No Parking on the Dance Floor
Parking tops tonight’s council and housing authority meetings.
First, the Housing Authority (HABOC) is finalizing a deal to take 10,000sq. ft of parkland and convert it to parking for Independence Plaza. Yep, it’s the old green space to oil slicks trade. But hey, there won’t be housing on it, so nobody will mind!
What’s most amazing, is that the minutes from the two 2005 meetings in which this was discussed and approved, the staff talks about how A) the parking isn’t needed so much because they don’t have enough parking, but because it will be more convenient for some residents. Two residents who must currently walk 400-460 feet to their cars are held up as shining examples of the trouble.
At the same time, the housing is surrounded by a fence that necessitates residents hoping to walk or use transit, to walk 2-4 times that far. In 2005, councilmember Gilmore expressed concern about the fact that residents were driving more than expected. The fact that our senior housing is located at one of Alameda’s most notorious intersections and designed in such a way as to cut people off from easy access to transportation and retail options, its shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.
But why is the city plunking down $110K for 20 parking spots that serve 20 private residents? Or a better question, why will this parking be offered for free to residents? The bundling of parking, where it is “included” in the cost of one’s rent or fees, is a big indicator of car-ownership. Research is finding that many people are happy to give up their cars, when the cost of parking is externalized and they start making monthly payments for it.
Unbundled parking allows people to make a choice, buy parking or don’t, and often, the answer is “don’t.” The HABOC should make this swap contingent unbundling the parking and charging for it, heck, let the free market set the price!
As long as the city is spending $110K on parking for residents, perhaps now is the time for them to commit to reconnecting Independence Plaza into the rest of it’s neighborhood, including a gate for residents to use to get to the bus or the crosswalk conveniently, as well as provide bus shelters for the city’s daily 1000’s of transit riders (there are currently 18 unfunded, approved shelter locations in Alameda).
To be fair, the $110K is buying new (unusable) parkland on the East End, this will be swapped for the west-end park land that’s being converted to parking. So the city is getting more than parking and by doing the land swap, the money stays in the city, rather than going to the federal National Park Service. (it’s convoluted). Either way, it’s hard to avoid noticing the more-open-space-for-the-east-end, less-for-the-west-end part of the deal.
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) 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.
Lastly, Alameda Landing’s retail pedestrian walkway appeal is on the docket. Catellus hs come up with a pretty good compromise between the planning board’s direction and their (Catellus’) need to have a functioning center.
The only 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. Centers like Towne Centre (and future Alameda Landing) run into high speed traffic issues, why not build the sidewalk as a raised crosswalk/speed bump, as is done in many shopping centers? This has the double benefit of slowing traffic as it enters the main roadway as well as heightening awareness of the pedestrian space.
Leave a Reply