From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: The Insanity of Building Parking atCommuter Rail Stations
Followup-To: sci.environment
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.014254.25602@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes...
>                                   December 12, 1992
>BART Board of Directors
>c/o Sherman Lewis
>800 Madison Street
>Oakland, California 94607
> 
>Re: BART Parking Construction
> 
>Gentlepersons:
> 
>     What, another letter opposing parking construction? 
			...
>     Please stop the offensive "Dear Passenger" letters that assert
>that "the added parking capacity of the new garage will benefit all
>BART passengers using the Walnut Creek Station". Will the whole
>structure be devoted to bicycle parking? ... Certainly not by
>ensuring that BART stations are surrounded by a wasteland of concrete
>whose only function is to store automobiles for 10 hours a day and be
>even less productive (if possible!) the other 14 hours. 
>				... 
>     The very least you should do with the parking is charge a
>realistic fee for its use, and make sure that it is constructed
>using road funds (since it benefits only auto users), not scarce
>transit funds. 

The effect of suspending development of parking will be to decrease 
use of mass transit, not increase it.  At best, commuters near a bus 
line will have a walk and extra wait for the bus, which will increase 
their commuting time, tipping the trade-off between automobile and 
mass transit in favor of the automobile.  In the case of a bus, the 
line can route to go near the maximum number of houses, in which case 
the trip to the station will be slow, or for faster trips, in which 
case fewer people will be close to the bus lines.  And for those not 
close to the bus lines, inadequate parking will drive them back to an 
auto commute to work.  And charging high parking fees can make the 
combined cost of rail and parking comparable to the combined cost of 
auto commuting and downtown parking, again leading people to take 
their cars.  That's been a problem here in the DC area, where high 
parking charges at and transit charges from the outer stations have 
cut into ridership.  One of the most successful examples of mass
transit I have seen is the Chicago and Northwestern railroad commuter
lines near Chicago, a heavily used and profitable commuter service 
with HUGE parking lots at the suburban stations.  It also helps that 
the line parallels an expressway where the drivers in cars stuck in 
traffic and the riders in the trains speeding by can watch each other.

Bicycles may be a solution in the Bay Area, over much of which 
temperatures over 85 degrees and under 35 degrees are a rarity.  But 
here in the northeast, where extremes of hot and cold are routine, and 
where there is precipitation one day in three, a bicycle is not 
practical, particular for those in occupations where appropriate dress 
is important.

>But ideally, the area around the station should be 
>developed with stores, hotels, and other amenities that make better
>use of the fact that the stations are our most transit-accessible
>locations.... Even housing, which sits idle for 10 hours a day, is not a
>___                                                            
>good use of a transit hub.... 
> 
While this approach will work for the inner stations, it will be 
counterproductive for the outer stations.  Large commercial complexes 
at the outer stations will attract customers from the suburbs equally 
far out or even farther out, almost all of whom will come by 
automobile.  Few will come by mass transit; those who live farther in 
will use mass transit only to go to the center of town.  The cars 
coming into the commercial facilities will be competing with the 
commuters heading for the transit system parking lot.  On the other 
hand, if housing is placed at the station, it will attract residents 
who will use mass transit to commute to their jobs closer to the 
center of town and may also house those who for one reason or another 
are unable to drive.  As for housing being unoccupied 10 hours a day, 
stores will be unoccupied 12-14 hours a day.

>                                   Sincerely,
> 
> 
>                                   Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>                                   Alliance for a Paving Moratorium
>                                   Auto-Free Bay Area

			Barry Schlesinger,
			Ph. D. (although the relevance is unclear)
			Chair, Planning and Zoning Commitee
			Citizens for Greenbelt
			(affiliation for indentification only)