undertaken from 10: OOam to 6: OOpm on October 20, 1999.
2.3.1- Turnover and Occupancy Study Summary The daytime activity in the study area is relatively constant between the hours of 10: 00 a. m. to 6: 00 p. m. The level of activity along some of the block faces varied tremendously, with core CBD blocks being at or near 100% occupancy throughout the day.
Some vehicles were parked at expired meters, of which only a few had been ticketed.
Our analysis revealed that 34 of the 508 vehicles analyzed were being moved every two- hours. This practice, known as the “two hour shuffle”, is intended to avoid a fine for overtime parking. Some parkers were simply parking in a spot for the entire day on block faces where no enforcement was taking place.
Overall, turnover is mediocre within Westfield’s CBD averaging 2.50. This indicates that those vehicles parked on street within the study area were generally remaining longer than the posted duration (please refer to Table 2B: Overtime Parking Summary on the following page). Again, this factor can be linked to enforcement and the need for stricter regulation.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 4
.-
Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results
Table 2B: Overtime Parking Summary
Violation Summary: (summarizes how long a random sample of vehicles stayed beyond the posted time limit at
on- street meters) Number of parking spaces in sample Vehicles that remained 2 to 4 hours Vehicles that remained 4 to 6 hours Vehicles that remained 6 hours or more
Total number of vehicles analyzed
Maximum Posted Duration (2 hour)
207 meters 8.3% (42)
4% (20) 4% (20)
508
I 2.4
- Turnover and Occupancy Study for Off- Street Parking
L
The following table contains the turnover and occupancy data (refer to page 2- 6). The turnover and occupancy table identifies the parking areas according to block and face references. Parking structures and surface lots are identified on the Parking Supply Map found on page 2- 2. The tables include estimated capacities (number of parking spaces) per lot and the number of on- street spaces examined during the study circuits completed October 20, 1999. The average and peak occupancies are listed on the bottom of the table. The study included the public parking areas, as well as a number of private lots and structures. The “peak occupancy achieved” map on page 2- 7 illustrates the results of the turnover and occupancy study for both the on- street and off- street counts. In general, the turnover and occupancy study has revealed where the highest parking usage rates can be found.
The occupancy map illustrates that on street parking demand is high along East Broad, Central, Elm and Quimby. This high occupancy corresponds with the predicted parking demand deficit calculated from the building use and occupancy data. An additional point to consider regarding parking supply and demand, is that motorists perceive lots and on- street spaces with occupancies greater than 85% to be at capacity and will begin to re- circulate, seeking alternative parking places adding to downtown traffic congestion.
2.5 - Commuter Parking Occupancies
An important component of developing and understanding a parking demand model for Westfield is to quantify commuter- parking needs. Several lots within the study area were being used by the commuters for daytime parking. Parking used by commuters achieved a peak daytime occupancy of 72%. While this number may seem lower than expected given the 400 person plus waiting list for commuter parking permits, it may in part be explained by swing shifts and by the need to consider a greater permit oversell ratio.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 5
I -
Table 2C: Turnover and Occupancy Data
I I I I
Lot 1 6 1 Off- Street 1 101 1 65 I., 6+ hi: l 8: 45 am couunt to deter! nine commuter occupancy
Lord and Taylor Associate Lot 1 100 1 27 1,‘ 27%‘ 1 8: 45 am count to determine commuter occupancy Employee Lot 1 121 1 95 1 79% ’ 1 8: 45 am count to determine employee occupancy
.
I LRich
and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 6
- Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results
I - A) Only the town should pay for parking improvements.
I ~ . I’
I 7 I
\
2.6 - Manager Surveys
Rich and Associates distributed over 100 surveys to businesses randomly selected in the study area. Data obtained from the manager surveys was used in determining short and long- term parking supply and demand. Managers were asked the number of full and part- time employees employed at their business, the average number of customers or visitors that shop at their business and the percentage of those customers or visitors who are downtown for other purposes (i. e., employed in the downtown). Below is a summary of the surveys returned.
Table 2D: Manaper Opinion Survey Results
1
Strongly Disagree
II 2 3 4 5
Neither Agree Strongly nor Disagree A g r e e
B) It should be left to the private sector to provide parking downtown. - I I I W
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree C) The cost for providing new parking downtown should be shared by the town, private sector and users.
1
Strongly Disagree
I
2
I
3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
I
4 5 Strongly Agree
D) I would support a special assessment to improve parking downtown. Ia I ISkongl
y 2 3 Disagree Neither Agree
nor Disagree
I
4 5 Strongly Agree
E) I would encourage my employees to park outside the downtown core and use a shuttle bus to leave more parking for customers/ visitors
I I a I w
1
Strongly Disagree
2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 5 Strongly Agree
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 8
Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results
2.7 - Employee Surveys
A representative sample of all business’typei within the study area received employee survey forms to distribute to their employees.
Table 2E: Emplovee Opinion Survey Results
I
A) Only the town should pay for parking improvements.
1
Strongly Disagree
I 2
I 3 Neither Agree
nor Disagree
I
4 5 Strongly Agree
I ~ L 1_
I I
I I
E) The current fine for overtime parking is too high / low? I I 1 2 3 Too Low About Right 5
Too High F) If free parking outside the central business district was provided and serviced by a convenient shuttle system, I would use it.
I 1
Strongly Disagree
2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 5 Strongly Agree
G) If I leave my parking space during the day for a short time, I cannot find parking when I return.
1
Strongly Disagree
2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 5 Strongly Agree
H) Downtown parking is not safe.
1
Strongly Disagree
I
3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
I
4 5 Strongly Agree
I) I would pay more to park close to work versus less cost to park farther away.
1
Strongly Disagree
I I
2 3 4 5 Neither Agree Strongly nor Disagree Agree
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 9
I -
I I
Town of Westfield Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results J) I would be willing to pay more for parking if the revenue were used to improve the parking.
I a I I w 1
Strongly Disagree
2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 5 Strongly Agree
I
AVERAGE COST B) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than $0.21 per hour. C) Daily parking rates in off- street lots or parking decks should cost no more than $2.79 per day.
I ~
I
D) Monthly parking for employees working downtown should cost no more than $32.92 per month. Note: The above rates are calculated using the mean response from the returned questionnaires.
Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 2- 10
I L Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Zone Analyses Section 3
3.1- Parking Demand and Zone Analyses
Analyses were performed to determine the current and future parking demands and needs for the study area. The data collected and compiled by the firm to calculate the parking demand included: 1) an inventory of the study area’s on- and off- street parking supplies; 2) turnover and occupancy studies for public and private on- and off- street parking areas; and, 3) a block- by- block analysis of the square footage and use of every building in the study area. The results of the fieldwork are discussed in Section 2 of the report.
The “Parking Demand and Zone Analyses” section of the report contains two levels of parking analyses to determine the number of parking spaces demanded and needed in the study area. The number of parking spaces demanded for each block assumes that there are no parking limitations in the study area such as availability, use, location and price. Therefore, the number of parking spaces, demanded for each block, are unadjusted and derived by several unrealistic assumptions. For each block, the firm calculated parking demand to derive surplus or deficit parking space amounts.
The parking demand calculations are not adjusted for realistic market conditions and locational parking preferences. To adjust for the effects of parking availability, use, location and price, a more detailed parking zone analysis was performed to determine the number of parking spaces needed. One zone, which is a contiguous geographic area, was formed to analyze all alternative parking- areas within a reasonable walking distance from several demand generators (i. e. group of buildings). The number of parking spaces needed for the zone is less than the number of parking spaces demanded since employees and customers of the study area are affected by realistic parking limitations and alternative parking supplies that are grouped and evaluated by a zone.
3.2 - Methodology
Parking demand was calculated for the current and future time periods. The future period is defined by the reoccupancy of vacant properties in one to ten years. The current and future parking demands were calculated by applying a parking generation factor per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, as categorized by land use. The land use types in Westfield include retail, service, restaurant, office, special use, residential, and mixed use. The firm carefully examined the daytime activity, parking characteristics and land use patterns to derive more accurate and realistic demand generation rates to apply to the calculation of the town’s parking demand.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 3- 1
Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Zone Analyses
I
~
Rich and Associates have calculated the parking needs using demand characteristics resulting from the downtown analysis and standards developed by. the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The parking demand parameters, which are listed below, were important to the development of the parking generation factors and to the zone analysis of the CBD. Zone analysis is a more detailed method of calculating the number of parking spaces needed.
3.2.1 - Parking Demand Parameters
l Building size, purpose and special use conditions.
