ludlow park neighborhood traffic & parking study

Ludlow Park Neighborhood Traffic & Parking StudyCity of Yonkers

September 28, 2020

Prepared for: City of Yonkers

Prepared by: BFJ Planning

Ludlow Park Neighborhood Traffic and Parking StudyYonkers, NY

Prepared for

The City of Yonkers

Prepared by

BFJ Planning 115 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003

September 28, 2020

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Ludlow Park Commuter Parking: Are non-local Metro-North commuters parking on Ludlow Parkneighborhood streets in order to access Ludlow Station? ........................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1: Parking Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2: Parking Occupancy & Turnover Data ..................................................................................... 4

Metro North, Ludlow Station Ridership ................................................................................................ 5

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Through Traffic Analysis: Will the proposed development increase through traffic on Ludlow Parkstreets, such as Sunnyside Drive? ................................................................................................................. 6

Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 6

Project-Generated Traffic Volumes (2030) ........................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Study Area Traffic Volumes, Existing AM Peak Hour ............................................................. 7

Figure 4: Study Area Traffic Volumes, Existing PM Peak Hour ............................................................. 8

Figure 5: 2030 Project Build Traffic Assignment- AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 9

Figure 6: 2030 Project Build Traffic Assignment - PM Peak Hour ....................................................... 10

Figure 7: Intersection Level of Service, 2030 Project Build - AM Peak Hour ...................................... 11

Figure 8: Intersection Level of Service, 2030 Project Build - PM Peak Hour ...................................... 12

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 13

3. Ludlow Park Overnight Parking: Do residents from adjacent areas utilize Ludlow Park streets for parking, particularly during overnight hours? (Study Forthcoming)......................................................................... 13

1 Ludlow Park Traffic and Parking Study

Introduction This study was undertaken to supplement the Ludlow TOD Plan DGEIS with the aim to address particular traffic and parking concerns raised by Ludlow Park neighborhood residents. This study adds neighborhood-specific detail to a broader analysis of existing and future traffic conditions provided in the DGEIS.

Existing and projected traffic and parking conditions within and adjacent to the Ludlow Park neighborhood have been analyzed in relation to the TOD Plan’s proposed action. The Ludlow Park neighborhood is bound by Pier Street to the north, Riverdale Avenue to the west, and Valentine Lane to the south. Three distinct neighborhood concerns reported by residents resulted in the following traffic and parking inquiries for additional study:

1. Are non-local Metro-North commuters parking on the Ludlow Park neighborhood streetsin order to access the Ludlow station?

2. Will the proposed development increase through traffic on Ludlow Park neighborhoodstreets such as Sunnyside Drive?

3. Do residents from adjacent areas utilize Ludlow Park streets for parking, particularlyduring overnight hours?

Notably, the first two inquiries have been studied to-date and are included in this supplemental report while study of the third inquiry is forthcoming.

1. Ludlow Park Commuter Parking: Are non-local Metro-North commuters parkingon Ludlow Park neighborhood streets in order to access Ludlow Station?

Residents report that there is an existing trend of non-local commuters who utilize neighborhood streets for parking in order to easily access Ludlow station. There is further perception that this pattern could be exacerbated by the proposed development. Existing conditions were analyzed in relation to the nature of the proposed TOD development and its activity.

MethodologyFigure 1 illustrates the section of Ludlow Park that was studied through the collection of parking occupancy and turnover data that were collected on Wednesday, January 29th, 2020. Street segments where data were collected were chosen based on this area having the greatest potential of commuter parking impact. Streets analyzed include:

• Sunnyside Drive between Pier Street and Beechwood Terrace• Beechwood Terrace Between Sunnyside Drive and Fairfield Road• Fairfield Road between Beechwood Terrace and Sunnyside Road• Morris Crescent

This particular “residential circle” section of Ludlow Park has the greatest potential of commuter parking based on its proximity to the Ludlow Station.

Prior to parking data collection, an inventory of the total number of parking spaces and parking regulations was compiled. It was determined that a typical Wednesday was the best day to conduct data collection as there are no street cleaning regulations on these roads during this time. Parking occupancy and turnover counts were conducted at 6 AM, 10 AM, and 2 PM utilizing a go-pro camera


that was attached to the windshield window of a car that drove around the study area in intervals. MTA ridership numbers collected for the Ludlow Station determined that analysis prior to 6 AM was not necessary as rail commuter ridership prior to this is not significant. Within the study area, parking zones were then organized to analyze the data based on walking distance from Ludlow Station. In total, eight zones were analyzed in an effort to demonstrate parking area specificities by street segments.

