|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a bid to reach its sustainability and decarbonization goals, Mountain View is working on a transportation ordinance aimed at reducing drive-alone trips and parking demand in the city.
The framework – referred to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance – will require developers to implement measures incentivizing residents and employees to use alternative and sustainable transportation options.
The city already has implemented a patchwork of TDM strategies in recent years. Some of these include public transit subsidies, incentives for bicycle commuting, corporate shuttle services and preferential parking spaces for carpool and vanpool.
The plan is for the ordinance to make these strategies more consistent, transparent and predictable, according to a study session presented to the Environmental Planning Commission Wednesday evening.
“By implementing TDM measures, new development will help the city achieve important citywide goals, such as reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality livability, as well as expanding mobility access across the city,” said Transportation Analyst Ben Pacho.
Integrated into the city’s planning and permit process, the TDM ordinance will apply only to new developments, although it will encourage existing projects to adopt its provisions. “This would be to ensure the burden of compliance and the benefits made available through the ordinance are equally shared across the community,” Pacho said.
The commissioners expressed support for the ordinance and its vision to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. But they also had concerns about the effectiveness of its implementation.
“I’m accustomed to goals that are a little more quantifiable,” said Commissioner William Cranston, who advocated for using metrics that addressed both the spatial and temporal dimensions of how people travel today.
Cranston was particularly concerned about using weekly averages to measure commute trips, which do not capture the full story of hybrid work schedules. TDM strategies need to evolve with these changing patterns, he said, adding that commuters are unlikely to purchase monthly transit passes when they only travel a few days a week. “I’m not sure that programs that we’ve looked at in the past necessarily are going to work consistently,” he said.
Commissioner Jose Gutierrez expressed similar concerns about the reliability of using past standards to determine future trends. “I feel like we’re maybe too overly aggressive on this, and we would need an additional one to two years to actually get the stats that we need,” he said.
Commissioners also questioned how compliance with the ordinance would be enforced, and how it would be applied in cases of tenant arrangements.
Ultimately, it is the property owner’s responsibility, as part of the condition of approval of the development, said Public Works Director Dawn Cameron. But the ordinance affects all the tenants, she added. “So, maybe it’s the landlord that’s helping to provide some of the TDM measures, such as transit passes, or something else to help the tenants get their employees using commute alternatives,” she said as an example.
Pooling resources, particularly to help small businesses and residential projects, is another strategy that the city is proposing as part of its TDM implementation, Cameron said. She provided the example of the Mountain View Transportation Management Association working with groups of properties to help tenants learn about their transit options so it doesn’t fall on the onus of individual owners.
But while facilitating transit options, the ordinance is not designed to fix infrastructural needs. “It’s one thing to provide transit passes; it’s another thing to make sure that transit is available and will go where people need to go,” Cameron said, adding that these strategic priorities are being addressed by the City Council in other work plans.
Still in its early stages, the ordinance will be developed and presented to the Council Transportation Committee in early 2024, with a possible adoption of the ordinance in the fall of 2024, according to the staff report.
“But while facilitating transit options, the ordinance is not designed to fix infrastructural needs. “It’s one thing to provide transit passes; it’s another thing to make sure that transit is available and will go where people need to go,” Cameron said, adding that these strategic priorities are being addressed by the City Council in other work plans.”
Bingo! Making sure that transit is available and will go where people need to go is the hard part.
I recall reading about a new program in Palo Alto, where a fleet of electric vehicles is run as kind of a municipal taxi service. I would love to see Mountain View implement something similar. People could access point-to-point transportation services without owning a car. I think that would help us reach sustainability and decarbonization goals, and also parking demand.
They don’t seem to have a good idea how to solve this so that means it’s too early and they need to come back in a few years.
For starters, let’s charge money for parking downtown.
So if we don’t want people driving downtown we can charge for parking. That will have the “benefit” of killing off remaining retail because surely it’s a lot greener (and cheaper) to shop on Amazon at home and have them deliver in a nice electric Rivian delivery truck. No congestion, no pollution, done!
Although this sounds wonderful, looking beneath the surface is extra burdens on the renters, landlords, local business and so on. Sorta like trying to put the genie back in the bottle whereas over the decades everyone lauded the growth and the broadening tax base and now all the people who fueled that growth(and many who didnt) will suffer yet another Government must keep busy idea. I’m not sure this can be pulled off in a non punitive way. The good news… 700k people left(net) California last year over quality of life, costs and rudderless policies by our elected “leaders”
“So if we don’t want people driving downtown we can charge for parking. That will have the “benefit” of killing off remaining retail because surely it’s a lot greener (and cheaper) to shop on Amazon at home and have them deliver in a nice electric Rivian delivery truck. No congestion, no pollution, done!”
I’m pretty sure this is a joke, right? These days it’s getting hard to tell.
In addition to killing off remaining retail, I want to point out that charging for parking would be a regressive tax that would hurt low-income and average workers much more than high wage workers.
