Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 15, 2014

Kids these days

Filed under: Alameda, Transportation — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

A lot of folks are super suspicious of the whole “unbundled parking” idea, probably because it goes against everything that we have ever known and believed about parking being “free.” I think that most people’s objections to unbundled parking comes from a lack of understanding about the whole concept and the belief that there is no “proof” that unbundled parking actually works.

Here’s a paper on the impacts of car sharing and unbundled parking on car ownership and mode choice. Sexy!  By the way, in an older post which someone commented that we don’t have reports on what people do after they buy housing units.  This is a study on what people do with their cars after they occupy units in which there are on site car sharing options and/or if parking is unbundled from the housing cost.

There’s a whole section on how car share membership lowers overall car ownership. Which totally makes sense logically. Then there is the part about unbundled parking, which I’ve excepted parts here:

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.32.40 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.32.51 PM
Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.33.02 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.43.20 PM

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.45.32 PM


This conclusion as to who the unbundled parking is appealing to from a cost perspective is interesting.  Just goes back to that whole idea about what the millennial generations wants as compared to older generations.

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 5.45.49 PM



  1. I watched Daily Show and they did a bit about how there are actually no national statistics on how many citizens are killed by police annually. Not at FBI, CDC, nowhere. One assumes the data is retained in records of local agencies and could be slowly collected but who knows? I’ve read CDC stats on gun deaths, but NRA supporters are trying to stop funding for that. There is even a law on the books requiring this data collection which is not enforced. we still know there are a lot.

    I’m assuming there have not been overwhelming numbers of projects with unbundled parking, or maybe there have been quite a few. How would we know? so it’s great to have any statistics at all. these studies do cost money.

    Comment by MI — October 15, 2014 @ 8:53 am

  2. I think that most people’s objections to unbundled parking comes from a lack of understanding about the whole concept and the belief that there is no “proof” that unbundled parking actually works.


    Anybody who has ever ordered off an a la carte menu understands how it works. Even those who haven’t can easily understand the concept of “the more you buy the more you get.”

    The primary objections to unbundled parking in the case of the Del Monte project go something like this:

    1) Unbundling will simply encourage some number of DM residents to park on already crowded streets.

    2) Promoters of the plan are extremely condescending towards existing residents and their very justifiable concerns. The cut/paste above is a good example of that.

    Comment by dave — October 15, 2014 @ 9:48 am

  3. o.k. dave, a) lets never change, ever. AND b) you get to ignore any attempt to use data which supports unbundling because your analogy is so obviously correct. While it is possible that occupants of DM would be greedy and opt out of buying parking in favor of wandering the neighborhood like Marley’s ghost, opting to park in the neighborhood just makes it worse for everybody. If you know that going in and have a choice, what would you do? I guess the answer may depend on how desirable the units are and how desperate people are for housing.

    Comment by MI — October 15, 2014 @ 10:04 am

  4. Seems to me that a combination of charging and having a permit-parking scheme for non-Del Monte residents would overcome objections. Permit-parking schemes work pretty well. My old neighborhood in SF had one and it really helped residents and ensured workers at UCSF parked in their paid-lot, or took Muni. Do pepole object to a scheme and, if so, why?

    Comment by BC — October 15, 2014 @ 10:10 am

  5. I certainly don’t object to a permit parking plan, and agree that it would help.

    Comment by dave — October 15, 2014 @ 10:29 am

  6. To be clear, I don’t live in that neighborhood, so my objection, or lack thereof, doesn’t matter.

    Comment by dave — October 15, 2014 @ 10:30 am

  7. #4 – the permit parking idea was mentioned at one of the Planning Board meetings on the Del Monte project. The residents in the neighborhood rejected the idea because they didn’t want to pay for permits.

    Comment by david burton — October 15, 2014 @ 10:44 am

  8. So hand ’em out gratis.

    Comment by dave — October 15, 2014 @ 11:08 am

  9. Or have the developer fund them. Surely the costs aren’t that high.

    Comment by BC — October 15, 2014 @ 11:43 am

  10. The funny thing is it was going to be developed one way or something else and the big worry is about parking and it probably had much more traffic in its past, trucks, semis. I see the building as historic and that is why I want to see it preserved.

    Comment by Jake — October 15, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

  11. Frankly I’d raze Littlejohn park and make it a parking lot or raze DM and make it a Park.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 15, 2014 @ 12:27 pm

  12. 9. yeah. I was told that in Berkeley they cost $65 a year and I assume that is per vehicle, but don’t know. They also give you a limited number of guest cards which must be filled out and dated in ink. #5 resonates with me, but I think the developer should probably shoulder the cost and presumably pass it along to occupants. Impact fees should probably be paid by those who create the impacts, but I’m good with the rest of us who are not in an affected area shouldering some of the burden.

    Comment by MI — October 15, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

  13. #11 care to explain?

    Comment by ajryan — October 15, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

  14. 13
    Littlejohn P will never become a parking lot, as it once was, so DM would make a nice addendum to the Alameda culture scene as a museum/art gallery located between the ‘Sweeney Open Space Park to the west and Littlejohn across BV. I’d rather see more cultural venues in Alameda than more homo sapiens clogging up rapidly clogging tubes. All this Del Monte project is turning out to be is another liberal/progressive experiment doomed (and apparently designed) to degrade life on the Island for current inhabitants.

