RAIL - Back On Track Forum

No one is saying that tods shouldn't be designed and built. But expecting every station to be a tod using a blanket approach won't work. It's not just that simple. You need multiple levels of government to work together on a whole range of things, transit planning, transit fares, transit coverage, relocating and upgrading utilities,
Employment in surrounding areas (trains and buses don't go everywhere), the demographic you are catering for (large families who want yard space or someone single living in an apartment), converting more than just a car park into a building, relying heavily on the private sector, you need to resume and demolish existing properties, you need to realign road networks and corridors, attractions such as shops and schools in close proximity but most importantly density. There are areas where park and ride will always be better than a tod and there are times where a tod will be better than a park and ride. You can build a good tod at Banyo but if you have the option to drive 2km to Northgate with minimal traffic congestion due to an industrial estate to save $500 a year you will get people doing that. 

Christ outside of the buz network north of Chermside we still can't get anything better than a 60 minute frequency on buses and don't get me started on the routes that have 50 different terminus locations and routes taken depending on the time, day, school term and what direction the wind blows on February 29.

QuoteNo one is saying that tods shouldn't be designed and built. But expecting every station to be a tod using a blanket approach won't work. It's not just that simple.

Proponents of TOD should set out:

- What the minimum critical mass of development and number of people who are required within the 800 m walk-up zone to actually achieve the AT/PT mode splits they want. And set out their full working. What are the minimum quantity and height/form of the buildings?

- Specify if development will be allowed outside of the 800 m walk-up zone and in what form

(Q: does it strictly have to be 800m or can it be say up to 5 km if a bus is involved? Is a P&R allowed at the station or not?)

- For example, if we extend the train line out at Springfield to Ripley, what is the minimum critical mass to achieve a mode split of say 80% AT/PT and 20% Car use at the new Ripley station? How high would the buildings have to be and how many of them to reach this minimum?

Perth is very specific about what is required to implement DOT (Development Oriented Transit). Something similar for TOD would be great. After all, if you're going to hand plans to a developer they will want to know how much, how many, and where.

Limits of walkup (and therefore TOD in general)



Walk-up patronage increases over time



Overall Strategy for TOD component
(note the detail in the R-codes and minimum requirements). Note the huge 2-ha P&R car park at the station at the centre of the TOD model.

- Q: What needs to change to make it PT/AT=80%?

 

R-Development Codes https://www.stageproperty.com.au/2021/05/20/r-zoning-codes-for-western-australia-what-does-it-mean/



Source: Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement. Martinovich, P. (2009)
https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/2009_infrastructure_colloquium_peter_martinovich.pdf

When you start talking about Springfield you start bringing up similar problems compared to Carseldine/Fitzgibbon. Train line goes to the city only. Doesn't help those that need to commute to Browns plains/Logan/Ipswich. There are buses but they aren't the fastest or most reliable. Span of hours comes into play. You can compare the bus network to the station similar to Lawnton-Strathpine or Dakabin-Morayfield in that the bus takes too long/doesn't have the frequency or it's far more relaxed to drive to the station and not have to worry about the fail of a pt network. You can have a rough framework but it has to be adapted and at times resumptions must be made for it to work.

It's not specifically about putting a TOD at every station. It's about changing the way we think about entire town and city planning.

It also doesn't specifically have to be a rail station, it can easily be somewhere else as long as there are good active and public transport links to surrounding areas.

Also, Richlands has had a large amount of residential built (townhouses) in walking distance to the station over the past couple years, as well as increased retail etc. The area in general is definitely still car orientated, however it does have some better active transport (mainly walking) facilities/infrastructure. Still only painted bicycle gutters though.

QuoteAlso, Richlands has had a large amount of residential built (townhouses) in walking distance to the station over the past couple years, as well as increased retail etc. The area in general is definitely still car orientated, however it does have some better active transport (mainly walking) facilities/infrastructure. Still only painted bicycle gutters though.

Bicycle lanes should definitely be more than a pained lane. In Copenhagen in the suburban areas they are a raised step between the road and the footpath.

This is a map of Rinkeby in Sweden. It fits the bill as a TOD. It has an 600 m radius centred around a Metro station (T) and encloses ~ 20,000 people. As you can see there is still a motorway connection on the edge, as even here, people still need to use cars to some extent.

What are member's thoughts about Rinkeby? 