Analysis Figure 2 summarizes the parking occupancy and turnover conditions. Parking occupancy is highest at 6 AM with an average of 87%, which is close to practical capacity. At 10 AM and 2 PM occupancies are 53% and 51% respectively, with more than 90 spaces vacant. Collected data indicate that the peak parking demand in Ludlow Park study area streets occurs prior to 6 AM and is generated by residents living in the area.

City of YonkersLudlow Street Transit Oriented Development

ST. PETER'SSCHOOL

PICKETPARK

ST. PETER'SCHURCH

TREATMENT PLANT

HAWTHORNEPEARLSSCHOOL

HAW

THO

RN

E A

VE

FAIRFIELD PL

FER

NBR

OO

K ST

FEDERAL ST

FAIR

FIEL

D R

D

BEECHWOOD TER

FRANKLIN AVE

BELVEDERE DR

VALENTINE LN

CULVER ST

RIV

ERD

DAL

E A

VE

BRID

GE

ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

PIER ST

DOWNING ST

FAIRFIELD RD

FAIR

FIEL

D RD

BEECHWOOD TER

SUN

NYS

IDE

DR

MORRIS CRESCENT

MORRIS ST

SUNN

YSID

E DR

Abe Cohen Plaza

Zone 1

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

Zone 7

Zone 2

Zone 6

Zone 8

Figure 1: Parking Study Area Data collected Wednesday, January 29th, 2020


Parking Occupancy Counts

6 AM 10 AM 2 PM Zone Total Spaces Count % Capacity Count % Capacity Count % Capacity

1 16 15 94% 12 75% 11 69% 2 14 12 86% 8 57% 8 57% 3 36 34 94% 25 69% 23 64% 4 28 26 93% 13 46% 12 43% 5 23 18 78% 7 30% 9 39% 6 29 22 76% 17 59% 12 41% 7 23 23 100% 11 48% 12 52% 8 26 20 77% 10 38% 12 46%

Total 195 170 87% 103 53% 99 51%

Commuter and Resident Parking Turnover Indicators

Arrived after 6 AM, Left before 2 PM

Arrived after 6 AM, Stayed past 2 PM

Parked All Day

Zone Total Spaces Count % of Total Spaces Count % of Total

Spaces Count % of Total Spaces

1 16 3 19% 5 31% 4 25% 2 14 0 0% 5 36% 3 21% 3 36 4 11% 9 25% 7 19% 4 28 0 0% 2 7% 6 21% 5 23 0 0% 1 4% 5 22% 6 29 1 3% 1 3% 8 28% 7 23 0 0% 1 4% 7 30% 8 26 2 8% 0 0% 5 19%

Total 195 10 5% 24 12% 45 23%

Figure 2: Parking Occupancy & Turnover Data Data collected Wednesday, January 29th, 2020


Figure 2 also shows the results of individual car tracking in the neighborhood. Collected data at each interval accounted for how many parked cars arrived after 6 AM and left before 2 PM, how many arrived after 6 AM and stayed until after 2 PM, and how many stayed all day long. The largest proportion (23%) were parked in the neighborhood throughout the duration of the parking occupancy survey (at 6 AM, at 10 AM and at 2 PM). Presumably, the majority of these cars are resident vehicles.

The second largest proportion (12% / 24 vehicles) were vehicles that arrived after 6 AM and stayed past 2 PM, presumably persons working locally (household employees, care takers, contractors, etc.) or parking in the neighborhood to then take the train to Manhattan. The comparison of the percentages of these day parkers for the eight segments shows a clear trend for the northerly segments closest to the station versus the southerly segments. For the most southerly segments (zones 5, 6, 7 and 8) there were three day parkers (arrived after 6 AM and left before 2 PM) in an area that includes 101 spaces. It can be concluded that all three of these were working locally or were visiting one of the homes on these zone segments. Commuters are not likely to park in the southerly segments since there is ample parking available closer to the station. From this, it is concluded that 3 % of the spaces across the study area corresponds to a typical number of local day parkers.