    Comment by Jack Richard — October 15, 2014 @ 5:57 pm

  15. Jack, as a libertarian, who would you suggest pay for your museum/ art gallery?. You sound just like a liberal/progressive.

    Comment by John P. — October 15, 2014 @ 6:31 pm

  16. Obama can pay for it…chump change.

    Comment by stinky — October 15, 2014 @ 6:42 pm

  17. john, I’ve changed my whole political POV, like you and thanks to dave I am now a died in the comfy wool progressive/ liberal.

    Comment by Jack Richard P/L — October 15, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

  18. I’m not either of those, Jack. I’m a Realist. You should try reality someday.

    Comment by dave — October 15, 2014 @ 7:00 pm

  19. Why, nobody else does. The reality nowadays is unreal. ‘Go with the flow’ is the new reality.

    Comment by Jack Richard P/L — October 15, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

  20. Yeah Jack, what the heck is Dave talk-in about??. “realist” I like your new tag, very good.

    Comment by John P. — October 15, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

  21. John, dave’s reality will ware off after he’s been here awhile. He still has the newb Illusions.

    Comment by Jack Richard P/L — October 15, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

  22. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about the Littlejohn/Del Monte neighborhood residents’ position on “unbundling” and parking permits. Lots of twists, turns & interconnected parts that don’t really translate into sound bites or simple statements.

    We don’t “not understand” the concept of unbundled parking or question that there are reports that it can work… in some places. The issue is that the evidence comes from places with available “one-seat” public transportation. Being able to get to BART without relying on a shuttle is not the same as having to take a shuttle to BART (2-seat). That’s the concern – it’s quite likely that almost all residents will have a car (hopefully, not 2 cars). Even bundling one on-site parking spot per unit is no guarantee of preventing spillover into the neighborhood, but it’s one potential mitigation action.

    #7 We (residents) initially objected to a parking permit program because a) we want Littlejohn Park to stay accessible; and b) our 1st inquiry into how it might impact the neighborhood (nothing like this having been done in Alameda before) was answered with “don’t worry, there’s no way to enforce it.”

    You’re likely to see, in Staff’s updated TDM recommendation, that we’ve done research into the issue and have offered recommendations on how a parking permit plan might be explored for the neighborhood. The biggest concern is not paying for the permits (although some will); it’s that the program is supposed to pay for itself. Since the Littlejohn/Del Monte neighborhood is going to be the test case for a large development with reduced, unbundled parking, it isn’t unreasonable to ask for proactive planning for the residential streets. Is it?

    BTW – I would be happy to be wrong about Del Monte adding cars to the neighborhood. As I’ve told others, if it turns out that most of the new residents don’t have cars and don’t want those inside parking spots, I will lead the community drive for the zoning variance to allow a gigantic, Olympic-sized, indoor lap pool in that garage space and be the first person to buy a membership (this town seriously needs indoor, adult lap pool options).

    Comment by Alison — October 16, 2014 @ 1:01 am

  23. 22. It seems to me that you can separate the issues into those in which people very local to the project have a special interest, and those in which everyone in the city has an interest. (I live about a third of a mile a way, so I guess I’m on the periphery of very local.)

    The principal issue in the former group is taking up parking spots on (public) streets. The permit-scheme would seem to address this. Issues to do with whether people in Del Monte have cars (which they don’t park on the public streets) and how they commute seem to me to be of general interest to people in the city generally.

    To the extent you represent the very local neighborhood (beware sample-selection bias: the most anti people are the loudest), the main issue in which you have a greater interest than the rest of us is neighborhood parking.

    Comment by BC — October 16, 2014 @ 9:54 am

  24. BC – you are correct that the “hyper local” issue is the parking. My/our focus on Del Monte is that is is imminent, but what happens here sets the tone for the remainder of development proposals working their way through the system.

    We absolutely are concerned with the number of cars in the city, and this is also a hot topic in the neighborhood & community groups. It will take a much larger, concerted effort to get consensus on how to change the culture. Too much “us v. them” IMHO. I am (perhaps naively) optimistic that it can be done – 25 years ago, it was unthinkable to ban people from smoking indoors. We need a better approach, tho, than brushing off the “traffic problem” as people being overly-dramatic. Getting people out of their cars, reducing the number of cars and increased alternatives is a long-term solution; we need to talk about it differently & get better buy-in.

    Comment by greenefree — October 16, 2014 @ 10:58 am

  25. 24 is my post. Didn’t realize it wasn’t correct; I don’t like to post anonymously or behind screen names.

    Comment by Alison — October 16, 2014 @ 7:06 pm

  26. 22. If we could get AC Transit to return service on the O bus to what it used to be, you would have your one-seat transit, at least for people going to San Francisco. As it is, I think it is every 10-20 minutes during morning commute hours, but not as good in the evening. Once an hour in the middle of the day is bad.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 17, 2014 @ 8:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at