Rinkeby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinkeby

Rinkeby - metro station at the centre


Rinkeby - Street Level
 

Brisbanetimes --> 'We haven't seen this since the early 2000s': Fears transport may falter as population powers past

QuoteBrisbane will need more medium-density housing, such as townhouses, to combat the pressures of a growing population, but experts fear development in public transport infrastructure will not meet demand.

The issue is expected to worsen as commuters living in outer suburbs struggle to travel to the CBD, with car parks at some train stations starting to fill by 6am.

University of Queensland population geographer Elin Charles-Edwards said analysis had shown even if CBD employees limited their travel from suburbs – for example, by working from home one day a week – the cohort was a small share of the total employed population in Brisbane, and therefore, there would be little effect.

During COVID-19, Brisbane's CBD reported a decline in population because of closed borders and fewer international students and migrants, and, as a result, urban areas grew faster.

But now, Charles-Edwards said the latest population data was "going gangbusters".

"We haven't seen levels like this since the late '90s, early 2000s," she said. "The question is really how long will this be sustained for?" ....

... "There's almost inevitably a delay in getting that heavy rail infrastructure to get it out there. And this is the consequences of what we're seeing now."

A spokeswoman from the Department of Main Roads and Transport said there was demand for parking at train stations, and the department continued to conduct annual surveys on the use of all parking sites.

Often, many car parks "were at capacity by 9am", the spokeswoman said.

The surveys are used to identify where targeted investment in parking or connecting bus services might be required in future. ... 

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1569331781475921920

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1569332163845439493

"A spokeswoman from the Department of Main Roads and Transport said there was demand for parking at train stations"

Of course there is, because bugger all buses actually feed the stations!! And the ones that do are usually on a pathetically poor frequency

Buses generally result in connections that are 2x slower than by simply taking a car.

However, with motorised scooters, I think this can also become a good feeder mode.

The 'taking bus' delay is a result of access to the stop (walking), frequency (wait time), the actual route taken (does it do a mini-safari tour first?) and stopping at other stops for passengers.

The key thing with the parking is that it needs to be charged for so that parking is rationed. This gives an incentive for passengers who do have convenient access to buses to use them (or cycle).

A 500-pax car park @ $2 per day will generate a stream of revenue of:
$2 x 500 car parks x 5 days/week x 52 weeks = $260,000 per year. (e.g. $520 per car park/year).

That revenue could be applied to operating buses or other station improvements.

The car park is a net cost as Construction > Revenue for the car park, but the same thing could also be said about the feeder buses going to the station.

Quote from: JimmyP on September 13, 2022, 13:10:23 PM"A spokeswoman from the Department of Main Roads and Transport said there was demand for parking at train stations"

Of course there is, because bugger all buses actually feed the stations!! And the ones that do are usually on a pathetically poor frequency

What the hell are you talking about. The 314 has an excellent frequency as a feeder.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/zombies-return-as-cost-blowouts-and-unfunded-programs-hit-budget-20221018-p5bqqu.html

QuoteThe commuter car park fund, created in the 2019 budget, was originally expected to spend $500 million.

As of March, $674 million had been set aside for car parks. Just $50.9 million worth of projects had been completed while another $192 million was officially under way.

Since the election, the new government has found even more cost pressures on the program. In some cases, just $1 million or $5 million was committed to car parks which have proven to be far more expensive to build.

So car parks are even more expensive to build than originally planned. What a surprise! 

Beyond time to stop building car parks and improve bus & active transport connections to railway stations. I understand that there are areas where car parks are inevitable, such as the Sunshine Coast Line and west of Ipswich, but in the metro footprint, I think we need to stop expanding them.

Interesting blog article by Daniel Bowen.

Food for thought ...

Parking permits and free Myki

> https://www.danielbowen.com/2022/10/22/parking-permits-and-free-myki/

Couriermail Quest --> No cash, no timeline to fix notorious Altandi park n ride $


Altandi station has high patronage, putting prssure on the park n ride. Picture: Steve Pohlner

QuoteThree hundred commuters battle for just 87 spaces, motorists risk thefts and even assaults, but there is still no cash in sight for an upgrade at this southside park n ride.

No cash and no timeframe.

There is still no upgrade in sight for an overcrowded park n ride on Brisbane's southside more almost one year on from a consultation report into a fix.

An initial Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) survey almost four years ago into options to upgrade the facility found, even back then, that 300 people tried to park at the Altandi park n ride, an 87-space facility, on an average week day.

