The town should have data from parkmobile. That should be the FIRST step to identity exactly how many spots are needed, instead of just pushing for a garage closer to the new proposed development by a company where Mayor’s wife used to work.
They are trying to use old data – 15 years ago to justify the demand. Many people say that you can always get the parking, you just need to know where to park. There are hidden spots. e.g. YMCA lot. The town can negotiate partnership with those private lots to provide parking. We can convert some streets to one way only to increase parking spaces. We can limit all street parking to 30 minutes and make it free – and all long term parking – longer than 30 minutes should be in these paid parking spaces not on the street – not in front of the shops. That will free up most lots and noone will have to circle around, if the street lots are free and are for LIMITED time – you park – do the business and go away.
Anyway – first order of business – IDENTIFY HOW MANY SPOTS ARE NEEDED – WITH A RECENT STUDY – WHICH CAPTURES DATA FOR MULTIPLE DAYS – NOT FOR ONE WEEK, NOT FOR A FEW HOURS. DON’T SPEND TAX PAYERS 15 MILLION DOLLARS ON YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA BY JUSTIFY IT USING FAKE REPORTS.
Of course they have data. I wonder if we have to pay for it?
Who is trying to use data from 15 years ago? The town has been using data from the Walker report collected last summer and the Maser report collected last fall. That comment doesn’t make any sense.
I agree there are plenty of “creative” things you can do to increase effective capacity. But people probably aren’t going to park at YMCA and walk to town for dinner. It sucks but they just aren’t! Most people like convenient parking within a block or two of their destination. The Hudson St lot is a good location for a potential garage. “Reasonable” size is a different question of course…
9:00 am – hopefully that payment should be less than the payments being made to the so called consultants, who are providing reports based on 4 hours of study on ONE day?
John V.. again – start watching / attending council meetings and you would know. The council members and the village manager have cited many times data from previous studies to justify their push for votes. The water study was conducted for 3-4 days during just one week – does that represent all year’s traffic / need. Maser data was collected for 4 hours.
There are many spots ‘closer’ to the – YMCA is just an example – lots that are 5 minutes walk away (like YMCA) can be used for employee parking. Lots that are closer can be used for dinner / restaurant traffic – e.g. North Walnut street (a good location for garage with proper size lot), cottage street lot etc. Make the street parking free for 15-30 minutes and that will bring shoppers to the retail stores.
Is the downtown built only for restaurants? Are politically affluent restaurant owners the only one we need to service?
9:39am-
Fair enough! My comment was too strong. Would it be fair to say the town / council is using the recently collected data AND the 15-year old data to establish a long-term consistent need for more parking? If so, I would agree with that statement regarding old data and old studies. I would disagree that the town / council is ONLY using 15 year old data, which seemed to be what the comment was implying.
Agreed that Walker and Maser are very limited “snapshots”. Using ParkMobile data is a great idea to determine utilization. The challenge would be to figure out mix of folks using ParkMobile vs. coins. You’d have to “allocate” the coin parking in some manner to build the full model of utilization. Simplest assumption would be that coin parking follows same pattern as ParkMobile pattern, which would allow you to project all the demand. Would be very cool if town would “open source” this kind of data and let residents play around with it.
I like the idea of street parking free/cheap and with a short time limit. Lots of towns do that.
Hudson St location would well serve commuters, shoppers, and diners. Maybe the biggest impact on restaurants at night, but certainly not “only” for them. (Disclosure: I like to eat out a lot, so my own personal interests are definitely somewhat aligned with the restaurant owners. Lots of visitors and successful restaurants generally means tastier restaurants…)
+1 vote for your idea of providing the data to the tax payers, who are underwriting this garage.
Here a little history for you John V
Ridgewood Chamber, council consider possible solutions to parking meter concerns
December 2, 2010, 5:13 PM
By Kelly Ebbels
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Print
After a year and a half, Ridgewood business owners and Village Council members may be nearing a compromise to solve the parking meter concerns downtown.
