Costly New Parking Garages Still Gobbling Up Land at BART Stations

by : sf.streetsblog – excerpt

BART continues to encourage the construction of multi-story parking garages at its stations, despite the exorbitant costs and lost potential for valuable land that could be put to better use…

Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich, who sits on the BART board, said he’s “appalled that we wasted tens of millions of dollars building a commuter garage at an urban station like MacArthur.”

“Ridership kept growing at that station despite the reduction in parking during construction, which demonstrates that we could have done perfectly well without it,” he said. “Many of our highest-ridership stations — Balboa Park, Berkeley, 19th, 16th, 24th, Glen Park — have little or no commuter parking. At stations like MacArthur, Ashby, West Oakland, and Lake Merritt, we should be phasing out parking as we build transit villages, and enhance walking, cycling, and local transit access instead of building structured parking.”… (more)

What happened to customer service? BART is trying to bring it back by building more garages and extending late night hours by partnering with bus lines:
BART to try late-night bus service for passengers

In spite of the BART Director, the majority of elected BART Board members appear to be more inclined to listen to their customers than the appointed SFMTA Board. That may be why many SF residents are planning to vote No vote on Props A and B and Yes on L.

Citizens want more parking garages built near freeway exits and transit hubs and do not expect to have their wishes met by the current MTA Board. Transportation issues along with housing will determine the outcome of some Supervisor races as voters become ever more fed up with gridlock and the parking wars. And, as Engardio points out in the sfexaminer, Commuters can have a say on BART service. Do your own research before you vote on anything. Make sure you are voting for your interests, because no on else is.

Home Story Bad roads, congested commutes cost state drivers $44 billion a year, report says

California drivers pay a staggering $44 billion a year in extra car costs because of traffic jams that seemingly grow worse by the day, spreading potholes and outdated roads and bridges, according to a national highway advocacy group.

 Some Bay Area drivers fork over as much as $2,200 a year, according to a report released Thursday by The Road Information Program, or TRIP.
The latest report isn’t telling regional transportation officials anything they haven’t heard before, but it remains sobering…

Driving on deficient roads costs each San Francisco-Oakland-area driver $2,206 per year in the form of extra vehicle operating costs, according to the report. In the South Bay, it’s $1,723 a year per driver, and Los Angeles drivers have it the roughest, forking out $2,458 a year.

 The TRIP study found that 49 percent of major roads in the San Francisco-Oakland area are in poor condition and an additional 30 percent are mediocre, costing the average motorist an additional $795 each year in extra vehicle operating costs.
 That’s due to accelerated vehicle depreciation, additional repair costs and increased gas use and tire wear, said Carolyn Bonifas Kelly, a TRIP spokeswoman…
Traffic officials spread out across the state Thursday to spread the worrisome news and promote measures to raise funds for more pavement and public transit. Alameda County will seek a sales tax hike in the November election, and Santa Clara County is expected to do so in two years. A statewide measure to raise the vehicle license fee could also be on the 2016 ballot, and numerous cities, including San Francisco, are also considering an appeal to voters… Direct link to PDF of report:…  (more)
MTCfundingchart
According to this chart, the regional transit authority plans to demand more revenues from residents while proving less service. We are working on a list of ballot proposals that voters are facing in November.
So far in SF we have Props A and B that would expand the revenues of the SFMTA and the counter proposal, Prop L to change their priorities.
We favor No on A and B (No more money without accountability.) and Yes on L: Restore Transportation Balance.