. Socioeconomic characteristics of the downtown population and population expected to visit the downtown.
l Alternative modes of transportation, which includes availability, use attractiveness and policy impacts.
l Proportion of the downtown trips that are multiple use;
l Traffic accessibility.
l cost of parking. 0 Parking enforcement policies. . Location, quality and congestion of
parking areas.
l Pedestrian traffic patterns and wayfinding. Table 3A “Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison”, provides a listing of the parking generation rates (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) by land use type. The Rich and Associates’ demand generation rates were derived from the results of similar studies, fieldwork conducted during the study and from demand generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Table 3A: Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison
Land Use Note: pe Office Retail SeWiCe Medical Service Rcstallrallt Residential (per unit) Mixed Government Hotel (per room) Special (I)- Community Special @)- Light Industrial
Rich and Associates Model 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area ur
2.64
3.00
3.51 4.11 9.00 0.88 3.21 3.84 0.52 0.40 0.70
3.33 5.00 5.71 13.33
1.30 3.33 4.00 1 .oo (+ l/ crap) varies 4.00 - 11 .l 1
2.50 Westfield Zoning
ss otherwise noted
4.00
1 ITE (1)
2.79 3.97
4.17 4.11 12.49
1.21 3.25 3.84 0.52 0.43 0.36
I) Source: Parking Generation -Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987.
Note: Some of the parking requirement factors have been converted into gross floor- area requirements for the purpose of this comparison chart.
Rich and Associates demand model for commuter parking is based on data and analysis provided by NJT and fkom analysis of field data specific to Westfield’s commuter needs.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 3- 2
_
Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses Parking demand was computed for each block within the study area. The Rich and Associates’ parking generation’rates were multiplied by the total amount of gross square footage for each land use category, to derive the number of parking spaces demanded for each block. Table 3B provides a listing of each block’s gross square- footage and the calculated parking demand for both current and future scenarios.
Results for each block with its parking supply were individually calculated using parking demand factors developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The Institute of Transportation Engineers has developed a set of parking demand factors based on research compiled since 1985. These factors are national averages and are generally used by planners and engineers as a basis for calculating parking requirements. According to ITE standards for the defined study area there is a 1,434- space shortfall, while using Rich and Associates factors there is only a 1,016- space shortfall. Rich and Associates’ factors used to create the Westfield model are calculated and derived through research, surveys and past studies. By customizing the parking model exclusively to the study area in Westfield, we are able to develop the most accurate method for calculating parking needs. If national averages were solely relied on for deriving parking demand, the need would be over estimated.
The parking generation rates were not applied to all of the downtown’s properties. Parking demand for some of the downtown properties were calculated from specific levels of observed daytime activity. Below, is a description of each of the assumptions applied to the calculation of parking demand.
L
3.3 - Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions
l Assumption 1: It was assumed that parking demand per block was dependent on the gross floor area of the block. Parking demand computed for one block was not affected by the amount of gross floor area available on surrounding blocks. Therefore, a block with surplus parking supply was unavailable to a block with a deficit parking supply. This assumption was modified in the application of a more detailed and realistic model, which is discussed later in the zone analysis section of the report.
l Assumption 2: The parking demand calculations were derived under the assumption that currently occupied properties would remain occupied at or higher than the existing level into the future.
l Assumption 3: Parking demand is not affected by parking availability, use, location and price.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000 3- 3
Table 3B: Parking Demand and Block Surplus/ Deficit (Westfield Model)
1
2 3 4
5 6
7 8 5. 3,000 I; 200 6,875 10,660 1 9 6 4,500 5; ooo
IO 7
’ 4 1 21,500 1 5,800 1 1,320 I 1 26,350 ] 164 164 164 19
41
12 13 14
30 42 -64 -64 -64 411 449 61 41 41
0 24 -252 -252 -252 96 96 72 72 72 * . __ I
15 25 1 -92 -92 -92 __ _” Y” YY I” 17 27 -33 -33 -33
24 Sq. Ft, 231,272 220,175 19,250 33,005 33,400 30,400 40 1,260 36,400 67,007 4,398 4,646 4,817 362 3,020 3,382 -1,016 -1,264 -1,435 25 , I l_^^_^ i .I I (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) Demands presented in this chart represent the peak daytime demand that will occur during the work week (typically Wednesday at 1 I: 00 am). Special kl contains rhe square footages of buildings such as churches, civic or community use buildings. Future Demand is calculated by assuming 40% x- occupancy of vacant space within 5 years and 80% within 10 years. Re- occupancy is also as! rwd tc be of a mixed nature (offices, apartments or retail) for Westfield Increased future demand for commuter parking is based on the expected growth for the Town of Westfield.
I L Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses
I I
Parking demand and parking need have entirely different meanings. The current and future parking demands, as shown in Table 3B represent the number of parkers who are and would be attracted to a given parking demand generator (i. e. single purpose building, multi- purpose building, group of buildings on a block or an outdoor amenity). Parking demand assumes that all parking is free, and that there are no parking charges, user restrictions, locational factors or time limitations. Parking need represents the number of parkers who need to be accommodated in a given parking area after the uses of alternative parking areas are considered. Price, use, accessibility and location influence parking need. The parking demand and need definitions were obtained from the Urban Land Institute (1983).
I 3.4
- Comparison of Current and Future Parking Supplies and Demands
I I
As mentioned previously, the parking demand has been calculated for the future condition as well. These results are shown in the future demand and surplus/ deficit columns of Tables 3B, which detail the revised square footage of each block and the resulting parking demand using the Rich and Associates model.
Table 3C below, summarizes the results of the current and future number of parking spaces needed using ITE standards and using Rich and Associates factors.
Table 3C: Parking Spaces Demanded per Time Period Parking &aces Demanded
Time Period Current Future (5yr) Future (1Oyr)
I
Rich and Associates, Inc. Institute of Transportation Engineers
Difference
-1,016 -1,264 -1,435
-1,434. -1,683 -1,854 -418 -419 -419
I I
\ L __ I
The above table illustrates that using the ITE factors, an additional 418 or 419 spaces would be required beyond that required by Rich and Associates. The Westfield model is tailored specifically to Westfield’s downtown and the national factors are higher than necessary.
Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000 3- 5
. _.
I I I I
Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses In determining the future parking needs, several important developments within the downtown area were examined. These included the future demand and supply calculations for new office development projects and the impacts of increased parking demand for commuters. The parking demand calculations for these are as follows:
Demand Generator
NJT Terminal New Of& e Buildings
Parkinp Imvact - five vear
1008 (current) + 76 five year additional) 54 (current)+ 54 five year additional)
Summary 1 1062 (current)+ 130 five year additional) 1 I I b I :‘%
The surplus and deficit map on the following page has the current and future parking supply surplus or deficit for each block within the study zones. In calculating the fiveyear future demand, a portion (40%) of any currently vacant space was re- allocated to a mixed- use category in the surplus and demand calculation tables. The ten- year future demand calculation assumed 80% of the vacant space would be reoccupied as a mixeduse. The reason for transferring a portion of the vacant space into a use category is to compensate for the forecast level of economic growth that could be expected in Westfield’s CBD. Additional future considerations include the projects outlined above, as well as the net gain or loss of any parking areas because of these projects.
I I I
I Rich
and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000 3- 6
. _.
I I
Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses 3.5 - Importance of the Zone Analysis Technique
The parking demand shown to this point has been demonstrated with the assumption that parking required on one block could not be met by surplus capacity on any adjacent block. In reality, individuals will often walk several blocks for available or less expensive parking.
Alternatively, the zone analysis technique assumes that the parking supply from a group of blocks, as defined by a zone, can be used to accommodate the parking demand generated from a single block or group of blocks. Application of the zone analysis technique is a more realistic approach to deriving the number of parking spaces needed for a defined geographic area.
The first step in the zone analysis technique is to consider the parking surplus or deficit for the zone. Table 3B demonstrates that there is an anticipated 1,016- space deficit. However, this again only considers the blocks contained within the zone. It is likely that some of the demand for parking is being met by blocks outside the study area boundaries and that consumer preference and price will affect the demand. In order to take into consideration the full effects of supply and demand, it is necessary to compare this building usage inventory to the turnover and occupancy data. In the case of Westfield’s CBD we factor the net parking demand by 77%, which reduces the overall parking demand.
The next consideration when examining parking needed and demanded is the fact that parking that reaches an 85% occupancy is effectively full in the minds of parkers. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the parking supply in this “effective supply” term. Applying the turnover and occupancy factor to the demanded parking supply and the 85% factor to the actual supply, reveals a determinate need for an additional 5 11 parking stalls in downtown Westfield.
Table 3D below shows the calculation to determine the net deficit for the CBD. The factors used are meant to reflect the parking supply and demand characteristics of downtown Westfield. Parking need is calculated by subtracting the factored “parking demand” from the factored “parking supply”.
Table 3D: Factored Demand Vs Supply
Parking
SUPPry
Gross
3,382
Factor
85%
Net
2875
I Demand I 4,398 I 77% I 3386 1 t 1
Parking Need For Entire Study Area
I
-511
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000 3- 8
Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses
I I I i
i
3.6 - Enhanced Demand Area Analysis
In the previous sections, we examined the overall parking demands and needs, and concluded that there was a determinate need for 5 11 parking stalls for the entire study area. This number reflects an overall need not taking into consideration variations in demand within the study area or the effects of charging for parking. In Westfield’s case, there are two distinct user groups and other demand influencing anomalies to take into consideration. The core commercial area (north of North Avenue) has need for additional parking to serve customers, employees and to a certain extent commuters. The area south of North Avenue would primarily serve the needs of commuters to a lesser extent downtown employees, and some short- term parking.