The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce presented a proposal at Wednesday night’s Village Council work session that suggested the village move to fix the “perception” problem with enforcement; to reduce parking rates or adjust hours, particularly in municipal parking lots; to adjust 15-minute meters to 30 minutes; and to improve signage for municipal lots.
Councilman Paul Aronsohn, the governing body’s liaison to the chamber, commended chamber members for their input.
“They have put together what I think is a very thoughtful proposal here,” he said. “I think it’s a big step in the right direction.”
Aronsohn specifically praised the idea to lower the rates in the municipal lots to 25 cents, saying “it’s just a great idea,” but he and Mayor Keith Killion noted that it would be harder to adjust enforcement by either laying off officers or instructing them to enforce meters less.
“Enforcement is enforcement,” Killion said, noting that he spoke from his background in law enforcement in Ridgewood. “To ask council to [ask officers to] lay off on enforcement just goes against the grain. There are violations there, and the law is written that way.”
Scott Lief, president of the Chamber of Commerce, responded that “perception is reality” and that something had to be done.
“There must be some middle ground to make Ridgewood more friendly,” Lief said. Killion suggested that the chamber and police department collaborate with a ride-along program; Lief noted it was a worthy idea.
Village Manager Ken Gabbert added that the village has already adjusted meters to give a five-minute grace period, and wanted to underscore that, in adjusting the meters to 10 a.m. until 6 p.m., the village cut out hours of enforceable money each day. He also noted that he was in favor of the status quo for parking fees.
“We should keep the fee structure the same, so we continue to keep things in the balance and not be subsidizing certain areas,” Gabbert said.
However, he said he would favor charging an “employee rate” at the municipal lots for those who work in the village.
Deputy Mayor Tom Riche expressed support for improved signage, saying that Ridgewood wants to attract people from other towns to shop.
“I think further discussion is warranted,” Riche said.
Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh said that she found 15-minute parking spots useless, and might favor returning them back to regular meters.
More discussions are forthcoming, and Lief underscored that this was merely a discussion to address short-term problems.
“In the past we have said that we have to separate the short-term solutions from the 500-pound gorilla, which is the parking garage,” Lief said. “We want to improve the situation now so that we can get to that garage discussion down the road.”
Killion said the council would seek to work on the issue at every future meeting “until it’s done.”
“Frankly, I don’t want to do this another six months,” he said.
A little history for you John V #2
A little history for you John V #2
Ridgewood parking lots filling up
January 27, 2012
By AUSTIN FENNER
CORRESPONDENT |
The Ridgewood News
Print
The 25-cent drop in parking meter rates has business owners and village officials reporting that more vehicles are parked in Ridgewood lots.
Ridgewood reduced parking meter rates from 50 cents to 25 cents an hour about six months ago.
Ridgewood reduced parking meter rates from 50 cents to 25 cents an hour about six months ago.
The Village Council approved an ordinance about six months ago, knocking down the cost of hourly parking in village lots from 50 cents to 25 cents.
During the recession, business owners complained that shoppers were not flocking to Ridgewood in great numbers and the most visible sign of the anemic economy was that parking was too easy to find in the Central Business District.
Members of the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce asked village officials to lower parking meter rates, which the council approved last June, along with the implementation of an unlimited parking pass.
Today, a quick glance of downtown Ridgewood during the day or evening shows signs of a bustling and vibrant business corridor and drivers circling the block hoping to find a spot.
Many business owners noted that it was imperative to try something new to trigger a more robust shopping climate.
Tom Hillmann, owner of Hillmann Electric and Lighting and president of the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce, said increasing the rates at the onset of the recession in 2008 “wasn’t a good idea.”
“At that time, you could throw a bowling ball through the parking lot and not hit any cars,” Hillmann said. “Business 101 tells you if you double your prices, you are not going to double profits.”