The fierce competition has led to road rage incidents and numerous cases of people parking in the sole disabled bay or risking fines for illegal parking.

Those who missed out on spots were forced to risk parking in dimly-lit surrounding streets, where youths have broken into vehicles. ...

Considering the frequency of buses that service Mains Rd just outside Altandi Station, I don't see any great need to increase car parking here. Having said that, signange directing people to/from the bus stops could definitely be improved, and I'd like to see more priority given to pedestrians crossing Mains Rd—sometimes it takes quite a while to get a green signal to cross.

Quote from: ozbob on December 22, 2022, 23:10:01 PMCouriermail Quest --> No cash, no timeline to fix notorious Altandi park n ride $


Altandi station has high patronage, putting prssure on the park n ride. Picture: Steve Pohlner

QuoteThree hundred commuters battle for just 87 spaces, motorists risk thefts and even assaults, but there is still no cash in sight for an upgrade at this southside park n ride.

No cash and no timeframe.

There is still no upgrade in sight for an overcrowded park n ride on Brisbane's southside more almost one year on from a consultation report into a fix.

An initial Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) survey almost four years ago into options to upgrade the facility found, even back then, that 300 people tried to park at the Altandi park n ride, an 87-space facility, on an average week day.

The fierce competition has led to road rage incidents and numerous cases of people parking in the sole disabled bay or risking fines for illegal parking.

Those who missed out on spots were forced to risk parking in dimly-lit surrounding streets, where youths have broken into vehicles. ...

           

https://twitter.com/urbanmelb/status/1671087043563356160?

https://twitter.com/Sydney_Stations/status/1670997331590905856

Couriermail --> Private car park abuse continues as minister Mark Bailey weighs options $

QuoteDrivers increasingly overstaying their welcome at private car parks across the state could have free rein, as Transport Minister Mark Bailey reveals his next move in the stoush against parking operators over a database loophole.

Private parking operators have been calling for clarity nearly six months after Mr Bailey hit pause on the ability of third parties to gather motorists' information through government databases then issue them with $88 "parking breaches". ....

LOL!

Couriermail --> Private parking war heats up as companies accuse Bailey of poor consultation $

QuotePrivate parking operators fear there is no viable way forward in the ongoing stoush with the government over a database loophole after Transport Minister Mark Bailey opened up consultation process lasting only days.

It comes as businesses warn the battle against drivers who overstay at private car parks will only get worse.

Mr Bailey hit "pause" on the ability for third parties to gather motorists' information through government databases in February after it was revealed companies were using the method to issue drivers with $88 "parking breaches".

He recently made clear the status quo was out of the question and two options were on the table; no release of motorist data to private parking operators without a court order or a blanket ban. ...

How inconvenient for TMR and BCC

https://twitter.com/dmtrubman/status/1695136382476271717?

In Queensland --> How suburban Springfield created the world's best commuter park-and-ride

QuoteSpringfield Central Park 'n' Ride was recognised on a global platform, after being awarded in the Rail/Transit category at the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Global Best Project Awards. ...

 

The Springfield P&R is apparently built to be TOD-convertible.

QuoteIf the site's parking needs change, the structure can be adapted for retail and commercial purposes in a staged fashion.

https://x.com/pia_qld/status/1745600338655342681?

Greens to review Parking Minimums with a view to removal in well serviced locations .

https://x.com/greaterbne/status/1752589041240092957?

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1788256270350451158

Could? 

There is not a lot of research around that shows it doesn't!!

It's gaurenteed!!

Finally but very limited.  No doubt a decade trail

https://x.com/pia_qld/status/1790856541891121385

For all the general public how say we must have street parking or business will go bust because deliveries

https://x.com/qagggy/status/1792241349510717821?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

https://buff.ly/3ULO2vh

QuoteCity Engineers Are Unbelievably out of Touch on Parking Reform

Parking reform creates interesting coalitions. This is evident here in my home state of Minnesota where the People Over Parking reform bill is advancing at the legislature. A recent senate hearing brought together advocates for more housing, small businesses, property rights and environmental protection to push for this needed reform. Strong Towns has already thrown its support behind this simple and targeted reform measure.

Some groups and individuals don't support parking reform because they think this is a local issue that the state shouldn't be involved in. Yet, there is one group that opposes parking reform on its merits: city engineers.

Let's take a moment to examine their reasoning. It is a case study in tone-deaf, echo-chamber thinking.

