From: andy@vax.ftp.com  (Andy Nourse)
Subject: Re: The Insanity of Building Parking atCommuter Rail Stations
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:29:35

In article <1992Dec14.014254.25602@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

>   The Insanity of Building Parking atCommuter Rail Stations

    How does it benefit the environment when someone tries to park at
    the BART station, finds there are no parking spaces anywhere near
    it, and thereupon has to drive into the City?  The last thing San
    Francisco needs is more cars driving into it.  I think we would all
    agree on this.

>   "the added parking capacity of the new garage will benefit all
>   BART passengers using the Walnut Creek Station".  Will the entire
>   structure be devoted to bicycle parking? How else could it benefit
>   me?...

    Each car that gets parked there instead of being driven into the
    City or to Oakland or wherever benefits those passengers and
    everone else who has to breathe the air around here.

>        Bicyclists...are treated to parking which is not safe...
>   not even protected from the rain!...
>   bicyclists have to pay to use those lockers, whereas auto users are
>   given free use of spaces that cost about 10-20 times as much!...

    This is not fair, I absolutely agree.

>        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.

    That is reasonable, but if you make the fee too high, it becomes
    cheaper to drive into the city again, especially for carpools.

    Parking in San Francisco is rather inexpensive, compared to other
    cities of its size.  If it were up to me, I would tax it another
    50% or so, and spend the additional revenue on public transportation.

>   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.

    Then how do those who don't live near transit use it?
    Not all of us live within bicycle range, either.

    [I, for one, have 25 miles and 2000 feet of elevation separating
    me from the nearest BART station.  (That drops to 12 miles and
    2000 feet of elevation for CalTrain, which is what I usually use)
    Motorcycling to CalTrain is the best I can do so far.

>   Auto-Free Bay Area

    There is still far too much of the Bay Area that is served
    minimally or not at all by public transportation.  I support
    upgrading BART and CalTrain, and would very much like to see
    better bus service as well, but these things seem to move at
    a glacial pace.

    The unspoken part of the no-cars-at-all argument usually is that
    people should be coerced into moving to where they work.
    Of course, the cities get a lot more crowded  then.
    Couples usually both work but don't work at the same place,
    and often the two workplaces are quite distant from each other.
    People change jobs often, whether by choice or not.
    Telecommuting can help, somewhat, but people still need to
    commute and will for the forseeable future.



Newsgroups: sci.environment