A certain political movement that is very active here in MV claims, “We drive policy change to … bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” May I point out that charging for parking would INCREASE the cost of living here, not bring it down?
Alright, alright. Let’s all pay for parking (car storage) that only some people use. But then you can say goodbye to the city’s greenhouse-gas reduction goals.
See PDF, page 5
https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/202/637938203888500000
“Alright, alright. Let’s all pay for parking (car storage) that only some people use. But then you can say goodbye to the city’s greenhouse-gas reduction goals.”
Only some people use? I think a lot more people use cars than you are willing to admit. And I think that the parking that is already there has already been paid for, it was paid for using taxes that were collected a long time ago.
Please refer to my first comment:
“I recall reading about a new program in Palo Alto, where a fleet of electric vehicles is run as kind of a municipal taxi service. I would love to see Mountain View implement something similar. People could access point-to-point transportation services without owning a car. I think that would help us reach sustainability and decarbonization goals, and also parking demand.”
You bring up a valid point about the initial payment for parking being covered by taxes collected in the past. However, it’s essential to consider that the cost of parking goes beyond the initial investment. Ongoing maintenance expenses play a significant role in the overall cost of parking facilities. Roads, pavements, security measures, lighting, and other infrastructure require regular maintenance to ensure the safety and convenience of those who use the parking spaces. These maintenance costs are usually covered by taxpayer money as well, making parking a continuous financial commitment for the community.
Additionally, the exclusive use of valuable land for automobile storage should not be overlooked. Land is a finite resource, especially in urban areas where space is at a premium. When parking spaces occupy prime real estate, it limits the potential use of that land for other purposes such as housing, businesses, green spaces, or community facilities. This exclusive use of land for parking leads to an opportunity cost – the benefits that could have been gained from utilizing the land for more productive or community-oriented purposes.
Furthermore, there are environmental and social costs associated with car-dependent urban planning. Excessive parking encourages car usage, contributing to traffic congestion and air pollution. It also promotes a sedentary lifestyle, as people are more likely to drive even short distances rather than walking or cycling. These factors can have negative implications for public health and the overall well-being of the community.
In summary, while taxes collected in the past may have covered the initial payment for parking, the ongoing maintenance costs, the exclusive use of valuable land, and the broader societal impacts highlight that the cost of parking extends far beyond the initial investment. It’s crucial for communities to consider these factors when evaluating the true expenses associated with providing parking spaces.
“You bring up a valid point …”
Thank you, I believe that I’ve brought up multiple valid points, including this one: “In addition to killing off remaining retail, I want to point out that charging for parking would be a regressive tax that would hurt low-income and average workers much more than high wage workers.”
When trying to change behavior, one can use carrots or sticks. Carrots are preferred by many, because people voluntarily embrace them to the extent that they can. Sticks are punitive, they accomplish the task by inducing pain when an undesired behavior occurs.
I prefer carrots myself, which is why I made a suggestion about a new form of transit that would “go where people need to go” and would ALSO help our city meet our greenhouse-gas reduction goals.
Charging for parking is essentially a mechanism for punishing people who use cars. It is also a solution that hurts anyone who has mobility issues, including many seniors. To punish people who use cars WITHOUT providing alternative transit solutions is nothing but a recipe for disaster, unless one’s actual goal is to kill off retail and raise the cost of living in Mountain View.
You bring up a crucial point about the use of carrots and sticks in changing behavior, and your preference for carrots aligns with the idea of providing positive incentives to encourage desirable actions. However, the issue of charging for parking is complex and involves considering various perspectives. Low-income workers are more likely to rely on public transit or not own a car due to financial constraints. For them, the availability and affordability of public transportation options are vital lifelines.
Some argue that it’s not necessarily punitive to charge for parking but rather a way to manage a valuable resource more efficiently. By reducing the demand for parking among able-bodied individuals and the younger population who might have alternative transportation options, it can create a more balanced parking ecosystem. This can make it easier for those who truly need parking, especially individuals with mobility issues, seniors, or those with specific requirements, to find accessible parking spaces.
Reevaluating the allocation of parking spaces can promote a more equitable distribution of resources. Instead of viewing it as a punishment, it can be seen as a strategy to optimize the utilization of limited urban space. By encouraging alternative modes of transportation for those who can use them, the focus can shift towards making public transit more accessible, reliable, and affordable for everyone, including low-income workers.
Your suggestion about a new form of transit that caters to people’s needs while contributing to greenhouse gas reduction goals is valuable. Implementing such solutions alongside a thoughtful approach to parking management can create a more inclusive and sustainable urban environment. It’s essential to strike a balance between encouraging positive behavioral changes, providing necessary support to vulnerable populations, and optimizing the use of urban resources for the benefit of the entire community.
“Low-income workers are more likely to rely on public transit or not own a car due to financial constraints.”
