Readers noted in comments to yesterday’s article that, while Lincoln40 is proposing to have 473 total bedrooms – some of which will be double occupancy to push the number of beds to 708 – they are only proposing to provide 239 parking stalls.
As one person wrote, “I’m a bit curious why they propose 485 beds, but only offer about half of that amount for parking. Where do they expect the rest of the cars to go? Park on Olive??”
Another responded, “Good question, and these developers are apparently going to wave their magic wand and reduce the car usage to half. This will result in the cars parking in other areas near this enormous project and imposing those parking impacts there. I’ll bet that they will try to charge a parking fee to increase their profit margin even more while eliminating all affordable housing. It is astonishing that City Staff would even consider any of this.”
Later they added, “Lack of availability of parking on the streets will simply set up a situation of competition for parking spots on the street spilling out beyond to other areas. How does Lincoln40 plan to control the number of cars from its residents when they are providing only half of what is needed for that number of residents?”
The problem with this discussion is that it is not informed with actual data on student driving patterns. Anecdotally, I have often noted that when we first started the court watch internship program in 2010, most of the students had their own cars. Now more than half do not have a car in town at all.
While it is certainly true that these will not be 100 percent student housing, primarily it will be.
Given its location, Lincoln40 will be ideal for students to walk or bike down Olive, hit up with the bike path on the west side of the street and easily get onto campus without having to get into a car or go under the congested Richards underpass.
The parking allotment allows for about one in every three residents to park their vehicle on site. That calculation seems to be right in line with current campus mode shares.
Fortunately, we do not have to rely on just anecdotal evidence here to back up the claim. We have data from the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. Their most recent Travel Survey is a year old now, having been released in September 2015, but we suspect that the patterns captured have not changed significantly in a year.
On overall mode share, their survey found, “On an average weekday, about 85.4 percent of people physically travel to campus (approximately 36,205 people, including those living on campus). Among these, 46 percent bike to get there, 7 percent walk or skate, 24 percent drive alone, 5 percent carpool or get a ride, 17 percent ride the bus, and 1 percent ride the train.”
That shows just 30 percent of 36,000 who traveled to campus used a car, either driving alone or in a carpool. That number is right in line with the parking space allotment.
The survey also calculated the average vehicle ridership. Again, the notable change has been that more and more students do not drive cars.
As they explain: “Average vehicle ridership (AVR) is a statistic calculated at each UC campus that represents the ratio of the number of people arriving on campus to the number of personal vehicles brought to campus. If everyone drove by themselves to campus, the campus AVR would be equal to one. Values greater than 1.0 indicate more carpooling or the use of alternative modes of transportation. The official 2014-15 AVR for non-student employees living off-campus is 1.61 person-arrivals per vehicle-arrival… The AVR for the entire campus community is 3.23 excluding on-campus residents and 3.77 including on-campus residents. This means that for every car coming to campus, there are an estimated 3.77 people coming to campus or telecommuting.”
But the statistics are actually even more stacked when you compare the outside Davis with the within Davis contingent.
Those who live outside of Davis are most likely to drive at nearly a 1 to 1 ratio. However, those who live within Davis are most likely to use other mode shares. For every person who drives, there are 7.25 people coming to campus, for those within Davis.
As we know from last week’s article, the number of Zipcars in town have increased in just four years from four to 15, demonstrating the shifting usage of personal vehicles especially by students.
The bottom line here is that the close proximity of the university to Olive Drive, combined with the availability of buses and Zipcars to augment pedestrian and bike transportation, greatly reduces the need for students to have their own cars to park off campus.
That, combined with the increased costs of tuition and coupled with rising rents, makes car ownership a sizable monthly expense – a luxury that many students simply do not need and cannot afford.
It seems likely that the developers, experienced apartment builders and owners, would have calculations to determine the need for parking spaces – and should they underestimate the needed supply, they have alternative means to reduce the number of cars needed to park in stalls.
As others pointed out, it is not as though there are convenient alternative locations to park one’s car near the apartment complex anyway.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Anyone who lived in Davis circa 1970’s remembers many students walked, rode their bikes, used public trans. & car shared. And they did just fine. Since Target came to town, it’s possible to do all ones shopping locally. Cars are a luxury, not a necessity.
And with Amazon fewer people shop in person anyway.
What’s your point. That all happens today. Are you saying no one used cars to get to campus in the 1970’s? That’s not my remembrance. I remember late 1970’s early 1980’s people driving downtown and college park, parking, running to their class, and running back for their car hoping to beat the meter maid.