The City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM), on behalf of their members — city engineers across the state — presented written testimony for the most recent hearing. Their words demonstrate, once again, why engineers should stick to engineering and not public policy or value judgments.

Engineer's Claim #1: Removing Off-Street Parking Mandates Will Make Streets Overcrowded

As city engineers, we understand the importance of effective street widths, especially when dense parking is present.
This is how CAEM begins its written testimony. It begs the question, what does an "effective street width" do effectively?

If we ask that question through a Strong Towns lens, an effective street width is one that builds community wealth. This is done by dramatically slowing vehicles, making streets more walkable and bikeable, and adding street trees, sidewalks, and amenities. Essentially, an effective street width is one that lets the street serve as a framework for building a prosperous place.

Sadly, that is not what city engineers mean when they use the word "effective." They mean moving traffic at speed.

In their testimony, they suggest (without citing any evidence) that eliminating parking mandates will cause overcrowding as more people park on city streets. That contradicts studies that show that eliminating mandates does not mean a lack of parking: In many places, people will build what they need but not more than that. It also ignores the obvious outcome that allowing neighborhoods to thicken up and mature means fewer automobile trips and more biking and walking, which means less demand for parking.

The engineers assert that the feared overcrowding will make it "difficult for emergency vehicles to access buildings and for maintenance crews to perform necessary tasks such as snow plowing." Again, these are gut feelings, an assertion of values, and not some kind of dispassionate evaluation of public policy options.

An approach to public safety that focuses on saving lives will quickly recognize the perils of over-engineered streets. And beyond the observation of sneckdowns revealing how little street width is actually needed for automobile passage, wider streets mean more snow removal costs, not less.

There is no evidence that not forcing a private property owner to build public parking will cause street overcrowding, but even if there was, it is the wrong public policy issue to be sensitive to.

Engineer's Claim #2: Removing Off-Street Parking Mandates Will Make Travel Extremely Difficult

Even a loss of two feet on each side of the street will result in a travel way width of 9–12 feet, making bidirectional travel extremely difficult.
It is easy to get lost in the technical-sounding minutia about street widths and parking widths that the city engineers make in their letter. Much like the first claim, there is a lot of "given this thing that isn't true, then this is likely, making this resulting terrible thing a near certainty...." Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt diagnoses these kinds of arguments as post-hoc rationalizations, the human propensity to justify current practice as opposed to a rational sequence of logic.

To understand this claim, one need only focus on the absurd notion that having travel lanes reduced to 9-12 feet will make "bidirectional travel extremely difficult."

A twelve-foot lane is a highway lane. The idea that on-street parking may reduce your local street to a mere two highway lanes — and that this poses some form of extreme danger for two cars traveling in opposite directions — is absurd even by the engineering profession's speed-centric logic. If this is true, then every design manual that calls for 11- and 12-foot lanes creates "extreme difficulty" for drivers. That is every design manual. This is a ludicrous assertion.

Engineers do struggle with and often push back on the idea of 9- and 10-foot lanes. Such lanes do pose an extreme difficulty for drivers when they are driving fast. That is why, when we use 9- and 10-foot lanes, drivers slow down. On local streets, slowing traffic is exactly what is needed for safety reasons.

This claim by city engineers is all about traffic speed. If your city engineer is choosing wide lanes through your neighborhoods, they are asserting a value system that prioritizes automobile speed over public safety. That is a value judgment they shouldn't be allowed to make.

Either way, the disconnected logic regarding the relationship between government parking mandates and on-street parking is certainly not a reason to oppose parking reform.

Engineer's Claim #3: Removing Off-Street Parking Mandates Will Make Streets Less Safe

Additionally, dense on-street parking will have impacts on sight distance at intersections and driveway and alley access points. This reduced sight distance will create more safety concerns for vehicles and pedestrians.
In "Confessions of a Recovering Engineer," I wrote an entire chapter on how American engineers don't grasp the basics of intersection design. This is, once again, because of the way they prioritize speed over other design aspects.

Put succinctly, the faster traffic moves, the more gap there must be between vehicles for another car to cross traffic or merge into the traffic stream. The American approach to intersection design starts with lethally high speeds and then adds safety features like buffers, clear zones and breakaway devices to handle conflicts. This arguably reduces crashes but also ensures that the crashes that do happen are generally very traumatic (and can be blamed on driver error, not irresponsible engineering).

