Features

When Jon Alff generalizes about Europe based on what he has seen in Bilbao and says that removing parking increases congestion, he is just plain wrong. (Letters, Daily Planet, April 6-8) 

Consider the example of Copenhagen. Copenhagen has reduced traffic as it has gradually reduced parking in the city center, according to Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy in their book Sustainability and Cities. 

I have visited Copenhagen. It has traffic but not major congestion. During morning commute hours near the center of town, you can see as many bicycles as cars waiting at intersections for the light to change. And there is a huge pedestrianized area that has been increased in size over the last 40 years. It has much less parking in its center than the average American city.  

I have walked through residential areas near the center where you see far more bicycles than cars parked in front of apartment buildings. Copenhagen has experienced neither increased congestion nor reduced commercial viability. What it has instead is a thriving pedestrianized commercial center. 

Both London and Paris are also moving to deal with traffic. London has implemented congestion charging which has reduced traffic in the center. Paris has converted traffic lanes on streets to bus-only lanes and has closed a major highway along the right bank of the Seine during summer months. 

The European cities that have made the most progress in reducing traffic and increasing livability seem to be those that aggressively work to re-allocate space from cars to pedestrians, bicycles and transit. Some parking is removed. Streets are closed to cars and pedestrian zones are created. Dedicated lanes for buses and trams and separate lanes for bicycles are created. 

Even in cities that have not done all these things, Europeans drive less. According to Newman and Kenworthy, people who live in 13 major American 

cities travel an average of 16,045 kilometers per capita per year in private passenger cars, while people who live in 11 major European cities travel 6,601 kilometers per capita. In addition, all 11 European cities that they studied had a majority of people commuting to work by alternative modes. 

Overall, European cities have much less parking than American cities and have much less driving and many more people commuting by alternative modes. 

Mr. Alff makes his statements about Europe as part of an effort to argue that Berkeley isn’t requiring enough parking to be built with new development and that this failure will somehow lead to increased traffic congestion. 

When we look at Berkeley, there are certainly areas such as the Southside and the downtown where living without a car is a viable option because of all the transit service available within a few blocks walk. Requiring any parking at all for new development in these areas makes no sense. A majority of people who currently live in these areas don’t own cars. 

People who have occasional need for a car have the option of joining City CarShare, which is certainly less costly than owning a car. The fact that you may want or need to drive sometimes does not mean that you need to own a car or have a parking space provided. 

University and Shattuck avenues in downtown have blocks with no driveways. Requiring someone who wants to redevelop a property on those blocks to put in a curb cut for parking makes no sense and would be very bad for the many pedestrians walking on those driveway-free sidewalks. 

In areas of the city where the quality of transit service is not as good, requiring some parking for new development makes sense, though there is no need to increase parking requirements for new development and no compelling evidence that the city is not requiring enough parking. 

The whole idea of “transit-oriented development,” which is central to the city’s General Plan, is a good one. If the city is going to encourage new development, it should be located in areas served by transit, so that new development doesn’t just clog Berkeley street’s with more traffic. 

Unfortunately, the development that is occurring now on Berkeley’s commercial corridors is happening at the very time that AC Transit is cutting service. There are grounds for concern. 

But there are some bright spots. 

AC has implemented a rapid bus on San Pablo Avenue that has reduced travel times. And plans for Bus Rapid Transit on Telegraph with dedicated lanes for buses will also improve and expand transit service. Ultimately, Berkeley also needs light rail or bus rapid transit on University Avenue as well. 

Our City Council needs to make improving transit service in Berkeley a priority. If we are going to have more development, we need improved transit 

to go with it. One first step the council can take toward improving transit is to approve the Transportation Commission’s recommendations for the use of 

Vista College mitigation funds, which calls for some of the money to go to transit. 

Some people have the mistaken impression that almost everyone in Berkeley has to drive and that cars are a necessity for everyone, except maybe for a few students. But Berkeley residents actually drive less than residents of most other cities in the U.S. We are different from other Bay Area cities of 

similar size. 

Berkeley ranks number seven among all cities in the U.S. with 100,000 population or more in the percentage of non-car commuters. Forty-two percent commute by means other than a car. Berkeley ranks number one in the percentage of bicycle commuters and number two in the percentage of pedestrian commuters. 

Even with a transit system that does not adequately serve all sections of the city, lots of people still get around without cars. With a concerted effort to upgrade transit service, people can become even less reliant on cars. Adding a lot more parking along with new development is certainly not going to accomplish anything other than to increase traffic throughout the city’s neighborhoods. Traffic congestion results from too much parking in relation to street capacity not from too little. 

Rob Wrenn is a Berkeley Planning Commission and chairman of the UC Hotel Task Force.  

ˇ