Not sure if students are living closer to campus or what, but I remember the days when Anderson was clogged with riders every morning and afternoon. Don’t see that much these days. (pssst…Alan…they don’t call them meter maids anymore, now they’re PEOs, jeez your old).
In the 70’s HS students had no/few cars, and there was very little parking… the vast majority of elementary, JHS students walked/rode bikes…
Today, a majority of parents drive their kids to elementary/JHS because there are so many cars that it is not “safe” for their kids to walk or bike… (???????????????) [Think Pogo]
A lot of parking was added at DHS, families in Davis had more discretionary income, so there are a lot of 2-4 year old cars, student driven, using those spaces (see Pogo reference).
If you build it, they will come… etc. [if you give your kid a car…]
This article might be right that students need fewer parking spaces, but the data in the article does not demonstrate it.
The first sentence above is based on data from the campus about use of cars in travelling to campus. The second sentence suggests that not using a car to travel to campus equates to not needing a parking space at the Lincoln 40 apartments. The data does not in anyway show how many students own cars or need parking by their residence. I would suggest that many students who own cars do not use them to travel to campus. My experience is traveling to campus is easier and cheaper by bike, so that’s what students do. Cars are more often used for shopping and trips to their home cities. Car trips to campus is not an indicator of car ownership.
Again, I have no reason to dispute that fewer students own cars, however, the data used in this article does not demonstrate that.
Finally, I want to point out that the existing parking lot immediately across the train tracks from this proposed Lincoln 40 is one of the the most heavily used lots in Davis (if not the most). It is general full by 6:30 am.
Can people get across the tracks there? Isn’t there a fence that blocks access?
from the Linclon 40 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting
There is.
There you go, using sound logic, making sense.
What gives you the right?
David,
Interesting stats regarding daily trips to campus, but why not look directly at ratio of cars to rooms at West Village? That one rides to campus is interesting, but what percentage still bring their cars with them to Davis?
I don’t have data on that yet. They must have models on parking spaces to bed ratios for college students, I’d like to see those models.
Delia
Having arrived in Davis to start med school in ’79, I can vouch for that. For our first two years of classes, most of us biked. It was not until our clerkships which were scattered throughout the region that many of us felt the need for a car.
There is another aspect to be considered here. For as long as I have participated on the Vanguard, the subject of traffic in the downtown area has been a hot button issue periodically. I have stated a number of times that I do not feel that the issue is too few parking spaces, nor lack of routes, nor the Richards underpass but rather an over reliance on cars. To the credit of the millennials, they seem to be trending towards a preference for alternatives to the single occupant automobile. As we proceed with infill projects, we will need to be doing all we can to promote these alternatives. Zip cars, increased ride sharing, addition of buses along existing routes, shuttles, and greater availability of on call transpiration such as Uber, Lyft and taxis all help. I would also hope that all those currently planning either hotels or apartment complexes would consider tangible incentives possibly even vouchers or small rate reductions to those who do not bring their own cars. While this would result in a small decrease in profits, it could present a large benefit to the immediately impacted neighbors and to the community as a whole. I know that simple steps such as these to add value to a project rather than just mitigate for anticipated harm, would be a big positive for me when I am considering the merits of a proposal.
Wrong again Tia… I’m a “boomer”… didn’t have a car my entire college experience (5 years) in Davis… maybe 10 % of the students had a car (high side)… they were very popular, particularly on weekends…
Giving credit to the “millenials”? Because they may drive slightly less than the “Gen X”? Who had far more availability to their own car than the “boomers”? C’mon…
pierce
“Wrong again Tia”
It seems that you are far more interested in being adversarial to me than you are in considering what I am actually saying. I appreciate a trend towards less reliance on the single occupant automobile no matter which generation is doing it. I cited millennials because it has been my personal experience with my own son and his peers and because the decrease for this group has been cited by numerous sources. I believe in giving credit where it is due….so congratulations to you for your contribution to decreased pollution.
Hey Tia,
What is that bus on the causeway w/ extremely tired looking twenty somethings in their scrubs? I used to see that often on my commute to Natomas & it always made me smile. Half of them were slumped against the windows of the bus, sound asleep. ♡
Delia,
I don’t know what bus it is, but I do know that you made me smile. It brought back memories of when six of us used to carpool to the VA in Martinez for various rotations. We took turn driving with the rule that shot gun had to stay awake with the driver because of our long hours ( over 24 hour shifts) twice weekly, while those in the back that day could sleep.