Asked about the results of the lowered rates at the six-month milestone, he said, “The lots are full again. The business climate looks healthier.”
Village officials said that people have been satisfied with the new parking meter changes and the convenience of purchasing unlimited pre-paid parking receipts.
Village Manager Ken Gabbert said parking violations are down significantly since the reduced rates went into effect.
In 2011, the total parking revenue was $704,759, plus an additional $21,000 from unlimited pre-paid parking receipts. In 2010, the parking meter revenue is $723,137.
Ridgewood has two full-time and one part-time parking enforcement officers.
Going forward
Ridgewood is considered one of the most popular shopping destinations in Bergen County because of its numerous dining choices and boutique shopping alternatives.
“Ridgewood is a fabulous destination town. It’s a restaurant mecca,” said Joan Groome, executive director of the chamber. “People enjoy strolling in the downtown historic area.”
Parking issues have been an incremental problem in Ridgewood for decades, she said, citing studies that showed a parking garage would help ease the parking problem.
Ridgewood’s popularity makes it difficult for customers to find parking in the downtown area, said Laurie Cera, owner of 5 Seasons Bistro, which opened last August.
“Parking in general is a problem. There aren’t enough spaces,” Cera said. “I drove around for 30 minutes (on Friday) looking for parking. Saturday night, people don’t show up or cancel their reservation because people can’t find parking.”
Employees who work in the village often compete with shoppers for desirable parking spots, officials and business owners said. There have been discussions about creating a designated employee parking location with shuttle service, Groome said.
For more information on parking in Ridgewood, visit ridgewoodnj.net and click on the parking tab.
A little history for you John V #3
Parking in Ridgewood: Empty spots become the new problem
September 9, 2010, 3:25 PM
By Michael Sedon
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Print
Ridgewood’s Chamber of Commerce has formed a new parking committee to study an old problem, but there may be a different angle.
The Village Council increased parking meter rates last year, while reducing enforced hours.
The Village Council increased parking meter rates last year, while reducing enforced hours.
About three years ago, the focus was on creating more parking spaces in the village. Today, the problem is how the existing spaces can be filled, officials said.
Between 9 and 10 a.m. last week, resident Eugene Rose, a chamber member and business owner, photographed empty parking spaces in the Route 17 Park and Ride, Hudson Street municipal parking lot, street parking in the Central Business District (CBD) and at the train station, which he presented to the council at its Sept. 1 meeting.
Rose cited two key factors for the decline in parking throughout Ridgewood: raised parking meter rates and zoning changes that allowed the owners of the former Brogan Cadillac site to rent spaces to commuters at less than half of what the village charges.
“At this point, I believe that you should be addressing the rescission of the parking meter increase,” Rose said. “It has not produced the desired result of bringing revenue to the village, and it has had a severe detrimental effect on the business community.”
The previous council doubled rates at all of Ridgewood’s meters more than a year ago to close a deficit in the parking utility, with a promise to revisit the decision six months after it was implemented. With the increase came three hours of reduced enforcement each day and free parking in the municipal lots on Saturdays.
Although the rate increase has appeared on a handful of council agendas over the past six months, the discussion has continually been tabled.
“Unfortunately, it seems that in the two months that passed, nothing has been done,” said Rose, who also served on the council’s 2009 parking committee. “I see no record of this ever coming back to be discussed and that is truly disappointing.”
The parking utility ran at a deficit last year, and is expected to run one this year, according to Village Manager Ken Gabbert, who added that exact numbers for this year’s deficit are not yet available.
“[The village] expects the loss by year end to be greatly reduced from last year,” Gabbert said. The 2009 parking utility deficit was $168,000, as previously reported in The Ridgewood News.
The committee is looking at a few “practical and feasible” solutions to address parking in the village, said Councilman Paul Aronsohn, the Village Council’s liaison to the chamber.
Raising the rates “across the board” has hit commuters the hardest, followed by people who work in Ridgewood, Aronsohn explained Wednesday afternoon.