The distinction between the two user groups and the barrier presented by the train tracks significantly splits the study area. As we are examining the possibilities of parking supply solutions in both areas, it is necessary to look more specifically at the level of parking required separately for each area. The overall need for 5 11 spaces does not accurately reflect a more site- specific sizing requirement for parking supply solution scenarios. Therefore, it is necessary to recalculate demand for each sub- area within the overall study area. ._
The technique used to further- refine the need calculation for each sub- area is to apply a spatial/ economic aspect ratio. This involves determining how much parking supply or demand can be applied to an adjacent block and how a charge for parking will effect use and then calculating a surplus or deficit ratio for each block. Table 3El shows the results of the calculations for blocks in the core commercial area north of North Avenue. Table 3E2 sows the results for the area south of the North Avenue.
Table 3E 1: Sub- Zone Demand Analysis
Core Commercial Area North of North Avenue
Block 1 2 4 5
Current Future 19 19 12 12 -65 -65 -13 -14 6 47 44 7 37 37 I I 9 I 46 31 I I
10 -227 -227 1
11 -255 -294 13 -138 -138 14 43 43 Demanded -492 -552 Needed (economic influence) -371 -414
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000
I - Town of Westfield Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses
I I
i
I i
Table 3E 2: Sub- Zone Demand Analysis (con?)
‘Area South of North Avenue
Current Future 1 I I
12 -750 I -935 1 I
15 190 79
16 -6 -9 17 54 54
I
18 -28 -28 19 -74 -74 20 -26 -26
I I I
I
* I
I I
Demanded -640 -939 Needed (economic influence) -384 -563
In the current condition, Rich and Associates has projected a need for about 371 spaces north of North Avenue and a need for about 384 spaces in the area south of North Avenue in the future. These needs are estimated to increase to 414 for the area north of North Avenue and 563 in the area south of North Avenue.
The following is an estimate of the short- term and long- term spaces needed for each scenario.
North of North Ave. South of North Ave.
Current Future
169 short- term / 202 long- term 189 short- term / 225 long- term 69 short- term / 3 15 long- term 69 short- term / 494 long- term
A cursory examination of the need conclusions for the two sub- areas within the study area may seem anomalous since the needed parking numbers are different for the two areas and when combined are larger then the overall study area needed number of 5 11. However, these calculated numbers are determined taking into consideration pricing and distance, and the impacts that these factors have on demand patterns. Therefore, the subarea- needed parking cannot be directly compared to the overall needed number. To build a larger parking supply than recommended for the given sub- area, would result in an underutilized facility. Likewise, to build a smaller than recommended facility would not solve the parking shortage.
I
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Preliminary Report, January 2000 3- 10
. _
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
Section 4 4.0 Site Selection:
One of the tasks for this project is to investigate various sties for a potential parking structure( s). In Chapter 3 of this report, Rich and Associates identified a need for additional parking in two zones using North Avenue as the dividing line. The north includes blocks roughly north of North Avenue and the south includes blocks south of North Avenue. The town had identified five specific sites that were to be included. Rich and Associates added one more site to be reviewed.
Several steps were used to analyze the sites: 1. Obtained site survey and topography where available. 2. Photographed all sites including the surrounding areas. 3. Reviewed with Ed Gottko (Town Manager at the time) historical data for
each site from an engineering perspective. 4. Prepared preliminary concepts on each site. 5. Conducted an Interactive Planning and Design Session with the Parking
Committee. 6 . Completed a decision matrix that scored each site based on pre- selected
criteria in conjunction with the Parking Committee. 7. Reviewed results with Parking Committee.
The drawing on page 4- 2 shows the six sites that were initially analyzed. Every site is on a town parking lot though two of the sites had options that included the acquisition of private property. Four of the sites are in the north zone (north of North Avenue) and two are in the south zone (south of North Avenue). The target capacity for additional parking in the north zone is about 400 net add spaces and the south zone is about 500 net add spaces. Net add spaces are calculated by taking the spaces lost on site for the parking structure form the total capacity.
The following is a brief review of each site. Standard issues that were considered for all of the sites included the effects of light, noise, the perception of safety, vehicle ingress and egress and the impact on the neighborhood.
Lot 8 (Commonly called CITGO Lot)
l Lot 8 was reviewed, however, the width may only allow angle parked modules which would reduce the efficiency.
l Rich and Associates’ recommendation is to keep Lot 8 as a development site and once sold, use some or all of the proceeds to fund the parking system.
(No pros or cons discussed) Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- l
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
Lot 1
Two alternatives were developed for Lot 1, one that used only Lot 1 and the second that ran parallel to Prospect Street using Trader Joe’s parking lot (called Lot 1 Extended). Lot 1 parking structure would have the only access from Prospect unless an easement is obtained through Trader Joe’s lot access from Elm Street. To achieve a capacity of 415 net add spaces, six levels would be required for a finished floor elevation of 53.5 feet. The highest structure near this site is 36 feet tall. Vehicle exiting from the Lot 1 structure would be limited to a left turn only on Prospect Street. Additionally, a signal may be required at the Prospect/ East Broad intersection. There is a large culvert that runs underground through the site that could cause interference with foundations and possibly require a maintenance easement.
Pros cons
l Good location for both parking types (i. e., l Structure must be five supported floors or short and long term parkers) 53.5 feet high in order to get desired
l Town owns the site capacity of 4 15 net add spaces.
l Underground culvert may cause design and construction difficulties and added costs.
Lot 1 Extended (Lot 1 plus Trader Joe’s Loi)
l The site runs parallel to Prospect and would require the acquisition of Trader Joe’s parking lot. Replacement spaces for Trader Joe’s would be provided on the ground floor of the new parking structure. The parking structure would not affect deliveries to Trader Joe’s.
l Two vehicle entry and exits could occur on Prospect Street at each end of the parking structure due to the topography.
l Vehicle entrance and exit from Elm Street would use the entrance and exit to Trader Joe’s and would require an easement.
l To achieve a capacity of 586 net add space, grade and three supported floors (three modules) would be required for a total finished floor height of 32.5 feet.
Pros
l Only grade and three supported floors would be required to achieve desired capacity.
l Good location for short and long term parking.
Cons
l Would require acquisition of property which could take time to accomplish.
l There may be costs with land acquisition.
l The culvert that runs beneath the site may cause difficulties in construction.
m
. i
.. . . ‘-- I
h 4-
-- _.-__, __,__. ._.- ._.__._____.-. --.. -.-. 11 ._
I _,
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
Lot 4
l Due to topography, vehicle ingress and egress could occur from Elm Street and Mountain Avenue.
l Head room on ground floor must accommodate deliver vehicles to the back of the buildings.
l Vehicle access to the rear of buildings on the east side of the site would be limited.
l In order to achieve 412 net add spaces, six levels would be required for a total finished floor height of 53.5 feet.
l The parking structure must take into account the historic cemetery as well as the structure’s affect on the back of the buildings on the site.
Pros cons
l Located close to demand generators l l Good pedestrian access
0
l l
Vehicle ingress and egress to Mountain Avenue will be difficult Truck access to rear of buildings may be restricted During construction, loss of parking spaces on site but more importantly, loss of delivery vehicle access. Height of structure to get net desired add capacity.
Lot 5
l Very small site which causes a less efficient design.
l Vehicle access would be from Elmer Street and Central Avenue.
l Delivery vehicle access to rear of buildings would be’maintained at the same level.
l Parking structure set back from Elmer Street would be required.
l This lot cannot meet the space requirements (only 260 net add spaces with 5.5 levels).
Pros
l Excellent location for short and long term parkers.
l Good vehicle access. COIN
l Very low efficiency of parking structure.
l Could negatively impact deliveries to the rear of buildings.
l Does not meet spaces needed.
Lot 5 Extended
l Structure would run parallel to Elmer Street and would require purchasing the parking lot used by the Bombay Company.
l Delivery would still be allowed at the rear of buildings at same level. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 8
.m.-. I .-.,_,
P 4
b
J .
-----__ 1 5 % / 5 r ----_ -----.__ / -------__/
L _______---_---- 1 i I I- ---__
- -
- - - = =I= =I _~ A__ i__
= =I=- =I
I
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
4 :
/ i
-- s i
_ --__ --_ I
I I I
-. -.. ._ -._ I ’ . .___ -. . I_ L -._
I- I --__ -- --__
-- --_ _i
I -& jfr” I
I LOT 5 SCHEME #2
-* w . Ice
I L- -.
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
u
‘ I L
l In order to generate 367 net add spaces, the structure would require five supported floors for a total finished floor height of 53.5 feet.
Pros
l Excellent location for short and long term parkers. ’
l Good vehicle access.
cons
l May negatively impact deliveries to rear of buildings.
l Would require property acquisition cost.
l Even though more efficient than Lot 5, cannot get required capacity.
