Thursday, February 20, 2014

Planners Urge Downtown Parking Deck Study

With dozens, if not hundreds, of new apartments, stores and restaurants proposed downtown, where will everyone park?

Maybe in a new parking deck, but figuring out the details will require some work, Planning Board members agreed Thursday as they endorsed seeking city approval for a parking study. Questions to be answered include the current parking capacity downtown, anticipated development in the new Transit-Oriented Development-Downtown (TOD-D) zone around the main train station, the amount of parking that developers will require and how a parking deck might be funded.

Planning Director Bill Nierstedt said a study was included in a capital improvement plan two or three years ago, but not done. The new administration of Mayor Adrian O. Mapp has asked the board to name its CIP priorities and Nierstedt urged the board "to recommend in the strongest terms that they advance the parking study."

In recent years, no capital projects took place and for 2014 there is only $100,000 allocated for road work, to be matched with grants. Nierstedt also recommended establishment of a parking authority to replace the current Parking Bureau, because an authority could issue bonds for major improvements.

The deck would replace Municipal Lot 6, off East Second Street. According to city records, the lot has 39 permit-only spaces and 71 metered spaces. Years ago, a six-story deck was proposed to replace the lot, but merchants opposed it and it was never built. In 2009, developer Frank Cretella said a traffic study done for one of his projects revealed as many as 350 parking spaces available downtown. In any case, parking is not presently a requirement for downtown land use applications.

Development was in abeyance for several years, but Cretella has begun forging ahead with several of his previously approved projects and developer Mario Camino has announced his intentions to redevelop much of the downtown. A parking study now would sort out the actual projected need and how it might be met and funded. One hopes both the needs of established business as well as proposed new residential and commercial additions to the downtown would be considered.

(Checking the archives just now, I came across a Plaintalker post from last year on this very subject. Click here to see it.)

--Bernice

3 comments:

  1. as capital of an idea as a parking authority might be in many communities.. here, unfortunately, an authority simply encompasses the words, corrupt, graft, cronyism and waste ... Would it be possible to have a parking authority staffed with people from another community? Then there might be a chance at it actually effectively completing its task..

    ReplyDelete
  2. We got rid of the Parking Authority in the 1980's. Let's have a study to switch the one-way streets in town. Cost less money, and as the study will just be put on the stack of other unread ones prepared by con$ultants connected to politicians [can you say George Washington Bridge Traffic Study 5 times without laughing] who will themselves NEVER come to Plainfield to eat, shop or bank. {I take that back, they will come to pick up the check}

    ReplyDelete
  3. With respect to Mr Nierstedt I think that going deeper into debt to allow developers a freer ride is a bad idea. Let them come to us with a funding plan to facilitate parking if they want to make money here.

    ReplyDelete