His approach, which he stated publicly many times, includes keeping meter rates at 25 cents an hour in the municipal lots and raising them to 50 cents an hour on the street, thus encouraging business owners and employees to use the lots and open up street parking for customers.
“One of our problems is there’s not enough parking on the main street,” Aronsohn said. “By making it cheaper, giving people an incentive to go into the parking lots is what we should be doing if possible to clear the streets. That’s good for the merchants, it’s good the customers, it’s good for everybody. Doing an across-the-board increase didn’t address that issue.”
Lowering the rates and adding more long-term parking in areas like the Hudson Street municipal lot could help the village compete with Brogan, providing needed commuter parking and bringing cars back to the village’s empty lots, Aronsohn said.
“There are some smart, easy things we can do,” he said. “So that’s what we’re looking to do. We’re working really well with the chamber.”
Last year’s committee
A council-sponsored parking committee comprised of council members, business owners and residents issued its findings in April 2009, more than three months before the council doubled parking rates.
Of the suggestions submitted in the report, the village added one handicapped parking space to the Chestnut Street municipal lot, following recommendations to “increase the number of handicapped spaces in the CBD.” The committee also said at the time that it “supports the council’s initiative to review the current meter-rate structure in the CBD.”
The report also suggested that the village add new parking meters capable of accepting “multiple forms of payments,” such as coins, credit and debt cards, which it did when it took over management of the Chestnut Street lot.
Other than those changes, the council has not followed through on any of the other recommendations, Rose said.
“To my knowledge, not a single one of those recommendations has even been followed up,” he said. “The issues, and everybody knows what they are, most of them can be solved, some of them cannot be solved. But the question of the parking meter increase is something that you should resolve and you should resolve it soon.”
E-mail: sedon@northjersey.com
12:09pm and 12:12pm-
Thanks for the links! Appreciate it. I agree that backlash may be strong if and when rates are raised to $1/per hour. The history you cite shows that clearly. $1/hr is quite a bit more expensive than surrounding towns. Are people really willing to pay that much? No one knows. It would be much better to raise rates NOW, judge the reaction and revenue generated, and then build garage if we’ll have enough revenue to pay for it. There’s a lot of risk in building the garage before the funding model is “proven”.
So here is my problem and skepticism with the statement made in the articles by the Chamber of Commerce that I posts for your edification. In these articles the chamber states that raising prices will hurt business but now 5 years later not a word about this. Whats changed “Aronsohn specifically praised the idea to lower the rates in the municipal lots to 25 cents, saying “it’s just a great idea,”
The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce presented a proposal at Wednesday night’s Village Council work session that suggested the village move to fix the “perception” problem with enforcement; to reduce parking rates or adjust hours, particularly in municipal parking lots; to adjust 15-minute meters to 30 minutes; and to improve signage for municipal lots.
Councilman Paul Aronsohn, the governing body’s liaison to the chamber, commended chamber members for their input.
A little history for you John V #4
New parking proposal is in the works in Ridgewood
November 24, 2010, 11:40 AM
By Michael Sedon
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Print
Last year’s increase kept village near status quo
Doubling the parking rates at all of Ridgewood’s meters did not produce any significant revenue increases, according to figures received by The Ridgewood News.
In October 2009, the Village Council raised parking rates from 25 cents an hour to 50 cents an hour; reduced its enforcement times; and offered free parking in municipal lots on Saturdays.
Resident Eugene Rose, a local business owner, has been an outspoken critic of the rate increase almost from its inception. Shortly after the increase’s implementation, Rose collected more than 1,000 signatures on a petition that was in many downtown businesses, seeking to rescind the increase. He has participated in parking committees and has spoken numerous times to the Village Council about the “disastrous” effects the rate increase has had on businesses.
