Condividi tramite

Don't Park On Us

  • Articolo

At our weekly meeting last night, the Redmond Planning Commission was asked to review potential changes to the Transportation chapter* of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Microsoft, ever-protective of the short term interests of its investors, dispatched a well-dressed and polite attorney from a reputable private firm to advocate editions that would have weakened Redmond's progressive parking requirements, at least in the opinions of a majority of my fellow commissioners. These limits (~3 stalls/1000 squre feet) are designed to encourage what our City planners call "modesplit". Modesplit is the division of commuters into different travel modes, such as car, bike, and bus. I am a modesplitter. I drive some days and ride my bicycle on others.

Hmmmmmm.

Having recently denuded Microsoft employees of an attractive and meaningful (lo, some have argued economical) inducement to commute by means other than single occupancy vehicle, Of COURSE MICROSOFT IS GOING TO NEED MORE PARKING SPACES! The cost efficacy folks who cut on campus towel service do not appear to be as prescient or as well-informed as the company's legal council. That being said, I may have made the same decision had I been in their beancounter shoes. More thoughts in my previous post on the subject, Microsoft Throws in the Towel.

++++++++++++++++
*I'm planning to post the latest version of the City's Transportation chapter online but my ISP is down temporarily. If you'd like a copy, contact me directly.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2004
    I guess you've saved me from blogging about the view from outside my office window.

    I sit on the 4th floor of building 50, and at 11:00 or so every morning, I get to watch the endless circles of cars as they try to find parking in building 50's too-small parking lot.

    And why is it too small? Because the city of redmond decided to prohibit Microsoft from putting in one parking space per office :)

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2004
    MS people need to stop using the word "efficacy".

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2004
    "Efficacy" is WallStreetSpeak, I think. I don't like it either. It's unimaginative.

    Microsoft, like any other "user" in Redmond, negotiates a parking agreement with the City when planning the construction of a new building. Are folks doubled up in Building 50? Are there temps in conference rooms? If so, it's possible that the folks who negotiated the parking for your building failed to anticipate that such would ever be the case.

    Given Microsoft's excellent shuttle system, I'm surprised we haven't yet seen the construction of satellite parking lots, especially in buildings like Cedar Court where parking can be a total nightmare.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2004
    I certainly do not bash MS's efforts to promote alternative transportation. In fact, I am darned proud of Microsoft's leadership among US corporations in this regard, as an employee, a resident of Redmond and planning commissioner, and as a longtime resident of the region. Microsoft is "a city on a hill". That's precisely why I react so strongly to any sign that the company might be backing away from, or beginning to back away from its progressive, efficient, and economical transportation programs. What's next on the cut list? The annual bus pass?

  • Anonymous
    July 20, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 21, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=4720

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009
    PingBack from http://lowcostcarinsurances.info/story.php?id=2453