For the northerly segments (1, 2, 3 and 4) a total of 21 day parkers, representing 22% of the 94-parking supply in that area, were recorded. Based on the 3% estimate for locally generated day parkers, we estimate that 3 of the 21 cars are locally generated and the remaining 18 cars may belong to persons parking in that area and commuting to Manhattan. Some of these parkers may also work in some of the commercial uses in the Ludlow area.

Metro North, Ludlow Station Ridership Notably, Metro North count data from 2015 demonstrates that there is an average of 176 passengers that board at Ludlow Station during AM peak service hours for inbound trains to Manhattan. Of all AM peak period passengers traveling on inbound trains from Ludlow Station, 94% commute on trains leaving at 6:28 AM or later. This schedule was taken into consideration with a parking occupancy survey start time of 6 AM.

Conclusion This analysis demonstrates that study area parking demand peaks at night when on-street parking is close to practical capacity. Parking occupancies during the day are significantly lower. Based on the conducted vehicle tracking survey, it is determined that at most 18 parked cars are related to non-resident commuters who utilize Ludlow Park streets for Ludlow Station access. This high-end estimate constitutes less than 10% of the total study area parking spaces.

Northerly street segments within the parking study area demonstrate the highest daytime parking occupancy, however, this portion of Ludlow Park also contains a greater density of apartments which shape the on-street parking demand. As the new residential developments in the TOD area will have convenient on-site parking, it is not expected that the TOD plan will affect parking occupancies in the Ludlow Park neighborhood.


2. Through Traffic Analysis: Will the proposed development increase through traffic on Ludlow Park streets, such as Sunnyside Drive? Residents report that there is an existing trend of excessive through traffic that utilizes Ludlow Park neighborhood streets in order to bypass arterial routes such as Riverdale Avenue. There is further perception that this pattern could be exacerbated by the proposed development. Existing conditions were analyzed alongside traffic generation expected from the proposed development.

Existing Traffic Volumes Refer to figures 3 and 4 for existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes collected around the Ludlow Park neighborhood. Based on traffic counts collected at the intersections of Ludlow Street and Bridge Street, as well as Hawthorne Avenue and Pier Street, traffic volumes along Sunnyside in Ludlow Park are 86 vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours, 1 vehicle every 42 seconds. Traffic volumes along Hawthorne are greater due to a higher number of uses and activities here such as the Hawthorne Pearls School. The portion of Riverdale from Radford Street in the south to Ludlow Street in the north experiences traffic volumes in the range of 1057 to 1319 in the AM peak hour and 950 to 1252 in the PM peak hour.

Project-Generated Traffic Volumes (2030) Residential traffic generated by the Ludlow TOD program was distributed to the roadway network based on Census data analysis that depicts local commuting patterns. Consequently, an AM travel distribution of 53% southbound and 47% northbound on Riverdale was established for residents commuting to/from the study area. These commuting patterns rely heavily on portions of Riverdale adjacent to the study area. Constituting a smaller percentage of traffic generated by the TOD Plan’s 2030 buildout, a gravity model was created to distribute commercial traffic generation. Compared to the commuting nature of residents, these commercial trips result in a higher reliance of Hawthorne Avenue and Ludlow Street as used by residents in neighboring areas of Yonkers. Specific traffic distributions to/from future project sites were calculated by utilizing travel time estimations provided by Google Maps.

Figures 5 and 6 show the assignment of the new traffic volumes on the roadway network which includes the Ludlow Park neighborhood. Based on the traffic distribution methodologies described above, no traffic volumes have been assigned to Sunnyside Drive south of Pier Street, and relatively small volumes have been assigned to Hawthorne Avenue south of Pier Street (approximately 1 vehicle every 2 minutes during the peak hours) and to Morris Street east of Hawthorne. Notably, the fact that no project-related vehicle trips have been assigned Sunnyside Drive does not mean that there will never be any driver choosing to select this route. Rather, the longer travel time of this route is an attributing factor as to why the number of drivers making this route choice will be very low and insignificant.


