2007-11-06 Submittal........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
Lara Weisiger - An email re: tomorrow's meeting Page 1
From:
Date:
Subject:
"John Knox White" <jkno whit ggruail.coru>
11/5/2007 10:24:10 PM
An email re: tomorrow's mooting
Tomorrow night's council / I JHABOC mooting has an interesting confluence of
interconnected transportation issues and I wanted to offer up my two cents.
First, the HABOC is discussing the Neptune Park/Independence Plaza swap,
which you and I have talked briefly about in the past. Given how long it has
been in the works, I won't try and convince you that swapping park/open
space for parking that isn't exactly needed, just more convenient, is the
wrong direction for us to be heading.
Instead, I'II make a big pitch for connecting this new parking directly with
two ideas: A) unbundled the parking and B) make commit to making
independence plaza truly transit friendly.
A) Free parking is the number one generator of automobile trips and car
ownership. The city staff report from April 5, 2005 states that the
Nonprofit Housing Association has done detailed studies on the need for
housing and the magic number is 0.6 spaces per unit. And yet staff is
proposing 0.66. We are building more than we should need. So instead of
paying to provide free parking to residents, let those residents who
absolutely want to drive pay to park their car at Independence Plaza. This
is where we should be headed with all of our housing (Alameda Landing,
Alameda Point, etc.). You want parking, you pay for parking. Parking has
costs to the city, the user should bear them.
B) Despite being next to some of the most frequent bus service in
Alameda, the fences around the compound block any easy access to the bus
stops that serve it. The staff report from April tells of two (2!) seniors
for whom a 400 foot walk to their parked car is too much, and yet, the walk
to the bus is easily 2-4 times that far depending on which unit is selected.
We are paying $100,000 for 20 parking spaces that will provide more
convenience to people who already have spots, and yet thousands of bus
riders are waiting for the city to complete the bus shelter program. We as a
city need to get serious about our 17 year-old general plan goal of
"deerTnphasizing the automobile" or drop the goal and replace it with
"accommodate the automobile at almost all costs" language. when push comes
to shove, the parking almost always wins while those using carbon reducing
modes of transport scrounge around for the change to make their choices
RE: CCIFIABOC #3-A
CC #5-C, 5-E and 5-F
11 -06 -07
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
Lara Weisiger - An email re: tomorrow's meeting Page
easier.
Along the same line, the CC will be discussing raising parking meter rates
and fines. This is sound public policy, but let's follow the lead of other
cities and use the parking collection to provide better choices to those who
want to choose not to drive. The staff proposal suggests putting the meter
money into a fund for more parking (anti - de-emphasis) and working with PSBA
to spend the money. I think that other residents should have an equal voice
in the use of these funds, not just the business community (who certainly
should be involved). At least 50% of this money should go towards
transportation choice projects in the district. Not just street furniture,
but bike lane improvements, transit service and improvements, etc.
The last of the transportation issues is Alameda Landing's retail pedestrian
walkway. I was able to check out the plans and think that Catellus came up
with a good compromise between the planning board's direction and their need
to have a functionable center. I actually was surprised at the Planning
Board's choice (in terms of alternatives) but chalk it up to their
attempting to choose one of the presented alternatives rather than "the
bestir plan.
The one thing that might make the plan better from a pedestrian stand point
is this. The Catellus plan has a colored pavement, at- grade, sidewalk that
is protected by curbs on both sides, but continues through the center. One
problem that centers like Towne Centre run into is high speed traffic. Why
not build the sidewalk as a raised crosswalk/speed bump, as is done in many
centers, which has the double benefit of slowing traffic as it enters the
main roadway and heightens awareness of the pedestrian space. I don't think
that the lack of this is a deal - killer, but it would be a great asset to the
project while allowing Catellus to avoid tenant rental concerns.
hope that your trip to China was a good one.
Thanks for listening,
JKW