Stop, Drop and Roll

07 November 2007 | Alameda City Council, Tranpsortation | John Knox White

After last night’s city council/Housing Authority meeting, I think that the housing Authority is going to remove parking at Independence Plaza.

But I’m getting ahead of myself, so let’s rewind to the beginning of the meeting.

It’s amazing how many issues can be tied up in the building of 20 (possibly 34) parking spaces. And I can’t possibly write about them all in one sitting, so maybe another time. But off the top of my head, last night’s meeting touched on: 

·        Alameda’s minimum parking requirements (the city requires .75 spots per unit in senior housing, while acknowledging that studies show only .6 are needed. The city’s requirements beat reality).

·        Park/open space on the East/West Ends (Apparently it’s easy to find open space to buy on the East End, not on the West End)

·        The dangers of parking lots (Walking through parking lots is like going out for a stroll in Baghdad’s green zone)

·        Transit Access (um……)

·        The Changing travel behavior of seniors (They have changed)

·        Paratransit is as good an option as transit (nevermind that each ride carries an average $35 subsidy)

·        Car Sharing (and is it more than just a newfangled fad that the kids these days are into?)

·        The high cost of free parking (with all due respect to Donald Shoup)

·        City Staff’s use of vehicles

·        There were more, but I have to get to work.

Since I wrote about the issue of prioritizing parking over transit, I’ll stick with transit access this morning (note to Lisa S. It’s another slippers and robe morning, I’m sorry, if the stereotype fits…).

Lena Tam asked staff about whether they had looked at creating easier (read more usable) access to one of the city’s best served bus stops as a part of dealing with the “parking problem” at Independence Plaza. The answer was a resounding no.

It turns out that putting a gate in the fence near the bus stop would be a big crime problem. A fact that I’m sure is backed up by the gate in the fence at the back of the project that opens onto a barely used park, and the one on the other side of the project. Clearly, gates cause crime.

But moreover, staff was clear, putting a gate in by the Atlantic/Webster bus stop would lead to the death and injury of countless seniors who would have to walk through the parking lot to get to the gate. “Nobody would want to risk that” (I’m paraphrasing) was staff’s response.

All of this explains the big push to put in new parking at the rear of the building. Clearly, nobody wants to use the parking spots in the parking lot that exists because walking to your car, which necessitates walking through the parking lot, means almost certain death.

Clearly, given the safety concerns highlighted at last night’s meeting, staff will be removing all the parking at Independence Plaza that requires users to step off a curb and traverse the same parking lot that is too dangerous to cross to get to the bus.

To say that this response was a little insulting (and seriously, the tone used during this item by staff last night was rather condescending I thought). Almost more insulting was the idea that residents “just have to walk a little further” to get to the bus stop. Since the 2005 staff report was clear that the main reason for this new parking push was to cut down on residents having to walk to their cars (a current distance much shorter than that to the bus stop).

From the April 5, 2005 staff report:

Tenants living in buildings 707 and 711 who are assigned spaces in these other lots must walk a considerable distance. For example, one tenant who lives in building 707 has been assigned parking space 34. This tenant, 67 years old, must walk 400 feet each way to her car.  Another tenant, 81 years old, lives in building 711. She must walk 478 feet between her apartment and her car.

…. 

There are not enough parking spaces near building 707 and 711 for the number of residents who need them. Due to the design of Independence Plaza, the proposed additional parking may be viewed as a reasonable accommodation for the seniors residing [there].”

I could go on about the design of Independence Plaza….but I won’t. But the 2005 staff report makes it clear that walking distance is a major factor in this drive to build more parking. So why is it that walking distance is no big deal for those who want to take the bus (and save the city $20,000 by not demanding a parking space)?

There’s a disconnect going on, despite comments by the council, I’m not sure that housing authority staff heard it last night.

In other actions:

1. Council voted to raise parking meter rates and fines (but said that the use of the increase in rates  should be dealt with at another time)

2. They remanded the Alameda Landing sidewalk issue back to the Planning Board, with some direction to explore a raised crosswalk/sidewalk instead of the proposed at-grade/colored cement version.