Reducing design speeds not only improves safety by reducing the kinetic energy in the intersection, but also reduces the necessary gap spacing and makes the buffers, clear zones and other expensive engineering solutions unnecessary.

This makes the city engineer's argument circular: The reduced sight distances they are lamenting become largely meaningless if the lane narrowing and slower speeds they are lamenting actually occur. Which one is it?

All of this assumes that street designers are powerless about where people park. We all know that is absurd. A little bit of yellow paint and a sign is all it takes to expand an intersection's clear zone. What are we talking about, here?

And because I know the engineering mind reels at this logic — again, the brain works to reject truths that the gut can't handle — I am going to share this video of a shared space intersection in the United Kingdom. The design, done by the late Ben Hamilton-Bailey, accommodates 26,000 vehicles per day without any signalization or signage, merely by slowing the speeds at which vehicles enter the intersection and by allowing humans to act like decent humans.

Yes, the United States is not the United Kingdom. We insist on spending more money for worse outcomes, a hallmark of ridiculous affluence combined with hubris. The sooner city engineers come to grips with their role in declining affluence — and widespread municipal insolvency — the sooner we can overcome the hubris blinders.

Engineer's Claim #4: Removing Off-Street Parking Mandates Will Conflict With City Ordinances

The majority of cities and townships have bans on overnight parking on public streets. Over time, this legislation will force cities to modify those ordinances and will have impacts on the operation of city activities.
What? The majority of cities ban overnight parking on public streets? I looked at the signatories of this letter and this isn't even true for their cities, let alone a majority of cities in Minnesota. This assertion passes from absurdity to near fraud. Certainly, it is a professional misrepresentation, something I've been told that licensing boards take very seriously.

I've written codes for cities all over the state. I'm not aware of any that ban overnight parking on public streets. I did an informal Twitter poll and the results affirm my experience. What are these city engineers talking about?

And let's pretend this absurd assertion is true. What happens then? Cities will need to "modify ordinances." Oh, the humanity!

This is laughable, and I feel like I'm piling on except for the fact that I've been in countless meetings where licensed professional engineers stand up and make absurd assertions like these and, because of their status as licensed professionals, aren't questioned about it.

Only a group of people so insulated from reality could be so cavalier with their words. We can laugh at them, sure, but we must also admit that few of them care that we do.

A Note on Engineering Ethics

I made a reference to fraud and misrepresentation in the last section. I did that to make a point. I think that professionals can discuss these things in public, can even disagree on substantive matters, and that such dialogue is the fruit of a healthy profession.

Are the assertions in this letter -- many of them laughably absurd misrepresentations, things these professionals know are not true -- something the state licensing board should take action on? I don't think so. If licensed professionals are not able to make questionable statements on policy and have those statements debated in public, there is no path to reform. There is no healthy dialogue and our profession will become more insular, even more of an echo chamber, and increasingly more and more irrelevant.

I say "our" profession because some of you reading this might not be aware that I am a Professional Engineer, albeit one whose license is in retired status. I've been reported to the licensing board multiple times by fellow professionals for statements I've made in this space. I'm currently embroiled in a federal lawsuit with the licensing board over my ability, and any engineer's ability, to speak on matters of public policy without fearing state sanction. My license is in retired status just to place another layer of protection between me and those who abuse the licensing process to quash dissenting opinions, including licensing board members themselves.

Here's the thing: I speak to licensed engineers that are ready for reform all the time. They think the mindset represented in this CEAM testimony is outdated, wrong, and dangerous. Their numbers are growing, especially among new engineers who are not emotionally married to decades of bad practices. Change is coming.

If you are a city engineer and are ready to be part of that change, if you are ready to move beyond the narrow and reactionary conversation of the current city engineering profession, know that there is strength in numbers. Add your name to the comments section below. You don't have to support everything I've written to want this conversation to occur. Just being present will mean something important.

If you want to take the next step, sign up to become a member of Strong Towns and be part of our movement. We will support you and never embarrass you in our words or deeds. That's how we roll.

And if you want this conversation to happen in your community, let us know. I'd love to come and meet you and your people and have a conversation about building a stronger and more prosperous city.

Brisbanetimes --> Units without car parks may have once led to 'a riot'. Now, Miles wants more $

QuoteWrapping up a half-hour conversation with the head of Queensland's peak property sector group as tables of industry types tucked into lunch, Premier Steven Miles was given a break from some of the tougher questions.

Instead, he was offered a chance to give closing comments to those in the Convention Centre room on Friday.

