"Joe Garofoli's "Park and pay at BART misses the point" really misses the facts."

Parking is more complex than whether to charge or not. We need to consider Sustainability, our Environment, Livability, Land use, Equity, and Economy. However, the primary reason for currently considering parking charges is because of BART's SFO Airport bound users will use BART parking that regular BART patrons use because BART's Airport Station adjoins central parking that currently charges $22/day. And, if parking remains free, the demand is insatiable.

Obviously, Joe is not familiar of BART's funding and operations, nor, with my efforts at BART. On the Board, I strongly advocate more bus and non-motorized access and champion: cost-effectiveness, enhancing BART's existing system, social justice, our environment, and transit oriented developments.

The general public paid Billions for BART's construction, yet only 5-6% of the public regularly uses BART. Of BART users, only 28% uses BART parking, but, 24% of BART riders use feeder buses, mostly in areas without BART parking. Over 80% of BART's 41,000+ parking spaces are in suburban areas. San Francisco has 54 spaces.

It costs $4,000 -25,000 to construct each parking space, which is a 100% public subsidy. To maintain each space costs $1 per day. This cost comes out of overall operations and fares pay 65% of this. Because all users pay fares, 28% free parkers are subsidized by 72% non parkers and the general public.

Comparing BART parkers and their income, it is skewed. About 1/3 of riders from household income of $30,000 or less use parking, whereas, at $75,000+ income level, about 50% more use parking. Lower income BART riders are greater bus users accessing BART and paying an additional $1-2.20 in bus fare. This is an inequity of public infrastructure use which Courts and Federal Agencies are placing more importance to.

BART is basically a dense city metro system and not a Suburban system. Only in the USA at tremendous public costs do we extend metros into the Suburbs. To gain riders we build gigantic parking lots, which is environmentally unsound. Foreign metros do not provide public parking, if they do, they CHARGE. Since Suburbs are different having lower densities, with less riders, longer trips and parking all costing the more to operate. So, shouldn't we equalize some cost by charging for parking?

BART extensions have been costing the public $30-60 per trip per new rider. Many think I exaggerate these costs but in a recent report MTC estimated BART's proposed extension to San Jose would cost $100+ per trip per new rider. At such cost, It would be more beneficial if the public bought $350,000 houses near an Existing BART station and gave these houses to all daily proposed BART Extension users if they promised to walk to BART. Amazing? Yes, Transit-oriented Communities with walkable neighborhoods, which I have seen in Sweden, Japan, and even Portland, Oregon, would entail less public cost, generate less air pollution, save energy, reduce public parking cost, reduce congestion, and improve livability.