Page One

Editor: 

In her letter (11/1/01), Jenny Wenk presents a novel theory to oppose the Planning Commission’s General Plan parking policy. She argues that demographic changes have increased the number of auto-dependent Berkeley residents. 

She asserts that children under 5 have to be driven and people over 65 have to drive. Unfortunately, she has misread the data.  

Ms. Wenk asserts the number of residents under 5 increased by 8 percent since 1990, while the number over 65 increased by 9 percent But, according to the Census, the number of children under 5 declined from 4,720 in 1990 to 4,109 in 2000, a decline of 13 percent. The number over 65 declined from 11,252 to 10,484 a decline of 7 percent. 

The Census undercounted the Berkeley population last year. The undercount overwhelmingly involved undergraduate students living in dorms. We know from Census and survey data that only about one-third of UC students in Berkeley have cars. It can be safely concluded that the car-dependent population of Berkeley has, if anything, declined since 1990. 

The assumption that people over 65 are auto-dependent is questionable. Seniors are less likely to own cars both because many can’t afford them and because some are not physically able to drive. Many depend on transit. 

Unfortunately, many bus stops don’t provide shelter or places to sit, and bus schedules are rarely posted. Many buses run too infrequently and move slowly in heavy traffic. If Ms. Wenk is interested in the mobility of people over 65, she should favor spending money to implement General Plan policies improving transit as well as for improving pedestrian safety, so that seniors can safely cross the street, instead of calling for wasting money on a parking study. 

Ms. Wenk suggests the Planning Commission expects everyone to ride bicycles to buy groceries. There is no such expectation in the General Plan draft. It does contain policies designed to encourage more people who commute to Downtown and the Southside to use transit or bicycles. We expect many people will continue to drive, but a relatively modest shift toward transit, bicycles and walking will ease traffic problems, reduce air pollution and reduce the demand for parking.  

Ms. Wenk wants a “parking needs study.” Other advocates of more parking want a “visitor access study.” The recently completed Southside/Downtown Transportation Demand Management Study already contains recommended actions designed to facilitate visitor access. But because the study does not call for more parking, Ms. Wenk and others want another study. 

But every dollar wasted on yet another study is $1 that can’t be spent implementing General Plan policies that would result in better utilization of existing parking resources, and that would reduce demand for parking by encouraging transit and bicycle use and by improving transit service. If another parking study is ever needed, it should, as the General Plan specifies, be done after such policies are implemented so that the impact of those policies on parking demand can be taken into account. 

We already have parking counts that show how much parking is available in downtown garages. The data shows ample parking on weekday evenings and on weekends. Weekdays, parking is tighter, but far from nonexistent. A 1997 weekday afternoon survey found 315 vacant spaces; a midday survey done in May last year found 815 available spaces. 

On-street metered spaces are often scarce. Some people don’t like to park in garages. The General Plan draft calls for better enforcement of parking regulations against meter-feeding so employees of local businesses don’t take up all the metered spaces. It’s not possible to add on-street spaces and it doesn’t make sense to add spaces in garages when there is unused capacity. 

Downtown Berkeley is urban. In urban places, you can’t expect to park in front of the place you are visiting. Expensive schemes such as tearing up Civic Center Park to build a giant underground parking garage won’t change that reality. 

Rob Wrenn, 

Planning Commission chair