"I reckon five years ago if the lord mayor had announced that we could build apartments without car parks, there'd be a riot," Miles said, referring to what he described as a shift in political and community sentiment. ...

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1795220810052902951

Same people crying that the 50c fares are unaffordable are today (above) claiming tolls should be removed and car parking cheaper.  The irony is completely lost on them. Carbrain at its worst.

Brisbane parking now the most expensive in Australia | 7 News Australia

Quote from: ozbob on May 28, 2024, 03:15:34 AMSent to all outlets:

50 Cent Fares  - Getting Buses and Trains Ready

28th May 2024

The roll-out of the 50 Cent Fares from 5th August will certainly lead to significant increases in public transport patronage.

During the recent Council election, Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said a network of bus rapid transitways (BRT) is the key to Brisbane's public transport future incorporating transitways along existing road corridors ( https://www.adrianschrinner.com.au/featured/brisbanes-rapid-transit-future-is-metro/ ). Transitways ensure that our bus network is working as fast, efficient and reliably as possible. Most importantly the buses will not be stuck in the same traffic that the State Government and Lord Mayor so desperately want to fix. Whilst it can take time to develop bus rapid transitways implementing bus lanes where the transitways will run is a simple and cost-effective start towards the Lord mayor's BRT network across Brisbane.

In commenting on the State Government's 50 Cent Fare announcement the Lord Mayor also warned that without bus and train reliability in the outer suburbs peak hour congestion will stay at a standstill, and there must be more public transport to stations
(

Code Select Expand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht0rIGh3CJw ).

These are very valid observations from the Lord Mayor.  Park 'n' ride is a limited resource and is generally at capacity.  How will more passengers access stations?

Clearly there needs to be better feeder bus networks to rail stations.  Trains have more capacity than buses and more passengers will need to be redirected to rail. With 50 Cent Fares there is no transfer cost penalty to transfer from a feeder bus to rail and vice versa.

We note Minister Mellish's comments that the transport agencies are looking at possible service increases on Citytrain to match an increased demand
(

Code Select Expand

https://x.com/9newsqueensland/status/1795005665708069263 ).  It is generally accepted that the main factors for improving public transport patronage are good frequency, reliability and accessibility.  The public transport has to be there to use.

Here are a series of interviews on ABC Radio Melbourne Drive 27th May 2024.  Host Ali Moore with Robert Dow RAIL Back On Track and then Daniel Bowen Public Transport Users Association Victoria. Discussion on the Fifty Cent Fares for Queensland from August 5th.

Interview > https://backontrack.org/docs/abcmelb/abcmelb_am_rd_db_27may24.mp3  MP3 14.7MB

There is nation wide interest in the 50 Cent Fares for Queensland.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

We have so much land locked up in park n Rides but also nite comment about more infrequent buses.

https://x.com/humantransit/status/1798033952806187448?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

^ Having caught a West Coast Express service, the stations along that route between downtown and Mission City resemble Queensland Rail stations a lot more than the Skytrain stations do.  At least the WCE is a very limited service and is fed by buses and Skytrain connections.

P&R has legitimate use cases. Car is one of many potential access modes to reach a train or PT station.

It is particularly useful in environments where density may be so low that using buses would subject prospective PT passengers to a major time disadvantage relative to using their car or the density does not support a decent/frequent enough bus service.

With a car, there is no need to walk to the stop (save 5-10 min) or wait for the service (various, generally another 5-30 min). The route is also direct as buses in low density tend to be circuitous coverage services (save more time) and there are no intermediate stops (save even more time).

For this reason, incorporation of P&R can broaden a station's passenger catchment, increase patronage in many situations, and make rail lines viable in areas that otherwise it would not.

Where car park capacity is limiting, a charge/additional fare should be incorporated to meter demand. This is one aspect of the fares system that is different to Perth and other places. I believe paying for parking is incorporated with their SmartRider card.

Quote from: #Metro on June 05, 2024, 11:13:28 AMWith a car, there is no need to walk to the stop (save 5-10 min) or wait for the service (various, generally another 5-30 min). The route is also direct as buses in low density tend to be circuitous coverage services (save more time) and there are no intermediate stops (save even more time).

These are all arguments to abandon public transport altogether and just build lots of freeways. Definitely not the reason for this whole group, which is trying to find ways to make rail and public transport generally more functional and useful. Maybe instead think of ways to make local buses better (Hint: frequency and span).