Lot 7
l The odd shape of this site would have an effect on the efficiency of the parking structure.
l Excellent location for short and long term parking
l Vehicle ingress and egress could occur from North Avenue and Central.
l The site has high visibility for drivers and pedestrians.
l In order to generate 302 net add spaces, the structure would require four supported floors for a total finished floor height of 43 feet and does not meet the required capacity.
Pros cons
l Parking structure could create a “Gateway” l Low efficiency to the downtown by abandoning Lenox and l Must acquire land to provide a gateway acquiring the triangle block between North project Avenue and Central l Does not meet desired capacity
l High visibility and easy vehicle/ pedestrian access
Lot 9
l The odd shape of this site would affect the efficiency of the parking structure.
l The only vehicle access from the site would be from Lot 2 and Lot 2A.
l The site would not accommodate short term parking well but if long term parking from the north zone was relocated here, this would open up short term parking in the area north of North Avenue.
l In order to achieve 347 net add spaces, the structure would require five supported floors for a total height of 53.5 feet and does not meet the required capacity.
Pros
l Could provide limited short term parking for businesses on North Avenue.
l Highly visible site.
cons
l Does not meet desired capacity.
l Vehicle ingress and egress would make finding the parking structure very difficult.
l Design is not efficient. Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 15
I I I I I I \ _,/‘ i
I
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
Lot 3A
l This site would accommodate long term parking well and some short term parking generated from the South Avenue area.
l A three module parking structure on this site could have a retail frontage on the ground floor, parallel to South Avenue.
l The site is large and the initial structure should be built to the highest recommended height (grade plus three levels) and then could then be expanded horizontally in the future.
l The site can accommodate 439 net add spaces on grade plus three supported levels with 22,700 square feet retail space.
l The total capacity of the parking structure may be limited by the ability to enter and exit the site and the capacity at the signalized intersection at Summit Avenue.
Pros Cons
l Can provide required number of spaces l
and can be expanded in the future.
l Possibility of involving New Jersey Transit. 0
l Would provided needed long term parking but would require re- allocation of parking on the north side of North Avenue to accommodate more short term parkers.
4.1 Decision Matrix
Neighbors on Summit and Boulevard may have concerns regarding height and fagade of building. If the involvement of New Jersey Transit is desirable, this may negatively impact the timeframe for the completion of the structure.
The Parking Committee and Rich and Associates developed criteria and weighting factors prior to completing the decision matrix. Each of the team members scored each site based on the criteria on a one to five basis with one being the lowest (worst) and five being the highest (best). The team members did not have a copy of the weighting for each criteria which may have otherwise influenced their scoring. It was possible for different sites to have the same score for a criteria - team members were not required to use each score.
Rich and Associates completed the scores for criteria 9 and 13 since they ere quantitative and were scored based on the numbers.. The information used to score these two criteria is shown on Table 4A. This table shows for each site:
l Total spaces
l Square foot per car space using town standards
l Total cost using a base on $38 per square foot
l Cost per gross space
l Net added spaces
l Cost per net added space Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 19
< \
\ \
/ /
\ \
\ \
Y \
--~ -7
_, L
L TABLE 4A: EFFICIENCY/ COST SUMMARY
Town of Westtleld
(Total and Net Added Spaces)
Rich Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 4- 20
I -. -.
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
* I i
L
4.2 Analysis
The team compiled scoring are shown on Tables 4B and 4C. Table 4B shows the scoring of the Parking Committee and Table 4C shows the Rich and Associates scoring. The Parking Committee ranked Lot 3A the highest, followed by Lot 1 Extended and Lot 1. Rich and Associates ranked Lot 1 Extended the highest, followed by Lot 3 and Lot 1. The following are differences between the two teams scoring.
Lot 1 Extended - User groups served was a major difference between the two rankings. Rich and Associates based the score on some commuter parking in Lot 1 Extended due to the loss of the Lord and Taylor lots for commuters. Additionally, re- allocation would occur with long term parking on the remaining parking lots in the north zone to increase the number of short term spaces and re- locate long term spaces in Lot 1 Extended.
Lot 3A - Revenue potential, way finding and economic benefits were the key criteria for the differences in the two teams’ scoring. For revenue potential, Rich and Associates ranked Lot 3A lower because of the reduced number of short term spaces. Short term spaces typically generate more revenue per space than long term. Way finding was ranked lower by Rich and Associates because for short term and employee parking, this site would be harder to find. Rich and Associates ranked Lot 3A low on economic benefit unless re- allocation of long term spaces from the north zone could increase the number of short term spaces and thus increase business opportunities.
4.3 Site Analysis Summary
Lot 3A and Lot 1 extended were the two top sites on both teams’ review. There are other issues that affect the course of action to take:
Timing - Land acquisition for Lot 1 extended may increase the overall project schedule. If NJT is involved with Lot 3A, this too may take time.
Space Allocation - The question is “can sufficient short- term spaces be opened up in other parking lots.
Revenue Generation - Ideally the parking structure and parking system together must be self sufficient which may require higher parking rates, including fines over the entire parking system.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 21
_
1
TABLE 4C: SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Town of Westfield Rich and Associates’ Summary
Weight Lot 1 Lot 5 Site ,‘ factor Lot 1 Extended Lot 4 Lot 5 Extended Lot 7 Lot 9 Lot 3
Criteria ::. ;.: ‘.” ::::: .’ 1. Vehicle ingress / Egress
2. Ability of driver to find structure 3. Effects on adjacent properties 4. Revenue potential 5. Pedestrian access and wayfinding :, 3::.: 11 11 10 10 10 15 9 12 :. ,.: 6. Meet goals for needed. spaces 11: .4: 13 19 12 8 9 8 7 20
‘.‘. 7. Economic benefits to area .‘.‘. ,+ I . . 16 16 13 16 16 20 9 9 :.::. : '. '. '. '. ' '. '
B. Effects on back entrances or loading/ unloadinc ‘i~~~~~‘:~ ’ 15 13 4 7 7 16 15 20 ‘. ‘... ’ ‘. .‘.‘.‘. 3. Efficiency of parking structure .’ . .. Yl
:?‘ 4’- 12 16 12 8 16 4 8 20 ::. : 10. Disruption on- site and downtown :. .‘.‘.‘.‘. :..: 2.. g 8 3 5 5 4 4 9 .’ :. ::.
‘.‘.‘.‘.‘. ’ .: 11. Expansion capability of parking structure .:.:.: i:.;.: 9 9 3 3 3 2 2 10 .: .: ;
12. User served: Commuters group I::, 4’: ‘. 15 15 5 7 5 11 15 20 Employees ,3.,. 15 15 14 14 15 14 10 6 .’ Visitor/ Customers .,;;:;_ g 9 8 9 9 10 6 2 ‘. ’ 13. Cost/ net added space ‘4”.: 4 20 8 16 16 12 ,, .‘.‘. 8 6 .‘. ‘. ’ .‘.‘.‘. ’ 14. Score Summary ‘..” .‘.‘. .’ 172 194 121 133 141 159 128 177
Rich and Associates, inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000
A A A
4- 23
_.
I. TABLE 4B: SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
Town of Westfield Committee Summary
Weigh!.:. Lot 1 Lot 5
Site ::: ii+ tG Lot 1 Extended Lot 4 Lot 5 Extended Lot 7 Lot 9 Lot 3
Criteria ‘, ’ :. :. .‘.‘. ‘.‘.‘.‘.~.:.:., ,’ ‘,‘. ’ .‘.
1. Vehicle Ingress / Egress : :2;.: a 8 4 8 8 4 2 ‘.‘. 10 ., ; .I. ,‘, ’ .‘.‘. 2. Ability of driver to find structure ;, 2 6 6 5 6 6 9 8 7 :. 3. Effects on adjacent properties : ., .i’:: i:. g 9 9 8 8 a 9 12 ‘.
..: 4. Revenue potential ‘. ‘+.‘.‘. 17 16 11 13 13 15 11 17
5. Pedestrian access and wayfinding :; i, j:‘;‘:. .‘,:. ,’ 12 42 10 11 11 13 8 7 ,..
5. Meet goals for spaces needed. .’ 4 15 19 13, 8 12 5 7 20 7. Economic benefits to area 4 18 18 14 13 14 14 11 19 3. Effects on back entrances or loading/ unloadinc .4 15 15 7 11 10 15 15 19 3. Efficiency of parking structure 4 ‘. .’ 12 16 12 8 16 4 8 20 10. Disruption on- site and downtown .‘ i:,, 6 5 4 5 5 4 6 6 11. Expansion capability of parking structure 2 7 5 2 5 3 2 3 9 12. User served: Commuters group 4 9 9 6 6 6 11 15 20
Employees j’. 11 11 12 11 11 10 10 8 Visitor/ Customers ,:, 2,:) 8 7 7 8 8 9 4 3 .’ . . . 13. Cost/ net added space 4 4 20 8 16 16 12 8 20 14. Score Summary 156 176 125 135 145 134 125 196
Rich and Associates, inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000
A A 4- 22
A
-. Town
of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
~ /
~
Aesthetics - Both sites have challenges with aesthetics that can be overcome with a good design and by involving the community in the process.