PIER ST

HAW

THOR

NE AV

E

PURS

ER P

L

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

179

31

5565

43

719

487

830

697

840

479

775

285

168

122

92

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

PIER ST

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

VALENTINE LN

Figure 3: Study Area Traffic Volumes Existing AM Peak Hour


PIER ST

VALENTINE LN

PURS

ER P

L

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

121HA

WTH

ORNE

AVE

50

36 3637

584

543

730

675

736

516

536

414

192

71

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

PIER ST125

Figure 4: Study Area Traffic Volumes Existing PM Peak Hour


PURS

ER P

L

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

23HA

WTH

ORNE

AVE

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

SUNN

YSID

E DR

18

48

28

54

34

40

43

66

31

55

31

28

4

PIER ST 168

VALENTINE LN

Figure 5: 2030 Project Build Traffic Assignment - AM Peak Hour


PURS

ER P

L

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

19

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

16

413

23

38

66

46

46

47

63

38

63

23

4

PIER ST 13

HAW

THOR

NE AV

E

16

VALENTINE LN

SUNN

YSID

E DR

Figure 6: 2030 Project Build Traffic Assignment - PM Peak Hour


HAW

THOR

NE AV

EPU

RSER

PL

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

9

10

12

11

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

B

B

B

CC

A

B ADA

B

A

BA

B B

BC

A C

B

A

B

VALENTINE LN

SUNN

YSID

E DR

Figure 7: Intersection Level of Service 2030 Project Build - AM Peak Hour


HAW

THOR

NE AV

EPU

RSER

PL

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

9

10

12

11

DOWNING ST

KNOWLES ST

LUDLOW ST

MORRIS ST

FERN

BROO

K S

T

RADFORD ST

RIVE

RDAL

E AV

E

CULVER ST

POST ST

FRANKLIN AVE

B

B

B

C

CC

A

B ACA

B

A

B

A B

BC

A C

B

A

AB

VALENTINE LN

SUNN

YSID

E DR

Figure 8: Intersection Level of Service 2030 Project Build - PM Peak Hour


Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the traffic levels of service (LOS) for the key intersections along Riverdale that are projected for the year 2030 with the full build out of the TOD project. Note that LOS for Riverdale Avenue and Ludlow Street assumes adoption of DGEIS recommended mitigation measures and will operate at LOS B. Intersections further south at Riverdale/Morris and Riverdale Radford will also operate at LOS B after the projected full build out (2030). As an unsignalized intersection, Riverdale/Pier operates at LOS A for its southbound movements and LOS B for its eastbound and northbound movements in both the AM and PM peak hours.

One of the main traffic recommendations from the DGEIS is to make Pier Street a two way street, west of Riverdale, to mitigate the traffic conditions at Riverdale and Ludlow and to provide quick and easy access to/from Riverdale. The Pier Street to Riverdale path will be a very attractive route for vehicles driving in that direction and is expected to keep the project traffic off the Ludlow Park neighborhood streets. It will likely shift some southbound traffic from Hawthorne Avenue onto Pier Street and Riverdale Avenue.

Conclusion The above analysis has shown that 1) sound traffic distribution methodologies would not assign any traffic to Sunnyside Drive south of Pier Street, 2) traffic conditions along Riverdale Avenue south of Ludlow Street are projected to remain good and 3) a two-way Pier Street west of Riverdale Avenue will produce a convenient link between the TOD project area and the southerly portion of Riverdale Avenue. These arguments lead to the conclusion that there will not be a measurable impact on traffic flows in the Ludlow Park neighborhood. The traffic study projects a limited traffic stream generated by the TOD project along Hawthorne Avenue between Pier Street and Morris Street (one vehicle every two minutes in the peak hours) and on Morris Street east of Hawthorne Avenue.

It is recommended that once project buildings are substantially occupied, further traffic monitoring can be utilized to confirm vehicular patterns and circulation in the area.

3. Ludlow Park Overnight Parking: Do residents from adjacent areas utilize Ludlow Parkstreets for parking, particularly during overnight hours? (Study Forthcoming)

As noted, future study will be conducted to investigate whether, and to what degree, Ludlow Park neighborhood streets may be used by residents of adjacent areas for overnight parking. Ludlow Park residents express concern that residents from adjacent areas, particularly from higher-density apartment buildings off Riverdale Avenue, park overnight on Ludlow Park streets west of Hawthorne due to a reported scarcity of parking. Depending on the outcome of such study, the provision of increased parking on Riverdale Avenue could help alleviate such reported parking activity.

This study will utilize license plate identification to determine potential parking intrusion into the Ludlow Park neighborhood.

ludlow park neighborhood traffic & parking study

Documents