“In the past how many months, there has been a failure of the Village Council to review the numbers,” Rose said at the Nov. 3 council meeting. “In my frustration, I went to file an OPRA request, which was answered in the seven days, and it cost me six cents. I received the numbers monthly for the parking meters. Basically it shows that over 12 months that the increase in revenue is less than $8,000, which proves that this whole thing is an absolute disaster.”
Council members who approved the increase planned to review its effectiveness after six months, but the agenda item has been tabled on numerous occasions.
Rose has long claimed that the increase has driven commuters and shoppers from Ridgewood’s downtown. He also identified a trend when comparing the last five months of revenue generated in 2010 (May to September) to that same time period in 2009.
Factoring out the revenue from the Chestnut Street municipal lot, the village lost $30,355 of parking revenue from May to September of this year compared to the same time last year, according to the information from Village Hall.
The parking meter rate increase occurred because the Chamber of Commerce requested that the hours of enforcement at the meters be reduced, Mayor Keith Killion explained during a phone conversation.
“If you reduce the hours in order to keep the status quo, the prices were raised in order to keep the same amount or close to the same amount of money coming in,” Killion said. “But originally why it was raised was because the lessening of the hours.”
The chamber has submitted a new parking plan, and the village manager and council will review it at an upcoming meeting, Killion added. Details of the chamber’s plan have not been publicly released.
“My understanding is that the chamber is going to focus on four items: enforcement, rates and hours, the signage and the 15-minute parking meters,” said Deputy Mayor Tom Riche. “So I welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with that, and we’re going to have to look at everything.”
Riche said he wants to get an agreement with merchants and the Chamber of Commerce and finally settle this issue, but declined to comment further because he was not on the council when the rate increase was approved and had not reviewed the revenue numbers.
“I want to stick to a plan and get some agreement, not only from the merchants but also from the rest of us on the council that it’s the right thing to do,” Riche explained. “It is a revenue stream for the village, so we have to be careful in terms of what we do to that revenue stream. But certainly we want to encourage downtown shopping.”
Councilman Paul Aronsohn, the liaison to the chamber, said problems with parking include not having enough commuter spaces; the inconvenience of having to use many quarters at many of the long-term parking spots; and workers having to repeat park or feed different meters throughout their work day.
Making all municipal lots 25 cents an hour and making all spaces long-term would solve problems for commuters and the town’s workers, Aronsohn said.
“At the most basic level, that’s why meters are there, to keep the cars moving so you don’t park there all day,” Aronsohn said. “No one is saying this is going to be the panacea to cure all the parking problems, but these seem like logical first steps.”
Another idea Aronsohn floated is introducing some kind of “annual pass” for interested individuals who might want to pay a yet-to-be-determined amount to the village to receive a pass that they can hang from the rearview mirror. The pass would allow them to park in any municipal lot for the year purchased.
The chamber parking ideas focused on changing the lots back to 25 cents an hour; keeping the current hours of enforcement; adding more 12-hour spots to the existing lots; easing up on enforcement or reducing some of the utility’s staff; and changing some of the 15-minute parking spots to 30-minute spots, said Tom Hillmann, a member of the Chamber of Commerce board of directors and long-time business owner.
“We’ve always said that the street parking is valuable real estate, and it should be more than the lots to get the employees off the street,” Hillmann explained. “This is more of a short-range planning that rectifies some of the problems that we have had. Then the town isn’t losing that money because they are filling the parking lots, which they aren’t doing now.”‘
Parking figures
The Ridgewood News analyzed parking revenue data from October 2008 to September 2009 (25 cents an hour) and compared those numbers with revenues from October 2009 to September 2010 (50 cents an hour). All parking meter revenue data was obtained through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request by Rose and provided to The Ridgewood News.
From the one-year period of 25 cents an hour analyzed, Ridgewood realized $632,557 in parking meter revenue. In comparison, the village collected $668,943 for the first year of 50-cents-an-hour rates.
