Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Jym Dyer

    I hate to break it to you, but BART devotes a lot of money to parking. Suburban parking was extensive and free for generations, it’s only been in recent years that fees were imposed to recoup some of the cost.



    Dublin has the distinction of having built arterials so wide that it was easy and non-controversial to add a lot of bike lanes after the fact. There are a lot of roads in Dublin that were built with 4 wide lanes, a big median, and parking on roads that have no driveways, abutting the backs of houses or even brick sound walls.


    Jym Dyer

    The phrase “fundamentally correct” is the last that comes to mind. You seem to be lumping the entire East Bay together, but in fact what might “work” for white flight suburbia makes no sense in urban stations like MacArthur.


    Jym Dyer

    Since the Yes on L campaign supports parking garages, its supporters should be happy about the land being gobbled up for it.


    Jym Dyer

    The wider question is why there’s a sea of parking around a transit station, not only on BART property but on nearly everything around it that isn’t a four-lane boulevard with a median to ensure faster driving.

    When I lived in Fremont the effect was heightened because the abutting mall was basically a dead mall. (These days, at least, it’s a place to get Indian food.) Land use patterns are the real culprit here.


    Upright Biker

    Over and under in several places where it was not possible before, you clever bastard!



    Bicycle traffic? I can ride up Doyle Drive? :)



    What makes you assume:
    a) The driver’s insurance doesn’t cover more than the minimum?
    b) The driver doesn’t have more than $5,000 in assets?



    They make these decisions rationally given the information as it pertains to them. The problem is their cost is being subsidized because we do not price the externalities of their decisions.


    Upright Biker

    murph, I usually agree with you, but in this instance the bottom line really is they made an awfully nice replacement that allows for pedestrian, bicycle, and wildlife traffic where there was essentially none before. They increased open space. They increase greenery. They increased seismic safety.

    Did we still end up with a great big expensive road? We sure did. The work going forward is to change that default.


    Jamison Wieser

    I was surprised at how progressive Livermore was with their decision to go with both a station downtown and one serving the lab instead of a freeway median station that’s within the city more in technical sense than being anywhere meaningly near the heart of Liv…

    And then they went and reversed that decision. Sigh…


    Dave Moore

    I don’t think it’s that simple. People live where they live for lots of reasons. Commute is one of them of course, but there are plenty of others. Lifestyle, schools, perceptions of safety, size of houses, size of lots. Everything I’ve seen says that there are commute thresholds. For most people if they can get the kind of life they want within N minutes of their job they’re happy. They care more about time than mechanism. So building new, most likely dense housing that allows people to commute without a car will work for some but not others. Those others will still drive, either to BART or to their destination. So you’ll get some people who want to take the tradeoffs that let them live closer without driving to work and that might reduce congestion a bit. But that reduction would allow more people to live farther away and still commute within N minutes, so you end up where you were conjestion-wise, probably using even more gas and polluting more. Or maybe something unintended happens. It seems hard to predict.


    Jamison Wieser

    You’re right, I mispoke and meant “not expanding parking” instead of “eliminating”


    Jamison Wieser

    Let’s break that trip up:

    It’s probably a walk from Powell because development has grown up around BART, pushing ridership to the point BART is studying how to add side-platforms to Embarcadero & Powell. That’s some good planning or

    On the Dublin side, what made driving a (hopefully) short distance just and pay a storage fee for your car while it’s neither accessible to you or sitting that garage your already paying for. Is it because the station was placed at the edge of the city on a freeway median surrounded by a sea of parking? The city itself is suburban sprawl planned on the idea everyone would drive? I’m asking this last one seriously, how is Dublin’s bike network?


    Jamison Wieser

    Generally, but that’s why I noted Balboa Park.

    A monthly Muni+BART fast pass give unlimited use within SF and there’s enough San Mateo County residents getting a ride into SF to save money of the pass that it put Balboa Park at number 5.

    I shouldn’t have said eliminating parking, what I meant was really not expanding parking (which is what Sebra was getting at with one of those vague “what voters want” rambles where she says the opposite for what the voting record shows) over improving other methods of access.



    I have to disagree. Although there are a few bad eggs out there, I think bike lanes enhance the pedestrian experience as they tend to slow cars down and make drivers more aware.



    I don’t begrudge when people choose to drive, especially in the situation you described. What I do begrudge (not that you’re guilty of it) is the sense of entitlement that drivers have over roads. The truth is, those roads are for everyone to get from point A to point B and there is nothing wrong with accommodating transit, bikes, and cars. If you look at any road in SF, most of the road space is already allocated to private cars and that probably is not going to change.



    funny you bring up the meters in the Mission (NE part) – I ride through there on my way to work every day. The fact that there are no parking restrictions actually encourages people to park in this neighborhood while they head elsewhere. These are people that do not live or work in the neighborhood – they literally park and leave. While I wouldn’t tend to support meters on residential blocks, if I lived over there and relied on street parking, I’d definitely support permit parking.



    you do realize that muni now costs $2.25 in order to pay for free parking on Sunday?


