posted
What is the current parking situation at LAUPT? I will be taking several day trips next week on Amtrak and Metrolink, and will need parking for 7 or 8 hours each day. I know that the parking lot adjacent to the terminal is gone. What, if any, are the alternatives? Thank you in advance for all replies and any help.
CoastStarlight99 Member # 2734
posted
OK I went on the Surfliner a few times in the last month or two and I have noticed this problem. The parking by the front on Alameda St. is not for long times. So you have to follow a "RED LINE" they painted ont he ground and follow it to another lot around the station. Then you take an elevator and come out by the Hertz Rental Car place inside of the station.
Could have changed since a month ago...But you can deffinetly park around on the other side.
Have fun.
------------------ --Anton L. pillsbury09@excite.com AIM: pillsburyMN
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
The subject of "where to park" is, I think, an important one. I think that we are in a time frame where there could be a great renaissance in train travel, if things fall into place. Access to rail stations could be an important aspect. I don't know about others, but I tend to avoid driving into big cities like the plague. Here in San Jose, I usually take a cab to the train station, as I would never consider parking my car by the station because of potential valdalism or worse. I think it would be desirable for Amtrak to abandon most of its big city stations in favor of surburbian or rural stations. The hassle of airports and car traffic in major city corridors could be, I think, a strong incentive to take the train. Rural or suburban stations with secured, long term parking would be a good thing. Outlets to car rental facilities at such rural stations would be desirable. I can hear the counter to this...cost, cost, and more cost! Yes, maybe cost will not allow this to happen. The parking problem, though, is still a problem. Here is San Jose, I tried, once, to figure out how to catch to Zephyr going east. The closest station, to catch it, is probably Martinez. I was on my way, on Amtrak, to Colorado for a week, and would never leave my car in the Martinez parking lot, by the station, for that long a period. I could not find any secure parking lots near the station. Now, about the only way is to take the Capitals to Sacramento and make the connection. I seldom see any discussion of parking on this forum, in TRAINS or other, similar, magazines. I can't figure out why.
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I tend to avoid driving into big cities like the plague.
I avoid some cities, depending on the road congestion and parking problems. When taking trips in the WashingtonDC area, I park at either BWI airport (for NEC trains) or AlexandriaVA (for south or west bound trains, not counting the Capitol Ltd). I occasionally use New CarrolltonMD, but Acelas don't stop there. All lots cost money, but WashingtonDC streets are generally too crowded, and the Metro does not run early enough to get to the station in time for the morning Amtrak departures.
In LA, I used to park near the station but with the lot torn up I park under the MTA building. As Coast Starlight mentioned above there is still some parking behind the station...I didn't know that was still there until a couple weeks ago! Not that many spaces there, though. Usually when riding the Surfliner I park at Fullerton, which is *free*.
As for not parking at San Jose...yeah it does look questionable. Same comment for Sacramento.
I agree long-term parking is an important point, and I really don't know why it is not addressed more; evidently most folks get a ride to the station by friends, relatives, or transit.
Suggestion is to post threads like these about specific stations, and hopefully a knowledgable local will respond.
MP
JFB Member # 2520
posted
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I think it would be desirable for Amtrak to abandon most of its big city stations in favor of surburbian or rural stations.
Abandon New York? Chicago? Boston? Washington? Los Angeles? San Diego? Seattle? Portland? If people don't like driving in cities, how do you propose they get to those cities if Amtrak deposits them in their respective suburbs?
Ridership statistics show that the majority of rail passengers board at urban stations. New York's Penn Station, for example, is the largest transportation hub in the Western Hemisphere, accommodating more people per day than O'Hare and Hartsfield airports combined. Should Amtrak abandon that for, say, Metropark?
People who wish to drive to suburban stations can do so. Amtrak stops at such communities in every metropolitan area it serves. But to make those stations terminals is the surest way to kill passenger rail in this country.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I still believe having Amtrak stations in suburban or rural settings would be desirable. Most large metropolitan areas do have public transportation to suburban or rural areas, already. For example, the SF bay area has BART and bullet trains down the peninsula. In case of a city without public transportation, a shuttle bus could take passengers to a downtown "station" platform or to an airport. After all, much of the time you're talking about 1 boarding and 1 de-training, at any metropolitan location, per day (not counting places like Seattle with other services such as the Cascades). If people are going to San Francisco, they have to go to Emeryville and be shuttled to the station in San Francisco. People boarding in LA, for example, go into downtown LA from many surburban areas. Rather than fight the downtown traffic and have no good place to park, would it not be easier or better to drive to a suburban station to get on the Startlight or Sunset and be able to park in a secure lot? As far as people being "dropped off" in a suburban/rural station, I think it still would be an advantage if you could rent a car, take public transportation, or pick up your car at a secure parking lot. I think Amtak's move out of downtown Oakland illustrates the problem.
Big Merl Member # 3251
posted
Perhaps, instead, it would be more worthwhile to look into certain large cities perhaps needing a second stop on the outskirts. Similar to how the Zephyr stops in Naperville on its way to Chicago or the Lakeshore stops in Croton on its way to Penn.
JFB Member # 2520
posted
Certainly stations in suburban and rural areas are desirable. That's why Amtrak has them. They needn't be exclusive.
Your example of Emeryville is apt. Most SF-bound passengers consider it inconvenient to have to "shuttle" to their destination. In this case, geography makes that neccessary. But why should Amtrak create the same condition elsewhere?
Not sure what you mean by "1 boarding and 1 de-training, at any metropolitan location," but if that's a passenger count, it's woefully inaccurate.
Rental cars and taxis can be procured as easily at urban stations as they can at suburban stations. The difference is that, at the latter, everyone has to arrange further transportation. Those hiring taxis are suject to higher fares due to the greater distances; those riding a bus or driving themselves into town have to contend with the same traffic the suburban station was meant to avoid--traffic the train avoids by going into to town in the first place.
I don't argue that suburban stations are useless. Amtrak would do well to develop those suburban facilities that aren't already conducive to large-scale parking. But to abandon urban stations for parking lots miles from anyone's destination is a bad move--and completely unneccessary.
gibg Member # 2565
posted
There's nothing like answering your own question. On the northeast corner of Cesar Chevaz and Alameda is a parking lot for about 75 cars which charges a flat $4.00 for any length of time (including all day). I could not believe my own luck! It is staffed by a very friendly lady attendant. A short walk puts you right in LAUPT.
posted