Factoring out the Chestnut Street parking lot, which the village took over from a private valet company in October 2009 and netted a profit of $28,473 from its addition to the parking utility, the village made a profit of $7,912 from the meter rate increase at all other meters between the periods analyzed, according to numbers from Village Hall.
Before the increase, meters were enforced between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The new time of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. represents eight hours of enforcement.
Factoring out about one week due to unenforced federal holidays, the parking utility went from approximately 3,366 enforceable hours annually to about 2,448 in the past year. Due to the reduction in enforcement, the village lost close to 918 hours of enforcement. Free parking offered in the municipal lots on Saturday has also impacted hours of enforcement, but that consideration could not be extrapolated from the monthly revenue figures provided by Village Hall.
Dividing the rate of 25 cents an hour by the October 2008 to September 2009 revenue total equals 2,530,230 hours purchased by commuters and shoppers in Ridgewood. Taking the October 2009 to September 2010 revenue total and dividing that by 50 cents an hour is 1,337,886 hours of parking time purchased for that period. Purely looking at purchased hours, the overall activity in the parking utility decreased by 1,192,344 hours, or roughly 47 percent after the increase.
Activity at the train station parking lot from October 2008 to September 2009 brought in $78,036; that same lot generated $79,303 from October 2009 to September 2010. After the rates doubled in the commuter parking lot at the train station, it made $1,267 of additional revenue that year, a 1.62 percent increase. The train station parking lot revenues are taken from two one-year periods that span the construction time at the station, therefore negating any impact the construction may have had on revenues.
The decreased hours of enforcement represent about 27 percent of the previous enforcement time. Commuters generally use the train station Monday through Friday, and the free Saturday parking in the lot should not have had a major impact on the revenue because most commuters use the lot during the work week. Brogan Cadillac, located on South Broad Street, also began offering spots to commuters at a discounted rate compared to the municipal lot at the train station.
So John V I posted these to show the inconsistently from what the Chamber of Commerce wanted back then and now.
Lower the hours of the meters and lower the price. Don’t the same arguments they used then apply now? After the garage is built will they then complain that the hours are to long and the price is to high stating the same factors as the did in the articles. This sound like a classic bate and switch from the chamber at the taxpayers expense
I forgot to mention John V the “kicker” to all this is the report who wrote 2 of the articles was Michael Sedon yes that would be current Councilman Michael Sedon I would suspect that his comments and voting record on the garage reflects his knowledge of all the fact.
Ok John V thats all Im posting right now all this research has made me tired and it time for nap.
12:37pm-
I agree that it’s very weird. Why be so concerned about rates X years ago, but not concerned now? I believe revenues have increased when prices went back to $0.50/hr recently, so that’s “good news” at least.
omg
1:06pm-
Slow clap…
When parking was made half price in lots, I made an effort to park in the lots. When street parking cost the same, I began to park on the street again. And there it is. Financial incentives can work to improve things when they are planned carefully. Doubling and tripling parking fees will cause many people to run away. The town cannot survive by catering only to those who don’t think twice about what they spend on items large or small. What we are facing is endless disincentives, like the prospect of having to pay 35 cents for the privilege of paying to park. For me this will never happen and if the meters stop accepting coins the CBD will never have my business again. Add to that the horrors of the single-lane underpass and now the blinding and stupid sign telling me to shop and dine in my town, and I basically avoid downtown to the greatest possible extent.
Thank you John, thank you very much.
So people should park illegally at the YMCA? Or be aware of what lots might be available on which days? Not everyone is plugged into the nuances of Ridgewood. Counting spots doesn’t take into account the people who stay away due to lack of parking. The lack of parking is well known among not only residents but business owners and people from surrounding communities who patronize Ridgewood. These arguments about tracking occupancy misses the point that occupancy overall would increase by attracting more consumers and businesses when parking is assured. Increased cost is preferable to limited time and quarters running out. I think people here are splitting hairs to justify their visceral reaction against it.
Spending 12 million dollars without cost overruns we should be splitting hairs