    Jeffrey Baker

    Unfortunately I currently lack the technology capable of reading a 100MB PDF file. Should I assume that all of the area colored “sports and entertainment” is just parking?

    Seems like dumping those pro sports teams would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Oakland’s economy. Adding housing and jobs at existing transit stops is what the bay area need to do today.



    Have you reviewed the Oakland Coliseum City project DEIR yet? Some land use improvements in there, but still A LOT of surface parking:


    Kenny Easwaran

    “they … aren’t expecting to fund the parking garage only with the parking fees.”

    So the idea is that the parking is subsidized in addition to whatever subsidy goes towards operating BART? I can understand the social goal of subsidizing BART – it moves more people in less space, and gives people more options for how to travel. But is there a further benefit to the parking that deserves its own additional subsidy? (Maybe they think the parking will attract additional commercial development?)


    Kenny Easwaran

    The article above claims that ridership at MacArthur increased even while parking at MacArthur was reduced (during the construction period). Are you saying that this couldn’t happen elsewhere? Especially with denser development around the stations?

    If you surround a station with a fortress of parking, then relatively few people will walk to the station, and the maximum ridership will be dictated by the size of the parking garage. But if you surround it by a dense mixed-use community, then you can get much higher ridership.



    I’d like to see a Park(ing) Day take place on a Sunday. The Church Parking Lane in front of my house could use some greenery.



    Looks like the GG strike’s on:

    “Machinist Local 1414, part of a union coalition that authorized work stoppages last month, will be the first to go on a one-day strike starting at 6 a.m. Tuesday and ending at 3:30 p.m.”

    Looks like tomorrow’s strike is limited to the machinists, not the bus drivers? This would also seem to be the case as per GGT:

    If I’m reading this correctly this means I can still take the GGT buses tomorrow, right?


    Jeffrey Baker

    Definitely will be a lot of pushback from neighbors, especially if said neighbors are old rich white people. One particularly juicy parcel is the 8-acre parking lot of North Berkeley BART, but it’s been undeveloped for 40+ years at this point so I wouldn’t hold your breath. People in Berkeley think they are hippies or whatever, but in practice they love nothing better than free parking.

    A nice ripe 100-acre site is at the Oakland Coliseum.



    Or decrease the cost of not driving – including the time cost. This includes putting housing somewhere you can eliminate driving.


    Dave Moore

    I agree that these externalities are part of the equation. But I’ve been told over and over that increasing road capacity doesn’t decrease congestion. Why then would changing drivers to riders? It would seem that the only way to decrease road congestion would be to increase the cost of driving.


    Andy Chow

    Paving farmland is easy because the landowner will profit from it and there are no neighbors in the area saying no because of traffic or whatever. In an urban situation, there are fewer large parcels suitable for higher density development (unless you think that buying out single family homes and recombine the parcels is feasible.) and you got people who live and vote there saying no for whatever reasons.



    Let’s not forget that the minimum required for insuring property damage from a car crash is $5,000. That means the owners of Comstock (or their insruance companies) are going to be on the hook for any damage greater than that amount, as it is unlikely that the now arrested person for this action will have any assets worth going after.



    There are very few changes to transit system that add riders which net out to a financial profit.

    Adding up the parking fees and fares paid by additional riders almost certainly will not pay for the creation and maintainance of the parking. It’s not like this is Wal-Mart where a parking spot services multiple paying customers per day. And if you do get a big boom in ridership due to parking, you have to run more/longer trains which would chew up all those gains.

    The system turns a “profit” by the external benefits – we don’t have to add another Bay Bridge, expand a road, we have less air pollution, roads are less congested and people get to work faster and have higher productivity, etc… This doesn’t exist in a vacuum though – if building the BART station out in the hinterlands means people build a house in the hinterlands and thus require the BART services we’ve now provided, it’s a net loss – modulo the positive internalities people get from living in the hinterlands.


    Dave Moore

    I think they believe that there will be increased ridership and aren’t expecting to fund the parking garage only with the parking fees.

    I would agree that if the lot is always full then the fee is too cheap. There are a lot of variable pricing schemes that could be used.



    another day, another store front destroyed.



    And there’s the rub: “what the community is willing to accept” —the largest developments should by defintion be near rapid transit centers like MacArthur because they produce the greatest potential to reduce car reliance. People’s aesthetic preferences are killing the environment and choking the roads with needless traffic.

    It’s good to know that the parking garage was built to offset lost land from housing, but MacArthur is a pretty urban area. We could still have had more housing and less parking.