Do you support the revised Trackside proposal which would densify housing within the core area for more residents that would not need a car?
Frankly
I can see both pros and cons to the revised Trackside proposal. You have cited one of the points that I see as an advantage. There are many points still to be considered. That is why I have made no substantive comments on the proposal itself to this point.
I would advise you to come out as a strong supporter given your significant platform of anti-car-ism. Because the Trackside project is exactly the type of development that is required to realize your car-less utopia.
I see this brief exchange between Tia and Frankly as illustrative of a larger point. (That is, overly-dense infill is not a panacea. Especially if its directly in one’s own “backyard”.) And, I’m not saying this as a criticism – it’s an understandable concern/reaction.
Given a choice, I’d still greatly prefer density, vs. sprawl. (A third choice – a relatively stable population, would be my preference. And ultimately, it’s really the only sustainable choice, in the long term.)
Unless one lives their entire lives in Davis (e.g., near downtown), autos will remain a big part of people’s lives. (And, that includes Uber, Lyft, whatever. Such services do not necessarily reduce trips by auto.)
So, Ron when did you arrive in Davis? I’m a newbie, came in 1972… perhaps we should have “stabilized” the population then…
But I’m not the “I got in, so raise the drawbridge” type…
Neither am I, really. It has nothing to do with me, you, or anyone else in particular. The “drawbridge” has shut for me, regarding my original home town. And, I don’t advocate vast amounts of development there, either.
Just hoping that the population stabilizes, at some point. (If I were “in charge” of things at a national level, I’d at least try to eliminate additional tax breaks for more than two children. Perhaps some other ideas, as well.)
Ron… actually meant as a “fair question”… what do you consider “vast”?
To me, 1.5-2.0 % per year is acceptable… locally and globally… and yes I understand about “compounding”…
The two children per couple thing I understand, unless you want to rachet down the population… my parents had one child, my spouse’s had three… total of four, so that works… of the four, if each had two children, there would be eight grandchildren… in fact there are seven (and given our ages, barring a “biblical miracle” there will be no more) of my or my spouse’s generation adding children…
As it stands, going back to my paternal grandparents’ generation, there were two children, one grandchild, three great-grand-children… instead of 16… so far, no great-great grandchildren, and don’t expect more than 3-4… instead of 32.
hpierce: “Ron… actually meant as a “fair question”… what do you consider “vast”?
That’s a tough, subjective question to answer. Perhaps we already have “too much” development, on a global scale. We’re already (apparently) altering the climate, and threatening the survival of many other species. And, many countries are only recently adopting modern lifestyles (and further impacting the planet).
Given that some resources (including land) are ultimately finite, it seems that our population and development will ultimately have to be stable. I don’t think anyone knows what that point is, but of course it also depends on “how” we live. (As I noted earlier this evening, even I don’t want to give up my car.)
In the meantime, our existing infrastructure e.g., roads, water sources) and immediate impact on our environment (e.g., smog levels) will continue to be impacted, as population and development expands. In any case, I’m not sure what the “benefit” is of continuing along that path.
Let me help you, Highbeam…
probably should read “connect to the bike path on the westerly knuckle of West Olive Drive”.
Can someone explain how large numbers of bicyclists would travel through the Richards/Olive intersection (from the proposed Lincoln40 development), without significantly impacting that already-congested intersection?
On a related note, I just finished participating in a discussion with Matt, regarding this issue. Here’s a link to that discussion:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/09/lincoln40-prepares-draft-eir-scoping-meeting/#comment-335223
Light turns green, they cross the street and head to west Olive drive and onto campus. It’s not quite the crisis you make it out to be. Worst case scenario they add a bike phase like they do at Sycamore and Russell.
Chamber Fan:
Thanks for the response, but I really doubt that it’s that simple. If you have large numbers of bicyclists moving through that intersection, it may require different (longer/more frequent) timings of the traffic signal to accommodate them. (Also, someone mentioned yesterday that there was a button that can be pushed to cross that intersection, to influence the timing of the signal.)
Seems ironic that you brought up the intersection at Sycamore and Russell (adjacent to Trader Joe’s), which is one of the worst intersections to try to negotiate.
Additional traffic (of any type) reduces efficiency, and creates more pollution from idling cars.
The bottom line is that if Lincoln40 is approved, there needs to be a (simultaneously-constructed) grade-separated crossing of some type. Short of that, it doesn’t make sense to even consider the proposal.