Not sure if this is true, in June the Voice ran an article about RV dwellers needing parking for “the cars they use to get around during the day, but not to sleep in” https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/06/26/as-mountain-view-plans-to-expand-safe-parking-advocates-say-more-space-is-needed-for-commuter-vehicles It certainly IS true that MV has raised the cost of owning a car for anyone living in an affordable housing development that provides absolutely no parking for it’s residents. These persons essentially have only the choice between parking on the streets, or paying for parking in a nearby garage (if they are lucky enough to even have that option). Lower income persons who need a vehicle for their work, such as gardeners and uber drivers, are increasingly priced out of MV. But don’t forget about average workers, like teachers, who DO own cars but would be harmed more greatly than tech workers if paid parking is implemented.
“Some argue that it’s not necessarily punitive to charge for parking but rather a way to manage a valuable resource more efficiently.”
It IS a way to manage a valuable resource. It is ALSO punitive and a regressive tax. Those with lots of $$$ in their pockets have access, those with less $$$ are blocked. That’s a form of Wealth Inequality.
“By reducing the demand for parking among able-bodied individuals and the younger population who might have alternative transportation options, it can create a more balanced parking ecosystem.”
You made me think of the movie Logan’s Run, have you seen it? It featured a beautiful but highly dystopian world where nobody lives past the age of 30. Maybe paid parking would be less discriminatory if MV implemented a permit system where only those who were “able bodied” were required to pay. But it would STILL be a regressive tax.
“Your suggestion about a new form of transit that caters to people’s needs while contributing to greenhouse gas reduction goals is valuable. ”
Thank you. I would really love to see that kind of program here in MV. If they can do it in Palo Alto, why can’t we do it here?
FYI, here is a link that describes the Palo Alto program
“This Bay Area city launched its own ride share app — with 4 new Teslas”
“Palo Alto Link offers to shuttle residents in on-demand electric vehicles anywhere in the city”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/13/this-bay-area-city-launched-its-own-ride-share-app-with-4-new-teslas/
“PALO ALTO — No need to call Uber or Lyft next time you want to take a weekday trip to Stanford Shopping Center, California Avenue restaurants or anywhere else in Palo Alto — the city now has a fleet of Teslas waiting to swoop in at a moment’s notice. Yes, Teslas.
“Palo Alto Link is this tech city’s foray into the ride-share space, seeking to disrupt titans that have struggled in recent years to keep a base of happy riders and drivers, and offering anyone a brand new Tesla — or, if a minivan is needed, a Toyota Sienna — to pick up and drop off anywhere in the city, whether it’s the hospital, a trip to the mall, a jaunt in the park or for the simple curiosity of riding in a Tesla.
“The ride-share app is easy to use, works much like Uber or Lyft and is the city’s answer to residents’ clamor for the return of a popular shuttle service that was shut down at the height of the pandemic in 2020. Rides are free until April 7, but fares won’t break the bank: just $3.50 can get you anywhere in the city, with discounts for students, seniors, those with disabilities and others that bring the cost down to just $1. Right now the service operates Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
“City Transportation Manager Nate Baird said Palo Alto Link will be much more useful than a fixed-route shuttle.
“It really potentially expands access to transit for a number of residents because transit really serves those who are within a quarter mile of bus stops,” Baird said. “Having a service that can go to any cross street in the city is an improvement for a great many folks in our city.””
Palo Alto Link: What Riders Think So Far – https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Office-of-Transportation/Palo-Alto-Link-What-Riders-Think-So-Far
Published on April 27, 2023
“Since it’s early March launch, Palo Alto Link has connected community members across the City. With over 4,000 rides so far, the pilot program has seen high customer service marks, low wait times, and it continues to meet the program goal of expanding access to an easy, affordable, and eco-friendly transportation option.
Based on current ridership trends, Palo Alto Link is on track to surpass annual ridership of the last year of the Crosstown Shuttle. Check out what riders have to say about the new service, get your questions answered, and learn how to book a ride in a new community update.”
“How it Works” – https://medium.com/paloaltoconnect/palo-alto-link-what-riders-think-so-far-98664643d5fc
“Palo Alto Link matches riders headed in the same direction into one vehicle and directs them to “virtual bus stops” within a short walking distance to minimize detours for others. This dynamic corner-to-corner model, combined with the mixed fleet of hybrids and Teslas, work together to maximize efficiency and foster sustainable travel.”
“For seniors [65+] and disabled riders, curb to curb (address to address) rides are available. In the app, simply choose the menu item labeled “Discounted Fare” and toggle on (click the circle) the appropriate designation or call (650) 505–5772 to request “address to address” routing for seniors or disabled with the booking agent.”
“This phase of the Palo Alto Link service is an 18-month pilot project that is funded in part by a Valley Transportation Authority grant. Due to funding limitations and working to ensure efficiency for the most essential trips, the service does not go to all locations within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. Following the completion of the first-year evaluation, it may be possible to work with the VTA and potential future funders to broaden our service to other and more destinations. To provide input, email paloaltolink@cityofpaloalto.org .”