Based on the above, Rich and Associates recommends pursuing Lot 3A as the prime parking structure, with the idea in mind for a second parking structure if needed, would be located on Lot 1 extended.
4.4 Lot 3A and Lot 1 Extended Cost Estimate
For this next phase, Rich and Associates prepared more detailed drawings for the two sites. This analysis resulted in a more refined space count and area. The cost estimates used unit costs for building systems, as well as some soft costs. The two cost estimates are found on pages 4- 25 and 4- 26. Of note are the two contingencies, design (line 30) at 3% of the hard cost (Line 28) and construction (line 3 1) at 6%.
The cost estimate for Lot 3A has the ground floor retail/ office space included, but the only costs are the waterprooting on the parking level above the space and the slab on grade. Added costs for any masonry walls, sprinklering, glass curtain wall have not been included. Based on the final plan for this space and on how it is to be developed, the costs could range from $681,000 to $1,135,000.
For Lot 3A we have estimated a construction cost of $10,088,825 for 743 (539 spaces net add) and 22,700 square feet of retail/ office space. This equates to $13,578 per space. The structure on Lot 1A extended would contain 740 spaces (471 spaces net add) and has an estimated construction cost of $9,376,751. This equates to $12,671 per space.
Both cost estimates have budget a specific line for the facade. The facade allowance makes up over $1,000 of the per space cost for both sites.
4.5 Project and Finance Cost for Lot 3A
Rich and Associates ran project and finance cost estimates for Lot 3A only. For the initial run, we used no equity, but then made runs at $500,000 and $1 ,OOO, OOO in equity. The charts are read as follows:
Line 1: Construction Cost - comes from estimates made Line 2: Professional Fees - estimate of all design fees and reimbursed expenses. Line 3: Geotech & Survey - estimate of soils testing and survey that will be required. Line 4: Legal -will be required for contracts, etc. Line 5: Equity - various levels at $0, $500,000 and $1 ,OOO, OOO which would reduce
the amount to be funded. Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 24
Cify of Wesffield Table 40: Parking Structure Preliminary
Site 3A (Retail Provisions)
SLAB ON GRADE: 61,760 sq. ft. SUPPORTED AREA: 212,880 sq. ft.
Cost Estimate
743 cars TOTAL AREA: 274,640 sq. ft. 370 sq. ft./ car i::: j: j: l: 1: i: l: j: j: j::::::::::::::::::.:.:.;.::;::::.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:...:.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........... :.. .,... ,.........,..,.........................., iijj::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. _........_.,,,, :,.,.,.,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . :.:::::.:.:.:. ..,._._...... .,.. :;: j:;:::::::;:.:::;::::: :,:,:.:,. ;.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::. ,...,...,..:_:.:.:,:.~,., .:.:_:.:.:.....: (.,. .:.:.:. .: .(.,_,.,.,.,.,.,. :.:.:.:.:.:.: .,.,.,.,.,.,.. :::.::::::::::.:,:,:.:,:,::: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
LANDSCAPE 1 $100,000 lump sum SITEWORK 1 $50,000 lump sum EARTHWORK( EXCAV. & FILL) 4200 c. y. $10.00 1c. y. FOUNDATIONS (ASSUMED SPREADS) 274,640 sq. ft. $3.00 lsq. ft. UTILITIES (Tie- In) 1 $75,000 lump sum RETAINING WALLS 4,740 sq. ft. $20.00 lsq. ft. C. I. P. SLAB ON GRADE 61,760 sq. ft. $4.00 lsq. ft. PRECAST INCLUDING TOWERS 212,880 sq. ft. $20.00 lsq. ft. ARCHITECTURAL FACADE 274,640 sq. ft. $3.00 isq. ft. TOWER GLAZING 3,840 sq. ft. $30.00 lsq. ft. TOWER ROOFING 2 $5,000.00 ea ELEVATOR( HYDRAULIC) 2 $85,000.00 ea PARKING STALL PAINT 743 cars $10.00 lcar FLOOR SEALER 212,880 sq. ft. $25 lsq. ft. SEALANTS AND CAULKING 274,640 sq. ft. $. 50 lsq. it
WATERPROOF WEARING SURFACE 38,337 sq. ft. $2.50 lsq. ft.
MASONRY (BLOCK ) 1 $30,000 lump sum MISC. PAINT 274,640 sq. ft. $. 30 lsq. it.
SIGNAGE 743 cars $50.00 /car DOORS & HARDWARE 1 $25,090 lump sum MECHANICAL 274,640 sq. ft. $. 75 Isq. ft.
FIRE PROTECTION (DRY) 274,640 sq. ft. $. 25 lsq. ft. PARKING CONTROL 1 $125,000 lump sum ELECTRICAL (NO SECURITY SYSTEM) 274,640 sq. ft. $1.25 Isq. ft. MISC. METALS 274,640 sq. it. $. 80 lsq. ft.
$100,000
$433,710 $50,000 $42,000 $823,920
$75,000 $94,800 $247,040 $4,257,600
$823,920 $115,200
$10,000 $170,000
$7,430 $53,220 $137,320
$95,843 $30,000 $82,392 $37,150 $25,000 $205,980
$68,660 $125,000 $343,300 $219,712
$0.36 $1.58
$0.18 $0.15 $3.00 $0.27 $0.35 $0.90 $15.50
$3.00 $0.42 $0.04 $0.62 $0.03 $0.19 $0.50 $0.35 $0.11
$0.30 $0.14 $0.09 $0.75 $0.25 $0.46 $1.25 $0.80
$584 $135
$67 $57 $1,109
$101 $128 $332 $5,730 $1,109
$155 $13 $229
$10
$72
$185 $129
$40 $111
$50 $34 $277
$92 $168 $462 $296
SUBTOTAL $8,674,196 CONTINGENCY (DESIGN PHASE) 3.000% $8,674,196 CONTINGENCY (CONSTRUCTION ) 6.000% $8,934,422
TESTING 1 $40,000 BOND 1% $9,986,012
SUBTOTAL G. C. OVERHEAD & PROFIT 5.00% $9,510,487.53
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $260,226
$536,065 $40,000 $99,860
$29.64 $0.95 $1.95 $0.15 $0.36
$11,675 $350 $721
$54 $134
Rich and Associates Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 4- 25
City of Westfie/ d Table 4E: Parking Structure Preliminary Cost Estimate
Site 1
SLAB ON GRADE: 64,175 sq. ft. SUPPORTED AREA: 198,750 sq. ft.
740 cars TOTAL AREA: 262,925 sq. ft. 355 sq. ft./ car i; i; i; iiii: i::: :,:,:.:,:.:.:.:. :_:.:. . .__,.___ ,‘;_~:‘:‘:~:~: : ....: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.:.:.::_:_ j .,__._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i: i: i: i: i: i: f:::::::::::::::::::__: .,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . .. I......._._._..._.._. _, : : . . . . . . . . .._._..... :.:.:.:.::;:;:;:;:;:~:;:;:.:::.:.:.: .,.,: ,:.:_._:,., . . . . . . . :.:_:_:.:.:.::::::::: .:.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iiiiiij. I. i.....~ :.:::,:,:,:,:,:,:,:_:,~ : : . :~ U~~; ilr. l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GENERAL CONDITIONS $407,137 1
2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18
19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29 30 31
32 33 34
35 36 37 38
39 LANDSCAPE
SITEWORK EARTHWORK( EXCAV. & FILL) FOUNDATIONS (ASSUMED SPREADS) UTILITIES (Tie- In) RETAINING WALLS C. I. P. SLAB ON GRADE PRECAST INCLUDING TOWERS ARCHITECTURAL FACADE TOWER GLAZING TOWER ROOFING ELEVATOR( HYDRAULIC) PARKING STALL PAINT FLOOR SEALER SEALANTS AND CAULKING WATERPROOF WEARING SURFACE MASONRY (BLOCK ) MISC. PAINT SIGNAGE DOORS & HARDWARE MECHANICAL FIRE PROTECTION (DRY) PARKING CONTROL ELECTRICAL (NO SECURITY SYSTEM) MISC. METALS
1 1
2200 c. y. 262,925 sq. ft. 1 2,970 sq. ft. 64,175 sq. ft. 198,750 sq. ft. 262,925 sq. ft. 4,400 sq. ft.
$1.55 n L 2 740 cars
198,750 sq. ft. 262,925 sq. ft. 8,640 sq. ft. 1 262,925 sq. ft. 740 cars 1 262,925 sq. ft. 262,925 sq. ft. 1 262,925 sq. ft. 262,925 sq. ft.
