Most West Windsor residents who currently have a parking spot at the Princeton Junction train station are not willing to pay any more than they currently do for a closer or covered spot, while most who don’t have a parking space would be a lot more flexible, according to a survey released by Intercap Holdings CEO Steve Goldin.##M:[more]##
Goldin released the survey, which was conducted by New York City-based Urbanomics, last month. The survey results come as the West Windsor Parking Authority is preparing to interview consulting firms that have submitted bids to help the authority determine which type of parking is needing, how many spaces are needed, and other issues that need to be worked out. That meeting is set for Wednesday, May 14 at 8 p.m. in the authority’s office on Washington Road.
According to the report by Urbanomics, about 2,”210 West Windsor residents out of the total 21,”907 estimated population take the train to work every day. The company surveyed 276 people, or 12.5 percent of the total commuters at the train station.
Of the total surveyed, 141 of the West Windsor residents — or 51 percent — currently have a monthly parking spot at the station. Out of that group, 72 percent of them said they would not change their travel mode to the station if there were other ways to get there, and 28 percent said they would. About 55 percent of those residents currently pay between $31 and $40 a month for parking there. About 12 percent pay between $21 and $30.
Further, 42 percent of them said they would still be only willing to pay between $31 and $40 if a closer spot was available to them, and 43 percent said they would pay that amount if it was for a covered spot. When asked how much they would pay for a spot that was both closer and covered, 38 percent still said they would only pay between $31 and $40. Only 3 percent of those with parking spaces already would be willing to increase their monthly fee to $150.
When it comes to the 49 percent of those commuters surveyed who don’t park at the train station everyday, the results are more flexible. Out of those 135 residents, 58 paid a daily fee for parking, and 54 were dropped off. When asked if they would change their travel mode if other ways to get to the train station, 40 percent said they would not change, and 60 percent said they would. A few of them said they would use the bus if the service is improved.
Most of those residents — 27 percent — said they would pay between $41 and $50 for a parking spot at the station, while 15 percent said they would pay between $31 and $40. In comparison with those who had monthly passes, 15 residents — or 11 percent — said they would be willing to pay more than $100 a month for a parking spot, and 20 — or 15 percent — said they would be willing to pay between $91 and $100.
Twenty of the residents that don’t currently have a parking spot actually said they would pay more than $150 a month for a parking spot that is closer. Nineteen of those residents said they would pay between $31 and $40, and 18 said they would pay between $41 and $50. The results were similar for a covered parking spot, with 21 residents saying they would pay more than $150 a month for a covered spot and 22 saying they would pay between $41 and $50.
When asked how much they would pay for a spot that was both covered and closer, 21 residents said they would pay more than $150; 19 said they would pay between $91 and $100; and 18 said they would pay between $41 and $50 a month.
The report’s summary states that “parking spots are vital to the West Windsor commuter community, and the demand for more spots is present, in limited number, at a price level in excess of $90 per month.” However, the report states, “the township should proceed with great caution if it is assuming it could count on the demand for more than 500 spaces priced in excess of $90 per month.”
Goldin, whose firm owns 25 acres in the redevelopment area, says the study is just one of the many pieces of information that will fit together to help officials make decisions on redevelopment.
Given his results, Goldin says that one option for a new parking deck or garage would be blending the price for monthly spots. For example, those who currently have spots aren’t willing to pay more than the $30 to $40 than they currently do, and those who don’t have parking spaces would be willing to pay much higher, so blending the two together would yield a $70 a month parking rate. But even at that rate, he says, an earlier study of his that looked at the cost of building a parking garage showed that at a price of $70 a month for parking, there would still need to be a $25 million subsidiary.
“I think the best solution would be to allow the redevelopment project to pay for the debt,” Goldin says. “Keep the rates for residents who have parking at what they pay now, and determine a rate that is reasonable for those who don’t have parking. As people who currently have parking give up their spaces, that spaces becomes a space that’s sold at a new rate.”
He says that it doesn’t make sense for the town to bond directly for a parking deck. “Why should those who don’t commute have to pay for a parking deck, when it’s the kind of thing that can very easily be allocated by those who use it?” he asked. “But, at the same time, we can’t charge people what it really costs.”
Instead, he says, it’s important to look at “what is the tax increment you have to create to support the debt on that bond, and then what’s the development plan you have to have to create the tax increments?” He also says that no private developer will pay for the parking garage when it is unsubsidized.
Meanwhile, Andy Lupo, the chairman of the West Windsor Parking Authority, says that the authority is really trying to look at the issue with an open mind. “These are things clearly in the early stage,” Lupo says. “Our goal here is to really determine what we believe is the right number of additional spaces we need to satisfy the demand. Based on that, and looking at what land we have to work with — whether it’s West Windsor land, New Jersey Transit land, or parking authority land — we would have to see who we have to partner with. The township has said they really don’t want to spend taxpayers’ money on the garage, and we respect that, but we want to work with them to make sure we’re doing the right thing.”
Lupo also said the parking authority is only responsible for the parking issue, not for developing business in the area, and not for developing new land. “When Steve (Goldin) talks about TIFs [tax increment financing], he is obviously talking about redevelopment in general,” Lupo said. “If the township can move down the path of redevelopment, that would be fantastic. But we don’t believe that’s the driver here for us. The driver we have to rely on is trying to solve the parking issue.”
“As it turns out, our goal would be to come up with some type of solution that would fit nicely within the overall plans for redevelopment, but that will stand by itself,” he added. “If we can bring redevelopment in, we will have some shared fees and shared usage.”
The authority expects the firm it hires “to help us with finalizing an opinion as to what is needed, whether that’s the structured parking deck, or whether it’s the additional surface parking lot, or satellite parking,” Lupo explains.
During its May 14 meeting, the parking authority will be hearing from a number of firms that responded to the request for bids. The firm that is selected will “assist us with the demand for parking and taking into account the projections by a combination of sources.”
When it comes to funding whichever parking solution is decided, he said there are also many factors the authority will have to consider. “The goal is to build one that is the most economically, esthetically pleasing that we can do within certain dollar restraints,” Lupo said. “You don’t need a Taj Mahal for parking our cars.”
He said the more information the authority can consider, including Goldin’s study, the better, and “you have to look at this from a variety of different expenses, not just from someone whose looking to do some development here.”
“We do not want current customers to have to foot the additional increase, but that’s the ideal environment,” he said. “Until further down the road with the process, it’s premature to say what the financial impact would be.”