    But the community is willing to accept the paving over of those other 500 acres of pristine farmland!

    Which has nothing to do with “the community” but what the owner of those 500 acres can convince “the community”, by telling them that the UN, ABAG, and Agenda 21 are trying to build housing near the BART station because ZOMG Euro Communism!



    Which station has more boardings in the AM – Powell, or Dublin???

    Thought so.



    Maybe if those scofflaw motorists took care of their cars…


    Andy Chow

    The reason to get a garage built is to free up the rest of the land for housing. I am not sure how much housing is needed to be built to offset the loss of riders due to loss of parking (since people who live next to BART are not required to take BART everyday,) but the magnitude and size of such housing could exceed what the community is willing to accept.



    Bur if the bottleneck is caused by a breakdown on the parkway, then the shoulders will reduce net travel time since there will be a place for disabled vehicles to pull off the road.



    Bike lanes are coming to Telegraph, and they are already on 40th, so that’s something at least. Wonder what would have been possible if parking garage money had gone toward bike/pedestrian improvements



    Agreed—adding parking just addresses a short-term need. In the long run we should be adding more housing near transit so that people don’t have to drive at all, and the money that would have been used on the parking garage could have been used for adding bus routes and improving walking/biking infrastructure.


    Andy Chow

    Most of those stations are generally considered destination stations, where most riders exit in the morning and board in the afternoon. It wouldn’t be fair to suggest East Bay cities can have high ridership by cutting parking.



    That MarinIJ article about the 3 foot rule contains some bad information:

    “Bicyclists also are
    entitled to use the whole lane if they flow with the speed of traffic,
    but must ride as close to the shoulder as practical.”

    I don’t think that there’s any requirement that a bicyclist must be able to keep up to the speed of traffic in order to take the lane. Also the law says that bicyclists should ride as close to the right as “practicable” not “practical”. The words sound and look similar but have different meanings.



    Here are a couple of more from the North Bay:

    CHP: DUI suspect, 19, clocked at 117 mph on Highway 101 arrested

    ‘Fellow cyclist’ Robin Williams honored in memorial bike run

    Three-foot separation rule to protect cyclists goes into place in Marin, state



    High speed traffic? There hasn’t been high speed traffic in that area since the Octavia debacle was put in place. Frustrated traffic, definitely, at the terrible design and unfair onus on drivers. No mention of the bicycles who routinely ride down the wrong side of the street at Page and Octavia. Or the terrible crush of autos to use a freeway onramp whose access has been severely curtailed by the money of property developers and people who don’t like people who have to drive. Pretty much the worst street design in town.


    Chris J.

    Do Taxi drivers get in more or less accidents per mile than non-Taxi drivers?



    Your conclusion has a fallacy. Removing parking at BART stations would lead to more people driving *who are driving to that BART station*. Which is different than “more people driving”.

    If the goal is fewer people driving, building parking lots at BART stations in the exurbs may not be the answer.

    If one’s personal goal is to live in the exurbs and have a simple commute to a downtown job, that parking is the answer. But that personal goal may not necessarily align with the goal of fewer overall people driving. Among other things we’ve noted many many times that the BART line to the exurbs with a parking garage enables people to live in less dense areas, and while they may take BART to work, their overall VMT goes up substantially because all their other trips are done by car. Which is basically the Livermore extension in a nutshell.


    Reynolds Cameron

    Precisely why undergrounding from Doyle Drive to Bayshore and Junipero Sera is such a wise investment. If GGBTD can waste $100 million (construction+”studies”) to prevent a handful of suicidists from jumping of the bridge – at a cost of about $7 million per death into perpetuity, factoring in financing – it surely makes sense to spend $30-$300 billion to save hundred of innocent lives while vastly improving our transit system and increasing the amount of land available to development by about 10-20%.



    If there is a bottleneck at the top (bridge) all the wider lanes do is reduce the delay of you getting onto Doyle Drive itself, but your net travel time is not reduced, because that’s not the bottleneck.


    SF Guest

    It’s somewhat misleading to suggest other BART stations should follow the example of BART’s 5 busiest stations in SF with no parking. BART’s parking fees are based on demand. With the exception of the 4 following stations all other stations have increased their parking fees due to demand: Millbrae ($2), Richmond ($1), South Hayward ($1), South San Francisco ($2).

    Many East Bay cities don’t have the inherent fixed space limitations of SF. Sebra Leaves is fundamentally correct — if you were to take away the parking at East Bay BART stations, BART would lose riders because it would be too slow to take public transit to BART. The fact that BART has raised parking fees to $2.50 at most stations (soon to be increased to $3) proves there is a demand for parking, and the reason for this increase is to motivate more commuters to ride public transit to BART.

    Removing parking at BART stations will only lead to more people driving.