$100,000 lump sum $100,000
$50,000 lump sum $50,000 $10.00 1c. y. $22,000 $3.00 Isq. ft. $788,775 $75,000 lump sum $75,000 $20.00 lsq. ft. $59,400 $4.00 lsq. ft. $256,700 $20.00 Isq. ft. !§ 3,975,000 $3.00 Isq. ft. $788,775 $30.00 lsq. ft. $132,000 $5,000.00 ea $10,000 $85,000.00 ea $170,000 $10.00 /car $7,400 $25 lsq. it. $49,688 $50 lsq. ft. $131,463 $2.50 lsq. ft. $21,600 $30,000 lump sum $30,000 $. 30 lsq. ft. $78,878 $50.00 /car $37,000 $25,000 lump sum $25,000 $75 Isq. ft. $197,194 $. 25 lsq. ft. $65,731 $125,000 lump sum $125,000 $1.25 lsq. ft. $328,656 $80 lsq. ft. $210,340
$0.38 $0.19 $0.08 $3.00 $0.29 $0.23
$0.98 $15.12
$3.00 $0.50 $0.04 $0.65 $0.03 $0.19 $0.50 $0.08 $0.11 $0.30
$0.14 $0.10 $0.75 $0.25 $0.48 $1.25 $0.80
$550 $135
$68 $30 $1,066
$101 $80 $347 $5,372 $1,066
$178 $14 $230
$10 $67 $178
$29 $41 $107
$50 $34 $266
$89 $169 $444 $284
SUBTOTAL $8,142,736 $29.04 $11,004 CONTINGENCY (DESIGN PHASE) 3.000% $8,142,736 CONTINGENCY (CONSTRUCTION ) 6.000% $8,387,018
TESTING 1 $40,000 BOND 1% $9,376,751
SUBTOTAL $244,282
$503,221 $40,000 $93,768
$0.93 $1.91 $0.15 $0.36
$330 $680
$54 $127
G. C. OVERHEAD & PROFIT 5.00% $8,930,238.64 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
$8,930,239 $33.96 $12,068 $446,512 $1.70 $603 ~@$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...... ‘~~~‘~ 5r”“““$ 3~~~“““$~~~~~~ : .; i:.,:,:~..,~ ::. _:.: j: j: j:::. ..: ,...,._ _.:: j:::. .:,., .a.. j j:, i::
Rich and Associates Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February 2000 4- 26
u J c I cARcaJN. rn
0 r I
I LEVELS
SEGONQ E THIRD POURTH TOTAL5
----- A
I
.--- + ~ ,. _I ‘- ‘”
.^. ___ I.. ., . . . . . .
I ._. ..,. . ^. ,-
- _ ,, .-_, -,.”
t
,_ ..,. ,./,* I _,. ..,. *.* l*,.*;^ .‘. m.* w. ,.. ,, ^,“. I . ”
.I. ..- - - ,, “. . ,. ., 1 -. ,. _ _ I
I ,, --_ 1, ,,., _,
>” - - i
4- 28
I .- - _
t ~,
.., . ._ _,. 1 -, .* , ,. .hI_. . . . .. I . ., *,., I ,, .““.* .
I ,... - - - t - ,”
I ‘^ I - - - f
ic
TABLE 4F: TOWN OF WESTFIELD PARKING STRUCTURE ON LOT 3A PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS WlDSR AND $1,000,000 IN EQUITY
1 Construction Cost 2 PrOfeSSiOtlal Fees (Architectural/ Engineering 8 Reimbursed) 3 Geotech and Survey 4 Legal 5 Equity
$10,088,825 $805,000
$30,000 $25,000
7 Financing Term 20 Years 8 Interest Rate 5.75 % 9 Term of Construction
Financina Costs
15 Months
10 Interest During Construction
11 Interest Income 12 Legal & Accounting Fees 13 Debt Service Reserve 14 Financing Fees (Points) 15 COST OF ISSUANCE
$841,000 40% @ 5% ($ 293,000)
@ 1.00% $117,000 $1 ,ooo, ooo Q 2.00% $234,000 @ 0.50% $59,000
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February 2000
I i
TABLE 46: TOWN OF WESTFIELD PARKING STRUCTURE ON LOT 3A PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS WlDSR AND $500,000 IN EQUITY
1 Construction Cost $10,088,825 2 PrOfeSSiOtlZtl Fees (Architectural/ Engineering 8 Reimbursed) $605,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Legal $25,000 5 Equity ($ 500,000)
1 ..:‘: I: 6, Prdj~ ct: G~ osf. td Ibe,~ iira’ncaa: l:,::.:,::::::::~.,:,. :,:,:,:,:::.:,: I: I::: I: I:::,‘:,, :,,::::., I: .,:::~::::,:,:,:.:.:.~.: : :.:_ 1: 1_:::::: 1: 1.::::~~:~;~~~,~ 25 1,‘. . . ‘1
7 Financing Term 20 Years 8 Interest Rate 5.75 % 9 Term of Construction 15 Months
Financinn Costs 10 Interest During Construction
11 Interest Income 12 Legal &Accounting Fees 13 Debt Service Reserve 14 Financing Fees (Points) 15 COST OF ISSUANCE
$885,000 40% @ 5% ($ 308,000)
@ 1.00% $123,000 $1,051,000
$246,000 $62,000 @ 2.00%
@ 0.50% Rich and Associoates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February 2000 4- 31
-
5 Y
.u Y ‘IL1
TABLE 4H: TOWN OF WESTFIELD PARKING STRUCTURE ON LOT 3A PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS WlDSR AND NO EQUITY
1 Construction Cost $10,088,825 2 PrOfeSSiOnal Fees (Architectural/ Engineering 8 Reimbursed) $605,000
3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Legal $25,000
5 Equity $0 1 6 Project Cost to be Financed :: $19;% 48,825.. ‘, I
7 Financing Term 20 Years
8 Interest Rate 5.75 % 9 Term of Construction 15 Months
Financing Costs Interest During Construction IO
11
12 13
14 15
Interest Income Legal & Accounting Fees Debt Service Reserve
Financing Fees (Points) COST OF ISSUANCE
40% @ 5% Q 1.00%
@ 2.00% @ 0.50%
:: is : ‘,‘.. .:::, :.: ;;.: x ‘,, ,‘,‘, ; : 1.
Tot; i! Fitigjtqgr$ o# s ,” “: ’ $24 69,686 :
.. I7 + Project Cost to Be Financed ,‘. . . . . ‘. ” -, I8 ., ,.; ::, Total Amount of Bonds ... .’ ‘. .,..:. iS ,. 1’
“,‘~,:::::. ?: I.,;: ‘. ‘: I~ D~ p$ Senricd . . : .,:. .:.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February 2000
$928,000
($ 323,000) $129,000 $1 ,I 03,000
$258,000 $65,000
4- 32
u i
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations Line 6: Line 7: Line 8: Line 9: LinelO:
Lien 11: Line 12: Line 13:
Line 14: Line 15:
Line 16: Line 17: Line 18: Line 19:
Project Cost to be Financed. Term - 20 years, which is typical for a project like this. Interest Rate - 5.75%, we also ran from 5.50% to 6.50 % at .25% increments. Term of Construction - 15 months, which includes the retail/ office component. Interest During Construction - is the interest expense on the bond proceeds which are drawn down all at one time.
Interest Income - is the interest income on the bond proceeds. Legal and Accounting - fees at 1% of bond amount. Debt Service Reserve - one years principal and interest is prefunded in this sinking fund.
Financing Fees - at 2% of the bond amount. Cost of Insurance - at .5% of bond proceeds covers miscellaneous expenses and consultants.
Total Finance Cost. Project Cost to be Financed. Total Amount of Bonds Debt Service - one year principal and interest.
The debt service payments as they relate to the amount of equity is shown below:
Equitv Debt Service $0 $1,103,000 $500,000 $1,051,000 $1 ,ooo, ooo $1 ,ooo, ooo
4.6 Parking Reallocation
The decision on Lot 3A as the prime site was predicated on changes being made to parking allocation. Parking allocation refers to the number of short- term meters, longterm meters and permit spaces in each lot. Placing a parking structure on Lot 3A means that some of the employee/ commuter parking in the zone north of North Avenue must be relocated to Lot 3A.
Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 33
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
I L I I I
I I
I
* I 4
I I
I
pi
I :
I -
I 1: L
The following chart shows our recommendation for reallocation. Off- street there are 3 87 short- term and 92 1 long- term town controlled spaces. With our projected changes the town lot short- term spaces would increase to 534 spaces, which would mean that almost 150 short- term spaces would be opened up in Lots 1,2,4 and 8. The 147 long- term spaces would be relocated in the plan to the parking structure on Lot 3A.
