4 ms·

This is probably just because more people are working remotely than 3 years ago. Those lots would have been full in 2019.

• marssaxman 4y ago
  The issue is not that the parking lots are empty, but that the rail station is surrounded by parking lots at all. This is a terrible waste of transit infrastructure! Rail stations should be located in densely developed areas close to destinations. If you put a station in a low-density area, that creates an opportunity to build a new efficient urban center. (In some countries, the land-value increment created through this kind of development is a large source of funding for transit infrastructure).
  • baidifnaoxi 4y ago
    Most of the rail is meant to transport people from low density areas to city centers. I’m not sure how you would solve that problem without doing that?
  • dehrmann 4y ago
    San Jose has so much sprawl that for commuter rail, you really want that parking.
    • favflam 4y ago
      I respectfully disagree. Trains and real estate go hand in hand. Without real estate, trains lose money. Without trains, real estate is worthless (hence parking lots, which are low value). Trains and car owners don't mix. Trains + dense real estate usage displaces car owners and low-density real estate usage. Cities should make car owners bicycles or ride the bus to the train station (ie remove parking lots) or cities should just not bother with trains.