Town of Westfield
Parking Reallocation
Current Spaces Projected Short- Term
Short- Term Loner- Tern Short- Term Long- Tern Chances
Lot 1 60 spaces 62 spaces 97 spaces 25 spaces + 37 spaces Lot 2 64 spaces 29 spaces 93 spaces 0 spaces + 29 spaces Lot 3 24 spaces 0 spaces 24 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces Lot 3A 0 spaces 5 10 spaces 0 spaces 326 spaces(‘) 0 spacesC2) Lot 4 70 spaces 70 spaces 110 spaces 30 spaces + 40 spaces Lot 5 87 spaces 25 spaces 87 spaces 25 spaces 0 spaces Lot 7 63 spaces 0 spaces 63 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces ‘Lot 8 19 spaces 66 spaces 60 spaces 25 spaces + 41 spaces Lot 9 0 maces 159 maces 0 maces 159 maces 0 maces
Total 387 spaces 921 spaces 534 spaces 590 spaces +147 spaces (I) Lose 184 spaces to parking structure footprint. (2) AN short- term (hourly) spaces in parking structure.
4.7 Revenue Projections
Rich and Associates’ projected revenue for the Lot 3A parking structure, the existing town parking lots, on- street meters and fines. The following are assumptions for the revenue projections.
l All metered hourly parking will increase from 25 Q per hour to 5OQ per hour.
l Permit spaces will be limited north of North Avenue and will be priced at a premium; $60 per month up from $30 per month.
Rich and Associates, Inc. -Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 34
I -
Town of Westfield Section 4: Site Recommendations
I I I
l Permits south of North Avenue will be increased from $30 per month to $40 per month.
l Parking fines for overtime and meter violation will increase to $15 from $10. Based on the above, revenue projections were made for the Town lots, fines and the new parking structure. We estimated the operating expenses for the Town existing parking operation and did not include any added revenue or expenses that are included in the recommendation in Section 5. The operating expenses for the existing Tow parking were based on the number of spaces, type of control and level of enforcement.
The revenue and expenses for the proposed parking structure made certain assumptions about usage. For short- term parking (meters) we started with a two hour average stay (which was similar to the other metered short- term parking). We then assumed a turnover rate of 1.5 times the first year and built it up to 2.5 times in year three. Turnover in this case assumes the number of times vehicles use a space each day. For the permits we started the occupancy at 80% the first year, 90% the second year, 100% the third year and 1.15 the fourth year. Expenses for the parking structure assumed all maintenance, utilities and enforcement/ security.
The following are assumptions for the revenue and expense projections: Short- term parking - two hour average stay and turnover of 2.5 times. Long -term - 15% oversell Rates will be increased every three years by +lO%. Parking must be diligently enforced to insure parking reallocation and that revenue is generated. Fuel prices will remain stable and supplies will not be cut. The economic condition in Westfield will stay the same. NJT ridership will not decrease at this station. Enforcement persons in the new parking structure and remainder of Lot 3A will also do security. Operating expenses will increase 5% per annum.
A pro forma was prepared for the Town’s parking that included all revenues and interest income on the debt service reserve and deposited revenue throughout the year. Two options were run, $l, OOO, OOO equity and no equity.
Both options show losses in the first three years which is typical for a new parking structure/ system.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report - February, 2000 4- 35
I - 5.1- Operational Recommendation
I I
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations Section 5
In Section 4 of the report contains parking recommendations, which are intended to enhance the parking system of downtown Westfield. The recommendations on the following page summarize the recommendations Rich and Associates is proposing.
Following our fieldwork and our analysis of the Town parking, Rich and Associates found that some modifications and enhancements would be necessary to bring the system up to its full potential and to help insure the potential viability of a parking structure in the town. Recommendations have been developed for several categories, which are:
A. Meters and Fines B. Enforcement c. Marketing D. Signage E. Space Allocation F. Management G. Shuttle System for Employees
The Town of Westfield has many unique characteristics, which present more challenges than opportunities for the development of an efficient and practical parking system. Some of the challenges present in Westfield include the historic nature of the downtown, the relatively small percentage of private parking versus Town parking that is provided, and the presence of regional or national retailers who have located themselves in Westfield.
Currently, the Tow- n provides slightly more than 50% of the parking available in the Town. While this is a desirable situation for a downtown and not entirely uncommon in an urbanized area, it does provide challenges when the economic or revenues are not available to finance the supplying of parking. A major consideration in the planning for additional parking in Westfield and in the overall operation is the north, south dichotomy that appears to be present. Typically, there appears to be a natural break between north and south at the railroad tracks.
Another important component in Westfield that is not found in other communities is the presence of the rail station and commuter parking. In many instances we would have expected that the commuter would also provide a source of customer/ visitors to surrounding businesses. While the study did not attempt to determine the amount of utilization or length of trips, the perception is that this did not occur to a great extent. Commuter parking can be both a benefit and a deterrent to a downtom, especially as it relates to parking. Though we feel based upon the recommendations and plans proposed that this challenge should be managed. Specifically, the recommendations assume that a parking structure is to be constructed on Lot 3A with the plans for a second parking structure in the future to be located on Lot 1, preferably the extended option over Trader Joe’s parking lot.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- l
__
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
I I ‘
Operational Recommendations Summary Blank until final report.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 2
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
A. Meters and Fines:
The Town of Westfield has parking meters both on- street and in surface parking lots. For the most part there are both short- term and long- term meters in parking lots and short- term meters on the street. For the existing system the on- street meter locations are well suited to Westfield, with one exception. The one two- hour meter at the end of each of the following blocks should be converted to one- hour. This would allow for visitors who are making quick trips into or out of a business or businesses to find a short- term parking space at the end of each of the blocks, while other meters would remain two- hours as currently designated.
1. East Broad (both sides) between Prospect and Elm 2. Elm (both sides) at southeast end near East Broad. 3. Broad (both sides) between Elm and Mountain. 4. Elm (both sides) between Board and North Avenue. 5. Quimby (both sides) between Central and Elm.
For the off- street meters, they consist of two- hour meters for short- term and then varying length of stay for long- term meters. As part of the reallocation program for the parking lots in the north zone, Rich and Associates has recommended that these long- term meters be converted to two- hour meters with (in some lots additional two- hour meters would be required) and that permit spaces only be allowed in the designated parking lots. In addition to these changes, we strongly recommend color coding meters by meter type. This would be simplitied with the reduction of the long- term meters in the surface parking lots, but will be key when the recommendation is implemented to put one- hour meters at the end of the block faces.
Recommendation Summarv:
A. 1 Change two- hour meters at the end of each block as designated to one- hour meters.
Action Time: Immediate.
Financial Impact: To change meters from two- hour to one- hour, approximately $2,000 in cost.
A. 2
Revenue Impact: No affect on revenue. Meter color coding. We would also recommend that a color coded scheme along with the appropriate signage be implemented. With the color coding parking meter would be in accord with the time limit of the meter, the parker would be able to familiarize himself with the maximum allowable duration of a parking stall more readily.
Action Time: For on- street immediately, for lots when changes are made.
Financial Impact: Approximately $10 per meter or $3,620. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 3
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
_
B. Enforcement
Adequate and proper enforcement is the most important element in a successful parking system. The Town’s residents, employees, merchants and officials should know the objectives of the enforcement policies and the level of enforcement should be fair and consistent. A review of Westfield’s enforcement found that there are several problems that need to be addressed with the proposed changes to the parking system to accommodate the success of a new parking structure. Two parking officers are generally assigned to the area. It is the enforcement staffs responsibility for overtime and expired meters, as well as enforcing parking meters and all other on- street and off- street regulations. The Violations Bureau identified there are possibly 50 tickets written per day which to our understanding would be 25 tickets per enforcement officer. Based on the number of tickets written per officer in other communities, this represents a low end of the range. The range consisted of a low of 11 tickets per officer per day to a high of 57 tickets per officer per day.
Rich and Associates, during the turnover and occupancy counts, noted numerous violations of two- hour metered spaces where meter feeding was occurring. Whether these infractions are being overlooked by enforcement officers or not, it was difficult to determine. Considering the size of the area that is to be covered, a general rule of thumb is that one enforcement officer can generally cover 800 spaces per day, depending on the geographic conditions and the weather. The use of vacation, sick and personal days, sometimes leaves only one officer on duty at a time and there are no substitute officers.
Rich and Associates’ strongly recommends that parking enforcement be taken out of the Police Department and moved to the Parking Department to be formed and/ or a Parking Authority. Two full- time officers are needed in the current parking system with the addition of the proposed parking structure, three enforcement officers will be required. This has already been taken into account in the budget of operating expenses for a new parking structure. At a minimum three ticket writers are needed with the appropriate software and computer if one is not available. Ticket writers will allow enforcement officers to more quickly write a ticket, complete turnover plates as opposed to chalking tires, and will allow them to download ticket information into a P. C. The ticket writers will also give the Parking Department/ Parking Authority the ability to review areas of particular problems, and to change the pattern of enforcement on the blocks.
I :,
Additionally, routes for the enforcement officers should be randomly selected so that an officer does not do the same route every week throughout the year. Routes should be switched so that parking violators are not able to defeat the print of the ticket by watching
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 4
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
I the
pattern of enforcement or the individual enforcement officer’s familiarity with that individual.
I Recommendation
Summary
I I LI
I -
. . , I
I -
B. 1 Move enforcement officers to Parking Department.
Action Time: Immediate
Financial Impact: None
Revenue Impact: Revenue from tickets could increase from $12,500 to $20,000 with this change.
B. 2 Purchase of ticket writers.
Action Time: Immediate
Financial Impact: Cost of ticket writers with a charging station, software and P. C. approximately $20,000.
Revenue Impact: Included in B. 1 above.
C. Marketing
Rich and Associates reviewed the marketing of parking in Westfield and for the most part found that this role has been taken on by the downtown Westfield Corporation. In our opinion the marketing of parking, it has been well done, but we would like to see a budget and a line item in the operating expenses in the parking system to help fund some of that marketing. It is recommended that approximately $5,000 be set aside to go for flyers and advertisements above and beyond what special public relations would be necessary during the construction of a parking structure on Lot 3A.
I L
D. Signage
I I
L
I I I
Recommendations for signage and amenities are intended to update what is already in place in the Town of Westfield. Rich and Associates’ review of the current signage program in Westfield determined that the signs are well designed and well placed with respect to parking. To review there are four types of signs that increases a drivers’ wayfinding experience and should be used in an urban area.
Introduction: Introduction parking signage alerts drivers approaching the downtown of the locations of the publicly owned, off- street parking lots. This type of signage is distinctive in color and size, and it can be characterized by unique logos. The signs display the names of the off- street parking lots
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 5
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
i ;,, T
Directional: Locational: Identification:
and the names of their streets. The signs are located on the street, and are mounted on poles of standard heights.
Directional- parking signage is distinct in color, size and logo and directs drivers to off- street parking areas. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights, on the streets.
Parking locational signage complements the directional parking signage. The signs have arrows pointing to the off- street lots. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights and located on street.
Identification signage is placed at the entry of each parking lot. The name of the parking area is identified and the type of parking available at the parking area is listed on the signage. The identification signage is distinctive in color and size, and it is located on a pole at a lower height.
Rich and Associates’ only recommendation with respect to the Town’s signage is that identifications signs for each of the parking lots be placed at the entries of the parking areas to alert the driver to the name or number of the parking lot and type of parking used in that lot. The signs on the following page show an example of Introduction, Identification and Locational signs for other communities.
Recommendation Summary
D. l Identification signs.
Action Time: Immediate
Financial Impact: Signage for 10 of the parking lots would be approximately $30,000, including the production and installation of the sign.
Revenue Impact: None
Rich
and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 6
L .:.. I,
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations Wayfinding hpoduction Identification Locational Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000 5- 7
I -
I - E. l
I
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
E. Space Allocation
In section 4.6 Rich and Associates discussed the reallocation of parking in order to accomplish the goals of providing additional short- term parking in the area north of North Avenue and to control long- term parking throughout the town.
In addition to the identification signage mentioned above, parking meters will be changed and added to Lots 1,4 and 8. The changes and additions to parking meters can be accomplished in two time frames using two different strategies. The first strategy would be to make the changes in space allocation now increase the meter and parking permit rates, understanding that approximately 250 spaces will be lost to Lot 3A during the construction of the parking structure. The second, is to hold off on the changes of reallocation of parking lots and spaces and to put into effect the rate increase and the reallocation of parking after the parking structure on Lot 3A is completed.
Based upon the current information, Rich and Associates’ recommendation is to hold off on the parking reallocation and parking rate increase until such time that the parking structure on Lot 3A is completed.
Recommendation Summary Reallocation of parking i. e. meter changes. Action Time: After completion of the parking structure on Lot 3A
Financial Impact: The cost of changing 147 meters or the addition of some meters to make up the total is estimated to cost approximately $38,000.
Revenue Impact: The revenue impact for these additional short- term meters, the increase in permit rate and the reallocation of parking has been included in the pro forma.
I - F. Management
In the Town of Westfield there is no direct management or control of parking. Generally, in smaller communities this tends to be the operating strategy. In the Town of Westfield though, considering the number of parking spaces and the plans for future additions to parking, this method of operation will not provide a smooth operation for the parking system. For the short- term we feel that parking needs to be assigned to someone in Town Hall. This Town staff person would have the following responsibilities.
1. Keep track of permit spaces, oversell and waiting list. 2. Oversee enforcement: Meter collection and repair (either hire someone to collect and
repair meters or contract this service). Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 8
I - E. l
I
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations
E. Space Allocation
In section 4.6 Rich and Associates discussed the reallocation of parking in order to accomplish the goals of providing additional short- term parking in the area north of North Avenue and to control long- term parking throughout the town.
In addition to the identification signage mentioned above, parking meters will be changed and added to Lots 1,4 and 8. The changes and additions to parking meters can be accomplished in two time frames using two different strategies. The first strategy would be to make the changes in space allocation now increase the meter and parking permit rates, understanding that approximately 250 spaces will be lost to Lot 3A during the construction of the parking structure. The second, is to hold off on the changes of reallocation of parking lots and spaces and to put into effect the rate increase and the reallocation of parking after the parking structure on Lot 3A is completed.
Based upon the current information, Rich and Associates’ recommendation is to hold off on the parking reallocation and parking rate increase until such time that the parking structure on Lot 3A is completed.
Recommendation Summary Reallocation of parking i. e. meter changes. Action Time: After completion of the parking structure on Lot 3A
Financial Impact: The cost of changing 147 meters or the addition of some meters to make up the total is estimated to cost approximately $38,000.
Revenue Impact: The revenue impact for these additional short- term meters, the increase in permit rate and the reallocation of parking has been included in the pro forma.
I - F. Management
In the Town of Westfield there is no direct management or control of parking. Generally, in smaller communities this tends to be the operating strategy. In the Town of Westfield though, considering the number of parking spaces and the plans for future additions to parking, this method of operation will not provide a smooth operation for the parking system. For the short- term we feel that parking needs to be assigned to someone in Town Hall. This Town staff person would have the following responsibilities.
1. Keep track of permit spaces, oversell and waiting list. 2. Oversee enforcement: Meter collection and repair (either hire someone to collect and
repair meters or contract this service). Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 8
I _ I I
I 7
I
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations 3. Track revenue by location by day/ week. 4. Chair Parking Committee meetings.
A mid- term goal for the operation of parking would be the establishment of a Parking Authority with a full- time manager or executive director. This may also assist in the financing and development of a parking structure on Lot 3A and any future parking development. The Parking Authority would oversee all parking operations including. parking enforcement and all financial matters. Generally, the Board of Directors of the Parking Authority would contain members of Town Council, as well as residents from the Town.
The final aspect of the management is the operation and control of the existing parking lots. As discussed earlier, the parking lots are run with either parking meters, or combination of meters and permits. One suggestion has been to operate the parking lot with a cashier. This would involve the parker pulling a ticket on the inbound and paying on exit of the lot. In general, this strategy of operating a parking lot or structure, tends to maximize the amount of revenue because the parker actually pays for the time actually used, though an argument can be made that if a person puts in enough money into a meter for two- hour parking and only stays one- hour there is an additional hour of parking that has not been used. This assumes another vehicle does not pull into that spot and use that time.
In a review of the parking lots in the Town of Westfield, the operating strategy of a cashier with a ticket in and ticket out will increase the operating cost substantially. In addition, excluding lot 3A the largest surface parking lot only contains 140 spaces. In general, this capacity is well below the limit we would recommend this type of operation. The typical operating cost for a parking lot assuming one cashier from 8: 00 AM to 5: 00 PM could run as high as $35,400 per year in operating costs. Therefore, it is the recommendation of Rich and Associates not to proceed with this type of management.
Recommendation Summary
F. l Assign a Town Staff person to oversee parking.
Action Time: Immediate
Physical Impact: This position would probably require no more than 8 to 16 hours per week of time, though the initial start up of that assignment may involve more learning time, 4 to 8 weeks.
Revenue Impact: None
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
5- 9
I- I I _
Town of Westfield Section 5: Recommendations F. 2 Parking Authority.
Action Time: Mid- term goal either prior to or after completion of the proposed parking structure.
Financial Impact: Can not be estimated at this time
Revenue Impact: None. F. 3 Do not proceed with cashiering of parking lots.
I G.
Shuttle System for Employees
I I
I
Rich and Associates reviewed the potential of providing a shuttle to solve the interim and long- term parking problems in Westfield. It was determined both from a cost standpoint and from a user acceptance standpoint that a long term shuttle solution would not work well in Westfield. A shuttle system needs to be discussed in terms of interim parking during the construction of the proposed parking structure on Lot 3A. As previously mentioned 250 spaces could be displaced during construction. Since these are employee or commuter spaces they are more easily handled by a shuttle operation. Rich and Associates recommends that the Parking Authority begin to look at shuttling operations at least 6- months prior to the construction of the parking structure. This would include looking at available parking areas, cost for shuttling (which would be estimated by Rich and Associates for the final report) and the public relations aspect for this change.
I I
I
C.
Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Draft Final Report, February, 2000
s- 10